Ronnie

Yes, yes it does...

??? I never expected you to say that at all. I've no problem with what you wrote, you said "Zelda will cost me £20 more on Switch", I replied you can find it for £8-10 more, and likely less in the coming weeks. It's Ashley who has a problem with all this for some reason It's simple: - You assigned a value to your Wii U investment based on four years worth of purchases. - You then assigned a value to a potential Switch investment based on nine months of purchases. - If you only intend to make nine months worth of purchases on Switch, the comparison is fair and makes sense. - If you intend to make more than nine months worth of purchases on Switch, the comparison isn't fair and doesn't make sense. That's all I was saying. I never said you were criticing Switch, I never questioned you owning a Wii U, I never wondered if you owned a Switch. All I was saying was your allocation of value was flawed.

"The RRP of the just announced DS4s is £50, similar to the RRP of the just announced Pro Controller at £60" and "You don't have to spend £20 more to get Zelda on Switch, you can spend £8-10" If you can't see the obvious difference in circumstance in the above two posts then that's your problem.

Still stirring I see @Sheikah? Magnificent? Ha ha if you say so. Except that Pestneb was basically saying "I have to spend £20 more to get Zelda on Switch", not "Nintendo recommend charging £20 more for Zelda on Switch". I QUITE CLEARLY spoke about fluctuating prices, saying As for my previous post, I was comparing RRP to RRP because that's all we had so soon after the announcement of the new DS4s and the new Pro controller. They're completely different circumstances. I can't tell if you're deliberately being obtuse or you genuinely believe all this

Lego Worlds coming to Switch

I was comparing just released RRP to just released RRP, because that's all we had at the time and it was a fair comparison. When people talk specifically about having to spend another £20 to get Zelda on Switch, that's just incorrect.

I was fully expecting them to release the Wii U version a week or two later. It'll hurt Switch sales releasing it on the same day, but is the decent thing to do.

Such a shame Zelda isn't a Switch exclusive, but as you say, had to be on Wii U as well sadly.

Everytime I see the blue/red Switch in hands-on videos, I want it more. I'm almost annoyed I pre-ordered the grey one now, when a couple of weeks ago I would have never considered the coloured one.

Firstly, BOTW is not £20 more on Switch, it's (at the moment) £8-10 more, likely to come down in the coming weeks. Secondly, I don't care if you're criticising the Switch or not. It's this statement of yours that made no sense whatsoever. See, makes no sense. You're comparing the value of a four year console, with the value of a nine month console. Unless of course you're planning on never buying another game after Mario. In which case, yes I could see your point. Though I suspect you're likely to buy more than just three games in the Switch's lifetime.

It looks like Treasure Trove is coming to Switch first, but the new campaign itself is releasing everwhere at the same time. I could be wrong though.

And you see no problem with that? Criticising the first 9 months of a console and comparing it to four years of another? Why not compare it to the first 9 months of the Wii U if you want to fairly contrast the value of both.

Nice reaction video to the Switch events in London, the US and Japan...

Yeah sorry I should have clarified, it's Shovel Knight + Plague of Shadows + Specter of Torment (which is brand new, first release on Switch) plus lots of extra features and co-op mode etc. The King Knight expansion will add on top of that.

Shovel Knight: Treasure Trove coming first to the Switch in April, with other platforms later in the year.

Ditto. I also needed a ninth web browser to browse the internet on. Stupid Nintendo

Every big game gets delayed, whether Nintendo or otherwise. Welcome to 2016/2017. If BOTW were a Wii U only game, Mario Odyssey would be a launch title on Switch.

Why not just trade them in now, get a Switch now, and play the better version of Zelda for £8 more.

So you're comparing the cost of four years with the Wii U, to nine months with the Switch?

I think Zelda at launch and Mario 6-8 months later isn't too bad, and don't forget there should be plenty at E3

Splatoon is a brand new game. Rayman is a Ubisoft title. Skyrim is Bethesda. They haven't even announced Smash. But more importantly than any of that... not hyped for Zelda?? it looks absolutely incredible. I'm a Wii U owner and I had a great time with the console, one of my favourites. I don't think Nintendo owe me anything.

Considering Phantom Hourglass was a direct sequel to Wind Waker, Spirit Tracks a sequel to Phantom Hourglass, Twilight Princess a sequel to OOT and Skyward Sword a prequel to all of them, I think you'll get your wish. Nintendo are placing a lot more importance on where the games fit in the overall timeline(s) these days.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. The Switch is as far away from the Wii as possible.

The Wii was two Gamecubes stuck together, in standard definition. The entire concept of the thing was motion gaming. The Switch is a modern piece of kit with loads of tech in it with the option of motion gaming. An option that was present in a grand total of two games shown. And the controllers aren't £100.

I think Aonuma recently spoke about the desire to do another Zelda on Switch. I can't imagine him and his team want to spend another 5-6 years on a game.