Nintendo Direct: Nintendo Switch 2 - 4.2.2025 thoughts?

[Cartagia]

PS and Xbox operate under the same markets with the same inflations and territories yet what they do? Offer thousands of free games from 3rd party publishers. Giant price cuts down to 10 dollars for some games digitally. Every day in the ps store is a lovely sale to intice. Sales left and right. Huge amazon sales for physical games less than a year old. Meanwhile Nintendo wont do a sale if you groveled at their boots.  We stay paying.  And I cant excuse that all on economy.

I think the way Sony and Xbox handle things is more pro consumer.

Neither Sony nor Microsoft "offer thousands of free games." You are referring to their paid subscription plans which have multiple tiers. Refer to your previous topic where conversation spurred. It's also worth mentioning that the games available on those services are not in the thousands. When I search through the PlayStation Plus Extra catalog, it shows 419 available games. I presume similar numbers are available with Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass. Also, here's is the webpage for Nintendo Switch's current sales.

None of these companies are pro-consumer. They regularly do the bare minimum for maximum profits so long as their consumer base can tolerate it and will continue to do so. New lows are always being met.

This is true. You do indeed have to pay the 3 cents per game monthly to play those. I should make sure to emphasize the subscription details. But the moral of the story is I spend more on bottled water than what sony charges me to play a library of 416 games. And that's pretty rad! Lol. Nintendo woudnt sell you a glass of water for 3 cents if you were dying of thirst. I bet the tech demo for switch 2 costs more than the extra subscription lol


 Imagine if you knew in the 90s that a company would allow you to play 416 games for the price of a pizza. Its ground breaking and xbox and sony dont get enough credit. It is super consumer friendly.  I do ask. Do you agree that those subscriptions are really cool?  I feel we keep miscommunicating because I am aware its not technically free. And I know you dont own the games. I mispeak because to me it feels free. Its endless games for hardly noticable money. But I should be clearer with my wording so I am sorry for that. But overall do you give sony or xbox props for those libraries of games? Weather you gotta pay for subscription or not. It is wildly cheap for all that content imo.

None of this negates my main claim though. Nintendo doesnt offer this benefit. Nintendo has larger ROI and Market Cap. They net more.  They show the most greed. Inflation isn't causing this.  If inflation was hurting nintendo. Itd show in their reports. Their market cap. Their dow performance. Anything. They are richer than ever.

Are you saying to me with firm belief that Nintendo is as consumer friendly as Xbox and Sony?  Sony thinks nothing of dropping a game like ragnarok to play for 3 cents. Random sales of up to 80 percent off games like ratchet and clank. But Nintendo will charge 60 bucks for a donkey country to return a second time. The Nintendo E Shop is often times never discounted. They want 60 bucks for Mario Kart 8 when I checked. A launch title from 2017 that you can get on ebay for like 25 bucks.


Childhood me would have cried if you told him his dad would only have to pay 15 dollars per month to play more games than I can beat in 5 years. Its a super super special thing they did. Xbox I believe was the catalyst. I could be wrong but It proves that you can be consumer friendly AND make profit. Without being bloated at the belt from eating your consumer base alive.

This is a very short sighted view of the situation. Cost alone doesn't make something consumer friendly.  They are anti-consumer because they are anti-ownership. Yes, it might only cost $15-20 to play any of those games this month, but no one plays all 400 games.  Most people play 1 or 2 at most.  So, it's $15-20 to play it this month... and the next month... and the next month... and the next until you don't want to play the games anymore.  Did your subscription lapse but you want to go back and play that game from 5 years ago?  Too bad you didn't buy it back then, because that's another $15-20.  They want you to pay them for the access to the game perpetually.  Why let you buy the game once you can be buying all the games forever?

And Nintendo does have a semi-rival service with the Nintendo Switch Online titles.  Their sub service just doesn't have new releases, and, frankly, I'm personally more interested in the old stuff anyway.

It doesn't help that the timing is the worst with the USA about to hit a big economic downturn, so luxury fun items seeing giant leaps in costs hurts all the more.

Yeah, I think more than anything Nintendo completely misjudged the economic situation in the US.

[dhaabi]

PS and Xbox operate under the same markets with the same inflations and territories yet what they do? Offer thousands of free games from 3rd party publishers. Giant price cuts down to 10 dollars for some games digitally. Every day in the ps store is a lovely sale to intice. Sales left and right. Huge amazon sales for physical games less than a year old. Meanwhile Nintendo wont do a sale if you groveled at their boots.  We stay paying.  And I cant excuse that all on economy.

I think the way Sony and Xbox handle things is more pro consumer.

Neither Sony nor Microsoft "offer thousands of free games." You are referring to their paid subscription plans which have multiple tiers. Refer to your previous topic where conversation spurred. It's also worth mentioning that the games available on those services are not in the thousands. When I search through the PlayStation Plus Extra catalog, it shows 419 available games. I presume similar numbers are available with Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass. Also, here's is the webpage for Nintendo Switch's current sales.

None of these companies are pro-consumer. They regularly do the bare minimum for maximum profits so long as their consumer base can tolerate it and will continue to do so. New lows are always being met.

This is true. You do indeed have to pay the 3 cents per game monthly to play those. I should make sure to emphasize the subscription details. But the moral of the story is I spend more on bottled water than what sony charges me to play a library of 416 games. And that's pretty rad! Lol. Nintendo woudnt sell you a glass of water for 3 cents if you were dying of thirst. I bet the tech demo for switch 2 costs more than the extra subscription lol

But overall do you give sony or xbox props for those libraries of games? Weather you gotta pay for subscription or not. It is wildly cheap for all that content imo.

Are you saying to me with firm belief that Nintendo is as consumer friendly as Xbox and Sony?  Sony thinks nothing of dropping a game like ragnarok to play for 3 cents. Random sales of up to 80 percent off games like ratchet and clank. But Nintendo will charge 60 bucks for a donkey country to return a second time. The Nintendo E Shop is often times never discounted. They want 60 bucks for Mario Kart 8 when I checked. A launch title from 2017 that you can get on ebay for like 25 bucks.

Sony isnt exempt from being predatory like selling the disc drive option seperate with PS5 pro. But I do believe its not comparable at this point. The big N got too big

The price of the standard Nintendo Switch Online subscription costs $4/month in the US and currently (according to Wikipedia) offers NA subscribers 187 titles across three unique libraries. By your way of calculating costs, this is $0.02.1 per Nintendo game whereas Sony's service is $0.03.5 per PlayStation game. In the end, though, the prices for these services is $4/month for Nintendo and $15/month for Sony. Unless there is some advertised promotion in effect, nobody will be able to subscribe to their services for cheaper.

For a certain type of consumer, the subscription services are great. I myself have access to the PlayStation Plus Extra tier, but I am not the one who pays for that content. At the same time, I also have access to Nintendo Switch Online through a family plan and again do not pay for it, but I've only used it for a few hours to play online with that paying individual despite having that access for around four years now.

The Last of Us (Part I) and The Last of Us Part II are notorious for having been sold with marginal differences time and time again at full price. They're not the only first-party Sony games to do it either.

All three of the major gaming companies practice greedy practices. Just because this specific instance with Nintendo is a drastic example doesn't negate all the tiny instances its competitors do too which, honestly, I don't need to list with any depth as it's common knowledge to be gained when searching for it. Remember when the PlayStation 3 was revealed with a $500/$600 price point and their persistent focus on games adopting live-service models when their consumer base has been vocal against it? Or when the Xbox One was revealed to force its users to maintain an online connection and that discs couldn't be shared but instead only be used once? This is Nintendo's moment. These three companies have all experienced backlash due to greed with a high level of magnitude, and it won't be the last.

[marvelvscapcom2]

PS and Xbox operate under the same markets with the same inflations and territories yet what they do? Offer thousands of free games from 3rd party publishers. Giant price cuts down to 10 dollars for some games digitally. Every day in the ps store is a lovely sale to intice. Sales left and right. Huge amazon sales for physical games less than a year old. Meanwhile Nintendo wont do a sale if you groveled at their boots.  We stay paying.  And I cant excuse that all on economy.

I think the way Sony and Xbox handle things is more pro consumer.

Neither Sony nor Microsoft "offer thousands of free games." You are referring to their paid subscription plans which have multiple tiers. Refer to your previous topic where conversation spurred. It's also worth mentioning that the games available on those services are not in the thousands. When I search through the PlayStation Plus Extra catalog, it shows 419 available games. I presume similar numbers are available with Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass. Also, here's is the webpage for Nintendo Switch's current sales.

None of these companies are pro-consumer. They regularly do the bare minimum for maximum profits so long as their consumer base can tolerate it and will continue to do so. New lows are always being met.

This is true. You do indeed have to pay the 3 cents per game monthly to play those. I should make sure to emphasize the subscription details. But the moral of the story is I spend more on bottled water than what sony charges me to play a library of 416 games. And that's pretty rad! Lol. Nintendo woudnt sell you a glass of water for 3 cents if you were dying of thirst. I bet the tech demo for switch 2 costs more than the extra subscription lol

But overall do you give sony or xbox props for those libraries of games? Weather you gotta pay for subscription or not. It is wildly cheap for all that content imo.

Are you saying to me with firm belief that Nintendo is as consumer friendly as Xbox and Sony?  Sony thinks nothing of dropping a game like ragnarok to play for 3 cents. Random sales of up to 80 percent off games like ratchet and clank. But Nintendo will charge 60 bucks for a donkey country to return a second time. The Nintendo E Shop is often times never discounted. They want 60 bucks for Mario Kart 8 when I checked. A launch title from 2017 that you can get on ebay for like 25 bucks.

Sony isnt exempt from being predatory like selling the disc drive option seperate with PS5 pro. But I do believe its not comparable at this point. The big N got too big

The price of the standard Nintendo Switch Online subscription costs $4/month in the US and currently (according to Wikipedia) offers NA subscribers 187 titles across three unique libraries. By your way of calculating costs, this is $0.02.1 per Nintendo game whereas Sony's service is $0.03.5 per PlayStation game.

The last 2 replies are extremely disingenuous.

I feel comparing a subscription that offers slightly over 100 NES/SNES/Gameboy and N64 games that people have been emulating for free since like 2002.  To a subscription offering over 400 games that includes TLOU 1 remastered, god of war ragnarok, GTA 5 and mortal kombat X as well as full on uncharted collections, ratchet and clank rift apart and half the assassins creed franchise is honestly something I know neither of you are actually suggesting as comparable or equal.


Nintendo online is a hollow joke in comparison which is why even Nintendo doesnt dare attempt to charge 15 per month for it because nobody would pay it lol. Not because of consumer kindness. It has old emulated NES games. It is not comparable. Its not similar either.  If it were to be similar itd have to offer AAA and 3rd party games that were released within the last 2 decades.


The service literally forces you to buy an expansion to play old sega genesis games. The expansion is what like 100 per year? Its absurd. 

PS Plus has a tier called premium that offers old PS2 and PS1 games. That section alone is similar.  Everything else PS offers. Or gamepass offers has and most likely never will be done on Nintendo because Nintendo rather upsell and play gatekeep with their own product.


As for the logistics of how we dont own the games on ps plus extra. Only collectors really care. But id still rather pay 15 per month to theoretically rent 416 games. Than pay 90 dollars to lease a digital key card that I also dont own.  The whole "you dont own the games" has become mute with Nintendos new moves. With PS5. I at least own my physical copies. 


Second disingenuous point is referencing Xbox's forced online and no game sharing. Kinect always on ect..   while it is definitely a dropped ball on their marketing.  Niether of which actually made it to the launch product. None of it happened. Nintendo confirmed these issues now at a reveal 2 months before console launch.  Why compare that to pre launch Xbox putting their foot in their mouth.  Mind you they instantly listened to their playerbase and scrapped both the ideas you mentioend before launch not after.  Will Nintendo do the same? Unlikely. 


 I can no longer pretend the 3 are equal.  I respect your take. I just feel Nintendo has shown far more consume abuse historically. Not just now.  Sony has never gone after lets play channels with sieze and desist and all the nonsense Nintendo does with its vintage IPs. Their attacks on free use and creative commons and transformative content is scary.  And they really are changing the gaming landscape for the worse.

[Cartagia]

As for the logistics of how we dont own the games on ps plus extra. Only collectors really care. But id still rather pay 15 per month to theoretically rent 416 games. Than pay 90 dollars to lease a digital key card that I also dont own.  The whole "you dont own the games" has become mute with Nintendos new moves. With PS5. I at least own my physical copies. 

Game-Key Cards and Game Cards are not the same thing.  Not all titles will be on the Game-Key Cards.  All of the first party titles are Game Cards that include the full game on the card.  You will own them.

[dhaabi]

Nintendo online is a hollow joke in comparison which is why even Nintendo doesnt dare attempt to charge 15 per month for it because nobody would pay it lol. Not because of consumer kindness. It has old emulated NES games. It is not comparable. Its not similar either.  If it were to be similar itd have to offer AAA and 3rd party games that were released within the last 2 decades.

Second disingenuous point is referencing Xbox's forced online and no game sharing. Kinect always on ect..   while it is definitely a dropped ball on their marketing.  Niether of which actually made it to the launch product. None of it happened. Nintendo confirmed these issues now at a reveal 2 months before console launch.  Why compare that to pre launch Xbox putting their foot in their mouth.  Mind you they instantly listened to their playerbase and scrapped both the ideas you mentioend before launch not after.

Bear in mind, it is only you in this conversation who is trying to compare the intrinsic value of these services which, quite frankly, can't be determined at all, let alone by one individual alone. These two services set out to offer different things. Everyone has their own preferences and interests which they're drawn to.

Whether or not any poor corporate decision which caused backlash was eventually discarded is irrelevant. I will highlight a previous comment of mine.

None of these companies are pro-consumer. They regularly do the bare minimum for maximum profits so long as their consumer base can tolerate it and will continue to do so. New lows are always being met.

Focusing on the Xbox One debacle which eventually was changed as a result of consumer backlash, Microsoft easily would have maintained that decision should there have been no backlash or the backlash had not been so fervent. The same can be said of any of these companies too.

[marvelvscapcom2]

Nintendo online is a hollow joke in comparison which is why even Nintendo doesnt dare attempt to charge 15 per month for it because nobody would pay it lol. Not because of consumer kindness. It has old emulated NES games. It is not comparable. Its not similar either.  If it were to be similar itd have to offer AAA and 3rd party games that were released within the last 2 decades.

Second disingenuous point is referencing Xbox's forced online and no game sharing. Kinect always on ect..   while it is definitely a dropped ball on their marketing.  Niether of which actually made it to the launch product. None of it happened. Nintendo confirmed these issues now at a reveal 2 months before console launch.  Why compare that to pre launch Xbox putting their foot in their mouth.  Mind you they instantly listened to their playerbase and scrapped both the ideas you mentioend before launch not after.

Bear in mind, it is only you in this conversation who is trying to compare the intrinsic value of these services which, quite frankly, can't be determined at all, let alone by one individual alone. These two services set out to offer different things. Everyone has their own preferences and interests which they're drawn to.

Whether or not any poor corporate decision which caused backlash was eventually discarded is irrelevant. I will highlight a previous comment of mine.

None of these companies are pro-consumer. They regularly do the bare minimum for maximum profits so long as their consumer base can tolerate it and will continue to do so. New lows are always being met.

Focusing on the Xbox One debacle which eventually was changed as a result of consumer backlash, Microsoft easily would have maintained that decision should there have been no backlash or the backlash had not been so fervent. The same can be said of any of these companies too.

We began debating the unimportant phrasings which derailed my original argument which was always framed around the inflation argument. I brought xbox and sony into it to prove my point on how inflation is being handled different by less greedy companies who make even less profit but still offer more value. We already acknowledged here how Nintendo games never go on sale or rarely. But somehow you both are telling me that company is equally consumer friendly as a company like Sony that constantly puts their big hitter games on sale. Even if we disregard the subscription service. Sony games get big discounts in physical formats outside of black friday. Imagine a world where Zelda Tears of the kingdom is 20 dollars at walmart. I do understand Nintendo has a IP power advantage. But I still think they could bend a bit. Nintendo doesnt get that golden excuse for everything they are doing. And Sony shouldnt be discounted for the good they do.   Nintendo is a very profitable company. They would be in solid standing even if they lowered costs let alone raised them. That was my point.  If anything I believe if inflation was bankrupting Nintendo they woulda never pulled this.  They only pull this because they're not scared.  There lies the comfort in the lead.


However, it probably can be determined which has more value but would take lots of math and effort that isnt worth it. Break down the value of each game that is offered and how readily available emulation is for those games in public markets to deduce which offers more value. Which by far is PS Plus.. but that was never really what I meant to focus on so I will defer on that. But it is a more valuable service. On a monetary level. I guarantee they spend more to offer it than Nintendo does. They gotta pay countless 3rd party publishers. Nintendo just drags files.

[dhaabi]

If anything I believe if inflation was bankrupting Nintendo they woulda never pulled this.  They only pull this because they're not scared.  There lies the comfort in the lead.

However, it probably can be determined which has more value but would take lots of math and effort that isnt worth it.

As I said before, this is Nintendo's moment. Sony's incident with the PlayStation 3's pricing was as a direct result of their comfort in having dominated the market with the PlayStation 2. Similarly, the issues with Xbox One's reveal (which were reversed, as has been mentioned, but only so after strong public outcry) were a result of the comfort with the Xbox 360's success. And here we are now with Nintendo. It will happen again with Sony. It will happen again with Microsoft. It will even happen once more with Nintendo.

I'm not really here to debate sales pricing and tactics. Companies will market their products as they see fit to capitalize the most on them. Nintendo's way of doing that is to near indefinitely maintain the MSRP price point of items, whereas Sony's is to discount. If it didn't work for either of these companies or meet their expectations, they'd change their practices. Ultimately, it is consumers who validate such practices. If consumers aren't satisfied, then they should refrain from purchasing something instead of doing otherwise and wondering why a company continues to market their products as they do.

Intrinsic value cannot be determined.

[marvelvscapcom2]

If anything I believe if inflation was bankrupting Nintendo they woulda never pulled this.  They only pull this because they're not scared.  There lies the comfort in the lead.

However, it probably can be determined which has more value but would take lots of math and effort that isnt worth it.

As I said before, this is Nintendo's moment. Sony's incident with the PlayStation 3's pricing was as a direct result of their comfort in having dominated the market with the PlayStation 2. Similarly, the issues with Xbox One's reveal (which were reversed, as has been mentioned, but only so after strong public outcry) were a result of the comfort with the Xbox 360's success. And here we are now with Nintendo. It will happen again with Sony. It will happen again with Microsoft. It will even happen once more with Nintendo.

I'm not really here to debate sales pricing and tactics. Companies will market their products as they see fit to capitalize the most on them. Nintendo's way of doing that is to near indefinitely maintain the MSRP price point of items, whereas Sony's is to discount. If it didn't work for either of these companies or meet their expectations, they'd change their practices. Ultimately, it is consumers who validate such practices. If consumers aren't satisfied, then they should refrain from purchasing something instead of doing otherwise and wondering why a company continues to market their products as they do.

Intrinsic value cannot be determined.

I agree with all of this. I just wish comfort from dominating would inspire companies to play with dangerous or industry pushing ideas. PS2 succeeded because it was so cheap. Especially with a dvd player built in. Switch 1 was exactly the same. Its no surprise those 2 are 1 and 2 in all time sales.


But on another note.  Am I missing something big or is 90 dollars for physical copies in America not confirmed by Nintendo in any capacity? Where is that coming from?



(A reddit user has stated these are the phyiscal prices. I cant confirm anywhere)


Not to mention sites are saying 80 for digital as if thats the new company baseline or standard. Donkey Kong is 69.99.  Not saying these prices are lovely. But can anyone link me an official site claiming 90 for physical is even real?

[dhaabi]

For hours nonstop, people spammed some form of a "drop the price" comment in Nintendo Treehouse's livestream today. What a rare moment of unity.

Yeah it's been awhile since I've seen this many people united against Nintendo, can't even remember the last time that there was this much loud and open backlash.  It'll be interesting to see if this translates into slower adoption rates out of the gate.  This won't be a Wii U situation at all, I think Switch is too big for that, but the sheer massive leap in costs across the board was way too aggressive.

It doesn't help that the timing is the worst with the USA about to hit a big economic downturn, so luxury fun items seeing giant leaps in costs hurts all the more.

Day 2 of nonstop spamming is currently live. YouTube now supplies a chat summary for live feeds, and it currently reads "[v]iewers are upset about the high price of the Nintendo Switch 2 and are demanding that Nintendo drop the price. Some viewers are even threatening to boycott the console or resort to piracy."

As far as adoption rate, I think it will be incredibly low (at least in the United States) due to both the announced price and impending tariffs on countries where this hardware is being manufactured. Even with the arguably high hardware pricing, tariffs may near double the cost. Currently, Nintendo has just announced that they have delayed US preorders as they assess the tariff situation.

[dhaabi]

But on another note.  Am I missing something big or is 90 dollars for physical copies in America not confirmed by Nintendo in any capacity? Where is that coming from?

(A reddit user has stated these are the phyiscal prices. I cant confirm anywhere)


Not to mention sites are saying 80 for digital as if thats the new company baseline or standard. Donkey Kong is 69.99.  Not saying these prices are lovely. But can anyone link me an official site claiming 90 for physical is even real?

Pricing has caused a lot of confusion amongst fans all across the world because they have been pooling information all from different sources as Nintendo wasn't transparent about it. For the United States specifically, it seems as if $69.99 may be the expected price for a majority of first-party titles, but Nintendo is also testing the waters with a $79.99 pricing for Mario Kart World. With that said, some countries such as Germany do have that $90 price point for Mario Kart World, although it's actually closer to $99 with today's exchange rate. The local price is reported to be €90.

[kamikazekeeg]

To change the convo to something less sad and unfortunate, I'm curious if there will be anything to do in the Free Roam for Mario Kart World.  I got kind of hyped for it at first, because I thought it could be something fun you do when you don't want to do normal racing, but I'm not hearing anything come out about there being anything extra...Challenges, bonuses races, whatever that could be, allowing for possible singleplayer content beyond just doing grand prix and unlocking extras like usual.  It sounds like it's basically just a "Sandbox" mode where you get to go to all the tracks without a timer, which is kinda neat, but that would be something I do a for an hour or two and then never touch again.

*EDIT*
I wrote that and then found a clip that did have a Nintendo Treehouse rep saying that they do have more to show for Free Roam in the future, which makes me think there will be more to do, so hopefully that's true because while the game itself looks like fun, the Free Roam stuff is what I'm most interested to see how htey handle.

[BinaryMessiah]

I'm surprised at the price a tad. They could have pulled a Sony moment during the launch price of the PlayStation against the Saturn and mic dropped $350 or something. I'm not sure if tariffs are playing a part in that price or not. I'm disappointed with there being no 3D Mario title. Odyssey and Breath of the Wild are what sold me on getting a Switch in its launch year (I didn't get one until December 2017). I feel like most people are upset that Nintendo is giving in to more industry trends and not being the rebel and doing something new and different like they did with the DS and Wii. Everyone will pay the $450 or not get one ever. The Switch 1 is still $300 all these years later, and I doubt they will drop the price before production ceases.

I'm not the biggest Mario Kart fan, so that's not enough to get me to buy one on launch day, nor am I the biggest DK fan.

[marvelvscapcom2]

L

I'm surprised at the price a tad. They could have pulled a Sony moment during the launch price of the PlayStation against the Saturn and mic dropped $350 or something. I'm not sure if tariffs are playing a part in that price or not. I'm disappointed with there being no 3D Mario title. Odyssey and Breath of the Wild are what sold me on getting a Switch in its launch year (I didn't get one until December 2017). I feel like most people are upset that Nintendo is giving in to more industry trends and not being the rebel and doing something new and different like they did with the DS and Wii. Everyone will pay the $450 or not get one ever. The Switch 1 is still $300 all these years later, and I doubt they will drop the price before production ceases.

I'm not the biggest Mario Kart fan, so that's not enough to get me to buy one on launch day, nor am I the biggest DK fan.

As much as I feel we are going to feel a massive brunt over the tariffs soon in the coming months. Nintendo launched it at 450 or even higher upwards of 700 with conversion rates in Europe, Australia and Canada too. So its not entirely a US trade issue.  However we might see a 600 dollar tag when all this is said and done in the states. Who knows    


I am definitely much more on the "never buy one" end of the spectrum.  I cant see the insentive into the far future. I dont beleive Mario Kart is a console seller as you said. Maybe ill wait until Odyssey 2.


One thing that upsets me is the full price upgrades on games. Xbox set the precedent of free upgrades. Nintendo began this behavior but it was always remasters. Now everyone who just paid 60 bucks for BOTW have to pay it again for simple texture upgrades and frames that the console can upscale for free so easily. Thats just rude.

[dhaabi]

One thing that upsets me is the full price upgrades on games. Xbox set the precedent of free upgrades. Nintendo began this behavior but it was always remasters. Now everyone who just paid 60 bucks for BOTW have to pay it again for simple texture upgrades and frames that the console can upscale for free so easily. Thats just rude.

That's not true. On the preliminary box art for these types of items, the following disclaimer text is written: "Includes the Nintendo Switch game and the Nintendo Switch 2 Edition upgrade pack. Upgrade pack also available separately." So, it seems that those who already own the Switch versions can simply purchase the upgrade pack individually.

However, there has been discussion about the nature of these upgrade packs included with the Nintendo Switch 2 Edition physical items. As one may surmise from the above box text, upgrade packs seem to be in the form of a download code, as confirmed by one Nintendo representative. So, based on this information (which I will mention should be not be understood as truth at this moment but instead a possibility) there seems to be no reason for consumers to buy the Nintendo Switch 2 Edition versions of these games, as buying their Switch counterpart releases at a cheaper price will be more enticing. At the same time, if these upgrade packs do come in the form of a download code and not a part of the cartridge's game data, there will be no means to share this content with others, such as if there are multiple players within a household with their own consoles.

I feel like most people are upset that Nintendo is giving in to more industry trends and not being the rebel and doing something new and different like they did with the DS and Wii.

As much as innovation may have been a good idea some would have appreciated (and just as easily not have been), I think the majority of the Nintendo's fanbase is quite pleased with the Switch as you've said. What fans seem to have most wanted from Nintendo is to reiterate upon the system, and that's what they've done.

In my opinion, I don't know if Nintendo is even still able to continue with its gimmick hardware design that presents novel ways to play games. Iwata had their hand with the Switch's development before he passed, and that was a decade ago. I'm sure there are still many creative minds at Nintendo, but do they share that same forward-thinking drive and approach to game creation and how games can be played? Do the majority of Nintendo fans even want that?

[marvelvscapcom2]

One thing that upsets me is the full price upgrades on games. Xbox set the precedent of free upgrades. Nintendo began this behavior but it was always remasters. Now everyone who just paid 60 bucks for BOTW have to pay it again for simple texture upgrades and frames that the console can upscale for free so easily. Thats just rude.

That's not true. On the preliminary box art for these types of items, the following disclaimer text is written: "Includes the Nintendo Switch game and the Nintendo Switch 2 Edition upgrade pack. Upgrade pack also available separately." So, it seems that those who already own the Switch versions can simply purchase the upgrade pack individually.

However, there has been discussion about the nature of these upgrade packs included with the Nintendo Switch 2 Edition physical items. As one may surmise from the above box text, upgrade packs seem to be in the form of a download code, as confirmed by one Nintendo representative. So, based on this information (which I will mention should be not be understood as truth at this moment but instead a possibility) there seems to be no reason for consumers to buy the Nintendo Switch 2 Edition versions of these games, as buying their Switch counterpart releases at a cheaper price will be more enticing. At the same time, if these upgrade packs do come in the form of a download code and not a part of the cartridge's game data, there will be no means to share this content with others, such as if there are multiple players within a household with their own consoles.

I feel like most people are upset that Nintendo is giving in to more industry trends and not being the rebel and doing something new and different like they did with the DS and Wii.

As much as innovation may have been a good idea some would have appreciated (and just as easily not have been), I think the majority of the Nintendo's fanbase is quite pleased with the Switch as you've said. What fans seem to have most wanted from Nintendo is to reiterate upon the system, and that's what they've done.

In my opinion, I don't know if Nintendo is even still able to continue with its gimmick hardware design that presents novel ways to play games. Iwata had their hand with the Switch's development before he passed, and that was a decade ago. I'm sure there are still many creative minds at Nintendo, but do they share that same forward-thinking drive and approach to game creation and how games can be played? Do the majority of Nintendo fans even want that?

That's what I said. People who own the game weather physically or seperately will have to pay again to upgrade instead of that being free. Now granted the upgrade pack seperate might be cheaper than full price but that is not a guarantee. And even if its 40. It's atrocious. It's not free for the console to simply do what its designed to do and upscale. Which it very well should be. 

Xbox allows you to buy selected Xbox one game discs and get a free enhancement if available on the series x/s. Its really incentive to upgrade.  Sadly wish this was the standard for switch 2.


On a brighter note though. And to praise the switch 2 a bit.  In the predictions thread I posted


If we are behaved maybe they will give us a functional party chat system for adequate friend play. (Loosely quoted)

And I am fairly happy with the model they showed. I love how they didnt lie and show flawless stream quality. They showed its flaws and its strengths. I think the idea of facetiming mid game is really neat. I also think the UI of it all looks kinda nice. I hope we get a game like Zelda BOTW level with an amazing coop campaign. But thus we dream lol.  I want a big beefy game that has a coop integration. Imagine something like DK Bananza and your friend can control a Diddy or Dixie kong companion? Rad! 

I also think the magnets look much better than I imagined they would. Smart engineering.