-
Welcome to Talking Time's third iteration! If you would like to register for an account, or have already registered but have not yet been confirmed, please read the following:
- The CAPTCHA key's answer is "Percy"
- Once you've completed the registration process please email us from the email you used for registration at percyreghelper@gmail.com and include the username you used for registration
Once you have completed these steps, Moderation Staff will be able to get your account approved.
The Nintendo Thread of Existential Doom
- Thread starter Becksworth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bopitivity time drift-compatible haven't outsold the ps2? pathetic. is nintendo doomed? its a cereal wow new super nintendo switch 2 x turbo & knuckles nintendo nintendo cinematic universe nintendo direct-ly into my veins nintendo switch nintendoom play it loud snitches get switches switch switch it up switch port when? the splatoon 3 game for the nintendo switch system the switching hour
Sarge
hardcore retro gamin'
USD, CAD, or AUD?
Phantoon
I cuss you bad
I remember some of the early dialogue about the first Switch, plus ça change
I'm very excited for Switch 2. While I like my Series X and PS5 there's nothing too exciting on them being Forza Horizon and the brilliant Astro Bot. Switch had banger after banger for eight years, its sequel has some enormous boots to fill.
The video game industry has been in an unsustainable situation for quite some time now. Budgets ballooning, inflation reducing revenue, consumers getting wise to deep-discount sales, and markets crowding with products faster than they're growing in buyers were all contributing to the pressure on publishers, especially smaller ones. They were able to ride out the COVID crunch by taking advantage of the countercyclical properties of video games (people buy more of them when they're unemployed), but that has expired; new innovations in exploitative business models were a means to implement price discrimination, but that puts some fairly difficult limits on game design and government regulators were starting to take an interest. Something had to give.
Among the major publishers and platform holders, Nintendo is the one in the best position to weather the inevitable backlash, so it's not surprising that they were the first ones to take the step. On the hardware side, there's nobody in a position to respond to a price hike by undercutting them, and on the software side, there's nobody who has enough clout to get away so cleanly with saying "What are you gonna do, not buy Mario Kart?" (though it helps that they've, so far, only broken the $60 barrier for games that are really obviously premium products).
One of the reasons why crossing the $60 Rubicon is important is because everybody knows other publishers now have much less hesitancy to do the same, even not on Switch 2. They've raised the price ceiling that high-end games can target, which also has the effect of creating room for mid-range games to target higher price points.
There's a lot of design features in the Switch 2 that, to me, represent a bet that mid-range games are going to be an important part of their strategy with the platform, but I'm out of time so I'll have to post about that later.
Among the major publishers and platform holders, Nintendo is the one in the best position to weather the inevitable backlash, so it's not surprising that they were the first ones to take the step. On the hardware side, there's nobody in a position to respond to a price hike by undercutting them, and on the software side, there's nobody who has enough clout to get away so cleanly with saying "What are you gonna do, not buy Mario Kart?" (though it helps that they've, so far, only broken the $60 barrier for games that are really obviously premium products).
One of the reasons why crossing the $60 Rubicon is important is because everybody knows other publishers now have much less hesitancy to do the same, even not on Switch 2. They've raised the price ceiling that high-end games can target, which also has the effect of creating room for mid-range games to target higher price points.
There's a lot of design features in the Switch 2 that, to me, represent a bet that mid-range games are going to be an important part of their strategy with the platform, but I'm out of time so I'll have to post about that later.
Yeah, a AAA game is a *sometimes* treat
Becksworth
Aging Hipster Dragon Dad
I'm all for more <$40 games, but something tells me whoever posted this doesn't want to play actual <$40 games.
As of today, and adjusted for inflation since 1990, Guybrush Threepwood says you should never pay more than $47.80 for a computer game.
Sarge
hardcore retro gamin'
Yeah, I think that's true. It is interesting, though, that I've had as much fun with some indies as AAA titles.
I like the idea of variable pricing, and to some degree we already have that - if a game doesn't sell very well, it falls in price quite quickly. Even Nintendo games, despite their reputation, can be gotten on sale at times, just not at Ubisoft-level discounts. (Even a pretty big recent sale on Woot!)
The funny thing is, this is the kind of discourse consumers SHOULD be having in a capitalist system. If a purveyor of goods raises prices and makes consumers uncomfortable by doing so, supply & demand goes both ways. We should be having conversations about if the price of a thing is worth it to us, if we're being exploited, if the value is justifiable, etc. Way too often, consumers are just kinda made to bend over without any real pushback, and dialog on the matter gets shut down as well, what are you gonna do, not buy the thing you commie bastard? In the abstract, we should be doing this, and we should be doing it more.
The problem here though, is that the conversation we're having is stupid, uninformed, and missing context. Just through raw inflation alone, we should be spending much more than $70 or $80 per game. And as Bongo alluded to, the gaming industry is really just a microcosm of the global economy as a whole and how completely fucked/untenable it is.
There was an interesting quote from part 1 of the "Ask the Developer" interview for the Switch 2:
The biggest weakness of the Switch 1 was, well, its weakness: a low-power CPU. Early in the Switch's lifespan, it was generally thought that the Switch version of cross-platform games would most likely be the best version, because of the addition of portability; but as it aged, the general thinking changed to consider the Switch version inferior due to poor performance. Additionally, even first-party titles had to cut features due to performance limitations: Smash Bros. Ultimate, it turns out, lacked rollback lag compensation in its online play because it was found to be too CPU-intensive. Flagship action games like Tears of the Kingdom ran at 30FPS rather than the 60 they preferred, and games without expert software optimization, like Pokemon, suffered notoriously.
It's all about frames. In games with a choice between a graphics mode and a performance mode, 75% of players choose performance mode (assuming their TV gives them a choice). Even the staunchest Nintendo defenders admitted they were accepting a trade-off. In light of this, how should we interpret the fact that the Switch 2 has a 120Hz screen built-in? They surely understand better than anyone that the pressure to target lower frame rates is only going to increase as the years go on, and their first-party launch window seems to mostly be targeting 60FPS. Yet every single Switch 2 sold is going to be priced to accommodate a higher-performance display.
How do you squeeze more frames out of fixed hardware? The only way to do it is to do less work per frame - to reduce the complexity of the image. In short, to reduce the asset fidelity. Asset fidelity is the biggest and most uncontrolled expense in modern game development. AAA games stand out from each other by hiring a legion of artists to increase environment detail as far as they can afford to, to the point that the median premium game fails to recoup its development costs, compensated for instead by a diverse portfolio with a fraction of mega-hits paying for the rest. These developers are not going to be the ones aiming for 120FPS in handheld mode.
120FPS output is intended for developers who keep it simple: fewer polygons, less post-processing, but smoother than the average player has ever seen. Most TVs are still 60Hz: for many, the Switch 2 might be the first 120Hz display they've ever had access to. That means, in addition to the inherent appeal of portability, mid-range cross-platform games can have a framerate advantage on Switch 2 compared to other platforms.
In other words, they're betting that mid-range software is going to be an important part of the future of gaming.
In other words, their design priority is to support a variety of different kinds of software, and to give game developers options rather than restrictions. The decision to require MicroSD Express for storage expansion, a young standard that retailers are only just starting to carry, also bespeaks a desire to make it more future-proof than its predecessor (the end of Moore's Law is helpful in that regard, of course).
The biggest weakness of the Switch 1 was, well, its weakness: a low-power CPU. Early in the Switch's lifespan, it was generally thought that the Switch version of cross-platform games would most likely be the best version, because of the addition of portability; but as it aged, the general thinking changed to consider the Switch version inferior due to poor performance. Additionally, even first-party titles had to cut features due to performance limitations: Smash Bros. Ultimate, it turns out, lacked rollback lag compensation in its online play because it was found to be too CPU-intensive. Flagship action games like Tears of the Kingdom ran at 30FPS rather than the 60 they preferred, and games without expert software optimization, like Pokemon, suffered notoriously.
It's all about frames. In games with a choice between a graphics mode and a performance mode, 75% of players choose performance mode (assuming their TV gives them a choice). Even the staunchest Nintendo defenders admitted they were accepting a trade-off. In light of this, how should we interpret the fact that the Switch 2 has a 120Hz screen built-in? They surely understand better than anyone that the pressure to target lower frame rates is only going to increase as the years go on, and their first-party launch window seems to mostly be targeting 60FPS. Yet every single Switch 2 sold is going to be priced to accommodate a higher-performance display.
How do you squeeze more frames out of fixed hardware? The only way to do it is to do less work per frame - to reduce the complexity of the image. In short, to reduce the asset fidelity. Asset fidelity is the biggest and most uncontrolled expense in modern game development. AAA games stand out from each other by hiring a legion of artists to increase environment detail as far as they can afford to, to the point that the median premium game fails to recoup its development costs, compensated for instead by a diverse portfolio with a fraction of mega-hits paying for the rest. These developers are not going to be the ones aiming for 120FPS in handheld mode.
120FPS output is intended for developers who keep it simple: fewer polygons, less post-processing, but smoother than the average player has ever seen. Most TVs are still 60Hz: for many, the Switch 2 might be the first 120Hz display they've ever had access to. That means, in addition to the inherent appeal of portability, mid-range cross-platform games can have a framerate advantage on Switch 2 compared to other platforms.
In other words, they're betting that mid-range software is going to be an important part of the future of gaming.
Sarge
hardcore retro gamin'
There certainly is an argument that, with increasingly incremental graphics gains, that the difference between a mid-tier and a top-tier budget is less than it has ever been. So yeah, I could see possible dialing back on graphical fidelity for frame rate in places. DLSS will help some here, too, although I don't expect to actually see it much for 60 FPS titles - there's an overhead that makes it more likely in games that run at 30 FPS since you don't chew up as much frame time to get the resolution boost.
I absolutely dig what MP4 is doing - 1080p120 makes me extraordinarily happy, as does 4K60. Hopefully devs will target this sort of midpoint more often, and we may well see a fair bit at least early on as we have cross-gen releases.
I absolutely dig what MP4 is doing - 1080p120 makes me extraordinarily happy, as does 4K60. Hopefully devs will target this sort of midpoint more often, and we may well see a fair bit at least early on as we have cross-gen releases.
Nintendo kind of put themselves in this position by way of established reputation -- lateral thinking with withered technology, and just generally being the "affordable" option since the Wii.
And of course, the exception to that -- the 3DS -- didn't do well at launch,crashing and burning and taking our hopes and dreams of a Mega Man Legends 3 with it necessitating a price drop soon after to something the market found more palatable.
So yeah, seeing a sticker price this high is probably unexpected, especially for people who grew up during these eras who don't remember the more expensive Super NESes and Nintendo 64s.
And of course, the exception to that -- the 3DS -- didn't do well at launch,
So yeah, seeing a sticker price this high is probably unexpected, especially for people who grew up during these eras who don't remember the more expensive Super NESes and Nintendo 64s.
4-So
Spicy
I have a 120hz-capable display, which I believe requires HDMI 2.1 (if I remember right), which is likely why that specification was mentioned for Switch 2 (docked mode). (I bought my TV specifically because it was one of the first ones on the market where all 4 HDMI ports were 2.1.)
The games themselves must utilize 120, otherwise they cap at whatever the developer set. But when you do see 120 it absolutely sings. Sorta reminds me of seeing a Dreamcast for the first time and marveling at how it did arcade-perfect games after receiving inferior - "inferior" - ports on older hardware. The downside is that it becomes difficult to go back. Once your eyes grow accustomed to frame rates, you don't un-see them.
The 4K is nice but I'm less engaged with resolution than I am with FPS. Metroid Prime 4 should look amazing in either mode.
It is interesting to me that without the oos and aaahs of the form factor itself - that cat (Switch 1) is out of the bag - Nintendo has leaned into industry considerations like resolution, frame rate, AI upscaling, etc. as their "gimmick" for Switch 2. I wonder if there's nowhere left to go. Response from consumers for 8K has been tepid at best and how much more FPS do we really need? 240? Maybe Nintendo had no choice. What else were they going to do outside of something truly wild like VR/AR?
Makes me wonder what the next gen - PS6, Switch 3, whatever the fuck Microsoft is doing - is going to be like but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Oh, and I know I'm in the minority here, an extreme minority if the Internet is to believed, but I don't give a fuck about portability. What I really want from Nintendo is a Switch 2 Mini. Just a black box I can hook up to my television, save me the cost of a screen.
The games themselves must utilize 120, otherwise they cap at whatever the developer set. But when you do see 120 it absolutely sings. Sorta reminds me of seeing a Dreamcast for the first time and marveling at how it did arcade-perfect games after receiving inferior - "inferior" - ports on older hardware. The downside is that it becomes difficult to go back. Once your eyes grow accustomed to frame rates, you don't un-see them.
The 4K is nice but I'm less engaged with resolution than I am with FPS. Metroid Prime 4 should look amazing in either mode.
It is interesting to me that without the oos and aaahs of the form factor itself - that cat (Switch 1) is out of the bag - Nintendo has leaned into industry considerations like resolution, frame rate, AI upscaling, etc. as their "gimmick" for Switch 2. I wonder if there's nowhere left to go. Response from consumers for 8K has been tepid at best and how much more FPS do we really need? 240? Maybe Nintendo had no choice. What else were they going to do outside of something truly wild like VR/AR?
Makes me wonder what the next gen - PS6, Switch 3, whatever the fuck Microsoft is doing - is going to be like but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Oh, and I know I'm in the minority here, an extreme minority if the Internet is to believed, but I don't give a fuck about portability. What I really want from Nintendo is a Switch 2 Mini. Just a black box I can hook up to my television, save me the cost of a screen.
Paused them at a level of ten percent, which is still substantially higher than before, plus no one can give a straight answer on what the tariff regime for Mexico and Canada will be. Given this week’s policy whiplashes, I wouldn’t be surprised if Nintendo keeps the brakes on for a while to see how things shake out.
Which, tangentially, serves as a great microcosm of how incredibly stupid every Trump enabler is. They think they can predict his actions and steer his ire to their own benefit. Meanwhile, *gestures towards the world*
This seems to be the latest:
Trump reverses course on some tariffs but won't change duties on Canada
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump partially reversed course Wednesday on his global trade war following days of market turmoil — but he's not offering any changes to the tariffs hitting Canada.
ca.finance.yahoo.com
"U.S. President Donald Trump partially reversed course Wednesday on his global trade war following days of market turmoil — but he's not offering any changes to the tariffs hitting Canada."
Take it with a grain of salt, but the latest "confirmation" is that Switch 2 Edition games are fully on-card, no download, and do not play on a Switch 1, despite the text on the box. Stay tuned for tonight's developments, in which it will be "confirmed" that Switch 2 Edition games are poorly disguised MSX cartridges that connect to AOL 6.0 circa 1998.
I believe a, b, but not c.
Becksworth
Aging Hipster Dragon Dad
Yeah, the "despite the text on the box" part seems like the grainiest of salt.
I know, the fine print on the boxes is extremely misleading if the carts can't be played on a S1. I'll believe it when Ninty says it, I'm done playing the internet telephone game.
4-So
Spicy
Wario64 (@wario64.bsky.social)
SEGA Genesis games added to Switch Online + Expansion Pack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8uC__BFznU&ab_channel=NintendoofAmerica -Streets of Rage -ESWAT: City Under Siege -Super Thunder Blade
bsky.app
Becksworth
Aging Hipster Dragon Dad
Today I learned only about 20 of the 650+ GameCube games actually utilized the analog part of the analog triggers in some capacity. Over half were published by Nintendo themselves, and only about a 1/3 of them were taking full advantage of analog sensitivity, the rest just using a half pull like a separate button function. No wonder Nintendo is resistant to bringing analog triggers back.
Not saying we won't hear plenty about it online once Melee is on NSO. Hopefully they'll map a half pull to L or something to spare us.
Super Mario Sunshine makes heavy use of the analog trigger, and I missed it on the Mario 3D Collection, even though they worked around it by just mapping the light and full press of the analog button to different inputs. Just doesn't feel as satisfying. And I really like Super Mario Sunshine, so analog shoulder buttons are important to me...