Nth
Sr Member
And that's just the US prices. Canadians are going to be paying out the ass for this stuff.
Nintendo switch
- Thread starter EmmaInCandyland
- Start date
And that's just the US prices. Canadians are going to be paying out the ass for this stuff.
Snikt
Sr Member
It also pisses me off that once you buy a game, you dont own it indefinitely, per an online account, like Xbox live. As much as I cant stand them, if I buy a game once, and I use their peripherals, I can play it. How many times have I bought super mario brothers 3... Probably once every damn console cycle.
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
Yeah, that article I linked earlier mentions this.
Why is it that if I downloaded a game on my Xbox 360, as long as it's compatible I can play it on my Xbox ONE now? Or why is it that games I downloaded on my very first iPod Touch back in like 2007 can still be played on my current iPhone 6? Same with my PS3...games I owned for years could still be played on it. All of these carry no extra fees or anything like that. Nintendo, on the other hand, charges you to download these old games EVERY time you buy a console. Want SMB3 on your Wii? It'll cost you. Want it on your Wii U? That'll cost you. Your 3DS? It's gonna cost you. Your Switch? That's gonna cost you, too. Frankly, that's weak. Fans of games like that have most likely bought it 4-5 times over the span over their lives...the least you could do Nintendo is tie it to their account so that once they've purchased it from the Virtual Console they no longer have to buy it again to play it on your future gimmicky consoles.
If you own it, build a retropie and play it. It's completely legal....and a HELL of a lot better than the NES "limited supply on purpose" Classic.
KrangPrime
Master Member
as a life long nintendo fan, made me appreciate x box a little more.
nintendo really is a bit behind the times, especially creativity seems to have gone a long time ago.
Snikt
Sr Member
Very well said. Its like they know thats their bread and butter and they refuse to change their ways, and as a companty, thats really crappy for the consumer. I hate to say it, but I think at this point Nintendo should stop making hardware and just make software and sell it to the other two. Especially after the debacle that was the Wii U, its obvious that they cant rely on JUST their own stuff to sell a console. Or, better yet, make a console thats not some stupid hybrid gimmick thing. They trapped lightining in a bottle with the Wii, and they keep trying to do it, and its not working. Its not 2006 any more...
I disagree. To say they "can't" is pretty presumptuous. They did, and still can.
They innovate controllers more than any other company combined. Everything they do, and have done has been completely copied and integrated.
I bash Nintendo, a LOT, trust me...but to completely knock them in the sense that they should just "give up" in any way, is, in my opinion, foolish.
If Sony and Microsoft were as innovative....where are their controller technologies that push the boundaries? Where are their designs that haven't been copied from Nintendo?
If Nintendo is a "software only" company, where does that leave progress going forward?
I think the gaming world needs Nintendo, despite their inefficiencies.
If Nintendo is a "software only" company, where does that leave progress going forward?
I think the gaming world needs Nintendo, despite their inefficiencies.
I'm going to go against popular opinion and say that I'm all in on the Switch.
I'm definitely disappointed in the initial lineup. Was this to preserve secrecy? I think so...but at the detriment of the launch lineup. Keeping everyone (developers) in the dark to keep their idea secret is going to cost them, for sure.
But, many systems launch with limited titles. Not quite as much, but Zelda is HUGE, and is like launching with a new Halo game.
Nintendo will be fine, and I feel like the Switch will succeed.
I'm definitely disappointed in the initial lineup. Was this to preserve secrecy? I think so...but at the detriment of the launch lineup. Keeping everyone (developers) in the dark to keep their idea secret is going to cost them, for sure.
But, many systems launch with limited titles. Not quite as much, but Zelda is HUGE, and is like launching with a new Halo game.
Nintendo will be fine, and I feel like the Switch will succeed.
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
You up don't need controller technologies that push boundaries when what you have works just fine. Nintendo's controllers that pushed boundaries largely ended up as failures because developers never truly adopted them and used them to innovate. The Wii controller was neat...but that was it. For playing the vast majority of games it didn't bring much to the table. The Wii U's controller is a disaster.
Nintendo's problem is their gamers grew up, but they never did.
If Sony and Microsoft felt the controller design was "just fine" it would still look like the atari joystick, and it would certainly not have motion control etc etc etc.
Wii controller "neat"?? LOL....seriously? They sold 10 million systems and the rest of the companies copied their controller technology.
Neat? No. Not neat, innovative enough to be copied across the board.
Look, I agree that Nintendo has dropped the ball. And I don't assume that you are one of the many Nintendo haters that blindly disregard the ways Nintento has enhanced their playing ability, but come ON....to disregard this as anything short of fact is preposterous.
Last edited:
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
That's ridiculous, and taking my point completely out of context.
Dual analog sticks have been the mainstay for console controllers since the Dualshock debuted in 1997. Nintendo barely even embraced this in 2001 with the GameCube with its tiny little second analog stick. Then they released the Wii and "motion control" took the world by storm...for a couple of years. What mainstream games released in the last couple of years have relied on...or even offered...any kind of motion control? I haven't played a game in years that I thought to myself "Gee, this game sure would be better if I could flail my arms around in order to do some arbitrary and unnecessary function!!!"
You seem even to think that motion control is somehow still a popular thing in current games, but it's not. It's unnecessary, and always was unnecessary. If it were some amazing concept, Nintendo themselves wouldn't have dumped it with the Wii U.
Microsoft has largely abandoned Kinect for anything other than voice activation features, and Sony has only recently dusted off the Move to go with their PS VR headset.
I would honestly say say that the ONLY thing that motion controls actually made more fun to play were golf games.
For the record, Microsofts controllers have no motion sensors in them. I don't have a Kinect and play every game just fine.
I also woild argue argue that even Nintendo realized that they needed more traditional controls, or the Pro Controller for the Wii would never have even been an option.
Last edited:
With tax and shipping it's 317.00 and some change here in the US for the basic one. I think they wanted 499 for one with 2 games and then 599 for one with all the games available. I find it odd that nintendo doesn't seem to be offering a bundle of its own like they used to. You'd think they'd have made a Zelda version of the console.
I think that you need to take another look at controller design history.
Tell me how much of the overall design, shape and concept ISN'T Nintendo.
Also, motion control was not dumped with Wii U.....it's very much present, and works well.
Splatoon is an AMAZING game....and if I was a Nintendo skeptic, this game alone would have me. It's as fun as a game gets, really.
Splatoon is an AMAZING game....and if I was a Nintendo skeptic, this game alone would have me. It's as fun as a game gets, really.
Snikt
Sr Member
ask sony how their controller design affects their console sales...The damn dualshock has been pretty much unchanged since the ps2. Im sorry ssdesigner, but their gimmicky stuff has proven it doesnt matter if it doesnt have games. And like someone else said, we grew up, but they didnt. Im not saying to not be innovative, but cmon. Gamers want games. Be innovative with the GAMES not the controllers. Basically a box that connects to your tv, and an input device (controller, a regular one) and make games for it. Its simple as that. you list "motion control etc etc" its like the rumble pak. Did that really affect a game to the point where youre like "holy **** I couldnt imagine playing this game if my control didnt rattle!" No, of course you didnt. I love nintendo, I have kept every single console of theirs that I got up until the gamecube. I think the most perfect controller in history is the SNES controller. But wonky controls dont make a game. And not to mention they are SO expensive. Whats the point of having these innovations you speak of, but no games to play? Ask the Wii U sales team.... And the Wii U "controller" was so cumbersome and awkward to hold, but I didnt hold it that much cause there werent any games to play on it...
I didnt see Gimpdiggity post, he explained my point way better than I did. :lol
I didnt see Gimpdiggity post, he explained my point way better than I did. :lol
Last edited by a moderator:
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
A lot of it is.
However, being innovative in what is essentially ancient history means nothing.
Harley-Davidson made innovations in motorcycles 100 years ago, but you'd be hard pressed to find many people praising those designs as innovative today.
Nintendo pioneered the general layout we see today with movement controls on the left and action controls on the right. General shape of the SNES controller is pretty much what we see today. Analog sticks were brought to the table with the 64.
Since then, however, their only real innovation is the movement controls of the Wii. Movement controls that the industry has by and large left behind.
Sony and Microsoft took Nintendo's innovative designs and refined them to basic perfection. Has the PlayStation controller's dimensions even changed since 1997?? If so, the changes were so small that the controllers feel almost identical save for the weight. Microsoft on the other hand designed a controller that fits larger hands much better and added analog triggers which changed several of the most popular game genres in FPS and racing games.
There is no denying that Nintendo shaped the way of gaming as we know it, but their innovations recently have been lackluster at best. The DS being the exception, as it's been pretty successful.
I have not played Splatoon because I'm not interested in using Nintendo's terrible excuse for an online service. For as innovative as they want to be, their online system is decidedly terrible. It doesn't hold a candle to PS Network, let alone Xbox Live.
Snikt
Sr Member
You know what, they DID copy them, regarding the motion controls, and it failed miserably. Remember the Sony Move? Kinect has all been abandonded. You know why? Cause it was gimmicky, didnt work well, and was a failure. When I meant lightinig in a bottle when I mentioned earlier, was that Nintendo put out the Wii at the perfect time, and capitalized on their tech at the perfect time. That was it. MS and Sony both tried motion controls and it didnt work. People were over it. Same with 3D in movies, there was a resurgence with Avatar, it made a TON of money, and now look. Nobody watches 3D movies anymore, it went back into obscurity again. It was a fad. Same with the motion controls. And lets be honest, the motion controls werent perfect anyway
Splatoon is one game. I remember when I got Metroid 3 for Wii, and while I thought it was kind of neat to turn your hand to do things with the controller, it ended up being tedious, and I wanted to just use a regular controller. But a console is worthless if it doesnt have games! Hence the Wii U! I think if the Switch goes the way of the Wii U, its going to be a repeat of sega.
Last edited:
Similar threads
