ironmanDX said:
But you still need a PS4 and a vita... Thus, again... Making Switch the cheaper option. You know the negatives I'm going to make because this discussion is that obvious. It is simply a cheaper alternative. No matter what you say or what other options you try and present. You'll likely miss out on some, (quite a bit, really...) 3rd party software but that doesn't exactly shift the goalpost. |
And on Switch you'll still not get the same kind of games (and I could only use PSP that with a cable could be hooked to the TV and use PS3 control), still just being a little cheaper doesn't make it really a cheaper alternative. It isn't like Golf is the cheaper alternative to Ferrari, their purposes are completely different, even GT-R would have a hard time being sold as cheaper alternative even though it gets very close on performance.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."