By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 17 January 2017
Edit Thread
maxleresistant said:
sc94597 said:

You need to distinguish between nominal median income and real median income. Real income is adjusted for inflation, and the Federal Reserve states that in 2015 it was equal to what it was in 2006. That means nominal income DID catch up with inflation.

 

Again, Switch is not ten years behind. Ten years ago the best GPU's had only 1 Gb of VRAM for an example of an easy specification that you might understand. Other specifications follow a similar pattern. Please provide a source for the "PS3 port" claim. The only port we currently have footage of is Skyrim, and it looks to be the enhanced version, not a PS3 port.

You are in an ocean of misfacts. Please educate yourself. Learn what the difference is between nominal and real median income, understand that the Switch is not equivalent to ten year old consoles in graphical performance, recognize that inflation does matter in these comparisons, and stop making false claims like "that's why the switch gets PS3 ports".


Yeah right, salaries went up 20 %.  So for the general consumer, spending 300 bucks in 2017 is the same as spending 250 in 2006.

Whatever the justification you come up with, that won't make the price tag cheaper for people. There is a good reason if so many people and media outlets think the price tag is too steep, it's because it is.

As for the PS3 port, I suggest you look at DQ heroes, I also suggest that you look at all the PS4 games that are being ported to the Switch. Have you seen them? Me neither. Could it be because the Switch is a handheld and PS4 games needs to be downgraded a lot to run on it?

I wonder? Maybe that's why we are getting Skyrim and Steep 6-8 months after the launch? 

All the clues are here, you just have to look at them. Yes the Switch is more powerful than a PS3, but its still nearer a WiiU (which was already 5 years behind) than a PS4.

 

So again, it's 2017, the next generation is approaching, with PS4 and Scorpio.  And like I said, the Switch is amazing handheld, but as a home console, it's behind a Xbox One or A PS4.

Right now, it's barely ok, but in a year or 2, it will be laughable.

Whether or not it is pricey is for the market to decide. For as many people that you've read complaining about the price, I've read/heard many say that the price of the console itself is okay, but the accessories are exhorbiant. 

The port of DQ Heroes is actually the Vita version. Why would they port the Vita version? The Vita's chipset is ARM like the Switch's. That makes it more compatible bug-wise during the porting process. 

"I wonder? Maybe that's why we are getting Skyrim and Steep 6-8 months after the launch?" Maybe, maybe not. There are a plethora of reasons why developers choose to release games when they do. For example, GTA V released on PC a year after it did on PS4/XBO. Was it because PC's are too weak and can't handle it? Or was it rather to make the port fit the system. But even if this were true, it was not as if the Wii was getting third-party ports left and right. In fact, the gap was more insurmountable between the Wii and PS360 than the Switch and its competitors.

My point stands, the relative difference betwen the XBO and Switch will likely not be anywhere near the difference between the Wii and XB360/PS3. The successors to the PS4/XBO likely won't be here until 2020, which is plenty of time for a new Switch formfactor.