DF: Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze - Switch vs Wii U

[DonFerrari]

Miyamotoo said:

CGI-Quality said:
⚠️ From Rule 3 - “Likewise, your thread should never only be a link to the story/article/video/etc. You must include your own commentary.”

Add something to that OP that is of your own. What makes that so interesting, for example?

Fixed, I added comment.

Bandorr said:

I'd even have been fine with it being $50. Which even then is fairly absurd. Charging full price for a 4 year old game with no new content, and few changes.

But to charge MORE than they did before? Perhaps the cartridge is to blame. Another Cartridge fee/tax at work?

The game is great though, and better loading times is always nice. But at that price, oof mega pass.

Nintendo looks on Wii U ports like on brand new games not ports, and this games are not aimed to ex Wii U owners primarily (maybe if they want full handheld mode) but to huge majority of Switch owners that didnt had Wii U.

I agree that would be better its $50, but to be fair you with Switch version getting full handheld version of game alongside full home console mode.

So all new games on Switch should cost more than on PS4 and X1 since they get are only console mode. And the cross purchase that you can do on PS4+PSVita and Play Anywhere for X1+PC should cost over 100 USD per your logic right?

And it is BS to defend Nintendo looking at ports as brand new games when they aren't, and for the case in point it's a very basic port. While Activision releases 3 Crash, fully remade for 40 and in Switch will be playable dock and undock...

Also, please tell us what differences are between the full handheld version and the full home console mode?

GOWTLOZ said:

DonFerrari said:

Nintendo is getting up with the times. And perhaps they just wanted to make a quick port with minor improvements as a lot of cross gen do.

Remasters on other systems cost $40.

I don't mind the price though, wasn't interested anyways. Xenoblade Chronicles X is a different story.

Yep as I said earlier, we don't know if Nintendo saw that they would profit less at 40 even with more sales.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Baddman said:

yeh I dont buy that one bit.  charging 10 dollars more for a 4 year old port is bs

Dude, did you forget about the new playable character, Funky Kong? He completely changes the game. Honestly, I'm surprised they aren't charging 10$ just to use him. 

I'm tired of seeing people complain about the ports and the price of ports. If you don't think it's worth that amount of money, don't buy it. If you do, buy it. It's that simple. You're getting a portable experience and a console experience all in one. It's like ... two separate games for one price! Like A Way Out. This game totally deserves the 60$ price tag, in fact with the Funky Kong added it is more like a 70$ value. And since you can play it portably and console-ly it's more like a 140$. You can't beat that logic. 

It is almost like a collection of several GOTY games made as one.

Miyamotoo said:

fatslob-:O said:

I think you need to read what I wrote cause I still think the Switch in portable mode is still more performant in the vast majority of the games compared to WII U ... 

If you can or DF can prove the assertion that it was done to conserve battery life then hopefully we'll be able to reverse engineer the Switch to see what clocks it was running at ... 

You can't compare Bayonetta to DKCTF on a technical basis, both have different technology! (not even the same code or let alone content) 

A implies B is a common logical fallacy ... 

Switch even in portable mode is more powerful than Wii U, period. Power of hardware cant depand from game to game, what can be difirent from game to game is what kind of port is, how much they will push hardware, will they pay atentione on battery life, if is lazy port, if port used most of hardware from is getting ported so port to totally different platform cant gave best results...

Bayonetta 2 is definitely more demanding game than DKTF, also MK8D is also more demanding game than 2D platformer.

What Digital Foundry wrote:

https://www.resetera.com/posts/7142617/

https://www.resetera.com/posts/7146747/

You are falling for the fallacy "I think it's prettier so it must be more demanding", without looking at the console load you can't be certain of it.

You could have 100 games you think is better or prettier or more demanding than one specific game, but in the end that one is the more demanding one.

Barkley said:

KLXVER said:

 

The Last Of Us Remastered was going to be 60$, but people complained and Sony dropped it to 50$.

And these were also games that were one year old, not four years old... they were basically GOTY editions taken to the next level.

But meanwhile on Planet Activison, they're remaking 3 games from the ground up and selling them for $40 (again). Who would have thought Activision would be a shining example,

Yep, and it was as you said a completely new game in a way (actually 3 =] ).

Mandalore76 said:

KLXVER said:

 

The Last Of Us Remastered was going to be 60$, but people complained and Sony dropped it to 50$.

That's still not $40 which is what the poster being quoted declared was the standard on all other consoles.

Standard =/= than mandatory, Beyond Two Souls + Heavy Rain remaster launched for 40USD as far as I remember.

God of War collections on PS3 was 40

Jak and Dexter trilogy as well

Sly Cooper the same....