By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
PortisheadBiscuit on 19 May 2018
Edit Thread
WhatATimeToBeAlive said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

Well first, you ARE biased so not sure why that has to be swept under the rug when it comes to your critique of the product. 2nd, how do you know how much the games actually cost to develop? You do realize the cardboard is built to interact with the software and the joycons. I'm pretty sure that took time to develop (time=money), they didnt just pull it out of their arse. 

 

Until you can provide actual factual proof that Nintendo is inflating the cost of LABO by the exorbitant amount you're suggesting, your whole point is pretty much moot. "Oh I was in the same room as someone playing it" is not satisfactory enough, and nothing more than pure anecdotal madness.

Well I base my claim about the cheap development costs on what I can see/what others have said about it. For example, creating that one environment for that fishing-game was most likely really cheap. And why would it cost much to make the cardbord to interact with the software? It's pretty basic stuff and shouldn't require many coders to do it. So why I must have the "burden of proof"? That's as logical as if I would insist you to prove that Knack was cheaper to develop than God of War (2018).

And could you answer the questions I made, so you wouldn't seem so "biased" yourself: Tell why those games are better than what the reviewers and I think? Would you defend this product if it was published by Activision/EA (or any other company)?

What does the publisher have to do with anything? Activision, EA, Bethesda, Ubisoft, who cares? Sounds like subterfuge to avoid the main thesis of your unquantified assumptions.

Switch is a unique piece of hardware, couple that with a unique concept of using cardboard to interact with software and components of Switch hardware. What did the developers have as a reference point to build on? They had to start from scratch, and be deliberate since there's nothing to fall back on. "Well the previous gen we did X and Y to equate Z".

Though I must say I envy your macro mindset, to believe something with so many moving parts is just plug and play and works as easily as a downloadable mobile game from the google play store. Must save a lot of time not going through many minute details of anything. 

zorg1000 said:
WhatATimeToBeAlive said:

Well I base my claim about the cheap development costs on what I can see/what others have said about it. For example, creating that one environment for that fishing-game was most likely really cheap. And why would it cost much to make the cardbord to interact with the software? It's pretty basic stuff and shouldn't require many coders to do it. So why I must have the "burden of proof"? That's as logical as if I would insist you to prove that Knack was cheaper to develop than God of War (2018).

And could you answer the questions I made, so you wouldn't seem so "biased" yourself: Tell why those games are better than what the reviewers and I think? Would you defend this product if it was published by Activision/EA (or any other company)?

Because reviewers said it was better than you think. You keep ignoring that they have given it an overall good rating.

This. 

Last edited by PortisheadBiscuit - on 20 May 2018