By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo Switch model is expensive for us and cheap for Nintendo. Hardware and Software.

DonFerrari on 20 December 2016
Veknoid_Outcast said:
DonFerrari said:

??? I'm not confusing anything... but saying Nintendo is losing money because they invest too much on the SW making is strange when they expend a loooooot less than other companies.

I never said that. Nintendo spends money according to its means, something other developers should emulate. I was referencing the fact that Iwata was criticized for allowing his studios to take up a lot of time and resources perfecting their games, instead of churning them out at a rapid pace to maximize profits.

Your wording was showing as that. Nintendo doesn't really put much more money or time compared to other companies. Sony have several games taking over 4 years of development, R* also does, and multiple others. It isn't liket Nintendo goes above and beyond them, it's more like they make simpler game but stick to having lower bugs.

the_dengle said:
CrazyGPU said:

Well, then maybe for you new things doesnt matter. I don´t think that a few months make games worthless. But I like to apreciate how technology, and the worlds and games grow. I would say that there are some games that deserve being played and are old, I might play 10 year old games like COD modern Warfare, Portal, Bioshock, Uncharted and some other great games. For the rest, I usually play games less than 5 years old, thats not a couple of months, but those are games with wolds, sizes, graphics, art and quality that are not far  from current games. Skyrim (2011), Far Cry 3(2012), The Last of US(2013), Tomb Raider (2013) are not a couple of months old and are awesome games (more than 3 years old games). 

New things matter somewhat, I like a shiny new thing as much as the next guy and I generally keep up with what my friends are playing. I appreciate technology too, and I particularly appreciate how developers worked with the limitations of older technology. I love going back to great old gameboy games like the Zeldas and Pokemons. There are a lot of games more than 10 or 15 years old that don't *feel* like they've aged a day, and the way they look is just a sign of when they were made. I wouldn't dismiss City Lights just because it's silent and black & white. It's the same with old games. Truly excellent games are great forever. I would be sad to see an amazing classic like City Lights sitting in a bargain bin for $2 and I'm disappointed when I see gamers whining about some of the best games ever made costing the price of a hamburger.

Quite strange that you think you like the new and shiny just as much as everyone but wouldn't bother only playing old stuff.



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."

Around the Network
the_dengle on 20 December 2016
DonFerrari said:

Quite strange that you think you like the new and shiny just as much as everyone but wouldn't bother only playing old stuff.

Alright, maybe not QUITE as much as the next guy, depending on who the next guy is. I certainly have friends who seemingly buy new things for the sake of buying new things.

I don't see a problem with enjoying old games enough to be content with them, yet also enjoying new games enough to continue buying and playing them.



Veknoid_Outcast on 20 December 2016
DonFerrari said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

I never said that. Nintendo spends money according to its means, something other developers should emulate. I was referencing the fact that Iwata was criticized for allowing his studios to take up a lot of time and resources perfecting their games, instead of churning them out at a rapid pace to maximize profits.

Your wording was showing as that. Nintendo doesn't really put much more money or time compared to other companies. Sony have several games taking over 4 years of development, R* also does, and multiple others. It isn't liket Nintendo goes above and beyond them, it's more like they make simpler game but stick to having lower bugs.

the_dengle said:

New things matter somewhat, I like a shiny new thing as much as the next guy and I generally keep up with what my friends are playing. I appreciate technology too, and I particularly appreciate how developers worked with the limitations of older technology. I love going back to great old gameboy games like the Zeldas and Pokemons. There are a lot of games more than 10 or 15 years old that don't *feel* like they've aged a day, and the way they look is just a sign of when they were made. I wouldn't dismiss City Lights just because it's silent and black & white. It's the same with old games. Truly excellent games are great forever. I would be sad to see an amazing classic like City Lights sitting in a bargain bin for $2 and I'm disappointed when I see gamers whining about some of the best games ever made costing the price of a hamburger.

Quite strange that you think you like the new and shiny just as much as everyone but wouldn't bother only playing old stuff.

My wording was showing that? Are you sure?

"Finally how can everyone act as if all console manufacturers are altruistic but Nintendo, a company that under Iwata was frequently accused of focusing on game creation at the expense of revenue, is in it only for the profit margins?"

I was questioning the argument that Nintendo is greedy and driven only by lust for money when, until recently, folks were complaining that the big N turned out games slowly and methodically, often at the expense of a quick payday. I never said Nintendo invests more money and resources into game development than its competitors. That would be bonkers. Nintendo uses smaller development teams and spends less money than other publishers. 



DonFerrari on 20 December 2016
the_dengle said:
DonFerrari said:

Quite strange that you think you like the new and shiny just as much as everyone but wouldn't bother only playing old stuff.

Alright, maybe not QUITE as much as the next guy, depending on who the next guy is. I certainly have friends who seemingly buy new things for the sake of buying new things.

I don't see a problem with enjoying old games enough to be content with them, yet also enjoying new games enough to continue buying and playing them.

No problem, just found strange you almost not missing new games and also being a guy that like new stuff a lot. But I understand your point now.



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."

Veknoid_Outcast on 20 December 2016
the_dengle said:
CrazyGPU said:

Well, then maybe for you new things doesnt matter. I don´t think that a few months make games worthless. But I like to apreciate how technology, and the worlds and games grow. I would say that there are some games that deserve being played and are old, I might play 10 year old games like COD modern Warfare, Portal, Bioshock, Uncharted and some other great games. For the rest, I usually play games less than 5 years old, thats not a couple of months, but those are games with wolds, sizes, graphics, art and quality that are not far  from current games. Skyrim (2011), Far Cry 3(2012), The Last of US(2013), Tomb Raider (2013) are not a couple of months old and are awesome games (more than 3 years old games). 

New things matter somewhat, I like a shiny new thing as much as the next guy and I generally keep up with what my friends are playing. I appreciate technology too, and I particularly appreciate how developers worked with the limitations of older technology. I love going back to great old gameboy games like the Zeldas and Pokemons. There are a lot of games more than 10 or 15 years old that don't *feel* like they've aged a day, and the way they look is just a sign of when they were made. I wouldn't dismiss City Lights just because it's silent and black & white. It's the same with old games. Truly excellent games are great forever. I would be sad to see an amazing classic like City Lights sitting in a bargain bin for $2 and I'm disappointed when I see gamers whining about some of the best games ever made costing the price of a hamburger.

I LOVE this post. Especially because it mentions City Lights, one of the very best movies ever made :D



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 20 December 2016
Veknoid_Outcast said:
DonFerrari said:

Your wording was showing as that. Nintendo doesn't really put much more money or time compared to other companies. Sony have several games taking over 4 years of development, R* also does, and multiple others. It isn't liket Nintendo goes above and beyond them, it's more like they make simpler game but stick to having lower bugs.

Quite strange that you think you like the new and shiny just as much as everyone but wouldn't bother only playing old stuff.

My wording was showing that? Are you sure?

"Finally how can everyone act as if all console manufacturers are altruistic but Nintendo, a company that under Iwata was frequently accused of focusing on game creation at the expense of revenue, is in it only for the profit margins?"

I was questioning the argument that Nintendo is greedy and driven only by lust for money when, until recently, folks were complaining that the big N turned out games slowly and methodically, often at the expense of a quick payday. I never said Nintendo invests more money and resources into game development than its competitors. That wouldn be bonkers. Nintendo uses smaller development teams and spends less money than other publishers. 

Quite certainly different folks, because you can't defend that while they put less money and manpower on development they also lose revenue for just putting too much, they are basically antithesis... so it's more like different folks complaining about Nintendo expending very little and charging a lot versus guys that actually think Nintendo is expending a lot just because they iron out the issues in the title... the type and amount of expenses are quite different. Because in the end the profit margin they have is quite bigger than most.

But ok, I understand your point.



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."

Soundwave on 20 December 2016

Just think of the Switch as a portable game system, the successor to Vita (since Sony is not making one) with a TV out.

It's a lot easier to rationalize its design and performance that way.

Nintendo wants to be able to sell $49.99-$59.99 games on it so they want to use the "console" moniker to justify that price, but lets be real no one in their right mind is going to use this as their primary console unless they are a hardcore Nintendo fanatic.

This is not the Wii all over again either, that had a legitimately completely different way of playing games and an obvious 100% untapped market to aim at. This is just basically a Wii U gameplay wise except you can take it out of the house instead of just being limited to home portability.



Lonely_Dolphin on 20 December 2016
Soundwave said:

This is just basically a Wii U gameplay wise except you can take it out of the house instead of just being limited to home portability.

Damn man, do you repeat the same rhetorics over and and over and over or what! The bolded plus single screen gaming is why it's not basically a Wii U, most everyone understands this so you ain't convincing no one. Just give it up already!



Seventizz on 20 December 2016

One can argue that nintendo's creativity is in a rut. MK8 wasn't much different than any previous game and Mario is showing signs of aging.



ironmanDX on 20 December 2016
DonFerrari said:
ironmanDX said:

How isn't it? Almost the same, as you say is in fact still cheaper. It also doubles as a portable. I'm not sure how you're confused.                    

Try doubling the Ps4 or xbox one as a portable. That'll be $299 thanks. https://www.amazon.com/Vanguard-Personal-Environment-XBOX-ONE-S/dp/B00H0R9DSG 

When PS4/X1 cost 250 versus a 500 PC it is a cheaper alternative. When Switch release for 199+ it won't be a cheaper alternative, not in the same margin.

Sony do have PSVita if you want, and that is still less than 199 and can play PS4 games through stream, and I basically know all the negatives you'll make

 

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.