It's an old game but not old enough to be a classic.

I'd buy it but probably more out of lack of game choice though. I'm already wondering what to buy next.

Same here.. the game is flawed on so many levels. Whoever convinced me that its a good Uncharted clone fooled me bigtimes.

Wasnt it like 5$ on PSN last month? or the one before that? And a better looking version that runs better ect.

The only reason to get it on the switch would be the portable aspect, or if you dont own a xb1/ps4/pc.

The thing is its been down to like 5$ on other platforms already.

And that version probably has better graphics/runs better than the switch version would.

The market to buy that game, for full price (60$) on the nintendo switch, would be really low.

Most people intrested in the game probably already got it on pc/ps4/xb1.

Then again what do I know? 1,2,Switch is selling well dispite looking like a waste of money to me.

"So I'd rather see new/newer games on the platform instead." -Captain_Yuri

^ this.

Which is why charging full price for a game that came out in Witner 2015 wouldn't get that many sales elsewhere, not unless they sell it for a lower price. 

I was more on about Yuri pointing out that some companies like to charge high for late port jobs, then when they don't sell well those companies hardly eevr look at the fact that, it's a late port job with not much going for it to make up for the late port, as well as charging high for an older game.

Just look at Skyrim's Switch price, that is just plain silly for a 2011 game, even for a mobile device, it won't be outputting at PC level, so charging high for a 2011 game that runs on half the specs if not a 3rd is insane.

They can still make money by selling older titles on the Switch, just don't charge for insanely high prices for old games that are already dated.

I agree with this.

I think its one of the reasons alot of these late ports Nintendo sometimes gets fails to sell.

They market it as a new game, full price ect.

Ignoreing the fact that its a old game, the other consoles might already have had, and is on pc too ect.

Ei. I wouldnt bother useing money to port this to Switch, unless you could sell it at low enough price (10-15$), and be expected to make back what you used to port it.

I salso think Nintendo ahs to learn from some of this as well, for some of their old VC titles are sold at times for higher prices than normal, especially for digital roms, roms that already exist around the net in general these days.

If they are going to port say a 5+ year old game to Switch, sell it for £20, if it's a popular 3D based game, include some Switch like content or something and roll with it. If it's a 2D based game, sell it for £5-10, depending on it's age.

Ugh. Yes really. The nVidia Shield TV is superior.
There is more to performance than Flops. You are also forgetting the CPU performance, that matters as well alright?

The nVidia Shield TV also has 3GB of Ram, not 2GB. Try to remain accurate.
The Android OS will use less memory than the 1Gb reserved by Nintendo on the Switch. As far as usable Ram capacity for gaming goes, they are closer than you think.

The Shield TV also has no throttling.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9289/the-nvidia-shield-android-tv-review/3
Anandtech is one of the most trusted tech outlets on the internet, I will easily trust them over some random person on the internet in regards to tech.

It's a full 1Ghz Maxwell GPU. Which means it has roughly 25% more Shader Performance, Geometry Performance, ROP performance, TMU performance and  more, than the Switch.
The CPU also runs at twice the clock rate.

So no. The Switch is not better than the nVidia Shield TV. It is actually weaker. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Nah. If anything I'd rather have Portal and The Talos Principle instead, seeing as those are on the Shield as well.