Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

@KratosMD Well, you see, that's where they've got you

''It's better than the (€60) alternative.''

I understand the argument, but it seems that years of third versions, or even ''sequels'' with mostly rehashed content and exclusive stuff on top of it has made us think that anything more ''generous'' is a good thing. It's like when company x announced they are going to replace loot boxes with standard micro-transactions. People are happy because ''it's better than loot boxes'', but my point is that it's still kinda scummy.

I mean, just look at what The Witcher 3 offered at launch for €60, and what its €30 expansion pass looked like. Sure, €30 is better than a theoretical €60 sequel, but it's still overpriced IMO. And it feels like it should've been part of the base game.

The Wild Area to me was kinda bland. There wasn't anything to explore really. The only two noteworthy structures are the tower, which does absolutely nothing. And a daycare. I was so happy to a building, but then it turned out to be another day care you couldn't even enter... So, the only post-game really was catching Pokemon you didn't have in your dex yet, but that existed in previous games as well, so I don't think it's really something to boast about.

I think the cost of the base game and the DLC combined does seem pricey. For something that costs a fully priced game plus £27, I'd want the complete experience to be something marvellous. But with the base game being very lacking in places (such as lack of big dungeons, very few legendaries, not many side activities etc), it's easy for me to be critical of the pricing.

It's a big improvement on the past method of releasing third/fourth versions, but that was a bad and expensive model.

There's also my big dislike of releasing two very similar games and making some things unobtainable in each without the other, but I won't get into that now.

@KratosMD, I've also noticed that, at least on NL, there's a decent segment of the readerbase that still wants 100% of a game on cart, no extra downloads required (and think companies should re-issue physical copies with DLC included on cart for those that want it, even if they have to pay a premium).

Those kinds of people are lamenting the loss of the "3rd version", as being able to have everything on cart is of greater value to them than the downsides of those releases.

Maybe those kinds of gamers left Sony & MS early last gen, but with Nintendo being a bit behind on adopting things such as DLC, there's still some left in the Nintendo community (I know a couple are saying that Switch will likely be the last console they'll collect for, as things like DLC & mandatory downloads will only become more prevalent with future hardware).

My last couple of posts feel much more negative than what I actually think, so to sum up my actual thoughts on the matter:

Pokemon does seem too costly this gen. However, what they showed of the expansions looked good. There's a lot of potential for them to be wonderful.

I think that's because Nintendo's games rarely go on sale, if ever. A complete edition that includes a €30 expansion means they have to lower the total price of the package by €30 as well if they want to sell it for €60 instead of €90 (base game + expansion).

@KratosMD I think that was only digital. BOTW is still €60, and there wasn't a sale, otherwise I would've bought it for Switch as well.

33% off on a three-year-old game can only happen in Nintendo land

At least Nintendo games hold their value because of the pricing. I could sell my launch copy of MK8D for 2/3rds of what I bought it for if I wanted.

Know what I'd get for my launch copy of Gravity Rush 2? Less than $10.

Which is why I always buy Nintendo titles I'm interested in at launch. There's literally no incentive not to do so.

@Ralizah True, but I also end up skipping a bunch of their games because of their pricing. I'll buy any game at launch if I really want it. But I ended up buying a bunch of games on PS4 wouldn't have bought at full price, but I enjoyed them for only tenner or something like that. Luigi's Mansion at €60 is just too much for me, if it was half the price, I'd give it a go. But I know that won't ever happen.

For my two penneth on the Pokémon thing, this whole situ reeks of let's cut the Pokédex so we can sell it back to people later. Two hefty-ish chunks of DLC is totally fine. It's that 200 Pokémon part of the DLC that has chapped people's asses, in my opinion. I know when I first saw it I cringed.

Sword/Shield is the first Pokémon game I haven't bought straight away, except the 3DS ones as I didn't have one. I love Pokémon games. But this whole game seems to have been a car crash from the start. I know we all like to pretend that Nintendo HQ is like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, where all the workers are just doing it all to put smiles on kids faces, but they're one of the most ruthless, money grubbing companies in gaming. This sounds totally believable to me, and while I expect to be nickel and dimed by Nintendo, there's a level of it that's step too far. This kinda feels like one of those for me.

That said, if Snivy is getting added back in I'll undoubtedly cave in and buy it. And this is how they get away with it.

Anyway, in more positive news, I finished New Super Mario Bros U Deluxe and it was fantastic. Loved it. They could keep making those things forever and I'd keep playing them. I do hope they port 3D World to Switch, too. I played that one on Wii U but I'd play it again. Totally underrated Mario.

I also got Luigi's Mansion 3 and Fire Emblem off Santa, so I might start one of those.

@johncalmc On the one hand the new areas look great and I'm looking forward to seeing what they bring to the game. Shield is a little hollow and feels rushed, but I'd be happy to buy and play that extra content in lieu of the traditional "third version". However, it really does seem as though the 200 old Pokémon were held back specifically to sell the DLC. Nintendo and TPCi know that it was one of the primary complaints about the game, so it doesn't sit quite right. The lack of the National Dex actually hasn't personally bothered me at all as I think there are plenty of varied Pokémon in the game, but Game Freak's reasons for the limited Pokédex now don't hold any weight given they have been able to magic a not-exactly-small number of Pokémon so soon after the game initially released. The fact that there are actually two season passes depending on the version of the game - and that it has been suggested there will be additional version exclusive Pokémon - is further compounding this issue.

Anyhoo congrats for completing New Super Mario Bros. U. Some of that looks really difficult! Did you do the Luigi U levels too?

@johncalmc The Pokemon are a free update; you technically don't need the expansion pass. However I don't know if that makes it any better, since 30 bucks only gets you two new areas. It's the price that bothers me more than anything else really. The concept art looks good, and it looks big, but that's true for most games, and when you play them it all feels a lot smaller and less impressive.

@mookysam Nah. I haven't totally polished it off. I'm in two minds about whether to go silly with it or not. I haven't gotten all the coins or done all of the secret levels, and I haven't finished the Luigi DLC. I'm undecided about whether to do it all or move on since my backlog is absolutely outrageous. It's not actually that tough, I don't think, mostly. Pretty standard Mario. Starts off super easy and steadily escalates but never goes too far until the secret bits after you've flattened Bowser.

Let's be clear: as @Octane said, they're not 'selling the Pokemon back to us.' We can trade for the returning ones or bring them forward from previous gens.

With that said, I don't understand the point of Dexit if they're just going to gradually expand the Pokedex again. Pick a direction and stick to it!

@Ralizah I actually enjoyed the ''limited'' selection (let's be honest, 400 is still a lot). Meta has finally changed big-time and now they're bringing the same old Garchomp and Landorus back, so we all know what the meta game will look like in a year from now...

I finally played and beat Shield. I really sort of understand after playing the game and seeing the dlc. They somehow ran out of time and opted to gradially put back the pokemon. I think the next game will have all of them.

What I can't understand is dropping the GTS. I mean come on why? It makes us resort to unconventional ways to get all the characters.

Oh dear. I totally called it but still, majorly disappointing. This is coming from someone in the middle of Three Houses and loving it but really? Byleth? Edelgard would have been the more interesting character even if I personally do not like her in the slightest. At least the music will be added, silver linings.

As much as I like Fire Emblem, Byleth was too safe a pick. I get that anyone that wasn't a main character from a game has a slim to nil chance of being on the roster, but I'd rather they put one of the other house leaders in there just to vary it up a bit, especially since none of them use swords.

The internet would have exploded if they had put Gatekeeper in there instead of Byleth.

@Ralizah Literally love the gatekeeper. I’m fully expecting the Expansion Pass to add a full side story going through the life and struggles of being the greatest character in the game.

That's disappointing. There's already a lot of Fire Emblem characters in Smash. I would have much preferred a character from a game that isn't as well represented in Smash.

At least there will be 6 additional DLC characters to look forward to.