I think it's very bad form that Nintendo's 1st party Day 1 game doesn't run at what they said the console can run games at.Guffe said:
Nintendo Switch Won't Have Virtual Console at Launch
- Thread starter Lizzy Finnegan
- Start date
Yeah could be a dealbreaker for some I guess. I don't know if I'd see the difference in 920 and 1080... I can barely see the difference in 30fps and 60fps when my brother plays League of Legends... Shows how little I actually game anymore I guess. Or how worthless my eyesight is xD008Zulu said:
The main reason, for this choice, might be that the game has been in production for so long?
I know next to nothing about making games and coding and stuff, but if they'd up the specs of the game, that might risk it for launch? I mean the game has been pushed back since late 2014 I think. So if they have coded the whole thign for 920/30, upping that to 1080/60 sounds to me like quite a lot of work and might risk it being pushed back yet again?
It is obvious they wanted this to be a Switch launch title.
I think it comes down to the outdated hardware they chose for the device. It barely seems to edge out the Wii U. If they went for better components, then the game could have run at full 1080.Guffe said:
My guess as to Nintendo's reasoning is that the early adopters are people who already own most of the old games; these players won't care about old games; they're curious about what new games are available to the system. Therefore Virtual Console became de-prioritized.Guffe said:
Could well be. But then again I think you and I view the Switch differently (just my assumption, I can't be 100% sure about how you think, I'm no mind reader).008Zulu said:
I see the Switch as a handheld console, which can be plugged into the TV and that makes local co-op more enjoyable.
I think most people see it as a home console, with the ability to be taken with you.
If you look at it as a home console, as which Nintendo also are/have been promoting it as, then the specs and hardware etc are quite weak compared to how powerful a console could be made with todays tech. From my point of view, I am getting a very powerful handheld, and the specs etc are quite powerful for a portable machine this small.
All I am basically hoping for in the end, is that the games run smoothly and the console works without problems.
For me, the 920p / 30fps isn't a big deal which kills it of for me, if it for someone, then that's nothing I can do anything about. But I am agreeing on the fact, that if the Zelda is all one is after, and they have a WiiU, then get the game for that console in stead and save the 300dollars for something else.
intentional pun, or nah?008Zulu said:
either way, got a chuckle.
OT: At this point I'm not surprised, this could have at least alleviated launch titles from not being an issue....but hey, nintendo, keep dropping the ball, and I'll keep not spending a dime on you.
Ultimately, I think this is what most people will end up seeing it as. Problem is the battery life, which is a big point people take in to consideration with a portable device. Sure you can take a few of those rechargeable packs with you, but each one you do, and the device isn't as portable as you'd want it to be.Guffe said:
For people who travel long distances this is true, especially when apps like Netflix and stuff come into the thing at some point. Long distance travelers don't want to be afraid that the movie ends halfway just due to battery ending.008Zulu said:
Myself, as someone who doesn't travel too far or too much, the battery life is enough with 3-6hours. Then the good thing is Nintendo has the C-type usb charger, so you can get all the chargers needed (car, normal, other?) fairly cheaply anywhere and very few places don't come with charging possibilities anymore, at least where I live. The thing they failed with a bit, is the fact that the charger is on the bottom side of the Switch, so it can't stand on the kickstand and charge unless you have a small hole in the table or you keep it standing on something so the middle is up in the air a little.
That's how it plugs in to the dock. I would have put an auxiliary port on the back of the device. Perhaps some 3rd party developer will release a little raised stand for it.Guffe said:
You are selling Nintendo short here, they didn't back out of the Sony deal because Phillips alone was so tempting. I think they sought out Phillips after they decided to dump Sony and they decided to dump Sony because the contract they were in with Sony gave Sony complete ownership of all CD based SNES games. Now I don't know what made Nintendo sign that in the first place but it would have been foolish of them not to break such a lopsided contract.MonsterCrit said:
Oh and the failure of the CD-I was not apparent then. I had one and it was pretty fascinating for it's time although it never had the software it needed to succeed.
Excuse.. me, I don't see how the failure of the CD-I wasn';t apparent. Anyone who every used the thing for gaming could tell you right off the bat it was crap. THe point is, it was a classic nintendoh moment when in a bid to secure market dominance they essentially shot themselves in the foot. Don't even get me started on their relationship with 3rd party devs.WeepingAngels said:
MonsterCrit said:
As for the CD-I, I had one back in the day and playing it back then I didn't have the benefit of hindsight. At the time it was doing things the Super Nintendo and Genesis couldn't do like realistic graphics and real voices (because it was running actual video off the CD). It had a SNES looking controller and a Genesis looking controller as well as a remote with an analog stick and a huge controller with a trackball. The hardware was there but the software was not.
As for the Sony thing, staying in the contract with Sony would have been a shot to the foot too.
If you do get started on third party relationships will you tell the while truth this time instead of just the anti-Nintendo side?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philips_CD-i
On the wiki page I didn't see the remote with the analog stick but I remember it so here is the picture.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cdi+remote+control&sa=X&biw=1920&bih=981&tbm=isch&imgil=NWQ8eSwFQ8ln0M%253A%253BgDqiQhaWR2ZyiM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fatariage.com%25252Fforums%25252Ftopic%25252F250508-just-saw-the-cdi-controller%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=NWQ8eSwFQ8ln0M%253A%252CgDqiQhaWR2ZyiM%252C_&usg=__UmuCk15gKtWOnqFUPIg_gWX1ZyI%3D&ved=0ahUKEwitnKP94bXSAhWG7oMKHSgjAZIQyjcIJw&ei=D_y2WO3YM4bdjwSoxoSQCQ#imgrc=NWQ8eSwFQ8ln0M:
I heard Nintendo were also planning on entering a partnership with Microsoft to help create an online service for the Gamecube, but then Nintendo backed out and Microsoft ended up continuing the work they had already started in order to create the Xbox and form their own online service.MonsterCrit said:
Oh it had software. I mean they had the license to make their own Mario and Zelda games. You remember the Zelda games right?WeepingAngels said:
Deal was Sony gets direct ownership while Nintendo collected a cosey royal;ty. Which was fair since it was Sony footing the bill for the hardware and software R&D.
If sticking with them was a sghot in the leg well you can describe back stabbing them to be a full on self-inflicted shotgun blast to the balls. THe Sony Playstation knocked Nintendo out of the number one spot. Something nintendo has never quite gotten over since they still seem to think they are in the number one spot given their management style.
Hey just saying, it was rather telling that once there was a viable alternative they started loosing formerly exclusive titles left right and centre. FIrst Square's FF7, the Capcom with Megaman and MEgaman. Konami with CastleVania and MEtal gear solid. I don't think developers would have been that quick to embrace the new rival if nintendo were such dicks about it. I mean the fact they forced bthe developers to buy the cartidges from nintendo and forbade them from manufacturing or sourcing their own. The fact that you had to purchase these carts in batches of thousands at a time, as opposed to tailoring it to volumes that more reflect your expectations.. And then there was the dev kits. THe N64 was notoriously difficult to program compared to ps1 or even the dreamcast.
I'm not anti-nintendo. Just stating the truth. All I've said is that Nintendo has made some pretty boneheaded moves over the years that have mostly been due to their complacency of holding the number 1 spot and they have never quite gotten over losing it.
When I say the software wasn't there, I mean the good software that sells systems. That wasn't there.MonsterCrit said:
Well you can call it fair if you like, it isn't Nintendo's style to give up so much and I believe that has helped them survive.
I am trying to understand this section but let me just say that I do think Nintendo handled the Sony thing poorly even though I think the were right to exit that contract. Sony has been Nintendo's greatest competitor and that has it's pros because the competition is good. Sony basically knocked Sega out of the market though.
The truth is that Nintendo's relationship with third parties is what revived the market here in the US. Lack of quality control is what caused the crash of 82. Telling companies they had to be exclusive to Nintendo was bullshit though.
Well not surprisingly. The system was pretty bad at running games. I dunno if it was because the games themselves were shite or the system was crap to code for, but the end result was the first party games (which are supposed to be the flagship demos of capability) failed.WeepingAngels said:
Well you can call it fair if you like, it isn't Nintendo's style to give up so much and I believe that has helped them survive. [/quote]
Well let's consider. Nintendo could have been collecting a royalty on every PS game sold, and by extension PS2, Ps3 and PS4. That's royalties. As in passive income.
I don't think SOny even considers Nintendo competition anymore. And when you consider the shitty way NIntendo handled the whole thing. It does serve theme right. I mean they didn't even have the stones to straight up tell Sony. Sony found out about about the Phillips deal when Nintenbdo annnounced it at the very show Sony was set to announce it's partnership.
It's basically finding out your GF was cheating on you when she sends you the invitation to her wedding.
Quality control had very little to do with the crash. It was a crash due to a collapse in distribution. NOt in demand or market. The gist of it is. THere were actually too many consoles out at the time. there were like 6 in all competeining for the same still small market. Retailers always considered video games as just some fad toy and were basically just looking for the right moment to get out of the market before the fad ended. DIdn't help that it became impossible for retailers to keep up. THe retailers saw them like any other toy and didn't really know the difference between a intellivision and an odyssey.
Longstory short. Demand for games and consoles didn't drop in 82. It was just that no one wanted to take the gamble of stocking a bad console. So you had high demand and paradoxically no suppliers for a while.
You will notice that they speak of it as the NA Console Crash. PC games were unaffected, and the arcade scene actually experienced a boom in the same period In NorthAm. It also didn't have quite the same impact in europe and asia either becaus ethere were as many competing consoiles in these markets.