There is a market segment that loves them and you can cut some corners on difficulty tuning. As long as the game is impossibly hard with no meta-progression unlocked and laughably easy with all meta-progression unlocked, you can call it good enough.
You can still have reliable migration without the user the ability to open a save on more than one system. For example:
If global banks can transfer millions of dollars from account to account without money being created or destroyed, Nintendo can make sure that only one system is allowed to open up a game save.
I found the relevant Nintendo press release: https://www.pokemon.com/us/news/pokemon-firered-version-and-pokemon-leafgreen-version-link-with-pokemon-home-this-october
I am curious what they mean by Fire Red and Leaf Green getting Pokemon Home integration. I don’t own either game (yet) but I was under the impression that both games could already send Pokemon to Home, but that it was a one way journey. Once a Pokemon was sent to Home, there was no way to get it back to Fire or Leaf.
The news post says that
Once a Pokémon from Pokémon FireRed Version or Pokémon LeafGreen Version is brought to another game in the Pokémon series, they will be unable to return to Pokémon FireRed Version or Pokémon LeafGreen Version. Pokémon from other games in the Pokémon series will be unable to visit Pokémon FireRed Version or Pokémon LeafGreen Version.
So does that imply that I will now be able to move Pokemon from Leaf to Home and back to Leaf? Will I be able to use Home online trades to get Fire/Leaf Pokemon and them bring them into my game?
If that is true, it would resolve my biggest gripe with the Switch version and put the game at the top of my shopping list.
20 year old Pokemon Scarlet save? That game is only a couple years old.
Do you mean that the save file included mons that the player had been moving from game to game for 20 years?
Not that that is an excuse. Nintendo should have expected some amount of migrations to fail and either have the migration retry and/or restore the save on the original system.
The numbers reported are not even about “physical” vs. digital sales. As I understand it, is software sales conducted in the Nintendo Switch Store vs. software sales from other stores. So a customer buying an activation key in a box will count as a physical sale.
This is an important data point, since it shows that some customers would rather drive down to GameStop, buy a code in a box, drive home, and punch that code into the console rather than giving Nintendo their credit card (probably because they are buying the game for someone else). That means that stopping sales outside the console games store would alienate a ton of customers.
Because Nintendo did not provide these statistics (directly). This is data mined from their financial filings. Nintendo reported their total software revenue and broke it down between transactions that occurred via their digital store front and outside of it. At the surface level, Nintendo is just explaining to its investors why it is worth selling via both a first party digital store (which is a large expense I imagine) and third party stores.
Any assumptions about physical vs. digital game sales are strictly coming from reporters pulling numbers out of context.
Because Nintendo did not provide these statistics (directly). This is data mined from their financial filings. Nintendo reported their total software revenue and broke it down between transactions that occurred via their digital store front and outside of it. At the surface level, Nintendo is just explaining to its investors why it is worth selling via both a first party digital store (which is a large expense I imagine) and third party stores.
Any assumptions about physical vs. digital game sales are strictly coming from reporters pulling numbers out of context.
No discoverablity. There is no directory that lets me find interesting forums the way I can find lemmy communities.
No discoverablity. There is no directory that lets me find interesting forums the way I can find lemmy communities.
Forums for long, linear discussion, like phpBB or Discourse, with good discoverability.
I hope not. I would hope that someone at Nintendo would know to never store passwords.
I am not a lawyer, but I imagine the people bringing the lawsuit are going to have some problems in court. First of all, they will have to prove how much of the tariff paid directly by Nintendo of America was passed to the consumer. All they know is that at the same time as the tariff was announced, Nintendo launched a new system for a higher than expected price and increased the MSRP on a couple hardware SKUs. They could have raised prices due to non-tariff costs (AI gobbling up hardware, inflation). They could have raised the price due to indirect tariffs that they will not get refunded (increasing cost of parts for delivery trucks). They could have raised prices for no reason at all, knowing that people would just blame the tariff while they pad their profits.
Even if they show that tariff costs were directly passed on to the consumer, why do the consumers have a right to Nintendo’s refund? If Nintendo gets an income tax refund, they don’t send the money to customers. When a game is an unexpected hit, they don’t have to give everyone back money because the fixed development cost was spread across more copies.
And what about items that Nintendo paid tariffs on but did not raise the price? Presumably, the settlement that Nintendo gets from the government is going to be less than what Nintendo could have made if instead of tariffs that money could have gone into developing more games. If they lose the trial, can they turn around and demand consumers pay them 10¢ for every physical game they bought in the last 12 months?
I would, if given the opportunity. I assume that by preordering, the game is automatically added to my account and maybe even installed on my system on release. That way, if I see an interesting game, I can mark to play it when it comes out without worring about release dates or forgetting about the game while waiting for it to release. Unlike a paid game, I am not out any money if the game is not as good as advertised.
There is innovation in every Nintendo system.
The Wii U had dual screen and asymmetric games.
The 3DS had a 3D screen, a couple AR games, and Street Pass.
The Switch is the first console with a docking station and being able to dynamically change the graphics settings without having to restart running software.
The Switch 2 has multiple mouse controls.
All of them are a bit gimmicky, none are totally original, and most of them did not really catch on, but you cannot fault them for trying. What innovations have there been in PC, PlayStation, and XBox? VR headsets and DLSS?
I hate the conspiracy theory that big pharma could cure cancer but they are covering it up because cancer treatment is such a profitable business. This makes no sense if you remember that big phara is a bunch of companies each of which is trying to maximize its own profits. The first company that can cure a cancer will make so much money, the Ozempic racket will look like chump change.
Not every company out there makes cancer treatment, so why don’t the companies outside the cancer racket cure cancer?
Well, only companies that specialize in cancer treatments could find a cure. If that is the case, why would a company want to be a small part of the cancer treatment market when they can have a monopoly on the cancer curing market?
Well, only the company that has the market leading treatment for a cancer can cure it. If that was the case, they would still want to cure it and sell the same amount of money as 10 years of treatment. Insurance would still cover it because it is saving them money in the long term and is, technically, better for the patient. It would immediately make the pharmaceutical company an obscene amount of money. Sure, once they cure all the existing cases, their revenue will fall off, but by that point, upper management will have cashed out.
I am not sure if you can do it on a Switch, but I recall the 3DS having a feature where you could pull patches and DLC from one console to another. Not even close to what you were suggesting, but it is something.
Do any software stores support creating a local package mirror? I suppose you can make one for GoG by periodically checking for new game versions and saving the installer to a backup.
According to the box photo on the GameStop site, it does not say that it is a key card.
Nintendo has said that, for now, all first party games are games on cart, though not for games that Nintendo is only the publisher/distributor for (see Pokopia).
It is a manufacturer suggested retail price. If a store wants to sell it for more or less, it is their right (and I am not aware of Nintendo having a Minimum Advertised Price policy).
The issue is that it is just an upgrade. The biggest difference between the Switch 1 and 2 is just better graphics/frame rate. With only a few exceptions, both systems play the exact same games. Why would a customer pay $450 (minus a small trade in credit) for a Switch 2 when they already own one or more Switch 1s that play the exact same games the exact same way, except a bit uglier? Nintendo customers tend not to obsess over graphics quality (if they were, they would be playing on PC or PlayStation).
There are a handful of games that take advantage of the Switch 2 mouse controls and now there are starting to be more and more exclusives, so there will be a stronger case to upgrade, but for the first year, it was kind of weak.
I haven’t watched the presentation yet, but is the $120 special edition the only physical release the game will get?