The Nintendo Switch Thread

[Zippo]

45 minutes ago, Tornado said:

No, it's not unprecedented. The Switch is not the first console that was in such short supply that it was basically nonexistent in retail outlets for months, which made up the primary thrust of the article. The Switch is not the first console that a noted attempt to ramp up supply before launch was completely buried by the demand it had even as the launch faded into memory. The sales are higher than before because Nintendo has been able to produce more consoles than previous consoles that also were hopelessly behind what the market desired; but the root cause of that is no different than it was for the PS2 or Wii and the root cause of that is how in demand the system is.

That wasn't even my argument in the previous post, though. I was arguing against your point about whether or not it's launch numbers were unprecedented. The Switch being the most successful launch for Nintendo, ever is what i think many would consider to be unprececented. 

45 minutes ago, Tornado said:

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this:

Is even refering to either the PS2's first year or the Wii's first year:
 

Except, he's referring to the Switch launch numbers. I'm not sure what you're even trying to get at here. There's not even enough clarity given to make such an assumption. 

 

45 minutes ago, Tornado said:

"demand is functionally no different from previous huge record sustained console launches, but this time manufacturing was brought online better" 

Uh, I've read both articles multiple times and the CFO said nothing even remotely close to this. 

45 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Nintendo was able to produce more Switches, so Nintendo was able to sell more Switches. It's unprecedented because of the numbers of the former, but still not having nearly as much as is needed makes it pretty impossible to make a call on the actual numbers of demand.

This is flat out false. Nintendo had 4 million Wiis ready to go in the same time period.  http://m.ign.com/articles/2006/09/27/nintendo-sets-the-record-straight

The Switch? 2 million.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-switch-will-ship-2-million-units-in-launc/1100-6444804/

Not sure where you got your information at, but it's hugely incorrect, sorry. 

[Tornado]

1 hour ago, Zippo said:

That wasn't even my argument in the previous post, though. I was arguing against your point about whether or not it's launch numbers were unprecedented. The Switch being the most successful launch for Nintendo, ever is what i think many would consider to be unprececented. 

Except that's not what I said. There's no reason for that to have been my point, in fact, because that's also not what you said in the first place. You said that the CFO of Gamestop said something he didn't actually say about demand for the Switch, and in the same post that I acknowledged the higher sales numbers I pointed out that demand isn't something you can judge when it outstrips supply so thoroughly that it becomes immeasurable as it has for the Wii and PS2 in the past. I was talking about whether the demand for the system was unprecedented in response to you claiming Gamestop's CFO said the demand for the system was unprecedented.

 

Actually read and attempt to understand what is being said to you before you fly off the handle because you think someone is criticizing Nintendo. I wasn't criticizing Nintendo. I was criticizing your interpretation and representation in this thread of someone else's words.

 

Quote

Except, he's referring to the Switch launch numbers. I'm not sure what you're even trying to get at here. There's not even enough clarity given to make such an assumption. 

No he's not. For crying out loud, he's not even referring specifically to launch numbers. He's explicitly referring to a previous point in time where Gamestop has had similar retail success across the board (hardware, software and accessories) with a console launch; which was (as I theorized and would probably turn out true if it was worth the effort to look up) last seen with the Wii launch and before that with the PS2 launch.

 

Actually read and attempt to understand what is being said to you before you fly off the handle because you think someone is criticizing Nintendo. I wasn't criticizing Nintendo. I was criticizing your understanding of an article you posted in this thread to further prove your earlier flawed interpretation.of someone else's words.

 

Quote

Uh, I've read both articles multiple times and the CFO said nothing even remotely close to this. 

That's because I was summarizing what my post responding to you was, because you (somehow) interpreted what I said as if I was treating the Switch's sales numbers to this point as being disappointing.

 

Actually read and attempt to understand what is being said to you before you fly off the handle because you think someone is criticizing Nintendo. I wasn't summarizing the articles posted to mean that the PS2 and Wii were better sellers for Gamestop, which should have been obvious since I had already talked about their supply issues earlier. I was criticizing your incorrect interpretation of something I said.

 

Quote

This is flat out false. Nintendo had 4 million Wiis ready to go in the same time period.  http://m.ign.com/articles/2006/09/27/nintendo-sets-the-record-straight

The Switch? 2 million.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-switch-will-ship-2-million-units-in-launc/1100-6444804/

Not sure where you got your information at, but it's hugely incorrect, sorry. 

I'm sorry that you think a November 19th to December 31st US launch and worldwide rollout starting two weeks later as being the same amount of time and directly comparable to a wordlwide launch period from March 3rd to March 31st.

I'm sorry that you've confused the target sales numbers of systems made at drastically different times away from the release of the console with actual total supplies on hand when the system actually launched (because the 700,000 extra Switches Nintendo got together above the projected totals didn't miracle their way onto store shelves, and Nintendo weren't able to come up with anywhere near 4 million Wiis by the end of December 2006).

I'm sorry that you're attempting to argue that the Switch has unprecedented sales for Nintendo and producing news articles to that effect but are now attempting to argue that the Wii sold better and attempting to produce news articles to that effect without even realizing it.

I'm sorry that you've bought into the idea  that the Wii wasn't cripplingly limited by supplies on hand during it's first month and a half and all the way through spring of the following year; even regardless of the fact that it undersold what Nintendo claimed they could supply at the time by a larger number than the Switch has oversold Nintendo's projections.

I'm certainly sorry that I trusted information you brought to this thread as being made in good faith and understood by you before you posted it. The last one is a mistake I will remember in the future.

 

 

Actually read and attempt to understand what is being said to you before you fly off the Nintendo fanboy handle; or at the very least try and reconcile the arguments you were making when you started to the ones you're trying to make now.

[Zippo]

18 hours ago, Tornado said:

Except that's not what I said. There's no reason for that to have been my point, in fact, because that's also not what you said in the first place. You said that the CFO of Gamestop said something he didn't actually say about demand for the Switch, and I pointed out that demand isn't something you can judge when it outstrips supply so thoroughly that it becomes immeasurable as it has for the Wii and PS2 in the past.

Lmao. Pot is calling the kettle black. Cute. You paraphrased a quote that didn't even exist and now are trying to get on my case for summing up the story. Outright laughable. 

18 hours ago, Tornado said:

Actually read and attempt to understand what is being said to you before you fly off the handle because you think someone is criticizing Nintendo. I wasn't criticizing Nintendo. I was criticizing your interpretation and representation in this thread of someone else's words.

 

No one is flying off the handle here except for you. LOL. I could not care less if a corporate entity is criticized. Nice projecting, though. I obviously struck a nerve. 

 

18 hours ago, Tornado said:

No he's not. For crying out loud, he's not even referring specifically to launch numbers. He's explicitly referring to a previous point in time where Gamestop has had similar retail success across the board (hardware, software and accessories) with a console launch; which was (as I theorized and would probably turn out true if it was worth the effort to look up) last seen with the Wii launch and before that with the PS2 launch.

 

What? He even says that he can't give hard numbers, they're extremely pleased with how it's doing. Then why don't you look it up? Because you know there's a possibility that your theory is wrong? Lol.

18 hours ago, Tornado said:

I'm sorry that you think a November 19th to December 31st US launch and worldwide rollout two weeks later as being the same amount of time and directly comparable to a wordlwide launch period from March 3rd to March 31st.

 

This is straight up laughable. You said Nintendo had more Switches produced than Wiis. Your claim was false. I posted hard facts that proved otherwise, and now you're trying to worm your way out of it. Get off of your self-righteous high horse, it's embarrassing. 

 

18 hours ago, Tornado said:

I'm sorry that you're attempting to argue that the Switch has unprecedented sales for Nintendo and producing news articles to that effect but are now attempting to argue that the Wii sold better and attempting to produce news articles to that effect without even realizing it.

Lmao this is how i know you didn't even properly read what i said, we know for a fact that the Switch had a better launch, and I proved that it was even more supply constrained due to less shipments. This is a non-argument. 

18 hours ago, Tornado said:

I'm certainly sorry that I trusted information you brought to this thread as being made in good faith and understood by you before you posted it. The last one is a mistake I will remember in the future.

Being a wannabe know-it-all, condescending douche isn't doing you any favors in this argument. 

18 hours ago, Tornado said:

Actually read and attempt to understand what is being said to you before you fly off the Nintendo fanboy handle; or at the very least try and reconcile the arguments you were making when you started to the ones you're trying to make now.

"Yeah! I'll call him a fanboy! That'll teach him!"

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't partake in childish console wars or fanboyism. I'm happy Nintendo is doing well, I love their games and I want to see more of them.  I have the exact same feeling towards Sony's PlayStation brand and I love my newly bought gaming PC. Nice try, though. Good to know what hilarious lows you'll go to when someone disagrees with you, though. How about you do some actual research and critical thinking before you go off on an angry, defensive rant on an internet message board?

 

Anyway, this is getting out of hand. I'll stop here because this is devolving into nothing but insults. Sorry for derailing the topic, mods. 

 

Looks Super Good. 

[Tornado]

On 05/26/2017 at 3:12 PM, Zippo said:

Lmao. Pot is calling the kettle black. Cute. You paraphrased a quote that didn't even exist and now are trying to get on my case for summing up the story.

No, I'm getting on your case for misrepresenting things that I said repeatedly because you keep posting things as proof that you don't understand and have thrown a fit when called on it even slightly.

 

Quote

No one is flying off the handle here except for you. LOL. I could not care less if a corporate entity is criticized. Nice projecting, though. I obviously struck a nerve. 

So you're not attempting to blindly defend Nintendo. You just arguing against concepts you don't understand. I already knew that, which I guess is... better?

 

 

It certainly makes your initial and immediate response to assume I was calling it bad news even more odd, though.

 

Quote

What? He even says that he can't give hard numbers, they're extremely pleased with how it's doing.

Yes. Across the board. Not just hardware. Software. Accessories. All of them the best they've been in a long time. The first time in a long time. The "long time" referring to, likely, the Wii's launch or the PS2's launch. That "long time" is what I was talking about when saying whether something is unprecedented.

Quote

Then why don't you look it up? Because you know there's a possibility that your theory is wrong? Lol.

Because you're having such basic trouble understanding basic concepts that there is no point. I could dig up news articles from 2006 and 2000 on the Internet and post them and you would presumably ignore them just like you did Nintendo's financial statements that took 10 seconds to find.

 

Quote

This is straight up laughable. You said Nintendo had more Switches produced than Wiis. Your claim was false. I posted hard facts that proved otherwise, and now you're trying to worm your way out of it. Get off of your self-righteous high horse, it's embarrassing. 

Your hard facts were Nintendo saying in September of 2006 that they will have 800,000 more Wii units available through December 31st than they actually were able to sell according to their own financial information, even though the Wii was basically not available to purchase from launch through March of 2007.

Your hard facts were Nintendo saying 6 months before the console came out that they would sell 700,000 fewer Switches than they actually sold throughout March 31st according to their own financial information, even though the Switch is supposedly "even more supply constrained" than the Wii.

800,000 fewer Wiis than planned even though they didn't have nearly as many as needed and even though they staggered the launch and had a longer period to supply them. 700,000 more Switches than planned even though they didn't have nearly as many as needed and needed them worldwide.

 

 

That a 1.5 million unit swing in how many Nintendo projected versus how many they produced is lost on you is no one's problem but your own.

Quote

Lmao this is how i know you didn't even properly read what i said, we know for a fact that the Switch had a better launch, and I proved that it was even more supply constrained due to less shipments. This is a non-argument. 

I think the saddest thing here isn't that you think that there were Wiis just sitting around on store shelves in 2006 compared to the Switch's current situation. It isn't even that you don't understand why you are arguing the opposite thing from what you were arguing earlier. It's that you legitimately cannot grasp the difference between what a company thinks they can have to sell for an item well before the item comes out and the amount that they actually managed to produce and sell in the allotted time.

 

Quote

How about you do some actual research and critical thinking before you go off on an angry, defensive rant on an internet message board?

 

You don't even understand the difference between final sales numbers of hugely supply constrained items and corporate sales targets made months in advance, but you're lecturing on research and critical thinking?

 

 

You literally have not comprehended a single thing you've read since I tried to explain that you also didn't fully understand what the first link you posted was talking about. Yes, the Switch is doing good. Yes, it has supposedly sold better than any other console Nintendo has made. No, the situation Nintendo has with the Switch is not unprecedented at all, meaning the demand that the system has on the market and what the Gamestop article was talking about and what you originally were talking about; and the only reason the Switch is doing better because Nintendo has been able to make more. This is literally basic economics.

Sit down and fucking think for just a second. There were not enough Wiis to go around in 2006 anywhere. Nintendo still failed to meet Wii sales targets by 800,000 units.  There have not been enough Switches to go around in 2017 anywhere. Nintendo exceeded sales targets by 700,000 units of the Switch. Nintendo only had to sell < 500,000 Switches in two weeks worldwide against overwhelming demand to outsell the Wii's sales in a staggered launch against similarly overwhelming demand.

[Zippo]

On 5/27/2017 at 9:51 AM, Tornado said:

No, I'm getting on your case for misrepresenting things that I said repeatedly because you keep posting things as proof that you don't understand and have thrown a fit when called on it even slightly.

 

Cute, I'm the one misrepresenting things, yet you haven't brought up a single piece of substantial evidence to back up your faulty logic and even faultier arguments.

On 5/27/2017 at 9:51 AM, Tornado said:

So you're not attempting to blindly defend Nintendo. You just arguing against concepts you don't understand. I already knew that, which I guess is... better?

It certainly makes your initial and immediate response to assume I was calling it bad news even more odd, though.

 

Of course I'm not, use your fucking head.  I'm not an idiotic corporate apologist, and I have no desire to be one. Your fanboy persecution complex is beyond immature. No one ever said anything about it being bad news. I don't know how it would even ne possible to spin it into bad news. You flipped a lid because omeonene dared to question your interpretation of his comments. You desperately need to get off your pseudo-intellectual hype train. It is beyond sad to watch. Regardless of what you like to think, your opinion of these events is not a fact. 

On 5/27/2017 at 9:51 AM, Tornado said:

Yes. Across the board. Not just hardware. Software. Accessories. All of them the best they've been in a long time. The first time in a long time. The "long time" referring to, likely, the Wii's launch or the PS2's launch. That "long time" is what I was talking about when saying whether something is unprecedented.

 

Do you have any evidence in the article itself to support this other than your own assumptions? Oh? What's that? None? Oh, okay, gotcha. What you can't seem to get through your thick skull is that there is no clear answer given in the article. But no, "My theory has gotta be right! Gotta prove him wrong!"

On 5/27/2017 at 9:51 AM, Tornado said:

Because you're having such basic trouble understanding basic concepts that there is no point. I could dig up news articles from 2006 and 2000 on the Internet and post them and you would presumably ignore them just like you did Nintendo's financial statements that took 10 seconds to find.

Your hard facts were Nintendo saying in September of 2006 that they will have 800,000 more Wii units available through December 31st than they actually were able to sell according to their own financial information, even though the Wii was basically not available to purchase from launch through March of 2007.

You got called out for making up your own facts, yet you have the nerve to accuse me of not understanding numbers. "Switch produced more because i said it did!" LMAO. I hope you aren't trying to imply the Switch's sales situation is any different at the moment. The thing is impossible to find just about anywhere. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised you said something that ridiculous, given how we're talking about someone as daft and self-righteous as you.

 

On 5/27/2017 at 9:51 AM, Tornado said:

Your hard facts were Nintendo saying 6 months before the console came out that they would sell 700,000 fewer Switches than they actually sold throughout March 31st according to their own financial information, even though the Switch is supposedly "even more supply constrained" than the Wii.

800,000 fewer Wiis than planned even though they didn't have nearly as many as needed and even though they staggered the launch and had a longer period to supply them. 700,000 more Switches than planned even though they didn't have nearly as many as needed and needed them worldwide.

That a 1.5 million unit swing in how many Nintendo projected versus how many they produced is lost on you is no one's problem but your own.

Except literally NOTHING I posted has been incorrect. I posted article after article proving that your jargon was just that, jargon. Just by the basis that they made HALF the amount of Switches means your long wall of text is meaningless. The fact that you can't even look at basic numbers and throw away your own assumptions proves that you don't have a fucking clue.  Also, i love how you conveniently ignored that your fanboy accusations were completely shut down. 

 

On 5/27/2017 at 9:51 AM, Tornado said:

I think the saddest thing here isn't that you think that there were Wiis just sitting around on store shelves in 2006 compared to the Switch's current situation.

I'm quoting this specifically because it needs to be pointed out how fucking stupid this sounds. No one here is arguing this. The Wii was sold out everywhere. We KNOW this. The Switch situation is at this point in time is no different. They can't make enough to keep up with demand.  You made this up in your head. 

 

On 5/27/2017 at 9:51 AM, Tornado said:

You don't even understand the difference between final sales numbers of hugely supply constrained items and corporate sales targets made months in advance, but you're lecturing on research and critical thinking?

You literally have not comprehended a single thing you've read since I tried to explain that you also didn't fully understand what the first link you posted was talking about. Yes, the Switch is doing good. Yes, it has supposedly sold better than any other console Nintendo has made. No, the situation Nintendo has with the Switch is not unprecedented at all, meaning the demand that the system has on the market and what the Gamestop article was talking about and what you originally were talking about; and the only reason the Switch is doing better because Nintendo has been able to make more. This is literally basic economics.

 

This is just as stupid. There is not a single thing that suggests the Switch or Wii had their projections changed. What YOU argued is that there were more Switches made than Wiis in the same time period. It couldn't be less further from the truth, and until you have proof that says otherwise, all of that shit you wrote up is NONSENSE. Just by the fact that that it is the fastest selling Nintendo console at this moment in time and that it has had THE BEST Nintendo console launch in the company's history is what i clearly said is unprecedented. NOTHING there is the opposite of what I said.  Do you even have a basic understanding of what that word means? You made your own assumptions about the gamestop article and you paraded them as fact. Until you can prove that your "theory" has actual weight to it, then your non-arguments and fundamental lack of research will continue to make you look beyond silly. Too bad that it's not going to happen.

[Zippo]

I'm extremely tired of arguing the merits of supply and demand with you, Tornado, it's tiring to argue on and on a forum like this, and I apologize to you and the other mods for having to deal with this. My tone was rude and the debate was unnecessarily heated and while I disagree with many of your points, that has nothing to do with a general lack of respect and empathy.  E3 is literally next week, and the forum should be in total unconstrained excitement, not arguing over how successful a console is. I'm extremely happy the Switch is a big success right now, Nintendo makes the absolute best games on the planet, in my opinion, and I think they deserve to be rewarded for it. Mods, please feel free to hide my posts if that cleans up the forum from drama. Thank you. 

[Zippo]

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1382334

Square Enix just announced Lost Sphear for Switch. Coming from the developers of I Am Setsuna. 

Square is definitely giving the system good support. Much different than Gamecube, Wii and Wii U. 

[Tornado]

10 hours ago, Zippo said:

Just by the basis that they made HALF the amount of Switches

2.7 million Switches sold according to Nintendo by financial year 2017.

3.2 million Wiis sold according to Nintendo by calendar year 2006.

 

 

"HALF the amount of Switches"

"HALF the amount"

"HALF"

[Zippo]

So uhhhhhh...Smash Bros. For Switch may have just leaked..

https://m.imgur.com/QOlB61K

https://m.imgur.com/QOlB61K?r

[Agie]

I actually got to see the Switch in action a couple of days ago. It looks like a neat little machine with a lot of potential.

But for me, there's not much incentive for me to get one right now. I'm not saying there won't ever be any incentive, because I'm sure there will be (and heck, I honestly think there should be more games on it). And when that time comes, I'll put more serious thought into snagging one.

I'm excited for Splatoon 2. I'm optimistic for ARMS. I'm also hopeful for Super Mario Odyssey and a few othe games.

But the facts are, those games aren't out yet. Most of the games I'm seeing right now are ports of games I can get on hardware I own right now. I'm sure the situation will change soon enough, but for now, at least, I'm probably smarter just waiting a bit longer.

Not to mention I'm not really a Zelda fan...but even if I was, I could get the Wii U version of Breath of the Wild and it'd probably be good enough for me. I'm aware it doesn't run as well as the Switch release, but I hear it still runs pretty well, and frankly, the improvements aren't getting a whole other system for.

I'm aware they stopped manufacturing Wii Us. I can see why these Wii U ports are selling on the Switch; a lot of people didn't get a Wii U, and since they're no longer being manufactured, the Switch releases are the only viable option for a lot of people. And being fair, they're also the best versions.

But for me, on a personal level, as someone who does own a Wii U, and a few other consoles, simply getting the best version isn't enough incentive for me. But that said, it's probably enough incentive for me to at least hold off on getting some games until I do get a Switch (which will be when it has more exclusives).

Basically, I'm not seriously considering it right now, but even a little bit down the line, I'm confident it'll be worth it. The machine's got a lot of potential, and I have nothing but confidence it'll be worth snagging around the Holiday season, if no other time in the year. But as things stand, it's little more than a curiosity for me.

[Zippo]

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qQCKqvABLuMJ:https://e3.nintendo.com/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

NeoGAF user Angry Chair did some digging into Nintendo's E3 Site source code and found these. Brand new renders of Splatoon and Arms characters:

Not only that, but he also found this render in code as well:

This render comes from Mario Sports Mix. This definitely isn't there by accident, going by this small leak, it looks like there's going to be a new Mario Sports Mix game announced, or an enhanced port. 

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

Site for Online services is live! coming 2018

http://www.nintendo.com/switch/online-service/

official pricing 1 month: $4, 3 months $8, and 12 months $20. which is solid

also includes a game compilation with online capable classics

Quote

Classic Game Selection*

Subscribers will get to download a compilation of classic titles with added online play, such as Super Mario Bros. 3, Balloon Fight and Dr. Mario.

 

[Zippo]

20 dollars a year? Online is free until 2018?

I'll gladly fucking take it. 

Also, they're getting this out of the way now so that there's no time devoted to it at E3. It's gonna be all about the games. 

[ProfessorZolo]

So that's, like, £15 or so? Pretty reasonable, given how much use I think most of us will get out of things like Splatoon.

Interesting wording there too. "Most" games will require a subscription to play online, but not necessarily all of them? Not to mention this "compilation" of classic games. Didn't they say that it'd be a separate downloadable classic per month? This kinda indicates you'll have access to all available games at once.

[Zippo]

NETFLIX STYLE SERVICE CONFIRMED

This is sounding better and better. 

[Blacklightning]

I still don't like the thought of paying a subscription fee for what is basically a Virtual Console, and I've yet to see anyone do online play competently through emulations, but I guess if it's innately tied into online play in general as a single service I guess I can't complain? All things considered that's a pretty neat compromise.

[MegasonicZX]

I wonder if the fact that they're delaying it means that their putting more work into stabilizing it for when it becomes free since I've heard a couple of people mention how unstable it is right now.

[Rusty Spy]

48 minutes ago, Mando-Whirl-Wind said:

Classic Game Selection*

Subscribers will get to download a compilation of classic titles with added online play, such as Super Mario Bros. 3, Balloon Fight and Dr. Mario.

You know what, I'm gonna say it, why the fuck is Nintendo still allowed to peddle 30 year old NES games as an "incentive" when A) These games have been available on Nintendo's Virtual Consoles since the Wii and B] I can go online and emulate these games faster than it takes for me to type this post

Lets be frank here, NES and SNES games just aren't worth much anymore. Certainly not worth $20/year to use their online service. Why can't we get some Gamecube games for the subscription? They've already kneecapped backwards compatibility on their consoles and haven't had the decency to release them on Virtual Console. The least they can do is give me a reason to want to give them MORE money for a service that for all intents and purposes, is not worth the price of admission by itself, let alone one that's dependent on the quality of multiplayer games.

PSN and Xbox at least offer a pretty generous selection of both old and new games, AAA and indie alike. No one would argue that the value that they offer isn't far greater than the price they're charging. 2 or 3 Gamecube or N64 games a month hardly seems unreasonable.

[Meta77]

20 dollars is cheap. if someone honestly can not pay that they really shouldnt be buying a system and games to begin with.

[PC the Hedgehog]

Indie darling Indivisible is coming to Swtich.

[Marcello]

Should've stayed free or been at most half that. A few NES games aren't a great incentive. Maybe when they start adding games that are actually worth it. And even though it won't affect me, they shouldn't shove all the features on to smartphones.

All I want to do is trade Pokémon. I don't want to have to pay an additional €20-€25 (With Pokémon Bank) to do so.

1 hour ago, Meta77 said:

20 dollars is cheap. if someone honestly can not pay that they really shouldnt be buying a system and games to begin with.

Please give me more of your wise knowledge on how people should spend their money.

[DiamondX]

Still not liking the idea of paying for online, but I guess 20 dollars for a year is ok. Hopefully we get to hear the european prices soon.

But seriously, NES and SNES Games? I don't know about Xbox Gold, but PS+ gives more recent games. 

[Meta77]

19 minutes ago, Marcello said:

Should've stayed free or been at most half that. A few NES games aren't a great incentive. Maybe when they start adding games that are actually worth it. And even though it won't affect me, they shouldn't shove all the features on to smartphones.

All I want to do is trade Pokémon. I don't want to have to pay an additional €20-€25 (With Pokémon Bank) to do so.

Please give me more of your wise knowledge on how people should spend their money.

Ok. It's Nintendo's system and they can charge whatever the hell they want. Hell I was ready to pay 40. I say good for you Nintendo. Stick to your guns

1 hour ago, PC the Hedgehog said:

Indie darling Indivisible is coming to Swtich.

Hmmmm mmm can't wait

[Zippo]

Now that Pokemon Stars is confirmed to not be a real thing, I predict Retro Studios' new game will be out during the holiday, along with Mario.  Calling it now. 

[Marcello]

That's quite the leap you made lol