Beat the big bird so now got what seems like a ridiculously good ability to get around easier. I should probably look for the Master Sword but can’t seem to pinpoint the forest they’re mentioning.
@Ralizah I actually instantly found the forest because I was heading towards the last tower and it happened to be in that area! And yep, did notice the framerate tank as soon as it showed me the sword. I’m only on 11 hearts though so can’t grab it for now, I put more orbs into my stamina so far 😅
@nessisonett It sounds like you're done with two of the divine beasts and a decent chunk of the shrines, so how are you feeling about the game overall at the moment?
Who is your favorite character, and why is it Prince Sidon?
Currently Playing: Fields of Mistria (PC); Cookie Clicker (PC); Metaphor: ReFantazio (PC); Overboard! (PC)
@Ralizah It’s the sort of game that I would describe as ‘hyperfocus or die’. Everyone’s experiences with ADHD are different but I find that a game which dumps you in an open world with minimal handholding can go one of two ways. Either I completely fixate on it to the point that I methodically clear swathes of the map at a time… or I completely switch off and the game eludes me. It took a couple attempts for BotW to stick but I absolutely get it now, the tools they give you essentially turn it into a physics sandbox and the million little systems all feed into each other perfectly. Weapon degradation isn’t a big issue for me really, once I got my head around not holding onto weapons for no reason. The fun seems to be in the fact that exploring is rewarded almost 100% of the time, similar to my thoughts on Elden Ring, another game that I fixated on to the point of sinking like 60 hours into in a couple of weeks.
Sidon is definitely a highlight to be fair, especially his specific brand of incredibly humble guy that you would expect to be cockier. The plot in general is pretty good actually, with the divine beasts being surprisingly poignant. I do need to find more memories to grasp the flashbacks a bit more though, Zelda’s still a bit of an anomaly. I keep finding things that make me smile outside of the main plot instead, I had no clue that Outset Island was in this game!
@nessisonett That explains the different reactions to the game between when you first played it and now.
I think I also cleared 80 hours of Elden Ring in, like, three weeks. It was fun. I really, really like this style of open world game design. I have issues with ER that keep me from embracing it as fully as some people, but considering I effectively avoided all From Software games until Elden Ring, and then I liked Elden Ring enough to also beat Dark Souls, I'd say they succeeded pretty thoroughly if their goal was to pull in a wider audience.
I've maintained before that I think BotW has a pretty decent story if you factor in the memories and whatnot. The flashbacks do a solid job of fleshing out the princess, IMO, so I do think they're worth tracking down. Also, tracking them all down leads to a somewhat more fleshed out ending to the game.
Sidon is so positive and wholesome that he's easy to simp for. Apparently I was fairly transparent about it, as someone even got me a Sidon T-Shirt for my birthday one year lmao.
1) Nintendo doesn't need an "excuse" to price their products how they like. We are, after all, not talking about necessities, but entertainment. If Nintendo was selling Epipens, I'd feel differently, of course.
3) Pricing decisions are economic calculations. So no, I don't think Nintendo actually cares about prioritizing the preservation of value of the product for launch purchasers, because pricing decisions always come back to profit and sales forecasts. Their strategy does, however, have the added benefit of being more beneficial to people who buy at launch, who also tend to be their most loyal fans
1) They don't need an excuse, but that still doesn't make it right or even fair really. Nor do I believe they should be defended for it like you have in the past and today for the most part.
2) Of course not, but with Nintendo, it's pointless as you're still going to pay $60 most of the time for a Nintendo published title for the life of the Switch.
3) But it still completely screws anybody who didn't buy a Switch anywhere near launch. You can't tell me it's even remotely fair to anybody that they still would have to pay $60 for games like Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey, or even games like Astral Chain or anything that isn't even remotely new.
So, to be clear, when you've seen me complain about Sony's $70 games, that wasn't me saying: "shame, shame on Sony!" I don't think there's anything morally condemnable about (successfully) attempting to raise the base MSRP. Is it greedy? Absolutely. So is everything Nintendo does. Ditto with Microsoft. They're corporations. They're machines designed to generate a profit, not your friends. What I was saying is that I dislike the effect they were (successfully) attempting to have on the market, because, as someone who primarily buys games I want at launch, a higher MSRP isn't beneficial to me. But I wouldn't attach any sort of moral element to that. I don't think Playstation execs are terrible people for normalizing the $70 MSRP, if that makes sense.
The part about Sony being criticized for being greedy was just in general, not aimed at you specifically. Honestly, I buy several 1st party PlayStation titles at launch because I really want them right away as long as I am able to play it right away. An exclusive from them has been a sort of event for a while now, but unlike some games, I find them generally worth the price. It is also different since I've had a PS5 since 6 months or so after launch, not 5 years later like the Switch. It is mainly 3rd party PS5 titles that I wait on, but regardless, the option is there for everybody, while it is not there at all for Nintendo fans. Sure, that doesn't matter if you buy at launch, but at some point there should be some sort of a cutoff when there are 10's of millions of people that have bought a Switch well after games should have started their price slide.
To keep this from getting way too long, I'll just condense the rest into a final paragraph. I took offense because you gave the impression that you think value preservation is more important than being reasonable to a consumer such as myself that bought a Switch 5 years into it's life cycle. If you still have a 6 year old game now, you probably wouldn't be selling it anyways. The vouchers are a decent idea, but that's also locked into a paid subscription. Gold coins are ok, but you are still talking about being forced to use them for old $60 games. Try not to ignore the millions of people that don't buy games at launch.
@KilloWertz To be fair, it took Demon Souls here on PS5 almost two years to hit £50, the price of most Nintendo games. And that was only in a sale, that seems rather infrequent. Sony seems very intent on keeping those £70 (That's nearly $90) prices high for the generation with intermittent sales that dont go too deep.
And sure you can argue retail, but guess what schmuck bought a digital PS5.
Now Playing: Mario & Luigi Brothership, Sonic x Shadow Generations
Now Streaming: The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom
In terms of buying first party games on console, I actually think Nintendo might be the best value for money. If you exclude the subscription services, as there you don't own your games and if you exclude third party titles which they have less control of, rarely do any of them do genuinely deep sales, and if they do, it comes years and years after release.
Nintendo let you purchase their first party stuff at a deep discount on day one via the voucher system. On the flip they are also the least likely to ever discount their games at all, but if valuing owning titles on launch, the Switch is the best value by far. It is basically 40 quid for a title on the Switch forever with the vouchers, versus like say a PS5 game which might launch at 60 quid (or I guess 70 these days) and will hold that price for probably two or three years, maybe longer, before going into a brief sale. But you also have no control over this, and it may not even happen, whereas the Switch gives you the control over this purchasing decision.
@KilloWertz “You can't tell me it's even remotely fair to anybody that they still would have to pay $60 for games like Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey, or even games like Astral Chain or anything that isn't even remotely new.”
How is this an issue of fairness/unfairness though? It seems you have an expectation that isn’t being realised, based on what other companies decide to do, but it doesn’t mean Nintendo are being unfair to you. By that logic it’s unfair that Sony don’t put first party exclusives on PS+ from day one, as Microsoft do with Gamepass.
They don't need an excuse, but that still doesn't make it right or even fair really. Nor do I believe they should be defended for it like you have in the past and today for the most part.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or unfair with Nintendo not dropping the base prices on their games, full stop. It's an industry practice to boost demand and nothing more. There is no moral obligation whatsoever to drop prices.
And I'll defend anything I like if it makes sense to. shrug
Of course not, but with Nintendo, it's pointless as you're still going to pay $60 most of the time for a Nintendo published title for the life of the Switch.
You have options as a consumer. You can choose the buy the games new at $30/$40 down the line in sales (which apply to almost all Nintendo games eventually). You can buy them used to save money and cut Nintendo out of the loop. You can make use of the various 'buy 1 get 1 free' sort of deals that pop up online. Or you can choose not to buy them at all.
It's not like your only choice is to literally pay full price for any old Nintendo game.
If you keep an eye on sites like Deku Deals, twitter accounts like Wario 64, and subreddits like NintendoSwitchDeals, it's fairly easy to catch these.
I've literally never paid full price for a Nintendo game after launch, and I've purchased at least a few when they weren't in the launch window.
But it still completely screws anybody who didn't buy a Switch anywhere near launch. You can't tell me it's even remotely fair to anybody that they still would have to pay $60 for games like Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey, or even games like Astral Chain or anything that isn't even remotely new.
How does it screw over non-launch purchasers? It's not like the games will cost you more. If anything, it shouldn't be difficult to find pretty much anything not OOP around the $40 mark. Or, if you prefer digital, grab a set of vouchers with discounted eshop credit and voila!
There is no issue of fairness involved. Game pricing isn't, and never will be, an issue of 'fairness.' Just because other companies feel the need to devalue their products after launch by steeply dropping the price because they don't think demand will stay consistent doesn't put a moral onus on Nintendo to do the same.
I mean, personally, I think it sort of sucks that Sony's games are the only ones I HAVE to pay $70 for if I want to get them day one. All of Ninty's can be had for $50 or less at launch digitally. Instead, the 'benefits' of their strategy go to people who wait months or years to buy in. Does this mean Sony has an obligation to match Nintendo and Microsoft in offering more affordable day one software?
The part about Sony being criticized for being greedy was just in general, not aimed at you specifically. Honestly, I buy several 1st party PlayStation titles at launch because I really want them right away as long as I am able to play it right away. An exclusive from them has been a sort of event for a while now, but unlike some games, I find them generally worth the price. It is also different since I've had a PS5 since 6 months or so after launch, not 5 years later like the Switch. It is mainly 3rd party PS5 titles that I wait on, but regardless, the option is there for everybody, while it is not there at all for Nintendo fans. Sure, that doesn't matter if you buy at launch, but at some point there should be some sort of a cutoff when there are 10's of millions of people that have bought a Switch well after games should have started their price slide.
I know, but I've been critical of the MSRP price hike, and I wanted to make my own position clear. I think criticizing a gaming company for being "greedy" is like lambasting a zebra for having stripes.
I won't buy $70 base edition versions of games, but that's a personal decision, not one centered in any sort of moral conviction.
The thing is this: if sales of older games were sliding, Nintendo probably would either cut prices more or re-issue cheaper editions of their games (they still might, tbh). But they don't need to do that. Their games still sell insanely well years down the line on Switch. So prices stay high, and you have to rely on deals/the occasional sale to grab them for less.
To keep this from getting way too long, I'll just condense the rest into a final paragraph. I took offense because you gave the impression that you think value preservation is more important than being reasonable to a consumer such as myself that bought a Switch 5 years into it's life cycle. If you still have a 6 year old game now, you probably wouldn't be selling it anyways. The vouchers are a decent idea, but that's also locked into a paid subscription. Gold coins are ok, but you are still talking about being forced to use them for old $60 games. Try not to ignore the millions of people that don't buy games at launch.
Well, again, I don't run Nintendo, so those aren't my choices to make. I can only talk about how their choices impact me. And, as a launch purchaser (by and large), I find their approach to align the best with my purchasing habits. So, yes, I do defend them, because those practices are in my own self-interest, same as you criticize them for the same reason as someone not inclined to support them day one.
To go back to a previous example, should I start criticizing Sony for not offering launch window discount options? Is that an issue of "fairness?"
I don't think it is, but it's, frankly, just as valid an argument.
@Pizzamorg There is not a single game on the PS5 that won't be discounted at some point, and they eventually stay discounted, as a Switch game is briefly and then goes right back to $60. Keep in mind I am just talking about Nintendo published titles, as obviously 3rd party titles are part of sales a lot of times on all consoles. It also took Nintendo 5 years to introduce the voucher system that is locked behind a subscription service, but you aren't wrong. At this point, I'll be bowing out of this conversation as it's exactly why I hate getting involved in arguments. While I do think I made valid points, this is going nowhere, so moving on...
@kyleforrester87 Point taken about PS Plus and Game Pass, and sure it is an expectation, but at the same time it still sucks regardless to have to pay $60 for extremely old titles in comparison. How you view it doesn't change that fact, but again, I'm obviously wrong even though that's technically a different thing. This is about purchasing 1st party Nintendo titles vs. other companies' 1st party titles, not about subscription services.
I'm not trying to be one of these people that keeps going and gets himself ignored by a bunch of people and banned, and (like I said above) I hate getting into arguments on here in the first place, so I'll be bowing out. I hate the fact that Nintendo gets defended for anti-consumer pricing while others get criticized for it, which is why this started, but oh well.
@Ralizah No, they aren't obligated to, but it's still ridiculous regardless. It's your choice to defend it, and obviously this is going nowhere.
Nintendo first party titles rarely ever were on sale digitally up until the voucher system that is locked behind a subscription service was introduced 5 years into the life cycle. Physically most stay discounted on other platforms instead of having to sit there and hope that something goes on sale briefly.
As I said above, I don't like arguing on here in the first place, so I'll be bowing out. I know I am leaving other parts of the conversation untouched, but oh well as I don't feel like responding to this any more than I already have. I don't want to continue and get to the point where I get ignored, so I'll just leave it at that and let it die. I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree and shutup.
Adding onto my previous post above, without tagging anybody as this is for everybody in general...
Nintendo pricing is a touchy subject for me. We all can do whatever we want, and at the end of the day it’s about gaming and having fun. Sorry if this went too far, and obviously it’s better that the argument is over. Like I said, I never enjoy getting into these in the first place as I care more about enjoying my games and talking about that.
PSN ID/Xbox Live Gamertag: KilloWertz
Switch Friend Code: SW-6448-2688-7386
@KilloWertz I don't think it's about you being being right or wrong, it's just about what works for you. Point being, you shouldn't take offence to someone having a different view on the subject, is all.
I actually did forget the vouchers are locked behind NSO. That is a fair point. However, compared to PS Plus and Gamepass, NSO is relatively inexpensive right? Especially when you think you are effectively getting 100+ quids worth of games for 80 (or under depending on accumulated coins) quid every time. I think it is still balances, but obviously everyone's finances are unique.
That's because you have an expectation created by how other companies operate. And that's fine, as far as that goes, but your argument can essentially be reduced to "Nintendo's practices are bad because they don't align with Sony's." It's a statement of preference and nothing more. Whereas I think it's "bad" that Sony doesn't offer either the option of launch day discounts on their games (Nintendo) or put their games up on subscription day one (Microsoft). But, you know, that's my own issue. I'd never say Sony not offering games cheaper at launch is a matter of fairness.
I feel the same way about the online sub, btw. I think it sucks how expensive it is to access online gameplay on PS+, even if the service is technically 'better.' I'd rather pay $20 for NSO than $50, or whatever it is now, for PS+. But it's, again, not an issue of fairness.
The voucher system actually isn't new. It was there in NA very early in the Switch life-cycle, but was pulled until recently because Nintendo of America is probably the worst major branch of the company and frequently makes dumb and shortsighted decisions. Nintendo of Europe has, I believe, always had the voucher system in place since it first launched. Regardless, my point stands: you can fairly easily find the games for less than MSRP if you pay attention to sales and online deals.
Why would I put you on ignore? Obviously I don't agree with your position on this matter, but that's hardly a reason to stop talking to you. I don't like arguments either, but, I guess, I don't really think of myself as arguing right now, just having a discussion. shrug Feel free to terminate the exchange if that's your wish, but don't let 'not wanting to be ignored' be your reason. IMO the regulars around here are pretty reasonable. We can have disagreements and still be good.
Currently Playing: Fields of Mistria (PC); Cookie Clicker (PC); Metaphor: ReFantazio (PC); Overboard! (PC)
@Kidfried
In my opinion, XBOX Series have nothing to offer for me.
No 1st party kids games like Nintendo, Game Pass idea that I never like them, 99.99% identical 3rd party multi console games with other consoles so I clearly see nothing special from XBOX Series.
I definitely choose PS4 & PS5 for my premium consoles for playing 3rd party kids games with better performance, Switch is for Nintendo stuffs and exclusive 3rd party on Switch.
Both of them offered me something.
@Kidfried
Oh, btw.
About PS4 / PS5 games.
Since I only play kids games, it has benefit for me as the kids games I wanted to play are mostly pretty cheap so I can get more PS4 / PS5 games to collect and play.
The pricey PS4 / PS5 games only happened on bigger or AAA titles, but since I don't even play them, it has no effect for me.
Forums
Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--
Posts 6,721 to 6,740 of 7,209
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic