AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Called it. Knew something was up.

Well, here was to hoping I could play social video games on a Nintendo console again... *sigh*

I dont believe in the Paid Online Philosophy, not after getting burned by it several times in other places. And I wont invest in any console that does it either. Guess Im pirating from now on :/

On the plus side at least the paid online features are mostly just in-game shenanigans. I've played many games that have had online stuff available and never used it... buuuuuuuut that was also years ago, since then I realize that I rely on Wi-Fi stuff a lot. The only games where I didn't use online PvP (or what could be filed under the Switch premium stuff) that I can remember were Fire Emblem Fatesand Xenoblade Chronicles X, a whopping 2 games.
However, as mentioned by many others before, the Switch does have some games that look super cool without any online junk, like Zelda: BotW and Mariodyssey. Not to mention the Switch presentation focused a lot on things involving local multiplayer. ESPECIALLY don't forget that the Switch can also hook up some respectable local play with just one system; I find that pretty cool.
I still heavily despise paid online but after thinking about it for a bit it's not as bad as I thought it was.
I mean, it's still TERRIBLE, but not quite as bad as it would be for, say, the Wii U.
But now what if a mainstream Cockfighting Society game comes to switch? Yeesh, that'll be a whole new kind of hassle...

EDIT: Also, paid online might be a BIG problem for Splatoon 2. At this point I'm in serious speculation territory, but if the game isn't really good then I have a hunch it might have trouble, which would be just sad.

Finished paying off my last car and was finally brought up to parity with what I was supposed to get paid after working where I have for almost a decade since I was hired in at under what the current minimum wage is, so until my student loans and/or medical bills show up, just my health insurance.

Also, march, so tax rebates.

I personally don't mind the subscription.

I pretty much exclusively play Single-player anyway. :p

I get plenty enough play-time on my PS4 without PS+, I'm certain I can handle it on Nintendo consoles.

That's my thing, how many games will use online multiplayer on the Switch anyway? Splatoon 2, which I'll admit is a big deal for people, but what else? Fifa?

It's still a dumb move don't get me wrong. I'm trying to wrap my head around why anyone would pay to go online at all.

Look, here's the deal about online services: There needs to be serious cheddar put into them for them to be viable, fully-featured, and stable. Online subscription fees don't go straight into an executive's pocket. Xbox Live charged a subscription right out of the gate, and today it's a solid online service. I doubt that a lot of the current services on PSN for the PS4 would exist if they didn't start the optional PS+ back in 2010. They made it mandatory for the PS4 which seemed like a stab in the back, but Sony now has an install base of over 50 million PS4s (and still quite a lot of PS3s) at this point; the cheddar to keep PSN and all its features running with a sizable chunk of that userbase playing online and using those features has to come from somewhere. Steam was garbage at first, but as they started gaining revenue from the cut they got from every transaction on the service, Valve was able to build Steam out into what it is today. Valve prints cheddar now with Steam, and Microsoft and Sony may get a share of the revenue from sales on their services, but physical retail games still existing puts a dent in the amount of cash they can take in that way.

Nintendo wants to build out a real online service, so they decide to start charging a subscription fee to make that happen. The only problem is that they can't stop doing ridiculous crap and decided to tie all of that to a smartphone app, including voice chat. Reggie tries to use horrible excuses like "Instead of having some sort of bulky gamer headset, you’ll be able to do it right off your smartphone, put in your earbuds that you use for your standard mobile device. We think that’s a pretty sweet solution." The "Bulky Gamer Headset" I use on my Xbone is actually quite comfortable, thank you very much. And it lets me hear both the game and my Party Chat at the same time! Will the Switch do some Bluetooth/wifi finagling so you can hear both the game audio and your chat audio through your headphones? As well, wouldn't it make sense to just use a "Bulky Gamer Headset" with the 3.5mm jack most phones still have (and leaves iPhone 7 users high and dry with only expensive alternatives)? A phone app might be more reliable while roaming out and about with the Switch, but that's no excuse for tying everything to the app even while your sitting on the couch at home.

Not entirely sure, but weren't most of Nintendo's games running P2P lobbies anyways? Someone would make the lobby and everyone would daisychain through it. Which is why international Splatoon matches were horrendous at times because the signal was only as strong as the weakest link in the chain.

Granted, Nintendo doesn't exactly create confidence in online considering how spotty their record has been on understanding the need to create a stable environment, but things like Pokemon Bank have worked out well with no data loss (since as Game Freak put it, charging for a service and drawing revenue means that a service needs management, upkeep, and is much more safe from being dismantled by higher ups), and assuming we don't get anyone pushing "online always" crap (either Nintendo or third party), I don't exactly have a problem with paid online either, though I hope all the backlash this is receiving gets through to Nintendo to be more proactive in selling people on this and providing actual benefits. For a company sitting on over 700 Virtual Console games, the fact that they think giving you 1 NES or SNES game to rent for a month as a "bonus" is pretty dumb. Do a Playstation and give people like, two fixed games a month for their subscription, it'd still take 4 years to give them even close to 1/7th your library. Or give people like 2 VC vouchers and maybe have N64 games cost 2 VC vouchers, etc. Also "discounts" sounds promising, but considering they went from the Digital Deluxe Program where you got 10% back on every digital purchase to whatever the hell excuse of a discount system they're calling My Nintendo Rewards, I'm not sure it'll be anything of inherent value to people.

They ARE adding online multiplayer to some NES and SNES games, but right now I feel like that will be something like 3D Classics where it'll be a novel idea, get maybe a dozen games on board, and be dropped without discussing it again.



Nintendo was a holdout in a market where a lot of that kind of shit became the norm. Hell before the 3DS DLC in a main Nintendo game, partly because it'd require internet that wasn't booty, but when a ton of devs constantly spoke out against DLC as manipulative and greedy and against the values developers should uphold, you get the feeling that Nintendo did it begrudgingly. Now DLC, day one patches (at least for third parties), and paid online are Things in the console side of the industry and Nintendo is the last horse in the stable. Regardless of how we feel about it, paid online makes companies cheddar, and Nintendo is still a company first and foremost with a lot of ground to make up and a lot of industry growing pains to continue through that started with the Wii U.

Also, friend lists will likely be useful in the same way they were useful on the 3DS, especially for Pokemon games. Connecting to other friends easily in games without having to sort through any random people who might be in the area (especially at crowded game oriented places).


Considering what other consoles cost at launch and considering this is basically a better system than Wii U in performance and overall specs for the same cost as the basic version of that console launched, it's pretty cheap as far as consoles go.

Video games were never really an inexpensive market, especially with new doodads.



I do not see them making it that expensive when the competition charges $5 a month for service, and for Sony that covering 3 consoles at once. They haven't discussed pricing which possibly means anything from "it's still being negociated" to "It's not even happening for more than 6 months, why discuss it right now?". Ultimately we don't know the price, and everything is still subject to change, even the perks and structure of what they're offering, but I believe they'd really be foolish if they went further than $5 a month, especially without a "buy a year in advance for a discount" option for the people who will inevitably ask for a sub for christmas (like my brother does with Xbox Live).



Right now Nintendo needs to sell the console. While paid online is a thing that is going to happen down the line and is a concern to consumers, what Nintendo needs is a good launch that's sustained until the holidays when the real sales outside of launch are going to come in. They need just enough consumer confidence and teasing to make people bite early so that sales figures convince devs to come to Nintendo, without being outright disingenuous to consumers. It's good that Nintendo is open about their expectations with online rather than saying at E3 "BTW, online will be paid only in 3 months". Imagine the shitstorm from that? But right now free online for the first 6 months coinciding with the launch of Splatoon 2 in the summer means enticing people to buy to console now rather than later, which is good for Nintendo. Not necessarily consumers.

And as far as paid online being a thing now when it didn't use to be, the game industry is a place of changes. Carts used to be the best media to use before CD, CD used to be the best media afterwards until cart prices plummeted and capacity skyrocketed (and carts don't use up the power that a CD uses). Games used to cost less (in the later 90's at least, earlier shit was expensive as hell). Things change and it's not entirely good or bad, but relying on "this is how it's been for X time" is what got Nintendo into some shit with the N64. And Sony causing the PSP to flop from insisting on disc when carts would have been more reasonable if a bit pricey at first. Good or bad, things necessarily change over time.


Considering a big criticism of Splatoon was that matches were online only without a decent 1 console multiplayer option, the move to allow local Splatoon matches on the Switch without setting up a LAN party is really cool. Considering this, this would mean there doesn't seem to be any games that REQUIRE online to play, which is definitely good for consumers, though potentially bad for sales of games that focus on online only multi (Star Wars Battlefront being notable).

But since people are used to online in regards to Splatoon and Mario Kart, I can see there being a bit of a war of attrition going on between them and paid online. If not enough people buy those games, then there will be fewer people willing to pay for online. And if fewer people are online, it'll convince people to drop their paid service and convince others without the game to not buy it if the game is dead anyways. They need both games to have a thriving online userbase at the time the paid online drops, and to hold steady in the transition while people continue to buy the games and feed into the online userbase. Because of local becomes the norm, and especially if third party games can't sell the online as well as Nintendo games can, either the games or online service sales are going to suffer from the existence of the other.

Also updates are going to be key to holding interest. Hopefully Splatoon continues the steady drip it did last time, but Mario Kart might need to get in on some extra free downloads too. New tracks or battle modes after launch would certainly help.

Some people would pay for online just for those two games, especially with more content releasing all the time, but I hope they're ready to offer a constant stream of games where online is useful without being cheap or unnecessary (or like, used once to download mystery gifts or something) to convince more people to sign up. Especially if people are likely to put down a game after a couple of months and not pick it up again for awhile if ever.



I'm still pretty sure the app is their way of externalizing the chat features which in turn takes away some responsibility on Nintendo's part for any unsavory stuff that happens with the app. Miiverse and Swapnote were disasters and considering even the Wii Speak and Pictochat of all things got critisized for inviting strangers to talk to children and allowed bullying, removing all of that from the console itself and requiring an external component like a smartphone (and I imagine it'll come to computers in some fashion aswell, at least for management) adds an layer of obfuscation to the process that will deter people (along with having to pay for the service), and reduces Nintendo's culpability. I mean hell, look at Miitomo where people can curse and friend people just because they friended a friend or followed/friended you somewhere once, and you'll see how free Nintendo gets on its more conservative values if it means someone else is taking care of the situation. I see the chat app as the same thing.

The fact that Miiverse is dying at the same time that Nintendo is adding a share button is strange to me though. Will you be able to send that through the chat app somehow?

Local multiplayer will never be viable for me; I have bodaciously 0 friends within a 50 mile radius that I can play games with. So in my case, if I ever want a taste of multiplayer or the chance to play a game with my friends I'll have to shell out the subscription fee--or else get only half of the 'full' gaming experience (can you imagine playing Splatoon or Mario Kart with ONLY AIs? All the time??).

Since I never had any local gamer friends, I've always been a more single-player game person. And I never had the cheddar (or willing parents) to pay for a subscription like PSN. Nintendo's free online services were my first chance to play and interact with real-life people while playing a video game and I had so much fun playing stuff like Smash Bros and Mario Kart and Pokemon with real people. I can see a lot of kids now being in the same scenario I used to be in--and those kids aren't going to be as willing to play Splatoon or Mario Kart if they know they'll never get the "full" experience. They'll spend their allowances on exclusively single-player games.

So maybe part of my objection to Nintendo's new subscription system comes from my experience as a kid. Shrug.

But ALSO, I was under the impression that the games people received for subscribing were going to be games that the person would actually OWN. Now we're hearing that Nintendo is only going to let people BORROW those games? They're going to loan paying customers a couple of ROMS and then take them back after their time is up? That's fucking ridiculous! And knowing Nintendo's shitty track record for porting their hundreds of vintage games, I wouldn't be surprised if they started recycling ROMS that they already 'loaned out' to people in the past instead of distributing roms of different games.

As a side note, I saw a list of projected prices for Switch accessories. Said prices were ALSO fucking ridiculous. Seventy dollars for extra controllers! The WiiU's pro controller was already what I'd consider "fucking expensive", costing just as much as an entirely new game. I know video games and accessories are expensive, but because Nintendo markets their console as a TOY, rather than a computer, a lot of people are going to expect cheaper prices.

(also, they're selling Skyrim for $60. Skyrim. A five-year-old game. Sixty bucks.)

Eliminating Miiverse was a dumb move too, imo. I feel like they're using their smartphone chat app to pass the buck instead of allocating time and resources into moderating the 'social network' they originally conceived. But hey, if a smartphone app will keep screeching brats out of the voice chat...bwahaha, you know that's not going to stop them. The kids who screech in voice chats are the same spoiled kids who got their very own smartphone for their sixth birthday.

Anyway, the only game I was truly excited about was Breath of the Wild, and I WAS considering purchasing the Switch to play it because Splatoon 2 looked fun and I was also anticipating a new Mario Kart...but now I think I'm going to wash my hands of the console entirely. Breath of the Wild is coming out on WiiU as well, so I'll get it on that and stay in my reclusive little hidey hole where I don't have to spend cheddar to borrow 20mb roms of Balloon Fighter.

EDIT: OH YEAH, and let's not forget that Nintendo is pulling the same supply shortage bullshit that they did with their amiibos and their NES plug n' play. I'm getting a little tired of seeing the same scenario: you rush to purchase your new Nintendo, oops sorry Nintendo is sold out, come back tomorrow three hours before the store opens if you want a chance to get it, oops sorry there's already a massive line of other people wanting to buy it, just go on ebay and buy it from some scalper asshole for triple the original price.

PSN is like that too, no? You have access to the games as long as you're subscribed. Kinda like Netflix.

For me growing up, things were the opposite. I had my brother to game with, along with friends and cousins and tons of people to interact with in person, so I preferred games with local multiplayer. My first few exposures with online were also not good. I didn't have Wi-fi or an open ethernet port on our old modem to do anything with, plus I wanted to go online with the DS for things like Pokemon and Animal Crossing and you needed Wi-fi for that. I ended up buying that official Nintendo USB dongle thing that broadcast Wi-fi for you. It worked okay for one day, but the next morning I think Dad snapped it out of the computer, breaking it, and it wasn't something I could really replace with the cheddar I had. At least I already downloaded Paper Mario which was like, the thing I was most eager to do since my N64 cart was corroded from the previous owner. But ultimately I never really grew up thinking online was "necessary" to the gaming experience, personally. I had fun doing single player campaigns. I enjoyed playing games with friends in person. Online could be fun, like hell I've wondertraded thousands of Pokemon to pass the time and think it's a genuinely interesting feature in the newer games, I loved inviting friends over to my town and going on island trips in Animal Crossing, and Splatoon is fun as hell. But in all those cases I still felt it would be more fun if I did those things offline. Imagine wondertrading in a packed room of people at a convention or Pokemon tournament, and you can already invite people into your town locally though I never got the chance since everyone dropped the game by the time school started up again. And I'm loving that Splatoon is going local multiplayer because I was constantly trying to set up LAN parties and could only get a few people to commit because of the hassle of bringing a console and TV.

I might pay into online if it's worth it. I'll have to see based on how the service works beforehand. Otherwise I'm content with local multiplayer, especially if I don't have any online friends to play with.



The exact wording on their website is vague, but it essentially says "1 NES or SNES title for a month". So we don't know if you get to choose which game you pick each month or they give you a list of a few to choose from, or really anything besides speculation of "looks like you'll have to keep renting Super Mario Bros each month if you want to keep it". Until Nintendo actually TALKS about the features and goes through to confirm it, we don't know, and apparently either no one really asked Nintendo during interviews or Nintendo wasn't willing to talk about it at the time since it's coming in the fall.



It's because it's the same pro controller except with added features like the HD rumble and NFC reading. Pretty much controllers have been expensive as hell on all systems since the Wii era, which is annoying, but at least in regards to the switch, the Pro controller is an optional controller to have for most people. What's really bad though is the joycons. The right joycon is the one with all the additional features, including the NFC reading and the IR sensor, yet both the right AND left joycons cost the same if you buy them separately. The only thing the left joycon has unique to it is the share button. Like I can see the right joycon costing more because of the added tech, and while $50 is steep it's $10 more than a Wii remote for MORE than what a Wii remote offered. But the left joycon has less features so outside of me needing to buy a replacement, why the hell would I ever want to buy it separate from the right joycon for the same price? They should be offering it for cheaper, though I think it's so that $20 off for the bundle feels like a better deal. It's just a bit baffling to me.



Which Skyrim was also sold for $60 just 3 months ago. New release and all that. Games are releasing for as cheap as $40 so I'm prone to assume that's Bethesda and not Nintendo charging for that, so take it up with them.

That being said, I wish Nintendo went the route of the Wii U in HD rereleases of Zelda games and offered Mario Kart 8 Deluxe for $50 rather than $60 since they're not adding new tracks exclusive to the game, just battle mode and the DLC. They're still going to have to bank on die hard fans making the jump from Wii U to Switch, and while the $60 price is good for new consumers, $50 would sell more and be better accepted by fans especially if they supported the original release. In fact a discount in general for Wii U owners or some manner of coupons sent out would help entice people to make the jump. As someone quite pop flyin' with my Wii U, I'm still not really pop flyin' in making the jump despite the improvements of the Switch. Nintendo is going to need to not only bring fresh blood into the sales, but also retain their previous fanbase who just recently got a Nintendo console and may not want to abandon it themselves.


Again, having to make people pay for the service means keeping those people pop flyin' and providing good enough service to warrant collecting the cheddar from them. Nintendo has been pretty good about providing tools to consumers to kick out people they do not want to play with, and I assume the same will happen with the smart phone app. Don't like listening to a screeching child online? Mute or block them, report them to Nintendo to revoke their voice chat options for a bit, etc. We still don't have details but that's what I imagine is the next logical step from the ban lists and reporting options from previous Nintendo games.

And technically all that's been said about Miiverse is that it's not going to be on the switch. There is a chance that switch communities will be supported through their website and possibly an app, and knowing Nintendo they'll keep it alive out of sheer stubbornness, but it is not going to be on the console itself. So who knows, it could die, or it could live on as a Nintendo forum.

What we do know for sure is that Streetpass is gone, and while I understand why they would do this since they especially want to distance themselves from making it too much of a portable console or successor to 3DS just in case (plus battery life issues), I'm disappointed all the same.



Supply is a game where no matter how you play it in the game industry, you lose. Almost every console at launch sells out and is hard to find and everyone goes into a rage about scarcity practices and how consoles are being sold on ebay. This was been a thing since the PS2 was being sold on ebay for $1000, more than 3 times the original cost at $300. This isn't new to gaming, but the focus has been on Nintendo a lot more because of Amiibo, which were scarce both because Nintendo and retailers were unsure how well they would sell, and eventually made worse with the port strikes making it so that stock that even made it to the US had to be flown in rather than brought over by boat, costing huge amounts of cheddar for bulky boxed figures. NES Mini was a novelty gift idea that didn't even get much attention until pre-orders and then store orders were sold out. While stocking was ridiculous, stores themselves did not anticipate sales or order many to begin with for individual stores and focused a lot of stock online (which has always been the easiest place for scalpers to get ahold of them). When you see a scalper's ebay account with over 50 NES Minis and the average store only getting 2 on launch day, you know there's no way they went to 25 stores and out scooped everyone else trying to get them.

On the other hand, what were the consoles that didn't sell out significantly? We all remember the jokes about how Sony of America's president Jack Tretton said he'd personally pay $1200 to anyone who could find a PS3 on store shelves in January of 2007, which was so pathetically easy that he was blasted by the gaming community in general. All while the Wii was still sold out and causing lines to form every time a new shipment arrived every 2-4 weeks.

The 3DS didn't sell through it's stock on the first weekend which made people in the gaming industry claim gloom and doom for Nintendo, because a similar thing had only happened in the N64 days, and like the N64, it resulted in a controversial price drop within the first year of the system's life. The Wii U, despite being hotly contested for intentionally being made scarce before launch, and despite a humongous wait list at places like Gamestop and Best Buy had plenty of consoles on shelves even at launch through the end of the year.

These were all consoles that did not really reach the potential that their companies were hoping for, even though the N64, PS3, and 3DS were eventually turned around. The Wii U however didn't budge, and in part, I feel, a lot of that had to do with the launch buzz. If a console and its games are not selling out immediately at launch then you know exactly where the demand lies. If it sells out, well, who knows? Maybe the console will break Wii records, or PS2 records, but if we don't jump on it now we won't know. And as shown with Amiibos and even consoles in general, the scarcity is what drives demand to go even higher. People who did not care about Amiibo were suddenly compelled to camp for rare ones just to show them off or just to have them because they needed it now. Why? Because other people didn't have them. Hell people were buying Wii U consoles just because it had an exclusive Amiibo in it that wouldn't be launched for 2 months as a separate product. Even if they already had a Wii U.

The punishment for making a console scarce at launch is pissing off the gaming media and consumers who will possibly (or probably for the people who really care) still buy the console when stock evens out, while selling through all of your current stock and likely making it so future stock for the next few batches sells extremely well, which entices devs to come work with you. The punishment for overstocking is that the gaming media and devs get worried that the console is a dud (hold off on making games until either the console gets through a rough patch or is confirmed to be a dud because of a lack of games, created in part by devs refusing to make games in the first place), and consumers are pop flyin' or don't care because there is no pressure to buy now because the console is in stock.

And keep in mind, despite pre-orders selling out really fast, the same thing happened to the Wii U and yet plenty of stock was left on store shelves. Until launch day comes we cannot guess how bad the stock is going to be. But given past trends in the industry, what lasting benefits exist to a gaming company to outstrip or even perfectly satisfy demand with console stock? As shitty as it is to the consumers, the best benefits to the company that ensures a good launch is to make less supply than demand in order to create artificial scarcity and drive demand up for better sales. And I can guarantee that Sony and Microsoft are playing at the same game. The only people in the industry who benefit from ample supply are the people making games, because the majority of a game's sales occur in the first month of release. Consoles need to sell throughout their whole lifetime.

It sucks, but ultimately, why should Nintendo meet demand at launch if it could hurt them in the long run? That's how they see it.



PSN gives you the games to add to a digital library that you can access as long as you have a membership. What Nintendo is proposing is that if I were to get Super Mario Bros. my first month of paid online, when the second month started, it would be taken away. The only way to keep Mario indefinitely would be to either buy the game myself, meaning I would keep it regardless of if I was subscribed to the paid online, or I would have to check it out again the second month like a library book. PS+ would give you two games a month to add to your library meaning you get 24 games a year (provided you didn't already own a game given to you). What Nintendo is providing would give you access to just one game at a time, meaning if I wanted to keep a game I'd have just one game at the end of the year. And for a company sitting on over 700 titles already in the Virtual Console system, it feels pretty miserly like that this is the least possible thing they could do to say "at least we gave you value".

Yknow, generally the longer a persons post is, the more they feel they have to defend.

That said, I dont think at this point theres really much defending Nintendo at this point. I grew up with the consoles, I loved the games too. But lets face it, godo games are built off talent. Rare died when its talent left after MS did its thing with it. Shiguru is old... Iwata is dead. :/ Eventually the funs got to end.

And heres the bottom line Kamek: You need to make your console convienient. Thats what theyre trying to do with the Switch, by making it mobile and do what normal consoles cant. But if youre not willing to make the sacrifices to keep a service open and free to the public, then eventually narrowing of the fanbase is going to occur. :/ Like me. I wont play Nintendo anymore after hearing about paid online. I can get a much cheaper fix elsewhere instead of paying that fee.

I've been plenty critical of Nintendo in my posts, regarding prices, what's on offer and general opinions so I do not get where you are assuming my posts deviate from opinion to defense other than me using other people's posts for springboards for talking points.

The Switch looks promising. But so did the Wii U. I loved the Wii U but it was a mess, especially in its last year when everything was being tidied up to be dropped. Star Fox felt like an obligation and a third retread of a tired base concept that didn't need revisiting but rather jumping off of. It's like how people roll their eyes at the idea of yet another batman or spiderman reboot. Another product meant to tell us Spiderman was an average kid that no one understands. Also batman has dead parents.

I never regretted getting a Wii U in part because my Wii was dying. I still love my Wii U and hate that so many factors including poor management by Nintendo killed it so early. I have some hope that Switch will click better with consumers and devs and whatnot, but my issue lies with whether Nintendo, and by that I mean Nintendo of Japan, knows what they are doing and have actually learned anything outside of "people don't appreciate our vision".

It is great PR speak to say you've learned from past mistakes and understand the desires of a global market. Maybe the new lack of a region lock (mostly) is a good first step. But nothing presented made me feel like Nintendo learned. People got confused about HD Rumble and why it was important because it was presented weirdly. Prices for games, accessories, and even entire game announcements were shuffled out quietly after the presentation along with still confusing information about paid online and everyone worried about online costing $3-20 a month. A live event in Japan was opted in with awkward timing for other regions coupled with adlibbing and slang messing with translators and making foreigners confused. The third biggest market, Europe, gets pricing details waved off either because too complicated based on individual country pricing or because of the backlash it would cause. Or both. What amounted to devs appearing as celebrity guests to wow people. This was an E3 presentation at its worst, except in Japan in January. Why they didn't opt for a closely guarded secret series of region specific directs is beyond me but i feel it had to do with Nintendo of Japan calling the shots and making the event cater to them rather than the rest of the world.

And that's where I feel Nintendo hasn't learned anything to give further confidence in their ability to leverage and sell the system properly.

I can live with most of the decisions made by Nintendo with the Switch (though goddamn guys you had over a year to build a launch year of games up, and like you did with the Wii's dead year so far it's not panning well for you), but I don't want to see Nintendo turning around in 2019 and going "The Switch is dead, here's the NEXT console. We got it right this time."

Like, what? Playing F2P games on your phone? F2P MMOs on your computer? TF2? What console are you going to switch to that gives you free online and is cheaper than a $299 console?

Um, Steam?

Steam. The initial cost of a decent gaming PC is around 400 dollarydoos. Sure, it's higher, but games tend to be cheaper and the online is free so you save cheddar in the long run. Plus, it's a computer so it can do a lot more stuff.

Maybe I'm spoiled from using PC platforms, but I'll never pay a subscription for online use again. That being said, the switch seems like a pretty good single player console and I may still buy it just for zelda and mario.