To be fair Nintendo has almost always used outdated hardware for their portable (and fixed) systems. Though it would be cool to see a Switch 2 with Nvidia's Orin (Ampere based) it too would be outdated (the Ada Lovelace replacement was announced last year and is sure to cost too much for Nintendo to want to use).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AAA game price increase
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes but it’s time for a new one. Been needed for a few years now. Bayonetta 3 is very rough on it. The new Fire Emblem has some issues too and Xenoblade 3 isn’t much better.
Not to mention my Steam Deck blows the switch away now.
I think Nintendo will probably do a new switch-like console no later than 2026 as that has been the longest they have gone before releasing new portable hardware (Gameboy to Gameboy Color). The shortest being 3 years (Gameboy Color to Gameboy Advanced).
Yeah it was. Like I said it’s my top 10 favorite games of all time. That doesn’t mean I should just ignore any issues with it. I actively avoided those areas as long as I could due to the performance issues.
This is coming from someone that played Elden Ring on a GTX 1080 so don’t go to the extreme that I’m a baby please.
Generally better undocked because of the lower res. Although in a few areas it could be better docked than undocked. Digital Foundry covers it in more depth:
Is Zelda on Switch worth the upgrade from Wii U?
UPDATE 8/3/17 10:30am: As promised, we've spent a couple more days getting to grips with the performance profile of The…
I played the Wii U version which runs worse than Switch in either format. Wouldn't call it "near experience ruining" though. But then again I grew up with stuff like Goldeneye 007 regularly running sub-20 FPS...
If Nintendo releases game consoles that are equivalent to or close to the GTX2060 rendering capability within 2026, I may support them again. Now my attention is mainly attracted by the PC.
If Nintendo still only changes the skin and not the bone, I will continue to ignore this platform.
Any platform that restricts the operation of the game and forces the game to need more optimization to run smoothly is bad. These extra work are things that programmers hate (including relearning metal).
That’s precisely the issue as I want a home console. So I play 99% docked. When going undocked I do see performance improve. And it actually does look a little better on the smaller screen compared to it being blown up on my 4K TV.
Yeah, I skipped the Switch partially due to this.
I have purchased every Nintendo console since the NES in the 80's, and still have all of them. All of them still work, too.
I was hesitant on the Wii U, mostly due to the general dislike of the console, but eventually purchased it, not regretting my decision. I think it is really underrated, probably the most underrated Nintendo console. (I think the Wii was the most overrated Nintendo console). At a minimum, the Wii U didn't deserve all the hate that it got.
When the Switch launched, I didn't like the mobile aspect of it, and feel like there was probably performance compromises due to making it a decent mobile device. The thing is, I don't want to buy a mobile device, I want a home console that sits at my TV.
I ended up waiting to purchase the Switch, buying more Wii U games, like Wii U version of Zelda BotW. At this point, I might as well skip the Switch and go for whatever replaces it.
Yeah, I suspect if I would have gotten a Switch, it would have stayed docked 99% of the time.
I don't have an issue with Nintendo making a mobile platform like the Switch, I just wished that with the Switch, they would have released a non-mobile, traditional console that didn't have the compromises that was required to make a mobile device.
Part of the problem with having both a handheld and a mobile console is it split their dev teams and with the increased cost and time to make HD games it was kinda becoming a problem.
Even if you just run it docked Switch is still pretty much just a better Wii U level experience with some great games of its own like Mario Odyssey, Metroid Dread, Splatoon 2&3, Smash Bros Ultimate, etc. And fully portable Doom 3 and Crysis is cool too.
Even if you just run it docked Switch is still pretty much just a better Wii U level experience with some great games of its own like Mario Odyssey, Metroid Dread, Splatoon 2&3, Smash Bros Ultimate, etc. And fully portable Doom 3 and Crysis is cool too.
Yes, but how much exactly has the Steam Deck helped to drive sales and growth of Linux games via Steam?
The last Nintendo console, that had good hardware in terms of graphics/performance was the Gamecube at the time of its release. However the console was underperforming in terms of sale for Nintendo.
One thing saved Nintendo from going bankrupt: the original Wii, starting in 2006 and of course the countless add-ons, physical and digital games (Wii Shop Channel)... the Wii was not much more performant than the Gamecube*, however the gimmick with the motion controls and the lower introducion price (250 USD) in comparison to the other consoles of the time (Xbox 360 Core was 300 USD, the "lower end" PS3 20 GB was 500 USD) was a winner combination.
After that the hardware performance is not on par with the concurents/industry anymore, however the stock price for Nintendo was more and more going up.
In the first half of 2000s Nintendo's net worth was between 4 and 8 Billion USD, today it is over 51 Billion USD.
*the Nintendo Wiis released from the beginning until 2011 could run Gamecube DVD games and use the GC peripheral, gamepads etc.
Now Nintendo is also raising the price of AAA games. The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom will have a starting price of 70 USD.
One thing saved Nintendo from going bankrupt: the original Wii, starting in 2006 and of course the countless add-ons, physical and digital games (Wii Shop Channel)... the Wii was not much more performant than the Gamecube*, however the gimmick with the motion controls and the lower introducion price (250 USD) in comparison to the other consoles of the time (Xbox 360 Core was 300 USD, the "lower end" PS3 20 GB was 500 USD) was a winner combination.
After that the hardware performance is not on par with the concurents/industry anymore, however the stock price for Nintendo was more and more going up.
In the first half of 2000s Nintendo's net worth was between 4 and 8 Billion USD, today it is over 51 Billion USD.
*the Nintendo Wiis released from the beginning until 2011 could run Gamecube DVD games and use the GC peripheral, gamepads etc.
Now Nintendo is also raising the price of AAA games. The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom will have a starting price of 70 USD.
Last edited:
Price, $60, now $70 for Starfield. I’ve gotten completely spoiled buying games, usually early release in the $15-30 range. When Fallout 4 and X4 came out, I threw my money at them no question asked, although I’ve been disappointed in the quality of X4, even though I knew of it’s short comings in advance (ie, for the latter, a developer who releases unfinished products and crude human animations).
Anyway, I’ve got such a significant queue of unplayed games, I’m perfectly happy to wait for Elden Ring to go on sale, and I’ll be waiting for the Starfield professional and user reviews.
Anyway, I’ve got such a significant queue of unplayed games, I’m perfectly happy to wait for Elden Ring to go on sale, and I’ll be waiting for the Starfield professional and user reviews.
Last edited:
Same easy 300+ games between GOG, Epic & Origin. Let alone the free games that can be better than paid content, and of course with age comes patience. I like single player, I like to complete and like all I like to win
Q-6
Last edited:
Well, there's a clear answer to the problem.
Vote with your wallet. Don't want to spend 70 dollars for a game, then don't.
Games go on sale, and as time goes on they'll go down in price.
Its been years since i was willing to pay full price for any game, and I think I'll continue that trend.
Vote with your wallet. Don't want to spend 70 dollars for a game, then don't.
Games go on sale, and as time goes on they'll go down in price.
Its been years since i was willing to pay full price for any game, and I think I'll continue that trend.
Last edited:
I dont mind paying full price if the game is worth it, but's such a scatter shot these days. Rightly or wrongly I stick to the same principle as at the end of the day it's my money...
Some of the best I've ever played were heavily discounted or simply legitimately free. If you want to be in the front of the que, you have to be willing to pay more and that's the industries game. Time I have so waiting a year or so is more a benefit than a deficit to me as the games and even general SW for that matter is patched and will run better with a higher level of optimisation.
Q-6
I won't disagree, and in one breath I can see myself doing that but in another, I'm just having a problem spending that much money. I think when games were in the 40 dollar range, its easier to justify but the closer we get to the hundred dollar mark. I'm more apt to hold off.
I'm really looking forward to Starfield, but do I want to give Bethesda 70+ dollars and in return I get a buggy mess? Bethesda hasn't shown me, that they're able to roll out a game that isn't buggy. Even now as I play fallout 76, each update causes problems. The last two updates required me to delete the game and reinstall it (we're talking something like 70GB download so its time consuming). Furthermore there were constant Crash To Desktop (CTDs) and they had to apply a hotfix. So should I reward a company's sloppy performance?
GamePass for a month when the game comes out will allow you to see if they are gonna screw up with minimal outlay.
TBH many of the free titles have been more enjoyable as they are designed by fans for fans with due care and attention with no profit motivation in mind. Today companies are overly focused on profit versus producing the best they possibly can. I equally react as not remotely willing to pay $70 for a broken mess that's going to take 18 months or more to patch.
I fully understand companies need to make profit with timelines, equally as the paying customer I dont expect to be served up broken garbage on day one. The industry has pushed this model to the limit, resultantly I only buy on a deep discount and TBH very infrequently and that's on them...
Q-6
Last edited:
Not a fan of such services, yet can see the benefit. I purchase my games and play them simple as that. Companies dont want to play ball, I dont remotely care as it's their loss...
Q-6
Last edited:
Funnily enough Bethesda updated Fallout 76 - I usually log in on Tuesdays to see what's new in the Atom shop, but since finishing the season I've largely stopped playing. I say this because I was unaware a patch was landing and Bethesda is adding some new events. (they haven't added content in a couple of years sadly).
Anyways I'm greeted with this, a 95.7 GB patch that won't download. Looks like I'll have to delete the game and re-download it. Takes way too long and at this point since I'm not playing I'll just ignore it. The game was released in 2018 yet Bethesda cannot get anything right. So back to the point - why should I pay a premium for games, if those games are a buggy mess?