They give u an optin to upgrade it yourself by buying additional microsd. What is wrong with that?
How is that mutually exclusive with having more onboard memory out of the gate?
They give u an optin to upgrade it yourself by buying additional microsd. What is wrong with that?
Yes?
These are businesses, not charities. Ubi chose the bigger card because they felt it made the best return in the long run (consumer goodwill is a part of the consideration, but not out of anything resembling altruism).
Something like Just Dance is guaranteed to sell well so it's fine, but would they bother to port the next Trials/Rayman/etc for a few sales at thin margins? Ubisoft's best games are from smaller developers, and there you're going to see games either skipping the switch or releasing ""overpriced"" or doing the same as WB have (or even skipping physical entirely, if that's an option).
I don't doubt it is a good game. I am actually looking forward to it and I'm going to buy it for the PS4. It's just that I find it ridiculous to pay $60 for it. Personally, I've paid the equivalent of $60 only for Horizon Zero Dawn this generation and that is only because it is probably THE game of the generation AND I wanted it day one. A Lego game, I'm getting it for 20, because that's the price Lego games sell for around here a couple months after release.Why is that bit specifically bolded - it was a good a game as any on its release?
EA hasnt even started porting Frostbite to NVN and think they may have hardware issues again. EA support outside of a shitty last gen FIFA port is going to likely be non-existent for close to 2 years at the earliest.
Nintendo should honestly negotiate a deal with Konomi for PES exclusivity and No Micro transactions then tell EA that they arent interested in their shitty FIFA port and let EA execs have to explain to FIFA why they were banned from porting their liscenced game to a console platform due to lack of being bothered.
Im Sure Ubisoft and Activision or Take2 would love to try and steal the FIFA liscence from EA and with the amount of money FIFA makes, EA would just eat the cost of a Switch port just to stay in FIFAs good graces.Not that Nintendo has the balls to pull a power move like that
Has anyone even mentioned how much BS it is that WB is charging $60 for a port of a four year old game anyway?
Is them cheaping out on cart sizes a shocker when they're completely overcharging for the game in general?
I paid $60 for this game four years ago, I'm not buying it on Switch until it's sub $30.
Nintendo could step up and eat card costs themselves. I mean this all stems from the choices they made.
I really want to buy Ghostbusters on UHD BluRay, but why should I pay $30 for a 30 year old film when I can get it on VHS for $3?!
I agree: ultimately, it's Nintendo's decision to give the Switch an anemic amount of internal memory that caused this unnecessary workaround from WB.
That'd be a great analogy if the UHD BluRay was just a scan of the VHS.
This game runs at the same resolution on Switch that it ran at on Wii U.
I agree: ultimately, it's Nintendo's decision to give the Switch an anemic amount of internal memory that caused this unnecessary workaround from WB.
I'm ok with this. It's better than charging more for the Switch version which would potentially send many a game to die.Yeah I posted this in the other thread for the game. Potentially it's a way for the publisher to save money on carts, going for as small as possible cart and forcing a mandatory download on customers.
I don't mind if this is a method to keep price parity, but sort of defeats the object of portability if you can't play until you get home and download the data.
Don't excuse this shit or hand wave it away. This is bullshit.Welp... looks like I made the right call going for a 128gb microSD despite buying my games physically whenever possible...
Edit: Think of it like this, would you rather pay $10 extra for most multiplatform games, or invest in expanded storage?
This is one of the dumbest arguments I ever heard-
FIFA wouldn't care much, Konami would care less and it would be too much work for Ubisoft, Activision and Take 2.
FIFA are doing quite well with their deal with EA and for Activision, Ubisoft and Take 2 to take that deal away for EA they would need to have an engine for the game, a team specialized in football games, a detailed database of players and multiple hours of testing the different online modes and fine tunning it.
This would have to be done months after the license had changed hands as there would have to be a FIFA game out at the start of every season or FIFA loses money and recognition.
Konami can't bother to a good PC port, why do you think they would bother to do a good port for a console that isn't selling very well on the region where PES is still successful (Latin America)?
PES sales have been shrinking from release to release, it isn't a beast like it used to be.
You would also run into the problem of not being able to copy option files because of the way the Switch handles save files. Don't think many people would have the patience to manually change teams names, badges and kits for many of the leagues.
No micro transactions would be a minus for most players as Ultimate Team in FIFA is probably the most played mode in the game.
FIFA sales at least 20 times more than PES worldwide, it's one of the best selling franchises in the world and it's one of the most streamed games on the internet.
Nintendo saying "Fuck Fifa, we have PES" would be like saying "Fuck Call Of Duty, we have ARMA".
A port of a last gen game being sold at full price and they can't deal with the costs of a game card that fits the game when said card exists...
Pure and simple. Maybe, if this was a new game there'd be more of an argument for it, but for a game already made and sold four years ago, and being resold again now at full price? Nope.
Go back through this generation and look at all the ports from 360/PS3 to this gen and tell me how many of them are a full $60. Even WB released the arkham ports for much cheaper a piece. It has been common practice this gen that ports from previous systems cost less, not more.I really want to buy Ghostbusters on UHD BluRay, but why should I pay $30 for a 30 year old film when I can get it on VHS for $3?!
Where is the source on the 720p docked news?
You are forgetting the launch game tax.Go back through this generation and look at all the ports from 360/PS3 to this gen and tell me how many of them are a full $60. Even WB released the arkham ports for much cheaper a piece. It has been common practice this gen that ports from previous systems cost lest, not more.
Really? Thought I had read otherwise. Guess I was wrong.Where did you read that? Because I live in Brazil and even with the console not being officially launched here a lot of first shipments from importers sold out and the price here is absurd (~US$800,00).
I don't like his argument either I just really want to know about how the console is selling in Latin America.
You are forgetting the launch game tax.
WB could never get away with this shit 2 years in
They must share in the blame for making a product on which this could happen. They should also be embarrassed at their system only having 32GB memory as default.This BS needs to be stopped now by Nintendo. This is not at all acceptable.
They must share in the blame for making a console where this could happen. They should also be embarrassed at their system only having 32GB memory as default.
While it indeed smells pretty greedy to sell it at full price, you also need to bear in mind that WBIE had to reacquire the publishing rights in this case. Unlike other remasters, this game required further investment to make the port possible.
They must share in the blame for making a product on which this could happen. They should also be embarrassed at their system only having 32GB memory as default.
It's also $60 on PS4 and Xbox One though. They are getting away with it.You are forgetting the launch game tax.
WB could never get away with this shit 2 years in
What I'm saying is that either reduced margins (eat the cost) or fewer sales (raise the price or sacrifice goodwill like WB did) will lead to lower profit. Ubi chose to eat the cost on Just Dance because it's a safe bet anyway (and they seem a little more concerned with goodwill lately). What you won't even see is games where they ran that same analysis and decided that a port / switch version wasn't worth doing for the profits they expect.Okay, so with your last post about smaller Ubisoft games.
How would the development costs of smaller games make it more difficult for Ubisoft to bring out physical versions of those games?
Having the game half physical half digital is complete idiocy. What if you have disabled the internet on your child's account and only buy physical? What if I like buying physical for the future?True, but I'd argue its being sold at full price, so that should cover it and more (digital copies would also offset the cost), plus you have other platforms too. It's definitely a bad practice imo.
This is one case where I think people would actually prefer to pay $10 or $20 more than not. Or at least have an option to (maybe release a collector's edition with a few extras that has the whole game on the card for $80 or something). I wonder if all regions selling this game will feature the same required download, if they are forced to release it as a full game somewhere, then at least you could just import it if all the languages are on the cart...
Even if the Switch had 500GB of internal storage (hell, even 3TBs), people would still be upset with this solution. I definitely think if this catches on, and all third parties start doing this (maybe even Nintendo themselves), well, it would suck. But unfortunately, the average customer would probably just go to Walmart or wherever and buy an overpriced mircoSD card and continue buying said games.
It's also $60 on PS4 and Xbox One though. They are getting away with it.
Large SD is coming but I'm pretty sure USB HDD breaks the core functionality of the Switch. If you're playing a game off of USB and you pull your Switch out of the dock and go jump on the bus, what happens to your game?
Having the game half physical half digital is complete idiocy. What if you have disabled the internet on your child's account and only buy physical? What if I like buying physical for the future?
This is unacceptable.
I think this is a bit disingenuous because the consumer has to pay more for SD cards anyway, so the consumer isn't actually saving anything. Also, it's likely that Nintendo would have got a much lower bulk price for SD cards than consumers do when they buy a single card, which they could have passed on to customers while solving the storage issue.I don't think they'll be embarrassed. It was a business decision, more storage would have likely meant more cost for the consumer.
I take your point. I think we can agree that Nintendo didn't think this one through very well, right?Even if the Switch had 500GB of internal storage (hell, even 3TBs), people would still be upset with this solution. I definitely think if this catches on, and all third parties start doing this (maybe even Nintendo themselves), well, it would suck. But unfortunately, the average customer would probably just go to Walmart or wherever and buy an overpriced mircoSD card and continue buying said games.
Welcome to 4 years ago, Nintendo fans.
The 2.5 hours of battery life for Breath of the Wild will probably end up being on the high end once games like CoD, Destiny, or Resident Evil start to drop.
Welcome to 4 years ago, Nintendo fans.
Having the game half physical half digital is complete idiocy. What if you have disabled the internet on your child's account and only buy physical? What if I like buying physical for the future?
This is unacceptable.
What I'm saying is that either reduced margins (eat the cost) or fewer sales (raise the price or sacrifice goodwill like WB did) will lead to lower profit. Ubi chose to eat the cost on Just Dance because it's a safe bet anyway (and they seem a little more concerned with goodwill lately). What you won't even see is games where they ran that same analysis and decided that a port / switch version wasn't worth doing for the profits they expect.
^that all sounds a bit sensationalist. I'm assuming this is only a tiny factor amongst many other more important considerations, but the end result is fewer games on switch than there might otherwise have been.
Today Ubisoft reported its full year earnings for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016. It revealed sales of 1,394 million ( $1.587 billion), and a 12 per cent rise in profitability.
For the year digital sales were 446.7 million, up 16.7 per cent, and accounted for 32 per cent of total sales.
Pretty muchA port of a last gen game being sold at full price and they can't deal with the costs of a game card that fits the game when said card exists...
Pure and simple. Maybe, if this was a new game there'd be more of an argument for it, but for a game already made and sold four years ago, and being resold again now at full price? Nope.
You're taking my argument as more absolute than it is. I even said that this is a tiny factor amongst many. Games being slightly less profitable than they otherwise would be doesn't mean that Ubi is going to abandon the Switch overnight.Except these are publishers that make multi-million dollar AAA titles.
Ubisoft:
https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.g...2016-05-12-ubisoft-reports-full-year-earnings
They are not comparable to greybox games which had to raise the cost of the Switch version of Rime by $10 to be able to release a physical version.
If Ubisoft games sell well on the Switch unlike Wii U, then Ubisoft will make as many physical versions of their games as possible.
This is why I asked "how would smaller games from Ubisoft be more difficult to make physical versions of?"
It wouldn't, unless they sell terribly on Switch. Ubisoft would want as many games as possible on shelves for their products otherwise their competitors would gain more market share on retail.
Yeah it seriously is.Having the game half physical half digital is complete idiocy. What if you have disabled the internet on your child's account and only buy physical? What if I like buying physical for the future?
If Nintendo choices didn't lead to publishers needing to recoup or absorb extra costs for new games too (Rime) then you might have had a point. This game being a port really has nothing to do with Nintendo's choice to use more expensive carts as a Lego Undercover Switch port on a disc would still be relatively cheaper for WB.A port of a last gen game being sold at full price and they can't deal with the costs of a game card that fits the game when said card exists...
Pure and simple. Maybe, if this was a new game there'd be more of an argument for it, but for a game already made and sold four years ago, and being resold again now at full price? Nope.
WBGames has some explaining to do.
Yep, this is what I was trying to say.If Nintendo choices didn't lead to publishers needing to recoup or absorb extra costs for new games too (Rime) then you might have had a point. This game being a port really has nothing to do with Nintendo's choice to use more expensive carts as a Lego Undercover Switch port on a disc would still be relatively cheaper for WB.
The only greed here is Nintendo not eating the cost themselves and once again giving third parties another burden to work with on their platforms.
If Nintendo choices didn't lead to publishers needing to recoup or absorb extra costs for new games too (Rime) then you might have had a point. This game being a port really has nothing to do with Nintendo's choice to use more expensive carts as a Lego Undercover Switch port on a disc would still be relatively cheaper for WB.
The only greed here is Nintendo not eating the cost themselves and once again giving third parties another burden to work with on their platforms.
WBGames has some explaining to do.
WBGames has some explaining to do.
It is reasonably ironic that this has occurred because Nintendo has been too accommodating to a third party publisher...Nintendo holds just as much blame as WB to me. WB for being so fucking cheap and Nintendo for authorizing it.
You're taking my argument as more absolute than it is. I even said that this is a tiny factor amongst many. Games being slightly less profitable than they otherwise would be doesn't mean that Ubi is going to abandon the Switch overnight.
This decision making isn't unique to Ubisoft either - as you said it is the smaller Devs who are far more likely to be affected by stuff like this.
Edit: Also it's irrelevant how many millions Ubisoft is worth. If a game isn't expected to make money then the game (generally) won't be made.
...I just remembered what this thread was about. I'm quite far off topic here so I'll stop.
My on-topic point was: WB look bad here, but the criticism belongs with Nintendo.