Yeah, deffo. Funny thing is though, lots of those preview roundups from various sites on the Neogaf thread are praising the hardware.
It's been the same for close to 20 years. You buy a Nintendo console and there are compromises, most notably a lack of games - but at their best, their games are incredibly imaginative and magical. And as long commuter, to play them on the train is a great bonus.
As a working adult, the £320 for the Switch and Zelda is hardly breaking the bank and I'll just use it to play exclusives - even of it's just for Mario, Zelda and Metroid games, it'll be worth the purchase IMO. If you're a kid, who only can have one console then perhaps their are better options but for a lot of us, it'll serve a different purpose.
I.... what is this even?
It's magical girl riding a motorcycle flying in the sky... duh.
I think people's main issue is that it isn't super powerful for a home console (typical Nintendo) but a super powerful handheld (with limited battery life). This seems to be the view of the negative reviewers.
But I agree there are also a lot of positive reviews from those who "get it". The catalogue of games will be the telling point. My main concern is that the amount of games may dry up pretty quickly save for a few classics.
It would be really great if Nintendo had console with their amazing 1st Party games and all of the best 3rd party franchises. They would make so much money. It just depends whether the big publishers decide it is worth porting to the Switch
On that, let's not forget a lot of their handheld division is now working on the switch and the 3rd party devs who worked on that. Should help.
A number of people I know who actually have the machine say it's great. Obviously it needs updates and all that to tweak and fix things, plus no one still really know about all the online stuff as of yet, but early complaints about lack of internet browser and all that seem much mire nitpicking than actual issues to speak of.
It boots up, plays possibly the best launch game ever from the off, and seems to work very well in either mode. For day 1 these days, that seems good enough for me.
My issue at the minute is the big 'exclusives' aside from the new Mario game are basically just Wii-U remasters. Mario Kart 8 has a new battle mode and Splatoon has some new weapons but not much else. I love those games for the Wii-U but paying £300 to play them again is a bit much.
Very true. If Nintendo use Switch to displace 3DS for handheld gaming then hopefully they should get a lot of support. The battery life may be prohibitive but I am sure there are ways around that.
I agree though, once the online stuff is revealed hopefully this will enhance the machine. Lets hope they can produce more Breath of the Wild quality games soon. Mario Odyssey certainly looks to have great potential for a start
I kind of hate this idea of re-releasing games. It just feels like a bit of a con for the consumer. I'm sure a lot add some new features but not enough to justify not just making a sequel. The only game I didn't mind them re-releasing was Wind Waker because it looked great in HD
The upcoming Splatoon is a sequel BTW, not a remake/port of the first.
Wonder boy the dragon trap loved that game on the master system II
EDIT: Toejam and Earl is in there....
, if they remake/ remaster streets of rage that be epicI don't get why people are so obsessed with having a massive game library. If we don't count indie and retro games, the average gamer isn't likely to buy much more than 10 new games per console generation anyways. If Nintendo are able to create at least 2 games for every different type of consumer per year, then they are pretty much doing their job. Having said that though, it's pretty much a prerequisite that you enjoy several Nintendo franchises. If not, then yeah, you're in for a disappointment. But then again, why buy a Nintendo console if you don't like the exclusives?
To the people who see the list of games for 2017 and only see 3 games that they're interested in: did you actually plan to buy more than 3 games just for the Switch this year?
To the people who see the list of games for 2017 and only see 3 games that they're interested in: did you actually plan to buy more than 3 games just for the Switch this year?
I'd wager most people plan on buying more than 3 games a year for their expensive gaming console!
I have no idea how you arrive at the 10 games per generation figure either.
I have no idea how you arrive at the 10 games per generation figure either.
10 games in 5 years? Where exactly are you getting this information from? I'm not a 'hardcore' gamer in any way but I can finish a fair bit more than that.
And to answer your question - yes. Also as I said the games that look appealing to me have all been released on the Wii-U or like Zelda will be.
Ive wrestled with buying the switch for weeks, its expensive, but its Zelda and it looks awesome. Its a great month to be a gamer with horizon and tides being released.
I’ve been playing video games my whole life and I’ve met all sorts of gamers. If we exclude PC gamers, indie gamers and retro gamers, then I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who buys more than 20 games per console. The average is probably around 10. Even lower if we include the most casual among casuals.
What I find interesting when discussing 'gaming' online, is how much people underestimate their own game-time and how little casual gamers actually play(console gamers in particular). I’ve met people who play games for more than 20-25 hours a week on average who don’t consider themselves hardcore, which is absurd. If someone spent that amount of time on any other activity, would you not consider them hardcore? Whether it’s reading books or going to the gym, it doesn’t matter: if you average more than 2 hours of your spare time per day on something, then you are hardcore in <insert name of activity>. Unless you are unemployed(or hardly work/study). Different rules apply then, obviously.
In short: if you purchase 20(+) games per console, then you’re a completionist/explorer(which I would consider a sort of hardcore gamer). Either that, or you almost exclusively buy short-lived games.
It's called attachment rates: http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/24/ps4-has-a-better-software-attach-rate-than-ps2-and-wii-6402140/
Dir Wangem is right (if anything he over estimates at 10!)
The PS4 has been out since late 2013. Do you really think the average gamer has only bought 3 games a year? I have a full time job, a young daughter and play in a covers band on the weekend so my gaming is restricted to a few hours a week but I have way more than 10 games.
Edit: just seen @Coxy 's link. thats mindblowing that so many people buy so few games
You have to remember that a lot of people play multiplayer exclusively and might only pick up the latest COD or FIFA and that's it. Then there are kids, who can only afford to be bought one at Christmas/birthdays. I'd wager that few people have 6 games - it's just the average being brought down by lots of people that don't buy any - in the Wii's case, a lot of people probably never bought a game and only played on the bundled Wii Sports for a few months, never to be played again.
This is a pretty damn big group of gamers, though. Hell, I'd argue that most competitive gamers fall under this category as well, as they need to focus the vast majority of their game time on one game in order to get better.
Honestly, I doubt that more than 20% of console owners buy more than 10 non-indie, non-retro games for said console. I play games for about 10 hours a week, which is by no means "hardcore", but it's not overly casual either. I still can't see myself getting more than 10 games for the Switch(if we exclude games for the Virtual Console).
That's kind of my point - that a lot of gamers don't buy many at all, which means the average of 6.2 doesn't reflect the 'norm'...more like 2 groups - some that have loads and others that have 1/2.
Well that reflects my experience.
Even if this is true(I doubt that it is. Few people only own 1 or 2 games for their console), this still illustrates one thing: owning 20 games or more for a single console, is rare. Even owning 15 games is rare. 6.2 is very close to 0. Whenever someone owns 20(+) games, they are gonna pull up the average considerably. In other words, if this group was sizeable, then there's no way the average would end up around 6.2.
To illustrate: for the number to stay around 6.2 on average, you need 3(!) people owning only one game for every person owning 21. That gives you an idea of how absurd it is to suggest that it's normal to buy 4 or more games per year, which was the root of this mini-debate to being with. Unless you belong to a relatively small group of gamers, a console doesn't need a massive game library as long it manages to churn out 10 or so games that peak your interest.
The link that @Coxy provided effectively kills one of the main arguments against Nintendo.
What about digital sales - are they included in these figures...possibly but what about places like CDKeys (I have no idea how they work)? Then there is the used games market , which takes up a large part of the gaming sales - CEX, GAME, eBay or whatever...none of these will count in game sales figures (surely?).
Then with things like EA Access, PS+ and Games With Gold, which will mean that there will be many people that never buy games, given they can just pay for a subscription to get 'free' ones. I also know many people that bought PS3's purely for the Blu-ray player and my Sister got one for Christmas purely to play on Minecraft - she has one game and is unlikely to buy too many more.
And there are things like Expansion/Season Passes - they are the same price (often) as a full-price game and could be considered as a 'new' game, although they almost certainly won't count. For example, the Star Wars:Battlefront Season Pass was £40 and pretty much doubled the game's modes/maps and whatever - if it was released in disc format as standalone content, then it would probably count but as we live in an increasingly digital world, it's sold as an expansion, which probably doesn't.
In short, although an interesting indication, I don't think these statistics are all that accurate - all the above has to be to be accounted for, for any meaningful figure and I can't find any analysis that does - I think it's perfectly feasible to think that 4 games a years is normal - I'd argue (with no stats to back it up) that that it could be higher.
@izzydiggler
There are also stats for the PS2 and Wii in the link. PS+, Season Passes etc makes no difference there.
Granted, the number of games people buy could have more than tripled in less than a decade. But I highly doubt that.
There are also stats for the PS2 and Wii in the link. PS+, Season Passes etc makes no difference there.
Granted, the number of games people buy could have more than tripled in less than a decade. But I highly doubt that.
This convo is missing the point. A large collection isnt good so you can buy more games, its good so you have more choice for the few games you do buy.
Not every game is suited to every player. I like JRPGs but don't like ones with real time combat, so just because there are a couple of JRPGs on a system doesn't mean that there are games Im going to like. Similarly not all games in production turn out to be good. If there are only 3 or 4 games on a list coming out in 2017 that interest me, the chances of all them being good is pretty low.
If I invest in a system that I know is going to have tonnes of games, I may not buy them all, but I know there will always be some games that are right for me.
I could be wrong, I just don't think those stats are hugely meaningful in proving it.
@Unmutual
"Peak your interest" was a poor choice of words from my part. I was mainly thinking about games that you are 99% sure that you will enjoy, based on experience. Having said that, I honestly can't remember the last time I bought a game and got disappointed.
If you can't find 8-10 Switch games that you like over the course of 5-6 years, then you're either overly picky or you just don't like Nintendo exclusives. But why buy a Nintendo if you don't like Nintendo games?
"Peak your interest" was a poor choice of words from my part. I was mainly thinking about games that you are 99% sure that you will enjoy, based on experience. Having said that, I honestly can't remember the last time I bought a game and got disappointed.
If you can't find 8-10 Switch games that you like over the course of 5-6 years, then you're either overly picky or you just don't like Nintendo exclusives. But why buy a Nintendo if you don't like Nintendo games?
I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this thinking.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is basically saying "I don't think the median wage is <insert number>, even though the numbers say so". It's not terribly hard to divide the number of games sold on the number of consoles sold. Come to think of it, this might actually mean that the number of games sold per console is lower. Many people share a console after all.
For me, I don't really look at genres especially - although I lean towards some and avoid others (Tower Defence games for instance), I generally react to scores, so if something is review amazingly, I will probably give it a go at some point. I have a PS4, XONE and a Switch coming tomorrow - which console it's on, doesn't really bother me, I just want it to be good and some variety is good.
With the Switch though, you can almost guarantee that Zelda and Mario on their own will produce enough great games to warrant the purchase for me. As I have other consoles, this is enough (although my library won't be huge, making it a more expensive purchase per game I play) but for other's, I agree that having a large collection of choice is vital to warrant getting one.
There's logic in the argument. Since the 64, Nintendo has usually had the smallest library (bar the Wii), but the Wii U shows that you can go too far. Ive was waiting till it had a decent library to buy one, and I'm still waiting.
If every Nintendo triple A title was a guaranteed 10 out of 10 that'd be different, but even Nintendo can't manage that. Just because there's going to be a Mario game, doesn't mean its going to be Galaxy. Just because there's a Metroid game, doesn't mean its going to Prime. Just coz there's a Mariokart game, doesn't mean it'll be 64. It could just was easily be Sunshine, Other M or Double Dash, fine but somehow lacking.
Sure was. It's "pique your interest" (not pronounced in the same way as the Barca central defenders surname, obviously)
Wow, I learned something new today!
I'm not arguing that the quoted average in the article...that would be moronic. I've given my reason above why I think that figure may be wrong - IMO just taking into account the second-hand market will push that up considerably. As you say, shared ownership of consoles could be a factor, which only adds to my argument that this figure isn't 100% meaningful in try to prove what is 'normal' with regards to how many games people buy...there are far too many variables not taken into account.
Averages aren't always the best way of looking at things. If you have 2 new houses for sale next to each other, one costs £1 million and the other £500k then the average house price would be £750k - which is nowhere near the cost of either of them, so if nobody's house is worth £750k, then it's not a very accurate statistic in working out how much a house would be priced in the area.
Granted, this is an incredibly small sample but I'm trying to say that with all of the above, 'normal' games bought is (IMO) not as simple as saying "X amount of consoles and Y amount of sales means Z games per consoles", or at least that it's not necessarily an accurate way of determining what is 'normal'.
Anyway...back to the Switch - I can't wait for mine!
So did I. I decided to google to check before correcting you (nothing worse than a factually incorrect pedant!) and was amazed to see how often "peak" or "peaked" is used instead.
@izzydiggler
Actually, averages are a great tool when you're dealing with large numbers. Unless you have insane outliers, they tend to be spot on. Seeing as you can't own minus 50 games but you very much can own 50, the numbers used in the link can't have negative outliers. Which means that if anything, the number of games sold per console on average is actually lower than what's reported. Another argument for this, like I mentioned, is that many people share consoles.
When dealing with data from the PS2 or Wii, there are no likely variables that suggest that the true average number is higher than reported. Even if as much as 20-30% of games were bought second-hand, that would still place the average below 10 games. And that's before taking the much more significant stats in the paragraph above into account.
But yeah, back to the Switch!
Actually, averages are a great tool when you're dealing with large numbers. Unless you have insane outliers, they tend to be spot on. Seeing as you can't own minus 50 games but you very much can own 50, the numbers used in the link can't have negative outliers. Which means that if anything, the number of games sold per console on average is actually lower than what's reported. Another argument for this, like I mentioned, is that many people share consoles.
When dealing with data from the PS2 or Wii, there are no likely variables that suggest that the true average number is higher than reported. Even if as much as 20-30% of games were bought second-hand, that would still place the average below 10 games. And that's before taking the much more significant stats in the paragraph above into account.
But yeah, back to the Switch!
Last edited:
Yes, that's fair enough. I guess I was more surprised because I know not a single person who would buy only a handful of games per generation.
You don't really seem to get why those people are moaning though. It's all well and good using <10 games per console catchment, and you may know people that have similar amount, but I'm at the other end of the spectrum and I know no one who would only buy 2-3 games per year. Christ, I own over 150 on the 360 alone, let alone already having over 20 on the PS4 (since the pro came out) and a further 8 or 9 on the PSVR. Of course, as I say, I'm further to the other end of the spectrum, but everyone I know has something in between.
I'm not saying I agree so much, my Switch should be with me tonight or in the morning and I can't wait, but you can't say that quoting an average number kills the fears plenty of people have, because the kind of people on forums arguing about it are the kind who do want variation and to get what they perceive as their money's worth. It's no good telling people who do buy way more than 2-3 games a year that their fears are pointless because the averages show something else. Not everyone likes the same games, so choice is a huge thing to people, it's not just about buying loads it's also about having loads to choose from.
I'm not against your point though, I'm personally looking forward to the quality Nintendo games and anything else is a bonus. That's why I've bought a Switch from the off. 2-3 games a year and sub 10 per generation is nowhere near what I go through though
I'm going on a retro hiatus (buying, not playing) and am going to make a Switch and Zelda my next buy Can't wait until Mario anymore!
Can't wait until Mario anymore!Obviously. People who are looking to buy 20(+) games for the Switch(not counting retro games), are likely to be disappointed. But this is still a pretty small group. Based on the stats above, I doubt that more than 10% of console gamers belong to this group.
I'm going on a retro hiatus (buying, not playing) and am going to make a Switch and Zelda my next buy
I looked at the games for 2017 and decided to make a list of 3 categories. I'll probably only buy Zelda and Fifa, as I don't have time for much more(I'm still playing Smash for Wii U almost daily):
MUST have:
- Zelda BOTW
- Fifa
Want:
- Super Mario Odyssey
Looks interesting:
- Splatoon 2
- Rayman Legends(mainly for handheld mode)
- Skyrim