If the next Switch isn't backwards compatible, I'll probably never buy a Nintendo console again. I'm really not willing to keep a dozen consoles in my house just to be able to play older stuff. Well I guess I could dump the games and emulate them on PC if I'm not keeping the/a Switch around.
lol
If you are a graphics whore: " Switch is an insult to my humanity "
Switch is not a 7 gen console. It's a less powerful 8 gen console. It has the same characteristics as PS4 and XB1 but less powerful. That's why it has no sense to put it in the same era as PS360.
If you cut shaders and levels and the amount of enemies on the screen, yes, it could run it. But at that point is not a port anymore, is a demake.
I am not sure what makes you think this at all.. Making something graphically intensive is only part of the game development process. Games still require intensive development, level design, programing, character design and marketing.. None of these things are cheaper for Nintendo game than a PS5 game. In fact, a game like Tears of the Kingdom probably required far more work than any PS game ever. I mean, most 'Graphically intensive' games are generally slapping lipstick on a pig 90% of the time....You are basically saying, shinny equals expensive, even if it is shinny shit..
When it released it was like a more powerful, portable PS3/XB360. It's portability and small form factor made it a revelation and a gen 8 console.
Home consoles get evaluated by different metrics than portable consoles. I will accept that Switch is an "8th gen portable console". However, when used as a home console, it is decidedly gen 7.
This comes from you, it's not a rule and it's not common.
You're right my definition is not universal, but the purity test is simple: If a game that "maxes out" a console looks as though it belongs to the 7th gen, that is the most apt description of that console's capabilities. It doesn't matter if the rendering pipeline or the components used are more modern if the lack in horsepower means no Switch game can ever approach a PS4 title in graphical fidelity. It also works the other way around: I consider Dreamcast as belonging to the same gen as GCN, PS2 and XB, even though it released a couple years earlier. It's less powerful, but a clear jump from the N64/PS1 gen.
No, you wrote an idiotic comment about games should cost less on a Switch than Xbox or PS. The only logical reason you would make such a dumbass statement is because you think graphics are the only thing that is important in price. Otherwise please explain what makes a Xbone or PS game have a higher value than a Nintendo game? "$40 at most" ... And you think other people should seek help?
Prices set for anything are based on value, not time/material/etc.
Fluid pricing, I love that idea.
The annual Fifa, Madden, CoD, GTA and AC games should be free because they make all their money back via MTX anyways.
Being on a 1060 still, will I be paid to play?
It's not entirely true, development costs have always been a major factor in the price of games. But anyway, how exactly do you establish value for this specific game that should be so prominent in the Switch library that its standard $60 price tag isn't enough for it?
You're are answering your own question. Because they can get away with it. It's called capitalism and it means that if I have a product you want I can name a price and you'll buy it. Of course, if they sold it at a 100 some people will not buy it.
