I think it's more that it's $500 for the same library of games, rather than $500 for a console starting a new gen. Agree with you that people are totally hypocritical on price in comparison to phones, though.
Now we know you are a knowledgeable, hardcore gamer, because you criticized Skyrim.
@SurgicalMenace
"So how much are you guys willing to spend to convince yourselves the Swith is a justified purchase?"
addicted's initial comment implies that he/she plans to buy games without this download issue, so actual ownership of the console is a moot point.
"What does bother me is buying a physical copy of a game and not having the entire game on said physical copy."
Do you have a PS4 or Xbox One? Because virtually every major game has significant update data, usually from day one, which is required to even get the true single player experience. So the whole doom and gloom "my single player game won't work in the future if servers are taken down" is pretty much true there too. If you want to play Witc...
I guess I find it to be a weird principle. At least partial game installations have been the norm on consoles for over a decade. I highly doubt you are actually going to maintain this position if you intend to really play a lot of Switch games.
Have fun not playing many games on the Switch. Micro SD cards aren't that expensive.
Sounds like an improvement at least, but it's a long way from the "items in loot crates are aesthetic only" solution I was hoping for.
People who "worship" the Metal Gear franchise won't be touching this game.
Maybe horror games just make more sense for indie devs at this point.
@Chocoburger
It sounds like you just don't like RPGs. As you noted yourself, grinding has been a part of JRPGs forever, even back in the glorious 1990s when everything was wonderful. Why is it okay for JRPGs to have level-grinding, but it isn't for western games? While I agree with you that the 12-25 hour game experiences are more fun, my opinion isn't fact. Some people like to grind through random encounters over and over to level up and get new gear. I fa...
My thoughts exactly. I've never been tempted to buy a lootbox using real $ in any game. I'd much rather have them in a game than have to pay for maps.
Even if single-player games are dying (which I take no stance on), one upcoming game hardly disproves a trend. Besides, anyone seriously making this argument would almost certainly be arguing it in terms of PS4/Xbox One, not the Switch.
I've never seen a game get so much attention for being unpopular.
Try harder man. People were saying this about Macs before smartphones even existed. Samsung took an established sentiment and used it in mass marketing.
This is the risk they take when they tie their entire venture to someone else's creative works. Most of whom won't care unless you start making racial slurs.
I wish there was cross-buy for PS4/Switch. I'm sure the ownership overlap is pretty significant.
I played R6 for awhile, and it almost always just made me want to play CS.
Battlefield 1944 please. I'd love a much more updated take on some of the BF 1942 maps, and BF 1943 was an extremely disappointing effort.
The problem is there is already a Battlefield 2 (it came out 2005ish and was really the start of the wave of modern combat games). Battlefield 1944 would make a lot more sense as a name.
UCForce, I'm pretty sure this Artemidorus person is a troll/joke account mocking people in their 50s/60s. Almost every one of his/her posts is totally disjointed and then ends with some non sequitur about how millennials are at fault for whatever thing he/she is complaining about. Once you realize he/she is joking, it's actually pretty funny.