Nintendo Switch

[BillLoguidice]

Does anyone know how the Wii U Zelda BOTW did, especially compared to Switch? I would think that the vast majority of Nintendoheads who care about Zelda would buy it on the Switch or wait until they had enough money to do so.

 

Numbers would be nice. Wii U is supposedly a big flop, and Switch off to a good start, but I'll bet there are a lot more Wii U's in people's homes than Switches.

 

I don't think we'll have numbers for a while, but it's probably a 13:2 (about 13 million Wii U's sold versus about 2 million Switches, I think) ratio in terms of raw system numbers. I agree with you though that since you'd figure a lot of the Wii U owners are Nintendo faithful, then a lot of them would have jumped on board the Switch, reducing the pool of potential Wii U BOTW buyers. Certainly some crazies would have bought both versions. I also think that over time as more of those Wii U owners move to the Switch, they may either buy or re-buy BOTW. I could see when the dust finally settles in say 3 or 4 years, if the final BOTW sales don't reach 60% of the Wii U's lifetime sales, which would both be a testament to how poorly the Wii U sold and how well BOTW should eventually sell once there are more Switch's in the wild.

 

As for right now, although again, we'll have to wait for the numbers, I bet constrained stock of the Wii U version means that the Switch version probably already outsold it.

Edited March 20, 2017 by BillLoguidice

[Flojomojo]

Cool, those sound like reasonable guesses, if nothing else than to put things in perspective when people are like WII U SUCKS, SWITCH RULEZ

 

Constrained stock of the Wii U version seems ridiculous to me since there's unlimited supply in the eShop, but people sure do seem to love their physical media.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

Constrained stock of the Wii U version seems ridiculous to me since there's unlimited supply in the eShop, but people sure do seem to love their physical media.

Because physical media retains it's value much better than digital...

[Schizophretard]

Because physical media retains it's value much better than digital...

And physical media has the same digital media written right on it. So, you get both for the price of one.

 

On a more serious side note to that I wish Nintendo would provide digital copies with the physical media. Every time I buy a movie I always look for the version that is a combo with Blu-ray, DVD, and digital copy. If it works for movies then it could work for games. They could just include a card where the manual should go with a one time use code for a digital copy. They could put artwork from the games on the cards so that after use they aren't just useless pieces of paper you can toss. The code doesn't even need to be one you type in because they could make them Amiibo cards that unlock your digital purchases. They could even just sell the cards by themselves for those who want to go fully digital but are still interested in collecting the cards.

[Atariboy]

How do you prevent people reselling one or the other?

 

There's not a booming market in something like selling a loose DVD copy or an UltraViolet code so they're able to bring those benefits without the negatives causing too much harm, but there is with videogames. Nintendo isn't going to want people buying the latest $60 release, installing the digital code to tie the download to their account, and then trading in the disc or cartridge to GameStop down the street so that it enters the used marketplace almost immediately and is now in competition with Nintendo themselves selling new copies.

 

It's a tough one to tackle, and I can't really think of a viable way to do it without damaging the very benefits that physical media and digital media both bring to the table in different ways. Locking the physical copy behind a one-time use installation code that also unlocks the digital version to download (To prevent one or the other from being resold immediately), rips out the heart of the advantages of physical media.

 

The disc itself suddenly wouldn't be what confirms ownership/authenticity, it would kill the resale marketplace and the classic gaming community of the future, it potentially bricks the legitimate copy for the original owner themselves if their account or hardware is suddenly inaccessible for one reason or another, publishers/platform owners can prevent new copies of an old game from being authenticated in the future when they declare it life-expired, etc.

 

It would be like what Microsoft tried to do when the Xbox One was unveiled, that so badly damaged the XB1 and the brand itself in its early days, which is largely why their install base is at half that of the competition at this point despite an almost immediate and very solid attempt to come back from that early disaster with consumer-friendly decisions like free Xbox 360 backwards compatibility and eliminating the Kinect 2.0 mandate.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Atariboy

[Asaki]

Too much for my tastes, drives me bsc when I cant skip a tutorial level after already having played the game

I go bonkers before the game even starts, most of the time =)

 

Especially games like Scribblenauts, where the tutorial is so long and pointless, by the time it finally lets you PLAY the game, I just want to turn it off. So I do.

 

Does anyone know how the Wii U Zelda BOTW did, especially compared to Switch?

On launch day, since I was at Meijer anyway, I asked if they had any copies, and the lady said they only had TWO and they both sold already.

 

No idea how many copies of the Switch version they had, but "only two" doesn't sound very optimistic.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Asaki

[BillLoguidice]

How do you prevent people reselling one or the other?

 

There's not a booming market in something like selling a loose DVD copy or an UltraViolet code so they're able to bring those benefits without the negatives causing too much harm, but there is with videogames. Nintendo isn't going to want people buying the latest $60 release, installing the digital code to tie the download to their account, and then trading in the disc or cartridge to GameStop down the street so that it enters the used marketplace almost immediately and is now in competition with Nintendo themselves selling new copies.

 

It's a tough one to tackle, and I can't really think of a viable way to do it without damaging the very benefits that physical media and digital media both bring to the table in different ways. Locking the physical copy behind a one-time use installation code that also unlocks the digital version to download (To prevent one or the other from being resold immediately), rips out the heart of the advantages of physical media.

 

The disc itself suddenly wouldn't be what confirms ownership/authenticity, it would kill the resale marketplace and the classic gaming community of the future, it potentially bricks the legitimate copy for the original owner themselves if their account or hardware is suddenly inaccessible for one reason or another, publishers/platform owners can prevent new copies of an old game from being authenticated in the future when they declare it life-expired, etc.

 

It would be like what Microsoft tried to do when the Xbox One was unveiled, that so badly damaged the XB1 and the brand itself in its early days, which is largely why their install base is at half that of the competition at this point despite an almost immediate and very solid attempt to come back from that early disaster with consumer-friendly decisions like free Xbox 360 backwards compatibility and eliminating the Kinect 2.0 mandate.

 

It is a potential conundrum. With that said, Microsoft does have an initiative in place where some Xbox One games also come with a Windows version, which is obviously digital. So, there is precedent.

 

I for one would LOVE a digital copy to be included with all physical releases. That would likely simultaneously solve the retail issue, where fewer and fewer people are going to the physical stores to buy games (we're nearing 50% digital versus retail (physical) on console). I would also happily pay a $10 premium for the "privilege". There really would be no way to solve the resale issue, but I do have to wonder how much of an impact that really would have.

 

Anyway, on the Switch, one of the major frustrations I have is that when I want to switch games, I need to swap cartridges, which takes a bit of time and, obviously, I need to be near where the cartridges are. I think there are practical reasons for me to buy cartridges on the Switch, but I'd vastly prefer to be all digital like I am on the other modern systems in my house.

[Flojomojo]

Because physical media retains it's value much better than digital...

 

I buy toys to play with them, not to sell them. Because if I sell them, I don't have them anymore.

[Tempest]

On launch day, since I was at Meijer anyway, I asked if they had any copies, and the lady said they only had TWO and they both sold already.

No idea how many copies of the Switch version they had, but "only two" doesn't sound very optimistic.

When I went to go pick up the Wii U version at my local Gamestop they asked me if I had pre-ordered it and I said no. Originally they told me that they only had enough on hand to fulfill the pre-orders (the stack had about 10-15 copies in it), but found a small stash of 3-5 other copies so they let me have one of those. I'm going to guess that the Wii-U is going to get one print run only since they've already abandoned the platform and that most of those sold already. The same thing happened with Twilight Princess on the GC, the Wii version was everywhere for years, but the only GC copies I saw were at smaller stores and were still full price a year or two later. I'm kind of surprised at how pricey it is these days (holding its value at least).

[Punisher5.0]

I buy toys to play with them, not to sell them. Because if I sell them, I don't have them anymore.

 

Yeah but it's nice to know that you can sell it if you fall on hard times.

[Tanooki]

How do you prevent people reselling one or the other?

 

There's not a booming market in something like selling a loose DVD copy or an UltraViolet code so they're able to bring those benefits without the negatives causing too much harm, but there is with videogames. Nintendo isn't going to want people buying the latest $60 release, installing the digital code to tie the download to their account, and then trading in the disc or cartridge to GameStop down the street so that it enters the used marketplace almost immediately and is now in competition with Nintendo themselves selling new copies.

 

It's a tough one to tackle, and I can't really think of a viable way to do it without damaging the very benefits that physical media and digital media both bring to the table in different ways. Locking the physical copy behind a one-time use installation code that also unlocks the digital version to download (To prevent one or the other from being resold immediately), rips out the heart of the advantages of physical media.

Tie the digital code to a signal that gets sent from the disc (or card in this case) from the system when it is inserted. Since systems are all online these days, the system dials home to Nintendo and if it sees the digital code has been used, the disc can not except on the current user account the digital was tied to. This won't render the disc useless other than for resale. Kind of messed up but it would work. That way you're better off buying one way or the other and not overlapping.

 

And on that anyone notice Nintendo is screwing physical media buyers hard on their coins for the shop of theirs? Buy a real game copy you get 4x less (gold) coins. That's a really shitty move on their part.

 

 

...and that is true about TP on the GC vs Wii, glad I still have the superior GC release as the price stinks compared to Wii, yet makes sense with how few there are compared (like toploader vs standard NES, the price reflects it.)

[adamchevy]

 

And on that anyone notice Nintendo is screwing physical media buyers hard on their coins for the shop of theirs? Buy a real game copy you get 4x less (gold) coins. That's a really shitty move on their part.

Especially considering how tiny the new carts are, no manual included, and the tiny case. Really pisses me off as well. I guess it shows how expensive it is to make a physical release of a game? But why penalize people for buying a physical copy ? Edited March 20, 2017 by adamchevy

[Atariboy]

That wouldn't work, since the cartridge would be useless afterwards except to the original owner with his original account, perhaps only with his original system itself.

 

Physical media without the advantages that physical media traditionally brought to the table, may as well not exist at all. People were rightfully in an uproar with the XB1 at its E3 unveiling since it forces always online, kills the secondary marketplace, ties even your physical purchases to often shaky security and consumer unfriendly DRM, creates forced obsolescence with the system being dead as a brick when support is withdrawn, etc.

 

The trick if such a thing is implemented, would be to do so without unduly hindering either the physical or digital version, yet somehow manage it so half your customers aren't buying physically on day 1 to get the code and then trading it into GameStop the next day for half their money back, with GameStop proceeding to push that used physical copy that the platform holder already made their money off to customers with a slight $3-$4 discount over a new copy.

 

Can't be done, or we'd only have seen it happen in a big way by now. The big three don't have a big market of double dippers that buy the physical and digital versions of each game (A few crazy collectors do it to keep their retail version sealed), so they have no reason to not implement it if it could be done.

 

But it can't without wrecking the physical and/or digital model that their customers are used to and unwillingly to stray from, since customers don't want to give up their freedom with what they rightfully feel they own despite legal mumble jumble to the contrary, and Microsoft and the entire industry has amply seen the power that segment wields.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Atariboy

[adamchevy]

It feels like content creators like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft no longer want to sell their games to anyone to actually own. It's more of a lease option strategy now days.

[Keatah]

That's right. And the gaming public has spoken. How could they not have? They're clamoring for more. They want the lease option. No cartridges or discs to fart around with. And instant acquisition too!

[Ransom]

And it's not just games. Music, movies, TV shows....owning stuff is becoming something only creepy old people who probably smell like grandpa do.

[Keatah]

I think young people are scared of old people that have too much stuff. And it certainly isn't impressive, regardless of the glory stories they tell.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

I buy toys to play with them, not to sell them. Because if I sell them, I don't have them anymore.

I don't normally resell mine either, though sometimes it gets tempting. I could buy a lot of homebrew game from the AtariAge store or elsewhere by flipping my loose GBC Shantae for example, with resale price approaching a whopping $300, it's worth a lot more to someone else than it is to me. And I can always get a cheap CIB bootleg or play it on flashcart, or officially via 3DS if I want. My digital copy on N3DS xL is worthless as far as resale value goes. Same with Earthbound on Wii-U.

 

Physical media will remain long after the servers are pulled, even if my console corrupts or breaks, I can get a replacement and have access to my library. And physical media will become more valuable the more people switch to digital.

 

And really I currently have three game cards for the Switch, Xelda, Bomberman, and Issac (and one digital title so far, Blaster Master), which conveniently fit inside my Skeika case so swapping the cards takes literally 15 seconds, and if someone is too lazy to get off the couch to swap the card, well they need to get out more. The boxart and manual (if included) is added value as well. I actually like the lean Vita-like form factor of the Switch cases, which fit neatly on a shelf.

[Tanooki]

It feels like content creators like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft no longer want to sell their games to anyone to actually own. It's more of a lease option strategy now days.

It's not a feels, it's a fact. I've been told this by my brother before a few years back when the PS4/One were about to hit the market, and I do wholly believe it. If we had a stable national gigabit network within North America (and Europe) like Japan and various asian tech hotspot countries do, they'd do away with physical media. They know they'd lose some people who refuse to buy digital or are so far into the sticks they can't get a fast connection and may not buy than wait days on a download, but they're fine with it. The up side if it's honest, would be that they'd slice game costs deeply (like 50%+) because they'd have total control over the market, a digital monopoly to control all media. 100% leasing, only do sales if needed since the prices would be notably sliced, and do this primarily with sales just to compete with cross over PC (Steam mainly) game price cut sales.

 

Be happy we're not running gigabit or you'll find your world of gaming ending up like Android, iOS, and the very failed PSP Go. I believe it, personally don't believe they'd cut the prices when they could just screw people as they'd have no choice plus it would be easy wide profit margins too. Why sell something at $30 when you control the entire works when you could make $30 more charging still $60?

[Tanooki]

By the way as a double post -- NOA threw some note out there saying they're having another (big?) shipment of Switch systems rolling out everywhere on the 22nd (Wednesday) so if you missed it or want another keep your eyes out.

 

Source is here: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/03/gamestop_pitches_in_with_promise_of_us_nintendo_switch_restock_on_22nd_march

 

Blame gamestop if it's bs.

[Punisher5.0]

It's not a feels, it's a fact. I've been told this by my brother before a few years back when the PS4/One were about to hit the market, and I do wholly believe it. If we had a stable national gigabit network within North America (and Europe) like Japan and various asian tech hotspot countries do, they'd do away with physical media. They know they'd lose some people who refuse to buy digital or are so far into the sticks they can't get a fast connection and may not buy than wait days on a download, but they're fine with it. The up side if it's honest, would be that they'd slice game costs deeply (like 50%+) because they'd have total control over the market, a digital monopoly to control all media. 100% leasing, only do sales if needed since the prices would be notably sliced, and do this primarily with sales just to compete with cross over PC (Steam mainly) game price cut sales.

 

Be happy we're not running gigabit or you'll find your world of gaming ending up like Android, iOS, and the very failed PSP Go. I believe it, personally don't believe they'd cut the prices when they could just screw people as they'd have no choice plus it would be easy wide profit margins too. Why sell something at $30 when you control the entire works when you could make $30 more charging still $60?

Eventually we won't even have the game on the system itself. Everything will be on a server and you just temporarily access the game through the internet. This is already something going on but it's in it infacy right now and yes it scares the hell out of me as a collector.

[Keatah]

Hasn't this been tried, and lag was found to be the main detriment?

[Austin]

Eventually we won't even have the game on the system itself. Everything will be on a server and you just temporarily access the game through the internet. This is already something going on but it's in it infacy right now and yes it scares the hell out of me as a collector.

 

With how long it's taking for quality internet to become the norm in the USA, I'm sure we'll all be dead by the time something like this becomes the de facto standard. No need to worry.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Hasn't this been tried, and lag was found to be the main detriment?

Yeah, I experimented somewhat with a free download game streaming app on my Ouya. I had ten-to-fifteen minutes of free playtime as a trial user, so I opted for Pacman Ghostly Adventures (a game I skipped on Wii-U) and just running around with the analog stick felt like I was drunk. There was at least a half-second of lag on my ATT UVerse, probably minimum 150ms latency for two-way connection to server, and another 150ms video encoding/decoding latency, and the streamed graphics were a low resolution pixelated mess, and I would twirl the stick and see Pacman respond moments later, smacking into walls/ledges and completely missing platforms when I attempted to jump. Would make an excellent drunk driving simulator if you ever decided to play a racing game.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

With how long it's taking for quality internet to become the norm in the USA, I'm sure we'll all be dead by the time something like this becomes the de facto standard. No need to worry.

It's an infrastructure thing. Currently there are several modes to internet access, but nearly everything uses some existing infrastructure designed for something else:

 

1. Dial up. Still exists believe it or not. Bog standard 56kbit, slow as balls, 1990s style internet. For many rural areas outside of 4G cellular coverage, it is the only affordable option for some people.
2. DSL. Good "last mile" option for existing landline users, however much of the cabling was installed and buried over 50 years ago and was only meant to carry audible bandwidth. The fact that these ancient wiring can carry broadband megabit connections at all is a miracle. My ATT Uverse server is literally a half mile the way the crow flies, 7000 feet in practice, but the condition of the wiring is so degraded that our six megabit connection is all that it can handle. Before we got DSL, the lines were constantly full of static. They tried to upgrade our service for free to 21 megabit a few months back, and our service blacked out because the wiring was too lossy. A technician had to come out and fix our router. And we live in the suburbs in the middle of a metropolitan area of 300,000.
3. Cable. Probably the best option for residential subscribers. Often faster than DSL. Still not an option for rural areas. Due to the nature of cable splitters, a connection requires fast downlink and slow uplink.
4. Mobile data plan. Connect PC or smart device to mobile phone. Low data caps and very expensive overages. Networks already congested in urban areas, as there just isn't enough bandwidth available for the tens of thousands of users to all access high speed data. Works fairly well in rural areas that get good mobile coverage however.
5. Satallite downlink. Extremely expensive, and requires a landline dial up modem for uplink. Very high latency.
6. Fiber optic. Fine if you're a university, hospital, telecom company, office complex, or any business or government entity with a large campus that needs ten gigabits or more.

What needs to be done here is infrastructure so that fiber optic runs the "last mile" to each apartment complex or residential neighborhood, then have a dedicated Gigabit ethernet or coax line running to each home or residence designed for high speed transfer, as opposed to the existing system of piggybacking on some other utility service, be it phone, cable TV, satellite, or mobile carrier. The most common DSL and Cable options piggyback on existing utilities laid down decades ago. Wtih most existing subscribers already using existing infrastructure, new infrastructure will be difficult and expensive to provide to end users do to the huge investment, whether it runs via buried cable or utility poles.

 

And wifi simply isn't an option for urban broadband. The entire usable spectrum from 100kHz all the way to 10GHz can only hangle 10Gbit of data, or a hundred users at 100Mbit, one thousand users at 10Mbit, and that assumes that every communication band that exists were open to use for broadband internet. Frequencies above 5GHz have difficulty penetrating walls or bodies. Really nothing above 2GHz could penetrate the typical domicile, so receivers would need to be placed outside buildings, and that assumes line-of-sight to the transmitter. Mobile 4G networks which can only operate in certain bands are already super congested.