KSubzero1000 wrote:

hazeredmist wrote:I've just got a Pro Controller for my Wii U, I'm quite excited to try it with Splatoon as it is definitely better for 3rd & 1st person games, though I'm not sure how they will sort the issue of jumping to chosen places on the map which you normally use the Gamepad for... Might help with motion sickness anyway. First thing I did was turn off the motion controls with Splatoon, nice idea but it never works long term.

I'm really sorry to be the one to tell you this... but Splatoon does not have any Pro Controller support except for one local multiplayer mode. You'll still need to use the (ugh) GamePad for 99% of the game.
http://splatoonwiki.org/wiki/Wii_U_Pro_Controller

Good news is: The Pro Controller is indeed a great input method for games that support it, like Bayonetta 2 or Mario Kart! Very ergonomic and responsive with a fantastic battery life.

Damn, that's a shame... Thanks for the info dude. Plenty of other games in my collection to play with it hopefully. It is a nice pad, shame there's no proper analogue triggers though. Weirdly I never noticed that on the Gamepad.

Where ever possible I always use my Club Nintendo Super Famicom controller on my Wii U, I do have a Pro controller but I just prefer the 16-BIT piece of kit.

It's totally incredible for games like MK8 and Yoshi's Wooly World.

Goddam I wish I'd managed to snaffle one of those!

I bet there's some pretty frustrated conversations going on st Nintendo tonight after that lad managed to get a Switch and post all those vids.

It's a shame but perhaps an inevitable outcome in the current world and it's instant social media diarrhoea state.

Some chap already has the switch, video of the UI here.

https://vid.me/oQkO

well the ui looks a lot better than on any of the previous Nintendo systems. if that's anything to go by they have really put in the work this time!

With the advent of the Switch, Nintendo is finally altering its system for digital purchases making it so software will be tied to one's account rather than console.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017- ... t-consoles

Took long enough.

Hmmmmmm, so I'll be able to play Splatoon on release day on my Switch ??

It's a great move, an obvious one but nothing was certain.

Happy days.

Probably not - they still haven't announced anything to say it would be backwards compatible (and plenty of things contrary to that I'm afraid.) They haven't announced a lot of things to do with the eshop and virtual console really, and we're only 2 weeks away! Ahh, Nintendo.

all that article confirms is that every purchase you make on the switch's eshop is not tied to that one switch but to the account you buy it with. not that anything bought on the eshop before the switch will be linked to the account or be playable on the switch

I was kind of playing Devils advocate with the Splatoon example.

But that's what it is isn't it really. I bought Splatoon on the eShop, so if purchases carry over, I should be able to play it on the Switch no ??

Otherwise what's the point ??

Or perhaps it'll just be the virtual console titles, Mutant Mudd's, Affordable Space Adventures, etc...

And what about the 3DS eShop how will that be effected ?

Jusifer wrote:all that article confirms is that every purchase you make on the switch's eshop is not tied to that one switch but to the account you buy it with. not that anything bought on the eshop before the switch will be linked to the account or be playable on the switch

Ah, right got cha.

I think I'm a few steps ahead of things here.

I quickly read the Eurogamer article and thought it was confirming eShop transfers. Seeing what you've said makes sense, from now onwards it'll be linked.

If that's as far as the eShop's Grandfather rights go then that's one step up from bare minimum. Which is awful.

I do understand why people are miffed about paying a repeat VC fee to play the same game on a different device, I really do, but on the other hand, we are talking about different architecture and there is a certain amount of work/cost involved in making sure the VC titles run on the new machine. Although I want to download Mario Kart on the 3DS for free, having bought it on the Wii U, and the Wii, does my four quid purchase eight years ago mean I own an indefinite licence for that game across any and all future Nintendo hardware? I genuinely don't think that's a fair expectation.

If I buy a DVD, can I expect a discount when they bring out the Blu Ray? Now, you can rightfully argue that you're paying for a technological upgrade in terms of audiovisual fidelity, materials, future proofing, etc. I agree with that, but I would argue that you're paying for a technological upgrade when buying VC titles on any future device. While the graphics and sound won't change very much, you're paying to use it on an upgraded medium. You might argue that you've already paid for the upgraded hardware once, so why should software expenses also get tacked on? Well, the cost of the hardware obviously can't account for hypothetical, historical VC purchases.

Basically, I would really appreciate a VC discount as a goodwill gesture. I would have liked to have seen more cross-play titles as with the Vita/PS3/PS4 but Sony were little better, really. I don't expect anything, though, and I genuinely don't feel I have the right to, either. I spent four quid to play Mario Kart on the Wii U, not the 3DS.

I completely agree with Stanshall's comments above.

While it would have benefitted me a great deal over the years in financial terms to have only paid for digital copies of classic Nintendo games once, that isn't a realistic expectation in a capitalist world.

To be honest I'm still impressed that I got a substantial discount on Wii U VC titles that I'd already bought on Wii (prices typically reduced to £1-£2).

I'm not going to say I wasn't disappointed that this didn't carry over to 3DS VC as well, but then it's entirely my choice as a consumer whether or not to pay again to have the game available on a different platform.

Quite apart from anything else, if Nintendo wasn't guaranteed a permanent revenue stream from its legacy titles, would it still even be in the healthy position it is today, despite the commercial failure of Wii U?

All very good points but an issue here, is that Microsoft are doing it.

It's not apples with apples but it sets an expectation in the industry that once you buy a digital game license on a platform, it's playable on future platforms. I think that's fair and rather obvious in 2017.

I'm not sure what the Xbox backwards compatible number is at now but I think it's upwards of the 300 figure. No extra charge, if you bought it previously, you have the rights to it.

This isn't an issue of console power, possibley man power but it's about a business model.

If Nintendo can put time and effort into possibly creating a GameCube emulator on the Switch then I find it hard to believe that they can't put time into to allow you to bring across previous Virtual Console purchases.

I don't fully understand the implications of hardware work, although I know it's fiddley, I just believe that it's s bit of a cop-out to say that Mutant Mudds that I bought on the eShop this month on my Wii U will not be transferable to my Switch.

The same I'm afraid goes for the Super Mart Kart I bought on the Wii & Wii U.

And I absolutely love that MS are doing it, however it was a feature that I was desperate for when the third Xbox was announced but was only added in hindsight in the aftermath of a fairly disastrous launch to try to claw back favour and give the machine at least one USP over its runaway rival.

They're certainly not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, as fabulous a feature as it is.

The bottom line is, if Nintendo feels it will be more profitable (in that consumers will be significantly less likely to buy a new console if it doesn't play their existing library) to use that model then they will switch to it I guess.

ratsoalbion wrote:They're certainly not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, as fabulous a feature as it is.

It's a business model. It makes them more money in the long run.

I'm sure there's a spreadsheet showing somewhere that people are more likely to upgrade to a new console if their old digital purchases carry over.

Even more so if your console is historically a younger audiences based system.

If parents knew that if they jumped up to the new Nintendo Switch and the Wii U games they bought on there moved over too, I think they'd be more open to the idea.

Buying the new Nintendo system and having to buy it all again is off putting I think.

It is for some, but I suppose at this point Nintendo's market research shows that their current model will make more than it loses them.

Believe me, as the owner of a fairly huge collection of Nintendo digital purchases, no-one would be happier than me for them to adopt that model!

ratsoalbion wrote:It is for some, but I suppose at this point Nintendo's market research shows that their current model will make more than it loses them.

Yeah, that's probably true actually.

ratsoalbion wrote:Believe me, as the owner of a fairly huge collection of Nintendo digital purchases, no-one would be happier than me for them to adopt that model

Oh, I'm not tying you down to an opinion as how you want things to turn out, I'm just discussing the matter.

I'm personally not going to boycott Nintendo for their decisions on this matter either. I'm just chewing the fat over what will potentially leave me feel frustrated for them going into this new console and its lifespan.

If of course it does turn out this way after all.

Microsoft and Sony also have fingers in other pies. When Nintendo start giving away all their old titles for free, they're basically relying on the next release every time to keep them afloat.

Plus the backwards compatible thing is different for the other two; they create a system for people to develop on but barely lose any revenue themselves from backwards compatibility. The developers, on the other hand...