I would be incredibly surprised if any switch plus supported 4k. Just because some SoC claims it can do 4k, that doesn't mean it can while running an actual intensive game. And I don't see any way to actually add processing power through the dock, usb doesn't have the throughput for that, even if the port on the switch can support that kind of data transfer.
Some kind of post processing in the dock I could believe, but that's just post processing.
I would be incredibly surprised if any switch plus supported 4k. Just because some SoC claims it can do 4k, that doesn't mean it can while running an actual intensive game. And I don't see any way to actually add processing power through the dock, usb doesn't have the throughput for that, even if the port on the switch can support that kind of data transfer.
Some kind of post processing in the dock I could believe, but that's just post processing.
And again...a 4k capable Switch isn't the same thing as "all games will be in glorious 4k at full FPS." Just supporting it for all the 2D indie games/retro games with lower system requirements would be a boon.
The PS4 Pro was never a "real" 4K system but it didn't stop them from marketing it that way. Even the next gen is shaping up about the same. The minimal claim is simply that a 4K signal is going to get output from the dock somehow, and there's enough credible leakers making a similar claim that I'm willing to go with it. It's also the main feature an upgraded Switch could even offer.
I would be incredibly surprised if any switch plus supported 4k. Just because some SoC claims it can do 4k, that doesn't mean it can while running an actual intensive game. And I don't see any way to actually add processing power through the dock, usb doesn't have the throughput for that, even if the port on the switch can support that kind of data transfer.
Some kind of post processing in the dock I could believe, but that's just post processing.
I don’t want real 4k, just 4k menus. That’s pretty doable.
+1
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
I'm not sure why people wanting a Switch Pro keep wanting 4k in Handheld as well as Docked.
On such a small screen, you're getting diminishing returns past 1080p. Just have it aim for rock solid 60fps 1080p in Handheld, and try for 4k docked. It'll save battery time on something most people don't tell the difference at.
I’m too cynical to believe Nintendo will do anything remotely close to 4K. Given how slow they are to adapt to anything. They started doing HD in late 2012. I expect a hypothetical Switch Pro will rely on dynamic resolution a little less and have a more consistent frame rate. That’s about it. And I’d be ok with that.
I would be incredibly surprised if any switch plus supported 4k. Just because some SoC claims it can do 4k, that doesn't mean it can while running an actual intensive game. And I don't see any way to actually add processing power through the dock, usb doesn't have the throughput for that, even if the port on the switch can support that kind of data transfer.
Some kind of post processing in the dock I could believe, but that's just post processing.
And again...a 4k capable Switch isn't the same thing as "all games will be in glorious 4k at full FPS." Just supporting it for all the 2D indie games/retro games with lower system requirements would be a boon.
The fact that rumors have been around for a while means absolutely nothing. The fact that nintendo wants games to be 4k ready might just mean that they're actually taking backwards compatibility seriously for the first time, but that could be at any point in the future.
And the big reason I would doubt they would jump to 4k is that for most consumers, seeing '4k capable switch' DOES mean 'all games will be in glorious 4k'. Having to check each individual game to see if it's 4k capable would just lay the groundwork for confused and pissed off customers. I doubt they want to revisit the New 3ds situation any time soon.
I think they'll support 4k as soon as they can support all games in 4k, and I don't think that will be next year.
And the big reason I would doubt they would jump to 4k is that for most consumers, seeing '4k capable switch' DOES mean 'all games will be in glorious 4k'. Having to check each individual game to see if it's 4k capable would just lay the groundwork for confused and pissed off customers. I doubt they want to revisit the New 3ds situation any time soon.
I think they'll support 4k as soon as they can support all games in 4k, and I don't think that will be next year.
It's exactly the PS4 Pro / XB1X situation. Games need to be patched to take advantage of the hardware, most old ones aren't. It still plays all the unpatched games as normal.
I don't know why we are bringing a timetable up. At least as early as last year, Nintendo's been telling devs to get ready for something likely late this year. That's plenty of time for interested devs to do something if they want. It starts when Nintendo talks to devs, not us.
Companies put asterisks next to their big features all the time. People wouldn't freak out if not EVERY game was 4k. Half of them wouldn't even notice...in a theoretical more powerful Switch, a bunch of games could go from dynamic 720p to 1080p and that'd be noticeable enough for many people.
When PSVR came out people didn't throw a fit because not EVERY game released after that was VR-capable. And for a long time it was terrible and limited, but it was and remains "good enough," just like so many Switch games are "good enough."
I'd be okay with 1080p with faster load times. I don't need all the pretty. I just don't want to wait a minute between levels in Age of Calamity.
+2
Options
Kai_SanCommonly known as Klineshrike!Registered Userregular
I don’t think switch games would need to be patched though. If they have a dynamic resolution couldn’t it just as easily go up as it does down? It seems like switch games function much like pc games in the the resolution can just be freely adjusted.
I always thought that was why so much from steam so easily comes to switch. Because it was a fairly straightforward transition.
I don’t think switch games would need to be patched though. If they have a dynamic resolution couldn’t it just as easily go up as it does down? It seems like switch games function much like pc games in the the resolution can just be freely adjusted.
I always thought that was why so much from steam so easily comes to switch. Because it was a fairly straightforward transition.
Vast majority of games are outputting 1080p to the Switch OS, regardless of whatever internal rendering resolution. It is typically the game that takes responsibility for upscaling to 1080p. This is exactly how it works on PS4/XB1 and why those games needed patches for their pro versions.
Its possible Nintendo would let you force a "boost" mode like PS4 Pro does on unpatched games, raising the effective GPU clocks and therefore framerate and rendering resolution, but that alone isn't going to let you break 1080p final output.
It occurred to me that more important than 4K resolution is HDR support, and an excellent reason to go to an OLED display. Don't know that Nintendo will have any "auto HDR" magic like Microsoft but again, patched games could look great and it will be a higher contrast experience even unpatched.
I legit still don't understand the deeper points of resolution. Like you say "This game only goes up to 1440, but dynamic resolution means it drops in heavy scenes", or "Quality mode enhances graphics but outputs a 1080 screen". And in both cases, I'll press the info button on my TV remote and the info bar will say "2160p bruh". And when it's all said and done... it's not like I could tell you that I see any meaningful difference.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I don't believe anyone who says they can see the difference in a picture in motion between 1080p and 4k on anything but a 50 inch TV at a few feet away
+2
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
I don't believe anyone who says they can see the difference in a picture in motion between 1080p and 4k on anything but a 50 inch TV at a few feet away
I can, but only barely. The bigger difference is HDR, and a Switch model with full HDR support would make me a very happy boy.
I don't believe anyone who says they can see the difference in a picture in motion between 1080p and 4k on anything but a 50 inch TV at a few feet away
I reckon I could... if you hooked both TV's up side by side and showed the same picture.
But therein lies the rub. You most likely don't have two TV's next to each other to do that. Not to mention the two consoles needed to run the same game side by side. And you can't trust a PC monitor running a youtube comparison video, because your monitor is probably 1080p, so how on earth are you going to see and judge a 4K signal? And we haven't even gotten into the issues of HDR!
The entire resolution and visual industry is built on "There's a difference, trust us! We... can't actually tangibly show you the difference. But it's there! Trust us!"
And what really eats at me is that I personally know there must be a difference! If I play around with resolutions in PC games, there's a big fuckin' difference between 640/800/1080. I can even see it physically if I change my desktop resolution, as the billions of icons on it get bigger/smaller and there's more/less space.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I legit still don't understand the deeper points of resolution. Like you say "This game only goes up to 1440, but dynamic resolution means it drops in heavy scenes", or "Quality mode enhances graphics but outputs a 1080 screen". And in both cases, I'll press the info button on my TV remote and the info bar will say "2160p bruh". And when it's all said and done... it's not like I could tell you that I see any meaningful difference.
Here's a silly extreme example pic to illustrate.
This special version of Haloz™ has a hard time running on the Switch, so its internal rendering resolution is only 60x34. You can probably count those pixels by hand. But as you can probably also tell, this image isn't literally 60x34, it's 960x544. It has been upscaled to fill the full viewing space, even though the console can't really do the image justice. Also, the lovely UI of the game doesn't take up a lot of system resources to draw, so it's being drawn over the top of everything at full resolution, as a post-processing sort of effect. This is so the UI doesn't get blurry even if the game does.
Additionally, you might be viewing this image on a high-res monitor, so high that if it were rendered natively even 960x544 would look tiny. Windows might blow it up even further with 150% or 200% scaling, the pixels on your monitor might literally be drawing it as if it were 1440x816. This is sort of like what your TV is telling you. It doesn't know that internal to the game, it's struggling to run and is only putting out a 60x34 image that gets blown up.
so what happens is a game is forced to run at a small resolution, blown up by the game engine to 720p with UI pasted on top, possibly then blown up by the game console to 1080p for consistent output, possibly then also blown up by the TV itself to 4k.
I don't believe anyone who says they can see the difference in a picture in motion between 1080p and 4k on anything but a 50 inch TV at a few feet away
I have a 27in 1440 monitor and a 24in 1080 monitor. I can absolutely tell the difference.
I can also tell the difference in resolution on a smart phone. My old job had a lot of iPhone 7 phones in the small size. Those have below 1080p resolution and I hated it. I used to have an lg phone that was 1440 on a 5 in screen and I noticed. Now I’m on a iPhone 6 s which is the bigger model 1080p screen. I can still tell the difference between it and my wife’s small iphone7 with slightly lower resolution.
I have always been a resolution snob though. I used to see the 1600 x 1200 crt monitors and be super jealous because it looked like a godlike display compared to my 1280 x 960. I noticed when games were not at 1080 on my old 40 in screen.
Can someone help me understand why I would want the 30th anniversary Fire Emblem thing? It just seems like $44 worth of swag for a $6 game. Am I missing something?
I’m starting to get biased against swag because I’ve accrued so much crap over the last ~20-30 years but I feel like this is a weeeeird price based on the relative price of a game. Is that all it is? Swag?
I legit still don't understand the deeper points of resolution. Like you say "This game only goes up to 1440, but dynamic resolution means it drops in heavy scenes", or "Quality mode enhances graphics but outputs a 1080 screen". And in both cases, I'll press the info button on my TV remote and the info bar will say "2160p bruh". And when it's all said and done... it's not like I could tell you that I see any meaningful difference.
Here's a silly extreme example pic to illustrate.
This special version of Haloz™ has a hard time running on the Switch, so its internal rendering resolution is only 60x34. You can probably count those pixels by hand. But as you can probably also tell, this image isn't literally 60x34, it's 960x544. It has been upscaled to fill the full viewing space, even though the console can't really do the image justice. Also, the lovely UI of the game doesn't take up a lot of system resources to draw, so it's being drawn over the top of everything at full resolution, as a post-processing sort of effect. This is so the UI doesn't get blurry even if the game does.
Additionally, you might be viewing this image on a high-res monitor, so high that if it were rendered natively even 960x544 would look tiny. Windows might blow it up even further with 150% or 200% scaling, the pixels on your monitor might literally be drawing it as if it were 1440x816. This is sort of like what your TV is telling you. It doesn't know that internal to the game, it's struggling to run and is only putting out a 60x34 image that gets blown up.
so what happens is a game is forced to run at a small resolution, blown up by the game engine to 720p with UI pasted on top, possibly then blown up by the game console to 1080p for consistent output, possibly then also blown up by the TV itself to 4k.
So what you’re saying is the next Switch is definitely going to be 8K and Nintendo is going to enforce 8K on all games that come to the Switch.
Can someone help me understand why I would want the 30th anniversary Fire Emblem thing? It just seems like $44 worth of swag for a $6 game. Am I missing something?
I’m starting to get biased against swag because I’ve accrued so much crap over the last ~20-30 years but I feel like this is a weeeeird price based on the relative price of a game. Is that all it is? Swag?
Pretty much. It's swag in the form of NES memorabilia of the era. Which as a person who grew up in said era, I'd be lying if I said it wasn't pushing some big nostalgia buttons for me. But I'm like you, as neat as it all looks, they're also fundamentally just dust collectors for me.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Can someone help me understand why I would want the 30th anniversary Fire Emblem thing? It just seems like $44 worth of swag for a $6 game. Am I missing something?
I’m starting to get biased against swag because I’ve accrued so much crap over the last ~20-30 years but I feel like this is a weeeeird price based on the relative price of a game. Is that all it is? Swag?
It's swag. Now I guess maybe if they were selling it outside of the anniversary package, standalone, Nintendo might try to claim it's worth $15-$20. Because it's never been localized officially, and they added a couple QOL features, and they also know the modern value of Fire Emblem to many people now. Yes I know most people would call it a $6 ROM, just saying I bet they internally consider it a $20 game, before swag.
Sometimes with very old Famicom/Super Famicom games that were text-heavy, more effort is required than you might think to localize them properly. Often these games were very tightly compressed to have exactly enough space to fit all the dialogue, and there isn't a feasible way to simply increase the game's file size due to checksums and hard requirements. They would do things like use lookup dictionaries or shorthand for often-repeated words and phrases, so for example if the game contains the text "help me" a lot, they wouldn't store h-e-l-p-space-m-e, they would just let one number code stand for the whole thing. And maybe there's a hard limit that these stand-ins can only be 4 characters long, because it only takes 4 characters to write "help me" in Japanese (I don't know), so the localizer trying to fit this in can only replace it with "help" at best. Or to save space they might write Ryu as the kanji 龍 instead of spelling it out, but the localizer needs to use 3 characters to write the name in English, which cuts into available characters elsewhere to write out the rest of the sentence.
What I'm getting at is sometimes to get the freedom you need to do the dialogue justice you basically have to rewrite significant parts of the game engine. If you need more text boxes than the original game had -- meaning, it takes this guy two text boxes to say his lines in Japanese but would take three in English -- there's a good change you have to rewrite the game. This problem even carries over into modern games like Three Houses, though I can't find the article talking about it now. But basically the localizers had to use existing "dialogue box cadence" to say whatever needed to be said.
Yes you lift up the lid of the game and you get an entire pop-up concert with Sex Bob-Omb and Anamanaguchi music.
Full contents:
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: The Game - Complete Edition Classic Edition
Premium hard-shell roadie collector's case box featuring working lights and sound. Opening the case turns on the lights and sound (music from Anamanaguchi) as well as revealing a pop-up scene of Sex Bob-omb
Contents in the case can be accessed by lifting the concert stage
Full-color instruction booklet
Reversible covers
The Clash at Demonhead commemorative concert ticket
Deluxe Classic Edition clamshell case with reversible cover.
Hardcover Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game guide book
CD & Cassette Original Soundtrack from Anamanaguchi
Full-size wooden drum sticks featuring game art
Three Sex Bob-omb guitar picks (one each of light, medium, and heavy gauges)
Scott Pilgrim loading screen enamel pin
Premium high-gloss foil 7 Evil-Exes trading card set
Can someone help me understand why I would want the 30th anniversary Fire Emblem thing? It just seems like $44 worth of swag for a $6 game. Am I missing something?
I’m starting to get biased against swag because I’ve accrued so much crap over the last ~20-30 years but I feel like this is a weeeeird price based on the relative price of a game. Is that all it is? Swag?
the other thing to remember is that nintendo wants to keep that cost down. they want their device in every home getting people to play switch boxing 3 ultimate fitness life power mode.
anything that is going to bump the cost of the switch over that $300 should be looked at with a lot of skepticism. It's not impossible, but i think it's unlikely that nintendo would push to have a high price just to have newer tech. they are more likely to do their own thing.
the other thing to remember is that nintendo wants to keep that cost down. they want their device in every home getting people to play switch boxing 3 ultimate fitness life power mode.
anything that is going to bump the cost of the switch over that $300 should be looked at with a lot of skepticism. It's not impossible, but i think it's unlikely that nintendo would push to have a high price just to have newer tech. they are more likely to do their own thing.
Switches were selling 400-500 this summer when supply was low in pandemic. The MSRP model is sold out on Amazon and there's still a small scalping fee on new ones on ebay. There is absolutely a market willing to pay around $400 for a better handheld and I'm sure Nintendo would rather be getting that than scalpers.
Can someone help me understand why I would want the 30th anniversary Fire Emblem thing? It just seems like $44 worth of swag for a $6 game. Am I missing something?
I’m starting to get biased against swag because I’ve accrued so much crap over the last ~20-30 years but I feel like this is a weeeeird price based on the relative price of a game. Is that all it is? Swag?
I missed out on it so if you're selling I'd buy!
Oh, I was just asking because that @Wario64 Twitter account always posts when they come back in stock and I was thinking about it but I really don't want swag, plus I already bought the digital version of the game. I didn't buy one of the anniversary edition packs and I probably won't. But if you follow that Twitter dude and turn on notifications, I think you'll be able to grab one eventually.
Can someone help me understand why I would want the 30th anniversary Fire Emblem thing? It just seems like $44 worth of swag for a $6 game. Am I missing something?
I’m starting to get biased against swag because I’ve accrued so much crap over the last ~20-30 years but I feel like this is a weeeeird price based on the relative price of a game. Is that all it is? Swag?
It's swag. Now I guess maybe if they were selling it outside of the anniversary package, standalone, Nintendo might try to claim it's worth $15-$20. Because it's never been localized officially, and they added a couple QOL features, and they also know the modern value of Fire Emblem to many people now. Yes I know most people would call it a $6 ROM, just saying I bet they internally consider it a $20 game, before swag.
Sometimes with very old Famicom/Super Famicom games that were text-heavy, more effort is required than you might think to localize them properly. Often these games were very tightly compressed to have exactly enough space to fit all the dialogue, and there isn't a feasible way to simply increase the game's file size due to checksums and hard requirements. They would do things like use lookup dictionaries or shorthand for often-repeated words and phrases, so for example if the game contains the text "help me" a lot, they wouldn't store h-e-l-p-space-m-e, they would just let one number code stand for the whole thing. And maybe there's a hard limit that these stand-ins can only be 4 characters long, because it only takes 4 characters to write "help me" in Japanese (I don't know), so the localizer trying to fit this in can only replace it with "help" at best. Or to save space they might write Ryu as the kanji 龍 instead of spelling it out, but the localizer needs to use 3 characters to write the name in English, which cuts into available characters elsewhere to write out the rest of the sentence.
What I'm getting at is sometimes to get the freedom you need to do the dialogue justice you basically have to rewrite significant parts of the game engine. If you need more text boxes than the original game had -- meaning, it takes this guy two text boxes to say his lines in Japanese but would take three in English -- there's a good change you have to rewrite the game. This problem even carries over into modern games like Three Houses, though I can't find the article talking about it now. But basically the localizers had to use existing "dialogue box cadence" to say whatever needed to be said.
And what I would add is that they should put Earthbound Beginnings on the Switch. Along with Earthbound. And Mother 3. And Metroid Prime Trilogy.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Kai_SanCommonly known as Klineshrike!Registered Userregular
Damn nice on that eshop deal. I was just looking at how I was going to grab 3d All Stars soon then likely followed by 3d world when that comes out. This makes that significantly easier. Thanks for the heads up.
Posts
The translation was serviceable, but I mean, it's 90s JRPG Urushihara, Shakespeare it ain't.
That said, the game is still phenomenal, loved every moment.
Can't wait to try out 2.
Some kind of post processing in the dock I could believe, but that's just post processing.
And also 8K, infinite battery, cooled with a portable nitrous system, and total immersion VR without needing an HMD or electrodes.
There have been rumors and hints about a 4k Switch for at least a year. They've been asking devs to start making their games 4k-ready for a while now.
And again...a 4k capable Switch isn't the same thing as "all games will be in glorious 4k at full FPS." Just supporting it for all the 2D indie games/retro games with lower system requirements would be a boon.
I've been beating on the "Switch is Vita II" drum this whole time and I want this to finally come full circle.
I don’t want real 4k, just 4k menus. That’s pretty doable.
On such a small screen, you're getting diminishing returns past 1080p. Just have it aim for rock solid 60fps 1080p in Handheld, and try for 4k docked. It'll save battery time on something most people don't tell the difference at.
"Nintendo likes to SWITCH things things up"
Missed opportunity there, pal.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
Nintendo Shake, the only console that also makes milkshakes, smoothies and cocktails.
The fact that rumors have been around for a while means absolutely nothing. The fact that nintendo wants games to be 4k ready might just mean that they're actually taking backwards compatibility seriously for the first time, but that could be at any point in the future.
And the big reason I would doubt they would jump to 4k is that for most consumers, seeing '4k capable switch' DOES mean 'all games will be in glorious 4k'. Having to check each individual game to see if it's 4k capable would just lay the groundwork for confused and pissed off customers. I doubt they want to revisit the New 3ds situation any time soon.
I think they'll support 4k as soon as they can support all games in 4k, and I don't think that will be next year.
It's exactly the PS4 Pro / XB1X situation. Games need to be patched to take advantage of the hardware, most old ones aren't. It still plays all the unpatched games as normal.
I don't know why we are bringing a timetable up. At least as early as last year, Nintendo's been telling devs to get ready for something likely late this year. That's plenty of time for interested devs to do something if they want. It starts when Nintendo talks to devs, not us.
When PSVR came out people didn't throw a fit because not EVERY game released after that was VR-capable. And for a long time it was terrible and limited, but it was and remains "good enough," just like so many Switch games are "good enough."
I always thought that was why so much from steam so easily comes to switch. Because it was a fairly straightforward transition.
Vast majority of games are outputting 1080p to the Switch OS, regardless of whatever internal rendering resolution. It is typically the game that takes responsibility for upscaling to 1080p. This is exactly how it works on PS4/XB1 and why those games needed patches for their pro versions.
Its possible Nintendo would let you force a "boost" mode like PS4 Pro does on unpatched games, raising the effective GPU clocks and therefore framerate and rendering resolution, but that alone isn't going to let you break 1080p final output.
It occurred to me that more important than 4K resolution is HDR support, and an excellent reason to go to an OLED display. Don't know that Nintendo will have any "auto HDR" magic like Microsoft but again, patched games could look great and it will be a higher contrast experience even unpatched.
I can, but only barely. The bigger difference is HDR, and a Switch model with full HDR support would make me a very happy boy.
I reckon I could... if you hooked both TV's up side by side and showed the same picture.
But therein lies the rub. You most likely don't have two TV's next to each other to do that. Not to mention the two consoles needed to run the same game side by side. And you can't trust a PC monitor running a youtube comparison video, because your monitor is probably 1080p, so how on earth are you going to see and judge a 4K signal? And we haven't even gotten into the issues of HDR!
The entire resolution and visual industry is built on "There's a difference, trust us! We... can't actually tangibly show you the difference. But it's there! Trust us!"
And what really eats at me is that I personally know there must be a difference! If I play around with resolutions in PC games, there's a big fuckin' difference between 640/800/1080. I can even see it physically if I change my desktop resolution, as the billions of icons on it get bigger/smaller and there's more/less space.
Here's a silly extreme example pic to illustrate.
This special version of Haloz™ has a hard time running on the Switch, so its internal rendering resolution is only 60x34. You can probably count those pixels by hand. But as you can probably also tell, this image isn't literally 60x34, it's 960x544. It has been upscaled to fill the full viewing space, even though the console can't really do the image justice. Also, the lovely UI of the game doesn't take up a lot of system resources to draw, so it's being drawn over the top of everything at full resolution, as a post-processing sort of effect. This is so the UI doesn't get blurry even if the game does.
Additionally, you might be viewing this image on a high-res monitor, so high that if it were rendered natively even 960x544 would look tiny. Windows might blow it up even further with 150% or 200% scaling, the pixels on your monitor might literally be drawing it as if it were 1440x816. This is sort of like what your TV is telling you. It doesn't know that internal to the game, it's struggling to run and is only putting out a 60x34 image that gets blown up.
so what happens is a game is forced to run at a small resolution, blown up by the game engine to 720p with UI pasted on top, possibly then blown up by the game console to 1080p for consistent output, possibly then also blown up by the TV itself to 4k.
I have a 27in 1440 monitor and a 24in 1080 monitor. I can absolutely tell the difference.
I can also tell the difference in resolution on a smart phone. My old job had a lot of iPhone 7 phones in the small size. Those have below 1080p resolution and I hated it. I used to have an lg phone that was 1440 on a 5 in screen and I noticed. Now I’m on a iPhone 6 s which is the bigger model 1080p screen. I can still tell the difference between it and my wife’s small iphone7 with slightly lower resolution.
I have always been a resolution snob though. I used to see the 1600 x 1200 crt monitors and be super jealous because it looked like a godlike display compared to my 1280 x 960. I noticed when games were not at 1080 on my old 40 in screen.
I’m starting to get biased against swag because I’ve accrued so much crap over the last ~20-30 years but I feel like this is a weeeeird price based on the relative price of a game. Is that all it is? Swag?
So what you’re saying is the next Switch is definitely going to be 8K and Nintendo is going to enforce 8K on all games that come to the Switch.
Thank you, Sporky.
Pretty much. It's swag in the form of NES memorabilia of the era. Which as a person who grew up in said era, I'd be lying if I said it wasn't pushing some big nostalgia buttons for me. But I'm like you, as neat as it all looks, they're also fundamentally just dust collectors for me.
It's swag. Now I guess maybe if they were selling it outside of the anniversary package, standalone, Nintendo might try to claim it's worth $15-$20. Because it's never been localized officially, and they added a couple QOL features, and they also know the modern value of Fire Emblem to many people now. Yes I know most people would call it a $6 ROM, just saying I bet they internally consider it a $20 game, before swag.
Sometimes with very old Famicom/Super Famicom games that were text-heavy, more effort is required than you might think to localize them properly. Often these games were very tightly compressed to have exactly enough space to fit all the dialogue, and there isn't a feasible way to simply increase the game's file size due to checksums and hard requirements. They would do things like use lookup dictionaries or shorthand for often-repeated words and phrases, so for example if the game contains the text "help me" a lot, they wouldn't store h-e-l-p-space-m-e, they would just let one number code stand for the whole thing. And maybe there's a hard limit that these stand-ins can only be 4 characters long, because it only takes 4 characters to write "help me" in Japanese (I don't know), so the localizer trying to fit this in can only replace it with "help" at best. Or to save space they might write Ryu as the kanji 龍 instead of spelling it out, but the localizer needs to use 3 characters to write the name in English, which cuts into available characters elsewhere to write out the rest of the sentence.
What I'm getting at is sometimes to get the freedom you need to do the dialogue justice you basically have to rewrite significant parts of the game engine. If you need more text boxes than the original game had -- meaning, it takes this guy two text boxes to say his lines in Japanese but would take three in English -- there's a good change you have to rewrite the game. This problem even carries over into modern games like Three Houses, though I can't find the article talking about it now. But basically the localizers had to use existing "dialogue box cadence" to say whatever needed to be said.
Here's another article on the challenges that faced a different Fire Emblem game for decades.
All this is to say that depending on how the final product shakes out, Nintendo may consider themselves to have done more than $6 worth of work on this. And you may say, well what about Earthbound Beginnings, which was translated and released on Wii U for $7? And to that I say, it was an already finished internal translation just sitting around the whole time that they just polished up slightly.
the game is a freebie
https://limitedrungames.com/collections/nintendo/products/switch-limited-run-94-scott-pilgrim-vs-the-world-the-game-ko-edition
Yes you lift up the lid of the game and you get an entire pop-up concert with Sex Bob-Omb and Anamanaguchi music.
Full contents:
There's also a regular version and a medium version with only some of the swag above.
I missed out on it so if you're selling I'd buy!
Selling Board Games for Medical Bills
anything that is going to bump the cost of the switch over that $300 should be looked at with a lot of skepticism. It's not impossible, but i think it's unlikely that nintendo would push to have a high price just to have newer tech. they are more likely to do their own thing.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Pretty nice deal.
Switches were selling 400-500 this summer when supply was low in pandemic. The MSRP model is sold out on Amazon and there's still a small scalping fee on new ones on ebay. There is absolutely a market willing to pay around $400 for a better handheld and I'm sure Nintendo would rather be getting that than scalpers.
Wow.
I got one for myself and gave one too my Dad for Christmas. Both off of Amazon. Did it just not work at all? No signal?
Oh, I was just asking because that @Wario64 Twitter account always posts when they come back in stock and I was thinking about it but I really don't want swag, plus I already bought the digital version of the game. I didn't buy one of the anniversary edition packs and I probably won't. But if you follow that Twitter dude and turn on notifications, I think you'll be able to grab one eventually.
And what I would add is that they should put Earthbound Beginnings on the Switch. Along with Earthbound. And Mother 3. And Metroid Prime Trilogy.
I grabbed two. Thanks for the heads-up!
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
Steam ID
Twitch Page