Jump to content

Nintendo Switch Discussion Topic


Shaytan

Recommended Posts

I'll just sit down right here and wait for it.

They seem to receive a lot of backlash. I'll look forward to price cuts and (probably) subscription being removed.

Seems going to be "WiiU and Vita" part 2. :cookie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you are wrong, again. The top 10 best sellers for both the DS and 3DS are Nintendo games. Again it shows that people buy Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games. 30 million New Super Mario Bros for the DS compared to the 6 million of the first Non-Nintendo title on the list. So woops.

 

Not everyone buys a 3DS for Pokemon games, true. But 8 of the combined top 10 of the 3DS and DS are Pokemon games. Which outsell the next non-Nintendo game by at least 10 million units. So showing that the majority of Nintendo DS/3DS players will buy it for Nintendo games.

 

And in any case, I never made that point. My point was, and I'll repeat for the third time, "IF YOU WANNA PLAY NINTENDO GAMES, YOU MUST BUY A NINTENDO CONSOLE". Get it? That's Nintendo business model. You wanna play their games? You buy their console. It will also support a bunch of other games. But it's the only place you can play Nintendo games. Buying a Nintendo console if you don't like Nintendo games is pointless, as third parties are available elsewhere, and exclusives are few (at least on console) if you discount Nintendo.

 

Where did I say Nintendo is a special snowflake? Son, I work in the game industry. I've worked with people from Nintendo, from Sony, from Microsoft, worked on huge titles and all that. I have far more authority to speak on the games industry than you. What do you think they should do? Go up and make a super graphically powerful console to compete with MS and Sony? That would be a huge waste of time and money. Nintendo needs to make a profit on every console, whereas the other two can sell at a loss and offset it/bankroll it thanks to their other divisions. It would be a losing game, since the others are already way ahead in that tech and it would take Nintendo a lot of time and money to catch up. So Nintendo focuses on what it does best: make consoles that fit the games they wanna make. One thing you can never fault Nintendo on is quality. They never need day one patches or anything of the sort, their games always work. And yes, your opinion was pretty retarded. Misinformed could have been a nicer word.

 

You clearly said you were interested because of the free online, and said you never cared for Nintendo games. Ergo, 90% of the appeal of a Nintendo console is instantly pointless to you. But hey, since you know so much about the games industry, do tell how you expect them to compete with MS and Sony. Since you clearly know better to claim that Nintendo is messing up again, can you tell me how they should go about it?

 

And on Super Mario Run: Sorry bro, it wasn't made by Nintendo. It was mostly developed by DeNA, with some guidance by them. Still, for the type of game it sets out to be, it does very well in the genre. Can you explain to me why you think it was garbage?

  • Like 2

2lzNHds.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point talking to people who think they know everything. Fine, Nintendo consoles are only for Nintendo fanboys, got it, if you're an example of one I don't want anything to do with that community anyway.

Edited by RogerWho
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooo....

 

Can I like and buy a gaming hardware based on a reason other than the first party exclusives? :p

Edited by luisniko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tchuck, I can't see the point of your arguments. So you say that if you want to play Nintendo games, then you get a Nintendo console - that seems a good point, but how did that worked out for the Wii U? The same logic can be applied here, do you really want to go that way?

 

There's more in question besides playing games developed by Nintendo (where the quality and originality of the latest titles is very questionable too - before you call me ridiculous once more, I'll just say this: the Starfox remake). If the company wants to be relevant, and I mean relevant outside the group of guys that will buy just because of the brand, it'll have to appeal to the consumers, mainly when there's two big names on the console market, going mid-generation by now. The console is cheaper than competition, it's a powerful mobile gaming device [that runs the games on itself] and that turns itself into an home console, how cool is that?! It showcased games outside the N brand (you might want to play first party games, and while those are unique the general consumer won't buy another platform just for that), and we assumed it would have a free online connection like Nintendo made until now and is it made sense.

 

I already don't see the point in paying Xbox Gold or PS+, but regardless of my opinion, how can Nintendo even offer a service as good as the competition? Were hackers an issue? No! Does Nintendo have a bunch of recent AAA games to offer every month? I doubt so. Unless it proves to be something awesome, it won't worth it. Even on the teaser video they promoted multi device multiplayer, and then you have to pay for that?

 

Of course nobody would buy a console *just* for that, but it was a major reason to. I had this mental list of things I expected from the console, even before it was teased, about things I expected it to have in order to be worth it for me, and free online multiplayer was pretty high on the list. Or, if you wanna play Nintendo games with your friends, you'll stfu and pay the subscription?

 

In conclusion, there's a lot more than first party games to appeal people to buy this console, for example being a powerful mobile platform and at the same time an home console, offering an easy to get and affordable gaming experience and a game library that appeals to the whole family and to different types of players. Of Nintendo starts cutting these things that appeal to the market outside Nintendo die-hard fans, once more that'll be the only users of it.

Edited by Zombified Andy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need to wait and see just how the multiplayer side of gaming unravels itself in Nintendo Switch. The titles which were announced in the presentation didn't have many notable MP supporting titles (only Splatoon 2 and Arms looked relevant). We may get more AAA titles with MP. At that point, Nintendo must make sure that their online services are top-notch. So, in a way, them placing subscriptions on online services is them sending a message to all the developers and gamers that they can be trusted for quality service in online aspects.

 

Besides, I doubt the subscriptions would be VERY costly. I mean, it's Nintendo. If Xbox live costs around 40$, then it would be mad of them to even ask for anything more than 30$ (I am talking in terms of annual).

 

To me, this seems to be the only major problem with Switch. I, myself, don't prefer online so no subscriptions for me. But it is sad in general that even with all the sh*t we pay to these companies, they still want a few bucks more for a "better service". It's like ordering a pizza but only getting the bread. I don't support this "pseudo-ripoff" but if they can deliver what's promised with utmost quality, then I won't waste my breath with further bitching. This was my take on this issue.

Edited by Dr. John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ClaudeSpeed1911

What a mess this is turning out to be.

 

The biggest mess is the battery, just 3 hours if you play zelda? wtf is the point then? Why not make it console. This the biggest problem I have with this as I wanted a console on the go but since its only 3 hours there is no point in it.

 

Paid online, "Free" games which is taken back after a month, needing a phone to chat with friends, an over priced controller.

 

I won't be buying this sh*t and if anyone is to be blamed its Nintendo and their dumb mistakes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunrise Driver

People here are right - Switch NEEDS 3rd party games and even some 3rd party exclusives. Western ones. Without them Switch will flop faster than Wii U.

 

And LEGO City Undercover for Switch and PC! YAY!

 

P.S. I dunno how I missed the announcement of LEGO CU back in november.

Edited by Street Mix
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Bowser dress like a pimp? :blink:

Because, while Mario is searching for his Princess...

 

 

__bowser_and_princess_peach_mario_series

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$300 seems a bit steep for something like this tbh. While 32GB is the only storage option, I'm glad it can be expanded via microSDXC.

VWSTp.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got major beef with the online service. $5 per month (if certain outlets are to be believed) makes it even more expensive than PS Plus or XBL Gold. For what, exactly? Mario Kart Deluxe and Splatoon 2? Because those are the only games I can think of (other than Smash) that Nintendo players take online. And the prospect of "borrowing" a Virtual Console game every month is a limp-dick incentive. It's not just that you don't get to keep it, either - what happens in six months' time when they've exhausted the entire VC library?

 

Not sold, I'm afraid. Was never going to get one at launch anyway (not prepared to spend £5,000 for one on Ebay), but the games lineup puts the Switch pretty far down my list of gaming priorities.

Edited by scalliano
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tchuck, I can't see the point of your arguments. So you say that if you want to play Nintendo games, then you get a Nintendo console - that seems a good point, but how did that worked out for the Wii U? The same logic can be applied here, do you really want to go that way?

 

Define "worked out". It didn't sell nearly as much as the Xbox and PS4, that's true. But does it need to sell nearly as much? Did Nintendo profit from the sales of the console? Yes. Did they break even on their game development? I don't know, they don't reveal these kinds of information. As far as games go, the first party titles available for the Wii U were damn solid, specially with the likes of Splatoon. It wasn't Nintendo's best offerings, but it was solid nonetheless.

 

 

There's more in question besides playing games developed by Nintendo (where the quality and originality of the latest titles is very questionable too - before you call me ridiculous once more, I'll just say this: the Starfox remake). If the company wants to be relevant, and I mean relevant outside the group of guys that will buy just because of the brand, it'll have to appeal to the consumers, mainly when there's two big names on the console market, going mid-generation by now. The console is cheaper than competition, it's a powerful mobile gaming device [that runs the games on itself] and that turns itself into an home console, how cool is that?! It showcased games outside the N brand (you might want to play first party games, and while those are unique the general consumer won't buy another platform just for that), and we assumed it would have a free online connection like Nintendo made until now and is it made sense.

 

Is there, though? Nintendo has found their market niche. Should they just explore as much of it as they can, or should they get involved in a blood bath with Sony and MS that they will inevitably lose? The company is trying to stay relevant, thus the advances over mobile to bring more awareness to their titles. They still got several millions of downloads on the two things with their brand on it, despite not being very good. On their platforms, Nintendo has always followed the tradition of "first party comes first". They make hardware because they wanna make good games and want to have control over the hardware. And it's worked for them for the entirety of their history, even though people have been asking them to go multiplatform as farback as the 90s.

 

As for the free online connection, Nintendo's online service has sucked balls for as long as they've tried it, so it was never worth it to put a premium on it. But if the service is much better, I don't see anything wrong with charging for it, specially if it allows them to keep better connections and host more events like they did for Splatoon. People also bitched that Xbox Live was paid, but eventually it was accepted for the great quality addition it was. I predict same will happen with this.

 

 

I already don't see the point in paying Xbox Gold or PS+, but regardless of my opinion, how can Nintendo even offer a service as good as the competition? Were hackers an issue? No! Does Nintendo have a bunch of recent AAA games to offer every month? I doubt so. Unless it proves to be something awesome, it won't worth it. Even on the teaser video they promoted multi device multiplayer, and then you have to pay for that?

 

Right, lots of people do though, that's why they pay for it. As for how can they offer as good a service? Perhaps great connections, perhaps great community support.

And it's obvious you don't have to pay for local multiplayer? I mean, why would you pay for that? Obviously the online stuff is for true online stuff. If you have a group of mates with their Switch next to you, obviously you can play local. But if you want to go online and local mixed together, then you'll probably have to pay the online fee, much like the other two systems kind of do already.

 

As to what else they can offer, I don't know. They've been playing it very close to their chests. I think it won't be worth it in the beginning, but depending on what advantages the online gameplay brings to your games, who knows.

 

 

Of course nobody would buy a console *just* for that, but it was a major reason to. I had this mental list of things I expected from the console, even before it was teased, about things I expected it to have in order to be worth it for me, and free online multiplayer was pretty high on the list. Or, if you wanna play Nintendo games with your friends, you'll stfu and pay the subscription?

 

Right, you expected it, Nintendo never promised it. And who knows, maybe they will have two tiers, one for paid and one for free. We don't have all the details of the connection yet. This may turn out to be a storm in a water cup for all we know. All we can do is wait and see. And again, you can go to your friend's house and play your Switch locally, giving you the best performance anyway. Or you can pay for the online and play from your home, like you'd have to do with the Xbox or PS. Or who knows. They left a lot of things out of this reveal.

 

 

In conclusion, there's a lot more than first party games to appeal people to buy this console, for example being a powerful mobile platform and at the same time an home console, offering an easy to get and affordable gaming experience and a game library that appeals to the whole family and to different types of players. Of Nintendo starts cutting these things that appeal to the market outside Nintendo die-hard fans, once more that'll be the only users of it.

 

Of course, the appeal to take things on the go is a major selling point of this console. I never said it wasn't. I said that if you want to play a Nintendo game, you need a nintendo console, which is the big appeal factor of a Nintendo console. I don't think anyone was expecting revolutionary online gameplay, nor was it promised. If people remove the hype and their expectations from what the console is, you'd see that Nintendo is sticking it very close to what it set out to be.

 

 

No point talking to people who think they know everything. Fine, Nintendo consoles are only for Nintendo fanboys, got it, if you're an example of one I don't want anything to do with that community anyway.

 

Can't handle the fire, get out of the kitchen. Again, I don't know what your issue is with reading comprehension. I said that, and I'll repeat and bold and italics so that maybe you will understand, "IF YOU WANT TO PLAY NINTENDO GAMES, YOU NEED A NINTENDO CONSOLE". Got it now? This means that the largest appeal of the console is the Nintendo games, which you can't play anywhere else. And that most of the people who buy a Nintendo console are buying it for the Nintendo games, thus why the top sellers of all Nintendo consoles have been Nintendo games. This is fact. This isn't fanboyism. This is an analysis of the sales of games for those consoles.

 

And good, we don't need your kind anyway.

2lzNHds.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of, I'd ask you to stop saying the same phrase over and over again. I'm not retard neither is anyone here, we got it at first. It doesn't make your point valid, and it's getting really annoying, too. Sure, the Nintendo first-party titles are something different of what most of the gaming industry does, so it's always something unique their platforms have; regardless if a particular person (I'm not going to give myself as an example because it seems to bother you) likes them or not [and as a matter of fact, generally speaking I do], it's always an advantage for Nintendo. But my point is, it shouldn't be the only reason for a person to buy their consoles! Sure, this guy likes and wants to play Nintendo games, but the home console the brand had to offer 'till now was the Wii U, with dated hardware, questionable concept and huge lack of third-party titles, that while nobody's asking to be a major concern, what I've been saying is that are also important, offer a bigger library to the console and extra fun. Did the NES or the SNES became the huge success they were only because the first party games? While those were a big success, so were a lot of third-party games. Going back to my point, you want to play Nintendo games, but the home console Nintendo offer gives that, but fails in a lot of other aspects - maybe that's why the 3DS sold a lot more? After all it also allowed to play Nintendo games, but the third-party library is undoubtedly better, and it's possibly the best console is the handheld market. To conclude, if you want to play Nintendo games, then you might want a Nintendo console because nobody else offers anything like those, but there might be other factors that could (and can) make you stay away of the said consoles.

 

"Define "worked out". It didn't sell nearly as much as the Xbox and PS4, that's true. But does it need to sell nearly as much?" - then define you worked out, because you couldn't prove otherwise. You know as a fact it was completely outsold by the competition on the market, how can you question if they needed to? Of course they needed, even the former Nintendo President had cut his salary as an apologize for the failure (quite a noble move), Nintendo moved on for another platform really soon on the lifespan of the current home platform and that console is completely ignored amongst almost every gaming community - what other evidence you need to admit it failed?

 

Finally, who doesn't need my kind? If you're an example of the community of Nintendo fans (and you aren't because I used to be a member of my country's community of Nintendo) , then I don't want a bunch of arrogant, uneducated guys that nobody can engage in a discussion with to need me, anyways. BTW, I cared enough about Nintendo and this console to create this thread while most of people arround here didn't knew or didn't cared about it, I must be a Nintendo hater and this console is definitely not for me.

Edited by Zombified Andy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have serious lower expectations about Sonic Mania but the nostalgia its quite strong. Nice move SEGA, kinda desperate at the end.

Please easter egg the infamous kiss with Princess Elise lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it seems like you're paying 299 mostly for the portable aspect of the Switch. Take that out and you're left with a slightly more powerful Wii U without the gamepad. Paying 299 for that? No way.

 

So for the people who don't care about the portable aspect, don't buy it. Just wait for a price cut or something. What would be even better is for them to offer the Switch without the tablet but with the regular controller. I'm sure that would drive down the price a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wastelander (Suzuki)

I have high hopes for this console, I really hope They finally got their sh*t in one sock, ever since the Wii U I was worried they might go the way of SEGA, I might get a Switch in the near future provided they come out with a metroid game set in the Prime timeline, a new smash bros, and/or a new F-zero

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SuzukiRazgriz: Sega situation was a bit different from Nintendo, Sega not only lost the trust of the players but was also broke, while Nintendo actually was doing fine. Thanks to that, Nintendo managed to take their time putting this console together and clearly working hard on it.

 

So far, besides Breath of the Wild, I have to say Mario Odyssey looks really cool and promising too, not only they managed to bring a fresh looks to the franchise and get a Mario 64 platformer style on much bigger environments, also designed some amazing looking original maps. I still would only consider getting one at least by December, not only stores tend to drop the price for Christmas, we might also get a better idea how in terms of games and third-party support things are going for the Switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But my point is, it shouldn't be the only reason for a person to buy their consoles!

 

Why? If it's making a profit for them, if it allows their company to be sustainable, if it allows them to develop great games, why shouldn't it be the only reason?

 

 

"Define "worked out". It didn't sell nearly as much as the Xbox and PS4, that's true. But does it need to sell nearly as much?" - then define you worked out, because you couldn't prove otherwise. You know as a fact it was completely outsold by the competition on the market, how can you question if they needed to? Of course they needed, even the former Nintendo President had cut his salary as an apologize for the failure (quite a noble move), Nintendo moved on for another platform really soon on the lifespan of the current home platform and that console is completely ignored amongst almost every gaming community - what other evidence you need to admit it failed?

 

It wasn't as successful as the other two in sales, that much is true. And if sales is your only metric, then yeah it failed. But that's not what Nintendo was aiming for. They aren't going out to outsell the other platforms out there. They are going out to sell decent consoles, at a profit, and support with with good first party games. sh*t, if you look at Nintendo's history, it never competed directly with Sony/MS/Sega. It always did it's own thing. This whole console wars bullsh*t was made up by the media to have something interesting to talk about, and to pitch manufacturers against each other. Nintendo let the others fight it out, sometimes to bankruptcy (RIP Sega), while it continued doing it's own thing. Nintendo cares about innovating and making fun things. And they've been doing it for 30+ years, and it's kept them afloat as a company. So yeah, their strategy works out pretty well.

 

 

Finally, who doesn't need my kind? If you're an example of the community of Nintendo fans (and you aren't because I used to be a member of my country's community of Nintendo) , then I don't want a bunch of arrogant, uneducated guys that nobody can engage in a discussion with to need me, anyways. BTW, I cared enough about Nintendo and this console to create this thread while most of people arround here didn't knew or didn't cared about it, I must be a Nintendo hater and this console is definitely not for me.

 

I was referring to that other poster, not you. You actually have some decent arguments to talk about and weren't resorting to name-calling until this very post.

2lzNHds.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it seems like you're paying 299 mostly for the portable aspect of the Switch. Take that out and you're left with a slightly more powerful Wii U without the gamepad. Paying 299 for that? No way.

 

So for the people who don't care about the portable aspect, don't buy it. Just wait for a price cut or something. What would be even better is for them to offer the Switch without the tablet but with the regular controller. I'm sure that would drive down the price a lot.

 

I agree with the part I emboldened.

 

Let's not forget about it and keep in mind that Switch is (also) selling the technology behind switchable portable device and home console feature. You're looking at the wrong product if you want performance and graphic in Switch.

 

Currently Switch is negating every existing problem about portable device-home console:

- People don't like portable device that streams the game through internet. Switch got it

- People want to play the same game on console and handheld without paying for secondary device like VitaTV. Switch got it

- People want a handheld gaming device focusing on games, not apps like Vita and smartphone. There you go, Switch got it again

- People want L2/R2 and L3/R3 buttons on handheld device? Switch got it again, motherf*ckers

- People want rumbler/vibration on their handheld device? Switch again and again got it

 

So let's give them credit on this feature. And I don't mean you gotta buy this on day 1. I myself won't.

 

Let's not be the people who complain when something is lacking, but ignoring when it's available.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tchuck, over the last posts we're dissonant about these 2 aspects: the reasons that motivate a person to jump in for a Nintendo console, and what can be seen as a Nintendo console failing.

 

For the first one, I simply think that there are more (or, at least, should be more) on a Nintendo console besides first-party games. You pretty much say Nintendo games are unique on the market and I agree with you, that's a win for Nintendo, and that's something their consoles always have and are associated with. However, my point is that on a console while sure, it's reasonable you go in for a platform mainly for the games it offers (or what games only that platform offers), there are other factors that might make people distance themselves from the same console. One thing I perceive is that I'm not the only one that wants to play Nintendo games, but also those other "multiplatform" titles, and with the Wii U there was this odd situation such thing wasn't possible; while since the GameCube Nintendo tended to distance (or better said, other facts made devs distance from Nintendo) but it would be a huuuge win for them if they could bring some of those games to their library - just see that a lot of people got excited over Skyrim, even caught by surprise such game was avaliable for a Nintendo console. With their latest console you basically needed a second platform in order to get the most out of gaming, but not everyone can afford that, that's why PC and the two console alternates, offering a lot more different games, might end up being preferred over the Wii U. Also, regarding free online service, it would be an huge advantage for Nintendo because people wouldn't have to spend money on such service and thus have another compelling reason to move into it - sure, the service might offer better online connection, but would it be worth it? So far we know it also allows to use a smartphone chat application, get a monthly free NES/SNES game that you can only play during that month, and... Well that's all. As consumers we can't avoid but compare what other companies have to offer, even if Nintendo isn't directly competing with Sony or Microsoft (I give you points over that too) they're in the same market, so things have to be worth it and of standard quality for an informed consumer consider spending his money over something; so in conclusion, a console has good first-party games but then fails or at least doesn't offer as good "extras" as the rest of the market, it might not be considered as a purchase for someone undecided what to buy.

 

About the second point, you can't be that naive to think sales don't matter. On the most inner level, the goal of every company, every working person and every business is profit and thus sales. If something, no matter how good it is, hardly pays itself back or gives profit then it didn't succeeded in the market. Note I used the amount of units sold on PS4 and Xbox side just as a comparison and not ad competition, again because they're in the same market. You say basically "even if not that much, Nintendo sold enough to make profit" but if in the same market they sold so few compared to other companies then it wasn't a good thing, if they sold less of this console than it's precessor again it wasn't a good thing, if it was their least selling flagship console of all time, well you know where I'm trying to go into. The appeal consumers have by purchasing a console can define how good it is, and even if they made amazing games for it, everything else wasn't appealing enough for the console to sell more. If you were right then they would have no need to make a new console and move on so soon because they were still making profit, right? But they moved on and for a new concept.

 

Finally, regarding your last paragraph, I have to say I find it very hard to believe it was for the other poster since you made no mention to that, and even if it was, I won't back down on what I said. Your arguments aren't strong yet you keep insisting on them and discrediting what others tell you making very hard to argument. I also think his [RogerWho] view is valid, so while I don't think he'd need me to defend him, I wouldn't agree with that attack of yours against him either. I won't go name-calling unless provocated, too, but I'll keep avoiding that thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The biggest mess is the battery, just 3 hours if you play zelda? wtf is the point then? Why not make it console. This the biggest problem I have with this as I wanted a console on the go but since its only 3 hours there is no point in it.

 

I'll be honest, I had no intention of buying Nintendo's latest dump, but this totally killed it. Three hours. THREE HOURS.

 

Better off sticking with your phone.

 

Also, it really does feel like there's one particular Nintendo SuperFan in here that's oblivious to other people's opinions and seems to think he needs to argue the toss whether people care or not.

  • Like 2
Signatures are dumb anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The biggest mess is the battery, just 3 hours if you play zelda? wtf is the point then? Why not make it console. This the biggest problem I have with this as I wanted a console on the go but since its only 3 hours there is no point in it.

 

I'll be honest, I had no intention of buying Nintendo's latest dump, but this totally killed it. Three hours. THREE HOURS.

 

And don't forget we're talking about a brand new battery, off the box. After an year or two of countless charges and discharges and taking the heat produced by the console (one of the worst enemies of modern batteries) and you might get half of that. Sum the non-replaceable battery to that and you get a big issue on the long term. At least you can charge it on the go with those smartphone power banks.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The biggest mess is the battery, just 3 hours if you play zelda? wtf is the point then? Why not make it console. This the biggest problem I have with this as I wanted a console on the go but since its only 3 hours there is no point in it.

 

I'll be honest, I had no intention of buying Nintendo's latest dump, but this totally killed it. Three hours. THREE HOURS.

 

Better off sticking with your phone.

 

 

 

3 hours is for Zelda. The rest of the game varies.

 

PSP and Vita also do 4 hours work max. I don't see the problem with battery tbh. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ClaudeSpeed1911

 

 

 

The biggest mess is the battery, just 3 hours if you play zelda? wtf is the point then? Why not make it console. This the biggest problem I have with this as I wanted a console on the go but since its only 3 hours there is no point in it.

 

I'll be honest, I had no intention of buying Nintendo's latest dump, but this totally killed it. Three hours. THREE HOURS.

 

Better off sticking with your phone.

 

 

 

3 hours is for Zelda. The rest of the game varies.

 

PSP and Vita also do 4 hours work max. I don't see the problem with battery tbh. lol

 

My Vita and PSP lasts more than that. 6 hours for Vita and 8 for PSP and when the Vita's battery is empty it saves your progress so that when you recharge it would still be where you left off, (a save state like an emulator to simplify it.) And unlike the 3DS if you let them sleep they can last weeks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Vita and PSP lasts more than that. 6 hours for Vita and 8 for PSP and when the Vita's battery is empty it saves your progress so that when you recharge it would still be where you left off, (a save state like an emulator to simplify it.) And unlike the 3DS if you let them sleep they can last weeks.

Wut? My Vita and PSP2000 can't last that long. I used to use my PSP everyday to game while on the way total trips combined would be 2.5 to 3 hours and my battery would be dropping to one bar. Perhaps the game we play matters too?

 

Talking about sleep mode, I used to forget my PSP being in Sleep mode for weeks until the battery ran out and I couldn't turn it on. Recharged it and it came back to the state where I left it off in the middle of the game. :p Pure GG. Felt bad though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ClaudeSpeed1911

 

My Vita and PSP lasts more than that. 6 hours for Vita and 8 for PSP and when the Vita's battery is empty it saves your progress so that when you recharge it would still be where you left off, (a save state like an emulator to simplify it.) And unlike the 3DS if you let them sleep they can last weeks.

Wut? My Vita and PSP2000 can't last that long. I used to use my PSP everyday to game while on the way total trips combined would be 2.5 to 3 hours and my battery would be dropping to one bar. Perhaps the game we play matters too?

 

Talking about sleep mode, I used to forget my PSP being in Sleep mode for weeks until the battery ran out and I couldn't turn it on. Recharged it and it came back to the state where I left it off in the middle of the game. :p Pure GG. Felt bad though.

 

What version do you have and how old are they?

 

I have a PSP 1000 (has a bigger and a 3000. Both lasts more the the Vita 2000, I got the Vita a year back and it lasts 5 and half and if you turn off the wifi it lasts more. The same thing for the PSP, it lasts longer if you don't use the wifi. If you have a hacked version and speed the psp (I am not sure what its called) the battery will not last that much. Also if you use the fat battery, the PSP 1000 on the Slim it would last more than it would using the slim battery since its bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.