What. Pricing looks silly high, at least.

It seems like a pretty decent price for the games + the cardboard imo. Assuming it's good cardboard.

I'm still scraping together money for a switch, though, so :I

I know I've joked in the past about Nintendo's underbuilt, throw-away gimmicks, but

I see that none of the Labo designs so far cover the Switch's vents. And the cardboard won't burn in a Nvidia-related fire.

I have a feeling that "console generations" aren't going to be a thing in a few years.

Oddly enough, this reminds me of Sharper Image. 'member that store?

It solves console manufacturers' biggest problems, but creates a lot of hard problems for game developers. Arguably, harder problems.

TL;DR: Release demand spikes are expensive and risky. Getting rid of console generations means they don't need to handle demand spikes anymore. Also, having regular optional upgrades is a good way to get rich people to pay higher hardware prices than poor people. On the other hand, console game developers will have to choose which hardware configurations they will support. You don't want to lose sales to the majority with under-powered machines, but customers with the more powerful machines will also expect better graphics and more features. That means developing multiple versions of your engine and assets for different hardware configurations. Plus, even if it's not explicitly supported, you'll need to budget for maintenance and QA for future hardware iterations that may be released during your support window. Cross-iteration compatibility is mostly a branding issue for console manufacturers, but for game developers it's a major, can-we-make-payroll kind of decision. It's taking the worst drawback of PC game development and throwing it on consoles, and charging platform royalties for the privilege.

Nintendo is mostly a game studio, so I'd expect them to continue making console generations. Sony and Microsoft won't. Aren't. Haven't been? I mean, that's the whole point of the PS4 Pro and the Xbox whatever nobody cares edition.

It seems like so many PC games today are completely **** at scaling down. Almost every modern game I've played has the same performance no matter what the graphical settings are set to. Olderish games used to be much better at this.

It'd be great to see an engine able to scale from Quake graphics to modern almost realistic graphics, along with the ability to run on computers from the Quake era to modern beasts.

"Team Fortress 2 running at DirectX 8 at 640x480 at the absolute lowest possible settings"






vs.

i heard they removed a lot of graphical detail as TF2 progressed but i didnt realize it got that bad!

That might explain why my aging computer had no problems running Portal 2.

This cursed world we live in. Trying to trick clueless people into buying useless cardboard trash by using the word science.

It's not even pretend scientific, either. It's just junk. They just did marketing and realized their primary market is 20/30 something 90's nostalgia millennials, so Bill Nye is their ideal advertising face.

Cursed cursed cursed world.

I used to be more "scientific" when I was bored at work and would experiment on what materials would dissolve in vinegar, and try to get things to precipitate out with baking soda.

u probably didn't wear a bow tie tho

You're right. I'm really terrible at salesmanship. It would probably be a good skill for me to develop.

Unlike lootbox garbage, season passes and kickstarter projects that go nowhere, cardboard is, at least, something that's real.