The FAMOUS Youtuber Cr1tikal is really HATING the Switch 2!! Do you agree?

ConfusedTorchic posted...

note that i never complained about

this.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

it's bulls*** that there are buttons i paid for but cannot use.

You complained about paying for buttons and not being able to use them. The cost of including the buttons in question is what you paid to get them. Ergo, you complained about the cost of including the buttons in question. Transitive property, yo.

Realistically, you probably aren't even actually paying either way, because leaving out the button would save so little that the price would still be rounded up to the current price for the sake of having a more even number. They aren't going to make the controller $99.50 instead of $100 just because they saved 50 cents leaving out the C button (or whatever the actual numbers are).

ConfusedTorchic posted...

it's the principal of locking a hardware button behind a subscription

It's functionally no different from not being able to do anything with the channel change buttons on a TV remote without paying for cable, or not being able to do anything with the ignition on your car without paying for gas. The button exists solely to access GameChat more conveniently than going through the Home overlay every time. If that's not something you have, you can ignore them, the same way you ignore everything else in the world around you that serves a purpose in which you aren't interested.

Notably, this is distinct from something like BMW having a subscription for their seat warmers, because in that case BMW is stopping the hardware from working unless you pay for it. Seat warmers are not a service that BMW provides, they're a basic electrical circuit and thermostat that is powered by the electrical system that the car's owner pays to maintain. If BMW did not block the hardware from working, the owner could use it, so BMW has taken something away from that owner that they'd otherwise have if BMW hadn't gotten involved. GameChat is a service Nintendo provides. Not providing that service to consumers that don't pay does not take anything away from those consumers that they'd otherwise have if Nintendo hadn't gotten involved.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

if it was just a customizable hotkey, but defaulted to gamechat out of the box, i would be fine with that.

It may yet end up being that way, given that the Switch 1 offered pretty robust control rebindings, but given that the button was designed around GameChat - a feature that you're going to be opening very rarely and almost never in the midst of active gameplay - it's not exactly positioned to be useful for anything else. Complaining that the C button doesn't do anything useful without an NSO subscription is pretty much the same as complaining that there isn't a second home button on current Joycon 1s that you can rebind as desired.

"You have to pay to use the C button" is a framing that only makes sense if you're trying to find reasons be angry about the Switch 2. When I first saw people saying that they were charging to use controller buttons, I was concerned that they were paywalling the GR/GL buttons on the pro controller so you couldn't rebind them without a subscription, because that would be scummy, but the C button? In every imaginable way, that's not only a non-issue, it's a non-issue for which there's been ample analogous precedent in every other tech field for about as long as those fields have existed.

adj

i mean this in the nicest way possible

but stop bootlicking

i mean he's not

you're taking a hard stance about a nothing issue and he's arguing against just specifically that

also wtf @ spending more than "came with the TV" for a remote

agesboy posted...

i mean he's not

no, he really is. arguing in favor of a literal useless button that requires a paid subscription to use is pretty much the definition of bootlicking.

that's without getting into the fact that it opens up the door for it to become accepted, and then down the line we'll have entire controllers that need a subscription to use. is that dooming? sure, until you realize that the same thing was said about oblivions horse armor which ended up paving the way for shoving as many microtransactions into games. about loot boxes in games. apple removing headphone jacks paved the way for everyone else to get rid of it. something had to pave the way, and a hardware button that needs a subscription to use is doing that.

in fact, you could even say that tv remotes with specific netflix and prime buttons paved the way for nintendo to think this was okay to do.

it's not a nothing issue, it's nintendo thinking they can get away with making you pay annually to use a button on the controller.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

is pretty much the definition of bootlicking.

the first posts adjl made in this topic were critical of nintendo, and he's largely critical of nintendo in general outside of this one dumb button issue that doesn't matter to anyone but you

Removing headphone jack was not a bad move. It is an outdated technology. Could it have waited some more time before it was universally removed? Yes. But it had to be done at some point. And Apple just turned out to be the pioneers, that's life.

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who adjl does not allow you to criticize - Voltaire

when the playstation 6 and xbox whatever has subscription buttons and everyone is bemoaning them for it i am absolutely going to parade around with i told you so

and it's gonna be great, because it's absolutely assured to happen

both those already have stupid buttons i dont want to use, that stupid pad button in the middle of playstation controllers is so much worse than this imo
traditional controllers have really only gone downhill since the ps3, i do like the goofy little switch controllers tho, verdicts out on the new ones

ConfusedTorchic posted...

arguing in favor of a literal useless button that requires a paid subscription to use is pretty much the definition of bootlicking.

But it's not a useless button. It's a button that exists to give subscribers convenient access to the service to which they subscribe. Quite simply, there are four possible scenarios here:

1. Player is subscribed, C button exists
2. Player is not subscribed, C button exists
3. Player is subscribed, C button does not exist
4. Player is not subscribed, C button does not exist

In scenario 1, the player's experience is improved by the convenience. In scenario 3, the player's experience is comparatively worse for the lack of convenience. Between scenarios 2 and 4, literally nothing changes about the player's experience. The choice, then, is between a positive and a neutral (C button exists), and a negative and a neutral (C button does not exist). In what universe can you possibly claim that choosing the latter is a sensible decision?

Now, I'll concede that there are limits to this. Having 20 different buttons for direct access to 20 different streaming services on a remote may seem convenient for subscribers to those services on paper, but in practice it makes the remote impractically large and unwieldy, and the fact that very, very few users will subscribe to more than a handful of those services means most of that bloat will be entirely wasted. That's a question of efficiency, though, not of "principles" (which is fancy way of saying "I have no actual reason to object to this, I just don't like it and want to pretend my position is legitimate"). Adding one such button for one service to the Switch 2's controllers doesn't even begin to push into problem territory.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

that's without getting into the fact that it opens up the door for it to become accepted, and then down the line we'll have entire controllers that need a subscription to use.

There's a world of difference between "this button provides a convenient shortcut to a perk for subscribers, and serves no other purpose for non-subscribers" and "you need to pay to use this button that is critical for most games."

They are not charging you to use a button. They are adding a button to access a paid service. Yes, the bottom line is that if you don't pay the button is useless, which would be the case either way, but those are are radically different design philosophies. Considering one on the design end does not mean considering the other, and accepting one on the consumer end does not constitute acceptance of the other.

If you want to be critical of the idea of paywalling controller buttons in a way that adversely affects gameplay? Go for it. Just stick to either criticizing the idea in a broader, hypothetical sense or criticizing actual examples of it. Criticizing the Switch 2 for doing it when they clearly are not, though, just makes it easy to write off everything you have to say on the matter as ignorant anti-fanboyism.

agesboy posted...

he's largely critical of nintendo in general

I don't know if I'd say that. I'm critical when they really deserve it, but I tend to give them more leeway than I give other companies because they've built up a decent amount of good will (at least in my books). I am, after all, merely allegedly human. Even I can't be perfectly objective all the time.

agesboy posted...

i mean he's not

you're taking a hard stance about a nothing issue and he's arguing against just specifically that

also wtf @ spending more than "came with the TV" for a remote

There's absolutely no reason to defend it. That's the definition of bootlicking.

yeah i just looked it up, bootlicker is someone with a different opinion than me.
please calm down man most people arent going to think this button is a big deal and some people will even use it and like it, thats a certainty. would i put this button on a controller? no. will I use this button? probably not. but that doesnt mean everyone is a fucking bootlicker, you throw that word around when you dont know what it means.

"no one gives a shit" =/= bootlicking

jesus christ. the netflix button on my controller annoyed me for about three seconds and then i just fucking ignored it from then on

All products should cost the same amount forever and not have any design choices that you object to and if you disagree you are a bootlicker

Revelation34 posted...

There's absolutely no reason to defend it.

Aside from a general desire to shut down people that are saying ridiculous things. My motivation is less a matter of defending Nintendo and more telling people that are whining about it for no reason to get over themselves. The people that are whining about it for no reason could rebut this by providing a meaningful reason, but nothing about this discussion has given me cause to believe that there are any meaningful reasons, since the position has boiled entirely down to "muh principles" and textbook slippery slope fallacies.

TheSlinja posted...

would i put this button on a controller? no. will I use this button? probably not. but that doesnt mean everyone is a f***ing bootlicker, you throw that word around when you dont know what it means.

Exactly. I don't think it's really necessary and there's a fair chance I won't be using it myself (mostly due to not knowing many people that I expect to play any Switch 2 games with), but I can understand the appeal for those that will be subscribing and the button's existence isn't worth complaining about. I didn't have a problem with that stupid TV button on the WiiU gamepad that nobody used, and given that this is similarly tucked out of the way, I don't expect to have a problem with it either. Why would I?

Revelation34 posted...

The issue is getting nickel and dimed on the game prices with bullshit tariff excuses.

I used to think that wasn't the case, but you're right. The price in other countries is the exact same after conversion. If this was truly about tariffs, Nintendo would have stated that they would lower the price as soon as the tariffs were lifted. This would have told Americans to blame the real culprit and put pressure on him. But they didn't and they're selling the console and games at the same price everywhere. They definitely deserve the hate and criticism for this.

adjl posted...

It's in the same vein as people freaking out that you need an NSO subscription to be able to buy one of the NES or SNES controllers: Yes, it's kind of weird that you need a subscription to be allowed to buy a controller, but it's a controller that's only useful for playing the NES or SNES games on the Switch that you require an NSO subscription to access. There's no reason to want one unless you're already subscribed to the service.

I'm pretty sure the decision was made to prevent scalping. The only people who would complain are those who have no intention of using those controllers.

adjl posted...

There's a world of difference between "this button provides a convenient shortcut to a perk for subscribers, and serves no other purpose for non-subscribers" and "you need to pay to use this button that is critical for most games."

i heard this same shit for horse armor, and i know you did too.

we can put this in a different term: if microsoft did this with a new xbox controller, you'd be running riot dragging them through the mud for it.

Co-pilot button but you need a subscription

ConfusedTorchic posted...

we can put this in a different term: if microsoft did this with a new xbox controller, you'd be running riot dragging them through the mud for it.

For nearly 15 years, I've been using a 360 controller for PC games that has a giant Xbox button in the middle of it that's completely useless unless I buy an Xbox. My only complaint about that one is that it's too easy to accidentally hit during gameplay or with the controller lying around, which sometimes brings up whatever overlay has been shoehorned in to pretend the button serves a purpose without an Xbox menu to access. Otherwise, I understand why it exists and accept that it's just not for me.

This isn't new. Sometimes, taking full advantage of the features of a given piece of hardware requires an additional purchase. This can be bad if the paywall has no practical justification (like BMW's seat warmers) or if the hardware is so bloated with those premium features that it interferes with regular use while providing no commensurate benefit to non-payers (the Xbox button being a very mild example, but the hypothetical TV remote I proposed earlier with 20 different streaming buttons illustrates the idea better), but if neither is the case, it's a non-issue. If Xbox added a button to (to use josh's example) bring up a Co-pilot overlay to provide tips/hints for the game you're playing, paywalled as a perk of their premium subscription, I might express some disapproval of the concept of AI-powered searching (bloated power demands, unreliable results, minimal improvement over regular searching), but I wouldn't take issue with the fact that a button exists to access the premium service unless that button is placed in a way that interferes with regular gameplay.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

i heard this same s*** for horse armor, and i know you did too.

"Let's sell people minor cosmetic items for real money" and "let's sell people useful gameplay boosts for real money" both fall within the same design philosophy of trying to nickel-and-dime people for in-game content. That is an expected evolution. "Let's add a button to provide easy access to a premium subscription perk" and "let's charge people to use buttons," however, are entirely different design philosophies. The latter is not in any way an evolution of the former.

Put differently, ask yourself this question: Is even a single person going to subscribe to NSO solely so they can use the C button? Or is every single subscription decision going to be made on the basis of the services NSO provides, which the C button just provides convenient access to? If the latter, how can you possibly suggest that Nintendo is selling the C button when nobody that pays them the supposed asking price is trying to buy the C button by doing so?

Nintendo is at their worst when they're on top. Some of the best and most creative games they ever made were on the N64, GameCube, Wii U, 3DS, and Switch back when it was still new and Nintendo was still struggling. They get so creative when they're desperately behind the competition. They get too complacent and greedy when they're successful. Because of all that, I hope the Switch 2 crashes and burns.

adjl posted...

For nearly 15 years, I've been using a 360 controller for PC games that has a giant Xbox button in the middle of it that's completely useless unless I buy an Xbox. My only complaint about that one is that it's too easy to accidentally hit during gameplay or with the controller lying around, which sometimes brings up whatever overlay has been shoehorned in to pretend the button serves a purpose without an Xbox menu to access. Otherwise, I understand why it exists and accept that it's just not for me.

This isn't new. Sometimes, taking full advantage of the features of a given piece of hardware requires an additional purchase. This can be bad if the paywall has no practical justification (like BMW's seat warmers) or if the hardware is so bloated with those premium features that it interferes with regular use while providing no commensurate benefit to non-payers (the Xbox button being a very mild example, but the hypothetical TV remote I proposed earlier with 20 different streaming buttons illustrates the idea better), but if neither is the case, it's a non-issue. If Xbox added a button to (to use josh's example) bring up a Co-pilot overlay to provide tips/hints for the game you're playing, paywalled as a perk of their premium subscription, I might express some disapproval of the concept of AI-powered searching (bloated power demands, unreliable results, minimal improvement over regular searching), but I wouldn't take issue with the fact that a button exists to access the premium service unless that button is placed in a way that interferes with regular gameplay.

"Let's sell people minor cosmetic items for real money" and "let's sell people useful gameplay boosts for real money" both fall within the same design philosophy of trying to nickel-and-dime people for in-game content. That is an expected evolution. "Let's add a button to provide easy access to a premium subscription perk" and "let's charge people to use buttons," however, are entirely different design philosophies. The latter is not in any way an evolution of the former.

Put differently, ask yourself this question: Is even a single person going to subscribe to NSO solely so they can use the C button? Or is every single subscription decision going to be made on the basis of the services NSO provides, which the C button just provides convenient access to? If the latter, how can you possibly suggest that Nintendo is selling the C button when nobody that pays them the supposed asking price is trying to buy the C button by doing so?

That's not true whatsoever. The Xbox button is what turns the controller on in the first place.

Revelation34 posted...

That's not true whatsoever. The Xbox button is what turns the controller on in the first place.

It's a wired controller. It turns on when the computer turns on.

There's nothing better in a topic than when adjl and Rev go at it. One the one side you got the kind of pedantic guy who over explains everything to make sure he covers all his bases, and on the other the kind of pedant who still picks something out to miss the point on and be confidently incorrect about

adjl posted...

It's a wired controller. It turns on when the computer turns on.

How are you plugging a 360 controller into a computer if it doesn't even use USB?

Revelation34 posted...

How are you plugging a 360 controller into a computer if it doesn't even use USB?

Bruh. Just stop

Revelation34 posted...

How are you plugging a 360 controller into a computer if it doesn't even use USB?

https://www.amazon.ca/Microsoft-Xbox-Wired-Controller-Windows/dp/B004QRKWLA

It's not pictured, but there's an adapter that comes pre-installed in that version that converts the round plug into USB.

Trust me dude, you're not winning this one, even without considering that singling out a minor inconsistency and ignoring the actual semantic content of the post for the sake of pretending you've scored a win isn't fooling anyone. I am providing a truthful account of my experience using this controller since 2010 (though I recently replaced it with a Switch Pro controller because the cord is wearing out and it likes to disconnect randomly).

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the good thing about a harmony remote, is that you keep using it even after buying new things that replace what the remote was originally used on, so spending i think around $50, because i bought it used several years ago, is a good investment for me

that being said, logitech recently dropped support for first gen harmony devices, and stopped even making the remotes for like 5 years now, so i'll likely end up needing to find a replacement option down the line

note that i never complained about

this. i complained that it requires a subscription to use, and thus, is useless. the cost of adding it probably doesn't even equal a penny on nintendos end, it's the principal of locking a hardware button behind a subscription

if it was just a customizable hotkey, but defaulted to gamechat out of the box, i would be fine with that. in fact, i'd be fine with that being an option on included and replacement oem tv remotes, too. but they're not.

Were you upset back in the day when a TV remote had various non-functioning buttons pertaining to add-ons you didn't own?

Revelation34 posted...

How are you plugging a 360 controller into a computer if it doesn't even use USB?

it's mystifying how you can navigate your way onto gamefaqs and yet be so clueless about video games

Revelation34 posted...

Found the Nintendo shill.

games are less expensive now than they were 30 years ago, keep acting like yourself though

$70+ for Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana, $60 for Final Fantasy III (VI) back in the mid-90s! I didn't have a concept of monetary value back then but looking back gaming was pricey but the economy was apparently much better too.
I started appreciating money when the PS1 made game prices standard of $20-$50 especially working summer jobs for minimum wage.
I guess people are worried because wages are stagnated and the price of everything is going up.

ReturnOfFa posted...

games are less expensive now than they were 30 years ago, keep acting like yourself though

Games were between $30-$50 30 years ago. With some rare exceptions with really expensive prices.

Revelation34 posted...

Games were between $30-$50 30 years ago. With some rare exceptions with really expensive prices.

$30-$50 30 years ago was equivalent to $63-$105 in today's dollars.

Now, looking only at inflation doesn't capture the full picture. The cost to produce games has dropped dramatically since the shift to cheap optical media instead of expensive cartridges (and even the Switch's cards are much cheaper than cartridges used to be), tools exist that streamline and simplify development in ways that bring costs down, digital distribution saves a ton of money (not just the cost of media/shipping, but also avoiding the risk of overproduction), sales are generally up because the market has grown... these have been offset in the AAA space by a push to make games more like blockbuster movies, corporate bloat, and rising tech costs, but the success of the indie industry and its cheaper games make it clear that it is in fact possible to make good, successful games pretty cheaply.

Significantly, when looking at a luxury product like video games, it's more important to look at personal purchasing power than at inflation alone. Luxuries are purchased with disposable income. If inflation has caused the cost of living and other essentials to rise, but wages have not kept up, that means there's less disposable income available and the average consumer has less money to spend on video games, not more (as inflation alone might suggest they should). Inflation tells us that we should expect video games to be more expensive, but if the people buying them can't spend more on games, any increase in price will inescapably result in lost sales.

Does that mean it's "wrong" to raise prices? Hard to say. It's a little mean-spirited that the world's falling apart and now many of the people worst affected by that can't even afford to escape from their stresses with Mario Kart, but some increases are inescapable for games coming out in a market where they do need to push technical boundaries to be competitive, and I'd rather see those increases take the form of up-front price increases than manipulative, underhanded monetization schemes that erode the value of what you're buying. I'll be buying fewer full-price Switch 2 games than Switch 1 games, reflecting the finitude of money and the shift in value judgements based on the new prices, but I can't say I really fault Nintendo for increasing their prices when they've generally held off on doing so in any form for quite a while (they've got some DLC, but it's usually done right in that it's just add-ons to games that don't suffer without it and the new content is generous enough to be worth the price).

Revelation34 posted...

Games were between $30-$50 30 years ago. With some rare exceptions with really expensive prices.

This isn't even true, it was pretty common for Nintendo titles and other top games on the N64 to be $69.99, which is a staggering $145 today. Video games are actually an oddity in that they have gotten cheaper over the years, not only in real dollars, but relative PP terms. While adjl points out various reasons why, it's pretty surprising video games and game in general have stayed low in cost for so long.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

which is specifically why i don't use those remotes, it's bullshit that there are buttons i paid for but cannot use.

You are a very unserious poster.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

i press that button for a screenshot, hold it for video. i don't see any menus for it, least of which is a menu saying i can't use it unless i pay to unlock it.

Because again, you aren't using it for the paid subscription part.
This is the same thing as the Switch 2, except they turned it into 2 separate buttons, rather than a consolidation.
ConfusedTorchic posted...

no, he really is. arguing in favor of a literal useless button that requires a paid subscription to use is pretty much the definition of bootlicking.

But it isn't "useless", unless you never will pay for the subscription stuff. But many people will, and now they have a fast-access way to access it.

This isn't a serious gripe to have, you look very silly.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

when the playstation 6 and xbox whatever has subscription buttons and everyone is bemoaning them for it i am absolutely going to parade around with i told you so

Again, the PS5 literally has this button. You just don't use the subscription menu part of it.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Everyone demanded a more powerful Switch for years, and now that it's announced at a price point UNDER current comparable tech, everyone's bitching.

At least on forums, the price of the console seems to not really spooking anyone, aside from the initial "Nintendo actually has an 'expensive' console for once." For randos and normies that make up the bulk of the consumer base, seeing a Nintendo system this expensive might cause some shock, but this is still a low-mid price of a console.

The game prices are more of an eyebrow raiser, and rightfully so. Moving into the $69.99 realm is still a lot to absorb, but a handful being $79.99 is definitely new territory. And while relative prices of games and consoles have gotten cheaper (as explained), the average person isn't going to appreciate that a $79.99 game today is still a bargain for what we used to pay. They are just going to see the $79.99 part.

And really, this would probably still be less bad if it wasn't for the...."unique" situation the US finds itself is, with prices skyrocketing and and economic downturn caused solely because the dumbest human you can name occupies the White House.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

While adjl points out various reasons why, it's pretty surprising video games and game in general have stayed low in cost for so long.

It's also worth noting that games haven't actually stayed at $60, in many cases. AAA releases have generally been providing less content for that base price, gating the full experience behind special editions, DLC, microtransactions, lootboxes/gacha mechanics, and other forms of extra monetization that push the true price well beyond the $60 sticker price (and making the jump to $70 when they ran out of less conspicuous places to hide cost increases).

Nintendo has been an exception in that most of their games haven't had any additional monetization (their non-F2P ones, anyway, since some of their F2P games actually get pretty egregious in that regard), and when they have it's generally taken the form of pretty high-value DLC packs (like an extra $20 to add 50% more courses to Mario Kart 8) that add on to games that do feel thoroughly complete without them. That's been offset in that Nintendo's games see considerably fewer sales and price reductions than you see for most others, but the bottom line is still that you don't see anyone spending $100+ on the vast majority of Nintendo games and you can say that they've stayed at $60.

I don't particularly like the price increase, but it also doesn't surprise me at all and I think most of the backlash is from people assuming that Nintendo would always be the "good guy" and keep their prices low, not any legitimate belief that their games should always be $60.