Zelda: Echoes Of Wisdom Has Reportedly Leaked Online In Full
Zelda: Echoes Of Wisdom Has Reportedly Leaked Online In Full
Update: It might not be all that bad
Has anyone actually found the NSP/XCI somewhere?
I've found an update file but the base game doesn't seem to be anywhere I have access to.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Yes, I absolutely want to be able to play any game I own on that platform at any time. That's the entire reason I bought the game. Being restricted to the library on one platform is already a massive concession.
"You can only play this game if you preemptively lug it around with you in case you want to play it today" is not an acceptable condition of a purchase to me.
Did ygu mod your switch to have several TB of data? What if you don't have Wifi?
"You can only play this game if you preemptively lug it around with you in case you want to play it today" is not an acceptable condition of a purchase to me.
Well, I don't really believe that you don't have any games that you haven't touched for a year on your switch account. But even if you're right: You're an extreme edge case.
I highly prefer being able to access my games until the hardware gives out. Not until Nintendo shuts down the services. That is unacceptable IMHO.
Edit: Oh. And also not being able to resell or lend out my property is also bad. It isn't even property, but rather a license that you buy when you buy digital games.
Most games aren't that big. Especially switch games. Yes, I have a large micro SD to hold them all. I didn't say I'm not an edge case; I made it clear that silly collector shit is half the reason Nintendo has a market.
I have plenty of games I haven't played recently. That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that if I want to play it tomorrow, I can play it without hassle wherever I am. Anything short of that is not owning the game.
I'll have access long after the hardware gives out, with no need for the obnoxious process of ripping hundreds of cartridges. Digital is forever; DRM isn't.
I have no interest in selling a game or hardware. I never have and never will. You choose between getting half of what they'll sell it for or spending a bunch of time and trusting some random stranger not to screw you. Both options are worse than just keeping your stuff.
that silly collector shit is half the reason Nintendo has a market.
No you didn't and it isn't. Nintendo has a unique design philosophy which keept them around since the NES. Do you consider the desire to own physical media "silly collector shit"?
Anything short of that is not owning the game.
That might be "true" for you, but I vehemently disagree. Most people have no problem keeping their copye of BotW on the shelf, while taking Luigi's Mansion with them because that's what they're currently playing. People have selectively been taking their stuff with them for milennia.
with no need for the obnoxious process of ripping hundreds of cartridges
You don't need to rip cartridges to play them. After the hardware gives out: I'm relying on the piracy community here.
Digital is forever
Lol, tell that to the 3ds/WiiU marketplace.
I have no interest in selling a game or hardware. I never have and never will. You choose between getting half of what they'll sell it for or spending a bunch of time and trusting some random stranger not to screw you. Both options are worse than just keeping your stuff.
You have a very unrealistic and pessimistic view of the used market. I've both sold games I'm not interested in anymore and bought perfectly playable games used. It's quite a cheap way to get access to the games you want, especially with Nintendo's sales policy. I'm guessing that the person buying hello pikachu from me had a great time playing. Never had a problem on ebay. It wouldn't be still around if most transactions weren't kosher.
Also: Libraries have game cartridges.
Yes, I did. It was the first post. They couldn't run a profitable gaming division without collectors. They wouldn't go broke because they have ridiculous cash reserves, but they would have bailed on gaming at some point because collectors are a big chunk of their sales.
People did it because they didn't have a choice. That doesn't mean they were OK with it, or that anyone would have chosen not to have everything instantly available given the choice. That choice exists now.
You don't need to rip cartridges to play them. After the hardware gives out: I'm relying on the piracy community here.
I'd need to rip them to play them now. Carrying around cartridges isn't acceptable. I have no issue relying on data preservation communities to preserve access to my data.
Half those cartridges have junk builds that won't work without external updates by the way. You need the internet to get to the actual functional version regardless.
3DS or Wii can get digital games just fine.
I have no interest in the used market. Even if I could get 90% back on every game every time to abandon access to a game, the fact that it would require carrying physical games would make the value proposition completely unacceptable to me.
They couldn't run a profitable gaming division without collectors.
Bullshit. The switch isn't the best-selling console since forever because of collectors. Nintendo went out on a limb and innovated on both hard- and software and it payed off big time.
You know the last time Nintendo had to rely on collectors? It was in the time of the WiiU (when they introduced Amiibos).
because collectors are a big chunk of their sales.
Any source on that, or just hunches.
People did it because they didn't have a choice. That doesn't mean they were OK with it, or that anyone would have chosen not to have everything instantly available given the choice.
Considered that physical media hasn't die out yet and people still enjoy their books and whatnot: I think that you're talking out of your ass.
Carrying around cartridges isn't acceptable.
It is to enough people. Stop making broad statements that only apply to your edge case. You come off as an arrogant prick.
Half those cartridges have junk builds that won't work without external updates by the way. You need the internet to get to the actual functional version regardless.
Nintendo games usually have a high polish at release. This isn't Call of Duty.
3DS or Wii can get digital games just fine.
Not anymore, they can't. The servers went down.
I have no interest in the used market.
That's fine but no reason to slander the used market so much. It's a, great option for gamers on a budget.
They didn't meaningfully innovate on software. They "innovated" on hardware by using a tablet and giving it a dock to make older games viable on handheld that weren't before. Which is fine; it demonstrated the market for handhelds playing real games even with the worst controller the world has ever seen, and kickstarted the steam deck and a bunch of PC copycats. But collectors are their core market. If they do a switch 2 that doesn't do physical games, it will fail.
Physical media has mostly died out. Streaming has almost entirely replaced music, TV, and movies. Ereaders are still growing, but they're also a huge market, and libraries support multiple ebook borrowing apps with different libraries because ebooks are so much of their job now.
Nintendo makes a handful of games a year. Most switch games aren't from Nintendo. Most switch games don't work well without updates. And if you want to talk about how popular the switch specifically is instead of the fact that their core audience is physical collectors, all of the switch's popularity is because it could play third party games.
You don't need Nintendo servers to get digital games.
The used market has massive compromises that you're just ignoring. It doesn't matter if it's "only" 1% chance of a bad transaction. Bad transactions happen, and it's a risk that nullifies much of the benefit if you experience it.
They didn't meaningfully innovate on software.
Have you heard of the game "Breath of the Wild"? O.o
They "innovated" on hardware by using a tablet and giving it a dock to make older games viable on handheld that weren't before.
Yeah, and apple "innovated" by combining available technology to create the iphone, which became the archetype of the most commonly used type of technology today. That's how innovation in tech usually works: lateral thinking and application of available technology. And the switch's success proved Nintendo right.
If they do a switch 2 that doesn't do physical games, it will fail.
You've done a horrible job convincing me of your divination powers. All you're doing is speculating very confidently/arrogantly.
Physical media has mostly died out. Streaming has almost entirely replaced music, TV, and movies.
What are they streaming, if streaming killed movies? O.o
Yeah, the convenience of streaming has severely reduced the amount of physical media around. Bookstores, libraries and Bluray players still exist, though. You're sounding liks execs claiming that single player games or not streaming games is about to die out.
Nintendo makes a handful of games a year.
And they have been successfully applying that model for decades. Compare the quality of each new Zelda/Mario release with the n-th Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty.
Most switch games aren't from Nintendo.
But Nintendo supplied the system sellers. The switch sold like hot cakes and then everyone wanted a piece of the slice.
instead of the fact that their core audience is physical collectors
The switch audience is way too large for that to be the case. You can't rely on collectors for hardware that's so expensive to make (compared to the classic mini consoles, for example - here. I'd accept that collectors were the core audience).
all of the switch's popularity is because it could play third party games.
It's actually hard to port to the switch. You wouldn't put that much effort into a port if the switch didn't already have such a high adoption rate. The switch was successful first and then they made all the 3rd party ports for it. Again: compare it to the WiiU.
You don't need Nintendo servers to get digital games.
You need them to access them the way that you bought them. The whole discussion doesn't make sense if piracy is your main mode of getting the games, since people psually don't want pirate cartridges. (Unless it's like an everdrive... where the games are still digital)
The used market has massive compromises that you're just ignoring. It doesn't matter if it's "only" 1% chance of a bad transaction. Bad transactions happen, and it's a risk that nullifies much of the benefit if you experience it.
You're dismissing the benefits wholesale. Cartridges aren't CDs. Using a cartridge doesn't degrade the contents. Buying used/borrowing from friends is really safe, or the friendship won't last. Marketplaces like ebay have checks in place so that the seller doesn't get the money if there's a serious issue with the game. It's less like a 1% likelihood than a 0.01% likelihood. And again: not everyone can buy new and not everyone has access to a 1st gen switch.
Edit: it doesn't even "nullify" with your numbers. If I get a game for 20€ cheaper and every 100th purchase is a scam, where I lose all my money, then statistically, I've only payed 20,20€. If you're on a tight budget, then buying and selling used is way cheaper than waiting for sales on switch games.
Breath of the Wild was a good step on one aspect of open world, destroyed by not knowing that open worlds still need actual content. It's a good tech demo. It's a terrible game. And it can't be "innovation that sells a system" on the Switch when it was a port that was already available before the Switch.
Try getting a physical copy of big, successful TV shows now. Many of them don't exist at all. Some movies never get physical copies.
Nintendo provided a handheld that just met the bare minimum threshold to play their games. But the argument for physical being acceptable is about all games, not the 1% that are from Nintendo.
The hardware wasn't expensive to make. Again, that's their entire design philosophy. They took junk chips nvidia had no use for dirt cheap and screens you can get on a $30 tablet. There was no meaningful up front R&D cost and there was a very small cost per unit compared to the other consoles. They didn't invest anything in the Switch. Their "system seller" wasn't even a new game.
It's always expensive to port to Nintendo consoles because they always use ancient technology.
Giving up legitimate access to a game until you buy it again is a big cost you're ignoring, as is the time you invest in selling. You're also ignoring that the cost of a bad experience goes way above the couple bucks involved.
Breath of the Wild was a good step on one aspect of open world
Lol. As if BotW is comparable to what the Ubisoft game (for there is merely one by now) or other open world games have been doing up until then.
destroyed by not knowing that open worlds still need actual content.
Lol. It's ok to not like a game, but claiming that a game on which so many players sunk 100+ hours into didn't have "content"? Come on. xD
It's a terrible game.
Lol. That's why it was incredibly successful and attracted immediate copycats, right. \s
And it can't be "innovation that sells a system" on the Switch when it was a port that was already available before the Switch.
What are you talking about? BotW released with the switch. It was also available on the WiiU, yes. But that only proves my point that it was a system seller, since people bought it with a switch, instead of getting a cheaper WiiU.
Try getting a physical copy of big, successful TV shows now. Many of them don't exist at all. Some movies never get physical copies.
I constantly see them in my library (e.g. house of dragons). Also, again: book stores continue to exist.
Nintendo provided a handheld that just met the bare minimum threshold to play their games.
Thats not how console releases work. Games usually get technologically more advanced as the hardware ages. TotK is way more advanced than BotW. Also: I'm not following your point here.
The hardware wasn't expensive to make.
It is, especially the cartridges. Not as expensive as the Playstation, or XBox, true. But that's because Nintendo on principle don't sell hardware at a loss. Still, the markup is waaaay lower than with the mini consoles, which were my examples for collector's items.
That's pure maths: if you focus on a small demographic (like collectors), you need a high markup. E.g. MtG is only lucrative, because the cardboard is so cheap. The switch doesn't have such a high markup, so they need to go for mass appeal. If collectors would be Nintendo's main source of revenue, they wouldn't have bothered with the switch lite, which is clearly aimed at the opposite of collectors.
There was no meaningful up front R&D cost
The main reason why the supposed R&D cost was so low was because Nintendo fuzed their hard-held and console team. They had a lot of experience with hand-helds (and innovation in that space, for that matter).
Their "system seller" wasn't even a new game.
Again: you're talking bullshit. (Also: they had a second system seller with Mario, which arrived half a year later)
It's always expensive to port to Nintendo consoles because they always use ancient technology.
And you're refuting my point... how? Why am I getting the feeling that you care less about a coherent argument than dunking on Nintendo?
Giving up legitimate access to a game until you buy it again is a big cost you're ignoring.
You're ignoring the budget point and that all digital purchases will inevitably be void in the future.
You're also ignoring that the cost of a bad experience goes way above the couple bucks involved.
And you're gnoring how rarely that happens.
It's the emptiest open world ever made. Shrines take longer to load than to beat.
Bookstores are also dying, and stores are abandoning physical media of all kinds because people don't buy them.
Thats not how console releases work. Games usually get technologically more advanced as the hardware ages. TotK is way more advanced than BotW. Also: I'm not following your point here.
It's how they're supposed to work. That ARM CPU was tapped out before the switch launched. The entire cost of porting to Nintendo systems is always for the same reason, making the obscene downgrades visually and mechanically mandatory to get games running on their system. There isn't performance to eke out of it. It's bad.
The switch has a huge markup. Cartridges are actually expensive. Nothing else is. Their costs were low because they used tech that would have been thrown in the trash if they didn't buy it, and they spent virtually nothing on R&D. They absolutely could have made money on an extremely small market. It's what they've been doing for years. Even without their huge cash reserves, they could have sold 500k switches and wouldn't have lost money. Again, that's their entire philosophy as a company. They do not take financial risks.