170
submitted 23 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

It's the emptiest open world ever made. Shrines take longer to load than to beat.

You are entitled to your opinion, if you find BotW boring. But the original point was that it was a critically acclaimed and incredibly successful system seller. You claimed that the switch sold well because of the third party support. But if it weren't for Nintendo's system sellers (Zelda and Mario Odyssey), the third parties wouldn't have bothered developing for the switch. You also agreed that the switch is hard to develop for. By your logic, the PS Vita and the WiiU would have had to be successful. Stop focusing on your shit takes in order to distract from the original point.

Bookstores are also dying, and stores are abandoning physical media of all kinds because people don't buy them.

Yes, and single player games are also dying. /s You have already shown that you make wrong assumptions based on what you feel is right (like Nintendo depending on collectors).

There isn't performance to eke out of it.

Compare TotK to launch titles. That game is a testament on how much you can get out of aging hardware. Supposedly, Alien Isolation's port for the switch is the best edition.

They absolutely could have made money on an extremely small market. It's what they've been doing for years.

When? When has Nintendo relied on niche markets (since the NES, I mean).

Even without their huge cash reserves

What "huge" money reserves? The ones from the WiiU? They only got their cash reserves after they released the switch.

Again, that's their entire philosophy as a company. They do not take financial risks.

Lol, do you remember the N64, the Virtualboy, the Gamecube, the WiiU, etc? Edit: what was the Wii, if not both innovative, as well as a big, fat risk???

Edit (addendum): so you hate BotW but still find it "unacceptable" if you didn't have constant access to it? And you don't get how people sometimes want to cash out on experiences they don't value?

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago

A console being different is not a financial risk when you spend no money on developing it and no money on producing it.

There was no path to bankruptcy, or even meaningful financial loss, if the Wii failed.

The market they actually get isn't the point. It's that they never invest enough money for it to be possible for them to lose meaningful money if their gimmick doesn't work. If Sony doesn't sell PS5s, they're diverse enough that it probably won't bankrupt them, but it will hurt bad. Nintendo isn't even willing to invest enough that not selling is a mild inconvenience. They just refuse to invest.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

You're spouting non-stop bullshit. The Wii didn't have R&D costs? Get outta here!

Nintendo was on the cusp of going the way Sega went after the Gamecube and the WiiU. The financial successes of the Wii and Switch saved their asses.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Compared to any other non-Nintendo platform ever made? No, it didn't. They used cheap junk tech, exactly like the Switch, and didn't commit to any meaningful investment in number of units.

The fact that they use hardware not capable of playing modern games is why third parties have very limited involvement with them. It's why they got ports of 15 year old games instead of most developers of new games even considering putting their games on there. And their bad hardware is a direct result of their unwillingness to invest like everyone else does. Even Valve, who has very limited hardware production, invested far more in the Steam Deck than Nintendo did on the switch.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago

so... what was so groundbreaking about developing the xbox one/series or ps4/5? How are those consoles any more R&D intensive than developing the Wiimote?

You already claimed so much bullshit which I debunked. Do you have any data about the rest of your allegations? like how Nintendo was supposedly fine after the WiiU?

The SteamDeck wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Switch. The Valve VR headsets wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Wii.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 hour ago

Performance is expensive. Building and validating a system around high end custom chips is expensive. They also will not make you units if you don't make serious volume commitments.

Building a very basic system with cheap, bad, off the shelf components is not expensive.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 52 minutes ago

Building a very basic system with cheap, bad, off the shelf components is not expensive.

Sorry, you have no idea about hardware development. Just because Hardware is cheap doesn't mean that R&D is cheap.

Do you think that development hardware drives R&D costs? No, paying engineers does. Do you think that Sony or Microsoft develop their own chips? Again: nope: They use AMD Microarchitectures (Sony won't make the mistake of the PS3 again).

You know what costs R&D? Developing controllers does. And guess who reinvents their controllers every generation! Not just hd rumble, like the dual sense: Video streaming, HD rumble, IR technology, etc.

And Nintendo tripled their R&D budget from 2003 to 2007 twice:

In 2003, Nintendo declared that $34 million was spent on R&D. This figure steadily climbed to $103 million in 2006 and the following year bumped dramatically to $370 million.

Source

Any more bullshit for me to debunk?

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
170 points (97.8% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53958 readers
822 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS