So it may be worth $10 for some people, then. I am fine with a cheaper game with slightly worse graphics. I am not sure I even notice if a game is running at 60 fps or 30 fps. Even when a game dips below 30, I notice it getting a bit choppy, but a game should be engaging enough that I will not pay it any attention.

Not really. People on Lemmy are paranoid. Not saying that corporations are not assholes looking to maximize how much of your money they are getting but they are not out to hurt you. Believe it or not, corporations actually want consumers to like them. Most corporate actions are not evil, they are caused by workers being lazy and cutting corners.

What seems more likely? Nintendo testing remote bricking of systems on customers instead of QA or Nintendo OS developers not having firmware ready by the time manufacturing started (and IT scrambling last minute to bring up update servers in time for launch).

Isn’t it rumored that Nintendo has been manufacturing Switch 2 hardware for years? Those early manufactured consoles are not going to have a fully functional OS. Makes sense that they have a basic firmware that can connect to the update servers and fetch the released OS once it is available.

Are they getting ahead of a leak?

They know that someone is about to spoil the release date, so they quickly throw together a tweet to control the message and buy time for a more comprehensive and thought out announcement as part of the Nintendo Direct.

According to the article, the upgrade will get you “a higher resolution and improved framerates.”

For me, that upgrade is not worth it. I will play the game entirely in portable mode and my vision is not what it used to be, so I don’t care about resolution.

Do other games need a major performance patch?

Isn’t Steam even more always online?

Yes, I also think physical releases are best (at least for how I play games).

That has nothing to do with anything. I am specifically talking about digital copies. Last I checked, I could not take a digital 3DS purchase I made and give it to a friend to play on their system.

The (only) advantage of Game Carts over digital is that you can resell them and lend them to people outside of your (digital) family.

Do you have a source for Nintendo only having one cart size? I have heard people saying that Nintendo does offer multiple cart sizes, but they are all (relatively) expensive.

This to me feels like Nintendo wants a stronger grip on digital key redistributions by adding a physical element into it to screw over key and account resellers. People are much less likely to sell a physical item when compared to a fully digital one.

From what I have heard, every first party Nintendo game is coming out with a game-on-cartridge release while most third party games are key carts.

My take on the situation is that publishers complained about the cost of large capacity Switch 2 cartridges, so Nintendo created Game Key carts for them to use. Once they existed for large size games, why would a publisher not use them for all games? Complaints from a vocal minority that buys the game anyways?

Nintendo expects to sell another 4.5 million Switch 1 consoles during this fiscal year (April '25 through March '26), so they are confident that they will beat the DS.

Is anyone (other than maybe Nintendo) setting up a wait list for buying systems as they restock? I would not mind getting at the back of that line.

There aren’t any release window games I want, but I may want one by the holidays or next year, once more games are released.

You still get company swag? In the 2010’s, I got a ton of it, but not anymore. Maybe it is just that the company I was working at got too cheap to give out swag and when I switched jobs, I joined another cheapskate, but I assumed that it was the same everywhere.

I have enough company and recruiter swag collected during the good years that I have not needed to buy t-shirts, especially because I generally wear a collared shirt over them, so I don’t care what logos and slogans they have.

Nintendo is not going to do extensive QA testing for every single Switch game (especially not every third party shovelware game which might have had errors running on a regular Switch). I assume they ran every automated test they had handy and had someone spend X hours poking around the game to try to find issues.

The more interesting question would be how will games be fixed? Are they patching the game to fix the issue or are they patching the Switch 2 firmware to match Switch behavior? The more bugs they fix with the later approach the less important it is to exhaustively test every single game.

What confusion? If a box says “Switch” on it, it will run on the Switch and the Switch 2.

If the box says “Switch 2”, it will run on the Switch 2 but not the original Switch.

There are some games that are available for both systems, so make sure to check the system name when buying the game. It has been the same in previous console generations and in consoles from other manufacturers.

The only issues that I foresee are if the eShop makes it hard to understand what system you are buying the game for and if the eShop makes it hard to change the version I am buying.

Those Biden dollar prices, though. Will other console makers stay at their current prices or will they raise prices as US stock starts to run out.

The license carts are worse than physical cartridges but better than buying digital. At least you can give them to a friend or sell them (while the software server is still active).

The entire article has a tone of “it is exactly as we expected it to be”. Good to have a journalist say that Nintendo was not covering up some horrible, obvious flaw.

There is a reason that most games are listed as “capable of starting, more testing required”. It should not be too hard to set up automation that loads a game on to the Switch 2, launches it, and checks that it did not crash within 30 seconds.