Nintendo should’ve innovated more than sticking controllers on an extra-large phone and squatting on their old IP like a dragon’s hoard.
The switch was/is a giant hit though.
In a console age of chasing only graphics it was definitely a creative approach.
They just saw how bad the Wii-U did and went “what if the console was inside the screen instead?”
The Wii-u crashed so the switch could fly.
Surely they’re referring to the Wii-U. The Switch is not innovative. It’s a Wii-U derivative.
The Switch was innovative? So much so that, upon seeing it’s success, literally everyone copied them in one form or another?
Its not innovative to smash controllers onto a smartphone device. What is innovative was their optimization for mobile gaming. Its similar to saying valve is innovative for selling other peoples games.
I mean if you’re being that reductive, sure, a handheld gaming system wouldn’t be innovative. The innovation comes from a console that switches from handheld mode and a docked TV mode. The innovation is a pair of controllers that work both as the built-in handheld controllers, and controllers that can be used when the console is docked. The innovation is that the controllers can behave either as a pair of controllers or a single controller. Sure, they aren’t super significant innovations, but it’s more than you see from other consoles. I don’t see the similarity in your last statement, but I guess I could be missing something.
My issue with the whole innovative discussion is it tends to forget that Nintendo just liked to do gimmicky things that don’t always work out. Smartphones were getting to that point with telescopic controllers without NIntendo. I guess i’m being a little nitpicky, hope you have a good weekend :).
And I guess what I’m getting at is that, if trying to do gimmicky things that might not work out isn’t the definition of innovation, what is? And telescopic phone controllers are kind of in line with “controllers that can be used in handheld/docked mode,” so I could understand an argument that that aspect of the switch isn’t innovative
The what?
Just goes to show, game exclusivity on a shitty overpriced portable console is a bad business practice.
People would love to play Nintendo games on PC. Nintendo is screwing themselves with their arrogance and greed.
Nintendo is doing and will continue to do gangbusters. They’re the Apple of video games. They aren’t screwing themselves, just you.
I bought a shit ton of games from Nintendo until their legal department went rabid.
Untouchable companies do fall, when they manage to alienate diehard fans, such as myself.
Their demographics are mostly kids. If your boycott, and mine as well, does something then I’ll be shocked. Happy, but flabbergasted.
People keep claiming this, yet I’ve never seen numbers to back this up. I’m pretty sure the core Pokemon fans are Millenials and older Gen Z’s, not kids.
I mean, I played Pokemon with my kids. So maybe both?
Now we play Cassette Beasts - and soon Palworld - together.
Have you ever heard of Mario?
If that’s the case, I’m judging people pretty hard. I can’t even tolerate Pokémon dialogue
My boycott pretty naturally applied to my kids.
We were day one buyers for multiple copies of the last Zelda game, and the last couple Pokemon before Nintendo legal went foul.
Now no one in my family has a Switch 2, and my kids are begging me to help them spend their allowance on Palworld.
Doing well, even exceptionally well, doesn’t mean that it’s the best possible scenario. Nintendo is leaving billions of dollars on the table due to their cultural obstinance.
They occupy a pretty unique space both economically and socially. It would be an mba move to have them try to diversify too hard. Getting them up to date on certain coding practices feels closer to helpful, from my pov
Isn’t Pokemon like… The biggest IP ever? Way bigger than Star wars or marvel or pretty much anything else? Not sure they’re actually hurting. At all.
Thats me. Pokopia looks so fun, but I can barely afford a PC, which I can use for other things, no way in hell that I am buying a switch.
I recommend dragon quest builders 2. I haven’t played pokopia but I heard it’s from the same studio and very similar just different ip and DQB2 is easily one of my favs of all time
Yes. I was a huge purchaser of both Steam games and Nintendo exclusives on Switch (as long as they got great reviews).
Then Nintendo’s legal team went crazy, attacking emulator developers and suing competing game studios over bullshit “patents” on game mechanics.
So it’s time to starve that beast. No more Nintendo games, for me.
Nintendo’s target audience is the mainstream casual gamer. That market has never heard of Palworld. Nintendo is doing fine they don’t care for the pc gamer crowd, since in Japan casual gamers don’t own a gaming pc. And with current hardware pricing and the weak yen the pc gamer market will barely grow in Japan.
Just goes to show, game exclusivity on a shitty overpriced portable console is a bad business practice.
Does it? How? This is a meme about Steam which has nothing to do with Nintendo. How would a PC game even compete with Pokemon at all when that franchise is only sold on Nintendo hardware but more importantly Pokemon is mostly about merch and trading cards anyway. How many trading cards has Palworld sold?
I have dozens of hours in Palworld and don’t see much of a resemblance to Pokemon anyway.
Good that Nintendo lost the lawsuit. They should have to compete. But honestly everyone in here calling for Nintendo to port their games to PC is being ridiculous. Nintendo as a company would be stupid as hell to ever do that. As soon as you can buy their stuff on steam, there is immediately no reason to ever purchase their hardware.
Microsoft was the perfect example of this. Xbox embraced putting their games on PC and it was one of the worst mistakes they ever made. It’s one of the biggest reasons Xbox is on life support right now. Nintendo doing that would basically be suicide. As nice as it would be for them to do it, it will never ever happen as long as they still make hardware.
Microsoft (and Sony) have done a terrible job of understanding the console market.
They sell consoles so they can loss-leader you into making it up on licensed games.
You buy a console so you can get a canned consistent experience for less than a PC. In the past, it was also for bespoke hardware that could do something a random PC couldn’t easily and exclusive titles.
In 2026, these advantages are gone. Since Xbone/PS4, you’re just looking at a standard AMD desktop in a funny box. It comes in too many flavours with real performance differences. Only a few titles are still exclusive. You can spend $500 and still not have the Best Console Experience, so why not spend $700 for a PC?
Of course Xbox and PS are flailing in that market.
Nintendo hardware avoids those pitfalls. There’s no “Switch 2 Pro” scenario where some games are meaningfully jankier. The hardware is profitable, and it’s still comfortably less than a basic dGPU computer. So there’s still a niche for it below the full gaming PC buyer.
They’ve also been more willing to exploit “we control the hardware and software together” opportunities for only-here experiences. Since the Kinect died, has there been a major gameplay paradigm that required an Xbox or PS to deliver?
Nintendo could port games to the PC but they won’t exploit the detachable controllers or portable aspects of a Switch, so many of the ports would be lesser.
my nephews just built low-mid end gaming PCs and both their setups came up around $1500, no idea where you are getting this $700 figure for in 2025/26. Their low/mid CPU and GPU alone was well over $500.
don’t know whether the prices jumped so crazy (besides the obvious nand issue) or our definitions of mid level pcs are so far apart. my wife and i bought each a gaming pc like two years ago and we spend together around 1600€.
Their gpu is definitly not low end
Type Item Price CPU AMD Ryzen 5 5500 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor $81.99 @ Amazon Motherboard Gigabyte A520M K V2 Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard $63.95 @ Amazon Memory Silicon Power SP016GBLFU320B22 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL22 Memory $99.97 @ Amazon Storage Patriot P310 480 GB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive $74.98 @ Amazon Video Card MSI VENTUS 2X OC GeForce RTX 5060 8 GB Video Card $339.99 @ Newegg Case Zalman T6 Mini MicroATX Mini Tower Case $28.88 @ Newegg Sellers Power Supply MSI MAG A650BN 650 W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply $59.73 @ Amazon Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts Total (before mail-in rebates) $769.49 Mail-in rebates -$20.00 Total $749.49 Generated by PCPartPicker 2026-07-21 07:58 EDT-0400
Not true look at that shitty pokemon game on switch one that ran like ass if you didn’t have the better switch. Pokemon Scarlet and violet.
I usually detest exclusive releases, as it feels anticonsumer to make people use a console/UI that they don’t like in order to have a chance of buying/playing a game they might like, but I’ve recently thought about a good copiumcoded excuse for it: Exclusives incentivise me to not keep all my games with one supplier, so when one corporation inevitably crosses a moral line that I cannot accept, I don’t have to sacrifice all my purchased
gameslicences.That and I honestly believe that owning games developed initially for x platform, on that platform, usually results in the best experience. Usually.
A handheld and highly integrated device where games released for are basically guaranteed to run still has some appeal over the wide sea of PC s. Especially since the share of handheld PCs like the Steam Deck is still comparably small.
I’d also argue that one can get more customers by supporting PC due to those who wouldn’t buy a console anyway. It sounds reasonable though that the incentive for buying a console is gone if you already have a sufficient PC where you can play the game on.
But I wonder whether this is really the case. Do we have actual numbers from market studies or alike on this?
Also, consoles are historically loss leaders. Lose a little money on the console, but make it back with the margins on your games.
Could be that modern game studios have just gotten too expensive for that model to continue, though.
Nintendo was the only company that ditched the loss-leader thing after burning itself with the N64 and GameCube.
Then went back. They kept that reputation because they now hide all those numbers. But the 3DS tried that and was so expensive that no one was buying it. After a price cut, that some speculate went into a heavy loss, it became the best sold handheld that generation. The Wii U was also unclear whether it was sold at a loss or not. The Switch and S2 are probably sold exactly at cost.
Then went back with not trying to target high end with the original switch, with everyone complaining that it was equivalent to a mid phone of the year
People who like handhelds will buy handhelds. People who like consoles and people who like PCs will buy PC. It is stupid to lock software to one specific type of hardware.
It’s one of the biggest reasons Xbox is on life support right now.
The series of terrible decisions began with the X1: “You can watch netflix! You can watch youtube! You can’t share or sell your games! Kinect is mandatory for us to monitor you 24/7!” - M$ made the perfect advertisement for the PS4. Their complete lack of creativity with console naming didn’t help either, it was worse than Wii -> WiiU. Xbox One ~> Xbox One S/X -> Xbox Series S/X
Then there’s M$ buying several big studios and having no fucking clue how to best use them. Everyone who saw how they treated Rare knew that was coming.
Alos, because they’re a corporate first company, everything that “works” for M$Office ends up being applied to everything else. No more ownership, only subscription renting! Going all in on subs (xbox live) meant they had to widen their market, so increasing reach to PC and other consoles was the best option for increasing subscribers. That they didn’t care at all about how that’d hurt their own fucking specialized gaming hardware was no surprise.
What I’m actually surprised is that they haven’t rammed Copilot into any of their games or Xbox subscriptions yet.
Yeah, these are all the other big reasons. I think they were planning on shoving copilot into Xbox. But they saw it was deeply unpopular on Windows and actually pulled back on the idea. I guess they were the broken clock on that one.
Instead they should force you to destructively collect a bunch of rare earth minerals and plastics and throw them all in the dump after a few years. It just makes sense!
It’s a dismal thing for me to say to people:
Game exclusives are, by a given measure, anti-consumer; in the same way that charging consumers for games is. It is honestly a very effective way of building up a gaming community world.
We just okay it when we like the contender. No one faulted Valve for not bringing Half-Life elsewhere.
They ported Half-Life to PS2. And the sequel was on everything.
Nintendo doing that would basically be suicide.
This is what want. Nintendo not deserve to live after how they treat community.
The community you’re talking about is not their target audience and catering to them makes no sense.
I don’t know if it’s still the case, but it was often stated that Nintendo had enough cash reserves to operate at a loss for 50 years and still be fine.
And that was before the Switch came out. I’m sure they’ll still be doing their thing in another 50 years.
So it would not suicide at all. Can not win all.
This whole thing is silly.
Palword isn’t a Pokemon competitor. It’s an Ark/Valheim-like on PC; it has nothing to do with the Switch, it’s nothing like Pokopia or most Pokemon games. Nintendo doesn’t sell PC games!
This would be akin to Skyrim being an Xbox exclusive, and BGS suing Stardew Valley for “dynamic NPCs” on the Switch version.
…Why? It’s not a competitor at all; what’s the business motivation?
Palworld marketing certainly leaned into the controversy, but honestly Nintendo is stupid for starting this, even from a pure business perspective.
I think it’s silly to think that this has nothing to do with pokemon. Palworld basically came out of nowhere and made the pokemon game a lot of people have been asking for. I haven’t played a Pokémon game in years because they felt held back from modern game design.
I’ll admit it has similarities to Ark, but it’s a lot more PvE and approachable, not to mention the creature design and capture mechanics.
Yeah in hindsight I worded that a bit extremely.
It is basically Valheim with creatures though, its similar to many survival crafters (albeit well done).
And I’m speaking more from a “strict” business perspective here. Palworld is obviously courting Pokemon fans, but from Nintendo’s perspective, Palworld is in a different market; I doubt they’re actually losing any sales of Pokemon games to Palworld.
Many of the designs are blatant ripoffs of specific pokemon. Here are a few examples
Nintendo went after patent angle in court because it’s easier than proving the ripoffs are a copyright violation. But make no mistake, the ripoffs are the primary reason for the legal action. They really got under Nintendo’s skin.
It’s not like Pokemon’s designs are unique either.
They didn’t go that route because they also did the same shit. And that definitely wouldn’t be a viable defense in court.
These dont look similar at all, beyond the fact they are fantisized depictions of the same things. Like, its obvious both zubat and its DQ “equivalent” are depictions of bats, but you wouldnt mistake one for the other; the designs highlight completely different features and are often in pretty different colors. Thats not the case for the palworld designs, at least not quite a few of them
A lot of Pokemon are generic tropes, but some really are blatant ripoffs. I think it’s pretty scummy of Palworld, actually.
But.
If Nintendo don’t think they can prove a copyright violation, they shouldn’t try to get them with some tangential thing, especially those crazy software patents of all things.
Yes. Nintendo’s lawsuit was what made me decide to buy Palworld. Fuck Nintendo’s lawyers.
I sold my Switch and switched to emulation when they went after Yuzu and Ryujinx. Nintendo will never get another penny from me and I get to play all their games for free now. Stupid dumbfucks. Can’t wait for the inevitable Switch 2 emulator.
There is fork of ryujinx on ryujinx git server with switch 2 game support.
What? Where? Is Bananza available?
I couldn’t find the ryujinx with switch 2 support, can you point me in which direction to look?
ryubing, search for ryujinx git to find the server. Only some game support, need to find list, cannot find it. Also they claim “only maintenance no feature” but ryujinx shut down before switch 2 and ryubing canary play new mii game which switch 2 exclusive.
Sweet! How’s the online multiplayer support? I want to try Mario Kart World
This in particular sounds like inviting heaps of trouble. Unless it was rigged to only connect to emulated servers buuuuut still…
Well obviously I mean just cracked servers, like how cracked PC games with multiplayer support work. I’m not worried about getting caught.
What’s the worst they’re going to do? Sue me? I’m dirt poor. They have nothing they can take away from me. Any judgment against me I’ll just refuse to pay. Just like the DUI I got back in 2010 when I was young, dumb, and full of cum (FWIW it was for weed; I last smoked 3 nights before I was pulled over but this was before legalization, so simply having it your system was enough back then, even if you’re sober). Or the huge credit card debt I racked up in the late 2000s when I was 18. All debts eventually go away if you ignore them long enough. I have a perfect credit score now.
I own Subnautica 2 just to fight contract fuckery, now I think I should buy FactorioSlaveryCuteSim just to retaliate to what Nintendo did to Garry’s Mod.
Unfortunately, there’s about no factorio in palworld, base building and maintenance is pretty simple and straightforward. The slaverycute is definitely there, tho.
Maybe we’ll gets some mainline Pokemon games that don’t suck absolute ass since they’ll have to compete.
Will never happen until people stop buying the games. And no it’s not the fault of adult Nintendo fans. The vast majority of buyers are just parents buying games for their kids who don’t read reviews and just buy the game because their kid nagged for it. Palworld doesn’t even really compete in that market.
I work with kids. Almost none of them are interested in the Pokemon games and only few in the cards. I’m pretty sure the audience is Millenials and older Gen Z’s. Not many under 25 I’m willing to bet.
Pokemon is in the merch and nostalgia business, not the gaming business.
Maybe, but I don’t really see them as competitors. They’re both monster raising, yeah, but that’s honestly where the similarities stop. That said, I haven’t played Legends or ZA (whatever they’re called) which both seem closer to what Palworld is (still very different though)
Nintendo looking outside Nintendo’s walls
Unlikely.
If they released PC ports of Nintendo games I would play a lot of them.
I know, they can get $0 from me or release good games I can play and get money from me. Seems like they would want money.
Yeah the lawsuit was dumb. Nintendo doesn’t own the concept of creature capture. You can’t own concepts as far as I know
And all these games are compatible with Linux.
Humm
Not for nothing, but I’m sincerely surprised CS2 still has so many players.
I stopped playing twenty years ago, because the kids were kicking my ass.
They could just make a Palworld and call it Pokémon. Pretty sure, it would sell well.
It’s not one-to-one but Pokopia exists and sold extremely well.
Streisand effect go brrrrrr
I’m out of the loop, could someone explain?
…what’s going on?
Btw, Zelda on PC when?
Btw, Zelda on PC when?
Any time you want, if you float in the right
seas…uh…circles. Or so I’ve heard.Just pirate it. Fuck Nintendo.
