Moot_Geeza wrote:Hang on, aren't we just comparing an old build of the game to the current one?
YepMoot_Geeza wrote:Hang on, aren't we just comparing an old build of the game to the current one?
stonechalice wrote:Fuck that looks so fucking good.
Fuck.
Paul the sparky wrote:
Out of curiosity I checked out the price of a Wii U in Toys R Us. £240 with Mazza Kartings. Nah.
retroking1981 wrote:and some people on here actually expected the Switch to release lower than that. I'm not saying it's not too expensive but I'm baffled by people being shocked by the price.Paul the sparky wrote:Out of curiosity I checked out the price of a Wii U in Toys R Us. £240 with Mazza Kartings. Nah.
Moot_Geeza wrote:Retro, you've been saying it needs to launch at £199 since forever. I know that was your figure for success rather than a prediction, but even if you never allowed yourself to hope that it would be that cheap after all the spec/price 'leaks', you must surely be at least mildly surprised that it's £280 without a game. The games are currently listed at £59.99 online too, and until they amend that officially it's the most alarming thing about the whole shebang for me. That's £20 more than the vast majority of PS4/Bone games on Amazon at launch. I'm worried the official line is going to be 'duh, carts innit?'.
Liveinadive wrote:Still more expensive than a blu ray I guess Bob. TBH, Zelda at £60 as the only proper game at launch is realistic. It looks massive, will certainly pass the £1 per hour test. The big joke is that Arms and 1-2 Switch are full price. They are £20-30, probably could have been launched as a double pack at £60.
Moot_Geeza wrote:I should've posted that in the other thread, retro's posted a wall of text that answered it anyway
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!