Video Game Discussion Thread: Now Featuring Animated Avatars

TheInfernoman · October 23, 2020

What a joke, I PURCHASED the game. Once I purchased my own copy of the product fair and square, I should be free to do with it as I please. I used to think it was unfair that a streamer can make more off playing the game vs a developer making a game. Now looking at it, my thought process is incorrect here as it's the choice of the streamer to put time in to perform on camera, the advertisers/donations are free to choose to give to the individual.

misterBee · October 23, 2020

49 minutes ago, TheInfernoman said:

What a joke, I PURCHASED the game. Once I purchased my own copy of the product fair and square, I should be free to do with it as I please. I used to think it was unfair that a streamer can make more off playing the game vs a developer making a game. Now looking at it, my thought process is incorrect here as it's the choice of the streamer to put time in to perform on camera, the advertisers/donations are free to choose to give to the individual.

I don't think that when you purchase a game you really have the right to do anything other than play it. Owning a disc is simply owning a means to play a game, kind of like owning a ticket to Disneyland doesn't mean you actually own the theme park.

That being said I think streaming is a symbiotic relationship for devs and streamers. Streamers need something they can use to create content, and devs get great advertising. Even though the streamers probably need the game devs more than the game devs need the streamers, they both help each other in meaningful ways.

I think the real issue is copyrighted music. Too many streamers were using licensed music on stream -- a dumb idea that was always gonna backfire eventually. People need to use royalty free music or music companies need to set up some kind of subscription library where streamers can access licensed music for some kind of reasonable fee. The process for combatting DMCA takedowns also has to improve.

iStu X · October 23, 2020

The first public demonstration of azure striker gunvolt 3 will be happening next month.

Hawkingbird · October 23, 2020

Luminous Avenger wasn't the third game?

M A R T I A N · October 23, 2020

7 hours ago, misterBee said:

I don't think that when you purchase a game you really have the right to do anything other than play it. Owning a disc is simply owning a means to play a game, kind of like owning a ticket to Disneyland doesn't mean you actually own the theme park.

Hard disagree here. Buying a video game is not the same thing as buying a ticket that allows you to enjoy some tertiary experience. I'm not buying a ticket that allows me to play a game, I'm buying a physical disc that I own.

If you buy a portrait or a piece of art, that is your art regardless of what you want to do with it. As long as you're not profiting off the thing as if it's your own creation, I really don't see why this should be much different from any other product you buy and own.

Plenty of games already do what you're describing. They require a fee for entry. Pretty commonplace with games like MMO's, but even that is kind of its own thing seperate from a commplace video game purchase.

RSG3 · October 23, 2020

8 hours ago, misterBee said:

Stuff

How does one cancel a quote? I tried reloading the page; comic back to the page, deleting the quote...cabt figure it out.

Anyway I personally trend to view most licensed music as product stolen from the artist so I don't really have much sympathy for record companies. They need to fuck off and let people use music in their shit, doesn't really belong to the license holder anyway imo.

misterBee · October 23, 2020

17 minutes ago, M A R T I A N said:

Hard disagree here. Buying a video game is not the same thing as buying a ticket that allows you to enjoy some tertiary experience. I'm not buying a ticket that allows me to play a game, I'm buying a physical disc that I own.

If you buy a portrait or a piece of art, that is your art regardless of what you want to do with it. As long as you're not profiting off the thing as if it's your own creation, I really don't see why this should be much different from any other product you buy and own.

Plenty of games already do what you're describing. They require a fee for entry. Pretty commonplace with games like MMO's, but even that is kind of its own thing seperate from a commplace video game purchase.

A physical game disc is just a software license in physical form. It's not a physical good and the same rules don't apply. This is a concept a lot of people don't understand.

If you buy a car, you can sell off the parts or dismantle it, because it's an actual object you own.

When you buy a game, you don't have any ownership over the game, or even the files contained on the disc. You simply have ownership of a plastic disc that lets someone play the game. It's an important distinction.

You can't use music files on that disc for your own projects, you can't distribute the character model files you found on there, you can't really do anything except give the disc to someone else. Whether you are profiting off of them or not isn't even relevant. The files are simply not yours to use.

A lot of people think that because they bought a game in a store and they can hold it in their hands physical ownership applies. Unfortunately games are IP, and that includes the files used to create them/contained on the disc. You can't own a game just like you can't own Mickey Mouse.

A store-bought game is 100% the same as buying a ticket for a tertiary experience. Selling a disc to someone else is literally the same as reselling/scalping a ticket. The only difference is that it's allowed and not looked down upon.

For a long time people bought discs/cartridges because they were physically necessary to interface with the game -- but they've always been a license. That's why when things go digital you can't re-sell anymore. It's the same concept behind owning CD-keys. Everything has always been about the RIGHT to play a game, not any ownership of the games themselves.

12 minutes ago, RSG3 said:

How does one cancel a quote? I tried reloading the page; comic back to the page, deleting the quote...cabt figure it out.

Click the 4-way arrow icon that appears when you hover over a quote. The quote will now be outlined in blue. Then you just have to hit backspace/delete on your keyboard. This will delete the quote and should be the end of it.

If you're on mobile it's a bit more complicated because deleting quotes on mobile is kind of busted and I don't really have control over that. In that case you can just refresh the page.

The editor will often save what you had in the text window, but there's usually an option to clear the editor so you can get rid of it.

M A R T I A N · October 23, 2020

Sorry but naw. A physical disc is definitely a physical good. We just not gonna agree on this.

misterBee · October 23, 2020

10 minutes ago, M A R T I A N said:

Sorry but naw. A physical disc is definitely a physical good. We just not gonna agree on this.

I mean whether we agree or not really doesn't matter.

I'm describing how the law sees it. If you look up how the law works it's actually really interesting and really weird.

This is also why on-disc DLC is outrage over nothing. People who claim they are being charged for something they already bought are literally wrong in the eyes of the law.

But we'll be all digital soon so... 🤷‍♂️

DarkSakul · October 23, 2020

16 minutes ago, misterBee said:

A physical game disc is just a software license in physical form. It's not a physical good and the same rules don't apply. This is a concept a lot of people don't understand.

Hard disagree here, what you are saying is a violation of the first sales doctrine, a fundamental part of copyright law.

I can do what ever I want with the media I purchased, as long as I don't make copies of that media for distribution in whole, part or apart of another compilation without permission. I buy a disc, its my disc not Sony's, Microsoft, or what ever music label.

misterBee · October 23, 2020

24 minutes ago, DarkSakul said:

Hard disagree here, what you are saying is a violation of the first sales doctrine, a fundamental part of copyright law.

I can do what ever I want with the media I purchased, as long as I don't make copies of that media for distribution in whole, part or apart of another compilation without permission. I buy a disc, its my disc not Sony's, Microsoft, or what ever music label.

This is correct. Sony/Microsoft/EA/whoever don't own the disc. You own the disc, and you can re-sell it. But that's my whole point.

You own the DISC. Not what's on it. You don't own a single byte of data on there. The only thing you own is literally the plastic it's made out of. That's why they say you can't make copies for distribution. If the game is a chest, the disc is like a key. You own the key and can sell it to someone else under First Sales Doctrine. Then THAT person will have access to the chest. However you can't distribute or copy anything inside the chest (the actual game), because it's not yours to sell.

If the disc's contents were really yours to re-sell, then you could take a copy of SFV, copy the game files off the disk, and sell them to someone. It would be just like buying a car and then selling the engine to someone.

Clearly that is not the case, because you DON'T own the disc's contents. They are all intellectual property, not a physical good.

With digital sales, the game companies can sell you access to the 'chest' directly. There is no longer a 'key' for people to re-sell. Plastic cartridges and discs have always just been a necessary middle-man that don't accurately reflect the licensed nature of software. They're physical tokens of what is a purely digital/intellectual product.

It's a complicated issue that has been fought in court several times and has been argued both ways.

DoctaMario · October 23, 2020

10 hours ago, iStu X said:

This was a super fun dumpster fire to watch live on my Twitter feed

https://9to5google.com/2020/10/22/gamers-condemn-stadia-creative-director-streamers-should-pay-publishers/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

This part is the best though:

“Over the course of a few hours, Hutchinson’s handful of tweets altogether received nearly 10,000 retweets on Twitter, which significantly exceeds the combined total of retweets on atGoogleStadia tweets across the entirety of the three-day “Good Stuff” event — currently under 2,000 retweets. The intense discussion on Twitter has caused “Stadia” to become a trending topic in the United States.”

This is the asshole who also said women aren’t worth having in video games because they’re too hard to animate and game journalists aren’t allowed to give Japanese games bad reviews because it’d come off as racist.

I would think that buying the game would be enough to allow someone the "license" to stream it, although given how ToS's are shaping up maybe that's not the case anymore. I can't speak for other games, but MK11 has a shitty ToS if you read it, and if it's not the norm, I imagine it might become such for big publishers.

Edited October 23, 2020 by DoctaMario

misterBee · October 23, 2020

6 minutes ago, DoctaMario said:

I would think that buying the game would be enough to allow someone the "license" to stream it, although given how ToS's are shaping up maybe that's not the case anymore. I can't speak for other games, but MK11 has a shitty ToS if you read it, and if it's not the norm, I imagine it might become such for big publishers.

EULAs and TOS have always been the main tools for software developers and sellers of IP (like music) to ensure that buying their product from a store does NOT give you ownership over it.

This has actually always been the case, which is what I was arguing in my posts above. The only difference now is people are starting to pay attention because things like streaming are becoming a thing.

This method has sometimes been defeated in court but other times has been upheld. It's a real clusterfuck. 🙃

Some interesting stuff here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Ownership_requirement

In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. the 9th Circuit created a three-factor test to decide whether a particular software licensing agreement is successful in creating a licensing relationship with the end user. The factors include: 1) whether a copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license; 2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and 3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software. In Vernor, Autodesk's license agreement specified that it retains title to the software and the user is only granted a non-exclusive license. The agreement also had restrictions against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, or removing any proprietary marks from the software packaging or documentation. The agreement also specified that software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk's written consent, and could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. Based on these facts, the 9th Circuit held that the user is only a licensee of Autodesk's software, not an owner and hence the user could not resell the software on eBay without Autodesk's permission.

However, the same 9th Circuit panel that decided Vernor v. Autodesk, refused to apply Vernor's three-factor test in UMG v. Augusto to a purported licensing agreement created when UMG sent unsolicited promotional CDs to music critics. The promotional CDs' packaging contained the language: "This CD is the property of the record company and is licensed to the intended recipient for personal use only. Acceptance of this CD shall constitute an agreement to comply with the terms of the license. Resale or transfer of possession is not allowed and may be punishable under federal and state laws." Augusto tried to sell these CDs on eBay and UMG argued that first sale doctrine did not apply since the CDs were not sold and only a licensing relationship was created. However the court held that first sale doctrine applies when a copy is given away and that recipients of the promotional CDs did not accept the terms of the license agreement by merely not sending back the unsolicited CDs.

In the case UsedSoft v Oracle, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the sale of a software product, either through a physical support or download, constituted a transfer of ownership in EU law, thus the first sale doctrine applies; the ruling thereby breaks the "licensed, not sold" legal theory, but leaves open numerous questions.

KingTubb · October 23, 2020

Gonna break up the legalese with a question:

Do y'all think that how good the save room theme of RE games is an almost 1 to 1 representation of the game itself?

I'm listening to them all now, and I gotta say, the shitty games have shitty themes.

The comp I'm listening to uses results screen music if the game doesn't technically have save rooms.

RE2 still the 🐐

Wellman · October 23, 2020

2 hours ago, Hawkingbird said:

Luminous Avenger wasn't the third game?

It is the third game in the franchise 'canon' but it is a spin-off.

Huh, I just realized Gunvolt if you include the 2 Mighty Gunvolt games has five games out already in six years since it dropped.

globe · October 23, 2020

With the streaming license comment, I'm sure the guy wanted to target the bigger streamers (the ones who are actually making good money), but wouldn't adding a license only benefit them more? Some game companies already pay big streamers to play their game (Genshin Impact being a recent example) so why wouldn't they just give them free licenses? Small streamers would have to buy the licenses and for most of them it probably isn't worth it then their viewership will go to the big streamers.

Although I do agree that streamers were dumb just casually playing their spotify playlist and thinking nothing would happen.

RSG3 · October 23, 2020

1 minute ago, globe said:

Although I do agree that streamers were dumb just casually playing their spotify playlist and thinking nothing would happen.

That was dumb because record labels have shown 0 hesitation to bop people for "stealing" their stolen art.

Hawkingbird · October 23, 2020

1 hour ago, M A R T I A N said:

Sorry but naw. A physical disc is definitely a physical good. We just not gonna agree on this.

He's not talking about the physical disc. He's talking the code and data contained within the disc. You don't own that.

M A R T I A N · October 23, 2020

16 minutes ago, Hawkingbird said:

He's not talking about the physical disc. He's talking the code and data contained within the disc. You down own that.

Of course I don't own a property I didn't even make. Does this actually need to even be said? I think it's fair to say it's probably common knowledge that you don't actually own an IP just because you bought a disc with said IP installed on it.

I don't know why people sometimes feel the need to lay down an educational course on legalities when someone disagrees with them.

Bee said "I don't feel like you have a right to do anything with your game but play it". I disagree with that statement regardless of whatever legalities surround it. I also just don't find the comparison of a theme park to be very apt. Shrug

And using these same legalities to justify on disc DLC don't cut it for me either. I don't want to pay for something that's advertised as an afterthought to the game itself, just to find out all that shit was done and on the disc anyway.

If you're fine with that, more power to ya. 🤷🏾‍♂️

Volt · October 23, 2020

Yes, Game Freak, we're painfully aware.

DarkSakul · October 23, 2020

4 hours ago, misterBee said:

EULAs and TOS have always been the main tools for software developers and sellers of IP (like music) to ensure that buying their product from a store does NOT give you ownership over it.

Except there a legal limit to where they can ask of their customers.

Even if they agree, there certain rights that can't be wavied or signed away.

Like I can't make a EULA where I can claim your kidneys if I need a transplant no matter how I word it.

DarkSakul · October 23, 2020

Outter Worlds is on sale 50% on both GOG and Steam.

DoctaMario · October 23, 2020

6 hours ago, misterBee said:

EULAs and TOS have always been the main tools for software developers and sellers of IP (like music) to ensure that buying their product from a store does NOT give you ownership over it.

This has actually always been the case, which is what I was arguing in my posts above. The only difference now is people are starting to pay attention because things like streaming are becoming a thing.

This method has sometimes been defeated in court but other times has been upheld. It's a real clusterfuck. 🙃

I guess you could argue from a legal standpoint that streaming a game is "broadcasting" but since actually playing it is a vital part of the experience I don't know how that would stand up.

As someone who sells music, I don't ever worry about people using it for things since there are agencies like ASCAP & others that track that stuff. You can even hire a company to scour youtube and see if there's any of your music being used unauthorized and collect for it. Seems like game companies need something like that, the only problem is, getting YouTube to pay royalties is like pulling teeth, and so I imagine that if they started trying to do that with games, unless the platform was willing to pay up, or the companies went after the individual streamers, it could get messy.

TheInfernoman · October 23, 2020

37 minutes ago, DoctaMario said:

Seems like game companies need something like that, the only problem is, getting YouTube to pay royalties is like pulling teeth, and so I imagine that if they started trying to do that with games, unless the platform was willing to pay up, or the companies went after the individual streamers, it could get messy.

That's a massive can of worms that can lead to a path of mess that will end up with us the average peep losing the most. What I see happening is Google would start cutting accounts that aren't making them money to offset the costs. If the game company can't get the money from Google, they'll come after the peeps streaming which will cull the low tier ones trying to build themselves up.

DoctaMario · October 23, 2020

15 minutes ago, TheInfernoman said:

That's a massive can of worms that can lead to a path of mess that will end up with us the average peep losing the most. What I see happening is Google would start cutting accounts that aren't making them money to offset the costs. If the game company can't get the money from Google, they'll come after the peeps streaming which will cull the low tier ones trying to build themselves up.

I agree with you. Seems to me that streaming would be like free advertising so I don't understand trying to clamp down on it unless the game sucks and the company wants to snooker people into buying it before everyone finds that out.

iStu X · October 23, 2020

RegH81 · October 23, 2020

Patcher with a pretty stupid take on the Switch.

Hecatom · October 23, 2020

Hawkingbird · October 23, 2020

So that dumb fuck got his company throwing him under the bus. Lol.

DarkSakul · October 23, 2020

1 hour ago, DoctaMario said:

I guess you could argue from a legal standpoint that streaming a game is "broadcasting" but since actually playing it is a vital part of the experience I don't know how that would stand up.

You have to have added commentary, the streaming work has to be transformative. As games are a interactive medium, just recording game play isn't the same as pirating copies of the game. But people should have commentary ether about the game or with the audience for a live stream, or both. The same thing with doing a Review video, you aren't just streaming a game play, you are deconstructing the work and providing critique and discussion of said work. Like a good example is videogamedunkey, he makes skits out of his game play tom-foolely, we aren't there because Dunkey playing MGS5, BOTW or Skyrim, were watching Dunkey make a fool of himself and goofing around in the frame work of said game.
Dunkey transformed MGS5 from a Serious Spy mission shit, to a chicken man trying to kill the NPC the "deadest he can be dead-ed"

Edited October 23, 2020 by DarkSakul

Hecatom · October 23, 2020

1 minute ago, Hawkingbird said:

So that dumb fuck got his company throwing him under the bus. Lol.

Not a surprise when you take in consideration that Stadia doesnt need such bad press.

What is funny is is that Google (and Facebook) are getting sued for doing basically what this idiot blames streamers of doing, using content they didnt make to put on their feeds and the like.

Hawkingbird · October 23, 2020

Travis Scott is going to be working with Playstation

https://blog.playstation.com/2020/10/23/watch-travis-scotts-new-ps5-video/

When can I get a cactus jack PS5?

RSG3 · October 23, 2020

57 minutes ago, RegH81 said:

Patcher with a pretty stupid take on the Switch.

If I where an investor, I would follow Michael Patcher and do the exact opposite of everything he says. I'd be fucking loaded.

RSG3 · October 23, 2020

1 hour ago, DarkSakul said:

You have to have added commentary, the streaming work has to be transformative.

I bet if one where to argue this in court they could win on posting video with no commentary as the gameplay itself is Transformative. I cant play Battle Garrega the way Kamui can play Battle Garrega.

Edited October 23, 2020 by RSG3

Wellman · October 23, 2020

28 minutes ago, RSG3 said:

If I where an investor, I would follow Michael Patcher and do the exact opposite of everything he says. I'd be fucking loaded.

I have to think he is a gamer himself and/or he likes talks with game media for that reason while others wouldn't. Because majority of his takes are either common sense or just bad. He probably make his money in other areas but likes the industry too much not to give his two cents which usually are worth less.

RSG3 · October 23, 2020

Also just to get this off my chest.

SHUT THE FUCK UP PATCHER, I DONT WANT TO PLAY MY SWITCH IN JUST PORTABLE MODE. FUCK OFF WITH YOUR BAD IDEAS.

TheInfernoman · October 23, 2020

My GF uses her in docked at my house and portable at her home. I use mine mostly portable but I have my dock now set up to work on my 2nd PC monitor when not in use. Guy just sounds mad he isn't the one spearheading such ideas for consoles. Switch is awesome in its current form factor.

MillionX · October 23, 2020

yep, I play mostly in portable mode... but one thing I love about this system is that I have the option to play it on my tv if I want. More options is almost always a good thing.

This reminds me that I may need to play Hades mostly in console mode, because the text is super-small on the Switch screen.

I started Luminous Avenger iX today and oh yes... it's as awesome as I was expecting. I only played that first mission so far but it's already a great first impression there.

I'm looking forward to the next Diablo 3 season...sheeeitttt, it's always a tough choice on what character I want to start with; I'm leaning towards Necromancer this time. At this point, I doubt any game will surpass Diablo in total playtime for me. It's absolutely insane... just from my 2 main versions xb1 and Switch, that's over 1000 hours (850-something from xb1, 245 or so on Switch) right there...

a shame my old college buddy never kept up with it; for a short time my crew included him, his wife and another friend, at least in terms of people who could potentially play it well and keep up with me. Then there was the other friend who always had horribly built characters (*always hilarious hearing him lament "mannnn.. why are my characters so WEAK!?" 😄 well...that's the cost of silly ass decisions like putting an amethyst in a weapon slot instead of an emerald or ruby, bruh...it goes for any rpg sort of thing...build your characters RIGHT and they won't be weak chumps...dude running around as a level 70 witch doc, for example...with level 66 non-legendary leg armor. BRUH what are you doing? 🤣) and another dude who had no shame in using all kinds of hacked/modded gear....fortunately that last person I only played with once.

...ah, I remember; my old buddy was a Demon Hunter, and his wife played Witch Doctor while I was a Wizard....always brings back memories since we've played other action-rpg stuff together; we're all big fans of Phantasy Star Online and played the hell out of that back in the day....along with Champions of Norrath on ps2.

Edited October 24, 2020 by MillionX

iStu X · October 23, 2020

I don’t know why people still give Patcher a platform to spout his dumb shit.

DarkSakul · October 24, 2020

I play my Switch in Docked mode most offend, and occasionally play in handheld tablet mode.
I did play it once in tablet table set up, never again I rather lug with me a spare Dock.

iStu X · October 24, 2020

I can count on one hand how many times I’ve used my switch in handheld mode. I just don’t find it viable as a portable. Also for me personally cause of the nerve damage in my left arm/hand it is very uncomfortable and awkward to hold.

Edited October 24, 2020 by iStu X

Volt · October 24, 2020

17 minutes ago, DarkSakul said:

I did play it once in tablet table set up, never again I rather lug with me a spare Dock.

Most of the time I play mine when not docked, I play on table mode, though I use my phone's support as a base.

I'd like to actually play on handheld mode, but it's impossible with the Pro Pad and my joycons...

Sonichuman · October 24, 2020

5 hours ago, RegH81 said:

Patcher with a pretty stupid take on the Switch.

*insert Common footage of Patcher being a dumbass*

I hadn't even fully watched this vid and I still haven't at the time of typing this...but I got to the quote from him and the very first sentence of it...made me lose IQ points. 'I don't really understand the whole hybrid concept'. .....Why? I can't wrap my head around the whole concept of Pachter not understanding the concept. Who the fuck says something like this with this console dominating the charts for the past 22 months? I can't....I just can't compute.

Edit: Holy hell there's a 2nd part to his quote? and what a fucking doozy start for this second paragraph 'And Nintendo isn't that smart'. What the fuck am I listening to right now? Yeah Nintendo makes some dumb ass shit decisions some times (case in point the whole Fire Emblem 20th anniversary digital limited release....smh) but this company has been making money hand over fist with this system SINCE RELEASE. It might not stay that way when the new consoles come out but people have been clearly digging what this system is and even more so during the pandemic. Has Patchter just given up on even attempting to be taken seriously? I feel like he's given up on anyone attempting to take him seriously now.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Sonichuman

Hawkingbird · October 24, 2020

I used my switch in handheld mode occasionally. I like to have on me for road trips and subway rides.

Sonichuman · October 24, 2020

1 minute ago, Hawkingbird said:

I used my switch in handheld mode occasionally. I like to have on me for road trips and subway rides.

I use it for both. It's extremely convenient at especially if my wife happens to be watching something that I just don't care about or being able to continue my outside on the go. I like having the option of both taking the option away from those who use it for both is dumb.

RegH81 · October 24, 2020

Even at home I will occasionally play my Switch in handheld mode. If my nephew is over and brings his Switch I'll let him use my dock so he can play on the big screen.

Patcher's thoughs on this are just....friggin' dumb.

Sonichuman · October 24, 2020

vids

Spoiler

DoctaMario · October 24, 2020

Anyone want.to give me a cliffs notes of the Pachter video so I don't have to watch it?

The switch is basically the console I always wanted since I was a little kid. I always preferred hand helds because we only had one tv and so being able to play my consoles growing up wasn't always easy. And when we'd go on trips or out I'd have my GameBoy or one of those Tiger handheld games (still have a soft spot for those things), but being able to play the SAME games both handheld AND on tv?? Come on. I wanted one of those PSPs with the TV Out on it but never managed to get one, but this is even better. I can count on one hand the number of times I've played it docked since I got it for Christmas, but having that option is awesome.

Edited October 24, 2020 by DoctaMario

Sonichuman · October 24, 2020

40 minutes ago, DoctaMario said:

Anyone want.to give me a cliffs notes of the Pachter video so I don't have to watch it?

The switch is basically the console I always wanted since I was a little kid. I always preferred hand helds because we only had one tv and so being able to play my consoles growing up wasn't always easy. And when we'd go on trips or out I'd have my GameBoy or one of those Tiger handheld games (still have a soft spot for those things), but being able to play the SAME games both handheld AND on tv?? Come on. I wanted one of those PSPs with the TV Out on it but never managed to get one, but this is even better. I can count on one hand the number of times I've played it docked since I got it for Christmas, but having that option is awesome.

Pachter's quote in question

"I don’t really understand the whole hybrid concept... I don’t think most people play it in both modes, I would say that maybe 20% of Switch owners play both modes; and I think most Switch owners play it handheld only. So I honestly don’t understand the whole point of the hybrid. Who cares? Play it as a handheld."

"And Nintendo isn’t that smart," he continues, "so you never know what they will do next, but I think the smart thing would be to get rid of the Switch console and only have the Switch Lite, get rid of the docking station, get rid of playing on the TV; maybe offer a Fire Stick style dongle for those who do want to play it on the TV."