Why does the Switch version of LA Noire cost $10 more than the PS4 version and $35 more than the PS3 version when it's...

Why does the Switch version of LA Noire cost $10 more than the PS4 version and $35 more than the PS3 version when it's performance and graphics manage to be inferior? The PS3 version also has unstable fps, but it never dips as low as the Switch version, despite being 2005 hardware...

I would count portability as a pro, but the 3 hour battery life kinda makes that feature useless...

I'm really struggling to see a reason to buy one, considering I already own a Wii U, a PS3 and a PS4. Are you happy with your Switch?

nintendo taxes retards

Its a third party game. Nintendo has no control over rockstars pricing.

It costs extra to make the cartridge taste bitter

I know you're meme'ing, but it really seems kinda evil when you think about it. Never any meaningful sales, last to remove region lock, their games rarely drop in price, ports of old games come costing more than their counterparts on other platforms despite often performing worse and / or having cut content...

Why would Rockstar ask more on Switch? Just to mess with Nintendo fans?

>Portability
>Gyro controls
>Touch screen support

It's expensive because NIntendo charge for card licensing

What
If Nintendo charges Rockstar more than Sony and Microsoft for allowing them to put the game on their system, they have a direct influence on the game.

Why the fuck do you think Sony became so big with the first Playstation?

texture work in LA noire PS3 is impressive as fuck given its split 512mb ram. not just the faces, but the world building has higher than you would expect quality art in painting and household objects with no load screens either

gyro controls and touch screen for what?

Your mom. What do you think?

The PS3 could have been worse.

>$35 more than the PS3 version
PS3 version was full 60 at release.

The entire game can be played with touch controls and gyro controls for aiming, what else would they be used for?

Switch has no water tower :(

Gyro controls really are a 'thing' again? I swear, if I see some faggot in a public place moving his arms around while carrying a Switch, I'll slap that console and stomp on it.

>swear, if I see some faggot in a public place moving his arms around while carrying a Switch
>I have no idea what I'm talking about
Why bother then?

Why does it dip so much REEEEEE

>I'll slap that console and stomp on it.

it just switches between true cinematic 24fps and new cinematic 30fps. this is what the console audience wants.

The video that you took this caps from tells you why.

Its even more impressive when you realize its not 512 mb of ram but 256mb ram and 256mb video ram

>Why does the Switch version of LA Noire cost $10 more than the PS4 version and $35 more than the PS3 version
It's on a flash card rather than a disc and those cost more to make. Literally that's it. Possibly a Nintendo tax too.

Who cares. Why didn't the remaster come to PC?!

Wait, so they're releasing a remaster of LA Noire on PS3 when the game...originally WAS on the PS3? How is it even a remaster?

PS3 is getting nothing.

No, it's the original version running on PS3, but the Switch version literally looks the same.

PC players don't care about LA Noire, Rockstar also staggers console and PC releases so people double dip.

we can already just upscale it like they did with the remaster, idiot.

pc version is already 'master' enough and with a simple fix to remove the 30 fps softcap you can run it at 60.

I think they're waiting to release the VR version

Anyone notice metacritic scores for this were 89ish when it first came out and now they're like 77-80ish? I keked. Typical "OMG GIT HOIPEEEEEE" and then "ew an old game" culture.

The framecap is bollocks and will break quite a few things with the game. At least a true framerate patch would be nice.

People like you vastly overestimate the number of people who own a gaming capable computer and a current system, PC gaming is barely mainstream as it is. They stagger their releases chiefly because consoles make most of the money, and then they throw the game on PC for the last 20 people who didn't play it.

The price has nothing to do with Sony charging less or Nintendo charging more, it's because the medium is flat out more expensive. Printing a Blu-ray disc costs at most a few cents while manufacturing a flash memory card that is 16GB in capacity or whatever it being used for this game costs more.

Publishers will frequently charge more for Switch versions because they don't want to eat that expense and they know Switch owners will pay it. Anyone that honestly was considering the Switch version of DOOM isn't going to get it on another platform because it's more expensive on Switch.

>they know Switch owners will pay it.
Not for third party games that Nintendo fans are known to give no fucks about

lolno

By this logic we should be getting a massive discount for digital games on all platforms

>Nintendo fans are known to give no fucks about
That has never been true.

>People like you vastly overestimate the number of people who own a gaming capable computer and a current system
I know that PC gaming is nowhere near as prevalent as most gaming forums would have you believe but, while it is all anecdotal, I know several people who bought GTAV twice and PC players have been chomping on the bit for years for an RDR port.

Sales of third parties on Nintendo consoles says otherwise

>tfw consolefag who loved gta3,vc,sa
>become pc moosterfag
>don't want to buy console ver since it's a waste of money
>finally pirate pc ver of gta5 years later after CUHRAHZY open world revolutionizes the genre with games like Prototype and Saints Row 4/Gat Outta Hell
>gta5 now just seems boring and I don't even want to play it

blah

Which ones? That ones that sold well or the ones the sold poorly? Because some series saw some of the best sales on Nintendo platforms while some don't. It's a mix bag just like every other platform.

Which third-party multiplats have sold well on Nintendo consoles? The early CoD games on the Wii? Really can't think of anything else that's not 15+ years old.

I'd be more interested in third party mutliplats on Switch if they weren't full fucking price while the same games are less than half that on every other platform. Even if I've never played them before, why the fuck would I pay $50-60 for the games on switch when I still own a 360 and PS3 and could play them on either of those or on my PC for a fraction of the price?

These games are going to sell like ass and third parties will use them as an excuse to not produce anything new or original that would actually sell well.

There's a reason why third party pubs ignored Wii U and why all of them but Bethesda are ignoring the Switch, user. No matter how many turds EA, Ubisoft and Activision shit out onto Switch, they won't sell.

see
Third party multiplats sell like ass, unless you're talking about games from 15+ years ago when the industry and environment were very different.

Third parties need to make new games and not price their years-old ports at $50-60 when you can already get the same fucking games for $20 or less on other platforms. Fuck, the "remastered" Skyrim wasn't even fucking $60 on PS4/Xbone, but the Switch port is full price? Get the fuck out of here.

>There's a reason why third party pubs ignored Wii U
Because developer support was fucked up and most of them were getting their kits and questions answered until later winter/spring of the following year, months after the Wii U had launched.

All that changed with the Switch. Developers knew what they were working with year or more before release which is why specific devs (Square Enix, Sega) said they would support it before it was even revealed.

Rocket League on Switch is selling better than Mario Odyssey.

>Bethesda made a more competent port to switch than fucking rockstar.

This is bullshit, Bethesda's people are a bunch of untrained cocksucking monkeys compared to rockstar's employees.

>Which third-party multiplats have sold well on Nintendo consoles?
What about the Resident Evils and Tales games that sold well enough to get additional support down the road? Also, the Wii U had good software sales, the issue is it primarly only got indie titles but indie sales made their respective devs happy. It's part of why the indie scene has been throwing everything at the Switch. Because the sales data has been good.

>These games are going to sell like ass and third parties will use them as an excuse to not produce anything new or original that would actually sell well.
These games are already selling well and devs are promising additional support.

id Software outdid both of them.

Whenever Ubishit, EA and Actijew speak of the reason they don't support Nintendo consoles it's much different though. They speak of there not being a large enough audience or install base. I recall a few instances of complaining about dev tools by actual devs but the pubs don't generally worry about that type of micro shit when they decide to put a game on something. Most managed to support the PS3 when it was a total nightmare to develop for.

Doom for the switch was done by an unrelated team called panic button, who was also doing rocket league and wolfenstein 2 at the same time.

>They speak of there not being a large enough audience or install base.
They speak of that but support dropped before the Wii U even got a chance to gain any steam. If you go back and follow EA's first six months, you would see none of the shit they pulled makes any sense based on the little data they got. Not to mention Activision would do a simple bug fix patch for their launch window CoD that included known bugs from other versions that released earlier.

Well props to them, the fact that it's running on the Switch is nothing short of a technical marvel.

You know they're impatient. If one game doesn't sell they drop support instantly. Of course they don't give the Wii U a chance.

>If one game doesn't sell they drop support instantly.
So why would Beth pledge multigame support for a company they haven't worked with in decades? And that was before the Switch even released.

Because Beth isn't as crazed evil as EA, Activision or Ubisoft, except in the paid mods arena. Nintendo offered them a partnership and they said 'alright, let's try it' rather than 'kek only if our port of a 4 yo game sells over 3mil'

its a good game with multiplayer

Who fucking cares?
It's a console game ported to a device the size of a micro tablet. Who's actually expecting PC/PS4/XBONE quality graphics/performance?

>gyro controls for aiming,
Hardly even matters the game already has the ability to straight up lock on to enemies. The gunplay is such a minor part of the game anyway and is really easy.

Because the game was made with the cell in mind, its the reason PS4 and Xbox One X cant even get close to 60fps

>cant even get close to 60fps
You mean getting above 30 fps at all?

THE POWER of the CELL shines through. Truly a revolutionary chip, unable to be topped, even by the PSquadruple and the Xbone1111

I think expecting at least the performance of the 12 year old Xbox 360 is quite fair.

>Why didn't the remaster come to PC?!
From what I have seen the remaster doesn't even look better than the current PC version, kind of the same deal with the Bioshock Infinite remaster. PC never got it because the console version was literally just the PC version backported to consoles with the consoles running closer to PC max.

>The framecap is bollocks and will break quite a few things with the game. At least a true framerate patch would be nice.
Yeah the facial animations also look really weird at 60FPS. It is a pretty slow paced game and the combat is really trivial in difficulty so I can deal with the 30FPS cap.

Curious to see what Rockstar does with the VR version due to the fact VR is unplayable at 30FPS because it will cause motion sickness very quickly.

This.

There's no point going above 30FPS at all in this game, damn near everything was hard programed to be synced to the 30FPS lock, including the motion capture.

RDR suffers from this as well, the game had a huge case of spaghetti code and was barely held together.

>Why does the Switch version of LA Noire cost $10 more than the PS4 version and $35 more than the PS3 version
Cartridge.

>when it's performance and graphics manage to be inferior?
I would expect a handheld version of a game to be inferior to console versions.

>1280x720 vs 1920x1080(or 1280x1080)
When the pixel count is between 1.5 and 2 times the original, no comparison can be made.

>By this logic we should be getting a massive discount for digital games on all platforms
Digital games are kept at the same price to keep retailers like Gamestop happy. Sony/MS/Nintendo still want them to carry their machines and games. They'll be less likely to do it if the platform holders make it way more attractive to only buy your console at Gamestop and nothing else.

If the actual cost of the goods was accurately reflected in its price, they would be cheaper on digital.

Sunk cost fallacy. If you bought the switch in the first place, you'll do everything you can to justify its purchase.

I don't even own a Switch, nor want one, but you're fucking stupid if you don't think this is gonna get patched to run better

>I visited yourbias.is and i'll show it!

>Why are Switch versions more expensive
Basically publishers cut down prices of "Remastered" versions of PS3/360 games because they consider the audience of PS4 and Xbone already owning them and already playing originals vs. the Switch audience being presumed to not own 360/PS3 therefore more likely to have a first hand experience

>cartridge
Digital version.

It's more expensive to produce a cartridge than it is a bluray or DVD.

Digital version.

DELEETEEEEEE THISSSSSS

>ps4 version
>30 fps cap
>in a game from 2011
Is this a joke? What the fuck is Sony's excuse?

Switch cartridges come in a few different sizes, I think 4GB, 8GB, 16GB and 32GB or something like that. The more storage space, the more the carts cost to produce and the more you have to charge for your game to profit. LA Noire has a large-ish file size, so it needed to go on a more expensive cart.

Hey dumbass, read

Beth can both afford the gamble, and see the inherent value of a portable/home console hybrid, I'm legitimately surprised that of all the fucking companies Bethesda were the ones smart enough to see it's value.

Switch is more powerful than both last gen systems by quite a margin, LA Noire is a bad port, even on the PS4, a system 5x the power of the Switch LA Noire runs at the same resolution, with the same 30fps cap and pushes only minor improvements. Compare that to a good port like MGSV, on PS3 it's 720@30 on PS4 it's 1080@60, with anti aliazing, ambient occlussion, higher resolution textures, better quality depth of field and farther draw distances, the port of LA Noire is inexcusable at it's absolute best.

It's because they think customers should eat the additional costs of a higher density switch cart actually, and the game still needs a fucking download.

>Switch is more powerful than both last gen systems by quite a margin

It's also quite true.

woah... so this... is the power... of next gen consoles!

It's the power of lazy publishers