“I’d be careful about the notion that streaming will automatically bring the entire business to a subscription model.”

– David Haddad discusses recent shifts toward subscription in video games, and how those differ from other industries.

Both cloud-based gaming services and subscription services are rising to the forefront of the game industry all at once, but Warner. Bros Interactive Entertainment president David Haddad isn’t sold on the idea that streaming will make subscription models a necessity.

Speaking to VentureBeat, Haddad explained that streaming services have brought about major shifts toward subscription services in other industries, but that he doesn’t necessarily believe the same thing will be true for video games.

“I just think there’s a lot of differences compared to other forms of media,” Haddad tells VentureBeat.

One of those key differences, and why he says traditional game sales won’t be stomped out by subscriptions, is the differences in how individuals play, and how many games they typically burn through a year.

“I do think that we’ve proven that a transactional business, as we call it, where you pay a premium price for an experience, where gamers can have 30, 40, 100 hours of play–they’ll pay a premium price for that. That’s great for us. We have a history of that transactional business,” says Haddad. “There are gamers that want to consume way more than two or three games a year, which is sort of an average right now. There may be people that like the consumption pattern of having a subscription so that they can try more games and play more games.”

“But the behavior today is actually fairly concentrated on players spending most of their time in a handful of games that they carefully pick and that are able to secure a premium price in the market. I think it’ll be a mixture of both.”

Streaming and subscription services are just one part of the larger interview VentureBeat had with Haddad at E3. The rest of that conversation, including talks about the annual show itself and the company’s recent venture into AR, can be found here.

In celebration of the Summer Sideshow Update, play Killing Floor 2 for FREE starting now through Sunday at 1PM Pacific Time. You can also pickup Killing Floor 2 at 67% off the regular price!*

If you already have Steam installed, click here to install or play Killing Floor 2. If you don’t have Steam, you can download it here.

*Offer ends Monday at 10AM Pacific Time

Remember the unbelievable sale last week for NBA 2K19 on the North American eShop and multiple other digital platforms? The game received a limited-time 95 percent discount, taking it from the regular price of $59.99 all the way down to just $2.99. Even people who don’t play sports games on a regular basis found this deal hard to pass up.

Unfortunately, though, some of these new players got quite the shock when they were seemingly forced to watch “unskippable ads” in their paid game before each session. Sure enough, It led to immediate outrage and a lot of confusion online. Although these 2K TV advertisements are being reported elsewhere as a new addition to the game, this is apparently not the case.

According to veteran ballers, these in-game video ads are nothing new and can be disabled in the game’s settings menu. Reddit user Totalnoob18 cleared things up over on the Xbox One subreddit:

“You can turn off 2k tv in the setting. Wont gonna get the ads, nor that [removed] tv before games.”

A Reddit user on the PC Gaming subreddit known as iHicham added to this:

“yeah those ads aren’t new at all”

Eventually, this information spread to multiple subreddits – including the Nintendo Switch one. While it’s still a questionable practice for developers and publishers to insert video advertisements within paid games, it’s now at least clear new players can disable the 2K TV in the settings menu.

Did you pick up NBA 2K19 during the recent sale? Are you holding out for NBA 2K20? Share your thoughts below.

Last September, Switch owners were treated to a pleasant surprise when Hopoo Games’ acclaimed action-platformer Risk of Rain suddenly appeared on the Switch eShop. Now, it seems like Nintendo’s hybrid platform could be receiving the 3D sequel in the near future.

Risk of Rain 2 for Switch has been recently rated by the USK – Germany’s classification board. This follows on from rumours at the end of March, when dataminers found multiple file names referencing the Switch in the PC version of the game. This included a mention of handheld mode, Joy-Cons and even Pro Controller support. All we need now is an actual confirmation. In the meantime, take a look at the rating below:

Here’s some information about the sequel as well as some screenshots, courtesy of the Steam page:

The classic multiplayer roguelike, Risk of Rain, returns with an extra dimension and more challenging action. No run will ever be the same with randomized stages, enemies, bosses, and items. Play solo, or team up with up to four friends to fight your way through hordes of monsters, unlock new loot, and find a way to escape the planet.

If you would like to try out the original game, you can purchase it from the eShop right now for $9.99 / £8.99.

Have you played the first Risk of Rain game on the Switch or another platform? Would you be interested in trying out the sequel on Switch? Tell us down in the comments.

© Nintendo Life

Update: Sorry folks, it looks like the listings have now been removed from the Spanish GAME website.

Original Story: The Spanish arm of gaming retail specialist GAME has added a whole bunch of Switch Mini accessories to its website, adding more weight to the rumours of a cut-price, revised edition of the system.

The listings lack images at present, but some of the items – such as the TPU skin and travel case – are similar to the listings published by Chinese accessory maker HonSon last week.

We’ve spoken to a source with knowledge of this matter and can confirm that retailers are already discussing the new console, as well as a third Switch model, entitled Switch Pro. We already know that Nintendo has moved its production out of China to avoid the impact of US tariffs and that three Switch models are being manufactured at the new site.

We also know that Nvidia expects its deal with Nintendo to give it a boost this year, and that looks set to release a new version of the Nvidia Shield TV that could share the same improved Tegra X1 chipset with a potential Switch Pro.

What do you make of this new development? Do you think Switch Mini is happening, or this is all just speculation?

When you’re trying to please a fanbase that’s been around for over 20 years, any major change to the status quo will always divide opinion. Pokémon is a series that’s kept under heavy scrutiny by its loyal community, with each minute detail studied under a Silph Scope with no place for mistakes to hide.

Despite this, I doubt Pokémon Sword and Shield’s producer, Junichi Masuda, quite understood how people would react after appearing on Nintendo’s Treehouse livestream and in a subsequent Famitsu interview, where he detailed some specifics of his future game. Masuda explained only the Pokémon that appeared in the new Galar region could be transferred in from older titles through Pokemon Home. His justification was a little vague, stating not only would it have been extremely difficult to recreate the 1000+ Pokémon (including their various forms) for the Switch but the number of Pokémon in the National Pokedex would be detrimental to a balanced battle system.

Without going into great detail about what was said by Masuda and subsequently game director Akira Omori, it’s clear that the Pokémon community are fairly divided on this news – after all, Pokémon’s motto is Gotta catch ‘em all! and not Gotta catch a few! On a surface level, some are understandably very upset that their favourites may not make the cut, but looking deeper there seems to be a larger problem with how the most loyal of fans are taking Masuda’s words – they don’t trust him.

When you consider just how little official word has been said about the reduced roster and Pokémon Home, it pales in comparison to what has been said online by those enraged by Masuda and Omori’s comments. Misinformation in the form of hastily composed infographics has been used as a kind of smear campaign against the makers and Game Freak as if to paint them as enemies of their own brand and fanbase. It’s a sad thing to witness and one that completely detracts from all the recent positives following on from Pokémon GO’s release.

Whether or not Masuda and Omori are honest in their reasoning behind the cull, it’s important to take a look at the situation from both sides before grabbing our pitchforks and rallying behind a hashtag.

Firstly, you can’t deny that when it comes to Masuda’s first point, balance, there’s a lot of problems with the National Pokedex. Masuda stated that Sword and Shield wasn’t the first time they considered a cull – that goes back to Sun and Moon. When you consider the sheer number of Pokémon, each with different types, base IV stats, and different move-sets, the combinations are astronomical and understandably some Pokémon get forgotten about. Masuda clearly believes the time was right when moving to an entirely new platform for a chance to refresh the Pokedex.

Whilst the majority of Pokémon are eligible in competitive battles, some are far too overpowered to be playable. Even when removing banned Pokémon from the equation it’s clear that some tournament-legal ‘mons are more gifted than others.

Just take a look at the 2018 World Championship’s top eight players. Out of the 700+ Pokémon that were available to choose from, every one of the quarter-finalists had one or two of either: Incineroar, Snorlax, or Landorus – with one of them, semi-finalist Nils Dunlop, having all three. There’s a reason games like Overwatch, Smash Bros., or even League of Legends with 144 Champions have succeeded competitively – there is a manageable level of balancing. You don’t necessarily see the same characters being played time-in-time-out at tournaments and when one character or strategy appears more powerful than another, adjustments and tweaks are made to keep each and every character relevant.

This is admittedly an entirely self-made problem. With every new generation, new Pokémon were added at the behest of the fans. It was just a matter of time, as Masuda says before the roster became unmanageable.

When it comes to the Trading Card Game, there are routine rotations as to what is and isn’t playable at sanctioned events – as cards are released, the meta evolves. Not every Pokémon in the National Pokedex has a tournament-legal card, so this cull may be part of a plan to unify these two competitive scenes. If there’s less confusion as to what Pokémon are or aren’t playable, then players may be more inclined to get involved from a grassroots level, with a more level playfield featuring all available Pokémon. Remember, there will be plenty of newcomers alongside the returning players.

Whilst it may appear to some that many of the game’s assets are straight copies from older games, gameplay videos have shown new idle and battle animations with higher quality Pokémon models than previously seen. I’m not a game designer, but it would be fair to assume that these designs would have taken up a fair chunk of development time, especially as it appears that these models and animations have been made from scratch. The animations themselves have been subject to some direct criticisms by those cherry-picking specific animations (with graphical glitches aside) in an aim to disprove this. Take Wingull for example, its Pokedex entry states that: “It has trouble flapping in flight. Instead, it soars on updrafts,” so naturally you wouldn’t expect it to flap in its idle animations. For years, the same animation of Wingull swaying from side to side has been recreated but when it comes to Sword and Shield this suddenly becomes indicative of lazy development.

It would have been extremely safe for Game Freak’s team of 143 to put all their resources into remodelling each and every Pokémon into Sword and Shield, happily plodding along with the same balancing issues, a few notable additions, and a generic plotline. Given more time and manpower, I believe 1000+ Pokémon may have been possible. Yet, when you look at the series entries that have performed the best, it’s those that have embraced innovation that have continued to perform well. Sun and Moon were the first games to really break from the mould of ‘catch, train, battle, gym, repeat’ and have gone on to be some of the more critically acclaimed titles in the whole series. Already, Sword and Shield look to take things one step further with open-space Wild Areas and local and online Max Raid Battles, with no doubt more features to be announced in the near future.

Whether or not Game Freak’s justification for the upgrades being too much work is truthful or not, no matter how much time there is to set aside, this wouldn’t have changed the balancing issues mentioned earlier. In this instance, you can’t have the best of both worlds.

Those most vocal about this culling should be picking their battles better. When trying to address minor gripes with false information and wild assumptions, it takes focus from the larger more pressing issues.

One of the more glaring negatives is regarding Pokémon Home and Pokémon Bank. Pokémon Bank is a premium service that allows players to store 3000 Pokémon online for use in games spanning generations six and seven. It’s unclear whether Pokémon Home – the new overarching storage service linking up Pokémon Bank, Let’s Go Pikachu and Eevee, Pokémon GO, and Sword and Shield – would require an additional subscription fee. If many of the Pokémon available in Pokémon Bank are incompatible with Sword and Shield, then there will need to be a pretty decent initial incentive for players to perform such a transfer considering they won’t be able to get them back to Pokémon Bank or their original games; leaving them in Pokepurgatory with no real use. As it stands, no such incentive exists other than a vague comment by Masuda on the topic to suggest some gameplay elements for Home may be incorporated in the future.

Many players would have spent hundreds and in some cases, thousands of hours training and breeding Pokémon over the course of more than a decade, to have them seemingly become defunct. Whilst you could argue there’s a false sense of entitlement from fans for these Pokémon to continue being usable in Sword and Shield as well as future games, Pokémon Bank is a paid-for service that encourages the cross-title support for 99% of all Pokémon. For these fans to be told that Pokémon Bank would be compatible with Home but only to a certain degree, is like being told that you can only keep half of your childhood toys when your family moves home. Patrons of Pokémon Bank shouldn’t be expected to pay for a subscription-model service that only offers limited support for the next game in the series, a bit like paying for a Netflix that doesn’t add titles to its catalogue.

When communicating such a prominent predicament, it’s important to be as clear and transparent as possible but if anything Masuda’s comments muddy the water and are part of the reason why some people choose not to believe the balancing or graphical rationales. I believe that the news broken by Masuda and Omori was done so both prematurely and without any proper planning. Nintendo and The Pokémon Company are often fairly tight-lipped when it comes to articulating features of a game; limiting such announcements to formal press releases and Directs. These comments are clear evidence that, even supposing the best of intentions, miscommunication can be a PR disaster. No matter how many Pokémon are to be culled from Sword and Shield, The Pokémon Company owe it to their fans to address, at the very least, the objective issue surrounding Pokémon Bank’s subscription model and its compatibility with Pokémon Home.

Assumptions have been made from both sides of the argument. Heck, I’ve made some here. Without concrete evidence to back anything up each side will continue to speculate and draw their own conclusions as to how the saga will end. For now, here are the facts: Pokémon Sword and Shield will be released Worldwide on November 15th, both games will feature new and returning Pokémon, and eager fans will buy both games at launch.

It’s been an embarrassing few days for the community, but now it’s time to fight for the answers that really matter and embrace this series’ evolution from an entirely different perspective; one of optimism and opportunity, not anger and frustration.

Are you disappointed that the entire Pokédex won’t be returning for Sword & Shield? Do you agree that it’s time to embrace and explore fresh opportunities? Feel free to share your thoughts below.