I suppose they didn't hear about Metal Gear Zombies. Best not to scare them, with the fact that Metal Gear Solid V will never be complete or the whole Hideo Kojima controversy over getting basic billing in his games, or the fact that they bought Hudsonsoft and canned all the projects, and probably best not to worry to much why there hasn't been a Castlevania as of late following the fact that Koji Igarashi was also ejected from Konami.

Yes, nothing suspect about any of those events.

Even if I didn't keep up, Konami hate has been everywhere and for good reason.

What I don't understand is why you guys don't understand that a company can hire employees with a good track record at any time to help them make a good game. Yes, bad company decisions will lead to rushed releases, a lack of investment in post-release fixes and such, but everything is possible. A video game publisher is just that, a publisher. Even if it's a internal Konami team who is making the game, the team will do whatever they can. Considering Konami's failure to capture pachinko players, they could just say "We better spend a lot of miney on a good dev team to make a good game for us".

For the record, I have also already listened to podcasts talking about Bomberman R and what a huge screw up it already seems to be, but my point still stands that a good dev team could be hired at any time when they realize that it's worth it.

People forget that a company isn't one person. Konami isn't that kid who always get's F's on exams. Game Development involves many devs, supervisors and etc, and while the publisher ultimately decides what comes out, a good and passionate dev team can oftentimes make a great game even when given terrible orders.

Well, it's technically run by several kids who always got F's on exams.

Said management is either too proud or greedy to change their business practices. After all, if the Usual Suspects can get away with all the crap they do, why can't they?

Metal Gear Survive shows that they'd rather just milk their IPs for cash in the cheapest way possible, and anything that can lead to actual quality releases would be considered unnecessary expenses. No amount of passion can substitute for inadequate time and resources. And if could, it would burn out quickly if the rumors about the working conditions Konami upholds are true.

And if they do happen to turn around and stop being assholes, and become successful again as a result, who's to say they wont turn back to what they are now?

And why would they want to come back when their other ventures are more lucrative and less unstable?

Indeed. From a business standpoint, they have every reason to go all-in on Pachinko machines in Japan if it's become the bread-and-butter part of their income. Valve is another example. Steam is, for the most part, a stable and lucrative part of their business. Why invest significant money, time and resources on developing a full-fledged HL3, or even HL2: Episode 3, when it's going to be a sigificant risk to them? Especially when there are other ventures like VR that are clearly more interesting and engaging for them to pursue.

Nintendo is still trying to shape the way you play instead of looking at how you play now and evolving from there. It’s going at everything arse-backwards; it’s tapping right into Field of Dreams and working on If You Build It, They Will Come. They Don’t Come, Nintendo; that’s another of those lies hammered into our brains by 1980’s and 1990’s media, along with “true love is your birthright” and “everything will be generally all right, no worries”.

The arse keeps getting bigger.

The fact that this is even a discussion on an enthusiast website shows just how arse Nintendo is at getting a clear message. I'd have a more clear idea of what the Nintendo Switch was if I was sitting at the bottom of the Mariana Trench and looking up. There's less than six weeks to go and this entire aspect of the system is entirely unclear, being fed in nuggets by a man who is having to spin things so hard that his body may as well be ready to become a pulsar.

I find the Nintendo Switch dissapointing. Both as a replacement for Wii U and for 3DS. I love the "handheld design" of the console, but somehow I just don't care about those games. Mario Oddisey? Looks like Sonic Adventure and I really hope it doesn't end that way (probably will be awesome though). Zelda? I don't like open world games, specially when the world is so damn big (and hate crafting too). Mario Kart 8 Deluxe? I have MK7... Everything else? I'll just stay with my 3DS, thank you... So far there's nothing on the Switch to make me want to get it (and to be honest, in my country it will cost almost U$D1000) so I guess I'm going retro? xD

What the Switch needs to make me consider it:

.3D AND 2D Mario.
.Mario Kart
.Not open world Zelda (something like A Link Between Worlds or Ocarina, but with a smaller world and bigger dundeons)
.Luigi's Mansion
.Smash
.Maybe a new Punch-Out?
.A god damn 2D Metroid game.
.SNES Remix? =D

YES. Everything in a Zelda game should be there for a reason, I don't care about the world being huge if it's empty. I wouldn't mind it being huge if the content density was as high as say OoT or aLttP.

Also YES. It's been too long since the last Metroid game and that was awful. I can only assume that Nintendo decided that Other M bombed because people were sick of Metroid instead of because it was awful. I'd love to see the Fusion/Zero Mission team get back together for a 2D or 2.5D Metroid game.

It is normal... just look at family share on steam (yes there are limitation, but only because there is an official way to share purchase. Still I think steam is not perfect, that's why I use gog), itunes (yes, apple allow family share, and itunes works offline too and with multiple people using the same app... but you need to use the same credit/prepaid card) etc...
Of course gog don't care about implement a family share system... they are already drm-free and they don't care if you share your account in your family (they just don't want you to share your games on torrent or something like that)... (also you don't actually need to share account, you just need to copy and paste).

Finally the current Nintendo digital system is still worst. You cannot download the same game on multiple console with the same account and play only with one... you need to "transfer" all your console from one console to another one, with all your digital purchase (not just one game).
Even with a physical cartridge you can still give the cartridge to your brother/sister.

But why should I be able to share a digital purchase? Because I cannot resell it.
You can resell a physical cartridge, but since it is linked with your account you cannot resell a digital game. If you share your account/password you give access to all your games to a person that you trust (that can also make new purchase with your credit/prepaid card).

Anyway Switch digital purchase will be tied to the account. So I will probably buy Switch.

This is not true. From the user agreement:

"Your GOG account and GOG content are personal to you and cannot be shared with, sold, gifted or transferred to anyone else."

You absolutely are not allowed to share your account, or your games, with someone else. Because it is DRM-free GOG can't stop you from doing it, but their entire system is based on trust between them and you the consumer. Make no mistake, if you are doing this then you are breaking the rules, and breaking that trust.

Precisely.


Also there's a big difference between sharing games in a household and a group of friends (size unspecified) sharing an account, which is what you originally said (which is what I was replying to when I said it's not normal).

Of course the theory (TOS) are what you said.
But if you go to read the staff posts about this you will notice that they tell you to use your digital copy like a physical copy (so if your friend play it you need to play something else).
In any case, what is really important to them is that you do not spread a pirated copy of the game you bought online or with lots of people... they are human, they understand that if you and your brother/sister buy a copy you and him/her will play the same copy of the game from the same account.
If they thought otherwise I would have already abandoned gog (since there is no official family share).

I do not think I've broken the trust of gog only by allowing my brother to play the games in my account (or allow him to log in in my account to download my games).
I think you are wrong.

same, I think you are wrong. Gog already said that there is nothing wrong if you give your copy to a friend (just play something else while your friend play like with a physical copy). for the account it is my responsibility if I share my log in (that's why it is personal, if I share my login password it is my responsibility if something goes wrong).

Both of you are right in theory, both of you are wrong in practice. Proven wrong even by the words of those who work in gog.
As far as I know you are the first not to have understood this simple (and logical) concept.

Here however, we're going off-topic:
The topic is about Switch. Games in this console will be tied to the account. This is the news that I care about, end of the story. I don't want to explain why family share is legit, and I don't want to explain why TOS are not even law, what gog think about that, or what you think about that. I just want to say that I'm happy because I will be able to go with digital on Switch instead of physical. end of the story


PS. read this:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general_archive/a_few_licencing_questions/post11
that's why I know I'm doing the right thing.