According to the article, the upgrade will get you “a higher resolution and improved framerates.”
For me, that upgrade is not worth it. I will play the game entirely in portable mode and my vision is not what it used to be, so I don’t care about resolution.
If previously released Switch Pokémon games are any indication, “improved frame rates” means 30.
So it may be worth $10 for some people, then. I am fine with a cheaper game with slightly worse graphics. I am not sure I even notice if a game is running at 60 fps or 30 fps. Even when a game dips below 30, I notice it getting a bit choppy, but a game should be engaging enough that I will not pay it any attention.
To me it’s instantly noticeable if a game is running at 60 or 30. It especially irks me when the original version of a game ran at 60 on much older hardware and then the remake is capped at 30 coughTTYDremakecough
I can tell 60 vs 30 if I switch between them. Like playing a 30 fps game after playing a 60fps one. Even then, I completely agree with you, what’s the point of the remake if it runs worse than the original?
That would definitely be worth the $10 if you were already buying a Switch 2. A stable 30 is miles better than what we had with Scarlet/Violet.
It was clearly running at 60 FPS during the Switch 2 reveal.
Reveal trailers: famously reliable sources of performance data.
Well, Nintendo is not known to lie in its trailers. Lagging games are lagging in the trailers as well (see GameChat or Pokémon Scarlet / Violet / Arceus trailers for example).
I have played many PS4 games on PS5 without buying the upgrade, and plan to do the same with Switch.
No trailer, just announcement on X. I always find it weird when companies do that.
Are they getting ahead of a leak?
They know that someone is about to spoil the release date, so they quickly throw together a tweet to control the message and buy time for a more comprehensive and thought out announcement as part of the Nintendo Direct.
It is possible, but Nintendo is weird enough that you can’t always say.
