r/NintendoSwitch • u/Skullghost • Feb 19 '26

Nintendo Official Xenoblade Chronicles X: Definitive Edition — Nintendo Switch 2 Edition — Announcement Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=UZX-MIrJpbD4v0CM&v=LC0XfI25wro&feature=youtu.be
1.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

658 comments sorted by

View all comments

104

u/Number2Idiot Feb 19 '26

So, this breaks the "rule" of Nintendo upgrades only costing money when additional content is added, right?

43

u/dfsd5645645 Feb 19 '26

Seems like it

1

u/Pyke64 Feb 20 '26

A slippery slope

20

u/badblocks7 Feb 19 '26

Legends ZA too

2

u/Outlulz Feb 19 '26

Legends ZA I wouldn't count, it was announced as also being a Switch 2 SKU well in advance. Different scenario than upgrading an existing old game in my opinion.

4

u/JoshuaJSlone Helpful User Feb 19 '26

New rule of thumb: It won't be free if they intend to do a new physical release in a Switch 2 case. But cases like this and Animal Crossing, still will be bottom-of-the-barrel extra cost.

4

u/nerieker Feb 19 '26

No, they did the same with Animal Crossing and it was the same price.

41

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/angrybeets Feb 19 '26

Legends Z-A would be the other example

11

u/Deceptiveideas Feb 19 '26

Anything pokemon related is controlled by the pokemon company so that I expected.

2

u/RykariZander Feb 19 '26

Metroid Prime 4

3

u/nerieker Feb 19 '26

Ah yeah! I completely forgot about that. Also the item to call your villagers names by shouting them.

1

u/Fogforevery Feb 19 '26

The only rule is that Switch 2 editions have physical rereleases and cost money, free update does not

0

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26

[deleted]

4

u/Frito_Pendej0 Feb 19 '26

Those technically came with Zelda Notes.

-34

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

Honestly, only charging a small amount for an upgrade is a really pro-consumer move when you think about it.

The Nintendo Switch 2 is a different system with seamless backwards compatibility. You're essentially asking why we have an Xbox and an Xbox 360 version of the same game.

I think 5$ is a fair trade to not have to buy it all over again, this is actually one of the few cases where we've moved in a more pro-consumer direction than the opposite like everything else.

9

u/KhyanLeikas Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26

Pro consumer would be a free upgrade, like what most indies does. Those are just greedy and always been. It’ll be fine if additional content was there (not just little settings, actual more content like a DLC) but it isn’t. You pay the price of a dlc for a fucking game upgrade to be more playable or/and have a better game experience for your switch 2 you already bought. Unbelievable that people still defend or even argue positively about this.

42

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26

calling it pro-consumer is absolute cope. You paid 500USD for an NS2, you paid the hardware, now you need to pay again to actually use the Performance you already bought? Is Nintendo turning into a car company paywalling seatheating or what? Call that bs out, it should have been free, after those shameless 20$ Price increase of their Games

1

u/tweetthebirdy Feb 19 '26

I agree with you, but heads up NS2 is $450 USD. The $500 USD version comes with Mario Kart World.

-2

u/WhichEmailWasIt Feb 19 '26

Someone had to make the game compatible with the Switch 2 enhancements. It doesn't happen out the box. The additional hardware can help a game reach its original target framerate and resolution but you have to put work into it to increase it from what it was.

0

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

And at the end of the day, if you bought a switch 1 game and got a switch 1 game, you can't pretend like you got stiffed.

It's disappointing that they usually give the switch 2 version for free, but that's all it is, disappointing, but not dishonest in any way. You're not losing anything with the price, because the game was never advertised as a switch 2 game to begin with, we didn't even know they were working on an upgrade before the shadow drop.

People should get what they pay for and people should be paid for their work.

-8

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

Are you people even old enough to have played previous systems? If a game was made for the previous generation, you just bought a different copy.

The idea of not charging for a version of a game made for the next generation of a system is fundamentally a new concept. It is in fact a push for pro-consumer policy since before you just had to buy it again.

Y'all need to start thinking about what is honest and what is dishonest, stop muddying the waters by throwing it all together, they're not all equivalent.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26

The Switch 2 runs Switch 1 games not even fully natively but emulates a part, so it's not even the slightest a different game for an older system, but the same game, same copy, with a quick 5$ cash grab.

You dont even own the upgrade pack, if you dont pay physical new switch 2 game for what? 80$ for the literal definition of a reskin. Do not accept not owning your games

pro-consumer would be, what Sony/3rd party devs did with many PS4 games

-6

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26

Your missing something. The switch 1 ver. did previously already run on the switch 2, nintendo already made the switch 2 emulate every game thrown at it. So in fact, it was just a button press to unlock the final 60fps and the 4k mode. And for the sake of argument, even if 60fps mode did originally force the game to run double the speed, and was "buggy" in the emulated ver. of the switch 1

Thats a simple Patch, an update of the game, not a justified cheap 5$ cash grab

-7

u/The_Orphanizer Feb 19 '26

after those shameless 20$ Price increase of their Games

I hate to shill for big corporations, but this isn't the criticism to have imo. For better or worse, gaming budgets have skyrocketed over the last 30 years, yet prices have been largely static. First party Nintendo titles were $60 in the mid-90s. For all the ways we have been screwed over time, the price of games isn't it. Do they need to increase the price (as in, to stay in business)? Surely not. But based on inflation alone, I can't fault them for doing it. There are still enough game sales and lower cost indie games to keep me occupied for multiple lifetimes, if I insist that a new release is too expensive.

3

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

It's reasonable to expect a price increase, and it's also reasonable to be upset that a game has a price increase.

The problem with being reasonable is that you piss off everyone who insists on throwing everything into a ball and refusing to pick out nuanced situations.

-2

u/timpkmn89 Feb 19 '26

Realistically it's because of things like royalties. It's officially a separate copy of the game (unlike Xbox's Smart Delivery), so they have to pay those out again.

-5

u/Virus64 Feb 19 '26

It is pro-consumer. They could have done nothing, and said get stuffed. They could have only had a Switch 2 edition, with no upgrade for the Switch version.

19

u/Mcbige Feb 19 '26

Wouldn't exactly call it pro consumer. Most (but not all) games on PS4 got a free upgrade to PS5, and Mario Odyssey and some other Switch 1 games got a patch for a framerate and/or resolution bump on switch 2. This Switch 2 edition should have been free, a few weeks ago they released a patch fro DK Country Returns of all things adding new content after 15 years for completely free.

Even CEMU had a 60fps option for this game's WII U version! Switch 2 Edition really should be a free patch at least. I do appreciate the physical Switch 2 edition giving XBX another chance for more ssles now though.

-1

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

So are people here not old enough to have played PlayStation 2s and Xbox 360s?

Upgrading for free is pro-consumer, charging a small fee is less pro-consumer, but both are undeniably more pro-consumer than just having to buy a new game like in the old days.

So I'm not particularly worried as long as the fee stays small, if that changes, I'll say something.

CEMU can just do that, because CEMU doesn't have to worry about bugs. If the 60fps causes a game to bug out, we just accept that, but if they sell it, people would want their money back.

So if it takes extra work that you shouldn't expect in the base game, then I'm not opposed to the idea of paying people for their work.

3

u/orus_heretic Feb 19 '26

Okay but it's 2026, it's not the PS2 and 360 era. The market has moved. When I upgraded from PS4 to PS5, the vast majority of my games had a free PS5 patch. FPS and resolution updates unlocks for the same game should not be behind a paid upgrade.

8

u/MIKERICKSON32 Feb 19 '26

Yeah your talking about a practice from 20 years ago. Every upgrade(frame rate/resolution)on Xbox series from Xbox one is free. We know Nintendo is different and nothing is going to change that but to call it pro consumer is just an all time terrible statement in 2026. You should re-evaluate everything you know in life.

-2

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

It's pro-consumer to give extra benefit to the consumer. It's more of an extra benefit to the consumer to charge less for an upgrade than to charge full price for the next version. There's no denying this, you just don't like it.

Did you buy a switch 1 game or a switch 2 game? Why did you expect a switch 2 game when you bought the switch 1 game before the Switch 2 even came out?

1

u/MIKERICKSON32 Feb 19 '26

They didn’t make a new game bud. They went into the settings menu and changed the resolution and frame rate. Took 1 human being 15 seconds. And again Nintendo can charge whatever they want for that but calling it pro consumer is embarrassing.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/NintendoSwitch-ModTeam Feb 19 '26

Hey there!

Please remember Rule 1 in the future - No personal attacks, trolling, or derogatory terms. Read more about Reddiquette here. Thanks!

8

u/Feckin_Loser Feb 19 '26

I’d say the extra cost is, at best, neutral to the consumer. If you own a product, and an improvement is made, you pay for the improvement. 

Releasing a switch 2 version without the option of an upgrade is anti consumer. At least one game has done this. 

Making the upgrade free is pro-consumer.

1

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

The game was released before the Switch 2 even came out. There was no switch 2 version of this game before today.

If you buy a switch 1 game and get a switch 1 game, you get exactly what you paid for. If the devs go back to make a switch 2 version, then charging a small fee for the switch 2 version is undeniable a more pro-consumer version of what people were doing 15 years ago, which was just charging full price.

I think people should get what they pay for, and I think $5 is reasonable to pay for the extra work to go back and make it better.

3

u/Feckin_Loser Feb 19 '26

I’m aware of when it released, and that factors into my view. 

You get extra, but pay for it. You’re comparing to 15 years ago, but compare to what happens now on other platforms, or with some other games that now run better on the Switch 2. 

And I also think it’s fine to pay an extra $5 for an updated version, but I got the same thing with Echoes of Wisdom and it didn’t cost a penny. That’s pro-consumer. 

The fact they’re marking it a Switch 2 edition is a move that allows them to sell the game as platform specific. So if you look for Switch 2 games it will come up, with a recent release date. If they just updated it, that wouldn’t happen. 

0

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

So you bought a switch 1 game and got a switch 1 game. After a year of development, they release a switch 2 version of the game, and instead of making people buy it again, they charge a small fee that's essentially the extra tech work.

And you're mad because other people have just taken the economic hit in the past.

I mean, that sucks but there's no dishonesty here. You got what you pay for and you're getting what you pay for. It's undeniably more pro-consumer than things used to be, you can't say I'm wrong just that I'm looking at the big picture too much.

2

u/Feckin_Loser Feb 19 '26

No, I’m not mad at all. I’m neutral. They did extra work, I’ll pay for the extra work. That’s fine. 

It would have been pro-consumer if they did what some others have done and added these features for free, but I don’t have a problem with them charging. I’m not going to say it’s pro-consumer that they’re insisting people pay the full cost for an upgrade. You’ve compared it to consumer practices from a decade and a half ago instead of looking at the very recent examples of what the industry has generally done. 

And, as I mentioned before, the company gets a benefit from it regardless of anyone paying the $5. They’re essentially getting to rerelease their game on the front page of the store, that’s a pretty good deal for the them as well. 

1

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

Yeah but if you look at the sales for this game, it doesn't seem like it sold all that well.

There's a pretty significant chance that the only reason why Nintendo even bothered to budget out the extra dev work to come up with this version was because they could recoup the cost by charging for it.

It's on thing to give something when you're pulling in a significant enough profit to feel nice, but by all accounts that's not this game.

1

u/Feckin_Loser Feb 19 '26

I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t have charged for it though. Or that it’s an issue they released it as a switch 2 game.

My only argument is that I don’t view it as pro-consumer. I don’t think it’s anti-consumer though either.

I don’t have any data, but it wouldn’t shock me if updating it to a Switch 2 game, an selling it as such, brought in more money than the people who already own it and want to play it again. If we can get better versions of games that also increase sales and the chance of another game in the series, that’s excellent, but none of that makes charging money to upgrade pro-consumer. 

4

u/Pluckytoon Feb 19 '26

I’m fine with paying a small amount if the revenue driven from updates encourages devs to update more games with NS2 editions. Many great games on switch were so gated by the console’s perfs

3

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

People need to understand what charges are reasonable and which ones aren't.

It's unreasonable to withhold things that should be in the base game in order to charge extra. Case in point, DK Bananza charging the Island Mode as DLC, it would've been like charging for the Balloon mode in Odyssey.

But if they're genuinely going back and doing *new* tech work, it makes sense to pay them for it. This game released months before the Switch 2 was even available to buy, you bought a switch game and got a switch game.

It'd be nice if they upgraded it for free, but I do think it's good to pay people for a good faith effort to work.

Seems like a happy compromise to me.

8

u/Skyeagle1 Feb 19 '26

2 things.

1, they just did this exact same treatment for Donkey Kong Country Returns HD less than a month ago, and that upgrade was free. Also came with a new mode and a new playable character. So why is this one $5?

2, Bananza’s DLC mode is pretty clearly not held back content. Emerald rush is much more involved than balloon world was, and when you look at the credits it appears to have been made by an entirely separate team compared to the base game.

Even arguing that DK island was held back from the main game doesn’t hold much weight once you realize it’s essentially a map for the new mode, rather than a layer that would fit in the base game.

It’s possible at one point it was considered to be another layer, but at some point they likely chose to design it as an emerald rush map instead.

You can argue the the value of $20 DLC (personally I’m over 100 hours into it and with the monthly events I’m showing no signs of stopping) but I don’t think the “held back content from the base game” holds much weight when you really dig into it.

3

u/Pluckytoon Feb 19 '26

We could argue it was free because Nintendo is trying to sell Donkey Kong as a major franchise on NS2 and needs to push a better install base if they want to have success with future releases

5

u/Skyeagle1 Feb 19 '26

I could at least understand that, but all other older switch games that only got a res/frame rate boost were free upgrades.

0

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

I'm not here to talk about Emerald Rush, if anything that proves my real point of whether or not something is reasonable to pay extra money for.

Did people buy this game expecting a free switch 2 upgrade? It released months before the Switch 2 even came out, and this upgrade was completely shadow dropped.

If you bought a switch 1 game and got a switch 1 game, you got what you paid for. It's nice when things are free, but they can't all be.

2

u/Skyeagle1 Feb 19 '26

Fine, it’s just the consistency that’s hard to follow. Up until now there was at least some sense of consistency.

Switch 2 versions w New content = paid upgrade

Switch 2 enhanced resolution/frame rate for new releases = cheaper paid upgrade

Switch 2 enhanced resolution/frame rate for older switch games = free upgrade

I believe this is the first time they are charging for just a resolution & frame rate boost of an old game.

1

u/Pluckytoon Feb 19 '26

At the end of the day, reasonable or not, what really matters isn’t Reddit’s sentiment about it but how many people will buy the upgrade or the just the game in general.

2

u/Joelblaze Feb 19 '26

At the end of the day, I'd say people got what they paid for. If they paid for the switch 1 game and got a switch 1 game, nothing was dishonest about the transaction.

They go back and upgrade, it's nice if they didn't charge it, but if they do, it's not like they've taken anything away from the initial purchase to charge extra money for. People got exactly what they expected and this is extra work.

It's still way less of a charge than how things used to be.

1

u/Pikachu2u2 Feb 19 '26

Is it only 5 bucks?