Tim_Vreeland

@a1904 @deKay it's basically a more expensive Retrode 2 with support for less game systems, and no controller ports. Basically.. why does this need to exist, and who is buying this? Article should help unsuspecting people out and give them more info.

They also have this if you want an even cleaner energy.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/20/93/ed/2093ed378baaf0fa94858003035dc75c.jpg

@damo can you confirm the analogue stick and buttons? That seems kinda odd. Usually these things are digital micro switches.

@retro_player_77 I could make a video to show you what I mean. I think there are already some
On YouTube though, that show the slow down on snes.

@Damo Pretty much the Genesis version was superior all the way around, except for the amount of colors on screen. I guess if you like to pause the game and look at a static image, the SNES version could be considered superior.

Graphically they were about equal, with both games having their advantages. Sound wise, Genesis had the most accurate port, due to similar sound hardware being used on the Genesis and arcade. Of course sound is subjective and some people like the SNES version better. The voices sound better on SNES, but they are also less accurate to the source material.

But those are low tier check boxes to tick. We are talking about a competitive 1 on 1 fighter here. What matters most is gameplay. And thats where the SNES port turns into a dumpster fire. The game was ported so poorly, it’s basically unplayable for enthusiasts. There is so much slowdown, it breaks the gameplay. You cant take a fighting game seriously when the action slows to a crawling pace right in the middle of a setup. Giving your opponent those extra seconds to think about your next move just ruins a game, that is based on overwhelming the enemy .

@SuperWeird these Numskull machines are way small than bartop machines. See the linked website. Bartop machines house full size controls. These things are a bit larger than a shoebox, and have controls that would be too small for an infant

@ThanosReXXX go look at the companys website. They have already released several “1/4” machines, and they have pictures of people holding them in the air for size reference. They are the size of an antique doll. Im guessing it would take 10 to 16 of these to equal the size of a regular arcade machine

“ its units are a 1/4 of the size of the real deal and are therefore easier to fit into the average house than an actual unit. ”

This is really setting people up for disappointment, and is probably a misunderstanding on the writers part. These units are 1/4 scale, which does not result in an arcade cabinet that is 1/4 the size of the original. If you put 4 of these together you arent going to get something the size of an arcade cabinet. 4 of them would be about the size of a computer tower.

Of course they will easily fit in most homes. They will easily fit in a large shoebox. These things are the size of a doll.

These are novelty items that are made to sit on a shelf for display. They can be played, but set your expectations at NeoGeo mini, rather than countertop arcade.

Uhg. It has micro USB as well. This thing would have been ok 5 years ago. There is no way I'm investing in a handheld with a 4.3 inch screen and micro USB in 2019. I like the cartridge novelty, but the everyday experience is going to be annoying based on the hardware they went with, so I'll just stick to using a game vice and a Switch.

Hoping for Namco Museum 2 on Switch with the other Splatter House games.

@PunchNpie Yeah but at 4.3 inches, the screen is already a bit too small. It's going to be even smaller when you switch to 4:3 aspect. Bummer

4.3 inch screen is too small, especially since it's 16:9. Once you adjust it to the 4:3 ratio, how small is that? It's like an iPhone from 10 years ago. No fun playing on something that small.

@electrolite77 They do if they allow US visitors onto their website.

The same way American companies like Google have have to follow European laws for all the Europeans they allow to access their web services.

@damo https://youtu.be/GY8fwNQBmjs

There you go. Proper, professional discloser.

Hope NintendoLife starts doing the same soon. Cheers.

@King-K-Rool @Damo

Indeed. Journalistic integrity on shakey ground to me personally right now.

Damien. Yes review units get sent out to reviewers all the time, that is indeed how the industry works. I'm not disputing that. But the part you are dodging, is my question about the review units being returned. Some companies send out review units that must be returned after the review is completed. The FTC does not consider this compensation, and it does not need to be disclosed Some companies let the reviewer keep the review unit. The FTC classifies that as a gift, or compensated review. It is required that you disclose this information when you publish your review.

Surely you can see why the FTC requires this. The FTC doesn't want reviews to be swayed by the free review units. Some companies will stop sending review units to reviewers who give negative reviews of their products. That creates a pressure on the reviewer to make a more positive review, so they can continue to keep receiving free review units. That is why the reader deserves to be informed if the review entity received a free product (the review unit).

The FTC wrote up an example that specifically covers video games:

"Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert
maintains a personal weblog or “blog” where he posts entries about his gaming
experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware
and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game
system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his
blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. Because his review is
disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the
advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the
video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the
value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they
attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously
disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge. The manufacturer should
advise him at the time it provides the gaming system that this connection should be
disclosed, and it should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for
compliance."

FTCs website also has this to say:

"In addition, the Guides say, if there’s a connection between an endorser and the marketer that consumers would not expect and it would affect how consumers evaluate the endorsement, that connection should be disclosed. For example, if an ad features an endorser who’s a relative or employee of the marketer, the ad is misleading unless the connection is made clear. The same is usually true if the endorser has been paid or given something of value to tout the product. The reason is obvious: Knowing about the connection is important information for anyone evaluating the endorsement.

Say you’re planning a vacation. You do some research and find a glowing review on someone’s blog that a particular resort is the most luxurious place he has ever stayed. If you knew the hotel had paid the blogger hundreds of dollars to say great things about it or that the blogger had stayed there for several days for free, it could affect how much weight you’d give the blogger’s endorsement. The blogger should, therefore, let his readers know about that relationship.

Another principle in the Guides applies to ads that feature endorsements from people who achieved exceptional, or even above average, results. An example is an endorser who says she lost 20 pounds in two months using the advertised product. If the advertiser doesn’t have proof that the endorser’s experience represents what people will generally achieve using the product as described in the ad (for example, by just taking a pill daily for two months), then an ad featuring that endorser must make clear to the audience what the generally expected results are."

Another example from the FTC:

"I have a YouTube channel that focuses on hunting, camping, and the outdoors. Sometimes I’ll do a product review. Knife manufacturers know how much I love knives, so they send me knives as free gifts, hoping that I will review them. I’m under no obligation to talk about any knife and getting the knives as gifts really doesn’t affect my judgment. Do I need to disclose when I’m talking about a knife I got for free?

Even if you don’t think it affects your evaluation of the product, what matters is whether knowing that you got the knife for free might affect how your audience views what you say about the knife. It doesn’t matter that you aren’t required to review every knife you receive. Your viewers may assess your review differently if they knew you got the knife for free, so we advise disclosing that fact."

And

"Several months ago a manufacturer sent me a free product and asked me to write about it in my blog. I tried the product, liked it, and wrote a favorable review. When I posted the review, I disclosed that I got the product for free from the manufacturer. I still use the product. Do I have to disclose that I got the product for free every time I mention it in my blog?

It might depend on what you say about it, but each new endorsement made without a disclosure could be deceptive because readers might not see the original blog post where you said you got the product free from the manufacturer."

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Here you go, plain as day, the FTC doesn't get anymore on point to this specific topic than this:

"I’m doing a review of a videogame that hasn’t been released yet. The manufacturer is paying me to try the game and review it. I was planning on disclosing that the manufacturer gave me a “sneak peek” of the game. Isn’t that enough to put people on notice of my relationship to the manufacturer?

No, it’s not. Getting early access doesn’t mean that you got paid. Getting a “sneak peek” of the game doesn’t even mean that you get to keep the game. If you get early access, you can say that, but if you get to keep the game or are paid, you should say so."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If you want to get an idea how you should be doing reviews, there's a YouTube channel called Lon.tv

The guy who hosts the channel talks about these requirements in some of his videos. He is actually going to be uploading a review of a similar controller (the 8bitdo one). He is a professional journalist. Watch the video when it uploads, and see how he does a proper discloser.

I'd love to see NintendoLife's integrity bumped up a few notches. I'm only replying because I like this site, and want it to do good things.

@Damo If you don't have to return the review units, the FTC considers them gifts/payment, and the review, a sponsored review. That is why I asked if they have to be returned, if you could please answer that question, and those of the other commenters here ask about compatibility with any Nintendo products. Thank you.

@damo Glad to see the note about affiliate links below the article. I don't see a note about the article being sponsored though. Do you guys have to send these controllers back? Or are these sponsored items you get to keep (per ftc definition).

Also since this is a Nintendo focused site, please indicate in the review if they work with Nintendo products. I know there is space in the article. The first two big paragraphs were filler story.

@Yorumi Only if they were writing code directly to the hardware. It looks like they have customized a version of Android TV though. In that case, they are just writing software to run on top of Android, which already runs on both chips, and the code doesn't care what hardware you are using.

Does it do component out for those of us in non scart regions?