People telling it's the same as previous games do know that Switch has profiles, what consoles where previous games were doesn't have?
It's not the same.
It's not the same.
[Confirmed] Animal Crossing: New Horizons will force every individual Switch user account to share the same island
- Thread starter Deleted member 7092
- Start date
Obviously that sound inconvenient.
But that is the thing with sharing; you share. And Nintendo had always been into forcing co-op into their games. it is their philosophy.
If you want privacy, get your own Switch. I am sure this was due to practical physical limitations.
But that is the thing with sharing; you share. And Nintendo had always been into forcing co-op into their games. it is their philosophy.
If you want privacy, get your own Switch. I am sure this was due to practical physical limitations.
Ima parent it ain't even my kids. I don't wanna but heads with my wife lol let alone the kids.
Nintendo just does these lil things that inconvenience ppl for no reason man.
Exact.
Sharing one town was always the strongest part of the games for me and my partner.
The idea alone is super cool, that there is one active town and we both live in it, so if she plays she works on her house and contributes to the town, when I play later I can see what's new in the town and in her house and then work on my stuff.
It's specially useful because you have to wait a shit ton of time to progress certain stuff and when we both play in one town, we can get more done and the "world" feels more alive. That was always so great.
And since switch doesn't save on cartridges it has to be this way, otherwise I we would not only have to play on one Switch for that (which is a step back) we would also have to play on one account. Like how this is made now, we can at least still use both individual accounts.
So, great.
Further clarification on the problem
OP
OP
To those who are saying Animal Crossing games have always been this way:
New Horizons is explicitly about letting you build your village from the ground up. In previous entries, your town was already established when you moved in. But in New Horizons, you decide what gets built, where it gets built, and when it gets built.
There's an unprecedented amount of design freedom this entry, which is fantastic! It allows you to customize each little square of your island exactly how you want.
That's why it's a much bigger deal that Switch users are forced to share the same play space.
Users will (potentially) disagree on issues like:
- Which shops to build
- Where villagers should put their houses
- What paths to put down
- Where bridges should go
- When to transition from remote island life to bustling town life
- Which sections of the town should be devoted to construction projects vs. natural beauty
It's precisely because of the freedom this game allows that there will be so many friction points that didn't exist in previous shared towns.
Also remember: with the original, Wild World, and New Leaf, you could at least buy a second memory card or copy of the game to have a new or separate town experience. But it appears New Horizons saves to the Switch itself, so no matter how many copies of the game you try, you'll always end up in the same save file.
New Horizons is explicitly about letting you build your village from the ground up. In previous entries, your town was already established when you moved in. But in New Horizons, you decide what gets built, where it gets built, and when it gets built.
There's an unprecedented amount of design freedom this entry, which is fantastic! It allows you to customize each little square of your island exactly how you want.
That's why it's a much bigger deal that Switch users are forced to share the same play space.
Users will (potentially) disagree on issues like:
- Which shops to build
- Where villagers should put their houses
- What paths to put down
- Where bridges should go
- When to transition from remote island life to bustling town life
- Which sections of the town should be devoted to construction projects vs. natural beauty
It's precisely because of the freedom this game allows that there will be so many friction points that didn't exist in previous shared towns.
Also remember: with the original, Wild World, and New Leaf, you could at least buy a second memory card or copy of the game to have a new or separate town experience. But it appears New Horizons saves to the Switch itself, so no matter how many copies of the game you try, you'll always end up in the same save file.
This is never going to happen but it would be cool: in the trailer you see other islands off in the horizon. It would be nice if the other profiles could have their own island that can be sailed to on a boat and you and your villagers can travel back and forth between the two.
Orrr you should probably not tell him/her how to parent that's a lane you shouldn't be in for a video game
Thats dumb. And its not the same as before. Switch has profiles. Why not just let each profile make their own island and in that profile create as many characters as a town allows? It probably has 100% to do with the fact that the game has co-op this time around. It won't bother me none but I can see it being kinda shitty for others. Just let people have multiple saves Nintendo. Nintendo is still one of the few out there that limit your save files for some dumb ass reason. Im still surprised BotW had the save system it did.
And? You haven't actually explained why this is bad. You just described any co-op game ever. Maybe famility members end up havng to talk to each other and come to agreements. If anything a co-op game where two people can completely ignore each other despite playing together in the same world, isn't a real co-op game. Nintendo does psychological experiments like that from time to time.
The forced sharing of an island on a local device doesn't affect me, but I understand being annoyed by it. Like, if I were a parent and came back to my island to find that my kid chopped down every single tree, I'd be pretty ticked off. There should be an option.
The lack of shared online islands is what really annoys me. That's something I could get into.
The lack of shared online islands is what really annoys me. That's something I could get into.
This reads to me as though an individual can't have multiple islands. Not that each user has to share the same one?
Everyone who wanted to live in a shared town would then need to use a single profile, instead of their own. This makes sense from that perspective.
Smash for the WiiU carried over character unlocks between users on the WiiU.
Lol yes bad parenting for not wanting to share a digital town with my son.....
Sure but it kinda just sounds like they created an issue they didn't have to. I would rather them make you use the same profile if you wanted to share a town then limit your system to 1 AC save entirely all for the sake of using your own profiles. Now they essentially made it so each profile is a character file, which is fine, liek I said it doesn't bother me, but losing out on new save files is kinda dumb.
This is one limitation that actually makes sense. Animal Crossing is an inherently social game.
Be a good neighbor, my friend. And take care of that damn abandoned watering can while you're at it!. *sideye*
I hope they implement land values with this and your own land values affect your neighbors for a true to life experience lol
Be a good neighbor, my friend. And take care of that damn abandoned watering can while you're at it!. *sideye*
I hope they implement land values with this and your own land values affect your neighbors for a true to life experience lol
Seems like a no-brainer to me personally. AC is a game you invest hundreds of hours in, that people bingeplay for hours. In a multiperson household you're really gonna need/want to have your own Switch to have your own island.
In most situations, you're going to both want to play at the same time, or visit each other's islands, and you can't do that unless you both have your own Switch.
It's more expensive to own two, but if you were to share a system and have two different islands you would never get to share that with the person you live with and are presumably closest to.
In most situations, you're going to both want to play at the same time, or visit each other's islands, and you can't do that unless you both have your own Switch.
It's more expensive to own two, but if you were to share a system and have two different islands you would never get to share that with the person you live with and are presumably closest to.
So are we saying the Island is stuck on the Cartridge? On the Switch?
It really doesn't make sense for the way the Switch works. Because you can have your profile on other Switches, but can't play your own island?
Pokémon allowed no cloud saving, but multiple saves on the Switch.
Also, so who owns the Island save?
I'm not sure, I'd prefer more clarity than this.
Like the actual transcript of the interview as they might be split questions or something as I'm baffled on where the save is kept.
Same.
It really doesn't make sense for the way the Switch works. Because you can have your profile on other Switches, but can't play your own island?
Pokémon allowed no cloud saving, but multiple saves on the Switch.
Also, so who owns the Island save?
I'm not sure, I'd prefer more clarity than this.
Like the actual transcript of the interview as they might be split questions or something as I'm baffled on where the save is kept.
Same.
OP
OP
This would be excellent, though I'm not convinced that's what she's suggesting (especially within the context of the rest of the paragraph).
To me it sounds like you're trying to rile up people in order to make the game more to your liking but I hope I'm wrong in that.
"Forced collaboration" for what little we currently know about the game I'm sure they gave this some thought. Because it's not something that might be neccesarry from a technical viewpoint. Maybe someone can decide to build "a markethall" but there has to be a vote on it first. We can't really say yet. Their vision on it has yet to be shared in full.
Anyway, calling for a "boycott" as the first thing to do after the reveal seems very selfish and I don't think as many people are going to be bothered by this as much as you may hope.
This is a deliberate design choice and I can partially agree with it. I always liked sharing a town with siblings and will enjoy sharing an island with my wife. Back on the cube we would do things like write silly letters to the animal villagers and sometimes they'd get shared as a sort of easter egg we'd left for each other. Lots of fun.
That said I say "partially agree" because on the cube we could have multiple towns between memory cards and visit each other's towns, which we also had fun with.
That said I say "partially agree" because on the cube we could have multiple towns between memory cards and visit each other's towns, which we also had fun with.
I'm not convinced it sounds like what you're suggesting in the OP, and that's the problem with this interview.
I think they should be allowed to clarify before jumping down their throats. Good luck trying to get IGN to follow up though.
I've re-read the article, and it doesn't seem to imply anything being forced?
In the context of describing multiplayer options, the article goes: "up to 8 players can be on an island" -> "but you can't live on a friend's island" (implying only visiting to help) -> "however you can share an island between user profiles on the same Switch" - > "as long as you only have one island to live on".
It's kind of like forcing the player to only have one "home", with options to visit elsewhere. Unless it's later clarified that only one shared save can exist on a system, I don't think there's cause for concern at this point.
In the context of describing multiplayer options, the article goes: "up to 8 players can be on an island" -> "but you can't live on a friend's island" (implying only visiting to help) -> "however you can share an island between user profiles on the same Switch" - > "as long as you only have one island to live on".
It's kind of like forcing the player to only have one "home", with options to visit elsewhere. Unless it's later clarified that only one shared save can exist on a system, I don't think there's cause for concern at this point.
Yeah this was my take on it above, it sounds like a more likely situation. However, forcing everyone to be on the same island does seem like a Nintendo kinda move.
In concept, the idea of a collaborative island sounds like it could be fun. However, it's also the kind of thing that should be opt-in and not forced.
I feel like this is the literal definition of mountains out of mole hills. Having shared towns with families before it really feels like things are being blown way out of proportion. Oh no, I have share a village with my family and we may have to have conversations on how things are done or we may not agree on how to develop the island.
This is a corner case, and yes, I will grant you, in that case, maybe it is against what they put in the ad copy to a degree, but acting like it will have a major material impact or that people should complain to the degree you want to make them change this decision? Just not there with you.
If we get this game, half the point is to share the island with everyone in my family.
I will end it with this, yes, yes I would agree that if they made it optional that would be better, just give people the option of locking out the save to a profile, because maybe you don't want that experience, I am always down with more options, especially if they are reasonable.
This is a corner case, and yes, I will grant you, in that case, maybe it is against what they put in the ad copy to a degree, but acting like it will have a major material impact or that people should complain to the degree you want to make them change this decision? Just not there with you.
If we get this game, half the point is to share the island with everyone in my family.
I will end it with this, yes, yes I would agree that if they made it optional that would be better, just give people the option of locking out the save to a profile, because maybe you don't want that experience, I am always down with more options, especially if they are reasonable.
That it does, I agree. :P
Especially because it'd help drive the idea of multiple Switches per household, rather that one shared console per family.
A new, more handheld-like SKU would greatly benefit from something like this as well. Especially if it's cheaper.
And the game was delayed to a rather specific date near the end of the fiscal year for some reason. Hmm.
:thinkingemoji:
So I'm still confused on how this works. If my roommate and I both have a Switch and both get the game, can we set up an island that basically acts as a server for our games? Meaning that we could both have our tents on the island with the same surrounding environment, characters, etc? And that if one of us logs off, the other could still play and advance on the island?
OP
OP
What are you even talking about? Calling for a boycott? You completely pulled that out of thin air, and I don't appreciate it.
I love Animal Crossing. It's a deeply personal series for me that has helped me weather some very ugly times. It's my own cozy zen garden where I can express my creativity and retreat from the troubles of the real world. For my money, Animal Crossing is escapism at its finest.
New Horizons looks outstanding. Despite all of the other excellent games on Nintendo's slate, AC is what I'm most excited for. I'm buying two copies on day one (one for me, and one for my family). It will be a joyful experience that I'll undoubtedly encourage everyone to play.
None of that erases the fact that some people want Animal Crossing to be a personal extension of their psyche instead of a group project. Animal Crossing is all about player choice, and players should be able to choose if they want a shared experience or a singular one. That's all this thread is about.
Bullshit. Don't make excuses for them.
There's no way the save file is too large for animal crossing to support having a unique town per profile.
Alright, in that case sorry for my wrong interpretation of your post. While I was thinking about the possible restrictions I can understand why it would be annoying to have to share resources but I have a feeling we might not have the entire mechanic yet... I was just thinking like watch us being able to build new land and expand the island 🌴 that would be amazing.
Yes, the issue here is that it seems you cannot have one server for each person if you wanted to.
OP
OP
It's quite alright, fellow Banjo lover :D
Animal Crossing is all about good vibes, and I'm sorry this news is casting negativity on an otherwise pure and wholesome game. Unfortunately, this topic is an important point of discussion that many players will want to consider, so I thought it was worthwhile to make a thread about it.
She
But, yeah, without further clarification, it does sound more like this than the doomsday "only one island per Switch" scenario.
The problem is that you can't even buy a second cart to get a new town since save data is on the console, not the cart.
Last edited:
When I read it I thought maybe they misspoke and meant that you could have one island with 8 residents per Nintendo Switch profile on the system.
Are there any other games on Switch that share save data between profiles?
Are there any other games on Switch that share save data between profiles?