Switch Online Service.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I like Sterling videos and I'm a regular consumer, but I feel the one instance he's forgetting is the fact that if the Switch is going to survive as a social gaming platform, it needs to make server costs as low as possible for third party offerings.

The Switch has had an impressive sales year, but total units are lower than the PS4. Secondly, third party developers want to oversee numerous ways to monetize their products going online. Nintendo relinquishing control over its online environment, and charging a service cost to make it as cheap as possible to design on its online space is basically trying to attract more third party developers.

Which is what everyone was demanding. Kind of important to remember that...

So for $20 (a quarter or third of the price of competitors) means getting more online and social gaming support from third parties is the price to pay. Some of the stuff they offered was stuff that should have always been, but it's time to grow up. If Nintendo wants to get greater third party support, big or small, it needs to reduce the costs of operating on its online space.

And just remember ... that is what everyone was demanding... bit rich to complain now.

"Nintendo kept fucking over third party!"

"Here's an online service cost to incentivize third party development."

"FUUUUUUUUUUU NINTENDO!"

Not exactly helpful... And hey, I'll take a $20 hit compared to having a game I paid full price for like Vermintide on PS4 still be unplayable in any form if you don't have a PS+ account that costs 4 times as much.

Does any of the money from PS+ or Live actually go to 3rd parties for server costs? And server costs are usually pretty damn low anyway because most games are P2P.

Pay-walling game saves is a pretty dick move even more so than online play IMO but only just slightly.

I don't see how Nintendo's online service is going to facilitate more 3rd-party support. The only game that the Switch has gotten that is a current-gen game seems to be Wolfenstein 2. This new MH game coming is just a localization of a current Switch game, which was an upgraded 3DS game put on the Switch in the 1st place. Doom was a lot less work to put on the Switch because it got the VR treatment, which needs downgraded graphics so it was easy to put on the Switch without much work. Dark Souls is obviously a last-gen game so why not port it to the Switch. I've yet to see any 3rd-party put much effort into a Switch release outside of Wolftenstein 2, which could be due to it getting a VR release at some point. Again, I don't see how Switch's online service is going to change much of anything with regards to more 3rd-party support.

Phoenixmgs:
The one thing that's pretty shitty about Nintendo's online service is that they've put backing up saves behind a paywall.

Doesn't PS+ do a similar thing?

I recall users were prohibited from creating copies of copyright protected game save data but once the update of PS+ came out you could cloud save it thus allowing you to have multiple saves through the service

Couldn't find an article lamenting the practice but here's a thread of users griping about it

It all stemmed from fraudulent trophy earning if irc or at least that was the speculated reasoning
Yup, because of trophy policing you can't copy your save on the device you bought
It has nothing to do with earning more money

Phoenixmgs:

Does any of the money from PS+ or Live actually go to 3rd parties for server costs? And server costs are usually pretty damn low anyway because most games are P2P.

Pay-walling game saves is a pretty dick move even more so than online play IMO but only just slightly.

I don't see how Nintendo's online service is going to facilitate more 3rd-party support. The only game that the Switch has gotten that is a current-gen game seems to be Wolfenstein 2. This new MH game coming is just a localization of a current Switch game, which was an upgraded 3DS game put on the Switch in the 1st place. Doom was a lot less work to put on the Switch because it got the VR treatment, which needs downgraded graphics so it was easy to put on the Switch without much work. Dark Souls is obviously a last-gen game so why not port it to the Switch. I've yet to see any 3rd-party put much effort into a Switch release outside of Wolftenstein 2, which could be due to it getting a VR release at some point. Again, I don't see how Switch's online service is going to change much of anything with regards to more 3rd-party support.

Because 3rd parties want to monetize their products longterm. Essentially big companies want an easy accessible, centralized online space where they can make money longterm with streamlined authentication without having to maintain personal servers and to release various expansion and game packs routinely for a nominal fee with better security for their assets. It's sleazy, but it's what everyone is doing. We live in a world where Monster Hunter World makes moolah from selling greeting packs. The Nintendo iterations of its online consumer space did not make this easy on the WiiU, for instance.

The Switch, however, if it wants to compete for longterm monetization, needs to make it as easy as possible for game companies to access existing customers to continue monetizing its product.

Which is why games bought in brick and mortars basically just tell you to download straight from Steam.

The problem is maintaining such services cost money. Steam gets a slice of the pie from all monetized downloads, and companies can't monetize their own products directly to customers on consoles. They need access to Nintendo's servers. So to manage this space, and maintain as cheap operating costs to 3rd parties as possible, meaning economic viability of maintaining servers even when a game is no longer making money, and to streamline a steady stream of accessible further monetization projects--Nintendo wants to create a larger central online space infrastructure that can handle that shift to long-term monetization.

It's sleazy AF ... but it's what game companies are demanding, or there will simply be no 3rd party support.

Hence why for the first time in decades Nintendo has secured things like official licence FIFA games for instance. Because SOS (pretty fucking apt acronym might I say, gotta love the irony) allows that longterm monetization.

Maintaining such an online presence of such things are expensive, and Nintendo is a fiscally conservative company. It never releases products at over 10% net loss. Despite being the largest videogame company (in terms of dedicated VG production, console producer, VG sales staff, and game-centric development) ... it's a smaller company over all compared with Sony and Microsoft.

The Gamecube was the last console it sold at significant loss and relied on direct licencing, and it cost the company dearly. The WiiU on the flipside didn't actually cost them all that much. Given that Nintendo's services cost a third less than conpetitors, despite that fiscal conservatism, tells me it's not planning to make money out of SOS on its own... or PS+ is a fucking ripoff.

It's also a pretty big sign Nintendo feels very comfortable about its longterm prospects.

Nintendo is a weird company like that. In a world where corporations routinely operate through short term loans to bankroll projects, Nintendo operates with a permanent fiscal surplus of bank maturation investments and high-security assets to the tune of about Y890BN.

To put it in real terms, roughly US$7-10B (depending on exchange rate and where it moves its money) in accessible funds. And they seem to make damn certain to hedge this figure above EU/U.S. inflation rates. Growing that veritable videogame equivalent warchest every year. On top of its less secured intellectual property, which the company always devalues in total in order to reduce speculative gaze.

On top of that ridiculously high capital budgeting ratio in terms of reserves, the IP it does sit on is probably worth a trillion Yen on top of that. Its machinery, investment portfolio, and its ventures into other industries (medtech, etc) is worth a speculative US$1B on top of that.

And this is the company that told its executives to take a paycut, rather than axe workers or dip into its cash reserves... all so it could meet having a higher than inflation cash reserve ratio to fiscal budget savings rate. Quite literally, the company is the very definition of fiscally conservative. I've never seen a corporation act like it does, and its one of the few corporations one can point to and say the 'ideal' capitalist enterprise.

This is why all that screaming of 'Nintendo is doomed' is so fucking stupid. Nintendo can bankroll a WiiU level disappointment every year until 2075 and still be in the black. Nintendo's bread and butter is still videogames despite it expanding into other sectors. Moreover it tends to do a lot of its own R&D, and using the natural design process to IP protect other industry tech. Like its work in motion controls and simulated equipment feedback tech into medtech R&D.

The Japanese government should just replace its Diet and its treasury with Nintendo staff...

This is why Nintendo can be so creative with its products, and why it acts so weird with its IP. Playstation and XBox need a 'sure thing' to stay solvent or not dip into its other ventures to maintain them, Nintendo does not. Nintendo can be that flighty, whimsical videogame innovator because it's carved that niche out for itself.

But at the same time, Nintendo must listen somewhat to what third party interests want on occasion. Despite it never wanting to (because why would you want to sacrifice control?) ... SOS is Nintendo's compromise to 3rd parties.That compromise comes with an expensive online consumer service geared towards further monetization. And I think you'll find that what Nintendo is charging is effectively the baseline cost of maintaining that infrastructure.

Additional staff, servers, analysts, security experts, tech teams, support teams, specialist attorneys, etc...

17.5M Switch sales ... let's say 25% SOS uptake ... so US$80 odd million not including taxes or operating costs, to provide a PS+ style infrastructure which costs them or 3rd parties nothing in return.

That's not bad (or good) in return. Assuming the performance rate is also up there, it's easy to complain about (and merit to the complaint) but on the flipside, it's what 3rd parties want.

You ever wonder why Nintendo didn't produce as many initial shipment consoles of the Switch? It's not 'manufactured scarcity'--it's because Nintendo tallied the numbers and set themselves to a budget it knew it could make returns on in the worst possible scenario. It's that fiscal conservatism bent of; "We can't allow an XBOX event where systems are just sitting around, taking up store shelf space."

View Switch Online Services in the same light. They are likely charging the bare minimum of a devalued number of people purchasing it to make it cover the costs of implementing.

Gauche:

Phoenixmgs:
The one thing that's pretty shitty about Nintendo's online service is that they've put backing up saves behind a paywall.

Doesn't PS+ do a similar thing?

I recall users were prohibited from creating copies of copyright protected game save data but once the update of PS+ came out you could cloud save it thus allowing you to have multiple saves through the service

Couldn't find an article lamenting the practice but here's a thread of users griping about it

It all stemmed from fraudulent trophy earning if irc or at least that was the speculated reasoning
Yup, because of trophy policing you can't copy your save on the device you bought
It has nothing to do with earning more money

I haven't tested it personally, but I'm nearly positive you can copy save data to/from a USB and a PS4 with no hassle (and no paid service). Cloud saves are behind the PS+ paywall though.

There's even a very well put together page on the official US Playstation support site: https://support.us.playstation.com/articles/en_US/KC_Article/Manage-PS4-Saved-Game-Data-in-System-Storage#02

Aiddon:

Seth Carter:

Uh, Monster Hunters been basically a nintendo exclusive for the last decade or so lol

And how many thought it was never going to come West, especially after the release of World? Furthermore, it also shows that CAPCOM is probably not going to go away from Nintendo anytime soon in spite of World. Again, don't be in such a hurry just to get a quip off.

I figured the Switch'd get World, really. Was there some doomy forecast that Capcom had ditched Nintendo? Them and Ubisoft have been the main two that stuck with them.

Yoshi178:
Monster Hunters only been a Nintendo exclusive since Monster Hunter 3 on the Wii.

before that the series was PlayStation exclusive.

Yes, and 2009 is (almost) a decade ago. Time flies.

Avnger:

Gauche:

Phoenixmgs:
The one thing that's pretty shitty about Nintendo's online service is that they've put backing up saves behind a paywall.

Doesn't PS+ do a similar thing?

I recall users were prohibited from creating copies of copyright protected game save data but once the update of PS+ came out you could cloud save it thus allowing you to have multiple saves through the service

Couldn't find an article lamenting the practice but here's a thread of users griping about it

It all stemmed from fraudulent trophy earning if irc or at least that was the speculated reasoning
Yup, because of trophy policing you can't copy your save on the device you bought
It has nothing to do with earning more money

I haven't tested it personally, but I'm nearly positive you can copy save data to/from a USB and a PS4 with no hassle (and no paid service). Cloud saves are behind the PS+ paywall though.

There's even a very well put together page on the official US Playstation support site: https://support.us.playstation.com/articles/en_US/KC_Article/Manage-PS4-Saved-Game-Data-in-System-Storage#02

It does look to be the case with the PS4 - rather relieved to learn that so thanks

Too bad the PS3 still suffers from this blight :/

Gauche:

Phoenixmgs:
The one thing that's pretty shitty about Nintendo's online service is that they've put backing up saves behind a paywall.

Doesn't PS+ do a similar thing?

I recall users were prohibited from creating copies of copyright protected game save data but once the update of PS+ came out you could cloud save it thus allowing you to have multiple saves through the service

Couldn't find an article lamenting the practice but here's a thread of users griping about it

It all stemmed from fraudulent trophy earning if irc or at least that was the speculated reasoning
Yup, because of trophy policing you can't copy your save on the device you bought
It has nothing to do with earning more money

Like Avnger said, I don't think there's any protected/locked saves on PS4 like PS3 did. In a bit of defense for Sony, locked saves were a thing before they rolled out PS+. I don't get why Sony even coded the OS to allow for locked saves in the 1st place, maybe for stupid trophy reasons, though I think there are games prior to trophies having locked saves.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Snip

Oh yeah, I guess having an online service makes it easily to sell lootboxes, microtransactions, and DLCs. Though pubs like EA and Ubisoft could probably sell stuff via their Origin and Uplay "services" with very little added effort.

Seth Carter:
I figured the Switch'd get World, really. Was there some doomy forecast that Capcom had ditched Nintendo? Them and Ubisoft have been the main two that stuck with them.

I don't see 3rd parties actually taking the time to make a separate downgraded version of their games to put on the Switch. That's the main problem with Nintendo systems for me, the systems just don't have the games to be a primary gaming platform because Nintendo makes hardware that is a generation behind with regards to the hardware specs.

Phoenixmgs:
I've yet to see any 3rd-party put much effort into a Switch release outside of Wolftenstein 2, which could be due to it getting a VR release at some point. Again, I don't see how Switch's online service is going to change much of anything with regards to more 3rd-party support.

Mario+Rabbids is Ubisoft. Confusing cause of the shared IP, but actually third party.

Now if we're specifically into multiplatform AAA type games, yeah, nothing other then Bethesda really has been announced yet other then ports of older stuff. Ark is supposedly coming out for it late this year, but Ark barely manages to run on the other consoles (arguably, Ark barely runs on the PC) and Ark's scheduling is nebulous at best.

Fortnite'll probably get over to it eventually too. Given they already put out a mobile version.

Phoenixmgs:

Oh yeah, I guess having an online service makes it easily to sell lootboxes, microtransactions, and DLCs. Though pubs like EA and Ubisoft could probably sell stuff via their Origin and Uplay "services" with very little added effort.

Ehh... not on the Switch. The 'Horizon' OS is closed source, and people don't even know what it is based on. Plus can you imagine how annoying it would be to redownload Origin when you swap out a memory card?

Seth Carter:

Phoenixmgs:
I've yet to see any 3rd-party put much effort into a Switch release outside of Wolftenstein 2, which could be due to it getting a VR release at some point. Again, I don't see how Switch's online service is going to change much of anything with regards to more 3rd-party support.

Mario+Rabbids is Ubisoft. Confusing cause of the shared IP, but actually third party.

Now if we're specifically into multiplatform AAA type games, yeah, nothing other then Bethesda really has been announced yet other then ports of older stuff. Ark is supposedly coming out for it late this year, but Ark barely manages to run on the other consoles (arguably, Ark barely runs on the PC) and Ark's scheduling is nebulous at best.

Fortnite'll probably get over to it eventually too. Given they already put out a mobile version.

Yeah, I know Mario+Rabbids is 3rd-party but I bet most 3rd-parties would put lots of effort into a Switch game if Nintendo handed them a Mario/Zelda/Metriod/etc license. I wouldn't be surprised with Fortnite coming to Switch considering it should be pretty low-end with regards to graphics. I'm surprised a lot of indie and PC games aren't getting Switch releases. The Switch should have the power to run stuff like Divinity and Shadow Tactics for example. Invisible Inc would be a great on-the-go game.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Phoenixmgs:

Oh yeah, I guess having an online service makes it easily to sell lootboxes, microtransactions, and DLCs. Though pubs like EA and Ubisoft could probably sell stuff via their Origin and Uplay "services" with very little added effort.

Ehh... not on the Switch. The 'Horizon' OS is closed source, and people don't even know what it is based on. Plus can you imagine how annoying it would be to redownload Origin when you swap out a memory card?

You can integrate stuff like Origin and Uplay into the game itself. Ubisoft for example has you earn Uplay points and "buy" with said points little extra stuff for their games. I don't play enough EA games but I'm pretty sure there's a rather transparent link to your EA account. MGS4 had sorta a store front that let you download extra music (all free) for use with the iPod in the game along with all the MGO stuff being purchased directly from Konami instead of in the PSN Store. And, doesn't Nintendo already have a store in place where you can buy DLC for games and whatnot? What exactly is this service going to add that will enable pubs/devs to sell even more stuff?

Phoenixmgs:

Seth Carter:

Phoenixmgs:
I've yet to see any 3rd-party put much effort into a Switch release outside of Wolftenstein 2, which could be due to it getting a VR release at some point. Again, I don't see how Switch's online service is going to change much of anything with regards to more 3rd-party support.

Mario+Rabbids is Ubisoft. Confusing cause of the shared IP, but actually third party.

Now if we're specifically into multiplatform AAA type games, yeah, nothing other then Bethesda really has been announced yet other then ports of older stuff. Ark is supposedly coming out for it late this year, but Ark barely manages to run on the other consoles (arguably, Ark barely runs on the PC) and Ark's scheduling is nebulous at best.

Fortnite'll probably get over to it eventually too. Given they already put out a mobile version.

Yeah, I know Mario+Rabbids is 3rd-party but I bet most 3rd-parties would put lots of effort into a Switch game if Nintendo handed them a Mario/Zelda/Metriod/etc license. I wouldn't be surprised with Fortnite coming to Switch considering it should be pretty low-end with regards to graphics. I'm surprised a lot of indie and PC games aren't getting Switch releases. The Switch should have the power to run stuff like Divinity and Shadow Tactics for example. Invisible Inc would be a great on-the-go game.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-05-11-nintendo-switch-games-list-2018-release-dates

Battlechasers, Little Nightmares, Banner Saga, just in the upcoming month.

Most of the stuff is down in the no set date list at the end though which has all sorts of indie stuff (and another Ubisoft entry with Steep).

Seems to mostly be the Actvision/EA/TakeTwo unholy trinity that are displaced. Ubi and Sqeenix aren't really pitching their A-franchises in there, but they do both have a decent presence.

Seth Carter:

Phoenixmgs:
I've yet to see any 3rd-party put much effort into a Switch release outside of Wolftenstein 2, which could be due to it getting a VR release at some point. Again, I don't see how Switch's online service is going to change much of anything with regards to more 3rd-party support.

Mario+Rabbids is Ubisoft. Confusing cause of the shared IP, but actually third party.

Now if we're specifically into multiplatform AAA type games, yeah, nothing other then Bethesda really has been announced yet other then ports of older stuff. Ark is supposedly coming out for it late this year, but Ark barely manages to run on the other consoles (arguably, Ark barely runs on the PC) and Ark's scheduling is nebulous at best.

Fortnite'll probably get over to it eventually too. Given they already put out a mobile version.

Ubisoft port South Park fractured but whole on switch which is not really an old game, it's less than a year old...

cathou:

Seth Carter:

Phoenixmgs:
I've yet to see any 3rd-party put much effort into a Switch release outside of Wolftenstein 2, which could be due to it getting a VR release at some point. Again, I don't see how Switch's online service is going to change much of anything with regards to more 3rd-party support.

Mario+Rabbids is Ubisoft. Confusing cause of the shared IP, but actually third party.

Now if we're specifically into multiplatform AAA type games, yeah, nothing other then Bethesda really has been announced yet other then ports of older stuff. Ark is supposedly coming out for it late this year, but Ark barely manages to run on the other consoles (arguably, Ark barely runs on the PC) and Ark's scheduling is nebulous at best.

Fortnite'll probably get over to it eventually too. Given they already put out a mobile version.

Ubisoft port South Park fractured but whole on switch which is not really an old game, it?s less than a year old...

don't forget Switch is also getting Playstation's *exclusive* games now.

image

it's also heavily rumored that Nintendo is going to announce the Switch version of Spyro reignited trilogy at E3 alongside an announce for Crash and Spyro as playable characters in Super Smash Bros.

Seth Carter:

Phoenixmgs:

Seth Carter:

Mario+Rabbids is Ubisoft. Confusing cause of the shared IP, but actually third party.

Now if we're specifically into multiplatform AAA type games, yeah, nothing other then Bethesda really has been announced yet other then ports of older stuff. Ark is supposedly coming out for it late this year, but Ark barely manages to run on the other consoles (arguably, Ark barely runs on the PC) and Ark's scheduling is nebulous at best.

Fortnite'll probably get over to it eventually too. Given they already put out a mobile version.

Yeah, I know Mario+Rabbids is 3rd-party but I bet most 3rd-parties would put lots of effort into a Switch game if Nintendo handed them a Mario/Zelda/Metriod/etc license. I wouldn't be surprised with Fortnite coming to Switch considering it should be pretty low-end with regards to graphics. I'm surprised a lot of indie and PC games aren't getting Switch releases. The Switch should have the power to run stuff like Divinity and Shadow Tactics for example. Invisible Inc would be a great on-the-go game.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-05-11-nintendo-switch-games-list-2018-release-dates

Battlechasers, Little Nightmares, Banner Saga, just in the upcoming month.

Most of the stuff is down in the no set date list at the end though which has all sorts of indie stuff (and another Ubisoft entry with Steep).

Seems to mostly be the Actvision/EA/TakeTwo unholy trinity that are displaced. Ubi and Sqeenix aren't really pitching their A-franchises in there, but they do both have a decent presence.

The Switch (or any gaming platform) just getting a few multiplatform games isn't acceptable and just can't become a primary platform with that kinda support. When another gaming platform doesn't get a game is almost always to do with some exclusivity deal and is also exception to the rule that is getting basically every game.

Phoenixmgs:

The Switch (or any gaming platform) just getting a few multiplatform games isn't acceptable and just can't become a primary platform with that kinda support. When another gaming platform doesn't get a game is almost always to do with some exclusivity deal and is also exception to the rule that is getting basically every game.

Well, let's see

Divinity - https://gonintendo.com/stories/291437-divinity-original-sin-2-devs-interested-in-bringing-the-game-to

I am, as a disclaimer, not a modern professional game developer. But I'd imagine there's come complications to the consoles, as close as they currently sit to PC, where the code isn't just drag'n'drop across all of them. Divinity isn't even porting onto the other two consoles until August of this year, so thats just a timetable thing in all likelihood. They might even get a better initial version, a la Xbox starting out with No Mans Sky actual for realsies 2 years later edition, or how Warframe's delay in updates hitting consoles tends to include some smoothing out of issues that the PC crowd found.

Shadow Tactics - https://wccftech.com/shadow-tactics-challenge-console-ports/

Also looking into it, though a bit more of a gloomy forecast. Suffered a bit of a performance cut even on the Ps4/XB1, and they seem worried about trying to keep it as the proper experience.

Invisible Inc - No specific literature, but Invisible Inc has been a legacy project for basically as long as Switch has been a thought. It runs on an iPad, so I doubt its a technical infeasbility. But Klei moved on to Don't Starve Together and 3 upcoming projects so I wouldn't hold my breath on that one popping up unless they do some sort of collection release (Don't Starve itself was already on Wii U).

As to the big boys.

Activision is putting some remastered stuff out. EA does have FIFA18 on Switch, and sort of stated it was a test run when interviewed about the latest Need for Speed coming to it.. TakeTwo also actually did put out WWE and NBA 2k18 on it.

So the missing stuff there is COD, Destiny, Battlefield, and GTA (and Battleborn, but no suprise if they're just trying to shove that one in the dustbin at this point).

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/04/rumour_call_of_duty_might_be_headed_to_nintendo_switch_but_only_as_a_fortnite-style_battle_royale

^CoD Rumors, so take that with a grain of salt. As for Destiny, Bungie's technical-not-so-wizards are having enough seeming struggles keeping any kind of pace with what they're already doing without adding a 4th version.

Besides EA wanting some experimental success with FIFA, there's also the arguable idea right now that Nintendo might not want to bother dealing with EA and their current kicking and screaming with the legislative hornets test against lootbox gambling. Big N does still kind of hold on to its family friendly image after all. Whether Battlefield can or can't possibly work on the console is probably tertiary to those points.

GTA, well if we're operating on the Switch being in-between PS3 and PS4 in pwoer, GTA 5 was already on last gen. I forget if there was a cutoff point in GTA:Online's content where you had to have current gen/PC or not. Borderlands 3 is kind of a curiousity, because if Bethesda (who clearly are willing to port stuff) actually gets Rage 2 off the ground and puts it there, there's an obvious comparison.

Ubisoft and Square are of course, slushing a plethora of their midtier/faux-indie games onto Switch. But yeah, there's an obvious question of AC/Far Cry/Final Fantasy/Tomb Raider. On a rough developmental timeline, those probably (in FF15's case, definitely) all were being developed before SWitch became a thing,so there would be a porting delay.

Seth Carter:

Phoenixmgs:

The Switch (or any gaming platform) just getting a few multiplatform games isn't acceptable and just can't become a primary platform with that kinda support. When another gaming platform doesn't get a game is almost always to do with some exclusivity deal and is also exception to the rule that is getting basically every game.

Well, let's see

Divinity - https://gonintendo.com/stories/291437-divinity-original-sin-2-devs-interested-in-bringing-the-game-to

I am, as a disclaimer, not a modern professional game developer. But I'd imagine there's come complications to the consoles, as close as they currently sit to PC, where the code isn't just drag'n'drop across all of them. Divinity isn't even porting onto the other two consoles until August of this year, so thats just a timetable thing in all likelihood. They might even get a better initial version, a la Xbox starting out with No Mans Sky actual for realsies 2 years later edition, or how Warframe's delay in updates hitting consoles tends to include some smoothing out of issues that the PC crowd found.

Shadow Tactics - https://wccftech.com/shadow-tactics-challenge-console-ports/

Also looking into it, though a bit more of a gloomy forecast. Suffered a bit of a performance cut even on the Ps4/XB1, and they seem worried about trying to keep it as the proper experience.

Invisible Inc - No specific literature, but Invisible Inc has been a legacy project for basically as long as Switch has been a thought. It runs on an iPad, so I doubt its a technical infeasbility. But Klei moved on to Don't Starve Together and 3 upcoming projects so I wouldn't hold my breath on that one popping up unless they do some sort of collection release (Don't Starve itself was already on Wii U).

As to the big boys.

Activision is putting some remastered stuff out. EA does have FIFA18 on Switch, and sort of stated it was a test run when interviewed about the latest Need for Speed coming to it.. TakeTwo also actually did put out WWE and NBA 2k18 on it.

So the missing stuff there is COD, Destiny, Battlefield, and GTA (and Battleborn, but no suprise if they're just trying to shove that one in the dustbin at this point).

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/04/rumour_call_of_duty_might_be_headed_to_nintendo_switch_but_only_as_a_fortnite-style_battle_royale

^CoD Rumors, so take that with a grain of salt. As for Destiny, Bungie's technical-not-so-wizards are having enough seeming struggles keeping any kind of pace with what they're already doing without adding a 4th version.

Besides EA wanting some experimental success with FIFA, there's also the arguable idea right now that Nintendo might not want to bother dealing with EA and their current kicking and screaming with the legislative hornets test against lootbox gambling. Big N does still kind of hold on to its family friendly image after all. Whether Battlefield can or can't possibly work on the console is probably tertiary to those points.

GTA, well if we're operating on the Switch being in-between PS3 and PS4 in pwoer, GTA 5 was already on last gen. I forget if there was a cutoff point in GTA:Online's content where you had to have current gen/PC or not. Borderlands 3 is kind of a curiousity, because if Bethesda (who clearly are willing to port stuff) actually gets Rage 2 off the ground and puts it there, there's an obvious comparison.

Ubisoft and Square are of course, slushing a plethora of their midtier/faux-indie games onto Switch. But yeah, there's an obvious question of AC/Far Cry/Final Fantasy/Tomb Raider. On a rough developmental timeline, those probably (in FF15's case, definitely) all were being developed before SWitch became a thing,so there would be a porting delay.

I just don't see a Nintendo system becoming a primary gaming platform when every system is behind a generation hardware-wise. The more games any system gets the better. But I knew when I bought a PS4, I would basically be getting every game. The PS4 has even got basically most PC games that would normally been exclusives that I didn't expect probably due to both Sony and MS making consoles with a good amount of RAM along with the x86 architecture. Just about every game the Switch has gotten has been very expected and in line with its capabilities whether its port of Doom due to VR edition or sports games, which are very easy to downgrade due to having a set amount of players on screen at once as many sports titles already still release on last-gen systems.

The following Destiny 2 video is really interesting and quite shocking if only half of the video is true, which makes Bungie look like technical buffoons. One thing claimed by the video is that it took 8 hours for Bungie to load a map to make any edits.

Phoenixmgs:

I just don't see a Nintendo system becoming a primary gaming platform

what does that even mean?

is it THAT hard to believe that some people only want to play Nintendo games?

hell Nintendo's library of 1st party franchise's is massive already.

Phoenixmgs:

The following Destiny 2 video is really interesting and quite shocking if only half of the video is true, which makes Bungie look like technical buffoons. One thing claimed by the video is that it took 8 hours for Bungie to load a map to make any edits.

Thats been the running narrative for awhile now, yeah. Besides their seeming inability to keep writing and gameplay design on a single course, they somehow developed an engine that is literally impossible to develop content at enough of a pace to keep their Activision contract DLC schedule (while still delivering DLC that's hypotehtically of any worth). SO Bungie opted to shove microtransactions in to hit their targets while delaying or cancelling planned DLC. Then in Destiny 2 apparently just decided to keep microtransactions, and release horrifically underdeveloped DLC (Warmind has only 2 hours of content for 20-25 bucks)

Update on reaction to online service announcement:
image
Most people aren't having it.

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:

I just don't see a Nintendo system becoming a primary gaming platform

what does that even mean?

is it THAT hard to believe that some people only want to play Nintendo games?

hell Nintendo's library of 1st party franchise's is massive already.

It means the Switch is just about everyone's 2nd gaming platform at best. Sure, SOME people are fine with just Nintendo games but that is a very low % of gamers. The type of games that do get played basically exclusively by people are not the type of games Nintendo makes but yearly releases or service type games like a COD, FIFA, CSGO, still WoW, Fortnite, GTA Onine, etc. Some people are very into specific genres whether it be shooters, RPGs, sports games, strategy games. Nintendo games don't fall into either category. How many people exclusively only play EA, Activision, Sony, Take Two games? People stick to comfort zones and the type of game is far more important than the publisher/developer. Thus making a variety of games, which is good, is not going to cause a sizable amount of gamers to play only your games exclusively. Smash and Splatoon are the only Nintendo games that probably even have dedicated long-term communities and even then they aren't nearly that big. Monster Hunter probably has the biggest long-term community on Nintendo systems and it's not even a Nintendo game.

Phoenixmgs:
Smash and Splatoon are the only Nintendo games that probably even have dedicated long-term communities and even then they aren't nearly that big. Monster Hunter probably has the biggest long-term community on Nintendo systems and it's not even a Nintendo game.

Mario Kart would be the other one. And Pokemon (though thats more of a DS thing? Though so was Monster Hunter).

Still, there's definitely some sort Nintendo demographic. There's been clones of Mario Kart and Smash elsewhere, but they never really amount to much. They have their finger on some sort of pulse, and as yet, no one has really replicated despite all the PSABRs, LBP:Rs, Fables, etc. So until someone figures out the secret sauce ingredient or whatever, they can prettymuch run on their own limits.

Much the same could be said about Monster Hunter really. There's been lots of games that aspire to be Monster Hunter (Whether blatantly like God Eater or upcomer Dauntless, or more tangential like Evolve), but for whatever reason they've just maintained their dominance despite being off in Nintendoland while those were available on a wider scale)

Phoenixmgs:
The type of games that do get played basically exclusively by people are not the type of games Nintendo makes but yearly releases or service type games like a COD, FIFA, CSGO, still WoW, Fortnite, GTA Onine, etc.

How do you know that everyone who plays those games aren't just playing those games casually while having the Nintendo Switch as their primary device? a person who owns multiple platforms could easily have Nintendo as their *primary* platform of choice while the Xbox/PS4 are just the afterthought that don't get touched as much?

Phoenixmgs:
Some people are very into specific genres whether it be shooters, RPGs, sports games, strategy games. Nintendo games don't fall into either category.

Shooters - Splatoon 2, DOOM, Wolfenstein 2, Metroid Prime 4

RPG's - Xenoblade Chronicles, Octopath Traveller

Sports games - Mario Tennis Ace's, FIFA, WWE 2K, Rocket League

Strategy games - Fire Emblem.

those 11 games literally fall under all of those categories you just listed and are all either already on the Switch, or confirmed to be coming soon.
People love Splatoon and Splatoon can easily be enjoyed and played much more than other 3rd Party Shooters like DOOM or GTA which you can play on PS4/Xbox.
one of my friends is an artist who normally plays Playstation Games like Life is Strange, since she got a Switch for Christmas she can't shut up about or stop drawing Splatoon 2 stuff.

point is the Switch can just as easily be someone's "primary" system as a PS4/Xbox can. claiming it can't be is completely your subjective opinion and nothing more than that.

Yoshi178:

Shooters - Splatoon 2, DOOM, Wolfenstein 2, Metroid Prime 4

RPG's - Xenoblade Chronicles, Octopath Traveller

Sports games - Mario Tennis Ace's, FIFA, WWE 2K, Rocket League

Strategy games - Fire Emblem.

those 11 games literally fall under all of those categories you just listed. People love Splatoon, Splatoon can easily be enjoyed more than 3rd Party Shooters like Wolfenstein or GTA which you can play on PS4/Xbox.
one of my friends is an artist who normally plays Playstation Games like Life is Strange, since she got a Switch for Christmas she can't shut up about or stop drawing Splatoon 2 stuff.

point is the Switch can just as easily be someone's "primary" system as a PS4/Xbox can. claiming it can't be is completely your subjective opinion and nothing more than that.

Well, we don't actually know what Prime 4 is going to be, plus Doom and Wolfenstein are 3rd party as well as most of those sports games. However, Nintendo does still have a plethora of genres represented which has been increasing for years.

Platformer: Donkey Kong, Kirby, Mario

RPG: Xenoblade, Octopath Traveler

Adventure: Zelda

Shooter: Splatoon 2

Strategy: Fire Emblem

Fighting: Pokken Tournament DX, ARMS

Hack and Slash: Hyrule Warriors, Fire Emblem Warriors, Bayonetta 2

Racing: Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

And that's before getting third party fare like Doom, Wolfenstein II, Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate, Battlechasers, Disgaea 1 Complete and so on. Nintendo can sustain a person in terms of product.

Aiddon:

Well, we don't actually know what Prime 4 is going to be.

yeah it's clearly going to something COMPLETELY different to the last 3 main entries in the Metroid Prime series. is probably going to be a minigame collection or something similar and won't resemble the first 3 Metroid Prime games at all.

/sarcasm

Aiddon:
plus Doom and Wolfenstein are 3rd party as well as most of those sports games.

news flash, so are those PS4/Xbox games that Phoenix listed like GTA and Fortnite.

Why do 3rd Party games like GTA seem to count when talking about PS4 & Xbox but 3rd Party games suddenly don't count anymore once we start talking about a Nintendo system and mention games like DOOM?

Next people are gonna be telling me that stuff like DOOM doesn't count because it's a 2 year old game even though GTA 5 came out 5 years ago LMAO.

Seth Carter:

Phoenixmgs:
Smash and Splatoon are the only Nintendo games that probably even have dedicated long-term communities and even then they aren't nearly that big. Monster Hunter probably has the biggest long-term community on Nintendo systems and it's not even a Nintendo game.

Mario Kart would be the other one. And Pokemon (though thats more of a DS thing? Though so was Monster Hunter).

Still, there's definitely some sort Nintendo demographic. There's been clones of Mario Kart and Smash elsewhere, but they never really amount to much. They have their finger on some sort of pulse, and as yet, no one has really replicated despite all the PSABRs, LBP:Rs, Fables, etc. So until someone figures out the secret sauce ingredient or whatever, they can prettymuch run on their own limits.

Much the same could be said about Monster Hunter really. There's been lots of games that aspire to be Monster Hunter (Whether blatantly like God Eater or upcomer Dauntless, or more tangential like Evolve), but for whatever reason they've just maintained their dominance despite being off in Nintendoland while those were available on a wider scale)

I could be totally wrong but Mario Kart doesn't seem like a game that would be played daily/weekly by a significant amount of players. It seems like one of those games you might play a lot when you get it, then pop it in every so often afterwards for a quick bit of fun or during a party type situation. I did forget about Pokemon but again that seems like a game most will play to completion (story completion) and then play again when the new one comes out, which is one a gen I think. I know Pokemon has PvP battles and stuff but I'm guessing most players don't care about that like how a small portion of Souls fans care about PvP. I wouldn't think a significant portion of Pokemon players care about actually catching them all either. Although I could be totally wrong. I could see Pokemon being that type of game but not Mario Kart.

Monster Hunter is basically a "service" game built around a massive Skinner box to have people continually play it. Gamers are "cool" with MH because Capcom hasn't monetized it yet but it's Skinner boxes are probably even worse than stuff like Destiny. Hell, I quit playing World because of the Skinner boxes, I realized it's going to take probably hundreds of hours getting certain drops to just try out a single build shortly after getting to end-game.

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
The type of games that do get played basically exclusively by people are not the type of games Nintendo makes but yearly releases or service type games like a COD, FIFA, CSGO, still WoW, Fortnite, GTA Onine, etc.

How do you know that everyone who plays those games aren't just playing those games casually while having the Nintendo Switch as their primary device? a person who owns multiple platforms could easily have Nintendo as their *primary* platform of choice while the Xbox/PS4 are just the afterthought that don't get touched as much?

Just about every game I listed came out prior to the Switch. And yeah, millions of people are playing Fortnite daily just casually waiting for Nintendo's next big release [/sarcasm] Also, a game like PUBG that came out the same month as the Switch has sold more copies than the Switch itself. Even if somehow every single Switch sold is the primary gaming console for every person that bought it; there will be so many more gamers whose primary platform isn't a Switch because the Switch has only sold around 15 million. The numbers don't even come close to working out. Even then we all know how poor multiplats have sold on Nintendo systems so I very much doubt the Switch is the primary console for many people that bought it. Sure, when a Zelda or Mario comes out, it sells like hotcakes, but that is mainly people dusting of their Nintendo systems to play the occasional Nintendo game while heading back to their primary platform to play everything else.

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
Some people are very into specific genres whether it be shooters, RPGs, sports games, strategy games. Nintendo games don't fall into either category.

Shooters - Splatoon 2, DOOM, Wolfenstein 2, Metroid Prime 4

RPG's - Xenoblade Chronicles, Octopath Traveller

Sports games - Mario Tennis Ace's, FIFA, WWE 2K, Rocket League

Strategy games - Fire Emblem.

those 11 games literally fall under all of those categories you just listed and are all either already on the Switch, or confirmed to be coming soon.
People love Splatoon and Splatoon can easily be enjoyed and played much more than other 3rd Party Shooters like DOOM or GTA which you can play on PS4/Xbox.
one of my friends is an artist who normally plays Playstation Games like Life is Strange, since she got a Switch for Christmas she can't shut up about or stop drawing Splatoon 2 stuff.

point is the Switch can just as easily be someone's "primary" system as a PS4/Xbox can. claiming it can't be is completely your subjective opinion and nothing more than that.

You didn't get what I said. Gamers aren't going to play games exclusively from a specific publisher that makes a variety of genres. I doubt there's a single gamer that is only interested in playing Sony games and nothing else because Sony, like Nintendo, puts out a variety of games/genres. Whereas some gamers may just play Bethesda or Rockstar games since both devs repeatedly make a very similar type of game.

For someone that is only into shooters and wants to play the best shooter games, do you actually think the Switch is going to satisfy their needs? Or do you think only playing Nintendo games is going to satisfy them with only Splatoon (and later on Metroid)? Sure, the Switch has some shooters but there is hardly much choice while also having none of the shooters that have the massive player counts and popularity. Same issue with just about every other genre.

Aiddon:

Yoshi178:

Shooters - Splatoon 2, DOOM, Wolfenstein 2, Metroid Prime 4

RPG's - Xenoblade Chronicles, Octopath Traveller

Sports games - Mario Tennis Ace's, FIFA, WWE 2K, Rocket League

Strategy games - Fire Emblem.

those 11 games literally fall under all of those categories you just listed. People love Splatoon, Splatoon can easily be enjoyed more than 3rd Party Shooters like Wolfenstein or GTA which you can play on PS4/Xbox.
one of my friends is an artist who normally plays Playstation Games like Life is Strange, since she got a Switch for Christmas she can't shut up about or stop drawing Splatoon 2 stuff.

point is the Switch can just as easily be someone's "primary" system as a PS4/Xbox can. claiming it can't be is completely your subjective opinion and nothing more than that.

Well, we don't actually know what Prime 4 is going to be, plus Doom and Wolfenstein are 3rd party as well as most of those sports games. However, Nintendo does still have a plethora of genres represented which has been increasing for years.

Platformer: Donkey Kong, Kirby, Mario

RPG: Xenoblade, Octopath Traveler

Adventure: Zelda

Shooter: Splatoon 2

Strategy: Fire Emblem

Fighting: Pokken Tournament DX, ARMS

Hack and Slash: Hyrule Warriors, Fire Emblem Warriors, Bayonetta 2

Racing: Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

And that's before getting third party fare like Doom, Wolfenstein II, Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate, Battlechasers, Disgaea 1 Complete and so on. Nintendo can sustain a person in terms of product.

When people say they want 3rd party support from Nintendo they usually mean they want the ability to play games that are out right now, not 2 to 15 years old (because you mentioned Disgaea). Dark Souls, the pride and joy of the "See, Nintendo's also hip" crowd is 7 years old. Handpicking scraps in order to boast a 3rd party support doesn't cut it. The fact is 3rd party support isn't actual, probably will never be actual, is definitely not as actual as it was 20-25 years ago. And it's a shame because it's what most people want from Nintendo.

Johnny Novgorod:
When people say they want 3rd party support from Nintendo they usually mean they want the ability to play games that are out right now, not 2 to 15 years old (because you mentioned Disgaea). Dark Souls, the pride and joy of the "See, Nintendo's also hip" crowd is 7 years old. Handpicking scraps in order to boast a 3rd party support doesn't cut it. The fact is 3rd party support isn't actual, probably will never be actual, is definitely not as actual as it was 20-25 years ago. And it's a shame because it's what most people want from Nintendo.

Yep, basically this. If Nintendo and Sony systems both had the same library of multiplats, I would very much have to consider a Nintendo system being my primary gaming platform. Now, it's a really easy choice, which is good but also bad because competition is a good thing. Microsoft basically has no 1st-party support anymore and Nintendo has barely any CURRENT 3rd-party support so Sony wins basically by default.

Phoenixmgs:
Whereas some gamers may just play Bethesda or Rockstar games since both devs repeatedly make a very similar type of game.

For someone that is only into shooters and wants to play the best shooter games, do you actually think the Switch is going to satisfy their needs?

pretty sure most people prefer having variety over just sticking with 1 type of genre.

hell that's what most people were whinging about Nintendo for previously. for only having 1st Party release's on their Systems and nothing else. people even laughed at me last year on this forum year when i predicted that 3rd Party support would only get better and better for the Switch if the console kept up it's sales momentum. and i was right, 3rd Party titles are now constantly being announced for Nintendo Switch and the Switches 3rd Party library is already much bigger than it was this time last year. and when E3 rolls around in a couple of weeks that list should only get even bigger.

Phoenixmgs:
Even then we all know how poor multiplats have sold on Nintendo systems

that's interesting because from what i've been reading in the news, most 3rd Party publishers have been really happy with their game sales on Nintendo Switch. Particularly Ubisoft and Capcom.

Capcom was even saying last year in August that Street Fighter II was doing very well when it had sold 450,000 copies. sure that's not a mind blowing number like Mario Kart 8 DX's 9 million sales figure. but Street Fighter II's sales definitely aren't anything to scoff at either since that's a 25 year old, that was released on a System that had only been on the market for 5 months at that point.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/08/capcom_reveals_ultra_street_fighter_ii_sales_figures_is_still_evaluating_switch_support

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
Whereas some gamers may just play Bethesda or Rockstar games since both devs repeatedly make a very similar type of game.

For someone that is only into shooters and wants to play the best shooter games, do you actually think the Switch is going to satisfy their needs?

pretty sure most people prefer having variety over just sticking with 1 type of genre.

hell that's what most people were whinging about Nintendo for previously. for only having 1st Party release's on their Systems and nothing else. people even laughed at me last year on this forum year when i predicted that 3rd Party support would only get better and better for the Switch if the console kept up it's sales momentum. and i was right, 3rd Party titles are now constantly being announced for Nintendo Switch and the Switches 3rd Party library is already much bigger than it was this time last year. and when E3 rolls around in a couple of weeks that list should only get even bigger.

Phoenixmgs:
Even then we all know how poor multiplats have sold on Nintendo systems

that's interesting because from what i've been reading in the news, most 3rd Party publishers have been really happy with their game sales on Nintendo Switch. Particularly Ubisoft and Capcom.

Capcom was even saying last year in August that Street Fighter II was doing very well when it had sold 450,000 copies. sure that's not a mind blowing number like Mario Kart 8 DX's 9 million sales figure. but Street Fighter II's sales definitely aren't anything to scoff at either since that's a 25 year old, that was released on a System that had only been on the market for 5 months at that point.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/08/capcom_reveals_ultra_street_fighter_ii_sales_figures_is_still_evaluating_switch_support

I'm just saying there are quite a portion of gamers that do only play one type of game like shooters or RPGs or sports games. Lots of people sorta move from one shooter to another or say move from PUBG to Fortnite. Just think of those millions that only played WoW for X amount of years. Some people just like say FIFA or Madden or The Show. Nintendo's systems totally don't cater to those gamers, which are in the minority for sure but still a rather big portion of the gamer community. Having only 1st-party games is a major problem unless Nintendo or whoever did actually make the very best games in every genre, which nobody does whether we are talking Sony/Nintendo/MS.

Again, gamers want CURRENT/NEW 3rd-party games. Getting the 1st Dark Souls or Skyrim or SFII isn't helping much in that regard. Sure, SFII sold a good amount on the Switch but Doom hasn't even sold as much on the Switch as SFII has sold because just about everyone that wanted to play it already played it. Will I be able to play GAME XYZ that is the new flavor-of-the-month on the Switch? Almost certainly not unless it's a Nintendo game like Zelda. That's the problem.

Phoenixmgs:
[
Yep, basically this. If Nintendo and Sony systems both had the same library of multiplats, I would very much have to consider a Nintendo system being my primary gaming platform. Now, it's a really easy choice, which is good but also bad because competition is a good thing. Microsoft basically has no 1st-party support anymore and Nintendo has barely any CURRENT 3rd-party support so Sony wins basically by default.

Except, historically speaking, that's been complete bullshit. It's what people CLAIM they want from Nintendo and, as has been painfully obvious many, many, MANY times over the years, people don't really know what they want. And even with that, the 3rd party offerings keep increasing. And even even with that with that, 3rd parties are in a weird phase right now, specifically the Western ones. That's why I had to laugh back when people were saying Nintendo needed to cater to companies like EA, Ubisoft, Acitivision, etc. Those companies' release schedules and IP pools are TEPID. They just don't release enough product as much, getting one, two, maybe three big titles with basically nothing else throughout the year. What's the point in pandering to those schmucks when they can find other partners?

And hovering over all this is the painfully obvious, painfully awkward truth no one wants to say that this argument revolves around and is summarized thus: "I'm mad that Nintendo is not catering exclusively to me and doesn't treat me as the center of the universe." This is the same, cancerous behavior that has been aimed at Nintendo (and in fact gaming as a whole) for over a decade now. It's indefensible, it's creepy, and it's just plain stupid.

Okay, so Nintendo isn't doing what geeks specifically want. Guess what, they have a choice: leave. No one is holding a gun to their head. They can leave at any time and spend their money elsewhere. Yelling at Nintendo like some asshole bitter as his ex getting on with her life is both pointless and pathetic.

Aiddon:
And hovering over all this is the painfully obvious, painfully awkward truth no one wants to say that this argument revolves around and is summarized thus: "I'm mad that Nintendo is not catering exclusively to me and doesn't treat me as the center of the universe."

image

Hard to pin it on a "me" problem when 50% of everybody wants the same thing.
GameFAQs is where Nintendo routinely wins GOTY every year, so consider that before you go with haters gonna hate.
Of course there's that other argument of yours about people not knowing what they want.That apply to everybody but you?

Aiddon:

Phoenixmgs:
Yep, basically this. If Nintendo and Sony systems both had the same library of multiplats, I would very much have to consider a Nintendo system being my primary gaming platform. Now, it's a really easy choice, which is good but also bad because competition is a good thing. Microsoft basically has no 1st-party support anymore and Nintendo has barely any CURRENT 3rd-party support so Sony wins basically by default.

Except, historically speaking, that's been complete bullshit. It's what people CLAIM they want from Nintendo and, as has been painfully obvious many, many, MANY times over the years, people don't really know what they want. And even with that, the 3rd party offerings keep increasing. And even even with that with that, 3rd parties are in a weird phase right now, specifically the Western ones. That's why I had to laugh back when people were saying Nintendo needed to cater to companies like EA, Ubisoft, Acitivision, etc. Those companies' release schedules and IP pools are TEPID. They just don't release enough product as much, getting one, two, maybe three big titles with basically nothing else throughout the year. What's the point in pandering to those schmucks when they can find other partners?

And hovering over all this is the painfully obvious, painfully awkward truth no one wants to say that this argument revolves around and is summarized thus: "I'm mad that Nintendo is not catering exclusively to me and doesn't treat me as the center of the universe." This is the same, cancerous behavior that has been aimed at Nintendo (and in fact gaming as a whole) for over a decade now. It's indefensible, it's creepy, and it's just plain stupid.

Okay, so Nintendo isn't doing what geeks specifically want. Guess what, they have a choice: leave. No one is holding a gun to their head. They can leave at any time and spend their money elsewhere. Yelling at Nintendo like some asshole bitter as his ex getting on with her life is both pointless and pathetic.

But that is exactly what I want as I haven't had a Nintendo system since SNES and why I've bought PlayStations since for the exact reasons I've mentioned. I don't think Nintendo necessarily has to pander to the likes of EA or Ubisoft or Activision. Why can't they just make a system that has the hardware power in the same neighborhood as Sony/Microsoft along with an x86 architecture that makes it simple to port games over? If it sells at the pace the Switch is selling, I don't see why the EAs/Ubisofts/Activisions wouldn't port games over to the system. PS4/Xbone is getting tons of games that would've normally been PC exclusive in the past but now that both systems have RAM along with the same architecture that even Kickstarted games are getting releases on PS4/Xbone. Are Sony/Microsoft somehow pandering to those devs that I don't know about or is it just simply they made a developer friendly system?

Phoenixmgs:
Again, gamers want CURRENT/NEW 3rd-party games. Getting the 1st Dark Souls or Skyrim or SFII isn't helping much in that regard.

you literally just said this:

Phoenixmgs:
The type of games that do get played basically exclusively by people are not the type of games Nintendo makes but yearly releases or service type games like a COD, FIFA, CSGO, still WoW, Fortnite, GTA Online, etc.

CSGO and GTA V are both extremely old games. JUST like Skyrim and Dark Souls are.

I'll give you the other 3 games you listed. but don't act like it's impossible for the Switch to get COD or Fortnite. Fortnite is actually a frequent title that's been popping up in rumors and leak discussions recently, the rumour is that Epic Games plans to announce a Switch version of it at E3, and before you say "they're just rumours" to me, Crash Bandicoot N-Sane Trilogy for the Switch and Xbox One was also just a rumor until it was officially revealed a couple of months ago.
And COD isn't announced to be coming to Switch yet of course, but that's the key word *yet*. sure COD may not be on the Switch at the moment, but that franchise was on the Wii and even the Wii U. but the Wii U didn't have any where as much sales and Support as what Switch already has now did it?

you're just being impatient and want every single 3rd Party franchise on Nintendo Switch immediately otherwise in your eyes "Nintendo doesn't get 3rd Party support". Business doesn't work that way though, Nintendo needs to build confidence in 3rd Parties that the Switch will be a good system to invest money & development resources into so that 3rd Parties can actually make a Profit by making games for Switch. that doesn't happen overnight.

But Nintendo has already made very good progress with 3rd Parties with the Nintendo Switch so far. sure there's some ports of old games like Dark Souls 1 and Skyrim on there, but there's also modern stuff that's been getting announced for the system as well like DOOM, Wolfenstein II, South Park the Franctured but Whole and even so called PS4 "exclusive" Crash Bandicoot N-Sane trilogy.

and the Switch has only been out the market for 15 months now. the library will only get bigger and bigger. and i would put money on more 3rd Party stuff coming to the Switch getting announced at E3 in 2 weeks.

Yoshi178:
so called PS4 "exclusive" Crash Bandicoot N-Sane trilogy.

You keep bringing that up, but was that ever somehow confused? The announcement literally said "coming to PS4 first".

Most anyoen with basic internet skills knows that Crash isn't a 1st party title for Sony, and even the casual market probably got the hint when it sparked up around PS-All Stars when he wasn't in it.

Seth Carter:

Yoshi178:
so called PS4 "exclusive" Crash Bandicoot N-Sane trilogy.

You keep bringing that up, but was that ever somehow confused? The announcement literally said "coming to PS4 first".

i don't see any words along those lines in this trailer

or this trailer

or this trailer

etc....

yeah Crash has been 3rd Party for awhile now, but only since the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox era. most people were completely convinced that the Original Crash Bandicoot trilogy remaster was going to stay a Playstation exclusive. they thought the same about the Spyro Trilogy too until the Switch & Xbox versions of the Crash N-Sane trilogy got announced in March 2018.

Another big rumor going around at the moment is that the Spyro Reignited Trilogy is going to be announced for the Switch at E3 where Nintendo will reveal it alongside Crash & Spyro being playable characters in Super Smash Bros.
Still just a rumor at this point, but the Spyro Reignited trilogy was officially listed on Nintendo UK's official website before quickly being taken down which does give some credibility to this "leak".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here