Switch Online Service.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

double post*

And now to add to the E3 rumors, Nintendo just revealed that the hero shooter Paladins (Overwatch but more medieval) is coming to the Switch.

https://nintendoeverything.com/paladins-confirmed-for-switch-launches-next-week/

Mostly this is interesting because it pretty much confirms that leak from a few days ago, so I guess the Switch is getting Dragon Ball FighterZ. Makes me wonder what Nintendo's armies of information guarding have managed to hide if THIS is what's getting out.

yep. leak confirmed real :)

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:
i haven't touched my xbone in like a year and a half. the only reason i don't sell it is because i'd barely get any cash for it since the Xbone S and the XB1X have come out.

the only Xbox games i ever wanted to play anyway was 1st party stuff like Halo, Halo Wars, and Gears of War. just like how i mainly play 1st Party stuff on my Nintendo platforms.

I forgot your aversion and non-interest to 3rd-party games yet when they become Nintendo properties, they magically become GOTY candidates before you even play them.

LOL now you're just moving the goal post's.

i played both Xenoblade Chronicles and Xenoblade Chronicles X and considered both of those games to be my GOTY games when i played them.
Gee sorry for being hyped about Xenoblade 2 and predicting that it will also be my GOTY.

why are you so offended that i was so hyped about a game that i called it the GOTY before i played it?
And don't try to say you're not offended by me doing so because if you weren't then you wouldn't be constantly be using it to take cheap shots at me.

Again, you've missed my point. You didn't play the Xeno games prior to them becoming Nintendo properties. But once they became Nintendo 1st-party games, they're magically GOTY. You're aversion to 3rd-party games is very odd. Did you ever play Platinum (or Clover/Capcom games made by the same guys) games before they found their way to Nintendo exclusives?

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:

I forgot your aversion and non-interest to 3rd-party games yet when they become Nintendo properties, they magically become GOTY candidates before you even play them.

LOL now you're just moving the goal post's.

i played both Xenoblade Chronicles and Xenoblade Chronicles X and considered both of those games to be my GOTY games when i played them.
Gee sorry for being hyped about Xenoblade 2 and predicting that it will also be my GOTY.

why are you so offended that i was so hyped about a game that i called it the GOTY before i played it?
And don't try to say you're not offended by me doing so because if you weren't then you wouldn't be constantly be using it to take cheap shots at me.

Again, you've missed my point. You didn't play the Xeno games prior to them becoming Nintendo properties. But once they became Nintendo 1st-party games, they're magically GOTY. You're aversion to 3rd-party games is very odd. Did you ever play Platinum (or Clover/Capcom games made by the same guys) games before they found their way to Nintendo exclusives?

i didn't play Xenogears and Xenosaga?

Xenogears: i was still a little kid when that game came out in 1998. i'd never even heard of that game before until recent years. the Xeno series has always been extremely niche so no wonder i had heard of Crash Bandicoot but no Xenogears as a kid

Xenosaga: again i had never heard of that game until recent years. and no shit i haven't played this game. i don't even own a PS2!

and FYI i already plan on tracking down copies of those games and adding them to my collection when i can afford to.

Xenoblade didn't *magically* become one of my favourite series. i played both Xenoblade and Xenoblade X and i really enjoyed them. Xenoblade X was my GOTY for the year it came out but Xenoblade X definitely isn't one of my favourite games. no where close.

the original Xenoblade games would definitely be in my top ten games of all time if i were to ever write a list though. that's how much i enjoyed that game.

Yoshi178:
i didn't play Xenogears and Xenosaga?

Xenogears: i was still a little kid when that game came out in 1998. i'd never even heard of that game before until recent years. the Xeno series has always been extremely niche so no wonder i had heard of Crash Bandicoot but no Xenogears as a kid

Xenosaga: again i had never heard of that game until recent years. and no shit i haven't played this game. i don't even own a PS2!

and FYI i already plan on tracking down copies of those games and adding them to my collection when i can afford to.

Xenoblade didn't *magically* become one of my favourite series. i played both Xenoblade and Xenoblade X and i really enjoyed them. Xenoblade X was my GOTY for the year it came out but Xenoblade X definitely isn't one of my favourite games. no where close.

the original Xenoblade games would definitely be in my top ten games of all time if i were to ever write a list though. that's how much i enjoyed that game.

I bet you wouldn't have played them if say EA, Activision, or Ubisoft had published them. You have quite an aversion to trying new things that aren't 1st-party games. 1st-party games don't have any inherent better quality outside of graphics, which is the least important factor in the quality of a game.

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:
i didn't play Xenogears and Xenosaga?

Xenogears: i was still a little kid when that game came out in 1998. i'd never even heard of that game before until recent years. the Xeno series has always been extremely niche so no wonder i had heard of Crash Bandicoot but no Xenogears as a kid

Xenosaga: again i had never heard of that game until recent years. and no shit i haven't played this game. i don't even own a PS2!

and FYI i already plan on tracking down copies of those games and adding them to my collection when i can afford to.

Xenoblade didn't *magically* become one of my favourite series. i played both Xenoblade and Xenoblade X and i really enjoyed them. Xenoblade X was my GOTY for the year it came out but Xenoblade X definitely isn't one of my favourite games. no where close.

the original Xenoblade games would definitely be in my top ten games of all time if i were to ever write a list though. that's how much i enjoyed that game.

I bet you wouldn't have played them if say EA, Activision, or Ubisoft had published them. You have quite an aversion to trying new things that aren't 1st-party games. 1st-party games don't have any inherent better quality outside of graphics, which is the least important factor in the quality of a game.

Not true. back in the 360 days when everyone was still raving about COD, my xbox live friends i used to play Halo Wars with, encouraged me to try Blacks Ops with them.

i bought the game and it definitely wasn't my favourite game. but i did have fun playing the game with my friends. then i got pissed off because by the end of the month my xbox live friends completely stopped playing Black Ops and had already moved onto the next fad.

i also bought and played both Red Steel games on the Wii. 1 wasn't the best game, but it had a unique charm about it and i had fun playing it.
i got bored and stopped playing Red Steel 2 less than halfway through the story though. Red Steel 2 wasn't a bad game. but i didn't enjoy myself anywhere as much as i did with the first Red Steel.

i also bought Skyrim for myself on Boxing day on the 360 after i kept hearing from everyone how it was the GOTY!!!! back when that game was still actually new.
i played Skyrim for several hours and i didn't like it at all.

i also bought Batman Arkham Asylum and Arkham City on 360. i thought Arkham Asylum was awesome but i thought Arkham city was boring as fuck. i got up to the Penguin before i got fed and up just quit playing Arkham City.

20 dollars a year doesn't sound too bad honestly, though I really don't use online all that much for my consoles.

Phoenixmgs:
1st-party games don't have any inherent better quality outside of graphics, which is the least important factor in the quality of a game.

Uhrm, well, that depends on the first party in question, surely? Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo do have unique benchmarks and characteristics for games they create, quite aside from graphical quality.

For what it's worth, Nintendo's first-party creations tend to be very high quality. This might not be a huge motivator for all gamers-- to each their own-- but it is to me (and I'm somebody who uses both PS4 and Switch).

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
You have quite an aversion to trying new things that aren't 1st-party games.

Not true. back in the 360 days when everyone was still raving about COD, my xbox live friends i used to play Halo Wars with, encouraged me to try Blacks Ops with them.

i bought the game and it definitely wasn't my favourite game. but i did have fun playing the game with my friends. then i got pissed off because by the end of the month my xbox live friends completely stopped playing Black Ops and had already moved onto the next fad.

i also bought and played both Red Steel games on the Wii. 1 wasn't the best game, but it had a unique charm about it and i had fun playing it.
i got bored and stopped playing Red Steel 2 less than halfway through the story though. Red Steel 2 wasn't a bad game. but i didn't enjoy myself anywhere as much as i did with the first Red Steel.

i also bought Skyrim for myself on Boxing day on the 360 after i kept hearing from everyone how it was the GOTY!!!! back when that game was still actually new.
i played Skyrim for several hours and i didn't like it at all.

i also bought Batman Arkham Asylum and Arkham City on 360. i thought Arkham Asylum was awesome but i thought Arkham city was boring as fuck. i got up to the Penguin before i got fed and up just quit playing Arkham City.

So you tried a few super popular games and were basically done trying new things. The super popular stuff is rarely great games because, you know, they appeal to a wide audience so chances are they won't hit your (or anyone's) ideal notes so-to-speak. It's really weird that you found Arkham City boring when loving Asylum when its gameplay and story are quite a bit better; maybe you just got tied of Arkham combat faster than most. You'll try a game like Mario + Rabbids when that general gameplay has been around forever, it's literally just basic DnD combat much the same as XCOM. Where you should be looking at is the under-the-radar games that aren't supposed to sell millions whether its a developer like Arkane under a AAA publisher of Bethesda or a dev like Larian putting out far better RPGs than any AAA dev. You should be all over rumors of Divinity 2 coming to the Switch, and that game has the basic combat of Mario + Rabbids as it uses basically DnD combat as well. The games that don't need to sell millions can be much more focused experiences just delivering on more of a niche experience and usually more satisfying experience (assuming you're part of that niche) vs a game having something for everyone while not doing really anything great (like say a Rockstar game).

Silvanus:

Phoenixmgs:
1st-party games don't have any inherent better quality outside of graphics, which is the least important factor in the quality of a game.

Uhrm, well, that depends on the first party in question, surely? Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo do have unique benchmarks and characteristics for games they create, quite aside from graphical quality.

For what it's worth, Nintendo's first-party creations tend to be very high quality. This might not be a huge motivator for all gamers-- to each their own-- but it is to me (and I'm somebody who uses both PS4 and Switch).

If a dev only has to make a game for a single system, they can obviously get more out of the system than a game getting ported to other systems. Nintendo plays it very safe with regards to their games, you rarely get something new or fresh. Whereas Sony allows their devs more experimentation, which results is some lower quality games like say Knack but also results in Team ICO games, a Journey, or even Horizon Zero Dawn. You won't get Nintendo making any of those games for example.

Phoenixmgs:
So you tried a few super popular games and were basically done trying new things. The super popular stuff is rarely great games because, you know, they appeal to a wide audience so chances are they won't hit your (or anyone's) ideal notes so-to-speak.

Phoenixmgs:
So Where you should be looking at is the under-the-radar games that aren't supposed to sell millions

That's pretty rich coming from the guy who only just 2 page's ago was being all like "But will Switch get CSGO, GTA Online and RDR2 Online?"

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
So you tried a few super popular games and were basically done trying new things. The super popular stuff is rarely great games because, you know, they appeal to a wide audience so chances are they won't hit your (or anyone's) ideal notes so-to-speak.

Phoenixmgs:
So Where you should be looking at is the under-the-radar games that aren't supposed to sell millions

That's pretty rich coming from the guy who only just 2 page's ago was being all like "But will Switch get CSGO, GTA Online and RDR2 Online?"

I mean, this was the better quote for your argument. Commentary on what games would bring Switch into parity is a a distinct branch from personal recommendations.

Phoenixmgs:

I bet you wouldn't have played them if say EA, Activision, or Ubisoft had published them. You have quite an aversion to trying new things that aren't 1st-party games. 1st-party games don't have any inherent better quality outside of graphics, which is the least important factor in the quality of a game.

"You should look at these big AAA third party guys". "You only looked at big AAA popular titles, you should be looking at indies".

From the indie standpoint, the Switch seems more or less fine. It hasn't magically picked up a huge two year backdated library of titles from before it existed that might be on Xbone or PS4, but stuffs dropping simultaneously on it now in that department. The Focus (game publisher of AA titles, that are usually jacked up to full AAA price, most recently of 'Vampyr' fame) style stuff is the main gap in that department.

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
So you tried a few super popular games and were basically done trying new things. The super popular stuff is rarely great games because, you know, they appeal to a wide audience so chances are they won't hit your (or anyone's) ideal notes so-to-speak.

Phoenixmgs:
So Where you should be looking at is the under-the-radar games that aren't supposed to sell millions

That's pretty rich coming from the guy who only just 2 page's ago was being all like "But will Switch get CSGO, GTA Online and RDR2 Online?"

Just like anything else, games follow the Sturgeon's law of 90% of everything is crap. I want whatever platform I own to get basically everything so I have access to as much of the 10% of good stuff possible. Sure most AAA games suck and they might have the highest % of suckage, but that doesn't mean there ain't good ones I wanna play. Also, if the biggest publishers with the most resources aren't supporting a platform, then I don't have much confidence that the smaller guys with less resources will either. A great way to get a higher user base for your platform so it can support niche titles is getting super popular games.

You have quite the apprehension to try new stuff unless Nintendo's name is on the box. For example, I bet you played Mario + Rabbids but not XCOM.

Seth Carter:
"You should look at these big AAA third party guys". "You only looked at big AAA popular titles, you should be looking at indies".

From the indie standpoint, the Switch seems more or less fine. It hasn't magically picked up a huge two year backdated library of titles from before it existed that might be on Xbone or PS4, but stuffs dropping simultaneously on it now in that department. The Focus (game publisher of AA titles, that are usually jacked up to full AAA price, most recently of 'Vampyr' fame) style stuff is the main gap in that department.

I literally made the following thread about a year back. Just trying a few super popular titles in any medium will probably leave someone disappointed; try watching the top 5 grossing movies or most watched TV shows, most listened to music, most read books, etc. Chances are they probably won't be bad, but they probably won't resonate with you because they are made with greatest appeal in mind. AAA video games and MCU movies are a nice parallel, most will be "fine" but few will be really good. Video games just like any other medium is sifting through the shit to find the good stuff, which you can't do if you don't try new things; or in the case of video games, your system doesn't get near the amount of games as other systems. Just like I said above, if the big boys with massive resources to port games to every platform don't care about your system, I'm not confident the smaller guys with less resources will either. Where's the announcement of Divinity 2 on the Switch? It's coming to PS4 and Xbone in August. Will it come to the Switch? And if it does, how long will one have to wait? I knew Divinity 2 was going to come to PS4 when the game was in early access because why wouldn't it?

Phoenixmgs:

Seth Carter:
"You should look at these big AAA third party guys". "You only looked at big AAA popular titles, you should be looking at indies".

From the indie standpoint, the Switch seems more or less fine. It hasn't magically picked up a huge two year backdated library of titles from before it existed that might be on Xbone or PS4, but stuffs dropping simultaneously on it now in that department. The Focus (game publisher of AA titles, that are usually jacked up to full AAA price, most recently of 'Vampyr' fame) style stuff is the main gap in that department.

I literally made the following thread about a year back. Just trying a few super popular titles in any medium will probably leave someone disappointed; try watching the top 5 grossing movies or most watched TV shows, most listened to music, most read books, etc. Chances are they probably won't be bad, but they probably won't resonate with you because they are made with greatest appeal in mind. AAA video games and MCU movies are a nice parallel, most will be "fine" but few will be really good. Video games just like any other medium is sifting through the shit to find the good stuff, which you can't do if you don't try new things; or in the case of video games, your system doesn't get near the amount of games as other systems. Just like I said above, if the big boys with massive resources to port games to every platform don't care about your system, I'm not confident the smaller guys with less resources will either. Where's the announcement of Divinity 2 on the Switch? It's coming to PS4 and Xbone in August. Will it come to the Switch? And if it does, how long will one have to wait? I knew Divinity 2 was going to come to PS4 when the game was in early access because why wouldn't it?

Mate, you're the one who told Yoshi there to look at, specifically, 3 of the big 4 publishers titles, then started yammering at him that he should've looked at indie titles instead in whatever weird battle of strawmen you two are busy having. I just pulled up the relevant quote rather then the sidetrack he went on there.

As to the rest:

We've already been around this circle somewhere in the last 5 pages where I even found the dev comments for the half dozen titles you listed Re:Switch for you. If you have decline to read both those, and the detailed outline I also posted earlier in the thread of software development cycles, and the acknowledged rapid boot up of the Switch and when its SDK's went live for developer, stop trying to present an argument as to why titles with development cycles from before Switch started up aren't simultaneous releases with consoles that existed 2-3 years prior.

But for funsies.

Whatever your obsessive fanboy crush on it may think (which rivals our local Nintendo fanbois there) Divinity is not some benchmark standard bearer title that represents the course of an entire subset of the games industry (and its coming to Switch anyways (http://www.shacknews.com/article/105073/larian-studios-has-plans-for-divinity-original-sin-2-on-nintendo-switch by the by, if you wanted an update on the first link you didn't read).

Boom.

image

Seth Carter:
Mate, you're the one who told Yoshi there to look at, specifically, 3 of the big 4 publishers titles, then started yammering at him that he should've looked at indie titles instead in whatever weird battle of strawmen you two are busy having. I just pulled up the relevant quote rather then the sidetrack he went on there.

Whatever your obsessive fanboy crush on it may think (which rivals our local Nintendo fanbois there) Divinity is not some benchmark standard bearer title that represents the course of an entire subset of the games industry (and its coming to Switch anyways (http://www.shacknews.com/article/105073/larian-studios-has-plans-for-divinity-original-sin-2-on-nintendo-switch by the by, if you wanted an update on the first link you didn't read).

Yoshi doesn't try many games unless Nintendo's name is on the box, and I very much doubt Yoshi would've played a Xenoblade game if some big 3rd-party or small indie publisher had made it. My point is you should only care about the game itself, ignore everything else.

My point is that there aren't any benchmark standard bearer titles. It's not like if the Switch gets GameXYZ, it's now magically getting support. I want to know what a system CANNOT play, there is no "getting" of games IMO, there is only games that it CANNOT play. I will buy the system that has the lowest amount of games that it CANNOT play. The Switch easily has the largest amount of games that it CANNOT play vs every other platform.

Just like above this, Yoshi posts a game the Switch "got", that's nothing special, that should be normal for any system. The chances of the Switch getting big current E3 game announcements/trailers like Fallout 76, Shadows Die Twice, Cyberpunk, Doom Eternal, DMC5 probably have next to zero chance of releasing for the Switch. It's all in what you don't get.

Phoenixmgs:

Again, my point is that there aren't any benchmark standard bearer titles. It's not like if the Switch gets GameXYZ, it's now magically getting support. I want to know what a system CANNOT play, there is no "getting" of games IMO, there is only games that it CANNOT play. I will buy the system that has the lowest amount of games that it CANNOT play. The Switch easily has the largest amount of games that it CANNOT play vs every other platform.

Ah well, that standard is a bit nebulous. How do we define "CAN NOT PLAY"?

If we're going by strict power benchmarks, then you probably want a Threadripper with a Titan card, an Oculus Rift, a 32 button programmable mouse and some other stuff to meet your end objective.

(I sadly do not possess the current financial status for such a behemoth. So I'm working off a PS4 and a moderate/low gaming laptop. And occasionally play Switch with my nephew while babysitting, though I wouldnt get one myself cause it has the weird joystick layout for mutants).

Whether a developer wants to do whatever tweaks to their game to jam it on a console in the first place (or on a phone which is even goofier) is kind up to them. Taking Red Dead as an example, that games probably been in development for 4 or more years, 2 years prior to Switch Dev kits existing. Its also based in Rockstars own engine, that they'd have to port over and tweak in itself first (where the other two had GTA already, so there's already a version of their engine for them). Stopping to test out a 4th conversion of your entire engine, then trying to also test a game with that new edition of the engine, along with whatever tweaks or optimizations might be required or desired (if they wanted to do gyro conrols or something) all in the last 10-15% of your dev cycle is a good way to delay your game and end up pissing off your audience on the existing platforms.

The only way you could actually "drag and drop" something from Xbone to Switch, or PC to PS4, or PS1 to PS3, or Atari Jaguar to Wii U would be running an emulator layer, which you'd need a copy of the original OS, and systems in the same generation probably aren't powerful enough to run an OS emulator and a game.

Seth Carter:
Ah well, that standard is a bit nebulous. How do we define "CAN NOT PLAY"?

If we're going by strict power benchmarks, then you probably want a Threadripper with a Titan card, an Oculus Rift, a 32 button programmable mouse and some other stuff to meet your end objective.

Just simply make a list of every game releasing, and tell me the games that aren't releasing for said platform. That's it. The Switch's list is going to be by far the longest. That's been my problem with Nintendo systems post-SNES.

Phoenixmgs:

Seth Carter:
Ah well, that standard is a bit nebulous. How do we define "CAN NOT PLAY"?

If we're going by strict power benchmarks, then you probably want a Threadripper with a Titan card, an Oculus Rift, a 32 button programmable mouse and some other stuff to meet your end objective.

Just simply make a list of every game releasing, and tell me the games that aren't releasing for said platform. That's it. The Switch's list is going to be by far the longest. That's been my problem with Nintendo systems post-SNES.

Atari Jaguar, 3dO, Dreamcast, and Ouya are saddened by your denial of their existence. :( (Along with PSP, Game Gears, and Nvidia Shields if we're throwing in the portables (Not 100% on the Vita library))

You have a list of every game releasing that started development after April 2016? That'd be kind of impressive industry research. The only big announcements that come to mind are TES6 (assuming Bethesda were telling the truth when they said they hadn't started it in mid 2017) and Doom Eternal (which would at least hypothetically have to been started after Doom 2016). Cyberpunk 2077 is the singular case where its known development cycle was post-Switch SDK's but has only been announced for PC and as of yesterday (and 5 years after the PC version was confirmed), PS4/Xbone (assuming CDPR weren't BSing about not having done anything on the game between the 2012 announcement and Blood and Wine's release).

Like, you notice it took a year for GTA 5 to come out on the current gens, right? Systems that TakeTwo/Rockstar were 100% on board with the day they were announced, still took an entire year to get their version of the game (or roundabout a year and two thirds if we assume they started making the PS4/Xbone versions the second the console were announced). So if Rockstar was won over to make Switch GTA5 as the system started to prove it had some traction and they weren't going to just flop it in the bin like Wii U around fall last year, they might pop it out for holidays. (Though as Rockstar specifically goes, they've stated all hands on deck for RDR2, so they probably don't have a team lying around to throw at it)

hell there's a few things that have been announced today that probably won't even come out until like 2020 such as Elder Scrolls 6.

Seth Carter:
Atari Jaguar, 3dO, Dreamcast, and Ouya are saddened by your denial of their existence. :( (Along with PSP, Game Gears, and Nvidia Shields if we're throwing in the portables (Not 100% on the Vita library))

You have a list of every game releasing that started development after April 2016? That'd be kind of impressive industry research. The only big announcements that come to mind are TES6 (assuming Bethesda were telling the truth when they said they hadn't started it in mid 2017) and Doom Eternal (which would at least hypothetically have to been started after Doom 2016). Cyberpunk 2077 is the singular case where its known development cycle was post-Switch SDK's but has only been announced for PC and as of yesterday (and 5 years after the PC version was confirmed), PS4/Xbone (assuming CDPR weren't BSing about not having done anything on the game between the 2012 announcement and Blood and Wine's release).

Like, you notice it took a year for GTA 5 to come out on the current gens, right? Systems that TakeTwo/Rockstar were 100% on board with the day they were announced, still took an entire year to get their version of the game (or roundabout a year and two thirds if we assume they started making the PS4/Xbone versions the second the console were announced). So if Rockstar was won over to make Switch GTA5 as the system started to prove it had some traction and they weren't going to just flop it in the bin like Wii U around fall last year, they might pop it out for holidays. (Though as Rockstar specifically goes, they've stated all hands on deck for RDR2, so they probably don't have a team lying around to throw at it)

I'm obviously talking about current systems. The Switch getting more games than the 3D0 is supposed to mean something?

Cyberpunk is most certainly coming to consoles, it may be next-gen consoles depending on when the game comes out. CDPR said Witcher 3 wouldn't have been possible with only a PC release (not enough revenue).

I don't care about reasons or excuses. PC/PS/Xbox get the support just fine whereas Nintendo doesn't, seems like a Nintendo issue to me. Even 1st systems by Sony and Microsoft got more support than Nintendo's system did at the corresponding time.

I know the simple reason why Nintendo during Wii, Wii U, and Switch eras don't get support. It's because their hardware isn't on par with everyone else. Why are you going to take time to downgrade your game for a system that is 99.9% of consumers secondary (at best) system? It's why 3rd-party games have horrible sales on these systems because people will play [insert 3rd-party game] on their main system. People buy Nintendo systems almost exclusively for Nintendo games and that's it. The Switch has the added feature of portability, but are there enough people that will buy the Switch version for portability to merit taking resources to downgrade and port the game? Probably not unless the game is uber popular like Skyrim. Then, the Switch's lifetime will intersect with next-gen and the Switch will be 2 generations behind in hardware getting even less games, probably not even like FIFA at that point.

Phoenixmgs:
That's been my problem with Nintendo systems post-SNES.

Phoenixmgs:
I'm obviously talking about current systems.

Cyberpunk is most certainly coming to consoles, it may be next-gen consoles depending on when the game comes out. CDPR said Witcher 3 wouldn't have been possible with only a PC release (not enough revenue).

It is now. It wasn't when it was announced. Granted, they almost definitely decided before officially announcing it yesterday for the PS4/Xbone (probably the Witcher 3's success on console was the main factor). So a 4 year window with a succesful game launch before they decided to commit to the idea.

I don't care about reasons or excuses. PC/PS/Xbox get the support just fine whereas Nintendo doesn't, seems like a Nintendo issue to me. Even 1st systems by Sony and Microsoft got more support than Nintendo's system did at the corresponding time.

The 1st Sony system was a Nintendo system originally that inherited a lot of Nintendo-CD destined titles. As much as "universal" titles existed in that era (because seven different consoles were all using radically different OSes, controllers and media) N64 still would get the majority of them.

Gamecube was the true flop point. Only agreeing to go halfway with the silly mini-CDs was a dumb idea, and fighting against what was quickly becoming the standard controller on top of that. Xbox popping in also backing those standards against them, and easily disrupting any chance of a 50% market share further pushed third parties from being willing to put up with the arbitrary technology demands. Xbox for whats its worth, also suffered from third party drought, but Microsoft was willing to throw millions of dollars around to play catch up.

I know the simple reason why Nintendo during Wii, Wii U, and Switch eras don't get support. It's because their hardware isn't on par with everyone else. Why are you going to take time to downgrade your game for a system that is 99.9% of consumers secondary (at best) system? It's why 3rd-party games have horrible sales on these systems because people will play [insert 3rd-party game] on their main system. People buy Nintendo systems almost exclusively for Nintendo games and that's it. The Switch has the added feature of portability, but are there enough people that will buy the Switch version for portability to merit taking resources to downgrade and port the game? Probably not unless the game is uber popular like Skyrim. Then, the Switch's lifetime will intersect with next-gen and the Switch will be 2 generations behind in hardware getting even less games, probably not even like FIFA at that point.

I'd say you clearly don't. For one the Wii got turns of support, including wholesale unique versions of games like Assassins Creed made for their system. Arguably weaker versions, but clearly devs were willing to do the work on a proven system. The motion control craze died out and that was when the flow for the Wii stopped.

The complete flop of the Wii U (between the poor marketing that didn't even make it obvious as a new system, the completely unembraced tablet control, then short-stocking on top of that) killed its 3rd party support (which did exist, you can go google lists of cancelled Wii U titles).

Coming out of a downturn into an outright flop will, yes, negate a lot of early life support for a console. So Nintendo's stuck to their own devices putting themselves back in the market (so was Sega post-CD/Saturn/Dreamcast), except Sega has always been kind of spotty, so they crashed and burned. Also they never had the ridiculous boom period with any of those that Nintendo did with Wii).

There's no reason for a concentrated belief that they won't hit parity if they maintain a reasonable profile. Developers (or publishers rather) don't give two shits about "downgrading" a game to hit a proven market or there wouldn't have been a migration of PC titles onto consoles to begin with. They were willing to make that jump when it wasn't even vaguely compatible media or software infrastructure like Ultima on SNES, Red Alert on PS1, or Quake on N64, nevermind now.

Seth Carter:
The 1st Sony system was a Nintendo system originally that inherited a lot of Nintendo-CD destined titles. As much as "universal" titles existed in that era (because seven different consoles were all using radically different OSes, controllers and media) N64 still would get the majority of them.

Gamecube was the true flop point. Only agreeing to go halfway with the silly mini-CDs was a dumb idea, and fighting against what was quickly becoming the standard controller on top of that. Xbox popping in also backing those standards against them, and easily disrupting any chance of a 50% market share further pushed third parties from being willing to put up with the arbitrary technology demands. Xbox for whats its worth, also suffered from third party drought, but Microsoft was willing to throw millions of dollars around to play catch up.

I'd say you clearly don't. For one the Wii got turns of support, including wholesale unique versions of games like Assassins Creed made for their system. Arguably weaker versions, but clearly devs were willing to do the work on a proven system. The motion control craze died out and that was when the flow for the Wii stopped.

The complete flop of the Wii U (between the poor marketing that didn't even make it obvious as a new system, the completely unembraced tablet control, then short-stocking on top of that) killed its 3rd party support (which did exist, you can go google lists of cancelled Wii U titles).

Coming out of a downturn into an outright flop will, yes, negate a lot of early life support for a console. So Nintendo's stuck to their own devices putting themselves back in the market (so was Sega post-CD/Saturn/Dreamcast), except Sega has always been kind of spotty, so they crashed and burned. Also they never had the ridiculous boom period with any of those that Nintendo did with Wii).

There's no reason for a concentrated belief that they won't hit parity if they maintain a reasonable profile. Developers (or publishers rather) don't give two shits about "downgrading" a game to hit a proven market or there wouldn't have been a migration of PC titles onto consoles to begin with. They were willing to make that jump when it wasn't even vaguely compatible media or software infrastructure like Ultima on SNES, Red Alert on PS1, or Quake on N64, nevermind now.

Again, don't give me excuses, the 3 other platforms get the support, Nintendo doesn't plain and simple.

And what AssCreed games aren't on Nintendo systems?

3rd-party devs stopped putting games on PS3/360 pretty damn fast because it just wasn't worth downgrading the games. We all saw what Dragon Age Inquisition, Watch Dogs, Shadow of Mordor looked like on last-gen systems. It's not just lower the resolutions and turn off some graphical options when the hardware is a whole gen behind. Games are developed for the weakest main system in mind and then resolutions and graphical options are upped on the more powerful hardware. For example, Witcher 3 plays the same on console and PC whereas PS3/360 versions of aforementioned games had major changes. And the best support Nintendo has gotten in forever was that one-year span where Wii U came out before PS4/Xbone and it got most 3rd-party games, some even the same day as PS3/360, because it was on the same power level. And, those games still didn't sell on Wii U because people buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games.

Phoenixmgs:
*snip*

I'll leave you to your repetitive argument. You clearly don't read, you clearly no literally nothing about game development either (or how graphics work, you can't "Up the resolution" on anything unless you're on a police procedural TV show).

Your entire contribution to the debate is unsubstantiated and unsourced claims that the Switch can't run some baseline of unspecified games (since you reject any game that negates this fallacy as irrelevant. Even if you brought it up yourself originally). Along with your on/off citation of Nintendo's history as irrelevant, or suddenly relevant, and constant shifting of where you seemingly perceive them to have or haven't had third party support.

All i know is, Dong is coming!

Seth Carter:
I'll leave you to your repetitive argument. You clearly don't read, you clearly no literally nothing about game development either (or how graphics work, you can't "Up the resolution" on anything unless you're on a police procedural TV show).

Your entire contribution to the debate is unsubstantiated and unsourced claims that the Switch can't run some baseline of unspecified games (since you reject any game that negates this fallacy as irrelevant. Even if you brought it up yourself originally). Along with your on/off citation of Nintendo's history as irrelevant, or suddenly relevant, and constant shifting of where you seemingly perceive them to have or haven't had third party support.

Oops, I made one minor mistake as assets are made in the higher resolutions/quality and dropped vs the other way. Even first-party game assets are made at higher quality then dropped as needed. But the rest of the game is made with the weakest main system in mind with regards to world size/density, amount of characters on screen at once, game systems in play and how much real-time computing they require, etc. We all saw what happen at the start of this gen when the early games were downgraded for last-gen systems, yet everything I say is apparently unsubstantiated. Funny how there were features in Shadow of Mordor missing in the PS3/360 versions yet PC's Witcher 3 didn't have any more features/systems over the console releases as the game was developed in mind with what the consoles were capable of vs what the PC is capable of.

Name the last time a Nintendo system got a big 3rd-party game release (a new game, not a remaster or sports game) the same day as other platforms? That would be that sliver of time when the Wii U came out and was on the same power level as the other systems and received games like a Arkham Origins the same day as PS3/360 counterparts. Show me an example of that happening when Nintendo systems were a gen behind in power. Yet my claims of power being unimportant are unsubstantiated...

Do you even expect any of these major 3rd-party games shown at E3 to come to a Nintendo system? Regardless if you can even prove everything else I've said as wrong, which really doesn't matter, the fact is Nintendo systems just won't be getting those games. And the occasional port they may eventually get will be at least a year later or on whatever Nintendo's next system is. It's like the Wii U getting Mass Effect 3 or Watch Dogs or the Switch getting Skyrim or Dark Souls. The point is ever since the Wii, Nintendo systems don't get these games assuming they even do until much later regardless of the actual reasons for it. Am I going to be able to play Shadows Die Twice or Fallout 76 or [insert major 3rd-party title] on the Switch when the game releases? Nope. Will I be able to play them on all the other platforms? Yup.

Phoenixmgs:
Am I going to be able to play Shadows Die Twice or Fallout 76 or [insert major 3rd-party title] on the Switch when the game releases? Nope. Will I be able to play them on all the other platforms? Yup.

Good thing i own a Switch and an Xbox One then instead of owning Xbox One and PS4.

because why own 2 consoles with 90% literally the exact same games?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

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