By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Bethesda about Switch support and development

Pemalite on 04 November 2018
pokoko said:
They're not going to remaster Fallout 3 and/or New Vegas unless they intend to bring it to all platforms. At least, it would completely shock me if they did and it would shock a lot of fans who are waiting for a remaster of those games on PC, Playstation, and Xbox. There is no reason for them to piss off so many long-time supporters and there is no reason to leave so much money on the table by remastering those games for what would likely be its weakest market.

Beside that, the Gamebryo Engine was a mess even back then, it would be a nightmare to bring forward now. That's not a minor undertaking or something you easily hand off to another company. Bethesda would probably have to do that themselves, which would take them away from other tasks. Even if they have one of their new studios working on it with supervision from the core unit, it would still take a long time.

Gamebryo is based upon NetImmerse anyway... And the Creation Engine is based upon Gamebryo, you would be surprised at the level of inter-compatability between all three engines.

I think however... It would make more sense to port Fallout 3 to the Creation Engine and go from there.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

DélioPT on 04 November 2018

The real question is not why Bethesda is now supporting Nintendo. What matters is, besides the upcoming Doom and WF 3, can the engine(s) for the upcoming Bethesda games allow for scaling the games to Switch? If not, despite their good will, we won't see support for much longer.
In sum, we probably/most likely won't see ES VI, Starfield and Rage 2.



curl-6 on 04 November 2018

It still feels bizarre to live in a world where Bethesda of all companies are the best third party supporter of a Nintendo platform, but since it means I get to play awesome games like Doom 2016 and Wolfenstein II, I sure ain't complaining. Super pumped for Doom Eternal.

Also nice to hear it direct from an actual third party that even if their games don't sell as amazingly as Nintendo's, they can still do well enough that it's a viable investment. Take note Activision/Capcom/etc.



pokoko on 04 November 2018
Pemalite said:

Gamebryo is based upon NetImmerse anyway... And the Creation Engine is based upon Gamebryo, you would be surprised at the level of inter-compatability between all three engines.

I think however... It would make more sense to port Fallout 3 to the Creation Engine and go from there.

I don't have much doubt about them bringing those games forward to the Creation Engine if they ever get the green light.  After Skyrim, that would be the most logical choice for stability and versatility with mods.  It would probably still be a nightmare but at least they have experience with that process.  

DélioPT said:
The real question is not why Bethesda is now supporting Nintendo. What matters is, besides the upcoming Doom and WF 3, can the engine(s) for the upcoming Bethesda games allow for scaling the games to Switch? If not, despite their good will, we won't see support for much longer.
In sum, we probably/most likely won't see ES VI, Starfield and Rage 2.

If Starfield is still using the Creation Engine from Fallout 4 then I think that really hurts the chances of it appearing on the Switch.  Not unless the've greatly enhanced the scaling capabilities well beyond what we've seen with Fallout 4 and 76.

The next Elder Scrolls ... who knows.  It's years away and is likely being made with next generation in mind.  However, people seem to think it will have a new framework, so perhaps it will appear on the successor to the Switch, whatever that might be.



IamAwsome on 04 November 2018
duduspace1 said:
routsounmanman said:
I really appreciate their honesty and attitude towards the platform. And I am still baffled that Bethesda has outdone companies like Capcom, Namco Bandai and Konami on the Switch. I mean what were they thinking?

The difference between early adoption and adopting a Wait and See attitude. Bethesda liked what they saw and put contingencies into the id Tech 6 engine while getting acquainted with Panic Button , the others waited to be sure the Switch would be a hit first. Personally, I wouldn't blame them to much after what happened to the WiiU.

Some companies got burned from the Wii U, but Capcom was not one of them. They had two noteworthy games on Wii U and one of them was a 2-3 year old late Monster Hunter port that they themselves said was a smash hit. If they were really surprised then that explains everything. Konami hasn't released many games at all in the last few years. I'd say Ubisoft, Activision, and Warner Bros. can say they got "burned" more than anybody else can. A lack of support from EA is pretty unprecedented. 



Miyamotoo on 05 November 2018
routsounmanman said:
Miyamotoo said:

Yeah, but like someone already stated, you can't really blame them after what happened to Wii U.

Well of course I cannot "blame" them, per se, as they are free to make their own choices regarding what platforms they develop on. I cannot take the "WiiU disaster" argument seriously though, when platforms that have fared worse or have had a smaller install base (PSVR, Dreamcast come to mind) were supported more heavily. Even the Wii, at its inception, was a far riskier product to invest on, yet they (Japanese companies) were on board at the time, even if not at full force.

Actually if talk about Capcom specifically, they released only few games on Wii U, actualy they currently releasing much more games for Switch than they did for Wii U.

routsounmanman said: 
I really appreciate their honesty and attitude towards the platform. And I am still baffled that Bethesda has outdone companies like Capcom, Namco Bandai and Konami on the Switch. I mean what were they thinking?

Konami generally releasing only few games even for PS4 this gen, so its not point only about Switch support. Namco Bandai is giving solid support to Switch even if dont talk about 100% support.

 

IamAwsome said: 
duduspace1 said: 

The difference between early adoption and adopting a Wait and See attitude. Bethesda liked what they saw and put contingencies into the id Tech 6 engine while getting acquainted with Panic Button , the others waited to be sure the Switch would be a hit first. Personally, I wouldn't blame them to much after what happened to the WiiU.

Some companies got burned from the Wii U, but Capcom was not one of them. They had two noteworthy games on Wii U and one of them was a 2-3 year old late Monster Hunter port that they themselves said was a smash hit. If they were really surprised then that explains everything. Konami hasn't released many games at all in the last few years. I'd say Ubisoft, Activision, and Warner Bros. can say they got "burned" more than anybody else can. A lack of support from EA is pretty unprecedented. 

Agree.



Miyamotoo on 05 November 2018
DélioPT said:
The real question is not why Bethesda is now supporting Nintendo. What matters is, besides the upcoming Doom and WF 3, can the engine(s) for the upcoming Bethesda games allow for scaling the games to Switch? If not, despite their good will, we won't see support for much longer.
In sum, we probably/most likely won't see ES VI, Starfield and Rage 2.

It we talk specifically about ES VI and Starfield, we don't know when those games could come (not before 2020. earliest), maybe they will not come even on current gen at all. Saying that, if they want that ES VI similar like Skyrim and to be available on every platform out there, they will have on mind Switch during development same like they while they were working on Doom 2016, espacily because probably that ES VI engine will be use later for some other games.



routsounmanman on 05 November 2018
Miyamotoo said:
routsounmanman said:

Well of course I cannot "blame" them, per se, as they are free to make their own choices regarding what platforms they develop on. I cannot take the "WiiU disaster" argument seriously though, when platforms that have fared worse or have had a smaller install base (PSVR, Dreamcast come to mind) were supported more heavily. Even the Wii, at its inception, was a far riskier product to invest on, yet they (Japanese companies) were on board at the time, even if not at full force.

Actually if talk about Capcom specifically, they released only few games on Wii U, actualy they currently releasing much more games for Switch than they did for Wii U.

Rom dumps, mostly. Late rom dumps. Late rom dumps with stupid decisions hampering them.

routsounmanman said: 
I really appreciate their honesty and attitude towards the platform. And I am still baffled that Bethesda has outdone companies like Capcom, Namco Bandai and Konami on the Switch. I mean what were they thinking?

Konami generally releasing only few games even for PS4 this gen, so its not point only about Switch support. Namco Bandai is giving solid support to Switch even if dont talk about 100% support.

Sure, but they have a wider portfolio to offer to the Switch, with shorter development, too. 2D Castlevania?

IamAwsome said: 

Some companies got burned from the Wii U, but Capcom was not one of them. They had two noteworthy games on Wii U and one of them was a 2-3 year old late Monster Hunter port that they themselves said was a smash hit. If they were really surprised then that explains everything. Konami hasn't released many games at all in the last few years. I'd say Ubisoft, Activision, and Warner Bros. can say they got "burned" more than anybody else can. A lack of support from EA is pretty unprecedented. 

Agree.


My themeforest portfolio:

http://themeforest.net/user/corethemes/portfolio

AngryLittleAlchemist on 05 November 2018
routsounmanman said:
Mbolibombo said:

I think Bandai Namco has been a good supporter. I wouldnt bundle them with Capcom and Konami at all.

I believe there was only 1 game announced from them in 2018 that wasnt also on the Switch (Jump Force) and that game might be a very likely candidate to make the Switch jump at some time.

There's no reason for games that gravitate heavily towards the Japanese market not be on the Switch (Jump Force, Ni No Kuni 2, etc). They might be better than the worst (Capcom), but they still dropped the ball.

I'm sorry but I do not understand why you are labeling Capcom as a bad supporter of Switch. It is one thing to want more games. It is another to ignore the fact that a publisher is supplying some of the highest selling third party titles on the platform. Capcom's support hasn't been insignificant ... like ... at all. Resident Evil Revelations 1 and 2, Mega Man 11, Monster Hunter, Okami. 

 

I can already see the possible complaints being that they don't port triple A games over but then again neither are 99% of "better" supporters of Switch. Street Fighter V exclusive, Marvel vs Capcom flop, Monster Hunter expansive ... only game that could reasonably be put on Switch is maybe RE7. But considering how butt ugly it is and how much theyd have to downgrade the textures for space let alone hardware yeah ... not even worth it. Plus it's available in Japan.

 

Honestly to say they are worse than Konami is ridiculous ... 



routsounmanman on 05 November 2018
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
routsounmanman said:

There's no reason for games that gravitate heavily towards the Japanese market not be on the Switch (Jump Force, Ni No Kuni 2, etc). They might be better than the worst (Capcom), but they still dropped the ball.

I'm sorry but I do not understand why you are labeling Capcom as a bad supporter of Switch. It is one thing to want more games. It is another to ignore the fact that a publisher is supplying some of the highest selling third party titles on the platform. Capcom's support hasn't been insignificant ... like ... at all. Resident Evil Revelations 1 and 2, Mega Man 11, Monster Hunter, Okami. 

 

I can already see the possible complaints being that they don't port triple A games over but then again neither are 99% of "better" supporters of Switch. Street Fighter V exclusive, Marvel vs Capcom flop, Monster Hunter expansive ... only game that could reasonably be put on Switch is maybe RE7. But considering how butt ugly it is and how much theyd have to downgrade the textures for space let alone hardware yeah ... not even worth it. Plus it's available in Japan.

 

Honestly to say they are worse than Konami is ridiculous ... 

The only new game in the list is Mega Man 11, and they managed to botch it. It's ridiculous seeing an XboxOne physical version of 11 in stores and no Switch version.

Besides, I was talking about Namco Bandai being better than Capcom, not Konami.



My themeforest portfolio:

http://themeforest.net/user/corethemes/portfolio