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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Take a video game company you think is failing and steer them in the right direction.

OTBWY on 25 June 2019

Capcom, release physical versions in Europe as anywhere else.



Jigsawx1 on 25 June 2019
curl-6 said:
Jigsawx1 said:

it doesnt have to be as  powerful as a ps or xbox but it should be strong enough to get a good 3rd party support. The Switch would not be a worse console if it would have Battlefield, The division and a cod . I mean some rounds battlefield on a couch with a handhelp switch  would be a reason to buy it for me.

Switch is powerful enough to get third party support,

Yeah indies and low-level enginges like doom or wolfenstein



Jigsawx1 on 25 June 2019
curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:

The DS could run COD if Activision was willing to put the time and effort into distilling that game down into something that can be played on a DS. The point is the amount of effort that takes, and it just not being worth that effort.

Let's put it this way. If it costs significantly more to port a PS4 game to Switch than it does to port it to Xbox one, while at the same time expecting significantly less sales, it becomes very difficult to justify that effort. If a port requires minimal effort than the sales that port needs to have to justify it is much smaller. This is where Nintendo missed the mark.

Porting COD to Switch is much less investment than porting COD from PS3/360 to Wii, yet that was done several times and was profitable.

More demanding games than COD have been ported, so the failure squarely lies with Activision.

source? i think you are very wrong in this, my opionion is that they need a hardware which is max -10% then the next lowest hardware to get the ports from technical stand of view and the next point would be that they need good hardware sales (which they have) to get out small sales from ported games like bf, cod or whatever.

if it would be profitable and possible every publisher would port every game to switch.



Pemalite on 25 June 2019

Just a thread warning.
We are all for a constructive discussion, but it seems things might be getting a little aggressive? Just cool it down a notch if you can, don't try and make anything personal.



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

curl-6 on 25 June 2019
Jigsawx1 said:
curl-6 said:

Switch is powerful enough to get third party support,

Yeah indies and low-level enginges like doom or wolfenstein

Id Tech 6 is not a low level engine, its a modern engine built for PS4/Xbone/modern PCs. Then there's Hellblade, a graphically intensive UE4 game that is 30fps even on PS4, and soon Witcher 3, a demanding open world PS4/Xbone game. 

Jigsawx1 said:
curl-6 said:

Porting COD to Switch is much less investment than porting COD from PS3/360 to Wii, yet that was done several times and was profitable.

More demanding games than COD have been ported, so the failure squarely lies with Activision.

source? i think you are very wrong in this, my opionion is that they need a hardware which is max -10% then the next lowest hardware to get the ports from technical stand of view and the next point would be that they need good hardware sales (which they have) to get out small sales from ported games like bf, cod or whatever.

if it would be profitable and possible every publisher would port every game to switch.

Wii was more removed from PS3/360 than Switch is from PS4/Xbone in both power and technology, yet the Wii got 5 COD ports.

And a third party deciding not to try doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Sometimes third parties simply fail to grasp an opportunity.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 25 June 2019

sethnintendo on 26 June 2019
Mnementh said:
sethnintendo said:
Atari - whatever company that controls you now just stop. Your system will sell less than the Ouya.

Current owner of the Atari trademark is actually a classic game company named Infogrames. I saw this logo in quite some games back in the day:

Yea I think I remember that logo or company.  Just kind of gets to me...  One would think it would be Infogames.  It is like whoever thought of name for company was suffering from dyslexia or infogames was already taken.



HoloDust on 26 June 2019
sethnintendo said:
Mnementh said:

Current owner of the Atari trademark is actually a classic game company named Infogrames. I saw this logo in quite some games back in the day:

Yea I think I remember that logo or company.  Just kind of gets to me...  One would think it would be Infogames.  It is like whoever thought of name for company was suffering from dyslexia or infogames was already taken.

"The founders wanted to christen the company Zboub Système (which can be approximately translated to Dick System in English), but were dissuaded by their legal counsel.[3] According to Bonnell in a TV interview, they then used a mix-and-match computer program to suggest other names, one of which was "Infogramme": a portmanteau of the French words "informatique" (information technology) and "programme" (a computer program). The final choice, "Infogrames", was a slightly modified version of that suggestion."

I remember them mostly from C64 and Amiga days, though they'we published few games on PC that I've enjoyed quite a bit.



potato_hamster on 26 June 2019
sethnintendo said:
Mnementh said:

Current owner of the Atari trademark is actually a classic game company named Infogrames. I saw this logo in quite some games back in the day:

Yea I think I remember that logo or company.  Just kind of gets to me...  One would think it would be Infogames.  It is like whoever thought of name for company was suffering from dyslexia or infogames was already taken.

Thesze guys were involved in Driver 1 and Driver 2. Fond Memories.