Quantcast
Locked: Why does E.A have issue with Nintendo still

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why does E.A have issue with Nintendo still

potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:

What's even more amazing is anyone thinking EA is important to the long term success of any Nintendo platform.

You're right that EA games absolutely do matter and are a very big part of the gaming community but overall they have had very little relevance to the Nintendo fanbase for 30+ years.

Wii U literally launched with 3 of those 4 franchises you listed and went on to be their worst selling console ever, now obviously those games didnt cause it to fail but they certainly didnt help it in any meaningful way.

I've said it dozens of times on these forums, the AAA/mainstream/hardcore western titles you are referring to are a welcome addition but not necessary for Nintendo platforms to succeed.

You could make the argument that Nintendo needed those games 20+ years ago to prevent Playstation/Xbox from gaining such a strong foothold but that type of software is synonymous with those brands at this point.

The likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc do not need Nintendo to make their AAA titles succeed and Nintendo does not need those AAA titles to make their platforms succeed, its really as simple as that.

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm having a hard time seeing beyond my own perspective right now. Thanks for the response.

Hey if you want to shrug it off and think it doesn't matter, that's fine. I was one of those people that loved the PSP and Vita and was hoping for the Switch to fill the gap the Vita left when Sony announced there would be no replacement. For people like me, the Switch is lacking, and Nintendo doesn't seem to give two shits. Most of Nintendo's first party offerings in the years coming doesn't appeal at all to me. And now most of what third parties are offering I've already played years and years ago. I want to be able to play GTA and RDR2 on the go. I want to be able to play Madden and NHL on the go. I want to be able to play a game like Cyberpunk 2077 on the go. I want to have to decide when a new game is announced if I'd rather play it in it's best presentation on my PS4 or if I'm willing to bit the bullet with the Switches performance so I could play it on-the-go. What do I get instead? A port of Grid: Autosport, and a port of Witcher 3, both of which I've played to my hearts content already.

I'd like to think there's tens of millions of people like me out there, but maybe I'm a rare exception.

I'm literally getting Links Awakening in September mostly because I travel a lot, want something new to play, and that's the one that seems like it wont be too bad to kill some time on. I don't think it's gonna be an amazing game. I'm not excited about it, there's just not really anything better. My Switch games purchases are getting more and more and more rare. I'm so glad my Switch was given to me. I'd be pretty annoyed at this point if I dropped $300 on this.

...Well let's not forget that the Vita lost most of its stuff quickly, up to and including Madden. Sadly unlike a Sony machine Nintendo has to 'prove' itself to get anything, and proving yourself with 35 million in about two years isn't enough. 

If you aren't getting Madden, it is because EA can't or won't put Frostbite on the system. Can't would go into the argument that Frostbite is horrible for doing anything but a very select few things (hello Bioware. Also Snowdrop, the Ubisoft engine that makes Division games work, is on Switch with Mario Rabbids and probably Starlink). Won't is EA being....well whatever it is. 

Lazy, spiteful, narrowminded...



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

Around the Network
potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:

What's even more amazing is anyone thinking EA is important to the long term success of any Nintendo platform.

You're right that EA games absolutely do matter and are a very big part of the gaming community but overall they have had very little relevance to the Nintendo fanbase for 30+ years.

Wii U literally launched with 3 of those 4 franchises you listed and went on to be their worst selling console ever, now obviously those games didnt cause it to fail but they certainly didnt help it in any meaningful way.

I've said it dozens of times on these forums, the AAA/mainstream/hardcore western titles you are referring to are a welcome addition but not necessary for Nintendo platforms to succeed.

You could make the argument that Nintendo needed those games 20+ years ago to prevent Playstation/Xbox from gaining such a strong foothold but that type of software is synonymous with those brands at this point.

The likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc do not need Nintendo to make their AAA titles succeed and Nintendo does not need those AAA titles to make their platforms succeed, its really as simple as that.

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm having a hard time seeing beyond my own perspective right now. Thanks for the response.

Hey if you want to shrug it off and think it doesn't matter, that's fine. I was one of those people that loved the PSP and Vita and was hoping for the Switch to fill the gap the Vita left when Sony announced there would be no replacement. For people like me, the Switch is lacking, and Nintendo doesn't seem to give two shits. Most of Nintendo's first party offerings in the years coming doesn't appeal at all to me. And now most of what third parties are offering I've already played years and years ago. I want to be able to play GTA and RDR2 on the go. I want to be able to play Madden and NHL on the go. I want to be able to play a game like Cyberpunk 2077 on the go. I want to have to decide when a new game is announced if I'd rather play it in it's best presentation on my PS4 or if I'm willing to bit the bullet with the Switches performance so I could play it on-the-go. What do I get instead? A port of Grid: Autosport, and a port of Witcher 3, both of which I've played to my hearts content already.

I'd like to think there's tens of millions of people like me out there, but maybe I'm a rare exception.

I'm literally getting Links Awakening in September mostly because I travel a lot, want something new to play, and that's the one that seems like it wont be too bad to kill some time on. I don't think it's gonna be an amazing game. I'm not excited about it, there's just not really anything better. My Switch games purchases are getting more and more and more rare. I'm so glad my Switch was given to me. I'd be pretty annoyed at this point if I dropped $300 on this.

I'm not saying they dont matter, I'm saying they never have been and never will be the deciding factor whether a Nintendo platform succeeds or fails.

But I am a bit confused on how Switch doesnt fill the void for Vita when it comes to the type of games you are referring to.

EA released a few FIFAs, 1 Madden & 1 Need for Speed on Vita vs a few FIFAs, Fe & Unravel 2 on Switch

Ubisoft released an Assassin's Creed spinoff, Rayman, Child of Light, Michael Jackon Experience, Asphault & Lumines on Vita vs Mario+Rabbids, a few Just Dances, Rayman, Starlink, South Park, Child of Light, Assassins Creed III Remaster, Trials and some card/board games on Switch

Warner Bros released Mortal Kombat, Injustice, a Batman Arkham spinoff and a bunch of Lego games on Vita vs Mortal Kombat, Scribblenauts and a bunch of Lego games on Switch

Take-Two released Civilization & Borderlands 2 on Vita vs 3 NBA games, WWE, Civilization, LA Noire & Carnival Games on Switch

Activision released a Call of Duty, Angry Birds, Spongebob & Spider Man on Vita vs Skylanders, Crash, Spyro & Diablo on Switch

CD Project Red released nothing on Vita vs Witcher 3 on Switch

Bethesda released nothing on Vita vs 2 Dooms, 2 Wolfensteins, Skyrim & Fallout Shelter on Switch

I don't really see how there is a void left unfilled by Switch when it comes to western publishers compared to Vita especially once you consider that Switch isnt done getting games.

You also say that Nintendo doesnt care but what exactly is that based on? They clearly do care otherwise they wouldnt be recieving games from the likes of Bethesda, Blizzard or CD Project Red, all of whom have completely ignored Nintendo in the past.

Sure having games like Red Dead and Cyberpunk would be awesome on Switch but is it even possible to port those games over? If they cant be ported than Nintendo has nobody to blame but themselves for not making the hardware powerful enough but at the same time its completely understandable as history has shown that price, size and battery life are very important for devices with portable play.

On the other hand, if the answer is yes those games can be ported over to Switch than I dont see how that's Nintendo's fault for them not coming over. Either the publisher doesnt see it as worthwhile to port over or they are focusing on their existing audience (PS/XB/PC) and planning to port to Switch afterwards like we have seen with many games.

I can totally understand why Switch isnt for everybody and I'm sorry that you're not getting alot of value our of it but at the same time that's true for all platforms, there is no single platform that appeals to everyone.

Overall Switch sales have proven that they do not need the AAA, mainstream western games you are campaigning for, after two years on the market it's still one of the fastest selling systems of all time and has a real shot of crossing 100 million units.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm having a hard time seeing beyond my own perspective right now. Thanks for the response.

Hey if you want to shrug it off and think it doesn't matter, that's fine. I was one of those people that loved the PSP and Vita and was hoping for the Switch to fill the gap the Vita left when Sony announced there would be no replacement. For people like me, the Switch is lacking, and Nintendo doesn't seem to give two shits. Most of Nintendo's first party offerings in the years coming doesn't appeal at all to me. And now most of what third parties are offering I've already played years and years ago. I want to be able to play GTA and RDR2 on the go. I want to be able to play Madden and NHL on the go. I want to be able to play a game like Cyberpunk 2077 on the go. I want to have to decide when a new game is announced if I'd rather play it in it's best presentation on my PS4 or if I'm willing to bit the bullet with the Switches performance so I could play it on-the-go. What do I get instead? A port of Grid: Autosport, and a port of Witcher 3, both of which I've played to my hearts content already.

I'd like to think there's tens of millions of people like me out there, but maybe I'm a rare exception.

I'm literally getting Links Awakening in September mostly because I travel a lot, want something new to play, and that's the one that seems like it wont be too bad to kill some time on. I don't think it's gonna be an amazing game. I'm not excited about it, there's just not really anything better. My Switch games purchases are getting more and more and more rare. I'm so glad my Switch was given to me. I'd be pretty annoyed at this point if I dropped $300 on this.

I'm not saying they dont matter, I'm saying they never have been and never will be the deciding factor whether a Nintendo platform succeeds or fails.

But I am a bit confused on how Switch doesnt fill the void for Vita when it comes to the type of games you are referring to.

EA released a few FIFAs, 1 Madden & 1 Need for Speed on Vita vs a few FIFAs, Fe & Unravel 2 on Switch

Ubisoft released an Assassin's Creed spinoff, Rayman, Child of Light, Michael Jackon Experience, Asphault & Lumines on Vita vs Mario+Rabbids, a few Just Dances, Rayman, Starlink, South Park, Child of Light, Assassins Creed III Remaster, Trials and some card/board games on Switch

Warner Bros released Mortal Kombat, Injustice, a Batman Arkham spinoff and a bunch of Lego games on Vita vs Mortal Kombat, Scribblenauts and a bunch of Lego games on Switch

Take-Two released Civilization & Borderlands 2 on Vita vs 3 NBA games, WWE, Civilization, LA Noire & Carnival Games on Switch

Activision released a Call of Duty, Angry Birds, Spongebob & Spider Man on Vita vs Skylanders, Crash, Spyro & Diablo on Switch

CD Project Red released nothing on Vita vs Witcher 3 on Switch

Bethesda released nothing on Vita vs 2 Dooms, 2 Wolfensteins, Skyrim & Fallout Shelter on Switch

I don't really see how there is a void left unfilled by Switch when it comes to western publishers compared to Vita especially once you consider that Switch isnt done getting games.

You also say that Nintendo doesnt care but what exactly is that based on? They clearly do care otherwise they wouldnt be recieving games from the likes of Bethesda, Blizzard or CD Project Red, all of whom have completely ignored Nintendo in the past.

Sure having games like Red Dead and Cyberpunk would be awesome on Switch but is it even possible to port those games over? If they cant be ported than Nintendo has nobody to blame but themselves for not making the hardware powerful enough but at the same time its completely understandable as history has shown that price, size and battery life are very important for devices with portable play.

On the other hand, if the answer is yes those games can be ported over to Switch than I dont see how that's Nintendo's fault for them not coming over. Either the publisher doesnt see it as worthwhile to port over or they are focusing on their existing audience (PS/XB/PC) and planning to port to Switch afterwards like we have seen with many games.

I can totally understand why Switch isnt for everybody and I'm sorry that you're not getting alot of value our of it but at the same time that's true for all platforms, there is no single platform that appeals to everyone.

Overall Switch sales have proven that they do not need the AAA, mainstream western games you are campaigning for, after two years on the market it's still one of the fastest selling systems of all time and has a real shot of crossing 100 million units.



Okay, first off, I totally agree that EA is not, and will never be the deciding factor on whether a Nintendo platform succeeds. EA is a part of third party support, not the be-all-end all. I'm sorry if I was not more clear on that point. I meant to use them as an indicator of the health of third party support on the Switch.

And yeah, Vita's library wasn't that great, mostly because third parties fucked off pretty quickly when sales were so terrible. The PSP on the otherhand - glory days. For me, to this day, that is the best portable gaming library a portable has ever had, and man, that thing was lacking in so many areas. The vita is such a missed opportunity. Sony blew it, flat out. I sadly spent more time than I should have playing PSP games on my vita. I guess I wasn't really clear on what I meant on that point either.

But to be clear, there is definitely a void there that Vita was supposed to fill, and Nintendo just does not give a shit about trying to fill it. And no, I do not think that three publishers a handful of their games on the Switch is good enough, it's just better than nothing.

And also to be clear - absolutely anything can be ported if you're willing to put the time in and simplify enough things. Witcher 3 is a prime example of that. It is just really fucking difficult and expensive. I remember reading article after article after article about just how easy the Switch was going to have PS4/Xbox One games ported to it. Many people on this very site were convinced that Switch was going to be a prime example of just how far "scaling technologies" have come and getting the latest and greatest games from major third parties on Switch was going to be about as much work as getting a PS4 game to run on Xbox one.

They could not have been more wrong. But what were they wrong about? Development tools, mostly, which is Nintendo's responsibility. There are several things Nintendo could have done to support third parties better and give them the tools they needed to make porting a PS4 game to Switch as easy as possible, and from what I've heard, Nintendo isn't doing anything more than what they were doing during the Switch days. Now, granted, I don't know if Nintendo has any special arrangements with Activsion/Blizzard or Bethesda or CD Project Red, but I don't suspect Nintendo is really any more concerned with what's going on outside Nintendo today than it was a decade ago.

Nintendo can do what Sony and Microsoft do when trying to get games on their platform that developers are on the fence about doing. Partially or totally fund the cost of getting those games on the platform. Nintendo did that with Bayonetta. Why not do that with GTA V or Cyberpunk or Madden? Even if GTA: Online isn't part of the package, that would be a huge win, and make people take notice. Nintendo isn't helpless in this by any stretch of the imagination.

Switch sales have not proven that they do not need AAA. They've proven that they do not need AAA to sell 35M units. We actually do not know if they'll need AAA in order to sell 100M units. I suspect they do much more than people realize. Nintendo spent years pulling resources away from the Wii U and DS and delayed some games to give the Switch a first party year one library that might never be rivaled in terms of major first party titles to give the Switch the best possible start it could, and it worked, and it's sold admirably. Unfortunately, the number of Wii U ports people will buy on Switch has dwindled to almost nothing. Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey are less effective at selling consoles today than they were a year ago, and they're going to become less and less effective as times goes on. It's already apparent Nintendo can't keep up the pace they had, which means as time goes on, third parties become more and more important to sustain sales and keep "Nintendo Switch" fresh across the media and the internet. The Witcher 3 will help with that, but let's hope that's the first of a new wave of tremendous first party support instead of a one-off in a timeline that is filled with indies and shovelware in between Nintendo first party releases.



potato_hamster said:


Many people on this very site were convinced that Switch was going to be a prime example of just how far "scaling technologies" have come and getting the latest and greatest games from major third parties on Switch was going to be about as much work as getting a PS4 game to run on Xbox one. They could not have been more wrong. But what were they wrong about? Development tools, mostly, which is Nintendo's responsibility. There are several things Nintendo could have done to support third parties better and give them the tools they needed to make porting a PS4 game to Switch as easy as possible, and from what I've heard, Nintendo isn't doing anything more than what they were doing during the Switch days. Now, granted, I don't know if Nintendo has any special arrangements with Activsion/Blizzard or Bethesda or CD Project Red, but I don't suspect Nintendo is really any more concerned with what's going on outside Nintendo today than it was a decade ago.

There were just as many people if not more claiming Switch wouldn't get any AAA PS4/Xbone games cos it was "too weak". Those were the ones who were proved wrong. As for Nintendo not caring any more about third parties than they did before, they consulted with several third parties during the Switch's development and actually complied with requests from Capcom and others to increase the system's RAM to 4GB. There are also tons of developer testimonies of how much easier Switch is to work with compared to their past systems.

https://gamerant.com/nintendo-switch-capcom-ram/

https://www.gamesradar.com/au/the-big-story-here-is-how-much-better-it-is-than-nintendos-previous-consoles-what-its-really-like-making-games-for-nintendo-switch/

Panic Button spells it out: ""We have a long history developing for Nintendo hardware, and the Nintendo Switch has far better development tools than previous generations."

Last edited by curl-6 - on 24 June 2019

potato_hamster said:



Okay, first off, I totally agree that EA is not, and will never be the deciding factor on whether a Nintendo platform succeeds. EA is a part of third party support, not the be-all-end all. I'm sorry if I was not more clear on that point. I meant to use them as an indicator of the health of third party support on the Switch.

And yeah, Vita's library wasn't that great, mostly because third parties fucked off pretty quickly when sales were so terrible. The PSP on the otherhand - glory days. For me, to this day, that is the best portable gaming library a portable has ever had, and man, that thing was lacking in so many areas. The vita is such a missed opportunity. Sony blew it, flat out. I sadly spent more time than I should have playing PSP games on my vita. I guess I wasn't really clear on what I meant on that point either.

But to be clear, there is definitely a void there that Vita was supposed to fill, and Nintendo just does not give a shit about trying to fill it. And no, I do not think that three publishers a handful of their games on the Switch is good enough, it's just better than nothing.

And also to be clear - absolutely anything can be ported if you're willing to put the time in and simplify enough things. Witcher 3 is a prime example of that. It is just really fucking difficult and expensive. I remember reading article after article after article about just how easy the Switch was going to have PS4/Xbox One games ported to it. Many people on this very site were convinced that Switch was going to be a prime example of just how far "scaling technologies" have come and getting the latest and greatest games from major third parties on Switch was going to be about as much work as getting a PS4 game to run on Xbox one.

They could not have been more wrong. But what were they wrong about? Development tools, mostly, which is Nintendo's responsibility. There are several things Nintendo could have done to support third parties better and give them the tools they needed to make porting a PS4 game to Switch as easy as possible, and from what I've heard, Nintendo isn't doing anything more than what they were doing during the Switch days. Now, granted, I don't know if Nintendo has any special arrangements with Activsion/Blizzard or Bethesda or CD Project Red, but I don't suspect Nintendo is really any more concerned with what's going on outside Nintendo today than it was a decade ago.

Nintendo can do what Sony and Microsoft do when trying to get games on their platform that developers are on the fence about doing. Partially or totally fund the cost of getting those games on the platform. Nintendo did that with Bayonetta. Why not do that with GTA V or Cyberpunk or Madden? Even if GTA: Online isn't part of the package, that would be a huge win, and make people take notice. Nintendo isn't helpless in this by any stretch of the imagination.

Switch sales have not proven that they do not need AAA. They've proven that they do not need AAA to sell 35M units. We actually do not know if they'll need AAA in order to sell 100M units. I suspect they do much more than people realize. Nintendo spent years pulling resources away from the Wii U and DS and delayed some games to give the Switch a first party year one library that might never be rivaled in terms of major first party titles to give the Switch the best possible start it could, and it worked, and it's sold admirably. Unfortunately, the number of Wii U ports people will buy on Switch has dwindled to almost nothing. Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey are less effective at selling consoles today than they were a year ago, and they're going to become less and less effective as times goes on. It's already apparent Nintendo can't keep up the pace they had, which means as time goes on, third parties become more and more important to sustain sales and keep "Nintendo Switch" fresh across the media and the internet. The Witcher 3 will help with that, but let's hope that's the first of a new wave of tremendous first party support instead of a one-off in a timeline that is filled with indies and shovelware in between Nintendo first party releases.

I agree with you to an extent in your first paragraph about getting as many 3rd parties on board as possible but not necessarily about the type of games. The likes of EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc have all showed up on Nintendo's successful platforms over the years but on none of them were the AAA, mainstream titles the ones that were selling extremely well or pushing hardware sales. It's always been the smaller A/AA or family/casual type titles that have thrived or become breakout hits.

I 100% agree that there is a large potential void left by PSP that Vita failed to attract and Switch has yet to take full advantage of (I think they have partially filled it with games like Skyrim, LA Noire, Mortal Kombat, Doom, Diablo, Witcher, Wolfenstein, etc) but even then it's not like PSP was getting many day and date AAA ports of PS3/360 games in its heyday, it didnt get things like GTA IV, Red Dead, Modern Warfare, mainline Assassins Creed, Fallout 3/New Vegas, Elder Scrolls IV, Batman Arkham, Battlefield, Saints Row, Dead Space, Mass Effect, Borderlands, Bioshock. It typically got spinoffs or built from the ground up versions of the big mainstream franchises which was common for handhelds in the 90s/00s to receive but has significantly reduced over the last decade for various reasons.

PSP didn't receive those AAA 3rd party titles in the mid-late 00s for the exact same reason that Switch is not receiving most AAA titles now.

I'm not sure where you have heard about Nintendo providing poor development tools and not doing anything more than the Wii U days when all reports have been the exact opposite.

Sony nor Microsoft pay to get support from 3rd parties, they pay for things like exclusives, timed-exclusives, marketing rights, etc but they dont pay to get things like Madden, Call of Duty or GTA on the system and Nintendo shouldn't have to either as it sets a precedent that they need to pay to get support. If they pay Activision for Call of Duty 2019 than do they have to pay to get COD 2020 and onward? Does Take Two say well you payed Acti for COD so you need go pay us for GTAV? How long and how many games do they need to pay for before they start getting equal support as PS/XB?

No Switch has absolutely proven that it doesnt need AAA titles to sell well, 35m in a little over 2 years and sales currently up over 25% YoY with the biggest games this year being a 6 year old Mario port and a B/C teir release in Yoshi from Nintendo and a bunch of previous gen ports and indies from 3rd parties.

Sure games like BotW and Odyssey selling power will slow as time goes on but you act as if nothing is around the corner to further push sales. Mario Maker, 2D Zelda, Luigi's Mansion, Pokemon & Animal Crossing are all huge franchises set to release in the next 9 months and Switch has yet to receive any price cuts or revisions so there is zero reason to expect any sort of notable slowdown any time soon. It may not hit 100m but at this point nobody should be expecting anything under 80m.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:


Many people on this very site were convinced that Switch was going to be a prime example of just how far "scaling technologies" have come and getting the latest and greatest games from major third parties on Switch was going to be about as much work as getting a PS4 game to run on Xbox one. They could not have been more wrong. But what were they wrong about? Development tools, mostly, which is Nintendo's responsibility. There are several things Nintendo could have done to support third parties better and give them the tools they needed to make porting a PS4 game to Switch as easy as possible, and from what I've heard, Nintendo isn't doing anything more than what they were doing during the Switch days. Now, granted, I don't know if Nintendo has any special arrangements with Activsion/Blizzard or Bethesda or CD Project Red, but I don't suspect Nintendo is really any more concerned with what's going on outside Nintendo today than it was a decade ago.

There were just as many people if not more claiming Switch wouldn't get any AAA PS4/Xbone games cos it was "too weak". Those were the ones who were proved wrong. As for Nintendo not caring any more about third parties than they did before, they consulted with several third parties during the Switch's development and actually complied with requests from Capcom and others to increase the system's RAM to 4GB. There are also tons of developer testimonies of how much easier Switch is to work with compared to their past systems.

https://gamerant.com/nintendo-switch-capcom-ram/

https://www.gamesradar.com/au/the-big-story-here-is-how-much-better-it-is-than-nintendos-previous-consoles-what-its-really-like-making-games-for-nintendo-switch/

Panic Button spells it out: ""We have a long history developing for Nintendo hardware, and the Nintendo Switch has far better development tools than previous generations."

Nobody has really been proven wrong yet. Everyone was really impressed that Borderlands 2 was being ported to the Vita ...until it was released, and then people realized that it was practically unplayable, and that the Vita realistically couldn't run Borderlands 2 without significant downgrades.. Let's wait until the Witcher 3 is released and we see what the actual cost in features and performance the game has paid to run on Switch before we decide whether or not it got a proper port.

As for Switch developer tools, I spoke with actual developers working on actual Switch games that weren't having their comments posted on video game journalist websites before the console was even released.

Here, let me show you what I mean.

""The tools are integrated with Visual Studio, which is new for this generation of hardware, and being able to write and debug code through VS is an enormous improvement."

So were the Wii's and Wii U's. I personally used them. I don't know what that dev is talking about.



potato_hamster said:
curl-6 said:

There were just as many people if not more claiming Switch wouldn't get any AAA PS4/Xbone games cos it was "too weak". Those were the ones who were proved wrong. As for Nintendo not caring any more about third parties than they did before, they consulted with several third parties during the Switch's development and actually complied with requests from Capcom and others to increase the system's RAM to 4GB. There are also tons of developer testimonies of how much easier Switch is to work with compared to their past systems.

https://gamerant.com/nintendo-switch-capcom-ram/

https://www.gamesradar.com/au/the-big-story-here-is-how-much-better-it-is-than-nintendos-previous-consoles-what-its-really-like-making-games-for-nintendo-switch/

Panic Button spells it out: ""We have a long history developing for Nintendo hardware, and the Nintendo Switch has far better development tools than previous generations."

Nobody has really been proven wrong yet. Everyone was really impressed that Borderlands 2 was being ported to the Vita ...until it was released, and then people realized that it was practically unplayable, and that the Vita realistically couldn't run Borderlands 2 without significant downgrades.. Let's wait until the Witcher 3 is released and we see what the actual cost in features and performance the game has paid to run on Switch before we decide whether or not it got a proper port.

As for Switch developer tools, I spoke with actual developers working on actual Switch games that weren't having their comments posted on video game journalist websites before the console was even released.

Here, let me show you what I mean.

""The tools are integrated with Visual Studio, which is new for this generation of hardware, and being able to write and debug code through VS is an enormous improvement."

So were the Wii's and Wii U's. I personally used them. I don't know what that dev is talking about.

Witcher 3 isn't needed to prove anything, the existence of Doom 2016 on Switch proved the "it can't get ports" crowd wrong nearly two years ago.

And none of what you said discounts the quotes provided from actual devs on record.



EA's biggest problem is simply that it doesn't move very fast as an organization and they try to plan too far in advance. If Switch wasn't part of their plans in March 2017, it's going to be another year or two before we see a corrective shift.

And they could be playing the longer game than that and simply skipping Switch altogether and waiting to see if a successor is warranted for support.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:

Nobody has really been proven wrong yet. Everyone was really impressed that Borderlands 2 was being ported to the Vita ...until it was released, and then people realized that it was practically unplayable, and that the Vita realistically couldn't run Borderlands 2 without significant downgrades.. Let's wait until the Witcher 3 is released and we see what the actual cost in features and performance the game has paid to run on Switch before we decide whether or not it got a proper port.

As for Switch developer tools, I spoke with actual developers working on actual Switch games that weren't having their comments posted on video game journalist websites before the console was even released.

Here, let me show you what I mean.

""The tools are integrated with Visual Studio, which is new for this generation of hardware, and being able to write and debug code through VS is an enormous improvement."

So were the Wii's and Wii U's. I personally used them. I don't know what that dev is talking about.

Witcher 3 isn't needed to prove anything, the existence of Doom 2016 on Switch proved the "it can't get ports" crowd wrong nearly two years ago.

And none of what you said discounts the quotes provided from actual devs on record.

lol ok. Because when people were saying they Switch wouldn't be getting ports, they meant games like Doom and not games like Red Dead Redemption 2, or Fallout 4, or Assassin's Creed Odyssey. They meant the Switch would literally get no PS4/Xbox ports, and therefore any one game is an exception. Of course. All PS4 games are created equal, and the all push the limits of these consoles equally.

My bad.

And hey if you want to believe the PR because it came from a dev, boy ohh boy, you must be thoroughly, thoroughly impressed with how "the power of the cloud" transformed Xbox One games into something the PS4 could only dream of rivaling.

https://www.engadget.com/2014/03/10/titanfall-cloud-explained/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGN4bhfQJyDAjew5_dlfq4IbKJ8GyMzwdHArsjQtL6n49pRh9LTemL3wCeMsGy1ccYHxxt9swahkngLa2di1-xVNF29SwrLG2WZ2CDqdDrSDiySxP4jOsvg2PtehbtngOPg0mrcPC3jfuUq2o-0QVljkgDoEjvUnkZsJai66O1TN

"There are other games like Battlefield that have dedicated servers, but they haven't gone the same direction that we have with them. We have all of this AI and things flying around in the world; that has obviously let us build a different game than we would have if we'd have gone with player-hosted," Shiring says. "Really, the biggest thing with that is that it has uncapped our designers and let them do things that were previously impossible to do."

...



well fuck.



potato_hamster said:
curl-6 said:

Witcher 3 isn't needed to prove anything, the existence of Doom 2016 on Switch proved the "it can't get ports" crowd wrong nearly two years ago.

And none of what you said discounts the quotes provided from actual devs on record.

lol ok. Because when people were saying they Switch wouldn't be getting ports, they meant games like Doom and not games like Red Dead Redemption 2, or Fallout 4, or Assassin's Creed Odyssey. They meant the Switch would literally get no PS4/Xbox ports, and therefore any one game is an exception. Of course. All PS4 games are created equal, and the all push the limits of these consoles equally.

My bad.

And hey if you want to believe the PR because it came from a dev, boy ohh boy, you must be thoroughly, thoroughly impressed with how "the power of the cloud" transformed Xbox One games into something the PS4 could only dream of rivaling.

https://www.engadget.com/2014/03/10/titanfall-cloud-explained/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGN4bhfQJyDAjew5_dlfq4IbKJ8GyMzwdHArsjQtL6n49pRh9LTemL3wCeMsGy1ccYHxxt9swahkngLa2di1-xVNF29SwrLG2WZ2CDqdDrSDiySxP4jOsvg2PtehbtngOPg0mrcPC3jfuUq2o-0QVljkgDoEjvUnkZsJai66O1TN

"There are other games like Battlefield that have dedicated servers, but they haven't gone the same direction that we have with them. We have all of this AI and things flying around in the world; that has obviously let us build a different game than we would have if we'd have gone with player-hosted," Shiring says. "Really, the biggest thing with that is that it has uncapped our designers and let them do things that were previously impossible to do."

...



well fuck.

Yeah sorry, but at this point I don't believe for a second that you actually own a Switch.

Everything you're saying across multiple threads plus your long history of anti-Nintendo sentiment, its clear you're using fake concern as a shield for you to bash the Switch and Nintendo and avoid a moderation.