Quantcast
Microsoft should put Halo on Switch

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft should put Halo on Switch

Might as well port it to the PS4 too if MS is going down this road.



Around the Network

If Microsoft ports Halo Masterchief collection to Switch Nintendo gotta port one of there older mario's to Xbox Scarlett like, Super mario sunshine. I'm now having second thoughts about Microsoft porting there older games , Also, its not second class citizen until new scarlet games come to switch which is never . Heh halo mcc makes you second class but not the true newer :/ yeah I don't feel second class citizen if halo infinite or gears 5 don't show on switch.



My xbl:dx11332sega

My second Xbl:Segasaturnsan

My psn:Segasaturnsan

My Nintendo Friend Code:1302-4985-4999

My Steam:dx11332sega

My youtube Channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2EeIs1FP89Oz7du7IAEbqg?view_as=subscriber

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think supporting Switch with Halo:MCC wouldn't be seen as a big leap because its old content, maybe it could be seen as a marketing decision to bring people to Xbox somehow. Switch isn't a direct competitor with Xbox like PlayStation is. If anything, Switch is bigger competitor to Playstation given Switch can steal some of their audience especially in Japan.

Halo on Switch would come with Xbox Live software in it and potentially used to encourage users to play more Halo games on Scarlett. It would be profitable and could create more fans for the IP, without helping a direct competitor per se. I personally see it as good move for the IP.

If Switch isn't a big competition to X1/Scarlet the opposite is also true, but OP wouldn't want Nintendo SW going to Scarlet. So you are basically defending MS give away but don't receive back. That is a very clear case of second class citizen or colonial relationship.

curl-6 said:

I think it'd be a win for MS; in the same way as Nintendo putting their IPs on smartphones, not only do they gain revenue, but as Puggsley says, having the older Halos on Switch could be a taster that could peak the interest of some and get them to invest in the new ones on Scarlet.

And it would be the same win for Nintendo to go third party. They would have 100M PS4, 45M X1, 100+M PCs to sell to. And I'm sure you won't accept. As you already tried to caveat that putting old content on Switch would be marvelous to MS, but putting older content from Nintendo on anything besides HH would be unacceptable.

Let me clarify, MS's "receive back" would be revenue from selling MCC on Switch, potentially finding new fans for their IP and encouraging people to play newer Halo games on MS platforms.

Nintendo sells more 1st party software than MS or Sony. But its MS that has been most open to allowing their content on other platforms. MS even said they want xCloud on competing hardware. If Nintendo allowed any content on Xbox I imagine it would probably be some 3rd party exclusive like Bayonetta.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

I think it'd be a win for MS; in the same way as Nintendo putting their IPs on smartphones, not only do they gain revenue, but as Puggsley says, having the older Halos on Switch could be a taster that could peak the interest of some and get them to invest in the new ones on Scarlet.

And it would be the same win for Nintendo to go third party. They would have 100M PS4, 45M X1, 100+M PCs to sell to. And I'm sure you won't accept. As you already tried to caveat that putting old content on Switch would be marvelous to MS, but putting older content from Nintendo on anything besides HH would be unacceptable.

Again though, it's not equivalent, selling gaming hardware is central to Nintendo's business, whereas Microsoft's business wouldn't be disrupted at all by the legacy Halo titles going to Switch.

Chazore said:
curl-6 said:

MS and Nintendo simply aren't the same. Nintendo only does gaming, and their IPs are the central pillar of that. The same simply can't be said of MS. It's apples and oranges.

MS putting some games on Nintendo is good for MS, they earn revenue without suffering ill effects. Nintendo putting their games on other platforms undermines their core business.

Comparing Halo on Switch to Nintendo IPs on Xbox/PS is a false equivalency. 

And yet, you want to take from the other, without giving in return. You try to excuse a one way street to benefit your platform of choice, but not the other. I mean, at least I game on PC and I don't mind games I play on PC going elsewhere. My only one requirement for that, is for the game to be made for PC first, and consoles second, so my version of the game isn't hindered in many ways.

The way a company operates isn't in relation to 1st parties going to other systems, because Sony already dabble in other areas themselves, yet their first parties are on PS now. 

Yeah, good for MS, in a way that supplies another competitor their library, yet once they "die" out, it becomes "oh well, they served us for a time, I'll go back to doing what I've always been doing" kind of gig.

It's not "false equivalency", and don't you dare pull that on me. MS came from PC, the very platform that makes your consoles and all games, and they also had a second market within the console space, just like Nintendo now have their second market in mobile, so no, they aren't radically different, not when both mobile and PC markets are so large, and end up using the same platform to get things done.

It's not a one way street. MS gain revenue from every copy sold on Switch. It's a symbiotic exchange from which both benefit and neither suffers.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 06 August 2019

PotentHerbs said:
Might as well port it to the PS4 too if MS is going down this road.

Getting their services on Playstation is one of Microsofts biggest long term goals, imho. If they want those 2 billion gamers they have to infiltrate the king. Xbox Live has never recorded 100 million users, ever.



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

If Switch isn't a big competition to X1/Scarlet the opposite is also true, but OP wouldn't want Nintendo SW going to Scarlet. So you are basically defending MS give away but don't receive back. That is a very clear case of second class citizen or colonial relationship.

And it would be the same win for Nintendo to go third party. They would have 100M PS4, 45M X1, 100+M PCs to sell to. And I'm sure you won't accept. As you already tried to caveat that putting old content on Switch would be marvelous to MS, but putting older content from Nintendo on anything besides HH would be unacceptable.

Let me clarify, MS's "receive back" would be revenue from selling MCC on Switch, potentially finding new fans for their IP and encouraging people to play newer Halo games on MS platforms.

Nintendo sells more 1st party software than MS or Sony. But its MS that has been most open to allowing their content on other platforms. MS even said they want xCloud on competing hardware. If Nintendo allowed any content on Xbox I imagine it would probably be some 3rd party exclusive like Bayonetta.

Are you MS shareowner? Because we are discussing what MS gamers receive not what MS receives.

PSNow is playable outside of PS HW as well. Which doesn't mean Sony would port Uncharted Collection to Switch.

curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

And it would be the same win for Nintendo to go third party. They would have 100M PS4, 45M X1, 100+M PCs to sell to. And I'm sure you won't accept. As you already tried to caveat that putting old content on Switch would be marvelous to MS, but putting older content from Nintendo on anything besides HH would be unacceptable.

Again though, it's not equivalent, selling gaming hardware is central to Nintendo's business, whereas Microsoft's business wouldn't be disrupted at all by the legacy Halo titles going to Switch.

Chazore said:

And yet, you want to take from the other, without giving in return. You try to excuse a one way street to benefit your platform of choice, but not the other. I mean, at least I game on PC and I don't mind games I play on PC going elsewhere. My only one requirement for that, is for the game to be made for PC first, and consoles second, so my version of the game isn't hindered in many ways.

The way a company operates isn't in relation to 1st parties going to other systems, because Sony already dabble in other areas themselves, yet their first parties are on PS now. 

Yeah, good for MS, in a way that supplies another competitor their library, yet once they "die" out, it becomes "oh well, they served us for a time, I'll go back to doing what I've always been doing" kind of gig.

It's not "false equivalency", and don't you dare pull that on me. MS came from PC, the very platform that makes your consoles and all games, and they also had a second market within the console space, just like Nintendo now have their second market in mobile, so no, they aren't radically different, not when both mobile and PC markets are so large, and end up using the same platform to get things done.

It's not a one way street. MS gain revenue from every copy sold on Switch. It's a symbiotic exchange from which both benefit and neither suffers.

It is an one way street when looking as customer, MS get the money, but the gamer get nothing.

MS was on the business of selling HW until very recently. Nintendo was on the business of HH and console separated until very recently. Core business of Nintendo is selling games not HW, the HW is just a mean. Just like Coca-cola core business was selling beverage not Coca-Cola, one just is the biggest market. So I'm sorry to say your reasoning is just you putting deliberate boundaries to say one is ok and the other aren't even if they are the same thing. Because you want MS titles without buying MS HW, but don't like when people suggest Nintendo become third party so people can get their SW without buying their HW. Nintendo business isn't disrupted by emulators on PC playing current Switch games almost at the same quality, isn't disrupted by putting some of their IPs on phones, but is going to be disrupted because a 10 year old game from Wii got ported to Scarlet (but MS won't be affected when doing it)? Seems like a lot of inconsistency.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Why yes, of course. Just as Nintendo should put all Marios on iOS.



What is this “second class citizen” nonsense LOL. Did Microsoft cancel the Xbone version of something to release it elsewhere? No? We’re talking about ports of smaller older titles to Switch, which barely competes with Xbone anyway? How does that make an Xbox consumer “second class” from Microsoft? They literally already gave us these games years ago.

No logical Xbox fan expects Nintendo to put a game out on Xbox hardware. No logical Xbox fan cares that Cuphead or Luckys Tale or even older Halo potentially goes to Switch.

Look at all the software stuff they’re doing... but their users are second class because they ported Super Luckys Tale to Switch lol.



curl-6 said:

It's not a one way street. MS gain revenue from every copy sold on Switch. It's a symbiotic exchange from which both benefit and neither suffers.

"symbiotic", by giving and not being allowed to take?.

You're only using money here, not games.

Why can you not accept that you're narrow minded in allowing Nintendo to do the same in exchange, since that benefit both companies and gamers alike?. 



                                       

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

Again though, it's not equivalent, selling gaming hardware is central to Nintendo's business, whereas Microsoft's business wouldn't be disrupted at all by the legacy Halo titles going to Switch.

It's not a one way street. MS gain revenue from every copy sold on Switch. It's a symbiotic exchange from which both benefit and neither suffers.

It is an one way street when looking as customer, MS get the money, but the gamer get nothing.

MS was on the business of selling HW until very recently. Nintendo was on the business of HH and console separated until very recently. Core business of Nintendo is selling games not HW, the HW is just a mean. Just like Coca-cola core business was selling beverage not Coca-Cola, one just is the biggest market. So I'm sorry to say your reasoning is just you putting deliberate boundaries to say one is ok and the other aren't even if they are the same thing. Because you want MS titles without buying MS HW, but don't like when people suggest Nintendo become third party so people can get their SW without buying their HW. Nintendo business isn't disrupted by emulators on PC playing current Switch games almost at the same quality, isn't disrupted by putting some of their IPs on phones, but is going to be disrupted because a 10 year old game from Wii got ported to Scarlet (but MS won't be affected when doing it)? Seems like a lot of inconsistency.

Nintendo is an integrated hardware and software developer, so their core business is selling consoles and games. Nintendo's hardware makes new and unique gaming experiences possible, that's why hardware is integral to Nintendo's business.

Microsoft has taken one step after another to move away from Xbox consoles as central part of their gaming strategy, so putting old Halo games on Switch after they've already put their biggest IP on Switch is just another small and logical step to perform. Microsoft has repeatedly stated in public that their gaming business isn't about selling as many Xbox consoles as possible.

There are big fundamental differences between Nintendo and Microsoft, so they aren't similar companies, let alone the same.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club