Quantcast
Microsoft should put Halo on Switch

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft should put Halo on Switch

Chazore said:
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?. 

Because, again, and as Rol just outlined quite well, swapping games would not be an equal exchange given how differently MS and Nintendo operate as businesses and how much more reliant Nintendo is on their IPs.

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.

I own an Xbox and an Xbox 360, and I own Halo 1/2/3/4/Reach on them.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 07 August 2019

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Chazore said:

"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?. 

Because, again, and as Rol just outlined quite well, swapping games would not be an equal exchange given how differently MS and Nintendo operate as businesses and how much more reliant Nintendo is on their IPs.

DonFerrari said:

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.

I own an Xbox and an Xbox 360, and I own Halo 1/2/3/4/Reach on them.

So play it there. I also have them and that doesn't make me wanting those on PS. Should I want Mario Odyssey on PS4 since I have it on Switch?



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

With gamepass coming to switch this would be a no brainer.



Check the link below. (note to Admins: it's not really porn please don't ban me!)

 

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

Because, again, and as Rol just outlined quite well, swapping games would not be an equal exchange given how differently MS and Nintendo operate as businesses and how much more reliant Nintendo is on their IPs.

I own an Xbox and an Xbox 360, and I own Halo 1/2/3/4/Reach on them.

So play it there. I also have them and that doesn't make me wanting those on PS. Should I want Mario Odyssey on PS4 since I have it on Switch?

I have played them there. This isn't about me.

I don't "want" them on Switch, I wouldn't even buy them if they did come, I'm just saying it would be a mutually beneficial move for both parties. You're totally free to want Mario Odyssey on your PS4, but it's almost certainly not going to happen because that wouldn't be a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 08 August 2019

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

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.

MS isn't just in the business of MS gamers (Xbox and Windows) per se.

Here is the flaw in your argument, you think MS gamers lose because MS supports other platforms. Its the opposite, MS would invest more in games if their revenue increased. Risky projects are easier to justify if they can make money elsewhere.

Hypothetically, lets say MS has rejected the idea to make a new Banjo Kazooie because its not financially viable on Xbox. But what if MS hedge their bet by supporting Xbox, PC and Switch? MS gamers would benefit because they would get the game that might not happen otherwise.

Another possibility is maybe MS could get some exclusive content from Nintendo, like Bayonetta 2 and 3. Unlikely, but more likely than an actual Nintendo IP.



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)

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

So play it there. I also have them and that doesn't make me wanting those on PS. Should I want Mario Odyssey on PS4 since I have it on Switch?

I have played them there. This isn't about me.

I don't "want" them on Switch, I wouldn't even buy them if they did come, I'm just saying it would be a mutually beneficial move for both parties. You're totally free to want Mario Odyssey on your PS4, but it's almost certainly not going to happen because that wouldn't be a mutually beneficial arrangement.

But wouldn't benefit in the least MS gamers, just Nintendo gamers, which is what we are claiming and that it makes MS inferiorize its players since it is giving but not receiving.

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

MS isn't just in the business of MS gamers (Xbox and Windows) per se.

Here is the flaw in your argument, you think MS gamers lose because MS supports other platforms. Its the opposite, MS would invest more in games if their revenue increased. Risky projects are easier to justify if they can make money elsewhere.

Hypothetically, lets say MS has rejected the idea to make a new Banjo Kazooie because its not financially viable on Xbox. But what if MS hedge their bet by supporting Xbox, PC and Switch? MS gamers would benefit because they would get the game that might not happen otherwise.

Another possibility is maybe MS could get some exclusive content from Nintendo, like Bayonetta 2 and 3. Unlikely, but more likely than an actual Nintendo IP.

And from what we heard so far they didn't get anything from Nintendo so far. And considering that Nintendo is the least likely platform to buy big games not from Nintendo, them the money benefit that would supposedly make more games to Xbox is just a "what if". We hear year in and year out that MS have money to buy the win on this or next gen, and that Xbox is profiting greatly so not sure why this tidbit money would make all the difference (they already port games to PC for the whole of 8th gen, so no new revenue stream).



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

curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

So play it there. I also have them and that doesn't make me wanting those on PS. Should I want Mario Odyssey on PS4 since I have it on Switch?

I have played them there. This isn't about me.

I don't "want" them on Switch, I wouldn't even buy them if they did come, I'm just saying it would be a mutually beneficial move for both parties. You're totally free to want Mario Odyssey on your PS4, but it's almost certainly not going to happen because that wouldn't be a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Ok, let me see if I understand this: MS investing time, money and manpower to port a game to Switch instead of using those resources to, you know, develop their own games, would be beneficial to them...

And then we look at the best selling games on the Switch and find out the best selling 3rd party game (that doesnt have Mario on it) is not even close to the sales of frigging 1, 2 Switch...

Yeah, that makes sense.



chakkra said:
curl-6 said:

I have played them there. This isn't about me.

I don't "want" them on Switch, I wouldn't even buy them if they did come, I'm just saying it would be a mutually beneficial move for both parties. You're totally free to want Mario Odyssey on your PS4, but it's almost certainly not going to happen because that wouldn't be a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Ok, let me see if I understand this: MS investing time, money and manpower to port a game to Switch instead of using those resources to, you know, develop their own games, would be beneficial to them...

And then we look at the best selling games on the Switch and find out the best selling 3rd party game (that doesnt have Mario on it) is not even close to the sales of frigging 1, 2 Switch...

Yeah, that makes sense.

And don't forget it hugely favors the MS gamers.



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

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

Because, again, and as Rol just outlined quite well, swapping games would not be an equal exchange given how differently MS and Nintendo operate as businesses and how much more reliant Nintendo is on their IPs.

I own an Xbox and an Xbox 360, and I own Halo 1/2/3/4/Reach on them.

So play it there. I also have them and that doesn't make me wanting those on PS. Should I want Mario Odyssey on PS4 since I have it on Switch?

Mario Odyssey came out in 2017 and is still selling well.  Halo Combat Evolved came out in 2001 and is not a seller anymore.  Don't you think the comparison is a bit silly?  

Porting Combat Evolved can't possibly take many resources from MS.  I don't think it will ever happen, but I don't see how porting a classic game is a problem.  When Banjo Kazooie hit the Xbox 360, where N64 fans really upset?  



Chrkeller said:
DonFerrari said:

So play it there. I also have them and that doesn't make me wanting those on PS. Should I want Mario Odyssey on PS4 since I have it on Switch?

Mario Odyssey came out in 2017 and is still selling well.  Halo Combat Evolved came out in 2001 and is not a seller anymore.  Don't you think the comparison is a bit silly?  

Porting Combat Evolved can't possibly take many resources from MS.  I don't think it will ever happen, but I don't see how porting a classic game is a problem.  When Banjo Kazooie hit the Xbox 360, where N64 fans really upset?  

I questioned about porting Mario Galaxy or even older games to Scarlet and he was also against because it would be bad for Nintendo, even though it seems that even porting of Halo Collection would be a fantastic idea for MS and for the owners of X1.



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