Quantcast
Microsoft should put Halo on Switch

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft should put Halo on Switch

Nintendo porting older games would not hurt. Nobody is buying a switch for Mario sunshine.



Around the Network
Chrkeller said:
Nintendo porting older games would not hurt. Nobody is buying a switch for Mario sunshine.

That would at least make the request equivalent.

Also would you like if Nintendo started putting the WiiU games on X1 and/or PS4 without getting a single game from those systems on its own due to the trade?



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:
Chrkeller said:
Nintendo porting older games would not hurt. Nobody is buying a switch for Mario sunshine.

That would at least make the request equivalent.

Also would you like if Nintendo started putting the WiiU games on X1 and/or PS4 without getting a single game from those systems on its own due to the trade?

Given how poorly the Wii U sold, I wouldn't port to the ps4/X1.  But I would port to the Switch.  I think something like Pikmin 3 could be good for sales.  To be clear I wouldn't port Halo 3 or 4.  Only Combat Evolved.  Outside classic games, I wouldn't port.  I mean Crash Team is on the Switch, it isn't hurting ps1 sales.  Same with Final Fantasy VII.



DonFerrari 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.

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:

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).

Nintendo has bought multiple 3rd party projects on Switch. They did with the Wii U as well.

Content doesent appear over night, sometimes it does take years. My "what if" scenarios are not guarantees.

People primarily said MS has the money to fund 1st party games and it seems MS agreed so they bought studios. I believe the revenue from supporting PC, Gamepass and maybe other platforms is encouraging MS to fund more software.

MS wants to increase their 1st party output and improve on overall quality. I believe the increased revenue expections from supporting hardware beyond Xbox consoles is enouraging this.

Not all projects are viable on Xbox alone. So Xbox gamers ARE RECIVING some unique projects thanks to the PC focus also happening. Such as Flight Simulator and the next Age of Empires should be on Xbox as well.



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 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.

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)

Already covered this; not everything a console manufacturer does will  directly benefit a specific part of its consumer base. Nintendo putting Pokemon Go, Mario Run, and Fire Emblem Heroes on phones doesn't directly benefit me as a Switch owner. Xbox gamers wouldn't be losing anything, so there's really no effect on them at all, making this a complete non-issue.

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.

MS wouldn't have to invest much of anything; these kind of projects are almost always outsourced to porting houses. Many third party games on Switch have been commercially successful, basically every popular big game brought to it has been, (sales of 1-2 Switch are completely irrelevant, you don't need to sell that much to be successful) and a game as big as Halo certainly be. It makes perfect sense.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 10 August 2019

Around the Network
curl-6 said:

chakkra said:

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.

MS wouldn't have to invest much of anything; these kind of projects are almost always outsourced to porting houses. Many third party games on Switch have been commercially successful, basically every popular big game brought to it has been, (sales of 1-2 Switch are completely irrelevant, you don't need to sell that much to be successful) and a game as big as Halo certainly be. It makes perfect sense.

Whatever few resources they spend, would be resources they could use on their own games. Games to be sold to an audience that has already proven consume said games.

So, no. It doesn't make one bit of sense. If it did, we would have every single 3rd party publisher out there porting their old games to Switch.



chakkra said:
curl-6 said:

MS wouldn't have to invest much of anything; these kind of projects are almost always outsourced to porting houses. Many third party games on Switch have been commercially successful, basically every popular big game brought to it has been, (sales of 1-2 Switch are completely irrelevant, you don't need to sell that much to be successful) and a game as big as Halo certainly be. It makes perfect sense.

Whatever few resources they spend, would be resources they could use on their own games. Games to be sold to an audience that has already proven consume said games.

So, no. It doesn't make one bit of sense. If it did, we would have every single 3rd party publisher out there porting their old games to Switch.

They only thing they'd need to spend is money to the external porting studio, which would be recouped by sales, so that wouldn't take anything away from their Xbox output at all.

And the latter assumes that third party publishers always make smart decisions, which obviously isn't true. Nonetheless, many publishers have ported their old games to Switch and there's zero reason why MS wouldn't also benefit from doing so.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 10 August 2019

DonFerrari said:
chakkra said:

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.

Is this sarcasm?



Chrkeller said:
DonFerrari said:

That would at least make the request equivalent.

Also would you like if Nintendo started putting the WiiU games on X1 and/or PS4 without getting a single game from those systems on its own due to the trade?

Given how poorly the Wii U sold, I wouldn't port to the ps4/X1.  But I would port to the Switch.  I think something like Pikmin 3 could be good for sales.  To be clear I wouldn't port Halo 3 or 4.  Only Combat Evolved.  Outside classic games, I wouldn't port.  I mean Crash Team is on the Switch, it isn't hurting ps1 sales.  Same with Final Fantasy VII.

Porting from WiiU also won't hurt sales of WiiU. You made sense before, but now you are doing the same "in this case it isn't like that".

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

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).

Nintendo has bought multiple 3rd party projects on Switch. They did with the Wii U as well.

Content doesent appear over night, sometimes it does take years. My "what if" scenarios are not guarantees.

People primarily said MS has the money to fund 1st party games and it seems MS agreed so they bought studios. I believe the revenue from supporting PC, Gamepass and maybe other platforms is encouraging MS to fund more software.

MS wants to increase their 1st party output and improve on overall quality. I believe the increased revenue expections from supporting hardware beyond Xbox consoles is enouraging this.

Not all projects are viable on Xbox alone. So Xbox gamers ARE RECIVING some unique projects thanks to the PC focus also happening. Such as Flight Simulator and the next Age of Empires should be on Xbox as well.

So you support MS putting Halo, Gears and Forza on PS5 as well right?

curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

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)

Already covered this; not everything a console manufacturer does will  directly benefit a specific part of its consumer base. Nintendo putting Pokemon Go, Mario Run, and Fire Emblem Heroes on phones doesn't directly benefit me as a Switch owner. Xbox gamers wouldn't be losing anything, so there's really no effect on them at all, making this a complete non-issue.

Nope. You put how putting the games on the phones positively affected the Switch and its owners. And also if it doesn't need to benefit the owners then Nintendo should as well port to X1. You still trying to make a one way deal looks good for MS while not for others, while others are also trying to make it great for MS gamers as well.

chakkra said:

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.

MS wouldn't have to invest much of anything; these kind of projects are almost always outsourced to porting houses. Many third party games on Switch have been commercially successful, basically every popular big game brought to it has been, (sales of 1-2 Switch are completely irrelevant, you don't need to sell that much to be successful) and a game as big as Halo certainly be. It makes perfect sense.

Whatever profit they could make in Switch they would make 3x more on PS4, still you wouldn't promote it.

curl-6 said:
chakkra said:

Whatever few resources they spend, would be resources they could use on their own games. Games to be sold to an audience that has already proven consume said games.

So, no. It doesn't make one bit of sense. If it did, we would have every single 3rd party publisher out there porting their old games to Switch.

They only thing they'd need to spend is money to the external porting studio, which would be recouped by sales, so that wouldn't take anything away from their Xbox output at all.

And the latter assumes that third party publishers always make smart decisions, which obviously isn't true. Nonetheless, many publishers have ported their old games to Switch and there's zero reason why MS wouldn't also benefit from doing so.

Yes, the forum goers would all be better CEO of multibillion dollar companies right?

S.T.A.G.E. said:
DonFerrari said:

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

Is this sarcasm?

Some people on this thread believe it is true.



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:
Chrkeller said:

Given how poorly the Wii U sold, I wouldn't port to the ps4/X1.  But I would port to the Switch.  I think something like Pikmin 3 could be good for sales.  To be clear I wouldn't port Halo 3 or 4.  Only Combat Evolved.  Outside classic games, I wouldn't port.  I mean Crash Team is on the Switch, it isn't hurting ps1 sales.  Same with Final Fantasy VII.

Porting from WiiU also won't hurt sales of WiiU. You made sense before, but now you are doing the same "in this case it isn't like that".

So you support MS putting Halo, Gears and Forza on PS5 as well right?

No, it still makes sense.  I am saying WWHD, Pikmin 3, TPHD and a few others could boost Switch sales.  Given not many people owned a Wii U.  So I wouldn't port those.  But older titles that wouldn't push Switch sales, might as well port those.  I am holding MS to the same standard.  I think they are safe porting Combat Evolved, but I wouldn't port newer titles.  Just the older ones.  

As for Halo on the ps5, sure.  Why not?  To be clear I mean Halo 1.  I wouldn't port Halo 5 or 6.  Those can still push Xbox Two sales.  

The short version is, system sellers stay exclusive.  Titles that are no longer system sellers, sure port the crap out of them.  Nobody is going to see Mario 64 on the Switch and say "finally, a reason to buy a switch!!"  So **** it, I don't care if Mario 64 goes to everything.