Quantcast
Microsoft should put Halo on Switch

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft should put Halo on Switch

Chrkeller said:
DonFerrari said:

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.  

Understood your point. I would say that in your previous post you were more brief so I didn't got it.

Basically you wouldn't port let's say TLOU to X1 because it releasing in the end of the life of PS3 it could be used to push PS4 sales (and it sold a lot on it), but you would see no issue porting Uncharted 1 that was already old (or any other PS1/PS2 title).

Some of these old titles (and you can see that Halo MCC have pushed sales) still have power to sell consoles (FF VII remake if skip PS4 and go for PS5 will probably contribute to sales), but most are safe... and considering most customers don't know who is the publisher or dev wouldn't even know it was exclusive that would never change platform.

I still wouldn't like the hallmark of the platform holders being ported to one another (if we take Sega as an example, the games that were the trade when they got a platform were all lost with the show in other platforms... the games that are doing well are new IPs) but I can see most not taking issue on it outside of gaming forums. And my main grip is with giving away without receiving. Halo 1 ported and getting Mario 64 or Zelda OOT would have been a much easier deal for me to accept as fair and equivalent.



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

Around the Network

Yep, that is exactly it. Excellent summary of my position.

Edit

Part of me wonders if porting old games is a good idea.  If X1 owners played Ocarina and loved it.  Would their response be go buy a Switch because now they want to play BotW (and hopefully WWHD via a port)?  



Chrkeller said:

Yep, that is exactly it. Excellent summary of my position.

I bet a lot of people would like port of some of the gems on WiiU, let's hope Nintendo put the money out to some good porters, like Sanzaru, and get those games on the platform.



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

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.

You’re playing chess while they are playing checkers. This second class nonsense is born purely out of console war mentality. Tit for tat doesn’t apply here. As an Xbox gamer I don’t need anything from MS allowing Banjo in Smash or Cuphead on Switch. I’ve played Cuphead and Halo already. MS has been doing this for years already with games going to PC. More revenue for Xbox is never a bad thing if you like to use Xbox.



DonFerrari said:
Chrkeller said:

Yep, that is exactly it. Excellent summary of my position.

I bet a lot of people would like port of some of the gems on WiiU, let's hope Nintendo put the money out to some good porters, like Sanzaru, and get those games on the platform.

I am rather stunned at Nintendo with the Switch.  I don't understand why Pikmin 3, Mario 3D World, Wind Waker HD and Twilight HD haven't been ported.  Though to be fair, I am stunned they haven't done Wii HD ports of Metroid Trilogy, Pikmin and Galaxy 1/2.  Frankly, Nintendo baffles me.  I love their games, but their business decisions are odd as ****.



Around the Network
Chrkeller said:
DonFerrari said:

I bet a lot of people would like port of some of the gems on WiiU, let's hope Nintendo put the money out to some good porters, like Sanzaru, and get those games on the platform.

I am rather stunned at Nintendo with the Switch.  I don't understand why Pikmin 3, Mario 3D World, Wind Waker HD and Twilight HD haven't been ported.  Though to be fair, I am stunned they haven't done Wii HD ports of Metroid Trilogy, Pikmin and Galaxy 1/2.  Frankly, Nintendo baffles me.  I love their games, but their business decisions are odd as ****.

Well there is limited resources in the world. Perhaps their strategy have indicated more gain doing different actions.

But if I was on the helm I would have contracted the port of these games to release like one every 2 or 3 months between the major new games.



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

Frankly, if I were at the helm, I would buy Bluepoint. It would be amazing to give Bluepoint freedom to remaster Zelda, Mario World, Link to the Past, Super Metroid, Mario 64, Ocarina, Majora, Pikmin, Luigi's Mansion, Sunshine, Galaxy 1/2, Prime 1-3, and so many more games. I would pay a lot of money for a great remaster of Link to the Past.  Nintendo has the most robust classic game collection, they should be doing so much more with them.



DonFerrari said:

Mr Puggsly said:

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?

I was waiting for that lazy response to come.

I dont believe MS views Switch as a direct competior, Nintendo has even been open to crossplay, Xbox Live and potentially other MS services. Taking all that into consideration, I think older Halo, Gears and maybe even a Forza would be fine on Switch.

Playstation is a more direct competitor, they appeal to similar audiences and they share popular core games. Therefore Switch support makes more sense than PS4 support. But games not considered important to Xbox arguably should be on Playstation. I bet Cuphead would have been on PS4 if they could get Xbox Live on there.



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)

LudicrousSpeed said:
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.

You’re playing chess while they are playing checkers. This second class nonsense is born purely out of console war mentality. Tit for tat doesn’t apply here. As an Xbox gamer I don’t need anything from MS allowing Banjo in Smash or Cuphead on Switch. I’ve played Cuphead and Halo already. MS has been doing this for years already with games going to PC. More revenue for Xbox is never a bad thing if you like to use Xbox.

Yeah, console war people think Xbox users are suffering because other platforms may have access to some MS games. Its incredibly dumb logic.

If I argue thats extra revenue for more software. Then it becomes an argument about ALL MS GAMES being multiplat. Its obvious thought goes into porting decisions made by MS, but when you have an agenda you just pretend to be stupid.



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)

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

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

I was waiting for that lazy response to come.

I dont believe MS views Switch as a direct competior, Nintendo has even been open to crossplay, Xbox Live and potentially other MS services. Taking all that into consideration, I think older Halo, Gears and maybe even a Forza would be fine on Switch.

Playstation is a more direct competitor, they appeal to similar audiences and they share popular core games. Therefore Switch support makes more sense than PS4 support. But games not considered important to Xbox arguably should be on Playstation. I bet Cuphead would have been on PS4 if they could get Xbox Live on there.

We do know why Sony wouldn't put XBL on PS4 and probably won't also for PS5.

Sure PS4 and X1 are direct competitors, still if talking about were they would get more revenue on the games it would be on PS4.

PC would be an even more dire competitor to X1 since people already having a PC when MS games go there have no reason to choose the console version, still that is the first place they gone.

And we are talking about port of older games. So hardly one would expect someone to decide to buy PS4 instead of X1 because Halo 1 launched on PS4 when if they want to play any other Halo they would need to have X1. Most gamers buy consoles to play the most current games and not the older ones. Reason why BC have been of very little impact to the sales of consoles so far, also reason why people buying new consoles will usually buy more recent games than the older ones on that console. Sure all of these points have exception, but as general occuring that is how it goes.



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