| 0D0 said: It might've been a business decision. Those companies must believe that Switch will sell well despite of its power. So they might try to put their old games on Switch to have a go. |
I do think the Switch will be a success even if it is underpowered, but I highly doubt it just being simply a business decision considering how adamant developers like Bethesda have been about not supporting Nintendo systems in the past due to hardware power. Same thing with how From Software laughed at the idea of a Wii U version of Dark Souls 2, but are now fine with supporting the Switch apparently. (Though to be fair the Dark Souls 2 thing was more about playerbase than hardware as i'm sure the Wii U could have ran Dark Souls 2)
If the Switch is just going to be another Wii U-like situation of a significantly underpowered system, I don't see any reason for developers that didn't support the Wii U to all of a sudden change their minds and want to support the Switch, since you could also say that supporting the Wii U would be a business decision, arguably the best time to try to be supporting Nintendo, in that it was coming off of the success of the Wii, so a lot of developers wanted to be there at the start just in case it did take off as another Wii-level success but yet you still didn't see developers like Bethesda or From Software there. The Switch is going off of the failure of the huge failure of the Wii U but yet that list shows more third party support than the Wii U essentially had in its whole entire lifespan.
It just doesn't add up or make sense, especially once again when you take into account as well what reporters who have been right in the past such as Emily Rogers and even Nvidia themselves have said about the system and how it's easy to get ports, run ports, and that hardware wouldn't be an issue for third party games.
I guess we'll know in a few weeks though since there's a less than a month now until the January event.
