SpokenTruth said:
But that's a port again. Or some alt version of the real game. I'm looking at you RE: Chronicles games. |
Probably. And look at soundwave answer and it contains most of the reason.
But as I said before most products are released as tests, if they fail they get cut off
| Soundwave said: Unfortunately even if the Switch is a hot seller I think it's problematic for a lot of devs to devote specific resources just to the Switch or to the Switch in cases where it requires heavy resources (ie: trying to hack down a PS4 engine game to run on the Switch). |
Yep, deving for Xbox on most cases doesn't take much besides what is already used on PS4. So unless it's a niche game that will be most japan or Sony paid for exclusivity then X1 get a port. Switch still needs them knowing the cost of porting versus profit to make decision. And people keep pretending there is a dial to scale back without costs and just make a port show up.

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
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







