Miyamotoo said:
|
You do realise that it's not the announcement that magically makes the game a port or a multiplatform title, right?
What makes the difference is the start of developemnt - and if it is the same as the other versions or not.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume they actually started developing the Switch version at the same time as PS4/XB1; I won't even question why it's releasing this October, if that were the case.
Let's imagine the game comes out in March. By that time, the game is 4-5 months old.
Now, you can hold on the the fact that it was announced for Switch before October The thing is, when it comes out, the effect is the same (like for every other port): the original versions are already in the market for some time, they are probably less expensive by now and most likely, the bulk of the sales have already been made.
Ignore this if you want. But at the end of the day, it's the same as a port.
"Again, evre AAA game has $60 on launch, it will be cheaper on Switch also later"
This is not relevant.
The dumb down part that you speak of was mostly about graphics.
For example, i played 2 Uncharted games on PS3 and the one on Vita. The difference? Just that the PS3 games were better.
Even if the "experience" isn't 100% AAA console like game, trust me, you had the next best thing. So much, that, if Vita had done better, that argument wouldn't be as strong as you make it to be.
Also, you seem to forget that the portable mode offers an inferior version.
"What is best experience and where you using Switch are totally two totally different things"
It's true. But, it's also true that despite being able to play anywhere, that aspect of Switch didn't really change gamers' tastes - at least, so far.
In other words, despite the hype of being able to take your console like games with you everywhere, at the end of the day, people still prefer to play at home.
If this continues, what you'll hear a few years from now is that Switch had a great concept, but people still prefer the same old ways: playing at home.
"Great concept and huge system seller games from 2017. and marketing will not loose strength, just one year after launch"
You seem to forget that people don't buy marketing, nor do they buy consoles to have them in the box. If the games (both in diversity and heavy hitters) aren't there, people will start losing interest.
Why do you think Sony, despite outselling XB1 by 2:1, still tries to bring the very best games and deals to PS4?
"offcourse that I can assume taht Nintendo will have hevi hiters in 2018"
I can assume that too, but that's not what i said.
I said you can't assume that those unannounced games are coming in 2018. You even used the same examples twice.
"It's actually very hard to top Switch 2017"
Bingo!
That's what i have been saying all this time.
Now, how do you think people will react if Nintendo can't do that?
Losing steam will cause less excitement. That's obvious, i think.
And speaking of these awesome projects coming... remember when Nintendo stopped supporting Wii and DS in their last years and everyone thought that it was because of the upcoming 3DS - and then the Wii U?
Unfortunately, not releasing games was not equal to having an avalanche of games for the next console.
Funny thing is, in it's first 10 months, Wii U had 5 original Nintendo games and Switch had 5 original games, aswell.
"Switch actually can have better and stronger support in second year compared to 3DS or especially Wii U"
Better support? Are you sure?
Zelda, MK, 3D Mario and Splatoon in 2017. What's left to use on Switch in the coming yeas: Pokemon, Animal Crossing, 2D Mario, Smash.
These are system sellers Nintendo has and half of them were used in 10 months.
"Yes, we saw some big names, but only few, others did not wanted even try to bother with very underpowered Wii hardware and Motion controls."
Because they were so rich that they didn't care...
Who cares that the best selling franchise couldn't even sell 2m on the best selling console, right? That clearly wasn't a BIG sign to the other developers...
"Why Switch is geting 3 Bethesda games while they didnt had anuthing similar for Wii"
Maybe because Nintendo finally stepped up their game or even payed for those games? Read this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-09-03-bethesda-the-time-for-convincing-publishers-and-developers-to-support-wii-u-has-long-past
Wii U "had" more support because it was the successor to the Wii and Nintendo promised to go after the core gamer.
Didn't work, but that was the PR speech back then.
"Again its not point about selling 2, 3 or 4m, they could sell even 500k and make profitif porting is not complicated and expensive offocurse."
Miyamotoo, with all due respect, you clearly don't understand how this industry works if you think that developers think the way you do.
"Sales of few games will not detrimen long time support of platform on market that will be very successful"
Yes, Nintendo's consoles were always known to be a thriving market for 3rd parties...
Of course it's going to matter how they sell. 3rd parties aren't supporting Switch out of the goodness of their hearts. Either it's a viable market for them or they won't be there (they have the other consoles that could easily benefit from their resources and make them more money).
