Bandai Namco preparing three big Switch-exclusive titles that will come In Spring/Summer 2018

[Nautilus]

NoCtiS_NoX said:

Nautilus said:

I am not saying that every single company should port over every single game, but rather they should port over games from franchises that are known to be successful on the Switch.Outside of the whole argument of the Switch being a hybrid, and thus being an attractive product for at the very least the japanese market(wont go over the details here), there are games that are safer to port over than toher, simply because the audience is already there or rather, the audience that that specific device brings over is already conditioned to like those kinds of games.Some examples would be MH, Dragon Ball, RPGs in general such as Ni No Kuni, and games in those lines.

I really found it funny your main arguments now only revolve with MHW and DragonBall fighterZ. XD
Please answer this question, do you believe in some form we will have an announcement for Switch after few months these games releases? I already showed historically it does happen.
Also, I will replaces some of the games because I really felt you are moving the goalpost again. 
SE with Secret of Mana remake. Can you please explain to me why this game is not on NSW aswell?
Atlus with the influx of 3DS announcement lately without the cross platform with Switch?
Pokemon Company why the heck Ultra moon and ultra Sun is not Switch by your logic Switch are already conditioned by this type of games?

As for Ni No kuni I am still under the impression that it is a console exclusive. 

But Im not asking nor expecting to companies in general, even the ones that are close to Nintendo, to simple port over every game.But it would be wise and should be a practice for them to give the level of support that Square and Ubisoft are doing:Making games that know have a higher chance of resonating with the audience and thus, testing if there is a demand there for their games.Such examples are DQ, Just Dance(ugh), DQ Builders, Spelunker and so on.Yes, some of them are older games, but they didnt just bring old games or rather, they are bringing both the old games and the newer entries, like its the case of DQ Builders 1 and 2.Now going back to the Namco/Capcom example, Im not moving any goal posts.Im discounting MH XX and Xenoverse(to a much lesser extent) because both have newer entries that entice the market much more, and both are either a port of a game that is more than one year old or a port of a remaster of an original game.You wont get people interest over only these kinds of games and thus, they wont see success, or that much given the franchises pedigrees at least.And I mean, if Bethesda of all companies manages to bring Doom and Wolfenstein to the Switch under one year since it was on the market(roughly), why Capcom, which probably had more time with the hardware than Bethesda, cant Bring MH World to the system in time?

I will answer you with a question. Why Capcom took it's to support PS4? Why is there no DW 9? Why is there no Secret of Mana?
Why is there no Pokemon Utlra Moon and Ultra Sun? Do you see what I am getting at here?
After MHW release  and give it 6 months do you think Capcom will announce a port of MHW?

MHXX is already a clear indication that they will support Switch with MH in the future. You just want to ignore it because you are blinded with MHW. 

My other problem also lies with the stance many of these companies are taking towards the Switch, or took at the beginning.It makes sense for companies not used to launch games on Nintendo platforms to say that, but japanese companies?That a good chunk of their money comes from handhelds systems?And while yea, the PS4 support in the first year wasnt stellar and all(and I was kinda wrong about Namco, didnt know about the Tales game), it did receive support from the companies that have alot of success usually on Platform systems, such as COD, FIFA, Madden(sports game in general), Assasins Creed(if Im not mistaken).So in another words, it got the support from the games the system is most known to have, is most associated with.The system didnt get the bullshit statements from the companies that are known to be big supporters of Playstation systems.The same didnt happen with the Switch and thats whats mindboggling.

Why are you using western games as an example? Western games are irrelevant on our argument. Are you moving the goalpost again by using western devs? If your argument is about then yes I won't even have a debate with you. Some western devs are just allergic with Nintendo for some reason. 
And since we are talking about Japanese devs. go beyond early days of  3DS. After the success of DS. A lot of devs is still supporting PSP and DS. I will tell for the fact that Capcom supported Nintendo platform more than Playstation platforms.

I dont have a bias.Or at least not in the sense that it impedes me from seeing the situation as it is.I wont say that has happened in the past because I wasnt as active back then as I am now, but its just a stupid stance that companies in general had with the Switch that I didnt see it happening, at least in such a scale, with the PS4 and to a lesser extend to the XOne.

What do you mean stance by this 3rd party devs? Can you site example other than Capcom and BandaiNamco? These 2 are the prime example of not taking any chances regularly. 

response in bold.

For the first bolded:

Stop saying Im moving goalposts.Its getting old and just make you look bad.Im not saying that games that are releasing now cant or wont have ports later.Im saying that by not releasing them early, not only they are dumb because they may lose sales because of this initial momentum that the Switch has and the "few" titles consumers has to choose between(like the gold rush analogy some indie developer talked about), but they also lose the chance to create brand loyalty for said brand since early in that system, since a game they release have more exposure and if its any good, it will turn more heads.PS4 had much less of this wait and see approach, because companies that usually published game on PS, like Activision, EA and so on had their annual franchises in there, or if it didnt have the games ported already, they were announced for it.And dont be so fixated about MHW or Fighters Z.They are just the biggest offenders and are just examples.Ni no Kuni II, Secret of Mana remake are others that should have already been announced for the Switch, because it makes sense.And MH XX is just a poor attempt at support.

For the Second bolded:

Already kinda answered in the first paragraph.You lose potential sales because of the early life of said console, and you hurt the consumer trust on the company.Im not blinded or anything that the support wont come.It obviously will, no company will ignore the success of a system and not capitalize in it.The whole point that you are missing and passing through your head is that I am saying that they are stupid for not taking a small risk of offering some true support early in the Switch lifecycle, instead of taking this wait and see approach.Not releasing a version for the Switch day and date as the others systems is just asking to lose sales and goodwill, that could translate to more sales in other games of the same company(much like what Bethesda is trying to do now with Doom and Wolfenstein).The reason why Pokemon and 3DS games are not ported over to the Switch is because the work required to port over is much greater than getting a game from PS4 that can work on the Switch and bring over.You dont need to rework the graphics, the game is not outdated graphically etc.There is a reason XX did not do extremely well sales wise(outside of the reason of being a port of a port).

For the third bold:

I used western devs for the PS4 because they are the usual suspects to support the system, at least since the PS3, while for Nintendo it has been mostly the japanese developers.PS4 got supported by its usual allies, while Nintendo was not supported by its usual supporters.Hence the comparison.Again, not moving any goalposts.

For the last part:

Your missing the point.Im not angry over companies that dont have a recent title to support Nintendo.After all, you cant support a system if you are not releasing anything in 2017 or close to it.My problem is with companies that had such games, had time to develop a version for the Switch, was a safe bet(as safe as it can get) because it was a game/franchise with an audience on Nintendo platforms, and yet the company choose to ignore such oportunity.