By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SuperNova on 04 January 2018
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
SuperNova said:

That's not what he's saying. None of the other 'switch-like' devices have seen the runaway success that the Switch has been, because none have had the first party support to back it up until third parties jump on board.

Sure, nintendo has done great work with indies in the last 1,5 years and has tried hard to woo AAA third party publishers, going so far as to hand Ubi their most presious IP to work on to secure an exclusive. And they have done this with some success. While Bethesda is showing great support and Rockstar, UBI and 2K moderate support, some, like EA and Capcom, are sluggish to jump onboard to say the least. A console wihtout the first party strenghth of Nintendo behind to drive sales could not have bridged the gaps in third party support still present. Nintendo was able to rely on their IP ad took risks that payed off in a major way with this system, while still working on improving their third party relationships.

Sure thing... and sure MS or Sony if launching a hybrid wouldn't have 3rd party support right? PS1 and X360 could become runaway success even with little first party content and still managed to get third parties onboard.

What you are saying is basically that Nintendo is the only one who could make Switch successful despite not having good relationship with 3rd parties, while the initial point was that Nintendo is the only company that could have made a hybrid console which then changed to be the only one that could make it sucessful and now the first one to make it or the only one that could do it only with 1st party... you are changing the goalpost as much as SpokenTruth is accusting quickrick of.

Well, it's not neccessaryly my point, even though I agree with it, but Rols in the first place. That being said, again, that's not what I'm saying. Not sure why you're bringing up 360 and Ps3 either, as those two are about as traditional as homeconsoles get. There was never a reason for third parties not to jump on board.

The whole point is that third parties would be sceptical with jumping on board of a hybrid console no matter who brought it to market.

So yes, if Sony had announced the Ps4 with Switch specs (already unrealistic since the chip wasn't even out yet, but bear with me) as a hybrid and brought it market in 2013, with no traditional homeconsole in sight, third parties absolutely would have been highly sceptical. Especially if Sonys two competitors came to market with largely traditional and vastly more powerful consoles. It's even worse if you reverse the situation to MS, who don't even have any experience in the Handheld market at all. 

Sony has a lot of goodwill from third parties, while Nintendo has a damaged relationship with a lot of them, but my point was that the individual companies standing with third parties is laregly incedental to the third parties being sceptical of new concepts.

Nintendo has a history of know-how and success in the handheld space, aiding that aspect of development greatly, and has the IP and money to survive without full third party support, wich neiter MS nor Sony do.

It was never 'nintendo are the only ones who could make a Hybrid console', it was 'nintendo are the only ones who could make a hybrid console work'. BIg diffrence.

If you think sony could have pulled it off, fair enough. I personally have my doubts seeing the less than stellar support the vita recieved and MS would straight up have not survived trying the hybrid concept, they don't have the neccessary hardware expertise or IPs.