Third party Switch ports don't necessarily need to sell as much as PS4 to be successful

[DonFerrari]

curl-6 said:

DonFerrari said:

Selling less than on another platform obviously turn it in less successful, but I rarely see it used as argument. It is mostly it sold so low that the port was meaningless, and that isn't selling a little less than PS4 or X1 but considerably less.

And devs aren't dumb. So we pretty much know also that if a port can be made and turn profit they will more likely do than not. So this should also debunk any theory of conspiracy that a port isn't on Switch because devs are dumb or hate Nintendo.

How much it sells versus other platforms ultimately doesn't matter as long as it's profitable. If a game sells 5 million on PS4 and 1 million on Switch, but the Switch port makes money, then it is successful.

And devs/publishers are human, they make mistakes sometimes. Surely you're not suggesting video game developers have never made a bad decision?

I didn't say it matter. But you can't with a straight face say that the success is equal between a version selling 10M and another 1M just because both did profit. You can say both were successful if they had good profit and got their sequence... but if the first didn't sell 10M there would be even a game to port to get the other 1M.

Nope didn't say they don't make bad decision or mistakes. What I said is that they aren't dumb, so when they decide to not make a port or a game is because they analysis had better profits on the decision they took (even if after occuring you can infer that the decision was wrong they didn't just choose thinking it was the worse option). Which is my point, when a port doesn't happen it isn't due to hate for Nintendo or dumbness of devs. Most people in VGC doesn't even administer any company to even have any idea of decision making process involved and just go on platform alliance to spout nosense on multiple conspiracy theories.

curl-6 said:

Train wreck said:

Who says that?  Not to say you are calling attention to something at is basically non existent but that's what it looks like.

"Third party games don't sell on Nintendo" is in my experience a pretty common phrase wheeled out in justification when a game skips over the Switch. 

And here I thought that you already agreed that if a game skip Switch was because it probably wouldn't seel enough to justificate the port (which is covered on "3rd party doesn't sell on Nintendo"), you are just taking offense on a generalization that is more often than not true.

GoOnKid said:

DonFerrari said:

Selling less than on another platform obviously turn it in less successful, but I rarely see it used as argument. It is mostly it sold so low that the port was meaningless, and that isn't selling a little less than PS4 or X1 but considerably less.

And devs aren't dumb. So we pretty much know also that if a port can be made and turn profit they will more likely do than not. So this should also debunk any theory of conspiracy that a port isn't on Switch because devs are dumb or hate Nintendo.

Have you read the story behind the port of the Crash N Sane Trilogy on Switch? It was just one single developer testing out the first level on the Switch hardware out of curiosity. He saw that it worked and it took him very little effort. Then he showed that to his superiors and the port was greenlighted. So what can we learn from this?

We see how Activisions' management never considered this port in the first place. The management never even thought about checking if it was possible at all. They straight up ignored a new rising system which had a strong entry into the market and hosts an audience which is known to enjoy platformers. So how do you call a decision like that? Exactly, it's dumb.

We can learn that if a port is viable and profitable the company will greenlight. So no paranoia of Nintendo hate.

Mnementh said:

DonFerrari said:

Selling less than on another platform obviously turn it in less successful, but I rarely see it used as argument. It is mostly it sold so low that the port was meaningless, and that isn't selling a little less than PS4 or X1 but considerably less.

And devs aren't dumb. So we pretty much know also that if a port can be made and turn profit they will more likely do than not. So this should also debunk any theory of conspiracy that a port isn't on Switch because devs are dumb or hate Nintendo.

That alone isn't enough. A dev has only so much resources and has to decide which projects the resources are used for. A port to Switch can be prioritized low, even if it is profitable (which is most likely for most of the ports).

Also I don't see where you take your assumption Switch sell considerably less than XBox One. I showed here already, that existing multiplats sell about as well on Switch as on Xbox One (17 sell better on Switch, 15 better on XB1): http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8833537

Yep I agree that just "profiting" isn't enough. It need to profit enough to be a good choice against other uses of that invesment (like make DLCs).

Your evidence is on a very small sample of titles choosen to go to Switch because they would do good there. Or do you think if every single game was ported to Switch they would tie in sales with X1?

outlawauron said:

The argument is very rarely based on simple profit/loss.It's more about opportunity cost. If the amount of money to be made is too small, then the time spent would be better served working on a project that'll provide a better ROI. It's very apparent in how companies handle Limited Run Games, they've approached Tecmo Koei and Sega about several projects, guaranteeing at least $300,000 in profit, but that number is too small for them to spend the time on licensing and management. Despite the fact that LRG would handle distribution, promotion, and shipping.

Due to this dynamic, you have studios dedicated to remasters and porting being so prolific. They can handle the job that is near guaranteed to make a little money + build a fanbase on another platform without disrupting the work flow of the main team.

Don't talk about management terms and reasoning.... Everybody would invest 10M to get 100k profit right? Owww but you could invest the same 10M to profit 3M with a DLC... make a simple decision, invest 20M and get both, money is infinite and is easy and risk free to invest in everything =P