By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MajorMalfunction said:
DonFerrari said:

Makes no sense... a game not going to switch because of technical reason is valid justification, but then to make a game that could go to all go just to Switch to "compensate" is silly.

Yeah, no one in the industry owes Nintendo fans (or anyone else for that matter) anything. It's business. If they want your money, they'll get it by making games you want to buy. If they decide for any reason that it's not going to work, they should explain it for sure, but they still don't owe you anything. Making games to "compensate" is very silly and not at all a thing that a profit-oriented business should or would do. 

And of course if they think a game that could be done for Switch will be profitable being launched only on Switch and decide to not make it for PS4/X1/PC that is totally fine. Seems like they though Octopath would make more money being exclusive to Switch.

But for some reason Sony paid to Capcom to not launch MHW on Switch, and funny enough that money shall being used to make an exclusive MH for Switch. These crazy theories of VGC.



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."