curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:
There wouldn't be much incentive for a dev to do that if OG Switch users are the majority, which they would be anyway through 2021 most likely.
Even if there are a handful of devs that want to piss off the consumer base by doing that, that's on them, they lose business. More likely what you will see is the same games that would have come out on Switch, come out on Switch. What will be added are PS4/XB1/even PS5/XB2 tier games that simply are impossible to run on the modern Switch, but those devs would be interested in offering versions of some of those games (ie: Kingdom Hearts 3) for some extra sales in the Switch ecosystem.
Long term IMO when people get used to the new setup they will realize they probably like the new setup better ... driving a hardware into the ground until its badly outdated and losing brand momentum is not a positive. It's not even good for business, it was a reality of the hardware model of the past because largely in the past the majority of gamers were kids that had to rely on parents to buy their game hardware for them so you had no choice but to space things out.
But today? We live in the Apple world and consumer expectations are dramatically different, not only is iterative business models OK by consumers, most actually *prefer* that model. They want the company to give them multiple choices and then they choose when they want their next iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Playstation, XBox, Switch, Apple Watch, iPad, whatever. It's up to the consumer to decide.
|
Most devs are generally cheap and lazy and will take the path of least resistance; if that means stronger hardware making development easier than optimizing something properly on the base Switch, they'll do that, and we'll have to suffer for it.
Take a game like Wolfenstein II for example; in its current state it holds a stable 30fps most of the time on Switch, but I'm willing to bet if a stronger model was available it would run at 30fps on that and struggle along at 15-20fps on the base model.
|
Lazy developers also had a tendency to get punished with lower sales. But sure that can happen, there are pros and cons to that approach, but from a business POV, I think there are more pros than cons.
50% of Nintendo's hardware transitions have been failures/dissapointments, you can't bank the entire company on a traditional Switch 2 going swimmingly well. What's your back up plan if it doesn't? The better plan is to not put your company in that position to begin with and change to something that's far less risky of a hardware model. PC has been doing something else for decades and its worked fine there, Apple is making more money than all three console makers with their model.
There are pro-consumer arguments for an Apple/Steam-PC like model too, I think the freedom of being able to upgrade whenever you want and having games available right from day 1 instead of having to wait months/years for the library to build up is a significant pro.
