DonFerrari said:
But wouldn't benefit in the least MS gamers, just Nintendo gamers, which is what we are claiming and that it makes MS inferiorize its players since it is giving but not receiving. And from what we heard so far they didn't get anything from Nintendo so far. And considering that Nintendo is the least likely platform to buy big games not from Nintendo, them the money benefit that would supposedly make more games to Xbox is just a "what if". We hear year in and year out that MS have money to buy the win on this or next gen, and that Xbox is profiting greatly so not sure why this tidbit money would make all the difference (they already port games to PC for the whole of 8th gen, so no new revenue stream) |
Already covered this; not everything a console manufacturer does will directly benefit a specific part of its consumer base. Nintendo putting Pokemon Go, Mario Run, and Fire Emblem Heroes on phones doesn't directly benefit me as a Switch owner. Xbox gamers wouldn't be losing anything, so there's really no effect on them at all, making this a complete non-issue.
chakkra said:
Ok, let me see if I understand this: MS investing time, money and manpower to port a game to Switch instead of using those resources to, you know, develop their own games, would be beneficial to them... And then we look at the best selling games on the Switch and find out the best selling 3rd party game (that doesnt have Mario on it) is not even close to the sales of frigging 1, 2 Switch... Yeah, that makes sense. |
MS wouldn't have to invest much of anything; these kind of projects are almost always outsourced to porting houses. Many third party games on Switch have been commercially successful, basically every popular big game brought to it has been, (sales of 1-2 Switch are completely irrelevant, you don't need to sell that much to be successful) and a game as big as Halo certainly be. It makes perfect sense.
Last edited by curl-6 - on 10 August 2019
