Chrkeller said:
Given how poorly the Wii U sold, I wouldn't port to the ps4/X1. But I would port to the Switch. I think something like Pikmin 3 could be good for sales. To be clear I wouldn't port Halo 3 or 4. Only Combat Evolved. Outside classic games, I wouldn't port. I mean Crash Team is on the Switch, it isn't hurting ps1 sales. Same with Final Fantasy VII. |
Porting from WiiU also won't hurt sales of WiiU. You made sense before, but now you are doing the same "in this case it isn't like that".
Mr Puggsly said:
Nintendo has bought multiple 3rd party projects on Switch. They did with the Wii U as well. Content doesent appear over night, sometimes it does take years. My "what if" scenarios are not guarantees. People primarily said MS has the money to fund 1st party games and it seems MS agreed so they bought studios. I believe the revenue from supporting PC, Gamepass and maybe other platforms is encouraging MS to fund more software. MS wants to increase their 1st party output and improve on overall quality. I believe the increased revenue expections from supporting hardware beyond Xbox consoles is enouraging this. Not all projects are viable on Xbox alone. So Xbox gamers ARE RECIVING some unique projects thanks to the PC focus also happening. Such as Flight Simulator and the next Age of Empires should be on Xbox as well. |
So you support MS putting Halo, Gears and Forza on PS5 as well right?
curl-6 said:
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. Nope. You put how putting the games on the phones positively affected the Switch and its owners. And also if it doesn't need to benefit the owners then Nintendo should as well port to X1. You still trying to make a one way deal looks good for MS while not for others, while others are also trying to make it great for MS gamers as well.
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. Whatever profit they could make in Switch they would make 3x more on PS4, still you wouldn't promote it. |
curl-6 said:
They only thing they'd need to spend is money to the external porting studio, which would be recouped by sales, so that wouldn't take anything away from their Xbox output at all. And the latter assumes that third party publishers always make smart decisions, which obviously isn't true. Nonetheless, many publishers have ported their old games to Switch and there's zero reason why MS wouldn't also benefit from doing so. |
Yes, the forum goers would all be better CEO of multibillion dollar companies right?
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Is this sarcasm? |
Some people on this thread believe it is true.
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."