Shaunodon said:
Says who? How many years into the Switch do we have to be, to get rid of this idea that big third party titles play a significant role in Nintendo's success. Switch has been the definitive proof that they don't. Why would Nintendo be desperate to strike a deal with Square to get FFVII on a Switch Pro, have no support for the majority of the Switch player base, when they've already had several exclusive deals with Square that are working great for the system-- Octopath, Bravel Default, Project Triangle etc. You believe it'd be worth them snubbing their noses at the majority of their current owners, just to support the very niche group that's actually hoping for this? I don't think the cost-benefit makes any sense. Not enough for Nintendo to even consider the risk. |
The first bolded statement literally has zero to do with my post. I didn't say anything that could imply I believe in that statement. I gave a hypothetical example to answer the previous posters question. An answer that people, in the know, have already inferred to be reality. You are making a lot of presumptions here. Secondly "striking a deal" implies that Nintendo would paying for this to happen. They would simply be allowing them to target the new specs just like they've have allowed developers to create cloud versions of their games. This goes all the way back to the Japan only cloud version of RE7. Capcom couldn't get the game running acceptably natively and Nintendo let them create a cloud version. Clould games are likely going to playable in only the home environment for most people. They require a stable and fast internet connection. You think these cloud based titles that already exist aren't prohibitive for a significant portion of the userbase. Who's to say that OG Switch wouldn't get the cloud version of this hypothetical game while the revision gets a game that runs natively on the hardware?
