Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Borderlands 3 not likely on switch

bonzobanana said:
dahuman said:

So basically, you are saying storage is not a problem anyways, now your orginal post is moot. and I do smoke weed occasionally, I live in WA lol. I also don't remember when the last time Borderlands wasn't cel-shaded, like we need horse power for that shit lol. Not that I've played one since 2 TBH, lost interest already, Gearbox needs to come up with something new IMO.

It's not like optical where a game can be any size up to the maximum capacity of the disc and you can even add a second disc at low cost if you need to increase storage. Cartridge games will always be under pressure to be smaller because that is always cheaper. Macronix do a huge range of sizes. I'm sure games like bomberman may actually be very small on Switch and Zelda probably represents the maximum capacity for the moment which I think is 16GB capacity although in the past some games were more heavily compressed on cartridge for 3DS than digital downloads because they had to be shoe-horned into a set cartridge size with Nintendo preferring to increase loading times rather than waste space on the cartridge. 3DS games range from 128MB to 4GB in size. In the UK it looks like 8GB or 16GB Nintendo games may have a £60 retail price but sub 8GB games may be at £50. However in the past often the smaller cartridges from third parties had a high price so those could be £60 over here as well. No one is expecting 1-2 switch to be anything other than a  tiny cartridge. So lets not pretend cartridge prices and capacity are not going to be a huge issue for the Switch. Even producing a small simple 128MB game on Switch on cartridge is going to be a lot more expensive than an optical disc containing 25GB or 50GB of content. 

3DS game sizes here;

http://www.3dsdb.com/

oh of course, optical will still be cheaper to produce even though price is a lot lower for solid state storage now, but the cart has it's advantages and that's why I'm going physical with Nintendo this time instead of digital like my other collections.

1.) potentially longer lasting.

2.) no installation required and seek time is good out the box, outside of maybe some patches, it's drop and go.

3.)micro SD slot will only be used for saves and some patches, so you don't have to spend too much on extra storage in the long run.

4.) Amazon Prime pre-order for cheaper prices.

5.) better used game market, harder to get fucked up copies.

6.) easier to store, I'm just gonna dump shit in a box or bag and not have to worry about things getting scratched.

7.) I'm sure there are more but, fuck 1-2 Switch, I'll take it for free for the sake of free shit and still not play it.



Around the Network

This doesn't surprise me.

Nintendo isn't interested in Borderlands 3. They are also not interested in any other third party games that they feel is competition for their own games. Nintendo is not about creating a diverse ecosystem on their platforms, they are about creating an ecosystem where their own games can flourish.

Anyone thinking Nintendo will ever care about third parties at this point is delusional.



Chrizum said:
This doesn't surprise me.

Nintendo isn't interested in Borderlands 3. They are also not interested in any other third party games that they feel is competition for their own games. Nintendo is not about creating a diverse ecosystem on their platforms, they are about creating an ecosystem where their own games can flourish.

Anyone thinking Nintendo will ever care about third parties at this point is delusional.

This is pretty much true.  Sony/Microsoft seek to build a framework where they can make money by providing a platform for third-parties.  Their own effort at first-party gaming is intended to enhance the perception of their platform in the eyes of consumers.  Nintendo seeks to build a platform which will allow them to make money from their first-party games, with the stray third-party effort playing an enhancement role.  It's always been that way, all the way back to the NES era where first-party Nintendo had access to better cartridges and priority in manufacturing (controlled by Nintendo).  

It's a very different philosophy.

Nintendo just isn't going to help third-parties succeed the way Sony and Microsoft do, which makes it a less attractive destination from the start.



The franchise creator and series director left Gearbox last year. Not sure how well that bodes for the quality of upcoming titles in the series. That's on top of that fact most of their games (that they develop) are not all that great anyway.

Also, "we were talking and then we stopped talking" could mean anything.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

I hope to see it soon on PS4



Around the Network

Not all that surprising, but also not a major loss for Nintendo.

The fanbase for these titles is firmly sat where it is right now. Would be nice to join in and grab a slice of that cake, but it's not a necessity for either Nintendo or 2K.



                            

Randy cleared this up in a recent interview -

http://www.glixel.com/interviews/randy-pitchford-on-switch-overwatch-and-being-fearless-w462836

There's more but here's the important part -

Somebody asked me, "Hey, is there any chance of Borderlands coming to the Switch?" and I said "Probably not." I don't remember my exact words, but [I said] we were talking to them, but I think they have other priorities. And it's not a slight, they've got to drive their business. Nintendo tends to be at their best when they're giving us their best experiences with their properties. I think there might be some scenarios where if the Switch becomes a place where there's a huge number of customers, and it doesn't compromise the experience that we're making – there could be a scenario where us or Take-Two and 2K decide to take the effort to make it happen. But we can't really think about that right now. And Nintendo, I think wisely, can't prioritize forcing that to happen. I think they're better off. What it would take for them to guarantee that we exist on the Switch would be better spent by them doing the things they're best at. It wasn't meant as a slight, it's just the reality of priorities.



Chrizum said:
This doesn't surprise me.

Nintendo isn't interested in Borderlands 3. They are also not interested in any other third party games that they feel is competition for their own games. Nintendo is not about creating a diverse ecosystem on their platforms, they are about creating an ecosystem where their own games can flourish.

Anyone thinking Nintendo will ever care about third parties at this point is delusional.

It's not like nintendo's most successful platforms has tremendous 3rd party support /s

What did they call that pokemon killer game? Yokai something? There's no way nintendo would support that game.

Ace attorney? Monster hunter? squenix rpgs? those games aint never reach 1million sales on nintendo platforms.



Sounds like a weird reason. I suppose it's possible, but it can't happen because they can't get into talks with Nintendo? Why not keep trying then, instead of just stopping there?



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

SmileyAja said:
Randy cleared this up in a recent interview -

http://www.glixel.com/interviews/randy-pitchford-on-switch-overwatch-and-being-fearless-w462836

There's more but here's the important part -

Somebody asked me, "Hey, is there any chance of Borderlands coming to the Switch?" and I said "Probably not." I don't remember my exact words, but [I said] we were talking to them, but I think they have other priorities. And it's not a slight, they've got to drive their business. Nintendo tends to be at their best when they're giving us their best experiences with their properties. I think there might be some scenarios where if the Switch becomes a place where there's a huge number of customers, and it doesn't compromise the experience that we're making – there could be a scenario where us or Take-Two and 2K decide to take the effort to make it happen. But we can't really think about that right now. And Nintendo, I think wisely, can't prioritize forcing that to happen. I think they're better off. What it would take for them to guarantee that we exist on the Switch would be better spent by them doing the things they're best at. It wasn't meant as a slight, it's just the reality of priorities.

Essentially, "we'll be there only if the Switch is successful and Nintendo makes us feel wanted".  I personally don't mind if Borderlands never comes and hold no ill will towards them but if they ever decide to push a lazy, late port on the Switch, I doubt it will have any meaningful success.