I don't think so. They would need to make their games bigger and put more money into them. We would most likely just get their big titles like Mario, Zelda, Pokémon, Smash Bros etc. Their "smaller" titles would probably just get mobile versions like Metroid, Kirby, Donkey Kong, Fire Emblem etc.
| OdinHades said: If I had a dollar for every time I heard something like that in the last 10 years.... I don't think Nintendo does even consider such a move. Either they will continue to make money with their own consoles or they will look for a completely new market and just quit gaming as we know it altogether. Nintendo games will never come to PlayStation or Xbox, deal with it. |
Interesting concept. Tell me, what does Nintendo have that other failed companies don't that makes them immune in the time of bankruptcy? Anything? Seriously, Nintendo have stockholders, and if times are bad enough, they will consider anything. That INCLUDES becoming a 3rd party developer. Nintendo's IP assets are worth a lot, and no stockholder is going to just sit on them and let them die.
You can't change it, so I'm afraid you're the one who has to "deal with it".
If you like Nintendo as much as I do, you'll understand that this argument is in favour of them having to make a decision with no money left in the bank, in an act of force. Sorry you can't see things the same way.
| asqarkabab said: then good night because this will never happen |
Nintendo's cash reserves aren't limited. Do you agree?
| Ck1x said: I wish someone could tell me where this sense of entitlement comes from... Because something doesn't fit an agenda it should cease to exist in its normal state, really! Guess what nothing currently has enticed me to buy a PS4, but I don't hope and wish for Sony to go 3rd party to play Uncharted... It just means that what's available on their system currently doesn't interest me but that could change in the future. So in Nintendo's case if people find the price of entry for the Switch to steep then it's just not that compelling enough of a device for you. Why should they go 3rd party because of that? I bet there are many people here making very similar comments as the OP and they themselves rushed out willingly to buy the PSVR and or Vita at launch with no sweat. Those people should be the first to get out of threads like these because it's hypocritical to even have an opinion on this. Reason why I say this is because asking for a company to go 3rd party is just a passive/agressive way to say that you really like their games but just don't want to buy their hardware for some reason. But if any person in this thread went out and purchased those other 2 Sony systems I mentioned, then you have no problem putting down cash on something that will and has been poorly supported with software from the manufacturer. Many early fears existed that the Switch might be some overpriced toy from Nintendo again, but everyone that has laid their hands on this device just rave about how high quality it really is. So the real question is do people think this device is to expensive because it has Nintendo's name attached to it? Or would we be seeing very different responses if it were a Sony, Apple or Samsung product?... |
I hope you're not implying that I spent any money on those systems, because that would be a swing and a miss. I did however buy a WiiU at launch. Guess how I feel about that? Do you understand why now that I don't particularly like the direction that they take their hardware?
My reasoning is this. There is much more capable hardware and much larger userbases in the home console market. These use x64 architecture, the most widely suppored architecture. So why not utilize it? Why be stubborn?
I honestly believe that Nintendo believe they can become the next Apple. I personally don't think that the strategy will work.
| Mr Puggsly said: If the Switch doesn't work out, they will probably go 3rd party. But I'm glad Nintendo is putting its focus on one device, versus a portable and handheld. If you think its too expensive, wait for price cuts and a bundled game. |
I mentioned why price cuts will be really hard to do without Nintendo cutting functionality fromt he system. Bundled game....that could definitely be an idea!
fordy said:
And this is the number one problem I have with these people. This is EXACTLY why Nintendo slips further and further behind in the hardware department, because of attitudes like "It's good enough". When is catering for a TV standard that's OVER 10 YEARS OLD still deemed "good enough"? Heck, it can't even REACH those levels, and it's a damn port! Imagine if it was the full thing, developed on the Switch? We'd be seeing what? 720p? 640p? How much constitutes "good enough" to give Nintendo a pass, hm? To be fair, yes. A lot of people do have gigantic TVs, in 4K...and the figure is only rising. Sony and Microsoft saw this, and knew they were screwed, hence the PS4 Pro and Scorpio. What's Nintendo's excuse? They didn't see it coming? Seriously, they're shunning perfectly capable hardware because of people giving them passes like "it's good enough". NO IT'S NOT! IT'S A LAUNCH TITLE THAT CAN'T DO 1080P! Uh, excuse me? You do realise the Switch is connected via USB type C to the dock, and the dock via HDMI right? Look up laptops with wireless docking stations. As I said, the concept isn't new. In fact, many have already surpassed it. My laptop docks with no cords, thank you very much. People will care, but are they willing to pay an inflated cost, reduced power and potential loss of 3rd party AAA titles for the privilege of it? Be honest. you might think the tech is the bees knees, but that's not the average consumer base's sentiments. Stop right there....did you admit that the Vita failed because of lack of PORTABLE FRANCHISES? Then....WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK A HYBRID SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE THE ANSWER FOR NINTENDO?! You just destroyed your own argument right there! Right there! The average consumer doesn't get moist over playing home console games on the go. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. The majority work or learn. The majority drive. The majority spend their free time either at home, or somewhere where a portable system is not viable. The majority have a house mortgage and are VERY SUSCEPTIBLE TO ONLY BUYING ONE CONSOLE. It sure as hell isn't going to be a Nintendo system if there's a lack of affordable games. Get it, yet? |
Wow at this point it seems like you're complaining about something just to complain! If the Switch doesn't interest you then simply don't buy it... Plenty of other people will though and shouldn't have to constantly see countless amounts of threads pop up where people try and discourage others from liking something because they don't!!!
PS4 Pro is obviously of great value to you so buy that! When Scorpio comes out you have another 4k gaming system in which you can play multi-plat games on. So why should Nintendo provide something that everyone else already has covered?
| Rogerioandrade said: No need to push it so hard. As the dedicated console market has been going in the latest years, Nintendo will go third party someday. But while there´s still people playing on consoles, Nintendo will keep making them. And... I doubt that many people who plays only on PS4 or XBO are interested in Nintendo games at all. Maybe a portion but not definetely the majority |
I agree to disagree on that one. Many I know are willing to spend money toward Nintendo's software only, but their hardware they see as an expensive rip-off.
| Cobretti2 said: Consoles have always been a rip off though in Australia. This is no different. The biggest and only concern that is worth a complaint is seriously the lack of future the device has. If the switch had 40 3rd party game announced in the works and 10 at launch (serious core games that are not gimped), would any thing else matter at that point if there was great support? |
If the switch had 40 core 3rd party games, I would definitely be a lot less pessimistic, that's for sure. In fact, I'd most likely consider that a success.
My main concern is that I see this playing out the exact way that the WiiU did, where a few games were released by others to test the waters, then nothing. The dev reaction seems to be a lot closer to the WiiU than the Wii....
| KLXVER said: I don't think so. They would need to make their games bigger and put more money into them. We would most likely just get their big titles like Mario, Zelda, Pokémon, Smash Bros etc. Their "smaller" titles would probably just get mobile versions like Metroid, Kirby, Donkey Kong, Fire Emblem etc. |
Explain why they'd need to do this.
If anything, Nintendo's development costs should decrease if they adopted x86/x64 development.
fordy said:
If the switch had 40 core 3rd party games, I would definitely be a lot less pessimistic, that's for sure. In fact, I'd most likely consider that a success. My main concern is that I see this playing out the exact way that the WiiU did, where a few games were released by others to test the waters, then nothing. The dev reaction seems to be a lot closer to the WiiU than the Wii.... |
There we go we have reached the root cause of the issue. Which then leads to other minor issues like price etc.. that you mentioned.
They basically said they delayed the thing because of wanting more core games well they did not show any of that hope.
At this point in time if those games had also been released on Wii U, no one would have cared about buying a switch fr the minor bump with no future prospects.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
