By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - I've changed my stance. Nintendo needs to go 3rd party

Ck1x on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
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. 

I'm saying that your level of concern is telling!

And you should really know that ARM far surpasses x86 as the most prominent platform used today... Nintendo actually has a very healthy handheld gaming segment that they need to cater to as well, so what would them making a 4k console done for that market besides continue to divide development resources.

I'll tell you very easy how what Nintendo is doing with the Switch is clearly the best thing for the company. Just look at a game like ARMS which was created by the MK8 team. Having one device to focus on let's these teams focus on creating something different!



Around the Network
KLXVER on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
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.

If its so cheap, then why arent we seeing more big titles on PS4 and XB1? Looks like third parties are only bringing their most profitable games. And if they try something cheaper, it usually dont do well.

Things would just be more expensive for Nintendo fans if MS gets like Donkey Kong exclusive and Sony gets Kirby exclusive. Console exclusive characters in Smash Bros and stuff like that. I just prefer to have all the content on one console.



Ck1x on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
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.

Just wow!

So if x86 does all of this why are Sony and Microsoft shutting down studios left and right? You probably should just stop because your point is getting lost in a sea of hysteria.



fordy on 18 January 2017
Ck1x said:
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?

Uh, because I know what kind of things Nintendo could do if given the capability with more suitable hardware? You wouldn't hear me complain if Nintendo released something actually comparable in specs. The fact that a lot of people have the "it's good enough" attitude is what is holding Nintendo back from being what they potentially can be. 

Your argument to not buy it is similar to what Jim Jefferies talks about with the gun nuts to foreigners. "If you don't like it, go home! If you don't like it, go home!". Entertaining, but not exactly addressing the issue, is it?

As for now, I'm not in any camp. Nintendo systems have been 1st day purchases for me, but that's changed with the Switch. I just don't see it garnering the attention of 3rd parties. Would YOU buy a console that you can't see supporting lasting more than a few years?

That raises an interesting question. What happens if the Switch fails, and it's noticeable after say...2 years? Will Nintendo keep publishing for it, knowing they can only get a dismal amount of sales on each title? Will they do a Sega and release another console quickly, burning all Switch owners and developers in the process? In the past, their console failures have been buffeted by their handhelds. That would no longer be the case if the Switch failed.



Dr.Vita on 18 January 2017

Nintendo's console time has come to an end. Third-party would be the best thing for Nintendo now.
Pokemon Go and Super Mario Run were the first steps for this.




Dr.Vita talks about Playstation Vita in 2016!
Playstation Vita Media Create Sales (2014 vs 2015 vs 2016)
Playstation Vita Japan Retail Software Sales (2013 vs 2014 vs 2015 + 2015 LTD Edition)
Prediction: Nothing will outsell PSP anymore (except Playstation home consoles)

Around the Network
asqarkabab on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
asqarkabab said:
then good night because this will never happen

Nintendo's cash reserves aren't limited. Do you agree?

Yeah i agree that nintendos warchest is unlimited



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

fordy on 18 January 2017
Cobretti2 said:
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.

Let me put it this way...Nintendo would have to have several conferences displaying 3rd party titles between now and release date to make me change my mind on this.



fordy on 18 January 2017
Ck1x said:
fordy said:

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. 

I'm saying that your level of concern is telling!

And you should really know that ARM far surpasses x86 as the most prominent platform used today... Nintendo actually has a very healthy handheld gaming segment that they need to cater to as well, so what would them making a 4k console done for that market besides continue to divide development resources.

I'll tell you very easy how what Nintendo is doing with the Switch is clearly the best thing for the company. Just look at a game like ARMS which was created by the MK8 team. Having one device to focus on let's these teams focus on creating something different!

You're confusing my statements. x86/x64 is the most supported in terms of development tools, suites, techniques, compilers etc. In that category, ARM doesn't even come close, no matter how many more "online units" are out there.

What would making a 4k console have done? Made Nintendo competitive. Saved their handheld market. Want me to continue? Nintendo's development teams don't "continue to divide". The handheld R&D was created on its own. That being said, portable gaming experiences that people want are nothing like console gaming experiences people want. The Vita proved that. So why is a hybrid the answer?

Tell me, how do you play ARMS on the bus? While walking? What's that? You have to resort to the non-motion controls? Well how about that.....why not just make motion controls an optional extra that costs more then, instead of making everyone fork out for it and making the system uncompetitive in terms of cost/value? "Best thing for the company" my arse...



fordy on 18 January 2017
KLXVER said:
fordy said:

Explain why they'd need to do this.

If anything, Nintendo's development costs should decrease if they adopted x86/x64 development.

If its so cheap, then why arent we seeing more big titles on PS4 and XB1? Looks like third parties are only bringing their most profitable games. And if they try something cheaper, it usually dont do well.

Things would just be more expensive for Nintendo fans if MS gets like Donkey Kong exclusive and Sony gets Kirby exclusive. Console exclusive characters in Smash Bros and stuff like that. I just prefer to have all the content on one console.

We're seeing a lot more titles on those two than the WiiU, let me tell you that much.....Yes, 3rd parties only bring their most profitable games....because of the high risk involved now. So tell me, what makes you think they'll RISK going with a Nintendo platform that will have a lower userbase than the other two , underpowered and on a different architecture? They are fighting a losing battle here. The more that general development costs escalate, the more compaies wont take the risk and stick with the consoles with the biggest userbase and easiest architecture.

First thing I'd do about that is not fall for slippery slope arguments and pressure Nintendo to not deal with exclusives. Two wrongs don't make a right. 



fordy on 18 January 2017
Ck1x said:
fordy said:

Explain why they'd need to do this.

If anything, Nintendo's development costs should decrease if they adopted x86/x64 development.

Just wow!

So if x86 does all of this why are Sony and Microsoft shutting down studios left and right? You probably should just stop because your point is getting lost in a sea of hysteria.

You know that general development costs are rising around the board, right? That includes Nintendo, which is probably taking a bigger hiding than it should be.

There was one other case in console history when this occured. That was the shift to 3D. Remember what they did? They employed 3GL and moved from cartridges to CDs, all in the name of cutting costs.