Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why is the Switch still not getting big games from 3rd parties?

I'm not into Call of Duty at all and the Switch would be the last place I would want to play it.



Around the Network
Megaoverlord12 said:
Miyamotoo said:

Sorry but do you actually have any evidence for sucha claims for Switch also? Beacuse information we have about 3rd party sales on Switch is that they are selling quite good. Actualy Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Take Two seeing Switch primarly like handheld is a plus beacuse they can port their games on Switch and to be avalible in full handheld mode also and that gave extra value to those games, we have alredy games like Skyrim, Doom, La Noire and Dark Souls Remaster that were not on handhelds before.

I tottaly agree about your second part, I think Switch will have strong 3rd party support for Nintendo platform and there will more and more 3rd party announcements for Switch, but it will never be on pair of PS/XB

I guess I should have specified Western third parties. Going by VGChartz


Switch XB1 PS4
FIFA 18 0.37m 2.03m 8.12m
NBA 2k18 0.13m 1.08m 1.90m
Lego City Undercover 0.38m 0.15m 0.33m

Lego sold better, but it was originally a Wii U exclusive, so that's more or less expected plus Lego usually sell pretty decently on Nintendo hardware, likely due to the younger demographics. I don't really have many other good examples for comparison considering that most western third party games on Switch so far are late ports, so direct comparison is unfair. Going by the games that you mentioned (and some other late ports):

  Switch XB1 PS4
L.A. Noire 0.09m 0.07m 0.15m
Skyrim (First 2 weeks) 0.24m 0.47m 0.81m
DOOM (First 3 weeks) 0.16m 0.29m 0.65m
Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2 (First 10) 0.18m 0.27m 0.91m
Lego Worlds (First 10) 0.15m 0.20m 0.37m
Skylanders Imaginators (First 10) 0.02m 0.14m 0.24m

Now are these most of these bad figures? I wouldn't say they are, but beyond L.A. Noire (for some reason), all of them are unquestionably lower than XB1/PS4. Now is that fair, considering the Switch's significantly lower install base? Again, not particularly. Still the point remains that major third party games sell less on Nintendo hardware.

As for the developers touting high sales on Switch? Those are almost universally indies. You see Team Meat and Team17 happy. Do you see Bethesda touting how successful Doom or Skyrim was? EA with FIFA? No, because they weren't impressive. I want to be crystal clear. I do not think that indies are lesser. I do not think they are not important. They aren't lesser and they are important. HOWEVER, indies need lower numbers for the Switch to outsell other consoles, something that is greatly helped by the lower quantity of games on the platform. An indie selling 10k is a success, 100k massive, 1m unthinkable. But EA, Ubisoft, Square Enix, etc? Needs more than that.

All of this is on top of what many others here have said, that porting to the Switch takes time. If a game started development in 2015/16 for release in 2017/18, most AAA's literally CAN'T have a Switch version ready around launch. 

You need to take in account huge difference in user base between Switch and XB1/PS4 when you talk about sales of those games. Obviously you didn't pay attention on Switch news, actually most 3rd partys (2K, Ubisoft, Namco Bandai, SQ, Capcom...) said they are satisfied with sales of their games on Switch and that they will announce more games for Switch, few days ago we had Nintendo France said that EA is very satisfied with Fifa sales and that they said they will bring more games, also few days ago Bandai Namco said that Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2 for Switch sold more than 500k already and that actually passed Steam numbers, so I wouldn't pay attention too much on VGChartz numbers. I am pretty sure that Bethesda this month when they have quarter results will also say they are satisfied about with sales, especially because Skyrim is actually best selling multiplatform game on Switch in US in 2017.

For the record, multiplatform Switch game dont need to sale same like on XB1/PS4 in order that 3rd party is satisfied with sales, hardly that any big party have expectations they will have similar numbers on Switch, but they can make quite profit even with lower sales, and all pointing that 3rd party games are selling good and much better on Switch than on few previous Nintendo platforms, for instance it seems that Fifa on Switch fastest selling Fifa compared to any other Nintendo platform (it even sold better in Japan than Fifa on PS4 despite huge difrence in instal base). And point is simple, games on Switch have extra value beacuse they offer full home console and full handheld play, for instance you can bet some people will buy Switch only to play games like Skyrim, Doom, Dark Souls...in full handheld mode, and that wasnt case with any past platform, and thats why 3rd partys are now selling better on Switch compared to previous Nintendo platforms, and 3rd parties also seeing that.

I actually think that most 3rd parties decided to support Switch with much more games only last few months after they realized that Switch is seling great and that 3rd party games are selling good on it, and porting of course can take time, espacily developing brand new game. So we will have much more 3rd party announcements how time pass in any case.

Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 19 January 2018

The system is weak compared to the other 2 and the difference will be even bigger in 2 years when next gen arrives. Developers are getting ready for it which leaves less time to port stuff.



To be fair, Far Cry, Tomb Raider, And COD aren’t exactly the sort of third party games Nintendo fans give a bare ass about. Even Switch owners that do are likely not going to buy them on the Switch. Maybe Tomb Raider. I could be wrong though, on-the-go support and motion controls could make these games more interesting.

Dragon Quest is coming, we can probably assume a Monster Hunter game and it will sell better than the PS4 one.
A missing franchise Nintendo fans are likely going to like, though, is Final Fantasy. Potentially Fallout, as Nintendo fans are having a bit of a love Affair with Bethesda.

Keep in mind too, a game that’s appeal is primarily about high-end graphics, and features otherwise shallow/repetitive gameplay, is probably not a good fit for the Switch.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 19 January 2018

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:

To be fair, Far Cry, Tomb Raider, And COD aren’t exactly the sort of third party games Nintendo fans give a bare ass about. Even Switch owners that do are likely not going to buy them on the Switch. Maybe Tomb Raider. I could be wrong though, on-the-go support and motion controls could make these games more interesting.

Well you could say same for La Noire, Doom, Wolfenstein 2 and Dark Souls Remaster, but other hand Switch owners are not typical Nintendo fans, full portable mode for games that were just on home consoles is game changer for some people.



Around the Network
Mnementh said:
captain carot said:

But Switch dowsn't have that very special architecture Nintendos last consoles had nor is it inaccessible by any means.

You should explain 'special architecture'. Gamecube, Wii and WiiU all used PowerPC, just like Xbox 360 and PS3. They also used normal graphic cards. So... what's special about the architecture?

The way the Gamecube/Wii GPU worked for example.

Or going with an extremely low clocked triple core PPC while everyone else was shifting to more cores and x86 Nintendo stayed with that three cores and lower clock than everyone else. Even a quadcore 1.6GHz PowerPC might have helped. x86 likely even more.

And no, those PPC 750 derived cores whwen't exactly like the Power based CPU's of Xbox 360 and PS3.

Then there was an own API. At least they didn't go for a graphics architecure no one else used like with the 3DS.



Probably because of cartridge space.



captain carot said:
Mnementh said:

You should explain 'special architecture'. Gamecube, Wii and WiiU all used PowerPC, just like Xbox 360 and PS3. They also used normal graphic cards. So... what's special about the architecture?

The way the Gamecube/Wii GPU worked for example.

Or going with an extremely low clocked triple core PPC while everyone else was shifting to more cores and x86 Nintendo stayed with that three cores and lower clock than everyone else. Even a quadcore 1.6GHz PowerPC might have helped. x86 likely even more.

And no, those PPC 750 derived cores whwen't exactly like the Power based CPU's of Xbox 360 and PS3.

Then there was an own API. At least they didn't go for a graphics architecure no one else used like with the 3DS.

Or the PS3. Really, people forget the strange design of the PS3.

But really all I read from your explanation is, that it isn't about architecture, it is about power. I agree in a way, since the Wii Nintendo decided to have lower specs than the competition. There is a reason the PS3 and the 360 were called HD-twins: power was similar enough to make porting games between easy enough (such low-effort ports usually left the PS3 at disadvantage, the strange architecture needed special consideration to fully utilize, so low-effort ports perfomed bad).

But generally people completely go bonkers on the name of the CPU. I'm a programmer, and I can say I couldn't care less. The compiler makes every CPU the same, except you need some special programming, as the SPEs of the Cell in the PS3 did (for which reason they were often ignored or underutilized). For gaming also graphic is more important, but this century the programmers less and less use the graphic card directly but instead using high level APIs. And as you said, Nintendo home consoles had pretty standard graphic chips.

So in conclusion: neither Wii, nor WiiU or Switch used an especially strange architecture that makes porting difficult. They all had less power than their competition, which indeed can make porting difficult. Also, Wii and WiiU had bad engine support (Switch has surprisingly good support in that department), which actually has WAY more impact than the CPU. Unreal Engine for instance supported Playstation since the 2, XBox since the 360, but no Nintendo console before the Switch.

I never understand why non-programmers get excited about the selection of the CPU-architecture, as every programmer don't care anymore as compilers support everything. The LLVM compiler targets X86, X86-64, PowerPC, PowerPC-64, ARM, Thumb, SPARC, Alpha, CellSPU, MIPS, MSP430, SystemZ, and XCore. The GCC targets even more, including some strange things. And there are many more C++-compilers out there (these are only very forthcoming with informations).

Last edited by Mnementh - on 19 January 2018

3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Same reason as before. The system is too weak for most of the AAA games.
Most devs don't want to tone down their games only to make it barely run on another system.



spurgeonryan said:

Some would say Rocket league and Doom should count. Obviously there are other games as well that I did not list. 

But at this point,  with months of news about the Switch outselling nearly everything out there,  why is it not getting better games? At this point when a new Far Cry or Tomb Raider or even CoD comes out the Switch could be attached. 

 

Coming to PC,  iOS,  PS4, Xbox One,  and Switch should be on nearly every box and news article. But that is not the case. The switch should have developers lining up to port their top games from the past two years but it is still hit or miss which games come over. 

The Hardware is a issue again most likely.
Even if for Nintendo the "switch" is close to its competitors at around 1/5th or so the power of the others, its probably still a big hurdle to overcome.

 

"What else is it going to take to be listed with the other boys on every game announcement?"

a console thats like 80% atleast of the other two?
When PS5 comes out and is 10 Teraflops.... Nintendo cant come out with a Switch 2, thats less than 1/10th.

The problem is you cant make a handheld thats able to funktion in those power ranges.