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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - 3 solutions for AAA third parties on switch

PAOerfulone said: 

[EDITED FOR SIZE]

As for the 3rd parties, they need to do two things:
A) Multiplatform titles that will also be on Switch need to start being released on the same day as the PS4 and Xbox One versions. Last year, it was understandable why they would release the Switch version much later. But from here on out, they need to be "Day Of". With the Switch having been out for nearly a year and half, dev kits having been available for even longer, and the system clearly a success, there's no excuse anymore.

B) If they can't or won't make a Switch version of game that's also on the PS4 and Xbox One for development/technical reasons. That's fine. But to counteract that, they should invest in developing Switch exclusives to make up for it to the Switch audience. Capcom, to their credit, is heading in this direction by developing a brand new Monster Hunter game from scratch specifically for the Switch to make up for not porting Monster Hunter World. After that huge success of Octopath Traveler, Square Enix created a division dedicated to making games exclusively for the Switch. If you can't give them the steak that everyone else is having, then give them some damn good chicken just for them, if you know what I mean.

Third parties have no obligation to make games for Nintendo gamers if they're isn't enough profit in it for them. They are fundamentally businesses. SE did good with Octopath Traveler. But western third parties don't make those kinds of games usually. AAA is dead IMO. They'll try again when sales continue to be good. Probably 2019 or 2020 at the very latest. Third party port teams like Panic Button get to work on the finished / almost done game usually. These games will be late until it is does in-house, concurrently with PS4/XB1/PC versions.



Currently (Re-)Playing: Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void Multiplayer, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Currently Watching: The Shield, Stein's;Gate, Narcos

Around the Network
VAMatt said:

I'd like to offer an option number 4 - The Switch install base grows to such a point that third party publishers just cannot skip the system for business reasons.

TBQH, the only way this option is viable is if the market for both Playstation and XBox completely collapses.  Because even if the Switch sells 100 million units, if PS4 is also selling 100 million, then it still doesn't make a great deal of sense for most companies to go to the effort of creating gimped ports of major AAAs to try and fit them onto Switch. The only probable exception I can think of is Dragon Quest XII.  If Square Enix went to the trouble to create a 3DS version of XI that outsold PS4 (at retail, at least, then I can see them doing a Switch version alongside PS4/5. 

The more likely path is that PS/XB is the home of major AAAs, while Switch is the home of major AAs.  Basically, Final Fantasy on the former, Octopath Traveler on the latter.  If the Switch can't succeed long term on that path, then the Switch won't succeed long term.



I've got a sneaking suspicion that a 4th idea is being planned to remedy the issue, but I'm not willing to throw out that idea publicly just yet. 



They could just pay for port, much easier to scale on it.

1) another bad is that the real ports will just stop being made and you'll need to use the stream
2) to early in the gen



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

But when I say a lot of Nintendo fans spread hate over 3rd party publishers people are quick to deny and say I'm generalizating....



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
PAOerfulone said:

#1 is highly unlikely, at least right now.
Good luck convincing Nintendo on #2.
#3 is the most reasonable of the options, except for the part on Nintendo creating the porting teams themselves. Why should they go out of their way and use up precious resources, resources that could be used in better ways, to do something that 3rd parties should be doing themselves or at least hiring smaller partners and studios to do it for them.

All Nintendo needs to do is keep doing what they're doing and keep up the momentum on Switch sales. Keep growing the install base to the point where 3rd parties just can't ignore it anymore and can't find a logical reason to justify holding back development to their investors and stockholders along with their fans. At this point, it has become obvious that the 3rd parties who opted to take the "wait and see" approach have missed out on a great opportunity to make good money and establish themselves on the Switch right from the start (EA, Capcom, Activision), where the companies who have been on board from the start are now beginning to reaping the benefits (Bethesda, SEGA, Square Enix, Ubisoft). So Nintendo just has to keep it up and stay consistent. Then, given enough time, the rest of the 3rd parties will show up more consistently, frequently, and more prepared.

As for the 3rd parties, they need to do two things:
A) Multiplatform titles that will also be on Switch need to start being released on the same day as the PS4 and Xbox One versions. Last year, it was understandable why they would release the Switch version much later. But from here on out, they need to be "Day Of". With the Switch having been out for nearly a year and half, dev kits having been available for even longer, and the system clearly a success, there's no excuse anymore.

B) If they can't or won't make a Switch version of game that's also on the PS4 and Xbox One for development/technical reasons. That's fine. But to counteract that, they should invest in developing Switch exclusives to make up for it to the Switch audience. Capcom, to their credit, is heading in this direction by developing a brand new Monster Hunter game from scratch specifically for the Switch to make up for not porting Monster Hunter World. After that huge success of Octopath Traveler, Square Enix created a division dedicated to making games exclusively for the Switch. If you can't give them the steak that everyone else is having, then give them some damn good chicken just for them, if you know what I mean.

Makes no sense... a game not going to switch because of technical reason is valid justification, but then to make a game that could go to all go just to Switch to "compensate" is silly.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:

Makes no sense... a game not going to switch because of technical reason is valid justification, but then to make a game that could go to all go just to Switch to "compensate" is silly.

Yeah, no one in the industry owes Nintendo fans (or anyone else for that matter) anything. It's business. If they want your money, they'll get it by making games you want to buy. If they decide for any reason that it's not going to work, they should explain it for sure, but they still don't owe you anything. Making games to "compensate" is very silly and not at all a thing that a profit-oriented business should or would do. 



Currently (Re-)Playing: Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void Multiplayer, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Currently Watching: The Shield, Stein's;Gate, Narcos

MajorMalfunction said:
DonFerrari said:

Makes no sense... a game not going to switch because of technical reason is valid justification, but then to make a game that could go to all go just to Switch to "compensate" is silly.

Yeah, no one in the industry owes Nintendo fans (or anyone else for that matter) anything. It's business. If they want your money, they'll get it by making games you want to buy. If they decide for any reason that it's not going to work, they should explain it for sure, but they still don't owe you anything. Making games to "compensate" is very silly and not at all a thing that a profit-oriented business should or would do. 

And of course if they think a game that could be done for Switch will be profitable being launched only on Switch and decide to not make it for PS4/X1/PC that is totally fine. Seems like they though Octopath would make more money being exclusive to Switch.

But for some reason Sony paid to Capcom to not launch MHW on Switch, and funny enough that money shall being used to make an exclusive MH for Switch. These crazy theories of VGC.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

MajorMalfunction said:
DonFerrari said:

Makes no sense... a game not going to switch because of technical reason is valid justification, but then to make a game that could go to all go just to Switch to "compensate" is silly.

Yeah, no one in the industry owes Nintendo fans (or anyone else for that matter) anything. It's business. If they want your money, they'll get it by making games you want to buy. If they decide for any reason that it's not going to work, they should explain it for sure, but they still don't owe you anything. Making games to "compensate" is very silly and not at all a thing that a profit-oriented business should or would do. 

Not trying to take advantage of a quickly growing userbase that shows interest in buying your games doesn't sound very profit-oriented to me.



PAOerfulone said:
 
MajorMalfunction said:

Yeah, no one in the industry owes Nintendo fans (or anyone else for that matter) anything. It's business. If they want your money, they'll get it by making games you want to buy. If they decide for any reason that it's not going to work, they should explain it for sure, but they still don't owe you anything. Making games to "compensate" is very silly and not at all a thing that a profit-oriented business should or would do. 

Not trying to take advantage of a quickly growing userbase that shows interest in buying your games doesn't sound very profit-oriented to me.

If the quickly growing userbase gives less profit than the stablished ones, yes it is profit-oriented to keep on the stablished.

One would have a hard time proving these companies not launching some games and launching others made it to lose money out of hate for Nintendo.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."