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

DonFerrari said:
PAOerfulone said:

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.

But it's more profit, nonetheless.

If they were losing money on the platform, then it makes sense. But if the money and profit is there, then that's just a wasted opportunity.

Wouldn't  company rather be making X amount of money across 3 platforms instead of Y amount of money across 2 if X>Y?



Around the Network
PAOerfulone said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

But it's more profit, nonetheless.

If they were losing money on the platform, then it makes sense. But if the money and profit is there, then that's just a wasted opportunity.

Wouldn't  company rather be making X amount of money across 3 platforms instead of Y amount of money across 2 if X>Y?

There is cost of opportunity.

It would all depends if making the port would bring more ROI and future profits than not doing it. Sometimes it doesn't.

But sure, several of their decisions not to port seems like in the end made they less profit (not that it would be certain the opposite would play out if they made another decision)



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:
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. 

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.

Oh, hell yeah. It can and does happen. Some Nintendo fans (incl. me) don't want to accept that Nintendo hasn't made an ecosystem where you can get everything on one box. AAA are out of reach for the most part. Hardware and cost of publishing stand out as two major factors for why Switch doesn't get everything. It's great that Nintendo is on track to have a massive console, but Nintendo themselves don't seem to understand the clout that the other two platform holders have, as well as the influence third parties have on the industry today. I don't want to say Nintendo is stuck in the 80s, but they're no longer big man on campus. When Sony entered the market, third party games that were exclusive by default to NES/SNES moved to PS1. They mostly haven't come back.



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

B

MajorMalfunction said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

Oh, hell yeah. It can and does happen. Some Nintendo fans (incl. me) don't want to accept that Nintendo hasn't made an ecosystem where you can get everything on one box. AAA are out of reach for the most part. Hardware and cost of publishing stand out as two major factors for why Switch doesn't get everything. It's great that Nintendo is on track to have a massive console, but Nintendo themselves don't seem to understand the clout that the other two platform holders have, as well as the influence third parties have on the industry today. I don't want to say Nintendo is stuck in the 80s, but they're no longer big man on campus. When Sony entered the market, third party games that were exclusive by default to NES/SNES moved to PS1. They mostly haven't come back.

At least they have been getting good games that need less power due to their good sales on the platform.



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."

I'll let the people in charge of said companies tell their developers to develop for Switch.

If the Switch continues to sell and games continue to sell well on the system, they will be FORCED to make games for the switch. The development costs for a switch game is less than for the other consoles, so similar to how every company started making phone games, they will start making switch games.

Money talks more than any dev's desire for power and pushing the limits.

Edit: Tell me what do you think will happen if at a board meeting a developer says they want 50 million to make a game for the PS4 and projected sales give them a 20 million profit. Meanwhile the board looks at another game that was sold on the switch that cost only 5 million and sales gave them a profit of 20 million as well. Risk vs. reward they will not be given the choice to make what they want. They will be given a smaller budget and told to make the game Switch playable.



Around the Network
PAOerfulone said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

But it's more profit, nonetheless.

If they were losing money on the platform, then it makes sense. But if the money and profit is there, then that's just a wasted opportunity.

Wouldn't  company rather be making X amount of money across 3 platforms instead of Y amount of money across 2 if X>Y?

It's opportunity cost. It's not just a decision between Switch SKU / No Switch SKU, it's Switch SKU or doing anything else that is profitable. Even making a mobile game is a choice, and it's a choice they have because they haven't spent the money yet. Switch is also expensive to publish on. $20 for a 32 GB cart and all that. There's the opportunity cost of using development resources and the dollar cost of printing games to sell. To make the same total profit, publishers must sell about 45% more on Switch, dollar for dollar. With only Skyrim making past the 1 million mark, many AAA games will likely not do that.

DonFerrari said:

B

MajorMalfunction said:

Oh, hell yeah. It can and does happen. Some Nintendo fans (incl. me) don't want to accept that Nintendo hasn't made an ecosystem where you can get everything on one box. AAA are out of reach for the most part. Hardware and cost of publishing stand out as two major factors for why Switch doesn't get everything. It's great that Nintendo is on track to have a massive console, but Nintendo themselves don't seem to understand the clout that the other two platform holders have, as well as the influence third parties have on the industry today. I don't want to say Nintendo is stuck in the 80s, but they're no longer big man on campus. When Sony entered the market, third party games that were exclusive by default to NES/SNES moved to PS1. They mostly haven't come back.

At least they have been getting good games that need less power due to their good sales on the platform.

Yeah, that's a good thing. It's come to my attention that Switch kinda sucks for AAA third party games. You can get them cheaper and get 60 FPS on PC or PS4/XB1 99% of the time. It also won't drop to quarter resolution when things get heavy. More games like Octopath Traveler. That's what sells. AAA games is dead to me, and dead to the AAA industry it seems. There is exactly one AAA game to break a million on Switch AFAIK: fucking Skyrim Remastered.



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:

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.

Oh, hell yeah. It can and does happen. Some Nintendo fans (incl. me) don't want to accept that Nintendo hasn't made an ecosystem where you can get everything on one box. AAA are out of reach for the most part. Hardware and cost of publishing stand out as two major factors for why Switch doesn't get everything. It's great that Nintendo is on track to have a massive console, but Nintendo themselves don't seem to understand the clout that the other two platform holders have, as well as the influence third parties have on the industry today. I don't want to say Nintendo is stuck in the 80s, but they're no longer big man on campus. When Sony entered the market, third party games that were exclusive by default to NES/SNES moved to PS1. They mostly haven't come back.

Actually, I would say that Nintendo does understand the clout Microsoft and, especially, Sony have.  That's why the company decided to leverage its handheld strength and go blue ocean by not even trying to compete against PS4 and XB1 on power.   The problem is that most fans either don't understand this, or don't care.  They want what they want, and they don't care about the reasons why they won't get it.  However, Nintendo doesn't help by vehemently denying that Switch is anything but a handheld with an HDMI-out connection so they don't kill the last sales of 3DS. 

The Switch is clearly positioned to take advantage of Nintendo first party, as usual, indies, and third party AA's - which largely represents at this point the kind of games that used to live on 3DS and Vita.  Those are the games we're going to get, and those are the games we should expect.  Especially as power and processing requirements continue to move beyond the system's capability.



irstupid said:

I'll let the people in charge of said companies tell their developers to develop for Switch.

If the Switch continues to sell and games continue to sell well on the system, they will be FORCED to make games for the switch. The development costs for a switch game is less than for the other consoles, so similar to how every company started making phone games, they will start making switch games.

Money talks more than any dev's desire for power and pushing the limits.

Edit: Tell me what do you think will happen if at a board meeting a developer says they want 50 million to make a game for the PS4 and projected sales give them a 20 million profit. Meanwhile the board looks at another game that was sold on the switch that cost only 5 million and sales gave them a profit of 20 million as well. Risk vs. reward they will not be given the choice to make what they want. They will be given a smaller budget and told to make the game Switch playable.

But in this case they would also have to see if porting this 5M game to PS4/X1/PC returns good profit or it would just be useless money spent.

MajorMalfunction said:
PAOerfulone said:

But it's more profit, nonetheless.

If they were losing money on the platform, then it makes sense. But if the money and profit is there, then that's just a wasted opportunity.

Wouldn't  company rather be making X amount of money across 3 platforms instead of Y amount of money across 2 if X>Y?

It's opportunity cost. It's not just a decision between Switch SKU / No Switch SKU, it's Switch SKU or doing anything else that is profitable. Even making a mobile game is a choice, and it's a choice they have because they haven't spent the money yet. Switch is also expensive to publish on. $20 for a 32 GB cart and all that. There's the opportunity cost of using development resources and the dollar cost of printing games to sell. To make the same total profit, publishers must sell about 45% more on Switch, dollar for dollar. With only Skyrim making past the 1 million mark, many AAA games will likely not do that.

DonFerrari said:

B

At least they have been getting good games that need less power due to their good sales on the platform.

Yeah, that's a good thing. It's come to my attention that Switch kinda sucks for AAA third party games. You can get them cheaper and get 60 FPS on PC or PS4/XB1 99% of the time. It also won't drop to quarter resolution when things get heavy. More games like Octopath Traveler. That's what sells. AAA games is dead to me, and dead to the AAA industry it seems. There is exactly one AAA game to break a million on Switch AFAIK: fucking Skyrim Remastered.

Well some AAA have sold enough to pay off as well, but I don't think most would though.



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."

Mummelmann said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:
4. create unique games or spinoffs for the Switch instead of trying to port the games for the Switch somewhere down the line when everybody has forgotten about them already.

Even though it's a good idea on its own, the main problem with that is that in order to attain sustainable mainstream appeal, you need stable mainstream attractions. Being unique or quirky isn't always a good thing, and having unique games is hardly what Nintendo have been lacking since the beginning of their run in the industry.

But I agree on the old ports part, using aging games that millions have already played as a sales incentive is difficult, especially at full price and in a sometimes technically inferior version.

This is the best option. It is the 3DS option. The problem with what you have said is that Nintendo's own games are the mainstream appeal. Those are the games that get people to buy a Switch. If Octopath Travelers has taught us anything, it is that Switch existing - from a hardware perspective - in its own space means it needs to be catered to in its own way. You cannot go into Switch thinking about porting what works over there into this environment because this is a completely different environment. Why did 3DS sell so well when every console, including its direct competitor in Vita, was technologically advanced by comparison? Because it offered games in its own space that you could not play anywhere else. On their own, each game may not sell consoles but, just like with 3DS, all those mid-tier exclusives add up and pushed people to buy the console. Nintendo laid the ground work with their first party titles. The third-party titles alone will not sell any Nintendo console; regardless of its capabilities.

Unique does not have to mean, "gimmicky" by the way. It can mean games that innovate, like Braverly, that are only found in one space.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000