Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Diablo III took 9 months to port to Nintendo Switch

KLXVER said:
DonFerrari said:

Plenty of times. With evidence of someone that had a level be ported in a specific game in little time.

And we have had several threads with people cursing devs and calling them dumb for not making a port of game X or Y, like MHW (which some swear didn't get ported because Sony payed to only Switch no receive based on a "very credible" insider)

Yeah, that was Snake Pass. An indie game they made playable in a few weeks. Not finished, just playable. 

That happens with fans of a specific console. Like Bayonetta 2 not coming to other consoles.

Yes there are some fans like that in all fanbase.

I don't think Switch is a hard platform to port, but certainly the less power can add more complexity to port and avoid bad ports. And some games aren't worth the effort and severe cuts versus expected sales.



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

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
routsounmanman said:

Why do you even bother coming to Switch threads? I mean really. At least use some logic.

1st Because it is a free forum

2nd because I care about gaming

3rd where is the lack of logic? Or you will claim there aren't people who pretend porting is something very simple and almost resource free so not porting a game to Switch is either a dumb decision or hate on the platform?

This thread and others talking on porting shows that it have a considerable cost and devs/publisher decide to take it just when they see the ROI makes sense.

But please teach me logic, starting without trying to use personal attacks.

1) You have shown time and time again that you have an agenda against Nintendo, or against Nintendo fans, at least.

2) We simply cannot tell if the porting was quick or easy, solely due to the fact that we don't have enough information. If 100 people worked 24/7 for 9 months, true it was a hard port. On the other hand, if a handful developers were working on it, ~10, we can safely say that it was a normal task, even an easy one. 

Either way, we cannot tell with the information at hand. Yet you come again, and resort to blaming the platform, while you know that ought to annoy people. Then, you play the victim card. 



routsounmanman said:
DonFerrari said:

1st Because it is a free forum

2nd because I care about gaming

3rd where is the lack of logic? Or you will claim there aren't people who pretend porting is something very simple and almost resource free so not porting a game to Switch is either a dumb decision or hate on the platform?

This thread and others talking on porting shows that it have a considerable cost and devs/publisher decide to take it just when they see the ROI makes sense.

But please teach me logic, starting without trying to use personal attacks.

1) You have shown time and time again that you have an agenda against Nintendo, or against Nintendo fans, at least.

2) We simply cannot tell if the porting was quick or easy, solely due to the fact that we don't have enough information. If 100 people worked 24/7 for 9 months, true it was a hard port. On the other hand, if a handful developers were working on it, ~10, we can safely say that it was a normal task, even an easy one. 

Either way, we cannot tell with the information at hand. Yet you come again, and resort to blaming the platform, while you know that ought to annoy people. Then, you play the victim card. 

1) That is just your googles that see only what you want to see.

2) 10 people working on it from blizzard side. More people under contract (which wouldn't make sense if it is less than blizzard folks) so the 30 people working 9 months is a good amount of people, doesn't make it easy.

A good game can be made with 100 people over 3 years so this port taking 1/3 of time and 1/3 the size of team (or additional 10% cost) just to port doesn't make it something mundane that can be just effortless.

I blamed the platform? Nope. Just see my conversation with KLXVER. If you didn't rush to defend Switch and do personal attacks you perhaps would see it.

My point is just that Switch isn't really as easy to port as someone just pressing a button with almost no resources needed, so ports that don't go to Switch either are because they would be severely cut down or the ROI wasn't attractive, simple as that. No hate for Switch or Nintendo. I probably have more Nintendo games than you have playstation.



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

Thats a long time for such a old game,but stil cool



 

My youtube gaming page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/klaudkil

DonFerrari said:
routsounmanman said:

1) You have shown time and time again that you have an agenda against Nintendo, or against Nintendo fans, at least.

2) We simply cannot tell if the porting was quick or easy, solely due to the fact that we don't have enough information. If 100 people worked 24/7 for 9 months, true it was a hard port. On the other hand, if a handful developers were working on it, ~10, we can safely say that it was a normal task, even an easy one. 

Either way, we cannot tell with the information at hand. Yet you come again, and resort to blaming the platform, while you know that ought to annoy people. Then, you play the victim card. 

1) That is just your googles that see only what you want to see.

2) 10 people working on it from blizzard side. More people under contract (which wouldn't make sense if it is less than blizzard folks) so the 30 people working 9 months is a good amount of people, doesn't make it easy.

A good game can be made with 100 people over 3 years so this port taking 1/3 of time and 1/3 the size of team (or additional 10% cost) just to port doesn't make it something mundane that can be just effortless.

I blamed the platform? Nope. Just see my conversation with KLXVER. If you didn't rush to defend Switch and do personal attacks you perhaps would see it.

My point is just that Switch isn't really as easy to port as someone just pressing a button with almost no resources needed, so ports that don't go to Switch either are because they would be severely cut down or the ROI wasn't attractive, simple as that. No hate for Switch or Nintendo. I probably have more Nintendo games than you have playstation.

Oh, I completely agree on that, and it should be apparent to anyone with an ounce of programming skills. However, that's a far cry from your initial post. 

And you have no basis on your rationale on the cost and effort of this port. You're simply guessing at this point (as we all are, due to the lack of info, of course).

Also, wanna bet how many vgchartz-ers would agree with me on you having an agenda against Nintendo? 



Around the Network
routsounmanman said:
DonFerrari said:

1) That is just your googles that see only what you want to see.

2) 10 people working on it from blizzard side. More people under contract (which wouldn't make sense if it is less than blizzard folks) so the 30 people working 9 months is a good amount of people, doesn't make it easy.

A good game can be made with 100 people over 3 years so this port taking 1/3 of time and 1/3 the size of team (or additional 10% cost) just to port doesn't make it something mundane that can be just effortless.

I blamed the platform? Nope. Just see my conversation with KLXVER. If you didn't rush to defend Switch and do personal attacks you perhaps would see it.

My point is just that Switch isn't really as easy to port as someone just pressing a button with almost no resources needed, so ports that don't go to Switch either are because they would be severely cut down or the ROI wasn't attractive, simple as that. No hate for Switch or Nintendo. I probably have more Nintendo games than you have playstation.

Oh, I completely agree on that, and it should be apparent to anyone with an ounce of programming skills. However, that's a far cry from your initial post. 

And you have no basis on your rationale on the cost and effort of this port. You're simply guessing at this point (as we all are, due to the lack of info, of course).

Also, wanna bet how many vgchartz-ers would agree with me on you having an agenda against Nintendo? 

That is because you tried to extract much more than what was said and portray it as attack to Switch instead of considering the whole context of this discussion in several threads of VGC.

About many or even all of VG members agreeing I have an agenda against Nintendo I couldn't care less, they don't read my mind or play with me to see what I like to play.  Me being vocal against mistakes of MS or Nintendo doesn't make it an agenda and me antagonizing people that are defend these companies to the death also doesn't put an anti-MS or anti-Nintendo agenda. Also I have no qualms with anyone pointing that I favor Sony.

The anti-Nintendo you see in me is just because I refuse to put Nintendo as some kind of god and bend to their design philosophy "art direction better than realism", "gameplay better than story" and other that usually are put as excuses for Nintendo putting less resources to develop a game than their competitors. If Nintendo fanbase loves that philosophy great, but pushing that as Nintendo is better than anyone else for me don't stick. Same with people that say Switch is a great machine and have all they want and hybrid is a nice thing to have, I have no problem with that but I have a lot of problems with people that pretend Switch just have the positives of portability and table console without any negatives (or flip what Switch should be considered depending on the discussion and apologize for the shortcomings saying Switch is also something else).

The biggest issue people seem to do on Nintendo criticism I do is that when I say a lot of fan or some of the fanbase have that behavior they take it personal or as saying all of the fans do it and go on very high defenses (just as you did) with making myself having an agenda on their mind a valid reason for all their attacks. Funny enough me "having an agenda" don't do personal attacks, call on mental skills, etc while these so moderate fans go for it at first notice.



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

That sounds like an extremely long time. I am fairly sure most XB1 fans have been saying that PS4----> XB1 ports only take a month or 2 with a small team.



Farsala said:
That sounds like an extremely long time. I am fairly sure most XB1 fans have been saying that PS4----> XB1 ports only take a month or 2 with a small team.

Then again when has Blizzard ever not taken their time with their games?



KLXVER said:
DonFerrari said:
Yes, so much for how easy is to port for Switch, most friendly platform ever and that devs not doing it are morons.

Has anyone ever said this or...? Miyamoto himself said that it takes about a year to port a game to the platform.

Actually he said less than one year.

 

Farsala said:
That sounds like an extremely long time. I am fairly sure most XB1 fans have been saying that PS4----> XB1 ports only take a month or 2 with a small team.

No at all, remember late ports are done buy small teams of 10-30 people, its not like team of 100+ people worked on project, so we probably talking team of 10-30 people team, while original game tooked few years with hole team of probably 100+ people. I doubt that PS4 > XB1 ports take only month or two, even when we talking about almost indetical tech and hardver

Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 17 August 2018

Miyamotoo said: 

Yeah but Diablo 3 with all DLCs has huge amount of content, we also dont know what was size of team behind port.

Actually when Diablo 3 for  PS3 and Xbox 360 came out it came with it's PS4 and Xbox One along with  DLC as well . And I am sure Diablo 3 on Switch have many people working it and additional DLC which is also not that big compared to the first DLC will not that significant.