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

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

Miyamotoo said:
Megiddo said:

The Xbox 1 has the exact same architecture and extremely similar specs as the PS4. If you are making a PS4 game there is zero reason to not also have an X1 port other than exclusivity. The Switch userbase isn't competing against the PS4 and X1 userbase separately, but rather them combined, because that's the total userbase that the third party developers will be trying to attract with their games.

That doesn't against anything I said, that can have easily bigger profit on Switch than they have on XB1 if they are wiling to invest same money like they do in XB1. You can bet that more 3rd party or in this case Capcom will gave bigger support how Switch install base is growing.

No, they cannot, because there is relatively zero cost to them actually porting a game to XB1. The cost of porting to the Switch (requiring actual game changes to hit the resolution/framerate/graphics needed) is much higher than the cost of porting a PS4 game to XB1.



Around the Network
Megiddo said:
Miyamotoo said:

That doesn't against anything I said, that can have easily bigger profit on Switch than they have on XB1 if they are wiling to invest same money like they do in XB1. You can bet that more 3rd party or in this case Capcom will gave bigger support how Switch install base is growing.

No, they cannot, because there is relatively zero cost to them actually porting a game to XB1. The cost of porting to the Switch (requiring actual game changes to hit the resolution/framerate/graphics needed) is much higher than the cost of porting a PS4 game to XB1.

Of Course they can, despite point thats easier to port PS4 game to XB1, and despite point that more expansive for them to port game to Switch. And no, there is no zero cost, we talking about two different platforms despite similar architecture/power. Again, this FY Capcom sold only around 20% more games on XB1 than it did on Switch, despite point they released much more games on XB1 than they did on Switch, despite point that they didn't even released psychical copies for all their Switch games and on all markets, that Capcom Switch games are mostly late ports that are already released on XB1, and that XB1 has much bigger install base currently than Switch.



Miyamotoo said:
Megiddo said:

No, they cannot, because there is relatively zero cost to them actually porting a game to XB1. The cost of porting to the Switch (requiring actual game changes to hit the resolution/framerate/graphics needed) is much higher than the cost of porting a PS4 game to XB1.

Of Course they can, despite point thats easier to port PS4 game to XB1, and despite point that more expansive for them to port game to Switch. And no, there is no zero cost, we talking about two different platforms despite similar architecture/power. Again, this FY Capcom sold only around 20% more games on XB1 than it did on Switch, despite point they released much more games on XB1 than they did on Switch, despite point that they didn't even released psychical copies for all their Switch games and on all markets, that Capcom Switch games are mostly late ports that are already released on XB1, and that XB1 has much bigger install base currently than Switch.

Porting a PS4 game to Xbox One is considerably less expensive than porting to Switch. It's not zero, but it's so much cheaper and easier it's far easier to justify a XB1 port than it is a Switch port. So 20% higher sales + significantly cheaper development cost = easy decision.

Just a quick question. If/When the Switch outsells the Xbox One and Xbox One ports still outsell Switch ports, what will you say to justify that occurrence?



dgboweniii said:

We dont want ports of the AAA's, the switch cant run them.  That said, this is NOT the Wii or Wii U, as there is a TON of good stuff to play.

Nintendo got the Switch right.  It's, its own thing...  self sustaining and doesn't need COD and the like.

I've been saying since the NX speculation days that AAA 3rd parties are not necessary, they are a welcome addition but not needed.

It has/will absorb the 3rd party support of Wii U, 3DS & Vita which individually did not have great 3rd party support but combined had a very diverse lineup of small-medium sized games.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

dgboweniii said:

We dont want ports of the AAA's, the switch cant run them. 

It can run some of them. It runs Doom and Wolfenstein II, with Doom Eternal on the way. It could run games like RE7. 

Complex 30fps titles like Cyberpunk 2077 and RDR2 may be off the table, but to just dismiss all AAA titles as impossible is inaccurate. And why wish for less? More games, more options, more variety, is better for everyone. You may not be interested in them, but some of us are glad to get games like Doom on the Switch.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 29 October 2018

Around the Network
Miyamotoo said:
Megiddo said:
Why would Capcom want to invest into a bigger Switch project when they can continue to rake it in by investing in PS4/X1 projects? The Switch came on way too late as it at a very large userbase disadvantage. Speaking purely in a business sense, it wouldn't make any sense, especially given their recent company statement saying that they want to focus on AAA-Western-aimed titles. That's an audience that really doesn't mesh well with the Switch.

Profit. Because they could easily make profit with project on Switch also, but from start they are saying that they didnt expect that Switch be so popular after Wii U. You mentione userbase, but Switch user base is rapidly increasing and probably at end of next year Switch will have bigger intall base than XB1. Capcom recently gave insight of their profit on market per platforms, PS4 dominates, but on XB1 they made something just like only 20% stronger profit compared to Switch, despite they released much more games on XB1 with physical releases on every market and despite current bigger install base compared to Switch.

 

DonFerrari said:

I'm curious how you separate easy and hard / big and small. Because if a PSVR version with 90fps could be transformed in a 30fps Switch version very easily, what is the difficult them and if they have made a stream for Japan then they are investing in this type of project. So is it easy or not?

MHW the dev says he knows it will be a challenge, and anyone knows that if by port we decide to do almost a "ground up version" then they could release MHW to PS3 or even PS2 if they so much wish, how much it would look and play like the source material is anyone guess.

And as said by potato_hamster you can't have both, you at first put it at a certain level that it's ready and waiting for cartridge now it became a possiblity and that cartridge may be one of many reasons.

You are just molding and changing the argument as counters come. The reality is that they can release on more expensive carts or put download only (other companies done it), they may make a simpler port that fit the capacities of Switch (even God of War, Detroit, Spider-Man and Horizon Zero Dawn could be ported if someone wanted to downgrade it a lot). But you'll never convince anyone that cart size is more of a roadblock to AAA flagship games than the performance of a medium at this time in point. If that really were true PS3 would still be getting ports and Switch would get at least all games that released as crossgen on X360.

You see how RE7 runs on XB1 and on PS4 VR, so RE7 could easily run on Switch. Again, point is about investment, they still dont want to invest in bigger projects for Switch. Stream for Japan is very low investment in any case. But IMO, how Switch install base if growing they will invest more and more in Switch, so we could see classic RE7 port on Switch in some point.

Yeah, MHW on Switch would need some bigger cuts in order game to work, but that doesnt necessary means ground up game just for Switch. Yeah, thats a point, every game can be ported to Switch, only question is if devs want to invest in such a project and game. So again in case of MHW, we talking about investment.

Thats not true,  I never mentioned only one possibility, I mention multiply possibilities like I did in my previous post, and stated that we don't know details and that we can assume about possible cases for GTAV.

Again its not true, from start I saying that we dont know details that only thing that all insaiders said that Switch carts size/costs are reasons why some big 3rd party games are not coming to Switch ("some are delayed while some are even cancelled"), we don't know specific details about specific games. Point that something can be done in some way doesnt mean thats best way and that some 3rd parties would do that in that specific way. You have strange logic, point that some games are not coming to Switch doesnt meant that those games cant run on Switch, point that despite carts size/costs problems some devs releasing games on Switch doesnt mean that because those same problems some devs dont releasing games on Switch, point that Capcom doing things like that doenst mean that every dev is willing to that same shit with their games...  I just gave you a reply, I mean I could say same thing for you, stopconvincing people that cats don't affecting on some 3rd games. Talking about facts, again fact is that Switch carts have higher costs and much more limited size compared to PS4/XB1 BD discs, and that those things directly effecting devs that releasing games for Switch, thats why you have some same games more expansive on Switch compared to PS4/XB1, not hole game fitting on cart, no physical releases for every game for every market, no one using 32GB carts...so we talking about clear facts here, so its not hard to imagine those things effecting on some big 3rd party games in any case (especially because all those things will have bigger effect on bigger games).

So you already accepted that they would have to make a lot of cuts to those games to be ported. So would you say the biggest cut would be to the size of the file or everything else Switch power can't handle?



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:
Miyamotoo said:

Profit. Because they could easily make profit with project on Switch also, but from start they are saying that they didnt expect that Switch be so popular after Wii U. You mentione userbase, but Switch user base is rapidly increasing and probably at end of next year Switch will have bigger intall base than XB1. Capcom recently gave insight of their profit on market per platforms, PS4 dominates, but on XB1 they made something just like only 20% stronger profit compared to Switch, despite they released much more games on XB1 with physical releases on every market and despite current bigger install base compared to Switch.

 

You see how RE7 runs on XB1 and on PS4 VR, so RE7 could easily run on Switch. Again, point is about investment, they still dont want to invest in bigger projects for Switch. Stream for Japan is very low investment in any case. But IMO, how Switch install base if growing they will invest more and more in Switch, so we could see classic RE7 port on Switch in some point.

Yeah, MHW on Switch would need some bigger cuts in order game to work, but that doesnt necessary means ground up game just for Switch. Yeah, thats a point, every game can be ported to Switch, only question is if devs want to invest in such a project and game. So again in case of MHW, we talking about investment.

Thats not true,  I never mentioned only one possibility, I mention multiply possibilities like I did in my previous post, and stated that we don't know details and that we can assume about possible cases for GTAV.

Again its not true, from start I saying that we dont know details that only thing that all insaiders said that Switch carts size/costs are reasons why some big 3rd party games are not coming to Switch ("some are delayed while some are even cancelled"), we don't know specific details about specific games. Point that something can be done in some way doesnt mean thats best way and that some 3rd parties would do that in that specific way. You have strange logic, point that some games are not coming to Switch doesnt meant that those games cant run on Switch, point that despite carts size/costs problems some devs releasing games on Switch doesnt mean that because those same problems some devs dont releasing games on Switch, point that Capcom doing things like that doenst mean that every dev is willing to that same shit with their games...  I just gave you a reply, I mean I could say same thing for you, stopconvincing people that cats don't affecting on some 3rd games. Talking about facts, again fact is that Switch carts have higher costs and much more limited size compared to PS4/XB1 BD discs, and that those things directly effecting devs that releasing games for Switch, thats why you have some same games more expansive on Switch compared to PS4/XB1, not hole game fitting on cart, no physical releases for every game for every market, no one using 32GB carts...so we talking about clear facts here, so its not hard to imagine those things effecting on some big 3rd party games in any case (especially because all those things will have bigger effect on bigger games).

So you already accepted that they would have to make a lot of cuts to those games to be ported. So would you say the biggest cut would be to the size of the file or everything else Switch power can't handle?

For games like MHW, RDR2, Withcer3, there would need to be more cut compared to games like RE7 for instance. But that doesn't have anything with point that Switch currently has problems with carts size and costs in any case even if talk about smaller games (look at Capcom).



Most players that have been buying a Switch since its launch already own a PS4 or XONE way before Switch came, I doubt they would buy a multiplat game for Switch, they will just pick the title for their PS4/XONE. This is why most third party devs won't waste their time and money to port their titles for Swtich.

Only a minority of Nintendo aficionados would spend a whole generation with only a Switch.

Last edited by CuCabeludo - on 30 October 2018

Miyamotoo said:
DonFerrari said:

So you already accepted that they would have to make a lot of cuts to those games to be ported. So would you say the biggest cut would be to the size of the file or everything else Switch power can't handle?

For games like MHW, RDR2, Withcer3, there would need to be more cut compared to games like RE7 for instance. But that doesn't have anything with point that Switch currently has problems with carts size and costs in any case even if talk about smaller games (look at Capcom).

Please answer the question. The biggest roadblock to make a flagship (demanding) AAA game port to Switch is performance or cartridge size/price?



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."

There will be a Switch Pro, that will be better suited to handling PS4/XB1 ports.