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

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

potato_hamster on 17 October 2018
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

You broadened the topic to All third party games? Then why did you give me shit about bringing up EA or Activision earlier? Ohh right, because you tried to narrow the scope of the conversation to Japanese devs to paint a better picture of the Switch's third party situation. The thread is about "big games from third parties". I just listed the biggest games from Japanese third parties that skipped or will skip the Switch. I can start listing ones from North American or European third parties if you like, but I mean, it diesn't get better.

And about that "fastest growing library in history".. does that change when we talk about games with a $60 price point? (That's a rhetorical question, we already know the answer) Just pretend it's one of those "quality over quantity" arguments you like to make when talking about great which platforms have the best games. Why aren't those games coming to the PS4? For a variety of reasons, but one reason you can definitely rule out is "the PS4 can't handle a standard Switch game, and it's just not worth the time and effort to have to rework such a significant part of the game, especially when games like this have traditionally sold overwhelmingly in the past. It's hard to justify the investment".


I love how you sugar coat arguments we had years ago. Come on, Rol, we all know you referenced your notes. We don't need your interpretation, just post the links you have readily available! I know, why don't you just go on baselessly asserting that I hate Nintendo once again, or questioning whether or not I could have possibly played Breath of the Wild because I don't think its the greatest game ever. I know you're just dying to.

Name those reasons why games aren't coming to the PS4.

There you go making demands again. Do you ever learn? Any other reason besides the one I listed isn't pertinent to the conversation.



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 17 October 2018
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
potato_hamster said:

I haven't heard anything  like this before. Do you have a source? I always figured the Xbox 360 had the better versions of GTA ran better because the Xbox 360 was easier to develop for. Many third party games ran better on xbox, like Bethesda games, for example.

As for Playstation being too big of a brand, I'd have a hard time arguing it's a bigger brand than Nintendo, and Nintendo had no problem pissing third party support down the drain. I think PS3 caught up with 360 because Sony put in a genuine effort to make their console more appealing, and showed some humility along the way. Actually listening to the people that want to buy your product, and putting a meaningful effort into addressing their concerns can go a long way to make people want to buy your hardware.

I was actually talking about the OG Xbox port ... I think it was of San Andreas. It would take a long time to find the source, I'll look. I could very well be wrong though. Never know how much is just shitty rumors to make a company look bad  

And yeah, I agree that PS3 had a lot of effort put into it to help it catch up. I should have specified about the first couple of years. About Playstation not necessarily being a bigger brand than Nintendo ... whilst I agree, we are talking about home consoles here. 

It could be totally true. If so, shame on Sony for a terrible practice and I'm glad they turned that ship around pronto.

As for home consoles, I don't think the Playstation brand is why Sony sold around three times as many Playstations as Nintendo sold N64s. Sony had to put in a monstrous effort right out of the gates to steer prospective buyers away from a Nintendo console. I remember at the time it was extremely common for parents to refer to all video game consoles, no matter tha manufacturer as "Nintendos". Not exactly a small feat.



potato_hamster on 17 October 2018
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

There you go making demands again. Do you ever learn? Any other reason besides the one I listed isn't pertinent to the conversation.

I think those reasons are relevant and I also think that you don't want to name those reasons because you are aware that they'll undermine your position in this argument.

As I've stated before, I don't care what you think. If you want to pretend that the Switch isn't getting say... Kingdom Hearts 3 because of paid exclusivity, or because Sony partially or totally funded the development, or because Square Enix isn't confident that an RPG featuring Disney characters would sell on a Nintendo... or any other reason you might contrive, well... you have fun with that.



AngryLittleAlchemist on 17 October 2018
potato_hamster said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I was actually talking about the OG Xbox port ... I think it was of San Andreas. It would take a long time to find the source, I'll look. I could very well be wrong though. Never know how much is just shitty rumors to make a company look bad  

And yeah, I agree that PS3 had a lot of effort put into it to help it catch up. I should have specified about the first couple of years. About Playstation not necessarily being a bigger brand than Nintendo ... whilst I agree, we are talking about home consoles here. 

It could be totally true. If so, shame on Sony for a terrible practice and I'm glad they turned that ship around pronto.

As for home consoles, I don't think the Playstation brand is why Sony sold around three times as many Playstations as Nintendo sold N64s. Sony had to put in a monstrous effort right out of the gates to steer prospective buyers away from a Nintendo console. I remember at the time it was extremely common for parents to refer to all video game consoles, no matter tha manufacturer as "Nintendos". Not exactly a small feat.

Hm, actually, my bad. I guess I might have been mistaking it with Sony buying timed exclusivity for Vice City. Either that, or I'm correct  and it's just almost impossible to find a source ... haha 

I'm not really focusing on the literal definition of brand that much. I mean first of all, "Playstation" did not even have brand recognition when the PS1 came out. I felt like it was fairly obvious that I meant after the brand was well established ... you know, after it became the dedicated home console of the world. Wouldn't really make sense before. My bad though if I made it seem that way. 

I guess I should clarify that what I meant, was that obviously a big reason why third parties will always support Playstation is because of sales, and sales are in large part because of what the brand means in places where Nintendo (Europe) or Microsoft (Japan) means very little. I am not trying to discredit the steps Playstation took ... obviously without some of the quality of life improvements for PS3,  support would be less. I simply mean that, Playstation is so big worldwide, that it would be almost impossible for third parties to stop supporting it. Unlike with Nintendo, where even great sales don't always result in great amounts of third party.



COKTOE on 17 October 2018
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
potato_hamster said:

All you mean Nintendo's policy of price-gouging third parties and limiting the number of titles they could release on NES/SNES per year while not limiting the number of titles they published themselves? Or maybe it was when they started to censor what kind of content third party developers could publish on their platform to a point where Mortal Kombat games couldn't even feature blood? Those kinds of things Nintendo thought they could get away with when they were the only real option. Is that the kind of "bias against Nintendo" you're referring to? And it's not like it got any better from there. Just look into Nintendo's history with Argonaut games.

Third parties never liked working with Nintendo, they've always been by far the most difficult to work, the most anal about shit that really doesn't matter. Getting a game certified by Nintendo was like pulling teeth. Third parties worked with Nintendo for the NES because they had little other choice. it was the only real viable platform at the time. But when other first parties like Sega, Sony and Microsoft gave third parties viable options to work with, third parties didn't have to put up with Nintendo's shit anymore, so they didn't. It's taken over 20 years, but Nintendo's finally started to lighten up and be more willing to work with third parties, but you know, it's a bit late.

TL;DR Nintendo were giant dicks and no one wanted to work with them, not the other way around.

At the same time, didn't Sony have a lot of restrictions for devs already by the time the PS2 came around? I specifically remember hearing about how Sony tried to enforce restrictions so that third parties wouldn't put their games onto other consoles, and one of the restrictions actually ended up biting them in the ass because it made Rockstar put more effort into their GTA port for Xbox, which made them the superior versions.

Really, I think the biggest reason is sales. By the time Playstation started fucking up in a lot of the same ways as Nintendo (with both of them having their 3rd home consoles being disasters), Playstation was too big of a brand worldwide to lose third parties entirely. It had Europe on lockdown, was very competitive in Japan and America, and it essentially owned the world. If it was just about how many problems one company had, PS3 wouldn't have ended the generation having caught up with Xbox 360. 

I don't really remember Sony having any restrictions in the PS2 era that were out of step with Sega, MS, or Nintendo. Maybe you're right, but if there was such a discrepancy, my cursory search didn't turn up anything. It WAS a bitch to make games for, and that could end up costing devs more $$$ to make games than they would have liked, but that's a different ballgame. As for the bolded: I was always under the impression that the GTA games were superior on the XB simply because the hardware allowed it. I can't think of a example when a multiplat title wasn't superior on the XB. GTA III/Vice City were quite lovely on the XB. Definitely better looking than it's PS2 counterparts. I played the PS2 versions much more though, because my specific model of Xbox was incapable of saving game data with GTA. Went through several copies until I found out what the issue was, and exchanged the GTA Double Pack for PGR2.

 

-edit. I may be way behind on this post. did't read the follow up.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Around the Network
potato_hamster on 17 October 2018
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

As I've stated before, I don't care what you think. If you want to pretend that the Switch isn't getting say... Kingdom Hearts 3 because of paid exclusivity, or because Sony partially or totally funded the development, or because Square Enix isn't confident that an RPG featuring Disney characters would sell on a Nintendo... or any other reason you might contrive, well... you have fun with that.

You don't care what I think, yet I am the person in this thread that you first responded to.

Yep. I bet you feel that's a contradiction when it clearly isn't. Keep thinking Rol, you can do it!



potato_hamster on 17 October 2018
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

Yep. I bet you feel that's a contradiction when it clearly isn't. Keep thinking Rol, you can do it!

Hm...

maybe not. ....Better luck next time!



KBG29 on 17 October 2018
potato_hamster said:
KBG29 said:

Nothing yet, but Ryzen is fully capable of running in a Mobile device.

As for scalability, benchmarks have a Ryzen 2700U with Radeon Mobile chip at 12 - 25W only trailing the Ryzen 2500X at 65W buy 33%. They are both 4 Core/8 Thread Ryzen chips. 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700U-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2500X/m432558vsm567224

Compair that with an Athlon 5350 vs Ryzen 3 2200G and it is 209% faster. This is a (4) core version of the CPU in the PS4 at 2.05GHz vs 1.6GHz, up agaist a (4) core Ryzen chip. The Jaguar is a 25W chip and the Ryzen chip is 45 - 65W. 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-3-2200G-vs-AMD-Athlon-5350-APU-R3/m441832vsm10020

If you look at Ryzen Mobile vs Jaguar, 12 - 25W vs 25W you get 124% increase, and that is with (2) Cores/ (4) Threads on Ryzen, vs (4) Cores on Jaguar.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-3-2300U-vs-AMD-Athlon-5350-APU-R3/m511816vsm10020

Looking at the most high end chip that could go in PS5 Ryzen 2700 8 Core/16 Threads 65W vs Ryzen 2700U 4 Cores/8 Threads, the effective processing gap is only 55%. 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-3-2300U-vs-AMD-Athlon-5350-APU-R3/m511816vsm10020

As we move to 7nm, 7nm+ and beyond, the gap will only close. Microsoft and Sony will both very likely be using Ryzen on PS5 and XB4, making it extremely easy to deliver a Mobile version of the systems.

I think Nintendo's decision to go with ARM and Nvidia has left the door wide open for Microsoft and Sony to grab the market anytime in the future. With Game Pass and PS Now, or via Digital, they can offer all their 1st party titles, and all 3rd party titles across Home and Mobile for one purchase. 

No. For the 100th time, No. This isn't how this works.

Yes it is, and you will be wrong the next 100 times as well. 

Technology is an ever evolving landscape, nothing stays the same. It seems like every post you make is an effort to shoot down any advancements or changes in the world. I'm not really sure what your goal is. If you like playing devils advocate, that's fine, it just seems like you seriously are against anything ever advancing or changing, beause you are always dead set on nothing new can ever happen and if it does, it damn sure won't succeed.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

potato_hamster on 17 October 2018
KBG29 said:
potato_hamster said:

No. For the 100th time, No. This isn't how this works.

Yes it is, and you will be wrong the next 100 times as well. 

Technology is an ever evolving landscape, nothing stays the same. It seems like every post you make is an effort to shoot down any advancements or changes in the world. I'm not really sure what your goal is. If you like playing devils advocate, that's fine, it just seems like you seriously are against anything ever advancing or changing, beause you are always dead set on nothing new can ever happen and if it does, it damn sure won't succeed.

You can assert it all you want, it doesn't make it true. For example, there won't be a PS5 and a PS5 portable that play the same games. You can wish that would happen, but that doesn't mean the technology will be at a point to actually do it, and be at a price point where it's actually feasible. You can insist it will, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm not playing Devils advocate. You're taking a very basic understanding of bleeding edge technology, and blowing it's implications way, way out of proportion.

P.S. There's a difference between noting where technology is advancing, and dreaming up grand ideas and assuming they're "extremely easy" to do.

Last edited by potato_hamster - on 17 October 2018

potato_hamster on 17 October 2018
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

maybe not. ....Better luck next time!

 I scrolled through all the posts and noticed that I got more 'Agrees' than you. Looks like I won the argument.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon