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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Bethesda about Switch support and development

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
routsounmanman said:

There's no reason for games that gravitate heavily towards the Japanese market not be on the Switch (Jump Force, Ni No Kuni 2, etc). They might be better than the worst (Capcom), but they still dropped the ball.

I'm sorry but I do not understand why you are labeling Capcom as a bad supporter of Switch. It is one thing to want more games. It is another to ignore the fact that a publisher is supplying some of the highest selling third party titles on the platform. Capcom's support hasn't been insignificant ... like ... at all. Resident Evil Revelations 1 and 2, Mega Man 11, Monster Hunter, Okami. 

 

I can already see the possible complaints being that they don't port triple A games over but then again neither are 99% of "better" supporters of Switch. Street Fighter V exclusive, Marvel vs Capcom flop, Monster Hunter expansive ... only game that could reasonably be put on Switch is maybe RE7. But considering how butt ugly it is and how much theyd have to downgrade the textures for space let alone hardware yeah ... not even worth it. Plus it's available in Japan.

 

Honestly to say they are worse than Konami is ridiculous ... 

The only new game in the list is Mega Man 11, and they managed to botch it. It's ridiculous seeing an XboxOne physical version of 11 in stores and no Switch version.

Besides, I was talking about Namco Bandai being better than Capcom, not Konami.



Around the Network
Dulfite said:
Fallout 1 over the top 3rd person HD remake as a Switch exclusive confirmed?

Switch already has Wasteland 2, from the creators of the original Wasteland... and Fallout 1.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

routsounmanman said:

The only new game in the list is Mega Man 11, and they managed to botch it. It's ridiculous seeing an XboxOne physical version of 11 in stores and no Switch version.

Besides, I was talking about Namco Bandai being better than Capcom, not Konami.

Writing "the worst" when you are only talking about two publishers is extremely bad wording, especially when all your previous comments were talking about multiple publishers ... and basically the state of support from an entire country. It hardly even makes sense anyways since you weren't making a direct comparison between Namco Bandai and Capcom, you were merely listing Capcom as belonging to an alternative category ("the worst") compared to Namco Bandai. On that front, Capcom is far from one of the worst publishers on Switch ...

Capcom is one of the best publishers the Switch has. They carry a selection of titles that fit the platform well, and mean something to the Switch audience. Mega Man. Resident Evil. Okami. These are names that have weight with supporters of Nintendo's consoles. Which is probably why despite all of their games being "old" (except Mega Man 11), they've still most likely sold more software on Switch than Bethesda has, even excluding their one new game. Bethesda basically just has one super successful title on Switch. I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth, DOOM and Wolfenstein were successful enough to warrant some follow ups. But these aren't games that actually mean much to a large portion of the Switch fanbase - that much is clear. And isn't it ironic that the best selling Bethesda game on Switch by far is an old one which detractors were saying wouldn't sell because it's been ported time and time again, and released ages ago. Yet when we hear about why Capcom is so bad, the lack of new games is brought up as a reason? It's almost like old ports are cheaper to produce, and don't need to sell a lot to be considered a massive success. 

When I see comments like the ones that you posted earlier in this thread, I'm at a loss for words on how to describe them. I almost want to say entitled, but I complain about multi million dollar companies more than anyone and it's perfectly fine to do so. I want to say ridiculous but at the very least there is some basis for criticizing these publishers. So the best I can do is unreasonable. 

I mean ...

"And it's not just mediocre support, it's abysmal. You snooze you lose, I guess." 

Yes, Capcom being one of the only publishers to port big quality games to Switch has "abysmal" support for the system because .... the games aren't new. Ok. Maybe if this was the Playstation 4 and not the Switch that would be true. But alas ...

"There's no reason for games that gravitate heavily towards the Japanese market not be on the Switch (Jump Force, Ni No Kuni 2, etc). "

Well besides the fact that Ni No Kuni 2 probably has an exclusivity deal and that Jump Force is just graphically impressive enough to be a hard port (which wouldn't be an excuse had it released like two years ago, it's not even out yet) 

Think about it ... why is it that in these discussions the only companies that are talked about are Japanese ones? Because Japanese publishers are the only ones that are expected to do anything with Nintendo platforms. That already sets off alarm bells for the relationship that Nintendo has with third parties. The reason why Japanese publishers didn't instantly support the Switch is plain as day. You can not sell product specifically tailored to a Japanese audience and get the major sales you once could. You need to market to a global audience, and globally Switch is not the main console for gamers like it is in Japan. Of course, Playstation and Xbox's audience heavily skews towards buying third party content as well, which isn't true for Nintendo systems. Do you see the connection? The only games recently that have been able to create triple A sales while containing their popularity almost exclusively to Japan are Yokai Watch, Dragon Quest, and Monster Hunter, and Monster Hunter became wildly more successful when it ended up appealing to a western audience. Basically, asking Japanese developers to support the Switch early on/from the get go was asking to put faith in the fact that third party sales would be better, to put faith in the idea the Switch would sell well, to put faith in that if all else fails Japanese sales would carry the weight of multi-million dollar triple A products that would take a significant amount of time to port, to put faith in the idea that late ports would still sell well, to put faith in the idea that third party productions would have some kind of standing in the West ... it was incredibly risky. Honestly, they're making more money by sticking with Playstaton and overseas Xbox so hard. 

Oh ... and none of that is to mention that even the boss of Pokemon didn't think the Switch would be a success.   What were you saying? " Why on Earth would a Western company, Bethesda no less, have more faith in a Nintendo platform than a Japanese one like the aforementioned?" So much for all the "but but they're Japanese so they should have definitely been on Switch for sure! How could they not see the Switch success coming???" arguments.  Even in that same interview he says people shouldn't overestimate Switch. 

It's commendable that Bethesda had so much faith in the Switch, but honestly, most of that was probably blind ... or risk-taking on their part. They are the exception, so I have no idea why you act like they should be the rule. I somehow doubt that Japanese third party companies had the same amount of resources to throw around as Bethesda, not that they couldn't afford ports, but it would be an even bigger risk for them comparatively. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you do it. And honestly ... it's perfectly reasonable and fair why it's taken so long for Japanese publishers to jump on board. Do I hope they improve? Yes, but that doesn't mean they're automatically atrocious because they aren't perfect. Capcom's support for Switch is fairly similar to their support for Wii and Wii U, I honestly do not understand why all the sudden people are acting like it's far worse. I have my complaints about them too though ... I just find this notion really obnoxious. These publishers are doing fine by Switch owners, they could do better, but they'll improve slowly but steadily. There are better publishers than Capcom though (Bethesda, possibly Ubisoft and Square too ... although while they made new exclusive games, both of them don't showcase their main franchises on Switch, unlike Capcom which basically has every one of their key franchises represented on the system .. which is extremely important imo). 

Also, just personally, fast paced FPS games are not what I want to play on a weak console like Switch. Okami for example also shows off the Switch similar to DOOM, but in a very different way. Whereas DOOM shows both the power and lack thereof of the Switch, Okami has a four hour plus battery life, great motion controls, and even better touch controls. It's basically the most versatile triple A game on Switch right now, and while it began as a PS2 game, it's aged beautifully. It's probably the best handheld game on Switch. 



pokoko said:

 

 

DélioPT said:
The real question is not why Bethesda is now supporting Nintendo. What matters is, besides the upcoming Doom and WF 3, can the engine(s) for the upcoming Bethesda games allow for scaling the games to Switch? If not, despite their good will, we won't see support for much longer.
In sum, we probably/most likely won't see ES VI, Starfield and Rage 2.

If Starfield is still using the Creation Engine from Fallout 4 then I think that really hurts the chances of it appearing on the Switch.  Not unless the've greatly enhanced the scaling capabilities well beyond what we've seen with Fallout 4 and 76.

The next Elder Scrolls ... who knows.  It's years away and is likely being made with next generation in mind.  However, people seem to think it will have a new framework, so perhaps it will appear on the successor to the Switch, whatever that might be.

Would it pay off reworking the engine? Assuming they can get decent results.

Yeah, i don't see those two games coming out for Switch. Switch 2? Well, it depends on demanding those games will be and if Switch 2 can actually run them.

Miyamotoo said:
DélioPT said:
The real question is not why Bethesda is now supporting Nintendo. What matters is, besides the upcoming Doom and WF 3, can the engine(s) for the upcoming Bethesda games allow for scaling the games to Switch? If not, despite their good will, we won't see support for much longer.
In sum, we probably/most likely won't see ES VI, Starfield and Rage 2.

It we talk specifically about ES VI and Starfield, we don't know when those games could come (not before 2020. earliest), maybe they will not come even on current gen at all. Saying that, if they want that ES VI similar like Skyrim and to be available on every platform out there, they will have on mind Switch during development same like they while they were working on Doom 2016, espacily because probably that ES VI engine will be use later for some other games.

That's the thing. I think that if Skyrim 6 had in mind the Switch, we would know it, the same way we know about Doom.
If they are next gen games - i think they are - then the chances will be really slim: it will depend on Switch 2 can run and if those games are really demanding or not.

Either way, i think the outlook for more Bethesda support for Switch isn't looking all that good.
But that's what you get when you release a console that isn't on par with the competition.



DélioPT said:
 
Miyamotoo said:

It we talk specifically about ES VI and Starfield, we don't know when those games could come (not before 2020. earliest), maybe they will not come even on current gen at all. Saying that, if they want that ES VI similar like Skyrim and to be available on every platform out there, they will have on mind Switch during development same like they while they were working on Doom 2016, espacily because probably that ES VI engine will be use later for some other games.

That's the thing. I think that if Skyrim 6 had in mind the Switch, we would know it, the same way we know about Doom.
If they are next gen games - i think they are - then the chances will be really slim: it will depend on Switch 2 can run and if those games are really demanding or not.

Either way, i think the outlook for more Bethesda support for Switch isn't looking all that good.
But that's what you get when you release a console that isn't on par with the competition.

That dont make any sense, game is just confirmed thats in development, they did not mention any specific platform they developing TES6 for, we dont have idea when game could be out (2020. earliest), while we get information that Doom 2016. coming to Switch only 2 months before launch. So, why we would know if they having  Switch on mind with Skyrim 6?

5 AAA games (plus some smaller games like Fallout Shelter) confirmed/released in first 1.5 year from one studio is good any case, especially if we talk about Nintendo platform, and when that studio didnt released almost nothing on last few Nintendo platforms.

Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 06 November 2018

Around the Network

Switch cant even run their newest flagship game, Fallout4. What's the point? 



DélioPT said:
pokoko said:

 

If Starfield is still using the Creation Engine from Fallout 4 then I think that really hurts the chances of it appearing on the Switch.  Not unless the've greatly enhanced the scaling capabilities well beyond what we've seen with Fallout 4 and 76.

The next Elder Scrolls ... who knows.  It's years away and is likely being made with next generation in mind.  However, people seem to think it will have a new framework, so perhaps it will appear on the successor to the Switch, whatever that might be.

Would it pay off reworking the engine? Assuming they can get decent results.

Yeah, i don't see those two games coming out for Switch. Switch 2? Well, it depends on demanding those games will be and if Switch 2 can actually run them.

The engine has been reworked countless times already.  It's built on top of an engine that's 20 years old.  Obviously it's improved massively since Fallout 3 but there is only so much they can do with it.  That's why it was possible for them to bring Skyrim forward to the same engine version as Fallout 4, it's built on the same foundation.

Assuming Starfield is using the same engine, it will probably be even further refined but still have the same drawbacks and scaling problems that Fallout 4 faced.  That was a game that was originally intended to have versions the PS3 and 360 but they couldn't make it work and dropped them.  That's despite having subpar visuals for this generation.

Of course, we know nothing about Starfield.  It might be a linear game set inside space ships and stations for all we know, which would be a lot less burdensome than a vast open map with millions of objects to track.  If it's the "Fallout in space" many people are expecting, however, then I think the chances of it appearing on the Switch drop significantly.  

As for the Elder Scrolls, assuming they actually are bringing in an all new engine, then there is a chance they'll aim for a high amount of scalability.  This is the company that has Skyrim ported to everything this side of toasters.  I'm betting they'll at least consider the Switch 2.  Nintendo would be very wise to keep being friendly with Bethesda because landing the next Elder Scrolls would be a big deal.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
routsounmanman said:

The only new game in the list is Mega Man 11, and they managed to botch it. It's ridiculous seeing an XboxOne physical version of 11 in stores and no Switch version.

Besides, I was talking about Namco Bandai being better than Capcom, not Konami.

Writing "the worst" when you are only talking about two publishers is extremely bad wording, especially when all your previous comments were talking about multiple publishers ... and basically the state of support from an entire country. It hardly even makes sense anyways since you weren't making a direct comparison between Namco Bandai and Capcom, you were merely listing Capcom as belonging to an alternative category ("the worst") compared to Namco Bandai. On that front, Capcom is far from one of the worst publishers on Switch ...

Capcom is one of the best publishers the Switch has. They carry a selection of titles that fit the platform well, and mean something to the Switch audience. Mega Man. Resident Evil. Okami. These are names that have weight with supporters of Nintendo's consoles. Which is probably why despite all of their games being "old" (except Mega Man 11), they've still most likely sold more software on Switch than Bethesda has, even excluding their one new game. Bethesda basically just has one super successful title on Switch. I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth, DOOM and Wolfenstein were successful enough to warrant some follow ups. But these aren't games that actually mean much to a large portion of the Switch fanbase - that much is clear. And isn't it ironic that the best selling Bethesda game on Switch by far is an old one which detractors were saying wouldn't sell because it's been ported time and time again, and released ages ago. Yet when we hear about why Capcom is so bad, the lack of new games is brought up as a reason? It's almost like old ports are cheaper to produce, and don't need to sell a lot to be considered a massive success. 

When I see comments like the ones that you posted earlier in this thread, I'm at a loss for words on how to describe them. I almost want to say entitled, but I complain about multi million dollar companies more than anyone and it's perfectly fine to do so. I want to say ridiculous but at the very least there is some basis for criticizing these publishers. So the best I can do is unreasonable. 

I mean ...

"And it's not just mediocre support, it's abysmal. You snooze you lose, I guess." 

Yes, Capcom being one of the only publishers to port big quality games to Switch has "abysmal" support for the system because .... the games aren't new. Ok. Maybe if this was the Playstation 4 and not the Switch that would be true. But alas ...

"There's no reason for games that gravitate heavily towards the Japanese market not be on the Switch (Jump Force, Ni No Kuni 2, etc). "

Well besides the fact that Ni No Kuni 2 probably has an exclusivity deal and that Jump Force is just graphically impressive enough to be a hard port (which wouldn't be an excuse had it released like two years ago, it's not even out yet) 

Think about it ... why is it that in these discussions the only companies that are talked about are Japanese ones? Because Japanese publishers are the only ones that are expected to do anything with Nintendo platforms. That already sets off alarm bells for the relationship that Nintendo has with third parties. The reason why Japanese publishers didn't instantly support the Switch is plain as day. You can not sell product specifically tailored to a Japanese audience and get the major sales you once could. You need to market to a global audience, and globally Switch is not the main console for gamers like it is in Japan. Of course, Playstation and Xbox's audience heavily skews towards buying third party content as well, which isn't true for Nintendo systems. Do you see the connection? The only games recently that have been able to create triple A sales while containing their popularity almost exclusively to Japan are Yokai Watch, Dragon Quest, and Monster Hunter, and Monster Hunter became wildly more successful when it ended up appealing to a western audience. Basically, asking Japanese developers to support the Switch early on/from the get go was asking to put faith in the fact that third party sales would be better, to put faith in the idea the Switch would sell well, to put faith in that if all else fails Japanese sales would carry the weight of multi-million dollar triple A products that would take a significant amount of time to port, to put faith in the idea that late ports would still sell well, to put faith in the idea that third party productions would have some kind of standing in the West ... it was incredibly risky. Honestly, they're making more money by sticking with Playstaton and overseas Xbox so hard. 

Oh ... and none of that is to mention that even the boss of Pokemon didn't think the Switch would be a success.   What were you saying? " Why on Earth would a Western company, Bethesda no less, have more faith in a Nintendo platform than a Japanese one like the aforementioned?" So much for all the "but but they're Japanese so they should have definitely been on Switch for sure! How could they not see the Switch success coming???" arguments.  Even in that same interview he says people shouldn't overestimate Switch. 

It's commendable that Bethesda had so much faith in the Switch, but honestly, most of that was probably blind ... or risk-taking on their part. They are the exception, so I have no idea why you act like they should be the rule. I somehow doubt that Japanese third party companies had the same amount of resources to throw around as Bethesda, not that they couldn't afford ports, but it would be an even bigger risk for them comparatively. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you do it. And honestly ... it's perfectly reasonable and fair why it's taken so long for Japanese publishers to jump on board. Do I hope they improve? Yes, but that doesn't mean they're automatically atrocious because they aren't perfect. Capcom's support for Switch is fairly similar to their support for Wii and Wii U, I honestly do not understand why all the sudden people are acting like it's far worse. I have my complaints about them too though ... I just find this notion really obnoxious. These publishers are doing fine by Switch owners, they could do better, but they'll improve slowly but steadily. There are better publishers than Capcom though (Bethesda, possibly Ubisoft and Square too ... although while they made new exclusive games, both of them don't showcase their main franchises on Switch, unlike Capcom which basically has every one of their key franchises represented on the system .. which is extremely important imo). 

Also, just personally, fast paced FPS games are not what I want to play on a weak console like Switch. Okami for example also shows off the Switch similar to DOOM, but in a very different way. Whereas DOOM shows both the power and lack thereof of the Switch, Okami has a four hour plus battery life, great motion controls, and even better touch controls. It's basically the most versatile triple A game on Switch right now, and while it began as a PS2 game, it's aged beautifully. It's probably the best handheld game on Switch. 

Capcom's support is trash because pretty much every single game they have released is just a re-release/rom dump of games that came out years or even generations ago. Most of them aren't even current gen, they've just gone down into the basement where they keep their dusty old games in a box and emptied it wholesale onto the platform.

Then, just to add insult to injury, almost every one has horrid practices like only half the game being on the cart or no retail release even when other platforms got one.

Pretty much no other dev has dicked over Switch owners like Capcom have.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Writing "the worst" when you are only talking about two publishers is extremely bad wording, especially when all your previous comments were talking about multiple publishers ... and basically the state of support from an entire country. It hardly even makes sense anyways since you weren't making a direct comparison between Namco Bandai and Capcom, you were merely listing Capcom as belonging to an alternative category ("the worst") compared to Namco Bandai. On that front, Capcom is far from one of the worst publishers on Switch ...

Capcom is one of the best publishers the Switch has. They carry a selection of titles that fit the platform well, and mean something to the Switch audience. Mega Man. Resident Evil. Okami. These are names that have weight with supporters of Nintendo's consoles. Which is probably why despite all of their games being "old" (except Mega Man 11), they've still most likely sold more software on Switch than Bethesda has, even excluding their one new game. Bethesda basically just has one super successful title on Switch. I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth, DOOM and Wolfenstein were successful enough to warrant some follow ups. But these aren't games that actually mean much to a large portion of the Switch fanbase - that much is clear. And isn't it ironic that the best selling Bethesda game on Switch by far is an old one which detractors were saying wouldn't sell because it's been ported time and time again, and released ages ago. Yet when we hear about why Capcom is so bad, the lack of new games is brought up as a reason? It's almost like old ports are cheaper to produce, and don't need to sell a lot to be considered a massive success. 

When I see comments like the ones that you posted earlier in this thread, I'm at a loss for words on how to describe them. I almost want to say entitled, but I complain about multi million dollar companies more than anyone and it's perfectly fine to do so. I want to say ridiculous but at the very least there is some basis for criticizing these publishers. So the best I can do is unreasonable. 

I mean ...

"And it's not just mediocre support, it's abysmal. You snooze you lose, I guess." 

Yes, Capcom being one of the only publishers to port big quality games to Switch has "abysmal" support for the system because .... the games aren't new. Ok. Maybe if this was the Playstation 4 and not the Switch that would be true. But alas ...

"There's no reason for games that gravitate heavily towards the Japanese market not be on the Switch (Jump Force, Ni No Kuni 2, etc). "

Well besides the fact that Ni No Kuni 2 probably has an exclusivity deal and that Jump Force is just graphically impressive enough to be a hard port (which wouldn't be an excuse had it released like two years ago, it's not even out yet) 

Think about it ... why is it that in these discussions the only companies that are talked about are Japanese ones? Because Japanese publishers are the only ones that are expected to do anything with Nintendo platforms. That already sets off alarm bells for the relationship that Nintendo has with third parties. The reason why Japanese publishers didn't instantly support the Switch is plain as day. You can not sell product specifically tailored to a Japanese audience and get the major sales you once could. You need to market to a global audience, and globally Switch is not the main console for gamers like it is in Japan. Of course, Playstation and Xbox's audience heavily skews towards buying third party content as well, which isn't true for Nintendo systems. Do you see the connection? The only games recently that have been able to create triple A sales while containing their popularity almost exclusively to Japan are Yokai Watch, Dragon Quest, and Monster Hunter, and Monster Hunter became wildly more successful when it ended up appealing to a western audience. Basically, asking Japanese developers to support the Switch early on/from the get go was asking to put faith in the fact that third party sales would be better, to put faith in the idea the Switch would sell well, to put faith in that if all else fails Japanese sales would carry the weight of multi-million dollar triple A products that would take a significant amount of time to port, to put faith in the idea that late ports would still sell well, to put faith in the idea that third party productions would have some kind of standing in the West ... it was incredibly risky. Honestly, they're making more money by sticking with Playstaton and overseas Xbox so hard. 

Oh ... and none of that is to mention that even the boss of Pokemon didn't think the Switch would be a success.   What were you saying? " Why on Earth would a Western company, Bethesda no less, have more faith in a Nintendo platform than a Japanese one like the aforementioned?" So much for all the "but but they're Japanese so they should have definitely been on Switch for sure! How could they not see the Switch success coming???" arguments.  Even in that same interview he says people shouldn't overestimate Switch. 

It's commendable that Bethesda had so much faith in the Switch, but honestly, most of that was probably blind ... or risk-taking on their part. They are the exception, so I have no idea why you act like they should be the rule. I somehow doubt that Japanese third party companies had the same amount of resources to throw around as Bethesda, not that they couldn't afford ports, but it would be an even bigger risk for them comparatively. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you do it. And honestly ... it's perfectly reasonable and fair why it's taken so long for Japanese publishers to jump on board. Do I hope they improve? Yes, but that doesn't mean they're automatically atrocious because they aren't perfect. Capcom's support for Switch is fairly similar to their support for Wii and Wii U, I honestly do not understand why all the sudden people are acting like it's far worse. I have my complaints about them too though ... I just find this notion really obnoxious. These publishers are doing fine by Switch owners, they could do better, but they'll improve slowly but steadily. There are better publishers than Capcom though (Bethesda, possibly Ubisoft and Square too ... although while they made new exclusive games, both of them don't showcase their main franchises on Switch, unlike Capcom which basically has every one of their key franchises represented on the system .. which is extremely important imo). 

Also, just personally, fast paced FPS games are not what I want to play on a weak console like Switch. Okami for example also shows off the Switch similar to DOOM, but in a very different way. Whereas DOOM shows both the power and lack thereof of the Switch, Okami has a four hour plus battery life, great motion controls, and even better touch controls. It's basically the most versatile triple A game on Switch right now, and while it began as a PS2 game, it's aged beautifully. It's probably the best handheld game on Switch. 

Capcom's support is trash because pretty much every single game they have released is just a re-release/rom dump of games that came out years or even generations ago. Most of them aren't even current gen, they've just gone down into the basement where they keep their dusty old games in a box and emptied it wholesale onto the platform.

Then, just to add insult to injury, almost every one has horrid practices like only half the game being on the cart or no retail release even when other platforms got one.

Pretty much no other dev has dicked over Switch owners like Capcom have.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. I think I've provided enough detail in the response you're replying to for you to understand why. But to clarify a little more, I feel like this is an incredibly disingenuous line of thinking, although if that's your opinion it's fine. Could they do better? Sure ... but let's be honest, pretty much none of their recent releases are suitable for Switch. Street Fighter V is exclusive, Marvel vs. Capcom flopped hard, Monster Hunter I just think would be a disaster on Switch ... honestly. The Resident Evil franchise is the only example that I can think of where there's massive room for improvement. Although given the fact that they have two Monster Hunter teams ... you're probably going to get a brand new MH game on Switch anyways.

A good game is a good game and in the end of the day Resident Evil Revelations 1 and 2, as well as Monster Hunter Generations are some of the only big "current gen" (although the whole 3DS/Wii U/Switch thing has made that incredibly confusing ... which isn't Capcom's fault) titles on Switch, along with Mega Man 11, which is extremely oriented towards a Nintendo audience and is a game fans have been waiting for. That's not bad support, like, at all. That's four current gen games. That's an opinion of course and you're free to not share it. But that's games that are more relevant than what 99% of publishers are giving.

Although really half the reason my reply was made was because I was expecting the line of thinking to be similar more so to the average Nintendo forumgoer, it was not directed towards you. It's not made for someone that complains about ports 24/7 consistently across the board, because that's a consistent standard that I can accept. And I've called out there "horrid" practices time and time again. You can look at my recent post in the Nintendominion thread about the Mega Man pricing. Unfortunately I just don't see it as being that "horrid", nor do I think it disqualifies their position as one of the better publishers (the internet part, not the pricing). 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
curl-6 said:

Capcom's support is trash because pretty much every single game they have released is just a re-release/rom dump of games that came out years or even generations ago. Most of them aren't even current gen, they've just gone down into the basement where they keep their dusty old games in a box and emptied it wholesale onto the platform.

Then, just to add insult to injury, almost every one has horrid practices like only half the game being on the cart or no retail release even when other platforms got one.

Pretty much no other dev has dicked over Switch owners like Capcom have.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. I think I've provided enough detail in the response you're replying to for you to understand why. But to clarify a little more, I feel like this is an incredibly disingenuous line of thinking, although if that's your opinion it's fine. Could they do better? Sure ... but let's be honest, pretty much none of their recent releases are suitable for Switch. Street Fighter V is exclusive, Marvel vs. Capcom flopped hard, Monster Hunter I just think would be a disaster on Switch ... honestly. The Resident Evil franchise is the only example that I can think of where there's massive room for improvement. Although given the fact that they have two Monster Hunter teams ... you're probably going to get a brand new MH game on Switch anyways.

A good game is a good game and in the end of the day Resident Evil Revelations 1 and 2, as well as Monster Hunter Generations are some of the only big "current gen" (although the whole 3DS/Wii U/Switch thing has made that incredibly confusing ... which isn't Capcom's fault) titles on Switch, along with Mega Man 11, which is extremely oriented towards a Nintendo audience and is a game fans have been waiting for. That's not bad support, like, at all. That's four current gen games. That's an opinion of course and you're free to not share it. But that's games that are more relevant than what 99% of publishers are giving.

Although really half the reason my reply was made was because I was expecting the line of thinking to be similar more so to the average Nintendo forumgoer, it was not directed towards you. It's not made for someone that complains about ports 24/7 consistently across the board, because that's a consistent standard that I can accept. And I've called out there "horrid" practices time and time again. You can look at my recent post in the Nintendominion thread about the Mega Man pricing. Unfortunately I just don't see it as being that "horrid", nor do I think it disqualifies their position as one of the better publishers (the internet part, not the pricing). 

A good game that's old is no longer relevant because if I wanted it I would've already played it on 3DS years ago, as in fact I did with Revelations.

And 3DS is not current gen anymore as it has been succeeded.

Sure, they've released a lot of games, but when pretty much every one is ancient, irrelevant, or garbage, that's still not good support.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 05 November 2018

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.