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

Forums - Nintendo - Gamepass and live on Switch - A repeat of the past or something new?

Tagged games:

 

What is happening?

Nintendo will make big $ with Gamepass 0 0%
 
Microsoft will make big $... 2 22.22%
 
Microsoft will overtake Nintendo by control 0 0%
 
Microsoft tech will make Nintendo stronger 0 0%
 
Nintendo will buy Square 3 33.33%
 
Sony will buy Microsoft 0 0%
 
Microsoft will make a Switch box 0 0%
 
Amazon will win the war 1 11.11%
 
Vgchartz will removes all... 2 22.22%
 
Trump defeats covid 1 11.11%
 
Total:9
chakkra on 19 October 2020
sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
Gamepass on Switch would be the ultimate combo, but Nintendo won't allow for it. They want people buying Nintendo games, and that isn't going to happen as much if Switch owners have hundreds of free games on Gamepass.

I don’t think that will be an issue. Nintendo 1st party games have a certain quality, whimsy and charm that can never be replicated by their competitors. A Switch owner can use Game Pass to play the next Elder Scrolls sure, but will still also buy the next Zelda and Smash games regardless. 

Things are not that simple. Playing a game like Elder Scrolls takes time; and even if a person does complete it in 50 hours, that still means that person used a time they could've used to play a game they bought from Nintendo. To put it in simple terms: More time playing games in Game Pass = less time playing games from Nintendo's store.

The only way I see this happening is if MS agrees to give Nintendo a REALLY big cut.



Around the Network
Darwinianevolution on 19 October 2020

Why would Nintendo give so much control over their ecosystem to a direct competitor?



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

JWeinCom on 19 October 2020
padib said:
RolStoppable said:
Of course this is the logical end for Microsoft's strategy: Let someone else do the hard work of selling the hardware. But they would have to give Nintendo one hell of a deal like an annual flatrate of $5 billion plus an additional fee based on usage rates of Game Pass on Switch. If Nintendo got that amount of money, they might be willing to agree to an otherwise questionable proposal.

Calling the current business relationship between Nintendo and Microsoft an alliance is misguided. These aren't two console manufacturers working together, but rather one console manufacturer (Nintendo) and one third party (Microsoft). As such, there's nothing Nintendo owes to Microsoft, because the latter already gets money from being able to sell games to a big installed base.

As for the final question, such a hypothetical situation wouldn't change much for Sony. One catch is that Game Pass itself where many games would not have the option to be downloaded and played natively on Switch, so they would be streaming-only. Game streaming continues to suck, so Game Pass on Switch wouldn't be all that good to begin with. The second catch is that Nintendo-first gamers already have the option to be without a PlayStation, either by having a PC or buying an Xbox; therefore Game Pass on Switch (if we pretend that it would be good for argument's sake) would hurt PC and/or Xbox. The Nintendo-first gamers who choose a PS usually eye a bunch of games that aren't available on PC or Xbox, so Game Pass wouldn't work as substitute and the same gamers would still choose a PS.

The poll is representative of how much fantasy this whole thread is.

So many opportunities for objectivity missed.

OP can't be a fantasy because it didn't take a position.

Switch + Gamepass may represent enough people that would have gone PS only (for Zenimax games, regular multiplayer or for alternatives that can be found on Xbox), XB only, or even PC only, but who now might dip into Switch games because the combination of the two was interesting enough. Not everyone's tastes reflect yours, beautiful, so the games on Gamepass may be enough for those currently playing on Non-Nintendo consoles and buying a Switch for Gamepass may introduce them to Nintendo games, which are amazing. These would turn PS, XB or even PC buyers into Switch buyers and lead more people into purchasing Nintendo hardware and thus software. This point is compounded by the prospect of having a one-stop shop of Nintendo like offerings and more PC/PS/XB type offerings while on the go or at the least while only paying for one console. I'm not saying I am taking position, just pointing out that your POV is not without its own flaws.

Gamepass on Switch would not absolutely require streaming, just as Gamepass on PC would have to support varying levels of hardware performance.

Microsoft is a platform maker in general and in this question, since Gamepass is a platform, making MS first party on Nintendo's platform, but for themselves. Anyhow this distinction is somewhat meaningless here so I'm not sure why you mentioned it other than to say that MS, to you, in this proposition, would be profiting off Nintendo's success. Whether it's true or not, the distinction between 1st and 3rd party here is inconsequential.

By the way, 5 billion $ is quite the number you got there. Not sure which part of your imagination it floated out of but, why not 1 billion or 8 billion, sounds to hold onto thin air or be some fantasy or yours.

I can't see Gamepass working on Switch without without streaming.

When a Gamepass game runs on PC it has to support varying levels of hardware performance, but those games were going to do that anyway. The games on Gamepass for PC are already PC games, the devs didn't have to do anything special to get it to work for Gamepass.

On the other hand, if they wanted to make it work for Switch, they'd have to do some serious reworking. I'm not sure exactly how difficult it is to make a PC game run on Switch, but I'm guessing is that if it was cheap we'd see a lot more games with PC version on Switch. The minimum spec requirements for the PC games on Gamepass are pretty much all well beyond what the Switch can do. Getting games to run on a system that's already well below the minimum they're shooting for is going to be a problem.  Even if there's a new Switch version that has more power, the gap will only close temporarily as system requirements for PC games get heftier. And there's still the issue of the Switch's mobile architecture. 

Unless a developer was planning on making a Switch version anyway, the probably wouldn't be inclined to do so for the sake of Gamepass. Unless Microsoft wanted to start funding Switch ports, the amount of games that would be on Switch's version of Gamepass would be pretty anemic. 

On the other hand, there's no real reason why XCloud couldn't work on Switch, so that would make a lot more sense. Or they could do a Nintendo Gamepass with an almost entirely different lineup of games which already have Switch versions. Although, I can't really see who's really winning out on that deal.



Kristof81 on 19 October 2020

That's a really difficult one to answer. The only way I can see it if the gamepass is integrated into the NSO service (Nintendo Switch Online Pass, if you will). But there would have to be A LOT of asterisks' attached to this new service and it definitely wouldn't be 1:1 copy of it, working on Switch. More realistically, Nintendo could create similar service of their own, using existing MS's infrastructure.



DonFerrari on 19 October 2020

We know from like over a year that MS wants to put Gamepass and streaming on Switch and PS5 if they can, but I don't see neither company allowing it. The rental part of the service would be "easy" for the two to make themselves, while the streaming portion while taking more time it can be done with only renting the server instead of the whole service. And I doubt Nintendo would be interested in have plenty of third party games for cheap entry price that would take time and visibility of their own games and could impact the sales of their exclusives.



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."

Around the Network
JWeinCom on 19 October 2020

RolStoppable said:
JWeinCom said:

I think it's pretty known that my allegiance lies with Nintendo, so if I wasn't being objective I would default for them.

Whether or not it's a tough sell depends purely on the price. So, that's kind of a weird argument. PS Plus has nearly 4x on an install base only about 2X the size, so I think it's fair to say NSO counts as a tough sell.

NSO was at 10 million last August. Gamepass hit that about April. So, they're relatively on par, but Gamepass is selling based purely on its game offerings, whereas NSO is also a paywall to online play. So, it's safe to say customers are seeing more value in Gamepass than in the ability to play NES and SNES games. Unless you want to argue that nobody is paying for NSO to play games online.

Gamepass definitely adds value to XBox's hardware. The fact that its available on other systems doesn't completely negate that. By that logic, NSO is worthless to Switch owners, because there are other legal systems that can play all of those games, and also they're very not hard to obtain through less morally upright means. 

For me, buying XBox hardware was the easiest and cheapest way to get access to Gamepass, so it drove me to XBox hardware. And even if I did wind up doing it on PC/Mac/Linux/w/e, that'd still be part of Microsoft's ecosystem. On the other hand, buying NSO was something I begrudgingly did to play online games. The SNES and NES games just made me slightly less salty about it. Maybe there were some people really dying to play Super Mario RPG that don't know about emulators/have firm moral values/can't find an SNES Classic/didn't buy it on the Wii, but I don't think NSO is doing all that much for Switch hardware.

Exclusive content is good, but the business model is somewhat archaic. Don't know if it will shift as drastically as TV and music towards some kind of subscription based model, but that's going to be a big part of market by 2030, and Nintendo needs to have some kind of solution in that space whether it's a direct competitor to Gamepass or their own take. NSO as it currently stands is nowhere near that. Or they can just decide to do things how they've been doing them... but that hasn't worked well for that many companies.

Yes, it's known that your allegiance lies with Nintendo, but I also know that you assign some inherent kind of inferiority to 2D games, hence why your subjectivity is prone to override an objective assessment. Your NSO number is outdated, so your ensuing argument that is based on subscription numbers is moot.

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2020/09/nintendos_switch_online_service_now_has_more_than_26_million_subscribers

Game Pass and NSO are different types of offerings, but Nintendo has no need to include their new games in a subscription service because they have no problem selling them at full price the old-fashioned way. If NSO's apps continue to grow at the same pace for the next ten years (~40 games per year), they will have ~500 classic games by 2030.

Comparisons with other entertainment media don't work because they've never had the same relationship between hardware and software as video games do.

 

I assign inferiority to 2D games? Huh. Rather impressive how you can say something that manages to be both entirely irrelevant and entirely untrue. 

The most recently played games on my Switch are Mario 3D All Stars, Super Kirby Clash, Super Smash Bros, Kirby Fighters 2, Super Mario Bros 35, Donkey Kong Country 2, Megaman 11, Fire Emblem Warriors, Super Mario Bros 3, and Pokemon Sword. Most of those have only 2 dimensions. 

I'm also not sure why this bias would somehow influence my thoughts on Nintendo and Gamepass. Since I've had Gamepass I've actually only played three games to completion. Bloodstained, Marvel vs Capcom Infinite, and Wargroove. All 2-D games. Gamepass actually has a lot of those.

So, I dunno. Seems like the evidence points to me liking 2D games. And, I'll also just go on record saying that in general I have no strong preference towards 3D games. I'm sure you have some compelling evidence to the contrary to present... otherwise it'd seem like you're pulling things out of your ass.

500 games? Ummmm... cool? Really not sure what the point of that is. And, they're already scraping the bottom of the barrel as is with Operation Logic Bomb and The Peace Keepers, so even if they keep going at the same rate, I'm not sure how much value is getting added to service. Also not sure why we're assuming they're going to add 40 a year when they added less than 20 this year.


I did post dated figures for NSO, and indeed, XBox Gamepass is lagging behind. But, the graph in that article shows that Switch online subscriptions spike whenever a big online game is released. Which kind of supports my point that the classic games on NSO are not really adding much value to the system. 

There are no technological hurdles that would prevent Nintendo from doing a Gamepass style service on the Switch. The software is still linked to the hardware, you're just not buying it in a different way. Alternatively they can use streaming and not have the hardware linked to the software. Or, they could use some kind of hybrid, and use a streaming service to get around the Switch's hardware limitations, which they've already played around with in Japan.

Tradition is a pretty weak argument in the tech world.  The circumstances have vastly changed, and will change more. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 19 October 2020

JWeinCom on 19 October 2020
padib said:
RolStoppable said:

If you aren't taking position, then that's probably because you know it yourself that the points you raised are weak. I'll bother to respond once you are willing to take a clear stance, because if you don't consider the points you raised convincing enough to stand by them, then why should I consider them convincing.

Why do all your conversations require debate? The OP is an invitation to discuss ideas. Even if I haven't taken position, the items I raised are, to me at least, interesting topics and valid to discuss. Perhaps some higher ups at Nintendo are discussing the very same thing.

The question is without a doubt interesting with interesting implications. Even if I haven't taken position, it doesn't mean that it doesn't interest me and that you shouldn't participate.

@JWeinCom I personally see the Switch as a long-time platform for Nintendo, with upcoming revisions that will would probably be supported by Direct X especially if MS brings gamepass to it. I don't see the Switch as one model, but as a possibly endless progressing of revisions as the console lives over many years. Still, even if the Switch has a proper successor, if MS were to bring gamepass to it due to a deal with Nintendo, they would make sure the new model supports direct X and main engines which games in Gamepass would require.

I don't really know a ton about the way porting works, but is Direct X enough? 

In terms of specs, maybe a 2021 Switch can get into the ballpark of XBox One S in terms of RAM and power, but, again based on my limited knowledge of porting, that still seems like it's be a lot of work. And then when they start phasing out new gamepass releases on One S, then the Switch 2 or w/e is still left behind. 

The Switch would have to basically have its own version of Gamepass with a unique library. Which, they could do, but I don't think is the best idea. In general, I don't think Nintendo wants Microsoft to get a foothold in their market. I don't really see the advantage of doing it with MS instead of doing their own version of Gamepass, except to get MS exclusives (which atm aren't worth it) or that MS is willing to take an initial loss