Support NeoGAF

JonnyDBrit · Mar 15, 2017

Got an email from the Hex Heroes kickstarter project, updating on the current status of the game. In particular, they take some time to address the possibility of porting to the Switch, and here's what they have to say:

Let us be clear, at this time, Prismatic does not have access to the Switch development kit. Few devs do, in fact. We met briefly with Nintendo at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco but they didn't go into specifics about how to obtain a dev kit. As they've been saying publicly, they're being selective and want to curate the content on the Switch more. If you're concerned about our absence from the Nindie showcase, fret not - Nintendo will pretty much only feature games that have already made their way through, or are in the middle of the certification process.

Nintendo is being specific about Switch releases: No ports within the first ~6 months/launch window. This is somewhat of a plus for us because Hex Heroes cannot directly be ported to the Switch anyway; it will require some design changes.
We're speculating that Nintendo will be more amenable to talking when we've pitched them on a Switch version of Hex Heroes. We want to get the ball rolling this month and we do that by delivering a build of the game to them.

Hadn't seen this specific restriction come up previously; if it has, I apologise. Would suggest that any ports released in that window will have had to be under consideration since before the release of the Switch itself, though it could just be the specific response they've given Prismatic.

Shancake · Mar 15, 2017

This can't be true. Most of what's available are ports.

NMFried · Mar 15, 2017

But Skylanders.

And Setsuna.

Magikoopa24 · Mar 15, 2017

It's an interesting conundrum- maybe they want to avoid another "Batman Arkham City: But With Gloves!" Incident, where people thought the system would only get shit ports spammed. Also, that possibly could get a large influx of games during the holidays, under the guise of "look at all these games on the way!"
We'll see if this benefits them in the long run.

Oregano · Mar 15, 2017

I think that's a mis-characterization of what Damon Baker said, which is that Nintendo is focusing on games that will release at least day and date on Switch. It's obviously not a hard and fast rule considering Tomorrow Corp is releasing three ports this week.

cclittle · Mar 15, 2017

Switch will never be the true heir to the Vita unless Nintendo let's through (and helps) as many indies as possible.

kubev · Mar 15, 2017

NMFried said:
But Skylanders.

And Setsuna.

And BotW.

VoltySquirrel · Mar 15, 2017

This is smart. One of the main problems with the Wii U was the fact that the only games coming out in that first year were ports. New games and exclusives are important here.

guek · Mar 15, 2017

Maybe specifically for indies?

SinCityAssassin · Mar 15, 2017

Nintendo is being selective about who gets dev kits for a while into the launch year. This was discussed a while ago

Shancake · Mar 15, 2017

guek said:
Maybe specifically for indies?

Shadow Knight
World of Goo
Binding of Isaac

etc etc

JonnyDBrit · Mar 15, 2017

Shancake said:
This can't be true. Most of what's available are ports.

NMFried said:
But Skylanders.

And Setsuna.

Hence my emphasis that what it may infer is that ports proposed or applied for after the launch will also not be allowed to release within six months of the launch. All of the 'Nindies' and current third party ports we know of were obviously in talks with Nintendo before the Switch hit the market.

watershed · Mar 15, 2017

Oregano said:
I think that's a mis-characterization of what Damon Baker said, which is that Nintendo is focusing on games that will release at least day and date on Switch. It's obviously not a hard and fast rule considering Tomorrow Corp is releasing three ports this week.

Yeah this. He basically said recent or original content is the priority but ports of older games are coming and even then we have stuff like Fast Racing RMX. Its clearly not a strict NO PORTS IN THE 1ST 6 MONTHS policy. Just look at World of Goo coming this week.

KingdomHeartsFan · Mar 15, 2017

VoltySquirrel said:
This is smart. One of the main problems with the Wii U was the fact that the only games coming out in that first year were ports. New games and exclusives are important here.

Ports can still be important and are there to fill the droughts between the new games. Just look at Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

jbug617 · Mar 15, 2017

Wrong thread

ShockingAlberto · Mar 15, 2017

I have heard indie developers have been told this.

But it's also clearly not spread evenly.

SinCityAssassin · Mar 15, 2017

KingdomHeartsFan said:
Ports can still be important and are there to fill the droughts between the new games. Just look at Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

There's a difference between a port Nintendo is confident in releasing themselves o n their platform and a third party port where quality can be more dubious to them.

Plinko · Mar 15, 2017

ShockingAlberto said:
I have heard indie developers have been told this.

But it's also clearly not spread evenly.

It may be purposefully staggered.

JonnyDBrit · Mar 15, 2017

watershed said:
Yeah this. He basically said recent or original content is the priority but ports of older games are coming and even then we have stuff like Fast Racing RMX. Its clearly not a strict NO PORTS IN THE 1ST 6 MONTHS policy. Just look at World of Goo coming this week.

Read what I wrote and bolded again, particularly the bit on content that's already approved and in the process of being ported to Switch, rather than the likes of Hex Heroes which would be applying after the Switch. Hence also my choice of word for the title being 'restricting' (as in, limiting), rather than a total ban or block. Obviously there are ports coming, but this is apparently one of the restrictions that could affect some interested parties.

Cmerrill · Mar 15, 2017

If the Switch didn't have ports, its only title would be 1-2 switch.

foolishoptimist · Mar 15, 2017

VoltySquirrel said:
This is smart. One of the main problems with the Wii U was the fact that the only games coming out in that first year were ports. New games and exclusives are important here.

Because what you want are even older ports! Smart!

Seik · Mar 15, 2017

It doesn't make sense with the games we already have and some coming soon. :/

DigitalScrap · Mar 15, 2017

I think they just don't want it to end up like mobile stores or Steam where there are tons of shit games out there. Not saying that the Hex Heroes is a shit game, but I just think that are being careful right now to try to curate it.

Although that "Vroom in the night sky" game on the U.K. EShop looks pretty damn shitty to me... lol

dragonflys545 · Mar 15, 2017

At this point Nintendo needs all the ports they can get... because the release dates for their first party ports are taking way to long. If I were Nintendo I would release mk8 mid march, and would have ported more games from the Wii U line up. Like bayonetta 2 and pikmin 3.

Oregano · Mar 15, 2017

Cmerrill said:
If the Switch didn't have ports, its only title would be 1-2 switch.

Pffft Bomberman.

JonnyDBrit · Mar 15, 2017

Cmerrill said:
If the Switch didn't have ports, its only title would be 1-2 switch.

Seik said:
It doesn't make sense with the games we already have and some coming soon. :/

JonnyDBrit said:
Read what I wrote and bolded again, particularly the bit on content that's already approved and in the process of being ported to Switch, rather than the likes of Hex Heroes which would be applying after the Switch. Hence also my choice of word for the title being 'restricting' (as in, limiting), rather than a total ban or block. Obviously there are ports coming, but this is apparently one of the restrictions that could affect some interested parties.

.

Phoenix RISING · Mar 15, 2017

kubev said:
And BotW.

" in the middle of the certification process"

chubigans · Mar 15, 2017

This is a stupid rule and Nintendo is stupid for enforcing it. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

ArtHands · Mar 15, 2017

Skylanders and Shovel Knight.

KingdomHeartsFan · Mar 15, 2017

SinCityAssassin said:
There's a difference between a port Nintendo is confident in releasing themselves o n their platform and a third party port where quality can be more dubious to them.

So they should limit games released on their platform when it could use more games because there's a possibility the port can be bad? Unless the developer has a track record of releasing terribly preforming games I don't see the issue here.

Glass Shark · Mar 15, 2017

This doesn't make sense. Binding of Isaac comes out on Friday. Shovel Knight was a launch game. So...???

ZOONAMI · Mar 15, 2017

I could see them restricting some ports. They are riding the zelda wave.

watershed · Mar 15, 2017

JonnyDBrit said:
Read what I wrote and bolded again, particularly the bit on content that's already approved and in the process of being ported to Switch, rather than the likes of Hex Heroes which would be applying after the Switch. Hence also my choice of word for the title being 'restricting' (as in, limiting), rather than a total ban or block. Obviously there are ports coming, but this is apparently one of the restrictions that could affect some interested parties.

Yeah Baker said to IGN that content is coming later. Nintendo is prioritizing original or more recent games in the launch window. Ports of older games are both already present and there is more to come.

PAULINK · Mar 15, 2017

chubigans said:
This is a stupid rule and Nintendo is stupid for enforcing it. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

its fine, gives them more dev time and gives me more of a reason to care about the library we have now.

DigitalScrap · Mar 15, 2017

jrh2 said:
This doesn't make sense. Binding of Isaac comes out on Friday. Shovel Knight was a launch game. So...???

I have a feeling it will end up like Microsoft's "launch parity" clause - they make plenty of exceptions for already hugely successful games.

JonnyDBrit · Mar 15, 2017

ArtHands said:
Skylanders and Shovel Knight.

jrh2 said:
This doesn't make sense. Binding of Isaac comes out on Friday. Shovel Knight was a launch game. So...???

This isn't to do with ports that were in dev before the Switch release.

giancarlo123x · Mar 15, 2017

VoltySquirrel said:
This is smart. One of the main problems with the Wii U was the fact that the only games coming out in that first year were ports. New games and exclusives are important here.

This is stupid, instead of giving the option to release more games lets restrict ourselves and release less.

True Fire · Mar 15, 2017

NMFried said:
But Skylanders.

And Setsuna.

And literally everything besides 1,2S and BM

chubigans · Mar 15, 2017

PAULINK said:
its fine, gives them more dev time and gives me more of a reason to care about the library we have now.

What library? The launch slate was absolutely pathetic. Binding of Issac and Tomorrow Corps games are gonna be the first titles to actually let me play my Switch.

dragonflys545 · Mar 15, 2017

They even have those crappy neogeo ports... are they gonna fix these in the future? I do want to get Kof98 unless waku waku7 the only game with issues.

Oreoleo · Mar 15, 2017

jrh2 said:
This doesn't make sense. Binding of Isaac comes out on Friday. Shovel Knight was a launch game. So...???

Isn't the new Shovel Knight campaign a timed exclusive to the Switch? So I can see it getting a pass for that. Stuff like BoI and WORLD OF GOO though? I dunno..

The Greek Freak · Mar 15, 2017

PAULINK said:
its fine, gives them more dev time and gives me more of a reason to care about the library we have now.

What library?

You have:

Zelda
A bunch of junk
A bunch of cool older indie games that have been on sale on various platforms for 2-3$ at this point.

That's about it.

Luminaire · Mar 15, 2017

chubigans said:
What library? The launch slate was absolutely pathetic. Binding of Issac and Tomorrow Corps games are gonna be the first titles to actually let me play my Switch.

Less is more.

NES Classic logic.

Skyzard · Mar 15, 2017

I think this is so it doesn't give a negative image of an older game machine if companies only invest ports to capitalize on the lack of selection on their new product at their base's expense.

Doubt it means they won't do it, and they'll make exceptions if it's really desired I'm sure.

foolishoptimist · Mar 15, 2017

chubigans said:
What library? The launch slate was absolutely pathetic. Binding of Issac and Tomorrow Corps games are gonna be the first titles to actually let me play my Switch.

Did you buy a Switch, and not buy BOTW?

I did not think that was something that would happen with the launch lineup.

antonz · Mar 15, 2017

Nothing that absurd about the policy. if you want to bring an already released Indie title then it better be a massive title. Nintendo is not interested in just being a dumping site out the gate

CartridgeBlower · Mar 15, 2017

Damn, so many posters not even reading the original post. 'But Shovel Knight!'

chubigans · Mar 15, 2017

foolishoptimist said:
Did you buy a Switch, and not buy BOTW?

I did not think that was something that would happen with the launch lineup.

I did buy it because there was literally nothing else available lol.

I'm playing Horizon so I want to finish that before tackling Zelda.

antonz said:
Nothing that absurd about the policy. if you want to bring an already released Indie title then it better be a massive title. Nintendo is not interested in just being a dumping site out the gate

The next two games from Nintendo are ports! How does this policy make any sense?

SinCityAssassin · Mar 15, 2017

dragonflys545 said:
They even have those crappy neogeo ports... are they gonna fix these in the future? I do want to get Kof98 unless waku waku7 the only game with issues.

Hamster is fixing it as late as next week.

dragonflys545 · Mar 15, 2017

SinCityAssassin said:
Hamster is fixing it as late as next week.

Awesome! Hopefully mark of the wolves gets ported over too.

Support NeoGAF

Nintendo restricting ports to the Switch within the first six months of release?

Member

Junior Member

Member

Neo Member

Member

Neo Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Junior Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage

Member

You don't need to be empathetic towards me.

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

y'all should be ashamed

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch

Member

Banned

Junior Member

Banned

I microwave steaks.

Member

Member

Banned

Member

y'all should be ashamed

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

y'all should be ashamed

Member

Member

Similar threads