-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Take Two CEO "Nintendo is making a 'great effort' to support 3rd parties on Switch"
- Thread starter bomblord1
- Start date
It's all there.
belteshazzar
Member
Cool, where are the games
Here's a good summary about the state of the Wii U pre and post launch. Wii U was a mess.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-secret-developers-wii-u-the-inside-story
Here are the main complaints from third party development houses:
This time around the development environment is solid with Nvidia, Epic, and others ready to help third parties in getting their software ready for launch and beyond.
This time there doesn't seem to be any lack of awareness of the platform or any of the "it's a Wii peripheral..." confusion.
This time around Nintendo seems to be much more supportive of third party efforts. Source? This very thread.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1320652
This time Nintendo is going to be relaunching their heavy hitters along side new titles to keep momentum and sales up. Being the successor to the 3DS (with everything that entails) should also help in that regard.
This time around developers have a vested interest in feeding the still growing userbase of the PS4 - a mandate even, and it's been said by those who would know that the Switch is capable of ports from this generation. How capable? We'll know soon, but all in all things seem very different this time.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-secret-developers-wii-u-the-inside-story
Here are the main complaints from third party development houses:
This time around the development environment is solid with Nvidia, Epic, and others ready to help third parties in getting their software ready for launch and beyond.
Nvidia said:
Epic said:
This time there doesn't seem to be any lack of awareness of the platform or any of the "it's a Wii peripheral..." confusion.
Gamestop said:
This time around Nintendo seems to be much more supportive of third party efforts. Source? This very thread.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1320652
This time Nintendo is going to be relaunching their heavy hitters along side new titles to keep momentum and sales up. Being the successor to the 3DS (with everything that entails) should also help in that regard.
This time around developers have a vested interest in feeding the still growing userbase of the PS4 - a mandate even, and it's been said by those who would know that the Switch is capable of ports from this generation. How capable? We'll know soon, but all in all things seem very different this time.
Interfectum
Member
According to Matt porting current gen games will not be a problem on a technical level. So it's all going to be about how well the system sells and how well third parties sell on the system.
Skittzo0413
Member
To be fair these quotes only really work as a good comparison if they're similarly timed. The Eurogamer article in the post you quoted was from 2014, so it's not really comparable to public statements made by developers and publishers before launch. When was the UE4 quote from? Also, when was that quote where someone from FROM laughed at the thought of supporting the Wii U?
Pejo
Gold Member
Interesting that they can get that sort of performance on a handheld Tegra device. I hadn't heard these rumors, but if it's true, that's really great news.
I wouldn't personally buy a 3rd party game on the Switch just to have it on the go, but I'm sure there's a market for that. Also, to at least have some parity with the current gen consoles would give Switch-only owners an experience that aren't 3rd class like the Wii ports were.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Unprecedented effort?
megabytecr
Member
I see the same underlying issue, just a bit better, some 3rd party pubs will support with 1 or 2 titles first, and then wait and decide on the future support, others will just wait to see if the console is succesful. This makes sense for them but ultimately ends up hurting the console.
I would love to have 3rd parties but just like with the Wii U, I am ok with some support and Nintendo games.
I would love to have 3rd parties but just like with the Wii U, I am ok with some support and Nintendo games.
The thing is the most optimistic statements for the Wii U (which were still more of a we shall see kind of thing) happened before developers got their hands on the hardware.
Once they got their hands on the hardware it was all downhill.
Third parties are currently developing for the Switch. They know what the hardware can do. They are saying very good things.
That is a very important night and day difference.
No. The UE4 quote was after the launch of WiiU aka they had to be asked if they support and then laughed at the thought.
Now they expressed support pre-launch.
Largely different.
Skittzo0413
Member
I'm not saying that what we're hearing now isn't encouraging, and that it compares very favorably to pre-Wii U comments, I'm just saying that the most effective comparison would be to take public statements from ~4 months before launch because at this point we don't have the type of inside information that the Eurogamer article presented. For all we know, some developers might be sending back their Switch devkits (although I very, very much doubt this) but we don't have access to that information right now.
Yeah I agree it's very different, I'm just saying the most effective comparisons would be public quotes on this same timeline.
I'm willing to buy lot's of 3rd party games on Switch as long as they are decent ports and don't get delayed till infinity just to sell it at $60 again when the same game can be found already in other consoles for $30. Rumors point out that it'll be as powerful as the X1 so spec limitations shouldn't be an excuse this time around. It now depends on Nintendo to promote the hell out of this console and everyone would be happy: customers and 3rd parties.
No. At the same timeline they expressed support for Switch, they said jackshit about WiiU. You are asking me to basically prove a negative.
Skittzo0413
Member
I'm not asking you to find or say anything, I'm just saying that, while that's a good find, it would be more effective as a comparison to find developer/publisher statements along the same timeline in general. That is more effective at proving this isn't "the same song and dance" as far as public statements go.
Here you go. Two reports from around three months before launch.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/09/wii-u-developer-reports-struggles-with-slow-cpu/
http://nintendotoday.com/skyrim-developer-still-unsure-about-the-wii-u/
You are sharing an opinion, which means you don't have an argument. What is your argument that this would be a better proof?
Not to get too heavy into a power discussion, but what is even the incentive if the system isn't likely to be up to par with even the standard Xbox One? There are still tons of base units without the PS4 Pro or the Scorpio, but with performance on those originals already feeling like kind of a joke in some cases, is portability the only real benefit from a Switch version?
Like Nintendo clearly didn't want this thing to be too expensive, and they're right to do so, but I don't know how seriously I can take any third party talk.
Like Nintendo clearly didn't want this thing to be too expensive, and they're right to do so, but I don't know how seriously I can take any third party talk.
Version 3.0
Member
Yes... there is a shoulder and a trigger button on each of the joycons.
Clickable sticks, too? Is Nintendo finally going to have the same amount of buttons as the competition? It'll be the first time since...ever, actually.
Uhhh the WiiU has standard button count and clickable sticks too...
Skittzo0413
Member
Those are very good, yes. They show the completely different state of affairs between right now (all devs reporting good hardware, Todd Howard's comments) and back then.
Those and the quote earlier in this thread about the Take Two CEO being explicitly skeptical 6 months before launch show the major differences in attitude very well.
All I am saying is that, if you are providing a quote about UE4 support 3-4 months after launch (no idea if that's when it was but this is hypothetical) to compare to a quote about support before the console has even been fully revealed, people can say- "well it's not the same situation, the Wii U was already out and failing when they said that, of course they'd say nice things about it before launch when it could still be a viable platform!"
That's not my personal position, and I think everything that's been said is much better than what's been said about the Wii U, but from an objective, logical standpoint, the most effective comparisons are the ones where as many of the circumstances as possible are the same.
Well as we can see some of those do exist. I'm basically trying to find as many of those as possible to make the best comparisons, rather than "settling" for ones that were made after the launch.
It's really not all that important in the grand scheme of things, but I just want to see more quotes from the same timeline if possible. If more don't exist then yeah, we can just work with what we have.
While it would be "more effective" as you keep repeating, if those statements don't exist then it's a bit difficult to make that comparison. Thus, the statements we do have are the best we got and form them it's looking pretty good.
blue_phazon
Member
So a relatively niche market which I had cited previously and an incredibly niche market that argues for selective 3rd party targeting more than general third party support.
The limitations on Steam Link or Nvidia Shield are much more user friendly than the Wii U's off-screen play for starters. A decent home wifi network would let you stream anywhere in your house effectively.
Also, assuming Nintendo is selling this at or above cost a system plus two games is a pretty nice deal for them. Most systems end up in the 4-6 game tie ratio. Nintendo games trend higher because Nintendo fans buy a lot of Nintendo games, but for every non-Nintendo fan who gets the Switch as a stream box plus Zelda or Mario they'll have a shot at pulling them further into the Nintendo ecosystem. That's the payoff. Get the system they aren't losing money on into more homes, then see the compelling software ultimately sell itself. I'm sure Nintendo would take 75M Switch systems sold at a 5 games per unit tie ratio over 50M Switch systems sold at a 6 games per unit tie ratio.
You don't need access to a dev kit to know that the logistics simply aren't the same. It's a portable tablet first, a console second. Games need to be able to switch between the two on the fly. Even ignoring the detachable controllers and touchscreen you're talking about an additional layer of stress testing the other consoles simply don't require. I'm sure it isn't arduous and I'm sure it's way better than off-screen play on the Wii U, but it's more than what the competition requires.
Hope for it being better than historic Nintendo hardware? Absolutely. Hell, I'd say there's outright proof of that. But did they tangibly close the gap that Nintendo has historically allowed to exist on this front? Sony and MS aren't standing still on 3rd party support and development environment improvements and developers don't work in a vacuum. Nintendo needs to reduce the gap, not just improve themselves.
*Note* I said "need" but only in the sense that Nintendo even needs any western 3rd party support at all, which itself is a dubious argument in my opinion.
I think it's better than it has been previously, but we'll see it stress tested with the Switch. Indie devs are generally my kind of people. Geeks and nerds who grew up playing Nintendo games and didn't stop even when their friends were making fun of them for playing SMW instead of MK every day after school who then wanted to make games themselves because of those great Nintendo experiences. Nintendo has an inherent advantage in courting indie devs but has consistently failed to capitalize on it. They need to do so with the Switch to offset the hardware gap between XBO and PS4 and to cover the almost guaranteed lack of meaningful AAA 3rd party support.
The Wii and DS were, then both the Wii U and 3DS weren't. Nintendo themselves saw that they'd reached the point were for profit hardware simply couldn't deliver what the market expected. Even then, the margins on hardware couldn't compete with software.
As for consolidating their efforts, that is the other side of the coin to what I'm arguing here. They don't want you buying a Wii U, a 3DS, and then 3D World and Pokemon. They want you buying one system then buying Mario, Pokemon, Mario Kart, Fire Emblem, Smash, Splatoon, and Zelda. Consolidating software means more software sales. They know their audience will have the capital because they're being asked to buy one less piece of hardware to get access to said software. Consolidation is in an attempt to exchange X revenue in hardware sales of X revenue in software sales because profit from the later is far higher than the former.
Expressing support prelaunch vs having to be asked postlaunch and laughing at the thought of support...
Do you really fail to see how big of a difference that is or are you just trolling me?
Skittzo0413
Member
No, because I've acknowledged several times that it is a huge difference. It just leaves the argument open to rebuttals like the hypothetical one in my post.
This really isn't that important and seems to be derailing the thread, so I'll stop talking about it. Sorry!
As it has been said, the biggest obstacle for Nintendo with third parties is for them to feel confident in viewing Nintendo's next-gen platform as a console that has an audience willing to likely buy its IP on. This is in addition for most of those third parties wanting to take the safer approach by waiting for the install base to grow which is Nintendo's responsibility. Based on Nintendo past history with previous platforms, it's understandable why many third parties hesitate to commit to supporting new Nintendo platforms early on with some of their biggest IP despite the optimistic initial impressions they may have of the console that isn't released in the market.
Personally, I'd really love to see Overwatch and Monster Hunter come to Switch. Those IP interest me the most. Well, maybe RE 7 depending on how it turns out. I thought about buying a PS4 during black friday, but I decided to hold out on doing so until more is known about Switch. Of course, I think it's realistic to expect Switch to likely underwhelm in terms of overall third party support even if you discount the past 3 years worth of software available on it.
Personally, I'd really love to see Overwatch and Monster Hunter come to Switch. Those IP interest me the most. Well, maybe RE 7 depending on how it turns out. I thought about buying a PS4 during black friday, but I decided to hold out on doing so until more is known about Switch. Of course, I think it's realistic to expect Switch to likely underwhelm in terms of overall third party support even if you discount the past 3 years worth of software available on it.
im drooling at the idea of MH on the Switch
What's the difference in controls from a Wii U?
Yeah, the Switch's core concept makes MH all the more appealing.
-Mutsukki-
Member
I think this is pretty likely to happen honestly, Capcom has nowhere else to jump the frachise to. PS4 is too high end, Vita is dead...
Ehh... Wii U gamepad and accesories (Pro) had pretty much all the standard buttons you'd expect. The only thing they were missing were analog triggers which apparently they brought back for Switch.
SpiceMelange
Member
mobile
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Lacked the analog triggers, though.
I'm not creating a hypothetical person who says "Please don't bring all games!" Every machine will have different support, and the more they overlap the more what's not shared will make a difference. Some people will prefer Gears of War + Skyrim while others will prefer Mario + Skyrim.Drek said:
DS was over 6. Wii was over 9. There's the money.Drek said:
Absolutely. I doubt the appeal of streaming one's own high end PC games around the house as something that would result in dozens of millions of hardware sales or there'd probably be a thread about the latest Shield tablet rather than the Switch.
i really hope this happens!
id rather let the franchise die, not because i despise mobile or something, but because it would be a pain to play,
remember this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y5TqX-9-Ps&app=desktop
I can never forget.
I still have faith the design alone and concept of the machine will invite more games for sure though. It's a great concept,,,,,much better than the WiiU's second screen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y5TqX-9-Ps&app=desktop
I can never forget.
I still have faith the design alone and concept of the machine will invite more games for sure though. It's a great concept,,,,,much better than the WiiU's second screen
Isn't there a rumor that Sony is funding a westernized Monster Hunter 5 as a PS4 console exclusive?
Wowfunhappy
Member
Nintendo's ABXY layout in nonstandard in the west.
brochiller
Member
Four buttons in a diamond is non standard? Unless you're talking about the labeling of the buttons, which is a non issue.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
The same rumor rumored that said PS4 MH game is a mess and no one at Capcom has faith in it, and that other MH games are in development for Nintendo (most likely for Switch).
Blackpuppy
Member
What are you talking about? It's been that way since the NES and then the SNES. Only the XBox does it in a reverse fashion.
Wowfunhappy
Member
Yes, I'm talking about labeling, and I think it's a legitimate problem. Yes, I understand that this layout has always been standard for Nintendo. I'll also say that I personally am accustomed to Nintendo's layout, and went out of my way to buy a Wii U Pro Controller rather than a standard Xbox controller for my PC, specifically because I wanted Nintendo's placement.
In the west, both Sony and Nintendo have confirm on the bottom and back on the right. Only Nintendo has the reverse. This is primarily a problem for consumers, who are used to Sony and Microsoft's layout, but it's something developers have to consider as well. For example, generally the "confirm" button is also the primary button in gameplay. So should a developer porting its game to the Nintendo switch map "attack" to B or A? If the latter, they may have to redesign their interface to account for the differing placement. And this is before you get into the detachable joycons, which are meant to be usable as two separate controllers.
Blackpuppy
Member
I have a PS3 and a 3ds and it's not too confusing to switch between them. Besides, B for "back" makes much more sense than O.
And why wouldn't it be a problem for Microsoft, since the consumer has been used to the Nintendo layout ?
Yup every generation, we heard third parties say they will support the system. We'll see!
New console looks great though so I really want this to succeed and will definitely be supporting it myself.
Buttons share a similar architecture between all systems guys, no need to panic, Switch should be able to get buttons labelling downport from PS4.
That said be realistics, we won't see open worlds games buttons labelling ported to Switch, the RAM, The RAM is not enough powerful.
That said be realistics, we won't see open worlds games buttons labelling ported to Switch, the RAM, The RAM is not enough powerful.
Interfectum
Member
It's not. Button labels aren't going to stop Rocket League from being ported to the system like, say, having to rethink the game for a Wiimote. All of the buttons are present for modern AAA games and there's no real extra gimmick that is a requirement to develop for (I'm almost 100% there is no mandate for devs to take a single joycon into account, for example).