-
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
All the COD and Fifa games for example? Resident Evil?
Again, this is an excuse working only for Nintendo devices. People on other consoles and PC buy late ports without any issues. A lot of the launch games are usually late ports, except for the 1st party offering.
I fully agree - just saying that it's not always "nintendo fans don't buy 3rd party games", but rather that nintendo fans might have legit reasons as to why they play those games on another platform. Myself included.
I always have 2 consoles per generation + pc + portable. It's not that I don't want to buy my 3rd party games on nintendo hardware, but when I have to compare those games the choice is often easy: buy them elsewhere because otherwise you get the lesser version (or later at a higher price). It is indeed something they should work on together.
Often those ports are the ultimate version - I think Need For Speed Wii U is the only recent game where that was the case, and there the problem was you could buy Need for speed for less than €29 on other platforms while at the time the Wii U version was € 59
dangeraaron10
Unconfirmed Member
The Switch is hitting all the right notes and getting mass interest from the enthusiasts to the bystanders. I'm excited. It seems Nintendo really intends to come out swinging in 2017 and I can't wait to see what they have in store for us.
I think MH coming to PS4 is total bollocks. MH owes its western success to Nintendo.
I think MH coming to PS4 is total bollocks. MH owes its western success to Nintendo.
It will definitely be the lesser version with Switch too. The only difference is that it would be the only portable version. Which might be the missing incentive for some. Hopefully it will be well promoted.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
The Resident evil games weren't AAA by any stretch. Really they weren't any AAA games on the wii. There were games built from the ground to look sorta like 360/PS3 games with similar levels of features but that's as good as it got. The reason why I refer to those as not AAA is because of the wii's hardware power I doubt those games were very expensive to make by themselves but was probably a lot more expensive than porting the actual games.
To me that could make it the best version, as I would value it higher because of it.
See The Godfather and Resident Evil where the controls made it stand out and be the more enjoyable version, even with lesser graphics.
Personally I'm currently on board with skyrim for that same reason. I never played the game because I rarely play console rpg's anymore besides the souls games, but a portable skyrim is something that has my interest as I'm often on the road.
Take Two fooled you?
I'm enthusiastic about it too. I just want this to continue beyond the first series of games.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Take two warned us of the Wii U's impeding failure, they were having none of that shit and were open about it.
Toadthemushroom
Member
This all sounds great, but I hope Nintendo of America and especially Nintendo of Europe make a more proactive approach to highlighting third party content, as NCL in Japan created a much healthier market for continued third party support this gen.
Bringing Nintendo Topics, a PS Blog-like news service, to the west would be a good start. So far NoE is largely disinterested in pushing content that they themselves aren't publishing or distributing for other publishers, but if they had something like Nintendo Topics either NoE editors could promote third party games or they could invite third parties to write pieces about their games.
But yeah, if third parties really are committing to Switch Nintendo needs to push their content as well. I hope they'll have learnt from 3DS's launch window, which was meant to be carried by third party content but Nintendo bringing 3DS launch forward scuppered that effort.
Bringing Nintendo Topics, a PS Blog-like news service, to the west would be a good start. So far NoE is largely disinterested in pushing content that they themselves aren't publishing or distributing for other publishers, but if they had something like Nintendo Topics either NoE editors could promote third party games or they could invite third parties to write pieces about their games.
But yeah, if third parties really are committing to Switch Nintendo needs to push their content as well. I hope they'll have learnt from 3DS's launch window, which was meant to be carried by third party content but Nintendo bringing 3DS launch forward scuppered that effort.
Herb Alpert
Banned
You kinda missed the point here
Toadthemushroom
Member
Er, interesting times ahead for the series if this turns out to be true.
I do get the feeling that third party publishers in Japan are more tepid on Switch, probably because no one knows whether it'll outperform 3DS gen-on-gen or just continue the 3DS's yearly hardware sales declines. What Level-5 has mentioned on the format sometimes feels like a vote of no-confidence.
Well, in my case almost none of the ports interested me. I´d already played Darksiders 2, Batman and Deus Ex on PC. Was already tired of Assassin´s Creed and hadn´t played any Mass Effect, so jumping straight to 3 in a series that was so praised for it´s story didn´t feel right. If there had been something like Dark Souls 2 or 3, Rocket League, Overwatch...I would´ve bought them as well, but 3rd party support was already dead by the time they released. So more than not liking (late) ports, the problem for me was that none of the available releases were suggestive to me or I´d already beat them.
Honestly, aside from what you mentioned for Level 5 (and even that could be a sort-of-PRtastic response to justify how they're not at launch), I'm not seeing that much from Japanese third parties in terms of statements on the platform. And by that I mean in neither direction. They seem to be asked less on it and to be quieter in general, just like Japan isn't usually where leaks of brand new console / brand new console's games come from.
The late port excuse doesn't work when late ports sold exceptionally well at the launch of ps4 and x1. Also RE4 sold well on Wii. Developers can't control when Nintendo decides to release their console. Guarantee switch will have tons of late ports too seeing as how it's releasing in the spring. If late ports are an issue because people already played the games on a previous console what new audience are 3rd parties reaching by porting games to Nintendo consoles?
PS4 has mandatory support for two configurations and I think it's quite likely Scorpio will become the third MS target very soon (XB1 + PC being the current ones).
Ok, they're not meant to switch (no pun intended) on the fly, but it's still an extra effort required for the competitors as well.
And by the way we actually don't know yet for sure whether there's a difference between docked and portable mode (excluding where the video output goes of course)
Of course they have to.
I'd argue that 3DS and especially WiiU weren't profitable mostly due to huge engineering mistakes like insisting on backwards compatibility (which in turn made the WiiU a nightmare-ish, underpowered mess)
Hopefully, yes.
But still, I'd argue their first and foremost reasoning is making their development more efficient and failure-proof (that is, compared to having two totally distinct hardware platforms to split your efforts between).
NintendosBooger
Member
Put a Chinatown Wars sequel on the Switch, then I'll believe you.
Interfectum
Member
Most won't be specific until on or after January reveal.
Skittzo0413
Member
Even Bethesda can't officially announce Skyrim yet even though it was prominently featured in the trailer. Nintendo is clearly telling devs not to announce anything until their January blowout.
After that we can decide if anyone is just talking and not actually supporting.
Skittzo0413
Member
Yep I'm in full agreement there. I would hope Nintendo has enough exclusives to announce in January to be a big enough event, but I guess they feel the need to save multiplat announcements for that event too.
LordRaptor
Member
That's not true, it entirely depends on the title in question.
There are plenty of "remasters" that were received with a resounding 'eh' for X1 and PS4, even at reduced pricing.
We can look at something like PS4 ROTTR and say pretty confidently it would have sold better without being a late port, just as a release of launch day SFV released today at full price for the X1 would also very likely fail to sell much.
It's not a localised sensitivity, its a question of product desirability as a whole; a late port of an 'okay' title thats missing features or is released for full price where its already at deep discount pricing on other platforms is - unsurprisingly - not hugely desirable.
e:
I mean, if "only nintendo fans care about late ports" is true, then why did MS have the controversial "Parity Clause" in existence in the first place?
The simple answer would be that MS fans also care about getting a similar game in the same timeframe as other platforms.
Skittzo0413
Member
The ultimate late port middle finger was undoubtedly Mass Effect 3 being sold for $60 while the whole trilogy had just released for 360/PS3 for a cheaper price.
There really is no defending EA in that situation- they sent that version out to die. That alone really gives me reason to believe the Origin on Wii U rumor.
Edit: and additionally cancelling Crysis 3 as it was about to printed (game completely done) is another reason to believe there was bad blood somewhere.
Father_Brain
Banned
We can only speculate as to what went on behind the scenes, but from a business perspective, EA was absolutely right to scrap the "unprecedented partnership," given that Nintendo was doing nothing at all to cultivate an audience for their games on Wii U.
The bigger mystery is why the "unprecedented partnership" was even announced in the first place. Maybe Nintendo had some sort of plans for first-party development aimed at the Western teen/adult male audience that fell through? Iwata seemingly implied something to that effect back in April 2011.
The bigger mystery is why the "unprecedented partnership" was even announced in the first place. Maybe Nintendo had some sort of plans for first-party development aimed at the Western teen/adult male audience that fell through? Iwata seemingly implied something to that effect back in April 2011.
That's good if they are. Honestly I thought Nintendo to turn things around needed to do one of two things: 1. Price their system cheaply enough people could justify it as a second system easily. or 2. Bring third parties back and really aggressively court them cause they would need to be aggressive at this point to get them back.
Sounds like they chose option 2. I figured it might be easier and cheaper to do option 1 but maybe to build a system that cheap they couldn't make it all that desireable even as a second system. I thought the other benefit of option 1 is they aren't trying to compete then in an already crowded space. Option 2 though would actually potentially get people like me interested who aren't so interested in Nintendo's games but maybe will like what the system offers (honestly no company's first parties would sell me on the console exclusively. I want to know what third parties support it and what features it has first). Personally, if they had the switch out or at least announced around when PS4/xbox one was out I might have waited to see if they got the games I wanted cause I like the concept over PS4's/xbox one but I do worry whether it would get the games I want (big one being at the time they released PS4/xbox one whether I thought the next Fallout would be on it).
I have to admit now that I have a PS4 I'd still be interested in what the switch got (and what Bethesda games it might get as it seems Bethesda is interested enough to let them use Skyrim as a trailer for the console). I'm too poor to really afford a second system though but if I weren't I'd be severely tempted (especially as I like what I've seen of that new Zelda game as well).
Skittzo0413
Member
But the ME3 issue happened before the console even launched. How could EA possibly know that the Wii U was doomed to fail before they saw any sales numbers? They probably thought it didn't look very attractive but I seriously doubt anyone could have predicted how badly it would do before launch. And why spend all that money on porting Crysis 3 only to abandon it as soon as the game was done? Even putting it out on the e-shop would've cost them next to nothing.
I think the Origin rumor has a lot of merit. It would explain EA's attitude both before the "unprecedented partnership" and after. It would explain why Nintendo's OS and online services were so bare bones at launch, if they had expected EA to handle that at one point. Hell, it might even be responsible for the Mass Effect Trilogy even being made in the first place, if EA truly wanted to screw over Nintendo.
Obviously we'll never know for sure unless someone spills the beans, but it's clear that something crazy happened behind the scenes there.
They may have chosen both options actually, if Laura Dale's rumors are to be believed. Currently the Switch is rumored at £199- which translated to somewhere between $199 and $250- for the base model.
LordRaptor
Member
The problem with that is that EA had killed support long before any sort of viability had been established; so you either assume EA are waaaaaaaaay better at reading the market than anyone else in the business is (Activision, Ubi, and WB for example had at least two full AAA release cycles before dropping support), or that something bad happened behind the scenes that had EA kill off support before the WiiU had even launched.
This.
But I'd also add that we should never, ever forget about target audience.
No matter how good or even superior port of GTA or CoD the Switch get would do anything for the whole western (another major factor that often gets ignored, there are far less issues with japanese stuff apparently) 3rd party issue, by itself.
Nintendo would need a complete overhaul of their image and attitude towards that particular market, and that's not happening overnight of course (assuming they're aiming for this, which I'm quite sceptical).
But as I've already said, securing some solid third party support in genres where it is more likely to already exist some overlap with the most popular target feels like a far easier task to achieve, and all in all should the Switch ending up having lots of Nintendo stuff + japanese devs onboard + constant flow of sports games + indies... well, I think it could very well turn out being a quite interesting platform.
Father_Brain
Banned
By that logic, Take Two and Bethesda had even better foresight.
It didn't take a genius to realize that if ZombiU and NG3:RE are the best exclusives (timed or otherwise) you have to offer the Sony/MS audience, they're not exactly likely to flock to your platform, regardless of overall installed base.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
That ME trilogy analysis of this makes absolutely no sense at all. EA wouldn't be screwing Nintendo. EA paid for the development of that port and Nintendk gets a cut from it's sales. That move only really hurts EA is why the idea it was done to hurt Nibtebdi is nonsense.
The much more likely scenario is that the Wii U as stated by EA is notoriously difficult to develop for and would take too long to port the entire trilogy di they ported the first to gauge interest and then decide whether to port the rest.
Skittzo0413
Member
The difference is you didn't have anyone from Take Two or Bethesda up on stage proclaiming unprecedented support just months prior. Or outright cancelling completely finished games.
Yeah I'll admit that's quite a bit of hyperbole. Regardless, them selling ME3 for full price right after the trilogy came out for less is pretty hard to see as anything but a middle finger. That and cancelling Crysis 3 just as the discs were about to be printed.
I dont think Nintendo banned them, I think a lot of them are in the same boat as Nintendo didnt want to talk about games and marketing stuff for Switch during the holidays.
remember Lego City got announced for Switch
But games like Fifa, Skyrim remaster and NBA 2K17 are out now, if they announce them now they think they will lose holiday sells for people waiting on the Switch version.
Obvious exclusives they def dont want to announce early becouse you want the buzz to start with the system announcement.
Still doesn't make sense when you take into account the very same game could be bought for far less on platforms the potential customer likely already owned.
At least the Assassin's Creed were a simultaneous release... but wtih stuff like ME3 it was clear a late, full-price port wasn't exactly going to fly off the shelves.
I'd argue it was a very poor choice on EA's part trying to test the waters this way.
Yup, people say we heard this before, but Activision released two COD, UBisoft released all its AAA games for the first 2 years, and WB released most of its AAA games for two years.
They will prob do the same, but Switch should sale way more then WiiU which means they wont drop support.
EA on the other hand we will see what happens, but yes there were rumors of something bad happen behind the scenes with Nintendo and EA
Take-two and Bethesda never said anything good about the WiiU and Take two only released 1 game on the system.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
I'm guessing Nintendo made an exception for that. A former Wii U exclusive with heavy Nintendo involvement getting announced for PS4, Xbone, PC, and not Switch would look pretty bad.
Calm Mind
Member
Grand Theft amiibo
we dont actually know what the switch will be capable of, so its a little unfair to call it 1.5 generations behind the competition. just the fact that it is being powered by Nvidia, supports all the current engines, and is getting praise from A LOT of 3rd parties is proof that they have learned from their wii u mistakes. I mean, come on, when is the last time that bethesda put a game on a nintendo console........way back on the NES. And now they are bringing skyrim remaster to the switch. Give the console a chance
PC sale are typically lower than the other console sales....
Please, CoD on the Wii is an horrible example. A 2 man team ported the first one on the Wii. No one in Activion expected to take off. CoD 3 on the Wii outsold the PS3 version. CoD 4 skipped Wii. It was then released two years later with zero marketing. There was a thread with a developer talking about it. CoD had less than a 12 month development time and it was like 7 people working on it...And oh, BTW, CoD 4 for the Wii was released while the PS3 and Xbox 360 was getting CoD: MW 2....Yet, that game still sold around a million.
Well, maybe if EA didn't kill it audience with "Let's Play" edition and poorly receive handheld titles of their sport series...
Principate
Saint Titanfall
That'a always always the case with knew platform launches. The PS4 and XB1 were the same with their last gen ports and remasters.
The fact a Wii U port of the game offered no subtantial consumer perception upgrade over consoles that released many years prior is a problem with the Wii U itself not the price of the game.
I agree. I think there would be a lot more hype if we could get an idea of what gamers were actually coming. I guess Nintendo want's to hold almost all of their cards until January 12th. I don't think holding the games is an NDA, but more of a gentleman's agreement. Most companies are abiding by it and others are doing their own thing (like DQXI, LEGO City, etc.) I don't think that Nintendo was going to be able to control Hori on this, so they just let him do what he wanted.
I think the advantage for CoD for the Wii was that a shitload of people owned them and many of them wanted to play CoD with the Wii remote. If I remember correctly, even The Conduit went on to sell over 1 million copies. This was an underserved market that was looking for something to play. No idea why Activision didn't get on bandwagon originally, but it ended up benefitting them. Even without the DLC, new maps and the like, the novelty of playing the game with the remote was strong.
That couldn't be said for the Wii U. Since the CoD games could be played with dual analog, wasn't upgradable (no DLC), and didn't offer any kind of graphical upgrades over the PS3/360...what was the point of picking that up. The general idea behind remakes and remasters is that players will be able to play the same game in a different way (with different controls, improved graphics, or new features). The Wii U version didn't offer any of those things really...except the ability to use the remote and nunchuck (which was messed up originally).
Late ports need to have some defining feature to make them viable again. What ports did the Wii U get that gave it an advantage over the previous version? The only one I can really think of is Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I was totally looking forward to that game, but then they announced it for all platforms and it was cheaper as well. What the hell where they thinking? It's okay that they wanted to sell the game on other platforms, but then releasing the Wii U version at a higher price compared to the others was a death sentence for the port. It's things like this that are baffling.
So yeah, late ports CAN do well if they have some defining feature over the others. Sure the Wii U version of Need for Speed had (marginally) improved graphics and textures, but it was missing the new cars and the new area that had been (I think...might have released after the Wii U version was released) released on other versions. ME3 wasn't going to get all of the new DLC, and then they announced the trilogy for cheaper on other systems...effectively killing the Wii U version. FIFA was missing modes and features. Assassin's Creed 3 didn't get new content until much later. There weren't many incentives for jumping in on the Wii U version of those games, though I do admit that I loved the Batman: Arkham City controls with the Wiipad. That was awesome stuff. A shame that they didn't do the same in Batman: Arkham Origins. Though, in that game they did an awesome job with the detective stuff on the Wiipad.
You know, I think that one of the downfalls with the Wii U was that it felt like "more of the same" as far as games as content went and PS3/360 users were ready to move on to something else. The control options of the Wii U weren't enough to sway people to jump into that ecosystem.