Support NeoGAF

[Durante]

Well, correct me if my assumptions are ridiculous.

If your assumptions are based on an Android/OpenGL port by companies who have no idea how to write high-end OpenGL then they are quite misguided.
The only game you should be looking at as any indicator in that regard is Doom 3 BFG, since it was made by id and has a well-implemented OpenGL renderer. And that one renders 2.25 times as many pixels at the same or better performance than 360.

 

[AniHawk]

Why is it absurd? So far it's pretty much like the Wii U was. Third parties saying they'll support it and Nintendo giving the illusion they will have third parties support.

Until we're about 6 months post release, we have to assume it'll be another Wii/Wii U scenario.

the wii had a lot of third-party support, even at launch. it was practically night and day between wii and wii u.

 

[ramparter]

The question is what kind of effort we talking about. I'm not talking amount. They could have 20 3rd parties release game in first year but if their games don't sell, they can forget future support.

 

[Principate]

While I do think the Switch is shaping up quite differently to the Wii U, it's not really accurate to pretend that the Wii U didn't receive praise and promises of support.

Gearbox in 2012 on Alien Collonial Marines (lol): "The Wii U is a powerful, powerful machine and it can do a lot of cool new things. And so the game itself, moving it over to work on the Wii U was not much of a chore."

EA in 2011: "We look forward to seeing great EA content on this innovative new platform. Nintendo's next console is truly transformational, a better platform than we've ever been offered by them before... The Wii U is certainly a platform we like and will support going forward."

Activision in 2013: "As we have said before, we're committed to doing everything we can to support the Wii U, which is why we're excited to be bringing some of the most popular entertainment franchises in the world to the platform this year"

There's other stuff out there as well, and let's not forget that the 3rd party launch lineup for the Wii U looked pretty decent when the Wii U was unveiled in 2011.

The difference is that there was also some less than flattering stuff said about the Wii U, and so far everything I've seen about the Swtich has been positive.

TBD there's no real lies or smoke abd mirrors there outside of gearbox because because Randy is a well known liar. They all supported the Wii I and ditched when their games weren't selling and the platform sold like shit. That's to be expected and not Nintendo exclusive (how many of these developers still support the vita).

If the switch is a financial failure of course they'll ditch the question has always been what they's do if it's a moderate success e.g xb1

 

[Markitron]

What kind of power difference is there between the Switch and PS4/XB1? If it can run those games reasonably well then I can see there being decent third party support.

TBD there's no real lies or smoke abd mirrors there outside of gearbox because because Randy is a well known liar.

I bitch about Gearbox a LOT, but always forget about their lies regarding the Wii-U version of CM. I wonder if they ever bothered trying to port it.

 

[Poimandres]

TBD there's no real lies or smoke abd mirrors there outside of gearbox because because Randy is a well known liar. They all supported the Wii I and ditched when their games weren't selling and the platform sold like shit. That's to be expected and not Nintendo exclusive (how many of these developers still support the vita).

If the switch is a financial failure of course they'll ditch the question has always been what they's do if it's a moderate success e.g xb1

Yeah, I'm not saying they were lying (outside of Pitchford!) just pointing out that with the Wii U and third part support it's not like it was all doom and gloom.

I think that, realistically, the level of ongoing third party support for the Switch will depend entirely on how successful it is. I don't think we'll see Wii style "testing of the waters" if it's reasonably successful out of the gate. Oh, and of course if the third party games don't bomb horrifically!

 

[HonMirin]

Same song and dance every launch.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Agreed. They said the same thing back in 2011 with the wii U, and we know how that turned out.

 

[Principate]

Yeah, I'm not saying they were lying (outside of Pitchford!) just pointing out that with the Wii U and third part support it's not like it was all doom and gloom.

I think that, realistically, the level of ongoing third party support for the Switch will depend entirely on how successful it is. I don't think we'll see Wii style "testing of the waters" if it's reasonably successful out of the gate. Oh, and of course if the third party games don't bomb horrifically!

Nintendo's biggest problem is basically the apathy towards third parties on by their consumers. Third parties are expected to provide immauclate ports and vast amounts of shown support based on nothing and even then might sell like shit.

If Nintendo's core home console fanbase actually bought the few third parties that released it would get more support. That's how the vita still gets ports. It's a self-filling prophecy. The one major advantage of the switch is that og can try ti appeal to the 3DS fanbase that actually do but third party games.

Agreed. They said the same thing back in 2011 with the wii U, and we know how that turned out.

They clearly didn't but noonr actually reads or fact checks any more so it's not surprising when people make assumptions based on nothing

 

[Cuningas de Häme]

Or if 3rd parties actually made games worth buying?

I am not buying shitty games like AssCreed 134,5 or CoD:Now with Mustard. I will games that suit my tastes, and so few of the "blockbusters" do.

Why is it on us to buy shitty 3rd party games with less features than other versions? Don't you dare trying to blame us who won't buy such games.

I buy games that I will play. Most likely Nintendo games, and I won't buy even all of them. I don't like Smash games, Kart is meh, not a huge fan of a lot of Ninty games but they have some that I absolutely adore.

And if EA brings a real FIFA again for Nintendo, I will buy it. And Mirror's Edge, like that too and haven't bought the new one yet.

If I already have 3rd party games for PC (superior version almost always) why on Earth would I buy them on Switch? Bring me new games with enough features and I migh buy those.

EDIT. OP should be edited with BOLDED quotes about Wii U and 3rd party "support" it got. So many people spouting lies about "been there, done that".

 

[gtj1092]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but not even X1/PS4 have parity when it comes to 3rd party games. X1 only has 70-80% of the games ps4 has so how close to multi platform release parity are some expecting for the switch?

I don't know why we can't just wait for actual deeds. I think it's perfectly acceptable to take most of these comments with a grain of salt until we see actual release list.

 

[BuggyMike]

Why is it absurd? So far it's pretty much like the Wii U was. Third parties saying they'll support it and Nintendo giving the illusion they will have third parties support.

Until we're about 6 months post release, we have to assume it'll be another Wii/Wii U scenario.

The actually attractive design of the Switch in comparison to the clunky Wii U? The reveal trailer in comparison to the Wii U's? The target demographic in comparison to the Wii U? The advertising style in comparison to the Wii U? The architecture, the tools, the fact that a developers like Take Two is explicitly saying that Nintendo is working hard to support 3rd parties, something that Nintendo has never been known for?

We've got our expectations in check, no one here is yelling at the roof tops that this thing will definitely be a hit with 3rd parties, but every generation is different. If your logic is simply "this is Nintendo, this has happened in the past, so it will happen again" then it isn't sufficient as an argument as things tend to be a lot more nuanced than that. Where is the market currently, what kind product is Nintendo offering this time around, how they're handling it, has the failure of the Wii U changed the company. That's why no one really wants to hear the type of pessimism that you constantly bring, because they're not thinking with a one track mind, they are open to the possibility of things turning out positively, negatively, or somewhere inbetween. Simply telling everyone that we need to assume the worst to avoid disopointment is useless to any real discussion. Just going by how drastically different Nintendo are handling the system thus far from any past console, it's annoying when people try to seriously state that this is the same as the Wii U. It makes no logical sense.

 

[Principate]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but not even X1/PS4 have parity when it comes to 3rd party games. X1 only has 70-80% of the games ps4 has so how close to multi platform release parity are some expecting for the switch?

I don't know why we can't just wait for actual deeds. I think it's perfectly acceptable to take most of these comments with a grain of salt until we see actual release list.

PS4 tends to get a whole bunch of japanese games that don't bother with xbox because it's deadee than a do do in Japan with some indie games as well. The switch actually has a better chance id getting some of those games as even in the worst case scenario it woukdn't be as dead as the Xbox currently is.

 

[LordKano]

I'm not even surprised anymore that fact-checking is a hot topic in America nowadays. Everyone is quoting that awful first post without even looking if they really did say that back in 2012, which is factually wrong.

 

[mnemonicj]

After I purchase the Switch, I just need to find a way to purchase time heh. The more games the better Take Two, jiayou!

 

[Dark Cloud]

Agreed. They said the same thing back in 2011 with the wii U, and we know how that turned out.

No they didn't. Check your facts before you hate on Nintendo.

 

[Principate]

Or if 3rd parties actually made games worth buying?

I am not buying shitty games like AssCreed 134,5 or CoD:Now with Mustard. I will games that suit my tastes, and so few of the "blockbusters" do.

Why is it on us to buy shitty 3rd party games with less features than other versions? Don't you dare trying to blame us who won't buy such games.

I buy games that I will play. Most likely Nintendo games, and I won't buy even all of them. I don't like Smash games, Kart is meh, not a huge fan of a lot of Ninty games but they have some that I absolutely adore.

And if EA brings a real FIFA again for Nintendo, I will buy it. And Mirror's Edge, like that too and haven't bought the new one yet.

If I already have 3rd party games for PC (superior version almost always) why on Earth would I buy them on Switch? Bring me new games with enough features and I migh buy those.

EDIT. OP should be edited with BOLDED quotes about Wii U and 3rd party "support" it got. So many people spouting lies about "been there, done that".

Of we blame you since shot ports still manage to sell on other platforms and full support id a risky system is illogical at best. Though really that depends on whether core Nintendo gamers like that even want adequate third support. If they do it's entirely their fault why third parties don't bother who the fuck wants to release their premium games of full features ib platforms where their games don't sell full stop. 3RD has had it's fair share of crappy ports 3rd party games still sell there even of those crappy ports.

 

[King Gilga]

Devs were all saying the same thing for the WiiU so whatever.

Same old song and dance.

 

[Candescence]

Here's the interesting thing about the Switch's sales potential - for all intents and purposes, the Switch is replacing both the Wii U and 3DS lines, and converging console and handheld into one system. Nintendo has always done well with portables, even the 3DS, which stumbled out of the gate and was in danger of doing quite badly, still recovered and has gone over the rather respectable 60 million mark despite being hampered by a feature that the market wasn't really interested in (oddly enough, even the 2DS wasn't a seller) and the rise of mobile. Nintendo is clearly playing to its strengths, here - they have a practical monopoly on the portable console market now that Sony has all but abandoned the Vita and likely won't make a successor, but they're also providing a system that's likely within the ballpark for current-gen power requirements, meaning that it's much more attractive to devs and publishers who traditionally don't bother with handhelds.

Nintendo's marketing so far has been on fucking point, unlike the 3DS or the Wii U, which were confused for mere add-ons or revisions by regular consumers. Hit the right price point, and the right lineup, and Nintendo could have a system that can handle both on-the-go gaming and big-screen gaming reliably, something neither their competitors can provide, and likely can't. Plus, the system is clearly more targeted at hardcore players than the Wii and Wii U were, meaning the idea is to make a system that can attract players that will actually buy third party titles - and I imagine a lot of people would find the idea of playing their games wherever and whenever they please to be an attractive feature, nevermind stuff like making LAN parties simple and easy.

Sure, there's obviously a lot of scepticism due to the Wii U, but the Switch's direction and reception so far seems a lot more positive, and Nintendo seem to be actively learning from their previous mistakes. If nothing else, the Switch looks like it's going to be one hell of a beefy little machine.

Remember, last gen it was Sony who was the laughing stock for most of the generation for making an obtuse, overly-expensive system and looking like buffoons while riding high on the success of the PS2, only to crash and burn for most of the gen and wipe out all the revenue gains of the last two generations. And yet now they're the darling of this gen for tap-dancing all over the now-arrogant Microsoft and making the right moves. As of late, failures one gen tend to result in successes the next as companies learn lessons, and Nintendo looks like they're doing something similar.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I have an innovative idea here. But it's one I'm sure everyone here will just laugh me away.

What if we get a GTA VI on Switch, but when played in "portable mode", the perspective changes to something similar to that of GTA Chinatown Wars?

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

A camera change is something that should be handled by a button or menu, not forced by what screen you're using.

 

[Oersted]

Devs were all saying the same thing for the WiiU so whatever.

Same old song and dance.

Did you just rephrase Anth0nys first post lie, just to annoy people?

No, Take Two did not say that.

 

[FZW]

they say this stuff every time a Nintendo console is coming out, why do we keep falling for it? it just seems like a marketing ploy to artificially build hype.

 

[MisterR]

Did you just rephrase Anth0nys first post lie, just to annoy people?

No, Take Two did not say that.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Did Take Two say the exact same words, no. The point is that hollow praise from developers doesn't mean anything without actual game announcements and support. Tons of devs were praising the Wii U, but the support never materialized.

 

[deleted]

There are many more devs coming out to say that the Switch might be a good idea and easy to dev for than for the Wii U.

Back then, it was mostly studios that would support Nintendo either way at that point like Ubisoft, Activision or EA. Or it would be studios like THQs Darksiders studio that where depended on success no matter where.

During Wii and Wii Us days we never had a studio come out and support Nintendo that were known for not supporting them before. With Take Two and Bethesda we have two on our hands atm.

I am pretty excited tbh. I'm a PC player that always combines with a Nintendo console and I could see myself buying some 3rd party games on the switch for portability. It all just depends on the price and the ability for those games to run well. I don't expect graphical feature parity, but if they hit the same FPS, I'm game. FF XV, Red Dead 2, GTA V? I might buy those on the Switch so I can play them on the train.

 

[LordKano]

You're missing the forest for the trees. Did Take Two say the exact same words, no. The point is that hollow praise from developers doesn't mean anything without actual game announcements and support. Tons of devs were praising the Wii U, but the support never materialized.

No, the point is Take Two was already pessimistic about the Wii U before its release. It's not the case right now for the Switch.

 

[SuperEpicMan]

I think for most of the hardcore audience, 3rd party support likely won't be a huge issue, as they will likely already own either an Xbox One, PS4 or PC, on which they would probably still play the majority of 3rd party titles due to:

• Better performance due to the consoles likely being more powerful than the Switch
• Players are already invested in the online community of Live and PSN etc.

I think for this demographic, Switch should be aiming to sell to players who are looking to expand to a second console or a PC. (to use myself as an example, I have had a PS4 since launch, but recently picked up an Xbone).

For casual gamers and younger kids who maybe haven't picked up a console yet this generation (or at all), I think as long as Switch can land some of the big multiplatform games (i.e. COD, Fifa, GTA etc), it will likely be enough for those people to pick up a Switch over PS4 or Xbone, as then the benefits of Switch (AAA games on the go, cheaper price point, unified Nintendo console and games) might give it an edge.

 

[Filthy Casual]

Make a RDR 2 port for it then

 

[Oersted]

You're missing the forest for the trees. Did Take Two say the exact same words, no. The point is that hollow praise from developers doesn't mean anything without actual game announcements and support. Tons of devs were praising the Wii U, but the support never materialized.

We already had announcements and slipups despite the NDAs.

 

[optimiss]

 

[KingSnake]

To be fair Bethesda always answered to the question "Do you work on anything for Wii U?" with "Lol, no.". And that question was almost a monthly recurrence during the first year or so. And Take Two didn't have too many good words for Wii U either. So the positions are different now. Still, the games should do the talk, not the producers.

 

[DrWong]

they say this stuff every time a Nintendo console thread is coming out, why do we keep falling for it? it just seems like a marketing trolling ploy to artificially build (de)hype.

.

 

[Anth0ny]

Make a RDR 2 port for it then

I'll retract my post if this gets announced at the January thing

That, to me, would prove Nintendo is serious about third party support this time around

 

[Skittzo0413]

To be fair Bethesda always answered to the question "Do you work on anything for Wii U?" with "Lol, no.". And that question was almost a monthly recurrence during the first year or so. And Take Two didn't have too many good words for Wii U either. So the positions are different now. Still, the games should do the talk, not the producers.

It would at least be useful to note the differences in what's being said now, 4 months out from the Switch launch, to what was said about 4 months out from the Wii U launch by the same folks. Someone at Take Two flat out said "I'm skeptical" back then for the Wii U and now says Nintendo is making a "great effort" to support third parties for the Switch. It's like night and day.

You're right though that in the end the games will do the talking. If RDR2 is announced in January that'll probably go a long way to changing some perceptions.

 

[Oersted]

Were they really that desperate that they listed friggin Tetris Online?

 

[deleted]

I'll retract my post if this gets announced at the January thing

That, to me, would prove Nintendo is serious about third party support this time around

That and Destiny 2 have to be locked to be taken seriously by other 3rd party devs. Those 2 and Minecraft mean ongoing support, a userbase that's accustomed to DLC and buying games for long periods of time.

And they probably would provide a userbase big enough to sustain many other AAA games, like CoD or AC. If Nintendo would want to really go at it, they should just allow and support cross platform MP. For a game like Destiny that would mean everything if people could buy it on Switch or PS4/XBone and still play with their friends. Or at least cross MP with PC.

 

[tkscz]

At the very least the 3DS delivered with eastern devs and indies. I mean lets face it, 3rd parties stick with Nintendo when their games sale on Nintendo's consoles. Unfortunately that's a rarity.

 

[Jaded Alyx]

That Wii U slide is inaccurate and misleading.

 

[Drek]

The actually attractive design of the Switch in comparison to the clunky Wii U?

Personal opinion.

The reveal trailer in comparison to the Wii U's?

Anecdotal and not in any way a sales commitment.

The target demographic in comparison to the Wii U?

What changed here? I'm assuming the demographics are pretty comparable since they're releasing all the Wii U's best games as the backbone of their 2017 library.

The advertising style in comparison to the Wii U?

The Wii U's advertising was a major fuck up. But then the Switch isn't in full public advertising mode yet so you're judging one with the harshness of hindsight and the other with the optimism of future potential. Meaningless comparison really.

The architecture, the tools,

Like hardware a solid step behind the next weakest home console, one that is about to have a major spec. update launched to obsolete it? The architecture also isn't 1:1 with the PS4/XBO. It's better than Nintendo standard but Sony and MS improved on this front as well. Nintendo still trails substantially in ease of development.

the fact that a developers like Take Two is explicitly saying that Nintendo is working hard to support 3rd parties,

1. Publisher. Take Two is a publisher.

2. Various publishers have said the same thing about pretty much every Nintendo release since the N64. The actual level of support hasn't changed much (in a positive direction at least).

3. "great effort" =/= results.

something that Nintendo has never been known for?

But didn't Nintendo themselves make all these claims with the Wii U? More 3rd party friendly, more open to indies, etc. and basically none of it came to fruition. We saw a raft of mediocre ports and nothing more.

Different name before the quote than usual but that's likely just a product of Nintendo courting them for an NBA 2K release with the system. Gearbox is published by Take Two and we have Randy Pitchford's bullshit quotes about Wii U support in this very thread already. So the Switch gets NBA 2K. Does that mean it'll see Red Dead ever, let alone day and date as PS4/XBO? Nope. Does it mean it'll see Borderlands 3? No, not that either. The churn and burn franchises (sports games, CoD, some perverted version of Battlefield if desired) have never been hard for Nintendo to land. The marque 3rd party titles is where they've struggled and I don't see any comments from major 3rd party developers (not publishers) committing to that kind of support.

Lastly, as of now the Switch is nothing more than a juxtaposition of the Wii U hardware paradigm with ports of all the same games and a new Mario, from what we've been shown so far. That isn't enough. Nintendo needs to do and show more. If this is all they have the price point better be pretty fucking amazing (like, sub $200) to be anything but another Wii U. They have a lot of other cards to play, sure. But we can't be waiting on Fire Emblem and Pokemon Switch into 2019, or an original Switch iteration of Smash. Or some meaningful new IPs that define the Switch like Splatoon attempted to define the Wii U (too late in it's effectively stillborn life mind you).

Nintendo needs to carry the system and win over the right handful of third party titles. Generic 3rd party "support" like this is meaningless and will do nothing for the system.

 

[jroc74]

Or if 3rd parties actually made games worth buying?

I am not buying shitty games like AssCreed 134,5 or CoD:Now with Mustard. I will games that suit my tastes, and so few of the "blockbusters" do.

Why is it on us to buy shitty 3rd party games with less features than other versions? Don't you dare trying to blame us who won't buy such games.

I buy games that I will play. Most likely Nintendo games, and I won't buy even all of them. I don't like Smash games, Kart is meh, not a huge fan of a lot of Ninty games but they have some that I absolutely adore.

And if EA brings a real FIFA again for Nintendo, I will buy it. And Mirror's Edge, like that too and haven't bought the new one yet.

If I already have 3rd party games for PC (superior version almost always) why on Earth would I buy them on Switch? Bring me new games with enough features and I migh buy those.

EDIT. OP should be edited with BOLDED quotes about Wii U and 3rd party "support" it got. So many people spouting lies about "been there, done that".

And what if this is how the majority of Nintendo fans feel. Why even bother supporting a Nintendo console then?

As far as games on Nintendo consoles having less features, sometimes its hardware or console feature limitations.

At some point Nintendo has to share in the blame.

Here's the interesting thing about the Switch's sales potential - for all intents and purposes, the Switch is replacing both the Wii U and 3DS lines, and converging console and handheld into one system. Nintendo has always done well with portables, even the 3DS, which stumbled out of the gate and was in danger of doing quite badly, still recovered and has gone over the rather respectable 60 million mark despite being hampered by a feature that the market wasn't really interested in (oddly enough, even the 2DS wasn't a seller) and the rise of mobile. Nintendo is clearly playing to its strengths, here - they have a practical monopoly on the portable console market now that Sony has all but abandoned the Vita and likely won't make a successor, but they're also providing a system that's likely within the ballpark for current-gen power requirements, meaning that it's much more attractive to devs and publishers who traditionally don't bother with handhelds.

Nintendo's marketing so far has been on fucking point, unlike the 3DS or the Wii U, which were confused for mere add-ons or revisions by regular consumers. Hit the right price point, and the right lineup, and Nintendo could have a system that can handle both on-the-go gaming and big-screen gaming reliably, something neither their competitors can provide, and likely can't. Plus, the system is clearly more targeted at hardcore players than the Wii and Wii U were, meaning the idea is to make a system that can attract players that will actually buy third party titles - and I imagine a lot of people would find the idea of playing their games wherever and whenever they please to be an attractive feature, nevermind stuff like making LAN parties simple and easy.

Sure, there's obviously a lot of scepticism due to the Wii U, but the Switch's direction and reception so far seems a lot more positive, and Nintendo seem to be actively learning from their previous mistakes. If nothing else, the Switch looks like it's going to be one hell of a beefy little machine.

Remember, last gen it was Sony who was the laughing stock for most of the generation for making an obtuse, overly-expensive system and looking like buffoons while riding high on the success of the PS2, only to crash and burn for most of the gen and wipe out all the revenue gains of the last two generations. And yet now they're the darling of this gen for tap-dancing all over the now-arrogant Microsoft and making the right moves. As of late, failures one gen tend to result in successes the next as companies learn lessons, and Nintendo looks like they're doing something similar.

Only difference with the PS3 vs the Wii U is the PS3 recovered and sold a ton more than the Wii U. The Wii U sold less than the Gamecube.

PS3 might have lost Sony money but they gained a huge chunk of marketshare due to it selling well. Something the Wii U couldnt do. The PS3 AFAIK hasnt been discontinued yet. The Wii has been discontinued for some years?.

Nintendo is at a precarious time right now. Just like before the Wii launched. Cant even say for home consoles since the Switch is a hybrid. If it fails its also a failure their handheld dominance too. On one hand its a safe bet looking at how they have done with handhelds but also a risky move if it fails.

 

[Kebiinu]

I feel like we could be years into the Switch being strongly supported by third parties and we will still get people insisting nothing is different and that support will evaporate minute now.

Exactly. You see it already in every positive Nintendo topic. People lose their shit, and start coming up with stories and made up history. This is not the same song and dance, people are deluding themselves thinking the Switch is of the same mindset as the Wii U.

It might not get an influx of titles, but a Wii U situation, this isn't.

 

[Drek]

Here's the interesting thing about the Switch's sales potential - for all intents and purposes, the Switch is replacing both the Wii U and 3DS lines, and converging console and handheld into one system. Nintendo has always done well with portables, even the 3DS, which stumbled out of the gate and was in danger of doing quite badly, still recovered and has gone over the rather respectable 60 million mark despite being hampered by a feature that the market wasn't really interested in (oddly enough, even the 2DS wasn't a seller) and the rise of mobile. Nintendo is clearly playing to its strengths, here - they have a practical monopoly on the portable console market now that Sony has all but abandoned the Vita and likely won't make a successor, but they're also providing a system that's likely within the ballpark for current-gen power requirements, meaning that it's much more attractive to devs and publishers who traditionally don't bother with handhelds.

1. The 2DS not selling wasn't "odd" and the 3DS didn't stubmle because of the 3D feature. The 3DS/2DS line is going to sell about half as many units as the NDS because the dedicated handheld market is dying.

2. Nintendo has a monopoly on a dying market that has a massive and growing market siphoning off it's audience: smartphones and tablets.

3. Being at the very bottom end of current-gen power as both competitors put out new higher end systems isn't very useful. The XBO is already frequently getting sub-1080p releases with mediocre frame rates. It'll get worse for the XBO when Scorpio is out alongside the PS4 Pro. The Switch is going to be another step down from that. Who is going to buy a Switch for 3rd party support if the Switch only gets the worst version of every 3rd party game?

There are complaints in this thread about how most 3rd party software is junk and 3rd parties should deliver games Nintendo system owners would want if they expect to see meaningful sales. That's a valid, if unrealistic and rather entitled, point. 3rd parties don't make the games traditional Nintendo fans buy. They can't give you anything other than a stilted CoD or AC port because that's all they're generally making.

I do think Nintendo is showing some savvy in going for Skyrim and NBA 2K as their two flagship 3rd party offerings out of the gate. They're more traditional Nintendo fan friendly and also games people would find portable play compelling enough for a re-buy. They need to stick with that mindset and not do what they did with the GC and Wii U - getting every 3rd party blockbuster port they can just to say 3rd party support exists.

I also still think that the real brilliant play here for Nintendo, assuming the Tegra rumors are true, would be to include a built in and polished feature similar to that offered by Nvidia Shield and Steam Link: remote play of PC games on your Switch or TV via a docked Switch. This solves the 3rd party problem by allowing gamers to play any 3rd party PC release they want via the Switch while being a direct pitch towards Switch + PC over XBO/PS4 variants that cost almost as much as a comparable PC anyhow. Hell, partner with Nvidia to offer GeForce Now for a direct PS Now competitor or Steam for a very inviting interface with easy setup.

It means giving up the 3rd party royalties, but Nintendo hasn't been reaping much of that wheat for a long time anyways. All that matters is getting Nintendo hardware into households as a surrogate for Nintendo software, because if you own a Switch you're gonna buy Zelda, Mario, etc..

 

[Turrican3]

The architecture also isn't 1:1 with the PS4/XBO. It's better than Nintendo standard but Sony and MS improved on this front as well. Nintendo still trails substantially in ease of development.

Architecture doesn't need to be 1:1 actually.
And I'm wondering, assuming you're not a developer, how can you claim anything about ease of development on the Switch.

But didn't Nintendo themselves make all these claims with the Wii U? More 3rd party friendly, more open to indies, etc. and basically none of it came to fruition. We saw a raft of mediocre ports and nothing more.

Nintendo has been improving its relationship with indies for a good while actually, with lots of stuff on the eShop.

Though really that depends on whether core Nintendo gamers like that even want adequate third support. If they do it's entirely their fault why third parties don't bother who the fuck wants to release their premium games of full features ib platforms where their games don't sell full stop.

Do you remember what happened on the Wii?
Like, we bought tons of RE4 (turned out being a multimillion seller IIRC) and then we got... on rail shooters.

What I mean is yes, of course consumers have to buy 3rd parties stuff. But third parties should also avoid to treat Nintendo customers like second class citizens (case in point, FIFA 12.5 on the WiiU)

At some point Nintendo has to share in the blame.

But why would they?
It's an (almost) completely different target audience, it's like complaining that you don't get a lot of family-friendly games on Microsoft and Sony systems.

 

[jroc74]

I also still think that the real brilliant play here for Nintendo, assuming the Tegra rumors are true, would be to include a built in and polished feature similar to that offered by Nvidia Shield and Steam Link: remote play of PC games on your Switch or TV via a docked Switch. This solves the 3rd party problem by allowing gamers to play any 3rd party PC release they want via the Switch while being a direct pitch towards Switch + PC over XBO/PS4 variants that cost almost as much as a comparable PC anyhow. Hell, partner with Nvidia to offer GeForce Now for a direct PS Now competitor or Steam for a very inviting interface with easy setup.

It means giving up the 3rd party royalties, but Nintendo hasn't been reaping much of that wheat for a long time anyways. All that matters is getting Nintendo hardware into households as a surrogate for Nintendo software, because if you own a Switch you're gonna buy Zelda, Mario, etc..

Yea I made guesses on this and it would be an amazing thing if it's possible.

But why would they?
It's an (almost) completely different target audience, it's like complaining that you don't get a lot of family-friendly games on Microsoft and Sony systems.

I remember at least 2 Wii games that were like dumbed down versions of their PS360 versions. Had to be the specs and features of the Wii that caused it. That or catering to that target audience....both were kinda bad. One was a Madden and the other was a Need for Speed. The Need for Speed was ridiculously bad.

Yea its a different target audience but do you tailor multi platform games for that audience or do like the Wii era and have mostly 3rd party exclusives? There were some 3rd party exclusives on the Wii U and they didnt even sell well.

Something has to happen to get multi platform games selling better on Nintendo consoles again.

As far as target audiences, you cant have it both ways....if Nintendo's target audience is family friendly then why do some even complain about other types of 3rd party games on their console? All we should see from Ubisoft is Just Dance, Rabbids and Rayman.

Right?

Only sports games form others, right?

 

[Drek]

Architecture doesn't need to be 1:1 actually.
And I'm wondering, assuming you're not a developer, how can you claim anything about ease of development on the Switch.

Not a game developer but know my way around software programming well enough. Beyond that however it's simply common sense. The device is going to have a multitude of unique tool kits needed for the portable v. docked, detachable controllers, touch screen, etc.. Then it's built on top of (allegedly) the Tegra chipset which is much easier than what Nintendo has offered before to be sure but being offered at a time when the PS4 and XBO are so close to PC hardware that most developers can simply use PCs for 90% of the process and have a limited number of dev kits to finish off each console variant. The Switch won't be that easy. Being the easiest Nintendo system for developers ever is good, but lets not act like they're even close to at parity with Sony and MS because that ignores that Sony and MS have the two most developer friendly consoles of all time right now. (needed because we currently have the most arduous in terms of total resources development era to date on our hands).

Nintendo has been improving its relationship with indies for a good while actually, with lots of stuff on the eShop.

Just like how "great effort" doesn't actually mean results "improving" doesn't mean good. Nintendo is getting better, sure, but not as quickly and as aggressively as Sony did to start the PS4, or MS has been since they received a ton of flak in comparison to the improved Sony indie and 3rd party atmosphere.

This is an arms race, not a vacuum. Up until this point Nintendo has been Russia circa 1914. A power but one based around total assets and not a modernized system. Great on defense, unable to gain ground. Meanwhile Sony and Nintendo have been slugging it out like France/GB v. Germany on the western front and have completely changed what modern warfare looks like. Nintendo needs to step up to just be in the competition at this point.

Do you remember what happened on the Wii?
Like, we bought tons of RE4 (turned out being a multimillion seller IIRC) and then we got... on rail shooters.

What I mean is yes, of course consumers have to buy 3rd parties stuff. But third parties should also avoid to treat Nintendo customers like second class citizens (case in point, FIFA 12.5 on the WiiU)

But why would they?
It's an (almost) completely different target audience, it's like complaining that you don't get a lot of family-friendly games on Microsoft and Sony systems.

This is exactly the point I made a few posts up. 3rd parties are spread too thin with their current AAA development demands to give real dedicated service to a unique market like Nintendo's ecosystem, so people should just stop caring about 3rd party support on Nintendo platforms until it happens organically, if ever.

Nintendo making a strong play to have quality iterations of FIFA, NBA 2K, and a handful of other noteworthy "good fit/mass market appeal" 3rd party entries makes sense but they'll never compete 1:1 with the PS4/XBO. They could have released a new home console equal to the Scorpio in horsepower and still wouldn't compete because their first party lineup doesn't draw the same gamers.

Nintendo systems exist for Nintendo games. I've been preaching the need to consolidate handheld and console for about five years now, they're finally doing it. The purpose for the consolidation isn't to shoot for the #1 market slot against Sony and MS. It's to have Nintendo fans stop spending money on two different low profit margin hardware products when instead they could be spending that money on several additional high profit software products. Everyone who owns a Wii U and a 3DS and now buys a Switch is effectively ~$50-$100 more profitable for Nintendo. A $250 system sold at cost v. $250 in software sold with at least a 20% profit margin for them as the first party publisher. The math is too goddamn easy here.

If Nintendo sells 50 million copies of the Switch they should be happy as it'll make them stacks of cash at that point. Anything more is just gravy. They don't need traditional major 3rd parties for that goal. They need the core Japanese devs who have been supporting the 3DS all along and their own first party stable.

 

[Turrican3]

Yea its a different target audience but do you tailor multi platform games for that audience or do like the Wii era and have mostly 3rd party exclusives?

Well, to be honest I'd rather have more exclusives (PS: I can't really remember *any* third party retail WiiU exclusive... in some way or another there was always the involvment of Nintendo IIRC) but that's just me.

Not really a big fan of massive multiplatform, I want *more* reasons to own a piece of hardware, not less. :-\
But I can understand why publishers act like this.

Something has to happen to get multi platform games selling better on Nintendo consoles again.

Well, I think there might be quite some overlap in certain genres (sports games immediately come to mind) but again, the only way I can see some degree of success is putting a simultaneously released version with the same effort OR a very peculiar exclusive/alternate version (think about the Pro Evolution Soccer Playmaker on the Wii).

Problem is, the latter is unlikely given it doesn't seem like the Switch has anything similar to leverage on from this point of view.

 

[Mpl90]

That Wii U slide is inaccurate and misleading.

Yep. This needs a fact-check as well. It's something I already said twice, hopefully third time's the charm

Sorry for the OT, and I'm very, very positive about Switch as a whole (less about Western third party support early on and especially later on...even if a bit more than before the reveal trailer even if just due to Skyrim), but I need to stress out how that Wii U support slide...is not actually related to Wii U.

It comes from the final moments of the E3 2011 Conference, this is the actual timestamp when they start to appear

https://youtu.be/p1JJPkd4Q28?t=1h9m36s

If you see a few seconds later, several game logos appear on the same titantron, games for Wii/DS/3DS that were playable on the showfloor for that E3. Well, if you check carefully the games, you'll see that they're all from the publishers that appeared in that "slide". Among them, Tetris 3DS explains the "strange" appearance of the Tetris Online company in what was believed to be the first Wii U support slide.

So, no, that is NOT the Wii U version of Switch's Partner Slide. If you want to compare it to something Nintendo actually put up officially, there's the developers/publishers slide at E3 2010 for 3DS, which was richer than this titantron slide, but still not as much as Switch's (and not by a small margin, even excluding middleware companies).

I hope this post is actually read this time, so this misconception is actually defeated once for all.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Who is going to buy a Switch for 3rd party support if the Switch only gets the worst version of every 3rd party game?

1. People who want it portable.
2. People who are more interested in Mario + Elder Scrolls than systems that have only one of those.

remote play of PC games on your Switch or TV via a docked Switch. This solves the 3rd party problem by allowing gamers to play any 3rd party PC release they want via the Switch

If Nintendo makes no money on it it doesn't solve it for them, and if I'm limited to playing games I already own with Wii U-like realistic limit restrictions it doesn't solve it for me. A Switch where someone streams their PC games and buys 2 Nintendo games to go on top of it isn't a very attractive sale for Nintendo.

As far as target audiences, you cant have it both ways....if Nintendo's target audience is family friendly then why do some even complain about other types of 3rd party games on their console? All we should see from Ubisoft is Just Dance, Rabbids and Rayman.

It's a chicken and egg situation. Nintendo systems became defined by Nintendo's own style because they were the only publisher guaranteed to never run away. We have to go back nearly a quarter century to find Nintendo trying to force everything to be family-friendly with Sweaty Mortal Kombat.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

Of course Switch will sell much more units than WiiU, and it will have much better third party support because of that (and because ports are very easy, yes they are). People claiming otherwise are hilarious.

Simply when you look at trends from Google search or social media, Switch public awareness is much higher than WiiUs ever was, such factors are always resulting in sales.

 

[Forkball]

Take Two: We are extremely impressed with what Nintendo has to offer.

Everyone: Are you gonna make Switch games then?

Take Two: God no.

 

[Galactic Specter]

We'll see when the system is out

 

[Lothars]

Of course Switch will sell much more units than WiiU, and it will have much better third party support because of that (and because ports are very easy, yes they are). People claiming otherwise are hilarious.

Simply when you look at trends from Google search or social media, Switch public awareness is much higher than WiiUs ever was, such factors are always resulting in sales.

OK? it has to because it's replacing both the 3ds and WiiU but that doesn't answer the question about third party support? It's not a guarantee at all especially with how Nintendo is and how they are with third party support in the last 3 generations.