Two shoulder buttons?
Previous development experience using the toolchain and hardware put off development teams from making another title on Wii U.
The technical and feature support from Nintendo were lacking for third-party studios. There was a feeling internally that if you weren't a first-party development studio, you were largely ignored by Nintendo, as we were superficial to their profits. Internally developed titles would save Nintendo and we were just there to add depth to the games catalogue.
The sales figures for the Wii U console were not looking that good soon after launch. There was a lot of confusion in the general population around the launch as most people thought that the Wii U was some kind of add-on to the Wii, they didn't know that it was a new console. This lack of awareness probably contributed to the console not getting off to the start that Nintendo would have hoped and put off studio from developing on the hardware.
Nintendo also fell victim to bad timing. A few months after the console launched the next-gen hype train stepped up a gear as Sony announced the PlayStation 4, with Microsoft joining the fray a few months later. Don't forget that many of the larger studios would have known about the hardware months before it was announced, well before the Wii U hardware actually launched.
Nvidia said:The Nintendo Switch’s gaming experience is also supported by fully custom software, including a revamped physics engine, new libraries, advanced game tools and libraries. NVIDIA additionally created new gaming APIs to fully harness this performance. The newest API, NVN, was built specifically to bring lightweight, fast gaming to the masses.
Epic said:We're thrilled to partner with Nintendo to help Unreal Engine 4 developers bring their games to Nintendo Switch!
Gamestop said:Also during the call, management said early metrics show that GameStop PowerUp Rewards members are aware of, and interested in, the system. Twenty-seven percent of GameStop's PowerUp Rewards members who are aware of the Nintendo Switch plan to buy the console, the company said. This pre-launch purchase intent metric is in line with that of the Xbox One at a similar point in time.
Controller won't be a problem for third parties this time around
It'll be the lack of power and, more importantly, perception of the audience for third party games on Nintendo platforms.
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.
We're thrilled to partner with Nintendo to help Unreal Engine 4 developers bring their games to Nintendo Switch!
I figured I'd ask straight-out, so during the Q&A with Rein, I did. "Will UE4 run on the Wii U?"
"Hahaha no." Rein said, with expert comedic timing.
Unreal Engine 4 on Nintendo Switch
Unreal Engine 4 on Wii U
Same song and dance
Ha yeah my idea was kind of a joke. And yes, I'm very tired of seeing that Wii U list- it's certainly not accurate.
We have very trustworthy insiders saying that porting PS4/XB1 games to Switch will not be much of a technical problem. So since it seems you're working under the assumption that the Switch won't be powerful enough to run those games (at least unless they're heavily downgraded like Wii versions were) then that assumption appears to be wrong.
Based on what we know and what's been rumored, the Switch might be closer to XB1 in real world performance than the XB1 is to the PS4. So if the XB1 can get satisfactory ports then the Switch likely will too.
Also, the big draw for third parties is the ability to offer full AAA console games on a mobile console. That's a much bigger selling point than what we had on the Wii U (asymmetrical gameplay, dual screens) and possibly even the Wii.
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?
To be fair these quotes only really work as a good comparison if they're similarly timed.
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.
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.
At the same timeline they expressed support for Switch, they said jackshit about WiiU. You are asking me to basically prove a negative.
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.
Suzuki's comments line up with those of other developers contacted by Eurogamer last month. "We are not limited by [the CPU power] but some other games might suffer from it," one unnamed developer told the site.
Developer and publisher Bethesda, best known for the recent hit Skyrim, are still unsure about the Wii U. Bethesda Vice President of PR and marketing, Pete Hines, said that they like to put their games out on “as many platforms that will support them”. However, when it comes to the Wii U, that apparently still isn’t a platform that will support their games. Speaking in the latest issue of UK tech magazine MCV, Hines said of the Wii U, “So far the Wii hasn’t fitted into that [strategy].Whether Wii U does down the road is TBD”.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
What are you talking about?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.
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.1. People who want it portable.
2. People who are more interested in Mario + Elder Scrolls than systems that have only one of those.
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.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.
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.I'm not claiming any parity, I just believe it's very hard to know how difficult is to port games to this platform for people that do not have access to actual dev kits.
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.The lack of negative rumours at a time where news about the WiiU not being exactly the best machine to develop for were already spreading, plus statements from companies like Take Two who historically haven't had good relationship with Nintendo surely can give some hope at least.
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.I actually believe indie relationship *is* good currently, but unfortunately for Nintendo, WiiU was such a massive failure that prevented many more success stories to happen.
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.IIRC Wii and DS were high profit margin hardware so I'm not entirely sure about that.
I'd argue is more about consolidation of their software development, to the extent I fully expect them to pull one or even two other form factors, Switch-compatibile in the following years.
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.
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?
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 optimism and initial impressions they may have of the console.
Personally, I'd really love to see Overwatch and Monster Hunter come to Switch. Those IP interest me the most.
Controller won't be a problem for third parties this time around
It'll be the lack of power and, more importantly, perception of the audience for third party games on Nintendo platforms.
im drooling at the idea of MH on the Switch
im drooling at the idea of MH on the Switch
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.
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...
Lacked the analog triggers, though.Uhhh the WiiU has standard button count and clickable sticks too...
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:an incredibly niche market that argues for selective 3rd party targeting more than general third party support.
DS was over 6. Wii was over 9. There's the money.Drek said: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.
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'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.
Yeah, the Switch's core concept makes MH all the more appealing.
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...
mobile
Isn't there a rumor that Sony is funding a westernized Monster Hunter 5 as a PS4 console exclusive?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...
There's literally nothing nonstandard about the Switch's controls. It even has analog triggers instead of digital like with the Wii U.
Nintendo's ABXY layout in nonstandard in the west.
Isn't there a rumor that Sony is funding a westernized Monster Hunter 5 as a PS4 console exclusive?
Nintendo's ABXY layout in nonstandard in the west.
Four buttons in a diamond is non standard? Unless you're talking about the labeling of the buttons, which is a non issue.
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.
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.
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.
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
Yes, I'm talking about labeling, and I think it's a legitimate problem.