¿? That's why you just cancell physical and go digital. That's no excuse unless they tryied to just release a game without any kind of compression(like they seem to do on major consoles and PC)
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Switch Rumor Archive Redux (Read posting rules in OP)
- Thread starter ReyVGM
- Start date
- Status
Physical still holds a significant market in the gaming industry, especially on Switch because full game downloads aren't required and there's more
resale and trade value. With PS4 and xbone, you have to download the game off the disc before you can play it( or at least a portion to start playing at least) They might not think development costs to port it would be worth it if they think it half as many people would buy it if it was digital only. There is still a significant amount of people who are admant on not buying digital only releases because they don't want to pay extra for an SD card and Switch's storage is ridiculously low.
Perhaps for future skus/bundles, Nintendo could release 64 or 128GB storage or offer 128 or 200GB micro SD cards?
I want it to be confirmed as cancelled or fake. Not interested in two subpar properties...and combining them isn't going to make either series relevant or better/good.
Same. I'm glad we didn't get more news or rumors since, as there's still hope it'll end up being a fake or a general confusion.
Okay, so let's say they do that and they pay for the biggest cards possible. Let's say your game is $60, the current theoretical max at the market.
Scenario A) Game sells SUPER well. But your margins are really thin because you went for very expensive cards. But the game sold well, so I guess it worked out? But it sold so well that you need another shipment out the--what do you mean there's a queue? Oh right, Nintendo produces all the cards and since you went with the most expensive option, you had to play it safe and go for a lower print run and now Nintendo, the single producer for all physical games on the Switch, cannot get you cartridges in time to take advantage of your game selling well. Whoops!
Scenario B) Game sells alright. You barely cut even on the project. Microtransaction sales aren't doing it because there's online gatekeeping now from which you get zero revenue and it's halving your potential online multiplayer audience, so shark cards aren't selling. And even if it were free, it fucking sucks to use, and players are just sticking to their existing versions. Whoops!
Scenario C) Game sells badly. You rolled the dice and lost money when you could have just not rolled the dice and been better off. In the best case scenario all you would have won is mindshare.
Could third parties just pay for the most expensive cart and damn the consequences? Maybe! They can do whatever they want. They could take a loss if they felt like it. They just won't when there are better options out there that don't have these same flaws and faults. While you may not believe that the cart is a major bottleneck, I have straight up talked to developers for VERY requested Switch games who have outright told me it is cart costs that are the problem. Is it the only problem? Not always, but you marry it to any other concern that might pop up like unknown target audiences or non-native engines and it's very, very easy to throw up your hands and give up forever.
You forgot the most likely scenarios:
D) Publisher retails game at 70-80 USD, passing all the extra costs on to the consumer and maybe some more.
E) Publisher ships game in small cart and puts the biggest portion behind a download, effectively making the cart a glorified download code.
D) Publisher retails game at 70-80 USD, passing all the extra costs on to the consumer and maybe some more.
E) Publisher ships game in small cart and puts the biggest portion behind a download, effectively making the cart a glorified download code.
Totally agree, I would just little expand that list with games like NBA 2K19, Starlink: Battle for Atlas, Dragon Quest Builders, Naruto, Ys VIII: Lacrimosa of Dana, Okami, World of Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy XV: Pocket Edition, Football Manager 2018/2019, NBA 2K Playgrounds 2, Ark: Survival Evolved, MegaMan, Outlast, MotoGP 18, Moto Racer 4, Street Fighter 30th Anniversary Collection, Fallout Shelter, Lego Incredibles/Harry Potter/DC Super-Villains..
But point is that (with games that I added) is actually considered for good 3rd party support when it comes to Nintendo platform.
Well they cant set price of some game above $60, so if they use 32GB card (that seems still quite expensive because it seems we still have only one game with that card size) and sell it for $60 it means they will have much lower profit margin because expensive card.
So, it not hard to imagine when comes to some big games, some devs decided simple to delay (and some even to cancel game), until they dont have better availability and price point of bigger size Switch games.
Just for record, no one talks like without that problem Switch would had incomparable better 3rd party support than it has now, but situation could be better than it is now especially when it comes to big games.
But hopefully Nintendo will sort out that problem in 2019. with arrival of 64GB carts.
Talking again just like example, Nintendo is crazy if they would do something like that and prevent availability of game of scope for instance of GTA V on Switch.
People do not buy standard edition games priced that high. They simply don't.
You're moving from no 3rd party support to "those games don't count because" territory here. If your desire is RDR2, AC:Odyssey and COD, I can see your disappointment, but if I would like to play those games I'd do so on my PS4 or PC. It's ok to not have 3 identical console boxes - the Switch is a medium powered hybrid which is it's own unique thing.
And ofcourse diablo is late, the switch didn't exist when it got released, but it's portable diablo! Same with most other games on that list. I think third parties DO care, they just look at what games are possible on the platform and would fit well with Nintendo's audience - or find a new audience in the portable space.
Still, this is a rumor thread and we don't seem to discussing rumors at the moment so I'll leave it at that.
Check your facts because Capcom always brought new, often, exclusive games to Nintendo consoles before: RE Revelations started as a 3DS game, they had Monster Hunter Tri or 3 Ultimate on Wii / Wii U, Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles, Ace Attorney,... These were all new games designed for those consoles, not ports or multiplatform titles, so these were planned in advance. Some of these games came out not even a year after the launch of the system so development started even before the console was released.
That's what i warned people last year. Maybe relationships between Nintendo and Capcom are not as great anymore, i don't know, but i feel Nintendo should have prevented this.
Bamco only ports or new games but always delayed, never day and date, which means none of these were really planned in advance: in fact for all their new games that came out on the Switch, they had always asked portbegging from fans on social media to see if there is demand. DBFZ is there because of that.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/0...ould-come-to-switch-if-enough-fans-request-it
Again check wikipedia cause Bandai Namco used to bring new games, sometimes exclusives, on previous Nintendo systems even at launch.
Bethesda some could argue that besides Skyrim (and still, a 6 years old port), again nothing was really designed for the system, it's more finding old titles that could fit well, or trying to port new stuffs, you wonder if at some point they will design a game thinking "this also has to run well on Switch".
I can't blame them cause they don't do exclusive games, and Bethesda didn't care about Nintendo before the Switch, so it's good to have them on board.
Last edited:
You literally proved my point with your second paragraph. Capcom had no plans for the system, so I don't know why you would expect anythig. They literally say every few months that their focus is AAA dev for PS4/XONE/PC and that they didn't expect Switch to sell well
I'm aware of what third parties released for previous Nintendo systems and I don't think Bamco support is excellent. But they're releasing more stuff and producing even brand new games for Switch, they literally announced a new Dragon Ball Heroes game exclusively for it yesterday
Yes but that's a huge gap they left, and still now that we know Swich is doing soo well, their plans still seems basically to not focus on the system.
I strongly feel Nintendo should have prevented this, because they knew it: at first i thought they were planning to replace Capcom support with Konami considering how they had Super Bomberman R, new exclusive third party game available at launch, and how they said they were on board with the NX before anyone else, but that doesn't seem to be case now that we know what's their second title.
About Bandai Namco, i'll repeat what i wrote on the previous posts: i'm waiting the moment they will start to bring something relevant and designed for the system, like a new Tales for example, or Ridge Racer.
If they can't turn this issue, Switch may come down as the least supported Nintendo system by third parties (or maybe slightly better than Wii U), if you start to separate what's new and what's a port here.
Last edited:
"maybe slightly better than Wii U" lol
what are you talking about
*awaits list of games from third parties that launched during Wii U's first nine months on the market*
I know it's better than Wii U but you should never compare it to that, there is nothing worse than that system in terms of sales and support, you should compare Switch with 3DS, Wii and DS: Nintendo itself said their goal is to reach Wii's level of success, those systems saw more new third party games in the first 18-19 months.
Third party-wise, Switch is going to absolutely demolish 3DS. That system had almost zero western support. Japanese support started stronger on 3DS, but fell off big time after a couple years. The opposite is happening with Switch.
Nintendo will never see DS-level support from third parties again, due to the rise of mobile.
So Switch has better western support only because of Ubisoft and Bethesda, even though Ubisoft had Ghost Recon: Shadow Wars at launch and Splinter Cell 3D.
EA for example is not that different or even worse now considering it brought 3 FIFA games on the 3DS (they weren't great, FIFA switch is better but still a dumbed down version of the "real" one), The Sims 3 and Sims 3 Pets, one of their biggest franchise that is not present on the Switch, and NFS: The Run again another franchise not available on the Switch.
Then as you said, japanese support was much stronger on 3DS than what Switch got so far.
Again Nintendo has higher expectations for Switch even compared to the 3DS, so you would also expect a stronger support both first and third party, that's what i hope and it technically should get more third party-wise but there are no signs or rumors of that happening, i fear there is still not much in development, nothing really big or new besides what it has been already announced (SMT V, a new Etrian Odyssey, Child of Light 2, Doom Eternal)
Last edited:
Eh, actually I think Switch will generaly have best 3rd party support for any Nintendo system after SNES.
Read Vern's and Imran's posts. Making the game digital only will severely limit the potential audience and therefore their potential return on investment. The higher ups cancel/postpone these games not because it's impossible to get them out onto the system due to the size, but because it's not economically viable.
If you cut your potential revenue by like 80% by going only digital then suddenly the max budget you can justify to do a port gets very small.
What two properties? It's just Star Fox from what we know.
D) Again you're now severely limiting your audience. Also I wouldn't be surprised if platform holders have some rules against standard retail games selling for more than $60.
E) This can only work if the download size is reasonable. Also there were some rumors that Nintendo has a policy where the game does need to be playable on a card, even if it requires a download. That may not be possible to do for some games.
see, star and fox. two properties. :)
Hydes probably thinks SF GP means it's Star Fox Mario Kart or something silly...
The only rumor I care to get more rumors on is the N64 Mini. When I say N64 Mini I really mean the games for it.
I was thinking, there's a good chance Smash Ultimate won't have "Break The Targets" due to there being too many characters. Smash 64 on N64 Mini will be fun to play since some of those side modes will more than likely be missing from Smash Ultimate.
I was thinking, there's a good chance Smash Ultimate won't have "Break The Targets" due to there being too many characters. Smash 64 on N64 Mini will be fun to play since some of those side modes will more than likely be missing from Smash Ultimate.
Same, but I guess we really had to wait for Starlink to get released, first.
I'm hoping the next "general" Direct (in Jan?) finally showcases a preview.
Wii you mean, actual exclusives and unique stuff (if someone says shovelware I'll call the police). Gamecube just had lots of early multiplats.
Also had stuff like rogue squadron or resident evil 4 (which ended up not being exclusive). Point is both on GameCube and Wii, traditional third parties had more ambitions and invested more in the system. Indies are a blessing for the switch, there's no denying it; but whycantwehaveboth.gif?
pre-HD gen was the last time third parties went nuts with exclusives in general. HD dev made that not feasible anymore. It's not a Nintendo platform thing.
Except ambitious titles, or even stuff like code vein or sekiro (which are far from being rdr2 level), ignore the switch completely. That's a problem in my view.
Sekiro not coming is fucking criminal but that's just the big pub attitude again that they can only move units for family/"everyone" games.
You guys need to re-base your assumptions on what Switch is actually powerful enough to do. Try basing it on games that have actually come out. You'll be happier in the end.
There is nothing that Sekiro or COde Vein do that could not run on the switch.
They are both WiiU level games? Can you honestly not tell the difference between something like that absolutely Sekiro.
This isn't a dick swinging contrst either. I use Switch as my only console now, I'm fully on board. I also keep my expectations realistic because I'm not just a blind fanboy.
Hopefully smash is using a 32gb cart. If a guaranteed several million seller is on 32gb carts, costs will go down for everyone because a ton is manufactured.
I hope the same. Starlink is out of the way. The only thing is Retro's game is always revealed at E3. I'm hoping that changes.
Yeah we need to keep our expectations in check, since at least 2018 seems to have passed by without much of an effort from 3rd parties. Hopefully reduced cart costs, larger installed base as well as familiarity with the platform will give us a more exciting 2019, so far i think we only have Doom Eternal as a big 3rd party release.
OP
OP
Yep. And unless Nintendo is explicitly preventing them from releasing certain games on the Switch, the blame is on Capcom, not Nintendo. If Capcom doesn't want to go to the prom, we don't blame the school...
Agreed. At worst they might require a resolution or framerate hit, but it seems the Switch audience accepts that as a tradeoff for portability. It's less about technology and more about developer/publisher effort.
StarFox Zero was also a thing that was made the centerpiece of Nintendo's E3 that year (albeit leaked a day or two before hand by the press), so, I guess the trends are in E3's favor for the time being.
Like you, too, though, I'd definitely would love it if they revealed it earlier.
If we're being honest with ourselves, Ubisoft's support on 3DS was pretty underwhelming.
Splinter Cell 3D had a 53 on Metacritic. -- This wasn't a great launch title.
Combat of Dinosaurs: Dinosaurs 3D had a 44 on Metacritic.
Asphalt 3D had a 43 on Metacritic.
Driver: Renegade had a 48 on Metacritic.
Rayman 3D had a 61 on Metacritic.
Gravity Falls: Legend of the Gnome Gemulets had a 46 on Metacritic.
Rabbids Travel in Time had a 55 on Metacritic.
Aside from Ghost Recon Shadow Wars and Rayman Origins, I would say Ubisoft's support on 3DS was dreadful for the most part.
I missed this post. Very interesting insight, thanks. You may not be able to answer this, but is any of these games you are referring games that we assume cannot run on Switch because of technical limitations (other than cart size)? Or is it previous gen games/less graphically intensive games?
I'd love a gimped version of RDR2 on Switch. With the visuals of the first ones if that's what it takes. There, I said it, I feel better now.
- Status