Pretty cool that we're already getting scoops from ResetEra. It's barely been a week.
Ehhhh we're also already getting witch hunts and Jack Thompson-esque "please somebody think of the children watching the TLOU2 trailer," and it's barely been a week. But this isn't the place for any interforum drama.
Thinking about it some more, it would be pretty cool if they released an "NES Classic collection" cart for the switch. That way those who don't want or can't find an NES/SNES Classic could get the collection of games. Even for those who did buy one can have the collection of games portable, which would be cool.
Yeah. It would be great if they did game collections like that.
I'm just speculating here but I don't think that Nintendo wants to step on the Classics toes by releasing their software on the Switch. At that point they would basically be competing with themselves. Maybe something similiar but different would be more appropriate, sort of like how Smash for 3DS is similiar but different to the WiiU version.
I don't really see it as competing with themselves if they sell out the physical Classics product and stop making more (Hi Classic NES!), then do a cart later. I suppose their risk would be if you knew a cart was coming, you wouldn't buy the mini-console, but I don't think there's going to be as much demand for anything past the NES and SNES so it doesn't matter much at that point.
I’m going to be disappointed if there’s no VC on the Switch and the Classic line is the only way to officially get access to those games. The Switch is my first Nintendo home console since the SNES (well, I got a passed down Wii, but only played Xenoblade on it), and while I’ve had the various portable consoles over the years, only a handful of games each due to accessibility issues (all of them, even the 3DS, aren’t great for my hands). So, unlike a lot of you guys, I don’t have other avenues with which to play these games.
I mean, it’s not the end of the world, but I’d rather not have more disparate pieces of Nintendo plastic to do what one should do.
You could always buy a Wii U used for (relatively) cheap. It'll have all the VC stuff you'd want in one box.
Need a voice actor? Hire me at bengrayVO.com
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051 Steam ID Twitch Page
Thinking about it some more, it would be pretty cool if they released an "NES Classic collection" cart for the switch. That way those who don't want or can't find an NES/SNES Classic could get the collection of games. Even for those who did buy one can have the collection of games portable, which would be cool.
Yeah. It would be great if they did game collections like that.
I'm just speculating here but I don't think that Nintendo wants to step on the Classics toes by releasing their software on the Switch. At that point they would basically be competing with themselves. Maybe something similiar but different would be more appropriate, sort of like how Smash for 3DS is similiar but different to the WiiU version.
I don't really see it as competing with themselves if they sell out the physical Classics product and stop making more (Hi Classic NES!), then do a cart later. I suppose their risk would be if you knew a cart was coming, you wouldn't buy the mini-console, but I don't think there's going to be as much demand for anything past the NES and SNES so it doesn't matter much at that point.
Oh yes I agree, as long as it's after the Classics are out of production. The toe stepping thing only makes sense when it's a product they're currently selling.
I'm pretty sure that what happened with the Wii U is a bigger reason for the Switch than the 3DS could hope to be.
Honestly, the Switch very effectively killed two birds with one stone. The Wii U was doing awful, and the dedicated portable market is barely a third the size of what it once was and is continuing to contract, making an additional portable-only system risky at best. It honestly is a fantastic feat for Nintendo to turn their fortunes around so dramatically when things looked bleak.
They totally did not realize the potential of WiiU and 3DS.
0
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
edited November 2017
The curse lives on. The Mario bundle Switch had dead pixels in the middle of the screen. Just got back from exchanging it for a brand new bundle. The great thing about the new system transfer is there's no time limit like with the 3DS, you can (presumably) transfer as many times as you want, as quickly as you want. I originally transferred everything to the new one on the 27th, I transferred it back to the old earlier today before the exchange, and now I'm about to transfer everything to the new new one again.
edit: oh also I got a brand new code for Mario Odyssey, so thats good.
Electronic Arts are back to their old tricks again. After releasing FIFA 18 on the Nintendo Switch just a couple of months ago, the company now says that it’ll wait until the Switch has been on the market a full year before deciding on whether to make any more games for the console beside FIFA 18.
Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, EA’s finance chief said it was too soon to judge the success of FIFA on the console and that it wants to “fully understand what the demand is” before they make any more decisions about making more games, let alone starting to develop them.
At that rate they won't even have FIFA 19 for Switch.
Have any third parties released an accessory that allows you to play the Switch on a TV without the dock? Like if I don't want to pack the dock with me when I go somewhere.
Electronic Arts are back to their old tricks again. After releasing FIFA 18 on the Nintendo Switch just a couple of months ago, the company now says that it’ll wait until the Switch has been on the market a full year before deciding on whether to make any more games for the console beside FIFA 18.
Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, EA’s finance chief said it was too soon to judge the success of FIFA on the console and that it wants to “fully understand what the demand is” before they make any more decisions about making more games, let alone starting to develop them.
At that rate they won't even have FIFA 19 for Switch.
This almost boggles me. But then I realized EA's overall 'games as a service' thing they're working towards, and, sad as it may be, I at least follow the logic for what they're trying to do.
No EA, no Actision and barely any Capcom. And yet strongest sales in a long time.
The biggest lie is how necessary having all the big 3rd party publishers on board is. The WiiU failed for many other reasons, and the Wii suceeded despite the middling efforts from them.
Switch is doing great with decent support from only some of the big 3rd parties, but they aren't all as necessary as they're made out to be. A system can be successful without Call of Duty.
This is just a hunch, but maybe it's because the "big 3" all seem to be struggling as well. When was the last time that EA or Activision or Ubisoft had a breakout title that captured its audience and held them for a long period of time?
The biggest games of the last couple years are all first party games and/or games by "second tier" publishers like Bethesda, 2K, and the like. Or indie.
Overwatch is huge, but it is Blizzard. Yes, the company is technically "Activision Blizzard" so I begrudgingly have to give Activision credit for that one, but that game is decidedly a Blizzard game and not an Activision game.
The games that have been driving the industry lately are indie.
Minecraft. Player Unknown's Battlegrounds. Rocket League. The undeniable resurgence of platformers and metroidvanias by the indie scene.
All of the "big 3" are scrambling to catch up to the market. While EA is still pushing loot boxes galore into every product line in existence, they have failed to capture the imagination and devotion of their fans the way other "one and done" games have in the indie scene.
And the games that matter, i.e. these indie games and the notable first party games are more than enough for the Switch.
This is just a hunch, but maybe it's because the "big 3" all seem to be struggling as well. When was the last time that EA or Activision or Ubisoft had a breakout title that captured its audience and held them for a long period of time?
The biggest games of the last couple years are all first party games and/or games by "second tier" publishers like Bethesda, 2K, and the like. Or indie.
Overwatch is huge, but it is Blizzard. Yes, the company is technically "Activision Blizzard" so I begrudgingly have to give Activision credit for that one, but that game is decidedly a Blizzard game and not an Activision game.
The games that have been driving the industry lately are indie.
Minecraft. Player Unknown's Battlegrounds. Rocket League. The undeniable resurgence of platformers and metroidvanias by the indie scene.
All of the "big 3" are scrambling to catch up to the market. While EA is still pushing loot boxes galore into every product line in existence, they have failed to capture the imagination and devotion of their fans the way other "one and done" games have in the indie scene.
And the games that matter, i.e. these indie games and the notable first party games are more than enough for the Switch.
Because I'm me, I have to point out that Activision, EA and Ubisoft all made top-selling games (with a retail component) last year. Here's the top 10:
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
Battlefield 1
The Division
NBA 2K17
Madden NFL 17
Grand Theft Auto V
Overwatch (no Battle.net sales)
Call of Duty: Black Ops III
FIFA 17
Final Fantasy XV
Of that 10 half of them were dominated by the three you mentioned.
That's not to say Switch is boned without them, but I can't stop myself from dropping sales figures.
The big companies try too hard at manipulating people to pay more money. They are even resorting to gambling. I am liking Nintendo and indies much more now.
This is just a hunch, but maybe it's because the "big 3" all seem to be struggling as well.
I would guess that this and said companies being really risk-adverse are big factors.
And because of that they will likely miss out on what could have been a lot of success on the current fastest selling system.
Development on the XBone, PS4, and PC has a lot more crossover than Switch development has. Even something that should be universal like Unreal Engine apparently has some issues on the Switch. And developers don't grow on trees. Software engineers have one of the lowest unemployment rates among industries due to incredibly high demand compared to the supply of qualified people. Bethesda porting Skyrim to the Switch actually surprises me a bit given that they're a pretty small studio still and working on multiple new projects at the same time and training up to utilize new hardware and systems isn't exactly the most straightforward process. Bethesda's smaller size might actually be a benefit here given that it's cheaper to give a small team of developers some time on the clock to futz around the development environment than it is to pay for a larger dev team to do so.
Even though I still have every console I've ever bought, I would still much prefer a VC on the Switch/whatever the latest console is. My (7-year-old) TV only has 4 HMDI inputs, which are all occupied, and while I'll eventually get a new TV with hopefully more ports, the physical space around my TV is actually even more of a limitation; I tried to find some space to stick the SNES Classic yesterday, and could not find a spot that worked for me. Anyway, as time passes, it will be harder and harder to hook up and maintain old consoles. Eventually, that hardware is going to break, and fixing it won't be possible (well, more likely it'll just be a hassle).
It occurred to me a couple of years ago that given the option, it's probably better to buy a multi-platform game on PC than console not only because I prefer PC in general, but also because it's much more likely to be playable years in the future. Certainly, PC hardware/OSes change, and platforms like Steam/UPlay/Origin (as well as straight-up DRM) might make that difficult, but historically it's been a more manageable change than from console generation to console generation, as far as backwards-compatibility goes. Swathes of old PC games are playable in 2017 either thanks to the efforts of GOG, independent fans who work on compatibility tools (like DOSBox), or flat-out because of backwards-compatibility within Windows. On consoles, it depends entirely on the console developer providing some kind of compatibility functionality.
I can probably hook up my SNES to my modern TV through a comical sequence of adapters, and play one of the, like, 7 games I have for it. It would be much, much more convenient for me to hook up my Switch to my TV, and play those games on there - and buy games that I don't already own on top of that.
A couple things: 1)TV's basically don't come with more than 4 HDMI ports. You need hubs/switchers/receivers to do more. 2) This might not apply to Nintendo, but with both Sony and Microsoft now on X86 platforms for their consoles, and we're seeing console iterations that are basically just more powerful PCs, we can make a reasonable guess that the days of a new console that cuts off previous games are over.
This is just a hunch, but maybe it's because the "big 3" all seem to be struggling as well.
I would guess that this and said companies being really risk-adverse are big factors.
And because of that they will likely miss out on what could have been a lot of success on the current fastest selling system.
Development on the XBone, PS4, and PC has a lot more crossover than Switch development has. Even something that should be universal like Unreal Engine apparently has some issues on the Switch. And developers don't grow on trees. Software engineers have one of the lowest unemployment rates among industries due to incredibly high demand compared to the supply of qualified people. Bethesda porting Skyrim to the Switch actually surprises me a bit given that they're a pretty small studio still and working on multiple new projects at the same time and training up to utilize new hardware and systems isn't exactly the most straightforward process. Bethesda's smaller size might actually be a benefit here given that it's cheaper to give a small team of developers some time on the clock to futz around the development environment than it is to pay for a larger dev team to do so.
I suspect the decision to not develop for Switch is probably partially based in their lingering doubt of Switch's long-term sales potential -- they've been cheerfully ignoring Nintendo for 10 years now and old habits die hard. But you're right, given the astronomical manpower needed to just develop the base AAA game to begin with, the cost for porting has got to be significant and intimidating.
This is just a hunch, but maybe it's because the "big 3" all seem to be struggling as well.
I would guess that this and said companies being really risk-adverse are big factors.
And because of that they will likely miss out on what could have been a lot of success on the current fastest selling system.
Development on the XBone, PS4, and PC has a lot more crossover than Switch development has. Even something that should be universal like Unreal Engine apparently has some issues on the Switch. And developers don't grow on trees. Software engineers have one of the lowest unemployment rates among industries due to incredibly high demand compared to the supply of qualified people. Bethesda porting Skyrim to the Switch actually surprises me a bit given that they're a pretty small studio still and working on multiple new projects at the same time and training up to utilize new hardware and systems isn't exactly the most straightforward process. Bethesda's smaller size might actually be a benefit here given that it's cheaper to give a small team of developers some time on the clock to futz around the development environment than it is to pay for a larger dev team to do so.
I suspect the decision to not develop for Switch is probably partially based in their lingering doubt of Switch's long-term sales potential -- they've been cheerfully ignoring Nintendo for 10 years now and old habits die hard. But given the astronomical manpower needed to just develop the base AAA game to begin with, the cost for porting has got to be significant and intimidating.
Ubisoft has been trying more non-AAA development for a while now so for them they probably didn't have as tough a time shifting a smaller team to work on Mario vs. Rabbids. EA has been publishing non-AAA stuff but not developing it in house.
No real clue about Activision. Their non-Blizzard, non-Destiny stuff mostly slips my mind outside of Call of Duty and while that's been successful, even that franchise has struggled in a sense of not being able to really break into the eSport scene the way other multiplayer focused titles have. Their existing model of frequent new releases in the franchise doesn't really let any one release stick in the minds of players and enable a long tail.
Thinking of other third parties that have announced things for the Switch, Atlus felt like a natural fit given that they release stuff so late on consoles that they've never really come across as focused on pushing hardware. Plus they've already released a mainline SMT game on the 3DS as well as some spinoff titles.
If the Switch is successful enough to make the big studios rethink the AAA or bust approach many seem to take, that would be a positive thing in my mind.
This is just a hunch, but maybe it's because the "big 3" all seem to be struggling as well. When was the last time that EA or Activision or Ubisoft had a breakout title that captured its audience and held them for a long period of time?
The biggest games of the last couple years are all first party games and/or games by "second tier" publishers like Bethesda, 2K, and the like. Or indie.
Overwatch is huge, but it is Blizzard. Yes, the company is technically "Activision Blizzard" so I begrudgingly have to give Activision credit for that one, but that game is decidedly a Blizzard game and not an Activision game.
The games that have been driving the industry lately are indie.
Minecraft. Player Unknown's Battlegrounds. Rocket League. The undeniable resurgence of platformers and metroidvanias by the indie scene.
All of the "big 3" are scrambling to catch up to the market. While EA is still pushing loot boxes galore into every product line in existence, they have failed to capture the imagination and devotion of their fans the way other "one and done" games have in the indie scene.
And the games that matter, i.e. these indie games and the notable first party games are more than enough for the Switch.
Because I'm me, I have to point out that Activision, EA and Ubisoft all made top-selling games (with a retail component) last year. Here's the top 10:
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
Battlefield 1
The Division
NBA 2K17
Madden NFL 17
Grand Theft Auto V
Overwatch (no Battle.net sales)
Call of Duty: Black Ops III
FIFA 17
Final Fantasy XV
Of that 10 half of them were dominated by the three you mentioned.
That's not to say Switch is boned without them, but I can't stop myself from dropping sales figures.
It reads like a who's who of games that are sucking the life out of gaming.
edit: with maybe an exception or two. I dunno enough about Final Fantasy to make that call.
edit edit: I don't know about you guys but I'm kinda glad that the Switch isn't the place to play Call of Duty 15 Pre Order Now To Get Exclusive Moustache Pack And Access to Half The Games Content Edition.
This is just a hunch, but maybe it's because the "big 3" all seem to be struggling as well. When was the last time that EA or Activision or Ubisoft had a breakout title that captured its audience and held them for a long period of time?
The biggest games of the last couple years are all first party games and/or games by "second tier" publishers like Bethesda, 2K, and the like. Or indie.
Overwatch is huge, but it is Blizzard. Yes, the company is technically "Activision Blizzard" so I begrudgingly have to give Activision credit for that one, but that game is decidedly a Blizzard game and not an Activision game.
The games that have been driving the industry lately are indie.
Minecraft. Player Unknown's Battlegrounds. Rocket League. The undeniable resurgence of platformers and metroidvanias by the indie scene.
All of the "big 3" are scrambling to catch up to the market. While EA is still pushing loot boxes galore into every product line in existence, they have failed to capture the imagination and devotion of their fans the way other "one and done" games have in the indie scene.
And the games that matter, i.e. these indie games and the notable first party games are more than enough for the Switch.
Because I'm me, I have to point out that Activision, EA and Ubisoft all made top-selling games (with a retail component) last year. Here's the top 10:
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
Battlefield 1
The Division
NBA 2K17
Madden NFL 17
Grand Theft Auto V
Overwatch (no Battle.net sales)
Call of Duty: Black Ops III
FIFA 17
Final Fantasy XV
Of that 10 half of them were dominated by the three you mentioned.
That's not to say Switch is boned without them, but I can't stop myself from dropping sales figures.
It reads like a who's who of games that are sucking the life out of gaming.
edit: with maybe an exception or two. I dunno enough about Final Fantasy to make that call.
GTA5 was great and the online component is unique if not always well balanced.
The Division had a really good single player component despite being a multi-player focused title. The multiplayer side has had ups and downs with the developer really going through growing pains of an MMOish title but it was a genuinely fun experience when I left the game. And it was definitely new ground for Ubisoft and the first of its kind on PC.
Overwatch is a Blizzard game with all its polish and a setting and characters that stand out from the usual FPS fare.
Battlefield 1 actually was received decently for visiting a setting almost no games do and giving a sense to how many cultural groups were involved.
And the sports games are sports games. They are cousin to mobile gaming in a lot of ways, something with wide appeal to casual gamers.
Remove Call of Duty and the sports games and everything on the list was something that tried something new to some degree or another.
Ehhhhh... I think saying The Division was really good strikes me as overstating it. Like, GTA5 may not be my thing but I can appreciate what it does, but The Division basically felt like "What if Borderlands did the third person cover thing worse than Gears of War and also the setting was dangerously not thought-through?"
EDIT: Admittedly, I can't weigh in on the multiplayer, because after forty minutes of the singleplayer I never touched the game again. So if you tell me the multiplayer was much better than the singleplayer, I will believe you. But the singleplayer was a big chunk of eh.
This is just a hunch, but maybe it's because the "big 3" all seem to be struggling as well. When was the last time that EA or Activision or Ubisoft had a breakout title that captured its audience and held them for a long period of time?
The biggest games of the last couple years are all first party games and/or games by "second tier" publishers like Bethesda, 2K, and the like. Or indie.
Overwatch is huge, but it is Blizzard. Yes, the company is technically "Activision Blizzard" so I begrudgingly have to give Activision credit for that one, but that game is decidedly a Blizzard game and not an Activision game.
The games that have been driving the industry lately are indie.
Minecraft. Player Unknown's Battlegrounds. Rocket League. The undeniable resurgence of platformers and metroidvanias by the indie scene.
All of the "big 3" are scrambling to catch up to the market. While EA is still pushing loot boxes galore into every product line in existence, they have failed to capture the imagination and devotion of their fans the way other "one and done" games have in the indie scene.
And the games that matter, i.e. these indie games and the notable first party games are more than enough for the Switch.
Because I'm me, I have to point out that Activision, EA and Ubisoft all made top-selling games (with a retail component) last year. Here's the top 10:
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
Battlefield 1
The Division
NBA 2K17
Madden NFL 17
Grand Theft Auto V
Overwatch (no Battle.net sales)
Call of Duty: Black Ops III
FIFA 17
Final Fantasy XV
Of that 10 half of them were dominated by the three you mentioned.
That's not to say Switch is boned without them, but I can't stop myself from dropping sales figures.
It reads like a who's who of games that are sucking the life out of gaming.
edit: with maybe an exception or two. I dunno enough about Final Fantasy to make that call.
GTA5 was great and the online component is unique if not always well balanced.
The Division had a really good single player component despite being a multi-player focused title. The multiplayer side has had ups and downs with the developer really going through growing pains of an MMOish title but it was a genuinely fun experience when I left the game. And it was definitely new ground for Ubisoft and the first of its kind on PC.
Overwatch is a Blizzard game with all its polish and a setting and characters that stand out from the usual FPS fare.
Battlefield 1 actually was received decently for visiting a setting almost no games do and giving a sense to how many cultural groups were involved.
And the sports games are sports games. They are cousin to mobile gaming in a lot of ways, something with wide appeal to casual gamers.
Remove Call of Duty and the sports games and everything on the list was something that tried something new to some degree or another.
GTA5 has Shark cards and other microtransaction nonsense. I will concede to your point on the others though. I didn't realize that BF1's lootboxes were only attainable in game, I thought you could buy them for some reason, and I havent played The Division or Overwatch, although I do vaguely recall some kind of controversy surrounding The Division. Maybe someone else can chime in on it.
Ehhhhh... I think saying The Division was really good strikes me as overstating it. Like, GTA5 may not be my thing but I can appreciate what it does, but The Division basically felt like "What if Borderlands did the third person cover thing really mediocrely and also the setting was dangerously not thought-through?"
I tried to back to Borderlands after playing The Division and couldn't. The shooting mechanics in The Division made everything in Borderlands feel really weightless. Plus being able to form a party seamlessly in game with matchmaking if you didn't have friends online for tougher content as opposed to needing to have a group set up beforehand like in Borderlands was a massive improvement.
It wasn't perfect and the developers made a lot of boneheaded decisions trying to push the Dark Zone pvp back when DayZ and Rust were at the peak of popularity but I put about 150 hours into the game and had a lot of fun with it.
This is just a hunch, but maybe it's because the "big 3" all seem to be struggling as well. When was the last time that EA or Activision or Ubisoft had a breakout title that captured its audience and held them for a long period of time?
The biggest games of the last couple years are all first party games and/or games by "second tier" publishers like Bethesda, 2K, and the like. Or indie.
Overwatch is huge, but it is Blizzard. Yes, the company is technically "Activision Blizzard" so I begrudgingly have to give Activision credit for that one, but that game is decidedly a Blizzard game and not an Activision game.
The games that have been driving the industry lately are indie.
Minecraft. Player Unknown's Battlegrounds. Rocket League. The undeniable resurgence of platformers and metroidvanias by the indie scene.
All of the "big 3" are scrambling to catch up to the market. While EA is still pushing loot boxes galore into every product line in existence, they have failed to capture the imagination and devotion of their fans the way other "one and done" games have in the indie scene.
And the games that matter, i.e. these indie games and the notable first party games are more than enough for the Switch.
Because I'm me, I have to point out that Activision, EA and Ubisoft all made top-selling games (with a retail component) last year. Here's the top 10:
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
Battlefield 1
The Division
NBA 2K17
Madden NFL 17
Grand Theft Auto V
Overwatch (no Battle.net sales)
Call of Duty: Black Ops III
FIFA 17
Final Fantasy XV
Of that 10 half of them were dominated by the three you mentioned.
That's not to say Switch is boned without them, but I can't stop myself from dropping sales figures.
It reads like a who's who of games that are sucking the life out of gaming.
edit: with maybe an exception or two. I dunno enough about Final Fantasy to make that call.
GTA5 was great and the online component is unique if not always well balanced.
The Division had a really good single player component despite being a multi-player focused title. The multiplayer side has had ups and downs with the developer really going through growing pains of an MMOish title but it was a genuinely fun experience when I left the game. And it was definitely new ground for Ubisoft and the first of its kind on PC.
Overwatch is a Blizzard game with all its polish and a setting and characters that stand out from the usual FPS fare.
Battlefield 1 actually was received decently for visiting a setting almost no games do and giving a sense to how many cultural groups were involved.
And the sports games are sports games. They are cousin to mobile gaming in a lot of ways, something with wide appeal to casual gamers.
Remove Call of Duty and the sports games and everything on the list was something that tried something new to some degree or another.
GTA5 has Shark cards and other microtransaction nonsense. I will concede to your point on the others though. I didn't realize that BF1's lootboxes were only attainable in game, I thought you could buy them for some reason, and I havent played The Division or Overwatch, although I do vaguely recall some kind of controversy surrounding The Division, maybe someone else can chime in on it.
GTA5 has a rather significant single player component with none of the Shark card nonsense. And it's worth pointing out that they've released several content packs for GTA Online for free that other companies would have released as paid DLC. The CEO/VIP update, Biker Gang update, stunt update, gun running update, and smuggling update all have expanded the gameplay available online without charging for it.
The Division didn't really have controversy so much as the developers being completely unprepared for how much cheating PC players would get into. Again, it was the first time someone was trying this MMO-FPS approach on PC so the team was caught by surprise and took a really long time to clamp down on it. If you weren't doing the pvp content, it didn't affect players much but it basically meant that one aspect of the game was dead in the water for a while. It's main issue was more of a lack of content on the PvE side of things after a bit: For some reason, only 4 missions out of something close to a dozen could be played on the highest difficulty for the highest rewards at the time, most of the open world remained low level and not utilized when you hit the end game, and as I previously mentioned the developers kept trying to push the pvp aspect of the game when many players weren't interested. All of these issues did get addressed but again, growing pains of an MMO title.
Top sales or no, it feels like favor has been shifting a bit. Bethesda feels like a bigger win for Switch than EA would be. And maybe it's just this thread and what's available on Switch but it seems like good indies are starting to get a lot more attention and more are really "making it" than before. They're breaking into the public consciousness better, often quite a few featured in major console release videos or at E3.
Top sales or no, it feels like favor has been shifting a bit. Bethesda feels like a bigger win for Switch than EA would be. And maybe it's just this thread and what's available on Switch but it seems like good indies are starting to get a lot more attention and more are really "making it" than before. They're breaking into the public consciousness better, often quite a few featured in major console release videos or at E3.
A lot of things play into it. Streamers and give Indie titles a lot more reach without an advertising push as an example and that only took off fairly recently.
Indie titles really are a good fit for the Switch. The portable factor makes download only titles more convenient and they generally don't require a lot of hardware to run.
I'm pretty impressed with Bethesda getting their in-house engine working on the Switch and porting Skyrim to the system, and if you follow Bethesda games, you know how notoriously finicky their engine can be (or even if you don't follow them). Meanwhile EA complains about how hard it is to work with the Switch when they're putting out a fucking soccer game.
+4
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
Soooo I have an unused code for a digital copy of Mario Odyssey, first person to reply to this comment gets it.
Also please guys, let's stick to people who don't have a copy yet. I could be using this on my own to have copies on both of my systems but I'd rather give it to someone who hasn't had the opportunity to play it yet.
Posts
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
You can get it on iPad right now...
Twitch: akThera
Steam: Thera
Then why the fuck did you bring it up?
I don't really see it as competing with themselves if they sell out the physical Classics product and stop making more (Hi Classic NES!), then do a cart later. I suppose their risk would be if you knew a cart was coming, you wouldn't buy the mini-console, but I don't think there's going to be as much demand for anything past the NES and SNES so it doesn't matter much at that point.
You could always buy a Wii U used for (relatively) cheap. It'll have all the VC stuff you'd want in one box.
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
Steam ID
Twitch Page
Yes. Earthbound is a system seller for me.
Oh yes I agree, as long as it's after the Classics are out of production. The toe stepping thing only makes sense when it's a product they're currently selling.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
....all of the titles are 3ds and Wii U only.
I got one of those a few years ago and the selection was garbage. I can't imagine they get any ROI from doing that.
Hollow Knight is supposed to be coming to Switch.
Steam: pazython
Honestly, the Switch very effectively killed two birds with one stone. The Wii U was doing awful, and the dedicated portable market is barely a third the size of what it once was and is continuing to contract, making an additional portable-only system risky at best. It honestly is a fantastic feat for Nintendo to turn their fortunes around so dramatically when things looked bleak.
edit: oh also I got a brand new code for Mario Odyssey, so thats good.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
https://www.vooks.net/ea-waiting-see-demand-making-switch-games/
At that rate they won't even have FIFA 19 for Switch.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
This almost boggles me. But then I realized EA's overall 'games as a service' thing they're working towards, and, sad as it may be, I at least follow the logic for what they're trying to do.
The biggest lie is how necessary having all the big 3rd party publishers on board is. The WiiU failed for many other reasons, and the Wii suceeded despite the middling efforts from them.
Switch is doing great with decent support from only some of the big 3rd parties, but they aren't all as necessary as they're made out to be. A system can be successful without Call of Duty.
Nyko has a miniature version of the dock, but it may or may not catch your Switch on fire.
No, I want it also. Madden would be a great on the road game for me.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The biggest games of the last couple years are all first party games and/or games by "second tier" publishers like Bethesda, 2K, and the like. Or indie.
Overwatch is huge, but it is Blizzard. Yes, the company is technically "Activision Blizzard" so I begrudgingly have to give Activision credit for that one, but that game is decidedly a Blizzard game and not an Activision game.
The games that have been driving the industry lately are indie.
Minecraft. Player Unknown's Battlegrounds. Rocket League. The undeniable resurgence of platformers and metroidvanias by the indie scene.
All of the "big 3" are scrambling to catch up to the market. While EA is still pushing loot boxes galore into every product line in existence, they have failed to capture the imagination and devotion of their fans the way other "one and done" games have in the indie scene.
And the games that matter, i.e. these indie games and the notable first party games are more than enough for the Switch.
I would guess that this and said companies being really risk-adverse are big factors.
And because of that they will likely miss out on what could have been a lot of success on the current fastest selling system.
Because I'm me, I have to point out that Activision, EA and Ubisoft all made top-selling games (with a retail component) last year. Here's the top 10:
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
Battlefield 1
The Division
NBA 2K17
Madden NFL 17
Grand Theft Auto V
Overwatch (no Battle.net sales)
Call of Duty: Black Ops III
FIFA 17
Final Fantasy XV
Of that 10 half of them were dominated by the three you mentioned.
That's not to say Switch is boned without them, but I can't stop myself from dropping sales figures.
Development on the XBone, PS4, and PC has a lot more crossover than Switch development has. Even something that should be universal like Unreal Engine apparently has some issues on the Switch. And developers don't grow on trees. Software engineers have one of the lowest unemployment rates among industries due to incredibly high demand compared to the supply of qualified people. Bethesda porting Skyrim to the Switch actually surprises me a bit given that they're a pretty small studio still and working on multiple new projects at the same time and training up to utilize new hardware and systems isn't exactly the most straightforward process. Bethesda's smaller size might actually be a benefit here given that it's cheaper to give a small team of developers some time on the clock to futz around the development environment than it is to pay for a larger dev team to do so.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
A couple things: 1)TV's basically don't come with more than 4 HDMI ports. You need hubs/switchers/receivers to do more. 2) This might not apply to Nintendo, but with both Sony and Microsoft now on X86 platforms for their consoles, and we're seeing console iterations that are basically just more powerful PCs, we can make a reasonable guess that the days of a new console that cuts off previous games are over.
I suspect the decision to not develop for Switch is probably partially based in their lingering doubt of Switch's long-term sales potential -- they've been cheerfully ignoring Nintendo for 10 years now and old habits die hard. But you're right, given the astronomical manpower needed to just develop the base AAA game to begin with, the cost for porting has got to be significant and intimidating.
Ubisoft has been trying more non-AAA development for a while now so for them they probably didn't have as tough a time shifting a smaller team to work on Mario vs. Rabbids. EA has been publishing non-AAA stuff but not developing it in house.
No real clue about Activision. Their non-Blizzard, non-Destiny stuff mostly slips my mind outside of Call of Duty and while that's been successful, even that franchise has struggled in a sense of not being able to really break into the eSport scene the way other multiplayer focused titles have. Their existing model of frequent new releases in the franchise doesn't really let any one release stick in the minds of players and enable a long tail.
Thinking of other third parties that have announced things for the Switch, Atlus felt like a natural fit given that they release stuff so late on consoles that they've never really come across as focused on pushing hardware. Plus they've already released a mainline SMT game on the 3DS as well as some spinoff titles.
If the Switch is successful enough to make the big studios rethink the AAA or bust approach many seem to take, that would be a positive thing in my mind.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
It reads like a who's who of games that are sucking the life out of gaming.
edit: with maybe an exception or two. I dunno enough about Final Fantasy to make that call.
edit edit: I don't know about you guys but I'm kinda glad that the Switch isn't the place to play Call of Duty 15 Pre Order Now To Get Exclusive Moustache Pack And Access to Half The Games Content Edition.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
GTA5 was great and the online component is unique if not always well balanced.
The Division had a really good single player component despite being a multi-player focused title. The multiplayer side has had ups and downs with the developer really going through growing pains of an MMOish title but it was a genuinely fun experience when I left the game. And it was definitely new ground for Ubisoft and the first of its kind on PC.
Overwatch is a Blizzard game with all its polish and a setting and characters that stand out from the usual FPS fare.
Battlefield 1 actually was received decently for visiting a setting almost no games do and giving a sense to how many cultural groups were involved.
And the sports games are sports games. They are cousin to mobile gaming in a lot of ways, something with wide appeal to casual gamers.
Remove Call of Duty and the sports games and everything on the list was something that tried something new to some degree or another.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
EDIT: Admittedly, I can't weigh in on the multiplayer, because after forty minutes of the singleplayer I never touched the game again. So if you tell me the multiplayer was much better than the singleplayer, I will believe you. But the singleplayer was a big chunk of eh.
GTA5 has Shark cards and other microtransaction nonsense. I will concede to your point on the others though. I didn't realize that BF1's lootboxes were only attainable in game, I thought you could buy them for some reason, and I havent played The Division or Overwatch, although I do vaguely recall some kind of controversy surrounding The Division. Maybe someone else can chime in on it.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
I tried to back to Borderlands after playing The Division and couldn't. The shooting mechanics in The Division made everything in Borderlands feel really weightless. Plus being able to form a party seamlessly in game with matchmaking if you didn't have friends online for tougher content as opposed to needing to have a group set up beforehand like in Borderlands was a massive improvement.
It wasn't perfect and the developers made a lot of boneheaded decisions trying to push the Dark Zone pvp back when DayZ and Rust were at the peak of popularity but I put about 150 hours into the game and had a lot of fun with it.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
GTA5 has a rather significant single player component with none of the Shark card nonsense. And it's worth pointing out that they've released several content packs for GTA Online for free that other companies would have released as paid DLC. The CEO/VIP update, Biker Gang update, stunt update, gun running update, and smuggling update all have expanded the gameplay available online without charging for it.
The Division didn't really have controversy so much as the developers being completely unprepared for how much cheating PC players would get into. Again, it was the first time someone was trying this MMO-FPS approach on PC so the team was caught by surprise and took a really long time to clamp down on it. If you weren't doing the pvp content, it didn't affect players much but it basically meant that one aspect of the game was dead in the water for a while. It's main issue was more of a lack of content on the PvE side of things after a bit: For some reason, only 4 missions out of something close to a dozen could be played on the highest difficulty for the highest rewards at the time, most of the open world remained low level and not utilized when you hit the end game, and as I previously mentioned the developers kept trying to push the pvp aspect of the game when many players weren't interested. All of these issues did get addressed but again, growing pains of an MMO title.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
A lot of things play into it. Streamers and give Indie titles a lot more reach without an advertising push as an example and that only took off fairly recently.
Indie titles really are a good fit for the Switch. The portable factor makes download only titles more convenient and they generally don't require a lot of hardware to run.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Also please guys, let's stick to people who don't have a copy yet. I could be using this on my own to have copies on both of my systems but I'd rather give it to someone who hasn't had the opportunity to play it yet.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.