Forums

Topic: Does anyone else think the "Switch tax" puts you off buying some games on the Switch?

Posts 41 to 60 of 60

Ralizah

@NEStalgia

1) Nintendo's stats suggest most people who own a Switch use it undocked at least some of the time, so these Western gamers who treat it purely as a home console are likely, as usual, a loud minority online.

2) If someone cares deeply about having high framerates and resolutions in their third party games, they already own a PC or home console that is able to give them what they want, and they will get the games on those platforms. Again, they're not the target demographic for such ports.

3) Come to think of it, why aren't the PS4/Xbone versions of a lot of third-party games considered "stripped-down?" People with decent mid-range rigs were playing The Witcher 3 at a smooth 60fps when home consoles were struggling to play the same game at 30fps. Fallout 4's Far Harbor DLC had to have fog effects removed for it to work at an acceptable level of performance. Where's the outrage over full pricing on those platforms?

Truth is, most people understand that different hardware comes with different performance expectations. You don't buy DOOM on your Nintendo gaming tablet and expect identical levels of performance as on your TV-tethered home console.

4) Plenty of third-party games appear to be selling quite well on Switch. What's keeping the Switch from getting more AAA support is likely the inherent limitations of the hardware as opposed to a lack of interest in Switch versions of these games.

Currently Playing: Advance Wars 1 + 2: Re- Boot Camp (NS)

NEStalgia

@Ralizah
1)Did the Nintendo stats show that 50% of individuals used it in both modes, or did it show that switch overall is used about equally in both modes (meaning Japan and the West weight it in opposite directions? IIRC one of they keys to Switch was to accommodate both Japan and the rest of the world that generally doesn't play handheld much. That interview a week or two ago with that multimedia firm discussed that as well. I imagine many of us "true believers" use it more handheld than docked, but just going by western gaming trends, there's going to be a lot of people that don't play handheld much at all. That group would mostly be the multi-console owners.

2) I mostly agree here, but when I look at Diablo, Skyrim, the company culture and enthusiasm etc for these ports, I almost feel they're targeting that existing fanbase explicitly, not courting a new one. Those games do focus on mobility. But games like South Park, or the FF games, I can't help but think that the publishers have a point. The existing fanbase isn't likely to pay much more to get it portable, and there's not much of a new fanbase to court on Nintendo (otherwise they'd have a PS4/XB.) So why port things to Switch if it's consistently 1-5% of sales?

3) Well, CDProjekt's and Bethesda's bad engines are just bad I agree, but, I think console versus PC people make a concious point of "performance versus simplicity", it's different than comparing "two simple devices." Yeah, $60 for an inferior PS4 game sucks, but it's for a $300 console versus a $1500+ PC. But $60 for a $300 console that looks worse than $30 for a $300 console....that will sway people.

If it were $60 on Nintendo and PS, and ran worse on Nintendo, you get different expectations. But paying much more to get much worse performance is silly if you can pay less and get better performance (if portability doesn't matter to you.) It's not an anti-switch argument it's a "this is a major factor in mediocre to poor sales of 3rd party games on Switch" argument. Jax and I were talking about this the other day. Look at the extreme lack of interest in the FF games at least so far. You wouldn't think that on Switch. Amazon ranking is higher for PS4 and it's been out years on PS4.

I don't think anyone will say the 3rd parties are doing particularly well on Switch. We're in an era when games go half price in weeks post launch on other platforms. Honestly for someone that buys a lot of games it pays to buy a PSXBox for the third parties just to cash in on the sales...it'll pay for itself.

NEStalgia

Ralizah

@NEStalgia

1) My point is that the majority of Switch owners, around 75% or so, use it undocked at least some of the time. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it skews toward predominantly handheld use in all regions over time, though, considering it's the only real modern portable on the market right now, whereas there are plenty of devices that are TV-or-monitor tethered. Even if you're not a huge handheld gamer, the portability is a unique selling point, and people are still going to be making some use of it with most of their games. It's a minority of "hardcore" gamers who can't stand to play anything that's not on a giant HDTV.

I know we have this narrative about handhelds dying in the West, but the 3DS has still sold... what? 70 million units? It's down from the highs of the DS era, sure, but that's still a LOT of devices.

2) I imagine companies won't continue porting to Switch if the sales are poor. As long as Switch owners are buying enough copies to make porting profitable, though, we'll likely continue to see growing support from third parties. There IS a reason so many companies have been scrambling to release their games on Switch after ignoring the Wii U.

3) By the time the home console version of a game is significantly discounted, the people who are intent on playing it at the best possible level of performance have likely already purchased the game.

Don't get me wrong: I don't doubt that the AAA games that release on Switch will still sell better on home consoles, where they tend to perform better. But that doesn't mean those ports aren't necessarily still profitable enough to make them worthwhile, and it also doesn't mean that people aren't buying a slew of less demanding third party and indie games in even greater numbers on the Switch. Capcom and NISA, in particular, seem to be enjoying great success on the system.

Oh, and what Final Fantasy games are out for Switch besides WoFF, which doesn't even have a retail presence on the Switch? The only one I know of that's even getting a retail release is Final Fantasy XII, which is still months out.

Edited on by Ralizah

Currently Playing: Advance Wars 1 + 2: Re- Boot Camp (NS)

SwitchForce

Octane wrote:

@SwitchForce How much does it cost to port a game?

For a MOD if this is the case to ask shows clear intent of the message.

SwitchForce

NEStalgia

@Ralizah Hardcore plays on a 24" monitor. The way it was MEANT to be played.

As for handhelds and the west that comes from Iwata's own comments as well, so we know it's real. I do agree with you that most people play their system handheld at least a little bit. But that doesn't mean they're playing AAA console games handheld. I think the smaller games are more likely to be played handheld by a lot of people. Heck I'm the biggest Switch fan you'll find, I play it handheld probably more than docked, but some games aren't really ever going to be handheld more than for occasional novelty. Meanwhile some games like Octopath are basically never going to be on the big screen. (You think I'm odd doing XC2 exclusively handheld, but I like big outdoor summer RPG ) So just because people use the Switch in both modes, that doesn't always equate to for all types of games. Mega Man 11 I wanted for handheld...in reality I find it almost unplayable handheld. Not so much due to the d-pad but even seeing the bullet hell unfold I seem to do a lot better on the big screen. That schism still relates to sales.

2) Bethesda saw good results. I'm not sure Ubisoft or 2k have. I think you'll see them pull back. Civ surprises me though. I don't expect it to perform well but it surprises me. (OTOH we'll see the Japanese developers ramp up, which is a-ok by me ) Plus 3rd parties are increasingly going with GaaS which will put a hard limit on it anyway even if sales were stellar.

Capcom, NISA, etc, oh I think they're doing just fine on Switch. And Indies are a separate thing. The "Switch Tax" thing really pertains to the full price late port retail releases. Well ok, Capcom applies a Switch tax all their own...

WoFF is doing well in the eShop which is good to hear, despite nobody seeming to talk about it ever. But the interest in XII, X/X-2 seems abnormally low. Yeah they don't have release dates, even, but as Jax pointed out, it's showing significantly worse showing on Amazon rankings than tons of trash games that also don't have release dates. Maybe everyone just wants digital (XBox interest is even lower), so that could be the up side to that.

NEStalgia

Ralizah

@NEStalgia Oh, I agree that not everyone is playing every game in both modes. Most people probably play certain games primarily in certain modes. I played Puyo Puyo Tetris, Stardew Valley, and Valkyria Chronicles 4 almost exclusively in handheld mode, while Xenoblade 2 was so visually downgraded undocked that I only ever played it like that when I was grinding or managing merc missions. But the appeal of playing AAA games on Switch for multiple console owners IS the portability. "Play DOOM/Skyrim on the go," etc. We're seeing another test of the demand for AAA third party games soon with the Diablo 3 port.

Ubisoft's Mario + Rabbids is the best-selling third party game on the system, and Rayman Legends seems to be doing well, so I think we'll keep getting games from them. 2K? I wouldn't be surprised if their poorly optimized ports underperform and they pull out. Not every third party is going to see good sales on the Switch. But a lot of them are. And as long as the Japanese ones continue to be rewarded for their ports, I'll be happy.

I don't blame people for ignoring X/X-2. Putting aside my dislike for the games, they've been available on both PS4 and Vita forever. Although I do think their sales rank will rise as we come closer to their launch period. People only really care about the big holiday games right now. FFXII will look a lot more attractive in 2019. I also think the more conservatively priced older FF games will do extremely well.

Even if their retail releases bombed, though, as long as they sold well on the eshop, it's unlikely S-E would pull support. At worst, they'd go full digital with future ports, if that's where the money is coming from. They have some sort of internal number they likely want to see these ports hit, and, as long as they're realistic (they didn't think Octopath would sell nearly as well as it did, so I'm guessing their expectations for sales on the system haven't been sky-high to begin with), I think they'll likely hit that target.

After third party sales died in a ditch with the Wii U, I'm encouraged to see them returning to healthy levels on the Switch. And I think, barring any large changes, that Nintendo's next system will likely see a lot of support right out of the gate, like it did initially with the Wii U.

Edited on by Ralizah

Currently Playing: Advance Wars 1 + 2: Re- Boot Camp (NS)

NEStalgia

@Ralizah I think Diablo III is doing extremely well by the indicators so far. But the weird thing with the Nintendo market is there seems to be no indication of what will succeed. Things you don't think will succeed, manage to do well. Things that seem like a sure bet seem to fail.

Rabbids is a console with first party involvement exclusive so "Switch Tax" type conversation isn't applicable. Starlink's StarFox stuff is the same....those are more unique situations with first party involvement. Imagine of PS4 had Crash Bandicoot in Starlink. The UK would implode. Japanese devs is another thing, but the niche ones. DMC5 isn't exactly likely due to the hardware (though Bayonetta 3 says hi...)

X/X-2, though that's kind of the point. A more expensive port years after it's been on the other systems.

Square, well, we're talking about the same Square that things 5M Tomb Raider sales is a failure, FFXV doesn't need it's already scheduled DLC, and TWEWY is worth $50....

Like I said to Jax though, the problem for publishers on Nintendo isn't that you can't succeed on Nintendo. It's that there is no way to predict if you will succeed on Nintendo because nobody has figured out what makes the user base tick yet.

NEStalgia

NEStalgia

@Yorumi I've said for a while that there's an Apple-like mentality to the Nintendo consumer base. And waiting for curation of being told what content is "approved" isn't inherently bad . With so much noise out there, a reliable curator isn't such a bad service. Like what Apple tried to bring to music (but failed.)

That said, though, I still don't think it comes down to "Nintendo buys Nintendo/exclusives/characters"....other things succeed quite well....or reasonably well within expectations. It just seems impossible to predict what will. And then something like WoFF seems tailor made for Nintendo customers, yet is kind of tepid (it's #3 in the eShop so it's doing well even without hype from Nintendo, but I do think that's short lived....partly (largely) to Square's own lack of promotion (on XBox as well.)

What I don't get is the hype bubbles that form around the indie flavor of the month. Nintendo doesn't even drive those and you don't see that on other platforms.

NEStalgia

JasmineDragon

@Octane That's not how inflation works. Companies don't adjust their prices every day to keep up with inflation, they adjust them every few years. One day an MSRP will seem like a bargain, because "hey look, it's still $59.99 four years on!" and the next day people will be griping because "OMG $70 for a video game! Inflation can't account for that!!" But in the end, it almost always works out the same. Inflation continues its inexorable increases. Gas costs more. Coffee costs more. Books cost more, consoles cost more, and so do video games.

In any case, as you're no doubt well aware, this is a cherry-picked example of one game that happened to be released at a lower MSRP on Wii U, when most other Wii U games were already set at a higher price point. The standard MSRP for Wii U games was in fact $60 in the US, exactly the same as the default MSRP for Switch games. The "OMG games cost $60 now?!?" scandal already happened, 5 years ago. The discussions are still available all over the Web if you want to check.

Of course, you already know that, don't you?

Switch FC: SW-5152-0041-1364
Remind yourself that overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer.

NEStalgia

@JasmineDragon Luxury/entertainment goods don't get to adjust for inflation at all as long as discretionary income is not increasing. Discretionary income hasn't increased since the 70's in the US. It's decreased due to....inflation. The costs to produce/deliver the luxury/entertainment goods needs to be reduced to accommodate available consumer spending. (And before someone cites the retailers going on about "best consumer spending environment ever!" it neglects the massive debt spike fueling that and isn't really about the discretionary luxury segment. These goods, and technology, are supposed to come down in price as they become more mass market. Producers aren't supposed to be finding ever new ways to spend money to lose all gains in market expansion and reduced production costs. That's not inflation, that's stupidity.

Edited on by NEStalgia

NEStalgia

Slowie

Honestly I don't care, The games do have a higher cost but the portability for me is a massive plus. I have a wife and child (soon be 2) and the fact that I can undock the switch to continue playing when either of the masters want access to the TV is so convenient that ill happily pay slightly more.
18 month ago I was pretty much a PC only gamer and I still use my laptop to game occasionally but the switch is just so convenient that if its a choice between a switch version and PC I choose switch every time.

I dont think I like it, but im still gonna play it

NEStalgia

If there is any device that I'd consider the least convenient thing possible to game on, it's got to be a "gaming laptop"

NEStalgia

D3adPool

@NEStalgia What you are saying does make sense, and I can agree with it. However, the one thing I will add to it is the fact that for some people a "portable" or "hybrid" version of a game just may be the best version of said game. I don't think that just because a game is more graphic-intensive that it is automatically the best version. Sometimes it comes down to what the other game offers. In this case, it's portability. But it could also just be the fact that it has motion controls, or what have you.

I do agree that there isn't much of a market for portable consoles in the West. A lot of us here don't commute to work by public transportation, for instance, unless you live in a large metropolis. The good thing about the Switch, though, is it isn't a portable console. It's hybrid. And that's something I don't think many people cared about or really thought about until it came to fruition.

D3adPool

Slowie

@NEStalgia Im not a purly graphics based gamer so the laptop is more than enough for me. MSI Apache Pro with a GTX1060, never had an issue with it. Did have a watercooled desktop but with my work being remote I found that I was never using it so go rid, never regretted it

I dont think I like it, but im still gonna play it

StuTwo

NEStalgia wrote:

Like I said to Jax though, the problem for publishers on Nintendo isn't that you can't succeed on Nintendo. It's that there is no way to predict if you will succeed on Nintendo because nobody has figured out what makes the user base tick yet.

I think the problem is potentially a little more intractable than this. For a large publisher succeeding on a Nintendo platform may require a set of business strategies different to those needed to succeed on PS4, XBox One or Steam.

It's little things like having a different expectation of how sales will progress over time. On the other formats consumers are trained to know that prices for AAA titles will drop like a stone a few months after launch so you either buy a big game right at launch or you wait. If you're waiting for sales of a big Nintendo game you'll be waiting a long, long time so big titles on Nintendo platforms typically have a lower bang but potentially a bigger tail (also helped by the relatively small importance placed on online multiplayer).

That changes the way you have to approach marketing a game over a 12 month period... and the changes needed aren't necessarily easily compatible with a multi-platform release backed by a multi-million pound advertising campaign.

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

Swordsman83

that's why i don't buy 3rd party game on switch.. i own PS4 and PC too where i can get a cheaper copy with better graphics..

Currently Owned Switch Games: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Octopath Traveller.

flightsaber

I've been trying to understand the Switch tax myself....here's what I figure:

As of writing, Amazon offers re-writable bluray discs at a rate of 50 discs per $21, or at about $0.40 per disc. I imagine manufacturers producing in bulk can get this number down even further as its not a proprietary format.

But a 32gb class 10 SD card costs $7.95. Since the Nintendo Switch uses a proprietary card format, I expect that the manufacturers spend around the price of a retail non-proprietary SD card, with bulk production not possible on the same scale. So a $60 game would lose 13% of the value to the physical cartridge. I have no idea how much of a sale a developer actually gets normally, but lets say its 20% after paying Nintendo, marketing, engine and publishing fees. Since that $8 is a flat fee but publishing/marketing/Nintendo/engine is likely a percentage cut, they would need to raise the price to $100 per cartridge produced to make up that $8 per game loss. (20% of 100 is $20, minus the $8 is the $12 they would normally make at a $60 price point on other consoles). Instead of charging $100 for a physical cartridge and passing all of the tax to the players who demand physical content, they can increase the price by $10 across the board, print a limited number of physical copies, and let the extra digital revenue make up the difference. Ideal? No. But developers still get paid.

Try bioware's best story for free:
http://www.swtor.com/r/mNjGcJ

Sorry, this topic has been locked.