@BLP_Software There's no point in higher res screens without a PS5. Best thing is to build the PS5 with that little VR box included, that would eliminate 4 cables, and all you have to do is plug the PSVR directly into your PS5.
Vive feels more like high-end tech that's quickly improving. PSVR is more aimed at a casual VR audience and I think that replacing it this soon would alienate a big chuck of that audience. The Vive can get away with it because it feels more like a 3D printer; expensive new tech that get replaced almost every year, and those buying the Vive are probably aware of that.
@EvilLucario - Actually no they can't sell a system at such a loss to undermine Nintendo. Sony is hemorrhaging money in practically all of their investments save from TVs (which has been a roller coaster) and their gaming, which has been dominant this gen. They cannot afford more losses so rapidly, investors would pull out and Sony doesn't need that.
Even if there is a hybrid announcement, sony cannot keep that up and the PS4 Pro simultaneously. They've proven multiple times they cannot multitask. They would have to prey the third party picks up the slack. And with third parties, they will probably just attempt to maximize profit as they did with Vita and sell consumers the same game twice... and looked how well that went over.
This doesn't happen with Nintendo due to the systems being drastically different. You practically HAVE to make a new game on the 3DS if you want that version to even exist. Sony knows they couldn't replicate this due to not enough man power themselves, and third parties wouldn't take that great a chance to do something different enough to not maximize their return.
I was watching the indie sizzle reel and Huntdown really caught my eye. I just had a search for any more info on it and found this trailer, it looks great.
I had no idea this was already announced for Switch at E3.
@Paraka Course, a system is far more than a deal, but if they're haemorrhaging money, then the deals they've been making would've been very risky to say the least, right?
@UmniKnight - Not entirely. Various departments within a company sort of work like sister companies. Where making a whole new system this fresh off a PS4 Pro release would require hundreds of millions in marketing, testing, selling into stores, selling kits into dev teams... The deals making exclusive pale in comparison. Generally they front a good sum of dev costs and run marketing with a system and game shelf space already pre-sold into stores.
Look at it similar to how Disney owns Marvel and the Comic sector of Marvel is in the tubes. Marvel CAN have an experiment or two with restructuring their workforce. However, just cause theu have billions at their back doesn't mean Disney is willing to part with so much just flushed down the toilet with a avenue of revenue being butchered by various failed practices. Think of it that way, but with Sony in its entirety to owning Sony Entertainment.
@Paraka So by that same definition, Nintendo isn't doing deals either? Or is that something different? I read elsewhere that someone claimed that Nintendo doesn't do (looks up the quote) eh, I'll just copy paste the quote "Nintendo have a strict rule of "no money-hatting" people because they know that these 3rd parties will continue to ask for more and more money if they were conditioned into taking bribe money."
@UmniKnight - Nintendo has a reputation of not seeking deals the same way Sony and MS do, that's an absolute surety. However, though Nintendo doesn't often make an offensive effort, they do make deals. They're just often... More thorough on the part of Nintendo. The money hats are often offered with publishers when games and their localization efforts are thin (happens around consoles phasing). A prime example is the Op. Rainfall trilogy late in the Wii's era.
Nintendo makes deals and becomes involved with the development process directly. It is why we see Last Story and Pandora's Tower, though not made by Nintendo, has enough hands in it that they essentially belong to Nintendo (unless further deals are struck, like LEGO City was). It is also why we're even getting Skyrim, Nintendo is getting involved as publisher, as opposed to just a few hats, game gets out and then the whole deal washes away for another hat.
This has downsides, which includes lacking freedom of development cycles adhered to by the third party themselves (example: Ubisoft's Rayman Legends delay to meet a simultabeous release). And a major turnoff for others is Nintendo taking publishing reigns or offering development assistence also limits re-releases and ports if given. Generally making them legal exclusives. Which is actually quite clever, just not many third parties bite due to wanting the re-release cashings.
@UmniKnight - Yes and no. They are the most prominent ones you'll likely see. But various efforts you'll likely see is Nintendo as a publisher for a third party. And a select few (Sega and Atlus) doing publoshing for them. Games like Bayonetta, Taiko Drum Master, Last Story and Pandora's Tower are ones you'd have to skim the credits for to see how much Nintendo is involved.
@Paraka Interesting, so which of the current projects would you point out as those Nintendo is deeply involved with? Since Nintendo publishes them, it's hard to distinguish if it's really a "third-party" or not.
@Grumblevolcano I see. So, let's take the Monster Hunter and Secrets of Mana rumours as true for this instance, surely Nintendo won't let that slide? I mean MH has been doing very well for them, and many times have I heard that the Western base is built with their help, and that Nintendo has even done most of the leg-work for the game here.
@UmniKnight - As of currently the two Nintendo involved themselves in on Switch alone is Skyrim (publishing) and Taiko Drum Master for the Switch (partial development, assets assist).
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 17,101 to 17,120 of 70,001
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic