@Buizel It's a bad idea to release both at launch, especially if Splatoon and the Mario Rabbids RPG are also launch titles.
Mario and Zelda both at launch would suck the air out of the room for every other release, particularly 3rd party releases like Skyrim. That would negatively affect long term 3rd party support.
Launch would guarantee a day 1, first in line purchase from me. I wouldn't mind if they pushed Mario back to give the switch a nice launch window. But both at the same time would be great
I don't necessarily see the problem with BoTW and Mario Switch being released close to each other. They won't be eating into each others' sales too much, as a Nintendo fan that buys this console will in all probability buy both eventually and Mario has the broader appeal (so people who buy this console on a whim will buy Mario rather than Zelda regardless) and the Zelda fan base won't delay their purchase of the brand spankin' new game because there's Mario instead. They're all day 1 regardless too.
Vastly different to say Titanfall 2 being released in between Battlefield and CoD. If both Mario and Zelda are ready for the launch window launch them in the launch window says I.
Pokémon Stars seems to be the holiday game and that'll do well then.
@Shinion The debate is over both releasing on launch day, not the launch window. Big difference there. Both will definitely be available during the launch window.
If they both are available on launch day they'll cut into each other's initial sales, but they're evergreen titles that Nintendo will be advertising in some form 3 years down the line so it doesn't really matter.
The problem is them suffocating the other launch titles like the Mario Rabbids RPG and 3rd party games like Skyrim.
Having just done some thinking, having a system called Switch is better than thought.
Think about it. Gamecube, Xbox, Playstation, Wii. All distinct, unique names. But here we have "Switch". Just a common word. Like "Entertainment System". To discuss this openly its called "Nintendo Switch". And in time it will probably be used to bolster brand awareness of Nintendo not their consoles brand like Wii.
Hell maybe one day itll just be a Nintendo again.
Now Playing: Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart, Crash Bandicoot 4
@rallydefault
As I said, I think you're putting too much emphasis on that as a factor. Just because that's what you did doesn't mean that was the main reason those games didn't sell on the Wii U. Ports of a couple of year old games are not a step along the road to doom.
Two key counter examples to the Wii U examples. Resident Evil 4 was an early 2005 game on GC. Almost a full year later it launched on the PS2. Then another two years later it launched on Wii. If your theorising was right the Wii release would have been doomed, not the case. The GC release broke 1mill, the Wii release broke 2mill, the PS2 release broke 3mill. Another example would be The Last of Us which sold better on the PS3 than PS4 but not by a lot.
And as a counter anecdotal point? I did buy some of those early third party games on the Wii U. I got both of the Assassin's Creed games and NFS:MW. I could have got them for my PC but I wanted to play those games on my TV and on the GamePad. There are quite a few games I've got on my PC since that I would have brought for the Wii U if things hadn't turned out the way they did. But me saying that isn't evidence of anything just like you saying your bit isn't.
The only thing we can say for sure is that a port of a year old game can do well or not. And how well it does is related to console sales for that new platform more than anything else. Third parties didn't give up on the Wii U because its owners are all Nintendo obsessed. They gave up on it because by the end of 2014 PS4 + XBOne was ~3x the install base of Wii U. It's now ~5x.
People claiming that games only sell well once and once only and are only worth talking about for one period which is the original release of the original version are out of touch with the reality of the market. Remasters, remakes, collections of trilogies, episodic games, late ports, GOTY editions, standalone releases for DLC/expansions... and that's without me forgetting anything. I dare say no other entertainment industry has as much blatant flogging of the same stuff (let's call a spade a spade and say at heart for example Arkham City on PS3/Xbox 360 then the GOTY editions then the Wii U port and now its inclusion in the Return To Arkham are the same or at least have the same main draw which is Arkham City) and that is because this stuff works. It works brilliantly and you're just wrong if you're arguing otherwise, there's not a company worth talking about that has only released a beloved game once and that was that and they ended their support of that game as it was.
Now this is not to say these things are foolproof or are guaranteed to work on the Switch but if porting to it is as painless as has been rumoured then I don't see why people are worried about the performance of the Wii U 'enhanced ports' or games like Skyrim Remastered or Dark Souls 3. As I already said it's stupid to think they'll sell as well as they did on PS4 but as the concept of re-releases is as standardised as it is we should expect them to perform adequately.
At least not like the infamous Wii U ports which were token efforts at best most of the time and offered nothing beyond playing Mass Effect 3 on the loo on an SD screen when a trilogy of the series was available on other systems at the same price. With the Switch we'll get to play Mass Effect Andromeda on the bus on a HD screen!
But seriously let's not kid ourselves and say that Skyrim of all games is beyond caring about because it originally released 5/6 years ago.
This is a bit tangential, but Shinion's post reminded me: I've wanted to play NFS:MW on my gamepad for a couple of years but the price has never been competitive. In the meantime, EA gave the game away for free on Origin, so now I just cannot justify the idea of spending £30+ for the Wii U version when I have it already for free on my PC. There doesn't appear to be any good reason the game couldn't have been reduced in the eshop.
You guys had me at blood and semen.
What better way to celebrate than firing something out of the pipe?
Speaking of the leaks, I've noticed quite a push against Emily Rodgers and Laura Kate Dale lately. Which has been a thing for a while but it's starting to gain more traction. Specifically over the new rumour about Zelda now not being delayed for NA. Some people are now acting as if they are just making it all up.
Now here's the thing. Some of this stuff these two reported you could have guessed and been right. Some of this stuff was pretty easy to guess even if you knew what you were on about. But being right about all of it? You'd have to be either be very clued in AND very lucky or have some inside information. I personally don't think they're that lucky.
For example I have no sources at all, I don't say anything that's not pure speculation. The crap I say is based purely on what I think is possible, what has been said and what Nintendo tends to do. But still speculation. I was always open to the idea that the Switch might be a portable system. I was always open to the idea of cartridges even on a home console. Because that's where the tech has been going. I like to take a stab in the dark but I'm in the dark as anyone else is about the specifics.
Which is why I was super sceptical of the people who said it'd be a hybrid. Despite what Nintendo was saying which in hindsight kinda hinted at the idea without spelling it out for us. I was sceptical because such a device would be well behind the PS4. And more power in the dock wasn't going to work because it'd just make all the devs run for the hills. A decent train of thought and despite coming to a sensible conclusion I also came to the wrong conclusion. Same deal with the Eurogamer "split controller" article. I believed it because it was Eurogamer but until the Switch trailer I didn't understand it.
So for these guys to put their neck out and pin their reputation on this stuff? And in addition to that not only have the right reasoning but also come to the right conclusion? I think it's fair to say that they're not just making it up. Nobody is that clever or lucky. They have sources.
@skywake Yeah they definitely have sources. Laura hasn't gotten anything wrong about the Switch yet.
To guess that there's an IR pointer at the bottom of the right Joy-con? That's super specific, and the patent completely backed her report of that feature up among others. No way she was able to just guess that.
@IceClimbers
The interesting thing about the box art that EB Games posted is that it's not the Wii U box art for Mario Kart. And if you google "Mario Kart 8" that art doesn't come up as is. You do find the same thing but mirrored. Which isn't what happened with the EBGames placeholder images because Luigi's L isn't mirrored. So this is either a new bit of art or someone has spent a bit of time editing the other image. Knowing some of the placeholders they've put up before I don't think EBGames would put that much effort into it.
So I think there are two possibilities here:
1. The entire thing is a fake and those images were never on EBGames
2. It's legit
Makes a lot of sense. The Switch version of Mario Kart 8 has the two DLC packs plus an additional DLC pack worth of content. Not a huge amount of new content but enough that people aren't going to feel too cheated if they have the Wii U version. Especially if they didn't get the DLC.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
@skywake Ooh, nice eye with the Luigi L. Yeah, if they were just to lazily flip the artwork for a placeholder, I sincerely doubt they would put in the extra effort to have the L not be backwards.
So unless the Reddit OP went through all of the effort for an elaborate fake, this is likely legit.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 7,941 to 7,960 of 69,954
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic