Forums

Topic: Where are the 3DS ports?

Posts 21 to 38 of 38

mav-i-am

Don wrote:

We need N64, SNES and NES ports too on Switch.

Except we get them for free (for a month) with the internet subs they have said, so they are coming, just eshop only.

Switch games list,

Legend of Zelda BotW, Human resource machine, NBA Playgrounds, Street Fighter 2, Super Bomberman R, Snipperclips, Overcooked, World of Goo.

Nintendo Network ID: mav-i-am | Twitter:

Bolt_Strike

TheLZdragon wrote:

Actually, most third versions came out a year later. Matter of fact, for most years Pokemon was a yearly franchise

The only one that came the year after was Crystal. Besides that, they've all been 2 years after the main version. 2018 would be about right timing wise.

But you guys are missing the larger point I'm making which is that debuting on the Switch with a third version is a supremely idiotic idea. It'll sell less, cost Game Freak more, shake things up for no real reason, and end up being the most awkward hardware transition in franchise history.

Bolt_Strike

Switch Friend Code: SW-5621-4055-5722 | 3DS Friend Code: 4725-8075-8961 | Nintendo Network ID: Bolt_Strike

skywake

@Bolt_Strike
OR/AS came out the year after X/Y. And I know you're going to brush that off as a "remake" rather than a third in the series but. It's the same deal. They release a new generation and then they milk it for a bit with variations. Whether its a sequel, slightly different version or a remaster. And there's about a 3-4 year cycle before the next generation starts. That's the pattern.

In terms of the Switch? You say that it's supremely idotic. I'm not sure I get where you're coming from. I think it only makes sense for Pokemon to be on the new portable platform Nintendo have built. I'm not saying that Sun/Moon should be the last game on the 3DS. I'm just saying that the 3DS is being stretched and the Switch needs a Pokemon game.

Compromise theory. What if Stars comes to the Switch as a Switch only release. Effectively being Sun and Moon again in the same way that previous third games have been. But in addition to that they do remakes of Diamond and Pearl in the Sun/Moon engine. As a dual release on 3DS and Switch.

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"

Bolt_Strike

skywake wrote:

@Bolt_Strike
OR/AS came out the year after X/Y. And I know you're going to brush that off as a "remake" rather than a third in the series but. It's the same deal. They release a new generation and then they milk it for a bit with variations. Whether its a sequel, slightly different version or a remaster. And there's about a 3-4 year cycle before the next generation starts. That's the pattern.

No, it's not the same deal. Remakes are built on previous versions too, but they're much older and therefore less people have played them and there's more they could do with them on newer hardware. Third versions are literally just a copy/paste of a game from 2 years ago with some extras thrown in, so there's much more of the current fanbase that's played the new generation than the original version of the remake.

skywake wrote:

In terms of the Switch? You say that it's supremely idotic. I'm not sure I get where you're coming from. I think it only makes sense for Pokemon to be on the new portable platform Nintendo have built. I'm not saying that Sun/Moon should be the last game on the 3DS. I'm just saying that the 3DS is being stretched and the Switch needs a Pokemon game.

A Pokemon game would be nice but not necessary. The Switch already has some heavy hitters coming in 2017, it doesn't need a Pokemon game along with that. It might actually be better for Pokemon to release in 2018/2019, the Switch is going to need more games to keep up momentum, scheduling a big Pokemon game in a different year could help ensure the sales keep up.

Either way though, the issue is with them starting out with a third version, not putting a Pokemon game on the Switch in 2017.

skywake wrote:

Compromise theory. What if Stars comes to the Switch as a Switch only release. Effectively being Sun and Moon again in the same way that previous third games have been. But in addition to that they do remakes of Diamond and Pearl in the Sun/Moon engine. As a dual release on 3DS and Switch.

Still doesn't work. Any sort of release schedule that involves Stars being a Switch title, especially in 2017, is simply not a smart business decision. Because even if you release something alongside it on the 3DS, they still spent the money to put it on the Switch and the demand for Stars isn't going to be any higher with a dual release.

Bolt_Strike

Switch Friend Code: SW-5621-4055-5722 | 3DS Friend Code: 4725-8075-8961 | Nintendo Network ID: Bolt_Strike

skywake

Bolt_Strike wrote:

No, it's not the same deal. Remakes are built on previous versions too, but they're much older and therefore less people have played them and there's more they could do with them on newer hardware. Third versions are literally just a copy/paste of a game from 2 years ago with some extras thrown in, so there's much more of the current fanbase that's played the new generation than the original version of the remake.

As I said, I knew you would nitpick. But I'd argue that you've got it all backwards here. A third version would make a lot of sense on the Switch because of what you said here. I personally have never had much interest in third versions of Pokemon games. If Stars is a 3DS game I'm not getting it. Period. But if it was a Switch game? Sure, I'll get it on the Switch for the advantages of it being a Switch game would bring.

Remakes on the other hand don't need to do much at all. The Pokemon remakes have pretty much always sold better than their third versions by quite a margin. So I can see them doing a Diamond/Pearl remake on any platform. It's going to sell wherever they put it.

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"

Bolt_Strike

skywake wrote:

As I said, I knew you would nitpick. But I'd argue that you've got it all backwards here. A third version would make a lot of sense on the Switch because of what you said here. I personally have never had much interest in third versions of Pokemon games. If Stars is a 3DS game I'm not getting it. Period. But if it was a Switch game? Sure, I'll get it on the Switch for the advantages of it being a Switch game would bring.

That's you vs. millions of other gamers. Outside of the hardcore Pokemon fans, most people are not going to be as willing to drop $300 on a Pokemon game that they already played.

skywake wrote:

Remakes on the other hand don't need to do much at all. The Pokemon remakes have pretty much always sold better than their third versions by quite a margin. So I can see them doing a Diamond/Pearl remake on any platform. It's going to sell wherever they put it.

Even in not doing much at all they're still doing more for their original version than third versions though. Even if they copy/paste a remake, it'll be on a new graphical engine with updated gameplay mechanics from the most recent generation. A third version is basically a ROM hack and doesn't have the same level of upgrades.

Bolt_Strike

Switch Friend Code: SW-5621-4055-5722 | 3DS Friend Code: 4725-8075-8961 | Nintendo Network ID: Bolt_Strike

skywake

Bolt_Strike wrote:

That's you vs. millions of other gamers. Outside of the hardcore Pokemon fans, most people are not going to be as willing to drop $300 on a Pokemon game that they already played.

You missed my point. As a 3DS owner I have access to Pokemon Sun/Moon already so there's not much reason to get what will effectively be the same game. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that given the sales of previous third versions of Pokemon. Who is going to buy the a third title on the 3DS except for the most dedicated players and the laggards who didn't get Sun/Moon?

But a release on the Switch would be different. There's a huge jump in spec which would mean the games are going to look and run better than they do on the 3DS. Especially true for people who don't have a New 3DS. It can also be played on the TV which is something people have wanted from Pokemon for a long time. Lastly and probably most importantly it's a new platform. The audiences won't overlap.

For me personally? I'm getting the Switch anyways for Zelda, Mario and a portable Mario Kart 8. Pokemon Stars isn't a factor because there's no confirmation of it. But if it did come out on the Switch? I'm getting it without much hesitation. Because it'll be a vast improvement over Pokemon on the 3DS. Another 3DS version of Pokemon? Remake or not, new or not, sequel or not. I have zero interest.

As you said, most people are not going to be as willing to drop $300 on a Pokemon game that they already played. But that's not the scenario. Pokemon might tip people over the edge on the decision to buy a $300 console. People who buy a $300 console for Nintendo games will probably also be interested in getting Pokemon. Some people jumping on the Switch bandwagon might not have even owned a 3DS.

Edited on by skywake

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"

Bolt_Strike

skywake wrote:

But a release on the Switch would be different. There's a huge jump in spec which would mean the games are going to look and run better than they do on the 3DS. Especially true for people who don't have a New 3DS.

BFD. A jump in specs does jack nowadays, it just makes the games look prettier.

skywake wrote:

Lastly and probably most importantly it's a new platform. The audiences won't overlap.

This is Nintendo we're talking about here, they don't tend to attract a lot of outside markets. Unless the Switch somehow attracts a blue ocean (which is unlikely), most of the people buying a Switch already own a 3DS.

skywake wrote:

For me personally? I'm getting the Switch anyways for Zelda, Mario and a portable Mario Kart 8. Pokemon Stars isn't a factor because there's no confirmation of it. But if it did come out on the Switch? I'm getting it without much hesitation. Because it'll be a vast improvement over Pokemon on the 3DS. Another 3DS version of Pokemon? Remake or not, new or not, sequel or not. I have zero interest.

A third version/port is not a vast improvement. It's a copy/paste job, it'll be the same game all over again.

skywake wrote:

As you said, most people are not going to be as willing to drop $300 on a Pokemon game that they already played. But that's not the scenario. Pokemon might tip people over the edge on the decision to buy a $300 console. People who buy a $300 console for Nintendo games will probably also be interested in getting Pokemon. Some people jumping on the Switch bandwagon might not have even owned a 3DS.

Well first of all, as I mentioned earlier most of the Switch's audience will have a 3DS since that's where most of Nintendo's audience is right now. Now those people have already had the opportunity to buy SM, so if they didn't get it already, they're probably not interested. Stars isn't going to change their minds.

Bolt_Strike

Switch Friend Code: SW-5621-4055-5722 | 3DS Friend Code: 4725-8075-8961 | Nintendo Network ID: Bolt_Strike

skywake

Bolt_Strike wrote:

BFD. A jump in specs does jack nowadays, it just makes the games look prettier.

The 3DS spec is from the PS2/GC era while the Switch, despite being "underpowered", is much closer to PS4/XBOne than PS3/360. So you can dismiss the gap as meaning "just prettier" if you want but that's a still a pretty huge jump. And it's not like Sun and Moon ran particularly well on the 3DS. Especially the non-New 3DS.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

This is Nintendo we're talking about here, they don't tend to attract a lot of outside markets. Unless the Switch somehow attracts a blue ocean (which is unlikely), most of the people buying a Switch already own a 3DS.

You're missing the point I'm making here. What I'm saying is that Pokemon Stars on the Switch makes a lot more sense than Pokemon Stars on the 3DS. In a lot of ways it makes more sense than a remake of Diamond and Pearl. Because while there will be some overlap between 3DS and Switch there's 100% overlap between 3DS and 3DS. Especially when there are people like me who are going to have Switch tinted glasses on come March 3rd. Especially true given the unprecedented jump in spec.

As I said earlier I have zero interest in another Pokemon game on 3DS. I probably wouldn't even get remakes of Diamond/Pearl if that's what's next. Because the 3DS is getting to the point where it's holding the series back. If there was a Pokemon Stars that ran at HD resolutions, stable 60fps, faster load times and a bit more visual flair? I don't care if the story is the same. I'd get it.

Edited on by skywake

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"

Bolt_Strike

skywake wrote:

You're missing the point I'm making here. What I'm saying is that Pokemon Stars on the Switch makes a lot more sense than Pokemon Stars on the 3DS. In a lot of ways it makes more sense than a remake of Diamond and Pearl. Because while there will be some overlap between 3DS and Switch there's 100% overlap between 3DS and 3DS. Especially when there are people like me who are going to have Switch tinted glasses on come March 3rd.

The problem is that that overlap is going to have to overcome the loss of players who don't want to buy a Switch at launch and the extra development costs of porting it to the Switch to be profitable. As small as the Wii U's audience is, I seriously doubt they can muster up enough non-3DS Pokemon fans for Stars on the Switch to justify porting it.

Bolt_Strike

Switch Friend Code: SW-5621-4055-5722 | 3DS Friend Code: 4725-8075-8961 | Nintendo Network ID: Bolt_Strike

Eel

@sillygostly

About DS games being rendered in HD, Animal Crossing Wild World looks particularly good. The textures are basically the same as in the Wii game. It's kinda amazing really.

Bloop.

<My slightly less dead youtube channel>

SMM2 Maker ID: 69R-F81-NLG

My Nintendo: Abgarok | Nintendo Network ID: Abgarok

skywake

@Bolt_Strike
The thing is the transition to the Switch isn't like the transition from previous portables. Whether people want to acknowledge that the Switch is a portable or not. There's no backwards compatibility and there's this insane jump in spec. So it's very different. And yet despite that? I think people will still want a Pokemon game on there.

There's no way to test what I'm about to say because they're not going to run this experiment. But I'd argue that a Switch version of Stars would sell more units than a 3DS version. Based on previous third versions of Pokemon games and the rate that Sun/Moon is selling? A Pokemon Stars on 3DS if the 3DS wasn't on the verge of being replaced by a console with no BC would probably move ~6mill units. As the only Pokemon game on Switch from lets say late 2017 to late 2019? The only way I can see it not doing better than that is if the Switch bombs as hard as the Wii U.

Edited on by skywake

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"

Jani-Koblaney

Well, they are typically on the narrow sides of the system

Never Gonna Give Mew Up!

3DS Friend Code: 1075-1253-2852 | Nintendo Network ID: NJanders

StuTwo

Bolt_Strike wrote:

Well first of all, as I mentioned earlier most of the Switch's audience will have a 3DS since that's where most of Nintendo's audience is right now. Now those people have already had the opportunity to buy SM, so if they didn't get it already, they're probably not interested. Stars isn't going to change their minds.

I don't know. I've never bought a 3DS. I was tempted a few times but could never really justify the investment of time and money when I had a Wii U and I'd be mostly playing a 3DS at home (as an alternative to offscreen play). Under the circumstances the prettier graphics and more polished experiences on the Wii U won out.

Now I might not be a "normal person" (I own a Wii U) but I'd definitely be interested in Pokemon Stars on Switch.

I think that the idea of putting (the hypothetical) Stars on Switch is a bigger one than just "are we maximising our Pokemon sales this year". Yes it would define Switch as the primary Nintendo handheld going forwards but it would also begin the migration of the Pokemon community towards Switch sooner than waiting for a real next generation Pokemon game. Growing the Switch install base to prepare the ground for future years is going to be Nintendo's main priority this Christmas.

In theory they could put out 2 versions of Stars - one on the 3DS (your typical "3rd game of the generation" using the same engine) and the same game with much better graphics on the Switch (using a modified engine that might become the engine for the "new" Pokemon games down the line). It's essentially the same move that Square Enix are making with DQ XI.

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

Luna_110

I doubt we'll se a new Pokemon game this year at least. Its basic business sense to not release an upgraded version that could cannibalize on the sales of the previous ones, or burnout the fandom, which was a prevalent problem with X/Y & AS/OR releasing so close.

I have a chronic lack of time, for everything.

Now playing: Okami HD, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

Switch Friend Code: SW-8536-9884-6679 | 3DS Friend Code: 0877-2091-1186 | Nintendo Network ID: Luna_cs

Bolt_Strike

StuTwo wrote:

I don't know. I've never bought a 3DS. I was tempted a few times but could never really justify the investment of time and money when I had a Wii U and I'd be mostly playing a 3DS at home (as an alternative to offscreen play). Under the circumstances the prettier graphics and more polished experiences on the Wii U won out.

Now I might not be a "normal person" (I own a Wii U) but I'd definitely be interested in Pokemon Stars on Switch.

I think that the idea of putting (the hypothetical) Stars on Switch is a bigger one than just "are we maximising our Pokemon sales this year". Yes it would define Switch as the primary Nintendo handheld going forwards but it would also begin the migration of the Pokemon community towards Switch sooner than waiting for a real next generation Pokemon game. Growing the Switch install base to prepare the ground for future years is going to be Nintendo's main priority this Christmas.

In theory they could put out 2 versions of Stars - one on the 3DS (your typical "3rd game of the generation" using the same engine) and the same game with much better graphics on the Switch (using a modified engine that might become the engine for the "new" Pokemon games down the line). It's essentially the same move that Square Enix are making with DQ XI.

A third version isn't going to help them build an install base, they need a new generation for that. Third versions sell much less than other Pokemon games, most of the people buying third versions will already buy 8th gen anyway. And a dual release would be a waste of money and segregate the player base, which would be a very bad thing for a communication based game.

Bolt_Strike

Switch Friend Code: SW-5621-4055-5722 | 3DS Friend Code: 4725-8075-8961 | Nintendo Network ID: Bolt_Strike

rallydefault

On the 3DS, I think.

...

Guys? Get it? The 3DS "ports" are on ... the... still current ... 3DS...

No?

I chuckled.

rallydefault

StuTwo

Bolt_Strike wrote:

A third version isn't going to help them build an install base, they need a new generation for that. Third versions sell much less than other Pokemon games, most of the people buying third versions will already buy 8th gen anyway.

It absolutely would help them to build an install base. It's a topic that's been touched on in the Skyrim thread "what's the audience for a game that's already sold millions? Surely everyone who wants it already has it?". The answer is simple - for every game (even mega successful ones) there are always millions of people who would enjoy the game - maybe even really enjoy it - who have never picked it up for one reason or another.

That a game has sold millions already is, ironically, just proof that it will sell more if re-released in other formats.

For a game like Pokemon that really sells to the mass market there will be (unbelievable as it sounds) hundreds of millions of people who will tell you that they love Pokemon who didn't even know that there was a new Pokemon game released last year. There will be a large number of people who buy Switch at Christmas and the first thing they do will be to type "Pokemon" into the eShop. For these people Pokemon Stars is pretty much perfect.

The die-hard Pokemon fanbase is just the cherry on the cake because there is a sizeable number of Pokemon fans (maybe even more than a million) who own Sun and Moon and who will buy Stars however minor the additions are and who would definitely be nudged into buying a Switch if it offered everything a third version normally does buy with better graphics.

And a dual release would be a waste of money and segregate the player base, which would be a very bad thing for a communication based game.

Is that necessarily the case though? Do we know that the Switch can't talk to a 3DS? Even if they can't is there any reason why Pokemon Bank can't be used to bridge the games? If all that's different is the graphics engine but the core of the game is exactly the same why would the player base need to be segregated?

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.