Topic: 2 Major Things That Go Against Having A Smash Bros. "Deluxe Port"

That kinda looks like more than two things.

Sounds pretty convincing to me, boy. Perhaps Nintendo are banking on Pokemon Switch to support their online service? Pokemon games tend to be released not too long after being announced, so it could certainly happen sooner rather than later.

"If you had a game mode that was free in the original mode, and then decide to port a game and make people pay for that same mode, that would be unethical, and we’ve all seen our share of “unethical” game developers in the past few years. This would be no different, wouldn't it?"

Sony already did this with PS4, by this logic. Spoiler alert: it worked. Because PSN was worth getting and the PS4 is a popular console.

Also, this feels like it started as a post about a Smash Bros port and somehow ended up not being about a Smash Bros port. Like yes, if magically the only notable game anywhere near the Switch's paid online debut is Smash Bros Deluxe, that might be an issue. Which probably wouldn't happen. And even if it did...I can't imagine the Smash Bros community sticking to Wii U for much longer (and lol3DSversion).

also would Nintendo themselves be the only ones allowed to port this game?

"None of these games have been developed in house by Nintendo, and if this tell me anything, it's that these other developers want to make a cash grab by releasing these games again for the Switch. I mean, they're not going to take the effort to do so for free, are they?"

The idea that Donkey Kong: Tropical Freeze is being put on Switch not because Nintendo wanted an HD DKC game on their successful console ASAP but because Retro Studios is greedy is one of the most insane ideas I've ever read in this forum.

@kkslider5552000

1. I don't think you understand. Sony was already chock full of games when they rolled out their paid online service. They weren't following like Nintendo is, they're leading, nor did they start it out with just one game to use to draw subscribers in.

2. Retro does answer to Nintendo, but perhaps whatever it is that they are truly working on is still a ways off and want a way to make more cash in the meantime.

@kkslider5552000
He didn't say no one else can port Smash Bros, he said very few of Nintendo's own games have been ported. I don't think Nintendo has had anybody else port their own games to Switch, have they? It wouldn't make a lot sense for them to suddenly do that with one of their most important games. People are looking at what seems like a lot of Wii U ports (of games they think of as being Nintendo games, like Pokken Tournament, Hyrule Warriors, and DKC) and thinking "well surely they will keep doing this with all their other games?". It's not the case.

Really your argument here, if I can summarise, is that it has been too long since Smash for them to port it. Both because there has been enough new content for Nintendo to make new stages etc for a new Smash and because people will not want the "same game again" after so many years. I don't agree.

Firstly I think you're wrong to assume that a "Smash Bros for Switch" wouldn't have new content. As someone who has argued in favour of a port I've always said there should be a few new stages and characters. I don't think there is any reason why a port of Smash Bros 4 on Switch means no stages/characters from games release since 2014. Not even Smash on Wii U/3DS was limited in that way. "Port" doesn't have to mean "less new content".

On the second point? No way that a Smash of any kind would not make an impact. I think you seriously misunderstand the appeal of Smash if you think a new version is needed to get people interested. This is the same game where the Gamecube release is still dragged out for tournaments. Smash on the Switch would be a notable release regardless especially given that not many people had a Wii U and the 3DS isn't exactly the best platform for Smash.

People don't have to pay extra though when they drag out Smash for Cube do they. They bought it on the Cube and can play it indefinitely. We're talking about Smash 4 being pulled out of mothballs to sell an online infrastructure that people now have to pay for. I agree with backup that it would be stupid (even for Nintendo) to try to sell an online service by highlighting something (Smash 4 online) that used to be free when they have had ample time to cook up something new.

@backup368 you find it unethical to pay for modes that were previously free, right? In that case you need to make a problem about Splatoon, Arms and Mario Kart too as their previously free online modes will become paid. And you seriously misjudge the appeal of smash, I myself already have 4 friends that will buy a switch and the online service when smash launches. (In whatever form it is)

Ok, that I at least understand.

But the problem with this is that no ONE game is going to be used to try to sell an entire paid online service. It is what you get FOR paying compared to Nintendo's past online efforts is what you are paying for and the entirety of what should be looked at to see whether it is a worthwhile price or not. What will Nintendo's online offer on Switch that was not on past Nintendo systems and how does it compare to Xbox Live and PSN is what really matters.

Also, if you wanna talk about the "failure" of selling something for a higher price all of a sudden, I have my favorite example, where Capcom sold Street Fighter 2 for 40 bucks in 2017 on Switch. And it worked. By comparison, this seems like a small issue tbh. Not a non-issue but I'm not sure it's as big a deal as you might believe. And if you want to play these big titles on this massively successful console online, you don't have much of a choice. I don't feel like whether this is fair or well implemented or promoted or a good deal etc will matter too much (unless it's a complete disaster).

OK, there're many people who don't understand how this works so I'll try to explain. Games like DKCTF and Hyrule Warriors are paid for by Nintendo to the developers up front and Nintendo as the publisher reaps the benefits. If the games sell well, Nintendo earns a lot, but if the games don't sell well Nintendo loses money. The developers don't benefit or loose any money depending on how well the game sells.

In other words, Nintendo paid Retro Studios a fixed amount to develop and port DKCTF, but that's it.

@backup368 I don't think there is enough of a leap between Wii U and Switch to warrant aa full sequel. It wouldn't look a million miles away from the WiiU game. Anything that would be Switch specific could just as easily be delivered as extra content or even dlc. Making a sequel would surely be like doing the same thing twice! I happen to think they should bring a Switch port and carry on with dlc at regular intervals, because the hype that generated was insane!

@GrailUK You are right in that there isn't a major tech leap, but wrong to think that rules out a full sequel: look at Splatoon 2. Four-five years is plenty long enough to warrant a new entry, regardless of upgrades in tech. Zeldas have also tended to get sequels on the same platforms, with no change in tech at all (even if they release simultaneously on a new platform).

All of which is just waffle to convince myself that the Switch will get its own, full-fat Smash entry, rather than a Mario Kart 8 Deluxe-style port. There are also new gyro controls to take advantage of, potentially. Waffle, waffle...

@Krull Well, if it's any consolation, I am usually wrong

Smash Bros celebrate japanese videogaming. And the japanese industry is pretty much dead now for mainstream audience (except Monster Hunter). I don't see what would justify a new episode. Smash WiiU had many new characters that came from big games. I don't see what's left now except a Monster Hunter or a Splatoon character.

@bitleman so you're saying Nintendo is dead to the mainstream audiences?

@GrailUK I feel like Super Smash Bros. for the Wii U was limited by the 3DS version. I mean, we know for a fact that Ice Climbers were removed because they would not work properly on the 3DS. So we know that the character roster was effected.

At the end of the day, I just don't really feel much for SSB4. It was a technically great game and all, but far from perfect, and far from being really inspired. I feel like a new SSB needs to be made. Sad that even has to be said. I miss when I knew a new console coming out meant NEW games in my favorite franchises and I didn't have to worry about them just porting over a game from the last generation instead.

@backup368 Some fair points there. Personally I agree that a Smash port is probably not coming at this point. My guess would be that "next-gen" Smash will be announced pretty soon.

@Harmonie Now that's not a bad argument. Not really looked at it being held back by the 3DS! Like I said, I am usually wrong on predicting anything, so if I reckon we get a DX port, then chances are we will get a sequel haha

I never said that a "deluxe port" wouldn't get new content. There is just too much, that they have to add, however. Zelda: Breath of the Wild, is one of the first games that most Switch owners have played. If there is no Breath of the Wild stage, or Link and Zelda are not in their Breath of the Wild attire, you might as well pretend as if the game never existed, despite that it was the game of the year on numerous websites, one of the highest rated games of all time, and of course, a console mover.

You have just said that an older Smash Bros. game can still have appeal on gamers, and that's true. If I had to pay for online, I'll just do so with my 3DS. I already said if that's their goal, they need a better plan.