@BigBadJohn
We paid for a ROM. Not ports or remakes. Virtual Console is the emulation program. Yeah owning a 20 year old physical copy that cannot be played unless you have an original system or a retron does not entitle you to the rom that can be run on modern consoles. But one can make the argument that they will still be available for sale for those who didn't pick them up first time around, the 3rd party companies will get their money through the license and sell of the games. For example what's holding back Star Tropics from showing up on 3ds? Nothing. So the question is why. If they would simply allow releases to be simultaneous on all of their platforms we'd be a lot better off.
@GameOtaku Granted but that wasn't part of the agreement when you bought a game on virtual console. The agreement and intrinsic value was that you could play it on that console. It'll be great if they let us redownload them for free or with a small upgrade fee but they are under no obligation to do so. Plus if Nintendo are devoting time and effort to certain projects then let them be new games or enhanced versions. I'm coming at this from a particular standpoint as I hate retro gaming. They are never as good as I remember them and they sully my gaming memories.
@BigBadJohn
I have to disagree. Modern gaming is awful, you get half complete games that need patch a dozen or more times to be playable, you are then charged for fun extras instead of unlocking them through gameplay, and the games are usually way to short for the price.
@Operative2-0 It's a chicken and egg situation. The people that care about those games aren't on Nintendo systems and the games aren't on their systems because the audience isn't there.
@Octane I'd argue that for this specific game it's just more of the chicken. If the question was should the new shooter IP "Lesstiny" come to the switch and its the first game in a franchise then yeah I'd be disappointed if it wasn't coming. But since this is a sequel, there's just no real point to wanting it on the switch. I suck at explaining things but I hope that makes sense
So, is anyone to acknowledge that Destiny 2, one of the biggest games of the year, isn't coming to the Switch?
Those who 'realistically' predicted to see Destiny 2 on the Nintendo Switch in the (unrealistic) E3 expectations thread on here actively disagreed with me when I said that it would never, ever see the light of the day on the Nintendo Switch!
Neither will Star War Battlefront II, neither will Red Dead Redemption 2, neither will Call of Duty: WWII, neither will the new Assassin's Creed that's going to be set in Egypt, and so on and on and on.
Some folks like to make fools of themselves, I guess?
@Peek-a-boo I think some people are still caught up in the days when people thought the Switch would be a portable PS4 with tons of AAA third party games.
Nintendo should embrace backwards compatibility like Microsoft. Sure it isn't the best, but it is better than nothing, free, and encourages people to still buy older games.
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
@Peek-a-boo I don't know why some people still cling to this idea that third parties will return to Nintendo. That's just not a realistic scenario.
Third parties will return, just not with the exact same versions of their AAA franchises that you're gonna see on PS/Xbox/PC.
But if the Switch sells like flapjacks on a Friday morning, you don't realistically think Ubisoft will pull some strings to get SOME kind of Assassin's Creed on the system, even if it's very different (perhaps super pared down) from the PS/Xbox cousins?
I'd argue I want some of what you're smoking if you don't think that's a likely scenario.
Anyway, the Destiny 2 thing.... people actually thought that was going to be on the Switch?!
@Whitewatermoose It can't be mobile though. The game is designed to be always online for things like random public events. If they made an offline version it just wouldn't work.
@Whitewatermoose Oh definitely. Nintendo should open up their wallet and start paying third parties to port their games. The Switch isn't getting any third support from Western or Japanese developers. There's absolutely no reason why the Vita is getting the new Digimon game instead of the Switch. It's just baffling to see the Switch lose out on JRPG's to the freaking Vita.
@Whitewatermoose Well you implied the selling point would be mobile destiny, I just wanted to clairfy that it couldn't be mobile. At least, not outside of Wi-fi areas lol
Funny that the Virtual Console service and AAA third party support both came up. They both suffer from the same root problem actually: lack of ROI.
That's why AAA 3rd parties don't support Nintendo platforms, and why that will always be an issue with Nintendo platforms in the future. Even if the Switch does get a large install base, you most likely still won't get major AAA support because not enough of that base will buy those games for it to be worth it.
VC? There's a reason why the Wii U VC had less systems supported, way less 3rd party titles across the board, and why Nintendo went with that slow, painful trickle. They didn't get that ROI on the Wii VC. Simple as that.
With Switch, I can totally see them going in a different direction with the service, as it's clear they're not getting the returns they want/need from the service as it stands now. The "VC" branding will probably be dropped honestly. If the service stays largely the same as it is now, then you can fully expect it to be worse than the Wii U VC was.
People say that one of Nintendo's biggest strengths is their backlog, yet the data from the VC service likely doesn't support that. If Nintendo truly wants to take advantage of their backlog, they need to release them on iOS/Android/Steam. Or do more of the Classic Edition series, but not treat it as a novelty item.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 11,701 to 11,720 of 69,785
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic