Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

Putting in microtransactions in their paid games would be PR suicide, and I like to think they mostly learned from other companies in terms of implementing their own paid DLC, and I don't think there's any example of GOOD microtransactions in paid $60 games. But while DLC can be good and worth the price (Mario Kart 8, BotW), microtransactions to "speed up gameplay" and other such nonsense can't even be spun in a positive way. Hell, Nintendo already generally have good free systems for that, like Odyssey's Hint Toad.

It's hard to say exactly where the line is drawn between small purchase DLC and MTX, but I try not to get hung up on labels.

I know what bothers me and what doesn't, and I know why certain things bother me and certain things don't.

Virtual currency, lootboxes, in-game purchases of any kind, MTX affecting balance of competitive gameplay, or MTX of content that has traditionally been included historically... this bothers me (the guildmarm handler outfit in MH is a prime example of this- free in Generations/XX, but cost $4 in World).

At the end of the day though, I can deal with $50-100 worth of small purchase DLC like we see in Tales games and Attack On Titan, etc. It's all optional outfits and DLC character unlocks, item packs, etc. That's fine with me. Greedy, but fine with me. If that's how they wanna make extra coin, I'd rather see that than these newer, modern methods.

@DarthNocturnal
DLC and season passes is a good thing though, something that I wish would have come sooner.

Online sub... Not so much. I'd have preferred free Wii U-level online.

But I don't think they'll do real MTX in paid console games. I agree they do catch up but, that's when you get into "customers will seriously despise you" territory. DLC, yes. I expect they would simply crank up the DLC output, not risk their reputation and, tbh, their entire console business over MTX. They've seen the backlash from consumers. The last thing Nintendo wants is a Star Wars Battlefront fiasco over the Nintendo brand. It could kill their entire company, given they're not just software developers but the platform itself.

@JaxonH Agreed. Mobile is one thing, but Nintendo couldn’t have a Battlefront 2 situation. That game is legitimately awesome, and I never once was bothered by the loot crates, but because it was a major brand, being Star Wars, people lost there minds. Battlefront 2 will never be remembered for the awesome game that it is, it will always be remembered as the game with micro transactions. Nintendo isn’t an invincible brand, the Wii U showed us that much. Although personally, I’m not that bothered by the Online Subscription. Maybe it’s because I’ve been doing it with Sony and Microsoft for so long, but $20 for a year is great compared to the other consoles, as long as it’s more than just online itself and the retro game library.

@DarthNocturnal I’m also surprised to find someone else who likes it! But yeah, nobody will think of the game without thinking of the micro transactions or loot boxes, despite it not being a big deal.

Ya know...

South Park: The Fractured But Whole releases Tuesday. Mind you, this game only just released in October. Basically when Mario Odyssey and Fire Emblem Warriors was releasing.

Now, there's no way they decided to bring the game over to Switch, ported the entire thing and went through physical cartridge production (which according to LRG can be 2-3 months) all within a span of 6 months. Just to be on store shelves now, it would have had to be completed around the time Bayonetta 2 released. At the latest. Which only leaves 4 months for porting.

Which means this game was being ported to Switch well before it ever debuted. And yet... they said nothing. Think about that for a second...

They could have announced the game would be releasing on all platforms, but Switch would come later... but they specifically made it a point to not mention it, not until after the other versions released and had their run. I think this is striking evidence of the mentality of a lot of publishers with regard to Switch right now. Which begs the question, why? Well, to maximize sales, of course. Get as many people to buy the other versions as possible before cashing in on Switch. By releasing later, a number of people will give in and buy the other versions out of impatience. By not mentioning it at all, even more people will give in and buy the other versions out of a perceived lack of their preferred alternative. And many of those people will buy again when the only handheld/hybrid version is finally offered.

I'm really starting to think this is an intentional tactic across the board. Maybe not everyone keeps it hush-hush. Sometimes they will announce the Switch version beforehand, but even when they do that, they make it a point to release it afterwards. I think this is both good news and bad news. It's bad news because it means we're probably going to have to wait several months after multiplatform release for most of the third-party games that come to the system. It's good news inasmuch that it means a lot more games could be coming than we think, but they don't want to release day and date for fear of cannibalizing sales of strictly console versions.

This is why (among other reasons) I absolutely refuse to buy any game on other consoles that aren't exclusive. Because the only way to change their approach, is talk in their language. If they see no extra sales on the other versions and no loss of sales by delaying Switch versions, they will eventually lose motivation in postponement. Clearly it has no effect increasing sales. On the other hand, if they delay Dark Souls on Switch and see an immediate drop in preorder numbers, and a rise in pre-order numbers for other platforms, it just reinforces their approach as correct. Maybe 200k people switch their preorder over entirely (one sale traded for another), but 100k keep their Switch preorder while also preordering another version in the meantime (100k extra net sales gained, despite 200k less Switch sales total). And that's exactly what I see with Dark Souls on Amazon. For months, pre-order numbers saw it charting higher than the PS4 version... but within 48 hours of the delay, it dropped over 100 places in the ranked sellers list, from around #60 to #160.

On the bright side, that drop at least conveys the message, "Lack of Switch priority = lack of Switch sales" and I rest happy in that knowledge. Of course, they'll already be anticipating that, counting on more additional sales for other platforms outweighing the lost sales for this platform. Although, obviously I still want the game to do well- ultimately its' performance is very important for future support in that same vein. We cannot afford for a quality hybrid port of Dark Souls Remastered to do anything less than 1 million copies sold if we want to see more games like it down the line, not just from Bandai Namco but other developers who will, no doubt, be intently watching its performance as a litmus test, just as they did Skyrim and DOOM. Every core game and new genre that succeeds on Switch will pave the way for others to follow. If Dark Souls succeeds on Switch it will prove practically anything can succeed on Switch. If it doesn't, it might make developers question whether Skyrim and DOOM success was merely a byproduct of mass appeal, which more niche games like Dark Souls don't have.

@DarthNocturnal 1. Lord Of the Rings isn't as big as Star Wars, and 2. Precisely because it's a single-player game, there is no chance of in-game disputes of those who pay vs. those who don't, ergo, less noise.

As far as Smash DLC goes... characters and such WILL be paid DLC, and for one simple reason. Making fighting game characters is hard, unlike shuffling loadouts and applying a sticker in something like Splatoon. Someone's gotta foot the bill for all the effort that goes into conceiving and balancing these. But Nintendo seems to be keenly aware of how badly early paid DLC can hurt impressions of a game, that's why Splatoon and ARMS downloadable content is all free to compensate for their somewhat light-content premieres. ARMS in particular, they seem to have chosen to stay away from the paid DLC elephant entirely, in order to let the brand-new concept speak for itself. Meanwhile Splatoon just got it's first paid content, but it's a pretty substantial addition that nevertheless remains completely optional to enjoy the game.

Now, Sakurai would probably give himself a heart attack at the mere thought of releasing a half-baked product for the purposes of releasing more later, so it's safe to assume the next Smash will be comparable to the previous one in scope on release. But that also means we can't expect freebies from it, either.

@DarthNocturnal The issue with that angle is, well, there's no way for Nintendo/HAL to guarantee that players will buy those extra features to help cover costs, unless they more or less issue an ultimatum that if players don't buy the stuff, they won't release any more fighters. And isn't that kind of more scummy than just putting a price tag on the stuff they want to be compensated for in the first place?

Southpark Switch footage has emerged.

First 17 min of gameplay here. Aside from the cheap, crude jokes, I have to say the game looks pretty dang interesting

Oh my gosh, this is classic. I love it

So, Toy Con Variety kits 03 with Camera, Bird and other Toy Cons we saw from the Trailer ?

@JaxonH My guess is Dark Souls was delayed because the devs need more time making the remaster for Switch. Switch is definitely less capable hardware than PS4 and XBO so I'm sure they need more time to make the port a quality one; one that can kind of stand up to the PS4 and XBO versions.

It is like Skyrim on Switch. They took their time for a quality port, but they needed to take their time. The game is somewhere in between original Skyrim and Skyrim Special Edition. And even though they took the time and gave the effort for a quality port, the game still has less foliage than the PS4 and XBO versions, only runs at 900p docked, and occasionally the resolution decreases in handheld mode and docked.

I'm the opposite. If it's available physically and cheaper I'll be less likely to buy it as I don't order games online. Shipping kills the cost advantage. And physically going to the shop means I have time to think about whether or not I really want it. Do I impulse purchase games at the shop? Sure. But the eshop is always a couple of clicks away. Target or JBHiFi is a weekly event or less.

I'm actually going to be making a (Hopefully) in-store purchase next Friday for LABO. First one since my 21st birthday.

In January. 2017.

Assuming the one store around here stocks it.

@JoetheLion
Eh, maybe. But every report we've heard said the game looked fantastic and ran great. It was 1080p/720p, and even Blight Town ran well. So unless there was some catastrophic bug, I'm finding that harder and harder to believe the more I think about it.

I think Bandai simply caught on, perhaps spurred on by less preorder sales on other systems. The fact they waited until a month before release to say anything, when it takes at least that long to print physical copies... that really makes it seem like an administrative tactic more than anything else.

And we have to also realize, cartridges cost more. So any Switch sales that can be traded for a sale on another platform... that's going to be more profitable for them. Because it costs them less to make. So it is in their direct interest to get as many people as possible who are willing to buy it elsewhere, to do exactly that. Even if they didn't get a single person to double dip, they're still making more money by trading more costly sales for more profitable ones. Do a larger run on other platforms, smaller run with the expensive carts.

I feel like this is one of those duh moments, where it's so blatantly obvious I'm surprised I didn't see this sooner

@JaxonH that’s giving these companies a huge amount of credit though. Whilst true I’m not sure that anyone in the gaming space thinks they have a tight enough ship to trade sales on one format for sales on another that are (marginally) more profitable.

Even if they could I suspect the marketing department would kill the idea. It’s much better to push your message as strongly as possible at a single moment in time. A staggered release makes that much more difficult.

A guaranteed sale right now today is also more valuable than a sale you might (or might not) make two months down the line.

@StuTwo
I don't think slightly more profitable covers it though. Running a 16 gig cartridge, they could be losing 5 to 8 dollars per sale that they aren't losing on other platforms. And as you know, in business even $.15 per sale adds up. Sure you can imagine what 5 to 8 dollars can do.

And I actually think the marketing department would be working hand-in-hand with the idea. They can still push their message as strongly as before. Same ads as always, same anticipation and hype before release day... only with the added benefit of doing it all over again when the other version releases, thereby doubling the strength of their message. So I wouldn't say a staggered release makes it more difficult, I'd say it makes it considerably easier.

I do agree that a guaranteed sale right now is more valuable than a potential sale down the line. But with that said these game companies have been selling video games for decades. They have data on the behavior of consumers up the wazoo. They know the 95% confidence interval for how many people are going to buy a delayed game. And they also know that a sale making $8 more profit is worth more than a sale making $8 less profit. You can bet they've got charts and graphs and loss function equations and all kinds of crap to show them the sweet spot for maximizing revenue.

If they have data showing that are staggered release results in more total revenue, as a combination of both extended hype from 2 release dates, original Switch consumer's double dipping out of impatience and a percentage of Switch consumers switching their considerably less profitable sales to another platform... The only question is why wouldn't they do it.

And who knows all the intricacies of this. Perhaps with games on much smaller cartridges, its not really worth it. And perhaps this applies more to core gamer focused games, where consumers actually own multiple platforms. So for big mega annualized franchises or more casual audience games, we don't see these tactics. At least as a general rule of thumb. Obviously not every game with a staggered release is going to be for this reason. But there's a clear pattern. And there's substantial financial motive. Both motive and what I perceive to be a statistically significant proportion of games following this release model. And that should not be ignored or swept under the rug.

@JaxonH Your theory is that Bandai Namco are essentially sending the game out potentially die on the Switch in order to get people to buy other versions instead. I am certain that would not go down well with Nintendo, whom seem to have invested a lot of marketing work into this let along the design and development of amiibo. I can't see Bandai Namco potentially damaging what seems to be a great partnership with Nintendo, just for extra sales elsewhere on a port. They have potentially 2 exclusives in the works with Nintendo - that working relationship could be soured easily.

@FragRed
My theory is that alot of companies are doing it, not just Bandai Namco.

But you're looking at the wrong way. Nobody said anything about "dying". Switch version isn't gonna "die". Just sell less. Instead of 1 million it does 800k. And they'll rejoice over those lower sales if it means not just 200k people buying a more profitable version, but another 100k buying both.

They don't look at it in terms of "Switch version" and "PS4 version". Businesses look at it in terms of dollars. That's it. And if method B yields more dollars than method A, they're gonna do it.

Not everything has to be so drastic, life and death, succeed or utterly die. There's alot of in between to exploit.

And as far as Nintendo is concerned, they're just happy the game is coming. Not that anyone has to tell Nintendo why something is delayed anyways. It's not their game. They featured it in a Direct they were already airing anyways, and the amiibo is not Nintendo's, but Bandai's. Nintendo may have suggested it but it's not theirs

This is actually rather tame compared to the complex measures taken in real business. Some companies are literally writing algorithms for matchmaking to increase revenue based on who you play with. I mean, come on. Let's not be ignorant of how the world really works. Not that this is some far fetched or uber-shady concept anyways. Pretty simple actually. If companies are failing to capitalize on simple measures such as these, I'd have to question how many monkeys hold board positions.

I don't think it's a question of if, but a question of which. It's undoubtedly happening, the only question is which companies are doing it. Obviously not all. But it's like the whole paying for exclusives thing. Some people just refuse to face the truth of the world we live in, despite countless examples of that very behavior going on. Nobody knows which games but, it's definitely going on. And people will mock the notion, despite it happening all around us constantly. The only motivator is business is money. Think like Little finger. What's the worst motives they could have? And how would they benefit? It's capitalism. This is how it works.

@JaxonH Buisnesses are usually (though not always) preoccupies with immediate returns on investment and maximising profit - on that we agree 100% - but I just think it’s a little more subtle than you’re implying.

They know they can’t predict everything perfectly- if the remaster is slated critically will there be any enthusiasm at all for the late Switch version? It’ll certainly be more subdued - it’s a huge risk. If I were in the marketing department at Namco I’d want the Switch version out on day and date. It’s the version that will grab eyeballs to articles and make it much easier to promote the game.

There are also multiple companies involved. Nintendo for a start who may be publishing the physical version in some teritories and other companies too like the porting house. To those companies the distinction between Switch and PS4 really does matter.

I suspect if they really just wanted to maximise profits the best way would be to pay the extra $1-2 for the bigger carts and charge $10 more for the Switch version. Do a limited run then once it’s gone reduce the cost of the digital version.

@StuTwo Nintendo IS pubiishing it at retail in the EU.

So that means the porting studio and Nintendo are directly involved with this version if the marketing focus wasnt obvious enough