They’re a profit-hungry, cash-rich multinational corporation, not some little corner shop that’s just opened up. If they don’t have the expertise they could pay somebody who does and achieve parity with the competition whenever, even if it was a decision that needed to be made in 2015. Instead they’ve decided to see how little users will accept in return for handing over their cash.
Each console company uses a different OS. Xbox uses a variant of Windows, I think. Which makes sense considering who makes xbox and windows. Thus why it's so compatible with Windows 10. Sony uses their own OS, thus had to code online stuff to work with their OS. Nintendo created their own OS too. So it's not just a matter of "hire someone who can drop preexisting networking code into our system." They would have to write the netcode from the ground up. Thus they'd have to learn things about how their OS works with the netcode and how to optimize it. These are lessons that Microsoft and Sony already learned and are now adding media features. Nintendo on the other hand likely had to start from scratch both with Wii U and Switch.
I was initially annoyed with the ports, similar to how I was annoyed with the PS4 and xbox one's first years mostly being re-releases of games that came out barely even a year prior. But with the Switch I just see it as a good thing. In particular, the more grindy games such as the Final Fantasies coming out are absolutely perfect for me on the Switch since it'll no longer require a full TV to play during the more mundane parts of those games.
Also, at this rate they might as well port over the rest of the Wii U exclusives, it's not fair that a game like Luigi U gets a second chance that it didn't even need when games like Tokyo Mirage Sessions or Xenoblade X would probably benefit the most from the expanded Switch audience.
I loved all the ports on PS4 and X1. I was snatching them up left and right. In fact, I think 2/3 of my PS4 library at one point was ported games. And I took no issue with that. Still don't.
And that was just ports that didn't really have any value added. Same game, still TV only. How much more then will I be excited for those which do have value added. Hybrid play, HD handheld, motion, touch support, HD rumble...
Psalms 22:16 (1,000 yrs before Christ)
They pierced My hands and feet
Isaiah 53:5 (700 yrs before Christ)
He was pierced for our transgressions
Zachariah 12:10 (500 yrs before Christ)
They will look on Me whom they pierced
Ports to me are a mixed bag. Getting them on a console is a good thing, IMO. But if I've already got the game the port is likely to be kind of meh to me. Especially if I can play it on the console already due to backwards comparability. I mean, why get the remastered Dark Souls for XB1 when I have it as a XB360 game and it's backwards compatible. Or the Darksiders games? You generally only need one copy of a game after all.
But I may consider getting them for Switch. And I'm definitely interested in the FF titles for Switch. Well, most of them. That's because I either don't have the game already, or I have it but my PS2 is starting to show it's age.
Complaining about ports is the dumbest thing in the world, because, with a few exceptions, PORTS DON'T TAKE DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES AWAY FROM NEW GAMES. Saying you want fewer ports is literally saying you want fewer software releases overall, which makes no sense however you look at it.
Unfortunately, people conflate a lack of new releases (a valid complaint) with a system having "too many ports" (a nonsensical complaint).
No, the reason there's so few new games released each year now when compared to the 80's and 90's is because the cost and time to develop games has gotten so large. Instead of weeks to months, it takes years to make a game. Instead of a team of 2 or 3 people, it now usually takes a team of 50 or more to make big budget games.
I can't see many people buying a new console just to get the bonus items in a Freemium game like Fortnite. Maybe if they love the game and are buying a switch for the first time, but not just to get the bonus items. $300 is a bit much for a handful of in-game items.
And this is coming from someone who bought every single Collectors Edition release for City of Heroes/City of Villains just to get the cosmetic items.
People complaining about the Online Service is downright ridiculous. Nintendo is just starting on the paid service thing and people are already and childishly giving them the finger and making crud like they are evil, greedy and heartless. I am glad this Online Service is finally here in just a few hours, but people need to learn to accept things that they don't like instead of whining about it.
And I don't see what's wrong with ports of Wii U games for Switch. To me, the Switch is a much more powerful console than the Wii U. I have a lot of fun with my Switch and it is amazing. In my honest opinion, the Switch succeeded what the Wii U failed to do and is much better than the Wii U. I am looking forward to what Wii U game they will port to the Switch.
@Ralizah@JaxonH I think the port thing.....Nintendo is the master of poor timing. I mean they always have been. Their ideal roadmap looks like rush hour in L.A. followed by Route 66 (and not the FFXV version.) It hurts the optics of their offerings time and time again, which is why everything they do always looks amazing in hindsight and bad at the time. Last year at launch they frontloaded the entire schedule with online focused games, one after the next, after the next. It was online overload, probably to tie into the online services original date. But it made the frontend imbalanced. Little single player games for the type of gamer who jumped in for Zelda type experiences. Then after Splatoon came out they changed courses and went into RPG overdrive. XC2, Skyrim, Sushi Striker, Ys, Shining, Octo with nothing to please the people that jumped in for games like MK8 and ARMS. They are very poor at balancing their rollout, often bundling all of one extreme or all of other extremes. So for much of 2018 the story was almost no new experiences at all, and almost entirely WiiU experiences back to back to back. Feast or famine always. If you look at the 2 year arc you see all the amazing games. But when you take any 6-8 month snapshot you see a desert an an oasis. Anyone in the desert will be unhappy even if they're getting close to their oasis.
Yeah the wining gets old when you look big picture, but it's also someone Nintendo's own creation with their often nonsensical planning or lack thereof. Many of their wounds are self inflicted. We just get the fallout from it.
@JaxonH It's funny I was talking in another thread, and one of Sony's greatest strengths has been that FF collection. It's been identified as part of Playstations brand identity since the PSX. Losing that suddenly, all at once, to both Nintendo and XBox..... that has to have a pretty devastating effect long term on Sony. A list of timeless must have exclusives for them just got cut 30% in a single blow. And the "Square identity" of PS was just removed. The relationship between Square and Sony has been inexplicably tight, to the point that there was clearly some kind of collusion, or contract, or back rubbing (or blackmail) of some sort going on. Square suddenly throwing all engines in full reverse, darn the torpedoes, full speed!, strikes me as a serious change in direction and I'm curious if it signifies a breakdown of said historical relationship. Hey they just gave them Last Remnant, they still have Dissidia NT (which Sony part paid for), and for now KH1&2....but the "Square = Sony" umbrella just popped in one giant explosion. I'm curious (and a little frightened) what that means for Sony going forward.
Also, back on the prior topic, another thread we had a discussion, Switch is actually the only platform that could actually do the good parts of the original XBox One DRM scheme without the bad. The good part was you could make your physical copy digital and get the convenience. The bad was once you did the disc was useless. WIth Switch, we know each cart has a serial they can read and lock out online. They actually could transfer physical to digital and back again without the controversy XBox endured, and offer a form of value. For now, unless at Midnight I find out my digital games are magically playable on my other system, digital remains a no-go outside a handful of titles on Switch as physical still has tons more value particularly in conjunction with cloud saves. WIth digital you can't really use your cloud saves for more than backup.
@Alantor28 I agree the online whining is overblown, but "just starting out" isn't an excuse for getting it wrong on a paid service. It's a commercial product. You either sell what people want to buy, or you don't, and locking a feature they already had behind a pay wall to compel purchase of an otherwise undesired service may net sales but it also garners bad faith which usually comes back to bite at a later date, not immediately.
"people need to learn to accept things that they don't like instead of whining about it."
Not when it comes to commercial products from for-profit companies. You're not here to adapt to their needs. They're there to adapt to consumer will. They will float test balloons to see how much they can get away with. If consumer attitude is to simply accept whatever the test balloon offers, they will never aim to provide value of any sort. This is business, not Pollyanna. It's not a one way street, we're the other half of the contract. Pushing back against a poor offering, particularly when people feel they're being compelled to pay for something they don't desire simply because key service will be withheld if they dn't doesn't make it a good offering, it makes it something people are compelled to pay. To see how well that works long term for image, take a look at cable companies. They're making money, but public favor is clearly against them overwhelmingly, and competitors are instantly explored.
@Alantor28 I agree the online whining is overblown, but "just starting out" isn't an excuse for getting it wrong on a paid service. It's a commercial product. You either sell what people want to buy, or you don't, and locking a feature they already had behind a pay wall to compel purchase of an otherwise undesired service may net sales but it also garners bad faith which usually comes back to bite at a later date, not immediately.
"people need to learn to accept things that they don't like instead of whining about it."
Not when it comes to commercial products from for-profit companies. You're not here to adapt to their needs. They're there to adapt to consumer will. They will float test balloons to see how much they can get away with. If consumer attitude is to simply accept whatever the test balloon offers, they will never aim to provide value of any sort. This is business, not Pollyanna. It's not a one way street, we're the other half of the contract. Pushing back against a poor offering, particularly when people feel they're being compelled to pay for something they don't desire simply because key service will be withheld if they dn't doesn't make it a good offering, it makes it something people are compelled to pay. To see how well that works long term for image, take a look at cable companies. They're making money, but public favor is clearly against them overwhelmingly, and competitors are instantly explored.
Hmm. Well u do have some points about it and thank you for agreeing with me about whiners on the Online Service being overblown about this. But who knows? Maybe the Online Service will get better in the near future? We'll just have to wait and see about this.
No, the reason there's so few new games released each year now when compared to the 80's and 90's is because the cost and time to develop games has gotten so large. Instead of weeks to months, it takes years to make a game. Instead of a team of 2 or 3 people, it now usually takes a team of 50 or more to make big budget games.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. And I mean, I'd like to point out that many of the "indie" titles we're getting these days that don't count in these discussions would have been equivalent to major releases back in the NES/SNES/64 era since they are y'know... made with smaller teams on a more reasonable budget like games used to be. Stuff like the Steamworld series, Hollow Knight, Stardew Valley etc are larger in scope than many classics.
Yeah, the indie game scene might create a lot of shovelware, but it's also the source of some truly amazing games that triple A developers would have never considered. Sim City was originally made by just two people. As was Sim City 2000.
By today's major developer standards a game like Bionic Commando (original game) would be something to throw in the trash bin without reading the idea submission. But back when the game first came out, it was ground breaking and a major release. Thus it falls to indie developers to make games like that.
The Game Dev Tycoon type games illustrate the issue quite well. Early on you can make a quality game (ha, unlikely) with just the one starting employee. But the better the games get, the more graphics and other elements are included, the more expensive they become to make. And the more employees they take to make within a reasonable time frame (1 or 2 years eventually). Especially if you're doing quality assurance and bug fixes before releasing the game into the wild. Plus paying for advertising campaigns...
It's massively simplified, but still a bit of an eye opener.
But that’s essentially asking people to pay for years of bad decisions that, if they’d decided in sufficient time (near the start of the systems development probably) that they wanted to improve their online offering, they could have fixed with some funding and outsourcing. I’ve been in IT and seen whole websites and TV Channels set up entirely by outsourcing, despite having to connect to a 1950s Mainframe for Customer Data. Instead I genuinely think they’ve decided to test how little they have to give away in return for cash.
That history also makes it hard to believe this extra revenue will be spent on improving heir service. I hope I’m wrong, but I remain sceptical.
The poster the other day who referred to it as the ‘Nintendo tip jar’ has it spot on IMHO.
On a different tack, you’re right about the difference between games development in the past compared to now. It seems really obvious. But it seems to need to be repeated a lot!
I wonder if Nintendo would ever use the money they get from subscriptions to be able to continue to provide free DLC in multiplayer games like Mario Tennis and Splatoon or even widen the scope of free DLC. Time will tell when Smash Ultimate releases since new fighters are not cheap to make, but I wonder still.
Metroid, Xenoblade, EarthBound shill
I run a YouTube/Twitch channel for fun. Check me out if you want to!
Please let me know before you send me a FC request, thanks.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 32,021 to 32,040 of 69,785
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic