Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@Anti-Matter I really don't think it's "Steam instead of Switch". I don't think it's necessarily one or the other. On PC if you don't support Steam, you're probably just better off not wasting your time these days. Love it or hate it, Steam has such a stranglehold on that market that if you don't do business with them, you're at a tremendous disadvantage.

As for Sims 4, I mean, that's fair if you no longer want it, but I'm sure plenty of other people would like a Sims game on Switch. Though Like I was saying in the other comments, I would prefer one made for Switch rather than just a port of an existing version, crammed on to the console. But for whatever reason, 3rd parties wont do that.

I even like ports, there's a ton of ports I've bought and plenty more that I want. But when it comes down to the idea that "Nintendo Fans don't like 3rd parties" I just don't agree. If 3rd parties gave us their best effort and made games for the Switch, instead of reworking existing PS4/Xbone/PC titles, things would be different. It's the difference of modifying an existing product for a different purpose vs tailor making a new product for that same purpose.

@Heavyarms55 @JaxonH I mean, if you look at 3rd party games that actually launched on Switch, Octopath is over 2 million sales on the Switch alone. That's better than any Ni No Kuni game, and among one of the most profitable JRPGs ever released in terms of single platform sales. Sure it ain't Final Fantasy sales but...

Or look at Dragon Quest XI. At launch, the 3DS version outsold the technologically superior PS4 version.

Not to mention games like Shin Megami Tensei IV, Bravely Default, etc have done great. Monster Hunter was consistently shipping over 4 million copies with new releases on 3DS. Yo-Kai Watch 2 was at around 3 million.

And claiming nothing outselling 3 million is bad is a bad take. Look at the PS4. GTA V, Witcher 3, Monster Hunter World, FF VII Remake, and Persona 5 are the only 3rd party games that outsold 3 million. And Monster Hunter World didn't even outsell Monster Hunter 4 on the 3DS. Most major 3rd party titles are lucky to make a million on that system.

@link3710
And that's great, but those are mid-tier. Upper end of mid tier, but mid-tier. And the outliers at that. And in one genre Switch does very, VERY well in. Few other 3rd party games on Switch can even boast 1m sales. Release Destiny 2 day and date on Switch and watch the gross disparity. All the publishers know this.

And there's WAAAAY more games than that that have sold more than 3m on PS4. MH World did outsell MH4 on 3DS too. Even just PS4 alone (granted they caught lightning in a bottle and the Iceborn expansion sold less, but still, that was one of the exceptions I listed). Destiny, Battlefield, CoD, FIFA, Red Dead, Fallout, etc etc. 5-10 mil every time. CoD on Wii U did like 250k? Even for a failed system that's embarrassing. And it was day and date. And it had motion.

Again, there are exceptions. JRPGs are mid tier games that do well, if not exceed other platforms entirely. I mentioned this before. But aside from mid tier JRPG releases, what else has ever done mega numbers? Ever? On any Nintendo console (barring shovelware on Wii)?

It's beyond dispute the cap for sales of 3rd party games is much lower on Nintendo. One only needs to look at the last 20 years of sales data to see that. Can't blame all of them on "low effort".

Regardless of how accurate it is, the notion of Nintendo gamers "not buying 3rd party games" wasn't some manufactured myth to slander them. It's grounded in truth. As always, there's nuance in everything. Doesn't mean EVERY game doesn't sell, doesn't even mean many won't outperform. But the cap... the cap is much lower. Look at the top 20 best selling Switch games, they're practically all 1st party. And EA even rightfully pointed this out. A large portion of the consumers who buy Nintendo products do so with a disproportionate interest in 1st party games. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just... different platform, different demographic.

And I would like to add, Switch had done a LOT to change the narrative around this historical trend. But big budget AAA games, western games, the ones that do huge numbers, those are the ones that still have the disparity. Graphics plays a role in that- for many of these games, graphics is a huge aspect of the appeal to the masses. I do think Switch can close the gap far more than any previous Nintendo platform ever could, but I'm under no delusion a game like Doom Eternal would even come close to matching the sales on other platforms, even if day and date.

So I did a quick check on some things. First of all, Zombi U was a new IP that got pretty meh reviews. Rayman Legends overall only did somewhat worse than Origins (IIRC) despite coming out around GTA 5 (which is currently like the best selling game ever so...). And of course Wii U failed miserably (the one system that had Rayman Legends but not GTA 5), which can't be ignored.

Now Octopath has actually sold 2 million already, and those Mario + Rabbids stats apparently are from 2018.

But I do think there is more that I can be done to help 3rd party releases. Both from Nintendo and the 3rd parties themselves. But none of these indicate 3rd party disappointments exactly. I mean...can you name either a cartoony turn based strategy game or a 2d sprite JRPG that did better on other modern consoles? I mean, granted certainly different games sell better on Nintendo than other systems (see: nearly the entirety of games that were on Switch in year 1 :V ), but it does seem unlikely that nearly anything would lead to them getting even Luigi's Mansion level sales. It'd be cool if they did, but I have my doubts.

@JaxonH And yet, how many of those games that aren't heavily downgraded but didn't sell that well were also released around the same time as their counterparts on other platforms?

And ZombieU is a terrible example. That game came out at a point when we had been getting Zombie everything for years and years at that point. And it came out on Wii U and we all know how well Wii U sold because 80% of gamers barely knew what the console even was. Octopath did very well for a JRPG done in a retro style both JRPGs and retro style games tend not to sell as well overall and yet it was still well received. I can't speak on Rayman because I know nothing of the game or franchise.

I do get what your saying and I can't dispute sales numbers. But I truly think that if more 3rd parties put real effort into making titles for Switch, even used established IPs sometimes, we'd see better results. Like, just for example, a Cal of Duty or Battlefield, or Madden title made for Switch, built for Switch. Instead of a port of the PS5 version of a game, they could give us something like "FIFA Switch" or "COD Switch", a side entry of the series perhaps, but tailor made for the console, taking advantage of what the console does well while avoiding weaknesses.

I see it like ordering a pepperoni and bacon pizza instead of buying a "meat lovers" and picking all the sausage off because you don't eat sausage.

I'm just tired of 3rd parties not really giving comparable efforts for Nintendo releases and then acting like, no, it's the fans, us, to blame when those titles don't do that well.

@kkslider5552000
I think people are misinterpreting what I've said.

I didn't say every 3rd party release was a disappointment. I said 3rd party games do well enough, and even OUTSELL other versions, up to a point. So, I said it right there. Mid tier games often do just as well if not better. You're literally agreeing with me.

But you get to games that sell over 1m and very, VERY few Switch games keep the pace. Yes, there are exceptions. 1 exclusive game in the JRPG genre (the best genre for 3rd party on Switch) that catered to the nostalgia of 2D games, managed to pull off 2m. Congrats. But you think that means Mortal Kombat XI matched sales on other systems? You think that means Doom sold millions? Or that Doom Eternal would even come REMOTELY close even if launched day and date?

Again, I'm not saying you can't cherry pick an example or two where a game sold more than a mil. Of course you can. But pound for pound, bigger budget games released on Nintendo sell less. They just do. They always have. They likely always will.

@JaxonH I somehow mixed up Icewhatevers sales with MH World, whoops. I can read charts.

But yeah, it's JRPGs that I was looking at. Because... and this may be a surprise but:
Nothing else has released to compare. What else has launched on Switch? Starlink bombed on all platforms, and we know Switch outsold the others combined anyways. Astral Chain isn't really 3rd party, but it did really good for a Plat game. Which isn't saying much.

The fact of the matter is, the last time we received decent 3rd party titles day and date on a home console was the GameCube era, or 16+ years ago. That's what the newest data we have. And the Switch's fanbase is very different than that of the GameCube, Wii, DS, 3DS or Wii U.

The fact remains, the few titles that have launched on Switch have all done really well on that platform. It's not a matter of 3rd party titles don't sell at this point, it's that no one knows if a AAA Switch title that appeals to the userbase would sell or not, and no one's willing to take that leap and make one.

@Heavyarms55
Oh we'd definitely see better results, there's no question about that. But we have to keep it real with ourselves and acknowledge what the score is.

I'm all in favor of exclusives, I'm just saying, how do they see it? I can make an exclusive Resident Evil for Nintendo and make 1 million sales, or I can make an exclusive Resident Evil elsewhere and do 5 million, then port it and do another 5 million. The one exception where I think they'd actually make more is Monster Hunter.

That's not to say I don't want exclusives. But deep down I know why we don't see them. But a good game is a good game, and with 7th gen ports looking BETTER than many exclusive titles on Switch, I'm often more happy just getting a crown pick from 7th gen's finest.

And I want to add to my point that I made with @JaxonH that if 3rd party titles on Switch didn't have to directly compete with themselves on more powerful platforms - we'd likely see better numbers.

Say, if Activision released a side COD game built for Switch and that COD game, tailor made for Switch was, even if only for maybe 6 months to a year, only on Switch, it would likely sell better than taking last year's COD game and cramming it onto Switch with various things cut back or scaled down.

But what we generally see is the latter, not the former. We see the port of last year's big 3rd party release, with features or aspects scaled down, on Switch, rather than a standalone release tailor made for the platform.

Why do 3rd party companies all but never release a game built for Switch and then later on upgraded for another, more powerful, platform?

And on that note, I do want to point out that I am totally okay with ports from last gen, I'm not anti-port. I just don't agree with the idea that 3rd party titles can't do well on Switch/Nintendo systems.

@link3710
There's enough examples though. Mortal Kombat XI is a perfect one. That's not to say it didn't sell well. Only that it didn't sell AS well. But I do think Switch has done a lot to close the gap. It's still nowhere near being able to produce 5-10 million seller 3rd party games, much less consistently, but it has definitely closed the gap. We're seeing better sales on Switch than we've seen on past systems in 20 years. It's an encouraging trend. But we're not quite there yet. We won't be there until the big games can match sales on Xbox, PS or PC.

But you're right. A lot of 3rd parties won't even put their game on the system to find out. I bet a lot of games would do better than they think. Switch may not be able to match the big game sales entirely, but it's a far cry from the platforms of the last 2 decades as far as 3rd party sales go.

There's 2 factors that really cause the disparity, I think. #1 is cultivating a fanbase. By not releasing games on Nintendo for the last 20 years, by and large (for a multitude of reasons, some Nintendo's fault, some natural circumstance of demographic demand, some their own fault) they haven't cultivated a fanbase like they have elsewhere. Big sales take time and investment. Your game may not be doing 5 million right now, but support the system consistently for a generation or two and watch sales grow.

#2 is graphics. Most of the big AAA games that do big numbers depend on their graphics to sell. Strip away the graphics and see how well they sell (see The Outer Worlds, for example). Switch is, by its nature, less powerful. A fair trade off, but the limitation is real. And that contributes to the lesser appeal for games that depend on graphics to sell.

@JaxonH

Does anybody know if Burnout Paradise needs a download for Switch? If the full game is on the card, I'm buying it today! Thank you.

@JaxonH I’m not the biggest sports fan myself either, but it’s simply the principle of it. In branding these games as “legacy editions” EA is implying that the Switch is literally a legacy platform (i.e. Not a current platform) such as the PS3 and Xbox 360, which received such titles up until FIFA 19. Since the Switch is the most popular and beloved console of our time, EA having the gall to charge what is basically retail price for the exact same product every year is unacceptable and is basically assuming that all Switch owners are complete morons who will be fooled by such practices. You and I have bought one game each and that’s enough for us this generation, but what about those who love football and purchase a version every year. Is it inherently fair for them to be short-changed? Because I have a number of Switch-owning friends who are obsessed with the sport, are passionate about it and want to play a decent version, but can’t and annually, EA slaps them in the face with this legacy edition nonsense. I get that the Switch isn’t as powerful as the Xbox One and PS4, but it is still more powerful than both last-gen consoles and releasing these re-skins at such gargantuan prices with no new content is pointless, disgraceful and it also sends a message of extreme clarity of what EA really thinks of the Switch as a platform and it’s fans. Sure, Apex coming this year is neat, Burnout is out today which is really cool (although woefully overpriced), but EA just sees Switch owners as idiots who will lap up their expensive, identical slop without a second thought.

Also, whatever we think about 2K and its micro transactions in its basketball games, the NBA 2K Switch ports look shockingly similar to the PS4/Xbox One versions and include exactly the same features every year, with a lower resolution and halved framerate (which is totally reasonable). They respect Switch-owners at least in this way. They can be bothered to go the extra mile because they understand that Switch users aren’t inferior to customers on other platforms and care about developing a quality version. EA on the other hand release these clones every year that rehash last-gen engines with nowhere near the quantity of features as the other platforms for gigantic prices. It is just disrespectful to players on Switch who are football enthusiasts or enjoy this series.

@NintendoWiiDS
Well, I don’t know if fairness has anything to do with it. I don’t think any company is obligated to make a game for a system, So I’m not really sure they owe your friends anything. As long as they’ve got it marked on the package what it is, I don’t see an issue. If your friends aren’t satisfied with legacy editions they can always buy it somewhere else. Not to say I don’t empathize with wanting a hybrid version. I just don’t think fairness has anything to do with anything.

And I don’t think they see switch gamers as idiots, I think they see switch gamers as very picky. They’re concerned their games will flop again, just like on Wii U. They normally develop 3 versions for the cost of one due to the consoles being so similar, but on Switch you have to develop an entirely separate version on separate architecture, And it takes more work to ensure handheld mode runs well, performance is right, etc. And then the cartridge cost.

So if they want to charge an extra $10 then what the game cost when it released elsewhere, I don’t take issue with that. It’s a tactic to help offset the extra costs associated with Switch and lower typical sales for the types of games they make. I know it’s popular to hate anything that seems anti-consumer on the surface but people rarely look deeper to see why these things actually happen. It’s not just EA doing that and they don’t all think switch gamers are idiots. I’m sure there’s a few that have done it unnecessarily but yeah his game is genuinely have tanked hard or underperformed on Nintendo, even when they are excellent ports.

But I do agree that 2K really sets the bar. And I think they could lower the price on FIFA being a legacy version. That’s definitely a reasonable complaint.

@JaxonH I completely agree, they don’t owe anyone anything, I didn’t say that. What I said is that the prospect of playing a fully featured FIFA experience on the go was very appealing to them and I didn’t say they owed it to them; they’re a company after all, I just meant it was disappointing to them that Switch doesn’t get the new features every year (they own the other consoles) and the example I gave probably resonates with more players on a wider scale. But remember, this is the same company who released FIFA 18 on Switch and when questioned about all the lacking features, they literally said Switch players couldn’t handle the extra features, as if we were different species. They don’t OWE IT to anyone, but when they were releasing the non-legacy edition versions, they were charging the same price as the other versions with so many missing features in comparison, that’s where it isn’t exactly acceptable. Other third-party developers didn’t just release ports with features removed that make the overall experience more enjoyable, they just included them. No big deal.

That’s just one of the many alluring elements of the Switch: seeing these titles from other platforms come over in their entirety with portability for the first time. So when EA just releases these identical versions, I just think roster and kit alterations aren’t enough to warrant a retail release, it’s rather pointless in my opinion. Visual and performance sacrifices are absolutely fine and expected given its weaker hardware. But despite that the Switch has enough power to where you don’t need to develop a different version from scratch like dedicated handhelds of the past, or say, Wii versions of Xbox 360 games.

As for EA’s thoughts about Switch players, I meant people who will keep buying these legacy editions each year, like some parents for instance. They’ll probably visit a local store and pick up the Switch version off the shelf and notice the legacy edition notice on the box, but they won’t know what that means without additional context, like on EA’s website, where clarity is displayed.

I honestly think if EA knuckled down and produced a Switch version with feature parity and advertised that, they would see a greater return on their investment. A core reason as to why FIFA hasn’t performed well on the console is that potential customers will have read reviews describing these missing features, murdering their interest, alongside the general consensus on the legacy editions. I wouldn’t say stripped-back versions with missing modes and features and rehashing the last-gen engine (when NBA 2K shows us that in both respects the Switch is capable of much more) is an amazing port. In addition, the legacy edition branding was initially utilised by EA with Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game a decent portion through the PS4 and Xbox One’s lifespans, to signify that these were a means of playing a football game with updated rosters of the time, but with no major new gameplay innovations. This at least made some sense, as at the time, the audience playing on these consoles was diminishing as they were older platforms losing relevance. But giving Switch versions of the game this title makes no sense whatsover, as Switch is the most recently released platform and is incredibly relevant and popular: it’s anything but a legacy platform.

EA also needs to get over the Wii U. I understand it flopped tremendously, but the Switch is an incredibly lucrative opportunity to earn revenue. Their choices regarding what titles to bring to the console were strange. A FIFA game completely missing Ultimate Team, a mode I couldn’t care less about, but one that so much of the series’ player base plays the game for. Mass Effect 3 for full price when the Mass Effect trilogy released on PS3 and Xbox 360 at the same time for the same price. Need for Speed: Most Wanted U was fantastic, but that was just unfortunate. I hope the EA Play event at least marks the company taking the Switch at least somewhat seriously as a legitimate platform.

Even if EA doesn't think it's worth releasing a fully featured version of FIFA on Switch, the fact that they're releasing the same game again every year with minor updates and giving no option for existing owners to upgrade without re-buying the whole game is absolutely ridiculous in this day and age.

@Dogorilla I couldn’t agree more

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna be that guy: I just don't think there is a robust sports audience on the Switch, at least not a robust audience for realistic sports games. The cartoony stuff like NBA Playgrounds and obviously the Mario stuff sell well, but I just don't see the realistic stuff doing well, and I'm pretty bullish on how eclectic the Switch audience is. I know the Switch has an excellent install base now, but sports games and Nintendo consoles just haven't mixed well since the SNES era, and some would argue since never.

I do think they are doing themselves more harm in the eyes of people like us by releasing these "legacy" editions, though. Don't do anything half-hearted is what some of these companies need to learn.

@kkslider5552000 Rayman Legends is a bad example given it was delayed specifically to be multiplatform, a result of Microsoft's "If a game releases on another platform first, it can't come to XB1" rule at the time. If Legends was released when it was originally meant to release as a Wii U exclusive, it would've done better.

In regards to realistic sports sims, it's just hard to see the Switch get less support than the PS Vita got.