Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@kkslider5552000
I have two of those on Wii (and Vita, for that matter). Little Kong’s Story had a cult following at the time. Personally I didn’t get sucked into it, and Pikmin 3 had just released around that time I bought it which is what first interested me. I loved Pittman so much I was looking for other real time strategy games. But in truth I probably didn’t give the game enough of a chance. I tend to do that with games because I play so many- they don’t hook me within the first hour I often move on to something else. Kinda happened with Trails of Cold Steel, actually. I bought the collector editions on Vita, but after playing an hour and being totally confused with the combat system I just moved on. Only now, years later, after having enough experience with the genre to grasp how the game works, and having it on a hybrid system, have I finally gotten into the series.

Muramasa was good too. Never grabbed me like it did others but I liked it. Sakura- of Rice and Ruin kinda reminds me of it.

Objectively, Pikmin 3 (with Wii motion controls!) plays better than Little Kings Story, but Little King's Story's high points are some of the most inventive, fun, crazy, flawed at times yet genius parts of any game I've played.

The rest of it is also an excellent take on Pikmin. But it does definitely have a slow start, it takes a bit for the game to get going.

It looks like Microsoft are now also interested in purchasing WB Studios. If they are the ones to make the purchase, I will be curious to know what that would mean for all future TT Games appearing on Nintendo consoles as they’re the ones behind the Lego releases.

I assume they'd have to allow the LEGO games to continue appearing on all systems, otherwise TT would lose the licence. Or they'd just have to make original stuff and we'd never see another movie licenced LEGO game (such as Star Wars and Marvel) from TT again.

After Sony acquired Insomniac (Spider-Man), this would be a fair tit for tat (Batman).

I mean, I hate the whole “who can bribe the most studios to keep their games off rival systems” thing but, Sony is clearly all in on that strategy nowadays, so if Microsoft doesn’t get more aggressive like they used to be, Tomb Raider style, they won’t be able to compete. So I say go for it. Buy up as many studios and cross off as many franchises from the multiplat list as possible (it’s not like any future games would be coming to Switch anyways, and already MS puts all their games on PC). If people want to cheer for this kind of stuff when Sony does it then I say, you reap what you sow. Let’s see if people are still in favor of this when they’re on the other end of the stick and the roles are reversed.

All that said, buying studios is an honorable way of gaining exclusives. It’s not the same as timed exclusivity or paying to ensure a particular rival platform(s) gets a game later or doesn’t get it at all. But it does have the same effect and as such, is a perfect way to counter developer bribery weaponized against them, but do it while taking the high road.

Well, The Bard's Tale ARPG, which is made by Inxile, being an XBox game studio, released simultaneously on there, PC & Switch, @JaxonH .... While that's a remaster, it suggests they might bring other games across after awhile

@BruceCM
I saw that. But that is a smaller game and an older game. But that, Ori, Cuphead and New Super Lucky’s Tale shows they are willing to put some on Switch.

But I have to ask why? Why did they put those games on switch. Find it hard to believe they would choose to do so without reason, I don’t think more sales is the answer otherwise they would have put them on all platforms. I believe it’s due to the fact they see switch as less of a direct competitor and more of a potential market to scout future Xbox sales from. Like Nintendo releasing entries on 3DS before a big Wii U release, I see MS priming the Switch audience to convince people to buy into Xbox. Drop Ori and see if people buy for Will of the Wisps, drop Cuphead and Lucky’s Tale and convince people they have games they would like.

Maybe I’m wrong but it just seems like a natural reasoning they would have.

Yeah, Switch is less of a competitor & they might well hope some would like the games enough to go onto XBox as well, @JaxonH .... It's still good news for Switch owners, though! At least you can get their bigger ones on PC & they seem to be bringing more across to Steam, rather than only on their own store, too

@JaxonH I agree with what you are saying, it's like how Sony put Horizon Zero Dawn on PC, and maybe some other games in the future. It's to entice them over onto the PS5 especially now there is a sequel to Horizon that has been showcased. The only one I don't think is necessarily true of Microsoft is Super Lucky's Tale as that game on the Switch is meant to be different to the Xbox One version and was later ported to the PS4 and Xbox One itself. So I figure that was more on the developer as the original game I think is just called Lucky's Tale isn't it?

@JaxonH The difference is that Sony acquired Spider-Man more than 20 years ago, and Microsoft buying Rocksteady wouldn't even grant them the rights to the Batman IP. That would have to be a separate deal on top of it.

Not quite. Sony have the movie rights to Spider-Man only, they can't even make merch based on the films as that goes to Marvel. The Insomniac use of Spider-Man is independent from Sony's movie deal.

Activision has had the Spider-Game previously and if Sony did own Spider-Man he wouldn't have been popping up in crappy mobile games and Ultimate Marvel Alliance 3 for example.

Or testing the waters and buttering up the market for a takeover...?

I don't believe MS will purchase WB Games. The Mortal Kombat IP is strong, but MS already have Killer Instinct. And most of the other games are from the various developers under the WB Games banner are licensed affairs. So are any of them super-profitable enough to warrant spending four billion dollars for?

Any potential buyer for WB Games is strictly buying the studio talent.

The IP for Batman, Middle-earth, and Lego aren't in consideration with the purchase.

Yeah, and that's the problem. Talented people can easily move to other companies.

So, does anyone know what happens with those IP, then ... ?

@BruceCM Those are still owned by their respective IP holders. So LEGO still owns LEGO, and DC still owns Batman. And they can license it to any company they'd like. AT&T deal just happens to include developers that are currently working on licensed games like Batman, LEGO and Lord of the Rings, but those studios don't own those franchises.

Just to clarify, DC Comics is owned by WB Interactive. But the Lego games cover a much wider range of properties; Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, Disney, etc. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Disney stepped up to the plate and bought WB Interactive. Forcing the DC & Marvel cinematic universes to collide.

Warner Bros Entertainment owns DC, not Interactive.

And Warner Bros. Entertainment is owned AT&T, which is what's up for sale. So your point is...?

@jump

Edit: Ah, WB Games is a sub-division of WB Entertainment. So WB Entertainment would still get a slice of any DC-related entertainment product made. I gotcha.

Warner Bros Entertainment isn't up for sale, Warner Bros Interactive is up for sale. They are two different companies. Warner Bros Entertainment is the parent company to DC Comics.