Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

Seems like wasted energy worrying about whether or not Bayonetta 3 gets released. Kamiya is also busy directing Tencent's new game, Project G.G. Bayonetta 2's director Yusuke Hashimoto left Platinum in early 2019. Clearly Bayo 3 was announced much too soon and the game is still quite a ways off. Can't wait to hear about Bayonetta 3 in 2022...or later, maybe, we'll see.

But I have to admit Bayonetta 3 is beginning to feel like another Scalebound situation.
https://www.polygon.com/2017/1/9/14216246/scalebound-canceled...

@Grumblevolcano
The CTR trial is really cool and I wanna give it a shot, but dang, why do it right after Christmas when people have already been gifted lots of new games? lol

Bayonetta 3, Metroid Prime 4 and BotW 2 share the same situation, were likely only announced to reduce backlash. Bayonetta 3 acted to reduce the backlash surrounding Switch just being a Wii U port machine (rather sad that Switch getting Wii U ports gets backlash, removal from Wii U eshop is backlash worthy though), Metroid Prime 4 reduced the backlash of Samus Returns being a 3DS game (there was rampant backlash whenever a game came to 3DS in 2017 or later) and BotW 2 acted to reduce the backlash of Switch not having big games after Animal Crossing.

Had neither been a concern Prime 4 would've probably been never announced (cancelled instead of restarted in 2018) meanwhile Bayonetta 3 and BotW 2 would've probably been announced in like 2021/2022.

@Giancarlothomaz
See the post from @Grumblevolcano above. It was just an early announcement, that’s all. Nothing to worry over. It happens sometimes.

People need to learn not to have an existential crisis every time a game is announced early.

Bayo 3 will be fine, and it'll turn up eventually, just like SMT V has after years of silence. Big games are rarely canceled after they've gotten far along enough in planning that they're officially announced at large events.

Outside of maybe Metroid Prime 4, none of these theories makes any sense.

Bayonetta 3 was announced at the end of 2017 (the year of BotW, Splatoon 2, Arms, Mario + Rabbids, Super Mario Odyssey, Fire Emblem Warriors, & Xenoblade Chronicles 2), so the narrative that the Switch is a "Wii U port machine" hadn't really materialized yet.

BotW2 was announced at E3 2019, where we still had Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3, Astral Chain, Daemon X Machina, Dragon Quest XI S, Link's Awakening remake, Luigi's Mansion 3, Pokemon S/S (before all the controversy), and of course Animal Crossing ahead of us. At the time the fan base would have had no reason to believe the release schedule would dry up half a year later, so damage control definitely wasn't part of the reason for it's announcement (and that drier period is in part due to COVID, which Nintendo themselves couldn't have predicted, so they likely didn't announce it in expectation of there being an upcoming dry period).

Plus, for better or worse the sales success of the general Wii U port probably speaks to them more directly than any animosity on hobbyist websites like this, so they probably wouldn't think to do any "damage control" even if they knew beforehand that their upcoming schedule would mostly be ports.

@RR529 With Bayonetta 3 and BotW 2 the theory was about reducing future backlashes (Prime 4 was about reducing an immediate backlash). Bayonetta 1+2 and Bayonetta 3 were announced in December 2017 and by early 2018 Switch was seen as a Wii U port machine. In BotW 2's case, had BotW 2 not been announced Animal Crossing would've passed in March 2020 and there'd be no known future big games inbound for Switch.

I think the people complaining the most about the ports are the nintendo die hards which owned a Wii u. It feels wrong somehow they took my money twice on more than a few releases. I'll always feel nintendo should have treated those who supported them in the darkest time better. That said surely by the numbers Wii u owners are the minority of switch owners and nintendo is milking this cash cow. I would have given some sort of discounts somehow to previous Wii u owners but that said I don't see a problem with the ports and clearly others don't either because both the ports are selling and the switch is as well.

I think the problem is Wii U owners who somehow think they’re entitled to preferential treatment, as if they performed an “act of charity” toward Nintendo by buying a Wii U, and that they are “Nintendo’s saviors” who now “deserve compensation”.

Like... no. You bought a Wii U not as some charitable contribution, you made a consumer purchase because you wanted one. You deserve nothing else in return- you got what you paid for already.

And nobody is holding a gun to any Wii U owner’s head forcing them to buy games again. Nintendo hasn’t “taken” anyone’s money twice. They merely accept what is offered in a voluntary exchange. So anyone who buys a game again does so by their own free will. If you want a hybrid handheld version, oftentimes with improvements or new content, then buy the game again. If you don’t, then just stick with the Wii U version. Having extra options and choices doesn’t negate the value of your previous purchases. You got what you paid for and you still own all those Wii U games. If buying them again is such a problem then… here’s an easy solution- don’t.

What gets me is when I hear people act like they’re entitled to preferential treatment because of their valiant heroism of buying a Wii U, oh great saviors of Nintendo, who selflessly sacrificed their hard earned money to buy a system they never actually wanted, all in a heroic effort to keep Nintendo alive. Kneel before your saviors, Nintendo, and reward justly with discounts!

Given how many within the core Nintendo fanbase advocate buying physical, surely one could just sell their Wii U version of a game and use that extra cash as their “discount” toward a Switch version, no?

Btw this isn’t directed at anyone in particular, but seeing the subject brought up, I felt like sharing my opinion on the matter in general.

In the same way Square Enix 'made me' buy all the Final Fantasy & Dragon Quest games on Android, then buy those also on Vita, with PS1 classics & PSP games, then most of them on Switch & again on Steam .... Should I complain about that, then?

Well to be fair to digital purchasers of Wii u games. The xbox one backward was backward compatible with the 360. The ps5 can play ps4 games. The Wii u could play Wii games. The Wii could play gamecube games. The wii u offered a dollar upgrade program for owners of Wii vc games. So when the switch wouldn't play digital games Wii u owners had previously bought they felt ripped off.

I did own dktf, nsmbu, sm3dw, mk8 and pikman 3 digital so personally I am not a happy camper.

How about the switch 2. If it releases but you can't play original switch games does the consumer base have a right to be upset. If so is it more acceptable because there is a larger amount of switch owners?

Now I own about 50 games on the switch currently. All digital. I'll likely own 100 games by the time switch 2 comes out. If the switch 2 comes out and doesn't play switch one games I will be a lot less happy. Ill likely just skip the product altogether.

When Wii U owners bought their games, there was no disclaimer stating, “purchasing this game also entitles you to future backward compatible versions which we hereby commit to provide you with”.

If you buy something assuming you’re gonna get more than what’s on the package itself, you’re setting yourself up for massive failure. Not every system is BC. Only iterative systems built on architecture of the last. And that’s not always going to be the case so... you’re rolling the dice if that’s your expectation. If it doesn’t pan out you have no one to blame but yourself for rolling the dice with a feature that had not yet been confirmed and was not advertised on the packaging, neither was it hinted at or insinuated.

I can’t stress this enough- you are not owed backwards compatibility. You are not entitled to forward compatibility. You get what’s on the box and that’s it. Anything beyond that is a bonus. Not an entitlement.

I highly suspect the next switch will be backwards compatible. But there’s no guarantee. Nintendo always tries to include backwards compatibility but sometimes they just can’t do it. Like with Switch, which would have never been possible if they had kept a similar architecture to previous systems. But when I buy Switch games, the box says NINTENDO SWITCH, not NINTENDO SWITCH + FUTURE CONSOLES. You get what the box says you get. And the box doesn’t promise you support on future systems, so again, if you buy a game expecting it to run on systems other than that which is specified on the front of the box you are rolling the dice.

If that’s a problem for you then I suggest just not buying any games for the system at all, or wait until they confirm or deny future BC. Whether Microsoft or Sony provide BC is completely irrelevant. You aren’t “owed” BC Nintendo games because of a voluntary choice Microsoft made. You aren’t owned money from Person A just because Person B decided to hand out a $10 bill to someone else.

@JaxonH meanwhile I have 3 wiius as I can’t bear to be without the system.

However consumer buy in is weird. They want bleeding edge but want to tape a vcr to it. And pay as little as possible. Granted, sony has made comments that BC isn’t as vital as the internet people say it is anyway (and given that even with VC, people bought the same few hits I agree) so the few complaints about wiiu ports will sail on by. I’ll admit to waiting for sales (but still buying what I want on Switch) for the non tent pole stuff, but Nintendo doesn’t owe me anything. They gave away soooo much money during the wiiu era anyway. Between the free games and the cash back for purchases I feel like Nintendo already did the “thanks for being loyal” song and dance.

@Ryu_Niiyama
It’s so illogical. Rockstar ports over LA Noire, you don’t see PS3 owners demanding it for less because they “bought it on PS3”. You don’t see PS3 owners demanding Ni No Kuni for free because they “bought it on PS3”. You don’t see PS3 owners demanding Okami HD for free because they “bought it on PS3”.

Countless PS3 games ported to Switch like Borderlands 2, Metro 2033, Assassins Creed IV... etc. Are people demanding discounts or handouts because they “already bought on PS3” or “already bought on Wii U”? Nope. But for some reason, when Nintendo ports a game over, suddenly people think they are entitled to every future port of the game on every system they ever bring it to. It’s bizarre. And “but this other system did such and such” isn’t a valid claim to entitlement. Other systems were iterative and had the ability to offer BC. Switch wasn’t iterative and saw a brand new architecture not based on Wii U or 3DS. But even if it had, BC is never guaranteed. Until it’s officially confirmed, it’s an assumption.

I get being aggravated with lack of BC (I wasn’t gonna buy PS5 if it wasn’t BC), as something which can affect one’s purchasing decisions, and I’ll be aggravated if Switch 2 isn’t BC (since it should be iterative) but even so, I don’t buy Switch games with the expectation I will be given discounts on any future ports of games I buy. I only expect what’s advertised on the front of the box.

@JaxonH games have no perceived value anymore. People go “oh you have the code, press the button to put it on system A” so now everything is expected to be 5 bucks if it has been out half a year or on a pervious system. There is no thought to OS differences or architecture differences. Yet the big companies are churning out less and less franchises or new entries for a reason.

Costs are not going down in development and systems have low software attach rates. Didn’t Bowser say it was like 8 for the Switch? I have over 400 Switch games. So that to me speaks volumes on how few games people buy and how many buy the same game over and over. It is a unsustainable business model if not for whales. And yet people still want to buy a game once. And that doesn’t even get into licensing or dev work for porting in the first place.

But ultimately consumerism is gluttony and brainwashing/conditioning (marketing) so logic on the consumer side doesn’t play a role.

And that isn’t fair as it isn’t just Nintendo customers doing this. Back during the ps3 days there was more complaints about bc. And it came up from time to time during the ps4’s day (you wanna talk crappy BC/VC look no further than sony) but I think sony made it pretty clear their stance (as in it is different architecture) at the start of the ps4 era (Nintendo did too with the Switch but its like people don’t believe them or something).

@RR529 Bayo 3 announcment was more likely damage control for announcing ports of Bayo 1&2 and people doing the usual "you've abandoned the series" narrative since they knew it was going to be a long ways out still.

@JaxonH you sound more angry at what you perceive as entitled Wii u owners than I think the Wii u owners sound frustrated at Nintendo. I don't think I have complained that much about the ports since I have rebought a lot myself. Suggesting Nintendo gives a discount to Wii u owners isn't exactly asking for free games. Anyways I sold my Wii u on kijiji and just paid the difference on the games I bought. (the big thing I have complained about is both pikman and Bayonetta being ported at the exact same resolution and sold at the exact same price) Perhaps its just the vantage point one looks at it...

Anyways yes you are correct that they never said the switch would be future backward compatible nor are they saying their current software will be future compatible but one has to admit this is the world we are living in. Angry birds played on iPhone 3 the same way it does on iPhone 12. A dvd still worked in a blu ray player and a blu ray as well as a dvd works in a UHD player. If Nintendo isn't going to allow backward compatibility going forward they would be the only video game company doing so. I understand there will be some consumers which may feel the way you do that the games are designed specifically for the current system and there are no future guarantees but I am sure there would be plenty which would simply opt out and start to buy their games only on Playstation and xbox. If that means no Mario then they would simply live with that. At least I would live with that. By no means is this last paragraph meant to come off as some sort of Nintendos fan ultimatum to Nintendo but I guess one could read it that way.

Backwards compatibility for the Switch was always going to be unfeasible due to the simple fact that the 3DS and Wii U use two screens whereas the Switch only has one. If the Switch's eventual successor maintains all the functionality of the Switch then it'll probably be backwards compatible with Switch games.

@BenAV i think the Switch is large enough that it could do windowed screens. No different than the e3 streaming units for the 3ds or ds games on the wiiu gamepad. It’s possible. But likely not a decent ROI to get the emulator running and a hw bottle neck if they put a 3ds slot on the Switch. Or made an add on.

It’s easier to port individual games and modify them to fit than to get an full bc solution running. (That is a ROI comment, I am not criticizing Nintendo)

@Ryu_Niiyama Not impossible perhaps but still not really feasible. It'd look awful and be pretty awkward for a lot of games I'd imagine. Not worth implementing it for sure.