@DefHalan
I agree, it's not. But I also understand that there is no indication that that's going to be the case. I understand that that's simply all we know so far. And the ports will likely be capped to those mentioned. It would be one thing if they were going to port 30 games over and this is just the first set, but that's not going to happen. It seems they simply took the resources for one game and used to to grab a half dozen of the best Wii U games to give it an edge for its launch year. Which is cool. Are we really going to split hairs over one new game ...
And it's 5 Wii U ports IIRC, not 7. Plus Pokémon Stars but I don't think anyone including you or me is going to complain about an HD Pokémon playable on consoles for the first time. That's quite possibly the most appealing thing Switch has going for it to date, and in no way can be construed as a negative.
Your issue lies more in wanting to see more than just Mario and Zelda for year one. And that's a legitimate desire. But don't blame the ports for that, and keep in mind we know absolutely nothing as of yet. Let's wait until we actually know what we're getting first. I'd be surprised...... no...... I'd be amazed if Mario and Zelda were the only new games in 2017. And deep down I think you would be too.
"Games clearly weren't enough"
No, clearly they weren't. Which is exactly why I said it's both. Both both both both both. Didn't say it was just games, I said both, not just one or the other. You find me one system that sold 50+ million that had a garbage lineup... exactly, you can't. It's not the only factor that matters, but without it, the system is doomed.
"Hasn't been true since the 90's"
Like hell it hasn't. I don't care what Nintendo was trying to do- that's irrelevant. Every system in the last 30 years has been sustained by core gamers... whether that was their intentions or not.
"causals have been and continue to be an important part of Nintendo's sustained success"
Hogwash. In 30 years the only time casuals have ever proved of any value is for the first 2-3 years of Wii and DS. That's it. And they certainly didn't sustain it. The only people left lingering after the boom to buy games like Xenoblade and Skyward Sword, were the core gamers.
Chasing the casuals is a fool's errand, and I firmly believe that with Iwata's passing (God rest his soul) the company has abanded that "get rich quick" mindset. That's the reason they're in this mess to begin with. If they continue down that road of folly they will do so at the expense of the long-term sustenance of the core gamer, and even if they are lucky enough to eventually strike gold again, at what cost will it have been? 2, maybe 3 completely failed generations? In exchange for what, 2-3 golden years? It's a trap.
You don't stay in business long-term by chasing fairweather consumers that are here today, then disappear like a fart in the wind tomorrow. Whether Nintendo is shrewd enough to realize this or not, that is the truth of the matter. If they happen to bring a few casuals along with them on the way, then that's great, but their focus needs to lie with the core gamer.
The reason it didn't work for GameCube and Wii U is precisely because the systems weren't appealing enough to core gamers, at least not moreso than the PS2 and PS4 was. Which relegated both of them as secondary purchases, and unless a console has significant appeal beyond the market leader (in both cases PlayStation) people aren't going to drop that kind of cash on another platform. Switch needs a perfect storm of appeal because it won't top PS4 and will certainly be relegated as a secondary purchase for most- but the portability, combined with low price, sleek tech-savvy aesthetic and lineup of enticing games (of which these ports vastly contribute to) might just do the trick.
Both Xbox and GameCube sold 20 million- the only difference is Nintendo chased a pot of gold at the end of the casual rainbow, while Microsoft play the long game, and slowly and steadily built their core gamer base. While Nintendo's core base whittled away as they prioritized casuals, MS grew a dependable base they could lean on for years and years to come. Which is why, even with the massive blunder of the X1 launch, MS is far more secure in the home console market than Nintendo.
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
Something to keep in mind concerning ports is that the Switch lacks backward compatibility with the Wii U. It will enter the HD game console market with a game library of roughly 0 vs the already-established game libraries of the PS4 and XB1. Even more importantly, it will start with an online community size of 0. That's no way to enter a competitive market.
That's why the Switch needs those ports: Smash, Kart, Splatoon and Mario Maker all have well-established online communities. Even without backwards-compatibility, it will immediately inherit a viable gaming community. Perhaps not coincidently, Nintendo's Black Friday sales include Smash, Splatoon and Mario Maker. Nintendo needs those online communities, not for the Wii U's sake, but for the Switch.
These ports are not that attractive to Wii U gamers, but they will be attractive to those Nintendo fans who are currently 3DS owners. My theory is that Nintendo did not lose their entire fan base, but many of them decided to find refuge in the 3DS platform (about 60M) instead of the Wii U (about 13M). They will try to win new fans with the $99 3DS while trying to upsell the current 60M 3DS users to the Switch.
@JaxonH I say 5-7 ports because it depends on how you are counting.
Splatoon
Mario Kart 8
Xenoblade Chronicles X
Super Smash Bros. 4
Super Mario Maker
Breath of the Wild (maybe, I will most likely get it on Wii U anyway)
Lego City (Not by Nintendo but another port of a Wii U game)
I will be disappointed, not shocked or amazed, if the first 6 months are just Mario and Zelda. Pokemon Stars doesn't have me interested, I am waiting for a new generation or at least a new remake, not the 3rd version of the current generation that I am already playing. Pokemon Stars would help, but that is just a rumor. I remember reading that The Pokemon Company was talking about their interest in the Switch, but I don't remember reading about Game Freak's interest. The software is what will sell me on this system, the hardware wasn't impressive for me. The current information about the Software isn't impressing me. The ball is in Nintendo's court, they can announce software at any moment but these "leaks" are not helping. I am waiting for more information, but my current situation is not impressed.
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
@KirbyTheVampire
"A lack of first party titles would be something to complain about. Ports are not. They are perfectly fine, and can only help"
You get it. Precisely.
If, ultimately, there is a lack of new games, then that is a valid concern that will need to be addressed at that time. But ports will not be to blame- ports will not be the culprit if that turns out to be the case. And I say "if" because right now we don't know. We haven't the slightest clue what the new game lineup is going to be. The only new games we are aware of right now are ones that Nintendo has actually showed us before the official announcement in January.
@DefHalan
Gotchya. Well the 3rd party ports are out of anyone's control and you're going to get that on any console. When I bought my PS4 I had more than 6 ports just in the first 3 months alone, and look how great that console has turned out to be. Even Sony themselves has released at least 6 first party remastered or ported games, not counting the 3 dozen third party ones. Point being, there's no avoiding it, and it doesn't serve as a detriment to the lineup... it only helps. It doesn't help nearly as much as new games, but it does help.
I can't blame you for not being impressed judging by new games alone, but right now that's to be expected. They haven't shown us their new games yet, so I don't see any reason a person would be impressed by new games at this juncture.
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
@BiasedSonyFan
Yes, I did say that. But in no way is that to be misconstrued as the only thing that matters. If you hadn't taken my post out of context you would have included the part where I had said both matter equally
Then telling me to "make up my mind" when you know good and well what I was talking about is proof enough this conversation needs to end. Right now.
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
Not that I really care since you still don't have the darndest clue anything that I told you multiple times already, but you do realize that even the GameCube got ports of N64 video games, right? The graphical leap from the N64 to the GameCube need not apply to whatever excuse you're trying to make here.
Again with the nit-picking and missing of the point. Yes there were some games that shuffled across from the N64 to the Gamecube. I never said otherwise. Some of them started development on the N64 before moving across to the Gamecube. Star Fox Adventures for example. Which is not really the same thing as being ported. Others like the N64 Zelda games were literally running on an emulator. More of a primitive VC than a port.
The only other game that immediately comes to mind is Animal Crossing. But that's a game that has never really taken advantage of new hardware. It's a game that has a particular art-style and pace that doesn't need the extra horsepower. A game like Smash Bros is a different beast entirely. They couldn't have done it with Smash not because it would have been technically impossible. As I said and you didn't quote they couldn't have done it because they would have been torn to shreds! Something which is not as true in 2016 as it was in 2001.
So thanks for once again glossing over the point I was making and picking on one particular thing. As I said, you don't care about actually engaging with anyone. You don't care about a discussion. You just want to win an argument.
Remasters and ports aren't a "get rich strategy", they're a long-term strategy that help build a lasting appeal of the library to others who have not played the games. Same as new games, because they are new games to everyone who hasn't played them.
You're hopeless.
And there's a reason Wii U sold 13 million. THE CASUALS LEFT. FART IN THE WIND, AS I SAID. The only thing the casuals are watching right now is when the next Flappy Bird is releasing on their smart phones, or as you said when the next Just Dance is releasing on Wii, which is where they have stayed and will continue to stay, because they have absolutely zero interest in buying another console.
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
@BiasedSonyFan
Bullcrap dude! You're worse than the media when they misconstrue what people say! I've said it at least four times now and made it abundantly clear exactly what I was talking about.
You've lost the argument, and now you're just resorting to taking my words out of context because you have absolutely nothing left to stand on.
And whether a developer gets rich off a port or not is utterly irrelevant. The fact it does indeed add long-lasting appeal to the library makes it a long-term strategy. The fact it appeals to gamers who, years later will still be drawn to those games, makes it a long lasting strategy. If they get rich in doing so then that makes it all the more reason to do it.
Man you just argue and argue and argue until you don't have a leg left to stand on don't you...
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
Me specifically says "concept and game lineup matter equally"
You I don't think you view the concept of a console and the console's video games equally
[beyond facepalming here] I'm not going to sit here and argue back-and-forth with somebody who's just going to straight up call me a liar and tell me I'm lying about my own opinions.
Now please just stop before you aggravate me to the point of losing my cool, which I've already begun to do. I know you are absolutely compulsed to have the last word, as always, but for once, just once prove me wrong about something and don't
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
@Therad There was no anti-gravity driving in MK7. That alone is comparable to adding a second item slot, even if the item slot probably impacts the gameplay more directly. Speaking on a personal level, the lack of differentiating features is precisely what makes MK7 so forgettable to me, I'd rather play MK8. That doesn't happen when I go back to MK64, MKDS or Double Dash, for example. MK7 to 8 was the exception, not the norm, and I'd rather let it stay that way.
Other than that, I agree with what you mention, I just don't think turning games into platforms is worth it in the long run.
I would argue that anti-gravity doesn't change anything. It is a visual change, not a mechanical one. Except for the speed boost it gives when bumping into others. Going on walls and such is really not different from you taking a different path than another player, which can also be done on ordinary "2D-tracks".
A second item might look like a simple change, but it does make the game strategical. It means you can save an item to use at the right time (i.e mushroom), while at the same time being able to mess with other players. It changes the dynamic of the game.
Resources that are used for porting video games — even if they're outsourced and porting is not expensive — are always resources than can be used for other video games. Porting would be much more understandable to me if Nintendo released a bonaza of video games for the Wii U before launching the Switch. They haven't. Since Nintendo starved the Wii U of releases, you'd think they'd have more new video games to release at launch than 3D Mario.
Also, I'm not convinced of the "letting gamers play video games that they haven't played before " logic: the Wii was backwards compatible, but when the Wii was released, many gamers really didn't give a darn about Smash. Bros Melee, Double Dash, etc. The most memorable video game that helped Nintendo break sales records was a brand-new IP! Even the Wii U had a great launch without relying on ports; Nintendoland and New Super Mario Bros. U were system-sellers that weren't ports. I think the market that Nintendo is most depending on for the sales success of the Switch is not really going to care if they didn't play Smash Bros. or Splatoon on the Wii U; the concept on the console has to appeal to them, and if it does, then they'll just play whatever great Nintendo video games is launched with the Switch.
The only reason that Nintendo is porting these video games is because it's the easiest path to profits, and gamers are providing that path. That's fine, but what's best for businesses and what's best for the video game art aren't necessarily the same thing.
Of course it is an easy path to profits. As is their entire back catalog. But it is also an easy way to give the switch a larger and therefor more appealing catalog right out of the gate. I think most Wii U owners will be swayed by the new games, while others that might have been interested in the Wii Us games but didn't want the Wii U for some reason.
And letting a studio port a game is vastly easier than to get said studio to make a game with Nintendo IPs. For one, you don't really know if they are capable of producing a game at the same quality as an in-house game. Porting is easy, it is more of a mechanical task than an artistic task. Sure, you might revamp some models and textures, but in the end it is much simpler than designing a game from scratch. It is easier to know that Sakurai and Anouma will deliver quality than any third-party developer.
It seems like the first year of the Switch will have much more first-party games at launch than any previous console. And they have most of their heavy-hitters present. Even though you personally have played many of them, you can't deny it should be appealing for those that skipped the Wii U. Such as those that got their gaming fix from the 3ds.
And we don't even know the entire line-up until January. But in my eyes it looks promising.
And we don't even know the entire line-up until January.
Indeed, let's keep this in mind. Until we know more, and the rumours are more than rumours, there's no point in getting worried what the Switch will and won't offer from a first party perspective.
Even if there are no more big 1st party titles for the launch window than what's already rumoured,there is very likely to be 1 or 2 2nd party titles too.Retro's could well be the big Xmas release.Then there is that Mario/Rabbids crossover,possibly 1 or 2 more 3rd party exclusives.Add on all those ports,the multiplatform games and some smaller 1st party Eshop titles as well as the indies.I'd say that's not too bad at all.By the end of the year it'll have a stellar line up.
Based purely on the rumours the second half of the year in particular seems a bit empty. No doubt there's stuff that Nintendo has managed to keep a secret. Keeping in mind that so far the stuff that has leaked has been prone to leaks one way or another. Either they're being developed/ported external to Nintendo and therefore more people would know about it, it's stuff that's closer to launch or it's stuff that was in the trailer. How do we know about Mario, BotW, Splatoon and Mario Kart? Well, they were in the trailer.
What has been leaked/rumored won't be the full year catalog. There likely are more projects in development, plus whatever game third parties bring on board - for example, FFXV is rumored to be available on the Switch. Considering it releases this month, it would make sense for it to be available in the first six months of the Switch, but we don't have any news about that.
Though, Switch games will take longer to develop than 3ds games. Thus there will be less games.
But the Switch isn't just pulling resources away from the 3DS. It's doing that but it has also replaced entirely development time being spent on the Wii U. Peak Wii U first party development plus a large fraction of their portable efforts? That's not going to be less content.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
The odd port now and then is fine, and I can understand people wanting remasters/definitive versions of the games they like (I'm still waiting for Prime Trilogy HD). However, so many ports - especially in the console's first year - could give the impression the Switch is just a repackaged Wii U rather than a worthy successor. And those games didn't exactly help the Wii U to rush off store shelves...
@BiasedSonyFan The thing is though. No one except a bunch of Wii U owners are complaining about the potential of a load of Wii U games being ported to Switch.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 6,661 to 6,680 of 69,785
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic