Nintendo Switch Version Of For Honor Out Of The Question Right Now

makes sense to see how well received it is on other platforms first before potentially wasting money on another version

I had completely forgotten about this game. It's a shame but not surprised. Maybe one day....

Again it's a big triple A game that's also been in development for a long time, well before Switch dev kits would have been sent out. Plus I have a feeling getting this to run well on the Switch may require more work than there is in the potential returns.

Dang, this has been a long while in the making. I remember when it was first announced.

Not in the bit surprised about this, been in development a long time.

I can see why they want to test it out on other platforms first but just think, couple the motion sensors and the maybe VR of the switch? You want immersive gaming? You got it!

It will be a great day when we see more articles of games the Switch is getting instead of games it isn't. 25 days!

The controls seem very inspired by Skyward Sword as well. Could have worked well with the Joy-Cons.

Well nintendo sent out a Dev kit in early June and then new updated version in oct/Nov.So as this games been in development for long time,I can't see why it would come to Switch.Even if this game was to come out,we don't need Old ports of games

"Given the motion-sensing talents of the Joy-Con controllers, the Switch could potentially deliver the most immersive version of [insert game]".

It honestly feels like I'm back to 2008. Bad sign.

@spizzamarozzi "It honestly feels like I'm back to 2008. Bad sign."

Good sign. Wii was an awesome console, because of the Wii mote and motion controls.

I truly believe a lot of these companies saying no about certain games are just holding back until after the launch hype dies down a little bit. What sense would make it release Resident Evil 7 or For Honor available before July when Zelda and Mario Kart are going to be there from day one. Maximize sales on the consoles the games are out for now and then when the time is right, announce the Switch port. We're talking Capcom and Ubisoft here, both RE 7 and For Honor will release for Switch in 2017. EA is a little different story, but I don't rule out Mass Effect Andromeda 'Special Edition' early 2018 alongside the PS4 and Xbox One/Scorpio 'Complete Edition.'

@yuwarite I repeat: bad sign. The Wii missed most of the relevant 3rd party games of that generation. We don't want that to happen again.

I couldn't care less, frankly. I own a PS4 and I'll still ignore it. Now if we could just stop giving such exposure to Ubisoft and others...

@Gamer83
I like Mass Effect very much but I love Zelda a lot more, I'm picking up a Switch with BotW at launch and will consider Mass Effect Andromeda down the line when the price drops. However, if it does come out on Switch, it'll be a no-brainer!

Why do we need AAA games like this from Ubisoft when we're getting Just Dance?

This is what happens when you release a weak "console".

That's the real reason why it won't end up on Switch.

Let's see how the game reviews first before we even start to care, shall we?

I'd never even heard of it tbh.

Yet another 3rd party game that won't make it to switch. There will be constant articles like this in the future even if switch is a success. Best u can hope for is Indies with the odd 3rd party game or crap port. Shame really

Sadly, I expect this to be the case with 99% of big new AAA third party games releasing in the near future and beyond.

And this is why I believe Nintendo absolutely needs to nail the release of big new AAA first party games for the Switch (from all of it's popular/beloved franchises), alongside a whole bunch of eShop/VC games that includes both brand new titles and an absolute flood of stuff from its entire history of consoles (both home consoles and handhelds), as well as entice indies to put as much stuff on the system as humanly possible (definitely including all the most popular/beloved indie titles).

That's the only way I think it can somewhat make up for a severe lack of extremely important AAA third party support and avoid another "Wii U"-like situation—however you interpret that, but not positively—for all gamers.

I was unaware of this title until E3 '16. I wasn't fussed my what I saw and found it to look a bit of a mess. So I'm not too bothered.

Third parties aren't going to be offering unwavering support to Switch. Rather they'd wait and see what sales are like. That's fair enough, that's business.

There were people deluded enough to think it might come to the Switch?

WiiU2

Better excuse them not porting their game to the Switch or Nintendo consoles in general because it wouldn't handle the game's ''millions of words'' or whatever.

It looks interesting but with the disconnect between the trailers and finished product of some of there recent "triple A" titles I would have been hesitant to buy it anyways.

@spizzamarozzi What does this:
"Given the motion-sensing talents of the Joy-Con controllers, the Switch could potentially deliver the most immersive version of [insert game]".

Have to do with this?:
I repeat: bad sign. The Wii missed most of the relevant 3rd party games of that generation. We don't want that to happen again.

Wii Motion controls debate != lack of 3rd party debate.

Was not interested in this title before, i'm even less interested now. "Core platform"...LOL

so far there is no AAA third party games announced yet ? lol only crap indie's games that will charge you 20$ for each ... its wii u all over again

Anybody buying Switch knows 3rd party support will be weak. Even if 3rd parties jump on board, any original title is a couple years down the road. At best there will be some inferior ports that are released long after the PS4/XboxOne version.

This is typical of most third party developers. Games industry is so lost right now. Sad to see Ubisoft pulling the same cra(b).

Not that I want it anyways. Looks terrible.

you know your console is in trouble when not even ubisoft is supporting you anymore

Just got to love this site. Many ppl saying this game or that game looks rubbish also I didn't want it anyhow but if it was announced that these games were coming to switch all of a sudden everybody starts having a gamegasm and its the best thing ever. 3Rd party AAA games won't make it cause switch can't handle them especially when they go into overdrive making games for PS4 PRO and Xbox Scorpio making the gulf between core platforms and switch even bigger

All I see from Ubisoft at the moment is ports, certainly shows the company has a lot of faith in the Switch.

Dont care much and like he said they want to make sure the game works , the Switch is not even officialy released yet I would care more about this kind of thing a year from after the Switch is released.

I still don't understand why we're seeing articles like this? Nobody should reasonably expect a Triple-A PS4/XB1 game to come to the Switch. The power isn't there; you'd be getting a gimped version of it. If you want a game like this, just play it on your PC, which, if you invest a bit, will be far more powerful than a PS4/XB1.
This article is akin to posting an article to the effect of "Uncharted 4 not coming to the Switch!" Nobody even remotely suspected that it should/would, so why would you post an article like that? Why are people even asking these questions?

So they're basically saying let's see if we can make money from this before putting more money into it.

I read a larger version of this interview somewhere else, the rest painted the switch situation it more like "we need to see if this will even sell on the existing platforms before we look at a Switch port"

it doesn't appear For Honor (there's a U damn it) have Ubisoft's confidence probably why its season pass is just early access to new characters

This is my most hyped game next to Zelda! I loved the beta and cant wait to play more. Even if this came to switch id only get it for ps4 as my friends are not getting one anytime soon

I've been looking forward to For Honor since E3 2016 and was lucky enough to get in on the beta testing - truly awesome game, brilliant concept! Two things
1) It could've been incredible as a Switch title utilising the motion sensors of the Joy-Cons to change stances and wield weapons. Ninty/3rd parties should definitely develop something along these lines.
2) However the Switch is just way way too underpowered for this title, even it's main competitors have to run it at 30fps - answer get a gaming PeeCee if you want to play this game at full unlimited fps.

@Firelork As I recall, the Tides of Numenara devs/writers just hadn't even thought about getting around to an NS version. Doesn't have anything to do with "not being able to handle it." Even a 1999 PC title could handle having millions of words worth of narrative, along with the rest of the title's features...

@BiasedSonyFan It wouldn't solve the problem entirely but it would certainly go a long way.

And, let's not drink the fanboy Kool-Aid, shall we—the lack of big AAA third party support was one of the major reasons the Wii U failed, and in a huge way for all the tens of millions of core gamers out there who might have purchased the console otherwise.

And, seriously, I ultimately don't give a flying **** if a Nintendo console is successful in terms of sales numbers . . . if it isn't actually successful in terms of leaving me as a gamer and consumer basically completely satisfied and happy with my purchase at the end of the day—that's how you measure a console's worth, not based on how many casuals it brought into the fold and the higher sales because of those casuals drinking the Kool-Aid. The sales numbers only really matter, to me at least, if the other criteria are satisfied too; without that part it's numbers on a flow-chart that should mean jack-**** to the likes of you and mean in any meaningful way.

But, get everything that I mentioned above totally nailed and the Switch has a genuine shot at being a truly great and largely very satisfying all-round console experience, even without the major AAA third party support.

I have just gotten to the point that the Japaneese developers that made games for the 3ds can have my money. I waited on buying Skyrim for ps4 because I would much rather play it on the go. I feel that way for any game because that is what fits my lifestyle.

For everyone surprised/upset that this game is not coming to Switch, did you actually watch Ubisoft's reveal segment at their E3 conference for this game? I mean did you actually sit through that and say "wow, I want to spent $60 on this!"

It's like Infinity Blade re-imagined as a real game. It's not the worst idea ever, but it also looks like really cool scripted events wrapped around amazingly monotonous gameplay. I couldn't wait for the segment on this thing to end and spaced out through half of it. Watch_Dogs 2 (hated the first) and Steep were actually a lot more interesting to me, and I hate sports games. And Switch is getting Steep.

@BiasedSonyFan I generally agree with you on most things Switch, but I do think there's a tremendous amount of lack of foresight at Nintendo trying to recapture that Wii/DS audience, and estimating in their numbers they will do so. Nintendo's key failing is often that they're out of touch with the market, and I fear they learned the wrong lessons from the success of the Wii. Iwata noted this years ago ([sic] "it may have been an error to focus so much on casual users [with Wii]" , but it seems his caution may have fallen upon deaf ears.

I could be wrong, but the DS wave, I don't see happening again. That part of the market is 100% catered to by mobile devices now and won't lure many people to buy that devices for their "Nintendogs" and "Cooking Mama" type fixes. So they're throwing their lot in with the Wii. I'm just not seeing much demand for "party games" in 2017, nor a $300 party game machine. In Japan that seems well received, but that's the land of Karaoke parlors. The trouble with Wii, at least in the West, is Wii wasn't a successful entertainment console, it was a successful exercise fad. It shouldn't be compared to Playstation and XBox or even DS, it should be compared to Atkins food, skiier/rower machines, and yoga balls.

That being said, games like THIS are not what Switch needs either. There needs to be a happy medium between blood & guts Western hardcore gamers that PS/XB appeals to that almost directly clashes with Nintendo branding, and the kind of "system for people who don't intend to buy software" that the Wii was. The software numbers were high, but much of that was for pack-ins with hardware, so the numbers weren't as good as they appear at first glance, and that was before competing with mobile for the party space.

The risk they run if they continue pushing the "1-2-Switch" model for the WiiU, is they again alienate their core customers who suffered through Wii the last time they did that, then were taken for a ride with WiiU, while also failing to recapture the now scattered Wii market. They really have to be careful how they pursue that market, that has already been proven disloyal (with WiiU as the result of what was left of their core consumer after the brand damage Wii caused.)

So far the launch lineup consists of all "gamer games" except 1-2-S. But but the marketing time/money spent on 1-2-S makes me wonder if they really have thought these things out as well as they should.

@impurekind WiiU failed, in addition to very many other reasons by the bad combination of having virtually no third party support, AND having minimal first party support as they scrambled to save the 3DS at launch, and lost all momentum. In this case, I certainly don't disagree that if the Switch has a dominating 1st party lineup, it will be fine regardless of its 3rd party status, which I suspect was most of the point of uniting handheld and console to begin with.

@NEStalgia Well, I ultimately don't think a stellar first party lineup alone will be enough to create a truly all-round satisfying console experience, beyond serving the more easily satiated desires of a bunch of fanboys and casuals, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Wouldnt have bought it anyway

At least Ubisoft was initially on board for WiiU... Here we only get Just Dance at launch.... Yaaaayyyyy

All those games not coming to Switch....why is this even news?!

@impurekind Yep. And the 3DS is kind of a post card of what a "Nintendo 1st party console" looks like. It was mostly 1st party, but with significant contributions by some key 3rd parties, almost exclusively Japanese 3rd parties, making exclusives for the platform, and porting a handful of Playstation titles. It's not the Nintendo XBox some people want, but for commercial success it's a solid proposal and differentiates them from the competition. Squeenix, Sega/Atlus, Capcom, Koei, and Bamco are the watchwords for whether Switch is succeeding or not.

Ubi, Activision will contribute, here and there, but not in force. EA, Warner, THQ/Nordic, will pay occasional lipservice, and throw a game or so at most (or make endless pools of party games if the 1-2-S model takes off). If Bethesda strikes gold on Skyrim, they might make a home on the platform, and for Western "core gamers" none of the above will matter at all

@SwitchFanatic yeah I don't think that day's comin', bud.

Here is the HUGE problem with the end of this article:

The idea that Switch can be most immersive because of motion control........... uh oh. Switch is actually Wii 2. Which if people still loved their Wii's would be great. But the general public bought the gimmick on Wii and quickly got bored. 100 million dusty wii's out there. And 3rd parties don't want to spend all the extra energy of customizing to another system. They don't care about waggle and they won't put R&D into it.

Motion controls will not sell this time around. It's not new anymore and it wasn't even really ever fun. Just turned games into work.

@Gamer83 I really doubt switch could run all the games you mentioned without big rework on them, aka lot of money to invest, aka forget about them

@BiasedSonyFan

1. That's not a good defence or excuse—but it certainly does [blindly] defend and excuse.

2. And that's one of the reasons the Wii U was a major flop—even if you personally can't quite grasp why.

Casual this casual that. It's years since Ninty had the casual market and since then mobile phones is the new home of casuals. Casuals who want a Nintendo fix will be happy to play the games that Ninty release on there precious phones and let's face it eventualy Ninty will release loads on it overtime. Meaning casuals won't be bothered with switch they have no reason too

Specific titles not appearing on the Switch isn't a big deal if the Switch has a good lineup. Instead of For Honor, you can play
(_____) on Switch. Switch needs killer titles and I personally don't see enough in the near future. 3rd parties are in the wait and see mode. Yes, the console is just launching. But this is the market Nintendo chose to enter. I'm getting the Switch, but I can't recommend it to anybody I know just yet.

Honestly the JoyCons didn't impress me too much, but if they were used in the way you described them with For Honor I'd be much more inclined to use them.

All I want from Jason VandenBerghe is Red Steel 3.

Can't say I have cared about For Honor at all. But some people do. And not getting 3rd party support will hurt the Switch. This game has been ages in development, so of course it was never going to come out for the Switch. In the next several months, stories have to come out saying what games are coming instead of what isn't

@PlywoodStick
The CEO himself said the number thing.

@BiasedSonyFan There was an article the other day some of use were discussing Wii sales on. I was pointing out that Sports was included and was a pack-in (-120M individual software sales they included), Play was essentially free with the Wiimote pack-in, so many people who bought 3 more controllers (and who didn't for a Wii?) were buying it in the Play bundle because "why not?" (and it was the easiest way to get it at first), and Resort was the ONLY way to get a Motion Plus for a good while (and it was known Zelda would require it), so many including myself bought a few copies of it as well. Not that nobody bought those games, but it's hard to extract how many bought the games, and how many bought the hardware and got the nearly-free game just because (not that Nintendo cares, they got money, but for comparing software success, what % of those sales were accessory sales, not software sales? Not even Nintendo knows.)

And I'm also not sure I'd include Wii Fit/Fit+ at all in software sales. For revenues it's included, as it should be, but for market identification, that was really a QoL device more than Wii software, it just happened to require a Wii.

Wii's hard to categorize with some of it's 1-hit-wonder act.

I would unequivocally say that using Wii as a template for Switch would be a catastrophic idea all the way around. At a minimum, extraordinarily high risk at a time when they can least afford high risk. The expended that capital on WiiU.

Yes, used Wiis still sell. For how much? They were cheap entertainment when new, cheaper entertainment now used, with a bargain basement game library. Switch is $300. There's a very conceivable price drop to $250 in the future. That still stretches it into the realm of a purchase decision much more than the $100-200 Wii. And again, back in 2008 the ONLY way to play simple games was to buy a Nintendo for most people, it was a new thing to do. Now phones and tablets have tapped that market majorly.

It's not unfair to say "casual gaming" exists for Nintendo. But how can we define casual gaming now? Specifically casual gaming that requires a $300, or even $250 machine when people all now own casual gaming machines (tablets/phones) already. The proposition is different. I'm not saying Dragon Quest and For Honor are the answer for that market, but I don't believe that the party/waggle market exists, at that price point, in any sufficient number (outside Japan) at this point either. "Dedicated device casual" is going to have to be defined differently than it was a decade ago. A "Wii 2" model would work at $150 or $175 as a toy to buy. Not $250+. That actually would have been a smart 3rd pillar.

Also, while Wii had only a handful of "core games" and mostly casual games (and that cost them a good chunk of the loyal market that abandoned WiiU), DS still had a large number of core games. In that era, Wii was the casual machine, DS was the core gamer Nintendo machine (that also had hyper casual stuff.) Switch needs to be both, as they're chopping the handheld too. I can't imagine 3DS remaining the core machine for the next 6 years.

Again, so far, lineup wise, they're doing fine with this. My concern is just the marketing angle here and if it signifies any internal thinking.

@Savino For better or worse, Nintendo exited the "console wars" at the end of the GCN. The Wii wasn't a fluke, it as a conscious decision to abandon that market entirely and seek a different one. They ceded the "Western AAA" market to Sony/Sega(/Microsoft.) You don't re-enter after leaving it. When they left, it was permanent. There's overlap, of course, Nintendo gets SOME AAA's, but not many, nor are they seeking many. They aren't trying to compete with Sony in the same exact market.

The trouble with the Wii was just that it also abandoned the Nintendo niche that likes their alternative but still dedicated game styles in favor of the mass-market popcorn games. That came back to bite them with lost brand appeal the next time around when the fad ended.

That Switch was not going to be an AAA player like PS was always a given. Whether it will have sufficient different core games (JRPGs, adventure games, platformers, things Nintendo is associated with) to satisfy the "Nintendo Niche" or whether they chase the popcorn market again has been the only unknown. And, of course, what subset of AAA WILL it get is to be determined. Basically they need the ones that will have broad mass market appeal. For Honor is not that game. It's a game for the nichiest of the "hardcore" gamers.... Assassin's Creed is probably Ubi's most "mass market" friendly AAA game among things other than Just Dance, Rayman, etc.

@NintySnesMan I agree with this. I would HOPE Nintendo understand that concept too. I don't think any Nintendo should be a PS type machine with the same library...that's just a bad idea. But I do agree that the casual market has moved to mobile, and while Nintendo aims to convince them to buy a Switch via the mobile games, the aim would be to tease those people into deeper gameplay available (and be willing to pay for it), not to have them play the same kind of games on a dedicated device.

Heck even mobile gaming has moved beyond party gaming. That was an interesting concept, particularly with what was the older crowd. They've now "been there and done that", and the younger set that's grown up around mobile devices aren't going to find that particularly novel. This is the group that invites people to drinks so they can text them

Are there SOME people that will buy a party console at $300? Sure. There are SOME people that buy enough $40,000 Rolexes to keep them in business too. But not 120 million of them.

Wow. The Switch isn't a core platform. Dang... maybe I should cancel my preorder. This is a Nintendo site and this isn't good Nintendo news. Sounds like Wii U all over again.
Maybe I should save myself the disappointment. I can't go through another generation with so few games like I did with Wii U. I had to pick up a whole new hobby. I learned a skill toy, yo-yo. Or "throwing" as they call it now a days. I'm glad I did but still. I miss video games.

@BiasedSonyFan And I'll say that you are entirely wrong in thinking that's a valid defence or excuse for the current or future Switch situation to anyone that actually cares about a truly rewarding and satisfying console experience—which, for all of us gamers and consumers in here, is all we should really care about standing up for at the end of the day.

We are not Nintendo's accountants or marketing machine-men. And, as far as I'm aware, the vast majority of us don't own shares in Nintendo either. So . . .

I'm not here to argue about what's good for Nintendo's bottom line—but, to be VERY CLEAR, I think it will absolutely make a profit if it does what I say too, so it's actually pretty stupid to argue against what I'm suggesting anyway, as it's ultimately better/best for everyone involved in the long-term as far as I'm concerned—I'm here to argue about what's directly good for you and me as gamers and consumers when it comes to the Switch.

Another day, another game Switch isn't getting

There's some top-shelf engineers and market specialists up in here, y'all sure showing Nintendo a thing or two.

Lol.

^Hardly Yasume.

Let's face facts here. System isn't out until next month, and how many years has this been in some form of development from paper/pencil, to computer plotting, and then into coding and assets? You'd have to be delusional to think they'd add another platform on a totally untested new betting the farm on it type IP. If it wins out in the sales, then sure it would get considered. Had the WiiU not blown so badly and was not so backwards on the insides and weaker that they could have shoveled PS4 stuff to it, and it had the healthy base it never received Nintendo would have likely got it too.

Haven't read the comments, but I can guess what they're like.

Negativists/Drama Queens: Oh noes! Switch isn't getting any third party support because it's so weak! Nintendo is doomed. Switch will sell less than the Wii U.

Fanboys: Good, I didn't want that stinky game anyway! Switch is too good for games like this. [Third party game that is coming to Switch] looks way better.

For my part, this not coming to Switch doesn't bother me, as it didn't look appealing to me anyway, and, outside of a few smaller Western companies, I only care about how much Japanese third party support it gets, but it's always better to have more software options than fewer software options.

There are very few games about which I care less than this one.

This isn't a surprise at all. No company is gonna be putting one of their big titles on the switch unless they see the switch being successful. We're lucky to even see a company dipping their toe in at this point with a low production cost title, and it'll most likely be after the holiday season until we potentially see otherwise.

@BiasedSonyFan
Ahh the great inflation debacle in the consumer goods market. Accounting for inflation hits the company hard when they're running the numbers. But "inflation" has meant "stagflation" since the 70's. Inflation hits the business numbers, but consumers have no more and usually less discretionary. So $200, to the consumer is actually MORE expensive now than it was 10 years ago, while representing less inflationary margin. Accounting for inflation, games should be $130 or so. That would be a hard sell for entertainment. From the consumer perspective a $200 discretionary toy needs to be $160 or so to be impulse purchased as readily in the current economy, despite the current value.

That's the great trauma across all consumer goods industries. Entertainment gets hit the hardest from it of course. OTOH it's Nintendo's job to analyze the market and determine the right price/product.

I think Nintendo's stuck in a difficult situation. Clearly the core gaming market is not, and never again will be their market. But this casual market they helped create really is not either. They need to carve out that in between space. You're not wrong about some mobile gamers buying game-specific mobile devices, and they ARE the target audience here. Those dedicated to time and money on gaming are ripe candidates to sell on a bigger, better experience. That's the niche of the Switch in a nutshell, absolutely. But that's not the party game crowd. That's the FE: Heroes and P&D crowd being sold on FE2018 and Bomberman R. I agree that's a serious market for Nintendo with this product. But I don't think that's the same as the "party game" crowd. That's the "New Casual" I was referring to.

Let's see what the game is like before we worry about switch version just like he said

If games for the switch are all going to be 'waving my arms around like an idiot again' then count me out. I just want to be able to play without wearing myself out with motion controls...one thing that I got tired of on the Wii and what others got tired of. I'm not into the virtual reality, my 3DS is never on the 3D effect (that's basically because of headaches from doing it and eye strains...even on the new 3ds models), and when I'm trying to wake myself up early in the mornings, and want to play a game, it's not in the way of swinging my arms around like a bird trying to take flight.

Anyways, it's nice to see that they're waiting to see how the game sells, but if it sells well, who would buy it on the Switch, considering that when nintendo gets it, the game will likely be 1-2 years old, have a cheaper price on the others, and will get a price tag on the Switch for probably $60? Guess we're in for another Wii and Wii U era, where nintendo gets gipped on many games again...bring on shovel ware and party games.

@BiasedSonyFan I think people need to look back and see what the Atari Jaguar cost, or even look at the prices of NES and Atari 2600 games in the days...basically, adding on to what they would cost today and looking at what they cost back then...figuring out the money like you stated...games and systems were just as expensive back then. The Atari Jaguar I saw for $800, and that was in the late 80's early 90's...the games were from $100 and up. Adding up to what that would cost if it was today, is high in price, and people need to also look at consoles...they were expensive back then and are expensive now...cheap consoles are basically gone and $300 for a handheld and console together is not a bad price...it's just a lot of money up front, but if it gets its play value, then it's worth it. Basically, this is almost everything that you stated!

@millarrp I played the closed beta last weekend, and it's quite good. Other than not knowing how good its long-term support from Ubisoft will be, it's effectively a known quantity at this point.

@BiasedSonyFan I think the publishers might have a bone to pick with that comment They've been complaining about shrinking margins for ages and lamenting that they can't adjust pricing for inflation due to consumer income stagnation and regression. Instead they made an end run, the on-disc DLC, paid online, season passes, and microtransactions are simply schemes designed to increase the price of games in a way consumers don't realize the price increased. So it was kind of a trick statement I made. They actually did raise the price. They did it in sneaky ways because consumers would reject an increase in sticker price on an entertainment product at this time.

Oh, I don't disagree on price, I'm in the camp that believes the console is very appropriately priced (and likely wont need a price drop.) My point was that for the Wii-type audience, the party game, super-casual (that's mostly moved to mobile) the price point is not suited for impulse buying as a party device, and even the $200 Wii price point would no longer be suitable for that audience in 2017. They're well accustomed to $.99 and free on a device they already own. Switch is a non-starter in the market that was once Wii. (*again, always the caveat that I mean outside Japan. Japan is different and that market is still a thing. So is the video arcade.)

That's what I mean by the need to redefine casual. We're talking about "casual" meaning dropping $300+$50, possibly more. Maybe even $20-30/yr for online. So $380 out of the gate. That is very far from the Wii casual audience, and moreso in the current economics. So what is the "casual" that Switch needs to target? I think the "casual" that is prepared to spend that for a dedicated gaming device is less the "casual" we know and more "a gamer". I don't mean the For Honor kind of "gamerz!1!" That's actually a niche. Nobody spending $350 min on a machine that does nothing but play games is particularly "casual" about playing games, no matter what genre they're playing. At the most casual, we're looking at the group you identified: The "hardcore mobile gamer" looking for an upgrade to something better. That also serves the stated long term purpose of Nintendo mobile games of weening people away from mobile and back into dedicated game consumers.

I imagine 1-2-S sales, initially, will be good. Lots of people will want to show off their Switch and that's a good way to do it. I just don't think it will have a huge add-on effect long term in terms of market formation as the Wii did, but early success could give Nintendo the wrong lessons (yet again.) That market really does not exist now. It's in too many different fragments, at much lower price points, and proved the effort required to win their business only yields short term rewards. Great on paper, but there's a Gamepad shaped reckoning to be had for it.

@BiasedSonyFan Well, I don't need anyone else's confirmation in that regard to know I'm right when I say it would indeed be better for all us. It's really simple for the most part: If Nintendo did what I'm saying then we'd all be getting pretty much every single thing we're already getting anyway PLUS a whole bunch of undeniably great stuff we're not getting (certainly not now, and probably not in the future for half of the stuff either). I mean, I highly doubt anyone that isn't a blindly loyal fanboy would seriously argue that a whole lot more big AAA third party games, a slightly cheaper launch price for the system, a bundled digital game at no extra cost to us, a fully realised Virtual Console (FULLY realised), cheaper peripherals in general, a much better online, and that kind of thing, would somehow be bad and/or worse for us—so it simply adds up to "better all-round" any way any logical person looks at it from where I'm sitting. And that's really all I'm fighting for here: Making things just a little bit better, or maybe even a lot better, for all of us. It's not my job to work out how Nintendo gets to that from its corporate perspective (a bunch of number crunchers, shareholders, and advertising men, etc); it is, however, my job as a gamer and consumer, and indeed a slowly-but-surely drifting Nintendo fan, to fight for it. I just want Nintendo to be the absolute best it can be once again—in a way that not only the most blindly loyal fanboys see as "great".

@SLIGEACH_EIRE Not entirely sure the Switch is that weak, it would have required some graphical downgrades for sure, but any console that can run Dark Souls 3 is likely able to run For Honour with just a little bit of work. Not sure if you've seen the "Boundary Break" episode of Dark Souls 3... but it shows how much grunt it takes to run (the bosses always stay loaded in their rooms making unique bored sounds until you turn up etc.).

I think it's more likely Ubisoft just don't think they'll sell enough copies of For Honour on the Switch to make the port-money back again. It also doesn't help that if For Honour sold under 2m units on any console it could be considered to have failed on that system... something Ubisoft don't want the bad press for.

You could be right of course, Nintendo doesn't seem to be making much effort to make us think any different.

@Haz that's cool. Hopefully it's the new norm and not an anomaly

@MegaMari0 Same here. I forgot this game was even a thing until I saw this article. So I guess I can't be too upset about it not coming to Switch.

Shame. I'd actually never heard of this game and I'm unsure after the trailer but will keep an eye on it, Ubisoft make some great games and this might turn out to be another. Sadly I doubt it would do well on Nintendo anyway. I mean look at the reaction it's getting here. Dismissal, hate and mockery from people who've not even played it yet.
Far more disappointing than the news that it might never come to Switch.

@BiasedSonyFan "They just need better <snip> support than they got during the Wii U era. I don't think that's a foolhardy endeavor."

There, I fixed it

And actually after the discussion on the Super Bowl ad thread, my fears about their marketing are almost completely alleviated. The commercial we saw last week was the extended cut, and indicated a continued push at recreating the Wii. The final 30sec spot showed only the Switch playing Zelda as it moved through the various activities of the day. I.E. focusing on the Switch's switchability and versatility to adapt to your life rather than focusing on flailing around with parties holding Wiiimo..err..Joycons. Seeing that's the part their pared the commercial down to at the expense of the Wii stuff reaffirms the ORIGINAL October message of marketing before the Jan12 presentation muddied the waters accompanied by their other imagery. The central hook was the hybrid....but then they swung to the central hook being dual wiimotes. It looks like they're realigning behind the hybrid hook for good now. And that's a very good thing.

But, yeah, it needs more casual support...or gamer support...or retailer support....honestly all it has to do is show up and it's already on its way to outpacing the WiU

@Ogbert I actually really like most Ubi games. But honestly, if you watched the E3 show this was the snooze fest part. The song & dance opening for Just Dance was more entertaining. Steep looked like a cool new IP and take on a genre. THIS...really looked like it had great production values and lacking gameplay. Though for Nintendo it's an image incompatibility first and foremost.

Ubi makes some good games, and I think that's what's wrong with this one. I felt like I was watching an EA trailer rather than a Ubi trailer. It just lacks that Ubi magic that makes even horrible games seem creative.

Makes sense. The Switch is going to drop at least a month after the initial launch date, and "AAA" titles like For Honor make almost all their money in the first month. If the system isn't going to be out for a simultaneous release, there's not much point to making a port, as anybody seriously interested in the game will have bought it on another platform by then.

That's the mistake Ubi kept making with their Wii U ports; not only did the games they were porting have established fanbases on the Playstation and Xbox platforms, but they almost never had launch date parity on any of them. Maybe Black Flag launched same-day on the Wii U, but everything else was several months behind and suffered because of it. It's smart of them not to make the same mistake this time around.

Are we going to start reporting on every game that isn't planning a Switch version?

I would agree that this is a good move. Devs can't pivot this quickly for something that's uniquely different. They will if there's a huge install base, but until we see some solid system adoption, don't expect 3rd parties to be bending over backwards to get games on the system.

@speedracer216

"Motion controls will not sell this time around."

AGREED.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE I highly doubt that is either the xbox one nor the ps4 version will look like....

Have to be realistic guys. This is graphically demanding game. The frame rate will see drops in PS4.

There is just no way they could get this running on switch without some serious comprises being made.

@NEStalgia and as I said I too am unsure about the trailer but I'm not dismissing it or mocking it or glad it's not coming to Switch (as if by some weird logic, not having third party games will make the first party ones even better or something?). I'm keeping my mind open, perhaps they're just not doing a great job of showing me why it's super amazing and exciting yet. Perhaps it's one of those games that is a lot more enjoyable to play rather than watch. I remember when Nintendo announced Splatoon, I was very unsure, but now it's one of my favourite games! You might not be doing those things either btw, but others here are and they keep doing it.

It's just really tiring and frustrating to see so many Nintendo fans dismiss all that isn't Nintendo. It's really bad for Nintendo and us, it's fans. It means they don't get the support from third parties as their core audience dismiss them for no reason and then they struggle to bring in the wider audiences. That means sales are reduced, risks can't be taken with big new IPs or lower tier established IPs. It means Nintendo don't have competition on their own system forcing them to step up their game but instead sticking to tried and true formula, they don't see the innovation the others bring to their games (look at the NSMB series for a classic example). It makes Nintendo fans look stupid as a whole, as we look like an inward looking lot refusing to acknowledge anything outside our little Nintendo bubble which in turn makes Nintendo look bad and like a closed community, again affecting sales.

This game might not turn out to be any good at all. It might turn out to be the most amazing thing ever. Either way the Switch is in no way better for not having it at all. Even if it were a graphically reduced version that sold just enough to break even that would be better than nothing. Whether it's good or not - a notion that's for the most part subjective anyway.