Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot has previously said the French-based company is a big fan of Nintendo and its new system. It has already released Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle on the platform and will soon launch Starlink: Battle for Atlas - with the Switch version featuring Star Fox.
As rosy as the current relations between Ubisoft and Nintendo are, one recurring question is if the Switch will ever receive games like Assassin’s Creed and Rainbow Six. During a chat with Metro GameCentral, Rainbow Six Siege brand director Alexandre Remy was asked if the team-based first-person shooter would ever come to the Nintendo Switch. This was his reply:
[It’s] not possible with the technical constraint and especially the frame rate of the game; 60 frames per second plus destruction is a bit CPU heavy and Switch is not yet the Nintendo console where it’ll be.
This follows on from last week when the Assassin’s Creed Odyssey game director Scott Phillips revealed he would port the game to the Switch if he had the programming skills to do so.
Earlier this month, Ubisoft revealed it had halted development on the Switch version of Steep, and before then announced it was releasing two hand-drawn titles from 2014 on the device.
Do you think Ubisoft will ever release any of its bigger game series on the Switch? Are you happy with its current offerings on the system? Tell us below.
As much as I love me some Rainbow Six, especially for the terrorist hunt, I already knew this wasn't possible. Too much strain on the system to get it to run respectably. That being said, I have more than enough options to play it on besides Switch.
Ubi will only release kids games for Switch.
Can't wait for the Panic Button comments to show up.Because for some reason that's what people on here only know what to say.
@Nincompoop Like South Park!
@subpopz I believe with a game like this it’s probably best to be multi-platform as Switch has a relatively small online base. This means that if they can’t get it to run at 60fps, it’s probably better for them not to make it.
Ubisoft admit they don’t have the programming chops for a decent Switch version, then so be it - I don’t want a half-arsed version.
To be honest, if I liked these types of games, then I’d have a PS4 or Xbox.
@RyanSilberman @TossedLlama No Ass games for Switch because they already released a Butthole game.
@TossedLlama that's all I remember to spell it
I just ONLY Need proper Casual / Family Oriented games from Ubisoft like Petz, Imagine, other localised Japanese games.
Bring those games on Nintendo Switch !
Honestly I have rainbow six. That game isn’t amazing looking. Lol. It can be scaled.
@MsJubilee I think we all know realistically, they can't port everything. Doesn't mean they're name shouldn't be in the conversation considering what they've been able to do so far.
Playing this on the switch especially with jthe joy cons would be an absolute nightmare.
It would be better if companies would take the time to build games for the Switch, rather than porting games meant for modern PCs or PS4/Xbone. The Switch lacks the power, as much as I do love the device, the hyper realism/photo realistic graphics that dedicated home consoles and PCs have, is just a bit too much for the Switch.
However the Switch is plenty powerful enough to make great games for, as we have seen plenty of. Even very beautiful games. BotW, Mario+Rabbids and Xenoblade 2 are gorgeous games and have one thing in common, they were made for the device.
I seem to be in a minority here but, there are plenty of older Xbox 360 and PS3 titles that we never saw on Nintendo, that have never really been portable, that I'd love to see on Switch as ports instead, and those titles would run more than fine. I'd love a Mass Effect Triology, COD 4 Modern Warfare, Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 remasters, GTA 4 and 5, Gears of War 1-3, Assassin's Creed, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Final Fantasy 13.
Sure, many of you are saying "I played all those last gen!" and good for you. I played most of them too. But you know what, I'd play them again on Switch, and I know I am not alone in that. And there are plenty of titles that people missed out on for one reason or another that they'd pick up now on the Switch.
I am okay with ports like that. And there are still a good few Wii U ports I'd like playing too or again, on Switch. All of these games are great port targets.
But for new games, I would rather games built for the Switch, built with the Switch's power level in mind, rather than having demanding games built for more powerful hardware, shoved onto the Switch which can barely run them.
"not YET the Nintendo console"
I think Ubi may know something about the Switch Pro.
Switch is more & more feels like Wii U for me, almost the same AAA library 'thanks' to ports, eShop overflooded by indies, and now a poor 3rd-party support despite of inutial marketing. But I bought it mostly for new exclusives which will start to come in this fall.
im calling bs on ubisoft it seems their not even going to try at all sounds lazy too me they cant always give us just dance games besides mario rabbid crossover game which was awesome.
@oji switch has a strong 3rd party support from actual developers like bethesda,bandai,platinum, and couple of others but ubisoft their just like ea dont want to put these types of games on the switch.
Considering that Ubisoft can't even manage to pull together a properly optimised Monopoly game for the system, it doesn't surprise me that they lack the expertise to port more demanding games to the hardware. Bear in mind that Monopoly was designed from the ground up from the platform and was not a port, so Ubisoft had no excuses to release it in the state that they did.
Not only is Monopoly laughably lacking in content, it also causes the console to overheat, suffers frequent frame rate drops when playing the "living boards" (which is the meat of the package), and it drains the battery pretty quickly. Even worse is that performance doesn't improve at all in docked mode (well, not that I can discern anyway). And it launched with an embarrassing loading bug.
I don't think Doom ever overheated or drained the battery as quickly as friggin' Monopoly.
Edit: I just want to point out that I have enjoyed my time with the game, as it is nice to have a game that can be played whilst doing something else (such as during a meal and/or ad breaks etc.), but I have been quite disappointed with its shortcomings, especially for a game as relatively simple as Monopoly. Uno, also by Ubisoft, suffers from similar issues (particularly in respect to overheating and battery consumption).
So glad I don't give two $#!+$.
Except that BotW wasn't made for the device, it was made for Wii U.
@MsJubilee on the one hand I also get a little tired of it, on the other hand panic button is the only one who delivers right now...
I would just like an Assassin's Creed Black Flag port from Ubi, and depending on how much investment is needed, maybe Starlink.
@EightBitMan Does Mario+Rabbids no longer count?
@PigmaskFan why are so many people repeating this? Is there a source? Probably the idea was born during the WiiU, bit I think Nintendo knew pretty early when they will release their new device and developed it with both systems in mind. People keep claiming Nintendo don't do fan service, but I think BotW was onenof the biggest fan services for the WiiU people could wish for. They could just release it for Switch and force WiiU buyers to get one if they want to play it...
What a surprise. I laugh now when I think of everyone (including myself) who though Ubisoft was gonna support the Switch actively
@EightBitMan Underpowered for what? It's not underpowered for Breath of the Wild, or Okami HD or ARMS or any of the other 40-something games I've bought for it. It's not underpowered for Dead Cells or Valkyrie Chronicles IV, which I'll be buying. It wasn't underpowered for Ubisoft's own Mario+Rabbids.
It's only underpowered if you think every gaming device needs to be able to play the biggest and loudest AAA games at the highest settings. But why should it? There are plenty of other options for playing those games.
I have a PC that could run Rainbow Six if I was interested. Or I could have bought a PS4 instead of a Switch. It's not like there aren't any more of them left. I didn't buy one because I don't care about those games.
I'm honestly not understanding why you think Nintendo should be trying to compete with Sony and Microsoft on their terms? Seems to me they're doing pretty well in their own niche, and millions of people are pretty happy with what they've come up with. I know I am.
I think more than anything, Ubisoft is not willing to put that much money into development of a Rainbow Six Siege game. They want an easy port.
@mazzel It's one of those stories that remain persistent because there's a grain of truth in them. BOTW WAS going to be a Wii U game. It was supposed to come out in 2015. The story and basic elements of the game WERE developed with the Wii U in mind.
Unfortunately, Nintendo went through three different physics engines and redesigned everything from the ground up two or three times before they found something that worked, and by the third attempt the Switch was already on the horizon. So the actual development of the game we ended up with was done on Wii U and Switch hardware simultaneously. Not a port, but a multi-platform game.
@mazzel Panic button is one team. They can't be the solution to the Switch third party problem.
Switch (or any other platform) is not getting all the games on the market, whether you like it or not. I recommend investing on a second platform or just enjoy what the Switch has to offer.
This isn't surprising. No matter how well the Switch does, it is never going to get the third party support it needs due to hardware limitations. ¯(ツ)/ ¯
@EightBitMan It’s developed by people at Ubisoft with ideas thought up by people at Ubisoft with Nintendo staff only supervising. And Ubisoft publishing the game. It sounds like a third party exclusive made by Ubisoft to me.
And no, Panic Button are not wizards with the power of sorcerery to bring every game to the platform.
Of course not. An awful fit anyway. Anything that relies on Online Play is inherently restricted due to the Portable USP and there’s no way they’d get this running on the Switch at 60fps.
It still amazes me that people still don’t realise Switch isn’t designed for games like this deliberately and Nintendo aren’t targeting the market for games like this deliberately, because there are other Consoles and the PC that service the market. Can people really not cope with Nintendo or any other Console
Manufacturer doing something different? ‘Durrrrr must copy PlayStation’. I despair at the myopia and ignorance of that mindset.
It’s not going to get the same support as PS4 or XB1 but it doesn’t need to.
“ Panic Button are not wizards with the power of sorcerery to bring every game to the platform.”
😂 Spot on.
now having tested siege on multiple hardware variants and iterations, down to an old ass i5 dual core, i know that for the PvP this is just a buncha horse crap. Heck, even an i5 650 was running it at 60 frames no problem with a GTX950.
he wasn't lying though, it is more cpu demanding. it was just about maxing that dual core i5...but the switch has a vastly better cpu than that.
but in terrorist hunt...yeah probably not. thats pretty more demanding.
Sounds like a combination of laziness and that they don’t want to have to actually invest money into something
Totally agree on 360/PS3 ports. I’m surprised there isn’t more. Take Assassins Creed, the recent versions would melt the Switch, but a remaster of the first or a port of the more obscure Rogue would make sense. Much easier and more cost effective than trying to squeeze Rainbow Six Siege into 720p30 to find there isn’t much of an audience for it.
Why would they invest a lot of money into something that may not make any?
One thing i can say :
"Nintendo is NOT Sony / Microsoft !"
You CANNOT Expect a Cookie cutter of video games.
Oh, i played Overcooked 2, that Cute Cooking Party game but DAMN..... some levels are Hard and i played it VERY SERIOUSLY to Clear each levels.
Tell me, which Nintendo Switch games is NOT Serious ?
@EightBitMan “No Metroid Prime 4 is going to help this console, just like Mario Kart 8 didn't save the Wii U from becoming this absolute disaster it eventually became.”
It’s “saved” by Pokémon Let’s Go Pikachu and Evee
@EightBitMan It's interesting that you mention the Gamecube, because I was actually going to mention that in my original response to your previous comment. The Gamecube was the last time Nintendo tried to compete with Sony and Microsoft on their own terms, i.e. processing power, and it was a complete disaster. The GC bled franchises like crazy, ended up selling less than a fifteenth of the PS2's sales, and nearly ended Nintendo as a hardware company. Two years after its launch Nintendo literally had millions of unsold Gamecubes on their hands, that they were only able to get rid of by slashing its price in half. In the final analysis the GC barely outsold the Dreamcast, and that was the console that killed Sega. If Nintendo hadn't already had millions of dollars squirreled away from previous generations, they would not be selling hardware today.
This is exactly why Nintendo don't try to keep up with the Twins' processing power anymore. They did, once, and it was an unmitigated failure. Ever since then they have been making "underpowered" devices with Nintendo's own vision behind them. The Switch is what it is because the Gamecube was very, very, very bad for Nintendo.
I loved the Gamecube. I got mine the week it launched, still have it and still play games on it. But that "better third-party support" completely evaporated by the end of its first year on the market, mostly due to Sony being far more aggressive than Nintendo in marketing and making deals with developers. By the end of its run Nintendo lost every major franchise and most of the hardcore gamer audience. They're only just starting to regain the ground they lost then, because while the Switch may be considered underpowered it's a fun device that has captured people's imagination, developed serious hype and proven that you don't have to have major processing power to play great games.
If you consider the Switch "intolerable" and famcy yourself part of "a more serious audience" that "has outgrown the Nintendo franchises", there are several other options that will cater to your needs. Gaming PCs exist. PS4 and Xbox exist. The gaming world doesn't need for the Switch to be a copy of them. I'm not sure why you think it should.
Be patient with Eightbitman.
That people is NOT a Nintendo gamer.
He just expect Nintendo MUST be a Clones of PS4 / Xbox1 / PC.
Let him express his Blah Blah Blah, we just only listen to him.
I would rather Child of Light anyway so its no big deal I wouldnt even buy this game
@electrolite77 because that’s what game companies used to do Pokémon on gameboy is a perfect example they worked their buts off even though it was possible it wasnt going to work
Games companies invest if they think they will make money. That’s always been the case and is still. Pokemon isn’t a good comparison.
A game that’s been out for 3 years on PS4/XB1/PC, would be difficult to get working and run worse than on the competition, and has a heavy Online focus that instantly reduces the potential Switch userbase, is a difficult sell as an investment.
“But also understand that there are people out there who find the Switch absolutely intolerable,”
There are also pepole who love it. There are also people who have no interest in PlayStation or Xbox, or gaming on a PC. There are also people happy to buy different systems that offer different things (“serious users”). That’s why the best thing for the industry to do is offer alternatives. Three home systems trying to do almost exactly the same thing, pitching to almost the same market along with the PC, is sheer lunacy.
@EightBitMan You having fallen out of liking Nintendo franchises has blinded you to the tens of millions of people who don't feel the same way apparently. The Switch is a huge success, there is a metric F-ton of 3rd party games and indies and a lot of them have sold very well. The Switch may not get all the top AAA 3rd party games but those other systems don't get the AAA Nintendo releases. Those others also don't have portability which for me is very important. Wii U comparisons are laughable, the amount of games already available on the Switch is insane and a ton more announced every week. Switch is a huge seller and will remain so going forward. The Wii U was dead in the water before the 1st year of its life ended.
Sounds right, the game isn't old enough for the Switch.
@electrolite77 I think people should keep their expectations realistic and not assume anything can come to it because of DOOM and Wolfenstein 2.
That's why I don't really have a problem with older ports. Power is much less of an issue with those and there's plenty of fantastic games that I'm sure a lot of the Nintendo fanbase haven't gotten to experience.
Personally, the portability aspect is such a big thing for me that I'm even willing to get certain games on it over the other versions or repurchase games I already played.
Anything is possible they just dont have the skills that panic button do
@Wanjia Switch online games can use dedicated servers, just look at games like Fortnite and Paladins.
That is the kind of game that IMO seems like it would be garbage on anything but KB&M honestly. I'm sure they just wouldn't want to bother otherwise. The game is fairly old by now, their sales for it are saturated, and crossplay would be a fools errand. Therefore a potentially dead game for switch that needs lots of care to port. I wish companies would stop lying. I mean I get it, it would be a big risk, and UBI doesn't want to take said risk. Big deal, we get it, just say that...lying makes you look like idiots.
I wouldn’t miss this not being on the switch, If I wanted to play games like this I’d have a PlayStation or an xbox.
I got the switch for the zelda, Mario, Kirby games, I’m not big on the hyper realistic games.
I wouldn’t miss this not being on the switch, If I wanted to play games like this I’d have a PlayStation or an xbox.
I got the switch for the zelda, Mario, Kirby games, I’m not big on the hyper realistic games.
I wouldn’t miss this not being on the switch, If I wanted to play games like this I’d have a PlayStation or an xbox.
I got the switch for the zelda, Mario, Kirby games, I’m not big on the hyper realistic games.
And not to forget the 4gb ram limitation on Switch. But then again Nintendo wasn't aiming for heavy gaming anyway. For this such games best to get on PC or PS4 or xbox
@WesEds exactly. we won't be lost without it on Switch
@Varelius I would suggest the Switch CPU isn't vastly superior or even as good as that i5. That's a dual core with hyper threading, so 4 logical cores at 3.2g vs a quad core Arm cortex a57 at just 1020mhz, so 60fps would definitely be off the table on Switch but probably not impossible at 30 fps given some other games that have come over
Yeah totally agree with that. The same principle agrees with remasters on to current home systems I.e. there are enough people new to the game or willing to double dip to make it worthwhile. Except the portability of the Switch adds another good reason. We have seen recent games that get ported to PS4 and XB1 get a Switch release (LA Noire, Okami, Dark Souls (eventually)) so hopefully we’ll see more. Seems a good chance of some easy money there.
“Anything is possible they just dont have the skills that panic button do”
No it isn’t. Everybody stop this, just stop. It’s like a meme now.
@EightBitMan “no Metroid Prime 4 is gonna help this console” is one thing I can agree with you. It feels like a bubble of Nintendo fanboys that overhype that title as a system seller, the same people who already have a Switch.
However, I disagree that the Switch needs much help in the first place; I view it primarily as a portable machine that plays home console titles VS a main home console system where everything is available. Sometimes I do want to blame Nintendo for the Switch’s limitations but then I remember that was the best they could do with hardware to keep the price point accessible. An upgraded model should rectify its shortcomings once the technology for it gets cheap enough to produce it (and it still won’t be as powerful as a Microsoft/Sony console, it is a handheld system). If Nintendo titles aren’t your thing (they’re not mine either, I’m not judging) and if you exclusively play in docked mode, the Switch is not for you right now and probably never will be.
@electrolite77 lets just face it ubisoft just want to churn reskined games like the 100th iteration of ass creed. They dont want to try and rengineer.
As I said earlier, what would be the point in taking the time and money to port an Online-focussed 3-year-old game that would run much worse than on other systems? These publishers are businesses, not charities for Nintendo fans or anyone who wants game like Rainbow Siege but won’t buy a PS4/XB1/PC.
@MsJubilee Finally someone said it. Thank you.
@PigmaskFan Originally yes. But let's face it, the Wii U version will be largely forgotten but the Switch version will be the one the majority of players played. And the Switch isn't really that much more powerful than Wii U, so it's a comparable level of power to think of when developing.
@Heavyarms55 said '"Originally yes. But let's face it, the Wii U version will be largely forgotten but the Switch version will be the one the majority of players played. And the Switch isn't really that much more powerful than Wii U, so it's a comparable level of power to think of when developing."
The Wii U has only 1Go of memory allowed for the games, the other one is for the system when the Switch has 4Go and use only 0.5Go for the system. So 1Go Vs 3.5Go, hummm huge difference.
The GPGPU is less powerful too on Wii U Vs Switch.
So, from my perspective, Zelda BOTW on Wii U is admirable and more than impressive when you see the final result. The Switch version is good too but with the SPECS available, I think Nintendo could have done better.
Basically, the Wii U version is fantastic from a tech point of view while the Switch version is just good.
Another round of good news from Ubisoft.
And for a moment I thought they would be the best third party Devs supporting the Switch.
Whether it comes to Switch or not Rainbow Six Siege wasn't even that great anyways, if anything I would had prefer them to just port Rainbow Six Vegas 1 and/or 2. Those two were much better.
@Wanjia there is always market for PVP games on hand held platform, as example rented league is extremely popular on Nintendo Switch. And I am dreaming to have something like battlefield three and four or even call of duty black ops II on Switch.
@Wanjia There's likely more to it than that. Developers often have a vision that they want for their games. In R6S, the game targets a locked 60fps on the consoles and has a solid online infrastructure. It has dynamic maps thanks to the heavy use of destructible environments.
Unfortunately, destructible environments are very CPU heavy and as a result, the game probably could not run at 60fps on the Switch. A developer like Panic Button might be able to get it running at an unlocked 30fps but that would compromise the 'twitch' based nature of the game, hence the 'not possible' comment.
Furthermore, the Switch's online infrastructure has not been tested yet and for a dedicated multiplayer title, this could make or break the game on Switch.
It's possible we may get it in the future but I doubt it.
If a developer doesn't want to cut off the fat, it's their choice. If Ubisoft is interested, it will only be their right and position to try and coax him or press whatever panic buttons are within reach. But Switch is a Nintendo console where many other RS games can already appear, so the trick here is not about specs - it's about paying no mind to the "too many old ports!" fandom bullcrap. Ubisoft, like plenty others, thankfully appears to be relatively familiar with this trick.
Most of the 'big third party games coming to the Switch' talk is, 'what has to be sacrificed to allow this to happen. Then when the game is made and reviewed: it's comparison time. Speed checks, fps testing, side by side graphics comparison, loading times etc. And then we get,' its a good trade off to be able to play these graphics heavy games made for a big screen, played on the handheld on the bus on the way to work.
If Nintendo want these games, then make a more powerful Switch.
Otherwise it's time to own 2 consoles. One for blockbuster games and one for Nintendo games. And split our games spend between two companies.
“If Nintendo want these games, then make a more powerful Switch.”
They don’t care.
“Otherwise it's time to own 2 consoles. One for blockbuster games and one for Nintendo games. And split our games spend between two companies.”
It’s been that way for 20-odd years for me and a lot of people. I doubt whether Nintendo cares whether their system is the primary system or secondary system for anyone as long as people buy it and their games. The other option is trying to outmuscle Sony or MS and that isn’t going to happen.
I like the look of Mario Vs Rabbids but other than that I'm not a huge fan of Unisoft games. I don't enjoy Assassin's Creed although Black Flag was good. Rainbow Six and Splinter Cell online always seemed a bit buggy for me.
@EightBitMan ah so that narrows down your age - “grown out of” is a statement made by someone not old enough to be an adult but really trying to prove they are.
I’m 39 and still play Mario, Zelda, Kirby and also enjoy Red Dead series, GTA and lots of other mature games.
Nintendo IPs were never for kids. They were for everyone. Nintendo machines have never been for kids only that’s an excuse that publishers use when they don’t have intelligence to explain their reasons.
The way i see it:
I've never docked my Switch because i cant. I don't own a TV because i live on a boat.
So to me this is 100% portable... Because guess what...? This is a portable console with TV-out features (the dock).
That IS what this is... Nintendo will make this a success because Nintendo run the portable market and have done for 30 years.
Do i expect all games like this to come on the Switch? No...
Does it matter? No
Will other alternative games come on the Switch? Yes
When has Nintendo's handhelds not had games!!!???
Very simple really... If you want to play everything... You buy one portable console and you buy a stationary console.
There are 3 stationary consoles to choose from and one portable. Doesn't take much to figure out what will happen there.
@Razer Lol! Finally! another Switch owner that lives a boat!
@cfgk24 The Switch is the only option for us nomads 😂
@Razer Also, I use a portable Projector on the boat!
I mean honestly though... This is a portable handheld gaming device. To expect all games to be available on a portable gaming device that are available on full gaming consoles is delusional...
I genuinely see people who wonder why Nintendo Switch can't get games like Red Dead 2 as delusional.
@cfgk24 what wizardry is this?
Agree on BOTW. I half suspect Nintendo had plans to update it further, saw how it was selling without and decided not to bother.
Good, the game was disappointing anyways and it never lived up to it's namesake.
@Heavyarms55 Gears of War should not even be considered as a possibility since it's owned by Microsoft.
@MonkeyKing It's not Epic Games?
I'd look forward more to a Switch release of The Division 2 which runs on Snowdrop engine. This is proven and runs well with Mario Rabbid's and Starlink (maybe Trials Fusion as well?) running on it.
I just wish that third party themself would understand that they themself can also optimalise a game, just like Panic Button does. Although I understand it's easier (and cheaper in the long run) to hire a team than make your own people do it.
But with how busy (and probably how expensive) Panic Button is at the moment, maybe that's not really true anymore.
I don't believe them. They are saying this, because they had to give up Steep.
How come everyone's reaction to someone saying a game isn't coming to Switch is to either say "Yeah well they can actually do it if they wanted to, they just don't care." or "Nah they're lying"
I dont really care, i play first person shooters only on PC.
i already knew they need to sacrifice a lot to make it work. Especially for ubisoft, a company who wants to earn fast money.
Say something Panic Button!
@Heavyarms55 They developed Gears 1-Judgement, but Microsoft were always the license holders.
@Scrummer Because they are couch developers that think they know more about developing games then game developers.
@MsJubilee totally agree!
@electrolite77 that is your opinion and it is a good one, but others are just as valid. And yes Nintendo will do what it thinks best. But not every thing Nintendo do is 'best', in fact much of it new ideas turn out to last only for one console and then that idea is branded a gimmick.
Nintendo said they hope to get 5/7 years from the Switch. By then 720 graphics will look dated, as does the 3ds now.
Many would rather have top end graphics and a seperate handheld console. Unless Nintendo can combine both in it next venture, the handheld part of the Switch has a limited life span.
Well thats very bad. I would love though to see a spin off Rayman Donovan Six Siege.
nope we will just shovel crap onto the switch instead of making a effort. thats what he really means
Nintendo really needs to release an upgraded dock so heavy-duty gaming is possible at home. If it had some hardware in it instead of overclocking abilities, then Nintendo would not be shafted of releases.
I like the Xbox One controller a lot, but ever since the new version of the Switch Pro Controller came out that has a normal directional pad, it's way better for these kinds of games. Nintendo needs them.
@zool well i don't think the graphics will look dated, the Switch is essentially a handheld ps3.5 (slightly more powerful than a ps3 and less powerful than a ps4).
There is no version of reality where you could try and say ps3/xbox 360 gaming portable will look dated, even in 5 to 7 years and the Switch is on a higher level than both.
But I'll entertain the notion that it could, what makes you think a Switch XL with updated hardware isn't on the cards when the console reaches 2 to 3 years?
I can't remember any instances where Nintendo haven't updated their handheld hardware after only a couple of years.
Edit: also to add, the 3ds was rocking n64 level graphics in 2011 till 2018, they defo look dated, thats for sure. But the damn thing sold 70m+ units... I just simply can't buy that ps3/xbox 360 level graphics will be dated in less time.
@Razer The Game Boy Color. That's an instance where the upgrade took several years.
But that’s the point (of my opinion, it’s all opinions of course). Top end graphics are served elsewhere and that market is saturated. Nobody else is serving the handheld market or making the same games as Nintendo. There’s nothing at all to be gained for Nintendo by making a power-focussed home system unless Microsoft drop out which doesn’t seem likely any time soon.
@electrolite77 i dunno to be honest. I think of the big 3, Microsoft is most likely to drop out at least from the home console space, i think we could see them bring a consumer ready pc gaming machine.
Pc gamers spend upwards of 600 quid for gaming rigs so Microsoft could easily corner that market... Considering they already port many of their games to the PC and 90% of computers both gaming and none gaming use their OS, it's just the next logical space for them to move into.
I certainly see
Microsoft: pc gaming space
Sony: home console gaming space
Nintendo: portable gaming space
Yeah I wondered for a while if this was it for MS but the rumours about their next systems and the investment they’ve made in software houses has changed my mind. At least for another generation.
I’m not a fan of Ubisoft. Prince of Persia 2008 still runs like garbage on the PC.
Those who want to play this game will seek other alternatives.
Ubisoft loves cinematic games so I would expect them to put this on the Switch.
And what else? So far most games have been E rated. South Park being more the exception than the rule.
@whanvee Still, the exception to "Ubisoft will only release kid games" , which was the comment he replied to. It really doesn't need more to prove that comment wrong, and well, the Switch is what? Less than a year and a half old, so I bet there's a good chance we'll see other "mature" games in the future.
The Switch is significantly underpowered because the nvidia chip used was not specifically tailored for gaming, Nvidia did not want to risk time and resources collaborating with Nintendo to make a chip that catered to Nintendo’s vision because of the failure that the Wii U was.
The Switch is basically a prototype, and the “Switch Pro” will be what the Switch was meant to be from the start, and developers won’t have as much of a problem porting games to it, still won’t be on par with Xbox and PS, and I don’t get people who are expecting that from a tablet-sized console.
Also, I read mentions of GameCube failing because Nintendo was trying to compete with power, it failed because no developers wanted to deal with those dumb tiny disk. If Nintendo opted to use normal sized disk then it would’ve gotten more games and sold more units.
@EightBitMan I completely disagree, people who still compare the switch to Wii U are brainless to me and how long has it been since Nintendo proved they have better relations with 3rd party developers when it comes to Switch? Ubisoft not porting a 3 year old game bc its impossible makes sense as they NEVER had any good programmers over at Ubi compared to other publishers. The fact alone Doom: Eternal, a brand new multiplat game is coming to switch (with more spec requirements and strain) and not Rainbow just tells me and others that its Ubisofts incompetence. Simple as that. I don't mind not having Rainbow on switch, as I have it on another platform already. I'm bothered by the fact Ubi is blaming hardware instead of them just simply not having the talent or developers to do it.
@electrolite77 actually it's because of those very same rumors that i think they will move into the pc gaming space. I actually hope they do. I just don't believe they will ever break through in Japan and because of that, they could never really compete with Sony in home consoles. Japan represents 1/3rd of the gaming market, being unable to access that will always put you in a handicapped position.
I don't support Sony, i never have, but i also haven't gotten a home console since the xbox 360, i briefly owned a WiiU but i managed to sell that to a friend after 6 months. For me Sony taking that market is not an issue. I've never owned any of their consoles. Not even a ps2 (i did play a bit with friends but i wasn't really into it)
Anyway id defo get a gaming laptop made by Microsoft. I need a gaming laptop anyway as thats the only way for me to get access to all newest games that are not on the Switch (i need Elder scrolls 6, GTA 6 and Red dead 2 like i need air).
But we'll see, mine is a hope and yours is a lot more realistic as they are already in the home console space.
@whanvee I always found the "that's just an exception" argument to be weak at best. People do it all the time to discredit literally anything.
@Mrtoad hes being salty ignore him.
@HollowGrapeJ explain why doom eternal is coming to the switch which apparently switch can handle it including the new gaming engine for it has well so people need to stop defending ubisoft or ea since their just being dam lazy.
@zool you do know switch has several games that run native 1080p and now diablo 3 at 960p in dock mode and theres nothing wrong with having 720p wen its off dock.
@whanvee I think Zombi U will come. Like Nintendo, Ubisoft has been porting Wii U games to Switch so Zombi U would be natural fit for Switch.
@electrolite77 But..... I have just read on a couple of sites that rumour suggests Nintendo could be releasing a more powerful 4k console next year. Maybe called Switch or something else. But both will play Nintendo games.
I hope the rumours are correct, I've always maintained that Zelda could have been so much better on a more powerful console. And if Nintendo are making more Zelda like games why settle for second best.
@zool dont believe every rumor out there man and nintendo has alrdy stated they have no intentions on doing the upgrade thing that sony and microsofts does with their current consoles.
@Razer Graphics are subjective. My 3ds look worse now that I play the Switch in handheld mode, I hardly play the 3ds now; OK there few if any new games for it.
As for a new Switch see my post above.
What you’ve seen is, I suspect, a now deleted Tweet regarding a new Switch with 4K upscaling by Marcus Sellars, who has no credibility whatsoever.
This seems more of a statement of Ubisofts lack of ability more than the Switchs technical shortcomings. That's nothing new as Ubisoft games often show ambition that they can't technically achieve.
If they couldn't get Siege to run then just port Raven Shield or Vegas. They are arguably better games anyway.
@Wanjia niether of them are as CPU intensive.
It's the classic "The Switch sold well a year ago, but sales are falling off of a cliff now cuz da hype is gone" BS that is spewed out by those who'd rather see Nintendo die under the shadow of their competitors rather than them succeed under the beat of their own drum.
It doesn't run good on PC
Well, it does run, but it does not run as good as it should, so asking them to release this on the Switch is impossible
Fans already have something to play this on. Not like most gamers been waiting around for most games to show up on a Nintendo device in the first place.
Just give Child of Light 2 for Switch.
No coments on Ubisoft’s coments and this article. Just want to address on the fact of Steep no coming to Nintendo Switch as NL reported before and again brought it up in this article but at the end of the post they linked as an existing game for Switch 🤷♂️
@zool yeah i did but i don't really think this will happen. Nintendo has no desire to enter 4k gaming or compete with hardware power. There just isn't any reason for them to do so.
You have to consider that in terms of portability. They are currently easily the most powerful gaming option.
You also have to consider that Nintendo are and always have been a "Japan first" company, the market in Japan around gaming favors convenience and portability over power and 4k gaming.
Case in point is the PS4... The Switch has almost amassed the same amount of sales as the PS4 in Japan in 1/3rd the time. Nintendo will double down on their own market, they can easily get a lifetime sales of 30 to 35m in Japan with the Switch... All they need is anotger 35 to 40 from the rest of the world and the Switch will be considered a solid success.
They fill a need with portability in their own home market, they don't need to chase the western market, they make their products available here so we dont get felt left out. Also there is actually a market for portability here too, its smaller than in Asia and particularly Japan... But big enough to fill a need.
They have always will release products aimed at appeasing their own market first... 4k eye candy gaming doesn't do it for the Japanese.
This seems believable enough. Just like their aborted attempt to get Steep on the Switch. I have the PS4 version, and while I didn't find it all that fun, it was absolutely gorgeous with amazing detail out to the horizon. It would have required serious scaling back and rework to make it realistic to run on the Switch. As far as their cartoonish games they are bringing, they look interesting, but with the Switch doing well, I wish they'd make something a bit more ambitious built specifically for the Switch. I loved Red Steel 2 on the Wii, so I think a new one that still incorporated motion controls for sword fighting would be a great Switch title.
@Camilla yes of course but haven't they been toned down?
But it's the games that are not coming to the Switch that this thread is about.
@Camilla Nintendo also said that the Switch is not a replacement for the Wii u. We mustn't believe everything thing Nintendo do say. 😊
@Razer 5 million PS4's and 2 million Switches. If course PS4 has had a big headstart but that is a lot of Japanese who want highend graphics. And if you add in the XBox figures that's even more.
Also many Switches are second consoles rather than main ones. Gamers then choose between graphics and portability when a game is on both consoles. Maybe portability is flavour of the month now, but more gamers will buy the PS4 version. Nintendo can't afford to lose this market. Can they?
@Stocksy I was going to say something similar about @EightBitMan, but you beat me to it. I'm reminded of something I once heard, obviously overstatement, but which makes a good point. Nintendo makes games for adults that look like they're for kids, unlike many AAA games, which are for kids but look like they're for adults. The 8bitster is clearly a kid pretending to adulthood.
@Razer You are exactly correct. The avoidance of any reply whatsoever indicates what ochobit's true intentions are: to attempt to spread his gospel, and to disparage those who do not unconditionally accept him. It's more insidious than the usual trolling. Don't worry; it's just a matter of time before the mods have enough of him.
@Agramonte It's probably coming. Someone involved with it tweeted a picture of CoL on the Switch, and in the background is a piece of paper on which you can clearly make out "f Light II".
@EightBitMan the problem is third parties. When Nintendo released a powerful console called gamecube, which was more powerful than ps2. Most companies were so far into ps2 behind that they didn't give gamecube the time or day. That is why Nintendo changed course and went their own direction.
@RyanSilberman Most comments on here are pretty good, yours is the exception,lol. I kind of course. I'm just stating the current facts. Things might change and they might also not change. I still remember the "unprecedented" support they gave us with the wiiu
@whanvee Yes. Exactly. Things could or could not change. But however you slice it, you're undermining Ubisoft's existing Switch catalog. "lol"
@MonkeyKing My mistake.
@zool i don't know where you got your numbers from but they are waaaay off... Now VG charts is normally off too but their likely to be lower than expected as they fail to gather data from all digital purchase outlets.
The Nintendo Switch has sold 4.6m according to this and the PS4 has done 6.8m.
Now if you look at the 3ds, that done 24m... Its actually 28m but thats why vg charts is off.. Anyway, i expect the Switch to top that 28m by at least 10m in their own home turf.
Of course Nintendo can afford to lose the home console market, especially when 20m people already purchased their portable device.
They can easily afford to not operate in the home console market because the portable market is HUGE.
Portable market so far = 100m at least (16m PS VITA 74m 3DS and more than 10m mobile gamers who can be enticed).
Even if Ninten only gets the same people who purchased a 3DS to purchase a Switch... They have succeeded. Easily.
You are totally underestimating the portable market.
There's probably 1,000 games that won't run on Switch.
But, there's 1,000 that can, and will. I choose to spend my time with the excellent games that do come to the system. It's a different product offering a different experience. Three platforms already offering the exact same thing. One platform offering something different. And the only thing people seem to have to say about it, is why isn't it exactly like the other 3 lol..
I totally get what he's saying. Quite few in the audience would appreciate a compromised version.
However, a bigger reason I suspect we won't be seeing a lot of Ubi's online AAAs has to do with Nintendo still not allowing Ubisoft to demand of players that they create and log in to a U-play acount to access core functionality.
@zool actually let me ask you. How do you think Nintendo have been in business for the last 6 years before the Switch? It was the 3DS... Carried their entire business and they made huge profit from it. The 3ds will end on 80m lifetime sales.
For arguments sake lets say of the 80m lifetime sales, 30m are repeated purchase (one person buying two 3DS's), thats 50m people, if you also include the PS Vita, of 16m, its popularity was too low to warrant repeat purchase but lets just round it off to 15m
Thats 65m people willing purchase a Nintendo Switch (because theres 65 million gamers who game play handheld), if you bump the number up by 20-30m for repeat purchase, you have anywhere between 80 to 95m give or take a few mill...
That is the market size for portability.
For your argument to actually work (Nintendo can't afford to lose home console market)... Well the portable market has to be smaller than what it currently is. That isn't reality therefore your argument isn't actually based on reality.
@PanurgeJr i actually kind of feel sorry for @EightBitMan. He Wishes Nintendo would cater to his needs and not ours, or rather he doesn't want to understand why we don't prefer to play games like he does.
He's angry at us for giving Nintendo a market to work in (portable). He wishes we would force Nintendo to change course and is perplexed and upset at why we dont.
He thinks that everytime Nintendo doesn't get a game, its a win for his cause... 😂😂😂.
I feel sorry for him in the same way an adult feels sorry for a child that doesn't understand grown-up things, doesn't understand why somethings just are not available to them and lashes out because of it.
@Razer I logged in just to say two things. The 3DS has sold so many copies because it has collectable versions and people have bought multiple ones. I even have two and I don't collect.
And the portable market is shrinking because mobile phones and tablets are starting to slowly take over. Apple has been edging in on gaming in a way that if they can get the ports could cause trouble for the Switch in the future and with phones getting yearly revisions its unlikely that that the Switch will even stay more powerful than them.
And that's it.
You said: "I logged in just to say two things. The 3DS has sold so many copies because it has collectable versions and people have bought multiple ones. I even have two and I don't collect."
I said: "For arguments sake lets say of the 80m lifetime sales, 30m are repeated purchase (one person buying two 3DS's), thats 50m people, if you also include the PS Vita, of 16m, its popularity was too low to warrant repeat purchase but lets just round it off to 15m
Thats 65m people willing purchase a Nintendo Switch (because theres 65 million gamers who game play handheld), if you bump the number up by 20-30m for repeat purchase, you have anywhere between 80 to 95m give or take a few mill..."
Mobile gaming is a total joke, real handheld gamers don't game on mobile phones. Casuals joes do. Even that is starting to change, many are starting to turn back to proper handheld gaming like they did with the DS... Mmobile just doesn't offer enough mobility with controls or decent enough games to sink any sort of time on.
I do agree that the mobile market HAS eaten Nintendo's cake though... But that has already happened... The DS sold 154 million units and the psp sold 75m... That market has drastically shrunk, 220m+ to barely 80-100m. But 80-100m is still big enough for Nintendo do work in
From here on out mobile wont take anything else.
@Razer It's kind of ridiculous to claim that mobile won't take anything like else when mobile has really just started taking off with dedicated gamers. The only thing that's even holding it back is lack of selection but with things like Fortnite coming over and Civilization being ported to iOS it will happen. When that happens that will further eat at the handheld sales.
Also you assume that everyone who owns a vita or 3dses will want a Switch. A lot of people just don't. They want a dedicated handheld or a continuation of the DS line which they still may get. I love my Switch but personally I would have preferred that as well and if it happens I will definitely buy one. I prefer the design of the 3DS over the design of the Switch. That's personal preference and it counts. A lot of people prefer portable to be able to be carried in their pocket.
It just feels to me that the Switch Fandom is obsessed with sales and refuses to see any flaws in the system. It's the worst kind of entitlement. I don't consider myself part of that.
Sales don't even matter to be honest. I'm not a shareholder of Nintendo nor would I want to be. If I choose to express frustration with them that's my right. I paid to play just as much anyone else.
@zool come again nintendo stated switch is going to have a much longer lifespan then the wii u ever had so no their not going to do the upgrade thing and switch is technically a replacement to the wii u.
Eh, I don't play these types (or FPS genre) on consoles anyway. Only Nintendo and Japanese quirky/2D 3rd party/indie games for me on Switch.
Pure Lazy and this is why i stopped buy from them..Just more excuses like EA nope any games that games than come to switch from them it's a pass
@Camilla according to Nintendo at the time, the Switch was not a replacement for the Wii U.
Maybe they had reasons for saying that, Zelda botw was released on the Wii u as well as the Switch. So not everything a company says is true because as you say, 'technically'.
@Camilla @Wanjia I am going from a different angle and I think a game's file size would be the easiest explanation to why Nintendo isn't getting the game. No third party game is bigger then 32GB as of yet and Nintendo is planning to introduce a 64GB cartridges in 2019 possibly with the rumour new SKU. The 32GB really puts the Switch at a sweet spot somewhere between the PS3 and PS4 which is approximately where it sits in terms of power.
@EightBitMan seems to be very critical of the Switch but Nintendo actually put the best chip it can into such a small handheld and the results showed. A PS3 Pro in the palm of your hands. (It is actually 1TFLOPs docked!) The only thing they could have done better was go Tegra X2 with a 6 months delayed launched.
I would like to add here that @EightBitMan forget that the industry reacts. They are not stagnant entities to be beaten that easily.
That's why competition exist and have been for some time. Duh!
You do realise that Nintendo is basically competing with the developer or manufacturer of the technology they want to use in their hardware, right?
I mean, what do you expect Nintendo to do then?
Why don't you tell me why Microsoft didn't use the Blu-Ray format for the XBox 360 so it could "compete"?
Why don't you tell me why Microsoft (and thus Nintendo) don't just develop their own format for everything.
If Nintendo followed them then they would effectively be doing what AMD is doing in the marketplace compared with Intel and ALWAYS come second. There is plenty of example of this.
I mean, go on, you be Nintendo, I ask you to use ANY technology available on the market to try and beat me.
There is only one condition:
No matter what you release, I'll allowed to release something either a year later or a year earlier with my own spin on it.
Lets see how far you are going to get and how many times you win in this game?
I bet you none. You will lose to me EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Nintendo was about the power game because that was all they got but since they don't make their own hardware, competitor with power elsewhere can match them in the hardware game and beat them in the console space.
Sony even developed their own processor.
DEVELOPED. OWN. PROCESSOR.
We've seen evidence of this time and time again.
PlayStation > N64
You can blame the "small" cartridges or you can look at the fact that CDs are a SONY (and Philips) thing. They developed the technology and Nintendo didn't. So what's Nintendo to do, pay heavy licencing fees to the competitor?
Sony went full on in the format they developed for even Microsoft knows to stay away.
I mean, why not call out Microsoft out for not paying money to a competing technology company in order to beat them at their own game? Why didn't Microsoft use Blu-Ray for the Xbox 360? Or a better version of the Cell processor?
a) They didn't have access to the technology.
b) If they did or could, it was probably really expensive.
Let's play another game.
You have to make a Switch clone that can beat the Switch. Same rules apply as before this time though you're only allowed to use technology I make.
I'll licence you to use the Nintendo's Switch cartridges directly, you just have to pay me for it.
You think you can beat me creating a Switch Pro?
Oh, did I forget to mention that next year, I'm going to use new 64GB cartridges that you can't licence yet while it will cost you X amounts of money for you to licence the 32GB ones.
Get the drift?
Nintendo can't compete with basically the manufacturer dude. Even nVidia wanted join the frail and started making the Tegra gaming handheld called nVidia Shield.
It just never set the world on fire. If it did and Nintendo would essentially be finished with nowhere to go. I bet in their licencing agreement, Nvidia is promised a huge chunk of money plus support for the Shield and that they can't release a competing device that is more powerful then the Switch or competes with the Switch.
@Razer I may have Googled earlier figures for sales in Japan, but the point was regarding graphics, lots of Japanese buy the PS4 and xbox, so graphics are important.
The portability issue I was talking about was for example; take Crash Bandicoot, many gamers and reviewers who have a PS4/xbox or Switch said they would buy the Switch version because of the portability it offers. My point is that the bigger more powerful games need to be played on big screens. As someone here said, a lot of fat needs to be cut from these big games to make them work on the Switch and while old games get this treatment new games won't.
I agree with your points about portability but I think Nintendo had designed the Switch as a home console that can be taken on the move. But at the last count docked and undocked play was about 50-50, some gamers buying the Switch as a handheld only.
The 3ds has come to the end of it life span, for new games anyway and the Switch is not portable enough or cheap enough to replace the 3ds...so what next? A more portable lighter Switch.
@saintayu i think misguided frustration is not good for your health, i am concerned with sales because thats really the only thing that will keep Nintendo in business.
Unlike Sony and Microsoft, who can exist if their games don't sell, Nintendo doesn't have that luxury. So yeah i tend to be concerned for the company shares or not.
Sorry but i still can't see where your going with your "mobile taking over the market"... I mean mobile has been touted to take over the portable market since the first smartphone hit the market... It hasn't happened, sure the market shrunk... But it's actually grown again since, the latter half of the 3DS was a lot more successful than the first half, that hasn't happened with other portable dedicated gaming devices... On top even developers who develope mobile games say the limitations they have to work with just doesn't allow for any ground breaking games.
Gaming phones are a niche in the market, they preform terribly... Not i just don't see your point here...
I get what you mean though about the DS. A new DS line would be welcome (to others, i want them to ditch it), especially as i can't seem to imagine what would happen to their traditional handheld games like A Link Between World or the platform Mario games.
But we'll see, yes not every portable gamer will want a Switch... But many console gamers are choosing it as the second system of choice as well.
Personally i want them to ditch the DS line and just work on the Switch. But thats my preference. We all differ... Maybe we will see a DS continuation.
Sorry bro but you need to look into Sony in Japan... Its no secret the PS4 is struggling really badly in Japan. Even Sony themselves have openly admitted as much...
A simple google search will yield many results on the subject... I mean you just need to look that the 3DS (OLD n64 graphics) has sold 5 times as much as the PS4... No where else in any market has that happened. Infact Sony has outsold the 3DS in every other market except Japan.
PS4 = dead in Japan...
@Razer @Saintayu At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if 80 million people purchased a 3DS, or 8 million people purchased 10 systems each. Sales are sales, so if Nintendo has fans willing to purchase multiple units, the end result is the same for Nintendo. Nintendo is clearly trying to replicate multiple systems per-household with Nintendo Switch as well, so it's simply another part of their business strategy.
@Razer Agreed, the 3DS early struggles were commonly blamed on Mobile taking over the market. I even did a case study for my MBA on that exact scenario. Obviously that wasn't the whole story, because the 3DS had a tremendous turn around and went on to be very successful, despite the mobile market exploding. There will always be a market for dedicated gaming systems with physical controls. Mobile touch based games certainly aren't for everyone, and there are very, very few games I actually enjoy playing on my phone.
@Saintayu I'm also with you on some points - I do believe the Switch will end up being my favorite Nintendo system of all time, but it has a bunch of flaws. I had the joycon disconnect issue, there's no HDMI out via a simple cable, mediocre battery life, flimsy kickstand, no cloud saves (Until 18 months in), you can't charge/use tabletop at the same time without a stand, and several others on the OS/Software front. Those things make me excited for a hardware revision, which I will buy because my wife/kids also use my Switch, but I'd likely end up buying an eventual revision even if I were single. I'll also likely by a dedicated portable if they ever launch one, as I prefer to play my Switch portable. This is getting a bit long-winded, so I'll sum it up by saying there are several things that I respectfully disagree with in your posts, but I will gladly agree that there are too many Nintendo apologists unwilling to admit the flaws of the Switch.
This is a copy/paste of what I said in the comments of the Abstraction article. But I feel they're just as relevant here on this article.
The Switch is definitely the least powerful of the current systems, of that there's no dispute. And the Switch port of a game is always going to be the [technically] "least" version of a game, of this there is no doubt either. However, I am immediately suspicious when someone says that xyz game is literally "impossible."
No doubt that compromises and concessions and adjustments are required to make such demanding games possible under the limitations that the Switch hardware places on the developers. It could well be said that "perfect" ports may indeed be impossible. But adjusted ports? Scaled ports?
My knowledge of game hardware is a bit more shallow and abstract on today's hardware than it is with the 8 and 16-bit systems where I am at my best, so I suppose I do stand open to some correction, but "impossible" doesn't seem like the right word here at all. Perhaps the amount of concessions required would be so extreme that it would make the game "infeasible"....but "impossible?"
I just have a really hard time buying it.
When I hear this, whether I'm justified in doing so or not, my mind immediately goes to "well this developer is just somewhere along a spectrum of 'too lazy' and/or 'too incompetent' to do it." Perhaps they feel that the work required to "optimize" the game for such a system would be so cost and time demanding that it would be a losing venture for them even if it sold like gangbusters. Or maybe they're so in love with the look and feel of the PS4.0-level experience that they can't stand the thought of seeing it in a PS3.5-level state. Who knows....but "impossible?"
I mean, if they don't want to make, and would rather shut themselves off from the revenue stream, so be it. It's as much [or more] their loss as it is mine. I do own the other systems, and will buy the game for one of them instead, if I want the thing badly enough. But Switch is by far my favorite system, and I spend more time on it than I do on all the other systems - combined. So there would certainly be games which I could justify getting on Switch that I probably wouldn't be able to justify elsewhere for as much less often as I play those systems.
Furthermore, I'm not gonna become so radical on this point as to go so far as to automatically hard-boycott a game just on principle everytime the developers threw the Switch under the bus to get out of making a game for it. However, the bad blood that such a move generates in me definitely does reduce the probability of my buying their game simply because it creates an additional barrier to my taking the plunge. It is certainly possible for my desire of a much wanted game to muscle past this barrier, but a number of less strongly desired games will be stopped up short by the obstacle.
Either way, as soon as they say "impossible", my respect for them goes right out the window, and the likelihood of their getting any money from me (or at least, anywhere near as much money from me) goes down appreciably. They hurt their cause badly - even if only within the confines of my own wallet.
So yeah, my face darkens, and my pulse quickens, and my BS alarm goes absolutely crazy every time I hear that. Look, the Switch is not a powerful system. Granted. In fact, I would join in the chorus of people lamenting that Nintendo hadn't at the very least put the X2 in the thing right off the bat. I wish it we're more powerful. And certainly, as DOOM and Wolfenstein show, the concessions that need made on such limited hardware are indeed great. But those games were "impossible" too....until Panic Button came along. If Panic Button can do it, I don't see any non-damning reason why any other developer can't do it also.
And a huge thanks to Panic Button, not just for the surprisingly excellent Switch ports of high end games that I've put so much time into and gotten so much enjoyment out of, but also for just exposing the lie which I had sensed from the very earliest days regarding the supposed "impossibility" of big game ports on the system. Even Abstraction, for as critical a tone as they're taking of the hardware, is still....making a big port for it....where's everybody else, then? Their excuses are getting thinner and thinner.
I can only imagine the Rainbow Six Seige guys being beyond pissed at Panic Button....and you know what?....I find the thought of those guys' anger at the exposure......simply.....delicious! Now hopefully it'll motivate them to get off their asses and figure the damned thing out.
@SpaceboyScreams I noticed that too....
@heavyarms55 "I'd love a Mass Effect Triology, COD 4 Modern Warfare, Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 remasters, GTA 4 and 5, Gears of War 1-3, Assassin's Creed, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Final Fantasy 13."
Mass Effect...I think EA is a lost cause for Nintendo, pretty much entirely (FE runs....kind of....that's about as much EA as we'll get outside FIFA). KH1&2 IIRC are rights-locked by Sony, GoW is MS 1st party, and I think Square would like to forget the Fabula Nova Crystallis series ever existed. So would their shareholders. RDR1, older AC, and FO3 seem like good dreams though
@saintayu Mobile still has a key limitation of the input scheme. Sure you can use a BT controller, but then Switch becomes the more portable solution with its hard-mounted controls in a handheld slate. If anything the Switch is too small for games designed for HD displays, as the UIs can be come cumbersome to see. It's a catch-22. To make games for a truly smaller device you really need to give up HD and thus simplify the games UI and gameplay to fit the screen size. But who would build a console for that when mobile already does that and reaches more people? Mobile will eat a "4DS" for lunch every day as a pocketable gaming device in terms of install base and thus software revenues. That market is closed now for Nintendo, so the portable HD console is the new handheld. It's not pocketable...but everyone already has a pocketable device that can play games. Switch is something they don't already have: A portable full console that plays like a handheld. I do still think a cut down smaller Switch is in the cards, but it can't drop the 6" screen. At best it will have to have a clamshell over the 6" screen, shrink the bezels, and have built-in controllers that may end up using Circle Pads instead of Joycon sticks.
Edit: The GPD Win2 that @JaxonH often talks about is a great example of the most pocketable a Switch could become. 6" display, clamshell design, built-in controllers (and keyboard because it's a Windows PC technically.) What it needs is some sort of die shrink to put the Switch hardware and cooling in such a tiny footprint. The GPD does it with an m3 which runs cooler than Tegra, but it's also $800 (Correction $650).
@zool I don't think the Japanese are as bothered about graphics and power as you think. Otherwise the PS4 would have flown off the shelves there and the Xbox One X would have done a lot better than it's doing. They buy a PS4 for the Japanese games that come out on it, and this time round it's not doing that well on that front. You just have to look at how fast western so-called "AAA" games disappear off the radar over there.
Relax people... probably Rainbow Six ain't coming to switch, but if Dark Souls becomes a success in NS, then probably we'll see an Assassin's Creed game.
It was 30fps on Wii U, so soon, after NS hits 30 million, we'll see a nice 720p 30fps port of AC.
Translation: We don’t think it will make enough money on Switch, so we don’t want to put the resources into a port. Just be honest dude.
@electrolite77 well I do admit right NOW would be a terrible time to put it on the switch it would be a smart move if they were to announce/tease it (or release if they’re secretly working on it) when Nintendo finally spills the beans on the online service
Tap here to load 163 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...