Nintendo Switch has sold 4.7 Million units to date.

[Deadguy2322]

I really wish Nintendo?s games were as good as their cultists claim. If they were, maybe we wouldn?t be plagued with circle-jerk garbage threads like this all over the web, as they?d be playing games instead of justifying their loyalty.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

it's already my primary platform so that statement is already false

If you are a gamer and don't have any platform, you're not going to choose a Switch for your first console (besides the Nintendo fanboys) because you'd be missing out on over 90% of the games.

there's literally no reason for a publisher to put a multiplatform game on the Switch because every gamer will have another platform that they will buy the game on.

Street Fighter II already passed Capcom's test and it sold well above what they expect and now they literally just confirmed that they've started working on bringing more of their games to Switch. what they'll be, who knows? there has been resident evil switch rumours floating around so thats a starting point.

Nintendo fans buying games based on nostalgia is sorta what they do. The latest Street Fighter isn't going to come to the Switch. Where's a list of current gen multiplatform games the Switch is getting?

some people might love being able to play RDR2 on the go, but that game won't be able to run on a Switch thus it won't be getting any current-gen ports.

No, that game won't run on Switch is because Rockstar doesn't have a good relationship with Nintendo and doesn't want to do any more business with them. at all. when GTA Chinatown wars sold badly on the DS that was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for those 2 companies doing business with each other.

RDR2 like just about all AAA current gen games just can't run on the Switch because it's just not powerful enough. Rockstar could have the best relationship with Nintendo conceivable, and RDR2 wouldn't be on the Switch. Do you not get that you can't just simply put a game on an underpowered system? I said this before, look at the PS3/360 versions of Watch Dogs, Shadow of Mordor, and Dragon Age Inquisition; they are gimped versions of those games. What makes you think the Switch can do something the PS3/360 can't do?

Snip

I wasn't debating how real-time and turn-based function. I was saying video games are USUALLY concerned with execution from the very beginning with Pong, Asteroids, Galaga, Donkey Kong, arcade fighters, platformers to your present day shooters (with arena shooters being even more execution heavy), spectacle fighters, etc. Whereas board games are USUALLY about decisions, strategy, and overall thought process because you have more time between actions. Both are striving for 2 very different things (for the most part), not that there isn't crossover.

Again, your comparing apples and oranges with comparison of each medium's "stories". Both are striving for very different things. There's no board game that can tell a story like Metal Gear Solid (regardless of your opinion of its quality). Spector Ops is basically the board game version of Metal Gear Solid and the "story" you'll get from playthrough may be better in your opinion, but its also so different in nature its really incomparable. I don't find one type of story inherently better than the other as they are 2 very different experiences.

You're short changing shooters based off what are the most popular shooters and what's most popular is usually lowest common denominator. Some shooters have modes that are very well done with loads of different ways to get more points than your opponent (much like most board games). For example, MGO2 has a game mode called Team Sneaking where a legit strategy on offense is to literally have your team purposefully get killed on offense all at once while totally not trying for the objective of the round but for the objective of getting the most points over 2 rounds. And board games have reskins too; X-Wing/Attack Wing.

Lastly, MGS5 does have FOB mode, which is pretty much that shared single-player world you're describing. Sure, it's not as full-featured or fleshed out as your ideal game but I put money on that being more than what any Switch will be able to accomplish towards your vision. The social interaction with people playing games on the Switch is basically party/mini games. The fact that you have to use a phone app to all this online stuff is really cumbersome.

 

[Yoshi178]

If you are a gamer and don't have any platform, you're not going to choose a Switch for your first console (besides the Nintendo fanboys) because you'd be missing out on over 90% of the games.

i could just as easily say only Sony fanboys choose to have the PS4 as their Primary Platform or only Xbox Fanboys have the Xbox One as their Primary platform.

that argument is stupid and based on nothing but you're own personal bias.

there's literally no reason for a publisher to put a multiplatform game on the Switch because every gamer will have another platform that they will buy the game on.

Street Fighter II already passed Capcom's test and it sold well above what they expect and now they literally just confirmed that they've started working on bringing more of their games to Switch. what they'll be, who knows? there has been resident evil switch rumours floating around so thats a starting point.

Nintendo fans buying games based on nostalgia is sorta what they do. The latest Street Fighter isn't going to come to the Switch. Where's a list of current gen multiplatform games the Switch is getting?

where's the latest Street Fighter on Xbox One? oh right. it's not. it's not even multiplatform. Sony bought the exclusivity rights or at the least timed exclusivity rights to that. or maybe Capcom just only wants to sell Street Fighter on a Platform where they think it will make them money, like oh i don't know, the platform with over 50 million hardware sales rather than the platform with only about 20 something million hardware sales.

is Xbox One not getting Street Fighter because it's "underpowered" too is it?

some people might love being able to play RDR2 on the go, but that game won't be able to run on a Switch thus it won't be getting any current-gen ports.

No, that game won't run on Switch is because Rockstar doesn't have a good relationship with Nintendo and doesn't want to do any more business with them. at all. when GTA Chinatown wars sold badly on the DS that was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for those 2 companies doing business with each other.

RDR2 like just about all AAA current gen games just can't run on the Switch because it's just not powerful enough. Rockstar could have the best relationship with Nintendo conceivable, and RDR2 wouldn't be on the Switch. Do you not get that you can't just simply put a game on an underpowered system? I said this before, look at the PS3/360 versions of Watch Dogs, Shadow of Mordor, and Dragon Age Inquisition; they are gimped versions of those games. What makes you think the Switch can do something the PS3/360 can't do?

i never said the Switch can do something the PS3/360 can't do if you're talking about "gimped" versions of modern games. there is absolutely no reason why Rockstar couldn't make a "gimped" version of RDR2 for the Switch if they wanted to, but the fact is they won't because they have a bad relationship with Nintendo. that has nothing to do with being "underpowered" at all

 

[CritialGaming]

where's the latest Street Fighter on Xbox One? oh right. it's not. it's not even multiplatform. Sony bought the exclusivity rights or at the least timed exclusivity rights to that. or maybe Capcom just only wants to sell Street Fighter on a Platform where they think it will make them money, like oh i don't know, the platform with over 50 million hardware sales rather than the platform with only about 20 something million hardware sales.

is Xbox One not getting Street Fighter because it's "underpowered" too is it?


i never said the Switch can do something the PS3/360 can't do if you're talking about "gimped" versions of modern games. there is absolutely no reason why Rockstar couldn't make a "gimped" version of RDR2 for the Switch if they wanted to, but the fact is they won't because they have a bad relationship with Nintendo. that has nothing to do with being "underpowered" at all

Street Fighter is multiplatform because it's on PC too.

Rockstar doesn't do gimped. They have no reason to do that anymore as all the major platforms can now basically have the same development. If anything the PS4/Xbone version are the gimped versions because the PC is so much more powerful.

But take any other company that has had good relationships with Nintendo in the past. Where's the Switch version of Assassin's Creed Origins? Call of Duty WW2?

I really don't think you understand the level of work it would take ANY studio to make a completely different version of a game just to make it work on a weak console. Fact of the matter is this, the Switch will only ever get ports of current console games if those games already have a compatible art style. Disgaea 5 for example, uses pixel sprites and still artwork for everything, so a Switch post was easy because none of the core game had to be altered in order to run acceptably.

But you are absolutely dreaming if you think you are going to get big AAA experiences from anyone outside of Nintendo's developers. Unless of course they outright BUY games to be made like Bayonetta 2 or Mario+Rabids. While those are 3rd party games, they are only Switch games, which should prove to you that multiplatform gaming is going to be a hard thing to make happen on the Switch.

Can it work? Sure. But not for anything current gen. It just wont happen.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I wasn't debating how real-time and turn-based function. I was saying video games are USUALLY concerned with execution from the very beginning with Pong, Asteroids, Galaga, Donkey Kong, arcade fighters, platformers to your present day shooters (with arena shooters being even more execution heavy), spectacle fighters, etc. Whereas board games are USUALLY about decisions, strategy, and overall thought process because you have more time between actions. Both are striving for 2 very different things (for the most part), not that there isn't crossover.

Again, your comparing apples and oranges with comparison of each medium's "stories". Both are striving for very different things. There's no board game that can tell a story like Metal Gear Solid (regardless of your opinion of its quality). Spector Ops is basically the board game version of Metal Gear Solid and the "story" you'll get from playthrough may be better in your opinion, but its also so different in nature its really incomparable. I don't find one type of story inherently better than the other as they are 2 very different experiences.

Which is precisely my point. Videogames constantly are facing continued schisms between theme, environment, pacing and gameplay that there is active ludonarrative dissonance. Their gameplay does nothing to illustrate the conceptual 'rules' or theme of the players and the gamestate which makes them ultimately separate from identitifcation with whatever protags they "control" in the game.

You're short changing shooters based off what are the most popular shooters and what's most popular is usually lowest common denominator. Some shooters have modes that are very well done with loads of different ways to get more points than your opponent (much like most board games). For example, MGO2 has a game mode called Team Sneaking where a legit strategy on offense is to literally have your team purposefully get killed on offense all at once while totally not trying for the objective of the round but for the objective of getting the most points over 2 rounds. And board games have reskins too; X-Wing/Attack Wing.

Which is odd, why not use Warhammer/40K? Massively popular wargaming board game, and I think its mechanicsare fucking garbage. it's worse than a lot of video games out their mechanically. Much worse. But then again that wasn't the point I was making and board games aren't actively attempting to be like W40K, though if only in terms of gameplay if not total profitability. But once again, not the point.

Lastly, MGS5 does have FOB mode, which is pretty much that shared single-player world you're describing. Sure, it's not as full-featured or fleshed out as your ideal game but I put money on that being more than what any Switch will be able to accomplish towards your vision. The social interaction with people playing games on the Switch is basically party/mini games. The fact that you have to use a phone app to all this online stuff is really cumbersome.

No ... no it's not.

Let me tell you what I think will deliver that game experience I'm looking for. A psychology or sociology student looking at the dismal rates of pay with their post-doc/etc, their massive student debts, etc, being in love with the possibility of the research capable through it. Wanting to team up with that computer studies student and that visual arts student also looking at their respective various jobs markets they'll be going into and finding nothing substantial.

For different reasons they'll link up to give us a new type of game where they can profit. Basically using gamers as both a strange mix of guinea pig as well as being almost research project confederates in a way. All as they participate in these "shared" "singleplayer" worlds with eachother, with planned and divergent, almost chaotic, global event triggers that ultimately assess how humans create mechanially observable means to influence other humans around them in real time. Whether they are playing the game or not, as they introduce additional environmental factors and triggers.

Each of these otherwise desperate people for different reasons collecting realtime human data in terms of things like psycholinguistics research and exploring the evolution of language (also how much it can be manipulated in real-time), or looking at mechanics of human interactivity and capacity for deception. And making a few dollars down the way.

Not any traditional video game dev at the moment.

And while you're technically accurate that I'm far more liable to see such a game on specifically Android, or PC ... that doesn't mean the Switch or 3DS wouldn't be seen as a perfect platform for it due to its portability alone. That through that natural roaming of people and that portability alone, without unnecessarily complex and expensive reason to do bullshit like deliver stupidly high polygon counts and shader effects, makes it a fantastic tool for such research.

All vwhle traditional video game devs are simply interested in, as you keep repeating without actually debating my argument, that video game devs keep wanting to give videogames something other than ludonarrative storytelling and keeping players at arm's length of doing anything but merely responding to the gamestate all in predictable means with fixed objectives, as opposed to shaping it themselves. With an inherent lack of true human deception, mindgames and achieving asymmetrical 'warfare' gameplay states.

The cool thing is that you could have relatively simplistic individual macro building elements that players can use some game tools, macro them into effective combinations to deal with specific servers in game or attacking various other players .... so it's less rock-paper-scissors, but actively seeing indepthly how the gamers will deal with the various trends of challenges in game world.

Sounds fun, right?

Hell, I could even see some militaries and intelligence outfits making that type of ideal game well before any video game developer at the moment ... to examine psychology and sociology in a world of evolving the ideas and models of 20th century warfare research into geostrategy and human ecology, and porting it into creating models of examining behavioural psychology and sociology in the borderless (yet still intimate) frontiers of (what might be called) 'future engagement theory' that is, and will come of, the internet.

That's the future potential of video games. Also what I'd solidly label as 'social gaming'. And honestly, they just flat out sound like way more fun. Giving players tools to adroitly create their own winning gamestate. Not simply because the game tells you flat out how to win, and you keep practicing to win precisely how the game tells you to win.

And you've yet to show me a videogame which has broken this mold. Last I checked I couldn't play a character that simply said; "This deathmatch game? It's now Capture the Flag.." after all players have selected their kit, like you can effectively do in a good board game. In a great board game, it's more akin to everyone playing Deathmatch, but secretly you've made it a CTF game and you make everyone else lose, including supposed allies, because you managed to pull that off.

And you can put story in quotation marks, but I've yet to have a teeth grindingly bad "story" that I can't see play out in front of me in a Netrunner game that is equal to something as atrocious and threadbare as MGSV or Fallout 3... how did they score again? Oh, that's right ... averaging 85%+. Despite blatant copypasta missions and events, little to no well honed multiplayer, nonexistent or just flat out intelligence insulting plots that destroy the writing and plot in their actual good games in the franchise, and for what?

Just like camera and lighting are crucial to film and tv, maybe videogames should stop pretending to be interactive movies and instead focus on ludonarrative being just as crucial? If videogame developers want to create human stories, why not give them ludonarrative and social gaming and see where that leads? There's better stories of betrayal, conspiracy, and trickery in Avalon: Resistance than in MGS4 or 5... not only that, but by default of having real humans be the real antagonists and giving them a wide scope of naturally human means to fuck eachother over or co-operate as being viable strategies, they're actually far more clever and mindfuckingly good displays of play-acting and gameplay combined.

Pla a game of Avalon: Resistance and imagine things like active hacking, setting traps, in-game messaging (whereby you need to investigate to privately contact someone) and co-operation, all for shared world information and resources, and a game that doesn't just stop because you do. You might need specific bits of information on servers to complete your not readily apparent objectives separate from ther people ... which means you could withold other information files you have rather than selling them for public consumption, so that you have something vital for exchange.

That people can literally destroy your character and potential progress, or make you more powerful, in the background without you even realising it when next you jump in ... and realise it is all your fault. You could even set background tasks when you sleep your console and "log off" like spending necessary time buying up resources when available at specific price points, building a better rig, modifying your safehouse, coding new programs or makeshift constructing new field kit to decrese this feeling like you're doing 'nothing' during your downtime.

But then again, instead of challenging this and the point I make that videogames need not be so derivative ... you'll trot out the same horse of 'apples and oranges' and 'modern videogames are like, deep, because I can strafe and stuff...', right? Maybe I want more from videogames that are eminently doable, with a console that is eminently capable of it being good at delivering. It's got a fairly good touchscreen, it's plenty powerful enough to deliver good games that aren't just pretty ... but, you know ... good, and it's a fantastic console for you to involve anyone into the gameplay with because of its portability and roaming potential. People can whine as much as they like aboutthe possibility of game porting, but I'll still be here playing Close Combat: ABTF (circa 1997) occasionally at uni in my downtime.

Pretty good game ... doesn't seem to have ports.

Still waiting for videogames to grow up, apparently.

It's wasted potential.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

But take any other company that has had good relationships with Nintendo in the past. Where's the Switch version of Assassin's Creed Origins? Call of Duty WW2?

Hell, they're not even getting Kingdom Hearts 3 or Ni no Kuni 2, whose kiddy-friendly vibes should be right up Nintendo's alley.

 

[CritialGaming]

But take any other company that has had good relationships with Nintendo in the past. Where's the Switch version of Assassin's Creed Origins? Call of Duty WW2?

Hell, they're not even getting Kingdom Hearts 3 or Ni no Kuni 2, whose kiddy-friendly vibes should be right up Nintendo's alley.

Not to mention that Square Enix and Level 5 are both buddy buddy with Nintendo. Which only means that the Tech in the Switch cannot hold up to the requirements for those games. Ni No is actually contracted by Sony to be exclusive so it kind of doesn't count. But Square has been confirmed to be making a Switch JRPG, it just will be design specifically for the Switch. Which is telling to me. Games on the Switch have to be made FOR the Switch, and just porting current gen games is more work than any publisher is going to bother with.

 

[Yoshi178]

where's the latest Street Fighter on Xbox One? oh right. it's not. it's not even multiplatform. Sony bought the exclusivity rights or at the least timed exclusivity rights to that. or maybe Capcom just only wants to sell Street Fighter on a Platform where they think it will make them money, like oh i don't know, the platform with over 50 million hardware sales rather than the platform with only about 20 something million hardware sales.

is Xbox One not getting Street Fighter because it's "underpowered" too is it?


i never said the Switch can do something the PS3/360 can't do if you're talking about "gimped" versions of modern games. there is absolutely no reason why Rockstar couldn't make a "gimped" version of RDR2 for the Switch if they wanted to, but the fact is they won't because they have a bad relationship with Nintendo. that has nothing to do with being "underpowered" at all

Street Fighter is multiplatform because it's on PC too.

Rockstar doesn't do gimped. They have no reason to do that anymore as all the major platforms can now basically have the same development. If anything the PS4/Xbone version are the gimped versions because the PC is so much more powerful.

But take any other company that has had good relationships with Nintendo in the past. Where's the Switch version of Assassin's Creed Origins? Call of Duty WW2?

I really don't think you understand the level of work it would take ANY studio to make a completely different version of a game just to make it work on a weak console. Fact of the matter is this, the Switch will only ever get ports of current console games if those games already have a compatible art style. Disgaea 5 for example, uses pixel sprites and still artwork for everything, so a Switch post was easy because none of the core game had to be altered in order to run acceptably.

But you are absolutely dreaming if you think you are going to get big AAA experiences from anyone outside of Nintendo's developers. Unless of course they outright BUY games to be made like Bayonetta 2 or Mario+Rabids. While those are 3rd party games, they are only Switch games, which should prove to you that multiplatform gaming is going to be a hard thing to make happen on the Switch.

Can it work? Sure. But not for anything current gen. It just wont happen.

Pretty Sure FIFA 18, WWE 2K18, Sonic Force's Lego Worlds and Rocket League are all current gen games and Switch is getting versions of all of those.

that doesn't mean Switch is going to get EVERYTHING. as i said earlier, Nintendo needs to build back trust and confidence with 3rd Parties before more 3rd Party games start coming back to Nintendo platforms. and after the Wii U sales, can you really blame 3rd Parties for not wanting to risk wasting shitloads of money just to bring an "AAA" quality multiplatform game over to the Switch? 3rd Parties are clearly just testing the waters at the moment.

 

[Deadguy2322]

Nintendo will never build trust with third-party game makers for the simple fact that they treat them as competitors, not partners. That approach is what allowed Sony to walk right into a market that so many others had failed in. Nintedo user expernsive media that they controlled production of and made third parties bend the knee to be accepted as members of the ?Dream Team?, SEGA withheld libraries and techniques from licensees for up to a year, hobbling Saturn developers, but Sony worked with their licensees to help make things easier, because they knew a system with no games isn?t going to be worth owning. Hell, two of the most successful first-party series on PS1, Crash and Spyro, were actually originated by Universal Studios but impressed Sony enough that they partnered up to publish them to make sure they reached the biggest audience they could.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

If you are a gamer and don't have any platform, you're not going to choose a Switch for your first console (besides the Nintendo fanboys) because you'd be missing out on over 90% of the games.

i could just as easily say only Sony fanboys choose to have the PS4 as their Primary Platform or only Xbox Fanboys have the Xbox One as their Primary platform.

that argument is stupid and based on nothing but you're own personal bias.

No you can't. If someone prefers consoles over PCs, then the option is really just PS4/Xbone if they want to have access to the vast vast vast majority of games. Then, they might consider getting a Switch afterward. I don't even like Sony's main franchises like Uncharted, God of War, Killzone, etc.

where's the latest Street Fighter on Xbox One? oh right. it's not. it's not even multiplatform. Sony bought the exclusivity rights or at the least timed exclusivity rights to that. or maybe Capcom just only wants to sell Street Fighter on a Platform where they think it will make them money, like oh i don't know, the platform with over 50 million hardware sales rather than the platform with only about 20 something million hardware sales.

is Xbox One not getting Street Fighter because it's "underpowered" too is it?

Sony did make some deal for console rights with Capcom for SFV after looking it up as I don't play or know much about fighters. Getting a near 25-year old game isn't something to celebrate and point to as 3rd-party support. Where's the Switch version of the latest BlazBlue, Mortal Kombat, Tekken, Injustice, etc.? Just face it, the Switch isn't getting versions of current-gen games.

there is absolutely no reason why Rockstar couldn't make a "gimped" version of RDR2 for the Switch if they wanted to, but the fact is they won't because they have a bad relationship with Nintendo. that has nothing to do with being "underpowered" at all

Yes, there is, the reason being it isn't worth the resources to put RDR2 on the Switch. It won't sell on the Switch because every gamer (that's not a full-on Nintendo fanboy) games on a different platform as well and will buy RDR2 on another platform. Look how poor the sales of Batman Arkham City, Mass Effect 3, and Watch Dogs went on Wii U because just about everyone that wanted to play those games already played them on another platform.

Pretty Sure FIFA 18, WWE 2K18, Sonic Force's Lego Worlds and Rocket League are all current gen games and Switch is getting versions of all of those.

Those are all games that don't require the power of current-gen hardware, we already went through this...

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Snip

I was just using MGS5's FOB mode as an example for the shared single-player world, not that it was amazing or anything. MGS is my favorite game series probably, and I haven't even bothered to finish MGS5, that pretty much tells you how I feel about MGS5 generally. I don't see a Switch game ever even reaching something like that yet exceeding it due to the cumbersome nature of Nintendo's online service along with Nintendo themselves never really developing games with online features as the core of the game along with probably being one of the most derivative devs themselves.

The problem with your ideas is that most players I don't think would be down to play games like that. There's a reason board games are board games, because they are far cheaper to make and thus require much fewer sales to be profitable because the people interested in such games is much smaller than that of video games. If there was shooter had a mode similar to what you say, everyone thinks it's DM and realizes it's CTF instead, just about all the players would quit out. I agree video games are very young still and even devolving at times, there's still really great games out there that can only exist as video games. I say this as someone who didn't give a game an 8+/10 for basically 3 straight years (between TLOU and Dishonored 2) and even calling Witcher 3 a bad game because it failed horribly at gameplay even though the writing and questing were probably some of the best ever seen in the RPG genre. And, yes, professional video game criticism is a joke, just about any gaming Youtube channel has better game criticism than any professional video game outlet at this point.

I don't get what people want from video games with regards to story and presentation. I just want actual good writing at this point, then we can move past that. Others say you shouldn't have cutscenes but you sorta need NPCs to talk and isn't it better to have a properly framed conversation rather than letting the player loot random cabinets/drawers while an NPC is delivering key plot or emotional dialogue? Video games can integrate storytelling elements from all mediums along with creating new elements to tell a story in the best possible way and saying you can't do this or that is in itself limiting.

 

[Yoshi178]

If you are a gamer and don't have any platform, you're not going to choose a Switch for your first console (besides the Nintendo fanboys) because you'd be missing out on over 90% of the games.

i could just as easily say only Sony fanboys choose to have the PS4 as their Primary Platform or only Xbox Fanboys have the Xbox One as their Primary platform.

that argument is stupid and based on nothing but you're own personal bias.

No you can't.

Too bad i just did.

Getting a near 25-year old game isn't something to celebrate and point to as 3rd-party support.

Getting sales from a near 25 year old game that has been sold at full price now IS something to celebrate though.

Capcom has said that because it exceeded sales expectations they have now started developing more Switch games which, LIKE I SAID, clearly shows that they were testing the waters on Switch before fully committing to developing games for it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Capcom has said that because it exceeded sales expectations they have now started developing more Switch games which, LIKE I SAID, clearly shows that they were testing the waters on Switch before fully committing to developing games for it.

It doesn't mean Capcom going to be making anything for the Switch outside of selling more 25-year old games to Switch gamers, I mean suckers, for $40 and laughing their way to the bank. Is the Switch that hard up for games that you guys are spending $40 for games that old?

 

[Yoshi178]

Capcom has said that because it exceeded sales expectations they have now started developing more Switch games which, LIKE I SAID, clearly shows that they were testing the waters on Switch before fully committing to developing games for it.

It doesn't mean Capcom going to be making anything for the Switch outside of selling more 25-year old games to Switch gamers, I mean suckers, for $40 and laughing their way to the bank. Is the Switch that hard up for games that you guys are spending $40 for games that old?

i don't know i didn't buy it. i feel bad for all the suckers who bought Ultra Street fighter II on PS4 and Xbox One as well though who also made capcom laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

But take any other company that has had good relationships with Nintendo in the past. Where's the Switch version of Assassin's Creed Origins? Call of Duty WW2?

Hell, they're not even getting Kingdom Hearts 3 or Ni no Kuni 2, whose kiddy-friendly vibes should be right up Nintendo's alley.

Not to mention that Square Enix and Level 5 are both buddy buddy with Nintendo. Which only means that the Tech in the Switch cannot hold up to the requirements for those games. Ni No is actually contracted by Sony to be exclusive so it kind of doesn't count. But Square has been confirmed to be making a Switch JRPG, it just will be design specifically for the Switch. Which is telling to me. Games on the Switch have to be made FOR the Switch, and just porting current gen games is more work than any publisher is going to bother with.

Switch is basically gaming's bitchy vegan friend of a friend who shows up after lunch is all planned out and suddenly you need to think of two menus. It's double the effort and practically nobody cares or wants it, but hey, there's that one person.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

i don't know i didn't buy it. i feel bad for all the suckers who bought Ultra Street fighter II on PS4 and Xbox One as well though who also made capcom laugh all the way to the bank.

Street Fighter II is $10 on PSN...

Switch is basically gaming's bitchy vegan friend of a friend who shows up after lunch is all planned out and suddenly you need to think of two menus. It's double the effort and practically nobody cares or wants it, but hey, there's that one person.

Haha, and without any cool powers...

 

[Yoshi178]

It's double the effort and practically nobody cares or wants it, but hey, there's that one person.

practically nobody cares or wants it yeah (except maybe the 4.7 million people that have already bought a Switch in the first 4 months it's been out) BUT APART from those people then sure i'd agree with this

i don't know i didn't buy it. i feel bad for all the suckers who bought Ultra Street fighter II on PS4 and Xbox One as well though who also made capcom laugh all the way to the bank.

Street Fighter II is $10 on PSN...

that just makes it even more impressive that Capcom was able to sell a crapload of a $40 physical version of it on the Switch then. i mean after all, nobody gives a crap about the Switch or Nintendo apparently...

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Switch is basically gaming's bitchy vegan friend of a friend who shows up after lunch is all planned out and suddenly you need to think of two menus. It's double the effort and practically nobody cares or wants it, but hey, there's that one person.

Haha, and without any cool powers...

And veggies are now hard to come by due to artifitial scarcity, and everybody sees through it except the vegetarians, who go "think of the poor farmers!" I think I found my favorite analogy for Nintendo's place in the world.

 

[Avnger]

i don't know i didn't buy it. i feel bad for all the suckers who bought Ultra Street fighter II on PS4 and Xbox One as well though who also made capcom laugh all the way to the bank.

Street Fighter II is $10 on PSN...

that just makes it even more impressive that Capcom was able to sell a crapload of a $40 physical version of it on the Switch then. i mean after all, nobody gives a crap about the Switch or Nintendo apparently...

That reasoning is faulty.

It could be the case that Switch owners are desperate enough to get new games that they're willing to pay a jacked up price. On the other hand, the PSN price would reflect the fact that Ultra Street Fighter II has to compete with so many other titles that they need to have the price at $10 to sell well.

You're letting your biases fill in blanks without any evidence to support your assumptions over any other hypothesis.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

that just makes it even more impressive that Capcom was able to sell a crapload of a $40 physical version of it on the Switch then. i mean after all, nobody gives a crap about the Switch or Nintendo apparently...

I guess $40 for a game doesn't seem so bad when you're used of paying $30 for a piece of plastic with costume DLC attached to it.