Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

They could surprise us. they always do. I havent owned a nintendo since the gamecube but even I get green eyed when I look at the combination of 8 and 16 bit classics and new stuff like the xeno games and zelda. I think if they got back into the power race things would be suprisingly different from the gamecube era. but hey...we may never know, anyway.

I doubt it, but honestly I hope you are right. I'd love to see a Nintendo console that can hold its own next to PS and Xbox power wise.

 

[RickMasters]

I doubt it, but honestly I hope you are right. I'd love to see a Nintendo console that can hold its own next to PS and Xbox power wise.

Would be nice if they atleast considered some sort of 'pro' version. I think a lot of us hold off on buying nintnedos because of that....well...that and the fact that you cant carry your digital libraries over from console to console. If i buy NES kidicarus off the market place, I dont wanna have to buy it again to play on the switch 2 or whatever they will call it. they need to really support backwards compatability on their platforms. we are in that age where people like to have massive digital libraries. I have over 800 digital Xbox games spanning all generations and countless PC games that I can play on my PCs. I wish nintendo would do those two things for me to get back into their consoles. lord knows, I want too!

 

[Woopah]

You’ve got that exactly backwards.

Sony and Microsoft wishes they had thirty to near forty year old IPs that can sell millions of copies over a weekend. Tears of the Kingdom sold more in 3 days than GoW Ragnarok did in 3 months. Sony and/or Microsoft would kill to have a fraction of the staying and selling power of Mario, Zelda, and Pokémon.

Nintendo’s first party offering covers almost every base: racing, sports, fighting, action, western RPG, JRPG, life sim, even third person shooter - all of which sell very well. Nintendo doesn’t need those third parties.

They don't need third parties. But they want better third party support as its basically free revenue.

Half of games sold on Switch are third party. That's a big boost for them so they will want more. Their lack of third party support, while improving, is a major challenge for them.

They would but I don't think it works both ways. Even games that sell well on Xbox and PS like Lego Star Wars doesn't make the yearly top 10 on Switch.



No, they wouldn't because if they built equal hardware then they would have to sacrifice portability and that is where they have found the most success.

But Lego Star Wars did make the yearly top 10 on Switch (at least, it did in the US).

 

[Unknown?]

You’ve got that exactly backwards.

Sony and Microsoft wishes they had thirty to near forty year old IPs that can sell millions of copies over a weekend. Tears of the Kingdom sold more in 3 days than GoW Ragnarok did in 3 months. Sony and/or Microsoft would kill to have a fraction of the staying and selling power of Mario, Zelda, and Pokémon.

Nintendo’s first party offering covers almost every base: racing, sports, fighting, action, western RPG, JRPG, life sim, even third person shooter - all of which sell very well. Nintendo doesn’t need those third parties.

Except when their hardware underperforms. Those franchises didn't help the GameCube or Wii U. I'm just saying they'd like to have both.

 

[Topher]

They don't need third parties. But they want better third party support as its basically free revenue.

Half of games sold on Switch are third party. That's a big boost for them so they will want more. Their lack of third party support, while improving, is a major challenge for them.

But Lego Star Wars did make the yearly top 10 on Switch (at least, it did in the US).

In the US, yes. Not worldwide.

 

[Woopah]

In the US, yes. Not worldwide.

But we don't get a worldwide top 10 for Switch (or any other platform). What numbers are you looking at?

 

[RoboFu]

Whomever thinks that Nintendo isn’t competing with Sony or MS are only fooling themselves.

 

[Topher]

But we don't get a worldwide top 10 for Switch (or any other platform). What numbers are you looking at?

My mistake. Didn't realize the numbers I was looking at was over the lifetime of the Switch. Don't think it diminishes my point much though. Nintendo first party dominates sales.

Here Are The Top Ten Best-Selling Nintendo Switch Games As Of December 2022

Pokémon Scarlet & Violet make the cut

www.nintendolife.com

 

[Woopah]

My mistake. Didn't realize the numbers I was looking at was over the lifetime of the Switch. Don't think it diminishes my point much though. Nintendo first party dominates sales.

Here Are The Top Ten Best-Selling Nintendo Switch Games As Of December 2022

Pokémon Scarlet & Violet make the cut

www.nintendolife.com

It's a really badly written article, as Nintendo only releases software figures for the games they publish. Lego Star Wars could sell 25 million on Switch alone and would still not appear on that list (not that I'm saying it did do that much).

Edit: Speaking to your wider point, first party does dominate Switch and that's because:

1. The biggest third party games don't come to Switch
2. The first party in this case is Nintendo, the world's biggest publisher

 

[Topher]

It's a really badly written article, as Nintendo only releases software figures for the games they publish. Lego Star Wars could sell 25 million on Switch alone and would still not appear on that list (not that I'm saying it did do that much).

My point remains. Nintendo first party dominates Switch sales, unlike PS/Xbox.

 

[Yoboman]

*Yoda is confused*

The dumbest thing about Microsoft is they talk too much, and nearly all of it is just bs

 

[Woopah]

My point remains. Nintendo first party dominates Switch sales, unlike PS/Xbox.

I made an edit to address this but yes. Third parties won't come close to Nintendo on a single platform, but they would come a lot closer if they supported the Switch better.

 

[Three]

The fact that their performance metrics exclude Nintendo and none of their emails talk about competing with switch sales I have a hard time just believing this response in a testimony on its own, when they're trying to get this acquisition through.

 

[Three]

It's a really badly written article, as Nintendo only releases software figures for the games they publish. Lego Star Wars could sell 25 million on Switch alone and would still not appear on that list (not that I'm saying it did do that much).

Edit: Speaking to your wider point, first party does dominate Switch and that's because:

1. The biggest third party games don't come to Switch
2. The first party in this case is Nintendo, the world's biggest publisher

It would show in platform specific charts though but I think Lego star wars is actually popular on switch anyway. Things like Fifa, CoD, Asscreed, not so much.

 

[SHA]

What's this! , a 3rd grade interrogation for kids talking about nothing but common sense to calm their peanut size brains.

 

[Woopah]

It would show in platform specific charts though but I think Lego star wars is actually popular on switch anyway. Things like Fifa, CoD, Asscreed, not so much.

Lego Star Wars did show in the platform specific chart, because Lego games have built an audience on the Nintendo/Switch. Other third parties have not done so, hence why I would expect Monster Hunter to sell better on Switch than those other platforms.

The third parties which do best on Switch 2 will be the ones who are investing in building an audience on Switch.

 

[Sleepwalker]

I doubt it, but honestly I hope you are right. I'd love to see a Nintendo console that can hold its own next to PS and Xbox power wise.

They had the right idea with the wii u in terms of power but the timing was very bad with the ps4/xone releasing 1 year after.

This time however, should they match current gen or at least land somewhere in between series S and X, they could enjoy mostly equal third party support for at least 5 years with the way generations go now maybe more as no doubt therell be a crossgen period at the start of the next one.


But thats only if they mean to produce a home only console and I dont think they will.

 

[Three]

Lego Star Wars did show in the platform specific chart, because Lego games have built an audience on the Nintendo/Switch.

Yeah, that's what i just said.

Other third parties have not done so, hence why I would expect Monster Hunter to sell better on Switch than those other platforms.

Highly popular games in Japan with exclusivity sure.

The third parties which do best on Switch 2 will be the ones who are investing in building an audience on Switch.

As I said, not the likes of Fifa, Assassin's Creed and I doubt CoD. They do try to build an audience. It doesn't work. Something that's a surefire hit in Japan is more likely.

 

[Woopah]

Yeah, that's what i just said.

Highly popular games in Japan with exclusivity sure.

As I said, not the likes of Fifa, Assassin's Creed and I doubt CoD. They do try to build an audience. It doesn't work. Something that's a surefire hit in Japan is more likely.

FIFA only arrives on Switch as a Legacy Edition, and neither COD nor Assaains Creed have released any new games day and date on Switch. That's not building an audience.

 

[Three]

FIFA only arrives on Switch as a Legacy Edition, and neither COD nor Assaains Creed have released any new games day and date on Switch. That's not building an audience.

It arrives as a legacy edition due to the system specs, nothing else. The same way the PSP got legacy edition releases. That's why I said I doubt because I don't see it happening when they do for CoD. Sledgehammer games released MW3 day and date on Wii to lackluster sales, CoD: Ghosts day and date on Wii U to lackluster sales even as a percentage. assassin's creed odyssey was day and date on Switch too so that's not true.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think if nintendo made hardware that was equal in power to xbox and PS5, this narrative would die quickly. I think if most people could only choose one console...they would go with a powerful nintendo that could play all third party exclusives at the same level as rival platforms. if we are talking exclusives, them they still make the best as far as the three console manufactures go. if they just built a console that was equal to their rivcals in the same gen they would mop the floor with MS and sony. they already do it with less powerful hardware. Im saying that as somebody that bought a series X over the switch or PS5. Nintendo would smoke the competition if they built equally powerful hardware. they already beat sonmy and MS twice with weaker hardware.

My man........ We already did this. It's called the PS2, GameCube, Xbox lol

 

[Woopah]

It arrives as a legacy edition due to the system specs, nothing else. The same way the PSP got legacy edition releases. That's why I said I doubt because I don't see it happening when they do for CoD. Sledgehammer games released MW3 day and date on Wii to lackluster sales, CoD: Ghosts day and date on Wii U to lackluster sales even as a percentage. assassin's creed odyssey was day and date on Switch too so that's not true.

Why would specs make it have to be Legacy? The PSP ones weren't called Legacy edition

MW3 released the same day on Wii but neither of the previous two Modern Warfare games did, and none of the games in the franchise have come to Switch. Something Kotick said was a mistake.

Assaains Creed Odyssey released on Switch only as a cloud edition and only in Japan.

There's a huge huge difference in the franchise presence on Switch Vs. other platforms. If Switch 2 is powerful enough to run Assaains Creed games and it consistently gets new games in the franchise for example, its popularity on the Nintendo ecosystem will increase.

 

[Deerock71]

They would but I don't think it works both ways. Even games that sell well on Xbox and PS like Lego Star Wars doesn't make the yearly top 10 on Switch.

I would counter that those games wouldn't fare as well as they do on ANY system if Nintendo was a 3rd party churning out their content everywhere. I'd say only counter-programming like CD Projekt Red and Take-Two would continue to thrive. I'm just happy Nintendo can churn the games and the hardware so they can do whatever the fuck they want.

 

[Three]

Why would specs make it have to be Legacy? The PSP ones weren't called Legacy edition

Yes they were.

Isn't it obvious why? The specs meant the new game didn't have the new engine and features created for the newer generation game. It was relying on a legacy engine.

MW3 released the same day on Wii but neither of the previous two Modern Warfare games did, and none of the games in the franchise have come to Switch. Something Kotick said was a mistake.

That's true but again when they did it didn't sell so when it does again it's not going to sell. I'm sure he's more worried about Warzone.

Assaains Creed Odyssey released on Switch only as a cloud edition and only in Japan.

Exactly, due to the market in Japan being better for switch releases as I said. Still didn't sell well though. it required cloud again due to specs, that could have hurt sales but that's not the publisher not trying to build an audience.

There's a huge huge difference in the franchise presence on Switch Vs. other platforms. If Switch 2 is powerful enough to run Assaains Creed games and it consistently gets new games in the franchise for example, its popularity on the Nintendo ecosystem will increase.

Not disputing that it will increase but it still wouldn't be much on Switch 1. It will depend on how it performs against the others, if the difference becomes negligible on Switch 2 then I can see that happening.

 

[RickMasters]

My man........ We already did this. It's called the PS2, GameCube, Xbox lol

yeah I know, the gamecube was the very last nintendo console I owned. My point is they need to give it another go or atleast make a " hi spec" option to customers who want it. Id gladly take power of the modular mobility of the switch, if they gave me the choice. I cant be the only who feels that way

 

[Astral Dog]

I think if nintendo made hardware that was equal in power to xbox and PS5, this narrative would die quickly. I think if most people could only choose one console...they would go with a powerful nintendo that could play all third party exclusives at the same level as rival platforms. if we are talking exclusives, them they still make the best as far as the three console manufactures go. if they just built a console that was equal to their rivcals in the same gen they would mop the floor with MS and sony. they already do it with less powerful hardware. Im saying that as somebody that bought a series X over the switch or PS5. Nintendo would smoke the competition if they built equally powerful hardware. they already beat sonmy and MS twice with weaker hardware.

This is a common misconception but Nintendo tried,twice ,to stay at a competitive level with PlayStation and only were losing their audience ,gamers picked PlayStation over Nintendo ( in part because their Mature image,but it was not only that)

It also didn't sway third parties over

Nintendo needed a drastically different direction from the competition and came up with the Wii and DS,wich offered an unique experience, at lower costs for developing software

Nintendo simply won't win by copying the strategies of their rivals,they know that very well
It would have been impossible for the Switch to rival PS4 power while keeping its hybrid feature, and the $300 price point, they played their card,and focused on the gains

 

[Kataploom]

Well, the arguments of "Switch is not competitor" always seems like a built up shit just to make a case against MS. I'm not against or in favor of the purchase but there's so much shit they've put out just to make it impossible it's dumb to think this is a "pro consumer" play more than a political one.

Does that mean the Series S competes with the low-end home console market?

Yes. And the others for mid-low range gaming market. They're all consoles after all

 

[bender]

Yes. And the others for mid-low range gaming market. They're all consoles after all

 

[zedinen]

The only thing that matters to Microsoft: PS5 performance in America

But I've been told by the counsel here on GAF Nintendo isn't competing for the same video gaming entertainment dollars. Who to believe?

Nintendo isn't competing for the same dollars.

To say otherwise would be to admit that Nintendo days are numbered.


PlayStation Sales ¥3.6 trillion

Nintendo Sales ¥1.6 trillion

Nintendo is probably laughing at Sony's and Microsoft's dependence on third party games which is what the crux of this acquisition is really all about. Meanwhile, Switch bestselling games are dominated by first party.

Nintendo dependence on a few first party games has been a recipe for disaster (N64, GC, 3DS, Wii U).

The crux of this acquisition is that PS5 is about to enter its most profitable stage while Tokyo is working on a partial spin-off.

They want to slow down Microsoft because Sony needs time to grow its financial muscle.

You’ve got that exactly backwards.

Sony and Microsoft wishes they had thirty to near forty year old IPs that can sell millions of copies over a weekend. Tears of the Kingdom sold more in 3 days than GoW Ragnarok did in 3 months. Sony and/or Microsoft would kill to have a fraction of the staying and selling power of Mario, Zelda, and Pokémon.

Nintendo’s first party offering covers almost every base: racing, sports, fighting, action, western RPG, JRPG, life sim, even third person shooter - all of which sell very well. Nintendo doesn’t need those third parties.

Third party sales have allowed PlayStation to operate with little to no capital, post the highest ROIC in the entire industry and create an internal capital market that saved a conglomerate on the verge of bankruptcy.

Which is why Sony is in a much better position than Nintendo to thrive in a period of turbulence.

Enterprise Value
Sony $127.73 B
Nintendo $39.68 B

 

[ADiTAR]

Seems like Nintendo is the only one who understands who they are competing against, time. Your time. In Nintendo's eyes they are competing with Netflix, your phone, Xbox, the theater, anything that takes time away from someone playing their games.

 

[Victor Omega]

When they winning, Xbox is a Console with the best graphics that needs time DLC and exclusives. Custom preimun Xbox controllers. Hardware sale matter

When they losing, Xbox is a service, anti Console War, pro Content, monthly subscription number matter, exclusive dont matter

 

[Deerock71]

The only thing that matters to Microsoft: PS5 performance in America

Nintendo isn't competing for the same dollars.

To say otherwise would be to admit that Nintendo days are numbered.


PlayStation Sales ¥3.6 trillion

Nintendo Sales ¥1.6 trillion

Nintendo dependence on a few first party games has been a recipe for disaster (N64, GC, 3DS, Wii U).

The crux of this acquisition is that PS5 is about to enter its most profitable stage while Tokyo is working on a partial spin-off.

They want to slow down Microsoft because Sony needs time to grow its financial muscle.



Third party sales have allowed PlayStation to operate with little to no capital, post the highest ROIC in the entire industry and create an internal capital market that saved a conglomerate on the verge of bankruptcy.

Which is why Sony is in a much better position than Nintendo to thrive in a period of turbulence.

Enterprise Value
Sony $127.73 B
Nintendo $39.68 B

This is some Grade-A spin. Compare profits between the two companies over the last 30 years.

 

[Robb]

One of the longest running and most successful companies in gaming is competing with MS in the gaming space?

Please say it ain’t so Phil!

 

[Silent Viper]

Wonder why Sony executives not on Gaf, they get crazy support and love here.Jim ryan should join.

And MS competes with everyone like a lone wounded warrior.

 

[Crayon]

Wonder why Sony executives not on Gaf, they get crazy support and love here.Jim ryan should join.

And MS competes with everyone like a lone wounded warrior.

This made me think and it turned into a rant.

It's been pretty rough for the bots around here. All the little snippets coming out were nasty and people are raging against ms. Justified, imo. I think ms should be getting the third degree. I've been doing a lot of raging, myself.

But there's dragging ms and then there's going for people here. Or generalizing personal stuff. The person and the company bleed together thanks to the wonder of console wars. But if you are aware of the line under that mess, you can try to stay away from it.

For example, I said a few days ago yada yada you'd got to be a heel to support ms&abk. Like you are an irl asshole when I've never even talked to you. Er... No. That's kinda terrible. We all occasionally pull out heads off gaf to do a little irl and poof we are normal people. Saying you are a heel for picking a side in a squabble. That's getting personal and generalizing at the same time. Lurkers who don't even have accounts are reading that. That's bad. I'll inevitably do it again but I do try to check that and I should double down on the self control right now.

* This does not include when members act spectacularly stupid and get tarred and feathered but still stick around. Let's be honest it's hilarious and we have many fond memories of nutcases becoming micro-celebrities here. They earn it though so that's different.

I don't want to drive people away from the board. You can actually do that if enough people see "this is not an Xbox place". Not the same ten dorks you lock horns with ever day. Nice people who are xbox fans and try to steer clear of the mosh pits. There's been comments making tongue in cheek accusations and they are readi those. That's bad in terms of community. A community that I think is more important that fighting over a process we have no control over. Chilling out a bit for the sake of community is not going to effect the outcome of a trial.

If we, even unintentionally, get people feeling that they are not wanted because they are shills or heels or whatever ... HEY! TIME OUT! Break it up. Touch gloves and let's have a clean fight.

Some of you saw when era had the core PC community break right off and make another forum. That's was the awful epic pr war against valve. Era, being exactly wrong on 90% of things, took epic's side as a proxy against PC gamers in general and it was absolutely miserable for a long time. It was shitty when they left. A lot of them were here from back in the day.

Omg it's so late. I'm repeating myself I'm tired I'm done.

 

[crackajack]

I mean sure, all are electronic entertainment systems, but saying anyone decides between a Switch or Series S, like they are actually competing for the very same market, while those are very very different, feels just weird. Setting the price of your device does not happen in a vacuum though, of course, but are they really competing?
In the same vein you could argue the Xbox competition is social media, TV shows, basketballs, books, fidget spinners etc., all those fight for your free time while the products are hardly the same.

 

[cireza]

This made me think and it turned into a rant.

It's been pretty rough for the bots around here. All the little snippets coming out were nasty and people are raging against ms. Justified, imo. I think ms should be getting the third degree. I've been doing a lot of raging, myself.

But there's dragging ms and then there's going for people here. Or generalizing personal stuff. The person and the company bleed together thanks to the wonder of console wars. But if you are aware of the line under that mess, you can try to stay away from it.

For example, I said a few days ago yada yada you'd got to be a heel to support ms&abk. Like you are an irl asshole when I've never even talked to you. Er... No. That's kinda terrible. We all occasionally pull out heads off gaf to do a little irl and poof we are normal people. Saying you are a heel for picking a side in a squabble. That's getting personal and generalizing at the same time. Lurkers who don't even have accounts are reading that. That's bad. I'll inevitably do it again but I do try to check that and I should double down on the self control right now.

* This does not include when members act spectacularly stupid and get tarred and feathered but still stick around. Let's be honest it's hilarious and we have many fond memories of nutcases becoming micro-celebrities here. They earn it though so that's different.

I don't want to drive people away from the board. You can actually do that if enough people see "this is not an Xbox place". Not the same ten dorks you lock horns with ever day. Nice people who are xbox fans and try to steer clear of the mosh pits. There's been comments making tongue in cheek accusations and they are readi those. That's bad in terms of community. A community that I think is more important that fighting over a process we have no control over. Chilling out a bit for the sake of community is not going to effect the outcome of a trial.

If we, even unintentionally, get people feeling that they are not wanted because they are shills or heels or whatever ... HEY! TIME OUT! Break it up. Touch gloves and let's have a clean fight.

Some of you saw when era had the core PC community break right off and make another forum. That's was the awful epic pr war against valve. Era, being exactly wrong on 90% of things, took epic's side as a proxy against PC gamers in general and it was absolutely miserable for a long time. It was shitty when they left. A lot of them were here from back in the day.

Omg it's so late. I'm repeating myself I'm tired I'm done.

Good post.

Personal attacks are ridiculous, and with the FTC events recently, directly calling people for "explanations" has certainly been a bit too frequent... I get it that people are annoyed, but this is not a good reason to harass others. How about letting people live their lives ? This is a forum people come to in their free time, they will leave if they don't enjoy it anymore.

Evidently Xbox fans have to navigate carefully around here, which certainly doesn't help making it a very welcoming place right now.

 

[alucard0712_rus]

But Nintendo said they weren't competing so who to believe.

Competition with someone why is not competing is still a competition?

 

[Riky]

Good post.

Personal attacks are ridiculous, and with the FTC events recently, directly calling people for "explanations" has certainly been a bit too frequent... I get it that people are annoyed, but this is not a good reason to harass others. How about letting people live their lives ? This is a forum people come to in their free time, they will leave if they don't enjoy it anymore.

Evidently Xbox fans have to navigate carefully around here, which certainly doesn't help making it a very welcoming place right now.

Spot on.

 

[Fabieter]

So the Switch is also competition but all the sony exclusives are hurting ms soo bad, something isn't adding up wirh all those ms claims.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

Xbox Boss Phil Spencer Doesn't See Sony As Competition Going Forward

Convenient

www.pushsquare.com

“When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward,” he said. “That’s not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position

That’s hilarious, the company out of position saying that about others doing a MUCH better job in this industry than them.

Also hilarious that they compare themselves to two tech giants who absolutely fucking suck at anything to do with the gaming industry and have multiple failures to their names.

Go home Microsoft, you’re drunk!

 

[Woopah]

Yes they were.

Isn't it obvious why? The specs meant the new game didn't have the new engine and features created for the newer generation game. It was relying on a legacy engine.

PSP only got legacy games after the Vita released. Before Vita, FIFA on PSP was not Legacy.

That's true but again when they did it didn't sell so when it does again it's not going to sell. I'm sure he's more worried about Warzone.

It didn't sell on Wii U because the Wii U sold like shit. Switch is a very different situation. EA brought Apex Legends over, so I think at the very least Activision should have brought Warzone.

Exactly, due to the market in Japan being better for switch releases as I said. Still didn't sell well though. it required cloud again due to specs, that could have hurt sales but that's not the publisher not trying to build an audience.

There's plenty of Switch cloud games that were released everywhere. I think Assassin's Creed could be the only one available only in Japan (not 100% sure about that).

The Switch is not the 3DS, it's sales are high globally, not just in Japan

Not disputing that it will increase but it still wouldn't be much on Switch 1. It will depend on how it performs against the others, if the difference becomes negligible on Switch 2 then I can see that happening.

To clarify my point, there are definitely valid reasons why third parties would not bring their biggest, most graphically intensive games for Switch (namely power and file size)

But the reason why the big third games don't sell on Switch is because they are not on Switch. Third party franchises that have built an audience like Sonic, Lego, Monster Hunter etc. sell well on the Switch. If other third parties did the same, they would also see their games sell well.

EDIT: to elaborate, it's a combination of franchise audience and genre audience. On Switch, I'd say the audience for platformers, action games and RPGs is higher than the audience for Sports games and FPS.

 

[Three]

PSP only got legacy games after the Vita released. Before Vita, FIFA on PSP was not Legacy.

I really don't know what point you're making here. Are you trying to say the PSP was legacy now due to the Vita and it's not engine related? The PSVita got the legacy version too. It's because it was the legacy engine that ran on handhelds as oppose to the new one that ran on higher spec consoles.

It didn't sell on Wii U because the Wii U sold like shit. Switch is a very different situation. EA brought Apex Legends over, so I think at the very least Activision should have brought Warzone.

Warzone I agree with but only because it's a f2p game which doesn't require people to buy it. I don't think for sale CoD will do well due to people buying the better version to play.

There's plenty of Switch cloud games that were released everywhere. I think Assassin's Creed could be the only one available only in Japan (not 100% sure about that).
The Switch is not the 3DS, it's sales are high globally, not just in Japan

Didn't say there aren't games for sale but just pointing out that Switch has a bigger audience in japan, and other places higher performance consoles dominate sales for those type of games.

To clarify my point, there are definitely valid reasons why third parties would not bring their biggest, most graphically intensive games for Switch (namely power and file size)

But the reason why the big third games don't sell on Switch is because they are not on Switch. Third party franchises that have built an audience like Sonic, Lego, Monster Hunter etc. sell well on the Switch. If other third parties did the same, they would also see their games sell well.

EDIT: to elaborate, it's a combination of franchise audience and genre audience. On Switch, I'd say the audience for platformers, action games and RPGs is higher than the audience for Sports games and FPS.

That's a fair point. I think they've tried though but the demographic isn't the same. I think this is where the disagreement is. I don't believe CoD will sell on switch and it isn't because they haven't tried, but because most people buy that elsewhere so they stopped.

 

[Thirty7ven]

This was a lie considering none of this was analyzed or mentioned internally, it was basically just for show when the guy was on the stand.

 

[Woopah]

I really don't know what point you're making here. Are you trying to say the PSP was legacy now due to the Vita and it's not engine related? The PSVita got the legacy version too. It's because it was the legacy engine that ran on handhelds as oppose to the new one that ran on higher spec consoles.

My point is that it doesn't make sense to say "it was the legacy engine that ran on handhelds" When FIFA Soccer on PSP was not branded as a Legacy edition, neither waas FIFA 06, 07, 08, etc. etc. There were already 10 FIFA games on PSP before it got a Legacy Edition.

Warzone I agree with but only because it's a f2p game which doesn't require people to buy it. I don't think for sale CoD will do well due to people buying the better version to play.

Didn't say there aren't games for sale but just pointing out that Switch has a bigger audience in japan, and other places higher performance consoles dominate sales for those type of games.


That's a fair point. I think they've tried though but the demographic isn't the same. I think this is where the disagreement is. I don't believe CoD will sell on switch and it isn't because they haven't tried, but because most people buy that elsewhere so they stopped.

There would definitely be some games like COD that sell worse on Switch than on other platforms. But likewise there are franchises like Sonic that sell worse on Xbox, but they should still come to that platform. I think Mortal Kombat One will sell less on Switch that PS or XB, but still think its a good idea for Warner Bros. to continue bringing Mortal Kombat to Switch and building the audience.

 

[Three]

My point is that it doesn't make sense to say "it was the legacy engine that ran on handhelds" When FIFA Soccer on PSP was not branded as a Legacy edition, neither waas FIFA 06, 07, 08, etc. etc. There were already 10 FIFA games on PSP before it got a Legacy Edition.

So you're upset that they started branding the platform versions that could no longer receive the engine and gameplay updates legacy? I really don't understand your point.

As the engine and game updates got to the point where PSP or Vita couldn't support the same features as the latest game on the latest console of the time they kept those that didn't get the updates as "legacy edition". PS2, PS3 and 360 also had Fifas that weren't legacy editions for a while but as the game went beyond those machines they started to get the "legacy editions" only.

 

[demigod]

Right, so who are they competing with now?

Nintendo?
Sony?
Google?
Amazon?
Meta?
Apple?

All of the above? None of the above? Do they even know?

Ouya baby!!!

 

[Sleepwalker]

the legacy fifas were better than the shitshow they served on the ps4/xbo gen with the ignite engine and then the even worse frostbite (still being used)

 

[Woopah]

So you're upset that they started branding the platform versions that could no longer receive the engine and gameplay updates legacy? I really don't understand your point.

As the engine and game updates got to the point where PSP or Vita couldn't support the same features as the latest game on the latest console of the time they kept those that didn't get the updates as "legacy edition". PS2, PS3 and 360 also had Fifas that weren't legacy editions for a while but as the game went beyond those machines they started to get the "legacy editions" only.

I never said I'm upset, I'm saying that your claim that the Legacy branding is based on engines is not true. That even though the PSP games ran on a different engine from the PS3 and 360 versions, those games still got meaningful updates and changes rather than doing the bare minimum with Legacy editions. Likewise the Switch FIFA games in 2017 and 2018 were not Legacy editions, even though they used a different engine to the PS4 and XBO versions.

The Switch FIFA games did not change engine when it started getting Legacy editions. The Legacy editions run on the same engine as the non-legacy editions.

 

[Three]

I never said I'm upset, I'm saying that your claim that the Legacy branding is based on engines is not true. That even though the PSP games ran on a different engine from the PS3 and 360 versions, those games still got meaningful updates and changes rather than doing the bare minimum with Legacy editions. Likewise the Switch FIFA games in 2017 and 2018 were not Legacy editions, even though they used a different engine to the PS4 and XBO versions.

The Switch FIFA games did not change engine when it started getting Legacy editions. The Legacy editions run on the same engine as the non-legacy editions.

Honestly it just feels like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. They started using the "legacy edition" naming convention when they switched to the ignite engine on xbox one and Ps4 meaning they named everything else that wasn't ignite "legacy edition" (that included PSP, Vita, 3DS, Wii, PS2, everything). Then when they switched to frostbite they called the 360/PS3 versions on ignite legacy. For switch they created a new custom engine specifically for switch to match PS4/Xbox one. For Switch there was only 2018/2019. Then instead of updating that engine any further to match PS5 and Xbox Series features on Frostbite 3 that version was again "legacy" because of the difficulty of maintaining feature parity with the new consoles in 2020.

All this semantics doesn't make a lick of difference anyway because I don't understand your point. Them not naming Switch Fifa 18/19 "legacy" was in fact more like a curtesy to not lower their sales because it was a new custom engine they had created even if it was missing features in comparison to PS4/XBO. So that's what I'm confused about what exactly your point is, keep in mind this is where it all started, I said this:

It arrives as a legacy edition due to the system specs, nothing else. The same way the PSP got legacy edition releases.

Why would specs make it have to be Legacy? The PSP ones weren't called Legacy edition

and you just seem to be arguing about whatever you can now and I don't get where it's going. The Switch version, just like the PSP, Vita, gets the "legacy edition" due to not being able to keep up with engine/game development on the latest consoles, nothing more, nothing less. They didn't just start calling it legacy edition for shits and giggles.