Nintendo Switch (Currently Plagued) - Here we shit post about the new Nintendo console, The Switch

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Marissa Moira said:
Dude nothing is currently in stock every single piece of hardware is experiencing a shortage including VR bullshit.
Click to expand...
I was in Walmart earlier this week getting my booster and, while stuck waiting, went to the video game section. Multiple OLED models were available for purchase. I think Gamestop had them too, which I checked out on the way home.
 
whatever I feel like said:
Doom wasn't a one-off, it was a followup to Skyrim selling well on Switch. And it was followed by Wolfenstein 2 , Wolfenstein: YB and Doom Eternal all getting Switch ports. The DE port was delayed for over half a year and came with tons of compromises, they really bent over backwards to get it running. That was 13 months ago, I have no idea what the port studio is doing now. Main Bethesda released 2 PS5 timed-exclusives and then got brought by Microsoft. If you want to know the real reason why future Switch ports aren't likely, thats the actual answer.
Click to expand...
IIRC their port studio was doing the Skyrim port for Series X and PS5.

whatever I feel like said:
I was in Walmart earlier this week getting my booster and, while stuck waiting, went to the video game section. Multiple OLED models were available for purchase. I think Gamestop had them too, which I checked out on the way home.
Click to expand...
My area has had nothing hardware wise and have regulated everything to Online only sales or ticket systems. This goes for everything including PC hardware.
 
Marissa Moira said:
You're not seeing Nintendo throw around money to other companies which is what always has allowed Sony to remain a dominat force in the game industry. Nintendo despite all their earnings don't go around cutting deals with smaller companies and instead just focus on themselves.

If Sony offers a company money for an exclusivity deal they would take it if Nintendo is offering them $0. Nintendo's national marketshare in japan is a pittance to the global market which is what developers are aiming for. Especially if development costs get covered by a publisher.
Click to expand...
And not to triple post but fuck it, you're just wrong so here it goes. Nintendo does lots of publishing of third party exclusives. Most of them use Nintendo IP but not all of them do. This also says nothing of ancient/discontinued partnerships like the "Sonic exclusivity" in the Wii U era or the Capcom 5.:

Platinum: Bayonetta, W101, helped with some other games I think?
Bandai Namco: Codeveloped Smash. probably responsible for the failed version of Prime 4
Koei Tecmo: multiple Nintendo IP branded Warriors spinoffs,
Syn Sophia: Nintendo publishes Style Savvy for them
Jupiter: Picross S series published by Nintendo, has been doing this for decades for them
Kuju: Art Academy games for Nintendo, did Battalion Wars way back in the day
Sega: Mario and Sonic series, total shit but sells millions
Arika: Dr. Mario and various Nintendo published Tetris titles
Spike Chunsoft: Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games
Ubisoft: Mario and Rabbids games
Imagineer: Fitness Boxing (shovelware that sells millions)

And this is to say nothing of the "technically independent" companies that ONLY produce Nintendo-published games like HAL, Intelligent Systems, Game Freak and Creatures Inc., Sora, Good Feel, Grezzo, etc.
 
whatever I feel like said:
And not to triple post but fuck it, you're just wrong so here it goes. Nintendo does lots of publishing of third party exclusives. Most of them use Nintendo IP but not all of them do. This also says nothing of ancient/discontinued partnerships like the "Sonic exclusivity" in the Wii U era or the Capcom 5.:

Platinum: Bayonetta, W101, helped with some other games I think?
Bandai Namco: Codeveloped Smash. probably responsible for the failed version of Prime 4
Koei Tecmo: multiple Nintendo IP branded Warriors spinoffs,
Syn Sophia: Nintendo publishes Style Savvy for them
Jupiter: Picross S series published by Nintendo, has been doing this for decades for them
Kuju: Art Academy games for Nintendo, did Battalion Wars way back in the day
Sega: Mario and Sonic series, total shit but sells millions
Arika: Dr. Mario and various Nintendo published Tetris titles
Spike Chunsoft: Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games
Ubisoft: Mario and Rabbids games
Imagineer: Fitness Boxing (shovelware that sells millions)

And this is to say nothing of the "technically independent" companies that ONLY produce Nintendo-published games like HAL, Intelligent Systems, Game Freak and Creatures Inc., Sora, Good Feel, Grezzo, etc.
Click to expand...
But that just proves just how rare it is done.

Your whole list which is multiconsole generation spanning doesn't even come close to what a single system like PS4 had. Not only that quite a few of those are mario centric games and not an independent IP. A few of those IPs are even considered defunct by Nintendo themselves.

Like sony just threw money to get like a half dozen Neptunia games, Nintendo isn't doing anything similar. Hell all 4 Cold Steel games had a limited exclusivity deal for each of them and future Kiseki games are getting a similar treatment.
 
Marissa Moira said:
But that just proves just how rare it is done.

Your whole list which is multiconsole generation spanning doesn't even come close to what a single system like PS4 had. Not only that quite a few of those are mario centric games and not an independent IP. A few of those IPs are even considered defunct by Nintendo themselves.

Like sony just threw money to get like a half dozen Neptunia games, Nintendo isn't doing anything similar. Hell all 4 Cold Steel games had a limited exclusivity deal for each of them and future Kiseki games are getting a similar treatment.
Click to expand...
The only non-Switch one I mentioned was Syn Sophia/Style Savvy (surely coming soon), all of the others had at least one Switch entry. 3 of 11 were Mario entries, and thats counting Dr. Mario which, honestly, who counts Dr. Mario as a Mario game?

Go ahead, enlighten me on Sony publishing third party games because I am curious. I know about Bluepoint (did Sony end up buying them?), Quantic Dream (no longer working with Sony, from what I heard,) David Jaffe (also blacklisted), Sumo Digital doing LBP, Clap Hanz on Everybody's Golf, Lucid Games doing Destruction AllStars and the CoD DLC agreement with Activision. Feel free to pull from anything in the PS4's library that was exclusively for Playstation and published by Sony or that paid timed exclusivity on.
 
whatever I feel like said:
The only non-Switch one I mentioned was Syn Sophia/Style Savvy (surely coming soon), all of the others had at least one Switch entry. 3 of 11 were Mario entries, and thats counting Dr. Mario which, honestly, who counts Dr. Mario as a Mario game?

Go ahead, enlighten me on Sony publishing third party games because I am curious. I know about Bluepoint (did Sony end up buying them?), Quantic Dream (no longer working with Sony, from what I heard,) David Jaffe (also blacklisted), Sumo Digital doing LBP, Clap Hanz on Everybody's Golf, Lucid Games doing Destruction AllStars and the CoD DLC agreement with Activision. Feel free to pull from anything in the PS4's library that was exclusively for Playstation and published by Sony or that paid timed exclusivity on.
Click to expand...
Bayonetta 2 and Wonderful 101 came out originally for the wii-u, the ports for w101 had to be crowdfunded.

You're mostly referencing Nintendo getting companies to make spin-offs for their established IPs. Which is different from what I was talking about which was paying for exclusivity for an already existing series, which Nintendo doesn't really do. The two most major were Monster Hunter and SMT5 and both were released within the last year or so. The Wii-U only had those two like that(unless you're counting 3 Ultimate which was an enhanced port) for it's whole 5 years and for most of the switch's lifespan Nintendo hasn't been doing grabs like that either.

Like there's a difference between paying Falcom for their next game and paying falcom to make a game featuring a crossover IP.

I was talking about the former and how Sony is more willing to do stuff like that with Monster Hunter World, Final Fantasy 7 remake and 16, Persona, and stuff like that. They're way more willing to fund games like that and help pay for the promotional and advertising stuff in exchange for exclusivity arrangements.
 
Marissa Moira said:
Bayonetta 2 and Wonderful 101 came out originally for the wii-u, the ports for w101 had to be crowdfunded.
Click to expand...
There isn't a "port to Switch" button for Wii U games, them remaking 1 and 2 for Switch counts, to say nothing of them actively working on 3 as a Switch exclusive. They also made Astral Chain for Switch, which Nintendo published and advertised heavily in Directs.

You're mostly referencing Nintendo getting companies to make spin-offs for their established IPs. Which is different from what I was talking about which was paying for exclusivity for an already existing series, which Nintendo doesn't really do. The two most major were Monster Hunter and SMT5 and both were released within the last year or so. The Wii-U only had those two like that(unless you're counting 3 Ultimate which was an enhanced port) for it's whole 5 years and for most of the switch's lifespan Nintendo hasn't been doing grabs like that either.
Click to expand...

You said "You're not seeing Nintendo throw around money to other companies which is what always has allowed Sony to remain a dominate force in the game industry. Nintendo despite all their earnings don't go around cutting deals with smaller companies and instead just focus on themselves." and thats just not true. Nintendo literally lets other companies develop whole game series using its characters, they publish a boatload of indies which I haven't bothered mentioning previously because fuck 'em, they take quality general audiences JP handheld titles and localize them (no longer relevant with the death of the 3DS.)

As to paid exclusivity, which you seem to be arguing for, and setting aside the idea of "why would you even want that", Nintendo hasn't bothered to do it in the Switch era, which I think you meant to say, because they've sold well enough that people are actively putting games on their systems. They don't have to.

Like there's a difference between paying Falcom for their next game and paying falcom to make a game featuring a crossover IP.

I was talking about the former and how Sony is more willing to do stuff like that with Monster Hunter World, Final Fantasy 7 remake and 16, Persona, and stuff like that. They're way more willing to fund games like that and help pay for the promotional and advertising stuff in exchange for exclusivity arrangements.
Click to expand...
Those three game series are also heavily associated with the Playstation brand, in the eyes of a casual gamer they might as well be 1st party IP. Nintendo is "lucky" enough that you could probably count on one hand the number of non-Nintendo IPs that are strongly associated with Nintendo platforms. So they rarely, if ever, have to do stuff like that. And the few times they've tried it, it didn't help their position. Sony seems to be doing it recently to help prop up their own lack of first party games but that is a weakness, not a strength. Thats Xbox circa 2013 and then them wondering why it actually hurts their platform.

As for MH World, I am reading the wiki and Sony definitely helped foot the bill on it, but I am curious what type of exclusivity they had(DLC? marketing?) as the game launched same day on Xbox.

Actually, Google might be fucking me here but I can't find a single thing on Sony/Playstation purchasing Neptunia exclusivity either. Its not on the first few pages of Google returns, its not on the series wiki page OR the individual game's page. Prove it isn't bullshit.

Also, just as a close out. You have said that "Nintendo's national marketshare in japan is a pittance to the global market which is what developers are aiming for." But the PS4+5 have 130 million sales compared to the Switch's 92 million. Take away the fact that Sony had 4 additional years of selling the PS4 that Nintendo did not and those "marketshares" look damn near the same. Its meaningless. You can talk about combined reach of the PS, Xbox and hardcore PC markets. But that, in turn, compares to the three of those plus Switch and mobile, plus budget PCs/cloud. Its a bad argument, developers will tailor their games to whichever group of platforms fits the game series best, unless someone tips the scales, but that rarely happens.
 
I'm just waiting to see if the lack of quality content will force Nintendo to downsize.

Sure, it'll probably never happen because people will buy another shell of a sports game that features "Bing! Bing! Wahoo!" in an heartbeat; but it could happen.
 
Marissa Moira said:
My area has had nothing hardware wise and have regulated everything to Online only sales or ticket systems. This goes for everything including PC hardware.
Click to expand...
Same. My Best Buy has had a sign in the entry way saying as much since the PS5 launch.
 
whatever I feel like said:
There isn't a "port to Switch" button for Wii U games, them remaking 1 and 2 for Switch counts, to say nothing of them actively working on 3 as a Switch exclusive. They also made Astral Chain for Switch, which Nintendo published and advertised heavily in Directs.



You said "You're not seeing Nintendo throw around money to other companies which is what always has allowed Sony to remain a dominate force in the game industry. Nintendo despite all their earnings don't go around cutting deals with smaller companies and instead just focus on themselves." and thats just not true. Nintendo literally lets other companies develop whole game series using its characters, they publish a boatload of indies which I haven't bothered mentioning previously because fuck 'em, they take quality general audiences JP handheld titles and localize them (no longer relevant with the death of the 3DS.)

As to paid exclusivity, which you seem to be arguing for, and setting aside the idea of "why would you even want that", Nintendo hasn't bothered to do it in the Switch era, which I think you meant to say, because they've sold well enough that people are actively putting games on their systems. They don't have to.

Those three game series are also heavily associated with the Playstation brand, in the eyes of a casual gamer they might as well be 1st party IP. Nintendo is "lucky" enough that you could probably count on one hand the number of non-Nintendo IPs that are strongly associated with Nintendo platforms. So they rarely, if ever, have to do stuff like that. And the few times they've tried it, it didn't help their position. Sony seems to be doing it recently to help prop up their own lack of first party games but that is a weakness, not a strength. Thats Xbox circa 2013 and then them wondering why it actually hurts their platform.

As for MH World, I am reading the wiki and Sony definitely helped foot the bill on it, but I am curious what type of exclusivity they had(DLC? marketing?) as the game launched same day on Xbox.

Actually, Google might be fucking me here but I can't find a single thing on Sony/Playstation purchasing Neptunia exclusivity either. Its not on the first few pages of Google returns, its not on the series wiki page OR the individual game's page. Prove it isn't bullshit.

Also, just as a close out. You have said that "Nintendo's national marketshare in japan is a pittance to the global market which is what developers are aiming for." But the PS4+5 have 130 million sales compared to the Switch's 92 million. Take away the fact that Sony had 4 additional years of selling the PS4 that Nintendo did not and those "marketshares" look damn near the same. Its meaningless. You can talk about combined reach of the PS, Xbox and hardcore PC markets. But that, in turn, compares to the three of those plus Switch and mobile, plus budget PCs/cloud. Its a bad argument, developers will tailor their games to whichever group of platforms fits the game series best, unless someone tips the scales, but that rarely happens.
Click to expand...
Yeah the last few Neptunia games were some form of limited exclusivity deal with Neptunia Virtual Stars, Senran Kagura X Neptunia, Neptunia Reverse, and Neptunia Sisters vs Sisters.
twinfinite.net

Hyperdimension Neptunia: Sisters vs Sisters for PS5 & PS4 Shows Characters & Gameplay In New Trailer

Compile Heart released another of its upcoming JRPG Hyperdimension Neptunia: Sisters vs Sisters, showing gameplay and more.
twinfinite.net twinfinite.net

Those were all a form of exclusivity deal, some later came to other platforms. They have a similar arrangement with Aquaplus, and with both Compile Heart, IF and Aquaplus they're looking to expand more into anime which probably is why they're also with sony.

For Monster Hunter, Sony had an exclusivity deal for Asia which barred a PC release from happening at launch while the US did not have such a restriction. As well as having some form of exclusive DLC.
 
Last edited:
Marissa Moira said:
Yeah the last few Neptunia games were some form of limited exclusivity deal with Neptunia Virtual Stars, Senran Kagura X Neptunia, Neptunia Reverse, and Neptunia Sisters vs Sisters.
twinfinite.net

Hyperdimension Neptunia: Sisters vs Sisters for PS5 & PS4 Shows Characters & Gameplay In New Trailer

Compile Heart released another of its upcoming JRPG Hyperdimension Neptunia: Sisters vs Sisters, showing gameplay and more.
twinfinite.net twinfinite.net

Those were all a form of exclusivity deal, some later came to other platforms. They have a similar arrangement with Aquaplus, and with both Compile Heart, IF and Aquaplus they're looking to expand more into anime which probably is why they're also with sony.

For Monster Hunter, Sony had an exclusivity deal for Asia which barred a PC release from happening at launch while the US did not have such a restriction. As well as having some form of exclusive DLC.
Click to expand...
Your link says nothing about Sony paying for exclusivity.
 
Marissa Moira said:
Trying to find the exact tweet but there's a video that outlines their exclusivity arrangements at around 11:22.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2FejGMES5Gk
It's going to vary from game to game for third parties.
Click to expand...
All their deals are gonna be for a year max I would assume. FFVIIR was supposed to be only a year but it ended up going longer probably due to Square being open Sony dickriders. Bethesda deals aren't gonna be extended. Bethesda ports to Switch aren't gonna happen for new Bethesda games largely due to the Switch and future Ninty hardware being underpowered in general. id might be technical masters but they aren't gonna continue downgrading their games just to run on the Switch 2 or whatever even if Microsoft asked them to.

The fact Sony made paid exclusivity deals with Bethesda still makes me giggle if not just for the fact that Bethesda has continually treated Sony as some leper they would rather not associate with. It also makes them getting bought out by Microsoft more funny. Since Sony was apparently trying to get Todd to make Starfield a timed exclusive for the PS5 then it ends up as only on Xbox and PC.

My point being that Square Enix should go bankrupt and sell its western devs to people who will fund the third Adam Jensen game instead of forcing them to make capeshit. Square is a cancerous tumor and the only good thing they ever did was revive Deus Ex, but then they killed it only to leave it on a cliffhanger.
 
Titos said:
All their deals are gonna be for a year max I would assume. FFVIIR was supposed to be only a year but it ended up going longer probably due to Square being open Sony dickriders. Bethesda deals aren't gonna be extended. Bethesda ports to Switch aren't gonna happen for new Bethesda games largely due to the Switch and future Ninty hardware being underpowered in general. id might be technical masters but they aren't gonna continue downgrading their games just to run on the Switch 2 or whatever even if Microsoft asked them to.

The fact Sony made paid exclusivity deals with Bethesda still makes me giggle if not just for the fact that Bethesda has continually treated Sony as some leper they would rather not associate with. It also makes them getting bought out by Microsoft more funny. Since Sony was apparently trying to get Todd to make Starfield a timed exclusive for the PS5 then it ends up as only on Xbox and PC.

My point being that Square Enix should go bankrupt and sell its western devs to people who will fund the third Adam Jensen game instead of forcing them to make capeshit. Square is a cancerous tumor and the only good thing they ever did was revive Deus Ex, but then they killed it only to leave it on a cliffhanger.
Click to expand...
The Bethesda stuff was before the Microsoft buyout was fully finalized so there was a gray area of opportunity.

Also you're not supposed to want a Deus Ex sequel, the Marvel games are a natural evolution. The Original Deus Ex predicted that with clues laid around the game since the start.
deusex.png

If you failed to embraced the soy, your demise was certain.
 
Marissa Moira said:
The Bethesda stuff was before the Microsoft buyout was fully finalized so there was a gray area of opportunity.

Also you're not supposed to want a Deus Ex sequel, the Marvel games are a natural evolution. The Original Deus Ex predicted that with clues laid around the game since the start.
View attachment 2850097

If you failed to embraced the soy, your demise was certain.
Click to expand...
The Adam Jensen games were kino and the only flaws with them were Square fucking over the devs and making them do shit they obviously didn't want to do like cut Mankind Divided in half. It's a good thing IO Interactive was able to get away from those greedy nips.
 
Titos said:
The Adam Jensen games were kino and the only flaws with them were Square fucking over the devs and making them do shit they obviously didn't want to do like cut Mankind Divided in half. It's a good thing IO Interactive was able to get away from those greedy nips.
Click to expand...
Human Revolution's ending was stock footage no matter what you picked.

There was a lot of uneven weirdness in the games themselves even before MD was known to have stuff cut.
 
Titos said:
Ending a game about conspiracies and crazy cyber bullshit with stock footage? I don't see what's wrong with that, they learned from Hideous Kojimbos.
Click to expand...
Well it didn't help that none of the footage was remastered in itself or made for a modern format. You're playing on a modern set up and then hello grain city. They tried putting a filter over it to try and mask it, but a ton of that footage used is already decades old.

I think if another Deus Ex game gets made it's got to be a spiritual successor. Stuff like Deathloop being put out shows that people don't just want multiplayer shootymens and would stand for a good single player campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom