• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!
  • General system instability
    🚧 We apologise for the recent server issues. The site may be unavaliable while we investigate the problem. 🚧

Discussion Switch 2's DLSS implementation code has been stolen/leaked from NVidia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh yeah, storage will still be an issue won't it? Cartridges are still expensive so unless Nintendo pays up similar to Witcher 3, all games that's coming on Drake will have a download requirement. Unless they somehow can fit their games on a 16gb cartridge?
 
0
I'd love to see the Yakuza series come over. Each game is pretty big though (ranging from Yakuza 3 at around 15 to Like A Dragon being like 40-ish) so while the smaller games (0, K, 3, 4, 5) could get carts, the Dragon Engine games (K2, 6, LaD) would need to either be download-only or cloud versions (barf)

I would assume though, if they wanted to put in the effort, they could optimize the game sizes a ton. If DLSS is in play, textures probably don't need to be as big, and they can always compress video files a bunch to get the games on carts. Maybe Yakuza 6 could cut some of it's immense quantity of voice acting (they VA'd literally every line of dialog in the game) to shave a few extra GBs
 
Derachi said:
I'd love to see the Yakuza series come over. Each game is pretty big though (ranging from Yakuza 3 at around 15 to Like A Dragon being like 40-ish) so while the smaller games (0, K, 3, 4, 5) could get carts, the Dragon Engine games (K2, 6, LaD) would need to either be download-only or cloud versions (barf)

I would assume though, if they wanted to put in the effort, they could optimize the game sizes a ton. If DLSS is in play, textures probably don't need to be as big, and they can always compress video files a bunch to get the games on carts. Maybe Yakuza 6 could cut some of it's immense quantity of voice acting (they VA'd literally every line of dialog in the game) to shave a few extra GBs
Click to expand...
Yakuza producers made it clear that power wasn't the reason the games aren't on Switch. Maybe now that Nagoshi is out they'll change their stance. I don't know if the guy that said that Nintendo consoles weren't a good fit for the franchise is still there.
 
Charamiwa said:
Yakuza producers made it clear that power wasn't the reason the games aren't on Switch. Maybe now that Nagoshi is out they'll change their stance. I don't know if the guy that said that Nintendo consoles weren't a good fit for the franchise is still there.
Click to expand...
I believe that quote was actually Daisuke Sato but he left with Nagoshi.
 
0
MVG in another podcast saying he thinks this is just a 4K revision but then thinks it won’t be fully BC?

Nintendo wouldn’t release a ‘revision’ that couldn’t actually run all Switch games.
 
YolkFolk said:
MVG in another podcast saying he thinks this is just a 4K revision but then thinks it won’t be fully BC?

Nintendo wouldn’t release a ‘revision’ that couldn’t actually run all Switch games.
Click to expand...
Sounded to me like he was just covering the "Joe's Diner Bases" if that makes any sense.
 
Golden said:
I really hope this new revision comes with atleast 128gb. Nintendo as been so cheap storage wise.
Click to expand...
I think it has to. They've cheaped out since they want the system to be sold as cheap as possible, but with current (third party) game sizes ballooning they need to have 128GB bare minimum, especially since this will be their new premium system.

My personal take, but I think Nintendo really needs to do something about the cart sizes/prices. If I were them I would partner with more devs/pubs on bringing big games to the Switch and eat (some) of the costs of the cartridges. 32GB should be standard by now. 64GB should start being used as well occasionally or for specific occasions.

Huge games/collections like GTA and Kingdom Hearts should be on a 32GB on minimum, with anything that doesn't fit as a download.
 
Golden said:
I really hope this new revision comes with atleast 128gb. Nintendo as been so cheap storage wise.
Click to expand...

Tentacle-tropes said:
It will probably be around there or just 128. They are cheap because storage typically jacks up product price and they would rather just move the cost onto consumers until it becomes more affordable.
Click to expand...


To be honest, while the hardware does support something common like MicroSD as storage that games can be played off of, I think that keeping the onboard storage limited and letting people buy what they need makes more sense.

I'd still have needed a 1TB card regardless of onboard storage, but that would have been way too much for the typical consumer who averages at an attach rate of maybe 10 games on a good run for a console.

Developers need to be told to curb that nonsense they've been pulling on other consoles where they give very little thought to optimisation and just let filesizes balloon wildly out of control because it's not their problem. Doing that with the PS5 and its relatively tiny SSD that is a significant effort to expand is one of the primary reasons I'm not in a rush to get a console from that gen.
 
9-Volt said:
They actually would not. Switch cloud games are basically PC versions streamed on Switch screen. They're not considered as separate releases, they don't even get rated by rating boards since they were already rated as PC games.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure they're separate builds, those clouds game all have to have the right button prompts added and Switch controller screenshots, etc.
 
9-Volt said:
They actually would not. Switch cloud games are basically PC versions streamed on Switch screen. They're not considered as separate releases, they don't even get rated by rating boards since they were already rated as PC games.
Click to expand...

I'd be very much shocked if there weren't very specific license fees required to stream to any new platform.

You might be right in that the rating boards don't care about streaming to a new platform, but there's no chance that Disney would miss that loophole and just shrug their shoulders and say "you got us!" to someone trying to skip giving them their cut for a series involving a bunch of Disney content just because it's only a streaming release for the new platform.
 
Linkstrikesback said:
I'd be very much shocked if there weren't very specific license fees required to stream to any new platform.

You might be right in that the rating boards don't care about streaming to a new platform, but there's no chance that Disney would miss that loophole and just shrug their shoulders and say "you got us!" to someone trying to skip giving them their cut for a series involving a bunch of Disney content just because it's only a streaming release for the new platform.
Click to expand...
That's the only logical explanation for KH1+2 being cloud only on Switch. If there were license costs of the cloud versions you wouldn't see them on Switch. This not the first time those costs prevented KH to be on a system: Disney's deals with licensers were only for physical media so KH didn't made its digital debut until the PS4 version of the remasters. PS3 remasters, KH DDD and most importantly the PSP game Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep, which practically sabotaged the digital only PSP Go launch.

I know people love to shit on Square but in this case, "They're cloud on Switch because Square is lazy/hates Switch/doesn't care" excuse doesn't cut. KH IS a big franchise and Square must have known how much money it could make as a native release.
 
Fuffelpups said:
Or it's just an overlay like Steam uses, who supports i think all modern controller layouts.
Click to expand...
Steam recognizes all modern controllers but there's no overlay for the UI of those games. Lots of games don't show triangle/square/etc. if I'm using my DS4 on a game where they didn't include those buttons for prompts. In those games you just see appropriately placed A/B/X/Y.
 
0
YolkFolk said:
MVG in another podcast saying he thinks this is just a 4K revision but then thinks it won’t be fully BC?

Nintendo wouldn’t release a ‘revision’ that couldn’t actually run all Switch games.
Click to expand...
Maybe he's talking about like losing compatibility with games like Labo if the console's bigger (wider) than the original model.
 
0
3 day ban: downplaying the history of slavery by comparing it to devs having to wait for new hardware to release. - blondkayvon, Harina, Rika
Radium said:
Lol, there's no need to be so dramatic. Devs have already dreamed up stuff that won't even be feasible for decades. Most successful devs are able to make compelling projects within their limitations and then keep other ideas in their back pocket for when it's more practical.
Click to expand...
Thats like saying no need to be overdramatic because slaves created gigantic structures in egypt. Yes they did create those structures but providing them with modern technology would have helped them.
 
Pagan said:
Thats like saying no need to be overdramatic because slaves created gigantic structures in egypt. Yes they did create those structures but providing them with modern technology would have helped them.
Click to expand...
Lol, there's no need to be so dramatic. I don't think literal slavery with excruciating physical labor is really comparable to devs having to wait a bit for stronger hardware.
 
0
Without being dramatic, I can say that, at least when I speak for myself, Im getting less and less interested on playing on Switch due to its hardware. And from what I can observe, the same can be said about the industry devs.

So, from my limite point of view, if Nintendo has any interested in provide their costumers conditions do access more than their traditional exclusive games, they need a new hardware soon.

But Im afraid that's not the case.
 
Guaraná said:
Without being dramatic, I can say that, at least when I speak for myself, Im getting less and less interested on playing on Switch due to its hardware. And from what I can observe, the same can be said about the industry devs.

So, from my limite point of view, if Nintendo has any interested in provide their costumers conditions do access more than their traditional exclusive games, they need a new hardware soon.

But Im afraid that's not the case.
Click to expand...
What are you referring to?
 
Skittzo said:
What are you referring to?
Click to expand...
the way I see things, Nintendo is more than happy that people treat the Switch as a Nintendo/Indies machine and the rest is just a bonus.

I don't think it's essential to Nintendo that their console have anything similar to a Playstation when it comes to 3rd party support so when a game like Soul Hackers 2* skips Switch, we might find that a big deal, but I don't think Nintendo worries because the way I see it, the most important thing for them is to sell their games, the rest it just a bonus.

So when I Say "Nintendo should launch a new and more powerful Switch to have access to all these games that are releasing on Xone/PS4 and not on Switch due to hardware limitation"; this is just my wishful thinking because that's far from being a priority for Nintendo.

Don't get me wrong, I like Nintendo for what they are, but sometimes it gets a little frustrating because I'll keep having to my two consoles since Nintendo ones never have the full support I wish they had.

*I'm using Soul Hackers 2 as an example because it's the most recent game to skip the Switch, but it could be any other relevant 3rd party game... from big ones like EA/Activision to smaller/niche ones like Soul Hackers 2 or Yakuza.
 
Guaraná said:
So when I Say "Nintendo should launch a new and more powerful Switch to have access to all these games that are releasing on Xone/PS4 and not on Switch due to hardware limitation"; this is just my wishful thinking because that's far from being a priority for Nintendo.
Click to expand...
I can see why you'd think that now but also you do realize this thread exists because we found out through a leak that Nintendo + Nvidia are working on some new hardware is a pretty substantially big jump up in power over the current unit, right?
 
Guaraná said:
the way I see things, Nintendo is more than happy that people treat the Switch as a Nintendo/Indies machine and the rest is just a bonus.

I don't think it's essential to Nintendo that their console have anything similar to a Playstation when it comes to 3rd party support so when a game like Soul Hackers 2* skips Switch, we might find that a big deal, but I don't think Nintendo worries because the way I see it, the most important thing for them is to sell their games, the rest it just a bonus.

So when I Say "Nintendo should launch a new and more powerful Switch to have access to all these games that are releasing on Xone/PS4 and not on Switch due to hardware limitation"; this is just my wishful thinking because that's far from being a priority for Nintendo.

Don't get me wrong, I like Nintendo for what they are, but sometimes it gets a little frustrating because I'll keep having to my two consoles since Nintendo ones never have the full support I wish they had.

*I'm using Soul Hackers 2 as an example because it's the most recent game to skip the Switch, but it could be any other relevant 3rd party game... from big ones like EA/Activision to smaller/niche ones like Soul Hackers 2 or Yakuza.
Click to expand...

I don't think Nintendo cares about all and any third party games, but they definitely care about select franchises that they think resonate with their audience and can cover for genres that might be underrepresented in their first party offers. They have been pushing games like Dragon Quest and SMT hard, for example.

Third parties aren't their first priority but I think they're an important part of their strategy, and I think they are slowly trying to expand their reach on that front.
 
Guaraná said:
the way I see things, Nintendo is more than happy that people treat the Switch as a Nintendo/Indies machine and the rest is just a bonus.

I don't think it's essential to Nintendo that their console have anything similar to a Playstation when it comes to 3rd party support so when a game like Soul Hackers 2* skips Switch, we might find that a big deal, but I don't think Nintendo worries because the way I see it, the most important thing for them is to sell their games, the rest it just a bonus.

So when I Say "Nintendo should launch a new and more powerful Switch to have access to all these games that are releasing on Xone/PS4 and not on Switch due to hardware limitation"; this is just my wishful thinking because that's far from being a priority for Nintendo.

Don't get me wrong, I like Nintendo for what they are, but sometimes it gets a little frustrating because I'll keep having to my two consoles since Nintendo ones never have the full support I wish they had.

*I'm using Soul Hackers 2 as an example because it's the most recent game to skip the Switch, but it could be any other relevant 3rd party game... from big ones like EA/Activision to smaller/niche ones like Soul Hackers 2 or Yakuza.
Click to expand...
I think you highlight the point about publisher politics being more a defining factor than specs, since the Switch pretty much demonstrated that when games like The Witcher 3 and other typical PS/XBox games to the platform, but some games like Yakuza and Nier Automata still being mysteriously absent.

Even if Nintendo had a more powerful Switch that would not guarantee securing certain titles as there's stil the literal moneyhat involved in making sure some don't get released on Nintendo's hardware. What people like you are expecting are for Nintendo to essentially be Sony in their approach to 3rd parties.
 
Linkstrikesback said:
To be honest, while the hardware does support something common like MicroSD as storage that games can be played off of, I think that keeping the onboard storage limited and letting people buy what they need makes more sense.

I'd still have needed a 1TB card regardless of onboard storage, but that would have been way too much for the typical consumer who averages at an attach rate of maybe 10 games on a good run for a console.

Developers need to be told to curb that nonsense they've been pulling on other consoles where they give very little thought to optimisation and just let filesizes balloon wildly out of control because it's not their problem. Doing that with the PS5 and its relatively tiny SSD that is a significant effort to expand is one of the primary reasons I'm not in a rush to get a console from that gen.
Click to expand...
As much as I want companies to curb their file sizes and properly compress plus target where their patches are so, people are not re-downloading everything again. I know it won’t happen and is generally a losing battle to even get developers to listen.
 
0
Guaraná said:
the way I see things, Nintendo is more than happy that people treat the Switch as a Nintendo/Indies machine and the rest is just a bonus.

I don't think it's essential to Nintendo that their console have anything similar to a Playstation when it comes to 3rd party support so when a game like Soul Hackers 2* skips Switch, we might find that a big deal, but I don't think Nintendo worries because the way I see it, the most important thing for them is to sell their games, the rest it just a bonus.

So when I Say "Nintendo should launch a new and more powerful Switch to have access to all these games that are releasing on Xone/PS4 and not on Switch due to hardware limitation"; this is just my wishful thinking because that's far from being a priority for Nintendo.

Don't get me wrong, I like Nintendo for what they are, but sometimes it gets a little frustrating because I'll keep having to my two consoles since Nintendo ones never have the full support I wish they had.

*I'm using Soul Hackers 2 as an example because it's the most recent game to skip the Switch, but it could be any other relevant 3rd party game... from big ones like EA/Activision to smaller/niche ones like Soul Hackers 2 or Yakuza.
Click to expand...
I mean, they made some pretty heavy pushes for big AAA third party support over these last few years. They actively pursued Bethesda and got Skyrim, two Dooms and Wolfensteins, they got the Witcher 3, Mortal Kombat 11, etc. All of these are games Nintendo actively pushed for.

The other platform holders don't need to push for this, they come by default. Blame the publishers for not doing the same on nintendo's platforms, Nintendo has been doing what they can.
 
Skittzo said:
I mean, they made some pretty heavy pushes for big AAA third party support over these last few years. They actively pursued Bethesda and got Skyrim, two Dooms and Wolfensteins, they got the Witcher 3, Mortal Kombat 11, etc. All of these are games Nintendo actively pushed for.

The other platform holders don't need to push for this, they come by default. Blame the publishers for not doing the same on nintendo's platforms, Nintendo has been doing what they can.
Click to expand...
Publishers & devs can be doing so much better then they currently are on the device. There are tons of games that could come over and even some current ones that still can. The fact that things like Vanquish skipped the system or that we still don’t have others sports game outside legacy FIFA from EA speaks for itself.
 
Third party games skipping Nintendo systems depend on many factors. Hardware limitation is just one of them, bad market research is another. But when none of them is there, you see third party publishers giving their absolute best. Like Embracer. They're pushing it to bring every game they have to Switch. They don't see it as a platform with a specific audience, they don't consider weak hardware an obstacle.

For others, Nintendo really needs to step in. This generation they have turned some heads around, like Bethesda. People were laughing off the idea of Skyrim on Wii U but now look at us. They need to push harder and they'll most likely do so. No that the "weak hardware" excuse will be history with Switch Pro, third party support will only get better.
 
Do you know why Soul Hackers 2 skipped Switch? When asked if they'd like the resources to port the game to switch

Atlus Shrugged
 
9-Volt said:
Third party games skipping Nintendo systems depend on many factors. Hardware limitation is just one of them, bad market research is another. But when none of them is there, you see third party publishers giving their absolute best. Like Embracer. They're pushing it to bring every game they have to Switch. They don't see it as a platform with a specific audience, they don't consider weak hardware an obstacle.

For others, Nintendo really needs to step in. This generation they have turned some heads around, like Bethesda. People were laughing off the idea of Skyrim on Wii U but now look at us. They need to push harder and they'll most likely do so. No that the "weak hardware" excuse will be history with Switch Pro, third party support will only get better.
Click to expand...

I hope you’re right, cause I swear if Capcom or Atlus or Square repeating yet again “Well let’s see market conditions….” I will scream lol

Honestly I just hope the Pro or 2 or whatever it’s called is at least as capable as a PS4 because it will save me 550 dollars from buying a Deck.

Sure I can play it on my PS4 but that means I have to play it on the TV lol hard pass from me these days
 
Tentacle-tropes said:
Publishers & devs can be doing so much better then they currently are on the device. There are tons of games that could come over and even some current ones that still can. The fact that things like Vanquish skipped the system or that we still don’t have others sports game outside legacy FIFA from EA speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
There's reason for each publisher's stance on Switch support:

  • Thanks to Nagoshi running things, Sega considered Switch as a platform with specific audience: younger folk. Nagoshi's departure should change Sega - Nintendo relationship a little.
  • Namco and Capcom need Nintendo assistance when doing bigger stuff. They rarely go out of the "safe zone".
  • Square sees Switch base as "retro-maniacs". They keep it very nostalgic on Switch, rarely do anything modern. (hopefully Life is Strange 3 is a start of something nice)
  • Konami is... Konami.
  • Ubisoft gives freedom to their studios and creative and thankfully some of them loves Nintendo. But they are incompetent to bring bigger stuff to Switch and unwilling to work with external teams. But we get nice things once in a while, like Immortals or Starlink.
  • EA also gives freedom to their studios but unlike Ubi, Nintendo is not popular there. Still, studios like Popcap or Stellar do what others do not want to.
  • Nintendo brought full Take Two support with Switch, something they have struggled even with Wii. Strauss Zelnick is one of those executives who saw Nintendo nothing but a toy company and now he thinks the complete opposite. They're doing the best they could.
  • Another full support is from Activision. Only thing they couldn't figure out is Call of Duty as creating a full separate release for a Nintendo platform is no longer viable. Switch Pro can definitely change that.
  • Embracer and Koei-Tecmo are among the publishers giving full support.
 
ChaosSaga said:
More Power doesn't mean better game, or even better performance.

You get the Tools to do it,but buget and dev time can always screw the final product.
Click to expand...
I mean, do we really doubt that Nintendo doesn’t have the funding and time for bigger projects if smaller companies can do it?

I’m not advocating for them to go all out and give some western visual showpiece in the vein of Forbidden West because… well Nintendo doesn’t really need that lol.


However, considering the trajectory of their franchises on the switch and how they’ve been accelerating in scope and budget that they are going that inevitable route of longer dev times.

They already are very talented as is, they definitely can pull something off though but they don’t really need to. I just don’t agree on dev time or budget per se as Nintendo is one of the platform holders that makes a lot, and they are investing a lot for future projects (and expansion).

And they control when their games release.
 
SiG said:
I think you highlight the point about publisher politics being more a defining factor than specs, since the Switch pretty much demonstrated that when games like The Witcher 3 and other typical PS/XBox games to the platform, but some games like Yakuza and Nier Automata still being mysteriously absent.

Even if Nintendo had a more powerful Switch that would not guarantee securing certain titles as there's stil the literal moneyhat involved in making sure some don't get released on Nintendo's hardware. What people like you are expecting are for Nintendo to essentially be Sony in their approach to 3rd parties.
Click to expand...
Why bringing up money hatting? Everyone does it. Of course you won’t get a game that another company money hats. Sony doesn’t get every single game that releases on the planet. Microsoft doesn’t get every single game on the planet. That’s not the point.
 
if I remember correctly, SE said they tested KH3 natively but it didn't meet their desires. given the performance on PC, I can sorta see that if they don't want to DQ11 it
 
ILikeFeet said:
if I remember correctly, SE said they tested KH3 natively but it didn't meet their desires. given the performance on PC, I can sorta see that if they don't want to DQ11 it
Click to expand...
KH3 wasn’t running well a lot of times on my PS4. Granted it was launch week where I played it and beat. But never went back to it since I thought the game was bad so it could’ve improved over time.

So I can definitely believe that a native KH3 would be impossible or not worth the work.
 
DecoReturns said:
KH3 wasn’t running well a lot of times on my PS4. Granted it was launch week where I played it and beat. But never went back to it since I thought the game was bad so it could’ve improved over time.

So I can definitely believe that a native KH3 would be impossible or not worth the work.
Click to expand...
that's why I mentioned DQ11-ing it. going back over and restyling the assets to suit the Switch. it would have been costly, but the returns would have been better than DQ11. but DQ11 was such a mess over versions, I can see it scaring SE off from it
 
Guaraná said:
the way I see things, Nintendo is more than happy that people treat the Switch as a Nintendo/Indies machine and the rest is just a bonus.

I don't think it's essential to Nintendo that their console have anything similar to a Playstation when it comes to 3rd party support so when a game like Soul Hackers 2* skips Switch, we might find that a big deal, but I don't think Nintendo worries because the way I see it, the most important thing for them is to sell their games, the rest it just a bonus.
Click to expand...
It's skipping Switch just like DQ11 skipped Switch.

Expect a Soul Hackers 2 S later on.
 
9-Volt said:
There's reason for each publisher's stance on Switch support:

  • Thanks to Nagoshi running things, Sega considered Switch as a platform with specific audience: younger folk. Nagoshi's departure should change Sega - Nintendo relationship a little. I doubt much is gonna change here in regards to Sega being inept. They should be doing more for the Switch but aren’t for reasons.
  • Namco and Capcom need Nintendo assistance when doing bigger stuff. They rarely go out of the "safe zone". Frankly they shouldn’t need Nintendo’s assistance to get their games on Switch. They choose not to for one or another to get their bigger games on the system.
  • Square sees Switch base as "retro-maniacs". They keep it very nostalgic on Switch, rarely do anything modern. (hopefully Life is Strange 3 is a start of something nice) it isn’t gonna change a thing and you know it. SE is the most egregious since they seemingly cannot do anything without a bag of money and their hand being held. Expect the current output and strange decisions for Switch to continue onto the next system.
  • Konami is... Konami. They are one of the better supporters of the system but could be doing way better in general. I’m looking at you Symphony Collection that skipped the Switch.
  • Ubisoft gives freedom to their studios and creative and thankfully some of them loves Nintendo. But they are incompetent to bring bigger stuff to Switch and unwilling to work with external teams. But we get nice things once in a while, like Immortals or Starlink. The only thing they give freedom to is sexual harassment. Outside that they have a few studios who care but everything else is at odds with their current strategy.
  • EA also gives freedom to their studios but unlike Ubi, Nintendo is not popular there. Still, studios like Popcap or Stellar do what others do not want to. They give freedom to nothing and their support has been poor to be generous. Nintendo will continue to get smaller indie games and legacy bone thrown their way every year. Don’t expect much else from EA until it is seen.
  • Nintendo brought full Take Two support with Switch, something they have struggled even with Wii. Strauss Zelnick is one of those executives who saw Nintendo nothing but a toy company and now he thinks the complete opposite. They're doing the best they could. and, yet their major game GTA still is nonexistent on the system outside some bad collection. And, it took a while for that support to ramp up since it wasn’t there day one. Good their there though but still could be doing better.
  • Another full support is from Activision. Only thing they couldn't figure out is Call of Duty as creating a full separate release for a Nintendo platform is no longer viable. Switch Pro can definitely change that. That is not full support from Activision since that is basically their cash cow. It took a random employee’s off time to get Crash. Drake was never going to change a thing to getting a COD on the system. They didn’t wanna do one of their older releases on the system so that should say everything. The MST buyout has a better chance of Nintendo getting a COD.
  • Embracer and Koei-Tecmo are among the publishers giving full support. Yet we are still missing games from both even though they are generally good.
Click to expand...
To some up my thoughts on this nothing in these “reason” tell me anything I don’t know. But it circles back to the point I was saying that they should be doing better putting games on the Switch. Not everything needs to come to the system but we shouldn’t see nonsense like a Soul Hackers 2 situation. Yet, we still do. There is no reason for the situation with Dark Souls Remastered. 3rd parties honestly should be doing better with putting, marketing, & bringing their games to a 100mil+ system. The reasons are just excuses that won’t change when a new Switch comes out. We’ll be back here again talking about why 3rd parties continue to be weird on the Drake.
 
ILikeFeet said:
that's why I mentioned DQ11-ing it. going back over and restyling the assets to suit the Switch. it would have been costly, but the returns would have been better than DQ11. but DQ11 was such a mess over versions, I can see it scaring SE off from it
Click to expand...
They could do a PS4 and xbone port of Dq11 S, which I believe is a port of the switch version. I think it was less detail like grass in some areas, and different lighting. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think xbone x version was 4k 30 fps too.
 
0
9-Volt said:
That's the only logical explanation for KH1+2 being cloud only on Switch. If there were license costs of the cloud versions you wouldn't see them on Switch. This not the first time those costs prevented KH to be on a system: Disney's deals with licensers were only for physical media so KH didn't made its digital debut until the PS4 version of the remasters. PS3 remasters, KH DDD and most importantly the PSP game Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep, which practically sabotaged the digital only PSP Go launch.

I know people love to shit on Square but in this case, "They're cloud on Switch because Square is lazy/hates Switch/doesn't care" excuse doesn't cut. KH IS a big franchise and Square must have known how much money it could make as a native release.
Click to expand...

Like you said, a native release would have made a ton of money.

That's why it can't possibly have been license costs that were the reason it wasn't a native release. They would have easily made the money back several times over with switch versions. The only realm where licensing costs make any sort of sense as a barrier is if you're risking not being able to make the money back, which is obviously a non issue with something like kingdom hearts on switch.

It has to be something else like Square couldn't find a developer on short notice because some fool in charge failed to plan ahead and they wanted them out asap or weren't willing to pull staff from other projects to work on it.
 
Linkstrikesback said:
Like you said, a native release would have made a ton of money.

That's why it can't possibly have been license costs that were the reason it wasn't a native release. They would have easily made the money back several times over with switch versions.

It has to be something else like Square couldn't find a developer on short notice and they wanted them out asap or weren't willing to pull staff from other projects to work on it.
Click to expand...
Simple: They didn't want to dedicate resources to a port, much less when they're probably now focusing on Kingdom Hearts 4 for PS5/XBSX...

tl;dr - Nintendo didn't moneyhat them hard enough.
 
9-Volt said:
Third party games skipping Nintendo systems depend on many factors. Hardware limitation is just one of them, bad market research is another. But when none of them is there, you see third party publishers giving their absolute best. Like Embracer. They're pushing it to bring every game they have to Switch. They don't see it as a platform with a specific audience, they don't consider weak hardware an obstacle.

For others, Nintendo really needs to step in. This generation they have turned some heads around, like Bethesda. People were laughing off the idea of Skyrim on Wii U but now look at us. They need to push harder and they'll most likely do so. No that the "weak hardware" excuse will be history with Switch Pro, third party support will only get better.
Click to expand...

Agree, stronger hardware means more big 3rd party games on Switch, but that doesnt mean almost every bigger 3rd party game would come to Switch in any case,
even Nintendo has same hardware like PS/Xbox some 3rd party games still would not come to Nintendo platform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom