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

[Ozeiyo]

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.

Yes, it was probably a financial decision and SqEx probably did the math and it turns out this was the best-case scenario for them. It doesn't mean they shouldn't get shat at. It was a terrible compromise, the game is barely playable, and there's little to no reason why 20-year-old games could not come on the Switch natively.

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

I'd love Yakuza on switch in whatever way possible please make it happen.

 

[ChaosSaga]

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.

I don't desagree,but even Nintendo will release games when they are good enough like Xenoblade 2.

And in the third party scene they can Skip a 4k DLSS Almost PS5 like Switch, just because releasing a game on Switch is not considered a "big boys project".

Power is important but, this generation showed that is only part of the equation.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

I don't desagree,but even Nintendo will release games when they are good enough like Xenoblade 2.

And in the third party scene they can Skip a 4k DLSS Almost PS5 like Switch, just because releasing a game on Switch is not considered a "big boys project".

Power is important but, this generation showed that is only part of the equation.

Of course it’s only part of the equation, however is Xenoblade really an apt comparison? It’s one of Nintendo’s more ambitious titles on the switch. Along with a title like Luigi’s Mansion who showed really nice visuals and has been in development for a very long time. As time goes on, game development keeps ballooning and Nintendo seems to be gearing up because they know that. They’ve been aware of that for almost 2 decades now which is why they opted to not chase these super cutting edge visuals anymore, and showed they don’t need cutting edge visuals (though they do use cutting edge methods to achieve their visuals) and go for stylistic and substance.

I understand the point you previous that things can go awry which results in a lesser experience than what could have been, but I don’t think that equally applies to Nintendo as it would a third party, as Nintendo is in full control of their own content and release, third parties are more limited.

third parties willing to support or not is up to them at this point as the switch has had good dev tools and allowed them to make their games for the platform. Though, some will try to go for the window of the launch.


Anyway, I think it’s much more nuanced than we think with respect to Nintendo.

 

[Apopheniac]

Pokémon Black and White release date: 9/18/2010
3DS release date: 02/26/2011

Pokémon Sun and Moon release date: 11/18/2016
Switch release date: 03/04/2017

Pokémon Scarlet and Violet release date: "late 2022"

 

[YolkFolk]

Near certain for me that this device will launch with Zelda in March 2023.

 

[My Tulpa]

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.

Do you have a source that Nintendo actively pushed those publishers to get those games on the Switch?

Not to say I don’t believe you, but I don’t believe you

I don’t believe Nintendo actively pushes to have ANY multiplat game on their systems that are popular on other platforms. Of course they’ll take them…but they don’t lift one finger to try and make it happen.

Agree, stronger hardware means more big 3rd party games on Switch.

Disagree. The upgrade Switch will have the same kind of support the current Switch had.

Any port of a game that skips the Switch does so because the publisher doesnt feel their game will have much demand on the platform. That’s it. It’s not because the hardware makes it impossible to do.

SE streaming their games on the Switch is more about not putting time/effort in porting games to the Switch they feel they won’t get enough sales off of to make it worth it. It’s not because their game is impossible to port to Switch hardware.

Near certain for me that this device will launch with Zelda in March 2023.

Me too.

Why even try that hard to keep Botw2 within the FY window if new hardware wasn’t being released this FY?

 

[ILikeFeet]

Do you have a source that Nintendo actively pushed those publishers to get those games on the Switch?

Not to say I don’t believe you, but I don’t believe you

I don’t believe Nintendo actively pushes to have ANY multiplat game on their systems that are popular on other platforms. Of course they’ll take them…but they don’t lift one finger to try and make it happen.

“When Warner Bros. got the first playable build of Mortal Kombat 11 up and running on Nintendo Switch, I flew down and met with the team down in southern California. One of the executives there was meeting with me and showing me the game, and we were playing it, and he looks at me and he says, ‘Scott, are you sure Nintendo wants this game on Nintendo Switch?’ And I said, ‘Yes, we absolutely want this game.’

"He was concerned because it’s a mature-rated title that it wouldn’t be Nintendo-friendly. But clearly after seeing the first month’s worth of sales and see it be the number one game on the platform, it shows that yes, there is an audience. There’s an audience for lots of different types of content on the platform, and this was a big success.”

Warner Bros. Was Worried Mortal Kombat 11 Wouldn't Be "Nintendo-Friendly"

Switch release turned out to be a big success

www.nintendolife.com

the others, I can't recall on hand, but given that Nintendo did distribution deals for them, they had a heavy hand in their release. probably as a deal to help minimize risks in case they failed

 

[MMXZero]

Do you have a source that Nintendo actively pushed those publishers to get those games on the Switch?

Not to say I don’t believe you, but I don’t believe you

I don’t believe Nintendo actively pushes to have ANY multiplat game on their systems that are popular on other platforms. Of course they’ll take them…but they don’t lift one finger to try and make it happen.



Disagree. The upgrade Switch will have the same kind of support the current Switch had.

Any port of a game that skips the Switch does so because the publisher doesnt feel their game will have much demand on the platform. That’s it. It’s not because the hardware makes it impossible to do.

SE streaming their games on the Switch is more about not putting time/effort in porting games to the Switch they feel they won’t get enough sales off of to make it worth it. It’s not because their game is impossible to port to Switch hardware.



Me too.

Why even try that hard to keep Botw2 within the FY window if new hardware wasn’t being released this FY?

We know Nintendo pushed for Mortal Kombat 11 and Skyrim. It's possible that they pushed for the other games as well.

 

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

Do you have a source that Nintendo actively pushed those publishers to get those games on the Switch?

Not to say I don’t believe you, but I don’t believe you

I don’t believe Nintendo actively pushes to have ANY multiplat game on their systems that are popular on other platforms. Of course they’ll take them…but they don’t lift one finger to try and make it happen.

I'm sure any incentives Nintendo provided (marketing, developer support, optimization, etc) are business agreements that likely wouldn't be very leaky. But as an observer I can say they featured these games prominently in Directs and on the eShop. Skyrim even has Zelda content in it. If you're skeptical that Nintendo did anything to incentivize these publishers, I'm curious what you think those incentives would look like.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I read somewhere that when Danganronpa first came out, Nintendo made an appeal to get the game on their system, but Spike Chunsoft weren't willing

this idea that NIntendo doesn't make appeals for games is really dumb given how being a console holder works

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

Nintendo actively pushes for a lot of games to come to their systems. As seen with examples above this post. The issues, usually, lay with the dev/pub in question for one reason or another. Sometimes that reason is legit, other times it is not, & then there are the head-scratching weird ones which make no sense under almost any context.

 

[9-Volt]

Do you have a source that Nintendo actively pushed those publishers to get those games on the Switch?

Not to say I don’t believe you, but I don’t believe you

I don’t believe Nintendo actively pushes to have ANY multiplat game on their systems that are popular on other platforms. Of course they’ll take them…but they don’t lift one finger to try and make it happen.

Satoru Iwata personally requested Dragon Quest XI to be on Switch before it was revealed.

Not just for Switch, Nintendo always pushed third party games to be on their system. I still remember the impact of the news that Nintendo and Capcom struck the deal of Resident evil games on Gamecube.

Disagree. The upgrade Switch will have the same kind of support the current Switch had.

Any port of a game that skips the Switch does so because the publisher doesnt feel their game will have much demand on the platform. That’s it. It’s not because the hardware makes it impossible to do.

SE streaming their games on the Switch is more about not putting time/effort in porting games to the Switch they feel they won’t get enough sales off of to make it worth it. It’s not because their game is impossible to port to Switch hardware.

There are literally devs waiting for a stronger Switch to bring their games to it.

"Lack of demand" excuse would mean nothing once the porting costs are drastically decreased. Xbox getting almost every game PS5/4 gets despite the obvious lack of audience for some titles on the platform. Why? Because it costs almost nothing. For the exact same reason, 21m sold Gamecube got some of the best third party support in the Nintendo history.

 

[Ojoloco]

Nate talked about the fact that there were already third games that were going to come out in the revision/successor and not in the original Switch

 

[YolkFolk]

I’d imagine we’ll see the likes of RE7, RE8 and the remakes of RE2 and RE3 as exclusive to this new hardware from a Switch stand point.

 

[Simba1]

Disagree. The upgrade Switch will have the same kind of support the current Switch had.

Any port of a game that skips the Switch does so because the publisher doesnt feel their game will have much demand on the platform. That’s it. It’s not because the hardware makes it impossible to do.

SE streaming their games on the Switch is more about not putting time/effort in porting games to the Switch they feel they won’t get enough sales off of to make it worth it. It’s not because their game is impossible to port to Switch hardware.

You do realise that there are some game companies that would love to bring some of its games to Switch but those games simple can't run (or cannot run in satisfied state for that game companie) on current Switch hardware, but could run on next gen Switch that will probably have much stronger hardware?

I mean even New 3DS have some exclusive games (for instance Minecraft) compare to OG 3DS,
and we here talking about much bigger power/technicall difference than comparing New 3DS to OG 3DS.

 

[ITSMILNER]

I do wonder how well these Switch DLSS third party ports will sell if they are exclusive for that new system. I personally play most of my games on Switch if I can, guess it would be the hardcore who would adopt the new Switch so maybe sales will be fine?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Why even try that hard to keep Botw2 within the FY window if new hardware wasn’t being released this FY?

"Why bother releasing a game to an existing userbase of ~120 million?" is quite a question.

 

[BlueManifest]

Nate talked about the fact that there were already third games that were going to come out in the revision/successor and not in the original Switch

I hope one is sekiro I’ve been wanting to play that

 

[Christo750]

Warner Bros. Was Worried Mortal Kombat 11 Wouldn't Be "Nintendo-Friendly"

Switch release turned out to be a big success

www.nintendolife.com

the others, I can't recall on hand, but given that Nintendo did distribution deals for them, they had a heavy hand in their release. probably as a deal to help minimize risks in case they failed

I'm glad it was a success for them, but it's such a shame that this version really shit the bed technically. I feel like they could've done more.

 

[My Tulpa]

Warner Bros. Was Worried Mortal Kombat 11 Wouldn't Be "Nintendo-Friendly"

Switch release turned out to be a big success

www.nintendolife.com

the others, I can't recall on hand, but given that Nintendo did distribution deals for them, they had a heavy hand in their release. probably as a deal to help minimize risks in case they failed

That article only says Nintendo was willing to have it and was enthusiastic about it.

Look, I was replying to the idea that Nintendo is going around and actively trying to get major 3rd party multiplats on their systems. This example you gave is a publisher sending them their Switch port and seeing if Nintendo gives them an OK

Where can I read about the “distribution deals” Nintendo gave for Mk11?

We know Nintendo pushed for Mortal Kombat 11 and Skyrim. It's possible that they pushed for the other games as well.

Yea I’m asking about how we know this. I legitimately want to read about it cause I must have missed all the ways they pushed for Skyrim.

What did they do beyond giving Bethseda a Switch devkit and Bethseda being excited about trying some of their games on the most powerful portable gaming console ever?

[edit: I looked it up after writing this. I found an interview with Bethseda about this. I was right. They got excited about the new hardware and decided to test out support on it with their games. The appeal of portable for their home console/pc oriented titles was intriguing. They went to Nintendo, Nintendo didn’t come to them. They had the idea to offer Zelda stuff to be more unique to the Switch version, not Nintendo. Nintendo was happy to allow it, but that’s far different than Nintendo actively pursuing something

https://nintendoeverything.com/bethesda-on-bringing-skyrim-to-switch-how-the-zelda-collaboration-came-to-be-more/[edit]

I'm sure any incentives Nintendo provided (marketing, developer support, optimization, etc) are business agreements that likely wouldn't be very leaky. But as an observer I can say they featured these games prominently in Directs and on the eShop. Skyrim even has Zelda content in it. If you're skeptical that Nintendo did anything to incentivize these publishers, I'm curious what you think those incentives would look like.

Incentivizing a publisher to make a Nintendo version of their game that is popular on the Xbox/ps platforms.

That’s what I mean.

Showing 3rd party Switch games in Directs is Nintendo supporting projects on their system…which is what they should do…but it doesn’t mean Nintendo went out and actively pushed to have every 3rd party multiplat shown in Directs.

I’m not saying Nintendo tried to dissuade publishers from porting multiplats on Switch (if they call asking for help in devving or have unique ideas Nintendo ignores them and says fuck off)…I’m saying Nintendo isn’t actively trying to push Ubisoft to port Assasins Creed games to the Switch. Nintendo isn’t going to Bethseda asking them to please make a Doom port. Nintendo isn’t going to Rockstar pushing them to make a GTA port. Nintendo didn’t incentivize CDPR to decide to port Witcher 3. Etc.

I’m saying Nintendo will accept ports of major 3rd party multiplats…of course they will. And they will help highlight them when they do.

But they don’t do anything to get publishers to decided to port to the Switch or not. Which is what I originally responding to.

I read somewhere that when Danganronpa first came out, Nintendo made an appeal to get the game on their system, but Spike Chunsoft weren't willing

this idea that NIntendo doesn't make appeals for games is really dumb given how being a console holder works

I’d ask where you read that, but Danganropa is absolutely not the type of game the poster I replied to was talking about and not the type of multiplats I was referring to.

I can see Nintendo being motivated to get ports of a multiplat series that generally has a sizeable Japan market appeal…sure.

I wouldnt call Danganropa a popular Xbox/ps multiplat, no.

Satoru Iwata personally requested Dragon Quest XI to be on Switch before it was revealed.

Ah Dragon Quest…that series that got huge success when it released on the original xbox…lol

Look, I know I’ll be accused of backtracking or goalpost moving but I was never talking about 3rd party games that have always been on Nintendo systems for 40 years.

You are talking about Iwata wanting an enhanced version for the Switch that was already on the 3ds! A series of games he personally sees as very integral to Nintendo systems. Why wouldn’t he want that?

Again, when people say new Switch hardware will finally get 3rd party support that the Switch hasn’t been getting…they aren’t talking about Dragon Quest games. Come on.

Yes, I can see Nintendo wanting to continue getting games like Dragon Quest and other JrPGs on Nintendo systems. This isn’t what we are talking about though.

Not just for Switch, Nintendo always pushed third party games to be on their system. I still remember the impact of the news that Nintendo and Capcom struck the deal of Resident evil games on Gamecube.

Every story I read on this is Mikami being desperate to detangle himself from the PlayStation platform. He hated it. He approached both Microsoft and Nintendo with Resident Evil.

Again, this is not what I categorize as Nintendo lifting a finger looking for 3rd party multiplat support. This is them just saying ok to an offer. (And this is an example of a somewhat exclusive. Of course Nintendo would be actively interested in 3rd party exclusive stuff. Never said anything different on that.)

There are literally devs waiting for a stronger Switch to bring their games to it.

It’s very common for publishers to use the hardware excuse to avoid Nintendo system. It’s an easy PR excuse.

It sounds better than saying “we really aren’t interested in the effort it would take to optimize a Nintendo port of this title that we don’t think will compete very well on the platform and make the reward worth the effort, so…”

There are some honest devs/publishers out there who admit that certain titles of theirs simply can’t compete with Nintendo 1st party content. Their games get lost. So it’s not worth the effort.

I don’t buy the argument in the article you posted. The pc version of the Witcher 3 requires a much stronger cpu at minimum than Desperados 3 does. THQ just isn’t motivated to bother with spending the effort/resources for a Switch version.

What they are saying is that they would be happier with a much stronger Switch that makes it far easier to dump a port on. I bet they still don’t bother when the Switch upgrade comes out, though.

"Lack of demand" excuse would mean nothing once the porting costs are drastically decreased. Xbox getting almost every game PS5/4 gets despite the obvious lack of audience for some titles on the platform. Why? Because it costs almost nothing. For the exact same reason, 21m sold Gamecube got some of the best third party support in the Nintendo history.

The ps3 got every major multiplat despite being notoriously difficult to port to. It’s because the expected demand for their game on the PlayStation was there to bother.

The Wii U could have gotten every multiplat that appeared on the ps360 from 2012-2015. Despite devs saying how easy and cheap it was to port to the Wii U, it didn’t. It didn’t, because the expected demand wasn’t there (but they all appeared on the equally low selling, at the time, Xbox one)

The Switch could absolutely have a version of every multiplat that appeared on the Xbox One. Despite its success, it didn’t because the publishers made a choice that the effort to port them wouldn’t be worth the reward because of expected low demand on the platform.

It is always about expected low demand for the titles. Low demand because the competition against Nintendo 1st party is too high, incongruous to their titles. If they thought demand was high enough, they would spend the effort/time to port it. They always make these efforts when they feel the market is there.

 

[My Tulpa]

I’d imagine we’ll see the likes of RE7, RE8 and the remakes of RE2 and RE3 as exclusive to this new hardware from a Switch stand point.

Why wouldn’t they continue to be cloud streamed?

If SE couldn’t be bothered to port KH 1&2 to the Switch…because even they thought the demand wouldn’t be worth it (even for a Kingdom Hearts game!)…doesn’t inspire me with confidence on how older Capcom/SE games are handled on the Switch. Regardless of power.

You do realise that there are some game companies that would love to bring some of its games to Switch but those games simple can't run (or cannot run in satisfied state for that game companie) on current Switch hardware, but could run on next gen Switch that will probably have much stronger hardware?

No, obviously I don’t realize this lol

I mean even New 3DS have some exclusive games (for instance Minecraft) compare to OG 3DS,
and we here talking about much bigger power/technicall difference than comparing New 3DS to OG 3DS.

What are some major multiplat games similar to the type/genre as Minecraft that hasn’t been able to be on the current Switch because of hardware issues?

I’m surprised you picked a game that has huge “not worth the cost/effort” vibes. Was stopped being supported after like a year lol.

 

[YolkFolk]

Why wouldn’t they continue to be cloud streamed?

Because it won’t take major work to port them over. Capcom rapidly ported almost every HD Resident Evil the Switch was capable of running without the need for a major down port exercise. Did you miss this? Lol

The games I mentioned will be quick wins as far as Capcom are concerned. I’d go as far as to say these games are guaranteed to appear on the next Switch.

Happy for an account bet if we don’t get a single one of the RE titles I mentioned in the first year of the next Switch? Seems bizarre you’d even argue against it.

 

[Vantell]

I have been going back to some older games and stumbled upon Breath of the Wild. Overall this game runs perfectly, but at Rito Village gate I saw quite some stuttering as well as with Let's Go Eevee. Slowly I am getting ready for the next Switch system, haha.

 

[Crusters]

Why wouldn’t they continue to be cloud streamed?

If SE couldn’t be bothered to port KH 1&2 to the Switch…because even they thought the demand wouldn’t be worth it (even for a Kingdom Hearts game!)…doesn’t inspire me with confidence on how older Capcom/SE games are handled on the Switch. Regardless of power.

Saw a really good deep dive on this situation, and they did a really good job of arguing it was the opposite of this situation.

It wasn't about kingdom hearts, nor faith in the switch yadda yadda, but needing to have something to show for their shitty cloud business venture, and they thought kingdom hearts on switch was the best place to crap out something like this and get 'good faith sales'.

No not the shitty failed cloud venture project flare. No not the shinra the next shitty failed cloud venture. The new shitty one that's failing that I can't remember the name to right now.

They said that's why kingdom hearts went all cloud on switch.

 

[My Tulpa]

"Why bother releasing a game to an existing userbase of ~120 million?" is quite a question.

No, I mean the game always had a vague date. They barely have discussed the game publicly. Whatever the reason for not releasing the game this year, why be specific with a firm Spring date anyways?

They seem to need to tie this game to this FY. If the idea is tying its release with the new hardware, it would verify to me that the new hardware is tied to this FY as well.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Saw a really good deep dive on this situation, and they did a really good job of arguing it was the opposite of this situation.

It wasn't about kingdom hearts, nor faith in the switch yadda yadda, but needing to have something to show for their shitty cloud business venture, and they thought kingdom hearts on switch was the best place to crap out something like this and get 'good faith sales'.

No not the shitty failed cloud venture project flare. No not the shinra the next shitty failed cloud venture. The new shitty one that's failing that I can't remember the name to right now.

They said that's why kingdom hearts went all cloud on switch.

I think KH cloud isn't an SE venture but the same company as all the other cloud games on Switch

 

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

Incentivizing a publisher to make a Nintendo version of their game that is popular on the Xbox/ps platforms.

That’s what I mean.

What types of incentives would qualify? Nintendo writing a check for millions of dollars to Bethesda? How do you know there weren’t any incentives?

Skyrim was in the 2016 switch reveal video. Bethesda never published a single Wii U game. There had to be some reason they committed to Switch so early.

 

[My Tulpa]

Because it won’t take major work to port them over. Capcom rapidly ported almost every HD Resident Evil the Switch was capable of running without the need for a major down port exercise. Did you miss this? Lol

The games I mentioned will be quick wins as far as Capcom are concerned. I’d go as far as to say these games are guaranteed to appear on the next Switch.

Happy for an account bet if we don’t get a single one of the RE titles I mentioned in the first year of the next Switch? Seems bizarre you’d even argue against it.

I dont know what an account bet is, you mean avatar bet?

But sure. Are you asking me if I think Capcom will make a native running port of Resident Evil 7&8 to only for the low userbase DLSS model during its launch year? No cloud streaming?

Sure. I bet they won’t.

 

[My Tulpa]

Saw a really good deep dive on this situation, and they did a really good job of arguing it was the opposite of this situation.

It wasn't about kingdom hearts, nor faith in the switch yadda yadda, but needing to have something to show for their shitty cloud business venture, and they thought kingdom hearts on switch was the best place to crap out something like this and get 'good faith sales'.

No not the shitty failed cloud venture project flare. No not the shinra the next shitty failed cloud venture. The new shitty one that's failing that I can't remember the name to right now.

They said that's why kingdom hearts went all cloud on switch.

Same with Gaurdians of the Galaxy?

SE doubled down on cloud gaming R&D just a few months ago. They aren’t stopping anytime soon.

I don’t see why they, or Capcom, would stop streaming games to the Switch devices, even after this upgrade model is released.

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

It’s hard to say how they’ve done of the Switch since we have no real way, either hard or soft, of tracking cloud games. My best guess is that they have all probably underperformed but the maintenance for keeping them up is minuscule. Though I think for the most part that cloud gaming selection could be better then what is currently there.

 

[My Tulpa]

What types of incentives would qualify? Nintendo writing a check for millions of dollars to Bethesda? How do you know there weren’t any incentives?

Incentives…basically anything beyond just handing out devkits and allowing ports to appear on the system.

Incentives would be doing everything Xbox/Sony do to attract 3rd party publishers …designing hardware to ease the process of popular 3rd party gaming development, modeling 1st party output to be congruous with popular 3rd party gaming to help facilitate the 3rd party demand/sales not inhibit, paying for any part of development (marketing/publishing), paying for timed exclusivity, paying for “first looks”/announcement of popular 3rd party gaming, creating a service platform that popular 3rd party games benefit from (online gaming/chat/etc)..

Anything.

If Nintendo did anything to actively incentivize Bethseda to bother with the Switch, I’m open to reading/hearing about it.

The interview with Bethseda I posted earlier pretty much states it was all Bethesda’s drive to have Skyrim on the Switch (even the Zelda skins)

Skyrim was in the 2016 switch reveal video. Bethesda never published a single Wii U game. There had to be some reason they committed to Switch so early.

They were excited about the prospect of what kind of appeal their games might have being played portable on a powerful handheld. This is the reason they decided to release games on the Switch when they didn’t the Wii U.

Any publisher who brings a port of their major multiplat game to the Switch is doing so because of the possibility of that portable appeal creating a unique demand for the title that the Xbox/ps/pc version doesn’t already offer.

It’s not because Nintendo is being unusually proactive and doing anything to ask/beg that these multiplat ports be on the Switch or help facilitate them to be.

 

[fiendcode]

Nintendo put ad dollars behind Skyrim Switch and also distributed it globally. There was almost certainly a deal there (Reggie talked about wanting Skyrim on Wii U too way back when) but you're not going to hear about it officially.

Generally though if NOA and NOE distribute a 3rd party game, chances are they went out if their way to secure it for Switch.

 

[Crusters]

Same with Gaurdians of the Galaxy?

SE doubled down on cloud gaming R&D just a few months ago. They aren’t stopping anytime soon.

I don’t see why they, or Capcom, would stop streaming games to the Switch devices, even after this upgrade model is released.

No idea. The content was strictly about kingdom hearts, that much I can remember, no other modern cloud titles were discussed.

 

[Simba1]

No, obviously I don’t realize this lol


What are some major multiplat games similar to the type/genre as Minecraft that hasn’t been able to be on the current Switch because of hardware issues?

I’m surprised you picked a game that has huge “not worth the cost/effort” vibes. Was stopped being supported after like a year lol.

Its strange because its very obvious and logical, especially when even New 3DS had some exclusive games and we here talking about basically next gen hardware.
Not to mention that Nate said that he knows about couple of 3rd party games that are in work just for new Switch because they couldnt work on current Switch models.

Why some game should be type of genre of Minecraft? Minecraft was just example of huge and popular game that was released only for New 3DS versions and not for OG 3DS.
We potentially talk about any AAA last gen or current gen game, also its not only point that game cant run in any case on current Switch, but also that simple some devs doesnt want to release its game on Switch to run only at 540p or lower with bad frame rate.

Actually Minecraft is great example because its huge and one of most popular games ever, and its released only on New 3DS and not weaker OG 3DS.

 

[Simba1]

It’s very common for publishers to use the hardware excuse to avoid Nintendo system. It’s an easy PR excuse.

It sounds better than saying “we really aren’t interested in the effort it would take to optimize a Nintendo port of this title that we don’t think will compete very well on the platform and make the reward worth the effort, so…”

There are some honest devs/publishers out there who admit that certain titles of theirs simply can’t compete with Nintendo 1st party content. Their games get lost. So it’s not worth the effort.

I don’t buy the argument in the article you posted. The pc version of the Witcher 3 requires a much stronger cpu at minimum than Desperados 3 does. THQ just isn’t motivated to bother with spending the effort/resources for a Switch version.
What they are saying is that they would be happier with a much stronger Switch that makes it far easier to dump a port on. I bet they still don’t bother when the Switch upgrade comes out, though.

Being 3rd party dev with generally big and popular game, you should have very good reason for not releasing your game to 100m+ platform,
its logical to assume that one of reasons why some of big 3rd party games are not on Switch is weak hardware, and its very wrong to assume that every dev that wanted its game on Switch already released it.

Thats point, Desperados 3 maybe could run at current Switch, but at what state and at what cost?
And those are things that actually changing with stronger hardware, because game will be in better state in any case and it's easier to port demanding game to stronger hardware with less time and resources.

 

[Belinda Blumenthal]

Because it won’t take major work to port them over. Capcom rapidly ported almost every HD Resident Evil the Switch was capable of running without the need for a major down port exercise. Did you miss this? Lol

The games I mentioned will be quick wins as far as Capcom are concerned. I’d go as far as to say these games are guaranteed to appear on the next Switch.

Happy for an account bet if we don’t get a single one of the RE titles I mentioned in the first year of the next Switch? Seems bizarre you’d even argue against it.

I feel like there is a misunderstanding here of how ports work. It's not as simple as selecting a different platform from a dropdown menu even though RE Engine supports the Switch - we don't know how different the versions of the engine are between something like MH:W and RE8, especially given those games would have been in development at the same time by different teams. Even if that weren't too much of a problem there would still be things like testing and distribution to work through, which might not be worth it if this next Switch is positioned more like a New 3DS/2DS rather than the next platform - if it is the next platform that work might be worth it but if all of that work is only going to be usable by a fraction of the platform's audience then I doubt they will bother.

Additionally, as far as I can tell, none of Capcom's RE Engine games have supported DLSS on PC so there might not even be support for DLSS in RE Engine at the moment. Their last game which did support it was Monster Hunter World which used a modified MT Framework.

 

[9-Volt]

if it is the next platform that work might be worth it but if all of that work is only going to be usable by a fraction of the platform's audience then I doubt they will bother.

Think of this way, if they try to down-port the game to regular Switch, it'll cost more but there will be massive audience for it.

For Switch Pro porting costs will be drastically decreased but, there will be zero audience on the system. But there will be a big launch window hype for the system, that would help the Switch Pro launch exclusive games to sell much more than a "miracle port" for the regular Switch.

It's been rumored that the newer RE games were getting Cloud versions on Switch (logo even leaked on the Ubitus site) but it seems Capcom has abandoned that idea for some reason. Native Switch Pro versions would be my guess.

 

[My Tulpa]

Nintendo put ad dollars behind Skyrim Switch and also distributed it globally. There was almost certainly a deal there (Reggie talked about wanting Skyrim on Wii U too way back when) but you're not going to hear about it officially.

Generally though if NOA and NOE distribute a 3rd party game, chances are they went out if their way to secure it for Switch.

Nintendo paid for the marketing of Skyrim? You don’t mean that commercial showing Skyrim on a plane, do you…

That was Nintendo showing the world what the Switch was…a device that plays home console games on the go. Skyrim was a good marketing tool for that. That was a unique symbiotic benefit that helped Nintendo more than Bethseda. It’s not a good argument to use an anomaly. If Nintendo had commercials showing Witcher 3 on the Switch…or anything similar since 2017…it would be better to convince me Nintendo works hard to get major AAA multiplats on their platform.

When you say they distributed Skyrim globally, you mean Nintendo is listed as the publisher? In what way did they help, I honestly don’t know.

 

[Skittzo]

Nintendo paid for the marketing of Skyrim? You don’t mean that commercial showing Skyrim on a plane, do you…

That was Nintendo showing the world what the Switch was…a device that plays home console games on the go. Skyrim was a good marketing tool for that. That was a unique symbiotic benefit that helped Nintendo more than Bethseda. It’s not a good argument to use an anomaly. If Nintendo had commercials showing Witcher 3 on the Switch…or anything similar since 2017…it would be better to convince me Nintendo works hard to get major AAA multiplats on their platform.

When you say they distributed Skyrim globally, you mean Nintendo is listed as the publisher? In what way did they help, I honestly don’t know.

Video: Nintendo highlights The Witcher 3 and Overwatch in new Switch commercial

Nintendo has produced yet another Switch commercial focusing on a couple of third-party games. View an advert featuring The Witcher 3 and Overwatch below.

nintendoeverything.com

 

[ILikeFeet]

When you say they distributed Skyrim globally, you mean Nintendo is listed as the publisher? In what way did they help, I honestly don’t know.

in distribution, NIntendo eats the cost of production of carts and distribution of carts. they do this with a lot of games, GTA most recently.

 

[Sagitario]

in distribution, NIntendo eats the cost of production of carts and distribution of carts. they do this with a lot of games, GTA most recently.

I thought Nintendo would only handle the actual distribution (meaning the moving of physical goods from factory to stores), absorbing those costs or charging only a reduced/special fee to publishers. Is there a source for [all] the distribution duties?

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

I thought Nintendo would only handle the actual distribution (meaning the moving of physical goods from factory to stores), absorbing those costs or charging only a reduced/special fee to publishers. Is there a source for [all] the distribution duties?

You won’t any hard numbers outside of what I believe Matt & a few others have come out & said about the subject. Suffice to say Nintendo does quite a few things for publishers as we see with any SE western release on the Switch:

• Marketing/Advertising
• Localization
• Publishing duties (production, shipping, stocking)

I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the impossible ports have some sort of deal with Nintendo to absorb the higher end cost of carts plus the logistics side of it. Even funding the game to a degree. I just find it strange that we are somehow doubting that Nintendo is actively working to get games on the system; while believing that these impossible games would have appeared because….reasons.

 

[Marce-chan]

I'm glad it was a success for them, but it's such a shame that this version really shit the bed technically. I feel like they could've done more.

Tbh I wish that they aim for 30fps with Mortal Kombat 12 so it doesn't look that rough. Or maybe have these options of "performance mode" and "graphics mode" like a lot of games have on PS4 Pro Xbox One X and PS5 and Series, and you can choose between 60FPS or 30FPS with better graphics.

 

[Marce-chan]

That article only says Nintendo was willing to have it and was enthusiastic about it.

Look, I was replying to the idea that Nintendo is going around and actively trying to get major 3rd party multiplats on their systems. This example you gave is a publisher sending them their Switch port and seeing if Nintendo gives them an OK

Emily said Nintendo literally funded the Fifa port to the Switch.
EA wasn't going to port it was at the time they couldn't port Frostbyte, so Nintendo literally provided money so they could port a customized engine to get those Legacy Editions on the Switch.

Nintendo actively got third party support for the Switch, moreso in the first years.

 

[Marce-chan]

No, I mean the game always had a vague date. They barely have discussed the game publicly. Whatever the reason for not releasing the game this year, why be specific with a firm Spring date anyways?

They seem to need to tie this game to this FY. If the idea is tying its release with the new hardware, it would verify to me that the new hardware is tied to this FY as well.

I mean, you saw the stocks fell a bit after the announcement of the delay, right? Had they just announced it for 2023 without a season or just announced it was delayed without a year like in 2015, it would have tanked them for investors.

While it probably is going to get released in March, it can still come in April-June for all we know. Hell, even February lol.

And let's remember... It doesn't NEED to be tied to new hardware.

We have an open world new generation Pokémon game coming this holiday, alongside a bunch of "visual showcases" of impressive games in scope in Bayonetta 3 and Xenoblade Chronicles 3, also the rumored Metroid Prime Remaster. OLED was released alongside Metroid Dread. Nintendo doesn't necessarily need to tie new hardware to Zelda every time.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Tbh I wish that they aim for 30fps with Mortal Kombat 12 so it doesn't look that rough. Or maybe have these options of "performance mode" and "graphics mode" like a lot of games have on PS4 Pro Xbox One X and PS5 and Series, and you can choose between 60FPS or 30FPS with better graphics.

I think it's safer to say MK12 won't hit the base Switch to begin with. I can only imagine what Hogwarts will even look like and it's blurry

 

[Deleted member 2548]

I thought Nintendo would only handle the actual distribution (meaning the moving of physical goods from factory to stores), absorbing those costs or charging only a reduced/special fee to publishers. Is there a source for [all] the distribution duties?

When Nintendo is the distributor, basically what happens is they agree to buy a certain number of copies from the publisher upfront. Nintendo Co., Ltd. manufactures all game carts, but the ones they distribute are treated the same as Nintendo's own products (ex. compare both Breath of the Wild and SNK Heroines bearing Nintendo's UPC 45496 and importer, NoE GmbH, to Disgaea 5 with NISA's UPC 060112 and Reef Entertainment despite NISA publishing the latter two).

How the publisher spends that money is up to them. In some cases, that money is almost definitely used to fund development of game / port to some degree. Most of the time though it isn't very clear, which imo makes trying to specify whether Nintendo is paying for development vs. marketing vs. distributing, etc. a bit pointless. Nintendo is providing a financial incentive by agreeing to purchase the software from the start.

 

[Christo750]

Tbh I wish that they aim for 30fps with Mortal Kombat 12 so it doesn't look that rough. Or maybe have these options of "performance mode" and "graphics mode" like a lot of games have on PS4 Pro Xbox One X and PS5 and Series, and you can choose between 60FPS or 30FPS with better graphics.

I kinda agree. There wasn’t any crossplay anyway so 30 FPS wouldn’t have hurt too much.

 

[Hidden04]

huh

 

[mazi]

huh

please don't bump old threads if you don't have anything to add to the discussion