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 âdistribution dealsâ 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 Iâm 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 didnât 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 thatâs far different than Nintendo actively pursuing something
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.
Thatâs what I mean.
Showing 3rd party Switch games in Directs is Nintendo supporting projects on their systemâŠwhich is what they should doâŠbut it doesnât mean Nintendo went out and actively pushed to have every 3rd party multiplat shown in Directs.
Iâm 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)âŠIâm saying Nintendo isnât actively trying to push Ubisoft to port Assasins Creed games to the Switch. Nintendo isnât going to Bethseda asking them to please make a Doom port. Nintendo isnât going to Rockstar pushing them to make a GTA port. Nintendo didnât incentivize CDPR to decide to port Witcher 3. Etc.
Iâm saying Nintendo will accept ports of major 3rd party multiplatsâŠof course they will. And they will help highlight them when they do.
But they donât 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
Iâd 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 appealâŠsure.
I wouldnt call Danganropa a popular Xbox/ps multiplat, no.
Ah Dragon QuestâŠthat series that got huge success when it released on the original xboxâŠlol
Look, I know Iâll 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 wouldnât he want that?
Again, when people say new Switch hardware will finally get 3rd party support that the Switch hasnât been gettingâŠthey arenât 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 isnât 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.)
Itâs very common for publishers to use the hardware excuse to avoid Nintendo system. Itâs an easy PR excuse.
It sounds better than saying âwe really arenât interested in the effort it would take to optimize a Nintendo port of this title that we donât think will compete very well on the platform and make the reward worth the effort, soâŠâ
There are some honest devs/publishers out there who admit that certain titles of theirs simply canât compete with Nintendo 1st party content. Their games get lost. So itâs not worth the effort.
I donât 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 isnât 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 donât 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. Itâs 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 didnât. It didnât, because the expected demand wasnât 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 didnât because the publishers made a choice that the effort to port them wouldnât 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.