I feel like the thing's entire lifespan is a prime example. It had some great first party stuff, but a lot of it was also kinda meh. The thing needed third party support desperately, but a lot of it was either not very good, non-existent, or flawed. The fact Nintendo dipped out of support for it so quickly shows that it didn't do too well. Granted, a lot of that was marketing as well and a half assed controller, but stillSaelune said:
The Gamecube, ok; but the Wii U was enough of a blow for Nintendo that the CEO took a salary cut so they wouldn't downsize employees. I'm not saying the lack of 3rd party caused this (I think success attracts the 3rd party and not the other way around); but calling the Wii U a success is remembering things with rose-tinted glasses.Saelune said:
For the success they're experiencing right now? Oh yes, it is definitely a requirement. Unless you think all those indie titles aren't putting a hefty penny in Nintendo's pocket. Would they find success without third-party? Sure, but not the amount it's experiencing right now. I'm not the only one using the Switch as an indie machine, you know. Thousands if not millions of others are doing the same.Saelune said:
The Wii-U -- The console Nintendo cut short, like, 3 years into its lifecycle to quickly launch the Switch and purge any knowledge that it ever existed? That was a success?! What exactly is your definition of success? And the Gamecube, while fondly remembered, was hardly a best seller. The supposed exclussive Resident Evil 4 already jumped over to the Playstation 2 before it even launched on the Gamecube, because Capcom had rather their big new game was also on a console that actually sold well, Mikami be damned. Those two consoles failed precisely because only the Nintendo fans supported it.
Well the thing is, Nintendo basically has so many IPs spanning such a broad range of genres that they basically don't have any blind spots anymore. Furthermore, this is the first time they have ever had both their handheld and console teams working on one system together, so this could end up being a slaughter if things really get going.Saelune said:
In certain cases sure, but a lot of the time, no, at least, not by much. Like Starlink for example, what you really missing with the Switch version? 60FPS, some extra foliage, and a slightly higher resolution? There are some crappy ports on the Switch, but most ports for the system are either worse, but still playable, or not too much different from the other versions. Not to mention these games regularly sell on-par with their counterparts, sometimes better.Dirty Hipsters said:
How is it a bad console? Because it's not the powerhouse you wanted it to be? The Switch is a great system that nails what it's trying to be, a system that can be played anywhere, with anyone.
Well, yeah, but if its still perfectly playable, there's not much to complain about.
If you want to play these games on the go, the Switch is the only console that allows you to do that with ease at the moment. Portability is a huge factor into why third party games do well on the Switch.
Yes, but not being able to hit 60 fps and having a worse resolution makes it a worse port. If your only defense is "sure the ports are worse but not THAT much worse" then you don't actually have a counter argument to the ports being worse.TheMisterManGuy said:
As someone who has no need of "gaming on the go" the switch offers literally nothing to me. I don't play the switch on a bus, or on the train, in the back seat, because I drive a car. I'm sure the switch is great if you're a kid and your parents are driving you everywhere and constantly hog the TV, but to me its portability is an absolutely useless feature. I'd much rather play my games on my TV than on a handheld. Hell, I own a 2DS and I've probably played it for a total of like 10 hours because I don't play handhelds at home, and I don't have time to play them on the go.
If you want to play these games on the go, the Switch is the only console that allows you to do that with ease at the moment. Portability is a huge factor into why third party games do well on the Switch.[/quote]
Sure, but you seemed to be acting like Switch versions are unplayable, when they're not. They're downgraded sure, some more than others, but they're still perfectly fine in their own right. It's mostly the AAA games that get the most cuts, a lot of the less demanding titles only take modest hits to things like foliage and resolution.Dirty Hipsters said:
Okay, that isn't the same as the Switch being a legitimately bad console though. It just means it isn't for you.
It's more like it turned out that nobody cared. People threw around frame rates and resolution numbers when the Switch versions of Doom 2016 and Wolfenstein: The New Colossus came out, but it turns out those didn't matter because they sold pretty well. Heck, those games arguably were even the better versions because they had gyro controls. It'll be the same thing with The Witcher III, RE5 and 6, The Last Remnant, etc because it turns out that portability is SUCH a huge advantage is makes up for technical shortcomings.TheMisterManGuy said:
Yes and no. Pokemon is owned by the Pokemon Company, which is a joint venture between Nintendo and the game developers Game Freak and Creatures, with each holding an equal stake. So, Nintendo owns 33% of Pokemon. But it's also known that Nintendo has an unknown stake in Creatures. If that stake is more than 50% then Nintendo would actually essentially own 66% of Pokemon. Either side have staunchly refused to disclose the percentage for whatever reason tho, so it's a crapshoot.Casual Shinji said:
ok. that's YOU though. i thought you guys were talking about the console overall and its place in the market as whole?Dirty Hipsters said:
"Worst-selling console in company's history that got choked to death 3 years into existence and whose entire library got quickly ported to a newer, better-selling console" doesn't scream success story on any level.Saelune said:
Well, not the entire library.Johnny Novgorod said:
Exactly. Third-party games on the Switch, in general, are objectively worse than on both the One S/X and PlayStation 4/4 Pro. The only possible exception is if you're into playing games away from home.Dirty Hipsters said:
... What? Are you serious? Those things listed are pretty fundamental. Well, maybe some extra foliage isn't. However, being locked to a maximum of 30 FPS, by itself, is enough to turn many, many people away from the Switch. Add that with a lower resolution, and you have an objectively worse experience (than on Xbox or PlayStation).TheMisterManGuy said:
Oh - he's a major fanboy. His "arguments" are cringeworthy. He almost never (if not literally never) misses a Nintendo thread. His blind obsession with Nintendo is comical. They're a great company, but he definitely isn't the spokesperson that they'd want.Avnger said:
It depends on the game. Being "Worse" isn't really a large statement so long as it still isn't too far off from the other versions, and is perfectly playable in its own right. And because the Switch is mobile, then the whole discussion of the Switch version being "Worse" becomes moot, especially if it isn't THAT much worse. Now if its a legitimately bad port, then yes, portability or not, nobody will really play it on Switch.Mad World said:
Very few games absolutely need 60fps. Sure, Fighting games mandate it, and it's recommended for some games. But a lot of people are fine with 30fps as long as its still smooth. 30 frames vs 60 isn't a problem, but Jerky, inconsistent frame-rates that dip below 25 frames does become an issue. Nobody likes it when a game chugs. Fortunately, most Switch ports have been pretty good at keeping the frame-rate consistent.Mad World said:
