• Akira Toriyama passed away

    Let's all commemorate together his legendary work and his impact here

[Nikkei/Rumor] Next Switch development is "progressing well", due in 2024 [UPDATE: VGC/Eurogamer share more details]

What would be the best time for a new Switch 2024 launch ?

  • April-May 2024

    Votes: 158 42.8%
  • June-September 2024

    Votes: 77 20.9%
  • October-November 2024

    Votes: 134 36.3%

  • Total voters
    369
Tbh just like Nintendo went all-in with the open-world genre with Switch 1, I'd like them to do the same for "cinematic 3rd-person shooters" with Switch 2. Basically, I wanna see their take on the "Sony-genre". Playing TotK makes me realize once again (just based of the first 5 hours, things might change) how basic stories in Nintendo-games are, not just conceptually, but in how they're presented. MonolithSoft is their only developer to make elaborated stories. I'd like Nintendo to establish at least one more developer of theirs to make games featuring serious, elaborate stories, because it'd fill a gap in their current lineup. Not sure who could be put on such game, maybe RetroStudios unless they're trapped in making Metroid Prime-games forever now.
Those “cinematic games” cost an unbelievable amount to produce and burn out staff with lots of crunch. The risk-reward just isn’t very good. The reason why SIE does them is that they are prestige titles to get 13-50 year old “gamers” into the PlayStation ecosystem paying for subscriptions and MTX. While God of War and The Last of Us have sold well, they have also had failures like Days Gone. If it bombs, the publisher can lose a lot of money on them.

They are also not very family friendly. Nintendo doesn’t really do M rated first party games as they want kids and families to be able to enjoy them just like “gamers.”

Finally, Nintendo believes they need to present new gameplay ideas to prevent gamer drift. The “cinematic” games don’t present any new gameplay. They are linear third person action adventures or FPS’s. Perhaps they have a checklist open world like an Ubisoft game or Horizon Zero Dawn.

SIE wants to get more money out of the same demographic while Nintendo wishes to sell to all demographics. The “cinematic” games just do not fit that business strategy.
 
Those “cinematic games” cost an unbelievable amount to produce and burn out staff with lots of crunch. The risk-reward just isn’t very good. The reason why SIE does them is that they are prestige titles to get 13-50 year old “gamers” into the PlayStation ecosystem paying for subscriptions and MTX. While God of War and The Last of Us have sold well, they have also had failures like Days Gone. If it bombs, the publisher can lose a lot of money on them.

They are also not very family friendly. Nintendo doesn’t really do M rated first party games as they want kids and families to be able to enjoy them just like “gamers.”

Finally, Nintendo believes they need to present new gameplay ideas to prevent gamer drift. The “cinematic” games don’t present any new gameplay. They are linear third person action adventures or FPS’s. Perhaps they have a checklist open world like an Ubisoft game or Horizon Zero Dawn.

SIE wants to get more money out of the same demographic while Nintendo wishes to sell to all demographics. The “cinematic” games just do not fit that business strategy.
I’m gonna be honest with you, this doesn’t track with several of Nintendo games that already use mocap or have presentations that are cinematic in nature to present the game.

Their biggest game of all time at the moment has cinematic presentations in it to present the story to the player and they’ve moved to more games having a cinematic presentation at times appropriate.

Also, cinematic has nothing to really do with being rated mature, there’s no correlation with that.

On top of that, games being cinematic or focusing on a more cinematic appeal have been running the top of this industry and have been pretty successful for quite some time equally if not more so for multiplatform projects for nearly 30 years now where appropriate for the hardware at specific times.

It’s what AAA games have pushed for and they somehow for the most part end up very successful and liked by new gamers.

Funnily enough, 13-50 age demographic coincides with the age range which you mentioned are the most popular with from their chart…

Clearly they both target a similar demographic, Nintendo just widens it a bit more with targeting, what, like? 3-50?

Just a 10 year extra. Maybe if you stretch it even further for the upper range.

This demographic that SIE targets is willing to spend more and talk more, so why not? Nothing wrong with that as a business target. Worked for them for decades, and they are the most successful in the industry arguably in a consistent cadence from their first to key third party partners, so it clearly is working right and clearly what many people like.
 
You said it yourself, Nintendo has Xenoblade already. That’s not a gap in their lineup. Can’t get more cinematic than a game with 12 hours of fully voiced cutscenes with elaborate choreographies.
 
I think of they want, they can push Star Fox to be another game with heavy cinematic/storyline stuff, not getting ride of its fun arcade gameplay airwing/tanks segments but also including on-foot third person shooter mechanics and some RPG elements.

And of course co-op play (offine/online) and multiplayer mode (both splits-screen and online).

I think star fox aesthetics can have much more potential that other of their fantasy sci-hi IPs like Metroid or Xenoblade.

But they need to put the money and resources, plus find an adequate studio capable of producing a very good quality product.
 
Last edited:
I think of they want, they can push Star Fox to be another game with heavy cinematic/storyline stuff, not getting ride of its fun arcade gameplay airwing/tanks segments but also including on-foot third person shooter mechanics and some RPG elements.

And of course co-op play (offine/online) and multiplayer mode (both splits-screen and online).

I think star fox aesthetics can have much more potential that other of their fantasy sci-hi IPs like Metroid or Xenoblade.

But they need to put the money and resources, plus find an adequate studio capable of producing a very good quality product.
Would love that. Plus for whatever reason, the Starfox-franchise has a history of oddly in-depth stories.
 
I think of they want, they can push Star Fox to be another game with heavy cinematic/storyline stuff, not getting ride of its fun arcade gameplay airwing/tanks segments but also including on-foot third person shooter mechanics and some RPG elements.

And of course co-op play (offine/online) and multiplayer mode (both splits-screen and online).

I think star fox aesthetics can have much more potential that other of their fantasy sci-hi IPs like Metroid or Xenoblade.

But they need to put the money and resources, plus find an adequate studio capable of producing a very good quality product.
Me and a few others always thought adding elements from Mass Effect would work as well. I’d also look at other games in the series for ideas & inspirations.
 
I think of they want, they can push Star Fox to be another game with heavy cinematic/storyline stuff, not getting ride of its fun arcade gameplay airwing/tanks segments but also including on-foot third person shooter mechanics and some RPG elements.

And of course co-op play (offine/online) and multiplayer mode (both splits-screen and online).

I think star fox aesthetics can have much more potential that other of their fantasy sci-hi IPs like Metroid or Xenoblade.

But they need to put the money and resources, plus find an adequate studio capable of producing a very good quality product.
Hmmm
I think they look at the original Starwars movies and build Starfox from that.
Awesome air fights,
A creative cast of secondary characters
Drama, Action, Sci-Fi, Witty diagloue,
A touch of horror elements, upgradable weapons,
On-foot third person shooter mechanics (like you said but) w/ no RPG elements
but unique weapons (and upgrades) and custom attacks depending on character
3 episodes or more thru out the Switches 2 life cycle each ep is at least 12hrs (star fox adventures about 13hrs)
(all episodes have a conclusion at the end but builds to something greater)
Several returning characters, w/ an additional new rival group (like Stardrake or something lol)
Along with an anti-hero team
Lovecraft inspired superbosses some w/ a robot like twist and some w/ high intelligence
A Hellraiser like world from another dimension w/ several branching pathways both an land and sky
A massive exporable city where the doggie commander General Pepper resides
 
T minus 1 year

Switch DLSS will change the game forever, Nintendo will forever be cemented
 
I’m gonna be honest with you, this doesn’t track with several of Nintendo games that already use mocap or have presentations that are cinematic in nature to present the game.

Their biggest game of all time at the moment has cinematic presentations in it to present the story to the player and they’ve moved to more games having a cinematic presentation at times appropriate.

Also, cinematic has nothing to really do with being rated mature, there’s no correlation with that.

On top of that, games being cinematic or focusing on a more cinematic appeal have been running the top of this industry and have been pretty successful for quite some time equally if not more so for multiplatform projects for nearly 30 years now where appropriate for the hardware at specific times.

It’s what AAA games have pushed for and they somehow for the most part end up very successful and liked by new gamers.

Funnily enough, 13-50 age demographic coincides with the age range which you mentioned are the most popular with from their chart…

Clearly they both target a similar demographic, Nintendo just widens it a bit more with targeting, what, like? 3-50?

Just a 10 year extra. Maybe if you stretch it even further for the upper range.

This demographic that SIE targets is willing to spend more and talk more, so why not? Nothing wrong with that as a business target. Worked for them for decades, and they are the most successful in the industry arguably in a consistent cadence from their first to key third party partners, so it clearly is working right and clearly what many people like.
Think about it from a project management perspective and from a presentation perspective. What is the bigger draw to Xenoblade? The sense of adventure and exploration or the cutscenes? What had the most resources put into it, the map and adventure or every blade of grass and voicing every minor NPC?

Just because a game has a few cutscenes doesn’t make it “cinematic.”

Further, just like everyone else, I just started playing the new Zelda title. It’s an action-adventure title, far from “cinematic.” Link is again, an avatar for your adventure. The cutscenes are just there to enhance the sense of adventure. Contrast that to Horizon Forbidden West where Aloy talks nonstop and the gameplay parts are links between the cutscenes. The cutscenes are the draw and the gameplay is there to feel like an interactive movie.

Look at where the budget went with the Ninendo games. It went to the gameplay ideas. The cutscenes were added later. In contrast, the cinematic games had the gameplay made to fit the cutscenes.

Next, compare the budget of Xenoblade games to The Last of Us 2. It is about 20x more to make The Last of Us 2. Making art and graphics that look like a movie don’t come cheap. On the other hand, cartoon graphics look fine, don’t affect gameplay either way (and can enhance it if done right) and are comparatively cheap since you’re not designing and rendering individual strands of hair and pores.

Nintendo is certainly not going in a “cinematic” direction. A few cutscenes to enhance an adventure does not equal cinematic.
 
PS4 released November 15, 2013
Switch released March 3, 2017

PS5 released November 12, 2020
Switch 2 releases March 1, 2024

Gap of roughly 3 years and 3.5 months

Switch is basically PS4 equivalent, Switch 2 should be PS5 equivalent given the same tech frame, especially when PS5 tech is basically off the shelf standard components while fast progression of mobile tech and NVIDIA's expertise will surely close the gap between the systems much more than ever before, DLSS and scalable engines will essentially make a Switch 2 SKU the standard for the whole industry
 
Last edited:
PS4 released November 15, 2013
Switch released March 3, 2017

PS5 released November 12, 2020
Switch 2 releases March 1, 2024

Gap of roughly 3 years and 3.5 months

Switch is basically PS4 equivalent, Switch 2 should be PS5 equivalent given the same tech frame, especially when PS5 tech is basically off the shelf standard components while fast progression of mobile tech and NVIDIA's expertise will surely close the gap between the systems much more than ever before, DLSS and scalable engines will essentially make a Switch 2 SKU the standard for the whole industry
What do you mean by "PS5 equivalent "?

Switch 2 will be the standard for some, not the whole industry.
 
What do you mean by "PS5 equivalent "?

Switch 2 will be the standard for some, not the whole industry.
ps5 games can be ported to switch 2 with minimal effort, similiar to how PC/PS5/XBS multi is the standard

at that point I find it hard for any developer to skip a switch SKU barring exclusivity and money hats
 
What do you mean by "PS5 equivalent "?

Switch 2 will be the standard for some, not the whole industry.
He means from the perspective of the market. They play a lot of the same games, the graphics look close enough to be in the same ballpark, the broader market views them as competitors. Many customers can play Nier Automata on PS4 or Switch and it’s the exact same game and you’d need Digital Foundry to tell any difference between the two.

Similarly, the Switch 2 will be able to play PS5 exclusive games (if they ever come).
Post automatically merged:

at that point I find it hard for any developer to skip a switch SKU barring exclusivity and money hats
Or biases about user base demographics.
 
He means from the perspective of the market. They play a lot of the same games, the graphics look close enough to be in the same ballpark, the broader market views them as competitors. Many customers can play Nier Automata on PS4 or Switch and it’s the exact same game and you’d need Digital Foundry to tell any difference between the two.

Similarly, the Switch 2 will be able to play PS5 exclusive games (if they ever come).
Post automatically merged:


Or biases about user base demographics.
ps5 is a lost cause for japan where this problem exists, they will give in eventually, the west is much more simple in this day and age, build capable hardware that sells well and they will come
 
ps5 games can be ported to switch 2 with minimal effort, similiar to how PC/PS5/XBS multi is the standard

at that point I find it hard for any developer to skip a switch SKU barring exclusivity and money hats
If the Switch 2 is that powerful that would help their third party support. But doing so in a hybrid format will be incredibly difficult, even with DLSS.

Probably Switch 2 will be weaker than PS5, but the gap won't be as big as between PS4 and Switch. (Switch was definitely not a PS4 equivalent).
He means from the perspective of the market. They play a lot of the same games, the graphics look close enough to be in the same ballpark, the broader market views them as competitors. Many customers can play Nier Automata on PS4 or Switch and it’s the exact same game and you’d need Digital Foundry to tell any difference between the two.

Similarly, the Switch 2 will be able to play PS5 exclusive games (if they ever come).
Post automatically merged:


Or biases about user base demographics.
A lot of PS5 games will come to Switch, but it will depend on whether the publishers view the porting costs as being worth it.
 
Last edited:
Nintendo is certainly not going in a “cinematic” direction. A few cutscenes to enhance an adventure does not equal cinematic.
I’m not sure what you consider cinematic then considering that cutscenes are what people associate with cinematic and the presentation of those cutscenes matter a lot.
 
Seems a risky strategy the long period between the peak and the next system. Meanwhile, the competition ramp up production, user base, and mindshare.
Reminds me of the Wii transition that lost momentum.
Wasn't this the same argument that had people back in late 2016/early 2017 believe the Switch was going to fail? Like the PS4 was readily available, with a huge record-shattering userbase and ever-growing mindshare by the time the switch launched.

People were also arguing that the $200 Black friday deals of the 8th gen consoles would affect the sales performance of the first holiday period of the Switch.... And it just didn't happen.


The Wii transition lost momentum mostly because of software; specifically the stretches of notable software both 1st & 3rd party. The competition had little to do with it at that point in time. Even if they had momentum the next device was the WiiU so it wouldn’t have mattered in the least.
This.

TOTK released 6 years 2 months into the switch life. An equivalent would be a huge zelda game releasing on January 2013 for the Wii and having huge sales... With still software and DLC in the horizon for at least several months. Both situations are not comparable.
 
Wasn't this the same argument that had people back in late 2016/early 2017 believe the Switch was going to fail? Like the PS4 was readily available, with a huge record-shattering userbase and ever-growing mindshare by the time the switch launched.

People were also arguing that the $200 Black friday deals of the 8th gen consoles would affect the sales performance of the first holiday period of the Switch.... And it just didn't happen.



This.

TOTK released 6 years 2 months into the switch life. An equivalent would be a huge zelda game releasing on January 2013 for the Wii and having huge sales... With still software and DLC in the horizon for at least several months. Both situations are not comparable.
I think you mean 2011.

Wii U did come out 2012 holiday.
 
If the Switch 2 is that powerful that would help their third party support. But doing so in a hybrid format will be incredibly difficult, even with DLSS.

Probably Switch 2 will be weaker than PS5, but the gap won't be as big as between PS4 and Switch. (Switch was definitely not a PS4 equivalent).

A lot of PS5 games will come to Switch, but it will depend on whether the publishers view the porting costs as being worth it.
hybrid factor doesn't mean much in terms of development, the specs are there all they need to do is scale up or down, just like development between other modern platforms
 
hybrid factor doesn't mean much in terms of development, the specs are there all they need to do is scale up or down, just like development between other modern platforms
I'd say hybrid will have a significant impact on the power of Switch 2. It means there are heat, battery and size considerations which won't be as as much of a concern for stationary consoles.

It will the impact and components and clocks used in the device, which will impact the time and cost of scaling down a PS5 game to Switch 2.
 
I think you mean 2011.

Wii U did come out 2012 holiday.
What I meant was, the switch is getting big AAA 1st party releases that shatter sales records, over 6 years after launch. More specifically 6 years and 2 months.

For comparison, 6y2mo after the Wii launch (launch date: November 2006) , the Wii U had already released and the Wii had been dead software wise for over a year.

Skyward sword launched pretty late in the Wii lifecycle (5 years after launch) to anemic sales, and yet it still launched over a year earlier than TOTK did in their respective systems' lifetimes.
 
I would think it would be better with DLSS, but that's just a guess.

I'd wager the CPU might be an issue; the PS4/XB1 CPUs were incredibly underpowered, even for the time they released. PS5/XSX's CPUs are much, much more performant relatively.
 
DLSS isn't magic. the performance gains come from lowering the rendering resolution. other systems can do that too. what makes DLSS great is that it resolves the image better than the competition
It's not magic, but it would be an advantage for Switch 2 that Switch 1 doesn't have right?
 
It's not magic, but it would be an advantage for Switch 2 that Switch 1 doesn't have right?

It would but until we know the total system specs it will be difficult to know how much the bridge is closed or widened. Having dedicated hardware for upscale should help no doubt though.

Something like a 2.5Tflop docked and 1.5Tflop portable configuration is still mostly going to be putting a lot of the visual rendering under portable conditions and using the extra docked power to raise the base resolution. The remaining render budget will be for higher DLSS output resolution.

So it will help in the sense that I would expect image quality to be better than what we got on Switch 1 by default. But the CPUs in the current gen systems are quite good and it is hard to expect Switch 2 being clocked much higher than 1.5 GHz per core which still leave a big performance delta.

I think it will be right around what Switch 1 was to PS4. That's honestly fine. A lot of ganes could have been ported to Switch 1 but weren't for technical reasons. I think there will be lots more ports this time around because the hardware should be able to produce appealing visuals and game engines should be more and more scalable.
 
It would but until we know the total system specs it will be difficult to know how much the bridge is closed or widened. Having dedicated hardware for upscale should help no doubt though.

Something like a 2.5Tflop docked and 1.5Tflop portable configuration is still mostly going to be putting a lot of the visual rendering under portable conditions and using the extra docked power to raise the base resolution. The remaining render budget will be for higher DLSS output resolution.

So it will help in the sense that I would expect image quality to be better than what we got on Switch 1 by default. But the CPUs in the current gen systems are quite good and it is hard to expect Switch 2 being clocked much higher than 1.5 GHz per core which still leave a big performance delta.

I think it will be right around what Switch 1 was to PS4. That's honestly fine. A lot of ganes could have been ported to Switch 1 but weren't for technical reasons. I think there will be lots more ports this time around because the hardware should be able to produce appealing visuals and game engines should be more and more scalable.
That's what I'm expecting. It'll still miss out on quite a few games, but less than Switch did.
 
That's what I'm expecting. It'll still miss out on quite a few games, but less than Switch did.

Yeah. It won't be bad. I still expect stuff like CoD to make its way over and full Fifa titles as well. I would expect huge AAA stuff but I think they won't shy away from delivering more than Switch got. If Switch is getting Hogwarts and MK1 then I can't see big IPs that have a pretty decent chance of expanding their user base skipping it hard unless tech constraints are crazy. I do expect the trend of late ports to continue though. Day and date I dont see changing too much.
 
Yeah. It won't be bad. I still expect stuff like CoD to make its way over and full Fifa titles as well. I would expect huge AAA stuff but I think they won't shy away from delivering more than Switch got. If Switch is getting Hogwarts and MK1 then I can't see big IPs that have a pretty decent chance of expanding their user base skipping it hard unless tech constraints are crazy. I do expect the trend of late ports to continue though. Day and date I dont see changing too much.
See I had some hope that the late ports would end, as a Nintendo version would be planned from the beginning (like Mortal Kombat) and not added in later (like Hogwarts).
 
See I had some hope that the late ports would end, as a Nintendo version would be planned from the beginning (like Mortal Kombat) and not added in later (like Hogwarts).

I think launching off cycle means that for these big AAA games that have 4 platforms to target and we know a PS5 Pro is coming too, adding a Switch 2 version while they are already deep in development just seems unlikely for most. While simultaneous launch is preferred I just don't see it occuring much outside of yearly stuff like Fifa, NBA and perhaps CoD if that happens.

For AA stuff it will be fine. The Switch was largely fine here.
 
I think most third party games should be on Switch 2 but i will caution anyone expecting it to be the norm.

Every gen we hear about how the next generation portable will rival the current gen consoles and then inevitably the devs get into the nitty gritty of development and find its way more difficult to port than they were told.
 
I think most third party games should be on Switch 2 but i will caution anyone expecting it to be the norm.

Every gen we hear about how the next generation portable will rival the current gen consoles and then inevitably the devs get into the nitty gritty of development and find its way more difficult to port than they were told.
well we got there with the Steam Deck (hella asterisk here) but it also came around the time of the PS5. we're seeing people say this now with the ROG Ally and other 7840U gaming devices, only to learn what bandwidth and power bottlenecks are (again, as we have to do the same song and dance)
 
well we got there with the Steam Deck (hella asterisk here) but it also came around the time of the PS5. we're seeing people say this now with the ROG Ally and other 7840U gaming devices, only to learn what bandwidth and power bottlenecks are (again, as we have to do the same song and dance)

Even the Steam Deck these days is having issues, mostly because of the influx of bad/unfinished PC ports. Digital Foundry did a video on this topic:

 
See I had some hope that the late ports would end, as a Nintendo version would be planned from the beginning (like Mortal Kombat) and not added in later (like Hogwarts).

This is what i wanted first actually. While it will be lovely to get as much as new day and date release on Switch 2 parity with other platform.
There is a lot of room for companies to make money with late port on Switch 2 there.

Dark Souls 2 and 3 Remastered
Elden Ring
Tomb Raider Trilogy
Kingdom Hearts no Cloud Edition
RE2,3,4 Remake+Re7 and 8 no Cloud Edition
One Piece Odyssey
Ace Combat 7
King of Fighters XV
Guilty Gear Strive

and many more

That i feel is nice way for company to get money while building foothold for Switch 2 library
 
This is what i wanted first actually. While it will be lovely to get as much as new day and date release on Switch 2 parity with other platform.
There is a lot of room for companies to make money with late port on Switch 2 there.

Dark Souls 2 and 3 Remastered
Elden Ring
Tomb Raider Trilogy
Kingdom Hearts no Cloud Edition
RE2,3,4 Remake+Re7 and 8 no Cloud Edition
One Piece Odyssey
Ace Combat 7
King of Fighters XV
Guilty Gear Strive

and many more

That i feel is nice way for company to get money while building foothold for Switch 2 library
Honestly, many of these should probably be on the current Switch.
 
Honestly, many of these should probably be on the current Switch.

That's true but for the third parties they probably think it is too troublesome to even try. So when we are at Switch 2 and power is not that much trouble.

There will be less excuse.

Hopefully we can see Humankind(From Sega) and Dead Space Remastered to hit Switch 2 as well.
 
Honestly, many of these should probably be on the current Switch.
Thx, exactly what I was going to say. Kingdom Hearts Trilogy especially has no excuse not to be on Switch 1. I wouldn't be surprised if 3rd-parties put these games on Switch 2, but I feel we shouldn't desire nor reward them.

3rd-party games I expect on Switch 2:

- Tales of Arise (first year)
- Kingdom Hearts 3 (first year)
- Monster Hunter World 2 Day 1
- Dragon Quest 12 Day 1
- Resident Evil 7 and 8 (first year)
- Resident Evil 9 day 1
- Tales of Next day 1
- Persona 6 day 1
- Cyberpunk 2077 (first year)
- Assassin's Creed Mirage
- FIFA (proper) (first year)
- All of BandaiNamco's anime-games day 1

Now, do I believe the above will actually happen? No. But assuming the "Slighty more powerful than PS4 plus DLSS"-Switch 2 comes true, there's no reason no to expect these games and more. It's entirely on company politics whether these happen or don't, and I think we can all agree that the Switch has proven its success, it isn't in need for another 3 years from launch to prove that it can sell games. Ultimately, I think we should expect more and criticize more when reasonable expectations aren't met due to unreasonable decisions made by industry higher-ups.
 
I think launching off cycle means that for these big AAA games that have 4 platforms to target and we know a PS5 Pro is coming too, adding a Switch 2 version while they are already deep in development just seems unlikely for most. While simultaneous launch is preferred I just don't see it occuring much outside of yearly stuff like Fifa, NBA and perhaps CoD if that happens.

For AA stuff it will be fine. The Switch was largely fine here.
Yes that's a fair point, hopefully Nintendo is already sharing dev kits with the biggest publishers to help alleviate the problem.
This is what i wanted first actually. While it will be lovely to get as much as new day and date release on Switch 2 parity with other platform.
There is a lot of room for companies to make money with late port on Switch 2 there.

Dark Souls 2 and 3 Remastered
Elden Ring
Tomb Raider Trilogy
Kingdom Hearts no Cloud Edition
RE2,3,4 Remake+Re7 and 8 no Cloud Edition
One Piece Odyssey
Ace Combat 7
King of Fighters XV
Guilty Gear Strive

and many more

That i feel is nice way for company to get money while building foothold for Switch 2 library
Oh yes, for games that came out before Switch 2 releases I have no issue wiry those late ports.

Not that every game should be ported to Switch 2, but a fair few will. Though I'd be more focused on bringing new games to Switch 2 than porting old ones.
 
- Monster Hunter World 2 Day 1
- Dragon Quest 12 Day 1
Honestly, I think these are the big two I see Nintendo going after. Timing wise they may end up aligning well for Year 1 titles too, an improvement on Switch 1 which had a 2 year delay for DQXI and missed out on MH5 entirely instead waiting on an exclusive MHP5 3 years after that. If Drake can more straightforwardly run and store them though, I'd expect the majority of future output from Capcom and SE to come to the platform generally (SF6, DD2, RE9, NieR3, KH4, post-windowed FFXVI/VII R trilogy, etc).

Platform wide I think the two real elephants in the room will remain (Harada's) Namco and RGG Studio, and I'd hope to see Nintendo make some bold efforts towards reconciliation there as both were close partners in the past. With both these studios it's not about technology but (flawed) market perception so the solution will need to be more directed and personal.
 
Unless Nintendo cam get exclusives, reconciliation is just gonna be asking them to put games on their systems again. With Capcom and especially Square Enix, Nintendo had some investments with publishing and/or distributing. Bamco and RGG don't have those arrangements nor do they sell the numbers that make Nintendo very interested.

Essentially, they're great to have but Nintendo doesn't have a reason to carve out a space for them like they've done for SE and Capcom
 
Unless Nintendo cam get exclusives, reconciliation is just gonna be asking them to put games on their systems again. With Capcom and especially Square Enix, Nintendo had some investments with publishing and/or distributing. Bamco and RGG don't have those arrangements nor do they sell the numbers that make Nintendo very interested.

Essentially, they're great to have but Nintendo doesn't have a reason to carve out a space for them like they've done for SE and Capcom
Royalty money from every unit sold. That's the only reason necessary. The more the better.
 
Unless Nintendo cam get exclusives, reconciliation is just gonna be asking them to put games on their systems again. With Capcom and especially Square Enix, Nintendo had some investments with publishing and/or distributing. Bamco and RGG don't have those arrangements nor do they sell the numbers that make Nintendo very interested.

Essentially, they're great to have but Nintendo doesn't have a reason to carve out a space for them like they've done for SE and Capcom
Nintendo's targeted both divisions in the past for 3rd party content (early FC era, early GC era and early 3DS/U era in particular) and they have continual contract agreements with Namco on 1st party software (Smash, Mario Kart, Pokémon spinoffs) and also Sega more largely (NSO Genesis, Mario & Sonic, Bayonetta) even if not at RGGS specifically.

I have to disagree with you, each generation presents something of a reset on these kinds of negotiations / dealmaking and looking at Switch's successor Nintendo's now arguably in the best position they've been in since probably the late 1980s for a generational transition. Targeting problem areas like this is exactly something they should be considering as a platform provider and is something they very much did with Switch early on (Bethesda, FIFA, etc).
 
Persona 6 is a Playstation system seller in Japan and now a meaningful console exclusive WW. Nintendo has Fire Emblem and Xenoblade, they will likely pursue Square Enix AA JRPGs over paying more than Sony for P6.
 
Unless Nintendo cam get exclusives, reconciliation is just gonna be asking them to put games on their systems again. With Capcom and especially Square Enix, Nintendo had some investments with publishing and/or distributing. Bamco and RGG don't have those arrangements nor do they sell the numbers that make Nintendo very interested.

Essentially, they're great to have but Nintendo doesn't have a reason to carve out a space for them like they've done for SE and Capcom
You're not wrong, but imo it's simply a bad look to miss out on all these games and Nintendo might feel the same eventually. With Switch 1, they themselves were aware that they're in a challenger position and have to prove themselves, plus the Switch 1's relatively low power was a reasonable excuse. With Switch 2, however, there are no more excuses and Nintendo is no longer a challenger, but, at least, an equal market competitor (unlike what Sony and the CMA/FTC claim). Not putting their games on Switch 2 will mean an assured missing out on tens of millions of customers and this time around everyone, including shareholders, knows that.

Whether something happens or not, I feel we should be more criticial of certain publisher decisions and not be like "ah well, Bandai Namco not supporting Switch is normal, whatever". Of course, that doesn't mean we need to talk about it every week ;)
 
Persona 6 is a Playstation system seller in Japan and now a meaningful console exclusive WW. Nintendo has Fire Emblem and Xenoblade, they will likely pursue Square Enix AA JRPGs over paying more than Sony for P6.
I'm really not sure about this one as SEGA repeatedly keeps reiterating that they want multiplatform. Given the Persona 3 remake is by all indication the next coming and also multiplatform, Persona 6 will at earliest come Holiday 2024 but more likely 2025 atp.

SEGA and Atlus have a golden chance of having Persona becoming bigger than mainline Final Fantasy if it releases on everything day and date as Sony money cannot offset Switch 2 and PC sales or even gamepass down the line. Honestly Persona 6 not selling 10 million copies WW if it's a high quality RPG because it's money-hatted by Sony would constitute one of the stupidest decisions ever by a Japanese 3rd party, moreso than how stupidly long they played out P5R coming to everything. Sega is a company that if they make the correct decisions this gen could more than likely hit record revenues, profits and immense recognition.
 
Nintendo's targeted both divisions in the past for 3rd party content (early FC era, early GC era and early 3DS/U era in particular) and they have continual contract agreements with Namco on 1st party software (Smash, Mario Kart, Pokémon spinoffs) and also Sega more largely (NSO Genesis, Mario & Sonic, Bayonetta) even if not at RGGS specifically.

I have to disagree with you, each generation presents something of a reset on these kinds of negotiations / dealmaking and looking at Switch's successor Nintendo's now arguably in the best position they've been in since probably the late 1980s for a generational transition. Targeting problem areas like this is exactly something they should be considering as a platform provider and is something they very much did with Switch early on (Bethesda, FIFA, etc).
Indeed. As I’ve stated once before elsewhere, all platform holders release hardware with specific goals or objectives in mind and directly act on those objectives to try and make them happen. And as far as Nintendo is concerned, other than maintaining their current levels of success, there’s so few unexplored frontiers left for them to make new objectives out of with their next hardware, with 3rd-party expansion into the traditionally “AAA” sphere being one of them.
 
Indeed. As I’ve stated once before elsewhere, all platform holders release hardware with specific goals or objectives in mind and directly act on those objectives to try and make them happen. And as far as Nintendo is concerned, other than maintaining their current levels of success, there’s so few unexplored frontiers left for them to make new objectives out of with their next hardware, with 3rd-party expansion into the traditionally “AAA” sphere being one of them.
I think they have done a decent job at that given the change we've seen in the western space. it's just that Nintendo offered more to publishers they were lacking in. it makes me wonder if there are business reasons relating to that for Bamco and Sega. SE and Capcom get some benefits that we aren't seeing with the other two, and I wonder if it has to do with historical support not being as lackluster (though one can easily say the same for SE and Capcom, but Nintendo does more for them, because they reap more rewards)
 
Back
Top Bottom