What’s Next for Nintendo Third-Party Support?
- Thread starter Ishaan
- Replies 406
- Views 35,116
- Start date
- Community Discussion
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Fortnite has a huge audience on Switch so that one will last quite some time I feel.
I can't imagine it being dropped until the successor is quite well established.
While T2, EA and Activision continue dragging their feet on truly ambitious Switch ports it seems like the lower tiers of western publishers and studios are still pretty happy to fill in that gap (THQ Nordic, CDPR, Techland, Hello Games, Wildcard, formerly Bethesda, etc).
But is apex popular on Switch? The system doesn't play to the strengths of the game, unlike fortnite. Maybe when Apex mobile gets rebooted by EA, but that might be closer to the successors launch
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Apex keeps moving around in the Switch US eShop "All Software" rankings (paid software + free downloads + DLCs), sometimes low top 10, quite often top 20, and sometimes top 30 (currently it is no. 21). Whenever I look I never see it lower than that (though admittedly I don't look often in the "all software" rankings). So I would say it seems to be quite popular in the US eShop, though not close to Fortnite level popular (Fortnite is at any given moment either no. 1, 2, or 3 on any given week).
As to Japan's Switch eShop "all software" rankings, that would be more @ktpoison 's turf.
In Japan the packaged Switch version sold 54k in the charts (11k 1st week) while the PS4 version never ranked (under 2k 1st and probably any week).
Fortnite, Apex Legends, and Overwatch 2 are all consistently in the top 10 most downloaded games on Switch. So yes they are popular on Switch, I'm still not sure why some of you seem so surpised people would actually choose to play on Switch. I know this is hard to believe but sometimes I just want to play games on my favorite platform despite owning a Xbox series. I am certainly not alone in that, as the charts have shown. FiFa legacy edition has sold more and more. We just saw EA drop Apex Mobile almost immediately. Switch version is clearly performing well enough since it released now over 2 years ago. Mobile version wasn't even a year old. Apex Legends is a popular game in Japan, so popular that EA was clearly so disappointed in Playstation's performance in Japan that they said we gotta port this game to Switch. Fortnite isnt going anywhere it certainly has made plenty of money on Switch. Overwatch 2 is the same, Overwatch 1 was released on Switch, performed well enough to get a day and date release of Overwatch 2. The only advantage the other platforms had over Switch version of Overwatch 2 is that the beta didn't release on Switch. In order to participate in the beta you had to pay lol. Overwatch 2 is fully cross play and cross progression, allowing me to buy cosmetics on Switch and use on any platform. Apex Legends just released permenant game modes (team deathmatch and some others) that run far better on Switch due to the limited portion of the maps they play on, similar to Realm Royale I mention later.
Hirez's performance issues were due to those games targeting 60 fps, none of the other games do that for obvious reasons. Paladins and Rogue Company were hurt by this, Rogue Company literally had 6 v 6 game modes introduced later that never hit Switch due to performance. The game was advertised and released as a 4v4 game. That's why it ridulous to use Hirez as any indication if what could happen to other gaas games. Realm Royale is hirez battle royale game and just released a new game mode called Realm Wars (team death match) it runs far better. The battle royale consistently crashed on Switch although to be fair it was having issues on multiple platforms. Also Realm Royale didn't target 60 fps on Switch, it's 30 fps.
Hirez's performance issues were due to those games targeting 60 fps, none of the other games do that for obvious reasons. Paladins and Rogue Company were hurt by this, Rogue Company literally had 6 v 6 game modes introduced later that never hit Switch due to performance. The game was advertised and released as a 4v4 game. That's why it ridulous to use Hirez as any indication if what could happen to other gaas games. Realm Royale is hirez battle royale game and just released a new game mode called Realm Wars (team death match) it runs far better. The battle royale consistently crashed on Switch although to be fair it was having issues on multiple platforms. Also Realm Royale didn't target 60 fps on Switch, it's 30 fps.
Last edited:
It's really nothing new though, a couple second tier GAAS end service and a game that already bombed gets it's Switch port canceled and we're again at clear indications the 3rd party tide has turned for Switch, RIP. When these things happen on PS/Xbox though it's a reflection of that specific game, publisher or category just failing to perform, zero emphasis placed on platform.
We went through this with Soul Hackers 2 being the all encompassing indication of Atlus' future platform choice. Same with the Persona ports for two weeks (lol) but then suddenly those didn't matter, they're just ports again. Meanwhile SMTV remains Switch exclusive (18 months and counting) while EO skips PS/Xbox too.
We went through this with Soul Hackers 2 being the all encompassing indication of Atlus' future platform choice. Same with the Persona ports for two weeks (lol) but then suddenly those didn't matter, they're just ports again. Meanwhile SMTV remains Switch exclusive (18 months and counting) while EO skips PS/Xbox too.
Last edited:
It is usually among the top 10 most downloaded software of Japan's eShop. If only including free software, the list (recently) is usually:
1 - Youtube
2 - Tetris 99 / Fall Guys
4 - Fortnite / Apex
6 - Overwatch 2 / Super Kirby Clash
Regarding Paladins, I remember it doing really bad in many eshops. End of service does not surprise me at all.
Fortnite on Switch still runs well. Espcially for the basic battle royale mode. I can't see much reason why they would cut it unless/until it stops making money.
It is always the simplest thing. If the thing still bring money. Devs will keep supporting it even after the machine receive a brand new successor. It is like people forget how long Wii get Just dance lol.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is a weird one to me. Out of nowhere!
I hope they bring the other games in the series over
Oof. On one hand they're being open about it. On the other hand, this should probably have waited until the Switch 2 is here.
24 frames remind of more "Cinematic" way of viewing lol.
Don't know how I missed this thread, will be investing into it
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Honestly, if that's the make or break for bringing a game to Switch, then I support the decision. As long as they're upfront about it it's properly framepaced, it's good enough.
They're like Choose Your Own Adventure books. You make decisions / perform QTEs to have different events play out with the occasional small hub to explore for some background exposition.
So does the fps really harm the experience?
No game should be running at 24 fps.
No game should cost $70, no game should require online subscriptions, no game should have dlc or mtx. Regardless of what you, I, or anyone else says or thinks, no one speaks for all. This game at 24 fps was delivered by the developers and is now up to the consumer to decide whether its worth it or not. Gotta say for me, no matter the fps it doesn't look like my cup of tea. I would like to know why you think the experience is harmed by the fps, considering it looks like an interactive movie.
More or less, yeah. A lot of the interactive elements are fairly forgiving, I'm hard pressed to believe the framrate would cause frustration.
I'm obviously speaking for myself. Really don't care about you trying to generalize this point to everything which serves literally 0 value.
Ok fair enough, didn't come off that way to me. Now of course, I had another question about whether you believe it affects the experience or not of this type of game.
Games don't run at 30fps or 60fps for no reason. They run at multiples of the common refresh rate of displays. Take Doom Eternal on Switch for example. The cutscenes run at 20fps because 30fps was too much for the level of detail they wanted. However 60 is divisible by 20 so while you get a sluggish looking picture which is not preferable, it doesn't introduce frame pacing issues. Frame pacing issues can make a game running at a consistent framerate look terrible.
24fps will introduce unavoidable frame persistance issues that make watching a game (even when you aren't actually playing it) a poor experience. Additionally, compared to a movie running at a low framerate in which each frame has a ton of motion, a video game renders each frame clean and will try to aid things like panning the camera with motion blur to try and smooth the image out.
Movies are shot for 24fps. Games are not designed for that framerate. Even in titles that are mostly on rails, the addition of higher framerates improves the visuals of the game. There is no reason to run a game at 24fps. Even ones that are basically interactive movies. If there was, all the versions would run at 24fps. You would see 24fps cutscenes more as well. But you never see this because it looks bad. This is an interactive movie basically. It looking bad is like, the worst outcome because there isn't much input driven gameplay to lean on.
That's my opinion. Will people play it and think its fine? I mean, we have a host of games across the years that people stomached for wharever reason. Do I personally think you should be running a whole game you intend to sell to consumers at 24fps? Absolutely not.
Thank you for this, this is very informative. I genuinely had no clue about alot of that. Maybe they can improve with some updates, although they'll probably only update if enough people complain which no one will because I don't see this game doing very well lol. I wasn't a fan of your original comment because it felt like a drive by post taking jabs at the developer. Although I agree there are lazy or incompetent developers out there, we have to remember these are still people. They just want to make a honest living just like you or me.
Yeah just to note, I wasn't saying the game shouldn't be ported. But 24fps is just not a good framerate to present a whole game imo. I'm not especially sensitive to frame pacing but when its bad, (think Spyro Reignited Trilogy or Bloodborne) I really cannot stand how it makes a game look.
I also wouldn't call any developer lazy or incompetent. They do the best with what they have. Also, telling people whose job you've never done that the are incompetent is like the ultimate level of ignorance.
That said, I just cannot play a game at 24 fps. I'd rather have significantly degraded visuals than a framerate that low. The way it animates is just not something I can handle. Something like Doom Eternal's 20fps cutscenes when they are infrequent? Sure. A whole game of this though? I personally can't.
I will say, you have to know your sensitivity to framepacing. If framepacing doesn't bother you maybe this wont be terrible for someone. I should also clarify, I shouldn't said there is no reason to run a game at 24fps. They obviously did it for performance. I should have said "I don't think the trade off is worth it". I genuinely don't think you should run at game at 24fps. But I understand "why" they did it.
I do agree with you, it is on consumers to decide. I just feel like it was implied to be my opinion when I say something. Unless we are talking sales (which it is a sales forum so that is most of the time), I'm just expecting that the "imo" is implied.
Yes that was my point. Switch 2 won't need bespoke software so won't be as vulnerable as 3DS.
I would expect Switch 2 to have more games announced near launch than 3DS, just fewer exclusive titles.
I think you have a fair point, but it might be to do with their overall lineup.
There's not been a lot of announcements from Capcom, Ubisoft, Activision or EA lately that could reasonably expect to run on Switch. Plus Namco continues being weird when it comes to Switch games.
Having said that, SE, KT and Konami have continued announcing things and Level 5 has actually stepped up its support.
Nintendo also elevates titles from smaller Japanese publishers and studios in a way Sony/MS don't really, making them into key platform releases. Level 5 (DecaPolice, Fantasy Life i) and Spike Chunsoft (Rain Code) are good examples this year but they've also done it in the past several years for Atlus, Marvelous, GHM, Toybox, NIS, Imagineer, etc. That's in addition to inter company tie-ins, contracting and licensing with even more smaller publishers and studios (Mages, Hamster, Jupiter, Platinum, Arika, etc). The Japanese development industry has started to rely on Nintendo, internationally, not just for their marketshare but also in direct support and dealmaking in a way we probably haven't seen since the formative Famicom/NES era. And this was exactly the kind of approach Sony broke in on with PlayStation too (and have progressively abandoned the past decade+).
The only real opposition to this rests with the "Big 6" Japanese console publishers or some larger mobile/PC pubs looking to break in and even then it's not across the board with some (ex: Bandai Namco, Cygames) being more perplexingly resistant than others (ex: Koei Tecmo, GungHo Online). This is a bit of a difference though versus what we saw in the Fami-80s or Play-90s where Japan's 3rd parties felt more universally aligned with rarer, more niche exceptions.
The only real opposition to this rests with the "Big 6" Japanese console publishers or some larger mobile/PC pubs looking to break in and even then it's not across the board with some (ex: Bandai Namco, Cygames) being more perplexingly resistant than others (ex: Koei Tecmo, GungHo Online). This is a bit of a difference though versus what we saw in the Fami-80s or Play-90s where Japan's 3rd parties felt more universally aligned with rarer, more niche exceptions.
Warner Bros. seems like Switch's best major Western publisher right now between Hogwarts and Mortal Kombat. Think they will be a strong supporter of Switch 2.
Fake edit: Was just about to post this when I saw that Hogwarts for Switch got delayed until November. I cursed it!
Fake edit: Was just about to post this when I saw that Hogwarts for Switch got delayed until November. I cursed it!
Switch (and Switch 2) will be pretty well known quantities. There's not much to wait and see for this time. The third parties who are in on Switch will be in on Switch 2. I see some third parties jumping on board with the new generation, and I don't see any jumping off.
the fact it's not cancelled is a show of support in and of itself
Yes I agree with that.
Still waiting on Arkham Collection.
Yeah very odd we never got that.
That would be a waste of everyone’s time & present the exact same problems as with the Switch. It would be prudent to jump on the product first & see what happens.
I would rather get F.E.A.R Collection remastered pliz.(Just forget FEAR 3 exist lol.)
- Pronouns
- He/him
Now that you mention it, it is strange that Arkham City and Arkham Origins were on Wii U but not Switch. Same deal with Yakuza 1 & 2 HD.
The reason Yakuza isn’t on the Switch is because of the WiiU version selling poorly & the producers having questionable stances on the Switch.
- Pronouns
- He/him
Yes, I remember the interview where the Yakuza producers said they didn't want to do a switch port because Yakuza being a mature series clashes with the family-friendly nature of the switch. I thought it was a bizarre reason to not put your games to switch, given there are plenty of M-rated games on switch already.
I think it's cos non-AAA Japanese games lead on Switch in the West and western non-AAA Japanese games on PlayStation are really winding down so they don't want to create any world where that happens and people in the west associate Yakuza with Nintendo. In Japan, it's highly unlikely Yakuza builds up a bigger base on Switch than PlayStation but in the West, I think it would be almost a given over time and that's something they KEENLY want to avoid.
Which is utterly bizarre if you think about it. Being worried your games will sell too much.
so....they want to avoid their games selling better? because they ain't getting any better in the west or japan being on the systems they're on now
I don't think this is true, neither the idea that the series would become associated with Nintendo nor the idea that's what is driving their decision making.
Yakuza Developer Explains Why It's Probably Not Coming to Nintendo Switch - IGN
RGG Studio boss Masayoshi Yokoyama says that he isn't interested in Nintendo Switch, explaining that he feels that the console's profile as a all-ages, mainstream-friendly console doesn't fit with the series' personality.
Whatever the actual reason is, it is ultimately their loss. Since according to them they are more then fine being “underground” & staying out of the sunlight. They certainly are pulling that off to a certain degree.