Will Bandai Namco's support improve significantly on Switch 2? (READ OP and VOTE)

[ILikeFeet]

Should Nintendo just change their business strategy? Sony pays all the time to get third party games, why don't Nintendo just start paying some publishers to release their games on Switch 2? They easily have the cash for it. And if it leads to more ambitious third party games on Switch 2 why not? I'm not saying Nintendo should pay for every single AAA game that Japanese studios make but if they identify games like Elden Ring, Street Fighter VI as good games to have on Switch 2, just pay the publishers and get the games.

Paying to get the same games as everyone else is a bad move. The companies will just be trained to wait for a payout. Kinda like what's happening to Microsoft. Games like Street Fighter 6 are near guaranteed to come anyway.

the only game I think is worth paying for is GTA 6. While paying to be a part of the crowd is a bad precedence, at least you can tell other companies "but are you GTA? Thought so"

 

[Fularu]

Should Nintendo just change their business strategy? Sony pays all the time to get third party games, why don't Nintendo just start paying some publishers to release their games on Switch 2? They easily have the cash for it. And if it leads to more ambitious third party games on Switch 2 why not? I'm not saying Nintendo should pay for every single AAA game that Japanese studios make but if they identify games like Elden Ring, Street Fighter VI as good games to have on Switch 2, just pay the publishers and get the games.

Sony doesn't pay to get games, they pay to prevent them from ever beeing released on competing systems and truth be told, more often than not they don't even pay, they get the support by default without having to lift a finger.

They will do marketing deals though with specific brands (UCL, FC (FIFA), CoD, things like that)

 

[Danny]

Sony doesn't pay to get games, they pay to prevent them from ever beeing released on competing systems and truth be told, more often than not they don't even pay, they get the support by default without having to lift a finger.

They will do marketing deals though with specific brands (UCL, FC (FIFA), CoD, things like that)

My point is due to the fact that all the big Japanese studios make their games with PS5 in mind it seems that Nintendo cannot get games automatically at all the same way Sony can get them, and the size of the Nintendo system user base seems to matter little to change that reality for the better. If these studios don't want to release games because they don't want to pay the cost of porting PS games to Nintendo systems maybe Nintendo pays the porting price to get the games?

 

[Fularu]

My point is due to the fact that all the big Japanese studios make their games with PS5 in mind it seems that Nintendo cannot get games automatically at all the same way Sony can get them, and the size of the Nintendo system user base seems to matter little to change that reality for the better. If these studios don't want to release games because they don't want to pay the cost of porting PS games to Nintendo systems maybe Nintendo pays the porting price to get the games?

There's a tiny subset of games not coming out for Nintendo's systems, essentially just the exclusive SE PS5 games, all BNS games (and all BNS folks) and From Software.

That's about it. Everyone knows Capcom will bring everything they can in some form or another.

 

[Danny]

There's a tiny subset of games not coming out for Nintendo's systems, essentially just the exclusive SE PS5 games, all BNS games (and all BNS folks) and From Software.

That's about it. Everyone knows Capcom will bring everything they can in some form or another.

We don't know if Capcom, Konami, Sega, Atlus, Bandai, Square Enix will release their AAA games on Switch 2, they have usually ported older games to Switch or made low budget games to Switch. There is still a big discussion if games like Tekken, Street fighter, RE, Monster Hunter 6, Final Fantasy etc etc will come to the Switch 2. Western devs are releasing Hogwarts Legacy to Switch that would almost be unheard of from Japanese studios who releases AA games to Switch only.

 

[ILikeFeet]

We don't know if Capcom, Konami, Sega, Atlus, Bandai, Square Enix will release their AAA games on Switch 2, they have usually ported older games to Switch or made low budget games to Switch. There is still a big discussion if games like Tekken, Street fighter, RE, Monster Hunter 6, Final Fantasy etc etc will come to the Switch 2. Western devs are releasing Hogwarts Legacy to Switch that would almost be unheard of from Japanese studios who releases AA games to Switch only.

Capcom isn't really a question. they'll port anything they can do with ease. they already talked about bringing Street Fighter 6, and it runs on potatoes

Konami is probably gonna do the same but their current slate of higher end games aren't out yet, so that's a wait and see

Square Enix's AAA game have largely been behind exclusivity contracts. they already talked about attempting to port FF15 and KH3 to Switch, so it's not far out of mind for them

 

[Old sorta fan]

Should Nintendo just change their business strategy? Sony pays all the time to get third party games, why don't Nintendo just start paying some publishers to release their games on Switch 2? They easily have the cash for it. And if it leads to more ambitious third party games on Switch 2 why not? I'm not saying Nintendo should pay for every single AAA game that Japanese studios make but if they identify games like Elden Ring, Street Fighter VI as good games to have on Switch 2, just pay the publishers and get the games.

Nintendo has even paid in the past and still got burned by large Japanese third party publishers. The 3DS and WiiU had multiple examples. The WiiU was stillborn and the 3DS almost failed due to software droughts due to third parties canceling games that were to release during time frames that Nintendo intentionally left open for third party software to shine. The only time Nintendo paid was for Monster Hunter to be 3DS exclusive and that was a special situation that probably won’t repeat again.*

Nintendo created the Switch for two reasons: 1) have hardware that accommodates any play schedule and style and 2) more importantly, it let Nintendo consolidate their software pipeline so they could provide enough software themselves to prevent droughts. No more risks of droughts if a third party suddenly and unilaterally cancels its WiiU/3DS project and moves it to PS4.

Further, the large Japanese third parties are no longer able to supply enough software to sustain sales momentum for hardware. That is the story behind the PS5 doing poor software sales in Japan; there isn’t enough compelling software for that market to keep providing that software eco system with momentum.

Nintendo used to think that the natural state of the market was for them to provide some key titles to give a system sales momentum then step back and let the third parties shine in the second half of the system’s life cycle while their internal teams pivot to the next system. That was pretty much how it worked with the NES, SNES, Game Boy phase 1 and phase 2. That broke down when PlayStation entered the market and provided better business incentives. The Japanese third parties decided to all in with PlayStation and ignore Nintendo except for low budget niche projects. Nintendo had been trying to return the market to the SNES days with first lower cost with more power in the Cube, and an expanded audience with the Wii. They ended up with a bomb in the Cube and a qualified success in the Wii (and a ton of cash and knowledge of where the market was going). They thought they had it back on the success of the Wii and DS! The DS even got some gems from large Japanese third party publishers!

But no, despite the fact that the PS3 business disaster caused many of the large third party publishers to go bankrupt and/or consolidate, they mostly came running when SIE promised riches overseas with the PS4. SIE claimed that the Japanese market was dying anyway so go west. They learned the wrong lesson from the success of Dark Souls.

After having the Wii lose sales momentum for what should have been the second half of its life as well as almost having two stillborn consoles due to third parties abruptly moving to PS4, Nintendo said never again and consolidated their software pipeline so they don’t have droughts anymore regardless of third party publishing decisions.

Nintendo wants the third parties and will do a lot for them such as marketing, deals on blank media, localization, etc. But they don’t need them and won’t pay for the entire cost of a project. If they did that, they would be a charity rather than a business. They’d also be suckers.

*The PSP was mostly a failed system by 2008. Games weren’t selling because players had figured out the games were mostly low budget imitations of PS2/3 games done by C teams. The system was also cracked open so wide that it was a big-time piracy/emulation box. The exception with Monster Hunter. The Monster Hunter games kept the PSP afloat in the 2009-2011 time frame. Nintendo saw an opportunity to destroy SIE’s handheld line by paying to make Monster Hunter 3DS exclusive. It worked.

 

[Joseki]

The reason Nintendo doesn't pay for ports is that on a fundamental level they simply don't need them. That money is better spent marketing their own games or simply not spent at all.
Most of the games people ask Nintendo to money hat are barely relevant at all in the first place: Persona, Like a Dragon, Bandai Namco stuff... They all sell 3-4 million lifetime over 3 different ecosystem. That's what an outsourced Mario sport spin-off sells on 1 system.

What could interest Nintendo are the GaaS money makers like GTA 6, the gatcha games... That 30% cut on all MTX spending would be worth pursuing with interest, not Ace Combat 8.

 

[RaymondBryce]

I think its about perception. Switch is not perceived by Bandai as a powerful system. If Switch 2 is percived as pwperful, BNS will incldue it in their development pipeline. That's why Nintendo is doing things like showing the Matrix demo.

Demon Slayer wasn't developed by Bandai Namco, but I'd bet good money that it not releasing on Switch day 1 was influenced by Bandai Namco's behavior. Basically "they do it like that, let's do it the same way".

Surely it was influenced by CyberConnect's behaviour, not Bandai Namco's.

The reason Nintendo doesn't pay for ports is that on a fundamental level they simply don't need them. That money is better spent marketing their own games or simply not spent at all.
Most of the games people ask Nintendo to money hat are barely relevant at all in the first place: Persona, Like a Dragon, Bandai Namco stuff... They all sell 3-4 million lifetime over 3 different ecosystem. That's what an outsourced Mario sport spin-off sells on 1 system.

What could interest Nintendo are the GaaS money makers like GTA 6, the gatcha games... That 30% cut on all MTX spending would be worth pursuing with interest, not Ace Combat 8.

Nintnedo has provided support for multiple ports on Switch I believe, including Witcher 3 and the Bethesda games.

 

[fiendcode]

Nintnedo has provided support for multiple ports on Switch I believe, including Witcher 3 and the Bethesda games.

Not just huge western titles either but also stuff from Japan like the early DQ/Builders ports, USF2, MHGU, Dark Souls, TWEWY, Go Vacation, etc. Nintendo was key to getting Tekken and RGG on Wii U, I do think there's some room for them to do that again on Switch 2.

 

[RaymondBryce]

Not just huge western titles either but also stuff from Japan like the early DQ/Builders ports, USF2, MHGU, Dark Souls, TWEWY, Go Vacation, etc. Nintendo was key to getting Tekken and RGG on Wii U, I do think there's some room for them to do that again on Switch 2.

Agreed. I think they'll need to do it as much as they did for the early days of the Switch, but I do see them targeting key games like Eldren Ring or KH4.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Agreed. I think they'll need to do it as much as they did for the early days of the Switch, but I do see them targeting key games like Eldren Ring or KH4.

a lot of those early games were also distributed by Nintendo. stuff like Elden Ring and KH4 definitely won't have that going for them. though if Nintendo ever got GTA6, I can definitely see Nintendo distro-ing that

 

[Old sorta fan]

Nintnedo has provided support for multiple ports on Switch I believe, including Witcher 3 and the Bethesda games.

Very true but the support was technical/porting assistance, deals on the larger cartridges, marketing, distribution, deals on royalties, etc. They also did not provide cash to fund the development or port of the title, just services that saves in cost but is not cash. Unless I’m mistaken, Nintendo didn’t provide direct cash disbursements to CDPR or Bethesda. They did give support by providing services and concessions on money earned but no cash up front.

Mr. Harada wants cash funding up front for all development/porting costs. Technical services, concessions on royalties, breaks on blank media, marketing, distributio, and localization won’t be enough for him to develop a game for a Nintendo System. He wants his team to be insulated from all business risk rather than sharing the risk.

Nintendo does not need that kind of one sided deal as they have lots of good software on the Switch already.

 

[RaymondBryce]

a lot of those early games were also distributed by Nintendo. stuff like Elden Ring and KH4 definitely won't have that going for them. though if Nintendo ever got GTA6, I can definitely see Nintendo distro-ing that

They distributed Dark Souls in Europe, so I can see them doing that for Elden Ring (not KH4 though)

Very true but the support was technical/porting assistance, deals on the larger cartridges, marketing, distribution, deals on royalties, etc. They also did not provide cash to fund the development or port of the title, just services that saves in cost but is not cash. Unless I’m mistaken, Nintendo didn’t provide direct cash disbursements to CDPR or Bethesda. They did give support by providing services and concessions on money earned but no cash up front.

Mr. Harada wants cash funding up front for all development/porting costs. Technical services, concessions on royalties, breaks on blank media, marketing, distributio, and localization won’t be enough for him to develop a game for a Nintendo System. He wants his team to be insulated from all business risk rather than sharing the risk.

Nintendo does not need that kind of one sided deal as they have lots of good software on the Switch already.

How do we know Harada wants cash funding up front?

 

[Old sorta fan]

How do we know Harada wants cash funding up front?

What else can they provide at this point beyond what they provided for key third party titles like Monster Hunter and Witcher 3? A moneyhat? Isn’t that the same thing As funding the game development process?


You‘re not going to find a public quote with Mr. Harada asking Nintendo for money. It’s probably never even been put in a private email. This thread includes reasonable speculation about Bandai Namco and Nintendo’s business relationship.

 

[fiendcode]

I dunno if Harada wants direct funding, given Microsoft doesn't have to offer that for support. That only happens for extended exclusivity deals (like SFV, Pac-Man 99, etc) or actual 1st party production.

I think a lot of good Nintendo can do is with platform positioning, system capability and how they sell this approach to 3P, like they did with 3DS and Wii U prelaunch which also helped them garner them a bunch of upfront "PlayStation style" support from many of same 3P teams they're having more issues with now (BNS, Project Aces, RGG Studio, Team Ninja, P-Studio, etc). Things they already do like overseas pub/distro deals, fee cuts, card capacity priority, IP lending/crossover, marketing spend, Direct/store promo, etc, are things that can probably still go a long way too but Nintendo also has to deliver the right "environment" on top of that to change some minds again.

 

[nayu]

I think the support will improve somewhat (voted for the second option), but that's honestly kinda of a low risk bet - it's impossible to get any worse, and the power of the next Switch will give them the incentive to at least try to port / include more things on the pipeline.

 

[Agent42]

It´s ideological point of view. Neither actual market reality nor without big changes we see some move toward Nintendo´s pipeline. Harada seems will make this change tough and of options of change, more realists, will be funding projects or inviability of Sony market.

 

[Joseki]

Nintnedo has provided support for multiple ports on Switch I believe, including Witcher 3 and the Bethesda games.

Providing support and signing marketing/publishing deals isn't the same as Microsoft writing Game Pass checks for ports to be made at all.

On a basic level, Nintendo doesn't pay for ports to be developed, Microsoft did it and still does.

 

[uncleoptimus]

100% it will improve, assuming final hardware spec is along the lines of current popular speculation

Switch 2 should change the basic math on whether or not to greenlight a title from "ruhroh, gonna take Herculean (expensive) dev effort, PASS" to "ehh, this ain't that much worse than Series S, and thats a bigass install base, GO".

I think all third parties are gonna come out swinging this time tho, maybe I'm just optimistic

 

[RaymondBryce]

What else can they provide at this point beyond what they provided for key third party titles like Monster Hunter and Witcher 3? A moneyhat? Isn’t that the same thing As funding the game development process?


You‘re not going to find a public quote with Mr. Harada asking Nintendo for money. It’s probably never even been put in a private email. This thread includes reasonable speculation about Bandai Namco and Nintendo’s business relationship.

That asusmes that Nintendo has already offered Bandai Namco Studios technical/porting assistance, deals on the larger cartridges, marketing, distribution or deals on royalties for their games. We can't say with any certainty that this has happened, since Nintendo might not have offered any of that.

It could very well be that Nintendo is willing to offer more for a Witcher 3 port or exclusive Monster Hunter, than they are for Tales of Arise of Code Vein to get a Switch release.

Providing support and signing marketing/publishing deals isn't the same as Microsoft writing Game Pass checks for ports to be made at all.

On a basic level, Nintendo doesn't pay for ports to be developed, Microsoft did it and still does.

I recall Emily saying that Nintendo paid for EA to port the Frostbite engine to Switch so they can get FIFA, so I think they are open to that if the game is big enough. But you're right that its different to what Microsoft do.

 

[Terrell]

Looking at history, people bring up a lot of Nintendo’s past activity courting 3rd parties and it all strikes me as swimming against the tide. They were trying so hard to spark interest in platforms that were unappealing to developers, a wider group of consumers or both. Handhelds had momentum because costs were lower and consumers bought them.
Switch (and I assume their next hardware), on top of all the internal reasons behind its design, seem to have been designed to stop struggling against the tide. It makes a lot of developers happy, consumers love it… they made something that doesn’t require much convincing.

And while doing more of that but even better to get some hold-outs is really the only thing left for Nintendo to do to make their product even more appealing, I think they’re more than comfortable with some devs/publishers sitting them out and watching what happens.

Because some of the knock-on effects of Japanese publishers not bringing their marquee games to the most popular hardware in Japan is something Nintendo is aware of and seems content to let them continue to learn how bad things can get now that certain devs and publishers are largely the ones swimming against the tide with their most notable releases. We know Capcom’s already sweating their current position in this regard, they’ve publicly said as much that Nintendo hardware being popular in Japan puts them in a bind in terms of their current output strategy and requires them to “re-think” things.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

What games are people even talking about from Bamco and the Switch 2.

Isn't it just Tekken 8 and the new Ace Combat and like... Maybe 2-3 more AAA games for the entire gen?

Most of their licensed, outsourced stuff came to Switch.

Tekken 8's system requirements call for a GPU that is weaker than the rumored Switch 2 GPU too, it's not like Namco is doing non-scalable stuff.

 

[Joseki]

I recall Emily saying that Nintendo paid for EA to port the Frostbite engine to Switch so they can get FIFA, so I think they are open to that if the game is big enough. But you're right that its different to what Microsoft do.

FIFA (now EA FC) is every year in the top 3 best selling games worldwide.
2 years of EA FC sales are probably more than the entire Bandai Namco internally developed game sales in the entire PS4/XBO/PC generation.

As I wrote in my first post, if Nintendo will want to pay for release to happen there are dozens of publishers coming well before Bandai Namco in the list of priority.

 

[RaymondBryce]

FIFA (now EA FC) is every year in the top 3 best selling games worldwide.
2 years of EA FC sales are probably more than the entire Bandai Namco internally developed game sales in the entire PS4/XBO/PC generation.

As I wrote in my first post, if Nintendo will want to pay for release to happen there are dozens of publishers coming well before Bandai Namco in the list of priority.

Completely agree with you.

 

[fiendcode]

For Bamco specifically, the only game I'm sure Nintendo will incentivise is Elden Ring.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

For Bamco specifically, the only game I'm sure Nintendo will incentivise is Elden Ring.

Elden Ring can run on the Xbox One which is probably weaker than the Switch 2 so I'm highly doubtful they need to spend any money to get it...

"But Dark Souls 2 and 3 and Sekiro weren't on the Switch 1" yeah because they would have taken some effort, Elden Ring runs fine on the Steam Deck.

 

[fiendcode]

Elden Ring can run on the Xbox One which is probably weaker than the Switch 2 so I'm highly doubtful they need to spend any money to get it...

"But Dark Souls 2 and 3 and Sekiro weren't on the Switch 1" yeah because they would have taken some effort, Elden Ring runs fine on the Steam Deck.

DS2 was made for 360, it would've taken no effort. Also, Nintendo incentivised DS1 Switch (distribution deal, marketing deal, amiibo).

Bamco platform decisions aren't always based on effort. Otherwise there's no way to explain Harada's PS3 based EXVS On skipping Switch (and PC, and also faceplanting commercially as a result).

 

[ILikeFeet]

Bamco platform decisions aren't always based on effort. Otherwise there's no way to explain Harada's PS3 based EXVS On skipping Switch (and PC, and also faceplanting commercially as a result).

gundam too niche. lets make an edgy western-styled game in its stead. that, surely, won't faceplant into oblivion

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Did misremember Dark Souls 2 as a PS4/Xbox One generation only game.

 

[Astrogamer]

Did misremember Dark Souls 2 as a PS4/Xbox One generation only game.

Yeah. It came to PS4/XB1 with DLC a year later.

 

[fiendcode]

gundam too niche. lets make an edgy western-styled game in its stead. that, surely, won't faceplant into oblivion

Gundam too niche for Switch & Steam but (5k?) PS4 fans have been demanding Doraemon! Harada'd!

 

[Shirke]

Bamco platform decisions aren't always based on effort. Otherwise there's no way to explain Harada's PS3 based EXVS On skipping Switch (and PC, and also faceplanting commercially as a result).

gundam too niche. lets make an edgy western-styled game in its stead. that, surely, won't faceplant into oblivion

Gundam too niche for Switch & Steam but (5k?) PS4 fans have been demanding Doraemon! Harada'd!

Speaking of Gundam VS, is it still well enough in JP arcades for them to not prioritize console ports of the latest updates?

I'd imagine it still is/(was?) one of the biggest arcade only games.

 

[EnergyDrink]

I think some of the decision makers in Japanese companies are old now, if they get replaced in Switch2 lifetime the support will probably rise naturally.

 

[Aostia82]

I think some of the decision makers in Japanese companies are old now, if they get replaced in Switch2 lifetime the support will probably rise naturally.

this is something that I could totally see happening (if not with Switch 2, the generation after, assuming Nintendo will stay as relevant as it has been in the past 7 years)

if Switch 2 will continue being so succesfull (especially in Japan, in terms of market share) we'd near an entire generation (15 years) of dominance that could not be ignored by mid-management that could rise in companies' positions/roles

 

[Tokuiten]

I gotta say, the vote results are very interesting. Rarely have I seen such even distribution among all the options. Really goes to show how messy the Bandai Namco-situation is and has us so unsure about the future. It mostly comes down to "we KNOW what should happen, but we're unsure whether it WILL happen".

 

[Terrell]

I think some of the decision makers in Japanese companies are old now, if they get replaced in Switch2 lifetime the support will probably rise naturally.

A lot of these companies have already seen C-suite replacements, sometimes several across the past 20 years. They're not the impediments they're being made out to be.

 

[ILikeFeet]

so bandai namco updated their studio pages, and in their new technology studio page, a very interesting note was put up

自社エンジン開発

---

自社エンジン開発はSスタジオに移管されました
エンジン開発に関する詳細は“特設ページ”をご覧ください

google translate

In-house engine development

---

In-house engine development has been transferred to S Studio.For
details regarding engine development, please see"Special page"Please refer to the

Bandai Namco announced a good while ago that they were making a new in-house engine. and now we learn that team is being moved to "S Studio", which is part of Studio 2, their development team that's seemingly Nintendo-oriented

so Bamco is making a new engine for Smash Bros 6?

 

[Aostia82]

And yet no Dragon Ball?!

 

[Tokuiten]

Started Tales of Arise now that it's only about 15 bucks on Steam. While it appears to be fine so far (played until reaching the first (small) town), it really makes me fed up how entirely unwarranted the non-existence of a Switch-version was. Having played both now, I have no qualm saying Xenoblade 3 imo looks significantly better than this game (other areas not even mentioning), there simply cannot have been a technical reason to not release it on Switch. I've been judging the game based on videos up till now, and now I know first hand that there's nothing impressive about it.

It does present itself very differently compared to past Tales of-games, but going back to portability, I really dislike Harada's tough boy-stance on denying Switch games like this. They could have sold a lot more with a Switch-version, that I'm sure of. But no, let's not do that because "people" might perceive the game as lesser if it's also on Switch :/

Sorry for the little rant. I'm gonna play and finish the game for sure, combat seems solid and will probably get better with time. Just had to get this off my chest. Bandai Namco really needs to drop this act and properly support the successor to one of the most successful gaming systems in history.

 

[Hero of Legend]

Started Tales of Arise now that it's only about 15 bucks on Steam. While it appears to be fine so far (played until reaching the first (small) town), it really makes me fed up how entirely unwarranted the non-existence of a Switch-version was. Having played both now, I have no qualm saying Xenoblade 3 imo looks significantly better than this game (other areas not even mentioning), there simply cannot have been a technical reason to not release it on Switch. I've been judging the game based on videos up till now, and now I know first hand that there's nothing impressive about it.

It does present itself very differently compared to past Tales of-games, but going back to portability, I really dislike Harada's tough boy-stance on denying Switch games like this. They could have sold a lot more with a Switch-version, that I'm sure of. But no, let's not do that because "people" might perceive the game as lesser if it's also on Switch :/

Sorry for the little rant. I'm gonna play and finish the game for sure, combat seems solid and will probably get better with time. Just had to get this off my chest. Bandai Namco really needs to drop this act and properly support the successor to one of the most successful gaming systems in history.

Very well said. So fed up with Harada.