Support NeoGAF

[randomengine]

After reading the whole thing, I think we really are entering an era where if a game doesn't get released for this thing it isn't due to money or technical limitations.

We have a dirt cheap dev kit.
We have incredible support and documentation.
We have easy and user-friendly tools and hardware.
You have excitement and thirst from the playerbase for all the games.

Those that won't develop for Switch are either highly-specialized developers on one system, exclusive, or spiteful.

 

[Speely]

Nothing because you can't buy them right now.

:/ I wish you had a Switch dev kit. Nintendo needs to court indies aggressively imo.

 

[beril]

In a week to the Wii U? Just think how fast you could port it to the Switch 😮

No I meant a week for porting from WiiU to Switch

 

[Paz]

After reading the whole thing, I think we really are entering an era where if a game doesn't get released for this thing it isn't due to money or technical limitations.

We have a dirt cheap dev kit.
We have incredible support and documentation.
We have easy and user-friendly tools and hardware.
You have excitement and thirst from the playerbase for all the games.

Those that won't develop for Switch are either highly-specialized developers on one system, exclusive, or spiteful.

It is highly likely to be easier to port a PC game to a PS4 or a PS4 game to an XB1 than to a Switch and yet there are a ton of games that never end up making the leap for a myriad of reasons.

You're setting yourself up to hate developers for not making Switch games, and you're facts are all irrelevant without first hand experience.

Better to be happy that Nintendo are making efforts to be a very viable platform than preemptively decide that a developer is "spiteful" for not developing on Switch.

 

[KrawlMan]

After reading the whole thing, I think we really are entering an era where if a game doesn't get released for this thing it isn't due to money or technical limitations.

We have a dirt cheap dev kit.
We have incredible support and documentation.
We have easy and user-friendly tools and hardware.
You have excitement and thirst from the playerbase for all the games.

Those that won't develop for Switch are either highly-specialized developers on one system, exclusive, or spiteful.

Or they can't justify the money it costs to port their game / aren't willing to take the risk of releasing the game on a new Nintendo system, with a low install base that consists of mostly Nitnendo fans. Also, just because people are saying it's "easy and user-friendly" doesn't mean that it's not still a decent amount of work. Developer hours are expensive.

I really doubt it's as simple as "exclusive or spiteful"

 

[randomengine]

It is highly likely to be easier to port a PC game to a PS4 or a PS4 game to an XB1 than to a Switch and yet there are a ton of games that are not in any of those three categories that never end up making the leap for a myriad of reasons.

You're setting yourself up to hate developers for not making Switch games, and you're facts are all irrelevant without first hand experience.

Better to be happy that Nintendo are making efforts to be a very viable platform than preemptively decide that a developer is "spiteful" for not developing on Switch.

Did your read the interview? Capcom made more progress with less time/developers than porting something to any other system.

 

[frankie_baby]

Or they can't justify the money it costs to port their game / aren't willing to take the risk of releasing the game on a new Nintendo system, with a low install base that consists of mostly Nitnendo fans. Also, just because people are saying it's "easy and user-friendly" doesn't mean that it's not still a decent amount of work. Developer hours are expensive.

I really doubt it's as simple as "exclusive or spiteful"

Perhaps a decent amount of work but when those costs could be covered with 4 diget sales then maybe it is spite

 

[DerekOfTheDykes]

I saw with my own eyes a post where he said it had been "confirmed" to him.

I've dug that post up multiple times. The gist of it was he said he didn't want to say anything without more information, but someone he considered reliable "confirmed" it (complete with quotation marks, denoting a level of skepticism), and then said that MIGHT count. He was clearly in the dark himself, and if he thought the source was 100% he wouldn't have put it out there with so much doubt.

People tend to conflate Alberto's very up-in-the-air statement with a journalist (from IGN or Game Informer or somewhere), who outright said that the controller matched up with what he'd heard about the controller having no face buttons.

I just prefer people keep their scenarios straight.

After reading the whole thing, I think we really are entering an era where if a game doesn't get released for this thing it isn't due to money or technical limitations.

We have a dirt cheap dev kit.
We have incredible support and documentation.
We have easy and user-friendly tools and hardware.
You have excitement and thirst from the playerbase for all the games.

Those that won't develop for Switch are either highly-specialized developers on one system, exclusive, or spiteful.

Ehh... there are still reasons games may not run well on Switch. Final Fantasy XV, for example, would be a nightmare to get running on it, I'm sure. Some games are just incredibly demanding.

But I think it is true that the number of games that Switch couldn't possibly run will be much smaller than the list of games it COULD.

Rather than calling it spite, let's instead think of it as a huge cut in the amount of effort it would require to make a solid port, thus theoretically making it easier to make porting profitable. But there may still be games that, while possible to port, would be more difficult than the dev/pub thinks it's worth.

 

[Paz]

Did your read the interview? Capcom made more progress with less time/developers than porting something to any other system.

Yes I read the interview, doesn't change my opinion at all.

Rather than calling it spite, let's instead think of it as a huge cut in the amount of effort it would require to make a solid port, thus theoretically making it easier to make porting profitable. But there may still be games that, while possible to port, would be more difficult than the dev/pub thinks it's worth.

This is a great and much healthier way to think about it!

 

[KrawlMan]

Perhaps a decent amount of work but when those costs could be covered with 4 diget sales then maybe it is spite

If hypothetically that were true, then yes it's possible that it's spite.

It could also be indifference.

And then there's also the possibility that the team runs fairly lean, and that same dev time would be better placed on improving the experience on the base console (PS4 for example), or starting work on their next project whether that's DLC or a new game. It's not a clear cut thing. Not every developer that doesn't support Nintendo actively dislikes them. They are just groups looking to make commercially sound decisions, not children with grudges.

 

[Paz]

Perhaps a decent amount of work but when those costs could be covered with 4 diget sales then maybe it is spite

If you think you're covering the cost of porting most games to Switch by selling 1000 copies you're sadly mistaken about how much work and costs is involved in game development of any kind.

 

[GrayFoxPL]

How much instant ramen soups is that?

 

[Red Devil]

Please tell me Capcom considers Mega Man and Okami to be AAA games.

Although I'm not expecting much beyond another Monster Hunter game with old assets.

 

[frankie_baby]

If you think you're covering the cost of porting most games to Switch by selling 1000 copies you're sadly mistaken about how much work and costs is involved in game development of any kind.

I could just as easily mean 9999 copies and when a UE4 game is up and running in a week and released in a couple of months i dont see why that isnt enough sales to cover costs

 

[Paz]

I'm done, please enjoy your altered reality in which any time a game doesn't come to your platform of choice the answer is that the developer is spiteful.

Maybe you can tell them all that, like you just told me, and make it a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Aaron]

After reading the whole thing, I think we really are entering an era where if a game doesn't get released for this thing it isn't due to money or technical limitations.

We have a dirt cheap dev kit.
We have incredible support and documentation.
We have easy and user-friendly tools and hardware.
You have excitement and thirst from the playerbase for all the games.

Those that won't develop for Switch are either highly-specialized developers on one system, exclusive, or spiteful.

Games specced for PS4 and XBOX1 will never be an easy port. That's even without considering the eventual shifted focus to the pro versions of both consoles. Don't forget the Wii was the hottest shit in the universe for a while, and it still wasn't getting all the ports it theoretically could have gotten.

 

[Son Of D]

Expecting a few remasters from Capcom at least. Put REmake HD, UMvC3 maybe, DMC4SE and a HD remaster of MHXX out there.

As for new games? Outside of MH and maybe AA it'll probably just be games like MvC:I.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

After reading the whole thing, I think we really are entering an era where if a game doesn't get released for this thing it isn't due to money or technical limitations.

We have a dirt cheap dev kit.
We have incredible support and documentation.
We have easy and user-friendly tools and hardware.
You have excitement and thirst from the playerbase for all the games.

Those that won't develop for Switch are either highly-specialized developers on one system, exclusive, or spiteful.

It isn't that simple.

 

[also]

This is not the first time it's been mentioned that Switch is easy to develop for and that's great but given the anaemic line up it just makes me think that publishers don't give a shit about the Switch.

 

[Tadaima]

Any idea of when the Switch devkit goes up on the developer portal?

 

[DerekOfTheDykes]

I could just as easily mean 9999 copies and when a UE4 game is up and running in a week and released in a couple of months i dont see why that isnt enough sales to cover costs

Couple of points...

A. Getting an Unreal engine game running on a new devkit in a week is good, but that doesn't mean it was running to par with other versions, or even at an acceptable level. As an example that many may understand, plenty of games RUN on emulators without being remotely playable in quality. So it is surprisingly easy to get the process started on a relative level, but the process is not labor-free either.

B. An indie title like Snake Pass is a world of difference from a AAA title in terms of complexity. Snake Pass might be able to get up and running in a week... Kingdom Hearts 3 or the FF7 Remake not so much. And that doesn't even get into games like Injustice 2, which I believe runs off an extremely customized version of UE. Or what about Resident Evil 7, which runs on a completely custom in-house engine?

Basically, you're tremendously oversimplifying things. It's extremely unlikely that a major AAA title would be so cheap to port that it would be effectively meaningless not to. The process has been made EXCEPTIONALLY CHEAPER AND EASIER, by all accounts, and I agree that a number of western publishers will need to get over themselves about their past relationships with Nintendo. But let's not get so swept up in excitement that we imagine the Switch to be some magical free port machine.

There will absolutely be scenarios where AAA titles may not make business sense to port. There will also be scenarios where a project may be risky but still viable and publishers choose not to for any number of reasons. But I highly doubt that any publisher will turn down "guaranteed money" if a port would be that easy. Companies like EA prefer having money to holding grudges.

 

[frankie_baby]

Couple of points...

A. Getting an Unreal engine game running on a new devkit in a week is good, but that doesn't mean it was running to par with other versions, or even at an acceptable level. As an example that many may understand, plenty of games RUN on emulators without being remotely playable in quality. So it is surprisingly easy to get the process started on a relative level, but the process is not labor-free either.

B. An indie title like Snake Pass is a world of difference from a AAA title in terms of complexity. Snake Pass might be able to get up and running in a week... Kingdom Hearts 3 or the FF7 Remake not so much. And that doesn't even get into games like Injustice 2, which I believe runs off an extremely customized version of UE. Or what about Resident Evil 7, which runs on a completely custom in-house engine?

Basically, you're tremendously oversimplifying things. It's extremely unlikely that a major AAA title would be so cheap to port that it would be effectively meaningless not to. The process has been made EXCEPTIONALLY CHEAPER AND EASIER, by all accounts, and I agree that a number of western publishers will need to get over themselves about their past relationships with Nintendo. But let's not get so swept up in excitement that we imagine the Switch to be some magical free port machine.

There will absolutely be scenarios where AAA titles may not make business sense to port. There will also be scenarios where a project may be risky but still viable and publishers choose not to for any number of reasons. But I highly doubt that any publisher will turn down "guaranteed money" if a port would be that easy. Companies like EA prefer having money to holding grudges.

Simplfying things i may be but i didnt just say running in a week i said releasing in a couple of months, so maybe a AAA title takes longer say 6 months, say costs a million bucks (roughly the cost ubi said for ports to wii u) at 30 bucks per copy (rough publisher revenue from $60 game) thats just 33,000 copies at the high end

 

[cvxfreak]

Really hope Capcom puts RE4-6 on Switch. A real portable version of RE4 is long overdue.

 

[calc84maniac]

You don't think the rest of it is important at all?

I mean they effectively said "Maybe but..." which definitely isn't yes.

So you want them to say "definitely yes" before doing their research? Oookay.

 

[Calm Mind]

How much instant ramen soups is that?

1500

 

[DerekOfTheDykes]

Simplfying things i may be but i didnt just say running in a week i said releasing in a couple of months, so maybe a AAA title takes longer say 6 months, say costs a million bucks (roughly the cost ubi said for ports to wii u) at 30 bucks per copy (rough publisher revenue from $60 game) thats just 33,000 copies at the high end

Once again, if it really will be that easy to port games that a laughably small number of sales would make up for the porting cost, it won't take long to see ports on Switch left and right. Companies like easy money. If the ports don't occur, it won't be as simple as "X Company just hates Nintendo"

 

[EloquentM]

No I meant a week for porting from WiiU to Switch

Beril you sly bastard
👀

 

[Astral Dog]

After reading the whole thing, I think we really are entering an era where if a game doesn't get released for this thing it isn't due to money or technical limitations.

We have a dirt cheap dev kit.
We have incredible support and documentation.
We have easy and user-friendly tools and hardware.
You have excitement and thirst from the playerbase for all the games.

Those that won't develop for Switch are either highly-specialized developers on one system, exclusive, or spiteful.

Don't start wkth the spiteful thing,not game can be downgraded to the Switch without significant alterations

 

[Astral Dog]

This is not the first time it's been mentioned that Switch is easy to develop for and that's great but given the anaemic line up it just makes me think that publishers don't give a shit about the Switch.

Or they are taking the wait and see approach,publishers did give a shit about Nintendo handhelds/systems before,at least in Japan.

 

[Darkrider]

I think there's a lot to be said with regards to a slightly scaled back AAA game. The fact these type of experiences have never really be possible on a mobile platform is very compelling.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Let me break this down for you. The Switch has a modern ARM chip that used in smartphones and tablets with specs on par with those. Now no one complains that the iPhone is hard to develop for, in fact it probably gets more games than the consoles but it also doesn't get the big AAA games. Now that's not exactly a fair comparison because phones and consoles are different markets and the Switch will definitely be more "gamer focused" if only because you have two gaming giants working on it. But no one should be surprised the Switch is easy to develop for when the hardware isn't that much different than on the most used consumer electronic device in the world.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

I won't hold my breath for AAA titles from Capcom

I guess E3 is the earliest we could hear of ports but shrug

 

[BlastProcessing]

Did your read the interview? Capcom made more progress with less time/developers than porting something to any other system.

Just to help you out here. Paz is a (quite good) indie developer. He knows what he is talking about here. I would echo his take as well.

 

[Cerium]

I've dug that post up multiple times. The gist of it was he said he didn't want to say anything without more information, but someone he considered reliable "confirmed" it (complete with quotation marks, denoting a level of skepticism), and then said that MIGHT count. He was clearly in the dark himself, and if he thought the source was 100% he wouldn't have put it out there with so much doubt.

People tend to conflate Alberto's very up-in-the-air statement with a journalist (from IGN or Game Informer or somewhere), who outright said that the controller matched up with what he'd heard about the controller having no face buttons.

I just prefer people keep their scenarios straight.

I guess we have different definitions of "confirmed."

 

[TwistedFreeze]

Games specced for PS4 and XBOX1 will never be an easy port. That's even without considering the eventual shifted focus to the pro versions of both consoles. Don't forget the Wii was the hottest shit in the universe for a while, and it still wasn't getting all the ports it theoretically could have gotten.

Wait, what ports could the Wii have theoretically gotten? The gap between it and the PS3/360 was more or less a generation gap, from architecture, to raw power, to engine support. There were very few ports it could have gotten. Not quite as big of a gap with the Switch but albeit still big enough where ports of higher end titles would likely struggle without notable sacrifices or perhaps even with notable sacrifices. Personally, I'm mainly expecting indie games and the kind of third party games that were were exclusive on Nintendo's handhelds or perhaps even Sony's, with the most impressive games being from Nintendo...or Capcom. Anyone expecting a ton of AAA titles will end up disappointing themselves. At most, I can see fighting games making their way over alongside some sports titles and maybe Call of Duty

 

[Herb Alpert]

No I meant a week for porting from WiiU to Switch

8|

 

[DerekOfTheDykes]

I guess we have different definitions of "confirmed."

Perhaps. The text of his post was pretty clearly not a firm confirmation in context, even if it did lend some credence to the fake leak. Alberto never said it was real and that people should believe it, he said someone "confirmed" (in air quotes) it to him and that info might (or might not) be worth paying attention to.

This is a far cry from the popular story that he outright confirmed it because it lined up with him hearing the controller had no face buttons. That was a different journalist, not Alberto. The two stories are, however, frequently combined and attributed to him.

I think nuance matters, especially when it comes to people feeding rumors that affect the reputation of a pretty nice and well-intentioned guy.

 

[Cerium]

Perhaps. The text of his post was pretty clearly not a firm confirmation in context, even if it did lend some credence to the fake leak. Alberto never said it was real and that people should believe it, he said someone "confirmed" (in air quotes) it to him and that info might (or might not) be worth paying attention to.

This is a far cry from the popular story that he outright confirmed it

I don't agree. I think he knew exactly what he was doing, feeding the flames by using that terminology at that point in time.

 

[Mpl90]

No I meant a week for porting from WiiU to Switch

...Waaaaaaiit a second.

 

[SinCityAssassin]

No I meant a week for porting from WiiU to Switch

 

[Delio]

I won't hold my breath for AAA titles from Capcom

I guess E3 is the earliest we could hear of ports but shrug

Other than MH i dont see anything else coming from Capcom that would be triple A. I guess after all the lip service over the years I just take this dev talk as fluff.
Mh is nice tho so eh.

 

[DerekOfTheDykes]

I don't agree. I think he knew exactly what he was doing, feeding the flames by using that terminology at that point in time.

You're free to believe that, and nobody could prove you wrong, but it's a far cry from him confirming it, much less the rest of the story often attributed to him that is outright false.

At best, the argument is that he was wishy-washy to try and play it either way, but you can't really argue that he confirmed it. Again, the context and nuance matters when talking in ways that affect a man's reputation.

 

[Cerium]

You're free to believe that, and nobody could prove you wrong, but it's a far cry from him confirming it

I'm sorry but he literally used the word. If you're waiting for people to stop saying he confirmed it you'll be waiting forever.

Does he even deny he confirmed it? I think he just gave up on the whole insider business altogether which is probably what saved his account.

 

[DerekOfTheDykes]

I'm sorry but he literally used the word. If you're waiting for people to stop saying he confirmed it you'll be waiting forever.

Does he even deny he confirmed it? I think he just gave up on the whole insider business altogether which is probably what saved his account.

This isn't worth taking over the thread, which it kind of already has. I think your position ignores the language of the post, you clearly don't agree. It'll have to stay at that. I can't communicate my position any more clearly, so it just has to boil down to a fundamental disagreement.

If you have more questions you're welcome to talk to him yourself, as he's a fairly approachable fellow depending on your intentions.

 

[Oregano]

No I meant a week for porting from WiiU to Switch

Oh snap!

So you want them to say "definitely yes" before doing their research? Oookay.

I sincerely doubt they'd have to do significant research to determine an answer to that question. You'd take one look at the specs and that would tell you yes or no.

 

[Vic]

No I meant a week for porting from WiiU to Switch

Hold on...

 

[Skittzo0413]

I've dug that post up multiple times. The gist of it was he said he didn't want to say anything without more information, but someone he considered reliable "confirmed" it (complete with quotation marks, denoting a level of skepticism), and then said that MIGHT count. He was clearly in the dark himself, and if he thought the source was 100% he wouldn't have put it out there with so much doubt.

People tend to conflate Alberto's very up-in-the-air statement with a journalist (from IGN or Game Informer or somewhere), who outright said that the controller matched up with what he'd heard about the controller having no face buttons.

I just prefer people keep their scenarios straight.

You're right that I'm sorta conflating the two but I recall SA got a fair bit of backlash here about that and was even banned, when this joyconless devkit would explain why his source was able to "confirm" that it was something similar to that 3D printed fake. It always seemed like people "confirming" it were just talking about a focus on the screen aspect rather than the oval shape of the fake, so this would explain why a lot of people thought that could have been real.

It's always a bit aggravating to me when people treat insiders (and their reports) as all or nothing things, when there are so many places in the chain of sources where a bit of info can get mixed up or even changed over time. Gamers are just too hostile to insiders in general.

 

[The Main Event]

Making AAA games for Switch?

Fuck Yes!

Deep Down.

Now Nintendo Switch exclusive.

 

[randomengine]

Deep Down.

Now Nintendo Switch exclusive.

 

[Cuburt]

"Hardware structure was very easy to understand and it also had similarity to Wii U"

This is the first time since the Switch has been revealed that I see a quote or design decision that makes sense of Iwata's quote from back in 2014

In this perspective, while we are only going to be able to start this with the next system, it will become important for us to accurately take advantage of what we have done with the Wii U architecture. It of course does not mean that we are going to use exactly the same architecture as Wii U, but we are going to create a system that can absorb the Wii U architecture adequately.

I wonder what this could mean going forward and why Nintendo went this route. I mean the Wii U was Power PC, I would have maybe expected the comparison to the 3DS and it's ARM architecture, but being not particularly hardware savvy, I'm surprised that the Wii U has any similarities unless it was an intentional design decision.

Being that the Switch isn't backwards compatible, at least with carts and controllers, was this so lst party and 3rd party devs can easily port Wii U games over? Was it for eventual easier backwards compatibility with the Wii U/Wii/Gamecube going forward?

I don't know what to expect, but the possibilities are exciting, especially if this is why Nintendo is holding back talking more about the Virtual Console, if their new VC is what people hoped the Wii VC could become: a way to play every Nintendo game ever made on one console digitally. That being said, they only said the Switch was "similar" to the Wii U, so maybe that might not mean all that much besides some familiarity for developers who worked on Nintendo platforms.


Definitely exciting to hear about Nintendo collaborating with Capcom throughout the hardware development and how positive it's made Capcom on the platform. It's similar to what we've heard about Nintendo working closely with Nvidia on the hardware and Epic on UE4 compatibility. It all sounds like the Switch could have the best developer environment on a Nintendo platform yet.