Its an excuse because theres already a heavily crowded indie market on a still tiny userbase. Theres going to be many more games in the future yes but therell also be many more people to sell them to.
The idea that an inherent lack of competition pushed games to record sales made some sense at launch and even through spring and summer where new releases at all were still something of an event. But now, when we have up to 19 games releasing in a single week, it just doesnt.
Its a clear variation, its the same core argument only shifting the goalposts from no games to not many games. And its just as trollish and superficial really.
I pointed out releases like Bomberman, SF2 and Neo Geo games because they tend to more directly align with the same audience as indie games do (retro or retro inspired, classic design, gameplay focused, sub $59.99 pricepoints). And those games are also breaking sales targets and records too. They just add to the competition (as do Nintendo themselves) and Switch is already an indie red ocean, its just one where everyones eating.
A lack of AAA 3rd party games doesnt mean an inherent lack of competition. Especially when the amount if games targeting the same audience is so dense on such a tiny userbase.
So if A doesn't necessarily apply to B, then why do you act like B applies to A? You can't have it apply only when you want it to support your own argument. At some point there will be many more titles and discovery will potentially be an issue and there will be a point in time when not every release will be a smashing success. That goes without saying, because any platform has that, so why does it matter for you to come into a thread and spout that off when we're seven months into the release of a new product and many indie developers/publishers are finding success?
As a multiplatform owner and someone who plays Switch almost exclusively on the television, I'll tell you why I buy every indie on Switch.
Sleep mode.
PS4 and XB1 have sleep modes and they're great.You're usually back into a game within 30 seconds or less.Edit - (This isn't entirely accurate, as I've since found out. It's more like 15 seconds or so on PS4 if you directly power down your system from the game itself, without exiting to the home menu first.) But due to Switch's hybrid nature, sleep mode has to be near instant or it loses its portable appeal. Because of this, I'm back into my game within 5-10 seconds. This is pretty huge for me. It makes playing for 5-10 minutes at a time effortless and I've finished many games on this system because of it. I enjoy long gaming sessions, but most of the time it's easier for me to just play for a few minutes at a time.
Most indies are perfect for bit-sized play and Switch is such a great fit for these games, even if you use the system mainly as a home console. If you use the device as a portable (or both), it's an absolute no-brainer.
In addition to what you said, you can start the system as a console, grab the system on the go, start playing it as a handheld, put it back in the dock, then resume playing as a console in less than a minute. The snappiness of the Switch and its OS is a big deal for making time to play games IMO.Nah, it's not 10 seconds at most.
As someone who uses the resume function on XB1, PS4, and Switch religiously, it's a pretty big difference. I'm back into a Switch game within five seconds of booting up the machine, almost every time. With PS4 it's closer to 20-25 seconds. XB1 is around the same, if not a bit longer.
Now, if these extra seconds seem meaningless to you, that's perfectly fine. I'm simply giving my own experience on how I consume video game content and Switch's snappy sleep mode has made a large difference in how I play games. When it only takes 5 seconds or so to wake up a system, short 5-10 minute play sessions are very easy to justify. That's an entire Picross S puzzle for me in many cases.
Every indie dev should release their game on Switch. EVERY ONE.
This thread has too much arguing and not enough telling me if this is a good port going on. I read through all 4 previous pages. Disappointing thread.
In addition to what you said, you can start the system as a console, grab the system on the go, start playing it as a handheld, put it back in the dock, then resume playing as a console in less than a minute.
Nintendo's not letting every dev do it, not even every established indie dev. Cosmic Star Heroine for example.
76 releases vs 95 releases. 6 million vs 60 million userbase. Should I also point out the size of Steams userbase?So, saying release schedule on Switch is smaller than other platforms is trollish ?
Check on Metacritic for the latest reviewed games. Switch LTD is sitting at 76 games listed vs 95 games on PS4 for the last 90 days. Saying that a new platform is getting less releases isn't trollish. It's basically a fact.
Do I also really have to explain that Switch schedule is a lot slower than Steam release schedule ?
So you agree with his point, but just think he shouldn't come into the thread and point it out?
Every indie dev should release their game on Switch. EVERY ONE.
the issue for CSH was timing and dev kits. I am pretty sure Zeboyd has been in contact with Nintendo and has a dev kit.
The no new stuff thing is long gone. Nintendo just gave early dev kits to folks who got in touch with them early and generally had new thinngs to offer.
'Policies' can change in the matter of days/weeks so if anyone is quoting old things definitely look it up and see if they're right.
In both of these instances Nintendo changed in a matter of weeks from the original news.
Nah you cant get bigger than Fifa in term of 3rd party support.
Then almost all would sell terrible and devs would abandon the platform.
This thread has too much arguing and not enough telling me if this is a good port going on. I read through all 4 previous pages. Disappointing thread.
The Switch is a really well positioned device. While the Wii saw a lot of hardware and a solid but sub-Nintendo die ratio due to a lack of the video game enthusiast market taking it seriously the Switch is finding success in almost the exact opposite way.
I'm still rather skeptical until I see Nintendo back it up with some real world proof.
Nintendo has a long history of being the most stringent first party with development tools and is clearly still curating the Switch library far more than any other first party/game distribution service.
Steam has a lot bigger userbase and it's been slowly ramping up the number of games released each year, while that userbase grew.Like what has happened on Steam...?
The tie ratio was over 9... that's about as good as any platform has ever had.
Steam has a lot bigger userbase and it's been slowly ramping up the number of games released each year, while that userbase grew.
It's simple mathetmatics. There countless indie games released every year on PC, consoles and mobile. Switch's userbase is miniscule for now. It wouldn't be able to survive a complete flood of titles. We're talking like 10K games a year or more. 99,9% wouldn't make money back. Not to mention all the success stories so far have been extremely console-friendly titles. It's not likely that lot of typically PC exclusive indies would do well on that platform.
As Switch userbase will grow so will the number or releases. But suggesting that everyone should just release their games now on such small platform is completely insane idea.
The Wii didnt sell software fallacy will never die it seems.
I'm sure its been mentioned before, but the Switch had a small library of games. The Flame and the Flood was one of eleven games to hit the eShop that week for the Switch, last week had ten, the previous seventeen. Can it be said that the system is still starving for games when you're well over forty games being released on the platform in a month?
Wow, those are the in-game graphics? What's this game about? How does it play?It's a pretty cool game. Glad to see it finding success on Switch.
![]()
![]()
You and your icons lolWow, those are the in-game graphics? What's this game about? How does it play?
Also, uh, how's the icon?
It had a great peak in it's early years on the motion control hook, but had no legs. You think it had an optimal for Nintendo tie ratio when Skyward Sword sold about 3/4ths of Twilight princess despite being on the >100M sold platform?The tie ratio was over 9... that's about as good as any platform has ever had.
I'm not talking about a no straight ports policy, I'm talking about Nintendo simply providing enough kits, enough development support, and responsive certification to get games they haven't decided to put center stage with "Nindies" still out on the platform.I mean, we have definitive proof that the "no straight ports" policy is either gone or never existed in that... there are straight ports on the platform. And the curation argument goes out the window when you see a game like Vroom in the Night Sky.
I'm sure its been mentioned before, but the Switch had a small library of games. The Flame and the Flood was one of eleven games to hit the eShop that week for the Switch, last week had ten, the previous seventeen. Can it be said that the system is still starving for games when you're well over forty games being released on the platform in a month?
It had a great peak in it's early years on the motion control hook, but had no legs. You think it had an optimal for Nintendo tie ratio when Skyward Sword is one of the lowest selling Zeldas despite being on a >100M sold platform?
Played about three hours, docked and undocked, and it runs flawlessly from what I can tell.This thread has too much arguing and not enough telling me if this is a good port going on. I read through all 4 previous pages. Disappointing thread.
The biggest problem is that people seem to ignore it when they're corrected and continue to spout it elsewhere. The fact that it's such easily accessible information also makes the fallacy annoying.
And the curation argument goes out the window when you see a game like Vroom in the Night Sky.
Wii really was a sight to behold. Those threads were great.It's really strange how this even came about. Wii software dominated NPD for years. Wii Sports wasn't even included in those reports.
It had a great peak in it's early years on the motion control hook, but had no legs. You think it had an optimal for Nintendo tie ratio when Skyward Sword sold about 3/4ths of Twilight princess despite being on the >100M sold platform?
I'm not talking about a no straight ports policy, I'm talking about Nintendo simply providing enough kits, enough development support, and responsive certification to get games they haven't decided to put center stage with "Nindies" still out on the platform.
I'm sure they're better than they were at launch, but until the established indie developers are consistently hitting the system (as there isn't really any other good reason not to) I think it's reasonable to have skepticism as to how invested in supporting those developers Nintendo really is.
Also, curation isn't a guarantee of quality, it's bottle-necking in an attempt to pick quality, but often gets led astray by a variety of other factors. That's the entire problem people have with it, it often ends up locking out better software than what gets released because the people making the better software just didn't happen to have the same networking connections or contact the curator in just the right window/fashion.
I don't think the curation argument goes out the window because of this game. The developer, Poisoft, created Kersploosh! for Nintendo on 3DS. An exception was likely made due to the close ties between the two companies.
That being said, this really is all speculation. All that we really know for certain is that Nintendo prioritized dev kits early on.
76 releases vs 95 releases. 6 million vs 60 million userbase. Should I also point out the size of Steams userbase?
The fact remains indie games are overperforming on Switch to such a degree that simply saying its driven by lack of competition doesnt logically reconcile when you consider the size of the userbase and amount of games actually releasing. Thats not The Reason here, its arguably not even a driving factor anymore as were already knee deep in the indie goldrush. You need to look deeper.
Yeah "out the window" might be a bit much, true. And again, I don't think of things like lack of dev kits and prioritizing some developers while resources are scarce to really be "curation", but I might be wrong in that. I would think "curation" refers to actively selecting games that are presented for the platform and choosing some while denying others.
And I seriously doubt Vroom in the Night Sky successfully went through such a process.