• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
If your hypothesis is that "most publishers" are "asleep at the wheel on the Switch", maybe you should take a moment to consider that perhaps they understand something about the platform that you don't.



...



...

Learn the difference between publishers and developers before trying to derail the topic; I was deliberate in my choice of words there. For the publishers, we have it on record that multiple big-name publishers were consulted and involved in the development of the Switch. It's also known that getting these publishers on board was a priority for Nintendo, and that point was reinforced in the Switch Reveal. So, If, after consultations and being involved in the development process, they're not fully there, then it's valid to have questions of these publishers. It's also fair to ask what Nintendo is doing to ensure that they get all of these releases, and have questions for the platform hosts. There is a desire on this site in general to frame every topic as something where one of two sides must be taken. "Either/Or". "Fave Platform A VS Fave Platform B". "Win/Lose". "Fanpeople/Haters". "0 or 1/10 VS 10/10". It discourages healthy and proper discussion. It's bringing monochrome tones to prismatic questions.

Publishers can, and often do make bad calls. If they aren't supporting a clearly successful platform with all of their releases (or, at least, the ones that aren't too far down the line in development), then perhaps it's fair to say that those publishers are asleep at the wheel. A lot of people on here love to talk about costs, but perhaps it's fair to say that they have far more resources than those on the Indie Circuit (Actually, we know this to be true by virtue of their being players in the AAA arena), and the degree of "risk" is a lot less than theirs. Those on the Indie Circuit also have to compete with Nintendo first-party releases; they don't have anywhere near the marketing muscle, and often have to release in the eShop alone, so, they don't always have a physical retail presence... But they succeeded, and continue to succeed. I trust that developers are trying to do what they can with the resources at their disposal. Many Indie developers are thriving. Switch owners passed "test" releases with flying colours. Fortnite and Octopath Traveler should also have publishers reassessing their position. The excuses that people on here have posted in the past don't hold water, and "But Wii U" doesn't wash. I'll leave it here.
 
Last edited:

catboy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,322
Not sure why anyone would be surprised. A current gen game that runs at 30fps on PS4... they can't cut the frame rate in half like they did for Doom + Wolf 2.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,766
So yeah the assumption from the first post isn't warranted and is sad so many here are quick to trash the Switch and call any defensive post fanboys

The Switch isn't as powerful as the Xbox One or PS4, but it's closer to current gen than some people give it credit for, being able to handle any low-mid range current gen game at lower settings. It's far more likely that Steep's nature as a GaaS title and lackluster commercial and critical performance meant the effort simply isn't worth it for a Switch version.
 

Slam Tilt

Member
Jan 16, 2018
5,585
I think Ubisoft could have made the game work if they believed it'd sell well, but given the unimpressive numbers on other platforms it made more sense to kill the port. If you Switch owners need a snowboard/skiing fix, Go Vacation! has a large mountain sandbox that might scratch the itch.

(And honestly, the "Report" button is there for a reason)
 

DirtyLarry

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,112
Damn shame, as the game on PS4 is still awesome and I am impressed how they are still supporting it to this day. In fact I just booted it up for the first time in awhile and saw the new activities and events, and I found this thread by searching as I wanted to praise the game as I feel like no one really talks about it.

With that said, if the tweet is correct and the reason they are still supporting it is because they halted Switch development, then so be it. I just actually would have double dipped to play in "on the go" as I personally have enjoyed it that much.

Really slept on game in imho. Ubi has done a great job with it and I look forward to whenever Steep 2 comes out.
 

9-Volt

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,866
Many of you has no problems with this but I do. Switch is on its way to become my least played handheld ever and games dropping from the platform like this are not helping. WWE 2K19 and Steep were by two anticipated Switch titles, without them this fall got even worse. There's literally nothing to buy for me expect Valkyria 4 and Mario Party this fall (I hate smash). Please somebody, announce something! Asap!
 

Cinemikel

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,433
And nothing of value was lost. Never saw a single person who cared even upon its original announcement
 

antonz

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,309
It hasn't been worked on for ages now. Ubisoft never bothered to be willing to announce they killed the project. The game wasn't successful on the other consoles and the resources on switch were a waste compared to other titles they could bring over that had far better chances at success
 

Pokemaniac

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,944
It's weird they insisted this was still happening for so long. This game's fate seemed sealed when it first disappeared.
 
Oct 29, 2017
12,643
Is Steep a big seller on the other consoles? This could be a case where the title isn't performing as well as Ubisoft would like and putting resources into making a port isn't worth it.
 

Deleted member 11421

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,935
Is Steep a big seller on the other consoles? This could be a case where the title isn't performing as well as Ubisoft would like and putting resources into making a port isn't worth it.

No but it released in Dec. 2016, a month before they announced the Switch port. It was discounted weeks after release down to $40. They already had a decent idea of what kind of popularity they were in for...

So why can't it be both? Like let's say they knew it was risky already but gave the go ahead thinking they could capitalize on the newer system's userbase...and then once the team actually tested things out it seemed like a herculean task that ultimately wouldn't be worth it?

https://mynintendonews.com/2017/06/30/ign-france-says-steep-for-nintendo-switch-is-in-trouble/

This was over a year ago...
 

Medalion

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
12,203
I guess the performance curve for the Switch... was too steep?!

Thanks, I'm here all night!
 

z0m3le

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,418
Considering Ubisoft's approach to the Switch, it wouldn't surprise me if they announce that they will be bringing a 1080 title to the Switch in it's place.
 

Cyanity

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,345
man, it would have been a good match for the switch, too. I'd be happy with an SSX Tricky/3 remaster though!
 

Shini42

Member
Jan 7, 2018
419
I thought porting game on Switch is super easy and can be done by one man in a couple of days. I also thought that Ubisoft was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Switch. So, where was I wrong?
 
Oct 26, 2017
9,827
I thought porting game on Switch is super easy and can be done by one man in a couple of days. I also thought that Ubisoft was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Switch. So, where was I wrong?
Well some games would be easier to port than others and Steep not making it's way to the Switch wouldn't necessarily be just because of the difficulty of the port anyways
 
Oct 26, 2017
9,827
What other reasons are there? Easy porting = cheap porting. Cheap porting = profit. Doesn't Ubisoft want money? Do they hate Switch users?
If only things were that simple. Let's say it's a difficult and expensive port: Well its not a particularly popular game so there's no point to even attempting it. Let's say it's a modestly difficult and expensive port: Then you take the time to see how well the game can be ported and see if there would be good ROI and go from there. If it's a simple and easy port: Then you might as well just port it but perhaps other games would be better choices instead. There's a lot of different things that go into development that I'm not exactly knowledgable enough on so I can't exactly point to one thing or another. I'm just going by what I think makes sense
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
ILikeFeet

ILikeFeet

DF Deet Master
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
61,987
I thought porting game on Switch is super easy and can be done by one man in a couple of days. I also thought that Ubisoft was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Switch. So, where was I wrong?
the part where you think game development is one size fits all.

it's not that they can't get the game to run on switch at some point. it's that they don't feel it's worth it.
 

jariw

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,283
I thought porting game on Switch is super easy and can be done by one man in a couple of days. I also thought that Ubisoft was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Switch. So, where was I wrong?

Porting is only super easy if the technical requirements of the game matches the technical specifications of the Switch. If not, optimization work (or other kinds of additional work) is required.
 

antonz

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,309
What other reasons are there? Easy porting = cheap porting. Cheap porting = profit. Doesn't Ubisoft want money? Do they hate Switch users?
The Game Bombed. So easy money was not something they considered as they lost massive amounts of money on the game. Steep has been dead for a very long time.
 

Sqrt

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,880
Hard, very late port with poor ROI prospects. What is surprising is why the game wasnt canned sooner.
 

Shini42

Member
Jan 7, 2018
419
The Game Bombed. So easy money was not something they considered as they lost massive amounts of money on the game. Steep has been dead for a very long time.
Did it? So, this announcement about focusing on the support of other versions is some kind of a trick? They aren't dropping this game and closing studio behind it, are they?
 

antonz

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,309
Did it? So, this announcement about focusing on the support of other versions is some kind of a trick? They aren't dropping this game and closing studio behind it, are they?
I am sure they have people keeping quality of life patches in the pipeline etc. for the population that does play it but there is little reason to believe there is heavy active development. They did their winter Olympics stuff for an obvious tie in but other than that I would not expect anything. The Studio has done a ton of work on Ubisoft franchises when it comes to the multiplayer stuff including on the Division etc. so I would not expect them to be in trouble.
 

Slam Tilt

Member
Jan 16, 2018
5,585

TheBeardedOne

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
22,189
Derry
Switch owners really aren't missing a lot. It had potential and a decent premise, but wasn't that good of a game. It got boring really quickly, which is too bad because snowboarding games aren't common anymore and they at least used to be a lot of fun.

It needed more direction and more to do.