• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

NPD July 2018: Octopath Traveler #1, Switch Best Selling Console

skittzo0413

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,543
That's the thing.. Ppl should look for and want 3rd party exclusives. Not worry about ports. And when they get them, expect compromises.

I know Octopath is a unique situation, but 3rd party exclusives was an underrated pro about the Wii.

I agree about the Wii U as far as 3rd party support so far. I remember someone tried to do a AAA port comparison between Vita and Switch. That didn't go the way they planned. I feel the same situation with the Wii U. As of right now, comparisons between the Switch and Wii U, I feel some are trying to dismiss 3rd party support on the Wii U for reasons.
whynotboth.jpg?

I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record here but there are some people who will take all of the compromises in the world to get multiplats on a portable. Of course unique games will be great too, but I don't see why they need to come at the expense of multiplats or ports.
 

Lelouch0612

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,211
Is the "no one's going to buy a Switch for GTAV" the new "no one's going to buy a Switch for Fortnite" ?

In both cases, the fact to not have these games excludes you from the buying options for a lot of people so of course having them is a huge plus.

Frankly how is it difficult to understand that having huge mainstream hits on your system will increase its sales ?
 

Chalfonts

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
530
That stuff is not unreasonable and it's not like they can't do more but this idea that the Switch can run DMC 5 is insane to me and that's the issue I've been taking. The Switch has been out for more than a year and we have a good idea of what can or can't run.
Yes we do , which makes your spirited defense of Capcom even more bizarre. A proven porting house has publicly offered to port MHW the switch. Capcom have not taken them up on the offer, and that has nothing to do with the feasibility of such a port

Data suggest to me that Switch isn't directly competing with PS4/Xone to begin with so a lot of this... conversation... is coming from a flawed set of assumptions.

Dont really see this changing either, Switch is already proven to be an incremental purchase for core gamers, now it needs to prove it can reach mass market non-console owning audience with Pokemon and initiatives like Labo, folks that are PS4/Xone rejectors.
I think part of this is because it came into the the gen so late, but Nintendo still need to establish it as a viable alternative to the ps4/xbo. People have finite income and games like GTA/Diablo could make all the difference

and I expect both will sell gangbusters when they come to the platform regardless of availability on other platforms
 

Deleted member 2785

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,119
Why does it need to be an alternative? The Switch addresses use cases the PS4/Xone can't. It allows on the go gaming of whatever, and in the living room play of the Nintendo 1st party lineup. It's a supplemental console for many, and a primary one for people that aren't interested in the game offerings on PS4/Xone.

This hardware market isn't zero sum or either/or. Many people own multiple consoles/PC right now, Switch isn't fighting the same living room battle N64/Cube/Wii/Wii U did.
 

jroc74

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,122
whynotboth.jpg?

I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record here but there are some people who will take all of the compromises in the world to get multiplats on a portable. Of course unique games will be great too, but I don't see why they need to come at the expense of multiplats or ports.
Only reason I say don't worry about ports is because some seem to base that on good or bad 3rd party support.
 

Mysterio79

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,159
Yes we do , which makes your spirited defense of Capcom even more bizarre. A proven porting house has publicly offered to port MHW the switch. Capcom have not taken them up on the offer, and that has nothing to do with the feasibility of such a port
Phil Spencer said Sony had a marketing deal for MHW. Nobody knows what the deal entailed but he said he had to step in to get the game on Xbox.

Starting 34:30
 

Spyder_Monkey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,734
Yes we do , which makes your spirited defense of Capcom even more bizarre. A proven porting house has publicly offered to port MHW the switch. Capcom have not taken them up on the offer, and that has nothing to do with the feasibility of such a port
The game dips below 30 on PS4 and it's even worse on Xbox One and you think it can run on Switch?

It's not happening. Please stop.

Also Iron Galaxy probably wasn't that serious about porting Monster Hunter World otherwise they wouldn't have offered it through Twitter. They would've met with Capcom and probably developed a prototype. It was a way to attract more attract more attention to get their name out there as a porting house to get more work. Devs do this all the time.
 

Slam Tilt

Member
Jan 16, 2018
5,574
User banned (1 week): system warring, a history of similar behavior
Phil Spencer said Sony had a marketing deal for MHW. Nobody knows what the deal entailed but he said he had to step in to get the game on Xbox.
But I thought Sony moneyhats only lived in the fevered imaginations of crazy people...
 

P-Switch

Alt Account
Member
Jul 15, 2018
966
No they won’t. Nintendo wants you to buy games through their own store or using their format. Honestly this “Nintendo and MS are super close” is massively exaggerated. They have Minecraft that’s it. MS is closer to Apple and Google and they’re still viewed as rivals.
So why not PS4? That console is far more popular in a lot of places where the Xbox brand is not popular. Could help reach more game sales in these places.
The idea was that it provides both Nintendo and Microsoft access to gaming both lack:

For Microsoft, it’s putting Xbox live on a powerful portable. Microsoft brand games having the opportunity to stream on a portable machine for gamers who don’t want to be tied to a tv all of the time. Microsoft isn’t making a portable console any time soon. Drawing gamers into the Xbox ecosystem who would otherwise not bother.

For Nintendo, the Switch becomes a gaming platform that now has access to major AAA multiplats that would otherwise be absent. Broadening the appeal of the machine for purchase. Drawing gamers into the ecosystem who would otherwise pass on a Switch purchase.

Microsoft putting xbox live onto the ps5 offers them nothing their $199 Xbox streaming box won’t provide already

This is why.
 

P-Switch

Alt Account
Member
Jul 15, 2018
966
One of the best selling games ever that moves 15m units a year since launch and you think it launching on the Switch would have 0 effect? That's delusional. GTA5 is the most picked up game with new PS4/Xbox One purchases. There is zero reason to assume that it doesn't find an audience on Switch.
It pushed ps4/one sales because it offered gamers better graphics/performance than the ps360 offered. It’s now being bought with the X/Pro for the same reason. And I’m sure being bought on PC as people upgrade those.

Now, just to be clear, the person I was replying to was talking about GTA 6 (in other words, timely ports of popular big AAA multiplats)

Yes, GTA V and GTA 3 would sell decent on the Switch....or ANY port of an old AAA multiplat title...cause the older the title, the more portability option trumps graphics/performance/big tv.

But let’s be honest, gamers will buy GTAV or GTA 3 on the Switch cause it’s there. They aren’t buying the Switch because it has those games. It’s more like “cool, I played this game before...but I want to try it again on the go!” Or “cool, I had no interest in playing this game back then...but I’ll give it a shot since I already have a Switch”

GTA 6 or Battlefield V or COD Bops4...the draw for the new releases will primarily be pc/Xbox x/ps4 Pro/XboxOne/ps4

Not really a big deal if the Switch doesn’t get those.


WiiU had a handful of AAA games due to being in the PS3/Xbox 360's power range while last gen was winding down. Even then it missed a ton of games that it absolutely could run without issue unlike stuff that is missing from the Switch.
Yea, 90% of the cross gen multiplats that we’re on the ps360 2012-2015 didn’t show up on the Wii U. It isn’t about the power then, it isn’t about that bore either (I agree with you)

The WiiU's western support went to shit immediately where as you are seeing the Switch's incrementally get better. And actually, it was really only in the first year you saw day and date multiplats. Afterwards they dried up with lightning speed.
Doom Eternal is the first timely, AAA multiplat release on the Switch, no?

That’s not saying much. Especially considering the heavy lifting for that port on the Switch was already done with DOOM Switch (which Nintendo helped publish to mitigate a bit of the risk)

It’s a little early to say the Switch will get future releases similar to the Wii U support 2012-2013.

But like I said, it doesn’t matter. Their exsistence doesn’t sell more Nintendo games. The lack of their exsistence doesn’t sell fewer Nintendo games. So it’s ultimately irrelevant
 
Last edited:

Mysterio79

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,159
The idea was that it provides both Nintendo and Microsoft access to gaming both lack:

For Microsoft, it’s putting Xbox live on a powerful portable. Microsoft brand games having the opportunity to stream on a portable machine for gamers who don’t want to be tied to a tv all of the time. Microsoft isn’t making a portable console any time soon. Drawing gamers into the Xbox ecosystem who would otherwise not bother.

For Nintendo, the Switch becomes a gaming platform that now has access to major AAA multiplats that would otherwise be absent. Broadening the appeal of the machine for purchase. Drawing gamers into the ecosystem who would otherwise pass on a Switch purchase.

Microsoft putting xbox live onto the ps5 offers them nothing their $199 Xbox streaming box won’t provide already

This is why.
Yep.

It seems likely in the future we'll all have the choice to own or stream games on the same platform as well. I'd imagine there would be a market for both purchases on Nintendo store or a streaming service even for the same games.
 

Dog of Bork

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,004
Texas
Why does it need to be an alternative? The Switch addresses use cases the PS4/Xone can't. It allows on the go gaming of whatever, and in the living room play of the Nintendo 1st party lineup. It's a supplemental console for many, and a primary one for people that aren't interested in the game offerings on PS4/Xone.

This hardware market isn't zero sum or either/or. Many people own multiple consoles/PC right now, Switch isn't fighting the same living room battle N64/Cube/Wii/Wii U did.
But my team can't win if other teams don't lose
 

Mysterio79

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,159
The game dips below 30 on PS4 and it's even worse on Xbox One and you think it can run on Switch?

It's not happening. Please stop.

Also Iron Galaxy probably wasn't that serious about porting Monster Hunter World otherwise they wouldn't have offered it through Twitter. They would've met with Capcom and probably developed a prototype. It was a way to attract more attract more attention to get their name out there as a porting house to get more work. Devs do this all the time.
I don't even understand these arguments. It flies in the face of downports we have been seeing in gaming since forever. Generations ago when the power disparity was much more significant and middleware was much less scalable we still saw stuff like this:


Anything is possible on any range of hardware in this day and age from cell phones to Xbox One X if publishers see fit.
 
Last edited:

Worthintendo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
706
I don't even understand these arguments. It flies in the face of downports we have been seeing in gaming since forever. Generations ago when the power disparity was much more significant and middleware was much less scalable we still saw stuff like this:


Anything is possible on any range of hardware in this day and age from cell phones to Xbox One X if publishers see fit.
It still kinda amazes me how good stuff on the Wii could look if developers put effort into it.
 

P-Switch

Alt Account
Member
Jul 15, 2018
966
But they will buy GTA to play on the Switch.
If you think Grand Theft Auto isn't popular then you're living in a bubble. Hell they can release the older games like Vice City it would sell in droves. For the record I think GTA V Switch is totally a thing that will happen but all efforts are on Red Dead right now.
I absolutely believe Vice City and San Andreas would sell better on the Switch than GTA 5. And certainly better than GTA 6 or RDR2.

And while people would buy GTA 5 on the Switch if it was there, you aren’t going to get people to buy a Switch for it (if they aren’t interested in Nintendo games, there is no point). Relatively no one who hasn’t been interested in GTA 5 for the last 5 years tis suddenly going to spend $300 because they have been holding out for years hoping for a portable version lol.

Yes, it will sell to some people who have bought Switch’s for Nintendo gaming...but I don’t know if it will be enough to make it worth the time/effort for Rockstar to bother

Which is fine! There are already many other platforms for gamers to get their new, AAA multiplats on

The appeal of the Switch is to get unique gaming you can’t get elsewhere, or play games in unique ways you can’t elsewhere.

It will have plenty of great 3rd party support without having timely AAA multiplat support. Already does! It’s perfectly fine.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,275
Canada
Man I'm just glad Nintendo is doing well again. Following sales charts during the WiiU years were some dark times.

Hopefully that Wonderful 101 Switch port is real so the ip can may live on. It would, without a doubt sell better on Switch.
 

Spyder_Monkey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,734
I don't even understand these arguments. It flies in the face of downports we have been seeing in gaming since forever. Generations ago when the power disparity was much more significant and middleware was much less scalable we still saw stuff like this:


Anything is possible on any range of hardware in this day and age from cell phones to Xbox One X if publishers see fit.
Exceptions are not the rule and very few other PS360 games saw release on the Wii literally for the same reason you don't see many PS4/Xbox One ports on Switch with very few exceptions. Sure maybe with enough elbow grease you can get Monster Hunter World to run on Switch but is it worth spending more resources to get that game to run on the Switch with a shit ton of compromises including a lesser framerate and resolution than Monster Hunter Generations? Or would you rather just see a Monster Hunter game built specifically for Switch? Capcom's probably going to go with the latter.
 
Last edited:

Mysterio79

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,159
Exceptions are not the rule and very few other PS360 games saw release on the Wii literally for the same reason you don't see many PS4/Xbox One ports on Switch with very few exceptions. Sure maybe with enough elbow grease you can get Monster Hunter World to run on Switch but is it worth spending more resources to get that game to run on the Switch with a shit ton of compromises including a lesser framerate and resolution than Monster Hunter Generations? Or would you rather just see a Monster Hunter game built specifically for Switch? Capcom's probably going to go with the latter.
Iron Galaxy offered to do the port so this talk of resources and compromises is not really relevant. Clearly, as capable developers they thought they were capable of handling the job and I seriously doubt them on this issue considering their pedigree, not mention incredible ports we've seen historically with significantly more pronounced barriers in technology.

I remember the common belief in the early Switch days was that it would never be able to handle a current gen game but here we are. Wolf 2, Outlast 2, Doom, and Doom Eternal + Warframe on the way.

It seems the goal posts keep moving.
 
Last edited:

Spyder_Monkey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,734
I absolutely believe Vice City and San Andreas would sell better on the Switch than GTA 5. And certainly better than GTA 6 or RDR2.
Oh hell no that flat out ain't happening. Ideally 3, Vice City, San Andreas should come to the Switch like on PS4 and then get to GTA V.
Iron Galaxy offered to do the port so this talk of resources and compromises is not really relevant. Clearly, as capable developers they thought they were capable of handling the job and I seriously doubt them on this issue considering their pedigree, not mention incredible ports we've seen historically with significantly more pronounced barriers in technology.

I remember the common belief in the early Switch days was that it would never be able to handle a current gen game but here we are. Wolf 2, Outlast 2, Doom, and Doom Eternal + Warframe on the way.

It seems the goal posts keep moving.
I'm not moving any goalposts. You keep saying it's happening. I'm saying it's not.

Stop.
 
Last edited:

Mysterio79

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,159
Man I'm just glad Nintendo is doing well again. Following sales charts during the WiiU years were some dark times.

Hopefully that Wonderful 101 Switch port is real so the ip can may live on. It would, without a doubt sell better on Switch.
Everything sells better on the Switch than Wii U and Wonderful 101 would be no exception.

Kamiya deserves it.
Oh hell no that flat out ain't happening. Ideally 3, Vice City, San Andreas should come to the Switch like on PS4 and then get to GTA V.

I'm not moving any goalposts. You keep saying it's happening. I'm saying it's not.

Stop.
I did?

The dispute here was not whether or not it was happening, we already know it isn't. The question was why?

I think Phil Spencer pretty much already answered that but this discourse has run its course and we seem to be going in circles.
 

xxbrothawizxx

Member
Nov 1, 2017
924
Gainesville, FL
The idea was that it provides both Nintendo and Microsoft access to gaming both lack:

For Microsoft, it’s putting Xbox live on a powerful portable. Microsoft brand games having the opportunity to stream on a portable machine for gamers who don’t want to be tied to a tv all of the time. Microsoft isn’t making a portable console any time soon. Drawing gamers into the Xbox ecosystem who would otherwise not bother.

For Nintendo, the Switch becomes a gaming platform that now has access to major AAA multiplats that would otherwise be absent. Broadening the appeal of the machine for purchase. Drawing gamers into the ecosystem who would otherwise pass on a Switch purchase.

Microsoft putting xbox live onto the ps5 offers them nothing their $199 Xbox streaming box won’t provide already

This is why.
Nintendo should have straight up used Live on their platform. There must have been a system that would allow Nintendo to retain the $20 pittance. Microsoft may have asked for platform royalties on eshop purchases, but Ninty could have shut that down and offered them purely the subscriber fee alone. Would have set them up perfectly to adopt the streaming tech in the future.
 

Spyder_Monkey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,734
Nintendo should have straight up used Live on their platform. There must have been a system that would allow Nintendo to retain the $20 pittance. Microsoft may have asked for platform royalties on eshop purchases, but Ninty could have shut that down and offered them purely the subscriber fee alone. Would have set them up perfectly to adopt the streaming tech in the future.
I don't regular on NPD threads but is it always full of the most unrealistic ideas ever?
 

xxbrothawizxx

Member
Nov 1, 2017
924
Gainesville, FL
I don't regular on NPD threads but is it always full of the most unrealistic ideas ever?
Wasn't it just a generation ago that Ninty asked EA to build their network?

Obviously just dreaming though since a Live deal would have run into the same issues the Orgin deal did. Any platform holder, especially Ninty, would be weary of a competitor having any sway over their products.

I think all EA asked was for Origin to be on the box. Fair as hell imo.

And just for good measure, I think a MHW port would be just fine :P Sure it'd be more than just turning down settings like a PB port, but that's usually what ports entailed prior to increased gpu api and shader ubiquity in the modern day anyway. All I really know is I have no intention of purchasing Generations at any price above $30 (that ship sailed last year), but I would have already preordered a portable World. An exclusive selling more is obvious. At 10 million units, the game oviously penetrated the market well enough. I think the viability of port depends more so on the longevity of the game itself vs hardware considerations.
 
Last edited:

Sadist

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,488
Holland
No?

There was only a rumour about EA putting Origin on Wii U and lots of folks decided it was true because reasons.
 

Alcibiades

Banned
Feb 3, 2018
630
Nintendo should have straight up used Live on their platform. There must have been a system that would allow Nintendo to retain the $20 pittance. Microsoft may have asked for platform royalties on eshop purchases, but Ninty could have shut that down and offered them purely the subscriber fee alone. Would have set them up perfectly to adopt the streaming tech in the future.
Lmao, why would Nintendo ever do something so idiotic?
 

xxbrothawizxx

Member
Nov 1, 2017
924
Gainesville, FL
Lmao, why would Nintendo ever do something so idiotic?
For the benefit to the user experience.

Ninty is still not the one building its online service. They only own 10% of DeNA though the partnership is kinda deep at this point. So they still had to draw up a contract that made clear who was still in control and would enjoy the profit. They'd just be going to a company with more expertise. Microsoft seems pretty focused on subscriber count, so it's not like they wouldn't have wanted to play ball.

Streaming is probably a big hell no though since Ninty apparently didn't even want people watching Netflix instead of playing games on the system.

No?

There was only a rumour about EA putting Origin on Wii U and lots of folks decided it was true because reasons.
Well my mistake then (he says after for some reason believing one poster's skepticism vs the claims of another random internet user lol). It always seemed like something Nintendo would have shot down immediately, but I wanted to believe Nintendo was that committed to regaining parity in the online space after the Wii was so noticeably behind.

A lot of people would have laughed if you mentioned the idea of an Intel/AMD SoC, but here we are in 2018 and it's a reality. Competitors can help each other if the terms are right.
 
Last edited:

LegendofLex

Member
Nov 20, 2017
3,082
Nintendo should have straight up used Live on their platform. There must have been a system that would allow Nintendo to retain the $20 pittance. Microsoft may have asked for platform royalties on eshop purchases, but Ninty could have shut that down and offered them purely the subscriber fee alone. Would have set them up perfectly to adopt the streaming tech in the future.
The only reason any of these companies are adopting online subscriptions at all is because they want a cheap (and reliable) revenue stream. It's not because doing so allows them to deliver a better service than they could for free.
 

Ghost_Messiah

Member
Oct 27, 2017
637
Hey guys, apologies for the stupid question, but when does the August NPD report come out? Do NPD not issue their reports on the second Thursday of every month any more? Like, I noticed this report was posted quite late in August, so does that mean we're looking at late September for NPD's next report?

Asking because I want to know how Shenmue HD did in the US. Will appreciate anyone who can provide insight.
 

Deleted member 2785

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,119
Hey guys, apologies for the stupid question, but when does the August NPD report come out? Do NPD not issue their reports on the second Thursday of every month any more? Like, I noticed this report was posted quite late in August, so does that mean we're looking at late September for NPD's next report?

Asking because I want to know how Shenmue HD did in the US. Will appreciate anyone who can provide insight.
We're in a messed up retail calendar year, putting everything later.

 

Slam Tilt

Member
Jan 16, 2018
5,574
I think all EA asked was for Origin to be on the box. Fair as hell imo.
The negative scuttlebutt is that Nintendo would run Origin’s interface and netcode, meaning Nintendo would have no control over it. If EA wanted to sell additional features to players or give preferential/degraded service to specific games, Nintendo would have no recourse to stop it.
 

xxbrothawizxx

Member
Nov 1, 2017
924
Gainesville, FL
The negative scuttlebutt is that Nintendo would run Origin’s interface and netcode, meaning Nintendo would have no control over it. If EA wanted to sell additional features to players or give preferential/degraded service to specific games, Nintendo would have no recourse to stop it.
It not like Nintendo would just be giving them the keys to the kingdom without terms. Could they make changes behind the scenes that slighted competitors? Sure, but Nintendo would have at least made sure that foul play of that kind wasn't outwardly permissible.

But this is the same company that uses peer to peer connections for major games and is anything but reliable in this space. Would they have cared much if users complained of greater dropped connections in CoD than Battlefield? EA would not have been foolish enough to ask Nintendo, a company they've bucked heads with before, to agree to anything like that. Ninty execs wouldn't have blinked before sending them home if they did. But we don't even know if anything like that actually happened, so maybe it's best to just move on from this topic.

The only reason any of these companies are adopting online subscriptions at all is because they want a cheap (and reliable) revenue stream. It's not because doing so allows them to deliver a better service than they could for free.
No doubt the service will increase in price with time regardless of whether the feature set expands accordingly. I'm convinced the service was only implemented as a back up to nickel and dime the fans left on one single platform. Even at 100mil, Ninty will still be down to one platform eventually. They've been moving in the right direction to find new revenue streams.

A partnership with Microsoft, good terms or not, would mean a cut for them. I think Ninty could have thrown their clout around to use their services for a steal (Switch Live is only $40/yr vs Xbox Live), but there's no getting around a continual fee because Microsoft wouldn't be interested in building a system to turn over to them completely.

When the service is inevitably more expensive in the future, they'll surely be happy they didn't enter into such an agreement, but I'll still be peeved when we miss out on expected online features that can only improve the experience and help Nintendo's games reach even wider appeal. But this is an NPD thread and I probably should have checked my personal feelings at the door.

Do we know that DeNA isn't receiving a cut of the subscription fee? At the very least, some that cash is going to pay them for the work they've already provided and ongoing contract work and support. Again, I question how different this really is from one with Microsoft or EA. DeNA certainly has way less reason to screw them, and Nintendo undoubtedly has more control in this situation than was likely with Western options. Worth the difference in execution? Solely as a business, definitely.
 
Last edited:

Slam Tilt

Member
Jan 16, 2018
5,574
Would they have cared much if users complained of greater dropped connections in CoD than Battlefield? EA would not have been foolish enough to ask Nintendo, a company they've bucked heads with before, to agree to anything like that.
All I know is that in a battle of trustworthiness between EA and Nintendo, I’d be very hesitant to put my stake on the company that turned the world-beloved Star Wars franchise into a lootbox digital gambling scandal.
 

P-Switch

Alt Account
Member
Jul 15, 2018
966
I don't regular on NPD threads but is it always full of the most unrealistic ideas ever?
this month is especially weird. i don't know why.
Lmao, why would Nintendo ever do something so idiotic?
I dunno why you guys are blaming NPD threads for this discussion. This has been talked about all over the place whenever the topic of streaming and Microsoft come up.

We know for a fact Microsoft is working on cloud based streaming as its gaming future. They are planning on building a cheap home console that does nothing but that (and I argue that it being the cheapest and playing games at high quality will probably make it the best selling 3rd party gaming box next gen)

Beyond that, Microsoft wants to be able to stream its library on devices beyond Xbox. This is their plan.

There is no good reason why Switch wouldn’t be one of those preferred devices.

Those two companies aren’t in direct competition..at all. They will give each other gaming avenues that each other lack. Nintendo is already allowing 3rd party publishers cloud stream their AAA multiplat games through the Switch. As long as Xbox is streaming only games you can’t find on eshop, Nintendo won’t have any problems with it.

It’s a win/win for both companies

This is being discussed everywhere, not just NPD threads.

https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-and-nintendos-showcase-cross-play-throwing-shade-playstation
 

Mysterio79

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,159
this month is especially weird. i don't know why.
When is the last time the best selling game of the month in NPD was a Switch third party game? That and all the third party announcements lately, and Switch taking the month for the first time in a while.

Presto. Insane optimism. Wild times. Not that unexpected.

None of the ideas are that unrealistic though. Industry insider Matt (not NPD Matt the other Matt) already hinted than MS wanted their streaming service on Switch. I believe MS said they want it on a range of devices outside the Xbox ecosystem. I'm not going to get into MH other than to say check out what Phil Spencer said about it.

So all of this stuff is sourced from industry folk. How much of it actually means anything is another question entirely.
 

NicknameMy

Member
Mar 14, 2018
368
Wait, someone is saying GTA V doesn't sell consoles? I think GTA V is currently the main seller of PS4's, looking at the numbers of GTA V compared to console sales. For the Switch it can do similar things, especially considering the portable aspect which fits extremly well with GTA V.

And in terms of GTA V sales alone, could definitly get to the same level of Mario Kart on the Switch.
 

slavesnyder

Member
Oct 26, 2017
889
SlaveSnyder Media Corp.
Wait, someone is saying GTA V doesn't sell consoles? I think GTA V is currently the main seller of PS4's, looking at the numbers of GTA V compared to console sales. For the Switch it can do similar things, especially considering the portable aspect which fits extremly well with GTA V.

And in terms of GTA V sales alone, could definitly get to the same level of Mario Kart on the Switch.
gta will only sell switch consoles when it's offered through microsoft streaming services.
 

Celine

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,858
I dunno why you guys are blaming NPD threads for this discussion. This has been talked about all over the place whenever the topic of streaming and Microsoft come up.

We know for a fact Microsoft is working on cloud based streaming as its gaming future. They are planning on building a cheap home console that does nothing but that (and I argue that it being the cheapest and playing games at high quality will probably make it the best selling 3rd party gaming box next gen)

Beyond that, Microsoft wants to be able to stream its library on devices beyond Xbox. This is their plan.

There is no good reason why Switch wouldn’t be one of those preferred devices.

Those two companies aren’t in direct competition..at all. They will give each other gaming avenues that each other lack. Nintendo is already allowing 3rd party publishers cloud stream their AAA multiplat games through the Switch. As long as Xbox is streaming only games you can’t find on eshop, Nintendo won’t have any problems with it.

It’s a win/win for both companies

This is being discussed everywhere, not just NPD threads.

https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-and-nintendos-showcase-cross-play-throwing-shade-playstation
Why would it be a win situation for Nintendo?
The user would pay Microsoft for their streaming service to play multiple games on Nintendo hardware.
Nintendo allowed other publishers to stream their games on Nintendo consoles (like DQX on 3DS and RE7 on Switch) but those were single game affairs that would never cut into Nintendo profits.
Nintendo never allowed a streaming service of a library of games from Square Enix or Capcom.
How do you think Nintendo would react at the prospect of a buyer purchasing their hardware only to run another company streaming service to play all the games they need?

We are going toward a digital and service based future, the idea that Nintendo would give the key of their future to another company is silly.
On the contrary Nintendo should work hard to maximize their digital sales, they are still far behind.

 
Last edited: