I mentioned some of these before(power difference, cartridge), and I do believe these factor in heavily, along with Nintendo's current online system.
Indeed, the cartridge cost, HDD storage and the Online system are a big in factor in porting some games, but people think all the publisher are hating on Nintendo and they are leaving money because they want to.
One of the trademarks of the CoD series for years have been the 60fps on MP.
Is this like the 3rd or 4th time you've made this... joke... ITT?
Judging by the performance of recent third party games it would be seriously downgraded and still run at 680p/30fps
30fps blows for online multiplayer shooters, man.
Third party support was pretty fantastic on NES and SNES. There were hardware drawbacks on N64. Gamecube got plenty of multiplats and third party titles.
Call of Duty had multiple entries on Wii and Wii U
From a financial standpoint i'd like some evidence on this: the installed base is very big for a 1yr old console, the demogragphics have changed compared to previous Nintendo systems, users preferences have changed based on their purchases on the eShop.
Gyro alone?
I would have double dipped on both Switch and PS4.
nah, is already beyond the point of "a test port" Switch on its own with less holidays season sold 1-2M shy from what PS4 did with all 3rd party the same 13 months, if that does not convince anyone to support, nothing else will do (save black magic or out selling XBONE).
still gimped graphics (mandatory), im sure missed lots of DLC map, and Nintendo Netcode stills terrible
Switch probably became a clear success with a great software attach rate too late for Activision to get a well-optimized port out for Black Ops IIII in time for launch.
Yep that's basically my point!
As said/implied above the game started well before anyone knew it could have been a success.
What i want to point ouy that there's no "likely" here, it honestly feels a little absurd, and we should stop to justify Activisions (and other third parties) decisions until they'll explain the reasons why they don't want to support a successful platform, ignoring a piece of the market share, (so losing money) maybe there is something we don't know.
Tone the graphics down to hit 60fps or let people play at 30fps. People don’t buy Switch to be graphics whores.
If there is one thing we know about a company like Activision it’s that they really like to make money. That is the first priority for almost any company.
Switch owners may not be graphics whores but they still have standards.
I did for a while but how neat would it be to get the replayabilty of a cod or overwatch and this time, at 60 fps :/
Most of that audience would need their parents to buy it for them
Is this some not-so-subtle jab at the Switch’s demographic? ‘Cause I ain’t taking that bait.
'Nintendo is for the kiddies' is still a popular insult to levy against Nintendo fans, I see.
I'm not saying it's for the Kiddies , I'm saying that a huge overwhelming portion of the Switch's owners will be children. That has always been the case for Nintendo handhelds.
most of CoD audience already get its parent to buy it for em
Im not Einstein, but 7% is not a huge from 100%
Again, people don’t buy the switch to be graphics whores. Blops3 on 360 played just fine. Any game on switch would look and play better than that.
It’s not about graphics whores, it’s the fact that game was a joke
Clearly not, even Einstein could embed an image link.Im not Einstein, but 7% is not a huge from 100%
The Switch audience is mostly adults and young adults. Nintendo has been positioning the 2DS for kids. From what we've heard, Bethesda is happy with the performance of their Switch releases. I would assume Take 2 is as well, given that L.A. Noire Switch sold on par with the Xbox One version.
You're the one making these claims though, where's your proof? At least they have given proof to back up their augment. All you've said is "LOL NINTENDO IS FOR KIDS"
