145

Archive link: https://archive.ph/NF2r0

At some point, getting Nintendo would be a career moment and I honestly believe a good move for both companies. It's just taking a long time for Nintendo to see that their future exists off of their own hardware. A long time.... :-)

Email chain between Phil Spencer, Chris Capossela, and Takeshi Numoto discussing the potentially hostile purchase of Nintendo, ZeniMax, WB Games, and TikTok

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I dislike good things. I dislike Dark Souls, a game made with vision and care that a lot of people love, because to me it looks ugly, feels clunky and just utterly miserable. But sometimes you have to understand that things are not made for you specifically. Yeah, subjectively it is bad for me, but it's also good overall, no matter what I feel about it.

If Tears of the Kingdom was a native 1080p 60 fps game, it wouldn't have a whole system of physics-based interactive modular devices. Game developers are amazed that Nintendo even managed to get such complex systems running. Of course it's more demanding than Metroid Dread, does anything in it even remotely compare? That game doesn't even need to render distant landscapes, it's all small rooms and predetermined backgrounds. Do you think that was a lack of wanting to make it happen?

Maybe if a new console comes along and it's ported to that it will run better and look better, but for now, everything it can do comes at a cost.

I already acknowledged and agreed with you that Nintendo's online is bad. But there's more to those games than that. Aside that aspect though, what about Smash's gameplay, visuals, music? It's not like that game is only playable online, and thank goodness for that.

What about the variety and detail of Animal Crafting's clothing and furniture, or the behaviors of the villagers, or how customizable is the island this time around?

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I dislike good things. I dislike Dark Souls, a game made with vision and care that a lot of people love, because to me it looks ugly, feels clunky and just utterly miserable.

Ugly, clunky feeling, miserable games are things you'd find to be bad. You don't have to acknowledge that other people like it if you find it to be bad. You can just say you think it's bad, at least with a clarification of why, or understand that when I say something is bad, it doesn't mean you can't like it, especially since I clarified why. I'm not obligated to say that something is good just because other people like it.

If Tears of the Kingdom was a native 1080p 60 fps game, it wouldn't have a whole system of physics-based interactive modular devices.

It could on hardware that they don't legally allow me to run it on! And that they don't let me do so is bad.

Of course it's more demanding than Metroid Dread, does anything in it even remotely compare? That game doesn't even need to render distant landscapes, it's all small rooms and predetermined backgrounds. Do you think that was a lack of wanting to make it happen?

No, I said that it was for lack of designing a game that can run well on the hardware they restricted themselves to. And if we were still in the 2017 world where the Switch is the only way to play a game that demanding portably, or even here in 2023 where it would be the cheapest way to play a game that demanding portably, it would be acceptable, but not when it's the only way to play the game at all.

I love Smash. But I also don't live in a dorm room anymore, and online is the primary use case for most fighting games. I go to locals, but if I get my ass beat at a local and go home to practice, my way to practice it is to go online, and its online sucks. Having bad online in a multiplayer game these days is about as bad as not having subtitles in a story-driven game or missing any other standard feature. The input delay is also rough even when you play locally.

I'm not the target market for Animal Crossing, so don't worry about what I think of it. My girlfriend was the one who played it. I played that first one on the Gamecube, and even back then I eventually became a little grossed out by how they wanted to make that game a habit like mobile games do today by making you afraid of weeds piling up. I do feel pretty confident in evaluating how bad those two aspects are when I could frequently walk through the living room and see the same few flaws over and over again.

[-] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It could on hardware that they don't legally allow me to run it on! And that they don't let me do so is bad.

If Nintendo games weren't trying to sell you on a console, do you really think they'd be trying so hard?

I'm old enough to remember the Dreamcast era Sega and their output after that. Sega's software teams went fucking hard trying to create awesome new experiences that you could only get on Sega's console. Their output quality dropped considerably and they played it boringly safe after they dropped out of the console market.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It's interesting that your example is Dreamcast, because while every company that doesn't put out a console also has an incentive to make great games, this also shows that making great games isn't enough.

[-] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Kind of. A big part of Sega's situation is that they shot their reputation in the ass with a 12 gauge in the mid 90s. They were pumping out platforms left, right and center only to discontinue them within a year or two (Sega CD, 32X, Saturn).

Nintendo have been very careful not to make the same mistakes, but even then a lot of people initially had little faith in the Switch because of the WiiU. Even Gamefreak didn't want to release Pokémon games for Switch initially.

As for other companies, their goal is to make titles that sell well on the platforms it releases on. They can afford to rely almost completely on what has come before, all they need to do is do it well.

The goal of a first party game is to sell itself and the platform. So they need to be doing things that other games aren't, in order to sell the idea of 'you can only get this experience with platform X'.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

in order to sell the idea of 'you can only get this experience with platform X'.

I think this is the exact idea that Sony and Microsoft realized doesn't make financial sense anymore, and that Phil expected Nintendo to come to late.

[-] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Phil Spencer of Microsoft thinks this idea doesn't make sense because they haven't been doing it well in years. The big innovation with Halo Infinite is live services and an open world. Their exclusives aren't doing anything other games aren't.

Sony is a bit better and covers a few more genres, and if you're into heavily-cinematic games, Playstation is your no-brainer choice, they've got you covered in all sorts of genres. And they've got the Spiderman games.

Nintendo, meanwhile practically owns the kart racing genre. There is literally no other AAA effort that isn't cash in crap or loaded up with so much MTX crap that even Fortnite would blush.

Mario Oddesey might have a bit more competition nowadays but in 2017, your only options were Oddesey, a (very good) indie game, and a neutered reboot of Ratchet and Clank.

Breath of the Wild came at a time when most open world games were very rigid when it came to how players dealt with tasks and enemies. BoTW gave players a lot more options thank simply going in quiet or loud, and ToTK took it much further. They practically changed how other companies look at open world games.

Nintendo puts AAA efforts into entire game genres that most other companies ignore entirely, even if the audiences do not. This is how they've maintained crazy Switch sales.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Sony's games are on PC now. Final Fantasy restricted itself to PS5 and underperformed. Games that those platforms use to sell their platforms also come out on PC because they just cost too much to make, and there are too few of them because of how long they take to make now. Nintendo generally spends less, but they're still running into the same problem with development time, and that means their exclusive offerings will dwindle as they have to ramp up fidelity on more powerful hardware, just like what happened with Sony and Microsoft, which means fewer and fewer games that can only be played on that specific set of hardware. Third party exclusives mostly disappeared because, for the same reasons, restricting yourself to one platform is generally a stupid idea these days.

As an aside, racing games in general are rare these days, not just kart racers. My options are Mario Kart, sim racers, one step down from a sim racer like Forza Horizon, and little else. I like racing games, but not any of those. The market will come back around; I've got Trail Out right now and Aero GPX in the near future that will hopefully tide me over until someone makes racing games for me again.

[-] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Sony's games are on PC now

Years after their playstation debut. Because they know that people who want to play AAA games on a PC do so for reasons the PlayStation platform just doesn't cater to, thus they aren't exactly competing. That and porting costs are reasonably minimal, so it's money on the table.

Games that those platforms use to sell their platforms also come out on PC because they just cost too much to make, and there are too few of them because of how long they take to make now.

Do you really think the PC market is that big that it'll plug a shortfall like that?

Xbox initially only did it because both platforms were controlled and toll-collected by Microsoft (I'm talking specifically about Windows Store, they only put their stuff on Steam much later).

Final Fantasy restricted itself to PS5 and underperformed.

That's not what Square's been saying.

Nintendo generally spends less, but they're still running into the same problem with development time, and that means their exclusive offerings will dwindle as they have to ramp up fidelity on more powerful hardware.

The switch has about 98 first party games, and isn't exactly slowing down. That's not counting third party exclusives, either.

Nintendo generally gets around this by having certain third parties develop its first party games. It also acquires some of these studios to develop these titles. Smash was a Bandai Namco game. Mario + Rabbids is a Ubisoft game. Hyrule and Fire Emblem warriors were made by Team Ninja and Omega Force.

Nintendo also has one more reason not to port: there is much less customer mutual exclusivity between switch and other platforms as there is between Xbox, PS and gaming PC. That is, a person who has one of the three is unlikely to have one of the other two, but may have a Switch for portable gaming.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Do you really think the PC market is that big that it'll plug a shortfall like that?

Do you realize how large the PC market has become? Games that used to only be available on consoles now sell more on PC than any single console.

[-] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Hmmm. I did some research on a few games and you are surprisingly correct. However, I did notice something else too.

Nintendo doesn't need extra sales numbers from PC. Their games sell record breaking amounts while being exclusive. Of the top 50 best selling games of all time, 7 are Nintendo games that are either Switch exclusives or WiiU ports, where they did much better on the Switch. Sony, in total, has 1, and Microsoft, in total, also has 1 (2 if you count Minecraft, as they bought Mojang during the latter's heyday). Half of that list is Nintendo.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

That's true, but again, I think they're going to run into more resistance with development time as they upgrade their hardware and the art assets have to rise to meet the new spec and the new audience expectation. Those Wii U ports had the benefit of being ports, which is a situation that will never happen again. Since basically no one played the Wii U, it was more like a machine gun fire of games for the Switch that already had the hardest part done. Also, unlike any time in history except for the lifespan of the PSP, there are real alternative options for handheld gaming now as we head into this new Switch successor, which probably doesn't affect anyone buying the machine for Pokemon in hell or high water, but it will have an impact on the buyer who just wants to play Hades or Doom in bed or on a road trip and now has that many fewer reasons to buy Nintendo's console over a more open platform.

[-] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Those Wii U ports had the benefit of being ports, which is a situation that will never happen again.

True, but they still had to develop these games initially for WiiU, only for them to bomb there. And the WiiU was an eighth gen console.

Since basically no one played the Wii U, it was more like a machine gun fire of games for the Switch that already had the hardest part done.

If the rumours of backwards compatibility are to be believed, the Switch 2 could just straight up sell Switch games with Switch 2 enhancement patches. Something very similar was shown to developers with BoTW running at 60fps at 4k on Switch 2, and such a patch is known to exist for Pokemon Scarlet and Violet.

It won't have the same newness factor of the WiiU ports, but it will allow Nintendo's evergreen titles to keep that status until the Switch 2 iteration.

Also, unlike any time in history except for the lifespan of the PSP, there are real alternative options for handheld gaming now as we head into this new Switch successor,

You mean the Steam Deck and clones? I don't mean to burst your bubble, but the least janky of these units has you scouring ProtonDB to check a games compatibility with the unit, and community notes on what to enter into the advanced run commands section or on rare occasions, even what Linux commands to run.

And that's the least janky option. The Steam Deck clones are worse, as at least the SD had the good grace to use an operating system designed for that specific hardware and form factor. Yeah. Switch 2 is pretty safe.

but it will have an impact on the buyer who just wants to play Hades or Doom in bed or on a road trip and now has that many fewer reasons to buy Nintendo's console over a more open platform.

You honestly think they're going to put up with any kind of SD/clone jank?

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It won't have the same newness factor of the WiiU ports

This is exactly my point though. Backwards compatibility is an expectation now, but if you didn't have a Wii U, like most people didn't, it makes the Switch feel like it's got twice as many original games as it actually had, and they won't be able to repeat that.

You mean the Steam Deck and clones? I don't mean to burst your bubble, but the least janky of these units has you scouring ProtonDB to check a games compatibility with the unit, and community notes on what to enter into the advanced run commands section or on rare occasions, even what Linux commands to run.

I've sat just about the most technically unsavvy people I know in front of a Steam Deck and told them to stick to verified games, and it's been as smooth sailing as a Switch is; which is to say that neither is perfect, and the way they're imperfect is a little different between them. But again, PCs have been steadily growing in gaming market share for over a decade. PCs got easier, consoles became more complicated, and maybe some percentage of the market was also willing to learn what they needed to to further close that gap just like how all of our parents eventually learned how to use the internet and cell phones. I'm certainly not capable of measuring the effect of each of those things on that trend, but this is the way we're trending.

The Switch 2 is certainly safe. In particular, the Switch is a device made for children, which helps it reach a demographic that the Steam Deck isn't targeting and may never target. I'm not so sure the next Switch is going to do as well as this one has though. And in each subsequent generation, I think they'll head in the same direction as Microsoft and Sony or do something absolutely insane instead of responding to what the market is actually asking for.

[-] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I've sat just about the most technically unsavvy people I know in front of a Steam Deck and told them to stick to verified games,

That's the problem. You have to tell people to stick to a currently small selection of possible games on the system to ensure a console-like experience. Or, you can just pick up a Switch 2 and not have to worry about any of that shit.

I'm a Linux gamer, so I know how powerful and impressive Proton is. But a console like experience, it is not. Many of my Steam games need advanced commands just to run acceptably.

Steam Decks hit their real potential in the hands of someone who is not afraid to fuck around.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Verified games are not a small selection anymore. They're not the entire breadth of Steam, but there are about as many verified games as there are Switch games. Double that if you're including the certified playable games. No Switch tax, no compromised version of the game, no subscription to play online. I get a lot more value out of mine than I do a Switch, and the most I've fucked around on it is installing EmuDeck.

this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
145 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30500 readers
336 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS