Why Nintendo Switch Needs Third Party Support More Than Any Other Nintendo Console Before

ThisGenGaming says "The Nintendo Switch is on fire right now so to speak, good luck trying to pre-order one if you haven’t already, and the same thing applies to the accessories, I’m sure Nintendo is more than happy right now. It is a compelling product to say the least, but I’m not ready to drop the money for one just yet."

[PhoenixUp]

From the look of various third party publishers still remaining cautious to the platform it doesn't seem like it'll get as much support as its competitors

[Psytrix]

Yep, very similar situation to the Wii U - Let's see where we are at by March next year. (Not holding my breath)

[jmc8888]

It's far, far worse then Wii U even.

Wii U had 26 Western 3rd party BOXED games at LAUNCH for Wii U. (Don't believe me, count them yourself on page 4 of metacritic's Wii U list of games sorted by release date)

Switch doesn't have that many even announced for the first 10 months (aka all of 2017).

No Assassin's Creed. No Mass Effect. No Call of Duty. No Madden. The list goes on and on.

Not even a ZombiU.

[conanlifts]

There are currently 100+ third party games in development for switch according to nintendo and their latest financial report. Over 60 games confirmed for release this year. Plus a lot more TBA. The list is growing and it is still only 3 weeks after the announcement.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ni...

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

I keep hearing this, but I also never hear ANY convincing evidence that any significant percentage of the average AAA Western third party fanbase would pick up a Switch for a game like Call of Duty.
Until that changes, the hard truth is that there are a lot of AAA Western third parties out there who will never see their games become Switch sellers, because their IP fanbases are so habitually used to buying their AAA third party games on Sony/Microsoft consoles & PC, that their AAA Western games simply will not have the fanbase needed to move the Switch.

AAA Western multiplats, like CoD, cannot be important to Nintendo's future, so long as console brand loyalty for those IP's is so strong that it prevents stuff like Call of Duty from being a system seller for the Switch.

And since Western third parties like EA feel no need to push their games onto it in a way that would make them sell, Nintendo's hands are basically tied.

There might be a few exceptions, like Bethesda with Skyrim, whose popularity has far transcended its age and might see at least some satisfactory sales figures, but on the whole, it'll be exclusives, first party, indies, and Japanese developers that will move the Switch.

That wouldn't change even if the Switch had the power of the Scorpio in it. That's just how strong brand loyalties between gamers and their Sony-Microsoft-PC editions of western AAA multiplats have become.
The sooner that's accepted, the sooner people will start looking forward to stuff other than AAA Western multiplats when considering a Switch, which will be a much more fair and realistic way of judging the consoles' potential third party support than saying "oh, no Mass Effect? No Titanfall? That means it has no games!"

[jmc8888]

Nintendo used to get 3rd party support, when it made competitive consoles. Those 3rd parties sold. Even when they made Wii, the install base due to lower price and motion controls craze caused 3rd parties to support it with cut down versions. But it still had the problem of people not buying Wii FOR those versions.

3rd party games sell cumulatively the most. They reach a broader audience. THEY are what sells consoles. People wouldn't buy Switch for 3rd party because Switch would have by far the worst version of those games. That's a design decision.

They specifically make hardware that is hard for AAA 3rd party devs to support because they are targeting power levels much, much higher elsewhere.

They don't want to make many games where they have to cut it down to fit in 1/4th the power, with a brand new install base, when there is a PC/Scorpio/PS4Pro/PS4/XB1 version ALL SIGNIFICANTLY better.

Brand loyalties AREN'T STRONG.

That's why Atari lost theirs
Apple lost theirs (Apple II)
Commodore/Amiga lost theirs
Sega lost theirs
Sony had theirs....then lost it for a bit
Microsoft got theirs... then lost it with Xbox One
Sony regained it.

NOTHING IS SET IN STONE. Why would ANYONE think that? Gaming history is all about the changing of the guard. You are asking people to accept something that isn't valid. Nintendo made decisions to lose the majority of gamers. People view Nintendo as inferior. Nintendo EARNED that.

For EACH INDIVIDUAL GAMER, they have the types of games they like. The IP's they like. So YES, many people like those games, and if THOSE games aren't on Nintendo, or are crap versions of them, they will see Nintendo devices as not having any games or buy a competitors version. There's also far more then Mass Effect/Titanfall/CoD. It's pretty much EVERYTHING AAA Western 3rd party that's not on Nintendo.

When 80-90 percent of gamers don't buy Nintendo hardware because it doesn't have the games they want and have now, that's how it'll be viewed. Pretty much for a human generation they have not had either any version, or had crap versions of the games people want.

[jmc8888]

That has EVERYTHING to do with Nintendo's CHOICE of hardware. It's their CHOICE. Nintendo ditched 3rd party over 20 years ago. Many MANY gamers don't even consider Nintendo, because they've NEVER seen Nintendo have a device that plays the games they want. Nintendo abandoned them. Developers put out content to make money, they aren't a charity.

It will NEVER be 'accepted', because people aren't going to EVER stop playing the games they want, because Nintendo doesn't make the devices for it. INSTEAD, they CHOOSE not to SUPPORT NINTENDO. See how that works? When you don't give people what they want... they go somewhere else. It's THAT SIMPLE.

Their competitors make the devices that have the games people want. Versus Switch, they are also CHEAPER then Nintendo.

At this point no one expects Nintendo to do it, so it's never 'talked about'. Why talk about something Nintendo has proven it isn't interested in doing? They have to PROVE IT. If someone lies to you over and over again, what do you say? PROVE IT. FIRST.

Then you see their hardware, and all it does is continue to PROVE they aren't serious about the majority of gamers and the game THEY like to play. Switch is a continuation of that. That's why they have far less AAA 3rd party support then even Wii U. It's getting WORSE, not better.

You have everything backwards... cause and effect. It's not 3rd parties that's the problem, it's NINTENDO.

The evidence is everywhere. Nintendo's fall from grace is plenty enough.

You have to stop saying Nintendo's hands are tied, when they themselves CHOSE to tie them up.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

Sorry, but no.
You're the type of person that justifies Activision not putting the DLC content into the Wii U versions of CoD by trying to blame it on the console, instead of the developers.

[captainexplosion]

This console is marketed as home console gaming on the go. For that to work they need home console games. Without 3rd party support they won't get them and it will just feel like a portable that only plays Nintendo games.