An Open Letter to Nintendo Switch Owners, From a PlayStation Vita Owner

The words ‘Nintendo Switch’ have been hot out of every gamer’s mouth since its release; whether it is a journalist’s thinkpiece, the inevitable praising of Breath of the Wild as if it was the second coming of Jesus Christ himself, or general discussion on the system and its potential. The Nintendo Switch is bringing gamers back to a nostalgic time of anticipation and uncertainty.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

Basically "wait to buy the Switch" right?
Thanks for the cautionary tale, but there's one key difference you're overlooking on the Switch as opposed to the Vita.

With the Switch, numerous big name third parties have either alluded, or outright said, that they are waiting to see sales before deciding on going all in with the Switch.

So if you don't want the Switch to end up like the Vita, if you actually want big name third parties to put games on it, then the absolute WORST thing you could do, is encourage people to wait on buying it.

Just saying.

[AntonyMatthews]

'Buy it because the big guys want you to show them promising numbers and charts' is no reason to purchase a system with very little to offer to begin with, either.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

If the precondition were anything other than needing to see numbers before the big guys will move, on any system with a less promising future, I would absolutely agree with you.
Again, this all comes back to whether or not you want to see the system get lots of AAA third parties.
If you don't give a damn about the console, neither will the big name third parties who are forcing you to wait on them by not moving until sales are there.
You either invest and see the Switch get some of those big names you say you want to see on the system, or you sit on the sidelines, and watch the Switch live or die by the strength of indies, exclusives, and first parties,

It's up to you whether you want to invest in improving its lineup with a purchase sooner rather than later, but either way, that's how third parties have set things up.
They're piling the grunt work of system sales onto consumers before their own games will show up to affect system sales.

No one likes it, but that's how it is.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@wonde- no that's just the way it is for Nintendo , they are the ones that historically sell crap numbers in the first place

I'm sorry but the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One launched with Call of Duty and Battlefield along with other huge third-party series.

It was not a wait-and-see for them because they actually trust those manufacturers to properly make a damn platform to support their games

It will never be a "wait-and-see" for the majority that actually hold the market share. ..

When you hold the majority market share you basically only the entire Market it actually means when Sony and Microsoft released next-generation platforms that technically is when the next Generation begins in those developers eyes because they own the market share to control that decision.

In regards to the Home console Market Sony and Microsoft have an absolutely ludicrous market share in which they are the ones that determine when those generation start , not Nintendo.

where shadow of War on the switch? Do you honest to God really believe that just because the platform is releasing after PlayStation 4 and Xbox one that companies will shift all of their development to a weaker platform? If you have to beg for support when your platform releases after the fact that you're already on the wrong foot.

Third parties support Sony and Microsoft the very day they released new Platforms in regards to Home console because they understand that they carry the majority of the market Nintendo does not their system just sold 14 million they are the ones that need to beg for consumers to take the gamble there is no gambling when you buy a Playstation or Xbox and has a history of support and it will continue to get that support so long as those companies continue to keep their end of the bargain to third parties.

If you want to know why this is happening simply asked Nintendo why did decided to make a system that had less technical features than its Rivals 3 years into a generation if you want support you still have to meet what third parties want in the first.

You are a small mom-and-pop shop begging for the ice cream vendor without a freezer while Walmart and Publix are openly letting that vendor know that they have a freezer at no cost if they want to sell their product.

You have to beg for that vendors support , Walmart and Target do not because they provide that vendor what they need to house their product

you need to please dear God take your grievance with Nintendo not the vendor or consumers.

Customers did not tell Nintendo to not buy a freezer when begging for ice cream vendors support

Why should I third party support a company that doesn't even support their own Endeavors?

There is a reason why Final Fantasy 7 is a PlayStation 1 game in not in N64 game

[Ephemeralespoir]

I agree, if you want a system to succeed, you have to support it. While the Switch has a current lackluster library, I know Nintendo will fully support it.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Lol no.

The other way around ,if the company wants to system supported they need to be able to support third parties wishes if they want those games to be on their platform in the first place.

I understand with the Wii U that they could not really predict what Sony or Microsoft was going to do, okay we could just said It was a mistake but for god sakes for 3 years now they already knew with the existing Hardware was going to be, this system fails solely on Nintendo's terrible choices.

I do not believe it is upon the consumer to determine a platform success that is not their job they have no ode to any company to do any favors or anything like that at the end of the day this system should be providing the user with something that they actually need from the get-go if they're unable to provide that that is their loss.

This is not a charity and that is not how business works so please dear God stop trying to blame consumers for this company's shortcomings they fail because of their bad choices.

Give me something I want and I will give you something you want that is classic business Concept in until they're able to provide users with that type of understanding I see no reason to bend over backwards and purchase something based on some sort of Promise of future success.

[Spenok]

Nintendo fully supported the WiiU... look how that turned out.

[Paytaa]

I say everyone stops telling others what to do with their money.

[AntonyMatthews]

This is why it is called an opinion piece.

[Paytaa]

And I'm also giving an opinion piece

[Wallstreet37]

Hey monkey we been enemies on here lol bcus I tell it how it is with Nintendos bs decisions but feel free to pm me your switch id and I'll add you :)

[_-EDMIX-_]

I don't know why you keep saying this even though numerous users including myself as actually corrected you

the number of sales this actually gets is still not going to determine if some games release on the platform, at the end of the day the Wiis success did not determine whether or not Mass Effect or Resident Evil or Battlefield or what-have-you appeared on the platform, the platform was unable to actually support those games so it never did , so please stop making it sound as if if the sales exist so will all of the games because the Wii is a great example to show that is not necessarily the case.

this system is very likely for a fact on able to support some of those games

There's a reason why those developers are not making PlayStation 3 in 360 games in fact there's a reason why some of them are not making Wii U games so why on Earth would the switch be any different if you consider the three platforms I mentioned have larger install bases?

[Aenea]

Meh, not buying a Switch this year because of third party games that more than likely will also release on other consoles, I will buy it for the Nintendo first party titles!

[Aenea]

Two people don't think I will buy a Switch for Nintendo first party titles! Funny! 😂

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

@edmix
" no that's just the way it is for Nintendo , they are the ones that historically sell crap numbers in the first place"

No, ed.
That's shifting the goalposts away from what third parties directly said.
They are waiting for sales to show there's enough of an audience to buy their games.
It is quite literally that simple. You're complicating it for the sake of Nintendo blaming.

[r2oB]

Its actually not that simple because it's such an ambiguous statement. How big of an audience is enough? What types of games do they plan to support the Switch with? Serious question, do you think the Switch will be able to run new AAA games that will be releasing in 2019? Or will it get watered down versions.

It's easy for a company to renege on such an unclear claim. It's quite literally as simple as "15 million consoles just isn't enough for a return on investment, sorry."

[_-EDMIX-_]

If 3rd party are waiting for something to happen upon Nintendo in regards to sales it's because they have to do that in the first place, they do not have a history of large numbers and Trust.

Did they have to do this on PlayStation 4 and Xbox one? We had Assassin's Creed Destiny Call of Duty Battlefield and every major huge third-party property releasing on those platforms they did not need to "wait and see" because Sony and Microsoft are the majority they carry the most market share.

Nintendo is the one that needs to wait and see they are the ones that need to beg for support ,they are the ones that it's easy for third parties to say no to, the fact that they're even waiting shows they have an option to NOT support the platform that is something cannot they cannot do on Playstation or Xbox.

When PlayStation 5 in the next Xbox release 100% guaranteed they are getting a massive amount of support by default because they carry the majority , that means the next Battlefield the next Call of Duty the next Watch Dogs Assassin's Creed what have you will likely launch on their platforms no questions asked they don't need to question that support with Nintendo that support is questioned

I'm still not really sure you don't understand how this works it's almost as if you don't want to come to a logical understanding that this is actually not normal in regards to business.

If a vendor is telling a small retail chain that they're going to wait and see on their store numbers before supporting them what do you think about that?

Do you think that same vendors going to tell Walmart they're going to wait and see? The largest retailer in regards to brick-and-mortar?

😂😂😂&# 128514;

You're having a very hard time explaining how this happens to Sony or Microsoft, OH WAIT it doesn't...

Sony and Microsoft essentially own the hardcore Market in regards to Home console the Wii U selling 14 million in the wiis architecture and low technology confirmed that Sony and Microsoft for the foreseeable future would owb that entire Market , they essentially could release their new platforms at any time with guaranteed support by the majority third-party no "wait and see" necessary they've already proven that they own the majority market share

that isn't subjective , that's actually a real fact backed up with numbers, you're arguing against math...

[r2oB]

@ monkey man

Personally, I feel a company should, in some capacity, earn my money. As a consumer I don't want to have to earn their business. If third parties are waiting for sales to jump on board, then the onus is on Nintendo to entice consumers to buy their product. After the Wii and WiiU, you can't expect gamers to just buy the Switch based on the potential of getting third party support. Especially considering there is no way for us to know what the install base has to be before it's worthwhile for third party developers. It could take years to reach the amount (say, for arguments sake, 20 million install base), and even if it does, it will take even longer after that for them to finish developing the games (development times are usually over two years). So best case scenario, Switch starts getting new AAA third party games over three years after launch. And we are supposed to shell out money and wait that long? It's quite the conundrum.

[BG11579]

Well, what killed third party for the PSP and the Vita was piracy.
So, I believe it will also kill the Switch.

[ninsigma]

That's a terrible reason to buy it. Buy it if you want it not because over what outside companies have said. Lots of people will want to wait and see based on Nintendos previous console support. This people should not just go out buy one because 3rd parties want to see big numbers. That's a red flag for me straight away. The fact they're waiting to see numbers shows they aren't committed so it's likely they aren't going to support it fully or possibly not at all in the years to come. There was none of this we want to see numbers when the other consoles released. Sure they made their games cross gen but they never had a problem supporting the other 2 from the get go.

[rainslacker]

The Vita had plenty of 3rd party support. Some big, plenty of mid-tier, and plenty of low end games.

Vita in fact has an exceptionally high attach rate.

Problem is, people didn't buy the games early on, because around forums all we heard was there were no games, or they were poor ports, despite that not being the case. Later, Sony dropped marketing to the point that people forgot about it. Eventually, most developers moved on, namely because Sony dropped western support.

A console's install base doesn't mean there won't be support. A system just needs software sales. Those sales need to be from more than just 1st party games. WiiU didn't lose support due to low sales, it lost support because those early games on the system failed to sell.

I get the reasoning you're going for, but I also brought a WiiU, and I'm not going to go on spec with the system. I already did that with X1, and that's enough disappointment for one gen. If Nintendo wants my cash, they need to prove that they are going to care for more than just their 1st party line up.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

"If Nintendo wants my cash, they need to prove that they are going to care for more than just their 1st party line up."

They're already doing so by working harder with outside developers and spreading out releases, instead of cramming everything notable straight into the launch.
Nintendo cannot just force third parties to halt projects that are already almost done for the sake of Switch versions, dude, and they equally cannot just force third parties to make games people will buy their system for.

Also, you have to remember that it's not Nintendo forcing third parties to say that they're waiting on us.
Third parties are waiting because even their AAA's didn't pull none-Nintendo gamers to the Wii U, so now they're taking the reverse course with the Switch by waiting for the numbers first.
And if what you're waiting for is third party games, then you are perpetuating the vicious cycle of no games coming because you, and many others, don't put your effort out where third parties see it and respond to it.

I'm not saying that in a mean or bashing way, btw.
I'm just stating facts.

The plain and simple fact is that third parties are waiting on us, and if you won't get a Switch for first party games, exclusives, or indies, and are waiting for third parties to react, then you're creating the very cycle you don't want, because third parties are waiting on you and others like you, no matter what Nintendo does.

If you want third parties, you need to be the one to act first.
Those few big AAA devs have made it perfectly clear that they're waiting on comsumers, regardless of whatever Nintendo says to them.
Be the change, because waiting is a fruitless endeavor.

[rainslacker]

Yeah, well, we've been here before with the WiiU. They had some decent support early on, then when the software didn't sale, Nintendo didn't really care much anymore. So, while I'll buy a Switch at some point, I'm still not going to jump in for the couple games they have now.

Beyond that, it's not just 3rd party support in general, but rather, compelling 3rd party support that makes it worth while to me. I don't need a Switch for what I can get on the Vita. I don't need a switch for multi-plats. The system either has to have enough first party games released that I want to play, which will take some time, or good 3rd party support.

Don't assume what 3rd party devs are going to do. Never assume. Sales mean everything when it comes to publishers deciding where to release. Never take the feel good talks of publishers or devs saying how much they're going to support a system early on. It means nothing. It meant nothing on the WiiU, it meant nothing on the Wii. Software sales mean everything, and it's not up to us to just buy games now hoping that it'll incentivize more games. There is no need because there are other places to play now.

There is no vicious cycle. Publishers release early on platforms to get that initial early adopter sale. If the software doesn't sell them at a certain percentage to the user base, then there won't be more games. Publishers are very well aware of this paradigm. That being said, the competition doesn't have this problem ,and Nintendo consoles don't sell such low numbers that they should be having this problem either. This leaves the problem squarely on Nintendo.

Think of it this way. Go ask any random person who isn't a fan of Nintendo, but interested in the hardware, to name a single non-Nintendo game being released, and chances are, they won't be able to. Even right now, the only one I can really think of is bomberman, but that's just because I love that IP, and Rime, because it's been making some rounds in the news lately.

That being said, I didn't take your comment as an attack.

But, if publishers and devs are waiting on us, then I guess the software support is going to not go anywhere fast.

More likely scenario is though, that Nintendo will supplant it's 3DS with the Switch, as well as make it their home console solution. By doing so, they'll get the hardware sales, which will get them the software support. When that time comes, I'll get the system.

[FBNS]

It has always been wait and see by 3rd party... Did you forget how many companies didn't want to develope for ps3. Once The numbers grew, it started to shift. And it's happened pretty much every generation since nes

[Dragonscale]

@wonder, so you're saying people should buy the switch to ensure 3rd party support rather than Nintendo ensuring 3rd party support to get people to buy the switch. Sorry but it doesn't work like that. Its Nintendo who need to step up their game tbh.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

There's nothing Nintendo can do to force that.
Even if the Switch was a carbon copy of the Scorpio, third parties would still hold back because of how things went before.

So yeah, this is a unique case where it DOES "work like that."
If you want to see third parties on Switch, you DO need to act first.
And the reason it is like that, is because that's what some of these third party devs have stated as their position.
Not Nintendo.
Third parties.

No amount of "stepping up their game" is going to get Nintendo the method needed to force you to buy a Switch for third parties.
Nor can Nintendo force, coerce, or magically convince these same-said third parties to suddenly scrounge up extra money, time, and effort to interrupt current projects just to get them out on Switch sooner rather than later, because third parties aren't going to want to delay their projects just for Nintendo's sake, and late versions don't sell well enough to be worth it on their own

Some of these third parties need heavy justification to move forward.
And like it or not, YOUR PURCHASE of the Switch, IS that justification.

If you want third parties to show effort, you need to be there first.
Because third parties, not Nintendo, said so.

Let me say that again, for emphasis; Because third parties, NOT NINTENDO, said so.

[Spenok]

If there's no games for the system, which there currently is only 1 reason to buy the Switch atm (Zelda of course), of course I'm going to wait. Seeing as how this system can barely out-perform its predecessor (and even under-perform it in some cases), why would I buy ANY multiplatforms for it? There has been comparisons for it such as for Dragon Quest Heroes 2, and it runs about as good as the Vita version. Yes it looks a lot better, but general performance is awful. Literally EVERY time you enter combat it struggles.

So that pretty much leaves exclusives, be they from Nintendo or not. This system won't be worth it for anything else. Especially considering games like Skyrim look like their original 2011 counterparts.

That doesn't even consider any of the systems other drawbacks like de-syncing joy cons, terrible range on it's wireless functions, scratching the screen, bad battery time while undocked, it's charging port being on the bottom so you can't charge it while using the kick stand, the joy con addons getting stuck if you put them on wrong etc and so on ad nauseum. I'm most certainly waiting to pick it up. It's just not worth it.

[DarXyde]

A big difference between Vita and Switch is definitely in support. The Vita suffered because Sony themselves pulled away from the Vita, considering it a legacy platform.

Switch is now Nintendo's main focus and they're very likely to have their 3DS studios and partners supporting it. It should have respectable first and third party support.

My only concern with Switch is that, due to its lack in power relative to the rival hardware, it's unlikely to garner meaningful sales of multiplatform titles. I could be wrong but, hopefully, people will at least buy it for portability reasons so Nintendo can secure that third party support. I've always loved Nintendo as an exclusive machine, so as long as we get plenty of those, I'll be content. Playstation is my main platform so I use the others strictly for worthwhile exclusives. It's my sincerest hope that most gamers aren't like me and buy multiplatform games on Switch to convince developers to stay on board.

[Ephemeralespoir]

Bought the Vita at launch, bought the Switch at launch. Sony was stupid for what they did, but they still had a backup plan with their dominating console. On the other hand, Nintendo has to give this everything they have lest they crumble. That's why I'm placing more faith on this than the failure of a Sony handheld.

[AntonyMatthews]

But there's still a comparison there nonetheless.

Nintendo & Sony need to start actually supporting their systems (more so Sony's handheld, the PlayStation 4 is getting some decent backing by Sony) if they want people to continue trusting them.

Both the Wii U and PS Vita were unexpectedly abandoned and for no actual reason.

[OtakuDJK1NG-Rory]

Nintendo supported the Wii U for 4 full years.
Sony gave up after 3 years for Vita. Not only that Nintendo isn't ashamed to reveal the Wii U sales number every earning.
While Sony just hides the number ever since the 3DS sales skyrocket in mid 2012 by a gigantic margin.

[Knushwood Butt]

^

Wii U has been discontinued.

Vita is still being manufactured.

[RosweeSon]

PS4 is getting decent? Backing it's smashing it out the park Nintendo never fail to support their systems meanwhile Xbox has one new game and a whole new console with the same new game coming out for it. Why aren't microsoft doomed and their lacklustre line up bombarded with hate daily.

[OtakuDJK1NG-Rory]

@LordScorpio
I don't go to Nintendo Life.
The only Nintendo gaming news site I got to is NintendoEverything.
Nice try acting like you know me

How long a system is left on a market doesn't matter to me if it no longer get games.
Do you think I give a damn if the PS3 still on the market when it getting no games announcement and when I no longer have one but have a PS4. NO

[davand114]

The wiiu was abandoned because it was a failure and nintendo was ready to move on and the vita was abandoned by sony because it seems that sony either couldn't afford to support two consoles or they just gave up when they ran into trouble. Nintendo supported two consoles in the wiiu and 3ds. Nintendo is going to throw the support of both their handheld console and home console divisions behind the switch. We are already seeing a lot of the 3rd party devs that supported the 3ds moving to the switch. If the switch can get a mixture of what the wiiu and 3ds had then the console will be very successful and a really good rpg machine.

[Knushwood Butt]

PS3 is still being manufactured too...

[ninsigma]

The big mistake with vita was the memory cards. I just could not justify spending money on those so I was stuck with the small amount that came with it which just made it a pain for installing games.

[feraldrgn]

Yeah, the big problem (even as a Vita supporter myself) were the added costs of the memory cards.

Sony went with their own type instead of supporting SD or others, which pushed the costs up & due to it being the only card of its type, Sony have barely dropped the prices of the cards.

I had the money to get a 64GB card, but I could see how it looks to someone without the extra.
If they dropped the prices of those cards a decent amount, relative to how much they cost to make while still getting a profit (since they already lost a lot on Vita models they had to dump), then I'm sure more people would be interested in the device.

[ninsigma]

I bet software sales were affected as well. I doubt I'm the only one who didn't bother buying bigger cards so I can imagine many just not bothering to buy new games after a while due to small amount of space. It's a shame it had to be like that too because the vita is a great handheld.

[davand114]

Yeah the memory cards cost more than some games.

[rainslacker]

Problem with the Vita is that Sony was never really fully committed to it. At least not in the west. They started off strong, but then focused almost all their efforts onto the PS4, and even the PS3. Vita was a no show at several E3's, barely got any attention at smaller events, and after it's initial marketing push, their advertising dried up.

Support on the Vita was really good the first 2 years or so, then it dropped off a cliff unless you were into Japanese games. It wasn't a matter of software sales, because software sold pretty good on it. It's just that Sony stopped caring, and then publishers stopped caring.

Nintendo will likely be more focused on Switch, but if they get the software support will depend on how well that software sells on the system. On top of that, Nintendo does very little to promote 3rd party, which is something both MS and Sony have made into an art form.

[Mexxan]

Spot on. I picked up my Vita on release day and anticipated a great system. The way Sony sent it out to die was utterly disgusting - I still feel robbed to this day.

[davand114]

Nintendo is going to support the switch unlike Sony did with the vita and Sony was stupid for dropping support of the vita so quickly. The psp was a good handheld console and the vita could've been better if Sony didn't abandon it.

[KuroKiko]

Good thing Nintendo backed up Wii U.. Oh.. Pfft.

[RosweeSon]

Sony to allow Nintendo to take the handheld market?... when has anyone taken the handheld market from Nintendo . iPhones taken a slice these days for sure but Nes Geos Lynxs Game Gears, Psp (came closest) Vita many handhelds bigger better brighter and more technical have come and gone no one has ever truly troubled Nintendos handhelds hence why gameboy line was drip fed with upgrades and even when they went from advance to DS it was still only on par with N64 which psp is going for ps2 ish in your pocket vita went PS3/4 in your pocket and 3ds is like a top end Wii. Still smashed Vita out the park, I got both and enjoy them both but had the 3ds day one and got Vita a year or so after launch (before those new ones with different screens came out) vita wasn't supported 3ds has been. It's had all the top end franchines you would expect Vita didn't get any like psp did and it shows.

[AntonyMatthews]

Having competition means the market isn't fully in their control, you do realise that, right? Letting the Vita die off will give them that control.

The industry needs competition.

[RosweeSon]

Of course otherwise it would mean they have a monopoly over the handheld market they don't they might as well have no ones ever got near to them except psp maybe, but it's theirs Nintendo's to take. It makes it sound like Sony have got a major market share of the handheld or they were ever in 1st place no one has taken Nintendos handheld throne and way things are changing looks like home consoles will start going portable/dockable.
I'm all for competition however bad it is (Xbox1) without it you don't get the best bits from the other consoles like your free games every month.

[Critic4l_Strik3]

Punctuation is important bro.

[RosweeSon]

Yeah if you have time or can be bothered. Spelling without numbers is more important.
If you hadn't notice if just splurge every now and again. Get a bit passionate about these games ;) hardcore gamer and all wouldn't wish people dead tho like some of these crazy people or resort to beating someone up cos they went for an Xbox. Id seriously consider them as a friend 🤔😉✌🏻 If you can afford to it's always good to have a secondary console.

[AntonyMatthews]

Yes.

[AntonyMatthews]

I'm enjoying the comments that are claiming X is better than Y rather than actually getting the point of the piece.

N4G at its finest.

[3-4-5]

* I own both. Both are worth owning.

[AntonyMatthews]

I live with two other people, all of us have our own systems piled up in the living room (including the switch) and we often chill out and play on whatever system we feel like. Never understood the ridiculous dedication some people have for a piece of plastic by a company that just wants your money.

[r2oB]

Dedication to a piece of plastic? Is the concept of limited funds lost upon you? Just because you have the disposable income to own every system doesn't mean others do. And just because people have or chose one platform doesn't mean it's because of dedication to a piece of plastic. There are also people that do have disposable income, but don't see a point in just frivolously spending money on something that's of little value to them.

[The 10th Rider]

@r2oB,

You missed his point. He's not saying you have to buy more than one console, but there's no reason for someone who's not interested in Nintendo games to crap on Breath of the Wild, no reason for someone who's not interested in Uncharted to crap on that, and no reason for someone who has no interest in Halo to crap on that. If a companies games don't interest you, that's fine. If others enjoy them and they're well loved, that's still a good thing.

[RosweeSon]

Agreed. I have no dedication to one company I own all consoles from all manufacturers well I did or have done, Xbox 1 has been sold on, needs more games. Still got my 360 tho. And all the other formats... except for PC 😩🕹

[Skillz1215]

switch is dope so is my vita. Both are fun

[AntonyMatthews]

Definitely if you have the capital to throw on them, yeah. I guess their futures won't bother you at all as you won't feel like you lost anything.

[Sly-Lupin]

At least with the Vita Sony was able to say, "Look, we'll give you backwards compatibility eventually."
And they did, and that was a big reason for PSP gamers--and gamers who never bought a PSP--to grab a Vita.

[nicsaysdie]

@edmix
The reason ff7 was ps1 exclusive was because square couldn't fit the game on a cart, and Nintendo didn't have a disc based system due to their falling out with Sony in the partnership to create the Nintendo/Sony Playstation disc/cartridge hybrid system due to licensing disagreements between the two companies. So when Sony released their Playstation as a disc based system, it gave square the ability to make such a big game and release it on multiple discs. When square told Nintendo they were going to publish with Sony, Nintendo threw a bitch fit. That's why ff7 was exclusive to Playstation. Not because of trust or market share.

[utosser]

nope not worth buying it as yet hardly any games out for it
look what happen with the wiiu how all these developers said we support it blah blah blah and going to bring out cool games for it
nope never did happen at all they all said we no longer support this system.

developers would have to pay Nintendo a license fee and to use there tools to put there games on the system
so in the long run them paying all this money out is not worth it yet.

they can make more money on pc consoles then they can with the switch

its a dodo

bad release hardware failed hardly no games out for it

[AntonyMatthews]

It's just a dangerous time to in it if you aren't a very well-off person.

[itemdrop]

if everyone followed this logic then no one would buy the switch and then it wouldn't have a chance to be a success. If you want the switch to succeed and to be supported. Don't wait, take a chance be an early adopter and buy games for it and enjoy it. support it so it has a chance.

[AntonyMatthews]

You sound like one of the people that would purchase early access games that were never finished.

[itemdrop]

only ever purchased one early access game king of the hill (H1Z1).

[Elronza]

While I am indeed very much pissed off with Nintendo for not having a web browser on the Nintendo Switch, I am not dumb enough to think that the Nintendo Switch will suffer the same fate as the PS Vita; just because Nintendo's first party support will for sure be there unlike Sony who abandoned the PS Vita. And mind you this is coming from a day one 3g PS Vita buyer.

[InahimeHondaSengoku]

Yoshida says there are still first party games on the way to vita. Just Google it from GameSpot. You obviously harp on something negative when you don't have time to look more open minded. :/

You consumers are to blame when Sony put out these first party titles, you didn't support it and have some kind of mindset like a stupid consumer who doesn't get it.

Business works both ways

[mikeslemonade]

Lol pm me 5 times didn't even read it but vita is dead. It's a figure of speech, sorry if your hurt about it. Just cause you own a system doesn't mean you need to defend it. I own a vita and admit it's dead. It's okay.