-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
North American Nintendo Switch Lineup
- Thread starter Cheebo
- Start date
shinobi602
Member
This feels like this should have come out this holiday. Super rushed, oh Nintendo. Christ.
meanspartan
Member
Or why didn't they just stack Wii U ports on Day 1?
There are a bunch of people out there who have some interest in a handful of Wii U games (Mario Maker, Splatoon, etc) but were not going to buy into an otherwise dead-end console.
Mario Maker Switch on day 1 alongside Zelda would have made the difference for me. Now, I'll wait for first price cut, thanks.
schaft0620
Member
This whole entire thing is a disaster
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Because then they have a year of nothing instead of a year of something.
The launch lineup is terrible, that is for sure. They can't do yet another year of nothing, though.
Others are right--Wii U ports should have filled these gaps on day one--ESPECIALLY Mario Kart, which is a proven system-seller. They've learned nothing.
Yeah...Nintendo is banking way too much on Zelda. It looks awesome, but the target market for a Switch early adopter in all likelihood has a Wii U and can get it on that platform.
I continually am amazed by Nintendo's ability to fuck it up. Hell we still don't have a conclusive PR listing launch games.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
Christ this is dire. I can't even imagine the state of things before the delay.
Pack in a straight Splatoon port and get people ready for 2 in the fall and then bring over Pokken, MK and Smash.
It's ludicrous they can't even do this right.
I remember back in the September #teamdelay threads people argued about whether the Switch would make the end of the fiscal year because we hadn't heard anything about it in such a long time. I don't think anyone seriously expected Nintendo to make the launch date AND have almost no games. By all appearances (online services, internal game development, 3rd parties) this console should have been delayed.
That list should have been a core component of the presentation and I was confused that we didn't get it. Their website fails miserably at presenting this info. Turns out maybe Nintendo wants you to do the math yourself on how few games will be at launch and hopes you won't notice...
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Except for Res0gun, all that shit was on consoles most people already owned.
I'm not saying that they were worse than this launch, but they were shitty launches that no one needed to rush out and buy a new console for. Pretending they were some great, impressive offerings is the definition of revionist bullshit.
It wasn't a joke meme. If you already owned a console from the prior gen, the first year of the PS4 was pretty fucking empty. It was mostly ports of games from a system I already owned or indie titles that I also could have gotten on a system I already owned.
Interfectum
Gold Member
Because that is the easiest way to showcase to the random hardcore gamer the idea of why one would want or need a hybrid console.
"You guys like Hitman, Skyrim, Overwatch, etc? How would you like it if you could take those games anywhere with you?"
Bear Force One
Banned
Wait. Seriously? Who approved this? What sort of moron?
Yeah, I totally remember 64 player Battlefield on the PS3. Oh wait, that wasn't a thing. Even the cross-gen games had large, often meaningful changes. Those launches were fine.
Vyse The Legend
Member
Portable Overwatch would singlehandedly make this a successful launch.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Please, no one was running out to spend $400 because of those "Large, meaningful changes". It sold because it was reasonably priced and they showed good future support for the system. The vast majority of those ports are typical cross gen ports. Some of which, didn't launch particularly well on the new platform and needed patching.
The PS4 launch was so shitty it made Knack sell millions of copies because people were so starved for games.
Fourth Storm
Member
Western third parties are never coming back, are they?
Where is Persona 5 ? DQ Builders ? World of FF ?
Sometimes I wonder whether Nintendo cares at all. I don't think these games would've been hard to acquire at all for the system.
Persona 5 would've been so good as a launch period game.
They got way too comfortable with Zelda.
Sometimes I wonder whether Nintendo cares at all. I don't think these games would've been hard to acquire at all for the system.
Persona 5 would've been so good as a launch period game.
They got way too comfortable with Zelda.
Kremzeek
Member
this article sums up my disappointing feelings about Switch launch games:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/13/14261590/nintendo-switch-launch-games-list-zelda
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/13/14261590/nintendo-switch-launch-games-list-zelda
Another thought- from rumors and timing I think we can somewhat reasonably conclude that MK 8, ARMS, and probably Splatoon 2 could be launch titles if needed (heck rumors are Mario is ready as well). While I understand the desire to space releases out and ensure a steady stream of content, Nintendo is making a huge mistake by not moving something else to launch to compensate for frankly horrible lineup numbers wise.
McMoneyman
Member
Thought World of FF was a given. Kingdom Hearts people were speculating over, but I figured that series probably wasn't gonna leave the Playstation(1.5, 2.5 and 2.8 that is).
Barry Burton
Member
You're still asking them to buy those games again, though, in addition to the new console hardware. It's a tough ask. That's the problem with Nintendo launching when the ecosystems for those multiplatform games have been well-established over the course of years.
I just don't see the value added for those potential consumers, or Nintendo for that matter, in securing old ports. It's Batman Armored Edition all over again.
Now, if you're saying it'd be in Nintendo's best interest to try and secure new multiplats day-and-date on Switch going forward? I can buy that. I still am not sure how many potential PS4/XBO/PC players would be willing to make the switch for portability of AAA multiplatform games, but surely it's more than those who will rush out at launch for games they've already played, no?
Maybe it was more than one factor, like most things? Something like moving to 64 players in Battlefield was huge for console-only players.
That said, a garbage launch lineup and the inevitable Nintendo droughts to follow aren't quite on the same level.
Interfectum
Gold Member
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
It's really kind of astonishing how poor the launch lineup is compared to the Wii U.
onemanasylum
Banned
Whatever makes you sleep at night...By then last gen was 8 years old, people wanted to move, the graphics jump/improve features (Sharing, suspend resume, etc).. alone was worth it, sales show that...that's not the case with nintendo. Again, the steady stream of third parties, and indies kept the the lineup fresh always. Again Nintendo has non of this, or the credibility of Sony or MS for people to jump in and trust that the games will come.
The first year was far from empty, i had more games then any other system.
Rygar 8 Bit
Jaguar 64-bit
zelda and bomber man r
Zen_Arcade
Banned
So, they did what pretty much every cross gen port in the history of cross gen ports did? Looked better than what they were going to look on the previous gen.
Again, nothing you're saying here speaks to the fact that PS4 had some great launch line up. It's a bunch of people wanting something new and a console putting new interesting features up with the promise of good support in the future. You literally listed a bunch of things that weren't the launch line up, which is what I was talking about. Fresh was the literal opposite of what the PS4 launch was. It felt like they were putting out a box that primarily played better looking versions of the games you could have bought on the system you already had.
I'm not aruging that Sony didn't have more going for it overall, or that people should be giving Nintendo the same benefit of the doubt they gave Sony at that time. I'm just saying that the actual launch line up wasn't exactly what anyone was calling good. Pretending like people were going "Fuck yeah I'll pay $400 and be excited about playing an Assassins Creed game I can play on my current console." is a total crock. For months all people here were talking about was how PS4 had too many ports and remasters and people wondering where the new games were.
I expected way more tbh.I also expected remasters for the most acclaimed 3DS releases.
Pokemon sun & moon HD,just where is it ? Would've been huge.Game is ready.
Interfectum
Gold Member
I think securing older AAA ports for launch would help sell the hybrid nature of the system right off the bat and would lead to the assumption that Switch might get future AAA games.
Right now Nintendo is doing the worst case scenario. They've secured a fairly third party port (Skyrim) that won't even be available within the first six months of the console's life.
Lionel Richie
Member
We'll see how it does. I don't think it will set the world on fire either, but maybe it finds a niche for it. Stranger things have happened.
scoobs
Member
When you put it this way its even more disappointing. Zelda isn't even an exclusive for the system and its their only interesting release title. They didn't make anything else to prepare for launch (I'm not counting whatever 1,2 Switch is)... its stunning really.
KidGalactus
Member
Mario Kart comes out in April. Not perfect, but not a catastrophe
The launch lineup is pretty poor, but there are so many TBD titles that there have to be a hell of a lot more in the launch window. I can't imagine they just have ten or so games for the first three months of the system's life. I remember my PS4 collecting dust as I waited for a good game to release on the system, so it's not unprecedented, but I suspect Nintendo held a few cards close to their chest for E3 and a pre-launch Direct.
The Strokes
Banned
Scorpio.
Barry Burton
Member
But as we've seen in the past, if those games don't sell, the future support isn't going to happen. And they don't sell because the audience isn't there. Who doesn't have access to Skyrim or GTA? Same as with the Wii U, it's Nintendo loyalists who only buy Nintendo devices, and historically tend to not buy a whole lot of third party games. It's a small, shrinking audience that has never been a boon for third parties.
I just never expected for one second that we'd see that kind of support at launch. Sure, it would make that lineup appear a whole heck of lot better, but taking the long view I just don't see that panning out any better than it did with Wii U.
With a March launch, I don't think it matters as much what games they have day one. I think for the general consumer base, decision time on the Switch will be this holiday. Nintendo will get the suckers like me to get it at launch for Zelda, but I'm far more interested in seeing what they do at E3, what they do this fall/holiday, etc. That's going to go a lot further towards determining the Switch's fortunes than what happens in March. It's a sucky launch lineup, I'm not defending it or excusing it, it just wasn't a surprise to me in the slightest and I'm not overly concerned about what it means going forward, at least not today.
arts&crafts
Member
Should have just moved the release to Mario Kart or moved Mario Kart to release for 2 "system sellers"
boondock18
Member
I'll probably wait until Christmas, but man I want to play some of that Bomberman and Arms now.
Like the hat?
Banned
I'm not buying Skyrim at $60 in the fall. but I would have bought it at $60 at launch.
TheAmazingXemo
Member
I preordered the system and four games. The launch lineup ain't great, but it ain't so bad either.
Like the hat?
Banned
have the new Zelda amiibo gone up and sold out on amazon, or have they not been put up for sale yet?
DarkChronic
Member
The launch lineup turned me away from Day 1 until picking one up in the fall. Woke up real bummed this morning.
I love the Switch and there is some great stuff on the way - but I just can't justify $360 for a Zelda machine right now. Wii U it is!
I love the Switch and there is some great stuff on the way - but I just can't justify $360 for a Zelda machine right now. Wii U it is!
Parmadillo Marshmallow
Member
Pre-order cancelled, literally. I had one from Target, saw the launch line up and 2017 schedule, went and cancelled.
All I want right now is a high-res 3DS replacement. I will get a Switch when either Monster Hunter or Pokemon are available for it. Zelda looks great but I don't see anything else in 2017 that I would pull the trigger on, so I guess Zelda will have to wait.
All I want right now is a high-res 3DS replacement. I will get a Switch when either Monster Hunter or Pokemon are available for it. Zelda looks great but I don't see anything else in 2017 that I would pull the trigger on, so I guess Zelda will have to wait.
TheBanditKing
Member
Not seeing a good reason to buy this at launch really. I like what they showed but most of the good/great stuff is 6 to 8 months away and even then I'm looking at just 3 games.