Support NeoGAF

[Danjin44]

I mostly want Japanese third party support, I have zero desire for 3rd party western games like Assasin's Creed, COD or BF6 which I dont even buy it on PS5 let alone on my Switch 2.

 

[Durin]

I would honestly expect most of them to do it, provided the investment is worth it in their eyes.

The only issue is for certain newer games the amount of effort to make it work on the hardware, or for older games if there even is a market after being available on multiple other console platforms for years.

 

[Rambone]

The original Switch hardware was so outdated and underpowered, part of the fun was seeing whether modern third-party games could even run on it. It became a bit of a meme: "can it run on the Switch?" Witcher 3 felt like a spectacle purely because it existed there. But that novelty's worn off.
Now, when I look at Switch 2 releases, all I see is the worst version of any given game. Full stop. I'm not interested in playing the weakest port of a third-party title anymore, especially when games like Persona 3 Reload cost more on Switch than they do elsewhere.
Sure, some might argue that portability justifies the purchase. But I can do the same thing on a Steam Deck, get equivalent or better performance, and pay less. So what exactly am I paying for here? Inferior performance and inflated prices.
Oh well. Here's to another generation of half-baked ports on an underpowered hybrid.

 

[IDKFA]

No chance either of these games un on a switch 2.

EA already have said that bf6 magic moment was dropping PS4 & XBONE

"Maybe the only magic trick is that we're not on the PS4 or Xbox One any more," Christian Buhl, technical director on Battlefield 6, tells PC Gamer. "So we've kind of raised the floor of what we have in terms of memory and CPU speed, and so obviously raising that floor helps with improving performance overall."


No idea how they get either of these games going on 102GB/s bandwidth

I'm not convinced.

We saw it with the Switch. "Impossible" ports like Witcher 3, Kingdom Come and Doom Eternal.

The Switch 2 will also get "impossible" ports.

I rest my case.

*mic drop*

 

[Woopah]

if you have any of the other consoles or a PC buying third party games on SW2 is just plain dumb. No ones buy Nintendo consoles to play third party games, nobody! Why would anyone want to play the worst version of a game. Oh yeah to play on the go! I have rarely seen anyone play with their switch on the streets, then again I am not around children at all.

There were 100s of millions of third party games sold on Switch. It will be the same for Switch 2.

Space Marine 2, BG3, BoltGun 2, Halo CE, Forza, Jurassic World Evo 3 etc etc

My guess is that publishers don't want stagger their games. There is no reason why any of the games we've both mentioned wouldn't run on the Switch 2, so it's just a matter of time.

Also, FIFA is on the Switch 2 already.

There will be some late ports, and I agree that several of the games you mentioned will come. But there will also be plenty of old games that aren't ported.

I imagine a lot of studios are having to realign their processes to include Switch 2. Between the newer Nvidia tech being used along with DLSS being available, I think there are more possibilities for third party games on Switch 2 than on the first Switch. Key cards probably helped in this regard as well.

Is this a good thing? I'm not so sure. Hopefully Switch 2 still gets third party love that it received before with games like Astral Chain and Triangle Strategy. If third party is dominated by games also available on other systems then that lessens the reasons in owning a Switch 2, imo.

Astral Chain was first party, so those games will keep being exclusive.

But the games of Nintendo publishing SE games in the West are over. Square is fully multiplatform now.

 

[NickFire]

So, where's COD: BO7, GTA6, FIFA, Battlefield 6, etc?

Yup.

Switch 2 is doing very well and I hope it continues. But I'm going to need to see most games that launched (for the first time anywhere) after it was released, on Switch 2, before I consider its third party support to have significantly increased.

 

[yurinka]

If that were the case, most third parties would have abandoned the Switch — but that didn't happen. The only reason the Switch received less support was due to its hardware limitations, and even then, it still managed to get many titles that were once considered impossible for the system.

Sure, 3rd parties can't abandon the Switch because never fully supported it and instead focused on PS and PC.

Switch received less 3rd party support for the same reason than in every single generation of Nintendo consoles since the N64: because they make a better business on PlayStation (and in recent times PC too).

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

Sure, 3rd parties can't abandon the Switch because never fully supported it and instead focused on PS and PC.

Switch received less 3rd party support for the same reason than in every single generation of Nintendo consoles since the N64: because they make a better business on PlayStation (and in recent times PC too).

What are you talking about? Third-party support on the Switch grew significantly, especially after the Wii U's failure. Even compared to the Wii, the Switch managed to get a large number of day-and-date releases for major multiplatform titles. Sure, Sony and Microsoft have stronger third-party support overall — that's expected, given their more powerful hardware — but let's not pretend there hasn't been a major improvement on Nintendo's side. And the trend is only getting stronger. Sorry, but you're starting to sound a bit like a console warrior.

 

[yurinka]

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about all main 3rd party publishers not releasing most of their main games (mainly the AAA ones) on Switch/Switch 2, as happened since N64. And several of the cases they did it, in many cases nobody wanted the Switch version because it did suck compared to the other ones.

Yes, the support in Switch has been an improvement over the abysmal case of WiiU. But still half assed compared to PS and PC, where most 3rd parties have all their main games that aren't moneyhatted by Nintendo.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

I'm talking about all main 3rd party publishers not releasing most of their main games (mainly the AAA ones) on Switch/Switch 2, as happened since N64. And several of the cases they did it, in many cases nobody wanted the Switch version because it did suck compared to the other ones.

Nobody wanted? Most developers who supported the Switch continued to do so — there wasn't a mass withdrawal of third-party support like what happened with the GameCube, for instance. If you think those games or developers "suck," that's your personal opinion, but it doesn't reflect market reality or actual data.

And honestly, that last comment of yours just makes it even clearer that you're acting like a fanboy rather than offering any kind of serious, analytical perspective.

 

[RoboFu]

So, where's COD: BO7, GTA6, FIFA, Battlefield 6, etc?

Devs only got kits this year. There just wasn't enough time. Most of those will come. like...

 

[mckmas8808]

Devs only got kits this year. There just wasn't enough time. Most of those will come. like...

Yeah, I still don't understand why Nintendo took that route though. Seems weird.

 

[yurinka]

Nobody wanted? Most developers who supported the Switch continued to do so — there wasn't a mass withdrawal of third-party support like what happened with the GameCube, for instance. If you think those games or developers "suck," that's your personal opinion, but it doesn't reflect market reality or actual data.

And honestly, that last comment of yours just makes it even clearer that you're acting like a fanboy rather than offering any kind of serious, analytical perspective.

Nah, if something you're the fanboy acting as if Rockstar would put GTA on Switch, Activision CoD, Capcom MH World and Wilds, and the list goes on and on.

Plus as if most main 3rd parties reported sales split per platfoms of their company or games the big majority (not counting mobile) of revenue wouldn't be coming from PS an PC.

And as if game sales in Switch wouldn't be heavily dominated by Nintendo published games.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

Nah, if something you're the fanboy acting as if Rockstar would put GTA on Switch, Activision CoD, Capcom MH World and Wilds, and the list goes on and on.

Plus as if most main 3rd parties reported sales split per platfoms of their company or games the big majority (not counting mobile) of revenue wouldn't be coming from PS an PC.

And as if game sales in Switch wouldn't be heavily dominated by Nintendo published games.

For the last 4 years, 3rd party Switch titles accounted for over 50% of all games sold on the platform

Third party, first in our hearts

gonintendo.com

More than half of the Switch's software sales actually come from third-party titles. That tired fanboy strawman — claiming that because Nintendo's own games top the charts, other titles don't sell — is complete nonsense. Sorry, but that's not an analytical take, it's pure fanboy logic. It's honestly funny how some people seem genuinely bothered by the fact that third parties are supporting Nintendo systems.

 

[VGA-Games]

I'm personally not worried about 3rd Party Support for the Nintendo Switch 2

 

[BlackTron]

The original Switch hardware was so outdated and underpowered, part of the fun was seeing whether modern third-party games could even run on it. It became a bit of a meme: "can it run on the Switch?" Witcher 3 felt like a spectacle purely because it existed there. But that novelty's worn off.
Now, when I look at Switch 2 releases, all I see is the worst version of any given game. Full stop. I'm not interested in playing the weakest port of a third-party title anymore, especially when games like Persona 3 Reload cost more on Switch than they do elsewhere.
Sure, some might argue that portability justifies the purchase. But I can do the same thing on a Steam Deck, get equivalent or better performance, and pay less. So what exactly am I paying for here? Inferior performance and inflated prices.
Oh well. Here's to another generation of half-baked ports on an underpowered hybrid.

This is exactly why Switch is ideal for games where power hardly matters anyway, especially ones that you can really sink some time undocked like tactics games. Aside from Nintendo games, obviously.

Not grabbing that many AAA third party games on it myself, but it has its place.

 

[IDKFA]

The original Switch hardware was so outdated and underpowered, part of the fun was seeing whether modern third-party games could even run on it. It became a bit of a meme: "can it run on the Switch?" Witcher 3 felt like a spectacle purely because it existed there. But that novelty's worn off.
Now, when I look at Switch 2 releases, all I see is the worst version of any given game. Full stop. I'm not interested in playing the weakest port of a third-party title anymore, especially when games like Persona 3 Reload cost more on Switch than they do elsewhere.
Sure, some might argue that portability justifies the purchase. But I can do the same thing on a Steam Deck, get equivalent or better performance, and pay less. So what exactly am I paying for here? Inferior performance and inflated prices.
Oh well. Here's to another generation of half-baked ports on an underpowered hybrid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Switch 2 smokes the Steam Deck in performance. Look at Cyberpunk on the Switch 2. Incredible port and the full game is on the cartridge. If the game runs poorly on the Switch 2, that's down to the devs.

 

[Rambone]

This is exactly why Switch is ideal for games where power hardly matters anyway, especially ones that you can really sink some time undocked like tactics games. Aside from Nintendo games, obviously.

Not grabbing that many AAA third party games on it myself, but it has its place.

I would agree, there are games that work and adapt very well to the Nintendo Switch that are easily worth sinking some time into. I'd say that overall most of the games are pretty serviceable although there are sometimes tradeoffs with lower resolutions, ugly looking textures now and then, and games that simply can't hold a stable 30fps.

By the end of the generation I was getting a little tired of the tradeoffs and felt like some titles that released exclusively to the Switch, such as Shin Megami Tensei V, deserved much better than that hardware. I can only wonder what the scope of the game could have been like if it started life on better hardware and skipped Switch altogether. Then there are games like Pokémon Scarlet and Violet that just ran and looked terrible on the system, but a lot of this I boil down to the developers.

The novelty of running games on the Switch 1 has worn off and I'm not interested in low resolutions and 30fps in my games at this point. I'm just hoping this generation the hardware on the Switch 2 is enough to at least push beyond 1080p with keep a stable 45–60fps. But it seems like titles such as Persona 3 Reload are still dealing with 30fps and anywhere between 720p–1080p resolutions with dynamic scaling. It's disappointing, and while this can come down to developer issues, if we keep seeing examples like this it suggests the Switch 2 hardware isn't strong enough to brute force past weak optimization and developer incompetency.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Switch 2 smokes the Steam Deck in performance. Look at Cyberpunk on the Switch 2. Incredible port and the full game is on the cartridge. If the game runs poorly on the Switch 2, that's down to the devs.

I wouldn't say the Switch 2 smokes the Steam Deck in performance but I will absolutely say that CDPR are miracle workers. The Switch 2 version of Cyberpunk 2077 is an incredible port and a valiant effort from them as always. I just wish other developers would approach the hardware with the same level of skill and care. Too often it feels like studios lack the talent or whatever magic CDPR brings to the table, and instead we end up needing stronger hardware to brute force past their shortcomings.

 

[DeafTourette]

I would agree, there are games that work and adapt very well to the Nintendo Switch that are easily worth sinking some time into. I'd say that overall most of the games are pretty serviceable although there are sometimes tradeoffs with lower resolutions, ugly looking textures now and then, and games that simply can't hold a stable 30fps.

By the end of the generation I was getting a little tired of the tradeoffs and felt like some titles that released exclusively to the Switch, such as Shin Megami Tensei V, deserved much better than that hardware. I can only wonder what the scope of the game could have been like if it started life on better hardware and skipped Switch altogether. Then there are games like Pokémon Scarlet and Violet that just ran and looked terrible on the system, but a lot of this I boil down to the developers.

The novelty of running games on the Switch 1 has worn off and I'm not interested in low resolutions and 30fps in my games at this point. I'm just hoping this generation the hardware on the Switch 2 is enough to at least push beyond 1080p with keep a stable 45–60fps. But it seems like titles such as Persona 3 Reload are still dealing with 30fps and anywhere between 720p–1080p resolutions with dynamic scaling. It's disappointing, and while this can come down to developer issues, if we keep seeing examples like this it suggests the Switch 2 hardware isn't strong enough to brute force past weak optimization and developer incompetency.



I wouldn't say the Switch 2 smokes the Steam Deck in performance but I will absolutely say that CDPR are miracle workers. The Switch 2 version of Cyberpunk 2077 is an incredible port and a valiant effort from them as always. I just wish other developers would approach the hardware with the same level of skill and care. Too often it feels like studios lack the talent or whatever magic CDPR brings to the table, and instead we end up needing stronger hardware to brute force past their shortcomings.

Resident Evil Requiem on the Switch 2 looks amazing with a high frame rate ... It's definitely down to the devs and the game engine.

 

[Rambone]

Resident Evil Requiem on the Switch 2 looks amazing with a high frame rate ... It's definitely down to the devs and the game engine.

I'll hold off final judgment until launch, but proper optimization is key. What I don't want to see this generation is a wave of lazy ports with minimal effort. Consistent, well‑tuned releases should be the standard, not the exception.

 

[bitbydeath]

I think devs will still struggle power wise, but I do expect more happening, especially with Xbox dropping out.

 

[Robb]

It'll be the first Nintendo system since GC to receive a mainline Resident Evil from Capcom day 1.. I didn't have that on my bingo card.

I can definitely see this thing get way more support than most other Nintendo systems. Game Key Cards be damned.

 

[blacktout]

Nah, if something you're the fanboy acting as if Rockstar would put GTA on Switch, Activision CoD, Capcom MH World and Wilds, and the list goes on and on.

Setting aside the larger argument here, this is a pretty silly list for you to use as evidence, since Activision is contractually obligated to put Call of Duty on the Switch 2, and Monster Hunter Rise is one of the best selling games on the original Switch. Capcom absolutely wants to put Monster Hunter on the Switch 2. It's just a matter of whether they can get Wilds running or if they make an original title for the system like Rise.

So two out of your three examples are poorly chosen.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

The Switch 2 has received games from Capcom, Square Enix, EA, CD Projekt RED, Atlus, Ubisoft, SEGA, etc.

In addition, games have been announced from From Software, Take-Two, Microsoft, etc.

Third-party support is fine.

Third party support is launch video "throw stuff at the wall so people will buy" plus all the ports from the last few years made at close to no cost with heavy use of Gamecards.
I understand most Switch users have been starving for anything outside Nintendo, but majority of gamers simply bought a more powerful console and moved on.

 

[Radical_3d]

 

[Woopah]

Nah, if something you're the fanboy acting as if Rockstar would put GTA on Switch, Activision CoD, Capcom MH World and Wilds, and the list goes on and on.

Plus as if most main 3rd parties reported sales split per platfoms of their company or games the big majority (not counting mobile) of revenue wouldn't be coming from PS an PC.

And as if game sales in Switch wouldn't be heavily dominated by Nintendo published games.

Publishers are becoming more multiplatform, not less. Just because a game/franchise sells more on one platform doesn't mean it shouldn't come to other platforms.

And your original argument was "some 3rd parties will release a game or two on the new Nintendo device, and after getting abysmal sales they'll move on". Which was blatantly untrue for Switch.

Third party support is launch video "throw stuff at the wall so people will buy" plus all the ports from the last few years made at close to no cost with heavy use of Gamecards.
I understand most Switch users have been starving for anything outside Nintendo, but majority of gamers simply bought a more powerful console and moved on.

How do you expect later third party support to compare to launch window support?

 

[Baemono]

3rd party support has improved, but if you're a console gamer I'm not sure why you would ever make the Switch 2 your primary 3rd party console of choice. Unless you really are adamant to only have one console or really need to play everything on the go.

Portability is neat, especially since now the games don't look like shit.

But it seems like titles such as Persona 3 Reload are still dealing with 30fps and anywhere between 720p–1080p resolutions with dynamic scaling. It's disappointing, and while this can come down to developer issues, if we keep seeing examples like this it suggests the Switch 2 hardware isn't strong enough to brute force past weak optimization and developer incompetency.

Persona 3 being 30fps with low resolution is purely on Altus. How can an open world game with RT runs better than an anime-style game in closed environments ?

 

[PeteBull]

We got proof even relatively demanding 3rd party games this gen can be downported(aka downgraded enough) to be playable on switch2, which means it will be safe till crossgen period with next gen ends(2030 earliest, 2032 latest).
Ofc there are few exceptions that i think have really low probability of getting switch2 port, in that i would include gta6(we dont even know how badly dowraded and how much of a blurry mess its gonna be on series s) and witcher4(which is sheduled for 2027 but lets not deceive ourselfs- game gonna be delayed at least once and will likely launch sometime in 2028 aka it will be crossgen period already).

What i think will be close to impossible to get switch2 port are games that have big amount of raytracing(not just shadows and/or reflections) as a base(which will happen when ps6 launches) coz by that time devs wont account for low/lowest settings without rt at all.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

How do you expect later third party support to compare to launch window support?

If it requires anything more than minimum level of effort it won't happen, just a few days back we got Nintendo results - 50% of ALL software since launch has been...Mario Kart World. Think about it, one game accounts for half of all the software sold. I am sure even the heave hitters at launch such as CP2077 sold at 50-80K max, and this shouldn't be a surprise:

1. People played these games for a few years at this point on other consoles
2. People were conditioned that Nintendo console = Nintendo games, if you want to play something else you get something else, so they went to invest in PS5/XSX (lol)/PC, so IMO it's a little bit of "too little, too late"

 

[Baemono]

We got proof even relatively demanding 3rd party games this gen can be downported(aka downgraded enough) to be playable on switch2

I mean people were expecting this

and got this

We'll see how Assassin's Creed Shadows will perform (and even RE quiem) but it looks to be leagues ahead of Switch 1

 

[RoadHazard]

Great running/looking muliplats like Cyberpunk, Jedi Survivor and Resident Evil Requiem prove that, unlike Switch 1, the Switch 2 is more than capable of keeping up with its PlayStation counterpart.

Well, for now. Once the PS6 is out that's out the window again.

 

[Woopah]

If it requires anything more than minimum level of effort it won't happen, just a few days back we got Nintendo results - 50% of ALL software since launch has been...Mario Kart World. Think about it, one game accounts for half of all the software sold. I am sure even the heave hitters at launch such as CP2077 sold at 50-80K max, and this shouldn't be a surprise:

1. People played these games for a few years at this point on other consoles
2. People were conditioned that Nintendo console = Nintendo games, if you want to play something else you get something else, so they went to invest in PS5/XSX (lol)/PC, so IMO it's a little bit of "too little, too late"

It's 50% of all software without including digital only games or digital Switch 2 edition. And it won't stay at 50% throughout Switch 2's life, just how BOTW's % didn't stay so high throughout Switch's life.

Switch had 100s of millions of third party sales, so the idea of "Nintendo console = Nintendo games" simply isn't true.

Will people buy lots of late ports? No, I don't think so. In general I expect new games to sell better than games which have been available on other platforms for years (except for the bigger ports). We're already seeing games that require more than a minimal effort and we will continue to do so.

 

[Baemono]

Will people buy lots of late ports? No, I don't think so. In general I expect new games to sell better than games which have been available on other platforms for years (except for the bigger ports). We're already seeing games that require more than a minimal effort and we will continue to do so.

Indeeed, which seems like most 3rd parties think the same. I was expecting a lot of PS4 ports, at least during the Switch 2's early days, but so far it seems like publishers are more keen to release new/recent games rather than porting 7/10 YO games.

 

[Woopah]

Indeeed, which seems like most 3rd parties think the same. I was expecting a lot of PS4 ports, at least during the Switch 2's early days, but so far it seems like publishers are more keen to release new/recent games rather than porting 7/10 YO games.

It will vary by publisher and their different strategies.

It was mostly ports at launch, but as time has gone on there will be more and more new games released.

I still expect lots of PS4/PS5 ports in the coming years, but we'll also see new games from every major publisher.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Switch had 100s of millions of third party sales, so the idea of "Nintendo console = Nintendo games" simply isn't true.

List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What I see is Nintendo + Monster Hunter + Stardew Valley, then for long, long, long time nothing.

Indeeed, which seems like most 3rd parties think the same. I was expecting a lot of PS4 ports, at least during the Switch 2's early days, but so far it seems like publishers are more keen to release new/recent games rather than porting 7/10 YO games.

It would have been a really difficult sale for $49.99 for something you can get on other platform at sub-$10, much easier to justify it with new games.

 

[Baemono]

It was mostly ports at launch

Well, I mean of course, unless you had like all the games launching on launch date on the console by pure coincidence, even a game released elsewhere a day prior would be a port.

Like the most recent game announced for the system was Split Fiction, released in February 2025 and announced for the system on April 2nd to be released on launch date, you can't be earlier than that. But it's still a port, technically.

 

[Loboxxx]

Nintendo is and always will be the go-to place for playing its Mario, Zelda, Pokémon, etc. and JRPGs. Its multiplatform approach died with the Wii, and that's not a bad thing at all; they've found their niche and know how to capitalize on it.

 

[Woopah]

List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What I see is Nintendo + Monster Hunter + Stardew Valley, then for long, long, long time nothing.

It would have been a really difficult sale for $49.99 for something you can get on other platform at sub-$10, much easier to justify it with new games.

Because Wikipedia is an awful source of video game sales information.

Here's the list for PS5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PlayStation_5_video_games

That doesn't mean COD/FIFA sell shit on PS5. It means the data is very bad.

Well, I mean of course, unless you had like all the games launching on launch date on the console by pure coincidence, even a game released elsewhere a day prior would be a port.

Like the most recent game announced for the system was Split Fiction, released in February 2025 and announced for the system on April 2nd to be released on launch date, you can't be earlier than that. But it's still a port, technically.

I agree, makes logical sense for most day 1 third games to be ports.

 

[Emedan]

Always crack me up how people on an gaming enthusiast forum speak about how useless it would be to release this and that game on Switch cause you'll just play it on a more powerful platform. How many current and future Switch 2 owners will only have that platform to game on? They would be more than happy being able to buy any version of future games even though it might not be the best one, and publishers will be happy to sell it to them.

Never recall debating who had the best version of a third party game as a kid, we were just happy being able to play the version we had. We've already seen that the Switch 2 will be able to get current generation third party games to run more than acceptable on the hardware.

 

[yurinka]

Setting aside the larger argument here, this is a pretty silly list for you to use as evidence, since Activision is contractually obligated to put Call of Duty on the Switch 2, and Monster Hunter Rise is one of the best selling games on the original Switch. Capcom absolutely wants to put Monster Hunter on the Switch 2. It's just a matter of whether they can get Wilds running or if they make an original title for the system like Rise.

So two out of your three examples are poorly chosen.

Yes, CoD is supposed to release on Switch forced by the negotiations that were needed to get the ok for regulators for the ABK acquisition, but still haven't been released there and pretty likely never will be released for Switch 1, but instead will release in Switch 2.

MH Rise obviously was very successful particularly in Japan, following the tradition of very successful portable MH games started on PSP, and had a timed console exclusivity very likely because Nintendo paid for it. Monster Hunter World and Wilds were more successful and aren't on Switch.

If Capcom wants to put MH on Switch, why they didn't release MH Worlds or Wilds on it? If they are that happy with Switch why did they released later MH Rise and the MH Stories series on PS, Xbox and PC?

I agree these weren't the best examples, but still showcase top publishers who didn't release their top games on Switch 1 unless moneyhatted by Nintendo or in cas of CoD forced by a deal needed for the acquisition.

 

[Baemono]

If Capcom wants to put MH on Switch, why they didn't release MH Worlds or Wilds on it? If they are that happy with Switch why did they released later MH Rise and the MH Stories series on PS, Xbox and PC?

The Switch was designed to work with the RE engine, MH World is using MT Framework. They designed a Switch taylor-made Monster Hunter that sold well, and then ported to other systems. Square did the same with Dragon Quest XI S, ported to other systems afterwards.

 

[LordOcidax]

The Switch was designed to work with the RE engine, MH World is using MT Framework. They designed a Switch taylor-made Monster Hunter that sold well, and then ported to other systems. Square did the same with Dragon Quest XI S, ported to other systems afterwards.

Everybody is going to adjust their engines to native support the Switch 2. Is just matter of time… I read somewhere that the Unreal 5 team is already making the adjustments.

 

[Baemono]

Everybody is going to adjust their engines to native support the Switch 2. Is just matter of time… I read somewhere that the Unreal 5 team is already making the adjustments.

Of course, and MT Framework works with Switch 1 I believe, since the Capcom collection uses it

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

I mostly want Japanese third party support, I have zero desire for 3rd western games like Assasin's Creed, COD or BF6 which I dont even buy it on PS5 let alone on my Switch 2.

I totally agree, I'm not interested in Assassin's Creed either.

I tried the series, but it never grabbed me. Call of Duty doesn't appeal to me either...

Battlefield generated a lot of hype, but I saw that the gameplay is the same as Battlefield 1... so I'm not interested in that one either... And Fortnite is for beggars who don't have money...
I'm not interested in that one either.


I want more games from the East... Japanese, Chinese, or Korean.

 

[yurinka]

Publishers are becoming more multiplatform, not less. Just because a game/franchise sells more on one platform doesn't mean it shouldn't come to other platforms.

I didn't say they become less multiplatform. Rising costs of AAA make publishers become more multiplatform. That's the reason of why some keep insiting on trying if they get lucky with each new Nintendo device.

And your original argument was "some 3rd parties will release a game or two on the new Nintendo device, and after getting abysmal sales they'll move on". Which was blatantly untrue for Switch.

How do you expect later third party support to compare to launch window support?

It isn't untrue, it's factual data that we can see happened almost every generation in Nintendo devices. They release a new device and announce a big list of publishers of devs supposedly supporting it. We see a few games from some of them in the launch window, and after releasing a game of two they move away and instead of relasing all their top games as they do in other platforms like PS, after their initial bet if something they don't release all their top games at all and their support gets limited to a few games or ports often paid by Nintendo or being a considerably toned down version of the game released elsewhere.

I mean, even Ubisoft, the publisher who always supported every single gaming device ever released (including Switch 1), didn't release their top games on Switch 1 as it was the case of AC Origins, AC Odyssey, AC Vallhalla, Rainbow Six Siege, The Division 1 & 2, Far Cry 4, 5, 6 etc. They relesed in Switch instead some minor games (Just Dance, Rayman Legends...) and some paid by Nintendo (Mario + Rabbids).

For the Switch 2 launch window they released two big titles: Star Wars Outlaws and AC Shadows, similar to what they did let's say in WiiU's launch window releasing AC III, lV and (with some big delay not only in this version) Watchdogs plus some minor titles. Did they release more big games of that generation like Far Cry 3 or 4, Splinter Cell Blacklist or Ghost Recon: Future Soldier other than the ones signed for the release window? No, outside them they only released some minor titles.

Same happened in previous generations and with the other top publishers, who traditionally unlike Ubisoft don't have that tradition of trying to support all the platforms since day one.

 

[yurinka]

The Switch was designed to work with the RE engine, MH World is using MT Framework. They designed a Switch taylor-made Monster Hunter that sold well, and then ported to other systems. Square did the same with Dragon Quest XI S, ported to other systems afterwards.

MT Framework, like any other multiplatform engine of the PS3 generation, can run on Switch. A different thing is that the big games running on it can run on Switch at a decent performance without doing too big cuts that leave the game in a too bad state and without spending too much budget on a port whose sales won't be worth it.

Capcom released several MT Framework games on Switch, but weren't big modern top ones. They were smaller games or ports of previous gen games: Ultra Street Fighter II, Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate, Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen, Mega Man 11, several compilations like The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles, Mega Man X Legacy Collection or Capcom Beat 'Em Up Bundle and some old RE games that weren't running in the cloud (the MT Framework ones, because the RE Engine ones released on Switch were running in the cloud).

 

[blacktout]

If Capcom wants to put MH on Switch, why they didn't release MH Worlds or Wilds on it?

Because neither of those games would run on the original Switch. Wilds barely runs on modern platforms.

If they are that happy with Switch why did they released later MH Rise and the MH Stories series on PS, Xbox and PC?

Because all third party publishers are moving away from platform exclusivity and towards having their games as widely available as possible. You might as well ask why the Final Fantasy VII remake trilogy is going to Switch 2 and Xbox, or why Resident Evil Requiem will be on the Switch 2 at launch.

To be clear, Monster Hunter Rise sold over 7 million units on the Switch alone. This is definitely not a situation where Capcom was unhappy with their results on the platform. They ported it elsewhere because they wanted to build on the game's considerable success and the fact that Monster Hunter is growing as a brand, not because they wished they hadn't put it on the Switch in the first place. Come on now.

 

[yurinka]

Because neither of those games would run on the original Switch. Wilds barely runs on modern platforms.

Yep

Because all third party publishers are moving away from platform exclusivity and towards having their games as widely available as possible.

Yes.

You might as well ask why the Final Fantasy VII remake trilogy is going to Switch 2 and Xbox

Because their moneyhatted timed exclusivity with Sony ended, so they try to release it in more places to generate more money, because they need it since AAA game budgets kept growing a lot and need to sell their games everywhere they can.

or why Resident Evil Requiem will be on the Switch 2 at launch.

As mentioned, part of the launch window push some 3rd parties make, often paid by Nintendo to do so. Notice Capcom doesn't do it with their other big games like Wilds, Pragmata or Onimusha etc.

To be clear, Monster Hunter Rise sold over 7 million units on the Switch alone. This is definitely not a situation where Capcom was unhappy with their results on the platform. They ported it elsewhere because they wanted to build on the game's considerable success and the fact that Monster Hunter is growing as a brand, not because they wished they hadn't put it on the Switch in the first place. Come on now.

I didn't say Capcom was unhappy with MH Rise or its result on Switch.

I said Capcom didn't release their main games in Switch and that they make most of their revenues in other platforms like PC and PS, and that's why they focus their main games there because it's where their games sell better. As an example, regarding MH, Worlds and Wilds perform better than Rise.

Capcom historically has a tradition of porting everything (particularly old games from previous generations) they can to every place they can as long as it makes some minimal sense.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

Can't wait to see GTA6 on this

 

[Woopah]

I didn't say they become less multiplatform. Rising costs of AAA make publishers become more multiplatform. That's the reason of why some keep insiting on trying if they get lucky with each new Nintendo device.

They tried on Wii U and it failed because the platform was a failure. Then they tried on the Switch and found success because the platform was a success.

AAA were part of the equation, but publishers also made more sales by putting AA and A games on Switch as well. They'll want to bring these kinds of titles to Switch 2 to keep making more sales

It isn't untrue, it's factual data that we can see happened almost every generation in Nintendo devices. They release a new device and announce a big list of publishers of devs supposedly supporting it. We see a few games from some of them in the launch window, and after releasing a game of two they move away and instead of relasing all their top games as they do in other platforms like PS, after their initial bet if something they don't release all their top games at all and their support gets limited to a few games or ports often paid by Nintendo or being a considerably toned down version of the game released elsewhere.

I mean, even Ubisoft, the publisher who always supported every single gaming device ever released (including Switch 1), didn't release their top games on Switch 1 as it was the case of AC Origins, AC Odyssey, AC Vallhalla, Rainbow Six Siege, The Division 1 & 2, Far Cry 4, 5, 6 etc. They relesed in Switch instead some minor games (Just Dance, Rayman Legends...) and some paid by Nintendo (Mario + Rabbids).

For the Switch 2 launch window they released two big titles: Star Wars Outlaws and AC Shadows, similar to what they did let's say in WiiU's launch window releasing AC III, lV and (with some big delay not only in this version) Watchdogs plus some minor titles. Did they release more big games of that generation like Far Cry 3 or 4, Splinter Cell Blacklist or Ghost Recon: Future Soldier other than the ones signed for the release window? No, outside them they only released some minor titles.

Same happened in previous generations and with the other top publishers, who traditionally unlike Ubisoft don't have that tradition of trying to support all the platforms since day one.

According to your theory, Ubisoft should have put two games on Switch, seen abysmal sales, and moved on. That didn't happen.

They brought a couple games to Switch, and they did well enough for Ubisoft to bring across more games, both new and ports.

It was the same with other publishers. Square and other publishers did not bring a couple of games to Switch and move on. Somevpublishers/developers like Falcom actually ignored Switch early on, until they saw how successful it was.

Your description matches very well with Wii U, but it doesn't match what happened with Switch at all. Third party support got better with time, not worse.

What Switch didn't get was the graphically demanding games that would struggle to run on the hardware. But there's more to third party support than those games.

Switch 2 is continuing to build on the A and AA support Switch got, and on top of that will get AAA games too. There will still be AAA games that get ported later, or don't come at all. But the AAA situation will be noticeably better on Switch 2 than it was on its predecessor.