Am I the only one???????

Ha! You thought I was making that kind of shit topic. No sir, I'm making a slightly less shit topic.

True topic title:

IF THE SWITCH HAD FULL ON AAA MULTIPLAT SUPPORT WOULD YOU ACTUALLY PLAY THOSE GAMES ON THE SWEETCH?

Yeah, so I made a similar topic a while back, just figured this would be a good time to make it again.

Gaming PC. PS4. Xbox One. Everyone here owns at least one of these. Maybe not Tormentos or Azatis, still not sure on that, but MOST of us do, right? And they're all more than adequate at being multiplat boxes.

There are many points of contention regarding the Switch, plenty of them being perfectly reasonable gripes.

But I've also been seeing a lot of the same old rage/laughing about "Muh multiplats!"

So would you? Is the lack of AAA multiplat support a deal breaker for you? Would you have been rushing out to buy RDR2, ME:A, etc. on the Switch if they were available?

Note: I fully understand that not having these games is not good for Nintendo.

I mean YOU personally.

-

If this goes against the sticky then feel free to lock. I'll only be Tumblr levels of offended.

Yes. you are the only one.

Yes, you are the only one. Feel the crushing depths of your isolation.

On the point though, Switch is too underpowered to make me want to play games on it over other platforms... unless I'm playing on the go, that is. I would be perfectly happy to play RDR2 or ME:A on Switch if I was on a long car ride or posted up in a hotel somewhere.

Considering the portability of the device? Yes, I'd buy third party games on Switch. Because the portable feature is worth something to me, giving me a chance to play games during lunch breaks and on trips.

Ha! I created this topic in such a devious way that that actually doesn't work for an answer.

@ConanTheStoner: Of course you're not the only one, that's what people were hyped for the Switch about - imagine if every AAA game in 2017 that was multiplat was on Switch. Why buy Mass Effect on Xbox One and be stuck tied to your TV, when you could Switch it up and take it on the go? Compared to a PC or PS4, the Switch is an underpowered console... but compared to a gaming laptop, the Switch is a bargain... if it had the games.

Nintendo built the entire system around a feature that none of the competition could replicate, but instead they've chosen to focus on motion controls, mini-games and being Nintendo as hard as they can Nintendo instead of securing a software lineup. I'd go so far as to say that if the Switch had the 2017 Xbox One 3rd party lineup, instead of Breath of the Wild at launch, it would still do better.

We were all sitting around looking at Nintendo say how easy the system would be to port games to and develop for for the 3rd parties, etc... and bringing out all the devs to tell us that, but here we are in January and none of the big games are coming to Switch at launch, and the Bethesda partnership is literally a Skyrim port... when we expected it would mean future games were Day 1 Switch.

Probably. I personally place portability at a premium, so a portable version that is reasonably on par would win out for me in most cases (one of the reasons I bought games for Vita for as long as I did).

Not with those weak specs, inferior online with no voice chat and no trophy/achievement system.

As I have PS4, the NS would be a secondary system for me and I would only buy exclusives for it.

Honestly? I think I would have. I did with the GameCube. I could certainly see me picking up RPG's for the Switch, the ability to take it to work with me and level or beat some side quests while on my lunch break is an attractive enough idea, that I'm fine with taking a hit on the graphical side of things.

Forgetting online play for a second, if the system was powerful like the N64 and GCN, I would. As it is though, I'd skip on them for the Switch like I did for the ps2.

No I wouldn't buy those games buy I'm also not buying it for ports and rehashes of Wii u games.

Good answers so far fellas. I can definitely see the appeal of AAA gaming on the go, even if it's not something I'm interested in.

Gotta say to people who actually expected Switch to deliver on that... lulz.

This is that awkward part where I stop responding to my own topic.

Nah, just got a craving from some Chili Colorado, gonna head up the street for a bit.

If all the multi platform games were to become available for the Switch it wouldn't become my platform of choice for those games as it stands now. The Switch would have to do a number of things that surpass my current system of choice right now, the Xbox One. The things that it would have to do that I feel were better would be a controller which I like better along with an online service and something like a universal achievement system.

No, PC would still be my first choice. Best versions, Steam Controller and all that.

I buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games. It's not a big deal to me if it doesn't get multiplats since I have other systems for multiplats.

If the Nintendo Switch did receive all multiplats, I still would not buy most of them on the Nintendo Switch since I would prefer to play most of them on Xbox for more power and better online. The only exception would be for retro style games like Sonic Mania since retro style games just feel like they belong on a Nintendo console to me.

Maybe some. I have a PC so that's where I like to play most of them anyways.

While Nintendo does make most of the poor decisions that come with their systems, I can say that third parties have (at least with the Wii U) made decisions that either made the Nintendo version even more inferior or squandering the potential of the system in the first place. For example: Ubisoft removed offline co-op from Splinter Cell's Blacklist, Warner Brothers removed the multiplayer of Batman Arkham Origins, Mass Effect 3 without the other games in the trilogy strung along, Minecraft not putting the inventory on the Gamepad (something fans were clearly clamoring for in the first place), Rayman Legends going multi-plats, EA pulling support after putting like three games without a year even passing (it was like six months tops), etc. It's important to note that most of these bar Minecraft occurred within the first year of the Wii U's lifespan. To say some of the blame for the Wii U's failure doesn't somewhat lie on third parties themselves is to ignore the seemingly intentional sabotage of their Nintendo ports.

With the Switch we can only hope that the strengths the system does have are taken advantage of. That's how third parties can draw people in who will otherwise discredit the Nintendo version for obviously being inferior graphically.

i wouldn't wanna play anything on those weak **** specs and that **** **** resolution

i refuse to play anything at a resolution below 1440p on my monitor and 4k on my tv

@ConanTheStoner: if the switch supported most third party games I'd would play them on it, and I'd buy the switch.

I'd sell my laptop and replace it with the switch

No, I would get them on PC or Scorpio depending on what it is.

It really depends on the game but if the multiplats released on PC, PS4, and X1 and ran the same or with only a minor downgrade then I would definitely consider it over the other consoles.

The portability means a lot to me.

i wouldnt buy assasin's creed on switch. ass creed was made for PC. 90% of that game is graphics.

skyrim? idk...maybe i have it on pc....played around for 30min and played around with some water and weather mods. still need to actually play the game. idk...might get it to try it outside.

madden and fifa...yes id buy it on switch. only because i dont have a ps4 or x1....fifa is on pc but idk...seems like a console couch games.

call of duty? yes id buy on switch AND PC...i'd get both. PC for mouse and switch for gyro.

battlefield? idk...if i'll ever buy a battlefield game anymore. they are not for me. i am nothing but sniper food in battlefield.

watchdogs 1 and 2? no...same as ass creed...i buy these for graphics...so PC for me

far cry games? maybe....like skyrim...might be cool to play outside my house.

mortal kombat &street fighter? yes...all i need is switch version....graphics dont matter as much in fighters.

kingdom hearts and final fantasy.?..yes...because i have no ps4 and x1

@ConanTheStoner: I would be all about it if it had Battlefield1/COD etc..

Shit I'd be interested, if instead of that dumbass ARMS shit, they'd of made a Punch Out for the Switch.

Nintendo failed all around for me smh

I'm not interested in ARMS, though I'm also not fully convinced that it's shit. But fvck yes, I'd take another Punch Out in a heartbeat lol. No question, Punch Out is life!

Kind of off topic (ha it's my topic fvck you!), but I'm kinda bummed that I'd have to go buy a new fight stick just for the Switch. Hori is making a stick for the Switch apparently, but I already have a Hori stick that works on 3 other platforms.

I'm actually interested in USF2. People are saying that it's balanced differently from HD remix and is much more in line with Super Turbo. I just can't bring myself to play it on a controller, let alone a joy con lol.

I'm sure it'll go multiplat eventually though.

oh that's right. i forgot about the competitive scene. people love their fightsticks. yea that might be an issue.

i suck ass as fighters so i usually play the arcade mode and maybe some online matches once month just to remind myself how much i suck.

im going to try and play sf2 ultra with this

on the bottom left you can see the "dpad"

its broken up into buttons. but hey the dualshock is like that right?

definitely not using the joycons broken up into two....lol an analog stick? no way

The hype for the console prior to this even was based of the fact that its a powerful handheld that would have the support and could play multiplatform games.

Once people realised its not happen they start downplaying the importance of having multiplatform games.

Yeah... Sure its no big deal, majority AAA and AA games are multiplatform games and not having them at all is not a negative.

I would have ordered the console in a heart beat if it had the support of the third party devs... But nope just more empty promises and false hype to another gimmick console with JRPG's and a Zelda, Arms looks like the Switches Real Steal(the thing will bomb)

Imagine playing RDR2 or Witcher in the park on a handheld... Even if it was on the lowest settings at 720p, it would still be a insta buy for me.

@KBFloYd said:

oh that's right. i forgot about the competitive scene. people love their fightsticks. yea that might be an issue.

i suck ass as fighters so i usually play the arcade mode and maybe some online matches once month just to remind myself how much i suck.

im going to try and play sf2 ultra with this

on the bottom left you can see the "dpad"

its broken up into buttons. but hey the dualshock is like that right?

definitely not using the joycons broken up into two....lol an analog stick? no way

Oh yeah, in general it's fine. That segmented D-pad is actually pretty ideal for playing a fighting game.

And truth be told, a fight stick really isn't necessary for competitive play. It seems that way since so many top FG players are older cats who got their start in the arcades, so naturally they like using sticks. But a lot of the newer top players? They use controllers lol.

As a matter of fact, the guy who swept Capcom Cup this year? Arguably the best Street Fighter V player in the world? He uses a Dualshock. The top ranked player on CFN at the moment? A pad user as well. Best Zangief player in the world? Another pad user.

It's really just a matter of preference.

I wouldn't call myself competitive by any stretch. I just feel more comfortable with a fight stick and I find it to to be much more fun.

But yeah, there's nothing stopping you from being the best USF2 player in the world using the Switch set up. :P

One of the main draws for the Xbox and its future games is Xbox Play Anywhere. I want to be able to play games regardless of the system. Preferably without paying extra but I want the option to play my games on the system of my choosing. At the moment the Switch isolates gamers who want an all in one solution more than the other two systems. This notion of a good secondary console is nonsense as far as I am concerned.

Personally, I'm only getting exclusives and games I really want to play on the go (like pretty much any NIS title)

Nope, I just want the system for the exclusives.

Which is disappointing, because there really aren't that many exclusives at all for it in the first year. I probably don't see myself buying a Switch until at least a couple years pass.

Have a pc so I don't give a shit.

Multiplats as well (specifically EA and Ubisoft) will promote shitty bossiness practices.

If I still gave the remotest of shits about portability, maybe. I still might consider the odd zelda session on a work break. But I mean, I didn't buy a PC and PS4 Pro to play on a tiny ass screen.

I have to disagree with you, I preordered 9 exclsuive games (including Zelda and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe which aren't really exclusives) with my Switch. Not sure if they all release in 2017, but I do know I preordered less exclusives with my Ps4.

The Switch is not an existential crisis. I opened this thread thinking I'd find an existential crisis.

i would, portability is a big deal for me because i like to lay in bed and game alot. Thats why i buy all multiplats on the PS4 because i can remote play it on my Vita (one of the best features ever created imo).

no i wouldnt. i would get them on the PC. even if the switch was more powerful than scorpio i would get them for the PC. why wouldnt i get them for the PC? that goes for any game on any other device really. if i could play wipeout or gravity rush or forza (i know there is a version out now) on the PC then why on earth would i get them on an xbox or playstation?

im not one of those "nintendo platform for nintendo games only" people though. half my wii library was 3rd party and mostly very enjoyable games. but all of them were exclusive to the wii. i dont really care who makes the game as long as its good. if its really really good and grabs my attention then i will pick up the required device to play it. but if i get even a whiff that the game will come to the PC then i wont get another device to play it.

Yeah, those are my exact thoughts across the board.

Ha, sorry to disappoint.

And this is why so-called "fans" will never be pleased by a Nintendo product.

A brand new Zelda and a brand new Mario platformer in the first year and this isn't "enough" when Sony took over three years to release anything of note beyond Bloodborne.

You must be a PC Gamer with a great rig seeing as you wont play games on underpowered consoles like PS4 and Xone. Sorry but RDR2 might not be coming to PC.

Is that clickbait TC? I had no idea what the thread was going to be about until I clicked on it. What a misleading thread title. No, its overpriced in Canada.

But...

Can we all agree on that?

Am I the only one that doesn't think that?

Are you the only one that does think that?

Absolutely! If it got most of the big multiplat games, I would get it. I don't care if the framerate and graphics are worse than the PS4/Xbone versions, as long as they are not terrible. I love to play games when lying in bed, actually I prefer it to sitting in front of TV in living room.

I am a PC Gamer and I do have a nice rig. What does that have to do with anything? Are you assuming I can't also play games on an xbox one or PS4?

The point is Switch is far below the strength of a decent PC/PS4/Xbox one, especially if you include the new models. So unless I'm thinking I want to play those games on the go, there's no reason why I would ever pick the switch version. And this is all assuming those games would actually even come to Switch, which sounds unlikely.

i honestly don't care about multiplats on the switch. i have never bought a multiplat that's also available on PC on a console (exceptions: dark souls 1, MGS legacy collection, MGSV, and GTA V). playing a game at the highest possible graphics settings and framerate is paramount. i would not trade those advantages for portability.

Better 3rd party support for Switch than what we saw for Wii U would be nice, but I personally probably wouldn't play many of them on the Switch. If a game I want is for both Switch and PC, I'd probably go PC version since I got a great PC, unless I'd really want the game to be portable.

Lack of 3rd party support again with Switch would not be a deal breaker for me, as I'd still buy the thing mostly for 1st party. Sony's and MS's games rarely interest me.

Multiplats that are on par, with a Nintendo exclusive library and BC would be fantastic. So yeah. **** yeah actually. It's a win-win.

It's just we know that ain't happening =P

I'm not interested in 720p with no AA in 2017.

Governments of the world wouldn't allow it. Switches would be blowing up on planes and everywhere in between.

No, I have an Xbox One and PS4, I don't need to.

However, the Switch would provide me much more to play beyond western AAA multiplats. Mainly first party Nintendo stuff and third party Japanese games.

lol no.