GG, just read first impressions on Toxic Commando and had to think of you. It was described as 'Mudrunner meets zombie horde shooter'. Surely that's an instaplay gale for you!
GG, just read first impressions on Toxic Commando and had to think of you. It was described as 'Mudrunner meets zombie horde shooter'. Surely that's an instaplay gale for you!
He's waiting for a Mudrunner meets point and click adventure game game.
Nintendo seem to be stingy with Switch 2 devkits to a ridiculous extent. Digital Foundry:
John: "Nintendo seems to be almost discouraging Switch 2 development to some degree, where I've spoken with plenty of developers where they were either told that their game.. they should just ship it on Switch 1 and rely on backwards compatibility. There's a lot of developers that are unable to get Switch 2 dev kits. We talked to a lot of devs at Gamescom this year and so many of them said the same things. They want to ship on Switch 2. They would love to do Switch 2 versions. They can't get the hardware. It's really difficult right now."
Oliver: "I don't really understand the strategy because like you said, even now developers are struggling to get systems. And I know that some months ago when we're, you know, hearing things through the grapevine and talking to people, there were some weird exclusions with some big developers struggling to get kits for games, from what we've heard. And there were some weird inclusions as well, like some indies were included which is nice to see but like there's that campfire game you know the kind of camera campfire game and they're getting kits and some big developers on the other hand who developed like AAA stuff aren't necessarily in the pipeline there for kits."
Dev wrote in to Jeff Gertsmann podcast, allegedly:
"So my understanding is that Nintendo is NOT giving out dev kits freely because they do not want third-party devs and pubs to ship many games on Switch 2 this year. There are secondary concerns about security and piracy as well, but I work for a well-known publisher with good relationships at NOA and NOE, and we've been kept at arm's length, had requests for dev kits for our partners delayed, etc. We've been explicitly been asked by Nintendo not to ship Switch 2 SKUs until a date in early 2026. They never give 100% clear reasoning, but the implication we've gotten is they just don't want a lot of third-party games releasing in 2025. Essentially they want to tamp down on releases outside of first-party games, and a small handful of very high profile third-party games. This is a concerted effort on their part I've been aware of since atleast late last-year, and they've made a very conscious effort to keep Switch 2 releases to a minimum for the first 9-ish months."
Sounds like Nintendo doesn't want other companies competing with their big first party games this year. Nintendo has always been odd. I can understand them wanting to keep as much shovelware away as possible, but that doesn't sound like this is the case.
The security and privacy reasoning smells like some bullshit. They've already had some semi-successful hacks within days of the system being released. Online monitoring and firmware updates have knocked it out every time, but the fact is if you don't update your Switch 2 then you're good to go. And if that was figured out within days, there will be better methods a year from now. So if that's actually a reason then it's already failed, so why continue the policy?
Feels like Nintendo is making a mistake here with the limited approach that they’re taking with third parties on the Switch 2. Think they already have their fans maxed out from the Switch 1 and should be making third party more friendly to draw in more consumers.
Feels like Nintendo is making a mistake here with the limited approach that they’re taking with third parties on the Switch 2. Think they already have their fans maxed out from the Switch 1 and should be making third party more friendly to draw in more consumers.
Agree. Why not frontload the launch window with third party games? Plus, developers may start to lose interest and just stick to MS and Sony.
Agree. Why not frontload the launch window with third party games? Plus, developers may start to lose interest and just stick to MS and Sony.
Same goes for gamers really. You need to keep some momentum going. I myself am feeling a bit cheated so far. There should have been multiple high profike 3rd party ports available at launch, not only Cyberpunk 2077.
Not too bad, but seems excessive compared to most Metroidvanias.
One of the Aeterna games is a similar 60 hr game.
Replaying for a different ending for Phantom Liberty Cyberpunk.
It really makes you feel differently when you know certain things and how they played out in your alternate reality.
They do a really great job near pivitoal moments of making your decisions feel like they have a real weight to them.
GG, just read first impressions on Toxic Commando and had to think of you. It was described as 'Mudrunner meets zombie horde shooter'. Surely that's an instaplay gale for you!
Sounds interesting. There's still Snowrunner dlc I payed for but haven't played yet.
He's waiting for a Mudrunner meets point and click adventure game game.
John: "Nintendo seems to be almost discouraging Switch 2 development to some degree, where I've spoken with plenty of developers where they were either told that their game.. they should just ship it on Switch 1 and rely on backwards compatibility. There's a lot of developers that are unable to get Switch 2 dev kits. We talked to a lot of devs at Gamescom this year and so many of them said the same things. They want to ship on Switch 2. They would love to do Switch 2 versions. They can't get the hardware. It's really difficult right now."
Oliver: "I don't really understand the strategy because like you said, even now developers are struggling to get systems. And I know that some months ago when we're, you know, hearing things through the grapevine and talking to people, there were some weird exclusions with some big developers struggling to get kits for games, from what we've heard. And there were some weird inclusions as well, like some indies were included which is nice to see but like there's that campfire game you know the kind of camera campfire game and they're getting kits and some big developers on the other hand who developed like AAA stuff aren't necessarily in the pipeline there for kits."
"So my understanding is that Nintendo is NOT giving out dev kits freely because they do not want third-party devs and pubs to ship many games on Switch 2 this year. There are secondary concerns about security and piracy as well, but I work for a well-known publisher with good relationships at NOA and NOE, and we've been kept at arm's length, had requests for dev kits for our partners delayed, etc. We've been explicitly been asked by Nintendo not to ship Switch 2 SKUs until a date in early 2026. They never give 100% clear reasoning, but the implication we've gotten is they just don't want a lot of third-party games releasing in 2025. Essentially they want to tamp down on releases outside of first-party games, and a small handful of very high profile third-party games. This is a concerted effort on their part I've been aware of since atleast late last-year, and they've made a very conscious effort to keep Switch 2 releases to a minimum for the first 9-ish months."
Feels like Nintendo is making a mistake here with the limited approach that they’re taking with third parties on the Switch 2. Think they already have their fans maxed out from the Switch 1 and should be making third party more friendly to draw in more consumers.
Agree. Why not frontload the launch window with third party games? Plus, developers may start to lose interest and just stick to MS and Sony.
Really just weird and odd behaviour.
Same goes for gamers really. You need to keep some momentum going. I myself am feeling a bit cheated so far. There should have been multiple high profike 3rd party ports available at launch, not only Cyberpunk 2077.