Titanfall on Switch? Respawn Says "F*CK NO!"

Titanfall on Switch? Respawn Says "F*CK NO!"

titanfall_2_wm_c_1

Respawn Entertainment senior designer Mohammad Alavi makes it clear that the Switch isn't powerful enough for its games.

A lot of devs have been "umming and ahhing" about having their games on Nintendo's upcoming Switch, but Respawn Entertainment, the folks behind the Titanfall series, have made it very clear that the Switch isn't powerful enough for its games. In an interview with Drunk Tech, Alavi responds with a brutal "Fuck no!" when asked if Titanfall will ever make it to Nintendo's new machine.

"I was excited about [the Switch]. Nintendo's been in such a niche market recently, catering to the handheld and the kids, they've been so underpowered that they don't have the support of the third parties because they're all making for the PC, Xbox One and PS4, and it's no different," commented Alavi.

When the interviewer asks him if he'll be able to play Titanfall on it, Alavi said "Fuck no! No, you're not going to be able to fit Titanfall 2 on the Nintendo Switch. That's the same Zelda from the Wii U."

Source: Nintendo Today

Permalink

...Who cares? How about people who -are- putting their games on the Switch say so. Why do we need to keep hearing from people who no one really asked?

The hate-boner is strong with this one.

Geez Alavi, why don't you just start shouting racial slurs at Nintendo next?

Good on him. And Respawn in general.

Saelune:
Why do we need to keep hearing from people who no one really asked?

Well I assume we have this quote because he was asked... You know, in the interview this quote is from...

OP: It makes sense. Taking away the hardware limitations, we've not seen 3rd party multiplatform games sell well on Nintendo consoles in a long time besides the rare few. That goes especially for games with an M rating.

PsychicTaco115:
Geez Alavi, why don't you just start shouting racial slurs at Nintendo next?

Hes going to have to wait for his requisition of slurs from the Munitorium. Theyve all been booked out by the SJWs attending the God-Emperors inauguration today.

Yeah well, considering that AAA developers don't want to compress audio files anymore, there will probably be many more people that will refuse to port games.

I've heard that the Switch will only have 32GB of on board memory. This means that many games will require micro SD expansion to play games. This will probably stifle sales for the first large games on the system since the game price will be $60 (or more depending on region) as well as the price of the sd card to hold it.

Brutal, but true. The console may be cool but it will be barely able to play Skyrim, a game from 2011.

Oh no.... I'm not going to go through wanting these giant robot games for a portable.... Then just stick with the fact I have Steel Battalion for the original Xbox.....

Now I want Steel Battalion for Switch.

PsychicTaco115:
Geez Alavi, why don't you just start shouting racial slurs at Nintendo next?

Does talking about Nintendo's Goombas count?

This from the guy who's game just came out and sold a fraction of the copies the original did.

Sarcasm aside, I don't blame him. The technical limitations alone are daunting let alone the fact it's a completely new and untested console/handheld/thing.

Goodie! Finally a developer with some sense. I guess I know what my next FPS purchase will be.

Whenever the "not porting because it's underpowered" argument comes out, I just check the list of Wii games that 3rd party developers ported from XBOX 360/PS3 and laugh at the non-sense. They would be singing a different song if they thought their ports would sell well on the Switch, no matter how underpowered the platform was.

CaitSeith:
Whenever the "not porting because it's underpowered" argument comes out, I just check the list of Wii games that 3rd party developers ported from XBOX 360/PS3 and laugh at the non-sense. They would be singing a different song if they thought their ports would sell well on the Switch, no matter how underpowered the platform was.

Well, yeah, obviously they'd make games for the thing if it were going to sell well. But it won't, so they won't and the Switch will sell even less.

This is just going to be Wii U 2.0...which the thing itself pretty much is.

Saelune:
Why do we need to keep hearing from people who no one really asked?

"When the interviewer asks him (...)"

Fischgopf:

CaitSeith:
Whenever the "not porting because it's underpowered" argument comes out, I just check the list of Wii games that 3rd party developers ported from XBOX 360/PS3 and laugh at the non-sense. They would be singing a different song if they thought their ports would sell well on the Switch, no matter how underpowered the platform was.

Well, yeah, obviously they'd make games for the thing if it were going to sell well. But it won't, so they won't and the Switch will sell even less.

This is just going to be Wii U 2.0...which the thing itself pretty much is.

I know, this is what everyone I've been talking to has been saying looking at this thing. When they are FPS locking Zelda Breath of the Wild at 30 fps on the switch regardless if it is docked, are only upscaling to 920p, and the only advantage it has over the Wii U version is higher quality sound, you know what this is going to turn into.

Literally the only hope this system had was the promise it could be both a console and a portable system in one, so someone could play Pokemon Sun and Moon on the switch on the go and at home. Right now it looks like they took the PS Vita, which is a chunky mofo compared to a 3ds XL, and made a dockable nintendo brand version of it.

Saelune:
...Who cares? How about people who -are- putting their games on the Switch say so. Why do we need to keep hearing from people who no one really asked?

He was asked. It was an interview.

And who are putting their games on the Switch (3rd party devs) precisely? We got Bethesda porting a 6 year old game, and Ubisoft releasing a sequel to a 14 year old game. Where are the new, modern games?

008Zulu:

Saelune:
...Who cares? How about people who -are- putting their games on the Switch say so. Why do we need to keep hearing from people who no one really asked?

He was asked. It was an interview.

And who are putting their games on the Switch (3rd party devs) precisely? We got Bethesda porting a 6 year old game, and Ubisoft releasing a sequel to a 14 year old game. Where are the new, modern games?

apparently we also have the newest expansion pack for the binding of Isaac. and there are reports for darksouls 3. we don't have a date so by the time it comes out the game maybe another 3-4 years old. and..... ummmm..... no other new/modern 3rd party game comes to mind

CaitSeith:
Whenever the "not porting because it's underpowered" argument comes out, I just check the list of Wii games that 3rd party developers ported from XBOX 360/PS3 and laugh at the non-sense. They would be singing a different song if they thought their ports would sell well on the Switch, no matter how underpowered the platform was.

To be fair, many of the Wii versions were unplayable or nerfed (game design wise) to run on the pathetic excuse for a conslow.

The Switch isnt that bad, true... but it is bad.

And? I liked Titanfall 2, but this guy seems like an arsehole. Kind of the same situation I have with FEZ. There are ways of saying "we aren't porting this because we're busy/we don't have the resources/we just don't want to" without sounding like an console Dude-Bro with a God complex.

Besides, we all know the real reason EA won't port this to the Switch *cough*this game sold like shit*cough*.

I know, right? The Nintendo Switch will probably sell almost as poorly as Titanfall.

Charcharo:

CaitSeith:
Whenever the "not porting because it's underpowered" argument comes out, I just check the list of Wii games that 3rd party developers ported from XBOX 360/PS3 and laugh at the non-sense. They would be singing a different song if they thought their ports would sell well on the Switch, no matter how underpowered the platform was.

To be fair, many of the Wii versions were unplayable or nerfed (game design wise) to run on the pathetic excuse for a conslow.

The Switch isnt that bad, true... but it is bad.

Truthful. However, the Switch isn't worse than PS3, and remember how many games this gen were released on PS3 / XBOX360 the same day than in PS4 and XB1. So I no longer believe when a developer decides to not port the game because the console is underpowered. To my ears it's just PR talk for "we don't think it will sell"

CaitSeith:

Charcharo:

CaitSeith:
Whenever the "not porting because it's underpowered" argument comes out, I just check the list of Wii games that 3rd party developers ported from XBOX 360/PS3 and laugh at the non-sense. They would be singing a different song if they thought their ports would sell well on the Switch, no matter how underpowered the platform was.

To be fair, many of the Wii versions were unplayable or nerfed (game design wise) to run on the pathetic excuse for a conslow.

The Switch isnt that bad, true... but it is bad.

Truthful. However, the Switch isn't worse than PS3, and remember how many games this gen were released on PS3 / XBOX360 the same day than in PS4 and XB1. So I no longer believe when a developer decides to not port the game because the console is underpowered. To my ears it's just PR talk for "we don't think it will sell"

Well the Switch costs too much for what is essentially a weaker Xbox One without the online and backwards compatibility :P

Also remember, this isnt X86-64 in the Switch. Development wont be quite as easy.

All consoles are useless and damage gaming and gamers, but this Switch thing is even worse and that worries me.

So here's something I've been thinking about, there is a reasonable argument to made that the Switch's specs not being up to par with the PS4 and Xbone put it at disadvantage when it comes to devs who want to release their games on multiple systems, and the question then becomes, who is willing to release their games on a console without the power of its competitors?

My answer? Indie devs.

Hear me out, you know how Steam's become a shit show when it comes to quality control with Valve just allowing any bile to flow freely on its platform, well what if Nintendo opened the door indie devs that want their game to actually get seen and not lost in the sewage flow? I mean a lot of indie games don't require that much in terms of power and thus could easily be ported to the Switch, boosting it's library somewhat. And said indies can also release their games on PC, PS4 and Xbox Live Arcade (if that's still a thing).

Fox12:
I know, right? The Nintendo Switch will probably sell almost as poorly as Titanfall.

This was basically my thought. It's true, Titanfall WOULDN'T work on the Switch. But Titanfall barely worked on the PC. I feel like Respawn has been pushing the 'edgy, sweary non-corporate true blooded gamer outsider!' card a bit too hard lately, and this is just another example of them trying to push that image like a sweaty overweight hasbeen

That's still better than what Bioware and EA did with Mass Effect 3 on Wii U, when they released the game at full price while you could buy the entire trilogy at a lower price via xbox/ps3. I'd prefer devs not waste time rather than try to rip customers off.

I'd have more sympathy if Titanfall played half decently on my PC without bugging the fuck out that I asked for a refund.

I say it when developers make similarly presented comments about PC vs console and I'll say it when they make comments vs Nintendo:
Its unprofessional and rude to talk like that. You could state its not an option or not viable or whatever without feeling the need to pander to platform wars (the worst facet of your customer base).

RealRT:
Goodie! Finally a developer with some sense. I guess I know what my next FPS purchase will be.

This confuses me. Most devs that make games of this caliber have said the exact same thing for the same reason-albeit in a mature manner.
So how is only this dev displaying common sense?

-Dragmire-:
Yeah well, considering that AAA developers don't want to compress audio files anymore, there will probably be many more people that will refuse to port games.

Seriously though, the fuck is with that? The licensing cost for use of the .oog codec CANNOT be high enough to justify having half your games' filesize be audio. And audio decoding isn't exactly a challenging task for the systems anymore.

A simple "no" would have sufficed, no need to cuss...

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here