It's "A Bit Sad" That Switch Isn't More Powerful, Says THQ Nordic

The console's hybrid nature means that it offers console-quality visuals when connected to your television

It offers last gen console-quality visuals when connected to your television*

Cue the people that will directly correlate that with fun.....

Nintendo will always be behind in the technology scene as far as raw power is concerned going forward, so I think both developers and us gamers should tamper our expectations with any new piece of hardware they announce/release and therefore the games you will be expecting to buy from third parties.

But as long as it can run "Darksiders" 1 & 2... I would very much like to have those two on the go.

But power does not equal good gaming, i still play old games that have awful graphics, but the game itself is great. Nothing to do with power

Oh hey, aren't they the same company that screwed up the Locke's Quest port on PS4.

Also that doesn't even look like something that would be ported with problemms. But admittedly, i don't know anything about development.

Art style over graphics I say.

Good graphics does not automatically equal a good game.

I agree, it is all "a bit sad". Nintendo have scored a hat trick of gimped consoles. Although Switch is really a handheld.

Laziness ? Not enough programing skills ?

In a world where R-Type was ported to the ZX Spectrum (seriously look it up on YouTube) and Resident Evil was playable on the GameBoy Color anything should be possible. Of course they might not always look as good - which is a problem for some games that are marketed on the strength of their graphics.

It's really a case of audience, marketing approach for particular titles and sales expectations. If those line up well enough then publishers will take the time to port. If they don't they won't.

@Bunkerneath Do you think Breath of the Wild would run on a Wii?

I agree with Nordic, it would've been nice if Zelda was either 60fps or 1080p.

But size and pricewise it had to be what it is.

Shame Nintendo don't have MS's ethics with this one, a £600 Switch capable of running full 1080p 60fps docked or in handheld would be something I would buy.

Here we go again. Ninty is an underpowered kiddie console.

EDIT: Obviously sarcasm, stop bothering me lol

It would be easier to get ports if it was more powerful but unlike with the last three systems it has a valid excuse to be "underpowered" as it is part portable.

@premko1 I agree Nintendo seem to be able to get the best out of it . I think a lot of developers struggle because they just don't have the skills they rely too much on middleware.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE It can do a lot that neither the PS4 or Xbox1 can do. You could make the argument that those consoles are gimped.

I have to admit that I love the visuals of many PS4 games. However, I love a great story or concept more than amazing graphics. I loved playing Walking Dead season 1 on my very old MacBook Pro. The graphics... not great... comic visuals. However, the mechanics and the story was amazing. As long as Nintendo follows this way - like it did with BOTW - I am fine with less power. They should just take out effects and give us the bare minimum game for less than the PS4 or Xbox version. Then it's our choice to pay for the PS4 full package or the portable version with worse visuals.

@Shane76 Breath of the Wild, while very enjoyable, is FAR from being called a visually stunning game, thus requires less processing power as compared to the games with more 'adult' graphics.

On topic, ELEX looks really nice, sad it is being ruled out at the moment I wish Switch was more powerful, but I treat it more as an indie machine (+ 1st party games). Love those 2d games, which you can play for a short periods of time without getting too involved

I am more than happy with the cost/power/battery life compromise. For both portable and home experiences.

I really don't need to be running a Geforce GTX 1080 to have fun. Remeber, the best selling system this generation is the 3DS.

The moment it was rumoured to be a hybrid console with portable capabilities, developers should have expected the Switch was never gonna compete with the other consoles in terms of raw power unless they expected a £400+ console (without games or accessories).

Product design is filled with trade offs; Nintendo wanted a unique product that tapped a different section of the market for a set price and to have certain profit margins.

I can only hope that as sales of the Switch continue to rise they'll reach a point that developers and publishers will stop only considering nothing but ports and actually develop unique experiences; and then the fact that people will buy them.

Perhaps the Switch's biggest challenge is that unlike the Wii, which offered a unique playstyle that for the first few years could not be replicated elsewhere, making its hybrid nature an integral part of he gameplay is difficult. Unless they figure out unique ways to use the Joycons.

Man, I hate the phrase 'it is what it is'. It's so pointless.

Voted best multiplayer game last weekend by my gaming friends was Astro Duel Deluxe. Don't see how that game could look any better tbh...

Want good graphics and none design with sticking in your room ? - buy xbone or ps4 and don`t complain here. Also buy Implosion - nice game.

It's been like this for over 10 years now since the original Wii. I don't think I'll ever see Nintendo lead the way in specs ever again, which is a real shame. It's strange reading news articles from when Dolphin was being talked about in N64 magazine from 2000/2001. Nintendo are on record blasting the PS2 because Dolphin will beat it in terms of hardware specs and pushing polygons. It seems it was all about power then. I understand why they do what they do now, as the Gamecube was on an even keel with PS2 and Xbox in terms of power and they still lost out with third party games and sales in general. But it doesn't mean I won't always want a Nintendo console that pushes the boundaries of console power.

THQ is a bit sad too so we just have to work our way around it

@FX102A business wise it makes absolutley no sense for a 3rd party to make exclusive games.

I mean try to comprehend this, your goal is to make a great game, you can easily put it on XBOX, PS4 and P.C making a lot of money for very little extra work which allows more time to make this game truly great. The dev time that is to say the man hours it takes is a huge drain on your company so you want to be able to easily port it to all major systems.

What you don't want to be doing is making an exclusive game in a new franchise for one console that would then greatly upset your fans on the other systems.

It again, makes no sense what so ever for 3rd parties to do that.

Why else do you think 2nd parties exist? That is essentially a dev team committed to just making exclusive games for one system as they're protected by there parent company.

So no, the 3rd parties are right to want power from Nintendo because they have to support themselves, Ninty aren't going to pay them a fortune to make it worth there while to spend 1,000's of extra hours of manpower to downgrade an XBOX/PS4/PC game to Switch.

And the only time you'll see a 3rd party making an exclusive is when they do just that, like Bayonetta 2 and Mario Rabbids. Which Nintendo probably isn't planning on now going to EA to pay them to make an exclusive, or Bethesda, or Activision etc...

Call Of Duty with Yoshi's, XYZ Golfer Birdo's Birdie edition, The Elder Scrolls 6 Hyrule.

A challenge to get running smoothly Battle Chasers sounds like a statement about their laziness..

It's a bit sad that I couldn't care less about Elex by the way... no, to tell the truth I think it is not sad at all

@SLIGEACH_EIRE Well, my opinion is that ps4 and xbox are gimped, so much that I don't own either of them!

It seems like it may take a while for more developers to adjust to scalable games development, much like how web developers had to account for mobile devices when designing a site.

I mean... make something FOR the Switch? Why worry about porting games made for PS4 / XBone if it's gonna be too damn difficult, make games for the Switch, take advantage of its positives, its strengths, it's uniqueness, instead of moaning about its weakness. Great things can be done with the Switch, think outside the box.

Darksiders was an ps3/360 game. They still couldn't be fussed to get rid of all the bugs out of the Wii U port.

If the Switch install base continues to grow and third parties see the value in developing bespoke products for Switch, then we'll get third party games. Lazy xbox and playstation ports are not going to work.
Like he says, it is what it is.

The switch is great for Nintendo games. Nintendo was more conserned about getting the best out of the tech with their games running on it. There weren't making it it that easy for third party, yes they acknowledged them and communicated with most.
Where as PlayStation or Xbox make it viable for all developers.

@GravyThief it was on the same level or more than PlayStation yet the mini disc can only hold 1.35gb of storage

@UK-Nintendo true, although it did still receive a lot of the multi-plat releases in its early years despite this (I recall one of the Bond games being on two discs). I presume they didn't sell as well as PS2/Xbox versions because people by then were buying Nintendo consoles for mostly Nintendo games, which is still the case today. It's a viscous circle in terms of third party support, and one we'll be stuck with forever I think. Nintendo truly are doing their own thing, for better or worse.

When I owned a game boy I don't recall ever lamenting what the mega drive was getting. Switch IS NOT a ps4 or xbox1 lol. Can we all quit being crazy and focus on the stuff we are getting as opposed to the stuff other consoles are lol.

Well I just hope they find a way to bring DS3 to Switch.

I can't hear them over the arms knockout punches people keep throwing.

@StuTwo i wouldn't calll RE on GBC as playable. It was terrible. Revelations was one of the best 3ds games though (shares best graphics crown with super mario 3d land)

They should attend the Zelda master class.

@GravyThief completely agree.
I only buy Nintendo games for Nintendo consoles.

I'm sure a few people here would have paid more for say, a $400 Switch, but I can't really see the masses impulse buying at a higher price. And there's not enough Nintendo fans to sustain a console alone.

I think it's incredible given it's portable nature though. If it was solely a console then I'd be like well ya, they definitely could have done more for $300. But for what it is, I think they did a fantastic job, and did well making it as easy as possible for 3rd parties. Engine support and easy to port architecture. Guess you can't have it all- for a $300 hybrid device there will need to be compromises...

But I'd say they made them in the right places. Just seeing a new person at my work want a Switch every other week, they made the right call.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. I mean come on, there is a reason why 3rd party is still reluctant to put games on the system and when they do it will be gimped.. Yet just wait until at least 2020 when sales die down and Nintendo releases a new version of the Switch. Which hopefully by then does have the Tegra x2 chip in it with beefed up ram and a dock that supports 4k as well as support for VR.. yea I might just wait for that version of the Switch. Its gonna happen wait and see.

@Shane76 Give them a break, THQ Nordic are trying, and are being brutally honest with their opinion.

@JamesR well the perfect portable system would be PS Vita with 3ds games (plus Persona 4). I would trade the 3d gimmick for better resolution anytime. Also second screen is mostly useless too, isn't it?

@CyMalachi NS2 in 3 years? Thats a terrible life cycle. Hope it lasts 10 years

Of course they would prefer parity, because porting a game to three basically identical boxes would be more profit for less effort.

As long as they are committed to making the most of what they got to work with, I salute them for being on board!

Battle Chasers is looking real pretty as well, so they obviously know how to get some bang for their buck.

@MegaTen Nail on the head.

@PAHTK Unless there is a profit to be made out of it. The Wii and DS saw spin off titles from franchises that had their big releases on the PC/PS3/X360 because they stood to make more profit total from the combined profits than just making the main title.

Of course this didn't always work and it depended on making the second game affordably and ensuring it sold enough.

Any business will want to reach the largest market possible even if it is fragmented. The question is whether doing so ensures the maximum possible profit.

It begins... enjoy your Wii U2, Switch early adopters!

It's plenty powerful for what it is - they must have very poor developers.

Nintendo need to tell more 3rd parties how they manage to get such good graphics out of their consoles.

I was very disappointed that the Switch wasn't on the level of systems released in 2013. But you buy a Switch for the 1-2 great games Nintendo will release a year. I accepted that when I bought it.
While the Wii was king of shovelware, the Switch is becoming king of games you've already played.
You should really have another system for other games (I know....AAA titles like The Witcher are trash to "Nintendo only" fans).

I wonder.
When I buy a copy of Elex PC vrrsion for example, could I turn down the graphics so much that the game runs on Switch comparable hardware? I would be surprised if it isn't at least close.

That is what I am always questioning in cases like this. PC versions are often already scalable so far down that even a weak console like Switch has good chances of running it.
I can't believe graphics scaling is the actuall problem.

My suspicion is that they do not want to release the game if it looks notably worse than on the other consoles, because they think it wouldn't sell in that case.

@roboshort Ignore him. He's now completely just doing it for attention.

"The console's hybrid nature means that it offers console-quality visuals"
No. It doesn't. That's the entire point of this article.

I've tweeted at them maybe 30 times since they announced Darksiders 3 about a Switch port. Is this why they haven't gotten back to me?
It has been an amazing phenomenon to see Switch comments on game twitters though. We're relentless

The games I've played from THQ Nordic aren't exactly "masterpieces of software coding" and I'm putting it very mildly, so them having trouble making a game run smooth on a platform is not exactly news to me...

I really like how they're actively supporting every platform out there, even Nintendo whom others love to ignore, and do their best to keep their promises, but they really need to improve their programming skills >.<

You mean my Switch isn't as powerful as my Xbox One, a system that's about 12 times the size? 😭
Oh wait, my Switch has good games I want to play, my xbox one doesn't. Why do we care about graphics again?

I understand why some devs can be distressed because it makes it harder to port games to a system with less power. On that same note though, PS4 and Xbox One are holding PC development back because they are "gimped" by comparison.

It is an investment thing. It is generally in the interest of a developer to port their titles to as many platforms as possible to increase sales. The decision on whether to port is based on cost vs project sales. If the cost to port is high because hardware won't run it without modification, it makes it less attractive to create. If the Switch continues to do well then I think more publishers will see the value of having a copy of their product on the shelf.

The key selling power of the Switch is its hybrid nature. I think, in the shorter term, what Bethesda is doing with Skyrim is a good idea. Port genuine classic games to the Switch that it can run to get experience of the hardware and get some revenue. A lot of people I know are going to buy Skyrim so they can play it on the move.

It is easy to shout down every third party publisher that admits issues or hesitancy to port as 'well we don't need you anyway'. The Switch does need Third party support to provide a really satisfying catalogue of games. I just don't think it needs direct ports of the very latest PC/PS4/XB1 games at launch.

Play a powereful game on a big 4K TV or play a lower powered version of the game anywhere I go, I choose portability.

I would rather have HD gaming on the go rather than 4K gaming at home.

I love the switch. Nothing sad about it.

@Savino In theory you are right,
but we are already on a general tech level that most of what you counted is a piece of cake

BotW alone proofs that the Switch (and Wii U) can already handle big worlds, amazing draw distances, great physics and AI.
Games with a lot of population and everything you listet also have already existed on older and weaker systems than this.
No, this is mostly about graphics. The only console that would still have problems with stuff like that currently on the market is the 3ds.

There are only very few games that require much power for something other than graphics now, like the newer Total War games.

I'm still sticking with Nintendo as my 'core' console.

Some quite defensive kneejerk responses here, seems they're not saying it's a bad console just they wish it was more capable which is fair enough really. I'd have preferred that over the portability but hey, hopefully if the popularity continues perhaps third parties will consider producing exclusives for it over having to try and compromise with ports.

seriously another stupid comment about the switch. Riddle me this THQ nordic. Even with removing the bluray drive. How the bloody hell would you cram a XB1 into a hand held. Never mind the battery to run it. Take most gaming laptops That struggle last 90 minutes. Never mind heat output & bloody size of them. The more powerfull CPU/GPU then power requirments go up & heat output goes up.
I love mucking about with a game in winter on my phone as I have Raynauds in fingers & the phone gets nice & toasty to keep them warm.

Come on commenters, power doesn't only affect graphics. It also determines if a game can even run on a device for example.

You know what is annoying, THQ? Charging us £35 for a game that costs £20 on other consoles. Or charging us £24.99 for a game others get for £14.99... 😑

"The Switch may be selling like hot cakes"

Doesn't that imply selling a lot? Switch is selling more like Cuban cigars, everybody wants one but nobody can get one.

"it would be impossible to cram the kind of internals seen in the PlayStation 4 or Xbox One into such a svelte frame."

I'm going to have to take exception to that. I don't think it has anything to do w/ the Switch "svelte frame" b/c I have owned several 7" tablets over the years, and Switch is anything but svelte for a tablet that size.

But descriptions of the Switch tablet body aside, are the inner workings of the PS4 really that much larger than the Switch? Sure, the PS4 is bigger, but it also has a full disc reader in there, and a laptop sized HDD. Take those out and that's half the size right there. Xbox 1 is a monster, I'm nto sure what the heck is in there, the Xbox 1 battery brick I have is nearly the size of my PS4 slim, and it may weigh more.

But I think if you took the working parts out of the PS4 that match up to the Switch - CPU, GPU, memory - you coudl fit in something of a comparable size. The battery may only last 15 minutes and the thing might melt down, but I'd think you could build a PS4 Switch. The real problem isn't the size, it's the price you pay for that power. Price as in Tegra X2 costs a lot more than X1. But I'd bet it's buildable, just hella expensive and sets your hands on fire in the 15 minutes before the battery dies. But for even more money I'd bet you could build a portable PS4, but nobody would pay that price.

Anyway, I think it has less to do w/ the svelte Switch, more to do w/ cost.

They probably want all platforms to run and look the same, even the PC version of Darksiders is the same as consoles aside from custom resolutions and anti-aliasing. I understand the sentiment, if you make it look too different from each version then people will moan like there is no tomorrow.

Switch was just released, give developers time to learn how it properly works and optimize their engines to use most of it. Some developers takes more time than others, it's understandable.

You guys don't want rushed ports for the Switch, trust me...

@PAHTK so would it but other people think 600£ switch is overpriced

Hell, people think that the switch should be $250 usd

In Australia, sales are not good because switch is 469 dollarydoos
Anything 500 not a pc is expensive.

Same story, different Developer... Seriously, just make something exclusive to Switch?

...an N64 style Wrestling game would be appreciated.

@Fazermint so? I enjoy Nintendo games and the current indie support is world class.

@Gs69 really no different than developing for smartphones as they are also ARM,

X86 throttles when mobile.

So when they say "work their way around it" are they saying they're going to scale their games for the switch, or literally go around it and not release any games?

So far there has been no games that pushes the Nintendo switch graphically or just insane coding wise.

Developers are too lazy to make hardware pushers like spec ops the line by ubisoft on nds

OR doom 2 running on gba.

@HSuzumiyaVI Recognize sarcasm, will you.

Here we go again...

Jesus cut Nordic some slack everyone,their not Ubisoft or EA. They want to support the Switch they want to support Nintendo,you seen that already.

I'd love for the Switch to be more powerful, but I'll take portability (and preferably 60fps; any resolution) over 1080p or 4K visuals at a wobbly frame rate.

I hope the Switch starts moving the industry away from power and towards games and fun.

@JaxonH It's not just about price. I'm sure plenty of people would have dropped $400 for a version with significantly more power but the chip simply didn't exist - at least not from NVidia. Nintendo went for the most powerful SoC available at the time in order to ship the system in march. With NVidia's current roadmap I would expect a hardware upgrade within a year that will bring the Switch in striking distance of PS4/Xbone. Of course that will cause some level of fragmentation which is unfortunate but I'm very interested to see how this plays out. If Nintendo offers a decent upgrade incentive it could be a game changer.

I told you guys. Weak console the Switch and especially for the price they ask. Nintendo really knows how to gain easily money. Parents will get it anyway and since the half population are children there you go. But THQ shouldn't focus on Switch anyway. Switch should be for gamers with light heart. Serious gamers who are older will know when to Switch. get it.. LMAO

@MsJubilee Please don't lump Ubisoft in with EA. They were one of the few third party companies to extensively support the Wii U last gen, and Mario + Rabbids is already looking like a classic exclusive.

@PAHTK problem is that no other mobile chip minus apples a9 is ready and able to power the Nintendo switch

Even the x2 has not been tested and is only in development kits for nvidia alone...

Raven ridge is a no show and amd failed to outbid nvidia for the switch soc.

This is why the smach Z is vapor ware.

@UK-Nintendo Nintendo said that the switch is easy for third party to develop for, the issue lies in the optimization of code left between getting it running on the switch.

@CyMalachi good luck with that, I own my switch and im buying lots of games but its definitely getting difficult.

@Mahe itso superior than the wii u, plus i care more about indies than the AAA devs, AA devs are welcome like NIS, level 5, telltale, way forward, shin'en, inti createso, fdg, yacht club games...

The Nintendo switch is experiencing a indie and middle ware Renaissance.

@Rudy_Manchego Nintendo paid Bethesda for skyrim

@JaxonH Already gave almost 400 for it in my country, so another 100, wouldn't have been much of a difference if it meant more power. But it is what it is.

If Switch even comes close to Wii like success, I could see a successor being made or even a mid-gen refresh which brings with it more power with backward capability for previous Switch games. The technology will only get better and pretty soon we'll have PS4 Pro and Xbox One X like power being able to be squeezed in to a frame the size of the original Switch. Right now it's not commercially viable, but we're getting there. Just look at the power of the new iPad Pro, that's an impressive machine for gaming given it's size. That said, it's super pricy so Nintendo has to balance that. But the other thing these developers need to understand is that by this time next year, PS4 Pro and Xbox One X will be outdated, heck they already pretty much are. What's more important is the gameplay...the hook to get you to actually play the games and spend some serious time with the machine. The Switch nails this. It might not be a powerhouse, but it offers amazing gameplay with the convenience of being able to play it anywhere. I certainly can't take Sony or Microsoft's current offerings on the bus with me during my morning commute...but I can totally hunt for Korok Seeds then. Developers just need to spend less time complaining about Switch's "lack of power" and more time on how to either optimize their current plans for the console or offer something truly unique for the platform.

@Ralizah You mean with pretty iffy ports of AC and that 1 year later version of Watch Dogs, and the Splinter Cell game that removed half the content and still wanted full price. Yes UBI sure supported that WiiU.

@Davidv portability was my selling point, the more power is welcome but as I've stated that I'd buy a more powerful Nintendo switch at 600 Australian dollars

But the switch is barely selling in Australia at 469 dollars.
Don't forget that 500 usd is the death zone.

Give us a sequel to Quest 64! I'm serious!

@rjejr you're forgetting that x86 is prone to throttling the internals are not going to work cramped in the switch copper heat enclosure.

Have by chance seen a teardown of the Nintendo switch?

@rjejr and x2 is not available on market,

Neither is AMD's raven ridge mobile chips.

The current market is tegra x1, snapdragon 820 and Apple A9

@RedMageLanakyn optimization I bet.

If they skipped the switch im blacklisting them like I did to ea

What the guy is saying technically isn't wrong but the problem is that lots of people don't want to here this kind of thing from a company. Saying "it is what it is" can be nice because it's down to earth or whatever but at the same time, it fills people with zero hope or faith in the company. That's not showing you support the Switch when you shrug it off (but they are supporting it) and it makes people weary to buy your games. I'm not saying every company needs to blindly love the Switch or any console in fact but if they want to sell something, these kinds of comments are not a good start...

@Fazermint use s/ next time, typed words cannot display tone.

I find it quite ironic THQ would be the ones complaining about this, while Battle Chasers looks like something that could easily run on the Switch.

Now if say CD Projekt Red (Witcher series developer) would say something like this, I would understand.

Its actually very sad. Its just a souped up Wii u.

Another developer to bite the dust it seems. Oh well I have a PS4.

@Savino In which sense do you mean is GTA less empty than botw exactly?
I'm really just asking, because I am unsure what about the world is so complex in your opinion.

@Ralizah That's true,but they weren't saints.

Really hope they can resolve these issues by October. Was really looking forward to the games by these guys.

Corrector's Corner:
"no one is reasonably expecting the console to host conversations which are 100 percent accurate"

conversations -> conversions

What's sad is that statement. What isn't sad is how much fun the Switch is.

If you don't have the skills to work with the device then don't get involved. Not everything is gimped because the developers feel the device is not powerful enough.

@Arngrim Name one major third party publisher that supported the Wii U more extensively.

They more than did their share in supporting Nintendo. Child of Light, ZombiU, and Rayman Legends in particular are very high quality.

@Ralizah I loved Child of Light and ZombiU. And i bought both AC3 and 4 on the WiiU, but that's about where their support ended. Might be more than say EA, who just jumped ship. But compared to their Wii support, it's not even close.

The problem isnt the power. The problem is that the platform has not proven enough to make it worth the custom development required to get the games running properly. They cant copy/paste/tweak like they can between Xbox/PS/PC so it requires more investment and work to get the game running properly. They don't want to do that, and spend that money, when there is no guaranteed ROI. Nintendo fans are historically finicky and you can never tell how they will react to to third party games.

Ummm.... To everyone saying that they need to "git gud" at programming, or that graphics don't matter, you have it so wrong.

It's not about resolution or flashy graphics, it's about processing power. Games nowadays are so complicated and need complex AI and animations, sometimes syncing up with servers from around the world all the while running a physics simulation for dozens, if not hundreds of objects. It's all SOOO much more than just a few visual effects. It takes tremendous processing power to make all that happen, and sorry, I love the Switch but it just isn't capable.

While engines certainly make it easier to move from one device to another if designed to do so it still comes with several caveats. Just because an engine runs on something doesn't mean the games made in it will work without effort or little effort. I think that has been the main issue I have taken with the discussion regarding 3rd parties from YouTubers and video game websites like Nintendo Life.

We have the asset problem first. While there are means in some engines to scale down things like textures. Youre still having to fight with half the memory of a modern console. Even then on we you're not just having the resolution of a texture, but many textures used in various rendering effects that materials need to operate correctly. You are also not guaranteed that 50 percent less space thanks to things like the os footprint. The engine code also doesn't scale either so that 200 meg executable won't get smaller and given how risc styled architecture is, you'll find these to be bigger. Then there is sound where third party products like wwise are used. Some designer or audio engineer will have scale back and tailor each file so it not only fits, but decompresses in a manner that doesn't sound like garbage and slow the game to a halt. Then there is the final factor. Custom code. While there are few reasons these days to dip down into the guts of an engine to make a game these days, some times it is still necessary. In these scenarios optimizations, specific technology needs, or other modifications are made. These can range to custom renderer or pipeline modifications that were only intended for the hardware the game was made for and only can be easily ported to a new more powerful machine with ease.

A lot of devs may use unreal engine 4 or other licensed products, but a lot of devs also use in house technology at some stage of their creation process. Ubisoft for example really doesn't depend on external tech too much. They use anvil, snowdrop, and a really old version cry engine which likely no longer resembles the original product. Engines like snowdrop were never intended to run on hardware like the switch. Here we have games using that engine where Ubisoft might pull the plug rather then release a product that is too much for even them to get away with leaving broken.

Lastly I've seen a lot of unreal 4 games try to make it work on the k1, the results aren't pretty. Injustice 2 looks like garbage and runs like garbage on that hardware. Granted the switch has an edge on the shield k1 and would run that game better. At the end of the day you're still stuck with the same problems. How do we scale the game back and maintain as much of the original product as possible. This results in baking in effects that are physically rendered on a modern machine, at that point you're just rebuilding the game.

@FragRed this assertion is incorrect. The switch is actually pretty far ahead of the technology curve when it comes to portables. In the us we have to stop thinking of this thing as a home console and more like a psp2000. This claim of them always being behind has only been true of two console generations. In the portable space Nintendo pretty much existed in a vacuum so they could get away with it. Nes was the only game in town, snes was beefier than the Genesis in every way save one very trivial factor, N64 had the beefiest gpu and CPU of that generation and really had a two fold Achilles heel that prevented them from being competitive. Gamecube also had better hardware than the PS2 and honestly was comparable to the Xbox.

So no. Being always behind the curve is really not Nintendo's mo. Price point has always been there game and trying to get away with as much tech at a low cost their mission statement for development. The switch is a marvel to behold, but it can't compete with a home console, because its core wasn't designed too. If Nintendo took a loss and went X2 instead of x1, and definitely added the 4 gigs of RAM it needs then it could compete and provide the kind of experience worthy of being a home console. Hell even the extra ram would help. Keep in mind Sony and Ms were going to go with 4 gigs of RAM at one point before realizing the grievous error they were about to make. Here we are still looking at increased memory in refresh hardware.

@ryanrybot
Complex AI: There are only very few games that actually have any noteworthy AI, one of them would be Hitman. BotW would already be well abive average here...

Animations: One of the games with especially complex animations would still be LA Noire, running on even weaker systems...

Syncing up with servers: Barely requires any power of the console at all.

Physics smulation for dozens of objects: I am curious, what kind of game are you talking about here?

Seriously though, especially today, hardware power in games is mostly used for the flashy visual effects.

@ryanrybot what you said was just rubbish, the textures are usually the most graphics intensive, Ai is a bit fairer but everything else you said was pure ignorance.

As a modder for source engine, the switch has support for a heavily optimized engine and the API are native Vulcan and the NVN nvidia'shield custom graphics drivers.

Ai is pretty cpu intensive however your comment falls short against breath of the wild where the ai is very autonomous and very responsive.

Not even halo 5 guardians ai holds a candle to the botw engine.
We are talking 3x the wii u docked and 360gflops in mobile.

Don't forget that the 3 gpu so on market worth a damn is the apple A9, Snapdragon 820 and Tegra X1. In 2017.

Raven ridge , x2 and A10 are not even out of testing let alone the damn cost.

The flaw in their logic IMO is that they "need" more power to build the games they are making. Most games can be ported quite while to most consoles with the right approach, with the exception of some really demanding game/game worlds (I wouldn't expect something like Anthem to run sufficiently well on a Wii and still be the same game, for example). It's like FF15 has this amazing hair simulation mechanics that supposedly requires a lot of power, but really, is that something required for the game to be FF15?

@nab1 when most of the power on pc games is in msaax4 and isotropic filterisation thats taking up the cpu cycle per clock cycle.

The switch has the advantage over the shield thanks to double ram, as nothing is faster than on board ram, even tegra has l1 and l2 cache.

Ai is a valid criticism but Rarely ever is used as power is used to render at a level of detail that is obscene and that can cause slowdown (botw 720p native on the wii u and it stutters) 900p on switch and the 3x gpu power keeps the switch fine (admittedly was not the case at the start) pretty much solid at a undercooked speed.

The switch true power is performance/ wattage

@Arngrim Of course it's not close to their Wii support. People actually bought the Wii.

My point is this: Ubisoft has supported Nintendo more heavily in its darkest hours than any other major third party publisher. I think that counts for something. Certainly, they at least deserve not to be compared to the likes of EA.

People do know that the switch is underclocked, right?

@Ralizah ubisoft succeeded getting a snowdrop engine game running, its called mario+rabbids kingdom battle

@Kirgo we call these "particles"

Water reflection is actually taxing on the cpu
Hence why snake pass has little reflection in the water.

I've excepted that Nintendo will always be at least one gen behind the rest with every new system. So why can't devs take their own best games from previous gen, make them GOTY editions and add more into each game and sell for €30 each. Sure the big games that will sell well, but also the hidden gems. I mean, I'd love dead space and Bioshock on the switch to name two.

Seems like an obvious choice, but sure, devs will say there is no money in that. Except, I'd buy them if I'm interested in them, and sure there will always be a new generation of people that where too young for ps360 at the time. It's an extra market of second chance gems to me.

Nintendo always make their games look amazing because it's older tech, so devs they hire can do more with it, squeeze more out of the system.

IDK, makes sense to me.

Is Switch inherently imbalanced when it comes to CPU performance and GPU performance, like the PS4 ando XO? Their Jaguar CPUs seem relatively weak, you have to redline the hell out of those budget laptop chips to get anywhere.

Does Switch, while relatively underpowered, offer a better balance of system architecture? If the CPU can cope, by all means scale down graphics to suit the system. If games can be released on, say, PS3/X360 and PS4/XO as they were in the first years of this current generation, why can't Switch get a look in. It surely outperforms the last gen.

However, it can't be that simple of course. Modern games will probably be designed from the ground up for the similar architecture on both home consoles, so porting to Switch will be anything but trivial.

Also, with the XOX and PS4 Pro, and the current landscape in the gaming market, scalability will surely be key for devs who want their game to work across all systems. Switch should not be left out of this process by default.

Edit: @NotSoCryptic Enjoyed your comments and perspective here.

What they really mean to say is "it's unfortunate that Nintendo's console doesn't have hardware parity with all other platforms so we can standardize our development process, keep our bloated costs more in check, to just produce one game to run everywhere, rather than having to expend resources to port things to specific hardware. We realize PC has that problem which is why most of our games run like trash on PCs unless you pony up at least $500 on your video card so you can use brute force to compensate our lack of attention."

What's also unfortunate is that what most of these companies sell is graphics, not gameplay, so they're always going to be hesitant to drop the graphics and provide the same gameplay experience, because in many modern games, without the graphics, there IS no meaningful gameplay experience, and it would become obvious. Darksiders has tons of gameplay. But imagine Uncharted, with old, say PS2 or GameCube graphics. Or Wii graphics. Without the visual "wow" the game is actually exceedingly dull. The same is true for many modern titles. Strip the graphics and the game isn't exciting. That's the real problem for most games having no business case with a lower graphics port. The game IS the graphics.

@PAHTK And if the launch PS3 sales were anything to go by, you'd be one of the few people that would buy it

Ultimately, this mentality is the reason that third parties do not perform well on Nintendo consoles. I don't say this to belittle them. I understand where they are coming from, but I understand Nintendo as well.

A third party is just looking to port games to their system. I am sure it is frustrating to companies like THQ, Activison, etc. for Nintendo being behind technologically. Many of these companies do not have the resources to allocate a team to do a game specifically designed for the Switch.

Nintendo on the other hand knows that consumers are not going to buy a AAA rated title from a third party on their system. It's just not going to happen (see the Gamecube). Therefore, they play to their strengths which is developing a unique system.

There really is no answer to this problem. It is just a frustration to both sides involved that is not at all likely to remedy itself. I expect Nintendo will need to continue to pump out first party titles to insure that the Switch has quality games frequently. Hopefully, the third party and independent firms can fill gaps as they present themselves.

@HSuzumiyaVI Yes, particles would be taxing but where are the games that work that much with particles.

And the argument was that power is important for more than just graphics. Water reflections are just graphics, so they really don't count here (mostly true for particles as well).

That the Switch isn't able to handle every visual effect is something I agree on.

@HSuzumiyaVI oh sure, don't get me wrong the portability is a great feature. Just it does seem that going that route is limiting the potential support it can get. Shame really but I guess it makes sense to them as the handheld side of things has been more consistent sales-wise.

@FragRed Not behind in technology, just a different approach. They chose effeciency.

@Savino You can also have dozens of objects on screen in BotW and all of them are even physics.
Most of the buildings in GTA aren't even noteworthy objects, way too simple geometry. (technically they aren't even objects at all)
Besides, what you are saying is mostly a graphical problem, to actually show all of that is the GPUs work, the CPU on the other hand has to handle the AI of the npcs and animals mostly, which isn't that much of a problem, since there aren't THAT many characters there. Physics would also be on the CPU, so that wouldn't make things so much worse.

But let's say that GTAV really is that much more complex. Most importantly, that would kinda prove my point, you know? GTAV also runs on PS3/360 which are both obviously weaker than the Switch/Wii U are in every way, but even they can handle it. They certainly are no powerhouses either.
So if they can handle such a complex game, Switch can as well.
Even if you were to include the BotW physics.

So the game evidently can run on a weak system.

Again, there are very few games that actually require notable horsepower for more than just nice visual effects. You can also get a hint to that by looking at system requirements for pc games. Things like AI and physics need to be calculated by the CPU, but the CPU requirements of games haven't risen a lot for several years now, making CPU upgrades for gaming pcs less and less important. The graphics card on the other hand still needs to be replaced every few years if you always want to play on highest settings with great fps.

Nowadays most games only need horsepower for the visual effects, nothing else.

Work our way around it, hmm gimped games incoming

@roboshort
Hmm there's a lot more ps4 can do that switch can't, just thought I would throw that ridiculous comment out there to match your ridiculous comment, tbh there's no need for talk like that, all hardware has pro and cons, but that was a fanboy comment if I ever heard one, bloody pointless

@HSuzumiyaVI But is that b/c of size, or b/c of power requirements?

I'm not arguing you can't make a mobile PS4, I'm arguing the Switch being "svelte" isn't the reason as the article stated.

"it would be impossible to cram the kind of internals seen in the PlayStation 4 or Xbox One into such a svelte frame."

I think it would be possible to cram them in their, you just couldn't get them running properly, too much heat, not enough power. Size isn't the issue, portability is.

If they changed that sentence to:

"it would be impossible to cram the kind of internals seen in the PlayStation 4 or Xbox One into such a portable console."

I would have been ok w/ it. Switch isn't svelte compared to any other 7" tablet, which the Switch is.

@nab1 "It's like FF15 has this amazing hair simulation mechanics that supposedly requires a lot of power, but really, is that something required for the game to be FF15?"

That's the sort of nonsense I hate about modern gaming. Let's spend ages messing about with hair simulation, sweat and the stitching on Chad's wallet, meanwhile important things like making sure the game plays like a treat and is actually fun ends up being an afterthought.

@NEStalgia
"What's also unfortunate is that what most of these companies sell is graphics, not gameplay, so they're always going to be hesitant to drop the graphics and provide the same gameplay experience, because in many modern games, without the graphics, there IS no meaningful gameplay experience, and it would become obvious. Darksiders has tons of gameplay. But imagine Uncharted, with old, say PS2 or GameCube graphics. Or Wii graphics. Without the visual "wow" the game is actually exceedingly dull. The same is true for many modern titles. Strip the graphics and the game isn't exciting. That's the real problem for most games having no business case with a lower graphics port. The game IS the graphics."

With you on that.

@HSuzumiyaVI "Have by chance seen a teardown of the Nintendo switch?"

No, I was looking for one, Couldn't find a nice Switch to PS4 Slim comparison either. I found this one but it's hard to judge w/ the X1 in the way.

The Switch is obviously quite a bit smaller than the PS4 Slim, but I still think at the right price it could be done. Not sure about power consumption though, that to me is the killer. Power in, heat out.

@rjejr the PC parts in a PS4, disc drive aside, just wouldn't fit in a 1/2" frame, heat wise or size wise. They're not made in that small a form factor. Tegra's the only thing of anywhere close to that power that actually is right now, and the whole point of PS4 was to use PC architecture and do it cheap (not subsidizing this time....which is why it's the first Playstation that's not overwhelming in power leap.) It "could" be done, but the thing would be 4 figures at minimum. Nobody would buy it except the people seriously interested in the new Porche 911 from the XBox stage at E3.

that's a beautiful picture though. There's a whole stack of VCRs from a pawn shop, and one modern piece of electronics.... Holy geeze that PS4 Pro is ginormous. Why can't X1X have Playstation games?

@WiltonRoots FFXV is a beautiful example. The stitching. The 900 hours of R&D on realistic hair follicle animation. This all has to be in the box Day One! Actual scenarios, boss battles, and portions of the game world? Oh, we can add that over the next year or so....

@HSuzumiyaVI
Yes, textures take up RAM which can be scaled down to take up less memory. My argument wasn't about textures but all the other systems in place which slower systems have a hard time processing on the CPU, not the GPU.

Ok, you modded a 12 year old engine, which no games on the Switch uses. Good? So then you should know that a lot of game engines don't support Vulkan, but instead would have to run on OpenGL, which makes none of what you said relevant.

Admittedly, I am only about 15 hours into BotW, so there may be more AI intensive enemies later in the game, but I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that the AI is amazing. There's maybe only a handful of states that I have seen. There never seems to be any flanking, or running from bombs even after I've blown them up a few times, or archers getting into better positions. In regular combat, they just run at me until they die. Plus I have never seen more than half a dozen enemies at a time. With a simple state machine, that wouldn't be to CPU extensive at all. I could be wrong though. Like i said, I am not very far into the game, relatively.

I like how you just pulled a bunch of number out of thin air for the Switch specs. Also none of the processors you mentioned are GPUs but are a SOC; all of which are fast mobile chips, but are slow compared to what console and PC developers are used to working with in terms of available processing power.
In the end, I'm sorry i can't take any of what you said seriously, even though you tried really hard to sound like you know what you are talking about.

@mateq Breath of the Wild looks pretty stunning in 1440p or 2160p at 60 FPS in Cemu.

@rjejr Why did you post a picture of a Wii U and a Switch on top of 3 VCR's?

@PlywoodStick That's a Big Mac, Quarter Pounder and Whopper Jr.

@Savino
I think, at least the bigger buildings are probably more like terrain, like mountains. Smaller buildings of course would be a collection of objects.

What do you mean by "tuned down euphoria physics"? Did they actually try to do something significant with it, but couldn't? I haven't heard anything about that.
If that is true, games with an high use of this physics engine could be some of the said few exceptions. Although we do not know wether Switch and maybe even Wii U could handle it regardless, they are faster than PS3/360 after all.

The fact that PS3/360 couldn't handle big open worlds very well is old news. That wasn't because it requires immensly powerful hardware, but because of their incredibly low amount of memory, which is key for big worlds.
Even the Wii U is already far superior to that and even on PS3/360 with that kind of handycap there were games like GTAV...
It really shouldn't be an issue anymore.

@NEStalgia "It "could" be done, but the thing would be 4 figures at minimum."

Thus proving my point.

@PlywoodStick Maybe, but CEMU is not the way the game was intended to be played

I think the console is plenty powerful for my needs, but I am a dreaded casual gamer.

I think they should have said we're lazy and want to use API's like OGL with 40% overhead. I'm tired of these lazy devs.

@EDF I think you need to change your perspective and understand the difference between system functionality/specs and processing power/specs, which is just one subsystem, albeit a quite important one.

Lack of power doesn't mean become lazy. Instead of making lazy ports, how bout just make a new title that utilize the Switch unique feature rather than continue to make better versions of games that plays like it's 1995.

Developers are always making excuses for their lack of knowledge with Nintendo consoles. Let's be honest, if the Switch is not very powerful how does it run Breath of the Wild? If the Switch is not very powerful how did the Wii U run games like Beyonetta 2 (similar to Darksiders) and Xenoblade Chronicles X (had a bigger world than Fallout 4 and The Witcher 3)?

I don't see the point of the back and forth over the graphic capabilities of NINTENDO'S Switch and the PS4 vrs. Xbox vrs. THE PC ., Can a gaming system not be an AWESOME and a FANTASTIC unit on it's own MERITS ? TEN YEARS after the Wii and articles like this still exist. I dont know or understand why if you like to play Video Games you would limit yourself to it has to have the best graphics and the most processing power to be relevant , I like playing titles on PS4 and PC that have photo realistic graphics I like playing titles on my 3DS with it's stereoscopic 3D especially the 8bit and 16bit style titles like Gunvolt and Shovel Knight which are every bit as fun as those PC and PS4 titles , for me thats ALL THAT MATTERS that it is fun., A way to release and forget STRESS and so far my Nintendo Switch is a perfect way to relax and have a great time , my Nintendo Switch has even made that easier to do just by how accessible it is .

As I see some are comparing the Switch to a gaming laptop, yes the Switch's parts could have been done with mobile gpus and cpus with a much higher price, not to mention the sound and noise it would produce. Remember this: All that space used in a PS4, XBOX One, etc is mostly just the shell, cooling, Blu-ray reader, and HDD (which could easily be replaced with an NVM-e M.2 SSD that is the size of a stick of gum). If they could somehow cool the device off without a large cooling set-up, they could easily make a higher end switch.

However.....what would justify the price? A gaming laptop isn't just a gaming device...but a switch is. I doubt users would pay at least $600 for a higher grade switch unless some dev decides they would only release it to that system...which would then be pointless.

But, as we see with GPU iterations over time, 4k 60fps is already here for the Nvidia 1080 ti. So assuming the trend continues, that currently $700 gpu will in 2-3 years be $400ish, and then 2-3 years even later, $200-250. By that time Nintendo could have their portable system and still have plenty of power for their games, unless devs finds some way to rapidly increase graphical prowess. Only think I think right now is holding them back is complex shadow calculations you see with the Metro games and Watch Dogs 2 (cuts fps by 2/3rds).

So right now, I think it's pointless to compare the switch to other consoles. The price/worth ratio just isn't worth it.

@Fazermint Yeah, nobody is saying that in this article. They are simply stating that they develop for more powerful hardware, and naturally there is a step down with Switch (albeit one backed by an excellent tool set).

THQ Nordic are working on Switch.

Seriously? This feels like they're making excuses.

In an age where console games have been made playable on portable systems and running properly, there is no excuse. They should be able to work around hurdles and make it enjoyable for a system like the Switch.

@HSuzumiyaVI Partly, sure. Are you saying that it isn't a good idea to port highly popular games to the Switch ?

@Iggy-Koopa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Hopefully they can get Darksiders 3 running. I have the PS4 version pre-ordered but I might be tempted to move that over to a Switch version if they could get it to run competently on the system.

That's what she said...

I'm sick of these comments. Why should visuals be vital for Gameplay. The most amazing looking game can still be bad if it isn't enjoyable to play.

@Fazermint Aaaaaaah..... Forgive me. Not enough caffeine powering the old detector at present.

I think Nintendo should make a Dock-Pro with a Gpu. You could play your Games in a better way on the TV and still enjoy them on the go.
Ultrabooks do the same and it works fine. But thats just my opinion

He's just wigging out because they promised Kickstarter backers an NS release and Nintendo doesn't just let you dump 10+GB of uncompressed files onto their system.

Of course it isn't going to be a PS4 or XBO. And thank god for that because I don't need three identical consoles competing with eachother for the exact same crap. Variety is good. Two systems are teaching developers to make bloated games (gotta fill up your HDD ASAP) even to the point of now adding 4K textures when people with regular HDTVs won't see any of that detail. Nintendo doesn't need to enter that rat race, they're bringing gaming to a wider audience....beyond the 30-something dudebros.

Don't expect Darksiders3 on NS any time around its release.

I'm not sure why developers are even making a big deal out of this. To me it sounds like a giving them an underhanded pitch in an age when game development has become prohibitively expensive. But no, you have comments like this or comments like "porting our game to the system is laughable" from the guys who made Titan fall 2 (which I loved, but considering that game didn't do well...).

I guess the major publishers have to tow the line with Sony and microsoft and blindly spout how graphics and power equal good, even though the Wii and the 3ds have proved that wrong.

@Romeo-75 Point well made. Gameplay and enjoyment over everything.

@Leostacks I don't think they are making "a big deal out of this", they are just pointing out the obvious. Reading the comments around here, it should also be obvious why, as apparently, if a game doesn't run properly on the Switch, it's a either lazy devs or poor coding skills ^^

Even if that WERE true, which it absolutely isn't, not every dev has the ressources or the interest to make the effort necessary to port over their respective game. Also, some might actual not want to compromise their particular vision of the game just to fit it onto the Switch at all costs.

Game development costs are certainly rising in terms of AAA development, but at the same time they are obviously not prohibitive. Why else would anyone keep making them? The costs are prohibitive for smaller and mid-sized ventures, who gamble their whole existence on a single project, that much is true, but the big publishers are still running a profitable business model, capable of sustaining a couple of duds.
I mean, obviously, new revenue streams had to be explored and that is why you've got your DLCs, Season-Passes, Micro-Transactions, Subscriptions/games-as-a-service, and so on, but the thought that the whole industry would just revert back to visuals form a generation ago, and thus solve their cost-explosion problems (which btw are not at all only due to increases in visual fidelity) is absurd.

I think Nintendo was brave to go against the momentum in the industry, and I'm glad they seem to succeed, but the fact is, and I think we all should just accept that, and not complain about it, that it takes alot more effort to port anything to Switch, than it takes porting anything between PS4-X1-PC, and in some instances it won't be possible (without significant effort and compromise to the product), HENCE the library of the Switch will never be able to replace a PS4 or X1 or PC. It'S not going to happen, and no, it doesn't matter a bit how the Switch is selling. That is false narrative. Yeah, obviously you'll get more games by developers like EA or Activision if the Switch is a success, but no, that does not mean that you'll get Anthem (assuming you want it) on the Switch, just because the Switch is looking to sell 100 Mio units.

You will get a new Fifa though, and some version of the next Call of Duty, and probably some more exclusive Ubisoft game, or something like that.

I'm just saying this, because every other day, there will be news about this or that game not coming to Switch, and folks will start spouting the same lines about laziness and coding skills and whatever again, refusing to just accept certain technical as well as economical realities.

Don't buy the Switch if you want to play Anthem (yeah, I'm using it as a pars pro toto for that kind of AAA-game ^^). It's NOT going to happen, and that is OKAY. Just know what you want, and make a decision accordingly. THe WiiU had fantastic games, so did the PS3, the same goes for the Switch and the PS4. It's just mostly DIFFERENT games that make these systems worth owning and playing.

@memoryman3 with downgraded graphics, yes. Wii has xenoblade, godfather, twilight princess. Even cod 4 was said to not be able to run in Wii but when mw2 came out on next gen, Wii got mw1 and several other cod games. I enjoyed a couple of them on Wii due to Wii more controls being better then a game pad( in my opinion)

I would have very happily spent double the price on a Switch with double the power. But I know I'm in the minority here. The lack of power hasn't stopped the Switch being a success but this is because the Switch is seen as primarily a portable gaming device and in that respect it is pretty powerful.

I personally think Zelda and Mario Kart, in particular, look stunning when I'm docked mode, too.

I'm hoping the structure of the Switch system will let Nintendo releases an upgraded Switch in two to three years that is backward compatible and / or can play games scaled up or down as necessary. Assuming that functionality is programmed in to the games, of course.

The switch has parity close enough to base xbone and ps4 that if devs were willing to optimize games and overhaul game engines that many if not the vast majority of their libraries would be portable to the switch. However much like PC games, many devs lack the willingness, skill, and money to do so. It isn't so much that the switch can't run most of these games; it is more that devs are unwilling to put in the work to make them work on the switch (which is why Fifa 18 isn't a bad start for EA). For me the switch has replaced the majority of my other systems for usage (finally caved and turned off the ps4 last week after its been in sleep mode since the switch came out), so I'm focused on buying games where I'm spending the most time. So if devs don't want to port, I likely won't be buying. My backlog is at a point that I'm almost wasting money if I'm buying for a system that is not in regular rotation right now, so I am not very bothered by not having more games I don't have time to play.

If Nintendo stays in the game long enough they'll catch up in power with diminishing returns. It's already starting to happen...I think.

Frankly, after I got the Switch I don't want no other console. Having a home console ON THE GO like a handheld is fantastic. I already sold my XONE and I'm selling my PS4 soon since I don't feel like playing them anymore.

Nintendo Switch is the future. If devs still want only muscles, too bad, they won't have my money. I'm all in for the sheer fun of my Switch.

@ryanrybot merlin is amds raven ridge soc.

Smach Z update, the chip manufacturer "rhomb.io" formally imasd
Has emailed to say that they have abandoned the kickstarter, citing concerns about the project makers lack of knowledge of fabrication and lack of knowledge of the economic and technical implications.

Firstly AMD merlin soc was not meant to be used in a tablet device and runs on 15v

In later news Supermetaldave64 has claimed that something big is happening in 2017 hes hinting on the SCD that trail went cold in may this year.

As for the switch pro, i see the scd as a console based dock (basically a n64 dock for the switch)

Smach Z is definitely dead and likely too expensive to compete against the switch.

It's powerful enough to make games for! The End.

@mateq Well, the final NS & Wii U version axed the originally planned Wii U controls, so they aren't the way BotW was originally intended to be played either. The Wii U controls were taken out to accommodate the NS version, which turned out to be a great business decision... But now, no one will ever play BotW as it was originally intended to be played. May as well go for a performance upgrade if the control scheme isn't anything special. I bought a Wii U copy of BotW, and won't go for an NS for at least another year, so... 60+ FPS and no super slowdown in places like the Korok Forest sounds like a great deal to me.

@FX102A I agree with you. All of these developers are complaining about their ports. How about they just make a new IP or a different game with the same franchise for the Switch?

It may be underwhelming power wise,but I bet it would be a great way to continue making money on all the previous gen IP's.
The only thing I want from THQ Nordic is DAH 1 & 2. It would be awesome to have Crypto on the go.

@aesc That would have been cool to experience. Maybe there's some of that code leftover, and can be recovered in the future somehow through reverse engineering? Eh, probably not... But it would be nice to see!

I'm glad Nintendo Life have curtailed the expectations of Switch fanboys. I remember the insane amount of Switch owners on here claiming it destroys Xbox One when in fact its just beyond the Wii U!

So basically, the Switch will have some Japanese support, a few try-outs from the West and other than that, it's a Nintendo machine. Nothing ever changes, does it?

A portable marketed with what may as well be false marketing, the pathetic pretence of "home-console" when that aligns it with PS4/Xbox One. They never learn.

@Ryu_Niiyama I've a feeling that "Nintendo consumers only buy Nintendo games" is still plaguing them. Maybe all these new Switch owners will prove them wrong? I honestly don't know. Missing out on a ton of third-party games is a pain in the butt.

I've not turned on my Switch in a few weeks, going towards month.