
Final Fantasy XV director Hajime Tabata caused quite a stir a short time ago when he hinted that the game could be coming to the Nintendo Switch.
With the announcment of Final Fantasy XV Pocket Edition soon afterwards, many assumed that version would be released on Nintendo's system, but in a chat with Eurogamer Tabata reveals that it's still his intention to bring the full experience to Switch:
We're actually doing very specific technical investigations into what's possible at the moment. Where we are at the moment - we've completed those tests and have worked out where the ground lies. We're currently in the middle of the discussion and debate about what we should be doing, and how to realise that on the Switch.
The other thing - you see the mobile version, the PC version, one thing we value is to optimise the way the game plays and the experience for the individual hardware it's on rather than a one-size fits all approach. We can't currently announce anything - we haven't come to a full decision on the best way to do it yet. We're having very open, frank discussions with Nintendo at the moment about what they think is the best thing to do. It's all under investigation.
Tabata - who also revealed that he still doesn't have a Switch of his own but is hopeful that Santa will bring him one at Christmas - also explained that Square Enix is talking to Epic about possibly using its Unreal Engine to power a port:
Honestly, when we did the technical test to see if we could use the same native engine we used on other console versions on the Switch, we tried to run it there, the results weren't satisfactory. It wasn't what you'd want from a final game. It doesn't mean that's the end of that - we're looking at the options, like the customisation of the engine. To give you an example how open those discussions are - we're talking to Epic at the moment, about maybe what we could possibly do there, and if we did a Switch version maybe we'd be able to partner and do something there. Their Unreal environment is just amazing, and will be very useful. You have to have all those options on the table - without that it'd be impossible to make a decision about what we can do on that platform.
Given that Doom and Wolfenstein 2 have both been confirmed for Switch recently, it gives us hope that somehow Square Enix can find a way of cramming the full Final Fantasy XV console experience into Nintendo's hybrid system.
Are you as optimistic, or do you think it's an impossible task? Let us know with a comment.
[source eurogamer.net]
Comments 115
Nah....
I still hope for FF X/X-2 & FF XII The Zodiac Age for Switch.
I think its gonna happen but it will take a while.
I'd buy it. Didn't play it when it originally came out.
I'd get it day one, as long as it's full FF XV experience with maybe slightly reduced graphics. Not so keen on the pocket edition
Bought it for cheap on the PS4 already so probably wouldn't bother getting it again. Can't see this being the kind of game I would want to replay. However, if you bring the Kingdom Hearts games to the Switch, then I will be interested.
Oh, I can wait as long as needed, guys. Especially if I get FFXII to play and FFXIII trilogy to replay on Switch in the meantime.
"Shame? I'm a fan, what is this "shame" thing you speak of?
Translation:
"So ya... Bethesda have like totally made the rest of us look like *****, so... Switch can now have all our games. kthnxbi."
This is slowly but surely developing into a Kingdom Hearts 3 situation. What I mean is, that I only start to believe they are working on the true FF15 on Switch when I have the thing in my own hands. Until then, I believe Square nothing. Much better for your gamer health.
Just do it lads.
I rather have localized Seiken Densetsu Collection and the FF7 remake though͵ but if people like this game then why not.
Just bring the Secret of Mana Trilogy to switch for the West
I would guess most people who wanted this game have already bought it, and those last 3 chapters have put them off ever playing it again.
I personally think that there are several classic games (e.g: FF6 and FF7) that would be easier to port, less of a monetary risk, better aimed at the typical Switch player, and better suited to the hardware.
If anyone can do it, it's Square Enix.
Just look at Final Fantasy XIV Online. It's incredibly optimized and after two full expansion releases it still doesn't take up more than 20-30 GB on my PC and PS4!
In comparison. Elder Scrolls Online already sits well over 90 GB on my PS4! /shrug
Final fantasy 9 would be prefered, my wallet is screaming spend me at my ps4 at the moment but I will prevail. A anthology of the snes ports would be nice though.
As others have said, I'd rather have the Secret of Mana trilogy and, say, the first six Final Fantasy games (not the iPad remakes).
Forget about XV, I just want that VII remake.
Give me Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5+2.5 ReMix and I'm content.
I'm glad they're investing time and resources to find if it's possible instead pf just giving up without trying.
Last I red, Tabanta was working on a new game that uses Luminous, so if something comes out of this, it'll be a looooooooooooooong way off.
FFXV's engine never seemed well optimised when I played on PS4 and Pro, if Bethesda get Skyrim, Doom and Wolfenstein 2 running well on Switch then the only excuse for Square is that their own engine isn't very good. The game itself was good first time round but I doubt I'd play it again
Square Enix in 2022: We've concluded from our investigations that we won't be releasing a Final Fantasy game on Switch.
the key point i got of this interview is that square might use the ue4 engine for ff15 switch, it's going to take a while obviously for the game to change engines as big as ff15 world's is
I think Final Fantasy is a possibility, 15 though would come down to if they could license use of UE4 or even iDtech6 to make the game run admirably at a locked 30fps/720p level. If not, and groaning and whining would surely happen, but looking back you have the FF10/10-2 remake, FF13 pt1-3, and even the android upgrade/conversion of the best FF9. I wouldn't put it beyond them with the touch screen to bring over DS/3DS stuff either like Theaterhythm.
Appreciate their efforts, but maybe should focus more on future games now.
B R A V E L Y T H I R D
It would be epic to have Final Fantasy main series again in Nintendo after VI. Losing Final Fantasy VII was a turning point of Sony's dominance.
Good thing is that FF VII remake is using the Unreal engine so it should be easier to port it to Switch than XV.
I want them both ofc. Also a Final Crisis and Type-o package wouldn't hurt.... Also the games with that Lightning chick.
In the meantime, I wouldn't mind some kind of Final Fantasy anthology collection on Switch. (which I could realistically only expect to include the first six games, but would love if it also included the PS1 trilogy)
I wouldn't have my hopes high for Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts games on Switch. The architecture of Switch is different and less powerful and Final Fantasy XV uses a unique engine (Luminous). It would be almost impossible to port the game to a system with a different and less powerful architecture unless you downgrade the game heavily. Even Xbox One and PS4 have problems running it and it is only expected to run smoothly on Xbox One X, with the Windows version not available yet.
If they managed a fully functional port, even at 720, I'd be totally happy and buy it. I never did finish playing it on the PS4 because other things came up, but I would happily start over on the Switch.
But if in order to port it, they have to dumb down the game and remove features, then pass. I'll just get around to dusting off my PS4 and playing it there... eventually.
I would prefer a FF collection, I personally didnt rate XV at all, it just felt so shallow to me.
Im not hating on people who want to see it on switch, but there are much , much better FF games that could be ported way easier.
It took forever and so much money to make FFXV that it's understandable why they're putting so much thought in porting to the Switch. It's a new and booming market. It'd be real cool if they could effectively port it
Final Fantasy VII Remake uses Unreal Engine 4 but seeing how cross-gen games like Dragon Quest Heroes 2 have so many problems running on Switch even using last-gen features it's difficult to believe that we'll be seeing a more demanding game like Final Fantasy VII Remake on Switch. And if we see it, I wonder in what state.
Not until Doom and Yooka-Laylee have been released can we see what sacrifices have been made to allow these new games to run on Switch. Even a basketball game like NBA2K18 had to find a balance between last-gen and new-gen visuals and cut the frame rate in half to run on Switch.
Oh, let it rest already! On the other hand Wolfenstein 2 is coming (a recent game), so there's a slipher of hope!
@Nookingtons The engine is not everything. Anyway, no, it's not the same engine. FFXV uses Luminous as I posted above and FFVII Remake and Kingdom Hearts 3 use Unreal Engine 4.
Square Enix have stated that FFXV and the Luminous engine have been worked on for years and that they want to keep on working on their engine and collaborating with Nvidia to achieve the best possible visuals. However, they are also working with Unreal Engine 4 to explore its possibilities.
Maybe Nintendo should be a little more hands on with this one. I personally don't see THAT gorgeous game on the Switch but Nintendo has shown how they can make huge gorgeous games with small file sizes. The masters of optimization! Just got to wait and see I guess...
I don't see why they can't port the other HD remakes/remasters for the time being, considering they probably wouldn't require so much power to play smoothly.
I'd take the full ffxv experience on the switch but only if it works smooth.
Pocket edition does look interesting though
I wouldn't say it's absolutely impossible, but it's highly unlikely. There's no way that the Switch can natively run the full Luminous Engine, not a snowball's chance in hell. Tabata was only recently speaking about how to max out the upcoming PC version of FFXV:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/08/final-fantasy-15-pc-gameworks-hajime-tabata-interview/
Reading this, it seems like Tabata is not at all concerned with optimizing FFXV for a lower end platform like the Switch. In fact, he essentially talks about consoles going the way of the dodo. As the article highlights his take on it, "Where we're going, we won't need consoles."
For what it's worth, though, he did talk about going in the direction of streaming games. So it seems like the only possible way that the Switch could have FFXV on it is if it's streamed. Considering the Switch isn't really geared towards streaming (and has been slow to adopt Netflix and such, despite being ready), that's a really long shot.
@JudgeMethos Nintendo has achieved nice cartoonish visuals on Switch with Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey but nothing at the level or remotely resembling FFXV in detail, textures, animation, effects...
@Bunkerneath that would have my money even with Switch Tax.
@BlueOcean
But that's why they're talking about porting it into Unreal Engine 4, which runs great on Switch.
If DOOM and Wolfenstein 2 and NBA 2k18 and FIFA18 and WWE 2k18 and LA Noire and Skyrim and Resident Evil Revelations 2 can all run on Switch, FFXV could too.
Obviously it would need UE4, and be toned back a bit like all other games ported. But that's a good thing. Get it running on a better engine
I didn't get FF XV so I would love to have it on Switch. But I don't like the mobile characters so that is a deal breaker for me. Basically, lower frame rate or lower graphics are fine but not mobile character design.
I would also love to have countless numbers of games brought back as a remake. Final Fantasy 8, Final Fantasy 9, Secret of Mana. I would even particularly like another remake of one of the Mystery Dungeon games. Maybe Torneko or maybe Chocobo Dungeon. Either way a Mystery Dungeon should be easily able to work on Switch without any problem whatsoever.
@PlywoodStick
He said they were in talks with Epic and Nintendo to get it ported to Unreal Engine 4. So it wouldn't be running on Luminous
@BlueOcean This may perhaps change with Metroid Prime 4, but otherwise I don't see Nintendo make games in this vein themselves. However, I hope the realistic games that come over, namely Wolfenstein and DOOM will look good enough, so far that's possible.
Also that work on the Unreal Engine is already culminating into something (imho) good, that being Octopath Traveler.
@JaxonH Sorry, deleted the redundant comment, my phone is screwing up and moving like molasses!
@UmniKnight I can't wait to see the Switch version of Doom and Wolfenstein and see how they compare with the others.
Metroid Prime 4 is still so far away, I'm afraid. I'm a big Metroid Prime fan but the games were never particularly detailed, but doesn't tell us anything about the next game, though. Who knows how Metroid Prime 4 looks, if it really exists beyond the logo.
I know what you mean, that Metroid Prime 4 won't be cartoonish, supposedly.
@JaxonH "In talks" yeah, but who knows if that will pan out. Tabata doesn't seem to be putting much of his effort into that, if any. SE worked long and hard to make the Luminous Engine (dating back to Nova Crystallis and FFXIII Versus), I don't know if they're really keen to work towards making a lesser version. Epic would have to do all the heavy lifting, and they'd have to figure out how to force the Luminous Engine to port everything over while fixing critical bugs. I wouldn't put much stock into that, but it would be great if it worked out somehow.
@BlueOcean Metroid Prime was about the only example I can think of that Nintendo would make "realistic" looking. I can't think of any other IP of theirs that would look anyway remotely like that.
Give me full FFXV or no FFXV at all.
And more importantly, start making FF6 and Chrono Trigger remakes with Octopath traveller engine, if they are not coming already.
@UmniKnight Right. I believe that Nintendo consoles need Metroid Prime and it's been so long since Metroid Prime 3.
@Anti-Matter yess why not Square bring those game to us. switch will definitely capable.
FF6 remake, Chrono Trigger remake, or FF9 HD port would be better.
Seems like a massive task to get it running smoothly on Switch, the remakes would be better as others have mentioned.
Final Fantasy is my favourite RPG series. So, bring it on, bring them ALL on the Switch. I'll buy 'em in a heartbeat.
Honestly I couldn't care less about Final Fantasy 15, it's Final Fantasy in name only. Final Fantasy is supposed to be a turn based RPG, not an action game.
Same with the FF7 remake, way to turn me off from one of my all time favorite games.
I'd prefer seeing a Final Fantasy Collection come to the Switch. Feels like a better option.
Wouldn't mind them trying to bring Final Fantasy 14 to the Switch though.
That fact that we're still hearing about it at all gives me a lot of hope. They realize what a great opportunity they have here.
No different from his previous responses. It's like there're never ending uncertainties on their end. If it's gonna be like this he shouldn't have teased anything in the first place
If the graphical nerfs aren't too drastic, I would prefer to play it on the Switch over the anticipated PC port.
As much as FFXV would be cool on Switch, when and if it comes to Switch the game would've been on the market for a few years.
Best thing for Square to do is port of the remakes or make a new FF build from the ground up on Switch.
Don't bother
My main shock is that they have Santa in Japan?
What a different tune from a few months ago where he laughed and said "that can't run on there!" And then admitted he hadn't actually tried when asked. And from there, the switch has been sold out non stop for months, Bethesda and 2K have gone all in and now it's suddenly "oh we're talking to Epic about a complete engine retrofit to get it on Switch".... I can understand the business behind these decisions but these companies are so unprofessional when it comes to just saying what the situation is.
Glad to hear it. Granted, I have the game for PS4 already...and it's still in shrink wrap...and I'm probably never going to play it given all the downloads and season passes involved. If it came out as FFXV Complete on Switch, though, I'd probably double dip and get it. Switch's library is getting so large, I'm really thinking of winding down my PS4 usage to a handful of exclusives only and otherwise sidelining it to the dustbin. I can't see it getting any use for the next year....and that's with P5 Take Your Heart still sitting in shrink wrap and Assassin's Creed Origins still on the way.
Curse you, Splatoon!
For whatever it's worth, it's nice to hear they're seriously exploring the possibility.
Please please please 👏🏻
@Anti-Matter I would buy all of three! Including FFVII!
This game is old news and Final Fantasy is a wash-out franchise now that does nothing exciting but to sell the name. With Project Octopath coming to Switch, I have no interest for a Final Fantasy game, not even a port of Final Fantasy XV or that FFVII remake that is basically just a re-skin of a Kingdom Hearts game.
@NEStalgia Dude Splatoon eats your gaming time like it's nothing! I have a huge backlog but Splatoon 2 is constantly interfering!
@BlueOcean dude having kingdom hearts would be fantastic! Seems like the right kind of style for a switch game...
Nah, he's just doubling down on his brilliant joke about FF XV coming to that console which sounds like "twitch".
The jester!
I'll save everyone a lot of disappointment and say that this game is good, but just good. It's not great or amazing or excellent. It's just good.
That said, porting it to Switch would be a waste of time and money.
I loved it. It's the best modern FF in my opinion and I would definitely play it again on Switch. The 4 bros are very endearing ...made me realise how bland the cast of the (very good) ff12 was.
So they're trying to get the actual HD version over the super-deformed one. That's already a lot better than having them say "of course you're getting the pocket edition, we didn't even think about doing otherwise!".
Give me Crystal Chronicles dammit
In three years.
Thanks to Bethesda, other third-parties are performing more climb-downs than a game of 'reverse Snakes & Ladders'
I'd prefer to see Kingdom Hearts honestly...
Hopefully it'll get the FF7 remake the PS4's getting...
Lol @ third parties and their continued excuses.
As for me, I have played the game for hundreds of hours. It is nice but not that great.
I am hoping for other remaster Final Fantasy port. Why not. Instead of wasting energy and time porting XV.
Appreciate the effort, but I think I'd rather have FFXII the Zodiac Age or even the PC port of FFVII
Good to hear Nintendo in on it. That's the best take away I got from that. If Nintendo's in on it, it's almost a lock that FFXV full edition will come to Switch but they have to sort out how best to realize that. Either way this goes, I'm happy just to know what I know so far. Wish I could say the same with other devs that just leave it at "oh, we can't do that on Switch" or "Haha, yeah right!".
@LittleLion I promised myself I wouldn't let 2 do to me what 1 did to me and my backlog.
I'm such a liar.
kinda cool but I just don't see much value in doing that. Remakes sure. Partnership with Nintendo on a true Mario RPG maybe. I don't know I rather companies take the EA approach and custom build. The market is there the dedicated resources. Those are my two cents.
Well developers wouldn't have to do this if the Switch was a proper console and not just a tablet...
@DiddlyDoneDead Yes, Kingdom Hearts is fantastic and so is Final Fantasy XV. There's much more to them than mashing buttons but people need to put some dedication and realise. I still like turn-based RPGs but we still have Dragon Quest for that.
It's obvious that Square Enix is more open-minded now about what platforms should get Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts games with FFX/X-2 and FFXII The Zodiac Age launching for Windows and FFXV and KHIII on Xbox One but they need to be much clearer.
Are FFXII The Zodiac Age and FFVII Remake coming to Xbox One? Is KHIII coming to Windows? What about the older games available for mobile and for PS4? What games are coming to Switch? They haven't even confirmed an international release for the Secret of Mana trilogy or if The Zodiac Age will be available on Xbox One.
Square Enix should tell us what to expect on each platform, not everybody has a PS4.
Looking forward to seeing how it turns out if they go for it.
@shani
Supposedly they had to for Nintendo last two consoles, even if those weren't even portable. Yes yes, now you will say that those weren't "proper" either, but it's not really about whether it's a console or not.
Still waiting for the complete Kingdom Hearts experience on Switch. Don't see why they can't port the HD Remixes and optimize a version of Kingdom Hearts 3 to the Switch. Come on Square Enix, make it happen!!! Also, I want an English localization of Seiken Densetsu Collection on Switch, even if it's eShop only...I want an English version of that collection!!!!
I'm still playing FFXV on PS4, but maybe in three years when/if this does come out I might want to play it again.
I applaud them for at least putting forth the effort and resources to see if FFXV can optimally work on the Switch. Whether or not it makes it, at least they tried.
I just kinda feel like they should have waited until they had something to announce before trying to say something. Kinda like the silence for DQXI (its coming but SE won't say anything until they have something to say...not a bad policy to have right now).
@shani That's kind of 1990's thinking. It goes nicely with a PS2.
What's the difference between a "proper console" and a tablet? ARM v.s x86 architecture and efficient computing with a low thermal envelope? A high end cell phone runs circles around a top end beige box computer from 10 years ago. A desktop PC is at least unique because it's built around general purpose computing at the cost of unrestricted TDP and power requirements while everything is funneled through the generic CPU, while an SoC consists of a collection of single purpose ICs, but it's been discussed that the future of Moore's law is short in span, and even desktop and server infrastructure will move toward single purpose ICs and SoCs as well. Sure the actual compute power of a Switch as implemented is lesser than the compute power of a PS4 or X1X as implemented, but that has do do with current limitations and tradeoffs of thermal and power management, nothing inherent to there being a meaningful difference in architectures anymore.
Honestly Switch is the only "proper console" of the current generation. Purpose built hardware filled with dedicated single purpose ICs to fulfill it's intended function as a games console. XBox and PS4 have succumbed to being laptop PCs in an immobile plastic case, a dedicated GPU, large PSU, and a bigger fan. Remove the screen and battery on a Switch and it's still a games console. PS4 is a PC in all but OS, and XB1 is literally running Win10.
Hey, anything that further proves that the Switch can play any of the current gen games! I'd love for this to happen, if only to open that door even further than Bethesda already has.
@NEStalgia You're doing yourself a disservice by not playing Persona 5. It's one of the best games of all time.
@NEStalgia @Pod Yeah I was mostly referring to the architecture, to the IDE and to how the market (= developers, gamers, media, so-called analysts and even shareholders) perceives it.
I believe if the Switch would
a) be using a similar architecture to PCs and the other consoles (like Nintendo's last few home consoles did) and
b) was offering the same (or at least similar) IDE that most game devs are used to and
c) wasn't portable,
no game developer would have to 'think about' or 'investigate the possibility of a full release'.
But devs are mostly perceiving it as a mobile/handheld device (which is not that surprising if you only look at the hardware) and that's where their uncertainty comes from. So it's not just a technical but also a psychological issue.
If it was only about performance, delivering a full FF (or insert any other major game here) experience should be a piece of cake.
Not just because BotW runs on it - which is probably the first reason people have in mind.
The Switch is more powerful than the Wii U, the Wii U was slightly more powerful than (or in the worst case scenario, on par with) PS3/XB360 and still GTA V ran on those two consoles (even though it was crappy compared to the proper release on PC or even just the inferior PS4 version).
But the fact is, it's not just about performance. A game developer has to consider the architecture and the IDE (and other stuff, of course), because adjusting to those takes a lot of *effort*a and time, or in other words, ressources (which eventually comes down to: money).
Personally, I have no problem about the PS4 and XB360 being PCs in disguise (the same could be said about the GC, Wii and Wii U), I actually think it's the right way. Home consoles have always just been modified PCs.
I just wish Sony and MS would be more honest about it, by which I mean: they should just market and sell them as custom PCs (which can be modified like any other PC).
But since most Nintendo home consoles have been PCs so far, calling the Switch a console couldn't be further from the truth.
@MsgBoardGamer But all three of them used IBM PowerPC as a CPU and a GPU made by AMD (ATI)?
I'm not an expert on the PowerPC platform (so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but AFAIK it was used for Desktop PCs in the past.
Also, what do you mean by 'dedicated to gaming'? I mean, the hardware also had to run the OS and everything else, not just the games.
Arguably a desktop PC with a dedicated GPU is also 'dedicated to gaming', because that PC would function just fine without a dedicated GPU (read: only with the onboard GPU).
Meanwhile, the Switch runs on an ARM Cortex-A57, which is clearly a mobile SoC.
Ok, its GPU is actually based on Maxwell, but it's still a mobile version of Maxwell and not at all comparable to the Desktop GPU's based on Maxwell (as nVidia stated themselves).
Sounds like a hefty investment, but it's worth it.
@MsgBoardGamer I don't think of the lack of ability to upgrade as a big issue against them considering the whole console is priced under just a video card alone for an actual gaming PC. They're still "punching above their weight" dollar for dollar, mostly by being subsidized by the game licensing. But yeah in terms of raw performance, what you see is now what you get since it's just stock off the shelf PC hardware (and technically PS4 and XBO are using tablet CPUs as well...it's not exactly an i3 M in there.
@Menchi187 I know! I was very excited for it...but I find myself bumping it constantly. If it were on Switch I'd have already started playing portable....on PS4 I have to carve out blocked time for it....and I just can't see that happening until Winter at earliest....and by then I've got Xenoblade.... I'll get to it. Somday....I think.... I promise I'll double dip if it comes to Switch...even though it won't.
@shani The question, then, would be, why would a consumer buy this Nintendo XBox you describe? There's already two consoles aiming for that product, and, honestly, only one of them is succeeding. If #2 is struggling to keep up with #1, who in their right mind would want to be #3? Smallest competitor in a saturated market isn't exactly a good business plan. Right now Switch is the #1 handheld/console hybrid. That's a lot better than the distant #3 TV box in that they define their own market rather than it being dictated to them in terms they can't match.
If I were thinking of launching a new console to the world right now, making the same device two other industry giants are making would be the bottom of my list of products. Nintendo sidestepped that by selling a product with different features than the others. Different limits, different features. Features that rest on what has been their #1 strongest business since 1989 which the largest competitor has roughly failed miserably to make inroads against. It's actually an obvious strategy when you think about it. And it's working.
Most of what you want switch to be is "not portable" because everything else you want out of it is an imposed limit by the portability. But were it not portable, were it an x86 PC, why would it exist? What would it be offering the market other than being the Playstation you can play Mario on? Sure no dev would have to "think about" how to use the features. But no consumer would have to "think about" why to buy the Nintendo one when the PS4 is the one their friends all have. With Switch it's simple. On a game like FFXV or FIFA, the question is "do I want to play portably, or do I want it to be prettier" rather than "Do I want to play on the platform everyone else is playing on, or am I a hipster?" I know Nintendo fans just want a Nintendo box that does everything a PS4 does and plays all the 3rd party games. The problem is, Nintendo fans bought WiiU. It didn't make it successful. And non-Nintendo fans have no real purpose to buy a Nintendo XBox. Heck, not many want to buy a Microsoft PS4....ask Phil Spencer how that business is going for him.... It's being held up almost exclusively in the NA region and it's still #2 here.
There's nothing alien about the architecture. It's ARM. ARM is the most popular hardware architecture in the world thanks to the phone and tablet boom. And the #1 gaming architecture thanks to the fact iOS/Android make up most of the "gaming" landscape in industry terms. And Tegra bridges x86 efficiently. The real issue is the crummy do it yourself engines in use were designed for PC, because most of the "3rd party" studios were PC-only devs until Microsoft entered the console scene to drag them into it. When you're down to the solution that "a hardware platform has to convert to using PC hardware because everybody only writes for PC now" in an era where the platform is otherwise using the #1 architecture....something is wrong with the gaming industry...not the platform. It's not even keeping up with the lead platform of its own industry: mobile.
Rockstar and Squeenix have a good history of ARM ports of games. No coincidence we're seeing them here. Bethesda going all in is still a shocker though. Of course, they have Carmack and the code wizardry that gave us most PC gaming in the 90's and early '00s. Epic and id. Sweeney and Carmack. The folks you brought you the golden age of PC gaming are the ones bringing games to Switch like it's nothing. Which goes back to: It's not the architecture, it's the bad products in the industry and the "we didn't invent it here" attitude that are at issue here.
Honestly I think the "Switch shouldn't be portable because it doesn't get games" line ran dry post-E3. It's still sold out as fast as they can make them, and now big name third parties are visibly joining. Anything an XBox or PS4 can do, a PC can do it better. The same can't be said for Switch where any PC gamer has always dreamed of a portable gaming box that wasn't an Alienware laptop that bled its battery in 10 minutes flat.
10 years ago everybody thought consoles were going to die off in the movement to mobile. Playstation thankfully cemented consoles a while longer with the PS4. Now Nintendo merges mobile and console, securing it's future further, and that gives people something new to complain about I still think the movement toward mobile/embedded will accelerate. Consoles that are fixed to a TV will still be obsolete soon, despite the PS4 success. Even if Switch were Nintendoomed, these developers are going to have to get used to tablet architecture sooner rather than later. Media is no longer in the PC domain. Might as well do it now while Nintendo can help them cement their business model in the new landscape rather than having to move to a Play Store/App Store model.
As for upgradable PCs, that increases cost considerably. That defeats the purpose of a PS4 that costs less than a mid-range GPU. They still need to be closed systems. And from a business perspective, if they're not, then they're competing with Dell and Lenovo. Sony didn't walk but ran from the PC market years ago, and XBox would have no reason to exist since it was simply designed to make a cheap easily usable Windows PC. Switch may not be challenging PS4, but neither is XBox. The difference is XBox NEEDS to, while Switch can center around a different market that intersects the other.
You may wish for a Nintendo XBox because the portability doesn't offer a feature you personally want in exchange for other features or games. But for me and plenty of others, that's a killer feature that makes it my go-to system. Even when I have exclusives I really want to play on my PS4 I more often leave them collecting dust even after I've paid for them because switch is just that much more usable in a busy life. If Sony was the one that came out with the hybrid and Nintendo did not, I'd probably be spending all my time on Sony. FFXV sits, gathering dust, across the room from my Switch. I'm quite glad Squeenix is "thinking about" how to bring that game to the console I actually use... rather than the "standardized" one that I never seem use anymore....
Maybe they'll finish the story in time for the Switch launch?
You know, havin FF with number coming back to Nintendo is kinda exciting
Switch is already getting the superior Final Fantasy game with Project Octopath Traveler.
Slightly off topic, don't forget that you guys are sitting on a crap ton of Taito classics buried in your basement!! How bout breaking them out?
@MsgBoardGamer true, though initial investment is still much higher than $650 for a decent pc. The consoles, even the X, are still better optimized in terms of the OS and engines versus the performance losses in the general purpose PC. Full windows and all its associated background processes up to and including antivirus really steal a good bit of the baseline performance, along with generic hardware support and less that excellent driver efficiency compared to consoles. There's still an advantage on terms of performance for the spec to console, but it pales in comparison to before, and mostly comes down to software more than hardware advantages. I agree that it's getting harder to excuse console when they're just low end pcs but when you consider the xb platform is $250 to enter and Scorpio is just the souped up version, the cost to enter is still waaaay below actual pc with a lot less effort and time required. They're still the better value in general. But they do have to be viewed as low cost, low performance pcs. The eMachines of the new age
How about an FFVI remake that looks like Octopath Traveler?
@BlueOcean The engines in many games, are not designed to be super efficient or as good as they could be, because frankly, they didn't need to be to run on something like the PS4 (should always be optimised, but they didn't have the neccessity to spend the time/money in those cases as the system has a lot more power to work with)... but for Switch they do need to.. So they have to work at it.
The sacrifices made for NBA 2K as far as graphics go, are completely acceptable and far less of a compromise than most people expected, and I would imagine that there is no way that's 'as good as it can get'. So it all comes down to how good the company is at developing or utilising a game engine.
The engine that FFXV runs on doesn't seem very efficient at all by what is apparently their own admission. So the question is really whether or not they have the skill/resources etc. to improve it enough.
I'm concerned that if Zelda makes Switches bend, FFXV might make them fold in half!
I'd buy it!
@shani I think u need to look up the definition of console bud. It's a hybrid console period.
@FTL I wouldn't say that their engine is just not efficient but it's kind of new and particularly advanced regarding rendering and thus quite demanding. Of course, because it's new, the engine can be improved and that's what they said that they're doing (Luminous Pro). This is the first game that runs on it, excluding demos. They aren't going to ditch it, it's their property and they have worked on it for years. They just need to make it better. Better enough that it can run on Switch? Hm, I don't think so but I might be wrong.
Perhaps Square Enix thinks that Nintendo is developing a successor to Switch and they think that it could run it eventually but I don't think it's a good idea teasing the real FFXV for Switch when I'm sure that they have absolutely nothing at the moment, except that "not satisfactory technical test".
Why don't they talk about the games that exist already and what platforms and regions are getting them? This is the strategy followed by Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony these days.
I'd be on the fence about it as I haven't played a FF properly since 8..... I'm just not sure the genre is for me.
But hey, the more games the merrier, right? I'm pretty curious over Octopath Traveller too.....
Life Is Strange should happen. It has a better story than any of the recent FF games lol
And stop making FFXV mobile games! Nobody cares. And I'm so sick of seeing the ads for them on YouTube!
They can keep boyband XV
@MaSSiVeRiCaN Hm, maybe heed your own advice first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console
'A video game console is an electronic, digital or computer device that outputs a video signal or visual image to display a video game that one or more people can play.'
Going by that definition, almost everything is a video game console, even a calculator.
In other words: 'video gamr console' is not a technical term, just a soft and colloqial demarcation.
@MsgBoardGamer Thanks, that was very insightful!
Despite your opinions of this game are. Having them port the game to the Switch is not a bad thing and if anything it will show that the Switch can handle big games made by other developers. Doom and Wolfenstein 2 Help show that, but having more evidence would not hurt.
I would LOVE to play it (again) and on the go
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...