Head Of Abstraction Games Addresses Technical Performance Of The Switch

Pretty much what I expected. Less fidelity, but portability makes up for it imo. I'm not looking for a desktop PC experience in a portable (anytime soon).

Comparing the Switch to a PC or dedicated home console is like comparing a motorcycle to a heavy duty work truck. Sure, both are vehicles(or gaming devices) but they are designed to do very different things.

It's for that reason I would prefer 3rd parties port last gen games when they wanna port, or make original titles for the Switch from the ground up.

With PS4 and Xbone being nearly the exact same product I think people have in some ways, gotten spoiled by some games releasing on every platform. The Switch is not the same thing and it honestly doesn't have the same level of power. But the best running games on the Switch tend to be the ones made for the Switch. Or made with a comparable level of power in mind. Funny how that works.

Nintendo Switch is needed potential. We wait next release Nintendo Switch Pro to improve CPU Nvidia Xavier 8-cores (OctaCore), GPU Nvidia Volta 512 cores with 1.3 TFLOPS, 8 GB of RAM and 64 GB internal storage are confirmed performance. However to much expensive hardware.

How idiotic to even bring up PCs, let alone "high-end" ones, when talking about a portable device. Of course the Switch can't compete (in terms of achieving comparable performance), but software can be optimised for the hardware as has been proven time and time again.

Nintendo Switch PRO with VR Headset and more gimmicks are Confirmed. XD

Next, let's compare the DS and the PS3.

For me personally it runs down to this:

30FPS to 60FPS - This is what I want from games
20FPS to 29FPS - Acceptable though a little annoying but I will play it
Below 20FPS - Not really what I am looking for. I will accept it if it is rare dips here and there but if it is a constant framerate then i am out.

It is truly depressing when the main focus of creativity is horsepower. A bad workman always blames his tools.

We all know the Switch is less powerful than the PS4 and XBOX one. However, it is pretty powerful for what it is. And it contains its own screen, joycons and all its power in a device small enough to fit in a child’s hands.

I feel like developers need to get over this. We don’t expect PS4 graphics on the Switch. We don’t mind having a lower resolution but we do appreciate good performance and all the features of the other titles.

These things aren’t hard, but unfortunately many publishers are more focused on profits than quality and so they port inferior versions speedily (looking at you EA) rather than learning to adapt the port to the Switch.

The Switch is a unique device that can enjoy a whole wealth of games. I think developers are starting to see this. And I hope they begin to adapt.

I'm not surprised at all and it's gonna be more and more and more like that because the new generation in ready for the market next year.
So imagine how totally impossible it'll become to port a PS5/NextXBOX game to the Switch when PS4/XBONE are already nearly impossible for the majority of them.

I think Nintendo is gonna release a new system soon... and I'm convinced it'll be a "real home console" that you could instantly interact with your already owned Nintendo Switch.

Why is the switch my favourite console out of all the Consoles?

I'm not expecting graphics like PS4, Xbox or PC the games that have come out so far are really good and if I'm honest better than I expected for this reason I have not even turned my PS4 on for over six months, I love the fact that I can play at home and carry on out and about, there are so many games coming out over the next few months I can't see my PS4 beeing switched on for a long time if ever.
This is my main console and I'm not alone there.

There were games on the N64 which played at 15fps so the occasional dip to 20fps is not a problem for me.

@Cobalt To be honest, the Switch might be popular enough to warrant conversions as opposed to ports of next gen games. I can live with that.

Sometimes these articles (and certainly some comments) read like there is an implied expectation that most if not all games could and should be coming to Switch. I mean, obviously there are games that will not work without compromising the experience beyond a point with which the makers are still comfortable, and there are others where this might be technically possible, but nobody has any interest in having their engineering teams spend months on end of their time trying to figure out how to actually do it. That is particularly true for smaller companies, but not exclusively.

@Deanster101 Well, one the hand, that strongly depends on the game itself, but also on the other hand, this is not 1998. So no, having a game - even only at times - run at 15fps is not acceptable to me 99% of the time.

Not to worry, the next Nvidia chip for Switch 2 will have realtime ray-tracing. It will demolished Sony and MS and their AMD chip.

Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft will give them all the powers they want but believe me they won't have everything on the freaking disc/cartridge. We are gaming in 2018 now we still had games with long load times that are on par with a NeoGeo CD game and a lot of those games are digital only titles, like why?

Sounds like what used to be said about the Wii U, Wii, GameCube, etc. Nothing new to me.

@GrailUK

I'm really not sure.
Today games take more time to be made and I don't see 3rd party devs doing the effort to convert their new 4k/60fps games with crazy shaders and ultra high textures to the Switch...

Maybe I'm wrong but I clearly think that Nintendo is gonna release a new system with real horsepower to stick to the market.
The Switch could become the "new 3DS" sort of...

@Ralek85 i get ya and you’re right we should expect more today, it’s just as important to remember the context that this is a handheld device and I’m surprised this argument raises its head all the time about how much FPS Switch games compared to their PS4 games. I’m old enough to remember the original gameboy and how Sega made a huge deal about the gameboy not being able to handle the speed (and colour!) of their game gear games which meant very little ports from third parties. What happened was it didn’t matter as game boys game library was so good anyway that nobody cared about how slow and crap it was, plus it ended up with excellent third party support anyway as the games were designed around the system requirements

Spot on statements. It takes talented devs and engineers to make these big games work on such an underpowered system. Not everyone houses such talent or drive (looks at Ubi). I just wish more folks understood this stuff.

To be clear in regards to Ubi. I think they have very talented designers, and world builders, etc. Just they've always had tech issues, as far back as I can remember.

I think I’m at the age (old) that as long as a game doesn’t crash or give me a cluster headache from the framrate jittering about like when I played the Arkham collection on the PS4, I don’t care about sparkly graphics. The fact is the experiences you get on a Switch- Odyssey, BOTW, Splatoon, Octopath, MK8, etc... are not available on the PS4 or XB1. Not just exclusivity, but they just can’t or won’t ape the feel, control, invention and quality of those games on the ‘superior’ technology. And it’s a handheld. If lowering the quality of graphics on a port exposes what dull gameplay there is in a game, then I’m really not fussed about getting it on Switch.

@Deanster101

You're right but you forgot the essential :

back then you could have a team composed of 3 dudes to make a game. Today, it's totally different.

Whilst it cannot be argued that the Switch is not close to the base Xbox One or PS4 in terms of technical performance, I find it laughable that of all the people to discuss this, it is the head of Abstraction games.

ARK: Survival Evolved is one of the worst performing games i've seen on consoles. Check out DF's video for more details but the short version is that the game runs at sub 20fps most of the time. It even runs badly on PC. Just a technical mess on all platforms so yeah, they probably couldn't get the game to run on the Switch.

@Cobalt Well, we can hope the NVidia partnership has something special cooking. I am not expecting a ray tracing games console with artificial intelligence marketed with the same hyperbole as the N64's project reality.

@cfgk24 because it captures why gaming became a thing in the first place. Addictive, fun, new and innovative but not just for the sake of it.

PS4 and Xbox do exactly what 360 and ps3 did just more powerful and better graphics. Nothing else improved - if anything went backwards. GTA V is still considered one of the best games on either and it’s from the last gen. the last gen could do everything This could but graphics weren’t as good.

There are other technical improvements but when you take all the nonsense away - sit down with one game in a style and compare it to another in its style and from a gameplay and overall feeling point of view it’s same.

Switch however has taken it and made it new. Nintendo knew it could make games that smash anything on either (Zelda for one) and not need that power. It made a console “for the gamers” it’s all about the games and game playing.

That’s why for many of us it’s the best console we have ever owned.

It’s gone back to look at which direction gaming should be going in.

Breath of the Wild is a Wii U title first. So yes, there might be dips here and there. But for games that have been made specifically for the Switch? Splatoon 2 for example? None whatsoever. That isn't a very fair comparison at all. Why's he trying to make it out like it is? Not to mention comparing Switch's power to PC's... I'm pretty sure we can see why that's the case...

Ninty really need to step it up for the next home console and make it way more powerful

No surprises here. Their plan re optimisation sounds like a good one, but this is one option.

What about changing the graphical style of games, such as keeping the fundamental game but introducing cell shaded graphics to reduce the strain on the Switch etc. There are artistic choices that could be made too, rather than just tinkering at the edges.

It’s more work sure, and risks annoying the hardcore fans, but I wish some developers would be a bit more bold in addressing the Switch’s limitations relative to PS4/Xbox One

Yeah, whatever, as long as it runs smoothly, is ok. They are not saying is going to be a bad port, only that it's not going to be as impressive as in the other hardwares... That's pretty obvious, in my opinion.
I just want the Ark release date now, come on! Will it be out this year, as they previously said?

He's correct, developers should optimize the game to work well on Switch that is less powerful than other current-gen consoles or high-end PCs. That said, the latter point makes me a bit scared, as I hope that the game doesn't dip below 20fps. Heck, I think the framerate isn't that low even in Korok Forest in BotW, at least after the updates.

@GrailUK

I'm gonna tell you what I see about that.

Imagine a box plugged in your TV with the PS4 SPECS roughly.
The Switch could interact with that box, kind of the way the gamepad interact with the Wii U.

Now, to have a box with SPECS like PS4 in 2019/2020 will cost not that much. Nintendo could even sell a bundle box+Switch and sell the two elements separately.

Basically, the box will be the home console, the Switch the handheld and both together the premium machine.

I think it'll be the perfect stuff to do because you let the choice to the consumers. You want an handheld, we have it, you want a home console, we have it too, you want a system that can give you everything + an extra feature of the dualscreen, again we have it !

@electrolite77 why that funny lol

The Wii U is more powerful than Switch, the system or its 32MB ESRAM was never utilised, Nintendo and all third parties used only a single core, leaving the other two idle.

Nintendo planned this, much like reserving 16:9 for a whole generation for Wii. They knew they'd be using weaker hardware in Switch than Wii U. Wii U was deliberately stifled.

All the known points that nonetheless seem to warrant reiteration in the face of pathologically stubborn audiences. Switch is already the most powerful console you can carry with you at the price, battery consumption and cooling balance it simultaneously offers. Like I've said before, it's only all the MORE evident now in 2018 when GPD Win 2 is out and demonstrating what you'll have to deal with if you want blunt "horsepower" (and even then, games like Witcher 3 STILL reportedly require a bunch of tweaks and hoop jumps to run smoothly).

Adaptation is the key. Audiences may be spoiled thoughtless in the hardware arms race, but the fact is, last console generation already achieved the bulk of what PS4 and XBone games can do; while there ARE plentyful games using advanced specs for the components that define their experience, many more boast a lot that pays homage to fashion rather than necessity, be it in terms of looks or gameplay/world data (unless, like I also point out elsewhere, the people behind the game beg to differ and deem the entire experience unabridgeable - it's their call and they have zero obligations in this regard). Sorting that out is how all the Dooms and Wolfensteins are happening. As long as the industry is aware of it and Switch sales demonstrate the commercial viability of hybrid consoles, the list of ports will only grow and newer releases will actually be more likely multiplat guests as the developers acquaint themselves with the specs and learn to branch out a "lighter" package of many requirement-bloating wows from the get-go rather than figure out how to curtail and rewrite the code of an long developed/finished project.

@Cobalt your "interaction" concept still doesn't explain how to preserve the experience Switch offers. Wii U GamePad-like compatibility is fine and all within the house, but what is supposed to happen when you leave? Hello again, remote play with its extra costs and compromises? Vita's can eat up to 1.5 Gb per hour, and Switch has a higher resolution screen to provide for. Gotta love how people outside Japan and Korea denounce the possibility of cloud gaming future but believe that relegating portable gaming to streams is the way to go. ^^;

A real hybrid console is the kind of QoL groundbreak that's hard and hardly sensible to step back from, especially in the age when portability defines more and more of the commercial electronic world. It's all up to Nintendo and them alone, but so far I dare expect a Switch successor whenever the technology can provide a significant spec boost for Switch's form factor - without needing 700+ bucks to buy the resulting product, a bag of power banks to feed it or a built-in leafblower to cool it.

@electrolite77 that seems like a reasonable plan.

Realistically there’s no way they’re going to significantly fragment the platform they’ve only just created for the sake of 3rd parties who might not come (& certainly Nintendo can’t attract the audience that buys those games to buy on a Nintendo platform over a Sony or Microsoft one).

A “Switch Pro” in 2020 means that devs have 3/4 specs to target but that’s just about doable...

@Cobalt I'd say definitely wrong on this issue. Yo me, part of the benefit of the switch is that it brings Nintendo's home console and handheld console under one umbrella. I'm hoping that once the 3ds is phased out, there isn't a successor as such, meaning one less console to buy and buy games for.

The successor to the 3DS/New 3DS is likely to be a switch mini, which plays all switch games, but does not provide a docked mode.

The Wii U failed because people couldn't work out whether it was an expansion or new console, and Nintendo creating an expansion to the switch that mimics Wii U functionality isn't going to be a success. In fact, ut will fragment the market back into Home Console / Handheld, which the switch has got out of. Personally, there is no point in the expansion , as if I want the third party games, I could just buy the PlayStation to play the games I can't get / would prefer on console.

As long as it has the horsepower for Pokémon and Animal Crossing I’m happy 😁

"The Switch does not have the horsepower of a high-end [PC]… or even a PS4." You lie!!

Seriously this in not anything new. I hope developers actually enjoy the challenge of getting their games onto Switch as I for one appreciate the effort. But there will always be games I will get on PS4 instead, though to be honest I have gotten sick of the "triple A" games anyway as they just get more generic with each passing year, with the exception of Fifa which is my one weakness, and I'm getting that on Switch!

@MrGawain
I think you've put your finger on it in your final sentence. We've seen plenty of triple-A developers create soulless games that make them look pretty but have poor or limited gameplay. If we wanted that, we may as well watch a movie. Also, they have less options for monetisation and microtransactions on Nintendo's platform.

I reckon Bethesda are going to bring The Elder Scrolls VI to the Switch. I don't think many people would even care about Assassin's Creed or ARK then.

@Cobalt Nintendo won't be releasing a new console any time soon. After 1 and a half years on the market, you really think they'd drop support for their best selling console since the Wii?

@GrailUK seriously most intelligent and truest comment I've ever read.

BOTW wasn't built from the ground up to be a Switch game, it became a Switch game one year into it's development for the Wii U. Either way it would have been impossible (when it was developed) to put any more horsepower inside a tablet without raising the price through the roof and having terrible battery life. A more powerful Switch will hit stores in the next few years, probably fall of 2020 or spring of 2021. But Nintendo will always go this route over just putting a big powerful console on the market especially when there are 2 other hardware makers out there doing the same thing.

This guy needs to get over his ego, his studio has never done anything noteworthy and as far as I can tell they never even worked on anything original to themselves. They have nothing to really show for what they are capable of, and the only game he referenced was poorly received and had poor performance on multiple platforms.

If they did great original work, if they made their games perform well, if they did anything respectable maybe I could take him seriously. As it is, this guy is in no position to be talking smack about Nintendo who have made far more impressive games in the last year than he has ever been capable of.

If he doesn't want to work on the Switch, fine, nothing of value will be lost.

There is some good and some very confusing statements. Can we please just stop calling all developers lazy though? If you target a much more powerful system then it’s hard to port it back to the switch. There is a reason why 60 FPS games make the best candidates, it is because there is more headroom by reducing that.

The switch will need a lot of support specific to it, much like the 3ds. I think the best thing they could do is come out with a lower cost version. It’s still selling well but it needs to have a massive install base to get developers to dedicate some of their teams to it (think Square Enix with octo). It does seem quite possible that this could happen for Japanese developers as this is where it is selling the best.

Nintendo really needs more games too. It’s hard to create new franchises but they really need more stuff. Splatoon is a perfect example of the new types of stuff they need. Not easy (arms did nothing for me but I’d yiu liked it then great).

They should buy platinum games. That could likely be one release a year. Now I’m getting really sidetracked.

@Matthew010

I see it coming around 2020. The Switch will be 3 years/ 3years 1/2 sort of...
Just perfect timing to compete better against PS5 and NewXBOX.

@GrailUK You're missing the point. If a dev targets the Switch exclusively then low end assets can be made from the beginning. If a game was originally targeted at current gen consoles/PC then downgrading everything to a low end platform becomes a hugely expensive headache.

Even working directly to the Switch will be difficult (unless you're making a very simplistic game) as so much dev time will inevitably be spent on just getting it to run well. More power is always a good thing. In an ideal world power simply wouldn't be an issue anymore,- that would really unleash dev creativity.

I dont understand, ' financial loss' my butt, ivenever hward of making a game and actually LOSING money, is that possible? Nintendo switch caters towards a larger audience than the x box and playstation ever did!, even PC, & always been that way. If u cant see that than youre damn blind. Its just reallly dumb to not have a game on it, if its on all the others, especially if its a portable one. Btw, alot of adult have this, cuz they can still actually be adults, they can take this to work and game! Heard alot actually do, if they do office work.

This isn’t surprising given the technical differences between the hardware of PS4/Switch. Having said that, we’ve seen developers do some great work (notably Panic Button with Doom and Wolfenstein 2, as well as LA Noire and Bayonetta) in porting from different hardware. It is understandable that almost no simultaneous development of a triple A title (aside from The new Doom) has happened, whether due to economics or technical issues. What is disappointing is how few last gen ports have been undertaken, aside from the obvious 1st party stuff. Skyrim, LA Noire, Bayonetta show a pretty good approximation of what a PS3 or Xbox 360 can do. How much of an audience for portable versions of The Orange Box, Borderlands 2, Call of Duty Black Ops 2 etc there is is something I’d like to know

I'm OK with 360 and ps3 ports, both of which are plentiful on the other 'home console's'. So can we get Assassin's Creed ezio collection already and GTA 5's single player mode?

@Jimgamer8 100% this, I want to see ports of previous gen games we've already had it with Skyrim ect and Bethesda seem happy. We could also get anything that will natively run on the Nvidia shield as its the same hardware so that's Tomb Raider, Half life 2 and Mad Max at least.

@Cobalt Nintendo want the Switch to last 10 years, not 3. What popular console do you know of that is discontinued after 3 years?

The Switch doesn't have a lot of power, agreed. But you can come far with optimalisation, just like Day said.

It is just really funny that ARK is running so bad on PC, which makes his statement one big joke, even though it's the truth.

His points are 100% valid. What’s refreshing is it’s not an excuse not to release a title, just a recognition that compromises need to be made and their team are working towards that. I mean even the better ports (Doom and Wolfenstein being notable ones) have compromises to achieve what they do. It’s the simple reality of things.

No different to argue that to achieve their power both the Xbox and PS are much larger and draw more power...compromises in their own right at the other end of the spectrum.

@Matthew010

This is my point ! By doing what I explained above the Switch can last 10 years (even if I personally think more about 7/8 years).

You can trust me if I say to you that the SPECS of the Switch CAN'T last for 10 years... BUT if Nintendo brings a "real home console" that can't interact with the Switch THEN the Switch could last on the long term.

You know PS5 and NextXBOX are coming really fast. Next E3 you'll get a view on that. If Nintendo doesn't react quickly, you can be sure that all the 3rd party devs are gonna skip Nintendo because the gap between the new systems and the Switch will be so gigantic that they won't even take the time to try something on the Switch.

@cfgk24 portability, maybe

"The Switch does not have the horsepower of a high-end [PC]… or even a PS4."

Who'd have thought it, eh?

He literally did not "talk smack" about the Switch even once, nor did he use its lower horsepower as an excuse for anything. He stated a fact, and then went on to talk about how his team planned to get around the Switch's limitations to deliver their game.

People, don't get so defensive. This is a guy who is trying to put a game on the Switch. Save your snark for the people who tell you they're huge fans of the Switch but have no current plans to release their games on it.

These devs shouldn't talk about how smart they are and how good they are in the engineering department! Don't make me laugh!

After all these years, Ark:Survival Evolved still runs like utter crap on PC. It's one big unoptimized mess!
So how in earth they think they can make it run on Mobile devices and on the Nintendo Switch.

I won't touch this game with a ten foot pole! Let them first show they can actually make it run properly on the PC. /shrug

@Medic_alert All I'm saying is that a person currently trying to port a game to Switch is the wrong guy to get defensive and angry at.

Can I just have ARK, please? After having played it since pre-release with no issues, I just want it on the go.

@nolil

that would be nice.

i still think partnering with nvidia was a bad idea. didn't work too well for MS back in the xbox days.

i get apple doesn't need N but they make the best arm chips on the market. there had to be a way for N to get them on board. make a controller and some games for the apple tv or something.

ninty are not about raw power n profit they want to innovate the market so half there attention is on labo atm n thats great it keeps the industry fresh n exciting AND Im sure the switch is in for a long n healthy life its already alive n well

Another article meant to fan the flames of those who read the title, skip to the comments, and start defending nintendo blindly and bashing whoever said whatever they read in the cherry picked sub header.

When I see comments like " This guy needs to get over his ego, his studio has never done anything noteworthy and as far as I can tell they never even worked on anything original to themselves" you can tell zero article reading was done here

@Cobalt I think instead of chasing power just because next gen Sony and Microsoft systems exist, they'll ignore the next gen systems and just do their own thing. 3rd party support will drop but that won't worry them.

@Zuljaras I'd say Switch is a very powerful system, even if it loses to PS4 or Xbox One. Besides, it's hard to say how things will turn out now that Nintendo has a new CEO.

With GameCube, Nintendo had the most powerful console at the time. Their strategy changed with Wii, but that doesn't mean that they can't change their strategy later.

At the end of the day, Nintendo games are just better than any other company's. I buy Nintendo to play Nintendo so a few missed ports never bother me.

Two things i can say :

I DON'T even Need OMG Ultra Extreme Realistic HD AAA Graphics at all !!

That's TOO Disgusting for me !!

I just ONLY Need Fun games (Of course must be Cute, Kid friendly, Appropriate) with proper HD, good frame rate ( 30 / 60 fps) & can be played together with my friends or i can enjoy it by myself.

@KoopaTheGamer
Wait, so my The Sims Bustin' Out (Gamecube) is Actually looks better than PS2 version ??

@HobbitGamer

OK we all know that by now i mean this is near the base xbox one on an ARM chip meant for android tablets being pushed to the limits to get there.I mean on steam games can be played on low to mid PC hardware at this point look from indies this is just a troll from the power is everything crew.MOst PS4 games look like PS2 games but in HD with better textures now but with all the same M rated shooter **** and do not provide any movement forward for humantity.

@Anti-Matter I don't know, it depends on lots of things. In addition to the power of the system, it's also about optimization, size limitations and know-how of the developers.

@PhilKhtenSebben Thats because they change devs as often as they change there socks.

@Grumblevolcano
Unless they have a Wii U all over again, they simply canot afford to let that happen again.

I like the rumours out there that a new much more powerful 4k Switch is to be released next year. Both this and the current Switch will play all Nintendo games.
This, and the announcement a while ago about Nintendo selling the Switch without docking, as just a handheld, makes sense.

@Cobalt
"I see it coming around 2020. The Switch will be 3 years/ 3years 1/2 sort of..."

It will NEVER Happen ! EVER !
Switch will keep live longer !
And i swear i WILL NOT BUY / TOUCH PS5 Ever !
PS5 is Already piece of Garbage before even it does exist.

@Cobalt

I hope that’s true. I’m ready for a true Nintendo home console

This is a tough concept for people on here to swallow

@electrolite77 Funny to see that the GameCube isn't on that list.
I've seen quite a few mentions of it across this article and another, about stuff not coming to the Switch.

I guess the GameCube really wasn't as big of a failure as some people seem to think...

@Varubajia Disagree, unlike the Wii U era the Switch has a strong 1st party lineup early on so it can take reduced 3rd party support.

@Zuljaras
I felt HAPPIER just now after i brought 3 PS4 games (Overcooked, Yonder, Earthlock) to my game shop & i SOLD them, because i had already played the Switch version, the PS4 version was Neglected completely.
That was my Sweet Revenge from me.

Oh, btw...
The Crap was Your Comment just now.
Blah Blah Blah, whatever you said, i cannot hear hear you.....
Have fun by talking with walls.

@zool
I Hate 4K.
It burns my eyes to death.
I keep stay on 720p / 1080p HD.

@hatch I couldn't agree more. It sounds like the author really wanted to stir things up. Very negative spin on what was actually said. Then they mention "the current third party difficulties" to fan the flames even more.

@Anti-Matter what a great revenge man. Keep it up. By your powers Nintendo switch will rule the world 😉

Switch owners beware. ARK ran like horse poop on Xbox One so don't expect any miracles here. If I recall correctly, its a poorly optimized game even on PC. Long story short, pass on this if it releases.

Uh you can be very technical and all that on paper. But can your team think outside of the box? Surely you don’t have to make this announcement by looking at the specs. You gotta use skill over others examples. ARK is a horrible game for optimization anyways. BDO is optimized better than ARK and that’s saying a lot.

Wii,3DS was much less powerful than switch and had a good duration.
Switch must endure until 2020 at least.
And switch 2 must make good improvements and run games of the first switch too.

@electrolite77 It was 22 million, actually..
And preaching to the choir, my friend. Perhaps I should have added that in my previous comment, to make clear that I already knew all that. I just wanted to point out the uninformed comments in this and the "Ubisoft doesn't bring Rainbow Six Siege to the Switch" thread...

Modest as the profit was that Nintendo made from it, it wasn't a real failure/flop. It was a partial commercial failure, yes, but nothing of the likes of the Virtual Boy or even the Wii U.

And in the final sales standings, the original Xbox was only about 2 million ahead of them in total amount of consoles sold, and we never see anyone calling that a failed console, strangely enough, even though Microsoft sold their hardware at a massive loss to get to that final result...

Here's an interesting read, if you have the time, since it's the rather elaborate complete and ultimate story of the GameCube:
http://www.dromble.com/2014/01/07/dolphin-tale-story-of-gamecube/

@Anti-Matter I know, I’m so excited! I just wish I knew when. The fall is starting to get crowded
I basically just raise tons of Dodo birds, it’s my thing haha.

@HobbitGamer
I heard it will be December 2018, according from playasia.

@Mgene15 It’s clearly hard for many to swallow. Never mind that since the Wii, Nintendo has been openly touting gameplay over graphics. They'll never put themselves on the same power level as the others, and that’s okay with me. They’ve carved themselves a nice chunk of market doing things their way.
@Anti-Matter Blegh, it was supposed to be summer

@Stocksy @premko1 Ok! Well, I've owned all major consoles - PS4 pro and XBone. I enjoyed Monster Hunter World but couldn't take it to play at my friend's house or the pub/cafe/wetherspoons etc. The last of us was ok - bit too cinematic/cutsceney tbh. Gears of war/Battlefield/COD - Lootbox hell no thanks. Voice chat with randoms? no thanks. .
Splatoon 2? Beautiful .balanced,fair , serviced game with gorgeous graphics and frame rate fabulous fairly priced high quality DLC. Mariokart 8 just soooo much fun! and everything included! Xenoblade 2 - amazing game - absolutely crafted beautifully!
Korg Synthesiszer - well lol - brilliant use of Controllers onSWITCH. . .hey! there are my answers!

I've just played Wolfenstein II on Switch, it makes every arguments about Switch's too weak for modern gen games are trashtalks.

Sure the Switch has less raw power than an PS4, but it supports EVERY CURRENT GEN GRAPHICAL TECHS (OpenGL, DirectX...) that makes it able to run EVERY current gen games with reasonable compromises made. And that's what every Switch owners want: reasonably scaled-down versions of games that they can play on the go.

I bought Wolfenstein II on Switch and turns out I could be able to finish it while I let it sits in my PS4 for ages unfinished.

@Zuljaras they had made a powerful console. The gamecube was more powerful than ps2.

@ekwcll Except when it came to storage space, which was a big issue during the era of epic JRPGs.

Still, the GC was a nice piece of kit, and it was sadly the last time Nintendo would ever chase performance.

The Switch is the new Wii. Fun hardware, good first party support, but also underpowered and poor third party support.

That's all good, just buy a PS4 too. No need to be in denial though. And if you bash developers, you are a sad dreadful person.

Bottom line: it comes down to whether they want to invest the time or effort. Most companies have engineers more than capable of getting the games to run: are they willing to put the money into it?

Definitely wouldn't call the 3rd-party support "poor." You're probably judging on a faulty premise: comparison to PC and/or third-party boxes (aka Xbox and PS, both wonderful machines). Anything compared to those will have "poor" 3rd-party support in your view because, well, it will unless it has the same amount and is therefore pretty much just another xbox/ps/PC.

Well, as long as there's hardware sales, good developers will find ways to make games work on it, whether it's original content or versions of games available on other hardware.

I mean, I played Perfect Dark and Alone in the Dark: the New Nightmare on Game Boy Friggin Color, and Rogue Spear, Kill.Switch, Doom, Payback, and Max Payne among many others on GB Flippin' A, with fond memories of all of them. I just mention the technical masterpieces and very much altered versions of PC- and TV console games,

I didn't complain about frame rates, lower polygon counts, lower overall quality,... Au contraire, I marveled at the simple fact I was commanding a squad of four, bullet-timing, and blind-firing my way through enemies with ten buttons and no TV.

What a bit of fantasy, lack of whiny people on the internet, and the will to enjoy a game can do...

Yeah i didn't expect the original DS to play GTA 4.

So i don't see why people want todays high end games on a portable device.

People need to add realism to their expectations.

3DS got Street Fighter 4!

Shocker... a truly PORTABLE system that is 1/4 the size of PS4/XBOX1 is less powerful.

Of course it is! It is PORTABLE!

Considering ARK is one of the most unoptimised games around ( I’m sure a lot of us here have seen the numerous digital foundry analysis videos on this game ) I expected this guy to say something like this.

Indeed the work done by Panic Button and games like Mario Kart 8 and Odyssey among others proves that if the talent is there with regards to the development, then beautifully made games and experiences are possible.

Whereas some developers just want the machines horsepower to power through their shoddy code and run the game as best it can.

Learn to optimise your code properly and stop being lazy.

@Anti-Matter no it doesn't, you are just saying that for effect. 😀 4k's OK.

I've played games that were originally meant for older consoles, some of which I had never played in their original form. That's taught me this: graphics and horsepower are not everything.

@Medic_alert I'm sure it would not have a handheld mode. But Nintendo games could be played on both. Perfectly possible 😏

@hatch OK. But maybe they are and you just like slaps 😀

Nintendo are stuck in the middle. Do they go more towards the handheld market with a new more powerful 3ds or to the home console and better graphics.
I can see a slightly smaller Switch with attached joycons and no docking, and compatable with ds cards.

And a More powerful non portable home Switch. I buy all of them.

Well Ark Survival Evolved is an unfinished mess of a game, so of course it's not gonna work on the Switch. It doesn't work in the other platforms, either. Laggy and buggy as idk what.

@Deanster101 Oh boy, the original GB ... those were the days, back then even I card about Pokemon

To be fair though, that was long before any consumer really cared or even knew about things like framerate, frametiming or any such technical stuff - certainly as far as the audience of the GB goes. That's not longer the case though, as the knowledgebase and along with it the expectations have (rightfully) risen up quite substantially.

In many ways, what has been said still holds true: Ignorace is bliss - and ignorance, for better or worse, is actually on the way as far as these issues go.

I mean, not only do we know about this stuff, it actually gets covered in tests on a regular basis and we have whole sites - like Digital Foundry for instance - dedicated to bringing technical issues as well as achievements (!) to light.

In other words, it has also gotten much harder for developers to get away with and thus sell us stuff that is no quite up to snuff technical, as we are all more aware of it and journalists are quick to point out any major issues.

Hell, I'm kinda down on the Switch as far as ports goes, simply because it lacks HDR support, as I've said in other comments before. I may sound silly, but being no longer ignorant of the huge benefits HDR provides, it has become really, really hard to go back to non-HDR content, esp. if it were a game that is available on HDR on my X1X or PS4P but not on my Switch.

The Switch is brilliant for BotW or Deadcells (god, that game is amazing DESPITE some framerate issues that keep creeping up on occassion), but I would not want to play Ni No Kuni II on the Switch over the PS4P, even if it were available (and it would otherwise be a great fit for the Switch), simply because it would be an outrageous visual downgrade in a game that creates so much charm and atmosphere with it's colorful and bright Ghibli-inspired (though not involved) visuals.

So yeah, in my view, it's all about expectations, kinda like on the stockmarket. Decent performance doesn't really if folks were looking for and expecting great performance. It's kinda paradoxial sure, and we all got along with less not so long ago in some ways, but still ...

Of course, all of that is assuming that the Switch is not one's only system or that portability is only one among a number of factors that matter. I mean, it does matter, say like for YS VIII, where I don't that that much of a leaped between Switch and PS4 (certainly not docked) and which benefits greatly from portability, hence it's just logical to me to pick it for the Switch - unlike an imaginary Ni No Kuni 2 port, for the aforementioned reason.

Also, and last but not least, the Switch is a hybrid, and as far as the homeconsole aspect goes ... well, unlike in the GB era, there are established competitors in the play here, even ignoring PC, the PS4 and X1 are doing quite well for themselves, comercially and also critically (I'd be shocked if God of War were not to end up being my Game of The Year and a strong contender, together with BotW, for a personal game of the generation). If you look at the Switch as a handheld, you might - for sake of argument - be able to ignore them, and don't use them for any comparison whatsoever, but if you look at the Switch as what it is supposed to be, a hybrid, that can at least reasonably contend in both arenas, that there is no way around that.

His comments forget two things:

Ark is considered in the PC community as a poorly optimised game.

And that graphics aren't everything. That is why games like Undertale and Shovel Knight command more respect than Ark. Ark failed somewhat at what it tried to be. The game is... Meh.

Yes, the power is limited. Guess what?! That's what you get with a portable system. Saying it lacks power is like me saying the PlayStation lacks portability and a touchscreen.

@Kriven

I hear that. I am used to PC which limits the size of screen when using a proper display. It's about a lot more as well. A TV has poor latency, is terrible with colours and has a restricted framerate. I love that PS fanboys think the PS4 does true 4k at 60fps without the need of a displayport. Ahahaha.

Breaking: Switch not as powerful as a current generation home console. More news at 11.

No idea who at this point thinks the Switch is as powerful as a PS4/X1.

Every multiplat to this point proves it is not. Only question is, if the publisher willing to butcher their games to make it run or just make something simpler for the Switch.

I feel like his overview is a bit incomplete. There is a lot more to it than the GPU limitations the switch offers. Though there are plenty of games that aren't as easily scalable as the single color toned doom and wolfenstein that even if scaled back in frame rate, mesh fidelity, and resolution would bring the system to its knees even in docked mode. The CPU limitations are a factor often ignored. No offense to Bethesda as their push forward gameplay approach for the ai is quiet fun, there are games that operate on a different level. Assassin's creed for example has ai covering everything from crowds to enemy displacement. Many of those routines have to run at the same time on a much larger count of individuals or entities on screen. You start removing those characters then you ultimately change the nature of the game. On top of that you have the animation system attempting to blend everything from player movement, to the crowd, to the enemy in pursuit, and all the while a playable cutscene is happening that you can interact with and interrupt. That's far more than any Bethesda game has ever managed. Even arkane's dishonored which is absent from the Nintendo switch.

So sure with some artistic creativity and engineering muscle you can try cramming a beefier game on switch, but you have to know when to stop before you end up killing your creation to do it. In recent years we have started to see games that are impossible on last gen hardware. When they get to that point you end up hurting the game. Destiny is a fine example of this evolution when comparing the forking of the two versions after the taken king released. Certain features started to get cut from ps3 and x360 just so the game could run. When that was no longer manageable they put right left content out. This is why overwatch players aren't to happy with the idea of the game coming to switch. Not every ow player is unhappy of course, but I don't think they understand the implications this creates for user friendly quality of life ui changes like picking costumes from the character select screen or how this will impact the design of current and future characters.

If you need tech wizards to port a game to Switch, than Nintendo is not sufficiently catering to the needs of third parties. They're stubborn-headed enough too to keep chugging along with underpowered hardware, looking for a new gimmick, if they can. I mean they launched the Switch with a measly 32 gigs of internal storage. Anything to stretch those profit margins and pass on costs. Same ol' since the Wii days.

I find it funny that people like to say how weak the Switch is, however, it has and still gets games that people would have NEVER imagine it could run. Doom, Doom Eternal, Wolf2, and coincidentally, Ark. Just look at the comment section here on NL when Doom Eternal was first announced at E3.. Everyone should know that it's not as powerful as the competition, but give credit where credit is due.

Breaking news : I can’t notice the power upgrade from my Wii U to my switch.

@electrolite77 I classify the switch as a home console myself ... I wouldn't of thought long maybe 4-5 years max

@hatch Nintendo's original idea from a few years back was to make one game that fits both consols and the Switch has 'sort of' successfully done that. It can be just a handheld device, a home console or both. So rather than releasing seperate games for a DS and the Wiiu; say 6 each a year, we now will have 12 for either or both. Good marketing?

Maybe. One Goldilocks Hybrid console.

Now Nintendo has its games on one card, one size fits all, what is stopping them from making a variety of Switch consoles. As it stands the Switch is a little big to be truly portable, so maybe a more compact version? And it's not quite as powerful as some would like (OK we could by a PS4) but then we would spend money on Sony games. Maybe a higher spec Daddy bear Switch is the answer.

Switch can’t compete with a high end PC the same way an iPhone can’t compete with the navigation system on the space shuttle. Pointless comparing the two. STFU already. Make games for Switch or get lost. It’s a great system.

@ThanosReXXX Also, I'm willing to bet at least 2 million people chose a PS2 or Xbox over a GameCube for the sole reason of the DVD player. If GCN had one, I think it would have at least outsold the Xbox.

Next let's compare a nintendo gameboy to a ps vita! Dumb#%<"s

@NatalieH True, unfortunately. It had nothing to do with gaming, and personally, I truly HATE convergence. I don't play my Blurays or DVD's on my consoles, I have a dedicated, high quality Bluray recorder for that, and to boot up a console for anything else than gaming, still seems kinda weird to me, although I know I'm in the minority.

But in this case, that's a good thing. And it also prevents me from getting annoying notification pop ups while I'm watching something...

Not to mention that controlling movie playback with a controller that keeps switching off after a set period of time, is highly annoying to me...

Idk what it is with internet gamers today and their obsession with power, power, power. Everything's about power.

Like, when I go to buy a car, there's more to think about then just how much horse power it has. I don't need a V12 engine to enjoy luxury transportation. And if my car can transform into a boat and an airplane, who the hell cares if it can't do 0-60 in 4 seconds flat?

@Geekster I purchase more games on Switch than any system I've ever owned because I run an office and game during lunchbreaks and downtime. Also perfect for early mornings in the house when I wake up before everyone else and don't want to wake the house with the big tv. Hybrid console is the most versatile and used for a working adult!

@JaxonH The thing with Nintendo consoles though is that lack of power has directly affected games coming to the platform. It's not the only reason, but it's one of many.

It's understandable for the Switch not being as powerful since it was designed with portability in mind. But, the issue is still indeed there. As it was with the last two consoles.

Sure, there's the occasional fanboy that do put graphics above anything else. But, there's also the guy who just wants to be able to play the latest games.

And, if he wanted to do that, you have to redirect him to PS and Xbox.

All I get from this is third parties don't have the fortitude to try something different. Would it be nice to have the mainstream games? Sure. But the original Wii missed out on a lot of the popular games yet still managed a pretty solid roster of unique third party titles because developers and publishers took some chances. The Switch has mostly been able to avoid the 'casual' stigma that the Wii was tagged with and games, even late ports, have generally sold very well. We don't need to see CoD or Assassin's Creed on Switch, most of us have PS4s, Xbox Ones, PCs or a combo of the three for that stuff. It would be nice, however, to get a new Red Steel, a Switch specific Resident Evil like the Chronicles games, a true sequel to No More Heroes 2 and I know I can't be the only one who would enjoy a remaster of The Last Story with the promise of a sequel as well. Can't tell me these games can't be accomplished on Switch and that they can't find success. The only problem is this takes effort, which is clearly something third parties don't want to put in.

@HollowGrapeJ
And theres nothing wrong with that. 2 different experiences, so if that's what someone wants we should all jump to redirect them elsewhere, just as someone who wants to play games beyond a recliner, or wants the latest Nintendo exclusives, should be redirected here.

At the end of the day, what good is having every single game that comes out if nobody has any reason to buy it on that system. If Switch was a PS4 clone (and it would have to be to have that power) then ok, it gets more games. But at that point, theres simply no reason to buy them because it offers no advantage over other versions, and, the system is still missing half the games (cause more power isnt a magic bullet to get every single one).

At which point, nobody buys the system (because why would they? they'd be buying a duplicate of a product they already own, aside from Nintendo exclusives, which clearly weren't enough in the Wii U era).

So ya. Different products, direct people depending on what they want. But better that, than a power console with no portability, which wouldn't have hit the ground running like Switch did and thus, despite being capable of running those games, simply wouldn't get them because the system isnt popular enough.

Of course they should get as much power packed into the portable as possible while keeping it under $300, but they've already done that. Fact is, it's just a gaming console serving consumers with something no one else provides, and as a result is finding success, and as a result of that is getting games, at least, the ones it can run. Better that than getting no games despite being technically capable of running them.

@JaxonH At this point in time, even if Nintendo really wanted to jump back into the race, they'd no doubt lose. People have already established either Xbox or PS4 as their place for 3rd party games and as sad as it is to say, their exclusives alone won't drive everyone to their box.

But, I can't tell you how glad I am that Nintendo went with something simple this time. The ability to play games anywhere, anytime. There's still a lot that needs to be improved, but that one feature right there is a big one.

I probably would not have jumped back aboard with Nintendo had they went down another path like the Wii U. And the way I see it, I don't see Sony or Microsoft getting on this portability thing for years to come. So, I hope Nintendo can do this again next generation. (And improve as they go along)

@liveswired The WiiU's major issue was the Power PC CPU from 1998. It was a massive bottleneck in loading times and in rendering speed. Plus, the Switch has 4 gb of GDDR5 RAM where as the WiiU had a paltry 1 gb of DDR3 RAM. The "next" Zelda title will be the tell tale sign of what the Switch can do. Everyone praises BOTW for being an amazing Switch game completely neglecting the fact that it was built with WiiU specs. The Switch is far more capable in docked mode than the WiiU ever was.

@NatalieH
"I'm willing to bet at least 2 million people chose a PS2 or Xbox over a GameCube for the sole reason of the DVD player. "

Eh..... i bought PS2 Slim for playing Dance Dance Revolution , Guitar Freaks & DrumMania, Bomberman games by mostly. Not because of DVD playback.

While what he said is true, Ark is a very bad example. The PC version is pretty much a turd and the PS4 Pro at 720p with a lot of fps dips, the base PS4 runs at... 640p.

No amount of cpu/gpu power can make this game run properly, i don't have high expectations for the Switch port.

I don't buy Nintendo systems for mainstream AAA style titles. I mean, if a person wants a ps4 experience, ps4s are available and affordable. The era where a gamer sticks to just one system for close to a decade for EVERYTHING is gone.

The Switch has the best ratio of graphical presentation to horsepower without being too noticeable. It allows us to use less electricity than any other console and still look like a medium setting PC game. That puts it at the top for me. Power outage or whatever, I can just let this thing purr off a standard size solar panel and a charge controller with USB out.

I love how honest he is. They have the talent and they are willing to use it. The interesting thing about the Switch version of Ark: Survival Evolved is that it looks almost a console generation better than Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate. Capcom really disappointed by not building a Monster Hunter game from the group up.

@Syrek24 compared to the PS4 that line up is weak as hell. No need to be in denial.

Those 2D platformers, Minecraft and old ports are not the same as getting new Final Fantasy, GTA, Street Fighter, Tekken,Battlefield, Tomb Raider, Call of Duty etc games.

PS4 gets Monster Hunter Worlds, the Switch gets a ugly 3DS port. That's ok, but don't pretend there isn't a huge quality gap

@electrolite77 absolutely correct.

@BigKing
"Those 2D platformers, Minecraft and old ports are not the same as getting new Final Fantasy, GTA, Street Fighter, Tekken,Battlefield, Tomb Raider, Call of Duty etc games."

Unfortunately I do not have the list you are referring to, however I think you are experiencing a flaw in your logic. First off, remove from your list here every game that's available on the Xbox systems as well. Because Nintendo does not want to make a console almost carbon copy the same as the others, you should directly discount out the games that are multiplayer that simply because the systems are cookie-cutter. This includes games such as Final Fantasy XV. Either give a specific reason for getting one system that is not available on any other or the meaning behind your words falls flat.

Continuing this train of thought, here are games that are non-ported first-party games on the Switch. Zelda BotW (I consider this because same release date), Mario Odyssey, Kirby Star Allies, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Arms, Splatoon 2. Nintendo has the ability to hit home run after home run, while PlayStation has to contend with third parties not being fully exclusive. Xbox eats into PlayStation game sales, but absolutely nobody can play Mario Odyssey on PlayStation 4 or Xbox One.

Completely honest, there have only been two games on PlayStation 4 that have actually made me consider getting a 4. Those would be Dragon Quest XI and Kingdom Hearts 3. However, I can get Dragon Quest on PC. I am actively buying a new laptop to play Dragon Quest on PC instead of getting a PlayStation 4. And Kingdom Hearts has unfortunately a highly irritating story and I have no motivation to buy a gaming system for just that game. Even Dragon Quest will eventually be on Nintendo switch, I just don't want to wait and be spoiled. But even with day-and-date not being met, even with ports all over the place, Nintendo is still having major games released on their system that trounce anything Sony is bringing.

@Cobalt you are definitely wrong if you believe Nintendo is gonna release a home console to compete with PS5 and Xbox 2

@kobashi100

I never said to compete with PS5 etc...

I said to kind of fill a part of the gigantic gap between Switch and PS5 otherwise they can put a definitive cross on 3rd party multiplats.
PS5 could be out earlier than expect so...

http://www.ace-sec.co.jp/daily/analyst/180815r6758.pdf

@nolil Confirmed? Where? By who? So far it's been nothing more than a rumour.

@HollowGrapeJ I think that this was a good effort by Nintendo to take a big risk and do something radically different. And I think it's safe to assume that they are looking very closely at the results and the next Switch version will be a lot more powerful than what we're seeing here. First effort: good. Second effort: extraordinary.

@electrolite77 @Cobalt My theory is more along the lines of a Nintendo Switch Pro and a 4k Dock Home Console launch with VR being the main selling aspect. Meanwhile PS5 will have VR baked into its hardware and Xbox Scarlet is an attempt at a cheaper Switch that is a streaming console.

@Cobalt yeah and when Nintendo release a home console to fill that gap and it bombs in the market because a home console nearer to PS4 specs would bomb make no doubt about it, you can definitely cross off 3rd party support.

@Equinox true. A lot of western games rely on certain Wow factors like ragdoll physics or other kind of highly demanding features that are only possible to fulfill by raw horsepower. But to be perfectly honest, most of these titles bore me. I tend to go for games that performs fine on the switch, and totally ignore tech heavy games.

@LordGeovanni this isn't about exclusives, it's about third party support. It doesn't matter if a game is also released on the Xbox, what matters is that they usually skip Nintendo consoles.

Who cares if a game is released on the Xbox as long as you can also play it on the PS4? With the Switch you just need to buy another console to not miss out on a ton of the best games of this generation. I own both a PS4 and a Switch and they compliment each other. The Switch for first party games(Mario Odyssey is a first party game, we were talking about third party support that is lacking on the switch), the PS4 for third party games.

@BigKing
I honestly cannot see this not being an exclusive discussion. Because if we were to discuss first party only, Sony would flat-out be laughed out of the room. But to deliberately ignore first party is to give Sony a massive handicap because they suck at first-party. You cannot play Nintendo first-party games on other systems. That is the strength of Nintendo and the reason why as a company they managed to continue creating major console releases despite interference of the Western Market.

The one thing I will confirm that Sony has benefit without Nintendo interference is power. Every single time Microsoft does something to screw up. This leaves Sony near complete control in the power console Market. But that does not grant Sony complete control of the console market. And that is precisely why Nintendo is doing so well now and why Nintendo did so good with the Wii generation.

The only major flaw that I find in my reasoning compared to the majority, I do not care of raw power or graphics. My major focus in gaming is how fun the game is, and the run away graphics and processing of PlayStation and Xbox has completely missed what I focus on as a gamer. In the end, I feel a lot of the PlayStation and Xbox crowd are loving sub-optimal games. Ports of previous games reskinned to make a yearly quota or horribly untested games needing multiple patches to fix what has gone wrong. And I believe this same mentality is why WWE is not coming to Switch this year, because they don't have a problem with screwing up and having to fix it later but a lot of Nintendo fans don't put up with that.

@LordGeovanni the first party support of the PS4 is pretty good too and they have a ton of great console exclusives (Yakuza, God of War, Persona 5, Uncharted, Ni No Kuni 2 etc).

As a Nintendo fan I was skeptical too, but the PS4 is amazing. Dirt cheap too (200 for the console, tons of sales with full games for less than 10 euro). Give it a chance, there is no reason to choose for only Nintendo consoles. And I'm not talking about graphics, the gameplay of some of these games is amazing. I had to buy a PS4 for Shenmue and Yakuza alone. PSVR is also hella innovative and pure fun.

@EasyDaRon No, it's really not, but whatever.

The Switch is definitely the least powerful of the current systems, of that there's no dispute. And the Switch port of a game is always going to be the [technically] "least" version of a game, of this there is no doubt either. However, I am immediately suspicious when someone says that xyz game is literally "impossible."

No doubt that compromises and concessions and adjustments are required to make such demanding games possible under the limitations that the Switch hardware places on the developers. It could well be said that "perfect" ports may indeed be impossible. But adjusted ports? Scaled ports?

My knowledge of game hardware is a bit more shallow and abstract on today's hardware than it is with the 8 and 16-bit systems where I am at my best, so I suppose I do stand open to some correction, but "impossible" doesn't seem like the right word here at all. Perhaps the amount of concessions required would be so extreme that it would make the game "infeasible"....but "impossible?"

I just have a really hard time buying it.

When I hear this, whether I'm justified in doing so or not, my mind immediately goes to "well this developer is just somewhere along a spectrum of 'too lazy' and/or 'too incompetent' to do it." Perhaps they feel that the work required to "optimize" the game for such a system would be so cost and time demanding that it would be a losing venture for them even if it sold like gangbusters. Or maybe they're so in love with the look and feel of the PS4.0-level experience that they can't stand the thought of seeing it in a PS3.5-level state. Who knows....but "impossible?"

I mean, if they don't want to make, and would rather shut themselves off from the revenue stream, so be it. It's as much [or more] their loss as it is mine. I do own the other systems, and will buy the game for one of them instead, if I want the thing badly enough. But Switch is by far my favorite system, and I spend more time on it than I do on all the other systems - combined. So there would certainly be games which I could justify getting on Switch that I probably wouldn't be able to justify elsewhere for as much less often as I play those systems.

Furthermore, I'm not gonna become so radical on this point as to go so far as to automatically hard-boycott a game just on principle everytime the developers threw the Switch under the bus to get out of making a game for it. However, the bad blood that such a move generates in me definitely does reduce the probability of my buying their game simply because it creates an additional barrier to my taking the plunge. It is certainly possible for my desire of a much wanted game to muscle past this barrier, but a number of less strongly desired games will be stopped up short by the obstacle.

Either way, as soon as they say "impossible", my respect for them goes right out the window, and the likelihood of their getting any money from me (or at least, anywhere near as much money from me) goes down appreciably. They hurt their cause badly - even if only within the confines of my own wallet.

So yeah, my face darkens, and my pulse quickens, and my BS alarm goes absolutely crazy every time I hear that. Look, the Switch is not a powerful system. Granted. In fact, I would join in the chorus of people lamenting that Nintendo hadn't at the very least put the X2 in the thing right off the bat. I wish it we're more powerful. And certainly, as DOOM and Wolfenstein show, the concessions that need made on such limited hardware are indeed great. But those games were "impossible" too....until Panic Button came along. If Panic Button can do it, I don't see any non-damning reason why any other developer can't do it also.

And a huge thanks to Panic Button, not just for the surprisingly excellent Switch ports of high end games that I've put so much time into and gotten so much enjoyment out of, but also for just exposing the lie which I had sensed from the very earliest days regarding the supposed "impossibility" of big game ports on the system. Even Abstraction, for as critical a tone as they're taking of the hardware, is still....making a big port for it....where's everybody else, then? Their excuses are getting thinner and thinner.

I can only imagine the Rainbow Six Seige guys being beyond pissed at Panic Button....and you know what?....I find the thought of those guys' anger at the exposure......simply.....delicious! Now hopefully it'll motivate them to get off their asses and figure the damned thing out.

Cheers!!!

Who cares about all this?

Nintendo surely do not. As long as the Switch is selling great, and is getting a lot of support from all kind of developers, then why bother?

Switch is a hybrid machine, and will get a lot of it's own unique games doing its lifespan, as long as it is selling so well.

Sure, a lot of the future big console games will not run on Switch, and people should just buy a PS5 / XNext for these kind of games.

Nintendo has the "Hybrid" market by them selves with the Switch. And just like the 3DS, the Switch is in a unique market position.

Yes, Nintendo will loose some of the big new western titles down the road? But the Japanese publishers will just keep making great exclusive content for the Switch.

This new "hybrid" market is the perfect place for Nintendo to be. And a great fit for all Nintendo games. There is no real market place for another dedicated home console anyway, so why bother about this?

Nintendo has done everything right with the Switch, and will certainly continue down this road. The Switch sales numbers gives them right.

@EasyDaRon And that's definitely not an invalid point. But it doesn't make me feel that much better about it. It would still fall under a "well you either couldn't or wouldn't figure out how to make it work" situation, and in my mind, would still harken back to a situation where "infeasible" is the better word than impossible.

And ultimately it still doesn't move me off the platform that sees a 100% correlation between the words "impossible" and "cop out". To be fair, it does crack open the door to a third option besides sheer laziness or sheer incompetence in the form of simply "being too resource strapped to manage / justify it"...but even in that situation, it's still a matter of "we can't", and NOT a matter of "Switch can't". But the rhetoric is still generally couched in terms of the latter, and thus, it still ultimately falls under the umbrella of my original critique. It's still blame shifting to the system, rather than owning up to it as a developer.

Now, I know not everyone does this, and my critique is certainly not aimed towards them. In those cases, I hope they'll figure it out and join the party later.

Also, I know that my initial reply was super duper long, so it would be easy for a minor point to be lost in the shuffle of so much text. But to be fair, I did cover the financials side of it too - in passing, at least. It's an angle that I did not fail to anticipate, I suppose you could say.

Cheers!

"even Breath of the Wild dipped below 20 frames at certain points in the game. It’s just that you don’t notice because of the way that they’ve handled it."

Oh I definitely noticed those framerate drops. When I first played the game, it literally dropped frames within the first minutes of playing the game (the part where link walks outside for the first time and the title screen shows up). In addition I had multiple times where the game would drop frames or just flatout freeze when fighting moblins

@Cobalt You absolutely still can "have a team of three dudes make a game". The Switch even has a few ports of games made by one person - Stardew Valley, Cave Story, probably some random eShop games that are much less famous... Of course, Minecraft's days of being made by Notch and Notch alone are long gone.
Sure, they're not as "big" or "shiny" as AAA games, but people like them anyway. Extremely indie games are still alive and well.

@JasmineDragon

I definitely have to agree with you there as you make some very good points. And it's something that I've been saying for quite a while. There are plenty of dads out there that deserve your ire, but this isn't one of them. Especially since they are actually announcing something. What about some of these bigger guys like EA, Ubisoft (to a lesser extent) and others? Hell, crapcom are a MUCH bigger offender considering how they lick sony's crack. Crap, they would much rather consider putting games on the garbage vita before they would Nintendo consoles.

Companies that can find ways to put that games on mobile platforms but not one that's as hot and much more capable like the Nintendo Switch. There's being a fan and the there is being a fanatic. While you may not like what they're saying, there is some truth to the horsepower argument. And again like the person that I am replying to said, they are actually putting something on the system. A game that came out of left field and surprised a lot of people with its announcement.

That kind of lashing out and vitriol though is the kind of thing that will make people abandon the system & fans. Especially when they're actually making an effort to give you something where so many others have done nothing but give you excuses & lip service, ignored you completely, or even scoff at your existence as a gamer. Come on folks, stay classy. This isn't n4"g" after all

And as much as I love Nintendo ( and feel that they are the ONLY one out of the big three that can pretty much compete and survive off of their own labors) they need other people's games as well. If not just to diversify the lineup and shorten the time between so-called droughts that Fanboys like to talk about. Like I said before, there are plenty of Developers out there for you to crap on & perhaps deserve your ire, but I don't believe these guys are one of them.

All I hear when statements like this come out:
"What we produce isn't interesting enough to stand on it's own, in the sense that the visual representation is the most redeeming quality of this overall experience."

@Prof_Yoshtonics hmmm, no.

@liveswired Facts matter bubby.