SabreLevant

@KingMike Oh I meant more like, anyone still has to think critically about the code no matter where it's from, like for example you can create something that works but slows down to a crawl because it turns out to be exponential, or there's concurrency issues when updating something, generic things like that

AI is plenty useful for developers, but not for the ones that take whatever it pumps out at face value. Just like with any code, you still have to review what it presents to you and know to ask the right questions - code smells are the same no matter if someone wrote it from scratch, copied it from Stack Overflow or ChatGPT, Claude etc.

@Yosher He, not they, Eric is a solo developer : )

Been playing this since last October, it's absolutely amazing!

@Supadav03 Disclaimer, old FE fan here : P

I've played FE4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and Three Houses (16?) which were all great! I heard about Engage first as a rumour and it sounded like a joke, imagine my surprise when it turned out to be real.
From the crappy character designs to the shallow story and weird pandering it was definitely one to avoid.

Anyway, main take-away is that you've got so much better to look forward to, from the looks of it! Either that or you really liked the Engage aspects and will find it jarring lol

Alright that's convinced me to get a Switch 2!

Another game to get on Steam instead

@Max_the_German A patch announcement for resolution & FPS updates is no news at all, a major content patch announcement for a game is

First-party Switch 2 games, what like, all two of them?

It's crazy to read what some people expect from what is essentially an underclocked mobile chipset? You can't compare this device to a Steam Deck as that is essentially running on AMD64 architecture with some power constraints, the Switch 2 runs on ARM and is essentially a mobile device, 'optimizations' or not

@Bizzyb Determining whether something could run well based on hardware age is misleading at best, for example a GTX780 GPU (over 11 years old) would demolish a Switch 2 GPU in raw performance, but it's not a good comparison at all.

Similarly a Steam Deck runs on a different architecture with an APU under different constraints which is not a simple comparison.

I do agree with you many games can be made to run well on the Switch 2 with compromises, but things like "if SF6 runs on it" or "if it can run on the Steam Deck" are oversimplifications.

The Switch 2 CPU architecture is different from any other contender (PS5, Steam Deck etc), got very little to do with what engine it's running on and more to do with the instruction set being ARM vs AMD64 which means a lot of complexity in porting

EDIT:

For example your code might rely on instructions that work on AMD64 CPUs but literally don't exist in the ARM set, it's not a straight up case of swapping things out, it often means compromising on features no longer available so swathes of code have to be rewritten (and maintained!)

@Glasso Man at this point you just seem to be looking to have an argument. I tried to explain to you in various ways why it is perfectly possible for a new game to perform worse than an older game developed by the same team, irrespective of graphical dimensions or game engine used, the latter of which -I- could not find official statements on but you pointed out (after I pointed out that SteamDB is not an official, non-speculative source) some credible sources afterwards.
But as I said regardless of it being a '2D' game or being developed in Unity, it is possible for it to be bottlenecked on specific calculations that are CPU-bound, it doesn't matter what happens in other games they developed - either you don't understand what I'm saying here which is fine, or you're being deliberately obtuse

@Glasso No I'm not lol, I agree it makes sense they stuck with Unity, I just couldn't find official statements myself!

But I also don't think it matters a lot, it's possible to make poorly performing games and super performant games irrespective of the game engine, that was mostly the point I was trying to make.
As well as the fact it sometimes makes sense a CPU overclock helps and the GPU doesn't matter at all, as not all code benefits from hardware acceleration (my example was about prime numbers - not super relevant here but that is an example of algorithms that could keep a CPU really busy and would starve a GPU of CPU time)

@Glasso Lol, linking something that is speculation on someone else's part is still speculation, from the question mark you can click next to the engine:

"We detect various technologies such as engines and SDKs used by games on Steam from depot file lists. This process is entirely automatic and does have mismatches, the rule set we use is available on GitHub. You can report issues and suggest new rules there."

Anyway we should stop going around in circles! I think we agree it sucks the game runs at a base 30FPS, I think we also agree increasing the CPU clock helps but we disagree about -why- that helps, but we can only speculate as we have no actual insight to their processes

@Glasso I can't find any official statement to support that they use Unity to begin with, which could be me being blind, but I reckon that is speculation on your part?
Not disputing it would make sense for the same developers to stick to the same engine, but unless it's officially stated you've inferred it which makes it speculation

@Glasso I think this discussion is over, I am of course speculating because I don't have insight into their development process but you don't have the humility to do the same and present your speculation as absolute facts.

The only facts that are important is that it matters very little whether a game is 2D/3D, or whether it's developed in Unity - you can absolutely tank a 2D game's performance, or create a super performant 3D game in Unity, graphics aren't all that matter in determining the FPS of a game.

@Glasso I have literally worked with several engines including Unity and I can promise you, you can tank performance in two games that look exactly the same, regardless of 2D or 3D, because of a difference in code

@Glasso Also, to your earlier comment about them making a similar game 6 years ago - that is a -long- time in this industry, it's likely there's different (possibly newer) developers working on it, also technology has moved on since then, so they could be (for better or for worse) using new stuff that the system can't handle as well

@Glasso I wouldn't get hung up on adjusting only the CPU clock making a difference - software isn't that straightforward, some parts do not benefit at all from GPU acceleration and are heavily CPU-bound. (e.g. calculating prime numbers is an example where a GPU would just sit there doing nothing)

@topsekret Gotta use that storage space for something! As for digital ownership, I think you might be mixing different concerns? As far as I'm aware you can still download games for example for the 3DS which has been discontinued?

@Glasso That just corroborates the point I'm making though, I don't think we disagree about anything 🤔

If increasing the clock speed on the CPU is sufficient, that means they're doing something computationally expensive, either for a good reason or some poorly thought-out code (either through ignorance or like I mentioned a business decision in the interest of time, it's sometimes incredibly difficult to change the way something works without introducing bugs elsewhere, in development we refer to it as the blast radius when making changes)

@topsekret Just don't get the game key card and get it digitally instead?

@Glasso The point I was making is that it has nothing to do with it being 2D

To anyone who doesn't understand that performance can absolutely tank on a game like this: you need to first understand that developing software is not straightforward.
It is often possible to achieve the same end result in many, -many- different ways, and sometimes (or rather, often) it is about tradeoffs and compromises, either from an algorithmic point of view or even from a business decision.
For example, if you have a 2D game with fancy lighting or particle effects, depending on those calculations you can absolutely grind performance to a halt, it doesn't matter you're dealing with a 2D game.

The game having pixelated graphics has no bearing on the FPS. You can absolutely tank performance by writing crappy software, even if you're only displaying a block with a single colour.

@johnedwin You vastly overestimate how harmful this really is, I think @Eririichi put it quite well.

I would like to add to that the fact companies like Nintendo are not charities, it's very strange when people believe they are 'fighting the good fight' by being strictly against ROMs and the like.

Gabe Newell put it best, with piracy in general being a service problem. By and large, Nintendo offers a very poor service across the board (crappy eshop, anti-consumer practices such as no refunds for digital games, hugely inflated prices, drip feed NSO offerings, the list goes on and on), it is not at all surprising to see this happening.

"Estimated loss of $170 million" - because every person who downloaded these games totally would've bought them otherwise..

@Anachronism I suppose it depends as you say, especially if we go quite far back to games that functioned differently based on CPU cycles! Imposing/lifting a target framerate isn't difficult in itself, but as you say if they developed certain elements poorly (functions based purely on frames passed is a code smell, it's quite easy to avoid) then I agree with you, it's not straightforward

Whether it warrants a paid-for patch I'm undecided on, I know the Zelda ones come with HDR support and such like, which is fine, but to me Nintendo has a history of denying simpler solutions in order to sell others (e.g. no local save backups, but selling cloud saves)

@Anachronism I appreciate the points you make about why caps might've been implemented (delta between frames spiking), but you are wrong about having no cap -automatically- resulting in faster battery drainage.

As per my example though, I was not expecting a game like BotW to be capped, and even if so, I would not expect to pay to get the cap lifted, but to be fair that is very much in line with Nintendo's anti-consumer practices.

So in a sense you're right in that I wasn't expecting any different and did not purchase a Switch 2 (if a new system is touted to be more powerful, I expect an implicit performance gain)

@Daggot Wait who considers Streets of Rage 4 an indie game?

No exclusives currently that really excite me for the Switch 2, so I'll be sticking with the Switch 1, Steam Deck and PC I reckon

@Rosona You and @DashKappei have an odd definition of trolling, as well as implicit I think. I'll unpack what I meant more clearly I hope in an example:

I was expecting Breath of the Wild to run at a stable 60fps and not finding out it's hampered by a framecap, which can only be lifted by an update (I fully understand this part by the way), which in this case is gated behind a paywall.

That is not me trolling, that is what my expectation was from the get-go (with BotW as an example)

EDIT:

For reference here is my original post as it's quite a ways up:

"To be honest, and maybe this is my PC gamer 'bias', I was largely hoping for implicit performance boosts across the board without requiring explicit updates (especially paid ones), which is a big reason why I haven't bought a Switch 2"

@DashKappei In my original post I literally said I was expecting implicit performance boosts -without- requiring updates, my position on that never changed so I don't see why you feel you're being trolled?
Also a framecap is by definition arbitrary as it's a cap set by the developer. And I'm calling out Nintendo's scummy practices for charging for things I most certainly expect for free in 2025 (unlocked frame rates, cloud saves etc).

@DashKappei Long and short of it is that (arbitrary) framecaps are silly, and I am certainly not paying to get them lifted, that is scummy Nintendo to the max. As I mentioned before, with more powerful hardware I expect to be able to use it, hence my PC bias as you don't get arbitrarily frame capped

@DashKappei Thanks for the comprehensive explanation! You did illustrate (as per my original comment actually) why I didn't make the jump though - I was expecting performance boosts that weren't hampered by arbitrary caps.
That is to say, to achieve 60fps in Zelda I would've expected it to work right off the bat, but from what you're saying that sounds like they slapped that behind a paid-for update

@DashKappei Oh I see! So Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom perform/look better even without the paid updates?

@BinaryMessiah Not defending EA really, they make products that you and I don't care for, but it's indisputable people want them given the crazy growth. Am just tired of people trying to make a villain out of a CEO because they think employees are somehow oppressed?

Imagine complaining about someone getting compensated a small fraction of the -billions- the company gained because of their tenure.
But instead, people want EA to vanish, and have ~14k people lose their jobs? How does that help anyone?

@sethfranum That doesn't even make sense as a reply to what I posted, I think you're seeing demons where there are none?

To be honest, and maybe this is my PC gamer 'bias', I was largely hoping for implicit performance boosts across the board without requiring explicit updates (especially paid ones), which is a big reason why I haven't bought a Switch 2

Also @PJOReilly you have a typo in the article - "renumerated" should be "remunerated" : )

@sethfranum Oh dear.

You're mixing up who creates value with how that value is scaled.

Yes, devs make the product. But a CEO’s job is to allocate capital, set direction, and make bets that decide whether a game even gets greenlit, whether EA doubles down on FIFA microtransactions, or pivots to subscription models, or invests in AI tools that make devs more productive. Those decisions are high-stakes and affect **billions** in revenue. If they work, shareholders reward that with stock-based compensation.

The devs get paid salaries - often very good ones - regardless of how well the game sells. The CEO doesn’t. That’s the difference: developers are paid for effort; CEOs are paid for outcomes.

Also, calling EA a "sweatshop" is silly. EA’s average dev salary is over $100k. This isn’t Foxconn.

If you want a world where engineers run the company and make the big capital decisions, cool - but that’s not how public companies operate. And EA, like it or not, has been extremely profitable under Wilson.

This isn’t some injustice. It’s textbook executive incentive design.

EDIT:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269696/revenue-of-electronic-arts-since-2005/ - Check that growth since 2013 if you don't believe me

EDIT2:
Valve is a good example of the model you're advocating for, but also consider the ramifications. EA employs well over 14000 people whereas Valve has fewer than 350, with fewer still being developers for Steam. They perform -really- well, but it doesn't gel well with the social values you might hold

(Full disclosure: I’m a software engineer working on financial analytics tools, with a degree in economics - I get the frustration, but this is exactly how exec comp is supposed to work. This isn’t the gotcha you think it is 😅)

Everyone’s mad at the CEO bonus, but missing how this actually works.

He didn’t just get a $5m cash gift - it’s mostly performance-based stock. If EA does well, he earns more. If it doesn’t, he doesn’t. That’s standard in big public companies.

The drop in “median pay” doesn’t mean pay cuts. It likely means EA hired more junior staff, which pulls the median down, not that existing employees got paid less.

That tall graph looks wild, but it’s misleading without context. This is how CEO comp has worked for decades - it’s not a scandal, it’s business as usual.

Typo in the article, it's "remunerated" not "renumerated".

Bought this on Steam, refunded after an hour because of the insane hand holding - told I can't use classic mode in the first chapter of the world tour, so swapped to a different game mode where they found it necessary to explain the basics despite selecting "I have street fighter experience"

Do we know if the base games perform better fps-wise on the Switch 2? I'm not interested in the upgrade packs

Much more convenient to have a digital collection!

@Duncanballs Fair, I got my dates mixed up, sounds like the PSX version was from 1994 and the arcade version from 1993 - the point still stands about it being a port though!

So wait, that's only two real Switch 2 games, with Mario Kart World and DK Bananza?

Also yikes, starting off the list of Switch 2 games to look forward to with a port of a PSX game from 1993..

EDIT:
I guess I can't count, that makes 4 games when including Kirby and Hyrule Warriors I guess? Still, out of 27.