@RupeeClock Adhering to that formula is beneficial because the only one sticking to it (Nintendo) is the only one with over 10 billion in CASH. Sony and Microsoft are tied to market cap, and have no real cash flow.
The OG formula works IF your IP is strong enough. Otherwise, you end up creating a subscription service for your $60/$70 SKUs, instantly devaluing them.
Or like previous gen, have AAA games that end up being a 5th of the MSRP within 6 months of launch.
Nintendo doesn't have this problem, so they have no need to break tradition like others MUST do.
@themightyant And therein is the problem, everyone here (and in general) just regurgitates what they THINK is trusted opinion as an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Either the information is accurate, or it isn't.
I've read the "interview", and watched the Saber documentary- nothing they are doing is extraordinary- they had to rewrite junk code form platforms with higher core counts that literally were not using them (even they admit most of the calls Switch couldn't pull past Core2 were empty modules or dedicated to sound which can be routed to the DSP).
What they're pointing out is that nowadays developers hardly write to the metal anymore (GameBoy, Saturn, etc) so anything that isn't plug-and-play is considered substantial now.
That isn't a Herculean effort, that's doing YOUR JOB as a developer with a different target than the lead SKU. It's literally what you're paid to do. Hardware is irrelevant, because the code can always be executed in a different way that is far more efficient.
Again, stop quoting other people's words and use your own- if you don't understand what's happening under the hood, then just say so and move on. Quoting without understanding is just the blind leading the blind.
@themightyant “Herculean effort”? You guys have no idea what you’re talking about, and this very article should prove it to you.
Developers need MONEY AND TIME to port a game. Nintendo hardly funds ports, and PUBLISHERS are to blame for using the “impossible port” excuse to not do their job (properly fund the game for every platform).
It’s sad that everyone is oblivious to this and immediately jump to to hardware while having zero experience on how the technology works.
@RupeeClock Simple: Switch isn’t a phone- it’s the successor to Wii U. Nintendo will always stick to the OG, traditional form of console cycles (4-6 years). It’s Sony/MS that are straying from the formula.
Comments 4
Re: "I Don't Think The Switch Needs A More Powerful Version" Says 'World War Z' Lead Designer
@RupeeClock Adhering to that formula is beneficial because the only one sticking to it (Nintendo) is the only one with over 10 billion in CASH. Sony and Microsoft are tied to market cap, and have no real cash flow.
The OG formula works IF your IP is strong enough. Otherwise, you end up creating a subscription service for your $60/$70 SKUs, instantly devaluing them.
Or like previous gen, have AAA games that end up being a 5th of the MSRP within 6 months of launch.
Nintendo doesn't have this problem, so they have no need to break tradition like others MUST do.
Re: "I Don't Think The Switch Needs A More Powerful Version" Says 'World War Z' Lead Designer
@themightyant And therein is the problem, everyone here (and in general) just regurgitates what they THINK is trusted opinion as an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Either the information is accurate, or it isn't.
I've read the "interview", and watched the Saber documentary- nothing they are doing is extraordinary- they had to rewrite junk code form platforms with higher core counts that literally were not using them (even they admit most of the calls Switch couldn't pull past Core2 were empty modules or dedicated to sound which can be routed to the DSP).
What they're pointing out is that nowadays developers hardly write to the metal anymore (GameBoy, Saturn, etc) so anything that isn't plug-and-play is considered substantial now.
That isn't a Herculean effort, that's doing YOUR JOB as a developer with a different target than the lead SKU. It's literally what you're paid to do. Hardware is irrelevant, because the code can always be executed in a different way that is far more efficient.
Again, stop quoting other people's words and use your own- if you don't understand what's happening under the hood, then just say so and move on. Quoting without understanding is just the blind leading the blind.
NEXT.
Re: "I Don't Think The Switch Needs A More Powerful Version" Says 'World War Z' Lead Designer
@themightyant “Herculean effort”? You guys have no idea what you’re talking about, and this very article should prove it to you.
Developers need MONEY AND TIME to port a game. Nintendo hardly funds ports, and PUBLISHERS are to blame for using the “impossible port” excuse to not do their job (properly fund the game for every platform).
It’s sad that everyone is oblivious to this and immediately jump to to hardware while having zero experience on how the technology works.
Y’all are sad.
Re: "I Don't Think The Switch Needs A More Powerful Version" Says 'World War Z' Lead Designer
@RupeeClock Simple: Switch isn’t a phone- it’s the successor to Wii U. Nintendo will always stick to the OG, traditional form of console cycles (4-6 years). It’s Sony/MS that are straying from the formula.