By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Reggie on why Red Dead Redemption 2 isn't on Switch

Miyamotoo said:
DonFerrari said:

Is that your way to avoid saying clearly that even if RDR2 started development after Switch was know it wouldn't be made for it anyway? GTA V runs on X360 and PS3 and still got no port for Switch.

I already said very clearly in post that you replied to me, its very clearly and obvious from this: "while completely different thing is that Rockstar wouldnt release RDR2 on Switch in any case".

GTA V still has chance appearing on Switch, chances for RDR2 are almost zero.

Thanks. Since LA Noire appeared on Switch, both have a chance of being ported (maybe with severe cuts).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Miyamotoo said:

I already said very clearly in post that you replied to me, its very clearly and obvious from this: "while completely different thing is that Rockstar wouldnt release RDR2 on Switch in any case".

GTA V still has chance appearing on Switch, chances for RDR2 are almost zero.

Thanks. Since LA Noire appeared on Switch, both have a chance of being ported (maybe with severe cuts).

Both? You mean on GTA V and La Noire? Definitely, I mean GTA V is last gen game same like La Noire, and same like La Noire GTA V was re-released on PS4/XB1. Also full portable GTA V would be huge deal, it would sell at least few millions on Switch also, also we had before rumours that GTA V was in development for Switch.

RDR2 is totally different thing, game thats was 8 years in development, from moment they know PS4/XB1 specs was focused just for those specs, it pushing PS4/XB1 hardware to max...so even if they know for Switch specs before and even if they did know that Switch will not be fail similar to Wii U, hardly they would bring RDR2 to Switch.



Miyamotoo said:
DonFerrari said:

Thanks. Since LA Noire appeared on Switch, both have a chance of being ported (maybe with severe cuts).

Both? You mean on GTA V and La Noire? Definitely, I mean GTA V is last gen game same like La Noire, and same like La Noire GTA V was re-released on PS4/XB1. Also full portable GTA V would be huge deal, it would sell at least few millions on Switch also, also we had before rumours that GTA V was in development for Switch.

RDR2 is totally different thing, game thats was 8 years in development, from moment they know PS4/XB1 specs was focused just for those specs, it pushing PS4/XB1 hardware to max...so even if they know for Switch specs before and even if they did know that Switch will not be fail similar to Wii U, hardly they would bring RDR2 to Switch.

If they believe there is good sales potential they may as well hire a port company to recode and remove all "excess" from the game. How competent in portraying the game that would be? I have no idea as it would need to look closely to the assets. But as said before Switch can handle open world games (they could even do a RDR1 port first to see the acceptance of the game).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Miyamotoo said:

Both? You mean on GTA V and La Noire? Definitely, I mean GTA V is last gen game same like La Noire, and same like La Noire GTA V was re-released on PS4/XB1. Also full portable GTA V would be huge deal, it would sell at least few millions on Switch also, also we had before rumours that GTA V was in development for Switch.

RDR2 is totally different thing, game thats was 8 years in development, from moment they know PS4/XB1 specs was focused just for those specs, it pushing PS4/XB1 hardware to max...so even if they know for Switch specs before and even if they did know that Switch will not be fail similar to Wii U, hardly they would bring RDR2 to Switch.

If they believe there is good sales potential they may as well hire a port company to recode and remove all "excess" from the game. How competent in portraying the game that would be? I have no idea as it would need to look closely to the assets. But as said before Switch can handle open world games (they could even do a RDR1 port first to see the acceptance of the game).

They could, but I dont see they doing that, I mean we still dont know if this game will come to PC. RDR1 port would be better fit, but what I read code of that game is a mess so it would be very hard for porting, and thats why RDR1 isnt ported even on PC.



Miyamotoo said:
DonFerrari said:

If they believe there is good sales potential they may as well hire a port company to recode and remove all "excess" from the game. How competent in portraying the game that would be? I have no idea as it would need to look closely to the assets. But as said before Switch can handle open world games (they could even do a RDR1 port first to see the acceptance of the game).

They could, but I dont see they doing that, I mean we still dont know if this game will come to PC. RDR1 port would be better fit, but what I read code of that game is a mess so it would be very hard for porting, and thats why RDR1 isnt ported even on PC.

Well, at least it isn't like Switch needs RDR2, so far the console have been getting good games and even if no big games released for quite some time in the beginning of the year the backlog was good enough already.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Reggie gonna Reggie. It's his job, sometimes he's quite good at it. This is not one of those times.



DonFerrari said:
Miyamotoo said:

They could, but I dont see they doing that, I mean we still dont know if this game will come to PC. RDR1 port would be better fit, but what I read code of that game is a mess so it would be very hard for porting, and thats why RDR1 isnt ported even on PC.

Well, at least it isn't like Switch needs RDR2, so far the console have been getting good games and even if no big games released for quite some time in the beginning of the year the backlog was good enough already.

Well yeah, but point of discussion was RDR2, and then we mentioned GTA V and RDR1.



Mummelmann said:
Reggie gonna Reggie. It's his job, sometimes he's quite good at it. This is not one of those times.

Maybe..but what better answer is there?  "too demanding for our hardware" would have trolls dancing in the streets.  At least this way, Reggie has us arguing over whether it is possible and whether Rockstar would even want to try.

He could blame Rockstar (probably a bad idea) or he could promise it will be there later (okay, but now what?) or he could take it down a peg (we'll leave boring cowboy simulators for the other consoles).  I like the last option best but it might be just as bad as insulting Rockstar directly, for company relations.

I am open to other answers that would make Nintendo Switch look good without hurting Rockstar.

Edit: forget boring, how about, "CASUAL cowboy simulator"? 

Last edited by couchmonkey - on 13 December 2018

couchmonkey said:
Mummelmann said:
Reggie gonna Reggie. It's his job, sometimes he's quite good at it. This is not one of those times.

Maybe..but what better answer is there?  "too demanding for our hardware" would have trolls dancing in the streets.  At least this way, Reggie has us arguing over whether it is possible and whether Rockstar would even want to try.

He could blame Rockstar (probably a bad idea) or he could promise it will be there later (okay, but now what?) or he could take it down a peg (we'll leave boring cowboy simulators for the other consoles).  I like the last option best but it might be just as bad as insulting Rockstar directly, for company relations.

I am open to other answers that would make Nintendo Switch look good without hurting Rockstar.

Edit: forget boring, how about, "CASUAL cowboy simulator"? 

He could have said that even though he thinks the game is great, R* had priorities that didn't include porting the game to Switch.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Miyamotoo said:

This was my original post that made reply to:

"Well Reggie is right, I mean game was like 7 years in development, while completely different thing is that Rockstar wouldnt release RDR2 on Switch in any case.

Saying that, no one expecting RDR2 on Switch in any case, same couldn't be said for GTA V."

Is that your way to avoid saying clearly that even if RDR2 started development after Switch was know it wouldn't be made for it anyway? GTA V runs on X360 and PS3 and still got no port for Switch.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

They can't run 3D models, so that would make a direct port impossible.

For the Switch however, it should very much be in the realm of possible:

1. Smaller, lower resolution textures (saves massively on memory an install size)

2. Remove most grass-like vegetation (they cost a lot of processing power)

3. Tessellation off, potentially lower polygon models (same effect as above)

4. Simplify lighting and potentially physics; remove any post-processing (again, less processing power. All 3 taken together also ease up alot on the bandwith already)

5. Lower resolution (720x1280 target and 540x960 minimum for undocked, anything over 720p for docked) and target 30fps framerate

All these steps, taken together, should allow the game to run on Switch. The experience would probably be lesser, but it's definitely not impossible to run that game on Switch. 

Yes, slaughter all the game and it will run... in other news they could make a RDR2 version for PS1/N64 since both can handle 3D.

ANY game can be ported to almost any console. The point is what will be the end result and how much work will it take? Should the result be called the same name as the original source material?

And are you under the agreement that if Switch was already know by the time of early development of RDR2 it would have been launched on it?

Not necessarily would (especially coming from the Wii U flop would certainly made them wary, besides no PC port means not being ported everywhere anyway), but chances are it could. Like I explained there's no technical reason for it not to run on Switch. If ARK: Survival Evolved can run on Switch, then RDR2 certainly could, too.

@bolded: Not with their Shader technology (among other things). Those Shaders also kill of any potential PS360 (but not necessarily a Wii U version) - you would need to rewrite half the code to port the game to them.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 13 December 2018