gcwy said:
onionberry said:
just like you can play gta v on a 1050 and on a 1080, scalable engines and now very easy thanks to the architecture.
|
I get what you're trying to say, but there are boundaries and variables to scalability. It doesn't help that you chose a remaster for this matter.
If the Switch is slightly less powerful than an Xbox One, then a 900p game could run easily at 720p on the Switch. However, nothing seems to suggest that it will be close to the Xbox One in power.
I just hope that the power differential isn't as big as somethiing like the Vita and the PS3/360. Because then, even after major graphical cutbacks, the game would have trouble running at a stable framerate. I'm sure Nintendo wouldn't want a Borderlands, Vita situation on their hands.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j8nRpJCDQfM
|
Of Course not, Switch will most likely be somewhere about half of XB1 power.
Volterra_90 said:
spemanig said:
Won't matter if space is an issue. |
True. I really don't have a clue about how they will solve the SD card issue. And I hope it has a nice internal storage. Not sure if there's a cloud-based tech that could solve this.
|
SD card is not issue at all, they will use wide range capacity of SD cards same like they doing with 3DS.
pokoko said:
That sounds good but then, reading further, I'm not so sure if this isn't partially PR from Nvidia in an attempt to impress investors, consumers, and publishers. What stuck out, especially, was this--"all of these architectures are common in the sense that they all use modern GPUs, they all use programmable shading, and they all have basically similar features.”
That's kind of like saying that a Yugo is like a Lamborghini in that they have four tires and an engine.
I mean, I mostly believe that it's mostly true but I'm wondering if his "simple" is the same as a developer's "simple".
|
Thats bad comparison, he basically saying that architecture and tech that Switch is using (Nvidia+ARM) are very familiar and very modern with support for all modern features in that matter, so porting XB1/PS4/PC games to Switch want be hard. Something like that definitely couldn't be said for Wii U and Wii.
And leave Yugo alone. :D
spemanig said:
Nuvendil said:
I'm actually more concerned about internal storage than cards. With card prices falling all the time and Nintendo's intiment relation with that industry, they should be able to provide 16, 32, and 64 gig cqrds without much issue and without much increase in cost to publishers. But internal storage...I just don't know how they will handle this. The Switch needs to be very capable for its size without going over $300 so cost cutting is a major concern and I could see internal storage being part of that effort.
|
That is just not true. Remember, 3DS had to make games $10 more expensive because of 2GB of extra memory. And that was just because of 2GB-4GB. The issue here is the price of carts compared to discs. If the recommended size is 16GB, that means that it's a price bottleneck, not a space issue. 16GB is likely the $60 size equilibrium since Nintendo wants the Switch to be marketed and consumed as a home console with home-console style games sold at a home console price. If $60 is the equilibrium price for a mere 16GB, 32GB will be like $70-$75. 64GB will be like $80-$90. People are grossly overstating just how how much buying in bulk reduces cost. Disks cost pennies to manufacture. Carts cost more. 64GB carts cost WAY more. That's all a publisher needs to ditch the platform.
Since the Switch uses physical media, the internal storage is only an issue for patches. Which is a big issue, but not as big of an issue as one that literally prevents games from being made.
|
First comparing 3DS and memory costs 5 years ago and today doesn't make sense because prices of flash memory today are incomparable lower than 5 years ago.
You definatly overestimate prices of SD cards when you buy them directly from manufacturer in bulks of millions. Few monts ago I like final customer bought 64GB Micro SD card for $12, so now try to imagine price for each unit if you have multi million order directly from manufacturer, not to mention that prices of flash memory are constantly falling.
Nintendo will probably take costs at itself for cards, certanly no way that size of card will afect on price of game istelf, prices of games will be same like they were for Wii U max $60 in any case. So saying that 60GB game will cost $80-90 is pure nonsense. Why Nintendo put 16GB like standard card, because majority of their game are below 16GB, majority of Nintendo Wii U games are below 8GB, but dependly from size of game they will offcourse have larger cards also probably smaller ones too but that will not afeect on prices of games.
Actually because card, you can have patch directly on card.
So cartridges/cards want be an issue for Switch, Nintendo isn't new to this, they were using same cards with DS and 3DS so they are very familiar with everything including possible problems.
