Quantcast
Switch will probably have best 3rd party support for Nintendo platform from SNES

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Switch will probably have best 3rd party support for Nintendo platform from SNES

I think “since the SNES” is a bit short-sighted. I think by year 3 Switch will be well ahead of SNES at the same point in its lifecycle. It’s what happens in year 4-6 that will be questionable, since SNES had arguably the best 4-6 of any console.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 15 December 2017

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

So... i disagree.

SNES was a powerful system for the time and received every high profile 3rd party game.That is simply not possible for the switch due to power constraints.

So, switch will see third party support from the kind the Wii did. Low/mid/high key third party exclusives (high being popular portable franchises that may make their way) and last gen ports. In some cases current gen downgraded if feasible (like doom).



bonzobanana said:
Miyamotoo said:

Doesnt matter how much powerfule is Switch over Wii U (its around 3x) but how much power and tehnical difrence is with Switch compred to PS4/XB1. Switch is technically actually more advanced than PS4/XB1 has more modern tech/architecture and probably more modern and newer IPs and tools. Actually Wiis biggest 3rd party problem was definitely huge power and technical difference compared to PS3/360 and Wii controls. Wii Us 3rd party problem is faile of Wii U like platform, Wii U started losing 3rd party support only few months after launche when start selling terrible, and left without almost hole 3rd party support in its 1st year. While Switch is totaly opposite its getting more and more announcements how time goes, Switch continue to sell great and intals base is growing.

 

When you state that it can be very misleading to people. wii u was in theory more advanced than 360 and PS3 in so called architecture but it was a very low performance version of that architecture compared to high end for their time versions of earlier architecture of the ps3 and 360. That's why gflops are important because it helps give a rough indication of power across different generations and architecture.

So even if there is some technical improvements in the architecture of Switch compared to PS4 and Xbox one clearly the Switch is massively inferior in performance. The huge downgrades in Doom to get it working on Switch compared to PS4 and Xbox one. Even games like LA Noire on Switch struggle to repeat the same experience as ps3 in many ways, draw distance is much reduced and there is actual slowdown on Switch where the gameplay itself becomes sluggish along with the frame rate drops. Many games drop below 720p to maintain frame rates. The Switch is a nice console but lets not get ridiculous about its performance. In cpu terms it is less than 360/PS3 in gpu terms much better docked and broadly similar in portable mode. Space is at a premium on Switch due to use of cartridges and flash memory so there is a push to downsize games but on the other hand there is that huge 4GB of memory which gives the system a significant boost in performance and the game engines it can handle. 

The Switch is performing exactly as expected for a Tegra chip with a down clocked CPU. Nintendo could be 2 generations away from offering anything as powerful as the Xbox one or PS4 in a hybrid format.  I mean its about 400 gflops docked, sub 200 gflops portable and PS4 is 1800 gflops that is a huge gulf that I'm not sure can be achieved in one generation for a hybrid.

The important thing is many games simply don't need a huge amount of power.  If you want huge sprawling realistic detailed worlds then power is important but the Switch achieves a good level of performance with the huge benefit of portability. No need to pretend somehow the Switch is competitive with PS4 or Xbox one in performance terms it isn't and no one seriously thinks it is.

Gflops are totally irelevant when you comparing different tech and architecture, especially if there is difference 5-10 years between them. Also fact is that Wii U didnt had good tools and APIs and did not supported some modern engines.

Yeah but Doom works, and its still same game. We already talk about LA Noire, and DF basicly pointed that, that LA Noire is only one specific case because hole game and engine is build around very complex PS3 CPU and to use it most of it, thats actualy only one of few multiplatform games (game is later ported to Xbox360) that runs worse on Xbox360 compared to PS3. So porting such a specific game that from start build to run with specific hardware on mind, can't have best transition on totally different hardware. Every other multiplatform game runs and look better on Switch compared to PS3/Xbox360 versions.

 

 

Jumpin said: 
I think “since the SNES” is a bit of a short site. I think by year 3 Switch will be well ahead of SNES at the same point in its lifecycle. It’s what happens in year 4-6 that will be questionable, since SNES had arguably the best 4-6 of any console.

SNES had full 3rd party support, not single one Nintendo platform didnt had full 3rd party support after SNES, and Switch will of course not have full 3rd party support.

 

Nem said: 

So... i disagree. 

SNES was a powerful system for the time and received every high profile 3rd party game.That is simply not possible for the switch due to power constraints. 

So, switch will see third party support from the kind the Wii did. Low/mid/high key third party exclusives (high being popular portable franchises that may make their way) and last gen ports. In some cases current gen downgraded if feasible (like doom).

I wrote, after SNES, not on pair with SNES.



Miyamotoo said:
DélioPT said:

 

We will wait, but judging based on popularity and sales on eShop Skyrim and Doom are selling quite well.

I never wrote everyone, again, fact is that there are people that are buying Switch for full handheld mode for some 3rd party games, and some other maybe will not buy Switch just beacuse those games, but they will again buy some of those 3rd party games beacuse full handheld mode.

But thats point, some can buy Switch for Zelda and handheld Skyrim. Full handheld mode for games is game changer for some people, I mean you have plenty of people that are using Switch just like handheld, actualy Nintendo survey showed that most people using Switch like handheld instead like home console. Take Two relased new game on Switch and we can expect more games.

But fact is that is happening and we will definitely have much more 3rd party announcements next year (we can bet if you want). Why would companies said "we are bringing our future games to this console" if they also want to bring some older ports!? It doesnt make sense, they will bring some new and some old games also.

Capcom actually announced two 3 new games, Ace Atorney, Mega Man 11 and Street Fighter Collection. SE is also relising Octopath Traveler thats new game. Namco said they are bringing 3 exclusive Switch games.  Again, we bouth agree that ports are also support, and I already wrote to you that ports of older games can be done fastest and that for ports or newer games porting is longer, so that why we mostly have now annucments of ports older games while bigger annucments will come later (next year).
See what a success story brought so far? Besides Ubisoft, did any company actively and clearly declared to be giving more support to Switch? You have some problem with reading!? They are all success stories and basicly all companies that I mentioned very clearly said the are giving more and stronger support to Switch.  

And Il say again, devs can work on PS5 and Switch version of game in same time if games and Switch are still selling good. You dont know how many exlusive games Switch will have so you cant say that "we aren't getting a lot of exclusive new games for Switch", espacily beacuse we already have Mario Rabbids, Fire Emblem Warriors, Octopath Traveler, Shin Megami Tensei V, No More Heroes and Bayonetta 3 announced in first 9 months of console, sp off course we will have much more exclusives getting announced. Bandai said they have 3 exlusives for Switch.

Indies are reaching lineup of every platform, more games is always better for any platform.

But point is that Wii U didnt has one single system seller or big game, we talking about night and day difrecens in that point. Point that there is no confirmation doesn't mean there will not single one 1st party game, and in any case we have 2 good exclusives for February for now.

There is difference when you have good game on failed console without future and good game on popular console with bright future.

My "issue" with Skyrim or Doom isn't if they are selling well or not. Given that they have no competition in their genres, i want to know if they doing more than just "well".
Doing fine, given the circumnstances, is not enough. If Switch is to become a real alternative to XB or PS, this type of software needs to exceed expectations, otherwise, both devs and gamers alike, won't bother with a console that ends up being more about Nintendo than 3rd parties.

"but they will again buy some of those 3rd party games beacuse full handheld mode."
That was never an issue with me.
Gamers bought GTC V in droves again on PS4 and XB1. It's not really a surprise if that happens on Switch aswell.

The survey that i remembre from Nintendo showed that people used the portable mode at home.
If that data is accurate, than Switch is failing to leave to it's potential: Switch was about indoor and outdoor gaming.

"Why would companies said "we are bringing our future games to this console" if they also want to bring some older ports!?"
I don't understand how a company saying they will bring more ports but also newer titles it's something weird to you. Didn't Capcom do that with Megaman 11 (new game) and old Megaman games (ports)?
That is what should be happening, given Switch's success.

Again, i'm not denying that more games will come.
What i'm talking about is what kind of support Switch will be having in the coming years. And with the little we have heard from developers is: more ports and smaller franchises.

"while bigger annucments will come later (next year)."
You talk as if this was a fact. Want to prove it? Do you have inside information to backup your claims or is it just speculation?

I said that we aren't getting new exclusives. And that is the truth.
There have been announcements of more support but all they say is ports and more ports or they don't clearly say what kind of support is (Ubisoft, for exemple).
"Mario Rabbids, Fire Emblem Warriors, Octopath Traveler, Shin Megami Tensei V, No More Heroes and Bayonetta 3"
Of these, only one was/is a success, three, are from not "successful" franchises and one, has yet to prove to be a success or not.

If you think the number of titles is all that needs for a platform to be successful, than you are mistaken.
Look at the top 10 lists and see what sells every month, every year. That's what Nintendo needs to get to really compete.

The quality of the titles is not what matters. What matters is that in the first 10 months, there's an equal number of 1st party titles for both Wii U and Switch.
Quality is secondary to this discussion.

Splatoon and Bayonetta were both released on a failed platform. One did less than a million, the other, more than 4,.5 million.

You do realise that Nintendo used the "The Game Awards", a show seen by millions, to announce Bayonetta 1, 2 and 3, and not a great 1st party title, right?



Miyamotoo said:
bonzobanana said:

When you state that it can be very misleading to people. wii u was in theory more advanced than 360 and PS3 in so called architecture but it was a very low performance version of that architecture compared to high end for their time versions of earlier architecture of the ps3 and 360. That's why gflops are important because it helps give a rough indication of power across different generations and architecture.

So even if there is some technical improvements in the architecture of Switch compared to PS4 and Xbox one clearly the Switch is massively inferior in performance. The huge downgrades in Doom to get it working on Switch compared to PS4 and Xbox one. Even games like LA Noire on Switch struggle to repeat the same experience as ps3 in many ways, draw distance is much reduced and there is actual slowdown on Switch where the gameplay itself becomes sluggish along with the frame rate drops. Many games drop below 720p to maintain frame rates. The Switch is a nice console but lets not get ridiculous about its performance. In cpu terms it is less than 360/PS3 in gpu terms much better docked and broadly similar in portable mode. Space is at a premium on Switch due to use of cartridges and flash memory so there is a push to downsize games but on the other hand there is that huge 4GB of memory which gives the system a significant boost in performance and the game engines it can handle. 

The Switch is performing exactly as expected for a Tegra chip with a down clocked CPU. Nintendo could be 2 generations away from offering anything as powerful as the Xbox one or PS4 in a hybrid format.  I mean its about 400 gflops docked, sub 200 gflops portable and PS4 is 1800 gflops that is a huge gulf that I'm not sure can be achieved in one generation for a hybrid.

The important thing is many games simply don't need a huge amount of power.  If you want huge sprawling realistic detailed worlds then power is important but the Switch achieves a good level of performance with the huge benefit of portability. No need to pretend somehow the Switch is competitive with PS4 or Xbox one in performance terms it isn't and no one seriously thinks it is.

Gflops are totally irelevant when you comparing different tech and architecture, especially if there is difference 5-10 years between them. Also fact is that Wii U didnt had good tools and APIs and did not supported some modern engines.

Yeah but Doom works, and its still same game. We already talk about LA Noire, and DF basicly pointed that, that LA Noire is only one specific case because hole game and engine is build around very complex PS3 CPU and to use it most of it, thats actualy only one of few multiplatform games (game is later ported to Xbox360) that runs worse on Xbox360 compared to PS3. So porting such a specific game that from start build to run with specific hardware on mind, can't have best transition on totally different hardware. Every other multiplatform game runs and look better on Switch compared to PS3/Xbox360 versions.

 

 

Jumpin said: 
I think “since the SNES” is a bit of a short site. I think by year 3 Switch will be well ahead of SNES at the same point in its lifecycle. It’s what happens in year 4-6 that will be questionable, since SNES had arguably the best 4-6 of any console.

SNES had full 3rd party support, not single one Nintendo platform didnt had full 3rd party support after SNES, and Switch will of course not have full 3rd party support.

 

Nem said: 

So... i disagree. 

SNES was a powerful system for the time and received every high profile 3rd party game.That is simply not possible for the switch due to power constraints. 

So, switch will see third party support from the kind the Wii did. Low/mid/high key third party exclusives (high being popular portable franchises that may make their way) and last gen ports. In some cases current gen downgraded if feasible (like doom).

I wrote, after SNES, not on pair with SNES.

SMD and even NES had a much stronger third party lineup in the earlier part of the generation. SNES was kind of weak outside of Capcom, Enix, and Konami support. Outside of a few other quality releases (like FF4 in 91, and SoM in 93) almost all the rest of early SNES third party software were low quality titles and shovelware ports. It was in 94-97 that the SNES quality really went up; particularly with extremely strong offerings from Square.

The Switch should easily be able to top the volume of quality games from third parties, at least in the first three years. Also, the quality titles won’t be mostly tied to a small number of genres (early SNES quality titles were mostly sidescroller action/platformers)



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

Don't forget, the quality and quantity of indie games is much greater than that of the Wii. Even shovelware now is of decent quality or it can't compete in a market where games like Stardew Valley are the norm and not the exception.

Also, look at the history of diminishing returns. Quality console games started hitting heavy diminishing returns with the Xbox 360/PS3 graphically. Games from that era can be easily ported to Switch, and there are many of those games. Fishing back catalogs from the Wii or even Wii-U was a near unacceptable step back in graphics. Now, there is a huge back catelog of games that many of us have never played and they are effectively minor relative steps back in graphics and design.

Throw in the interesting novelty of being able to play these well developed full console games on the front porch instead of in front of a dedicated television, and you have a formula to create wide appeal in play experiences to CORE GAMERS and casual gamers alike, instead of just one or the other, which was the appeal of the last two Nintendo consoles.

Last thing, the rep of exceeding expectations creates interest from developers. If the money is there, and Nintendo supports their 3rd party, I think we will see a bright 3rd party future on the console.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Miyamotoo said:
bonzobanana said:

When you state that it can be very misleading to people. wii u was in theory more advanced than 360 and PS3 in so called architecture but it was a very low performance version of that architecture compared to high end for their time versions of earlier architecture of the ps3 and 360. That's why gflops are important because it helps give a rough indication of power across different generations and architecture.

So even if there is some technical improvements in the architecture of Switch compared to PS4 and Xbox one clearly the Switch is massively inferior in performance. The huge downgrades in Doom to get it working on Switch compared to PS4 and Xbox one. Even games like LA Noire on Switch struggle to repeat the same experience as ps3 in many ways, draw distance is much reduced and there is actual slowdown on Switch where the gameplay itself becomes sluggish along with the frame rate drops. Many games drop below 720p to maintain frame rates. The Switch is a nice console but lets not get ridiculous about its performance. In cpu terms it is less than 360/PS3 in gpu terms much better docked and broadly similar in portable mode. Space is at a premium on Switch due to use of cartridges and flash memory so there is a push to downsize games but on the other hand there is that huge 4GB of memory which gives the system a significant boost in performance and the game engines it can handle. 

The Switch is performing exactly as expected for a Tegra chip with a down clocked CPU. Nintendo could be 2 generations away from offering anything as powerful as the Xbox one or PS4 in a hybrid format.  I mean its about 400 gflops docked, sub 200 gflops portable and PS4 is 1800 gflops that is a huge gulf that I'm not sure can be achieved in one generation for a hybrid.

The important thing is many games simply don't need a huge amount of power.  If you want huge sprawling realistic detailed worlds then power is important but the Switch achieves a good level of performance with the huge benefit of portability. No need to pretend somehow the Switch is competitive with PS4 or Xbox one in performance terms it isn't and no one seriously thinks it is.

Gflops are totally irelevant when you comparing different tech and architecture, especially if there is difference 5-10 years between them. Also fact is that Wii U didnt had good tools and APIs and did not supported some modern engines.

Yeah but Doom works, and its still same game. We already talk about LA Noire, and DF basicly pointed that, that LA Noire is only one specific case because hole game and engine is build around very complex PS3 CPU and to use it most of it, thats actualy only one of few multiplatform games (game is later ported to Xbox360) that runs worse on Xbox360 compared to PS3. So porting such a specific game that from start build to run with specific hardware on mind, can't have best transition on totally different hardware. Every other multiplatform game runs and look better on Switch compared to PS3/Xbox360 versions.

 

As ever we will agree to disagree. My early comments about the Switch having limited cpu performance right at the beginning certainly seem to be true with clearly some games struggling in both portable and docked mode where cpu resources are the same and when I wrote that the Switch might struggle more in docked mode due to cpu restrictions that seems to be true too with digital foundry commenting that some games perform better in portable mode with regard more consistent frame rates. When you make heavier use of a gpu at higher performance often that does need some extra cpu resources.

Again though I don't really care Switch seems to be performing very nicely for what it is. Nintendo games don't need huge performance and portability is a great feature. I don't have a Switch yet but looking forward to getting one sometime in the future. It's great to see the success of Nintendo again. I was one of the rare early adopters it seems of wii u and while I was very disappointed overall with the hardware performance on many occasions I still had great times with the console and I'm sure I will with the Switch too. I'm hoping for a revision or price cut to Switch. Here in Europe the Switch hasn't been quite as successful as US or Japan so Nintendo are under a little more pressure to price cut over here.



DélioPT said:
Miyamotoo said:

We will wait, but judging based on popularity and sales on eShop Skyrim and Doom are selling quite well.

I never wrote everyone, again, fact is that there are people that are buying Switch for full handheld mode for some 3rd party games, and some other maybe will not buy Switch just beacuse those games, but they will again buy some of those 3rd party games beacuse full handheld mode.

But thats point, some can buy Switch for Zelda and handheld Skyrim. Full handheld mode for games is game changer for some people, I mean you have plenty of people that are using Switch just like handheld, actualy Nintendo survey showed that most people using Switch like handheld instead like home console. Take Two relased new game on Switch and we can expect more games.

But fact is that is happening and we will definitely have much more 3rd party announcements next year (we can bet if you want). Why would companies said "we are bringing our future games to this console" if they also want to bring some older ports!? It doesnt make sense, they will bring some new and some old games also.

Capcom actually announced two 3 new games, Ace Atorney, Mega Man 11 and Street Fighter Collection. SE is also relising Octopath Traveler thats new game. Namco said they are bringing 3 exclusive Switch games.  Again, we bouth agree that ports are also support, and I already wrote to you that ports of older games can be done fastest and that for ports or newer games porting is longer, so that why we mostly have now annucments of ports older games while bigger annucments will come later (next year).
See what a success story brought so far? Besides Ubisoft, did any company actively and clearly declared to be giving more support to Switch? You have some problem with reading!? They are all success stories and basicly all companies that I mentioned very clearly said the are giving more and stronger support to Switch.  

And Il say again, devs can work on PS5 and Switch version of game in same time if games and Switch are still selling good. You dont know how many exlusive games Switch will have so you cant say that "we aren't getting a lot of exclusive new games for Switch", espacily beacuse we already have Mario Rabbids, Fire Emblem Warriors, Octopath Traveler, Shin Megami Tensei V, No More Heroes and Bayonetta 3 announced in first 9 months of console, sp off course we will have much more exclusives getting announced. Bandai said they have 3 exlusives for Switch.

Indies are reaching lineup of every platform, more games is always better for any platform.

But point is that Wii U didnt has one single system seller or big game, we talking about night and day difrecens in that point. Point that there is no confirmation doesn't mean there will not single one 1st party game, and in any case we have 2 good exclusives for February for now.

There is difference when you have good game on failed console without future and good game on popular console with bright future.

My "issue" with Skyrim or Doom isn't if they are selling well or not. Given that they have no competition in their genres, i want to know if they doing more than just "well".
Doing fine, given the circumnstances, is not enough. If Switch is to become a real alternative to XB or PS, this type of software needs to exceed expectations, otherwise, both devs and gamers alike, won't bother with a console that ends up being more about Nintendo than 3rd parties.

"but they will again buy some of those 3rd party games beacuse full handheld mode."
That was never an issue with me.
Gamers bought GTC V in droves again on PS4 and XB1. It's not really a surprise if that happens on Switch aswell.

The survey that i remembre from Nintendo showed that people used the portable mode at home.
If that data is accurate, than Switch is failing to leave to it's potential: Switch was about indoor and outdoor gaming.

"Why would companies said "we are bringing our future games to this console" if they also want to bring some older ports!?"
I don't understand how a company saying they will bring more ports but also newer titles it's something weird to you. Didn't Capcom do that with Megaman 11 (new game) and old Megaman games (ports)?
That is what should be happening, given Switch's success.

Again, i'm not denying that more games will come.
What i'm talking about is what kind of support Switch will be having in the coming years. And with the little we have heard from developers is: more ports and smaller franchises.

"while bigger annucments will come later (next year)."
You talk as if this was a fact. Want to prove it? Do you have inside information to backup your claims or is it just speculation?

I said that we aren't getting new exclusives. And that is the truth.
There have been announcements of more support but all they say is ports and more ports or they don't clearly say what kind of support is (Ubisoft, for exemple).
"Mario Rabbids, Fire Emblem Warriors, Octopath Traveler, Shin Megami Tensei V, No More Heroes and Bayonetta 3"
Of these, only one was/is a success, three, are from not "successful" franchises and one, has yet to prove to be a success or not.

If you think the number of titles is all that needs for a platform to be successful, than you are mistaken.
Look at the top 10 lists and see what sells every month, every year. That's what Nintendo needs to get to really compete.

The quality of the titles is not what matters. What matters is that in the first 10 months, there's an equal number of 1st party titles for both Wii U and Switch.
Quality is secondary to this discussion.

Splatoon and Bayonetta were both released on a failed platform. One did less than a million, the other, more than 4,.5 million.

You do realise that Nintendo used the "The Game Awards", a show seen by millions, to announce Bayonetta 1, 2 and 3, and not a great 1st party title, right?

Look this way, Skyrim was 4. best selling Switch game in US in November (only Zelda, MK8 and Odyssey sold better) while Doom was 8. best selling, offocurse those are sales without digital sales. Thats quite good. Doing "good or well" is enough that Bethesda make profit and continue supporting platform. We will know what will Bethesda exatly say about sales of their Swtich games and Switch support, I am pretty sure it will be positive in both cases.

Than you can just imagine how many people would buy Switch if GTAV comes to Switch just to be able to play it in full handheld mode, there is no stronger 3rd party title that could Switch recive. And there are definitely some chances that GTA V will come to Switch.

Point where people are using portable mode dont change fact that more people are using handheld mode compared to docked mode, but most people are using Switch in both modes.

Capcom didn't said they will bring only ports, they said we will bring games that were not available on previous Nintendo platforms and they will suport Switch stronger, and like you wrote Mega Man 11 is new game. While SE said: "we won't rule out any IPs. Those include new ones, currently active ones, currently not-active ones".

Actually you did arguing if Switch will get more support, not what kind support will be. Yes there will be plenty of ports but there will be some new games also.

You dont have any confirmation for that, offocurse that Switch will have bigger announcements also next year, probably we will have few of them next month.


"I said that we aren't getting new exclusives. And that is the truth" - How that can be true when I mention all exclusives that are unanced in only 9 months of Switch, so of course they are not only exclusives that Switch will receive, ofcourse that Switch will much more exclusive than that. Point wasnt if those exclusives are/or will be successful.

Again, more games is better in any case, more divers linuep is what Switch need, and Switch is getting more diverse linuep with tons of Indies, Fifa, NBA, Rocket League, Skyrim, Doom, LA Noire, RE, Lego, Outlast, DQ11...and in future will be much more diverse with more announcements.

OF course that quality and big titles are very important, first because people are buying consoles because quality and big titles, and second beacuse devs need much more time for developing big and qualite games compared to smaller or less quality games, and Switch lineup kills Wii U 1st year lineup. Also talking about Wii U lineup, Wii U after launch had a couple of months without single one release, while Nintendo basically released one bigger or stronger game every month without any droughts.

Ofcourse, one is very specific kind of game while another is basically Mario Kart of online shooters. But in any case, Splatoon 2 will sell better than Splatoon 1 and B2 will probably sell better on Switch compared to Wii U.

I don't see how that has anything with what we are talking about, but yes I do realise that and it was good decision because both games are good games that will be out in near future and Bayonetta 2 is Nintendo paid exclusive, and that totally goes with line that they are focusing on games that are coming in near future, but also when unancing ports of two Bayonetta games is great opportunity to announce brand new Bayonetta game that will come exclusively to Switch.



bonzobanana said:
Miyamotoo said:

Gflops are totally irelevant when you comparing different tech and architecture, especially if there is difference 5-10 years between them. Also fact is that Wii U didnt had good tools and APIs and did not supported some modern engines.

Yeah but Doom works, and its still same game. We already talk about LA Noire, and DF basicly pointed that, that LA Noire is only one specific case because hole game and engine is build around very complex PS3 CPU and to use it most of it, thats actualy only one of few multiplatform games (game is later ported to Xbox360) that runs worse on Xbox360 compared to PS3. So porting such a specific game that from start build to run with specific hardware on mind, can't have best transition on totally different hardware. Every other multiplatform game runs and look better on Switch compared to PS3/Xbox360 versions.

 

As ever we will agree to disagree. My early comments about the Switch having limited cpu performance right at the beginning certainly seem to be true with clearly some games struggling in both portable and docked mode where cpu resources are the same and when I wrote that the Switch might struggle more in docked mode due to cpu restrictions that seems to be true too with digital foundry commenting that some games perform better in portable mode with regard more consistent frame rates. When you make heavier use of a gpu at higher performance often that does need some extra cpu resources.

Again though I don't really care Switch seems to be performing very nicely for what it is. Nintendo games don't need huge performance and portability is a great feature. I don't have a Switch yet but looking forward to getting one sometime in the future. It's great to see the success of Nintendo again. I was one of the rare early adopters it seems of wii u and while I was very disappointed overall with the hardware performance on many occasions I still had great times with the console and I'm sure I will with the Switch too. I'm hoping for a revision or price cut to Switch. Here in Europe the Switch hasn't been quite as successful as US or Japan so Nintendo are under a little more pressure to price cut over here.

Maybe you can disagree with me, but what I wrote are facts: (Gflops are totally irelevant when you comparing different tech and architecture, especially if there is difference 5-10 years between them. Also fact is that Wii U didnt had good tools and APIs and did not supported some modern engines). Well you have plenty of games that performed poorly on PS3/360 even on PS4/XB1. Yes, Switch CPU is bottleneck, but every console has some bottleneck, CPU in PS4/XB1 is also bottleneck.

I agree with rest of your point.



Jumpin said:

SNES had full 3rd party support, not single one Nintendo platform didnt had full 3rd party support after SNES, and Switch will of course not have full 3rd party support.

I wrote, after SNES, not on pair with SNES.

SMD and even NES had a much stronger third party lineup in the earlier part of the generation. SNES was kind of weak outside of Capcom, Enix, and Konami support. Outside of a few other quality releases (like FF4 in 91, and SoM in 93) almost all the rest of early SNES third party software were low quality titles and shovelware ports. It was in 94-97 that the SNES quality really went up; particularly with extremely strong offerings from Square.

The Switch should easily be able to top the volume of quality games from third parties, at least in the first three years. Also, the quality titles won’t be mostly tied to a small number of genres (early SNES quality titles were mostly sidescroller action/platformers)

Yes, but SNES did had almost all games like SMD at end and thats point, Switch will not be in that position compared to PS4.