Quantcast
Why is the Switch still not getting big games from 3rd parties?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why is the Switch still not getting big games from 3rd parties?

Cerebralbore101 said:

Paying for a statue isn't the same thing as paying for digital items that don't exist in the real world. Nearly all of the costumes locked behind Amiibos are cosmetic and don't really affect gameplay. Weapons and armor that you get in game are often better than what Amiibos give you. 

Valve's last big multiplatform game was Portal 2. That was seven years ago. VR isn't multiplatform. It's just for PC, or PC and PSVR if we are lucky. Valve might not even bother porting their VR games to PSVR. Valve's VR games might wind up not being any good. Being a good developer of normal games doesn't alway translate into being a good developer of VR games. Just look at how many developers struggled going from 2D to 3D in the N64/PS1 days. 

Diablo 3 launched in 2012. It is a last gen game, that was ported over to the current gen. 

Valve already said they wanted to support many plattforms, including psvr.

 

I would be very surprised if Xbox One X wouldnt be made compatible with Microsofts Mixed Reality Headsets this year (most likely e3 announcement). 



Around the Network

I think switch's power is a main factor on this, because developers have to limit their games not only to run on console mode, but to run on portable mode. Also, it takes time to port games, however, I assume a lot of developers are working on unannounced games.



I'd rather they take their time to port games and support the platform correctly than rush out low-quality ports that hurt third parties more than they help on the system. With the indie Renaissance the Switch is currently having, it's a matter of time.



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

nemo37 said:
habam said:
its to weak to run them without heavy rework. In terms of performance, especially in handheld mode, its basically a PS3/Xbox 360 and not a PS4/Xbox One. One of the reasons many people wished nintendo would have used the new Tegra X2 chip instead the 2year old outdated X1.

Your general sentiment is correct. The Tegra X1 is slightly more modern than the PS4 and Xbox One's GPU, which means that in terms of features these GPUs are much closer to each other than say the Switch is to PS3/Xbox 360. On the other hand in terms of raw computational performance Switch is closer to Xbox 360 and PS3 (about on par with those two in handheld mode, and about 1.8X-2X faster in docked mode). This means that most modern engines will support Switch, but ultimately the games that can be ported on it will depend on whether they are computationally intensive (many Western AAA titles are, so those will most likely not run well and not really be practical to port) or not (there are still quite a large number of games, particularly from Japan that are not).

Also, the X2 is not really that much better than the X1. The biggest improvement on the X2 is memory bandwidth, which has been doubled. In addition, X2 achieves a maximum of 750 GFLOPS in single precision mode (the X1 could do a maximum of 512). Now Nintendo, most likely in a bid to keep up with the system's thermals, down clocked the GPU so the Switch's actual performance in docked mode is about 1.3X less (about 393 GFLOPS). If we reduce the speed of the X2's GPU by the same amount, then we get about 576 GLOPS. While that should provide some boost to certain games, it would still not be nearly large enough for computationally intensive games that struggle to run on the base Xbox One and/or PS4 to come over. In addition, the X2's GPU microarchitecture is based on Pascal which is more of a refinement to the Maxwell based GPU found on the X1. The jump from an X1 to an X2 is just slightly more than the jump from the 3DS to New 3DS, but it would not make more on-par with PS4 and Xbox One with regards to computational performance.

The reality is that the Switch's emphasis on portability meant that they had to with hardware found in mobile tablets (these run at around 4-10 watts), and there are very few options available at the time the Switch was being internally developed or even now that would allow for the creation of a $300 handheld that would be on-par with PS4 and Xbox One. 

Qwark said:
Because the AAA games (Witcher 3, Shadow of Mordor, Tomb Raider, Monster Hunter World) you want barely run in 30fps on a PS4. So porting those to the Switch takes lots of effort. More than a simple resolution drop for sure.

I totally agree with Witcher 3 and I would lean towards agreeing with you MHW (though I am still uncertain about that; because the game is clearly large and so Switch might not be able to run it, but on the other hand it is running on a last-gen engine though of course the engine is not everything when it comes to making a game run on a certain platform). But Shadow of Mordor and Tomb Raider (both the 2013 game and Rise of the Tomb Raider) run on Xbox 360 and/or PS3, so these should be more than doable on Switch. In fact, Tomb Raider 2013 was ported by Nvidia (on-behalf of Square Enix) to the Nvidia Shield and based on my experience with it, it runs quite well.

I meant Rise of the the Tomb Raider and the second shadow of mordor (2017) to be fair. But if Rise of the Tomb Raider is able to run on the 360 it can surely run on the Switch. Anyway there will be games that can run in 60fps on Xone that are pretty easy to port, but games that run on 30fps and are pretty demanding on current gen hardware will not be ported to Switch 8/10 times. Perhaps Kingdom Hearts 3 will as exception to the rule.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

I don’t think the Switch can handle modern gaming up to X1 and ps4 standards where they have more in common with each other. Online is substandard on the Switch and it’s horsepower is stuck in last gen.



Around the Network
Qwark said:
Because the AAA games (Witcher 3, Shadow of Mordor, Tomb Raider, Monster Hunter World) you want barely run in 30fps on a PS4. So porting those to the Switch takes lots of effort. More than a simple resolution drop for sure.

Rise of the Tomb Raider got a very decent port to the Xbox 360, a system significantly weaker than the Switch, and that's a 30fps AAA Xbox One/PS4 game.

While not everything on PS4/Xbone would be a good fit for Switch, I think games like Monster Hunter World, Dark Souls 3, or RE7 would be viable for porting.

Heck, back on the Wii Treyarch managed to port the PS3/360 COD games, and that was a far steeper power gap than Switch vs PS4/Xbone.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 21 January 2018

nemo37 said:

Also, the X2 is not really that much better than the X1. The biggest improvement on the X2 is memory bandwidth, which has been doubled.

It's also using Pascal as a base, which can scale up in clockrates much much higher at the same energy cost than Maxwell.
Delta Colour Compression also got improved which increases bandwidth again.


nemo37 said:

In addition, X2 achieves a maximum of 750 GFLOPS in single precision mode (the X1 could do a maximum of 512).

Who cares about Flops? It's only relevant if both pieces of GPU hardware has everything else identical.

Also. Flops is Clockrate x 2 instructions per clock x Shader pipelines.

The X1 was not limited to a max of 512 Gflop. The X2 is not limited to a max of 750Gflop.


nemo37 said:

Now Nintendo, most likely in a bid to keep up with the system's thermals, down clocked the GPU so the Switch's actual performance in docked mode is about 1.3X less (about 393 GFLOPS).

And yet. Thanks to the higher clocks at the same TDP, Tegra X2 has a sizable advantage of Tegra X1.
The clocks doesn't just increase your single precision floating point performance either.
Texture and Pixel fillrate increases thanks to an increase in ROP and TMU's operating faster, geometry performance also increases and more.

nemo37 said:

If we reduce the speed of the X2's GPU by the same amount, then we get about 576 GLOPS.

Doesn't work like that. Every CPU and GPU architecture has a clockspeed/power consumption "sweet spot".
Once you push past that sweet spot then the efficiency of the chip gets pushed out of whack.

Vega 56 and 64 for instance is actually a pretty efficient GPU, once you underclock and undervolt her a little, AMD pushed those chips hard with little concern for power consumption.

nemo37 said:

While that should provide some boost to certain games, it would still not be nearly large enough for computationally intensive games that struggle to run on the base Xbox One and/or PS4 to come over.

It would make a massive difference. Especially for a GPU heavy game look Doom, it's already an extremely compromised experience on Switch.

nemo37 said:

In addition, the X2's GPU microarchitecture is based on Pascal which is more of a refinement to the Maxwell based GPU found on the X1. The jump from an X1 to an X2 is just slightly more than the jump from the 3DS to New 3DS

Every GPU architecture is based upon a preceding design, same goes for CPU's.
Intels 8th gen Core i7 still has roots to the Pentium Pro from 1995, which was the start of Intels P6 architecture which saw constant refinements. - We saw Intel take a little detour from that with Netburst, but went back to P6 with Banias and Dothan which was used as the basis for the Core series.

There is more to Tegra X2 than one would assume and some I have listed prior in my reply. The move to 16nm Finfet is a big boon, verses the 20nm planar fabrication process.

nemo37 said:

The reality is that the Switch's emphasis on portability meant that they had to with hardware found in mobile tablets (these run at around 4-10 watts), and there are very few options available at the time the Switch was being internally developed or even now that would allow for the creation of a $300 handheld that would be on-par with PS4 and Xbox One.

The reality is, the Tegra X2 is a superior chip to the Tegra X1. No contest.
It doesn't need to be on par with the Xbox One or Playstation 4, just offer "good enough" performance.

Seventizz said:
I don’t think the Switch can handle modern gaming up to X1 and ps4 standards where they have more in common with each other. Online is substandard on the Switch and it’s horsepower is stuck in last gen.

Switch's performance is a big step up from last gen. It's just games have gotten so much more demanding on hardware.
Ram was one of last gens big limiters, Switch has a massive advantage there.
The Switch sits in between the Xbox 360 and Xbox One in terms of performance and capability.

The online however is certainly shit, hopefully Nintendo pulls it's fingers out and sorts it properly.



size of the cartridge if the developer is indeed wanting to push it to Switch. but look what happened to EA and 2K. Fifa is an upgraded last gen version. while 2K tried current gen but a disaster on gameplay. not sure if WWE 2K18 is even patch as of the moment.

The Triple A developers seem to be lazy on really creating a big title that is bug-free or didn't have any major bugs at launch and could fit it to the Switch cartridge.

There are some good ports to the Switch, but current gen not sure if we can get a great one. Lets wait and see, we would have Wolfenstein soon.



Three things:

1) Limited hardware

2) Time. You have to give some IP's time in the oven to make their way over to the switch. Downporting is an interesting thing when you have limited resources.

3) Interest/strategy for profit



curl-6 said:

Rise of the Tomb Raider got a very decent port to the Xbox 360, a system significantly weaker than the Switch, and that's a 30fps AAA Xbox One/PS4 game.

While not everything on PS4/Xbone would be a good fit for Switch, I think games like Monster Hunter World, Dark Souls 3, or RE7 would be viable for porting.

Heck, back on the Wii Treyarch managed to port the PS3/360 COD games, and that was a far steeper power gap than Switch vs PS4/Xbone.

Rise of the Tomb Raider looks significantly different between the 360/One ... (there's a lot of changes to the graphics rather than being a simple down port and the game itself was intended to be cross gen just like Shadow of Morder, Watch Dogs or Dragon Age: Inquisition but some of those projects don't pan out like Techland's Dying Light) 

Dark Souls 3 is iffy since it's a game that scales well on PS4 Pro but it has a lower performance profile compared to RotTR (the game ran 1080p30 on the One while DS3 ran at 900p30fps) and the Switch won't be able to run Monster Hunter World with all of it's content or mechanics in tact since the beta frequently dipped below 30FPS on base PS4 and it doesn't scale well on PS4 Pro either ... 

COD games on the Wii also weren't straight ports from the PS3/360 versions, some of the mechanics had to be changed ...