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?

curl-6 said:

I'm just not seeing all this complex logic in MHW; animation looks nice but its not like the environment is filled with multitudes of NPCs and elaborate physics.

It's filled with more NPCs than RotTR and they act more complex too plus there's many "objects/places of interest" too. There's also more verticality in the level design too and there's so much animations going on that Capcom had to cut the refresh rate of NPC animation to save on performance too ...



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

I'm just not seeing all this complex logic in MHW; animation looks nice but its not like the environment is filled with multitudes of NPCs and elaborate physics.

It's filled with more NPCs than RotTR and they act more complex too plus there's many "objects/places of interest" too. There's also more verticality in the level design too and there's so much animations going on that Capcom had to cut the refresh rate of NPC animation to save on performance too ...

RotTR had scenes where you had over a dozen human enemies with complex animations and routines running around at once, I haven't seen scenes that busy in MHW. The interactive foliage in MH is nice, but Breath of the Wild had a similar system and that runs on Wii U, plus unlike in Zelda this interactivity could be removed from MHW without changing the gameplay.



curl-6 said:

RotTR had scenes where you had over a dozen human enemies with complex animations and routines running around at once, I haven't seen scenes that busy in MHW. The interactive foliage in MH is nice, but Breath of the Wild had a similar system and that runs on Wii U, plus unlike in Zelda this interactivity could be removed from MHW without changing the gameplay.

On screen and alive too ? Cause it sounds like I haven't seen anymore than 6 or so enemies simultaneously running around to come hunt for Lara around ... 

16 player hubs exist in MHW and there's 4 player co-op with multiple bosses running around plus smaller targets too ... 



fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

RotTR had scenes where you had over a dozen human enemies with complex animations and routines running around at once, I haven't seen scenes that busy in MHW. The interactive foliage in MH is nice, but Breath of the Wild had a similar system and that runs on Wii U, plus unlike in Zelda this interactivity could be removed from MHW without changing the gameplay.

On screen and alive too ? Cause it sounds like I haven't seen anymore than 6 or so enemies simultaneously running around to come hunt for Lara around ... 

16 player hubs exist in MHW and there's 4 player co-op with multiple bosses running around plus smaller targets too ... 

During the later encounters in RotTR where you're supposed to hold out against enemy onslaughts, there's much more than 6.

Monster Hunter Tri on the Wii had 4-player co-op with multiple bosses and smaller targets too, so you don't even need PS3/360 level hardware to handle that.



Alkibiádēs said:
kopstudent89 said:
They didn't think it would be a success. The lineup during that first year speaks volumes, barely any third party support apart from ports.

Was the first year of the PS4 or Xbox One much better?

In terms of third party? Yes. Also their second year shows that many companies were already invested in them.



YNWA

Around the Network

It's been less than 10 months.

That is why. Wait for E3. 



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Depends on what you mean by "well judged". Would it be "well judged" to create different versions of games altogether like FIFA 18 or potentially DQXI on the Switch or cut content from the home console versions via the level editor from Doom ? 

There's way more to performance than just graphics. Physics, AI and level design complexity are all other things that can cause performance issues. The AI and the larger areas compared to RotTR look quite a bit more advanced ... 

Switch's best bets are last gen ports, cross gen titles and games with high performance profiles already like 1080p60fps games from PS4 ... 

Well judged in terms of what results in a good end product. Doom on Switch for example is still a great game even without the map editor. RotTR on 360 was a good conversion too. Speaking of high performance profiles, RE7 is 1080/60fps on PS4, that one would be a prime example of a port that could be done relatively easily and would likely sell quite solidly on Switch and make a healthy profit.

RE 7 yes. Dark Souls 3 no. Dark Souls 3 requires a good CPU for all those physics and animations. That said maybe From is working on it and if Dark Souls Remastered is a success on the Switch they'll bring Dark Souls 2 SOTFS and Dark Souls 3.

Alkibiádēs said:
kopstudent89 said:
They didn't think it would be a success. The lineup during that first year speaks volumes, barely any third party support apart from ports.

Was the first year of the PS4 or Xbox One much better?

Yes the third party support was very good. No different than 2k17.

curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

I would say it looks good enough to be a next gen exclusive title and the director of the game seems to implicate a hardware limitation with the Switch as well to run the game, the game has some of the more geometrically complex scenes of this generation ... (MHW definitely doesn't look like a game that's possible on last generation systems) 

A game doesn't need to be 1080p/60fps on PS4 like we see with a bunch of last gen ports or cross gen games on PS4 but I've yet to see the Switch being able to run a ground built up current gen exclusive 30fps game for HD twins ... 

I can imagine that most 30fps games that are built solely for current gen leave the Switch out of the picture ... 

Doesn't look all that complex compared to the more high end titles from Western devs. Rise of the Tomb Raider looks more complex in most ways.

You could port just about any PS4/Xbone game to the PS3/360 if you were willing make enough cuts; remove and simplify effects, reduce asset quality and density, trim rendering resolution, etc. And Switch is a fair bit more capable than PS3/360. Doing a RorTR type down-port of something like Witcher 3 might not be worth it, but plenty of other titles could justify and recoup their porting costs and turn a nice profit. Whether third parties are smart enough to seize these opportunities is another matter.

Switch has a weaker CPU than PS3 and in portable mode I've heard that its GPU is less powerful than a PS3. It has more ram and a more modern architecture but I don't think that would be enough.

Look at Doom say. It runs at 1080p60fps on PS4 at medium to high settings. It runs at 640p30fps on Switch docked with lower than low settings. That with a  very scalable and good engine like Idtech6. Unreal engine 4 games struggle to even run at 30fps at 1080p on PS4, it would get real bad on Switch. There is only so much downgrading possible before the game loses its soul. Those Wii ports of PS3 games felt nothing like the PS3 version. I don't think that is an ideal experience for a Switch owner whose spending $60 on a game.



GOWTLOZ said:
curl-6 said:

Well judged in terms of what results in a good end product. Doom on Switch for example is still a great game even without the map editor. RotTR on 360 was a good conversion too. Speaking of high performance profiles, RE7 is 1080/60fps on PS4, that one would be a prime example of a port that could be done relatively easily and would likely sell quite solidly on Switch and make a healthy profit.

RE 7 yes. Dark Souls 3 no. Dark Souls 3 requires a good CPU for all those physics and animations. That said maybe From is working on it and if Dark Souls Remastered is a success on the Switch they'll bring Dark Souls 2 SOTFS and Dark Souls 3.

Alkibiádēs said:

Was the first year of the PS4 or Xbox One much better?

Yes the third party support was very good. No different than 2k17.

curl-6 said:

Doesn't look all that complex compared to the more high end titles from Western devs. Rise of the Tomb Raider looks more complex in most ways.

You could port just about any PS4/Xbone game to the PS3/360 if you were willing make enough cuts; remove and simplify effects, reduce asset quality and density, trim rendering resolution, etc. And Switch is a fair bit more capable than PS3/360. Doing a RorTR type down-port of something like Witcher 3 might not be worth it, but plenty of other titles could justify and recoup their porting costs and turn a nice profit. Whether third parties are smart enough to seize these opportunities is another matter.

Switch has a weaker CPU than PS3 and in portable mode I've heard that its GPU is less powerful than a PS3. It has more ram and a more modern architecture but I don't think that would be enough.

Look at Doom say. It runs at 1080p60fps on PS4 at medium to high settings. It runs at 640p30fps on Switch docked with lower than low settings. That with a  very scalable and good engine like Idtech6. Unreal engine 4 games struggle to even run at 30fps at 1080p on PS4, it would get real bad on Switch. There is only so much downgrading possible before the game loses its soul. Those Wii ports of PS3 games felt nothing like the PS3 version. I don't think that is an ideal experience for a Switch owner whose spending $60 on a game.

The CPU part is not even close to the truth. The A57 (out-of-order executions support, 4 cores, 2 MB shared L2 cache, faster cache system) is the Switch is miles ahead of the PPE (in-order design, single core 2 threads, 512KB L2 cache, slower cache system compared to A57) in the PS3. As for the SPEs, it is true that they would be better at highly parallel SIMD tasks than the Neon units in the A57 (heck they are slightly better than the SIMD in the Jaguar cores in certain situations) but those functions are now largely in the GPGPU at much faster speeds than they would ever run on a regular CPU or SPEs. I recall early in the PS4 and Xbox One's life people saying how the Jaguar would be slower than the chips in PS3 and Xbox 360 because those chips ran at higher clock frequencies, and in practice the Jaguar completely trashed those chips.

As for the GPU, I am assuming you are looking at the floating point operations per second (FLOPS), in which case yes the PS3 is theoretically faster than the Switch in portable mode. However, that number may be deceiving because there are many other factors that need to be taken into account, and in practice the Switch in portable mode should be, at worst, on-par or, most likely, even faster than the PS3 GPU. Here is a good example as to why GFLOPS are not the end-all, especially in gaming performance. This link (https://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/116/fury-vs-gtx-1070-battlefield-dx11-dx12/index.html)  benchmarks the AMD Radeon Fury X (8601 GFLOPS) compared to an Nvidia GTX 1070 (5783-6463). Going by the GFLOPS alone, the Fury X should be able to handedly beat the GTX 1070, but in most cases the 1070 outperforms the Fury X. Now it should be noted that Fury X and GTX 1070 were released in 10 month period from one another; there is a 10 year gap between the Maxwell-based GPU in the Switch's X1 and the PS3's GeForce 7-based GPU, so even while the theoretical floating point is slightly higher on the PS3 than Switch in portable, there are numerous other advantages that the Maxwell GPU has over its PS3 predecessor that should give Switch in portable mode the performance advantage (even if it is a narrow advantage).



fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

I stand by it; MHW looks nowhere near good enough to be stressing the PS4 so any performance issues there are Capcom's bad.

But a game doesn't need to be 1080p/60fps on PS4 to be portable to Switch. Games with that much headroom would be easier, but as Rise of the Tomb Raider's 360 conversion demonstrates, 30fps titles are not off limits.

I would say it looks good enough to be a next gen exclusive title and the director of the game seems to implicate a hardware limitation with the Switch as well to run the game, the game has some of the more geometrically complex scenes of this generation ... (MHW definitely doesn't look like a game that's possible on last generation systems) 

A game doesn't need to be 1080p/60fps on PS4 like we see with a bunch of last gen ports or cross gen games on PS4 but I've yet to see the Switch being able to run a ground built up current gen exclusive 30fps game for HD twins ... 

I can imagine that most 30fps games that are built solely for current gen leave the Switch out of the picture ... 

It's not like he could say that Sony paid them a hefty sum of money to develop the game lol.



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

GOWTLOZ said:

Switch has a weaker CPU than PS3 and in portable mode I've heard that its GPU is less powerful than a PS3. It has more ram and a more modern architecture but I don't think that would be enough.

Look at Doom say. It runs at 1080p60fps on PS4 at medium to high settings. It runs at 640p30fps on Switch docked with lower than low settings. That with a  very scalable and good engine like Idtech6. Unreal engine 4 games struggle to even run at 30fps at 1080p on PS4, it would get real bad on Switch. There is only so much downgrading possible before the game loses its soul. Those Wii ports of PS3 games felt nothing like the PS3 version. I don't think that is an ideal experience for a Switch owner whose spending $60 on a game.

Even in portable mode, Switch's GPU is better than PS3's. If we look at games they share, like FIFA 18 and Skyrim,  Switch performs better both docked and undocked.

Switch ports of PS4/Xbone games wouldn't have to be cut back as much as Wii ports from PS3, because the power gap is much smaller in the former case.