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?

GOWTLOZ said:
curl-6 said:

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.

Switch has weaker GPU in undocked mode in terms of raw power than PS3. It has some advantages like modern architecture, shaders and all but still we are talking about PS4 and Xbox one games here. The hardware power difference is big even in docked mode. Like i said Doom shows how big it really is in practice. Doom is also one of the best looking and running games on PS4 so think how bad a game like MHW will look that runs at a much lower framerate on PS4.

I know Switch is more comparable to PS4 than Wii was to PS3 but the difference is still really big.

In raw FLOPS maybe, but that doesn't tell you much when comparing parts with different architectures and different manufacturers, made a decade apart. In real world performance, Switch's GPU outperforms PS3's even undocked; for instance, FIFA 18 and Skyrim undocked still have better graphics than the PS3/360 versions.



Around the Network
GOWTLOZ said:
curl-6 said:

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.

Switch has weaker GPU in undocked mode in terms of raw power than PS3. It has some advantages like modern architecture, shaders and all but still we are talking about PS4 and Xbox one games here. The hardware power difference is big even in docked mode. Like i said Doom shows how big it really is in practice. Doom is also one of the best looking and running games on PS4 so think how bad a game like MHW will look that runs at a much lower framerate on PS4.

I know Switch is more comparable to PS4 than Wii was to PS3 but the difference is still really big.

I sort of responded to this before (in a reply above), but I will paste what I said in that post below (just as a summary, the GFLOPS number is not in many cases the best indicator of real-life performance; in practice the Switch's GPU should be equivalant or more powerful than the GPU in the PS3 even when not docked, but of course nowhere near as powerful as what is in the PS4 and Xbox One). Here is my argument pasted below again:

"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)."



nemo37 said:
GOWTLOZ said:

Switch has weaker GPU in undocked mode in terms of raw power than PS3. It has some advantages like modern architecture, shaders and all but still we are talking about PS4 and Xbox one games here. The hardware power difference is big even in docked mode. Like i said Doom shows how big it really is in practice. Doom is also one of the best looking and running games on PS4 so think how bad a game like MHW will look that runs at a much lower framerate on PS4.

I know Switch is more comparable to PS4 than Wii was to PS3 but the difference is still really big.

I sort of responded to this before (in a reply above), but I will paste what I said in that post below (just as a summary, the GFLOPS number is not in many cases the best indicator of real-life performance; in practice the Switch's GPU should be equivalant or more powerful than the GPU in the PS3 even when not docked, but of course nowhere near as powerful as what is in the PS4 and Xbox One). Here is my argument pasted below again:

"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)."

I wouldn't deny that. I was just going on the basis of heresay and I'm no expert at this. Still of course, the OP wants full blown PS4 games on the Switch, which is a different challenge entirely. People that are happy with the Switch support don't realise most third party games on the Switch are ports of last generation games, exclusives and 60fps games on current generation. The Switch has yet to be tested with a 1080p30fps title on the PS4 that's not also on a last generation console which I don't think is possible without stripping away its soul.



GOWTLOZ said:
nemo37 said:

I sort of responded to this before (in a reply above), but I will paste what I said in that post below (just as a summary, the GFLOPS number is not in many cases the best indicator of real-life performance; in practice the Switch's GPU should be equivalant or more powerful than the GPU in the PS3 even when not docked, but of course nowhere near as powerful as what is in the PS4 and Xbox One). Here is my argument pasted below again:

"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)."

I wouldn't deny that. I was just going on the basis of heresay and I'm no expert at this. Still of course, the OP wants full blown PS4 games on the Switch, which is a different challenge entirely. People that are happy with the Switch support don't realise most third party games on the Switch are ports of last generation games, exclusives and 60fps games on current generation. The Switch has yet to be tested with a 1080p30fps title on the PS4 that's not also on a last generation console which I don't think is possible without stripping away its soul.

I would agree. most Western AAA titles are pretty much out of the question, though there are still quite a few non-AAA titles, even some that are capped at 30 FPS that can make it (remember not all titles are capped because that is what the system can run, sometimes a cap is put in place because the dev does not want the frame rate to fluctuate). Nevertheless, technical limitations are amongst the primary (potentially the primary?) reason why we will not get third-party release parity with the other systems. My point though was just about disputing the weaker than PS3 GPU aspect of your post.



fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

Botw's areas are filled with interactive vegetation, (with blades of grass interacting individually rather than in grouped clumps as it seems to in MHW) wildlife, collectables, etc. You can engage a mob of enemies, throw a chicken into them so that it summons a bunch more to gank the enemy that hits it, set the grass on fire which will then spread in accordance with the wind conditions, (which will also influence particles created during the encounter) throw a bomb which might knock down a nearby tree and sending apples scattering around to be cooked in the fire, which will also degrade and destroy any wooden shields and weapons the enemy have of they catch fire, and all this can be going off at once. I have yet to see anything in MHW that even comes close to that level of interactivity.

I highly doubt that every blade of grass is interactive. What BotW does looks like a displacement map with simple spherical bounds ... (the blades of grass being bent further behind Link is not very plausible and not even Nvidia's state of the art solution simulates "every" individual blade, BotW makes a lot more simplifications for grass deformation than you think) 

MHW may not feature combustible destruction as seen like the Far Cry series but it has far more destructible environments and that more than makes up for it. Furthermore the level design in MHW feels more populated and alive compared to BotW but there's other details to enhance the environment such as smaller roaming critters throughout the map ... (monsters intentionally targeting each other is also a part of the AI's new behaviour too, it's these small things that add up to create a detailed and highly interactive experience in MHW that sets it apart from last generation games) 

Even if what you said was true there's still the issue of the Switch staying graphically accurate to the original art ... (I don't think the Switch would be able to render many of the same beautiful vistas even with graphical cut backs) 

MH enemies have intentionally targeted and fought each other for a long time.  Coaxing them into fighting each other is a common strategy. That's not new.  The only thing new is how often they do it.

Enemies also fight each other in BotW.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

MH enemies have intentionally targeted and fought each other for a long time.  Coaxing them into fighting each other is a common strategy. That's not new.  The only thing new is how often they do it.

Enemies also fight each other in BotW.

@Bold When ? I've never seen monsters targeting each other without player interference ... (the most I see are players trying to get both monsters to target each others hitboxes, "turf wars" is a new mechanic specific to MHW compared to the previous entries) 

And don't even compare the "turf wars" in MHW to whatever is in BotW because the latter isn't even fully featured alongside with the fact that it's still a single player game with less destructible environments ... 

Last edited by fatslob-:O - on 26 January 2018