Quantcast
Diablo III took 9 months to port to Nintendo Switch

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Diablo III took 9 months to port to Nintendo Switch

SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

There is the thing, resources are always limited, that is the basic premise of economy. Even if you count as resource only the people overseeing the port.

But as I said in a post above, considering 100-150k to break even the port, it selling over 300k (it is possible to have 500k) it is probably very justifiable to make the port. Still do you agree that for other games and companies with more limited budgets it may not be made?

Of course.  And that's why not every game is being ported to Switch. But as we are seeing, there are a lot more ports being announced now than prior to Switch launch and it's precisely because it has been proven economically viable to do it.

There are also few situations when a publisher must decide between PS4 or Switch for a port given that PS4 already gets most games to start with....meaning those resources (porting studios) aren't really having to fight between consoles.

If I were a dev deciding between a Switch or Pro port, I would probably choose Switch most of the times as that would likely have more chances of added profits. I would say just some specific genres/titles would be bad investment to choose Switch over Pro.

And yep you are right, some ports aren't done because of the ROI not being there. Sure sometimes devs/pubs make a bad call, as it seems like that title would do good numbers on Switch with the port not being hard or taking to much of the original, but I think that is the smaller portion of cases. And you are also right that Switch is getting a healthy quantity of ports on what is feasible on the system without major redoing of the game and also shall make some other titles start with Switch already in mind (which may impact the PS4/X1/Pro/X versions unfortunately) and make the Switch version very competent.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

A porting team wouldn't be a full-time team of 30 people for a year =P

Maybe 3 or 4 dedicated/full-time people.


It would likely be one artist and 2-3 three engineers; producers (to tell them they're doing it wrong), additional artist/coder assets, QA, and directors would all be part-time.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

HollyGamer said:
Pemalite said: 

Games speak for themselves.
Often switch ports have better fidelity, higher frame-rates, better frame pacing and often better resolution, so  it's not just a "slight" power advantage.

I wouldn't using "slightly " if it's on par with PS4 and Xbox One. If it's PS4 and Xbox One then i will just be using " Better then " instead "slightly better " . Because Switch are still on the same gen graphic with Wii U, PS3 and Xbox 360 . It's matter of language for God Sake, you guys are a bunch of sensitive. 

It's been taking 7th gen ports and enhancing them.
But it's also been taking 8th gen ports and downgrading them, games that couldn't run on the 7th gen due to the hardware feature set being insufficient, like Doom and Wolfenstein.
So I most certainly stand by my last statement.

Performance wise... And I have been saying it since I knew the device was Tegra powered, it's performance sits between the 7th and 8th gen consoles with 8th gen hardware/capabilities.

And sensitive? Hardly. Being as accurate as possible? Most certainly.
The "matter of language" is certainly important so that statements don't get misconstrued.




Jumpin said:

A porting team wouldn't be a full-time team of 30 people for a year =P

Maybe 3 or 4 dedicated/full-time people.


It would likely be one artist and 2-3 three engineers; producers (to tell them they're doing it wrong), additional artist/coder assets, QA, and directors would all be part-time.

Eh, you need to be realistic, 3-4 people could port some Indie game, but full AAA game, hardly, for such a projects teams are probably around 10-30 people.



Jumpin said:

A porting team wouldn't be a full-time team of 30 people for a year =P

Maybe 3 or 4 dedicated/full-time people.


It would likely be one artist and 2-3 three engineers; producers (to tell them they're doing it wrong), additional artist/coder assets, QA, and directors would all be part-time.

So you have any source that this game was ported by 4 people or less?

Or are you saying that it perhaps used up to 30 people for 9 months then it was terribly hard or not well done?

 

If ports needed 4 people for 1 year that would make porting inconsequential and all 3rd party that doesn't have contracts for exclusivity should show in all systems. But that isn't what is happening.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
Miyamotoo said: 
HollyGamer said: 

But still porting to Switch is actually should have been very very easy. They already has the foundation, the engine and the familiarity with the system and Switch are Nvidia tegra GPU game system. Compared to PS3 and Xbox 360 that are using Exotic CPU and GPU and that was their first attempt. Even if the reason is not enough human resource to porting it , that's just blatant lie, it's like saying they are underestimating Switch and their potential sales and put super small team to porting it.

Maybe it was very easy, that again depends how big team was, its not same if you have team of 10-20 people and when you have team of 100+ people, and this game has huge amont of content. New games are done buy hole teams that usualy have 100+ people, late ports are done buy much smaller teams, that why new games are usualy done in 2-3 years buy 100+ people teams while ports are done in less than one year buy much smaller teams, and around 9 months is definitely around expected time for AAA game port.

 

HollyGamer said: 

I wouldn't using "slightly " if it's on par with PS4 and Xbox One. If it's PS4 and Xbox One then i will just be using " Better then " instead "slightly better " . Because Switch are still on the same gen graphic with Wii U, PS3 and Xbox 360 . It's matter of language for God Sake, you guys are a bunch of sensitive. 

There is huge difference between slightly and on pair, Switch in docked mode is around 3x stronger than PS3/360. And no, Switch is not on same gen graphic with Wii U espacily with PS3 and 360, it's somewhere between them and XB1/PS4. Fifa 18 for Switch is good example of this, not only that runs at 1080p compared to 720p on PS3/360, but also has higher quality effects, shaders, lighting, higher level of details, resolution textures, normal mapping, post-processing, depth of field...like DF stated, its mix of old and new. I mean even Doom and Wolfenstein 2 examples show us this, Switch versions have almost all effects and graphics features like PS4/XB1 while resolution and frame rate were cutback.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-fifa-18-switch-face-off

Fifa are not using the same graphic engine with Fifa 2018 on PS4 and Xbox One , Doom and Wolfstain is different case even my potato PC from 2009 taht is equal to PS3 and Xbox 360can still play the games with graphical downgrade. 



HollyGamer said:
Miyamotoo said: 

Maybe it was very easy, that again depends how big team was, its not same if you have team of 10-20 people and when you have team of 100+ people, and this game has huge amont of content. New games are done buy hole teams that usualy have 100+ people, late ports are done buy much smaller teams, that why new games are usualy done in 2-3 years buy 100+ people teams while ports are done in less than one year buy much smaller teams, and around 9 months is definitely around expected time for AAA game port.

 

There is huge difference between slightly and on pair, Switch in docked mode is around 3x stronger than PS3/360. And no, Switch is not on same gen graphic with Wii U espacily with PS3 and 360, it's somewhere between them and XB1/PS4. Fifa 18 for Switch is good example of this, not only that runs at 1080p compared to 720p on PS3/360, but also has higher quality effects, shaders, lighting, higher level of details, resolution textures, normal mapping, post-processing, depth of field...like DF stated, its mix of old and new. I mean even Doom and Wolfenstein 2 examples show us this, Switch versions have almost all effects and graphics features like PS4/XB1 while resolution and frame rate were cutback.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-fifa-18-switch-face-off

Fifa are not using the same graphic engine with Fifa 2018 on PS4 and Xbox One , Doom and Wolfstain is different case even my potato PC from 2009 taht is equal to PS3 and Xbox 360can still play the games with graphical downgrade. 

Nothing you wrote doesnt goes against what I wrote, I was comparing PS3/360 versions of Fifa with Switch version of Fifa, and we talking about huge difference, Fifa Switch using custom engine, and Switch version is clearly somewhere betwine PS3/360 and XB1/PS4 version of games. Doom and Wolfenstein 2 on Switch have almost all effects and graphics features like PS4/XB1 versions of games, you couldnt do same thing on PS3/360 simple because Switch support modern engines, features, effects, APIs...while PS3/360 dont (in case of PS3/360 we talking about 2005. tehnology, in case of Switch we talking about 2015.technology with noticeably stronger power).



It means absolutely nothing without knowing the number of man-hours put in that port.



This has probably been discussed here already, but porting a 7th-gen game is probably quite different than porting an 8th-gen game. A 7th-gen game probably runs without any significant changes, but an 8th-gen game is bound to get some easily noticeable changes, which takes manpower. Of course with enough manpower, it takes less time, but it takes more effort to get to the same time.



That means that we should have had a lot more third party announcements by now.
I guess it won't,'t get better than it is now on that front.