By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Reggie on why Red Dead Redemption 2 isn't on Switch

Naum on 12 December 2018

Hes not talking about RD2 Specifically...it just happens to be the game the guy who ask the question used..



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

Around the Network
Barozi on 12 December 2018
KLAMarine said:
WhatATimeToBeAlive said:

Comparing Doom 2016 to RDR2 is not very relevant, since RDR2 is much more demanding game (also 60 fps vs 30 fps). Doom's engine is also one of the most well optimized engines. 

So make RDR2 less demanding then.

Make Switch more powerful then?

It's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be. You can't just dumb down everything and expect the game to be the same as the original. Less NPCs, poor draw distance, low resolution, low res textures, no vegetation, simplistic shadows and lighting, bad framerate etc.
Requesting a port of RDR1 would be more realistic.



FentonCrackshell on 12 December 2018

His spin is correct. But the real reason is hardware. Switch can’t run Red Dead 2 in any way that would be acceptable to both Nintendo and R*. Most console fans don’t care about a game that’s not on their console of choice anyway so it doesn’t matter.



PC GAMING: BEST GAMES. WORST CONTROLS

A mouse & keyboard are made for sending email and typing internet badassery. Not for playing video games!!!

RaptorChrist on 12 December 2018
JRPGfan said:

He should just be honest and say games that are 100GB+ in size are too big for the Switch.
Also the hardware probably isnt strong enough to run it.

To me it seems like Reggie is saying that if Rockstar had began development of RDR2 with the knowledge of the Switch, they would have made the game differently. In other words, the RDR2 that we know and love may be 100 GB and too demanding for the Switch, but that's not the direction Rockstar may have went if timing was different.

Reggie is probably the coolest man in the industry, and worked hard for his position. Your suggestion doesn't seem like a smart thing for the President of Nintendo to say.



KLAMarine on 12 December 2018
contestgamer said:
KLAMarine said:

So make RDR2 less demanding then.

There's no economic incentive to do so.

Wrong. There's no technical ability to make it work. OK, how about making it work on the Atari? What about the gameboy color?

Within reason. Hardware within reason.

pokoko said:
KLAMarine said:

So make RDR2 less demanding then.

Rockstar's current approach seems to be working well enough.  

Besides, how would have conversation have played out? 

"Hey, I was thinking, 'what if Nintendo's next console is a hybrid with lower specs than the current consoles and is way more popular than the Wii U?'  Maybe we should downgrade on the PS4 and Xbox One just in case that happens?"

"That's a great idea, man.  Okay, people, we're starting over!  We're going to scale everything down even though we have no idea of the specifications on this hypothetical console!  Let's get to work!"

This conversation seems to be taking place prior to Switch's existence. Why?

Barozi said:
KLAMarine said:

So make RDR2 less demanding then.

Make Switch more powerful then?

It's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be. You can't just dumb down everything and expect the game to be the same as the original. Less NPCs, poor draw distance, low resolution, low res textures, no vegetation, simplistic shadows and lighting, bad framerate etc.
Requesting a port of RDR1 would be more realistic.

More powerful hardware is another approach as well...



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 12 December 2018
RaptorChrist said:
JRPGfan said:

He should just be honest and say games that are 100GB+ in size are too big for the Switch.
Also the hardware probably isnt strong enough to run it.

To me it seems like Reggie is saying that if Rockstar had began development of RDR2 with the knowledge of the Switch, they would have made the game differently. In other words, the RDR2 that we know and love may be 100 GB and too demanding for the Switch, but that's not the direction Rockstar may have went if timing was different.

Reggie is probably the coolest man in the industry, and worked hard for his position. Your suggestion doesn't seem like a smart thing for the President of Nintendo to say.

So it's cool to lie? As he really thinks it's the truth that if RDR2 was planned knowing Switch existence (well they had about 3 years to adapt the game if they wanted) then RDR2 would have been made with Switch version available?



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

AngryLittleAlchemist on 12 December 2018

Someone wrote on ResetEra* that you aren't clever for poking holes in PR. I feel that kind of thing needs to be said more often.

Edit: Got ResetEra and NeoGaf confused. 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 12 December 2018

garretslarrity on 12 December 2018

The hardware issue is completely valid, but Reggie's statement is very honest and not PR crap (despite that being his domain). Even if Nintendo had kept Rockstar up to date with Switch development, the sales of the Wii U would have prevented Rockstar from choosing to develop for it. It wouldn't be until the Switch became a hit that third party developers would consider putting a lot of money into it. Reggie never speaks bluntly, but if you read between the lines you see he's admitting that Nintendo is still paying for the Wii U's failure.



NNID: garretslarrity

Steam: garretslarrity

Frogger on 12 December 2018

If MGSV can run on 360, RDR2 can run on Switch. Hardware isn't the issue here, but I do think what Reggie says here is PR spin, considering that there are obviously games that were made before the switch was announced that have since come out for the Switch. If Rockstar wanted this game on Switch, it would be there.



pokoko on 12 December 2018
KLAMarine said:

pokoko said:

Rockstar's current approach seems to be working well enough.  

Besides, how would have conversation have played out? 

"Hey, I was thinking, 'what if Nintendo's next console is a hybrid with lower specs than the current consoles and is way more popular than the Wii U?'  Maybe we should downgrade on the PS4 and Xbox One just in case that happens?"

"That's a great idea, man.  Okay, people, we're starting over!  We're going to scale everything down even though we have no idea of the specifications on this hypothetical console!  Let's get to work!"

This conversation seems to be taking place prior to Switch's existence. Why?

Why?  It's right there in the OP.

"But again — and this is where there needs to be an understanding of just the development process — Red Dead has been in development for years, time that predated any communication of Nintendo Switch."