DonFerrari on 22 October 2016
| Volterra_90 said: I was discusing today with a friend, and I'm curious about peoEpe's answer to this particular question, which I think could probably be key in Switch's sucess. Providing it has decent battery life (please, Nintendo, having decent battery life is a MUST). Which do you prefer? Playing a game with a perfect performance (1080p/60fps) on a console you can't really move from your house, or playing a downgraded, but decent enough performance (let's say 900p/30 fps), but with the possibility of playing anywhere? I'm wondering if the Switch, being obviously underpowered, will have that possibility. Running this gen games with an inferior performance, but still playable. I prefer portability, honestky. Daily rutine makes me more of a portable person. |
I don't think going by difference between what is possible on a PS4X1 and what would be on NVidia Shield this difference is resolution and fps would be enough to justify the difference in power.
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."
