Digital Foundry: Nintendo Switch CPU and GPU clock speeds revealed

[Jizz_Beard_thePirate]

spemanig said:

Captain_Yuri said:

How so? According to Pachter, the devs told him that Nintendo is the easiest of the 3 (assuming Switch vs ps4/x1) to develop for. 

Skip to 2:30

Now of course, we don't know the context or anything that the devs said that but we know that since the wiiU, Nintendo has been pretty open to devs and since Nvidia is developing the tech and support so I am sure it is easy enough to develop for. Of course, that doesn't mean that porting the x1/ps4 games are easy but just developing for the Switch is easy. So if that is the case and lets say rockstar doesn't want to develop for the Switch cause they feel that the audience isn't there, then how is it Nintendo's fault? How would Nintendo convience rockstar that the audience is there if rockstar doesn't develop Red Dead and prove that it is/isn't?

Oh and I guess I miss understood it then.

Can you post the link? I can't see that.

It's Nintendo's fault that the audience isn't there. Nintendo made their audience. You don't just come onto the console scene and magically get given your audience at random by mythical gaming gods. You cultivate yourown audience with the hardware and software you provide and how you market your platform. That's entirely and solely in Nintendo's control.

How does Nintendo convince Rockstar that there's an audience? By building that audience for Rockstar on their platform themselves. By making exclusive marketing deals for multiplatform games who's audiences overlap with Red Dead and by making new IP that are like Red Dead and by getting exclusive third party games who's audiences overlap with Red Dead and by builting hardware that doesn't have too much trouble porting and running games who's audience overlap with Red Dead.

When people see ads for games like Red Dead with the Switch logo at the end, when they see eclusive games that remind them of Red Dead and used to appear on other platforms on the Switch, when they see Nintendo making games that are similar to Red Dead on the Switch, and when they see games that resemble Red Dead not shying away from being on the Switch as well as everything else, they'll buy the Switch expecting to buy and play games like Red Dead on the Switch.

Or lets be more literal here. 4 steps.

1. Make an exclusive marketing deal with CD Project Red for Cyberpunk (Cyberpunk is just being used as an example and can be swapped out with any game that meets the criteria). The game gets its first proper reveal at the January Switch event, appears at Nintendo's E3 Digital Event, and all ads of the game will feature Switch gameplay on Switch hardware showing off the portability and alway ending with the Switch logo. Do the same thing with 1 or 2 more open world, western, T/M-Rated, AAA TPS/FPS action adventure games they know will be coming to other platforms. Since we're being literal, I'm going to chose Assassin's Creed 2017 and Far Cry 2017.

2. Secure an exclusive, AAA open world, western, T/M-Rated, AAA TPS/FPS action adventure game. It can either be a new IP or established - both have pros and cons. We already know about Beyond Good and Evil, so considering how it's a reboot that's supposed to be grittier, this will likely do.

3. Make a first party, open world, western, T/M-Rated, AAA TPS/FPS action adventure game. They can either be a new IP or reviving an old IP, but it should be made in the west for western sentiments. It can be made by a studio they own, or they can hier a third party studio to do it for them. For this example, I'm going to go with Retro Studios rebooting Star Tropics in the same vein as Uncharted and Tomb Raider.

4. Make the Switch powerful enough to be able to port most AAA multiplats. Doesn't need to be all multiplats, it just needs to be most. It doesn't need to be the best version. It just has to exist and run well enough.

That's how. This isn't rocket science, it isn't difficult, and third party developers aren't a charity. It's up to Nintendo and Nintendo alone to make their platform succeed, not third party devs.

1/2) It is difficult... Cause that sounds like a lot of money. Nintendo doesn't have unlimited money to do all that. According to Pachter in that video, it takes developers 40 million to develop a game that can't be easily ported in his example. So what? Nintendo should give every publisher 40 million? And thats just to make them develop for it. To secure an exclusive from those devs, it could cost 100s of millions cause the publishers will calculate how much they will be missing out on. I don't how you can say it isn't diificult. Third party isn't a chairty but neither is Nintendo... Why do you think there aren't many third party exclusives this gen? Cause they are really expensive...

3) Making first party games in those genres isn't easy either because a) They need to get the devs that know how to do it and b) They need to work to establish them as well as be just as competitive as the big ones and most importantly, c) take the huge risks involved in doing so. If they develop those games, they will be new IPs which will be competing against big named established IPs. If their core audience don't like games like those and don't buy them, than they will have loss after loss in profits. Just because Nintendo could have games like Red dead doesn't mean people will go for the Switch cause Red Dead will still be on the ps4/x1. So while the Switch has games like Red Dead, rockstar will see the sales of Nintendo's attempt and see it not doing very well since we have seen time and time again that Nintendo's audience don't buy Nintendo platforms for games like those and continue with their excuse. Because in order for Nintendo to convince third party that the audience is there, they need to hope that their current audience buys those games otherwise, if those games don't do very well, then Rockstar will say, "yea see, the audience isn't there." If that makes any sense. Cause Nintendo having a game like red dead won't get people red dead people to buy a Switch, they need red dead to be on there but in order for red dead to be on there, the current audience needs to buy Nintendo's version which many people do not buy Nintendo console's for.

4) So basically, not make the Switch at all then and go back to making a traditional console? How do you expect them being able to put x1sh amount of power on a 6 inch tablet for a reasonable price? At most, they could have had 750Gflops and I doubt that still would have been enough for third parties to be able to do direct ports... There comes a certain point where it no longer becomes a port but rather becomes a full development which is the difference between spending 5 million and 40 million. Even at 750Gflops, it most likely wouldn't be enough for third parties. And even if they made a 1+ TF Switch, that would cost what? $400?  $450? vs $250 ps4? Sure portable but then what about the battery life? Is it gonna be an hour? How is that portable?

So idk how you can say "This isn't rocket science, it isn't difficult" cause it really is. Nintendo doesn't have unlimited money and the technology that we have today can't do that for a reasonable price. The plan that you are suggesting would be risky as hell and no company in their right mind in Nintendo's situation would do it. Sure, they need to build the audience but also not drive their company to the ground in the process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n50_WSl0MVY