By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 26 July 2017
Edit Thread

 

Ganoncrotch said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

But that's what i"m saying. Even with consoles having lower specs all they'd have to do is decrease draw distance...there shouldn't be any reason not to have the game as big on a console as PC. I don't remember either version having tons of gigabytes of content.

It's not just about the draw distance though, keep in mind that the X360 has a total of 512mb of system RAM to store the world in without requiring loading, the Switch has 4GB and the X1/PS4 carry 8GB so that is pretty much where the worlds size limits comes into play.
bonzobanana said:

World size limit seems to be mainly about built-in memory as even the humble Vita competes with 360,PS3 and wii u and Vita has 640MB of memory just over 360/ps3 but below wii u. The 4GB of the Switch seems to enable an intermediate world size limit but can't match the 2 8GB consoles. If the PS4 and Xbox one had been 4GB consoles they probably would be at the same world size as Switch.
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
I don't understand why the world would have to be smaller on the Switch version? Just decrease the draw-distance and have the worlds load more once you get closer to the section loading.

It isn't about RAM size, but storage space for the save files. It isn't uncommon to see a few gigabytes of save files on the PC version of minecraft. Console manufacturerers have upper limits on how big a save file can be, and Nintendo is likely more strict than Sony and Microsoft because of the storage limitations of the Switch. 


Watch this video for more detail.