By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
potato_hamster on 05 January 2018
Edit Thread
captain carot said:
potato_hamster said:

Perhaps I was unclear. We know the technology was there. Tegra 2 was out well before the Switch came out - with a Tegra 1 processor. But why would they bother? The DSi and New 3DS are marginal improvements at best (Sony did the same with PSP and PSV revisions), and the experiment of "New 3DS exclusive games" was a disaster and very quickly dropped.


I think it's patently ridiculous to think that not only is Nintendo strongly considering a "Switch Pro" that's significantly more powerful than the original switch, but that they're definitely going to do it less than two years after the release of the original Switch.

The vast majority of third party developers do the bare minimum for X/Pro compatibility because it's not worth the effort. Nintendo has historically had a hard enough time attracting third parties to their platforms, and has an even harder time keeping these third parties on their platforms due to struggling sales. A Switch Pro makes developing a game for the Switch that much more expensive, when third parties are already expecting lower sales. Where is the benefit, exactly?

1. No you weren't unclear. But with a Switch 'Pro' the standard Switch simply could 'simply' be forward compatible. Will Nintendo be doing it under two years after the Switch release? No. Cheaper manufacturing cost and more battery life will likely be first. But we could and might see something like that until spring 2020.

2. I think many people totally misunderstand what the additional power of Pro and X actually can do. We do see lots of devs utilizing it, partially only to resolution. But four times the pixels needs four times the GPU power with most current engines.

And many devs already have higher quality assets and effects for their PC versions.

In case of future Switch ports (and the ever growing power of smartphones and tablets) the additional power of an improved Switch could be well utilized for smaller indie games as well as bigger titles.

I am not talking about games like Xenoblade Chronicles for New 3DS though, but keep in mind that there are not so few games that run better on a New 3DS than on a standard 3DS and yes, we do see many games benefiting from the power of One X and PS4 Pro.

1. I love how people gloss over the concept of "forwards compatibility" as if it's completely arbitrary, and doesn't add a noticable increase to the cost of development. Just ask yourself this: Why aren't the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X the "standard" as you put it?

2. I think I might understand what the additional power of Pro and X actually can do, considering I've programmed console video games in the past. I could be wrong though, but knowing and befriending hundreds of people in the industry from engine devs, to tools developers, to software engineers, to tech leads, to writers, to animators, to graphic artists, to CTOs. Maybe they're lying through their teeth when they tell me how they're repeatedly told to just make sure their games run well on these half consoles and pretty much cap it there. Perhaps it's because that these developers have noticed that it's simply not worth their effort. The additional effort doesn't lead to increased sales. Even when Pro/X support is added back into an existing game, the uptick in sales is minimal at best. I will acknoledge though, that almost all of my contacts in the industry are third party developers. Most of the people from Sony, Nintendo and MS I know have since moved on to other things.

3. Almost every single instance of a game that takes proper advantage of the additional power of the new 3DS, PS4 Pro, and Xbox One X are first party or second party games. There's a lot more incentive to add these features and game modes that take advantage of the additional power when your primary objective is to support the platform the game is on rather than the game itself.

P.S. Rendering is a small part of what a GPU actually does, so no, you do not need "four times" the GPU power to render a 1080p image in 4K. It's not a 1:1 ratio. Not even close.