If Sony makes a "Playstation Switch" could it succeed?

[potato_hamster]

captain carot said:

potato_hamster said:

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.

1. Standard in which way? The concept as a whole is relatively new for consoles while it isn't new in ohter areas. There is a basis of millions of standard Xbones and PS4's so basically that is the reason why it is the standard.

2. Again, i mentioned already existing higher quality assets for actually not so few games that already exist for PC versions, not that every developer creates totally new stuff.

3. Define proper advantage.

As for the P.S., i know that modern GPU's do a lot more than just rendering, yet there are loads of games and engines that scale all to well with GPU-power for resolution.

 

Finally, Nintendo has done stuff like that in the past and it looks like mid gen updates are becoming kind of a norm. So it wouldn't be that surprising for Nintendo to pull an overhauled Switch out of their hat at some point. But, as mentioned before, i would expect them to cut cost and improve battery life first and then come up with a New Switch or whatever not before 2020.

1. .... like the millions of Switches that would exist when the "Switch Pro" releases that would then take a back seat to the Switch Pro while developers treat the higher spec as the standard development platform rather than develop for the lowest common denominator like has happened in literally every instance when a higher spec version of a console has been released. Why would it be different from the Switch Pro?

2. Maybe higher quality assets exist. And? A standard 4K mode or a 60fps mode isn't exactly pushing the bounds of what the half consoles are capable of, are they?

3. I mean something beyond a resolution or frame rate bump. The vast majority of PS4 Pro and X1X supported titles do nothing more than this.

4. and those game engines that scale, they're PC engines yes? Please do some basic research on the difference between PC and console game development, and why there's actually different layers of abstraction in the engine design philosophy, and figure out why PC engines scale, and console engines don't.

Okay. Brass tax time.
GB vs GB color: Performance difference: zero. Notable features: smaller size, color screen
Advance vs. SP: Performance difference: zero. Notable features: rechargeable battery, lit screen
DSi vs. DS Lite: Performance difference: zero. Notable features - bigger screen, extra camera, sd card slot, OS applications, and lower battery life
DSi vs DSi XL: Performance difference: zero. Notable features: bigger screen, better battery life
3DS vs. New 3DS: Performance difference: minimal. Notable features: second thumb stick, micro SD card slot. Features one exclusive game.

So where is the precedence for Nitnendo to release a half model with much better performance that people are treating as a given?