By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 05 September 2018
Edit Thread
vivster said:
curl-6 said:

Because Doom and COD are very similar in that they both target 60fps on PS4 and Xbox One and focus on relatively restricted play areas without much in the way of extravagant physics or other problematic technical features. Their engines even share the same roots.

So you're saying they're very much different and should be evaluated as different products. Good to know. How well a game runs on a given platform is absolutely no indication of portability btw. There is a lot more to making a AAA game than taking an engine and plopping in some assets.

If you want to complain then complain that not every developer uses the same unified engine and certainly no extensions that might cause problems on different hardware platforms. Or maybe complain to the company who decided to make it deliberately hard to port to their console compared to all other platforms.

They're not really that different though, their performance characteristics, technical standards and general design are quite similar. Not the same of course, I never claimed that, but similar.

If we were talking about a complex 30fps PS4 game like Cyberpunk 2077 or Red Dead Redemption 2 I'd agree with you 100%, but COD is a relatively simple 60fps game. We've seen games ported across much bigger technical gulfs than this.

Mr Puggsly said:
curl-6 said:

Making the original game was a big budget endeavour, but porting an existing game is much cheaper than creating one from scratch. And while yeah, bringing Doom to Switch would've been more challenging than bringing it to Xbox One, it's also not a case like the 2008-2011 COD titles on Wii where the game basically had to be completely rebuilt. 

And there are also third party games on Switch that have sold far more than Doom, like Skyrim and FIFA. 

Its possible Activision did the Wii ports with higher expectations. I mean CoD3 was apparently the first and best selling. Wii was essentially the only platform where CoD sales decreased during that period you mentioned, but I could be wrong.

Its evident porting games PS4 to Switch is big endeavor compared to PS4 to X1. And I'm sure that's always considered when doing anything for Switch. Frankly, some ports to Switch are quite poor and I'm guessing it requires more resources/money/effort for a good Switch port.

Skyrim and FIFA did do exceptionally well on Switch, that support will likely continue to some degree. Maybe Bethesda's priority should be bringing Fallout games to Switch as opposed to more id shooter. FIFA is among the most popular IPs, but the Switch port is using the 7th gen engine and so will the next game it seems. Hence, EA isn't putting a big effort in the Switch port yet.

Activision bought five COD games to the Wii from 2006 to 2011, there's no way they would've kept bringing them year after year if they weren't getting satisfactory sales.

Similarly, I just can't see Bethesda greenlighting Doom Eternal for Switch if Doom was a money-shredder. I mean, I'm no expert, but how much money does a company make per sale of a $60 game, generally?

adisababa said:

curl-6 said:

Doom Eternal.

Doom 2016 runs at 25fps and falls down to 476p, it's unplayable. Wolfenstein 2 goes down to 360p. It blows my mind how people think the Switch can run any game post 2018 and expect it to be playable. It'll run horribly and won't be fun at all to play. 

 

Doom on Switch isn't unplayable at all. I own it and have played through it myself and it's awesome fun. Post-patch it spends most of its time at 30fps and between 720p and 648p. Wolfenstein II on Switch similarly spends the vast majority of its time way above the minimum resolution and I found it not only playable but highly enjoyable.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 06 September 2018