By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

Also better to have a port (even if result is deemed poor by some) than not have. At least if there is one the customer can opt to purchase or not. That is from the POV of a customer. For a company if they can`t make a good port better to avoid it so they don`t damage their image.

I think at this point, games like Witcher 3 and this have demonstrated there's not much on PS4/Xbone that you can't bring a decent version of to Switch if you put in enough effort. 

As Pemalite have said, even if Switch is considerably weaker than even base X1, it have similar technology and allows similar techniques for rendering and game making, so any current gen game should be doable and working (yes sure sometimes the result may seem ugly, but since a lot of people don't care much about the IQ of the game that isn't of much importance).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."