Slownenberg said:
Just simply not true. You really think developers are like "oh Switch came out too late so we're not gonna bother with it!" REALLY?? That's absurd. Let me try to explain this very clearly because you just don't seem to understand what is going on here: Developers will put games on systems where they think they will make a lot of money. Switch has been out for 3 years and has blown by XB1 sales despite coming out later. Developers don't have a cut off date per-generation for when they'll make games for a system based on when it launches as you seem to think, they put games on systems based on the first sentence in this paragraph: will it make good money. Money comes from excited userbase, which in part relies on the ability to have the game be good on the system, and size of that system's userbase. It would make far more sense for them to put games on Switch instead of XB1 despite it coming out later because the Switch has a larger userbase that will continue to grow far larger for years to come. The reason they don't is the power difference. They either have to make two different games for PS4 and Switch, or downgrade it a lot to the point where gamers might just not be interested in it, or they have to do a lot of work in conjunction with downgrades to highly optimize it for the Switch. They generally don't want to do the first option because that involves making two separate games so costs and requires a second team just to make the same game. They sometimes do the second option but that usually leads to poor sales plus bad will so they don't want to do that either. And there are a few instances of the third option like Witcher 3 which has gotten a lot of praise for being on the Switch but they again usually don't bother with doing this because it takes a lot of work. Why don't they want to bother with doing a lot of work you might ask? It's not because they years ago said oh the Switch came out too late so arbitrarily and against all business sense we'll simply ignore this highly successful system for its entire life despite the fact that we could make tons of money off of by porting multiplats. They don't bother with it because they can already hit two systems with a straight port without having to worry about downgrading the game to the point where it runs poorly and people won't buy it or spending a ton of effort optimizing a port so the downgrades aren't terrible. Instead they can just do a straight port to the XB1, and even though it is a less popular system it means an easier and better port which means more excited userbase which means easier to make money. If Switch 2 closes the gap so a few quick and easy graphical changes to multiplats equivalent to just adjusting some graphical settings down can make it run well on Nintendo's system that'll lead to much more third party support. This imaginary cut off date of yours doesn't exist. Businesses make decisions for business reasons, not imaginary reasons. |
You can port PS4 games to the Switch ... they're just going to be uglier mainly in terms of image quality, especially undocked. I think that's another turn off for devs, why bother putting in the effort for a version that's going to look like someone smeared vaseline all over the screen with a bunch of jaggies everywhere. They want to protect the reputation of their AAA brands as being visual showcases.
DLSS changes that equation massively in favor of Switch though.
If the current Switch had DLSS it would be able to run games like The Witcher 3 and the graphics and image quality would be considerably closer to the PS4/XB1, quite possibly better than the XB1 actually.
If the current Switch had DLSS for example it could run Witcher 3 at 640x360 undocked (less than half the resolution it does now) which then means you can now increase effects. Docked it would run at 1080p (DLSSed from 540p only) easily with better effects to boot.
Nvidia just needs to basically give Nintendo the same tier of chip the current Tegra X1 is compared to XB1/PS4, relative to what the PS5 is. You have to factor in DLSS to that equation, because it basically means a Switch 2 can easily be "only" 1/3 (docked)-1/8 (undocked) the performance of the PS5, but it will still be able to very comfortably handle ports with a pretty decent image quality (docked will be very nice). The current Switch is about 1/3 the performance of the XB1/PS4, if Nvidia can hit that gap which shouldn't be a big problem, DLSS will take care of the rest.
To be honest the PS5 specs are not very impressive in the grand scheme of things. It's basically probably little less than Nvidia's 2080 GPU ... which launched 2 years ago. Not only that there's apparently the lower end XBox Lockheart (or whatever its called) that's only going to be only 4 teraflops. That could be a very nice boon for Nintendo too, because that is going to be easy as cake to get ports from, Switch 2 with DLSS 2.0 will be actually functionally more powerful than that. AMD does not have DLSS all they have is a sharpening filter.
Last edited by Soundwave - on 15 May 2020
