By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
burninmylight on 15 September 2023
Edit Thread
Soundwave said:
burninmylight said:

You don't even realize that you're kind of making my point.

Why should I as a publisher pay for a 64GB card for example when 32GB costs me less?

Yeah, exactly. So if you can, as a publisher, squeeze your game onto a 16 or 32GB card by using lower quality assets and having DLSS polish that turd into a 1080p/30 fps diamond, then why wouldn't you? Within this same thread, you made the argument about how the cost of memory lowers year-by-year and a 32GB card in 2017 won't cost what it will in 2025, so what makes you think no publisher will ever eat that cost?

Yes, the game industry absolutely salivates over an all-digital future, and we have BS like Capcom making the Megaman Legacy Collection, aka eight fucking NES ROMS, a partial download on all consoles (which they then acknowledged and didn't do again with subsequent MM collections), but we also have many examples of publishers footing the bill on "impossible ports" of full physical retail games on a single cart: Witcher 3, Dying Light, Subnautica Collection off the top of my head.

All I'm saying is that if DLSS can make HD games even HD-ee-er, then it can let publishers cheap out on costs and allow for the existence of more full games and collections on a single cart. And I'm OK with that, because I'd rather have a full card of a less pretty game/collection than a prettier game/collection that makes me shell out for and shuffle between more SD cards. There will absolutely be publishers that will still do the code in a box or "one game here, the rest you gotta download" BS, but if it helps more of them not go that route or move the needle to more consumer-friendly physical options, then we should acknowledge that.

Nobody really does your hypothetical even on the current Switch though. Having to redo your entire texture set is not that easy either, it's more work and zero gain for the publisher.

They're just going to do what they already do ... you get some small portion of the game on a small cartridge to start and you have to download the rest. 

Some people will cry and whine about it and then get over it. Buy a larger SD Card or whatever external storage the Switch 2 will have (proprietary?) and you may have to "clear the fridge" to get a game onto the faster internal flash storage, but that is what it is for everyone, even PS5 owners who only have the 825GB base SSD ... well when it fills up that just means they have to delete an older game to make room for the new one they want to play. 

Uh, yes they do... they did it for all those games that people once swore that the Switch would never get, like No Man's Sky, Mortal Kombat 11, Mortal Kombat 1, Doom and its sequel, The Witcher, Dying Light, Wolfenstein, Dragon Quest XI, Nier Automata, Tony Hawk, and Divinity: Original Sin 2. I'm know there are others that I'm forgetting, but I'm limiting the criteria to PS4/XB1 games.

So which is it, did those developers have to redo any texture work on those Switch ports? If the answer is yes, then why would they suddenly not be willing to do so for Switch 2, a console that they should have even more faith in? If the answer is no, then you're basically saying that they didn't have to anything for those ports other than to turn down the graphical settings and make sure they properly run on a much weaker console.

*I've seen you make the argument that porting games to Switch 2 could be as simple as turning down the resolution and frame rate and letting DLSS do the legwork to get it back up to par for the player to see in the end. Not a word about making artists have to redraw textures. Why would this now be a requirement for outputting lower quality assets on the cart, at say 480p or 720p, and having DLSS display them at 1080p?

*: If I've mixed you up with someone else, then you have my sincere apology. You should really add a picture.

Last edited by burninmylight - on 20 September 2023