Will the Switch 2 finally be powerful enough and popular enough to get Nintendo all the top games?

[Pemalite]

burninmylight said:

Pemalite said:

Rockstar couldn't even port GTA5 despite it being a 7th gen game ported to 8th gen and 9th gen consoles... The Switch is capable of running it and has a massive audience to sell games to.
...But for whatever reason, they never made it happen.

There is more to porting than just games or the size of a userbase... Company politics plays a big role as well.

Has the publisher or a developer come out and said that Rockstar couldn't get GTA5 to work on the Switch? You say that, then in the same post say that company politics play a big role as well.

As far as I know, Rockstar has never addressed why GTA5 isn't on Switch. We can't automatically blame that on the hardware, especially when the game could be ported up from older hardware.

Anything an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 can do, the Switch can do better.
It's not a hardware limitation.

Chrkeller said:

Lol, nothing is in your favor.  You view is from random people on the internet.  My view is from hundreds of hours over dozens and dozens games.  Tough luck for you.  Sorry, I will always stick with my hands experience with playing switch, ps4, ps5, xbox, 3050, 4070 and 4090.  

1) You say that 120GB/s is a limitation.

And I provided evidence of:

1) AMD Handhelds with 100GB/s playing PS5/XSX games.
2) Advantages of nVidia hardware that gives nVidia GPU's an edge over AMD.

You literally have nothing in this argument. And provided nothing.

sc94597 said:

There is a point in which the profit-incentive dominates "company politics." If the projected sales (and profit) potential exceeds that point, then it becomes the dominant factor. Besides, Nintendo of 2024 is a very different company from say Nintendo of 2004, and certainly a different company than Nintendo of 1994 in terms of their willingness to work with third parties and share their platform with them. 

Profit-incentive falls into the "company politics". - Let's face it, even if GTA5 only sold 1 million copies on Switch, it would still turn a profit because the development costs for GTA5 were recouped over a decade ago.

It's why "remasters" and "remakes" are a thing.. They are profitable even if they only shift comparatively small amounts of units.

It likely cost Rockstar more money to port the GTA trilogy over to Switch and make it work than it would to port GTA5.

Chrkeller said:

Mar1217 said:

I mean for all instance and purposes, Wukong, a game that is seemingly bringing the PS5 to its knees and has problems being ported to the Series, is playable on the Steam Deck in "decent" fashion. So my take on this is relatively dependant mostly on the willfulness of the devs and publishers to achieve said games on the console, more so than the problem of "powerful hardware".

To be fair image quality for the ps5 is being viewed on a giant TV.  Image quality for the Deck is being viewed on a small screen.  Poor image quality will looks way better on a small screen than a large.  The switch 2 is in a unique position because it has mobile hardware but still needs to look good on the big screen.

Deck outputs to a TV just fine and games look just fine.

GPU is:
23% less docked.
69% less undocked.

CPU is:
About 55%.

HoloDust said:

I remember there were some tests (subjective of course) where in many titles, folks preferred 4K DLSS Quality over 4K Native. So yeah, wasting GPU/CPU resources on 4K native is silly with such a good upscaler tech. I think we'll see lot more of what Ubi did for Star Wars Outlaws, putting upscaler into official system recommendations for game.

Very situational dependent.

Someone sitting 1 foot away on a 65" OLED would probably prefer 4k native over someone sitting 6 meters away on a 75" LCD.

Pixel density per perceived inch is important... But also the panel type, OLED having really inky blacks and amazing contrasts can show aliasing artifacts more readily due to the differences in light/dark areas.