Otter said:
Mm, I actually don't agree with this logic. The best version doesn't necessarily mean working from from the highest set of assets, it's means working most sensibly within the systems constraints to get the best result. I think a lot of you are going to come back to the reality that the Switch is closer to a PS4 than it is a Series S. Hogwarts may run way better than cyberpunk in the end or function in ways which sees it as the more reliable port. Replacing items with unique lower poly assets or hiding geometry that will tank the frame rate can be the best form of optimisation. Let's wait before jumping the gun. You were speaking very favourably about Hogwarts S2 compared to the PS5 version, a lot of details DF pointed out are not obvious to at a casual glance. Similarly a more technical analysis of Cyberpunk may reveal a wider gulf than what you're currently drawing. Ultimately though, both games are very different under the hood, so I wouldn't make direct comparisons. As far as the upgrade path, the $10 grade path is the standard. We simply haven't seen it be used across a Switch 1 > PS4 level of conversion because there are literally no examples yet other than Hogwarts Legacy. Probably we'll get Witcher 3 and No Mans Sky and I'm sure they will offer a similar path. Sony offered the huge Horizon Remaster path for £10 and almost every asset in that was remade to bring it closer to Forbidden Wests PS5 graphical level. Essentially I wouldn't draw too much from the $10 path other than the company still profits and still expects a lot of full price purchases ;) |
Cyberpunk is a much more CPU intensive game than Hogwarts so the comparison is different. The PS4 version was scaled back due to limited resources and the Switch 2 has much greater CPU resources where as in graphics they are much, much closer with the PS4 having 176GB/s of memory bandwidth and the Switch 2 having about 100GB/s docked and 68GB/s in portable mode. Of course with DLSS upscaling this bandwidth limitation is probably less of an issue on Switch 2 but still I think going forward some PS4 games will be superior to Switch 2 especially in portable mode and others will be surpassed. The Switch 2 dedicates a lot of resources to things like gamechat (even if you don't have Nintendo online and can't use that feature) and there is a higher CPU element to DLSS the greater the divide between native resolution and output resolution. The point is Cyberpunk would have had to be scaled back on PS4 not because of storage, memory or graphics limitations so much but because it simply had those poor Jaguar CPU cores. It doesn't have the CPU power to do as many visual effects as well as game logic and other features of the game engine that might need to be scaled back. The Switch 2 with its greater CPU resources will be able to run game engines that also work on Xbox Series X, latest PCs and PS5 but with minor scaling back of features and graphic detail plus of course rendering at a much lower resolution and relying on DLSS. Any PS4 or Xbox One games that struggled due to low CPU resources will likely be superior on Switch 2.
I do remember when the Nvidia T239 was analysed and they predicted it would have lower clocks due to battery consumption, cooling issues and of course higher yields it was predicted that the Switch 2 would be about PS4 performance overall however I feel that isn't fair because the Switch 2 will be capable of games not possible on PS4 even if it does them natively rendering at a very low resolution like Cyberpunk.
