By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Overwatch on Switch ? " is very challenging for us " says Overwatch Director

Pemalite on 15 March 2017
Volterra_90 said:
Oh, I'd sell my OW copy just to buy it on the Switch. A portable OW is almost my dream XD.

You have been able to play Overwatch portably, since release.

Otter said:

I think the FPS is their concern and I don't think they would be happy with 30FPS.

The Switch will likely be different in terms of match sizes etc, I could see them not wanting to compromise any of the things that make it great in its current form. 

Pretty sure if a 6 year old low-end DDR3 graphics card on a 10 year old CPU can run overwatch at 720P, 40fps. I'm sure the Switch could manage 60fps. Maxwell is certainly superior to AMD's VLIW architectures.

S.T.A.G.E. said:
The performance wouldn't be so hot. Once more, if we look at how Zelda u is running on the switch at 900p, overwatch might chug on the switch.

I wouldn't be surprised if hardware wise, Overwatch was less demanding than Zelda. Overwatch certainly doesn't have the big draw distances.
Blizzard tends to make it's games very light on hardware to make it's games more accessible.

I would even go as far as to say... That Skyrim, Xenoverse 2 would be just as demanding if not more than Overwatch.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Around the Network
sc94597 on 15 March 2017
Pemalite said:
sc94597 said:

I honestly don't see this as a comment on technical difficulty, but rather a difficulty working with Nintendo's infrastructure. Their online setup makes everything Nintendo a centric and limits developer/publisher options. The game shouldn't be that hard to port, otherwise.

Blizzard are very focused on gameplay over technical achievements.
Overwatch is not a graphically intense game, it never was, graphically it is very simple and clean. And that works well for what Blizzard was aiming for.

Blizzard tend to balance overwatch depending on the control scheme, so that could be a ton of extra work in the Switch's case.

Yes, which is one of the reasons why I formed the quoted conclusion. It doesn't make sense that this would be about technical capabilities. 



Tryklon on 15 March 2017

Easy to check. Microsoft will soon release Windows 10 for ARM, just take a tablet with the X1, install Windows 10 on it and try to fiddle with the game=P



PS4: Tryklon  | Steam: Tryklon

Switch: 0307-6588-7010 | New 2DS XL: 2037-2612-6964

MacBook Air (Mid 2017) | iPhone SE | Apple Watch Series 3

sc94597 on 15 March 2017
Tryklon said:
Easy to check. Microsoft will soon release Windows 10 for ARM, just take a tablet with the X1, install Windows 10 on it and try to fiddle with the game=P

It is not this simple. For example, certain android apps support both ARM and X86 cpu's. Guess which CPU's run these applications better. There needs to be optimization to the hardware in order to have a fair comparison. 

Similar issues existed when Apple supported both PowerPC and X86 in their tranistion from IBM chips to Intel ones. 

As for Microsoft's particular solution 

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/7/13866936/microsoft-windows-10-arm-desktop-apps-support-qualcomm

Microsoft is enabling Windows 10 to support ARM chips directly by building an emulator into the operating system. Devices will be able to run x86 win32 applications like Chrome or Photoshop, but Microsoft won’t be emulating x64 variants of these apps.



Tryklon on 15 March 2017

Bah... cant trust Microsoft.
Still, according to several tech sites, the Nvidia X1 boasts 1 teraflop of graphic power. As a comparison, PS4 has 1.84 and XB1 has 1.33. So, judging only by raw gpu power, i think the Switch could easily get 60fps with 720p, even with reduced detail.



PS4: Tryklon  | Steam: Tryklon

Switch: 0307-6588-7010 | New 2DS XL: 2037-2612-6964

MacBook Air (Mid 2017) | iPhone SE | Apple Watch Series 3

Around the Network
JRPGfan on 15 March 2017
Tryklon said:
Bah... cant trust Microsoft.
Still, according to several tech sites, the Nvidia X1 boasts 1 teraflop of graphic power. As a comparison, PS4 has 1.84 and XB1 has 1.33. So, judging only by raw gpu power, i think the Switch could easily get 60fps with 720p, even with reduced detail.

Yes it "boasts" 1 tereflop (FP16) in certain tasks, that cant really be used for most games.

Its actual FP32 compute power is only 393 Gflops. PS4s = 1840, XB1s = 1400.

Still I think its possible for switch to run Overwatch, but you should probably expect like 720p when docked and 30fps lock.



Pemalite on 16 March 2017
sc94597 said:
Tryklon said:
Easy to check. Microsoft will soon release Windows 10 for ARM, just take a tablet with the X1, install Windows 10 on it and try to fiddle with the game=P

It is not this simple. For example, certain android apps support both ARM and X86 cpu's. Guess which CPU's run these applications better. There needs to be optimization to the hardware in order to have a fair comparison. 

Similar issues existed when Apple supported both PowerPC and X86 in their tranistion from IBM chips to Intel ones. 

As for Microsoft's particular solution 

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/7/13866936/microsoft-windows-10-arm-desktop-apps-support-qualcomm

Microsoft is enabling Windows 10 to support ARM chips directly by building an emulator into the operating system. Devices will be able to run x86 win32 applications like Chrome or Photoshop, but Microsoft won’t be emulating x64 variants of these apps.

There is already a similar precedent to this... Known as Binary Translation. It's the approach Intel took to getting it's x86 Atom processors to run Android and it's entire ARM software ecosystem...

There was a small performance penalty in doing so, but it wasn't overtly significant at the end of the day.

JRPGfan said:
Tryklon said:
Bah... cant trust Microsoft.
Still, according to several tech sites, the Nvidia X1 boasts 1 teraflop of graphic power. As a comparison, PS4 has 1.84 and XB1 has 1.33. So, judging only by raw gpu power, i think the Switch could easily get 60fps with 720p, even with reduced detail.

Yes it "boasts" 1 tereflop (FP16) in certain tasks, that cant really be used for most games.

Its actual FP32 compute power is only 393 Gflops. PS4s = 1840, XB1s = 1400.

Still I think its possible for switch to run Overwatch, but you should probably expect like 720p when docked and 30fps lock.

It deosn't have 1 Teraflop of anything. The amount of flops is also irrellevant.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Scisca on 16 March 2017
leyendax69 said:
fleischr said:

Are you sure? PC min specs look rather humble. Other PC versions of Switch ports are in the same class of raw power.

  • Operating system: Windows Vista/7/ 8/10 64-bit (latest Service Pack)
  • Processor: Intel Core i3 or AMD Phenom X3 865.
  • Video: Nvidia GeForce GTX 460, ATI Radeon HD 4850, or Intel HD Graphics 4400.
  • Memory: 768 MB VRAM, 4 GB System RAM.
  • Storage: 7200 RPM with 5 GB available HD space

on the highest settings? i was talking about those, not min

Even highest settings aren't anything special in OW. It's usually used to benchmark cheapest budget videocards next to LoL and CS:GO. It's a Blizzard game, it'll run on anything. The specs surely wouldn't be a problem for a Switch version, it's the profits that'll decide the fate of the port, but I think it'd be profitable.

But maybe Blizzard is still prejudiced after their previous game on a Nintendo console didn't exactly set the world on fire!! Oh, the good ol' Starcraft 64



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.

Pemalite on 16 March 2017
Scisca said:

 

But maybe Blizzard is still prejudiced after their previous game on a Nintendo console didn't exactly set the world on fire!! Oh, the good ol' Starcraft 64

Have you looked at the second hand prices of StarCraft 64... It's bullshit. Haha. (I am trying to get a copy.)




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Volterra_90 on 16 March 2017
Pemalite said:
Volterra_90 said:
Oh, I'd sell my OW copy just to buy it on the Switch. A portable OW is almost my dream XD.

You have been able to play Overwatch portably, since release.

Otter said:

I think the FPS is their concern and I don't think they would be happy with 30FPS.

The Switch will likely be different in terms of match sizes etc, I could see them not wanting to compromise any of the things that make it great in its current form. 

Pretty sure if a 6 year old low-end DDR3 graphics card on a 10 year old CPU can run overwatch at 720P, 40fps. I'm sure the Switch could manage 60fps. Maxwell is certainly superior to AMD's VLIW architectures.

S.T.A.G.E. said:
The performance wouldn't be so hot. Once more, if we look at how Zelda u is running on the switch at 900p, overwatch might chug on the switch.

I wouldn't be surprised if hardware wise, Overwatch was less demanding than Zelda. Overwatch certainly doesn't have the big draw distances.
Blizzard tends to make it's games very light on hardware to make it's games more accessible.

I would even go as far as to say... That Skyrim, Xenoverse 2 would be just as demanding if not more than Overwatch.

I know I coukd, but I don't have a laptop so, no, I wasn't able to play portable OW since release.