Probably when Nintendo releases a Switch successor in 5-6 years.

You again missing point, offcourse you will have some kind of limitations and no best results during port if you have game made specifkly for totaly difrent kind of hardware on mind (and I alredy wrote about 360 port). Basicly thats what DF also said, and why do you think why this is only game where Switch any drawbacks compared to PS3 version of game.

Dynamic 1080p resolutions are very often pushed like 1080p res, but compared to 720p we again talking about huge difrence in resolution.

Yeah, game can have better optimisation and Doom definitely don't look like best Switch port, also here is again point about 1st year ports compared to 5. year ports.

Thats not most of first year 1X library, but fact is that most of 1st year X1 library had resolution from 720p-900p not 1080p. No one of games that I mentioned are impressive looking games. Optimisation is my exat point, game in 1st year dont have best optimisation, games in later years have much better optimisation and look better.

No one said its generation leap, but it noticeable difference compared to PS4 first year games.

All we saw until now shows us that Switch in capability is somewhere between PS3/360 and XB1, and with evre new game (more advanced, better looking, more optimised games) difrence can be only bigger compared to PS3/360 games.

Of all the 7th gen games that will be ported to Switch, LA Noire may be the most complex. May also be a bad port.

I'm a fan a dynamic resolutions, but its not a 1080p game.

You keep arguing about 1st year ports. That was a valid argument for 360, the disparity over time almost felt like a generation leap. But we aren't quite seeing that on 8th gen, not nearly at the same level.

All we've seen now makes me think Switch is closer to 360 than X1. But whatever, my perception can change over time.

Your comparison is pretty much spot on, yes there are differences that go either way, you can never compare hardware directly with so many variables in the specification but what you have written is completely fair as an approximation and certainly represented by real world results.

Personally I don't think a hybrid would need to offer full ps4 performance, close cpu performance and lower gpu performance to output to a lower resolution screen. A hybrid of about 800 gflops with quad core later amd cpu's of about 1.5ghz could pretty much deliver enough power to run quick conversions of ps4 games at slightly lower resolutions, texture quality and have enough cpu power to run ps4 level game logic. There is no point trying to copy the ps4 hardware design today, better to utilise later tech and make a product with decent battery runtime.

As I have said before a small hybrid Sony console that also doubles up as a VR headset for PS4 and PS4 pro would be fantastic. It could also play lower quality VR titles on the go (PS3, 360 level) comfortably.  That to me would be a perfect product and be achievable at a great price and profit for Sony. I hope if Sony does do a hybrid they don't aim too high and lose the practicality of a portable with good battery runtime. I don't think current Switch has enough battery runtime and Sony certainly shouldn't go less than that.

Prob when FF7R releases. So roughly 2030 or so. We have time

Switch will have more complex 7th gen games than LA Noire, and Skyrim is also quite complex game, huge open world with wildlife, villages, towns...but difference is that Skyrim was designed to be multi platform game on first place (including PC and Switch has similar PC architecture), that isnt case with La Noire.

That relly dont change fact that dynamic 1080p resolutions are very often pushed like 1080p even with point its not locked 1080p resolution.

Thats valid argument basicly with evre console and evre generation, beacuse fact is that games with new hardware in first year dont have best optimisation and dont look best, because fact is that buy time devs are getting much more familiar with hardware and they optimise much more games and take more from that same hardware after few years than they could in 1st year. How many games last year XB1 had that were runing at 720p and how many have them in 1st year!? You basicly keep deny clear facts.

Yeah, because you keep comparing Switch 1st year with best looking 360 games (try comparing Switch 1st year games with 360 1st year games), fact is that with evre new game (more advanced, better looking, more optimised games) difrence can be only bigger compared to PS3/360 games in any case.

LA Noire appears to be more technically demanding in different ways than Skyrim. I mean LA Noire has busy cities with cars and people. Skyrim's lead platform is clearly PC though.

Dynamic resolutions still isnt 1080p. I dont care how its pushed.

Again, the improvments on 7th gen arent anything like 8th gen. Because 1st year games on 8th gen still look comprable to new stuff. Frankly, same goes for Wii and Wii U, the graphics early on were much like the entire gen. I dont anticipate big imrpovments on Switch compared to what we're seeing now. Thats my prediction, but maybe 3rd parties will do a little better at making their releases more polished.

You said it, its demanding in difrent ways, same could be said for Skyrim compared to La Noire, LA Noire has busy cities with cars and people but Skyrim has huge ass world with wildlife, villages, towns, NPCs... But fact is that Skyrim was designed to be multi platform game on first place (including PC and Switch has similar PC architecture), that isnt case with La Noire.

You basicly ignored what I wrote, again: you keep comparing Switch 1st year with best looking 360 games (try comparing Switch 1st year games with 360 1st year games), fact is that with evre new game (more advanced, better looking, more optimised games) difrence can be only bigger compared to PS3/360 games in any case.

The hard part will be making it so that it can run games from the PS4 library automatically or with small patches rather then having to port them.

The Switch has the likes of Skyrim, which shows it can do large environments.
You need to keep the comparisons as equal as possible. Apples to Apples and all that.

It is to me. And it may be to other forum users. You finding them unimportant is what truly is unimportant... Because I will state them anyway.
Making your whinging ultimately superfluous.

And I agreed that it was a great looking game with lots of dynamic effects, thanks to using CryEngine as a base. Did you miss that part or something?

Dynamic Resolution would have helped the anemic Xbox One hardware out a shit ton. The framerate dips also still exist, just to a lesser extent now. I do own the game.

Indeed. I did mean Dead Rising 3. My mistake, I'm only human. (Happy to admit my mistakes when I believe I am wrong though.)

Dead Rising 3 most certainly does not have higher quality assets than Doom on Switch.
The game looks like it pulled textures from a 6th gen console game, they are blurry, low resolution and terrible.
I do own the game, happy to take a few pictures if you want?

Sunset Overdrive looks as good as it does because of it's great Art Direction. It's going to be one of those games that is *always* going to look good and age well. Microsoft needs more exclusives like that.

You can port assets between game engines if you have the appropriate tools. Granted, sometimes it's better to build the assets from scratch.
But you are right.

Wrong.
Sony doesn't make all the components that go into a BD-Rom drive, they buy that from another company and then get yet another company to assemble them... And then yet another company to package... And probably another company to handle all the shipping logistics around the world.

Sony also doesn't own Blu-Ray anyway, it's owned by the Blu-ray Disc Association, Sony is just a member in conjunction with another 20~ other companies.
Other companies can also join and leave the consortium.

Sony isn't a company that has the resources to sink Billions in new chip designs anymore, rather they buy it from 3rd party's like Qualcomm, Broadcom, AMD and so on. Which means Sony doesn't have any extra advantages over Microsoft in this aspect.

Microsoft has also been building peripherals for decades, they also design/build Laptops, Tablets, Consoles and specialized devices like the Surface Table, it would be rather ignorant to assume that Microsoft is incompetent at hardware.

But you are right, that all three companies do have specializations where they are better in some areas than others, but that doesn't conflate to meaning they are worst at something else.

I doubt Microsoft will ever gain a foothold in Japan. Japan seems to be fairly xenephobic and the games that the Xbox has doesn't really appeal to the Japanese demographic who tend to go nuts over something like Pokemon.

It's also not using the full hardware feature set of the Switch. There is so much unused and modern efunctionality in that Tegra chip.
The Switch is only marginally more powerful at brute strength than the Xbox 360, where it's true advantage lays is thanks to a plethora of new technologies that have been added into modern chip designs which needs to have games leverage to make use of them.

For example... Texture compression. The Switch supports 3dc+. So it can compress Textures, Normal Maps, Light Maps, Shadow Maps and so on... If the game isn't built to take advantage of that feature, then it will use more Ram and consume more memory bandwidth.

Bullshit. Haha
Morrowind and Oblivion the lead platform was the PC.
Skyrim released without Direct X 10 and 11 support on PC... And opted for SM3.0 effects. It's hardware requirements at the time was so stupidly low it could run on a toaster.

Eventually, when consoles caught up to the PC, we got a "remastered" version of Skyrim which took advantage of a few extra features on PC... Essentially that version SHOULD have been the PC released version.

Rather, Skyrims lead platform was the Xbox 360 and the visual effects support that.