Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Dragon Quest XI for Switch delay due UE4, game based on PS4 version of game, why was announced for Switch so early

it should come at no surprise that square enix can't release games on schedule or close to it. unless its some new ip garbage out of left field 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Nuvendil said:

It is NOT always my conclusion.  There are only 2 devs I give that one to.  Capcom and Square Enix with regards to this one game.  Oh and the team at 2K who brought over WWE.  I'm fully understanding of the issues and I don't expect Switch versions to pop out of the ground.  But this. Is. Ridiculous.

Here's the thing, I work in Unreal Engine 4, I know the kind of issues these updates bring and can tell you 1) no update I've seen has caused crippling issues that would necessitate a long, protracted fixing period, 2) whenever an update does cause a fuss, a follow up that fixes it comes within WEEKS, and 3) I would have heard about the Switch compatibility updates causing any major issues or necessitating big changes and no, they didn't.  Then there's the evidence that this line is BS.  Multiple Unreal Engine 4 games have come over and every dev has said the process of getting the foundations in is pretty painless.  Snake Pass is another prominent example of this.  Square has had dev kits from what we can gather for ages.  Since before the Switch launched.  Studio Wild Card didn't get a dev kit and set Abstraction Games on the port until mere months prior to GDC.  The fact Ark has a presentable build, be it alpha or not, and Dragon Quest XI doesn't even have a *screenshot* is laughable.  And yes, exactly, ARK is a major pain on systems much stronger than the Switch.  So why is Dragon Quest XI, a much cleaner game that is much lighter on the hardware, not even in alpha.  I mean, the way he talks about it it sounds like the Switch version hasn't even started since updating UE4 would be near step 1 so what on earth have they been doing for over 12 months?  Twiddling their thumbs?  

You don't even know what customizations the team behind DQXI did for UE4 when developing the game so any comparisons made to other UE4 titles like ARK on an engineering or technical level are moot ... (it miffs me how people in this thread are making the same judgement without such considerations)

DQXI's custom build of UE4 could easily feature more custom code ... 

We are talking about a publisher who has a brigade of engineers/programmers here so why even assume incompetence ?

It could.  But looking at the game, I highly doubt it.  UE4 has exceptional flexibility in styles out of the box and I'm not seeing anything special here.  And again, I'm not expecting magic.  I'm just expecting *something*.  A screenshot, a trailer, an indication they have actually started work.  

And I assume because there's not much other explanation taking all the other facts without breaking out the tinfoil hats and I don't subscribe to that kind of thinking.  And Square Enix has made plenty of bad decisions, let's not pretend they can't be ridiculously foolish.  



JRPGfan said:

"Dragon Quest XI for Switch delay due to outdated Unreal Engine 4"

*facepalm*
So the reason is they f***ed up by useing a old engine that couldnt support the Switch?

Jebus, and UE supported switch since forever, they shoulda been useing a updated version since then, so all 3 versions could release at the same time..... this is a huge mess up.

Cause it was 4 years too late. The game started development in 2013 and at that point the developers were searching for release candidates which is just a step behind going gold ... 

That's just the real life of game development ... 

Nuvendil said:

It could.  But looking at the game, I highly doubt it.  UE4 has exceptional flexibility in styles out of the box and I'm not seeing anything special here.  And again, I'm not expecting magic.  I'm just expecting *something*.  A screenshot, a trailer, an indication they have actually started work.  

And I assume because there's not much other explanation taking all the other facts without breaking out the tinfoil hats and I don't subscribe to that kind of thinking.  And Square Enix has made plenty of bad decisions, let's not pretend they can't be ridiculously foolish.  

How can you say that without actually looking at their code ? And if what you also said was true about UE4 having high flexibility out of the box then why did it take them 4 years to develop assets, mechanics and also required a lot of effort on their engine customizations ? 

You are undermining the technical merits that go into developing DQXI ...



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Nuvendil said:

It is NOT always my conclusion.  There are only 2 devs I give that one to.  Capcom and Square Enix with regards to this one game.  Oh and the team at 2K who brought over WWE.  I'm fully understanding of the issues and I don't expect Switch versions to pop out of the ground.  But this. Is. Ridiculous.

Here's the thing, I work in Unreal Engine 4, I know the kind of issues these updates bring and can tell you 1) no update I've seen has caused crippling issues that would necessitate a long, protracted fixing period, 2) whenever an update does cause a fuss, a follow up that fixes it comes within WEEKS, and 3) I would have heard about the Switch compatibility updates causing any major issues or necessitating big changes and no, they didn't.  Then there's the evidence that this line is BS.  Multiple Unreal Engine 4 games have come over and every dev has said the process of getting the foundations in is pretty painless.  Snake Pass is another prominent example of this.  Square has had dev kits from what we can gather for ages.  Since before the Switch launched.  Studio Wild Card didn't get a dev kit and set Abstraction Games on the port until mere months prior to GDC.  The fact Ark has a presentable build, be it alpha or not, and Dragon Quest XI doesn't even have a *screenshot* is laughable.  And yes, exactly, ARK is a major pain on systems much stronger than the Switch.  So why is Dragon Quest XI, a much cleaner game that is much lighter on the hardware, not even in alpha.  I mean, the way he talks about it it sounds like the Switch version hasn't even started since updating UE4 would be near step 1 so what on earth have they been doing for over 12 months?  Twiddling their thumbs?  

Capcom and Square Enix are like, some of the biggest Japanese publishers around, and coincidentally their games are probably the most requested ones on the Switch. When you consider we're talking about Japanese publishers in particular, saying you only draw that conclusion for two publishers isn't really saying a lot, right? Although really, I wasn't talking about you, not particularly anyways. That's just the narrative that keeps popping up from this forum.

Thank you for replying, by the way. I admit I am a layman and do not know much about the specifics of developing games on certain engines. Is it possible that something in the game causes specific issues that aren't true for other Unreal Engine projects? I do find what you're saying about Ark to be a bit far, though. I mean, my entire point was that the version of Ark on the Switch could already borrow heavily from the mobile phone version, and that the standard of quality might be significantly lower. Ark's problem isn't that it's more technically advanced than Dragon Quest (it probably is in some regards), it's just that it has a history of poor management and stability. So I don't really think there's much of a point in the argument that "it's laughable the Switch version doesn't even have a screenshot" or "some small dev already has their game coming to the system"  because for all we know the reasoning can be that Square Enix doesn't want to release screenshots too early before the game is out. I mean, really, don't a lot of devs wait till a game build is at least *revealed* before they show off screenshots? Again, what is being argued here mostly just seems like a management kind of thing. You do make a good point though, that you would think it is harder to port Ark than it is Dragon Quest. And it probably is, but if the standard of quality is lower and it's based on another version of the game, that might explain why there's such a big difference in release. 

So, what is your theory about why it is taking so long? If I may ask?

I give it to Capcom because of their numerous dumb decisions - Street Fighter v, Dead Rising 4 - and the fact their big coming out for Switch was a SFII remaster, a 3DS port they won't localize, and two more handheld ports that aren't veru impressive at all.  And they keep calling them tests just to be extra contemptuous.  Their incompetency is mostly just as a business.  Square I feel has done great...EXCEPT with this game, which is baffling because this was supposed to be the big one.

Ark is more advanced from what I can see.  Not to a huge degree.  But my point was a company the size of Square with a year and a half of time should have something when an indie ddv has results in a few months. 

As for theories, going by Square's history, mismanagement, bureaucracy, underestimating Switch's success.  Square is a company that has mismanaged numerous projects mostly due to these kinds of problems.  I certainly hope they aren't struggling cause that would be sad when you consider other, more technically demanding and sophisticated games that were announced later are up and running.  Dragon Quest XI is a very lovely game but it's no tech showpiece. 



To defend Square Enix against incompetence is laughable. SE has proven themselves to be one of the absolute worst developers when it comes to finishing the games that they announce. Time and time and time and time again.



Carl is a Piplup hater and deserves to be punished eternally.

Around the Network
NintendoPie said:
To defend Square Enix against incompetence is laughable. SE has proven themselves to be one of the absolute worst developers when it comes to finishing the games that they announce. Time and time and time and time again.

Well luckily no one in this thread was doing that  



Too worthless to live, too scared to die. 

Man, Silicon Studio (Bravely Team) and the devs doing Octopath Travaler must be having a good time there. Releasing more games than Sqaure Enix's main teams since recent years.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Mar1217 said:
Man, Silicon Studio (Bravely Team) and the devs doing Octopath Travaler must be having a good time there. Releasing more games than Sqaure Enix's main teams since recent years.

What is Silicon doing for Switch? I can only find that they are doing technical behind the scenes stuff. I was REALLY surprised to find that technically Octopath is not being made by the Bravely team. Think we are getting a 3rd game?



Too worthless to live, too scared to die. 

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Mar1217 said:
Man, Silicon Studio (Bravely Team) and the devs doing Octopath Travaler must be having a good time there. Releasing more games than Sqaure Enix's main teams since recent years.

What is Silicon doing for Switch? I can only find that they are doing technical behind the scenes stuff. I was REALLY surprised to find that technically Octopath is not being made by the Bravely team. Think we are getting a 3rd game?

I certainly hope. I wanna see the trilogy complete with the Bravely Sword mystery !



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

I figured as much. The game is going to have a few downgrades but not enough to delay it for so long, If anything would delay it so long it'd be a significant change in the engine. Still getting it on Steam though, srry Switch.