Mnementh said:
DonFerrari said:
If you need 30 person and almost a year to just do the port (mind you that a lot of the original team would be doing assets, gameplay, story, testing, etc) show that it isn't really that easy to make a port, and that it consumes a lot of resources.
|
Yeah, the 30 is maximized speculation. It were probably fewer and they probably weren't involved with that project all the time. But nevertheless, it is less than a tenth of the people initially worked on the game and in a much shorter time. Ports do take a lot less resources than new games. And really a lot as can be seen here. We talk about at least 10 ports, probably way more, for the resources of a new game.
And well, I do not think a port takes much less resources if porting happens to PS4 or XBox One. Not with a game of the size of Diablo. Testing alone takes a lot of time if the game is big. Diablo is no Snake Pass, which was basically running (without the fine tuning) in less than a week. But this seems right for the course, because Snake Pass is a much smaller game with much less combinations that have to be tested.
| DonFerrari said:
And we have had several threads with people cursing devs and calling them dumb for not making a port of game X or Y, like MHW (which some swear didn't get ported because Sony payed to only Switch no receive based on a "very credible" insider)
|
Well, the insider had practically everything right about the changes of MonHun World. Which were in part unexpected changes. So it seems these leaks may have some credibility.
DonFerrari said:
Yes there are some fans like that in all fanbase.
I don't think Switch is a hard platform to port, but certainly the less power can add more complexity to port and avoid bad ports. And some games aren't worth the effort and severe cuts versus expected sales.
|
More power can also add more complexity to port. If you upscale assets to fit with a higher resolution you probably have even more work to make them look fine, because downscaling models and textures can be done pretty much automatically, but adding new details is not that easy automatic. As a comparison, the first HD port of Okami on PS3 did things with the textures, to make them more detailed. The later HD-ports used that upscaled assets. But the work put into that PS3-port was not something to scoff at.
|
30 people over 9 months is plenty, enough to even make some good games. I wouldn't call that small or easy when they are porting something finished. Comparing it to the full development isn't doing you a favor.
yeah a lot of credibility, Sony would expend a lot of money to leave a single platform that wasn't even released yet out even when the game itself couldn't run on Switch.
Yeah automatic ports, easy stuff, always throwed here in VGC by people that don't do them.
Games made with current engines for current consoles wouldn't really need much effort on up porting. Most we have seem have been like X1X and PS4Pro and those didn't took massive time.
zorg1000 said:
DonFerrari said:
My point is just that Switch isn't really as easy to port as someone just pressing a button with almost no resources needed
|
Im pretty sure nobody in the world has ever said thats how porting a game works. Also it took about a year to bring it to PS4, it was announced to have already started development in August 2013 and released in August 2014.
"In August 2013, Diablo III developers stated that they had started on the PlayStation 4 development of the game, titled Diablo III: Ultimate Evil Edition, and were looking at how to best utilize the new features of the PS4 controller, such as the TouchPad and the Share button. In May 2014, Blizzard announced that Diablo III: Ultimate Evil Edition would be released on August 19, bringing the game to the PlayStation 4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_III
|
You could I don't know, just read the threads and how pissed some Nintendo fans got over not getting ports and pointing how easy and unexpensive it is to make ports for switch. But if you don't get hyperbole my bad.
