DLSS can be a game changer for both resolution and FPS of a port like that, if you're a so-called "PC player" you should know that already anyway, unless you game on lame ass AMD cards. 

I can see that you are triggered. 

Imagine loving a brand that much that you don't accept that people say it's very old tech...

And I doubt that Nintendo's next console will incorporate DLSS 3, this is the technology that is a game changer, not the previous versions. DLSS 3 is only available on 40XX graphics cards. DLSS 1 for example is bad tech. So come back to Earth.

⚠️ WARNED: Trolling (multiple antagonistic posts)

Witcher 3 drops frames on PS4 and Xbox One as well, Switch really isn't very far behind there.

You may not consider Switch graphics good enough, and that's fine, but it's the 3rd highest selling system of all time, and close to being THE highest selling system of all time in Japan, so clearly there's a lot of people out there who are just fine with its capabilities.

For a lot of people, portability trumps graphics, so it fills a different niche to a desktop PC, a Playstation, or an Xbox.

I know. You are right. The success of the Switch is proof that many people doesn't care about "tech" in a video game.

Sounds like you're the one triggered, everyone knows DLSS is Nvidia proprietary tech that likely will be part of the next Switch. Also funny how you conveniently skip over DLSS 2.0+ which is fine and does everything I've said, it can take a 360p image and make it look like 720p or better, you don't need DLSS 3.0 for that. 

I'm guessing you knew that, which is why you chicken shitted out of mentioning DLSS 2.0+. 

The other thing is at the end of the day FF16 doesn't even look that great. It certainly does not look like a real generational leap over FF7 Remake. Looks to me like their "graphics budget" is hitting up against a roof for practical and money reasons. I wouldn't be holding my breath for a FF17 that looks leaps and bounds better than 16 or 7 Remake frankly. 

So the whole "I don't want Final Fantasy on lesser hardware!" reasoning I think is bullshit too, FF games are going to hit a roof if they haven't already of how much budget Square-Enix can put into any one game given the returns which seem to be declining. Series is becoming a sub-million seller in Japan which is just sad when it used to sell 3+ million there, and in the US they can do all the fancy Game of Thrones crap they want, it's never going to be a big US centric series the way things like GTA or Red Dead or COD or something like that are there. They've shot themselves in the foot by not building and maintaining the sizable audience they had in Japan by sticking with Sony's declining hardware lines there. You're not going to outspend Western studios that are looking at 20-30 million in sales for their game and being top of the line in graphics, again it's not 2004 anymore, Square-Enix. 

If graphics and tech are really THAT important to people: They should just save up and build up more money for a gaming PC instead. Those will provide much more of what they're looking for than PlayStation or Xbox ever could, let alone Nintendo.
The fact of the matter is: the majority of people that buy consoles don't really care that much about graphics, certainly not enough to spend the extra $200, $300, or even $500 over the standard PS5 SKU's retail price to get a respectably powerful gaming PC set-up. The graphics/tech crowd is still to this day a very niche section of the overall gaming audience. Unless it's one of the BIG boys like GTA, Red Dead, or Elder Scrolls, trying to sell or appeal entirely to them along by making these high-end, upper-echelon graphics/tech titles is not going to yield the results that those companies are looking for and might actually result in a loss.

Like @Soundwave said, games like FF are going to hit a roof of how much budget are going to be put into them if the games aren't selling enough to yield the returns the publishers are expecting/hoping for. And w/ Final Fantasy in particular, don't be surprised if there's increased pressure on Square Enix from their investors to ditch this "exclusively for PlayStation" nonsense and do more muliplatform releases, including the Switch. You don't think they're looking at those Switch sales? Especially in Japan? A region they could reliably count on to make big bank on their bigger franchises like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest? And then they look at how Square Enix has stubbornly stuck to PS w/ the franchise while watch PlayStation's console sales in Japan drop and drop and drop w/ each new mainline entry while those very same entries drop and drop in Japan as well? You think they can't put two and two together and say? "This is absurd! Why aren't we working w/ Nintendo to get these games released on their platform that has over 30 million units out there and still going strong? And why are we just sticking w/ Sony who can't even sell 10 million? Why settle for just 10 when we could have access to 40?!?"

And before someone can bring up the Western sales argument, Nintendo is selling just as well, if not better, than PlayStation in the West too! By the end of the year, the Switch will be the 3rd best-selling platform of all time in North America. It'll more than likely be #2 when it's finished, but it has a shot at being #1 as well. And it does extremely well in Europe too, certainly better than Xbox.
Look at it this way: which do you think sounds better for investors? Sticking to just ~70 million PlayStation and Xbox systems in the US or going to 120-130 million total units when you include Nintendo as well?
Sticking to ~60 million PlayStation and Xbox systems in Europe or going to 100-110 million total units when you include Nintendo as well?
That almost doubles their potential userbase in the Western regions, ON TOP of QUADRUPLING it in Japan!
And if you look at the whole picture/Worldwide, you go from 170 million PlayStation and Xbox units, to 320-330 million PlayStation, Xbox, AND Nintendo units.

It's basic math.

And the deeper we go into these generations and the further these sales and returns decline for Final Fantasty, the more and more pressure Square Enix is going to feel from their investors and nearest financial experts to make that move.

those embarrassing gifs do not help your argument from being less obtuse at all, i must say, lmao

The irony about the graphics argument is that not only is XVI not much different to XV, which was on PS4, graphically it's also the case that the latter was doing so with more of an open world than the former. Soundwave mentioned the point of being clever with graphical fidelity and I think one company who provide a perfect example of this is Capcom, the RE Engine does that in each game where the focus is of the whole overall presentation.

If Switch can run Witcher 3 and Doom with its specs the next platform should be in a better place in running games especially as the architecture of the specs will be more modern with features like DLSS 2.0 as these change the shape of how hardware runs and what it can do. 

The Final Fantasy discussion this week and the last one has been longwinded, and despite this, has been missing the most basic point:

Sony pays for Final Fantasy on PlayStation and Square-Enix happily takes the money.

As long as this persists (and it will), there's really no point to all the other discussion.

Honestly I'm just surprised people are talking about FF16 so much. Didn't know so many people here were so passionate about Final Fantasy.