Very true. The question is though if Square Enix is capable to do the heavy lifting marketing and promotion wise outside Japan themselves now.

Sony and Nintendo have been doing a lot of that heavy lifting for SE titles in return of some sort of (temporary) exclusivity.

Final Fantasy 17 here we go, recycled FF7 Rebirth engine (looks good enough but not any better to keep budget in check)

540p native (DLSS to 1080p) undocked, 720p native (1440p DLSS) docked for Switch 2
4K native (30 fps graphics mode) on PS5/XSX
Whatever for XBox Series S (lol)
PC various


Day 1 for all platforms, no more platform bullshit, marketing deals with both Nintendo and Sony, FF17 character in next Smash Bros, will get a Game Pass deal with Microsoft some time after launch. 

540p DLSS looks like utter crap. DSLL works better at higher resolutions.  Effective DLSS requires at least 720p, preferably 1080p.

All modeling, including DLSS, is simple...  more data input (e.g. resolution) the better the output.

Edit

And the ps5 doesn't have a chance on God's green earth of being native 4k with FF17.

Switch 2 ports will need to be more than reduced resolution.  Shadows, reflections, anisotropic, AA, RT, occlusion, draw distance, texture quality, etc will all need to be reduced as well.  

DLSS 960p so Quality setting at 1440p is already very good, but if you play on 4K 1080p, 1270p and 1440p are all very good.

540p on a handheld screen isn't that bad, a lot of Switch 1 games run at 540p or lower without DLSS.

And yeah, settings like shadows and draw distance will need to be tweaked, but that's not a big obstacle, we saw this done with countless ports to Switch 1 like Witcher 3, Doom 2016/Eternal, Hellblade, Dying Light, Kingdom Come Deliverance, Hogwarts Legacy, etc.

540p to DLSS 1080p looks surprisingly good, have tested it even on huge 4K displays, it will be fine on a small 8 inch 1080p display, honestly I think it's a waste of power to spend more of your pixel budget for a higher resolution on a screen that small. You'd be better off if you have overhead to try and go for a 40-60 fps mode or something than wasting pixels to get to 720p to scale DLSS up to 1080p ... it's not going to make a massive difference on a small 1080p display.

540p DLSS to 1080p looks waaaaaaaaaaaay better than than 540p native current Switch games do, and you're getting basically on top of an image that looks closer to 1080p free anti-aliasing to boot, which is a nice bonus of DLSS, it basically provides you an anti-aliasing solution too.

FF7 Rebirth is near 4K native on the PS5 per Digital Foundry (30 fps mode). 

FF17 is likely not going to look much better than Rebirth, probably will be using the same exact engine. They don't have the sales to justify going up any more in graphics, tough shit graphics whores you should have bought FF16 and FF7 Remake but the market has spoken and y'all didn't show up, same thing for Alan Wake 2, these a lot of these games are not selling big numbers. 

Switch 2 gonna benefit, already has Call of Duty (thanks MS for buying Activision), got itself Persona, now mainline Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts is probably next. Square-Enix stock got rocked on the news of poor FF16 and flat out bad FF7 Rebirth sales, their new president is going running to Nintendo on his knees, need that Japan market leading console to have franchise growth. 

I don't know if there is information in English, but in Spanish there are many sites that explain that the human eye only sees 4k if you stand 1 meter away from an 80-inch screen. Full HD is 1080p, it is what Blu-ray movies had, and they called it full HD because that is what the human eye can see.

Another scam is the issue of ray tracing. It takes thousands of computers to generate a single minute of real ray tracing. What the consoles have are lighting techniques, but they are not ray tracing.

And as for the issue of the paintings, well this is the only thing that no one knows if it is a scam or not. Above 60 frames per second most of the human eye switches off. And no one knows if this is good or bad.

I repeat that I don't know if there is information in English, but in Spanish there is a lot. An example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awYAtJCEMb0

Switch 2 in portable mode has to go to 540 or 720p and 60 frames. And in television mode it has to go to 1080p and 60 frames.

Real path tracing will take even a 4090 hours to render a 2-3 second clip if you want a high resolution image that still is noisy, yeah any kind of "real time graphics" is not even close if you are the type of person picky about that stuff. 

Here's a popular Blender benchmark called The Barbershop ... it takes a 4090 almost 4 minutes to render *one frame* of this at 1440p resolution on Blender Cycles (real deal path tracing). This guy has 8 4090s working together and it still take 55 seconds to render one frame of this demo. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06fsBox0_7E

From digital foundry for FF16:

"Quality mode is typically 1080p to 1440p, upscaled to 4K, while performance mode seems to top out at 1080p but often drops lower."

FF17 isn't going to be 4k on the ps5...  not a chance at all.  Not even a remote one.

And there are dozens of DLSS articles, feel free to educate yourself.  DLSS doesn't work well for 540p to 1080p, there isn't enough input for the model.  DLSS is for 1080p to 1440p or 1440p to 4k. 

None of this tech works like you think it does.  Like none of it.  

Agreed.  The requirements for a small screen are different than a large one.  But the S2 is a hybrid so it will need to support output to a big screen.

The S2 can absolutely get ports.  But at 75% the ram amount and at 1/4 the memory bandwidth....  anybody who thinks the S2 is getting the ps5 version just at a lower resolution is daffy.  

And anyone who doesn't mind the sacrifices for a switch 2 version has my full support.  People are entitled to their preferences.  I just get annoyed when people are misleading, likely intentionally, about tech.