By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - FF7 Rebirth has reportedly sold half what Remake did in the same timeframe

curl-6 said:
Chrkeller said:

Sure.  And the Switch has MB of 25 gb/s while the ps4 has 176 gb/s.  All the new tech in the world doesn't close that gap.  Which is why output on the switch doesn't touch the ps4.  And the S2 won't touch the ps5.  

Did I ever say the Switch was on par with the PS4? Or that the Switch 2 will be on par with the PS5? I never did, because that's obviously not the case.

It's not "a PS3" though, it has substantial advantages over PS3 in memory capacity and GPU technology which both fall closer to the PS4.

It doesn't really matter ps4 impressive games look a gen ahead of switch.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Chrkeller said:

Yes.  I said it was way more like a ps3 than ps4.  Between the 2, it is a ps3.  I didn't mean it was 100% a ps3 with zero differences.  I believe you are smart enough to know that was my point.

Depends on how you define part way.  It isn't a ps3.5.  At best it is a ps3.2.  The switch is far closer to the ps3 than ps4, as a said.  

I would tend to disagree; the fact it plays many of the same games as PS4 just with lower settings puts it more akin to PS4/XBO in my eyes as most of the core graphical techniques of 8th gen games such as PBR, SSR, GPU accelerated particles, TSSAA, etc are present on Switch, stuff rarely or never seen on PS3 and 360.

Apologies if my previous posts were not clear or where grumpy.  I woke up in the middle of the night and could not fall asleep.  My my comments were a mix of blurry eyed and annoyed.  

Have to agree to disagree. 

Playing the same games is irrelevant from my perspective.  I can play doom on a calculator and on a 4090.

But no worries, to each their own.

Edit (general commert, not aimed at you Curl)

Playing the same game as a comparison of hardware is curious.  I'm assuming it is driven by consoles historically having exclusives and lacking BC.  So gens were defined by the games more than the visuals.  

From a PC perspective, playing the same games means nothing from a hardware position.  A 2050 runs probably all the same games as a 4090.  When I upgrade to a 5090, all my old games work.  Playing the same games is expected and doesn't mean anything.

The easiest example is RE4 remake.  It can run on a 1050 and also runs on a 4090.  So those are similar hardware...  except benchmark puts the 4090 at 1,380% better.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 18 May 2024

i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

curl-6 said:
Chrkeller said:

Yes.  I said it was way more like a ps3 than ps4.  Between the 2, it is a ps3.  I didn't mean it was 100% a ps3 with zero differences.  I believe you are smart enough to know that was my point.

Depends on how you define part way.  It isn't a ps3.5.  At best it is a ps3.2.  The switch is far closer to the ps3 than ps4, as a said.  

I would tend to disagree; the fact it plays many of the same games as PS4 just with lower settings puts it more akin to PS4/XBO in my eyes as most of the core graphical techniques of 8th gen games such as PBR, SSR, GPU accelerated particles, TSSAA, etc are present on Switch, stuff rarely or never seen on PS3 and 360.

That doesn't really matter when 95% of the library look like 360/ps3 game's.  Just look look at the wiiu for example it for example.  Some of  best looking on Switch are Mario kart 8 and breat of the Wild  when it tries to do ps4 graphics the result is usually look like a mess and just doesn't really belong. 



zeldaring said:
curl-6 said:

Did I ever say the Switch was on par with the PS4? Or that the Switch 2 will be on par with the PS5? I never did, because that's obviously not the case.

It's not "a PS3" though, it has substantial advantages over PS3 in memory capacity and GPU technology which both fall closer to the PS4.

It doesn't really matter ps4 impressive games look a gen ahead of switch.

A generation is the gap between PS3 and PS4; Switch is significantly ahead of PS3.

Chrkeller said:
curl-6 said:

I would tend to disagree; the fact it plays many of the same games as PS4 just with lower settings puts it more akin to PS4/XBO in my eyes as most of the core graphical techniques of 8th gen games such as PBR, SSR, GPU accelerated particles, TSSAA, etc are present on Switch, stuff rarely or never seen on PS3 and 360.

Have to agree to disagree.  Playing the same games is irrelevant from my perspective.  I can play doom on a calculator and on a 4090.

But no worries, to each their own.

Edit (general commert, not aimed at you Curl)

Playing the same game as a comparison of hardware is curious.  I'm assuming it is driven by consoles historically having exclusives and lacking BC.  So gens were defined by the games more than the visuals.  

From a PC perspective, playing the same games means nothing from a hardware position.  A 2050 runs probably all the same games as a 4090.  When I upgrade to a 5090, all my old games work.  Playing the same games is expected and doesn't mean anything.

Games like Witcher 3, Dying Light, Hogwarts Legacy or Kingdom Come Deliverance wouldn't be possible on PS3 though, not without reducing them beyond the point of recognition or playability. Switch on the other hand can handle them, thanks to having a far more memory and GPU from the PS4 generation.



curl-6 said:
zeldaring said:

It doesn't really matter ps4 impressive games look a gen ahead of switch.

A generation is the gap between PS3 and PS4; Switch is significantly ahead of PS3.

Chrkeller said:

Have to agree to disagree.  Playing the same games is irrelevant from my perspective.  I can play doom on a calculator and on a 4090.

But no worries, to each their own.

Edit (general commert, not aimed at you Curl)

Playing the same game as a comparison of hardware is curious.  I'm assuming it is driven by consoles historically having exclusives and lacking BC.  So gens were defined by the games more than the visuals.  

From a PC perspective, playing the same games means nothing from a hardware position.  A 2050 runs probably all the same games as a 4090.  When I upgrade to a 5090, all my old games work.  Playing the same games is expected and doesn't mean anything.

Games like Witcher 3, Dying Light, Hogwarts Legacy or Kingdom Come Deliverance wouldn't be possible on PS3 though, not without reducing them beyond the point of recognition or playability. Switch on the other hand can handle them, thanks to having a far more memory and GPU from the PS4 generation.

Maybe.  I honestly don't know.  According to steam the minimum gpu for W3 is a gtx 660.... that launched in 2012....  pretty old hardware.  Games scale on PC really well and can be played on all kinds of hardware gens.  

For me visuals of Switch games to tools, crack, TLoU and uncharted are similar.

The visuals on Switch to horizon, gow 2018 and GoT are not similar.

Edit

Hogwarts plays on a 960 from 2015.  

I struggle with playing the same games means similar hardware.  I'm playing W3 on my 4090 at native 4k, 120 fps and maxed settings across the board.  Someone else could be using a 660.

So similar hardware....  except if we compare settings it is a slaughter.

I don't think playing the same games is a good metric. 

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 18 May 2024

i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Around the Network
Chrkeller said:
curl-6 said:

A generation is the gap between PS3 and PS4; Switch is significantly ahead of PS3.

Chrkeller said:

Have to agree to disagree.  Playing the same games is irrelevant from my perspective.  I can play doom on a calculator and on a 4090.

But no worries, to each their own.

Edit (general commert, not aimed at you Curl)

Playing the same game as a comparison of hardware is curious.  I'm assuming it is driven by consoles historically having exclusives and lacking BC.  So gens were defined by the games more than the visuals.  

From a PC perspective, playing the same games means nothing from a hardware position.  A 2050 runs probably all the same games as a 4090.  When I upgrade to a 5090, all my old games work.  Playing the same games is expected and doesn't mean anything.

Games like Witcher 3, Dying Light, Hogwarts Legacy or Kingdom Come Deliverance wouldn't be possible on PS3 though, not without reducing them beyond the point of recognition or playability. Switch on the other hand can handle them, thanks to having a far more memory and GPU from the PS4 generation.

Maybe.  I honestly don't know.  According to steam the minimum gpu for W3 is a gtx 660.... that launched in 2012....  pretty old hardware.  Games scale on PC really well and can be played on all kinds of hardware gens.  

For me visuals of Switch games to tools, crack, TLoU and uncharted are similar.

The visuals on Switch to horizon, gow 2018 and GoT are not similar.

Even a 2012 card is 7 years ahead of the PS3 and 360. RAM size would be bigger issue though.

I see it more in terms of the techniques being used; PS3/360, rooted in 2005 technology, have a distinctive approach to graphics, defined by rather harsh materials which tend to look either shiny and plastic or matte and clay-like, as they generally have only a base, dirt, and specular layer. 

PS4/XBO made the jump to Physically Based Rendering, resulting in much more nuanced and realistic material properties you see in basically every major game of the last decade; Switch has this too, giving its lighting and shading a look more characteristic of the 8th generation than the more basic "everything is either shiny or flat" you see on PS3 or 360.

Reflections are another key point; on 7th gen these were typically handled with cubemaps or mirrored geometry; PS4/XBO moved to screen space reflections as standard, and the Switch inherits this as well.

Nintendo's games typically eschew anti-aliasing, but we have seen from third party efforts that Switch is also capable of the modern temporal supersampling anti-aliasing that became standard on PS4 and XBO, whereas MSAA and later FXAA were the standard method on PS3 and 360.

The basic "look" of PS3/360 is largely defined by these techniques, (pre-PBR materials, cubemap/planar reflections, FXAA/MSAA, etc) while Switch shares more in common with the methods used on PS4/XBO. (PBR, SSR, TSSAA, etc)

Last edited by curl-6 - on 18 May 2024

curl-6 said:
Chrkeller said:

Maybe.  I honestly don't know.  According to steam the minimum gpu for W3 is a gtx 660.... that launched in 2012....  pretty old hardware.  Games scale on PC really well and can be played on all kinds of hardware gens.  

For me visuals of Switch games to tools, crack, TLoU and uncharted are similar.

The visuals on Switch to horizon, gow 2018 and GoT are not similar.

Even a 2012 card is 7 years ahead of the PS3 and 360. RAM size would be bigger issue though.

I see it more in terms of the techniques being used; PS3/360, rooted in 2005 technology, have a distinctive approach to graphics, defined by rather harsh materials which tend to look either shiny and plastic or matte and clay-like, as they generally have only a base, dirt, and specular layer. 

PS4/XBO made the jump to Physically Based Rendering, resulting in much more nuanced and realistic material properties you see in basically every major game of the last decade; Switch has this too, giving its lighting and shading a look more characteristic of the 8th generation than the more basic "everything is either shiny or flat" you see on PS3 or 360.

Reflections are another key point; on 7th gen these were typically handled with cubemaps or mirrored geometry; PS4/XBO moved to screen space reflections as standard, and the Switch inherits this as well.

Nintendo's games typically eschew anti-aliasing, but we have seen from third party efforts that Switch is also capable of the modern temporal supersampling anti-aliasing that became standard on PS4 and XBO, whereas MSAA and later FXAA were the standard method on PS3 and 360.

The basic "look" of PS3/360 is largely defined by these techniques, (pre-PBR materials, cubemap/planar reflections, FXAA/MSAA, etc) while Switch shares more in common with the methods used on PS4/XBO. (PBR, SSR, TSSAA, etc)

I hear you.  Especially when consoles were very unique in design, especially with the Cell.  

But games are so scalable and hardware compatibility has sky rocketed post ps3, running the same games isn't a good metric.  

Just my 2 cents.  Good discussion, but I'm off to Bed of Chaos then 4 Kings.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Chrkeller said:
curl-6 said:

Even a 2012 card is 7 years ahead of the PS3 and 360. RAM size would be bigger issue though.

I see it more in terms of the techniques being used; PS3/360, rooted in 2005 technology, have a distinctive approach to graphics, defined by rather harsh materials which tend to look either shiny and plastic or matte and clay-like, as they generally have only a base, dirt, and specular layer. 

PS4/XBO made the jump to Physically Based Rendering, resulting in much more nuanced and realistic material properties you see in basically every major game of the last decade; Switch has this too, giving its lighting and shading a look more characteristic of the 8th generation than the more basic "everything is either shiny or flat" you see on PS3 or 360.

Reflections are another key point; on 7th gen these were typically handled with cubemaps or mirrored geometry; PS4/XBO moved to screen space reflections as standard, and the Switch inherits this as well.

Nintendo's games typically eschew anti-aliasing, but we have seen from third party efforts that Switch is also capable of the modern temporal supersampling anti-aliasing that became standard on PS4 and XBO, whereas MSAA and later FXAA were the standard method on PS3 and 360.

The basic "look" of PS3/360 is largely defined by these techniques, (pre-PBR materials, cubemap/planar reflections, FXAA/MSAA, etc) while Switch shares more in common with the methods used on PS4/XBO. (PBR, SSR, TSSAA, etc)

I hear you.  Especially when consoles were very unique in design, especially with the Cell.  

But games are so scalable and hardware compatibility has sky rocketed post ps3, running the same games isn't a good metric.  

Just my 2 cents.  Good discussion, but I'm off to Bed of Chaos then 4 Kings.  

Games and engines are much more scalable than in the past, but there's still a limit to what can feasibly be done on 2005 console hardware.

With Switch, you can take a game like Witcher 3, or Kingdom Come, and port it across by trimming back settings while retaining the core game design and technology.

You couldn't do that with the PS3, its just too memory limited and its GPU isn't compatible with 8th gen rendering paradigms.



curl-6 said:
zeldaring said:

It doesn't really matter ps4 impressive games look a gen ahead of switch.

A generation is the gap between PS3 and PS4; Switch is significantly ahead of PS3.

Chrkeller said:

Have to agree to disagree.  Playing the same games is irrelevant from my perspective.  I can play doom on a calculator and on a 4090.

But no worries, to each their own.

Edit (general commert, not aimed at you Curl)

Playing the same game as a comparison of hardware is curious.  I'm assuming it is driven by consoles historically having exclusives and lacking BC.  So gens were defined by the games more than the visuals.  

From a PC perspective, playing the same games means nothing from a hardware position.  A 2050 runs probably all the same games as a 4090.  When I upgrade to a 5090, all my old games work.  Playing the same games is expected and doesn't mean anything.

Games like Witcher 3, Dying Light, Hogwarts Legacy or Kingdom Come Deliverance wouldn't be possible on PS3 though, not without reducing them beyond the point of recognition or playability. Switch on the other hand can handle them, thanks to having a far more memory and GPU from the PS4 generation.

Xbox is way more powerful then ps2 still the same gen. When we look at impressive ps4 games they look a gen ahead of switch it's as simple as that. 



zeldaring said:
curl-6 said:

A generation is the gap between PS3 and PS4; Switch is significantly ahead of PS3.

Chrkeller said:

Have to agree to disagree.  Playing the same games is irrelevant from my perspective.  I can play doom on a calculator and on a 4090.

But no worries, to each their own.

Edit (general commert, not aimed at you Curl)

Playing the same game as a comparison of hardware is curious.  I'm assuming it is driven by consoles historically having exclusives and lacking BC.  So gens were defined by the games more than the visuals.  

From a PC perspective, playing the same games means nothing from a hardware position.  A 2050 runs probably all the same games as a 4090.  When I upgrade to a 5090, all my old games work.  Playing the same games is expected and doesn't mean anything.

Games like Witcher 3, Dying Light, Hogwarts Legacy or Kingdom Come Deliverance wouldn't be possible on PS3 though, not without reducing them beyond the point of recognition or playability. Switch on the other hand can handle them, thanks to having a far more memory and GPU from the PS4 generation.

Xbox is way more powerful then ps2 still the same gen. When we look at impressive ps4 games they look a gen ahead of switch it's as simple as that. 

Not really; pretty much every rendering technique standardized by the PS4 is present on Switch, just with lower settings or with less stuff on screen.

PS3/360 use older methods rooted in the technology of 2005 when they were designed.