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

Chrkeller said:
curl-6 said:

PS3 doesn't smoke the Switch though. The decade of technical advances that separate the two are clearly visible, foremost just in the fact that a handheld device outperforms what was once a high end home console.

There's also the difference in rendering, with Switch using most of the same techniques seen on PS4 while PS3 made do with older methods.

I find visual output of Switch and ps3 games very close.  Slight edge to the switch, maybe 15%.  The ps4 smokes the switch.  

And that is the point.  The switch is much newer than the ps3, just like the 3050 is newer than the 2070s, put the output doesn't scale linear.  

Time doesn't dictate performance anymore unless we do same class comparisons.

The S2 will be newer than the ps5, but they will not have the same class of gpu.  Just like the 3050 vs 2070S.

Nah the Switch is absolutely not in the same graphical category as the PS3.

PS3 (and 360) graphics are defined by a different era of technology and the limitations of 2005 era hardware; a non-physical approach to materials, mostly baked lighting and cube map reflections, old school multisampling and early post-process anti-aliasing, etc.

Games on Switch use most of the same basic rendering methods as PS4 games, just at reduced levels of detail and complexity.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Chrkeller said:

I find visual output of Switch and ps3 games very close.  Slight edge to the switch, maybe 15%.  The ps4 smokes the switch.  

And that is the point.  The switch is much newer than the ps3, just like the 3050 is newer than the 2070s, put the output doesn't scale linear.  

Time doesn't dictate performance anymore unless we do same class comparisons.

The S2 will be newer than the ps5, but they will not have the same class of gpu.  Just like the 3050 vs 2070S.

Nah the Switch is absolutely not in the same graphical category as the PS3.

PS3 (and 360) graphics are defined by a different era of technology and the limitations of 2005 era hardware; a non-physical approach to materials, mostly baked lighting and cube map reflections, old school multisampling and early post-process anti-aliasing, etc.

Games on Switch use most of the same basic rendering methods as PS4 games, just at reduced levels of detail and complexity.

You don't seem to understand that despite having those features the best looking games were simple cute and clean. I really don't care about the rendering methods when the games pushing to methods look like mud. People want games that look good for the hardware not games pushing rendering methods and sacrificing graphics and framerate. Again are Xbox and ps2 the same gen?



Curl-6 is entitled to his opinion. I don't agree with it but I understand what he is saying.

For me having certain chips and features don't matter unless it is well implemented. The ps5 is the perfect example.... yes technically it can do RT but it does an absolute awful job at it, thus I don't view it as a RT console. I also don't view it as an 8k console, though technically it is.


So for me, and I'll let it rest because Curl-6 is entitled to his position, the Switch has modern chips but switch games never looked much better than the likes of Crack, Tools, Uncharted and Last.  It is closer to the ps3 than ps4 by far.



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Chrkeller said:

Curl-6 is entitled to his opinion. I don't agree with it but I understand what he is saying.

For me having certain chips and features don't matter unless it is well implemented. The ps5 is the perfect example.... yes technically it can do RT but it does an absolute awful job at it, thus I don't view it as a RT console. I also don't view it as an 8k console, though technically it is.


So for me, and I'll let it rest because Curl-6 is entitled to his position, the Switch has modern chips but switch games never looked much better than the likes of Crack, Tools, Uncharted and Last.  It is closer to the ps3 than ps4 by far.

It's kinda like crisis franchise on 360/ps3 it was  doing  new graphics technics that most games weren't doing at that time but because of frame rate and resolution no one considered them some of the best  looking games on those systems 



At least we can respect each other’s opinions on both sides.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Chrkeller said:

I find visual output of Switch and ps3 games very close.  Slight edge to the switch, maybe 15%.  The ps4 smokes the switch.  

And that is the point.  The switch is much newer than the ps3, just like the 3050 is newer than the 2070s, put the output doesn't scale linear.  

Time doesn't dictate performance anymore unless we do same class comparisons.

The S2 will be newer than the ps5, but they will not have the same class of gpu.  Just like the 3050 vs 2070S.

Nah the Switch is absolutely not in the same graphical category as the PS3.

PS3 (and 360) graphics are defined by a different era of technology and the limitations of 2005 era hardware; a non-physical approach to materials, mostly baked lighting and cube map reflections, old school multisampling and early post-process anti-aliasing, etc.

Games on Switch use most of the same basic rendering methods as PS4 games, just at reduced levels of detail and complexity.

The Tegra X1 is a stronger chip than its given credit for, the problem was the OG 20nm manufacturing process was a bit wonky (that was why it was only ever used basically for the OG Tegra X1 and nothing else), but the Switch 1 can even emulate itself and run its own games at 4K resolution, lol, a PS3/360 would not even come close to doing this (At 20:36 of the video he plays actual Switch 1 games at 4K using a Switch emulator):

 Any modern node process is way better and can be pushed further to its max (8nm, 5nm, whatever) so likely Switch 2 will have better performance to its max, the fan inside the dock also indicates they're planning to let the chip go to very high/max clock while docked. 

Keep in mind it is running these games through an emulator (a emulator of itself, lol), so that performance is obviously like a piece of hardware running with only one leg. Natively if allowed to it would almost certainly be able to run 4K games at even better performance. 

It looks to me like especially the Mariko + OLED models can actually run games at 4K, but I think Nintendo borked this because they wanted to keep that feature exclusive to Switch 2. If the OG Switch could already games at 4K, it would make selling a Switch 2 harder. COVID happened and they got a huge sales boost from that, why add features that would hurt the Switch 2 when COVID lockdowns were already giving the Switch 1 a better boost than a 4K Switch would and instead chose to push the OLED screen aspect of the new model and keep 4K out. 

But it does also probably line up with why the Switch OLED dock has added 4K output, it can hit 4K, they just opted to not use it. 

Even now, the Switch continues to sell like a system a good 2 years younger than it actually is without needing a Pro upgrade, though I think Switch 2 they probably are going to have to introduce a Switch 2 Pro. Not gonna have a COVID surge this time around to boost sales. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 18 May 2024

zeldaring said:
curl-6 said:

Nah the Switch is absolutely not in the same graphical category as the PS3.

PS3 (and 360) graphics are defined by a different era of technology and the limitations of 2005 era hardware; a non-physical approach to materials, mostly baked lighting and cube map reflections, old school multisampling and early post-process anti-aliasing, etc.

Games on Switch use most of the same basic rendering methods as PS4 games, just at reduced levels of detail and complexity.

You don't seem to understand that despite having those features the best looking games were simple cute and clean. I really don't care about the rendering methods when the games pushing to methods look like mud. People want games that look good for the hardware not games pushing rendering methods and sacrificing graphics and framerate. Again are Xbox and ps2 the same gen?

You really don't need to sacrifice performance to get modern rendering methods on Switch; PBR for example is used in games like Metroid Prime Remastered, Alien Isolation, and FAST RMX which perform very well.

Xbox and PS2 are the same generation, but then Wii and PS3 are the same generation too, despite Wii being in the same graphical ballpark as Xbox and Gamecube. Generations aren't really defined by graphical capability any more.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 18 May 2024

curl-6 said:
zeldaring said:

You don't seem to understand that despite having those features the best looking games were simple cute and clean. I really don't care about the rendering methods when the games pushing to methods look like mud. People want games that look good for the hardware not games pushing rendering methods and sacrificing graphics and framerate. Again are Xbox and ps2 the same gen?

You really don't need to sacrifice performance to get modern rendering methods on Switch; PBR for example is used in games like Metroid Prime Remastered, Alien Isolation, and FAST RMX which perform very well.

Xbox and PS2 are the same generation, but then Wii and PS3 are the same generation too, despite Wii being in the same graphical ballpark as Xbox and Gamecube. Generations aren't really defined by graphical capability any more.

Pbr was also done on ps3 remember me did it.



zeldaring said:
curl-6 said:

You really don't need to sacrifice performance to get modern rendering methods on Switch; PBR for example is used in games like Metroid Prime Remastered, Alien Isolation, and FAST RMX which perform very well.

Xbox and PS2 are the same generation, but then Wii and PS3 are the same generation too, despite Wii being in the same graphical ballpark as Xbox and Gamecube. Generations aren't really defined by graphical capability any more.

Pbr was also done on ps3 remember me did it.

PBR featured in a very small number of late PS3 games which didn't perform particularly well, and in Remember Me's case had a partial implementation. Don't get me wrong, it's very impressive stuff for the hardware, it's just that older consoles aren't as well suited for it as newer systems like Switch and PS4.

PBR became a standard in gaming with PS4/XBO with their much more modern hardware, and Switch as an even newer design with big leaps in efficiency and architecture over PS3 is better suited to handling this standard, as we can see in its games.



curl-6 said:
zeldaring said:

You don't seem to understand that despite having those features the best looking games were simple cute and clean. I really don't care about the rendering methods when the games pushing to methods look like mud. People want games that look good for the hardware not games pushing rendering methods and sacrificing graphics and framerate. Again are Xbox and ps2 the same gen?

You really don't need to sacrifice performance to get modern rendering methods on Switch; PBR for example is used in games like Metroid Prime Remastered, Alien Isolation, and FAST RMX which perform very well.

Xbox and PS2 are the same generation, but then Wii and PS3 are the same generation too, despite Wii being in the same graphical ballpark as Xbox and Gamecube. Generations aren't really defined by graphical capability any more.

Those 3 games you mentioned can easily take advantage of Switch's power since they aren't doing much. Like I said to me ps4 look a gen ahead of switch just look at witcher 3 and mortal kombat those look like portsof street fighter alpha on super nes a mess.