Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nintendo nintendont
ARMS didn't get it's update to 1080p 60 FPS until a month or so before release. Splatoon 2 just got it's update to 1080p 60 FPS recently (it releases next month). I suspect it'll be the same for Mario. It seems Nintendo builds the game at the docked resolution first, then increases it in the final two months of development if the last two games are any indication. Zelda was the only outlier, and it's my understanding that they didn't have time to do a lot of optimizations for the game. They were more focused on making sure the game worked with no glitches rather than optimization.
Going by how fast they got Splatoon and ARMS at 1080p 60FPS, we won't see the improvement until a month before release. I'm guessing the game is finished right now and they're polishing it up for release. One treehouse member did say that every new build had texture brush ups and other improvements.
Going by how fast they got Splatoon and ARMS at 1080p 60FPS, we won't see the improvement until a month before release. I'm guessing the game is finished right now and they're polishing it up for release. One treehouse member did say that every new build had texture brush ups and other improvements.
Because having the game in development for 3 years total and aiming for a target platform that is 2 years old isn't enough time for optimizations? Come on.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...rge-extra-burden-of-moving-to-nintendo-switch
They didn't even decide to start working on the port until Spring of last year. They kind of cut it close, honestly.
The Switch was delayed 1.5 years, so it was set to release 6 months before LoZ:BoW. So they're trying to say that if the Switch had released on the original targeted date they wouldn't have had Legend of Zelda for it? Come on. There's no way that would have ever happened.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Just to be clear Nintendo only announced it back on April 27, 2016 and officially released less than a year later. They did announce that they had just started development on the NX platform in 2015. I'm not sure that characterizing it as being delayed by 1.5 years is entirely fair. That would also imply that the Switch was meant to come out only 3 years after the Wii-U.
I believe the Switch only went into R&D shortly before the NX announcement due to the wording of their announcement for the NX.
That'd be like saying that the XBO-X was delayed by a year because Project Scorpio was announced in 2016 and the XBO-X officially announced in 2017 while finally reaching customers 5 months later. The Switch was obviously delayed, but likely closer to half a year than 1.5 years. It was probably originally meant to released in Oct. or Nov. of 2016.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Yes because WiiU released late as the Wii sales were dead for a while, then just 12 months later the PS4 and Xbox One were released. Nintendo needed to release a real console to be on par with PS4/XO. Nintendo releasing Switch 3.5 years after is extremely late. They even released it after the Ps4 Pro was released.
Wii Release Date: November 19, 2006
WiiU Release Date: November 18, 2012
PS4 Release Date: November 15, 2013
Xbox One Release Date: November 22, 2013
Projected Switch Release Date: November 2015 - April 2016
PS4 Pro Release Date: November 10, 2016
Switch Release Date: March 3, 2017
Wii Release Date: November 19, 2006
WiiU Release Date: November 18, 2012
PS4 Release Date: November 15, 2013
Xbox One Release Date: November 22, 2013
Projected Switch Release Date: November 2015 - April 2016
PS4 Pro Release Date: November 10, 2016
Switch Release Date: March 3, 2017
Silent_Buddha
Legend
You probably missed it since I added it in with an edit. But these aren't much different.
NX announcement 2015, Switch announcement Apr. 2016, Switch released Mar. 2017.
Project Scorpio announcement 2016, XBO-X announcement June 2017, XBO-X released Nov. 2017.
Switch was obviously delayed, but closer to half a year than 1.5 years as it was probably meant to release to consumers in Nov. of 2016.
Regards,
SB
I'm not sure how we can consider Switch delayed, because a release date was never previously announced. People speculated a holiday 2016 release date, but that was all it was, speculation. The first date ever given for a release date was at the January reveal. Zelda on the other hand was originally a late 2015 release that did see a 1.5 year delay. Perhaps Zelda pushed Switch back a few more months.
This shouldn't even be up for debate. If the developer point blank tells the press that work didn't begin on a Switch port of Zelda until spring of 2016, why wouldn't we believe them? The game spent years in development for the Wii U and not the Switch. The progress they made with post launch patches are proof enough that the game simply wasn't optimized very well for Switch. The game runs a near locked 30fps outside of a few problem areas.
This shouldn't even be up for debate. If the developer point blank tells the press that work didn't begin on a Switch port of Zelda until spring of 2016, why wouldn't we believe them? The game spent years in development for the Wii U and not the Switch. The progress they made with post launch patches are proof enough that the game simply wasn't optimized very well for Switch. The game runs a near locked 30fps outside of a few problem areas.
Which is why I find it total bollocks when they say they didn't have time to optimize Zelda for Switch.
That is a fair opinion I suppose. Regardless, the Switch port started back in spring of 2016 and wasn't optimized when it launched. At launch, I was spending far more time playing portably because the performance was so much more stable, but after they patched it, it became nearly as stable docked. Zelda BoTW was Nintendo's most technically ambitious game, and was built from the ground up for Wii U and then ported to Switch. If they had just scrapped the Wii U build back in early 2016 and focused on the Switch, they probably could have better taken advantage of Tegra X1 and the extra memory.
I wouldn't bet against them being off the shelf Jetson TX1 development kits. Even today I doubt they are much different seeing as how inexpensive they are. The bonuses that come from the Switch version are likely all tied to software. Switch uses a stock Tegra X1, so there really isn't any reason to create a whole new development kit from scratch. The rest of the tools from Nvidia is the big bonus Switch developers get compared to your random consumer purchasing a Jetson TX1 development kit. All speculation on my part of course, but it seems plausible to me.
Switch devkits where available for a very long while before the console release.
I didn't sign any NDA so I just don't know what they were like neither which hardware was inside though.
I suppose I'm rather wondering about whether Nintendo's version of the kit would be more limited in scope (API-wise aside from OS reservations & irrelevant HW bits) compared to what's exposed for Shield TV or if devs played it safe because the kits weren't finalized until closer to the end. Even Xbox One had a less than optimal beginning with the underexposed API (not just esram shenanigans).
I'm talking about the software side of the kits. The state of the development suite was likely changing throughout because of Nintendo's involvement, which is what I'm wondering about.
I'm talking about the software side of the kits. The state of the development suite was likely changing throughout because of Nintendo's involvement, which is what I'm wondering about.
Last edited:
Rikimaru
Veteran
It seems nVidia did all graphics stack. Just ported what they already have.
Xenoverse 2 : http://www.saiyanisland.com/2017/06...e-additional-cost-in-nintendo-switch-version/
900p (docked) and 60fps only in 1vs1. So, basically the game is running at 900p/30fps on Switch because you have more than 2 fighters during 99% of the game.
The game is running at 1080P/60fps all the time on XB1/PS4.
And according to DF : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241553754&postcount=22
We're getting a more relevant idea of what the Switch can do.
900p (docked) and 60fps only in 1vs1. So, basically the game is running at 900p/30fps on Switch because you have more than 2 fighters during 99% of the game.
The game is running at 1080P/60fps all the time on XB1/PS4.
And according to DF : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241553754&postcount=22
We're getting a more relevant idea of what the Switch can do.