Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]

[bunnybug]

More informations about Sonic : https://www.sonicstadium.org/2017/06/sonic-forces-on-nintendo-switch-e3-impressions/

- 30fps
- Lower settings
- Seems to run at a lower resolution than 1080p (docked)

(the final version might be different)

so we far we have 5 games running half the frame rate of xbox/ps4 games

project setsuna
dragonball xenoverse 2
dragonquest
sonic
lego under cover (inside locations)

the reason were not seeing many third party games is the hardware is just to weak, and thirdparty's don't wanna butcher there games to run on switch. these games are not impressive at all on ps4/xb1.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Well then, I hope they're 60fps on X1/PS4.

 

[Entropy]

so we far we have 5 games running half the frame rate of xbox/ps4 games

project setsuna
dragonball xenoverse 2
dragonquest
sonic
lego under cover (inside locations)

the reason were not seeing many third party games is the hardware is just to weak, and thirdparty's don't wanna butcher there games to run on switch. these games are not impressive at all on ps4/xb1.

It can't have anything whatsoever to do with the system launching after a horrible sales flop from the same manufacturer, and publishers being wary to commit serious resources before the Switch has proven itself a viable platform?

 

[bunnybug]

It can't have anything whatsoever to do with the system launching after a horrible sales flop from the same manufacturer, and publishers being wary to commit serious resources before the Switch has proven itself a viable platform?

3ds was a terrible sales flop? because this is really the 3ds successor, then wiiu. I don't really see any reason for developers to doubt the switch, it's nintendo's home console and handheld market combined, which will do probably do 80-85 million combined.

 

[Rootax]

It won't. They already lost monster hunter, which was big for 3ds, and other third party. And I don't see a lot of third party coming to the rescue... It's not the best of both world, it's the worst.

BTW, I don't believe the "the Switch has to prove itself" before developping for it. It's an excuse. You didn't heard that from 3rd party about PS4 or Xbone. It's pretty simple. Inferior hardware, strange controles, strange "hybrid", strange online system,etc. They don't know what to do with that, like the Wii and WiiU. It's not rocket science. Devs want power and clarity.

I honestly believe Nintendo should have declared this the 3ds successor, and only that (and focus on portability only, like maybe a SIM emplacement for data on the go, bigger battery, etc).

 

[Recop]

IMO the Switch is a good hardware for what it is doing, but people had unrealistic expectations based on the example of Snake Pass.

Project Setsuna could easily run at 60fps on Switch though.

In my opinion the gap is as follows : a game running at 1080p on XB1 should run at 720p on Switch if developers want to keep the same framerate without a substantial graphical downgrade.

 

[Goodtwin]

It can't have anything whatsoever to do with the system launching after a horrible sales flop from the same manufacturer, and publishers being wary to commit serious resources before the Switch has proven itself a viable platform?

I certainly see this is part of the equation. Coming off the very poor selling Wii U there was good reason to be cautious. More than that, the third party sales on Wii U were abysmal. When COD Ghost struggles to sell 300k on Wii U to a userbase of around 6 million at the time. Ghost sold a few million on the much smaller Xbox One userbase at the time. Third party games have had a poor attach ratio on Nintendo home consoles for quite some time. Wii had such a massive userbase that third parties could get away with less than stellar attach ratios. Just like the DS and 3DS, Western publishers will have a limited lineup of games heading to Switch. Publishers like Square Enix are supporting Switch in a similar manner to 3DS with games like Project Octopath, and are talking seriously about bringing Final Fantasy 14 to Switch. People like to think that third parties are only the large Western publishers and ignore the fact that the developers who supported 3DS and Vita are quickly turning their attention to Switch. Switch is going to end up with a lot of third party content, its just not going to be the same content that thrives on PS4/X1.

In my opinion the gap is as follows : a game running at 1080p on XB1 should run at 720p on Switch if developers want to keep the same framerate without a substantial graphical downgrade.

Pretty much. More so than flops performance, the Switch runs into the memory bandwidth ceiling much quicker than X1. Sonic Forces is a good example of the compromises that need to be made. User impressions from E3 were very positive on the looks of the game handheld, and the compromises will be more obvious when blown up on a large screen. Switch is always going to be less impressive as a home console because it is limited to the form factor of a handheld. The argument has never been that Switch would be on par with X1/PS4, only that if developers wanted to port to Switch, it was not impossible.

They already lost monster hunter, which was big for 3ds, and other third party.

There is already a rumor that there will be a Switch exclusive Monster Hunter that sticks to the series roots. Monster Hunter Worlds is Capcom trying to appeal to the PS4/X1 crowd. Also, the HD remaster of XX is heading to Switch in August. When that does really well, and it will, do you really think Capcom is going to abandon the series on the platform where the series will likely do the best. Switch sales have been very strong in Japan, and will likely remain sold out for a long time thanks to Splatoon 2. Japan prefers portable hardware compared to home consoles. The series has had the most success on portables. Capcom does do some dumb shit sometimes, but no more Monster Hunter on Switch? Come on now, I was born at night but not last night.

 

[Rootax]

You know monster hunter worlds is the true "next gen" MH. And the Switch can't handle it. Time will tell...

 

[Goodtwin]

You know monster hunter worlds is the true "next gen" MH. And the Switch can't handle it. Time will tell...

That is your opinion, but rumors suggest it has more to do with Sony and Capcom coming to an agreement than the specs of the Switch. If you have a link where Capcom makes comments regarding the required specs please post it. Otherwise your making a bold statement based on nothing but your opinion.

 

[Rootax]

That is your opinion, but rumors suggest it has more to do with Sony and Capcom coming to an agreement than the specs of the Switch. If you have a link where Capcom makes comments regarding the required specs please post it. Otherwise your making a bold statement based on nothing but your opinion.

Like mostly all of us when we discuss futur things.Or I can tell "rumors suggest" if you want... Look at the game, look at the switch specs (that should be enough to support my opinion but anyway...), look at the (non) third party support for Switch at E3. Should be enough. And look at Monster Hunter XX. Which, as far as I know, is not even coming to the west... And it's not only about sales. Yeah Splatoons 2 will help to sell the Switch a little more. But what does it do for devs who are working on xbone/ps4 and don't have time for downgrading theirs games for Switch (docked AND undocked) ?

 

[bunnybug]

IMO the Switch is a good hardware for what it is doing, but people had unrealistic expectations based on the example of Snake Pass.

Project Setsuna could easily run at 60fps on Switch though.

In my opinion the gap is as follows : a game running at 1080p on XB1 should run at 720p on Switch if developers want to keep the same framerate without a substantial graphical downgrade.

You're being unrealistic with your expectations. we all ready see this is not the case with games that are not even impressive on xb1/ps4, they are running at half the frame rate, with lower graphical settings, aside from from xb1 having 3x advantage in gpu, it also has a huge advantage in cpu.

Like mostly all of us when we discuss futur things.Or I can tell "rumors suggest" if you want... Look at the game, look at the switch specs (that should be enough to support my opinion but anyway...), look at the (non) third party support for Switch at E3. Should be enough. And look at Monster Hunter XX. Which, as far as I know, is not even coming to the west... And it's not only about sales. Yeah Splatoons 2 will help to sell the Switch a little more. But what does it do for devs who are working on xbone/ps4 and don't have time for downgrading theirs games for Switch (docked AND undocked) ?

yea it's pretty obvious why it's not coming to swtich, it's open world, and while it's not the most beautiful game, it looks like it will be a cpu heavy game, switch wouldn't be able to handle that, and that's the only reason why it's on xb1 and not switch.

 

[Goodtwin]

Like mostly all of us when we discuss futur things.Or I can tell "rumors suggest" if you want... Look at the game, look at the switch specs (that should be enough to support my opinion but anyway...), look at the (non) third party support for Switch at E3. Should be enough. And look at Monster Hunter XX. Which, as far as I know, is not even coming to the west... And it's not only about sales. Yeah Splatoons 2 will help to sell the Switch a little more. But what does it do for devs who are working on xbone/ps4 and don't have time for downgrading theirs games for Switch (docked AND undocked) ?

I have not seen a rumor suggesting the Switch specs are responsible for Worlds not coming to Switch. I have on the other hand heard rumors that Sony came to some sort of agreement with Capcom in order to secure MH Worlds and keep it off the Switch. What does MH XX not currently slated to come west have to do with anything? Switch has been the number one selling console in Japan since it launched. It is still selling out. Splatoon 2 will help maintain that momentum for a long time. I doubt Capcom is going to shun the Switch with no further Monster Hunter games. Look at the games and look at the specs? That is very subjective, and can hardly be considered proof for your arguement. I do not personally see MH Worlds as being all that visually impressive, but that doesn't mean it is or isn't a technically demanding game. The eye test isn't great for determining just how demanding a game is.

Developers do as their told. If the upper management team decides they want a given game on a platform, the development team is tasked with the job. Developers of AAA titles will always prefer to have more capable hardware as it makes their job easier. COD was ported to Wii for years, and that was a much tougher port than anything from X1/PS4 to Switch. It comes down to return on investment. I think it is more likely that western publishers are skeptical their will be a large enough audience on the Switch for their games that will make porting their worth the investment. Follow the money, it usually makes things make sense real quickly. Ubisoft pitched Mario+Rabbids to Nintendo, not the other way around. Why? Because Ubisoft knows by using the Mario IP their game has a much better chance for success. If Ubisoft green lights a sequel to Child of Light, Switch will get a port. Child of Light sold well relative to other consoles on Wii U compared to Assassins Creed 3 and 4 that sold terrible relative to other consoles.

 

[bunnybug]

I have not seen a rumor suggesting the Switch specs are responsible for Worlds not coming to Switch. I have on the other hand heard rumors that Sony came to some sort of agreement with Capcom in order to secure MH Worlds and keep it off the Switch. What does MH XX not currently slated to come west have to do with anything? Switch has been the number one selling console in Japan since it launched. It is still selling out. Splatoon 2 will help maintain that momentum for a long time. I doubt Capcom is going to shun the Switch with no further Monster Hunter games. Look at the games and look at the specs? That is very subjective, and can hardly be considered proof for your arguement. I do not personally see MH Worlds as being all that visually impressive, but that doesn't mean it is or isn't a technically demanding game. The eye test isn't great for determining just how demanding a game is.



Developers do as their told. If the upper management team decides they want a given game on a platform, the development team is tasked with the job. Developers of AAA titles will always prefer to have more capable hardware as it makes their job easier. COD was ported to Wii for years, and that was a much tougher port than anything from X1/PS4 to Switch. It comes down to return on investment. I think it is more likely that western publishers are skeptical their will be a large enough audience on the Switch for their games that will make porting their worth the investment. Follow the money, it usually makes things make sense real quickly. Ubisoft pitched Mario+Rabbids to Nintendo, not the other way around. Why? Because Ubisoft knows by using the Mario IP their game has a much better chance for success. If Ubisoft green lights a sequel to Child of Light, Switch will get a port. Child of Light sold well relative to other consoles on Wii U compared to Assassins Creed 3 and 4 that sold terrible relative to other consoles.

and the reason its not getting ports is lack of power, you bring up the wii, even though it was killing both 360/ps3 combined in terms of sales it didnt get 99% ports of 360/ps3 games, wii was a monster, and the biggest franchise of last gen was basically remade for it, and ran at 30fps, it was a different game. developers don't wanna do that with xb1/ps4 having a good 86 million units lead. MH open world, would sell much better on switch then xb1, developer know this, but they are making a game targeting ps4 specs and switch version which has to target portable and home console, would really complicate things for any developer.

 

[Recop]

You're being unrealistic with your expectations. we all ready see this is not the case with games that are not even impressive on xb1/ps4, they are running at half the frame rate, with lower graphical settings, aside from from xb1 having 3x advantage in gpu, it also has a huge advantage in cpu.

I said without a substantial downgrade but they will still need to make compromises, even at 720p. However, you're maybe right.

In an ideal scenario though, the gap should be a little bit closer if developers really uses double FP16.

 

[Recop]

Pretty much. More so than flops performance, the Switch runs into the memory bandwidth ceiling much quicker than X1. Sonic Forces is a good example of the compromises that need to be made. User impressions from E3 were very positive on the looks of the game handheld, and the compromises will be more obvious when blown up on a large screen. Switch is always going to be less impressive as a home console because it is limited to the form factor of a handheld. The argument has never been that Switch would be on par with X1/PS4, only that if developers wanted to port to Switch, it was not impossible.

We will need to see the final version of Sonic but if it runs at 900p/30fps with lower settings vs 1080p/60fps on XB1, then it doesn't sound good and my expections were clearly too high. With Xenoverse 2, it would be the second time this situation appears.

As Sebbi already said many times, 720p/60fps is much more demanding than 900p/30fps. Let's see if Sonic is able to run at 1080p/30fps. And yet, 720p/60fps (if everything is equal) is still a harder target than 1080p/30fps.

 

[Goodtwin]

I said without a substantial downgrade but they will still need to make compromises, even at 720p. However, you're maybe right.

In an ideal scenario though, the gap should be a little bit closer if developers really uses double FP16.

What constitutes as a substantial downgrade? That is very subjective, and what is a big deal to one person may be inconsequential to another. What I am seeing is pretty much what I expected once we knew it was a stock Tegra X1 powering Switch.

Its easy to forget just how many games publishers like EA did bring to Wii. The sports games and multiple Need For Speed games graced the platform. Even a few exclusives that unfortunately didn't sell very well. Dead Space Extraction was actually a very good game. Medal Of Honor Heroes was excellent on Wii as well. I don't dismiss the fact that the horsepower handicap does play a factor when publishers determine if they will port to Switch, it is a hurdle that increases cost/man power. As cautious as EA and Activision may currently be, if Switch is still selling like hot cakes entering 2018, they will be taking a harder look at how to sell that userbase software.

“I love the Switch; I absolutely adore it. Would that be a platform that Need for Speed: Payback could run on? I don’t see why [not], but it’s not something we’re looking to at this very moment.”

The producer made that comment. Its business guys, and EA was ultra cautious coming off the Wii U. I'm sure they are waiting to see if this enthusiasm fizzles out, but that reluctance will continue to fade with each passing month that Switch maintains its sales momentum. I'm not suggesting we will see all those AAA multi plats on Switch next year. I'm not. What I am suggesting is that publishers like EA will expand their lineup on Switch going forward. Something like Garden Warfare would probably make a lot of sense on Switch. Battlefield? Not so much.

 

[mpg1]

It's interesting that the main Nintendo Switch discussion thread on here is a "technical" one...

Anyway I think some people are underestimating the gap between Nintendo Switch and X1. I don't think it's a case that if a game runs 1080p/30fps on X1 that it will just be able to run 720p/30fps on Switch...

There is no indication at all that it can run recent/new AAA games..even at a significantly lower res. Fifa isn't using Frostbite and has a custom built engine...and that's a sports game!

 

[Goodtwin]

It's interesting that the main Nintendo Switch discussion thread on here is a "technical" one...

Anyway I think some people are underestimating the gap between Nintendo Switch and X1. I don't think it's a case that if a game runs 1080p/30fps on X1 that it will just be able to run 720p/30fps on Switch...

There is no indication at all that it can run recent/new AAA games..even at a significantly lower res. Fifa isn't using Frostbite and has a custom built engine...and that's a sports game!

The tech makes for good debate because there is a range of opinions on just how close the Switch comes to Xbox One. Pretty much everyone agrees that is far less powerful than the Xbox One, but the debate comes down to just how scalable you believe games can be. I agree that a simple drop to 720p resolution isn't the solution, it will be more involved than that. However, what if the game uses the equivalent of high settings on Xbox One and runs at 1080p 30fps, can the Switch handle the game on low settings 720p 30fps? Or even 600p? My take is that if the publisher thinks the game will sell well on Switch, they will get the game on there. It may take a lot of custom work, but it is far from impossible. I will be interested to see how Yooka-Laylee turns out, and if Skyrim sits closer to the 360/PS3 build or the PS4/X1.

 

[mpg1]

The tech makes for good debate because there is a range of opinions on just how close the Switch comes to Xbox One. Pretty much everyone agrees that is far less powerful than the Xbox One, but the debate comes down to just how scalable you believe games can be. I agree that a simple drop to 720p resolution isn't the solution, it will be more involved than that. However, what if the game uses the equivalent of high settings on Xbox One and runs at 1080p 30fps, can the Switch handle the game on low settings 720p 30fps? Or even 600p? My take is that if the publisher thinks the game will sell well on Switch, they will get the game on there. It may take a lot of custom work, but it is far from impossible. I will be interested to see how Yooka-Laylee turns out, and if Skyrim sits closer to the 360/PS3 build or the PS4/X1.

I don't think most AAA games are scale-able at all. The game engines are built for Xbox One as the min spec. Developers will most likely build from scratch if they do it at all.

 

[swaaye]

I don't think most AAA games are scale-able at all. The game engines are built for Xbox One as the min spec. Developers will most likely build from scratch if they do it at all.

Unless said games are coming to PC as well, which they usually are quite scalable. Tegra X1 is a pretty low target though.