Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]

[Goodtwin]

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.

Possibly, depends on the engine being used. If its a AAA Unreal 4 game, probably a lot easier to scale down than say the engine Assassins Creed runs on. Psyonix is doing custom work for Rocket League because Switch doesn't natively support Unreal 3. Ironic, Wii U didn't support the newest engines causing issues, and now Switch doesn't support the older engine causing some issues. Luckily Psyonix has reported they are ahead of schedule, and things are going smoothly with the port.

Even when a port will take significant work, it still isn't truly from scratch. Treyarch's Wii team grew to about 40 people for the COD ports to Wii. Its not like the base material changes. I am pretty certain that the models and textures can scale down pretty easily with modern tools. Using lower quality shadows and lighting, or outright faking them with static texture maps is always an option. I am in the camp that Switch is far easier to port to than Wii was, and Wii saw a tremendous amount of ports and some did end up being ground up efforts. One of the best efforts from a third party was Prince of Persia Forgotten Sands on Wii. It was not a port, and instead a ground up title. It was excellent. Looked very nice (for Wii), and ran at 60fps.

 

[bunnybug]

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!

90% of technically impressive games on xb1 run at 900p anyway.

I agree with you that people are really underestimating the gap. we are already seeing a huge differences in ports of games that are not even impressive.

project setsuna lower settings at half the frame rate
dragonball xenoverse 2 lower settings at half the frame rate
dragonquest lower settings sat half the framerate
sonic forces lower settings at half the framerate

 

[Svensk Viking]

Possibly, depends on the engine being used. If its a AAA Unreal 4 game, probably a lot easier to scale down than say the engine Assassins Creed runs on. Psyonix is doing custom work for Rocket League because Switch doesn't natively support Unreal 3. Ironic, Wii U didn't support the newest engines causing issues, and now Switch doesn't support the older engine causing some issues. Luckily Psyonix has reported they are ahead of schedule, and things are going smoothly with the port.

Even when a port will take significant work, it still isn't truly from scratch. Treyarch's Wii team grew to about 40 people for the COD ports to Wii. Its not like the base material changes. I am pretty certain that the models and textures can scale down pretty easily with modern tools. Using lower quality shadows and lighting, or outright faking them with static texture maps is always an option. I am in the camp that Switch is far easier to port to than Wii was, and Wii saw a tremendous amount of ports and some did end up being ground up efforts. One of the best efforts from a third party was Prince of Persia Forgotten Sands on Wii. It was not a port, and instead a ground up title. It was excellent. Looked very nice (for Wii), and ran at 60fps.

Yeah I liked the Wii version of PoP. I also think that Rise of the Tomb Raider on the Xbox 360 held up very well to the Xbox One version, which is exactly the same game but with worse visuals. That's why I'm not doubting that if a studio is willing, they can deliver a good version for the Switch.

 

[Goodtwin]

Rumors from IGN France are suggesting that Ubisoft is having trouble getting Steep ported to Switch. I am not really shocked with this one. The game was 900p 30fps on Xbox One. This is probably a scenario where Ubisoft is questioning if the game will become so compromised in the process of porting it to Switch that the end product is something very few consumers will want to buy. The other option would be rebuild the game from the ground up for Switch, but that would likely be pretty expensive, and what sales potential does an old game like Steep really have? It isn't like it sold all that great to begin with . The port of Steep will likely get panned before too long.

Developer of Moto GP is saying that because they are moving to Unreal 4 for future titles that a Switch build becomes much more viable. They mentioned that even with asset creation, they can have a Switch build in mind when creating models and such. This backs up the sentiment that using an engine like Unreal 4, this does make ports to Switch less problematic.

 

[Eteric]

I think one unexpected problem is that the Switch isn't compatible with older engines. For instance, the new Capcom engine (The RE one) runs on Switch apparently, but the Worlds team used MT Framework to make MH Worlds. I'm wondering if that's the reason we're not seeing a Switch version. Same with Rocket League. It uses UE3, so they had to take special care to even get it running on Switch (will be 720p in both modes).

Either way, I think it's going to come down to how much money and time a publisher is willing to put in to get a good version of the game running on the Switch. That will depend on the install base the Switch can amass over time. For now I think most ports will be mediocre. If they're ports of a game running on an old engine, then it'll likely really have issues.

 

[swaaye]

I think the focus you guys have on ports is interesting. Why do you even want ports? I'd never buy a Switch to play ports of games played far better elsewhere. Though frankly there's just about zero chance of me gaming on a 6" handheld these days anyway.

UE3/4 have Android support. Maybe Nintendo should have just built the a nice Android gaming device. There's middleware ready to go. People could play their favorite Android games while hoping for hypothetical new games from big publishers. It's a shame that NVidia Shield Tablet 2 is gone thanks to Switch.

 

[Goodtwin]

I think the focus you guys have on ports is interesting. Why do you even want ports?

Who said anyone here wanted ports? LOL, seriously though, the conversation has centered around just how much viable ports are from a technical perspective. Is there much of a market for multi plat games on Switch? I think publishers are asking themselves this right now. Switch is taking off fast, and looks to be a product a lot of consumers want, but what type of games do those consumers want to play on their Switch? Its becoming more and more clear that the required work for porting a AAA game to the Switch will require some significant investment, and as a publisher there has been a history of these games not selling well on Nintendo hardware. For me personally, I would like a Madden game on my Switch, but I can understand EA being skeptical because the Madden only sells well in the US, and the install base for Switch in the US is still pretty small.

 

[bunnybug]

I think the focus you guys have on ports is interesting. Why do you even want ports? I'd never buy a Switch to play ports of games played far better elsewhere. Though frankly there's just about zero chance of me gaming on a 6" handheld these days anyway.

UE3/4 have Android support. Maybe Nintendo should have just built the a nice Android gaming device. There's middleware ready to go. People could play their favorite Android games while hoping for hypothetical new games from big publishers. It's a shame that NVidia Shield Tablet 2 is gone thanks to Switch.

i think many people like console gaming on portable factor, but the specs are just not powerful enough to do most games justice. you can't have it both ways.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think the focus you guys have on ports is interesting. Why do you even want ports? I'd never buy a Switch to play ports of games played far better elsewhere. Though frankly there's just about zero chance of me gaming on a 6" handheld these days anyway.

UE3/4 have Android support. Maybe Nintendo should have just built the a nice Android gaming device. There's middleware ready to go. People could play their favorite Android games while hoping for hypothetical new games from big publishers. It's a shame that NVidia Shield Tablet 2 is gone thanks to Switch.

Yeah, when I hear buzz for the Switch, it isn't about AAA ports.

Most of the buzz for the Switch that I see and hear is.

• First party exclusives. This is a given.
• Third party exclusives. Mario + Rabbids has generated a lot of hype. Also, Starlink is surprisingly good as a game and not just a toy cash in.
• Indie game ports from PC.

I guess Skyrim has gotten a bit of attention, but even that hasn't generated as much interest among potential Switch buyers as the above. Indie game ports from PC generates significantly more interest from people I talk to or people I watch (YouTube/Twitch).

Regards,
SB

 

[Eteric]

I stopped buying indie games on steam because of Switch. Why buy them on steam when I can buy them on Switch and play on the go, with friends, or on TV when I'm at home? There are some exceptions of course, but any game I can get on the Switch will probably be gotten on the Switch if the port is well done.

 

[BRiT]

Cant you use steamlink / nvlink or similiar to play all the PC Steam games on the go as well?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Assuming you have
- Unlimited 4g
- Good reception everywhere (no airplanes, tunnels, mountains etc)
- Don't mind leaving your PC on every time you leave the house
- Can deal with the "massive" latency increase

Then yes.

Personally I don't see much future in game streaming. The loss in IQ might not be such a big issue on a handheld but even if something like 5g removes most of the latency issues (which btw will only be the case if you stay close to your home, going abroad will add latency because of distance you simply can't get around if you host your games yourself) you're still going to have situations where you won't or have limited signal.

What good is a handheld that won't function on a airplane?

 

[BRiT]

I was thinking more of all the free WiFi that seems around or if you're playing at your house in another room or at your friends/family's place on a holiday gathering sort of things. I didn't think of travelling where you're not the one driving as being in the Midwest US there's limited or non-existent tunnels or mountains or trains.

OffTopic: Are you even allowed to carry handhelds onto planes depending on your place of origin and destination?

 

[Blazkowicz]

There's plenty of "free" wifi in my country, from at least three major providers, those are home routers provided by the ISP that also act as a hot spot serving a web portal login page where you need identifiers given by your ISP (so there's wild login trafficking, sometimes short lived, sometimes long lived in shared with very few family members or close friends).

It's mostly up to 1Mbps with varying latency and cuts ; one of the providers allows to do about anything (torrenting, non-web IM chat..), the others are more web-only. Wifi congestion is a major factor, and you have low priority. The more permissive provider seems to give more download bandwith (well over 1Mbps) at some times of day/night/year.

So : I expect it would be possible to play 360p H265 remote gaming at 2AM or 3AM. But with large and/or jittery latency. And if you lose connection you may well die in-game (might be kickbanned if playing multiplayer)
And some town wifi is free wifi, but reaching the log in page is a feat in itself. It's supposedly filtered and watched. And e.g. hospital wifi only allows the web (So.. this might be worked around by hosting a web server and using some HTML5 game streaming client with WebRTC for the game stream and keyboard/gamepad input support? does that even support frame-by-frame video codec?)

That sums up how I think game streaming on free wifi would work.

 

[Goodtwin]

Yeah, when I hear buzz for the Switch, it isn't about AAA ports.

Most of the buzz for the Switch that I see and hear is.

• First party exclusives. This is a given.
• Third party exclusives. Mario + Rabbids has generated a lot of hype. Also, Starlink is surprisingly good as a game and not just a toy cash in.
• Indie game ports from PC.

I guess Skyrim has gotten a bit of attention, but even that hasn't generated as much interest among potential Switch buyers as the above. Indie game ports from PC generates significantly more interest from people I talk to or people I watch (YouTube/Twitch).

Regards,
SB

Well said. There is a market out there that isn't looking for a device to play AAA games on. Some people will baulk at the idea of buying a device to play Indie games on, but the market exist. A lot of Indie games make for great portable games, and Switch is the best device currently on the market to take those games on the go. Nintendo has also been more selective with the content on the eshop. Gone is the open door policy on Wii U that flooded the eshop with a lot of shovelware. I believe Nicalis has 5 more games in development for Switch. Runner 3 is going to be awesome.

Square Enix RPG Factory has basically turned its attention towards Switch. If your a JRPG fan, its hard to deny that Switch will be an excellent device for JRPG games. The library already has a healthy number of these games in its lineup.

I hope Mario+ Rabbids does well, because I think this is where Nintendo and third parties can find mutual success. Working together with Nintendo IP's to create new and unique games. Yes, its Mario, but this is unlike any Mario game before it.

 

[Eteric]

If Mario + Rabbids props up the Rabbids, I hope Ubisoft actually gives the little critters some good games.

I think one of Nintendo biggest weaknesses is it's lack of M rated type games. M rated isn't usually the kind of games I like (outside of Doom and Wolfenstein because they don't take themselves to seriously), but I feel like Nintendo could use some of those to attract an older audience. They should really consider bringing back Eternal Darkness, and maybe some other IPs. I think the problem is that Nintendo has this family friendly image and I don't blame them for wanting to keep that. I think they should do what DC Comics did and make a second company for games of a different kind. DC made Vertigo comics to publish comics that were a bit more gritty and mature. I think Nintendo would benefit from doing something similar. It would even out their library a bit better, and if their M rated games do well it might entice others to jump on board.

 

[Goodtwin]

If Mario + Rabbids props up the Rabbids, I hope Ubisoft actually gives the little critters some good games.

I think one of Nintendo biggest weaknesses is it's lack of M rated type games. M rated isn't usually the kind of games I like (outside of Doom and Wolfenstein because they don't take themselves to seriously), but I feel like Nintendo could use some of those to attract an older audience. They should really consider bringing back Eternal Darkness, and maybe some other IPs. I think the problem is that Nintendo has this family friendly image and I don't blame them for wanting to keep that. I think they should do what DC Comics did and make a second company for games of a different kind. DC made Vertigo comics to publish comics that were a bit more gritty and mature. I think Nintendo would benefit from doing something similar. It would even out their library a bit better, and if their M rated games do well it might entice others to jump on board.

Nintendo has pushed this issue for years, and it just doesn't seem to change their audience. On Gamecube they secured the Resident Evil franchise along with a few other M rated Capcom games, and it didn't change the perception for your average consumer. Wii had a lot of M rated games such as Mad Max, but it sold very poorly. With Wii U, Nintendo got Bayonetta and Devils Third trying to help bring some broader appeal. Yes Devils Third ended up being a turd, but Nintendo's though process was solid when they offered to fund the games development. I love Eternal Darkness, favorite Gamecube game for me, but it sold pretty low numbers, so I doubt that will be making a return. In theory I agree with you, but in practice I just haven't been sold that it will work out as we would hope.

 

[milk]

Nintendo has pushed this issue for years, and it just doesn't seem to change their audience. On Gamecube they secured the Resident Evil franchise along with a few other M rated Capcom games, and it didn't change the perception for your average consumer. Wii had a lot of M rated games such as Mad Max, but it sold very poorly. With Wii U, Nintendo got Bayonetta and Devils Third trying to help bring some broader appeal. Yes Devils Third ended up being a turd, but Nintendo's though process was solid when they offered to fund the games development. I love Eternal Darkness, favorite Gamecube game for me, but it sold pretty low numbers, so I doubt that will be making a return. In theory I agree with you, but in practice I just haven't been sold that it will work out as we would hope.

If those attempts realy were legitimate, they were damn cowardly at them. You don't change the perception of a product and your brand in a year. You gotta keep pushing it and investing for years befor you can see material results. They secure single installments of IP's that are multiplat franchises and give up on them after the very first commercial failure. Look at sony and see how persistant they are with studios and franchises they trully believe in. Uncharted 1 was a flop, and 2 also underwhelmed.
But really, in my opinion, this is all irrelevant because what I actually believe in is that Nintendo hasn't really ever wanted to change their brand perseption, but they are not above pretending to want to do it at the start of every gen if that can get them a few extra customers.
That said, Nintendo seems to be going through a major shift internally. They have a new president, switch has a very different focus and messaging, and they have demonstrated to be activelly working on giving space for grouth of new designers and producers on their dev. teams while the oldtimers start taking it easier, so things might change.

 

[bunnybug]

If those attempts realy were legitimate, they were damn cowardly at them. You don't change the perception of a product and your brand in a year. You gotta keep pushing it and investing for years befor you can see material results. They secure single installments of IP's that are multiplat franchises and give up on them after the very first commercial failure. Look at sony and see how persistant they are with studios and franchises they trully believe in. Uncharted 1 was a flop, and 2 also underwhelmed.
But really, in my opinion, this is all irrelevant because what I actually believe in is that Nintendo hasn't really ever wanted to change their brand perseption, but they are not above pretending to want to do it at the start of every gen if that can get them a few extra customers.
That said, Nintendo seems to be going through a major shift internally. They have a new president, switch has a very different focus and messaging, and they have demonstrated to be activelly working on giving space for grouth of new designers and producers on their dev. teams while the oldtimers start taking it easier, so things might change.

i don't think they really tried at all, the gamecube had some mature games, but the console was the definition of kiddy looking, it looked like a purple lunch box, aslo zelda not being realistic looking was also a huge let down for me as a kid and resident evil 4 came really late in that gen. they pretty much decided they were giving up on that audience with the wii, you're not gonna get the mature audience on your console when the tech was so far behind, that's why all the third party franchises sell like crap on nintendo consoles for 8 years they were none existent, and who would wanna play cod on wii after playing it on or even seeing it on 360.

 

[Goodtwin]

But really, in my opinion, this is all irrelevant because what I actually believe in is that Nintendo hasn't really ever wanted to change their brand perseption, but they are not above pretending to want to do it at the start of every gen if that can get them a few extra customers.

I sort of agree with you on this. They are who they are and have found tremendous successes doing things their own way (and some failures) and I am sure they are not looking to change their family friendly image any time soon. I believe their attempts to acquire some third party mature games has been their attempt to help round out their consoles appeal. With recent new IP's like Splatoon and Arms, it does give hope that Nintendo will be open to new endeavors, and continue giving their younger talent more opportunities. I still hope that Nintendo continues their trend of funding a few M rated projects. Platinum Games recently tweeted an image that could be insinuation that Bayonetta 1 & 2 are being ported to Switch, and if that is the case, there is a chance Nintendo is funding Bayonetta 3.