Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nintendo nintendont
I can't help but laugh when i hear this. developers say many lies just to hype a new product, many developers were saying there wiiu ports would be enhanced graphically, when they were actually inferior, one even went as far as to say watch dogs will be between ps3 and xbox1 when it was actually inferior to ps3. now the only way it could be easier is, if the game is not technically demanding at all, and still don't believe it to be true. ps4 just has way more powerful hardware, just look at the few ports we have so far on switch, and to why no technically demeaning games have been announced on it . Nintendo can't even get a wiiu port at a solid 30fps.
For exlcusives, yeah. for cross platform, devs will be comparing to the competition.
More than writing code and games, there's the whole distribution and support and general having to deal with the company. That's what we'll never hear about. For Sony, what little I hear is if you're big, they'll be great, and if you're small they'll ignore you, string you along, etc. A guy took a year to get a finished game released on the US store and couldn't get it released on EU store due to network bugs for which there were no network debugging tools or options, while of course other games from big names get released full of bugs including game-breakers.
It's definitely possible for Switch to be better to develop for than the others, even if the tools aren't as good. Not that I believe it is - I seriously doubt Nintendo's ability to execute in that regard based on company history. That's not how they roll. But you never know; maybe the past few years they've been building up an elite dev support group who go out of their way to help devs get games on their system?
why does it really matter though? in the end of the day, most third-party games will target ps4/xb1 specs, making porting to switch a huge headache or impossible. i guess if you're talking bout exclusive games on it.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
And the Switch is an expensive handheld console that happens to have a HDMI output.
Dunno, you seemed confused about what it meant to be easy to program for...
It's not about performance, or cross system games, that's all.
Certainly, the performance ceiling is much lower on Switch than X1/PS4, so that is a hurdle developers are going to face when trying to port to Switch. Not all developers are creating these highly demanding games though. Developers who have carved out a niche on Vita and 3DS are hardly in position to try and create AAA titles like Assassins Creed and Battlefield. So Switch will be a nice big improvement for them. Monster Hunter has been huge for Capcom, and that is a series that is not bound to high end hardware. Sports games should easily port to Switch as well. The hardware limitations will likely keep some games off the platform, but pretending that is 95% of games is just BS in my opinion. Time will tell.
At this point I don't know why people want to compare it to the consoles. As ToTTenTranz acknowledges, it's a handheld with TV out, so we shouldn't be looking for Switch to play the latest XB1/PS4 AAA title. It'll have its own library, probably smaller games like GB/DS/3DS. Buyers of Switch aren't going to be looking for it to be a console replacement any more, and AAA devs are unlikely to be trying to port down to it.
Rootax
Veteran
Because Nintendo sell it as a home console too. That's the thing. But I agree with you, It a handheld. And a very nice one, huge jump over 3DS. But Nintendo left the home console with that move (if find it sad, but it's not the topic subject, sorry).
I mostly agree with this, but there will likely be some exceptions. I will not be shocked if COD comes out this year on Switch, albeit 30fps 900p/720p. With declining sales for the series, they may be willing to test the waters on this new platform. The other question is the definition of AAA games? Fifa is a hugely popular game, but in my opinion I don't consider it AAA. Minecraft is also very popular, but its not AAA.
Are they really? As in, as an alternative console for COD and FIFA players? I genuinely don't know as I'm not following the marketing. For me it's clearly defined as a unique device with unique ecosystem and games, and not a 'COD/FIFA etc console'.
Sure. However, you shouldn't be buying a Switch with a view to playing the vast majority of XB1/PS4 disc released games.
I was just using it as a catch-all term for larger XB1/PS4 targeted titles. Indie games will probably get Switch ports if it's accessible enough. The low cost of entry means indies may saturate it versus PS4, for example.
Exactly, if you watch this commercial, its pretty obvious that they are not marketing this as a traditional console. The focus is on its ability to be taken anywhere.
I think games are too often lumped together though. When people say that Switch wont be able to get AAA games that is often taken as if Switch wont/cant get ports of any western published games, and that is false. Fifa alone is huge in Europe, and Switch is getting that. If Switch gets Madden in the US, that is a big deal here. These are a plethora of games from Western Publishers that will make sense on the platform, both from a technical perspective and business.
What proportion of XB1/PS4 disc titles are coming to Switch? Is it getting Overwatch? Destiny 2? SWBattlefronts 2? Mass Effect? Red Dead Redemption? I think the vast majority of the mainstream library the core console gamer might be interested in won't be coming to Switch. There are some titles that get everywhere, like FIFA and COD, but for console gamers looking for a console to play games on, Switch should be off the radar. Feel free to invent a name for these games other than AAA. 
What proportion of XB1/PS4 disc titles are coming to Switch? Is it getting Overwatch? Destiny 2? SWBattlefronts 2? Mass Effect? Red Dead Redemption? I think the vast majority of the mainstream library the core console gamer might be interested in won't be coming to Switch. There are some titles that get everywhere, like FIFA and COD, but for console gamers looking for a console to play games on, Switch should be off the radar. Feel free to invent a name for these games other than AAA.
Certainly, but I am of the opinion that some people do try to lump in games like Fifa and NBA 2K as AAA, so the waters can get murky when talking about what games are likely to grace the platform. There is no question that for the majority of people, Switch is and never was going to be the premier platform for titles like Mass Effect and Destiny. I know I am a broken record on this, but I really do feel like scoring the sports games is a bigger deal for a device like Switch than getting Destiny and Mass Effect. Its more likely to strike a chord with the audience because they work well with being played portably, and even 360 and PS3 had pretty darn good looking visuals for these games.
Overwatch scales down pretty well. This is Intel HD Graphics 530 (24 EUs, 441.6 GFLOP/s):
Switch should be pretty close to that Intel GPU in raw performance and both systems have similar total memory bandwidth (probably Switch is higher in practice, since Maxwell has better bandwidth saving techniques). As said earlier, if Blizzard ports Overwatch to Switch, I am going to buy Switch instantly. Now that we have a toddler in the house, it is much easier to play with a portable. Tekken 7 on Nintendo Switch would also be highly interesting for fighting game fans. Shouldn't be that difficult genre to port (just use lower poly characters).
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
440 GFLOPs on the HD530 vs. 154 GFLOPs on handheld Switch.
System bandwidth isn't similar at all. That system is using 2*64bit DDR4 3200MT/s (~50GB/s), whereas the handheld Switch uses 2*32bit LPDDR4 2666MT/s (~20GB/s). I really don't think Maxwell's bandwidth saving techniques are that much better than Intel's Gen9 to compensate for a 2.5x difference.
Moreover, AFAIK the HD530 makes heavy use of the CPU's 8MB L3 cache, and at 720p with no AA it may be putting the whole framebuffer in the L3.
The 6700K+HD530 is already running the game at only 720p medium settings and it's barely hitting 60 FPS. This is a competitive game so Blizzard probably wouldn't launch a console version running at a 30 FPS target.
Maybe in docked mode Blizzard could rework the game to play at say 600p 60FPS, but don't forget all Switch games must run with the 154 GFLOPs GPU + 20GB/s bandwidth mode. There's no going over that.
I wouldn't count on Overwatch being ported to the Switch.
System bandwidth isn't similar at all. That system is using 2*64bit DDR4 3200MT/s (~50GB/s), whereas the handheld Switch uses 2*32bit LPDDR4 2666MT/s (~20GB/s). I really don't think Maxwell's bandwidth saving techniques are that much better than Intel's Gen9 to compensate for a 2.5x difference.
Moreover, AFAIK the HD530 makes heavy use of the CPU's 8MB L3 cache, and at 720p with no AA it may be putting the whole framebuffer in the L3.
The 6700K+HD530 is already running the game at only 720p medium settings and it's barely hitting 60 FPS. This is a competitive game so Blizzard probably wouldn't launch a console version running at a 30 FPS target.
Maybe in docked mode Blizzard could rework the game to play at say 600p 60FPS, but don't forget all Switch games must run with the 154 GFLOPs GPU + 20GB/s bandwidth mode. There's no going over that.
I wouldn't count on Overwatch being ported to the Switch.
Tell Nintendo to stop trying to sell it as such.