The semantic complications of 'demanding' games. *spawn

[sebbbi]

even if a badly optimized port get's ported to switch, that depends what the port team does with it, they could turn it to a very well optimized port on switch since the hardware, and specs are so different there gonna have to being doing a lot of rewriting anyway.

It's not a valid assumption that a small indie team has equal resources as an AAA team to spend on a port. The technical quality of the port is likely going to be similar as the technical quality of the original release. Big AAA studios have clear advantage in porting games, because they can allocate a dedicated team for the porting, and that team could be already specialized in that piece of hardware (unlikely in case of Switch however).

"Lots of rewriting" doesn't usually happen during down-porting. First you do all the required changes to make it function correctly, tune the rendering and texture resolution down, then optimize the biggest bottlenecks based on profiling tool reports and rip out extra effects and/or reduce quality if performance still isn't good enough. If you are a big AAA studio and the target platform is very important, then you might have more resources to rewrite some algorithms or customize some assets to better fit to the target architecture.

GCN2 and Maxwell aren't that different. Most PC games ship with identical shader code on both, including big PC-only titles. The biggest differences are tiled rasterizer (which GCN5 now also has), async compute (AMD needs async compute to reach best GPU utilization) and constant buffers (Nvidia needs constant buffers for best performance). AMD hardware is a bit more flexible, but you need to use that flexibility to reach best GPU utilization. Nvidia on the other has optimized their GPU very well for traditional geometry heavy pixel+vertex shader workloads. AMD GPU can choke on workloads like that (but async compute alleviates that problem).

 

[Scott_Arm]

The only way I've ever seen "demanding" used in the context of gaming is, "the kids better get ready to lose some weight, because I'm cutting the grocery bill to save for a new computer to run this game." I've never seen it used to describe games that look really good. For instance, you don't really see the word demanding thrown around with Doom, because it tends to scale well across across hardware, despite being one of the top tier games for visuals. But I do see things like people talking about the demands of running a particular game at 4k, or when GTA5 came out on pc, people talking about it being demanding because you needed a good cpu to get good performance.

 

[bunnybug]

It's not a valid assumption that a small indie team has equal resources as an AAA team to spend on a port. The technical quality of the port is likely going to be similar as the technical quality of the original release. Big AAA studios have clear advantage in porting games, because they can allocate a dedicated team for the porting, and that team could be already specialized in that piece of hardware (unlikely in case of Switch however).

"Lots of rewriting" doesn't usually happen during down-porting. First you do all the required changes to make it function correctly, tune the rendering and texture resolution down, then optimize the biggest bottlenecks based on profiling tool reports and rip out extra effects and/or reduce quality if performance still isn't good enough. If you are a big AAA studio and the target platform is very important, then you might have more resources to rewrite some algorithms or customize some assets to better fit to the target architecture.

GCN2 and Maxwell aren't that different. Most PC games ship with identical shader code on both, including big PC-only titles. The biggest differences are tiled rasterizer (which GCN5 now also has), async compute (AMD needs async compute to reach best GPU utilization) and constant buffers (Nvidia needs constant buffers for best performance). AMD hardware is a bit more flexible, but you need to use that flexibility to reach best GPU utilization. Nvidia on the other has optimized their GPU very well for traditional geometry heavy pixel+vertex shader workloads. AMD GPU can choke on workloads like that (but async compute alleviates that problem).

we've had many AAA ports on wiiu that had bad frame rate compared to 360 version, and the hardware was pretty much on par with 360.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

By citing this Wii U example, you're missing completely sebbbi's (and everyone else's) point! I think I need don my moderator hat and encourage you argue less and listen more, because the points being made are valid and give you an insight into what's going on and what to expect or not, and how to interpret or not, in ports between platforms. One line rebuttals on a single highlighted line in an extensive reply is not good discussion. If you have a significant counter point worth saying, it's worth the time to express it clearly. Wii U Ports could be cheap and nasty, or could have been technically accomplished but hitting bottlenecks the engines couldn't workaround. An Indie game on Switch is likely using a straight-forward engine and not be optimised much. AAA for the sake of this discussion is assuming the same level of AAA focus and investment on all platforms. Basically, you can't find a few examples of framerates and draw conclusions on just that. If you have an argument that takes in all the factors, present them.

And while I've got my mod hat on, can you please capitalise correctly, as per the FAQ and forum standard. It really doesn't take a lot of effort to press the shift key on the first letter of every sentence.

 

[bunnybug]

By citing this Wii U example, you're missing completely sebbbi's (and everyone else's) point! I think I need don my moderator hat and encourage you argue less and listen more, because the points being made are valid and give you an insight into what's going on and what to expect or not, and how to interpret or not, in ports between platforms. One line rebuttals on a single highlighted line in an extensive reply is not good discussion. If you have a significant counter point worth saying, it's worth the time to express it clearly. Wii U Ports could be cheap and nasty, or could have been technically accomplished but hitting bottlenecks the engines couldn't workaround. An Indie game on Switch is likely using a straight-forward engine and not be optimised much. AAA for the sake of this discussion is assuming the same level of AAA focus and investment on all platforms. Basically, you can't find a few examples of framerates and draw conclusions on just that. If you have an argument that takes in all the factors, present them.

And while I've got my mod hat on, can you please capitalise correctly, as per the FAQ and forum standard. It really doesn't take a lot of effort to press the shift key on the first letter of every sentence.

Which is exactly my main point, AAA games were hitting bottlenecks with hardware that was very close to 360, of course the games that did this were highly optimized for 360. What you think is gonna hit more bottlenecks on switch, indie games or AAA games that are hight optimized for ps4/xb1 GPU/CPU. It's not a few examples, the majority of AAA games on wiiu that had much worse frame rate then 360 version, both batmans, ass creeds and both cod games, there's are more that i could list. Its obvious as well that AAA focus won't be the same on all platforms, we still don't don't even have one real thirdparty AAA game even announced for switch.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Which is exactly my main point, AAA games were hitting bottlenecks with hardware that was very close to 360, of course the games that did this were highly optimized for 360. What you think is gonna hit more bottlenecks on switch, indie games or AAA games that are hight optimized for ps4/xb1 GPU/CPU.

It doesn't make any difference - whether highly optimised PS4 games or cheap indie games, it depends on how the port is handled.

Batman was Unreal Engine 3. How much effort did Epic go to to port UE3 to Wii U super optimally when sales of Wii U were so abysmal? Hell, they didn't even optimise well for PS3! It's easy to cripple any platform with a less-than-ideal post effect. You could very easily have a game struggle on PS4 (Snake Pass) and run proportionally far better on Switch if the problems on one were dealt with during the port process. eg. Let's say ZOE on PS3 never got a patch for financial reasons, and was then ported to Wii U or Switch with the optimisations in place of the patched PS3 version.

None of us knows the business pressures behind the implementations of these games, and they are what define the level of optimisation and quality of ports more than anything. As such you cannot look at one or two ports of games and extrapolate their results to other games. You cannot look at Snake Pass and conclude that where it has a drop of...60% say graphics to run on Switch, any all all AAA games will have to have a greater quality drop. Nor can you look at a port from 360 to Wii U as evidence of what'll happen when something is ported from XB1 to NSW, or from 360 to PS3 and use that to determine how other games will port.
eg:
https://www.videogamer.com/features/top-10-worst-ps3-ports

Sonic the Hedgehog -
Although Sonic the Hedgehog could just as easily appear in a worst next-gen games Top 10, it also has the displeasure of being one of the worst PS3 ports. Already a less than spectacular game on Xbox 360, on PS3 the mistreated hedgehog's latest game ran at an even worse frame rate.

Madden 08 -
Madden felt the brunt of this anger, down to the game's 30 frames per second frame rate compared to 60 on the Xbox 360.

PES 2008 -
The frame rate in the original un-patched release is one of the worst we've seen in a high-profile release, the ground texturing is atrocious and the online play was broken.

Conclusion - "Given these games weren't even the most demanding, it's obvious that more graphically impressive titles will run far worse on PS3 than XB360."​

The same logic you're using now if applied back then has been proven clearly false, the reason being that these ports don't indicate the quality of the hardware. There are many factors. As I said earlier, mathematically the delta should remain equally proportional between games and hardware, and that'll only be skewed based on investment. Where, you'd think, AAA budgets will have a higher chance of investing well on NSW as long as it's a viable platform worthy of the investment.

 

[Benetanegia]

What you think is gonna hit more bottlenecks on switch, indie games or AAA games that are hight optimized for ps4/xb1 GPU/CPU.

Indie games would hit more bottlenecks without a doubt and hit them harder. Optimization is the act of eliminating or lessening the effects of bottlenecks, so a highly optimized game will always hit fewer bottlenecks.

 

[bunnybug]

It doesn't make any difference - whether highly optimised PS4 games or cheap indie games, it depends on how the port is handled.

Batman was Unreal Engine 3. How much effort did Epic go to to port UE3 to Wii U super optimally when sales of Wii U were so abysmal? Hell, they didn't even optimise well for PS3! It's easy to cripple any platform with a less-than-ideal post effect. You could very easily have a game struggle on PS4 (Snake Pass) and run proportionally far better on Switch if the problems on one were dealt with during the port process. eg. Let's say ZOE on PS3 never got a patch for financial reasons, and was then ported to Wii U or Switch with the optimisations in place of the patched PS3 version.

None of us knows the business pressures behind the implementations of these games, and they are what define the level of optimisation and quality of ports more than anything. As such you cannot look at one or two ports of games and extrapolate their results to other games. You cannot look at Snake Pass and conclude that where it has a drop of...60% say graphics to run on Switch, any all all AAA games will have to have a greater quality drop. Nor can you look at a port from 360 to Wii U as evidence of what'll happen when something is ported from XB1 to NSW, or from 360 to PS3 and use that to determine how other games will port.
eg:
https://www.videogamer.com/features/top-10-worst-ps3-ports

Sonic the Hedgehog -
Although Sonic the Hedgehog could just as easily appear in a worst next-gen games Top 10, it also has the displeasure of being one of the worst PS3 ports. Already a less than spectacular game on Xbox 360, on PS3 the mistreated hedgehog's latest game ran at an even worse frame rate.

Madden 08 -
Madden felt the brunt of this anger, down to the game's 30 frames per second frame rate compared to 60 on the Xbox 360.

PES 2008 -
The frame rate in the original un-patched release is one of the worst we've seen in a high-profile release, the ground texturing is atrocious and the online play was broken.

Conclusion - "Given these games weren't even the most demanding, it's obvious that more graphically impressive titles will run far worse on PS3 than XB360."​

The same logic you're using now if applied back then has been proven clearly false, the reason being that these ports don't indicate the quality of the hardware. There are many factors. As I said earlier, mathematically the delta should remain equally proportional between games and hardware, and that'll only be skewed based on investment. Where, you'd think, AAA budgets will have a higher chance of investing well on NSW as long as it's a viable platform worthy of the investment.

I agree with you on almost everything, i have been saying the same thing basically it's up to developers skill, time and budget. Where i don't agree is the bolded, of course it makes a difference, it's gonna me much more challenging/time consuming, and bigger budget for the same skilled developer to port a game thats uses ps4 nearly full GPU/CPU saturation then say project setsuna.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree with you on everything except the bold, of course it makes a difference, you''re gonna tell me it's not gonna more challenging for the port team to port something like anthem

You think it's more challenging for the team of Anthem with a budget of millions to optimally port their engine than a one-man developer with no money porting a Unity game with no idea how to even optimise for specific hardware?

 

[bunnybug]

You think it's more challenging for the team of Anthem with a budget of millions to optimally port their engine than a one-man developer with no money porting a Unity game with no idea how to even optimise for specific hardware?

This depends on the code and hardware. No matter how much millions you put, you can only do so much with hardware being so much weaker. sonic forces, ( so far) and dragon quest heroes probably had a 20x bigger budget to port the game to switch then project setuna, but the results are much better cause it's just a less demanding game to port. results being better means to me , being closer to the ps4 version.

 

[dobwal]

You think it's more challenging for the team of Anthem with a budget of millions to optimally port their engine than a one-man developer with no money porting a Unity game with no idea how to even optimise for specific hardware?

Yes, why do you think you need a budget of millions?

If it's a matter of effort than porting Anthem is the more challenging effort.

If it's a matter of resources than the one man porting team with no expertise or no money is the more challenging effort.

The question is, are you appending the word "challenging" to the effort of code or the coder?

Ultimately it is the devs who dictate how terms are used semantically. It's their jargon.

If they were to generally attach the adjective "shitty" to really good performant code, who are we to argue?

 

[bunnybug]

Indie games would hit more bottlenecks without a doubt and hit them harder. Optimization is the act of eliminating or lessening the effects of bottlenecks, so a highly optimized game will always hit fewer bottlenecks.

This is false. A game targeting much higher specs, will hit more bottlenecks , There is no way a game that's highly demanding on ps4, as well as being highly optimized not to be. Lowering the resolution or framerate means the game is being bottleknecked, so they had to those things, and all the optimization in the world won't make games like anthem, battlefront, and ass creed origins look anywhere near as good as the ps4 version, mean while games like bomberman, and poject setsuna, should be able to match the ps4 versions, if they had more time/bigger budget. the other games i mentioned can never match the ps4 version, it's impossible.

 

[Benetanegia]

This is false. A game targeting much higher specs, will hit more bottlenecks , There is no way a game that's highly demanding on ps4, as well as being highly optimized not to be. Lowering the resolution or framerate means the game is being bottleknecked, so they had to those things, and all the optimization in the world won't make games like anthem, battlefront, and ass creed origins look anywhere near as good as the ps4 version, mean while games like bomberman, and poject setsuna, should be able to match the ps4 versions, if they had more time/bigger budget. the other games i mentioned can never match the ps4 version, it's impossible.

You are again completely out of context and making no sense. No one said that games would look like the PS4 version. You are confusing optimization with having a different target. Switch and PS4 are different targets. PS4 will always have better graphics for obvious reasons. That's not what was being discussed. Highly optimized AAA games on the Switch will always run and look much better than indie games on the Switch, and that includes posible ports of the games you mentioned. As long as an AAA game runs faster than some indie game being compared in the PS4, regardless of its graphics, the Switch port of the AAA game will also be faster than the port of the indie game.

Lowering the resolution or framerate means the game is being bottleknecked, so they had to those things

You mean like they had to do for Snake Pass on PS4, while AAA games run at full HD??

 

[bunnybug]

You are again completely out of context and making no sense. No one said that games would look like the PS4 version. You are confusing optimization with having a different target. Switch and PS4 are different targets. PS4 will always have better graphics for obvious reasons. That's not what was being discussed. Highly optimized AAA games on the Switch will always run and look much better than indie games on the Switch, and that includes posible ports of the games you mentioned. As long as an AAA game runs faster than some indie game being compared in the PS4, regardless of its graphics, the Switch port of the AAA game will also be faster than the port of the indie game.



You mean like they had to do for Snake Pass on PS4, while AAA games run at full HD??

You don't seem to be understanding me a highly optimized ps4 game, should be way more difficult to port then a indie game, it's as simple as that. We are not talking about highly optimized switch game but a highly optimized ps4 game, of course the port will look better but run better? not likely if we go by history of ports targeting much higher specs. what mainly being discussed here is indie games will fair better on switch, they wont see as many downgrades and the gap won't be as big.


snake is hitting bottlenecks, because of not being properly optimized, switch will hit bottlenecks because the hardware is much weaker., doesn't matter how optimized it is

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You don't seem to be understanding me a highly optimized ps4 game, should be way more difficult to port then a indie game, it's as simple as that. We are not talking about highly optimized switch game but a highly optimized ps4 game, of course the port will look better but run better? not likely if we go by history of ports targeting much higher specs. what mainly being discussed here is indie games will fair better on switch, they wont see as many downgrades and the gap won't be as big.


snake is hitting bottlenecks, because of not being properly optimized, switch will hit bottlenecks because the hardware is much weaker., doesn't matter how optimized it is

Exactly, just like PS4-P is much weaker than XBO-X. So games on PS4-P will run significantly worse than XBO-X.

Not. A port on the Switch doesn't necessarily have to run worse than the original version. Much of it depends on how much effort is put into the port. Much also depends on what the greatest limiting factor is. If it's the GPU then scaling down to Switch should be relatively simple. Memory bandwidth again means scaling down graphics should allow similar performance in a properly optimized port.

The hardest area for ports will be if the CPU is the limiting factor. But even then it isn't as simple as you seem to think it is. Much of the CPU load in games is in the physics simulations. Much like graphics options physics can be scaled up and down. And generally that can be though of as something that predominantly affects the graphics of a game (presentation) rather than affecting the gameplay. There are exceptions, of course. Flight simulators and racing simulators are greatly dependent on the physics simulations used in the game. But things like ragdoll physics, cloth physics, fluid dynamics, etc. generally don't affect gameplay and are only used to enhance the presentation of the game.

Then there are rare situations where things are done predominantly on say, the GPU, like Sebbbi's new game that would be problematic and difficult to port. But that's an exception and not the rule.

Most all of the current AAA games can likely be ported to the Switch with similar performance and identical gameplay to their PS4/XBO counterparts. Even the extremely highly optimized ones.

However, the biggest issue is how much effort is a developer or publisher willing to spend properly optimizing a game for the Switch? Most developers right now aren't likely to put nearly as much effort and resources into optimizing a port for the Switch. That may or may not change in the future.

People like to use Snake Pass. It's not a particularly well optimized game. This isn't surprising as the development team is small. That said, I'm willing to bet that the PS4 version got significantly more optimization effort put into it than the Switch version. Again, that's not surprising as the PS4 version is likely to sell many more copies than the Switch version. Yet the Switch version runs better. Much of that can be just down to the Unreal Engine generally favoring NVidia based GPUs as well as AMD GPUs requiring more effort to get optimal performance.

TL: DR - Switch ports are likely to run worse than PS4/XBO versions due more to limitations in resources assigned to porting the game (limited optimizations) than hardware limitations.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

snake is hitting bottlenecks, because of not being properly optimized, switch will hit bottlenecks because the hardware is much weaker., doesn't matter how optimized it is

That's an argument no-one's going to contest. Of course the device is weak so the games won't run as well. You're original point was that indie games can be used to predict even worse performance from AAA games. Again, that's not true. My space-game's lighting effect could drop the framerate on Switch to 15 fps at the moment. As a cheap indie, if I can't afford to optimise it, that's the final result. But it's silly to say that because my game, a simple 2D shooter, can't get above 15 fps, AAA will suffer even more because they are more complex.

 

[Benetanegia]

You don't seem to be understanding me a highly optimized ps4 game, should be way more difficult to port then a indie game, it's as simple as that. We are not talking about highly optimized switch game but a highly optimized ps4 game, of course the port will look better but run better? not likely if we go by history of ports targeting much higher specs. what mainly being discussed here is indie games will fair better on switch, they wont see as many downgrades and the gap won't be as big.

You are the one who doesn't understand. A highly optimized game, wheter it's been optimized for PS4 or any other platform will always run better than a game that hasn't been optimized much at all in any platform. Optimization is not limited to platform specific optimizations. The majority of optimizations (i.e using less CPU/GPU cycles, bandwidth reduction, register pressure, etc.) help all hardware.

what mainly being discussed here is indie games will fair better on switch, they wont see as many downgrades and the gap won't be as big.

Again. No. You are just counting indies games that are not demanding, but that is not the case with all indies, many are as demanding or even more demanding than AAA games (reason why Snake Pass was mentioned initiallly). The ultimate factor is not if a game is indie or AAA or if it is "impressive", the ultimate factor when porting is if it is demanding, as has been told to you multiple times. If a game is demanding it would be harder to port, than if the game is not demanding, for both AAA and indie devs alike, but indie wouldn't have the money and resources to optimize, meaning that it is harder for them.

Setsuna that you mention so much, is not demanding at all. It looks like last gen and runs 1080@60 on the PS4, probably could run even faster. So yeah, they ported to Switch with a reduction to 30 fps and just a few other downgrades. It was easier to port than 1080@30 games on PS4, simply because it was far less demanding to begin with. But again that's because it is not demanding, not because how it looks or because of being indie or AAA, that is not a factor. Sebbbi and all others have been talking about demanding indie games vs demanding AAA games. You keep on making it a discussion about non-demanding indie games vs demanding AAA games. That's ridiculous. Of course, non-demanding games can be ported with fewer changes, but that includes AAA games too.

 

[bunnybug]

That's an argument no-one's going to contest. Of course the device is weak so the games won't run as well. You're original point was that indie games can be used to predict even worse performance from AAA games. Again, that's not true. My space-game's lighting effect could drop the framerate on Switch to 15 fps at the moment. As a cheap indie, if I can't afford to optimise it, that's the final result. But it's silly to say that because my game, a simple 2D shooter, can't get above 15 fps, AAA will suffer even more because they are more complex.

I wasn't talking about indie , I was talking about results of all ports so far on switch. My prediction comes from history of AAA ports on 360,PS3, and wiiu. 360/ps3 had many games running like crap that were targeting higher specs by the end of the generation, and wiiu was having trouble running demanding 360/ps3 games. considering switch will probably get the same budget and effort as wiiu, i expect horrible results.

 

[bunnybug]

You are the one who doesn't understand. A highly optimized game, wheter it's been optimized for PS4 or any other platform will always run better than a game that hasn't been optimized much at all in any platform. Optimization is not limited to platform specific optimizations. The majority of optimizations (i.e using less CPU/GPU cycles, bandwidth reduction, register pressure, etc.) help all hardware.



Again. No. You are just counting indies games that are not demanding, but that is not the case with all indies, many are as demanding or even more demanding than AAA games (reason why Snake Pass was mentioned initiallly). The ultimate factor is not if a game is indie or AAA or if it is "impressive", the ultimate factor when porting is if it is demanding, as has been told to you multiple times. If a game is demanding it would be harder to port, than if the game is not demanding, for both AAA and indie devs alike, but indie wouldn't have the money and resources to optimize, meaning that it is harder for them.

Setsuna that you mention so much, is not demanding at all. It looks like last gen and runs 1080@60 on the PS4, probably could run even faster. So yeah, they ported to Switch with a reduction to 30 fps and just a few other downgrades. It was easier to port than 1080@30 games on PS4, simply because it was far less demanding to begin with. But again that's because it is not demanding, not because how it looks or because of being indie or AAA, that is not a factor. Sebbbi and all others have been talking about demanding indie games vs demanding AAA games. You keep on making it a discussion about non-demanding indie games vs demanding AAA games. That's ridiculous. Of course, non-demanding games can be ported with fewer changes, but that includes AAA games too.

You realize snake pass is the same as bomberman and setsuna. its only being called demanding because its running lower resolution, not because it's technically impressive, bomberman runs 720p so its demanding on switch in the same way as snake pass on ps4. setsuna had the frame rate cut in half. If you ask me snake pass looks near las gen to me.

Your definition of highly optimized makes no sense, being highly optimized in a nut shell is looking good and running good on a particular hardware. again batman on arkham city is highly optimized game, on 360, on wiiu it ran like shit (i.e using less CPU/GPU cycles, bandwidth reduction, register pressure, etc.) that nice but the end product is a highly optimized game on 360, on wiiu it's not a highly optimized port. ( or maybe cpu is too weak)

Exactly, just like PS4-P is much weaker than XBO-X. So games on PS4-P will run significantly worse than XBO-X.

Not. A port on the Switch doesn't necessarily have to run worse than the original version. Much of it depends on how much effort is put into the port. Much also depends on what the greatest limiting factor is. If it's the GPU then scaling down to Switch should be relatively simple. Memory bandwidth again means scaling down graphics should allow similar performance in a properly optimized port.

The hardest area for ports will be if the CPU is the limiting factor. But even then it isn't as simple as you seem to think it is. Much of the CPU load in games is in the physics simulations. Much like graphics options physics can be scaled up and down. And generally that can be though of as something that predominantly affects the graphics of a game (presentation) rather than affecting the gameplay. There are exceptions, of course. Flight simulators and racing simulators are greatly dependent on the physics simulations used in the game. But things like ragdoll physics, cloth physics, fluid dynamics, etc. generally don't affect gameplay and are only used to enhance the presentation of the game.

Then there are rare situations where things are done predominantly on say, the GPU, like Sebbbi's new game that would be problematic and difficult to port. But that's an exception and not the rule.

Most all of the current AAA games can likely be ported to the Switch with similar performance and identical gameplay to their PS4/XBO counterparts. Even the extremely highly optimized ones.

However, the biggest issue is how much effort is a developer or publisher willing to spend properly optimizing a game for the Switch? Most developers right now aren't likely to put nearly as much effort and resources into optimizing a port for the Switch. That may or may not change in the future.

People like to use Snake Pass. It's not a particularly well optimized game. This isn't surprising as the development team is small. That said, I'm willing to bet that the PS4 version got significantly more optimization effort put into it than the Switch version. Again, that's not surprising as the PS4 version is likely to sell many more copies than the Switch version. Yet the Switch version runs better. Much of that can be just down to the Unreal Engine generally favoring NVidia based GPUs as well as AMD GPUs requiring more effort to get optimal performance.

TL: DR - Switch ports are likely to run worse than PS4/XBO versions due more to limitations in resources assigned to porting the game (limited optimizations) than hardware limitations.

most ports show a much bigger gap then snake pass, so i wouldn't bet on that.

 

[Benetanegia]

considering switch will probably get the same budget and effort as wiiu.

Pure speculation and nothing to do with hardware. It will all depend on how successful is the Switch, so far it seems to be doing very well. Wii U sold 14 million in its lifetime.

You realize snake pass is the same as bomberman and setsuna.

No, it's not.

Your definition of highly optimized makes no sense, being highly optimized in a nut shell is looking good and running good on a particular hardware.

No. Simply no.