Not for big AAA productions. Especially not when PS5 and Xbox 4 are coming. The Switch is to weak to run most of these games and that's also the main reason why RDR2 isn't on Switch. Switch will still get all the indies and non-AAA japanese games though. And more ports of older games.
The Switch CPU is a lot more powerful than CPUs in last gen consoles though. It has a lot more RAM too. In fact, Cortex A57 cores have higher IPC than Jaguar cores, an A57 core at 1GHZ is roughly equivalent to a Jaguar core at 1.6GHZ, and the amount of L2 cache per core is the same. The Switch has about the same per-thread performance as the current gen consoles (Povided modern code is used) and about half the multicore performance if perfect threading is assumed. (Or more if the game scales poorly across multicore setups)
Last time I gave it a check, Doom on PC was around 90 GB and nearly 70GB on PS4.
Maybe its because of GTA V Online? GTA V Online for PS3 and Xbox 360 stopped getting content update in 2015.
I see what you mean, but i dont think RDR2 is too much different here. You also have tons of NPCs and horses/animals etc.. Also, items and collectibles that can be picked up. I'm not sure about destructable objects besides fences. These are also things that are in older games as well, but it doesnt necessarily mean that newer games arent more demanding because of that in this area. I'm no expert on this at all, but i think animation system for example requires its share of CPU power, and the animation system is much more complex than what we see in ARK (or other older games for that matter). How the AI routine is programmed can also be more complex. All of these things can add up.
So his excuse of time was bullshit. RDR2 is 100GB size with single player alone.
Ark on phones is a different game, it's kind of a remake. Switch version is a port of the console/PC versions, which again, go watch the DF videos for those. Ark is more demanding than RDR 2, by a mile. It runs much worse.
These two things don't mean the same. A game can be demanding without using hardware to its full potential. It is entirely possible that they got around certain optimization issues while porting (due to removing assets or post-processing effects etc.).
It is different because it's not persistent.
The rendering pipeline is identical. And again, the point is not because the hardware is not used to the full potential, the point is that it's demanding. It's making the CPU and the GPU compute stuff they wouldn't need to, but the point is that it does it.
The Switch is still much more powerful than last gen consoles. And it already has games with more complex simulation than the games Rockstar makes. Case in point, Ark. And as I said above, there is much more that can be trimmed from an open world game to reduce CPU load while having an acceptable sacrifice in quality.
