-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Reggie on why Red Dead Redemption 2 skipped the Nintendo Switch
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
So many arm chair developers in this thread, lol. Conceptually, a developer could make whatever game they wanted on mobile hardware like the iPhone and the Switch; the actual pre-requisites are sufficient time, money, and the expectation of an acceptable return on investment.
In the case of very demanding AAA games being ported to the Switch, you might have to remake some of them with an entirely different codebase and workflow, and create assets/materials more appropriate for the hardware, so a lot of fidelity would be lost in the process, but conceptually and mechanically, you'd still be looking at the same AAA games. In fact, everything I said applies to last gen hardware as well. Someone could've made RDR2 on the PS3; it just would've been a hell of a lot uglier 😂
In the case of very demanding AAA games being ported to the Switch, you might have to remake some of them with an entirely different codebase and workflow, and create assets/materials more appropriate for the hardware, so a lot of fidelity would be lost in the process, but conceptually and mechanically, you'd still be looking at the same AAA games. In fact, everything I said applies to last gen hardware as well. Someone could've made RDR2 on the PS3; it just would've been a hell of a lot uglier 😂
It's really too weak to support it properly.
Would probably look like red dead revolver to perform well
Ah yes, the ridiculous hot takes always seem to come out in these types of threads don't they.
Ark drops to the single digits at times on every platform. People asked, show a really demanding open world game that runs on the Switch in a comparable way to other platforms, and it exists, it's called Ark: Survival Evolved, it runs acceptably compared to the other versions, considering how shit those are already.
This is just a PR guy saying PR things. There is literally no way the Switch could run RDR2 just on the same way that my iPhone couldn't run RDR2.
What I meant by they don't exist when you aren't there is that they don't have a schedule to follow. Or say if they say "John's away hunting" then he just disappears from the camp, you won't randomly bump into him in the world unless the story demands it.
The position reflecting actual reality: Armchair developers
The position that says RDR2 could run on an iPhone: Rational truthsaying
It's obvious why the game didn't get developed for Switch. This shouldn't be a surprise. You can't expect games like that on Nintendo consoles or portables or whatever.
No, the position is one from an actual programmer and tech artist; you know, someone in the position to actually know how game development works. The reality is that if you're willing to sacrifice rendering fidelity, animation quality, physics accuracy, etc. you really lift a lot of the constraints that you'd normally have with weaker hardware, and as long as the gameplay and storytelling is the same, it would still be the same game, even if it's technically inferior.
Everyone is going to argue circles around each other with this possible/not-possible on Switch.
RDR2 is possible on Switch. It's just the version that we would get most likely no one would want to play. So at that point the fact that it's possible to port becomes kind of irrelevant. IMO.
RDR2 is possible on Switch. It's just the version that we would get most likely no one would want to play. So at that point the fact that it's possible to port becomes kind of irrelevant. IMO.
Exactly. RDR2 lives and dies by it's atmosphere and graphics. Strip that away and it's appeal diminishes so great it wouldn't be worth the port for Rockstar.
Now this is a much more reasonable take than the nonsense I saw earlier in this thread.
You are only talking assets though
What about other CPU/GPU/RAM intensive tasks that require not only that hardware but also adequate power and cooling
Some games are just out of the running in sheer scope depending on that just graphics and rendering alone
It's not that RDR2 "Skipped the switch," it's that the amount of investment needed to downgrade the game for the Switch would make it a product that not many people would want to buy relative to the development effort (cost), and late-stage revenue streams like Red Dead Online would be greatly diminished for the Switch.
This is also probably a reason why GTAV has never come to the Switch, despite launching on PS3 and Xbox 360. The amount of investment needed to make it for the Switch, and the small online community relative to other platforms, wouldn't justify either the initial retail/sales revenue or later revenue from the online component.
If Rockstar could get a huge return making the game for the Switch, they would. But realistically, they wouldn't.
This is also probably a reason why GTAV has never come to the Switch, despite launching on PS3 and Xbox 360. The amount of investment needed to make it for the Switch, and the small online community relative to other platforms, wouldn't justify either the initial retail/sales revenue or later revenue from the online component.
If Rockstar could get a huge return making the game for the Switch, they would. But realistically, they wouldn't.
Maybe I'm mistaken but doesn't your quote say it's not on PC due technical and developmental reasons?
OP
OP
Yup. This is exactly what happened with MGSV and I honestly feel that it kept the game from reaching its true potential.
Oh OK I see. Still it runs worse than the other platforms and on top of that I still don't think it's a good indicator to why RDR2 would be possible on the Switch. A major part of the appeal with RDR2 is the world, AI, and countless little details. If you had to strip most of that back or out entirely, it wouldn't be the same game at all.
To me it sounds like it was never gonna be on PC in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that was because the game was extremely ambitious and Konami just got fed up with paying an expensive project and decided to release it unfinished, but sure.
I'm not just talking about assets, as I elaborated in a subsequent post; physics/simulations/algorithms, animations, path finding/AI scheduling, clipping planes/culling, LOD bias, etc. would all have to be modified with parameters that would be more in line with the specifications of the Switch.
The problem isn't working within the Switch's hardware constraints. The problem is that you'd be looking at significantly inferior visuals and presentation, which may not be at an acceptable standard for a developer like R*
Ark is intact tho. The whole game is in there. It's the worst version, and so would be RDR 2, but many would play it that way because they can take it with them. That's like saying a film should not be watched on an iPad because it has to be watched on a 120" 4K HDR projector with Dolby Atmos sound.
What would it run like, 648p docked and 432p undocked, with less graphical flourish, blurrier textures and more agressive LoD management? It wouldn't look worse than RDR 1 did last gen. And it would look and run a lot better than Ark, that's for sure.
How are we going to downplay the hardware constraints as not the problem
Regardless of what fence of the argument you sit on the conclusion is going to be the same
They aren't going to do it... and the companies that invest in doing this will only do so if the gap is small enough to achieve in reasonable fashion
RDR2 is far enough beyond Switch in spec requirements to assume that its only on the edge of acceptably possible. And Even I think thats stretching it thin
OP
OP
Man, the fuck are you even on about? I'm talking from a technical perspective mate, has nothing to do with the story or feud with Konami. MGSV is one of my favourite games of this gen but you can't deny that the game has poor texture resolution, low poly geometry and awful volumetric cloud implementation. The FOX Engine was literally built from the ground-up to act as a cross-gen beast in Kojima's quest for photorealism and certain design philosophies such as how light and geometry are rendered separately and that KojiPro had to capture specialized textures lit in a way that allows them to capture the lighting data as interpreted by the human eye. With a few graphic tweaks on PC, it looks solid though. FOX Engine's use of linear-space lighting put through a deferred rendering pipeline is awesome, don't get me wrong. The way light interacts with plaster, metal, liquid and the such are done well. Also it's fucking impressive that KojiPro were able to bring PBR sensibilities to last-gen consoles (I know Remember Me did it before). This wasn't a technical limitation but a human one. KojiPro absolutely nailed subsurface scattering and the different volumetric particle effects. Shadow optimization is also well done. You could make the argument that if Konami hadn't pressured Kojima to develop for the PS3 and X360 then we wouldn't have 60fps on PS4/XBO which IMO is more important than graphics.
Last edited:
I have no stakes in such an argument. I don't care that RDR2 isn't coming to the Switch, nor would I buy it if it did.
The point here is that you have people commenting on the feasibility of the game running on the Switch without actually understanding how game development works. That's what I've been responding to.
And no, the only way in which the Switch's hardware constraints are a problem in this case is if you are trying to make the game match the fidelity of the other versions. What I'm saying is that if you lowered the bar with a completely different goal in mind in terms of fidelity, working within the Switch's hardware shouldn't be an issue.
Now, that you even have to make a different version at all may be seen as a problem with the Switch's hardware, but I wasn't contesting that.
That quote would indicate that a messy code could be the reason. It wasn't worth the time or effort for them to get it working for a PC release.
A film is also not a good example. With movies there is mainly just video and audio. However with a game, there are animations, gameplay mechanics, etc. The point I'm trying to make is that aspects of the experience: the detailed animation, far off draw distance, AI, etc. would likely be compromised to the point where the experience suffers. I'm talking about more than just the resolution or sound quality.
brainchild actually explains it very well in the quote below. I'm not sure most would consider this type of a port as "intact". Especially when it's all of these little details that helps produce the type of experience RDR2 provides.
The game looks great. The PBR implementation is excellent, it supports tons of lights in a scene with very little cost, there are some volumetrics in there, the post-processing is still top-tier, and the Fox Engine allowed lots of freedom to artists.
Offcourse they can compare even if they are not same kind of games, point is that we talking of example of porting demading game from consoles that are like 20x stronger than Wii, Switch is far more closer to XB1/PS4 in any case than Wii was to PS3/360.
OP
OP
I kinda rambled with that post but what I'm trying to say is from a purely technical perspective, MGSV could've been something else if KojiPro only focused on the XBO/PS4. The game looks good from a distance but once you start paying attention it is REALLY rough. IMO, MGSV is one of the best examples of a developer working with less and achieving a great result.
True, but I don't think porting RDR2 would fair much better because of the different demands that type of game requires. I think one of the bigger differences is the more robust shader support in the Switch GPU. You could keep the same story, mechanics, world, and music but would be stripping out much of the animation, physics, draw distance, AI, etc.
Last edited:
Getting really tired of the "development predated Switch" argument. We heard it with other games too. If they wanted a Switch version, they would have done it. There was time. Why is it so wrong to say that the Switch, a portable system, doesn't have the power to run certain games to the developers satisfaction? They're going to port RDR2 to PS5/XB2. What will you say then when they don't port it to Switch? Why can't Switch just be it's own thing? Either you're blue ocean or you're red ocean you can't be both Reggie.
It be such a poor way to try to enjoy Red Dead. Looking pretty as fuck and atmosphere is what that game has going for it, aspects that would have to be heavily compromised to make it run on switch.
What else would be left of red dead switch? It's shittastic gameplay?
What else would be left of red dead switch? It's shittastic gameplay?
But don't cartridge sizes go up to 64 GB? The game itself on PS4 is about 50GB. There are the patches and content updates of course, but those can be downloaded separately.
And worse comes to worst, they could just make people download the rest of the game like with Wolfenstein.
Of Course, game would need to be downgraded in any case, lower resolution, lower draw distance, effects, shadows...but it could be done if they really want Switch port (in which I doubt).
"Never" is so strong word, Switch is less than 2 years on market, its not like it stopped receiving games.
Talking about costs, GTA V even on Switch and even without online would sold at least 3m+ at full price point of $60, and they would probably cover costs of port with less than 500k sold copies.
RDR was likely never going to be considered for the Switch even so, but the answer Reggie gives is the legitimate reason for other recent games that are more in the realm of possibility like Soul Calibur or Kingdom Hearts.
If you're a developer and you're already a year deep on making a game targeting the PS4, and then Nintendo shows you their new console and it's not as powerful as a PS4 and they're coming off of the WiiU, a huge flop, well you're probably not gonna immediately greenlight the additional resources to add the Switch to your pipeline.
If you're a developer and you're already a year deep on making a game targeting the PS4, and then Nintendo shows you their new console and it's not as powerful as a PS4 and they're coming off of the WiiU, a huge flop, well you're probably not gonna immediately greenlight the additional resources to add the Switch to your pipeline.
I understand. Isnt that more related to memory/RAM however? Like you mention, Skyrim, that game was on last generation of consoles. Theres also Minecraft, which has to remember everything whats been done since its a "building simulator", but were both Skyrim and Minecraft on PS3/Xbox 360 more demanding than RDR2 as a whole? I cant imagine that.
I know the example was about ARK, but i'm just comparing feature sets and to see if those make a game more demanding or not. In certain areas, its very much possible. ARK on Android requires 3GB of RAM if i'm not mistaken. Thats not exactly a small amount. But as a whole? I dont think thats the case.
Last edited:
OP
OP
"Has never" is not the same as "will never." "Has never come" is the past perfect tense, which just means that something hasn't happened (in this case). "Will never come" is the future perfect tense:
This website is a design abomination but explains here: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tenses/past_perfect.htm
"I have never eaten a balogna sandwich" vs. "I will never eat a balogna sandwich."
"GTAV has never come to the switch," is a true statement.
It's not impossible, I bet Panic Button could do it.
With that said it would likely be in 720p or even sub-HD resolution with some serious downscaling on graphics, world detail and probably game AI/physics as well.
I'd still be interested in it for portability and as a tech demo though..
With that said it would likely be in 720p or even sub-HD resolution with some serious downscaling on graphics, world detail and probably game AI/physics as well.
I'd still be interested in it for portability and as a tech demo though..