I don't think it's a coincidence that the current gen games we see smash down to switch are hardy, gameplay-focused games. Stuff like doom, Diablo, Warframe and fortnite can easily suffer a big graphical downgrade and come out the other end essentially undiminished.
Saying that RDR2 isn't on Switch because of Rockstars schedule is dishonest. Because Rockstars schedule has nothing to do with there not being a Switch version.Nothing he sad was dishonest. It was spin. He says it in such a way that the reporter can't back him into a corner and get him to say something negative about his product ("too underpowered to run RDR2").
Yeah, well sure. Undocked, the Switch Is slightly stronger than the Wii U except it has more ram. Docked, it's stronger than that. But it's still drastically weaker than an xb1 or PS4. Or, weak enough that it would be very difficult to downport certain titles.it's not "a bit stronger than wii u". it's significant stronger. wii u never ran doom 2016 with that crappy cpu and 1gb of ram. switch is a half generation ahead and also supports current features and engines. you'll see it in the next future.
You are just contradicting yourself at this point. That whole sentence contradicts what you're sayingSaying that RDR2 isn't on Switch because of Rockstars schedule is dishonest. Because Rockstars schedule has nothing to do with there not being a Switch version.
That excuse would make sense if the Switch was technically capable of running RDR2, but since it isn't its dishonest nonsense.
Lol that's the most unexperienced comment i've read in a while, how much do you know about making and porting a game lolIf they could fit DOOM 2016 on the Switch, they can fit Red Dead 2. It'd just be a vastly inferior experience with some SERIOUS graphical compromises.
If it's unoptimized it's unoptimized on everything because it's the same codebase. I really don't understand this argument, it's a game that takes lots of CPU and GPU power to run properly and compares favorably to the other versions but it doesn't count because reasons.I believe ark isn't really more demanding, it's juat terribly optimized.
It's very demanding, period. It runs at terrible resolutions and terrible framerates on all systems. That's the definition of demanding. And it's not a specific bottleneck because it does so across different platforms, memory subsystems and GPU architectures, meaning it's simply a very demanding game. Demanding=! PrettyWe don't know how demanding ARK is though. We do know that it's incredibly unoptimized.
Have there been any other big, 30fps AAA open world titles that have been ported down to the Switch or are planned? Assassins Creed, Watch Dogs 2, Far Cry, Cyberpunk, Witcher 3, Fallout 4 or 76?
Doom and Wolfenstine ran at half the frame rate with a resolution that could dip to sub-hd.
Just a friendly reminder that RDR2 runs at 864p on Xbox One. Is it going to run at 240p on Switch?
Where is the Switch docked compared to the One?
50% as powerful?
60%?
I have heard it is about as powerful as a 360 undocked but I don't even know if that is true.
Because its a dumb and dishonest response. He NEEDS to tell them the Switch cannot handle it.It seems like people just want Reggie to say the switch is underpowered when people ask them about porting big budget 3rd party games, otherwise we go round and round arguing about misinformation, spin, PR, blah blah.
If you already knew the reason, what's the point in seeking an answer to pigeonhole somebody into an answer over something largely inconsequential and immaterial?
To be fair, Doom on XB1 also runs most of time at 830p.
XB1 is something like 2-3 times stronger than Switch.
But bottom line if these next gen games need to run on the PS4 or Xbox One there is a chance they will run on the Switch. And anyway, we have another 1.5-2 years before the next gen so in the interim more and more third party games will come to the Switch and if they are selling that well publishers will have to take note, even when the next gen starts. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm fairly optimistic.I don't think it would work out that way. Assuming these games are designed with next gen in mind, they would have to be cut down to fit on current gen systems. Look at certain games released early this gen like Watch Dogs or even extreme examples like MGSV and Shadow of War. These cut down versions would then need to be stripped down even more to fit on the Switch and I'm not sure that would make sense.
Basically you're reasoning would make sense if the Switch was in the same power category of the other consoles, but that's not the case.
It's one thing to cut down and port a linear, scripted game and a different thing to port an open world with complex AI, animations, streaming, etc. The two examples can't be compared.
Unless it was the video, I've seen footage that looked to drop to the single digits. Using Ark as an example to why RDR2 can run on the Switch is very misleading or misguided way of going about this IMO.
Lol no. More like 50%/25%. How can games like Outlast 2 push a quarter of the pixels per second that XBOX One pushes, in portable mode, if it has 10% the GPU power?I'd say 25-30% as powerful docked. Probably 10-15% portable since GPU goes down to 200GF
I'd say 25-30% as powerful docked. Probably 10-15% portable since GPU goes down to 200GF
I personally don't care how you categorize it. The reality is that it isn't untrue that one of the reasons the game isn't on the Switch is because of how long it was in development for the other systems. No one is saying it is the sole reason, and when it comes to these kinds of decisions, there is never a single, sole reason. Reggie just capitalized on that fact.
Let's be honest here: cpu is not surely the reason. Consoles haven't absolutely a decent cpu. RDR is not feasible for the RAM and probably the gpu. But cpu is ridiculous in every home console.Sure Reggie, great PR answer but that game won't be possible on Switch because it requires:
- 100GB of game data
- 5GB of ram for all the open world systems to run
- Decent CPU, the game would run at sub-15fps on Switch.
The situation is similar with Monster Hunter World (except for the 100GB of game data obviously)
I clearly mean in terms of raw specs. Not saying games can't work on both that's up to the developers to decide.Lol no. More like 50%/25%. How can games like Outlast 2 push a quarter of the pixels per second that XBOX One pushes, in portable mode, if it has 10% the GPU power?
Edit: and basically every other multiplatform game on the system...
You'd be surprised. The Switch CPU is actually weaker than the archaic Jaguars in PS4/XB1.Let's be honest here: cpu is not surely the reason. Consoles haven't absolutely a decent cpu. RDR is not feasible for the RAM and probably the gpu. But cpu is ridiculous in every home console.
Ehh, 30% maybe
But raw specs of a GPU mean about the same as the "raw specs" of a CPU. A Bulldozer CPU with 8 cores at 4GHZ has the same number of cores and threads as a Core i7 9700 at the same frequency, but we both know which one is more powerful. GPUs happen to be in the same situation, because just because they have a number of compute units and of cycles per second, and thus maximum number of operations per second, it doesn't mean the way they do those operations through complex instructions is the same. That's why a Maxwell/Pascal GPU with 4TFLOP performs as well in real loads as a 6TFLOP GCN GPU.I clearly mean in terms of raw specs. Not saying games can't work on both that's up to the developers to decide.
But in terms of pure stats, 196GF in portable mode vs 1.3TF base Xbox One
Probably a streamed version lolRealistically, if tomorrow Mr Rockstar loses a bet and needs to honor it by porting the game on switch with a reasonable amount of ressources (by throwing money and drugs for about a year to Mr. Iron Galaxy for example), what kind of RDR2 are we looking at?
By reducing the assets quality and being a little bit smart, could they halve the game size to fit a 64Gb cart?
Regarding the visuals, and given that the switch is, overall, a good deal more powerful than the previous gen, I would expect the graphics to be in between RDR1 and 2, at a dynamic 720p; is that correct?
Regarding the mechanics of the game, I played it and there's nothing that seemed to me out the realm of what's possible on switch (or even on previous gen honestly). Am I missing something?
I'm asking you these questions out of pure curiosity, as I'm not interested in this game on switch or any other plateform (I hated the 10 hours I played it). But it's a technical benchmark for sure, and I'm really curious to see how far the switch could go when proper resources are allocated to porting an ambitious game.
Realistically, if tomorrow Mr Rockstar loses a bet and needs to honor it by porting the game on switch with a reasonable amount of ressources (by throwing money and drugs for about a year to Mr. Iron Galaxy for example), what kind of RDR2 are we looking at?
By reducing the assets quality and being a little bit smart, could they halve the game size to fit a 64Gb cart?
Regarding the visuals, and given that the switch is, overall, a good deal more powerful than the previous gen, I would expect the graphics to be in between RDR1 and 2, at a dynamic 720p; is that correct?
Regarding the mechanics of the game, I played it and there's nothing that seemed to me out the realm of what's possible on switch (or even on previous gen honestly). Am I missing something?
I'm asking you these questions out of pure curiosity, as I'm not interested in this game on switch or any other plateform (I hated the 10 hours I played it). But it's a technical benchmark for sure, and I'm really curious to see how far the switch could go when proper resources are allocated to porting an ambitious game.
Yep. This is typical pr speak. Can't hate him for it. Every company does itWell I suppose that`s one way for Reggie to be economical with the truth.
He can't really say "The Switch can't run RDR2 without a substantial downgrade and the opportunity cost isn't worth it to Rockstar. So sorry, we're not getting it and probably won't ever see other Rockstar titles on Switch either.".
Yeah an neither is his. Making false equivalences like that are what seeds things like the lazy dev stuff. But just so you know your post isnt helpful either.