Report: Nintendo Switch Isn't as Powerful as a PS4

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
Elvis Starburst said:
Jesus christ, how many times do we need to do the speculation with this thing? Let January happen first, THEN we can yell at Nintendo.

I don't see Nintendo?s strategy as a risk," said Peddie. "Too many pundits and fan boys and investors make a serious mistake when they try to compare and contrast Nintendo with Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo has a niche in the affordable, accessible product, and performance is never a leading criteria for them. It is gameplay and immersion. They are never a technology pioneer. Trying to compare Nintendo to Sony is like comparing a Volkswagen to a Corvette. It?s a facetious and fallacious analogy and a discredit to fans who love Nintendo."
- Taken from the linked article

I feel like everyone forgets this. I always have to ask the same question of "What on Earth did you guys expect?"
But then people wouldn't get to turn it into a narrative and keep doing this bullshit melodrama because there always needs to be some dramatic because everything being fine is BORING.
 

ExileNZ

New member
Dec 15, 2007
915
0
0
This just in, Nintendo's latest mobile outing is less powerful than Sony's VR-capable mainstay.

"I am simply shocked", said No One Ever.

News at 11.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Kibeth41 said:
If the Switch is a handheld, then Nintendo needs to stop marketing it as a home console. And I'm not spinning my argument. As graphical performance has increased, so have game sales.

You have experience with developers? That's nice. Name names so that I may verify your claims of these games being released on the Switch.

Hardware is not comparable. The console don't use off the shelf components like PCs, therefore compatibility is an issue. Sony has dumped no small amount of money in to their processor designs. Just because the PS4 has a faster processor than a PS3, doesn't automatically mean it can run all PS3 games natively.

People love low res games, because they are the kinds they grew up with; Nostalgia.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
AzrealMaximillion said:
It won't because of its gimmick and Nintendo's severely damaged 3rd party relationships. Just like the Wii U.
Yeah, I think Nintendo are done as a home console maker, all they are doing now is competing with themselves in the handhelds.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Charcharo said:
In actuality, on same FLOPs, Maxwell and Pascal are the same.
Seems like a waste of money to me, to design a new chip that doesn't offer any improvements over it's predecessor.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
The switch clearly is a handheld.

It also clearly is a home console device.


You can't just judge it as a home console device entirely for the same reason judging it as a portable entirely is wrong. To be fair you have to kinda create a new category which presently only it occupies. In this way it can with some credibility fend off such criticism, at least for a time.



Also I still don't know if the damn thing is gonna be region locked or not, which is the only relevant thing here. All this talk about AAA publishers is nonsense. All the switch has to do is inherit the 3DS libary creators and devs and it'll be fine, the AAA bs is gonna be like a cherry on top of the alreay delicious cake of 3DS games that made the console amazingly successful despite its dumb 3D gimmick which saw no smart use beyond Sengran Kagura projecting 3D boobs at you.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
008Zulu said:
You have experience with developers? That's nice. Name names so that I may verify your claims of these games being released on the Switch.
*sigh* seriously -.-...

Quote me where I stated either of these. I challenge you.

The reality of what I stated was that I have experience with games development, and that those games are capable of being released on the Switch's hardware.

If the Switch is a handheld, then Nintendo needs to stop marketing it as a home console. And I'm not spinning my argument. As graphical performance has increased, so have game sales.
It hasn't. At literally any point in time.

Yes, you did. You switched it from "graphics are THE most important" to "graphics are important", hoping I wouldn't call you out.

And no, they haven't. It has no correlation to graphics. You can pull in statistical data if you want, but it's literally against you, because you're factually wrong. If you weren't, ten the Vita would have outsold the 3DS, and the 360 and PS3 would have outsold the Wii.

Hardware is not comparable. The console don't use off the shelf components like PCs, therefore compatibility is an issue. Sony has dumped no small amount of money in to their processor designs. Just because the PS4 has a faster processor than a PS3, doesn't automatically mean it can run all PS3 games natively.
Yes, it is. And the PS4 is entirely capable of it. In the same way the Xbox One can be modified to work with popular 360 titles, and the way the Wii U literally emulates the Wii. It's just more hassle than it's worth, in the most literal sense.

You're seriously over estimating the complication of porting games. You're not completely locked down from day 1 of development. The way emulators work, the way the Wii U and Xbox One are both backwards compatible, and the way games like Banjo Kazooie jumped from the fucking N64 to the Xbox 360 must be a fucking marvel to you.

And don't dodge my question.

how the fuck do you even rationalize love for the (as you put it) "low res" games?
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
008Zulu said:
Charcharo said:
In actuality, on same FLOPs, Maxwell and Pascal are the same.
Seems like a waste of money to me, to design a new chip that doesn't offer any improvements over it's predecessor.
New Delta Colour Compression? Advancements in the ROPs? Better clocks and thermals? Less leakage? Revamped Poly Engine?

Also, I am fairly certain Pascal was fairly cheap for Nvidia. Remember, their fanboys have no idea of hardware so it doesnt matter what you show them at all. In fact, the worse the engineering the better because then they will buy again :)
 

Las7

New member
Nov 22, 2014
146
0
0
008Zulu said:
Kibeth41 said:
It's a handheld. Why do people expect this device to cure cancer?
We are at the point where graphics seem to be the most important factor in games. If the Switch can't deliver, then it won't find mainstream acceptance.
Yep... not even remotely true all you need to look at the PC market. Graphics "sale" consoles because Sony and Microsoft have 10 exclusive games worth buying combined.
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Dreiko said:
All this talk about AAA publishers is nonsense. All the switch has to do is inherit the 3DS libary creators and devs and it'll be fine, the AAA bs is gonna be like a cherry on top of the alreay delicious cake of 3DS games that made the console amazingly successful despite its dumb 3D gimmick which saw no smart use beyond Sengran Kagura projecting 3D boobs at you.
What?

I don't think any 3DS Developer is going to be hopping into making a mass amount of games for this console. Lets not act like the 3rd Party problem Nintendo has isn't on handhelds here. Rune Factory 4 outdid it's creator's expectations and they still went bankrupt.
3rd party titles do have trouble selling on handheld with Nintendo. Its not as bad as it is on console, but its not great either.
The 3DS didn't sell based on Senran Kagura (which has left the 3DS and gone Sony/PC due to increases sales there). It sold based on the standard Nintendo IPs like always. Smash Bros, Top Down Legend of Zelda, Mario, Yoshi, Kirby, Fire Emblem, etc. The 3DS has a lot of units sold, but like most Nintendo console, its 3rd party support needs help.

I don't think its a smart move for 3rd party devs to be making games in a handheld market that's eating itself through one company. I also don't think people are going to be cool with the majority of the Switch being upgraded 3DS games.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
They're gonna be next gen 3ds games, not just upgraded ones, and next gen in the old sense where you DO notice the visual difference and don't just assume that it is there because the box has a 4 in the end.


3DS did great and the switch is gonna be the way for handheld nintendo stuff to be played. Full stop. The home console stuff is negligible. A cherry on top. Even if it had no AAA games it'd do at least as well as a 3DS sequel would which is good enough. Most people already have a ps4 anyways so the switch will fill in its own niche as opposd to simply replacing a potential ps4 or pc purchase or whatever deluded nintendo fans may imagine.


It sucks Natsume closed but they are just one studio. Despite them, the 3DS literally prited money for Nintendo. There's no two ways about that. For every series jumping ship to ps4 two more worth playing ones get made.
 

darkrage6

New member
May 11, 2016
478
0
0
Gorfias said:
x
Guffe said:
Then again, I really wonder who actually thought Nintendo would come out with a some sort of superpowerful machine. Hasn't really been part of their MO, so to say.
Not recently anyway. The 8 bit NES was supposedly better than the 8 big sega machine, 16 SNES more powerful than the Sega offering, but developers figured out how to use a chip meant for timing to add even more processing power (For Starfox). The N64 was much more powerful than the PS1 (but its continued dependence upon cartridges killed them that round). Gamecube much faster, sturdier and more powerful than the PS2. But they lost. I think that's when they decided power wasn't everything.

I'm not surprised about the Switch's power. It's a tablet and a small one at that. And it is supposed to compete with a device the size of a briefcase?

I hope it does well.
Those consoles failed for other reasons, N64 would've done better if it had used CDs instead of cartridges(which cost 70-80 dollars compared to the 50-60 dollars PS1 and Saturn games cost), the latter format made N64 versions of games inferior to PS1 verisons, as the latter did not have to have it's games severely compressed and could feature voice-acting(which took Nintendo ages to learn how to do on the N64), the Gamecube's bizarre mini-disc format(which like the N64 catridges had it's limitations in regards to voice-acting, which was noticeable on the GC version of Def Jam Fight for New York) and lack of ability to play DVDs unlike the Xbox and PS2 is what set it back(you'd think Nintendo would've learned from Sega's failed GD-ROM format).
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Kibeth41 said:
games like Okami, Zelda, Journey and Overwatch are all capable of running on the Switch.
Right there you are making claims of what games can run on the Switch. I require proof that you know what games can run on the Switch.

Re-read my post, I said "seem to".

Emulation not only requires that the platform meet the expected requirements of the game, but exceed them as it also has to run the emulation software at the same time.

And I did answer the question.
008Zulu said:
People love low res games, because they are the kinds they grew up with; Nostalgia.
Now do me the courtesy of answering mine.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,978
475
88
Country
USA
darkrage6 said:
Those consoles failed for other reasons, N64 would've done better if it had used CDs instead of cartridges(which cost 70-80 dollars compared to the 50-60 dollars PS1 and Saturn games cost), the latter format made N64 versions of games inferior to PS1 verisons, as the latter did not have to have it's games severely compressed and could feature voice-acting(which took Nintendo ages to learn how to do on the N64), the Gamecube's bizarre mini-disc format(which like the N64 catridges had it's limitations in regards to voice-acting, which was noticeable on the GC version of Def Jam Fight for New York) and lack of ability to play DVDs unlike the Xbox and PS2 is what set it back(you'd think Nintendo would've learned from Sega's failed GD-ROM format).
N64 Absolutely about the carts. I think they held 1/10th the data the CDRoms (which, I think for PS1 could play music as well)and cost more. But it had "3d" images that popped at the time compared to what the PS1 could do. The mini disc was a bad idea and that the PS2, with no additional purchases, could play DVDs (a cheap player by itself cost about $200 at the time) gave people reason to get that system. But the cube would have lost that gen even though it was the more powerful system. Most people get one console. PS2 was BC with PS1 and had been out for a year before the cube, so that people had already bought the thing (hence MS rush to get out the 360) and had a library of games while the Cube had Luigi's Mansion. So Nintendo realized it didn't need to be #1 power, they need a hook. And we go the Wii.

Wii U didn't offer enough of a hook and failed. Crappy marketing didn't help.

The Switch appears to be doing everything right that the Wii U did wrong. Better hook (real portability) and infinitely better marketing. People can actually understand what it is.

But you still have the problem the Cube ran into: that we've had the PS4 and XB1 for 3 years (Already!) with BC... and will still have better graphics than the Switch. And the hook? Do we really want portability from a 2nd device when we already have our smart phones?

It is going to be a challenge but count me interested.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
008Zulu said:
Right there you are making claims of what games can run on the Switch. I require proof that you know what games can run on the Switch.

Emulation not only requires that the platform meet the expected requirements of the game, but exceed them as it also has to run the emulation software at the same time.
I don't have the time nor patience to sit for 7 hours to attempt to explain the intracacies of games programming or optimisation to someone who's had to be corrected by 3-4 people already, who thinks the term "low res" is correct. And no, the games don't need to be emulated. E.g. Skyrim is not going to be run on the Switch using an emulator. This is ignoring the fact that you wouldn't even read walls of text. If you're generally interested, then go and do your own reading. Any research'll show I'm right.

Your nostalgia answer doesn't apply. Critically acclaimed games with budget graphics are still made today (e.g. Undertale, Minecraft etc). And people constantly play old games which they never played during childhood.

And no, they haven't. It has no correlation to graphics. You can pull in statistical data if you want, but it's literally against you, because you're factually wrong. If you weren't, ten the Vita would have outsold the 3DS, and the 360 and PS3 would have outsold the Wii.
how the fuck do you even rationalize love for the (as you put it) "low res" games?

EDIT: The amazing thing is that if it wasn't announced to some extent. You'd be in denial about Skyrim as well. But you can't grasp that so you say it's incomparable to other games.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Kibeth41 said:
I don't have the time nor patience
If I can statistically prove something, which I have, then it cannot be factually wrong. And if you are too lazy to do your own research, then this debate is over, and you have lost.

BTW; Skyrim is yet to be a formally acknowledged title, by either Nintendo or Bethesda.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
008Zulu said:
If I can statistically prove something, which I have, then it cannot be factually wrong. And if you are too lazy to do your own research, then this debate is over, and you have lost.
Skyrim isn't confirmed to be a released title, but it's not a question of the game running. It's whether or not they want to port it.

You've literally not presented a single statistic in this entire argument. You haven't even tried, because you're aware that you're factually wrong. And I've no need for research?

The only thing you've been correct about thus far is that I'm too lazy to write walls of text trying to explain a concept that you're ultimately not interested in. I could point you in the right direction if you WERE interested. But I value my time far more than an internet argument to waste hours of it on you.

Being intentionally evasive loses the argument.

If you're going to make the claim that "graphics are the most important thing", then you better have some answers for the common debate points.

So far, all you've given is "A few people commented on the graphics, so graphics are THE most important graphics to EVERYONE".

You've pulled up so many false conclusions it's just getting ridiculous.

And no, they haven't. It has no correlation to graphics. You can pull in statistical data if you want, but it's literally against you, because you're factually wrong. If you weren't, ten the Vita would have outsold the 3DS, and the 360 and PS3 would have outsold the Wii.
how the fuck do you even rationalize love for the (as you put it) "low res" games?
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Kibeth41 said:
You've literally not presented a single statistic in this entire argument. You haven't even tried, because you're aware that you're factually wrong. And I've no need for research?
Perhaps you forgot the research I presented where almost 100,000 people thought that graphics were an important part of games?

You on the other hand have made several statements, none of which you have even remotely tried to back up. Stating what games can run on the Switch for example, still waiting on that proof.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
008Zulu said:
Perhaps you forgot the research I presented where almost 100,000 people thought that graphics were an important part of games?
The fuck? You literally never did this.

You said you saw 100'000 reviews. And out of the few you looked at, the graphics were noted.

You then decided that since the sample you looked at mention the graphics. That the graphics are THE most important aspect to ALL 100'000 people.

There's a name for what you're doing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_fallacy