• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Tabata comments on Final Fantasy XV for Nintendo Switch, currently no plan

Aside for the ARM nature if X1, this post is full of false statements.

Please, people: stop with these threads. Every time I read nonsensical analysis on Tegra-based hardware. We already know the power of Tegra, it's a well documented and tested SoC.
And it can't compete with a PC based hardware such as modern consoles.

Please, stop.

A) Tegra is not a SoC. Tegra is a line of SoCs, with a wide array of varying performance levels

B) The Switch does not use a Tegra X1. This has been confirmed by Nvidia. It uses a custom chip, likely based on a TX1 but we have no official info on what changes were made.

C) Tegra Parker (which the Switch can't possibly be using) could definitely compete with modern consoles. It just wouldn't fit in the Switch's form factor.

Tegra by itself really doesn't say anything about processing power like you seem to think it does.
 

routerbad

Banned
I was under the impression that the Jaguar was a laptop part rather than a mobile/tablet one.
The Nvidia shield TV utilises the X1. But I've not heard much in terms of it 's performance. But isn't that just the CPU side of things. The PS4 and Xbox one have significantly more powerful GPUs.

With the Switch games have to run on the baseline which is when it's undocked so that's what ported games need to target to run.

> laptop

> mobile

They definitely have more powerful GPU's. More raw power. I think it's possible to design a switch like device that is more powerful, but it would not have good battery life and would be incredibly expensive to produce.
 

Oregano

Member
This is really not about power anyway. Any game can be downgraded, except if maybe FFXV drastically needs a DD for exemple.

But the lack of support from SE is more about them having a binary strategy i guess now. There is the AAA budget titles that are each time a fucking gambling of all their money, and smartphone games that are safer bets. There is probably no real room anymore for a middle ground. Which is a shame i think. Something like Bravely Default, which was a brand new, important ip with a moderate budget is important for them. Being able to output classic, good (well i didn't like it but anyway) rpgs that are modest, yet not cheap fan services.

Also at least they should port their vita games on Switch, no excuses. It's easy money i mean..

WTF? Have you even been paying attention?
 

VariantX

Member
This is really not about power anyway. Any game can be downgraded, except if maybe FFXV drastically needs a DD for exemple.

But the lack of support from SE is more about them having a binary strategy i guess now. There is the AAA budget titles that are each time a fucking gambling of all their money, and smartphone games that are safer bets. There is probably no real room anymore for a middle ground. Which is a shame i think. Something like Bravely Default, which was a brand new, important ip with a moderate budget is important for them. Being able to output classic, good (well i didn't like it but anyway) rpgs that are modest, yet not cheap fan services.

Also at least they should port their vita games on Switch, no excuses. It's easy money i mean..

A bravely default 1 & 2 compilation with higher quality textures would be sick actually and I wouldn't hesitate to buy that. Could throw in some extra classes or side content to further sweeten the deal.
 

routerbad

Banned
A) Tegra is not a SoC. Tegra is a line of SoCs, with a wide array of varying performance levels

B) The Switch does not use a Tegra X1. This has been confirmed by Nvidia. It uses a custom chip, likely based on a TX1 but we have no official info on what changes were made.

C) Tegra Parker (which the Switch can't possibly be using) could definitely compete with modern consoles. It just wouldn't fit in the Switch's form factor.

Tegra by itself really doesn't say anything about processing power like you seem to think it does.

Curious, why wouldn't it fit the form factor? The die size on a 16nm process would be the same as an X1, or close to it, if I remember correctly from what a few people were saying about the leak from foxconn. Or that it would match exactly the measured die size as given in the leak.
 
This is really not about power anyway. Any game can be downgraded, except if maybe FFXV drastically needs a DD for exemple.

But the lack of support from SE is more about them having a binary strategy i guess now. There is the AAA budget titles that are each time a fucking gambling of all their money, and smartphone games that are safer bets. There is probably no real room anymore for a middle ground. Which is a shame i think. Something like Bravely Default, which was a brand new, important ip with a moderate budget is important for them. Being able to output classic, good (well i didn't like it but anyway) rpgs that are modest, yet not cheap fan services.

Also at least they should port their vita games on Switch, no excuses. It's easy money i mean..

Nier Automata, Dragon Quest Builders, Dragon Quest Heroes, World of Final Fantasy, and Octopath Travelers would all for in that middle tier category.

SE has thier hands in everything.
 
Curious, why wouldn't it fit the form factor? The die size on a 16nm process would be the same as an X1, or close to it, if I remember correctly from what a few people were saying about the leak from foxconn.

Parker, the chip, has basically two GPU dies if I remember correctly. Which would make it more than double the size of the TX1 chip.

A 16nm version of the TX1 on the other hand would certainly be possible. According to that Foxconn leak the likeliest scenario at this point is 4x A72s and 2 SMs on 16nm, which is more or less a TX1 made on a 16nm process, with newer and cheaper CPU cores.

EDIT: Ah nevermind I was wrong about Parker- the PX2 is what I was thinking of which utilizes two Parker chips. Parker itself wouldn't make sense due to the Denver CPU cores but some variation of it might.
 

Jonnax

Member

Okay? So your point was the for a console's performance to be an order of magnitude higher the clock rate needs to be 10x higher.

I was being factious to point out that a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 is no way near the performance of a Kaby Lake i5/i7 at the same clock speed.

So you replied with a link to a video of Witcher running on absolute minimum settings and looking like a slideshow with "Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (2 CPUs) 2,13 Ghz~3Ghz"

Doesn't that just prove my point that clock speed doesn't directly correlate with performance?
 

ahkdigital

Neo Member
The handheld is comically underpowered, Nintendo fans should be happy and content enough to get the KH HD remakes at best. I really wanted KH3 on Switch but if it does happen, that shit gonna have some serious downgrades.

Also with those updates about KH3's development progress, it ain't gonna be ready until PS6 and Switch 3 anyway so I might still get it on a handheld :p

Here's the thing, though:

G: Is there any possibility for Final Fantasy XV to be released on Nintendo Switch?

HT: There are no Plans, it wouldn't run...

G: It wouldn't run at all?

HT: It might run... But we haven't conducted the proper tests on whether it would run properly on Switch or not, so I cannot say for sure.

In other words, he just said it won't run as an assumed off the cuff answer and not actually based on testing.
 
The PX2 has one Pascal GPU with 256 CUDA cores, 8x A57 cores, and 2x Denver CPU cores.

it's on a 16nm process

Tegra PX (X1) is on a 20nm process, and uses a Maxwell GPU, similar die size. The die sizes I think are close to the same.

You were thinking about the DrivePX2, which has two X2's and two Pascal GPU's

Just had to look it up, i couldn't recall from memory.

Yeah that's what I was thinking of. It's seemingly the only product using Parker at this point, which I think is why I got confused there.


But anyway, tying this back to this thread, we really have no information about the relative power of the Switch, and considering what is possible in its form factor (when you look at Parker for instance- 1.5TF at FP16) calling it woefully underpowered or likening this power gap to the one the Wii had is very premature. Especially in light of the Foxconn leak.

And especially when Tabata openly admitted that he hasn't even tried to test if it would run, so he can't be sure of it without having tried. Not that I expect the Switch to be PS4 level in power- of course I don't- its just that games are incredibly scalable, and the relative power between the PS4 and Switch will never be an insurmountable barrier to a port.
 
In what reality? As a console sure but as a handheld it's still cutting edge.

Really...? I thought graphically the Switch was at best, on par with the Vita?

I don't understand man...its obvious the Switch lacks power. Why are people claiming to be surprised to lack of more graphically demanding 3rd party games? I mean, most aren't. Yet, we run around this issue every single time. If Nintendo would just push that power.... but no. *throws hands in air*
 
Really...? I thought graphically the Switch was at best, on par with the Vita?

Yikes, no. The Switch is outputting games in 1080p 60fps, many Vita games struggled to reach 540p.

The Switch is far, far, far stronger than the Vita. At least one order of magnitude, if not more.
 
I mean, they could just about get the game to run on Xbox One and PS4. Getting this onto Switch would be a nightmare not worth enduring.
 
Nope. Switch is pretty much exactly what a Vita 2 would be.

Ah, well in that case excuse my ignorance. Never owned a Vita but I knew enough with Sony handhelds that their graphical power was always a bridge between their console siblings.

When making the connection of graphical output, hearing the Vita output 540p....well.


Yikes, no. The Switch is outputting games in 1080p 60fps, many Vita games struggled to reach 540p.

The Switch is far, far, far stronger than the Vita. At least one order of magnitude, if not more.

Wait a minute...is that 1080p/60fps not only in docked mode? If not, woe is me.
 

Oregano

Member
Ah, well in that case excuse my ignorance. Never owned a Vita but I knew enough with Sony handhelds that their graphical power was always a bridge between their console siblings.

When making the connection of graphical output, hearing the Vita output 540p....well.

No worries. A lot of Vita games actually run lower than 540p even, some as low as 360p.
 

jose1

Member
Lmao, of course FFXV is not coming to switch. Why would they even ask that? FFXV devs would literally have to rip everything apart, rebuild the game from scratch, then pray it will run.

Just for the game to have a chance of hitting 30fps (and likely still not doing it), they would have to rewrite most of the engine/game code to use ARM cpu instructions, use much lower-poly models with low-res textures and simplified materials, replace all dynamic lighting with static pre-baked, reduce amount of light sources on screen, make the day-night cycle switch between pre-baked times of day (maybe even ditch it completely), remove cloud and sky simulation and replace with static skybox, remove or simplify most shaders, simplify/remove weather system, severely downgrade all particle fx/fog, remove physics based animation, reduce draw distance and LOD, downgrade grass/shrubs/trees, make cutscenes into movie files instead of realtime (like ffxiii), dynamic 900p docked, up to 720p mobile.

That's a lot of risk. The port would be over a year late with massive downgrades, reception would be very critical.
 
Call of Duty games, Dead Rising, etc were ported to Wii. So obviously a downgraded version of FFXV could theoretically run...like 720p max, 30 fps, texture downgrades, etc etc.

But they're not gonna put the effort, just like the majority of 3rd party devs won't. This isn't news lol

Nah, it's not the same situation, Switch ist nearer to X One than Wii was to 360. Also Switch has all modern features. But they would have to port the Luminous Engine, they would have to scale down, it would cost money. For one old game that would come too late. UE 4 games are something else. If the Switch sells like crazy in Japan it will get those probably.
 

Oregano

Member
Ah, well in that case excuse my ignorance. Never owned a Vita but I knew enough with Sony handhelds that their graphical power was always a bridge between their console siblings.

When making the connection of graphical output, hearing the Vita output 540p....well.




Wait a minute...is that 1080p/60fps not only in docked mode? If not, woe is me.

Is it only in docked mode. Portable/Tabletop are 720p.
 
Don't be surprised when KH3 and FF7R aren't on Switch either, despite how so many are trying to convince themselves that they are coming.

Exactly. A lot of Nintendo fans were saying KHIII, VIIR and XV ports were guranteeed and now pretending they aren't shocked and that XV runs terrible and unfinished.
 

ynwzh

Neo Member
G: Is there any possibility for Final Fantasy XV to be released on Nintendo Switch?

Y: There are no Plans, I wouldn’t play on any console anyway

G: You wouldn’t play at all?

Y: I never play, I can say for sure.

G: So there is no plan at all?

Y: There are no plans for the series to hope at the moment, but overall, there is interest in XVI among myself. I do have lots of Ito fans inside myself.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Okay? So your point was the for a console's performance to be an order of magnitude higher the clock rate needs to be 10x higher.

Thats what an order of magnitude means, and you were talking about cpu performance being "an order of magnitude higher" not "console performance".
 
Are you for real with this?

Of course Switch could run the XIII games.

For some reason people are thinking this is a Wii -> PS3/360 gap when in reality it's a much, much smaller gap.

I don't think people are going to stop thinking this until actual PS4/XB1 multiplats come out on the Switch and they look fine.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
For some reason people are thinking this is a Wii -> PS3/360 gap when in reality it's a much, much smaller gap.

I don't think people are going to stop thinking this until actual PS4/XB1 multiplats come out on the Switch and they look fine.

The annoying thing is fanboys trying to argue that a mobile device is entitled to ports and devs have no actual technical consideration necessary to port games apparently, just because the Switch architecturally supports the modern engines.

KH 0.2 runs at 900p and 30fps and suffers from framedrops on normal PS4 already and needs pro to get to 1080p.

Do people really think there is no technical consideration and will still call foul when KH3 is not on Switch?
 

Asd202

Member
The annoying thing is fanboys trying to argue that a mobile device is entitled to ports devs hve no actual technical consideration necessary to port games just because the Switch architecturally supports the modern engines.

KH 0.2 runs at 900p and 30fps and suffers from framedrops on normal PS4 already and needs pro to get to 1080p.

Do people really think there is no technical consideration and will still call foul when KH3 is not on Switch?

Yep this.
 
The annoying thing is fanboys trying to argue that a mobile device is entitled to ports and devs have no actual technical consideration necessary to port games apparently, just because the Switch architecturally supports the modern engines.

KH 0.2 runs at 900p and 30fps and suffers from framedrops on normal PS4 already and needs pro to get to 1080p.

Do people really think there is no technical consideration and will still call foul when KH3 is not on Switch?

I haven't seen anyone claim that porting to the Switch should be easy or trivial for hardware intensive games like this... In fact, I mainly see people saying that games like KH3 "wouldn't be possible" on the Switch, which is all I was trying to respond to.

Obviously any big game will require quite a bit of an investment in order to properly optimize it, but that's the case with any console. The reason the Switch won't be getting the majority of those games (at least yet) has far more to do with the audience composition and install base than it does the hardware.

And I honestly haven't seen anyone feel "entitled" to ports as you're claiming. Can you show me an example of that?
 
The annoying thing is fanboys trying to argue that a mobile device is entitled to ports devs hve no actual technical consideration necessary to port games just because the Switch architecturally supports the modern engines.

KH 0.2 runs at 900p and 30fps and suffers from framedrops on normal PS4 already and needs pro to get to 1080p.

Do people really think there is no technical consideration and will still call foul when KH3 is not on Switch?
even if graphical considerations are the only things holding back a switch port, you have overhauling polygon counts, redoing textures for lower resolutions that dont scale down well enough, animation work for NPCs could also need edited for frame skipping on distant objects (Animation LoD work).

Its a lot of extra work, similar to the things you see to get games like Dragon Quest Heroes running on Vita and PS4. Switch would not be as extreme in those instances, but its still extra work for questionable return. This will be the struggle for 3rd party support in the early days. The other hurdle will be games that are taxing consoles more than just graphically, suchas assassin's creed. I cant see anyway you could get Unity running on Switch hardware.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
I haven't seen anyone claim that porting to the Switch should be easy or trivial for hardware intensive games like this... In fact, I mainly see people saying that games like KH3 "wouldn't be possible" on the Switch, which is all I was trying to respond to.

Obviously any big game will require quite a bit of an investment in order to properly optimize it, but that's the case with any console. The reason the Switch won't be getting the majority of those games (at least yet) has far more to do with the audience composition and install base than it does the hardware.

And I honestly haven't seen anyone feel "entitled" to ports as you're claiming. Can you show me an example of that?

I'm talking about people arguing that there is no actual merit to the viewpoint that the hardware power matters. Supposedly because devs could just cut and cut and cut anything in particular for whatever cost or whatever investment to downgrade said game, and if they don't do that they hate Nintendo and 'how dare they' because they didn't want to do that.
 
Alright, there are no plans for FFXV. But what about XVI?

3110732-3261849336-25374.gif
 
The annoying thing is fanboys trying to argue that a mobile device is entitled to ports and devs have no actual technical consideration necessary to port games apparently, just because the Switch architecturally supports the modern engines.

KH 0.2 runs at 900p and 30fps and suffers from framedrops on normal PS4 already and needs pro to get to 1080p.

Do people really think there is no technical consideration and will still call foul when KH3 is not on Switch?

The only thing I can see why is that these GPUs are slow to render high detailed shadows and lighting. Changing Shadow detail from Ultra to High in a open world game like The Witcher 3 is a 10fps difference.

If Square Enix cut back on those expensive lighting, then maybe it's possible see a more stable performance
 

Dabanton

Member
Damm, all these "no plans" or "wait and sees" from important third parties has to have people expecting a well provided and plentiful third party lineup for the Switch like

mjgrinilo7o.png


Quite frankly devs can't be bothered for the headache of even trying to mess around with their engines and why should they? Unless Nintendo wants to foot some of the bill.
 
There's not even a PC version in sight, the Luminous Engine seems like a big hassle, and they're still actively working on content for the game as is. Plus juggling PS4 Pro and Scorpio too.

If this ever did get ported it'd be really down the line. Not really surprising to hear.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
The only thing I can see why is that these GPUs are slow to render high detailed shadows and lighting. Changing Shadow detail from Ultra to High in a open world game like The Witcher 3 is a 10fps difference.

If Square Enix cut back on those expensive lighting, then maybe it's possible see a more stable performance

I think its on Nintendo to pay these devs to downgrade their games to that extent to get them to run properly as opposed to being able to just develop them and port relatively similar like every other machine.

This is why i am not expecting third party ports on Switch and i generally have been fine with that for Nintendo consoles for a long time. Nintendo have always looked out for their own philosophy above everyone else. Its dual edged sword
 
Top Bottom