• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

If Sony made a mobile-console hybrid with Switch-level specs, would fans be more forgiving?

JordanN

Banned
Apr 21, 2012
23,204
18,258
1,245
Brampton, Ontario
I said all of those with regards to cheap $99 phones, they obviously would never have those capacity because they're not designed for that. Switch at its launch was the flagship portable console using the most advanced technology suitable for its price.
GTA: San Andreas is a PS2 port with framerates lagging if not played on at least medium tier phones, less vehicle roaming and city busywork, and multiple other alterations to make it accessible as much as possible.
High end phones can indeed be more powerful, make sense with their price there's no denying that. Though ultimately it was still a phone, even the licensing stuffs would be wildly different between those two.

Also, the Fortnite video is comparing the Switch with latest the Galaxy and Iphone. Switch still wins in terms of stability even with its $300 price.

I guess what I'm saying is the rate of iteration and improvement in the mobile space is moving fast enough, that give it 10 years and we'll see today's high end phones be easily outclassed by future low end ones.

Go back 10 years earlier, and most phones could never be compared to a home console at the same price. Today, they can be compared to consoles that released last decade. Next decade, the gap will shrink again.

Edit: Also, while GTA:SA may have been gimped on mobile, consider that they run it at a much higher resolution than the PS2.
A $99 phone in 2019 can output 720p resolution. The PS2 back in 2000 could only output games at SD or 480p resolution. That's a big difference.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MagnesG

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,618
2,105
560
24
Actually, what we saw was more developers target PC instead.

In fact, consoles going for the "shared architecture" actually meant they got the worst version of multiplatform games that today, most low end PCs can easily outperform them.

If PS4 had more powerful specs, the results would still be the same. PC games would have lead first, followed by PS4/PS4 Pro/Xbox One X, and then Xbox One at the bottom.

The difference is that towards the end of the generation, porting games to consoles became costly and difficult due to wildly varrying, outdated, and sometimes hard to work with archetecture. Going with PC based hardware helped simplify things with developers as they have a much easier time porting between platforms now. The days of heavily custom archetecture are over.
 

JordanN

Banned
Apr 21, 2012
23,204
18,258
1,245
Brampton, Ontario
The difference is that towards the end of the generation, porting games to consoles became costly and difficult due to wildly varrying, outdated, and sometimes hard to work with archetecture. Going with PC based hardware helped simplify things with developers as they have a much easier time porting between platforms now. The days of heavily custom archetecture are over.
Do you have evidence of this?

I even posted the slide last page where EA Games specifically designed their engine to take advantage of the PS3 hardware near the end of its life. I don't see custom architecture getting in the way since PS3/360 games constantly sold games in the millions.

Since PS4 sold close to 100 million units, developers would not have ignored it because they didn't like the architecture.
 
Last edited:

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,618
2,105
560
24
I even posted the slide last page where EA Games specifically designed their engine to take advantage of the PS3 hardware near the end of its life. I don't see custom architecture getting in the way since PS3/360 games constantly sold games in the millions.

The biggest problem with last generation was the fact that smaller and mid-level developers we're almost completely shut out due to the sheer costs of making games on consoles that generation, so those developers retreated to platforms like the PC, where the ease and simplicity allowed them to make whatever they wanted, how they wanted. That's why the PS4 dumped Cell, to make thing easier for all developers.

The big AAA developers we're able to eventually learn Cell, but everyone else either struggled to compete, or simply didn't bother. To them, the PS4 is a godsend.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
9,567
7,534
935
Vita that could play most of the games that desktop Playstation supports, would be fantastic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MagnesG

JordanN

Banned
Apr 21, 2012
23,204
18,258
1,245
Brampton, Ontario
By the way, PS2 also had really crazy architecture, but it still ended up being the best selling console of all time (158 million).

As long as the games and sales are there, developers will work with it.

You need a SEGA Saturn type failure in order for architecture to be the problem, but the Saturn also had many other bad things going for it (i.e high price tag, infighting at SEGA headquarters, retail boycotts etc).

The Dreamcast was probably easier to work with yet it still killed SEGA. Ironically, it also sold the exact same units as the Saturn (both only sold 9 million hardware).
 
Last edited:

MagnesG

Member
Apr 20, 2019
2,730
2,084
485
I guess what I'm saying is the rate of iteration and improvement in the mobile space is moving fast enough, that give it 10 years and we'll see today's high end phones be easily outclassed by future low end ones.

Go back 10 years earlier, and most phones could never be compared to a home console at the same price. Today, they can be compared to consoles that released last decade. Next decade, the gap will shrink again.

Edit: Also, while GTA:SA may have been gimped on mobile, consider that they run it at a much higher resolution than the PS2.
A $99 phone in 2019 can output 720p resolution. The PS2 back in 2000 could only output games at SD or 480p resolution. That's a big difference.
Yes, I'm quite happy with how mobile technologies are progressing, it will only benefits us at then end.

I did played the port in my phone mind you, yeah it had all the right settings and the resolution could be higher than PS2 resolution. Looking back, it is impressive even with other setbacks (some of them are a bit of a bummer though). Off-topic, but the controls sucks ass. Can you imagine replaying all those vehicle mission, the RC ones + flying mission on a phone? I remember giving up at some point, any other dedicated handheld devices are still better.

Now I only emulate and played lazy turn based RPGs on my phone.
 
Last edited:

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,618
2,105
560
24
By the way, PS2 also had really crazy architecture, but it still ended up being the best selling console of all time (158 million).

PS2 wasn't actually that crazy. It's main problem was the lack of conventional development tools built-in, so devs had to make do with what Sony gave them. That's actually how most consoles worked up to that point, it was the Xbox who stepped in and offered PC level development libraries.
 
Jan 29, 2019
5,209
5,454
495
I know that sounds weird but because of the high specs, the game standards were higher and so were the costs. So developers had to put the same effort to produce AAA games as they did with consoles.
These specs made development cheaper for lesser titles as well, and they made porting ps3/360 games much easier in that period than lower specs would otherwise have (i.e.:for less demanding titles you don't need to make much efforts to reach your desired performance target, for bigger titles you need to make less sacrifice when down porting).

I believe that the very expensive proprietary media was a big factor, especially when you consider how little storage was built in the device.

Much like the switch, the vita had a good library of indie titles.
 

FStubbs

Member
Aug 29, 2010
4,622
859
895
The PSP & Vita weren't "based on" their home consoles, they were stand alone portable systems. The PSP & Vita weren't the only consoles at the time Sony were making, they had home systems too. Nintendo on the other hand right now only has the Switch as both a portable and a home system and it's specs are pretty lame in both cases and that's why people point out how weak the Switch is.

If Sony did make a portable system, it would never replace their more powerful home system and if Sony did make a portable only, you can bet people would be mad.

The Switch was a powerful handheld for 2017 and a Sony handheld in 2017 wouldn't have been any more powerful.
 

Ozrimandias

Member
Jun 21, 2018
937
1,042
430
Sony (and us as a consumers) need to be again in the handheld market, but i doubt it, Sony is very carefull right now with its finances. So taking no risks is their philosophy right now i think..... but the vita was an awesome device, so underrated, and a wasted opportunity due to Sony lack of support.

Aniway, in order to be competitive its handheld needs to be

- Integrated in some form with console
- Same Games, no mobile ports
- Same OS
- Same integrated Store
- Crossplay (between console and handheld)
- Crossbuy
- Offline
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
44,706
88,749
1,355
I would rather them not go backwards in performance delta with their style of games.

I think the age of separate console platforms and mobile platforms are done for companies. Nintendo stiffed it out. Put your best into what you shine at. So either Sony would have to ditch high spec for a mobile hybrid, or not even bother at all. Spreading resources too thin.
 
Last edited: