-
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.
Is Nintendo keeping the Hardware less powerful to make cheaper games?
- Thread starter Bernoulli
- Start date
DaleinCalgary
Member
Put a 4090 in a switch and see how long the battery lasts.
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Portable systems have to account for power consumption and cooling with that form factor. Steam Deck and Surface tablets are still nowhere near next gen consoles. And Switch even targets 299 USD. We don't yet have the technology for a next gen machine in that size with portability.
For 2017 at that price, the Switch is the best portable machine in a tablet form factor that you could get.
For 2017 at that price, the Switch is the best portable machine in a tablet form factor that you could get.
majorgamer10
Member
I believe The Switch's upgrade has the biggest hurdle in the battery. It would be a stagnant upgrade, otherwise.
Last edited:
Kataploom
Gold Member
If we're using release year, what if I say Switch GPU is more cutting edge than PS4/Xbone's one? It literally is like 3 years newer and has at least one more modern feature that makes it punch above it's weight constantly: FP16, which didn't came out to competitors until their mid gen refreshes.Both have a Zen 2 CPU (2019) and RDNA2 GPU (2020) architecture and both consoles are from end of 2020 using bleeding edge tech, clearly electronic waste...
Not saying those consoles are bad, but far from cutting edge. What's cutting edge in them are the I/O systems, but now PCI-e 5.0 nvme drives can brute force them even before accounting for DirectStorage on PC.
What I find cute is that people shit on Nintendo hardware as if the other consoles were some high end alien tech, it felt specially cute during last gen, pro consoles were no more than lower mid range PCs since they had shit CPUs and HDD anyway, just like ps5 and XSX when they came out, but they're in a better position in comparison... Which is good enough for budget gaming anyway.
Roufianos
Member
I mean, regardless of how you define it, they had to build that thing to be portable and that obviously gimped the specs.
Fabieter
Member
Did that automatically gimped the Dock too? Because I don't see why it wouldn't be more scaleable between portable and TV mode besides saving cost.
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
They make less powerful hardware so they can keep the price low and make a profit on hardware day one, since their whole business model is they have to be able to make money from hardware & software, simultaneously. They don’t subsidize hardware like Sony and Xbox.
This is all very widely known. They’ve been employing this philosophy with their hardware since they entered the gaming space in the 1980s. It’s got nothing to do with “making games cheaper”. The Switch was made under the same philosophy as what was used to create the NES, or the Game Boy. Not top of the line, but “good enough”. Nintendo literally uses the phrase “good enough” in reference to Switch specs in pre-release interviews.
Spending less money on developing a game than your competitor and managing to sell them in the tens of millions of units just means that you’re much more efficient, and better at managing a console business. Which Nintendo clearly are masters at. Game production costs are continuing to skyrocket as the years go by and gamers demand bigger and bigger games. Nintendo has to contend with this trend, same as everyone else.
This is all very widely known. They’ve been employing this philosophy with their hardware since they entered the gaming space in the 1980s. It’s got nothing to do with “making games cheaper”. The Switch was made under the same philosophy as what was used to create the NES, or the Game Boy. Not top of the line, but “good enough”. Nintendo literally uses the phrase “good enough” in reference to Switch specs in pre-release interviews.
Spending less money on developing a game than your competitor and managing to sell them in the tens of millions of units just means that you’re much more efficient, and better at managing a console business. Which Nintendo clearly are masters at. Game production costs are continuing to skyrocket as the years go by and gamers demand bigger and bigger games. Nintendo has to contend with this trend, same as everyone else.
Last edited:
Captain Toad
Banned
It's easier to make games on more powerful hardware, not harder.
Now, pushing that hardware to its limit is a different situation. But, if Nintendo wanted to make the same level of game they make now, it would be easier if they had the power of a PS5 than the Switch. You simply can get away with more shortcuts.
Now, pushing that hardware to its limit is a different situation. But, if Nintendo wanted to make the same level of game they make now, it would be easier if they had the power of a PS5 than the Switch. You simply can get away with more shortcuts.
RAIDEN1
Member
In terms of competition only the Game-gear could give the Gameboy a run for its money, all the other pretenders fell away, but ironically there was still a HUGE gulf in sales between the 2.....The Game Gear was a distant 2nd and we are talking SOME distance...also the fact that it had the novelty of a TV tuner, something you couldn't get with any other portable, and saying that you probably had clearer picture quality on a Game Gear TV tuner than what you had with the Sega CD and its FMV playback...
ChorizoPicozo
Member
yes. they are not in the race of 8K, HDRI, Raytracing, Performance capture and things like that
cesar2xtreme
Member
This is actually a pretty good question.
Zannegan
Member
Eh, if cost cutting were their main motivation, they wouldn't be investing years to put out something like Tears of the Kingdom. Funding that team for that long can not have been cheap. I think they're more bound by the functional realities imposed by their hybrid hardware vision than by a desire to artificially remain 1.5 gens behind.
Here's hoping the next one is a generational leap over the Switch though. Good enough is good enough, but it's been long enough, and I'd like to see what they can do with a little more power (and a LOT more modern features).
Here's hoping the next one is a generational leap over the Switch though. Good enough is good enough, but it's been long enough, and I'd like to see what they can do with a little more power (and a LOT more modern features).
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
This is definitely true for third-party games ported to Switch, if the games were made targeting Series X/PS5-level fidelity. For first-party Nintendo, since they know their own hardware inside & out, and their own hardware is all they work on, game costs would be lower for their own internal game development. Any game Nintendo embarks on would be made within the framework of what they know their hardware is capable of.
Last edited:
For the Switch specifically? I think the harddware is pretty limited by the fact that it's a handheld combined with the pricepoint they tend to target. They've never been the company to target a $500 pricepoint.
In that context, I think the Switch was reasonably powerful when it released.
In that context, I think the Switch was reasonably powerful when it released.
Destruction-1002
Member
Yeah, just like Sony ponies and Xboners buy COD every year.
That what AAA devs are doing in general
Last edited:
They openly championed how cheap it was to develop 3DS games with a good return on investment for developers. It's not the main cause, but its reflective of the company and the industry in Japan. Plenty of developers not named Square and Capcom who are not chasing that western graphic arm race. Nintendo struggled with keeping up with the HD generation and gaming as it was. They have positioned themselves as the other guys. Whatever they are doing it's working, until it doesn't. Also profits and margins.
6502
Member
They said windwaker was partly decided to be celshaded as the development time would be shorter than a more realistic detailed game. This despite the hardware being pretty powerful.. so I say it is a consideration.
If they could make things 8k 120fps for the same cost I am sure they would, but they have a lot to balance across many game types whilst time and money remains a factor.
If they could make things 8k 120fps for the same cost I am sure they would, but they have a lot to balance across many game types whilst time and money remains a factor.
Last edited:
cash_longfellow
Member
Are you using the word “cheaper” metaphorically, if not….just to let you know TotK was $70.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I've said it before but I think they were planning a Switch Pro, but the "pandemic" and the resulting mass sales spike and meltdown of the tech supply chain killed those plans. I don't think that game budget has anything to do with it, I am sure TOTK was an expensive game to make.
MLSabre
Member
Codes 208
Member
If they wanted their games made cheaper, why would they go back to the more expensive cartridge system?
Also keep in mind their vision on the switch was already placed after the wii u launched. The way it was made and launched the battery was shit as it was. I’d say the specs were more for energy efficiency than anything else
Also keep in mind their vision on the switch was already placed after the wii u launched. The way it was made and launched the battery was shit as it was. I’d say the specs were more for energy efficiency than anything else
iHaunter
Member
COD is a 3rd party game.
{insert code here}
Member
100M+ consoles and 800M+ software says they made the right call. Not everyone's a graphics whore. Sadly, most devs haven't figured this out yet and continue adding pixels to their clouds and trees.
Destruction-1002
Member
Folks called PS4 underpowered at 2013 launch, NVIDIA called the PS4 a low end PC in 2013
Nvidia Claims PS4 Is Only as Good as a "Low-End" PC - The Escapist
www.escapistmagazine.com
In paper, the PS4 GPU has 64% perfomance of GTX 680 from March 2012, not 50%
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
this ain't it chief. Mario Odyssey is a feast for the eyes but it's not even in the top 30 of that list
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
I mean... shooters can have good gameplay. infact a lot of them do. DOOM, Halo, Titanfall, Team Fortress 2, Sunset Overdrive are a few examples off the top of my head. 3 of them are owned by Microsoft.
And Sony's catalogue isn't 'boring realistic crap' unless your eyes are glued to God of War (which even then has a good combat system) TLOU and Uncharted. Spiderman, Returnal, Gravity Rush, Gran Turismo, Sifu.... all very fun.
You seem to think that the graphics are all these games have to offer when that's simply not the case. The gameplay in most Nintendo games aren't leaps and bounds beyond what other stuff in the industry can offer. Many devs from indie to AAA have all replicated and improved upon many of what Nintendo offers. I'm not saying that Nintendo games aren't good because quite a lot of them are. But this perception people have about them that they coast on gameplay and everyone else is just graphics is just stupid, and reminds me of back when i used to cope about only being able to play Nintendo because I didn't have a PS4 or an Xbox One.
otakuninja2006
Neo Member
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
A shame Nintendo focused on old tech since Wii.
Back in the day their consoles would be pushing the edge at an affordable price battling Sega consoles or PS1, PS2, DC, Xbox. Now it's ancient tech at an affordable price.
But the thing is Nintendo gamers skew to colourful games (Nintendo first party) and whatever crappy third party port they get. And they are happy. Most of the big name third party games arent even on Wii/Switch aside from occasional last gen looking ports. No need to rock the boat with the latest GPU and RDNA etc... Handheld mode and first party games are enough.
Back in the day their consoles would be pushing the edge at an affordable price battling Sega consoles or PS1, PS2, DC, Xbox. Now it's ancient tech at an affordable price.
But the thing is Nintendo gamers skew to colourful games (Nintendo first party) and whatever crappy third party port they get. And they are happy. Most of the big name third party games arent even on Wii/Switch aside from occasional last gen looking ports. No need to rock the boat with the latest GPU and RDNA etc... Handheld mode and first party games are enough.
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
Have been thinking more about this and IMO the thing Nintendo has done really well from a business perspective is getting their audience used to not expect cutting edge graphics from them.
Their handhelds haven't focused on power and graphics for a long time, and starting with the Wii they took the same approach with their home consoles. While there might have been some pushback at first they have stuck to this approach and by now no one really cares if Nintendo games don't have amazing graphics because the expectation just isn't there.
Companies like Sony are now basically forced to keep pushing graphics further and further because that's what they've gotten their audience used to. That's why you have people going crazy analyzing puddles in Spiderman despite it still looking better than 98% of games on the market. Meanwhile no one really gives a shit if TotK only looks marginally better than BoTW because the expectation of it looking incredible was never there
Incidentally FROM Software is another company that has managed to do this. Their games have awesome art direction but the actual graphics are never that great and the performance (on consoles) is always lacking. But people have come to enjoy the games beyond the technical aspects and at this point they are fine with it. Elden Ring looks like a gen behind Horizon Forbidden West, but largely speaking no one really gives a shit.
I've never understood the flip flopping to be honest.
Like yeah it's hybrid system that fits both roles. But ultimately it's still a small portable device with a built in battery, screen, speaker and controller that just happens to also be able to be used on a TV.
The actual "console" itself once you remove the joycons is the size of like 2 older iPhones
Yeah, modern Nintendo has always been very profit focused with their hardware.
Still, back in 2017 and for $299 the types of visuals and power the Switch was delivering for a handheld were pretty decent
Their handhelds haven't focused on power and graphics for a long time, and starting with the Wii they took the same approach with their home consoles. While there might have been some pushback at first they have stuck to this approach and by now no one really cares if Nintendo games don't have amazing graphics because the expectation just isn't there.
Companies like Sony are now basically forced to keep pushing graphics further and further because that's what they've gotten their audience used to. That's why you have people going crazy analyzing puddles in Spiderman despite it still looking better than 98% of games on the market. Meanwhile no one really gives a shit if TotK only looks marginally better than BoTW because the expectation of it looking incredible was never there
Incidentally FROM Software is another company that has managed to do this. Their games have awesome art direction but the actual graphics are never that great and the performance (on consoles) is always lacking. But people have come to enjoy the games beyond the technical aspects and at this point they are fine with it. Elden Ring looks like a gen behind Horizon Forbidden West, but largely speaking no one really gives a shit.
I've never understood the flip flopping to be honest.
Like yeah it's hybrid system that fits both roles. But ultimately it's still a small portable device with a built in battery, screen, speaker and controller that just happens to also be able to be used on a TV.
The actual "console" itself once you remove the joycons is the size of like 2 older iPhones
Yeah, modern Nintendo has always been very profit focused with their hardware.
Still, back in 2017 and for $299 the types of visuals and power the Switch was delivering for a handheld were pretty decent
Last edited:
IAmRei
Member
you might not remember wii U, also ToTK is not subpar, it is intended to be that way with many reason including hardware optimization and also artstyle
ByWatterson
Member
Likely the other way around. They don't make graphically demanding games and so can get by on hardware that is inexpensive to produce - and run profits everywhere.
Cyberpunkd
Member
Nintendo aims from Day 1 to make profit on hardware, which limits their OEM choices. Both Sony and Microsoft lose money at the start of the generation with every console sold.
killatopak
Gold Member
Wii U didn’t sell well but it was never sold at a loss.
TotK objectively is just by graphical standpoint. I don’t care whether you think the graphics is enough. That’s purely subjective and I’ve played my fair share of shitty looking games and loved it. The point is, when everything else looks better, what seems enough tends to look worse. That’s progress and evolution. It’s called competition. That’s tech and it goes far beyond games. The game sold well, yes, but graphics is like a footnote on the reasons why it sold well.
edit: I stand corrected. Just researched a bit. Wii U was apparently sold for a loss for like a year before it broke even.
Last edited:
One and done.
Oh, I'm sure they're good games. They're just not for me. I have a PS4 with most heavy hitters (GoW, Horizon, TLoU, Bloodborne, etc) since they're dirt cheap, but it has been collecting dust since forever. I mean, my personal favorite exclusive games on the system are probably Odin Sphere and Sakura Wars, so that should tell you a bit about my taste and why I don't care for Sony's offerings these days.
To bring it back to my original point: apparently, people who like God of War or Horizon demand good graphics and won't give Sony a pass for lesser graphics.
People who like certain other kinds of games don't care so much about graphics and will just happily play their favorite games, regardless of graphical quality. And that's why I think Nintendo made the right choice 20 years ago. Nintendo's games probably costs less than 30% of what Sony's games cost on average while selling the same or more at higher prices.
Nintendo can keep this business model up forever, while Sony is already getting into trouble because of the ever ballooning costs of developing those games. I mean, there's a reason Sony is so heavily focussed on GAAS right now. Their first party games just aren't making enough profit because of their high costs. And yeah, I know Sony is posting record revenue and profits, but that's from third party sales and is not something they can rely on for the long term, see the ActiBlizz takeover.