Support NeoGAF

[Effect]

i feel like michael pachter is great for financial or sales analysis but the right person to tell you if a video game console is easy to develop for or not

Like said he didn't say that but was saying what he was told.

It's not like one has to even look for the quote. It's in its own quote box in the opening thread post and basically the third line of the post as well.

“I’ve actually heard from developers that Nintendo is the easiest of the big three to develop for."

So easy to tell who is even bothering to take a glance at the opening post and who is just reading the thread title.

 

[blu]

While everyone is distracted with the spec talk, there is still that rumor that Nintendo might actually allow retail units to be used for development by registering them with a developer account. Maybe that's what Patcher is hinting at?

Wait, where?

 

[Shaanyboi]

They didn't get ports because of poor sales/market share though, so your statement is kind of confusing to me.

Do you think the sole thing that kept the WiiU from getting a port of something like Witcher 3 was its market share? If the Switch continues Nintendo's pattern of being a generation behind its competitors in terms of horsepower, then third parties will continue to ignore it. And even if the thing does well, nobody wants to play versions of these games that are severely crippled to fit on an underpowered machine.

Nintendo doesn't play the power game anymore, and as such, third parties aren't inclined to put the resources in to porting and optimizing their software.

 

[10k]

They never will turn things around with the switch. No matter how easy it is to develop for. Not with hardware that is weaker than the competition arriving 3 years after they came out. And for more money then you can buy either of them. Even IF the switch got a ton of third party support due to this ease of development, those same games would be playable with better visual and/or performance on the competitors machines. And that isn't even including the PRO and Scorpio. So nintendo will be left with a console that people only buy to play nintendo games...but wasn't that all the wii-U was good for and yet it still tanked...there simply isn't enough people out there willing to buy a console just for its first party games.

Even if nintendo grew some common sence, made a system of equal or slightly better spec than the PS4, undercut the PS4 slim in price, and it had every single third party release as the PS4, they still have the battle of mindshare. Can nintendo convince people to make the switch their primary system? To bail out of the ecosystem of the other competing consoles? Do they have the online inferstructure to maintain smooth online gameplay or will it be a bumpy road?

As with the wii-U they have a mid gen launching console with very little to get excited about beyond the prospect of what nintendo consoles have ALWAYS had...it's first party offering. But we already know that isn't enough to turn their fortunes around. History has proven that.

Hopefully at the very least the ease of development will mean those first party games are announced and released thick and fast though. If everything turns into a long waiting game like zelda its going to be even harder to convince people to buy the thing.

What about the people who want those third party games and want to be able to take them on the go? Surely that's the selling point of the Switch. Take Witcher III or Dark Souls trilogy with you on the go for slightly less visually appealing games.

Most of the mainstream still can't tell the difference between 720p/1080i and 1080p so I doubt they'll notice more jagged shadows or blurring textures.

 

[Oregano]

Did you watch the video? Because I feel like you didn't.

Dude's from SIFTD if I'm not mistaken, probably involved in the production.

That's still a weird statement though. Everyone praises Sony for being open and supportive, not Nintendo.

EDIT:

What about the people who want those third party games and want to be able to take them on the go? Surely that's the selling point of the Switch. Take Witcher III or Dark Souls trilogy with you on the go for slightly less visually appealing games.

Most of the mainstream still can't tell the difference between 720p/1080i and 1080p so I doubt they'll notice more jagged shadows or blurring textures.

Remote Play PS4 games obviously

 

[10k]

Didn't Matt say this too?


My interpretations was that switch wouldn't have a problem porting most games over, and that really it was a matter of publishers deciding if there would actually be a profit in it.

Matt and OsirisBlack both said PS4 XB1 ports won't be a problem for Switch.

Dude's from SIFTD if I'm not mistaken, probably involved in the production.

That's still a weird statement though. Everyone praises Sony for being open and supportive, not Nintendo.

EDIT:


Remote Play PS4 games obviously

Delicious input lag.

 

[Movalpolos]

Michael Pachter repeats hearsay that Switch is easiest to develop compared to big three.

I really hope it's true.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I'm extremely skeptical of this. Depends on what games they're referring to being ported. I can see indie-like games being easy to do, but I have a hard time believing porting a game like Battlefield 1, Watch Dogs 2, AAA games and etc would be easy to do given the alleged vast power gap.

I do believe it's easy to develop for, but im not expecting ports of big budget games.

Apparently this is somewhat equivalent to what you'd see in an unoptimized Battlefield 1 port with the given Switch specs:

You are right. Here is it with the HD7650k that we are talking about:
DOOM 2016 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpffDBOHwhM
Battlefield 1 looks extremely low poly on environments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_UqiGiyX8

What's the VRAM for Switch btw? The 4GB we are talking about?

So it certainly seems doable and really not all that bad. If the porting is as easy as lowering a bunch of settings (which is definitely an exaggeration) then I don't see how it's that crazy a thing to say.

 

[Hermii]

I don't think being easy to develop for means much for porting. Sure it might be easy to get your code running and get great performance relative to the platform, but 150 gflops is 150 gflops.

Edit: How does A8 compare to Switch?

 

[Wandering Robot]

I know he's been pretty optimistic about the Switch recently, but the fact that Pachter's also hearing this and passing it on is encouraging. Hopefully third party interest is already there, though.

 

[Chittagong]

Disappointed at the lack of 'Switch hardest to develop for, confirmed'

 

[Skittzo0413]

Disappointed at the lack of 'Switch hardest to develop for, confirmed'

The last line in the OP kinda makes that type of post a bit pointless, no?

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Good news if this is true.

 

[Dremorak]

I cant handle all these updates!

Also: Who cares what Pachter says?

 

[Jaded Alyx]

They never will turn things around with the switch. No matter how easy it is to develop for. Not with hardware that is weaker than the competition arriving 3 years after they came out. And for more money then you can buy either of them. Even IF the switch got a ton of third party support due to this ease of development, those same games would be playable with better visual and/or performance on the competitors machines. And that isn't even including the PRO and Scorpio. So nintendo will be left with a console that people only buy to play nintendo games...but wasn't that all the wii-U was good for and yet it still tanked...there simply isn't enough people out there willing to buy a console just for its first party games.

Even if nintendo grew some common sence, made a system of equal or slightly better spec than the PS4, undercut the PS4 slim in price, and it had every single third party release as the PS4, they still have the battle of mindshare. Can nintendo convince people to make the switch their primary system? To bail out of the ecosystem of the other competing consoles? Do they have the online inferstructure to maintain smooth online gameplay or will it be a bumpy road?

As with the wii-U they have a mid gen launching console with very little to get excited about beyond the prospect of what nintendo consoles have ALWAYS had...it's first party offering. But we already know that isn't enough to turn their fortunes around. History has proven that.

Hopefully at the very least the ease of development will mean those first party games are announced and released thick and fast though. If everything turns into a long waiting game like zelda its going to be even harder to convince people to buy the thing.

something something 3DS

 

[EloquentM]

Do you think the sole thing that kept the WiiU from getting a port of something like Witcher 3 was its market share? If the Switch continues Nintendo's pattern of being a generation behind its competitors in terms of horsepower, then third parties will continue to ignore it. And even if the thing does well, nobody wants to play versions of these games that are severely crippled to fit on an underpowered machine.

Nintendo doesn't play the power game anymore, and as such, third parties aren't inclined to put the resources in to porting and optimizing their software.

No, that's not the only reason and patcher touched upon this in the video. Ports will be reliant on whether they can be downgraded to the system AND if there's a market for it, but I was directly responding to what that member posted. We don't know if this is the case for the switch yet.

 

[Giolon]

After what he said about Iwata I'm still ignoring him.

Likewise.

Luckily there are plenty of better, first-hand developer sources suggesting this.

Yeah, its not good to hold grudges but..

I think it was "late but not-so-great" which is an incredibly shitty thing to say about a person who recently passed.

ugh...

Which, IDK if you guys know, but he apologized for that both in an interview and on his very next filmed show (~3-4 episodes are filmed at once):

http://gamingbolt.com/michael-pachter-apologizes-for-satoru-iwata-remark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhksvH-JhBw

I considered making a thread at the time since I figured people would pick up on it like they picked up on the initial remark, but I guess that didn't happen.

As far as this thread title goes, Pachter didn't say it's easier. He said he heard it's easier from developers. Those are two different things.

 

[Falchion]

This is good news. If you're doing something unique and need to get developer buy-in, you definitely need it to be as easy as possible to develop for.

 

[Hermii]

As a developer, I have no idea how that could be possible. It seems to me like switch is going to be hard to develop for, but I don't have a dev kit yet, so I'll keep from making any solid comments.

Um, why?

Also you can make a solid comment precisely because you don't have a kit and haven't signed an NDA

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

I cant handle all these updates!

Also: Who cares what Pachter says?

No one should care what he himself directly says about videogames because he knows shit but this is him relaying something he heard from someone who supposedly does so it's relevant.

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

They never will turn things around with the switch. No matter how easy it is to develop for. Not with hardware that is weaker than the competition arriving 3 years after they came out. And for more money then you can buy either of them. Even IF the switch got a ton of third party support due to this ease of development, those same games would be playable with better visual and/or performance on the competitors machines. And that isn't even including the PRO and Scorpio. So nintendo will be left with a console that people only buy to play nintendo games...but wasn't that all the wii-U was good for and yet it still tanked...there simply isn't enough people out there willing to buy a console just for its first party games.

Even if nintendo grew some common sence, made a system of equal or slightly better spec than the PS4, undercut the PS4 slim in price, and it had every single third party release as the PS4, they still have the battle of mindshare. Can nintendo convince people to make the switch their primary system? To bail out of the ecosystem of the other competing consoles? Do they have the online inferstructure to maintain smooth online gameplay or will it be a bumpy road?

First of all, why do you assume that everyone would already have an XB1/PS4 or would be willing to get one in addition to their Switch? You shouldn't assume this and neither should Nintendo. That kind of defeatist thinking basically relegates them to always be the supplementary console.

Second, there's such thing as "good enough". Ports on the PS3 were often worse than they were on 360 and Wii U, just as ports are generally worse on the XB1 compared to the PS4. Yet loads of people bought multiplatform games on both Xbox and Playstation platforms.

You know what is guaranteed to not be "good enough" though? When the game doesn't appear on your platform in any shape or form.

At this point, I just hope that the Switch in docked mode is strong enough to get future 3rd party multiplatform games, even if it's at 720p, 600p or whatever.

 

[Guardian Monkey]

How the hell would he know this? Is patcher a hobbyist programmer or something? People should really stop posting his shit that he pulls out of his ass.

Edit: am saying this because what new system do programmers that are making an item for say it sucks... this type of negativity will put the game under an unwanted microscope.

 

[Herb Alpert]

How the hell would he know this? Is patcher a hobbyist programmer or something? People should really stop posting his shit that he pulls out of his ass.

you just read the thread title, didn't you?

 

[Guardian Monkey]

you just read the thread title, didn't you?

Check my edit.

 

[Sinfamy]

Well it's like developing for mobile.

 

[EloquentM]

How the hell would he know this? Is patcher a hobbyist programmer or something? People should really stop posting his shit that he pulls out of his ass.

Edit: am saying this because what new system do programmers that are making an item for say it sucks... this type of negativity will put the game under an unwanted microscope.

The Wii U had lots of anonymous developers saying it sucked before and shortly after launch.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Dude's from SIFTD if I'm not mistaken, probably involved in the production.

That's still a weird statement though. Everyone praises Sony for being open and supportive, not Nintendo.

So what did Pachter actually mean?

 

[Herb Alpert]

Check my edit.

Before its launch a lot of devs anonymously said that WiiU sucked.

This doesn't seem to be the case for switch, despite the doom and gloom that has appeared here since the clock speed reveal.

Now, the scale of the easiness is probably a matter of relativity, the important part is that switch seems to answer some of WiiU (and nintendo in general) problems regarding third parties.

 

[Herb Alpert]

Remote Play PS4 games obviously

How remote play can be compared to the portability of the switch? How do I remote play a game when commuting?

edit : oops sorry for the double post

 

[Oregano]

So what did Pachter actually mean?

Honestly not sure. There's stuff like Nintendo web framework making Wii U accessible to pretty much everyone but that doesn't make sense in the context of the question he was answering.

EDIT:

How remote play can be compared to the portability of the switch? How do I remote play a game when commuting?

edit : oops sorry for the double post

I was being sarcastic but wouldn't remote play work over 4G? I can't imagine it would be ideal but should be functional.

 

[Durante]

What? No. It's far easier to develop for mobile. PC is dramatically more varied in hardware configurations and while driver support is still definitely in the dark ages, there's far better API support for mobile than there was 5+ years ago. That's not to mention average team size, product complexity, graphical competition, QA, marketing, etc. are all way more difficult (and costly) on PC.

I suppose if you look it from only the perspective of a single programmer or a one-person dev team; maybe. But, development isn't just code and the one-person indie games aren't really what the focus for 'easier to develop' is aiming at. It's third-party AAA (or AA) support.

It might be one or two more hoops for your programmers to jump through - mostly only if they don't know what the hell they are doing on mobile - but it's like 50 more hoops for everyone else on PC.

From a non-indie, AAA or AA full development perspective - it is absolutely easier and vastly cheaper to develop competitive products for mobile, tablets or handhelds than it is for either consoles or PC. And the Switch is far closer to a handheld than it is a PC or current-gen console.

So what you are saying is that the level of competition and expectations is lower on mobile, so that makes it easier. Is that the gist of it?I don't know about that (I haven't done the market research, and it's not my field). It might be true. It seems rather genre- and target-audience specific and hard to make general statements about. I also don't believe in the idea that PC games are inherently more large scale than mobile games. There were over 4000 games released on Steam this year.

My point was a much more straightforward one: developing and shipping the same game for PC and mobile, mobile is by no means simpler. It presents more technical hurdles and has more ways in which it can go wrong.

 

[GDGF]

Edit:I am saying this because what new system do programmers that are making an item for say it sucks... this type of negativity will put the game under an unwanted microscope.

The Wii U.

 

[M3d10n]

Where did this rumor come from? I think this is the first I've heard of it.

Would be very cool if true, and actually similar to something I was pondering back in the NX speculation days: If Nintendo could put out a game engine that somehow included a very good amount of functionality coupled with a simple and intuitive interface- similar to how they nailed Mario Maker compared to other level building games- that could go a long way to encourage even kids to start trying to make full games. It would be sorta the way to encourage the next level of creativity compared to something like Minecraft.

Wait, where?

It's speculation from back when Nintendo unified all their developer programs into a single portal plus the fact the dev portal still has no mention of the Switch yet.

 

[James Scott]

You don't say? Of course it would be it's Nintendo.

People sure have been saying this a lot this week

Spoiler

nintendo isn't really known for having systems that are easy to develop for nor great 3rd relations. Their indie stuff has gotten better this gen, tho

 

[Vena]

Dude's from SIFTD if I'm not mistaken, probably involved in the production.

That's still a weird statement though. Everyone praises Sony for being open and supportive, not Nintendo.

So what did Pachter actually mean?

What exactly is hard to wrap around in this? He's been told by developers that, whatever tools, API, and information/documentation they are given to work with, are better than the other two consoles for development.

In light of the fact that the Switch is now fully Vulkan/OpenGL compatible and much of the backend (if not all of it) was made by nVidia, this shouldn't be all that hard to imagine. They also happen to have done a better job than Sony in the opinion of some unnamed sources. /shrug

This if for development on the platform, I have no idea why people keep talking about porting to the platform.

 

[tr1p1ex]

It's all because of Nvidia and the Shield. Nvidia already had tools ready to go and made really good tools in an attempt to attract development to the Shield.

 

[LilJoka]

Interesting stance as devs have to incorporate both docked and undocked scenarios and their respective processing power.

Maybe from an API perspective its easier.

 

[SomTervo]

Inb4 so it will be the hardest to develop for out of the big 3.

Spoiler

I believe Pachter

I believe him more than usual because it's not his actual opinion

 

[Mpl90]

What exactly is hard to wrap around in this? He's been told by developers that, whatever tools, API, and information/documentation they are given to work with, are better than the other two consoles for development.

In light of the fact that the Switch is now fully Vulkan/OpenGL compatible and much of the backend (if not all of it) was made by nVidia, this shouldn't be all that hard to imagine. They also happen to have done a better job than Sony in the opinion of some unnamed sources. /shrug

This if for development on the platform, I have no idea why people keep talking about porting to the platform.

Also, it's like people have suddenly forgotten all the good statements from indipendent developers on their relationship with Nintendo, especially starting from 2014.

 

[Oregano]

What exactly is hard to wrap around in this? He's been told by developers that, whatever tools, API, and information/documentation they are given to work with, are better than the other two consoles for development.

In light of the fact that the Switch is now fully Vulkan/OpenGL compatible and much of the backend (if not all of it) was made by nVidia, this shouldn't be all that hard to imagine. They also happen to have done a better job than Sony in the opinion of some unnamed sources. /shrug

This if for development on the platform, I have no idea why people keep talking about porting to the platform.

Well "the dude from SIFTD" I was referring to said this earlier in the thread:

It doesn't refer to the Switch. He's just talking about Nintendo's reputation as a business partner.

*shrugs*

 

[LunaticHigh]

Um, why?

Also you can make a solid comment precisely because you don't have a kit and haven't signed an NDA

I made a post after that to explain why.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Interesting stance as devs have to incorporate both docked and undocked scenarios and their respective processing power..

...which takes very little work. Supporting a less powerful system, as long as it has the same basic architecture and abilities, is easy, which is why PC games *all* have quality settings, and why it's still easy to port games from PC to lesser consoles. Especially in the Switch's case, which is basically powerful enough in portable mode to run the 1080p console game at 720p - cut the resolution in half and call it a day.

 

[Vena]

Well "the dude from SIFTD" I was referring to said this earlier in the thread:

*shrugs*

Ahh I got ya, but that's not Nintendo's reputation at all and the way its even phrased in the video would imply the Switch.

 

[Stimpack]

D'uh. It doesn't have mandatory gimmicks like wiggle waggle or second screen anymore. And it's a tad bit weaker than others. Of course it's easy to develop for.

Of course!

 

[oneils]

Some confusing posts in here. One thing that I think needs to be said is that developers told him that it will be "the easiest of the three to develop for." He didn't really get into how easy it is to port games from ps4/x1 over to switch.

I'm not an expert in all of this, but I believe those might be two different things.

He did mention that the console will need to be easy to port to if it is to succeed. He said this is still an open question.

 

[darkazcura]

Nintendo, on the other hand, (at least so far) has not managed to provide the same level of support or feature parity. Their platforms have been revolutionary in some aspects, but down right archaic in others. I would highly doubt that, out of the gate, the switch has a development environment that is as rich, supportive, and feature complete as these two platforms, especially considering that they are built upon 3 generations of improvements. (The OG Xbox is the start of the "modern game console").

While it is likely that popular engines like UE4 and Unity will support Switch out of the gate, Unity, for instance, wasn't _really_ ready for PS4/XB1 support until quite a bit into the generation.

To state that porting to Switch is the easiest out of the two is down right laughable. That's simply not possible. Porting from what? One of the two platforms that are virtually identical when it comes to hardware and have basically the same first party features?

Then, there's the hardware capabilities. Even outside of architecture, the switch is a far less capable platform, which would require different assets, rendering modes and file sizes.

I think Nvidia working on the hardware with Nintendo really helps bringing them closer to a level playing field in terms of features and general support. If the Switch is supported with OpenGL and Vulcan, that should really help with ports from PC, no?

 

[Clear]

Sorry, but having dealt with Nintendo in the past, I can imagine the lot-checking phase on Switch to be an absolute nightmare.

They have always been real pernickety during submission/cert (understandably so, given the costs involved in putting carts into production), and I really can't see them getting sloppy with a platform that is so important to both their future console and handheld plans.

This of course is on top of their normal hyper-vigilance for content that could tarnish their squeaky-clean brand image.

Not saying that Nintendo are bad, or obtuse without reason, but I'm pretty sure if you ask anyone who's ever submitted stuff to them they'll back me on how demanding and exacting they are standards-wise; and that being the case a system like Switch with so many "moving parts" so to speak, isn't going to be quick and easy.

 

[Piers]

Sorry, but having dealt with Nintendo in the past, I can imagine the lot-checking phase on Switch to be an absolute nightmare.

They have always been real pernickety during submission/cert (understandably so, given the costs involved in putting carts into production), and I really can't see them getting sloppy with a platform that is so important to both their future console and handheld plans.

This of course is on top of their normal hyper-vigilance for content that could tarnish their squeaky-clean brand image.

Not saying that Nintendo are bad, or obtuse without reason, but I'm pretty sure if you ask anyone who's ever submitted stuff to them they'll back me on how demanding and exacting they are standards-wise; and that being the case a system like Switch with so many "moving parts" so to speak, isn't going to be quick and easy.

Oh, boy. Yikes.
And that's on top of, in some aspects, competing with Nintendo's own IPs for sales as well.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Sorry, but having dealt with Nintendo in the past, I can imagine the lot-checking phase on Switch to be an absolute nightmare.

They have always been real pernickety during submission/cert (understandably so, given the costs involved in putting carts into production), and I really can't see them getting sloppy with a platform that is so important to both their future console and handheld plans.

This of course is on top of their normal hyper-vigilance for content that could tarnish their squeaky-clean brand image.

Not saying that Nintendo are bad, or obtuse without reason, but I'm pretty sure if you ask anyone who's ever submitted stuff to them they'll back me on how demanding and exacting they are standards-wise; and that being the case a system like Switch with so many "moving parts" so to speak, isn't going to be quick and easy.

Well with the current state of games....


Is Nintendo trying to make gaming great again?

 

[MissCauthon]

I don't think there is any doubt we will see a literal shit ton of indie games on this thing. The question always has been, imo, what will the big publishers do?

Is something like Overwatch or Hitman or Doom even possible on this thing? Will they even try? That's my biggest concern.

Possible yes but with lots of visual turned down.