Support NeoGAF

[Aztechnology]

Except you know how when you develop for Xbox, PC or PS4 it's easier to translate laterally. Where as the Switch is a different beast altogether. I hope the switch brings more Vulkan support as a result, right there, enhancing platform agnosticism and bringing that API into the mainstream would instantly validate everything about switch for me regardless of the hardware etc. Of course the alternative, which I dare say is more likely, is that it just doesn't get significant third party support again because of how sub par Nintendo made it, and how much work is required to pair it down to operate on that system.

 

[LunaticHigh]

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?

OpenGL and Vulkan likely will have zero effect on most developers. It's cool, and something that people making their own engines will care about... But it doesn't really make a difference to the average developer.

Ps3 used OpenGL but it didn't really aid to it being Easy to develop for.

In fact, all major platforms right now use AMD based chipsets, so there will be unique performance optimizations that likely won't carry over.

Remember all the nonsense about Nvidia cards and some games? How about cards that don't have 4k Ram? It doesn't look good.

The bottom line is, and it's really the only point I'm trying to make, is that most third party developers are going to build their game around the platform that makes the most sense.

You see more PC ports now because the architecture is so similar and the performance on PC is so much higher that sloppy, rather, less expensive optimization work is sufficient. It became more economical to release there than last Gen, where you needed to spend a lot of money (and more importantly) time on building a game that ran well on both ps3 and xb360. There was just no room left on the budget. Game development is expensive.

No matter what way you look at it, unless something big is missing from the picture, the is going to be some measurable amount of overhead in porting your game to switch. Heck, even supporting ps4 pro is a pain.

What will ultimately decide third party interest is what that overhead is. Is illogical to assume it's less than the other platforms. So will it be worth it? Time will tell, but unless the platform is crazy successful out of the gate, developers are not going to put strain on existing projects. They are already tight enough as it is. With ps4 / xb1 have over 70 million install base with an ever growing hardware future...

I just don't see it.

 

[Suburban Thug]

something something 3DS

Something something apples to oranges comparison.

That poster makes a lot of good points. Just because Michael "Wii HD" Pachter reports on some heresay doesn't mean that Switch will magically get all these PS4/XBO ports. If the rumors are to be believed it'll be inferior hardware compared to what MS and Sony offer and it's been proven time and again that 3rd parties will largely ignore Nintendo's underpowered hardware. If Switch was purely a portable you might have a point but it's not. The official website straight up refers to it as their next home console.

 

[Astral Dog]

OMFG

the Switch keeps digging its own grave

 

[Chindogg]

OMFG

the Switch keeps digging its own grave

?

 

[LilJoka]

...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.

That's the thing, on PC it's up to the user to twiddle the settings to get it playable. But the devs now need to tweak for 2 scenarios when they usually perfect it for only one (as they say "console optimisation"). See what's happening with PS4 to PS4 Pro patches - albeit after games were released. If it's so easy i expect all devs to just release a patch.

Plus the undocked performance will need huge sacrifices I expect from the aggressive GPU underclock (game dependant and all). That may need much more finer tuning from devs to get something optimum.

Devs have the option to tune for the undocked scenario and do no better in docked - could be an easy way out but would encounter backlash I guess.

 

[Oregano]

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.

Yeah, I'm not sure. I'd even say that in terms of being a business partner Nintendo is generally considered the worst of the three because they don't participate in co-marketing deals to anywhere near the same extent.

 

[Plum]

OMFG

the Switch keeps digging its own grave

I'm confused

 

[Peltz]

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.

I think Pachter was talking about the actual hardware itself. Not the procedures/policies surrounding it.

 

[calc84maniac]

Something something apples to oranges comparison.

That poster makes a lot of good points. Just because Michael "Wii HD" Pachter reports on some heresay doesn't mean that Switch will magically get all these PS4/XBO ports. If the rumors are to be believed it'll be inferior hardware compared to what MS and Sony offer and it's been proven time and again that 3rd parties will largely ignore Nintendo's underpowered hardware. If Switch was purely a portable you might have a point but it's not. The official website straight up refers to it as their next home console.

I'd rather have apples and oranges than just apples. The 3DS's third party support is nothing to scoff at.

 

[TriangularDuck]

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.

Define "the past". Modern Nintendo brought us such hits as Meme Run.

 

[Cheerilee]

?

I'm confused

It's the hilarious "everything Pachter says is opposite" joke.

 

[ggx2ac]

This is good to hear considering they need their 3DS third party on board.

Remember it looked bad how Nintendo were sticking indie games on their release lists for the year on Wii U during financial briefings because they had to hide the lack of third party support.

I still have the same expectations as before in the speculation threads that the Switch would have more indie and mobile support compared to AAA third parties.

 

[Gxgear]

The Switch install base will still have to be there for 3rd party publishers/developers to justify extra development time and costs porting on a non-PC-esque architecture.

 

[calc84maniac]

The Switch install base will still have to be there for 3rd party publishers/developers to justify extra development time and costs porting on a non-PC-esque architecture.

The OpenGL and Vulkan support already makes it competitively PC-esque. Sure, it's not x86-64, but does anything outside of middleware (if even that) use assembly language anymore?

But yes, you're right that the install base needs to be there. The costs will probably be more on the side of scaling and optimization than architectural concerns.

 

[Suburban Thug]

I'd rather have apples and oranges than just apples. The 3DS's third party support is nothing to scoff at.

You are completely missing the point then. If you want to ignore history or reality then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. The 3DS comparison simply does not apply to Switch.

 

[calc84maniac]

You are completely missing the point then. If you want to ignore history or reality then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

The history includes the fact that a good number of third party games didn't get GameCube ports because the install base wasn't very strong. Profitability is more important to developers than specs. And the install base is something we can only speculate about for the next 3 months.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

You practically power up the devkit and the code writes itself.

Probably some red pikmins are writing it for you.

Dev tools are actually the Mario Maker level editor

 

[ggx2ac]

Dev tools are actually the Mario Maker level editor

Aww and I thought it was just a keypad with the buttons reading, "Run Game", "Port", "Blast Processing", "Generate Hype".

/s

 

[Dreamwriter]

That's the thing, on PC it's up to the user to twiddle the settings to get it playable. But the devs now need to tweak for 2 scenarios when they usually perfect it for only one (as they say "console optimisation").

But, on PC it's not really up to the user to twiddle the settings. I don't know of a modern game that doesn't have like "Low quality, normal, high, ultra, epic". The end user on PC *can* tweak the little details, but they don't have to (and lots of gamers never do).

Plus the undocked performance will need huge sacrifices I expect from the aggressive GPU underclock (game dependant and all). That may need much more finer tuning from devs to get something optimum.

The fact that portable mode is half the resolution already makes this a lot easier. I was making a 1080p game for the OUYA, when I dropped the rendering resolution to 720p, the framerate more than doubled.

 

[Chronospherics]

The architecture of 3DS and the barebones support of middleware doesn't make it soo much easier.

We already know Switch will be a massive improvement from 3DS in that regard.

What I mean is that it depends which perspective the developer is taking. Some might say it's easier to develop for because the actual tools are easier to use, others might talk about ease of development in regards to the standards of the system. You're talking about the former.

The 3DS' barebones middleware support doesn't mean that it is easier to make a triple A PS4 game, than it is a triple A 3DS game. Irrespective of the architecture, middleware support, and general toolset, lower end systems tend to be easier to develop for because of the standards that your game needs to reach.

 

[L Thammy]

I'm just going to start going into random unrelated threads and posting about how it's horrible news for the Switch. After a week, half of those random threads will be in off-topic.

 

[Oersted]

The salt in this thread is funny

What I mean is that it depends which perspective the developer is taking. Some might say it's easier to develop for because the actual tools are easier to use, others might talk about ease of development in regards to the standards of the system. You're talking about the former.

The 3DS' barebones middleware support doesn't mean that it is easier to make a triple A PS4 game, than it is a triple A 3DS game. Irrespective of the architecture, middleware support, and general toolset, lower end systems tend to be easier to develop for because of the standards that your game needs to reach.

Switch so far sounds like a culmination of better architecture, better middleware support, better toolset and lower standards.

Which, compared to Xbox One and PS4(why again did we talk about 3DS?), would make it the easiest to develop for.

 

[maxcriden]

He did apologize about that quite a bit

https://youtu.be/KhksvH-JhBw it's the opening of this video.

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.

Thanks for the info, all. I'm glad to know he genuinely apologized.

 

[Oblivion]

You know what other console was the easiest to develop in its generation?

Gamecube.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

You know what other console was the easiest to develop in its generation?

Gamecube.

I know fuck all about development and know that the two scenarios aren't really comparable.

Even then, the GCN got decent third party support until softwRe sales fell off a cliff.

 

[-Horizon-]

The cell lives!

 

[Terrell]

You know what other console was the easiest to develop in its generation?

Gamecube.

And the one that was easiest to develop for before that was the original PlayStation. Besides, being easy to develop for is probably why GameCube got any of the 3rd-party software that it did, some of which was fantastic. So... your statement isn't exactly the condemnation you were likely hoping it would be.

Switch so far sounds like a culmination of better architecture, better middleware support, better toolset and lower standards.

Which, compared to Xbox One and PS4(why again did we talk about 3DS?), would make it the easiest to develop for.

And of those 4 things you listed, most people only expected 1 of them to be true. I'll let you guess which one.

The fact that we have all 4 is still good news when compared to the last 10 years of Nintendo hardware.

 

[jnWake]

Bad Switch news => Nintendo's doomed.

Potentially good Switch news => Nintendo's doomed.

No news => Nintendo's doomed.

 

[Oblivion]

And the one that was easiest to develop for before that was the original PlayStation. Besides, being easy to develop for is probably why GameCube got any of the 3rd-party software that it did, some of which was fantastic. So... your statement isn't exactly the condemnation you were likely hoping it would be.

My point was that a console being easy to develop for is among the least important reasons that publishers use to justify investing in making games for consoles.

The PS3 was notoriously difficult to code for, yet it still sold a comfortable 70 million units. Same with the PS2, which was probably worse in many ways, and we all know how that story turned out.

 

[CrispyBoar]

I find it a double standard for 3rd party publishers refusing to develop shit on Nintendo's platforms because of the excuse of "not developer friendly," but they had no problem tolerating both PS2 & PS3 in which those consoles were very hard to develop games for.

 

[calc84maniac]

My point was that a console being easy to develop for is among the least important reasons that publishers use to justify investing in making games for consoles.

The PS3 was notoriously difficult to code for, yet it still sold a comfortable 70 million units. Same with the PS2, which was probably worse in many ways, and we all know how that story turned out.

It's definitely a combination of things. The bottom line is maximizing profits, that means you need a balance of install base/attach rate vs porting costs. The modern toolsets in the Switch mean porting costs may be a good bit lower than on other recent consoles, though that benefit may be balanced out by the extra work for scaling/optimization.

I can only hope that Nintendo can keep up this positive buzz around the Switch, and starts with a healthy install base that keeps developers in a position where making ports is worth the cost.

 

[Oersted]

And of those 4 things you listed, most people only expected 1 of them to be true.

Okay. Interesting.

My point was that a console being easy to develop for is among the least important reasons that publishers use to justify investing in making games for consoles.

The PS3 was notoriously difficult to code for, yet it still sold a comfortable 70 million units. Same with the PS2, which was probably worse in many ways, and we all know how that story turned out.

Oh, you had a point. A point that had been beaten to death in this thread and plenty of other threads about good Switch development news.

And yes, obviously, there are multiple factors at play.

Being a plattform easy to develop for is a factor that won't hurt.

 

[Chronospherics]

Switch so far sounds like a culmination of better architecture, better middleware support, better toolset and lower standards.

Which, compared to Xbox One and PS4(why again did we talk about 3DS?), would make it the easiest to develop for.

Yes and I imagine realistically the developer here was speaking holistically rather than in regards to one individual component but it's tricky to say and I'm not sure Patcher is the type of person to ask the right questions.

 

[dracula_x]

Michael Pachter is not a game developer, so I don't know what we're discussing here.

 

[Real_Madrid]

Michael Pachter is not a game developer, so I don't know what we're discussing here.

Did you even read the OP?

 

[Milly Osworth]

Ease of development is that even a thing anymore? What makes the most money to the publisher is the only thing that matters.

 

[Kikorin]

Michael Pachter is not a game developer, so I don't know what we're discussing here.

But game developers told him what he is reporting.

 

[Speely]

Ease of development is that even a thing anymore? What makes the most money to the publisher is the only thing that matters.

Spending less money on a port or a lead platform release equals making more money on the product. Development costs are a thing.

 

[Goron2000]

As someone that knows the documentation and tools Sony and Microsoft provide quite well, all I'll say is that Nintendo has some tough competition.

 

[dracula_x]

Did you even read the OP?

Yes. That just means Michael Pachter is naive.

^

But game developers told him what he is reporting.

and he can't prove this because he has no clue about programming.

 

[Akhe]

Who stole the Patcher's soul?

Btw, good to hear.

 

[Fawk Nin]

Yes. That just means Michael Pachter is naive.

How so?

 

[Kikorin]

Yes. That just means Michael Pachter is naive.

^



and he can't prove this because he has no clue about programming.

 

[Panajev2001a]

https://youtu.be/n50_WSl0MVY

Time stamp is 2:30.



It's a nice thing to hear. Let's hope that means more indies and third party games in general. It may not seem like a big deal or thread worthy but Nintendo has been notoriously hard to develop for since as long as they've been in business it seems.

From Yamauchi purposefully making it hard for third parties to develop for N64 so Nintendo devs had an advantage and could make there's games look better, to poor documentation that was never translated to English for Wii U and past consoles.

This is good to hear.

Also, inb4 first post is "Nintendo Switch is most difficult to develop for, confirmed" posts.

I do not think they used to make them hard on purpose, there is no real point to that, it is not a goal. What is true though is that to extract the maximum amount of performance possible at a given price point they went with less conventional approaches that offered very very high theoretical performance peaks and clever features, but required programmers to spend a good deal of time mastering the architecture... which was not an issue for first parties and had as side effect third parties more inclined to make exclusives if the console was powerful enough.

 

[LordRaptor]

and he can't prove this because he has no clue about programming.

This regularly stops GAF from commenting on things too

 

[dracula_x]

This regularly stops GAF from commenting on things too

Michael Pachter is not a regular GAF user, he's an analyst after all. So he has to be careful about what he says.

At least, he has to be more specific. "Heard from developers" is not enough, it's just speculation.

 

[LordRaptor]

Michael Pachter is not a regular GAF user, he's an analyst after all. So he has to be careful about what he says.

At least, he has to be more specific. "Heard from developers" is not enough, it's just speculation.

I mean, you're right of course.
Michael Pachter actually knows some developers in real life that he talks to, whereas the vast majority of GAF don't, they just glean random quotes from websites and forums.

 

[Herb Alpert]

Michael Pachter is not a regular GAF user, he's an analyst after all. So he has to be careful about what he says.

At least, he has to be more specific. "Heard from developers" is not enough, it's just speculation.

Had he said "I heard from developers that the switch is a bitch to code for", I'm sure he would have been more credible.

 

[runnin_blue]

Bad Switch news => Nintendo's doomed.

Potentially good Switch news => Nintendo's doomed.

No news => Nintendo's doomed.

Lol, so true.