It doesn't run "easily" on Xbox one which is 4x(approx) more powerful then Switch
-
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
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
It doesn't run "easily" on Xbox one which is 4x(approx) more powerful then Switch
it sold about a million. pretty decent considering the state of consoles there
MetalliCabombination
Member
Atleast make an attempt to look like a rational person.
For one neither did you ever mention Japan nor does japan play a key role in a franchise remaining relevant . Not anymore. It may but its far from a necessity, western market has grown considerably and then theres asia, these regions produce more than considerable numbers to be counted as a key area for a franchise and to make up for bad sales in japan
And instead of these weird spins let the man judge for himself.
XV sold 1-1.2 ish million in japan compared to ff13's 2mn.
in US XV sold approximately 50-60% more than ff13 which north of 2mn.
It shipped 6mn including digital sales in the first month.
So if 6mn shipped is irrelevan, dq9 sold less than that and almost 80% of those sales came from japan.
Make of it what you will.
Switch not being on par with current gen consoles because its form factor doesn't allow it doesn't mean that it has last gen tech.
4x sounds too high, you can't just make flops per flops comparisons here. It's a lot stronger, let's put it this way. It's certainly more valid.
Skittzo0413
Member
I honestly don't remember many people thinking FFXV would come to NX. I think it started as a Geno rumor, and I at one point thought it was on UE4 so it could be possible, but after being told it was made on a very unstable Luminous engine I understood it would make no sense to port.
Did any other fake leaker say something about FFXV?
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Lmao what?
FFXV has outsold every DQ title in less than two months, coming of from one of the best debuts of the FF franchise and on track to become among the best selling FF: FF7/FFX.
Then there's FF7R and KH3. You're claims could not be further from the truth.
McMoneyman
Member
LordKasual
Banned
From what we've seen of FF7R, you can forget it.
Probably KH3 too. Especially if the game is targeting 60fps.
Final Fantasy (mainline) is no longer a "Japan" franchise. It makes no sense to judge it on homeland sales when it releases worldwide simultaneously and the brunt of its revenue is from out of country.
FFXV is the best selling PS4 game in Japan. You really have to take the dying market into account.
Japan will never reach its former greatness until it takes in massive amounts of immigrants (lol) or has a huge baby boom (lol).
Infinite_Daremo
Member
Are you for real?
Are you talking about the same country where a new IP sold (and is still selling) 1.5 million on a dead console? Really?
All the "FFXV didn't sell in Japan because the market is dying" should read more or at least go to the Media Create threads to inform themselves better.
Just like how the power concerns disappeared for the Wii with graphic intensive games right? Oh, wait!...
In this thread? Definitely not from the point you made this post. And I doubt there was more than 2 people making and repeating this claim in any other thread.
Meanwhile I can easily point to a dozen people who say the Switch can't run X game at all as if they don't realize how close or above the Switch GPU is to the minimum GPU these games support on PC.
Skittzo0413
Member
The gap between Wii and PS3/360 is far, far bigger than the gap between Switch and PS4/XB1.
Oh yes this is an outstanding example because the gap between Switch and Xbox One is totally the same as Wii vs 360!
Jawbreaker
Member
Hopes and dreams.
Interfectum
Member
You laugh but there was someone yesterday thinking the Switch was about as powerful as the Vita.
On GAF at least, possibly elsewhere, the Switch is seen as massively underpowered. It'll probably be like this until the system gets released and we start seeing a bunch of third party ports in the wild. We'll be able to gauge it better then.
The Last One
Member
You mean third party ports from PS4 and One? There are any announced?
Final Fantasy sells very well internationally but for some reason it has done poorly on Swuare's home turf compared to Dragon Quest. Square has implied they wished they had a game that catered to both audiences well so they still value Dragonquest highly even if it has limited global appeal.
Proof you don't know what you're talking about.
Skittzo0413
Member
Trust me, I'm not laughing over here, I responded to that post yesterday. Even on purely a flops scale the Switch is over 10x stronger than the Vita, and far stronger in real world performance.
I think a lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of processing power, and in general how games are made. The only thing which could possibly prevent a game from working whatsoever on the Switch is a very poor CPU, but everything we have now points to the CPU being the stronger component, and very possibly stronger than those in the PS4/XB1. So any game should be technically feasible on the Switch.
Of course that doesn't mean we should expect ports of every (or even many) games, as the cost of developing ports likely wouldn't outweigh the returns at this point. But I will guarantee right now that if the Switch takes off like the Wii did you will see a lot of ports, as it is much more comparable to PS4/XB1 than the Wii was to PS3/360.
So far Steep is the only one which is purely a PS4/XB1 port I believe. It's rumored to be getting the new Assassin's Creed this year, but I think Steep is the only one officially announced yet. E3 should be interesting.
The Last One
Member
I think Rime too. The fact that the number is so low already tell us something.
Interfectum
Member
Yeah I think people will be surprised at the amount of ports Switch ultimately ends up getting. The initial flood will be from indie games running on Unity and UE4 but I have no doubt some devs are going to test the water with AAA ports... unless the Switch totally tanks after launch.
The point is that there's still a big enough gab that down porting will be a lot of work and result in worse versions of the product which doesn't really encourage sales.
Porting to the Wii was still possible(see some of the CoD games it got), but even having around 100m Wii console out there wasn't enough incentive for most companies to consider it.
Interfectum
Member
The system power of the Wii wasn't the main stopping point in a lot of cases, devs had to account for the Wiimote as well. Also take into account the audience that bought the Wii most likely wanted more motion/Wiimote usage over a typical AAA console experience.
The Switch doesn't have those some issues as it's launching with a very standard controller setup.
There's a difference here: the games are also available for you on the go. That can be a selling point, unlike Wii or Wii U, where the game just looked and played worse, and the Wiimote or extra functions of the gamepad rarely were an actual selling points for multiplatform titles.
Then of course most of the games that will be ported will still sell more on PS4 and Xbox One, but if the Switch builds a big userbase porting can make more sense for many companies, and downscaling games to get them to run on the console isn't remotely as complicated as it was from 360 to Wii. Hell, it's much easier than PS4/One-->PS360 too, and we've seen many cross gen games between these consoles.
Cross gen games were largely PS360->next gen not next gen->Ps360.
The game that runs and looks best on last gen hardware is a Xbox One-->360 game (Rise of the Tomb Raider). Anyway i doubt that MGS V, Dragon Age, Mordor and Far Cry 4 were last gen-->PS4/X1 titles. They were clearly made with current gen in mind.
Still, i don't see the problem. A console isn't either on par with current gen hardware or with last gen hardware. Switch is in the middle between the two, maybe closer to last gen in terms of raw power, but it's still much more powerful even in the worst case scenario (DF clocks), has 8x more RAM and it's basically a decade more modern in terms of GPU architecture and API.
Polygonal_Sprite
Member
You're comparing apples to oranges here. Wii was around 20 times weaker than PS360 overall and it didn't support GPU shaders. Switch is rumoured to be as much as 40% as powerful as Xbox One. So Switch is 60% weaker vs Wii which was 2000% weaker vs it's competition while Switch also supports the latest engines, middleware and tools using a modern GPU architecture and a rumoured 3.2gigs of RAM for games (that RAM amount is very important). Completely different in every regard.
Let's look at part of Tabatas quote -
"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."
He first says it won't run and then backtracks when probed further. If the game is 900p on Xbox One then there's a lot of wiggle room to get it running on Switch if the publishers think they can make money on the system. They could run the game at 540p in handheld mode and 720p when docked (over 50% less pixels to render instantly vs the Xbox One version). Their engine is also incredibly scalable with everything from lighting and shadows to character models and textures all able to be tweaked across the board. There's no doubt they could get it running on Switch imo but obviously it would't compare well to it on Xbox One or PS4.
The problem is there is currently no market for third parties on Switch until they see how it sells in it's first few months. Without a market a lot of third parties won't even be considering it especially after the Wii U mess.
JordanN
Banned
I think Nintendo owners need to accept 3rd party games just aren't happening.
The Switch launched right in the middle of the PS4/XBO gen. By the time Switch catches up, don't you think we'll start hearing about the PS5/new Xbox?
Developers will have to choose to develop for either this gen, next gen or Switch. That's too many consoles to deal with, they're not going to start thinking about the weakest one, when they're already moving on to something more powerful.
The Switch launched right in the middle of the PS4/XBO gen. By the time Switch catches up, don't you think we'll start hearing about the PS5/new Xbox?
Developers will have to choose to develop for either this gen, next gen or Switch. That's too many consoles to deal with, they're not going to start thinking about the weakest one, when they're already moving on to something more powerful.
Maintenance
Member
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
The game is already struggling on the Xbox One and you want to downport to an even weaker console?
The game is already struggling on the Xbox One and you want to downport to an even weaker console?
LordKasual
Banned
Nah, bruh.
Modern game engines like those in FFXV or MGSV base their visuals around physically based rendering...which is pretty much driven by lighting, shadows, shaders and atmospheric bells and whistles.
turning it off pretty much kills the entire engine.
Never saw the 1.5, 2.5 titles. Roman numerals mixed with Arabic numerals make it look pretty silly.Maybe KH3. But KH1.5+2.5 is doubtful, my job(a retailer) got like the pictures for KH1.5+2.5s cover(the PAL one) earlier this week for the online website and it got the "Only on Playstation" logo on it, if that means anything these days.
Edit:
Well, it's KH so I guess it works.
They should had & Knuckles for it to be ok.
Zombegoast
Member
MGS5 used PBR on last gen system and that was also a open world game with less ram and GPU weaker than the Wii U's
McMoneyman
Member
"Featuring Dante from Devil May Cry"
LordKasual
Banned
MGSV wasn't FFXV though. Comparatively, it was pretty bare bones.
Astral Dog
Member
openrob
Member
FF7 baby let's goooo!
TalentAlwaysWins
Banned
There wouldn't be many...
Let's forget that FFXV also happens to have one of the most complex animation system out there, let's also forget that it has a real time day night cycle so shadows are important and while we are at it we should also not consider the polygon complexity and open world (yes Zelda is an open world game but it's an open world game built with Switch's limitation in mind, in order to get that for FFXV the world would need to have been built ground up for Switch with its limitation in mind.)
MGS5 was a 60FPS tittle that ran at subHD and unstable 30FPS on PS360, the open world was also barebones in terms of detail. FFXV is a 30FPS tittle with lots of detail in environment and by that very nature is considerably more demanding to begin with. PBR isn't really a tech but a rendering philosophy and as such it inherently doesn't necessarily require extra power, Treyarch started experimenting with it way back with Black Ops 1 on PS360.
Troll ?
LordKasual
Banned
Yeah pure visuals aside, a game like FFXV is very dense in its application of tech, from GPU to CPU to memory. Even assuming they could get the game to actually run without cutting anything, there's the very serious issue of performance.
When you factor that in, it becomes comical to imagine what a Switch version of XV would even look like. It'd probably look worse than the Gamescom build of the game and run worse too.
Especially with games that focus on PBR. When you start downgrading or removing features, the game very quickly starts looking worse. Especially when it comes to post processing, which seems to be a big factor (cant really make convincing materials without it) and a notoriously big consumer of resources.
I would have linked to the Octopath Travellers thread.
Square Enix aren't exactly being shy about Switch support even if it's not their AAA stuff.
Polygonal_Sprite
Member
Less than a month until we get the final clock speeds, ram amount and flop counts from tear downs.