Support NeoGAF

[Donnie]

Well hold on....don't we only know they exist* based on a rumour/leak which also states they are ports?

If so then I'd say the onus is on you to prove they aren't, if that's what you're claiming

But I'm not though, I haven't made a claim in my posts about those games being or not being ports (except Skyrim which is obviously a port).

He's made a assertion based on either rumour of assumption and I called for something more to back that up, simple.

 

[BDGAME]

If there is something that Call of duty proven, on the last generation, is that the problem is never the hardware, but if there is public to buy the game on it.

The difference between NS -> Xone will be a lot smaller than Wii -> Ps360

 

[Doctre81]

In correlation to its own GPU?

No he means it will be the most powerful console cpu on the market when it comes out. GPU is another story.

 

[Easy_D]

No he means it will be the most powerful console cpu on the market when it comes out. GPU is another story.

Which in turn means ports aren't really gonna be an issue, since GPU-side effects can be scaled down as necessary and might not be a huge issue if it's primarily a 720p device anyway.

 

[Doctre81]

Which in turn means ports aren't really gonna be an issue, since GPU-side effects can be scaled down as necessary and might not be a huge issue if it's primarily a 720p device anyway.

Ports were never gonna be an issue. It's all going to come down to if publishers want to port them. I don't think it's gonna be a primarily 720p device either. Maybe on the really demanding games.

 

[th3sicknness]

If there is something that Call of duty proven, on the last generation, is that the problem is never the hardware, but if there is public to buy the game on it.

The difference between NS -> Xone will be a lot smaller than Wii -> Ps360

The Wii was successful because Nintendo was able to execute their blue ocean strategy. They were able to bring along so many new casual gamers because of the novelty of the motion controls and the price of the system. The problem is those casuals didnt return to the Wii U or any other console because most (not all) moved on to mobile games on cell phones.

After the casuals let their Wii's start to collect dust because the novelty of the motion fad wore off you were left with a very limited number of active users who would buy games. Those casual gamers didnt buy anything other than first party games and Just Dance. That version of COD you showed for the Wii sold roughly 1 to 1.2 million copies (Cod averages over 8 to 15 million on the other consoles) and on the Wii U it didnt fair well at all.

The problem is core Nintendo gamers generally dont buy third party titles , which was something EA and other third parties caught onto. Nintendo needs to appeal to people other than their core audience if they expect third parties to succeed.

 

[Doctre81]

The Wii was successful because Nintendo was able to execute their blue ocean strategy. They were able to bring along so many new casual gamers because of the novelty of the motion controls and the price of the system. The problem is those casuals didnt return to the Wii U or any other console because most (not all) moved on to mobile games on cell phones.

After the casuals let their Wii's start to collect dust because the novelty of the motion fad wore off you were left with a very limited number of active users who would buy games. Those casual gamers didnt buy anything other than first party games and Just Dance. That version of COD you showed for the Wii sold roughly 1 to 1.2 million copies (Cod averages over 8 to 15 million on the other consoles) and on the Wii U it didnt fair well at all.

The problem is core Nintendo gamers generally dont buy third party titles , which was something EA and other third parties caught onto. Nintendo needs to appeal to people other than their core audience if they expect third parties to succeed.

EA had plenty of million sellers on wii. They just bailed on wiiu because of that origin deal. They even cancelled a finished game (crysis port) because they were angry.

 

[PdotMichael]

Ports will live or die based on the ram solution. Transferrate of mobile ram is limited.

 

[tronic307]

In correlation to its own GPU?

Less CPU limited, period.

 

[MacTag]

Ports will live or die based on the ram solution. Transferrate of mobile ram is limited.

Memory and latency is like the one area Nintendo always gets right. I'm not worried, even DDR3gate with Wii U turned out to be nothing in the end.

 

[Malakai]

The Wii was successful because Nintendo was able to execute their blue ocean strategy. They were able to bring along so many new casual gamers because of the novelty of the motion controls and the price of the system. The problem is those casuals didnt return to the Wii U or any other console because most (not all) moved on to mobile games on cell phones.

After the casuals let their Wii's start to collect dust because the novelty of the motion fad wore off you were left with a very limited number of active users who would buy games. Those casual gamers didnt buy anything other than first party games and Just Dance. That version of COD you showed for the Wii sold roughly 1 to 1.2 million copies (Cod averages over 8 to 15 million on the other consoles) and on the Wii U it didnt fair well at all.

The problem is core Nintendo gamers generally dont buy third party titles , which was something EA and other third parties caught onto. Nintendo needs to appeal to people other than their core audience if they expect third parties to succeed.

CoD was never advertised on the Wii. Also, CoD 4 <- the CoD that made CoD came TWO YEARS LATE to the Wii and revived no advertisements. Also, the team take did the CoD 4 port had a less than year to port it and they couldn't even recreate assets.

You have been doing everything to troll everyone here.

And the chart below for that trite overuse fallacy that Nintendo gamers don't buy third parties:

Source

 

[th3sicknness]

EA had plenty of million sellers on wii. They just bailed on wiiu because of that origin deal. They even cancelled a finished game (crysis port) because they were angry.

1 million is a shitty attachment rate on a base of 100 million consoles sold.

Most EA games sold between 2006 and 2009 sold on average in the 1 - 1.5 million range. They had one major seller which was EA Sports Active that sold in the 3 millions range. After 2009 when the fad started to die pretty much everything dropped like a rock. EA Active and Tiger woods were a success due to riding the success of the balance board and motion controls (motion +).

I am not trying to be a troll just trying to be rationale. And for the record I own every Nintendo console in addition to a PC. And the metric above where it shows all other games sold vs first party titles doesnt seem like a logical metric? That is like comparing iphones sold vs all android devices sold? There are more third party titles to buy(on the wii it had tons of shovelware) than there were first party titles produced.

 

[wonderful103]

I love how motion gaming is still a "fad".
The most popular gaming platforms rely on motion and touch exclusively. And the second most popular platform is PC. All current consoles have motion available to them as well.

I am not trying to be a troll just trying to be rationale. And the metric above where it shows all other games sold vs first party titles doesnt seem like a logical metric? That is like comparing iphones sold vs android devices? There are more third party titles to buy(on the wii it had tons of shovelware) than there were first party titles produced.

Keep on moving them goalposts.

The most popular consoles have always had the most shovelware. This generation is only somewhat the exception because of the massive audience contractions that have happened in the industry. But hey, if you're a young male and you like to kill things, throw balls, drive, or press X to pay respects, you good fam.

 

[Easy_D]

1 million is a shitty attachment rate on a base of 100 million consoles sold.

Most EA games sold between 2006 and 2009 sold on average in the 1 - 1.5 million range. They had one major seller which was EA Sports Active that sold in the 3 millions range. After 2009 when the fad started to die pretty much everything dropped like a rock. EA Active and Tiger woods were a success due to riding the success of the balance board and motion controls (motion +).

I am not trying to be a troll just trying to be rationale. And for the record I own every Nintendo console in addition to a PC. And the metric above where it shows all other games sold vs first party titles doesnt seem like a logical metric? That is like comparing iphones sold vs all android devices sold? There are more third party titles to buy(on the wii it had tons of shovelware) than there were first party titles produced.

1 Mil is one mil, it's still making money as opposed to leaving it on the table

 

[ShadowFox08]

I'm not really expecting the switch OS to be continuously 'active' like the PS4 or X1s are to be honest, where you have things like all activity being recorded TIVO style for instant upload / snapped music apps running while you're playing your game / installing your game as a background process while you are playing it etc.

I'm worrying about lack of RAM(and or fast enough) fir the OS also.
I don't want another repeat of the Wii u when it took forever to switch between suspended channels.. Or even just loading any of the channels in general.

Also, the fact that we couldn't message friends directly on the friends list was just god awful. That and a streamlined account and easier lobby voice chats.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

After the casuals let their Wii's start to collect dust because the novelty of the motion fad wore off you were left with a very limited number of active users who would buy games. Those casual gamers didnt buy anything other than first party games and Just Dance.

If a bunch of people abandoned Wii early, they also must've bought a lot of games early since Wii had a better tie ratio than NES, SNES, and N64.

 

[LegendofLex]

After the casuals let their Wii's start to collect dust because the novelty of the motion fad wore off you were left with a very limited number of active users who would buy games.

This definitely explains why the software sales didn't start tanking until software support ended.

/s

If you look at the data, there's absolutely no reason to suggest this.

Software and hardware sales were strong and only started seriously declining after software support started to dip.

Wii's best quarter was in 2009, well after the "motion fad" would have worn off. Hell, in that same year Nintendo introduced Wii MotionPlus and another Wii Sports game, both of which did respectably well even though MotionPlus was used in basically nothing else at the time and neither was bundled with the console at first.

Not to mention that the life cycle of the Wii was almost exactly the same as every Nintendo console since the N64, with its peak actually happening later.

Wii wasn't a fad, it was just a platform that was more popular than the typical Nintendo console, which makes sense because it was also the first one in like 10 years where Nintendo actually started making the kinds of games they stopped making after SNES. (Which would explain where the audience went on N64 and GameCube.)

 

[th3sicknness]

If a bunch of people abandoned Wii early, they also must've bought a lot of games early since Wii had a better tie ratio than NES, SNES, and N64.

That is very true. Their first party games had the highest attachment rate of any previous console they sold. An absurd attachment rate overall when compared to the other consoles top selling games.Mario Karts attachment rate is insane. The main thing being that the Wii was a complete outlier in terms of sales. Nintendo has been trending downwards in terms of units sold of their home consoles since the NES.

Wii Sports 82.79 million[2]
Mario Kart Wii 36.83 million[2][a]
Wii Sports Resort 32.99 million[2][a]
New Super Mario Bros. Wii 29.90 million[2]
Wii Play 28.02 million[2][a]
Wii Fit 22.67 million[2][a]
Wii Fit Plus 21.12 million[2]
Super Smash Bros. Brawl 13.15 million[2]
Super Mario Galaxy 12.72 million[2]

 

[Gotdatmoney]

That is very true. Their first party games had the highest attachment rate of any previous console they sold. An absurd attachment rate overall when compared to the other consoles top selling games.Mario Karts attachment rate is insane. The main thing being that the Wii was a complete outlier in terms of sales. Nintendo has been trending downwards in terms of units sold of their home consoles since the NES.

Wii Sports 82.79 million[2]
Mario Kart Wii 36.83 million[2][a]
Wii Sports Resort 32.99 million[2][a]
New Super Mario Bros. Wii 29.90 million[2]
Wii Play 28.02 million[2][a]
Wii Fit 22.67 million[2][a]
Wii Fit Plus 21.12 million[2]
Super Smash Bros. Brawl 13.15 million[2]
Super Mario Galaxy 12.72 million[2]

Half of the Wii's software sales (900million or so) were third party. Can you explain?

 

[th3sicknness]

Half of the Wii's software sales (900million or so) were third party. Can you explain?

More titles offered by third parties than first parties?

 

[LegendofLex]

More titles offered by third parties than first parties?

If people are just playing Wii Sports and nothing else, this doesn't matter.

 

[wonderful103]

Half of the Wii's software sales (900million or so) were third party. Can you explain?

Closer to 2/3 I'd say.

More titles offered by third parties than first parties?

Like every other popular and successful platform.

 

[Skittzo0413]

That is very true. Their first party games had the highest attachment rate of any previous console they sold. An absurd attachment rate overall when compared to the other consoles top selling games.Mario Karts attachment rate is insane. The main thing being that the Wii was a complete outlier in terms of sales. Nintendo has been trending downwards in terms of units sold of their home consoles since the NES.

Wii Sports 82.79 million[2]
Mario Kart Wii 36.83 million[2][a]
Wii Sports Resort 32.99 million[2][a]
New Super Mario Bros. Wii 29.90 million[2]
Wii Play 28.02 million[2][a]
Wii Fit 22.67 million[2][a]
Wii Fit Plus 21.12 million[2]
Super Smash Bros. Brawl 13.15 million[2]
Super Mario Galaxy 12.72 million[2]

The attach rate of the Wii overall was around 9 games per console. Considering that about 2/3 of all games sold were third party, that averages out to about 6 third party games sold per console. Which is about the entire attach rate for the PS3 (i.e. about 6 games overall sold per console).

So the argument that Nintendo console owners bought no third party games compared to the competition- even though the level of support was pretty awful- is demonstrably wrong.


I'm not even sure how this argument has to do with anything. Switch hardware is nothing like Wii hardware and the market is completely different.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

More titles offered by third parties than first parties?

So they did buy games then?

Closer to 2/3 I'd say.

Like every other popular and successful platform.

Thanks for the correction

 

[dogen]

I don't understand AA. When I play on games PC, I just leave it off. I really don't notice the jaggies when the game is in motion anyway.

You've never played Alien Isolation then.

Wait, what?

Why would you have a CPU that's supposedly more powerful than the X1, while being significantly less impressive on the GPU and RAM front? Wouldn't those deficiencies completely undermine whatever benefits a powerful CPU would have?

Gamecube on virtual console. I'm calling it now.

Honestly though, I'm still half expecting them to nintendo it and go with 8 core A53 and single SM GPU.

And I'm not sure I would really mind.

 

[Malakai]

You've never played Alien Isolation then.

PC gaming is still new to me. I was just playing with all sort of setting just see if i could see the difference. It doesn't help that descriptions of in game settings aren't descried either.

I don't see anything wrong with Alien Isolation...well at least with this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7ga3-ymtGQ

 

[dogen]

PC gaming is still new to me. I was just playing with all sort of setting just see if i could see the difference. It doesn't help that descriptions of in game settings aren't descried either.

I don't see anything wrong with Alien Isolation...well at least with this youtube video: [/QUOTE] That's with a temporal AA...A options in the game don't help much at all.

 

[th3sicknness]

Honestly though, I'm still half expecting them to nintendo it and go with 8 core A53 and single SM GPU.

And I'm not sure I would really mind.

Werent people at the start of this thread saying that would be a fail if they went that route?

 

[NeOak]

Werent people at the start of this thread saying that would be a fail if they went that route?

Because it doesn't make sense to nuke performance that much for an extra 10 minutes of battery life.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

The attach rate of the Wii overall was around 9 games per console. Considering that about 2/3 of all games sold were third party, that averages out to about 6 third party games sold per console. Which is about the entire attach rate for the PS3 (i.e. about 6 games overall sold per console).

Is that accurate? Seems low, but I'm much more familiar with Nintendo numbers due to their easy availability. Physical-only with more by digital maybe?

 

[NeOak]

Is that accurate? Seems low, but I'm much more familiar with Nintendo numbers due to their easy availability. Physical-only with more by digital maybe?

For the Wii? What digital?

 

[Skittzo0413]

Is that accurate? Seems low, but I'm much more familiar with Nintendo numbers due to their easy availability. Physical-only with more by digital maybe?

It could be wrong, it's just a number I found a few times by googling. No idea if that includes digital though.

For the Wii? What digital?

I think he means the PS3 numbers I found.

 

[dogen]

Werent people at the start of this thread saying that would be a fail if they went that route?

I don't really care about specs in my handhelds. 3DS games could use a bit more resolution or anti aliasing at least, but I'm not convinced the system would be significantly better if it was 5 or 10x more powerful. I guess if you really want console games on a handheld, then you would want a powerful switch.

 

[th3sicknness]

So they did buy games then?

That matters a lot actually ..... Third parties arent ONE company which is why I said it was like comparing Revenue for Apple Phones to Android Phones. Android OEMS aren't 1 company they don't share sales... but Apple is so you cant consider it lucrative for third parties on a company by company basis because they don't share sales revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

Granted this site isn't an extensive list of everything it will give you an example (I don't see EA). You had to go 20+ deep to get a title that wasn't Ubisoft which was one of the few third parties that were succesful on the Wii.

Nintendo 37 Titles = 377.77 million sales (10 million per title average) 60% of the top games sold

Third Party 24 Titles = 38.8 million sales (1.6 million Average) 40% of the top games sold

Third parties as a whole may have sold more on a per unit basis (when you consider all titles not included on the list) but that was spread across several companies. I was simply stating that people buy Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games , which makes it less of a value proposition for third parties to spend development time to make games that are under the quality of standards they put on other platforms. Third parties decided it was a better value to focus development on where they knew they could sell their titles.

 

[Roo]

There's more evidence to suggest that they aren't ports. Heck, the footage shown in the Switch trailer obviously shows that they aren't fundamentally identical games, and it'd be hard to believe that the Mario Kart team spent 2-3 years doing nothing but porting an old game to the Switch.

There's also the question of expectations - I don't think people will be impressed or particularly care about a Splatoon port, particularly in Japan. That's a region where people actually bought new hardware to play Splatoon. Players there aren't going to buy new hardware to play the same Splatoon.

Emily, Laura and to some extent, NateDrake have referred them as ports with improvements/new content.

And I've said this multiple times already but since you played that card... those ports are not meant for people who already own the Wii U versions. They're meant for people who don't.

If Wii U owners want to upgrade then that's perfectly fine but for all intents and purposes, they're not the main target of these.

 

[Nostremitus]

That matters a lot actually ..... Third parties arent ONE company which is why I said it was like comparing Revenue for Apple Phones to Android Phones. Android OEMS aren't 1 company they don't share sales... but Apple is so you cant consider it lucrative for third parties on a company by company basis because they don't share sales revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

Granted this site isn't an extensive list of everything it will give you an example (I don't see EA). You had to go 20+ deep to get a title that wasn't Ubisoft which was one of the few third parties that were succesful on the Wii.

Nintendo 37 Titles = 377.77 million sales (10 million per title average) 60% of the top games sold

Third Party 24 Titles = 38.8 million sales (1.6 million Average) 40% of the top games sold

Third parties as a whole may have sold more on a per unit basis (when you consider all titles not included on the list) but that was spread across several companies. I was simply stating that people buy Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games , which makes it less of a value proposition for third parties to spend development time to make games that are under the quality of standards they put on other platforms. Third parties decided it was a better value to focus development on where they knew they could sell their titles.

You're moving goalposts through hoops at this point.

 

[th3sicknness]

And I've said this multiple times already but since you played that card... those ports are not meant for people who already own the Wii U versions. They're meant for people who don't.

If Wii U owners want to upgrade then that's perfectly fine but for all intents and purposes, they're not the main target of these.

Correct it is a way to give people who missed out on a Wii U the ability to play those games. In my mind Nintendo's best games were made on the Wii U and since only 12 million people experienced it there is a significant value proposition for them. They can offer a remastered edition of the same game with enhanced graphics and include all the previous DLC in addition to new DLC. This gives people who havent played the game the best possible version of a game they know will be successful. It also gives some previous owners of the game incentive to double dip. I just hope they arent relying on these alone to drive the launch.. I hope they have a few other games up their sleeves.

 

[AntMurda]

And I've said this multiple times already but since you played that card... those ports are not meant for people who already own the Wii U versions. They're meant for people who don't.

If Wii U owners want to upgrade then that's perfectly fine but for all intents and purposes, they're not the main target of these.

That's a silly thing to say. Of course they want their core user base to buy the game again, that's why they are adding additional content.

It really doesn't matter if Laura Kate Dale calls it an enhanced port. It's semantics. There is no set terminology on what to specifically call updated base versions. Was Super Street Fighter 2 a port? Diablo 3: Reaper of Souls? We typically call them expansions or 1.5 versions.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

That matters a lot actually ..... Third parties arent ONE company which is why I said it was like comparing Revenue for Apple Phones to Android Phones. Android OEMS aren't 1 company they don't share sales... but Apple is so you cant consider it lucrative for third parties on a company by company basis because they don't share sales revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

Granted this site isn't an extensive list of everything it will give you an example (I don't see EA). You had to go 20+ deep to get a title that wasn't Ubisoft which was one of the few third parties that were succesful on the Wii.

Nintendo 37 Titles = 377.77 million sales (10 million per title average) 60% of the top games sold

Third Party 24 Titles = 38.8 million sales (1.6 million Average) 40% of the top games sold

Third parties as a whole may have sold more on a per unit basis (when you consider all titles not included on the list) but that was spread across several companies. I was simply stating that people buy Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games , which makes it less of a value proposition for third parties to spend development time to make games that are under the quality of standards they put on other platforms. Third parties decided it was a better value to focus development on where they knew they could sell their titles.

So third parties sold sofware?

I'm not asking for an elaborate spin here. 2/3rds of 900 milliom os a lot of game units. So w/e argument you are making about how they sold is really not my concern. The Wii was clearly abke to sell software unless Nintendo is just up and lying. If EA or Activisoon or whoever the fuck was complaining didnt get what they want it is clearly because of what they offered, not that people didnt buy shit.

 

[lenovox1]

So third parties sold sofware?

I'm not asking for an elaborate spin here. 2/3rds of 900 milliom os a lot of game units. So w/e argument you are making about how they sold is really not my concern. The Wii was clearly abke to sell software unless Nintendo is just up and lying. If EA or Activisoon or whoever the fuck was complaining didnt get what they want it is clearly because of what they offered, not that people didnt buy shit.

Activision wouldn't complain. If I remember correctly, every Call of Duty that came out for Wii was a 1 million+ seller.

The Wii U was complete trash for third parties, but is the only good example you could ever pull in an argument about third parties never selling on Nintendo hardware.

 

[Skittzo0413]

Activision wouldn't complain. If I remember correctly, every Call of Duty that came out for Wii was a 1 million+ seller.

The Wii U was complete trash for third parties, but is the only good example you could ever pull in an argument about third parties never selling on Nintendo hardware.

I think where this discussion began was in talking about how third parties might have more success on the Switch than the Wii U. The interesting thing about the Wii U being complete trash for third parties as you said, was that this began before the Wii U even launched. A $60 Mass Effect 3 came out weeks after a discounted Mass Effect trilogy on PS3/XB360. That's not something EA would do if they wanted any sort of success.

Part of that could be down to behind the scenes shenanigans (the Origin on Wii U rumor) but I think a good chunk of that was the Wii U hardware just being far too exotic in several ways. The GPGPU was non-standard and the CPU was on a dead architecture- and we've heard plenty of stories about the lack of any sort of tools or documentation provided by Nintendo.

All of this is now gone with the Switch (besides whatever rumored bad blood may exist with EA) so that's why it's very likely to have much better support than the Wii U. Probably not support on par with PS4/XB1 but I'm hoping for something closer to Gamecube level support.

 

[Doctre81]

So uhh back to the Nintendo switch cpu being better than the ps4 pro's...

Not sure how this turned into a sales thread all of a sudden.

I hope Nintendo allows Nvidia to discuss the chip in detail next month.

 

[Starchasing]

I think where this discussion began was in talking about how third parties might have more success on the Switch than the Wii U. The interesting thing about the Wii U being complete trash for third parties as you said, was that this began before the Wii U even launched. A $60 Mass Effect 3 came out weeks after a discounted Mass Effect trilogy on PS3/XB360. That's not something EA would do if they wanted any sort of success.

Part of that could be down to behind the scenes shenanigans (the Origin on Wii U rumor) but I think a good chunk of that was the Wii U hardware just being far too exotic in several ways. The GPGPU was non-standard and the CPU was on a dead architecture- and we've heard plenty of stories about the lack of any sort of tools or documentation provided by Nintendo.

All of this is now gone with the Switch (besides whatever rumored bad blood may exist with EA) so that's why it's very likely to have much better support than the Wii U. Probably not support on par with PS4/XB1 but I'm hoping for something closer to Gamecube level support.

The Wii u was a rushed product.

After wii nintendo did not have any feasible good ideas, they waited as long as possible, and then rushed the wii u. The gimmick did not use any special hardware or software. The gimmick was not exploited even by Nintendo. It had almost no documentation. The marketing was rushed too . You could tell during the initial annoucement. I am a hardcore nintendo fan, follow every nintendo news, and i was confused. I didnt know if it was a wii add on or a new console.

 

[th3sicknness]

All of this is now gone with the Switch (besides whatever rumored bad blood may exist with EA) so that's why it's very likely to have much better support than the Wii U. Probably not support on par with PS4/XB1 but I'm hoping for something closer to Gamecube level support.

I think the rumor is that FIFA is the "big" game that EA is bringing to the system. But I would imagine The Sims or Plants vs Zombies would be a better fit for the platform.

 

[Skittzo0413]

So uhh back to the Nintendo switch cpu being better than the ps4 pro's...

Not sure how this turned into a sales thread all of a sudden.

I hope Nintendo allows Nvidia to discuss the chip in detail next month.

Well I think this came about because we were talking about the hardware of the Switch greatly lowering the barrier for third parties when compared to the Wii U. Which had us analyzing why third parties avoided the Wii U- which I believe to be almost completely a hardware issue.

And if you wanna visit that other thread (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1315716&page=13) there are some excellent posts about the capabilities of the Switch's rumored CPU and in which ways it is better than Jaguar.

The Wii u was a rushed product.

After wii nintendo did not have any feasible good ideas, they waited as long as possible, and then rushed the wii u. The gimmick did not use any special hardware or software. The gimmick was not exploited even by Nintendo. It had almost no documentation. The marketing was rushed too . You could tell during the initial annoucement. I am a hardcore nintendo fan, follow every nintendo news, and i was confused. I didnt know if it was a wii add on or a new console.

Yep, I totally agree with this. I mean, earlier today there were a few posts in the new Zelda footage thread with people saying "eh, I don't think this game is worth getting a Switch or a Wii"

Clearly Nintendo dropped the ball in many different ways, but I think where they lost third parties was the lack of technical support and documentation. Developers are good at adapting to new hardware but without any bit of help from Nintendo their jobs become much, much harder.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

To the more technically knowledgeable people - What are the chances that WiiU games like Breath of the Wild will run at 4k on Switch when displaying on the TV ?

I know it sounds ridiculous but isn't there just a 2.25x GPU power needed for 720p to 1080p ? What is the numeric leap needed for 720p to 4k, would it be a linear numeric jump like 720 to 1080 if we take exact asset quality and the 176gflop figure for the WiiU GPU ?

Thanks a lot.

 

[wonderful103]

To the more technically knowledgeable people - What are the chances that WiiU games like Breath of the Wild will run at 4k on Switch when displaying on the TV ?

I know it sounds ridiculous but isn't there just a 2.25x GPU power needed for 720p to 1080p ? What is the nuneric leap needed for 720p to 4k, would it be a linear numeric jump like 720 to 1080 if we take exact asset quality and the 176gflop figure for the WiiU GPU ?

Thanks a lot.

No. Stop.
lol

Laws of physics still apply

 

[bomblord1]

To the more technically knowledgeable people - What are the chances that WiiU games like Breath of the Wild will run at 4k on Switch when displaying on the TV ?

I know it sounds ridiculous but isn't there just a 2.25x GPU power needed for 720p to 1080p ? What is the nuneric leap needed for 720p to 4k, would it be a linear numeric jump like 720 to 1080 if we take exact asset quality and the 176gflop figure for the WiiU GPU ?

Thanks a lot.

Absolute 0.

And the amount of additional power needed for 4k varies by game.

 

[th3sicknness]

To the more technically knowledgeable people - What are the chances that WiiU games like Breath of the Wild will run at 4k on Switch when displaying on the TV ?

I know it sounds ridiculous but isn't there just a 2.25x GPU power needed for 720p to 1080p ? What is the numeric leap needed for 720p to 4k, would it be a linear numeric jump like 720 to 1080 if we take exact asset quality and the 176gflop figure for the WiiU GPU ?

Thanks a lot.

Just spit my drink up..

100% not likely to output games at 4k.. Only thing it will do at 4k if it does support it is maybe video playback of netflix or something.

BOTW is native 720p at 30 fps on the Wii U right now and it struggles with smooth frame rate according to gameexplain and other tubers who have played it in person. IMO BOTW on the switch while docked will at best output at 60 fps rather than 30 fps with better draw distances and textures.

I could see the game operating native 720 @ 60 fps or possibly native 1080 at 30 fps. I am not sure how they are handling the hand off to the handheld. It might be too jarring to go from 720 @ 60 fps on the TV to 720 @ 30 fps on the portable. This would be a similar affect to playing Mario Kart 8 on the Wii U with 1-2 player split screen which operated at 60 fps to 4 player splitscreen which would go down to 30fps.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I know it sounds ridiculous but isn't there just a 2.25x GPU power needed for 720p to 1080p ? What is the numeric leap needed for 720p to 4k, would it be a linear numeric jump like 720 to 1080 if we take exact asset quality and the 176gflop figure for the WiiU GPU ?

PURELY ON PIXEL COUNT: Full 4K is quadruple 1080p. So take that 2.25 figure and multiply it by 4. 4K has 9 times as many pixels as 720p.