Nintendo Switch: Thread 06

[Lebowski]

Massive generalisation. If you have grown up with Nintendo systems, you'll notice the difference when a game asks you to do a 30GB install before you can play. Sure, maybe it's common on PS4 (I don't know) but it is in no way a normal thing for a Nintendo system.

Maybe not the Nintendo of old but from the wiiu onwards was well know for patches much like the ps4 and xbox, any day one wiiu owner will know the pain of installing the system software patch day one too.

i still think my original point stands that the majority of switch owners wont realize there not getting the full game on the cart as installs and patches are pretty standard fair these days.

[Brad]

The splitting from cart to download has been a factor in me not buying certain games. While I imagine there are very few like me, it still means there are some lost sales because it's an awkward proposition - only physical cosmetically and yet not fully digital so with none of the strengths of either.

This.
It's nonsensical and I'll be no part of it.

[wakka]

Yeah, it sucks. I don't buy that they can't compress these games more either. Every 360 game was less than 8gb except a few (GTA 5, FF13).

[Brad]

My Switch is a portable Skyrim player. That's the only game I have for it aside from some neo Geo stuff.
Will probably get octopath traveller though.

[dataDave]

Yeah, it sucks. I don't buy that they can't compress these games more either. Every 360 game was less than 8gb except a few (GTA 5, FF13).

Compression can take a day or two of someone's time though.

[Asura]

Yeah, it sucks. I don't buy that they can't compress these games more either. Every 360 game was less than 8gb except a few (GTA 5, FF13).

In fairness, it's because many of the games these days are aiming at 4k, especially on PS4/Xbo/PC. That requires much larger textures, images for UI, and higher-resolution videos (if FMV is included). These are things that don't compress all that well.

No excuses on the Switch, except for the rumours that Nintendo is making it difficult for developers to have bigger cards. I don't know what the deal is with that, though.

[wakka]

In fairness, it's because many of the games these days are aiming at 4k, especially on PS4/Xbo/PC. That requires much larger textures, images for UI, and higher-resolution videos (if FMV is included). These are things that don't compress all that well.

No excuses on the Switch, except for the rumours that Nintendo is making it difficult for developers to have bigger cards. I don't know what the deal is with that, though.

I guess...but don't XBX games need ~100GB patches for 4K? I get why that's necessary, but I just don't seem why a game like Doom needs 75GB on a regular PS4, when Mario Odyssey is 5.7GB. They're both 1080p games which are roughly the same in terms of number and size of levels.

Mario's cartoony style probably helps, but still - a 70GB difference? Really?

Edit: only just seen [MENTION=1482]dataDave[/MENTION]'s post. Yes, think that's exactly it. It's a way of saving a bit of cash. Which is fair, they're businesses, but it's still kind of annoying to be honest. It really hits home on Switch with these semi-download games; which really aren't on.

[Nu-Eclipse]

[MENTION=5490]wakka[/MENTION] Super Mario Odyssey isn't anywhere near 1080p. It's 720p handheld and 900p docked. But you're right about Odyssey's visual style in so much as that is probably what allows it to maintain a silky smooth 60fps at all times.

[Asura]

I guess...but don't XBX games need ~100GB patches for 4K? I get why that's necessary, but I just don't seem why a game like Doom needs 75GB on a regular PS4, when Mario Odyssey is 5.7GB. They're both 1080p games which are roughly the same in terms of number and size of levels.

Odyssey is 60fps on Switch, which visually means it is difficult to compare to something like Doom.

On console, 60fps is something you have to decide at the very start of a project's life, before you start proper production. It's quite a punishing requirement, which is one of the reasons most developers don't do it, much to my personal distaste. It places huge requirements on every aspect of your product, because if you're going to stream in assets while the user is playing, if things are too big you might get "hitches" where a "long frame" disrupts play and makes it feel janky.

To give an approximation, in order to maintain 60fps you have to perform everything frame-based within 16.7s. If you take longer, you get a hitch or a dropped frame, which can be perceived as a stall. For 30fps you have twice that time, 33.3ms. The difference is more significant than you'd realise; I mean it really is double the allotted time. This is one of the main reasons that splitscreen videogames which are 60fps in single-player tend to drop to 30 in two-player, as you claw back a huge amount "room to breathe" by doing so.

Believe me, it is perfectly reasonable for Doom to be that huge. 4k bloats everything. On the most basic level you're going to take most of your textures in-game and double their resolution, which in practical terms multiplies them by 4 in terms of pixel count, and this isn't like using JPGs on your computer - videogame textures have to be compressed in a certain way so that they load fast enough to be usable. Speed tends to win out against size-based efficiency.

Personally this really bugs me; I hate looking at a game on a store and seeing it's 120gb. Then again I have no use for 4k and I would much prefer we'd went 1080/60 instead of 4k.

However, this isn't what is going on with the likes of LA Noire and Switch games. That's just that the developer doesn't want to do the work, particularly in LA Noire's case. Now, it isn't a superficial amount of work; they would need to reduce the size of textures and recompress videos, which requires members of their art/audio teams to make sure this is done in the best way that preserves visual clarity; LA Noire in particular has a problem as I believe it uses video-based textures to add clarity to facial animation, which I suspect is a big cost in terms of storage space.

Even so, it does smack of laziness. I strongly suspect it's because they wanted to "cheap out" on LA Noire to test the water for the Switch. Capcom have no such excuse as they were already doing several games.

[Neon Ignition]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-05-22-mario-rabbids-donkey-kong-story-expansion-is-coming-in-june

The Mario + Rabbids Donkey Kong DLC will launch next month featuring four new zones covering 10hrs

[wakka]

Odyssey is 60fps on Switch, which visually means it is difficult to compare to something like Doom.

On console, 60fps is something you have to decide at the very start of a project's life, before you start proper production. It's quite a punishing requirement, which is one of the reasons most developers don't do it, much to my personal distaste. It places huge requirements on every aspect of your product, because if you're going to stream in assets while the user is playing, if things are too big you might get "hitches" where a "long frame" disrupts play and makes it feel janky.

To give an approximation, in order to maintain 60fps you have to perform everything frame-based within 16.7s. If you take longer, you get a hitch or a dropped frame, which can be perceived as a stall. For 30fps you have twice that time, 33.3ms. The difference is more significant than you'd realise; I mean it really is double the allotted time. This is one of the main reasons that splitscreen videogames which are 60fps in single-player tend to drop to 30 in two-player, as you claw back a huge amount "room to breathe" by doing so.

Believe me, it is perfectly reasonable for Doom to be that huge. 4k bloats everything. On the most basic level you're going to take most of your textures in-game and double their resolution, which in practical terms multiplies them by 4 in terms of pixel count, and this isn't like using JPGs on your computer - videogame textures have to be compressed in a certain way so that they load fast enough to be usable. Speed tends to win out against size-based efficiency.

Personally this really bugs me; I hate looking at a game on a store and seeing it's 120gb. Then again I have no use for 4k and I would much prefer we'd went 1080/60 instead of 4k.

However, this isn't what is going on with the likes of LA Noire and Switch games. That's just that the developer doesn't want to do the work, particularly in LA Noire's case. Now, it isn't a superficial amount of work; they would need to reduce the size of textures and recompress videos, which requires members of their art/audio teams to make sure this is done in the best way that preserves visual clarity; LA Noire in particular has a problem as I believe it uses video-based textures to add clarity to facial animation, which I suspect is a big cost in terms of storage space.

Even so, it does smack of laziness. I strongly suspect it's because they wanted to "cheap out" on LA Noire to test the water for the Switch. Capcom have no such excuse as they were already doing several games.

I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject Asura. I still don't totally get it though, since Doom isn't 4K, it's 1080p. When I was playing it, anyway - long before it got a PS4 Pro patch for 4K textures - it was 75GB for a 1080p game.

I do understand that to achieve 60fps, you need stuff to be small so you can load it fast, so that obviously acts as an incentive to Mario's developers to minimise asset size. And also that Mario is 900p, which doesn't seem too far off 1080p, but OK.

I guess what I'm saying is - while I acknowledge some games need more storage space than others, I feel like they could compress stuff like Doom more than they do. But they don't for time and cost saving reasons. And I find that a bit annoying.

On the other hand, I'm no expert in this stuff, and if it's a case of sacrificing HD space for speed as you point out, I'd say that's a fair compromise.

[dataDave]

I spent around 20 minutes optimising all of the best 4K Skyrim texture packs to get things to run at 60fps on my laptop. There's an app which will scour the textures folder and shrink things by percentage or intelligently based around what the asset is. My landscape and mountain textures were kept at 2K, yet things like gloves and lanterns went down to 512; eyeballs and insects down to 128 or under. Piece of piss.

I'll be doing this with SSE on my new rig despite it being able to run everything at 4K anyway.

[Asura]

I guess what I'm saying is - while I acknowledge some games need more storage space than others, I feel like they could compress stuff like Doom more than they do. But they don't for time and cost saving reasons. And I find that a bit annoying.

Admittedly my post wasn't the full story. There are other concerns too. For instance, less compressed data means shorter load times (across the whole game, not just for textures). Games which use surround-sound tend to be larger as they have more, higher fidelity audio assets, and audio can be large. On console, you might be limited by memory which can affect how tightly you can pack things, or splitting stuff up in weird ways may have other benefits.

Plus, if the user is playing a game off a blu-ray disc, there's almost no reason not to fill the entire disc, so those games would trend towards 50gb. Then, the later digital version is usually a straight duplicate (as much as possible), because any changes will require additional QA time.

[wakka]

Ah, okay. I really know nothing about development of games so it's interesting to understand some of the reasoning behind some of these things that to a layman can just seem like cost cutting decisions.

[Neon Ignition]

http://uk.pcmag.com/nintendo-switch/95008/news/nintendo-starts-selling-switch-without-a-dock

In Japan Nintendo has started to sell a new NS variant called Nintendo Switch: Second Unit Set

The new SKU is aimed at existing Switch owners who are looking for an extra Switch but don't need all the extra's *cough*hackers*ahem*

The set includes the Switch, two joy-cons and the L+R rails. It excludes the dock, AC adaptor, joy con shell, HDMI cable and straps. However, the unit only retails for the equivalent of $45 cheaper than the standard SKU which is a lot less than the costs of those excluded items separately making for slim appeal.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/05/nintendo_bans_online_services_for_prominent_hackers_switch_console

Speaking of hackers, Nintendo has started to issue console bans on early hackers of NS. However things will likely get a little more complicated for N once CFW is launched.