Rime dev on Switch performance and more - Nintendo Everything

Submit a news tip



Rime dev on Switch performance and more

Posted on November 13, 2017 by (@NE_Brian) in News, Switch

Tequila Works and Grey Box held a new Reddit AMA for Rime today. The game is scheduled for release on Switch tomorrow digitally, with the physical version following later in the month.

During the Reddit AMA, Tequila Works commented on Rime’s performance on Switch, including resolution and frame rate. Also discussed was the situation regarding how it costs more on Nintendo’s console, HD Rumble, and more.

We’ve highlighted notable excerpts from the AMA below.

On Switch performance…

RiME runs at 30 FPS in 720p throughout most of the game while docked. This is a considerable improvement from where the game was at earlier this year when we announced the first delay.

While we have done an excellent job at bringing the standard frame rate up, the one problem we were unable to address completely were loading hitches. RiME uses a technique called streaming which allows us to have portions of the level loaded and unloaded in order to save on memory utilization.

With RiME being very open in many locations, it’s incredibly difficult to get these level segments small enough to not cause a hiccup in performance. We were faced with the choice of adding loading screens throughout the stages, rebuilding the game completely to be more closed in (undermining the product vision in the process), or living with these small hiccups to preserve what the game was intended to be. We chose the latter.

It’s worth noting that these hiccups do occur on the other platforms as well, though slightly less pronounced.

On how Rime costs more on Switch and how the team dealt with the situation…

Honestly, we hope we are used as an example of appropriate ways to deal with these sorts of price differences. At the end of the day, our goal is to provide a great experience at a fair price to everyone. To that end, because manufacturing and so-called “go-to-market” costs forced us to have a higher price for the physical Switch version, we had to think of ways to make those prices fair. In the end, thanks to a lot of friendly negotiation with the various stakeholders, we were able to make sure that the digital version was the same price as on all other consoles (thus avoiding the “tax”), and we added the download code for the soundtrack in the physical version (thus making up for the price difference). The response to that aspect has been very positive, and we think most people are understanding. If anything, we only wish that we had been able to get that all figured out before the prices were announced!

On cut content and how difficult the Switch port was…

We must leave stuff out in every project. Originally there was another world at the end of the game but the experience felt too much at such a late moment (you’ll understand when you play it). RiME was not designed for Switch but it was a great challenge to port it without compromising content, we made sure the assets we reworked were on the same artistic quality/direction so the experince is very similar.

On HD Rumble…

HD Rumble allows for extra precision for puzzles and feedback. It’s the best in any platform, period.’

On any DLC plans…

No plans for DLC, RIME was designed as a complete experience

On handheld mode resolution…

When looking at the handheld mode, we had to make a choice between lowering the resolution, removing/replacing major parts of the level geometry, or having a bigger hit in performance. We decided to go for the former, because it allows us to maintain the integrity of the gameplay experience. All the important details are still very visible, and we’ve had no issues playing the game in handheld mode ourselves.

Leave a Reply

  • Michael C

    Another port where the Switch version is the worst….but atleast its mobile.

    • Marco Romano

      Switch is a better machine than the one you’re playing with.

      Sleep well :*

    • David Walbrun

      I’m not trying to hate on the switch (its the only modern console I own), but I pretty much expect every multiplatform game that releases on switch to be the worst because from a technical standpoint the switch cannot do what even the vanilla Xbox One can do. If it were not for the switch’s portability Nintendo would have a HUGE problem.

      • Sagadego15

        Rime has issues on gaming PCs as well.

      • Advance*

        But the Switch is portable so why kind of point is that? That’s like saying without all of the power the other consoles would have a HUGE problem. But they do have the power.

    • Indielink

      Flagged for spam.

    • Thesuffering

      There is going to be no situation where the Switch versions will not be the worst. The main purpose of the Switch is mobile.

      • Force

        Too bad it’s not being sold as such. Would help avoid comparisons with PS4/Xbox One.

        • Thesuffering

          Yeah, I feel that Nintendo are being deceitful with their marketing strategy by trying to get home console gamers to buy the Switch as if it is a viable home console. IMO it is a weak home console, but it is needed if you want to play their exclusive games even for home console players.

          • Force

            I just wish it had more validity as a home-console, as someone who doesn’t use it handheld, ever, it’s always saddening to see how much the Switch is behind other versions of games.

          • Thesuffering

            I think that is an issue with the tech at this time. I think the “Switch 2” will be 4x more powerful than the handheld version in docked mode. But that is only one possibility. I think it is time to let go that idea that Nintendo will release a comparable console to the Xbox or PS even if the Switch failed, less than 10% of Nintendo fans believe that they would make a powerful home console in that scenario:
            http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/hypothetical-if-the-switch-failed-would-nintendo-go-back-to-making-high-end-home-consoles.455052689/

          • Force

            Then I’d want them to come out, and say that they’re focusing on handheld only, as that’s their go-to market, instead of the Switch. If they can’t hold their own in the home-console market, then get out and focus your resources where you’re strongest, instead of half-bumming it.

          • Thesuffering

            Marketing is shady with whatever company you look at. Chances are that you will continue to see this kind of marketing going forward. I suggest getting a PS4 on black Friday for $200 with a 1TB hard drive on Black Friday for multiplatform games if you dont use the handheld mode.

          • Force

            Problem is, I’ve been nailed to Nintendo’s IP since the SNES days, and I can’t have their IPs anywhere else. If I weren’t so in love with that IP still, trust me, I wouldn’t be here right now.

          • Thesuffering

            I understand that hence why I didnt tell you to sell your Switch, but you should get a PS4 for multiplatform games.

          • Force

            I got me a PC for that, thankfully. Will upgrade it soon.

          • Tlink7

            Does Nintendo not already focus on the handheld part of the machine? I mean half the ads have some person taking the Switch out fo the dock and travelling around with it

            The Switch is set to destroy the Xbone, so I don’t know what you’re on about there 😛

          • Force

            You know what I’m on about, T.

          • Tlink7

            Just because it is ”weak” doesn’t mean it isn’t a home console…

          • Thesuffering

            I was just pointing out how if you dont play it in portable mode, it isnt really worth playing multiplatform games on the Switch in that scenario.

          • Tlink7

            True, but you buy a Switch for the portability, or/and you buy the machine for the Nintendo IP. If you don’t care about the former, then you’ve made a bad choice and if you only care about the latter, you’ll have to live with the relatively weakness of the Switch 😛

          • Force

            Doesn’t mean one cannot lobby for change in this. There’s a stationary piece of plastic with a tiny bit of technology inside and a whole lot of empty space that can most definitely be adapted for this.

          • Tlink7

            You can of course lobby for this, but I don’t see it happening

          • Force

            Who knows. I’d never think I’d see Nintendo speak of graphics for the next FE game either, so anything’s possible 😛

          • Tlink7
          • Force
          • Tlink7

            That’s exactly my point… FE Switch won’t be a miracle graphics-wise; it will just look like other titles on the console and that is just fine. Interpreting the FE dev’s message as ”Switch pro inc” is ridiculous 😛

          • Force

            I never interpreted it that way, I was merely saying that if Nintendo speaks of graphics, something they tend to skimp on, are weak in, and thus don’t talk about, then other things can happen as well. Take that as you will.

          • Tlink7

            This isn’t the first time they’ve boasted about their graphics. Nintendo did this with the Wii U as well

          • venomancer

            great Obama photo

          • Radish

            You assume that everyone has more than one console. If the Switch is all you own or can afford, multi-platform games are definitely worth playing.

          • It’s not a weak home console, the others are just getting higher end. And lets not forget, the mid-gen releases pushed things further.

            I think the real issue how many games pretend to be more intensive than they are. (How many games are actually 1080, or no less 4k, and how often does it actually show?)

            Nintendo is pretty honest. But if we’re going to fault them for being dishonest, we should fault all of the industry for building itself off of dishonesty for the last decade.

          • Force

            Let’s look at what we know as home-console. Take the pinnacle of it, and you’ve got the Xbox One X, a powerful machine that can adequately (in terms of pure specs at least) run most modern games right now, and those to come for a while.

            Look at the Switch, it’s a “home-console” that offers utility as grand feature while taking away that power and the insurance of being able to run games for times to come, as it’s power was outclassed before it’s production even began.

            If you don’t care for that grand feature of portability, then what is left of the Switch? Nintendo’s own games, and so we arrive at the “Nintendo machine? Nintendo games.” argument, because if they don’t make their games exclusive for the Switch hardware, it’ll look horrible, and most likely play far worse in comparison to where their true audience plays their games.

            I will only shake my head in contempt, when/if the sales of third-parties drop because people are over the Switch’s newness and start to notice the glaring sacrifices made to get their game portable, after which they’ll stop buying them for the machine, and get it on a real home-console/PC instead.

          • Tide

            Quite the hypothetical grouping you narrowed that down to. If a person only owns one console, only uses the Switch as a home console and only plays multi-platforms, and needs to get the best quality/cheapest deal of said games, then yea i guess you could say the Switch is a bad console.

            Literally your whole argument boils down to “PC master race”. If you care about price, visual fidelity, peripherals or quantity of first party titles than all consoles are garbage when compared to PC.

            Each console has it’s appeal and if you straight up ignore a major feature of the console (Portability of the Switch; 4K/VR output on PS4 Pro; 4K and1080 upscaling on Xbox One X) then that’s a flaw in your choice and not the console.

          • Force

            You say ignore, but I simply do not use the Switch’s handheld feature, and nor would I want to, as I don’t want to risk my home-console by bringing my Switch along, especially considering I can just as easily bring my 3DS.

            I’m well aware that the group I speak of is probably 2% of the entire Switch userbase, so I know we’re irrelevant. But third-parties want all the sales they can get, and there’s no reason for people in my situation to bother with the Switch version of anything multiplatform. That’s a shame, isn’t it?

            And no, my argument does not boil down to PC master race. I’ve played Nintendo since the SNES era, graphics aren’t the be all end all for me. I simply want the docked version of a game to stand on its own as much as the handheld part does, but that just doesn’t happen, and probably will never happen.

          • Tide

            If you only plan on playing games at home then go for it. DOOM and Skyrim definitely arent games that are built for that type of experience and if you have no interest in portability then these games really provide nothing for ppl of your grouping.

            That said, the main feature of the Switch is it’s ability to ‘switch’ from home to mobile seamlessly. You definitely have that freedom to refuse that feature it, but it’s like buying a PS4 Pro with no plans on getting a 4K TV or VR. Your choosing to miss out on what makes the product great and in turn that shouldn’t reflect negatively on the console.

          • Force

            I understand that, but then I must ask you, where else can one enjoy Nintendo’s offering, and have console games that otherwise don’t reach PC?

          • A home console is nothing more than a console that is stationed for household play (in comparison to a portable console). Besides, the pinnacle is something ever moving and pretty much vague.

            The Gamecube was more powerful than PS2, Dreamcast was ahead of its time; power, tech, all these things. The game industry has always been rough but after a while, the shift to judging what makes a home console, no less a worthwhile one, is pretty biased and pointless.

            A console is a home console, a portable, or hybrid. And technically mobile, but I count mobile a little different.

            If people like power, that’s fair. But they should realize that power-chasing is part of what’s killing the industry, as well as bloating games and leaving them barren (scary, weird contradiction). Power can be fine, but a lot of the time, it’s not even used well.

            The problem with Nintendo’s games looking good and not others (which I disagree; Bomberman looks nice, and I’m sure Atelier will as will other games made now), is a problem with devs. And let me remind you, a lot of devs right now have games that are ugly on all consoles. Capcom? World looks pretty. But MvCI is ugly. I dare someone to argue that with me. (No, don’t actually.) That’s not the only from them, or other companies.

            Sure, plenty of games will not look as good on the Switch. Some have minor trade-offs in the graphics department, and some run better or worse. But if people are just concerned with graphics, then they may as well get a XBOX. But people thought all kinds of things going into this gen. Now this gen was extended with .5 versions that are effectively new consoles. I like good looking games, but I grew up with video games. I can’t be arsed to chase graphics, especially when some games are all graphic and no. . . anything. Or blatantly anti-consumer. We’re at a point now where even the big publishers make ugly games (not as common with Western devs, but then there’s issue of the game actually running okay).

            If anyone is really interested in playing a game in the perfect format? Get a computer. Have plenty of money to spend all the time, and be prepared to have fewer games overall if you don’t have as much money. Because the industry is just jacking up things more and more for consumers. I love Sony consoles generally (have had all 3 first home consoles, have a PSP and I’m going to get a Vita or PSTV), but I also don’t feel like buying a PS4. Sony was shady going into this gen (way more so than last gen), and Microsoft was worse. I’m not going to support them, because neither has really learned anything. Nintendo isn’t perfect either, but at least I know they’re committed to quality and they know how to present quality.

            If a dev/publisher says their game can only look ugly on the Switch, you should absolutely be suspicious of them. Unless that game is absolutely 4k, runs well, solid and consistent framerate, and actually has good textures, lighting, shaders, etc; do not trust that company. And let me say, that is terribly, terribly few companies right now. That’s few people within a given company that understand how to actually draw out a console’s power, quality and potential.

            I way rambled, but my point is that the arbitrary measurements of what a home console is need to be done away with. I feel like going Castlevania Dracula about it, because people are really slurping up the kool-aid anymore.

          • Force

            Your response took too long, Puchinri 😛 I’m already done playing devil’s advocate.

            I’ll get my games for Switch that are unavailable on PC, and get them on PC otherwise. Besides, I love RTS games, and no console has any of those.

          • Lol, my bad. I had to drop off my toddler and take my grandma to the hospital, so I’ve had a busy morning. x’D;

            That’s fair. What people do game-wise really doesn’t matter to me, but I think being a smart consumer (especially in gaming, but not just) means being very critical and observant. Too much is taken at face value in gaming.

          • Force

            To be serious, I’d want power for only 1 sake: to shut up the arguments of devs that use that as a reason not to bring games to Switch.

            The console has portability, that alone is reason to bring your games, and it’s doing great. I can only start laughing like a madman when I consider that Bethesda beat Capcom to the curve. Capcom, the people who asked Nintendo for more RAM to port their RE engine. GG Capcom.

          • Well, they’re liars. Lol. They’ll find something else to lie about. Capcom also lied back in the day about Gamecube’s exclusives, even though it was more powerful. (It like, no exclusives from them by the end, right? Even of the three it gave it at first.)

            It’s easy for devs to lie because the industry makes it that way. Journalists, gamers and other devs and publishers alike. How often does EA lie? Or SE (more so Square than Enix)? All the time. It won’t just be about things like exclusives or lack of multi-plat/port either. We’ve seen that.

            Capcom should be taken with a grain of salt. They’ve been on a decline for like. . . at least half a decade. It’s sad to watch (hopefully someone buys their series I love, lol), but that’s how things are anymore. The over-hyping up of power is a significant part of that downfall for them and other companies alike. But everyone is so stuck on it now, the tower is too high for them to climb down comfortably.

          • Force

            “Capcom also lied back in the day about Gamecube’s exclusives, even though it was more powerful.” Ohh I know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capcom_Five

            It’s even easier for devs to blame the Switch hardware, because 1. It’s new and 2. It’s well-known to not be as strong as the competition’s.

            I’d love to take Capcom with a grain of salt, but they got muh MH >.>

          • It’s getting increasingly harder as well though. Again, most of these games aren’t even running at specs that the Switch can’t handle. A lot of it is bad optimization. Some games are legit that intense, and kudos to those companies. Majority of the devs downing the Switch aren’t those devs. (Look at Tabata from SE.)

            Besides them trying to over-emphasize the power bit, the Switch has been incredibly successful. Some publishers lie and say it’s not enough. Smart publishers like Bamco realized their mis-step and are ready to genuinely go all-in. Same for plenty of others.

            So not only can the Switch hang in there (for the most part), but it’s successful and the games are. At that, if people are complaining about power with the efforts they show on the other consoles? I’m not impressed. BotW and SMO are gorgeous games. And neither use realistic graphics or ridiculous standards. They just have incredibly well though out art design and dedicated devs that value quality. I hope the other publishers and devs will show as motivation.

            I’m banking on the middle-range games from Bamco and SE (surprisingly on the latter). For a 3DS game, BD was gorgeous. Legend of Legacy is beautiful too. Those are 3DS games. If Asano can achieve that on the 3DS, he can achieve something more amazing than Octopath even (as can others) on the Switch. I think companies will deliver. Heck, I’m even hoping to see more from Konami. I’m still enjoying Bomberman a lot, and I’m super proud of its success, and I hope they feel encouraged enough to take another “risk.”

          • Force

            SMO is absolutely incredible, I will say that, even if I don’t own it (watched plenty of streams).

            Hmmm, I wonder how Fire Emblem on Switch will end up looking, considering KT skimped on that one. *shakes angry fist*

            I’ll be frank with you, I sold Bomberman back to the shop. I never played it. I had it for local MP, but that didn’t happen, same for online MP.

          • I am continuously impressed with its use of. . . everything. Texture, special effects, glow, lighting, etc. Nintendo brilliance. It hits me that that’s why I’m often disappointed with aesthetic and graphics in games and why certain titles are more disappointing. There’s a level of attention to detail that’s often neglected.

            KT should never be compared to a number of companies. They focus on what they need, but absolutely expect a lot of problems. But their games could never compare to Bamco, Nintendo or heck, even SE and Capcom at their finest. And FE:W is a spin-off, so there’s no way it was going to look nearly as good as something IS has been working on for who knows how long.

            I can understand that. I’ve been fortunate it to play it locally with a large group, though I haven’t touched online yet. (Also don’t know if they’ve better patched it yet.) I still have a blast with story mode. I appreciate how polished and cute the game is. It’s a nice effort by Konami, and I hope they can do the same with theirs and other Hudson Soft titles.

        • Radish

          Why are comparisons with PS4/Xbox One bad for Switch? Most people obviously don’t care about the highest possible graphics settings when playing games, as long as they look good enough and aren’t buggy.

          Everytime a PS4/Xbox One game is compared to its Switch counterpart they lose on convenience. So perhaps it’s not fair to the PS4 owners that they get a game they can only play in front of a TV.

          That’s why the comparisons always favor Switch. You get a game that looks good enough and you can play it wherever you want, however you want. It’s like comparing a telephone booth/land line to a mobile phone. Convenience wins.

          • Force

            But, Radish, that’s something personal. Again, take my example, I do NOT use and do not WANT to use my Switch as a handheld. I don’t want to risk losing it, and my home-console with it. I bough the Wii-U’s successor, no the 3DS’. Fact remains that the Switch has far more as a follow-up of 3DS than it does as follow-up for Wii-U.

            What else than a tiny bit of extra power for 1080P (very rarely utilized) and sometimes more FPS does the dock give you? (which usually just means parity on those fronts with PS4/Xbox One, yet still behind in other ways)

            There are more like me, believe it or not, and for those who think like I do, we’d happily trade the handheld portion to have our games look and run better. The least Nintendo can do in all this, is provide the dock with some extra power to achieve that parity.

          • Radish

            Well I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you.

            The fact of the matter is that most people are using it both as a handheld and as a home console. And as a result we are getting so many more games (support that would have gone to 3DS and Vita is now being combined with home console games) than we would if it was just one or the other. Nintendo is far more capable at making portable devices than home consoles. Look at the Xbox One X. Not even being “the most powerful console in the world” can stop people from pointing out graphical flaws here and there and how “weak” it is. And that’s why chasing the graphics dream is fruitless because you will never satisfy people.

            However, I do think the Switch will be a family of systems, and there will be a SKU for a boosted dock or something. Graphics are important, but should not be the MOST important thing on Nintendo’s mind.

          • Force

            We’ve spoken about graphical fidelity. I’m not asking for top-notch graphics, I’m asking for things that look good on their own, like how Odyssey looks. Odyssey, even if I don’t own it, looks fantastic. Why can’t that be done with other stuff as well? I mean FE:W is semi-cartoony, and I find so much cut-corners and bad pieces of graphic that make me go “Sigh…”

            So far, games sell off the promise of portability. Whenever I hear/see someone speak of DOOM, it’s about how awesome it is as a portable game, yet it stacks up horribly in the home-console department in comparison to the other versions. That’s not what I bought the, advertised as, home-console for.

          • Radish

            You knew it was a hybrid though. If it were to be on par with PS4 specs it would have cost a lot more. For comparison, XB1X at $499 is an amazing deal for graphical fidelity and Microsoft is losing money on each sale. Nintendo only wants to profit on console sales, so you’d be looking at something up near $600 which prices you well outside the console market.

            Right now the graphics are not preventing them from getting third party support like with the Wii U. I’m sure if it ever became a serious issue sales-wise, they will make a dock upgrade available or that supplemental computing device. They don’t want to confuse the consumer though like they did with Wii U.

          • Force

            “They don’t want to confuse the consumer though like they did with Wii U.” But there is confusion still, with Kimishima saying he sees potential in the handheld market. What do you think will happen if they make a Switch handheld lite? People look at the Switch, look at that, and then scratch their heads over “O…kay, so which one am I to buy here?”

            If that happens though, I look forward to the sales of that lite, as it’ll prove me how much of the Switch sells off of portability.

            Actually, different way of looking at all of this: If every third-party puts in the effort to make games docked look like Mario Odyssey in terms of just how good it looks, I’ll put my argument down permanently.

          • Radish

            That’s a hypothetical. I’d argue a more powerful version could give you the same exact problem. That’s why they have to be clear in their message like they were with that initial Switch reveal. So far mid-gen upgrades have not been flying off shelves though, so Nintendo may not want to go down that road.

            And of course the Switch sells off its portability. You aren’t proving anyone anything there. The whole point was to combine their handheld and home console teams for an unprecedented amount of gaming output from Nintendo onto one device that you can play wherever you want, however you want.

          • Force

            Again, great news for the handheldees (Yes I’m really going to call them that) but bad news for the home-console people, who could’ve had something quite a bit better.

            I’d love to have a world in which Nintendo’s games are also on the other platforms. Would LOVE to see the sales then.

          • Radish

            Trust me, you would NOT want a world in which Nintendo is a third party developer. Something would have had to go terribly wrong for that to happen. And the sales would be insignificant compared to the huge losses in revenue.

            I think this year alone they made a PROFIT of $1,000,000,000. The number of copies of Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey they’d have to sell on other platforms would have to be unprecedented (above GTA V numbers) to reach those kinds of numbers as a third party dev.

            A) They make money on console sales. They lose this as a third party developer.
            B) When they sell games on their own console they keep 100% sales. As a third party developer they would have to split each sale with the console maker.
            C) Conversely, third party games on Nintendo platforms have to split sales with Nintendo, but they don’t get this as a third party developer.
            D) There is no R&D expense for Nintendo right now for porting games to other systems because they don’t port games to other systems. This would be an added cost (both in money and people) as a third party developer.

            With more expenses and less revenue Nintendo would have to really play it safe, they couldn’t afford to release any game that only breaks even or has a small profit on their own platform. And new IPs like Splatoon would never happen as a third party developer. So that would leave Nintendo with releasing nothing but yearly Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon spinoffs with downsized development teams til people get sick of them like Sonic or the quality goes downhill like Sonic.

            Yes, Nintendo has a lot of money. But there’s a reason why they’ve lasted for more than 100 years as a company. And it wasn’t because they just threw more money at every problem they face. They spend it wisely, and being a 1st party developer allows them to slip up once in a while in order to hit it out of the park the next time.

          • Force

            I never said Nintendo should get better out of this. They don’t matter, it’s their IP that matters.

            As long as it is developed and treated well, I couldn’t care less who owns it, as long as those who own it don’t lock it down to their own machine, their own attempt at staying in 2 markets, one being half-bummed and outright laughable, while the other is the sole reason for it’s goddamn existence.

          • Radish

            You don’t seem to get it. If Nintendo isn’t doing well, their IP will suffer in response. You won’t be getting quality games anymore, and Nintendo won’t have the luxury of taking their time to make sure their games release cleanly.

            Haven’t you seen what EA has done to the Star Wars franchise (and basically every other franchise they have)? Did you not see how Sega was reduced to just Sonic games that got worse and worse? Not to mention they couldn’t afford to publish Bayonetta 2, which Nintendo was able to swoop in and save.

            It matters who owns the IP. I can’t even begin to imagine what the gaming industry would be like if say, Activision owned Nintendo’s IP.

            “As long as it is developed and treated well” entirely depends on Nintendo’s ability to stay in the console business. If it weren’t for Nintendo’s careful quality control, we would have stopped caring about their games a long time ago, rather than begging for them on other platforms because they are that good.

          • Force

            There are plenty of third-party devs with good games, and these don’t have consoles.

            Nintendo has handled their IP well, tis true, but a lot more people would have access to them if they weren’t locked within their hardware. Sure, they got a hit with the Switch now, but if the Switch is such a hit as the machine itself, then surely it can’t be a problem to share some of those awesome games? The machine will sell on it’s utility alone.

          • Radish

            Go back and re-read my post about how Nintendo being a third party developer is a bad idea. Your fantasy of what it would be like and what the reality would be are 2 completely different things. Your whole point of wanting Nintendo games on other platforms is because you believe they would sell better that way. Yet why would that matter if you don’t care if Nintendo is doing well sales-wise?

            Yes, some third party developers are very successful. The most successful developers, EA, Activision, Rockstar, etc share their revenue with console makers, and so to recoup those losses and please their shareholders they fill their games with microtransactions and lootboxes. They cut games out of development (the good Star Wars by Visceral Games for instance) if they see that they can’t continue milking customers with it. They very rarely make single player experiences anymore because it doesn’t allow them to continue to make money on the same game over time. I could go on, but you see what I’m getting at here?

            So sure, you would get a few of Nintendo’s franchises on other platforms that would be rushed with smaller development teams yet bigger budgets. You would lose most of Nintendo’s franchises. And over time the company wouldn’t be able to afford to take risks or shake things up with their games.

            Not to mention the fact that most Playstation and Xbox owners don’t care about “kiddy games” made by Nintendo. You are assuming they would sell extremely well, but you don’t consider that you are overestimating the demand.

          • Force

            “Your whole point of wanting Nintendo games on other platforms is because you believe they would sell better that way.” Not the whole point. It’s better for consumers if that were to be the case, as they’d have more choice.

            So what you’re saying, is that Nintendo cannot sell their IP without their consoles? And they must have the Switch, in it’s current form, no compromises?

          • Radish

            That’s not what I am saying, perhaps re-read yet again?

            Sega still sells Sonic without needing a console. Though I don’t know anyone but the most die-hard Sonic fans thinking this is a win for them.

            As for their console, Nintendo could have gone in a number of directions. They could have made a super powerful machine that costs $700 (though would still get downgraded third party games when compared to PC) and they would have sold a handful of them. They chose to go with the Switch and it’s hard to argue that it’s been a bad decision for them, considering they now monopolize console gaming on the go and the difference in power is not like it was with Wii vs PS360. And like I’ve been saying all along, yet you are conveniently ignoring, is that we don’t know Nintendo’s plans with the Switch. They still have much to announce, and its future is anybody’s guess. Right now all we know is that it is easily outselling Xbox One X, the other brand new flashy console.

            And the fact that you bought the Switch over the Xbox One X is yet further reason Nintendo made the right decision.

          • Force

            But I do not represent the common consumer. I’m but part of a very small amount of people who will buy Nintendo’s machines regardless, because of their IP, because I don’t have a choice.

            Why would I buy an Xbox One X? I’ve got a PC that I can (and will) upgrade. I’ve thought about a PS4, but their games just don’t resonate with me vs Nintendo’s. But then I’ve grown up with Nintendo, during the SNES era, so that’s the kind of attachment that doesn’t as easily fade. Again, I’m far from a large group of people.

            I also realize that that the people that play it solely docked are a small and unremarkable minority. I just want a solid reason to support third-party on Nintendo’s machines besides the obvious reasons.

          • Radish

            Exactly, you are a Nintendo fanboy, so Nintendo can count on you buying their consoles regardless of what they do. Nintendo is now offering something for the common consumer, a convenient gaming platform where you can play quality games anywhere you want, however you want. They can’t just stick to fanboys who love their IP, they have to offer something that people outside their circle want as well. They didn’t offer that with Wii U, but they sure did with Switch.

            If they made a powerful home console that doesn’t offer anything new, the same argument would exist. Why would I buy Nintendo X when I’ve got a PC I can upgrade? Oh, because it has Nintendo games on it? Well what if I don’t care about Nintendo’s games? Maybe they are too kiddy for me.

          • Force

            Fanboy? A fanboy doesn’t criticize them as heavily as I do. I’m going to have to ask you to take that back.

            Besides, everyone to even visit a site such as this one can be argued to be a fan (don’t degrade it with boy).

          • nemo37

            But just because you are a fanboy it does not mean that you cannot criticize them. You can pretty much tell I am enthusiastic about Nintendo’s Switch and their other portables and I love their software. However, I regularly criticize their awful and archaic online system and their overall digital strategy (like how I cannot be guaranteed that my digital purchases will be redownloadable and transferable once their system is past its support date).

          • Force

            Fanboy generally has a very negative connotation to it. It’s not a thing to be proud of. A fan, is still something I can see as positive. Fanboy goes to fanatic, and fanatics are known to be close to mad in their zeal for what they’re a fanatic of.

          • Radish

            I really hope they announce a robust, stable, and forward-thinking online system next year. Until then I will be buying cartridges.

          • nemo37

            Yes that is my hope too. When they announced that you will eventually not be able to perform system transfers and redownload old titles back onto Wii and DSi that sort of spooked me about purchasing anymore digital content on Switch (I also have a big digital collection on 3DS and Wii U that I am worried about now). They also ought to integrate their chat system into the Switch itself, because having it on a completely separate platform does not really make much sense.

          • Radish

            Yes, we are all Nintendo fans. But Nintendo realized with the Wii U they can’t simply rely on just their fans for support. They need to appeal to people who are not as crazy about Nintendo as we are. At least I am admitting this.

          • Force

            Ah well, push comes to shove the third-parties will sell enough of their copies to make a profit and warrant Switch development. That’s all that counts, the machine’s success.

            I’ll simply take to buying my multiplats on PC.

          • Radish

            I’m glad you’ve come around to that conclusion. : >

          • Force

            I’ve come to that conclusion before we ever started discussing 😛 It’s easier to get people to really bring their points to bare by taking up the devil’s advocate side of things.

          • Radish

            Oh, so this was just arguing for the sake of arguing for you? Wasted my time.

          • Force

            Oh come on, don’t be like that. You had good points, and that’s what counts, right?

          • Radish

            Are you that dude who had the Raichu avatar? Or at least I thought it was Raichu…

          • Force

            Nope, that isn’t me.

          • nemo37

            From a business stand point that does not really make much sense to bring their games onto other platforms (right now anyways). Yes it is true that many people will buy the Switch for utility, but a great deal would not simply because they can play their favourite franchises anywhere they please (most will opt for the cheapest option).

            Software exclusivity is a huge asset to any platform. Look at Apple, they keep all of their digital lifestyle software locked into the Mac platform, because a great deal of people purchase Macs for that reason. Sony has built a formidable first-party force since the PS3 days to give it an edge. Another example is Microsoft, they are getting into the business of taking their entire business multiplatfrom. Office is now available on Android and iOS. Their digital assistant is now available on the vast majority of platforms. This has translated into their Windows business largely remaining flat (and depriving the Windows Phone of the little momentum it had) while competing platforms have grown. Xbox Play Anywhere games, imo, have hurt Xbox’s hardware sales. Anecdotally speaking, my friend’s brother was one of those people that purchased every Xbox to play Gears of War and Forza. Now that these games are available on Windows, he is no longer interested in upgrading his Xbox One or purchasing more games for it (much like myself, he doesn’t even use it anymore). Now to MS this does not really matter since they do not really profit (or expect to profit) from Xbox hardware, but it would hurt Nintendo because they generally expect their hardware to turn a profit, at least in the long-run.

            In addition, software exclusivity (which is not necessarily sacrificed when going third-party mind you), allows a dev to focus on a single platform. This reduces costs because the dev does not need to port. In addition, it allows for the financial viability of smaller and less financially demanding projects because your target base is unified under a single console. When Sega and Atari went third-party they dealt with a sort of shock that destroyed Atari and has left Sega straggling (at least in terms of quality). This shock is the result of having your unified base go to different systems, and you having to increase spending to reach them with ports. Sega had to put down many of its smaller franchises because the financial resources to port them to reach their formerly unified base increased costs to the point where these more niche projects were no longer viable.

            I think the best thing Nintendo can do, is diversify its hardware lineup. Right now they are relying on a single product to carry them. This is why they are hesitant to let the 3DS go. IMO, they should do to the Switch architecture what MS have done with Xbox One and what Sony has done with PS4, in that they should make different variants of it. Nintendo should and can (based on what it available from Nvidia) make a stationary-only system that is more powerful and still based on the Switch architecture. They can ensure all of their first-party games run on both platforms (right now they optimize for a portable and docked mode, they can add a new stationary-only mode for cross-system games) with the Switch being the more flexible one and the hypothetical stationary system being the one with the best graphics and performance. In addition, third-parties will have the option to make cross-console ports (much like how Nintendo will run their first-party games on both machines) or exclusively target either the Switch (for a game that needs portability and touch features) or the stationary system (for games that need the additional power to be playable). We do not know if the Switch 2 will be successful, and if Nintendo does not have other hardware to rely on (with users like yourself and those not currently on a Nintendo system because they expect more third-party content), then they will forced to go third-party should their future systems not be successful.

          • Force

            But, wouldn’t a dedicated version of either of the Switch’s modes muddy the waters as to it’s function and presentation? Nintendo could still use the dock to power the system, so far I’m aware.

          • nemo37

            Well this stationary system based on the Switch’s architecture that plays its games would not necessarily be called a Switch at all, and it would be target a different user base all together (people who do not really care about portability but want a stationary system). Having general architectural compatibility would mean that we would not have to deal with the issues that Nintendo and Sony dealt with having to support to completely separate systems with completely different architectures and having to split software resources between them (if you remember this split resulted in 3DS getting more support during a period where the Wii U had droughts). Nintendo can simply take their Switch games and enhance them on the dedicated system. In addition, third-parties can make exclusive games for the stationary system for when the power of the Switch is not enough.

            A dock with additional power would be an alternative but not one possible with the current Switch and not one that, at least with my experience with external GPUs, would really be beneficial. With regards to the current Switch, the USB Type-C that connects it to the TV provides USB 3.0 level data transfer speeds (not enough for an eGPU), audio/video DisplayPort alternate mode (for video and audio transfer), and a charging port. Unfortunately it does not have a high bandwidth bus (like Thunderbolt) for an eGPU enabled dock. Even if it had that though, eGPUs over thunderbolt are generally much slower than they would if they were connected to a system natively; so you would have to connect a really power eGPU in the dock and get a fraction of its performance (having a mid-range GPU would not really make sense since the performance deteriorates too much to make a huge difference).

          • Force

            My apologies, I’m quite far from tech-informed, so this may sound really dumb to you, but can the current Switch be used with an upgraded dock, or does that mean you need a new Switch unit as well?

          • nemo37

            From the tech analyses that have been done so far (which to be fair all not fully conclusive yet; hackers, for example, found new things about the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U hardware that we did not know about years after they released) indicate that for a new dock with more computational power there will need to be a new Switch unit that has a high bandwidth bus (which to our knowledge the current models do not have).

          • Force

            Is it more feasible to make a stationary model vs such a dock and Switch?

          • nemo37

            I would personally say a stationary system would be more feasible and probably cheaper too. Unless Nintendo releases a modified Switch that has a high bandwidth port (and that high bandwidth port has to be of higher bandwidth than things like Thunderbolt 3 (40 GB/s) if Nintendo wants to get high performance from a mid-range GPU).

            I have personally dealt with eGPU setups (hoping to build a gaming laptop using an external GPU Thunderbolt dock) and, while it was a cool experiment, I realized in many cases it is not practical. The highend graphics card I put in it essentially performed like a mid-range card because of Thunderbolt 3’s bandwidth limitations. Now Nintendo would not be able to afford to put in a high-end card, so if they just put a mid-range card it will probably perform like a low-end card which will take the entire incentive away. Now apparently Microsoft have (partially) overcome the bandwidth issue by using a higher speed connection on their Surface Book devices, but those devices (with the eGPU base dock) cost over $2000, and they still have some performance issues (again despite Microsoft managing to raise the bandwidth it is still not high enough to enable the GPU to exhibit its full performance).

            Here is a good post on why having an eGPU in the dock, at least as of where technology stands now, is not really a good idea: https://chrissardegna.com/blog/posts/the-egpu-problem/

          • Force

            So, if I get this straight: Powerdock isn’t an impossible dream, but requires a lot of resources and isn’t possible right now at the right price. But would Nintendo really make a stationary system?

          • nemo37

            The entertainment market is volatile. You can have a product that is a hit and go to the bottom of the market in a few short years with a product that the market does not understand or want (Nintendo knows this after what happened with Wii to Wii U). Nintendo cannot rely on a single product or product line. They need to diversify and have multiple devices, if they wish to remain in the hardware business. While the Switch has so far been a success (I remain skeptical about people who predict Wii like success, because I personally do not see the same levels of enthusiasm especially at this price), there is no guarantee that the Switch 2 will be similarly successful, and if it ends up being a failure and they do not have a second product to rely on, they may be forced to exit the hardware business. Just imagine what would have happened if they launched the Wii U but did not have the 3DS to back them up through the Wii U debacle (financially they would have been left in a very bad position had the 3DS not offset the Wii U). I think Nintendo understands this, so we will get a stationary system in a few years time. If they don’t understand this, then the volatility of the market will catchup with them, and eventually they will be forced to go third-party because they relied too much on a single hardware product line.

          • Radish

            Exactly, they would be wiser to make more hardware rather than no hardware. However, one of the biggest appeals to me with the Switch is the fact that we are getting both Nintendo’s handheld division and home console division making games for one system. That is tremendous value to me, especially since we are starting to get a lot more third party support as well.

            I can see making the home console portion stronger, but I don’t know if I want them to go back to making them separately. How can you still call it the Switch at that point? It would completely lose its concept and marketability.

          • nemo37

            Well the stationary variant would be architecturally compatible so that devs can take existing Switch games and scale them up (think about the Xbox One in relation to the One X; they are both cross compatible, devs can take One games and graphically scale them up on the One X). Thus, Nintendo would no longer need to split their resources. Third-parties can choose to not scale up and their games would still be compatible but not benefit from the power fo the stationary system, they can choose to scale up their game so it works with both the Switch but look better on the stationary system, and if they cannot get their game to work on the Switch at all then they can just target the stationary. But from Nintendo’s perspective they would not have to split their first-party resources, because they can create one version for Switch and this hypothetical more powerful system that is still compatible with the Switch’s architecture.

          • Radish

            Hmmmm, I’m just not sure how popular this hypothetical system would be given the confines of a hypothetical $400 price point. And since Nintendo wants to sell their systems at a profit, how much more powerful can it reasonably be and would the difference really make the lack of portability worth it? I understand Playstation and Xbox are doing it, but it hasn’t exactly led to crazy sales. Instead of a mid-gen upgrade I’d rather have a brand new console a few years later. Though I would expect 3DS-style upgrades with the Switch.

          • nemo37

            The Switch combines a Tegra X1 (which contains Nvidia’s slightly modified take on ARM’s 4 Cortex A57 + A53 cores and a Maxwell graphics processing unit). Nvidia use more A57 cores running at higher speeds (Which would match the Jaguar CPUs found in the XOne and PS4) or they could use the newer and more capable (yet still compatible with the A57) A73 or A75 cores in combination with a low-to-mid-range desktop class Maxwell or Pascall GPU unit integrated on an SOC (in fact Nvidia already does this on their Tegra drive series of SOCs). This would result in a hardware architecture that, with some software integration, would be compatible with the Switch. It would allow Switch games to be enhanced (should the developer choose to enhance; if they do not the games will still run as if it was running on a Switch) and it would allow for games that do not currently run on the Switch hardware to be playable. Depending on the configuration Nvidia and Nintendo go with, it can even potentially provide 4K graphics.

            Again this would not be a replacement for the Switch (as this would be a stationary system emphasizing power and performance, while the Switch would be a powerful portable) and it would be sold at a higher price. In essence, the Switch and this system would be companions to each other. Nintendo would be able to bring their software to both platforms because unlike their previous handheld and home console systems, these would have architectural level compatibility (again think of the relationship between the Xbox One and the Xbox One X). Third-parties would be able create cross-console games that are compatible with both with no effort from the developer (and if they want to put in the effort they can enhance it for the stationary system), and if a game needs the extra horse power to run the devs can choose to only make the game for the stationary system (but again Nintendo themselves would provide the same software on both).

            In 2014, late President Iwata actually detailed such a plan. He mentioned how Nintendo handhelds and home consoles ought to be like brothers. By this he meant that they would share the same hardware and software architecture allowing devs to make a single game that runs on both, so that resources are not split.

          • Radish

            Very interesting, I remember Mr. Iwata saying that. I do think it’s possible we will see a “family of systems” for Nintendo, but I think the stationary console would need something spicy to separate it from being yet another under-powered PC.

          • nemo37

            The Switch combines a Tegra X1 (which contains Nvidia’s slightly modified take on ARM’s 4 Cortex A57 + A53 cores and a Maxwell graphics processing unit). Nvidia use more A57 cores running at higher speeds (Which would match the Jaguar CPUs found in the XOne and PS4) or they could use the newer and more capable (yet still compatible with the A57) A73 or A75 cores in combination with a low-to-mid-range desktop class Maxwell or Pascall GPU unit integrated on an SOC (in fact Nvidia already does this on their Tegra drive series of SOCs). This would result in a hardware architecture that, with some software integration, would be compatible with the Switch. It would allow Switch games to be enhanced (should the developer choose to enhance; if they do not the games will still run as if it was running on a Switch) and it would allow for games that do not currently run on the Switch hardware to be playable. Depending on the configuration Nvidia and Nintendo go with, it can even potentially provide 4K graphics.

            Again this would not be a replacement for the Switch (as this would be a stationary system emphasizing power and performance, while the Switch would be a powerful portable) and it would be sold at a higher price. In essence, the Switch and this system would be companions to each other. Nintendo would be able to bring their software to both platforms because unlike their previous handheld and home console systems, these would have architectural level compatibility (again think of the relationship between the Xbox One and the Xbox One X). Third-parties would be able create cross-console games that are compatible with both with no effort from the developer (and if they want to put in the effort they can enhance it for the stationary system), and if a game needs the extra horse power to run the devs can choose to only make the game for the stationary system (but again Nintendo themselves would provide the same software on both).

            In 2014, late President Iwata actually detailed such a plan. He mentioned how Nintendo handhelds and home consoles ought to be like brothers. By this he meant that they would share the same hardware and software architecture allowing devs to make a single game that runs on both, so that resources are not split.

          • Just to pitch in, most of the third parties that are doing well without consoles have something else to sustain them.

            Bamco is the biggest. But what else do they have? Licensing and merchandising for One Piece, PreCure, Dragon Ball, Sailor Moon, Gundam, etc. Some of the biggest series ever. OP and SM alone are huge internationally. If they stopped making money on their games today, they’d probably still be able to get a few games out a year just by their merchandising.

            Even MMV/Marvelous (Senran Kagura and Story of Seasons) has a ton of licensing and other things they do. I can’t speak for a lot of Western devs, but most of the Japanese companies rely on an outside source. For Sega, Konami and SNK? It’s been Pachinko.

            It’s incredibly hard to stay around and rely just on games. Actually, a lot of companies that were like that are gone or bought out now. (Western and Japanese.)

          • Radish

            The types of games Nintendo makes are not extremely demanding, and fit their consoles perfectly. Certain third parties make very demanding games optimized for the PC and then downgrade them for PS4, XB1, and Switch.

          • Gregory Weagle

            Even if there is a boosted dock; it’s still a hybrid by proxy. I think Force is seriously saying that Nintendo should just go back to a two-tier gaming scheme like they had before Switch’s release. Sorry; not happening. I don’t want them going back to two losing money systems ever again; not after the WiiU/3DS debacle.

          • Force

            That’s where your wrong, I don’t mind the Switch as a hybrid, I simply want the dock to have it’s own piece of validity. What do you hear people buy the Switch for? For it’s TV game play? No, for portability, or for the combination of both, but still, primarily, portability.

            Third-party devs are lazy on account of the docked part, because they don’t need to care. Fate/Extella, 720P docked, FE:W cut corners and looks “Eh, could’ve done better”. Even the Legend of Zelda: BotW ran better in handheld vs docked, though that’s been patched, yet it still has frame-drops when using that camera mode.

            It’s only normal that games run better docked vs handheld. Handheld people get their games handheld, can those that play docked then AT LEAST get a performance boost or SOMETHING?

          • Aline Piroutek

            Graphics and performance are important. Compare Windwaker HD, a superb remaster with this indie game Rime.

          • Radish

            Well, to be fair Rime didn’t have a huge corporation backing their game with a huge team of developers (they had 15 to start and then 30 at one point), and it apparently doesn’t run flawlessly on ANY platform. And you are also comparing a remaster which is entirely focused on improving the graphics of preexisting game. But yes, like I’ve already said, graphics and performance are important. It’s just a matter of finding the right balance of focus.

            I’d happily prefer any last gen Rockstar game to The Order 1886 despite the graphics being worse.

          • Gregory Weagle

            Although with third party developers, the buggy part is kind of a problem. Kingdom: New Lands and Troll & I being the biggest example and those two don’t even pretend to have graphics like the PS4.

          • Radish

            That is true, but I think third party developers will quickly realize that on Switch they will be rewarded for games that run cleanly and punished for games that are buggy or completely break. That’s why pre-orders are stupid.

          • Force

            But even then, it’s hard to see when we’re talking about cut-corners or when it’s the limitations of the Switch. Third-parties can easily make use of this, and blame it on the machine. Would you be able to say what the cause is? Because I sure wouldn’t.

          • Radish

            The market will decide whether third parties can get away with “cut corners” or not. The Troll and I didn’t sell too well, did it? It’s not like those devs are getting away with anything. But if the effort is clearly there, people will buy the game. It’s that simple.

          • Force

            FE:W sold pretty well, didn’t it? I can tell you for a FACT that there’s corners cut there. 95 hours to prove it.

          • Radish

            And? Somehow I don’t think the people who bought FE:W bought it because they thought it was going to be a graphical masterpiece. They bought FE:W because they either enjoyed Hyrule Warriors or wanted a good hack n slash adventure.

            Which goes to show that there are multiple factors that go into your decision to buy a game. So on balance, even if it wasn’t a graphically impressive game it was good enough gameplay-wise to win people over. Otherwise, how would you explain the sales?

            Whereas The Troll and I was just plain horrible all-around.

          • Force

            Who says I was talking solely about graphics?

            No I’m talking about clones, some of them can be explained away by “lore” but the others are outright lazy.

          • Radish

            I don’t know how Fire Emblem Warriors is selling, but if it is selling well as you say then perhaps you were in the minority of fans complaining about clones.

          • Force

            Or people haven’t gotten enough time in to really notice the difference. That, or they don’t care enough.

          • Radish

            Exactly, not everyone cares about the things you care about. The proof is in the sales.

        • Justin McQuillen

          Having games like Mario Odyssey and BOTW which are competitive home console style games is what makes the comparison obvious, so there is no avoiding it. The reality is that Nintendo is competing in the console market here, and the software is the proof.

          • Force

            Then PC would also be in that market, because there’s plenty of high quality games on there. Your argument is irrelevant.

          • Evan Gustavson

            You’re right, the PC would be in that market, and it is.
            A good portion of multiplats are availiable on Steam too.

            Since they sell the same product, PC’s are, in fact, competing with PS4 and XBONE for sales of said product. You need to be in a market to compete in said market. Funny how that works.

            Sounds like you’re the one with an irrelevant argument.

          • Force

            The PC is at a price range that most consumers can ill afford, and so consoles have a strong place in the market still. The moment PC’s become the same price-range, consoles are the ones that will vanish from the face of the earth.

            Nintendo competes, weakly, in a home-console market in some pathetic, futile effort to save what little foothold they have left there, and overly compensate on it with their 90% handheld system. A hybrid, so far I’ve learned, implies 50/50, and the Switch is a far cry from it.

            They would GAIN from marketing it as a handheld, since clearly the far out majority of people buy it for that very reason, as it slots into their busy lives. They do not care for the dock, or the ability to dock, so why even still bother? Go full handheld, offer them the extra functionality that comes with it, and let the legacy of the NES/SNES/N64/Gamecube/Wii/Wii-U die with the Wii-U.

            The software alone is why people are stupid enough to waste their money on a Switch to play it docked only. If Nintendo were to lose their venerated IP, none of these people would waste their money on a system that is obviously catered for those portable people, and doesn’t give much of a F about those wishing to play Nintendo and third-party games as best they can. Further proof is easily found in how developers rarely even bother to hit 1080P in docked mode, just lazily using 720 instead.

          • Justin McQuillen

            I hear this all the time, but when I look at Steam with a pocket full of money willing to buy a game, I can never find anything I’m interested in. With Switch I have bought and enjoyed like 15 games this month. Btw calling something irrelevant is meaningless unless you’re calling it irrelevant in regards to a specific subject. Also I’m not sure if you’re aware of this but PC is a platform in the video game market.

          • Force

            “I hear this all the time, but when I look at Steam with a pocket full of
            money willing to buy a game, I can never find anything I’m interested
            in. With Switch I have bought and enjoyed like 15 games this month”

            That is just you, there are MILLIONS of people on Steam who buy a ton of games.

            Also, home-console style games can still be played on the go. Dispute my arguments about the dock, that the Switch is weaker for the sake of portability, that the dock is but some last vestige of the failed Wii-U and the end of NIntendo’s home-console legacy in favour of having the handheld do the heavy lifting.

          • Justin McQuillen

            No, it’s not just me, it’s MILLIONS of Nintendo fans. Nintendo is replacing/integrating all lower hierarchical forms of video game into their repertoire now with the Switch. Just wait until 2019 when you have spent a year grieving, this first year is just the appetizer my dude. Wait until Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Metroid, etc.
            skrrrahh, pap, pap, ka-ka-ka
            Skidiki-pap-pap, and a pu-pu-pudrrrr-boom
            Skya, du-du-ku-ku-dun-dun
            Poom, poom, you dun now

          • Force

            “Nintendo is replacing/integrating all lower hierarchical forms of video game into their repertoire now with the Switch” What a joke, your bias can be seen from 100 miles away.

            “Just wait until 2019 when you have spent a year grieving, this first year
            is just the appetizer my dude. Wait until Pokemon, Animal Crossing,
            Metroid, etc. You are going to be in the fetal position playing Horizon
            DLC with loot crates.” The words of a true, zealous and blind fanboy. I own a Switch, I own 9 games for it, I will play most of those, along with the best PC can offer. YOU are the one losing out with that attitude.

            I merely want Nintendo to sell third-party games off of more than “just” portability.

          • Justin McQuillen

            You act like the only person here with a PC. I too, have a PC. It’s not as good as Nintendo. BOTW impressed me with its visuals more than any 4K game I have played using my 2 GTX980Ti gpus in SLI with my i7-4790k cpu. Your argument is really stale and unoriginal, it reminds me of people who are so cliche that they would spend $1 million on a brand new Lambo. Like really, the lambo. You’re not going to use your imagination at all and get something unique, but no, you have to have the lambo because it’s a status symbol. Well actual gamers don’t care about the optics of their gamer status, they just want to play the funnest games. That’s why Mario Odyssey is on top. Mario Odyssey is like the underappreciated third generation Supra of video games. Would smoke the lambo in a race and cost a lot less.

          • Force

            I am a practical person, not the kind that throws money around on a whim. The Switch’s unique feature is not an asset to me, as I do not use portability.

            You statements are put as objective, but they are the furthest from. Drop your Nintendo zeal for a second, and consider that people who game on PC, just want the best out of their experience. Graphics, gameplay, sound it’s all part of the greater package.

            Nintendo’s games are great, that’s why I even own a Switch, but I want to look beyond just that. Nintendo’s games alone, will not keep them going in the long run. Third-parties must be onboard and seeing good sales, though they probably will regardless of what I think, since there are plenty of people that want those games solely for portability.

            People like me, will just buy these games on a stronger platform.

          • Justin McQuillen

            The Switch’s portability worked out awesome for me. I smoked weed and drank beer for 2 hours while still on the clock for my 2 hour break at work while playing console games on a handheld. It was awesome. Maybe if you get a life you will get to use the portable feature.

          • Force

            “Maybe if you get a life you will get to use the portable feature.” For that highly inconsiderate statement, I will put you back on my blocklist.

            Not everyone is like you, it’s hard to accept, but it’s the truth. Not everyone wants portability, even harder to accept, yet also the truth.

          • Justin McQuillen

            I mean just picture a situation where you work 12 hour shifts 5-6 days per week. That portable aspect of Switch is really appealing to people with a life, it’s all I’m saying. It’s the truth and it’s easy to accept.

          • Force

            Doesn’t make your previous statement any less of a D move. That you can’t understand that says a lot about you as a person. You don’t know me and don’t know my situation.

            All I’m asking, is that every aspect of the Switch gets equal treatment, that is all. I’ve never asked for the removal of the handheld aspect, or that it is a useless feature, merely that I don’t use it, and that there are others like me. It would be great for those people, to have a solid reason to support third-party beyond portability, where they don’t have any right now.

          • Justin McQuillen

            Why should I be considerate? You are not considerate of others. You think everything should be tooled to your liking at the expense of everyone else. Soooo considerate.

    • Game_God
    • Benjamin Silva

      So far i know, RIVE has a better performance on switch than on PS4 for some weird reason

    • venomancer

      well yeah… what do you think..

    • Kid X

      Well, it’s a tough game to run, the PS4 Pro only manages 1080p on this game with a not so consistent 60fps, doesn’t even go to 1440p or let alone 4K.

    • Why are you comparing the Switch to current gen dedicated home consoles? Thats just stupid. The Switch is a portable hybrid gaming device so of course it isn’t gonna run games as well as those systems do. Didn’t the developer say that RiME wasn’t even designed for the Switch? That should tell you how capable the system is despite it being essentially a gaming tablet

      • Rodrigo Coelho Costa Junior

        guys, give up on convincing these mor*ns of the obvious, they are here just for the sake of sh*tposting

      • Force

        As I’ve said below, Nintendo sells it as a home-console. You can’t blame people for pulling comparisons between other “home-consoles”. Nintendo either should’ve straight up marketed it as handheld, or hybrid, they’re bringing this comparison in themselves.

        • It doesn’t matter what they sold it as the cold hard truth is that it’s a hybrid gaming device that act as both a handheld and a home console. Nintendo never said the Switch will have visuals that’s on par or better than current gen dedicated home consoles in fact they’ve only said that it’s modern console gaming on the go. The Wii U is considered as a current gen console and the Switch is 2 to 3 times more powerful than that

          • Force

            I need only point towards the reason why people buy the device and the reason why people buy multiplats. I’ll give you a hint, it isn’t for docked mode.

          • Exactly so why are people comparing portable versions of games to dedicated home console versions then? The Switch isn’t a dedicated home console, it’s basically a portable gaming device that can be docked to a tv. Casual gamers could care less but I’m mainly talking to the resolution junkies who have to analyze every pixel and frame instead of just enjoying the games. The Switch isn’t selling well because of high profile graphics it’s selling well because of it’s games and the uniqueness of the system

          • Force

            I’m far from a resolution junky, but, let’s face it, there’s a lot of games that are optimized only for the handheld portion. Don’t you think that’s a shame? that’s basically ignoring half of the Switch, though arguably it’s 20% of the Switch.

          • zelgadis greywords

            but it is a upgrade from the wiiu, not so big as what they wanted, but an upgrade

          • Force

            An upgrade from the status of “incredibly far behind competition” to “still quite noticeably behind competition”. I rest my case.

        • zelgadis greywords

          no, they’re not selling the console as a home console, they’re selling as a multipurpose console that you can play either home or handheld, however you want.

    • nemo37

      LOL…come back and make these comments when you can take your Xbox One with you on the go.

      Also, I love how you’ve taken a break from your recent Switch bashing, to (yet again) claim that there is a media conpiracy against Microsoft because a single game site reported a few launch issues with a small number of Xbox One X units in addition to making up some BS about how Sony is covering up lack PSN profits by just reporting revenues (despite in reality Sony reporting both and being profitable as well). It is also interesting that you are now using your Truth-ier account to bash Sony and the Michael C account to bash Nintendo.

  • Aline Piroutek

    Rules of the site: don’t reply Michal Cun. Only report.
    Any reply on him is more improdutive than fake gamingfan

  • Rodrigo Coelho Costa Junior

    Its a shame the way this game runs on any console, especially on the switch.

    • Sagadego15

      Even some gaming PCs / cards

      • Rodrigo Coelho Costa Junior

        yeah… this is ridicuous =(

        • Sagadego15

          Titan X aka one of monster cards has issues running this game. It should bench press this game.

  • Sagadego15

    Michael is having salt attack. Go home street rat.

  • Metroid-Dark-Echoes

    Funny how Xenoblade Chronicles X is vastly bigger , looks and run far better than Rime.

    • Ektoras Kalderis

      Rime is basically an indie game. Xenoblade isn’t. You can’t compare an indie game with a AAA game. Apples and oranges m8

      • Tlink7

        Just because you have less money doesn’t mean its fine to have a game that looks as basic as this does run like crap… Plenty of indie Switch titles do it a million times better

  • sremick

    Given how basic these graphics are, it’s inexcusable that it’s not 1080p docked.

    Anything else is just excuses/enablers. I don’t care if you don’t think it’s visible. I don’t care if you’ll only play portably. THAT DOESN’T MATTER. What does matter is A) many of us CAN see the difference between 720p and 1080p, and B) many games that are far more graphically-intense and complicated run at 1080p docked just fine.

  • Rodrigo Coelho Costa Junior

    its a crime what these guys are doing..
    Some clueless people may pay 30 bucks.. or if you live in Brazil, around 200 reals (which is A LOT OF MONEY) and when you start playing, it runs this badly.
    seriously, this should be a crime.. its really a shame. they MUST to patch this!

    • Aline Piroutek

      200 reais = $60

      • Rodrigo Coelho Costa Junior

        se converter direto sim né. Mas num país onde $60 vira 300 reais, às vezes 350 (!!!!!) vc já encontra mídia física de Rime a 200 reais

  • Tlink7

    How can a game that looks like a vastly simpler Wind Waker run so badly? Lazy [email protected]#$ing devs <.<

    • Force

      A lot of them are skimping, aren’t they?

      • Tlink7

        I hope nobody gives money to these greedy sods…

  • Melatelo

    Never did I think I’d see 720p and below come back as a resolution for a gaming on a TV in 2017. I understand some people find it a fair trade off for portability..but for me it makes a huge difference. Doom for one was almost unplayable for me with the constant frame drops (they get much lower than 30) and blurry visuals that often go even below 720p. Luckily this hasn’t been the go for Nintendo themselves as they always put so much time and effort in to their titles. I feel like either 3rd parties just either aren’t putting in the same amount of time and effort with Switch ports…or it really just is difficult to port to with good results. It’s a little disappointing either way.

    • Radish

      Until we get a realistic looking game from Nintendo themselves, we have nothing to compare DOOM with. So you can’t say there wasn’t enough effort put into it. They could have given us a shortened version with cut levels and other features missing but they chose not to. I’d rather have a complete game that includes the DLC than a bare bones game. Or perhaps you didn’t even want DOOM to come to the Switch? Cause we could have had that too.

    • Force

      I’d say that, the multiplats, are for people who either have no other no alternative than the Switch, or people who want portability. Anyone else, is better off getting the titles elsewhere. And if this leads to a drop in third-party sales, then so be it.

  • hmm why not 1080p? Graphics are basic….

  • Mitt_Romney_2012

    The whole game is optimized poorly, even on other systems. The fact that BotW, Skyrim and Doom run with little to no problems just shows the incompetence of these devs.

  • Padre

    This game was poorly optimized from the start. It doesnt run smoothly on any system.

Related Game Info


Platform: SWITCH
Genre: ACTIONADVENTURE
Publisher: Grey Box / Six Foot
Developer: Tequila Works
Release date: Summer 2017
OWN IT: 0 [I own this game]
BEAT IT: 0 [I beat this game]
Buy now