Blizzard: Overwatch on Switch is "very challenging for us"

Blizzard is "open minded about exploring possible platforms."

The story is too old to be commented.
Moonman438d ago

Yeah, but it will sell. Whoever makes the best portable fps on Switch will win sales.

MRMagoo123438d ago

how will it sell well when there aren't many switches out there in the world? the attachment might be high who knows but if there aren't enough switches bought to care about unless the attachment is 100 percent.

Erik7357438d ago (Edited 438d ago )

Honestly I would re buy it. Overwatch on the go on a portable machine like that would be nuts.

They could do it to becauses its a very easy to run game. IF they wanted it to be 60fps they would have to basically put it on something like low settings though. They could make it look close to pc xbox/ps4 version but it would be around 30fps locked if they did that.

I know this because Overwatch is very optimized and is easy to run on almost any hardware set up for pc.

MrMagz437d ago

Blizzard games tend to be evergreen, meaning they sell well throughout a generation. Overwatch alone still continues to sell in the top 10 most weeks. And even if there are not very many Switchs out there now, having a big game like Overwatch would attract people who maybe wouldn't otherwise buy one.

ABizzel1437d ago (Edited 437d ago )

Overwatch can run on a 920m with low settings at almost 60fps. The 920m is a step above the Tegra X1 at max performance.

At worse the Switch should be on par with a 910m if the underclock rumors from Eurogamer are still true. The Switch should be able to handheld overwatch in 720p @ 30fps, low / medium settings. If they cut back on texture, lighting, effects, and shadow quality to a lower minimum then they may even be able to hit 60fps unlocked.

But that means, more development work, spending more time rebuilding the game for a lower spec system, which means more cost in making the product for an audience that might not buy the game by the millions.

820m gameplay of Overwatch (820m is equal to the 910m)

920m gameplay of Overwatch (best case scenario for Switch)

Matter of fact if you go through the NVIDIA mobile line up the consoles all rank around the following:

910m (Switch handheld)
920m (Switch docked 1st party exclusive)
950m (XBO)
960m (PS4)
980m 8GB (PS4 Pro)

437d ago
mastiffchild437d ago

For me the big issue surrounding online only shooters on Switch isnt horsepower but how Nintendo manage the online functions this time round.

Overwatch is a cartoony game easily downgradable for Switch losing very little visually compared to low end PC or console performance. However, anyone who wants to play it at home will already be doing so and portably? Well, depends on a few things-nintys online and your wi fi. You wont be playing on 3G or 4G so itll be mainly at home again where better options, cheaper options are king.

Blizzard would need a vast install base to make it profitable and by then they could be busy elsewhere. Seems an unlikely fit many variables are totally unpredictable at present AND its already a cash cow on existing platforms.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 437d ago
sinspirit437d ago

Because of the perfect ability for the Switch to have 4 player local co-op, Diablo or a similar type game would be fantastic on it as well. I would like a newer game of this genre though. The remakes/ports that I really want are Oblivion, Soul Calibur, Gauntlet: Dark Legacy, and Pikmin.

Could you imagine the same engine and view distance as Zelda: BotW in a third-person Pokemon game?


Actually no! Vita already had it with killzone and it wasn't quite the success.

And lokking how many FPS have been released for a nintendo system in the last 3 years, Its safe to say there is no audience for those there.

OtakuDJK1NG-Rory438d ago (Edited 438d ago )

You want easy money from Nintendo fans Blizzard well.
Here two things you can do. Either one is fine.
Have Samus be an exclusive playable character with a deal with Nintendo
Have Super Smash Bros. characters that best match the heroes get costume.
So Pharah get Samus outfit
Mercy get Palutena and so on.

Personally just add Samus.

Erik7357438d ago

Exclusive charatcer? No...They put so much work into them and they wouldn't want to waste resources into making one for only one version.

Nintendo themed Costumes are a big yes though

Aquietguy437d ago

Samus is already an established character so it wouldn't be a ground up design. We know what she lokks like and what weapons she have.

Blastoise437d ago (Edited 437d ago )

Terrible ideas. No offence.

BVFTW437d ago

We don't always agree Rory, but I agree that having an exclusive character like Samus could be fun, I don't know why most of the guys think is such a bad Idea, Soul Calibur II did that and I've a lot of fond memories of that game, Link was a cool character to have.

Derceto437d ago

Getting Switch to run Tic Tac Toe is very challenging. Of course this would be also.

MVGeneral437d ago

Lol. Probably suffers frame rate issues.

bluefox755437d ago (Edited 437d ago )

The console is pretty underpowered, I dunno if it can handle modern 3rd party games, even though Overwatch isn't very demanding, I can see how it might be too much for the Switch.

Asuka437d ago

overwatch isn't very demanding at all. its runs buttery smooth on consoles, and a relative cheap pc with a budget gpu can run overwatch ~70fps easy. its just that the Switch and the other platforms (consoles and pc) are different from each other. The Switch being ARM based, and everything else x86. It would mean a lot work for Blizzard to get the game to work on the Switch.

Averyashimself437d ago

I'm agreeing with you because your avatar and name is Asuka.

Guyfamily999437d ago

Thank you, so many people ignore the architecture and think power is the only thing that makes up how difficult a port is. The switch is ARM like the vita.

ABizzel1437d ago


The Switch at best is comparable to a 920m when docked. Overwatch does not hit 70fps on that GPU, it floats around 720p @ 40 fps on low settings.

The problem also comes from as you said ARM, mobile CPU cores, and having to run the game in handheld mode, which will force the game to be 720p @ 30fps, which is okay but this game is meant to be a 60fps game.

They'll have to do a lot more work than simply porting it to Switch with lowest settings, which unfortunately is going to be the reason 3rd party support once again skips the Switch for most 3rd party developers outside of Japan.

BVFTW437d ago (Edited 437d ago )

But remember that Switch has a lot in common with Nvidia Shield (that Switch could've been called the Shield K1.5 tablet, for all I know), all that work to make a port for the Switch might be worth it 'cause the game could hit that market as well. Not long ago, Nvidia was trying to give a push to the shield line with games like Crysis3, Borderlands 2 and Trine2 on the shield, shield games might be easily tweaked for the switch and down the road, for capable enough android platforms.

ABizzel1436d ago (Edited 436d ago )


That's why I'm assuming NVIDIA made the hardware for the Switch. They were firm / salty in their decision to not support consoles anymore when Sony and MS announced they were going with AMD. But here they are making the processor for the Switch.

NVIDIA tried to do it on their own with the Shield brand, but they don't have brand recognition outside of PC gaming. When it comes to the general consumer Nintendo, PlayStation, and Xbox are the brand names of gaming, so their microprocessor was best suited in a Nintendo device (handheld), to get the branding they needed to enhance mobile gaming and get their processors in more mobile devices.

They tried a lot of things, but ARM and Android were not the best suit for games since it took more time for developers to optimize it. Those who did made indie games that performed on par with PS360 with the K1, and games that surpassed performance of the PS360 with the X1. That being said those who did a quick port had awful performance on both.

Nintendo is in that same boat as NVIDIA when it comes to 3rd party. Their games have not been successful on Nintendo platforms for over a decade now, and since the processor is that same ARM / 500 GFLOP Tegra, it means a lot more work and money than the simple port most 3rd party devs want to put into Nintendo. Honestly you can't blame them for that business decision, because it's the logical one (although there's also the chance that Blizzard games could hit big on Nintendo).

It's just a big risk, that conservative companies aren't willing to take. According to devs early on it cost $1m - $2m to port a game between PS4 and XBO since their architectures were so similar. Switch uses a completely different architecture and all assets must be reduced in order to properly run on the Switch mean means more development time, and pushes that port likely into the +$10m range, which means the profit mark for a developer is around the 500k mark, and you look at the majority of 3rd party game sales and they fall well below that, but again they're not quite the best efforts of the biggest IPs, so both Nintendo and 3rd parties need to make an arrangement on finding a solution to this issue.

Wallstreet37437d ago (Edited 437d ago )

I'm one of the few ppl in this world that don't care for "Overwatch" but if this does come to Switch it would be a good look. I Think we would see alot of ppl double dipping.

Also Switch needs to have its first big MP game and we know Overwatch is that type of game.

Wallstreet37437d ago

yeah Splatoon 2 definitely should be a good MP game and it sold well on Wiiu and will sell well again but Overwatch has more notoriety.

By the way Splatoon test fire is coming next week so be sure to dl it now.

Show all comments (39)
The story is too old to be commented.