Joachim Holmer, developer of VR game Budget Cuts, suggests large companies don't want to commit to VR because the audience is so small.
Warhammer 40,000: Boltgun 2 developers discuss the huge success of Space Marine 2 and its effect on the series as a whole.
Sector sat down with Glen Schofield—creator of Dead Space and The Callisto Protocol—during the Game Developers Session (GDS) in Prague to discuss the evolution of the game industry, the current challenges of AAA development, and why it's become so hard to get original ideas off the ground in today’s risk-averse environment.
It’s easy enough to say that, but why? It feels weird to me when developers say this but common sense would tell you everything about the idea itself should work.
The idea of the concept seems like a winner at whichever angle you look at it so why would publishers not greenlight it?
… it’s almost as if the majority of publishers are massively incompetent at their jobs. But there’s no surprise to anyone there.
Wccftech interviewed Koei Tecmo about their upcoming game WILD HEARTS S, gathering their first thoughts on the Nintendo Switch 2 console.
This new tech, in 2025, is more comparable to 2020 tech than 2013 tech.
*tip toes over that bar*
Also, why are all the comparisons to PS4 and not Xbox One?
PS4 is more powerful than the XB1, S2 is more powerful than both, so why not use the higher of the two?
Probably because people who owned an XBO and not a PS4 don't really know what it means. The assumption is that everyone is as knowledgeable as journalists or gaming news junkies. Gaming is mainstream, that means that mass majority of people don't know these specifics, only online talking points.
And the PS4 and XBO are the closest in power systems we've ever had, so this 'more powerful' is so small, it really isn't the big talking point people think it is.
I'd rather add, Xbox One X can be used as a good metric to gauge if a said system is more powerful than last gen.
It's pretty clear that Switch 2 isn't more powerful than PS4 Pro. Is the base model PS4 being beaten? Well, Switch 2 is hardly ever actually being compared to the base model PS4, but seeing as how it's yet to outperform PS4 Pro in basically any other way than loading data into RAM in video comparisons. I have to assume the individual developer being interviewed has very little experience with PS4 and Xbox One.
Which is great for a handheld/hybrid! Some people still stick to Digital Foundry's PS4 comparison comment as gospel, back when they were just watching trailers and hadn't even had their hands on it yet.
With that said, this interview doesn't go into very much depth on this. I'd like to see more analysis, but so far I'm really impressed with the performance since I got mine on Friday. Truth be told, having a PS4 Pro level handheld is enough for me. Anything beyond is icing. I'm not looking to replace my PS5 or PC.
In this case Digital Foundry is right. They didn't adequately explain or sound remotely confident when showing Switch 2's "visual" benefits in that HogLeg comparison was related to loading. Yes, sometimes two massive world segments can be connected by a smaller individual loading zone like how Jak 2 handled open world zones on PS2. There is a small room that in itself is it's own discrete loading zone that you wait inside as the next massive portion of the map loads in. Very common when going from Haven City to any part outside of the city owlr when descending into the sewers or entering the city from the outside or leaving the sewers. Anyway, the HogLeg skybridge loading zone is more detailed because Switch 2 could load in more varied textures. Models load pretty fast. It's probable that the decimated models that appear in the Switch 2 version were supposed to be visible on Xbox One and PS4 in that scene, which might be why they exist on Switch 2. Unfortunately, the same video showcased above shows PS4 Pro is basically ahead of Switch 2 in all other ways imaginable. Higher rendering resolutions with a sharper cleaner image, better effects quality, and a better distance all favor PS4 Pro. Both the Pro and Switch 2 seem to have a pretty solid 30FPS performance level.
For how thin switch 2 is it’s impressive especially when it’s stronger than steam deck and cost less
Steam Deck is cheaper at $399. Switch 2 also uses cheaper materials. See joycon drift still being an issue. You'll also save a ton more money on software alone with the Steam Deck.
Honestly, if the Steam Deck was released today, it likely would at least match the Switch 2 in areas where it outperforms the Steam Deck but still have more advantages. Main thing holding back the Deck is the cores and resolution, because it still has the better CPU and GPU otherwise.
@Christopher - I own one, no stick drift. My OG joycons never had drift either.
Steam Deck relies on FSR which is still inferior to DLSS. Not to mention that the S2 can push double the GPU performance in docked mode. Deck has more memory, which is nice.
I have both, but my S2 will be getting the lion-share of playtime in the near future. That being said, I can still appreciate being able to play my steam games on the go.
For me, the game sales/prices and flexibility of the Steam deck outweigh the cost of the system itself, but I'll probably get a Switch 2 anyway.
And the ps5 was comparable to a PC that could be built over 5 years before it came out lol, how do you think consoles stay affordable?
@omnipotent
PS5 comparable to a PC built OVER 5 years before it came out? let's see...
the best mainstream PC combo back in 2015/2016 would be the i7 6700K ($350) + GTX 1080 ($600). Sorry, but that setup is never going to outperform the base PS5 in games, especially modern ones.
you done lying yet or still want to continue lying so your precious Switch 2 doesn't get hurt by facts anymore?
It’s a tech article speaking about specs people who care about this will know. I did not own an XB1 but know it’s at a similar tech level as PS4. PS4 has a far greater sales footprint, it makes sense to use it.
Technologically it’s closer to the Series S….. Raster-wise it’s closer to a base PS4 which has been the point.
Why Switch 2 is better:
The much better CPU allows for higher FPS than the last gen Jaguar CPUs could ever produce.
The 12GB of RAM prevents the system from being bottlenecked in most modern games (even SS fails here)
The storage while not NVMe Gen4 speeds, is significantly faster than the HDD in last gen
It’s a RTX 3000 hybrid, and DLSS is a better upscaling solutions than all other consoles even PSSR currently, and significantly better than checkerboard rending.
This is where the PS4 & PS4 Pro comparisons come into play. Natively it can’t compete with the PS4 Pro, and really closer to the base PS4, but due to the better CPU, more RAM, faster storage, and DLSS it can upscale resolution, image quality, and performance to get close, match, or certain cases exceed the PS4 Pro, and rivals the Series S.
DLSS is really the saving force behind Switch 2 getting current gen ports to acceptable resolution quality, and NVIDIA and Nintendo did it at 10w, so kudos to them, because many of the AAA 3rd party games are and will continue to be native 540p - 720p upscaled through DLSS.
Also this game would benefit from DLSS.
I notice it always ps4 or ps4 pro but never xbox one x which is more powetful then the ps4 pro.
sooo ...
what this is telling us, is that it comes down to the game and the devs optimization.
There are already several games on Switch 2 coming up short in side-by-side comparisons. Cyberpunk 2077, Fortnite, and HogLeg are just the first examples with the first game in this list only having better image quality due to DLSS and slightly more stable performance due to that lower resolution than last gen systems enabled by DLSS, but having simplified models at mid distances and fewer NPCs roaming around than on PS4 or Xbox One.
That's because they're smart enough to recognise a gimmick when they see it.
I don't blame them. It'd cost a lot of money and time for something that still hasn't proven it's not a fad that'll fizzle out in 2 or 3 years.
Sony, Facebook, HTC are pretty big companies behind VR
Yeah they will. But first you have define what a commitment is to VR.
If you mean create a ground up only for VR videogame that takes advantage of Vive's room sensors, then perhaps.
If you mean take the games you already play like CoD, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, Star Wars, etc, etc... then they would be fools not to. It's not like it take much time to patch in support for it.
There's two types of VR, most people will want to play their normal games, the normal way (no/limited motion controls), and no room sensors. Just instead of playing by watching on a TV, you'll be playing with a VR headset on.
This way solves all those problems. All one has to do is get used to wearing the headset.
You don't have to develop around the room constraints, and multiple sizes of rooms.
You don't have to make short games that aren't too repetitive, like could you imagine having to climb EVERYTHING in Assassin's Creed... that would suck.
You don't have to make special games that can only be played by people with VR headsets, thus a limited userbase to sell to.
You don't have to spend a lot of money this way, and that's the way most people (whether they know it now or not) will play VR long term. Yes you want the other stuff too, but when you want to game for a nice long session you don't want to be flailing around. Motion controls are not for long sessions, and VR isn't going to change people into wanting only short sessions.
It's accessible this way because it enhances the way you play the games you currently play.