Imo the anger is a bit misdirected. Making a toned down version of the game takes equal the amount of resources, if not more compared to other ports. Performance wise the switch always has been a toaster, even compared to the last gen of consoles. There probably are now phones with more graphical power, so ports to hardware that is so far behind is difficult.
I’ve ported games to switch and there is a lot of extra loops to go through to make it even remotely run at decent frame rates.
The publisher could have made the switch version cheaper, but they probably invested more resources into it than porting it between xbox and playstation, so i can kind of understand why they didn’t.
The argument “it looks worse so it should be cheaper” is kind of questionable, when the console they are buying it for just doesn’t allow for much better considering the art direction. If the switch was as powerful as the ps5 or current xbox, they would have made the game look as good as it is on all the other platforms.
A valid question is if this needed a switch port at all, and considering the backlash, the publishers are probably asking themselves the same question.
Aren’t most Switch games still $60, though? Just flipping through the US E-store, the only game I saw at $70 was Tears of the Kingdom, and this version of Mortal Kombat is not going to compare favorably to that.
But typically publishers are not making the price on release based on what platform you run it on. It looks worse, but that isn’t really the game’s fault. It has the same amount of cost attached to it as any other port of the game, if not more. On the other hand, from the consumer perspective, I can 100% understand why someone wouldn’t want to spend $70 on this.
In the end, will it be worth the money they put in to port this game to less-than last gen? I have no idea.
The argument “it looks worse so it should be cheaper” is kind of questionable, when the console they are buying it for just doesn’t allow for much better considering the art direction.
I disagree.
When you have to pay the same or more for something less then that's simply not justified for the consumer. If the console can't handle anything better and is that expensive to port over, then you should simply not port your game over to it. If that's a general Switch problem, then the Switch maybe shouldn't be a thing either. I thought that's how markets are supposed to work, no?
But it’s not something less, it’s something less, in your device. That’s the distinction.
If the console can’t handle anything better and is that expensive to port over, then you should simply not port your game over to it
If enough people want to play it on the switch, the investment is worth it.
I thought that’s how markets are supposed to work, no?
Well, if it were up to you maybe, but if there’s enough people that will buy it just to play it on the switch, then the markets are working as intended.
The Switch is also a whole generation older than the PS5 and latest X1 Series X (or whatever it’s really called). Important thing to factor in when understanding why the Switch port is so compromised. They aren’t scaling games down from more powerful consoles of the same generation anymore, they’re porting games from much more powerful consoles of the next generation.
Imagine bitching because your 10 year old phone GPU can’t push polygons.
You are lucky they made it work as well as they did on switch and don’t charge you EXTRA for the absurd amount of optimization that it must have took to get it even workable.
Ah yes, I'm sure Sony lost oodles of money sitting on Spider-man and FF7R for years before they were ported to PC, or the other console "exclusives" that have a 3-12 month waiting period.
I mean, it probably would have been better than this. Not every game needs to release on all platforms. NeverRealm made a stupid decision trying to release on Switch at the same time as other consoles, especially when the Switch already has a foot in the grave as it is.
If they'd have waited for the new hardware, sure some fans might've been a little upset, but it's not like there's a whole lot of crossover between MK fans and players who only own a Switch in the first place. Half of the MK games never got released on a Nintendo platform at all, and several that did didn't release simultaneously with other platforms, and were also heavily modified ports.
They could've waited a year or two, and not left such a bad taste in players' mouths. I'm sure most people would've rather waited.
I’m sure there are people out there with Switch as their only means to play games that would like to be able to play Mortal Kombat now and are happy it’s available. The people complaining have unrealistic expectations, either for what the Switch’s hardware can render, the amount of work that was and is required to make a game like it work on the Switch in the first place, or both. If you don’t want to play an inferior version of the game don’t buy it, but you clearly aren’t the target audience for the game.
That’s for the development company to decide. If its profitable they will keep releasing because there’s a market of people that want to play the game and only have a switch. Mortal Kombat is a multiplayer game that you play for the combat, not the graphics. You can play it for the graphics but fighting games fans don’t really, so if the game runs on the switch they open up to a huge extra market.
Dodaj komentarz