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.
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.