Titanfall 2 “Won’t Fit” on Nintendo Switch – Respawn Designer

So no, a port isn’t planned.

Posted By | On 20th, Jan. 2017 Under News

After Gearbox Software announced that Borderlands 3 likely wouldn’t be on the Nintendo Switch due to size constraints, it was Titanfall 2 senior designer Mohammad Alavi who denied the possibility of the multiplayer shooter ever being ported.

Speaking to Drunk Tech Review on YouTube, Alavi noted that despite personally liking the console, it wouldn’t be receiving third-party support because it’s “so underpowered”. Alavi was asked whether Titanfall would arrive on the Switch, to which he replied, “F**k no! No, you’re not going to be able to fit Titanfall 2 on the Nintendo Switch.”

This has been the usual story for Nintendo hardware according to Alavi even as the company caters to handheld users and “the kids”.

Alavi has a point. Even Electronic Arts’ next iteration of FIFA will be a “custom” version built for Switch, most likely because it won’t be able to handle the same version released on Xbox One, PS4 and PC. What are your thoughts on the Switch’s power? Let us know below.

Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • Tactical Lag-fighting tips

    Be deader quicker than the wii u at this rate.

  • Why Nintendo choose to stay behind all the time?

    • Dougdec92

      I really don’t know, they used to be the leaders

  • J Alves Cordeiro

    This is the kind of declaration that a responsible game designer would never give. It happened before on Crytek, for example, and the person was fired back then. We are in a game generation that suffers from serious instabilities – despite the media counterproductive lures. Nintendo has more than a century on the business for a reason and that should be taken in account before such kind of suspicious comment from a person in the position of Mr. Alavi.

    • Mavericks

      Get real, Switch is underpowered and uses an ARM processor. Devs will not spend time trying to fit 7 x86 threads in 4 ARM cores.

    • J Alves Cordeiro

      Thank you for your comment and sorry for the delay. You are right. Respectfully however it is not a question of technology advance/portability it is a question of profits and legal bonds: every softhouse want the easy money generated by ARM processor variations on the Market in the form of tablets/smart-phones, some similar to a desktop PC. This makes ARM a technically invalid excuse not to port a game that runs in a x86 contemporary system (I say so because Nintendo does not reveal their systems’ specs, besides any ARM processor will deliver the same performance of a similar x86 system with half of the specs, usually). – Also, Titanfall is published by Electronic Arts, (in)famous for dismantling ANY original team from ANY of its IPs in less than a year aiming increasing profits versus unacceptable deadlines to their programmers. So it’s theirs the lack of interest to deliver a game that will not need later huge updates in order to work properly in a portable system. – As for Sony, they were in trouble when the PS4 was launched (they even choose to abdicate from their own Cell BE – still a technology not enough explored) and they were so unsecure of success that they bet on the conservative x86 architecture (why not even the x64 instead since AMD provided the system core?). Colateral effect (just as on PCs): they had to release a PS4 Pro earlier than expected for a console generation and already are preparing another “beefier” console version in spite of the upcomig “Scorpio” – this one as powerfull as a x86 can be, but it will have to have even more and quicker RAM and caches and etc because it is x86-based too. This is the problem with x86: to keep the (back)compatiility you have to enhance the surroundings of the processor, change the models nomenclature and “voilá” a new and more advanced version of the main CPU-GPU. Were ARM the choice (but time was not in their favour either) they could make their own processor to better fulfill their needs – Apple with the A series and Samsung with Exynos did it, and in this department they are fine, thanks. – Anyways, our big problem as gamers in fact is: videogame consoles are essentialy Toys made from computers, not the contrary. When the comparisons begins caos arrives and values are inverted. Perhaps this is why Nintendo keeps producing only videogames (“toys” only, with no other functions)? Hmm…. – Thank you for your attention and sorry for English is not my main language

    • Mavericks

      Wait, what you didn’t get yet is that devs are generally lazy. The majority of them are complaining already about Scorpio and Pro, two new hardware targets. There’s plenty of information about Switch, the only customization goes to the processor, where they took off the low powered ARM cores.

      So, tell me, what do you do? You already have a thread running on a faster core on x86 and you need to scale it down 7 threads to probably 3 threads since the Switch OS uses exclusively one of the 4 cores available. It will result into a poor port.

      X360’s processor had 3 cores and 6 threads, Cell had 7 SPEs and a PPC core. It makes much easier to scale down a game, more than Switch with 4.

  • Dougdec92

    Well the way he went about it was not the best but if we are to use the legend of Zelda output res as a factor and the kind of power it brings then we’re going to get custom versions of other games or those games broken down to allow the switch to handle. They could’ve have kept their switch concept and put some more powerful hardware into the dock especially, that could’ve served them better and they could justifiably have sold at a higher price.


Copyright © 2009-2017 GamingBolt.com. All Rights Reserved.