Elden Ring's Nintendo Switch 2 port has been delayed

eldenring.png

Touted initially as a release for 2025, Bandai Namco has announced the delay of Elden Ring: Tarnished Edition for the Nintendo Switch 2. The reasoning behind the delay is to allow for "performance adjustments", which do line up with initial gameplay footage from this year's Gamescom, showing the game running at slightly unstable framerates. For now, Elden Ring: Tarnished Edition for the Switch 2 will be out sometime next year.

:arrow: Source
 
Really wondering who this game is for. Elden Ring has been out for so long, who is still left to play it? I love the base game but would I buy the Switch 2 version just to 100% it for the third time? I don't know.

Knowing From Software there is no way this game will have cross save, so that is a great incentive to maybe just not bother as well.
 
Complaining is stupid. If you want to protest, stop buying consoles AND games altogether. Companies couldn't care less about your opinion when you keep giving them your money,
Never buy first-hand anything related to the industry ever again, and then your complaints will have a meaning.
Funny you say that because I mostly only buy used I bought a used PS5 on Ebay and buy used games, I did splurge on Ghost of Yotei first game I've bought new since I bought a PS5 two years ago, so I'd say my complaints have meaning according to you.

So the gaming industry as a whole got a percentage of my Ghost of Yotei buy of $70 and that's about it, and I pirated the original Switch and never bought a game new lol.

No one can judge someone for buying used no one critiques someone for buying a used car because "It doesn't support the manufacture" and technically piracy supports the manufacture of a game the same as used, to the tune of $0. It's fair to say if everyone was like me the industry would go broke though.
Post automatically merged:

Really wondering who this game is for. Elden Ring has been out for so long, who is still left to play it? I love the base game but would I buy the Switch 2 version just to 100% it for the third time? I don't know.

Knowing From Software there is no way this game will have cross save, so that is a great incentive to maybe just not bother as well.

There are Nintendo only fans that don't buy Sony or Microsoft, not sure how many would be interested in Elden Ring though. They do this all the time like Fallout 4 is coming and it original came out on PS4/Xbox One/PC in 2015 so a 10 year old game.
 
Last edited by Jayinem,
  • Like
Reactions: Chrono_Nightmare
The fact its not even been out a year and its crippling devs trying to support it with their old games..... the future is looking like groundhog day.

At this rate it'll be relying on cloud gaming in order for it to get anything good and new from third parties.
 
More aggresive shader caching means more RAM allocated for it.

Steam Deck is still a PC at heart, so even with 16GB of RAM, the RAM is not unified like it is with consoles. It has to allocate a specific amount just for GPU purposes, which for that can be 1, 2, 4, or 8GB, leaving the 15, 14, 12, or 8GB remaining as main RAM. Taking just the general setting of 4GB, that leaves 12GB for main RAM (equivalent to Switch 2), but because the GPU can only access that smaller section, any game that needs more VRAM either won't run, or internally has to do aggressive swapping. So that means a copy of assets would need to be held in main RAM, and use bandwidth in order to swap. So even having 4GB more doesn't really make a difference.
Well... Yes and no. The shader cache uses more storage not ram. The shaders compile either way. The only difference is that you're loading pre-computed shaders off your drive instead of recompiling them every time. As for the UMA buffer (aka the VRAM) the amount you set it to is the base amount of video memory reserved for the GPU. It can and will dynamically allocate more memory to the GPU if you need it too. It could even technically allocate like 14GB to the GPU and 2GB to the CPU. Although no game that only uses 2GB of ram would realistically use 14GB of video memory.
 
It's incredible how many people want the Switch 2 to "fail."

Maybe they have some childhood trauma, I don't know.
It's funny, I remember when I thought Nintendo could do no wrong.

So many memorable and iconic games released for the NES and SNES. It made sense to be all in on the N64, but the cartridge decision (and game pricing) mixed with third parties jumping ship really changed the landscape. Plus, many circles fought over the whole "Nintendo is for kids" issue. Those "kiddie" debates were spectacles, though most of them devolved quickly into ad-hominem attacks.

The GameCube wasn't the most perfect solution to the mistakes of the N64, but it did mend plenty of fences. Of course, the Wii was the craze of the 7th gen. The Wii U was a flop and the 3DS flizzled out as the mobile market flourished. The Switch (and Mario Movie) shows us that Nintendo always has a way of bouncing back.

I guess in my case, I was surprised by the decisions of the N64, but the PS2 became my landing spot. From there, I lost any brand alliegence I may have had, though I don't resent Nintendo. They're just a companty, bound to go through phases of good and bad management.

TL;DR:
NES, SNES = Peak Nintendo
N64 = Good games, bad business decisions
GameCube, Wii = Eventual return to form
Wii U onward = Modern Nintendo
 
This so interesting to me.

This has to just be poor optimization. The Steam Deck OLED can run the game at a locked 30 or 40 FPS easily, and we do know that the CPU of the Switch 2 is actually weaker than what's in the Deck (and is also ARM), but not so much that it should be dropping below 30 FPS on a system like that.
 
It makes no difference, Gamecube was more powerful than the competition for the same reason. Releasing more powerful hardware at a loss is almost always a winning move. Game sales make up for it in the short term, and in the long term the hardware becomes less expensive to manufacture. Switch 2's CPU will put it in the same position Switch has been in a couple years from now, ports of newer games will no longer be feasible, and ports of older games won't sell very well.
Console manufacturers must love you. You're so damn gullible. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, have NEVER taken a loss on any console. That is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to make gullible people like yourself believe you are getting a better deal than you are actually getting.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Xzi
It makes no difference, Gamecube was more powerful than the competition for the same reason. Releasing more powerful hardware at a loss is almost always a winning move. Game sales make up for it in the short term, and in the long term the hardware becomes less expensive to manufacture. Switch 2's CPU will put it in the same position Switch has been in a couple years from now, ports of newer games will no longer be feasible, and ports of older games won't sell very well.
thats why the gamecube won that generation right?... well wrong... gamecube came in 3rd place and before the wiiu it was the worst selling home console by nintendo.

Nintendo consoles never sell many 3rd party games tbh even gc which had tons of 3rd party exclusives didnt sell many games at all. financially for nintendo making a cheaper console is better since they will sell 100 millions vs selling 30 millions of it.
 
Console manufacturers must love you. You're so damn gullible. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, have NEVER taken a loss on any console. That is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to make gullible people like yourself believe you are getting a better deal than you are actually getting.
I've always wondered about that claim.

My understanding is that selling at a loss occurs in some cases, but generally speaking, consoles are sold at a pricepoint close to their actual value. Even a small profit per unit sold multiplied by millions of sales results in big numbers.

Now, licensing fees to publish on the console, that's a good revenue stream. However, data centers, servers and server maintenance, customer service call centers, research and development, marketing, that's all expensive. It just doesn't make sense to sell any product at a loss (especially long-term). A company like Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo is well established, so they have more brand recognition and consumer trust (in theory).

TL;DR: I can understand initially selling at a loss to increase sales, but you cannot do that indefinitely. It's just not good business.
 
I don't think there's anything they can't fix, I also think they delayed it because there's already a lot of competition in games this year. For me, the definitive game for NS2 is RDR2. If it runs that masterpiece, it can obviously handle Elder Ring.
The NS2's catalog will mostly be ports of games that already came out on other consoles and if you ask me, I would say that the NS2 arrived a little late to the party, that it's not long before another generational leap begins with PS6 and new graphics that will obviously have the attention of game companies.
 
Console manufacturers must love you. You're so damn gullible. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, have NEVER taken a loss on any console. That is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to make gullible people like yourself believe you are getting a better deal than you are actually getting.
You must be too young to know any better, but they gave you a deal on the console hardware because game prices were much higher back then, especially when adjusted for inflation. Not to mention the price of accessories. At launch there were DVD players that cost more than a PS2, and Blu-Ray players that cost more than a PS3.

Same as it ever was essentially, people knew PC cost more up front and less in the long run, whereas consoles were cheaper up front and more expensive in the long run. The exception now being Steam Deck.

thats why the gamecube won that generation right?... well wrong... gamecube came in 3rd place and before the wiiu it was the worst selling home console by nintendo.
True, but its power wasn't the reason for its poor sales. Nintendo decided to learn the wrong lesson from that generation.

TL;DR: I can understand initially selling at a loss to increase sales, but you cannot do that indefinitely. It's just not good business.
It's never been indefinite. The more units you manufacture, the cheaper it becomes to manufacture them, and a couple years later hardware sales become profitable. The initial loss on each unit has never been anything crazy either AFAIK, usually around $50 or so. Still, assuming Nintendo profits $100 on each Switch 2, that's $150 which could've gone toward a better CPU, or a better screen at the very least.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
The game apparently looked pretty good, the main issues seemed to be the optimization, which, honestly, is not From Software's strongest point.
I mean...anyone that's played Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition on PC can tell you that much. That game absolutely required mods just to have decent performance AND a functional multiplayer.

And it happened against with Elden Ring on Steam Deck - Valve had to fix the problem for FromSoft, because FromSoft sucks at optimizing their games for non-PS platforms and all but the higher/highest-end PCs (and Easy Anti-Cheat being a thing didn't really help, either).

This so interesting to me.

This has to just be poor optimization. The Steam Deck OLED can run the game at a locked 30 or 40 FPS easily, and we do know that the CPU of the Switch 2 is actually weaker than what's in the Deck (and is also ARM), but not so much that it should be dropping below 30 FPS on a system like that.
As pointed out, the Steam Deck version of Elden Ring was actually quite bad early in the Steam Deck's life time. And it didn't seem like FromSoft was going to fix it any time soon (since they didn't officially support Linux), so Valve had to fix it for them. Much like modders had to fix Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition on PC, because it was such a terrible port of an otherwise solid game.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum