StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

[omniryu]

In MK11 they reduced the geometry and reduced and redone textures so that they fit well in the port. It's something that most good ports to Switch do.

DQXIS is a great port, but it is not a remake. Of course, between all the extra content and the 2D version, they worked a lot on new content and put a lot of effort into it (and that's what they were referring to in the interview, although word of mouth later created confusion regarding the matter)

I never meant to say remake from the ground up. But what I am saying is they just downpour the game. It was lack of a better term.

 

[Ojoloco]

I never meant to say remake from the ground up. But what I am saying is they just downpour the game. It was lack of a better term.

Simply, DQXIS is not a unique case, most of the good ports to Switch have a similar optimization work behind them, and many times if it is not highlighted in a GDC interview, in a DF review or in some official article, it is a thing we wouldnt notice because they are made so that you barely notice the difference. Within Square itself, to put it the same company, we also have the case of Life is Strange 3 in which they themselves explain several of the tricks and things that they redid for the switchport.

A deep dive into the development of Life is Strange: True Colors on Nintendo Switch | Square Enix Blog

What went into making Life is Strange: True Colors on Nintendo Switch and how does it look so good?

www.square-enix-games.com

Personally, I wouldn't call this a remake/remade or a downpour. I would call it good optimization. It is a better term for these cases of very elaborate ports.

And I expect intelligent optimizations for ports to Switch 2, to a lesser extent thanks to the fact that the difference is smaller, but in special cases such as Alan Wake 2, GTA6 or any new CDProyekt game.

 

[VagrantValmar]

Simply, DQXIS is not a unique case, most of the good ports to Switch have a similar optimization work behind them, and many times if it is not highlighted in a GDC interview, in a DF review or in some official article, it is a thing we wouldnt notice because they are made so that you barely notice the difference. Within Square itself, to put it the same company, we also have the case of Life is Strange 3 in which they themselves explain several of the tricks and things that they redid for the switchport.

A deep dive into the development of Life is Strange: True Colors on Nintendo Switch | Square Enix Blog

What went into making Life is Strange: True Colors on Nintendo Switch and how does it look so good?

www.square-enix-games.com

Personally, I wouldn't call this a remake/remade or a downpour. I would call it good optimization. It is a better term for these cases of very elaborate ports.

And I expect intelligent optimizations for ports to Switch 2, to a lesser extent thanks to the fact that the difference is smaller, but in special cases such as Alan Wake 2, GTA6 or any new CDProyekt game.

I find it interesting that they use the word "comparable" and we've been debating here what "comparable" means when people use that term.
I think this is also a good example of what comparable is.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I will be curious to see how Unreal 5 works on Switch 2 as Nanite is extremely impressive on theoretical hardware with theoretical software, but has been brutal performance wise in actually existing titles.

Lumen has also largely struggled to hit 60 FPS in actual existing PS5 games even for games with very low asset quality.

 

[Ojoloco]

I will be curious to see how Unreal 5 works on Switch 2 as Nanite is extremely impressive on theoretical hardware with theoretical software, but has been brutal performance wise in actually existing titles.

Lumen has also largely struggled to hit 60 FPS in actual existing PS5 games even for games with very low asset quality.

Is better to use sometimes their own Raytracing technique if you can made one. UE Lumen at this date is far away to be a good idea if you are developing for consoles, probably Epic is trying to fix it

 

[BreakAtmo]

1440p upscaled from 1080p, 60

(Do these games exist? Wild)

I think Nier Automata is 900p on PS4 with an unlocked framerate that targets 60 with lots of drops. The Pro version is 1080p60.

 

[ziggyrivers]

Okay lemme ask the real question here: are we getting a Bayonetta 3 switch 2 patch? Because that game looks rough. I love it but cmon, they only had 1 target hardware.

Anyway, the actual real question is, assuming it happens, which games do you think Nintendo will go back and patch besides the usual Zelda TOTK? Only 10m+ sellers or games that need it the most like Bayo3?

What about Bayo3 is rought?

And I'd rather those resources be spent on Bayo4 and Astral Chain 2.

 

[Shoulder]

* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *

 

[chocolate_supra]

* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *

 

[ILikeFeet]

What about Bayo3 is rought?

And I'd rather those resources be spent on Bayo4 and Astral Chain 2.

thanks to the game design, it struggles to maintain 60fps. the game ran on drake will smooth out all of those issues outside of resolution.

 

[tetsugo]

* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *

 

[Leinad]

Okay lemme ask the real question here: are we getting a Bayonetta 3 switch 2 patch? Because that game looks rough. I love it but cmon, they only had 1 target hardware.

Anyway, the actual real question is, assuming it happens, which games do you think Nintendo will go back and patch besides the usual Zelda TOTK? Only 10m+ sellers or games that need it the most like Bayo3?

Bayo3
TotK
Xeno3

 

[VagrantValmar]

What about Bayo3 is rought?

And I'd rather those resources be spent on Bayo4 and Astral Chain 2.

I'd love them to do both but you know, it doesn't hurt to think about it.

Bayo 3 had very bad framerate (not like any bayo has perfect fps but Bayo3 suffers from it the most, not bayo ps3 levels at least but still). The textures were also very low resolution, and it looks considerably worse than Bayo 2. Not sure if Bayo 2 actually had better resolution textures but at least it manages to hide them better in any case.

 

[Wockio]

Okay lemme ask the real question here: are we getting a Bayonetta 3 switch 2 patch? Because that game looks rough. I love it but cmon, they only had 1 target hardware.

Anyway, the actual real question is, assuming it happens, which games do you think Nintendo will go back and patch besides the usual Zelda TOTK? Only 10m+ sellers or games that need it the most like Bayo3?

I'm not expecting anything, that's right not a single game beyond BotW and TotK and that's only because the next Zelda won't be out until maybe 2028

 

[crazybenjamin]

Anyway, the actual real question is, assuming it happens, which games do you think Nintendo will go back and patch besides the usual Zelda TOTK? Only 10m+ sellers or games that need it the most like Bayo3?

My guess is that after TOTK, the next cab off the rank will be Mario Wonder. Just sounds like a game they would want to keep relevant going into the next gen. Beyond that, things could go either way.

 

[OctoSplattack]

Okay lemme ask the real question here: are we getting a Bayonetta 3 switch 2 patch? Because that game looks rough. I love it but cmon, they only had 1 target hardware.

Anyway, the actual real question is, assuming it happens, which games do you think Nintendo will go back and patch besides the usual Zelda TOTK? Only 10m+ sellers or games that need it the most like Bayo3?

Doubt it. NieR: Automata never got a next-gen patch for the PS5 despite the success of that title, so I don't imagine PlatinumGames doing one for Bayonetta 3.

 

[kingman]

I'd love them to do both but you know, it doesn't hurt to think about it.

Bayo 3 had very bad framerate (not like any bayo has perfect fps but Bayo3 suffers from it the most, not bayo ps3 levels at least but still). The textures were also very low resolution, and it looks considerably worse than Bayo 2. Not sure if Bayo 2 actually had better resolution textures but at least it manages to hide them better in any case.

Yeah, Bayo 2 looks and performs way better than Bayo 3. Not sure what happened there.

1440p30fps will be the standard for most Nintendo first party games in docked mode.(I'm not expecting 60fps)

Hmm? If Nintendo continues their FPS targets for most of their games from the GC days and beyond, we will definitely have a ton of 60 fps Nintendo games. Hell, I'm almost positive that there are more 60 fps Switch/Wii U/Wii/GC games than 30 fps ones.

 

[OctoSplattack]

FWIW, here's what I can find for Nintendo first-party developed titles on the Switch (that is, EPD, Retro, NST, NLG, and Monolith). Doesn't necessarily indicate what they'll do on the Switch 2, but I think it at least gives some idea of the scenarios in which they'd choose frame rate over resolution, and vice versa.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - 900p30
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe - 1080p60
ARMS - 1080p60
Splatoon 2 - dynamic 900-1080p60
Super Mario Odyssey - dynamic 720-1080p60
Xenoblade Chronicles 2 - 720p30
Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze - 1080p60
Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker - 1080p60
New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe - 1080p60
Super Mario Maker 2 - 900p60 or 1080p60 depending on gameplay style
Luigi's Mansion 3 - 1080p30
Animal Crossing: New Horizons - 1080p30
Xenoblade Chronicles: Definitive Edition - 720p30
Super Mario 3D All-Stars - 720p30 (SM64), 1080p30 (Sunshine), 1080p60 (Galaxy)
Pikmin 3 Deluxe - 720p30
Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury - 1080p60 (SM3W), 720p60 (BF)
Metroid Dread - 900p60
Mario Strikers: Battle League - 1080p60
Xenoblade Chronicles 3 - 1080p30
Splatoon 3 - dynamic 900-1080p60
Metroid Prime Remastered - 900p60
The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom - 900p30
Pikmin 4 - 900p30
Pikmin 1+2 - 1080p30
Super Mario Bros. Wonder - 1080p60
Mario vs. Donkey Kong - 1080p60

Bowser's Fury, interestingly, retains 720p in handheld while instead dropping the framerate to 30fps. No other Nintendo game does that, AFAIK.

EDIT: I know that all the NDcube titles are 60fps, as is Nintendo Switch Sports, but it was late at night and I couldn't find quick resolution numbers for those. I assume they're all 1080p, with Switch Sports using FSR to pull it off, though.

 

[Wockio]

Pokémon Scarlet and Violet - dynamic 720-1080p15

 

[Darknut85]

Pokémon Scarlet and Violet - dynamic 720-1080p15

Truly cinematic.

 

[Danny]

Okay lemme ask the real question here: are we getting a Bayonetta 3 switch 2 patch? Because that game looks rough. I love it but cmon, they only had 1 target hardware.

Anyway, the actual real question is, assuming it happens, which games do you think Nintendo will go back and patch besides the usual Zelda TOTK? Only 10m+ sellers or games that need it the most like Bayo3?

People should probably go into Switch 2 exspecting that if the Switch 2 has backwards compability it will probably be just the exact same resolution and frame rates as on Switch. I don't think Nintendo is the sort of company that cares enough about performance and resolution to go back working on older games to make them run better on new hardware.

 

[Thombias]

FWIW, here's what I can find for Nintendo first-party developed titles on the Switch (that is, EPD, Retro, NST, NLG, and Monolith). Doesn't necessarily indicate what they'll do on the Switch 2, but I think it at least gives some idea of the scenarios in which they'd choose frame rate over resolution, and vice versa.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - 900p30
...
Xenoblade Chronicles 3 - 720p30
...
The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom - 900p30
...

I might be misremembering, but isn't Zelda TotK rendering at 720p but upscaling via FSR1 to 900 or 1080p?

Edit: Xenoblade Chronicles 3 render res docked is 960x544 reconstructed to 1080p, and portable mode is reconstructing 776x440 to 1552x880 which is then downscaled to 720p in portable mode.

 

[Charamiwa]

FWIW, here's what I can find for Nintendo first-party developed titles on the Switch (that is, EPD, Retro, NST, NLG, and Monolith). Doesn't necessarily indicate what they'll do on the Switch 2, but I think it at least gives some idea of the scenarios in which they'd choose frame rate over resolution, and vice versa.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - 900p30
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe - 1080p60
ARMS - 1080p60
Splatoon 2 - dynamic 900-1080p60
Super Mario Odyssey - dynamic 720-1080p60
Xenoblade Chronicles 2 - 720p30
Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze - 1080p60
Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker - 1080p60
New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe - 1080p60
Super Mario Maker 2 - 900p60 or 1080p60 depending on gameplay style
Luigi's Mansion 3 - 1080p30
Animal Crossing: New Horizons - 1080p30
Xenoblade Chronicles: Definitive Edition - 720p30
Super Mario 3D All-Stars - 720p30 (SM64), 1080p30 (Sunshine), 1080p60 (Galaxy)
Pikmin 3 Deluxe - 720p30
Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury - 1080p60 (SM3W), 720p60 (BF)
Metroid Dread - 900p60
Mario Strikers: Battle League - 1080p60
Xenoblade Chronicles 3 - 720p30
Splatoon 3 - dynamic 900-1080p60
Metroid Prime Remastered - 900p60
The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom - 900p30
Pikmin 4 - 900p30
Pikmin 1+2 - 1080p30
Super Mario Bros. Wonder - 1080p60
Mario vs. Donkey Kong - 1080p60

Bowser's Fury, interestingly, retains 720p in handheld while instead dropping the framerate to 30fps. No other Nintendo game does that, AFAIK.

You're missing the NDCube games, which I'm assuming are 1080p30 for Mario Party and 1080p60 for Clubhouse Games?

I'm actually really interested in what they'll do with more power, because they already are making some truly beautiful games with limited scope, and it's hard to see them looking much better.

 

[kingman]

Wait, if we're talking about patches or any fancy updates Nintendo will do to Switch titles to make them run better on Switch 2?

Zero percent chance that's happening.

Nintendo's never done such a thing thus far and I have no reason to believe they would start now. The only way you'll get improved performance on Switch 1 games is through re-releases.

You're missing the NDCube games, which I'm assuming are 1080p30 for Mario Party and 1080p60 for Clubhouse Games?

I'm actually really interested in what they'll do with more power, because they already are making some truly beautiful games with limited scope, and it's hard to see them looking much better.

All Mario Parties on Switch are 60 fps.

 

[Hermii]

Wait, if we're talking about patches or any fancy updates Nintendo will do to Switch titles to make them run better on Switch 2?

Zero percent chance that's happening.

Nintendo's never done such a thing thus far and I have no reason to believe they would start now. The only way you'll get improved performance on Switch 1 games is through re-releases.

In a tech thread you cant just come in and use "Nintendos never done such a thing" as an argument, when they never had the tech to do so. You could have made the same argument this gen for Sony and MS, it was a first for them to.

This is a new platform thats an iteration on the previous platform in so many ways (similiar to how sony and ms continued with amd/x86). Also (correct me), but I believe dataminers have found something that looks like support for a new type of patch, thats not used on current hardware.

 

[IamPeacock]

If they're smart, they could release next-gen patches on weeks or months where their first-party output for Switch 2 is low. That way they could increase sales for older titles.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

Will the plummeting yen exchange rate affect switch2 pricing?Now 1 RMB can even be exchanged for 21 yen (before it was 15 yen)

 

[Concernt]

Will the plummeting yen exchange rate affect switch2 pricing?Now 1 RMB can even be exchanged for 21 yen (before it was 15 yen)

Probably not drastically. What could have been affected is likely Japan, but compared to the American market it's a lot quicker and easier to get product into and across Japan, and Nintendo tends to price below the exchange rate odds in their home market.

The console and its components are produced across Taiwan, South Korea, mainland China and Vietnam, and shipped across the globe. The easiest way to consider things in international trade is USD, so at least in the NA region, Japan's currency situation is unlikely to affect unit pricing. Nintendo will be making more Yen/sale overseas, but that's not the same as being able to make a profit with lower prices.

 

[Nathair]

So I guess the reason why I ask is that I wanted to know if we do get ports, which I assume the majority will be quick, easy and largely not optimized. How will it look on a big screen? I have a less than 300 dollars 50 inch TV. I assume this will be the norm for majority of households in the US (well between 40 to 50). How well will it hold up? A majority of the big devs will want to bring last gen games, which is ok. Also, we do want current gen games. How well will it fare?

Also, if, and I mean if, the Xbox goes wayward.... what type of competition does Playstation have on the television? I mean just really Nintendo, right? Don't get me wrong. I never assumed that 4K60 would be a norm on the switch thats really 1440p for a PS5 game. Never assume it was better. Just want to understand what was the gap and how satisfying will those gaps be (in general).

As I wrote a while ago, I'm still playing with a PS4 (2016) on a 4K OLED TV, as well as with Switch. Almost all games on PS4 run at 1080p at 30 fps with HDR and the graphic rendering, depending on the game, I would say ranges from excellent to superb. This is also why I'm not at all worried about the graphical impact that Switch 2 games will have on large screens. Of course, it's true that my TV does an excellent job of upscaling, but nowadays, generally speaking, even entry level Smart TVs can do a good job of upscaling if the resolution is 1080p. You'll see that the Switch 2 will perform visually well on your TV. My feeling is that in TV mode, in the worst case scenario, games will run at 1080p reconstructed with DLSS, but 1080p is still today an average high resolution, more than adequate. If Switch 2 is able, via DLSS, to stabilize on resolutions such as 1080p with HDR, a fairly good (medium) graphic detail, such as to guarantee a glance similar to other platforms, I believe it will fully satisfy the majority of us gamers.

 

[Concernt]

As I wrote a while ago, I'm still playing with a PS4 (2016) on a 4K OLED TV, as well as with Switch. Almost all games on PS4 run at 1080p at 30 fps with HDR and the graphic rendering, depending on the game, I would say ranges from excellent to superb. This is also why I'm not at all worried about the graphical impact that Switch 2 games will have on large screens. Of course, it's true that my TV does an excellent job of upscaling, but nowadays, generally speaking, even entry level Smart TVs can do a good job of upscaling if the resolution is 1080p. You'll see that the Switch 2 will perform visually well on your TV. My feeling is that in TV mode, in the worst case scenario, games will run at 1080p reconstructed with DLSS, but 1080p is still today an average high resolution, more than adequate. If Switch 2 is able, via DLSS, to stabilize on resolutions such as 1080p with HDR, a fairly good (medium) graphic detail, such as to guarantee a glance similar to other platforms, I believe it will fully satisfy the majority of us gamers.

The thought of demanding games sinning themselves down to 360p internally in TV mode/240p internally in handheld mode and raking the resolution up with upscaling isn't all that bad considering the resolutions seen from Series S.

 

[Steve]

Y’all think we might get more 30fps portable, but 60fps in docked type of games, since the only game I’ve noticed to that is bowser fury.

For example FF7 rebirth in portable is 30fps, but when you put it in docked mode you’ll get the option of 60fps

Like I’m curious how some developers will handled Tv mode, because from what we’ve heard that Tv mode will be almost similar to series s if we have DLSS enable.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

The totk was upgraded from 720p to 900p with fsr1 but it still doesn't feel as good as botw's native 900p to the naked eye, so would that perception change with use dlss.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Edited

 

[Concernt]

Y’all think we might get more 30fps portable, but 60fps in docked type of games, since the only game I’ve noticed to that is bowser fury.

For example FF7 rebirth in portable is 30fps, but when you put it in docked mode you’ll get the option of 60fps

Like I’m curious how some developers will handled Tv mode, because from what we’ve heard that Tv mode will be almost similar to series s if we have DLSS enable.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm definitely more optimistic than that. In terms of relative performance, I think it could be more accurate to say it's similar to Series S BEFORE DLSS. This isn't to say it's the same or above, but almost certainly in the same performance class.

For framerates, it ultimately comes down to the developer, but the three things to keep in mind are:

Unlike resolution, framerate usually affects gameplay and ideally shouldn't be sacrificed.

While TV mode is likely to be twice as powerful as handheld mode, doubling the framerate takes more than twice the power, while doubling the number of pixels tends not to.

While the device almost certainly has multiple resolution upscalers, plus software solutions, there is no easy way for developers to "chest" framerate. In handheld mode, a developer could aim for a 900p30 render, or they could use DLSS performance mode and have a 540p render, a 1080p output, and it has free anti-aliasing, on a system designed and optimised for DLSS, and achieve 60FPS.

 

[Turrican3]

As I wrote a while ago, I'm still playing with a PS4 (2016) on a 4K OLED TV, as well as with Switch. Almost all games on PS4 run at 1080p at 30 fps with HDR and the graphic rendering, depending on the game, I would say ranges from excellent to superb.

I'm still 100% convinced we're (and have been for a very long while!) in full diminishing returns mode.

TV resolution increase can only go so far, and the same is true for eyesight.
Enthusiast gamers will obviously keep purchasing the best hw their finances allow to, but the mass market?

The Switch (and to be fair, the Wii and the DS too) have proven quite well a so-called "underpowered" platform is more than enough for a sufficiently high amount of people (i.e. vastly enough to sustain a business) and I'm not expecting whatever hardware Nintendo has chosen for the Switch successor to be different.

 

[VagrantValmar]

People should probably go into Switch 2 exspecting that if the Switch 2 has backwards compability it will probably be just the exact same resolution and frame rates as on Switch. I don't think Nintendo is the sort of company that cares enough about performance and resolution to go back working on older games to make them run better on new hardware.

Honestly, yeah. I doubt Nintendo is the kind of company that goes back and does performance patches.

 

[Concernt]

Honestly, yeah. I doubt Nintendo is the kind of company that goes back and does performance patches.

I don't think so. Evergreens are a healthy part of their business. "Regreening" them seems like a good use of resources.

 

[VagrantValmar]

I don't think so. Evergreens are a healthy part of their business. "Regreening" them seems like a good use of resources.

I get what you're saying and I feel like it could go both ways but I guess I lean more into "Nintendo ain't doing it" territory.

Maybe a couple games at the system's launch and that's it

 

[Turrican3]

I don't think so. Evergreens are a healthy part of their business. "Regreening" them seems like a good use of resources.

Best case scenario - #1: free patches for at least the most popular and/or demanding titles
Likely scenario - #2: relatively small fee for existing customers of at least the most popular and/or demanding titles
Worst case scenario - #3: no patches at all, everything Nintendo deems worth a "4K" version gets re-released and everybody has to repurchase

Now, I believe this time option #3 is likely too much even for Nintendo; not because they're not willing to (I'm sure they are XD) but simply because it's uncharted territory for them, as with many other Switch-related things, so maybe, just maybe, they don't feel confident enough to switch (no pun intended!) to full-greedy mode.

Yes, we all know they did actually re-release most of their WiiU catalogue but this time is very different if you ask me, as we're talking about the successor of a hugely popular platform. We don't know (yet...) how this userbase would react to a full price "4K" re-release policy.

 

[NineTailSage]

I'm still 100% convinced we're (and have been for a very long while!) in full diminishing returns mode.

TV resolution increase can only go so far, and the same is true for eyesight.
Enthusiast gamers will obviously keep purchasing the best hw their finances allow to, but the mass market?

The Switch (and to be fair, the Wii and the DS too) have proven quite well a so-called "underpowered" platform is more than enough for a sufficiently high amount of people (i.e. vastly enough to sustain a business) and I'm not expecting whatever hardware Nintendo has chosen for the Switch successor to be different.

I agree with this point and feel that even Nintendo games with PS4/PS4 Pro level of geometry, resolution and texture quality could result in very current generation looking games. Both Sony and Microsoft's 1st party games tend to skew closer to chasing realism, to which we have real life to compare how close those games reach.

Any of their games that choose a stylized art tend to age better over time, which also lends to the narrative about diminishing returns.
Horizon Forbidden West is a fantastic looking PS5 game, but it doesn't look generations apart from what came to be on the PS4.
Which is why I believe Nintendo will achieve some amazing things on Switch 2 because of how modern feature wise Ampere is...

 

[Hermii]

People should probably go into Switch 2 exspecting that if the Switch 2 has backwards compability it will probably be just the exact same resolution and frame rates as on Switch. I don't think Nintendo is the sort of company that cares enough about performance and resolution to go back working on older games to make them run better on new hardware.

There are 2 separate things: working on improvements/ patches and bc running the games exactly like a switch.


As for the latter, the idea that Nintendo would include a tx1 on the die is pretty much discarded, meaning it's not native BC. Getting a chip with wildly different performance characteristics to run the games exactly like a TX1 is both extremely hard, and a complete waste of resources to make a worse experience. So at the very least we should expect frame rate/ dynamic res to be smoothed out for games that are not enchanted.

 

[Steve]

Ideal scenario #1: free patches for at least the most popular and/or demanding titles
Likely scenario #2: relatively small fee for existing customers of at least the most popular and/or demanding titles
Worst case scenario #3: no patches at all, everything Nintendo deems worth a "4K" version gets re-released and everybody has to repurchase

Now, I believe this time option #3 is likely too much even for Nintendo; not because they're not willing to (I'm sure they are XD) but simply because it's uncharted territory for them, as with many other Switch-related things, so maybe, just maybe, they don't feel confident enough to switch (no pun intended!) to full-greedy mode.

Yes, we all know they did actually re-release most of their WiiU catalogue but this time is very different if you ask me, as we're talking about the successor of a hugely popular platform. We don't know (yet...) how this userbase would react to a full price "4K" re-release policy.

They can do what Sony does and have 10 dollar upgrade and release the game again and call it the ,,Directors cuts'' and add some small extra content.
But i would like to see some FPS boost on some games, i don't really care for 4k (despite it being a cool bonus), but having small patches and have all the Switch games be 1080p 60fps, would satisfy pretty much everyone and wouldn't take much work i presume and with the screen being 1080p.

 

[Concernt]

Ideal scenario #1: free patches for at least the most popular and/or demanding titles
Likely scenario #2: relatively small fee for existing customers of at least the most popular and/or demanding titles
Worst case scenario #3: no patches at all, everything Nintendo deems worth a "4K" version gets re-released and everybody has to repurchase

Now, I believe this time option #3 is likely too much even for Nintendo; not because they're not willing to (I'm sure they are XD) but simply because it's uncharted territory for them, as with many other Switch-related things, so maybe, just maybe, they don't feel confident enough to switch (no pun intended!) to full-greedy mode.

Yes, we all know they did actually re-release most of their WiiU catalogue but this time is very different if you ask me, as we're talking about the successor of a hugely popular platform. We don't know (yet...) how this userbase would react to a full price "4K" re-release policy.

I don't think we can ascribe likelihoods to these scenarios like that. I'll wheel out another saying: pessimism is not realism.

Nintendo's history of enhancement patches is brief. Really, really brief. The only example of a relevant device is New Nintendo 3DS. However, I will note that patches for New Nintendo 3DS support were UNIVERSALLY free and sometimes even had new content. Based on this, and the idea of a patch being to "regreen the evergreen", a fee of any kind seems exceptionally unlikely. It just doesn't suit the business model, which is to make a good game and keep it supported and sold for many years. Nintendo needs to maintain trust across the generation FAR MORE than it has any financial need to nickle and dime existing customers. Enhancement patches are not a zero sum, all loss game, they are an investment into the trust of the ecosystem, it's a user retention investment, and it's a consumer goodwill investment. It's one of the few things Xbox absolutely unequivocally gets right; I can TRUST Microsoft to make my backwards compatibility experience a pleasant one, with unified saves and free updates where available.

I want to be able to trust Nintendo. As a loyal customer I HOPE Nintendo wants me to trust them. They saw how next gen patches panned out on other platforms, and it was very, very good, with those that weren't free often panned, and those that were seeing a boost in sales akin to a re-release.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

So I don't know the details of the fsr technology and would like to know if there is any difference between fsr and dlss in terms of resolution increase.

 

[NineTailSage]

They can do what Sony does and have 10 dollar upgrade and release the game again and call it the ,,Directors cuts'' and add some small extra content.
But i would like to see some FPS boost on some games, i don't really care for 4k (despite it being a cool bonus), but having small patches and have all the Switch games be 1080p 60fps, would satisfy pretty much everyone and wouldn't take much work i presume and with the screen being 1080p.

So I was thinking about this and wonder if Nintendo would give a individual price point of $10 per upgrade next-gen patch and the other option of you can receive all future patch upgrades included with their Switch 2 online membership price...

I'm not sure if Nintendo for future 1st party games will think about offering all future dlc with Switch online, but I'm sure they are thinking of ways to continue increasing subscription numbers.

 

[Hosermess]

Used to be a big supporter of the free deluxe patches for evergreens idea, but I think only cause we had nothing else to go with and that was a theory that fit with the void of info (also because this discussion began years ago when the successor vs revision topic was still part of The Loop™)

Whereas now I accept that we (still) don't know shit. And I'm beginning to think that they'd rather choose to just put all their energy and resources into brand new games for the Switch 2. Sure, I wouldn't rule out some upgrade patches, but nothing that requires a huge investment (and granted, there are a few games that would see big improvements with a simple access to more power).

I just think they'd rather just make new evergreens rather than put a shiny 4k paintjob on old ones.

 

[Hermii]

So I don't know the details of the fsr technology and would like to know if there is any difference between fsr and dlss in terms of resolution increase.

No, dlss just looks better. Especially when scaled from low resolutions.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Y’all think we might get more 30fps portable, but 60fps in docked type of games, since the only game I’ve noticed to that is bowser fury.

For example FF7 rebirth in portable is 30fps, but when you put it in docked mode you’ll get the option of 60fps

Since CPU is the same in both modes but GPU isn't (at least on Switch 1), it generally makes sense to make the changes in a way that CPU usage remains the same while GPU needs are lessened. So, producing the same number of frames, but fewer pixels each frame. Decreasing GPU needs by just forcing each frame to stay up twice as long is also a valid way to handle the GPU side, but it kind of puts the CPU to waste by giving it less to do in portable mode too. I also think it's just the case that lower resolution is easier to forgive on a smaller screen anyway. There are plenty of times when a portable game at 720p on Switch looks sharper than viewing the 900p or 1080p version on a giant screen. So to preserve the docked resolution in portable mode while making the animation choppier is to me a bad tradeoff.

The totk was upgraded from 720p to 900p with fsr1 but it still doesn't feel as good as botw's native 900p to the naked eye, so would that perception change with use dlss.

You could DLSS 720p->900p, 1080p, 144p, or 4K and it should look way better than BOTW varying from 810-900p.

So I don't know the details of the fsr technology and would like to know if there is any difference between fsr and dlss in terms of resolution increase.

There are no exact limits. You could scale 192x108 to 1920x1080 in either, it would just look really shitty. DLSS is just able to stretch a bit more before moving down the path from great to good to crap than FSR2, and especially FSR1.

 

[Giancarlo]

Best case scenario - #1: free patches for at least the most popular and/or demanding titles
Likely scenario - #2: relatively small fee for existing customers of at least the most popular and/or demanding titles
Worst case scenario - #3: no patches at all, everything Nintendo deems worth a "4K" version gets re-released and everybody has to repurchase

Now, I believe this time option #3 is likely too much even for Nintendo; not because they're not willing to (I'm sure they are XD) but simply because it's uncharted territory for them, as with many other Switch-related things, so maybe, just maybe, they don't feel confident enough to switch (no pun intended!) to full-greedy mode.

Yes, we all know they did actually re-release most of their WiiU catalogue but this time is very different if you ask me, as we're talking about the successor of a hugely popular platform. We don't know (yet...) how this userbase would react to a full price "4K" re-release policy.

knowing Nintendo they will problaby charge $20/40 for a patch on Switch games and will be NSO exclusive, want Bayonetta 3 at 1080 60fps, be a membre of NSO and you got the bebefit.

 

[Concernt]

I just think they'd rather just make new evergreens rather than put a shiny 4k paintjob on old ones.

¿Por qué no los dos?