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

[Deleted member 1324]

By any reasonable metric, Dane is already going to be a "true next generation Nintendo system" by itself. I don't doubt that first party releases for the existing Switch will continue for some time after it releases, but I just can't see that sustaining at anywhere near 100% for more than a year or two unless adoption stalls pretty badly. The system will spend some time being functionally a revision, like what's happened with the new PlayStation and Xbox, but it will almost certainly start pulling away as time goes on just like those two systems are only just beginning to do.

The way I see things, the system can't remain the premium model forever. Eventually it will become the baseline.

Once people see Mario Odyssey, BotW, LM3 etc (then the big 2022 games) at 4k on the Switch DLSS will the console you’re talking about have enough horsepower to then show a generational leap on screen (after a year or two of cross gen) would be my question. My opinion would be no especially as we’re talking about a hybrid console which has to operate inside a very narrow power draw and thermal envelope.

That’s not even getting into the subject of would Nintendo want to redo all the assets they currently possess for current HD development trying to live up to some “next gen” marketing and the hundreds of millions of dollars that would cost them to do. For me most customers are happy with current Switch games visually and will be even more happy with them at higher resolutions in a DLSS Switch.

 

[SiG]

I bet ya once we do get 4k BOTW and Mario Odyssey, something something "ray-traced Mario"...

People here are expecting Nintendo to compete toe-to-toe with SIE when it comes to the presentation department. And frankly, I'm not so sure what this will accomplish. It seem all about just competing for "prestige" and that particular segment of the NeoGAF/ResetERA crowd.

The biggest hurdle that a successor Switch has to overcome isn't horsepower but availability. I guess you could say this is an obstacle for any new electronics out on the market, but trying to match "parity" with Xbox Series S or PS4 Pro shouldn't even be the focus. The focus is being able to produce enough and to get out enough to meet demand. Also being able to follow up with the initial response they got with the first Switch's unveiling.

I'm not worried about the successor's power. I'm worried about the successor's supply and if they could avoid a shortage. It's probably going to be inevitable at this point...

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

The comparison was gonna happen regardless (let’s be honest) if it was better or worse because of internet brownie points that only 60 people on a forum truly feel like circle jerking about two different design philosophies and which one they prefer, and mostly leaning to one.

But that’s neither here nor there, it doesn’t really matter.


That said, I’m concerned about the cartridges and storage solution.

Everything else seems like it will resolve itself due to other technologies that nVidia has or Nintendo has put the R&D to research, like GPU for decompression (RTX I/O), NERD SS, Joycon patent, “derivative of ORIN” so it having a very good CPU by default and a very modern GPU, OLED display, better housing, better memory that they are willing to spend on, etc, etc, etc,



But cartridges are a concern I have atm.

And the storage solution. it’s not really guaranteed that they would just go for something that offers a fast solution or a decently fast solution like UFS.

Would be nice. And the carts with nearly 1GB/s speed (850MB/s) will be prohibitively expensive for most.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Once people see Mario Odyssey, BotW, LM3 etc (then the big 2022 games) at 4k on the Switch DLSS will the console you’re talking about have enough horsepower to then show a generational leap on screen (after a year or two of cross gen) would be my question. My opinion would be no especially as we’re talking about a hybrid console which has to operate inside a very narrow power draw and thermal envelope.

That’s not even getting into the subject of would Nintendo want to redo all the assets they currently possess for current HD development trying to live up to some “next gen” marketing and the hundreds of millions of dollars that would cost them to do. For me most customers are happy with current Switch games visually and will be even more happy with them at higher resolutions in a DLSS Switch.

Increases in resolution are one of the primary drivers of the "need" to improve assets in the first place, so it's a bit questionable how much they're really avoiding in this scenario. No, DLSS will not magically fix that.

Most, if not all of the same graphical features PS5/XS add over their predecessors are going to be present in the new Switch, and just like on those systems, a game fully built around utilizing those features will be a clear step above a last gen port with a higher resolution. It won't be doing things at the same level of fidelity as those systems, but many of the same or at least similar techniques will be able to be used. Plus, on the CPU side, a fairly massive bump is likely, and CPU tasks don't scale down anywhere near as well.

 

[ShadowFox08]

I think the same. I don’t think Nintendo are comfortable moving up to the next level of development costs if they can avoid it until around 2025 when a true next generation Nintendo system will arrive. WiiU / Switch level visuals at 4k using DLSS is absolutely fine for them considering their stylised visuals and the fact Switch is still selling amazingly well in the mass market despite it being derided online by enthusiasts for low resolutions or poor framerates.

A collection of platforms ranging from $199 to $399 (Lite, Standard, OLED, DLSS) that simply play the games at higher resolutions the higher you go on the price point is a good long term strategy for them in terms of their business imo.

Sure absolutely. Not that Nitnendo would even release something in the tier of PS5 anyway until switch 3 most likely. It's really going to look closer to PS4 fidelity with PS4 pro performance, as well as native 4k 1st party switch games

 

[Vanillalite]

I’ll be honest. I don’t even need graphics that much better than what the current Switch can do. I’m not saying it won’t be nice, but I don’t need it per se.

What I do need is a system that can do the current graphics without tanking the resolution down or the frame rate.

In this sense the next Switch hardware will be a win for me because DLSS should help with the resolution issue, and newer hardware should smooth out the current frame rate issue. That being said if that’s all we get and it doesn’t come out til 2024 @ a higher price then I’ll probably be less satisfied.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I think something that a lot of people don't really think about is how much "little things" could affect the look of the game.

take Pokemon Legends for example. would more advanced shader effects make the game look amazing? sure. but so would some AO and high resolution shadows. if GF kept the game exactly the same (but with HD textures) but added ray traced ambient occlusion, ray traced and screen space shadows, and longer draw distance, the game would look loads better

 

[Dekuman]

The comparison was gonna happen regardless (let’s be honest) if it was better or worse because of internet brownie points that only 60 people on a forum truly feel like circle jerking about two different design philosophies and which one they prefer, and mostly leaning to one.

But that’s neither here nor there, it doesn’t really matter.


That said, I’m concerned about the cartridges and storage solution.

Everything else seems like it will resolve itself due to other technologies that nVidia has or Nintendo has put the R&D to research, like GPU for decompression (RTX I/O), NERD SS, Joycon patent, “derivative of ORIN” so it having a very good CPU by default and a very modern GPU, OLED display, better housing, better memory that they are willing to spend on, etc, etc, etc,



But cartridges are a concern I have atm.

And the storage solution. it’s not really guaranteed that they would just go for something that offers a fast solution or a decently fast solution like UFS.

Would be nice. And the carts with nearly 1GB/s speed (850MB/s) will be prohibitively expensive for most.

Games will continue to be bounded by the lowest common denominator, with exclusives and 2nd party taking advantage of faster loading times.

I'd look towards making out current transfer speeds for internal NAND flash rather than expecting excotic new tech. I don't think it makes sense for Nintendo to go there, and it's precisely why Sony went there. They knew they couldn't compete on graphics alone anymore. Even among the platforms devs would have to take into account the slower SSD in the Series X, so it's going to be a mess developing for multiplats, and they will likely just target PC specs and increase loading speeds on the consoles not to mention extended period of cross gen .

Nintendo will not be following what Sony or even MS is doing here because what the consoles are trying isn't even really mass market.

 

[Mr Swine]

Any chance of Switch 2 being able to push resolution above 1080p without DLSS (1440p) for current gen Switch games or does it need to be more powerful than PS4 to do that?

 

[ILikeFeet]

Any chance of Switch 2 being able to push resolution above 1080p without DLSS (1440p) for current gen Switch games or does it need to be more powerful than PS4 to do that?

absolutely possible. devs will just have to update the upper bounds

 

[ShadowFox08]

Any chance of Switch 2 being able to push resolution above 1080p without DLSS (1440p) for current gen Switch games or does it need to be more powerful than PS4 to do that?

I don't see why not. There's tons of switch games that are 900-1080p that should in theory be pushed to be native 2k/1440p.

I think if we get a 1.4 TFLOP machine, we're already going to be matching PS4 GPU performance tier. And that's if it was Maxwell based. Ps4 base is about 3-3.5x more powerful than current switch in GPU. We can get even more out of ampere due to newer architectural advantages. Something like a 1.6 TFLOP (not counting architectural advantages) could give us 4x GPU power over regular switch, which in theory I think if we have 4x the bandwidth (102 GB/s), we can get 1080p switch games for native 4k. 88 GB/s will likely suffice though cause ampere has more cache than OG switch on TX1.

Only thing I didn't account for is Maxwell's mixed precision mode, which hopefully Orion brings again?

when I really think about it, not reaching PS4 og performance on docked would be really surprising. I hope we get 1.6 TFLOPs though (Match steam deck) or more to be safe

 

[Deleted member 1324]

I bet ya once we do get 4k BOTW and Mario Odyssey, something something "ray-traced Mario"...

People here are expecting Nintendo to compete toe-to-toe with SIE when it comes to the presentation department. And frankly, I'm not so sure what this will accomplish. It seem all about just competing for "prestige" and that particular segment of the NeoGAF/ResetERA crowd.

The biggest hurdle that a successor Switch has to overcome isn't horsepower but availability. I guess you could say this is an obstacle for any new electronics out on the market, but trying to match "parity" with Xbox Series S or PS4 Pro shouldn't even be the focus. The focus is being able to produce enough and to get out enough to meet demand. Also being able to follow up with the initial response they got with the first Switch's unveiling.

I'm not worried about the successor's power. I'm worried about the successor's supply and if they could avoid a shortage. It's probably going to be inevitable at this point...

I agree. Sony throw an unbelievable amount of cash at the likes of Horizon, God of War, GT, Ratchet etc not just in development costs but in absolutely insane marketing budgets. That’s why there’s no Days Gone 2 for instance even though it sold 8 million copies…

I’ve just finished Kena on PS5 and what a looker it is but part of me thinks Super Mario Odyssey, LM3 or BotW are just as impressive on PC at 4k especially when we can guess what Nintendo spend on development on average versus Sony.

Nintendo have no need to improve their base visual fidelity beyond what we currently have on Switch until at least 2025 imo and as I said above if a PS5 can’t show a massive generational leap over Switch games (when running at high resolutions) then what chance does a 4 core CPU + 1.5tflop with DLSS GPU, 8GB of memory and no custom SSD have when it will still be around 6x weaker overall.

If it’s coming late this year or before March next year then Switch DLSS will 100% be a new model and not a Switch 2. If we hear no more about the DLSS model then I’d expect Switch 2 in late 2024 / Spring 2025.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Any chance of Switch 2 being able to push resolution above 1080p without DLSS (1440p) for current gen Switch games or does it need to be more powerful than PS4 to do that?

Being able to output 4k without DLSS is a prerequisite for being able to output 4k with DLSS. How things will perform at that resolution will depend heavily on the game, but I think anything that hits 1080p on the current Switch stands a pretty good chance at being able to at least get to native 1440p on Dane, albeit only after a patch for existing games.

 

[Deleted member 1324]

Increases in resolution are one of the primary drivers of the "need" to improve assets in the first place, so it's a bit questionable how much they're really avoiding in this scenario. No, DLSS will not magically fix that.

Most, if not all of the same graphical features PS5/XS add over their predecessors are going to be present in the new Switch, and just like on those systems, a game fully built around utilizing those features will be a clear step above a last gen port with a higher resolution. It won't be doing things at the same level of fidelity as those systems, but many of the same or at least similar techniques will be able to be used. Plus, on the CPU side, a fairly massive bump is likely, and CPU tasks don't scale down anywhere near as well.

What graphical features from PS5/XS do you mean? As far as I can tell on PS5 the only features it has which are a generational leap are Ray Tracing and the ability to run UE5. I don’t see Switch using either outside of specific games. Series S could barely play the UE5 Matrix tech demo at 720p / 30fps and RT is absolutely crushing on framerates without a decent amount of RT hardware.

1080p/stable 30fps as standard and Physical Based Rendering were the two massive leaps going from sub 720p and sub 30fps on PS360. I’m not positive but you have to imagine Nintendo games already use PBR or an approximation of it and we’ll get more stable framerates and higher resolutions from the DLSS model without them having to take a generational leap in polygon count and having to create much larger environments, higher quality lighting, more detailed models, higher resolution textures and for 90% of games where they’re going for stylisation over realism and where the games will have to run on the 2017 launch Switch anyway.

This DLSS device will be more like Switch was to WiiU rather than PS3 to PS4 imo.

 

[ILikeFeet]

PBR isn't significantly higher a render cost, but might ask for more memory given the higher texture usage

 

[Pokemaniac]

I agree. Sony throw an unbelievable amount of cash at the likes of Horizon, God of War, GT, Ratchet etc not just in development costs but in absolutely insane marketing budgets. That’s why there’s no Days Gone 2 for instance even though it sold 8 million copies…

I’ve just finished Kena on PS5 and what a looker it is but part of me thinks Super Mario Odyssey, LM3 or BotW are just as impressive on PC at 4k especially when we can guess what Nintendo spend on development on average versus Sony.

Nintendo have no need to improve their base visual fidelity beyond what we currently have on Switch until at least 2025 imo and as I said above if a PS5 can’t show a massive generational leap over Switch games (when running at high resolutions) then what chance does a 4 core CPU + 1.5tflop with DLSS GPU, 8GB of memory and no custom SSD have when it will still be around 6x weaker overall.

If it’s coming late this year or before March next year then Switch DLSS will 100% be a new model and not a Switch 2. If we hear no more about the DLSS model then I’d expect Switch 2 in late 2024 / Spring 2025.

2025 is likely the absolute earliest Nintendo is going to be able to get a significant bump over the hardware they can get in 2022, based on Nvidia's roadmap.

What graphical features from PS5/XS do you mean? As far as I can tell on PS5 the only features it has which are a generational leap are Ray Tracing and the ability to run UE5. I don’t see Switch using either outside of specific games. Series S could barely play the UE5 Matrix tech demo at 720p / 30fps and RT is absolutely crushing on framerates without a decent amount of RT hardware.

1080p/stable 30fps as standard and Physical Based Rendering were the two massive leaps going from sub 720p and sub 30fps on PS360. I’m not positive but you have to imagine Nintendo games already use PBR or an approximation of it and we’ll get more stable framerates and higher resolutions from the DLSS model without them having to take a generational leap in polygon count and having to create much larger environments, higher quality lighting, more detailed models, higher resolution textures and for 90% of games where they’re going for stylisation over realism and where the games will have to run on the 2017 launch Switch anyway.

This DLSS device will be more like Switch was to WiiU rather than PS3 to PS4 imo.

Features like mesh shaders, VRS, and ray tracing should all be present in the new Switch. Nvidia's RT implementation is also notably more performant than AMD's in like for like comparisons, though how it scales down to a Switch-like device remains to be seen. Like I've said before, just like the Switch is more of a scaled down PS4/XB1 than a portable 360/PS3, Dane will be more of a scaled down PS5/XS than a portable PS4/XB1. The Matrix demo would probably require some cutbacks to run, but it's also probably not the best thing to extrapolate performance from in general, as it's a tech demo meant to show off the features of the engine.

There's a lot more to a new generation than just visual fidelity, as well. Both CPU and RAM are also going to get significant boosts, and anything that takes serious advantage of that likely isn't going to be able to easily scale down.

 

[Deleted member 1324]

I think something that a lot of people don't really think about is how much "little things" could affect the look of the game.

take Pokemon Legends for example. would more advanced shader effects make the game look amazing? sure. but so would some AO and high resolution shadows. if GF kept the game exactly the same (but with HD textures) but added ray traced ambient occlusion, ray traced and screen space shadows, and longer draw distance, the game would look loads better

Do you think Arceus looks the way it does due to developer lack of experience or are they held back by development time which is basically budget?

Pokemon ties nicely into this discussion because at the end of the day they know they’re going to sell 12-15 million copies regardless of how the game looks. Would making it look much better increase sales? Sure but not enough to justify the increase in budget and potentially missing out on the annual Xmas sales.

@Pokemaniac

Good points. Thanks.

 

[ShadowFox08]

What graphical features from PS5/XS do you mean? As far as I can tell on PS5 the only features it has which are a generational leap are Ray Tracing and the ability to run UE5. I don’t see Switch using either outside of specific games. Series S could barely play the UE5 Matrix tech demo at 720p / 30fps and RT is absolutely crushing on framerates without a decent amount of RT hardware.

1080p/stable 30fps as standard and Physical Based Rendering were the two massive leaps going from sub 720p and sub 30fps on PS360. I’m not positive but you have to imagine Nintendo games already use PBR or an approximation of it and we’ll get more stable framerates and higher resolutions from the DLSS model without them having to take a generational leap in polygon count and having to create much larger environments, higher quality lighting, more detailed models, higher resolution textures and for 90% of games where they’re going for stylisation over realism and where the games will have to run on the 2017 launch Switch anyway.

This DLSS device will be more like Switch was to WiiU rather than PS3 to PS4 imo.

if we are getting a 4x boost in GPU and bandwidth (not to mention more cache) and a further 2-3x boost in performance with DLSS.. not to mention an even higher boost in CPU (A78s), this will be indeed be like a generation boost.

Wii U vs Switch wasn't that much of a boost. Bandwidth only increased by 2x, CPU maybe 3x and GPU is 3X. Switch's lack of bandwidth held it back quite a bit for Wii u ports.

it doesn't make sense to have a pro upgrade iwth that big gap of a power with a completely much newer CPU and GPU architecture. Nitnendo might handle the 1st party Nintendo games like a pro upgrade for a few years, but by all means it will/should be a new gen console and will get exclusives sooner then later.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Do you think Arceus looks the way it does due to developer lack of experience or are they held back by development time which is basically budget?

Pokemon ties nicely into this discussion because at the end of the day they know they’re going to sell 12-15 million copies regardless of how the game looks. Would making it look much better increase sales? Sure but not enough to justify the increase in budget and potentially missing out on the annual Xmas sales.

@Pokemaniac

Good points. Thanks.

both. with the lack of experience comes with the lack of time to experiment. it seems GF experiments with each new release. there's always a notable improvement, but it means improvements come slowly. they seem to be changing that by starting up a new R&D team with some folks with high end experience. it wouldn't shock me if they self-published a game with more advanced effects prior to a pokemon game with them. hope that game is good this time, unlike Little Town Hero

 

[Deleted member 1324]

if we are getting a 4x boost in GPU and bandwidth (not to mention more cache) and a further 2-3x boost in performance with DLSS.. not to mention an even higher boost in CPU (A78s), this will be indeed be like a generation boost.

Wii U vs Switch wasn't that much of a boost. Bandwidth only increased by 2x, CPU maybe 3x and GPU is 3X. Switch's lack of bandwidth held it back quite a bit for Wii u ports.

it doesn't make sense to have a pro upgrade iwth that big gap of a power with a completely much newer CPU and GPU architecture. Nitnendo might handle the 1st party Nintendo games like a pro upgrade for a few years, but by all means it will/should be a new gen console and will get exclusives sooner then later.

Yeah that was a bit silly. It’s probably closer to Wii to Switch rather than WiiU to Switch.

Who knows what’s going to happen. Generations are starting to be blurred with the way Xbox is going and Sony have backtracked to making so many cross gen games.

Don’t get me wrong. I absolutely want Nintendo to deliver the most powerful hardware possible and to rebuild and improve all of their engines to do the hardware justice I just can’t see it happening due to them wanting to keep the original Switch in the loop for a few years and the massive budget increases that would be needed even if it was just for their big five tent-pole games - 3D Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash and Splatoon.

Is there anywhere that shows their development budgets or a way to work it out through their financial reports? I imagine their average games have a sub $10 million budget with four of the above $20-30 million and Zelda $50 million.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

Games will continue to be bounded by the lowest common denominator, with exclusives and 2nd party taking advantage of faster loading times.

I'd look towards making out current transfer speeds for internal NAND flash rather than expecting excotic new tech. I don't think it makes sense for Nintendo to go there, and it's precisely why Sony went there. They knew they couldn't compete on graphics alone anymore. Even among the platforms devs would have to take into account the slower SSD in the Series X, so it's going to be a mess developing for multiplats, and they will likely just target PC specs and increase loading speeds on the consoles not to mention extended period of cross gen .

Nintendo will not be following what Sony or even MS is doing here because what the consoles are trying isn't even really mass market.

I’m not sure I follow, the PS5 is primarily the lead development platform, not the Series S. Sony went with faster internal storage because discs were an outdated format and the writing was on the wall for their limits in speed, but they’re very cheap to produce and a medium that has stuck with video games for a long time. Nintendo has stuck with cartridges in some facet since forever, either the NES-N64 style of carts or the GB-GBA style of carts or the DS-NS style of carts. Going with faster internal speeds does not mean to not go with faster carts necessarily, and Nintendo still puts importance on the physical media. This media Also does not require a download to play it for every title, unlike the PS5 and Series X via disc that do require download onto the internal storage just to play off of.

Bare min devs needed was 1GB/s and that is something that the discs cannot provide, but carts can. Issue is that while carts can do that it comes at the cost of not having much space to work with by comparison and are pricey regardless. Even the current carts are expensive for the space they offer vs the discs, but Discs while slow can be huge in space thanks to the Blu-ray Discs for the games they have. Granted, the reason the file size for these games is something that can be removed with these faster internal storages (SSD) And these better CPUs can aid in the decompression of the data and perhaps make these games for pretty small for what they are. Take Control on PS5 being nearly half the size of the PS4 version.

The reason they aren’t gonna go the way that Sony and Microsoft are doing, is because their device functions on a complete different medium point blank period this medium is one we’re only really one player is in and that’s Nintendo, all the other players on the other hand? they’re nonexistent basically


And some weren’t going to support the platform anyway, even if they made the carts affordable due to politics. It’s more nuanced than simply not knowing they couldn’t compete with graphics.

 

[Dekuman]

I’m not sure I follow, the PS5 is primarily the lead development platform, not the Series S. Sony went with faster internal storage because discs were an outdated format and the writing was on the wall for their limits in speed, but they’re very cheap to produce and a medium that has stuck with video games for a long time. Nintendo has stuck with cartridges in some facet since forever, either the NES-N64 style of carts or the GB-GBA style of carts or the DS-NS style of carts. Going with faster internal speeds does not mean to not go with faster carts necessarily, and Nintendo still puts importance on the physical media. This media Also does not require a download to play it for every title, unlike the PS5 and Series X via disc that do require download onto the internal storage just to play off of.

Bare min devs needed was 1GB/s and that is something that the discs cannot provide, but carts can. Issue is that while carts can do that it comes at the cost of not having much space to work with by comparison and are pricey regardless. Even the current carts are expensive for the space they offer vs the discs, but Discs while slow can be huge in space thanks to the Blu-ray Discs for the games they have. Granted, the reason the file size for these games is something that can be removed with these faster internal storages (SSD) And these better CPUs can aid in the decompression of the data and perhaps make these games for pretty small for what they are. Take Control on PS5 being nearly half the size of the PS4 version.

The reason they aren’t gonna go the way that Sony and Microsoft are doing, is because their device functions on a complete different medium point blank period this medium is one we’re only really one player is in and that’s Nintendo, all the other players on the other hand? they’re nonexistent basically


And some weren’t going to support the platform anyway, even if they made the carts affordable due to politics. It’s more nuanced than simply not knowing they couldn’t compete with graphics.

Do you have evidence that PS5 will primarily be the lead development platform? And even if it is, it makes no sense for games to get broken by not being port-able to another platform. I'm sure that's what Sony was thinking vis-a-vis is proprietary storage solution, also the same thing Nintendo was thinking when they thought abut motion controls, Wii being a distinct platforms etc, if enough of of the market don't confirm and I will argue that is the case, it's just easier to have a special version for one platform and still target everyone else.

Which is why I think most multiplats will just have shorter loading times for PS5. In anycase, i don't think it was ever in the cards for Switch 2 to offer such fast loading storage solutions, it breaks basic compatability with SD cards, it's a fool's errand as evidenced by games still yet to be released not taking advantage of it because they are multiplat. Nintendo will look to max out current load times and may rocommend a higher Class SD (higher than Class 10) for Switch 2, but anything beyond that is not going to happen. it would be playing in Sony's hands and I think Sony will feel rather isolated in due time by going all in on that.

 

[Dakhil]

Do you have evidence that PS5 will primarily be the lead development platform?

According to a GDC 2021 poll, the PlayStation 5 had the highest percentage in terms of which video game consoles developers are developing projects for at 27%, with the Xbox Series X|S in second at 24%, and the Nintendo Switch at last place at 17%. It should be noted that video game consoles pale in comparison to smartphones, at 32% and 31% for iOS and Android respectively, and 58% for PC.

 

[Dekuman]

According to a GDC 2021 poll, the PlayStation 5 had the highest percentage in terms of which video game consoles developers are developing projects for at 27%, with the Xbox Series X|S in second at 24%, and the Nintendo Switch at last place at 17%. It should be noted that video game consoles pale in comparison to smartphones, at 32% and 31% for iOS and Android respectively, and 58% for PC.

right, and that would include indies and such which skews data a bit , but generally it shows most devs are targeting PC. My point really is most games will target the lowest common denominator which won't necessarily disadvantage a Switch 2 using SD/NAND storage solutions, and fantasizing about ultra fast solutions is just not realistic, it would be cost prohibitive to Nintendo and end consumers.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Do you have evidence that PS5 will primarily be the lead development platform? And even if it is, it makes no sense for games to get broken by not being port-able to another platform. I'm sure that's what Sony was thinking vis-a-vis is proprietary storage solution, also the same thing Nintendo was thinking when they thought abut motion controls, Wii being a distinct platforms etc, if enough of of the market don't confirm and I will argue that is the case, it's just easier to have a special version for one platform and still target everyone else.

Which is why I think most multiplats will just have shorter loading times for PS5. In anycase, i don't think it was ever in the cards for Switch 2 to offer such fast loading storage solutions, it breaks basic compatability with SD cards, it's a fool's errand as evidenced by games still yet to be released not taking advantage of it because they are multiplat. Nintendo will look to max out current load times and may rocommend a higher Class SD (higher than Class 10) for Switch 2, but anything beyond that is not going to happen. it would be playing in Sony's hands and I think Sony will feel rather isolated in due time by going all in on that.

I don't disagree that PS5's storage system is pretty overengineered, but they were at least directionally correct and I can see where they were coming from. Xbox and PlayStation had a couple pretty serious issues they needed to address going into the next generation: mechanical HDDs (which I'd argue were already not a defensible inclusion by the time PS4 Pro and Xbox One X released) and RAM being kind of expensive limiting the amount they could include. Sony went a bit overboard to the point where their fancy storage features are probably only going to be useful to first party games, if that, but they had to do something.

Where this leaves Switch is more complicated, though. It's certainly starting from a much better place than Xbox and PlayStation were, but it still could use a bit of a speed boost, and it hasn't been a great few years for memory card tech. If Nintendo wanted to throw their weight around, they could probably make faster storage happen, but they also could probably get away with not really doing anything and just waiting things out for Switch Atlan when things like SD Express are a bit more mature.

 

[Dekuman]

I don't disagree that PS5's storage system is pretty overengineered, but they were at least directionally correct and I can see where they were coming from. Xbox and PlayStation had a couple pretty serious issues they needed to address going into the next generation: mechanical HDDs (which I'd argue were already not a defensible inclusion by the time PS4 Pro and Xbox One X released) and RAM being kind of expensive limiting the amount they could include. Sony went a bit overboard to the point where their fancy storage features are probably only going to be useful to first party games, if that, but they had to do something.

Where this leaves Switch is more complicated, though. It's certainly starting from a much better place than Xbox and PlayStation were, but it still could use a bit of a speed boost, and it hasn't been a great few years for memory card tech. If Nintendo wanted to throw their weight around, they could probably make faster storage happen, but they also could probably get away with not really doing anything and just waiting things out for Switch Atlan when things like SD Express are a bit more mature.

Right, i think Nintendo will be bounded by their ROM delivery solutions. We will get 64GB cards eventually but i doubt it will be revolutionary in terms of access speed. Having a beefier CPU than what is on Switch will certainly help stream that data off the storage faster, possibly to its actual real world limits, so in that sense it may still be the slowest between SD cards and NAND internal storage, but still faster than what we've seen on Switch. I don't forsee a situation where Nintendo cartridges become a fancy installer where you buy agame, and have to install that data onto some proprietary internal storage. It seems very against the concept of a Switch.

That's certainly a potential solution in the future , but for Switch 2, even if its launching in 2024, the most I' can see if Nintendo recommend SD cards higher than Class 10. I don't see Nintendo going the install route in the forseeable future, but hey, i could be wrong, but it's just unNintendo to me.

 

[Dakhil]

Job Openings - Careers at Nintendo of America

Senior Engineer ? Multimedia (NTD), Software Development

careers.nintendo.com

Senior Engineer – Multimedia (NTD)​

⋮

Description Of Duties

• Architect, design, and develop software to support multimedia use cases.
• Develop new features capable of being successfully deployed in massively used gaming console.
• Research technical issues and provide expert guidance.
• Communicate and collaborate effectively with other engineers.
• Drive software development activities in small team settings.

Summary Of Requirements

• 5+ years of software development.
• Excellent C/C++ coding, debug, and analytical problem-solving skills.
• Hands-on experience with multimedia frameworks.
• Degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science or Electrical Engineering.

Preferred Qualifications

• MS degree.
• Solid understanding of multi-core SOC devices and low-level kernel software.
• Strong working knowledge of audio and video processing, including compression, transport, and rendering.
• Hands-on experience with media streaming protocols [HLS, MPEG DASH, and WebRTC].
• Hands-on experience with media codecs [AVC, AV1, VP9, AAC, and OPUS].
• This is not a remote opportunity and you will be required to work onsite in Redmond, WA

 

[Pokemaniac]

Right, i think Nintendo will be bounded by their ROM delivery solutions. We will get 64GB cards eventually but i doubt it will be revolutionary in terms of access speed. Having a beefier CPU than what is on Switch will certainly help stream that data off the storage faster, possibly to its actual real world limits, so in that sense it may still be the slowest between SD cards and NAND internal storage, but still faster than what we've seen on Switch. I don't forsee a situation where Nintendo cartridges become a fancy installer where you buy agame, and have to install that data onto some proprietary internal storage. It seems very against the concept of a Switch.

That's certainly a potential solution in the future , but for Switch 2, even if its launching in 2024, the most I' can see if Nintendo recommend SD cards higher than Class 10. I don't see Nintendo going the install route in the forseeable future, but hey, i could be wrong, but it's just unNintendo to me.

I suspect it's the memory cards that are the limiting factor more than the cartridges. The thing is, cartridges like what Nintendo uses are pretty exotic tech at this point, and I don't think have a super clear reference for how hard Nintendo could push them.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I suspect it's the memory cards that are the limiting factor more than the cartridges. The thing is, cartridges like what Nintendo uses are pretty exotic tech at this point, and I don't think have a super clear reference for how hard Nintendo could push them.

I don't think the cartridges are exotic. the technology just isn't widely used, it's not bleeding edge or anything arcane. I doubt memory or the cartridges are the issue, but the cpu. the fact that boosting the cpu helps with loading hints at such. possibly decompression being too slow and hindering how fast storage can transfer data

 

[Pokemaniac]

I don't think the cartridges are exotic. the technology just isn't widely used, it's not bleeding edge or anything arcane. I doubt memory or the cartridges are the issue, but the cpu. the fact that boosting the cpu helps with loading hints at such. possibly decompression being too slow and hindering how fast storage can transfer data

I'm using limiting factor more to refer to what's holding Nitnendo back from upgrading the storage, and not what's actually bottlenecking current games.

 

[Dakhil]

Considering that Takashi Mochizuki reported on 28 December 2017 that 64 GB Game Cards were delayed from 2H 2018 to 2019 due to technical issues, and there was a report and a rumour that Nintendo's the first customer of Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory, with speculation that Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory is used for the 64 GB Game Cards, and that Macronix provided Nintendo samples of Macronix's 48-layer 3D NAND memory, I wonder if the technical issues are related to the durability of the 64 GB Game Cards when increasing the sequential read speeds, and if the 64 GB Game Cards are going to be exclusive to DLSS model* exclusive games.

 

[Dekuman]

I suspect it's the memory cards that are the limiting factor more than the cartridges. The thing is, cartridges like what Nintendo uses are pretty exotic tech at this point, and I don't think have a super clear reference for how hard Nintendo could push them.

They are rare in the capacities Nintendo need them for, (16/32/64GB ROM seems rare for most other commercial use), but they aren't excotic in the sense that it seems to largely grow in capacity based on node shifts in semiconductor tech. We know 8GB cards were relatively cheap and competitive with BR discs back in 2017. They will be or should be aiming for getting 32GB cards to that price range with 64GB cards being the equivalent of 16GBs back in 2017 and it would /should open up a lot of possibilities for them.

I suspect getting large capacity cards AND very fast speeds would be the real exotic tech here and probably not realistic.

 

[ILikeFeet]

it might be lack of widespread adoption that's preventing the costs from going down

 

[Look over there]

Job Openings - Careers at Nintendo of America

Senior Engineer ? Multimedia (NTD), Software Development

careers.nintendo.com

'Hands-on experience with media codecs [AVC, AV1, VP9, AAC, and OPUS].'
Well, not that us reading this thread need more to trust that Nintendo's cooking up new hardware, but I just want to emphasize that any hint of playing around with AV1 points in that direction.
Setting aside the prospect of encoding thanks to Orin, let's focus on decode/playback...
The fastest software decoder that I've heard of for AV1 is dav1d. Checking with this page, I see that for one of the 1080p benchmarks, a 'Cortex-A72 4-core' averages 55 fps. The details for that CPU gives us a min clock of ~628 mhz and max clock of 2.2 ghz. dav1d does use multi threading, so I'm guessing all 4 cores are being utilized. A72's the generation after A57 (+26% float/+16% integer according to ARM's announcement slide). Suffice to say, I think that this points to hardware acceleration and its implications.

 

[Dakhil]

I suspect getting large capacity cards AND very fast speeds would be the real exotic tech here and probably not realistic.

I think Macronix designing memory with longevity and durability in mind is what is primarily preventing costs from going down.

---

This is probably off-topic, but apparently Apple's paying a 8-10% price increase from TSMC, which is apparently the smallest price increase compared to TSMC's other customers.


Considering that Nvidia doesn't have preferential treatment from TSMC, and Nvidia paid over $3 billion in pre-payments to TSMC to secure enough capacity, I wonder if Nvidia paid the 20% price increase when paying for capacity securement from TSMC.

Anyway, more evidence that Nintendo and Nvidia probably won't be using TSMC any time soon.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

Do you have evidence that PS5 will primarily be the lead development platform? And even if it is, it makes no sense for games to get broken by not being port-able to another platform. I'm sure that's what Sony was thinking vis-a-vis is proprietary storage solution, also the same thing Nintendo was thinking when they thought abut motion controls, Wii being a distinct platforms etc, if enough of of the market don't confirm and I will argue that is the case, it's just easier to have a special version for one platform and still target everyone else.

Which is why I think most multiplats will just have shorter loading times for PS5. In anycase, i don't think it was ever in the cards for Switch 2 to offer such fast loading storage solutions, it breaks basic compatability with SD cards, it's a fool's errand as evidenced by games still yet to be released not taking advantage of it because they are multiplat. Nintendo will look to max out current load times and may rocommend a higher Class SD (higher than Class 10) for Switch 2, but anything beyond that is not going to happen. it would be playing in Sony's hands and I think Sony will feel rather isolated in due time by going all in on that.

I’m not really sure I agree with this, general technology as a whole is moving towards the direction of having faster storage mediums, not away from it. Whether they opt to not have it or to have it is not what Sony desires, it’s what the third parties request from the platform. Sony bends are at the whims of the third parties more than Nintendo and they know that these are what make their platform desirable and what primarily draw the crowd in. Their first parties are a bonus and a prestige of their own. Nintendo may be a first party driven platform, but that does not mean they aren’t receiving input and feedback on improvements to their hardware.

No one is expecting a 5GB/s SSD, just that a faster one is what developers would like, and Dakhil already linked the GDC link with respect to the consoles.

right, and that would include indies and such which skews data a bit , but generally it shows most devs are targeting PC. My point really is most games will target the lowest common denominator which won't necessarily disadvantage a Switch 2 using SD/NAND storage solutions, and fantasizing about ultra fast solutions is just not realistic, it would be cost prohibitive to Nintendo and end consumers.

There’s already cost conscious solutions out there, hell they can have a port that is compatible with not just Micro SD cards but also a UFS card, allowing the consumer the option for faster storage. And their weight is big enough to spur other companies to be more competitive in the UFS market space.

eUFS is for internal storage and that’s been a thing for years. Even the slower one would be heaps and bounds above the switch.

This next thing isn’t even going to likely be as cheap as the current V2 Switch, with the OLED being 349.99, and it making no sense to charge the same price with the better internals. It’s pretty much a 99% chance that it’s gonna be a 400 dollar product.

And we live in the world where people thought Nintendo going for an OLED was impossible in any facet because it was too cost prohibitive and here we are with the OLED display on the Switch.

Right, i think Nintendo will be bounded by their ROM delivery solutions. We will get 64GB cards eventually but i doubt it will be revolutionary in terms of access speed. Having a beefier CPU than what is on Switch will certainly help stream that data off the storage faster, possibly to its actual real world limits, so in that sense it may still be the slowest between SD cards and NAND internal storage, but still faster than what we've seen on Switch. I don't forsee a situation where Nintendo cartridges become a fancy installer where you buy agame, and have to install that data onto some proprietary internal storage. It seems very against the concept of a Switch.

That's certainly a potential solution in the future , but for Switch 2, even if its launching in 2024, the most I' can see if Nintendo recommend SD cards higher than Class 10. I don't see Nintendo going the install route in the forseeable future, but hey, i could be wrong, but it's just unNintendo to me.

They don’t necessarily need to use a lot of the CPU for this.

They can offload it to the GPU, as it is a feature for Ampere and later. Edit: actually it seems like Turing and later.

Introducing NVIDIA RTX IO: GPU-Accelerated Storage Technology For The Next Generation of Games

Load instantaneously, experience vast worlds with endless views and rich detail, and further improve gameplay by leveraging the power of GeForce RTX 30 Series graphics cards and NVIDIA RTX IO.

www.nvidia.com

Them not using it would just be their choice, but hardware wise it is a feature they have to their disposal.

 

[Pokemaniac]

'Hands-on experience with media codecs [AVC, AV1, VP9, AAC, and OPUS].'
Well, not that us reading this thread need more to trust that Nintendo's cooking up new hardware, but I just want to emphasize that any hint of playing around with AV1 points in that direction.
Setting aside the prospect of encoding thanks to Orin, let's focus on decode/playback...
The fastest software decoder that I've heard of for AV1 is dav1d. Checking with this page, I see that for one of the 1080p benchmarks, a 'Cortex-A72 4-core' averages 55 fps. The details for that CPU gives us a min clock of ~628 mhz and max clock of 2.2 ghz. dav1d does use multi threading, so I'm guessing all 4 cores are being utilized. A72's the generation after A57 (+26% float/+16% integer according to ARM's announcement slide). Suffice to say, I think that this points to hardware acceleration and its implications.

Pretty sure even my 8700k struggles sometimes with 4k AV1 decode. It's not something a console is going to be doing without hardware to assist.

 

[Hermii]

I’m not really sure I agree with this, general technology as a whole is moving towards the direction of having faster storage mediums, not away from it. Whether they opt to not have it or to have it is not what Sony desires, it’s what the third parties request from the platform. Sony bends are at the whims of the third parties more than Nintendo and they know that these are what make their platform desirable and what primarily draw the crowd in. Their first parties are a bonus and a prestige of their own. Nintendo may be a first party driven platform, but that does not mean they aren’t receiving input and feedback on improvements to their hardware.

No one is expecting a 5GB/s SSD, just that a faster one is what developers would like, and Dakhil already linked the GDC link with respect to the consoles.



There’s already cost conscious solutions out there, hell they can have a port that is compatible with not just Micro SD cards but also a UFS card, allowing the consumer the option for faster storage. And their weight is big enough to spur other companies to be more competitive in the UFS market space.

eUFS is for internal storage and that’s been a thing for years. Even the slower one would be heaps and bounds above the switch.

This next thing isn’t even going to likely be as cheap as the current V2 Switch, with the OLED being 349.99, and it making no sense to charge the same price with the better internals. It’s pretty much a 99% chance that it’s gonna be a 400 dollar product.

And we live in the world where people thought Nintendo going for an OLED was impossible in any facet because it was too cost prohibitive and here we are with the OLED display on the Switch.



They don’t necessarily need to use a lot of the CPU for this.

They can offload it to the GPU, as it is a feature for Ampere and later.

Introducing NVIDIA RTX IO: GPU-Accelerated Storage Technology For The Next Generation of Games

Load instantaneously, experience vast worlds with endless views and rich detail, and further improve gameplay by leveraging the power of GeForce RTX 30 Series graphics cards and NVIDIA RTX IO.

www.nvidia.com

Them not using it would just be their choice, but hardware wise it is a feature they have to their disposal.

I assume rtx io takes gpu power away from other tasks like graphics rendering, so I guess it would vary from game to game wether it makes sense to use the cpu or gpu.

Unless a portion of the gpu is reserved for io tasks.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

I assume rtx io takes gpu power away from other tasks like graphics rendering, so I guess it would vary from game to game wether it makes sense to use the cpu or gpu.

Unless a portion of the gpu is reserved for io tasks.

I assume it would just be a resource a developer can use if they find it necessary, but not a requirement. In the white papers for Ampere, it doesn’t mention how much it takes away from the GPU, but does seem to imply how much it takes away from the CPU. That said, I don’t think it’s an insignificant amount for the GPU that it takes away, but compared to the seemingly more limited CPU resources it may be an option to consider. Maybe.

https://images.nvidia.com/aem-dam/en-zz/Solutions/geforce/ampere/pdf/NVIDIA-ampere-GA102-GPU-Architecture-Whitepaper-V1.pdf#page32

 

[Deleted member 1324]

I’m not really sure I agree with this, general technology as a whole is moving towards the direction of having faster storage mediums, not away from it. Whether they opt to not have it or to have it is not what Sony desires, it’s what the third parties request from the platform. Sony bends are at the whims of the third parties more than Nintendo and they know that these are what make their platform desirable and what primarily draw the crowd in. Their first parties are a bonus and a prestige of their own. Nintendo may be a first party driven platform, but that does not mean they aren’t receiving input and feedback on improvements to their hardware.

No one is expecting a 5GB/s SSD, just that a faster one is what developers would like, and Dakhil already linked the GDC link with respect to the consoles.



There’s already cost conscious solutions out there, hell they can have a port that is compatible with not just Micro SD cards but also a UFS card, allowing the consumer the option for faster storage. And their weight is big enough to spur other companies to be more competitive in the UFS market space.

eUFS is for internal storage and that’s been a thing for years. Even the slower one would be heaps and bounds above the switch.

This next thing isn’t even going to likely be as cheap as the current V2 Switch, with the OLED being 349.99, and it making no sense to charge the same price with the better internals. It’s pretty much a 99% chance that it’s gonna be a 400 dollar product.

And we live in the world where people thought Nintendo going for an OLED was impossible in any facet because it was too cost prohibitive and here we are with the OLED display on the Switch.



They don’t necessarily need to use a lot of the CPU for this.

They can offload it to the GPU, as it is a feature for Ampere and later. Edit: actually it seems like Turing and later.

Introducing NVIDIA RTX IO: GPU-Accelerated Storage Technology For The Next Generation of Games

Load instantaneously, experience vast worlds with endless views and rich detail, and further improve gameplay by leveraging the power of GeForce RTX 30 Series graphics cards and NVIDIA RTX IO.

www.nvidia.com

Them not using it would just be their choice, but hardware wise it is a feature they have to their disposal.

OLED has also been sold out since launch in the UK until last week. It’s been an incredible success so far and shows Nintendo consumers will pay extra for premium products (something people previously said wasn’t the case).

 

[Terrell]

As has been mentioned previously, the only limiting factor for ASIC XtraROM read speeds is the reader and pins you use to get the data off of it. And make no mistake, Switch is using ASIC XtraROM from Macronix. What's unknown is who is supplying the reader, but one can assume that's Macronix as well.
The primary challenge is that Macronix hasn't updated XtraROM to better process nodes and they're one of the only manufacturers of high-capacity read-only memory and that is a dangerous weakness in my eyes. In the internet age, game cartridges are seemingly now the only use case for high-capacity ROM and there is little to no development in that space to increase capacities or shrink the process nodes (XtraROM development stalled at 32nm if I remember right and most ROM applications don't require more than a handful of MB or smaller die sizes than they‘re already at and already barely sip at power supplies/batteries, so they therefore do not benefit from smaller nodes like other chips).
And given the challenges Nintendo has had with Macronix as of late (getting the higher capacity game cards available, working at maximum production load since 2019), it would be wise of Nintendo to sink some R&D spending into ROM design improvements in the direction they need with a fabrication partner, at least to preserve some measure of safety in their supply chain, until we finally do reach the all-online future that corporations are both all for AND all against.
I mean, if I were them, I'd be trying to get high-capacity OTPROMs working instead of this manufacturer-dependent ASIC or mask ROM nonsense they've been doing, so you can just supply blank cards to devs and a machine to zap them, which would give a lot more freedom to publishers who make games with a low sellthrough number like (as one example) Limited Run and make it easier to adapt the package on the Game Card if needed to resolve bugs in gold masters.
Either way, if this issue isn’t solved soon, Nintendo may be inevitably forced to go the cartridge-as-installer route much sooner than they want to. Their Macronix relationship is already at full capacity and showing its limitations and they’re one of the only companies looking to expand ROM capability anyways.

To the storage talk, PC as lowest common denominator is… well, no. Most PCs have RAM capacities in both CPU and GPU that eclipse consoles that compensate for slow storage and most modern PCs (especially ones geared toward gaming) are now equipped with SSDs anyways (and PC games have included SSDs in their recommended specs as far back as 2017), so I/O speed has not been a limitation on PC for quite some time now (and those that still use HDDs are going to enjoy what it means to play PC games below recommended spec). If anything, PS5 and XBS were catching up to PC in terms of speeds related to accessing game data. So yeah, faster read speeds across the board are going to need to be a consideration for new Nintendo hardware if they don’t want to be passed over for certain games that demand it for baseline performance.

 

[brainchild]

As a registered Nintendo developer, let me just say without breaking NDA that if all Nintendo cares about is how their games look on their own platform without regarding the needs of 3rd party developers then they deserve to lose 3rd party support. I'm sorry, but I am not going to gimp my game's graphics because "Nintendo games look fine" or because "most customers are happy with Switch graphics".

I have currently hit a wall with UE4 development and I'm switching to UE5. Platforms that aren't up to speed are going to get left behind, and it's a shame because there's some really exciting technology (related to "sentient AI") that I would love to showcase on Nintendo's platform, but I'm not about to compromise my vision because Nintendo continues to be one of the most fiscally conservative companies in the industry.

Now please don't read more into my post than what's necessary. I'm not saying anything about future hardware at this point, but what I am saying is that their typical behavior is not satisfactory for me and if it continues I won't be publishing my projects on their platform. We'll see how this shakes out but I'm not currently optimistic.

 

[Dakhil]

As a registered Nintendo developer, let me just say without breaking NDA that if all Nintendo cares about is how their games look on their own platform without regarding the needs of 3rd party developers then they deserve to lose 3rd party support. I'm sorry, but I am not going to gimp my game's graphics because "Nintendo games look fine" or because "most customers are happy with Switch graphics".

I have currently hit a wall with UE4 development and I'm switching to UE5. Platforms that aren't up to speed are going to get left behind, and it's a shame because there's some really exciting technology (related to "sentient AI") that I would love to showcase on Nintendo's platform, but I'm not about to compromise my vision because Nintendo continues to be one of the most fiscally conservative companies in the industry.

Now please don't read more into my post than what's necessary. I'm not saying anything about future hardware at this point, but what I am saying is that their typical behavior is not satisfactory for me and if it continues I won't be publishing my projects on their platform. We'll see how this shakes out but I'm not currently optimistic.

Hopefully Nintendo does take into consideration the feedback from third party developers for the DLSS model*. crosses fingers

 

[brainchild]

Hopefully Nintendo does take into consideration the feedback from third party developers for the DLSS model*. crosses fingers

I just want full UE5 compatibility. That's it. I don't need a massive GPU, but I do need virtualized geometry so that geometry fidelity becomes a non-issue. The stuff related to AI is already doable on the current Switch (it's utilizing GPT-3 models for NPC interaction, which has never been done before), so mechanically, the game would be fine. But graphical fidelity is very important for this project because of the level of immersion needed to sell the concept. I don't need 12TF of computing power for the concept, but I do need UE5 or an equivalent. That would be my biggest request.

 

[Terrell]

As a registered Nintendo developer, let me just say without breaking NDA that if all Nintendo cares about is how their games look on their own platform without regarding the needs of 3rd party developers then they deserve to lose 3rd party support. I'm sorry, but I am not going to gimp my game's graphics because "Nintendo games look fine" or because "most customers are happy with Switch graphics".

I have currently hit a wall with UE4 development and I'm switching to UE5. Platforms that aren't up to speed are going to get left behind, and it's a shame because there's some really exciting technology (related to "sentient AI") that I would love to showcase on Nintendo's platform, but I'm not about to compromise my vision because Nintendo continues to be one of the most fiscally conservative companies in the industry.

Now please don't read more into my post than what's necessary. I'm not saying anything about future hardware at this point, but what I am saying is that their typical behavior is not satisfactory for me and if it continues I won't be publishing my projects on their platform. We'll see how this shakes out but I'm not currently optimistic.

I’ve been banging this drum for a while now as a non-developer. Nintendo developed a lot of good will with developers with Switch but in spite of how it’s selling, if they want to keep their 3rd-party royalties as they are right now (or even better), then current hardware sales do not matter.
And I do not for one second fall for this line that Nintendo doesn’t want to keep them as happy as they can within the form factor they’ve chosen. In fact, I made the exact case that keeping up with middleware technologies should be priority one and Switch has now reached the limit of its ability to do so, so new hardware should be considered imminent by virtue of that alone.

 

[brainchild]

middleware technologies should be priority one and Switch has now reached the limit of its ability to do so, so new hardware should be considered imminent by virtue of that alone.

Completely agree. Current Switch won't cut it, unfortunately. If their future platforms have hardware designed to take full advantage of the latest in next-gen middleware tools, then I'm perfectly happy with that. I wish I had reason to be optimistic that that will be the case, but...yeah. We'll see.

 

[Raccoon]

Nintendo's business is for the first time in a while dependent on third party development. Even their own software has a higher attach rate than ever before; I attribute this to the player perception of the Switch as a healthy platform that gets games.

Trying to perpetuate the lightning in a bottle that is the Switch market is most likely a high priority, regardless of their own needs.

All that being said, their needs continue to show. Animal Crossing runs worse than ever, Kirby is running poorly, Bowser's Fury was 30 portable, all of Xenoblade/Zelda, etc

 

[Hermii]

Completely agree. Current Switch won't cut it, unfortunately. If their future platforms have hardware designed to take full advantage of the latest in next-gen middleware tools, then I'm perfectly happy with that. I wish I had reason to be optimistic that that will be the case, but...yeah. We'll see.

Yea, come in here and pretend Nintendo didn’t brief you Joking.

 

[ILikeFeet]

supporting UE5 is a given. if anything, I expect Nvidia to be putting in a lot of work in making sure the engine works well on Dane. Nvidia already puts in a lot of work for UE4

 

[Hermii]

Completely agree. Current Switch won't cut it, unfortunately. If their future platforms have hardware designed to take full advantage of the latest in next-gen middleware tools, then I'm perfectly happy with that. I wish I had reason to be optimistic that that will be the case, but...yeah. We'll see.

Nvidia gave the best middleware engineers in the mobile chip business. If they can’t do it, none of their arm competitors can either.