StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (New Staff Post, Please read)

[Alovon11]

Can't you just let me dream about wireless docking?

The Dream is dead, long live Drake

 

[Bosintang]

"Hello, videogame enjoyers. Here's a new shiny device. DLSS, 12 SM, 5 peta hertz, 360TFlops, OLED HDR screen. That's to play Zelda in 4K/30fps. Please be excited, that'll be 450 dollars."
Nintendo's marketing department, in a timeline where methamphetamines are legal and encouraged.

That iterative upgrade theory makes absolutely zero sense in the years 2022, 2023 or 2024 of our good Lord.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

"Hello, videogame enjoyers. Here's a new shiny device. DLSS, 12 SM, 5 peta hertz, 360TFlops, OLED HDR screen. That's to play Zelda in 4K/30fps. Please be excited, that'll be 450 dollars."
Nintendo's marketing department, in a timeline where methamphetamines are legal and encouraged.

That iterative upgrade theory makes absolutely zero sense in the years 2022, 2023 or 2024 of our good Lord.

You really thought you did something by making such an egregious, disingenuous and unnecessary example.

 

[TonyBaduy]

I guess the next hardware will be Drake if no Switch Lite OLED exists.

 

[Hermii]

I guess the next hardware will be Drake if no Switch Lite OLED exists.

It likely would have been in the OS, like every other tx1 revision. It isn’t.

 

[fwd-bwd]

The other thing that's interesting is that they're expecting a 8.9% reduction in Switch hardware unit sales and a 10.7% reduction in software unit sales, but only a 5.6% reduction in net sales. With Switch hardware and software accounting for the vast majority of their net sales, that would indicate they're expecting an increase in average selling price on either hardware or software or both. This would be very unusual for the tail end of a hardware cycle, to say the least.

In fact, we can do some very rough maths on it. Looking at hardware and software unit decreases in their forecast, we would probably assume a net sales forecast somewhere around 1.5 trillion yen, or lower than their actual forecast by 100 billion yen, or 770 million USD (using very rough estimates here). This means they're expecting around 100 billion yen of revenue to come from something other than just selling more software or hardware units.

This revenue could be from a few different sources:

1. Increased ASP of Switch hardware
2. Increased ASP of boxed software and digital versions of boxed software
3. Increased sales of digital-only software (this isn't included in the 210m estimate), Switch Online, etc.
4. Increased revenue from anything other than Switch consoles and software.

Thanks for the post. The increased ASP of Switch hardware is certainly a tantalizing possibility. There are a few other sources that could be contributing factors.

• Increase in DLC sales: Nintendo may be expecting the MK8D Booster Course Pass to have a banner year. They might even have more surprise DLC upcoming.
• More digital downloads: I don't recall any official confirmation about this, but the profit margin of a digital sale should be higher than a physical one. Nintendo may be forecasting the share of digital continues to climb.
• Ratio of 3rd party sales: 3rd party titles generate sales commissions and are practically 100% profit. If the ratio of 1st party vs 3rd party sales changes in this FY, it may impact the net sales figure.
• Direct sales of packaged games: Nintendo started selling physical games from their NA website since February. They could expand the direct sales to more territories.

Their net sales forecast being only 5% down and their profit forecast being a whopping 28% down actually tells me their operating expenses are planning to skyrocket. Which would line up with a hardware launch, no?

As a few other posters indicated, the main distractor of FY22-23 operating profit may be a worsening profit margin. Nintendo said so themselves in the financial results briefing: "Due mainly to an increase in manufacturing costs and SG&A expenses, the margin of decrease in operating profit is larger than that of net sales." See the downward trend of operating profit from '21 to '23 (dark green line):

However, looking at Nintendo's forecast for R&D and advertising expenses (two major components of SG&A), they barely change from the last FY:

Hence, the manufacturing costs may be the main culprit of the lowered forecast. Elsewhere in the briefing, Nintendo also disclosed that the "OLED Model having a smaller profit margin in comparison to other models" and "OLED Model has also shown steady growth in its sell-through numbers"; it stands to reason that as the ratio of OLED sales eats further into other models', the overall profit margin will continue to decline. But are the heightened manufacturing costs, or COGS in general, enough to account for the -92.7bn yen (-15.6%) swing in operating profit—maybe?

As for the eye popping -190.8bn yen (-28.4%) drop in ordinary profit, it's a real mystery to me. In FY21-22, the non-operating income included a windfall of 45.6bn yen from exchange rate gains. Removing that from FY22-23, we are still looking a -145.2bn yen (about -1.1bn USD) hole. You asked whether it is related to the land Nintendo acquired next to their HQ to build a new R&D facility. I obviously have no answer but it's an explanation as good as any. Since a land purchase is considered an investment and not an expense (note the forecasted capital investments in the table above), that 1.1bn USD potentially could be spent completely on the development center. Did you know that the Apple UFO HQ costed about 5bn USD to construct? This would be a fifth of that. You may call it:

 

[Dakhil]

The Dream is dead, long live Drake

No wireless docking option for the DLSS model*?

 

[SiG]

The illegal Nvidia leaks suggest that's going to be the case, with Drake having 12 SMs (1536 CUDA cores).

I don't think backwards compatibility's going to be a huge issue, since I think minimising any issues with backwards compatibility is probably one of Nintendo's and Nvidia's main focuses when designing Drake. And I think Nintendo's more than okay with ~99% backwards compatibility, like with the PlayStation 5 (with respect to PlayStation 4 games) and the Xbox Series X (with respect to Xbox One games). (Of course, how Nintendo and Nvidia achieve ~99% backwards compatibility probably won't be the same as how Sony and Microsoft achieve ~99% backwards compatibility.)

I think unlike those systems and Nintendo's previous dealings with AMD where they literally had to copy the architecture of the previous generation of the console (a la WiiU), Nvidia basically writting the abstraction layer (NVN/NVN2) for them plus tying it with the co-existing CUDA architecture which many developers are familiar with meant being able to side-step a lot of the problems and issues that they had with the Wii-to-WiiU generations (mostly the WiiU generation, as development kits have been the biggest concern with that console). I wonder if Nvidia will continue to do the heavy lifting when it comes to ensuring backwards compatibility as can be seen with Lightspeed Studio's involvement with Shield/Switch ports.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

Speaking of Drake, does that cat Nate post much here???

 

[ShadowFox08]

Without knowing who these 3rd parties are or the projects that are being spoken of. I would caution people from getting overly hyped about that statement.
The only 3rd party boom I expect are AA/indies/mobile as the bigger ones will just throw a bone every so often.

Giving 3rd parties breathing room is a mistake & frankly never really worked for Nintendo. People are not buying a new expensive piece of Nintendo hardware for 3rd parties in masssive amounts.
And, you may be tired of them but they sell & continue to sell compared to so of the new ips they put out. They will still invest in new ips however whether you actually like those or not is subjective.

I can totally see COD come on Switch 2. Performance wise, it shouldn't be an issue, so porting shouldn't be that difficult. Storage space is the only factor. Will they try to compress it(which Nintendo would recommend)? I dunno. They could have it partily on a cart and the rest via eshop.

It absolutely should imo. When devs have to scale every game to work on 7.5 gb, it does lower the baseline compared to if series x and ps5 was the target.

Is RAM really the imain ssue here... I feel like the bandwidth is more of a bigger problem.

It’s weird. DLSS would reduce bandwidth for one thing (the resolution eg), but DLSS requires a lot of bandwidth considering what it is.


So it becomes a trade-off.

Yeah its weird. Maybe 20-30% less bandwidth required? I don't know if I read it here.

Well we're likely see current gen ports in 1080p with DLSS in the best case scenario, so we won't need a ton of bandwidth. Native switch games at 4k (coming from switch games that are currently 1080p native) should work without DLSS. Perhaps 2k for PS4 quality games/ports with DLSS? We'll see how they stack with X Series X which has a little more than double the bandwidth.

At least we have significantly increased cache to help out..

They already made a Switch Lite revision. It's called the Switch OLED & it has docking capabilities.

Nah, that's Switch XL...

 

[ShadowFox08]

Not Switch related but interesting to see AMD's latest tech and perhaps can give us insight/idea on what Nvidia could do for portable laptops and other mobile devices..

AMD Ryzen 7000 'Phoenix' APUs With RDNA 3 Integrated Graphics Could End Up Being As Fast As The NVIDIA RTX 3060M

AMD Ryzen 7000 'Phoenix' APUs are going to offer up to NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 performance with their brand new RDNA 3 graphics cores.

wccftech.com

Basically AMD is making a APU for laptops (7000 series) that includes RDNA3and Zen 4 tech is supposedly as fast a RTX 3060M (which is a max-q variant of 3060 that runs at 60w). The entire Phoenix APU is apparently 35-45 watts (25 lower than the RTX 3060 graphics card alone) and its on a 5nm node. We're looking at nearly double the raw tflops of x-box series s.

And all we know about Orion is on 8nm.. 5nm Orion really would be interesting and the only way 12 SM would be feasible for Drake/Switch 2 to work in a 10-25 watt profile for ps4-ps4 pro performance before DLSS...

Imagine a variant between the 16GB Orion NX model and 32 AGX model.

NVIDIA Jetson Orin

Next-level AI performance for next-gen robotics.

developer.nvidia.com

8 A78 CPU cores (w/2mb L2 and 4mb L3) and 1536 Cuda cores (instead of 1024) at +900Mhz. ~ 3 TFLOP GPU.

5nm nodes are supposed to be 30% less power consumption vs 7nm nodes for the same performance.. If the 32 AGX model goes up to 40 watts at 1792 cores, and we take out a bunch of cameras and other stuff we don't need.. Perhaps it is possible to fit 20-25 watts at ~3 Tflops docked. >_>

 

[Simba1]

The difference between the Series S and X with memory is bigger than the difference between the Switch and XBox One.

7.5 vs 13.5 available (where amd GPUs take more resources wrt memory and RT)

3.25(?) vs 5.5 available (currently)

It’s not much more, but it’s still.

The safest situation for Nintendo and the next switch, is 12GB.

Assuming they keep the very low profile OS and due to availability of RAM in the LPDDR5 stack (6GB is the lowest atm for 64-bit).

11GB available for developers and 1 for the OS. 2 6GB 64-bit modules that operate at 51.2GB/s each resulting in the 12GB 128-bit 102.4GB/s (docked)

or they, you know, go with 5X , would be better.

Personally, I would be surprised if next Nintendo hardware has more than 8GB of RAM.

8GB RAM would be enough, even for current Switch amount of RAM wasnt biggest problem, it was memory bandwith and CPU power.

 

[Simba1]

They already made a Switch Lite revision. It's called the Switch OLED & it has docking capabilities.

Switch OLED is basically opposite of Switch Lite, it biggest and most expensive Switch version (almost twice price of Switch Lite).

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

8GB RAM would be enough,

No it won’t.

Considering this is supposed to utilize DLSS and in some instances Ray Tracing, memory becomes crucial. 8GB is fine for Nintendo if they just wanted intentions of having a portable XBox one, but the data breach has support for several other features that are intended to be used whether by them or third parties, and memory becomes crucial here.

And the memory of the switch is a noticeable issue, it just wasn’t that big of an issue when compared to the anemic memory bandwidth and the pathetically poor CPU.

 

[SiG]

No it won’t.

Considering this is supposed to utilize DLSS and in some instances Ray Tracing, memory becomes crucial. 8GB is fine for Nintendo if they just wanted intentions of having a portable XBox one, but the data breach has support for several other features that are intended to be used whether by them or third parties, and memory becomes crucial here.

And the memory of the switch is a noticeable issue, it just wasn’t that big of an issue when compared to the anemic memory bandwidth and the pathetically poor CPU.

Bare in mind, we also don't know what type of memory they will be using.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

Bare in mind, we also don't know what type of memory they will be using.

The chance of it not being LPDDR5 is so low it shouldn’t really be entertained. Let alone 5X.

 

[SiG]

The chance of it not being LPDDR5 is so low it shouldn’t really be entertained. Let alone 5X.

I dunno. There's a chance they could settle with GDDR6 since Nvidia has been using it with their GPU lineup. Likewise, Nintendo is no stranger to "exotic" RAM like the 1T-SRAM used in the GameCube and TEV-derived systems thereafter, so I wouldn't be surprised if they might have struck a nice deal on some HBM(2) or like derivative.

There is precedence for them using some higher quality/more expensive RAM.

 

[Simba1]

No it won’t.

Considering this is supposed to utilize DLSS and in some instances Ray Tracing, memory becomes crucial. 8GB is fine for Nintendo if they just wanted intentions of having a portable XBox one, but the data breach has support for several other features that are intended to be used whether by them or third parties, and memory becomes crucial here.

And the memory of the switch is a noticeable issue, it just wasn’t that big of an issue when compared to the anemic memory bandwidth and the pathetically poor CPU.

I disagree, I think that 8GB of RAM (so around 7GB for games), would be enough.

I dont see Nintendo packing 12GB of RAM in next Switch hardware.

 

[SiG]

I disagree, I think that 8GB of RAM (so around 7GB for games), would be enough.

I dont see Nintendo packing 12GB of RAM in next Switch hardware.

I actually could see them going for 12GB of RAM, if developers highly advise them to do so (like what Capcom did with Switch's RAM jumping from 3GB to 4).

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

I dunno. There's a chance they could settle with GDDR6 since Nvidia has been using it with their GPU lineup. Likewise, Nintendo is no stranger to "exotic" RAM like the 1T-SRAM used in the GameCube and TEV-derived systems thereafter, so I wouldn't be surprised if they might have struck a nice deal on some HBM.

There is no chance in hell they would go with GDDR6. The amount of heat and TDP that would produce is so high, it greatly diminishes the purpose of even being a portable device.

ORIN already has support for LPDDR5, to alter it would be to change to a different memory controller on the silicon that can house the GDDR6 memory.

HBM would make the price of the device skyrocket to ridiculously high levels

I disagree, I think that 8GB of RAM (so around 7GB for games), would be enough.

I dont see Nintendo packing 12GB of RAM in next Switch hardware.

This isn’t really an argument.

 

[SiG]

There is no chance in hell they would go with GDDR6. The amount of heat and TDP that would produce is so high, it greatly diminishes the purpose of even being a portable device.

ORIN already has support for LPDDR5, to alter it would be to change to a different memory controller on the silicon that can house the GDDR6 memory.

HBM would make the price of the device skyrocket to ridiculously high levels

That's why I said HBM-derivative. And this is discounting any deals that they potentially could get for such RAM.

 

[Simba1]

I actually could see them going for 12GB of RAM, if developers highly advise them to do so (like what Capcom did with Switch's RAM jumping from 3GB to 4).

Going from 4GB to 12GB would raise quite a bit costs, and Nintendo said that even with $349 Switch OLED (that has 4GB of RAM) they are having a very small profit margin.

People here talking mostly from devs or personally preferences, but it should take in account and costs of console and selling price point,
Nintendo will want to have again more affordable price they can and in same time selling at profit (or in worst case not selling at loss).

IMO, 8GB RAM and 128GB internal memory would be sweet spot taking all account (performances, costs, selling price point).

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

That's why I said HBM-derivative. And this is discounting any deals that they potentially could get for such RAM.

There isn’t really any HBM derivative.

that I’m aware of that is, well there’s HBM 1, 2, 3 and the e variants, but they’re all HBM


And no degree of deals will make HBM cheap. The issue with the price is that it’s process is not cheap to implement.

Id say it’s cheaper to incorporate more cache on the whole soc or have more levels of cache (like say the SLC from ORIN) than to go with HBM or any derivative that doesn’t exist and would need to be made to exist.


It is supposed to be a derivative of ORIN after all, not something built from the ground up. NVidia is the one designing the chip in the end, with Nintendo’s input on what their goals are and what they’d like to incorporate. And the one area Nintendo isn’t afraid of, is having more cache (memory).

Going from 4GB to 12GB would raise quite a bit costs, and Nintendo said that even with $349 Switch OLED (that has 4GB of RAM) they are having a very small profit margin.

People here talking mostly from devs or personally preferences, but it should take in account and costs of console and selling price point,
Nintendo will want to have again to more affordable price they can and in same time selling at profit (or in worst case not selling at loss).

You used this exact same logic when we were discussing the potential specifications (ie, speculation for months) of the device and using that logic to apply for why they won’t go above 4 SMS or 6 SMs. You’re using the exact same argument again despite the fact that we know that this device will have 1536 Shaders.

I’m not sure why you are using this to apply to a device that has a very low chance of being priced like the switch lite, has a low chance of being priced like the flagship and has a very low chance of being priced equal to the OLED model. This device was going to be more expensive, regardless of how it’s sliced.


Even then, with respect to price, the OLED model is selling at a faster rate than the significantly cheaper lite model that is much more available.

 

[Aether]

You really thought you did something by making such an egregious, disingenuous and unnecessary example.

hes making it sound absurd, but so late into the switches timeline adding another profile for developers just to change that 1-2 years later does sound rather... pointless. And the update we know would be hard to beat in the next years... but at the same time, if they keep it just an "4k switch", then they are artificially limiting what it can do.

In my opinion, this is the next switch, but in the same family, with backwards compatibility... kinda like the PS5, designed to be a smooth move to from dev and customer side.

 

[Simba1]

You used this exact same logic when we were discussing the potential specifications (ie, speculation for months) of the device and using that logic to apply for why they won’t go above 4 SMS or 6 SMs. You’re using the exact same argument again despite the fact that we know that this device will have 1536 Shaders.

I’m not sure why you are using this to apply to a device that has a very low chance of being priced like the switch lite, has a low chance of being priced like the flagship and has a very low chance of being priced equal to the OLED model. This device was going to be more expensive, regardless of how it’s sliced.


Even then, with respect to price, the OLED model is selling at a faster rate than the significantly cheaper lite model that is much more available.

Lets be clear, all talk here is based on leaks and rumors, nothing we talk here is fact until Nintendo itself announce next hardware and we have official specs revealed or brake down of hardware itself.
In time of leak, NVIDIA leaks were saying that announced Nintendo hardware will have 1536 shaders chip, but maybe thats not next Switch hardware that will be released or maybe at end we dont have 1536 shaders at all.

I dont get argument with Switch Lite, not only that Nintendo has similar profit margin on Switch Lite and regular Switch,
but also Nintendo before had low price options, for instance 2DS.

I expecting that next Switch will be more expansive than Switch OLED, but I cant really see Nintendo price it $499, my guess is $399-449, and with that price point Nintendo will want to have profit from day one (in worst case not selling at loss).
Also, if leaks are true, this will basically be full next gen Nintendo Switch, not just a more powerful revision, so it will basically be next main model, and in one point games only for that new Switch will be released, so that onother reason why Nintendo will not want something like $500 price point in any case because it want to be mass market product.

 

[Skittzo]

Switch OLED is basically opposite of Switch Lite, it biggest and most expensive Switch version (almost twice price of Switch Lite).

They target the exact same market segment though, primarily handheld users.

Switch OLED is a premium model for handheld users like Switch Lite is an entry model for handheld users. The OLED exists to upsell Lite owners.

Therefore releasing an OLED Lite makes no sense, it undercuts that effort.

 

[Eclissi]

They target the exact same market segment though, primarily handheld users.

Switch OLED is a premium model for handheld users like Switch Lite is an entry model for handheld users. The OLED exists to upsell Lite owners.

Therefore releasing an OLED Lite makes no sense, it undercuts that effort.

Yes, and to complete the picture only a premium model for TV is missing

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

Lets be clear, all talk here is based on leaks and rumors, nothing we talk here is fact until Nintendo itself announce next hardware and we have official specs revealed or brake down of hardware itself.

No you won’t. This is absolutely ridiculous. Nintendo never confirms this information. They aren’t Sony nor are they Microsoft that do whole presentations about this.

This is what they literally have on their website about the specifications of the switch:

Technical Specs - Nintendo Switch™ - System hardware, console specs - Nintendo - Official Site

Get the detailed specs for the Nintendo Switch™ – OLED Model, the Nintendo Switch, and the Nintendo Switch Lite systems, plus Joy-Con controllers, and more.

www.nintendo.com

“

CPU/GPU

NVIDIA Custom Tegra processor”


Absolutely nothing about the specifications on the RAM, the amount of CUDA cores, the architecture, the CPU, the clock frequencies, none of that. You saying “wait until Nintendo does break down” is the equivalent of saying “these specs aren’t real” because Nintendo will never confirm this information.

They didn’t for the Wii U, they didn’t for the 3DS, they didn’t for the Wii, they didn’t for the DS or any piece of hardware they have released besides maybe the GameCube. All the information people got for the switch was from leaked information and data mining. All the information for the Wii U was from leaked information on a forum post.

In time of leak, NVIDIA leaks were saying that announced Nintendo hardware will have 1536 shaders chip, but maybe thats not next Switch hardware that will be released or maybe at end we dont have 1536 shaders at all.

Might as well say the next chip is for Apple if this is the angle you want to approach it from.

I dont get argument with Switch Lite, not only that Nintendo has similar profit margin on Switch Lite and regular Switch,
but also Nintendo before had low price options, for instance 2DS.

I simply said expecting a price that low for the switch model that will have a new chip, the chances of that are very low. The chances of it also being priced like the switch V2 at low, the chances of it being priced like the OLED model are better than the chances of it being price like the V2, however it is still low.

The chance of the super switch electric Boogaloo or whatever being priced at 350 or lower is rather low, and we have the Nintendo switch OLED model to confirm this. Nintendo went and increased the price of the platform, and the OLED model despite being much more expensive than the lite (you used “affordability”), the OLED is selling much better than the lite.

The lite being priced so low makes it an affordable product, yet the OLED that is closer to twice the price of the LITE is performing much better than the lite. Using Affordability for the sake of it only works if said affordability actually had the most affordable product performing the best of the bunch, it’s not. It’s the lesser affordable of the bunch is performing better than this supposed affordable model.

The issue isn’t price, it’s the product.

I expecting that next Switch will be more expansive than Switch OLED, but I cant really see Nintendo price it $499, my guess is $399-449, and with that price point Nintendo will want to have profit from day one (in worst case not selling at loss).
Also, if leaks are true, this will basically be full next gen Nintendo Switch, not just a more powerful revision, so it will basically be next main model, and in one point games only for that new Switch will be released, so that onother reason why Nintendo will not want something like $500 price point in any case because it want to be mass market product.

It was going to be a new console anyway, whether they stuck with making it a “revisions (see: GameBoy color) or a successor (see: GameBoy Advance), it was going to be more expensive and going to have its own games like the previous Nintendo portables.

People joke about the 3DS having like, 3 exclusives, but the previous portables had their own libraries even if you consider them duds or not. A library is a library. Even the Wii U had a library despite having like 35 games of note.

So this isn’t even surprising, I’m not gonna bother with the debate of next gen or revision as it is moot, it will be a switch that plays your games but better. That’s all that it will be whether a next gen or a revision.

And yes, I consider hitting the capped target that the switch can’t hit as “playing switch games but better”. Why? Because the switch can’t do it, and it plays it better, that’s objective.

NSW has BOTW at 720-900p, if switch next whatever does it 900p at all times it’s already fulfilling its job. A patch that makes it do more is just a cherry on top.

 

[Simba1]

They target the exact same market segment though, primarily handheld users.

Switch OLED is a premium model for handheld users like Switch Lite is an entry model for handheld users. The OLED exists to upsell Lite owners.

Therefore releasing an OLED Lite makes no sense, it undercuts that effort.

If they target only handheld users, than they wouldn't be dock and dock functionality that raises price point.

They could release OLED Lite easily for $249 if they were targeting only handheld users.

 

[Kenka]

TLDR: It's very hard to reconcile Nintendo's projections on hardware and software sales with their projected revenue, unless either (a) a new model in the Switch family is released and sold for a higher price than the OLED model or (b) a new console that's not part of the Switch family is released, which may or may not be sold for a higher price.

You are awesome, Thraktor.

 

[Skittzo]

If they target only handheld users, than they wouldn't be dock and dock functionality that raises price point.

They could release OLED Lite easily for $249 if they were targeting only handheld users.

They're primarily targeting primarily handheld users. Meaning, the main target for the device (not the only one) is users who mainly (not only) play it in handheld mode.

OLED model is an upgrade over the Lite both in terms of screen and docking functionality, they want people who bought a Lite but want some kind of upgrade to spend more money on a premium revision. Of course they also want other people to spend more money too, but the primary goal of the device is to be entice people who only got the entry level model to get a more premium one.

 

[Dakhil]

8 A78 CPU cores (w/2mb L2 and 4mb L3) and 1536 Cuda cores (instead of 1024) at +900Mhz. ~ 3 TFLOP GPU.

2 MB is the amount of L3 cache, not L2 cache, per CPU cluster, for the Cortex-A78AE in the Jetson AGX Orin (per CPU cluster).

If Nintendo and Nvidia decide to use the Cortex-A78C instead of the Cortex-A78AE for the CPU in Drake, then the CPU can have up to 8 MB of L3 cache, especially since the Cortex-A78C allows up to 8 CPU cores per CPU cluster in comparison to only up to 4 CPU cores per CPU cluster for the Cortex-A78AE.

And 4 MB is the amount of L2 cache, not L3 cache, for the GPU in Jetson AGX Orin. Unfortunately, nobody knows if Drake's GPU has 1 MB of L2 cache or 4 MB of L2 cache, going by LiC's findings.

 

[Rogue Agent]

It seems like from the Q&A (Japanese) that there was no question to Furukawa about the next hardware at all. So I'm confused what Mochizuki was referring to.

EDIT: Sorry, there was a question but Furukawa didn't answer it like that tweet from Mochizuki suggested. So it's still confusing to me.

 

[Simba1]

No you won’t. This is absolutely ridiculous. Nintendo never confirms this information. They aren’t Sony nor are they Microsoft that do whole presentations about this.

This is what they literally have on their website about the specifications of the switch:

Technical Specs - Nintendo Switch™ - System hardware, console specs - Nintendo - Official Site

Get the detailed specs for the Nintendo Switch™ – OLED Model, the Nintendo Switch, and the Nintendo Switch Lite systems, plus Joy-Con controllers, and more.

www.nintendo.com

“

CPU/GPU

NVIDIA Custom Tegra processor”


Absolutely nothing about the specifications on the RAM, the amount of CUDA cores, the architecture, the CPU, the clock frequencies, none of that. You saying “wait until Nintendo does break down” is the equivalent of saying “these specs aren’t real” because Nintendo will never confirm this information.

They didn’t for the Wii U, they didn’t for the 3DS, they didn’t for the Wii, they didn’t for the DS or any piece of hardware they have released besides maybe the GameCube. All the information people got for the switch was from leaked information and data mining. All the information for the Wii U was from leaked information on a forum post.





Might as well say the next chip is for Apple if this is the angle you want to approach it from.

I simply said expecting a price that low for the switch model that will have a new chip, the chances of that are very low. The chances of it also being priced like the switch V2 at low, the chances of it being priced like the OLED model are better than the chances of it being price like the V2, however it is still low.

The chance of the super switch electric Boogaloo or whatever being priced at 350 or lower is rather low, and we have the Nintendo switch OLED model to confirm this. Nintendo went and increased the price of the platform, and the OLED model despite being much more expensive than the lite (you used “affordability”), the OLED is selling much better than the lite.

The lite being priced so low makes it an affordable product, yet the OLED that is closer to twice the price of the LITE is performing much better than the lite. Using Affordability for the sake of it only works if said affordability actually had the most affordable product performing the best of the bunch, it’s not. It’s the lesser affordable of the bunch is performing better than this supposed affordable model.

The issue isn’t price, it’s the product.



It was going to be a new console anyway, whether they stuck with making it a “revisions (see: GameBoy color) or a successor (see: GameBoy Advance), it was going to be more expensive and going to have its own games like the previous Nintendo portables.

People joke about the 3DS having like, 3 exclusives, but the previous portables had their own libraries even if you consider them duds or not. A library is a library. Even the Wii U had a library despite having like 35 games of note.

So this isn’t even surprising, I’m not gonna bother with the debate of next gen or revision as it is moot, it will be a switch that plays your games but better. That’s all that it will be whether a next gen or a revision.

And yes, I consider hitting the capped target that the switch can’t hit as “playing switch games but better”. Why? Because the switch can’t do it, and it plays it better, that’s objective.

NSW has BOTW at 720-900p, if switch next whatever does it 900p at all times it’s already fulfilling its job. A patch that makes it do more is just a cherry on top.

No, you are getting ridiculous saying that you talking about facts when you talking about specs of unannounced hardware based on leaks and rumors.
Point that Nintendo doesn't conforms specs stands, and that's why I also wrote "or having brake down of hardware itself".


Angle I approach IS that you using "fact" meaning wrong, you cant say that something is fact when you talking about specs of unannounced hardware based on leaks and rumors.


You fail to understand thats not point only about pricing, its also point about positioning, in other words how next Switch hardware will be positioning,
it will be simply another revision, or it will be basically next gen Switch and new main Switch hardware.
If Nintendo positioning like next gen Switch and like new Switch model, they will want to have more affordable price point than $499, because they will want that by time all current Switch users do upgrade.

 

[ShaunSwitch]

If they target only handheld users, than they wouldn't be dock and dock functionality that raises price point.

They could release OLED Lite easily for $249 if they were targeting only handheld users.

I don't think this hypothetical product makes any sense, especially this late into the switch life cycle.

Firstly switch lite sales are a small proportion of overall users, we also know from Nintendos own data that most people play a mix of docked and handheld. So by releasing a lite OLED you are targeting a niche of an already niche audience.

Now, that may be something Nintendo would consider to diversify the lineup if it was a low effort venture, but there is nothing to suggest it would be low effort. If you are going to make a handheld version of the OLED model presumably with a smaller footprint like the lite, then another OLED screen will have to be sourced and manufactured to fit that form factor at the bare minimum. This complicates Nintendos manufacturing process and supply chain for a tiny audience. This is only factoring in using the same design as the lite and putting a new screen on it.

Would people pay $50 more for a slightly better screen on a lite and nothing else? Probably not, hence Nintendo added better kickstand, ethernet etc to the switch OLED. So now you need to spend more to redesign the shell etc to differentiate the lite OLED from the regular lite.

But who are you really targeting with the product? The lite is a cheap entry point into the switch platform, the OLED is a premium device targeting enthusiasts. So the lite OLED is cheap premium? Why wouldn't such a customer just pay the $30 extra and get the switch that can actually switch?

The OLED model makes sense to get the enthusiasts like myself who got a switch on day 1 to upgrade. Those who got a lite aren't the demographic to upgrade to a premium lite model.

 

[Simba1]

They're primarily targeting primarily handheld users. Meaning, the main target for the device (not the only one) is users who mainly (not only) play it in handheld mode.

OLED model is an upgrade over the Lite both in terms of screen and docking functionality, they want people who bought a Lite but want some kind of upgrade to spend more money on a premium revision. Of course they also want other people to spend more money too, but the primary goal of the device is to be entice people who only got the entry level model to get a more premium one.

There is difference between primary and only handheld users, Switch Lite is affordable option for only handheld users,
Switch OLED is most expansive Switch option for that also playing in docked mode (also having LAN cable port for docked play and twice more internal memory).

Switch OLED is improved regular Switch (it has same functionality), so it cant be upgrade for Switch Lite, Switch Lite OLED model would be upgraded for Switch Lite.
Point of Switch OLED model is to be improved regular Switch model, no to be replacement of upgrade for Switch Lite that almost twice cheaper than Switch OLED.

You can say that biggest difference is OLED screen that effects most handheld users, but thats different than calling it Switch Lite revision.

 

[Simba1]

I don't think this hypothetical product makes any sense, especially this late into the switch life cycle.

Firstly switch lite sales are a small proportion of overall users, we also know from Nintendos own data that most people play a mix of docked and handheld. So by releasing a lite OLED you are targeting a niche of an already niche audience.

Now, that may be something Nintendo would consider to diversify the lineup if it was a low effort venture, but there is nothing to suggest it would be low effort. If you are going to make a handheld version of the OLED model presumably with a smaller footprint like the lite, then another OLED screen will have to be sourced and manufactured to fit that form factor at the bare minimum. This complicates Nintendos manufacturing process and supply chain for a tiny audience. This is only factoring in using the same design as the lite and putting a new screen on it.

Would people pay $50 more for a slightly better screen on a lite and nothing else? Probably not, hence Nintendo added better kickstand, ethernet etc to the switch OLED. So now you need to spend more to redesign the shell etc to differentiate the lite OLED from the regular lite.

But who are you really targeting with the product? The lite is a cheap entry point into the switch platform, the OLED is a premium device targeting enthusiasts. So the lite OLED is cheap premium? Why wouldn't such a customer just pay the $30 extra and get the switch that can actually switch?

The OLED model makes sense to get the enthusiasts like myself who got a switch on day 1 to upgrade. Those who got a lite aren't the demographic to upgrade to a premium lite model.

You talking about company that has like 6 3DS versions.
To be fair, Switch OLED also didnt had too much sense if they are releasing stronger Switch, that why almost no one didnt know or expecting OLED type of revision in time when people expecting stronger Switch announcement, but here we are.
I dont have nothing against Switch OLED revision, I actaully think that would be new main version that will replace current Switch by time,
I just don't agree with claims thats Switch Lite revision, its clearly regular Switch revision.

And yes, I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo at some point releases Switch Lite OLED for $249, that would actually be upgraded for only handheld users.

 

[Vash_the_Stampede]

The other thing that's interesting is that they're expecting a 8.9% reduction in Switch hardware unit sales and a 10.7% reduction in software unit sales, but only a 5.6% reduction in net sales. With Switch hardware and software accounting for the vast majority of their net sales, that would indicate they're expecting an increase in average selling price on either hardware or software or both. This would be very unusual for the tail end of a hardware cycle, to say the least.

In fact, we can do some very rough maths on it. Looking at hardware and software unit decreases in their forecast, we would probably assume a net sales forecast somewhere around 1.5 trillion yen, or lower than their actual forecast by 100 billion yen, or 770 million USD (using very rough estimates here). This means they're expecting around 100 billion yen of revenue to come from something other than just selling more software or hardware units.

This revenue could be from a few different sources:

1. Increased ASP of Switch hardware
2. Increased ASP of boxed software and digital versions of boxed software
3. Increased sales of digital-only software (this isn't included in the 210m estimate), Switch Online, etc.
4. Increased revenue from anything other than Switch consoles and software.

I'll go through this list in reverse, just to get the easy ones out of the way first. First is the "everything else" category, which includes Switch accessories, licensing and mobile revenues, playing cards, etc. On the Switch accessories category, I'd fully expect this to track hardware and software sales, and be down or stable year-on-year. I was about to say it could be licensing revenues from the Mario movie, but I just remembered it had been pushed back to April 2023, so just outside the FY. Their "Mobile, IP related income, etc" was 53.3 billion yen this past FY, so it would need to triple to account for the extra 100 billion, which I don't see happening.

Digital-only software I'd expect to track pretty closely with boxed software, so down or stable YoY, but Switch Online could well increase, as I expect them to increasingly push the service. However, I don't think it will be close to accounting for 100 billion yen in additional revenue. If we look at the data on page 13 of today's briefing slides, we can get the following figures for this past FY:

Total software sales: 844.1 billion yen
Digital software sales: 359.6 billion yen (42.6% of software sales)
Digital sales of boxed software: 202.1 billion yen
Download-only software, add-on content, and Nintendo Switch Online, etc.: 157.2 billion yen

So if Switch Online revenues account for about 30% of the last segment, they would need to triple to account for an extra 100 billion of revenue. That seems like a stretch. I could definitely see it accounting for part of this extra revenue, but only a relatively small part.

On the boxed software side, I would find it very unlikely that ASP would increase substantially towards the tail end of a console's life cycle. Usually I would expect the opposite, as customers pick up discounted older software, although Nintendo is still able to sell millions of copies of MK8 each year for $60, so I don't expect much discounting any time soon. However, we do have the numbers, and we know that they sold 235.07 million units last year of boxed software and digital versions thereof, and we know from above that they made 686.9 billion yen of revenue form those, so the ASP in the last FY was 2,922 yen for boxed software. This is about $26 going by the average FY exchange rate from their financial report. Keep in mind this excludes retailer and distributor margins, and includes third party software where Nintendo only see a smaller portion of the revenue.

If we account for the discrepancy entirely by increasing the ASP of boxed software, it would have to jump to 3,397 yen, or about $29.50 going by the exchange rate Nintendo are using for their projections. This is a 16% ASP increase, which seems pretty unlikely YoY outside of any change in pricing strategy (ie hiking everything up to $70), and again doesn't really align with expectations for a console towards the end of its life. Consider as well that one of Nintendo's big releases this FY is Switch Sports, which is selling at around 33% lower price than most of their titles. That doesn't really align with internal projections of a big jump in software ASP.

Then, finally we come to console sales. We know from page 5 of the slides that hardware sales accounted for 48.4% of total "dedicated video game platform" this past FY. It's not 100% clear if this includes accessories, but I don't think it does, as on page 4 is specifies that "dedicated video game platform" comprises of hardware, software and accessories, which would imply accessories are not part of hardware. If that is the case, then Nintendo received 793.4 billion yen for the 23.06 million Switch units sold last FY. This comes to an ASP of 34,405 yen, or $306.26 by their average FY exchange rate. We also have numbers for FY21 in the same slides, where hardware was 52.7% of 1.7 trillion yen, or 895.9 billion yen, and over 28.83 million units, that comes to 31,075 yen ASP.

This is a 10.7% YoY ASP increase in yen, and part of this increase last FY was due to exchange rates, as EUR and USD gained 5.5% and 6% respectively on JPY over the year. Japan accounted for 21% of their sales last FY, so exchange rate fluctuations accounted for probably a bit under 5% of the ASP increase. The rest was a combination of the new OLED model, and the Lite accounting for a smaller proportion of sales.

For this coming fiscal year, if we're to assume the missing 100 billion yen is all hardware ASP increases, then we take the 793.37 billion of last year, subtract 8.9%, add the 100 billion, and divide by 21 million hardware units. This gives us 39,179 yen ASP. This is a 14% increase YoY. Their forecasts include a slightly higher JPYUSD FX rate than last FY (by 2.3%), and a slightly lower JPYEUR FX rate (by 4.2%), so it doesn't look like they expect this to be driven by FX movements.

Last FY Nintendo released a new, more expensive model and saw a sharp decline in sales of their cheapest model, and saw FX-adjusted hardware ASP increase by around 6-7% YoY. This FY, if there's no dramatic increase in revenue from other areas (which seems unlikely), they seem to be projecting as much as a 14% increase in hardware ASP YoY. That's hard to explain without either Nintendo stopping sales of one or both of the Lite or standard Switch models (not particularly likely), or new Switch hardware that has a higher selling price than the OLED model.

There is also one other area the revenue could come from that I left out of my list of 4 items above; sales of gaming hardware that isn't the Switch. Nintendo only lists Switch sales forecasts, and if they release a device that they don't consider part of the Switch family, then it wouldn't be included in the forecasts. If a Switch 2 (or whatever they call it) comes out this FY, and they don't do any GBC funny business about counting it with the original Switch, then it would account for additional sales over and above the forecasts. Therefore this doesn't necessarily mean an increase in ASP, although there's nothing to imply ASP one way or the other, given we don't have estimates of sales numbers of the hypothetical new device, and may appear alongside price drops of the existing Switch, which would muddy the waters there as well.

TLDR: It's very hard to reconcile Nintendo's projections on hardware and software sales with their projected revenue, unless either (a) a new model in the Switch family is released and sold for a higher price than the OLED model or (b) a new console that's not part of the Switch family is released, which may or may not be sold for a higher price.

This is a super long post, but you’re forgetting foreign exchange. That’s the likely plug.

But I’ll take a more detailed look later today.

The odds that there is a “secret” message in guidance is near zero.

 

[Skittzo]

This is a super long post, but you’re forgetting foreign exchange. That’s the likely plug.

But I’ll take a more detailed look later today.

The odds that there is a “secret” message in guidance is near zero.

He mentions foreign exchange a number of times.

 

[Vash_the_Stampede]

1. Increased ASP of Switch hardware
2. Increased ASP of boxed software and digital versions of boxed software
3. Increased sales of digital-only software (this isn't included in the 210m estimate), Switch Online, etc.
4. Increased revenue from anything other than Switch consoles and software.

He mentions foreign exchange a number of times.

See above. In his top 4 he doesn’t say FX.

The answer is almost for sure slightly higher ASP given mix of OLED, and small tailwind from FX.

The information value of looking at change in sales vs. change in operating profit is near zero.

I’ll say it again - the odds of a hint in the guide is near zero.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

No, you are getting ridiculous saying that you talking about facts when you talking about specs of unannounced hardware based on leaks and rumors.
Point that Nintendo doesn't conforms specs stands, and that's why I also wrote "or having brake down of hardware itself".


Angle I approach IS that you using "fact" meaning wrong, you cant say that something is fact when you talking about specs of unannounced hardware based on leaks and rumors.

This is literally an insane position you’re putting yourself in. You’re actually expecting the company that will never, and I repeat ever, talk about specifications of their hardware to confirm the amount of cores or clock frequencies that it has? You’re basically discarding that the data breach even refers to Nintendo because Nintendo will never confirmed this information, period. The only thing they’ll give you is “custom NVidia tegra orocessor” and that is it.

You’re being ridiculous about this, and it’s asinine to actually expect them to even confirm this information on actual silicon details in any facet.

You might as well just say that the Nintendo switch is running on a tegra K1 because Nintendo just said Tegra processor. Or that it’s running on Tegra X2.

And that all the information gathered is wrong because it formed come form the horse’s mouth.

Please tell me where, and I mean where, Nintendo has said it is using a Tegra X1. I’m applying your logic here.


To grossly simplify this, am I issues with this logic you’re applying about them confirming it, if something quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, lays eggs that hatch into ducklings, and those things that are what a Duck does, you cannot sit here and pretend that it is not a duck.

To apply it for this supposed chip, if the device can do DLSS, it can do ray tracing, and hold performance much better, play games that are beyond the scope of what the switch can do and it is quite literally a different chip, and there’s only evidence pointing to one thing existing that has been worked on for years by Nvidia from the data breach, you cannot sit here and claim that it is not confirmed until Nintendo confirms it.

A company who will never confirm it even beyond the heat death of the universe. Everything we learn about Nintendo‘s hardware is not from them it’s from everywhere else but them, because they never confirm this information beyond the absolute bare minimum that does not go into detail. They don’t do hardware breakdowns like that on the silicon. They only do breakdowns on the features. And features that have nothing to do with the silicon.

New stand? New OLED display? 4K capability? More storage? This is all they’ll really touch base on.

Now, whether you are insinuating that Nintendo will switch to a completely different vendor if things do not pan out, that’s a different thing entirely than what I am referring to. And that is a fair position to have.

But again, that has nothing to do with what I’m referring to.

You fail to understand thats not point only about pricing, its also point about positioning, in other words how next Switch hardware will be positioning,

it will be simply another revision, or it will be basically next gen Switch and new main Switch hardware.

No, you misunderstand. What you’re saying is completely irrelevant. It’ll be a new console regardless that needs to be bought by the audience to even get the benefits. What Nintendo does with the device is up to them, but if you even want to bother getting whatever that device offers, you quite literally have to buy it. Whether it is a next gen console or some ps4 pro equivalent.

There’s no subjective thing about this. You have to buy it if you want more from them regardless, be it more games or more performance. Unless you emulate which is, well, you do you but you aren’t really the target audience.

If Nintendo positioning like next gen Switch and like new Switch model, they will want to have more affordable price point than $499, because they will want that by time all current Switch users do upgrade.

Cool, but this has nothing to do with my point.

See above. In his top 4 he doesn’t say FX.

The answer is almost for sure slightly higher ASP given mix of OLED, and small tailwind from FX.

The information value of looking at change in sales vs. change in operating profit is near zero.

I’ll say it again - the odds of a hint in the guide is near zero.

He mentions it in the post, whilst not in that list, he does talk about it.

“This is a 10.7% YoY ASP increase in yen, and part of this increase last FY was due to exchange rates, as EUR and USD gained 5.5% and 6% respectively on JPY over the year. Japan accounted for 21% of their sales last FY, so exchange rate fluctuations accounted for probably a bit under 5% of the ASP increase. The rest was a combination of the new OLED model, and the Lite accounting for a smaller proportion of sales.

For this coming fiscal year, if we're to assume the missing 100 billion yen is all hardware ASP increases, then we take the 793.37 billion of last year, subtract 8.9%, add the 100 billion, and divide by 21 million hardware units. This gives us 39,179 yen ASP. This is a 14% increase YoY. Their forecasts include a slightly higher JPYUSD FX rate than last FY (by 2.3%), and a slightly lower JPYEUR FX rate (by 4.2%), so it doesn't look like they expect this to be driven by FX movements.

Last FY Nintendo released a new, more expensive model and saw a sharp decline in sales of their cheapest model, and saw FX-adjusted hardware ASP increase by around 6-7% YoY. This FY, if there's no dramatic increase in revenue from other areas (which seems unlikely), they seem to be projecting as much as a 14% increase in hardware ASP YoY. That's hard to explain without either Nintendo stopping sales of one or both of the Lite or standard Switch models (not particularly likely), or new Switch hardware that has a higher selling price than the OLED model.”

 

[Vash_the_Stampede]

This is literally an insane position you’re putting yourself in. You’re actually expecting the company that will never, and I repeat ever, talk about specifications of their hardware to confirm the amount of cores or clock frequencies that it has? You’re basically discarding that the data breach even refers to Nintendo because Nintendo will never confirmed this information, period. The only thing they’ll give you is “custom NVidia tegra orocessor” and that is it.

You’re being ridiculous about this, and it’s asinine to actually expect them to even confirm this information on actual silicon details in any facet.

You might as well just say that the Nintendo switch is running on a tegra K1 because Nintendo just said Tegra processor. Or that it’s running on Tegra X2.

And that all the information gathered is wrong because it formed come form the horse’s mouth.

Please tell me where, and I mean where, Nintendo has said it is using a Tegra X1. I’m applying your logic here.


To grossly simplify this, am I issues with this logic you’re applying about them confirming it, if something quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, lays eggs that hatch into ducklings, and those things that are what a Duck does, you cannot sit here and pretend that it is not a duck.

To apply it for this supposed chip, if the device can do DLSS, it can do ray tracing, and hold performance much better, play games that are beyond the scope of what the switch can do and it is quite literally a different chip, and there’s only evidence pointing to one thing existing that has been worked on for years by Nvidia from the data breach, you cannot sit here and claim that it is not confirmed until Nintendo confirms it.

A company who will never confirm it even beyond the heat death of the universe. Everything we learn about Nintendo‘s hardware is not from them it’s from everywhere else but them, because they never confirm this information beyond the absolute bare minimum that does not go into detail. They don’t do hardware breakdowns like that on the silicon. They only do breakdowns on the features. And features that have nothing to do with the silicon.

New stand? New OLED display? 4K capability? More storage? This is all they’ll really touch base on.

No, you misunderstand. What you’re saying is completely irrelevant. It’ll be a new console regardless that needs to be bought by the audience to even get the benefits. What Nintendo does with the device is up to them, but if you even want to bother getting whatever that device offers, you quite literally have to buy it. Whether it is a next gen console or some ps4 pro equivalent.

There’s no subjective thing about this. You have to buy it if you want more from them regardless, be it more games or more performance. Unless you emulate which is, well, you do you but you aren’t really the target audience.

Cool, but this has nothing to do with my point.


He mentions it in the post, whilst not in that list, he does talk about it.

“This is a 10.7% YoY ASP increase in yen, and part of this increase last FY was due to exchange rates, as EUR and USD gained 5.5% and 6% respectively on JPY over the year. Japan accounted for 21% of their sales last FY, so exchange rate fluctuations accounted for probably a bit under 5% of the ASP increase. The rest was a combination of the new OLED model, and the Lite accounting for a smaller proportion of sales.

For this coming fiscal year, if we're to assume the missing 100 billion yen is all hardware ASP increases, then we take the 793.37 billion of last year, subtract 8.9%, add the 100 billion, and divide by 21 million hardware units. This gives us 39,179 yen ASP. This is a 14% increase YoY. Their forecasts include a slightly higher JPYUSD FX rate than last FY (by 2.3%), and a slightly lower JPYEUR FX rate (by 4.2%), so it doesn't look like they expect this to be driven by FX movements.

Last FY Nintendo released a new, more expensive model and saw a sharp decline in sales of their cheapest model, and saw FX-adjusted hardware ASP increase by around 6-7% YoY. This FY, if there's no dramatic increase in revenue from other areas (which seems unlikely), they seem to be projecting as much as a 14% increase in hardware ASP YoY. That's hard to explain without either Nintendo stopping sales of one or both of the Lite or standard Switch models (not particularly likely), or new Switch hardware that has a higher selling price than the OLED model.”

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, and I think we are talking passed each other.

I’ll try to clarify:

My understanding of the post and subsequent conversation is that people are trying to figure out if Nintendo is signaling new hardware in the guidance.

The answer is no.

If people are trying to figure out why profit is down more the sale it’s because the guide is bullshit.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, and I think we are talking passed each other.

I’ll try to clarify:

My understanding of the post and subsequent conversation is that people are trying to figure out if Nintendo is signaling new hardware in the guidance.

The answer is no.

If people are trying to figure out why profit is down more the sale it’s because the guide is bullshit.

I’m simply saying he mentioned FX in the post, nothing more.

 

[Skittzo]

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, and I think we are talking passed each other.

I’ll try to clarify:

My understanding of the post and subsequent conversation is that people are trying to figure out if Nintendo is signaling new hardware in the guidance.

The answer is no.

If people are trying to figure out why profit is down more the sale it’s because the guide is bullshit.

I don't think Thraktor's breakdown is suggesting that they're signaling new hardware on the guidance, simply that they're signaling an increased average selling price for their products which hasn't been adequately explained by anything currently announced.

Whether it will be explained by new hardware or higher prices software or higher digital adoption or a combination of lots of things is a different matter. But he factors in FX for each individual factor so I wouldn't think you can say it's simply due to that.

The forecast is definitely gonna change like it always does but I doubt they're intentionally giving bullshit guidance.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

It seems like the increase is just from the OLED model.

If their QA is anything to go by, unofficially translated using DeepL.

Edit:

Q5
While the forecast for net sales for the current fiscal year is a 5% decrease from the previous fiscal year, the percentage of decrease in the forecasted sales volume of hardware and software is large. What is your view on the sales ratio of each model? In the previous fiscal year, you used railroads for transportation to Europe, but due to the recent situation in Ukraine, it is probably no longer possible to use them. Do you have any alternative methods in mind?
Furukawa: Yes Demand for Nintendo Switch (OLED model) remains high.
We expect that the ratio of OLED models to total hardware sales will be high. In the previous fiscal year, demand for multiple units as a percentage of annual sell-through was about 25% for hardware as a whole. In order to achieve the sales target of 21 million units, it is essential to maximize both multiple-unit demand and new demand, and we believe that the ratio of OLED models will increase along with the rise in multiple-unit demand. We believe that the percentage of OLED models will increase as the demand for multiple units grows.

The percentage of OLED models is expected to increase as the demand for multiple units increases. One of the challenges we face in the current fiscal year is that it is very difficult to plan the transportation of products not only to Europe but also to other regions, considering the current production situation. If there were no production constraints, the usual pattern would be to build up hardware inventory starting in the summer, ship early, and prepare for the holiday season, the biggest sales season of the year. We are planning on this assumption.

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2022/220511_2.pdf

 

[Simba1]

This is literally an insane position you’re putting yourself in. You’re actually expecting the company that will never, and I repeat ever, talk about specifications of their hardware to confirm the amount of cores or clock frequencies that it has? You’re basically discarding that the data breach even refers to Nintendo because Nintendo will never confirmed this information, period. The only thing they’ll give you is “custom NVidia tegra orocessor” and that is it.

You’re being ridiculous about this, and it’s asinine to actually expect them to even confirm this information on actual silicon details in any facet.

You might as well just say that the Nintendo switch is running on a tegra K1 because Nintendo just said Tegra processor. Or that it’s running on Tegra X2.

And that all the information gathered is wrong because it formed come form the horse’s mouth.

Please tell me where, and I mean where, Nintendo has said it is using a Tegra X1. I’m applying your logic here.


To grossly simplify this, am I issues with this logic you’re applying about them confirming it, if something quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, lays eggs that hatch into ducklings, and those things that are what a Duck does, you cannot sit here and pretend that it is not a duck.

To apply it for this supposed chip, if the device can do DLSS, it can do ray tracing, and hold performance much better, play games that are beyond the scope of what the switch can do and it is quite literally a different chip, and there’s only evidence pointing to one thing existing that has been worked on for years by Nvidia from the data breach, you cannot sit here and claim that it is not confirmed until Nintendo confirms it.

A company who will never confirm it even beyond the heat death of the universe. Everything we learn about Nintendo‘s hardware is not from them it’s from everywhere else but them, because they never confirm this information beyond the absolute bare minimum that does not go into detail. They don’t do hardware breakdowns like that on the silicon. They only do breakdowns on the features. And features that have nothing to do with the silicon.

New stand? New OLED display? 4K capability? More storage? This is all they’ll really touch base on.

Now, whether you are insinuating that Nintendo will switch to a completely different vendor if things do not pan out, that’s a different thing entirely than what I am referring to. And that is a fair position to have.

But again, that has nothing to do with what I’m referring to.

No, you misunderstand. What you’re saying is completely irrelevant. It’ll be a new console regardless that needs to be bought by the audience to even get the benefits. What Nintendo does with the device is up to them, but if you even want to bother getting whatever that device offers, you quite literally have to buy it. Whether it is a next gen console or some ps4 pro equivalent.

There’s no subjective thing about this. You have to buy it if you want more from them regardless, be it more games or more performance. Unless you emulate which is, well, you do you but you aren’t really the target audience.

Cool, but this has nothing to do with my point.


He mentions it in the post, whilst not in that list, he does talk about it.

“This is a 10.7% YoY ASP increase in yen, and part of this increase last FY was due to exchange rates, as EUR and USD gained 5.5% and 6% respectively on JPY over the year. Japan accounted for 21% of their sales last FY, so exchange rate fluctuations accounted for probably a bit under 5% of the ASP increase. The rest was a combination of the new OLED model, and the Lite accounting for a smaller proportion of sales.

For this coming fiscal year, if we're to assume the missing 100 billion yen is all hardware ASP increases, then we take the 793.37 billion of last year, subtract 8.9%, add the 100 billion, and divide by 21 million hardware units. This gives us 39,179 yen ASP. This is a 14% increase YoY. Their forecasts include a slightly higher JPYUSD FX rate than last FY (by 2.3%), and a slightly lower JPYEUR FX rate (by 4.2%), so it doesn't look like they expect this to be driven by FX movements.

Last FY Nintendo released a new, more expensive model and saw a sharp decline in sales of their cheapest model, and saw FX-adjusted hardware ASP increase by around 6-7% YoY. This FY, if there's no dramatic increase in revenue from other areas (which seems unlikely), they seem to be projecting as much as a 14% increase in hardware ASP YoY. That's hard to explain without either Nintendo stopping sales of one or both of the Lite or standard Switch models (not particularly likely), or new Switch hardware that has a higher selling price than the OLED model.”

No, I saying that we will know for fact about specs only after official announcement or release, latest after tear down is done on hardware.
On other hand you calling fact specs about product that yet need to be announced based on leaks and rumors.

Talking about insane positioning, you put there when you start talking about facts.


I dont want to reply to other things you wrote because most of them doesn't have anything with things I wrote, while in same time you ignoring what I wrote.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

No, I saying that we will know for fact about specs only after official announcement or release, latest after tear down is done on hardware.
On other hand you calling fact specs about product that yet need to be announced based on leaks and rumors.

Talking about insane positioning, you put there when you start talking about facts.

Please, using deductive reasoning, tell me who will be using NVN2 and what it calls for.

Please.

For a thing that was hardware developed first and software that will work on said hardware made after.

And please do tell me when Nintendo told us about the GPU uArch of the Wii U, or the core count of the switch, or what the 3DS was about.

Maybe I missed this.

I dont want to reply to other things you wrote because most of them doesn't have anything with things I wrote, while in same time you ignoring what I wrote.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Stinkmeiser45]

The more I think about it, the more unlikely it feels Nintendo could hide drake less than 1 year before release. Firstly, because they'd want to start getting people excited for this as I mentioned before (because this wouldn't be a minor revision like an OLED or a lite, it would be a major one they would want to sell a huge amount of). Secondly, because I feel like things would be leaking more. We'd be hearing about third party games getting ready for it, parts being ordered, etc. And third, because Nintendo themselves would have a hard time hiding it in the investor reports and forecast. I feel like if they were launching what is effectively a new console, even if they market it as a revision, that would cost a ton of money, and the report doesn't really reflect that. It would also impact their hardware sales trends, and the report also doesn't reflect that, it looks like a fairly normal continuation of existing trends.

Feels like way too little smoke for this fire.

 

[LiC]

It seems like from the Q&A (Japanese) that there was no question to Furukawa about the next hardware at all. So I'm confused what Mochizuki was referring to.

EDIT: Sorry, there was a question but Furukawa didn't answer it like that tweet from Mochizuki suggested. So it's still confusing to me.

In the fourth question and answer, you could say Furukawa declines to comment on the release date of new hardware, though it's not clear from the wording of the question whether he was directly asked that per se.

That answer is a good one for people who think carrying over purchases or NSO content to the next platform is a concern, though. Basically reiterates that "building a long-term relationship through the Nintendo Account" is a focus of their strategy for future hardware.

 

[Simba1]

Please, using deductive reasoning, tell me who will be using NVN2 and what it calls for.

Please.

For a thing that was hardware developed first and software that will work on said hardware made after.

And please do tell me when Nintendo told us about the GPU uArch of the Wii U, or the core count of the switch, or what the 3DS was about.

Maybe I missed this.



Pot meet kettle.

Nah, no need, you are one that knows the facts about yet unannounced hardware..