• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

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

Is there a ARM variant newer/better than A78 that would be a good fit for a Nintendo device? X1 doesn't sound like a good fit.
Technically, there's the Cortex-A710. But the oldest process node supported by the Cortex-A710 seems to be a 7 nm** process node (e.g. Samsung's 7LPP process node or TSMC's N6 process node), so Samsung's 8N process node is not an option for the Cortex-A710.

** → a marketing nomenclature used by all semiconductor foundry companies for leading edge process nodes
 
0
Okay. Here are some visual processing specialized processors that won't be needed for non auto orin derivatives.

PVA
VIC
NVENC (pretty sure? It won't need a dedicated video encoding processor right?)
OFA

I have no idea how much impact these processors have on foot print or power draw.
NVENC is used by Shadowplay to record gameplay on modern Nvidia GPUs. So IMO it will stay.
 
Okay. Here are some visual processing specialized processors that won't be needed for non auto orin derivatives.

PVA
VIC
NVENC (pretty sure? It won't need a dedicated video encoding processor right?)
Existing Switch uses both NVENC and VIC on the X1. NVENC encodes videos generated by the screenshot button, and is exposed to games (I believe Smash uses it to generate replay videos). VIC is used with NVDEC to play video content.

All of this is mostly wrapped in APIs which it might be possible to convert to general purpose hardware for backwards compat, but if you're generating a 15 second clip of a 4k game, you're probably going to need fixed function hardware for it.
 
Existing Switch uses both NVENC and VIC on the X1. NVENC encodes videos generated by the screenshot button, and is exposed to games (I believe Smash uses it to generate replay videos). VIC is used with NVDEC to play video content.

All of this is mostly wrapped in APIs which it might be possible to convert to general purpose hardware for backwards compat, but if you're generating a 15 second clip of a 4k game, you're probably going to need fixed function hardware for it.

Ok, so we are down to clearing up the PVA and OVA?
 
Ok, so we are down to clearing up the PVA and OVA?
It's entirely possible the VIC won't be necessary with a big, fat GPU. But if we're being pessimistic about how much silicon we can save, then yes.
 
0
Okay. Here are some visual processing specialized processors that won't be needed for non auto orin derivatives.

PVA
VIC
NVENC (pretty sure? It won't need a dedicated video encoding processor right?)
OFA

I have no idea how much impact these processors have on foot print or power draw.
There are quite a few posts discussing this (one of mine as an example). A lot of fat can be trimmed from Orin, especially the DLA (Deep Learning Accelerator).
 
Need to poke some minds here: Let's assume the Switch Pro/2 is backwards compatible.

Many Nintendo games currently run like poop with many reaching below HD resolutions and poor framerates. Many of these games appear to have resolution scales where the resolution changes as a result of the action on screen, decreasing and increasing the resolution as necessary.

Some examples include; The Xenoblade series, Warriors series, Monster Hunter series, even games like BOTW appear to scale resolution when the action gets intense.

My question is if new faster hardware is introduced will these games scale up to 1080p (4K? And a solid 30fps (60?) by default without any patches introduced? Could we expect a 1080p/30fps Xenoblade series (or higher resolution and framerate) on the new hardware?

This is how it works with PS4 games running on PS5 that have dynamic resolutions and faster hardware to scale to.

So would most Nintendo games automatically receive major resolution and framerate boosts when running on new hardware without the need for patches?
 
Need to poke some minds here: Let's assume the Switch Pro/2 is backwards compatible.

Many Nintendo games currently run like poop with many reaching below HD resolutions and poor framerates. Many of these games appear to have resolution scales where the resolution changes as a result of the action on screen, decreasing and increasing the resolution as necessary.

Some examples include; The Xenoblade series, Warriors series, Monster Hunter series, even games like BOTW appear to scale resolution when the action gets intense.

My question is if new faster hardware is introduced will these games scale up to 1080p (4K? And a solid 30fps (60?) by default without any patches introduced? Could we expect a 1080p/30fps Xenoblade series (or higher resolution and framerate) on the new hardware?

This is how it works with PS4 games running on PS5 that have dynamic resolutions and faster hardware to scale to.

So would most Nintendo games automatically receive major resolution and framerate boosts when running on new hardware without the need for patches?
Games that have no capped framerate will run at a higher framerate (and the ones that do have it will mantain it better) and games with scaled resolution will have better resolution in average. But a lot of games will need patch to reach higher resolutions/fps and that's where the issues of Nintendo/3rd parties putting the effort could come
 
Need to poke some minds here: Let's assume the Switch Pro/2 is backwards compatible.

Many Nintendo games currently run like poop with many reaching below HD resolutions and poor framerates. Many of these games appear to have resolution scales where the resolution changes as a result of the action on screen, decreasing and increasing the resolution as necessary.

Some examples include; The Xenoblade series, Warriors series, Monster Hunter series, even games like BOTW appear to scale resolution when the action gets intense.

My question is if new faster hardware is introduced will these games scale up to 1080p (4K? And a solid 30fps (60?) by default without any patches introduced? Could we expect a 1080p/30fps Xenoblade series (or higher resolution and framerate) on the new hardware?

This is how it works with PS4 games running on PS5 that have dynamic resolutions and faster hardware to scale to.

So would most Nintendo games automatically receive major resolution and framerate boosts when running on new hardware without the need for patches?
without patches, games will just run at their max frame rate and resolution

if a game is capped at 720p/30, that's the best it will get

PS4 games work the same way. they don't get any higher than they're programmed to without a patch
 
Need to poke some minds here: Let's assume the Switch Pro/2 is backwards compatible.

Many Nintendo games currently run like poop with many reaching below HD resolutions and poor framerates. Many of these games appear to have resolution scales where the resolution changes as a result of the action on screen, decreasing and increasing the resolution as necessary.

Some examples include; The Xenoblade series, Warriors series, Monster Hunter series, even games like BOTW appear to scale resolution when the action gets intense.

My question is if new faster hardware is introduced will these games scale up to 1080p (4K? And a solid 30fps (60?) by default without any patches introduced? Could we expect a 1080p/30fps Xenoblade series (or higher resolution and framerate) on the new hardware?

This is how it works with PS4 games running on PS5 that have dynamic resolutions and faster hardware to scale to.

So would most Nintendo games automatically receive major resolution and framerate boosts when running on new hardware without the need for patches?
I don't think Nintendo would do the work to go back and patch their games to run better, although I would be very happy to be wrong.
 
Previous pro version release dates
PS4: November
Xbox one: November
3DS: September
DS: November (not a huge upgrade to be fair)
GB: October

Other major non-pro updates have also all been around the fall.
I can not think of a single major console update that was released early in the year, it has never happened, because it makes no sense.
As far as non-pro updates go, GBASP and DS Lite seem pretty major.
I would say mid july is the last chance of something happening this year.

Keep in mind while there is even without rumors still a chance for this year, there is also a lot of stuff speaking against it:
  • Switch still selling well (better than 2017, 2018, 2019)
  • Software sells are better than ever already with current install base
Unless they got this year's figures from psychics, this information would come too late to majorly change a hardware launch otherwise intended for the next year.
 
Games that have no capped framerate will run at a higher framerate (and the ones that do have it will mantain it better) and games with scaled resolution will have better resolution in average.
This isn't necessarily true. Currently, games request a specific performance profile, and those profiles are specifically named after the cpu/gpu clock that they have. Running games at different clock speeds can create bugs, as the OC community has discovered.

Nintendo is unlikely to run games requesting a "Classic" switch performance profile at a faster one by default, for that reason. It's entirely possible that even games with uncapped resolutions/framerates will require either a patch, or a situation where Nintendo has a white-list of "approved" games that receive a boost.

This is how it works with PS4 games running on PS5 that have dynamic resolutions and faster hardware to scale to.
PS5 Boost uses a white list of "approved" games that run correctly in boost mode and enables it for you behind the scenes,

I don't think Nintendo would do the work to go back and patch their games to run better, although I would be very happy to be wrong.
We've discussed this extensively if you're curious - if Drake is a Pro, and not a Switch 2, then Nintendo will definitely patch (or whitelist) at least some games. Otherwise why pay $150 extra for a "pro" console that doesn't play games better?

The usual Nintendo strategy is to pick a frame rate, and use dynamic resolutions to maintain those framerates. I imagine that making these max out their frame rates is fairly trivial, and for most first party games I expect them to support that out of the box (even if their framerates don't improve). I expect half a dozen or so evergreen games to come with some sort of bigger patch to show off the system - RT in Mario Kart, or DLSS in Odyssey. Going forward I expect the vast majority of Nintendo games will do the same, at least able to use the extra GPU power to run at max res, and with a few star games featuring DLSS and/or RT.
 
We've discussed this extensively if you're curious - if Drake is a Pro, and not a Switch 2, then Nintendo will definitely patch (or whitelist) at least some games. Otherwise why pay $150 extra for a "pro" console that doesn't play games better?

The usual Nintendo strategy is to pick a frame rate, and use dynamic resolutions to maintain those framerates. I imagine that making these max out their frame rates is fairly trivial, and for most first party games I expect them to support that out of the box (even if their framerates don't improve). I expect half a dozen or so evergreen games to come with some sort of bigger patch to show off the system - RT in Mario Kart, or DLSS in Odyssey. Going forward I expect the vast majority of Nintendo games will do the same, at least able to use the extra GPU power to run at max res, and with a few star games featuring DLSS and/or RT.
Oh, my bad. I am not very active in this thread so I was not aware this topic was discussed already.
 
Oh, my bad. I am not very active in this thread so I was not aware this topic was discussed already.
No, no worries! Just suggesting that you can dig in and see the discussion! The majority of folk expect that Nintendo will do some kind of super bare bones patching to titles that continue to sell well, just to make sure pro users have something to play that shows off the console a little bit, probably something they already own.

A minority of folk seem to think that Nintendo will squeeze out money for patched games, but that the patches will be meatier, not just higher framerates, but DLSS or raytracing features added.
 
No, no worries! Just suggesting that you can dig in and see the discussion! The majority of folk expect that Nintendo will do some kind of super bare bones patching to titles that continue to sell well, just to make sure pro users have something to play that shows off the console a little bit, probably something they already own.

A minority of folk seem to think that Nintendo will squeeze out money for patched games, but that the patches will be meatier, not just higher framerates, but DLSS or raytracing features added.
That's all I want, 1080p at 60fps! Thanks, I plan on frequenting this discussion more.
 
0
Regarding A78 successors:
Wikipedia entry for the A710 says +10% IPC over the A78. Arm does indeed advertise that, but the asterisk here is that the comparison made was a 8 MB L3 cache setup versus a 4 MB L3 cache, so it's a bit fuzzy how much of that +10% is from the uarch and how much is from cache.
The wiki entry also lists 30% more power efficiency over the A78. That is true at a certain point, as you can see from the given DVFS curve graph:
CPU_33_575px.png


I do however take issue with what gets emphasized in the advertising. Here's the DVFS curve comparison between A78 and the A77:
A78-X1-crop-20_575px.png

Know what gets advertised? A78 having 4% lower power consumption compared to the A77. Which is also what gets listed in the wikipedia entry for the A78.

Now, the A710 was announced back in last May. Going by typical cadence, Arm should've announced this year's successors last month. Unfortunately, they've yet to do so; presumably it's the pandemic's impact. So as of today, A710 is still the latest 'mid' core from Arm.
 
As far as non-pro updates go, GBASP and DS Lite seem pretty major.
When I say major updates I mean things that make very large very substantial changes to the console.
The SP is the only one that I would agree with, although it probably says something that you had to go back 20 years for an example.
 
0
Are we sure it's disabled? The yields gained by cutting all that silicon that's never intended to be used for a design that goes to a small camera seems pretty tantalizing to me.
By disabled I mean that they just aren’t on at the moment for those presets.


aka, Orin NX can be set to a preset and it turns off a DLA, a few CPU cores, turns off a couple of GPU SMS, etc.

Entertaining again the thought of 8nm samsung again..


Can it fit though in a switch shell? That's the biggest thing. It would really have to be customized. Ideally we want an orion without the machine parts, non A78AE CPU cores (smaller A78s I mean).

If we really get the 12 SM model, then it would likely be between the 32GB AGX model (1792 cuda cores, 8 A78 CPUs, 15-40 watts) and the the 16GB Orion NX model (1024 cores, 8 A78 CPUs, 10-25 watts). Which could fall under the 10-30 watts range. Funnily enough the power profile of the 16GB NX fits it perfectly (would 1024 cuda cores give us 1.86 TFLOPs?)
https://developer.nvidia.com/embedded/jetson-modules

Hard to say what CPU and GPU clockspeeds we can really get at the same time. I'd feel more confident saying we'd get like 90-100% of the GPU clockspeeds and 1.5-1.7Ghz CPU running at the same time if it was a smaller node like 6 or 5nm, especially TSMC.
Idk but should be noted that ORIN at like 10-15 watts has like over half the GPU and CPU cores turned off to meet that TDP.

Even though the PVA, DLA etc can be removed, the frequency they would have to be for a switch device will have to be very low you’re better with it being off if you want to save energy on the process it is on I’m afraid.


Now, the A710 was announced back in last May. Going by typical cadence, Arm should've announced this year's successors last month. Unfortunately, they've yet to do so; presumably it's the pandemic's impact. So as of today, A710 is still the latest 'mid' core from Arm.
News outlets have it, but they never got an embargo date weirdly enough. ARM apparently did send it out though.
Everyone mention this 12SM device as a sure thing; I understand why, as it comes directly from a hack. But there's nothing which ensures that it will be the final product either.

Nvidia and Nintendo probably have investigated several pathways for their new machine, but we cannot be sure that something is going to materialize until it is announced.

While there are reasons to be optimistic, and I am, even information from the hack shouldn't be treated as gospel.
I get that, but there’s literally nothing else on that in the data breach.

The chance of the final being so drastically different is pretty low.
 
I don‘t understand? Where did I imply to change a hardware launch and which information do you mean?
You mentioned this:

“Keep in mind while there is even without rumors still a chance for this year, there is also a lot of stuff speaking against it:
  • Switch still selling well (better than 2017, 2018, 2019)
  • Software sells are better than ever already with current install base”
they would announce it when it’s ready, not based on these other factors.
 
I think we'll have a solid idea how Nintendo is gonna position this device after the direct.
If we get some substantial, meaty 2023 games then it's probably either a pro, or at least most games will be cross generation.
If we see very little for 2023, maybe just Fire Emblem and a port or two then there's a good chance it's an actual successor.

For the obvious reason that the only reason a new device would cause Nintendo to hold back games is if they wont be on the old one. Otherwise just announce them first for the switch, and then show off the improvements when you announce the pro.

Not to suggest it's hard confirmation either way but a good indicator for sure.
 
I think we'll have a solid idea how Nintendo is gonna position this device after the direct.
If we get some substantial, meaty 2023 games then it's probably either a pro, or at least most games will be cross generation.
If we see very little for 2023, maybe just Fire Emblem and a port or two then there's a good chance it's an actual successor.

For the obvious reason that the only reason a new device would cause Nintendo to hold back games is if they wont be on the old one. Otherwise just announce them first for the switch, and then show off the improvements when you announce the pro.

Not to suggest it's hard confirmation either way but a good indicator for sure.
People have been saying that for years (Monster Hunter Rise must be running on the Pro there's no way it's running on original hardware)
 
You mentioned this:

“Keep in mind while there is even without rumors still a chance for this year, there is also a lot of stuff speaking against it:
  • Switch still selling well (better than 2017, 2018, 2019)
  • Software sells are better than ever already with current install base”
they would announce it when it’s ready, not based on these other factors.
Yeah I see that. I meant by this that they don‘t really need new hardware at the moment. Should have said it differently. Sorry, I will stop posting about things I‘ve no idea about and derailing the thread.
 
0
Any dicussion around Pro vs successor is just marketing stuff and similar to Nintendo DS being just the third pilar instead of GBA successor. With what we know the jump is much bigger than any ‘pro’ console has ever had
 
Any dicussion around Pro vs successor is just marketing stuff and similar to Nintendo DS being just the third pilar instead of GBA successor. With what we know the jump is much bigger than any ‘pro’ console has ever had
The question is how many of the bigger games will be cross gen and for how long. Is the next 3D Mario cross gen for example.
 
People have been saying that for years (Monster Hunter Rise must be running on the Pro there's no way it's running on original hardware)
Who? Most of the pro talk is on BOTW2 or any number of games not yet release, not Rise, Rise was revealed in September 2020 came out too early ( in March 2021) , basically 6 month turnaround, for that talk to gain much traction. Or are you going to throw something unsubstantiated out there again and not respond to people who call you out.
 
Who? Most of the pro talk is on BOTW2 or any number of games not yet release, not Rise, Rise was revealed in September 2020 came out too early ( in March 2021) , basically 6 month turnaround, for that talk to gain much traction. Or are you going to throw something unsubstantiated out there again and not respond to people who call you out.
Go look back at the Monster Hunter Rise threads on ERA when the first trailer was shown. It was full of people saying it must be running on the Switch Pro.
 
Go look back at the Monster Hunter Rise threads on ERA when the first trailer was shown. It was full of people saying it must be running on the Switch Pro.
That's with every game that looks halfway decent. Rise also was revealed arounf the same time bloomberg startedt alking about OLED Switch. That's not really sufficient. Rise came out within 6 months of being announced and the Demo was released in January 2021, not nearly enough time for people to speculate on it being a Pro game because people saw it running on base hardware rather quickly
 
Need to poke some minds here: Let's assume the Switch Pro/2 is backwards compatible.

Many Nintendo games currently run like poop with many reaching below HD resolutions and poor framerates. Many of these games appear to have resolution scales where the resolution changes as a result of the action on screen, decreasing and increasing the resolution as necessary.

Some examples include; The Xenoblade series, Warriors series, Monster Hunter series, even games like BOTW appear to scale resolution when the action gets intense.

My question is if new faster hardware is introduced will these games scale up to 1080p (4K? And a solid 30fps (60?) by default without any patches introduced? Could we expect a 1080p/30fps Xenoblade series (or higher resolution and framerate) on the new hardware?

This is how it works with PS4 games running on PS5 that have dynamic resolutions and faster hardware to scale to.

So would most Nintendo games automatically receive major resolution and framerate boosts when running on new hardware without the need for patches?
The best you can hope for without a patch is boosting things to their currently existing limits. More powerful hardware isn't going to cause the settings to change in a way that isn't at least possible on paper right now, it will just alleviate bottlenecks.
This isn't necessarily true. Currently, games request a specific performance profile, and those profiles are specifically named after the cpu/gpu clock that they have. Running games at different clock speeds can create bugs, as the OC community has discovered.

Nintendo is unlikely to run games requesting a "Classic" switch performance profile at a faster one by default, for that reason. It's entirely possible that even games with uncapped resolutions/framerates will require either a patch, or a situation where Nintendo has a white-list of "approved" games that receive a boost.
I think trying to predict Nintendo's exact approach here is kind of risky business, not only because there's no meaningful precedent, but also because there's the additional factor of battery life to complicate the considerations compared to other consoles. That said, while some games will likely have compatibility issues that cause performance to be limited, I'd be very surprised if that was anywhere near the majority.
 
That's with every game that looks halfway decent.
Ever since I read an unironic post about the Switch being too underpowered for Sonic Origins, I've realized that people can simply make shit up about hardware that's been in people's hands for half a decade, and they're not called out on it. Schrodinger's Switch, can run Crysis, but 2D platformers cripple it.
 
the funny thing is, we have seen that before


Hm, how's the Switch port in comparison? Seems like it's improved but I'm guessing it's because it was 2 years later? Either that or this video of Switch gameplay doesn't reach the same level of stuff onscreen:
 
Hm, how's the Switch port in comparison? Seems like it's improved but I'm guessing it's because it was 2 years later? Either that or this video of Switch gameplay doesn't reach the same level of stuff onscreen:

I think they fixed it prior to the switch port. I remember it was a bit notorious for it's bad performance and people were using it to shit on Unity
 
0
I think trying to predict Nintendo's exact approach here is kind of risky business, not only because there's no meaningful precedent, but also because there's the additional factor of battery life to complicate the considerations compared to other consoles.
You're absolutely right that there are a bunch of unknowns on specifics, however, I feel pretty confident that if it's marketed as a revision, that there will be some benefit to some chunk of the legacy library, however the implementation works. The wild card would be if something like "better battery life in BC mode" was the pitch instead of better graphics, but considering that BC will almost definitely be a software solution, that seems unlikely.

That said, while some games will likely have compatibility issues that cause performance to be limited, I'd be very surprised if that was anywhere near the majority.
Majority, no, but a lot more than I think we consider. There are hundreds (if not literal thousands) of games in the eShop developed by indies and tiny studios who have hacked together their own engines, or are running something like Game Maker and bailing wire. These are the sorts of games that 1) don't need any help from a pro model, 2) have weird stacks vulnerable to hardware changes, and 3) little-to-no dedicated QA or porting teams.

I can't imagine Nintendo making someone shell out an extra 150 bucks for hardware and the latest Musou Spin Off still runs like crap - but I can't imagine them risking breaking huge swaths of the library for no benefit. Splitting the middle, Nintendo can test a dozen or so high profile games, add them to a white list (so that they work with cartridges, right out of the box), but let devs access the new performance modes via patches, shifting the rest of the QA burden to large studios, while leaving the rest of the library functional.
 
You're absolutely right that there are a bunch of unknowns on specifics, however, I feel pretty confident that if it's marketed as a revision, that there will be some benefit to some chunk of the legacy library, however the implementation works. The wild card would be if something like "better battery life in BC mode" was the pitch instead of better graphics, but considering that BC will almost definitely be a software solution, that seems unlikely.


Majority, no, but a lot more than I think we consider. There are hundreds (if not literal thousands) of games in the eShop developed by indies and tiny studios who have hacked together their own engines, or are running something like Game Maker and bailing wire. These are the sorts of games that 1) don't need any help from a pro model, 2) have weird stacks vulnerable to hardware changes, and 3) little-to-no dedicated QA or porting teams.

I can't imagine Nintendo making someone shell out an extra 150 bucks for hardware and the latest Musou Spin Off still runs like crap - but I can't imagine them risking breaking huge swaths of the library for no benefit. Splitting the middle, Nintendo can test a dozen or so high profile games, add them to a white list (so that they work with cartridges, right out of the box), but let devs access the new performance modes via patches, shifting the rest of the QA burden to large studios, while leaving the rest of the library functional.
There are a lot of possibilities, and even "use at your own risk" boost modes aren't a foreign concept to the console space anymore. It's ultimately going to depend a lot on what sort of testing Nintendo wants to do and how many options they want to provide to the user. One thing I am fairly confident in, however, is that, once the software stack is complete enough, they'll most likely be testing everything new that comes on on Drake, regardless of if it explicitly supports it. For new releases, games they're confident will run with the full power of the system should take over pretty quickly.
 
There are a lot of possibilities, and even "use at your own risk" boost modes aren't a foreign concept to the console space anymore. It's ultimately going to depend a lot on what sort of testing Nintendo wants to do and how many options they want to provide to the user. One thing I am fairly confident in, however, is that, once the software stack is complete enough, they'll most likely be testing everything new that comes on on Drake, regardless of if it explicitly supports it. For new releases, games they're confident will run with the full power of the system should take over pretty quickly.
Nintendo does not do options. They try to keep things as simple as possible for the user which is why they still have only two themes after 5 years. The idea they're going to have an optional mode to boost performance in games is very unrealistic. It's much more in line with their philosophy to make optional patches and do it themselves for their bigger games.
 
Nintendo does not do options. They try to keep things as simple as possible for the user which is why they still have only two themes after 5 years. The idea they're going to have an optional mode to boost performance in games is very unrealistic. It's much more in line with their philosophy to make optional patches and do it themselves for their bigger games.
That is not why lol

What type of argument is this
 
That is not why lol

What type of argument is this
Nintendo aims very strongly for accessibility. Making major hardware features optional is not good for accessibility. The average person will be confused as to whether or not they want to enable this mode. Nintendo would either make it on all the time or not at all. The easiest way to handle this is just using patches for individual games.
 
Nintendo does not do options. They try to keep things as simple as possible for the user which is why they still have only two themes after 5 years. The idea they're going to have an optional mode to boost performance in games is very unrealistic. It's much more in line with their philosophy to make optional patches and do it themselves for their bigger games.
Eh, Nintendo really isn't as consistent about this as you're implying. Especially with their OS team, who have been steadily adding more options to the Switch OS over the years. There was literally an entire firmware update recently just to add a new option.
Nintendo aims very strongly for accessibility. Making major hardware features optional is not good for accessibility. The average person will be confused as to whether or not they want to enable this mode. Nintendo would either make it on all the time or not at all. The easiest way to handle this is just using patches for individual games.
Yeah, I don't really get this line of argument at all. Assuming people even find the option in the first place, it would not exactly be a difficult thing to explain.
 
Nintendo aims very strongly for accessibility. Making major hardware features optional is not good for accessibility. The average person will be confused as to whether or not they want to enable this mode. Nintendo would either make it on all the time or not at all.
The OLED Model let the user chooses between the P3 and sRGB color spaces. Nintendo doesn't even attempt to explain it, simply calling them "vivid" and "standard". It's not improbable for Nintendo to provide a user configurable compatibility/boost setting. What's more, if the Drake Switch is indeed a high-priced enthusiast model, its target audience will not be confused by a simple preference setting like this.
 
The question is how many of the bigger games will be cross gen and for how long. Is the next 3D Mario cross gen for example.
Next 3D Mario will probably be the first big game to be exclusive to Drake. 3D Mario gmaes sell hardware , tend to have amazing reviews and are used to show the full potential of the console like they have done before which would make impossible a Switch port. Mario games have always long legs so not selling as much at launch due to smaller installbase doesn't matter when the game will still be selling millions everyear for 4+ years, 3D Mario will probably be the exception early-on Switch lifespan when it comes to the biggest titles being exclusive though imo
 
Next 3D Mario will probably be the first big game to be exclusive to Drake. 3D Mario gmaes sell hardware , tend to have amazing reviews and are used to show the full potential of the console like they have done before which would make impossible a Switch port. Mario games have always long legs so not selling as much at launch due to smaller installbase doesn't matter when the game will still be selling millions everyear for 4+ years, 3D Mario will probably be the exception early-on Switch lifespan when it comes to the biggest titles being exclusive though imo
It is very unlikely imho. Even if they have to make it 720p/30fps on Switch 1, they would still release the next 3D Mario on it. The game shouldn't be far off, and the franchise reaches a very wide audience.

The first Drake exclusives will probably be smaller games (just like Sony still put HZD/GT7/GoW on PS4 but released Ratchet or Demon's Souls remake on PS5 exclusively).
 
It is very unlikely imho. Even if they have to make it 720p/30fps on Switch 1, they would still release the next 3D Mario on it. The game shouldn't be far off, and the franchise reaches a very wide audience.

The first Drake exclusives will probably be smaller games (just like Sony still put HZD/GT7/GoW on PS4 but released Ratchet or Demon's Souls remake on PS5 exclusively).
I was about to write “no way 30fps Mario”, but then I remembered Bowsers Fury in handheld mode.
 
0
Mario Kart 9 in 2024-25 may be an exclusive, depending on how ambitious it is.
MK8 is going to be a monster in terms of content after the DLC, so they may be looking for a special twist on the Mario Kart formula.

I also expect Mario Kart 9 to release less than 12 months after the next console, to push new hardware and maximize the sales of the game. So early 2025 maybe.
 
Mario Kart 9 in 2024-25 may be an exclusive, depending on how ambitious it is.
MK8 is going to be a monster in terms of content after the DLC, so they may be looking for a special twist on the Mario Kart formula.

I also expect Mario Kart 9 to release less than 12 months after the next console, to push new hardware and maximize the sales of the game. So early 2025 maybe.
I’m team cross gen for MK. That 100+ million install base will be to tempting.
 
It is very unlikely imho. Even if they have to make it 720p/30fps on Switch 1, they would still release the next 3D Mario on it. The game shouldn't be far off, and the franchise reaches a very wide audience.

The first Drake exclusives will probably be smaller games (just like Sony still put HZD/GT7/GoW on PS4 but released Ratchet or Demon's Souls remake on PS5 exclusively).
They don't have to release Mario in the first year like they did with Odyssey, EPD Tokyo next game could be the 2D game (probably DK if the rumors are true), and in the 2nd/3rd year release the new 3D Mario to start making the push of Drake as the main software platform for Nintendo. 3D Mario will probably not release until late 2024/2025
 
0
That 100m+ installbase will end up having 60m+ copies of MK8DX (plus DLC), like Smash it makes little sense to make it cross-gen.
A lot of those would still buy 10.

Besides the point, but I’m sure they will name it 10. For some reason companies avoid 9, such as MS skipping Windows 9 and apple skipping iPhone 9. And they can claim the mobile game was 9.
 
Last edited:
0
SMO3 will be Drake exclusive. I keep telling people to follow the software. BOTW3, Pokémon gen 10 in 2025 (which is conveniently about 2 years after Drake- when the new lite would launch), the next animal crossing and Mario Kart. The earliest some of these titles will come is late 2024.

But the hardware will need to have launches before then to give time to build an install base.
 
Please read this staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited:


Back
Top Bottom