• 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!)

I do think there will be a first party exclusive to launch with this hardware, but probably not from their biggest staples.

Just curious, what type of game are you thinking of?

And why couldn’t they/wouldn’t they put this game on the OLED Switch?

What gives you the confidence to guarantee this? Nintendo has never made a cross gen 3D Mario game, yet you are so confident they will do it this time you can guarantee it?

Cross gen? What’s that?

Nintendo isn’t going to treat this 4K Drake revision as a gen breaking model.

It’s designed to play the Switch library of games with better resolution/performance. If you want that. No more, no less.


The only big games that Nintendo has ever made cross platform were Zelda games, and these games were also heavily delayed, not originally intending to be cross gen. But now everyone thinks Nintendo is gonna make all their big games cross gen from now on, I guess because Sony is doing it?

Nintendo isnt expecting to sell 20 million $500 Drake models in 2 years (nor should they). Nintendo isn’t expecting to shut down all production of previous Switch models when Drake launches (nor should they). Nintendo isn’t going to shift their software development and NSO services to prioritize the Drake model ( nor should they)

This is nothing like the ps5 or Series SX
 
In general there really isn't a whole lot of evidence pointing to a pro model coming early next year at this point.
I was convinced it isn't happening when Nintendo's president started talking about how "they plan to successfully transition to a new console generation" in the recent investors meeting. He was very clear he was talking about a new generation, not a revision, and while he could be talking about that 3+ years in advance I don't see any reason why he would.

Furukawa was directly asked by an investor about what they were planning when they decide to eventually transition to a new generation of hardware in the future….that’s why he was talking about such things.

You make it sound like he brought this discussion up on his own and that he was talking about their secret Drake model…
 
Nintendo isn’t going to treat this 4K Drake revision as a gen breaking model.

It’s designed to play the Switch library of games with better resolution/performance. If you want that. No more, no less.

Just curious, from what you said, do you think Drake(with all we know about it) would play exactly the same role as the Xbox One X and the PS4 Pro?
 
If a new Switch model announcement is inminient, we would probably already had a leak from an outlet like Bloomberg.

It happened with both Lite and OLED mods
This isn't necessarily true. Those outlets were able to report on new models coming soon because of sources on the supply chain preparing for mass production. It's always possible that Nintendo this time have decided to announce the hardware before the supply chain leaks to high heaven. That would mean a different announcement to release timeline.

Lite: announced in July, released in September. The thing was already in mass production before it was announced.

OLED: announced in July, released in October. It was not in mass production but supply chain sources were preparing for mass production

Drake: it could be announced in late June/July for a November/December release and supply chain sources wouldn't yet be preparing for it.
 
There's less room for supply chain leaks if they only change the internals and the backplate. The OLED model revised a lot of components already.
 
There's less room for supply chain leaks if they only change the internals and the backplate. The OLED model revised a lot of components already.
This is true too, yeah. Though, I don't expect them to be using literally the exact same form factor with the exact same look and colors and all that. It'll reuse many of the components in all likelihood but it still has to differentiate itself by look.
 
I wonder if Nintendo could be moving towards iterations, and the Switch would be the perfect hardware line to do it with. Have the new model act like a Switch Pro for a few years, then drop an even newer model that phases out the original base model.

The difference between this and a new generation would be that this rumored more powerful model would eventually become the new base years later when the original is phased out, and the next one after that would be the new enhanced hardware to take its place. At that point, rinse and repeat, and keep everything within the Switch family of devices.

Another thing that makes Switch perfect for this is how diverse the form factor is. We already have touch screen and motion controls built in, and we have seen more gimmicky stuff like Labo, Ring Fit, and Mario Kart Home Circuit. This means Nintendo could still do their innovation we typically see in new consoles, just by using Switch models as the base. This makes for less risk because if an idea fails (WiiU comes to mind), an entire console generation isn't on the line.
 
I wonder if Nintendo could be moving towards iterations, and the Switch would be the perfect hardware line to do it with. Have the new model act like a Switch Pro for a few years, then drop an even newer model that phases out the original base model.

The difference between this and a new generation would be that this rumored more powerful model would eventually become the new base years later when the original is phased out, and the next one after that would be the new enhanced hardware to take its place. At that point, rinse and repeat, and keep everything within the Switch family of devices.

Another thing that makes Switch perfect for this is how diverse the form factor is. We already have touch screen and motion controls built in, and we have seen more gimmicky stuff like Labo, Ring Fit, and Mario Kart Home Circuit. This means Nintendo could still do their innovation we typically see in new consoles, just by using Switch models as the base. This makes for less risk because if an idea fails (WiiU comes to mind), an entire console generation isn't on the line.
Yeah this is more or less what many of us have been suggesting for close to 3-4 years now. Basically a smartphone style upgrade model.
 
And basically what Sony and Ms is doing.

MS even more than Sony.

It does seem like MS is following this thought process with the Series consoles. Though I think we all know their end game is likely geared toward the cloud eventually, worldwide network infrastructure still has a long way to go before pulling it off to the extent of replacing their consoles I feel.

Sony is a bit harder to peg, with all the "we believe in generations" talk. But since that seemed to have backfired on them, and with MS having massive success with gamepass, they have clearly changed their toon at least a little bit.

We are at a turning point for how we look at console generations and how we play our games...it will be interesting to see how each company moves forward from here.
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering what the benefits are for Nintendo to release Nintendo switch pro in 2022 or 2023?
money-mr.gif
 
I'm wondering what the benefits are for Nintendo to release Nintendo switch pro in 2022 or 2023?
Giving their hardware sales a new boost just as they're beginning to dip, reinjecting life (aka sales) into some of their older games that will get 4k patches, generally keeping their audience engaged.

i.e. money, like Mobius said.
 
It does seem like MS is following this thought process with the Series consoles. Though I think we all know their end game is likely geared toward the cloud eventually, worldwide network infrastructure still has a long way to go before pulling it off to the extent of replacing their consoles I feel.

Sony is a bit harder to peg, with all the "we believe in generations" talk. But since that seemed to have backfired on them, and with MS having massive success with gamepass, they have clearly changed their toon at least a little bit.

We are at a turning point for how we look at console generations and how we play our games...it will be interesting to see how each company moves forward from here.
MS is reusing the same OS, same digital store, has “smart delivery”, basically almost the same controller, still no first party exclusives (aside from flight sim, which is a pc port that can’t run on jaguar cpus),

I expect the next Nintendo device to pretty much follow this template.
 
As I tend to distrust whatever "leakers" say regarding future hardware, the absence of any significant rumor preceding the announcement of a new console isn't really surprising to me. With that being said, I'll gladly eat a balut if the new console is announced and released this year, and I really don't like balut.
 
As I tend to distrust whatever "leakers" say regarding future hardware, the absence of any significant rumor preceding the announcement of a new console isn't really surprising to me. With that being said, I'll gladly eat a balut if the new console is announced and released this year, and I really don't like balut.

Just googled what a balut is.... oh, HELL no.
 
*** Hidden text: cannot be quoted. **
Speaking of entertainment purposes, the Google translate version of their replies is much more entertaining.

  • REPLYGUY: Reply to OP: I just want the enhanced console
  • OP :
    i_f25.png
    Very likely, as you wish

  • REPLYGUY: Reply to OP : I am so anxious, I will come soon
    i_f31.png



  • OP : Reply to REPLYGUY : Normal heart, nothing is nothing.
 
Last edited:
Just curious, from what you said, do you think Drake(with all we know about it) would play exactly the same role as the Xbox One X and the PS4 Pro?
the problem with that idea is that Drake is excessive for that. Nintendo would be spending way more money than they need to be
 
For the record, what Nintendo pays is different from what Nvidia pays. Nvidia doesn’t have to pay for their IP, Nintendo would have to pay nVidia for their IP. So I’m not sure what you mean by at cost.

NVidia would be paying the foundry for the node IP and ARM, but for Nintendo they have to pay for the nVidia IP, the ARM IP and the Node IP.

And of course the silicon but that goes without saying really.

Also the packaging process would be there too.

And the software

Etc.

My post wasn't very detailed, sorry about that. What I mean by 'at cost' is that any costs associated with Drake that Nvidia has to pay (so developing NVN2, designing the chip itself, ARM and Foundry IP, and of course fabrication and packaging and logistics) would be reimbursed by Nintendo, while any Nvidia expenditures not exclusive to Drake would be waived (so Ampere technology and the like). The outcome being that Nvidia makes no loss on Drake, but doesn't directly profit from it either. The amount, either per-unit or in total, which Nvidia loses out on by going this route would be considered internally as money invested in expanding adoption of DLSS (and I don't know much about things like Nvenc or RTX, but if those require specific implementation by devs rather than merely being a way to accelerate existing algorithms then this would benefit them as well).

I'm basing a lot of this on the assumption that Nvidia would otherwise be profiting around maybe $5-10 per chip. That would mean 'writing off' (not in the tax sense) maybe $150m a year, which is a lot yeah, so it comes down to if Nvidia believes sacrificing 3-4 percent of their annual profit (though around 1% of revenue) would result in a large enough lift down the line to their consumer GPU sales through wider adoption of DLSS and other proprietary technology. The math here fluctuates wildly depending on how much Nvidia profits per chip they sell to Nintendo, so the exact numbers aren't important. If they profit less per chip my theory is more likely, if they profit more then it's less likely.

Though come to think of it, that all only makes sense if Nvidia felt Nintendo otherwise wouldn't choose a SoC capable of DLSS for their next system, as otherwise there would be no incentive to leave the money on the table in the first place.

And to clarify another point, by 'a decent chance' I only meant something like 25%, maybe as high as 40% if they weren't already doing so well in the dGPU market. I don't think it's the most likely outcome, but I did believe it isn't completely outlandish. Though after my previous paragraph I'm thinking the odds are more like 10:1

On a slightly related topic: I read that Nvidia holds an ARM architectural license. Does anyone know if that license is just for the architecture, or is it a superset of lower licenses? In other words, does Nvidia need to separately license specific core designs/IP such as A78, or are existing implementations included in the architectural license? And either way, is that paid just as a lump sum or is there also a per-chip licensing fee?

Screen%20Shot%202013-06-27%20at%2011.39.54%20PM_575px.png


I have a feeling the answers I'm looking for will be protected by NDAs, since google is failing me, but if any of them are public info please do share!
 
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.
Just wanna point out that Accessibility is not the same as Usability (as in trying to make something easy to use and learn), which is what you’re describing.

Nintendo does try to keep their software/hardware usable, but they do not try much to make most of their hardware/software with accessibility in mind, as in, adding features made specifically for helping impaired people.
 
Just wanna point out that Accessibility is not the same as Usability (as in trying to make something easy to use and learn), which is what you’re describing.

Nintendo does try to keep their software/hardware usable, but they do not try much to make most of their hardware/software with accessibility in mind, as in, adding features made specifically for helping impaired people.
I see what you're getting at, but his usage of the word is denotatively correct

 
0
Would Nintendo/Nvidia accept to sell Drake at a loss or is that absolutely out of question?
As others have pointed out, it can be done but Nintendo tries to avoid it, mostly because >50% of their revenue comes from hardware sales, while for comparison, Playstation’s hardware revenue is around 25%

 
My post wasn't very detailed, sorry about that. What I mean by 'at cost' is that any costs associated with Drake that Nvidia has to pay (so developing NVN2, designing the chip itself, ARM and Foundry IP, and of course fabrication and packaging and logistics) would be reimbursed by Nintendo, while any Nvidia expenditures not exclusive to Drake would be waived (so Ampere technology and the like). The outcome being that Nvidia makes no loss on Drake, but doesn't directly profit from it either. The amount, either per-unit or in total, which Nvidia loses out on by going this route would be considered internally as money invested in expanding adoption of DLSS (and I don't know much about things like Nvenc or RTX, but if those require specific implementation by devs rather than merely being a way to accelerate existing algorithms then this would benefit them as well).

I'm basing a lot of this on the assumption that Nvidia would otherwise be profiting around maybe $5-10 per chip. That would mean 'writing off' (not in the tax sense) maybe $150m a year, which is a lot yeah, so it comes down to if Nvidia believes sacrificing 3-4 percent of their annual profit (though around 1% of revenue) would result in a large enough lift down the line to their consumer GPU sales through wider adoption of DLSS and other proprietary technology. The math here fluctuates wildly depending on how much Nvidia profits per chip they sell to Nintendo, so the exact numbers aren't important. If they profit less per chip my theory is more likely, if they profit more then it's less likely.

Though come to think of it, that all only makes sense if Nvidia felt Nintendo otherwise wouldn't choose a SoC capable of DLSS for their next system, as otherwise there would be no incentive to leave the money on the table in the first place.

And to clarify another point, by 'a decent chance' I only meant something like 25%, maybe as high as 40% if they weren't already doing so well in the dGPU market. I don't think it's the most likely outcome, but I did believe it isn't completely outlandish. Though after my previous paragraph I'm thinking the odds are more like 10:1
we know from previous earnings, Nvidia has achieved positive non-zero profits from the Switch. I don't see them denying themselves profits. Nintendo pays for the R&D, then probably pays per usable chip. maybe Nvidia would take a break even sale if they royally fuck up somehow, like a security flaw that was in the TX1
 
0
?

I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying…the only reason to make a much more powerful, more expensive home only Switch console is to be able to make a game profile that’s DIFFERENT/UNACHIEVABLE on the other hardware.

That’s the only reason to make such a thing.

A Drake hybrid model is perfectly fine otherwise. No need to make a non portable device anymore.

As for the second part, I’m saying Nintendo is going to make all their big games in the next few years be able to run on Drake as well as OLED/Lite.

They aren’t going to split the userbase and make their big games exclusive to Drake.
Docked mode is already a profile unachievable in portable mode (I mean ovwrclocked I guess you can hacked but still)
I’m just saying it’s just another profile
Though I don’t particularly think they would do it
That’s how it would be done

The series s and x are already doing this
 
Just curious, what type of game are you thinking of?

And why couldn’t they/wouldn’t they put this game on the OLED Switch?



Cross gen? What’s that?

Nintendo isn’t going to treat this 4K Drake revision as a gen breaking model.

It’s designed to play the Switch library of games with better resolution/performance. If you want that. No more, no less.

I mean they can market and choose to use it however they want, but that statement is going to be a really hard sell.

You don't need 1,534 cuda cores and a vastly superior set of cpu cores like A78's, to run games designed for 256 Cuda cores and a quad-core A57, but in 4k with better performance. It's such vast overkill for that job, that saying it was designed to do that job sounds goofy.
 
On a slightly related topic: I read that Nvidia holds an ARM architectural license. Does anyone know if that license is just for the architecture, or is it a superset of lower licenses? In other words, does Nvidia need to separately license specific core designs/IP such as A78, or are existing implementations included in the architectural license? And either way, is that paid just as a lump sum or is there also a per-chip licensing fee?

Screen%20Shot%202013-06-27%20at%2011.39.54%20PM_575px.png


I have a feeling the answers I'm looking for will be protected by NDAs, since google is failing me, but if any of them are public info please do share!
The former for the first question, which is known as the Cortex licence. An architectural licence only allows companies to design custom CPU microarchitectures based on Arm's ISA (e.g. Carmel on Xavier). There's also the Built on Cortex Technology licence, which I don't know if Nvidia has access to.

And the latter for the second question.

Anandtech has a great article detailing Arm's licencing model in detail.
 
If you wanted a switch designed to do “4K” switch games, here I’ll design a system for you:

512 Maxwell based CUDA cores, clocked to 460MHz portable and 921MHz docked
6GB LPDDR4X memory with 51GB/s, 128-bit
4 A72 cores running at 1.5-1.8GHz


This could be enough to offer what the PS4 Pro did to the PS4 games. And you know what res most of those games were.

And what technique it used at times for that…CBR anyone? 🙃

8nm node.


471GFLOPs portable, an uplift of over twice for most switch games. And 943GFLOPs docked, would have traded blows with XBox One GPU wise.


Reminder that the PS4 Pro was a 2.27x increase over the PS4. And some games managed to be 4K on that. Most didn’t, but for the market Nintendo operates in doesn’t matter since you need a 4K Tv anyway.

Games would have run notice smoother on this vs the base switch. Dynamic would be closer to pretty much locked. Faster loading, nicer images on both modes, etc.


I updated the CPU cores too, because A72 exists on that node :p, A57 doesn’t I think.



You don’t need Drake for that with the subject is switch games.
 
Just curious, what type of game are you thinking of?

And why couldn’t they/wouldn’t they put this game on the OLED Switch?
Historically they've always had some exclusives for new hardware, even when it's "just" an upgrade model there have been exclusives made by Nintendo at launch or soon thereafter. So whether you see it as a successor, or just a "Pro" model, the odds are probably in favor of there being at least some exclusives from Nintendo. Doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't run on the original Switch, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't something. Could be a digital only title, a revival of a lesser IP, or a remake, but definitely something will probably be exclusive from Nintendo at or near launch.
 
0
This is exactly what i'm thinking. The idea that drake is to play Switch games in 4K no more and no less is really really baffling to me.

Nintendo could have done what ReddDreadTheLead suggested, doubled SM cores, 6GB LPDDR4X and a newer Quad Core CPU for the Switch Oled instead of Drake. But they seemingly chose a Ampere uArch with 1536 cores and probably A78 CPU which indicates that they want the system to display games at a higher resolution with DLSS (1440p DLSS upscaled to 4K)
 
Yeah, I've said it before, but Drake really doesn't look like hardware designed to play Switch games, but better. There are much simpler ways to achieve that that would have required a lot less work from Nintendo/Nvidia. If that was all they wanted to do, switching to a new, incompatible GPU arch seems actively counterproductive. Drake looks like hardware intended to enable games not possible on the current Switch, and eventually become the new baseline.
 
Nintendo could have done what ReddDreadTheLead suggested, doubled SM cores, 6GB LPDDR4X and a newer Quad Core CPU for the Switch Oled instead of Drake. But they seemingly chose a Ampere uArch with 1536 cores and probably A78 CPU which indicates that they want the system to display games at a higher resolution with DLSS (1440p DLSS upscaled to 4K)
It’s more so than that, you can have the Fidelity for a 720p display but the output resolution is 1080p. Imagine 360 games but at say… 4k. At it’s core it’s still a 360 game and looks very much of its era.

Nintendo could’ve done a “4K” switch that takes the fidelity of the current switch games, but raise the resolution. This makes them look nicer with more memory to work with and a better GPU for the target display.

Drake on the other hand is going above and beyond just a simple resolution focus, it’s also doing a whole generational leap in terms of fidelity.

That is nothing to scoff at. Calling it a “pro” system does a disservice to what the device is or seems to be.


Food for thought: 4K PS4 games look much nicer than 4K PS3 games and more visually impressive if you noticed. This is what I mean. It’s a generational leap even in what the system can actually do.
 
I agree that a home console Switch would be cheaper, but it could still be more powerful if the new cooling solution is cheaper than the display of the portable console.
It would have to be extremely cheap to make up for devaluing the hybrid model in people's eyes. I know I'd be annoyed by "Oh, I can have the convenience of docking my hybrid, or I can have the improved experience of the home model but have to keep transferring my save."
Galaxy released more than 5 years after Sunshine, 4-5 years for 3D Mario was already the usual pre-HD era now imagine with HD development + COVID.
The time from Galaxy 2 -> 3D World and 3D Word -> Odyssey was much smaller than 64 -> Sunshine, so I don't think HD is a deciding factor.
 
0
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?

[SPECULATION WARNING, NON-FACTS AHEAD]
I always thought the concept of the Nintendo NX was going from per console design to a continuous software centric one.
Like a centralized "OS" of sorts, with revisions that update every new console cycle. Switch would be the forerunner but everything beyond is building on what the Switch started. Nintendo Wii, DS, Wii U and 3DS were precursors to Nintendo making a central operating platform and Switch was meant to be a continuous platform that changes overtime every new console cycle or mid-revision (DSi, New 3DS) as-needed.

With that in mind, I would like to believe Nintendo had that in mind even with the difficulties of getting NVidia's graphics wrapper for older titles to work on the new system but I strongly believe that what with ARM's evolution and viability on the market, Nintendo's interest in the hybrid console market wouldn't be a one-time thing but rather something to build on since ARM's viability keeps getting better.

Ideally, I don't expect every game to take advantage of the newer hardware but some games like Age of Calamity and Mortal Kombat X could use the processing boost. Though I don't expect a lot to happen without a patch or system update.
 
[SPECULATION WARNING, NON-FACTS AHEAD]
I always thought the concept of the Nintendo NX was going from per console design to a continuous software centric one.
Like a centralized "OS" of sorts, with revisions that update every new console cycle. Switch would be the forerunner but everything beyond is building on what the Switch started. Nintendo Wii, DS, Wii U and 3DS were precursors to Nintendo making a central operating platform and Switch was meant to be a continuous platform that changes overtime every new console cycle or mid-revision (DSi, New 3DS) as-needed.

With that in mind, I would like to believe Nintendo had that in mind even with the difficulties of getting NVidia's graphics wrapper for older titles to work on the new system but I strongly believe that what with ARM's evolution and viability on the market, Nintendo's interest in the hybrid console market wouldn't be a one-time thing but rather something to build on since ARM's viability keeps getting better.

Ideally, I don't expect every game to take advantage of the newer hardware but some games like Age of Calamity and Mortal Kombat X could use the processing boost. Though I don't expect a lot to happen without a patch or system update.
Iwata literally said he wanted the future of Nintendo hardware and software to mirror iOS. Similar family of devices that run on the same OS and carry things forward so they don’t have to ever start from scratch again.
 
This is exactly what i'm thinking. The idea that drake is to play Switch games in 4K no more and no less is really really baffling to me.

It was an idea that was pushed a few years ago, because it made sense; the PS4 pro and xb1x had just released and there was the precedence of the 3ds from Nintendo. Some people even try to pass it as some sort of inside information on Nintendo's master plan, though it's now obvious that it was just guesswork.

The new console will probably improve the resolution and frame rate of non-native resolution games and dynamic frame rate games, but its power make it first and foremost designed for games that wouldn't run on the og switch; and that's the least one can expect more than 6 years later.

Actually, if the console is anything like we now expect it to be, I would argue that the visual gap between a switch and a switch next will be markedly larger than it was between a PS4 and a PS5.
 
Actually, if the console is anything like we now expect it to be, I would argue that the visual gap between a switch and a switch next will be markedly larger than it was between a PS4 and a PS5.
Of course it will be. DLSS alone is a larger improvement over the switch than the PS5 was over the PS4, but the thing will be at least 6x stronger on top of that. Nintendo is effectively skipping a generation from what we've seen of the leaked hardware.
 
Of course it will be. DLSS alone is a larger improvement over the switch than the PS5 was over the PS4, but the thing will be at least 6x stronger on top of that. Nintendo is effectively skipping a generation from what we've seen of the leaked hardware.

Which is why still entertaining the idea of a "pro" console more than 5-6 years into the life of a machine which demonstrably didn't need that at all to become one, if not the most successful console of all time is kind of weird, in my opinion.
Whatever comes next is a successor in the switch line, and I don't even expect Nintendo to hide it.
 
Yeah, I've said it before, but Drake really doesn't look like hardware designed to play Switch games, but better. There are much simpler ways to achieve that that would have required a lot less work from Nintendo/Nvidia. If that was all they wanted to do, switching to a new, incompatible GPU arch seems actively counterproductive. Drake looks like hardware intended to enable games not possible on the current Switch, and eventually become the new baseline.
A year of Nintendo cross gen with a few third party exclusives then it’s all exclusives and base Switch is dropped in year two is my guess.

110 million units isn’t to be sniffed at but you also want to provide an incentive for those first 50 million buyers to again purchase your new device inside it’s first 2-2.5 years.
 
0
Which is why still entertaining the idea of a "pro" console more than 5-6 years into the life of a machine which demonstrably didn't need that at all to become one, if not the most successful console of all time is kind of weird, in my opinion.
Whatever comes next is a successor in the switch line, and I don't even expect Nintendo to hide it.
My assumption is that there was a pro planned, but it was scrapped due to the chip shortage and continued high sales of the base model from post covid demand. And now people are wrongly assuming Drake is the pro, when it was canceled and Drake is the new console.
 
My assumption is that there was a pro planned, but it was scrapped due to the chip shortage and continued high sales of the base model from post covid demand. And now people are wrongly assuming Drake is the pro, when it was canceled and Drake is the new console.
Hardware is not that agile. Drake has probably been largely settled since very early on in the pandemic, possibly even before it started.
 
As others have pointed out, it can be done but Nintendo tries to avoid it, mostly because >50% of their revenue comes from hardware sales, while for comparison, Playstation’s hardware revenue is around 25%


This is the wrong conclusion. Sony records the entire purchase price of all digital transactions, while Nintendo only records the royalty payment from 3rd parties.

Any analysis needs to adjust for that difference.

Over time, it’s easier for Nintendo to launch hardware at a loss because the transition to digital results in higher profit per software unit sold. That’s the theoretical business case. I’m not sure how likely they are to do it. I believe the Wii U was launched at a loss, but not the Switch.
 
Last edited:
This is the wrong conclusion. Sony records the entire purchase price of all digital transactions, while Nintendo only records the royalty payment from 3rd parties.

Any analysis needs to adjust for that difference.

Over time, it’s easier for Nintendo to launch hardware at a loss because the transition to digital results in higher profit per software unit sold. That’s the theoretical business case. I’m not sure how likely they are to do it. I believe the Wii U was launched at a loss, but not the Switch.
current realities might push for a loss, but it would also give them the benefit of pushing digital harder. a 128GB or 256GB system and a digital launch sale for patched games would do some good first day numbers
 
0
This is exactly what i'm thinking. The idea that drake is to play Switch games in 4K no more and no less is really really baffling to me.

I don’t think I’ve heard ‘4K no more and no less’. If it shows up it’s rare. What we have had is ‘mostly for Switch games in 4K’ or somewhere along those lines. I really don’t see how that’s baffling whatsoever, at least for the next couple years.

We’re only just seeing XSX and PS5 get regular exclusives, from companies far more interested in pushing graphics than Nintendo. I’m setting my expectations that, at least from first party, 4K with small adjustments using the OG Switch as the base is what we get for the foreseeable future.
 
I don’t think I’ve heard ‘4K no more and no less’. If it shows up it’s rare. What we have had is ‘mostly for Switch games in 4K’ or somewhere along those lines. I really don’t see how that’s baffling whatsoever, at least for the next couple years.

We’re only just seeing XSX and PS5 get regular exclusives, from companies far more interested in pushing graphics than Nintendo. I’m setting my expectations that, at least from first party, 4K with small adjustments using the OG Switch as the base is what we get for the foreseeable future.
it was definitely a prevailing theory in the early switch pro days
 
Hardware is not that agile. Drake has probably been largely settled since very early on in the pandemic, possibly even before it started.
I am not saying that drake was the pro, I am suggesting that the pro was canceled and the drake was always intended to be the successor. My assumption is that Nintendo planned to do a pro either 2020 or 2021 and then launch the new console late 2023 or early 2024. I don't believe the new console plans have in any way changed, just the pro never came out.
 
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