Link_enfant
Fashion Dreamer
- Pronouns
- He/Him
1 week before in EU, but yeah almost a month before in NA. both released at the same time in Japan.Didnt they do that with twilight princess
*Sorry for double post
1 week before in EU, but yeah almost a month before in NA. both released at the same time in Japan.Didnt they do that with twilight princess
Doing this for all games, as you proposed, doesn't serve any purpose but to piss off the vast majority of your users for negligible benefit. Drake will sell itself by virtue of being a Switch, Nintendo doesn't have to shove the rest of the user base down a drain to help it along.Didnt they do that with twilight princess
Let's say they want to release Drake in March and that TotK Drake version will be ready by then but OG needs ironing out.Wait, guys, is there a timeline where Nintendo breaks internet (again?) by announcing that the Drake version of Zelda will actually release before the announced date? Like in March or April, maybe at the same time as Drake, and only later (so may 12th) for the standard Switch version.
I don't think it's likely at all but thinking about the possible reactions kind of hyped me haha
I guess you’ve been reading the last page or so too…I guess we're confident that we've nailed down a bunch of things that it's time to get weird and wild with the remaining speculation this morning lol
I don't think 1 TB is happening, nor do I think 2 TB is happening. In the best case scenario, I expect 256 GB at the highest.Switch 2 includes a relatively hefty, and speedy 1TB ssd. The 2024 "pro" version comes with better screen, new SOC node with better battery life, etc and comes with 2 TB drive.
4K assets aren't necessary and can just be optional downloads, if over 16GB is deemed too costly.If Nintendo is thinking physical game cards are a mistake based on the fact that they are too costly, and in fact costs are going up for the bigger sizes needed for Switch 2's high level assets for 4k, they may have no other choice than go digital only for Switch 2 games. What better solution is on the market that cost less and has adequate speed/capacity?
Using 16GB carts and requiring mandatory download would still be a better approach, specially since they would have the card slot anyway.They launch Switch 2 with a Switch 1 card slot just for backwards compatibility. They offer free download Switch 2 version of any Switch 1 card inserted into the Switch 2 for the first year, or perhaps also as an on-going NSO perk.
You're proposing 16x the amount of storage on the OLED. It's not happening.Switch 2 includes a relatively hefty, and speedy 1TB ssd. The 2024 "pro" version comes with better screen, new SOC node with better battery life, etc and comes with 2 TB drive.
Every game company wants to go digital only: they'll make more money and cut out the middle man. Each generation they will consider it and look at factors such as cost to produce media, consumer behavior, internet infrastructure, etc before making a decision. It's not silly entertainment, it's a business decision. But by all means, stifle discussion of something new in lieu of the same old conversations about ram amount, clock speed, thermals, and launch date.Please, guys. Give up on this silly entertainment that Nintendo will go digital-only on the next generation. It’s more likely for Drake to have DLSS 3 than Nintendo doing that.
Nintendo has had trouble getting other parts, like Bluetooth controllers. They’ll have 100% of the market for Drake, it’s actually not impossible that something other than Drake is the bottleneck. If I had to bet, I’d still say Drake was the limiting factor but I could see it being something elseLike I said, maybe it’s a stupid question, but you could have told me Nintendo could only secure half as many of some other obscure part compared to the SoC.
Edit: For instance, is Switch production experiencing challenges right now because of TX1 or something else? Does the new chip make that situation better or worse?
Anyway, you answered. It was just a bit snarky
You expect me to believe that in the next Nintendo direct, for example set in February or late January, will announce a game for March and April and that this new device which hasn’t even been announced yet is going to release in one of those two months before May? Am I actually expected to believe such a thing?You think just because they announced Zelda for May, that we already know their full lineup through then?
I don’t believe it for a second. Zelda is the exception (as it usually is), and March onward is yet to be announced.
When I said RE for remake, I’m saying by itself as the headliner, and with other software as the additional support. Nintendo will still release a first party title that is the headliner for the system, and something like resident evil 4 remake will simply be the support or the extra icing or cherry on top to the launch lineup of the system.I don’t buy for a second that Nintendo’s going to go the three months between Kirby in February and Zelda in May without releasing a game. Unannounced software can exist.
If anything, the fact that they didn’t announce any software for March is eyebrow-raising – it makes me think a potential hardware launch thereabouts is more likely, not less.
Why not?
No, seriously, why not? Capcom and Nintendo seem to have a close relationship, they’ve released new hardware alongside a major Capcom release before (MH4G), and just look at how many times they’ve given even dusty old RE ports pride of place in Nintendo Directs. Nintendo clearly views it as a point of pride to have the series on the Switch.
If they want to launch the new hardware alongside a game that’s exclusive to it (meaning not on the existing Switch), they could certainly do a lot worse than RE4. RE also has the advantage of having little thematic overlap with Nintendo’s games; they could counterprogram the launch with pretty much any of their IP without it feeling redundant.
For the record, that would mean that they have to announce it now. Now if you believe that they’re going to release it in March, then you also have to believe that they’re going to announce this year for next year sometime in the next month or so.Team Scenario 1, but with an adaption.
Announcing it in January/February 2023 works as it's usually a slower phase after the holidays, and here's my adaption: Releasing in March or April.
Feb has some bigger releases, March is empty and i can't remember if there's anything for April next year, so they could drop Drake in those two months.
As the launch game, i could see them using the Prime 1 Remakester (as i'm not seeing this in 2022 anymore) and one or two 3rd party Drake exclusives.
Plus some Drake patches for evergreens and "newer" games like Xenoblade 3, Bayo 3, Fire Emblem and Pokemon.
With that, the system can have a little head-start before TotK drops, which could still be considered launch window if we're talking end of March as the earliest Drake would drop.
And to complete 2017-2, they announce a new Mario game for the holidays.
For the record, since it has 8 cores and 12SMs, it’s impossible for the CHIP to be less than the Steam Deck Van Gogh APU.I would say if on Samsung's 8N and a die size probably under 130-140mm², the SoC probably won't be the main cause of manufacturing issues down the road. We still aren't completely certain on how many oled displays Samsung are able to pump out, but my guess is this will be what holds manufacturing back...
Especially since the current guesstimate is the that both the current oled model and Drake will probably use the same display tech and this would divide monthly allocation between the two.
The portable and docked can run but it seems like it’s linked to the frequency of the system for what to enable due to the nature of how or what the system is.@ReddDreadtheLead @oldpuck @Look over there
What are the odds of Nintendo running OG switch titles on drake as docked and then just downscaling the 1080p output to a 720p screen (when in handheld) and leaving it at 1080p when docked?
I mean, it makes sense imo considering the new SoC is probably capable of handling the 540-900p typical dynamic resolution range without sipping too much power, specially at 30fps...
I think you mean translation? It’s possible that they’ll go a route of translation for the BC.Speaking of retro compatibility, I remember back when we were arguing over RAM, someone mentioned something amongst the line "8 or more would be ideal for retrocompat." are you guys expecting nintendo to use some kind of emulation method to achieve it? I find that so unlikely, I heard a solution through gpu driver tweaking would be possible.
And this is why I asked, what would the headliner launch title be if it wasn’t Zelda? People brought up some IPs that Nintendo owns which could fit the role, but most of them were pretty much small titles or their lower class games, and I’m not saying that as in that they are terrible, I mean in their selling power they are significantly less. The only one that was a potential to be a system seller and can be used as a showcase title would be a 3D Mario, and those other titles would be more support for the whole launch window and launch lineup of the system.I know sales of PS4/PS5 cross platform games say otherwise (with the PS5 versions almost always outselling the PS4 versions) but I have a hard time imagining Nintendo doing a cross platform release while the switch has been so majorly successful. I feel like the switch’s large install base might make this sort of strategy a bad idea.
With BoTW launching on both Wii U and Switch it made sense, since I imagine Nintendo expected most switch buyers to have never owned a Wii U due to that system’s lower sales performance. Same with Twilight Princess on Gamecube / Wii (to which I recall they even made the Gamecube version more difficult to purchase, being an online only offering back in the days when online shopping wasn’t anything close to what it is like today”
And lastly, those two previous examples were both for consoles that had extremely similar hardware specifications. I imagine a cross platform release for a Switch/“Switch 2” game would be a little less impressive, or they would drastically have to dress up the next gen version to make it look significantly better than its switch counterpart. We are expecting this thing to be quite a leap over the switch’s specifications, right?
For the record, that would mean that they have to announce it now. Now if you believe that they’re going to release it in March, then you also have to believe that they’re going to announce this year for next year sometime in the next month or so.
Which… good luck?
2 DVDs on PC?87GB still seems pretty damn huge considering its initial release was on 2 DVDs.
They announced the DSi like a month before it shipped. The New 3DS was around thereabouts, too. The PS4 Pro was announced in September and released in November. There’s precedent for having a short announcement-release window for hardware. The important thing is that developers know about the hardware in advance, and they clearly do.You expect me to believe that in the next Nintendo direct, for example set in February or late January, will announce a game for March and April and that this new device which hasn’t even been announced yet is going to release in one of those two months before May? Am I actually expected to believe such a thing?
Honestly, the problem with the 2017 and 2019 switch displays isn't even the fact that it's LCD.I can't go back to the garbage switch lcd
It doesn't save much for the PS5D/XSS either. The point of digital-only SKUs is that they will make more money from Software and will shrink the used market, so they're willing to take a larger loss on hardware for long terms prospects.I am of the mind than removing the card slot would save almost nothing and therefore won't justify a position like the PS5D (that has ultimately a very small share).
shit, removing the disc drive in the PS5 saves nothingIf people wants to entertain a digital-only console, I think that rather than preventing the discussion happening, we should be open to a dual-SKU release.
Would such a device have sense in the Switch family ? How much savings would it allow ?
I am of the mind than removing the card slot would save almost nothing and therefore won't justify a position like the PS5D (that has ultimately a very small share).
Nintendo doesn't need to go digital-only to bring us a better online service or even "make more money".Every game company wants to go digital only: they'll make more money and cut out the middle man. Each generation they will consider it and look at factors such as cost to produce media, consumer behavior, internet infrastructure, etc before making a decision. It's not silly entertainment, it's a business decision. But by all means, stifle discussion of something new in lieu of the same old conversations about ram amount, clock speed, thermals, and launch date.
I don't think 1 TB is happening, nor do I think 2 TB is happening. In the best case scenario, I expect 256 GB at the highest.
I'm not saying it's likely, I'm just saying it's a possibility. It makes business and logical sense.Please, guys. Give up on this silly entertainment that Nintendo will go digital-only on the next generation. It’s more likely for Drake to have DLSS 3 than Nintendo doing that.
Damn, that fucking sucks. Feels good not having enough money for one + import taxes + the fear of not even receiving the product lol.RIP the Spectrum monitor. Glossy finish with built in integer scaling to 4K. Would have been perfect for pixel art games. Too bad their reputation is in the dumpster.
I mean ... no? I even wrote announcement in Jan/Feb 2023. I think they give this a very short timeframe between announcement and release.
I’m sorry, but I feel like we’re losing the plot here, they have to announce this to the investors, that’s what the purpose of the initial reveal was, which was for the investors. The second reveal was in January, and that was for the consumers, and for hands-on previews because they have to send it to news sites to actually get people more interested in the product to upgrade.They announced the DSi like a month before it shipped. The New 3DS was around thereabouts, too. The PS4 Pro was announced in September and released in November. There’s precedent for having a short announcement-release window for hardware. The important thing is that developers know about the hardware in advance, and they clearly do.
Outside of the initial concept reveal video, we got basically all of the launch details for the Switch in January, less than two months before it shipped.
They announced 1-2-Switch in January and released it in March. They announced Ring Fit Adventure mere weeks before its launch. Same with Super Mario 3D All-Stars. They can easily announce a game in January and release it in March, especially if it’s a wide-audience “blue ocean” title. They’ve done that before.
Doing this is almost guaranteed to cause compatibility issues because of how some games handle controllers between modes.@ReddDreadtheLead @oldpuck @Look over there
What are the odds of Nintendo running OG switch titles on drake as docked and then just downscaling the 1080p output to a 720p screen (when in handheld) and leaving it at 1080p when docked?
I mean, it makes sense imo considering the new SoC is probably capable of handling the 540-900p typical dynamic resolution range without sipping too much power, specially at 30fps...
Some emulation will most likely be required to deal with running the old GPU shaders, but this could probably be localized entirely in the driver.Speaking of retro compatibility, I remember back when we were arguing over RAM, someone mentioned something amongst the line "8 or more would be ideal for retrocompat." are you guys expecting nintendo to use some kind of emulation method to achieve it? I find that so unlikely, I heard a solution through gpu driver tweaking would be possible.
Nintendo doesn't need to go digital-only to bring us a better online service or even "make more money".
You spent this whole thread trying to convince people that nintendo HAS to go digital as if they were doomed to become the next SEGA if they didn't comply.
Which is fucking stupid considering the company still makes a lot of profit from physical sales and most important: sony, their closest competitor in terms of net-worth does in fact provide a better online service even though they have an inferior profit to nintendo.
Now, answer me a question: what do YOU gain from nintendo going all digital if for every single physical release there's a digital option?
Now I get it. You're the person who has been making up dialog for me and having an argument with that made up dialog. I should just step aside and let you two hash this out."Then just increase the internal storage" you might think, and again, why this doesn't solve the issue: developers nowadays aren't really concerned about optimizing for low storage devices when most games launch on pc and storage is ridiculously cheap. Nintendo could release a 1TB switch, it still wouldn't matter when multiple games are already shipping as 100+GB for just a basic download (let alone updates).
"But most games aren't like that. Besides, like you said: storage is cheap". You're right, but first: that still wouldn't invalidate the retrocompatibility issue and secondly: HDDs and low end SSDs (sata) are cheap, but those wouldn't go on a device like a switch. And even then, if you found something like the steam deck's small pci-e ssd for cheap it still wouldn't cut it because it's not just about price, it's about power consumption.
The reveal of Switch for investors was the original project NX reveal, not the October trailer. I don't see what relation the October trailer would have to investors.I’m sorry, but I feel like we’re losing the plot here, they have to announce this to the investors, that’s what the purpose of the initial reveal was, which was for the investors. The second reveal was in January, and that was for the consumers, and for hands-on previews because they have to send it to news sites to actually get people more interested in the product to upgrade.
i’m sorry again, but I just find it incredibly hard to believe that Nintendo is going to take such a significant change in the hardware and give it so little time to market do the whole hands-on with news sites, reveal to the investors, etc. and then in the span of two months to the public, what is to some a successor and to other people a pro but I’m not gonna get into that. I just find it incredibly hard to believe that they’re gonna do something like this. The only times that they would even do something so minor and small is if it’s literally just a minor upgrade or a minor change. But even with something like the new OLED model, it got a longer life span from initial revealed to its release. I believe the Nintendo switch lite also had a longer span from initial reveal to the release.
But this is more of a noticeable internal change than those.
You know what the saddest thing about this is? I feel like they would totally do this in retrocompat. mode and instead of using the leftover RAM and cores for say, letting a background application run like discord, they would be completely disabled.Post
Yep, people fail to understand that a ton of kids/teens have the Switch. I'm pretty sure they would buy mostly physical games, because they don't have credit/debit cards. They usually come to game stores with their allowance or job cash to buy games. There's no way it would be digital only.Please, guys. Give up on this silly entertainment that Nintendo will go digital-only on the next generation. It’s more likely for Drake to have DLSS 3 than Nintendo doing that.
I…what?I’m sorry, but I feel like we’re losing the plot here, they have to announce this to the investors, that’s what the purpose of the initial reveal was, which was for the investors.
I’m sorry, but I feel like we’re losing the plot here, they have to announce this to the investors, that’s what the purpose of the initial reveal was, which was for the investors. The second reveal was in January, and that was for the consumers, and for hands-on previews because they have to send it to news sites to actually get people more interested in the product to upgrade.
i’m sorry again, but I just find it incredibly hard to believe that Nintendo is going to take such a significant change in the hardware and give it so little time to market do the whole hands-on with news sites, reveal to the investors, etc. and then in the span of two months to the public, what is to some a successor and to other people a pro but I’m not gonna get into that. I just find it incredibly hard to believe that they’re gonna do something like this. The only times that they would even do something so minor and small is if it’s literally just a minor upgrade or a minor change. But even with something like the new OLED model, it got a longer life span from initial revealed to its release. I believe the Nintendo switch lite also had a longer span from initial reveal to the release.
But this is more of a noticeable internal change than those.
The only smartphone using 1 TB UFS 3.1 currently is the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 4 at $1259.99. So I imagine 1 TB UFS 3.1 is currently cost prohibitive for Nintendo; and I don't think Nintendo can sell enough units of Nintendo's new hardware that can allow the price of 1 TB UFS 3.1 to drop to the point of no longer being cost prohibitive for Nintendo.Why not? This is going to be a much more premium model introduced with the current one continuing for some time, and 1TB drives have come way down. Perhaps your right and it's a bit high, I could still see 512 or even matching PS5's size. 2 TB, or at least something well above 1 TB in 2024 shouldn't be an issue as prices should have fallen enough to allow that.
?Now I get it. You're the person who has been making up dialog for me and having an argument with that made up dialog. I should just step aside and let you two hash this out.
There are no good reasons to do it. The consumer loses and nintendo barely wins anything.I'm just pointing out that there are good reasons to go digital and Nintendo might do it, and if they did what I think that could look like.
I don't think that's true, considering there are a good number of third party developers that have been using smaller Game Cards and forcing the consumer to download the rest of the game on the microSD card (external expandable storage) or on the eMMC 5.1 (internal flash storage), such as Sypro Reignited Trilogy, etc.Switch cartridges aren't all that expensive as far as I'm aware. It's cheap, proprietary flash storage. Nothing special.
I think the same.The only smartphone using 1 TB UFS 3.1 currently is the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 4 at $1259.99. So I imagine 1 TB UFS 3.1 is currently cost prohibitive for Nintendo; and I don't think Nintendo can sell enough units of Nintendo's new hardware that can allow the price of 1 TB UFS 3.1 to drop to the point of no longer being cost prohibitive for Nintendo.
Also, 2 TB UFS 3.1 doesn't exist.
And I can't see Nintendo using a NVMe SSD from a cost and power consumption standpoint.
There are games that cost more on the Switch than they did on the xbox or ps4 because cards cost more to make than blurays.There are no good reasons to do it. The consumer loses and nintendo barely wins anything.
Switch cartridges aren't all that expensive as far as I'm aware. It's cheap, proprietary flash storage. Nothing special.
Okay, well that would be a legitimate hurdle to overcome for this scenario. That makes it certainly less likely, however still, I believe a real (disturbing?) possibility.The only smartphone using 1 TB UFS 3.1 currently is the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 4 at $1259.99. So I imagine 1 TB UFS 3.1 is currently cost prohibitive for Nintendo; and I don't think Nintendo can sell enough units of Nintendo's new hardware that can allow the price of 1 TB UFS 3.1 to drop to the point of no longer being cost prohibitive for Nintendo.
Also, 2 TB UFS 3.1 doesn't exist.
And I can't see Nintendo using a NVMe SSD from a cost and power consumption standpoint.
Spyro trilogy need dowloads in all physical versions on all platforms.I don't think that's true, considering there are a good number of third party developers that have been using smaller Game Cards and forcing the consumer to download the rest of the game on the microSD card (external expandable storage) or on the eMMC 5.1 (internal flash storage), such as Sypro Reignited Trilogy, etc.
Proprietary storage costs more. There's R&D costs, finding the right partners to manufacture it, etc. If Nintendo sticks with carts and want backwards compatibility they need to design a slot that can take both kinds of carts and design a cart that is capable of delivering data at the speed that modern gaming demands. Totally do-able, but it's a lot more expensive than buying a few servers or printing out digital codes.
A 64GB 100+MB/s read SD card on amazon is 10$ (cheaper from china actually). The switch cartridge technology is iirc very similar albeit with a different form factor. I find it very hard to believe that switch cartridges currently are 200% hell, even 150-175% faster than that.I don't think that's true, considering there are a good number of third party developers that have been using smaller Game Cards and forcing the consumer to download the rest of the game on the microSD card (external expandable storage) or on the eMMC 5.1 (internal flash storage), such as Sypro Reignited Trilogy, etc.
For the record, since it has 8 cores and 12SMs, it’s impossible for the CHIP to be less than the Steam Deck Van Gogh APU.
While we can have the due area of the A78 and the 1GPC, we have to include the CACHE, the memory controller, the logic, the front end, etc, and this is is hard to be less than the Steam Deck APU.