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

[Concernt]

Thanks for the update. So the implication of the post is that the OLED model is going to be replaced after 2022? Or just that this particular factory is shifting gears?

I was under the impression that the OLED model had quite some effort put into the design, hence Nintendo having a write up on the differences around it (can’t find it but I know one was released). Throwing all that away after only 1-1.5 years sounds unlikely… If a system was going to get axed I’d have thought it would be the V2, just because it feels pretty dated now

I mean... they did it to the New Nintendo 3DS (non-XL) and DSi XL.

OLED Model had some interesting design gone into it but a lot (I daresay most) will be reused for the upcoming device, like the dock, HDMI cable, hinges, screen, metal construction, more efficient cooling system, etc.

Ultimately the Nintendo Switch - OLED Model, I think, will go one of two ways:
One: The Switch V2 will be canned, I mean the original name of OLED Model had "OLED Model" in brackets, and the leaks around it suggested it was meant to replace the V2 eventually anyway. This tracks with pricing given the OLED Model is massively simplified internally compared to the V2, it's just cheaper to produce, aside from the screen and hinges.
Two: The OLED Model will be canned, or at least hugely brought down in production numbers. Unwilling to lower the price it sells for, it gets pushed out of the premium market by Super Nintendo Switch, which has the same battery life in non-enhanced games, the same great kickstand and screen, the same dock, and HDMI cable, better in every way; only way more powerful. It makes the OLED Model obsolete in a way that it wouldn't do to the V2.

 

[Concernt]

Also, is the OLED Model dock sufficient to support 4K/60/HDR? Or would that require additional changes?

I can answer that question with an emphatic YES. Not only is the dock capable, but the HDMI cable included with OLED Model is more than capable of 4K60HDR per my testing with an Xbox Series X. More than HDR, it was Dolby Vision with surround sound. Seriously, that cable has no reason to be as good as it is .

The chipset in the Nintendo Switch Dock With LAN Port (to give it is official name, notably, NOT "OLED Model Dock") supports 4K60HDR internally, it has the circuitry and the chipset to do it. The firmware is updatable while the OLED Model has no additional picture options compared to the V1/2, and I think most damning of all is that even with a LAN Port, the USB AND LAN ports on it all ONLY use the dedicated USB 2.0 pins of the USB C connector, leaving the full bandwidth of DP and USB 3.0 to be used for the ONLY port that remains: HDMI.

This is supported by the datamines we have of the operating system, with specific flags like (paraphrasing) "4K_preferred_over_USB30", which pretty clearly states that those USB 3.0 lanes are to be used for 4K output, and moreover, this was in the datamine (and I believe, the very section of the OS) which contained the string "CRDA" (Cradle Aula), the codename for the Nintendo Switch Dock with LAN Port.

(Somewhat unrelated, but I do find it kinda funny how Nintendo uses "cradle", or, specifically, "CRD" to refer to Nintendo Switch Docks, just like how 3DS's "dock" was officially called the "charging cradle". Ultimately that's what the Nintendo Switch Dock with LAN Port is: the latest Nintendo handheld charging cradle, just like all those before it. )

 

[karmitt]

I can answer that question with an emphatic YES. Not only is the dock capable, but the HDMI cable included with OLED Model is more than capable of 4K60HDR per my testing with an Xbox Series X. More than HDR, it was Dolby Vision with surround sound. Seriously, that cable has no reason to be as good as it is .

The chipset in the Nintendo Switch Dock With LAN Port (to give it is official name, notably, NOT "OLED Model Dock") supports 4K60HDR internally, it has the circuitry and the chipset to do it. The firmware is updatable while the OLED Model has no additional picture options compared to the V1/2, and I think most damning of all is that even with a LAN Port, the USB AND LAN ports on it all ONLY use the dedicated USB 2.0 pins of the USB C connector, leaving the full bandwidth of DP and USB 3.0 to be used for the ONLY port that remains: HDMI.

This is supported by the datamines we have of the operating system, with specific flags like (paraphrasing) "4K_preferred_over_USB30", which pretty clearly states that those USB 3.0 lanes are to be used for 4K output, and moreover, this was in the datamine (and I believe, the very section of the OS) which contained the string "CRDA" (Cradle Aula), the codename for the Nintendo Switch Dock with LAN Port.

(Somewhat unrelated, but I do find it kinda funny how Nintendo uses "cradle", or, specifically, "CRD" to refer to Nintendo Switch Docks, just like how 3DS's "dock" was officially called the "charging cradle". Ultimately that's what the Nintendo Switch Dock with LAN Port is: the latest Nintendo handheld charging cradle, just like all those before it. )

Thanks!

I kind of buy this rumor for now. I won’t be surprised if it’s untrue, but I’m a fan of how easy things fall into place without the OLED Model.

Edit:
Just thinking aloud -

If it is hypothetically true, is it possible that some of this could have played into Mochizuki and others conflating the two devices? ie. Is it even possible that the form factor and parts being produced were known to be intended for a future premium device, and the OLED model was just an unexpected stop-gap?

 

[My Tulpa]

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?

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

Unlike the ps4 and Wii U when the ps5 and Switch launched…Nintendo feels there is another 3-4 years of life in them with much engagement.

So Drake will be presented as the premium model in the Switch family for those who might have lost engagement in Switch software 2023-2026 because of its aging hardware and sub graphics/fps performance.

There will be no “cross gen” games on Drake, per se. If Nintendo puts an exclusive on the Drake model, it will be a game that simply can’t run without tensor core AI functions (so, not many). Not because they are embarrassed to have a game like ToTK or Metroid Prime still run on Tx1+ graphics/performance

So the idea of treating ToTK like they did previous Zelda games when they were actually ditching old consoles hardware for new, makes no sense in this scenario.

I personally can't see myself getting too excited about a "Switch 2" if all it brings to the table is prettier graphics and better framerates.

You are in luck! Nintendo won’t be positioning this as a “Switch 2” type successor so all it really needs to promise is the ability to play the Switch library with better graphics and performance.

I’m sure you will be the “unique new way to play games” as some sort of peripheral add on to the Switch family, not as its own new console.

 

[Dakhil]

(1:10:26) Rich Leadbetter: "It's from Flo G: 'Hey guys, do you think DLSS 3 or something similar will find its way to the consoles to bring 120 Hz modes to more games or to prevent a potential future 30 FPS era?'

I don't think so with the current consoles, unless it was vastly simplified technique. Don't know if you concur with that, Alex?"

Alexander Battaglia: "I concur wholeheartedly. And I also don't think the design of DLSS 3 is about 30 to 60 fps conversions, like internally 30, running at 60. Maybe you could use it for that way, but I think the design really was like 'We want high frame rates. We want (a) HFR [high frame rate] experience.' And that's where it shines best."

Rich Leadbetter: "I agree. I think that's a pretty good crucial component of the review, which is how low can you go with frame generation before the effects starts to fall apart.

And that kinda leads us onto various questions we had about whether it [DLSS 3] can go into the next generation Switch. I think if you're targeting 60 fps, and you've got a 30 fps base frame rate, it'd have to be a very specific type of experience. Don't think it's a good fit."
⋮

⋮
(1:11:44) Rich Leadbetter: "Next question from Nico Simmons: 'As a 3070 owner, I'm a bit disappointed that the new DLSS 3.x system is not compatible with Ampere, according to NVIDIA. It makes sense that this new method relies on improvements in the silicon, but I am wondering if there would be a less performant or accurate way to achieve DLSS 3-like improvements on older gen cards. I'm curious about what everyone's thoughts on this are.'

What are your thoughts there, Alex? We just don't really know how performant the older versions of the optical flow analyser are, really. I mean they [Nvidia] were saying it's 3x faster with the new silicon compared to Ampere, which is a bit of a deal breaker, unless you really want a poor interpolated image."

Alexander Battaglia: "Yeah, right?
I think what Nvidia said, their explanation, does make quite a bit of sense. They want to ensure proper input latency; they want to ensure proper gains of frame rate in the end. So that's why they're preventing it. But ways they could make it possibly work is that they've technically proven that they can do this in a certain way. Just hear me out. In that past actually, DLSS 2 ran slower than it does right now on the same GPU. Over time with DLSS iterations, they actually made it faster and higher quality. They could technically do something similar with DLSS 3 in terms of making it faster on the same thing, same quality. But that would require a lot of innovation, and a lot of time and effort, and it may not still be enough to actually make it viable for real time. So that is one thing.
They can of course try to improve DLSS 3's run time on that bit of silicon [Ampere's Optical Flow Accelerators] in there. Yes they can."

Rich Leadbetter: "Yeah, I think this is going to be an area of research that all of the vendors, you know, AMD, Intel, Nvidia, are going to be pursuing. If you watch our [Digital Foundry's] Intel Arc interview with Tom Peterson, I mean it's clear they're [Intel's] looking at it. It's not a Nvidia specific technology. It's going to be cropping out across the board over the years to come. It's just Nvidia were there first."

(1:13:50) Rich Leadbetter: "Next question. SJ33 (Jake): 'Hey guys. The frame generation feature of DLSS 3 does look genuinely intriguing after watching your video. However, it's unfortunately yet another technology locked to a specific vendor. Would an open and vendor agnostic version of frame generation be possible? Do Radeon and Arc have some equivalent of the optical flow generator that could be utilised? Or would it all have to be done in software similar to traditional interpolation?'

I think this is a difficult question to answer, Alex, because imagine asking that question about DLSS 1 when it was first mooted. There would be no answers to it. And ultimately, DLSS proved itself with its second generation, which made the competition sit up and say 'Right, we've got to do our own alternatives to this.' And we are where we are now years later. I think with Intel in the frame, things might be accelerated a bit. And as I just said, they're clearly looking at frame generation. Thoughts?"

Alexander Battaglia: "I don't know if they [Intel] have the equivalent of an optical flow generator, whether they can repurpose, for example encode and decode things. Because the GPU can encode like H.260, H.264, HEVC, and AV1. It is kinda doing some similar work to what an optical flow generator would be doing. Maybe they could repurpose those? I don't know. I'm not an engineer, so let's say that.
But the thing that makes DLSS 3 is not just they [Nvidia] got it to work in a certain millisecond time frame. But they have to put in the legwork to make the ML [machine learning] program that is saying 'Okay, do we re-project this pixel here based upon motion vectors? Or do we re-project it based on the optical flow graph? Or do we re-project it based on some sort of weird combination of the two?' That is something where it's purely software. And Nvidia put in the time to do that.
So that means the other developers out there, at your AMD, and your Intel, or maybe the console manufacturers to a certain degree, would have to put in the years maybe worth of work to make it actually viable from a software perspective.
Nvidia has proven that they are invested in the sphere, you know AI, perceptual visuals, and things like that. AMD has not proven that. Intel, they're getting there. So we'll see.
I think we'll see it from Intel first and not AMD."
⋮

 

[My Tulpa]

Other poster might have been me? Or maybe not, it's a very apparent position :]

Regardless, this feels like a reasonable call. This thread has spent countless posts trying to reconcile price points, naming, positioning etc. after the 'OLED Model' was thrown into the mix. If it's taken out and replaced with the new hardware at $400, some of the worst sticking points resolve. Repeating some of what you've already said but:

• The $450 or $500 could have worked for a strong launch but it felt a little too high for a product Nintendo would want everybody to own down the line
• The oddity of the name 'OLED Model' when the new product is also a 'Switch' with an OLED screen is also no longer a consideration.
• Edit*: The design of the OLED model manages to be distinct enough from the current V2 due to materials, kickstand and screen size, but there was always a question of how the new model might differentiate itself from the OLED

I just wonder how do they transition off of the OLED and onto the new model? There's heaps of marketing out there for the OLED model currently. Do they suddenly stop marketing it and wait for the remaining product to be sold off (probably discounted at retail)?

Also, is the OLED Model dock sufficient to support 4K/60/HDR? Or would that require additional changes?

Hm, this actually does solve some “delimmas”.

The way I would read it, when the Power Switch launches, demand for OLED Switch should go severely down.

Newcomers to Switch at this point are looking for really cheap price points or more powerful hardware.

I agree that OLED buyers right now are mostly current Switch owners interested in the bigger/better screen (and maybe upgrading to the tx1+ for those with OG models).

Power Switch Drake would essentially replace that market anyways.

The only way OLED could still have demand in this scenario is if it’s at lest $150 cheaper than what the new model is priced at.

I always fell that the Power Switch would be $450-$500 and that OLED would still have a space in the tiers, but if they are indeed going to price this at $400, the OLED loses its feasibility.

The severe decrease in demand means Nintendo can easily and effectively just stop producing and shipping them without many people caring about its short lifespan anyways . Hence, trying to clear all excess stock now makes sense before the announcment.

Edit:
Just thinking aloud -

If it is hypothetically true, is it possible that some of this could have played into Mochizuki and others conflating the two devices? ie. Is it even possible that the form factor and parts being produced were known to be intended for a future premium device, and the OLED model was just an unexpected stop-gap?

Yea this makes more sense to me too, if the above is true.

I always felt the OLED model and Drake mode were meant to release together (with the same screen but different guts and the big difference in price to clarify the difference)

But Nintendo making a decision to push/delay their new upgrade model hardware release (for whatever the reason was concerning the new SoC), they decided to produce a “stop gap” OLED model since they had the new screen contract and manufacturing started anyways, and use the current SoC instead, to have new hardware for that FY.

I’m with you, I’m inclined to believe this.

 

[carbonaxiom]

I know the average buyer sometimes has a hard time distinguishing differences between similar products, but we also do live in a world where people consistently buy a new phone regardless of how similar it looks to their current one because they assume that it is definitely better in some way, even if they can't fully list out those differences.

Because of that, I have a hard time buying the argument that the OLED Switch and a new upgraded Switch will cause any significant confusion, even if the new model has the same OLED screen and exterior features. At worst, it might cause slight issues if the name and marketing of the new model fails to describe the fact that it's the better model. Simply calling it a Switch 2 would solve that (and might be a good reason for just going with that name).

That is also my understanding. Yes, the OLED Switch allegedly will be replaced by the "enhanced" model. This isn't a popular or safe prediction for a fake insider to make, therefore the rumor caught my attention despite the unproven source. On the surface phasing OLED out this quickly seems counterintuitive, but it may have some merits from the product management standpoint.

• As pointed out by another poster earlier, the OLED model is targeting the enthusiasts and repurchasers. The Drake model will be targeting the same segment, rendering the former redundant.
• By keeping the dated v2 and limited Lite instead of the more attractive OLED, it might accelerate the adoption curve of the new model, which would be good for Nintendo and other developers.
• If the rumor is correct that the main differentiator from the OLED model is the SoC, discontinuing the OLED would create better product tiers ($200/$300/$400+) and lessen consumer confusion (not having two models with the same display).
• For the same reason, the R&D and production setup spent on the OLED essentially are shared by both models. (The mod uncle also mentioned that both models were prototyped together last year.) Even if the OLED is indeed short-lived, the efforts Nintendo put in would not be wasted.
• Nintendo stated a few times that the profit margin of OLED model is lower. By discontinuing it, the company could make some design changes on the new model to increase the profit margin, not unlike what Sony did with the new PS5 (CFI-1200).

Outside of the point about consumer confusion, I do think this sounds like an analysis that Nintendo could have made. Given that, I wonder how fixed the low profit margin of the OLED model is. I think it would come down to how low the profit margin of that model would be with a discount at the time of the new model's release. It would only be a $50 discount per device, which could conceivably be made up by the ramp up in production of the new model using the same exterior parts lowering the overall price per part via the scaling of production.

 

[My Tulpa]

I know the average buyer sometimes has a hard time distinguishing differences between similar products, but we also do live in a world where people consistently buy a new phone regardless of how similar it looks to their current one because they assume that it is definitely better in some way, even if they can't fully list out those differences.

Because of that, I have a hard time buying the argument that the OLED Switch and a new upgraded Switch will cause any significant confusion, even if the new model has the same OLED screen and exterior features. At worst, it might cause slight issues if the name and marketing of the new model fails to describe the fact that it's the better model.

I agree with you that confusion isn’t an issue here. The argument in discontinuing the current OLED when the new model launches would be about it losing demand and value to makes its continued production worth it to Nintendo. Not really about “avoiding consumer confusion”

Simply calling it a Switch 2 would solve that (and might be a good reason for just going with that name).

I disagree with this, though. Nothing about using “Switch 2” as a name could be justified for any reason.

 

[cw_sasuke]

I know the average buyer sometimes has a hard time distinguishing differences between similar products, but we also do live in a world where people consistently buy a new phone regardless of how similar it looks to their current one because they assume that it is definitely better in some way, even if they can't fully list out those differences.

Because of that, I have a hard time buying the argument that the OLED Switch and a new upgraded Switch will cause any significant confusion, even if the new model has the same OLED screen and exterior features. At worst, it might cause slight issues if the name and marketing of the new model fails to describe the fact that it's the better model. Simply calling it a Switch 2 would solve that (and might be a good reason for just going with that name).

Who is buying a SWOLED when they can get Drake for 50-100 more though ? That market is probably not worth targeting for Nintendo.

The more and faster they can get Premium users on Drake the earlier it can become the Switch baseline.

 

[Gay Bowser]

I know the average buyer sometimes has a hard time distinguishing differences between similar products, but we also do live in a world where people consistently buy a new phone regardless of how similar it looks to their current one because they assume that it is definitely better in some way, even if they can't fully list out those differences.

Because of that, I have a hard time buying the argument that the OLED Switch and a new upgraded Switch will cause any significant confusion, even if the new model has the same OLED screen and exterior features. At worst, it might cause slight issues if the name and marketing of the new model fails to describe the fact that it's the better model. Simply calling it a Switch 2 would solve that (and might be a good reason for just going with that name).

I don’t know. Within the technology space, “don’t make the high-end thing look just like the low-end thing” is a pretty popular maxim. Apple’s pretty careful to make sure that the Apple Watch SE uses a recognizably older design with a smaller screen and larger bezels than the Apple Watch Series 7 and 8 that were sold alongside it. (The ancient Apple Watch Series 3, which was bizarrely sold alongside the Apple Watch SE as the true entry-level model until last month, has a yet smaller screen and even larger bezels). Same with the base iPad, the iPhone SE, etc. The new 13.6-inch MacBook Air and 14-inch MacBook Pro aren’t leagues apart in terms of design but Apple is still careful to give the MacBook Air a slightly smaller screen. Part of this is all legitimate cost-cutting but I think there’s definitely an element of marketing differentiation to it too. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they introduced the Apple Watch SE using the Apple Watch 4/5/6’s “40/44 mm” design just as they moved the flagship Apple Watch to a new “41/45 mm” design. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Apple Watch they chose to keep around way too long as the bargain basement model was the Series 3 and never the Series 4; the Series 3 looks different from the Apple Watch SE, and the Series 4 would look largely the same.

It’s not terribly hard for me to envision a scenario where Nintendo decides to replace the OLED entirely at the top of the range with the new model, and then keeps on selling the 6.2-inch LCD model for $299. I know that might not make sense to some people, but I could see it making sense to Nintendo.

There’s also a non-zero chance that the new Switch actually has a slightly smaller screen than the OLED. I don’t think that’s likely but it is possible, especially if they wanted to fit a camera and mic array into the fixed height they have to work with. The 3DS had a smaller bottom screen than the DSi.

 

[Raccoon]

Who is buying a SWOLED when they can get Drake for 50-100 more though ?

try 150 USD

 

[Dakhil]

Samsung Elec to triple advanced chip production by 2027, sees robust demand

Samsung Electronics' chip contract manufacturing business said on Tuesday it plans to more than triple its advanced chips production capacity by 2027 to meet strong demand despite current global economic headwinds.

www.reuters.com

⋮
The world's second-largest foundry after Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) (2330.TW) is targeting mass production of advanced 2-nanometre technology chips by 2025 and 1.4-nanometre chips by 2027, set for use in applications such as high-performance computing and artificial intelligence.

"There has been some progress (in raising prices) this year, and costs are being reflected... New orders won currently will be made after 2-3 years, so the direct impact of the current atmosphere will be minimal," said Moonsoo Kang, executive vice president of Samsung Electronics' foundry business.

Samsung began mass producing chips with 3-nanometre technology in June. The company was in talks with potential customers for 3-nanometre collaboration, including Qualcomm (QCOM.O), Tesla (TSLA.O) and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD.O), Samsung said.
⋮

⋮
Samsung, the world's largest memory chip maker, has had difficulties in meeting clients' expectations for foundry yields in recent years. Analysts said the company had pushed advanced technology too quickly to compete with TSMC, but had suffered from having less experience with the long-term client cooperation needed in contract manufacturing.

Samsung co-CEO Kyung Kye-hyun told reporters its foundry business had lagged TSMC's development schedule and performance in 5- and 4-nanometre chips, but customers were interested in the second version of 3-nanometre chips to be made from 2024. read more

"We have been keeping in line with customers' expectations since the start of 3-nanometre mass production this year," Kang said.
⋮

⋮
The industry may find it difficult to meet demand even if all planned investments are executed, he said.

The limited number of advanced chipmaking machines that can be produced by Dutch company ASML (ASML.AS) limits how much advanced chip capacity can be added, Kang added.

"U.S. customers are especially interested in production in the United States, for supply chain stability," Kang said. "Our Taylor site is very large...It's a good site for expansion," he added.
⋮

 

[carbonaxiom]

I agree with you that confusion isn’t an issue here. The argument in discontinuing the current OLED when the new model launches would be about it losing demand and value to makes its continued production worth it to Nintendo. Not really about “avoiding consumer confusion”

You quoted me before I got my edit through. Consumer confusion is one part of the potential reasoning behind it. I just focused on it because it's the one I most disagree with.

I disagree with this, though. Nothing about using “Switch 2” as a name could be justified for any reason.

I actually do think adding numbers to a device name is so established at this point that it causes less confusion than any other type of name. Of course, it's also a fairly boring name compared to "Switch Advance" or "New Nintendo Switch", so it has that against it.

Who is buying a SWOLED when they can get Drake for 50-100 more though ? That market is probably not worth targeting for Nintendo.

The more and faster they can get Premium users on Drake the earlier it can become the Switch baseline.

For $50, I mostly agree. $100 is pretty significant though, and I can see many consumers choosing the cheaper option there.

I don’t know. Within the technology space, “don’t make the high-end thing look just like the low-end thing” is a pretty popular maxim. Apple’s pretty careful to make sure that the Apple Watch SE uses a recognizably older design with a smaller screen and larger bezels than the Apple Watch Series 7 and 8 that were sold alongside it. (The ancient Apple Watch Series 3, which was bizarrely sold alongside the Apple Watch SE as the true entry-level model until last month, has a yet smaller screen and even larger bezels). Same with the base iPad, the iPhone SE, etc. The new 13.6-inch MacBook Air and 14-inch MacBook Pro aren’t leagues apart in terms of design but Apple is still careful to give the MacBook Air a slightly smaller screen. Part of this is all legitimate cost-cutting but I think there’s definitely an element of marketing differentiation to it too. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they introduced the Apple Watch SE using the Apple Watch 4/5/6’s “40/44 mm” design just as they moved the flagship Apple Watch to a new “41/45 mm” design. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Apple Watch they chose to keep around way too long as the bargain basement model was the Series 3 and never the Series 4; the Series 3 looks different from the Apple Watch SE, and the Series 4 would look largely the same.

This is a bit of semantics, but outside of the example of the Apple Watch these are all differences that still maintain mostly similar design features with previous models.

Leaving behind the semantics of what constitutes significant changes, even if they used the exact same external parts, I really do think all Nintendo would need to do is add a color palette change and slightly different joycons to make it look different enough to tell apart in advertising.

 

[Deleted member 887]

I don’t know. Within the technology space, “don’t make the high-end thing look just like the low-end thing” is a pretty popular maxim. Apple’s pretty careful to make sure that the Apple Watch SE uses a recognizably older design with a smaller screen and larger bezels than the Apple Watch Series 7 and 8 that were sold alongside it. (The ancient Apple Watch Series 3, which was bizarrely sold alongside the Apple Watch SE as the true entry-level model until last month, has a yet smaller screen and even larger bezels). Same with the base iPad, the iPhone SE, etc. The new 13.6-inch MacBook Air and 14-inch MacBook Pro aren’t leagues apart in terms of design but Apple is still careful to give the MacBook Air a slightly smaller screen. Part of this is all legitimate cost-cutting but I think there’s definitely an element of marketing differentiation to it too. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they introduced the Apple Watch SE using the Apple Watch 4/5/6’s “40/44 mm” design just as they moved the flagship Apple Watch to a new “41/45 mm” design. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Apple Watch they chose to keep around way too long as the bargain basement model was the Series 3 and never the Series 4; the Series 3 looks different from the Apple Watch SE, and the Series 4 would look largely the same.

I suspect Apple’s inspiration is the fashion industry, which uses yearly churn as a way to make things seem dated, to help drive new purchases. Certainly, Tim Cook is a watch nerd, and knows that cycle very well.

Nintendo seems to like their handheld outlines to signify in-group membership - you’re a Nintendo fan, or even a Zelda fan with a special edition - instead of status “latest iPhone indicates wealth” strategy.

Especially if you want to encourage after school multiplayer this sort of design language makes sense instead of subtly enforcing a social pecking order. It’s not an abstract idea, this was a pretty explicit part of Nintendo’s strategy during the DS/3DS era.

All that said, I expect Nintendo to use new color ways much as they did with the OLED

 

[Gay Bowser]

This is a bit of semantics, but outside of the example of the Apple Watch these are all differences that still maintain mostly similar design features with previous models.

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here. The current iPhone SE maintains similar design features to, say, the iPhone 8, but crucially it didn’t when it was being sold alongside the iPhone 8. The iPhone SE back then looked like the much smaller iPhone 5. Apple has always been very careful to make the fancier models look different than the cheaper models, as do most consumer electronics companies.

A good example is this year’s edition of the iPhone 14 Plus. For the first time, the non-Pro iPhone is available in the larger 6.7-inch size, making the screen size of the two models of iPhone and the two models of iPhone Pro essentially* the same for the first time. Apple could have done this years ago, there’s nothing technically requiring them to lock the larger screen size to be a Pro-exclusive feature, but I think they wanted the Pro models to have that differentiation. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the iPhone 14 is finally gaining the larger screen at precisely the same time that the iPhone Pro line moves to a different screen design that replaces the notch with the “dynamic island” that is key to Apple’s marketing campaign for the Pro. They’re still visually differentiated, in a way they wouldn’t have been if, say, Apple had made an iPhone 13 Plus last year. Which is one reason why they didn’t.

*The screen sizes of the iPhone and iPhone Pro are both advertised as 6.1-inch and 6.7-inch on the diagonal, but the new ”dynamic island” iPhone Pro models actually now have a slightly taller aspect ratio display, further contributing to a visual distinction between the models.

 

[Gay Bowser]

Especially if you want to encourage after school multiplayer this sort of design language makes sense instead of subtly enforcing a social pecking order. It’s not an abstract idea, this was a pretty explicit part of Nintendo’s strategy during the DS/3DS era.

I remember Nintendo using a very expensive “triple-shot” paint job on the earliest 3DS models as part of an attempt to differentiate it visually as a more premium product. More subtly, they did something similar with the glossy-top dual-texture design of the DSi XL compared to the all-matte DSi: the DSi XL was specifically supposed to look more premium and grown-up. (One of the names they were considering for it was “DSi Executive,” for chrissakes.)

So I don’t think Nintendo is, like, above doing this, out of some sort of desire to make kids all feel like equals on the playground or something. The DSi specifically changed the look of the speaker grilles to make it look sleeker, they removed the GBA slot to make it feel slimmer, they changed from an iPod-inspired glossy look to a satin-inspired matte texture…they wanted the DSi to feel as new as it could while still being a DS.

 

[Raccoon]

praying that glossy is back in style and that's how they differentiate it

 

[carbonaxiom]

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here. The current iPhone SE maintains similar design features to, say, the iPhone 8, but crucially it didn’t when it was being sold alongside the iPhone 8. The iPhone SE back then looked like the much smaller iPhone 5. Apple has always been very careful to make the fancier models look different than the cheaper models, as do most consumer electronics companies.

A good example is this year’s edition of the iPhone 14 Plus. For the first time, the non-Pro iPhone is available in the larger 6.7-inch size, making the screen size of the two models of iPhone and the two models of iPhone Pro essentially* the same for the first time. Apple could have done this years ago, there’s nothing technically requiring them to lock the larger screen size to be a Pro-exclusive feature, but I think they wanted the Pro models to have that differentiation. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the iPhone 14 is finally gaining the larger screen at precisely the same time that the iPhone Pro line moves to a different screen design that replaces the notch with the “dynamic island” that is key to Apple’s marketing campaign for the Pro. They’re still visually differentiated, in a way they wouldn’t have been if, say, Apple had made an iPhone 13 Plus last year. Which is one reason why they didn’t.

*The screen sizes of the iPhone and iPhone Pro are both advertised as 6.1-inch and 6.7-inch on the diagonal, but the new ”dynamic island” iPhone Pro models actually now have a slightly taller aspect ratio display, further contributing to a visual distinction between the models.

What I was saying is that those differences were similar to the differences between what the OLED and new Switch could potentially have while still using mostly the same production parts, and that was being discussed as potentially not being large enough differences to justify selling both models at the same time. Things like having a more refined external look, with a different finish, or even a slight different bezel size (although this one brings into question how many production parts would actually be the same between both models), are all plenty difference enough to make consumers aware of which one is different.

 

[karmitt]

Even reading all of the above I still think dropping OLED is a good decision assuming that new device is profitable at $400 and it uses mostly the same external parts. I have no idea whatsoever if $400 is a reasonable price point for this tech.

Yes, consumers could probably differentiate it from the OLED Model with a color change and some sensible advertising and an informed store staff. However, I don’t think you can argue that the omission of the OLED from the lineup and marketing would make things much easier.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

i find it odd that they would in essence discontinue the OLED when they’ve commented on wanting those three models to be the support of the platform if I’m not mistaken.

I also find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t be a noticeable enough change for the DROLED (Drake+OLED) tablet body. A small enough change that can be observed as a difference rather than no change externally imo.





As an aside, I wonder if this will have a System Level Cache. These days it’s weird to not really have one in mobile SOCs. Like 4MB is the lowest these days that I’ve seen, and highest is… 32MB(Apple)

Others vary to 6MB or 8MB as a SLC, like Snapdragons or Mediatek 9000 series chips. Even ORIN has a 4MB SysCache. Exynos also has a SLC, the aforementioned Apple, the Google tensor.


And it’s not as though Nintendo is a stranger to an extra level of on-die memory to act like the cache for example using the eDRAM of the Wii U as an L3 or a SLC since both cpu and GPU could use it.

And the predecessors, the Wii/GCN also had a lot of cache to work with, though I don’t think it was anything like an SLC but I could be wrong here.


N3DS added more cache to the 3DS



The switch is like the first one that doesn’t have this higher cache from Nintendo, as it wasn’t really that customized, but none of the Tegra X1s have it in fairness.


I’m unsure of the likelihood of them going for a cache that both can access to when necessary as an extra level, it would be more expensive of course, but aids in the whole system being a little bit extra efficient (even if the cache needs it’s own power too) and it is pretty common in ARM-based SOCs these days.

 

[jikky]

The OLED Model dock is curious that the output power is greatly enhanced.
Normal: 18W, OLED: 39W

 

[Deleted member 887]

The OLED Model dock is curious that the output power is greatly enhanced.
Normal: 18W, OLED: 39W

The Dock can turn off the USB ports to feed higher draw to the Display Port, which I believe is functionally a product of the updated USB controller rather than an intentionally designed feature

 

[My Tulpa]

I actually do think adding numbers to a device name is so established at this point that it causes less confusion than any other type of name. Of course, it's also a fairly boring name compared to "Switch Advance" or "New Nintendo Switch", so it has that against it.

Well, Nintendo hasn’t established that at all for their successor models…and considering they won’t want people thinking of this model upgrade as any kind of “successor” console, they absolutely won’t even think about it for this.

For $50, I mostly agree. $100 is pretty significant though, and I can see many consumers choosing the cheaper option there.

$100 isn’t enough.

Look how many people haven’t chosen the Lite and instead prefer the models that are $100-$150 more. Features still trump that cost difference.

For people to really choose to still buy an OLED with no Drake hardware inside instead of the clearly much better one, the price difference would likely have to be more than $150 cheaper than whatever the new model is.

They can reach this with the regular, non OLED Switch. That model will serve that purpose. I don’t think they can reach that with the OLED model right now. I can see it being caught in a no man’s land of not enough value for what it is/isn’t.

 

[Dakhil]

Samsung Elec to triple advanced chip production by 2027, sees robust demand

Samsung Electronics' chip contract manufacturing business said on Tuesday it plans to more than triple its advanced chips production capacity by 2027 to meet strong demand despite current global economic headwinds.

www.reuters.com

Samsung plans to manufacture 1.4nm semiconductor chips by 2027

Samsung Foundry, the world's second-biggest semiconductor chip manufacturing firm, announced during the Samsung Foundry Forum 2022 event that it would keep ...

www.sammobile.com

 

[carbonaxiom]

Well, Nintendo hasn’t established that all for their successor models…and considering they won’t want people thinking of this model upgrade as any kind of “successor” console, they absolutely won’t even think about it for this.

The marketing behind this device is the thing I most want to know about. The "successor or not" question has probably been the longest-standing mystery since the rumors first began, so when the reveal video for it finally comes out that'll be one of the first things to pay attention to.

$100 isn’t enough.

Look how many people haven chosen the Switch models that are $100-$150 more than the Lite. Features still trump that cost difference.

For people to really choose to still buy an OLED with no Drake hardware inside instead of the clearly much better one, the price difference would likely have to be more than $150 cheaper than whatever the new model is.

They can reach this with the regular, non OLED Switch. That model will serve that purpose. I don’t think they can reach that with the OLED model right now. I can see it being caught in a no man’s land of not enough value for what it is/isn’t.

The Lite still has enough sales to justify its existence, and the $100 difference is probably a major part behind that. I'm assuming that in a situation where the OLED is $300 and the new Switch is $400, most people would be buying the new one, but there would still be enough people buying the OLED because of that $100 difference. Though of course, an even bigger price difference would work better for this if Nintendo can manage it.

Another thing to consider is how Nintendo views the differences between the devices. As they themselves say in the financial report explanatory material that came out after the OLED was announced:

By adding Nintendo Switch OLED model to the Nintendo Switch family, which already includes Nintendo Switch and Nintendo Switch Lite, we would like to provide consumers with another option so they can choose the model that best suits their preferences and lifestyles.

Source (quote is from page 12): https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2021/210805_3e.pdf

Even here, just eliminating the OLED would be the easiest way to maintain those differences, but that's assuming the new Switch will just be marketed as an OLED with better internal specs. A more Nintendo-like solution, one focused on preferences and lifestyles, would be some external add-on that comes included with (and only works on) the new device.

I can't imagine what that could be, and it would bring up the question of how much more expensive the new Switch could become because of it, but it would be a very uniquely Nintendo move.

 

[Nintendojitsu]

If the OLED model is to be phased out for the next Switch, we should see signs no sooner than after the Christmas holiday.

 

[fwd-bwd]

Other poster might have been me? Or maybe not, it's a very apparent position :]

Haha, it probably was you. My offline life has changed significantly, and I could only scan through this thread when I had time. Some details may have escaped me.

The Dock can turn off the USB ports to feed higher draw to the Display Port, which I believe is functionally a product of the updated USB controller rather than an intentionally designed feature

The USB hub controller in the OG dock is VIA Labs VL210, an off-the-shelf component. In the OLED dock, it was replaced by VIA Labs VL210N. I can’t locate any public data sheet for this chip; the “N” monitor also suggests a custom variant for Nintendo. So the capability of power diversion just might be an intentional feature.

 

[Bonejack]

If they phase out the OLED model, does that mean the regular one and the two special edition ones are getting valuable collector items?

Hmmmm.

 

[ertaboy356b]

If they phase out the OLED model, does that mean the regular one and the two special edition ones are getting valuable collector items?

Hmmmm.

Not if they release a higher spec OLED model. Maybe the same case of "why would you buy a 3dsXL if an N3dsXL exists" kind of thing.

 

[Hajeman]

I'm prefer Sw OLED replacing Sw V2 and reduce the price to $300 because Sw OLED body will be use again for Sw Drake (assuming they will use the same body & only SOC is different). So in a long time it will becomes more cheaper to manufacture.
Sw Drake also will be the most powerful product in the same family ever

 

[Irene]

EDIT: Wrong thread.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

Again, while the idea sounds interesting and all, I find it very hard to believe this is what they’ll do. But I’m open for surprises.

 

[Simba1]

That is also my understanding. Yes, the OLED Switch allegedly will be replaced by the "enhanced" model. This isn't a popular or safe prediction for a fake insider to make, therefore the rumor caught my attention despite the unproven source. On the surface phasing OLED out this quickly seems counterintuitive, but it may have some merits from the product management standpoint.

• As pointed out by another poster earlier, the OLED model is targeting the enthusiasts and repurchasers. The Drake model will be targeting the same segment, rendering the former redundant.
• By keeping the dated v2 and limited Lite instead of the more attractive OLED, it might accelerate the adoption curve of the new model, which would be good for Nintendo and other developers.
• If the rumor is correct that the main differentiator from the OLED model is the SoC, discontinuing the OLED would create better product tiers ($200/$300/$400+) and lessen consumer confusion (not having two models with the same display).
• For the same reason, the R&D and production setup spent on the OLED essentially are shared by both models. (The mod uncle also mentioned that both models were prototyped together last year.) Even if the OLED is indeed short-lived, the efforts Nintendo put in would not be wasted.
• Nintendo stated a few times that the profit margin of OLED model is lower. By discontinuing it, the company could make some design changes on the new model to increase the profit margin, not unlike what Sony did with the new PS5 (CFI-1200).

Completely agree, and I always having that price points on mind ($200/$300/$400+) with new Switch release.

Man of this actually replaces the SWOLED and can be sold for around 400 bucks this would be a mayor win.

This would mean that Nintendo is probably be more agreesive in what they are able to ship initially than I thought.

Switch Lite 149€
Switch V2 249€
Drake 399€

Would be a really good setup for the future.

To be fair, with price points of $400, they will not need to lower price points of Switch V2 and and Switch Lite, at least not in 1st year,
I am sure they will want to remain same profit margin with V2 and Lite, and we know that cost raised last year or two, also current models are still selling good.

Maybe we could have something like $279 and $179 for Lite, but I don't see $249 and especially $149 for Lite, probably they will not have profit with those prices any more.

 

[Nintendojitsu]

Again, while the idea sounds interesting and all, I find it very hard to believe this is what they’ll do. But I’m open for surprises.

"Nintendo, forever experts at giving players what they never knew they wanted."

 

[Terrell]

Completely agree, and I always having that price points on mind ($200/$300/$400+) with new Switch release.





To be fair, with price points of $400, they will not need to lower price points of Switch V2 and and Switch Lite, at least not in 1st year,
I am sure they will want to remain same profit margin with V2 and Lite, and we know that cost raised last year or two, also current models are still selling good.

Maybe we could have something like $279 and $179 for Lite, but I don't see $249 and especially $149 for Lite, probably they will not have profit with those prices any more.

I think you're underestimating how far costs have fallen on so many of Switch's components (especially thanks to 5 years of high sales leading to incredible economies of scale) that, even with the semiconductor shortage, the margin after 5 years is quite substantial. For example, the battery in the Pro Controller is the exact same battery from the original 3DS model (part# CTR-003) being re-purposed for another device, meaning that battery has been in non-stop production since 2010, more than a decade ago, which likely means the part is cheap AF, because what other reason could there be to use a 6yo battery design when Switch rolled around?
Nintendo made it quite clear that they wanted Switch to fully recover lost profit opportunities of the 3DS/Wii U generation (which I had a link to confirm that I've posted before, but I'll be damned if I can find it now) and, unfortunately, that meant no price drops. But as we are now halfway through year 6, I think they've more than achieved the goal. At this point, whatever drives software sales is the larger goal, because that is still where all the good money is made.

 

[Simba1]

I think you're underestimating how far costs have fallen on so many of Switch's components (especially thanks to 5 years of high sales leading to incredible economies of scale) that, even with the semiconductor shortage, the margin after 5 years is quite substantial. For example, the battery in the Pro Controller is the exact same battery from the original 3DS model (part# CTR-003) being re-purposed for another device, meaning that battery has been in non-stop production since 2010, more than a decade ago, which likely means the part is cheap AF, because what other reason could there be to use a 6yo battery design when Switch rolled around?
Nintendo made it quite clear that they wanted Switch to fully recover lost profit opportunities of the 3DS/Wii U generation (which I had a link to confirm that I've posted before, but I'll be damned if I can find it now) and, unfortunately, that meant no price drops. But as we are now halfway through year 6, I think they've more than achieved the goal. At this point, whatever drives software sales is the larger goal, because that is still where all the good money is made.

I dont, but you underestimating raise of costs last two years,
costs were failing after launch, but last two years costs began to raise, and thats goes from gas to every piece of component, everything is now more expensive compared to two years ago, that especially goes for tech hardware (I mean look at prices of mobile phones).
Also Inflation, $300 in 2017. and in $300 in 2022/2023. are totally different values ($300 today worth around 25% less than $300 did in 2017.),
inflation in other currents (for instance euro) is even worse.
Nintendo said that that with OLED they have minimal profit, that means that even V2 profit is not much better because they are not that different even if Oled model has $50 higher price point, that would probably mean if they cut V2 version to $249 they will probably not sell at profit, and Nintendo dont like that.

Nintendo goal is always to sell hardware with profit, they dont selling it with profit only if they are in trouble (3DS after price cut and Wii U),
so they will not cut down price for Switch models and than sell them without profit.

And that doesnt go only for Nintendo, 2 years after launch Sony raises price point of PS5 in Europe,
while before this was actually time frame after launch when we could expect price cut not price hike.


Price cut in this situation is unlikely, maybe something like $279 or $179, but price cut to $249 and $149 is very unlikely.

 

[niconiconick64]

What if N replaces both the lite and v2 with a drake-powered new nintendo switch lite* within ~250-275$ and the OLED with a 400$ upgrade?

If a new nintendo switch lite launches with the new nintendo switch OLED* and their designs don't change too much from the original models, assembly lines would be able to shift production easier.

Not only that, but the people who aren't getting drake because they just bought the OLED this year would be able to buy it anyways if a sub 300$ model exists by just selling their OLED for a bit under 300. Or, the sheer price range alone would be more inviting than just having a single 400$ model on launch.

*I don't believe they'd use such a mouthful

 

[Hajeman]

The best option is Sw Drake replace Sw OLED & V2. Sw Drake Lite replace Sw Lite. Nowadays Nintendo fans can afford more pricier products

 

[ertaboy356b]

What if N replaces both the lite and v2 with a drake-powered new nintendo switch lite* within ~250-275$ and the OLED with a 400$ upgrade?

If a new nintendo switch lite launches with the new nintendo switch OLED* and their designs don't change too much from the original models, assembly lines would be able to shift production easier.

Not only that, but the people who aren't getting drake because they just bought the OLED this year would be able to buy it anyways if a sub 300$ model exists by just selling their OLED for a bit under 300. Or, the sheer price range alone would be more inviting than just having a single 400$ model on launch.

*I don't believe they'd use such a mouthful

I don't believe the people who bought the OLED will buy a handheld only switch.

 

[mjayer]

What if N replaces both the lite and v2 with a drake-powered new nintendo switch lite* within ~250-275$ and the OLED with a 400$ upgrade?

If a new nintendo switch lite launches with the new nintendo switch OLED* and their designs don't change too much from the original models, assembly lines would be able to shift production easier.

Not only that, but the people who aren't getting drake because they just bought the OLED this year would be able to buy it anyways if a sub 300$ model exists by just selling their OLED for a bit under 300. Or, the sheer price range alone would be more inviting than just having a single 400$ model on launch.

*I don't believe they'd use such a mouthful

A very real possibility!


Switch 2 Lite - $249
Switch 2 - $349
Switch 2 OLED - $449

A nice lineup, and they phase out the other older Switch models with discounts/software bundles.

 

[eK-XL]

A very real possibility!


Switch 2 Lite - $249
Switch 2 - $349
Switch 2 OLED - $449

A nice lineup, and they phase out the other older Switch models with discounts/software bundles.

That's a lot of hardware to design and launch in a short period, and a lot of complicated logistics to figure out. Some models will sell better in different areas, and they have to guess ahead of time to avoid shortages. Customers could get upset if they want the OLED but can only find the lite. If they launch with multiple SKUs I think it's more likely they launch with different colors or internal storage instead.

 

[Gotdatmoneyy]

The biggest reason to replace the OLED model imo is that the margins are worse than the V2 Switch while it is only $50 more in price. At that point, they are probably better off dropping it and launching the new Switch for $450 than holding on to a model that doesn't do much for them profit wise but eats resources. Dropping their most profitable model imo makes little sense if they are going to introduce an even more premium model.

 

[Simba1]

What if N replaces both the lite and v2 with a drake-powered new nintendo switch lite* within ~250-275$ and the OLED with a 400$ upgrade?

If a new nintendo switch lite launches with the new nintendo switch OLED* and their designs don't change too much from the original models, assembly lines would be able to shift production easier.

Not only that, but the people who aren't getting drake because they just bought the OLED this year would be able to buy it anyways if a sub 300$ model exists by just selling their OLED for a bit under 300. Or, the sheer price range alone would be more inviting than just having a single 400$ model on launch.

*I don't believe they'd use such a mouthful

IMO thats most likely scenario, year-two after Drake launch we start getting "Drake" revisions, Drake Lite, Drake V2, Drake OLED,
or better said Switch 2 Lite, Switch 2 "something".

Sooner or later Nintendo will want all Switch consoles to be with same chip (in this case T239).

 

[niconiconick64]

I don't believe the people who bought the OLED will buy a handheld only switch.

IMO, 2 things:
1 - I think nintendo needs to reconsider the lite as a tv-capable switch next gen simply because doing so would allow them to:

• only have two products in the lineup as opposed to 3 (or more if they decide to keep the previous models)
• sell you dock addons, joycons, pro controllers and whatnot for tv play
• have a lower entry barrier for those who want to get into the switch experience without missing out on all the features the device can provide

2 - Even if it's kept as a handheld only, plenty of people are interested in a more graphically capable handheld console with a focus on portable gameplay rather than plugging it in to a tv. Just look at the steam deck and chinese pc handhelds: sure, you can plug most if not all of them to a tv, but looking at the value proposition, it doesn't add up. Those pc handhelds are sold for 400+$ after that, the dock/usb-c to HDMI adapter costs even more on top, for a feature that most people in that userbase don't even use extensively. Go ahead, prove to me that most deck/aya users play in docked mode more than half the time rather than handheld (they don't).

Hell, I bought the regular 2019 switch and by the time the yearly stats dropped on how I play games, nintendo's website reported I played handheld over 75% of the time. I checked this with friends and most of them reported the same or close.

 

[Dakhil]

Long-awaited common charger for mobile devices will be a reality in 2024 | News | European Parliament

Following Parliament’s approval, EU consumers will soon be able to use a single charging solution for their electronic devices.

www.europarl.europa.eu

Following Parliament's approval, EU consumers will soon be able to use a single charging solution for their electronic devices.

By the end of 2024, all mobile phones, tablets and cameras sold in the EU will have to be equipped with a USB Type-C charging port. From spring 2026, the obligation will extend to laptops. The new law, adopted by plenary on Tuesday with 602 votes in favour, 13 against and 8 abstentions, is part of a broader EU effort to reduce e-waste and to empower consumers to make more sustainable choices.

Under the new rules, consumers will no longer need a different charger every time they purchase a new device, as they will be able to use one single charger for a whole range of small and medium-sized portable electronic devices.

Regardless of their manufacturer, all new mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones and headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards, mice, portable navigation systems, earbuds and laptops that are rechargeable via a wired cable, operating with a power delivery of up to 100 Watts, will have to be equipped with a USB Type-C port.

All devices that support fast charging will now have the same charging speed, allowing users to charge their devices at the same speed with any compatible charger.
⋮

 

[Raccoon]

Long-awaited common charger for mobile devices will be a reality in 2024 | News | European Parliament

Following Parliament’s approval, EU consumers will soon be able to use a single charging solution for their electronic devices.

www.europarl.europa.eu

how does this affect Nintendo?

 

[ertaboy356b]

IMO, 2 things:
1 - I think nintendo needs to reconsider the lite as a tv-capable switch next gen simply because doing so would allow them to:

• only have two products in the lineup as opposed to 3 (or more if they decide to keep the previous models)
• sell you dock addons, joycons, pro controllers and whatnot for tv play
• have a lower entry barrier for those who want to get into the switch experience without missing out on all the features the device can provide

2 - Even if it's kept as a handheld only, plenty of people are interested in a more graphically capable handheld console with a focus on portable gameplay rather than plugging it in to a tv. Just look at the steam deck and chinese pc handhelds: sure, you can plug most if not all of them to a tv, but looking at the value proposition, it doesn't add up. Those pc handhelds are sold for 400+$ after that, the dock/usb-c to HDMI adapter costs even more on top, for a feature that most people in that userbase don't even use extensively. Go ahead, prove to me that most deck/aya users play in docked mode more than half the time rather than handheld (they don't).

Hell, I bought the regular 2019 switch and by the time the yearly stats dropped on how I play games, nintendo's website reported I played handheld over 75% of the time. I checked this with friends and most of them reported the same or close.

I myself also plays a lot of handheld, but that's just because handheld mode is accessible most of the time. A lot of times, I prefer playing on the TV but can't, especially on Xenoblade 2. That game is awful in handheld. Can I play this game in handheld exclusively? Well yes. But I still would prefer a console experience if possible even if most of the game is played in handheld mode.

 

[Dakhil]

how does this affect Nintendo?

Any handheld video game console(s) Nintendo releases in 2024 and beyond must be equipped with a USB Type-C port, support the USB PD standard, and ensure any additional charging protocols allow for USB PD functionality (and probably ensure compliance with USB PD specifications).

 

[Raccoon]

Any handheld video game console(s) Nintendo releases in 2024 and beyond must be equipped with a USB Type-C port, support the USB PD standard, and ensure any additional charging protocols allow for USB PD functionality (and probably ensure compliance with USB PD specifications).

I assume the current Switch does not?

 

[Thraktor]

I assume the current Switch does not?

It does. As pointed out by a couple of people when it launched, it wasn't technically in line with the full specification in certain ways, but this was typical of almost every USB-C product at the time (2017 was pretty early for USB-PD devices), and in my personal experience my launch Switch has had no issue charging from every USB-PD charger I've used with it. It shouldn't be an issue for any new Switch hardware because (a) the newer USB-PD implementation and hardware should iron out these kinks and (b) there's no chance the EU will take action on a company with relatively minor discrepancies from the technical standard in any case. The legislation is intended to force Apple to use USB-C on their iPhones (which is ironic considering how much Apple were the ones pushing USB-C when it launched), and it will only be enforced if companies release devices with completely different charging connectors from USB-C.