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

[YolkFolk]

Lack of something else to discuss?


This is demonstrably not true. Designing Drake as an offshoot of Orin, using stable architectures is absolutely significantly cheaper than Sony building custom APUs on top of an at-the-time-unfinalized RDNA2. The presence of Linux drivers implies that Nvidia intends to sell Drake based products of its own, again bringing down costs.

If Nintendo is reusing the Switch form factor with compatible accessories, the design and manufacturing process for the whole console is cheaper than any other console launch.

All rumors indicate a launch in the next 8 months, and even a 6 month saturation marketing plan will be cheaper than PS5's elaborate, year long hard sell.



Allow me to present you with a realistic scenario.

Nintendo launches the "NuSwitch" a 4k capable device, heavily emphasizing backwards/forwards compatibility. The retire the OLED, and NuSwitch jumps right into pole position as the lead selling unit. However, it doesn't rejuvenate Switch sales overall, which stay strong for a devices seventh year, but don't jump up to "first year of a next gen device" levels. NuSwitch is a huge leap in power, but it's never taken proper advantage of, due to the cross-gen period holding games back, which is part of why Switch sales don't spike up, which extends the cross-gen period, which exacerbates the problem.

Nintendo didn't want this possibility, but knowing it existed, they execute plan B. A new console is announced, TV only, with a brand new gimmick. The chip inside is Drake, but unconstrained by handheld power demands and passive cooling, it is significantly more powerful, with an SSD and more RAM to boot, and the unified arch allows them to support two pieces of hardware more readily than during the DS era.

I can think of other scenarios as well. I think folks are right when they say Nintendo isn't going to launch a Nu Switch next year, then launch a Nuer Switch 3 years after that which breaks backwards compatibility.

But saying that NuSwitch is Nintendo's only platform for the next 6 years is presuming a lot. It's presuming that Nintendo wouldn't like to experiment with form factors other than handheld, and diversify their hardware portfolio. It presumes that Nintendo would need to reinvent Drake for new hardware, instead of simply using it in a new form factor, die shrinking or overclocking it. Or simply building something new using off the shelf parts, much as the Switch itself did. It also presumes that NuSwitch strategy is successful, and that Nintendo only has one strategy for the future.

Obviously scaremongering about "maybe this machine we've been salivating over for years is just a blip" is foolish. But Nintendo is doing something no other console manufacturer has ever done, and I am not convinced by anyone who thinks their post-game is obvious.

You’re taking the first point too literally. For all we know this new hardware is Switch 2. If that is then case then they will incur the costs of everything which goes into a next gen console relatively speaking. Obviously those costs won’t be as high as Sony releasing PS5 due to the nature of the platforms.

“But Nintendo is doing something no other console manufacturer has ever done”.

And what’s that?

 

[Paxie]

Not going to lie I'm getting a bit annoyed the constant talk about how Nintendo doing the phone business model is a shake-up. like... PS1 -> PS2 -> launch PS3 and all their variations are the phone model. Hell the DS line (including the 3DS) were the phone model. Y'all are giving too much weight to marketing/investor speak

 

[Deleted member 887]

You’re taking the first point too literally. For all we know this new hardware is Switch 2. If that is then case then they will incur the costs of everything which goes into a next gen console relatively speaking. Obviously those costs won’t be as high as Sony releasing PS5 due to the nature of the platforms.

“But Nintendo is doing something no other console manufacturer has ever done”.

And what’s that?

Release a generational leap in hardware without a next gen marketing cycle, assuming it really does launch H1 next year.

 

[ertaboy356b]

The only marketing push that makes sense is if Nintendo leads the way to pushing must played exclusives to the new Switch while risking potential sales from the old one forcing those who want these games to upgrade. Or have a trade-in period something.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

This is demonstrably not true. Designing Drake as an offshoot of Orin, using stable architectures is absolutely significantly cheaper than Sony building custom APUs on top of an at-the-time-unfinalized RDNA2. The presence of Linux drivers implies that Nvidia intends to sell Drake based products of its own, again bringing down costs.

If Nintendo is reusing the Switch form factor with compatible accessories, the design and manufacturing process for the whole console is cheaper than any other console launch.

All rumors indicate a launch in the next 8 months, and even a 6 month saturation marketing plan will be cheaper than PS5's elaborate, year long hard sell.

Just to be a bit pedantic, but technically no. What Sony and Microsoft have done is basically the same thing Nintendo has done in this case. Except what Sony and Microsoft are doing basically only exclusively for them while what Nintendo is doing is something that they benefit from because it is not only exclusive to them. The PlayStation5 and the Xbox series are the scaled up versions of what AMD already has or was already implementing into their APUs. Something such as the steam deck Van Gogh APU, or the 6800u are such examples of this.



And in the same fashion as some features that’re only exclusive to Drake, like the file decompression engine, which wouldn’t exist on regular Tegras, it will be a request by Sony and Microsoft for AMD to simply implement into the silicon. So cache scrubbers or SFS for their respectively, wouldn’t exist on the non-console APUs.

Not going to lie I'm getting a bit annoyed the constant talk about how Nintendo doing the phone business model is a shake-up. like... PS1 -> PS2 -> launch PS3 and all their variations are the phone model. Hell the DS line (including the 3DS) were the phone model. Y'all are giving too much weight to marketing/investor speak

The smartphone business model is about several elements working together to actually execute the cell phone business model. The phone business model isn’t about the future product. It is about the previous product remaining into the future. It’s not about simply having a PlayStation 3 that is backwards compatible and can play PlayStation1 games, it is about the PlayStation1 still getting games even after the PlayStation 3 is out in the wild for a while. And its support gets dropped as soon as a PlayStation 4 meanwhile, your games that you bought on the PlayStation one get carried forward, regardless of when or what you upgrade to. That is the smart phone model, because it is a tied to you the player with whatever system that they used to track you as a unique account in which you own the title.




The only device that actually was the closest to the smart, full model was the Gameboy. Nothing else has actually come close to it.


The smart phone model isn’t simply about having an iterative successor, having iterative successor does not necessarily mean you have a model that is similar to smart phones, it’s about long term goals and support in mind that carry with you forward with you the person, whenever you choose to upgrade or if you don’t want to, you can still get support for years to come.

 

[kimbo99]

The only marketing push that makes sense is if Nintendo leads the way to pushing must played exclusives to the new Switch while risking potential sales from the old one forcing those who want these games to upgrade. Or have a trade-in period something.

That's probably the toughest part of the transition. Specs seem like a no-brainer based on the leaks but marketing to basic consumers is going to be a tough sell.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Allow me to present you with a realistic scenario.

Nintendo launches the "NuSwitch" a 4k capable device, heavily emphasizing backwards/forwards compatibility. The retire the OLED, and NuSwitch jumps right into pole position as the lead selling unit. However, it doesn't rejuvenate Switch sales overall, which stay strong for a devices seventh year, but don't jump up to "first year of a next gen device" levels.

For successful systems, year 1 is usually not a high bar. Switch year 7 will have to be a big step down to reach year 1 numbers.

 

[Dakhil]

Microsoft exec says gaming is 'somewhat resilient' to economic weakness

In the Global Financial Crisis, Microsoft's Xbox console business had the best calendar year to date, and Xbox content and services got a pandemic bump in 2020.

www.cnbc.com

⋮
Today, Spencer said, Microsoft gives people choice in how much they'd like to spend if they want consoles. The company offers the $499 Xbox Series X and the less powerful $299 Xbox Series S. Microsoft subsidizes the cost to the tune of $100 to $200 per console, with the expectation that it will make the money back on sales of accessories and storefront purchases, he said. It's up to gamers if they'd like to pay $10 or $15 per month for Game Pass subscriptions. They can also buy games outright, or play certain games for free.
⋮

Keep in mind the price of semiconductor and electronic components are expected to continue to rise up by up to 3.6% in 2022, and aren't expected to fall until late 2023 at the earliest, exasperated by Russia's attempted invasion of Ukraine, and the geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China.

I think what Dylan Patel mentioned could at the very least partially explain why Microsoft's currently selling the Xbox Series X|S at ~$100 ~ $200 loss, especially with the Xbox Series X|S using GDDR6 for the RAM.

 

[Look over there]

Speaking of which, is my math off, or is the Series X really using sixteen 1 GB GDDR6 chips? And the Series S would be five 2 GB GDDR6 chips?

Referencing this again; in 2019, a 1 GB GDDR6 @ 14 GT/s chip cost $11.69 when buying 2000 units at once. Presumably AMD buys in significant bulk, and that post mentions an estimated range for the discount possibly being 20 to 40%. Let's go with 40% for this example; $11.69 * 0.6 = ~$7.014. If prices are no lower than they were back in 2019, sixteen of those chips come out to ~$112.22

 

[Dakhil]

Speaking of which, is my math off, or is the Series X really using sixteen 1 GB GDDR6 chips? And the Series S would be five 2 GB GDDR6 chips?

The Xbox Series X is using six 2 GB GDDR6 modules and four 1 GB GDDR6 modules, whereas the Xbox Series S is using five 2 GB GDDR6 modules.

 

[manfromthedam]

Most of these reviews are only like what? 2 days, or a month at most? Those are from the devices "prime". Give it a year or more and the device gradually turns to shit.

Edit: The only good gaming laptops in my experience are those with 17 inch screen because it is big enough to not overheat.

Did some googling about thermals, temps and the like. Seems like some brands have more troubles with this than others - the cheaper Asus ones for instance. Lenovo seems to be alright of the non-premium brands - also regarding lifespan - so went for that.

Frankly I’ve had no problems with my 14 inch G14 that has a 3060 in it. Played through Guardians of the Galaxy at 1080p60+ with ray tracing and DLSS on and it was flawless. Control with DF’s optimized settings at 1080p runs really great as well. Had it for over a year too at this point

I ultimately went for a 2022 Legion 5 with RTX3070. Got it for €1400 which is quite alright. Looking forward to entering the modern world of dem grafx! (Bought an LG C1 earlier in the year and only using it for Switch and work felt wasteful =P ).

Off-topic but

Spoiler

There's a good topic on ResetEra where you can ask for recommendations based on your budget, location, etc. The Gaming Laptop Discussion thread. It's where I got mine and it turned out to be good.

Thanks for the tip, there's a lot of knowledge on there that I'm sometimes missing here. However, I'm not built to put up with the stress of that place. Was fortunately able to make an informed decision =) .

 

[Paxie]

The smartphone business model is about several elements working together to actually execute the cell phone business model. The phone business model isn’t about the future product. It is about the previous product remaining into the future. It’s not about simply having a PlayStation 3 that is backwards compatible and can play PlayStation1 games, it is about the PlayStation1 still getting games even after the PlayStation 3 is out in the wild for a while. And its support gets dropped as soon as a PlayStation 4 meanwhile, your games that you bought on the PlayStation one get carried forward, regardless of when or what you upgrade to. That is the smart phone model, because it is a tied to you the player with whatever system that they used to track you as a unique account in which you own the title.

PS1 got games part-way into PS2's life-cycle and the same was true of PS2 and PS3. This is also not going into how consoles tended to have all different variations with upgraded storage or a different form factor that all shared the same library. Even the DS had the OG, DSi, Lite, XLs... or how the 3DS basically had 3 different branches between the base, 2DS, and New lines. The idea of doing that but across console generations is novel for Nintendo, but if it means that games have to support the Switch 1 even when the new powerful console is out, then it is going to end badly. Enthusiasts (i.e. the people who drive WoM online) are already fatigued by the Switch's hardware capabilities (along with evidence that casuals are getting there as well), and having games fundamentally handicapped by 2017 specs over 7 years later runs a serious risk of alienating them outright, especially if Valve releases a 2nd gen Steam Deck that continues to take up a lot of oxygen in discussions. It makes more sense to deprecate game support 2-3 years after the new gen as is usual.

TL;DR I still believe the novelty of Nintendo's "phone business model" approach is purely fans taking executive speak as gospel, I find it more likely it was just a mealy-mouthed way of saying that all of their hardware will have guaranteed BC with all their predecessors starting with the Switch.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Lack of something else to discuss?


This is demonstrably not true. Designing Drake as an offshoot of Orin, using stable architectures is absolutely significantly cheaper than Sony building custom APUs on top of an at-the-time-unfinalized RDNA2. The presence of Linux drivers implies that Nvidia intends to sell Drake based products of its own, again bringing down costs.

If Nintendo is reusing the Switch form factor with compatible accessories, the design and manufacturing process for the whole console is cheaper than any other console launch.

All rumors indicate a launch in the next 8 months, and even a 6 month saturation marketing plan will be cheaper than PS5's elaborate, year long hard sell.



Allow me to present you with a realistic scenario.

Nintendo launches the "NuSwitch" a 4k capable device, heavily emphasizing backwards/forwards compatibility. The retire the OLED, and NuSwitch jumps right into pole position as the lead selling unit. However, it doesn't rejuvenate Switch sales overall, which stay strong for a devices seventh year, but don't jump up to "first year of a next gen device" levels. NuSwitch is a huge leap in power, but it's never taken proper advantage of, due to the cross-gen period holding games back, which is part of why Switch sales don't spike up, which extends the cross-gen period, which exacerbates the problem.

Nintendo didn't want this possibility, but knowing it existed, they execute plan B. A new console is announced, TV only, with a brand new gimmick. The chip inside is Drake, but unconstrained by handheld power demands and passive cooling, it is significantly more powerful, with an SSD and more RAM to boot, and the unified arch allows them to support two pieces of hardware more readily than during the DS era.

I can think of other scenarios as well. I think folks are right when they say Nintendo isn't going to launch a Nu Switch next year, then launch a Nuer Switch 3 years after that which breaks backwards compatibility.

But saying that NuSwitch is Nintendo's only platform for the next 6 years is presuming a lot. It's presuming that Nintendo wouldn't like to experiment with form factors other than handheld, and diversify their hardware portfolio. It presumes that Nintendo would need to reinvent Drake for new hardware, instead of simply using it in a new form factor, die shrinking or overclocking it. Or simply building something new using off the shelf parts, much as the Switch itself did. It also presumes that NuSwitch strategy is successful, and that Nintendo only has one strategy for the future.

Obviously scaremongering about "maybe this machine we've been salivating over for years is just a blip" is foolish. But Nintendo is doing something no other console manufacturer has ever done, and I am not convinced by anyone who thinks their post-game is obvious.

I'm in the camp that they OLED switch will be the defacto v2 switch, but priced at $300 when Drake arrives. But perhaps red box switch and OLED can survive together

PS1 got games part-way into PS2's life-cycle and the same was true of PS2 and PS3. This is also not going into how consoles tended to have all different variations with upgraded storage or a different form factor that all shared the same library. Even the DS had the OG, DSi, Lite, XLs... or how the 3DS basically had 3 different branches between the base, 2DS, and New lines. The idea of doing that but across console generations is novel for Nintendo, but if it means that games have to support the Switch 1 even when the new powerful console is out, then it is going to end badly. Enthusiasts (i.e. the people who drive WoM online) are already fatigued by the Switch's hardware capabilities (along with evidence that casuals are getting there as well), and having games fundamentally handicapped by 2017 specs over 7 years later runs a serious risk of alienating them outright, especially if Valve releases a 2nd gen Steam Deck that continues to take up a lot of oxygen in discussions. It makes more sense to deprecate game support 2-3 years after the new gen as is usual.

TL;DR I still believe the novelty of Nintendo's "phone business model" approach is purely fans taking executive speak as gospel, I find it more likely it was just a mealy-mouthed way of saying that all of their hardware will have guaranteed BC with all their predecessors starting with the Switch.

I don't see how it would end badly. Switch and Drake will likely get same multiplayer first party support for a number of years, with the latter getting enhanced performance and fidelity. There's already a number of 1st party switch games that do look like PS4 games, but just don't meet them in resolution and framerate. 3rd party Devs should be able to what they please with their games. Expect exclusives on Drake that just aren't possible on Switch.

Drake will be a 1080p 60fps machine for PS4 quality games, with some native upscaled 4k switch games. As far as ports for current gen goes, 1080p 30fps maybe, with or without DLSS.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Switch and Drake will likely get same multiplayer first party support for a number of years, with the latter getting enhanced performance and fidelity.

how long until we see people begging for separate lobbies? "these damn switch players are holding my team back!"

 

[YolkFolk]

If it’s called Switch 2 I’m going to call it NS2 until it sticks.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

PS1 got games part-way into PS2's life-cycle and the same was true of PS2 and PS3. This is also not going into how consoles tended to have all different variations with upgraded storage or a different form factor that all shared the same library. Even the DS had the OG, DSi, Lite, XLs... or how the 3DS basically had 3 different branches between the base, 2DS, and New lines. The idea of doing that but across console generations is novel for Nintendo, but if it means that games have to support the Switch 1 even when the new powerful console is out, then it is going to end badly. Enthusiasts (i.e. the people who drive WoM online) are already fatigued by the Switch's hardware capabilities (along with evidence that casuals are getting there as well), and having games fundamentally handicapped by 2017 specs over 7 years later runs a serious risk of alienating them outright, especially if Valve releases a 2nd gen Steam Deck that continues to take up a lot of oxygen in discussions. It makes more sense to deprecate game support 2-3 years after the new gen as is usual.

TL;DR I still believe the novelty of Nintendo's "phone business model" approach is purely fans taking executive speak as gospel, I find it more likely it was just a mealy-mouthed way of saying that all of their hardware will have guaranteed BC with all their predecessors starting with the Switch.

Let me ask this way then, how is me going for the PlayStation 1 to the PlayStation 3 equal to me going from the iPhone 6s Plus to the iPhone 13 Pro Max? What is it that enabled me to actually move forward despite the hardware with the software that I had? Why did I move forward with a newer iPhone when I could’ve just changed to any other phone? Why would people with a Google pixel 4 move to a Google pixel 6 pro? What enables them to do that? You could see it all as just marketing speak or what have you, but the point isn’t about the hardware, it’s about the software and the software support that enables you to move forward. The whole thing Iwata spoke about was about an account system, which is just like how iOS and android are, which are the platforms. iPhone isn’t the platform, iOS is the platform. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra isn’t the platform, Android is.


And even then it is more than just being able to go forward with the software. It is also about being able to play the same piece of software, regardless of what hardware it is on. Just like how I can play say Genshin impact on my phone or on an iPad. Nintendo has somewhat dabbled more into this because you can play it on a purely portable device, or on a hybrid device, or if they released a home Console only version of the device you can play it just fine.

It’s is about how the software and the ecosystem has hardware revolve around it, not how there’s a platform and the software revolves around it (PlayStation, XBox mostly, Wii U, etc)


Phone model never locks it down to a phone because the phone isn’t the platform, it is simply a carrier for the actual platform.

 

[Brofield]

Yup and Konami will be there too …

Maybe it's just recency bias but Silent Hill making it's grand comeback and including SwitchNext in the platform lineup would be pretty sweet

 

[ILikeFeet]

Maybe it's just recency bias but Silent Hill making it's grand comeback and including SwitchNext in the platform lineup would be pretty sweet

will depend on the marketing deals. I can imagine Sony swept up SHF as well (and some of the bigger Metal Gear Solid games)

 

[Kenka]

Maybe it's just recency bias but Silent Hill making it's grand comeback and including SwitchNext in the platform lineup would be pretty sweet

What Thugstas meant was that we can expect Powerful Pro Baseball at launch. He he.

 

[Look over there]

The Xbox Series X is using six 2 GB GDDR6 modules and four 1 GB GDDR6 modules, whereas the Xbox Series S is using five 2 GB GDDR6 modules.

Hmm, interesting setup. What threw me off is that when I looked at the chart on wikipedia, I thought that the 10 GB@560 GB/s and 6 GB@336 GB/s were entirely separate and active at the same time, which adds up to 896 GB/s, and with 14 GT/s ram, that requires a bus width of 512-bit (or, 16*32), and conveniently led to sixteen 1 GB chips.

So physically there are six 2 GB and four 1 GB chips. Then the 2 GB chips get logically partitioned such that 1 GB is for the games. And the games have access to the full 320-bit memory bus/corresponding bandwidth. System gets the other 1 GB half of the six 2 GB chips, and bandwidth-wise, only has access to those six 2 GB chips' worth.

So that's what tripped me up. I always thought that the system and game memory pools were physically separate. That's not the case. It's still a logical partition, and bandwidth-wise, game & system overlap. The 128-bit (@14 GT/s it's 224 GB/s) from the four 1 GB chips are game only, but the remaining 336 GB/s from the six 2 GB chips is shared between system and game.

 

[Brofield]

will depend on the marketing deals. I can imagine Sony swept up SHF as well (and some of the bigger Metal Gear Solid games)

That's true too, I guess even SH2R probably would be exempt from Drake launch window. Perhaps too optimistic but maybe it's only six months exclusivity instead of a full year

What Thugstas meant was that we can expect Powerful Pro Baseball at launch. He he.

Aw man, no return to form for PES 2023?

 

[Thugstas]

What Thugstas meant was that we can expect Powerful Pro Baseball at launch. He he.

No… international superstar soccer switch Deluxe

 

[Mr Swine]

Drake will be a 1080p 60fps machine for PS4 quality games, with some native upscaled 4k switch games. As far as ports for current gen goes, 1080p 30fps maybe, with or without DLSS.

RDR2 would run at 1440p 60fps and have much better iq than the PS4 Pro

 

[Dakhil]

Although not necessarily explicitly related to video games, this is definitely interesting.

 

[ShadowFox08]

how long until we see people begging for separate lobbies? "these damn switch players are holding my team back!"

They haven't begged yet already for 30fps games like Fortnite? I forgot if Fortnite has separate lobbies for switch players only.. bmm. Haven't played Fortnite on switch for ages..

RDR2 would run at 1440p 60fps and have much better iq than the PS4 Pro

Yeah maybe it's doable with DLSS with the same detail as PS4. I just implied the lowest common denominator, without DLSS for PS4 quality games.

 

[karmitt]

Drake will be a 1080p 60fps machine for PS4 quality games, with some native upscaled 4k switch games. As far as ports for current gen goes, 1080p 30fps maybe, with or without DLSS.

Based on? I thought folks have been pointing to PS4-PS4 Pro docked before DLSS. I don’t want to misquote Nate as I can’t find the post, but I also thought that lined up with what he heard a year ago.

I’m expect better than 1080p 60fps PS4 titles based on the above. PS4 Pro would have managed that without DLSS.

 

[DigitalMase]

They haven't begged yet already for 30fps games like Fortnite? I forgot if Fortnite has separate lobbies for switch players only.. bmm. Haven't played on switch for ages..

Switch is paired with mobile players last I heard in cross platform. Unless you are in a group.

 

[Instro]

No… international superstar soccer switch Deluxe

This would be a real megaton

Based on? I thought folks have been pointing to PS4-PS4 Pro docked before DLSS. I don’t want to misquote Nate as I can’t find the post, but I also thought that lined up with what he heard a year ago.

I’m expect better than 1080p 60fps PS4 titles based on the above. PS4 Pro would have managed that without DLSS.

Not 100% sure what the original poster was trying to say, but PS4 Pro performance modes were often around 1080p to lock at 60fps or whatever the frame rate target was. So it wouldn't be surprising if quick PS4 ports to a new Switch would be somewhat similar if they are not digging deeper with the hardware or using DLSS. That said I would guess that Nintendo would push devs to go a bit further than just the bare minimum if they have ports around launch, particularly higher profile ones.

 

[Thugstas]

This would be a real megaton



Not 100% sure what the original poster was trying to say, but PS4 Pro performance modes were often around 1080p to lock at 60fps or whatever the frame rate target was. So it wouldn't be surprising if quick PS4 ports to a new Switch would be somewhat similar if they are not digging deeper with the hardware or using DLSS. That said I would guess that Nintendo would push devs to go a bit further than just the bare minimum if they have ports around launch, particularly higher profile ones.

One of my best soccer game experience so far

 

[ILikeFeet]

Switch is paired with mobile players last I heard in cross platform. Unless you are in a group.

makes sense. mobile chipsets vs mobile chipsets

 

[Concernt]

With it not being precisely stated as meaning the Xbox, I genuinely think Digital Foundry Direct's comment on "April 15th is console price increase day" may indicate the date of the new Drake Switch's launch (or at least the window, mid April). I think the 14th of April is actually quite likely. To be honest they were quite sly when they said it, prompting one member to ask for a reason, only for none to be given followed by everyone on screen looking around shiftlessly. Am I reading too far into this? Yes.

Digital Foundry at large has been commenting on the new Switch hardware in no uncertain terms for months, with it specifically named as having benefits for Bayonetta 3's performance.

I also want to comment since I've seen it:

Switch can already do "PS4 quality games" if a port house has the time, as we've seen with the Witcher 3, at the sacrifice of image quality. This new device will be the next step in that: PS5 quality games (in terms of possible scale and gameplay) at the sacrifice of image quality, specifically sacrificing native resolution for upscaling, and almost certainly dropping 120fps modes.

 

[MP!]

Digital foundry has NO IDEA when the new hardware is coming

 

[ILikeFeet]

if DF knew enough to even hint at something, they would be blatant about it, like the 4TF RDNA video. otherwise, they don't really spread rumors, just corroborate them

 

[Terrell]

My feeling about the mobile ecosystem commentary is, so long as the new hardware is compatible with Switch titles (which we expect it will be), there will be eShop continuity, meaning that you’ll be able to continue to purchase Switch software through the eShop on the new hardware, which will be a first for Nintendo.

In other words, this often just becomes a semantic debate. Whatever Nintendo chooses to call the new system, everyone agrees that the older Switch models won't be immediately abandoned.

Actually, this is the major crux of the issue: no small amount of people arguing in favour of a “pro” model do so because they assume a successor means something akin to a premature conclusion to Switch in the midst of its major success, to the point of some acting like existing Switch devices will self-destruct. There’s a myriad of reasons why this matters to them, as well.
For some, they want Switch to become the best-selling gaming device of all time and a successor is seen as an impediment to it crossing that finish line, even if Nintendo doesn't care about that metric itself.
For others, there's a sense of dread about Nintendo not being capable of replicating success and wanting to maintain current success as long as possible due to that fear.

The reality is that Nintendo has, can and likely will sell the Switch concurrently with Drake in some capacity. And while it will not sell 20mil+ a year as it has been, I’m confident that Switch will be able to continue selling larger amounts than expected until Drake is able to achieve similar sales figures as Switch has, or put another way, 20mil+ cumulative Switch/Drake hardware sales can likely be expected by year 2 at least.

 

[Dakhil]

This would be a real megaton

Well, EA did announce terminating the partnership with FIFA, starting 2023, fairly recently. So FIFA coming to Nintendo's new console is very much a real possibility, depending on who FIFA partners with.

 

[karmitt]

if DF knew enough to even hint at something, they would be blatant about it, like the 4TF RDNA video. otherwise, they don't really spread rumors, just corroborate them

DF has said devkits are out there. Probably haven't said much outside of that?

 

[ILikeFeet]

Well, EA did announce terminating the partnership with FIFA, starting 2023, fairly recently. So FIFA coming to Nintendo's new console is very much a real possibility, depending on who FIFA partners with.

they'll be whoring the name out to whomever wants it since they don't have a long term partner yet. but I think EA will continue making legacy editions until drake comes out, then start a new line of legacy editions

DF has said devkits are out there. Probably haven't said much outside of that?

probably heard more, but they won't comment until someone else does

 

[ekurisona]

If it’s called Switch 2 I’m going to call it NS2 until it sticks.

the ns2 sounds really neat and all but we'd really like to hear more about the NX2

 

[Deleted member 887]

Based on? I thought folks have been pointing to PS4-PS4 Pro docked before DLSS. I don’t want to misquote Nate as I can’t find the post, but I also thought that lined up with what he heard a year ago.

I’m expect better than 1080p 60fps PS4 titles based on the above. PS4 Pro would have managed that without DLSS.

PS4 in handheld mode + DLSS was the claim.

Based on what we know now we can nuance that a lot. With a fairly high degree of confidence I can say that Drake will outperform the PS4, but underperform the PS4 pro, before DLSS. In most cases I would expect that DLSS can close the gap with PS4Pro, but I can imagine cases where it can’t.

Drake pixels might not be as pretty, even if Drake can go toe to toe on performance. PS4 games regularly broke 40GB. Squeezing all of that into a Switch card is likely to require some lower res assets in some places.

 

[Terrell]

Drake pixels might not be as pretty, even if Drake can go toe to toe on performance. PS4 games regularly broke 40GB. Squeezing all of that into a Switch card is likely to require some lower res assets in some places.

That's because they were still releasing games on hardware where SSD read speeds were not assured and had to duplicate assets in a game package to maneuver around seek times. Between that and hardware acceleration for decompression of things like textures and other things, this is why PS5 game packages are fairly routinely smaller than their PS4 equivalents, sometimes by more than half (Dying Light 2 is the most extreme example of that I've seen so far).
Nvidia is providing its own hardware acceleration for decompression, as I'm sure you're aware, and we have yet to learn how it stacks up against other implementations such as Oodle (what's used in PS5).

 

[chocolate_supra]

That's because they were still releasing games on hardware where SSD read speeds were not assured and had to duplicate assets in a game package to maneuver around seek times. Between that and hardware acceleration for decompression of things like textures and other things, this is why PS5 game packages are fairly routinely smaller than their PS4 equivalents, sometimes by more than half (Dying Light 2 is the most extreme example of that I've seen so far).
Nvidia is providing its own hardware acceleration for decompression, as I'm sure you're aware, and we have yet to learn how it stacks up against other implementations such as Oodle (what's used in PS5).

As someone who's been complaining about ballooning game sizes for years, this is amazing.

 

[carbonaxiom]

Actually, this is the major crux of the issue: no small amount of people arguing in favour of a “pro” model do so because they assume a successor means something akin to a premature conclusion to Switch in the midst of its major success, to the point of acting like existing Switch devices will self-destruct. There’s a myriad of reasons why this matters to them, as well.
For some, they want Switch to become the best-selling gaming device of all time and a successor is seen as an impediment to it crossing that finish line, even if Nintendo doesn't care about that metric itself.
For others, there's a sense of dread about Nintendo not being capable of replicating success and wanting to maintain current success as long as possible due to that fear.

That's kind of what I was getting at. I admit that I usually just skim through the thread and don't focus on every single post, but a common pattern with this debate that I've noticed here is when someone writes a nuanced post about how the Switch has all the characteristics of a successor but Nintendo will likely try to maintain as much continuity with older Switches as possible, and then a response comes in that focuses entirely on all previous examples of successor consoles and assumes that anything resembling those examples will always carry all their characteristics.

Technically that would be a bit more than simply arguing semantics, but it all boils down to a belief that the concept of a successor console has some strict and unavoidable characteristics. It does not, and I don't think it ever has. The history of video game consoles is now extensive enough that almost any seemingly unassailable aspect that defines a console successor will likely have some historical example that doesn't neatly fit.

 

[ITSMILNER]

I wonder if CD Projekt Red will work on a Switch Drake patch for Witcher 3 similar to how they are working on the next gen one? Perhaps in time for launch if devkits are with them.

 

[Hermii]

I wonder if CD Projekt Red will work on a Switch Drake patch for Witcher 3 similar to how they are working on the next gen one? Perhaps in time for launch if devkits are with them.

Have a feeling they are stretched thin enough as it is.

 

[Mr Swine]

I wonder if CD Projekt Red will work on a Switch Drake patch for Witcher 3 similar to how they are working on the next gen one? Perhaps in time for launch if devkits are with them.

Probably easier to do a asset switch to PC/PS4 with added vegetation and more than do a “gimped” next Gen. version on Switch

 

[LoneRanger]

I would not surprise me Koei-Tecmo is also a day 1 supporter with a Wu Long and/or Wild Hearts late ports.

And as others said, (baring exclusive deals) full Square-Enix, Capcom and Konami support year 1 should add a good plus value in Drake catalogue.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I wonder if CD Projekt Red will work on a Switch Drake patch for Witcher 3 similar to how they are working on the next gen one? Perhaps in time for launch if devkits are with them.

I expect just a resolution and framerate patch. Cyberpunk might be their headliner, by Saber again

 

[Deleted member 1324]

Sorry if my reply annoyed people. I've tried to stay out of the conversation the last month to avoid this.

PS4 Pro like specs could mean so many different things from a 1.8 tflop handheld to 4.2tflop docked with DLSS on top of that to all manner of potential specs in between. We should always remember though that the first thing Nintendo changed about Switch (which was a chipset not designed by them) was dedicated improvements around handheld play (Lite and Red box versions) so they definitely greatly value a decent battery life for portable play.

Also RDRII was well over a year into development for it last I heard and it wasn't one of the cancelled games (the original RDR Switch port, RDRII Online, RDRII PS5/Series updates) to focus on GTA6.

I'm not going to post again until next year so I hope you all have a great Holiday period. Cheers!

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

I would not surprise me Koei-Tecmo is also a day 1 supporter with a Wu Long and/or Wild Hearts late ports.

And as others said, (baring exclusive deals) full Square-Enix, Capcom and Konami support year 1 should add a good plus value in Drake catalogue.

I don’t expect either of those two games to appear on the system. I think what we see from KT now is what to expect in the future regarding support.

 

[LoneRanger]

I don’t expect either of those two games to appear on the system. I think what we see from KT now is what to expect in the future regarding support.

But why? Wo Long its a last gen game, it should be very possible on next HW. Wild Hearts may require more challenge but I’m sure K-T can pulled it if they want it.