How so?The next few months to a year are going to be wild. I'm all in for this bumpy ride
How so?The next few months to a year are going to be wild. I'm all in for this bumpy ride
I don't think this was the general consensus when it launched. Most people were saying given the form factor, battery limitations, price, etc... that it was a very competent hybrid console.but will that be enough to carry a 6yo hardware that was already outdated when it was launched?
More speculation and discussions about the switch pro/switch 2How so?
The narrative about Switch hardware got rewritten pretty quickly.I don't think this was the general consensus when it launched. Most people were saying given the form factor, battery limitations, price, etc... that it was a very competent hybrid console.
I really just disagree. I think there is a fundamental software-oriented qualification for what constitutes a new platform. The Switch 2 will end up being a distinct software target from the Switch 1 due to the different graphics architecture and code.
That's all well and good but the rumored Dane chip is on a different graphics architecture and Switch software uses precompiled graphics code. It's not so much about performance as it is the prospective break in low-level code compatibility.The next Switch model…with Dane/DLSS…is still going to target render every Switch game at 540p-720p in handheld mode.
Which means, there is no game made for the “Switch Pro” that couldn’t have a version running on the OLED Switch/Lite
I think you are expecting something more fantastical than the reality of this piece of architecture they are producing this year. Nintendo is certainly going to treat it as an enhancement, not a replacement
Pretty much every Nintendo exclusive will have a Switch X1/X1+ hardware target profile version.
It’s a revision/iteration. The OLED Switch is meant to prolong the base Switch model for another 4-5 years (they’ll phase out the LCD models)…because the power upgrade model is a mid gen release.
I just double checked and you’re right. I thought the doubt on the year was cast early. So yeah two spots at E3, the Direct and the press release, where they use the “aiming for 2022” language.I realize I'm just another guy not providing a direct link, but Aonuma said it publicly in the Direct itself shortly following the trailer.
My growing concern, which I expect to be so unpopular that I'm spoilering it, is that Apple is about to eat the Switch alive.
Tbh I have the same feeling??? I mean, Wii U came out in 2012 and 2011 was really shitty for the Wii in both sales and titles released, and now people expect Nintendo will stack 2022 with loads of huge games just so they release a traditional successor, make some cross gen games and that's it???I have no idea how people are coming to the conclusion that the fastest selling system ever made, with the biggest potential for longevity ever, described by its own company as a product that will redefine the length of console cycle, will get replaced after merely six years. It just puzzles me.
Not only will it last that long, it will last even longer. I think a "Switch 2" won't release until 2024, and even after its release, the original Switch will still be supported by smaller first party software releases for several years. Famicom lasted until 1994, Super Famicom until 2000... DS had some first party releases after 3DS, and 3DS lasted until 2019! The original Switch has a long life ahead of it.
The other reason I don't really believe it's a Switch 2 is because it's probably releasing with BotW 2, and that game was at some point even expected internally to come in 2020.That would be disappointing if so to be honest. I mean, I'd love a more powerful Switch, but a Switch 2 releasing as soon as 2022 would just be ... ewww.
My growing concern, which I expect to be so unpopular that I'm spoilering it, is thatApple is about to eat the Switch alive.
A clearly marketed shiny new device with two killer apps, BOTW2 and a new Mario Kart, might be the best way to combat that.
Sure anything can get delayed but acting like it's more likely to be a 2023 game than a 2022 game is odd. It's officially slated for 2022, there's currently not much of a reason to think it'll miss that even though of course it's possible.
Sure.Yeah, given that we've actually seen some of it now I think a delay would be kind of weird. It again probably depends if new hardware is next year or later.
I’m trying to find the direct source, but it was said “aiming for 2022” around E3. If you google “aiming for 2022 with Breath of the Wild there are articles saying Aonuma said it, but no direct link.
Edit: Googling yielded me a Jason Schreier tweet saying it was from the E3 press release.
If they put the 2022 in the end of the trailer, and unlike Twilight Princess and BotW1, only do so after two years instead of right on the reveal, they are fully committed.I’m sure Nintendo will make every effort to get it out sooner than later, but if they aren’t fully committed yet (it was their E3 press release that had “aiming for”) I think it’s better to not count on it and be happy if it does. The big Zeldas seemingly always get delayed.
Nintendo does not, and never has, existed in a vacuum. It may not effect sales in the short term, but let's not pretend that hardware can keep its peak indefinitely. Better to roll out new hardware on a high note, not a sour one. As you mention, Wii is a bit of an outlier in this way, as Nintendo's hardware tends to get succeeded by new hardware before hardware and software sales have an opportunity to take a downturn, not after.Additionally I think folks should stop making “will xbox/ps effect the switch” happen , it didn’t in 2017, it didn’t in 2020, i don’t think it will by 2023.
You mean this statement from NoA president Doug Bowser? That really does not preclude a hardware successor, only that Nintendo sees longevity in the Switch, which may or may not include a long period of cross-gen game releases. A "mere 6 years" is the statistical average lifespan of every piece of Nintendo hardware ever released. And yes, that statistical average includes the outlier that is the Game Boy.I have no idea how people are coming to the conclusion that the fastest selling system ever made, with the biggest potential for longevity ever, described by its own company as a product that will redefine the length of console cycle, will get replaced after merely six years. It just puzzles me.
It’s been amusing to me how insistent folks are in still comparing the switch to past nintendo systems (and not even the right ones ) while it from the get go has been something nintendo has never done before and nintendo insisting themselves it will go differently than past systems have gone . but hey i’m just having my fun humoring folks at this point .
I'd like to see some exact quotes, because things going differently doesn't inherently mean they're not going to release new hardware.They want the switch to be more of a platform going forward so it’s more likely we get a step up revision over a successor for a while and at that point it’ll be a clear upgrade without a break in service for a lot of people
Oh, Nintendo very much abandoned the original Game Boy after Game Boy Color came out, so they certainly treated it as a successor. Their last internally developed release that supported the original Game Boy was... the GBC launch titles like Wario Land 2? If you consider Game Freak an internal studio (which LOLno), Pokemon Gold/Silver? Then they did the same thing to the Game Boy Color when the GBA was released.This has been my view for awhile. Essentially a successor that Nintendo doesn’t consider a successor.
As @Phantom Thief suggests, if this is anything like the Apple Television and the Apple Car, we've got at least another 10 years before they actually happen, if they happen at all.oh yeah probably lmao
the "survive" thing is kind of weird phrasing, even if hardware sales dropped off a cliff software retention is still high. the only unknown factor that could detriment it is Apple's gaming efforts imo
Apple's got a lot going for it right now. Incredible ARM performance at high efficiency, a huge market of existing users, an ungodly amount of capital. Whether it pays off is anybody's guess, but it's pretty much the only thing that could significantly impact the Switch or Switch 2's prospects
EDIT:
@Galgavias here's the rumor I was thinking about
If you consider Switch its successor, 3DS only had 6 years, actually.Conversely:
Gameboy: 14 years
Nintendo DS: 7 years
Nintendo 3DS: 7 years
I'm sure Epic would be happy to start working with Apple again, but Apple has made it clear they want nothing to do with Epic.Something else I hadn't considered is that they might've left their relationship with Epic Games too damaged to secure Unreal Engine for their rumored new platform.
The more I think on it, the less hopeful I get for it too.
This idea that Nintendo has to either stick with the current Switch or drop it completely for a successor is a false dichotomy. Among people expecting a new system sooner rather than later, it's widely expected that there will be a fairly extended cross gen period, with it possibly being multiple years before the new system gets a first party exclusive.Tbh I have the same feeling??? I mean, Wii U came out in 2012 and 2011 was really shitty for the Wii in both sales and titles released, and now people expect Nintendo will stack 2022 with loads of huge games just so they release a traditional successor, make some cross gen games and that's it???
It literally makes no sense. Like at all. It's literally like if Sony released PS5 in 2017, one year after releasing a revision and the year after the console's peak.
We don't even know anymore what year will end up being Switch's peak as the thing will sell literally every unit that's capable of being manufactured.
Plus no way in hell Nintendo will abandon a 120m+ install base that can grow even bigger.
On iOS, sure. There's a lot of money to be made there.I'm sure Epic would be happy to start working with Apple again, but Apple has made it clear they want nothing to do with Epic.
This idea that Nintendo has to either stick with the current Switch or drop it completely for a successor is a false dichotomy. Among people expecting a new system sooner rather than later, it's widely expected that there will be a fairly extended cross gen period, with it possibly being multiple years before the new system gets a first party exclusive.
Same deal for the AMD consoles going from GCN2/4 to RDNA. This is hardly a new phenomenion and much like AMD did, I don't doubt Nvidia can deliver a good enough interpreter for BC on future Nintendo hardware.That's all well and good but the rumored Dane chip is on a different graphics architecture and Switch software uses precompiled graphics code. It's not so much about performance as it is the prospective break in low-level code compatibility.
Care to elaborate on this point? This is at least sounding a lot more grounded than the $500 price point I've seen mentioned elsewhere.Switch Dane will coexist with Switch for a few years. It has to. You know why? Because there’s no way this thing costs less than $400.
Yeahhhh never ever trust vgchartz. Bullshit site, bullshit numbers.Not US, worldwide. But when you compare it to the weekly sales from the rest of the previous financial quarter (usually between 250-350K), that’s a nice jump.
It’s on vgchartz. I wish I was more savvy to be able to link on my phone.
(Also without getting too much off topic, it could just be first week “beginners luck” for the OLED. I’m just saying, the numbers were impressive and makes me think the Switch will continue to sell well).
I think they are going to be fine, the software alone from 2022 will carry them for a while.
And Kirby, the greatest franchise.New Zelda, Pokemon and Splatoon next year?
Yeah, I think it will be fine.
Forcing docked mode is unlikely to be allowed. Some Switch games are likely to react badly to that and force undesirable control limitations or switch over to their TV specific settings.If the next Switch is fully backwards compatible then the original could continue selling at a discounted price for a long time.
Personally I just hope it at least runs original Switch games in their docked profile while playing in handheld.
Yes I am also looking forward to Kirby AutomataAnd Kirby, the greatest franchise.
Care to elaborate on this point? This is at least sounding a lot more grounded than the $500 price point I've seen mentioned elsewhere.
I'm not @mariodk18, but I've definitely seen the $400 price point floated around, largely drawing from the $350 current price of the OLED model and figuring that model might see a price decrease to make it the more-affordable option after the successor arrives.
Sometimes another $50 or $100 is figured onto the successor, whether to make the difference more noticeable, to allow for the OLED model to retain its price, or to account for potential component costs for the new model.
Maybe mariodk has a different rationale, but this is largely what I've seen.
This.I have no idea how people are coming to the conclusion that the fastest selling system ever made, with the biggest potential for longevity ever, described by its own company as a product that will redefine the length of console cycle, will get replaced after merely six years. It just puzzles me.
I have no idea how people are coming to the conclusion that the fastest selling system ever made, with the biggest potential for longevity ever, described by its own company as a product that will redefine the length of console cycle, will get replaced after merely six years. It just puzzles me.
This.
I'm of the opinion that the next hardware iteration will be the Switch's successor in everything but name, and that the current Switch will slowly be phased out. That way the Switch doesn't actually die for a while.I have no idea how people are coming to the conclusion that the fastest selling system ever made, with the biggest potential for longevity ever, described by its own company as a product that will redefine the length of console cycle, will get replaced after merely six years. It just puzzles me.
I’m not sure Nintendo would want to have again two different systems at the same time (ala Wii U/3DS). Supporting two systems would lead to droughts for one of them and that’d be reverting to the old strategy (pre-Switch). A new, more powerful Switch that’s also backwards compatible and selling at the same time with some but not all exclusives (ala Gameboy Color, DSi, New 3DS) is more likely to launch fall 2022 or early 2023, IMO, not a completely new system.I know this has been addressed throughout the thread, but many people thinking there will be new hardware in the near future (late '22 - early '23) also expect the new hardware will be positioned to exist alongside the current Switch for some time yet. The idea is that the Switch will remain a viable option, with much of the new slate of games being playable on both it and the new console.
The release of new hardware does not necessitate that the old is immediately replaced and cut off. Most people who expect new hardware also expect the Switch to continue to sell alongside it.
There have been reports of devkits in developers' possession for some time now. It's not unrealistic to expect new hardware. But that doesn't mean the current hardware would be immediately replaced, and such replacement doesn't appear to be the most common conclusion among people expecting a new hardware.
With a modern BC system, they can have two systems without any of the downsides. Just look at what their competitors are doing with PS5/XS.I’m not sure Nintendo would want to have again two different systems at the same time (ala Wii U/3DS). Supporting two systems would lead to droughts for one of them and that’d be reverting to the old strategy (pre-Switch). A new, more powerful Switch that’s also backwards compatible and selling at the same time with some but not all exclusives (ala Gameboy Color, DSi, New 3DS) is more likely to launch fall 2022 or early 2023, IMO, not a completely new system.
That's not what he's suggesting though. He's referring to exactly what you are, a new Switch system that will share the majority of the library but the old one will still keep selling for a while after it's out.I’m not sure Nintendo would want to have again two different systems at the same time (ala Wii U/3DS). Supporting two systems would lead to droughts for one of them and that’d be reverting to the old strategy (pre-Switch). A new, more powerful Switch that’s also backwards compatible and selling at the same time with some but not all exclusives (ala Gameboy Color, DSi, New 3DS) is more likely to launch fall 2022 or early 2023, IMO, not a completely new system.
Yeah, it seems like there's a miscommunication somewhere, but the origin of such eludes me.That's not what he's suggesting though. He's referring to exactly what you are, a new Switch system that will share the majority of the library but the old one will still keep selling for a while after it's out.
sounds pretty much like this:I know this has been addressed throughout the thread, but many people thinking there will be new hardware in the near future (late '22 - early '23) also expect the new hardware will be positioned to exist alongside the current Switch for some time yet. The idea is that the Switch will remain a viable option, with much of the new slate of games being playable on both it and the new console.
So I'm really not sure where this miscommunication is coming from.A new, more powerful Switch that’s also backwards compatible and selling at the same time with some but not all exclusives (ala Gameboy Color, DSi, New 3DS) is more likely to launch fall 2022 or early 2023, IMO, not a completely new system.
I think this is largely the point of base disagreement, as part of the Pro vs 2 discourse, in that I've seen quite a number of people expect a successor to necessarily arrive much later as a clean break from the Switch, whereas others expect the Switch and successor to coexist for some time with many new games being a shared library; this muddles the designation of iteration or successor and allows both the new hardware to release in the nearer future and the Switch to continue living its long and prosperous life.
The release of new hardware does not necessitate the abandonment of the old.
Especially with the consolidated development teams, the lack of two disparate development pipelines, and the likelihood that new releases constitute a shared library.
For those who require a successor to be a direct break, this might even appear to be a Pro model, even if the hardware is a clear leap ahead of what we have now.
Kano said:I have no idea how people are coming to the conclusion that the fastest selling system ever made, with the biggest potential for longevity ever, described by its own company as a product that will redefine the length of console cycle, will get replaced after merely six years. It just puzzles me.
there have been reports of devkits in developers' possession for some time now. It's not unrealistic to expect new hardware. But that doesn't mean the current hardware would be immediately replaced, and such replacement doesn't appear to be the most common conclusion among people expecting a new hardware.
With a modern BC system, they can have two systems without any of the downsides. Just look at what their competitors are doing with PS5/XS.