• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

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

Another one?


Just think of the plates:
Super Mario Pasta
Kirby Soup
Zora Seafood
maybe review for the game? since by the Gleeok clip on the north american comercial, Tears of the Kingdom seen to a much longer campaing then Breath of the Wild, observe that when Link is figting this Gleeok he have 17 hearts in the first row,



 
Nintendo still has not used the 64GB cartdridge for Nintendo Switch games and possibly it sucessor, Tears of the Kingdom is the first party game that use a 32GB cartdridge, the rest of Nintendo first-party games on Switch used the 8 and 16GB cartdridge.
Why is tears on 32GB cart
The eshop says it is under 20 GB. Is Nintendo.just wanting to fit everything without a download? Surely there will still be a day 1 patch
 
Why is tears on 32GB cart
The eshop says it is under 20 GB. Is Nintendo.just wanting to fit everything without a download? Surely there will still be a day 1 patch
i not sure why Nintendo decided to put Tears of the Kingdom in a 32GB, maybe is because the game will feature the Hyrule of Breath of the Wild expanded, the sky above and the undeground+ the Dungeons, this must been a decising factor why Tears of the Kingdom use a 32GB cart, just the sky for the previews seens quite expansive
 
Why is tears on 32GB cart
The eshop says it is under 20 GB. Is Nintendo.just wanting to fit everything without a download? Surely there will still be a day 1 patch
There might be a day one patch containing a round of optimizations and bug fixes, but the product on the card will be a fully functional/ playable version of the game.

There is nothing in between 16 and 32 gb, and the amount of usable game data on the 16 gb is around 14.
 
What if Nintendo goes with the Samsung 8nm for this and just clocks the handheld clocks far below the optimal level and then massively ups the clocks to optimal level in docked mode to make up for the resolution difference.
What if they do that? Genuinely asking, what are you suggesting?

If Nintendo goes with 8nm, then there isn’t a lot of room to save power at the bottom of the curve. You pretty much can’t clock 8nm Ampere below 300Mhz and save power. We’ve discussed clocks like that extensively, and it’s frankly still a nice machine.
 
0

I think this is taken somewhat out of context (or simply poor wording on the part of the author of this section of the report). They're not saying that CoD couldn't be ported to Switch, they're just saying that Switch wouldn't be able to run a version which is comparable to the PS5/XBSX versions, which should hardly be a surprise. Here's another quote where they acknowledge games like Doom Eternal and Apex Legends:
7.72 We note the Parties’ submission that challenges with porting a game to Nintendo Switch has not impacted Nintendo’s ability to compete on the downstream console market, as it offers more games than Xbox and PlayStation, including major games such as Apex Legends, Fortnite and Doom Eternal.326 However, we consider the evidence above shows that, relative to the Xbox and PlayStation, the Nintendo Switch (i) does not currently offer the same suite of graphically intensive games that PlayStation and Xbox compete on (with the exception of a few games such as Fortnite and Apex Legends), (ii) may not be capable of offering certain graphically intensive multiplayer games (such as CoD), and (iii) does not offer a similar user experience (eg, in terms of storage, graphics, and framerate).
As to why there's such a focus on CoD running on the current Switch, when MS's agreement seems to just refer to Nintendo hardware in general, it's because Microsoft claimed that the agreements they signed, such as the Nintendo one, will extend the market of CoD games to an additional 150 million players. Over 80% of this (120+ million) is from counting the Switch install base, so if Microsoft don't plan on releasing any CoD games for the current Switch, they can't realistically claim to be expanding the market by 150 million.

Anyway, I'm more interested in over-analysing all those juicy [redacted] parts of the report which probably aren't references to Nintendo's next hardware but are fun to speculate on. Here are a few fun ones:
7.59 In relation to Nintendo specifically, Microsoft submitted that Nintendo is a strong competitor in consoles and the Nintendo Switch is one of the most successful consoles of all time.306 Microsoft further submitted that while the Nintendo Switch is [✄].307 [✄].308
11.190 On [✄] February 2023, Microsoft and Nintendo entered into an agreement in relation to the development and publishing of CoD titles on Nintendo platforms.1537 This agreement took the form of [✄] (which was signed on [✄]).1538 Under the terms of the [✄], Microsoft will [✄] develop and publish future native console versions of the CoD titles for Nintendo platforms for at least 10 years [✄].1539 The [✄] specifies that [✄]. Except as provided for in the [✄], Microsoft agrees to publish the CoD titles pursuant to [✄].1540
11.202 As noted above, Microsoft’s obligations under the Nintendo agreement with Nintendo only arise from [✄]. As such, Microsoft would not be obliged to start work on development of CoD titles for Nintendo platforms until [✄].
11.205 We also note that whilst [✄]. Given that [✄]. The Nintendo agreement itself acknowledges that [✄]. There is therefore considerable uncertainty as to the terms on which Microsoft may develop CoD titles for Nintendo platforms.

Personally I think [✄], but maybe [✄]. Also, [✄]. [✄].

Edit: Bonus content. Here's a quote from Microsoft's response to the provisional findings. It's a bullet point in section 4.6 relating to the contract with Nintendo:
  • [✄]. [✄]. [✄]. [✄].
 
Last edited:
If Nintendo doesn't use an updated version of TOTK in their marketing for Switch 2 they are fools. This game is getting a groundswell like I've never seen before. It's 2 weeks away and people are losing their minds. To be fair I'm right there with them, it looks amazing. It might be an ultra-blockbuster in sells... which is why I think an updated-for-Switch 2 version will do amazing things for the marketing of Switch 2.

Maybe I'm just being captain obvious over here tho. The thing that bothers me tho is that I kinda feel that they should reveal this Switch 2 version BEFORE the Switch 1 version drops. Especially if they aren't going with a free-upgrade-cross-platform model with the software. And even if they are there might be a lot of people that will hold off on playing it until they can cop the best version of it.

I dunno.
 
If Nintendo doesn't use an updated version of TOTK in their marketing for Switch 2 they are fools. This game is getting a groundswell like I've never seen before. It's 2 weeks away and people are losing their minds. To be fair I'm right there with them, it looks amazing. It might be an ultra-blockbuster in sells... which is why I think an updated-for-Switch 2 version will do amazing things for the marketing of Switch 2.

Maybe I'm just being captain obvious over here tho. The thing that bothers me tho is that I kinda feel that they should reveal this Switch 2 version BEFORE the Switch 1 version drops. Especially if they aren't going with a free-upgrade-cross-platform model with the software. And even if they are there might be a lot of people that will hold off on playing it until they can cop the best version of it.

I dunno.
maybe if they had a reel where they highlight games that are getting a drake mode, TotK would be there. but I think by the time Drake launches, they'll be highlighting something else, like 3D Mario or NLG Star Fox Effect
 
If Nintendo doesn't use an updated version of TOTK in their marketing for Switch 2 they are fools. This game is getting a groundswell like I've never seen before. It's 2 weeks away and people are losing their minds. To be fair I'm right there with them, it looks amazing. It might be an ultra-blockbuster in sells... which is why I think an updated-for-Switch 2 version will do amazing things for the marketing of Switch 2.

Maybe I'm just being captain obvious over here tho. The thing that bothers me tho is that I kinda feel that they should reveal this Switch 2 version BEFORE the Switch 1 version drops. Especially if they aren't going with a free-upgrade-cross-platform model with the software. And even if they are there might be a lot of people that will hold off on playing it until they can cop the best version of it.

I dunno.
I don’t know how many outside the super hardcore would wait though even with performance issues look how well BOTW did. It’s been so long since new Zelda the word is overwhelmingly positive and we have no solid idea on how long away an update would be I don’t know how much of a sales bump a better version on an entire other console would provide.
 
There might be a day one patch containing a round of optimizations and bug fixes, but the product on the card will be a fully functional/ playable version of the game.

There is nothing in between 16 and 32 gb, and the amount of usable game data on the 16 gb is around 14.
Makes sense. I do hope this signals 32GB could be had at volume at lower prices than before or placing such a large order pushes down the unit costs for everyone (kinda like OOT being a trail blazer for more 32MB carts) because so many Switch releases could still benefit from having a 32GB cart. And it should be the standard for Switch 2 3rd party physical
 
Last edited:
I do wish that if they released Switch 2, there'd be a TOTK version of it immediately or near release. I'd buy that one on the spot for sure, ZOLED I'm not 100% set on getting since it doesn't have much improvement in docked mode (which is what I use it mostly on).
 
I don’t know how many outside the super hardcore would wait though even with performance issues look how well BOTW did. It’s been so long since new Zelda the word is overwhelmingly positive and we have no solid idea on how long away an update would be I don’t know how much of a sales bump a better version on an entire other console would provide.
Yeah the people who've been saying they'll wait for a switch 2 version are drastically out numbered by people who just don't give af and will be playing on switch 1
 
If they made a COD for Switch with all the content that looks like the Wii version but with perfect 60fps framerate, full resolution, and instant load time. That would be the superior version in my book.
 
Network infrastructure has nothing to do with console hardware. Is there any reason to think Nintendo will improve it substantially?
They are investing 300 billion yen in Nintendo Accounts and infrastructure. I'd imagine at least some of that will be used to improve the online experience.

The joint venture with DENA could also help here.
 
Yeah the people who've been saying they'll wait for a switch 2 version are drastically out numbered by people who just don't give af and will be playing on switch 1
Realistically it's 99.2% to .8% who say they're waiting for the switch 2 version of TOTK
 
Is that 20% figure the expected performance difference between Samsung and TSMC nodes, or just an example or your own acceptance limit

That was just an estimate I made, but like others have said, it could be closer to 30-40%. I kind of doubt the difference would be that much because power consumption doesn't scale linearly with clock speeds. For example, in portable mode the SOC is going to draw about 5 watts, the clock speeds will be pretty low here regardless if it's 5nm or 4N. The gap in performance here will be smaller. In docked mode with it's 12-15 watt power budget for the SOC, the gap would widen considerably. At that power draw 5nm might only be able to clock around 750 mhz while 4N might be able to clock at 1.1Ghz

Again, it comes down to the deal either Samsung or TSMC are willing to make Nintendo. Wafer cost and yields will all be part of the equation. Nvidia moved the X1 from 20nm to 16nm just two years into Switch's life, so I don't see it being improbable for Redacted to start its life on one node and get a revision a few years later. All these details and commitments would be part of the contract. Assuming the deal is with Samsung, it could be part of the contract to manufacture at 5nm for three years and then the following three years at 3nm. Just speculation of course, but just pointing out that a long term node isn't a requirement. If Drake cost Nintendo $75 on Samsung 5nm compared to $125 on 4N, Nintendo goes with Samsung all day long.
 
Why is tears on 32GB cart
The eshop says it is under 20 GB. Is Nintendo.just wanting to fit everything without a download? Surely there will still be a day 1 patch
1vZkilxRJ

According to the website, TOTK is 16GB, for me this imply they are using a 16GB cart.
 
1vZkilxRJ

According to the website, TOTK is 16GB, for me this imply they are using a 16GB cart.
It was listed as 18.2 GB before iirc, so people speculated that the $70 price was due to the usage of a 32GB card. But they revised it down and are probably using a 16GB card, as you pointed.
 
It was listed as 18.2 GB before iirc, so people speculated that the $70 price was due to the usage of a 32GB card. But they revised it down and are probably using a 16GB card, as you pointed.
I dont think the sizes are a reflection of the card size. The 16GB card doesn't actually hold 16GB, but less than that. If TotK is 16GB, then they need a 32GB card
 
I dont think the sizes are a reflection of the card size. The 16GB card doesn't actually hold 16GB, but less than that. If TotK is 16GB, then they need a 32GB card
Oh, that's true. I thought Nintendo meant 16GB as slightly less than that. Just to round up the number. But if it's 16GB, then it does need a bigger 32GB card.
 
If Drake cost Nintendo $75 on Samsung 5nm compared to $125 on 4N, Nintendo goes with Samsung all day long.
As ReddDreadtheLead and I have mentioned, the price difference is probably going to by off set by Nintendo and Nvidia having to fabricate more wafers with Samsung vs if Nintendo and Nvidia worked with TSMC since Samsung generally has worse yields than TSMC.
 
Last edited:
That 4.6(b)(...) is super spicy.

It's interesting that they snipped out third party data about # of Switch's sold in each year, # in UK and # of active users even though Nintendo's gives that stuff out for free. Not interesting in regards to Drake though.
 
0
4.5 in that doc is interesting because Microsoft is claiming that they would port Warzone 2 and other CoD games to the Switch 1, lol.

... Not sure how well that would go or who would buy that in late 2024.
 
4.5 in that doc is interesting because Microsoft is claiming that they would port Warzone 2 and other CoD games to the Switch 1, lol.

... Not sure how well that would go or who would buy that in late 2024.
for some reason EA put out Apex Legends on switch. still don't know why. they should have just waited until Drake. so Warzone 2 wouldn't be alone
 
maybe Nintendo can move to a different format for higher memory sizes 🤔
so looking at Switch card teardowns, the cart form farctor is large enough to accomodate a much larger chip , so the top half of the cart is jus t a plastic backstop.

What is the likelihood of the Switch 2 cards using the same form factor but a larger chip overall for larger cart sizes (if needed)

post-47079-0-85723200-1505966447_thumb.jpg


post-47079-0-07805400-1507294607.png
 
Last edited:
I think this is taken somewhat out of context (or simply poor wording on the part of the author of this section of the report). They're not saying that CoD couldn't be ported to Switch, they're just saying that Switch wouldn't be able to run a version which is comparable to the PS5/XBSX versions, which should hardly be a surprise. Here's another quote where they acknowledge games like Doom Eternal and Apex Legends:

As to why there's such a focus on CoD running on the current Switch, when MS's agreement seems to just refer to Nintendo hardware in general, it's because Microsoft claimed that the agreements they signed, such as the Nintendo one, will extend the market of CoD games to an additional 150 million players. Over 80% of this (120+ million) is from counting the Switch install base, so if Microsoft don't plan on releasing any CoD games for the current Switch, they can't realistically claim to be expanding the market by 150 million.

Anyway, I'm more interested in over-analysing all those juicy [redacted] parts of the report which probably aren't references to Nintendo's next hardware but are fun to speculate on. Here are a few fun ones:





Personally I think [✄], but maybe [✄]. Also, [✄]. [✄].

Edit: Bonus content. Here's a quote from Microsoft's response to the provisional findings. It's a bullet point in section 4.6 relating to the contract with Nintendo:
Snipperclips 2 launch title confirmed.
 
exciting times ahead, the first non-epic UE5 games are coming soon. ray tracing for everyone!


LoF will be an interesting watch, but I want to see if Immortals of Aveum (not a fan of the name) will challenge the amount of particles a console can handle before it catches on fire lol. That recent trailer was something.
 
0
I doubt it will use a 32GB cart. Fire Emblem Engage is even listet as 16.6 GB and is also just on a 16GB Cart. I am also quite sure a 16GB cart can also hold around 15,200 MiB.
Sorry but 16GB are 14,9 GiB


if you add the space occupied by the file management system and other things not related to the game, that leaves about 14.7GiB or less of real space

if the FEengage base game download is larger than that size, the physical game would also be using the 32GB cartridge. It is something that could be investigated.
 
Given the number of LRG releases and now a(/at least one) major game releas from Nintendo using 32GB cards, I think we could well see it be the dominant format of the next generation. Especially since there is likely to be a continued elevated price at 70$. 64GB cards are probably very possible at this point, too. Given that most next gen games only come on 50GB disks, I don't think there'll be much problem with physical storage capacity on the next system, and they have the advantage of running straight from the Game Card. Internal and expanded storage remains a bit of a mystery, but my expectation would be 128GB of eMMC and MicroSD card. If games have to run off Game Card, MicroSD card won't be much of a hurdle.
 
Where did you hear that FEE is on a 16GB cart?
I am also curious about this!

I wonder if Game Card versions of games can be compressed to squeeze into the requirement of the Game Card. Tears of the Kingdom in Japan is apparently only 16GB, which isn't quite small enough to fit on a 16GB Game Card, but maybe with a bit of finagling...
 
Alright, Intel stated during an earnings report about 1 year ago that Meteor Lake was powered on for testing. And in today's earnings report, Intel re-iterated that Meteor Lake is ramping up for launch in the second half of the year.
(not that it excludes the scenario of a paper launch :p)
Can Nintendo get Drake from sample to out the door in a shorter-or-equal timeframe as Intel with Meteor Lake? :unsure:
(on the one hand, a game system launch is further complicated by the need for accompanying software, on the other hand, Intel is wrestling with their first major attempt at packaging chiplets)
 
Given the number of LRG releases and now a(/at least one) major game releas from Nintendo using 32GB cards, I think we could well see it be the dominant format of the next generation. Especially since there is likely to be a continued elevated price at 70$. 64GB cards are probably very possible at this point, too. Given that most next gen games only come on 50GB disks, I don't think there'll be much problem with physical storage capacity on the next system, and they have the advantage of running straight from the Game Card. Internal and expanded storage remains a bit of a mystery, but my expectation would be 128GB of eMMC and MicroSD card. If games have to run off Game Card, MicroSD card won't be much of a hurdle.
it was a matter of time before the production of cartridges became cheaper.

LRG's active use in unlimited runs, at normal prices ($40), is a good indication of this.
 
Last edited:
I am also curious about this!

I wonder if Game Card versions of games can be compressed to squeeze into the requirement of the Game Card. Tears of the Kingdom in Japan is apparently only 16GB, which isn't quite small enough to fit on a 16GB Game Card, but maybe with a bit of finagling...
As far as I know, the cartridge versions cannot be compressed in size. They are the same size (speaking about the games) as the download versions.
 
0
As ReddDreadtheLead and I have mentioned, the price difference is probably going to by off set by Nintendo and Nvidia having to fabricate more wafers with Samsung vs if Nintendo and Nvidia worked with TSMC since Samsung generally has worse yields than TSMC.

Your missing what I am saying, poor yields means a higher cost per functioning SOC's, the failed units cost will be added to the cost of the functional chips. So maybe it takes three wafers from Samsung to get a certain amount of chips compared to only two wafers from TSMC, but if Samsungs deal still results in significantly cheaper price to get X amount of chips, because the wafers and manufacturing cost are so much cheaper, then that's what they will do.
 
I am also curious about this!

I wonder if Game Card versions of games can be compressed to squeeze into the requirement of the Game Card. Tears of the Kingdom in Japan is apparently only 16GB, which isn't quite small enough to fit on a 16GB Game Card, but maybe with a bit of finagling...
Data is data. If it can be compressed to that with no difference, so would the download version. If there was some actual difference (lossy compression somewhere), they'd have to maintain two versions going forward.
 
How much would 64 GB carts that ran at 100 MB/s cost.
I’m gonna be honest with you, my good friend, but we need to know how much the current cart costs at varying sizes, extrapolate from other flash storage and normal trends and try to apply a similar method using the power of assumption and also weigh the cost of the technology at a mass scale in order to do that.


Otherwise there’s no answer to this. From us anyway.
 
Last edited:
Please read this staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited:


Back
Top Bottom