Be a sweetheart and avoid ad hominem attacks to maintain a healthy discussion environment. And if you can't, I invite you to use the blocking button crafted especially for that purpose.
-
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.
StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)
- Thread starter Dakhil
- Start date
The difference between the original trailers and the final product wasn't large enough to hint that the game cold have been running on a new console. Sure, the game was a bit crisper on the trailer, but which developer isn't guilty of using PC footage in their promotional material?
Zelda TOTK, which I dislike for noon technical reasons by the way, is more beautiful and runs better than BOTW despite being markedly more ambitious.
It seems to me that their confidence in the FY03/2024 forecast can be taken both ways: The hardware sales is still robust, hence no Switch 2 reveal this FY to detract from the goal. Or, the business fundamentals are solid enough that they believe a new model announcement wouldn't torpedo the sales. That brings me to the next point...
I think I know what is left unsaid here. Just for argument's sake, assuming Nintendo announces a $400 new model in October 2023 and releases it in March 2024, some potential $350 OLED model sales may be lost in the holiday season due to consumers delaying their purchases. 5 months later, however, Nintendo is still going to get their wallets—each spending $50 above what they would've paid for an SWOLED. Not to mention, these early adopters are likely eager to plunk down money for cross-gen titles and DLCs.
When a company only has one major source of income, and/or is cash strapped, its customers delaying purchases can be very detrimental to its financials. Nintendo is clearly not one of these companies. And I'd venture to guess that the majority of its investors would rather see a new model sooner, and wouldn't bat an eye for a temporarily depressed hardware sales. Especially for this FY, the windfall from TotK and Mario Movie may be enough to smoothen that blip.
In normal circumstances I'd agree. TotK, however, is no Pokemon SV or Splatoon 3 (no disrespect). Judging from the Q&A, Nintendo management themselves seems to think that the "positive impact" from the movie and TotK can create "good tailwinds" for the sales; the former can spur hardware purchases from the casual and the young, while the latter may convert core gamers who didn't want a Switch and lapsed gamers (Sad Dads™) who live in Australia and take bus to work.
The "ceiling" that you mentioned might also be rising as Nintendo expands its mindshare and footprint in China. Because of the historic console ban, the brand wasn't that strong in the country. The relatively low box office of the Mario Movie in China exemplifies that lack of broad-base appeal. This is quickly changing though, and TotK is becoming a phenomenon. According to NS News Subo (a popular Weibo account with 1.9 mil followers), the sheer number of imported TotK physicals is causing issues at the border customs:
- Close to 10k game cards are backlogged at the Huizhou customs (where most TotK imports enter the country)
- Due to the workload, games that arrived on 5/12 only passed customs clearance on 5/16
- One additional truck run per day is needed for the Hong Kong-Huizhou route to carry the packages
Bloomberg Japan, Nikkei, and Mainichi (links in my previous post) all quoted that exact word (ストレッチ) in their reports. Unless they copied each other's homework (not impossible), Furukawa probably did say that on the earnings call. The Nintendo management probably realized that some people might take it the wrong way, and thus rephrased that in the official Q&A transcript.
D
Deleted member 2
Guest
Thanks for reminding me why I blocked you lol
And you did right! This is surely an information everyone was dying to be reminded.
Now let's move on, please.
We were, and should have stayed, at the part where unsubstatiated claims can be dimissed without justification, even moreso when the person making those claims has been repeatedly wrong over the years on the subject, and has a financial incentive to keep their audience hooked with the possibility that they may somehow have the type of information no onse else has. Note that eventually, that person will be right; 2024 is indeed a likely outcome which I have supported for nearly 2 years.
MadMarvainy
Moblin
- Pronouns
- He/Him
if you are talking about ToTK, it does not look as good graphically as some of the earlier stuff shown.
it was downgraded just a little but not by a crazy amount but it's most definitely noticeable if you have a keen eye.
i have my doubts.
Mr Swine
Like Like
- Pronouns
- He
I doubt we will get any games from Rockstar other than remasters and/or Remakes of old games
Yes yes, you are right there is indeed a slight but visibledowngrade, but it's really not a big deal and not enough to suggest that Nintendo was being sneaky by showing the game running on Drake or whatever next console was expected at the time.
I remember the same narrative being pushed for Mario Rabbids 2 at some point. Which is utterly ridiculous considering that the sequel looks worse than the first!
When we will see the first games running on Drake, we will know.
MadMarvainy
Moblin
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Fair enough.
boodream
Paratroopa
Nintendo, actually. But I totally agree about the fact that people, not only or specifically DF, can jump to conclusions.
Not just Rabbids, every damn game Nintendo showed.
Splatoon 3, MH Rise/ Xenoblade 3 to name a few.
Pretty sure they are, especially with Zelda.
I didn't know for those; the north does not always remembers everything it seems.
All those games look great, it's true; but they look like Switch games where developers had the time and the talent to polish their product, and certainly not that they are running on a machine which handily surpasses a PS4 and can possibly visually rival a Series S under certain circumstances.
boodream
Paratroopa
Porting L.A Noire to switch was very cool and well executed. It kind of sucks that we didn’t get RDR 1 or GTA 4 on this console, probably just because rockstar screwed up the GTA trilogy remaster for wrong reasons wheras the fixes show they could have done a lot better as a publisher, even by outsourcing like they did.
In the same logic that I think a port of GTA V on switch 2 would be a great success, and it’s a shame that it is unlikely.
The difference between your example and my example was that with Rabbids and actual respected journalist was pushing it (I think Jason Schreier), not just people on forums.
boodream
Paratroopa
It’s possible, but I don’t have an example in mind personally. Including other Zelda titles in the past. However, I agree, this is more marketing (which apparently has been very bad on tears of the kingdom, wink ) than anything else.
The development of GTA4 has been hell and so is the source code, this is the reason why it was never ported to anything. (it actually did on PC, but it has to be one of the worst PC port ever)
RDR1 was also never ported (not even on PC) but it seems that they were working on a remaster which was canned/paused to put more manpower on GTA6 (and also because of the infamous flop of the trilogy)
A port of RDR2 on Nintendo next gen wouldn't be too crazy to see (if that doesn't happen then polygon lied
)Nintendo wasn't pulling 4K screenshots off the Switch, that's for sure
they would if they're disclosing info to them. Like Microsoft put an embargo when DF visited their HQ to look at the Series X and S.DF does get digital copies ahead of time from Nintendo, so I wonder if things have changed between them and Nintendo since Switch was released. NDAs on game is a no brainier, but I wonder if Nintendo also gave NDAs for info on unreleased consoles to journalist gaming companies they have relationships with
- Pronouns
- He/Him
As for GTAV for Switch I imagine the main reason was probably a question if it is worth the development time. The big money of GTA is in the online feature. Having GTA Online on Switch would probably have been possible in some form, but also you would have needed a dedicated Switch development team that would make all the updates run on it. For a new userbase that even if the game sold like 5-10 Million copies this was probably to costly, especially when they maybe had some technical issues to run even the base game on Switch or something.
Of course they could have just ported the single player game to Switch, but I think there was simply no interest to invest too much time in a Switch port where they essentially expect a marginal profit compared if they put their resources into a GTA online update. Though I‘m sure they tried at some point to make it run without putting too much effort, but maybe it was just too much work to adjust the whole game for Switch. I know the game was released on XBOX360/PS3, still it didn‘t exactly run well on those consoles.
That said, I don‘t think that there is any ideological reason for Rockstar not having a new GTA on a Nintendo platform.
Of course they could have just ported the single player game to Switch, but I think there was simply no interest to invest too much time in a Switch port where they essentially expect a marginal profit compared if they put their resources into a GTA online update. Though I‘m sure they tried at some point to make it run without putting too much effort, but maybe it was just too much work to adjust the whole game for Switch. I know the game was released on XBOX360/PS3, still it didn‘t exactly run well on those consoles.
That said, I don‘t think that there is any ideological reason for Rockstar not having a new GTA on a Nintendo platform.
Last edited:
I agree, and this is why I don't see RDR2 ever releasing on Switch 1 or 2, especially after 6 years. Unless Nintendo really wants to make a statement, but even then, porting Cyberpunk, as someone else mentioned, would be a bigger statement and they have history with Witcher 3. That, I could see happening on release even.
A port of Elden Ring would be the best solution if Nintendo wanted to prove something, and at least we'd get to play a good game. But I doubt it'll happen considering neither From nor Nintendo bothered bringing anything after DS1.
Yeah, the only reason why this game has been ported to next-gen is just to milk the online.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I think it really depends on how powerful and accessible this new platform ends up to be. Actually I could see both Cyberpunk and
Last edited:
HankyPanky
Like Like
- Pronouns
- Funcle
obviously there are reasons unknown to us but is anyone else dissapointed Nintendo didn't come out with a new Switch to go along with Zelda? it seemed like the perfect game & timing to have an updated Switch which would start a lengthy cross-gen period. if they're waiting to have enough software ready I think that's a mistake and they're underestimating how many people would upgrade in year 1 just to play existing & currently releasing titles in higher fidelity. not to mention all the third party ports that could fill the gap. even at a higher price i don't think selling out for the first year would be a problem. the killer Drake exclusives could come later with a price drop as they push for mass-adoption from Switch 1 owners.
their current plan which seems to be having the Switch 1 on the market for potentially another 18 months isn't a great one as sales will only decline and the brand loses it's steam. yes we'll all be hyped as heck when it eventually drops but it seems like a missed oppurtunity to have a good cross-gen period and please everyone while maximising their sales. i guess some of this stems from comments about their systems becoming more of a platform, expecting more frequent updates (better performing devices) and it seems like they're back to the traditional hardware generations approach. nothing really changed even from a winning position.
their current plan which seems to be having the Switch 1 on the market for potentially another 18 months isn't a great one as sales will only decline and the brand loses it's steam. yes we'll all be hyped as heck when it eventually drops but it seems like a missed oppurtunity to have a good cross-gen period and please everyone while maximising their sales. i guess some of this stems from comments about their systems becoming more of a platform, expecting more frequent updates (better performing devices) and it seems like they're back to the traditional hardware generations approach. nothing really changed even from a winning position.
If that was indeed the plan with the recalled dev kits, I think most of us are disappointed they didn't follow through with it.
I HATE to say this, but I really doubt Nintendo will let slip 125 Million Switch consoles away without a new 3D Mario.
@NateDrake May I ask about your personal view on this?
I mean, since the next Zelda will be at least 4-5 years away, only a Mario 3D is a huge game (not even Mario Kart is in this category).
@NateDrake May I ask about your personal view on this?
I mean, since the next Zelda will be at least 4-5 years away, only a Mario 3D is a huge game (not even Mario Kart is in this category).
- Pronouns
- He/Him
@Thraktor i have a question and I feel like you’re the best person to ask this, but is it possible to backport a feature of a later architecture, even if they are on different foundries?
If i remember right, T239 has that FLCG that Ada has, but ORIN and the other Ampere products don’t have.
Don’t you usually have to be at the same foundry to have something that’s built into the design for more efficiency that it is supposedly meant for?
Or are there instances, especially from Nvidia, in which you can backport a feature from a later architecture at a different foundry to an older architecture? Especially when the later architecture is similar to the old one for the most part?
If i remember right, T239 has that FLCG that Ada has, but ORIN and the other Ampere products don’t have.
Don’t you usually have to be at the same foundry to have something that’s built into the design for more efficiency that it is supposedly meant for?
Or are there instances, especially from Nvidia, in which you can backport a feature from a later architecture at a different foundry to an older architecture? Especially when the later architecture is similar to the old one for the most part?
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I rather believe they are doing a reimagined 2D style Mario game for Switch. I think this could be a huge Odyssey-like Success if done right.
james
continued history of ill-mannered behavior
so the answer to vash's question is no, then?
Thraktor
"[✄]. [✄]. [✄]. [✄]." -Microsoft
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Oldpuck's leaving #teamleapday? Guess I'll have to continue flying the flag solo.
On the time of 18 to 24 months from sampling to release, I assume you're talking about the TX1 and the original Switch? If so, I don't think it's really comparable, as TX1 was already entering production independently of Nintendo; Nvidia had other customers for it (not many, but still...). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Nintendo only officially signed with Nvidia around when tape out happened, so the question wasn't really about hardware timelines, it was about how quickly Nintendo could produce a lineup of games for hardware they had no experience with, using APIs and tools they had no experience with. Even two years is cutting it a bit tight in those circumstances.
Now, however, we're looking at a chip designed for Nintendo, with hardware, tools and APIs that are evolutions of what they're already familiar with. It appears that Nintendo have already had at least three years to develop software for this new console, and rather than tape out being the start of a mad dash to get a games lineup ready, tape out would have been the point where Nintendo had all their ducks in a row and gave Nvidia the thumbs up to get the hardware side in motion.
From leakers, it appears that Nvidia's typical tape out to product launch is under a year these days, with around 8 months for the first Ada GPUs. I'd expect a Nintendo chip to have a longer gap than that, between wanting a higher volume launch than is typical for GPUs, and a bit of a buffer for safety (if they need to do a second stepping). Let's say 14 or 15 months. As you say, sampling began between April and August last year, which is pretty much right where I'd expect it to be for a holiday 2023 launch window. That is to say, I'm reasonably confident that Nintendo's plan was to launch [redacted] holiday 2023, and that was their plan as recently as the middle of last year.
Of course, plans can change, and it's entirely possible that Nintendo have reconsidered since then, with software delays being the most likely culprit, but I don't agree that pushing back a year to holiday 2024 is the most likely outcome. Holiday launches are a good bet for initial plans, as if you're looking at things three or four years in advance, before you've started work on any games for the system, you'll probably go for a holiday launch. Delaying a system with a pipeline of games already in development is a very different thing, though. Nintendo absolutely made the right choice launching Switch in March rather than pushing back to the following holiday, as they had the pipeline of games to support it, and ended up with far more consoles in players hands by the end of 2017 than if they had gone for a holiday launch.
In [redacted]'s case, this is further complicated by the almost guaranteed presence of cross-gen titles. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that any games Nintendo releases on Switch after [redacted]'s launch will be cross-gen, with some kind of enhancement on the new hardware. That being the case, if Nintendo were planning for [redacted] to launch in Q4 2023, they would have two types of games in their pipeline for release from that point onwards; [redacted] exclusives and cross-gen games. On the one hand, this gives them a buffer, as they can release those cross-gen games as regular Switch titles if [redacted] is delayed. On the other hand, they almost certainly don't want to do this, as it means they can't announce these titles as [redacted] games, and hence weaken the next-gen lineup.
Let's say Nintendo's planned lineup for the first year of [redacted] consisted of Major Flagship Game
, a [redacted] exclusive, at launch, with maybe a couple of other exclusives over the year, and the rest of the lineup consisting of cross-gen games. Let's also say that Major Flagship Game doesn't look quite flagship-worthy, and they decide to give it a few more months in the oven, and hence also delay [redacted] itself. If they delay a full year, then in order to keep money coming in they have to release almost all of those cross-gen games as regular old Switch titles, so rather than the delay resulting in a better game lineup, the delay would actually be eating into [redacted]'s software offering. Put another way, if Nintendo has enough games to keep Switch alive another year, they have enough games to keep [redacted] going through its first. Sacrificing the latter for the former doesn't make much sense to me.
Vash
Tears of the Kingdom Enjoyer
For antagonizing other users and ignoring the staff posts, you are being given a two week threadban. -Josh5890, Irene, Derachi
You talking about maintaining healthy discussion environments is too funny.
ziggyrivers
thunder
- Pronouns
- He/him/his
You present a good point. I was thinking of that: if Nintendo releases upcoming software just for the Switch, what will the successor have? Wait more years?
boodream
Paratroopa
I think it’s really a trade-off between the short term and the future. Thinking about the current user base of the Nintendo switch can be used to sell games or to keep it for the next hardware. I think that’s a balance to be struck between the two, and I have good reason to think that Nintendo knows that. Of course, Nintendo’s job is to sell games, but in the long term, to do so, it will be necessary to rebuild a solid installed base for switch 2, and it will not be possible to do this without an exclusive that will give people a reason to change consoles.
I can’t imagine Nintendo sacrificing the future just to sell extra copies in the short term. Mario’s 3D role will be to push people to adopt the next material. Why would we do it if the game is available on the existing hardware we already have?
Tears of the kingdom would have been a great launch game, but a 7-year life cycle doesn’t shock me and releasing a huge cartridge of this kind literally avoids a difficult end of life like that of the Wii, which is also a factor of the Wii u failute since the momentum had passed.
as we've seen from Series and PS5, cross-gen doesn't prevent people from buying the next gen version
now that MK1 is revealed, I'm wondering how next gen upgrade will work. the easiest solution will be to add in a new performance mode that increases resolution (and maybe frame rate) when played on Drake. the harder solution would be to build a Drake SKU based on the current gen SKUs
Resolution alone wouldn’t be enough. I’d expect it to graphically look even worse than MK11 (and that was already rough, at least for me)
RennanNT
Bob-omb
Many keep saying 15 mi sounds too high, but I don't think so. Between new players from the movie and double-dips from ZOLED, a 2~3 mi total bump to a otherwise 12~14 mi prediction sounds reasonable to me. Of course, that 12~14 depends on having a good/great lineup, but Nintendo do know what it will be and there were many H1 games they could have withheld if there was a drought coming, so I have some confidence it will be at least good.
And by May 9th, Nintendo had a good idea on how much demand was boosted by both of them (and which we now know was enough to outsell the PS5 in the US in April, at the very least) when made the prediction and named those 2 as part of the reason.
If we look at the non-pandemic years, Switch sales trajectory was very similar to PS4's and very different from other Nintendo systems, which is why I'm think it's reasonable to expect drops to not be that far from the PS4.
PS4 sold 17.8 in the FY ending March 2019 and then sold 13.5 mi in the following. Switch sold 17.9 mi last FY, so a similar drop would put this FY in the 13~14 range too, except:
PS4 sold 17.8 in the FY ending March 2019 and then sold 13.5 mi in the following. Switch sold 17.9 mi last FY, so a similar drop would put this FY in the 13~14 range too, except:
- Nintendo won't necessarily talk about the Successor in 2023, while Sony talked about PS5 features and release month in 2019
- PS4 didn't get any Juggernaut like Zelda to boost their premium SKU (at least I can't find/remember any)
- No movie in 2019 which could bring new players to PS4, let alone one of the size of Mario
- PS4 didn't have better deals than 2018 or earlier, while Nintendo could use bundling games or even price drops if needed.
but will spending money to re-port the game be worth it? a higher res version of the switch version might not be the best looking, but anyone upgrading from switch already doesn't have that as their priority
Thraktor
"[✄]. [✄]. [✄]. [✄]." -Microsoft
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm splitting this off to a separate post as the previous one is long enough as it is, but several people have discussed the apparent inevitability of Ubisoft leaks, and I felt I should chime in.
First off, yeah, Ubisoft are very leaky, and have been for a while. The typical Ubisoft project is developed by a dozen studios and about a thousand people, and the bigger you go with a production the more likely you are to get one or two people leaking what they know about the project. I also suspect that Ubisoft management aren't particularly concerned about these leaks, but even if they were it would be difficult for them to do much about it, given the scale of their operations.
In Switch's first year, Ubisoft had one exclusive game in development, Mario+Rabbids, and several ports. Mario+Rabbids, unsurprisingly, got leaked, with several hundred people working on it. I may be mistaken, but I don't think the ports like Rayman Legends were leaked. Again, probably not surprising, given how few people would typically work on these ports.
When it comes to [redacted], I would be very surprised if Ubisoft had any exclusive games in development. Sparks of Hope underperformed and I suspect the studio has been assimilated into the Assassin's Creed machine by this point. That leaves ports. Assassin's Creed games are by far the most likely of these, for obvious reasons, and I'd say there's a good chance we're getting either AC: Valhalla or AC: Mirage in [redacted]'s launch window. I would have said Mirage previously, but Valhalla is Ubisoft's most successful game of all time, and they could see it in a similar way to Skyrim on Switch, as a major "I can't believe that's running on a handheld" third party open world game for [redacted]'s launch window. Although Mirage is newer, it's reportedly a much smaller scale game than Valhalla, so they may feel it wouldn't be as "impressive" to see running on a portable device.
In any case, if Ubisoft is planning a Valhalla port for [redacted], that would likely mean a small number of people working on it, likely all working in the same studio, possibly not even an Ubisoft studio. Even if Mirage is being developed for [redacted], there's no reason for everyone working on the game to know about a [redacted] port. It's not like an exclusive game such as Mario+Rabbids where everybody involved would have to be aware it's a Switch game. In the scale of Ubisoft's 1000-person productions, the number who actually work directly on individual platforms is pretty small, and with development segmented across multiple studios it wouldn't exactly be hard for one studio to be responsible for the [redacted] build with most employees being unaware it's coming to the platform.
Having only a small number of people working on a port makes leaks much less likely, both by there just being fewer people to leak, and also because they will know that it's much more likely that any leaker will be found and fired. And while Ubisoft is probably not that concerned about leaks, Nintendo certainly is, and I would expect them to pressure Ubisoft to keep a much tighter leash on teams working on [redacted] than they usually do.
First off, yeah, Ubisoft are very leaky, and have been for a while. The typical Ubisoft project is developed by a dozen studios and about a thousand people, and the bigger you go with a production the more likely you are to get one or two people leaking what they know about the project. I also suspect that Ubisoft management aren't particularly concerned about these leaks, but even if they were it would be difficult for them to do much about it, given the scale of their operations.
In Switch's first year, Ubisoft had one exclusive game in development, Mario+Rabbids, and several ports. Mario+Rabbids, unsurprisingly, got leaked, with several hundred people working on it. I may be mistaken, but I don't think the ports like Rayman Legends were leaked. Again, probably not surprising, given how few people would typically work on these ports.
When it comes to [redacted], I would be very surprised if Ubisoft had any exclusive games in development. Sparks of Hope underperformed and I suspect the studio has been assimilated into the Assassin's Creed machine by this point. That leaves ports. Assassin's Creed games are by far the most likely of these, for obvious reasons, and I'd say there's a good chance we're getting either AC: Valhalla or AC: Mirage in [redacted]'s launch window. I would have said Mirage previously, but Valhalla is Ubisoft's most successful game of all time, and they could see it in a similar way to Skyrim on Switch, as a major "I can't believe that's running on a handheld" third party open world game for [redacted]'s launch window. Although Mirage is newer, it's reportedly a much smaller scale game than Valhalla, so they may feel it wouldn't be as "impressive" to see running on a portable device.
In any case, if Ubisoft is planning a Valhalla port for [redacted], that would likely mean a small number of people working on it, likely all working in the same studio, possibly not even an Ubisoft studio. Even if Mirage is being developed for [redacted], there's no reason for everyone working on the game to know about a [redacted] port. It's not like an exclusive game such as Mario+Rabbids where everybody involved would have to be aware it's a Switch game. In the scale of Ubisoft's 1000-person productions, the number who actually work directly on individual platforms is pretty small, and with development segmented across multiple studios it wouldn't exactly be hard for one studio to be responsible for the [redacted] build with most employees being unaware it's coming to the platform.
Having only a small number of people working on a port makes leaks much less likely, both by there just being fewer people to leak, and also because they will know that it's much more likely that any leaker will be found and fired. And while Ubisoft is probably not that concerned about leaks, Nintendo certainly is, and I would expect them to pressure Ubisoft to keep a much tighter leash on teams working on [redacted] than they usually do.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I’m curious, but how significant of an effect does a movie have in people buying a whole new console for a game
boodream
Paratroopa
This discussion takes place often but I really think that starting from this premise does not take into consideration how much games are selling Nintendo consoles. It’s not the same for ps5, which sells almost on its own and then sells games. That’s why Sony and Nintendo don’t have the same market positioning.
If I remember correctly in an interview about the development of rayman origins or 3D, they talked about how access to 3ds devkits (which was not announced yet) was restricted to very few people, and that those development kits were in a separate room . I cannot find the interview, but it is common in these cases that this is done.
Last edited:
BDGAME
Shriekbat
So, in summary, the dates and reasons for switch 2 release, are as follows:
- End of 2023: because Nintendo has already released everything that was exclusive to the current switch and their next games for the end of the year will be crossgen or switch 2 exclusives.
- Early 2024: Because there was no time to prepare everything for the end of 2023, besides that Nintendo already lost the 2016 holidays and it wouldn't be a problem to lose this year too.
- End of 2024: Because no rumor or leak so far points to before that. The annual report also didn't make it clear that would have something before the end of the business year.
- 2025: Similar reasons as the early 2024.
- 2026: Who is Playstation 5? Nintendo is aiming to compete with Ps6!
- 2027: When they said the Switch would last 10 years, they really said that!
- End of 2023: because Nintendo has already released everything that was exclusive to the current switch and their next games for the end of the year will be crossgen or switch 2 exclusives.
- Early 2024: Because there was no time to prepare everything for the end of 2023, besides that Nintendo already lost the 2016 holidays and it wouldn't be a problem to lose this year too.
- End of 2024: Because no rumor or leak so far points to before that. The annual report also didn't make it clear that would have something before the end of the business year.
- 2025: Similar reasons as the early 2024.
- 2026: Who is Playstation 5? Nintendo is aiming to compete with Ps6!
- 2027: When they said the Switch would last 10 years, they really said that!
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah I was thinking about this when it was suggested the "11 devs had new devkits" story would mean a thousand people were working with new hardware and therefore the probability of leaks would be high. Just because a studio has a devkit doesn't mean everyone in the studio has access to it.
Concernt
Optimism is non-negotiable
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Except, they do. One insider does not all rumours and leaks make.
D36
#WOHOYHASAWAKENED
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Guess it depends on the overlap between the moviegoers who own a Switch and those who don't, which I assume is still big. Mario is a household name and there are kids out there who will have money to spend, as well as adults who are nostalgic for the brand and haven't touched a Nintendo system in years.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Forgive me if you were mostly just setting up for the punchlines at the end, but don't forget to add "LinkedIn and Linux info suggesting tapeout was last year" and "leaks suggesting production lines are being set up" to the reasoning here.
carbonaxiom
Piranha Plant
I had forgotten to comment on this before, but when the new Nintendo device is finally announced, I would be very interested in hearing more about the historical information you know about, even if it's filled with redacted details. The currently available timeline of events derived from rumors/leaks/hacks don't seem to connect all that well, so new information that could help make more sense of some things would be a good addition to the thread.
RennanNT
Bob-omb
Just adding to your post... I filtered Google by 2016 and the earliest mention I found of M+R was in November 18th 2016. So, if anything, there's a precedent for Ubisoft keeping a Nintendo-related secret under wraps until after the console was announced and quite close to the console release, rather than M+R being a proof for the "if Ubisoft had a dev kit, it would have leaked already" argument.
- Pronouns
- Hmmm
Owning a Switch doesn't stop people from buying another Switch lol
Would you say the same about the Wii - Wii U?
Last edited:
