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.You ever not angry about something?
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.You ever not angry about something?
I agree with the idea that there may be confirmation bias (I feel the same way about other definitive statements from other sources doubting backwards compatibility or the existence of post-Totk games), but to play devil's advocate, it is true in the case of Totk that some of the images offered before the game's release seem to be more beautiful than what we see in the final product, right?
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’m getting more inclined into Team 2024. Spring or Holiday. They seem comfortably optimistic
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.I agree in general, and I do expect a pretty short timeframe from announcement to release, but I wonder if there's a downside to squeezing out those extra sales to existing owners. Someone buying a Switch for the first time this year is all good news for Nintendo, as it's very unlikely they would be buying a successor console if it were announced. People buying a second Switch, though, are exactly the kinds of people who would buy new hardware in its first year on sale. So if Nintendo sell an OLED model to someone who already owns a Switch, then announces [redacted] for sale six months later, are they losing an early [redacted] sale?
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.This is from my argument for why Tears won't outsell Breath of the Wild. The install base is much larger, the anticipation is high, but I think it's unlikely that there is something in Tears that appeals to a large segment of gamers who weren't into the last game. So Tears will burn through a decent chunk of it's lifetime sales earlier on, but have a shorter tail, as the platform isn't growing at the same rate
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.IF that word was used, they would've used the Japanese word. ストレッチ is just Stretch typed in Japanese characters. It's literally ス (Su)ト(To) レ(Re) ッチ (Chi). I'm sure they have a Japanese word for it.
Thanks for reminding me why I blocked you lolBe 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.
And you did right! This is surely an information everyone was dying to be reminded.Thanks for reminding me why I blocked you lol
if you are talking about ToTK, it does not look as good graphically as some of the earlier stuff shown.You remember the days when DF used to heavily insist on how game #1 or game #2 looked "a little bit too good for the switch" wink wink nudge nudge and in the end, those games released on switch and looked exactly like that?
Well I do, and for that reason, I put very little faith in whatever DF says regarding the next Nintendo hardware.
I do trust them when it comes to telling me wherever Zelda TikTok is 30fps 97% of the time or 96% of the time though.
i have my doubts.GTA VI as a launch title for Switch U?
GTA VI as a launch title for Switch U?
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.
Fair enough.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.
Nintendo, actually. But I totally agree about the fact that people, not only or specifically DF, can jump to conclusions.Sure, the game was a bit crisper on the trailer, but which developer isn't guilty of using PC footage in their promotional material?
Not just Rabbids, every damn game Nintendo showed.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.
Pretty sure they are, especially with Zelda.Nintendo, actually. But I totally agree about the fact that people, not only or specifically DF, can jump to conclusions.
I didn't know for those; the north does not always remembers everything it seems.Not just Rabbids, every damn game Nintendo showed.
Splatoon 3, MH Rise/ Xenoblade 3 to name a few.
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.I doubt we will get any games from Rockstar other than remasters and/or Remakes of old games
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.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.
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.Pretty sure they are, especially with Zelda.
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)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.
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
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 for Rockstar not having a new GTA on a Nintendo platform.
Yeah, the only reason why this game has been ported to next-gen is just to milk the online.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.
I think it really depends on how powerful and accessible this new platform ends up to be. Actually I could see both Cyberpunk andI 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.
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.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.
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.I HATE to say this, but I really doubt Nintendo will let slip 125 Million Switch consoles away without a new 3D Mario.
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.
T239 sampled sometime between April and August of last year. 18 months was Nintendo's target date from sampling, but they went 24 months for software reasons.
That gives you a wide "data driven" window of October this year to August of next year. Within that window there aren't strong reasons to believe any one date, so it starts to become a gut check. And by definition, a gut check isn't objective.
Nintendo probably wants a holiday launch all else being equal. That's not to say that all else is equal. But if Nintendo has wiggle room in terms of software, and can stay reasonably profitable in the interim, Holiday 2024 is better than Spring 2024. The market isn't going to appreciably change in that six month window - Steam Deck still represents the peak of their competition in the handheld space, and there isn't going to be an APU that changes that in the next year, just looking at nodes and AMD's roadmap. Price cuts aren't coming to Series S|X, and while Sony seems to have some sort of cloud handheld and PS5 Pro planned, neither are going to fundamentally alter the dynamic of this generation.
I say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" often enough that it should be my signature, but I think "evidence of absence" is also hard to define. We're looking at either an uncharacteristically long gen, or an uncharacteristically fast* marketing cycle. Yes, corporations deceive, mislead, and equivocate. But Nintendo is projecting "this uncharacteristically long generation is uncharacteristically successful."
Meanwhile, Ubisoft is leaking like crazy, trying to get someone to buy them, and yet not a whiff about an internal REDACTED project. I don't see a hole in Squeenix's schedule for a REDACTED game. Panic Button seems occupied with Series S/X support.
All of these are small weights, but they tip the balance for me. I'm moving the Official OldPuck prediction to Holiday 2024.
* Notice I don't say short. There are ways to lay the groundwork for a marketing cycle that precede the start. Steering the conversation from Tears to REDACTED, while not having any event to center it around, is wildly different from a period of quiet leading up to an E3 reveal. Which is not to say that's how Nintendo will do it, just that there is no groundwork laid for a launch that allows them to maximize eyeballs and control the narrative.
You talking about maintaining healthy discussion environments is too funny.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.
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?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.
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 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).
as we've seen from Series and PS5, cross-gen doesn't prevent people from buying the next gen versionDon't expect most games for the Switch U to be cross-gen. Thet need a reason for people to buy the Switch U.
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)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
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.The game itself hadn't released yet, but it looks like the ToTK edition OLED console boosted hardware sales for Nintendo.
Edit- *In April
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 priorityResolution 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)
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.as we've seen from Series and PS5, cross-gen doesn't prevent people from buying the next gen version
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.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.
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.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.
- 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.
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.I’m curious, but how significant of an effect does a movie have in people buying a whole new console for a game
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.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.
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.* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *
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.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.
Owning a Switch doesn't stop people from buying another Switch lolas we've seen from Series and PS5, cross-gen doesn't prevent people from buying the next gen version