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

[D36]

You know, I'd ask for us to stop bickering, but I've also been airing my grievances.
Hope we can at least understand where we're coming from before we see some actual toxicity.

 

[Skittzo]

In my culture we call it BCE (this is actually true)

 

[Supreme Overlord]

A $500 Drake Switch will be geared mostly to people who already have a Switch but want to enhance their Switch gaming in both graphics and performance. Or for people interested in finally entering the Switch ecosystem because the graphics/performance is finally suitable to their tastes.

¿500 dólares solo para mejorar los gráficos y el rendimiento?

¿En esta economía?

Why wouldn’t Nintendo support the other 140 million Switch hardware out there longer than devs supported the ps4/one?

Why would the “biggest” Nintendo games not support the other 140 million Switch hardware out there longer than the “biggest” games have been supported on the ps4/one?

I seem to recall my suggestion explicitly indicates Nintendo will continue to support that pre-existing 140 million (and likely climbing) Switch hardware, just, perhaps, not with their biggest titles. Their biggest titles are most likely to entice new purchases, but also the most likely to, as I said, "make use of what [the new hardware] has to offer for development," which could be any manner of tricks and tools. You might recall I'd suggested Nintendo can put out rather impressive software for the current Switch, but that what we see there could theoretically be a mere baseline for possibilities.

That's not considering other potential details that could change things, which such titles could be likely to utilize -- changes to trigger function, better pointing integration, who knows what else might lie in wait? There are a lot of possible reasons a given title might not show up on the current Switch, and these aren't even necessarily restricted to big releases.

I think the main disconnect here is in where you're positioning the new hardware as merely a more powerful Switch with no purpose other than to play Switch games, but better this time, as per the previous quote, whereas I'm not convinced of that at all.
Beyond that, I figure the vast majority of people who bought a Switch actually don't care about the graphics and performance issues as much as forum dwellers would have you believe -- for whatever percentage of titles benefits from that. Most will likely be content with their current device unless presented with a reason to care (and I really don't blame them).

The Switch will continue to see support and will remain a desirable option for smaller and indie developers, as well as larger companies that see it as a viable platform for any given product. And I do see opportunities remaining on there for Nintendo as well. But I see no reason to assume the new hardware won't offer anything the Switch can't.

Ah yes, I remember all the Wii games that blew away anything I could have ever imagined playing on the GameCube!

And I remember all the Wii U games that blew away anything I could have ever imagined playing on the Wii!

And I remember all the Switch games that blew away anything I could have ever imagined playing on the Wii U!

Oh good. I'm glad you remember these, since it gives us a starting point.

To answer that guys question, what Nintendo should do to maintain this brand and this kind of success is what Iwata suggested for the Switch platform, follow the Apple model of hardware releases while maintaining the permanent OS/account platform as the bridge.

Super Mario Run is already going to require a device upgrade for iOS 12 or above or OS 5.1 or above in order to keep playing it, "to continue offering the best services possible."

 

[Supreme Overlord]

In my culture we call it BCE (this is actually true)

Your culture is too newfangled and lacks BC.

 

[TLZ]

- On the chances of a 2023 release, RGT is at 5%, Josie said 7%, Nate said 0%

- Josie said the transition will be similar from DS --- > 3DS, same form factor but new gimmick that defines the system.

- Nate says form factor will be the same, but says Nintendo will come up with a unique gimmick that differentiates it from the current Switch.

- RGT says the cartridges are problematic as they haven't gotten cheaper, will present a problem for storage sizes with next-gen games not fitting on cartridges. Says previous Nintendo games used to be $40 because the cartridges were cheap. Says if Switch 2 is BC and it has the same cartridge slot, then we will have to download new games because no developer will be able to compress the hell out of their games to fit on the cartridge Or, he says the physical media will change, or that it won't use physical media at all.

- Nate says the question that never comes up in the BC debate is whether Nintendo "wants" us to have BC. Josie immediately said "No, they (Nintendo) want to make money". Nate proposes the notion that Nintendo may only go with digital BC if they use a new cartridge or physical media slot. Says BC may also not be feasible given the technology Nintendo and Nvidia decided to use.

- RGT reminds us that President Furukawa businessman, and that as a businessman he will want to make money, which means that he should make us have to rebuy all of our Nintendo Switch titles with DLSS and other enhancements. Used MK8D as an example. Nate agreed, saying that from a business perspective, Nintendo wants us to buy new games, and the best way to do that is by depriving us access to all of the games we've already invested in. They don't want us playing MK8D, or Smash Ultimate, they want us buying the new versions of those games or premium rereleases of past games.

Sigh

This reads no different than the uninformed speculation we have here.

I strongly believe Switch 2 will have BC, based on Nintendo's own comments.

A quote from Miyamoto himself from last year:

“Recently, however, the development environment has increasingly become more standardised, and we now have an environment that allows players to enjoy older video games on newer consoles more easily than ever before.”

Also, we have this image from Nintendo:

In addition, we also have Zach's data mining, BC layer info.

And, since the Switch is a portable (tablet) first, a quick look at all their portables show that all of them had BC:
GBC with GB.
GBA with GBC and GB.
DS with GBA.
3DS with DS.

Every single one, except Switch. So you see an obvious pattern here.

And from what we know the next system is still going to be a continuation of the Switch. So a Switch 2 basically. Which is still following the previous pattern of following up the current popular/successful portable with a system from the same "family". And the Switch isn't just any system. It's their most popular and successful one. They'd want to keep riding that wave.

We also have this from Furukawa:


And this:


So, with all this information put together, I very strongly believe we will have BC.

The only way imo they ditch BC is if they ditch the Switch concept altogether, which I don't see happening at all with it being their most successful console.

I hope I presented an informative enough post to back my opinion.

 

[Truno]

I want the next-generation Nintendo console now please

 

[Erathix]

Sigh

This reads no different than the uninformed speculation we have here.

I strongly believe Switch 2 will have BC, based on Nintendo's own comments.

A quote from Miyamoto himself from last year:


Also, we have this image from Nintendo:

In addition, we also have Zach's data mining, BC layer info.

And, since the Switch is a portable (tablet) first, a quick look at all their portables show that all of them had BC:
GBC with GB.
GBA with GBC and GB.
DS with GBA.
3DS with DS.

Every single one, except Switch. So you see an obvious pattern here.

And from what we know the next system is still going to be a continuation of the Switch. So a Switch 2 basically. Which is still following the previous pattern of following up the current popular/successful portable with a system from the same "family". And the Switch isn't just any system. It's their most popular and successful one. They'd want to keep riding that wave.

We also have this from Furukawa:


And this:


So, with all this information put together, I very strongly believe we will have BC.

The only way imo they ditch BC is if they ditch the Switch concept altogether, which I don't see happening at all with it being their most successful console.

I hope I presented an informative enough post to back my opinion.

Honestly I have no idea why it's even being debated. Switch 2 will have BC. I really didn't think it was in contention at all. Nintendo historically has had BC more often than not. They have been clear about their transitioning plans and the reasons for NSO accounts. They know full well that digital libraries matter in 2023 and actively worked on a solution for their hardware.

When Switch 2, any knowledge of another gimmick we have aside, is essentially a more powerful variety of Switch console, it was a given. That audience is far too great to lose the good will of. They want the Switch family of consoles to be interchangeable, there needs to be that overlap, libraries and accounts need to seamlessly crossover between consoles, it's hand in hand with the nature of the Switch.

They were never going to disregard it and upend the massive Switch library.

 

[LuigiBlood]

Heh, yeah. Native BC isn't possible, but they appear to have figured out some type of BC layer/workaround. No clue how it works.

Sorry but have you found some evidence for this in the firmware?

No

^^


"dude trust me"
(I don't really want to/can't say anything. I'm also not 100% certain it is what I think it is, some of this shit is like working with riddles.)

I'd rather do the reminder that he didn't say he datamined BC. Just to be sure I cut the game of telephone where the info gets distorted over time.

 

[Kazuyamishima]

I want the next-generation Nintendo console now please

Don't we all

 

[Evil Lucario]

Yeah backwards compatibility makes sense from a pure, cold hard business angle to make as much money as possible. If the Switch 2 plays all of the old games better like the PS5 for PS4, then that allows those older games to still be played and be relevant forever. And with Nintendo not really discounting games (Nintendo Selects seem dead for the time being, waiting for this part to age badly lol), the need to sell new games isn't AS strong (though always priority #1 of course).

Again, imagine the buzz where people look at Switch 2 and think "holy shit, Age of Calamity runs at a locked framerate" or "oh my God, Three Hopes can lock 60fps even in split-screen???" or what have you. This stuff still drives sales, word of mouth would spread and people get hyped, it also builds the Switch 2 brand to be even stronger, backwards compatibility is literally yet another venue for Nintendo continue making money and maintain brand power. And once again, the "because Nintendo" logic pointing against back compat utterly fails when you consider how they basically always want to cling onto backwards compatibility off of a successful platform. They ACTUALLY get it, and in fact it was to the point where the Wii U's CPU was handicapped because of that want for back compat. But we have much better architecture now, so that shouldn't be a worry for Switch 2.

 

[thesillyfellaelde]

I don’t see a future where THE LEGEND OF ZELDA isn’t open-world (or as Nintendo would put it, open-air). Zelda is the best franchise Nintendo could use to have an IP of theirs enter the open-world genre of gaming. Revert to something akin of older gamers would feel like that: a step back. There’s nothing preventing Nintendo from offering older Zelda experiences via other developers, like Grezzo remaking Link’s Awakening. Yes, Nintendo should offer an original, older Zelda experience, but right now, they have incentive to just remake classics and release ‘em. And from the looks of Breath of the Wild’s and Tears of the Kingdom’s performance, open-world Zelda is here to stay. It’s a hardware and software seller. Consider it one of Nintendo’s pillars of software.


This is the problem. This would be a very big risk for Nintendo. They know Zelda and open world sticks, but a new IP? That’s gonna be harder to fulfill. This can be resumed by the age old question of: “why?”. Why do we need to revert Zelda to the older formula? Why make a new open world IP? And the other question: if it ain’t broke, why fix it?


Is there, really? Internet buzz doesn’t equate to the reality of things. The last, traditional formula Zelda we got was Twilight Princess HD, but if we go by TP GameCube and Wii sales, about nine million people bought that game, so I’m sure approximately nine million Switch owners would be down for a Zelda game much like TP, but I think Nintendo would relegate that to someone else.

I think it’s time the fans admit that Open-Air Zelda is the new traditional formula.

Nintendo sometimes dont really care about winning formulas, and have shown that they're willing to abandon something in favor of fresh ideas and spins. I feel like open world Zeldas will become one formula that they can revisit for the future, like how Mario has more sandbox level design in some titles and level based in others. There's still potential that the series could be equally lucrative without being open world for their entire future, with only tiny side spinoffs on the side that revisit old conventions of the past.
Nintendoes whatever the hell they want sometime so it wouldn't surprise me that they aren't going to continue this forever. I dont really see Nintendo pulling Monolith Soft devs every year from here on out for all eternity with every new Zelda game either, they made 2 open world Zeldas and now developers probably want some other ideas to explore instead of being restricted to that formula for some time. Look at how successful titles like God of War and The Last of Us have been, of course Nintendo will never make a "The Last of Us Zelda" or an incredibly story driven "Zelda of War", but more linear games definitely have their place in the video game world still. Would you rather have an Ocarina of Time remake be an open world for the sake of open world or use the strongsuits of the original cores of the game to make a modern high quality fantasy adventure. But yeah people like developers also want fresh spins and ideas I feel. I dont think they'll run with open world Zelda for much longer and might go hard into something with more traditional Zelda conventions. So yeah why not give a shot to make an open world game afterwards that isn't Zelda, something that truly has no limits to what they could do. Imagine if they were too afraid to make Splatoon its own IP? We would just have Mario characters run around and shoot ink at each other, would still probably be fun, but with it a lot of things would be held back in favor of "Mario wouldn't do that" and "we need to have this in the game as it's a Mario game".

So it's a personal question, as a Zelda fan if you are one, do you want to have more linear Zelda games for the future now that they've done 2 open world ones? Would you buy an open world Nintendo game if it wasn't Zelda but looked interesting enough?
So yeah, my thought is that they probably won't do these kinds of Zeldas for much longer, I just dont see it as sustainable. My wish for if that happened is to take the opprotunity to give something that can take take its mantle and expand upon it with other elements unfamiliar to Zelda.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I feel like it's a little telling that we're years and years into speculating about this device and I don't think anyone has come up with a single realistic gimmick for it, lol.

I'm feeling like this is just going to be the Switch with more power and that's it.

 

[LuigiBlood]

I feel like it's a little telling that we're years and years into speculating about this device and I don't think anyone has come up with a single realistic gimmick for it, lol.

I'm feeling like this is just going to be the Switch with more power and that's it.

I think it's a matter of how we think of gimmicks. The Switch is more of a first time of when the gimmick is more of a general improvement on how we even play games.

 

[chocolate_supra]

I feel like it's a little telling that we're years and years into speculating about this device and I don't think anyone has come up with a single realistic gimmick for it, lol.

I'm feeling like this is just going to be the Switch with more power and that's it.

Each one will be a different customized color/pattern, including the backplate. When you buy one you'll have a chance to pick your own color and/or pattern combo from an elaborate catalogue.

Nintendo Swatch

 

[Lugia667]

Nintendo sometimes dont really care about winning formulas, and have shown that they're willing to abandon something in favor of fresh ideas and spins. I feel like open world Zeldas will become one formula that they can revisit for the future, like how Mario has more sandbox level design in some titles and level based in others. There's still potential that the series could be equally lucrative without being open world for their entire future, with only tiny side spinoffs on the side that revisit old conventions of the past.
Nintendoes whatever the hell they want sometime so it wouldn't surprise me that they aren't going to continue this forever. I dont really see Nintendo pulling Monolith Soft devs every year from here on out for all eternity with every new Zelda game either, they made 2 open world Zeldas and now developers probably want some other ideas to explore instead of being restricted to that formula for some time. Look at how successful titles like God of War and The Last of Us have been, of course Nintendo will never make a "The Last of Us Zelda" or an incredibly story driven "Zelda of War", but more linear games definitely have their place in the video game world still. Would you rather have an Ocarina of Time remake be an open world for the sake of open world or use the strongsuits of the original cores of the game to make a modern high quality fantasy adventure. But yeah people like developers also want fresh spins and ideas I feel. I dont think they'll run with open world Zelda for much longer and might go hard into something with more traditional Zelda conventions. So yeah why not give a shot to make an open world game afterwards that isn't Zelda, something that truly has no limits to what they could do. Imagine if they were too afraid to make Splatoon its own IP? We would just have Mario characters run around and shoot ink at each other, would still probably be fun, but with it a lot of things would be held back in favor of "Mario wouldn't do that" and "we need to have this in the game as it's a Mario game".

So it's a personal question, as a Zelda fan if you are one, do you want to have more linear Zelda games for the future now that they've done 2 open world ones? Would you buy an open world Nintendo game if it wasn't Zelda but looked interesting enough?
So yeah, my thought is that they probably won't do these kinds of Zeldas for much longer, I just dont see it as sustainable. My wish for if that happened is to take the opprotunity to give something that can take take its mantle and expand upon it with other elements unfamiliar to Zelda.

actually one of the reason they went this way was that LINEAR Zelda's were getting tougher and tougher to develop

 

[SmolSam]

I feel like it's a little telling that we're years and years into speculating about this device and I don't think anyone has come up with a single realistic gimmick for it, lol.

Maybe the real gimmick was the friends we made along the way...

 

[thesillyfellaelde]

actually one of the reason they went this way was that LINEAR Zelda's were getting tougher and tougher to develop

Ooo that sounds interesting :0 Any interview you know of that they talk about this in?

 

[chocolate_supra]

Maybe the real gimmick was the friend codes we made along the way...

Fixed

 

[KeijiKG]

Nintendo sometimes dont really care about winning formulas, and have shown that they're willing to abandon something in favor of fresh ideas and spins. I feel like open world Zeldas will become one formula that they can revisit for the future, like how Mario has more sandbox level design in some titles and level based in others. There's still potential that the series could be equally lucrative without being open world for their entire future, with only tiny side spinoffs on the side that revisit old conventions of the past.
Nintendoes whatever the hell they want sometime so it wouldn't surprise me that they aren't going to continue this forever. I dont really see Nintendo pulling Monolith Soft devs every year from here on out for all eternity with every new Zelda game either, they made 2 open world Zeldas and now developers probably want some other ideas to explore instead of being restricted to that formula for some time. Look at how successful titles like God of War and The Last of Us have been, of course Nintendo will never make a "The Last of Us Zelda" or an incredibly story driven "Zelda of War", but more linear games definitely have their place in the video game world still. Would you rather have an Ocarina of Time remake be an open world for the sake of open world or use the strongsuits of the original cores of the game to make a modern high quality fantasy adventure. But yeah people like developers also want fresh spins and ideas I feel. I dont think they'll run with open world Zelda for much longer and might go hard into something with more traditional Zelda conventions. So yeah why not give a shot to make an open world game afterwards that isn't Zelda, something that truly has no limits to what they could do. Imagine if they were too afraid to make Splatoon its own IP? We would just have Mario characters run around and shoot ink at each other, would still probably be fun, but with it a lot of things would be held back in favor of "Mario wouldn't do that" and "we need to have this in the game as it's a Mario game".

So it's a personal question, as a Zelda fan if you are one, do you want to have more linear Zelda games for the future now that they've done 2 open world ones? Would you buy an open world Nintendo game if it wasn't Zelda but looked interesting enough?
So yeah, my thought is that they probably won't do these kinds of Zeldas for much longer, I just dont see it as sustainable. My wish for if that happened is to take the opprotunity to give something that can take take its mantle and expand upon it with other elements unfamiliar to Zelda.

I'm just throwing this out there -- as a courtesy, you know there are Zelda topics in this forum right?

 

[ziggyrivers]

Random thought:
• Wii U Gamepad + Joycon = Switch 2 Joycons, the new gimmick

The Redacted’s Joycons will be able to store data so you can use the controller to stream a video game in any smart device without needing to bring your Drake along

 

[kirbyfan407]

The idea of Switch potentially only supporting digital backwards compatibility (because of a change in physical media) is an interesting one for me because I'm someone who was physical-only (where possible) for the first half of the Switch's life and then switched to digital-only in the second half. With all the talk of Nintendo Accounts being how Nintendo is going to continue backwards compatibility, I began to wonder if there's a chance that half my library of Nintendo games will not work on the next system while half will. I already double-dipped on one game (maybe two?) when it went on sale on the eShop because I knew I'd want access on a new console if I could get it and I didn't mind supporting the sales of this game.

If they were to do this "digital-only" approach, I really hope they'd somehow let me use my physical games to access digital copies. Or that they'd at least heavily discount the Switch library so I could pick up the games I want on the new console without breaking the bank.

I think I've posted a message similar to this before. I suppose this is maybe the only aspect of a mysterious upcoming Nintendo console that has me a bit anxious. I'm sitting on a massive pile of Switch backlog games that I'd like to play on [REDACTED] if I don't get through them before [REDACTED] launches rather than having both systems hooked up.

 

[thesillyfellaelde]

I'm just throwing this out there -- as a courtesy, you know there are Zelda topics in this forum right?

Sorry, started as a question about launch games/titles that could help the next switch sell since i saw some discussion of that floating around, I apologize if it's too offtopic

 

[My Tulpa]

I feel like it's a little telling that we're years and years into speculating about this device and I don't think anyone has come up with a single realistic gimmick for it, lol.

I'm feeling like this is just going to be the Switch with more power and that's it.

 

[Terrell]

If what Nate, MVG, and others have said is true about cartridges not getting cheaper, then I can understand why that is hold things back. I don't know if there is another similar format that can help with capacity/cost issues. This kills me to say it, but I believe that there is a better than 0% chance that the next Switch will be digital only. If such a monstrosity comes to fruitatian, that should not keep Nintendo from allowing digital Switch 1 games from being playable on Switch 2.

They’d have to know something about Macronix’s manufacturing pipeline to verify such a statement, so it’s, at best, speculative based on the fact Macronix has been promising to deliver since 2019 and (to our knowledge) not yet delivered. As previously mentioned, the main issue with ROM chips not getting cheaper is that Macronix has not moved them to a smaller process node.

If they ditched xtraROM, then maybe. I don't know if any other format has the benefits of it though.

Physical media seems to have hit a wall as far as bespoke solutions come. Maybe they can adapt a more common format to suit their needs again

I’ll restate that with Nintendo needing an average of 166 million ROM chips per year since 2017, they could request designs from other ROM makers without any trouble whatsoever. And the primary benefit of the XtraROM that’s being used by Nintendo is DRM in-circuit and custom ROM/controller design, it’s not some proprietary magic that could never be replicated or improved on elsewhere, it’s just that Macronix has been a long-term business partner of Nintendo who had designs that served their purposes. When that stops being true (as may now finally be the case unless they can get their act together and deliver what was promised all the way back in 2019), the field is open for someone else to offer another (maybe better) solution.

don't really want to continue this bc dicussion but just want to clarify that the underlying tech for switch game carts is Flash and has no relation to mask
That died with the DS

To clarify again, people have been falsely assuming that game cards are using Flash memory, but if that were the case, there would legitimately be no issue with increasing cart sizes, with the advent of 3D NAND and NAND prices being really low right now. People have been saying this for a while, but NAND XtraROM is only one of 3 varieties Macronix offers, with Nintendo using ASIC XtraROM instead (which Macronix has noted explicitly on its own site):

XtraROM® is classified into three categories: NAND XtraROM®, Gaming Machine XtraROM®, and ASIC XtraROM®.

ASIC XtraROM®

Macronix excels at customized XtraROM® from IC design to content programming to quick delivery. We can build your DRM(Digital Right Management) scheme in the circuit of XtraROM® to protect your content against piracy. Our designs are used in handheld gaming consoles over the world.

Nintendo is not using NAND XtraROM.

Lastly, the primary benefit of NAND XtraROM is that they can be programmed by the customer (in this case, Nintendo), but given that every XtraROM chip in Game Cards is factory-etched with a game’s unique product identification code, it seems that ASIC XtraROMs are EPROMs that are being programmed by Macronix before delivery.

 

[Supreme Overlord]

I would love B.C. for the nintendo switch 2, when will we have more fossil fighters and dinosaur games

How about a poll, how many here will likely buy Switch 2 on launch, and how many will wait first to see the new games?

I only finally got a Switch fairly recently as is, so it seems pretty safe to assume I won't be at launch.

 

[thesillyfellaelde]

I only finally got a Switch fairly recently as is, so it seems pretty safe to assume I won't be at launch.

I cant imagine the pain of the 1000 or so people whos gonna buy a switch 1 day before the switch 2 is announced. I think someone i know bought a switch just before the OLED was announced lmao

 

[ILikeFeet]

The idea of Switch potentially only supporting digital backwards compatibility (because of a change in physical media) is an interesting one for me because I'm someone who was physical-only (where possible) for the first half of the Switch's life and then switched to digital-only in the second half. With all the talk of Nintendo Accounts being how Nintendo is going to continue backwards compatibility, I began to wonder if there's a chance that half my library of Nintendo games will not work on the next system while half will. I already double-dipped on one game (maybe two?) when it went on sale on the eShop because I knew I'd want access on a new console if I could get it and I didn't mind supporting the sales of this game.

If they were to do this "digital-only" approach, I really hope they'd somehow let me use my physical games to access digital copies. Or that they'd at least heavily discount the Switch library so I could pick up the games I want on the new console without breaking the bank.

I think I've posted a message similar to this before. I suppose this is maybe the only aspect of a mysterious upcoming Nintendo console that has me a bit anxious. I'm sitting on a massive pile of Switch backlog games that I'd like to play on [REDACTED] if I don't get through them before [REDACTED] launches rather than having both systems hooked up.

the thing about changing media is that there isn't much reason to. same reason why bluray will essentially be the last physical medium for video, there's no real reason to move to anything else that's incompatible because nothing is developed. bluray improved to have higher densities, xtrarom might do the same, or it'll just turn into a key holder. but there's no real savings in ditching it right now

 

[bixente]

I cant imagine the pain of the 1000 or so people whos gonna buy a switch 1 day before the switch 2 is announced. I think someone i know bought a switch just before the OLED was announced lmao

That's not painful. Picking up an oled and having the entire Switch library to discover is freaking awesome.

 

[ngpdrew]

I mean if your gonna bring up the topic then trying to spur a conversation by going in the worst possible direction isn’t it. Especially for enthusiasts who will run with said information &/or internalize it. If they can’t ignore it then bring up the challenges, the possible solutions, Nintendo’s history of BC,-both physical & digital-Nintendo’s statements on the matter throughout Switch’s lifetime. And, if people keep asking then direct them to your podcast where you talk about it for the more in-depth reasoning.

Cause all I got out of MVG reminding us about businessmen boils down to “Nintendo gonna Nintendo” which isn’t really a conversation worth having.

I have heard both of them talk about the challenges of BC, possible solutions, etc. So, it kind of feels to me like they have addressed it properly but some here don't like their perspective.

"Nintendo being Nintendo" is a worthwhile talking point because it's a reference to the way the company has done business in the past. Have their portable platforms always had BC? Yes. Does the fact that they're bringing over Nintendo Accounts point to better chances of BC? A little bit. Is it unthinkable that they would take that into account and still pull a Nintendo-like solution out of their ass? No!

At the end of the day, it's speculation. This thread often acts as if it is closer to the truth than everyone else out there, but truthfully we are all just pissing in the wind until the device is announced and we have it in our hands (hopefully playing physical and digital Switch games).

 

[MondoMega]

No backwards compatibility makes a lot of sense

if you ignore every public comment from Nintendo implying the importance of BC to their transitional strategy for next gen, and their talk of Nintendo Accounts carrying forward purchases and save data on the long term, yeah. Latter wasn’t posted above so here it is:

Entirely restarting their console ecosystem when moving from 3DS / Wii U to Switch was done out of necessity, and wasn’t even the initial plan (see: early Switch concept from the Gigaleak with 3DS BC). There are feasible options here to make BC for 99.9% of titles (edge cases like the Labo kits being left behind) happen, and there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t go through with it.

I don’t see the concerns about physical media as having too much weight in the big picture. It’s undeniable that there have been visible struggles with the Switch’s card format though; never managed to get 64GB cards to mass market the whole generation. Some studios could stand to learn a thing or two about compression and optimization on their own but the issue is unavoidable regardless. I don’t think they can reasonably afford to leave the current carts behind though, not without alienating a massive proportion of their user base. Nintendo’s physical / digital split is evening out more and more, but they’re not at a point where a digital only option is feasible without being inaccessible to half of the current Switch audience. xtrarom are surely capable enough to make something happen now that even first-party Nintendo games will be needing higher capacity cards.

 

[kimbo99]

Does Nintendo ever announce marketing budget/spend? That could be a good indicator of when next gen is coming

 

[Goodtwin]

- Nate says the question that never comes up in the BC debate is whether Nintendo "wants" us to have BC. Josie immediately said "No, they (Nintendo) want to make money". Nate proposes the notion that Nintendo may only go with digital BC if they use a new cartridge or physical media slot. Says BC may also not be feasible given the technology Nintendo and Nvidia decided to use.

Having a hard reset is a guaranteed way to open the door for Switch users to migrate to a new platform. The biggest opportunity for Nintendo early on with Redacted is to bring over as many long time Switch users as possible. By keeping their software tied to their account which carries over to the next system creates a sense of investment, and when a person feels vested, they are far less likely to migrate to a competing platform where they are starting from scratch. Phil Spencer knows this and has said they lost a very important generation where consumers became vested in their digital libraries. If Nintendo doesn't support BC, it will go down as a colossal blunder and will undermine the success of their future platform. Most of the naysayers are just stirring the shit, they are well aware that Nintendo has a long history of supporting BC on their portable systems, and it's probably more important in the digital world than it was for DS to support GBA games.

Zelda TotK Steam Deck

So Steam Deck can fully emulate Zelda TotK using a not for profit emulator nearly perfectly. Are we really to believe Nvidia can't create a solution to this? No CPU emulation needed, A78 cores support the A57 instruction set. If Deck can emulate the whole thing, I'm confident Nvidia can create a solution where Drake emulates or recompiles the X1 shaders. This is extremely solvable problem and Nintendo has over a 120 million reasons why they would want to eliminate this barrier as they look to transition users from Switch to Redacted.

 

[ILikeFeet]

No backwards compatibility makes a lot of sense

if you ignore every public comment from Nintendo implying the importance of BC to their transitional strategy for next gen, and their talk of Nintendo Accounts carrying forward purchases and save data on the long term, yeah. Latter wasn’t posted above so here it is:

Entirely restarting their console ecosystem when moving from 3DS / Wii U to Switch was done out of necessity, and wasn’t even the initial plan (see: early Switch concept from the Gigaleak with 3DS BC). There are feasible options here to make BC for 99.9% of titles (edge cases like the Labo kits being left behind) happen, and there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t go through with it.

I don’t see the concerns about physical media as having too much weight in the big picture. It’s undeniable that have been visibly struggling a bit with the Switch’s card format though; never managed to get 64GB cards to mass market the whole generation. Some studios could stand to learn a thing or two about compression and optimization on their own but the issue is unavoidable regardless. I don’t think they can reasonably afford to leave the current carts behind though, not without alienating a massive proportion of their user base. Nintendo’s physical / digital split is evening out more and more, but they’re not at a point where a digital only option is feasible without being inaccessible to half of the current Switch audience. xtrarom are surely capable enough to make something happen now that even first-party Nintendo games will be needing higher capacity cards.

what if "purchase history" is just a list off all the games you bought, but you can't play them on your new device

 

[LiC]

and it's probably more important in the digital world than it was for DS to support GBA games.

Not to mention more profitable. Backwards compatibility on past systems almost entirely enabled people who already owned previous generation games to continue playing them. Even if someone did purchase previous gen games to play on new hardware, it was more likely than not to be secondhand, because retailers weren't carrying old games forever (and Nintendo wasn't shipping them forever). Now Nintendo has a unified storefront that will give people a frictionless way to buy any number of Switch games for years to come.

(It's kind of surprising to say out loud, but this is actually the first time that will even be the case. The closest was the ability to access the Wii Shop Channel through the Wii U's Wii mode, but that only contained VC titles and WiiWare.)

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

I have heard both of them talk about the challenges of BC, possible solutions, etc. So, it kind of feels to me like they have addressed it properly but some here don't like their perspective.

"Nintendo being Nintendo" is a worthwhile talking point because it's a reference to the way the company has done business in the past. Have their portable platforms always had BC? Yes. Does the fact that they're bringing over Nintendo Accounts point to better chances of BC? A little bit. Is it unthinkable that they would take that into account and still pull a Nintendo-like solution out of their ass? No!

At the end of the day, it's speculation. This thread often acts as if it is closer to the truth than everyone else out there, but truthfully we are all just pissing in the wind until the device is announced and we have it in our hands (hopefully playing physical and digital Switch games).

And, I think they could do way better then what they presented here. To me they haven’t really properly addressed it especially when they are pulling nonsense logic like, “but what if Nintendo grips the idiot ball so tight they lose the ability to breath.” If that is a perspective we have to entertain then people have the right to criticize said perspective.

Frankly no “Nintendo gonna Nintendo” is not a worthwhile talking point nor is it in any form a way to describe the companies past business dealings. The entire phrase is meant as short hand for contriving absolutely dumb worst scenarios that have no logic in reality. They aren’t some super special unicorn that is so wacky & zany no one can predict them. Like what even is a Nintendo-like solution in this regard that isn’t based in lala land logic.

 

[Bowser Sr.]

The Switch 2 can't have backwards compabilityity because if it does they cannot sell Mario Kart 8 again.

 

[D36]

The Switch 2 can't have backwards compabilityity because if it does they cannot sell Mario Kart 8 again.

Technically, they still could with the eShop.

 

[Pokemaniac]

the thing about changing media is that there isn't much reason to. same reason why bluray will essentially be the last physical medium for video, there's no real reason to move to anything else that's incompatible because nothing is developed. bluray improved to have higher densities, xtrarom might do the same, or it'll just turn into a key holder. but there's no real savings in ditching it right now

It's kinda debatable if BDXL and UHD Blu-ray (somehow not the same thing) are truly the same "format" as older BDs, but they certainly didn't get the fanfare they once would have.

Not to mention more profitable. Backwards compatibility on past systems almost entirely enabled people who already owned previous generation games to continue playing them. Even if someone did purchase previous gen games to play on new hardware, it was more likely than not to be secondhand, because retailers weren't carrying old games forever (and Nintendo wasn't shipping them forever). Now Nintendo has a unified storefront that will give people a frictionless way to buy any number of Switch games for years to come.

(It's kind of surprising to say out loud, but this is actually the first time that will even be the case. The closest was the ability to access the Wii Shop Channel through the Wii U's Wii mode, but that only contained VC titles and WiiWare.)

3DS actually did this a bit more elegantly, by having the vast majority of DSiWare titles natively purchasable on the 3DS eShop. Still only the digital titles, as that generation of Nintendo hardware was not ready to download games at the sizes their physical media supported, but there were a fair few DSiWare titles that were cut down chunks of retail games.

 

[grobla123]

I mean, I know your memeing, but what would stop them? An all in one package 4k upscaled with some minor new stuff would still sell and plenty of people will double dip.

 

[epicmartin7]

No backwards compatibility makes a lot of sense

if you ignore every public comment from Nintendo implying the importance of BC to their transitional strategy for next gen, and their talk of Nintendo Accounts carrying forward purchases and save data on the long term, yeah. Latter wasn’t posted above so here it is:

Entirely restarting their console ecosystem when moving from 3DS / Wii U to Switch was done out of necessity, and wasn’t even the initial plan (see: early Switch concept from the Gigaleak with 3DS BC). There are feasible options here to make BC for 99.9% of titles (edge cases like the Labo kits being left behind) happen, and there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t go through with it.

I don’t see the concerns about physical media as having too much weight in the big picture. It’s undeniable that there have been visible struggles with the Switch’s card format though; never managed to get 64GB cards to mass market the whole generation. Some studios could stand to learn a thing or two about compression and optimization on their own but the issue is unavoidable regardless. I don’t think they can reasonably afford to leave the current carts behind though, not without alienating a massive proportion of their user base. Nintendo’s physical / digital split is evening out more and more, but they’re not at a point where a digital only option is feasible without being inaccessible to half of the current Switch audience. xtrarom are surely capable enough to make something happen now that even first-party Nintendo games will be needing higher capacity cards.

The Wii U/3DS --> Switch transition was definitely done at the right time. During that time period, backwards compatibility wasn't ingrained into the gaming ecosystem as it is now. That mentality was moreso starting to burgeon with the release of the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X. Iterative revisions of existing 8th Gen consoles that, really for the first time, emphasized more power and features while keeping the same ecosystem. Something the PS5 and Xbox Series X would do as well.

This approach is slightly borrowed from PC Gaming, where upgrading PC Parts or getting a new computer would allow you to retain most of your software. You see this sort of concept being emphasized in other media with digital libraries accessible on other devices being used as a main selling point.

I think because of that, BC is something that'd likely be on the top priority list for Nintendo. Even if it may be difficult due to game shaders. I think not including BC would be a very bold move, but probably one I feel would hurt them a bit. Especially with the base Nintendo has established with the initial Switch.

 

[SpaceGodzilla]

to sum up the BC talk today:

 

[LiC]

3DS actually did this a bit more elegantly, by having the vast majority of DSiWare titles natively purchasable on the 3DS eShop. Still only the digital titles, as that generation of Nintendo hardware was not ready to download games at the sizes their physical media supported, but there were a fair few DSiWare titles that were cut down chunks of retail games.

I'll admit I didn't actually know/remember that, but I also just tend not to think about DSiWare much when evaluating past and future offerings, and my belief is that a lot of people don't know or think about it either -- though I could be projecting since I didn't own a DSi. I think WiiWare is better remembered, because it came first, because it shared a storefront with the much more popular Wii Virtual Console, and because of titles like Mega Man 9 and 10.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I mean, I know your memeing, but what would stop them? An all in one package 4k upscaled with some minor new stuff would still sell and plenty of people will double dip.

why not both? the fact is they can patch games to have an enhanced mode in some way that goes up to 4K on compatible hardware. Drake copies would have the patch on cart while Switch copies would stop print, but digital and patches would still be available for whoever still has the physical switch game

 

[Vash]

Oh we were talking about BC again today? Wonderful

 

[Supreme Overlord]

The Switch 2 can't have backwards compabilityity because if it does they cannot sell Mario Kart 8 again.

So you're not a believer in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Special and Mario Kart 8: Victory Lap, I take it?

 

[D36]

So you're not a believer in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Special and Mario Kart 8: Victory Lap, I take it?

I think that'll still happen, eventually, by virtue of how expensive their DLC is.

 

[Toad King]

This whole "BC would be bad for business" is pure hogwash for many reasons other people already said, but also because not every game is going to get ported or get a sequel that makes the old game obsolete. If a new 3D Mario comes out people will still want to go back to Odyssey. If there's a new Xenoblade game people will want to go play the original trilogy. Locking people out of those purchases would be stupid.

Nintendo already spent a ton of time and resources saving games from the Wii U, they don't want to do that all over again.

 

[Smile]

Oh we were talking about BC again today? Wonderful

 

[Shoulder]

The idea of Switch potentially only supporting digital backwards compatibility (because of a change in physical media) is an interesting one for me because I'm someone who was physical-only (where possible) for the first half of the Switch's life and then switched to digital-only in the second half. With all the talk of Nintendo Accounts being how Nintendo is going to continue backwards compatibility, I began to wonder if there's a chance that half my library of Nintendo games will not work on the next system while half will. I already double-dipped on one game (maybe two?) when it went on sale on the eShop because I knew I'd want access on a new console if I could get it and I didn't mind supporting the sales of this game.

If they were to do this "digital-only" approach, I really hope they'd somehow let me use my physical games to access digital copies. Or that they'd at least heavily discount the Switch library so I could pick up the games I want on the new console without breaking the bank.

I think I've posted a message similar to this before. I suppose this is maybe the only aspect of a mysterious upcoming Nintendo console that has me a bit anxious. I'm sitting on a massive pile of Switch backlog games that I'd like to play on [REDACTED] if I don't get through them before [REDACTED] launches rather than having both systems hooked up.

Was wondering about this too, but I suspect it may hurt them in the long run. I believe the split between digital vs physical in the Switch realm, like docked vs. handheld, is about 50/50.

Nintendo, being Nintendo, could force gamers into buying digital, but all your physical Switch games would still work via digital downloads from the eShop. The issue I have with this though is what someone else mentioned, and that is Internet Speeds across, which could be better in A LOT of areas. I think on a large scale, it’s not up for prime time yet.

And of course, let’s not forget, when we think of fast internet connections, I think Nintendo…

 

[LinkURL]

There's a limit to how much money you can get from your customers, and Nintendo is probably already at the peak of what's possible.
Being too stingy doesn't always bring more profit, it can alienate the customers you've worked hard to win over.
It makes no sense not to invest in BC, even more so when all other platforms on the market (consoles, PCs and even Smartphones) are already well advanced in this concept.