• 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| (New Staff Post, Please read)

Reader mode
epicmartin7 said:
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet as this already has a thread here.

https://famiboards.com/threads/ftc-...ch-successor-and-cross-gen-call-of-duty.6836/

According to info found from the FTC v. Microsoft post trial, Nintendo's Next Console might release in Early 2024 at the earliest.
Click to expand...

That's not info, that's quoted from people saying that it's expected as early as Q1 next year", which is old news to us at this point.

Saying something is expected without saying who is doing the expecting or whether or not the expectation is informed is not something to get excited about.

I mean, many of us are expecting is Q1 2024.
 
bellydrum said:
That's not info, that's quoted from people saying that it's expected as early as Q1 next year", which is old news to us at this point.

Saying something is expected without saying who is doing the expecting or whether or not the expectation is informed is not something to get excited about.

I mean, many of us are expecting is Q1 2024.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, okay. That makes sense. Looking at the wording, it definitely looks more like a guess than something concrete.

bellydrum said:
I think it's just another case of Pablo strikes again
Click to expand...
DARN YOU PABLO. YOU MADE ME FALL FOR IT TOO.
 
I'm not sure if an early 2024 launch makes sense, but it's pretty obvious that it's coming next year anyways. I'm thinking sometime in the summer, with September at the latest.
 
5084FF18-FC83-42F6-B381-0F87A80A214F.jpeg


39ED29E5-A880-4E83-9866-67A4A4F5BA93.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bellydrum said:
That's not info, that's quoted from people saying that it's expected as early as Q1 next year", which is old news to us at this point.

Saying something is expected without saying who is doing the expecting or whether or not the expectation is informed is not something to get excited about.

I mean, many of us are expecting is Q1 2024.
Click to expand...
From the trial recap:
Microsoft tracks Xbox’s performance against PlayStation not because those two consoles provide a complete competitive landscape, but rather because they were released at the same time. E.g., 6/22/23 Tr. (Bond), at 159:24–160:3; 6/23/23 Tr. (Nadella), at 849:11–19. Switch was released three years earlier, and a bunch of nerds from the internet community Famiboards.com expect Nintendo to release the successor to the Switch as early as next year.
Click to expand...
 
oldpuck said:
So I wasn't actually aware of the Foxconn leak that got recently brought up, so I thought I'd hunt it down. It's actually an interesting historical piece, partially because the person is clearly legit, and clearly got things hugely wrong. This is the leak to the full thing but let's pick out some interesting points.

In general, anything to do with the physical aspects of the device is 100% spot on. Their description about the dock, spot on, as is their description of the the physical size of the Switch, it's cooling system etc.

There are lots of random things wrong? There's 4G console version, the screen is 1080p.

There are lots of things wrong in interesting ways. Namely, the clock speeds - "CPU 1785mhz, GPU 921mhz." These are real profiles available in the hardware, but not used by the actual Switch. Presumably, this is the test package created by Nintendo to QA the Switch, possibly before final clock decisions were made. It's also possible Nintendo tested the machine at higher than production clocks in order to rapidly determine if the unit was in spec for thermal/power draw.

Generally wrong about their speculation: "more powerful than X1" which it isn't. Also seem to think the devkits were "more powerful than a PS4 Pro" based on the size of the additional chips - probably because they were not used to FPGAs vs ASICs.

I also don't see any indication that the leaker is claiming they just started production. They could have been in production for some time, or production could have been occurring at other factories.

Worth looking at because it tells us that just because someone is legit, doesn't mean they are correct or that they're seeing the whole picture. Digital Foundry had released complete, accurate specs for the Switch prior to this Foxconn leak, and some had assumed that either DF were wrong (they weren't) that this leak was fake (it wasn't) or that Nintendo had managed to sneak in a node shrink between DF getting their info and final production (they did not).

I suspect we're entering a period with a lot of info dropping as stuff becomes more widespread. Thinking clearly about all of it will require more than just trying to separate the real from the fake.
Click to expand...
Simple Math gets us this answer. 20k units a day, times 5 months is 3.1M units, through March 31st 2017 Switch shipped 2.7M units, so MASS production started in October, samples and limited production began summer 2017 after final devkits in July, which was reported by Eurogamer/Digital Foundry. There is absolutely nothing unusual with this mass production timeline either, as generally mass production, happens in mid to late Q2 CY for a Q4 CY launch, and a spring launch doesn't have the ability to stuff shelves as easily, limiting shipping numbers by over 1M units generally, just because end caps, pallet dropping and sales fronts are not done in such large bulk in the spring compared to the holidays.

Also, the information he shares about 1080p could be the rendered resolution of the demo, since it is a stress test, those clocks are also known settings for the Switch that can be used when modified, they were part of the 8 day fish demo stress test, and that CPU clock is used when loading as well. There is also talk about a bigger die 200mm^2, which Thraktor speculated 7 years ago to be a GTX 1060 iirc, the thing here is that we know Nintendo tested many different aspects of the hardware, a devkit of a prototype design, is probably what this is, I think it is worth taking at face value given all the unknown info at the time, shared in this post.
Look over there said:
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *


The bolded are the process nodes that the ram was made on. 1a (as in alpha) debuted in 2021. 1b (as in beta) kicked off late last year, I think?
Click to expand...
Thanks for getting someone to legit translate it for you, that does help clarify it a bit more.
 
Here are the relevant things I could find in the court document, with some attempt at identifying at least what other documents are being referenced. Thank you @P4bl0 for pointing some of these out. I want to organize them here because I've seen various screenshots bouncing around without context or links to the source.

One thing to note is that this document was written and submitted by Microsoft's lawyers, not the judge as I've seen one post incorrectly state. The judge's last statement was the order denying the FTC's injunction. This document comes after the order and is Microsoft's proposed findings and conclusions.

057.png


Page 57: Microsoft and Nintendo's agreement is described as bringing CoD "to Switch (and any successor Nintendo consoles)". Note that RX1212, or defendant exhibit 1212, is the contract which they signed. This submission was entirely sealed/redacted, as you'd expect.

087.png


Page 87: Microsoft cites an expectation that Nintendo will release a Switch successor "as early as next year." The only reference is to a transcript of testimony from Phil Spencer on June 23, which I don't have access to. I feel like if he said this at some point in court, it would/should have already been reported on? Not sure whether that happened.

091.png


Page 91: Microsoft states an expectation that Nintendo's next generation console will be released "in the near future." There is a reference to testimony from Bobby Kotick on June 28, as well as a reference to redacted plaintiff exhibit PX2421, a document from Activision which was also sealed. I was able to track down that this exhibit is likely the executive summary e-mail about "Switch NG" made for Kotick, which was referenced in an earlier hearing.

Here's a reference which seems to confirm that on page 147 of another document:

other-147.png


Okay, back to the current Microsoft document.

104.png


Page 104: Another reference to the Microsoft-Nintendo CoD agreement, but this time it's described as an agreement to provide CoD to "[Nintendo's] Switch console and its upcoming console upgrade." This is interesting because it implies the agreement was specific about certain upcoming hardware that would receive CoD. Previous references to the agreement only mention the Switch, or Nintendo hardware in general, or at best are vague about future hardware like the previous "Switch (and any successor Nintendo consoles)" quote in this document.

129.png


Page 129: This footnote also indicates that the CoD agreement had specificity about future Nintendo hardware, and goes one step further by describing it as "an in-development Switch model." Taken together with the previous concrete reference to an "upcoming console upgrade," this may confirm that Nintendo's new hardware is positioned/branded as a Switch model.

Note that the cited Docket 1 (footnotes 1-2) is the FTC's original complaint, but I couldn't find any footnotes in that document, nor could I find a section about the "Unanticipated and Unforeseeable Future Events" provisions. My assumption is that these were references in the FTC's complaint to the text of the Microsoft-Nintendo agreement, which were redacted because the agreement itself was redacted/sealed. I think it's strange I can't find where those redactions and redacted footnotes would be in the complaint, though.

I think it's entirely possible that this is just Microsoft's lawyers using "Switch" as synecdoche for current and future hardware, as many people do. If my interpretation is correct and this is indirectly referencing the text of the actual agreement, that somewhat increases the possibility that "in-development Switch model" is a concrete reference to something from that agreement, and not just synecdoche. Though, if that's the case, why wasn't this redacted?

142.png


Page 142: Lastly, we have a reference to a different contract, this one between Microsoft and Activision, which included language about "Nintendo's next generation console." This also seems to imply a concrete reference to a specific product and not just future Nintendo hardware in general, although that's not necessarily the case; it could be general. I don't know what "FTC Pretrial FOF" is referring to here, but it's likely another reference to a transcript.

Since the quote in question is from the deposition of Nintendo of America's Steve Singer, it would appear that Microsoft shared with Nintendo some of the details of their intended contract with Activision, presumably as part of the negotiations over the contract Microsoft wanted to sign with Nintendo, which concerned Activision's plan for future Nintendo support.

Another thing to note here is that the redaction after "Nintendo's next generation console" is probably not that interesting. It likely creates a sentence along the lines of "The FTC misleadingly implies Steve Singer thought that certain language in the contract with Activision concerning Nintendo's next generation console was inadequate for ensuring future support on Nintendo hardware," rather than the redactions containing any information relevant to us about the next generation hardware itself.

Edit: Here's a link to all the documents in this case's docket.
 
Last edited:
Z0m3le said:
Simple Math gets us this answer. 20k units a day, times 5 months is 3.1M units, through March 31st 2017 Switch shipped 2.7M units, so MASS production started in October, samples and limited production began summer 2017 after final devkits in July, which was reported by Eurogamer/Digital Foundry. There is absolutely nothing unusual with this mass production timeline either, as generally mass production, happens in mid to late Q2 CY for a Q4 CY launch, and a spring launch doesn't have the ability to stuff shelves as easily, limiting shipping numbers by over 1M units generally, just because end caps, pallet dropping and sales fronts are not done in such large bulk in the spring compared to the holidays.

Also, the information he shares about 1080p could be the rendered resolution of the demo, since it is a stress test, those clocks are also known settings for the Switch that can be used when modified, they were part of the 8 day fish demo stress test, and that CPU clock is used when loading as well. There is also talk about a bigger die 200mm^2, which Thraktor speculated 7 years ago to be a GTX 1060 iirc, the thing here is that we know Nintendo tested many different aspects of the hardware, a devkit of a prototype design, is probably what this is, I think it is worth taking at face value given all the unknown info at the time, shared in this post.

Thanks for getting someone to legit translate it for you, that does help clarify it a bit more.
Click to expand...
The October timeline would lead to:
Building first heavily rushed (implying they needed to have it ready very soon) retail factory tooling in July/August ->
Doing literally nothing for a couple months ->
Recompiling their factory tooling in a less jank setup in September ->
Beginning production with the old tooling in October ->
Switching to the new tooling that predates MP sometime after.

...which doesn't make much sense to me.

The larger die is a ZYNQ-7000 series FPGA/ARM SoC, it controls the HostBridge daugherboard present in SDEVs.
 
ZachyCatGames said:
The October timeline would lead to:
Building first heavily rushed (implying they needed to have it ready very soon) retail factory tooling in July/August ->
Doing literally nothing for a couple months ->
Recompiling their factory tooling in a less jank setup in September ->
Beginning production with the old tooling in October ->
Switching to the new tooling that predates MP sometime after.

...which doesn't make much sense to me.

The larger die is a ZYNQ-7000 series FPGA/ARM SoC, it controls the HostBridge daugherboard present in SDEVs.
Click to expand...
Math is Math. The Foxconn leak is legit, and a factory retooling that is complete in August, would only lead to production ramp up in September, and full mass production numbers (the 20k noted in the foxconn leak) only happening in October 2016. which leads to just over 600k units a month, we know the shipped numbers were 2.7M and we know that with a mass production starting in October, they could have around half a million in the process of being shipped, now could mass production have actually started at the end of September 2016? absolutely, I've suggested as much in earlier comments about Switch's production timelines, but a production ramp up takes weeks, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the ramp up took a month or so, it is unreasonable to say that they had ~1.5M in the process of shipping, as that is 2 and a half+ months of mass production, and Nintendo was literally flying these units in by plane at times.

We are also not factoring in March 2017's production, which puts the total shipped numbers at 2.7M (can't change, because it's a fact), and 0.9M (with a mass production of 20k starting october 1st) in the process of shipping. Ramp up has to factor in here, and so a little over 1M in the process of shipping is fine. We also know the following quarters were 2M and 3M in that order, so we can gather that production numbers didn't increase until sometime in that second quarter, and only to ~33k a day.
LiC said:
Here are the relevant things I could find in the court document, with some attempt at identifying at least what other documents are being referenced. Thank you @P4bl0 for pointing some of these out. I want to organize them here because I've seen various screenshots bouncing around without context or links to the source.

One thing to note is that this document was written and submitted by Microsoft's lawyers, not the judge as I've seen one post incorrectly state. The judge's last statement was the order denying the FTC's injunction. This document comes after the order and is Microsoft's proposed findings and conclusions.

057.png


Page 57: Microsoft and Nintendo's agreement is described as bringing CoD "to Switch (and any successor Nintendo consoles)". Note that RX1212, or defendant exhibit 1212, is the contract which they signed. This submission was entirely sealed/redacted, as you'd expect.

087.png


Page 87: Microsoft cites an expectation that Nintendo will release a Switch successor "as early as next year." The only reference is to a transcript of testimony from Phil Spencer on June 23, which I don't have access to. I feel like if he said this at some point in court, it would/should have already been reported on? Not sure whether that happened.

091.png


Page 91: Microsoft states an expectation that Nintendo's next generation console will be released "in the near future." There is a reference to testimony from Bobby Kotick on June 28, as well as a reference to redacted plaintiff exhibit PX2421, a document from Activision which was also sealed. I was able to track down that this exhibit is likely the executive summary e-mail about "Switch NG" made for Kotick, which was referenced in an earlier hearing.

Here's a reference which seems to confirm that on page 147 of another document:

other-147.png


Okay, back to the current Microsoft document.

104.png


Page 104: Another reference to the Microsoft-Nintendo CoD agreement, but this time it's described as an agreement to provide CoD to "[Nintendo's] Switch console and its upcoming console upgrade." This is interesting because it implies the agreement was specific about certain upcoming hardware that would receive CoD. Previous references to the agreement only mention the Switch, or Nintendo hardware in general, or at best are vague about future hardware like the previous "Switch (and any successor Nintendo consoles)" quote in this document.

129.png


Page 129: This footnote also indicates that the CoD agreement had specificity about future Nintendo hardware, and goes one step further by describing it as "an in-development Switch model." Taken together with the previous concrete reference to an "upcoming console upgrade," this may confirm that Nintendo's new hardware is positioned/branded as a Switch model.

Note that the cited Docket 1 (footnotes 1-2) is the FTC's original complaint, but I couldn't find any footnotes in that document, nor could I find a section about the "Unanticipated and Unforeseeable Future Events" provisions. My assumption is that these were references in the FTC's complaint to the text of the Microsoft-Nintendo agreement, which were redacted because the agreement itself was redacted/sealed. I think it's strange I can't find where those redactions and redacted footnotes would be in the complaint, though.

I think it's entirely possible that this is just Microsoft's lawyers using "Switch" as synecdoche for current and future hardware, as many people do. If my interpretation is correct and this is indirectly referencing the text of the actual agreement, that somewhat increases the possibility that "in-development Switch model" is a concrete reference to something from that agreement, and not just synecdoche. Though, if that's the case, why wasn't this redacted?

142.png


Page 142: Lastly, we have a reference to a different contract, this one between Microsoft and Activision, which included language about "Nintendo's next generation console." This also seems to imply a concrete reference to a specific product and not just future Nintendo hardware in general, although that's not necessarily the case; it could be general. I don't know what "FTC Pretrial FOF" is referring to here, but it's likely another reference to a transcript.

Since the quote in question is from the deposition of Nintendo of America's Steve Singer, it would appear that Microsoft shared with Nintendo some of the details of their intended contract with Activision, presumably as part of the negotiations over the contract Microsoft wanted to sign with Nintendo, which concerned Activision's plan for future Nintendo support.

Another thing to note here is that the redaction after "Nintendo's next generation console" is probably not that interesting. It likely creates a sentence along the lines of "The FTC misleadingly implies Steve Singer thought that certain language in the contract with Activision concerning Nintendo's next generation console was inadequate for ensuring future support on Nintendo hardware," rather than the redactions containing any information relevant to us about the next generation hardware itself.

Edit: Here's a link to all the documents in this case's docket.
Click to expand...
Bobby Kotick also said during the trial, that he was approached by Nintendo's president before the Activision/Microsoft deal was announced (Jan 2022, so sometime in 2021) about their successor console, and that he currently didn't have specs of the next gen console but assumes it will be on par with last gen consoles (at least before RTX accelerators).
 
Last edited:
LiC said:
Here are the relevant things I could find in the court document, with some attempt at identifying at least what other documents are being referenced. Thank you @P4bl0 for pointing some of these out. I want to organize them here because I've seen various screenshots bouncing around without context or links to the source.

One thing to note is that this document was written and submitted by Microsoft's lawyers, not the judge as I've seen one post incorrectly state. The judge's last statement was the order denying the FTC's injunction. This document comes after the order and is Microsoft's proposed findings and conclusions.

057.png


Page 57: Microsoft and Nintendo's agreement is described as bringing CoD "to Switch (and any successor Nintendo consoles)". Note that RX1212, or defendant exhibit 1212, is the contract which they signed. This submission was entirely sealed/redacted, as you'd expect.

087.png


Page 87: Microsoft cites an expectation that Nintendo will release a Switch successor "as early as next year." The only reference is to a transcript of testimony from Phil Spencer on June 23, which I don't have access to. I feel like if he said this at some point in court, it would/should have already been reported on? Not sure whether that happened.

091.png


Page 91: Microsoft states an expectation that Nintendo's next generation console will be released "in the near future." There is a reference to testimony from Bobby Kotick on June 28, as well as a reference to redacted plaintiff exhibit PX2421, a document from Activision which was also sealed. I was able to track down that this exhibit is likely the executive summary e-mail about "Switch NG" made for Kotick, which was referenced in an earlier hearing.

Here's a reference which seems to confirm that on page 147 of another document:

other-147.png


Okay, back to the current Microsoft document.

104.png


Page 104: Another reference to the Microsoft-Nintendo CoD agreement, but this time it's described as an agreement to provide CoD to "[Nintendo's] Switch console and its upcoming console upgrade." This is interesting because it implies the agreement was specific about certain upcoming hardware that would receive CoD. Previous references to the agreement only mention the Switch, or Nintendo hardware in general, or at best are vague about future hardware like the previous "Switch (and any successor Nintendo consoles)" quote in this document.

129.png


Page 129: This footnote also indicates that the CoD agreement had specificity about future Nintendo hardware, and goes one step further by describing it as "an in-development Switch model." Taken together with the previous concrete reference to an "upcoming console upgrade," this may confirm that Nintendo's new hardware is positioned/branded as a Switch model.

Note that the cited Docket 1 (footnotes 1-2) is the FTC's original complaint, but I couldn't find any footnotes in that document, nor could I find a section about the "Unanticipated and Unforeseeable Future Events" provisions. My assumption is that these were references in the FTC's complaint to the text of the Microsoft-Nintendo agreement, which were redacted because the agreement itself was redacted/sealed. I think it's strange I can't find where those redactions and redacted footnotes would be in the complaint, though.

I think it's entirely possible that this is just Microsoft's lawyers using "Switch" as synecdoche for current and future hardware, as many people do. If my interpretation is correct and this is indirectly referencing the text of the actual agreement, that somewhat increases the possibility that "in-development Switch model" is a concrete reference to something from that agreement, and not just synecdoche. Though, if that's the case, why wasn't this redacted?

142.png


Page 142: Lastly, we have a reference to a different contract, this one between Microsoft and Activision, which included language about "Nintendo's next generation console." This also seems to imply a concrete reference to a specific product and not just future Nintendo hardware in general, although that's not necessarily the case; it could be general. I don't know what "FTC Pretrial FOF" is referring to here, but it's likely another reference to a transcript.

Since the quote in question is from the deposition of Nintendo of America's Steve Singer, it would appear that Microsoft shared with Nintendo some of the details of their intended contract with Activision, presumably as part of the negotiations over the contract Microsoft wanted to sign with Nintendo, which concerned Activision's plan for future Nintendo support.

Another thing to note here is that the redaction after "Nintendo's next generation console" is probably not that interesting. It likely creates a sentence along the lines of "The FTC misleadingly implies Steve Singer thought that certain language in the contract with Activision concerning Nintendo's next generation console was inadequate for ensuring future support on Nintendo hardware," rather than the redactions containing any information relevant to us about the next generation hardware itself.

Edit: Here's a link to all the documents in this case's docket.
Click to expand...
@ReddDreadtheLead clued me in that the pretrial FOF refers to the FTC's proposed findings of fact, so that part refers to paragraph 519 on page 89 of this document. It is entirely redacted, but that would be where the FTC was discussing Singer's supposed thoughts on the language in the Activision contract concerning Nintendo's next-generation hardware.
 
Z0m3le said:
Math is Math. The Foxconn leak is legit, and a factory retooling that is complete in August, would only lead to production ramp up in September, and full mass production numbers (the 20k noted in the foxconn leak) only happening in October 2016. which leads to just over 600k units a month, we know the shipped numbers were 2.7M and we know that with a mass production starting in October, they could have around half a million in the process of being shipped, now could mass production have actually started at the end of September 2016? absolutely, I've suggested as much in earlier comments about Switch's production timelines, but a production ramp up takes weeks, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the ramp up took a month or so, it is unreasonable to say that they had ~1.5M in the process of shipping, as that is 2 and a half+ months of mass production, and Nintendo was literally flying these units in by plane at times.

We are also not factoring in March 2017's production, which puts the total shipped numbers at 2.7M (can't change, because it's a fact), and 0.9M (with a mass production of 20k starting october 1st) in the process of shipping. Ramp up has to factor in here, and so a little over 1M in the process of shipping is fine. We also know the following quarters were 2M and 3M in that order, so we can gather that production numbers didn't increase until sometime in that second quarter, and only to ~30k a day.

Bobby Kotick also said during the trial, that he was approached by Nintendo's president before the Activision/Microsoft deal was announced (Jan 2022, so sometime in 2021) about their successor console, and that he currently didn't have specs of the next gen console but assumes it will be on par with last gen consoles (at least before RTX accelerators).
Click to expand...
I think we may be referring to different things here. When I say MP I'm using Nintendo's terminology for different stages of hardware development, where MP ends up essentially meaning "final hardware".
Here I'm saying such devices intended for consumers were being produced at all at some point in August, not necessarily at full capacity.
 
ZachyCatGames said:
I think we may be referring to different things here. When I say MP I'm using Nintendo's terminology for different stages of hardware development, where MP ends up essentially meaning "final hardware".
Here I'm saying such devices intended for consumers were being produced at all at some point in August, not necessarily at full capacity.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are referencing different things, they do sample production, then ramp up for about a month, then reach 'full production capacity' which is what is noted in the october leak with the 20k units made per day, we know that this is the full production capacity, because the ~1.8-2M units for 3 months, didn't change until sometime in June 2017, leading to 3M units shipped in Q2 FY for the Switch's first full year.

It's often not that the person I am arguing with is wrong, just that I'm not getting my point across, sorry.

P.S. so, I realize the reason this production talk started is because I said 'Production started in October 2016 for the Switch' yesterday in reference to the DJMoney article, the thing is, that article refers to the end of this year for console production/sales to increase, and Nintendo's next console being launched in Q1, with hopes that December this year will start a period of high revenue for the company. This is a period where sample and ramp up would not lead to high profits from a Nintendo Switch successor, but only the full production speed being reached, would largely factor in. Which is what I was trying to say with the comparison here.

This is all speculation from DJMoney based on some unknown to us information that we assume they have. The actual "Mass production" (as I'm using it), could actually start in October or November, but this would mean that sample production is going out now, considering the reports on final devkits arriving at 3rd parties, this would almost certainly be the time for sample production, one of the Funcles said in jan or feb this year (iirc) that they were finalizing the new device's retail finish still, which would happen months before sample production starts.
 
Last edited:
Z0m3le said:
Yes, we are referencing different things, they do sample production, then ramp up for about a month, then reach 'full production capacity' which is what is noted in the october leak with the 20k units made per day, we know that this is the full production capacity, because the ~1.8-2M units for 3 months, didn't change until sometime in June 2017, leading to 3M units shipped in Q2 FY for the Switch's first full year.
Click to expand...
Alright, yeah, initial production in August with increases through October seems reasonable.

It's often not that the person I am arguing with is wrong, just that I'm not getting my point across, sorry.
Click to expand...
You're good ^^

btw curious how many people on here have launch consoles, might be fun to collect some stats on manufacturing dates.
Nintendo's factory tests output logs to the PRODINFOF partition and include dates, though they can be dubious.
 
Last edited:
Concernt said:
Upon further thinking, I'm hoping for the name to be "Nintendo Switch 2"
Click to expand...

I think this would send the clearest message and create the most hype for the mass market.

Let’s face it, a big issue Nintendo has faced in the past, is communicating the messaging for their newest hardware. Obviously the Wii U is a major example but I also remember there were people who thought the 3DS was a DS but with a 3D screen.

Sony has the most successful transitions between major hardware releases and they followed the numbered route. It tells the audience exactly what is coming and what it is - the next generation Playstation.

Nintendo need to communicate the same message. Not a Switch with a better screen, not a Switch with new controls, but that a next generation of Switch is coming.
 
Last edited:
ILikeFeet said:
This is an even worse burn when you remember oleds aren't that bright to begin with, lol
Click to expand...

I have to introduce you to my CX. Literally this everytime a white logo splash screen appears:

giphy-downsized.gif


Skittzo said:
Not succ?
Click to expand...

Please, i am too sophisticated for this slang word.

Green_Meeple said:
Rocking a v1 switch here as well.

Please put the files online so everyone can make their own sticker :).
Click to expand...

What files? I just write "ReDraketed" on a small paper and glue it on the device with some transparent duct tape. ^^
 
Green_Meeple said:
That'sart.gif
Click to expand...

I major'd in duct-tape art. My biggest exhibit together with a friend artist was when we duct-taped the school bag of a class mate (a very very small girl, ~1.55m tall) to the classroom ceiling (height ~ 2.3m).

... Yes, i was a little asshole-ish in school.
Also, yes we took it down and gave it back after a teacher yelled at us and yes we were punished with a whole week of detention.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this new, consolidated staff post before posting.

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


Back
Top Bottom