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

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

I don't understand this stuff enough myself, would a different cartridge format rule out any chances for physical backwards compatibility?
No. The major change we're expecting for cartridges is in the storage medium of the ROM chips to enable bigger capacities. Those can be changed while keeping the I/O interface the same or similar, and thus compatible. Increasing the data speed may necessitate more changes to the interface (to my knowledge nobody has investigated this in detail), but even if that's the case, it's totally feasible to create a card reader that's compatible with multiple similar interfaces.
 
No. The major change we're expecting for cartridges is in the storage medium of the ROM chips to enable bigger capacities. Those can be changed while keeping the I/O interface the same or similar, and thus compatible. Increasing the data speed may necessitate more changes to the interface (to my knowledge nobody has investigated this in detail), but even if that's the case, it's totally feasible to create a card reader that's compatible with multiple similar interfaces.
Oh ok, thats good then, thanks for the explanation.
 
0
Adding to this, people try to revive 8nm all time without also taking into account the die size. What would be the die size of 8x A78 Cores + 12 SMs + uncore? Given Orin is 400+mm², I'd wager T239 would be 200mm²+ on 8nm. It's needs a leap of faith for 8nm to be even considered at this point.
I don't think it's impossible - the thought experiment at the moment is "what if the device has a bigger screen to house a larger chip, does that make us reevaluate 8nm" and I would say it makes it more plausible, but I still would bet against it
Quick question more on-topic, so if Nintendo bring a dev kit or even their NG Switch prototype to GamesCom, how much more could we expect to know about it after that event? Does much detail tend to get out there following the private showcases?
In general, the more folks know, the more chatter there is, but it's obviously not guaranteed.
 
Listend to a bit of the VGC podcast, so they are hearing one dev saying no BC, while another say there is.
So my question is, what would cause such a disparity (aside for potentially devs having different info or versions of dev kits)
Multiple false infos mixed with right infos ?
 
My one and only comment regarding RAM: I've heard figures from multiple places (each differ & need more vetting). As mentioned, devkits typically have twice the RAM amount for debugging purposes -- though it's not always the case, which can make early reporting tricky. I was going to mention a figure I had heard in our video but opted against it for these reasons.



Is this a good thing?
Very wise choice, if details such as storage and size of lcd screen differ/change people aren't likely to be that bothered. However, if you came out with a ram figure now and people then took that as gospel it could lead to expectations going wild. Although it does seem that always happens regardless so apologies in advance for when that inevitably happens among circles on the internet. The gaming leaks reddit does state that the switch 2 will have 512 memory and 8 inch lcd screen as a definitive fact in the headline when you clearly stated that was informed speculation but not certain
 
Last edited:
I believe the original NX dev kits had the same amount of RAm as production units. The OLED Switch dev kits has 4 extra GB of RAm. The speculation was it was included to allow for better optimizations for late gen games, but I feel like OLED Switch is the Switch Pro we didn't get so maybe it just reflected the RAM Nintendo was planning for the Pro model
There's other models w/ extra ram:
SDEV & EDEV Prototypes -> 4GB
EDEV MP -> 4GB
SDEV MP -> 6GB
HDEV MP -> 4GB
EDEV-D MP (mariko) -> 4GB
SDEV-D MP (mariko) -> 8GB
ADEV MP -> 8GB
A EDEV-D prototype (EDEV-D DP1 8GB) with 8GB also existed, unclear what, if any, the plans for that were.
 
Listend to a bit of the VGC podcast, so they are hearing one dev saying no BC, while another say there is.
So my question is, what would cause such a disparity (aside for potentially devs having different info or versions of dev kits)
Could it be simply that the dev saying yes knows more, and the dev saying no is just going off what the devkit has?

Edit: my bad I need to learn to read fully
 
Listend to a bit of the VGC podcast, so they are hearing one dev saying no BC, while another say there is.
So my question is, what would cause such a disparity (aside for potentially devs having different info or versions of dev kits)
One is trusted and has access to a more complete software suite, the other isn't. So the full suite has the compatibility tools and next gen patch framework, making BC very obvious.

The other, perhaps for less trusted developers, and/or devs who only intend to release on NG Switch and don't have any Switch games to patch in the first place, which only has NVN2 tools.

We've heard
 
Cad é?

Apologies, but I don't see where you did that. The specific comparison you made was 70$ and 60€, which are not equivalent. Am I missing some clarification?
I'll be honest with ya, I completely forgot Americans don't already have their tax included in the price tag, that makes what I was attempting to say completely redundant, nach mise an t-amadán? góa
 
There's other models w/ extra ram:
SDEV & EDEV Prototypes -> 4GB
EDEV MP -> 4GB
SDEV MP -> 6GB
HDEV MP -> 4GB
EDEV-D MP (mariko) -> 4GB
SDEV-D MP (mariko) -> 8GB
ADEV MP -> 8GB
A EDEV-D prototype (EDEV-D DP1 8GB) with 8GB also existed, unclear what, if any, the plans for that were.
Wait, HDEV used Erista?
 
Listend to a bit of the VGC podcast, so they are hearing one dev saying no BC, while another say there is.
So my question is, what would cause such a disparity (aside for potentially devs having different info or versions of dev kits)
Information on various features is likely on a need to know basis, and if you're just working on a title for the new hardware, you don't need to know.
 
I'll be honest with ya, I completely forgot Americans don't already have their tax included in the price tag, that makes what I was attempting to say completely redundant, nach mise an t-amadán? góa
Is ea. Go maith a bhí ag úsáid na cúpla focal. 😉

I mean Ireland had 70€ pricing in 2017 for the Switch version of BOTW, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if it was the next gen standard.
 
Listend to a bit of the VGC podcast, so they are hearing one dev saying no BC, while another say there is.
So my question is, what would cause such a disparity (aside for potentially devs having different info or versions of dev kits)

Just a possibility, but I imagine Devs are likely asking Nintendo more detailed questions than "does it have BC?". And if their questions regarding BC have different specific details, they may have gotten different answers (ie. yes you can do that/no that won't work). So that causes one dev to answer no, and another to answer yes.

Which would mean that the answer to the general "does it have BC?" question is: it depends lol but really, no way to know for sure.
 
It's common practice for devkits to have up to twice the amount of RAM, isn't it?
I think it can vary greatly, and can change as different dev kits are sent out. Like I'm pretty sure there was a PS5 dev kit out that had ~20GB of RAM vs 16GB in the final retail unit. Comparatively there is/was a Series X dev kit that had 40GB of RAM apparently. Definitely reasonable to expect that the RAM and storage in the dev kit, are probably greater than the retail unit or at best the maximum amount. From the Nintendo side iirc the Switch dev kit had 6GB, but as someone else mentioned there are versions with 4 and 8 as well. I think the WiiU dev kit had the same amount as the retail unit. I'm sure someone else can speak to this more competently though.

There's a good chance that Nintendo has not confirmed the final retail specs with devs yet, or has only done so with a small group, so there's good reason to be hesitant about sharing spec info from dev kits. That confirmation could be something that will happen behind closed doors around Gamescom and TGS. Presumably it should be soonish either way.
 
Last edited:
Listend to a bit of the VGC podcast, so they are hearing one dev saying no BC, while another say there is.
So my question is, what would cause such a disparity (aside for potentially devs having different info or versions of dev kits)
I believe that if one says they have it, it's because they have it, the reason for the difference may simply be different devkits.
The only plausible reason for both of them to be telling the truth and in the end not having BC, is if Nintendo developed BC but gave up on including it in the final product, which I think is very unlikely.
 
While I hope so, I don't see any reason why they would. Botw and Totk took about 6 years to make and in the meantime (2011-2023) we got like 10 Pokémon game releases.

It at least seems for many that S/V was the last straw and the DLC hype is nowhere near the same of SwSh (this might just be my perception tho).

I think I'm gonna watch what they'll do with Gen 10 and decide if it's time to drop the series for good or not, there's just too many worthy games out there to keep hoping for Pokémon to reclaim its glory.
The hype for DLC is not there because they haven't shown anything new yet.
 
It has nothing to do with release date, and everything to do with the size and our knowledge of how ampere performs on 8nm.
Yeah, that's what I meant by the consensus shifting, as our knowledge and understanding grew. My point was, is anyone serious still advocating for 8nm? Or was it a reference to those commentators who still refer to 'Orin based', as they won't discuss the Lapsu$ leak/theft?

Edit just read @oldpuck comment about a larger device making 8nm theoretically more plausible, which answers my question about where the chatter was coming from
 
Last edited:
You would trust the people who said Backwards Compatibility is there because that means they have confirmation of it there. If someone says it’s not there it can mean they just don’t know…
 
Yeah, that's what I meant by the consensus shifting, as our knowledge and understanding grew. My point was, is anyone serious still advocating for 8nm? Or was it a reference to those commentators who still refer to 'Orin based', as they won't discuss the Lapsu$ leak/theft?
Maybe people who haven't payed that much attention to the technical arguments for why it doesn't seem feasible.
 
Listend to a bit of the VGC podcast, so they are hearing one dev saying no BC, while another say there is.
So my question is, what would cause such a disparity (aside for potentially devs having different info or versions of dev kits)
Software BC but no Cart BC I have to imagine is a possibility still, especially with Nate's recent podcast episode talking about reasons nintendo would want to move on from the current switch cartridges.
 
0
I don't think it's impossible - the thought experiment at the moment is "what if the device has a bigger screen to house a larger chip, does that make us reevaluate 8nm" and I would say it makes it more plausible, but I still would bet against it
Sure, if the device would be bigger, it could house such a big chip. But the question is: Would Nintendo do it? A 200mm²+ SoC would be bigger than than Series S SoC at 197mm² and would be better suited for a stationary console. If we look at the current PC Handheld landscape, where there are devices that would be closer in size to the hyphotetical "bigger" Switch 2", AMD Van Gogh/Aerith which is employed on SteamDeck is just 163mm². AMD Phoenix Ryzen 7840/Ryzen Z1 Extreme, which is used by the current PC Handhelds such as ROG Ally, is 178mm². The closest comparison would be the PC Handhelds that employed the Ryzen 6980/6800 Rembrandt, which had a 208mm² die size. So even in the PC Handheld market, where the devices are much bigger and heavier than Switch, the die size of the SoC doesn't usually goes over 200mm². Granted, that's an unfair comparison due to the fact the majority of these SoC are meant for the overall mobile market, unlike T239 which is an specialized custom part. But that goes to show that 200mm² part are extremely unlikely on mobile (Unless you're current Intel).

So we are looking at a huge chip to manufacture (even if 8nm is cheap), power consumption metrics that would put the consumption in the range of nearly 15 - 20W for the whole device while handheld and that would make the device quite big, hot and possibly noisy and with terrible battery life. That's not a Nintendo like experience in my opinion and would make me question what are Nintendo engineers even doing to have customized this SoC as big and power hungry as it is on the 8nm node, instead of going with a smaller, cheaper and more efficient part.

I understand that you say it's not impossible as: "anything can happen". But such node choice is outside the realm of possibility to me. If that does happen, I would be very puzzled and looking at what went wrong in the development of this machine (Which wouldn't be the first time as Wii U happened).
 
Last edited:
I can't listen to the VGC podcast - does he mention the 8 inch screen as well?

Not directly. He was only asked about memory, which he heard was 512GB.

Furthermore, although they didn't mention specifics, they did say that MVG and Nate were "right in the money" with their reporting, which included mention of the 8-inch screen.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how people are able to live that way.

If I have $40 and something costs $40, I want to be able to buy it and not be told later "oh it's actually $45 with tax".
Americans are getting pure shafted at the minute too I think, just did the numbers and both places where I live the tax rate is 23% on the Euro and 20% on the Pound, this means Tears of the Kingdom, as an example of the possible new price point, at its €69.99 is €53 and £59.99 at £47 for the game actual, which is the equivalent of $12 and $10 cheaper than the pre-tax American price at $70, I made the assumption American prices included the tax so then the North American/European/UK markets represented a standardised software pricing that other markets could be raised to meet to keep the next Switch's console costs down, instead I can now see €79.99 and £69.99 being the prices of the evergreens from summer 2024 onward

Oops and ouch
 
0
And one last thing: 8" screen. Yeah, I just love tabletop mode. I play a lot of Mario party with my sister and nephew (and other games), and a 8" would be perfect for us. The increase in size and weight wouldn't bother me. And I already said I don't care losing physical compatibility with current joy-cons...

Yeah, I would absolutely love that! But I will be really perplex if Nintendo does what I want 😆

Maybe my Switch 2 Ally is not that impossible (with a big battery, great ergonomics, and higher TDP). Do it, Furukawa!

I would love a form factor like the Rog Ally
 
While I hope so, I don't see any reason why they would. Botw and Totk took about 6 years to make and in the meantime (2011-2023) we got like 10 Pokémon game releases.

It at least seems for many that S/V was the last straw and the DLC hype is nowhere near the same of SwSh (this might just be my perception tho).

I think I'm gonna watch what they'll do with Gen 10 and decide if it's time to drop the series for good or not, there's just too many worthy games out there to keep hoping for Pokémon to reclaim its glory.
I think if we're looking at it from the perspective of the general audience......Most people would say Scarlet and Violet is the first straw, not the last.

None of the controversies around SWSH stopped it from being an absolute juggernaught in sales, which showed it was really only a vocal minority online that really cared about the issues people were bringing up like the Dex cut.

Then people dogged endlessly on BDSPs artstyle, but it still sold on par with previous remakes in the same timeframe, and that's even with getting it's legs chopped off just 2 months later when Legends out.

Scarlet/Violet's launch was the first time people really had issues with the game, but the sales still keep rolling, and even then the general conssenuss seems closer to "It's fun in spite of the issues".

Everyone has the right to feel however they want about the games, but I think a lot of folks underestimate just how well liked the games actually are for people outside the internet
 
"Narrative-driven AAA experience".

If i wanna watch Oppenheimer, i go and watch Oppenheimer. I don't need to play Oppenheimer.
Tbf had some great experiences playing walking Sims on Switch. They aren't AAA games but definitely narrative driven.

I really like and was impressed by ports of Vanishing of Ethan Carter, What Remains of Edith Finch and the Bloober team stuff
 
0
I'll be honest with ya, I completely forgot Americans don't already have their tax included in the price tag, that makes what I was attempting to say completely redundant, nach mise an t-amadán? góa

And then gratuity has seeped into everything over here. Its all so crazy now.
 
I think if we're looking at it from the perspective of the general audience......Most people would say Scarlet and Violet is the first straw, not the last.

None of the controversies around SWSH stopped it from being an absolute juggernaught in sales, which showed it was really only a vocal minority online that really cared about the issues people were bringing up like the Dex cut.

Then people dogged endlessly on BDSPs artstyle, but it still sold on par with previous remakes in the same timeframe, and that's even with getting it's legs chopped off just 2 months later when Legends out.

Scarlet/Violet's launch was the first time people really had issues with the game, but the sales still keep rolling, and even then the general conssenuss seems closer to "It's fun in spite of the issues".

Everyone has the right to feel however they want about the games, but I think a lot of folks underestimate just how well liked the games actually are for people outside the internet
There's a lot more to the criticism of Sword and Shield and BDSP than what caused the initial negative reactions, but this is not the thread to be relitigating the last several years of Pokémon discourse.
 
There's a lot more to the criticism of Sword and Shield and BDSP than what caused the initial negative reactions, but this is not the thread to be relitigating the last several years of Pokémon discourse.
True, I'm just saying that most of those critisims did not reflect in the sales numbers
 
idk about you guys but i’m ready to be incredibly financially irresponsible on expandable storage and games once this thing drops
giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
Sales should never be used as a measure of quality.
Never a measure of quality, but usually a good measure of public reception. Which reflects a varied number of things, including perceived quality, as well as value.

Tech is an interesting bag, you could have a piece of tech that exceeds all others in a quality metric, but is not received well for a variety of other factors.
 
I think if we're looking at it from the perspective of the general audience......Most people would say Scarlet and Violet is the first straw, not the last.

None of the controversies around SWSH stopped it from being an absolute juggernaught in sales, which showed it was really only a vocal minority online that really cared about the issues people were bringing up like the Dex cut.

Then people dogged endlessly on BDSPs artstyle, but it still sold on par with previous remakes in the same timeframe, and that's even with getting it's legs chopped off just 2 months later when Legends out.

Scarlet/Violet's launch was the first time people really had issues with the game, but the sales still keep rolling, and even then the general conssenuss seems closer to "It's fun in spite of the issues".

Everyone has the right to feel however they want about the games, but I think a lot of folks underestimate just how well liked the games actually are for people outside the internet
I'm perfectly aware of the general audience reception and that's why I think nothing will change.

Although I don't think this is one of the classic "internet echo chamber" where some gripes with a game get exasperated to an extreme level (like I've seen elsewhere with FF16), the issues are jarring and pretty much everyone is aware of that, it's just that most people are "the games are fun anyways" which is a respectable opinion even though every purchase furtherly condemns the brand to stay the course inside the vicious spiral.
 
You must be joking. Why are people constantly asking for them to be a support studio for everyone. Its already bad they waste time on zelda instead of working on xeno.
Because some people cant open up to good kino games, they just need to have Zelda slapped onto their titles and people will love them ;)

Jokes aside though, some shortsighted Nintendo fans who only look at the names of their big mainstream titles they support essentially want to see them becoming a boring Call Of Duty support studio like the hundreds of studios under Activision that are trapped forever making Call Of Duty games, when what truly makes a company shine and expand on their talent is to make original IPs, and what they want. None of the talent you see growing at Monolith comes from them wanting to support Animal Crossing or Splatoon, it comes from wanting to make Xenoblade.
 
Because some people cant open up to good kino games, they just need to have Zelda slapped onto their titles and people will love them ;)

Jokes aside though, some shortsighted Nintendo fans who only look at the names of their big mainstream titles they support essentially want to see them becoming a boring Call Of Duty support studio like the hundreds of studios under Activision that are trapped forever making Call Of Duty games, when what truly makes a company shine and expand on their talent is to make original IPs and what they want. None of the talent you see growing at Monolith comes from them wanting to support Animal Crossing or Splatoon, it comes from wanting to make Xenoblade.
Monolith Soft have two secondary studio teams separate from their primary developers that exist purely as supporting/assistant roles; one specific to Zelda (Tokyo Production Team 2), and the other for non-Zelda EPD properties (Kyoto Production Team)
 
Please read this staff post before posting.

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


Back
Top Bottom