• 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!)

Reader mode
LA Noire was 720p undocked and 1080p docked with dynamic resolution dropping to 960 x 720 and 1440 x 1080 under stressful situation so I don't really think those resolutions are that far fetched.

Let's not forget RDR 1 is first and foremost a ps3 and 360 game and the Switch tends to do nicely when it comes to ports from both of those platforms (more so 360).
 
Ojoloco said:
What they said?
Click to expand...
Not much.
  1. VGC report tracks with what they expect but they don't offer any inside knowledge of their own
  2. Very disappointed about the lack of an OLED screen, but admit that the price of a 1080p OLED is probably too high for the base model
  3. Rich mentions that there are "less well sourced" reports of increase in storage, which also tracks
  4. John has heard rumors of "massively boosted" cartridge size and performance.
  5. Rich mentions "implications for decompression", says hardware decompression would be a real win.
    • Rich and I have talked about the Linux drivers and the FDE, so he's not unaware here
    • Rich smartly points out that the Switch currently has a special "boost mode" which unlocks the CPU but massively downclocks the GPU, so it's only really useful in loading screens
    • Dedicated decompression hardware basically gives you that mode all the time
  6. Curious what the "new Nintendo spin" will be - or if there will be any
  7. Tom thinks that Nintendo's off cycle launch strategy, relative to the other consoles, works very well for them
  8. Everyone agrees BC is critical for a solid transition
 
0
Dekuman said:
I assume Switch resolution will be dynamic. But if it can sit those resolutions with a steady 30fps, would be a very good port.
Click to expand...

There are other ports of previous gen games that run at native 1080p on PS4, and dynamic 1080p on Switch, so it’s likely that’s happening here. My guess is you’ll see the resolution drop into 900p, possibly a little lower in the heavy areas, while maintaining a much more rock solid 30fps compared to PS3/360 versions.
 
Giancarlo said:
too good to be real
Click to expand...
I assume it will be dynamic, but Alien: Isolation, BioShock: The Collection, Diablo 3, Dark Souls: Remastered all hit 1080p more often than not, and included texture improvements since Switch has something like 8x the amount of memory of the 360. This is well within the reach of a good quality port of a gen 7 title. Especially considering that RDR never came to PC. If there was a decent quality PC port, then you might want to keep some of those visual enhancements over the resolution, but since there wasn't, all of the Switch's roughly 60% performance win over the 360 can be used on resolution, especially if they're not upping frame rate.

The engine has a reputation for being a bit of a mess. That can mean that a performant port might be tough, but it also means that there might be big wins in the engine for a very careful port willing to do some general purpose optimization.
 
oldpuck said:
I assume it will be dynamic, but Alien: Isolation, BioShock: The Collection, Diablo 3, Dark Souls: Remastered all hit 1080p more often than not, and included texture improvements since Switch has something like 8x the amount of memory of the 360. This is well within the reach of a good quality port of a gen 7 title. Especially considering that RDR never came to PC. If there was a decent quality PC port, then you might want to keep some of those visual enhancements over the resolution, but since there wasn't, all of the Switch's roughly 60% performance win over the 360 can be used on resolution, especially if they're not upping frame rate.

The engine has a reputation for being a bit of a mess. That can mean that a performant port might be tough, but it also means that there might be big wins in the engine for a very careful port willing to do some general purpose optimization.
Click to expand...
Thankfully even without a PC port PC users get a far easier (And accessible) way to play it now XD

I know some people are fine with Xenia, but never really have been able to get it working....and the less said about RDR1 PS3 the better.

Meanwhile Yuzu/Ryujinx just run great on my 3900X+3080-12GB PC with crashing a rarity.
 
Cuzizkool said:
Isn't RAM really cheap right now? And are we still in the window where Nintendo can change RAM? (Amount, not type) I wonder what the feedback will be from these devs who got the kits and if Nintendo will listen if they ask for more.
Click to expand...
Quick, lets tweet X(??) at Capcom devs to have them demand 16GB!

All seriousness, would it be fair to say if we ever get solid confirms that dev kits have 16GB, that means 12GB is a lock for the production console?
 
Shoulder said:
There are other ports of previous gen games that run at native 1080p on PS4, and dynamic 1080p on Switch, so it’s likely that’s happening here. My guess is you’ll see the resolution drop into 900p, possibly a little lower in the heavy areas, while maintaining a much more rock solid 30fps compared to PS3/360 versions.
Click to expand...

PS4 will probably get some additional improvements that the Switch build doesn't. Things like texture quality, texture filtering and shadow resolution could very well be much higher quality than Switch. Perhaps even LOD and draw distance differences. I do agree the 1080p resolution for Switch is likely dynamic. People have to remember that Switch has proven to be very capable of taking 360/PS3 era games and rendering them at 900p and sometime 1080p. Switch renders Skyrim at 900p without dynamic res and it was basically locked at 30fps. Again, assuming the porting studio was making the Switch build a priority, the results should be excellent.
 
Kazuyamishima said:
It's a decade old game with decade of visuals. It should have 60fps not in switch maybe but definitely on PS4 rockstar is just a giant L these last couple of years
Click to expand...

Its a top tier 360/PS3 game, so for Switch the upgrade is very much in line with what we would hope and expect. PS4 on the other hand, yea, its a bit underwhelming for that console, but getting the game to run smooth at 60fps might be a tough nugget to crack. Some game engines just aren't efficient when moving to a 60fps target. Unreal Engine for example has notoriously been a fantastic engine doing great things at 30fps, but getting that game to 60fps takes a massive leap in performance to accomplish.
 
Ryuji said:
Maybe even give the entire Interface and eshop an ounce of personality. That would be a good start.
Click to expand...
themesthemesthemesthemesthemes

Honestly though at this point, I would be content with just the ability to set a screenshot as the background
 
To provide more context on who worked on the RDR1 Switch port, the Rockstar Newswire post seems to explicitly say that it was (probably) wholly Double Eleven Studios' work on the port:
Experience the epic Western adventure Red Dead Redemption and its groundbreaking zombie-horror companion, Undead Nightmare, as both games come to the Nintendo Switch and PlayStation 4 for the very first time in a single package. In a new conversion by Double Eleven Studios, the Switch and PS4 versions bring the two classic experiences together again for both new players and original fans to enjoy across modern consoles, including backwards compatibility with the PlayStation 5.
Click to expand...
 
Goodtwin said:
Its a top tier 360/PS3 game, so for Switch the upgrade is very much in line with what we would hope and expect. PS4 on the other hand, yea, its a bit underwhelming for that console, but getting the game to run smooth at 60fps might be a tough nugget to crack. Some game engines just aren't efficient when moving to a 60fps target. Unreal Engine for example has notoriously been a fantastic engine doing great things at 30fps, but getting that game to 60fps takes a massive leap in performance to accomplish.
Click to expand...

Digital Foundry recently had a video concerning emulation status for RDR via say Xenia. With a hack, it’s possible to get 60fps working on it.

So if there’s some issue with doubling the frame rate, then I feel it’s more to do with the conversion process with PS4 than it is with the engine.

But again, do we know for certain it’s only running at 30fps on PS4? All I’ve seen so far is what TwiX has been posting, and nothing directly from the horses mouth.
 
bixente said:
I just want an eshop that doesn't run like sludge.
Click to expand...
Its such a mystery to me why they don't care to improve this facet and thus facilitate the exchange of currency for software downloads while making customers more happy (to part with their money).

I guess there aren't enough system resources allocated for running a more robust version of what I believe is essentially a webapp? Because otherwise, a handful of competent personnel could have steadily improved the eshop over these, uh, 6+ years. Even if improvement drove eshop sales revenue only incrementally, at their scale it would surely have paid off.

Shareholders should ask about their strategy and intentions there vs some of these pie-in-the-sky questions (sorry, F-Zero)!

Anyways hopefully 12+ GB will be enough to allow me to gift games to friends via the eshop 😆
 
uncleoptimus said:
Its such a mystery to me why they don't care to improve this facet and thus facilitate the exchange of currency for software downloads while making customers more happy (to part with their money).

I guess there aren't enough system resources allocated for running a more robust version of what I believe is essentially a webapp? Because otherwise, a handful of competent personnel could have steadily improved the eshop over these, uh, 6+ years. Even if improvement drove eshop sales revenue only incrementally, at their scale it would surely have paid off.

Shareholders should ask about their strategy and intentions there vs some of these pie-in-the-sky questions (sorry, F-Zero)!

Anyways hopefully 12+ GB will be enough to allow me to gift games to friends via the eshop 😆
Click to expand...
Nintendo is just kind of plop drop & go when it comes to OS functions for some reason... I wondered the same thing about wii, Wii U, and 3DS
Though 3DS did have at least SOME updates
 
Kazuyamishima said:
It's a decade old game with decade of visuals. It should have 60fps not in switch maybe but definitely on PS4 rockstar is just a giant L these last couple of years
Click to expand...
Shoulder said:
Digital Foundry recently had a video concerning emulation status for RDR via say Xenia. With a hack, it’s possible to get 60fps working on it.
Click to expand...
Devs have uncapped the frame rate in RDR on emulation, but it isn't bug free. At least last I checked it disables some visual features that experience bugs (like the grass in some places) and it disables collision on some objects. It also requires a forced frame rate cap in the driver, because you have to disable vsync, otherwise you get tearing. What's an emulation bug and what's an engine issue with high frame rates is unclear.

All of these things only work in emulation. This seems to be a proper port. There is no guarantee that you could make the same changes, stably, on other platforms, and 60fps Xbox emulation is too heavy for the PS4s CPU.

The original sin is in the messy code of the game. Beyond that it's about calculating how much money to throw at it and what the minimum feature set was.
 
0
uncleoptimus said:
I guess there aren't enough system resources allocated for running a more robust version of what I believe is essentially a webapp? Because otherwise, a handful of competent personnel could have steadily improved the eshop over these, uh, 6+ years.
Click to expand...
It's not a system resource issue, it's an unsolvable security problem. You could give the eShop 100% of the system and it would still run like ass.
 
Sol said:
They need to take a page out of Sony's book and build the E-shop directly into the OS.

On PS5 there is no PS Store app - it's just baked natively into the OS. You just tab over and it's there.
Click to expand...
That probably won't happen since there are security implications with using native apps vs web apps.
arstechnica.com

Report: Apple buys every 3 nm chip that TSMC can make for next-gen iPhones and Macs

TSMC is said to eat the cost of defective chips so it can keep Apple's business.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
 
Last edited:
oldpuck said:
It's not a system resource issue, it's an unsolvable security problem. You could give the eShop 100% of the system and it would still run like ass.
Click to expand...
I still feel like having JIT support for the web browser even just for the Nintendo applets such as eShop and NSO would improve performance.
Security wise it would feel enough especially when you have embedded SSL certs to confirm the webpages and stuff...
 
LuigiBlood said:
I still feel like having JIT support for the web browser even just for the Nintendo applets such as eShop and NSO would improve performance.
Security wise it would feel enough especially when you have embedded SSL certs to confirm the webpages and stuff...
Click to expand...
Oh it would increase perf considerably, but man in the middle attacks are pretty easy - OG Switch shipped with TLS 1.1 support. I certainly wouldn't turn it on if I were them
 
0
uncleoptimus said:
Its such a mystery to me why they don't care to improve this facet and thus facilitate the exchange of currency for software downloads while making customers more happy (to part with their money).

I guess there aren't enough system resources allocated for running a more robust version of what I believe is essentially a webapp? Because otherwise, a handful of competent personnel could have steadily improved the eshop over these, uh, 6+ years. Even if improvement drove eshop sales revenue only incrementally, at their scale it would surely have paid off.

Shareholders should ask about their strategy and intentions there vs some of these pie-in-the-sky questions (sorry, F-Zero)!

Anyways hopefully 12+ GB will be enough to allow me to gift games to friends via the eshop 😆
Click to expand...
It's not a lack of RAM at issue. It's a confluence of things that end up hitting mostly the CPU disproportionately hard. In no particular order:
  • The eShop is a web app. Much has been said about why this decision was made, but, in short, it's on a much different and faster release cycle as the rest of the OS for a variety of reasons, to the point where it really makes more sense to have it release separately. This approach doesn't preclude having a native app (like Xbox does), but just not having a local client simplifies things further and means that they can share code more easily with their web storefront (which I have no direct evidence they're doing, but it seems likely)
  • The web applets on Switch are not granted permission to use the JIT sysmodule for security reasons, so their JS runtime is forced to run in interpreter-only (read: slow) mode.
  • It's not immediately clear from Switchbrew what CPU resources are granted to the web applets, but what is clear is that many games (mostly ones that do network communication) don't fully suspend right away when put into the background, and eat into that allocation.
  • JS is notoriously single-threaded, with some pretty steep costs incurred on what limited parallelization options do exist.
  • It is stupidly easy to leak memory in JS, and I kinda suspect the eShop does this.
More RAM would only kinda help with that last point, but even then, that's probably not what it would be used for. A faster CPU should improve the situation significantly.
 
Dekuman said:
so are you saying eshop in the switch 2 will remain laggy? or should they just move to an actual app and leave the webpages alone?
Click to expand...
They could move to a native app. They could also update the OS's core security model to provide a tighter sandbox for the browser. Or some third solution that I am not thinking of. But they're basically locked in on Switch.

Personally, I'm not saying the eShop is a model of slick efficiency, but I've never been particularly frustrated by it, so I don't have a dog in that fight.
 
0
Pokemaniac said:
It'll get better, just don't expect a miracle.
Click to expand...
I don't mind them using webapps as a store front.

I do hope they would has some sort of container for web pages to make web browsing a possibility once again. Something that doesn't interact on a system level to prevent exploits all the while allow for a smooth, or at least servicable, browsing experience.

The Wii U's web browser was perhaps some of the best experiences I've had with regards to a console level browser.
 
The current subpar quality of the Nintendo E-Shop would be understandable in 2000s or even early to mid 2010s. In 2023 when many indie devs rely on the e-shop as their only way to sell games on switch, the E-Shop in it's current state is unacceptable. So many basic features are missing and functional issues with the switch e-shop, online web browser e-shop, or both.

Pokemaniac said:
It's not a lack of RAM at issue. It's a confluence of things that end up hitting mostly the CPU disproportionately hard. In no particular order:
  • The eShop is a web app. Much has been said about why this decision was made, but, in short, it's on a much different and faster release cycle as the rest of the OS for a variety of reasons, to the point where it really makes more sense to have it release separately. This approach doesn't preclude having a native app (like Xbox does), but just not having a local client simplifies things further and means that they can share code more easily with their web storefront (which I have no direct evidence they're doing, but it seems likely)
  • The web applets on Switch are not granted permission to use the JIT sysmodule for security reasons, so their JS runtime is forced to run in interpreter-only (read: slow) mode.
  • It's not immediately clear from Switchbrew what CPU resources are granted to the web applets, but what is clear is that many games (mostly ones that do network communication) don't fully suspend right away when put into the background, and eat into that allocation.
  • JS is notoriously single-threaded, with some pretty steep costs incurred on what limited parallelization options do exist.
  • It is stupidly easy to leak memory in JS, and I kinda suspect the eShop does this.
More RAM would only kinda help with that last point, but even then, that's probably not what it would be used for. A faster CPU should improve the situation significantly.
Click to expand...
I always close any game I'm playing before using the e-shop and it still runs horrendously, plus the problem isn't just the switch e-shop, the e-shop that they run through desktop web-browsers is also run terribly. For example, the desktop nintendo e-shop does not even have an option to list games chronologically.
 
Last edited:
D36 said:
Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The screen lottery dilemma is the only thing that worries me about image quality. More annoyed about the potential size increase than the actual lack of OLED tbh but I think I'll get over that when I start using the thing.

I am sure the screen itself will be fine and produce a decent picture.
 
Pokemaniac said:
It's not a lack of RAM at issue. It's a confluence of things that end up hitting mostly the CPU disproportionately hard. In no particular order:
  • The eShop is a web app. Much has been said about why this decision was made, but, in short, it's on a much different and faster release cycle as the rest of the OS for a variety of reasons, to the point where it really makes more sense to have it release separately. This approach doesn't preclude having a native app (like Xbox does), but just not having a local client simplifies things further and means that they can share code more easily with their web storefront (which I have no direct evidence they're doing, but it seems likely)
  • The web applets on Switch are not granted permission to use the JIT sysmodule for security reasons, so their JS runtime is forced to run in interpreter-only (read: slow) mode.
  • It's not immediately clear from Switchbrew what CPU resources are granted to the web applets, but what is clear is that many games (mostly ones that do network communication) don't fully suspend right away when put into the background, and eat into that allocation.
  • JS is notoriously single-threaded, with some pretty steep costs incurred on what limited parallelization options do exist.
  • It is stupidly easy to leak memory in JS, and I kinda suspect the eShop does this.
More RAM would only kinda help with that last point, but even then, that's probably not what it would be used for. A faster CPU should improve the situation significantly.
Click to expand...
Nintendo want the OS of Switch to be smootly as ever, not add a bunch of crap, that will clog the system memory and slow down it effectines, put a cartridge/download a game and voila, go play your game.
 
I hear all this conversation about a Late 2024 launch, and I'm going to jump out on a limb and say NO (Not Happening). First of all there's too many Developer Kits out in the wild, and let us not forget this is Nintendo. They have strong First Party IPs and don't require a ton of 3rd party games to be there right at launch as well as it will more than likely be capable of playing current Switch games, so not necessary.

Also moving on to something that was stated in a previous shareholders meeting. The president stated that the current financial projection does not account for any additional hardware releases. Now this can be read 2 different ways the first is what most people ran with which is (Nintendo has nothing coming out in this fiscal year). However the more likely correct answer based on Nintendo's past is they're saying (We have not calculated for or included any new hardware into this projection for this fiscal year) which means yes there will be new hardware this fiscal year but we have not announced it yet and made it public and due to that reason it is not included into what we expect to make.

Moving on from there we have the Pokemon leak which as of right now has been 100% spot on, and stated the DLC2 which has been enhanced for the upcoming console is slated for Winter which runs up until March. Anyone want to answer why they would enhance it if they expecting to launch the new console almost a year later???

We can also take a look at Nintendo's recent actions, a known leaker from Foxconn was banned from Reddit by Nintendo a couple months ago. This was more than likely preventative measures to keep information from leaking out early. Which means more than likely the console is going into production this year. Also looking at the statements of Ubisoft (Should have waited just a little while longer to release Mario + Rabbids 2 when the new console released) and Microsoft makes it sound as if it is coming soon.

Also looking at the last Nintendo Direct which people want to claim is "Strong" was clearly the lineup of a system on its way out the door. We had a bunch of A (Not to be confused with AAA or AA) and below Tier games, meshed together with a bunch of Ports ( COME ON GUYS.... LUIGI'S MANSION DARK MOON A DS GAME PORT..... REALLLLLLY). But I know somebody is going to say it, but what about Super Mario Bros Wonder..... ANDDDD What about it??? It's here to tide people over the Holiday season because 2D Mario is going to sell regardless, and most of the world already has a Switch. If they want holiday sales they'll just bundle the consoles with a digital game and done. So I said all that to say this I strongly believe we'll get an announcement SOON as in this year. And Release the first quarter of 2024. March worked wonderfully last time so why not again?
 
Atlus said:
Moving on from there we have the Pokemon leak which as of right now has been 100% spot on, and stated the DLC2 which has been enhanced for the upcoming console is slated for Winter which runs up until March. Anyone want to answer why they would enhance it if they expecting to launch the new console almost a year later???
Click to expand...
New console could be out in September - November
The enhanced version of the game could just be a simple next gen upgrade, Nintendo could be doing enhanced patches for a lot of their games. I think considering all the information we are getting now from more reliable sources than 4chan, the new system is likely coming out late next year. Maybe the 4chan leak was out of date info.

Atlus said:
We can also take a look at Nintendo's recent actions, a known leaker from Foxconn was banned from Reddit by Nintendo a couple months ago. This was more than likely preventative measures to keep information from leaking out early. Which means more than likely the console is going into production this year.
Click to expand...
Not even proven that Nintendo banned anyone from any forum.
Atlus said:
Also looking at the last Nintendo Direct which people want to claim is "Strong" was clearly the lineup of a system on its way out the door. We had a bunch of A (Not to be confused with AAA or AA) and below Tier games, meshed together with a bunch of Ports ( COME ON GUYS.... LUIGI'S MANSION DARK MOON A DS GAME PORT..... REALLLLLLY). But I know somebody is going to say it, but what about Super Mario Bros Wonder..... ANDDDD What about it??? It's here to tide people over the Holiday season because 2D Mario is going to sell regardless, and most of the world already has a Switch. If they want holiday sales they'll just bundle the consoles with a digital game and done. So I said all that to say this I strongly believe we'll get an announcement SOON as in this year. And Release the first quarter of 2024. March worked wonderfully last time so why not again?
Click to expand...
Mario Wonder, Mario RPG, Peach Game, Luigi's Mansion - Seems decent to me.
September is also right around the corner and if no new hardware is announced we will probably get a couple more games there in the form of a direct as per usual.

I think it's possible still but trusted peeps are saying late 2024 so I'm just more inclined to believe them, I'm sure everyone would want it earlier but I don't think Nintendo are gonna struggle if it doesn't come out till September or October or something.
 
D36 said:
Thoughts?

Click to expand...

He's broadly right that LCD tech advanced and the panels today will look better. But OLED is OLED.
This is not his area of expertise, so not really worth discussing. That said people throwing a fit over not having OLED screen are being a little unreasonable given what the market is doing and cost constraints. You have people looking over Project Q, Deck and all the portable PCs with an LCD and immediately going for the argument about why in 2023 Switch is launching without an OLED and phones have them etc. etc.

There probably will be another Switch with an OLED screen, but it likely won't be a cost constrained launch unit of the Switch 2.
 
Pokemaniac said:
It's not immediately clear from Switchbrew what CPU resources are granted to the web applets, but what is clear is that many games (mostly ones that do network communication) don't fully suspend right away when put into the background, and eat into that allocation.
Click to expand...
If a game is not loaded, then the eShop web app has access to the 3 CPU "game" cores. But, if a game is loaded, then those cores are off-limits, and the web app gets stuck with whatever is left of the OS CPU core, pushing that to 99%, and things get real slow.
 
D36 said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Doctre is a smart guy, but the LCD technology hasn't advanced significantly since 2017. That said, the rumored LCD specs are nice. I'd probably prefer the OLED myself, but it's a little apples to oranges - the OLED"s incredible color contrast (and higher quality generally, with no screen lottery), vs the LCD's higher res and pixel density.

If Nintendo supports HDR (likely) and high frame rates (maybe) then specific games might be able to take additional advantage of the LCD screen beyond what the OLED can do. And that's the real killer here - I think the OLED is better on a pixel per pixel basis - but if a 1080p screen + more horsepower can eliminate the FSR flicker of distant objects in Tears of the Kingdom, I'll play on the OLED. But if the software doesn't take that advantage, I'll play on my OLED.

And if I do play on the LCD I'll be thinking... man, would look even better on an OLED screen...
 
0
ReyVGM said:
I always forget you can literally ignore the Switch's eshop and just use store.nintendo.com to buy games.
Click to expand...
The problem for me is that the switch is very bare bones in terms of personality, it's meant to be picked up and played which is fine I understand that decision. with that being said it should be a smooth get up and go experience to buy the games as well. I shouldn't need to use the web browser on a separate device to have an ok experience
 
0
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
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