• 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| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

Reader mode
Mirev said:
For graphics, UE is just incredible and Pikmin 4 looks phenomenal.

If they can do everything with UE, why not?
Click to expand...
The game looks great because the devs made a good job.
You will see great games and duds on every engine.

Epic is doing some tech edge stuff, such as Lumen and Nanite, but these are mostly targeted at high-end machines.
I do agree the invest a lot in R&D, but so does Nintendo.
Technically, there's nothing Nintendo cannot replicate internally, and they probably will in some form but optimized for their use-cases.

The strength of Unreal is mostly its ecosystem; SDK, editors, tooling, tutorials and a large marketplace.
This and its many abstractions make it easier to learn than private engines, which are usually closer to the metal and have little documentation.
That's probably why Nintendo uses it when partnering with external studios, it's easier to get it up and running and easier to hire and train employees.

I'm not sure what Epic's licensing model is right now, but I think it's probably around 20-30% of the revenue for games that sell well.
(I believe there's a top limit after which you don't pay Epic anymore. I believe The Witcher 3 hit it at 50M copies, but I'm not sure).
In Nintendo's case, with how many copies they're selling, they would probably have to pay Epic hundreds of millions annually, if not more, enough to fund multiple internal engines.

In Nintendo's case, not only do they save money developing their own engine, they can optimize it a lot better for what they need.
And the engine team is or will be in the same buildings as the EPD teams, in direct contact and giving direct support.
Epic, with the language barrier from an opposite timezone, could never support Nintendo on the same level.

The following video is great high-level introduction into how BotW in rendered.
They're doing very custom stuff that I believe would be more difficult to replicate in other engines.
I'm not even sure Unreal could run a game like BotW on three A57 CPUs, or have that level of customization in its shaders.
This clearly shows that Nintendo has some great rendering experts that go very low-level.
They would probably completely override Unreal's rendering stack if they were to use it, negating its very purpose.

 
Cybergatuno said:
I'm not sure what Epic's licensing model is right now, but I think it's probably around 20-30% of the revenue for games that sell well.
(I believe there's a top limit after which you don't pay Epic anymore. I believe The Witcher 3 hit it at 50M copies, but I'm not sure).
In Nintendo's case, with how many copies they're selling, they would probably have to pay Epic hundreds of millions annually, if not more, enough to fund multiple internal engines.
Click to expand...
for "large" companies, they don't pay per game. they pay a lump sum up front. Nintendo would be doing the same

Cybergatuno said:
They would probably completely override Unreal's rendering stack if they were to use it, negating its very purpose.
Click to expand...
not necessary since UE is extremely flexible. recreating BotW/TotK isn't difficult for the UE renderer. the only reason Nintendo would use a different renderer is either because of pride, them wanting to do something extremely specific, or they can make a more efficient renderer

Lelouch0612 said:
In relation to the Epic/UE talked, @necrolipe teased a developper abandoning its custom engine in favor of Unreal
Click to expand...

wonder who this time. I'd image it's a fairly large dev

what if it's crytek 👀
 
Last edited:
Did we ever speak about the Sony feature thing Special Nick mentioned? Saw some people talking about Sim cards and thought that was quite interesting.
 
Cheesehead302 said:
I'm sure this is a controversial opinion here, but my wants and desires for Zelda artstyle has kinda changed. Don't get me wrong, I love the way Botw looks, really good blend of cell shading and a more grounded style. But I feel like this style has been developing since Skyward Sword, I know SS isn't exactly the same but it is pretty similar. Anyway, I think that because by the time the next game comes out, it will have probably been upwards of 15 years of Zelda going for this similar style, I just want them to try something different. I like the novelty of Zelda games' art changing, it just keeps things exciting. I won't lie, with Tears of the Kingdom I was becoming tired of the style because it's been in my head space literally since 2015 or whenever they revealed Zelda Wii U, and I was especially tired of the world by the end (though that's a different conversation).

I used to be a person that was staunchly against the idea of the team going for more of a realistic style, but honestly, I've come around to that. I used to have the really dumb idea that "realistic style" means that there is no stylization at all. I've played games like Dark Souls, and while that's going on a 13 year old game or so, I still think its world aged really well. Just because there are a lot of dark colors and dirty textures, doesn't mean the art has no merit. The enemy designs and environmental designs are some of the best I've seen anywhere, I mean you've got a dank swamp, a lake of ash, a beautiful high class golden city, a spooky looking garden, cool castles. And to top that all off, the style really compliments the story and what's happening.

Now I'm not saying the next Zelda art style should rip off Dark Souls, but I am saying, that going for realism CAN work. Combine that with the idea that the next system should have pretty beefy hardware, and I would just love to see them try a rendition of that style again since it's been so long. I'd also like something a little different than the "ruined naturalistic ruins" type of thing, it's just been every where since Botw released.
Click to expand...
I don't think Zelda games are meant for realism I think twilight princess was on the edge and that's probably as much as they'll go, they might return to that style.
 
Terrell said:
OK, but that still does not answer the hypothetical. If you have such an excess of RAM that you can effectively use a giant piece of it as cache, does that not effectively (to use your analogy) remove cars from the highway altogether, by not forcing the GPU to recalculate certain repetitive tasks due to dumping them to make room in RAM for other in-bound calculations? And is that enough to make a single-channel RAM solution more effective? Because, again, the simplest way to improve traffic is taking cars off the road to begin with.
Click to expand...
The SoC needs to render a frame every 33ms or lower. Every data it requires to render that frame (objects, their position and surfaces, textures, light sources, etc) needs to reach it in time. Cache is really expensive, so there's only a few MBs available and thus you need a good transfer speed from the RAM to the APU or the later won't be able to do it's job in time.

I'm not much familiar with how much bandwidth you can save with caching results in RAM, but there's only so much you can do there. And 100~135 GB/s isn't that much to begin with.

Terrell said:
then why aren’t we talking about even more multi-channel RAM being the absolute ideal configuration?
Click to expand...
Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post, but the main benefit isn't the multichannel in itself. If the APU has 128-bit width, you're ideally using a total of 128-bit memory module(s). A 128-bit module has the same bandwidth as 2x 64-bit module. The main problem with using the one you linked alone is that it is 64-bit, not that it wouldn't have dual channel.
Terrell said:
The Orin chips that T239 is based on support up to a 256-bit bus width, so just use 3-4 RAM chips at lower GBs and make the thing scream with speed.
Click to expand...
That's what the PS5 is doing. It's filling the 256-bit bus with 8 modules of 32-bit 2GB GDDR6 for 448 GB/s total. This is more about what is available in the market though.

Terrell said:
The answer seems likely to me that the performance isn’t quite as simple as it being multiplied by the number of channels,
Click to expand...
It's not about the number of channels, just the sum of all modules bandwidth (and the cap of the chip).

Terrell said:
3x 6GB which, by this logic, should be an undeniably better solution to both by every possible measure.
Click to expand...
Drake has a 128-bit bus width. There's no point in using RAM beyond 128-bit, so a 3 modules config means 64-bit + 32-bit + 32-bit.

If Drake was 192-bit, like the Series S IIRC, then that would work. But a bigger bus also has impact on power consumption (and they using 128-bit is already a signal they don't think 64-bit had enough bandwidth) and more modules require more space in the motherboard (which is a premium for a tablet).

All in all, it's a balancing act. You don't want to starve the APU or lack in total RAM, but Nintendo/NVidia also have to worry about not going overkill and spend too much money/space/battery life on RAM instead of some other aspect in more need.
 
Last edited:
Kazuyamishima said:
I don't think Zelda games are meant for realism I think twilight princess was on the edge and that's probably as much as they'll go, they might return to that style.
Click to expand...
Well that's really what I mean. When I say realism, I don't actually mean "photorealistic," I mean it would be cool for them to try something like Twlight Princess or that Wii U tech demo again since it's been so long. Honestly, I'd be happy with just about anything as long as it's different from what we've been used to for the past decade or so. I really wanna see them go crazy with lighting in particular, the reflections and what not in that tech demo are just really cool to me. I'm just kinda excited that we seem to be finally getting a significant leap in hardware after so long being at basically Wii U level, and I want them to make the most out of it.
 
Cheesehead302 said:
Well that's really what I mean. When I say realism, I don't actually mean "photorealistic," I mean it would be cool for them to try something like Twlight Princess or that Wii U tech demo again since it's been so long. Honestly, I'd be happy with just about anything as long as it's different from what we've been used to for the past decade or so. I really wanna see them go crazy with lighting in particular, the reflections and what not in that tech demo are just really cool to me. I'm just kinda excited that we seem to be finally getting a significant leap in hardware after so long being at basically Wii U level, and I want them to make the most out of it.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's my bad for interpreting it wrong. I agree twilight princess although it aged fairly poorly is still the best Zelda art style in my opinion. if we got that Wii u demo with Ray tracing it would be such eye candy.

Edit: this isn't as beautiful as the Wii u demo was but it's still amazing
 
Building off the conversation about Pokemon and Unreal:

I've read arguments before that Pokemon has some unique quirks as a franchise (such as the sheer volume of Pokemon/moves) that make it not necessarily an easy game to make these days. I've also heard before that Unreal Engine is great at some things but not always great at others. For example, I believe Digital Foundry has said UE4 wasn't ideal for open-world games and that's something Epic has been trying to improve with UE5. I'm also aware of the speculation that one of Pokemon's problems is simply the tight schedules that the studios making it are on, which is leading to a lack of polish.

All of this is to say: Would a move to Unreal Engine 4/5 significantly benefit Game Freak's output on a Switch 2? Is their current engine the cause of their problems? I'm genuinely unsure, so I'm curious what people's perspectives are on this. (Though I recognize this maybe isn't the thread to discuss this topic further.)

---

On the topic of Unreal Engine/Nintendo in general, I expect something similar to what happened with Switch: Nintendo will prioritize Epic having access to their hardware so that Unreal Engine can be optimized for Switch 2 at launch or soon after. I assume Epic is/was one of the first external developers not working on a first-party game to get dev kits for the next Nintendo console. With Fortnite as popular as it is on Switch, I expect Nintendo and Epic have a very friendly relationship where both parties are motivated to make sure Epic has what they need to be successful on the successor platform. However, I'd be shocked if Nintendo moved the majority of their development to UE4/5. I forget what the fee is, but I can't imagine Nintendo wanting to give up that percentage on every game they sell unless their internal tech is causing problems, UE4/5 is somehow as close to being as performant as a custom internal engine as Nintendo would want, and maintaining the internal engine is costing them too much financially or with hiring.
 
Last edited:
kirbyfan407 said:
Building off the conversation about Pokemon and Unreal:

I've read arguments before that Pokemon has some unique quirks as a franchise (such as the sheer volume of Pokemon/moves) that make it not necessarily an easy game to make these days. I've also heard before that Unreal Engine is great at some things but not always great at others. For example, I believe Digital Foundry has said UE4 wasn't ideal for open-world games and that's something Epic has been trying to improve with UE5. I'm also aware of the speculation that one of Pokemon's problems is simply the tight schedules that the studios making it are on, which is leading to a lack of polish.

All of this is to say: Would a move to Unreal Engine 4/5 significantly benefit Game Freak's output on a Switch 2? Is their current engine the cause of their problems? I'm genuinely unsure, so I'm curious what people's perspectives are on this. (Though I recognize this maybe isn't the thread to discuss this topic further.)
Click to expand...
In theory, UE for Pokémon would help Game Freak a lot in the sense that recruiting people with a lot of experience with the engine would be way easier than getting them up to speed with their own engine. I'm sure there are a lot of people in Japan with a great understanding of UE who would love to work on that franchise. Would make the whole process much more seamless.

I think if they're "panicking" about the technical state of their game going forward (and I do think they're thinking about it, obviously the games sold well but the discourse around them at launch is probably something they'd want to avoid. Critical reception also went down significantly), poaching technically proficient devs is one part of the equation. Doing a big overhaul and moving everything to UE for the next generation could be a bet for the future. If they don't mind losing that 5%!
 
Last edited:
Sol said:
Nate mentioned that BC has become an industry standard, and I believe that it should absolutely be the standard. I also agree that the Switch 2 will be fully BC.

But what are the chances Microsoft and Sony keep BC with the next-gen consoles in ~2028?

It doesn't make sense to cut people off and start over with the PS6 or next-gen Xbox. The architecture won't be changing, and we're long past seeing major graphical upgrades like we saw from PS1 --> PS2 or N64 --> Gamecube. Everything is much more iterative and gradual. It seems like a safe bet that Microsoft will allow people to play all their current Xbox games on all future Xbox consoles, much like PC.

But do we really expect Sony to do the same with the PS6?

I think before we can qualify BC as an "industry standard", we need to see what Sony does with the PS6 and what Nintendo does with whatever comes after the Switch 2. It's one thing to offer BC on the next system, but offering multi-generational BC over more than two generations? That remains to be seen.

I can play Steam games from 2010 or prior on my new PC. The next Xbox in 2028 will allow people to play all their Series X|S, Xbox One, and 360 games. But whether Sony and Nintendo continue to offer BC in the long term is a much more difficult question. The thing is, the longer they offer BC, the more difficult it becomes to cut everyone off. Does Sony force people to start their libraries over with the PS6 with people owning 13 years worth of PS4/PS5 titles? Will Nintendo cut people off with the Switch 3 in 2031 after their customers have spend 14 years building their Switch 1 and 2 gaming libraries?
Click to expand...
Only thing I'm certain about is that MS console library is 100% forward compatible. Less certain that Sony and Nintendo will feature more than one generation of BC.
 
Cybergatuno said:
The game looks great because the devs made a good job.
You will see great games and duds on every engine.

Epic is doing some tech edge stuff, such as Lumen and Nanite, but these are mostly targeted at high-end machines.
I do agree the invest a lot in R&D, but so does Nintendo.
Technically, there's nothing Nintendo cannot replicate internally, and they probably will in some form but optimized for their use-cases.

The strength of Unreal is mostly its ecosystem; SDK, editors, tooling, tutorials and a large marketplace.
This and its many abstractions make it easier to learn than private engines, which are usually closer to the metal and have little documentation.
That's probably why Nintendo uses it when partnering with external studios, it's easier to get it up and running and easier to hire and train employees.

I'm not sure what Epic's licensing model is right now, but I think it's probably around 20-30% of the revenue for games that sell well.
(I believe there's a top limit after which you don't pay Epic anymore. I believe The Witcher 3 hit it at 50M copies, but I'm not sure).
In Nintendo's case, with how many copies they're selling, they would probably have to pay Epic hundreds of millions annually, if not more, enough to fund multiple internal engines.

In Nintendo's case, not only do they save money developing their own engine, they can optimize it a lot better for what they need.
And the engine team is or will be in the same buildings as the EPD teams, in direct contact and giving direct support.
Epic, with the language barrier from an opposite timezone, could never support Nintendo on the same level.

The following video is great high-level introduction into how BotW in rendered.
They're doing very custom stuff that I believe would be more difficult to replicate in other engines.
I'm not even sure Unreal could run a game like BotW on three A57 CPUs, or have that level of customization in its shaders.
This clearly shows that Nintendo has some great rendering experts that go very low-level.
They would probably completely override Unreal's rendering stack if they were to use it, negating its very purpose.

Click to expand...

Nice, I didn't know this! Thanks
 
0
The only developer that Zippo mentioned that I could see having an incentive to switch to a third-party game engine is Game Freak, and that's purely because (as previously stated) they could benefit by hiring people with a lot of experience with UE already, so they wouldn't have to waste time teaching them how to use their internal engine, which could in turn ease the production cycle of Pokémon titles. Everyone else I can only see ditching their internal engines on a game-by-game basis, where a given game is being developed with an outside studio; and even then, that doesn't necessarily mean using UE5. It could very well mean using some other engine or that studio's in-house engine instead.

But yes, two out of the dozens of first-party games released over the Switch's lifespan using UE4 means Nintendo and their partner studios are going all in and ditching their in-house engines in favor of Unreal, absolutely.
 
Adulfzen said:
pretty likely most games will see a boost in performance and resolution if their original versions had unstable framerate and dynamic resolution. So it should be the case for Link's Awakening.
As far as I'm aware it'd be more of a pain in the ass for Nintendo to prevent those performance improvements rather than letting games take advantage of the new hardware natively.
Click to expand...
Unless they lock backwards compatibility to the original Switch clocks when it runs Switch games... meaning no dynamic resolution maxes or improved framerates. That would be a very Nintendo thing to do lol.
 
Cybergatuno said:
The game looks great because the devs made a good job.
You will see great games and duds on every engine.

Epic is doing some tech edge stuff, such as Lumen and Nanite, but these are mostly targeted at high-end machines.
I do agree the invest a lot in R&D, but so does Nintendo.
Technically, there's nothing Nintendo cannot replicate internally, and they probably will in some form but optimized for their use-cases.

The strength of Unreal is mostly its ecosystem; SDK, editors, tooling, tutorials and a large marketplace.
This and its many abstractions make it easier to learn than private engines, which are usually closer to the metal and have little documentation.
That's probably why Nintendo uses it when partnering with external studios, it's easier to get it up and running and easier to hire and train employees.

I'm not sure what Epic's licensing model is right now, but I think it's probably around 20-30% of the revenue for games that sell well.
(I believe there's a top limit after which you don't pay Epic anymore. I believe The Witcher 3 hit it at 50M copies, but I'm not sure).
In Nintendo's case, with how many copies they're selling, they would probably have to pay Epic hundreds of millions annually, if not more, enough to fund multiple internal engines.

In Nintendo's case, not only do they save money developing their own engine, they can optimize it a lot better for what they need.
And the engine team is or will be in the same buildings as the EPD teams, in direct contact and giving direct support.
Epic, with the language barrier from an opposite timezone, could never support Nintendo on the same level.

The following video is great high-level introduction into how BotW in rendered.
They're doing very custom stuff that I believe would be more difficult to replicate in other engines.
I'm not even sure Unreal could run a game like BotW on three A57 CPUs, or have that level of customization in its shaders.
This clearly shows that Nintendo has some great rendering experts that go very low-level.
They would probably completely override Unreal's rendering stack if they were to use it, negating its very purpose.

Click to expand...

Come on now. UE4 has incredible material properties, great PBR, amazing lighting and character models creators. It speaks volumes that they went with UE4 instead of the Pikmin 3 engine which was already ported over to Switch. Nintendo are of course unbelievable artists and you're right to say "it's not just because of UE4" but let's give credit where credit is due to the hard working developers at Epic.

What Nintendo will create when combing Drake with Nanite, Lumen, TXAA, hardware RT and DLSS will be truly stunning and I think Nintendo's AAA studios will hold their own visually against the Ratchet PS5 game and that's saying something considering PS5 will still be 5x in CPU power, 3x in GPU power, have a much, much faster SSD and have more and much faster ram. Luigi's Mansion 4 will be the first game that makes jaws drop imo.
 
iag said:
Forget NS2, let’s speculate NS3.

videocardz.com

NVIDIA next-gen GeForce RTX 50 "GB20X" GPU lineup to feature GB205 GPU, but no X04 part - VideoCardz.com

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 50 to feature GB20X GPUs As per information shared by the Chiphell leaker known as “panzerlied,” it appears that NVIDIA is not currently planning a ‘successor’ to its AD104 GPU. The leaker claims that NVIDIA next-gen GPU lineup would simply lack the X04 part, but instead there...
videocardz.com videocardz.com
Click to expand...
Assuming NS2 does come out in 2024, and has at least a six year lifespan, and that Nintendo continues to partner with Nvidia, then I’d speculate that NS3 will be based on the GPU tech used in the RTX60, because the Tegra SoC for that generation is likely out in 2029 (based on Nvidia’s launch cadence)
 
Having an own engine allows you to take full advantage of the hardware and let you modify it to your liking, the problem comes when the Seniors leave the company and leaves you shivering (I don't know how the job rotations are at Nintendo, maybe they are quite minor). That is why many Western companies are switching to the UE, these last few years they have had a difficult time hiring people.

There are other problems with own engines that are many years old, such as Bethesda and its facial animations...
 
kirbyfan407 said:
Building off the conversation about Pokemon and Unreal:

I've read arguments before that Pokemon has some unique quirks as a franchise (such as the sheer volume of Pokemon/moves) that make it not necessarily an easy game to make these days. I've also heard before that Unreal Engine is great at some things but not always great at others. For example, I believe Digital Foundry has said UE4 wasn't ideal for open-world games and that's something Epic has been trying to improve with UE5. I'm also aware of the speculation that one of Pokemon's problems is simply the tight schedules that the studios making it are on, which is leading to a lack of polish.

All of this is to say: Would a move to Unreal Engine 4/5 significantly benefit Game Freak's output on a Switch 2? Is their current engine the cause of their problems? I'm genuinely unsure, so I'm curious what people's perspectives are on this. (Though I recognize this maybe isn't the thread to discuss this topic further.)

---

On the topic of Unreal Engine/Nintendo in general, I expect something similar to what happened with Switch: Nintendo will prioritize Epic having access to their hardware so that Unreal Engine can be optimized for Switch 2 at launch or soon after. I assume Epic is/was one of the first external developers not working on a first-party game to get dev kits for the next Nintendo console. With Fortnite as popular as it is on Switch, I expect Nintendo and Epic have a very friendly relationship where both parties are motivated to make sure Epic has what they need to be successful on the successor platform. However, I'd be shocked if Nintendo moved the majority of their development to UE4/5. I forget what the fee is, but I can't imagine Nintendo wanting to give up that percentage on every game they sell unless their internal tech is causing problems, UE4/5 is somehow as close to a custom internal engine as Nintendo would want, and maintaining the internal engine is costing them too much financially or with hiring.
Click to expand...
While Game Freak is not known for their technical prowess, there's a lot of reasons to think the primary issue is scheduling, with the tech issues being somewhat downstream from that.

EDIT: Also, while the final shipped game doesn't use it, we know that Unity is used for some portion of development for the most recent iteration of the engine based on licenses. Most likely they have some authoring tool that uses Unity.
 
Samuspet said:
Unless they lock backwards compatibility to the original Switch clocks when it runs Switch games... meaning no dynamic resolution maxes or improved framerates. That would be a very Nintendo thing to do lol.
Click to expand...
You'd still get all of those things. The Wii U was literally 3 Wii cpus fused together. It's BC mode was turning thr Wii U into an oversized Wii. That's not possible on Drake
 
Not gonna lie, I'm not huge on the industry's embracing of Unreal Engine 4 and 5. I get the advantages, but there are also severe disadvantages. You can almost always spot an Unreal Engine-created game, and that's my main issue; it makes games look generic I think. And from a technical standpoint, developers are working on high level as opposed to low level (meaning: they're quite distant to get everything out of a specific piece of hardware).
 
Rhythm Shift said:
You can almost always spot an Unreal Engine-created game, and that's my main issue; it makes games look generic I think.
Click to expand...
In an age physically based materials this has less to do with engine choice and more to do with art directions. Besides, this trend (which I don't think even exists all that much anymore) is also facilitated by there not being another engine capable of pushing such high fidelity. You don't see Unity pushing such art directions, but for those that did, end up looking "like an unreal engine game" because of the materials rendering
 
ILikeFeet said:
In an age physically based materials this has less to do with engine choice and more to do with art directions. Besides, this trend (which I don't think even exists all that much anymore) is also facilitated by there not being another engine capable of pushing such high fidelity. You don't see Unity pushing such art directions, but for those that did, end up looking "like an unreal engine game" because of the materials rendering
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you're right here. (y)
 
0
Samuspet said:
Unless they lock backwards compatibility to the original Switch clocks when it runs Switch games... meaning no dynamic resolution maxes or improved framerates. That would be a very Nintendo thing to do lol.
Click to expand...
Like Ilikefeet alluded to, even 4 a78 cores at 1ghz blows a57 out of the water, and even if they somehow disable 10 sm in compatibllity mode and give them switch clocks they would probably perform better. BC mode would have amazing battery life if they went this route though.
 
Quailman said:
I don't want to sound rude but...

A broken clock is right twice a day. They could be right but that doesn't make them a credible source when they have been wrong numerous times.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of the broken clock principle.

Concluding that a handful of games from Nintendo running the engine must mean a full blown partnership with Epic on a game console is quite a stretch.
 
Ojoloco said:


Hey guys, looks like the Pokemon Rumor was right about the new testral mechanic
Click to expand...

Shortly after Pokémon SV was announced, a Twitter account (now defunct) released a ton of details about the game, I was viewing most of the leaked content from that account. And after the game's release, most of the leaks proved to be accurate, but the one of the things that didn't work out was that some Pokémon have "special Terastal", and now we see this "special Terastal" in the DLC.

I'm mentioning this at length because I'd like to point out that the leak of the Pokémon DLC may have happened much earlier (DLC was most likely determined during the main game development phase), so this "DLC developer" may have less credibility than we thought by leaking DLC content to justify the new Switch program.
 
lieeiusex said:
Shortly after Pokémon SV was announced, a Twitter account (now defunct) released a ton of details about the game, I was viewing most of the leaked content from that account. And after the game's release, most of the leaks proved to be accurate, but the one of the things that didn't work out was that some Pokémon have "special Terastal", and now we see this "special Terastal" in the DLC.

I'm mentioning this at length because I'd like to point out that the leak of the Pokémon DLC may have happened much earlier (DLC was most likely determined during the main game development phase), so this "DLC developer" may have less credibility than we thought by leaking DLC content to justify the new Switch program.
Click to expand...
Anyway, the leak I'm talking about included things that hadn't been mentioned before.

Totally respectable to doubt any leak, but this new detail supports the alleged leak, so it is curious.
 
Hermii said:
Like Ilikefeet alluded to, even 4 a78 cores at 1ghz blows a57 out of the water, and even if they somehow disable 10 sm in compatibllity mode and give them switch clocks they would probably perform better. BC mode would have amazing battery life if they went this route though.
Click to expand...
Due to the difference between Ampere and Maxwell, 2 sm is not enough. I think need 4 sm.
 
0
Mirev said:
For graphics, UE is just incredible and Pikmin 4 looks phenomenal.

If they can do everything with UE, why not?
Click to expand...

Yes, why not have a five year gap in games output while everyone adopts a new engine
 
ILikeFeet said:
Yes. They don't have a proper name most of the time. Lunch pack and Lunch Pack 2, Module System names have been found through datamining
Click to expand...

Wasn't The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom built in the same engine as Nintendo Switch Sports or something like that? My guess is that the engine is kinda comparable to Nightdive Studios' KEX Engine, in that it functions more as a framework, or am I in the wrong here?
 
lemonfresh said:
What engine does nintendo use in most of their games anyway? Is it a in house engine?
Click to expand...
Not exactly Nintendo but Monolith Soft have been using and developing for the same engine for all the xenoblade games that was first created for Xenoblade X on the Wii U. And they've consistently updated the engine to have more modern rendering techniques, like the material rendering between Xenoblade X to Xenoblade 2 (and the future games) went from using specular maps and colour maps in X, to using albedo, metalness, and rougness maps starting 2. Wonder if they'll be able to upgrade the engine to use ray tracing with Drake. Nintendo is definitely most comfortable with in-house engines and I wonder if they'll continue to use the ones they have used for their Switch games and upgrade it for Drake, or if they'll create a brand new engine sometime specifically for next gen games.
 
Rhythm Shift said:
Wasn't The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom built in the same engine as Nintendo Switch Sports or something like that? My guess is that the engine is kinda comparable to Nightdive Studios' KEX Engine, in that it functions more as a framework, or am I in the wrong here?
Click to expand...
For the first part, yes. Nintendo seems to be transitioning to using one set of in-house tools for EPD.
 
RennanNT said:
I'm not much familiar with how much bandwidth you can save with caching results in RAM, but there's only so much you can do there. And 100~135 GB/s isn't that much to begin with.
Click to expand...
The amount needed depends on the type and the target resolution. Since it is a device targeting 720-1080p internally(?), I guess if you want a good saving or reduction of Bandwidth requirements an 8-16MB SLC can work…?


But as you noted, this is expensive and incurs a high amount of space


Edit: man why did he do this, “x.com” was not needed 🫠
RennanNT said:
was 192-bit, like the Series S
Click to expand...
It is also 128-bit
 
lemonfresh said:
What engine does nintendo use in most of their games anyway? Is it a in house engine?
Click to expand...
So far :

First party Studios :
  • Nintendo EPD : Custom engine(s) with possible variations/branches depending on the team using it (it was assumed through datamining that TOTK was moved to another engine in line with the rest of EPD and EPD Tokyo might be also be ditching their own engine for one that the rest of EPD uses). They also used Unity to develop and release some internal mobile games like Super Mario Run and Mario Kart Tour . They have also used the Bezel engine for smaller projects. Finally unreal 4 was used for Pikmin 4 but seemingly with Eighting as the main co-development team (despite their credits being special thanks)
  • Monolith Soft : Custom engine(s)
  • Retro : Custom engine(s)
  • Next Level Games : Custom engine(s)
Third party Studios Partners :
  • NDCube : Nintendo Bezel Engine since Super Mario Party.
  • Camelot : Custom Engine(s) for their sport games seemingly.
  • GoodFeel : Custom engine up to Yoshi Wooly World and starting with Yoshi Crafted World they started using unreal 4.
  • Indieszero : Bezel Engine for Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training for Nintendo Switch and Big Brain Academy: Brain vs. Brain (in collaboration with Nintendo EPD)
  • Hal Laboratory : own custom engine and Cocos2d-x : part time UFO is on Cocos2d-x but then was ported to Switch using Unity as far as I'm aware. They also used unity during the development of Kirby Forgotten Land)
  • Intelligent System : one or multiple custom engines (previous Fire Emblem games and Paper Mario) but also Unity that was used for Fire Emblem Engage and Cocos2d-x for Fire Emblem Heroes. They also used Bezel for WarioWare Get It Together (and possibly the upcoming new WarioWare game)
  • MercurySteam : for both Metroid Samus Returns and Metroid Dread they use a custom engine : Mercury Engine
  • Grezzo : Custom engine(s) for games like Link's Awakening and Miitopia on Switch and seemingly also for Jet Dragon.
  • Koei Tecmo : they use their custom engines for their Musou games collaborations and Fire Emblem Three Houses.
  • GameFreak : Custom engine for their mainline Pokemon games and Unity for some of their third party outings like Tembo, Giga Wrecker and Little Town Hero
  • Velan Studios : for Mario Kart Live Circuit they seemingly used a custom engine called Viper (which was used also for Knockout City)
  • PlatinumGames : Custom engine(s) for Bayonetta 2, 3 and Astral Chain.
Probably missing some devs here and there?
 
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