• 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
robertman2 said:
The iPhone stuff reeks of something that dies off real quick, like every attempt to do console games on mobile.

Normies don't want to buy games on mobile!
Click to expand...
I mean, the mobile market is larger than the console market these days. What is normal?

Regarding the new iPhone games it’s possible that they will be cross-buy with the Mac App Store. The stack is basically the same on Apple silicon for games.

I don’t expect Apple to go directly against consoles, but there have been rumors that Apple executives were earnestly confused* as to why gamers didn’t want to use Macs.

*Source John Gruber who said an unnamed Apple executive asked him why John’s son didn’t want a Mac and was surprised when the answer was “games”.
 
karmitt said:
And the Wii U sold 13 million in its life - what’s your point? Sentiments and fortunes can change at any moment. I already said before that it’s not about where these companies are now, it’s where they could be in the future. Steam Deck is already doing exceptionally well for itself, and the story around Windows handhelds is only improving.

“They are just stuck with hardcore enthusiasts” is exactly what Nintendo shouldn’t be saying. It’s not much of a leap in my mind for the Steam Deck one or two generations down the line to be a bit of a juggernaut in the gaming space.
Click to expand...
I don't expect the supply to be there. As long as AMD is the vendor, chips for a Steam Deck would have to fight for manufacturing priority against CCDs (Core Complex Dies; the chiplets with CPU cores on them for server and desktop segments) and the other laptop dies.
...technically the compute dies for GPUs also would be competition, but uh, the consumer GPUs would be at the bottom. I dunno about the datacenter GPUs :unsure:

And because of how valuable the server segment is combined with how well AMD is doing there now, CCDs have very high priority. And the greater laptop market is a tough 2nd to fight against.
 
i don't need to state the obvious.

they can all have the greatest games and greatest graphics, but Nintendo have Nintendo games, they will always be ok for that.
 
These Iphone releases does not affect Nintendo in any way IMO. Nintendo first party can carry its weight around. Sony should be more concerned IMO. Not only are these third parties the lifeblood of playstation, but they more or less have the same market.
 
eye0h said:
Seeing RE4 on a phone is pretty cool tbh
Click to expand...
1305721929.jpg

Indeed.
 
karmitt said:
Just commenting on the bolded - there’s a reason why we’re seeing interest in the Ally and Deck despite the existence of Gaming Laptops - form factor, and capability in that form.

Anecdotally I know 3-4 people either considering or having bought one of these devices, who never once purchased a gaming Laptop. One has converted entirely from Switch to Ally due to convenience of having his Steam library (and Steam prices) along with GamePass. These products are only going to become more and more accessible, and the competition is going to ensure that some stellar products will rise to the top.

You might find Switch more appealing, but that’s hardly universal.
Click to expand...
I'll comment as someone who bought a ROG Ally about a week and a half ago to play Starfield on the train to work.

Pros:
  • It lets me play Starfield on the train to work.
  • It has the flexibility and openness of a Windows device.
Cons:
  • It has all the annoyances of a Windows device.
  • Like, seriously, even though I do own a gaming PC, I'd forgotten how much time you need to spend getting everything set up and fiddling around with settings and whatever to get it working well, compared to a console's plug-in-and-play simplicity.
  • Lack of tailored experiences. It's a PC that plays PC games that haven't necessarily been adapted to the device, and doesn't necessarily have control schemes or display settings adjusted to the form factor. That hit home when I installed Mass Effect 3 to test it out while waiting for Starfield, but had forgotten that Mass Effect 3 doesn't have controller support. I couldn't be bothered fiddling around with settings to create a customised controller-mimicking-mouse-and-keyboard control scheme, so that was the end of that (at least until I finish Starfield).
  • Battery life is... not great. I'm estimating about 2 hours or just over for Starfield on low settings using a 20W profile - which is actually better than I expected and gets me through my commute both ways. It's still a lot less than my Switch OLED.
  • Lack of an easy, seamless sleep option to pick it up and put it down to play in short spurts while on the go, without booting and loading times and Steam complaining that it's not connected to the internet and so on. (Maybe there's some hibernate option I can find if I fiddle around more, but that goes back to all the above points.)
  • A smaller market impacts on availability of devices and peripherals. I chose the ROG Ally over the Steam Deck in part because it's actually available at a mainsteam shop in Australia, whereas SteamDecks are only available as a grey-import (with headaches on warranties if anything goes wrong). I bought the one case available for it - and was lucky to be able to find that in stock instore at all. I don't expect to find a reasonably priced charging dock with an Australian AC adapter.
  • It's bigger and heavier than a Switch.
  • It needs a higher powered AC adapter than a Switch which has less cross-over with the chargers I have for my other USB-C devices.
  • It's, like, three times the price of a v2 Switch.
Note that I'm not unhappy with the ROG Ally. It's fantastic for letting me play a bunch of cool games that I can't play in the same way on a different device, and I'm stoked to be able to play Starfield during my commute. But there's a reason that a lot of people buy a console over a PC, and those reasons still hold true when it comes to buying a handheld console over a handheld PC.

My ROG Ally might be a great addition to my gaming devices, but it doesn't replace my Switch. And I'm the sort of person who posts on a forum like this - there are a whole lot of people who have a whole lot less tolerance for PC frustration than I do.
 
Oldpuck, I’d be curious to hear what you think of Nate’s March 2024 comment and the possibility of a March release. I know before the episode you had said you were leaning H1.

Very much understand if you’d rather not comment, though! Thanks for everything you bring to the thread, your comments are always a great read.

(I’ve been keeping up pretty thoroughly the last couple days but if you already remarked on this and I missed it, apologies.)
 
I want a handheld PC that can run my XCOM 2 mod list, but that shit isn't happening for years lmao

my desktop can barely handle it with shitting itself
 
snorkellingfish said:
I'll comment as someone who bought a ROG Ally about a week and a half ago to play Starfield on the train to work.

Pros:
  • It lets me play Starfield on the train to work.
  • It has the flexibility and openness of a Windows device.
Cons:
  • It has all the annoyances of a Windows device.
  • Like, seriously, even though I do own a gaming PC, I'd forgotten how much time you need to spend getting everything set up and fiddling around with settings and whatever to get it working well, compared to a console's plug-in-and-play simplicity.
  • Lack of tailored experiences. It's a PC that plays PC games that haven't necessarily been adapted to the device, and doesn't necessarily have control schemes or display settings adjusted to the form factor. That hit home when I installed Mass Effect 3 to test it out while waiting for Starfield, but had forgotten that Mass Effect 3 doesn't have controller support. I couldn't be bothered fiddling around with settings to create a customised controller-mimicking-mouse-and-keyboard control scheme, so that was the end of that (at least until I finish Starfield).
  • Battery life is... not great. I'm estimating about 2 hours or just over for Starfield on low settings using a 20W profile - which is actually better than I expected and gets me through my commute both ways. It's still a lot less than my Switch OLED.
  • Lack of an easy, seamless sleep option to pick it up and put it down to play in short spurts while on the go, without booting and loading times and Steam complaining that it's not connected to the internet and so on. (Maybe there's some hibernate option I can find if I fiddle around more, but that goes back to all the above points.)
  • A smaller market impacts on availability of devices and peripherals. I chose the ROG Ally over the Steam Deck in part because it's actually available at a mainsteam shop in Australia, whereas SteamDecks are only available as a grey-import (with headaches on warranties if anything goes wrong). I bought the one case available for it - and was lucky to be able to find that in stock instore at all. I don't expect to find a reasonably priced charging dock with an Australian AC adapter.
  • It's bigger and heavier than a Switch.
  • It needs a higher powered AC adapter than a Switch which has less cross-over with the chargers I have for my other USB-C devices.
  • It's, like, three times the price of a v2 Switch.
Note that I'm not unhappy with the ROG Ally. It's fantastic for letting me play a bunch of cool games that I can't play in the same way on a different device, and I'm stoked to be able to play Starfield during my commute. But there's a reason that a lot of people buy a console over a PC, and those reasons still hold true when it comes to buying a handheld console over a handheld PC.

My ROG Ally might be a great addition to my gaming devices, but it doesn't replace my Switch. And I'm the sort of person who posts on a forum like this - there are a whole lot of people who have a whole lot less tolerance for PC frustration than I do.
Click to expand...
Damn, all that AND you have to play starfield?
 
I wonder if we will finally see Wind waker and twilight princess this direct or if it will be saved for the next console and have something like RTX
 
0
Raccoon said:
...wait, do you all not want consoles to die?
Click to expand...
no. I like quick n easy plug n play. Even on a phone, you get the option to twiddle with settings like on PC for a game like Genshin Impact.


which is why I don’t find the phone gaming to be that appealing.
 
FireGrey said:
A 20% performance boost over last year for their Pro phones isn't that significant
Click to expand...
Just an aside but assuming they are comparing to the A16 Bionic (they don’t say), a soc with a 5 core GPU to the A17 Bionic a 6 Core GPU, in which it has 20% more GPU aligning up with their claims of 20% improvement to their GPU performance, that’s not great.

Either it’s a coincidence, or the changes that helped were really small for their architecture and the 20% boost comes from literally having 20% more GPU in the Chip.

It has these features like HWRT, and Mesh shaders (which seems to not actually be new but it is advertised as new…?), but I’m not sure if the 20% claim is as significant as people think when you start parsing and comparing the two Chips themselves, and add that marketing does have an effect here.

So I’d take those claims from Apple with a grain of salt for now, especially when they don’t claim more than just 20% for a soc that has 20% more GPU. As in, it doesn’t seem like architecture is really helping in this case, just throwing more at it.

If it was say, 30-35%, where 20% is from having a bigger GPU and the remaining does come from having an architecture that helps it be better in performance then it would be different.


Oh and the 20% more came from the GPU section, not the CPU. So Arm has nothing to do with this.


(I repeated myself multiple times here to make a point)
 
I think it’s pretty clear by the last 6 or so pages that the Apple marketing worked really well.

GG Tim Apple, it worked.
 
OuiOui said:
Was the rumour about FFVII Remake coming to next-gen switch true?
Click to expand...

Nothing has been confirmed.

But...

SquareEnix very publicly said that they wanted to bring Final Fantasy 15 to Switch but they just couldn't make the game work properly.

I see no reason why they wouldn't want to do the same with FF7R and the Switch 2, especially if it can handle it.
 
ExoticSpice said:
They also announced RE4 and Mirage.

A17 Pro the Metal FX runs on the NPU, not the GPU like the M1/M2. It should be greatly impoved on the A17 Pro and later the M3.


All that said, the Nintendo Platform is gaming first and one I go mainly because of IP. For Apple its a side hustle. The ray tracing will be nice for the next gen vision pro and Mac producs like Belnder and whatnot.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. I don’t believe many users will play demanding games like that on a phone, but the exciting part is seeing features like this on a phone and that Apple’s new GPU is that it will carry over to their bigger devices such as iPads and Macs in the near future. That will be interesting to see, but it unlikely to threaten Nintendo in a meaningful way anytime soon.
 
ReddDreadtheLead said:
Just an aside but assuming they are comparing to the A16 Bionic (they don’t say), a soc with a 5 core GPU to the A17 Bionic a 6 Core GPU, in which it has 20% more GPU aligning up with their claims of 20% improvement to their GPU performance, that’s not great.

Either it’s a coincidence, or the changes that helped were really small for their architecture and the 20% boost comes from literally having 20% more GPU in the Chip.

It has these features like HWRT, and Mesh shaders (which seems to not actually be new but it is advertised as new…?), but I’m not sure if the 20% claim is as significant as people think when you start parsing and comparing the two Chips themselves, and add that marketing does have an effect here.

So I’d take those claims from Apple with a grain of salt for now, especially when they don’t claim more than just 20% for a soc that has 20% more GPU. As in, it doesn’t seem like architecture is really helping in this case, just throwing more at it.

If it was say, 30-35%, where 20% is from having a bigger GPU and the remaining does come from having an architecture that helps it be better in performance then it would be different.


Oh and the 20% more came from the GPU section, not the CPU. So Arm has nothing to do with this.


(I repeated myself multiple times here to make a point)
Click to expand...
Sounds like their change was just for power efficiency and hwrt - which "a 4x improvement" isn't bad, but would really need to wait for people to test it to see, because you'd think that if they had a major power efficiency improvement they'd advertise XX% improvement or X hours more battery life while gaming.

I also wonder if their HWRT solution is more similar to AMD's or NVIDIA's, 30fps in their demo didn't seem great.

With this and the presumably REDACTED having mesh shaders, ray tracing and "directstorage" (DX12 name but don't know what else to call it) I hope that we see games universally use them now. When we do I think the nvidia approach of having dedicated silicon for features will really shine, and Nintendo will be the first to be onboard, the first time in a while they've been ahead of the trend.

Apple Silicon is essentially a "platform on a chip" and it's given them a massive edge over competitors, but their "platform" is mobile computing. With REDACTED we could see an equivalent "platform on a chip" but for gaming.
 
Last edited:
0
Adulfzen said:
I guess a potential timeline could be the following : late December teaser/trailer similar to how the Switch was revealed (oct 20th 2016) followed by a March conference/showcase where Nintendo gives a lot more details regarding the hardware and the software lineup (January 13th 2017).

Following this Nintendo would start distributing even more devkits to developers who weren't parts to behind the scenes meetings and then in May/June the console launches (March 3rd 2017) so Nintendo can somewhat build up more stocks after the initial wave of purchases.

Otherwise maybe it'll be trailer/teaser in march followed by a conference in may/june and then release in September ? (slightly less condensed).
Click to expand...

You shouldn’t compare this to Nintendo going from Wii U to Switch.

Wii U was essentially dead by 2016. 3ds sales were waning as well, and engagement declining.

Switch engagement has never been higher. Switch sales are still rivaling peak year sales for other consoles.

Nintendo is absolutely going to approach this different. I don’t care if you think this new hardware is a true successor or a Switch family of devices lifecycle extender…we should all agree they won’t treat this the same as the examples above.

They aren’t in the position they were with the Wii U and 3ds in 2016. They aren’t in the position Sony and Microsoft were with ps4/one in 2020

There is nothing motivating them to announce new hardware that far out. It only hurts the current Switch momentum. There is no motivation to need people to prepare that much lead time for this new model.

Nintendo only needs this to sell as much as the original hybrid model.
Or the OLED model.



oracion said:
@ILikeFeet @Thraktor
Why is TSMC 4N considered a strong candidate?
I think it was Samsung 8nm in data mining. The SoC needs to be redesigned, but is it possible?
The unit cost of TSMC 4N wafer is considerably higher than Samsung 8nm.
Sorry if my knowledge is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Well, the original Switch SoC went from 20nm to 16nm in 2 years.

So, even if the 8nm rumors in 2020/2021 were accurate, they absolutely could have switched to a smaller node by 2024

kvetcha said:
Why bother spending millions designing a new console if the market doesn’t exist? This is a weird take.
Click to expand...

2 main reasons;

1) Engagement. While I say there is a sizeable userbase that doesn’t care that much, there is also a segment that clearly does. And these gamers tend to be the ones who buy/play the most games every year.

The same reason Sony and MS made a more powerful upgrade, the idea is that you have to keep those who might drift off to more modern systems in your ecosystem by giving them a more premium hardware option. Many past Nintendo machines have shown them that the perception of extremely outdated hardware and performance can absolutely affect how much gamers engage with the system over time. Look at the Wii 2010-2012. The purpose of spending money on this new hardware is to ensure these gamers stay in the ecosystem and are satisfied for longer. Heck, I would argue that JUST the OLED screen upgrade in 2021 made me more engaged in switch gaming the last 2 years than I would have otherwise. Many others like me.

This new model will absolutely invigorate engagement in Switch game releases for the next 5-6 years.

And

2) Because DLSS is Nintendo’s future. So this piece of hardware allows them to start learning how to develop for that smart AI development now, in the midst of a strong brand and success.

Nintendo often has lamented that they waited too long to get into HD development. They probably should have come out with a Wii HD in 2010, but they waited and let the wii brand and engagement fizzle out to much. By the time they attempted to focus on HD development with the Wii U at the end of 2012, not only was it too late, but it affected their ability to release games in a timely manner. Both the output of the Wii U and 3ds suffered.

This would be addressing that problem. A new device in the Switch family to help keep and strengthen the current sky high engagement, while also allow them to dabble at leasure to develop towards Nvidia tensor/rt cores and DLSS. It’s a win/win.

Engagement and lengthening of a large userbase furthers future Nintendo software sales, and that’s all that matters.

You tell me Nintendo spent all this money and R&D to make cutting edge hardware to play Series S/ps5 type games…I’m telling you they invested in it to ensure the software they release in 2026 appeals to both the high end enthusiast gamer, as well as the indifferent consumer, low price conscious gamer who really doesn’t see the difference (like my wife and child).

They are doing this to maximize their active userbase, and this their revenue/profits.
 
Since the thread is getting rather OT by the Apple talk, this is my last post on this topic and I’ll drop it.

Apple is not serious about “console” quality gaming—never has been. They trotted out this dog and pony show with a few moneyhatted ports every so often to justify their annual update of iPhones and iPads with minuscule differentiations (this time it’s an “action button”, really?). Why would Apple bother with console gaming while the mobile gaming revenues dwarf any console makers’?

gaming-history-50-years-timeline-revenue-up2.jpg

eNuMKxy3s83mWchCzmjrBP-MSqzrj5Uhr7r5ioZjbm0.png


App Store and Play Store have been gaining gaming revenues hand over fist by doing nothing but collecting rents. This is landlordism at its best (or worst, if you’re equality-minded). Why would Apple want to get their hands dirty by developing 1st party titles, signing 3rd party exclusives, fighting in court to acquire developers, or dealing with any other nuisances that come with being a console maker while earning less money?

So no, Apple is not serious about console quality gaming. Any advancement in their gaming tech (e.g., hardware ray tracing) is incidental to their hardware battle with Samsung, Qualcomm, and MediaTek. The moneyhatting of token AAA ports is merely a marketing expense to entice tech enthusiasts to needlessly upgrade their devices (while feeling good about themselves), feed the fanboys new arsenal for endless online jawboning (yeah I see the irony), and provide the gadget press new materials to breathlessly disseminate.
 
Foltzie said:
I mean, the mobile market is larger than the console market these days. What is normal?

Regarding the new iPhone games it’s possible that they will be cross-buy with the Mac App Store. The stack is basically the same on Apple silicon for games.

I don’t expect Apple to go directly against consoles, but there have been rumors that Apple executives were earnestly confused* as to why gamers didn’t want to use Macs.

*Source John Gruber who said an unnamed Apple executive asked him why John’s son didn’t want a Mac and was surprised when the answer was “games”.
Click to expand...
And these kids are paid how much per year ? They decided way back when to associate their product with perfectly looking people sitting down at very expansive coffee shops with their beautiful/powerful but fragile-looking computers.
If they had shown normal people in normal situations (a small desk after you put the kids to bed at night with some laundry in the back) they would have touched a different kind of population. Not to mention all the time they spent trying to lock their ecosystems, with hardware specific to their computers which limits a lot of things.
Where is my million apple executives ?
Note: I m not an arrogant ass, just a sarcastic one ;)
 
0
catonkatonk said:
I'm always going to push back against this idea.

When you chop down a tree, walk twenty metres in one direction and then come back to find the log has disappeared, that's the Switch holding the game back.
When you build a vehicle that reaches 90 miles an hour and the game ejects Link from it, that's the Switch holding the game back.
When you engage in the near infinite possibilities of physics in shrines, but then enter a cave and do binary, scripted puzzles regarding the water level that are limited and do not feel "real" within the world? Switch. Holding the game back.
All the light puzzles involving straight, unbreakable, infinitely extending shafts of light? Well, you know...

Let me further ask this: Do you think, if they had the power, these devs wouldn't consider destructible terrain or collapsible structures, given the interaction possibilities with the mechanics they've already created? That they wouldn't want to write the physics large on the landscape, to allow you to destroy dams in the sky to create rivers and lakes in the ground a kilometre below? That they wouldn't create a weather system in which oncoming storms can be seen from a distance?
All of these things would impact gameplay. The limit placed on open world Zelda is absolutely technical.


And that is focusing just on a very narrow definition of gameplay. The Zelda team care about how things look, about the atmosphere the game has.
Imagine you go to the Depths and you throw a light seed and walk away to explore. And those little beetle things come out to eat the seed, and as they get closer to it, you see their skittery shadows projected across the entire landscape. That's not nothing. The interplay between light and shadow seems to be a major idea behind a major component of the game.
And frankly, I think the game not diving to like 15fps at times when you use Ultrahand would count as a gameplay improvement in itself. It feels bad. And this is coming from a Switch-only player who rarely cares about these things. I don't even have a 4K tv.
Click to expand...

I dunno man, I’m playing Starfield on my rtx 4090 and I just killed 10 guys at an abandoned medical facility…went to my ship 100m away to unload my encumbered weight of items…went back and all the dead enemies with their loot disappeared. Just weren’t there like those ToTK logs you are so concerned about.

I don’t think this is about hardware holding 2023 Nintendo games back form their scope or gameplay.

Certainly I don’t think what you described are the current goals of Nintendo gameplay design right now.

Look, if this game that you are describing that is being held back by Nintendo ever releases on this new hardware by 2029…you can tell me I told you so.

I’m betting you this exclusive Drake Nintendo game in your head that you are theorizing about still won’t exist.

It’s not the fun or the charm or the scope or the gameplay that is making gamers question Switch games. It’s absolutely ONLY the graphics and performance of the games.
 
Last edited:
I really don’t hope it’s a march reveal, that means it will be out before Black Friday.

Also it is going to be fun when Apple announces iPhone 16 Pro with second generation Ray Tracing while the 16 and 16 Plus get first generation Ray Tracing before Switch 2 comes out.
 
Mr Swine said:
I really don’t hope it’s a march reveal, that means it will be out before Black Friday.

Also it is going to be fun when Apple announces iPhone 16 Pro with second generation Ray Tracing while the 16 and 16 Plus get first generation Ray Tracing before Switch 2 comes out.
Click to expand...

Apple will be doing that every single year of Switch 2’s life so it’s not something that needs to be worried about.

Ultimately we should be excited for Switch 2 because we’ll be playing some brilliant looking Nintendo games. That won’t change regardless of how powerful another device is.
 
oldpuck said:
Here is a video comparing Starfield using "real" 4k on the left, AMD's temporal reconstruction (called FSR) in the middle, and DLSS on the right. I wouldn't even call it "good" - the DLSS version just plain looks better than native, to me. But that's not the real point, look at the frame rate graph at the middle. Notice how DLSS is nearly double the frame rate of native?
Click to expand...
DLSS blows FSR completely out of the water, it's kind of insane... FSR has so much ghosting.

I installed No Man's Sky on my laptop to check out the DLSS on a more cartoony, less high-frequency detail game - the kind of art style Nintendo often tends to use. Here's the crazy thing:

At 1440p, the difference between Ultra Performance and Quality is shockingly small. There's a hint of fizziness when moving and looking at rocks in the distance on the former, but nothing near what I'd call distracting - you mainly see it when you know what to look for. Considering the minuscule internal resolution it's running at, it's kinda nonsensical how good it looks. And that's probably DLSS 2.

(That said, this was running at ~100FPS, when there's a lot of temporal information for the algorithm to use, so I might want to try this at 30FPS as well...)
 
manfromthedam said:
DLSS blows FSR completely out of the water, it's kind of insane... FSR has so much ghosting.

I installed No Man's Sky on my laptop to check out the DLSS on a more cartoony, less high-frequency detail game - the kind of art style Nintendo often tends to use. Here's the crazy thing:

At 1440p, the difference between Ultra Performance and Quality is shockingly small. There's a hint of fizziness when moving and looking at rocks in the distance on the former, but nothing near what I'd call distracting - you mainly see it when you know what to look for. Considering the minuscule internal resolution it's running at, it's kinda nonsensical how good it looks. And that's probably DLSS 2.

(That said, this was running at ~100FPS, when there's a lot of temporal information for the algorithm to use, so I might want to try this at 30FPS as well...)
Click to expand...
DLSS 2 is the image upscaling 3 is the frame generation iirc so in terms of AI image upscaling 2.5 I think is what's it's on is the best you're going to get
 
Kazuyamishima said:
DLSS 2 is the image upscaling 3 is the frame generation iirc so in terms of AI image upscaling 2.5 I think is what's it's on is the best you're going to get
Click to expand...
We had this multiple times, the different features of DLSS become available with a specific version (and hardware-level for frame generation), but you can run DLSS 3 or 3.5 without frame generation even on first-gen RTX-GPUs from the Turing-series. DLSS was just upscaling in the beginning, but now contains DLAA, Frame Generation, Ray Reconstruction and more in its feature-suite.
 
D36 said:
It's gonna be a lllllooooooooooooonnnnnnggggg time before streaming can even hope to rival conventional gaming, let alone kill consoles. Stadia has shown us why this is the case.
Click to expand...
Yup. Streaming isn't destined to kill consoles, its just that certain game companies with a stake in cloud networking really really want it to happen.

There's a reason Apple is focusing on Arcade and even porting console games to mobile over cloud, and its because they know that investing in state of the art chips in their already extremely well selling phones is just going to be better than streaming to those phones, and its having those chips in their phones is probably the safer investment in the long run.

To be honest, in homes there are people that have the networking setup for reasonable streaming, and they're still buying consoles instead, because people want consoles, or PCs, over it.
 
0
Wake me up the moment Apple gets something like a mainline Pokemon game on their phones. That's the moment Nintendo should raise ... one ... eyebrow into a cautious position. ^^

ILikeFeet said:
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *
Click to expand...

Hidden content is only available for registered users. Sharing it outside of Famiboards is subject to moderation.
 
Stefan51278 said:
We had this multiple times, the different features of DLSS become available with a specific version (and hardware-level for frame generation), but you can run DLSS 3 or 3.5 without frame generation even on first-gen RTX-GPUs from the Turing-series. DLSS was just upscaling in the beginning, but now contains DLAA, Frame Generation, Ray Reconstruction and more in its feature-suite.
Click to expand...
Correct but I'm pretty sure 2.5 is the same thing as 3 when frame generation isn't on in terms of upscaling I don't think there was really any visible improvement or features added they just merged the two. I still don't get why Nvidia had to name it like this
 
Bonejack said:
Wake me up the moment Apple gets something like a mainline Pokemon game on their phones. That's the moment Nintendo should raise ... one ... eyebrow into a cautious position. ^^



* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *
Click to expand...
Hidden content is only available for registered users. Sharing it outside of Famiboards is subject to moderation.
 
fwd-bwd said:
Since the thread is getting rather OT by the Apple talk, this is my last post on this topic and I’ll drop it.

Apple is not serious about “console” quality gaming—never has been. They trotted out this dog and pony show with a few moneyhatted ports every so often to justify their annual update of iPhones and iPads with minuscule differentiations (this time it’s an “action button”, really?). Why would Apple bother with console gaming while the mobile gaming revenues dwarf any console makers’?

gaming-history-50-years-timeline-revenue-up2.jpg

eNuMKxy3s83mWchCzmjrBP-MSqzrj5Uhr7r5ioZjbm0.png


App Store and Play Store have been gaining gaming revenues hand over fist by doing nothing but collecting rents. This is landlordism at its best (or worst, if you’re equality-minded). Why would Apple want to get their hands dirty by developing 1st party titles, signing 3rd party exclusives, fighting in court to acquire developers, or dealing with any other nuisances that come with being a console maker while earning less money?

So no, Apple is not serious about console quality gaming. Any advancement in their gaming tech (e.g., hardware ray tracing) is incidental to their hardware battle with Samsung, Qualcomm, and MediaTek. The moneyhatting of token AAA ports is merely a marketing expense to entice tech enthusiasts to needlessly upgrade their devices (while feeling good about themselves), feed the fanboys new arsenal for endless online jawboning (yeah I see the irony), and provide the gadget press new materials to breathlessly disseminate.
Click to expand...
Apple doesn't need to get into the console wars, and it doesn't need exclusives.
They have already entered into a much bloodier war, which is that of streaming, which has practically proven that the market in its current state has no profit whatsoever, and yet Apple created its own service and continues to make its own series.
But anyway, as you said, Apple doesn't need to enter a saturated market like consoles, but thinking that it doesn't care about the AAA market that currently profits more than Cinema is naive.
 
LinkURL said:
Apple doesn't need to get into the console wars, and it doesn't need exclusives.
They have already entered into a much bloodier war, which is that of streaming, which has practically proven that the market in its current state has no profit whatsoever, and yet Apple created its own service and continues to make its own series.
But anyway, as you said, Apple doesn't need to enter a saturated market like consoles, but thinking that it doesn't care about the AAA market that currently profits more than Cinema is naive.
Click to expand...
Have you been following the FTC vs MSFT/ABK ?

AAA Games do make more money on Mobile than on PC and console - combined. Call of Duty is the biggest seller in the US anually, and yet Warzone makes wayyyyy more money than any Modern Warfare.

I would maybe agree with you on the topic that Apples "needs" some high end games, but only to distinguish itself from competitors, and label themselves as the "premium devices that delivers premium and curated experiences, games included" to its audience.

But it makes no sense at all for any Resident Evil enthousiast to play on a 6.7 device. It makes no sense for someone that already have access to the Death Stranding franchize elsewhere to be enthousiast about playing it on a screen that will eventually notify something and get you out of the immersion at any time.

Those games are trump cards for Apple as ways to offer its users new experiences; not for Iphone to become dominant on the gaming market.
 
Last edited:
Threeman said:
Have you been following the FTC vs MSFT/ABK ?

AAA Games do make more money on Mobile than on PC and console - combined. Call of Duty is the biggest seller in the US anually, and yet Warzone makes wayyyyy more money than any Modern Warfare.

I would maybe agree with you on the topic that Apples "needs" some high end games, but only to distinguish itself from competitors, and label themselves as the "premium devices that delivers premium and curated experiences, games included" to its audience.

But it makes no sense at all for any Resident Evil enthousiast to play on a 6.7 device. It makes no sense for someone that already have access to the Death Stranding franchize elsewhere to be enthousiast about playing it on a screen that will eventually notify something and get you out of the immersion at any time.

Those games are trump cards for Apple as ways to offer its users new experiences; not for Iphone to become dominant on the gaming market.
Click to expand...
Man, I don't think Apple is going to use AAA games to dominate the market, in fact the market is already in their hands.
But because of its profitability, we are talking about 60/70 dollars per game, if Apple manages to become a AAA-friendly platform (which has its difficulties, but unlike others I believe it is possible in the long term) , they will make even more money.
I don't think people will stop buying their consoles and PCs to buy an iPhone, but the point is that millions of console and PC owners already have an iPhone, for them to start buying games on their smartphones it doesn't require a big change in habits.
And about the 6.7 screen, it's not much different from a Switch, isn't it.
 
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