StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (New Staff Post, Please read)

[Aether]

Depending on announced games for cross gen period with switch a high price is less of a problem.

They just as well can have a first year with just the expensive variant, it will sell out regardless.
The question is the momentum after that, a price reduction or waiting for a "lite" variant as a cheaper entry point with LCD screen and less premium build to replace switch 1.

256gb is a must baseline for internal storage. And it's not that expensive.
Kingstone ufs 3.1 256 33€ in retail.
Same in 128gb is 22€ at the same retailer. I know in the Kontext of 399€ it's a 2-3% difference, but it mitigates a TON of third party discussion about lacking size for games.

And I guess that HDR will be a topic, so having a screen that supports it would be good -> oled.

 

[Dekuman]

Depending on announced games for cross gen period with switch a high price is less of a problem.

They just as well can have a first year with just the expensive variant, it will sell out regardless.
The question is the momentum after that, a price reduction or waiting for a "lite" variant as a cheaper entry point with LCD screen and less premium build to replace switch 1.

256gb is a must baseline for internal storage. And it's not that expensive.
Kingstone ufs 3.1 256 33€ in retail.
Same in 128gb is 22€ at the same retailer. I know in the Kontext of 399€ it's a 2-3% difference, but it mitigates a TON of third party discussion about lacking size for games.

And I guess that HDR will be a topic, so having a screen that supports it would be good -> oled.

Everyone is making a lot of money on digital, there will be pressure from third parties who want their game downloadable right ouf the box, and also from Nintendo themselves who obviously want to sell you more digital stuff.

I think Nintendo will go with more storage than less and if they can't fit it into their platform budget, then that's likely where the 2nd SKU comes in with other more premium features but $50 more, so Nintendo also pockets abit more on hardware.

I agree baseline is 256GB , but would not be surprised if we get 512 GB either as the more premium SKU or just as part of the single SKU package.

 

[ceres15]

In terms of storage - I think Nintendo recognizes the value of digital games on their side (reduced overhead costs than a physical product) and will work to make it more desirable for users to choose to go digital this generation. That means a hefty amount of internal storage from the get-go imo.

 

[Thraktor]

Also that small chip I.e 90mm² should be really cheap in production

Certainly a lot cheaper than a Z1 or Z1 Extreme. Not just because they're getting twice as many dies per wafer, but also because the margin on a semi-custom chip sold at extremely high volumes will be a lot lower than the margin on an off-the-shelf chip being bought at much lower volumes.

You're likely getting about 650 yielded dies per wafer at 90mm². Assuming a wafer price of $15,000 (which is on the upper end of estimates I've come across for TSMC's 5nm-class processes), that comes to about $23 per die for the wafer itself. Obviously that's not the entire cost, as Nvidia has to cut that die out of the wafer, package it and ship it to Nintendo, and then put their own margin on top. Even with that, I'd be very surprised if Nintendo is paying more than $40-$45 or so per chip. If Nvidia are paying less per wafer, then it could be lower still.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I'm still thinking on why couldn't nintendo try and emulate the gpu code while running cpu code natively and through gpu emulation, enhance graphics like an emulator would with a resolution increase + anisotropic filtering and maybe some aliasing solution on top.

It's hard to make simple calculations about this, but full emulation would be a lot costlier from a processing standpoint, and probably more prone to error. And the gap between Switch and Switch 2 won't be as great as the gap between GCN/Wii and Switch, where they've done such things for a handful of releases.

It really wouldn’t surprise me if they go with 128GB. I expect them to cut costs somewhere (especially if the SoC is advanced as some think) and with a jump of roughly $50 in the OLED Steam Deck every time they double storage if Nintendo can save $50 (their own cost I realise Valve are overcharging for profit) by deploying 128GB instead of 512GB then they’ll do it and release a 256/512GB version when they do the Switch 2 OLED.

The cost difference doesn't seem to be nearly that much, though. If having 256 instead of 128 encourages the average user to get one more game digital vs physical (or not at all), they've probably profited.

I wonder what DLSS setting will be the default?

I think this is kind of like asking what resolution will be default, or what draw distance will be default, or what texture size will be default. Lots of variety among lots of games.

 

[Aether]

Everyone is making a lot of money on digital, there will be pressure from third parties who want their game downloadable right ouf the box, and also from Nintendo themselves who obviously want to sell you more digital stuff.

I think Nintendo will go with more storage than less and if they can't fit it into their platform budget, then that's likely where the 2nd SKU comes in with other more premium features but $50 more, so Nintendo also pockets abit more on hardware.

I agree baseline ios 256GB , but would not be surprised if we get 512 GB either as the more premium SKU or just as part of the single SKU package.

I mostly agree, but I feel like their experience with Wii u's 2 skus and seeing how it's playing out for Sony (hence the move to effectively 1 SKU) would move them in the direction:
A mood middle of the road (256), solid enough for all games to be possible to run from internal memory... But not big enough to not sell a premium version later.

Certainly a lot cheaper than a Z1 or Z1 Extreme. Not just because they're getting twice as many dies per wafer, but also because the margin on a semi-custom chip sold at extremely high volumes will be a lot lower than the margin on an off-the-shelf chip being bought at much lower volumes.

You're likely getting about 650 yielded dies per wafer at 90mm². Assuming a wafer price of $15,000 (which is on the upper end of estimates I've come across for TSMC's 5nm-class processes), that comes to about $23 per die for the wafer itself. Obviously that's not the entire cost, as Nvidia has to cut that die out of the wafer, package it and ship it to Nintendo, and then put their own margin on top. Even with that, I'd be very surprised if Nintendo is paying more than $40-$45 or so per chip. If Nvidia are paying less per wafer, then it could be lower still.

There is also the incentive for Nvidia to position themselves as above and in the handheld/mobile computing field -> less high of a cut.

Then again, they don't really care since they 100% dominate the data science field

 

[ILikeFeet]

I wonder what DLSS setting will be the default? If I were Nintendo, I'd say to Nvidia "OK, as part of our deal, you'll have a few years to work on improving Ultra Performance mode" and make it the default. I know there's only so much you can do with a ninth of the pixels, but surely there's further improvements to be made.

there won't be a default, nor is there supposed to be one. developers will choose whichever works best

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I feel pretty confident about 512 GBs with how aggressively Nintendo has pushed digital purchases this year

512 also feels likely to me because I expect mandatory installs and Call of Duty is probably going to be 100-150 GBs by itself.

Cyberpunk 2077 is 100 GBs and while that can probably be shrunk to 50 GBs by lowering texture resolution (which is probably needed anyway due to mobile RAM), Cyberpunk taking up nearly 50% of the internal memory of the Switch 2 (depending on OS size) as a probable launch title would be a joke and cause the Switch 2 to look bad.

 

[Discostew]

Only 128GB of internal storage would be horrendous for nintendo's chances of getting enough AAA third party ports. For reference, Baldur's gate 3 is 100GB on PS5 and 150GB on PC.

Even by those numbers, we aren't going to see such a game on Switch 2 hit that size like it does on PS5, simply because the device is not going to have that power to produce that graphical fidelity.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Even by those numbers, we aren't going to see such a game on Switch 2 hit that size like it does on PS5, simply because the device is not going to have that power to produce that graphical fidelity.

If you reduce total texture quality by average of 2/3, you’re probably reducing file size by 50% and that is… still probably not enough for a lot of games, lol.

Jedi Survivor and Modern Warfare 3 are 150 GBs (and MW3 is before the high res texture pack that pushes it to 250 GBs) and cutting them down to 75 GBs still doesn’t make 128 GBs (pre OS reserved storage) viable.

Jedi Survivor and Call of Duty are two games we also almost certainly know are coming to Switch 2.

 

[Discostew]

If you reduce total texture quality by average of 2/3, you’re probably reducing file size by 50% and that is… still probably not enough for a lot of games, lol.

Jedi Survivor and Modern Warfare 3 are 150 GBs (and MW3 is before the high res texture pack that pushes it to 250 GBs) and cutting them down to 75 GBs still doesn’t make 128 GBs (pre OS reserved storage) viable.

Jedi Survivor and Call of Duty are two games we also almost certainly know are coming to Switch 2.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that 128GB was viable. I was simply pointing out that the games would unlikely be the same size as they are on the stronger platforms. The games on Series S would give us a better idea, and even then, those games on Switch 2 would still probably be smaller than that.

 

[BDGAME]

Maybe they can bring two models, like they did with the orignal Switch. But instead the joycon's colors, people can choose between 256 and 512 of internal memory.

Maybe even a third option with 1 TB digital only.

 

[NintenDuvo]

With the next Switch having all these bells and whistles that are rumored, what are the odds that Nintendo will finally start using Anti-Aliasing?

 

[Foltzie]

I assume the joycons will include a lot of the same haptics as the Dualsense but made more electricity efficient and that plus the unique, detachable nature of the joycons will also increase the price.

If the Switch 2 has a unique gimmick, it also has to be on the joycons to ensure docked/handheld usage.

The current joycons have haptic feedback by the same company that makes the model for the DualSense, what changes are you envisioning?

I don’t know if the adaptive triggers really do anything, but the patents for the GameCube analog triggers should have expired, so hopefully those make a return.

 

[redmutineer75]

With the next Switch having all these bells and whistles that are rumored, what are the odds that Nintendo will finally start using Anti-Aliasing?

DLSS already does that for free

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The current joycons have haptic feedback by the same company that makes the model for the DualSense, what changes are you envisioning?

I don’t know if the adaptive triggers really do anything, but the patents for the GameCube analog triggers should have expired, so hopefully those make a return.

The haptics are more advanced for the Dualsense and allow finer detail of feedback and there's a speaker included.

I also imagine the next joycons could include inside-out tracking to avoid the annoying need to constantly re-calibrate the joycons, but this depends on the electricity cost of inside-out tracking.

And any new gimmick again has to be on the joycons due to the hybrid nature.

 

[Goodtwin]

With the next Switch having all these bells and whistles that are rumored, what are the odds that Nintendo will finally start using Anti-Aliasing?

Any game that uses DLSS will have AA by default. I do suspect that even games that do not use DLSS will use some variation of AA on SNG. With Switch, it was already bottlenecked by limited bandwidth, making it difficult to implement MSAA. FXAA can take care of jaggies, but tends to blur the whole image. So it came down to preference, and Nintendo chose sharper image quality with jaggies rather than a soft image with no jaggies. With SNG, the options available to developers for good image quality are numerous. They can use DLSS to output at 1440p or even 4K. They can go with 1080p with 4x MSAA. Proper texture filtering will keep textures from blurring/distorting.

Nintendo's first party games are going to shine extremely bright on SNG. Zelda BotW and TotK are both 900p games on hardware that is 5-8x weaker than SNG will be. Not even using DLSS, that is the type of overhead that would allow those games to render at 1440p with AA, anisotropic filtering higher resolution textures, higher resolution shadows, superior lighting and LOD pushed further out for less noticeable pop in. The same goes with games like Mario Odyssey, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Luigis Mansion and so on. There has been so much focus on DLSS that its often times overlooked at just how much more capable SNG will be even without DLSS. Nintendo already has a bunch of 1080p 60fps games on Switch that look incredible. I think we may see more games hit native 4K on SNG than people think, and that is without DLSS.

 

[Deleted member 887]

Since we’re at the point in the cycle where we talk about price, whats everyone’s opinion on whether Nintendo will sell at a loss?

I think they'll sell at a slight loss, but some context:

Microsoft is the world's second largest tech company, and Sony is the only company in the world who competes with Apple in both media and tech. Nintendo makes video games.

Games and game platforms have to make money for Nintendo. For Sony and Microsoft they can lose money, as long as they bring in ancillary revenue through Sheer Market Dominance (tm). And with largely diversified streams of revenue across the company, they can afford strategies built on undercutting competitors and waiting for the other guy to swerve. In a real sense, this is why Nintendo left the Graphics Power Wars. Even winning, when you're selling everything at a loss, is brutal.

When most of us fans talk about selling at a loss, we imagine a subsidized console like the Other Guys, but I don't think that will happen, because the only reason those consoles are subsidized is because those two companies are busy pounding each other into submission. But I do think Nintendo will sell units at a loss early on, but it'll be tiny.

The Switch was sold at a loss, after shipping costs, but the margin was so close, all Nintendo needed to be in the black was a single first party game sale. And basically any cost reductions past that point would bring the device into profitability (not surprising they jumped on a node shrink immediately).

I expect the same things this time, with Nintendo investing in the long term capabilities of the platform (the SOC, the RAM, the storage speed, the screen resolution), and skimping on anything else to give them breathing room (storage quantity, screen size), knowing that those things can be upgraded in a revision.

There is a reason Nintendo has emphasized so much eliminating any drop in the software release cadence. Software revenue needs to stay up while hardware revenue drops to less than zero - all those 15 million Switches a year are making money. If a Switch makes Nintendo $15 now, and a Switch 2 loses Nintendo $15, then we're talking a half billion dollar loss, year over year.

I wonder what DLSS setting will be the default? If I were Nintendo, I'd say to Nvidia "OK, as part of our deal, you'll have a few years to work on improving Ultra Performance mode" and make it the default. I know there's only so much you can do with a ninth of the pixels, but surely there's further improvements to be made.

Funnily enough, improving Ultra Performance mode has been a major focus of Nvidia's work for the last few years. I don't know how much further there is to go. It's hard to see in video, because YouTube compression makes some things look better and other things look worse,

256gb is a must baseline for internal storage. And it's not that expensive.

Tthis is pretty expensive, in fact. The prices you're posting at 4x the cost of the storage in the base Switch. Nintendo sold 15 million switches in the first year, at break even prices. a $25 increase in BOM is Nintendo losing $375 million in the launch year.

Not saying you're wrong about it being a "must" considering the modern environment, just that it is pricey.

 

[Discostew]

I think they'll sell at a slight loss, but some context:

Microsoft is the world's second largest tech company, and Sony is the only company in the world who competes with Apple in both media and tech. Nintendo makes video games.

Games and game platforms have to make money for Nintendo. For Sony and Microsoft they can lose money, as long as they bring in ancillary revenue through Sheer Market Dominance (tm). And with largely diversified streams of revenue across the company, they can afford strategies built on undercutting competitors and waiting for the other guy to swerve. In a real sense, this is why Nintendo left the Graphics Power Wars. Even winning, when you're selling everything at a loss, is brutal.

When most of us fans talk about selling at a loss, we imagine a subsidized console like the Other Guys, but I don't think that will happen, because the only reason those consoles are subsidized is because those two companies are busy pounding each other into submission. But I do think Nintendo will sell units at a loss early on, but it'll be tiny.

The Switch was sold at a loss, after shipping costs, but the margin was so close, all Nintendo needed to be in the black was a single first party game sale. And basically any cost reductions past that point would bring the device into profitability (not surprising they jumped on a node shrink immediately).

I expect the same things this time, with Nintendo investing in the long term capabilities of the platform (the SOC, the RAM, the storage speed, the screen resolution), and skimping on anything else to give them breathing room (storage quantity, screen size), knowing that those things can be upgraded in a revision.

There is a reason Nintendo has emphasized so much eliminating any drop in the software release cadence. Software revenue needs to stay up while hardware revenue drops to less than zero - all those 15 million Switches a year are making money. If a Switch makes Nintendo $15 now, and a Switch 2 loses Nintendo $15, then we're talking a half billion dollar loss, year over year.

I can see this as a reason why they claim they want to hold the value in their games by not discounting them nearly as quickly nor as much as the competitors do. They do things like the vouchers, but you can only use them while you are subscribed to NSO, and digital sales don't generally have retailers taking a cut.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

Including past silicon on the chip is something they've done on every system this century except Switch and Gamecube, which is why I wouldn't rule it out at all.

Well, it was economically more feasible for them at the time

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

With the next Switch having all these bells and whistles that are rumored, what are the odds that Nintendo will finally start using Anti-Aliasing?

I can’t tell if your post is serious or sarcasm considering the thread we are in

 

[VagrantValmar]

So considering Nate's idea that march is the reveal, it seems I'm track to accurately guess that March is the reveal and September 2024 is the launch.

I've always been a "Switch 2 is not launching until Splatoon 3's road map is finished" believer and I will be until the very end.

 

[Neoxon]

So considering Nate's idea that march is the reveal, it seems I'm track to accurately guess that March is the reveal and September 2024 is the launch.

I've always been a "Switch 2 is not launching until Splatoon 3's road map is finished" believer and I will be until the very end.

Unless we get a last-minute extension, Splatoon 3 updates should wrap up by June 2024.

 

[VagrantValmar]

Unless we get a last-minute extension, Splatoon 3 updates should wrap up by June 2024.

There usually is an extension and, if there isn't, I think September is a more likely month than June of July. That's just my gut feeling though but I'm a believer

 

[Shoulder]

Actually misread that at first, and thought it was called the Nintendo Swift, which honestly doesn't sound like a bad name.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Unless we get a last-minute extension, Splatoon 3 updates should wrap up by June 2024.

I still think Splatoon 3 will get an extension to help further push the game on Drake

 

[Discostew]

Including past silicon on the chip is something they've done on every system this century except Switch and Gamecube, which is why I wouldn't rule it out at all.

Something to keep in mind with their portables at least is that using prior chips had more use than simply BC. The GBA used the chip from the GB/C for utilizing their sound generators in GBA games. The DS used the GBA's chip, doubled in clock speed, for handling audio processing, WiFi touch-screen input, etc in DS games. The 3DS used the DS's chip for handling the file system I believe, along with cryptography and such in 3DS mode. If Nintendo were to follow this trend, what purpose would the Switch silicon be used for besides BC?

 

[Deleted member 887]

If Nintendo were to follow this trend, what purpose would the Switch silicon be used for besides BC?

Probably nothing. It can't execute the same shader code, so it can't act as part of the larger GPU. Though possibly cryptography? Though it likely would not perform as well as a smaller crypto accelerator, so the savings are likely negligible.

 

[Goodtwin]

I still think Splatoon 3 will get an extension to help further push the game on Drake

I could see Nintendo moving games like Mario Kart 8, Splatoon 3 and Smash Bros Ultimate to the NSO Expansion Pack when SNG releases. This would allow them to wait a bit longer to release the sequels while giving SNG gamers access to these amazing games and now at 4K on the new hardware. Nintendo will want to continue to maintain and increase the value of NSO, especially the more expensive Expansion Pack, and adding Nintendo's library of first party Switch games to the service would be a huge boon the value of the service. Even though these games will likely still be available for purchase on the eshop for years to come, sales will be at a snails pace by that time SNG releases. For somebody that already owns these games its not going to influence their decision to purchase the NSO Expansion Pack, but for somebody that doesn't, its almost a guarantee that they go with the Expansion Pack rather than just the basic NSO.

 

[Deleted member 887]

Not directly Nintendo related, but putting in hide tags because it is a hot, and unconfirmed rumor

 

[ezidro3]

Not directly Nintendo related, but putting in hide tags because it is a hot, and unconfirmed rumor
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *

Sure fucking felt like it when I was trying to order the damn thing lol. Took me 20 minutes

 

[Foltzie]

Not directly Nintendo related, but putting in hide tags because it is a hot, and unconfirmed rumor
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *

 

[Skittzo]

Not directly Nintendo related, but putting in hide tags because it is a hot, and unconfirmed rumor
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *

Hot damn. That's actually quite surprising to hear.

In a few years I can't wait to get one second hand for cheap.

 

[TomNookYankees]

Probably nothing. It can't execute the same shader code, so it can't act as part of the larger GPU. Though possibly cryptography? Though it likely would not perform as well as a smaller crypto accelerator, so the savings are likely negligible.

Would a Maxwell GPU have any use for running camera related features or would that be something better suited for CPUs?

I ask because the very first generation of NVidia Drive (Drive CX) used Maxwell GPU based SOCs before switching to Pascal based SOCs for Drive PX and PX2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Drive

 

[Hermii]

Would a Maxwell GPU have any use for running camera related features or would that be something better suited for CPUs?

I ask because the very first generation of NVidia Drive (Drive CX) used Maxwell GPU based SOCs before switching to Pascal based SOCs for Drive PX and PX2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Drive

It could, but Drake would be way better at it.

EDIT: In the age of Rosetta, Proton and the likes, including old hardware for compatibility is not the best way to do it.

 

[Aether]

I think they'll sell at a slight loss, but some context:

Microsoft is the world's second largest tech company, and Sony is the only company in the world who competes with Apple in both media and tech. Nintendo makes video games.

Games and game platforms have to make money for Nintendo. For Sony and Microsoft they can lose money, as long as they bring in ancillary revenue through Sheer Market Dominance (tm). And with largely diversified streams of revenue across the company, they can afford strategies built on undercutting competitors and waiting for the other guy to swerve. In a real sense, this is why Nintendo left the Graphics Power Wars. Even winning, when you're selling everything at a loss, is brutal.

When most of us fans talk about selling at a loss, we imagine a subsidized console like the Other Guys, but I don't think that will happen, because the only reason those consoles are subsidized is because those two companies are busy pounding each other into submission. But I do think Nintendo will sell units at a loss early on, but it'll be tiny.

The Switch was sold at a loss, after shipping costs, but the margin was so close, all Nintendo needed to be in the black was a single first party game sale. And basically any cost reductions past that point would bring the device into profitability (not surprising they jumped on a node shrink immediately).

I expect the same things this time, with Nintendo investing in the long term capabilities of the platform (the SOC, the RAM, the storage speed, the screen resolution), and skimping on anything else to give them breathing room (storage quantity, screen size), knowing that those things can be upgraded in a revision.

There is a reason Nintendo has emphasized so much eliminating any drop in the software release cadence. Software revenue needs to stay up while hardware revenue drops to less than zero - all those 15 million Switches a year are making money. If a Switch makes Nintendo $15 now, and a Switch 2 loses Nintendo $15, then we're talking a half billion dollar loss, year over year.



Funnily enough, improving Ultra Performance mode has been a major focus of Nvidia's work for the last few years. I don't know how much further there is to go. It's hard to see in video, because YouTube compression makes some things look better and other things look worse,

Yes...and no. 1 game sold is a minimum, so it was effectively a win. How many switches are realistically only ever seeing 1 game? Them going for 2 to still make (realistically) a plus while building the Playerbase fast would be a short-term reduction in gain (still a considerable win through game sales and still available switch 1 sales), and aiming for it selling at cost in its second year.

Tthis is pretty expensive, in fact. The prices you're posting at 4x the cost of the storage in the base Switch. Nintendo sold 15 million switches in the first year, at break even prices. a $25 increase in BOM is Nintendo losing $375 million in the launch year.

Not saying you're wrong about it being a "must" considering the modern environment, just that it is pricey.

That price is for me to buy the chip, in single quantity.
Nintendo's prices would be way lower, as would be the difference.
I know, every buck counts double in scale, but this has to be counterbalanced with the benefit of digital sales.

Anecdotal: a friend of mine only started to buy games in the eshop after I gave her an SD card so that she could actually install those, the internal memory was full with a handful of demos and 1 game.

Also: having such a low hard cap how Gib games can be is also not great.

I get trying to keep price low with "premium" components.
But I don't see 256 as premium, I see a solid base storage as a core strategic aspect in enticing digital. Additionally I'm not sure that there is a really feasible upgrade path. I could see games having support for boot from micro SD, so that Indies or switch games can work from SD and some third parties only support internal storage for speed reasons.

 

[kvetcha]

Hahah, I very much expect it to be 15W peak in TV mode. You can only add so much power before the cooling requirements become definitively un-handheld. It still needs to be small and light enough for children to pick up and play Kirby and Pokémon. Plus a lower maximum could theoretically mean better yields, since you're not pushing T239 to its absolute limits, units don't need to be able to sustain absolute peak clocks. I believe this was also done with Nintendo Switch, it didn't need the top bin of Tegra X1.

I wouldn't be surprised if they push it harder in TV mode. Heck, the ROG Ally has a 25W handheld mode. Doesn't seem beyond belief that Ninty could push Drake that hard docked, especially if the dock has some sort of novel augmented cooling solution built-in.

 

[Concernt]

I still think Splatoon 3 will get an extension to help further push the game on Drake

It looks like NG Switch is likely to fall inside the support plan for Splatoon 3, especially since Splatoon 3 is itself likely to get an extended life cycle thanks to exceptional sales... And the fact Splatoon 4 is likely years and years away.

 

[Neoxon]

There usually is an extension and, if there isn't, I think September is a more likely month than June of July. That's just my gut feeling though but I'm a believer

June is when Sizzle Season 2024 is happening, the last update before we get all 2 years of promised support.

It looks like NG Switch is likely to fall inside the support plan for Splatoon 3, especially since Splatoon 3 is itself likely to get an extended life cycle thanks to exceptional sales... And the fact Splatoon 4 is likely years and years away.

Sales have only really been exceptional in Japan, not so much overseas. If that's because of Japan overperforming or the rest of the world underperforming is up for debate, as sequels on the same system usually sell less than the first new entry on the platform.

 

[Stinky Horse]

Something to keep in mind with their portables at least is that using prior chips had more use than simply BC. The GBA used the chip from the GB/C for utilizing their sound generators in GBA games. The DS used the GBA's chip, doubled in clock speed, for handling audio processing, WiFi touch-screen input, etc in DS games. The 3DS used the DS's chip for handling the file system I believe, along with cryptography and such in 3DS mode. If Nintendo were to follow this trend, what purpose would the Switch silicon be used for besides BC?

Amusingly enough, they could use it as an AI upscaler https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/what-is-ai-upscaling/ as well as using it for any other jobs before sending the image to the screen like adding OS overlays. I don't know the pros and cons of doing that rather than relying on the main GPU though.

 

[Concernt]

I wouldn't be surprised if they push it harder in TV mode. Heck, the ROG Ally has a 25W handheld mode. Doesn't seem beyond belief that they could push that much docked, especially if they have some sort of novel augmented cooling solution built-in.

I would, as I've said before, pushing it that far creates compounding complexities. A completely reconceived dock, a new AC adapter in a whole new USB PD class, a cooling system that has to support 25W... When the weight of that system will be felt when it's very much not pushing that.

It's an awful lot of added complexity for what appears to be marginal gains; at 4N, I believe 25W would be well into diminishing returns.

And again.

25W cooling systems. We've seen them. For three-year-olds' hands they are not.

Nintendo handhelds, however, are.

Marginal to modest performance gains at the cost of... Appealing to children and commuters and a literal ballooning of BOM thanks to the compounding complexity and inability to reuse ANYTHING from Switch.

That's an awful big price to pay when the CPU isn't going to be keeping up anyway.

This is the company that reused the AC adapter from a WiFi network adapter up through New 2DS XL. I would be extremely surprised if they changed AC adapter, when the reason for doing so (increased power consumption) would also result in considerably higher costs and LOWER appeal.

If anything, T239 at 4N appears specifically designed NOT to exceed the power consumption parameters of the original Switch. Which makes sense, for the reasons above.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Does anyone have a bill of materials estimate for 1080p 8 inch 16:9 LCD screens in 2023.

 

[SoldierDelta]

Not directly Nintendo related, but putting in hide tags because it is a hot, and unconfirmed rumor
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *

 

[Shoulder]

It could, but Drake would be way better at it.

EDIT: In the age of Rosetta, Proton and the likes, including old hardware for compatibility is not the best way to do it.

Agreed. And given how precious die space is on such a small package like the Switch, I feel including another chip on the board like that isn't really worth it. And things like Proton, and Rosetta exist, which are massively impressive through software alone (Though I do believe Apple M chips do have some things at the silicon level to help assist Rosetta while not actually dedicating die space for the function itself)

 

[Hermii]

Agreed. And given how precious die space is on such a small package like the Switch, I feel including another chip on the board like that isn't really worth it. And things like Proton, and Rosetta exist, which are massively impressive through software alone (Though I do believe Apple M chips do have some things at the silicon level to help assist Rosetta while not actually dedicating die space for the function itself)

Even if that's the case, Rosetta needs to translate a ton more than Drake would have to.

 

[Kevin]

Not directly Nintendo related, but putting in hide tags because it is a hot, and unconfirmed rumor
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *

The hunger for a beefier Switch has been fierce and I remain as astonished as ever as to why nearly 7 years into Switch they still won't even begin the conversation about a successor.

 

[ziggyrivers]

So the Switch 2 might reach the $449 price point? I doubt Nintendo would want to sell the Successor at a loss, especially since generation changes to them are unstable.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Agreed. And given how precious die space is on such a small package like the Switch, I feel including another chip on the board like that isn't really worth it. And things like Proton, and Rosetta exist, which are massively impressive through software alone (Though I do believe Apple M chips do have some things at the silicon level to help assist Rosetta while not actually dedicating die space for the function itself)

Rosetta is hardware assisted. The Apple chips have a special compatibility mode that enforces x86 memory semantics, something that can be very performance draining for pure software emulation.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

So the Switch 2 might reach the $449 price point? I doubt Nintendo would want to sell the Successor at a loss, especially since generation changes to them are unstable.

I assume it will be sold at a "loss" while R&D costs are attributed to the first X Switch 2 units sold and then will be sold at a profit.

Should expect the price to be bill of materials+shipping & packaging costs+marketing costs rounded upwards to the nearest $50.

 

[10k]

So the Switch 2 might reach the $449 price point? I doubt Nintendo would want to sell the Successor at a loss, especially since generation changes to them are unstable.

It was also going to be more than $400 once we knew it had 12 SM's.