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

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

oh nice, btw can you check estimate prices for LPDD5 16GB?

I haven't seen any estimates of that

 

[NintenDuvo]

is there already a date for the February briefing? Because at that point he will have no holiday excuse for denying this device exists

 

[RumHamRigRunner]

I might be stupendously in the wrong here and this is strictly speculation but what are the chances that Nintendo is co-developing a custom version of DLSS that works with dynamic resolution scaling with NVIDIA?

I say this because at least in PC games, so far we have observed that DLSS reconstructs an output image from a fixed internal resolution - it does not work with dynamic resolutions although AMD's FSR does, like in Cyberpunk 2077 for example. Since NVIDIA's solution for upscaling uses deep learning, I previously assumed this would be difficult compared to using a fixed input resolution like DLSS does now.

However, there's a part of me that looks at just how broadly Nintendo first-party studios have deployed dynamic resolutions across their library of games on the original Switch. Super Mario Odyssey, for example, is one of the best examples of how Nintendo painstakingly introduced dynamism in their rendering including for resolution to get the most performance out of that GPU (and the CPU for that matter), all for a mostly stable 60FPS. In games where fast player inputs are key like 3D Mario games, where lower response times are preferable, Nintendo has shown that they will prioritize frame-rate over resolution or graphics. This is what leads me to believe that perhaps there's a DLSS feature that enables DLSS for dynamic input resolutions. Neural networks have gotten better over time so I wonder what would prevent this from working, besides additional research from NVIDIA's part.

Also, regardless of whether or not Nintendo has a hand in developing something like this, PC players would rejoice, especially those with weaker graphics cards. A locked 60FPS at higher output resolutions without having to worry too much about quality settings and without the shimmering and artifacts of FSR? Say less.

 

[Tof]

I might be stupendously in the wrong here and this is strictly speculation but what are the chances that Nintendo is co-developing a custom version of DLSS that works with dynamic resolution scaling with NVIDIA?

I say this because at least in PC games, so far we have observed that DLSS reconstructs an output image from a fixed internal resolution - it does not work with dynamic resolutions although AMD's FSR does, like in Cyberpunk 2077 for example. Since NVIDIA's solution for upscaling uses deep learning, I previously assumed this would be difficult compared to using a fixed input resolution like DLSS does now.

However, there's a part of me that looks at just how broadly Nintendo first-party studios have deployed dynamic resolutions across their library of games on the original Switch. Super Mario Odyssey, for example, is one of the best examples of how Nintendo painstakingly introduced dynamism in their rendering including for resolution to get the most performance out of that GPU (and the CPU for that matter), all for a mostly stable 60FPS. In games where fast player inputs are key like 3D Mario games, where lower response times are preferable, Nintendo has shown that they will prioritize frame-rate over resolution or graphics. This is what leads me to believe that perhaps there's a DLSS feature that enables DLSS for dynamic input resolutions. Neural networks have gotten better over time so I wonder what would prevent this from working, besides additional research from NVIDIA's part.

Also, regardless of whether or not Nintendo has a hand in developing something like this, PC players would rejoice, especially those with weaker graphics cards. A locked 60FPS at higher output resolutions without having to worry too much about quality settings and without the shimmering and artifacts of FSR? Say less.

Probably DLSS 4.0 atp

 

[LiC]

I might be stupendously in the wrong here and this is strictly speculation but what are the chances that Nintendo is co-developing a custom version of DLSS that works with dynamic resolution scaling with NVIDIA?

I say this because at least in PC games, so far we have observed that DLSS reconstructs an output image from a fixed internal resolution - it does not work with dynamic resolutions although AMD's FSR does, like in Cyberpunk 2077 for example. Since NVIDIA's solution for upscaling uses deep learning, I previously assumed this would be difficult compared to using a fixed input resolution like DLSS does now.

However, there's a part of me that looks at just how broadly Nintendo first-party studios have deployed dynamic resolutions across their library of games on the original Switch. Super Mario Odyssey, for example, is one of the best examples of how Nintendo painstakingly introduced dynamism in their rendering including for resolution to get the most performance out of that GPU (and the CPU for that matter), all for a mostly stable 60FPS. In games where fast player inputs are key like 3D Mario games, where lower response times are preferable, Nintendo has shown that they will prioritize frame-rate over resolution or graphics. This is what leads me to believe that perhaps there's a DLSS feature that enables DLSS for dynamic input resolutions. Neural networks have gotten better over time so I wonder what would prevent this from working, besides additional research from NVIDIA's part.

Also, regardless of whether or not Nintendo has a hand in developing something like this, PC players would rejoice, especially those with weaker graphics cards. A locked 60FPS at higher output resolutions without having to worry too much about quality settings and without the shimmering and artifacts of FSR? Say less.

DLSS already supports dynamic internal resolutions.

There is a limitation where you can't use dynamic scaling when doing more than a 2x upscale, i.e. the internal resolution has to be somewhere between 50% and 100% of the output resolution by axis. I think it would be beneficial for Nintendo's hardware if Nvidia removed that limitation, and I don't really see why it shouldn't be possible, but they haven't done it yet.

 

[RoyalGoldenFES]

Just speculating here: I’m under the assumption that the console will be revealed in March at this point, but the only thing that makes me think otherwise currently is the Super Bowl, which is played on February 11.

Given that it’s pretty much the “easiest” way to reach the absolute widest audience possible and will guarantee at least a hundred million Americans seeing the console and what it can do, I can see Nintendo buying ad space during the game to show it off. Of course, they would have had to reveal the console by this point if they go with this again.

Also, just to keep in mind, they did show off the original Switch back during Super Bowl 51 in February 2017:

 

[Meelow]

Just speculating here: I’m under the assumption that the console will be revealed in March at this point, but the only thing that makes me think otherwise currently is the Super Bowl, which is played on February 11.

Given that it’s pretty much the “easiest” way to reach the absolute widest audience possible and will guarantee at least a hundred million Americans seeing the console and what it can do, I can see Nintendo buying ad space during the game to show it off. Of course, they would have had to reveal the console by this point if they go with this again.

Also, just to keep in mind, they did show off the original Switch back during Super Bowl 51 in February 2017:

They honestly don't even need to show off the Switch 2 at that point, they could have 30 second teaser at the Super Bowl and have a "Tune in March 3rd for the full reveal of the next generation of Nintendo Switch".

 

[Bnois]

Just speculating here: I’m under the assumption that the console will be revealed in March at this point, but the only thing that makes me think otherwise currently is the Super Bowl, which is played on February 11.

Given that it’s pretty much the “easiest” way to reach the absolute widest audience possible and will guarantee at least a hundred million Americans seeing the console and what it can do, I can see Nintendo buying ad space during the game to show it off. Of course, they would have had to reveal the console by this point if they go with this again.

Also, just to keep in mind, they did show off the original Switch back during Super Bowl 51 in February 2017:

Americans make 50% or more of the playerbase or something? As a European, I don’t give a damn about Super Bowl. If anything, the reveal would happen before, and Super Bowl would just receive some additional ad after

 

[ziggyrivers]

Just speculating here: I’m under the assumption that the console will be revealed in March at this point, but the only thing that makes me think otherwise currently is the Super Bowl, which is played on February 11.

Given that it’s pretty much the “easiest” way to reach the absolute widest audience possible and will guarantee at least a hundred million Americans seeing the console and what it can do, I can see Nintendo buying ad space during the game to show it off. Of course, they would have had to reveal the console by this point if they go with this again.

Also, just to keep in mind, they did show off the original Switch back during Super Bowl 51 in February 2017:

Nintendo would have to miss next year's Super Bowl. February is a dead month for manufacturing. It doesn't make sense to reveal the console in January, place a Switch 2 ad, and then start manufacturing in March. They always reveal the console once it hits manufacturing.

Well, not that it doesn't make sense, but I don't see them doing it, just to place a Super Bowl ad. They can always go for 2025. Especially if they haven't released a 3D Mario game yet.

 

[Terrell]

Why are we talking about eUFS 3.x (or even eUFS 4.0) when eUFS 2.x is cheaper and may be fit for purpose? I get "higher speed = better", but what's enough speed?

I mean, I hope so. And I think it would be smart. But personally, I'm not playing any evergreens, so I don't have a dog in that fight.

I would gently point out to people that we've been speculating on this hardware back when we thought Nintendo was developing a Pro. Free enhancements to base games is the only way that that Pro console works. It's not required for a "next gen" system, and we should work to shake off those old expectations.

I would also say that "enhancements" to base games on other platforms was almost definitely a side effect of having Pro consoles. PS5 could simply apply whatever enhancements the PS4 Pro got, and enhancements developed for PS5 could be readily tweaked for PS4 Pro while you were in there, increasing the market those enhancements would have.

I think, all things considered, Nintendo would like to be selling us full price software, at the cadence they've maintained for most of the Switch generation, and let that new software drive hardware sales. I think they would prefer that to giving us patches for games we already own, and hoping that drives hardware sales.

I think, all things considered, Nintendo would like to give us sequels to their once-per-generation evergreens, especially considering the fact that a majority of Switch NG owners will have already bought these games, and BC will mean that these evergreens are starting to die.

I think Nintendo knows that it will be nearly impossible for Mario Kart NeXt or Smash: Harder to match their predecessors in content, especially at launch. I think Nintendo knows that Splatoon and Pokemon are highly iterative franchises built on giving you "more of that thing you like." Patching these games will make it somewhat harder to sell sequels.

All this said, I expect that the treatment of evergreens will be mostly minimal, and mostly in the launch period. I expect the focus to be on the next set of evergreens, possibly ensuring that they are appropriately downgraded on the base Switch.

Ultimately, I see it as an opportunity to keep software sales for Switch titles at similar levels by encouraging Switch 2 owners to purchase them until the new game is released. Like, MK8DX didn’t get bought by Wii U owners for visual enhancements, after all, it got bought because it was a better product to play and did something "new" (the return of purpose-built arena battle mode). So long as the next MK and Smash do something that excites the player base, they'll be on board, so visual updates to keep Switch games sales-relevant from day one of new hardware until the next iteration of software sounds like a smart play to me. That IS where the money's made, after all, and I'm sure they'd want, for example, SMBW to have the longest possible tail without being cut off at the knees, and such a proposal of a visual update basically lets it keep any sales momentum it'll have when the time comes. Rather like DLC that way, keeps momentum.

But the actual expense is in the SOC, the storage, and all the doo-dads in the controllers, and you're not losing any of that.

4 most expensive parts are SoC, RAM, screen and battery, typically in that order (though RAM and screen can change positions, depending on configurations of either). Storage is #5 and is entirely dependent on capacity/speed of it.

n your case, if what you want is more storage... you're probably going to get it! It's the OLED OR DIE people who are pissed off - the first reports of an LCD were directly connected to saving costs relative to large storage.

though it was on the Steam Deck till *checks watch 4 and a half hours ag

Same thing for the "1080p OR DIE" folks. A 720p screen is not only cheaper, but gives opportunities for s smaller battery by reducing TDP when in handheld, which in turn might allot more space in the chassis, for instance.
The size, pixel density and type of screen can have big ramifications to the overall industrial design and cascades cost savings to the rest of the device. Whatever screen they believe offers the most favourable trade-offs for the overall product is the one they'll choose.

 

[redmutineer75]

Just speculating here: I’m under the assumption that the console will be revealed in March at this point, but the only thing that makes me think otherwise currently is the Super Bowl, which is played on February 11.

Given that it’s pretty much the “easiest” way to reach the absolute widest audience possible and will guarantee at least a hundred million Americans seeing the console and what it can do, I can see Nintendo buying ad space during the game to show it off. Of course, they would have had to reveal the console by this point if they go with this again.

Also, just to keep in mind, they did show off the original Switch back during Super Bowl 51 in February 2017:

I imagine the overlap between people who intend to buy a Nintendo system day one and people who watch the Super Bowl is small enough that Nintendo doesn't consider it worth it to build their plans around it or shell out the estimated $21 million for ad spots.

 

[TheMindOfThomas]

They honestly don't even need to show off the Switch 2 at that point, they could have 30 second teaser at the Super Bowl and have a "Tune in March 3rd for the full reveal of the next generation of Nintendo Switch".

With all due respect, that would probably be a terrible idea. The audience watching the Super Bowl isn’t made of core Nintendo Switch fans who will go watch a full presentation. These aren’t even the type of people who would watch a Nintendo Direct. If you market to the Super Bowl crowd, you need something flashy that gets people interested in the actual product - which is exactly what the 2017 Super Bowl Ad did.

I imagine the overlap between people who intend to buy a Nintendo system day one and people who watch the Super Bowl is small enough that Nintendo doesn't consider it worth it to build their plans around it or shell out the estimated $21 million for ad spots.

It’s not necessarily about getting everyone who watches the Super Bowl to buy one at launch. It’s about getting people to notice the system. The Switch Super Bowl ad was successful for this very reason. It created buzz among casuals even before launch. Then, after the good word of mouth the system got throughout 2017, those people who heard about it then were more likely to pick one up during the Holidays.

 

[BDGAME]

Just speculating here: I’m under the assumption that the console will be revealed in March at this point, but the only thing that makes me think otherwise currently is the Super Bowl, which is played on February 11.

Given that it’s pretty much the “easiest” way to reach the absolute widest audience possible and will guarantee at least a hundred million Americans seeing the console and what it can do, I can see Nintendo buying ad space during the game to show it off. Of course, they would have had to reveal the console by this point if they go with this again.

Also, just to keep in mind, they did show off the original Switch back during Super Bowl 51 in February 2017:

Announce Switch in Super Bowl (February) to launch it next month is not a bad idea. But if they will launch Switch 2 on May or June, that announce is a little early, no?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Announce Switch in Super Bowl (February) to launch it next month is not a bad idea. But if they will launch Switch 2 on May or June, that announce is a little early, no?

The shortest announcement to release in console history is the Xbox One at 6 months.

 

[Langstonboy]

The shortest announcement to release in console history is the Xbox One at 6 months.

Actually it’s the rog ally.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Actually it’s the rog ally.

We're really stretching the definition of console at this point, lol.

 

[TagmeNow]

Even Nate and MVG seemed perplexed that Nintendo hasn't just announced their next console already. Just a short statement by Furukawa about the next hardware coming out some time in 2024 would have been enough.
Everybody who even has so much as dipped their toes in gaming at one point knows that having a console approach its eighth year on the market without a successor being announced is something highly unusual, if not straight up odd. There must be a reason for the hesitation, beyond the usual "Nintendo doesn't want to hurt its holiday sales" talk. Now, what that hesitation is about, we might never know for sure.

 

[Truno]

Even Nate and MVG seemed perplexed that Nintendo hasn't just announced their next console already. Just a short statement by Furukawa about the next hardware coming out some time in 2024 would have been enough.
Everybody who even has so much as dipped their toes in gaming at one point knows that having a console approach its eighth year on the market without a successor being announced is something highly unusual, if not straight up odd. There must be a reason for the hesitation, beyond the usual "Nintendo doesn't want to hurt its holiday sales" talk. Now, what that hesitation is about, we might never know for sure.

Imo it could be one of two things. The most likely scenario is that they don't want to hurt the final Holiday sales for the Switch. The other scenario is that their software line-up isn't ready for the console launch

 

[Bonejack]

Imo it could be one of two things. The most likely scenario is that they don't want to hurt the final Holiday sales for the Switch. The other scenario is that their software line-up isn't ready for the console launch

I think a new 3D Mario is definitely a realistic game to have, even for a H1 launch. Looking at the "main" credits from Odyssey and Wonder, it looks like most of the Odyssey team members weren't invovled in Wonder, so it's likely they've been working on another 3D game for a while now.

Plus, they have the option to make most of the 2024 Switch games cross-gen.
It would be a sensible approach, at least for games like Metroid Prime, Paper Mario and Sailor Peach. (Though i wouldn't say no to ReDraketed FE 4 Remake)

Personally, i'd say they kinda want(ed) to wait for mass production to start, but now with this "late" in the year, decision might've just been to postpone it to January and leave the Switch holiday season (or sales) on it's own.
(If Nintendo makes me eat my words and do announce it any day in the remaining November or first half of December, i won't be mad.)

If (important word) mass production starts this month or December and Nintendo feels like they can keep info shut for a month of half a month, it might work out for them.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Capcom's communication about Dragon's Dogma 2 was incredibly strange, not sure why they kept referring to it as "undisclosed/unannounced"

 

[Hosermess]

Even Nate and MVG seemed perplexed that Nintendo hasn't just announced their next console already. Just a short statement by Furukawa about the next hardware coming out some time in 2024 would have been enough.
Everybody who even has so much as dipped their toes in gaming at one point knows that having a console approach its eighth year on the market without a successor being announced is something highly unusual, if not straight up odd. There must be a reason for the hesitation, beyond the usual "Nintendo doesn't want to hurt its holiday sales" talk. Now, what that hesitation is about, we might never know for sure.

I mean it seems like every investor and analyst is expecting Switch 2 next year anyway and has been for a while, so I think they went a little overboard with their "Furukawa is throwing gas on the fire" stuff (and the perjury stuff was confusing to me). I don't think he changed anyone's expectations and I don't think he was trying to.

Now, why Furukawa felt the need to even make these comments at all? Who knows. I doubt he was pleased with all the attention the leaks from GamesCom and the Kotick email got. I know I got frustrated seeing inaccurate headlines/articles about that stuff, especially the latter. So I can picture Furukawa stewing over this stuff for months and wanting to very politely call out the bullshit - while being very cagey while doing so. (Easier to make a burner here to vent, just saying - hey Nintendo intern, pass that on).

 

[Deleted member 645]

Just speculating here: I’m under the assumption that the console will be revealed in March at this point, but the only thing that makes me think otherwise currently is the Super Bowl, which is played on February 11.

Given that it’s pretty much the “easiest” way to reach the absolute widest audience possible and will guarantee at least a hundred million Americans seeing the console and what it can do, I can see Nintendo buying ad space during the game to show it off. Of course, they would have had to reveal the console by this point if they go with this again.

Also, just to keep in mind, they did show off the original Switch back during Super Bowl 51 in February 2017:

Good catch. There are a lot of eyes on the screen at that time. Might be nice to have it announced so they can market it by then. Also I remember switch adds being showed in movie theaters at one time.

 

[Aether]

I think there is ample room for differences in opinion on what the best Nintendo strategy is. But a couple of things worth noting.

Nintendo has sold 8.3 Switch "software units" per Switch sold. Software units includes DLC. Realistically speaking, yes, the average user does only buy about one game a year. I imagine you own more than 8 Nintendo games.

Increasing the BOM for a device without increasing cost doesn't increase the number of games sold for a profit, it increases the length of time that before the device becomes, itself, profitable as parts prices drop. Nintendo has, to our best guess, gone with the N4 process node. This removes the primary driver of cost reduction in the other consoles.

i am aware that it also takes longer til the device becomes more profitable.
and selling in the first year wont be a problem (they wont be able to produce enough for the first say 6-12 months), the problem gets when the price is still to high in the second year, and if they don't want to have a fast price reduction when the cost comes down.

eating more cost would push switches first year "1 game sold = profit" to its second, but leaves them open to not message "ok, after a year we have to reduce the price".

it al hinges with the assumption that 399$/€ is a magic number they don't want to cross. if they don't care, i could see them going anywhere between 399-449, and for 449 i honestly don't think that 6 or 7$ in storage makes that much of a problem, assuming they did account for the SoC price while planing it with nvidia.

What im proposing is, that even being slightly in the red with the hardware, they would have a more then fine profit overall through switch1 sales and game sales, and would set themselves up better in the long run (reasonable long time price without "devaluing" it with price reductions, enough storage for more digital (more profitable) sales and better third party support (less limiting storage option in the base model).

Why would selling the hardware at a loss increase the playerbase? Let's look honestly at why Sony and Microsoft sell their hardware at a loss.
----snip

Nintendo's current hardware is the most compelling 3rd party platform they've made since the N64, and it still makes them the bottom player in that space. Nintendo can't push more units off the shelf by offering more storage for CoD.

Nintendo can only push more units by being a compelling way to play Nintendo games. And while I do think that Nintendo will choose to operate at a short term loss, the reasons for doing so are not the same as the other two console makers. If the average player buys 8 games over the course, then Nintendo give up the profit of 25% of their software revenue to recoup costs from the hardware. That is a huge increase in sales that are necessary to make that move worth it, with no 3rd party windfall likely to come.

I really don't care about ms/sony in this context, since im not seeing them as nintendos direct competition, at least not more then streaming, phones (ios), and pc handhelds.

they showed this gen that they would rather not reduce price to move away from the precedent that "wait and get it cheaper" is the way to go with consoles. Keeping the value up is key.
That implies, that the initial value has to kinda be reasonably low for mass market audiences and children, at least till there is a lite variant.
I could be off with that assessment.

The next thing is: consoles is not their main product. Its a great anciliary.
Effectively their ips (for games, movies, merch) and their platform fees for third parties are their main product. For all of those to be more successfull its needed to have the hardware out there to rank in the money. The more platforms are out there, the more they can get their games out to people, buliding the ips stronger and stronger, seing how they moved to movies, its clear that they want to expant the monetization for those, and its for sure not a one was street (the movies promote the games, the games the movies).

I agree there may be value in choosing to spend that money, but considering the level of competition in the space, I don't think that there is a huge margin on those devices. Nintendo's price might be half what consumers pay, but that's still a considerable cost increase.

sure. Then again: how much is a cartridge (full with printing and shipping), and still those games sell for the same price as the digital release. I guess the 6$ ore they pay for the chip with more storage comes back in the 6$ they are saving on the digitale sale it opens up instead of a physical copy.

Im not arguing for 512 or 1T since the average gamer will probably not fill those up and all storage they provide thats not used is effective loss, but 256 is small enough that it will probably will be used over the lifetime with modern game development.

I 100% agree. I'm not saying that 256GB is "premium" in any global sense. I'm saying it is priced "at a premium" beyond the levels of the original Switch. Unlike, say, the 12GB of RAM, which likely are roughly the same cost now as the 4GB of the previous device.

Oh, that. yeah, true. but we cant compare it just to storage back then.
Storage on the switch was a 1:1 comparison to cheap expandable storage with sd cards.
Since there is no reasonable alternative to ufs or ssds (no, those fancy special sd cards are no option, i have not seen one of those, not even in electronic retailers since...nobody needs them),
the extra cost have to be counted not towards "storage", but also towards "performance".
256gb in slow storage like the switch has would not be more expensive i guess, or barely.
The speed bump is the reason for the jump.
Is it a premium over the old storage? yeah. put its also benefiting in speed/performance, and accounting for that im not so sure if the comparison stands.

My point wasn't that Nintendo wouldn't give us 256GB, or that 256GB was a "premium" option*. I'm saying something has to give with costs, and some aspects of your console are effectively permanent decisions for the length of the generation, and some are not. SOC is, RAM is, storage speed is. Storage quantity is not, screen quality is not, and unfortunately build quality is not. Nintendo probably has a maximum price ($400) and a maximum BOM (also $400), so we ain't gonna get everything we want.

Oh, were 100% on that... i would just give an * : storage quantity is not (past a certain size).
We all are 100% that 128 is a breaking point, under 128 is no option that third party support for bigger mainstream game can be provided.
Im just arguing that the "we cant easily expand the storage" problem pushes it past that, and up to 256. its the sweet spot of providing enough to not keep people from buying games, but not enough to easily store tons of games.

IF somebody wants to have more then 3 games without having to re download them:
mario kart, CoD/RdR2 , and... you're done. There will be the thought "cool i want to try that...ok, i don't have storage. maybe later. proceeds to never buy the game

I would be less inclined to think this way if nintendo (and android as a platform to) was not so against fridging. If nintendo opens up the posibility to have SD support, and Switch1 games can boom from the SD, switch 2 only from internal BUT can be fridged to the SD to make space for other active switch 2 games, then were talking again, then i could see a 128GB version launching...

In your case, if what you want is more storage... you're probably going to get it! It's the OLED OR DIE people who are pissed off - the first reports of an LCD were directly connected to saving costs relative to large storage.

though it was on the Steam Deck till *checks watch 4 and a half hours ago.

Oh, im a sucker, if they have backwards compatibility, then they 90% will support sd cards, and im fine either way. I would love a firm magnesium body (thinking of surface tablets), a great 1080p oled screen with HDR, and 256GB of storage. But as long as digital purchases over with me and it has backwards compatibility ill buy it either way.

The OLED was never a big enough jump for me from the base (an the reduced resolution actually a negative aspect), i would have rather invested that in a OLED TV ... but since there was no HDR support or 4K output i did not find it needed.

With switch 2 i already can see: when there is an oled version later on, i'll just play it on an oled TV that ill buy instead. (since 5 years im like "maybe i should buy one of those new fancy tvs"... but as long as i dont have a console that can do consistent >=1080p and HDR i really dont see much benefit for myself for a TV.

 

[Raie]

I think we can expect very little new information this year unless there is an update on shipping information. The next generation of consoles will probably depend on the software lineup for 2024 at the Nintendo Direct around February next year.

 

[Aether]

Why are we talking about eUFS 3.x (or even eUFS 4.0) when eUFS 2.x is cheaper and may be fit for purpose? I get "higher speed = better", but what's enough speed?

my thought is: hows ufs 2.x standing in 5 years in regards to production, but thats probably for nintendo to decide in contract negotiations.

Ultimately, I see it as an opportunity to keep software sales for Switch titles at similar levels by encouraging Switch 2 owners to purchase them until the new game is released. Like, MK8DX didn’t get bought by Wii U owners for visual enhancements, after all, it got bought because it was a better product to play and did something "new" (the return of purpose-built arena battle mode).

Eh...not quite. It was mk8...but portable. I don't even see many people talking about arenas, and the DLC ignored it as a whole.
It not being on Wii U (a ton of people bought MK8 because they did not have a Wii U) was the bigger selling point.

Now whats the benefit? it being prettier? eh. new features? for a game that you already have to pay full price? meh.
Portable? the switch is that already.

The ports they did from wii u will not work the same way here. And while you're right,
with enough changes they could get enough engagement from people for their ports, its also a scenario i really really dread...

just the thought of having Smash not be a new one, but ultimate++ where they add some single player mode and 5 characters
for a game that i already have and pays for 120+€.....

 

[Thraktor]

Why are we talking about eUFS 3.x (or even eUFS 4.0) when eUFS 2.x is cheaper and may be fit for purpose? I get "higher speed = better", but what's enough speed?

Nintendo were rumoured to be considering up to 512GB of storage, and UFS 2.x is only manufactured in capacities up to 256GB. So, if the rumour is accurate (maybe it isn't), they would have to be using at least UFS 3.

 

[Samuspet]

I can’t get my head around this launching next March - May simply because of the lack of first party software to push it.

It’s too early for another Mario, Zelda, Splatoon, Mario Kart so what exactly are the four huge exclusives to take it to the end of 2024?

For me early November 2024 is the perfect time to launch not only because of the Holidays but in that it also lets you get away with a cross gen release (Metroid Prime 4) and a new 3D Mario as the main games for launch then gives you a couple of months to breath before releasing something in late February / March which would line up nicely with the next Mario Kart then by Summer you have Splatoon or Animal Crossing then by Autumn you have Luigi’s Mansion 4 or a new Xenoblade and by Winter you have the next Donkey Kong or a top down Zelda.

Releasing in time for Holiday 2024 actually gives most of your software an extra year of development time versus launching in March / April 2023.

Releasing in late 2024 versus March - May also let’s you reveal and take all the gaming attention during the traditional E3 month of June.

I want Switch 2 early next year more than anything I just can’t imagine them releasing it before late 2024 due to a lack of first party software. They saw the effect these two paths have on a consoles sales trajectory with Wii U (mostly a software famine for 2013) then Switch (a ton in 2017).

 

[Teal'c]

Has Nate speculated about an announcement in March? I missed it
But are we talking about an announcement with a demonstration of games or a simple "here's Switch 2, we'll talk about it later"?

 

[Concernt]

Would using a newer version of UFS run at a lower speed result in lower power consumption vs. an older version of UFS at the same speed?

Edit: I've looked it up, and theoretically yes. If they want it to. That's interesting. 3.0+ could make a lot of sense thanks to power savings (which could also help reduce other costs) and of course it's produced in huge volumes.

 

[redmutineer75]

I can’t get my head around this launching next March - May simply because of the lack of first party software to push it.

It’s too early for another Mario, Zelda, Splatoon, Mario Kart so what exactly are the four huge exclusives to take it to the end of 2024?

For me early November 2024 is the perfect time to launch not only because of the Holidays but in that it also lets you get away with a cross gen release (Metroid Prime 4) and a new 3D Mario as the main games for launch then gives you a couple of months to breath before releasing something in late February / March which would line up nicely with the next Mario Kart then by Summer you have Splatoon or Animal Crossing then by Autumn you have Luigi’s Mansion 4 or a new Xenoblade and by Winter you have the next Donkey Kong or a top down Zelda.

Releasing in time for Holiday 2024 actually gives most of your software an extra year of development time versus launching in March / April 2023.

Releasing in late 2024 versus March - May also let’s you reveal and take all the gaming attention during the traditional E3 month of June.

I want Switch 2 early next year more than anything I just can’t imagine them releasing it before late 2024 due to a lack of first party software. They saw the effect these two paths have on a consoles sales trajectory with Wii U (mostly a software famine for 2013) then Switch (a ton in 2017).

The main question for November is if Nintendo feels they can go toe-to-toe with Sony, since PS5 Pro also seems to be in line with a typical November release for Sony. I'm still on the March reveal. June blowout, September release bandwagon.

 

[Dark Cloud]

We’re not going past March without knowing this system from Nintendo. March is the latest

 

[Shoulder]

I might be stupendously in the wrong here and this is strictly speculation but what are the chances that Nintendo is co-developing a custom version of DLSS that works with dynamic resolution scaling with NVIDIA?

I say this because at least in PC games, so far we have observed that DLSS reconstructs an output image from a fixed internal resolution - it does not work with dynamic resolutions although AMD's FSR does, like in Cyberpunk 2077 for example. Since NVIDIA's solution for upscaling uses deep learning, I previously assumed this would be difficult compared to using a fixed input resolution like DLSS does now.

However, there's a part of me that looks at just how broadly Nintendo first-party studios have deployed dynamic resolutions across their library of games on the original Switch. Super Mario Odyssey, for example, is one of the best examples of how Nintendo painstakingly introduced dynamism in their rendering including for resolution to get the most performance out of that GPU (and the CPU for that matter), all for a mostly stable 60FPS. In games where fast player inputs are key like 3D Mario games, where lower response times are preferable, Nintendo has shown that they will prioritize frame-rate over resolution or graphics. This is what leads me to believe that perhaps there's a DLSS feature that enables DLSS for dynamic input resolutions. Neural networks have gotten better over time so I wonder what would prevent this from working, besides additional research from NVIDIA's part.

Also, regardless of whether or not Nintendo has a hand in developing something like this, PC players would rejoice, especially those with weaker graphics cards. A locked 60FPS at higher output resolutions without having to worry too much about quality settings and without the shimmering and artifacts of FSR? Say less.

Nintendo themselves if my memory serves have spent a bit of coin in R&D for AI-based upscaling techniques over the years, I think going as far back as the early 2010s. It is possible then when Nvidia came on board, Nintendo felt they could work together to devise a custom DLSS version made just for the Switch 2. I'd be curious if like having a low-level API like NVN, something similar could be implemented for DLSS, at the minimum, NVN2 includes that specific version of DLSS.

I honestly do believe the DLSS we will get for Switch 2 won't be the off-the-shelf version, but instead designed around the limitations, and low-power output of the hardware.

Just speculating here: I’m under the assumption that the console will be revealed in March at this point, but the only thing that makes me think otherwise currently is the Super Bowl, which is played on February 11.

Given that it’s pretty much the “easiest” way to reach the absolute widest audience possible and will guarantee at least a hundred million Americans seeing the console and what it can do, I can see Nintendo buying ad space during the game to show it off. Of course, they would have had to reveal the console by this point if they go with this again.

Also, just to keep in mind, they did show off the original Switch back during Super Bowl 51 in February 2017:

It's possible though I'd argue it made more sense back then because the Switch was previously announced, and known to the public. Nintendo haven't even acknowledged the damn thing is in existence. We know more about Metroid Prime 4 than we do about the Switch 2, at least officially.

Same thing for the "1080p OR DIE" folks. A 720p screen is not only cheaper, but gives opportunities for s smaller battery by reducing TDP when in handheld, which in turn might allot more space in the chassis, for instance.
The size, pixel density and type of screen can have big ramifications to the overall industrial design and cascades cost savings to the rest of the device. Whatever screen they believe offers the most favourable trade-offs for the overall product is the one they'll choose.

While I still believe 1080p is the target for a screen, there is something that tells me they may end up just recycling the 720p OLED screen into the Switch 2. Yes, there is that report about a 7.91" 1080p LCD panel, but are we definitive at this point that was not referring to the PS Portal's screen? All the reviews say it's 8", but is it really? Or is it rounded up to 8"?

Even Nate and MVG seemed perplexed that Nintendo hasn't just announced their next console already. Just a short statement by Furukawa about the next hardware coming out some time in 2024 would have been enough.
Everybody who even has so much as dipped their toes in gaming at one point knows that having a console approach its eighth year on the market without a successor being announced is something highly unusual, if not straight up odd. There must be a reason for the hesitation, beyond the usual "Nintendo doesn't want to hurt its holiday sales" talk. Now, what that hesitation is about, we might never know for sure.

I'm listening to their latest episode right now (maybe 20 min left when I paused it), and I think you've already said it. It may simply be a case of "We don't want to hurt holiday sales." We're saying to ourselves that it must be more than that, but speaking from a business sense, I think that is really want it comes to. Maybe it doesn't have to be more than that, though I am not a business owner of a major publicly-traded corporation, so I don't know shit when it comes to running a business. I only know to keep my own financials in order in my personal life.

But we have two new Mario titles, one of which is brand new, new OLED bundle, and I think one or two more things in store for this holiday season. And didn't the projected sales for the remainder of this FY has Nintendo still on track to sell 15 million units? Maybe Nintendo really are just playing it safe, and on cruise control this holiday season. Again, I think we can say that Nintendo are as of right now focused on the holiday season rather than acknowledging the existence of Switch 2, for better or worse.

 

[Inuyoshi]

Maybe they're just shy. Have we considered that possibility yet

 

[VanVulpes]

Maybe they're just shy. Have we considered that possibility yet

A sweaty Furukawa has been walking nervous in circles in front of the big reveal button for a few weeks.

 

[JetstreamRorschach]

The system can't be announced in March because the Switch 2 unveil is always current date + six months.

 

[Neoxon]

I can’t get my head around this launching next March - May simply because of the lack of first party software to push it.

It’s too early for another Mario, Zelda, Splatoon, Mario Kart so what exactly are the four huge exclusives to take it to the end of 2024?

For me early November 2024 is the perfect time to launch not only because of the Holidays but in that it also lets you get away with a cross gen release (Metroid Prime 4) and a new 3D Mario as the main games for launch then gives you a couple of months to breath before releasing something in late February / March which would line up nicely with the next Mario Kart then by Summer you have Splatoon or Animal Crossing then by Autumn you have Luigi’s Mansion 4 or a new Xenoblade and by Winter you have the next Donkey Kong or a top down Zelda.

Releasing in time for Holiday 2024 actually gives most of your software an extra year of development time versus launching in March / April 2023.

Releasing in late 2024 versus March - May also let’s you reveal and take all the gaming attention during the traditional E3 month of June.

I want Switch 2 early next year more than anything I just can’t imagine them releasing it before late 2024 due to a lack of first party software. They saw the effect these two paths have on a consoles sales trajectory with Wii U (mostly a software famine for 2013) then Switch (a ton in 2017).

I don’t think we’re getting Splatoon 4 until at least 2027.

 

[ceres15]

Grubb said in his Nintendo podcast this week that he could see a December tease (this is just him speculating, not based on any information he knows afaik), but I don't think we're getting that at this point. The Superbowl idea as discussed is interesting to me - I think if we do get a release in May or June, we'll probably hear about this new system by early February so the marketing cycle can begin. Otherwise, if we're looking at fall, I think we will know by March or so.

 

[Maxrunner]

I haven't seen any estimates of that

is 16gb out of the question?

 

[Hermii]

is 16gb out of the question?

SD base model sells for 399 with 256 gb storage and 16 gb ram. Nintendo would get better prices than valve, so imo from a price pov 16 gb is not out of the question.

However Nintendo can definitely get away with giving us 12, and there probably woudnt be a meaningful difference in third party support if they do. So the question is will it be worth it from Nintendos pov.

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

Even Nate and MVG seemed perplexed that Nintendo hasn't just announced their next console already. Just a short statement by Furukawa about the next hardware coming out some time in 2024 would have been enough.
Everybody who even has so much as dipped their toes in gaming at one point knows that having a console approach its eighth year on the market without a successor being announced is something highly unusual, if not straight up odd. There must be a reason for the hesitation, beyond the usual "Nintendo doesn't want to hurt its holiday sales" talk. Now, what that hesitation is about, we might never know for sure.

Not really sure I would call it hesitation nor do I understand why those two are perplexed. The answer is right there for anyone paying attention. They have prepared a marketing plan for it & won’t deviate from it until they reach the point where it says “begin.” As it currently stands this is not a WiiU situation where they needed to both reassure & drum up interest in their business; so there is little point currently in announcing any form of teaser. The other part of it is the rumoured software build they want before anything else.

The main question for November is if Nintendo feels they can go toe-to-toe with Sony, since PS5 Pro also seems to be in line with a typical November release for Sony. I'm still on the March reveal. June blowout, September release bandwagon.

I don’t think PS5P will have much impact on Switch. This device will live & die on being an enticing product w/enticing software.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

is 16gb out of the question?

I guess it's possible, but I'm not sure how beneficial it would be.

16 GBs of slowish VRAM with potentially very fast internal storage feels like kind of a weird setup.

 

[Hermii]

I guess it's possible, but I'm not sure how beneficial it would be.

16 GBs of slowish VRAM with potentially very fast internal storage feels like kind of a weird setup.

Imo if the series s didn't exist, it would definitely been good to have 16. Then memory capacity would have been one area third parties wouldn't have to think about.

With the series s being a thing, 12 gb is enough where third parties won't have an issue.

 

[redmutineer75]

Imo if the series s didn't exist, it would definitely been good to have 16. Then memory capacity would have been one area third parties wouldn't have to think about.

With the series s being a thing, 12 gb is enough where third parties won't have an issue.

Considering that Nintendo launched the Switch with 4 GB while the 8 GB PS4 and Xbox One were on the market, I don't think that would have been able to convince them to put 16 GB in the Switch 2. However, it is definitely nice for them that they can tout more RAM than the Series S.

 

[Hermii]

Considering that Nintendo launched the Switch with 4 GB while the 8 GB PS4 and Xbox One were on the market, I don't think that would have been able to convince them to put 16 GB in the Switch 2. However, it is definitely nice for them that they can tout more RAM than the Series S.

6 gb would probably have been the sweetspot for Switch 1 imo. Would have left a similar amount for games as PS4/ Xbone considering their much larger OS footprint. Many devs have cited memory as a problem area when porting games to Switch.

But yea, 16 gb in 2024 is probably less high end than 6gb would have been in 2017, compared to competing mobile devices.

 

[TagmeNow]

Seems like PEGI leaked earlier today that Dragon's Dogma 2 will come out on the 22nd March, 2024. This has since been removed, and currently I don't have a screenshot from the listing. Save to say that this was Capcom's undisclosed million seller which will arrive before the end of the fiscal year.

To the people who believe that the next Monster Hunter will release on the next Nintendo console at the same time as the other versions:
Seems like there is still hope for you.

 

[Dakhil]

I thought this was reported some time ago especially pertaining to EU laws of why Switch 2 will most likely see a revamp on power delivery and could support higher output when docked.
Some quotes from the article...

Under the new rules, consumers will no longer need a different charger every time they purchase a new device, as they will be able to use one single charger for a whole range of small and medium-sized portable electronic devices.

Regardless of their manufacturer, all new mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones and headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards, mice, portable navigation systems, earbuds and laptops that are rechargeable via a wired cable, operating with a power delivery of up to 100 Watts, will have to be equipped with a USB Type-C port.

All devices that support fast charging will now have the same charging speed, allowing users to charge their devices at the same speed with any compatible charger.

Long-awaited common charger for mobile devices will be a reality in 2024 | News | European Parliament

Following Parliament’s approval, EU consumers will soon be able to use a single charging solution for their electronic devices.

www.europarl.europa.eu

As Thraktor mentioned, I don't think docks are covered under the EU legislation regarding USB-C since docks are not portable electronic devices, nor are docks rechargeable.

---

Why are we talking about eUFS 3.x (or even eUFS 4.0) when eUFS 2.x is cheaper and may be fit for purpose? I get "higher speed = better", but what's enough speed?

Thraktor mentioned that UFS 3.1's much more power efficient than UFS 2.1.

 

[Erika]

Seems like PEGI leaked earlier today that Dragon's Dogma 2 will come out on the 22nd March, 2024. This has since been removed, and currently I don't have a screenshot from the listing. Save to say that this was Capcom's undisclosed million seller which will arrive before the end of the fiscal year.

To the people who believe that the next Monster Hunter will release on the next Nintendo console at the same time as the other versions:
Seems like there is still hope for you.

Dragon’s Dogma: March 2024 (release)
Next MH & NS2: March 2024 (reveal). Sep 2024(release)

 

[Mr Swine]

No reason why they can’t go with 16GB and have 4GB for OS + high quality video capture out does that eat into bandwidth too much?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

No reason why they can’t go with 16GB and have 4GB for OS + high quality video capture out does that eat into bandwidth too much?

That just seems a little expensive for not a ton of benefit, but maybe.

The Series S only has 8 GBs of VRAM (at bandwidth expected to be 2.5x larger than the Switch 2) so I'm not sure how they should position their VRAM size relatively.

 

[Shoulder]

No reason why they can’t go with 16GB and have 4GB for OS + high quality video capture out does that eat into bandwidth too much?

I say it's more likely for them to have 16GB of ram in the NGS than it is for them to have the OS bloat itself in size to 4GB.