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

[redmutineer75]

I think we're hungrier than iphoners. It's been so long people will gobble it up quick.

And again it's not the 80s/90s anymore. Long marketing cycles are dead imo. It's a relic of the past. 2 very different eras. Social media changed a lot of things. How we consume media is so different and instant now.

I'm ready to bet anything that if they announce it today for a next week release, everybody will be scrambling like crazy and the Switch 2 would go out of stock in seconds.

All they need to do is show us something enticing, irresistible.

Going out of stock is precisely why they wouldn't want to have a super short release schedule. Their announcements coincide with mass production, so they want to have plenty of time to build up a supply of parts and devices in order to meet demand. Also, if long marketing cycles are truly dead, then why did Sony and Microsoft not do a shorter reveal to release for their consoles? Why do game developers now announce games years in advance? If anything, the age of social media has only encouraged longer marketing cycles, since the highly clique-based nature of social media means that people left to their own devices will be able to keep the hype going for a lot longer than traditional news media.

 

[BreakAtmo]

There is a complex design question here, and we have an interesting example of a platform holder blowing it.

Nintendo obviously wants a system that looks good on modern 4K TVs. But their launch Switch game ran at 900p. 4K is 6 times as many pixels. That’s a whole generational upgrade spent just on uprezzing.

Nintendo will support full 4K output. But while designing the console, I think the software devs are going to look at how much power the hardware folks have to offer and settle on 1440p as the default “next gen” target. It still looks good on modern screens, and it leaves plenty of room to make all those pixels look good, too.

1440p means instead of a 4x gap, we can do a 2x gap with handheld. Which is much easier to manage than 4x. Because you don’t want to just throw power at the problem, ideally you want to match the two. The best possible handheld mode + best possible docked mode doesn’t equal the best system.

Which brings us to the platform holder who screwed all this up, Microsoft.

The Series X is the most powerful console on the market. The S, which loses Microsoft twice as much money per unit, really probably is the most powerful device that MS could offer at an entry-level price point. They smartly target 4K and 1440p, respectively.

So why do they suck so bad?

Well, lots of reasons, but at least part if it is because the two consoles don't support each other. The S is supposed to hit half the resolution of the X, but only has a third of the power. The S has too little RAM, and terrible memory bandwidth, leaving the two machines to require different sets of optimizations. The S's RT performance is so poor that what should be the generation's defining innovation is often turned off. Meanwhile, the X's extra power is mostly wasted, with exclusives needing to scale down to the S, and mulitplats getting "good enough" at the PS5's level of performance.

Nintendo wants to dodge all these mistakes. That means, ideally, matching performance to the target resolutions, so that, as much as possible it’s one port not two. That also means avoiding things like one mode having drastically different bandwidth capabilities.

Which brings me to T239 itself. It’s worth remembering that T239 is fully custom, not off the shelf. So if there are limitations, they’re either baked into the tech, or something Nintendo actively chose. I would be wary of any thinking that only works if T239 is pushed past the design’s natural limits.

Well, at least in the Switch 2's case DLSS can help with the problem. You could look at it like the Switch 2 only has to target the same resolutions as the Switch did (720p handheld, 900-1080p docked) with the DLSS cost on top. Of course then you have to consider the increase of the DLSS cost when upscaling to 2160p instead of 1440p, which is the thing I thought a higher docked TDP could help with. At least we know the bandwidths wouldn't be too different - 88 vs 102GB/s is the current accommodation, right?

 

[RumHamRigRunner]

There is a complex design question here, and we have an interesting example of a platform holder blowing it.

Nintendo obviously wants a system that looks good on modern 4K TVs. But their launch Switch game ran at 900p. 4K is 6 times as many pixels. That’s a whole generational upgrade spent just on uprezzing.

Nintendo will support full 4K output. But while designing the console, I think the software devs are going to look at how much power the hardware folks have to offer and settle on 1440p as the default “next gen” target. It still looks good on modern screens, and it leaves plenty of room to make all those pixels look good, too.

1440p means instead of a 4x gap, we can do a 2x gap with handheld. Which is much easier to manage than 4x. Because you don’t want to just throw power at the problem, ideally you want to match the two. The best possible handheld mode + best possible docked mode doesn’t equal the best system.

Which brings us to the platform holder who screwed all this up, Microsoft.

The Series X is the most powerful console on the market. The S, which loses Microsoft twice as much money per unit, really probably is the most powerful device that MS could offer at an entry-level price point. They smartly target 4K and 1440p, respectively.

So why do they suck so bad?

Well, lots of reasons, but at least part if it is because the two consoles don't support each other. The S is supposed to hit half the resolution of the X, but only has a third of the power. The S has too little RAM, and terrible memory bandwidth, leaving the two machines to require different sets of optimizations. The S's RT performance is so poor that what should be the generation's defining innovation is often turned off. Meanwhile, the X's extra power is mostly wasted, with exclusives needing to scale down to the S, and mulitplats getting "good enough" at the PS5's level of performance.

Nintendo wants to dodge all these mistakes. That means, ideally, matching performance to the target resolutions, so that, as much as possible it’s one port not two. That also means avoiding things like one mode having drastically different bandwidth capabilities.

Which brings me to T239 itself. It’s worth remembering that T239 is fully custom, not off the shelf. So if there are limitations, they’re either baked into the tech, or something Nintendo actively chose. I would be wary of any thinking that only works if T239 is pushed past the design’s natural limits.

I think this is why devs are going to be focusing a lot on other aspects of image quality apart from just resolution. A 1440p target is sharp enough for a 4K TV at reasonably far viewing distances - the PS5 and Xbox Series X get by comfortably with this target in more GPU-heavy games. Things like geometric detail, texture resolution and filtering, and physically based lighting and materials may very well be the focus, given T239's restraints and how developers utilized T210. DLSS can carry the rest of the workload with regards to GPU optimization as well as anti-aliasing.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

4GB on the Switch Switch sucessor menu, will allow features we resquest since the Switch launch, to be implemented on Nintendo next hardware such as folders/themes, a better eShop, and maybe a option to stream a game for the console itself.

You don’t need 4GB for all that, the switch already set a nice baseline that can be improved upon. This isn’t a PS5 which has 4GB for the OS (at launch).

And that doesn’t record for a very long while either.

They just need enough memory and enough spare CPU cycles to cache the recording and start saving to storage (microSD or internal) as the recording continues so it could allow recording to go until you run out of storage space.

I'm not sure if 2GB will be enough but i assume it will be. If the OS can record last minutes of play into memory and then starting dumping it into storage, it would allow them to offer users to save the last X minutes of play, or to record a full session of play.

But why would any game console need this? This is incredibly unnecessary except for a very niche amount of people, like a YouTuber.


Like, little kids will very much easily abuse this and then have full storage before they know it.

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

Going out of stock is precisely why they wouldn't want to have a super short release schedule. Their announcements coincide with mass production, so they want to have plenty of time to build up a supply of parts and devices in order to meet demand. Also, if long marketing cycles are truly dead, then why did Sony and Microsoft not do a shorter reveal to release for their consoles? Why do game developers now announce games years in advance? If anything, the age of social media has only encouraged longer marketing cycles, since the highly clique-based nature of social media means that people left to their own devices will be able to keep the hype going for a lot longer than traditional news media.

If we take Bayo3, as an example, they didn’t give it a 5yr long marketing cycle; it was pretty short from reveal to release. If you follow Nintendo’s software slate it is a pretty quick turnaround. Even looking at 3rd parties they are following that trend; looking at MW3R as an example we see an Aug reveal to Nov release.
Most often games are announced years in advance either to start recruiting or to let people know a project has been started. Usually both.

The average time to release for a Nintendo device this gen has been ~4months (+/-1). I doubt they will do longer than 5mo which was what the Switch got. Stock will be an issue regardless I think but the allocation will be dependent on window timing-either summer or holidays-more then how long the marketing cycle will be.

 

[Hermii]

There is a complex design question here, and we have an interesting example of a platform holder blowing it.

Nintendo obviously wants a system that looks good on modern 4K TVs. But their launch Switch game ran at 900p. 4K is 6 times as many pixels. That’s a whole generational upgrade spent just on uprezzing.

Nintendo will support full 4K output. But while designing the console, I think the software devs are going to look at how much power the hardware folks have to offer and settle on 1440p as the default “next gen” target. It still looks good on modern screens, and it leaves plenty of room to make all those pixels look good, too.

1440p means instead of a 4x gap, we can do a 2x gap with handheld. Which is much easier to manage than 4x. Because you don’t want to just throw power at the problem, ideally you want to match the two. The best possible handheld mode + best possible docked mode doesn’t equal the best system.

Which brings us to the platform holder who screwed all this up, Microsoft.

The Series X is the most powerful console on the market. The S, which loses Microsoft twice as much money per unit, really probably is the most powerful device that MS could offer at an entry-level price point. They smartly target 4K and 1440p, respectively.

So why do they suck so bad?

Well, lots of reasons, but at least part if it is because the two consoles don't support each other. The S is supposed to hit half the resolution of the X, but only has a third of the power. The S has too little RAM, and terrible memory bandwidth, leaving the two machines to require different sets of optimizations. The S's RT performance is so poor that what should be the generation's defining innovation is often turned off. Meanwhile, the X's extra power is mostly wasted, with exclusives needing to scale down to the S, and mulitplats getting "good enough" at the PS5's level of performance.

Nintendo wants to dodge all these mistakes. That means, ideally, matching performance to the target resolutions, so that, as much as possible it’s one port not two. That also means avoiding things like one mode having drastically different bandwidth capabilities.

Which brings me to T239 itself. It’s worth remembering that T239 is fully custom, not off the shelf. So if there are limitations, they’re either baked into the tech, or something Nintendo actively chose. I would be wary of any thinking that only works if T239 is pushed past the design’s natural limits.

Bandwidth requirements somewhat scales with resolution, so they can get away with down locking the ram in portable mode. I think the Series S biggest problem is the amount of ram, which is a problem Nintendo won't have since portable mode and docked mode has the exact same amount.

 

[Gerald]

Im really curious if they will stay with simple OS with only 500MB RAM reserve or something more and 2GB RAM will be reserve

 

[Gerald]

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?

16GB GDDR6 and 4GB DDR5 for OS is very likely option for PS5 Pro, but not for Switch 2

 

[YugamiSekai]

But why would any game console need this? This is incredibly unnecessary except for a very niche amount of people, like a YouTuber.


Like, little kids will very much easily abuse this and then have full storage before they know it.

Why does Nintendo allow screenshots and recordings at all then?

 

[carbvan]

Why does Nintendo allow screenshots and recordings at all then?

Not to mention Xbox and PS5 already allow users to record long videos and no one's complaining that their consoles are being filled up with videos.

 

[Coco98bisFR]

Does someone have a link about Nintendo saying that they'll announce the Switch 2 closer to its launch than the Switch, please ? I just read that from the Concernt post in page 2082.

 

[Terrell]

UFS 2.2 can hit 800 MB/s at max speed which is probably fine-ish (1 GB/s is probably ideal), but UFS 3.1 can hit those same speeds with less electricity consumption and can get all the way to (and well beyond) 1 GB/s.

... for how much more money, though? Cost-benefit analysis plays a factor in this. When the transition to eUFS 2.1 alone cuts power consumption over eMMC by half or more while also more than doubling read speed, you've already made the power efficiency savings over the prior hardware without sacrificing anything, so anything beyond that is a bonus that comes with a larger price tag.

It could very well be that eUFS 3.x on a single lane is the best balance of cost and features for Nintendo, but I'm definitely not ruling out eUFS 2.x on two lanes as a sacrifice to maximum power efficiency they feel they can make to achieve the results they hope for.

I think it's pretty unlikely they'll go with separate storage and RAM modules. I bet they'll dual source a UFS 3.1 128GB + LPDDR5 12GB uMCP from Samsung and Micron.

I disagree.

I don't think Nintendo's new hardware's as area constrained as smartphones.

And I think heat's definitely a concern, especially if Nintendo's new hardware requires the RAM and the internal flash storage to run at very high frequencies for sustained periods of time, whereas smartphones probably have the RAM and the internal flash storage run at very high frequencies at very short bursts of time, similar to with the performance CPU cores on smartphone SoCs.
Gamers Nexus has shown that the LPDDR4 modules operate at very similar temperatures as the Tegra X1 on the Nintendo Switch, which is in the range of 59°C-60°C.
And on a bit of an off topic note, outside of using newer process nodes, there's no inherit power efficiency advantage of using LPDDR5X vs LPDDR5.

It also:

• reduces their power to negotiate pricing and change part suppliers if 2 of their parts are joined at the hip and only 1 other part supplier can offer an alternative (because it looks like it's just Micron and Samsung doing uMCP right now?)
• increases costs associated with faulty NAND by requiring a full uMCP replacement to replace faulty storage

It's not a great plan, regardless of any published benefits.

 

[mjayer]

So soon? Can we expect some new leaks/news from this Nate?

 

[darthdiablo]

Won’t be related to Switch 2 or TLOU he mentioned in one of tweet replies

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Going out of stock is precisely why they wouldn't want to have a super short release schedule. Their announcements coincide with mass production, so they want to have plenty of time to build up a supply of parts and devices in order to meet demand.

If history of Wii, Switch, PS5 shows us anything, it's that if they make something decently appealing they're going to need a few dozen million to get close to that point, which ain't happening anyway. Heavy stockpiling won't objectively increase supply, just make for more months where sales are 0.

Does someone have a link about Nintendo saying that they'll announce the Switch 2 closer to its launch than the Switch, please ? I just read that from the Concernt post in page 2082.

From their Q&A half a year back. He doesn't explicitly say shorter, just says don't expect what happened with "NX" to be normal.

Q7 Nintendo Switch was announced under the development codename “NX” in March 2015,
and then the official name was announced in October 2016 prior to its launch in March
2017. Looking back, do you consider this a success in terms of hardware marketing, given
there was a space of about two years between the initial announcement and launch? Do
you think a similar interval between the announcement and launch of a next-generation
platform will be necessary?
A7 Furukawa:
Looking back at the release of information leading up to the Nintendo Switch launch, we
announced the “NX” development codename in March 2015 during a joint announcement
with DeNA Co., Ltd. regarding our business and capital alliance (as it related to joint
development of smart-device game applications and its operation, and also the core
system development centered around Nintendo Account). When we announced our entry
into the mobile business at that time, we needed to let people know that Nintendo would
be continuing to focus on the dedicated video game platform business as our core
business. So, I believe that the timing of the Nintendo Switch announcement was a special
case.
We will provide information about hardware and software at the appropriate time for
each product and strive to reach a wide range of consumers.

 

[ns156]

Im really curious if they will stay with simple OS with only 500MB RAM reserve or something more and 2GB RAM will be reserve

I don't mind the simple OS, but they really need to add in some 3DS features like proper folder sorting for games. The Switch era is defined by scrolling through endless item lists, even in their games (BotW/TotK) and it sucks as a UI.

I'm less concerned about features like voice chat because ultimately most of us who regularly play with friends will probably just use Discord or something. I'm also not too concerned about things like themes.

Additionally, the more they pack into the OS, the higher the chances are that someone finds an attack vector that allows us to jailbreak the things.

So on that last point I'm all for a larger OS so we can jailbreak.

 

[redmutineer75]

If history of Wii, Switch, PS5 shows us anything, it's that if they make something decently appealing they're going to need a few dozen million to get close to that point, which ain't happening anyway. Heavy stockpiling won't objectively increase supply, just make for more months where sales are 0.

From their Q&A half a year back. He doesn't explicitly say shorter, just says don't expect what happened with "NX" to be normal.

So what he's really saying in my opinion is that they won't reveal the codename so early, which so far completely tracks. He said nothing about it being different to October 2016 to March 2017, but rather from March 2015 to October 2016.

 

[Danny]

One of the info we got from gamescom was that Nintendo was aiming to release Switch 2 sooner than late 2024 if possible, now it seems that wasn't possible and they will instead release it late 2024, does that reveal Nintendo having problem with getting production going as quickly as they wanted to?

 

[Neoxon]

A UFS 2.x and 720p screen both feel incredibly outdated in 2024. We're talking about 8-10 year old tech.

I could be wrong but doesn't UFS 3.1 also offer a better power draw as well vs UFS 2.1 at the same speeds? it's newer tech. UFS 3.1 should be the bare minimum imo (if not 3.0). The 3.1 is on the Tegra Orion modules by default and even on the latest Pixel phones. So it would be odd if we get less than 3.1. 4.0 is likely too late and expensive anyway. UFS 2.0 I think might be on its way out and obsolete at this point.

For digital gamers, fast UFS storage is going to be a boom. We will get more bang for the buck with higher storage of course. Will Nintendo limit storage speeds like the did with the Switch? Perhaps. I know there game card speeds complicate things for sure.

Now I don't really know what should be the acceptable speed of the flash storage. We likely don't need to match Series S/X, let alone PS5. 1GB/s might be enough. But yeah it should match current mobile phone at least.

for the Screen... I have mixed feelings. I know we all have talked about this. While 720p quality is acceptable as the minimum, it's not great/better than 1080p. I don't expect many native 1080p 3rd party games on handheld particularly current gen ports, but we have DLSS, and we are going to get a lot of last gen PS4 and switch ports. I also think we could more 1080p games in general by Nintendo at least vs last year, DLSS or not. It all depends on Nintendo or course.
But also more so a 720p screen feels really dated in 2024. I want the Switch 2 to be as future proof as possible. Could it be better in the long run to have a 720p screen and have games that are capable of internally running at 1080p to be super sampled, because a good amount of current gen games ported to Switch 2 might not be capable of 1080p DLSS? Perhaps. We will see.

UFS 3.1 can go up to 2.3 GB/s, which is just a hair under XSX|S’s 2.4 GB/s.

 

[TheMindOfThomas]

One of the info we got from gamescom was that Nintendo was aiming to release Switch 2 sooner than late 2024 if possible, now it seems that wasn't possible and they will instead release it late 2024, does that reveal Nintendo having problem with getting production going as quickly as they wanted to?

Maybe, or perhaps that piece of information was just inaccurate.

 

[Neoxon]

One of the info we got from gamescom was that Nintendo was aiming to release Switch 2 sooner than late 2024 if possible, now it seems that wasn't possible and they will instead release it late 2024, does that reveal Nintendo having problem with getting production going as quickly as they wanted to?

Maybe, or perhaps that piece of information was just inaccurate.

Again, Eurogamer may have just meant earlier within H2 2024 (Ex: September rather than the often-expected November). They didn’t specifically say that Nintendo was aiming for the first half of next year.

Either way, the window of opportunity for a H1 2024 release is closing quickly. And no, I don’t think they’re going to rush the marketing for the system

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The Switch 2 almost surely doesn't need to go past 1 GB/s.

The question is whether UFS 3.1 can save a lot of power by only doing 1 GB/s instead of max speed and I can't find that answer as no phone would ever do that.

I also can't find UFS 2.1 or UFS 2.2 manufacturing cost estimates as phones that use UFS 2.2 in 2022 or 2023 are not popular enough to have their bill of materials estimate posted online.

512 GBs of UFS 3.1 would probably cost Nintendo around $50 per Switch 2 which is doable, but a decent amount. If they can get custom UFS 2.2 that has 512 GBs for $35 or something, they could go for that and it would probably be fine other than increased power consumption. However, it's not clear how much cheaper UFS 2.2 would be.

 

[darthdiablo]

One of the info we got from gamescom was that Nintendo was aiming to release Switch 2 sooner than late 2024 if possible, now it seems that wasn't possible and they will instead release it late 2024, does that reveal Nintendo having problem with getting production going as quickly as they wanted to?

What makes you say it's not possible? H1 window is nowhere close to being off the table.

 

[Coco98bisFR]

If history of Wii, Switch, PS5 shows us anything, it's that if they make something decently appealing they're going to need a few dozen million to get close to that point, which ain't happening anyway. Heavy stockpiling won't objectively increase supply, just make for more months where sales are 0.

From their Q&A half a year back. He doesn't explicitly say shorter, just says don't expect what happened with "NX" to be normal.

Yeah but like even implicitly, I don't see where he says the Switch 2 will be announced closer to its launch than the Switch, unless you consider the Switch was announced in march 2015, which is not what the person's message I was initally talking about was saying.

 

[Danny]

What makes you say it's not possible? H1 window is nowhere close to being off the table.

Yes it is, i don't think a reveal in January-March would lead to a H1 window release.

 

[darthdiablo]

Yes it is, i don't think a reveal in January-March would lead to a H1 window release.

So you think they'll need way more time between the announcement and the release, because.. reasons?

If Switch 2 was announced in February and as much time haas passed between original Switch 1 announcement and release, we'd still be in H1.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Yes it is, i don't think a reveal in January-March would lead to a H1 window release.

Obviously that's why Nintendo is going to reveal it at the TGAs and then do the first Q2 launch since the N64 in 1996.

 

[Neoxon]

What makes you say it's not possible? H1 window is nowhere close to being off the table.

There’s likely going to be 5 or so months of lead time before release to market the system & its launch window games. So at this point, the only hope for a H1 release is if the system is announced in January. This isn’t an iPhone where you can announce the device right before release.

 

[darthdiablo]

There’s likely going to be 5 or so months of lead time before release to market the system & its launch window games. So at this point, the only hope for a H1 release is if the system is announced in January.

And early February would still make it H1. Switch 1 was 4.5 month between announcement and release. SWOLED was 3 months.

 

[Neoxon]

So you think they'll need way more time between the announcement and the release, because.. reasons?

If Switch 2 was announced in February and as much time haas passed between original Switch 1 announcement and release, we'd still be in H1.

The Switch 1 was announced in October & released in March, so that was 5 months. I’d expect about the same for the successor.

And early February would still make it H1. Switch 1 was 4.5 month between announcement and release. SWOLED was 3 months.

SWOLED was also just a refresh of an existing platform, so that’s not exactly a fair comparison. They’d need to announce the system right at the beginning of February for your timeline to fit, & the Switch 1 still has enough unannounced games (as well as games with not enough details being disclosed to the public) to fill one more general Direct in February.

 

[darthdiablo]

The Switch 1 was announced in October & released in March, so that was 5 months. I’d expect about the same for the successor.

4.5 months.

October 20, 2016 announcement -> March 3 announcement.

I’d expect about the same for the successor.

If you were being truthful with that assertion, then an early Feb announcement, with same amount as Switch 1 timeline, would make it H1 still.

 

[Neoxon]

4.5 months.

October 20, 2016 announcement -> March 3 announcement.

Ok, they need to announce it within the first half of February for your timeline to fit. And again, we’re likely getting a general Direct for the Switch 1 in February considering that we still need to see the FE4 remake as well as details on LM2HD, TTYDHD, Side Order, & more.

I get it, we want the Switch 2 as soon as possible. But I’m just not seeing how the first half of next year would be feasible.

 

[Chauzu]

It’s fine to have different opinions on realistic reveal and release timings and have different opinions on what is possible and not possible. I have noticed a trend though when following this thread this personal opinion of some results in every news or rumor being analyzed from this bias, leading to news supporting the individual view being given more credence and vice versa. It sometimes feels like the source of the rumor or news matter less than if it supports your ”team” or not.

It’s all good since we’re all speculating but I personally think it’s more fun if we try and keep a more open mind. It’s not like this is a competition with winners and losers. We will all will in the end…

 

[darthdiablo]

Ok, they need to announce it within the first half of February for your timeline to fit. And again, we’re likely getting a general Direct for the Switch 1 in February considering that we still need to see the FE4 remake as well as details on LM2HD, TTYDHD, Side Order, & more.

I get it, we want the Switch 2 as soon as possible. But I’m just not seeing how the first half of next year would be feasible.

January is also often a month Nintendo did Direct in.

February is mainly something they start doing in the last 2 years. I don't think this necessarily means Nintendo is set in stone doing a Direct in February.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The arguments against a pre Fall 2024 launch are extremely strong.

1 It's just way too late to start the marketing process for a Q1 2024 launch
2. July and August are the worst months for hardware sales so it doesn't make sense to launch there
3. No system since the N64 has done a Q2 launch.
4. A Q2 launch would make a launch title that was a new 3D Mario or new Mario Kart very awkward due to the nearness to Mario Wonder and the completion of Mario Kart 8 DLC
5. The Switch 2 will likely launch with 20 or so games and we're close enough to Q2 that many of these games would have been leaked at this point (eg, Assassin's Creed Valhalla Complete or whatever)

Q2 is technically possible, just really unlikely. Q1 is not happening, I would be shocked if a July or August launch happened.

 

[Neoxon]

January is also often a month Nintendo did Direct in.

February is mainly something they start doing in the last 2 years. I don't think this necessarily means Nintendo is set in stone doing a Direct in February.

The last time we got a Direct of any kind in January was a Direct Mini in 2018, with 2019 onwards usually going for at least February.

 

[Giancarlo]

I don't mind the simple OS, but they really need to add in some 3DS features like proper folder sorting for games. The Switch era is defined by scrolling through endless item lists, even in their games (BotW/TotK) and it sucks as a UI.

I'm less concerned about features like voice chat because ultimately most of us who regularly play with friends will probably just use Discord or something. I'm also not too concerned about things like themes.

Additionally, the more they pack into the OS, the higher the chances are that someone finds an attack vector that allows us to jailbreak the things.

So on that last point I'm all for a larger OS so we can jailbreak.

Nintendo Switch is jailbraked, even with it small OS

 

[darthdiablo]

The last time we got a Direct of any kind in January was a Direct Mini in 2018, with 2019 onwards usually going for at least February.

Yup, that tracks. I checked - I guess normal Directs in January wasn't a thing (but other type of Directs were ie: Pokemon Direct, Smash Direct, etc).

This aside, I'm not sure Nintendo is going to use Direct format to announce Switch successor (even though in the past they did that for new hardware in the DS line)

 

[Dakhil]

UFS 3.1 can go up to 2.3 GB/s, which is just a hair under XSX|S’s 2.4 GB/s.

Up to 2.1 GB/s to be more accurate.

 

[Hermii]

Up to 2.1 GB/s to be more accurate.

If it's used by Nintendo, they would probably rather go for power efficiency over speed. Do you know what's speed it runs most efficient at?

Edit: If the speed ends up being 1GB/S that's very good imo.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

One of the info we got from gamescom was that Nintendo was aiming to release Switch 2 sooner than late 2024 if possible, now it seems that wasn't possible and they will instead release it late 2024, does that reveal Nintendo having problem with getting production going as quickly as they wanted to?

It's been less than three months since then, and the only thing we know now that we didn't then is that it hasn't been announced by mid-November. Doesn't seem a lot to base the rest of that on.

Yes it is, i don't think a reveal in January-March would lead to a H1 window release.

Were it to follow the Switch's pre-release schedule precisely, to make it by June 30 the teaser video would come by February 17 and the big blowout by May 11.

 

[Dakhil]

If it's used by Nintendo, they would probably rather go for power efficiency over speed. Do you know what's speed it runs most efficient at?

Edit: If the speed ends up being 1GB/S that's good enough imo.

I don't know with 100% certainty. But I also think at least 1 GB/s, especially since Mark Cerny said that's what third party developers were asking for.

---

This is 100% speculation on my part.

So Jacob R did a teardown of the PlayStation Portal a couple of days ago.

And fortunately, the display was one of the components torn down.

Considering that I couldn't find any information about the display online, and considering the back of the display looks a little similar to the back of the Nintendo 2DS's display (here and here) in terms of the information available on the back of the display, I think the PlayStation Portal is indeed using a custom display from Sharp.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

512 GBs is probably more important than 800 MB/s vs 1 GB/s if the Switch 2 needs mandatory installs.

And if it doesn't need mandatory installs, the speed of the internal storage is irrelevant.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

And if it doesn't need mandatory installs, the speed of the internal storage is irrelevant.

Even if game cards are fast enough to not need installs, still can't have digital-only fall behind.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Even if game cards are fast enough to not need installs, still can't have digital-only fall behind.

Sure, but I'm very doubtful the cards go past 300 MB/s (probably not even 100 MB/s) and eMMC can even do 400 MB/s.

The speed would be irrelevant... Within the range of possible speeds available to the Switch 2 via various storage options.

 

[Neoxon]

4.5 months.

October 20, 2016 announcement -> March 3 announcement.



If you were being truthful with that assertion, then an early Feb announcement, with same amount as Switch 1 timeline, would make it H1 still.

I don’t think an early February announcement is in the cards, as I’m expecting a Switch 1-only general Direct at that time.

Yup, that tracks. I checked - I guess normal Directs in January wasn't a thing (but other type of Directs were ie: Pokemon Direct, Smash Direct, etc).

This aside, I'm not sure Nintendo is going to use Direct format to announce Switch successor (even though in the past they did that for new hardware in the DS line)

I never said they were, my point was that I’m expecting a Switch 1 Direct in February to lay out their plans for the system in 2024 while it still has the spotlight.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I don’t think an early February announcement is in the cards, as I’m expecting a Switch 1-only general Direct at that time.

They'll probably send out a press release alongside the announcement of the Direct saying that the Switch 2 will be released this year but will not be featured at the upcoming Direct.

 

[Neoxon]

They'll probably send out a press release alongside the announcement of the Direct saying that the Switch 2 will be released this year but will not be featured at the upcoming Direct.

I’m not expecting the Switch 2 to already be announced by the time the February Direct is announced, so a press release won’t be necessary.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I’m not expecting the Switch 2 to already be announced by the time the February Direct is announced, so a press release won’t be necessary.

I mean, it wouldn't be strictly necessary, but I think it would be pretty bad to not set expectations for this being a Switch 1 only Direct. Games that launch in Q2 could get a lot of negative backlash online because no Switch 2. If you're going to announce it like a month or two later, just put out the press release before the Direct so people don't get their knives out for Xenoblade Warriors or whatever.

 

[Neoxon]

I mean, it wouldn't be strictly necessary, but I think it would be pretty bad to not set expectations for this being a Switch 1 only Direct. Games that launch in Q2 could get a lot of negative backlash online because no Switch 2. If you're going to announce it like a month or two later, just put out the press release before the Direct so people don't get their knives out for Xenoblade Warriors or whatever.

I still don’t get why they would need to announce the successor in a press release because of a Direct. If the system isn’t officially announced yet, there wouldn’t be much of a reason for Nintendo to acknowledge it.