StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation and Discussion |ST| "Oh Black Knight, Tape Me Out to Denmark!"

[ILikeFeet]

I mentioned it already, but this thing might have a surprising amount of cache for what it is.

God, I keep mentioning cache! lol

it's the most obvious way to improve Ampere's performance without changing much. moving to 5nm might be what allowed them to add a lot more memory. so despite being on 8nm, being a much smaller design (4-8SM compared to...a lot more) allows them to get away with the added cache

EDIT: oh yea, it's also important to note that the A100 has HBM2 memory instead of GDDR6X, giving it significantly more bandwidth

 

[Anatole]

EeK09 – What kind of advancements can we expect from DLSS? Most people were expecting a DLSS 3.0, or, at the very least, something like DLSS 2.1. Are you going to keep improving DLSS and offer support for more games while maintaining the same version?


In the GA102 (pg.28) whitepaper they talk about this 9x scaling a result of sparsity

I don't see anything in the white paper that explicitly links the improvements from sparsity and the newer DLSS features. The two places in the GA102 white paper where I see sparsity and DLSS mentioned together are:

pp. 7

Sparsity feature can take advantage of fine-grained structured sparsity in deep learning networks to double the throughput of Tensor Core operations over the prior generation Turing Tensor Cores. The third-generation Tensor Cores accelerate AI features such as NVIDIA DLSS for AI super resolution now with support for up to 8K, the NVIDIA Broadcast app for AI enhanced video and voice communications, and the NVIDIA Canvas app for AI-powered painting.

pp. 37

The GA10x Ampere architecture also features NVIDIA’s third-generation Tensor Core which implements structural sparsity, capable of doubling the Tensor Core’s effective throughput. With enhancements made to NVIDIA DLSS, the GeForce RTX 3090 will introduce gamers to 8K HDR rendering for the first time.

I don't see the implication that sparsity enables DLSS ultra performance mode here; I just read these paragraphs as bulletpoint-style summaries of new features in GA102. If you do find a quote though, I will happily eat my crow.

I am skeptical of Nvidia's descriptions in the white paper because couching their Ampere numbers in the language of sparsity allows them to market a speedup over the previous generation that may not exist in practice. Nothing about a neural network is inherently sparse a priori, although as you increase the number of parameters to the extremes that deep learning does, it is true that it becomes more likely that some number of those parameters will trend to zero during the process of training.

(thanks for sharing the tensor core comparison table. the difference between A100 and GA102 cores is also a mystery to me, but interesting to know about in case it becomes relevant.)

 

[fwd-bwd]

I'm guessing the power draw for Orion x hasn't been released here right? In 2018, 64 watts was confirmed, but it might have changed.

I wonder how Orion S will play out.. Maybe half an Orion X chop.. if they can just sort of just split the chip down the middle and give us 6 core A78s, half the GPU cores (or less), 128 bus with with GB/s 100GB/s.. With lower clock speeds for GPU and CPU (1-1.75 Ghz) that would be nice.

According to this May 2021 report on Nvidia Drive (emphases mine):

"The top-of-the-line Orin X model will deliver up to 254 trillion operations per second (TOPS) at about 100W, making it by far the highest-performance ADAS processor on the market. At the low end, Nvidia plans to offer a low-power entry-level Orin that will achieve 10 TOPS at less than 6W. [...] In between the extremes, Orin (like Xavier) supports configurable core counts, speeds, and power supplies to target various use cases. For example, one of its main targets is 72 TOPS at 25W, matching the performance of Tesla’s so-called full-self-driving ASIC while consuming 30% less power."

It also mentioned that Atlan will "boost single-chip AI throughput to 1,000 TOPS" and be "doubling Orin’s power efficiency".

 

[Vanillalite]

In terms of announcing which process node is being used to fabricate Orin X, that's a possibility. In terms of choosing which process node to use for fabricating Orin X, probably not, since I imagine Nvidia would have need to make such a decision at a minimum of 6 months in advance.

With the way things are these days it wouldn’t surprise me if they needed it to be a year in advance.

 

[Pokemaniac]

How long is it since devkits for Dane have been out? 8 months? Is it unusual to not have any leaks on specs at this point? Comparing to Sony and MS? I know NDAs are in place and professional devs aren’t looking to jeopardize their careers for internet clout. But I figured we’d get something at this point, even if it’s not final.

Probably getting close to a year at this point, but the devkits out right now don't actually have Dane in them yet, so there aren't really too many exact specs to leak. This will probably change within the next several months or so.

 

[Alovon11]

Probably getting close to a year at this point, but the devkits out right now don't actually have Dane in them yet, so there aren't really too many exact specs to leak. This will probably change within the next several months or so.

Well considering the Orin X actually exists in a prototype board in a good enough state to give to IM Motors and have an official press announcement/showcase back in Sepetember., I actually wouldn't be surprised if prototype Dane boards exist at Nintendo itself/their second parties, and maybe their most trusted third parties.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Well considering the Orin X actually exists in a prototype board in a good enough state to give to IM Motors and have an official press announcement/showcase back in Sepetember., I actually wouldn't be surprised if prototype Dane boards exist at Nintendo itself/their second parties, and maybe their most trusted third parties.

Possibly, but those people aren't the ones who are going to leak the thing.

 

[Herb Alpert]

Possibly, but those people aren't the ones who are going to leak the thing.

Just give the devkit to ubisoft already
(joke aside, they're probably within the first circle)

 

[garf02]

Well considering the Orin X actually exists in a prototype board in a good enough state to give to IM Motors and have an official press announcement/showcase back in Sepetember., I actually wouldn't be surprised if prototype Dane boards exist at Nintendo itself/their second parties, and maybe their most trusted third parties.

There no such a thing as “their must thrusted 3rd party”, that was supposed to be capcom on the tail of the 3DS and they gave Nintendo the cold shoulder for years till Switch went on spin kick literally everyone expectation.

As I dont think Switch 2 will release any time sooner than 2023, I think only internal studios and basically “second party” have dev kits.

 

[My Tulpa]

In fact on these platforms the exclusives were few, right?
I imagine that the softwarehouse won't mind bringing hundreds of titles to Dane, especially those that have asked Nintendo for more power and those that have stopped in front of technical problems related to the first Switch.

I’d temper expectations about getting any different 3rd party multiplat support than what we’ve gotten on the Switch the last 4 years.

Like, very little different.

Which is fine, the Switch is primarily a 1st party gaming machine. That’s its main draw.

It’s not about power, it’s about the publisher weighing if the demand on a Nintendo machine for their multiplat is worth the effort of porting a unique Nintendo hardware version, or not. In most cases, their answer is usually no (and they blame hardware limitations in interviews, rather than admitting they feel their is not much demand for their port on the Nintendo machine) The Super Switch 4K will be no different.

It will be ports of multiplats that are very congruous to Nintendo 1st party type gaming, and of course an interesting selection of 3rd party Switch exclusives. Like all Nintendo machines.

as always the third party exclusives that have been mentioned by Nate who is one the most reliable sources on Nintendo future hardware are related to games available on other platforms such as PS4/Xbox but incapable of running on the base Switch (or at least to a satisfactory level).

Imagine games like FFVIIR, the more recent Resident Evil games, etc. I'm mentioning those franchises because Capcom and Square Enix are more than likely among the companies who received early dev kits (aside from close partners like Hal Laboratory or Intelligent Systems) but that doesn't mean Nate has hinted at those games in particular, in fact he never elaborated on the scope or size of those exclusives (whether they're indie, AA or AAA).

This isn't enough as of right now to consider it evidence of the dane being positioned as a successor by Nintendo, there is still a likelyhood it will be positioned as a higher price sku for hardcore users for the first few years before we can expect a full discontinuation of the mariko line.

Capcom has been slow to bother porting multiplats that are more popular on other platforms to the Switch..despite Switch success. The promise of 4K won’t change that.

Square Enix won’t even bother porting Kingdom Hearts 1&2 HD to the 90 million install base Switch…they’d rather take the cheaper and less risky option and cloud stream it.

I don’t see publishers being more persuaded/anxious to put a port of their multiplats exclusively onto the much less owned Super Switch and ignore the OG Switch install base. A couple will try as a test of reception by the userbase (which is always the case of every new Nintendo system), but for the most part they will still ignore the Switch and it will be the last platform they even think about porting to.

There, such a move would be interesting and I wonder how Nintendo would market it.
"A SKU that is not a successor to the current Switch, running new games that only a successor could run."

How did they market needing the n3ds to play Xenoblade Chronicles and SNES games?

I kinda think the transition will be quick. There will be a big backlog of games that third parties can make available on Dane switch, making it immediately more desirable day one compared to other Nintendo systems. Imagine launching with Red Dead 3, Cyberpunk, Suicide Squad, and Final Fantasy 7, all in addition to Breath of the Wild 2

Those games you mention, they aren’t slam dunk no-brainers. Not at all. They all have a very good chance of selling barely a million on a Super Switch. Which means the publisher is going to think long and hard before spending time/effort on porting a Switch specific version.

Yeah. Switch 2 is going to get an absolute ton of third party PS4/Xbox One ports.

Capcom will bring RE2, RE3, RE7 and RE Village and probably even Monster Hunter World.

Square will bring FFXV, FFVII remake and who knows, maybe even FF XVI if it’s a cross gen title.

Again, history tells us this isn’t how it works. Those two companies won’t feel those games will sell any better as exclusives on the Switch 4K model than they did about the OG Switch.

 

[My Tulpa]

I'm seriously hoping for one of the following
Nintendo Switch Ultra
Ultra Nintendo Switch
Nintendo Ultra Switch

I’m still hoping for

Power Switch (P-Switch)

and eventually

Power Lite Switch

And making variations of the old “now you are playing with power!” Ads

 

[garf02]

what if they branded Switch 2 as the

Spoiler

Swap

 

[Marce-chan]

It's gonna be:
Nintendo Switch
(4K Model).


Book it.

 

[YolkFolk]

Again, history tells us this isn’t how it works. Those two companies won’t feel those games will sell any better as exclusives on the Switch 4K model than they did about the OG Switch.

Again, you’re missing the point entirely.

Those games wouldn’t run on Switch without major down porting work - the likes of which we have seen with Witcher 3. That kind of work takes a lot of time, effort and money. It’s why we’ve only seen RE7 as a cloud game in Japan.

Putting the likes of RE2 and RE3 on the next Switch is almost a guarantee. In fact i’m genuinely shocked that someone would argue against it.

Happy to close your account the moment one of those RE or Final Fantasy games is announced for the DLSS Switch? Let’s see how confident you really are

 

[garf02]

Again, you’re missing the point entirely.

Those games wouldn’t run on Switch without major down porting work - the likes of which we have seen with Witcher 3. That kind of work takes a lot of time, effort and money. It’s why we’ve only seen RE7 as a cloud game in Japan.

Putting the likes of RE2 and RE3 on the next Switch is almost a guarantee. In fact i’m genuinely shocked that someone would argue against it.

Happy to close your account the moment one of those RE or Final Fantasy games is announced for the DLSS Switch? Let’s see how confident you really are

so you are telling me that 3rd party dont have the commitment to invest into Nintendo's universe and grow an userbase there?? and 3rd party wonders why People that plays mostly on Nintendo holds no care for them,

Hell, the KH cloud thing screams mediocrity/ cash grab

 

[YolkFolk]

so you are telling me that 3rd party dont have the commitment to invest into Nintendo's universe and grow an userbase there?? and 3rd party wonders why People that plays mostly on Nintendo holds no care for them,

Hell, the KH cloud thing screams mediocrity/ cash grab

Not really sure what you’re saying.

I’m saying there are some third party games on PS4 where the developers feel the games are too advanced to run on the OG Switch without compromising the experience and also because of the resources required to do it anyway. It’s nothing new in gaming. It’s why Resident Evil 5 never came to the Wii for example.

I get your KH point but most of the KH games should be able to run natively on the OG Switch. That’s different to something like RE Village not being natively ported to Switch because the hardware wouldn’t struggle to cope.

 

[garf02]

It’s why Resident Evil 5 never came to the Wii for example.

not the same, RE5 would have required more than just a downgrade it would have required a complete remap of the control for controls to work with Wii Scheme.

also what are exactly this "compromise experience" at best what will be sacrificed will be FPS, Resolution, and depending on the game, Drawn Distance. non of which make part of the core experience of a game (maybe except FPS for fighting games), simple, companies dont want to invest the extra time/ money to make a proper port and that leads us to the Video game equivalent of "what came 1st, The chick or the egg", "should Nintendo user 1st support Developers to then get quality products, or should developers offer Nintendo user quality products to then get their support"

 

[YolkFolk]

not the same, RE5 would have required more than just a downgrade it would have required a complete remap of the control for controls to work with Wii Scheme.

also what are exactly this "compromise experience" at best what will be sacrificed will be FPS, Resolution, and depending on the game, Drawn Distance. non of which make part of the core experience of a game (maybe except FPS for fighting games), simple, companies dont want to invest the extra time/ money to make a proper port and that leads us to the Video game equivalent of "what came 1st, The chick or the egg", "should Nintendo user 1st support Developers to then get quality products, or should developers offer Nintendo user quality products to then get their support"

This isn’t even worth debating. If you think RE5 didn’t come to Switch due to control issues than I’m not sure what to say.

Go and have a look at Dead Rising on the Wii and then go and look at the Xbox 360 version.

Switch just isn’t powerful enough to run certain games to the level the developers are satisfied. It’s why a new more powerful Switch will be released which can handle these games.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Those games you mention, they aren’t slam dunk no-brainers. Not at all. They all have a very good chance of selling barely a million on a Super Switch. Which means the publisher is going to think long and hard before spending time/effort on porting a Switch specific version.

It's not meant to be a slam dunk, it's just a hypothetical

 

[garf02]

Switch just isn’t powerful enough to run certain games to the level the developers are satisfied. It’s why a new more powerful Switch will be released which can handle these games.

it got Crysis and Witcher III, anything excuse is hand washing. so ok,

You Expect Switch 2 to be closer to PS5 than what Switch is to PS4??

 

[YolkFolk]

it got Crysis and Witcher III, anything excuse is hand washing. so ok,

You Expect Switch 2 to be closer to PS5 than what Switch is to PS4??

Switch is powerful enough to run Crysis.

I’ve already mentioned Witcher 3 and said that this took a lot of time, effort, money and man power to port across. Most studios aren’t willing to do this.

You’re also now bringing up PS5 when I’m talking about PS4. Just like Switch has quite a few PS360 ports, the next Switch will have quite a few PS4 ports.

There will also come a time when studios comment that the next Switch isn’t powerful enough to run the latest PS5 games. The advantage Switch 2 has at the moment is that quite a few PS5 games are also on PS4 and they look pretty damn great on PS4 as well. That’s great news for the next Switch because with DLSS it should be able to beat out PS4 in some ways.

Listen, what I’m saying isn’t controversial. It’s common sense. New consoles are released to handle games that previous consoles couldn’t or couldn’t without a lot of struggles and money being spent. We’d all be sat playing on our NES’ still if new games didn’t need new hardware.

In the case of the current Switch it is starting to show its age and third party developers are telling this to Nintendo. They want Nintendo to release more powerful hardware so they can port games more easily.

 

[garf02]

I’ve already mentioned Witcher 3 and said that this took a lot of time, effort, money and man power to port across. Most studios aren’t willing to do this.

but then my point still stand, regarding 3rd party servicing Switch audience. Chicken or Egg, Do audiences have to buy mediocre ports 1st to earn better ports later or do ports have to be quality 1st to earn the audience?? that is the eternal catch 22 between Nintendo and 3rd party that no amount of Specs will fix.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

but then my point still stand, regarding 3rd party servicing Switch audience. Chicken or Egg, Do audiences have to buy mediocre ports 1st to earn better ports later or do ports have to be quality 1st to earn the audience?? that is the eternal catch 22 between Nintendo and 3rd party that no amount of Specs will fix.

This seems to lessen the reason for why Nintendo should have DLSS, and more strengthens the reason for why they should really stick with the current switch, when we know they aren’t doing that. Their first party titles, on an economics level, clearly don’t need better hardware as they sell stupid well, so why this newer model with such features and such a crazy jump? People are more than willing to buy games on the current switch with way below native JRPGs, unstable FR in korok forest in BOTW or with a rune is active, the N64 tree on Sword and Shield, etc.


If it’s truly a no matter of specs, they have no reason for the other switch unit to exist, nor do they have a reason to have any new and super modern features for it.

 

[CesareNorrez]

It's gonna be:
Nintendo Switch
(4K Model).


Book it.

It fits right in line with (OLED Model). And I think most consumers will see 4K and understand that it also means improved graphics. And I’m sure Nintendo would drop an overview trailer about all the new features. I don’t think anyone will walk away confused by the announcement.

 

[Marce-chan]

It fits right in line with (OLED Model). And I think most consumers will see 4K and understand that it also means improved graphics. And I’m sure Nintendo would drop an overview trailer about all the new features. I don’t think anyone will walk away confused by the announcement.

Well, exactly. I think that would be the most telling and least misleading name. It would be right on point of what it is and the major improvement/difference: 4K(through DLSS). They shown quite a few improvements in the OLED trailer so I think they'd nail it again with the DLSS model, like showing Zelda looking great on a big 4K screen, or a PS4/XBO port looking incredibly close to the original release in those platforms, and so on. That would be a good ideia and something they already did.
But I think as it'll cost even more than the OLED, it'll have to be marketed as a high standard premium model. Hell it'll be double the price of the Lite if it's 400 US$. So something that's like the opposite of Lite. Switch S(from special edition), New Switch, Switch Deluxe, Switch Plus, I think all of it would work.

 

[NineTailSage]

Thanks for further clarifying it! @ArchedThunder this should clarify it for you as well. So there’s possibly a chance that they “leaked” it intentionally.

Personally, I think if they go for more CPU cores more than GPU cores, so rather than 8SMs and 6CPU cores, I think going 6SMs and 8CPU cores would be the best move.

On top of having a SLC of a good amount for the whole system to better help it. Similar to how the A15B has 32MB of SLC that really helps it with its perf.

I mentioned it already, but this thing might have a surprising amount of cache for what it is.

God, I keep mentioning cache! lol

It is a pretty interesting comparison and Apple definitely claims the performance crown in the mobile space because they are willing to dedicate so much of the SoC space to a larger cache allotments over their competitors solutions.

I was originally leaning towards Nintendo and Nvidia coming up with a wider SoC design to fully realize DLSS in both handheld and docked modes, but a smaller 6-8SM part with larger cache allotments is definitely the more effective way to go in order to maximize performance (beyond what the current Ampere architecture is capable of that's not utilized to the fullest).

 

[ILikeFeet]

It's gonna be:
Nintendo Switch
(4K Model).


Book it.

It fits right in line with (OLED Model). And I think most consumers will see 4K and understand that it also means improved graphics. And I’m sure Nintendo would drop an overview trailer about all the new features. I don’t think anyone will walk away confused by the announcement.

no joke, this is as bad as Wii U. the broad audience is stupid about tech. all they know about 4K is "bigger picture". they don't know anything about how to get there. shit, you can just open up 4K output on the base switch and call it "4K model" and it'd still be correct. you need a much better name to signify that the model is different, otherwise people will go "it's just a slightly better switch" and dismiss it.

but then my point still stand, regarding 3rd party servicing Switch audience. Chicken or Egg, Do audiences have to buy mediocre ports 1st to earn better ports later or do ports have to be quality 1st to earn the audience?? that is the eternal catch 22 between Nintendo and 3rd party that no amount of Specs will fix.

people buy games they are interested in, ports or not. if they want the game, they buy it, and if it sells enough, another game comes. possibly with a better port quality. the only chicken or egg here is if the publisher think's there's enough of an audience to warrant a port or if there isn't one and they have to build it with ports

 

[RennanNT]

It fits right in line with (OLED Model). And I think most consumers will see 4K and understand that it also means improved graphics. And I’m sure Nintendo would drop an overview trailer about all the new features. I don’t think anyone will walk away confused by the announcement.

"(OLED Model)" is just a temporary modifier until they phase out the v2 model, otherwise it would be simply Nintendo Switch OLED.

As for 4K, it doesn't convey the big improvements for handheld mode (or 1080p TVs) nor that it plays games OG Switch can't. If they plan on releasing a Lite model which can't do 4K but play the same games, "only on 4K" label in games would be confusing too.

 

[Teal'c]

I'm not sure it makes sense to include the word 4K in the name of the next model, not all games will reach that resolution (not even ps5 and xbox x-series get there), I expect something simpler and easier to understand.

I’d temper expectations about getting any different 3rd party multiplat support than what we’ve gotten on the Switch the last 4 years.

Like, very little different.

Which is fine, the Switch is primarily a 1st party gaming machine. That’s its main draw.

It’s not about power, it’s about the publisher weighing if the demand on a Nintendo machine for their multiplat is worth the effort of porting a unique Nintendo hardware version, or not. In most cases, their answer is usually no (and they blame hardware limitations in interviews, rather than admitting they feel their is not much demand for their port on the Nintendo machine) The Super Switch 4K will be no different.

It will be ports of multiplats that are very congruous to Nintendo 1st party type gaming, and of course an interesting selection of 3rd party Switch exclusives. Like all Nintendo machines.

For me Switch is not primarily first-party, I do not think I've ever bought so many third-party games in my life, so much so that in the last year I had to impose limits on myself in order not to spend too much.
I bought (and finished) titles that I owned on PC for years but I was never able to complete for lack of time.

I've seen support for the console grow year after year, Ubisoft, THQ and many others have brought hundreds of titles, even EA and Rockstar are moving lately.

I personally predict that with a more powerful machine others will jump on board, after all the same third parties participated in a survey where Nintendo asked them what they expected from a new hardware.

Paradoxically one of the laziest, for me, has been Square-Enix. It has brought several titles to Switch this is true, but how many really "squeeze" the console? Only Dragon Quest XI I guess.

However even with this support, I already have dozens of games set aside, if more come I'll be even happier.

p.s. Again, I apologize if you can't understand something because of my English

 

[uncleoptimus]

I'm not sure it makes sense to include the word 4K in the name of the next model, not all games will reach that resolution (not even ps5 and xbox x-series get there), I expect something simpler and easier to understand.

Just to be clear, "Switch 4k" is just a label proposed by Nate Drake for the purposes of discussing rumors and updates. Just until the official name is eventually announced.

He went w/ "Switch 4k" just because there was too much argument over the terminology of "Pro vs 2 vs Super vs Whatever", missing the point. And since the main feature is that the new chip will be able to output 4k thanks to innovative Nvidia graphics tech.

And yo your English is totally !

 

[maidhhc]

I really don't think they would ever call it the '4K Model'

 

[My Tulpa]

Again, you’re missing the point entirely.

Those games wouldn’t run on Switch without major down porting work - the likes of which we have seen with Witcher 3. That kind of work takes a lot of time, effort and money. It’s why we’ve only seen RE7 as a cloud game in Japan.

Putting the likes of RE2 and RE3 on the next Switch is almost a guarantee. In fact i’m genuinely shocked that someone would argue against it.

Happy to close your account the moment one of those RE or Final Fantasy games is announced for the DLSS Switch? Let’s see how confident you really are

How is RE2 and RE3 natively running on the 4K Switch a guarantee? One would have thought KH HD 1&2 would have been a “guarantee” on the popular Switch (ps3 game after all)…turns out it’s not about power but effort/dev time.

Having games run with better resolution/performance/IQ with the New Switch isn’t going to change any dynamics when it comes to porting major multiplats that can be found on all other platforms.

It will be exciting to play Nintendo games with the DLSS power of Dane, but for multiplats, you are still going to have Xbox/ps/pc gamers say “eh, the docked version isn’t quite as good as it is on platform X…I’ll stick with that platform for that game”

It will come down to what it always has been for Switch ports of major multiplats…how much will the appeal of portability overcome the other 3 platform’s versions for the majority market of the game?

We know what EA thinks about this lol

 

[YolkFolk]

How is RE2 and RE3 natively running on the 4K Switch a guarantee?

Have you seen Capcom’s Switch releases so far?

RE remake
RE Zero
RE 4
RE 5
RE 6
RE Revelations
RE Revelations 2

Switch 2 will get the same treatment with 2 remake, 3 remake, 7 and Village. It’s not rocket science.

 

[My Tulpa]

so you are telling me that 3rd party dont have the commitment to invest into Nintendo's universe and grow an userbase there?? and 3rd party wonders why People that plays mostly on Nintendo holds no care for them,

Hell, the KH cloud thing screams mediocrity/ cash grab

Right. Nintendo games on Nintendo machines just gobble up the competition. They dominate too much. They leave very little space.

Most games simply can’t compete with Nintendo exclusives on Nintendo machines. That’s why, historically, little effort is put into multiplat ports (or not bothered with at all)

I don’t see this changing no matter what hardware is inside that Nintendo box.

The top 20 selling Nintendo box games will always be 95% Nintendo games and 5% 3rd party multiplat publishers.

The opposite is true for Xbox/PlayStation. Major publishers can take comfort knowing their efforts on the Xbox/PlayStation can shine. Halo and Uncharted have absolutely no affect on the sales of COD and Assassins Creed on this platform. AAa 3rd party games have a great shot in outselling 1st party. In fact, the first party output of Xbox/PlayStation actually helps facilitate sales of major 3rd party games because they are similar in appeal.

Nintendo 1st party just do not facilitate major multiplat sales, they inhibit.

Nintendo would have to vastly change their 1st party output in order to help most 3rd party sales on Nintendo machines grow. But of course they won’t do that, nor should they.

The “effort” of publishers/devs ports on Nintendo machines would have little affect imo. I get why they aren’t motivated often.

I’m saying there are some third party games on PS4 where the developers feel the games are too advanced to run on the OG Switch without compromising the experience

Eh, i never really buy this theory. If a publisher knew their game would sell millions on a platform but meant they had to dev a low end pc profile version of it…they would absolutely always make that low end pc version of their games.

“Compromising the experience” is a gamer attitude, not a publisher one.

The concern about putting Witcher 3 on Switch was never about whether the publisher/dev thought the downgrades would make them puke because it assaults their artistic integrity…the concern was if the market for a game like Witcher 3 would be willing to sacrifice graphics/performance for the portability option.

Switch just isn’t powerful enough to run certain games to the level the developers are satisfied. It’s why a new more powerful Switch will be released which can handle these games.

The majority market for these types of games aren’t satisfied. They tend to opt for the best graphics/performance version they can get for their big screen. That’s why the majority market consumes these games on the Xbox/ps/pc

AAA 3rd party game developers go where the market is.

This isn’t why a more powerful version of Switch exists…Nintendo isn’t going “maybe NOW the Swifch can get GTAV!!”. The more powerful Nintendo switch exists because, believe it or not, Nintendo actually cares that the current Switch isn’t playing Nintendo games at a framerate and resolution and graphics level they would prefer going forward.

I’ve already mentioned Witcher 3 and said that this took a lot of time, effort, money and man power to port across. Most studios aren’t willing to do this.

Right, this is my whole argument.

It’s the time, effort, money. That’s it. It’s rarely about if it’s “possible” or about “artistic integrity”

But it’s not like the Switch port of Witcher 3 took any more time/effort/money than the ps4 or Xbox one port. Its just the fact that it IS still extra time/effort/money for yet another platform target that has the riskiest chance of being worth it.

 

[bmfrosty]

Have you seen Capcom’s Switch releases so far?

RE remake
RE Zero
RE 4
RE 5
RE 6
RE Revelations
RE Revelations 2

Switch 2 will get the same treatment with 2 remake, 3 remake, 7 and Village. It’s not rocket science.

Unless they feel that that particular test of putting resident evil on the Nintendo systems failed and that they're not going to do any more.

Or that they don't have it in their immediate plans, but may revisit it whenever they remaster those games for some day when they're remastering for the PS7 and the XB Series X5 or whatever.

 

[Hidden04]

I wonder if will see more concrete and legit leaks of the console next year. Could we hear a rumor about the specs of the system too?

 

[ILikeFeet]

I wonder if will see more concrete and legit leaks of the console next year. Could we hear a rumor about the specs of the system too?

I think there's a chance we could see it this year. if Nintendo and Nvidia finalizes the design and clocks of Dane, I reckon they'll give devs a heads up before sending out the new final kits

 

[YolkFolk]

Right. Nintendo games on Nintendo machines just gobble up the competition. They dominate too much. They leave very little space.

Most games simply can’t compete with Nintendo exclusives on Nintendo machines. That’s why, historically, little effort is put into multiplat ports (or not bothered with at all)

I don’t see this changing no matter what hardware is inside that Nintendo box.

The top 20 selling Nintendo box games will always be 95% Nintendo games and 5% 3rd party multiplat publishers.

The opposite is true for Xbox/PlayStation. Major publishers can take comfort knowing their efforts on the Xbox/PlayStation can shine. Halo and Uncharted have absolutely no affect on the sales of COD and Assassins Creed on this platform. AAa 3rd party games have a great shot in outselling 1st party. In fact, the first party output of Xbox/PlayStation actually helps facilitate sales of major 3rd party games because they are similar in appeal.

Nintendo 1st party just do not facilitate major multiplat sales, they inhibit.

Nintendo would have to vastly change their 1st party output in order to help most 3rd party sales on Nintendo machines grow. But of course they won’t do that, nor should they.

The “effort” of publishers/devs ports on Nintendo machines would have little affect imo. I get why they aren’t motivated often.



Eh, i never really buy this theory. If a publisher knew their game would sell millions on a platform but meant they had to dev a low end pc profile version of it…they would absolutely always make that low end pc version of their games.

“Compromising the experience” is a gamer attitude, not a publisher one.

The concern about putting Witcher 3 on Switch was never about whether the publisher/dev thought the downgrades would make them puke because it assaults their artistic integrity…the concern was if the market for a game like Witcher 3 would be willing to sacrifice graphics/performance for the portability option.




The majority market for these types of games aren’t satisfied. They tend to opt for the best graphics/performance version they can get for their big screen. That’s why the majority market consumes these games on the Xbox/ps/pc

AAA 3rd party game developers go where the market is.

This isn’t why a more powerful version of Switch exists…Nintendo isn’t going “maybe NOW the Swifch can get GTAV!!”. The more powerful Nintendo switch exists because, believe it or not, Nintendo actually cares that the current Switch isn’t playing Nintendo games at a framerate and resolution and graphics level they would prefer going forward.



Right, this is my whole argument.

It’s the time, effort, money. That’s it. It’s rarely about if it’s “possible” or about “artistic integrity”

But it’s not like the Switch port of Witcher 3 took any more time/effort/money than the ps4 or Xbox one port. Its just the fact that it IS still extra time/effort/money for yet another platform target that has the riskiest chance of being worth it.

Can’t say I agree.

Getting Witcher 3 to run on a PS4 is relatively straightforward in comparison to the work done to get it even running on Switch.

Witcher 3 had a pretty large development period for a ‘port’. It’s way more extensive to port a game like Witcher 3 to Switch than it is something like Resident Evil 5 for example.

There isn’t even just cost, time and manpower to consider either in all of this. Studios need to be satisfied with what the final product will even look like. The likes of RE7 without all the lighting tricks just wouldn’t be the same experience.

 

[Angel Whispers]

A few thoughts. It might come across a little ranty, but if you can see past that to the substance, I hope that it will allow for better and broader discussions: "Switch is primarily a first party machine...." - I feel that fellow Nintendo fans need to get away from this narrative. It doesn't hold, and it's very clear upon the Switch reveal that this is NOT what Nintendo was aiming for - We saw TES5: Skyrim and NBA 2K games next to Splatoon 2, Super Mario Odyssey and LOZ: Breath Of The Wild. In the 2017 Presentation, we also saw representatives from Sega, Square-Enix and EA, then at E3, Miyamoto joined Ubisoft developers on stage, while numerous JRPGs which existed as PlayStation 3rdP exclusives came to Switch, and the likes of Bethesda and CDPR brought games for the first time in a long while, if not for the first time ever. Even Rockstar Games are here, although flagship GTA and RDR entries haven't arrived yet - If this isn't clear messaging that 1stP and 3rdP can co-exist on Nintendo platforms, or that this is what they aspire to, then I don't know what is. That's before we get to Indie developers, who are enjoying regular banquets on the Switch. It's rather astonishing that so many people haven't yet grasped this.

We're long past this train of thought of Nintendo platforms being "complementary second systems" - If anything, this narrative needs to change. One might suggest that they're the primary system, because Nintendo is a certainty for many, but whether you buy a PS/XBox seems up for debate. One other point that's often been lost in this discussion is that Nintendo has finally managed to answer the question "Why buy the Nintendo version?" (because people can play anywhere, and in some cases, cross-save with other versions, if they double dipped. More than that, the portability enables people to have more time to play and complete the games they purchase). 3rdPs that didn't treat it as some sort of science and came over were rewarded for jobs done well. It's time that we stopped wondering whether their games would sell, and start asking publishers what they did, what they can do, what whey will do to make their products successes.

So, what does this mean for a Switch successor? I fully expect Nintendo and Nvidia to go harder than the performance-levels proposed in this thread, and the ones at the New Old Place. Why? Because anything less would leave them very susceptible to loss of partnerships and failure; Ultimately, one has to reconcile this with the "Do Or Die" statement of the current leadership. Having worked so hard to bring Bethesda, CDPR, Final Fantasy and KH, among others to the Switch, it would be very deeply lamentable for all parties concerned, if their next/future projects didn't make it to a successor. Still, to aspire to XB1/PS4 ports for a successor is to seal a Worse Than Wii U-esque fate for it. It would not be a significant advancement over what is possible on the existing Switch (there isn't a single XB1/PS4 title that couldn't exist on the Switch in some capacity). Furthermore, Considering that 70%+ of Switch owners also own one of XB1/PS4/PC, it would beg the questions "Who would this product be for, except a very small niche of people who played Nintendo systems exclusively? Surely it's better to make your product more appealing to your partners, so that the $399-499 spent on a PS/XBox is spent on games for it, rather than a second console you can't play anywhere BEFORE buying games for it". I believe that this is what Nintendo aspires to, and I would also put it out there that the OLED model is setting them up for a successor's inevitable $399 price - That's... kinda important because it would give them extra room to work with in terms of achieving a higher point of performance. I also believe that Nintendo aren't averse to the idea of better performance, because they were not pleased with Yoshi's Crafted World or Xenoblade Chronicles 2 performances for 1stP products. Having the extra performance will also increase their productivity and keep development costs down, because they wouldn't need to spend as much time developing nip-and-tuck solutions to technical limitations. I want to put these thoughts out there because I'm rather tired of policed expectations and the general tone, that fellow Nintendo fans should be afraid to dream, or dare to expect more, or be positive in their mindsets. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen!! That's also OK, but let's not be afraid to dare to dream again - We're all adults here, right? The onus should be on individuals to get a grip of their own emotions, rather than demand that everybody else "keeps their expectations in check" (Sorry, but this is one thing I despised about the New Old Place)

"But Angel!! It isn't possible, and they won't get near the PS5!!" - I want to let the following statement marinate with everybody, because it should be a starting point: It doesn't need to be "near the PS5", because there won't be a single (non-exclusive) game in the next 7 years (i.e., between now and the end of 2028) that has PS5 paper specs as its minimum requirements. None. Not One. Zero. Zilch. It doesn't matter, because the real performance threshold is the XBox Series S - Microsoft will NOT adopt a policy which allows 3rdPs to develop for the XSX alone. There MUST be a version for the XSS. But we MIGHT be able to identify a lower performance threshold in the Steam Deck, too, which will surely have some PS5/XS ports.

I don't have all the answers, and wouldn't claim to, but I don't believe that anything I've posted is wild, or out of order here. Ultimately, I'm a believer in the Common Endeavour (Nintendo doesn't want to be left behind, while their partners want them to have enough to bring Dragon Quest 12, or the next Monster Hunter, etc.). There isn't a coherent reason to believe that they'll aim so low, which, at its heart, DOESN'T amount to much more than certain Internet perceptions or "L-M-A-O Nin-ten-D'OH!!". I'm confident that Nvidia and Nintendo will produce something that beats the Steam Deck, XB1 and PS4 comfortably in real world performance terms. Finally, when the Tegra superchip was unveiled and pitched to Nintendo, it had aspirations of that time - To deliver XB1/PS4-esque performance at a tenth of the power consumption. I don't believe for a second that Nintendo aligned themselves with the leading graphics processing company in the world to design backward-thinking, unambitious hardware that would be easily beaten by flagship-spec mobile phones upon launch. With that in mind, I believe that this rumoured Orin-derivative will have aspirations fit for today - To get PS5/XS-esque performance at a fraction of the consumption, OR be in a place where it can have full-cream editions of UE5/the latest gaming development engines, and receive ports of PS5/XS titles. Whether they achieve it through DLSS, or mixed precision, or an enhanced dock, or whatever the SCD unit is meant to be, or other (unannounced) disruptive tech, I don't know, but there appears to be more avenues that they could explore.

 

[My Tulpa]

---

For me Switch is not primarily first-party, I do not think I've ever bought so many third-party games in my life, so much so that in the last year I had to impose limits on myself in order not to spend too much.
I bought (and finished) titles that I owned on PC for years but I was never able to complete for lack of time.

I've seen support for the console grow year after year, Ubisoft, THQ and many others have brought hundreds of titles, even EA and Rockstar are moving lately.

Hey, I’m the same. I’ve bought tons of 3rd party Switch games I might not have otherwise. The appeal of having portability for indies and older AA-AAA titles is fantastic. I’m not saying there aren’t many 3rd party games that sell well, there absolutely are!

What I was addressing is the notion that the type of 3rd party output we’ve seen on the Switch the last 4 years is going to be different the next 4 years because of the new hardware. I don’t see it.

It will still be full of great indies, Japanese AA output, 3rd party console exclusive, and ports of older AA-AAA titles.

The expectation that a lot of ports that have skipped the Switch won’t anymore, is weird to me. It will be about the same as it was.

In 2023 we’ll get an impressive port of a AAA multiple that released in 2019, similar to how the Switch got a four year old Witcher 3 game…but it won’t be the norm. The output rate/type will be mostly the same. Cause the market expectation will be the same.

You and I buying tons of 3rd party games on the Switch isn’t really a good metric of the dynamic I was talking about. The fact we are posting here means we are more of a core/hardcore hobbyist gamer.

Nintendo said a few years ago that the average console owner (any console) buys 1-2 games a year. You read this forum or Resetera and you would think it’s 12-24 lol.

But I fully believe that 1-2 number. And when Switch owners make a purchase it will usually be a Nintendo exclusive. Game sales show this to be true.

You mention growing Rockstar and EA support…their support consists of ports of games from 15 years ago, cartoony multiplayer shooters, FIFA, racers. I fully expect this type of support to continue with the 4K Switch. I was talking to people who were expecting much more than this because of DLSS 4K Switch.

 

[LoneRanger]

I know its comparing apples to oranges but seeing how Dying Light turned out on Switch, I wondered what problem Capcom had when tried to port RE VII a long time ago.

Btw, if next Nintendo machine is capable to bring PS4 levels games with relative easy, I can see convicing some publishers to bring quickly their great hits into this new machine.

Like I said on the other thread, would be a smart move for Nintendo to get next year COD (+ Warzone) on day 1 next Swtich launch. Or convinced Rockstar to port RDR2, or Capcom to get quickly all RE games (REVII, 2R, 3R, Village and DMCV), or Ubisoft with their open world Assasins Creed games (Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla). Some third party exclusive ports would be nice to say to people “this is a new machine that can bring new games to Swtich brand, plus run all your current titles with visual improvements”.

 

[Thraktor]

The post that I am imagining in my head estimated the time for DLSS to run on 2-3 potential Dane configurations in ms. TBH, I may be remembering a composite of various related posts.

With that said, I replied to this Thraktor post at the time, and the results still puzzle me. In theory, the cost of DLSS should marginally increase with input resolution, since the earliest layers in the neural network are at input resolution. However, that cost should be fairly negligible (less than 10% of the total cost in the Kaplanyan/Facebook paper) compared to the reconstruction cost at output resolution.

With that in mind, it doesn’t make sense to me that the DLSS compute time should decrease as input resolution increases from 1080p to 1440p. Assuming Thraktor’s tests were controlled correctly (more on that below), the only explanation that I can think of is that Performance, Ultra Performance, and Quality modes already use somewhat different network architectures.

The way that a CNN works is independent of resolution because the weights are shared. That concept (parameter sharing) is one of the main advantage of CNNs, because it means there are fewer weights to train. Besides, from an image processing perspective, it would be a poor choice to use different weights for each pixel position, since the information at those pixel positions is different in each frame. So instead you train a filter, often a 3x3 or 5x5 pixel filter, that loops over each pixel in the frame.

In theory, since you have parameter sharing, you could use the same neural network for each mode. It would be a conscious decision on Nvidia’s part to train a different network for each mode to improve either cost or image quality. If this were true, Thraktor’s results suggest that Performance mode may use a deeper, more computationally expensive network than Quality mode.

This would make the names something of a misnomer, although it does make a certain amount of sense - for example, it makes intuitive sense that you would need a deeper network to reconstruct a “4K” looking image from 720p frames than from 1080p frames.

This doesn’t fully account for what happens when DRS and DLSS are combined. For example, which network would be used when scaling from 900p to 4K - performance or ultra performance? I am not sure.

I am hesitant to make any conclusions based on Thraktor’s tests alone. Taking the median frame time seems reasonable, but I am not sure if manually walking through a set path is controlled enough for the 0.3 ms margins we’re talking about. Plus, we haven’t seen any indication that the networks are different elsewhere. It’s an interesting possibility for the sake of discussion though.

(edited heavily to reorganize paragraphs and improve clarity)

Yeah, my tests were very much a case of "I can't find any data on this, but I have a DLSS-capable card in front of me, so how about I do some rudimentary testing myself". Definitely not scientifically rigorous by any means, so I wouldn't treat it as gospel.

In any case, I'm increasingly convinced that DLSS on any new Dane-based Nintendo device will be a custom network built specifically for Nintendo, so performance comparisons to PC DLSS may not be that informative (although useful perhaps as a ballpark). I believe we discussed a while back on resetera that, being a convolutional network and having to operate on millions of pixels in the ballpark of 1-2ms, the number of trainable parameters in the network is actually quite low, maxing out in the tens of thousands or so. Combined with having the 6th most powerful supercomputer in the world in-house, for presumably these kinds of purposes, training a new version of DLSS should be pretty quick for Nvidia. And I have no doubt that a version of DLSS optimised specifically for low-performance hardware like Dane would end up being quite different than a version of DLSS optimised for high-end PC GPUs.

 

[Dakhil]

I wonder if will see more concrete and legit leaks of the console next year. Could we hear a rumor about the specs of the system too?

I think detailed specs are going to be leaked a couple of months after Nintendo formally announces the DLSS model*, assuming the Nintendo Switch was any indication.

~

Speaking of devkits, Arm talked about Arm Virtual Hardware during the keynote on the first day of Arm DevSummit, which I think seems to be at least beneficial for preliminary devkits for future consoles from Nintendo, especially when it comes to the CPU.

~

I'm confident that Nvidia and Nintendo will produce something that beats the Steam Deck, XB1 and PS4 comfortably in real world performance terms.

Are you talking about handheld mode performance or TV mode performance?

I agree with you if you're talking about TV mode performance.

However, I don't agree with you if you're talking about handheld mode performance due to additional hardware limitations that are encountered in handheld mode (e.g. thermals, battery life). But saying that, I do think the DLSS model* in handheld mode can be around the PlayStation 4 in terms of real world performance, especially with DLSS enabled.

 

[TonyBaduy]

How long is it since devkits for Dane have been out? 8 months? Is it unusual to not have any leaks on specs at this point? Comparing to Sony and MS? I know NDAs are in place and professional devs aren’t looking to jeopardize their careers for internet clout. But I figured we’d get something at this point, even if it’s not final.

Zynga (stupidly) confirmed they have dev kits to Bloomberg so that's a leak of sorts.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I know its comparing apples to oranges but seeing how Dying Light turned out on Switch, I wondered what problem Capcom had when tried to port RE VII a long time ago.

I think it's standards. But they did go an make a bespoke version of RE Engine for whatever reason.

 

[ArchedThunder]

I think detailed specs are going to be leaked a couple of months after Nintendo formally announces the DLSS model*, assuming the Nintendo Switch was any indication.

~

Speaking of devkits, Arm talked about Arm Virtual Hardware during the keynote on the first day of Arm DevSummit, which I think seems to be at least beneficial for preliminary devkits for future consoles from Nintendo, especially when it comes to the CPU.

~


Are you talking about handheld mode performance or TV mode performance?

I agree with you if you're talking about TV mode performance.

However, I don't agree with you if you're talking about handheld mode performance due to additional hardware limitations that are encountered in handheld mode (e.g. thermals, battery life). But saying that, I do think the DLSS model* in handheld mode can be around the PlayStation 4 in terms of real world performance, especially with DLSS enabled.

I’d take 1080p PS4 games at 720p native in handheld

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

I think it should be noted that, lots of the work that the PS5 and Series X will doing is to take the image and bring it up to 4k. Having a PS5 game that flawlessly performs at 4k does not mean a lower performing hardware has to have that many flops to get a similar result at a lower resolution. It’s a 10.2 TFLOP machine, yes, but if it is displaying at 4k it isn’t doing the fidelity of a 10.2TFLOP machine.

Besides, the Series S is the lower bound, as someone reminded all, not the PS5. The amount of games that will end up using the full PS5 spec are not going to be common, but uncommon outside of the first party titles who even then will be targeting the 2160p resolutions of UHD TVs. If a game is 1080p on the PS5 for example, then I have trouble seeing how that would work on Dane. If it is 1080p on the Series S, that’s workable, especially since said series S has memory limitations that prevent it from being the star it is aiming to be.

Series S will be a machine that can be matched reasonably well, outside of CPU, for certain things.

But. Dane might have more available memory, and a SS feature available to make use of.

And finally, it does not need to match the PS5 or the Series X

 

[Anatole]

Yeah, my tests were very much a case of "I can't find any data on this, but I have a DLSS-capable card in front of me, so how about I do some rudimentary testing myself". Definitely not scientifically rigorous by any means, so I wouldn't treat it as gospel.

In any case, I'm increasingly convinced that DLSS on any new Dane-based Nintendo device will be a custom network built specifically for Nintendo, so performance comparisons to PC DLSS may not be that informative (although useful perhaps as a ballpark). I believe we discussed a while back on resetera that, being a convolutional network and having to operate on millions of pixels in the ballpark of 1-2ms, the number of trainable parameters in the network is actually quite low, maxing out in the tens of thousands or so. Combined with having the 6th most powerful supercomputer in the world in-house, for presumably these kinds of purposes, training a new version of DLSS should be pretty quick for Nvidia. And I have no doubt that a version of DLSS optimised specifically for low-performance hardware like Dane would end up being quite different than a version of DLSS optimised for high-end PC GPUs.

We did discuss it, and I agree. I posted a similar thought a few days ago, when ILikeFeet shared a post pointing out that even the desktop version of DLSS could likely get marginally better image quality if it were deeper, but that Nvidia probably selected the network size to balance image quality with their performance goals on desktop Turing/Ampere. It seems very reasonable to me that the solution for the Dane Switch will apply the same principle and choose a lighter weight network architecture, with either fewer layers or fewer channels within each layer.

(also, welcome to the new board!)

 

[Marce-chan]

I know its comparing apples to oranges but seeing how Dying Light turned out on Switch, I wondered what problem Capcom had when tried to port RE VII a long time ago.

Btw, if next Nintendo machine is capable to bring PS4 levels games with relative easy, I can see convicing some publishers to bring quickly their great hits into this new machine.

Like I said on the other thread, would be a smart move for Nintendo to get next year COD (+ Warzone) on day 1 next Swtich launch. Or convinced Rockstar to port RDR2, or Capcom to get quickly all RE games (REVII, 2R, 3R, Village and DMCV), or Ubisoft with their open world Assasins Creed games (Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla). Some third party exclusive ports would be nice to say to people “this is a new machine that can bring new games to Swtich brand, plus run all your current titles with visual improvements”.

I kinda agree with this. When it comes to 3rd parties games, having to put high effort, dev time and and making graphical compromises is a huge push away to porting their games for Switch. Having a more powerful machine that allows for something like RDR2 to be ported without taking more than a year and looking rough like The Witcher 3 would make more games like that possible on the Switch family. That's why I don't think it'll be labeled as a successor too. Because power is only a push back to 3rd parties, as Nintendo's internal teams make their games with the Switch in mind, so they can from now on develop games looking better and better on current Switch, while also making them looking even better on the DLSS model.

I got a little surprised that Resident Evil 7 wasn't ported... Maybe they tried to do it early in the Switch life and couldn't get it running and looking good. But they were testing the floors to get REngine ported so they could make MHR, which is a damn impressive looking game. I expect Resident Evil Outrage comes next year with major improvements for Dane, while also looking incredible on base model - it was done with it in mind after all. Then I expect Resident Evil 4 remake or Resident Evil 9 to get ported for Dane.

That way Nintendo will just vastly expand the Switch family and install base, while having huge sales for first party games in a huge install base.

 

[My Tulpa]

Have you seen Capcom’s Switch releases so far?

RE remake
RE Zero
RE 4
RE 5
RE 6
RE Revelations
RE Revelations 2

Switch 2 will get the same treatment with 2 remake, 3 remake, 7 and Village. It’s not rocket science.

How did RE 6 do on the Switch sales wise?

I wouldn’t be surprised if they went the easier route and cloud streamed to the Switch from now on. Like SE chose to do with KH.

Can’t say I agree.

Getting Witcher 3 to run on a PS4 is relatively straightforward in comparison to the work done to get it even running on Switch.

Witcher 3 had a pretty large development period for a ‘port’. It’s way more extensive to port a game like Witcher 3 to Switch than it is something like Resident Evil 5 for example.

There isn’t even just cost, time and manpower to consider either in all of this. Studios need to be satisfied with what the final product will even look like. The likes of RE7 without all the lighting tricks just wouldn’t be the same experience.

Yes Saber had to figure out tricks and re-workings to get the game to run/look well on the Switch…but this is true of any console port.

The Nintendolife interview with Saber had them saying it only took about a year of development to make the Switch port.

The Switch port didn’t take extraordinary time/effort/money relative to the ps4/one versions. There were a lot of tricks and corner cutting to get those versions running compared to their pc version. And even with all that work, it didn’t release on the ps4 in an optimal state.

The Eurogamer CDPR interview has them saying they had been developing Witcher 3 on the pc for over a year before they started the ps4/one version (around the end of 2012). At that time, they had no devkits and no experience developing for the ps4

Trust me, it took a lot of their time and effort to make the ps4 of Witcher 3. I would argue more than what Saber had to deal with in their porting to the Switch.

In the end, it’s all development time. Every new platform target is extra time. The Switch isn’t harder, it’s just more.