• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

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

They were absolutely over the top arrogant back in those days. That is why I brought up the Metroid Prime Remastered, leaving out the original development team of the Remastered credits was intentional, and shows that Nintendo can be a bit salty when you don't stick with the company.
The recent incident with Metroid Prime Remastered is not proof of any long-term "salt" within the company, and could simply be company policy.

My counterargument to said "salt": Why is the Super Mario RPG Remake an actual thing?
 
Last edited:
The recent incident with Metroid Prime Remastered is not proof of any long-term "salt" within the company, and could simply be company policy.

My counterargument to said "salt": Why is the Super Mario RPG ramke an actual thing?
The metroid prime thing is only a company policy, Nintendo does it in all its remasters, remakes and ports.


They put something like "Based on the work of the original team" at the end of the credits.
 
The metroid prime thing is only a company policy, Nintendo does it in all its remasters, remakes and ports.


They put something like "Based on the work of the original team" at the end of the credits.
The other option is to double the length of credits. To give people PTSD: Sonic Colors Ultimate and its 30 minute long credits.

What I would like them to do is to remaster the original credits, or even just port the old one, and have it as an option after the player has beaten the game.
 
The metroid prime thing is only a company policy, Nintendo does it in all its remasters, remakes and ports.


They put something like "Based on the work of the original team" at the end of the credits.
It is a company policy, to use staff credits. It’s a shitty policy. But it’s not animus
 
0
Agree. People have to remember that Nintendo can be a resentful company at times. This is the same company that excluded the original developers of Metroid Prime from the credits in Metroid Prime Remastered. Its reasonable to think that Nintendo may be a bit bitter with the publishers that declined to show Switch any support at launch and therefore if they didn't need them for a successful launch with Switch, then they wont need them for the Redacted launch. Nintendo has certain publishers that they consider preferred partners and they will be the ones with early access to development kits. I will not be shocked if many western publishers are delivered kits until Nintendo is ready to reveal Redacted to the public.
you do realize that policy is common in the entire industry right? It's not just a Nintendo thing
 
Last edited:
I wonder if it's either that dev kits haven't been given out, or just that Activision haven't received one.
Nintendo problaby has only given the finalized or the dev kits of Switch sucessor to it closest partners(Ubisoft, Capcom, Square Enix etc...)
 
Jesus fucking christ nintendo; were they really that thirsty for more third party support that they signed the deal without making sure it wasn't just cloud shit?

Now I understand why Valve didn't sign the deal.
No, they knew the terms, Corley (the judge) clarified with context what happened and it was that they were concerned only with some of the provisions with the deal, but overall Nintendo accepted the deal as it is beneficiary to them they have no reason to not accept.
 
Jesus fucking christ nintendo; were they really that thirsty for more third party support that they signed the deal without making sure it wasn't just cloud shit?
Respectfully, what are you talking about? That seems like a deeply weird read on a relatively context free tweet.

Nintendo isn't thirsty for this port, Microsoft is the thirsty party who came to Nintendo desperate for a contract. Neither Nintendo nor Microsoft has any reason for a contract like this under any circumstances except this one - Activision can bring CoD to Switch entirely of it's own choice without a contract, and Nintendo will make money off of licensing sales, same as always.

The most likely situation is that Microsoft is adding something to the pot above and beyond CoD, because otherwise, why would Nintendo sign the deal? Nintendo doesn't need CoD, Microsoft needs Nintendo to get CoD in the first place. I don't know why you'd leap to cloud?

If I were Nintendo I'd sign the contract, simply because my relationship with MS is much better than my relationship with Activision. Supporting MS's attempt to buy Activision strengthens that existing relationship, even if the merger fails. If it succeeds, then you get CoD (with an option to get day-and-date Crash, Diablo, and Tom Clancy's Been Dead for 10 Years). If MS takes CoD exclusive, well, now Sony doesn't have CoD.

If you're just hungry to play Call of Duty, honestly, I think you have options? But if this is about Nintendo's behavior, this was win-win-win-win.
 
As far as the dev kit thing goes, one would assume AB was excluded/delayed due to the impending acquisition. If not, then I would expect most devs/pubs do not have specs or a dev kit yet either, which probably pushes the timeline to late 2024 being the earliest this thing can release. AB is not a close partner, but they would assuredly be in the 2nd wave of kits/info going out, which should be happening over a year in advance of launch.
 
As far as the dev kit thing goes, one would assume AB was excluded/delayed due to the impending acquisition. If not, then I would expect most devs/pubs do not have specs or a dev kit yet either, which probably pushes the timeline to late 2024 being the earliest this thing can release. AB is not a close partner, but they would assuredly be in the 2nd wave of kits/info going out, which should be happening over a year in advance of launch.
Again, did anyone actually claim that AB doesn't have a devkit? Or is this just based on Kotick saying he isn't familiar with the detailed specifications?
 
Jesus fucking christ nintendo; were they really that thirsty for more third party support that they signed the deal without making sure it wasn't just cloud shit?

Now I understand why Valve didn't sign the deal.
That's not how I understand it. It's more like the scene in "the Muppets", where they finished the montage, and it cuts to Rowlf about joining the group again.

 
Again, did anyone actually claim that AB doesn't have a devkit? Or is this just based on Kotick saying he isn't familiar with the detailed specifications?
Feel free to correct me here, but these are the quotes as provided by VGC:
Kotick was also asked if Activision would like to bring Call of Duty to Nintendo’s unannounced next-gen console, even if Microsoft’s acquisition fell through.

“I think we would consider it once we had the specs but we don’t have any at present”, he responded.

Is it likely that Activision on its own would make a Call of Duty game for Nintendo’s next console, he was then asked.

“Like I said, I think once we get the detailed specifications—we missed out on the opportunity on this past generation with Switch—so I would like to think we’d be able to do that, but we’ll have to wait until then
Kotick is representing the company here, saying "we", and is very clear cut about them not having any specs yet. He even talks about the original Switch prototype so it's not like he is unplugged from all of that.

 
Last edited:
Again, did anyone actually claim that AB doesn't have a devkit? Or is this just based on Kotick saying he isn't familiar with the detailed specifications?
No one has explicitly claimed that AB doesn't have a devkit. But Kotick doesn't seem to have said that he wasn't familiar with the specs but that Activision "would consider it once we had the specs."

The FTC, in this line of questioning, is trying to establish two things. One, that this merger would make Kotick, personally, half a billion dollars, and his analysis of what would be good for AB shareholders cannot be trusted. Two, that MS doesn't want CoD for it's revenue stream, they want CoD because of how it can be used as a bludgeon against Sony.

Key to establishing both of these is to demonstrate that Kotick is now supporting business plans under this merger that he was opposed to before the merger. If Kotick is making a 180 on how profitable CoD on cloud or Switch would be, then Kotick's analysis is untrustworthy. And if Activision has reason to believe CoD on these platforms would not increase shareholder value, then that supports MS wanting Activision for something other than its revenue.

As rich as MS is, they still have limited cash. If MS spends 100 million to bring CoD to Switch/Cloud, that's 100 million it's not spending on new games. And if Activision has analysis saying that investing in Switch/Cloud is less profitable than investing that same cash in new games, then MS must want it for some reason other than profitability - namely that it can be used as cudgel against Sony.

Kotick's defense on the cloud question is "partners can have a difference of philosophical opinion." That he, personally, thinks that GamePass would not be worth the cash investment for Activision, but that it's a sufficiently controversial question that supporting the MS merger, even as MS intends to put CoD on GamePass, doesn't actually represent a 180 from him.

His defense on the Nintendo question is that Activision would, in fact, consider CoD on [redacted], and that he doesn't have analysis saying it would be a bad investment, because they never did that analysis. Why did they not do the analysis, if you absolutely would consider it, the FTC reasonably asks. "I think we would consider it once we had the specs."

Weirdly, this has created a situation where if AB has a devkit, they're pretty fucked. If they've got a devkit, and didn't bother to analyze CoD at all, then likely AB has decided that Nintendo's platform isn't profitable regardless of the install base or the porting costs. If they have a devkit and they did analyze the feasibility of CoD and then lied about it, the FTC is reasonably going to ask why, and if it conflicts with MS's public statements on the matter.

To be clear, the FTC knows if AB has a devkit, via discovery. They would have heard it from AB, and AB would be heavily motivated to be honest about, not just because, you know, lots of people going to jail who are not executives, but also because the FTC, as well as the EU and the UK's regulatory body have taken depositions from Nintendo. So even if AB doesn't say they've got a devkit, Nintendo would have told any number of regulatory bodies. This isn't a thing that AB can hide.

So, to sum up, while Kotick hasn't explicitly denied that AB has a devkit, that is, in context, the only way to read his denial in the line of questioning, and it represents a central enough pillar that there is little chance that Kotick has fudged things.
 
0
Q1:
It's inconvenient that games become unusable when you transition from one game system to the next, like from Wii U to Nintendo Switch. I'd like to know your thoughts about making digital games purchased for Nintendo Switch available on the next-generation game console.
A1:
Shuntaro Furukawa (Representative Director and President):
Nintendo always looks at future hardware specifications from various angles, but I would like to refrain from making any specific comments about future hardware at this time. Nintendo Switch software is marketed in various forms. In addition to the physical software sold on game cards in stores, we sell digital software including downloadable versions of packaged software and download-only software. In the case of Nintendo Switch, many consumers play downloadable software and download-only software, and the proportion of digital sales is higher compared to previous generations of game systems. We aim to continue to offer unique entertainment via our integrated hardware-software dedicated video game platform model, and I believe you can look forward to that.

Q3:
Wii U was launched around six years after Wii, and Super Famicom was launched around seven years after Famicom. Nintendo Switch has entered its seventh year, and I gather it has come to its final phase, so can you tell us about any specific measures for transitioning to the next generation game system?
A3:
Furukawa:
Nintendo Switch cumulative sales have exceeded 120 million units. In the history of our dedicated video game platform business, there has never before been a time when we forecast annual hardware sales of 15 million units and software sales of 180 million units for the seventh year of a platform (for Nintendo Switch, the year to March 2024). We believe that we have entered uncharted territory. It will not be easy for hardware sales to continue at the same pace going forward as seen in the past few years, but we can take advantage of the large install base to create business opportunities for software. Among Nintendo Switch titles, there are some for which sales exceeded 10 million units in just the first three days. Examples include last year's Pokémon Scarlet and Pokémon Violet, and this year's The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. For our past platforms, there are no examples of titles selling at such a pace. By continuing to release new titles and also providing new add-on content for existing titles, we hope people will keep playing Nintendo Switch for a long time to come. Regarding the transition to the next-generation platform, in the past, hardware was the only way for us to connect with our consumers, and so with each new platform, we needed to rebuild our relationships. But in the case of Nintendo Switch, we can directly connect with a wide range of consumers via Nintendo Accounts. More than 290 million Nintendo Accounts have been created by people around the world, not only via our dedicated video game platform but also via mobile apps. Regarding the move from Nintendo Switch to the next-generation platform, we will make good use of Nintendo Account to make this a smooth transition for our consumers.
Q14:
Please tell us about Nintendo's business model. I figure the source of Nintendo's profit is selling hardware at affordable prices to increase the global install base, then selling a large volume of software that can be played on that hardware. Rather than releasing new hardware immediately, wouldn't it be most effective for Nintendo's business to focus on Nintendo Switch, which has already sold over 100 million units worldwide, and work to maximize sales of upcoming releases like Super Mario Bros. Wonder and Super Mario RPG? In addition, I assume you will launch the nextgeneration platform at some point, and when you do, I'd like to see you implement robust countermeasures against reselling so the console can reach the audience worldwide who wish to enjoy games.
A14:
Furukawa:
This is the seventh year since the launch of Nintendo Switch. Up to this point, we have focused our dedicated video game platform business on that system based on the belief that we can offer unique content to our consumers through the system with putting in consideration the consumer reception towards our products and the software we have developed. As we announced in the recent Nintendo Direct, we plan to release a large variety of software for Nintendo Switch this year as well, and we intend to maximize our business by selling as many units of these titles as possible. Regarding countermeasures against reselling when new hardware is released, I believe it is of paramount importance to manufacture and ship units in sufficient quantities to satisfy consumer demand. We will also consider whether there are any other countermeasures that can be implemented.

Q15:
I'd like to hear the honest opinions of the developers about whether the hardware specifications of Nintendo Switch, now in its seventh year, are sufficient to bring all of their game ideas to fruition.
A15:
Takahashi:
As a game software developer, if you ask me whether Nintendo Switch has sufficient performance, I would not say it is lacking. However, game developers generally want more, and will always want to incorporate a lot of elements that exceed the hardware limitations. Since the Famicom era, we have worked on how to fit these elements inside a framework with certain limitations, and our job is to figure out how to create a fun game within these constraints. I believe that some interesting content are created as a result of accommodating the limitations and we have actually been able to make this happen.
Ko Shiota (Director, Senior Executive Officer):
We have been developing Nintendo Switch software for a long time and have used various methods to overcome performance barriers. Even now, the system developers are listening to game developers and continuously implementing initiatives to increase the smoothness and longevity of Nintendo Switch software development.
 
Just watching some Pikmin 4 footage.

Nintendo’s games are going to look insane on Switch 2. If they’re getting Pikmin 4 to look that nice on Switch then what they’ll pull off with their next generation hardware is going to be immense.
 
Feel free to correct me here, but these are the quotes as provided by VGC:

Kotick is representing the company here, saying "we", and is very clear cut about them not having any specs yet. He even talks about the original Switch prototype so it's not like he is unplugged from all of that.

Thank you for the quote, for some reason I remembered him saying "I", not "we", but clearly I was wrong.

As oldpuck says the existence of any would've also come up in discovery of course.
 
Let me get this straight, you believe the switch 2 will have worse support than the switch?

Because [redacted] won't be out yet when Mirage comes out

Because it sells poorly on the switch

But I think that Capcom could release Resident Evil "9", DmC "6", and the following installments of their main games on "Next Gen Switch/Nintendo".
As well as Bandai Namco, Sega, Square Enix, Rockstar...
So I wouldn't understand why they wouldn't release their next major installments of their games on the Nintendo NextGen Hardware.
Coincidentally, it is always the same franchises with their main installments that do not appear on Nintendo, since Square Enix carries Dragon Quest, but for example, I am not at all sure that it did the same with Final Fantasy even if it did not have an exclusivity agreement with other companies. The same for Capcom, they carry games, but sagas like Resident Evil, DmC... I wouldn't bet on them being carried. In the case of Sega, more of the same, in the case of Rockstar or Take2, they bring games but I wouldn't bet on a future main installment of GTA either.
Coincidentally, it is always the same important franchises that will surely not arrive despite the fact that Next Gen Switch could give a good performance of those games.
Those main franchises coincidentally are most, if not all, important in the early 2000s, when Sony took over many of them, I don't want to think wrong, but it can't be a coincidence that it happens with each and every one of them in its main installments (GTA, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, and many others), is strange to say the least.
 
0
Just watching some Pikmin 4 footage.

Nintendo’s games are going to look insane on Switch 2. If they’re getting Pikmin 4 to look that nice on Switch then what they’ll pull off with their next generation hardware is going to be immense.

It will take some time for the developers to unleash the full power of SwitchTwo, especially if they go for a cross-gen-period. The increased render resolution for 4K-TVs (I expect an 1440p-render-target in docked mode) will also cost some visual effects.

Image Quality will be very good and if Nintendo goes for SwitchTwoPro they still can go for 4K native. If you try to run their games on emulators with higher resolutions (or watch other people doing it on Youtube) you can see that even some of their current games would look great without changing a bit.
 
It will take some time for the developers to unleash the full power of SwitchTwo, especially if they go for a cross-gen-period. The increased render resolution for 4K-TVs (I expect an 1440p-render-target in docked mode) will also cost some visual effects.

Image Quality will be very good and if Nintendo goes for SwitchTwoPro they still can go for 4K native. If you try to run their games on emulators with higher resolutions (or watch other people doing it on Youtube) you can see that even some of their current games would look great without changing a bit.

Maybe, but I think their Wii U games looked quite good from the beginning. You can also make the resolution ‘costing effects’ about any console ever made at least in the HD era so it’s not really a concern.
 
Announcement regarding links to news and rumours from 2022 and 2021
Hi everyone.

After receiving some complaints from FamiBoards moderators about having to continuously increase the character limit for the OP (to 90k characters), I've decided to put all the links for the news and rumours from 2022 and 2021 in Google Docs, which can be accessed here.

I'm sorry for any inconvenience I've caused to the FamiBoard users and the FamiBoard moderators.
 
Hi everyone.

After receiving some complaints from FamiBoards moderators about having to continuously increase the character limit for the OP (to 90k characters), I've decided to put all the links for the news and rumours from 2022 and 2021 in Google Docs, which can be accessed here.

I'm sorry for any inconvenience I've caused to the FamiBoard users and the FamiBoard moderators.

"Sorry for being awesome". Yes, you can rest assured that we forgive you. Thank you very much for your work, really - you manage probably the best resource base of the whole internet about Switch 2, so thank you for your effort and to now even mantain some Google Docs for global accesibility.
 
Hi everyone.

After receiving some complaints from FamiBoards moderators about having to continuously increase the character limit for the OP (to 90k characters), I've decided to put all the links for the news and rumours from 2022 and 2021 in Google Docs, which can be accessed here.

I'm sorry for any inconvenience I've caused to the FamiBoard users and the FamiBoard moderators.
Couldn't they just increase it to like 1 million characters in one go?
 
Hi everyone.

After receiving some complaints from FamiBoards moderators about having to continuously increase the character limit for the OP (to 90k characters), I've decided to put all the links for the news and rumours from 2022 and 2021 in Google Docs, which can be accessed here.

I'm sorry for any inconvenience I've caused to the FamiBoard users and the FamiBoard moderators.
Thank you so much :)
 
Just watching some Pikmin 4 footage.

Nintendo’s games are going to look insane on Switch 2. If they’re getting Pikmin 4 to look that nice on Switch then what they’ll pull off with their next generation hardware is going to be immense.
Games like Pikmin 4 and Zelda, among others, run counter to the idea that Nintendo doesn't use the latest and greatest rendering techniques.

I'd bet the fami-house they would have a game incorporating ray tracing in some way in the first year
 
Respectfully, what are you talking about? That seems like a deeply weird read on a relatively context free tweet.

Nintendo isn't thirsty for this port, Microsoft is the thirsty party who came to Nintendo desperate for a contract. Neither Nintendo nor Microsoft has any reason for a contract like this under any circumstances except this one - Activision can bring CoD to Switch entirely of it's own choice without a contract, and Nintendo will make money off of licensing sales, same as always.

The most likely situation is that Microsoft is adding something to the pot above and beyond CoD, because otherwise, why would Nintendo sign the deal? Nintendo doesn't need CoD, Microsoft needs Nintendo to get CoD in the first place. I don't know why you'd leap to cloud?

If I were Nintendo I'd sign the contract, simply because my relationship with MS is much better than my relationship with Activision. Supporting MS's attempt to buy Activision strengthens that existing relationship, even if the merger fails. If it succeeds, then you get CoD (with an option to get day-and-date Crash, Diablo, and Tom Clancy's Been Dead for 10 Years). If MS takes CoD exclusive, well, now Sony doesn't have CoD.

If you're just hungry to play Call of Duty, honestly, I think you have options? But if this is about Nintendo's behavior, this was win-win-win-win.

It's also worth noting here that Activision insisted on an 80-20 revenue split, instead of the usual 70-30, to bring Call of Duty to Xbox Series S/X. They almost certainly would make the same demand of Nintendo, and Nintendo would almost certainly say no. Doing a deal with a Microsoft who is desperate for a contract with Nintendo to help gain regulatory approval for their acquisition puts them in a far more advantageous position. Even locking Microsoft in to a 70-30 split for 10 years would be better than anything they'd get out of Activision, and it's likely that Microsoft were willing to sweeten the pot quite a bit more than that.
 

These answers remind me of the time Bart unwillingly does a book report on Treasure Island without bothering to read it. He just reads off obvious stuff that anyone can gather from the cover. The only thing different in this case is that Nintendo didn't just read the book, they wrote it.



And still, the answers are totally in line with what I expected. I do think it sounds like they're being overreliant on the Accounts things, but I mean that's all they can really talk about at this time, so they need to bring it up every...single...time.
 
July 5 2021

July 6 2021


giphy.gif
 
July 5 2021

July 6 2021


giphy.gif

Plot twist: he had no idea. Nintendo consoles are gods creations, and on Earth they just receive them and spread among nations
 
You can also make the resolution ‘costing effects’ about any console ever made at least in the HD era so it’s not really a concern.

Of course you can, but Microsoft and Sony already had (almost) 4K-capable-consoles in the market and the step from PS4 Pro to PS5 didn't sink much power into the resolution. This will be different for the step from Switch to Switch NG.
 
0
Wonder if the Switch 2’s reveal will be like the original or like the OLED’s
It will be worse and better than oled. Instead of a shadow drop, The first we hear about it is a tweet of an annocement riffing on the Mario curtain pull from 2016. The trailer of course will be pure fire but we may have to wait a day or two with the knowledge of a new hardware announcement

I am 80% certain that's how NOAs media team will approach the announcement
 
Please read this new, consolidated staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited by a moderator:


Back
Top Bottom