• 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)

Reader mode
D36 said:
At this point with the successor on the way, there's little incentive to release a TV only Switch model. If the successor were to get such a model, it would need to have more power and maybe even storage to justify its existence, imo; and that's not even getting into the possibility of a hypothetical Redrakted NG Pro. Plus, as others have mentioned, it would need to compete with Sony and Microsoft. It's kinda hard to imagine that sort of model working out for Nintendo the same way that the other models had, I honestly think we'd be better off with a Pro.
Click to expand...
TV only Switch or any "Pro" labeled thing is out of question for a long term future
 
Phenom08 said:
Absolutely, Iwata always envisioned something like Switch but that certainly wasn't what he only envisioned. He mentioned a family of consoles because I'm sure he has considered a future of different types of hardware sharing software like Apple products. Honestly, Nintendo being a business is the other reason why they have to aim higher. Nintendo sold over 250 million Wii and DS consoles. They aren't hitting that with a single platform, now with two split platforms that share software, who knows. The ideal scenario is for a consumer two buy both platforms, obviously that ain't happening but somewhere in between could be huge. Imagine a portable platform that sells 60 million and a home platform that sell 50 million individually. Around 20 or 30 million could buy both leading to a massive userbase. Repeating Switch success will be tough, people tend to forget Switch greatly benefitted from a global pandemic that ain't happening again next generation.
Click to expand...

I believe a unified platform was the priority, but a TV only model for Switch was likely on the drawing board at some point. Nintendo most likely believed that the Switch Lite was going to be a bit more popular than it ultimately was. Not that the Lite has been flop by any means, it will have sold more units than the Wii U, GameCube and could surpass the N64 before its all said and done. With that said, Nintendo's portables have historically been more popular than their home consoles, and the gap widened considerably with every generation. The Wii was an anomaly, but the pattern is clear that Nintendo home consoles were selling considerably less with each passing generation. NES did about 65 million, SNES, 50 million, N64 33 million, GameCube 22 million, Wii an anomaly at 101 million and then back on track with Wii U at 13 million. Nintendo was seeing its home consoles selling 25-40% each generation with the exception of Wii. So when Nintendo saw that the demand remained much higher for the Switch compared to the Switch Lite, it would have been obvious that they really did catch lightning in a bottle and found the template for what consumers really want from Nintendo. If historically your portables outsell your home console by big margins, but then you see your hybrid model outsell your portable only model in a big way, they likely concluded that a TV only model of Switch would be much less popular than the Switch Lite. Even if Nintendo had released a TV only model, it almost certainly would have been limited to the Docked performance profile with no additional power. When you break it down, its easy to see why Nintendo chose to pass on a TV only Switch model.
 
Goodtwin said:
I believe a unified platform was the priority, but a TV only model for Switch was likely on the drawing board at some point. Nintendo most likely believed that the Switch Lite was going to be a bit more popular than it ultimately was. Not that the Lite has been flop by any means, it will have sold more units than the Wii U, GameCube and could surpass the N64 before its all said and done. With that said, Nintendo's portables have historically been more popular than their home consoles, and the gap widened considerably with every generation. The Wii was an anomaly, but the pattern is clear that Nintendo home consoles were selling considerably less with each passing generation. NES did about 65 million, SNES, 50 million, N64 33 million, GameCube 22 million, Wii an anomaly at 101 million and then back on track with Wii U at 13 million. Nintendo was seeing its home consoles selling 25-40% each generation with the exception of Wii. So when Nintendo saw that the demand remained much higher for the Switch compared to the Switch Lite, it would have been obvious that they really did catch lightning in a bottle and found the template for what consumers really want from Nintendo. If historically your portables outsell your home console by big margins, but then you see your hybrid model outsell your portable only model in a big way, they likely concluded that a TV only model of Switch would be much less popular than the Switch Lite. Even if Nintendo had released a TV only model, it almost certainly would have been limited to the Docked performance profile with no additional power. When you break it down, its easy to see why Nintendo chose to pass on a TV only Switch model.
Click to expand...
severals factors impacted why Nintendo home consoles sell less then it handheld consoles, like refusing to use CD on N64, using a proprietary disc format on Gamecube, that have less space then a standard disk used on PS2/Xbox, mistreating developers like in the SNES era, with Hiroshi Yamamuchi treating third parties like trash, all this factors is the result why Nintendo home consoles sell less then it handheld
 
Giancarlo said:
severals factors impacted why Nintendo home consoles sell less then it handheld consoles, like refusing to use CD on N64, using a proprietary disc format on Gamecube, that have less space then a standard disk used on PS2/Xbox, mistreating developers like in the SNES era, with Hiroshi Yamamuchi treating third parties like trash, all this factors is the result why Nintendo home consoles sell less then it handheld
Click to expand...
I would say it's more of a lifestyle choice.
People in Japan spend a lot of time commuting, so handhelds are naturally going to be way more popular, and it was even like that when the handhelds versions were the "lesser" versions.
Now it's the same game handheld or console, so there's even more of a reason people are flocking to handhelds.

I play docked like 99.99% of the time, and I wouldnt get a docked only model just on the off chance I do feel like playing on the go.
 
Say it with me everyone: the N64, GC, & WiiU are bad products bereft of any appeal outside hardcore enthusiast Nintendo circles; while their handhelds have been the complete opposite. Literally all there is too it when you boil it down.

As I’ve said before a console only Switch model can exist but it won’t be cheaper nor will it have any form of extra performance boost. This device solely exists for a limited audience.
 
Phenom08 said:
Absolutely, Iwata always envisioned something like Switch but that certainly wasn't what he only envisioned. He mentioned a family of consoles because I'm sure he has considered a future of different types of hardware sharing software like Apple products. Honestly, Nintendo being a business is the other reason why they have to aim higher. Nintendo sold over 250 million Wii and DS consoles. They aren't hitting that with a single platform, now with two split platforms that share software, who knows. The ideal scenario is for a consumer two buy both platforms, obviously that ain't happening but somewhere in between could be huge. Imagine a portable platform that sells 60 million and a home platform that sell 50 million individually. Around 20 or 30 million could buy both leading to a massive userbase. Repeating Switch success will be tough, people tend to forget Switch greatly benefitted from a global pandemic that ain't happening again next generation.
Click to expand...

So you want two systems, one handheld, and one tv-based console, the latter selling 50 million, and the former 60 million, with 20 to 30 million overlapping for those who are buying both systems.

Regardless of how much overlap, you’re still talking about a combined total of about 110 million systems sold, which is still less than the current Switch.

I guess I’m just having trouble understanding how having two separate systems with two very different power profiles (much wider gap than Handheld vs Docked on Switch, and probably even larger than Xbox Series S to Series X) is somehow a net benefit for Nintendo, let alone gamers.

It only adds to the complexity of development, even further than what we have with the two profiles for the Switch already, while still having developers focusing on the floor for their targets vs. going towards the ceiling, and downgrading from there.

You mentioned in a previous post about having exclusive titles for console, and handheld, but that only puts gamers at a disadvantage since now they may have to buy both systems. It may look good for Nintendo’s bottom line, but after how great the Switch is for doing both, it feels like a step backwards.

Again, I’m just finding issue trying to understand this logic, so perhaps I need further clarification.

We’re at a point in tech where something as small as a smartphone all the way to a full blown desktop can do the majority of everyday computing for easily 80-90% of consumers’ needs, and desires. The Switch fits into that well imo.

It all comes down to simplifying their resources, plus putting their focus onto a single unified platform. Splitting it up again, even with similar hardware, is the antithesis of that.

As far as family of systems, I won’t lie that I figured Nintendo by this point would have made a TV-only version of the Switch, perhaps where it looks like the current Switch dock, but with more IO. But perhaps they figure it wouldn’t sell enough to justify the cost. The Switch Lite has only sold a little over 21 million as of June 30th, while the Switch OLED has sold nearly 18 million, and that’s in half the time.

I think a TV only Switch wouldn’t even crack 10-15 million at this rate, plus Nintendo likely figured the Lite would do better than they initially projected, so they may have canned that idea early on for all we know.

Ultimately, consumers love the choice to “switch” between handheld vs. docked, even if the split between the two of what gamers choose is about 50/50.
 
Giancarlo said:
severals factors impacted why Nintendo home consoles sell less then it handheld consoles, like refusing to use CD on N64, using a proprietary disc format on Gamecube, that have less space then a standard disk used on PS2/Xbox, mistreating developers like in the SNES era, with Hiroshi Yamamuchi treating third parties like trash, all this factors is the result why Nintendo home consoles sell less then it handheld
Click to expand...
That's the whole point. Nintendo almost always seems to screw something up when it comes to their home consoles, which has cost them marketshare every time.

Sega, who only ran a competent console business for about five years, managed to grab 15 million from the NES install base.
Sony grabbed another 16 million off the SNES and most of Nintendo's third-party support.
Microsoft also outsold the GameCube on their first try.

Nintendo are simply not very good at properly competing in the home console space.
 
Giancarlo said:
severals factors impacted why Nintendo home consoles sell less then it handheld consoles, like refusing to use CD on N64, using a proprietary disc format on Gamecube, that have less space then a standard disk used on PS2/Xbox, mistreating developers like in the SNES era, with Hiroshi Yamamuchi treating third parties like trash, all this factors is the result why Nintendo home consoles sell less then it handheld
Click to expand...
Your opinion has various overlapping as many of your points would also affect handhelds too. Having less space on the smaller disc? The proprietary carts used by portables had even less. And the situation with devs/3rd-parties weren't limited to just those making games for home consoles. Situations, like the 5 games per year limit, was not solely about control, but to prevent a situation like the video game crash of '83 which was the result of a lot of games and a lack of quality.

As was already mentioned, much of the handheld influence was because of Japan itself and their lifestyle. I'd say the rise of portables in other parts of the world happened when they began to show similar lifestyle traits.
 
0
necrolipe said:
TV only Switch or any "Pro" labeled thing is out of question for a long term future
Click to expand...
I disagree in the case of the successor. I can see a TV only Switch showing up sometime after the succ releases as sort of a budget option, like the like. In terms of a Pro model (for the succ, mind you), as someone who believes the OLED was built off a scraped Switch Pro, I could maybe see the Succ Pro avoid this fate and be a more realized hardware upgrade. Though, I suppose that would depend on how tech would advance in the coming years and how Nintendo would approach things, should they choose to not go with an overclocked T239 (I'm still tech illiterate, so please correct me if I've gotten things wrong).

I'm aware that you're in the know with these sorts of things and I'm not trying to disparage you or anything, but I doubt that these things aren't at least being considered by Nintendo for the future. They've been building an ecosystem with the Switch for the past six years and I'd imagine these approaches to their system and its successor would be vital to said ecosystem, however niche they may be.
 
Tentacle-tropes said:
Say it with me everyone: the N64, GC, & WiiU are bad products bereft of any appeal outside hardcore enthusiast Nintendo circles; while their handhelds have been the complete opposite. Literally all there is too it when you boil it down.

As I’ve said before a console only Switch model can exist but it won’t be cheaper nor will it have any form of extra performance boost. This device solely exists for a limited audience.
Click to expand...
Calling the N64 and GameCube bad products just because they didn't sell as good as the competition is a crazy stretch. Especially with the former and its impact on gaming. I feel that also takes away some important context, like Microsoft and Sony's entrances into the gaming sphere or Nintendo's usage of cartridges or mini discs.
 
D36 said:
Calling the N64 and GameCube bad products just because they didn't sell as good as the competition is a crazy stretch. Especially with the former and its impact on gaming. I feel that also takes away some important context, like Microsoft and Sony's entrances into the gaming sphere or Nintendo's usage of cartridges or mini discs.
Click to expand...
I’m not calling them bad products just because they didn’t sell as well as the competition. You notice I never even use sales or talk about them. I’m calling them bad products because these three devices (N64, GC, WiiU) were cooked at the design phase & were already non-appealing products for a wider audience outside Nintendo enthusiasts. Those poor design decisions reflect in sales & Sony/MS eating into their mindshare w/consumers & devs.
 
Console only switch would a terrible idea unless it was even cheaper than the switch lite, but presumably it would be cheaper because of not needing to make screens for it, especially when the inclusion of its own screen was a big reason the WiiU was as expensive as it was.
 
TomNookYankees said:
Console only switch would a terrible idea unless it was even cheaper than the switch lite, but presumably it would be cheaper because of not needing to make screens for it, especially when the inclusion of its own screen was a big reason the WiiU was as expensive as it was.
Click to expand...
Was thinking about a price for such a thing.
$99.00
 
Tentacle-tropes said:
I’m not calling them bad products just because they didn’t sell as well as the competition. You notice I never even use sales or talk about them. I’m calling them bad products because these three devices (N64, GC, WiiU) were cooked at the design phase & were already non-appealing products for a wider audience outside Nintendo enthusiasts. Those poor design decisions reflect in sales & Sony/MS eating into their mindshare w/consumers & devs.
Click to expand...
First off, apologies for assuming you were talking about sales, that was short-sighted on my end.

Second, I would say that the former two (particularly the N64) systems at least held at least some modicum of appeal thanks to their first-party software (I know some have argued that software is not the end all be all for a system's success, but still), despite the PlayStation's meteoric rise.
 
D36 said:
First off, apologies for assuming you were talking about sales, that was short-sighted on my end.

Second, I would say that the former two (particularly the N64) systems at least held at least some modicum of appeal thanks to their first-party software (I know some have argued that software is not the end all be all for a system's success, but still), despite the PlayStation's meteoric rise.
Click to expand...
While they had a modicum of appeal it was mostly towards enthusiast Nintendo fans. We can see this reflected in GC’s high tie-ratio. The issue isn’t those consumers but wider audiences such as those found on their handhelds, Wii, or Switch.
 
I just had a crazy thought! What if that thing that Jeff Grubb was speculating about that's supposedly being announced this summer is a Switch TV. Like what's being suggested above, it could be $99.99 and launch with Mario Wonder; the perfect budget Holiday combo!

It probably won't happen until the succ is out and Nintendo expands the Switch family a little more, but who knows? Seeing some of posts on this topic has made me think about the concept a little more. As niche as it could be, a TV only Switch could still turn over a profit from the price alone.
 
Tentacle-tropes said:
While they had a modicum of appeal it was mostly towards enthusiast Nintendo fans. We can see this reflected in GC’s high tie-ratio. The issue isn’t those consumers but wider audiences such as those found on their handhelds, Wii, or Switch.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant widespread appeal. At least in the N64's case, it had those casual titles, like Mario Kart and Mario Party, or landmark titles, like Ocarina of Time. I understand what you're trying to say, but I think that in Nintendo's case, a bad product is a bit harder to define when taking into account the context of when these products came out, as well as looking at other factors, like profits. Though, that may be moving the goalpost on my end.
 
Tentacle-tropes said:
While they had a modicum of appeal it was mostly towards enthusiast Nintendo fans. We can see this reflected in GC’s high tie-ratio. The issue isn’t those consumers but wider audiences such as those found on their handhelds, Wii, or Switch.
Click to expand...
We still can't say that due to the Switch existing and succeeded that Nintendo is forever stuck with this form factor in order to sell to the masses. If that is what you're implying. The idea that there is zero market now for a TV only console from Nintendo.
 
D36 said:
I just had a crazy thought! What if that thing that Jeff Grubb was speculating about that's supposedly being announced this summer is a Switch TV. Like what's being suggested above, it could be $99.99 and launch with Mario Wonder; the perfect budget Holiday combo!

It probably won't happen until the succ is out and Nintendo expands the Switch family a little more, but who knows? Seeing some of posts on this topic has made me think about the concept a little more. As niche as it could be, a TV only Switch could still turn over a profit from the price alone.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this, and although there are certainly ways in which a Switch TV would be cheaper to manufacture than other models (no screen, no battery, etc.), one limiting factor would be the cost of the controllers. Perhaps it would warrant the introduction of a cheaper controller with a few cost reductions, like removing the HD rumble. A Switch Amateur Controller, if you will.
 
D36 said:
I just had a crazy thought! What if that thing that Jeff Grubb was speculating about that's supposedly being announced this summer is a Switch TV. Like what's being suggested above, it could be $99.99 and launch with Mario Wonder; the perfect budget Holiday combo!

It probably won't happen until the succ is out and Nintendo expands the Switch family a little more, but who knows? Seeing some of posts on this topic has made me think about the concept a little more. As niche as it could be, a TV only Switch could still turn over a profit from the price alone.
Click to expand...
There's no evidence of development of any new models (well, except the "big one") in firmware. So either Nintendo suddenly started caring about hiding these things when they never did before, for probably the least important of all the revisions at that, or the TV-only model isn't coming until 2025 (or ever).
 
Phenom08 said:
You can't just ignore the fact that Switch got much more than WiiU ports and didn't take several years to get those games. Take WiiUs library of games and release schedule and give it to Switch. It isn't so appealing all of a sudden. Those games on Switch sold so much more is because it's library is so much more appealing, leading to far higher sells for all games. Release Switch in holiday 2016 with New Super Bros U and nothing until Sempter 2017 lol. Questionable is you seeing the only difference between Switch and WiiU are the few ports, how about the Pokemon games, or Animal Crossing, or the fact that Switch is the only platform Nintendo is providing support to vs WiiU competing for attention with 3DS. I could argue Switch is the least appealing hardware than WiiU lol.
Click to expand...
I mean you'd just be wrong, you were wrong the moment typed some of this stuff that holds no water at all. I've read your posts on the matter and I'm not convinced at all by what you're stating here.

You argue the Wii U is more desirable than the Switch. A console that sold less than 14 million units is somehow more desirable than a console that sold 130 million. But no, you see, the reason the Wii U didn't have the same success as the Switch is because the handheld known as the 3DS cannibalized Wii U sales selling a total of 76 million.

Meanwhile, the Wii sold 101 million in its lifetime even after Nintendo's support for it fell off a cliff and the Nintendo DS moved a whopping 154 million in that same span of time when they both had games releasing alongside each other.

You would need to make some pretty compelling arguments to convince me that the Wii U would've gotten by on games alone. There are a ton of great games on that platform but that's not enough. ILikeFeet said it best, the hardware must be desirable, but the Wii U failed there on many fronts.
 
Last edited:
D36 said:
Sorry, I meant widespread appeal. At least in the N64's case, it had those casual titles, like Mario Kart and Mario Party, or landmark titles, like Ocarina of Time. I understand what you're trying to say, but I think that in Nintendo's case, a bad product is a bit harder to define when taking into account the context of when these products came out, as well as looking at other factors, like profits. Though, that may be moving the goalpost on my end.
Click to expand...
I mean a bad product is a bad product regardless of the context of when it came out. The product has to appealing first before software starts doing its thing.
Golden Darkness said:
We still can't say that due to the Switch existing and succeeded that Nintendo is forever stuck with this form factor in order to sell to the masses. If that is what you're implying. The idea that there is zero market now for a TV only console from Nintendo.
Click to expand...
Given the data we have for both handheld, console, & hybrid; I’m gonna go ahead & say that they should be sticking with this. I don’t for-see a future if going back to the old paradigm. I’m also not sure how you got to zero here; I said it earlier but there is a limited audience for a console only Nintendo device.
 
Thraktor said:
I don't think they would split pins 8, 11 or 16, as they're 3.3V, 1.8V and ground respectively, and as far as I can tell there are electrical reasons for having them full-length (it seems to be common on almost all card formats). My guess is that you would want them to contact before any other pins (hence why they're longer, with ground the longest to ensure it contacts first), and that only works if they're full length. In any case, given they don't really need the full 8 data pins, if they wanted to stick to the same form-factor, they could bridge, say 6 and 7, on Switch NG cards, and they'd still have 6 data pins left, which is plenty for their needs. Not sure if there would be any issues involved, though, for instance circumstances in which regular Switch game cards would act as if 6 and 7 are connected, and it would add a bit of complexity to the reader, as those pins need to act both as data pins and card detect.

On the subject of cross-gen titles, I expect them to just be shipped on regular Switch game cards. There's nothing stopping Nintendo shipping Switch game cards which include Switch NG binaries, and cross-gen games are by definition not going to rely on the faster storage speeds of Switch NG cards, anyway, as they have to run on the original Switch. If they do adopt a new physical interface, then I don't expect any cross-gen cards which support both the old and new interfaces, regardless of the physical form-factor of the new cards. To do so, they would require much more complex controller/IO chips to support both interfaces, and both cryptographic approaches, which would lead to them being more expensive than Switch NG-only game cards, despite being used for likely lower-priced games which largely don't need faster speeds.
Click to expand...
The controller has to support both regardless, since it's not in the carts.

It does seem likely that they'd want to stick with two sets of memory chips to not overly complicate things, but I do wonder if they'd want to do something about the possibly large gap in performance between Switch 1 carts and the internal and external memory of the new system.
ADR91 said:
What about preventing the Switch NG binaries from getting pirated through the compromised v1 Switch model's card reader ?
Click to expand...
If the game needs to be able to run on Switch 1, there's nothing that can be done. The best they can do is protect any data that can't be loaded by Switch 1 with different keys that Switch 1 doesn't have, and even that requires a fairly particular sort of file structure they may not choose to use.
 
If we get a home only switch, it will have the same specs as the handheld one, I doubt they'd want to complicate production and have to target another sku. And it wouldn't be substantially cheaper, because of the new production line/investment needed, (maybe if a "pro" happened with an oled screen, a home only pro version may be more worthwhile to minimize cost, but than you're in a niche of a niche). I'd be fine with that, save a few bucks, get a pro-controller instead of joycons, lose the portability. But I'm in a small niche, and even I am happy to pay for the switch's current form factor anyway. I don't know that there is a big market for home only switch, I think most people would just dock it.
 
Tentacle-tropes said:
Given the data we have for both handheld, console, & hybrid; I’m gonna go ahead & say that they should be sticking with this. I don’t for-see a future if going back to the old paradigm. I’m also not sure how you got to zero here; I said it earlier but there is a limited audience for a console only Nintendo device.
Click to expand...
From the way you guys talk about it, you guys think there's like only a thousand or so people who actually want a TV only console from Nintendo. Which might as well be zero, given by this point Sony is the only legitimate contender in the TV-only console space for eternity, or whenever until civilization collapses.
 
Golden Darkness said:
From the way you guys talk about it, you guys think there's like only a thousand or so people who actually want a TV only console from Nintendo. Which might as well be zero, given by this point Sony is the only legitimate contender in the TV-only console space for eternity, or whenever until civilization collapses.
Click to expand...
Unless Sony comes out with a handheld that can also play on TV (again), they will be.
 
0
The main advantage to a home-only version for the Switch successor would be price. Slim chance Nintendo would release a version that got better performance than the docked hybrid. Slimmer chance that developers would actually make use of a performance boost if it was there. That’s extra work they’re not putting in for a fraction of the user base.

Anecdotally, I play Switch docked 99.9% of the time. For that 0.1% of the time, I’d still get the hybrid. I know me, and I know the instant regret I’d feel the very first time I didn’t have the handheld option.
 
Νεφέλωμα said:
Home-only switch will only apeal to 5-10 million capital G gamers and Nintendo fans.
Click to expand...
I think the fundamental problem of a home-only Switch is it is a product in search of a market.

If you want a home-only Switch, it's the hybrid that is docked most of the time. A Lite model benefits from being lighter/smaller and filling in the gap vacated by the 3DS

People imagine a home only Switch being like a Google TV, Apple TV, or a Fire Stick thats relatively cheap (sub $150) or at least much cheaper than the hybrid model but i forsee lots of problems
1) it undercuts their hybrid model
2) why make a home only version and cut profit margins if you can just sell the hybrid version
3) a cheaper home only Nintendo console has had at best a mixed record of success, at worst, the lower price highlights its limitations vis-a-vis its competitors
4) besides, there's no agreement on what a home only Switch will fill. Is it a super powered pro version requiring a 3rd performance profile (and its accompanying additional work required which will annoy devs) or is it a cut down verion of the hybrid model only running in docked mode?

That's a lot of marketing, product positioning, and development hurdles to overcome and I can see why Nintendo never did release a Switch home.
Besides, my view is, if Nintendo does want to re-enter the home console market with a true home console, they will likely pick a chipset with a similar architecture, perhaps of the same generation and type as their Hybrid model, but it will be a completely different chip and the console itself would be sold at a premium, not sold cheaply. I'm thinking if the hybrid is on T239, the home console would be the larger variant of that chip (Orin?) with more cuda cores.
And again, we enter the space where devs have to develop and test for 3 profiles. I don't think that will fly, for now.

Maybe in the future Nintendo's hybrid consoles can dynamically scale performance based on the hardware it is running on from a base profile and devs only need to make small tweaks and optimizations, but we're probably not there yet.
 
Last edited:
Pokemaniac said:
If the game needs to be able to run on Switch 1, there's nothing that can be done. The best they can do is protect any data that can't be loaded by Switch 1 with different keys that Switch 1 doesn't have, and even that requires a fairly particular sort of file structure they may not choose to use.
Click to expand...

Well, what Nintendo could actually do to prevent piracy of the Switch NG binaries of cross-gen titles, would be to actually ship those binaries on different cartridges than those intended for the current Switch. That's the point I was trying to make.

With that said, considering that current Switch binaries of cross-gen titles will be pirated anyway, and that those versions of the games could be visually enhanced in emulators to look more "current-gen", perhaps Nintendo won't even bother to try and prevent piracy of NG binaries when it comes to cross-gen stuff.

Whatever be the case, what's for sure is that there's no way current-gen exclusive titles will ship on cartridges that would be technically readable on the current Switch's card reader.
 
Golden Darkness said:
From the way you guys talk about it, you guys think there's like only a thousand or so people who actually want a TV only console from Nintendo. Which might as well be zero, given by this point Sony is the only legitimate contender in the TV-only console space for eternity, or whenever until civilization collapses.
Click to expand...
At this point in time Sony kinda is the only legit contender in that space given Nintendo & MS looking in different directions. No matter how you slice it a console only device struggles unless a lot of ifs go its way.
 
ADR91 said:
Well, what Nintendo could actually do to prevent piracy of the Switch NG binaries of cross-gen titles, would be to actually ship those binaries on different cartridges than those intended for the current Switch. That's the point I was trying to make.

With that said, considering that current Switch binaries of cross-gen titles will be pirated anyway, and that those versions of the games could be visually enhanced in emulators to look more "current-gen", perhaps Nintendo won't even bother to try and prevent piracy of NG binaries when it comes to cross-gen stuff.

Whatever be the case, what's for sure is that there's no way current-gen exclusive titles will ship on cartridges that would be technically readable on the current Switch's card reader.
Click to expand...
As I alluded to before, that doesn't actually require separate cartridges. The cartridge is not the only line of defense. It is within Nintendo's power to put data on a cartridge that the Switch 1 can't read by encrypting it such that it requires a key only possessed by Switch 2 to decrypt.

It's not clear that that's a big enough benefit to bother with unless they've already settled on a format for cross gen games that separates data along those lines regardless, though. As you said, any game that runs on Switch 1 is already compromised by that weak link, and getting access to code and data meant to run on Drake doesn't change the situation much. It might allow emulators to get a slight head start if/when the modchips start coming in, but that's about it.
 
0
ILikeFeet said:
smaller and faster is definitely not going to happen I think. that just means more noise for the same volume of air as a larger slower fan
Click to expand...
Modern fan designs COULD allow for it. Modern smartphone fans are pretty rare, but when they do show up they're tiny and near silent. I definitely think Nintendo could get one if they wanted to. The existing fan design doesn't really take advantage of any specific fin designs to reduce noise, and mainly runs quiet by not running very fast. Plus if I'm not mistaken, isn't that what OLED Model does, a smaller fan spun faster?

Personally I'd expect a fan that's basically in the realm of OLED Model. Maybe a little smaller than the OG Switch fan, with a new fin design and, of course, a new curve, to try and make as much room inside as possible for the inevitable jump in complexity from OLED Model's highly refined MoBo to a new generation.

Since it's unlikely that the TDP will differ much, if at all, from the original Switch based on whst we know, fan changes really would be minimal. I used to think they'd design the system to reuse as many parts as possible, and while I still think they will where they can, I definitely think now that there was probably plenty of flexibility on the internals, parts selection wise.
 
Catsylvania said:
The main advantage to a home-only version for the Switch successor would be price. Slim chance Nintendo would release a version that got better performance than the docked hybrid. Slimmer chance that developers would actually make use of a performance boost if it was there. That’s extra work they’re not putting in for a fraction of the user base.

Anecdotally, I play Switch docked 99.9% of the time. For that 0.1% of the time, I’d still get the hybrid. I know me, and I know the instant regret I’d feel the very first time I didn’t have the handheld option.
Click to expand...

I actually think a TV only Switch wouldn’t even be as cheap as we think it would be.

For starters, you need to bundle it with the Pro Controller, which costs 70 dollars. Let’s assume they’re reusing the regular Switch dock as the base station for the TV only version; that costs 60 dollars. So already you’re at 130 dollars, and that’s before you need to make modifications to the base station such as I/O, microSD card slot, etc. Then you have the Switch internals itself, so the motherboard, ram, storage, cooling, etc, etc. All that stuff, and probably using the 64GB storage internals the the SWOLED has, so let’s say 50 bucks as a conservative estimate.

Tack on the R&D costs, and whatever else, and you have a Switch TV version that could be 180-200 dollars from the get go. Assume they then create another SKU without the controller itself, still probably 120-130 dollars I’d say.

Keep in mind, I’m using estimates based on what Nintendo provides on their own site for the dock itself, and the controller, plus what I imagine the whole internal hardware of the switch costs.

A simple 100 dollar Switch TV I think is grossly underpriced.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
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