• 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
LinkURL said:
Man, I don't think Apple is going to use AAA games to dominate the market, in fact the market is already in their hands.
But because of its profitability, we are talking about 60/70 dollars per game, if Apple manages to become a AAA-friendly platform (which has its difficulties, but unlike others I believe it is possible in the long term) , they will make even more money.
I don't think people will stop buying their consoles and PCs to buy an iPhone, but the point is that millions of console and PC owners already have an iPhone, for them to start buying games on their smartphones it doesn't require a big change in habits.
And about the 6.7 screen, it's not much different from a Switch, isn't it.
Click to expand...
It requires a GIGANTIC shift in spending habits.

$70 iPhone apps you also need an external controller to properly enjoy? When Mario Run, a MARIO GAME, that DIDN'T require external controls, failed due to a price that was too high at TEN dollars?

If I buy a Nintendo Switch game, in 6 years, I can still play it on my Nintendo Switch.

If I buy an iPhone app? Who knows. Sometimes games don't come forward with iOS versions, and I'm more likely to move onto a newer iPhone which might just NOT support games past a certain age. Plenty of mobile games are now ephemera due to iOS' poor legacy support.
 
LinkURL said:
What I wanted to say is that there are iPhone controllers that are even better than joycons. I'm not a native speaker so sorry.
Click to expand...
How is that relevant? There are Nintendo Switch controllers that are better than Joy-Con. How is that a win for iPhone?

And the difference is, Nintendo Switch COMES with a set of FULL controls right out of the box. iPhone explicitly does not.
 
Concernt said:
It requires a GIGANTIC shift in spending habits.

$70 iPhone apps you also need an external controller to properly enjoy? When Mario Run, a MARIO GAME, that DIDN'T require external controls, failed due to a price that was too high at TEN dollars?

If I buy a Nintendo Switch game, in 6 years, I can still play it on my Nintendo Switch.

If I buy an iPhone app? Who knows. Sometimes games don't come forward with iOS versions, and I'm more likely to move onto a newer iPhone which might just NOT support games past a certain age. Plenty of mobile games are now ephemera due to iOS' poor legacy support.
Click to expand...
Man, Mario Run was an extremely simple game, for 10 dollars, it wouldn't have sold much even if it was sold on the eShop, and what's worse, they still gave you the chance to test the game before buying it (fair for consumers but terrible for Nintendo).
At the time you could download much more interesting games than Mario Run for free, but today you can't find RE4R-level games on an iPhone even if you pay. You can't compare oranges and bananas.
 
Concernt said:
How is that relevant? There are Nintendo Switch controllers that are better than Joy-Con. How is that a win for iPhone?

And the difference is, Nintendo Switch COMES with a set of FULL controls right out of the box. iPhone explicitly does not.
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating for the iPhone cause lol.
What I'm saying is that there are controls for the iPhone too, and that the argument of "oh but who's going to play on touch lol" really doesn't make sense.
 
0
LinkURL said:
What I wanted to say is that there are iPhone controllers that are even better than joycons. I'm not a native speaker so sorry.
Click to expand...

Update your icon, bro.

featured-image-the-legend-of-zelda-links-awakening-how-to-get-apples.jpg
 
Concernt said:
How is that relevant? There are Nintendo Switch controllers that are better than Joy-Con. How is that a win for iPhone?

And the difference is, Nintendo Switch COMES with a set of FULL controls right out of the box. iPhone explicitly does not.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand why you guys are acting like I said that an iPhone for gaming is BETTER than a Switch. I DIDN'T SAY THAT (and I don't believe it).
My point is that Apple's platform is becoming more interesting to play on, and could enter Nintendo's market territory and disrupt it in the long term.
 
Kazuyamishima said:
Correct but I'm pretty sure 2.5 is the same thing as 3 when frame generation isn't on in terms of upscaling I don't think there was really any visible improvement or features added they just merged the two. I still don't get why Nvidia had to name it like this
Click to expand...
No, Super Resolution 2.5 isn't the same as Super Resolution 3.0. They do get improvements, hence the versioning. Super Resolution is on v3.5.x now
 
LinkURL said:
oranges and bananas
Click to expand...
Objectively, yes you can. A game optimized for touch couldn't scratch the userbase, but a game that basically requires an additional accessory AND costs seven times as much? It's not even going to cover costs.
 
0
Honestly, trying to mix the Nintendo and Apple discussion, but the only way I can see Apple getting into gaming is that they extend their Apple Silicon chips into gaming consoles. I can see Apple creating an SOC specifically for something related. A handheld SOC, even. Apple could be someone’s Nvidia in that sense
 
0
My Tulpa said:
2 main reasons;

1) Engagement. While I say there is a sizeable userbase that doesn’t care that much, there is also a segment that clearly does. And these gamers tend to be the ones who buy/play the most games every year.

The same reason Sony and MS made a more powerful upgrade, the idea is that you have to keep those who might drift off to more modern systems in your ecosystem by giving them a more premium hardware option. Many past Nintendo machines have shown them that the perception of extremely outdated hardware and performance can absolutely affect how much gamers engage with the system over time. Look at the Wii 2010-2012. The purpose of spending money on this new hardware is to ensure these gamers stay in the ecosystem and are satisfied for longer. Heck, I would argue that JUST the OLED screen upgrade in 2021 made me more engaged in switch gaming the last 2 years than I would have otherwise. Many others like me.

This new model will absolutely invigorate engagement in Switch game releases for the next 5-6 years.

And

2) Because DLSS is Nintendo’s future. So this piece of hardware allows them to start learning how to develop for that smart AI development now, in the midst of a strong brand and success.

Nintendo often has lamented that they waited too long to get into HD development. They probably should have come out with a Wii HD in 2010, but they waited and let the wii brand and engagement fizzle out to much. By the time they attempted to focus on HD development with the Wii U at the end of 2012, not only was it too late, but it affected their ability to release games in a timely manner. Both the output of the Wii U and 3ds suffered.

This would be addressing that problem. A new device in the Switch family to help keep and strengthen the current sky high engagement, while also allow them to dabble at leasure to develop towards Nvidia tensor/rt cores and DLSS. It’s a win/win.

Engagement and lengthening of a large userbase furthers future Nintendo software sales, and that’s all that matters.

You tell me Nintendo spent all this money and R&D to make cutting edge hardware to play Series S/ps5 type games…I’m telling you they invested in it to ensure the software they release in 2026 appeals to both the high end enthusiast gamer, as well as the indifferent consumer, low price conscious gamer who really doesn’t see the difference (like my wife and child).

They are doing this to maximize their active userbase, and this their revenue/profits.
Click to expand...
You know, I don’t agree with your conclusions, at least as far as how Nintendo’s going to treat this thing, but I respect the reasoning.
 
Bonejack said:
I wonder how ReDraketed will handle DLSS updates.
Click to expand...
My guess is that they'll be handled like the pc does it: the game keeps the version it ships with within their files. So the devs will have to update rather than just contain a pointer to a file in the OS.

We've seen instances where the latest version isn't the best, so Nintendo should prevent that from happening
 
ILikeFeet said:
My guess is that they'll be handled like the pc does it: the game keeps the version it ships with within their files. So the devs will have to update rather than just contain a pointer to a file in the OS.

We've seen instances where the latest version isn't the best, so Nintendo should prevent that from happening
Click to expand...

Hmh, though i hope nVidia/Nintendo have this implemented easily enough for devs to not cause too much additional work.

Also, ideally they would be streamlining cert process for such updates.
 
0
Bigdog said:
Help me understand why? This comment seems very put of place in a thread dedicated to a new console that is yet to release.
Click to expand...
Console or PC gaming is expensive to the point of near inaccessibility for many.
Thr current model of buying a $300+ device to then buy $70 games is a significant barrier.

For all the talk of gaming's ascent as an entertainment medium, it's clear that it's not as ubiquitous as, say, movies. Admissions for the Mario movie exceed the sales of the best selling Mario game by at least double , and probably a lot more depending on what you decide to count. While that comparison doesn't account for the fact that a game in a household is shared by many people in that household, it also doesn't account for the many millions of more views the movie will make as it comes to streaming and broadcast TV and the like.

There is a sense that a lot of people don't want to play games. The existence of the word "gamer" in itself suggests that people who play games are distinct from those who don't. But I think many more people would pay games if they could do so without such a heavy financial commitment. And I think this is borne out when you look at the explosion of the mobile gaming market. People on sites like these sneer at Candy Crush, but frankly its success highlights the massive failure of traditional gaming to extend its reach. Even on here, a point was consistently made that iPhones cannot challenge console gaming because the audience on phones has been trained to only pay like $5. But that audience is huge. Gigantic. And there are huge benefits if that is the extent of financial outlay (which, to be clear, I'm aware is not the case in most mobile gaming and its shameless milking of whales).

Besides the exclusionary nature of it, the expense of console gaming inevitably increases the risk-aversion of both gamers and developers. It leads to a less interesting ecosystem. It's the reason developers feel they have to pad out their games to selling 40+ hours in order to justify charging $60-70. And they often can't charge less than that because the base asset creation and the like is so expensive. So smaller or more innovative games are largely the domain of indies, who have to compete for the attention of an audience that can, when it comes to the big games, can only really afford to buy like 6 a year. The gamer is less likely to "take a punt", either on big or small games. They'll stick to known quantities. Hence the franchise-dominated nature of this industry. Or genres that are entirely stuck in the past and refuse to evolve. Or an indie scene that is diverse only because of the immense passion of the creators in it, not because there's much money to be made.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The last six pages so full of off-topics... why... is opening a new topic really that difficult?
It's becoming unpleasant to read the news on Switch 2 now. ☹️
 
MadMechanic said:
Is the iPhone 15 pro even capable of running a switch 2 emulator?
Click to expand...
Iphone 15 pro will have a 6 cores CPU, 8 GB of RAM, and around 2~2.8 TFLOP GPU. With that kind of power, even a Ps4 wold be hard to be emulated, maybe impossible.

A more acceptable question would be whether or not the iphone 15 pro is stronger than the stem deck, which I think we can only be sure of by seeing games running on it in practice.
 
Bonejack said:
I wonder how ReDraketed will handle DLSS updates.
Click to expand...

Luckily DLSS is already in an advanced state, and will likely be even further along by time SNG launches. Like @ILikeFeet said, it will be up to the developers to patch in updated versions of DLSS since it is part of the games files.

Teal'c said:
The last six pages so full of off-topics... why... is opening a new topic really that difficult?
It's becoming unpleasant to read the news on Switch 2 now. ☹️
Click to expand...

When I use to frequent Beyond3D, when a thread got way off topic the mods would often cut out the off topic content and throw it into a new thread. I don't know if this is possible here, but it worked well there.
 
LinkURL said:
Switch actually proves that the 3DS and Vita market were no longer viable. Portable video games with simpler games no longer made sense in a world with smartphones. So now the idea should be to make portables that can bring the same experience as a desktop console (PSP and Vita even had this idea, but the Switch tripled the bet).
Click to expand...
I disagree on the idea that it made it no longer viable. If Nintendo released a new DS it’ll probably be successful to a certain degree, but I agree that the present and future of mobile gaming is AAA experiences on the go.
 
0
Has anyone tried to do a calculation of how much the next gen Switch will cost for Nintendo to make based on leaked specs (T-239/Drake, 8” LCD, etc.) and hypothesized components (RAM, storage, etc.)?

I’d be curious the reasonable price ranges we could come up with. Possibly could give us a better idea of what pricing Nintendo might shoot for.

Personally I think Nintendo will drop the OLED price to $299 (USD) after the announce the NSW2 and it’ll be priced at $399.
 
TheSentry said:
Has anyone tried to do a calculation of how much the next gen Switch will cost for Nintendo to make based on leaked specs (T-239/Drake, 8” LCD, etc.) and hypothesized components (RAM, storage, etc.)?

I’d be curious the reasonable price ranges we could come up with. Possibly could give us a better idea of what pricing Nintendo might shoot for.

Personally I think Nintendo will drop the OLED price to $299 (USD) after the announce the NSW2 and it’ll be priced at $399.
Click to expand...
I don't have the experience to look up components but I was leaning toward $400 before this month. With all the leaks, I'm leaning towards $500 since it's comparable in cutting edge hardware to the other consoles with which have recent price increase outside of US. Add in that Sony/MS is more willing to take a loss on hardware, I don't see a large price difference. Maybe $450 but not $400.
 
Goodtwin said:
When I use to frequent Beyond3D, when a thread got way off topic the mods would often cut out the off topic content and throw it into a new thread. I don't know if this is possible here, but it worked well there.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't ever put "B3D" and "working well" in the same sentence like that. lol
 
Kazuyamishima said:
Correct but I'm pretty sure 2.5 is the same thing as 3 when frame generation isn't on in terms of upscaling I don't think there was really any visible improvement or features added they just merged the two. I still don't get why Nvidia had to name it like this
Click to expand...

Both Lovelace arch and non-Lovelace architecture RTX's will be able to support 3.5.

I understand you understand the naming scheme is terrible, but even if chip doesn't support frame generation, 2.5, 3, and 3.5 aren't the same thing. If you say "it's DLSS 2.5" (IDK even what that is), you're kind of suggesting there's no RR.

I circled what T239 should be able to support. The game devs would need to code to utilize SR and RR.
 
Last edited:
TheSentry said:
Has anyone tried to do a calculation of how much the next gen Switch will cost for Nintendo to make based on leaked specs (T-239/Drake, 8” LCD, etc.) and hypothesized components (RAM, storage, etc.)?

I’d be curious the reasonable price ranges we could come up with. Possibly could give us a better idea of what pricing Nintendo might shoot for.

Personally I think Nintendo will drop the OLED price to $299 (USD) after the announce the NSW2 and it’ll be priced at $399.
Click to expand...

I'm also thinking about $399/€, although I think Nintendo could try to go a little further if what has been said so far (and why it shouldn't be) turns out to be accurate.
Personally? although not without sacrifices I would be willing to spend up to €449, obviously a lot will depend on the lineup.
Goodtwin said:
When I use to frequent Beyond3D, when a thread got way off topic the mods would often cut out the off topic content and throw it into a new thread. I don't know if this is possible here, but it worked well there.
Click to expand...
It would be great. Although, a little self-control never hurts.
 
catonkatonk said:
Console or PC gaming is expensive to the point of near inaccessibility for many.
Thr current model of buying a $300+ device to then buy $70 games is a significant barrier.

For all the talk of gaming's ascent as an entertainment medium, it's clear that it's not as ubiquitous as, say, movies. Admissions for the Mario movie exceed the sales of the best selling Mario game by at least double , and probably a lot more depending on what you decide to count. While that comparison doesn't account for the fact that a game in a household is shared by many people in that household, it also doesn't account for the many millions of more views the movie will make as it comes to streaming and broadcast TV and the like.

There is a sense that a lot of people don't want to play games. The existence of the word "gamer" in itself suggests that people who play games are distinct from those who don't. But I think many more people would pay games if they could do so without such a heavy financial commitment. And I think this is borne out when you look at the explosion of the mobile gaming market. People on sites like these sneer at Candy Crush, but frankly its success highlights the massive failure of traditional gaming to extend its reach. Even on here, a point was consistently made that iPhones cannot challenge console gaming because the audience on phones has been trained to only pay like $5. But that audience is huge. Gigantic. And there are huge benefits if that is the extent of financial outlay (which, to be clear, I'm aware is not the case in most mobile gaming and its shameless milking of whales).

Besides the exclusionary nature of it, the expense of console gaming inevitably increases the risk-aversion of both gamers and developers. It leads to a less interesting ecosystem. It's the reason developers feel they have to pad out their games to selling 40+ hours in order to justify charging $60-70. And they often can't charge less than that because the base asset creation and the like is so expensive. So smaller or more innovative games are largely the domain of indies, who have to compete for the attention of an audience that can, when it comes to the big games, can only really afford to buy like 6 a year. The gamer is less likely to "take a punt", either on big or small games. They'll stick to known quantities. Hence the franchise-dominated nature of this industry. Or genres that are entirely stuck in the past and refuse to evolve. Or an indie scene that is diverse only because of the immense passion of the creators in it, not because there's much money to be made.
Click to expand...
I'm not sold on the idea that making console and PC games more accessible through streaming would drastically increase the number of people who play them. What streaming will do, however, is completely give up the ownership of games to big corporations. That is why Big Tech is pushing so hard for streaming more than anything.

I feel that the biggest reason why more people don't play traditional games is the perceived higher level of commitment required. Traditional games are a more active medium and tend to ask more of the player in moment-to-moment gameplay compared to more casual smartphone games. Most people aren't interested in that level of engagement. It's kinda similar to how popular sports like soccer and basketball are followed by billions worldwide, but only a fraction also plays them in any meaningful capacity. The typical subject matter of many console and PC games may be another reason.

Either way, I don't get why consoles need to go away instead of remaining as just another option to play games.
 
Last edited:
0
LinkURL said:
I really don't understand why you guys are acting like I said that an iPhone for gaming is BETTER than a Switch. I DIDN'T SAY THAT (and I don't believe it).
My point is that Apple's platform is becoming more interesting to play on, and could enter Nintendo's market territory and disrupt it in the long term.
Click to expand...
Apple's biggest hurdle to gaming for essentially their entire existence as a company has been coaxing devs to port games to their platforms. They're making an intentional push right now by paying for ports of big-name titles to iPhone 15 Pro.

It'll be interesting to see what happens down the line. Do developers just start making iPhone ports on their own if these games do well? How long does Apple keep paying for games until that point? Has Apple actually solved the inherit reason game devs haven't historically liked developing for them - poor support for third-party middleware that eases the development of cross-platform development - or did Apple just throw money at the problem to get the extra work put in?

I would guess that these games are running on Metal. How easy is it to port a backend from Vulkan to Metal? Is that something devs are willing to do on a consistent basis?

These are all questions I need answered before I take Apple as a serious threat to gaming market share. They've made moves to try to break into the market before, but unlike most of their efforts elsewhere as a company, they seem to just not understand what it takes to actually find their footing here.
 
Teal'c said:
I'm also thinking about $399/€, although I think Nintendo could try to go a little further if what has been said so far (and why it shouldn't be) turns out to be accurate.
Personally? although not without sacrifices I would be willing to spend up to €449, obviously a lot will depend on the lineup.
Click to expand...

There is little doubt in my mind that SNG will launch at $399. People have to remember that Valve was able to ship a low volume product with Steam Deck in early 2022 starting at $399. SNG will sell more in its first month than Steam Deck has sold in its lifetime and the benefits of mass production correlates to being able to manufacture a superior product at a lower cost. With how popular the Switch OLED has proven to be, I wouldn't write off the possibility of a two SKU launch. The standard LCD model at with 256GB of storage for $399 and an OLED model with 512GB of storage for $499. At least one Switch SKU will be eliminated once SNG is out and a price drop is a given. Switch Lite can drop to $149 making it a great value for consumers looking for cheap access to the massive Switch library of games.
 
I don’t know y’all… I’m not saying they’ll say anything about anything other than Switch games, but the word “focused” does not communicate to me the idea of exclusively highlighting only on Switch games.

Maybe they’re going to talk about a mobile game…

I can’t see a world where they announce Switch 2 in this Direct.
 
TheSentry said:
I don’t know y’all… I’m not saying they’ll say anything about anything other than Switch games, but the word “focused” does not communicate to me the idea of exclusively highlighting only on Switch games.

Maybe they’re going to talk about a mobile game…

I can’t see a world where they announce Switch 2 in this Direct.
Click to expand...

the real question is...did they use the term "focus" as a wink/nod/troll for everyone? (well not everyone, just the too online ones)


and agreed, nothing at all Switch 2 related.
 
0
Interesting they used the word Winter instead of Early 2024

That means in their marketing language Winter = December 2023 to March 2024

We also getting the Pokemon DLC 2 this Winter 2023

And if the Pokemon leaker prophecy is true, we getting the Switch 2 this Winter also
 
Taking the one thing from the Apple even that's actually relevant to this thread, we now have a TSMC 3nm chip in the wild (or at least will in a couple of weeks when they ship), so TSMC's 4/5nm processes are officially no longer bleeding edge any more.

The A17 is 19 billion transistors, which is actually more than Nvidia's TU102 GPU used in the RTX 2080Ti and Titan RTX a few years ago. The TU102 was a 754mm² monster of a chip on TSMC 12nm, but the A17 should come in under 100mm² on 3nm. It'll be interesting to see the exact die size when we get a teardown to see what sort of density they've managed.

The claimed 10% improvement to CPU and 20% to GPU aren't huge, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're focussing more on power efficiency than performance here. At least on the CPU side they already have a big lead over the competition, so there's no need to push clocks crazy high for the sake of benchmarks. Again I'm curious to see more detailed analysis of power efficiency improvements here.
 
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