• 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)

Our most trusted insiders, Nate and Mochi, said there will be several third party exclusives. You should expect a third party support boom the day it launches and more in the future if it becomes a success (it definitely will).
Without knowing who these 3rd parties are or the projects that are being spoken of. I would caution people from getting overly hyped about that statement.
The only 3rd party boom I expect are AA/indies/mobile as the bigger ones will just throw a bone every so often.
"Mario and Zelda every holiday season" is a nightmare scenario for me, a Switch only gamer. I'm tired of both of them after 30 years full of them, I'd rather have Nintendo invest in new IPs. And give third party some breathing room.
Giving 3rd parties breathing room is a mistake & frankly never really worked for Nintendo. People are not buying a new expensive piece of Nintendo hardware for 3rd parties in masssive amounts.
And, you may be tired of them but they sell & continue to sell compared to so of the new ips they put out. They will still invest in new ips however whether you actually like those or not is subjective.
 
Without knowing who these 3rd parties are or the projects that are being spoken of. I would caution people from getting overly hyped about that statement.
The only 3rd party boom I expect are AA/indies/mobile as the bigger ones will just throw a bone every so often.
Yeah, I wouldn't expect bigger stuff come right away. There are lots devs wanted to bring their games to Switch but couldn't because of their hardware. Stuff like Resident Evil 2-3, KoF15, Desperados 3, Stellaris, Dying Light 2 etc. Switch Pro needs to prove itself for the bigger stuff like FF16 to drop.

But don't expect the third party support the Switch has now to diminish anytime soon. Nintendo is pushing hard for it all the way. They even publish the physical version of GTA games. They want the stuff on their system.
 
Z0zs4dV.png


Even though Nintendo's forecast is typically conservation (their exchange rate forecast is too), their profit forecast for FY22-23 is ... not good. The announcement of stock split and share buyback is to prop up the stock price against such a weak forecast. (As a reference, Sony's forecasted net profit for FY22-23 is -6%.) Barring a major forecast modification during this FY, it is a clear indicator that the gravy train is losing steam. I don't believe that Nintendo would let the situation further deteriorate. A new model release toward the end of this FY or anytime during the H1 of next FY seems likely.

Their net sales forecast being only 5% down and their profit forecast being a whopping 28% down actually tells me their operating expenses are planning to skyrocket. Which would line up with a hardware launch, no?

The other thing that's interesting is that they're expecting a 8.9% reduction in Switch hardware unit sales and a 10.7% reduction in software unit sales, but only a 5.6% reduction in net sales. With Switch hardware and software accounting for the vast majority of their net sales, that would indicate they're expecting an increase in average selling price on either hardware or software or both. This would be very unusual for the tail end of a hardware cycle, to say the least.

In fact, we can do some very rough maths on it. Looking at hardware and software unit decreases in their forecast, we would probably assume a net sales forecast somewhere around 1.5 trillion yen, or lower than their actual forecast by 100 billion yen, or 770 million USD (using very rough estimates here). This means they're expecting around 100 billion yen of revenue to come from something other than just selling more software or hardware units.

This revenue could be from a few different sources:

1. Increased ASP of Switch hardware
2. Increased ASP of boxed software and digital versions of boxed software
3. Increased sales of digital-only software (this isn't included in the 210m estimate), Switch Online, etc.
4. Increased revenue from anything other than Switch consoles and software.

I'll go through this list in reverse, just to get the easy ones out of the way first. First is the "everything else" category, which includes Switch accessories, licensing and mobile revenues, playing cards, etc. On the Switch accessories category, I'd fully expect this to track hardware and software sales, and be down or stable year-on-year. I was about to say it could be licensing revenues from the Mario movie, but I just remembered it had been pushed back to April 2023, so just outside the FY. Their "Mobile, IP related income, etc" was 53.3 billion yen this past FY, so it would need to triple to account for the extra 100 billion, which I don't see happening.

Digital-only software I'd expect to track pretty closely with boxed software, so down or stable YoY, but Switch Online could well increase, as I expect them to increasingly push the service. However, I don't think it will be close to accounting for 100 billion yen in additional revenue. If we look at the data on page 13 of today's briefing slides, we can get the following figures for this past FY:

Total software sales: 844.1 billion yen
Digital software sales: 359.6 billion yen (42.6% of software sales)
Digital sales of boxed software: 202.1 billion yen
Download-only software, add-on content, and Nintendo Switch Online, etc.: 157.2 billion yen

So if Switch Online revenues account for about 30% of the last segment, they would need to triple to account for an extra 100 billion of revenue. That seems like a stretch. I could definitely see it accounting for part of this extra revenue, but only a relatively small part.

On the boxed software side, I would find it very unlikely that ASP would increase substantially towards the tail end of a console's life cycle. Usually I would expect the opposite, as customers pick up discounted older software, although Nintendo is still able to sell millions of copies of MK8 each year for $60, so I don't expect much discounting any time soon. However, we do have the numbers, and we know that they sold 235.07 million units last year of boxed software and digital versions thereof, and we know from above that they made 686.9 billion yen of revenue form those, so the ASP in the last FY was 2,922 yen for boxed software. This is about $26 going by the average FY exchange rate from their financial report. Keep in mind this excludes retailer and distributor margins, and includes third party software where Nintendo only see a smaller portion of the revenue.

If we account for the discrepancy entirely by increasing the ASP of boxed software, it would have to jump to 3,397 yen, or about $29.50 going by the exchange rate Nintendo are using for their projections. This is a 16% ASP increase, which seems pretty unlikely YoY outside of any change in pricing strategy (ie hiking everything up to $70), and again doesn't really align with expectations for a console towards the end of its life. Consider as well that one of Nintendo's big releases this FY is Switch Sports, which is selling at around 33% lower price than most of their titles. That doesn't really align with internal projections of a big jump in software ASP.

Then, finally we come to console sales. We know from page 5 of the slides that hardware sales accounted for 48.4% of total "dedicated video game platform" this past FY. It's not 100% clear if this includes accessories, but I don't think it does, as on page 4 is specifies that "dedicated video game platform" comprises of hardware, software and accessories, which would imply accessories are not part of hardware. If that is the case, then Nintendo received 793.4 billion yen for the 23.06 million Switch units sold last FY. This comes to an ASP of 34,405 yen, or $306.26 by their average FY exchange rate. We also have numbers for FY21 in the same slides, where hardware was 52.7% of 1.7 trillion yen, or 895.9 billion yen, and over 28.83 million units, that comes to 31,075 yen ASP.

This is a 10.7% YoY ASP increase in yen, and part of this increase last FY was due to exchange rates, as EUR and USD gained 5.5% and 6% respectively on JPY over the year. Japan accounted for 21% of their sales last FY, so exchange rate fluctuations accounted for probably a bit under 5% of the ASP increase. The rest was a combination of the new OLED model, and the Lite accounting for a smaller proportion of sales.

For this coming fiscal year, if we're to assume the missing 100 billion yen is all hardware ASP increases, then we take the 793.37 billion of last year, subtract 8.9%, add the 100 billion, and divide by 21 million hardware units. This gives us 39,179 yen ASP. This is a 14% increase YoY. Their forecasts include a slightly higher JPYUSD FX rate than last FY (by 2.3%), and a slightly lower JPYEUR FX rate (by 4.2%), so it doesn't look like they expect this to be driven by FX movements.

Last FY Nintendo released a new, more expensive model and saw a sharp decline in sales of their cheapest model, and saw FX-adjusted hardware ASP increase by around 6-7% YoY. This FY, if there's no dramatic increase in revenue from other areas (which seems unlikely), they seem to be projecting as much as a 14% increase in hardware ASP YoY. That's hard to explain without either Nintendo stopping sales of one or both of the Lite or standard Switch models (not particularly likely), or new Switch hardware that has a higher selling price than the OLED model.

There is also one other area the revenue could come from that I left out of my list of 4 items above; sales of gaming hardware that isn't the Switch. Nintendo only lists Switch sales forecasts, and if they release a device that they don't consider part of the Switch family, then it wouldn't be included in the forecasts. If a Switch 2 (or whatever they call it) comes out this FY, and they don't do any GBC funny business about counting it with the original Switch, then it would account for additional sales over and above the forecasts. Therefore this doesn't necessarily mean an increase in ASP, although there's nothing to imply ASP one way or the other, given we don't have estimates of sales numbers of the hypothetical new device, and may appear alongside price drops of the existing Switch, which would muddy the waters there as well.

TLDR: It's very hard to reconcile Nintendo's projections on hardware and software sales with their projected revenue, unless either (a) a new model in the Switch family is released and sold for a higher price than the OLED model or (b) a new console that's not part of the Switch family is released, which may or may not be sold for a higher price.
 
There's not much Nintendo loves more than "they can't keep these consoles on shelves" headlines.
They definitely love selling as many consoles as possible more than they love headlines like that.

The chip shortage thing is not a persuasive argument, though. It's not going to get better for years and you can't just let your platform wither and die because a new model would be supply constrained. And even if the Switch magically kept increasing its sales every year, you can't just hold on to hardware you've already developed indefinitely waiting for the "right time" to release it.
 
The other thing that's interesting is that they're expecting a 8.9% reduction in Switch hardware unit sales and a 10.7% reduction in software unit sales, but only a 5.6% reduction in net sales. With Switch hardware and software accounting for the vast majority of their net sales, that would indicate they're expecting an increase in average selling price on either hardware or software or both. This would be very unusual for the tail end of a hardware cycle, to say the least.

In fact, we can do some very rough maths on it. Looking at hardware and software unit decreases in their forecast, we would probably assume a net sales forecast somewhere around 1.5 trillion yen, or lower than their actual forecast by 100 billion yen, or 770 million USD (using very rough estimates here). This means they're expecting around 100 billion yen of revenue to come from something other than just selling more software or hardware units.

This revenue could be from a few different sources:

1. Increased ASP of Switch hardware
2. Increased ASP of boxed software and digital versions of boxed software
3. Increased sales of digital-only software (this isn't included in the 210m estimate), Switch Online, etc.
4. Increased revenue from anything other than Switch consoles and software.

I'll go through this list in reverse, just to get the easy ones out of the way first. First is the "everything else" category, which includes Switch accessories, licensing and mobile revenues, playing cards, etc. On the Switch accessories category, I'd fully expect this to track hardware and software sales, and be down or stable year-on-year. I was about to say it could be licensing revenues from the Mario movie, but I just remembered it had been pushed back to April 2023, so just outside the FY. Their "Mobile, IP related income, etc" was 53.3 billion yen this past FY, so it would need to triple to account for the extra 100 billion, which I don't see happening.

Digital-only software I'd expect to track pretty closely with boxed software, so down or stable YoY, but Switch Online could well increase, as I expect them to increasingly push the service. However, I don't think it will be close to accounting for 100 billion yen in additional revenue. If we look at the data on page 13 of today's briefing slides, we can get the following figures for this past FY:

Total software sales: 844.1 billion yen
Digital software sales: 359.6 billion yen (42.6% of software sales)
Digital sales of boxed software: 202.1 billion yen
Download-only software, add-on content, and Nintendo Switch Online, etc.: 157.2 billion yen

So if Switch Online revenues account for about 30% of the last segment, they would need to triple to account for an extra 100 billion of revenue. That seems like a stretch. I could definitely see it accounting for part of this extra revenue, but only a relatively small part.

On the boxed software side, I would find it very unlikely that ASP would increase substantially towards the tail end of a console's life cycle. Usually I would expect the opposite, as customers pick up discounted older software, although Nintendo is still able to sell millions of copies of MK8 each year for $60, so I don't expect much discounting any time soon. However, we do have the numbers, and we know that they sold 235.07 million units last year of boxed software and digital versions thereof, and we know from above that they made 686.9 billion yen of revenue form those, so the ASP in the last FY was 2,922 yen for boxed software. This is about $26 going by the average FY exchange rate from their financial report. Keep in mind this excludes retailer and distributor margins, and includes third party software where Nintendo only see a smaller portion of the revenue.

If we account for the discrepancy entirely by increasing the ASP of boxed software, it would have to jump to 3,397 yen, or about $29.50 going by the exchange rate Nintendo are using for their projections. This is a 16% ASP increase, which seems pretty unlikely YoY outside of any change in pricing strategy (ie hiking everything up to $70), and again doesn't really align with expectations for a console towards the end of its life. Consider as well that one of Nintendo's big releases this FY is Switch Sports, which is selling at around 33% lower price than most of their titles. That doesn't really align with internal projections of a big jump in software ASP.

Then, finally we come to console sales. We know from page 5 of the slides that hardware sales accounted for 48.4% of total "dedicated video game platform" this past FY. It's not 100% clear if this includes accessories, but I don't think it does, as on page 4 is specifies that "dedicated video game platform" comprises of hardware, software and accessories, which would imply accessories are not part of hardware. If that is the case, then Nintendo received 793.4 billion yen for the 23.06 million Switch units sold last FY. This comes to an ASP of 34,405 yen, or $306.26 by their average FY exchange rate. We also have numbers for FY21 in the same slides, where hardware was 52.7% of 1.7 trillion yen, or 895.9 billion yen, and over 28.83 million units, that comes to 31,075 yen ASP.

This is a 10.7% YoY ASP increase in yen, and part of this increase last FY was due to exchange rates, as EUR and USD gained 5.5% and 6% respectively on JPY over the year. Japan accounted for 21% of their sales last FY, so exchange rate fluctuations accounted for probably a bit under 5% of the ASP increase. The rest was a combination of the new OLED model, and the Lite accounting for a smaller proportion of sales.

For this coming fiscal year, if we're to assume the missing 100 billion yen is all hardware ASP increases, then we take the 793.37 billion of last year, subtract 8.9%, add the 100 billion, and divide by 21 million hardware units. This gives us 39,179 yen ASP. This is a 14% increase YoY. Their forecasts include a slightly higher JPYUSD FX rate than last FY (by 2.3%), and a slightly lower JPYEUR FX rate (by 4.2%), so it doesn't look like they expect this to be driven by FX movements.

Last FY Nintendo released a new, more expensive model and saw a sharp decline in sales of their cheapest model, and saw FX-adjusted hardware ASP increase by around 6-7% YoY. This FY, if there's no dramatic increase in revenue from other areas (which seems unlikely), they seem to be projecting as much as a 14% increase in hardware ASP YoY. That's hard to explain without either Nintendo stopping sales of one or both of the Lite or standard Switch models (not particularly likely), or new Switch hardware that has a higher selling price than the OLED model.

There is also one other area the revenue could come from that I left out of my list of 4 items above; sales of gaming hardware that isn't the Switch. Nintendo only lists Switch sales forecasts, and if they release a device that they don't consider part of the Switch family, then it wouldn't be included in the forecasts. If a Switch 2 (or whatever they call it) comes out this FY, and they don't do any GBC funny business about counting it with the original Switch, then it would account for additional sales over and above the forecasts. Therefore this doesn't necessarily mean an increase in ASP, although there's nothing to imply ASP one way or the other, given we don't have estimates of sales numbers of the hypothetical new device, and may appear alongside price drops of the existing Switch, which would muddy the waters there as well.

TLDR: It's very hard to reconcile Nintendo's projections on hardware and software sales with their projected revenue, unless either (a) a new model in the Switch family is released and sold for a higher price than the OLED model or (b) a new console that's not part of the Switch family is released, which may or may not be sold for a higher price.
This is a great post and a great point.

I could see them releasing another new NSO tier which also raises their digital revenue, though maybe it is a bit too soon for that.
 
Despite the bandwidth reduction I’m really hoping that the low amount of RAM in the Series S actually ends up increasing the number of ports to Switch 4K.
It absolutely should imo. When devs have to scale every game to work on 7.5 gb, it does lower the baseline compared to if series x and ps5 was the target.
 
Our most trusted insiders, Nate and Mochi, said there will be several third party exclusives. You should expect a third party support boom the day it launches and more in the future if it becomes a success (it definitely will).
yeah we shall see but history tells me I shouldn’t count on that no matter what anyone says. Shit Nintendo has EA come on stage at Wii U conference talking about Battlefield and how many games from that series did we get?
 
0
This is a great post and a great point.

I could see them releasing another new NSO tier which also raises their digital revenue, though maybe it is a bit too soon for that.
I don't see a new NSO tier coming soon, but I do think they'll try to increase the value proposition of the existing tiers, with GameBoy games on the base subscription, and more DLC included in the Expansion Pack, to drive subscriber growth.
 
The difference between the Series S and X with memory is bigger than the difference between the Switch and XBox One.

7.5 vs 13.5 available (where amd GPUs take more resources wrt memory and RT)

3.25(?) vs 5.5 available (currently)

It’s not much more, but it’s still.

The safest situation for Nintendo and the next switch, is 12GB.

Assuming they keep the very low profile OS and due to availability of RAM in the LPDDR5 stack (6GB is the lowest atm for 64-bit).

11GB available for developers and 1 for the OS. 2 6GB 64-bit modules that operate at 51.2GB/s each resulting in the 12GB 128-bit 102.4GB/s (docked)

or they, you know, go with 5X :p, would be better.
 
I don't see a new NSO tier coming soon, but I do think they'll try to increase the value proposition of the existing tiers, with GameBoy games on the base subscription, and more DLC included in the Expansion Pack, to drive subscriber growth.
Yeah I'm with you, it's too soon for another tier. And you're right, them increasing adoption doesn't cover much at all of that extra revenue.
 
(btw, if anybody's curious about the discrepancy between ReddDreadtheLead saying 6 GB is the lowest atm for 64-bit LPDDR5 and my insinuating that 4 GB is the lowest earlier: at least going by Micron's catalogue, 6 GB is in production while 4 is still sampling)
 
I don't see a new NSO tier coming soon, but I do think they'll try to increase the value proposition of the existing tiers, with GameBoy games on the base subscription, and more DLC included in the Expansion Pack, to drive subscriber growth.
I doubt they add anything else to the base subscription. If anything I see them eventually (probably on the next console) phasing out the base subscription entirely, because they would prefer you give them more money.
 
(btw, if anybody's curious about the discrepancy between ReddDreadtheLead saying 6 GB is the lowest atm for 64-bit LPDDR5 and my insinuating that 4 GB is the lowest earlier: at least going by Micron's catalogue, 6 GB is in production while 4 is still sampling)
Nintendo to pull all stops and give us a Series S/X of a dual configuration 🤭
 
0
Despite only having 25.6GB/s, I feel like the switch did quite well vs base PS4 in many ports.I guess that Nvidia magic with tile rendering helped a lot.

I think 102.4 GB/s will be fine for PS4 ports.
Let's not forget we are going to get a lot more cache as well, why I should help...
Also, I believe DLSS could help reduce bandwidth costs, but I could be wrong. I don't know if one needs tl required bandwidth to run a game without DLSS with DLSS activated, but I'm guessing no?
 
TLDR: It's very hard to reconcile Nintendo's projections on hardware and software sales with their projected revenue, unless either (a) a new model in the Switch family is released and sold for a higher price than the OLED model or (b) a new console that's not part of the Switch family is released, which may or may not be sold for a higher price.
However, it is possible they expect sales of the base unit to fall very heavily being replaced by the OLED. This would increase the cost per unit.
 
Despite only having 25.6GB/s, I feel like the switch did quite well vs base PS4 in many ports.I guess that Nvidia magic with tile rendering helped a lot.

I think 102.4 GB/s will be fine for PS4 ports.
Let's not forget we are going to get a lot more cache as well, why I should help...
Also, I believe DLSS could help reduce bandwidth costs, but I could be wrong. I don't know if one needs tl required bandwidth to run a game without DLSS with DLSS activated, but I'm guessing no?
It’s weird. DLSS would reduce bandwidth for one thing (the resolution eg), but DLSS requires a lot of bandwidth considering what it is.


So it becomes a trade-off.
 
They definitely love selling as many consoles as possible more than they love headlines like that.

The chip shortage thing is not a persuasive argument, though. It's not going to get better for years and you can't just let your platform wither and die because a new model would be supply constrained. And even if the Switch magically kept increasing its sales every year, you can't just hold on to hardware you've already developed indefinitely waiting for the "right time" to release it.
I have no understanding of semiconductor logistics but I read something the other day about how having two different models is helping Xbox Series to avoid a worse shortage. I wonder if the same could apply to Switch if the pro is really a thing.
 
Last edited:
0
Yeah, I wouldn't expect bigger stuff come right away. There are lots devs wanted to bring their games to Switch but couldn't because of their hardware. Stuff like Resident Evil 2-3, KoF15, Desperados 3, Stellaris, Dying Light 2 etc. Switch Pro needs to prove itself for the bigger stuff like FF16 to drop.

But don't expect the third party support the Switch has now to diminish anytime soon. Nintendo is pushing hard for it all the way. They even publish the physical version of GTA games. They want the stuff on their system.
I’m not expecting it to diminish but I’m not expecting 3rd parties to act like now they can finally bring their games over because the system has more grunt. Like that list has a game in KoF15 that can come now for instance. And, I don’t expect games like FF16 to ever show up for reasons beyond console power.

I expect the same as what we saw with the Switch. Mostly mid tier/mobile/indie games with the occasional AAA game here or there thrown in. Expect a bit of PS4 ports of varying quality.
 
However, it is possible they expect sales of the base unit to fall very heavily being replaced by the OLED. This would increase the cost per unit.
It would increase the ASP, but not be enough to account for the full difference.

Let's use 39,179 yen as our ASP on hardware this coming year (which as mentioned above, is just a rough estimate). Let's also assume that ASP on each of the base Switch, Switch Lite and OLED are all identical to last year, for simplicity. I'll also assume that ASP between the models follows a 300:200:350 ratio, in line with the USD prices, although in reality it will vary by region. We know that Nintendo made 793.37 billion yen last year on 5.8m OLED models, 13.56m base Switch models, and 3.7m Lite models. If we use the ratios above, we can assume that the ASP for each model was as follows:
OLED: 40,608 yen
Base: 34,807 yen
Lite: 23,204 yen

For the average ASP across the entire mix to hit over 39,000 yen, they would have to sell almost exclusively OLED models, eating not just the vast majority of sales of the base unit, but also reducing the OLED sales to almost nothing. If we assume base and Lite Switch models are equal, then it would require them to sell 18.4 million OLED models, and just 1.3 million each of the base model and Lite. That's not going to happen unless they just drop the base model altogether. They've also emphasised on a couple of occasions that they make a lower profit margin on the OLED model than the base Switch, so they don't have any incentive to push people to the more expensive model.

If we assume that sales follow the same ratio as the last quarter (which is the only one the OLED model has been available for the entirety of), then we get sales of 9.25 million OLED, 9.04 million base and 2.71 million Lite models, with an ASP of 35,865 yen, or an increase of 4.2%.
 
I’m not expecting it to diminish but I’m not expecting 3rd parties to act like now they can finally bring their games over because the system has more grunt. Like that list has a game in KoF15 that can come now for instance. And, I don’t expect games like FF16 to ever show up for reasons beyond console power.

I expect the same as what we saw with the Switch. Mostly mid tier/mobile/indie games with the occasional AAA game here or there thrown in. Expect a bit of PS4 ports of varying quality.
Probably.


Oh, and i think Team cherry and nintendo are in connection. Silksong will be the big game, and nintendo is only waiting with switch pro for them to be ready. Only the power of Switch Pro can do that game justice =P
 
0
I’m not expecting it to diminish but I’m not expecting 3rd parties to act like now they can finally bring their games over because the system has more grunt. Like that list has a game in KoF15 that can come now for instance. And, I don’t expect games like FF16 to ever show up for reasons beyond console power.

I expect the same as what we saw with the Switch. Mostly mid tier/mobile/indie games with the occasional AAA game here or there thrown in. Expect a bit of PS4 ports of varying quality.
I expect from some companies if possible to port their games but these companies are the ones that are already bringing almost everything to the platform Koei Temco,WB Games,NIS(A),Konami,Marvelous and Embracer. Only companies I expect maybe to increase support are Capcom (but still only expect late ports and MH/Megaman/AA), a bit more Ubisoft support (they ported AC games to the Wii U and have good relationship with Nintendo), CC2 and some Bandai Namco divisions in particular D3 but not BNS . I'm talking support without Nintendo money , with Nintendo money even Nagoshi would port his games.
 
I’m not expecting it to diminish but I’m not expecting 3rd parties to act like now they can finally bring their games over because the system has more grunt. Like that list has a game in KoF15 that can come now for instance. And, I don’t expect games like FF16 to ever show up for reasons beyond console power.
That's the thing about Switch. Nintendo's push is so hard, the only reason the games skipping Switch is the hardware. Now we expect that problem to be solved, Nintendo will make sure more and more games will be on Switch. In FF16's case, if it's possible on the new hardware, Nintendo would definitely request a port after the exclusivity deal is done. They have done it before with DQ11 and they sure will do so in the future.

RE 2 and 3 remakes are also lock. RE3 Switch Cloud version was leaked a while ago but it seems Capcom dropped the idea for some reason. Reason is most likely Switch Pro.
 
I doubt they add anything else to the base subscription. If anything I see them eventually (probably on the next console) phasing out the base subscription entirely, because they would prefer you give them more money.
They might change the price, but they're not going to kill the bottom tier. Most people use NSO to play games online, not to access the retro library. They will preserve a barebones "play Mario Kart online" tier. The GameBoy library is pretty good, but no one is shelling out Expansion Pack money to play Pokemon Red and Blue - I expect GB to go into the base tier.
 
That's the thing about Switch. Nintendo's push is so hard, the only reason the games skipping Switch is the hardware.
That's not the only reason why games skip the Switch, if not the meme of games, skipping the Switch only to get ported 1 year later wouldn't exist. Or people mocking Spike, Sega and Bamco for their decisions related to Switch support.
 
That's not the only reason why games skip the Switch, if not the meme of games, skipping the Switch only to get ported 1 year later wouldn't exist. Or people mocking Spike, Sega and Bamco for their decisions related to Switch support.
Again hardware. They're optimized very carefully, some ports take more than a year.

Bamco's silly decisions affect other consoles too. The rest, hardware related. We even got info about how they tried and failed to port Tekken 7 to Switch from Imran.

Sega, well, you got me there. Nagoshi's grudge is the most infuriating thing about Switch third party support.
 
They might change the price, but they're not going to kill the bottom tier. Most people use NSO to play games online, not to access the retro library. They will preserve a barebones "play Mario Kart online" tier. The GameBoy library is pretty good, but no one is shelling out Expansion Pack money to play Pokemon Red and Blue - I expect GB to go into the base tier.
Yeah but don't you think they'd rather you pay $50 for online play than $20?
 
Again hardware. They're optimized very carefully, some ports take more than a year.

Bamco's silly decisions affect other consoles too. The rest, hardware related. We even got info about how they tried and failed to port Tekken 7 to Switch from Imran.

Sega, well, you got me there. Nagoshi's grudge is the most infuriating thing about Switch third party support.
Danganronpa was so powerful they needed 4 years to port it (and it leaked that there were intentions of a Xbox port but weren't financial viable until Xbox paid for it while Switch port was blocked multiple times). And most companies have had 5 years to incorporate Switch in their developement plans, not releasing Switch version day 1 means losing a ton of sales and it's something developers should have planned. We know for example that CC2 didn't plan to make a Switch version of Demon Slayer at the start of development it was PS+XB+Steam only, but after realizing how they fucked it up they have tried to get the port as fast as possible, but it was too late due to the lack of planning, most Switch late ports are the result of companies not taking into account day 1.
 
They'd rather you pay 20$ for online than 0$.
This argument could apply to selling a $1 online service too. There's a sweet spot between too expensive for people to pay and cheaper than necessary, and I'd personally guess it's closer to $50 than $20 considering Microsoft and Sony have been charging $50 for a long time now.
 
0
Our most trusted insiders, Nate and Mochi, said there will be several third party exclusives. You should expect a third party support boom the day it launches and more in the future if it becomes a success (it definitely will).

Sorry if it’s already been said, but I’m fairly certain Mochi never reported anything about exclusives. His articles mentioned only third parties targeting new hardware - they may also be targeting the original hardware.

I don’t expect any exclusives at launch personally.

Edit: Less confident on this one, but I don’t think Nate ever said an explicit timeframe for an exclusive either. He’s talked about games developed for the platform targeting end of this year or early next year, and he’s mentioned some exclusives in the works, but I think they’ve always been separate threads.
 
Sorry if it’s already been said, but I’m fairly certain Mochi never reported anything about exclusives. His articles mentioned only third parties targeting new hardware - they may also be targeting the original hardware.

I don’t expect any exclusives at launch personally.
Yeah, I don't think Mochizuki has ever explicitly mentioned exclusives.

That said, I think the chances of at least third party exclusives at launch are pretty high. There's so much random PS4/XB1 games that could be ported. Even a first party exclusive at launch isn't entirely out of the question if there's something worth doing a tech demo for.
 
Sorry if it’s already been said, but I’m fairly certain Mochi never reported anything about exclusives. His articles mentioned only third parties targeting new hardware - they may also be targeting the original hardware.

I don’t expect any exclusives at launch personally.

Edit: Less confident on this one, but I don’t think Nate ever said an explicit timeframe for an exclusive either. He’s talked about games developed for the platform targeting end of this year or early next year, and he’s mentioned some exclusives in the works, but I think they’ve always been separate threads.
Yes, Mochi did not specifically say the devs who have the devkits are making exclusives. He said there are games being made using the devkits. And not all devs have the devkit, meaning it's not necessary. Those games either only can run on Switch Pro or miracle ports for base Switch that runs much better on Switch Pro. As of now, we don't have any upcoming "miracle ports" other than No Man's Sky, we can assume that we don't know what the most of them are now.

The question is, will the devs bother with older Switch with a miracle port? Because it'll sure cost less to bring them to Switch Pro alone. And if they intended to do miracle ports for their older games, they would have done that already. RE remakes, for example.
 
I expect from some companies if possible to port their games but these companies are the ones that are already bringing almost everything to the platform Koei Temco,WB Games,NIS(A),Konami,Marvelous and Embracer. Only companies I expect maybe to increase support are Capcom (but still only expect late ports and MH/Megaman/AA), a bit more Ubisoft support (they ported AC games to the Wii U and have good relationship with Nintendo), CC2 and some Bandai Namco divisions in particular D3 but not BNS . I'm talking support without Nintendo money , with Nintendo money even Nagoshi would port his games.
For me I just don’t see Nintendo investing the money into trying to get some of these ports to come to the system. Either they do or don’t. As for the other companies there are probably other reasons outside of having good relationships with Nintendo. Like Ubisoft for example trying to buoy their financials currently or Capcom because they love throughing their back catalogue around like it’s going out of style.

What they should do is invest heavily into getting more mobile & pc ports. Plus investing more into I does to see if they could form NLG type partnerships with a few.
That's the thing about Switch. Nintendo's push is so hard, the only reason the games skipping Switch is the hardware. Now we expect that problem to be solved, Nintendo will make sure more and more games will be on Switch. In FF16's case, if it's possible on the new hardware, Nintendo would definitely request a port after the exclusivity deal is done. They have done it before with DQ11 and they sure will do so in the future.

RE 2 and 3 remakes are also lock. RE3 Switch Cloud version was leaked a while ago but it seems Capcom dropped the idea for some reason. Reason is most likely Switch Pro.
Games are skipping the Switch for multiple reasons with the hardware being a convenient excuse. Just take a look at the GTAV talks about why it didn’t show on the system. In the case of FF16 I think FF15 shows up long before that game again it’s not entirely because of hardware power.

RE3 cloud was dropped because they didn’t see the returns on their other cloud port is probably the reason. The only reasons those games are a lock is because Capcom loves porting their back catalogue all over the place.
 
Last edited:
0
Sorry if it’s already been said, but I’m fairly certain Mochi never reported anything about exclusives. His articles mentioned only third parties targeting new hardware - they may also be targeting the original hardware.

I don’t expect any exclusives at launch personally.

Edit: Less confident on this one, but I don’t think Nate ever said an explicit timeframe for an exclusive either. He’s talked about games developed for the platform targeting end of this year or early next year, and he’s mentioned some exclusives in the works, but I think they’ve always been separate threads.
I thought we figured out one of the exclusives for the Pro? Control from Remedy?
 
Yeah but don't you think they'd rather you pay $50 for online play than $20?
Yes. I also think they know that I won’t. Nor will the majority of the 45 million people who bought Mario Kart so they could play with their friends and do literally nothing else online.
 
0
Bloomberg reports Furokawa refused to comment when asked about new hardware
Yeah, it's happening.

And the amount of people on other sites that believe this is for a Switch Lite OLED and not Drake is kind of odd.
 
Last edited:
I thought we figured out one of the exclusives for the Pro? Control from Remedy?

Did we? I must have completely missed it. Last I saw was Nate saying we'd probably hear more specifics about these games around when they released, likely to prevent tracking it down to a specific source.

Yes, Mochi did not specifically say the devs who have the devkits are making exclusives. He said there are games being made using the devkits. And not all devs have the devkit, meaning it's not necessary. Those games either only can run on Switch Pro or miracle ports for base Switch that runs much better on Switch Pro. As of now, we don't have any upcoming "miracle ports" other than No Man's Sky, we can assume that we don't know what the most of them are now.

The question is, will the devs bother with older Switch with a miracle port? Because it'll sure cost less to bring them to Switch Pro alone. And if they intended to do miracle ports for their older games, they would have done that already. RE remakes, for example.

I don't think games being made using the dev kits remotely implies that they're 'impossible ports'. Switch will continue to get many games that work well enough on Switch, and just look better on the revision. That said, many of them will probably be exclusive to the Switch ecosystem, like Mario & Rabbids.

But fair question around future impossible ports. I expect even less of them, especially since the core audience will probably quickly migrate over to the new hardware, or at least as quickly as stock allows. Instead we'll get a new breed of miracle port - the PS5/XSX games that run surprisingly well on the revision.
 
Last edited:


So as Jon from Spawn Wave Media was talking about the possibility that the new hardware is a Nintendo Switch Lite revision, not a Nintendo Switch revision (i.e. "Nintendo Switch Pro"), he mentioned (on 5:02) that he has some family members who were looking into buying a Nintendo Switch, but didn't understand what the Nintendo Switch Lite. In fact, his family members thought that all Nintendo Switch models (Nintendo Switch and Nintendo Switch Lite) have the ability to connect to the dock to access TV mode. And even when Jon explained that the Nintendo Switch Lite can't connect to the dock to access TV mode, his family members still didn't really get it.

I know I've talked about wireless docking before, but I feel like what Jon said is the perfect excuse for Nintendo to at least explore the possibility of wireless docking, especially if Nintendo plans on releasing a DLSS Lite model* a couple of years after the release of the DLSS model*. One potential benefit of having an option for wireless docking is that Nintendo could reduce the amount of confusion consumers have in terms of the nomenclature. (I don't think wireless docking needs to be exclusive to the DLSS Lite model*.) And perhaps Nintendo could stick to using a LCD display for the DLSS Lite model* to save on costs. (Keep in mind I don't know how much money Nintendo would hypothetically save from continuing to use a LCD display vs using an OLED display for a DLSS Lite model*.)

~* → tentative names I use~
 


So as Jon from Spawn Wave Media was talking about the possibility that the new hardware is a Nintendo Switch Lite revision, not a Nintendo Switch revision (i.e. "Nintendo Switch Pro"), he mentioned (on 5:02) that he has some family members who were looking into buying a Nintendo Switch, but didn't understand what the Nintendo Switch Lite. In fact, his family members thought that all Nintendo Switch models (Nintendo Switch and Nintendo Switch Lite) have the ability to connect to the dock to access TV mode. And even when Jon explained that the Nintendo Switch Lite can't connect to the dock to access TV mode, his family members still didn't really get it.

I know I've talked about wireless docking before, but I feel like what Jon said is the perfect excuse for Nintendo to at least explore the possibility of wireless docking, especially if Nintendo plans on releasing a DLSS Lite model* a couple of years after the release of the DLSS model*. One potential benefit of having an option for wireless docking is that Nintendo could reduce the amount of confusion consumers have in terms of the nomenclature. (I don't think wireless docking needs to be exclusive to the DLSS Lite model*.) And perhaps Nintendo could stick to using a LCD display for the DLSS Lite model* to save on costs. (Keep in mind I don't know how much money Nintendo would hypothetically save from continuing to use a LCD display vs using an OLED display for a DLSS Lite model*.)

~* → tentative names I use~

Pretty unlikely tbh.A "wireless dock" would need to allocate a portion of its memory to streaming to the TV which would absolutely affect performance.It would literally be the wii u 2.0.
A DLSS model would be even worse if anything since to even support DLSS they would need to go with completely new architecture which would undoubtedly cause compatibility issues without a ton of work with third party developers.
 
A DLSS model would be even worse if anything since to even support DLSS they would need to go with completely new architecture which would undoubtedly cause compatibility issues without a ton of work with third party developers.
The illegal Nvidia leaks suggest that's going to be the case, with Drake having 12 SMs (1536 CUDA cores).

I don't think backwards compatibility's going to be a huge issue, since I think minimising any issues with backwards compatibility is probably one of Nintendo's and Nvidia's main focuses when designing Drake. And I think Nintendo's more than okay with ~99% backwards compatibility, like with the PlayStation 5 (with respect to PlayStation 4 games) and the Xbox Series X (with respect to Xbox One games). (Of course, how Nintendo and Nvidia achieve ~99% backwards compatibility probably won't be the same as how Sony and Microsoft achieve ~99% backwards compatibility.)
 
A DLSS model would be even worse if anything since to even support DLSS they would need to go with completely new architecture which would undoubtedly cause compatibility issues without a ton of work with third party developers.
nah. there's no reasonable reason for third parties to have to put in any amount of work. all this is handled by Nintendo/Nvidia
 
0
Pretty unlikely tbh.A "wireless dock" would need to allocate a portion of its memory to streaming to the TV which would absolutely affect performance.It would literally be the wii u 2.0.
A DLSS model would be even worse if anything since to even support DLSS they would need to go with completely new architecture which would undoubtedly cause compatibility issues without a ton of work with third party developers.
I’m not sure I understand the second part of your post, are you saying that the switch next would use Maxwell again? Why? Also, Why would they need to go with a new uArch on the DLSS model if it’s already a new uArch on the DLSS model?

It’s streaming from the tablet to the dock (or dongle) and that is displayed to the TV
 
0
The illegal Nvidia leaks suggest that's going to be the case, with Drake having 12 SMs (1536 CUDA cores).

I don't think backwards compatibility's going to be a huge issue, since I think minimising any issues with backwards compatibility is probably one of Nintendo's and Nvidia's main focuses when designing Drake. And I think Nintendo's more than okay with ~99% backwards compatibility, like with the PlayStation 5 (with respect to PlayStation 4 games) and the Xbox Series X (with respect to Xbox One games). (Of course, how Nintendo and Nvidia achieve ~99% backwards compatibility probably won't be the same as how Sony and Microsoft achieve ~99% backwards compatibility.)
If Drake is positioned as a next gen device I absolutely expect full or at least nearly full backwards compatibility.I do not however expect nintendo to put in this kind of effort for what is essentially a switch OLED with streaming capabilities or even for this mythical switch pro given that even these kinds of mid cycle refreshes still don't sell all that great.
 


So as Jon from Spawn Wave Media was talking about the possibility that the new hardware is a Nintendo Switch Lite revision, not a Nintendo Switch revision (i.e. "Nintendo Switch Pro"), he mentioned (on 5:02) that he has some family members who were looking into buying a Nintendo Switch, but didn't understand what the Nintendo Switch Lite. In fact, his family members thought that all Nintendo Switch models (Nintendo Switch and Nintendo Switch Lite) have the ability to connect to the dock to access TV mode. And even when Jon explained that the Nintendo Switch Lite can't connect to the dock to access TV mode, his family members still didn't really get it.

I know I've talked about wireless docking before, but I feel like what Jon said is the perfect excuse for Nintendo to at least explore the possibility of wireless docking, especially if Nintendo plans on releasing a DLSS Lite model* a couple of years after the release of the DLSS model*. One potential benefit of having an option for wireless docking is that Nintendo could reduce the amount of confusion consumers have in terms of the nomenclature. (I don't think wireless docking needs to be exclusive to the DLSS Lite model*.) And perhaps Nintendo could stick to using a LCD display for the DLSS Lite model* to save on costs. (Keep in mind I don't know how much money Nintendo would hypothetically save from continuing to use a LCD display vs using an OLED display for a DLSS Lite model*.)

~* → tentative names I use~

They already made a Switch Lite revision. It's called the Switch OLED & it has docking capabilities.
 
Snice talk about Drake’s potential “gimmick” has come up, can we discuss the possibility of a camera(s)? AR utilization would need it. It could provide “a new way to play” that couldn’t be done on Switch before. And if Nintendo ever got into 3rd party apps again (Im still bitter about no Netflix on Switch), then Zoom or other camera based apps/games could be a possibility. Yes, that would dictate certain games/apps be handheld only, but I think that’s a fair trade. After the DSi, 3DS, and WiiU, I thought cameras were going to be a staple on all hardware going forward. But Switch bucked the trend. Has the price of decent mobile cameras decreased enough to make this a good business decision? IMO 480p cameras couldn’t cut it in 2011, but Nintendo went with them anyway. I wonder what resolution they would go with today.

EDIT

Depending on dock design, I suppose a front camera could be used docked as well. Maybe like a PSEye or Kinect scenario…
(cough)
 
0
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