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

[darthdiablo]

"They will go with 4N because Nintendo."

Best "Because Nintendo" scenario TBH.

In fact, we should turn the tables around on usage of "Because Nintendo".

For any positive decision Nintendo does, we say "Because Nintendo".

 

[robertman2]

Do we have a list of games with uncapped framerates/resolutions? Would be useful for Switch 2, and I know someone made a version for PlayStation

 

[darthdiablo]

only if they choose to. the TX1+ could be more capable than the TX1, but isn't

Isn't TX1+ Switches better with battery life compared to launch-day TX1 Switches?

I think that qualifies for making Mariko Switches (lower process node) more "capable" than launch day Switches, with significantly better battery life.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Isn't TX1+ Switches better with battery life compared to launch-day TX1 Switches?

I think that qualifies for making Mariko Switches (lower process node) more "capable" than launch day Switches, with significantly better battery life.

well if you're counting battery life, then yes, 4N is more capable by virtue of using less power to do the same thing

 

[Evil Lucario]

Do we have a list of games with uncapped framerates/resolutions? Would be useful for Switch 2, and I know someone made a version for PlayStation

I wouldn't mind making a thread on Famiboards for such a thing.

 

[darthdiablo]

well if you're counting battery life, then yes, 4N is more capable by virtue of using less power to do the same thing

But that's not even a good comparison either to use, when we were talking about what node process Switch 2 would initially go with.

You're talking about a hardware refresh (Mariko) where if they decided to go with higher TFlops performance instead of improving battery life, it would be dividing up the Switch library (those that can perform fine on Mariko, vs those that cannot), something Nintendo would never do.

This is not remotely in the same galaxy as Switch 2 with no releases yet (no library that would be divided up). We're setting the bar here with either 4N or 8N for launch day Switch 2 units.

If hypothetically Switch 2 was released on 8N, and then a later hardware refresh/refinement allows 4N to be used, they're most likely not going to want to increase TFlops performance, because that risks the possibility of "dividing up" Switch 2 library, so they would most likely once again decide to go with improved battery life instead.

 

[yusufied]

Do we have a list of games with uncapped framerates/resolutions? Would be useful for Switch 2, and I know someone made a version for PlayStation

I think Link’s Awakening runs unlocked

 

[Dakhil]

I have hypothetical question bit off topic, if Sony would move with PS6 to ARM and Nvidia architecture they would can somehow do BC?

Yes, but I don't think all PlayStation 5 games can run on the PlayStation 6 in that scenario. In the best case scenario, Sony could approach PlayStation 5 backwards compatibility on the PlayStation 6 similarly to how Microsoft approached Xbox 360 and Xbox backwards compatibility with the Xbox One.

---

When is 3nm going to be viable for a Switch 2 Lite if Switch 2 is 4N?

Probably never, considering the SRAM area between TSMC's N5 process node family and TSMC's N3E process node is exactly the same at 0.021 μm². And many SoCs are designed with 70% SRAM and 30% logic in mind. (TSMC's numbers are assuming a SoC's designed with 50% logic, 30% SRAM, and 20% analog in mind.) So at best, there's miniscule cost savings transitioning from TSMC's 4N process node to TSMC's N3E process node due to SRAM not scaling down, assuming Drake's fabricated using TSMC's 4N process node.

 

[Sol]

Assuming the Switch 2 launches in September, what would be the deadline for making changes to the internal hardware before manufacturing, ie, like making changes to the internal storage or amount of available RAM?

 

[Evil Lucario]

Probably never, considering the SRAM area between TSMC's N5 process node family and TSMC's N3E process node is exactly the same at 0.021 μm². And many SoCs are designed with 70% SRAM and 30% logic in mind. (TSMC's numbers are assuming a SoC's designed with 50% logic, 30% SRAM, and 20% logic.) So at best, there's miniscule cost savings transitioning from TSMC's 4N process node to TSMC's N3E process node due to no SRAM scaling, assuming Drake's fabricated using TSMC's 4N process node.

So assuming 4N is used for Switch 2, what options exist for them to make a Switch 2 Lite? As far as I understand it, part of what made the Switch Lite possible/profitable was a node shrink from 20nm to 16nm.

 

[Brubi]

Two things that are yet to be revealed that will be most telling for the capabilities of Switch 2: Clock speed and node.

And Battery Density

 

[rick_C]

I suggest nintendo should pick 4N, just coz a weak console is hard to sell in next gen IMO.

 

[Dakhil]

Assuming the Switch 2 launches in September, what would be the deadline for making changes to the internal hardware before manufacturing, ie, like making changes to the internal storage or amount of available RAM?

I imagine the only time a decision must be made before a certain deadline in terms of the internal flash storage and the RAM is deciding which type of internal flash storage (e.g. UFS 3.1, etc.) and which type of RAM (e.g. LPDDR5X-7500, etc.) are being used, which must be made before a SoC's taped out.

Otherwise, I imagine the decision of the amount of internal flash storage and/or RAM being used can be made at any time, hypothetically speaking.

 

[darthdiablo]

(misread a question)

 

[yusufied]

Assuming the Switch 2 launches in September, what would be the deadline for making changes to the internal hardware before manufacturing, ie, like making changes to the internal storage or amount of available RAM?

I think we’re well past that point. Assuming it will be revealed next month that should be roughly the same time the console starts mass production. The time to change how much storage or RAM the system will have would have been several months if not over a year ago.

 

[Concernt]

I suggest nintendo should pick 4N, just coz a weak console is hard to sell in next gen IMO

4N is more efficient, theoretically more powerful, and CHEAPER per finished SOC.

It's also extremely high volume.

Nvidia would have known TSMC's timeline for node availability and capacity years in advance, so that leaves me with little doubt 4N is what they picked.

But the risk is always there.

 

[fantomena]

I love the Steam Deck. It's a crass jokey dig at its size, not a scathing indictment of the whole unit.

Like, I use the word 'honking' there. That alone should tell you I'm being unserious.

Many of your posts seems to be about talking down the Steam Deck. It's just weird.

 

[Darknut85]

Many of your posts seems to be about talking down the Steam Deck. It's just weird.

What is weird on it? Talking down things you own is the most fun thing on the internet, I think you are the weird one here./s

 

[darthdiablo]

Many of your posts seems to be about talking down the Steam Deck. It's just weird.

He’s allowed to, he owns a Steam Deck

 

[Thraktor]

Since, as you have documented extensively there isn't really much battery life gain in clocking it below a certain threshold (420mhz?), do you believe they will disable hardware in compatibility mode?

Lets say BC mode runs 4SM, with 8 disabled.
And 4 A78s.

I think they'll disable hardware in compatibility mode because OG Switch games won't use it. Switch games are only designed to use 4 CPU cores (well, 3 actually, with one for the OS) so there's no point giving them 8. On the GPU side, games are expecting 2 SMs, and although I sort of suspect there might be a bit more scope to spread work across more SMs, but it's probably opening a can of worms of potential issues by trying to create a solution which works across every game. You could do it for games using OpenGL or Vulkan, but they're likely only used by games which were never pushing the graphical envelope in the first place. The simplest solution is to just use 4 CPU cores and 2 SMs and leave it at that.

Interesting perspective. Personally, when considering what would be a good pitch for people to upgrade, I would peg performance in the form of higher resolutions (for DR games) and more stable frame rates as a bigger feature than additional battery.

But there might be a happy medium where most if not all games can hit (close to) their upper end resolutions and frame rate target while still not running with full power (and thereby saving on battery as well). Battery on the order of 6-7 hours would be quite enough I think (in the ballpark of Switch V2).

But yeah, just my two cents. Definitely up for discussion.

I suppose it's partly that I just don't think the benefits of "turbo mode" BC would be enough to be a significant selling point for the console. Of course this is all subjective, and I'd appreciate a more stable framerate in Link's Awakening as much as anyone, but I don't think the fact that you can play some existing games at a slightly improved framerate or resolution is a big selling point for a next-gen console.

The scope of the benefits you'd be able to achieve is important here. For games which maintain consistent resolutions and framerates already (which includes many of the best-selling titles on the system) the benefit is zero. Then you've got games which don't quite maintain a solid framerate or come in just below peak resolution when using DRS, which would receive a noticeable, but not major boost. For games that have big issues, either in framerate or extremely low resolutions, I don't think Nintendo will be able to do as much with straightforward BC as many people seem to expect.

People's expectations for BC improvements come from PS5 and XBSX, and I think it's worth comparing those to Switch 2's situation. On PS5, the BC implementation uses the PS4 Pro version of the game if one exists, which means a game designed for 8 CPU cores and a 36 CU GPU. The PS5 has an identically-sized 36 CU GPU, running at as much as 2.5x the clock speeds of the PS4 Pro, and an 8 core CPU that's far more powerful than PS4P. That means that a PS4 game running in boost mode can use the full PS5 GPU and CPU with huge performance improvements on both sides. Even games without a PS4 Pro version will benefit from massively higher clock speeds on the GPU side, and a similar CPU boost.

For Xbox Series X, MS have gone with just 30% more CUs in the GPU over Xbox One X (although with a less significant clock speed boost), and a similar jump to a far more powerful 8 core CPU. So Xbox One games (with One X versions) running in BC are able to use around 77% of the Series X's GPU shader performance.

With Switch 2, Nintendo have gone pretty much the opposite direction that MS and Sony did with their consoles, and instead of a similar size GPU with much higher clock speeds, we have a far larger GPU with likely much more modest clock speed improvements. With a GPU that's 6 times as big as Switch's (and no Switch Pro to have prepped games for bigger GPUs), games running in BC mode are only going to be able to leverage 17% of the console's shader hardware, compared to 100% on the PS5 and 77% on the XBSX. As much as Switch 2's hardware is a huge leap over the original Switch, original Switch games aren't going to be able to use the majority of that.

The CPU side will be better, between big performance-per-clock improvements and moderately higher clocks, so I'd imagine most CPU-limited games should be generally ok, but I'd expect games which are limited by the GPU to get nowhere near the boost we see on PS5 and XBSX.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo don't even mention any performance improvements from BC, instead focussing on games which are patched to properly utilise the new hardware. That's not to say I think battery life in BC mode would be a major part of their marketing or anything, but I could definitely see their spec sheet listing, say 3-6 hours on Switch 2 titles and 8-12 on OG Switch games, which would be enough to get picked up by press and perhaps dampen some of the impact of it not having quite as much battery life as current Switch models do.

 

[Dark Cloud]

Many of your posts seems to be about talking down the Steam Deck. It's just weird.

It seems normal. I talk down my Switch too. One time I had to put it in timeout.

 

[darthdiablo]

It seems normal. I talk down my Switch too. One time I had to put it in timeout.

“I saw that, you dipped below 30 fps few seconds ago. Bad Switch I’m putting you in timeout”

 

[Maxrunner]

We've been hearing about the 8 inch lcd but did anyone refer the resolution? whats the expectation here?

 

[Melpomene]

We've been hearing about the 8 inch lcd but did anyone refer the resolution? whats the expectation here?

We're expecting 1080p, I believe (thankfully, at that size).

 

[Serif]

Many of your posts seems to be about talking down the Steam Deck. It's just weird.

Your bizarre fixation with my posts is annoying. I've spend $1000+ on the device on both the LCD and OLED model, I'm well in my rights to give a balanced perspective. I've praised its ergonomics, shared screenshots of how good Lies of P looks on it, and admired how it's streamlined PC gaming for me - all in this thread and this forum. I've literally said in this thread that I'm "having a blast". All the critique I've given about the issues switching to an external display, its occasional incompatibility, and weight are 100% valid and not uncommon.

If you own one, I hope my innocuous forum posts haven't snatched it away from you. Oh no.

 

[rick_C]

We've been hearing about the 8 inch lcd but did anyone refer the resolution? whats the expectation here?

IMO it is 1080p. Coz i find no benefit in making a larger screen but remain the same resolution.

Actually 8 inch is too large for me, it is weird as a handheld. One point i dont like Steam Deck is the size.

 

[Dakhil]

So assuming 4N is used for Switch 2, what options exist for them to make a Switch 2 Lite?

Smaller display with the same resolution, smaller, but higher capacity battery (here, here, and here), etc.

 

[redmutineer75]

When is 3nm going to be viable for a Switch 2 Lite if Switch 2 is 4N? Without such a cut in process node in a revision, how exactly would such a thing work out? Do they bother and accept the smaller jump and make a big unit?

At 4N, a Switch 2 Lite could just be on the same chip. It'd already be incredibly small and power efficient. You could just have a Lite with a base T239 in it and smaller everything else.

 

[TLZ]

I‘ve not been playing my Switch apart from a SMO replay and Metroid Prime Remastered in anticipation of Switch 2.
I‘ll have

• TotK
• Xenoblade 3
• Super Mario Wonder
• Pikmin 4
• Super Mario RPG
• Bayonetta 3
• Kirby and the Forgotten Land

to play.
Desperately hoping for patches.

Super Mario Wonder doesn't need patches. It looks good as it is on Switch so no need to wait. Enjoy it now

 

[kasparov77]

Here's is such a thread for ps5 bc.

PS4 BC Games w/ Issues on PS5 (Version 0.5) - PlayStation 5

For PlayStation 5 on the PlayStation 5, a GameFAQs message board topic titled "PS4 BC Games w/ Issues on PS5 (Version 0.5)".

gamefaqs.gamespot.com

games that can't be downloaded:
"just deal with it!"

 

[LuckyLuke]

I think most of the first party will be patched or remastered versions will be released.

 

[Hermii]

I think they'll disable hardware in compatibility mode because OG Switch games won't use it. Switch games are only designed to use 4 CPU cores (well, 3 actually, with one for the OS) so there's no point giving them 8. On the GPU side, games are expecting 2 SMs, and although I sort of suspect there might be a bit more scope to spread work across more SMs, but it's probably opening a can of worms of potential issues by trying to create a solution which works across every game. You could do it for games using OpenGL or Vulkan, but they're likely only used by games which were never pushing the graphical envelope in the first place. The simplest solution is to just use 4 CPU cores and 2 SMs and leave it at that.

If they really do disable 10sm and 4cpu cores, clock speeds should be almost a non factor to power consumption.They could clock it at 1ghz without pushing it.

 

[LiC]

I think they'll disable hardware in compatibility mode because OG Switch games won't use it. Switch games are only designed to use 4 CPU cores (well, 3 actually, with one for the OS) so there's no point giving them 8. On the GPU side, games are expecting 2 SMs, and although I sort of suspect there might be a bit more scope to spread work across more SMs, but it's probably opening a can of worms of potential issues by trying to create a solution which works across every game. You could do it for games using OpenGL or Vulkan, but they're likely only used by games which were never pushing the graphical envelope in the first place. The simplest solution is to just use 4 CPU cores and 2 SMs and leave it at that.

I suppose it's partly that I just don't think the benefits of "turbo mode" BC would be enough to be a significant selling point for the console. Of course this is all subjective, and I'd appreciate a more stable framerate in Link's Awakening as much as anyone, but I don't think the fact that you can play some existing games at a slightly improved framerate or resolution is a big selling point for a next-gen console.

The scope of the benefits you'd be able to achieve is important here. For games which maintain consistent resolutions and framerates already (which includes many of the best-selling titles on the system) the benefit is zero. Then you've got games which don't quite maintain a solid framerate or come in just below peak resolution when using DRS, which would receive a noticeable, but not major boost. For games that have big issues, either in framerate or extremely low resolutions, I don't think Nintendo will be able to do as much with straightforward BC as many people seem to expect.

People's expectations for BC improvements come from PS5 and XBSX, and I think it's worth comparing those to Switch 2's situation. On PS5, the BC implementation uses the PS4 Pro version of the game if one exists, which means a game designed for 8 CPU cores and a 36 CU GPU. The PS5 has an identically-sized 36 CU GPU, running at as much as 2.5x the clock speeds of the PS4 Pro, and an 8 core CPU that's far more powerful than PS4P. That means that a PS4 game running in boost mode can use the full PS5 GPU and CPU with huge performance improvements on both sides. Even games without a PS4 Pro version will benefit from massively higher clock speeds on the GPU side, and a similar CPU boost.

For Xbox Series X, MS have gone with just 30% more CUs in the GPU over Xbox One X (although with a less significant clock speed boost), and a similar jump to a far more powerful 8 core CPU. So Xbox One games (with One X versions) running in BC are able to use around 77% of the Series X's GPU shader performance.

With Switch 2, Nintendo have gone pretty much the opposite direction that MS and Sony did with their consoles, and instead of a similar size GPU with much higher clock speeds, we have a far larger GPU with likely much more modest clock speed improvements. With a GPU that's 6 times as big as Switch's (and no Switch Pro to have prepped games for bigger GPUs), games running in BC mode are only going to be able to leverage 17% of the console's shader hardware, compared to 100% on the PS5 and 77% on the XBSX. As much as Switch 2's hardware is a huge leap over the original Switch, original Switch games aren't going to be able to use the majority of that.

The CPU side will be better, between big performance-per-clock improvements and moderately higher clocks, so I'd imagine most CPU-limited games should be generally ok, but I'd expect games which are limited by the GPU to get nowhere near the boost we see on PS5 and XBSX.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo don't even mention any performance improvements from BC, instead focussing on games which are patched to properly utilise the new hardware. That's not to say I think battery life in BC mode would be a major part of their marketing or anything, but I could definitely see their spec sheet listing, say 3-6 hours on Switch 2 titles and 8-12 on OG Switch games, which would be enough to get picked up by press and perhaps dampen some of the impact of it not having quite as much battery life as current Switch models do.

I don't think it's true that games "expect" 2 SMs and would have potential issues with using more. Games are completely agnostic to that. The GPU scheduler is responsible for taking what the game asks for ("shade these 2073600 pixels for me please") and dividing the work up among available GPU resources. The driver is responsible for allocating enough memory to back those resources. There is the oft-cited "embedded portion of the GPU driver" inside the games, but I doubt any of that is dependent on hard coded specs, since its purpose is just to ensure older games can still communicate with the GPU after firmware updates.

Even for the CPU there would be benefits to using more cores. The games may not have been optimized around having more than 3 cores, but any game that ever has more than two extra threads in flight would benefit from more cores to schedule them on.

I agree that Nintendo won't make much mention of performance in BC games -- outside of enhancement patches. Games will look basically the same as they did on the previous hardware, just potentially with smoother performance. But I expect all games to hit their framerate caps and no longer employ dynamic res. There will be more than enough power available to accomplish that.

 

[darthdiablo]

games that can't be downloaded:
"just deal with it!"

I didn’t notice the first time I looked through the list. Not till you quoted that game name.

That’s hilarious

 

[Zedark]

I think they'll disable hardware in compatibility mode because OG Switch games won't use it. Switch games are only designed to use 4 CPU cores (well, 3 actually, with one for the OS) so there's no point giving them 8. On the GPU side, games are expecting 2 SMs, and although I sort of suspect there might be a bit more scope to spread work across more SMs, but it's probably opening a can of worms of potential issues by trying to create a solution which works across every game. You could do it for games using OpenGL or Vulkan, but they're likely only used by games which were never pushing the graphical envelope in the first place. The simplest solution is to just use 4 CPU cores and 2 SMs and leave it at that.



I suppose it's partly that I just don't think the benefits of "turbo mode" BC would be enough to be a significant selling point for the console. Of course this is all subjective, and I'd appreciate a more stable framerate in Link's Awakening as much as anyone, but I don't think the fact that you can play some existing games at a slightly improved framerate or resolution is a big selling point for a next-gen console.

The scope of the benefits you'd be able to achieve is important here. For games which maintain consistent resolutions and framerates already (which includes many of the best-selling titles on the system) the benefit is zero. Then you've got games which don't quite maintain a solid framerate or come in just below peak resolution when using DRS, which would receive a noticeable, but not major boost. For games that have big issues, either in framerate or extremely low resolutions, I don't think Nintendo will be able to do as much with straightforward BC as many people seem to expect.

People's expectations for BC improvements come from PS5 and XBSX, and I think it's worth comparing those to Switch 2's situation. On PS5, the BC implementation uses the PS4 Pro version of the game if one exists, which means a game designed for 8 CPU cores and a 36 CU GPU. The PS5 has an identically-sized 36 CU GPU, running at as much as 2.5x the clock speeds of the PS4 Pro, and an 8 core CPU that's far more powerful than PS4P. That means that a PS4 game running in boost mode can use the full PS5 GPU and CPU with huge performance improvements on both sides. Even games without a PS4 Pro version will benefit from massively higher clock speeds on the GPU side, and a similar CPU boost.

For Xbox Series X, MS have gone with just 30% more CUs in the GPU over Xbox One X (although with a less significant clock speed boost), and a similar jump to a far more powerful 8 core CPU. So Xbox One games (with One X versions) running in BC are able to use around 77% of the Series X's GPU shader performance.

With Switch 2, Nintendo have gone pretty much the opposite direction that MS and Sony did with their consoles, and instead of a similar size GPU with much higher clock speeds, we have a far larger GPU with likely much more modest clock speed improvements. With a GPU that's 6 times as big as Switch's (and no Switch Pro to have prepped games for bigger GPUs), games running in BC mode are only going to be able to leverage 17% of the console's shader hardware, compared to 100% on the PS5 and 77% on the XBSX. As much as Switch 2's hardware is a huge leap over the original Switch, original Switch games aren't going to be able to use the majority of that.

The CPU side will be better, between big performance-per-clock improvements and moderately higher clocks, so I'd imagine most CPU-limited games should be generally ok, but I'd expect games which are limited by the GPU to get nowhere near the boost we see on PS5 and XBSX.

This is very interesting: you are saying that the Switch 1 titles have somehow hardcoded the number of available SM units in the API, right? This is a pretty major portability sin, but games aren't necessarily portable software, of course. Is it a known fact that XSX does not tap into all of its GPU CUs? It would be interesting to see if there has been some frame rate test on a 60 fps game that drops below 30 fps due to GPU limits to see how much of a boost is being realised, and whether that suggests anything about the raw compute improvement brought by the Series X. The raw boost is 1.825 GHz vs. 1.17 GHz, which is a 55%-ish boost in raw performance (then there is the question how much the nogel architecture improves (or hurts) the final performance, of course).

If it is indeed the case that multiple SMs can't simply be used due to some API-specific optimisation for the number of SMs in the Switch 1, then that would severely limit the performance boosts that are possible.

Edit: @LiC put my idea about how things (perhaps ought to) work quite succinctly above. I would have to say I would be rather surprised if NVIDIA subordinated the GPU scheduler to any platform-specific optimisation, especially since GPUs are designed to function agnostically to workload and SM count.

 

[Hajeman]

I also in team that Switch 2 BC just play all Switch 1 games in lock Switch 1 specs only. No increase from original framerate, resolution & graphics. Increase above specs are reserve for a Switch 2 games

 

[Serif]

Gone will be Switch 1 port begging, bring on Switch 2 patch begging.

 

[Jbone916]

Gone will be Switch 1 port begging, bring on Switch 2 patch begging.

“That’s all?! No Smash (patch)?!”

 

[LiC]

This is very interesting: you are saying that the Switch 1 titles have somehow hardcoded the number of available SM units in the API, right? This is a pretty major portability sin, but games aren't necessarily portable software, of course. Is it a known fact that XSX does not tap into all of its GPU CUs? It would be interesting to see if there has been some frame rate test on a 60 fps game that drops below 30 fps due to GPU limits to see how much of a boost is being realised, and whether that suggests anything about the raw compute improvement brought by the Series X. The raw boost is 1.825 GHz vs. 1.17 GHz, which is a 55%-ish boost in raw performance (then there is the question how much the nogel architecture improves (or hurts) the final performance, of course).

If it is indeed the case that multiple SMs can't simply be used due to some API-specific optimisation for the number of SMs in the Switch 1, then that would severely limit the performance boosts that are possible.

Edit: @LiC put my idea about how things (perhaps ought to) work quite succinctly above. I would have to say I would be rather surprised if NVIDIA subordinated the GPU scheduler to any platform-specific optimisation, especially since GPUs are designed to function agnostically to workload and SM count.

The driver does have a hard coded SM count (among other specs), which it uses for e.g. allocating shader scratch memory. However, that driver is part of the firmware, not the game, and will be one of the things necessarily replaced/altered as part of getting BC working on the new hardware in the first place.

 

[kasparov77]

you are saying that the Switch 1 titles have somehow hardcoded the number of available SM units in the API, right? This is a pretty major portability sin

my dude, nintendo codes their games with physics tied to fps (in botw, during bullet time emulating the game in 60/120fps sends objects that are moving to the shadow realm)
and even game logic tied to resolution (in splatoon, if you increase the resolution when emulating it, your special charges faster when painting)

i dont think they were planning ahead in terms of portability, lol

 

[Legion of Primes]

Your bizarre fixation on my posts is annoying. I've spend $1000+ on the device on both the LCD and OLED model, I'm well in my rights to give a balanced perspective. I've praised its ergonomics, shared screenshots of how good Lies of P looks on it, and admired how it's streamlined PC gaming for me - all in this thread and this forum. I've literally said in this thread that I'm "having a blast". All the critique I've given about the issues switching to an external display, its occasional incompatibiltiy, and it's weight are 100% valid and not uncommon.

If you own one, I hope my innocuous forum posts haven't snatched it away from you. Oh no.

The steam deck is a great device and I wish I enjoyed more at the time I got it due to some health issues, I am now working on some backlog games but I plan to go on and put some more after it. I loved playing games like spider man on it.

I may get the OLED in the future

 

[Serif]

The steam deck is a great device and I wish I enjoyed more at the time I got it due to some health issues, I am now working on some backlog games but I plan to go on and put some more after it. I loved playing games like spider man on it.

My backlog is never ending as well, but if you haven't already, give Lies of P a try. Runs great.

 

[My Tulpa]

Unless Nintendo specifically blocks it, it should be the case that developers can establish a seperate patch channel to distribute next gen only updates to keep the enhancements updated, and that developers can modify their game in any way they see fit, subject to approval. Unless Nintendo policy specifically disallows it(which I doubt), this means developers should be allowed to rip out the Switch 1 compiled code and replace the executable, whole cloth, with a Switch 2 version, even if it uses the same assets. Furthermore, additional assets like new textures, should definitely be allowed in a patch approval process. As such, unless Nintendo has intentionally placed policy limitations on them, next gen patches should be able to be anything from simple performance bumps to complete, next gen re-writes, depending on what the developer wants to do.

All other games in my backlog vying for my playtime if Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom get Switch 2 enhancements

Another thing that can be added and @necrolipe commented is that there's 3P games that are being developed with Switch 2 in mind but are cross-gen and will have a Switch 1 version due to the latter massive install base. Some of these are supposed to be showed in this week partners. Upcoming weeks are going to be very interesting.

Yep this is all pretty good that it’s being more confirmed by reputable insiders, and pretty much falls in line what I keep speculating is the major purpose of this New Switch. Basically an expansion of the Switch ecosystem where every Switch library game now has the opportunity to New Switch DLSS functions to create a version of Switch games that gives 4k/60fps output, faster loads, and much left over to increase graphic IQ features as well as maybe some light ray tracing.

Like the BotW game running on the new hardware that they supposedly showed off to devs, Nintendo is going to “enhance” most of their major games for owners of the New Switch to experience them that way. Also opening it up to 3rd party devs to do the same.

Most Nintendo games and most 3rd party games released after the New Switch releases will also function the same way. A “normal” version running on the 150 million Switch devices out there, as well as an enhanced version running on the New Switch.

I think most people in this forum agreed with me about this being the case, but I think the blowback I get from my posts is saying this new hardware will be treated as a bridge rather than a successor. That its point is to elongate the Switch lifetime, not replace it. Nintendo won’t be releasing this with the Sony “we believe in gens!” and then spread out ~3 years of cross gen for its major games because they felt they needed to, Nintendo will go into this as “this is all the same family” and plan on making most of their games run on both indefinitely. The advantages of DLSS is a perfect template to allow them to approach their software design for the next ~5 years or so.

 

[LiC]

my dude, nintendo codes their games with physics tied to fps (botw - bullet time when emulating the game in 60/120fps sends objects that are moving to the shadow realm)
and even game logic tied to resolution (in splatoon, if you increase the resolution when emulating it, your special charges faster when painting)

i dont think they were planning ahead in terms of portability, lol

These examples don't work when they're from hacks that are overriding something inside the games in an artificial way in an emulator. The fact that a modder changing one number doesn't make everything work properly doesn't mean the game isn't "coded" to run at a different frame rate or resolution. It means the modder is misusing the value they're changing or failing to change other related values.

 

[kasparov77]

These examples don't work when they're from hacks that are overriding something inside the games in an artificial way in an emulator. The fact that a modder changing one number doesn't make everything work properly doesn't mean the game isn't "coded" to run at a different frame rate or resolution. It means the modder is misusing the value they're changing or failing to change other related values.

That I do not know. But I think your point has some validity because I remember seeing multiple youtube videos of people with hacked switches running games with an overclock + 60fps mod and the game looked to be running normally (speed/physics/logic wise).

idk, I have yet to mod my switch and honestly, I feel like at this point I might just sell mine and put the money towards switch 2.

 

[Legion of Primes]

My backlog is never ending as well, but if you haven't already, give Lies of P a try. Runs great.

I have it downloaded on game pass on my Xbox first to see if I like it. If I do, I’ll for sure get it when it’s on sale. Thanks for letting me know it runs good on it

 

[kasparov77]

These examples don't work when they're from hacks that are overriding something inside the games in an artificial way in an emulator. The fact that a modder changing one number doesn't make everything work properly doesn't mean the game isn't "coded" to run at a different frame rate or resolution. It means the modder is misusing the value they're changing or failing to change other related values.

Conter argument that I just remembered:
In splatoon, on salmon run under very high hazard levels, if there are too many boss salmonids on screen the game slows down (as in, the characters start moving in slow motion.
On REAL hardware btw. I'm not talking emulation here.

But the EXACT same thing happens on an emulator if you're running splatoon 2/3 below 60fps - at 30fps, the game runs in 0.5 speed (as in, your character moves in slow motion*)

*For those who are reading this and think FPS is related to how fast you're running a game: this is not my point, fps is how fast the screen shows a new picture - a new frame, new information. But when a game has physics not tied to framerate, you can be running at 30fps or 60fps, if in your game your character takes 40 seconds to run from one side of the map to the other, they will take 40 seconds no matter if its running the game under 30 or 60. When physics is tied to fps, you cannot guarantee that.

 

[karmitt]

Conter argument that I just remembered:
In splatoon, on salmon run under very high hazard levels, if there are too many boss salmonids on screen the game slows down (as in, the characters start moving in slow motion.
On REAL hardware btw. I'm not talking emulation here.

But the EXACT same thing happens on an emulator if you're running splatoon 2/3 below 60fps - at 30fps, the game runs in 0.5 speed (as in, your character moves in slow motion*)

*For those who are reading this and think FPS is related to how fast you're running a game: this is not my point, fps is how fast the screen shows a new picture - a new frame, new information. But when a game has physics not tied to framerate, you can be running at 30fps or 60fps, if in your game your character takes 40 seconds to run from one side of the map to the other, they will take 40 seconds no matter if its running the game under 30 or 60. When physics is tied to fps, you cannot guarantee that.

When you say they move in slow motion do you just mean reduced framerate? I don’t remember anything weird in Salmon Run but maybe I didn’t get to high enough hazard levels

 

[LiC]

Conter argument that I just remembered:
In splatoon, on salmon run under very high hazard levels, if there are too many boss salmonids on screen the game slows down (as in, the characters start moving in slow motion.
On REAL hardware btw. I'm not talking emulation here.

But the EXACT same thing happens on an emulator if you're running splatoon 2/3 below 60fps - at 30fps, the game runs in 0.5 speed (as in, your character moves in slow motion*)

*For those who are reading this and think FPS is related to how fast you're running a game: this is not my point, fps is how fast the screen shows a new picture - a new frame, new information. But when a game has physics not tied to framerate, you can be running at 30fps or 60fps, if in your game your character takes 40 seconds to run from one side of the map to the other, they will take 40 seconds no matter if its running the game under 30 or 60. When physics is tied to fps, you cannot guarantee that.

I'm not really sure what this example is meant to illustrate. But for the idea that Splatoon's gameplay is tied to frame rate in any way, that can be disproven by simply stepping into the hub area, which is always at 30 fps while all other gameplay is 60 fps, and observing that it plays the same.

 

[Dimensio]

Yep this is all pretty good that it’s being more confirmed by reputable insiders, and pretty much falls in line what I keep speculating is the major purpose of this New Switch. Basically an expansion of the Switch ecosystem where every Switch library game now has the opportunity to New Switch DLSS functions to create a version of Switch games that gives 4k/60fps output, faster loads, and much left over to increase graphic IQ features as well as maybe some light ray tracing.

Like the BotW game running on the new hardware that they supposedly showed off to devs, Nintendo is going to “enhance” most of their major games for owners of the New Switch to experience them that way. Also opening it up to 3rd party devs to do the same.

Most Nintendo games and most 3rd party games released after the New Switch releases will also function the same way. A “normal” version running on the 150 million Switch devices out there, as well as an enhanced version running on the New Switch.

I think most people in this forum agreed with me about this being the case, but I think the blowback I get from my posts is saying this new hardware will be treated as a bridge rather than a successor. That its point is to elongate the Switch lifetime, not replace it. Nintendo won’t be releasing this with the Sony “we believe in gen’s!” and then spread out ~3 years of cross gen for its major games because they felt they needed to, Nintendo will go into this as “this is all the same family” and plan on making most of their games run on both indefinitely. The advantages of DLSS is a perfect template to allow them to approach their software design for the next ~5 years or so.

lol the insiders confirmed the exact opposite of all that, but sure