• 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)

2) Regulators absolutely would not approve it.
While I agree this is total bullshit, I am not sure regulators would have much luck, if they even try. Broadly speaking, Valve and Microsoft aren't competitors. MS owns a platform, PC. Valve owns a storefront for that platform. One buying the other doesn't take a platform or significant competing storefront off the market.

The "consumers" who might be impacted aren't you and me, but developers who conceivably might pay a higher "Steam Tax" in a world where there are fewer digital storefronts. I'm a gamer, and if MS has a storefront that runs on Windows and ships digital games, I don't even know what it's called. I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that Microsoft owning Valve reduces competition in that space, not when MS is already putting the majority of their games on Steam anyway.
 
While I agree this is total bullshit, I am not sure regulators would have much luck, if they even try. Broadly speaking, Valve and Microsoft aren't competitors. MS owns a platform, PC. Valve owns a storefront for that platform. One buying the other doesn't take a platform or significant competing storefront off the market.

The "consumers" who might be impacted aren't you and me, but developers who conceivably might pay a higher "Steam Tax" in a world where there are fewer digital storefronts. I'm a gamer, and if MS has a storefront that runs on Windows and ships digital games, I don't even know what it's called. I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that Microsoft owning Valve reduces competition in that space, not when MS is already putting the majority of their games on Steam anyway.
Microsoft has the Microsoft Store and Xbox app, which both sell PC games. The Xbox app is for gamepass but you can buy games thru it. They're definitely competing with Valve.
 
Paper Mario runs at 900p/640p,
funny-meme.gif
 
Literally no proof of anything. The leaks subreddit was clowning on this guy. There's not really any proof and Gaben still has a lot of control over the company.
Can you imagine that? PC gamers would have a fit. Imagine Steam merging with Xbox PC. You would have to pay 120 to play online a year. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprise if they tried to buy them or epic.
 
0
here's a tip, if someone is saying they have inside deets about acquisitions, they're automatically bullshit.



Epic posted an interview about the mobile/pc/ps open world gacha game, Wuthering Waves. pointing out this interview because it shows that even when you target low end devices like mobile, you can still stand with some of the best looking games. also gives a bit of insight about some limitations that Switch/Drake would run into, namely bandwidth constraints

wuthering-waves-img-2-1920x1080-fbc14e3e21d8.jpg

wuthering-waves-img-3-1920x1080-0194a03cc881.jpg

wuthering-waves-img-1-1920x1080-949ebd1453d9.jpg


 
Pulling up this old post by @Z0m3le because a lot of his predictions have aged well. The RAM and Storage have been pretty spot on. According to him, the CPU within the ballpark of the Steam Deck and much better than the last-gen CPU's (PS4/PS4 Pro).

All and all, not PS5/XBX crazy, but nothing to sneer it.

Honestly, nothing about the Switch 2 seems to be lacking significantly at all. No, the launch SKU (because I definitely think we'll see the same strategy as the Switch with a Lite model and a more premium OLED model with 512gigs of storage) doesn't have 16gigs of RAM like some people hoped for, but there's nothing that's been more-or-less confirmed that feels like Nintendo significantly cheapened out. Which incidentally is why I'm on the TSMC 4N train. The only "cheap" part is the LCD screen and not the actual guts of the console.

256gigs of storage, file decompression like a PS5 and SSD-like speeds for massively faster load times, 12gigs of ram, a CPU that's much better than the 8th gen, all of Nvidia's wizardry....Nothing is particularly bleeding edge, but nothing is dirt cheap either. It's why a souped-up PS4 Pro/Steam Deck with DLSS (in handheld mode) and Xbox Series S (in docked mode) is a solid ballpark estimate on where the performance is going to be. The Switch 2 hits a lot of "middle of the road" sweet-spots where the performance is definitely on par with other 9th gen consoles while still being affordable.

I think we're so dang used to being cheapened out in some way "Because Nintendo" that it's genuinely confusing that there's no catch. There's no wool pulled over the eyes this time around. It's why some people like the folks at DF are still on the 8nm train -- which could still happen. Nothing is confirmed until it's confirmed, but the Switch 2 is looking to be a very competent and powerful handheld console that, knock on wood, doesn't have any big glaring weaknesses and that confuses the heck out of people haha.
I think the 12 gb ram should be enough with the sleek OS, even ps5 has only 12,5 gb for games and switch 2 doesnt target those high resolutions with maximum quality assets. Xbox Series S even got less ram, i think it was around 8gb for games. Switch 1 OS was about 700-800mb ram, so this time with some things added here and there, 10,5 gb for games should be realistic, which is more than enough when you put the horsepower in relation to xbox series s or even the ps5.
 
The way I interpreted it:
• If Switch 2 starts selling before this Fiscal Year closes, Nintendo wants to ship 10+ million units (double digits).
I doubt that. It would take either Switch 2 launching with WAY more supply than anything ever has, or matching the trajectory of previous fast starting systems and reaching that amount by March with a launch this August.
does the game not look good?
One could ask the same at 700p20. It would, to an extent.
 
0
I think the 12 gb ram should be enough with the sleek OS, even ps5 has only 12,5 gb for games and switch 2 doesnt target those high resolutions with maximum quality assets. Xbox Series S even got less ram, i think it was around 8gb for games. Switch 1 OS was about 700-800mb ram, so this time with some things added here and there, 10,5 gb for games should be realistic, which is more than enough when you put the horsepower in relation to xbox series s or even the ps5.
PS5 have 13gb for games
 
Microsoft has the Microsoft Store and Xbox app, which both sell PC games. The Xbox app is for gamepass but you can buy games thru it. They're definitely competing with Valve.
The Xbox App even is just an interface for Microsoft Store. All Xbox purchases go through it, even Game Pass. Steam is a direct competitor to Microsoft.
 
Does internal storage need to be replaceable per European regulations? Or is that only going to be for the battery
Battery only, and with with the stipulation that the repair be possible with commonly available tools in the EU. This almost certainly means the enforcement of pull tabs rather than strong liquid adhesive or double sided tape; as isopropyl alcohol is no longer "commonly" nor "readily" available in much of Europe due to its involvement in elicit drug manufacturing.
 
It looks good but could look better.

It’s more disappointing than sad.
Yeah I'm gonna interject here and say no.

It looks phenomenal. Literally every asset was recreated from scratch with little to no upscale textures. Lighting is entirely transformative, models are fully re-constructed (some with more 3 dimensional depth/attention to detail), etc. The only "problem" is 30fps, 900p. It's gorgeous

If people see a full on remake quality enhancement as "disappointing" beyond a cut to framerate, then their expectations are unrealistic
 
I’m sorry, what? Combined with only 30 fps? I know it’s a remake, but come on… it sounds more and more like it could have been better optimized.
This is the same resolution/frame rate as Origami King. Kirby and the Forgotten Land is dynamic res as low as 810p, with 30fps. Do you think it looks significantly worse than those games?
 
Yeah I'm gonna interject here and say no.

It looks phenomenal. Literally every asset was recreated from scratch with little to no upscale textures. Lighting is entirely transformative, models are fully re-constructed (some with more 3 dimensional depth/attention to detail), etc. The only "problem" is 30fps, 900p. It's gorgeous

If people see a full on remake quality enhancement as "disappointing" beyond a cut to framerate, then their expectations are unrealistic
See Prime Remastered.
 
I think TTYD looks phenomenal, and if you weren't aware of its exact resolution, you wouldn't give it too much thought. There are some games, where a sub-native resolution is noticeable, but this isn't one of them imo.

The 30fps cap is more noticeable, but for the type of game it is, it's a sensible trade-off I'd be willing to make peace with. Hopefully, with its "late-in-lifecycle" release, it'll get an immediate update or patch for the Switch successor.
 
This is the same resolution/frame rate as Origami King. Kirby and the Forgotten Land is dynamic res as low as 810p, with 30fps. Do you think it looks significantly worse than those games?
I liked Origami King but it was an original game. If you're remaking a GameCube game why can't that game be built from the ground up to fit in the parameters of the hardware? While the original was obviously not HD and any resolution bump would be welcome, the remake halves the frame rate of the original. It seems to me that a remake should improve all graphical features from the original at least moderately, not improved some areas greatly (lighting/textures) while some areas (like framerate) are reduced.

Mario Wonder targets 1080p60 and was built ground up for Switch. Why couldn't changes have been made for ttyd to do the same?
 
Okay, as someone who has almost 1000 hours in Splatoon 3....what the heck is Nintendo doing to improve the internet capability? and how the heck did that get so screwed up in the Switch?! :ROFLMAO:

I literally just played a game where three of my team members disconnected and two on the enemy team. I obviously lost because I was by myself, but I was cracking up at how ridiculous it was. It's a great game, but "a connection error has occurred" deserves to be a meme.

In this 5G era we live in, surely Nintendo can do better with the Switch 2?
 
I liked Origami King but it was an original game. If you're remaking a GameCube game why can't that game be built from the ground up to fit in the parameters of the hardware? While the original was obviously not HD and any resolution bump would be welcome, the remake halves the frame rate of the original. It seems to me that a remake should improve all graphical features from the original at least moderately, not improved some areas greatly while some areas (like framerate) are reduced.

Mario Wonder targets 1080p60 and was built ground up for Switch. Why couldn't changes have been made for ttyd to do the same?
One would expect them to devote even more time and resources to a brand new, flagship 2D Mario title compared to a GameCube remaster
 
I'm more disappointed about the framerate than resolution, honestly. When I heard it was 30 I tried to justify it by figuring the game would then definitely be 1080p. This new resolution info crumbled that pillar and it got to me.
 
The Paper Mario remake looks incredible for the hardware that it is running on. The moment they decided to go for SSAO and SSR, its resolution/framerate fate was sealed. Since these effects rely on screen space data, they have fixed costs that depend on the resolution, and may need more time per frame, depending on the hardware. The limited memory bandwidth is also a problem. You will not find many 60 fps games on Switch that have both SSAO and SSR (maybe Fast RMX? I can't remember).

Given the constraints, I think those wanting 60 fps should accept that that would likely need to come with a downgrade, and it's clear the devs didn't want to compromise on the visuals.
 
It would be nice to have TTYD get a simple Switch 2 patch that gave it 60 FPS and DLSS for 1080p in handheld mode and 1440p in docked mode.
I'm sure pretty It could reach native 1440p/60fps or 4K/30fps on the Switch 2 with no need for DLSS. I would very much prefer 1440p/60fps.

The game itself looks good aside from the resolution and framerate which is understandable considering They just reused TOK's engine, I just really wish They didn't use SSR, I hate how every surface looks really glossy and reflective even the ones that aren't supposed to.
 
CPU-wise, Switch 2 out performs the BG3 minimum spec in benchmarks, and the game runs on Steam Deck. No question about a port being possible.

Series S and Series X have very comparable visual settings, and have comparable frame rates in the worst areas. This is a sure sign of the game being CPU limited. That is both good and bad news for a port. Series S has a 1080p image with zero upscaling, and its other settings downgrades seem entirely related to memory usage, not GPU power. So a good looking version of the game should be possible.

The bad news is that you can't just lower the visual settings and get a good frame rate. CPU-wise, Switch 2 simply won't be clocked at 3.8GHz. IPC being the same between Zen 2 and A78 won't eliminate the overall clock difference. The game struggles because of "legitimate" CPU load, it just has a lot of NPCs, each running different AI code, decisions trees and animations.

Whether the third act can be brought up to acceptable performance, I don't know. And it's entirely possible that the only option is to aggressively downgrade the visuals to (very inefficiently) claw back room in the frame budget to for the CPU, which they can't as easily cut back. Blech.
Ok, it might be a bit extreme, but I think BG3 would be a perfect game to test a DLSS FG even at 30FPS.
 
I'm sure pretty It could reach native 1440p/60fps or 4K/30fps on the Switch 2 with no need for DLSS.

The game itself looks good aside from the resolution and framerate which is understandable considering They just reused TOK's engine, I just really wish They didn't use SSR, I hate how every surface looks really glossy and reflective even the ones that aren't supposed to.
The surface thing is just what they chose to make reflective, the technique they used doesn't decide that for them.
 
Okay, as someone who has almost 1000 hours in Splatoon 3....what the heck is Nintendo doing to improve the internet capability? and how the heck did that get so screwed up in the Switch?! :ROFLMAO:

I literally just played a game where three of my team members disconnected and two on the enemy team. I obviously lost because I was by myself, but I was cracking up at how ridiculous it was. It's a great game, but "a connection error has occurred" deserves to be a meme.

In this 5G era we live in, surely Nintendo can do better with the Switch 2?

When you’re playing against others, you’re using peer to peer setup, not a server. Servers are used but only for matchmaking.

Can peer to peer net code be improved? Yes definitely. But I want to say the Splatoon 3 experience has been smooth for most part for me. I do acknowledge that there are complaints about disconnections in general reading thru Splatoon 3 forums but if it’s happening to others often, I think it should happen to me often too would think? I wonder if maybe it’s actually the ISP being used by players are actually bad
 
The Paper Mario remake looks incredible for the hardware that it is running on. The moment they decided to go for SSAO and SSR, its resolution/framerate fate was sealed. Since these effects rely on screen space data, they have fixed costs that depend on the resolution, and may need more time per frame, depending on the hardware. The limited memory bandwidth is also a problem. You will not find many 60 fps games on Switch that have both SSAO and SSR (maybe Fast RMX? I can't remember).

Given the constraints, I think those wanting 60 fps should accept that that would likely need to come with a downgrade, and it's clear the devs didn't want to compromise on the visuals.
Not sure how to embed a Mastodon post here but...

C5XNzxg.png


https://fedi.rib.gay/notes/9tlrdbv9bckd5711
At this point, I think it is safe to say that devs are taking into account the successor when developing games. Basically cross-platform with forward thinking. As much as people may want 1080p60fps (or one of the two) with TTYD remake/remaster/whatever, to achieve that would require cutting out features and effects that make it look so good even on limited hardware. Features and effects that may be a lot harder to re-add in a theoretical successor upgrade than to boost resolution/fps (which in resolution would already be a thing if going above 1080p).
 
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