• 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)

Because as I've mentioned, image quality is one of the things newer versions of DLSS seems to have improved upon, which includes less aforementioned fuzzy artifacts/ghosting.

Performance mode has gotten quite good that I've often mistaken it for Quality mode at first. And yes, I've done a lot of DLSS dll version testing using the swapper.
You really can't assume that most of the switch2 games will utilize the dlss3.7 dll.
 
You really can't assume that most of the switch2 games will utilize the dlss3.7 dll.
I cannot, true. But it's likely going to use a more recent "implementation" post-2.5.1 at least, and there quite a lot of versions in-between 2.5.1 and 3.7...
It's also likely they could go and use their own custom version derived from these later versions, based on optimization and utilizing more of the tensor core hardware features.
 
You can’t base Switch 2 resolution based on Switch 1 resolution. They’re not going to stay 600p/900p. There are so much more available power. This has been talked to death, but they’ve raised the resolution with every generational jump. Even the Wii U to Switch.

The likeliest scenario would be (portable 900p -1080p native) and (docked 1440p - possibly even 4K native). Games will be made to those target resolution. Some first party games (or most) won’t even have the same LOD as the 8th gen games (PS4/Xbox one) but way higher native res. First party devs will likely target higher resolution across the board before even considering upscaling. They still want a good base before upscaling. With that said, I’m sure there will be first-party games that will aggressively use upscaling with low internal resolution, but I don’t think it will be the majority. At least not at first. I can see later in the generation, but in general, it’s going to be higher native res across the board.

Honestly, 600p portable/ 900p docked native is more of a third party thing. The more graphically intensive current gen games. This is for your “Death Stranding 2”. Your “Resident Evil 9”.
 
Last edited:
The difference between the PS3 and Switch is quite big if we take into account that the PS3 only has 256MB of Ram, meanwhile the Switch has 4GB.

Similar to the Switch, the Switch 2 will be able to port NG games, with smaller sacrifices, like I wouldn’t expect the Witcher 3, totk and Metroid prime remaster being able to run on the PS3, same goes for NG games running on Switch 2 and Last gen devices not being able to run PS5 games, meanwhile the Switch 2 will likely be capable of running games like Baldur Gate 3 and Alan Wake 2
Back in High school i really dont know anything about Ram or specs at to be honest, so is this the reason the OG Bayonetta ran like crap on PS3 as compared to the 360?
 
You can’t base Switch 2 resolution based on Switch 1 resolution. They’re not going to stay 600p/900p. There are so much more available power. This has been talked to death, but they’ve raised the resolution with every generation jump. Even the Wii U to Switch.

The likeliest scenario would be (portable 900p-1080p native) and (docked 1440p - possibly even 4K native). Games will be made to those target resolution natively. Some first party games (or most) won’t even have the same LOD as the 8th gen games (PS4/Xbox one) but way higher native res. First party devs will likely target higher resolution across the board before even considering upscaling. With that said, I’m sure there will be first party games that aggressively use upscaling. In general, it’s going to be higher native res across the board.

Honestly, 600p portable/ 900p docked native is more of a third party thing. This is for your ”Control”. Your “Death Stranding”. Your “Resident Evil”.
When you consider using dlss, the native resolution has to be somewhat reduced to free up frame time for dlss, which is a topic that has been argued countless times in this thread.
 
So does Warframe...and I use DLSS Swapper with it all the time (though I do the swap after it does its launcher file checks).
Warframe uses its own anticheat, while Fortnite uses Epic’s own Easy Anti-Cheat. Clearly Digital Extremes doesn’t care whether you swap DLSS DLLs but Epic does considering you can look up people attempting to use DLSS Swapper on Fortnite and seeing the option just disappear in the options. It’s up to Epic to update the version (funnily enough they said they would update to DLSS 3 by late 2023… now it’s mid 2024 and nothing)
 
When you consider using dlss, the native resolution has to be somewhat reduced to free up frame time for dlss, which is a topic that has been argued countless times in this thread.
That is a question on if the dev wishes to use or not use concurrency. To not use it means that in order to fit into a particular frame time, they'd have to reduce the load enough for DLSS to fit in, which can be any number of ways, but resolution is generally the choice as it can be dynamic while the DLSS output target can remain the same (because DLSS time is relatively constant for a specific target resolution, regardless of the source resolution). If they want to use concurrency, they they won't have to dig into the frame time like the prior choice, but can be like an additional step afterwards, added latency to the overall situation. The frame rate can remain the same with using the GPU more fully for a bit higher resolution.
 
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *
Nintendo wanting to ensure low-latency connections is indeed the most reasonable explanation for a custom Wi-Fi/Bluetooth chip, instead of procuring an off-the-shelf (i.e., cheaper) chip from a supplier. I’d go a step further and speculate that the Switch 2 might allow the older Switch models to connect as controllers, or even stream gameplays to them à la the PlayStation Portal. Obviously this is a wild guess on my part based on a) what we know about the NG specs, b) 2 patent families of 7 Nintendo patents, and c) Nintendo’s management policy. So, yeah, this is going to be a long post.
  1. Switch 2 will be bigger, heavier, and pricier …
    • The customs data suggests the Switch 2 has a slightly larger size, and thus likely a bit more weight too. The leaked and inferred specs also suggest a price increase.
    • All these will reduce the total addressable market of Switch 2, especially with the younger demographics (and people with president/felon-sized hands).
  2. … but Nintendo is aiming for one-Switch-per-person
    • Not content with selling one unit to a household, both Furukawa and Miyamoto stated that the company would like each person to own one.
    • Since Switch 2 alone is probably unable to achieve that, Nintendo will need to give consumers reasons to continue buying the older models.
  3. There will be a large number of late adopters …
    • The latest Sony disclosure shows about half of their users are still on PS4, despite the latter being discontinued immediately after the PS5 release.
    • With a large share of family and casual users, the install base of Switch 1 may be proven even stickier.
  4. … and Nintendo intends to keep “annual playing users” high
    • The number was highlighted in every earnings report, therefore must be a KPI for the management.
    • In the recent earnings Q&A, Furukawa also said that they want “people who have purchased our hardware [to] keep playing games over the long term”.
In this light, the acquisition of Shiver Entertainment appears strategic. Since T239 is expected to support modern graphical features, developing for Switch 2 should be a multi-platform exercise, instead of a down-porting one. Shiver’s main responsibility as a porting specialist should be to support 3rd (and 2nd?) parties with Switch 1 software releases. On the other hand, it lays bare the hardware disparity between these two gens that they need a down-port specialist on speed dial, which is to say that the quantity and quality of cross-gen titles might not be sufficient to maintain the Switch 1 sales and usage levels.

This is why I suspect that Nintendo might introduce new system features that can incorporate Switch 1 and 2 ecosystems. As some may recall, Nintendo at one point considered enabling 3DS as extra Wii U controllers. Would they do something like that to prolong the Switch 1 lifecycle? I’m going to look for hints in some Nintendo patents below, putting it in a spoiler tag to reduce the length.
Patent family JP2017191966 and US20170291105 (2016-04-11 to 2017-02-16):

YdGW6hg.png


The key invention here is a simple method for multiple gaming devices to discover one another before forming a network. It may not seem very exciting, but Nintendo built on that and filed another patent family.

Patent family JP2022055618, US20220103319, EP3975599, JP2023054828, and US20240129084 (2020-09-29 to 2023-12-28):

BlL3fZA.png


First, the basics. Device 100 is “a game device with a wireless communication function”. Its display “shows an image generated [...] by processor. An image received from another device may also be shown on display” (emphasis mine; let’s make a mental note of this). It is the access point (AP) of the network.

Device 200s are the stations (STAs) of the network. The patent states that they can be a “personal computer, a portable telephone, a smartphone, and a tablet”, but these are mere red herrings. In the very next paragraph they admit that “typically, all [100s and 200s] may be game devices” and “identical to each other”.

At this point you may be wondering why they bother to create a direct network, since all local devices connected to the same router can play together already? Nintendo’s answer to that is, by going through a router, “the number of transfer hops may increase and efficiency in transmission of data and a data transmission rate may lower”. But what transmissions can be so demanding that they can’t even be entrusted to a router? Let’s make a mental note of this too.

PePOKeV.png


This part of the patent describes how multiple 100s can form a new network with one another, without disconnecting from their respective child devices. It sounds nice, but what would be the scenario in which this is useful? Let’s say user 100_1 was playing a race with user 200_1, but later decides to start a new race with user 100_2; there’s no reason for 100_1 to stay connected with 200_1, rendering this invention pointless.

However, knowing that Nintendo toyed with the idea of using 3DS as a Wii U controller, it puts the patent in a different light. If 100_1 is a Switch 2 in tabletop mode and 200_1 is a Switch Lite functioning as a wireless controller, the ability to network with another Switch 2 without losing connection with the Lite is actually necessary.

But, the Joy-Cons! You are probably thinking. That is true but each console only has two. Allowing other Switches to be used as controllers will give the user more options, and support more players in a co-op game. Take the wireless play of MK8D for example, the upper limit is 8 racers (4 consoles w/ 2 users each); a direct network as illustrated above may be able to facilitate a much larger number of participants.

RAo6vpp.png


This part of the patent describes how an AP (100_1) and multiple STAs (200_3 and 200_4) can form a new network, while each still maintains the connection(s) with its prior network. Again, one has to question the utility of such an invention, and the Switch-as-controller hypothesis is unable to fully explain it.

Looking at device 200_4, it is connected to 100_1 (new network parent) and 100_2 (established network parent) simultaneously. If it is used solely as a controller for 100_1, maintaining connection with 100_2 is superfluous. But what if 100_2 is the compute device (Switch 2) that renders the gameplay for 200_4 (Switch Lite) similar to the PS5 and PS Portal?

As mentioned above, elsewhere in the patent it is said that the device may display graphics received from another device. The objective of “high efficiency in transmission of data” would make a lot more sense too if remote plays are to be supported. Of course, I may be reading too much into these patents, but Nintendo developed them from 2016 to 2023 (if not longer) so they are possibly significant.
To recap, Nintendo’s management policy of maintaining Switch engagement, the custom Wi-Fi/BT chip in Switch 2, and a series of patents on efficient network transmissions, could be hinting at a remote play feature that enables the Switch 2 to utilize older Switch models as controllers and also stream gameplay to them.
 
Nintendo wanting to ensure low-latency connections is indeed the most reasonable explanation for a custom Wi-Fi/Bluetooth chip, instead of procuring an off-the-shelf (i.e., cheaper) chip from a supplier. I’d go a step further and speculate that the Switch 2 might allow the older Switch models to connect as controllers, or even stream gameplays to them à la the PlayStation Portal. Obviously this is a wild guess on my part based on a) what we know about the NG specs, b) 2 patent families of 7 Nintendo patents, and c) Nintendo’s management policy. So, yeah, this is going to be a long post.
  1. Switch 2 will be bigger, heavier, and pricier …
    • The customs data suggests the Switch 2 has a slightly larger size, and thus likely a bit more weight too. The leaked and inferred specs also suggest a price increase.
    • All these will reduce the total addressable market of Switch 2, especially with the younger demographics (and people with president/felon-sized hands).
  2. … but Nintendo is aiming for one-Switch-per-person
    • Not content with selling one unit to a household, both Furukawa and Miyamoto stated that the company would like each person to own one.
    • Since Switch 2 alone is probably unable to achieve that, Nintendo will need to give consumers reasons to continue buying the older models.
  3. There will be a large number of late adopters …
    • The latest Sony disclosure shows about half of their users are still on PS4, despite the latter being discontinued immediately after the PS5 release.
    • With a large share of family and casual users, the install base of Switch 1 may be proven even stickier.
  4. … and Nintendo intends to keep “annual playing users” high
    • The number was highlighted in every earnings report, therefore must be a KPI for the management.
    • In the recent earnings Q&A, Furukawa also said that they want “people who have purchased our hardware [to] keep playing games over the long term”.
In this light, the acquisition of Shiver Entertainment appears strategic. Since T239 is expected to support modern graphical features, developing for Switch 2 should be a multi-platform exercise, instead of a down-porting one. Shiver’s main responsibility as a porting specialist should be to support 3rd (and 2nd?) parties with Switch 1 software releases. On the other hand, it lays bare the hardware disparity between these two gens that they need a down-port specialist on speed dial, which is to say that the quantity and quality of cross-gen titles might not be sufficient to maintain the Switch 1 sales and usage levels.

This is why I suspect that Nintendo might introduce new system features that can incorporate Switch 1 and 2 ecosystems. As some may recall, Nintendo at one point considered enabling 3DS as extra Wii U controllers. Would they do something like that to prolong the Switch 1 lifecycle? I’m going to look for hints in some Nintendo patents below, putting it in a spoiler tag to reduce the length.
Patent family JP2017191966 and US20170291105 (2016-04-11 to 2017-02-16):

YdGW6hg.png


The key invention here is a simple method for multiple gaming devices to discover one another before forming a network. It may not seem very exciting, but Nintendo built on that and filed another patent family.

Patent family JP2022055618, US20220103319, EP3975599, JP2023054828, and US20240129084 (2020-09-29 to 2023-12-28):

BlL3fZA.png


First, the basics. Device 100 is “a game device with a wireless communication function”. Its display “shows an image generated [...] by processor. An image received from another device may also be shown on display” (emphasis mine; let’s make a mental note of this). It is the access point (AP) of the network.

Device 200s are the stations (STAs) of the network. The patent states that they can be a “personal computer, a portable telephone, a smartphone, and a tablet”, but these are mere red herrings. In the very next paragraph they admit that “typically, all [100s and 200s] may be game devices” and “identical to each other”.

At this point you may be wondering why they bother to create a direct network, since all local devices connected to the same router can play together already? Nintendo’s answer to that is, by going through a router, “the number of transfer hops may increase and efficiency in transmission of data and a data transmission rate may lower”. But what transmissions can be so demanding that they can’t even be entrusted to a router? Let’s make a mental note of this too.

PePOKeV.png


This part of the patent describes how multiple 100s can form a new network with one another, without disconnecting from their respective child devices. It sounds nice, but what would be the scenario in which this is useful? Let’s say user 100_1 was playing a race with user 200_1, but later decides to start a new race with user 100_2; there’s no reason for 100_1 to stay connected with 200_1, rendering this invention pointless.

However, knowing that Nintendo toyed with the idea of using 3DS as a Wii U controller, it puts the patent in a different light. If 100_1 is a Switch 2 in tabletop mode and 200_1 is a Switch Lite functioning as a wireless controller, the ability to network with another Switch 2 without losing connection with the Lite is actually necessary.

But, the Joy-Cons! You are probably thinking. That is true but each console only has two. Allowing other Switches to be used as controllers will give the user more options, and support more players in a co-op game. Take the wireless play of MK8D for example, the upper limit is 8 racers (4 consoles w/ 2 users each); a direct network as illustrated above may be able to facilitate a much larger number of participants.

RAo6vpp.png


This part of the patent describes how an AP (100_1) and multiple STAs (200_3 and 200_4) can form a new network, while each still maintains the connection(s) with its prior network. Again, one has to question the utility of such an invention, and the Switch-as-controller hypothesis is unable to fully explain it.

Looking at device 200_4, it is connected to 100_1 (new network parent) and 100_2 (established network parent) simultaneously. If it is used solely as a controller for 100_1, maintaining connection with 100_2 is superfluous. But what if 100_2 is the compute device (Switch 2) that renders the gameplay for 200_4 (Switch Lite) similar to the PS5 and PS Portal?

As mentioned above, elsewhere in the patent it is said that the device may display graphics received from another device. The objective of “high efficiency in transmission of data” would make a lot more sense too if remote plays are to be supported. Of course, I may be reading too much into these patents, but Nintendo developed them from 2016 to 2023 (if not longer) so they are possibly significant.
To recap, Nintendo’s management policy of maintaining Switch engagement, the custom Wi-Fi/BT chip in Switch 2, and a series of patents on efficient network transmissions, could be hinting at a remote play feature that enables the Switch 2 to utilize older Switch models as controllers and also stream gameplay to them.
If I understand correctly, is this WIIU functionality through switch1?Using the switch1 handheld as a controller for switch2?(This feels bad because wiiu had wii remote as a controller back in the day as well, and it turned out to be a disaster of marketing leading to wiiu only being seen as a modification of the wii rather than a next gen console, and I don't want them to do this type of thing again.)
 
Last edited:
If I understand correctly, is this WIIU functionality through switch1?Using the switch1 handheld as a controller for switch2?(This feels bad because wiiu had wii move as a controller back in the day as well, and it turned out to be a disaster of marketing leading to wiiu only being seen as a modification of the wii rather than a next gen console, and I don't want them to do this type of thing again.)
The Patent would also work in combination with the detachable dualscreen patent from awhile back.
 
Nintendo wanting to ensure low-latency connections is indeed the most reasonable explanation for a custom Wi-Fi/Bluetooth chip, instead of procuring an off-the-shelf (i.e., cheaper) chip from a supplier. I’d go a step further and speculate that the Switch 2 might allow the older Switch models to connect as controllers, or even stream gameplays to them à la the PlayStation Portal. Obviously this is a wild guess on my part based on a) what we know about the NG specs, b) 2 patent families of 7 Nintendo patents, and c) Nintendo’s management policy. So, yeah, this is going to be a long post.
Should this add Hidden tag?
 
Last edited:
It would allow dualscreen gameplay (and with that easier DS, 3DS, Wii U and Gamecube + Gameboy Advance ports of games) both in handheld (and tabletop) and docked mode. A good Wifi would be a must for it. It could also be a accesory or not used at all. Just saying that @fwd-bwd‘s finds can be interpreted in multiple ways. Here’s the link to the Dualscreen Patent:
Handheld maybe too heavy, but at least it is a solution.
 
So I wanted to note this here after the (very minor granted) discovery I had last night.

So my new hyperfixation for the next year, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 the new French-JRPG made on UE5, has an official website where you can sign up to a newsletter. Very cool, and it's very worth it to see the concept art of the game. Looks gorgeous. However, the key take away is one of the questions that's asked on the site before you sign in.

image.png


"What Platforms do you typically play on?"

It goes on to list the 4 current platforms that are listed, being Playstation, Steam, Epic Games and Xbox Series respectively... but it also lists Nintendo Switch as a platform at the bottom. Only those 5, usually questionnaires list other platforms, even if there's no plan to release their games on them. Kelper Interactive, the publisher for Sandfall Interactive's game, has a weird history with Nintendo Switch but they still released titles like Sifu, Tchia and the upcoming Cat Quest 3 onto the system.

Yeah I don't see this game not being on Switch 2. The only problem with this theory is that I can't find evidence of it saying it'll come to "all-modern platforms" like someone I asked pointed out, but like... c'mon why wouldn't you release a JRPG on the JRPG machine. Still very cool to see.
 
Yea I’ll be shocked if the Switch 2 is less than $399. I expect the Switch OLED to get a price drop and to be sold alongside the Switch 2 for 2-3 years while the other two skus get discontinued.

Also PS5 pro is going to be expensive
I would actually expect the OLED to be the discontinued one. If you consider the target markets for each Switch SKU, the OLED is targeting the high end, people who want the best quality at any price. Once Switch 2 comes out, that's where most of that market is gonna go. Switch Lite/Switch OG make more sense as low-budget options, and the bigger price gap between the Switch and Switch 2 creates a bigger impression of value in both directions.
 
If I understand correctly, is this WIIU functionality through switch1?Using the switch1 handheld as a controller for switch2?(This feels bad because wiiu had wii remote as a controller back in the day as well, and it turned out to be a disaster of marketing leading to wiiu only being seen as a modification of the wii rather than a next gen console, and I don't want them to do this type of thing again.)
I am thinking how they will implement this without having/buying any additional peripheral. Probably, the joycon grip will have a screen?
 
0
Its interesting to see how the uncovering of Drakes customs shipments has ended up spoiling other things such as new graphics or CPU/APU from AMD 😆

Hidden content is only available for registered users. Sharing it outside of Famiboards is subject to moderation.
 
If I understand correctly, is this WIIU functionality through switch1?Using the switch1 handheld as a controller for switch2?
The main difference is that the Wii U GamePad is an integral part of the system, but the hypothetical remote play feature I speculated is more akin to PS5 Portal, which is completely optional. It may not even be something that Nintendo would heavily promote.

Should this add Hidden tag?
Thanks for the reminder. I thought about it, but the custom Wi-Fi/BT chip is only this thread’s educated guess. The shipment data doesn’t really say that. So it may not need hiding.
 
Its interesting to see how the uncovering of Drakes customs shipments has ended up spoiling other things such as new graphics or CPU/APU from AMD 😆

* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *

Oh wow, a real-life version of that common cartoon trope "I'm looking for something, is that it? Nope just another huge diamond ... not looking for that.".
 
Nintendo wanting to ensure low-latency connections is indeed the most reasonable explanation for a custom Wi-Fi/Bluetooth chip, instead of procuring an off-the-shelf (i.e., cheaper) chip from a supplier. I’d go a step further and speculate that the Switch 2 might allow the older Switch models to connect as controllers, or even stream gameplays to them à la the PlayStation Portal. Obviously this is a wild guess on my part based on a) what we know about the NG specs, b) 2 patent families of 7 Nintendo patents, and c) Nintendo’s management policy. So, yeah, this is going to be a long post.
  1. Switch 2 will be bigger, heavier, and pricier …
    • The customs data suggests the Switch 2 has a slightly larger size, and thus likely a bit more weight too. The leaked and inferred specs also suggest a price increase.
    • All these will reduce the total addressable market of Switch 2, especially with the younger demographics (and people with president/felon-sized hands).
  2. … but Nintendo is aiming for one-Switch-per-person
    • Not content with selling one unit to a household, both Furukawa and Miyamoto stated that the company would like each person to own one.
    • Since Switch 2 alone is probably unable to achieve that, Nintendo will need to give consumers reasons to continue buying the older models.
  3. There will be a large number of late adopters …
    • The latest Sony disclosure shows about half of their users are still on PS4, despite the latter being discontinued immediately after the PS5 release.
    • With a large share of family and casual users, the install base of Switch 1 may be proven even stickier.
  4. … and Nintendo intends to keep “annual playing users” high
    • The number was highlighted in every earnings report, therefore must be a KPI for the management.
    • In the recent earnings Q&A, Furukawa also said that they want “people who have purchased our hardware [to] keep playing games over the long term”.
In this light, the acquisition of Shiver Entertainment appears strategic. Since T239 is expected to support modern graphical features, developing for Switch 2 should be a multi-platform exercise, instead of a down-porting one. Shiver’s main responsibility as a porting specialist should be to support 3rd (and 2nd?) parties with Switch 1 software releases. On the other hand, it lays bare the hardware disparity between these two gens that they need a down-port specialist on speed dial, which is to say that the quantity and quality of cross-gen titles might not be sufficient to maintain the Switch 1 sales and usage levels.

This is why I suspect that Nintendo might introduce new system features that can incorporate Switch 1 and 2 ecosystems. As some may recall, Nintendo at one point considered enabling 3DS as extra Wii U controllers. Would they do something like that to prolong the Switch 1 lifecycle? I’m going to look for hints in some Nintendo patents below, putting it in a spoiler tag to reduce the length.
Patent family JP2017191966 and US20170291105 (2016-04-11 to 2017-02-16):

YdGW6hg.png


The key invention here is a simple method for multiple gaming devices to discover one another before forming a network. It may not seem very exciting, but Nintendo built on that and filed another patent family.

Patent family JP2022055618, US20220103319, EP3975599, JP2023054828, and US20240129084 (2020-09-29 to 2023-12-28):

BlL3fZA.png


First, the basics. Device 100 is “a game device with a wireless communication function”. Its display “shows an image generated [...] by processor. An image received from another device may also be shown on display” (emphasis mine; let’s make a mental note of this). It is the access point (AP) of the network.

Device 200s are the stations (STAs) of the network. The patent states that they can be a “personal computer, a portable telephone, a smartphone, and a tablet”, but these are mere red herrings. In the very next paragraph they admit that “typically, all [100s and 200s] may be game devices” and “identical to each other”.

At this point you may be wondering why they bother to create a direct network, since all local devices connected to the same router can play together already? Nintendo’s answer to that is, by going through a router, “the number of transfer hops may increase and efficiency in transmission of data and a data transmission rate may lower”. But what transmissions can be so demanding that they can’t even be entrusted to a router? Let’s make a mental note of this too.

PePOKeV.png


This part of the patent describes how multiple 100s can form a new network with one another, without disconnecting from their respective child devices. It sounds nice, but what would be the scenario in which this is useful? Let’s say user 100_1 was playing a race with user 200_1, but later decides to start a new race with user 100_2; there’s no reason for 100_1 to stay connected with 200_1, rendering this invention pointless.

However, knowing that Nintendo toyed with the idea of using 3DS as a Wii U controller, it puts the patent in a different light. If 100_1 is a Switch 2 in tabletop mode and 200_1 is a Switch Lite functioning as a wireless controller, the ability to network with another Switch 2 without losing connection with the Lite is actually necessary.

But, the Joy-Cons! You are probably thinking. That is true but each console only has two. Allowing other Switches to be used as controllers will give the user more options, and support more players in a co-op game. Take the wireless play of MK8D for example, the upper limit is 8 racers (4 consoles w/ 2 users each); a direct network as illustrated above may be able to facilitate a much larger number of participants.

RAo6vpp.png


This part of the patent describes how an AP (100_1) and multiple STAs (200_3 and 200_4) can form a new network, while each still maintains the connection(s) with its prior network. Again, one has to question the utility of such an invention, and the Switch-as-controller hypothesis is unable to fully explain it.

Looking at device 200_4, it is connected to 100_1 (new network parent) and 100_2 (established network parent) simultaneously. If it is used solely as a controller for 100_1, maintaining connection with 100_2 is superfluous. But what if 100_2 is the compute device (Switch 2) that renders the gameplay for 200_4 (Switch Lite) similar to the PS5 and PS Portal?

As mentioned above, elsewhere in the patent it is said that the device may display graphics received from another device. The objective of “high efficiency in transmission of data” would make a lot more sense too if remote plays are to be supported. Of course, I may be reading too much into these patents, but Nintendo developed them from 2016 to 2023 (if not longer) so they are possibly significant.
To recap, Nintendo’s management policy of maintaining Switch engagement, the custom Wi-Fi/BT chip in Switch 2, and a series of patents on efficient network transmissions, could be hinting at a remote play feature that enables the Switch 2 to utilize older Switch models as controllers and also stream gameplay to them.
I wonder if Nintendo's looking into a feature very similar to Miracast if the Nintendo Switch's successor does use a custom Wi-Fi/Bluetooth chip from Mediatek.

I know there's Mediatek Ultracast, but I don't think Mediatek Ultracast had gaming in mind.
 
Back in High school i really dont know anything about Ram or specs at to be honest, so is this the reason the OG Bayonetta ran like crap on PS3 as compared to the 360?

The PS3 had 512 MB of RAM just like the 360, but it was split as opposed to the 360's unified pool. I think the split pool probably made things a bit more difficult, but I think it was just a really bad port job and not really indicative of PS3's incapability to run it as well as the 360.
 
I would actually expect the OLED to be the discontinued one. If you consider the target markets for each Switch SKU, the OLED is targeting the high end, people who want the best quality at any price. Once Switch 2 comes out, that's where most of that market is gonna go. Switch Lite/Switch OG make more sense as low-budget options, and the bigger price gap between the Switch and Switch 2 creates a bigger impression of value in both directions.
I thoroughly agree from a product standpoint

iirc though the trouble with this is that the OLED model has some manufacturing futureproofing that the 2019 V2 doesn't. i.e. the non-OLED switches have an expiration date based on stock of some chips or other parts that aren't being made anymore

big big IIRC though. would appreciate someone more connected corroborating or disputing

edit: y'know, thinking about it now I think the best option might be a further stripped down V3...
 
Back in High school i really dont know anything about Ram or specs at to be honest, so is this the reason the OG Bayonetta ran like crap on PS3 as compared to the 360?
The PS3 had 512 MB of RAM just like the 360, but it was split as opposed to the 360's unified pool. I think the split pool probably made things a bit more difficult, but I think it was just a really bad port job and not really indicative of PS3's incapability to run it as well as the 360.
The split ram pool of the ps3, was actually just a cherry on top of the ps3 "Cell" being notoriously difficult to code for. While the 360 went with comparatively straight forward hardware.
 
I thoroughly agree from a product standpoint

iirc though the trouble with this is that the OLED model has some manufacturing futureproofing that the 2019 V2 doesn't. i.e. the non-OLED switches have an expiration date based on stock of some chips or other parts that aren't being made anymore

big big IIRC though. would appreciate someone more connected corroborating or disputing

edit: y'know, thinking about it now I think the best option might be a further stripped down V3...
I mean they could just move the OLED line into the OG line by making everything the same but switching to much cheaper LCD screens. I assume that's what you mean by v3.
 
Couldn't it end up being more expensive to keep that LCD screen line alive then to keep the OLED one going on?
if the V3 were a totally new design it could use a different cheap panel

that said the work of designing and implementing a V3 would only be justifiable if they're anticipating a long tail and/or we're in a tulpa timeline
 
If I were Nintendo, I'd do a lot of things differently, but in terms of keeping the OG Switch selling:
  • $250 Switch LCD w/ Mario Kart 8 pack-in
  • $170 Switch Lite w/ Pokemon Arceus or Animal Crossing pack-in
 
If i'm Nintendo i would make the following strategy for Switch 2:

* Subsidize the price at launch for the Switch 2, to ensure the system gets incredible popular day 1. I'm thinking a max 350$ price for the Switch 2.

* Bank on the fact that the next gen will see a huge growth of microtransaction and other service revenue for them, thus ensuring that their profit margins will still increase during the Switch 2 era even though they subsidize console hardware sales.

If they follow that strategy i think the chance that the Switch 2 will be a mega success is almost 100 % guaranteed.
 
we're in a tulpa timeline
X-Files theme

I could definitely see a price-dropped v3 console to leg out the end of the Switch’s life. Maybe even a modernized Lite that keeps the docking capability but sells the dock and a Pro Controller separately so they can position it at $189 or so.
 
Death Stranding still sees artifacts and blurring of the far resolution at the output resolution in dlss performance mode, and honestly I'd be more disappointed if that's what most games will face on switch2. Close ups also still have some detail loss compared to the native resolution.

Well, I would advise others to test it first with a large 3d game that supports dlss on pc to see if you can live with the basically noticeable blurring (compared to native resolution) and artifacts on a large screen, I'd have to lower everyone's expectations for the upgraded resolution of dlss on the switch2.
 
Last edited:
You're right, for some reason I thought the PS4''s was much lower than it actually was. But yeah, the difference is about 70% so tiled rendering should help close the gap (maybe even eliminate it?).


Yeah I meant the base versions.
As you brought up, there's more than just a single aspect to look at when it involves other aspects. PS4 used the expensive immediate mode, drawing the entire frame at once, where as Switch 1 + 2 use tiled rendering, reducing the overall memory bandwidth. But as far as I'm aware, tiled rendering in general still used RAM, much like the implementation MS used for the Xbox 360, as 10MB of eDRAM was not enough to hold full multiple buffers used in the rendering process from start to finish. What the Tegra X1 (and the T239 by extension) do is improve tiled rendering by holding those tiles in cache, thereby reducing memory bandwidth even more. So even with 120GB/s, there's the tiled rendering in cache, the architectural advancement of Ampere vs GCN 2.0, etc.

In the end what really matters is whether or not you have enough bandwidth to feed the GPU, and the data @oldpuck examined clearly showed that 120GB/s will be enough.
 
Digital only Switch model, made to look like the Lite, but with detachable controllers, for $249.99 would make a nice alternative to replace the Switch V2, leaving the lineup at:
• Lite - $149.99 (assuming they price drop it)
• Digital - 249.99
• OLED - 349.99
• Switch 2 - 399.99/449.99

A $100 premium between all models because:
• Digital is dockable and has Joycons
• OLED is a replacement model/premiun
• Switch 2 is next gen
 
Digital only Switch model, made to look like the Lite, but with detachable controllers, for $249.99 would make a nice alternative to replace the Switch V2, leaving the lineup at:
• Lite - $149.99 (assuming they price drop it)
• Digital - 249.99
• OLED - 349.99
• Switch 2 - 399.99/449.99

A $100 premium between all models because:
• Digital is dockable and has Joycons
• OLED is a replacement model/premiun
• Switch 2 is next gen
The switch2 priced over $400 will be uncompetitive, and Nintendo will have to continue its strategy of selling it cheaply since the wii, at $100 less than the competition.
 
* Subsidize the price at launch for the Switch 2, to ensure the system gets incredible popular day 1. I'm thinking a max 350$ price for the Switch 2.
Would that be necessary, though?? The brand loyalty compared to the Wii U era and before has sky-rocketed. Plus, betting on microtransactions on your a Nintendo console wouldn't be that good of a bet. You'd really have to push for third party GAAS.
 
Last edited:
I'm usually right about these things so let's see:

  • Slight price drops on current hardware bundles
  • 2019 Switch discontinued in 2025
  • No select line but more frequent sales on evergreen 1st party software
  • June Direct is announced a week before the next investor meeting; airs days before it
 
You can’t base Switch 2 resolution based on Switch 1 resolution. They’re not going to stay 600p/900p. There are so much more available power. This has been talked to death, but they’ve raised the resolution with every generational jump. Even the Wii U to Switch.

The likeliest scenario would be (portable 900p -1080p native) and (docked 1440p - possibly even 4K native). Games will be made to those target resolution. Some first party games (or most) won’t even have the same LOD as the 8th gen games (PS4/Xbox one) but way higher native res. First party devs will likely target higher resolution across the board before even considering upscaling. They still want a good base before upscaling. With that said, I’m sure there will be first-party games that will aggressively use upscaling with low internal resolution, but I don’t think it will be the majority. At least not at first. I can see later in the generation, but in general, it’s going to be higher native res across the board.

Honestly, 600p portable/ 900p docked native is more of a third party thing. The more graphically intensive ones. This is for your “Death Stranding 2”. Your “Resident Evil 9”.
I fully expect Nintendo's first and second party titles to target 1440p-1800p @30fps or 1080p-1440p @60fps. Whether their internal teams make use of DLSS or not remains to be seen, but considering how Nintendo has used FSR1 in recent games, i guess it's more likely for DLSS to become the standard for Switch 2 games with some exceptions.

If that Zelda BotW 4K60 demo was real, then i'd assume the Switch 2 can reach a true 4K image for pretty much the whole Switch 1 library with relative ease. But i certainly i can't say the same when looking at true next gen games. 4K just doesn't seem as a logical target to me based on all the testing and speculating done here and how DLSS at 4K is not really possible, unless they got that sweet NintendoVidia magic to actually do it.
Seeing as even the competition struggles hitting 4K i doubt we will see many upcoming games go for such a high resolution when that limited power is better spent on more detail and higher or more stable framerates.

If anything we should expect graphically intensive games to be 540p DLSS'ed to 1080p in portable mode and 720p upscaled to 1440p when docked at 30fps, as the closest match to the Switch 2's GPU, a downclocked RTX 2050, does quite well running 1440p DLSS performance mode at console equivalent settings.
(According to DigitalFoundry's analysis here.)

The only advantage that Switch 2 has against that GPU is way more RAM, but then we're also looking at a 25% reduction of cuda cores for T239 so i'd argue the general GPU performance between the two evens out if Switch 2 gets above 1GHz GPU clock. (Compared to the 750 MHz of a downclocked RTX 2050.)

By the time the PS6/Nextbox arrives and the first batches of next gen multiplatform games are starting to release (i'm thinking 2031 at the earliest) things will likely become a little more familiar with the Switch 2 getting severely cut down ports, possibly running at 360p DLSS'ed to 720p portable and 540p to 1080p docked. All with a noticable reduction in visuals across the board.
However i think with DLSS the Switch 2 will have an easier time making very low res ports of the big games look at least acceptable on a modern 4K TV.
 
Last edited:
Looking at SwitchBrew HID details, there's the "Fifty" (left and right) controllers I sorta assume are the new Joy-Con, but there's a FullKey (two handed/full size) type controller with the apparent codename Tarragon. Do we know anything more about this device? If we don't know anything other than its mentions in system software, I wonder if it's the next generation Pro Controller or maybe a scrapped mid generation Pro Controller.

There are a number of unimplemented "FullKey" controllers, Tarragon is just the only one with a name. What makes me think it's probably something abandoned is its ID value is really low, like lower than the NES controllers, sorta seeming like it was meant to come out somewhere between launch and late 2018, but there are some very high ID controllers (third party controller support) that were there at launch, so maybe that's totally irrelevant.
 
I think they can be 450 and still be competitive. PS4 bundles was already 300-350 when Switch was released with a game included.
Please check the price of the 3ds at the beginning and Nintendo's history of hastily lowering the price later on, $450 will undoubtedly reduce the competitiveness of the switch2 altogether, $399 is more than enough to make a profit on every unit sold, I don't see the point or motivation for them to sell it for $450?
 
I fully expect Nintendo's first and second party titles to target 1440p-1800p @30fps or 1080p-1440p @60fps. Whether their internal teams make use of DLSS or not remains to be seen, but considering how Nintendo has used FSR1 in recent games, i guess it's more likely for DLSS to become the standard for Switch 2 games with some exceptions.

If that Zelda BotW 4K60 demo was real, then i'd assume the Switch 2 can reach a true 4K image for pretty much the whole Switch 1 library with relative ease. But i certainly i can't say the same when looking at true next gen games. 4K just doesn't seem as a logical target to me based on all the testing and speculating done here and how DLSS at 4K is not really possible, unless they got that sweet NintendoVidia magic to actually do it.
Seeing as even the competition struggles hitting 4K i doubt we will see many upcoming games go for such a high resolution when that limited power is better spent on more detail and higher or more stable framerates.

If anything we should expect graphically intensive games to be 540p DLSS'ed to 1080p in portable mode and 720p upscaled to 1440p when docked at 30fps, as the closest match to the Switch 2's GPU, a downclocked RTX 2050, does quite well running 1440p DLSS performance mode at console equivalent settings.
(According to DigitalFoundry's analysis here.)

The only advantage that Switch 2 has against thethat GPU is way more RAM, but then we're also looking at a 25% reduction of cuda cores for T239 so i'd argue the general GPU performance between the two evens out if Switch 2 gets above 1GHz GPU clock when docked compared to the 750 MHz of the downclocked RTX 2050.

By the time the PS6/Nextbox arrives and the first batches of next gen multiplatform games are starting to release (i'm thinking 2031 at the earliest) things will likely become a little more familiar with the Switch 2 getting severely cut down ports, possibly running at 360p DLSS'ed to 720p portable and 540p to 1080p docked. All with a noticable reduction in visuals across the board.
However i think with DLSS the Switch 2 will have an easier time making very low res ports of the big games look at least acceptable on a modern 4K TV.
Nintendo first party will 100% rely on dlss on switch2, if they didn't need dlss they wouldn't have customized a low power gpu like the t239 around dlss and ray tracing, a path is laid out that would allow them to easily increase the resolution, I don't see the possibility of them not using it.The question is only whether or not their big first party production games (3d Mario and 3d Zelda) are upgraded using quality mode.
 
Please check the price of the 3ds at the beginning and Nintendo's history of hastily lowering the price later on, $450 will undoubtedly reduce the competitiveness of the switch2 altogether, $399 is more than enough to make a profit on every unit sold, I don't see the point or motivation for them to sell it for $450?
The Nintendo 3DS launch had several factors against it:
• 3D gimmick that died out fast
• Launch Software lineup was poor

The Switch 2 launch will most certainly be different. Buy I personally view the pricing as follows:
• Optimistic = $399.99
• Realistic = $449.99
 
I know this is pipedream, but would $350 or maybe even $300 work? Perhaps Nintendo would like to see households have multiple Switch 2's (like it was with the Switch), or perhaps they'll want to maintain the balance of a loss and and likeliness profitability and higher profit marigins?
 
I know this is pipedream, but would $350 or maybe even $300 work? Perhaps Nintendo would like to see households have multiple Switch 2's (like it was with the Switch), or perhaps they'll want to maintain the balance of a loss and and likeliness profitability and higher profit marigins?
$299.99 would be a stretch unless Nintendo decides to sell at a loss, especially how the OLED’s margins are thin, and I doubt they’ll price reduce the OLED model, meaning the successor will be $50-100 more expensive than the OLED
 
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