• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

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

Reader mode
Aufhebung RPG said:
There's simply no evidence for the claim that $450 is required to make a profit, in fact even doing a conservative estimate it's safe to assume that $399 will guarantee break even in the first year, there's no reason for Nintendo to be subsidizing costs, and they've learned from their poor initial pricing of the 3DS, and considering they still have the whole selling the WIIU at a loss thing going on I'd argue that if Nintendo expects that the battery tech won't be able to make the generational leap anytime soon and that the development timelines are still lengthening they're just going to prolong the lifespan of the switch2 even further, and they'll have long enough to have that piece of the console making a good profit for them.
Click to expand...
I would even say they should aim for $350 if possible. Said this before but maybe selling dock separately, etc. However I would not subsidize if I were Nintendo. If they need $450 to profit, I would probably do that. But then that means it's even more crucial to expand their business so they don't have to fully rely on Switch 2, now that they don't have 3DS to support the Wii U type of situation. Although there are rumors that the 3ds was worse financially. You don't want to expand and be put in worse situation. After all trying new things have a risk.
 
The dock, especially if it's needed for the DLSS'd upscaled output or does more than the normal Switch 1 docks, needs to be a pack-in for at least until the time a possible Switch 2 Lite was released.

But i'm pretty good on Nintendo understanding that.
 
Koti said:
I would even say they should aim for $350 if possible. Said this before but maybe selling dock separately, etc. However I would not subsidize if I were Nintendo. If they need $450 to profit, I would probably do that. But then that means it's even more crucial to expand their business so they don't have to fully rely on Switch 2, now that they don't have 3DS to support the Wii U type of situation. Although there are rumors that the 3ds was worse financially.
Click to expand...
Yes, the WIIU was able to be sold at a loss because it had the 3DS as its source of profitability, Nintendo's initial thinking was probably that they had the absolute advantage in the portable console space and therefore priced it very high and still did well in sales and used it to make up for the losses suffered from the promotion of the WIIU, it's basically unlikely that Nintendo will be able to subsidize the costs now that the businesses are merged and if we are anticipating that the switch2 will have a much longer lifespan and is unlikely to have any further leaps forward with the graphical tech they could look at selling it at break even for the first year for 399$, and then just upping the profit on each console year on year.

Everything is predicated on the assumption by some that $399 is unprofitable, when in fact I think $399 should be profitable, it's just a matter of how much or how little.
 
Bonejack said:
The dock, especially if it's needed for the DLSS'd upscaled output or does more than the normal Switch 1 docks, needs to be a pack-in for at least until the time a possible Switch 2 Lite was released.

But i'm pretty good on Nintendo understanding that.
Click to expand...
Maybe they could subsidize if they can release games with in-game purchases and add-on content. Not sure how the crowd would react to that. Probably not positively cuz most don't see that a console is sold at a loss.
 
0
Here's the thing, Nintendo usually doesn't want to sell systems at a loss. That's true, and will likely be the case with Switch 2 again.

But!

They also don't have to make profit with each console sold initially and can turn into a "profit investment" as long as early adopters also get at least one of their own launch games. "Come even" is a thing.

So if 400 (or 350, or 450, or whatever) will be the price they hit that window, they will use exactly that one.
 
Nintendo should never give up the right to make profits on any hardware.

In this case, the third-party GAAS will suck up all the money on the table. Third party non-GAAS games can increase platform sales, drive sales of other games, and ultimately bring profit returns, but GAAS is just a tumor.

Unless they increase their share of GAAS, they will fall into a profit black hole like Sony's.
 
The next Switch will be exactly what it is intended for. A cheap(er) gaming device that you can take with you and that has all whistles and bells to accomodate for a variety of developers utilizing various dev tools and a variety of publishers that work with a various business models.

And it will be nothing beyond that. You will get:
  • an 60 Hz 1080p LCD screen with 350 nits peak brigthness, no dynamic range, average color reproduction and average grey to grey response
  • an average to not good WLAN antenna good enough for download speeds up to 12 MB/s
  • a plastic body that is prone to scratches and to tear over time
  • a two-year warranty
  • a dock with two USB 2.0 ports
  • no support for video streaming services
  • a slowish eShop (or whatever it will be called)
  • still no easy way to find a game that would suite your tastes
  • first party-games running at sub-native resolution and at sub-native refresh rates
And you will be happy.
 
Kenka said:
The next Switch will be exactly what it is intended for. A cheap(er) gaming device that you can take with you and that has all whistles and bells to accomodate for a variety of developers utilizing various dev tools and a variety of publishers that work with a various business models.

And it will be nothing beyond that. You will get:
  • an 60 Hz 1080p LCD screen with 350 nits peak brigthness, no dynamic range, average color reproduction and average grey to grey response
  • an average to not good WLAN antenna good enough for download speeds up to 12 MB/s
  • a plastic body that is prone to scratches and to tear over time
  • a two-year warranty
  • a dock with two USB 2.0 ports
  • no support for video streaming services
  • a slowish eShop (or whatever it will be called)
  • still no easy way to find a game that would suite your tastes
  • first party-games running at sub-native resolution and at sub-native refresh rates
And you will be happy.
Click to expand...

Resident_Evil_4_Merchant_I'll_buy_it_at_a_high_price.gif
 
Microsoft talked about how the days of being able to ride node improvements to price reductions are coming tk an end and that's why the Series S exists. Sony hasn't reduced the price of the PS5 in 3.5 years. It isn't "just" about hitting that mass market price. Nintendo will have to look and see where they can revise the console to reduce the manufacturing cost or if they even can do. The Switch never received an official price cut its entire life. They could have but they hit a price consumers saw value in. Additionally Nintendo will have to see what improvements they can make to sell a premium model that would make folks want to upgrade.

People need to look at how much of Nintendo's profit comes from actually selling switch hardware. It's significant. 40%-50% of revenue is hardware. If the ability to reduce hardware costs is shrinking then Nintendo is not going to sell this thing at $350 or even $400 if the profitability is shit. Whatever they price it at, it isn't going to get an official price cut for years if at all. There may be a lite version but the main unit isn't going to be priced in a way that the hardware doesn't generate increasing profit with time. They'll try other avenues to increase the appeal of the hardware like bundles but they wont pass the savings on to consumers when it is much more difficult to squeeze savings out of modern devices.

This console is not going to cost $350. It will be $400 minimum and I'd actually bet on $450.
 
Kenka said:
  • no support for video streaming services
Click to expand...
The current Switch has video streaming services.

Kenka said:
  • a slowish eShop (or whatever it will be called)
Click to expand...
A faster CPU will crunch through the eShop's web interface and result in faster performance. The eShop won't suddenly become more demanding in proportion to the generational leap.

Kenka said:
  • first party-games running at sub-native resolution and at sub-native refresh rates
Click to expand...
The native resolutions of TV screens are 4K. Current-gen games on PS5/XSX are frequently sub-native in performance modes and dynamic res, because native 4K is demanding. Nintendo's first-party games hitting 1440p 30/60 after DLSS is a fantastic result. They are the ones who worked with Nvidia on the specifications of the chip, so the limitations they faced with the rushed off-the-shelf Switch 1 SoC are not the same. We pretty much have the specs of the chip so this is not some arbitrary expectation.

I expect whatever reasonable cost cutting measures there are on the console to hit the $400-$450 price point. That is still cheaper than the physical editions of both home consoles. Plastic body sure. LCD screen sure. Idk about some of your other points - I think just by getting new components they could have a more capable wireless antenna, since they're already manufactured at scale.
 
Gotdatmoneyy said:
Microsoft talked about how the days of being able to ride node improvements to price reductions are coming tk an end and that's why the Series S exists. Sony hasn't reduced the price of the PS5 in 3.5 years. It isn't "just" about hitting that mass market price. Nintendo will have to look and see where they can revise the console to reduce the manufacturing cost or if they even can do. The Switch never received an official price cut its entire life. They could have but they hit a price consumers saw value in. Additionally Nintendo will have to see what improvements they can make to sell a premium model that would make folks want to upgrade.

People need to look at how much of Nintendo's profit comes from actually selling switch hardware. It's significant. 40%-50% of revenue is hardware. If the ability to reduce hardware costs is shrinking then Nintendo is not going to sell this thing at $350 or even $400 if the profitability is shit. Whatever they price it at, it isn't going to get an official price cut for years if at all. There may be a lite version but the main unit isn't going to be priced in a way that the hardware doesn't generate increasing profit with time. They'll try other avenues to increase the appeal of the hardware like bundles but they wont pass the savings on to consumers when it is much more difficult to squeeze savings out of modern devices.

This console is not going to cost $350. It will be $400 minimum and I'd actually bet on $450.
Click to expand...
If it hits $450, unless the first year's lineup of games is quite lavish enough to offset the price disadvantage at a mass market level, this console is not going to have mass appeal
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
If it hits $450, unless the first year's lineup of games is quite lavish enough to offset the price disadvantage at a mass market level, this console is not going to have mass appeal
Click to expand...
Consoles in their first year are bought by people who aren't price sensitive. They won't have any issue selling a $450 console for the initial 2 years. After the first 40ish million units the price will begin to be a barrier but it isn't set in stone the console will have trouble moving units. We'll have to wait and see. But thinking they'll price the unit at razor thin margins if the avenues to reduce the manufacturing costs are shaky is not realistic.
 
Serif said:
The current Switch has video streaming services.


A faster CPU will crunch through the eShop's web interface and result in faster performance. The eShop won't suddenly become more demanding in proportion to the generational leap.


The native resolutions of TV screens are 4K. Current-gen games on PS5/XSX are frequently sub-native in performance modes and dynamic res, because native 4K is demanding. Nintendo's first-party games hitting 1440p 30/60 after DLSS is a fantastic result. They are the ones who worked with Nvidia on the specifications of the chip, so the limitations they faced with the rushed off-the-shelf Switch 1 SoC are not the same. We pretty much have the specs of the chip so this is not some arbitrary expectation.

I expect whatever reasonable cost cutting measures there are on the console to hit the $400-$450 price point. That is still cheaper than the physical editions of both home consoles. Plastic body sure. LCD screen sure. Idk about some of your other points - I think just by getting new components they could have a more capable wireless antenna, since they're already manufactured at scale.
Click to expand...
...it means you agree with the other points :D

By the by, it is plausible that the next Switch removes features found in the current one. It happened in the past (see virtual console).

When talking about the refresh rates and resolution, I was referring to the portable mode (so 1080p / 60 Hz).
 
Kenka said:
The next Switch will be exactly what it is intended for. A cheap(er) gaming device that you can take with you and that has all whistles and bells to accomodate for a variety of developers utilizing various dev tools and a variety of publishers that work with a various business models.

And it will be nothing beyond that. You will get:
  • an 60 Hz 1080p LCD screen with 350 nits peak brigthness, no dynamic range, average color reproduction and average grey to grey response
  • an average to not good WLAN antenna good enough for download speeds up to 12 MB/s
  • a plastic body that is prone to scratches and to tear over time
  • a two-year warranty
  • a dock with two USB 2.0 ports
  • no support for video streaming services
  • a slowish eShop (or whatever it will be called)
  • still no easy way to find a game that would suite your tastes
  • first party-games running at sub-native resolution and at sub-native refresh rates
And you will be happy.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think a handheld console that can make you happy, will not be cheap and wont have good sale.
 
0
Gotdatmoneyy said:
Consoles in their first year are bought by people who aren't price sensitive. They won't have any issue selling a $450 console for the initial 2 years. After the first 40ish million units the price will begin to be a barrier but it isn't set in stone the console will have trouble moving units. We'll have to wait and see. But thinking they'll price the unit at razor thin margins if the avenues to reduce the manufacturing costs are shaky is not realistic.
Click to expand...
That's the wrong way to look at it, nowadays gaming console sales are well worth it if you can make a profit on each unit from the first year itself, and the margins are increasing as the year progresses and maintains mass market appeal.

Competition makes the cost of hardware rise will lead to game consoles and pc convergence evolution, and in the performance of game consoles will never be able to compete with high-end pc, so game consoles must first be a cheap electronic products.
 
Kenka said:
...it means you agree with the other points :D
Click to expand...
I agree with the premise of cost cutting on components. As I've said, "I don't know about your other points", I don't have the insight to dispute whether or not the ports could be USB 2.0 and the speed of the wireless antenna, since I haven't been looking in the shipping data and I don't know what components are available. And I don't know enough about the availability of screens to dispute your specifications, only that I agree with 'LCD screen' - which we have had rumors of.

Kenka said:
By the by, it is plausible that the next Switch removes features found in the current one. It happened in the past (see virtual console).
Click to expand...
Unlike VC, NSO is a subscription service meant to keep people paying yearly. There's no incentive to remove NSO since people are already 'rebuying' access to games they already paid for. And VC is not so much a 'feature' as it is software (and when they had the ability to carry it over - they did, between Wii and Wii U). If you wanted to point out actual features that were lost between generations, you could point to the missing cameras and microphone between Wii U and Switch. But we know they are adding a microphone. And it is unlikely that software features would disappear between Switch 1 and 2, since the OS is built on the same foundation.
 
Aufhebung RPG said:
That's the wrong way to look at it, nowadays gaming console sales are well worth it if you can make a profit on each unit from the first year itself, and the margins are increasing as the year progresses and maintains mass market appeal.
Click to expand...
The point I am making is they aren't going to reduce the price for a long time so there is little reason to believe they'll sell a unit at cost. Yes the manufacturing costs should decrease a bit but look at the other platforms, they haven't reduced price because the wiggle room to do so is not there. The price they set the console at wont be razor thin on margins.

Anything they claw back in manufacturing costs will go into their pocket. So if they are pushing it with a $400 price tag it wont be $400. Nintendo has never given any indication that they'll sell at cost. If the contribution margin on a $400 console is $50 then yeah, it'll be $400. But if it's $5 it wont be $400.
 
Gotdatmoneyy said:
The point I am making is they aren't going to reduce the price for a long time so there is little reason to believe they'll sell a unit at cost. Yes the manufacturing costs should decrease a bit but look at the other platforms, they haven't reduced price because the wiggle room to do so is not there. The price they set the console at wont be razor thin on margins.

Anything they claw back in manufacturing costs will go into their pocket. So if they are pushing it with a $400 price tag it wont be $400. Nintendo has never given any indication that they'll sell at cost. If the contribution margin on a $400 console is $50 then yeah, it'll be $400. But if it's $5 it wont be $400.
Click to expand...
The ps and xbox were sold at a loss for the first two years of release, if Nintendo can maintain a slim profit at pricing it at $399, I don't understand why they would want to destroy their own mass market roots.
 
Gotdatmoneyy said:
Microsoft talked about how the days of being able to ride node improvements to price reductions are coming tk an end and that's why the Series S exists. Sony hasn't reduced the price of the PS5 in 3.5 years. It isn't "just" about hitting that mass market price. Nintendo will have to look and see where they can revise the console to reduce the manufacturing cost or if they even can do. The Switch never received an official price cut its entire life. They could have but they hit a price consumers saw value in. Additionally Nintendo will have to see what improvements they can make to sell a premium model that would make folks want to upgrade.

People need to look at how much of Nintendo's profit comes from actually selling switch hardware. It's significant. 40%-50% of revenue is hardware. If the ability to reduce hardware costs is shrinking then Nintendo is not going to sell this thing at $350 or even $400 if the profitability is shit. Whatever they price it at, it isn't going to get an official price cut for years if at all. There may be a lite version but the main unit isn't going to be priced in a way that the hardware doesn't generate increasing profit with time. They'll try other avenues to increase the appeal of the hardware like bundles but they wont pass the savings on to consumers when it is much more difficult to squeeze savings out of modern devices.

This console is not going to cost $350. It will be $400 minimum and I'd actually bet on $450.
Click to expand...
But what they will have to ask themselves how big will the market be for a $450 Switch 2? I don't think its close to 150 million, and in Japan the sales comparison to Switch 1 won't be pretty.

I just think this era when you want to release competitive spec hardware like Nintendo wants to do with Switch 2 and make it a mass user device ultimately means you can no longer profit from hardware sales, at least for the first few years on the market. The growth in revenue needs to come more from microtransactions and other services that will be part of the Switch 2, rather than the price of the hardware itself. That is why Playstation has their PS + and Xbox their gamepass, its those kind of services that are the growth revenue compared to previous gen.
 
This topic is fruitless, but if it's $450 I do look forward to just how much market appeal there is beyond hardcore Nintendo fans, and they'd better put out a lot of quality games in the first year.
 
Dakhil said:
Unless in North America where the warranty is one year.
Click to expand...
HAH NA

4x.webp
I'm sorry for this immature comment, I'll reflect on it and grow to be a better person.
 
0
Dakhil said:
news.samsung.com

Samsung Showcases AI-Era Vision and Latest Foundry Technologies at SFF 2024

Cutting-edge 2nm and 4nm process nodes revealed, as well as turnkey Samsung AI Solutions to meet growing AI demand SAFE Forum and inaugural MDI Alliance workshop will run the day after SFF to foster stronger collaborations and discuss advanced packaging designs
news.samsung.com news.samsung.com
Click to expand...
www.anandtech.com

Samsung Foundry Unveils Updated Roadmap: BSPDN and 2nm Evolution Through 2027

www.anandtech.com www.anandtech.com
⋮
"We have refined and improved the SF3P, resulting in what we now refer to as SF2," a Samsung spokesperson told AnandTech. "This enhanced node incorporates various process design improvements, delivering notable power, performance, and area (PPA) benefits."
⋮
Click to expand...
💀
www.gpuscore.com

Coming soon - Breaking Limit | GPUScore

www.gpuscore.com www.gpuscore.com
 
Kenka said:
By the by, it is plausible that the next Switch removes features found in the current one. It happened in the past (see virtual console).
Click to expand...
I don't think it was just removed but re-purposed. Should we just buy back all our VC library? Don't get me wrong, I don't think they handled it the best but it is different.

Edit: I would like to think that Nintendo is seeing the VC from a project perspective rather than a consumer's library perspective. Each project is different. Different team, different systems, and different language. You have to start over, add new features.
 
400$ would make sense, since that was the PS4 launch price, but 450$ for a competitive handheld might convince people of buying it since it’ll be able to play NG games in it.

But I truly think it’s 400$, also it’s important to note that when the Switch price was revealed a lot people were convinced that it would be a failure because of the steep price of 300$.

I think we’ll somewhat hear similar reactions to hardcore internet space if it’s between 400$-450$, but It’ll somehow sale, like the Switch Oled is more expensive than the series s, despite it being weaker, people love the idea of portable systems.
 
Steve said:
400$ would make sense, since that was the PS4 launch price, but 450$ for a competitive handheld might convince people of buying it since it’ll be able to play NG games in it.

But I truly think it’s 400$, also it’s important to note that when the Switch price was revealed a lot people were convinced that it would be a failure because of the steep price of 300$.

I think we’ll somewhat hear similar reactions to hardcore internet space if it’s between 400$-450$, but It’ll somehow sale, like the Switch Oled is more expensive than the series s, despite it being weaker, people love the idea of portable systems.
Click to expand...
Third party NG's couldn't entice more people to buy the switch2 because of the ROG series of handhelds which are more powerful on portable consoles, however the ROG ally didn't sell as well as the steam deck. the fact is that there doesn't need to be any debate about this, the market is more interested in how many quality first party games Nintendo can provide for this console, third parties can only be successful on the switch2 if the first party is successful. The switch2 is still a reference to the WIIU, there were already quite a few third parties providing games for the WIIU in 2012 and 2013, however the problem was that Nintendo's first party games were experiencing difficulties in developing WIIU games at this point due to the division of forces developing games for the 3DS.
 
Serif said:
Unlike VC, NSO is a subscription service meant to keep people paying yearly. There's no incentive to remove NSO since people are already 'rebuying' access to games they already paid for. And VC is not so much a 'feature' as it is software (and when they had the ability to carry it over - they did, between Wii and Wii U). If you wanted to point out actual features that were lost between generations, you could point to the missing cameras and microphone between Wii U and Switch. But we know they are adding a microphone. And it is unlikely that software features would disappear between Switch 1 and 2, since the OS is built on the same foundation.
Click to expand...
We agree on that. My remark was about the streaming services. There are no part of any subscription and they can possibly be axed.
 
fwd-bwd said:
Within System 18.1.0, there’s also a tantalizing—albeit extremely tangential—data point that might point to a new StreetPass/SpotPass. According to SwitchBrew (h/t @Pokemaniac), the license for FlatBuffers was added to the System’s legal text. FlatBuffers is a serialization library that allows data to be moved quickly and efficiently. Nintendo previously used FlatBuffers in SSBU, but it is unclear why the library is added to the System right at the moment of X being kicked out? Knowing that Facebook app uses FlatBuffers to speed up client-server communications, I wonder if Nintendo is prepping their own social channel to replace X and Facebook. Can that be a revamped StreetPass/SpotPass?
Click to expand...

The answer is more obvious than you think, They've switched old "npns" servers that used XMPP protocol to send push notifications to Nintendo devices to new "penne" servers that use custom protocol using FlatBuffers for serialization in firmware 18.x. This was most likely done mainly for bandwidth saving and more flexibility.
 
Considering the success of the Switch, I believe it can be inferred that the third party is irrelevant.
Use some simple numbers to illustrate this point.
Even if they were taken away, Nintendo's profits would decrease by up to 30%. Not to mention that a considerable portion will not disappear directly. I think Nintendo should re-examine its attitude towards third parties. If their first party games can earn an additional 25% of money through movies and amusement parks and others, third parties will reduce their profits.

So, the role of the third party should be mainly to fill the gap period in the game industry. It is not the object of striving to reduce the profits of consoles.
 
Secu said:
Considering the success of the Switch, I believe it can be inferred that the third party is irrelevant.
Use some simple numbers to illustrate this point.
Even if they were taken away, Nintendo's profits would decrease by up to 30%. Not to mention that a considerable portion will not disappear directly. I think Nintendo should re-examine its attitude towards third parties. If their first party games can earn an additional 25% of money through movies and amusement parks and others, third parties will reduce their profits.

So, the role of the third party should be mainly to fill the gap period in the game industry. It is not the object of striving to reduce the profits of consoles.
Click to expand...
That's not to say that Nintendo doesn't need third parties, but whether or not a third party chooses the switch2 or whether or not a third party can succeed on the switch2 depends on whether or not Nintendo's first party games can sustain the switch2 as a whole, Nintendo isn't Sony, it can only rely on itself to succeed.
 
Kenka said:
We agree on that. My remark was about the streaming services. There are no part of any subscription and they can possibly be axed.
Click to expand...
Why? These apps are basically just web pages and tied to individual accounts users have with Hulu or YouTube whoever. What reason would Nintendo have to dissolve their licensing agreements with those companies and remove them? For all their insistence that the Switch is dedicated to gaming, they were still ok with these apps on their device.
 
Secu said:
Considering the success of the Switch, I believe it can be inferred that the third party is irrelevant.
Use some simple numbers to illustrate this point.
Even if they were taken away, Nintendo's profits would decrease by up to 30%. Not to mention that a considerable portion will not disappear directly. I think Nintendo should re-examine its attitude towards third parties. If their first party games can earn an additional 25% of money through movies and amusement parks and others, third parties will reduce their profits.

So, the role of the third party should be mainly to fill the gap period in the game industry. It is not the object of striving to reduce the profits of consoles.
Click to expand...
To say third parties are irrelevant is misleading at best. It's not a coincidence that their worst selling systems had poor third party support and their most profitable systems had great third party support. They shouldn't be taken for granted
 
ILikeFeet said:
To say third parties are irrelevant is misleading at best. It's not a coincidence that their worst selling systems had poor third party support and their most profitable systems had great third party support. They shouldn't be taken for granted
Click to expand...
There are too many variables, and it can also be said that due to the COVID, high rated works such as BOTW and Odyssey, Hybrid game consoles, aimed at home blue ocean users, and supported by Pokémon. And I think most of the above are more important than third-party support.
 
Danny said:
But what they will have to ask themselves how big will the market be for a $450 Switch 2? I don't think its close to 150 million, and in Japan the sales comparison to Switch 1 won't be pretty.
Click to expand...
The Switch 2 is not selling 150m regardless of what Nintendo does. We aren't having another global pandemic. Anyone who thinks this is already operating from a false premise.
 
One thing that is discuss here is, will be game on Switch 2 that, thanks to the resources, will looks better than the XBOX Series S's counterpart?

That video compare some UE5 games on DECK vs SS shows us that, yes, it will be possible:



I'm impressed to see some games with a better look on Steam Deck.
 
I'd like to propose an opposite conclusion to this thread, I think the switch2 specs as we currently know them are actually conducive to Nintendo first party custom development environments that will want to take advantage of most of the 9th and 10th gen graphical features, and since they aren't chasing the realism of the graphical race, they can take advantage of the hardware's features and performance to its fullest potential, and for third parties the switch2 specs are undoubtedly "good enough", but will need to be individually optimized and ported to the dlss environments.
 
Gotdatmoneyy said:
The Switch 2 is not selling 150m regardless of what Nintendo does. We aren't having another global pandemic. Anyone who thinks this is already operating from a false premise.
Click to expand...

Ehh, the Switch 2 could sell 150m if hardware improvements over the next decade are so bad that it doesn't make sense to release the Switch 3 for like 10-12 years.

Which I think is on the table.

Selling at the same pace as the Switch 1 is off the table without massive sales expansion from China/India/Africa that is possible, but as possible as like getting your car struck by lightning twice in five minutes in a light rain storm.
 
BDGAME said:
One thing that is discuss here is, will be game on Switch 2 that, thanks to the resources, will looks better than the XBOX Series S's counterpart?

That video compare some UE5 games on DECK vs SS shows us that, yes, it will be possible:

Click to expand...

There's definitely a chance. More available RAM capacity, hardware accelerated RT, and DLSS - there may be games where the Switch 2 version could produce an overall 'better image' even if the settings are dialed back.

Though in this video, it looks like they're comparing the games running on the Steam Deck's 720p screen to Series S. If you adjusted the settings per-game on the Steam Deck to hit a 1080p-1440p output, I don't think it would fare as well. And the Switch 2 needs separate portable and docked modes.
 
Secu said:
There are too many variables, and it can also be said that due to the COVID, high rated works such as BOTW and Odyssey, Hybrid game consoles, aimed at home blue ocean users, and supported by Pokémon. And I think most of the above are more important than third-party support.
Click to expand...
with third party games comprising of over 50% of software sales, Nintendo makes a pretty penny from third party sales when hardware profits are taken out. everything is important, which is why Nintendo makes such a big push for third party support as they do
 
Discostew said:
But that's just it. Wii was selling well at $249. The 360 was selling well at $399. PS3 sold horribly at $599, regardless of what it could do. Now we're comparing what's practically a portable to a home console by doing Switch 2 vs PS5/SeriesX, where it's close to the price of a system much stronger. And then there's the Series S. Whatever people may think about it, it sold for $300 at launch, and has a decent attach rate which gets discounted often. Switch 2 is theorized to hit Series S levels in some ways (not all), and putting a price tag of $150+ over that might turn people away. It will have to be more expensive than it with all things considered, but there's a point where the $50 difference between $400 and $450 will put people off.
Click to expand...

I'm saying the PS3 have competition at a much lower price. If they are put off by the Switch 2 price, their options are the other console that costs more. From what I see Series S is even selling lower than the current Switch which cost more and much weaker hardware. People understand not comparing their mobile device with a stationary machine on the same standard.

ZonaiResearcher said:
Conversely, the iPad Pro is not being aimed at kids or families, certainly not at the $999 price. Right now the Switch is so cheap, that some families will have both an iPad or a Switch or Switch Lite for their kids, I've seen it at airports all the time. Some families might prefer to give kids a Switch instead of an iPad because it's "safer" in terms of not having a web browser or social media apps where they might be exposed to objectionable content. Or the kid wants to play Mario games so they end up getting the Switch as well. In the end, any portable device that plays games is a competitor for Switch 2, because it's going up against smartphone and tablet gaming as well as the Steam Decks and Windows Steam Deck competitors. If people are playing games on a non-Nintendo handheld, that's a problem for Nintendo because they are the dominant portable console maker. They have to make the Switch 2 compelling enough that someone thinking of getting their kid an iPad to play games on wants to (or their kid wants) the Switch 2 instead.
Click to expand...

If family want to move on from the Switch to play modern games, their only other option beside Switch 2 are PC handheld and iPad Pro. Both cost much more.
 
gabeplays said:
Thank you for explaining! I never owned a 3DS and wasn't really gaming much during that generation, so the entire "mea culpa" went by me -- I had heard that they charged too much and then had to price-drop.
Click to expand...
Percentage-wise, it is probably second only to the PS2->PS3 jump. The cheaper $500 launch PS3 would've been about the same change as DS->3DS, while the $600 one was of course a further stretch beyond.
Aufhebung RPG said:
I don't know if there's any precedent for setting the price between x00-x50, like $420 or $410, etc., since most modern console pricing I know of would be choosing between $x99 x $49.
Click to expand...
It has definitely happened, but I can't offhand think of a case of it happening when the price was over $200. I suppose at that point the effect of a 10 or 20 change doesn't seem like much.
Discostew said:
Is $450+ even acceptable? Honestly, there's the market to take into account, where pricing something too high will place it outside of it. Just look at the PS3. Even with incredible specs (regardless of how devs could use it), it did not sell well at launch, even for being the cheapest Bluray and causing Sony a heavy loss per unit. It followed what ended up being the top-selling console of all time. We can't expect people to just flock to the Switch 2 and plop down $450-500 because of the Switch 1.
Click to expand...
The equivalent of PS3 pricing in modern times would be if Nintendo tried launching with two SKUs: $800 and $950. $450 is still probably cheaper for 2025 than the no-hard-drive Xbox 360 Core model was back in the day.
 
0
RedSpring said:
I'm saying the PS3 have competition at a much lower price. If they are put off by the Switch 2 price, their options are the other console that costs more. From what I see Series S is even selling lower than the current Switch which cost more and much weaker hardware. People understand not comparing their mobile device with a stationary machine on the same standard.



If family want to move on from the Switch to play modern games, their only other option beside Switch 2 are PC handheld and iPad Pro. Both cost much more.
Click to expand...
If the switch2 will be sold for $450, the price isn't much lower than current pc handhelds and higher than steam decks.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this new, consolidated staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited by a moderator:


Back
Top Bottom