• So how about that Nintendo Direct? WestEgg, Irene, VolcanicDynamo, and Special Guest Aurc give our thoughts on the June Direct, including a deep look at the Metroid Prime 4 reveal! Check it out here!

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

Okay, i think until Pyoro actually leaks something about Switch 2, we should better go back discussing if Wilds will be on Switch 2 and why it will be 400 bucks. ;D
 
So the others post a date and even time period of the direct = not proving it

Pyoro asking where the direct is = doing it again like the godking he is!

Got it. Amazing logic. Totally not laughable.
I feel like if you have previously complained about the toxicity in this thread then you should try not to contribute to it.
 
Interesting enough, it’s seems that Series S is capable of running starfield at 60-120fps, the only downside would be that the resolution would be 900p.

Makes me intrigued how the Switch 2 would run most games, since developers will be able to run these games at lower resolution, without anyone batting an eye.


"Game can run at 120 fps, except it very clearly can't. Anyway, here is video of it looking like smeary ass. Lazy devs!"

Can you imagine the backlash if Microsoft's big Xbox exclusive looked as bad as that video? And the same people up in arms about it are the same people saying "60fps wen lazy devs" right now.
 
I feel like if you have previously complained about the toxicity in this thread then you should try not to contribute to it.
feel free to report me.

This is merely not the same as talking down to people because they don't believe the going theories about when the system will come out. But go off.
 
feel free to report me.

This is merely not the same as talking down to people because they don't believe the going theories about when the system will come out. But go off.
Gotcha. Didn't realize it was acceptable to insult the intelligence of users regarding some topics but not others.
 
"Game can run at 120 fps, except it very clearly can't. Anyway, here is video of it looking like smeary ass. Lazy devs!"

Can you imagine the backlash if Microsoft's big Xbox exclusive looked as bad as that video? And the same people up in arms about it are the same people saying "60fps wen lazy devs" right now.
At the very least, it demonstrates that Starfield is not necessarily as CPU-locked as was originally claimed. Seems like it might be workable on a Drake-class processor.
 
At the very least, it demonstrates that Starfield is not necessarily as CPU-locked as was originally claimed. Seems like it might be workable on a Drake-class processor.
This test certainly cements my belief that Switch's CPU can do it, you're right.

I remember the discourse around launch was that Bethesda should just lower it to 1080p on Series X and give us a 60fps version. This looks to have lowered visual settings below the lowest PC settings. All ground foliage is removed, crowd density is lowered below PC's low setting, volumetric lighting is disabled, and shadow quality is turned below PC settings.

The Switch CPU might be able to finish in the required 33.3 ms, but how much time is left over for the GPU? I mean, I'd probably play it ;)
 
fair but I'm glad you all can finally agree. Maybe this thread will finally change.
I've always agreed, I've just been too conflict avoidant to say, to someone like you who is usually a good thread member, "Hey, outta line." The fact that you pushed back shows why. If you want the thread to change, you gotta take the L with some grace.
 
This test certainly cements my belief that Switch's CPU can do it, you're right.

I remember the discourse around launch was that Bethesda should just lower it to 1080p on Series X and give us a 60fps version. This looks to have lowered visual settings below the lowest PC settings. All ground foliage is removed, crowd density is lowered below PC's low setting, volumetric lighting is disabled, and shadow quality is turned below PC settings.

The Switch CPU might be able to finish in the required 33.3 ms, but how much time is left over for the GPU? I mean, I'd probably play it ;)
Have you read DF's technical analysis of Doom the dark ages? Can we expect a version of the same graphical caliber that can be played on switch2 with basically no cuts?
 
Have you read DF's technical analysis of Doom the dark ages? Can we expect a version of the same graphical caliber that can be played on switch2 with basically no cuts?
I don't think we'll get a PS5 version with no cuts. 4k, no upscaling - 90% certain that was a work-in-progress PC version, and was not running at anything like console-target settings.
 
I don't think we'll get a PS5 version with no cuts. 4k, no upscaling - 90% certain that was a work-in-progress PC version, and was not running at anything like console-target settings.
Oh, sure. But I'm just curious if the amount of model geometry shown in the trailer and the RT effects are ok in getting it to run on switch2. (could be 30fps)
 
Wow. First time hearing this sentiment. I always felt that the Switch's aiming was a pretty significant upgrade to the Wii's. Very interesting! I guess I need to do a direct comparison before I disagree, eh? 🤔
my first thought playing Galaxy 1, Metroid Prime Remastered, Pikmin 4 using pointer controls was wow this is worse than using the same control scheme on Wii/WIi U
 
The Switch CPU might be able to finish in the required 33.3 ms, but how much time is left over for the GPU? I mean, I'd probably play it ;)
Remember that a game that isn't latency sensitive, and/or needs all the headroom it can get for performance, doesn't use a shared CPU and GPU frame time, so there's no "left over."
 
Oh, sure. But I'm just curious if the amount of model geometry shown in the trailer and the RT effects are ok in getting it to run on switch2. (could be 30fps)
I would assume not, just out of pessimism. I assume that this level of geometry is possible, if you're investing all your energy into a game built around a highly optimized virtual geometry system. But that's not realistic for an actual port. And with only two minutes of incomplete footage running on unknown hardware, it's really grasping in the dark.

The only thing I feel good about saying is that the Switch 2 port of this will look closer to the other console versions than the Switch version of Doom/Doom Eternal.
 
Hi everyone, just a quick note that Hocot8 has requested a three-week threadban, which we have followed through on in accordance with his wishes.

– MissingNo., Dardan Sandiego, Zellia
 
It would be super interesting to me if they upgraded BotW and TotK for Switch 2’s launch. It would be easy money while also giving the Zelda team experience using the new hardware.

Sooo many compromises were made to bring the games to life on Wii U / Switch from an extreme use of lod’s, low texture resolution, low to no aa/af, low poly (at times 2D billboard) foliage, then obviously the games run at sub 900p / 30fps a lot of the time on Switch.

It would be a shame and a missed opportunity if they just released a simple patch to increase resolution and frame rate imo. These games deserve a good coat of paint and polish because imo they’re masterpieces that were massively held back visually by the hardware they were released on. Imagine they got the two games looking like the very first bullshot reveal of BotW on Switch 2…
 
Do we have any reason to believe it won't work just like on PC and each game will use whatever safe/known version of DLSS they've chosen to stick with? In which case the game might look better if it gets an update later, which is true of any game since online updates became possible.

It's hard to say until we actually see the thing. I'd like to think there would be immediate improvements to OG Switch games simply by running it through a Switch 2. I'd also like to think that we would instantly see improvements to any game via DLSS updates.

But chances are likely that these things will require dedicated patches to make the most of what the Switch 2 can do or DLSS updates. So a Switch 1 game, like Breath of the Wild, would instantly run better on a Switch 2 but would need patch to ensure it's making the most of what the Switch 2 can do.

Nintendo really loves to effectively stay on the same generation of game console graphics for 2 whole generations since the Wii. In hindsight this is a good thing though. They can make sure developing games take a more reasonable 3-4 years to make instead of basically the whole generation, as their internal dev teams get used to making games of similar graphical fidelity for their next project.

I still think PS4 level visuals are breathtaking and barely age, so being stuck with essentially PS4.5 visuals even for the console after the Switch 2 won't bother me. Though i believe the next-next gen will aim for at least PS5 power so basically half a generational leap but with a completely new concept. (Sounds familiar?)

I can't see Nintendo keep making more powerful Switches for a long time and Switch 2 will be as far as they'll go. They have a tendency of changing things up after 2 generations of the same concept, as usually the successor doesn't stick as well as the predecessor that did introduce the concept.

Agree with everything! we've been living with "PS3.5" visuals since the Wii days and It'll be a huge leap for Nintendo to finally take the next step. I'm not saying I don't see the differences between a PS4 Pro and PS5, the same way I can see the differences between a 2k and 4k image, but the differences are getting smaller and smaller -- and there's no getting around that PS4 Pro games look amazing. Heck, the PS4 looks amazing to this day. I'm sure at some point in the 2030's that we'll start to see them getting closer to PS5-level fidelity with the next console (if not with grunt, then certainly via DLSS), but I agree that being stuck with PS4.5 visuals for two generations is not bad at all!

and I do agree that the console after Switch 2 will be something different. Nintendo are innovators and I wouldn't want them to completely give up on gimmicks and off-the-wall concepts. I'm happy the Switch 2 exists because the Switch 1 was simply too popular and successful for them not do an iterative successor, but I wouldn't want them to just make Switches forever.

The analog of switch2 is xss, not ps4 or ps4pro, maybe so from a power perspective only, but ps4pro absolutely, positively does not accomplish switch2's primary goal of RT and better textures, And thanks to dlss so switch2 can run Doom The Dark ages at basically the same level of graphics as xss.The ps4pro can't.

Well, the reason I brought up the PS4 Pro is because, until we actually have the Switch 2 in our hands, it's hard to say where the needle actually sits between a PS4 Pro and Series S.

It's not a 1:1 comparison and it's likely the Series S has some extra grunt in some areas where the Switch 2 has DLSS and slightly more modern hardware in others. I'd like to think the visual output with create an experience that's scarily close to the Series S; close enough that the layperson probably won't tell the difference.

What we can definitely say is that the Switch 2 will have far more modern hardware than the PS4 Pro. The CPU is a little more than half of a PS5 and will run circles around the old Jaguars. It'll have DLSS. The 9th generation is marked by things like a modern CPU, super fast loading times, upscaling technologies...and the Switch 2 will have all these bells and whistles as a true 9th gen console. It might not have the grunt of either the PS4 Pro or Series S, but it'll punch far above it's weight. What that actually looks like in practice, I don't know and won't until we actually see this thing in action. But it feels safest to just say "It's comparable to a PS4 Pro/Series S in docked mode", even though we know it's far closer to the latter than the former. In handheld mode, it'll be at least as good, if not better, than the Steam Deck since that's basically a portable computer. This is a super-lean gaming console with DLSS that devs can tailor games for.



Second mention of the successor by Big N


Honestly, I hadn't expected them to bring it up again. I'm feeling this really is going to be the last main Switch direct and, whatever comes after this, is likely to center around the Switch 2.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I hadn't expected them to bring it up again. I'm feeling this really is going to be the last main Switch direct and, whatever comes after this, is likely to center around the Switch 2.

Yup you can tell they're about to explode, I think we get the reveal either in July earliest or September/Oct latest.
 
Yup you can tell they're about to explode, I think we get the reveal either in July earliest or September/Oct latest.

I would be shocked if we heard something this summer. My gut is telling me that September/October is when the announcement is made, the unveiling happens January 2025, and the console hits stores in March 2025.
 
0
I'd also like to think that we would instantly see improvements to any game via DLSS updates.
We will not. This idea comes up a lot, but the Nvidia hack already showed how it works. DLSS is part of NVN2, NVN gets bundled with games, not built into the OS.

This is a good thing. Driver updates in the PC space break games all the time. DLSS doesn't just improve, but changes how it favors fast motion over stable images. Changing the DLSS version underneath games might improve some and make others worse. By making games ship, essentially, the driver they tested on, and only using that driver, you fix both these problems on consoles.

By the time Switch 2 releases, DLSS Super Resolution will be 5 years old. Major updates are getting slower and slower. It's pretty likely that all games on Switch 2 will be using very close to the "best" version of Super Resolution possible.
 
We will not. This idea comes up a lot, but the Nvidia hack already showed how it works. DLSS is part of NVN2, NVN gets bundled with games, not built into the OS.

This is a good thing. Driver updates in the PC space break games all the time. DLSS doesn't just improve, but changes how it favors fast motion over stable images. Changing the DLSS version underneath games might improve some and make others worse. By making games ship, essentially, the driver they tested on, and only using that driver, you fix both these problems on consoles.

By the time Switch 2 releases, DLSS Super Resolution will be 5 years old. Major updates are getting slower and slower. It's pretty likely that all games on Switch 2 will be using very close to the "best" version of Super Resolution possible.
I suppose that also leaves open the possibility for specially trained release-specific DLSS models?
 
"It's comparable to a PS4 Pro/Series S in docked mode"
Just to add, from what we know of the switch2's custom specs, it's a console developed entirely for 9th gen tech, so it's really close to the xss both in terms of the actual graphics and the positioning of the console itself, though I'd be safe in assuming that the graphical ceiling of the xss is higher than the switch2's considering the xss has the raw power advantage of the cpu and gpu specs, but it's true that there will be a lot of new 9th gen entries where you're basically not going to see the difference between the xss and the switch2 in docked mode.

dlss has really changed the whole game.
 
Just to add, from what we know of the switch2's custom specs, it's a console developed entirely for 9th gen tech, so it's really close to the xss both in terms of the actual graphics and the positioning of the console itself, though I'd be safe in assuming that the graphical ceiling of the xss is higher than the switch2's considering the xss has the raw power advantage of the cpu and gpu specs, but it's true that there will be a lot of new 9th gen entries where you're basically not going to see the difference between the xss and the switch2 in docked mode.

dlss has really changed the whole game.
Looking back I really don't know what my expectations were with Switch. I know the talk prelaunch was "around x360 in tflops" portable.

I was just excited to play BotW and to see Nintendo work with a much more powerful device

I think the earliest inkling I had something was different was fairly early whe UE4 game called Snake Pass by Sumo digital released on all Platforms and the Switch version Compared favorably.

I feel like we've fallen into a new normal of expecting ports of PS4 /Xbone games being possible and Switch isn't just a box for playing X360 games. But I'm not sure yet folks are aware that the gap will close further with Switch 2 with Dlss and the SoC itself being very capable.
 
Last edited:
Just to add, from what we know of the switch2's custom specs, it's a console developed entirely for 9th gen tech, so it's really close to the xss both in terms of the actual graphics and the positioning of the console itself, though I'd be safe in assuming that the graphical ceiling of the xss is higher than the switch2's considering the xss has the raw power advantage of the cpu and gpu specs, but it's true that there will be a lot of new 9th gen entries where you're basically not going to see the difference between the xss and the switch2 in docked mode.

dlss has really changed the whole game.

Agree completely. The Switch 2 is a true 9th gen console in every sense of the word. If not in power, then certainly in features. All the trappings of a 9th gen console -- super fast load times, a modern CPU, upscaling, etc -- will be available on the new hardware. What that means in practice is that the Switch 2 will be on-par with the Series S. The Xbox might have more juice in some areas, but the Switch 2 will have it in others.

On some level, it's probably silly to even compare the nitty-gritty. They're close enough that they're going to be best pals with each other at the bottom rung of the 9th gen ladder and, whatever the Series S has been getting, the Switch 2 easily should. That means all the 8th gen games that never made it to the Switch 1, the lion's share of 9th gen games, are totally feasible. Elden Ring, Baldur's Gate 3, the Resident Evil 4 remake, Final Fantasy 7 Remake (and probably FF16 and Rebirth)...all available portably and on the go.

Good times are ahead.
 
I feel like we've fallen into a new normal of expecting ports of PS4 /Xbone games being possible and Switch isn't just a box for playing X360 games. But I'm not sure yet folks are aware that the gap will close further with Switch 2 with Dlss and the SoC itself being very capable
In fact I agree with the idea that this gen Microsoft launching the xss has helped Nintendo to exactly erase the generation gap in a way that the switch era couldn't, not only because the switch2 had dlss, but also because Microsoft launched a low end gaming console.
 
Just to add, from what we know of the switch2's custom specs, it's a console developed entirely for 9th gen tech, so it's really close to the xss both in terms of the actual graphics and the positioning of the console itself, though I'd be safe in assuming that the graphical ceiling of the xss is higher than the switch2's considering the xss has the raw power advantage of the cpu and gpu specs, but it's true that there will be a lot of new 9th gen entries where you're basically not going to see the difference between the xss and the switch2 in docked mode.

dlss has really changed the whole game.
I am a total dunce when it comes to tech/spec stuff...so much of it goes over my head lol, what are we expecting for handheld performance?
 
I suppose that also leaves open the possibility for specially trained release-specific DLSS models?
I doubt game specific models make sense, but I do think that Nvidia may push more tuned presets. Right now there are 7 presets, 1 of which is unused, and 3 of which are essentially deprecated.

Preset C weighs the information extremely heavily. This means it tends to produce the most unstable image, as detail from older frames is less likely to be preserved, but it also produces the fewest motion/ghosting artifacts for the same reason. Nvidia suggests this for fast moving games

Preset E is the new default. It produces the most stable results, at the cost of possible artifacts. Interestingly, it's better at actually dropping old detail than preset D, which it replaced. So one of the things Nvidia has been improving is the ability for the model to make good decisions about when to keep detail and when to drop it.

Preset F is the Ultra Performance/DLAA preset. I wish I knew more about how this preset worked, because it's interesting that it is used both for the lowest quality and the highest quality modes (DLAA used to be called Ultra Quality).

The question is, how much further can Nvidia go with any of these things, and where might it be worth it? Maybe Nintendo uses ultra performance hard enough that Nvidia both has the training data and the motivation to push an update to mode F. Or maybe an ultra stable version of mode E, for highly cinematic games.

But from a Nintendo perspective, these would all be special opt-in DLSS modes for specific kinds of games. Maybe I'm wrong and Preset G comes out as a substantial upgrade over E, and it becomes the new default. But it feels like Super Resolution updates have slowed down as more and more games take advantage of it, and iron out the kinks.
 
Papagenos is predicting MP4 to release this year and previewed tomorrow. If that's the case then it could possibly mean Switch 2 is also releasing this year. Which would align with the funcle july mass-production rumors we've talked about on this thread



I can't see MP4 launching without the Switch 2 to be honest.
 
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