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

[gabeplays]

Looking back I really don't know what my expectations were with Switch. I know the talk relaunch 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.

This likely goes hand-in-hand with why so many people online have such pessimistic outlooks the Switch 2. It's been so normalized that Nintendo makes "weaker" hardware that every time there's a new leak, people are surprised. Everybody is wondering "what's the catch?", but there IS no catch. You'll be disappointed if you expected a PS5 Portable, but this is genuinely a powerful system in the works and that blows a lot of people's minds.

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?

Better than the Steam Deck since that doubles as a portable computer. This is much leaner, with built-in upscaling, and devs will be able to actually tailor games for.

 

[Jerm411]

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.

Don't do this to me lol...

 

[Dakhil]

Before I proceed, can everyone please take non-hardware and/or non-technology posts to Nintendo Switch 2 Speculation Thread |ST| The Future is Probably a Year From Now and [Spoilers Allowed] Nintendo Direct Speculation |ST8| Press Your (Nintendo Direct) Luck! [Read Staff Post]?

I'm really sick and tired of people going off-topic, which to be honest, is actually making going here less fun and enjoyable for me.

---

Anyhow, assuming this is accurate, Samsung can't catch a break.

Samsung needs to a pull a miracle before any company seriously considers choosing Samsung.

 

[Mr Swine]

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?

The game will definitely have cuts when it arrives on Switch 2. Lower geometry, less foliage, worse particle effects and so on compared to Series S. Only few advantages is if the game has RT, textures closer to the Series X and PS5 thanks to more ram and will probably look cleaner/sharper running on DLSS compared to FSR2 on lower resolution

 

[oldpuck]

I can't imagine a Switch 2 release this year. Not with Nintendo laying out the remainder of the year in a dedicated Switch Direct. And I really don't see how MP4 premiering in a dedicated Switch Direct lends more credence to Switch 2 releasing this year.

Is it really so hard to imagine the best looking game on a system being late in the system's lifetime? Is it really so hard to imagine a game releasing on the platform it was announced for?

 

[NinSense]

I can see Switch 2 not using DLSS at all and still making genuinely impressive games I base that on the conversation that digital foundry had about DLSS being too costly for Switch 2 ironically I think we will See the AMD open source implementation used more. I will laugh so hard if this turns out to be true.
Also on a separate note a response to the logic argument earlier in this thread, we are all speculating at this point and until we have the unit in hand and we are 6 months out and see what the developers do with the hardware we don't really have any idea what it will be capable of.
If it literally just looks like Switch+ games but runs native res 60FPS Meaning a game like Doom Eternal or Breath of the Wild can run1080p60 1440p60 with Minor graphical Updates I would be happy. It's good to set low expectations and be surprised then have unreasonable ones and be disappointed.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

The game will definitely have cuts when it arrives on Switch 2. Lower geometry, less foliage, worse particle effects and so on compared to Series S. Only few advantages is if the game has RT, textures closer to the Series X and PS5 thanks to more ram and will probably look cleaner/sharper running on DLSS compared to FSR2 on lower resolution

None of this matters, the cuts were inevitable, but being able to get very close to 9th gen console graphics compared to switch's doom2016 and doom eternal is already a huge improvement.Also the demo shows that there is quite a bit of ray tracing, and since the RT performance of switch2 is quite a bit better than xss, we can expect a of RT performance from The Dark Ages on switch2.

 

[AxkilAvenger]

I can see Switch 2 not using DLSS at all and still making genuinely impressive games I base that on the conversation that digital foundry had about DLSS being too costly for Switch 2 ironically I think we will See the AMD open source implementation used more. I will laugh so hard if this turns out to be true.
Also on a separate note a response to the logic argument earlier in this thread, we are all speculating at this point and until we have the unit in hand and we are 6 months out and see what the developers do with the hardware we don't really have any idea what it will be capable of.
If it literally just looks like Switch+ games but runs native res 60FPS Meaning a game like Doom Eternal or Breath of the Wild can run1080p60 1440p60 with Minor graphical Updates I would be happy. It's good to set low expectations and be surprised then have unreasonable ones and be disappointed.

What you described in your last paragraph sounds like the cancelled switch pro.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

Switch ain’t coming out this year.

That’s silly talk.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

I can see Switch 2 not using DLSS at all and still making genuinely impressive games I base that on the conversation that digital foundry had about DLSS being too costly for Switch 2 ironically I think we will See the AMD open source implementation used more. I will laugh so hard if this turns out to be true.
Also on a separate note a response to the logic argument earlier in this thread, we are all speculating at this point and until we have the unit in hand and we are 6 months out and see what the developers do with the hardware we don't really have any idea what it will be capable of.
If it literally just looks like Switch+ games but runs native res 60FPS Meaning a game like Doom Eternal or Breath of the Wild can run1080p60 1440p60 with Minor graphical Updates I would be happy. It's good to set low expectations and be surprised then have unreasonable ones and be disappointed.

DF is referring to the fact that 4k has a high frame time cost, but 1440p has a reasonable frame time cost.

 

[rickyson33]

I honestly think there's a higher chance of the Switch 2 releasing in 2027 than there is of it releasing this year

yes I said 2027, not even 2026 that's how much it's not releasing this year

 

[Steve]

Before I proceed, can everyone please take non-hardware and/or non-technology posts to Nintendo Switch 2 Speculation Thread |ST| The Future is Probably a Year From Now and [Spoilers Allowed] Nintendo Direct Speculation |ST8| Press Your (Nintendo Direct) Luck! [Read Staff Post]?

I'm really sick and tired of people going off-topic, which to be honest, is actually making going here less fun and enjoyable for me.

---

Anyhow, assuming this is accurate, Samsung can't catch a break.

Samsung needs to a pull a miracle before any company seriously considers choosing Samsung.

Wouldn't Samsung desperation let Nintendo get a better deal of off 8nm node.

Also i'm guessing because of the low yield, that Nintendo will also calculate and realise, choosing Samsung as a node supplier isn't the best idea and will instaed choose TSMC, but wouldn't node be one of the first thing chosen, when it came to making the Custom Tegra 239, like couldn't Nintendo just say ,, We don't want anything too fancy, make it work best for 8nm''. Instead i'm guessing we got ,,We want a competitive handheld, that's capapble of RT, DLSS and the ability of future proofing our system, so let's pay a little more for an 4nm TSMC''.

Like the only thing not making me lean to 8nm, is that Nintendo is paying for a custom chip, in which Nintendo as the say of it's capability and using a 8nm would pretty much be a waste of money and time, if they don't want to utilise the CPU at it's fullest, which would be vastly different than the Tegra 1X, which is 16nm, compared to the 28nm, that i think 1X used.

 

[Teal'c]

Don't do this to me lol...

It seems difficult to me for that to happen.
Excluding a December launch there would be a window of only five months (July-November) to announce it and release it. They might as well since its existence has been admitted, but I believe 2024 is simply the last year dedicated entirely to Switch.

Maybe tomorrow we will have some (hidden) clues from the Direct.

 

[Dakhil]

Wouldn't Samsung desperation let Nintendo get a better deal of off 8nm node.

Also i'm guessing because of the low yield, that Nintendo will also calculate and realise, choosing Samsung as a node supplier isn't the best idea and will instaed choose TSMC, but wouldn't node be one of the first thing chosen, when it came to making the Custom Tegra 239, like couldn't Nintendo just say ,, We don't want anything too fancy, make it work best for 8nm''. Instead i'm guessing we got ,,We want a competitive handheld, that's capapble of RT, DLSS and the ability of future proofing our system, so let's pay a little more for an 4nm TSMC''.

Like the only thing not making me lean to 8nm, is that Nintendo is paying for a custom chip, in which Nintendo as the say of it's capability and using a 8nm would pretty much be a waste of money and time, if they don't want to utilise the CPU at it's fullest, which would be vastly different than the Tegra 1X, which is 16nm, compared to the 28nm, that i think 1X used.

Nintendo doesn't secure process node capacity directly. Nvidia does on behalf on Nintendo.

That's hard to say since no one here is privy to those details. But I'm confident Nintendo and Nvidia made the final decision on which process node to use by the time Nintendo and Nvidia are ready to tape out.

The Tegra X1 was fabricated using TSMC's 20 nm* process node, not TSMC's 28 nm* process node.

* → a marketing nomenclature used by all foundry companies

 

[Concernt]

I can see Switch 2 not using DLSS at all and still making genuinely impressive games I base that on the conversation that digital foundry had about DLSS being too costly for Switch 2 ironically I think we will See the AMD open source implementation used more. I will laugh so hard if this turns out to be true.
Also on a separate note a response to the logic argument earlier in this thread, we are all speculating at this point and until we have the unit in hand and we are 6 months out and see what the developers do with the hardware we don't really have any idea what it will be capable of.
If it literally just looks like Switch+ games but runs native res 60FPS Meaning a game like Doom Eternal or Breath of the Wild can run1080p60 1440p60 with Minor graphical Updates I would be happy. It's good to set low expectations and be surprised then have unreasonable ones and be disappointed.

Being pessimistic is not the same thing as being realistic; it's an Nvidia designed SOC for a mobile device, and DLSS is more power efficient per pixel than native rendering. It's unrealistic to think that Nintendo won't make use of a marquee feature of hardware they are paying for. If they wanted to cut the ability to do DLSS, it could have saved silicon, and thus, costs, but they did not do that, all the while DLSS very much was mentioned in the Nvidia leak. If we doubt the relevance of that, why consider anything from that leak?

 

[Steve]

What's your thought @Brazil since you were at SGF.

 

[monkeygotyou]

What's your thought @Brazil since you were at SGF.

They all got it backwards. It actually got pushed FORWARD to Q4 2024 /j

 

[Discostew]

Being pessimistic is not the same thing as being realistic; it's an Nvidia designed SOC for a mobile device, and DLSS is more power efficient per pixel than native rendering. It's unrealistic to think that Nintendo won't make use of a marquee feature of hardware they are paying for. If they wanted to cut the ability to do DLSS, it could have saved silicon, and thus, costs, but they did not do that, all the while DLSS very much was mentioned in the Nvidia leak. If we doubt the relevance of that, why consider anything from that leak?

Same goes for other features, like ray tracing. They are having a custom SoC built. They wouldn't throw in tensor and RT cores into the design all willy-nilly if they didn't think about using them.

With regards to DF, I thought their claim of DLSS being expensive to use involved a game that forced certain post-processing effects (that is handled after upscaling), and/or didn't utilize DLSS in a concurrent manner.

 

[Concernt]

Same goes for other features, like ray tracing. They are having a custom SoC built. They wouldn't throw in tensor and RT cores into the design all willy-nilly if they didn't think about using them.

With regards to DF, I thought their claim of DLSS being expensive to use involved a game that forced certain post-processing effects (that is handled after upscaling), and/or didn't utilize DLSS in a concurrent manner.

On desktop hardware without specific optimisations, too. It's a flawed comparison, but it's valuable to know that DLSS will have frame time demands that aren't negligible.

 

[ILikeFeet]

What's your thought @Brazil since you were at SGF.

this is what I've been saying, for all the talk of a "delay", there wasn't any news of the supposed original date but everyone talked about the 2025 date

 

[Concernt]

What's your thought @Brazil since you were at SGF.

I find it very easy to believe it's always been planned for FY2025, and that gave them a nice wide berth.

 

[Steve]

I find it very easy to believe it's always been planned for FY2025, and that gave them a nice wide berth.

I'm just gonna copy my reply in the other thread.

other thread me:
I feel like Holiday launch was always meant ,,If we're finish with the Switch 2 line up, why not''.

Like the Switch 2 is probably Nintendo most important console to date, since the Switch has pretty much reset Nintendo for the better, some can say their currently in the PS1 phase, in which a new upcoming console was extremely popular over nowhere and the Switch 2, might be the PS2 of this generation and Nintendo has an actual shot to become the main market leader.

Like March 2025, makes so much sense, since it's a great way to build up inventory for the holiday and also letting all the hardcore enthusiast happy and meanwhile the Casual can wait until the holiday 2025 and have a huge library of games and scalping sadly happens the most in the holiday seasons, a good example would sadly be the PS5.

Also there's a chance that most large third party's like capcom and Sega knew the 2025 release, meanwhile smaller studios, got the ,,We're expecting a holiday 2024, we'll let you know if we'll delay''.

 

[Brazil]

What's your thought @Brazil since you were at SGF.

I believe I was very specific back in February in saying that some companies were already working with Q1 2025 as the planned release date for a while, while others were planning stuff for late 2024 and ended up surprised.

It's certainly possible that an internal delay never happened... but I know for a fact that some of the bigger devs were at least led to believe that they should have things ready by the end of the year.

 

[Steve]

I believe I was very specific back in February in saying that some companies were already working with Q1 2025 as the planned release date for a while, while others were planning stuff for late 2024 and ended up surprised.

It's certainly possible that an internal delay never happened... but I know for a fact that some of the bigger devs were at least led to believe that they should have things ready by the end of the year.

Thanks for the Reply man.

Also i never remember that ,,some companies were already working with Q1 2025 as the planned release date''.

I always remember the discussion being that most companies were surprised of the Delay, which would explain, why smaller studios were surprised.

 

[LiC]

It's certainly possible that an internal delay never happened... but I know for a fact that some of the bigger devs were at least led to believe that they should have things ready by the end of the year.

But that's not evidence that there was a delay. If Nintendo gave a window that included late 2024 and early 2025, then they have to get their game ready under the assumption that the launch is late 2024 until Nintendo provides more specific information, which by all accounts they only did early this year. So it makes complete sense.

Alternatively, you could also read that same information and conclude that the release was always early 2025 and Nintendo told them that, but having your game ready by the end of the year still makes sense for an early 2025 launch too. The former seems more likely since that more understandably leads to all the (bad) reporting about a 2024 launch window that happened around Gamescom, but either is possible.

 

[Instro]

The most likely option is that Nintendo told some parties a general piece of information(i.e. we will be launching in our FY25) and told other parties more specific information regarding March 2025. Whereas the former assumed it meant a holiday 2024 launch, and others already had the particular release date. That might be difference between those who already had a higher degree of access, and maybe those who didn't even have dev kits or whatever.

Nintendo has always been pretty limiting when it comes to providing information, technical specifics, dev kits, etc. And typically it's often been a "have" vs "have not" of who gets access. Everything we've heard about the Switch 2 seems indicative of that behavior continuing.

 

[Triistan]

I believe I was very specific back in February in saying that some companies were already working with Q1 2025 as the planned release date for a while, while others were planning stuff for late 2024 and ended up surprised.

It's certainly possible that an internal delay never happened... but I know for a fact that some of the bigger devs were at least led to believe that they should have things ready by the end of the year.

In Europe selected users had the New 3DS on “early access”, sometimes I wonder if they evaluated the possibility of doing the same thing with switch 2 to avoiding stock issues at the “true” launch.

 

[BDGAME]

I can see Switch 2 not using DLSS at all and still making genuinely impressive games I base that on the conversation that digital foundry had about DLSS being too costly for Switch 2 ironically I think we will See the AMD open source implementation used more. I will laugh so hard if this turns out to be true.
Also on a separate note a response to the logic argument earlier in this thread, we are all speculating at this point and until we have the unit in hand and we are 6 months out and see what the developers do with the hardware we don't really have any idea what it will be capable of.
If it literally just looks like Switch+ games but runs native res 60FPS Meaning a game like Doom Eternal or Breath of the Wild can run1080p60 1440p60 with Minor graphical Updates I would be happy. It's good to set low expectations and be surprised then have unreasonable ones and be disappointed.

We already have lots of "you" in this thread. People that became too pessimistic to avoid get burned when they reveal the Switch 2, but don't have nothing to really support that pessimism than "because Nintendo".

I suggest you to try read what we already know about that hardware, before came here only to say you are pessimist abou it.

With the leaks we already know it will have 1536 Cuda cores, so, with realistic GPU clock it can easy archive 3 to 4 Tflops. It have tensor cores, what is the hardware necessary to do DLSS (that hardware make it easy to use it than use others upscale's). It have RT cores, so it is able to do Ray tracing via Hardware too.

The T239 Chip is made for Nintendo, so Nintendo pay for it have DLSS and RT, not to became a impossible to use thing, but to really take advantage of it. Plus, DF says that 4K is too much for switch 2 on heavy game even with DLSS, not that they can't use DLSS. It's very likely they use DLSS to archive 1440p for most heavy games.

So, next time try to really be realistic, but with proper knowledge for it first. Read the first post in this tread, it's a good start.

 

[ItsukaKasuga]

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.

i can see MP4 being a switch only game, you can always play the game in bc mode and will have better performance that way

 

[Foltzie]

But that's not evidence that there was a delay. If Nintendo gave a window that included late 2024 and early 2025, then they have to get their game ready under the assumption that the launch is late 2024 until Nintendo provides more specific information, which by all accounts they only did early this year. So it makes complete sense.

Alternatively, you could also read that same information and conclude that the release was always early 2025 and Nintendo told them that, but having your game ready by the end of the year still makes sense for an early 2025 launch too. The former seems more likely since that more understandably leads to all the (bad) reporting about a 2024 launch window that happened around Gamescom, but either is possible.

Right, but what Brazil is/was reporting is that some larger devs were targeting late 2024 so there was at least a gap in perception, which itself seems weird, even if it's normal for Nintendo to be vague on launch details to even partners until closer to launch.

Maybe senior leadership at some larger developers heard FY25 from Nintendo and assumed Holiday 2024 and reported that back to their teams to target late 2024 for projects.

Maybe it means Nintendo outright requested senior leadership at larger devs to have projects ready by late 2024.

The former indicates senior leadership was either bad at reading Nintendo's FY25 guidance or were risk adverse to missing a potential holiday 2024 launch even if they alway assumed March 2025.

The later would be weird, but as you point out there are examples of how such a request wouldnt be incongruent with always having a March 2025 target.

 

[LiC]

Right, but what Brazil is/was reporting is that some larger devs were targeting late 2024 so there was at least a gap in perception, which itself seems weird, even if it's normal for Nintendo to be vague on launch details to even partners until closer to launch.

As I said, if the window includes late 2024 at all, you have to target late 2024 to ensure your game is ready for launch. You can't predict the future when Nintendo is going to give more specific information that narrows the window to early 2025.

I do not believe, nor do I see anyone claiming, that Nintendo actually told third parties that the launch window was late 2024. I don't see that in the post above. I think that there's excessive secrecy where the people doing the reporting are unwilling to say what their reporting is based on, but it seems clear through contrast that the February "delay" reports were the first time anyone was able to legitimately say "Nintendo has communicated the release timing and it is X." It's a bad assumption that Nintendo would have told anyone, even "bigger devs," substantially more concrete information prior to that. People seem to still be continually overestimating how much Nintendo shares with partners.

 

[Serif]

It's good to set low expectations and be surprised then have unreasonable ones and be disappointed.

I think it's good to have reasonable expectations that are neither too high nor too low, that are grounded in evidence and good analysis. Within the range of reasonability we can have an 'upper' and 'lower' end and shift our beliefs accordingly. e.g. with the presence of LPDD5RX 12 GB RAM many folks have shifted their expectations higher,

Switch 2 using DLSS is nowhere near an unreasonable expectation. We can debate about the frame cost of DLSS'ing to 4K and what the most commonly used resolutions will be, but DLSS is one of the few things I am certain of. Even before the Nvidia leak two years ago folks were thinking of how DLSS could be used to upscale to at least 1080p on a hypothetical 'Switch Pro'. Now we're beyond that.

 

[Molybdenum]

i can see MP4 being a switch only game, you can always play the game in bc mode and will have better performance that way

Unless they end up using dynamic resolution, which they didn't for prime remastered, I suspect that the game will perform exactly the same on switch and BC on switch 2. Of course, I also expect a switch 2 patch to bring the resolution and maybe some other settings up.

 

[ItsukaKasuga]

Unless they end up using dynamic resolution, which they didn't for prime remastered, I suspect that the game will perform exactly the same on switch and BC on switch 2. Of course, I also expect a switch 2 patch to bring the resolution and maybe some other settings up.

thats exactly what im expecting, when i see it will perform better im just talking about being a more stable performance

 

[OctoSplattack]

Regarding the launch timing, I can easily see a scenario where Nintendo originally communicated a more broad FY25 launch window that various publishers had different interpretations of before it was solidified as being Q4 of the fiscal year, rather than the Q3 holiday season that would seem like the more reasonable choice.

 

[Molybdenum]

thats exactly what im expecting, when i see it will perform better im just talking about being a more stable performance

Given this is Retro Studios we're talking about, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the performance on switch 1 is 100% stable already.

 

[Party Sklar]

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.

I have to admit I sincerely respect your relentless optimism, but sometimes I wonder why you do this to yourself?

I swear if the console is not releasing this year, you'll be like "I'm now team January 2025". Hopefully you'll be right sooner than later though!

 

[Foltzie]

As I said, if the window includes late 2024 at all, you have to target late 2024 to ensure your game is ready for launch. You can't predict the future when Nintendo is going to give more specific information that narrows the window to early 2025.

I do not believe, nor do I see anyone claiming, that Nintendo actually told third parties that the launch window was late 2024. I don't see that in the post above. I think that there's excessive secrecy where the people doing the reporting are unwilling to say what their reporting is based on, but it seems clear through contrast that the February "delay" reports were the first time anyone was able to legitimately say "Nintendo has communicated the release timing and it is X." It's a bad assumption that Nintendo would have told anyone, even "bigger devs," substantially more concrete information prior to that. People seem to still be continually overestimating how much Nintendo shares with partners.

It seems that we are effectively saying the same thing.

I don't think there is anything wrong with Brazil reporting that some developers were working toward a late 2024 date. From those developers perspective this is a delay, even if its one ultimately created by senior leadership wisely planning on being positioned to capture potential Holiday 2024 sales should Nintendo opt for Q424 launch.

 

[Secu]

Some developers must have watched the prediction videos on YouTube.
Nintendo must launch a new gaming console before Holiday, otherwise it will miss the peak sales season.

 

[gabeplays]

It really doesn't matter who was surprised by the news or not. The dev's who already completes their games have extra time to polish and the dev's who arent ready now have a few more months to work. Win win!

 

[Ricimer]

edit: wrong thread

 

[Pokemaniac]

I can't imagine a Switch 2 release this year. Not with Nintendo laying out the remainder of the year in a dedicated Switch Direct. And I really don't see how MP4 premiering in a dedicated Switch Direct lends more credence to Switch 2 releasing this year.

Is it really so hard to imagine the best looking game on a system being late in the system's lifetime? Is it really so hard to imagine a game releasing on the platform it was announced for?

I agree that Prime 4 being in the June Direct or not has no real bearing on hardware timelines, but the Direct timing and announced focus by themselves don't really tell us much, either. Consider the following scenario:

• June 18th 2024 Direct happens, only talks about Switch 1 games, but perhaps things are looking a little light after October
• Early July, Nintendo drops a trailer for the Switch successor, launching this holiday. The trailer contains a mix of footage from several yet to be announced games, as well as some games that were just announced at the June Direct, now running at higher resolutions.
• The September Direct (or perhaps a separate August stream, I'm not picky) fully details a November launch for the Switch successor, and does a deep dive on the launch window lineup

This gives you a timeline that's very close to what Switch 1 got, including the Direct. It's worth remembering that Nintendo did a business as usual September Direct the month before the initial Switch trailer happened, and I would expect Nintendo to act similarly this time and not outright replace one of their typical Directs to do the initial announcement.

Now, will this scenario happen? Chances do not seem especially high. Insider reports weigh heavily against it. We're all well aware that it it possible for them to whiff quite badly on matters of Nintendo hardware like in 2021, so I won't rule it out entirely, but I'm not expecting it.

 

[P4bl0]

I agree that Prime 4 being in the June Direct or not has no real bearing on hardware timelines, but the Direct timing and announced focus by themselves don't really tell us much, either. Consider the following scenario:

• June 18th 2024 Direct happens, only talks about Switch 1 games, but perhaps things are looking a little light after October
• Early July, Nintendo drops a trailer for the Switch successor, launching this holiday. The trailer contains a mix of footage from several yet to be announced games, as well as some games that were just announced at the June Direct, now running at higher resolutions.
• The September Direct (or perhaps a separate August stream, I'm not picky) fully details a November launch for the Switch successor, and does a deep dive on the launch window lineup

This gives you a timeline that's very close to what Switch 1 got, including the Direct. It's worth remembering that Nintendo did a business as usual September Direct the month before the initial Switch trailer happened, and I would expect Nintendo to act similarly this time and not outright replace one of their typical Directs to do the initial announcement.

Now, will this scenario happen? Chances do not seem especially high. Insider reports weigh heavily against it. We're all well aware that it it possible for them to whiff quite badly on matters of Nintendo hardware like in 2021, so I won't rule it out entirely, but I'm not expecting it.

That's it.

 

[omniryu]

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."

Pokémon gen 10? Hmm, interesting...

 

[Hosermess]

If you want to get cynical...an external target delay & the Furukawa tweet only saying there will be an announcement within this FY...one could speculate that their indeed has been an internal delay. But not from holiday '24 to March '25 - from March '25 to ? '25.

Even that SGF tweet only states that they were always targeting a March '25 release. Nothing about whether that target has been moved.

But it's only speculation. The Inner Party doesn't share such things with the proles.

(too harsh analogy I know - wrong thread too)

Not that I believe that (or anything by now), but it's possible.

(Last off-topic, er, topic: I can totally see another Switch 1-only Direct this year. In the Q&A they said successor info will be out in stages. They should be able to schedule that around Switch 1 games/Direct later this year. Especially if they give us nothing but a name/short teaser until '25)


On topic: how 'bout them nodes, eh?

 

[omniryu]

DF is referring to the fact that 4k has a high frame time cost, but 1440p has a reasonable frame time cost.

About that..what is the likelihood of Nintendo having an implementation to solve that problem?

 

[Pokemaniac]

That's it.

To be clear, I'm not really arguing in favor of a 2024 release, just laying out what it would look like if that were to happen.

 

[P4bl0]

To be clear, I'm not really arguing in favor of a 2024 release, just laying out what it would look like if that were to happen.

Yup that's the scenario I think could happen if mass-production is actually starting this month or the next.

Otherwise I'm happy with 2025 as well, but 2024 would be great since there isn't much happening in Fall so far and we been waiting for so fucking long.

 

[Danny]

Logically Nintendo would have preferred to release the Switch 2 this year. Its a very quiet year in the gaming industry. Meaning Nintendo would dominate this year fully with the Switch 2. Next year they will have to contend with stuff like GTA 6. They will still do great releasing Switch 2 next year but companies would always prefer less competitiom than more that is why this year would have been their preferred year.

 

[omniryu]

Logically Nintendo would have preferred to release the Switch 2 this year. Its a very quiet year in the gaming industry. Meaning Nintendo would dominate this year fully with the Switch 2. Next year they will have to contend with stuff like GTA 6. They will still do great releasing Switch 2 next year but companies would always prefer less competitiom than more that is why this year would have been their preferred year.

March is a great time. Everyone in the US is getting their Tax Refund, little to no competition, denser library until Christmas. I think it is perfect.