I think you're misunderstanding what "blue ocean" means (or meant). that referred to people who didn't play games. not casual games like Call of Duty or Madden. but didn't play anything at all. Wii and DS got those people into playing something. this is why Nintendo lost these folks to mobile, they aren't invested that much into gaming so mobile comes in, on systems they already own, with games that are even cheaper
-
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)
- Thread starter Dakhil
- Start date
Triistan
Moblin
Not-so-hot-take: when Nintendo adopted the blue ocean strategy the gaming wasn’t so cool and mainstream like now.
Probably videogames aren’t still “accepted” as other media but our hobby has never been strong as today.
Look at the Mario Movie or HBO the last of us success. With Switch Nintendo understood that they needed a device that could fight against Tablets, Netflix, sports, cinema etc for the people free time. An idea that Iwata already had with Wii U but the technology wasn’t there. Switch is probably my most played console ever.
They are also doing what Pokémon have already done for 30 years: being in the free time of their fans through other media: Lego, movie, amiibo, theme park.
Probably videogames aren’t still “accepted” as other media but our hobby has never been strong as today.
Look at the Mario Movie or HBO the last of us success. With Switch Nintendo understood that they needed a device that could fight against Tablets, Netflix, sports, cinema etc for the people free time. An idea that Iwata already had with Wii U but the technology wasn’t there. Switch is probably my most played console ever.
They are also doing what Pokémon have already done for 30 years: being in the free time of their fans through other media: Lego, movie, amiibo, theme park.
Dekuman
Gerudo
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I think people also mistake Nintendo's blue ocean strategy as Nintendo being unable to compete. I think it's quite a bit more nuanced than that.
If there's 150 million people who want a XBOX/PS4 like box, having a 3rd option will add Nintendo's core fans to that 150, but they will essentially be splitting the 150 million sized pie.
Switch, Wii, DS, 3DS and Wii U were attempts to provide a value proposition that make people WANT to buy a Nintendo product. I think the assestment that Switch 2 will remain hybrid is rooted in the fact that they pretty much own the space now, the PC portables aren't real competitors and largely serve enthusiasts who will buy everything anyways and a small number of never Nintendo people whose first reaction when the Switch was a success was to wish for a Vita 2.
Aufhebung RPG
History is tragedy becoming comedy
I agree with the statement that the huge success of the switch actually stems from the fact that the 2016 2017 time period coincided with a considerable new group of gamers joining the ranks of traditional gaming consumers, as well as Nintendo's well-timed launch and domination of nearly the entire hybrid gaming console market at this time, a fortuitous advantage that Nintendo fortuitously dominated as opposed to the wii DS era.
This puts them in a much better position than the wiiu and 3ds even if they hit a rough patch again.
OP
OP
I typically don't like to cite Wccftech as a news source since Wccftech reports on everything, including unreliable sources (e.g. Moore's Law is Dead).
But Wccftech's citing Digital Chat Station, who's generally very accurate as far as Android smartphones are concerned. So anyways, according to Digital Chat Station, Android smartphones equipped with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 4 also come equipped with silicon batteries, LPDDR5T (or LPDDR5X-9600), and other new hardware technologies.
Silicone anode in lithium-ion batteries can theoretically store more energy through lithium ions compared to graphite anode currently used in lithium-ion batteries (up to 10x more), allowing for faster charging rates, but with the caveats of higher costs, and silicon anodes swelling dramatically when charged with lithium ions, which can eventually stop working.
I do wonder if Chinese smartphone manufacturers figured out how to lower costs when manufacturing silicon anodes for lithium-ion batteries, and if Chinese smartphone manufacturers found a solution to the issue with silicon anodes swelling dramatically when charged with lithium ions. If so, I do wonder if the successor to the Nintendo Switch's successor can use lithium-ion batteries with a silicon anode in the future.
But Wccftech's citing Digital Chat Station, who's generally very accurate as far as Android smartphones are concerned. So anyways, according to Digital Chat Station, Android smartphones equipped with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 4 also come equipped with silicon batteries, LPDDR5T (or LPDDR5X-9600), and other new hardware technologies.
Silicone anode in lithium-ion batteries can theoretically store more energy through lithium ions compared to graphite anode currently used in lithium-ion batteries (up to 10x more), allowing for faster charging rates, but with the caveats of higher costs, and silicon anodes swelling dramatically when charged with lithium ions, which can eventually stop working.
I do wonder if Chinese smartphone manufacturers figured out how to lower costs when manufacturing silicon anodes for lithium-ion batteries, and if Chinese smartphone manufacturers found a solution to the issue with silicon anodes swelling dramatically when charged with lithium ions. If so, I do wonder if the successor to the Nintendo Switch's successor can use lithium-ion batteries with a silicon anode in the future.
now that the Snapdragon Elite X laptops and reviews are out, the biggest take away is how far x86 has come to meeting ARM. or maybe the take away is that there's a ceiling that ARM is only now hitting that x86 has already hit? point is, while ARM has some efficiency gains, x86 isn't far behind and that a tightly woven hardware/software link matters more than the ISA.
with that in mind, it makes me wonder if it's even worth it for Microsoft to dabble with an ARM handheld. I guess we need to see what the SD Elite non-X can do in a Windows gaming handheld first. but we already see that the SD 8Gx can emulate windows games pretty decently, they're just hobbled by the phone form
PSP3 using an AMD APU isn't off the table tho...
with that in mind, it makes me wonder if it's even worth it for Microsoft to dabble with an ARM handheld. I guess we need to see what the SD Elite non-X can do in a Windows gaming handheld first. but we already see that the SD 8Gx can emulate windows games pretty decently, they're just hobbled by the phone form
PSP3 using an AMD APU isn't off the table tho...
Shoulder
Koopa
Decided to do some digging since you got me curious.
The PlayStation 3, launched in late 2006, used Nvidia’s RSX Reality Synthesizer, which was a custom GPU based on the 7800GTX, which that launched in June 2005.
Xbox 360, launched in late 2005, used the ATI/AMD Xenos GPU, which was based around the R520 architecture, and the X1800XT, though with lots of modifications. That GPU came out just before the Xbox 360.
Both the 7800GTX, and the X1800XT were considered high end at the time, like a Nvidia 70, or 80 series class of GPU, or similarly AMD’s 700, 800 series of GPUs. So very advanced stuff, and along with their respective CPUs helps to explain why their systems lost a ton of money launch, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
The Wii U, launched in late 2012, by contrast, used a modified ATI/AMD, which was based around the Radeon HD 4000 series of GPUs that came out all the way back in 2008/2009.
The Wii U feels a bit out of outlier here all things considered, but it also helps explain why it felt only slightly more capable than the HD twins before it.
Jumping to the PS4, and Xbone, both launching in late 2013, it was difficult to find something definitive on what the PS4 used for the GPU except some of the main specs such as GCN 2.0, 18 CUs, etc. it appears it was based on one of Radeon’s R9 2xx class of cards, all of which came out in 2013 thereabouts.
By contrast, the Xbone’s GPU appears based on the HD 7790, which came out in 2012, though I can’t definitively confirm that either. Finding correct info for either of those two proves difficult.
PS5, and Xbox Series also appear to follow a similar trope of a GPU design that is at most about a year old.
So you’re probably correct the Pro versions of the PS5, and Xbox Series might use at minimum RX 8000 series. The PS5 Pro, in raw TFLOPS, is speculated to have 227% more TFLOPS, so about 33.5 TFLOPS as I got from Tom’s Guide: https://www.tomsguide.com/gaming/th...evably-hyped-for-sonys-next-console-heres-why
Looking at what RX 7000 equivalent that’d be, that’s like 7800XT, though with improvements in RDNA 4 would probably push that above, but don’t expect PS5 Pro to consume anywhere near as much juice as the 7800XT.
Though in the Tom’s Guide article, there was this:
“There is a fairly major caveat according to longtime industry veteran Richard Leadbetter, though. “The same Sony documents suggest only an extra 45 percent of actual throughout,” reports DF’s Leadbitter. “Part of the explanation comes from the RDNA 3 architecture with its dual-issue FP32 support, which doubles the amount of instructions processed, but which does not typically double game performance.”“
So there would appear to be more nuance than just a raw speculation it’s over 3x the horsepower of the PS5. Might end up being somewhere between, so perhaps 7600/7700 equivalent in the end. We’ll see though.
Considering all this, Nintendo prefers to use a more “mature” architecture, with Maxwell for Tegra X1 (though does have some features of Pascal), which came out in 2015, so two years between its launch, and Nintendo Switch.
Tegra Drake (Ampere with some Ada sprinkled in) potentially is even longer from finished chip to launch (2022 to 2025), though it should be made clear the pandemic likely had an effect on this. Switch 2 very possibly could’ve launched this year, though if a Switch Pro was actually planned until the Pandemic, Drake may never have existed.
This was an interesting brief dive into the history of what GPUs are present in each platform, plus when the equivalent GPUs for PC came out. Nintendo prefers to give it a good 2-3 years (4 in the case for Wii U), whereas Sony, and Microsoft like going out guns blazing within a year.
I will say given the Tegra X1 will be ten years old next year I think just shows how Moore’s law has slowed down, but more importantly how developers have been able to find new, and exciting ways of optimizing the software for the hardware given, despite its age. It actually makes me excited what developers will accomplish on Drake in the coming years while also making games for the big two.
ComradeKoopa
Bowser Revolution it is!!!
Why?
Smash Kirby
Bob-omb
I would rather us go to Graphene batteries, though we need huge investment in that area to get us away from strip mining Africa for lithium and Cobalt.
Triistan
Moblin
I don’t think march is a lock, NX release date was announced a year in advance, if Nintendo haven’t done the same with Switch 2 imho it’s because a Q2 release it’s possible.
But late 2025 it’s unrealistic imho.
oldpuck
Koopa
- Pronouns
- he/they
MS likes to do this every now and then, to keep Intel and AMD from getting cocky. If someone makes a beige box piece of hardware, MS wants their OS to be viable on it, and ARM handhelds (and tablets, for that matter) have become beige boxes, with cheap SOCs.
Even if the product that MS makes doesn't go anywhere, the porting effort probably is worth it, and making some money off it along the way can't hurt.
gnetc
Warren Buffett = Tom Nook
Being active on this forum more so, of course I’d be excited for the system.
Another year and a half for this system to be released is a longggg time. I don’t think that’s gonna happen, but I just really want that new Mario Kart and 3D Mario.
OP
OP
I don't disagree. But there are also geopolitical issues with graphene, with China restricting exports of graphite for national security reasons.
So I don't really expect the successor to the Nintendo Switch's successor to use a graphene battery.
omniryu
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/him
Tioc
Rattata
- Pronouns
- he/him
hey, money talks
can yall imagine a soulslike with a cyberpunk-esque artstyle? i think that would be sick
Dual-issue is a feature that is being advertised without presenting the caveats, unfortunately, and people are finding out only after having bought into it and testing it. It's limited to a handful of instructions, and isn't even controlled by the programmer. Take the Ryzen Z1 Extreme, advertised with 8.6 TFlops of GPU power, yet in actual testing in a device like the ROG Ally, it's overall performance is closer to a GTX 1650 that is advertised pushing almost 3 TFlops.
For the PS5 Pro to ever hit that 33 TFlop number, not only would it have to not use any instruction that isn't supported by dual-issue, but the compiler has to abandon any optimization that interferes with using dual-issue so all that's left is dual-issue-supported operations. Honestly, I could see that causing a degradation of performance than not using dual-issue at all because it's not optimizing for the whole, but for just a specific feature, and that's a big no-no. This doesn't mean dual-issue is useless. It can offer improvements than without, but that's only if juggling every other sort of optimization favors it. Simply put, the PS5 Pro isn't getting anywhere near 33 TFlops. It will be at least in the 16-17 TFlop range with an additional small boost from dual-issue. That is why the mention of an extra 45% makes sense.
I DID say that, but please don't take my words as some absolute truth. I'm spitballing half the time and am theorizing as much as anybody lol.
What's going to ultimately sell the Switch 2 are the games. However much there is or there isn't a new "feature", people will line up to buy it when there's a new 3D Mario and Mario Kart.
The Switch and it's formfactor IS ultimately the "gimmick". I think there's room to experiment with the formfactor and it looks like that's what Nintendo is doing. But they don't have to try and reinvent the wheel since they already have a winning formula.
You seem to really want VR as a new feature which is valid. Maybe down the line there is some sort of peripheral goggles people could buy. I doubt it would be something that Nintendo would go all-in on because, as I said before, VR is a totally different kind of playing which is just as expensive. The Oculus Quest 3 costs $500 which is the ballpark of what the entire Switch 2 will cost. The Valve Index costs $1000 with all the base stations and such.
Trying to go forward with VR would be a serious investment on the part of Nintendo. It's not something they can just slap on. It also asks questions on how many games and which games would actually benefit from a VR experience. Metroid could be fun, for sure, but would people really care for a VR Mario or Zelda? could there be a full-blown game that doesn't feel like a gimmick? I'm not super familiar with the VR space but, apart from Half-Life: Alyx, how many VR games actually felt like "real" games instead of just Wii-esque smaller titles that leaned heavily on the VR aspect? do they really plan on making that many VR games and expect a huge return to justify developing something like that?
It's not impossible. The Virtual Boy, if nothing else, was an extremely early and poor example of them trying to do VR -- even if it ended up being less about VR and more about 3D. But a "Virtual Boy 2" would be a totally new console and not related to the Nintendo Switch 2. Trying to squeeze the two together would only exacerbate the cost and the Switch 2 needs to be affordable enough for casual gamers and families to afford.
I personally just don't see Nintendo and VR happening.
Aufhebung RPG
History is tragedy becoming comedy
You consistently ignore the basic premise that we've already said during the discussion that Nintendo won't be developing standalone VR, no one would think that Nintendo would put all of their eggs in the VR basket at this point in time, but Nintendo did prove that there is room for a non-standalone hybrid VR device with LABO, and we've already explained in the discussion that followed that Nintendo needs to solve spatial positioningissues as well as frame rate issues.Most of your thoughts don't take the discussion seriously enough to read through，Because you have no idea what we're actually discussing, you're just arguing against a gimmick that you think is out of place without realizing that our conclusions actually encompass a distrust of the current market for standalone VR.
Last edited:
It would help if Microsoft was capable of making Windows ARM a thing without constantly sabotaging it somehow.
Danny
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Nintendo would be stupid to go into VR this generation, the time is not ready for it yet. Sony have only been losing money on trying to make VR a thing before its realistically possible for it to be viable for the mass market. And the fact is that Nintendo has not as of yet even committed fully to mobile gaming, which realistically is something they would go for before trying to push hard into VR.
Dario
Nintenaddict
You were not the only one saying DLSS can not be marketed to common consumers
As a few of us already answered: if they keep Switch form factor, It will no longer be viewed as an innovation and we suppose there will be another one.
When Nintendo wants to promote a new thing that is on the console and not an optimal accessory they usually do It fiercely.
Aufhebung RPG
History is tragedy becoming comedy
Just to add, I personally think the switch as a concept and form factor will last another generation or two, but I do think they'll add new inputs on top of that, and at this point I don't think as much as anyone else that Nintendo will choose to overthrow the switch as a concept at this point because the concept is still highly appealing.
Goodtwin
Like Like
dammit oldpuck don't curse the release date to delay even more
Don't curse Oldpuck, curse the Nintendo Switch for still doing so well in its eighth year on the market. If Switch were dying on the vine, they would be rolling out new hardware later this year. Actually, they might have already and games like Paper Mario TTYD would have been part of the new hardware launch lineup instead of a very late gen release.
Dario
Nintenaddict
The "if" was to emphasize there will be another thing. I totally agree: It seems obvious for Nintendo to keep the hybrid concept but It won't be new anymore.
Shoulder
Koopa
To put it into perspective, 33TFLOPS in raw terms is equivalent to the RTX 3090 ti. There is no fucking way the PS5 Pro will have that kind of horsepower. Even if we use Ada as an equivalent, that would be the RTX 4080. Again, no fucking way, but the issue isn’t just in terms of cost though. It’s also the power consumption.
Ps3, PS4, and PS5 follow similar power consumption, in that 150-200 watt range. So for the sake of things, let’s bump it up to a full 200 watts. You mentioned 17ish TFLOPs, so the equivalent AMD card would be more or less a detuned RX 7700, or an overclocked RX 7600XT. But given the increase in CUs for the 7700 to 48CU, we'll go with that. That GPU alone has a TDP of 200w. So maybe remove a couple CUs, adjust the clocks a bit, and you might have a good benchmark.
But I also wonder if the PS5 Pro will still use the APU setup for the whole processor, or instead for an MCM approach aka Chiplet design since that is what AMD is now pushing towards.
As a side note, i do remember those figures for the ROG ALLY supposedly having 8 TFLOPs, and immediately I knew it was half precision. But also as a side note, TFLOPs don’t mean as much as they used to. Drake supposedly having ~4 TFLOPs on paper doesn't sound like a lot if you compare flops to flops with the PS5 for example being 10TFLOPS. But say some games were running at 4K on PS5, a similar title on Switch 2 would handle it at 1080p, and very similar fidelity. Lower for sure, but not so far back as one would think.
4K still be expensive to render all dem pixels.
neoplanet
Piranha Plant
well , we have the investor annual meeting day 27 , if we are luck we recieve some information about the sucessor (can be leaks too but idk if its possible )
necro teased something can happen this week , but can be anything ,like most people from brazil (the country , not the person ) think its a pokemon presents instead (or can be nothing )
after this direct its really most a matter of when the announcement , instead of if it will be announced
necro teased something can happen this week , but can be anything ,like most people from brazil (the country , not the person ) think its a pokemon presents instead (or can be nothing )
after this direct its really most a matter of when the announcement , instead of if it will be announced
neoplanet
Piranha Plant
yeah , i notice the ps5 and xbox series still have a graphics vs fps situation , some games if they have 4k they run at 30 fps , while some runs in 60 but not 4k
idk if the sucessor can have beneficts of a performace/graphics mode if the game have this option , can you explain me if yes or no?
I'm not really familiar with LABO and have never played it or know much about it, which is why I never bring it up.
also, rude lol.
SwitchEmUp
Piranha Plant
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It depends on what developers are going to use as well honestly. If most developers don't utilise DLSS Anti-Aliasing, Ray Reconstruction, FSR 3 FG or future compatible tech (DLSS Asset Reconstruction?) I will also lose my appeal in the system as the tech is there but won't be utilised.
This is kind of the rough balance between console handhelds and PC handhelds. With console handhelds, you have the optimisation, but you don't have the ability to experiment with other features that may be compatible with the architecture and may be absent from games which could benefit from them. With PC handhelds, you don't have optimisation right out of the gate, but you can experiment and change the settings to your preferred balance/liking as well as mod in additional features (XESS, FSR FG etc).
Nevertheless, thanks to the Switch being a success, companies are now confident in handheld systems and I'm honestly really glad too, because more competition means better results for the consumer
Small correction, but double performance through half precision is not dual-issue, but packed FP16 into a single FP32 set. Dual-issue processes 2x FP32 sets at the same time. There was a few people that were suggesting PS5 Pro could do ~66 TFlops because they used both packed FP16 and dual-issue together, but the problem there is that, from what I understand, only a single operation is capable of that combined situation.
goombaicebro
Luma
even if the switch 1 is selling like gangbusters nintendo's plans are decided years on out
goombaicebro
Luma
- Pronouns
- he / him
For VR it's quite low end. I'm not positive, but I can't think of a proper VR device released to consumers that didn't at least have a 72hz screen, with most notables from 2020 on having 120hz screens.
It can't give us pixels the screen doesn't have. Though at least in this case I can think of one commercially released headset with as low a resolution as Switch 2: original PSVR from 2016.
We might hear some vague tidbits.
I've got a question regarding possible BC on Switch 2 with Switch games. Maybe more of a concern. In every other situation with Nintendo's platforms and BC, it's either they have it fully (at least 95%), or none at all. When they do, it's generally because it includes a predecessor's hardware or the hardware is compatible already. For GC -> Wii, the Wii is pretty much a overcharged GC, and can be set up to be used like a GC. With Wii -> Wii U, the chip specifically included Wii hardware, including storage modules. For their portables, a device would include its predecessor's chips not just for BC but also for various uses for the device itself, like DS using GBA's ARM7 for handling audio processing, WiFi, etc. Unless I'm mistaken, Switch will be the first to stray from this by not using old hardware, but instead relying on the new hardware. We know the CPU from what has been gathered is 100% compatible, while the GPU is ~75% compatible in calls while shaders are 0% because of Maxwell vs Ampere.
Even if Nintendo/Nvidia can get over this hurdle without the old hardware, how will that go with 3rd-party releases? I ask this because I look at Xbox One/Series handling BC of XB/360 games, and it's rather limited. That can certainly be a case of emulation having to deal with the CPU, which for Switch 2 doesn't seem to be an issue. But even with emulation, not every XB/360 game is available to be played on the newer platforms. Some might say it's because they aren't emulated well enough, but my thoughts dwell on another case. Licensing, or simply a choice the developer/publisher made. Is it possible that a company can opt out of having their Switch games playable on Switch 2? Could it be based on whether the playback is running fully on compatible with no software workaround? On Wii U and 3DS with playing Wii or DS games, the system resets into a different environment that makes use of the old hardware and firmware in the designated way with a few hooks like existing out of the game to get back into the Wii U or 3DS environment. It may not be that way with Switch 2 playback of Switch games.
Hope this wasn't confusing to read.
Even if Nintendo/Nvidia can get over this hurdle without the old hardware, how will that go with 3rd-party releases? I ask this because I look at Xbox One/Series handling BC of XB/360 games, and it's rather limited. That can certainly be a case of emulation having to deal with the CPU, which for Switch 2 doesn't seem to be an issue. But even with emulation, not every XB/360 game is available to be played on the newer platforms. Some might say it's because they aren't emulated well enough, but my thoughts dwell on another case. Licensing, or simply a choice the developer/publisher made. Is it possible that a company can opt out of having their Switch games playable on Switch 2? Could it be based on whether the playback is running fully on compatible with no software workaround? On Wii U and 3DS with playing Wii or DS games, the system resets into a different environment that makes use of the old hardware and firmware in the designated way with a few hooks like existing out of the game to get back into the Wii U or 3DS environment. It may not be that way with Switch 2 playback of Switch games.
Hope this wasn't confusing to read.
brainchild
Moblin
I know people had a hard time telling the difference between Prime Remastered and Prime 4 in terms of graphical fidelity, but this head to head comparison should make it easier for those people to see. To my eyes, Prime 4 is a clear step above Remastered in nearly every area, but the material rendering and complexity is just on another level in Prime 4, and not just compared to Remastered, but every other Switch game. The PBR material authoring is simply more accurate. Not just the reflectance/specularity of the materials, but the actual shading complexity.
Retro has spoken in the past about how shader manipulation wasn't really their strong suit and how they relied heavily on their artists understanding of lighting and baked those results into the previous Prime games, but clearly they have learned the ropes over the years (and no doubt hired talent capable of this as well) and when combined with their first principles understanding of lighting just puts their work ahead of the pack. I'm impressed!
I think this bodes very well for whatever work they'll be doing on the Switch's successor, though we won't likely see the fullest extent of the potential until their first Switch successor game.
Last edited:
Well, none of us has insight into exactly how Nvidias implantation will work, but I'm personally confident it will be seamless and without issues on the majority of games.
Aether
Kremling
We don't know exactly... But mostly: architecture on the CPU side is pretty much the same (or: it should be compatible if clocked down), ram if speed is adjusted also, and GPU... If developers provide patched (effectively recompiled shaders) then there is Zero problem,
And if they don't... It's not that hard for Nvidia to provide a recomp layer from one architecture to another. Both of them where developed by them, they developed the toolset around them, it's all in house.
(Just look at how good apples x86 translation (Rosetta) is...and that's for countless CPUs to their new architecture, here it's 1 hardware platform to another.)
That will take a performance hit... But since it's so much stronger, that one should be irrelevant.
I don't expect games without a patch to look better except stable frame rates if that was a problem and resolution pretty much always at max if resolution scaling was used. (For most games that will be somewhere around 900p I think...)
Microsoft's approach to 360/OG Xbox emulation has some pretty serious inherent limits. While the compromise was likely necessary to deliver it at all on Xbox One, given the CPU limitations, it does sort of tie their hands in certain areas.
The licensing issue in particular only really arises because the Xbox isn't actually using the original code. Microsoft's system requires them to produce a modified version of each individual supported title that's been pre-transpiled and embedded in their emulation framework, and this derived work requires permission from the copyright holder to distribute. A fully generic, on-device emulator simply does not have this issue, as the only things being distributed are the same game binaries that Nintendo is already distributing. This would limit Nintendo's ability to distribute shader caches, but they're likely to design a system that doesn't hard require those in the first place so that it can operate fully offline. Basically, so long as everything important happens on-device, the only limits to compatibility are the quality of the emulation itself.
People are just blind (also Remastered was great).
Remastered = Late PS3 game
MP4 = early PS4 looking game
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Hello thread, how was the weeken... sees late 2025 talk ... Ah naw people. :|
You gotta be like Ted Lasso here. Believe.
For what it's worth, there's the big shareholder meeting this week.
Though i'm personally expecting no Switch 2 talk in any way, because they talked in March already and gave a "window" when they would be talking again, it could definitely possible that they do give out some info.
But even in the case they do, i'd expect nothing more than for example a timeframe about when they will share more info, think "We're planning to provide more info in Fall 2024", for example.
You gotta be like Ted Lasso here. Believe.
what may he be teasing?
For what it's worth, there's the big shareholder meeting this week.
Though i'm personally expecting no Switch 2 talk in any way, because they talked in March already and gave a "window" when they would be talking again, it could definitely possible that they do give out some info.
But even in the case they do, i'd expect nothing more than for example a timeframe about when they will share more info, think "We're planning to provide more info in Fall 2024", for example.
Apenknul
CJ for Smash
- Pronouns
- He/him
Late 2025? Haha, nah. I don't think so. They wouldn't delay it time over time over time.
Look, like I said in the September Direct Predictions topic:
In last week's Direct announcement, they purposely repeated Furukawa's words ''There'll be no mention of the Switch's successor''.
Look, they can do that one time, but I doubt they can do that a 2nd time, without revealing the system first.
I really do think the reveal trailer is coming in august, so that they can have a september mini Direct that will focus on Switch 1 games till december. By doing that, it will be more understandable if they repeat that phrase again, so they can have an event in some later time. (like a november showcase event for Switch II)
But let's say, the Switch II is releasing in late 2025.. They will have to repeat the phrase ''There'll be no mention of the Switch successor'' a lot of times, and that will anger or confuse a lot of fans who know that Nintendo has a new system up their sleeve, but wouldn't show it over and over.
Nah people, they mentioned the system twice by now, it'll come soon. I'm sure of it. No late 2025.
Look, like I said in the September Direct Predictions topic:
In last week's Direct announcement, they purposely repeated Furukawa's words ''There'll be no mention of the Switch's successor''.
Look, they can do that one time, but I doubt they can do that a 2nd time, without revealing the system first.
I really do think the reveal trailer is coming in august, so that they can have a september mini Direct that will focus on Switch 1 games till december. By doing that, it will be more understandable if they repeat that phrase again, so they can have an event in some later time. (like a november showcase event for Switch II)
But let's say, the Switch II is releasing in late 2025.. They will have to repeat the phrase ''There'll be no mention of the Switch successor'' a lot of times, and that will anger or confuse a lot of fans who know that Nintendo has a new system up their sleeve, but wouldn't show it over and over.
Nah people, they mentioned the system twice by now, it'll come soon. I'm sure of it. No late 2025.
Aether
Kremling
Don't know, I do see progress (did see it prior), but a) it's really not big (how could it be, the hardware is the limiting factor), and it just looks softer to me overall, making it a trade of.
I'm fine with the fidelity (I expected about as much), I'm disappointed about the enemy animations. But the difference is just not that big and I totally get that some prefere the remaster look.
(On switch 2 on the other hand...yeah that will look great)
brainchild
Moblin
I wouldn't go as far as calling people blind, but I do like your late PS3/early PS4 comparison. To me, Prime 4 looks like a game you'd expect from a system that is exactly halfway between PS3 and PS4.
While the hardware is the ultimate limiting factor, almost no game actually realizes a given hardware's peak theoretical performance, so there is typically plenty of room to improve on an engine given enough time, talent, and resources. Retro is the kind of studio that optimizes their engine and projects between releases and during development, and the results speak for themselves in that Prime 4 trailer.
Now I'm not going to tell you that you should see a bigger difference than you're reporting, because the significance in the difference is somewhat subjective since not everyone cares about the same things when it comes to graphics.
In my opinion, material response (how light appears to react to different surfaces) is incredibly important to a game's visual presentation because it can range anywhere between making materials look like flat textures and giving materials the appearance of multiple layers and believable microsurface detail. Normal maps are not enough for realistic material response because the way that light interacts with a given material's various maps is what makes the detail look so convincing, and the more realistic the material response, the more shader complexity will be required. You can really see this in action on the translucent and metallic surfaces in Prime 4.
Another game that did this very well on Switch was Luigi's Mansion 3, but even it has been bested by Prime 4's more realistic PBR.
Last edited by a moderator:
