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

[ILikeFeet]

I brought this up on discord, but I never posted this here.

some quotes from Beyond3D

At this point the biggest downside of DLSS (besides improper integrations which are still happening unfortunately) is it's inability to properly reconstruct ray traced portions of the frame I'd say. They need to do something about that next.

RT is stochastic, uses its own spatial denoising, temporal accumulation and jittering too, so DLSS is kind of another layer of reconstruction on top of the ray-tracing reconstruction == more losses.

My guess would be because most ray traced pixels themselves use various forms of temporal accumulation which means that DLSS can't produce "native" results from the same amount of frames as for rasterized pixels.
Generally with DLSS it's a good idea to increase the amounts of rays per pixel where possible since that would allow DLSS to reconstruct back to native better.
But there likely is a better solution for that - some form of DLSS and RT denoising integration or something.

1, 2, 3

these quotes are interesting given RedGamingTech's supposed "leaks" about DLSS 3.0 and how it heavily ties to ray tracing. if my interpretation is correct, and I'm not making really bad assumptions about how real time rt works, one could, theoretically, use AI to better fill in the gaps of lower resolution RT. for example, if you look at UE4's GI or Metro Exodus EE's GI up close, you can see "boiling". those blotches are gaps that are being filled in through temporal information (more noticeable the lower the resolution of the RT). an AI temporal filter could give you better results, leading to better quality at a given setting, or better performance and acceptable quality with a lower ray count. now how good a quality one can get out of 270p quality GI for a 540p internal res that's DLSSed to 1080p?

then again, how about a 180p reflection on a 360p frame to dlss to 720p?

 

[Dakhil]

More Geekbench 5 benchmarks for the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 2 successor have appeared, with one having a single-core score of 1010 and a multi-core score of 5335, and another having a single-core score of 993 and a multi-core score of 5120. Based on the description of the CPU configuration in the rumour, I think the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 2 successor is likely using an octa-core configuration of the Cortex-A78C. (And this is assuming the DLSS model* will use the Cortex-A78C for the CPU.) Hopefully more details about the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 2 successor will come 8-10 days from now.

 

[SiG]

I actually made a mistake. I meant to say that Orin actually has a RT core per two SMs, not two RT cores per SM. My apologies about that. And I've made corrections to the OP (the reply, not the thread OP).

But to answer the question, if nothing changes, but the number of RT cores, then theoretically speaking, yes.

So what you're saying is Orin has half the RT cores as a standard Ampere card, then?
But according to Nate, the power consumption is still too high?

 

[Alovon11]

So what you're saying is Orin has half the RT cores as a standard Ampere card, then?
But according to Nate, the power consumption is still too high?

The possibility there is that each RT core is more performant than an Ampere RT Core

(They don't list the generation so it could be what they are doing with Lovelace, saving on die-space by having half the RT cores, but with the same overall RT Performance)

But thinking it's sort of a double-edged sword as a smaller number of cores clocked higher consumes more power versus more cores at lower clocks (Both having the same performance target)

 

[Mercury_Sagit]

I brought this up on discord, but I never posted this here.

some quotes from Beyond3D



1, 2, 3

these quotes are interesting given RedGamingTech's supposed "leaks" about DLSS 3.0 and how it heavily ties to ray tracing. if my interpretation is correct, and I'm not making really bad assumptions about how real time rt works, one could, theoretically, use AI to better fill in the gaps of lower resolution RT. for example, if you look at UE4's GI or Metro Exodus EE's GI up close, you can see "boiling". those blotches are gaps that are being filled in through temporal information (more noticeable the lower the resolution of the RT). an AI temporal filter could give you better results, leading to better quality at a given setting, or better performance and acceptable quality with a lower ray count. now how good a quality one can get out of 270p quality GI for a 540p internal res that's DLSSed to 1080p?

then again, how about a 180p reflection on a 360p frame to dlss to 720p?

Is this sth that can be modified as a parameter? I remember that for DLSS to shine, sometimes graphic settings must be set with respect to the target resolution, not the internal one (example: LOD, mipmap level). DF also talked about this topic in their analysis for DLSS on Nioh 2.

 

[Dakhil]

So what you're saying is Orin has half the RT cores as a standard Ampere card, then?
But according to Nate, the power consumption is still too high?

Yes. But the devkits NateDrake's talking about probably aren't using final hardware, especially with the rumour from March 2021 that Dane hasn't been taped out yet. And Nvidia hasn't really disclosed anything about the ray tracing performance of Orin outside of RT cores being present in Orin, so it's hard to say.

 

[NineTailSage]

More Geekbench 5 benchmarks for the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 2 successor have appeared, with one having a single-core score of 1010 and a multi-core score of 5335, and another having a single-core score of 993 and a multi-core score of 5120. Based on the description of the CPU configuration in the rumour, I think the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 2 successor is likely using an octa-core configuration of the Cortex-A78C. (And this is assuming the DLSS model* will use the Cortex-A78C for the CPU.) Hopefully more details about the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 2 successor will come 8-10 days from now.

Just a summary from GSMarena on these scores.

"We don’t know much about the Gen 3 design or the QRD. We do know that it runs Windows 11, but it could be either a tablet or a laptop – a followup to the Lenovo IdeaPad 5G perhaps, a Windows 10 laptop from January that used the original 8cx chip to offer always-on 5G connectivity and a fanless design. And we don’t have to tell you why manufacturers such as Lenovo might be interested in a fanless ARM-powered laptop, right?

We also know that the 5,000+ score in the multi-core test is close to double what we’ve been seeing from early Snapdragon 8 Gen1 phone benchmarks. The single-core result is basically the same, suggesting that the 8cx Gen 3 uses the same Cortex-X2 prime cores, but perhaps uses twice as many prime and big cores, dropping the small ones (the total count is still listed as 8)."

Lenovo QRD with Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 and Windows 11 spotted on Geekbench

Lenovo has a few Windows-on-ARM laptops that boast always-on 5G and a fanless design. Yesterday Qualcomm announced that it is switching its Snapdragon...

www.gsmarena.com

 

[Dakhil]

We also know that the 5,000+ score in the multi-core test is close to double what we’ve been seeing from early Snapdragon 8 Gen1 phone benchmarks. The single-core result is basically the same, suggesting that the 8cx Gen 3 uses the same Cortex-X2 prime cores, but perhaps uses twice as many prime and big cores, dropping the small ones (the total count is still listed as 8).

I think GSMArena's argument and logic are quite faulty for a couple of reasons:

• Early benchmarks are not a very good indicator of how the SoC actually performs when finalised. The early Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (?) Geekbench 5 benchmark that GSMArena referenced mentioned "ARM Armv8". However, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (?) is rumoured to use Armv9 CPUs (1 Cortex-X2, 3 Cortex-A710 cores, and 4 Cortex-A510 cores), so assuming the rumour's true, there's no way the early Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (?) Geekbench 5 benchmark would be a good indicator of how the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (?) actually performs when finalised, especially when Geekbench 5 is probably not yet fully optimised for Armv9 CPUs.
• Most of the single-core scores for the Snapdragon 888 (SM8350) Geekbench 5 benchmarks are very similar to the single-core scores for the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 (?) Geekbench 5 benchmarks. So there's also the possibility that the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 (?) could use the Cortex-X1 for the CPU cores going by GSMArena's logic. However, if the Cortex-X2 is any indication, there could only be a max of four Cortex-X1 cores per cluster, so two clusters would be required in order to have eight Cortex-X1 cores. [Edit: Yeah, it seems like there can only be a max of four Cortex-X1 cores per cluster.] (And to add more to the first point, the multi-core score for the early Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (?) Geekbench 5 benchmark is significantly lower than the multi-core scores for the Snapdragon 888 Geekbench 5 benchmarks.)
• There's a rumour mentioning that the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 (?) uses "Gold+" and "Gold" cores. And going by Qualcomm's CPU naming convention for the Snapdragon 888, and assuming that rumour's true, there's no way the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 (?) could be using the Cortex-X1 or the Cortex-X2 (assuming Qualcomm follows the same CPU naming convention for the Armv9 CPUs) since both would be labelled as "Prime" cores, not "Gold" cores. Qualcomm would have been using the Cortex-A78 or the Cortex-A710 for the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 (?) since both would be labelled as "Gold" cores.
• There's a rumour that mentioned that Qualcomm was able to secure enough capacity for TSMC's N6 process node and TSMC's N5 process node. So far, the rumour seems to be right about Qualcomm being able to secure enough capacity for TSMC's N6 process node, considering that Qualcomm confirmed that the Snapdragon 778G, the Snapdragon 778G+, the Snapdragon 695 5G, and the Snapdragon 680 4G. And considering that the single-core scores for the Exynos 1080 Geekbench 5 benchmarks are not too far off from the single-core scores for the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 (?) Geekbench 5 benchmarks, there's also a possibility that not only could the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 (?) be using the octa-core configuration of the Cortex-A78C, but Qualcomm could also have the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 (?) be fabricated using TSMC's N5 process node. (The Exynos 1080's fabricated using Samsung's 5LPE process node, and is using a CPU configuration of a Cortex-A78 core running at 2.8 GHz, three Cortex-A78 cores running at 2.6 GHz, and four Cortex-A55 cores running at 2.0 GHz.)

 

[kimbo99]

I'm officially working with Nvidia from a market research standpoint. The company I work for is a market research firm and one of my accounts that I work on now, is Nvidia.

I doubt I'd get any leaks or anything, but I'll be able to talk to their reps. So far, we have only worked with them regarding PC gaming.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I'm officially working with Nvidia from a market research standpoint. The company I work for is a market research firm and one of my accounts that I work on now, is Nvidia.

I doubt I'd get any leaks or anything, but I'll be able to talk to their reps. So far, we have only worked with them regarding PC gaming.

in positions like these, don't push things. internet points aint ever worth the risks

 

[kimbo99]

in positions like these, don't push things. internet points aint ever worth the risks

Yeah thanks for the heads up. I definitely won't do anything of that nature. I'll just treat it as any other client. Plus in my industry it's all about NDAs and stuff, until stiff hits the market.

 

[kimbo99]

Yeah thanks for the heads up. I definitely won't do anything of that nature. I'll just treat it as any other client. Plus in my industry it's all about NDAs and stuff, until stiff hits the market.

Just to confirm, I'm actually dealing with some big cheeses at Nvidia. Mum's the word

 

[Dekuman]

I don't think nvidia will do market research for the Dane chip itself, as it would be under lock and key with Nintendo who will be conducting their own research on what people want in a Switch 2.

 

[lemonfresh]

I don't think nvidia will do market research for the Dane chip itself, as it would be under lock and key with Nintendo who will be conducting their own research on what people want in a Switch 2.

Yep we need someone's uncle who works at Nintendo for the really juicy stuff

 

[kimbo99]

I don't think nvidia will do market research for the Dane chip itself, as it would be under lock and key with Nintendo who will be conducting their own research on what people want in a Switch 2.

Yep we need someone's uncle who works at Nintendo for the really juicy stuff

Most definitely. But I am in contact with some big cheeses over there who would definitely be privy to what's going on in other departments. Either way, I won't push. It's not worth it. But working with Nvidia is cool so far.

 

[Dekuman]

Most definitely. But I am in contact with some big cheeses over there who would definitely be privy to what's going on in other departments. Either way, I won't push. It's not worth it. But working with Nvidia is cool so far.

Just bring a Switch to work and opine you are looking forward to the next one. see their reaction ;P

 

[kimbo99]

Just bring a Switch to work and opine you are looking forward to the next one. see their reaction ;P

Hahaha. I mean I probably won't meet them in person anytime soon, but that would be a good opener to gauge where they are at with the Dane

 

[ILikeFeet]

Most definitely. But I am in contact with some big cheeses over there who would definitely be privy to what's going on in other departments. Either way, I won't push. It's not worth it. But working with Nvidia is cool so far.

ask them what brand is Jensen's jacket

 

[kimbo99]

ask them what brand is Jensen's jacket

I definitely will on the next call we have with them!

 

[Skittzo]

Most definitely. But I am in contact with some big cheeses over there who would definitely be privy to what's going on in other departments. Either way, I won't push. It's not worth it. But working with Nvidia is cool so far.

Ask them what breed Scooby Doo is and then remark on the name Dane saying it sounds like it'd be a cool name for a product.

 

[brainchild]

None of that matters.

Saber’s The Witcher 3 port to the Switch proves that hardware hurdles are mostly just excuses as to why most major ps4/one multiplats skip a Nintendo port.

I don't think this is fair. Ports in general are never as easy as people assume that they are; developers have to invest sufficient time, money, and talent/resources into porting a game, and even then, the base level of hardware affects how much effort is required to complete the project competently. Just because a particular studio does an exceptional job at porting a game to a system with relatively significant hardware constraints for its time, it doesn't mean that other studios that haven't done the same are just making excuses.

That being said, I do think more publishers should take more risks in publishing higher budget projects on Nintendo platforms. While they won't necessarily be guaranteed successes, they won't necessarily be guaranteed failures either, so if extra effort is required it could still be worth it. At least, that's the attitude I'm taking with my game (although I have decided to release on Steam first in order to move things along and make sure I can take as much time as I need to optimize on Nintendo's platform after release).

 

[Golden Darkness]

I think there's also the fact there's been a chicken/egg situation regarding 3rd party AAA games for the past few generations that make developers not take the risk developing Switch versions. Because Nintendo consoles have been left out of getting big AAA games from 3rd parties, it's possible the devs believe the only audience for their games will already be on PlayStation/Xbox/PC or be willing to buy those platforms, because said audience is conditioned to expect that. Why develop/optimize for a weaker platform were it is likely the resulting sales won't even cover the budget?

 

[Alovon11]

I think there's also the fact there's been a chicken/egg situation regarding 3rd party AAA games for the past few generations that make developers not take the risk developing Switch versions. Because Nintendo consoles have been left out of getting big AAA games from 3rd parties, it's possible the devs believe the only audience for their games will already be on PlayStation/Xbox/PC or be willing to buy those platforms, because said audience is conditioned to expect that. Why develop/optimize for a weaker platform were it is likely the resulting sales won't even cover the budget?

Hopefully Switch 2/Dane fixes that at least for the fairest bit of the Early gen (with DLSS maybe helping it last the majority of the new Gen)

 

[Dekuman]

I think there's also the fact there's been a chicken/egg situation regarding 3rd party AAA games for the past few generations that make developers not take the risk developing Switch versions. Because Nintendo consoles have been left out of getting big AAA games from 3rd parties, it's possible the devs believe the only audience for their games will already be on PlayStation/Xbox/PC or be willing to buy those platforms, because said audience is conditioned to expect that. Why develop/optimize for a weaker platform were it is likely the resulting sales won't even cover the budget?

That view is changing with Switch
The key for Nintendo is to retain people in thr current ecosystem and 1) not fuck up their hardware transition like they have in the past 2) not wait too long and let something else beat them to it

Complacency , maximizing profits leading to delays in getting Switch 2 out is probably my bigger concern now

 

[Terrell]

I think there's also the fact there's been a chicken/egg situation regarding 3rd party AAA games for the past few generations that make developers not take the risk developing Switch versions. Because Nintendo consoles have been left out of getting big AAA games from 3rd parties, it's possible the devs believe the only audience for their games will already be on PlayStation/Xbox/PC or be willing to buy those platforms, because said audience is conditioned to expect that. Why develop/optimize for a weaker platform were it is likely the resulting sales won't even cover the budget?

It also doesn’t help that every time Nintendo has successful hardware in the console space that provides 3rd-party success, they do something that totally whiffs it. Wii, for all its faults, like not having the hardware developers really wanted, was still a 3rd-party success story to some degree, that was followed up with the complete whiff that was Wii U. With N64, lots of developers in Japan were totally soured by Yamauchi’s 3rd-party policies in an era when Japan was still leader of the pack in the industry’s game production.
And then there’s the instances where they just totally mis-read the room. With Gamecube, they had incredibly capable hardware handicapped by an un-standard controller layout and mini-DVDs, which when up against the juggernaut that was PS2, with its year-long head start, was unfortunately all it took to lose out. And again, Wii U was them mis-reading the room, thinking more powerful hardware was enough when what 3rd-parties wanted was powerful enough hardware that was compatible with middleware tools of the time (UE4, for example), which it mostly wasn’t.

Some 3rd-parties who were late to Switch may want to jump in on Dane, but for many of them, I suspect they’re waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it historically always has. If Nintendo wants to keep the positive momentum with 3rd-parties and see additional positive forward momentum on this front, their only job is to prevent that from happening. And there’s at least reason to suspect that they might be able to. As with all things, nothing is a guarantee, but I feel assured they’re at least going to try.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

Most of the games sold on the Wii were, in fact, third party games.

First party drove the system, yes, but the third party support is what sold more on that system.

 

[PedroNavajas]

It is wrong to assume that third parties are always a rational actor, or that they logic is sound. If a product fails on Sony/XB, then it was because the product was not the right one. If a product fails on Nintendo devices (often the same product), then the problem is with Nintendo users. I can see analysis of TWEWY Neo failure concluding that it failed on Switch because the switch users only buy Mario and Pokemon, and it failed on PS4 because the product was not compeling. Conclusion? Avoid Switch, develop better games for Sony consoles.

 

[Deleted member 540]

It is wrong to assume that third parties are always a rational actor, or that they logic is sound. If a product fails on Sony/XB, then it was because the product was not the right one. If a product fails on Nintendo devices (often the same product), then the problem is with Nintendo users. I can see analysis of TWEWY Neo failure concluding that it failed on Switch because the switch users only buy Mario and Pokemon, and it failed on PS4 because the product was not compeling. Conclusion? Avoid Switch, develop better games for Sony consoles.

Weren't people saying that the bulk of the sales were on Switch? And that's despite the PS4 having the larger install base.

 

[brainchild]

It is wrong to assume that third parties are always a rational actor, or that they logic is sound. If a product fails on Sony/XB, then it was because the product was not the right one. If a product fails on Nintendo devices (often the same product), then the problem is with Nintendo users. I can see analysis of TWEWY Neo failure concluding that it failed on Switch because the switch users only buy Mario and Pokemon, and it failed on PS4 because the product was not compeling. Conclusion? Avoid Switch, develop better games for Sony consoles.

I disagree.

At the end of the day, a company's chief concern is going to be how it can turn a profit. Even if a product does well, a publisher has to consider how much they will get as a return on their initial investment. Selling at cost, for instance, might result in lots of sales, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's profitable for the publisher to go that route. A Switch port might do well with a niche group of Nintendo consumers, but it also might not be enough to recoup the cost of the initial investment and turn a justifiable profit. I think that's a reasonable factor for a business to consider.

So when you say:

If a product fails on Sony/XB, then it was because the product was not the right one. If a product fails on Nintendo devices (often the same product), then the problem is with Nintendo users.

I think it's an inaccurate representation of what is happening with these kinds of business decisions. In either case, the publisher recognizes that the product doesn't align with the standards, expectations, and demands of the demographic to which they're advertising the failing product, and respond in a way that they feel is appropriate to protect the future of their business. Sometimes said demographics differ between Sony/MS platforms and Nintendo platforms.

It's not that many AAA publishers think that Nintendo users are the problem, but they often believe that the products they make won't be sufficiently profitable on Nintendo platforms due to differing demographics. Now of course, any competent business is going to want to base these kinds of decisions on actual data instead of mere conjecture. This is why you will often see them release safer "test" products on Nintendo platforms that are less risky; even if they don't perform well, their business won't be significantly impacted. They also have marketing teams and work with marketing companies that send out surveys and ask consumers what platforms they're interested in and why. Based on their available data, they try to see where best they can turn a profit. It really is that simple.

That being said, with more powerful hardware, you will see more AAA publishers taking more risks, because there will simply be less to invest in terms of development costs (when you don't have to put so many resources into a bespoke version of a game, you don't have to spend as much money). You will also see more AAA games on Nintendo platforms when Nintendo establishes better relationships with AAA publishers (Sony and MS place a great emphasis on this in their respective businesses).

I honestly do not believe that these companies are acting irrationally when they avoid Nintendo platforms. I think they're just being very cautious, maybe too cautious.

 

[FrakEarth]

I disagree.

At the end of the day, a company's chief concern is going to be how it can turn a profit. Even if a product does well, a publisher has to consider how much they will get as a return on their initial investment. Selling at cost, for instance, might result in lots of sales, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's profitable for the publisher to go that route. A Switch port might do well with a niche group of Nintendo consumers, but it also might not be enough to recoup the cost of the initial investment and turn a justifiable profit. I think that's a reasonable factor for a business to consider.

So when you say:



I think it's an inaccurate representation of what is happening with these kinds of business decisions. In either case, the publisher recognizes that the product doesn't align with the standards, expectations, and demands of the demographic to which they're advertising the failing product, and respond in a way that they feel is appropriate to protect the future of their business. Sometimes said demographics differ between Sony/MS platforms and Nintendo platforms.

It's not that many AAA publishers think that Nintendo users are the problem, but they often believe that the products they make won't be sufficiently profitable on Nintendo platforms due to differing demographics. Now of course, any competent business is going to want to base these kinds of decisions on actual data instead of mere conjecture. This is why you will often see them release safer "test" products on Nintendo platforms that are less risky; even if they don't perform well, their business won't be significantly impacted. They also have marketing teams and work with marketing companies that send out surveys and ask consumers what platforms they're interested in and why. Based on their available data, they try to see where best they can turn a profit. It really is that simple.

That being said, with more powerful hardware, you will see more AAA publishers taking more risks, because there will simply be less to invest in terms of development costs (when you don't have to put so many resources into a bespoke version of a game, you don't have to spend as much money). You will also see more AAA games on Nintendo platforms when Nintendo establishes better relationships with AAA publishers (Sony and MS place a great emphasis on this in their respective businesses).

I honestly do not believe that these companies are acting irrationally when they avoid Nintendo platforms. I think they're just being very cautious, maybe too cautious.

While I think this is true in 99% of cases, I do think perceptions and relationship damage can persist a long time. There are certain producers and developers who you just know would never work on a Nintendo SKU, or would prefer not to. And there will be people in positions of authority who carry certain beliefs or have a certain approach to work with partners or have a favoured partner due to historic relationships etc. That doesn't mean Nintendo can't get the software if the publisher thinks it's a good fit - but I think its often a combination of things. Market research and an abundance of caution in AAA development, certainly, but also historic and established practices when it comes to avoiding getting hurt when working with Nintendo platforms. You have to remember when thinking about stuff like this, Nintendo are the strongest publisher on Nintendo platforms. They could release anywhere between 5 to 10 big titles in a given year, every one of them being potentially massive. They've gotten really good at leaving space that can be filled out by other publishers and developers, and they've gotten better at pushing third party games too - but I still think that's an important thing to consider. On a Nintendo platform, Nintendo are your most dangerous competitor. Then there are other realities of the market: there are a few cases many of you will probably be able to think of where the Nintendo port came later, and I think in those cases it was - "if we can do it great, but it's not our priority". Part of that may be what you've described, it may be established relationship patterns, but it could also partly be to do with how Nintendo have aligned themselves as something of a separate build-target when compared to the other two platform holders - who do tend to better align their platforms with one another in terms of features and performance targets. What I'm saying is, 100%, publishers are pragmatic and want to make money - but there are doubtless people and teams with a persisted focus on the other platform holders for whatever reason, who - for entirely rational reasons - need a really good, convincing reason - to change their approach. Nintendo have made really strong headway this generation IMO. If they reinvest their income in to improving their services offering, I think they can continue to build and rebuild relationships as we go forward.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I honestly do not believe that these companies are acting irrationally when they avoid Nintendo platforms.

Compile Heart just announced a new Neptunia game exclusively for PS4/PS5 in japan tho

 

[Terrell]

I disagree.

At the end of the day, a company's chief concern is going to be how it can turn a profit. Even if a product does well, a publisher has to consider how much they will get as a return on their initial investment. Selling at cost, for instance, might result in lots of sales, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's profitable for the publisher to go that route. A Switch port might do well with a niche group of Nintendo consumers, but it also might not be enough to recoup the cost of the initial investment and turn a justifiable profit. I think that's a reasonable factor for a business to consider.

So when you say:



I think it's an inaccurate representation of what is happening with these kinds of business decisions. In either case, the publisher recognizes that the product doesn't align with the standards, expectations, and demands of the demographic to which they're advertising the failing product, and respond in a way that they feel is appropriate to protect the future of their business. Sometimes said demographics differ between Sony/MS platforms and Nintendo platforms.

It's not that many AAA publishers think that Nintendo users are the problem, but they often believe that the products they make won't be sufficiently profitable on Nintendo platforms due to differing demographics. Now of course, any competent business is going to want to base these kinds of decisions on actual data instead of mere conjecture. This is why you will often see them release safer "test" products on Nintendo platforms that are less risky; even if they don't perform well, their business won't be significantly impacted. They also have marketing teams and work with marketing companies that send out surveys and ask consumers what platforms they're interested in and why. Based on their available data, they try to see where best they can turn a profit. It really is that simple.

That being said, with more powerful hardware, you will see more AAA publishers taking more risks, because there will simply be less to invest in terms of development costs (when you don't have to put so many resources into a bespoke version of a game, you don't have to spend as much money). You will also see more AAA games on Nintendo platforms when Nintendo establishes better relationships with AAA publishers (Sony and MS place a great emphasis on this in their respective businesses).

I honestly do not believe that these companies are acting irrationally when they avoid Nintendo platforms. I think they're just being very cautious, maybe too cautious.

The ”test” products are frankly a failure in concept without realistic expectations. Using the sales of one product to justify the release of another more compelling product is fine, so long as they either make the “test” product as compelling as possible in kind (which is usually not the case), equally marketed to other products (which is also typically untrue) or do not expect it to reach the heights of their more compelling product. With many of these “test” products eventually making their way to other platforms and continuing to perform significantly lower than their other more compelling products, one would hope is that publishers have learned that lesson.
In the Switch era, they relied more on “beg us for it to prove the audience exists”, which used to amount to nothing when it was directed at owners of unpopular platforms but blew up in all their faces with Switch (looking at you, Bandai Namco, you got what you asked for, hope you’re not sour about it).

All this said, while I do believe that publishers don’t typically act irrationally, it certainly can look that way from the outside, especially when rational actions need to be based on correct data and it’s not controversial to say that there’s a strong chance that their data can be either incorrect or incorrectly interpreted, which has serious ramifications to their decision making. This is true of all businesses, even Nintendo (because let’s be clear, they don’t always seem to behave like rational actors 100% of the time, either).

While I think this is true in 99% of cases, I do think perceptions and relationship damage can persist a long time. There are certain producers and developers who you just know would never work on a Nintendo SKU, or would prefer not to. And there will be people in positions of authority who carry certain beliefs or have a certain approach to work with partners or have a favoured partner due to historic relationships etc. That doesn't mean Nintendo can't get the software if the publisher thinks it's a good fit - but I think its often a combination of things. Market research and an abundance of caution in AAA development, certainly, but also historic and established practices when it comes to avoiding getting hurt when working with Nintendo platforms. You have to remember when thinking about stuff like this, Nintendo are the strongest publisher on Nintendo platforms. They could release anywhere between 5 to 10 big titles in a given year, every one of them being potentially massive. They've gotten really good at leaving space that can be filled out by other publishers and developers, and they've gotten better at pushing third party games too - but I still think that's an important thing to consider. On a Nintendo platform, Nintendo are your most dangerous competitor. Then there are other realities of the market: there are a few cases many of you will probably be able to think of where the Nintendo port came later, and I think in those cases it was - "if we can do it great, but it's not our priority". Part of that may be what you've described, it may be established relationship patterns, but it could also partly be to do with how Nintendo have aligned themselves as something of a separate build-target when compared to the other two platform holders - who do tend to better align their platforms with one another in terms of features and performance targets. What I'm saying is, 100%, publishers are pragmatic and want to make money - but there are doubtless people and teams with a persisted focus on the other platform holders for whatever reason, who - for entirely rational reasons - need a really good, convincing reason - to change their approach. Nintendo have made really strong headway this generation IMO. If they reinvest their income in to improving their services offering, I think they can continue to build and rebuild relationships as we go forward.

And yes, I agree with this, as well, business relationships have an impact.
NIS releasing Disgaea 5 on Switch for launch was a bit of a “what the hell” kind of move, since their relationship with Nintendo wasn’t all that strong and the franchise had little traction. And it paid off huge for them, from the look of things.

And that’s ultimately the sticking point I have: publishers should not be afraid to take risks wrt Nintendo hardware, NIS is an example of one such risk that paid big dividends. Before the buyout, Bethesda also made such a gamble that seemed to pay off for them. Be bold FFS.

 

[Dekuman]

The ”test” products are frankly a failure in concept without realistic expectations. Using the sales of one product to justify the release of another more compelling product is fine, so long as they either make the “test” product as compelling as possible in kind (which is usually not the case), equally marketed to other products (which is also typically untrue) or do not expect it to reach the heights of their more compelling product. With many of these “test” products eventually making their way to other platforms and continuing to perform significantly lower than their other more compelling products, one would hope is that publishers have learned that lesson.
In the Switch era, they relied more on “beg us for it to prove the audience exists”, which used to amount to nothing when it was directed at owners of unpopular platforms but blew up in all their faces with Switch (looking at you, Bandai Namco, you got what you asked for, hope you’re not sour about it).

All this said, while I do believe that publishers don’t typically act irrationally, it certainly can look that way from the outside, especially when rational actions need to be based on correct data and it’s not controversial to say that there’s a strong chance that their data can be either incorrect or incorrectly interpreted, which has serious ramifications to their decision making. This is true of all businesses, even Nintendo (because let’s be clear, they don’t always seem to behave like rational actors 100% of the time, either).

And yes, I agree with this, as well, business relationships have an impact.
NIS releasing Disgaea 5 on Switch for launch was a bit of a “what the hell” kind of move, since their relationship with Nintendo wasn’t all that strong and the franchise had little traction. And it paid off huge for them, from the look of things.

And that’s ultimately the sticking point I have: publishers should not be afraid to take risks wrt Nintendo hardware, NIS is an example of one such risk that paid big dividends. Before the buyout, Bethesda also made such a gamble that seemed to pay off for them.

I feel like a lot of 'test' games are just guesses from fans looking at a lineup, spotting an odd release from a prolific publisher, and making a guess as to why a game exists, and may not really be true tests or may be testing things outside of strictly market reaction/sales.

Here are some very reasonable reasons for these games to exist

• To test market viability of a franchise on a platform or the platform itself (this is the most common assumed reason for such games existing)
• To test engine compatability. train staff to work on said hardware and rather waste effort, amortize the R&D into a commercial product
• Said game could be part of a signed deal with platform holder where they will receive guaranteed marketing/publishing/royalty support. it's free money, and they've signed on to release X amount of games under a timeframe and they are obliged to push out a set number of releases to capture those contractual benefits
• Some or all of the above

As you can see in my list above, a lot of reasons for why a certain release may land on a platform may be a bit opaque and unknown to us due to the fact it would be tied closely to business dealings we're not privy to.

 

[LoneRanger]

Sometimes I think that Switch Dane will receive the same support as OG from third parties with primarly late PS4/XOne ports

Examples:

• I expect Square-Enix to bring their high budget titles like FF VIIR1/XV/XVI (it was originally a PS4 title), DQXII, KH3 (maybe also 4) and some others. Don’t have many expectations so far for western side.
• I have faith that Capcom will quickly port RE VII/VIII/2R/3R. If DMCIV doesn’t get ported to actual hardware, I have my doubts they will port DMCV. I fully expect SFVI to arrive at next hardware. Even Dragons Dogma 2 is its a cross gen game.
• Konami doesn’t produces too many high budget titles anymore but if those rumoured Silent Hill, Castlevania and/or MGS games (whatever new or remakes) are true and planned to be multiplattform, I think they will be released at Dane Switch.
• Don’t have too many expectations on Bandai-Namco. They didn’t ported any of their internal games to Switch. (Big) maybe they will bring Tales of Arise (though I think that game can also run on actual hardware). I can’t imagine Harada announcing Tekken 8 for Dane Switch. If they are not interested in porting Dark Souls 2/3 to Switch, I can’t imagine them trying to bring Elder Ring.
• 100% expect Koei-Tecmo support, that also will likely run on actual hardware.
• Now that Nagoshi is gone (right?) and if that rumour that they have plans to port Virtua Fighter 5 US (that uses the Dragon Engine) to OG Switch, I think that we will see all Yakuza titles arriving to both hardwares (some will be for both, other for exclusive).
• Don’t expect next wave of Ubisoft GaaS to be on Dane Switch. Though I can see them porting their AC open world trilogy. Have problem imagine porting latest Far Cry or Watch Dogs.
• Also have trouble thinking EA will change and decided to bring their next wave of titles (Star Wars, Skate, Dragon Age 4, Dead Space 1 remake, Mass Effect, etc). Even have trouble thinking we will get full versions of FIFA and Madden.
• I totally expect Ed Boon will convince Warner to let them port MK12 to Dane Switch, but unless something changed, I don’t have many faith in other WB products like Batman games.
• If Activision-Blizzard didn’t got involved on the scandal that we know, I think we will see at least COD Warzone.
• Take-Two and its their divisions will probably be a big Dane supporter with ports of Borderlands 3 (playable on OG Switch), Mafia trilogy, and the big surprise: Rockstar’s RDR2 and (big) maybe GTAV. Maybe even they fin a way to port the next Bioshock.
• I can see mid size developers bringing their titles exclusive to Dane Switch, like Metro Exodus, Saint Row Reboot, etc. It will be mainly PS4/XOne games and some occasional PS5 titles.

In few word; I expect an increase on japanese support (also because of the bad PS4/5 situation) and western support to be mostly flat.

 

[LiC]

I feel like a lot of 'test' games are just guesses from fans looking at a lineup, spotting an odd release from a prolific publisher, and making a guess as to why a game exists, and may not really be true tests or may be testing things outside of strictly market reaction/sales.

Here are some very reasonable reasons for these games to exist

• To test market viability of a franchise on a platform or the platform itself (this is the most common assumed reason for such games existing)
• To test engine compatability. train staff to work on said hardware and rather waste effort, amortize the R&D into a commercial product
• Said game could be part of a signed deal with platform holder where they will receive guaranteed marketing/publishing/royalty support. it's free money, and they've signed on to release X amount of games under a timeframe and they are obliged to push out a set number of releases to capture those contractual benefits
• Some or all of the above

As you can see in my list above, a lot of reasons for why a certain release may land on a platform may be a bit opaque and unknown to us due to the fact it would be tied closely to business dealings we're not privy to.

Bolded is a pretty underappreciated reason for a lot of games' releases. Even some first-party titles are like this, such as Wind Waker HD being used to get the Zelda team experienced with a new development pipeline before they started work on BotW (though obviously it was itself a significant release, and was succeeded by TPHD and SSHD both being handled externally by Tantalus). That said, it only really makes sense if you plan to keep releasing games on the hardware, which for a number of third-parties with supposed "test" games, still hasn't really materialized.

 

[PedroNavajas]

I feel like a lot of 'test' games are just guesses from fans looking at a lineup, spotting an odd release from a prolific publisher, and making a guess as to why a game exists, and may not really be true tests or may be testing things outside of strictly market reaction/sales.

Here are some very reasonable reasons for these games to exist

• To test market viability of a franchise on a platform or the platform itself (this is the most common assumed reason for such games existing)
• To test engine compatability. train staff to work on said hardware and rather waste effort, amortize the R&D into a commercial product
• Said game could be part of a signed deal with platform holder where they will receive guaranteed marketing/publishing/royalty support. it's free money, and they've signed on to release X amount of games under a timeframe and they are obliged to push out a set number of releases to capture those contractual benefits
• Some or all of the above

As you can see in my list above, a lot of reasons for why a certain release may land on a platform may be a bit opaque and unknown to us due to the fact it would be tied closely to business dealings we're not privy to.

Except companies like EA, Capcom and Bamco have gone on record that their games are indeed test products.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Welp it's no wonder GotG on switch is on cloud only. Base xbone and PS4 struggle at 720-920p and 20-30fps. I have no clue how cloud switch version performs, but I heard it's not all that. Meanwhile, PS5 and X series x either does 1080p 60fps performance or 4k 30fps quality (with some RT support?), while x series s is strangely just 1080p 30fps.

The textures, shadows, lighting, draw distance are a lot better on PS5/x series x from a quality perspective vs last gen.

I wonder if Switch 2 could get us 1080p 60fps after DLSS on a docked mode?

 

[ILikeFeet]

Welp it's no wonder GotG on switch is on cloud only. Base xbone and PS4 struggle at 720-920p and 20-30fps. I have no clue how cloud switch version performs, but I heard it's not all that. Meanwhile, PS5 and X series x either does 1080p 60fps performance or 4k 30fps quality (with some RT support?), while x series s is strangely just 1080p 30fps.

The textures, shadows, lighting, draw distance are a lot better on PS5/x series x from a quality perspective vs last gen.

I wonder if Switch 2 could get us 1080p 60fps after DLSS on a docked mode?

RT mode is like 1440p/30fps. which makes the 1080p/60 all the more weirder. Series S also now has an uncapped framerate mode

don't expect Dane to do 60fps. the XBO does 720p/30. the game might need another overall optimization pass to hit any higher

 

[SiG]

I wonder if Nvidia will create a dedicated RT pipeline within a new version of the NVN API if they do decide to go for RT cores. Hopefully this should optimize a lot of developer implementations for any RT functions they might intergate, but are unsure about how to implement it while incuring the least amount of performance cost.

I expect a lot of "cheating" on Nvidia's/Nintendo's part (such as half or quarter resolution RT projection) to give developers the perfect balance of quality, performance and battery life as a preset. They could be able to tweak these settings should they choose.

 

[TonyBaduy]

At the very least GotG would be able to run 1080p/30fps due to the better CPU, but who knows? Maybe, if they ported it, they'd be able to optimize it enough to run it at 1080p/60fps. I wonder if they'd be able to at least get it to run at 1440p/30fps if they tried?

Also, hopefully Nintendo and Nvidia have figured something out already for RT so it doesn't consume too much energy, maybe on the finalized Orin chip the problem will have been solved or as, SiG suggested, an API to facilitate it. I am quite sure Nintendo is interested in keeping RT as they love to make the illumination in their games look great and that'd only make it better.

NLG next game will probably be quite impressive to look at, considering LM3 looked increadible already.

 

[ShadowFox08]

RT mode is like 1440p/30fps. which makes the 1080p/60 all the more weirder. Series S also now has an uncapped framerate mode

don't expect Dane to do 60fps. the XBO does 720p/30. the game might need another overall optimization pass to hit any higher

Yeah its really weird. I can't imagine the CPU holding it back from 60fps? The PS5 CPU isn't that much higher in speed than the Series S.

But performance mode 1080p 60fps on PS5 and XsX often goes to low 50s, and even high 40s in combat.

Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy: an excellent game - but 60fps comes at a cost

Developer Eidos Montreal's take on Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy brings us one of the very best story-driven games o…

www.eurogamer.net

Yeah we'll see if it can be optimized further..

At the very least GotG would be able to run 1080p/30fps due to the better CPU, but who knows? Maybe, if they ported it, they'd be able to optimize it enough to run it at 1080p/60fps. I wonder if they'd be able to at least get it to run at 1440p/30fps if they tried?

Also, hopefully Nintendo and Nvidia have figured something out already for RT so it doesn't consume too much energy, maybe on the finalized Orin chip the problem will have been solved or as, SiG suggested, an API to facilitate it. I am quite sure Nintendo is interested in keeping RT as they love to make the illumination in their games look great and that'd only make it better.

NLG next game will probably be quite impressive to look at, considering LM3 looked increadible already.

Agreed. Its around 900p 20-30fps on PS4 base, so 1080p with a solid 30fps should be doable.

 

[Ojoloco]

There are rumors about what approximate date Dane could release?

 

[Hermii]

There are rumors about what approximate date Dane could release?

Nope.

 

[Deleted member 887]

That said, it only really makes sense if you plan to keep releasing games on the hardware, which for a number of third-parties with supposed "test" games, still hasn't really materialized.

Occasionally the result of this experimentation is “it’s not worth it.” You can plan to support a platform, not he happy with the results, and still release your test game to recoup some sunk costs.

 

[Guaraná]

Sorry to make some stupid questions, but im kinda out of the loop here, and I think this is the best place to clarify some stuff:

1) why everybody is calling the new Nintendo hardware Dane?

2) How sure are we that the next console will be a hybrid?

 

[Hermii]

Sorry to make some stupid questions, but im kinda out of the loop here, and I think this is the best place to clarify some stuff:

1) why everybody is calling the new Nintendo hardware Dane?

2) How sure are we that the next console will be a hybrid?

1. Reliable Nvidia leaker has leaked that the Nintendo chip is codenamed Dane, and is based on Orin (Nvidias automotive platform).

2. Really sure.

 

[Dekuman]

Except companies like EA, Capcom and Bamco have gone on record that their games are indeed test products.

sure, but even then in the context of the intervirews, the reason for test is often unclear. We just assume its testing market viability because that's a logical assumption, but it could be a bunch of other things (including market viability) and if there are hidden incentives to just release a game out on said platform, they aren't going to be advertising it. i'd just be very cautious in assuming one dimensional motivations for these games existing.

 

[RaymondBryce]

Sometimes I think that Switch Dane will receive the same support as OG from third parties with primarly late PS4/XOne ports

Examples:

• I expect Square-Enix to bring their high budget titles like FF VIIR1/XV/XVI (it was originally a PS4 title), DQXII, KH3 (maybe also 4) and some others. Don’t have many expectations so far for western side.
• I have faith that Capcom will quickly port RE VII/VIII/2R/3R. If DMCIV doesn’t get ported to actual hardware, I have my doubts they will port DMCV. I fully expect SFVI to arrive at next hardware. Even Dragons Dogma 2 is its a cross gen game.
• Konami doesn’t produces too many high budget titles anymore but if those rumoured Silent Hill, Castlevania and/or MGS games (whatever new or remakes) are true and planned to be multiplattform, I think they will be released at Dane Switch.
• Don’t have too many expectations on Bandai-Namco. They didn’t ported any of their internal games to Switch. (Big) maybe they will bring Tales of Arise (though I think that game can also run on actual hardware). I can’t imagine Harada announcing Tekken 8 for Dane Switch. If they are not interested in porting Dark Souls 2/3 to Switch, I can’t imagine them trying to bring Elder Ring.
• 100% expect Koei-Tecmo support, that also will likely run on actual hardware.
• Now that Nagoshi is gone (right?) and if that rumour that they have plans to port Virtua Fighter 5 US (that uses the Dragon Engine) to OG Switch, I think that we will see all Yakuza titles arriving to both hardwares (some will be for both, other for exclusive).
• Don’t expect next wave of Ubisoft GaaS to be on Dane Switch. Though I can see them porting their AC open world trilogy. Have problem imagine porting latest Far Cry or Watch Dogs.
• Also have trouble thinking EA will change and decided to bring their next wave of titles (Star Wars, Skate, Dragon Age 4, Dead Space 1 remake, Mass Effect, etc). Even have trouble thinking we will get full versions of FIFA and Madden.
• I totally expect Ed Boon will convince Warner to let them port MK12 to Dane Switch, but unless something changed, I don’t have many faith in other WB products like Batman games.
• If Activision-Blizzard didn’t got involved on the scandal that we know, I think we will see at least COD Warzone.
• Take-Two and its their divisions will probably be a big Dane supporter with ports of Borderlands 3 (playable on OG Switch), Mafia trilogy, and the big surprise: Rockstar’s RDR2 and (big) maybe GTAV. Maybe even they fin a way to port the next Bioshock.
• I can see mid size developers bringing their titles exclusive to Dane Switch, like Metro Exodus, Saint Row Reboot, etc. It will be mainly PS4/XOne games and some occasional PS5 titles.

In few word; I expect an increase on japanese support (also because of the bad PS4/5 situation) and western support to be mostly flat.

Agree with most this. I'd expect Atlus and Marvellous to be big supporters too.

 

[Dakhil]

Before reading any further, do keep in mind RedGamingTech's not exactly reliable when rumours are concerned.

• Although source #1 mentions Nvidia plans to launch DLSS 3.0 alongside Lovelace, source #2 mentions that Nvidia may launch DLSS 3.0 earlier due to Intel XeSS
• The speed up in ray tracing performance is faster than the speed up in rasterisation performance, percentage wise, for DLSS 3.0
• DLSS 3.0 has denoising built in the neural network
• Lovelace is expected to be slower than RDNA 3, with AD102 having ~2.4x more performance compared to the RTX 3090, and Navi 31 having 3x more performance compared to the RX 6900 XT
• Lovelace features 3rd gen RT cores, which allegedly increases the ray triangle intersection performance in comparison to Ampere
• Not only did Nvidia increase the raw computational performance of the 3rd gen RT cores, but the 3rd gen RT cores are also more power efficient and can better utilise the Tensor cores

 

[Terrell]

Before reading any further, do keep in mind RedGamingTech's not exactly reliable when rumours are concerned.

• Although source #1 mentions Nvidia plans to launch DLSS 3.0 alongside Lovelace, source #2 mentions that Nvidia may launch DLSS 3.0 earlier due to Intel XeSS
• The speed up in ray tracing performance is faster than the speed up in rasterisation performance, percentage wise, for DLSS 3.0
• DLSS 3.0 has denoising built in the neural network
• Lovelace is expected to be slower than RDNA 3, with AD102 having ~2.4x more performance compared to the RTX 3090, and Navi 31 having 3x more performance compared to the RX 6900 XT
• Lovelace features 3rd gen RT cores, which allegedly increases the ray triangle intersection performance in comparison to Ampere
• Not only did Nvidia increase the raw computational performance of the 3rd gen RT cores, but the 3rd gen RT cores are also more power efficient and can better utilise the Tensor cores

Fingers crossed that these RT cores end up in Dane.