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

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

Reader mode
Ced Naru said:
Is that just high on copium or is that message explicitly mentioning "Xbox and PlayStation gamers" but don't use "Switch", only a broader "Nintendo players" ?
Click to expand...
No, that was definitely intentional. COD is coming to Nintendo, just not necessarily Nintendo Switch.

This gives me great confidence in the future of Nintendo consoles, that Microsoft thinks Nintendo (well, really, Nvidia) can deliver handhelds that can play full fat Xbox games for years to come, no matter what the Xbox does.
 
ArchedThunder said:
Switch docked clock is 768MHz.
Personally I think the idea of them using the same clock speeds as the regular Switch is a tiny bit pessimistic, I think they’ll have modest increases, but nothing crazy.
Click to expand...
The Switch has an unused 921MHz profile.

I'm being pessimistic with clocks because we still don't know the node. I can't imagine Drake being clocked lower than 306MHz even on 8nm (and I don't believe in 8nm anyway). And there's still 6x the number of gpu cores and 3 gens worth of arch updates, so TFLOPS aren't even all that telling
 
Concernt said:


So. The Switch [REDACTED] comes out before the next Call of Duty, doesn't it? 🤭
Click to expand...

this does seem to confirm why so few mobile ports show up on Switch and probably why COD mobile didn't make it on. Nintendo wants content and feature parity with the other consoles, not mobile. Seems to confirm what we've suspected for a while in terms of how ports work on Switch.
 
With that 10-year deal confirmed, I don't think COD will be coming to the current Switch unless it's an old port, like Black Ops 1(which I still doubt, honestly). Even if the successor comes out this year, I still think COD would come out the following year. Though, I guess that depends on how long these plans have been in the oven.
 
D36 said:
With that 10-year deal confirmed, I don't think COD will be coming to the current Switch unless it's an old port, like Black Ops 1(which I still doubt, honestly). Even if the successor comes out this year, I still think COD would come out the following year. Though, I guess that depends on how long these plans have been in the oven.
Click to expand...
I doubt it has been in the oven very long, as it never would have happened if it was smooth sailing getting the deal approved imo.
 
Hermii said:
I doubt it has been in the oven very long, as it never would have happened if it was smooth sailing getting the deal approved imo.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Microsoft probably wants to convince as many people in the FTC as possible that their acquisition of ABK is good for gaming. Their deal with Nintendo being a stepping stone. Though, I wonder what'll happen if the acquisition falls through.
 
D36 said:
Yeah, Microsoft probably wants to convince as many people in the FTC as possible that their acquisition of ABK is good for gaming. Their deal with Nintendo being a stepping stone. Though, I wonder what'll happen if the acquisition falls through.
Click to expand...
im more confused that nintendos playing the game. sure, in the sort run its good for them, but in the long run? wouldn't they be against that?
 
Quoted by: D36
1
Aether said:
im more confused that nintendos playing the game. sure, in the sort run its good for them, but in the long run? wouldn't they be against that?
Click to expand...
Why would they be against it? It's not like the acquisition would have affected them that much, would it?
 
D36 said:
Why would they be against it? It's not like the acquisition would have affected them that much, would it?
Click to expand...
If it affects them its just positive imo. I mean they are getting cod. I dont see that their chances are any worse than before of getting other franchises either under MS leadership.
 
D36 said:
With that 10-year deal confirmed, I don't think COD will be coming to the current Switch unless it's an old port, like Black Ops 1(which I still doubt, honestly). Even if the successor comes out this year, I still think COD would come out the following year. Though, I guess that depends on how long these plans have been in the oven.
Click to expand...
Phil said the porting work would start following the approval of the merger. so there's nothing in the works now, and even if it was approved, porting won't start until the studio gets dev kits if they haven't gotten them already
 
D36 said:
Why would they be against it? It's not like the acquisition would have affected them that much, would it?
Click to expand...
Under the assumption that they are after a rather similar market (Gaming, media franchises, getting people in their eco system) and the assumption that the monopolization would be really that bad if it goes through (i think in the long run it would be bad), wouldn't they want the gaming branch of microsoft to keep at least at a comparable level? or do you think they seem themselves as so unique, that no mather what others do, their franchises will keep them on top?
 
Aether said:
Under the assumption that they are after a rather similar market (Gaming, media franchises, getting people in their eco system) and the assumption that the monopolization would be really that bad if it goes through (i think in the long run it would be bad), wouldn't they want the gaming branch of microsoft to keep at least at a comparable level? or do you think they seem themselves as so unique, that no mather what others do, their franchises will keep them on top?
Click to expand...
Nintendo has been on a neutral stance at best. I don't think they're blind to how Activision sees them. and if MS allows them to keep autonomy, then the door never budged
 
ILikeFeet said:
Nintendo has been on a neutral stance at best. I don't think they're blind to how Activision sees them. and if MS allows them to keep autonomy, then the door never budged
Click to expand...
yeah probably. this just seems kinda risky to me, or they dont expect the merger to push microsoft that much forward in the future?
say microsoft manages to get some more family friendly/diverse audience games off the ground, and after 10 years stopps porting CoD, and stuff like Warcraft, Diablo etc stays with them. that could bring them in a position where nintendo definitely looses some grip on the market.

But maybe the idea is that by then the market changes enough that assessments from today wont work?
 
Aether said:
yeah probably. this just seems kinda risky to me, or they dont expect the merger to push microsoft that much forward in the future?
say microsoft manages to get some more family friendly/diverse audience games off the ground, and after 10 years stopps porting CoD, and stuff like Warcraft, Diablo etc stays with them. that could bring them in a position where nintendo definitely looses some grip on the market.

But maybe the idea is that by then the market changes enough that assessments from today wont work?
Click to expand...
predicting 10 years is pretty much impossible. especially in tech terms
 
ILikeFeet said:
predicting 10 years is pretty much impossible. especially in tech terms
Click to expand...
true. still it does not seem like the safe strategy to give more power to your competitor for a short term repaiment (CoD),
but then again, they could be really confident with what they are planing for the future.

Honestly, im starting to think that the big push for the next platform will less be "and see this fun hardware Gimmick" (ok, never expected that) and more:
See what Nintendo online REALLY is. I feel like they will try to go way more into this aspect... the DLC packs in the Online Subscription are one of the big aspects, and if they go into media creation they can probably stream Soundtracks, Movies and Shows based on their properties in combination with Nintendo Online. Expand the Online app for smartphone (so that streaming of those works there to), and i could see them being confident in the "nintendo experience"...

(talking 5 year plan, starting with some of those aspects, pushing the online more at the start, and expanding it over time as they did with the switch)
 
I don't think this agreement is purely cosmetic. It's likely working through roadblocks that has prevented CoD from showing up on Switch before. Nintendo for it'd part very likely also agreed to special financial terms they normally don't agree to.

The text of the tweet went out of its way to mention content and feature parity with other consoles. This could be window dressing for the FTC to indicate it wont be a mobile port , but I suspect this was the roadblock for Nintendo before agreeing to any terms with Activision previously who was unwilling to put in the effort to maintain a Switch branch for CoD.

If the merger falls through, there's still a framework for the parties to proceed.
 
Last edited:
Dekuman said:
I don't think this agreement is purely cosmetic. It's likely working through roadblocks that has prevented CoD from showing up on Switch before. Nintendo for it'd part very likely also agreed to special financial terms they normally don't agree to.

If the merger falls through, there's still a framework for the parties to proceed.
Click to expand...
the roadblocks were "Activision doesn't want to". that could change with new hardware. or not. all MS would be doing is forcing them to do it
 
Oh, since i saw it in the GBA thread... why the hell did nintendo not try to have a first party vertical positioning grip for the switch, for vertical games?
A lot of arcade does support tate mode, and it could be used for some mobile games, for DS/3DS emulation, and for fun smaller games, alternate game modes, etc.
It would be a cheap plastic grip if they go really basic, and could be tossed in with a game like the 3DS stand that they sold with kid iccarus, or the ring for ringfit (except that that one was more expensive, so they needed to increase the price, but here it would be molded plastic thats not that big)
 
ILikeFeet said:
the roadblocks were "Activision doesn't want to". that could change with new hardware. or not. all MS would be doing is forcing them to do it
Click to expand...
The Switch was always a stretch but I suspect Activision offered ports of the mobile version of a non feature complete version and Nintendo declined. They were not absent as a publisher compared to say EA. Their other properties made it on.
 
Aether said:
Oh, since i saw it in the GBA thread... why the hell did nintendo not try to have a first party vertical positioning grip for the switch, for vertical games?
A lot of arcade does support tate mode, and it could be used for some mobile games, for DS/3DS emulation, and for fun smaller games, alternate game modes, etc.
It would be a cheap plastic grip if they go really basic, and could be tossed in with a game like the 3DS stand that they sold with kid iccarus, or the ring for ringfit (except that that one was more expensive, so they needed to increase the price, but here it would be molded plastic thats not that big)
Click to expand...
Beacuse it's a very small niche, they are probably happy with what third parties are doing.

Regarding the Cod discussion: Microsoft has shown in recent years that they are interested in playing a very long game. Their end goal is to leverage Azure to sell you a gaming subscription with ridiculously high margins, but until then they'll play nice
 
fwd-bwd said:
billbil-kun is a reliable PS leaker. This is probably the rumored $299 GameStop SKU.
Click to expand...
The prices seem off; this would basically be giving Odyssey away for free, or giving big discounts to both the console and the game.

Edit: Ignore me, a $300 bundle was already introduced around Black Friday last year.
 
Last edited:
LiC said:
The prices seem off; this would basically be giving Odyssey away for free, or giving big discounts to both the console and the game.
Click to expand...
could be advertised as a special "short time deal" for the Movie launch?
Would incentivize people that are not that interested to give it a go after being hyped up from the movie?
 
0
Zaimokuza said:
Beacuse it's a very small niche, they are probably happy with what third parties are doing.
Click to expand...
Well, since 3DS/DS emulation still seems so far away, youre probably right. If they want that, this would be the way to go in my opinion.
And niche... how many people would have wanted a pilates ring without the game ringfit? so if they would have a game idea there would be use for it in a broader market.

But you are probably right. its just one of the ways where i would hope they try to push the formfactor in the future.
 
0
Dekuman said:
The Switch was always a stretch but I suspect Activision offered ports of the mobile version of a non feature complete version and Nintendo declined. They were not absent as a publisher compared to say EA. Their other properties made it on.
Click to expand...
I don't see the whole "offer and decline" thing really being apt. if Activision wanted it, it would have been done. it's not like Timi doesn't know how to work on Switch hardware
 
Some more 16.0.0 changes:
  • Memory allocation behavior was future-proofed for running on larger amounts of RAM.
    • I.e., if greater than 8 GB, do this, or if greater than 16 GB, do this, etc. Not super interesting.
  • More mysterious changes to low-level kernel stuff that aren't used on current hardware (afaict no syscall additions/changes this time though).
  • A new database file for system error messages exists, which could be loaded instead of the current one, but it isn't present on current hardware.
    • This is the first new system data archive to appear in years. It also leaves a gap of 2 in the numbers which could be other unused packages.
 
LiC said:
Some more 16.0.0 changes:
  • Memory allocation behavior was future-proofed for running on larger amounts of RAM.
    • I.e., if greater than 8 GB, do this, or if greater than 16 GB, do this, etc. Not super interesting.
  • More mysterious changes to low-level kernel stuff that aren't used on current hardware (afaict no syscall additions/changes this time though).
  • A new database file for system error messages exists, which could be loaded instead of the current one, but it isn't present on current hardware.
    • This is the first new system data archive to appear in years. It also leaves a gap of 2 in the numbers which could be other unused packages.
Click to expand...
so... they want to keep using the OS.
As everybody expected, so nothing exciting there. Still thanks for the info.
 
LiC said:
Some more 16.0.0 changes:
  • Memory allocation behavior was future-proofed for running on larger amounts of RAM.
    • I.e., if greater than 8 GB, do this, or if greater than 16 GB, do this, etc. Not super interesting.
  • More mysterious changes to low-level kernel stuff that aren't used on current hardware (afaict no syscall additions/changes this time though).
  • A new database file for system error messages exists, which could be loaded instead of the current one, but it isn't present on current hardware.
    • This is the first new system data archive to appear in years. It also leaves a gap of 2 in the numbers which could be other unused packages.
Click to expand...
Greater than 16 gb you say?

Edit: I know it doesn't mean anything, but still kind of strange they would even account for that.
 
Aether said:
so... they want to keep using the OS.
As everybody expected, so nothing exciting there. Still thanks for the info.
Click to expand...
For a forum where some people said "but no concrete references", "not comparable", etc. etc., it kind of is. Now it's VEEEERY comparable. Memory allocation behaviour above 4GB? That's some solid evidence if I ever saw any. The presence or absence of a codename is irrelevant when THIS MUCH work for the new device is being pushed to the public stream.
 
Hermii said:
Greater than 16 gb you say?

Edit: I know it doesn't mean anything, but still kind of strange they would even account for that.
Click to expand...
Specifically, the configurations are (a) 8 GB or less, (b) between 8 and 16 GB, (c) between 16 and 32 GB, and (d) 32 GB or greater. So it's definitely just future-proofing.
 
Hermii said:
Greater than 16 gb you say?

Edit: I know it doesn't mean anything, but still kind of strange they would even account for that.
Click to expand...
i mean... while you're there, examining, improving and testing the code, its the best moment to future prove it to not need to get back there in the future.
I assume that the additional measures for more then 16 where just a handful of lines.
 
Concernt said:
For a forum where some people said "but no concrete references", "not comparable", etc. etc., it kind of is. Now it's VEEEERY comparable. Memory allocation behaviour above 4GB? That's some solid evidence if I ever saw any. The presence or absence of a codename is irrelevant when THIS MUCH work for the new device is being pushed to the public stream.
Click to expand...
i mean, they could as well have a whole new branch using this OS as a base, and people would not find references.
But you're right. i feel as if a lot of people don't know how OSs are structured/designed, and think you need to reinvent the wheel every view years.
Heck, just look at windows (or android), while both did change a lot under the hood, there is still so much legacy code from 10-10 years ago (and in windows case probably from the early 00s... assuming that most of the really early NT stuff was refactored and rewritten over time)
(Could be that Android had a massive refactor in the early years (2-3-4?), am not that into android to know)

To reiterate: you are right, thats about as clear a sign that they want to reuse the OS as we could wish for, no other reason for it.
 
LiC said:
Some more 16.0.0 changes:
  • Memory allocation behavior was future-proofed for running on larger amounts of RAM.
    • I.e., if greater than 8 GB, do this, or if greater than 16 GB, do this, etc. Not super interesting.
  • More mysterious changes to low-level kernel stuff that aren't used on current hardware (afaict no syscall additions/changes this time though).
  • A new database file for system error messages exists, which could be loaded instead of the current one, but it isn't present on current hardware.
    • This is the first new system data archive to appear in years. It also leaves a gap of 2 in the numbers which could be other unused packages.
Click to expand...
Where did you find this? I couldn't find it on their support page.
 
Dekuman said:
this does seem to confirm why so few mobile ports show up on Switch and probably why COD mobile didn't make it on. Nintendo wants content and feature parity with the other consoles, not mobile. Seems to confirm what we've suspected for a while in terms of how ports work on Switch.
Click to expand...


Say that to Fifa Legacy Edition 😂
 
Aether said:
i mean, they could as well have a whole new branch using this OS as a base, and people would not find references.
But you're right. i feel as if a lot of people don't know how OSs are structured/designed, and think you need to reinvent the wheel every view years.
Heck, just look at windows (or android), while both did change a lot under the hood, there is still so much legacy code from 10-10 years ago (and in windows case probably from the early 00s... assuming that most of the really early NT stuff was refactored and rewritten over time)
Click to expand...
There is still plenty of early 90s code in Windows. It hasn't been fully Ship of Theseus'd away yet.
 
ShadowFox08 said:
Where did you find this? I couldn't find it on their support page.
Click to expand...
Nintendo doesn't list internal changes on the support page, but I think Switchbrew.org has a decent breakdown.

Some other notable things I see in 16.0.0, the CPU thread manager and memory allocation manager were updated.
 
kimbo99 said:
Say that to Fifa Legacy Edition 😂
Click to expand...
The code base is just the same bespoke edition for Switch for Fifa 2018, so not really mobile. The issue with EA and Switch is frostbite. It took them years to port that engine over for PvZ and it's unclear what they've been doing with it since.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this new, consolidated staff post before posting.

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


Back
Top Bottom