Lots of unknown for sure, but knowing the specific hardware can definitely help establish a baseline/worst case scenario.
Having actual videos might actually be a waste of space vs just doing it in real time I feel.
Asking people who are knowledgeable about memory I/O: Does the Game Card need to be updated to reach these hypothetical speeds? Take the SD cards for example, extra pins are required for UHS-II, UHS-III, and SD Express:
Aside from ensuring backward compatibility, a potential benefit of extra pins might be to prevent piracy of cross-gen titles. In theory, Nintendo can include a private key that’s only accessible from the extra pins, and the private key is used to unlock Drake-only features and assets (e.g., 8 player co-op, DLSS, hi-res textures, etc.). If one dumps the ROM via a hacked Erista/Mariko model, they can’t access the key and thus can only dump it as a last-gen game, not cross-gen. Without any dumped cross-gen titles, it might be exceedingly difficult to develop an emulator for the Drake model.
These speeds still seem way too low compared to even a budget SSD.
A better idea would be to put the whole game on system memory or SD card and use the cart as a key. Splitting between two different speed mediums would induce stuttering at worse
Yet in hindsight we can see how it was almost definitely the right decision and kept them in the home console market for a little longer after the poor performance of N64/GCN. It's also what truly helped them become a household name and gain huge mindshare in relation to their home consoles.; Where I live most people only knew Nintendo for handhelds until the Wii. It set them up for success with the Switch. Who knows if Switch would've been as popular if Nintendo didn't have such success on the home console + handheld front until then. I think in hindsight Nintendo's home consoles were sort of always on borrowed time after the SNES. Every single platform holder who tried to support 2 platforms was kicked back to their strong point - Sega went back to arcades, Sony back to home consoles, Nintendo back to handhelds/portables. 2 platforms to support was simple untenable for any gaming company.
That would be awful for physical media collectors. Besides, I can't see Nintendo doing it because this and last gen, basically every single piece of physical media had the whole game on-cart playable from the get go (as you could simply opt out from updating).
In the end, the rule for every single thing in this thread is - if it saves money and allows them to balance the price-performance-battery triangle then they'll probably do it. Making games mostly download only I imagine has more pros than cons for Nintendo's business and most consumers would probably accept it (sadly). There's precedent with other gaming companies having done the same too.
I don't know. I think the fact that you can slap in a game card and just start playing, is a significant part of the Switches appeal.
I still can't see why or how Nintendo would drop physical media support this gen. It would heavily imply that the console wouldn't have retrocompatibility.
wccftech.com
sure, for Nintendo games, having the whole game on the card makes sense. but keeping the option for third parties allows them the best of both worlds. but at the end of the day, it's what's beneficial to their bottom line, and as soon as higher sized cards become too costly, they'll dip all the same
higher margin products getting priority isn't weird. that won't affect customer products like Drake thoughReport on Nvidia prioritising enterprise and AI products …
NVIDIA AI GPU Demand Blows Up, Chip Prices Increase By 40% & Stock Shortages Expected Till December
NVIDIA GPU business is booming thanks to AI but may not be able to keep up with demand despite increasing production at TSMC.
I don’t think Nintendo will go digital only.
Yeah for me too, but I think the jury's out on this one. I get what you mean since not everyone has persistent internet connection, but I suppose that's part of the challenge for Nintendo in their follow up. Switch is a mass market product intended to appeal to many different types of consumers. They want to satisfy those customers enough to the point where they determine their new console as worth of purchase, in turn retaining as many of them as possible. Management will have to make a value judgement based on the data they have, as to whether they think having more games as partial/full downloads is worth it. I can imagine more third/second parties definitely relying a lot more on it, since they have less incentive/skin in the game. A good amount already do on Switch right now to be honest, and some games aren't the full experience without their updates like Splatoon 2 and 3, Mario Tennis Aces, Switch Sports, Mario Golf, Mario Strikers Battle League, ARMS, Animal Crossing New Horizons etc.... I think Nintendo themselves will avoid it and have the full game on cart though (obviously without updates, like TOTK got it's day 1 stability update).
Oh no I don't think they'll drop it altogether, for the reasons you mention. The launch model will definitely have physical media compatability. But I imagine the idea of reducing reliance on physical media to make gains in other areas very well may be in the back of their minds, with what the rest of the market is doing. Think of it like maybe dipping their toes in it, like with the Switch Lite.
unrelated to this comment, but I wonder how large they’d make the Substrate for T239, nvidia doesn’t seem to make them small based on the other Silicon they make, even though they can be small as shown with Van Gogh. Their substrate overall end up being noticeably larger than the actual SoC.
unrelated to this comment, but I wonder how large they’d make the Substrate for T239, nvidia doesn’t seem to make them small based on the other Silicon they make, even though they can be small as shown with Van Gogh. Their substrate overall end up being noticeably larger than the actual SoC.
So I wonder if it’ll be smaller relatively speaking this time and closer to something like how Van Gogh is, or if it’ll be noticeably larger again.
Here’s the TX1 for anyone else:
And here’s Van Gogh:
We do focus on the size of the actual chip in theory, but I wonder if we should also discuss the substrate the chip itself sits on.
Even the PS5, Series X and Series S (in order) have noticeably larger substrates:
Going to be a bit of an odd question and you may or may not know the answer, but what determines how big the Substrate is?
they definitely won't change physical media. discs hit the wall a long time ago. a new format would have to be invented (which isn't impossible) but no one is gonna do that
Update: just did some testing with 1.1.1, and it seems to improve at least one rare, but major, performance issue related to asset streaming.
I believe they're using 100GB discs. Not sure if it's the UHD format, specifically. There's some weird competing format nonsense with higher end blu-rays. Could be BDXL.
I think RAM bandwidth's still going to be one of the biggest bottlenecks for Nintendo's new hardware (and for hybrid and/or handheld consoles in general).
This. So fucking much.
Oh that's good. That's the only time anything performance related has taken me out of the game.
Hopefully, but it really depends on the node. If its 4N, yep, but if its Samsung 5nm probably closer to PS4 than PS4 Pro. Honestly, anything north of PS4 on the GPU side will be adequate. PS4 GPU grunt with DLSS would still give Nintendo's development teams a ton of extra performance compared to what they have been working with since 2012. Its hard to accurately compare PS4 Pro to Redacted as well. The GNC architecture in PS4 Pro is old and inefficient compared to Ampere, but it does still have the peak "theoretical" FLOP advantage and of course a massive memory bandwidth advantage. Im guessing that most games on Redacted will render internally at 1080p and use DLSS to scale to 4K.
unrelated to this comment, but I wonder how large they’d make the Substrate for T239, nvidia doesn’t seem to make them small based on the other Silicon they make, even though they can be small as shown with Van Gogh. Their substrate overall end up being noticeably larger than the actual SoC.
So I wonder if it’ll be smaller relatively speaking this time and closer to something like how Van Gogh is, or if it’ll be noticeably larger again.
Here’s the TX1 for anyone else:
And here’s Van Gogh:
We do focus on the size of the actual chip in theory, but I wonder if we should also discuss the substrate the chip itself sits on.
Even the PS5, Series X and Series S (in order) have noticeably larger substrates:
Going to be a bit of an odd question and you may or may not know the answer, but what determines how big the Substrate is?
It's not clear to me that extra pins would be strictly necessary so long as they have enough pins for the new protocol and a way to negotiate between them. Granted, that first assumption could easily be broken, but the memory chips are custom enough that a negotiation mechanism seems feasible.
Pixel C (TX1 Erista) has a much smaller substrate footprint, so it can be done:
both
next mainline Legend of Zelda with 16/18GB for it file size?
Nintendo doesn't do the "download required" thing. Don't think it's more complicated than that.
The issue isn't the tech, it's the price. If 32 gb cards already costs 14$ on the current speed, then forget any dev going with something even more premium,.
no, Nintendo choose a 32GB cartdridge for Tears of The Kingdom because the game is massive, the game feature 3 planes of exploration(sky, surface and undeground, with underground been a mirrored darker version of Hyrule, with the same size of Breath of the Wild Hyrule, with the 120 shirnes in the surfaces equalling the Lightroot in the undeground)
RE4 remake and Resident Evil 8 Village not cloud version on Switch sucessor? next Monster Hunter game too?or i dreaming too much?
I do wonder if the reason why the substrate on the Tegra X1 on the Pixel C being smaller than the substrate on the Tegra X1 on the Nintendo Switch is because the Pixel C is using a binned Tegra X1.Pixel C (TX1 Erista) has a much smaller substrate footprint, so it can be done:
Launch Switch (TX1 Erista)
That doesn't seem like something that would work in realtime. What would they do, generate 4 frames, use all of them to generate the fifth, then display them all? That would be quite a bit of extra latency. There's also that it would be trouble doing something like rendering 4 frames 15ms apart when they're intended to show images 12ms apart--to keep the images as far apart as they should be it would still have to be doing some work 12ms apart anyway to buffer it away until the rest of the system was ready to do a longer pass--and then just take a break every fifth frame?
One data point can't imply anything about change. Do we know anything about what the 32GB cards cost two or four or six years ago? Other than "more than publishers want to pay", which is still the case today.
There's no hoping about it, really. The only way it returns to being that bad is if Nintendo game cards sizes remain stuck at 32GB while the other guys adopt a terabyte disc format.
Right. I think speculation at the time was more along the lines of "Series S", in that maybe it would be like Xbox 360 if Xbox 360 only had to do SD resolutions.
The first two I would bet a thousand dollars on. Monster Hunter? Well, keeping World and Rise somewhat separate was more choice than necessity anyway, so no telling.
Skyrim Anniversary is only a $70 game in the same way that Breath of the Wild + Expansion Pass is an $80 game, or Xenoblade 3 + Expansion Pass is a $90 game.
Yeah I mentioned it a few weeks ago before 32GB carts were confirmed for Totk. If it's anyone, Nintendo has to be the way to pave the way to bring down the costs. I can't imagine 32GB carts would go down in price much otherwise, cause supply and demand is/should be a big factor.
