• 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.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

Reader mode
Sol said:
They also say that T239 is Lovelace, not Ampere? :unsure:
Click to expand...
Regardless of the vericity of the leak, I think it makes sense, with them considering it as far back as 2021-2022, along with Ampere and Lovelace being quite similar. Talking about changing specs mid-development, I just thought about something, could/would Nintendo get a more perfomant CPU like an Cortex-X2 or an A710 and downclock them to match the A76c performance to add to the battery life?
 
epicmartin7 said:
In regards to RAM, how well has SSD's done in being used as Pseudo-RAM? Doesn't the PS5 use it's SSD in that way?
Click to expand...
I also thought about that recently. My phone can use up-to 5GB (of 256GB) of storage as what Linux users call swap memory and that got me thinking about the benefits it has/could have while gaming, and, with current-gen's focus on fast speeds and real-time compression/decompression (with both PS5 and NGSwitch), if the NGSwitch could make use of this feature with it's possible fast storage medium (UFS 3.1?).
 
0
Rough summary of the 2 August 2023 episode of Nate the Hate
  • Index
    • eye0h said:


    Here we go.
    Click to expand...

    I know this is very late, but here's a long, rough summary from me. Blame the fact I have to work night shifts this week.

    Late 2024 Release?
    • NateDrake and MVG weren't surprised that Video Games Chronicle has heard about the Nintendo Switch's successor targeting a late 2024 launch since NateDrake has been saying since January 2023 on Nate the Hate that he's heard holiday 2024 as the launch window, which he considered informed speculation on his part due to lack of sources since he only heard from 1-2 sources
    • MVG always thought that late 2024 is the launch date for the Nintendo Switch's successor, especially with retail hardware usually being released within 12-18 months of devkits being distributed
    • MVG hasn't heard anything from developers about the Nintendo Switch's successor during GDC 2023, which surprised MVG, which made MVG assume Nintendo's waiting to announce the Nintendo Switch's successor or to distribute devkits to key partners later on
    • After hearing "reports" of a Spanish dev team receiving devkits, NateDrake reached out to a few of his contacts/sources, and a couple of his contacts/sources (his sources' studios or his sources' colleagues) have confirmed having access to devkits a couple of weeks ago in very recent times, which NateDrake speculates to be as far back as around mid July 2023
    • NateDrake thinks retail hardware is going to be released at least 12 months after devkits were distributed, depending on the form of the devkits, whether preliminary or final, with MVG agreeing
    • NateDrake thinks there's a possibility the Nintendo Switch's successor could launch in the late September to early October window for 2H 2024, depending on how much stock Nintendo could accrue over the year
    • NateDrake also thinks Nintendo could have a monster holiday launch if Nintendo can accrue millions of units in the leadup to Nintendo releasing the launch window of 2H 2024
    • MVG thinks the launch of the Nintendo Switch's successor is all about the games ready to be launch with the system (e.g. 2-3 games with Nintendo Switch Online games thrown in, one major first party game with additional games starting to release 3-5 months after)
    • MVG also thinks Nintendo won't put a line in the sand and launch the Nintendo Switch's successor in 2024 regardless of if Nintendo has games to launch
    • MVG said he wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo pushes the launch to early 2025 depending on where the launch games are at, development wise
    • NateDrake and MVG thinks Nintendo pushing the launch to early 2025 would be a disaster scenario, which implies serious problems with software development or hardware production
    LCD or OLED Display?
    • NateDrake thinks Nintendo needs to release a 3D Super Mario Bros. game at launch, which he thinks would be a premier way to launch new hardware, with MVG agreeing, saying that a 3D Super Mario Bros. game would help make people excited for new hardware
    • NateDrake thinks that Nintendo can't afford to struggle with launching the Nintendo Switch's successor, mentioning that Nintendo has historically struggled with releasing the successor to Nintendo's popular consoles (e.g. Wii to Wii U, Nintendo DS to Nintendo 3DS)
    • NateDrake thinks Metroid Prime 4 is more like a complimentary game than the reason why people want to buy the Nintendo Switch's successor at launch, as much as NateDrake enjoys the Metroid Prime games, with MVG agreeing, and saying he thinks that Metroid Prime 4's still going to be released on the Nintendo Switch, and won't be a launch title for the Nintendo Switch's successor
    • NateDrake thinks that Nintendo releasing Metroid Prime 4 as a launch title for the Nintendo Switch's successor would be a curious decision on Nintendo's part
    • NateDrake has heard some whispers (emphasising that this is not confirmation) that the supply line for the Nintendo Switch's successor will begin ramping up production in the early portion of 2024, specifically Q1 2024 (between January and March 2024), which he thinks would further endorse Nintendo targeting a 2H 2024 release, especially with Video Games Chronicle's article mentioning Nintendo wants to have sufficient supply of units for the Nintendo Switch's successor
    • Regarding Video Games Chronicle's article mentioning the Nintendo Switch's successor using a LCD display to lower costs, MVG said that people need to remember that Nintendo's starting all over again with the Nintendo Switch's successor as a new generation of hardware, not as a mid-gen refresh ("Switch Pro")
    • Therefore, MVG thinks Nintendo will start with the base model all over again as a launch model for the Nintendo Switch's successor with a LCD display, which MVG agrees with
    • MVG also thinks Nintendo would probably offer an OLED model for the Nintendo Switch's successor a couple of years later, similar to how Nintendo released an OLED model for the Nintendo Switch a couple of years after the launch of the Nintendo Switch, since that was successful
    • MVG thinks Nintendo needs to not increase costs and starting with the base launch model for the Nintendo Switch's successor again, which is going to be re-iterated and improved upon, as a new generation
    • NateDrake heard industry whispers, which he considers informed speculation, (and emphasising that this is not confirmation) that the Nintendo Switch's successor's going to launch with a 8" LCD display to reduce costs, as Video Games Chronicle, which he thinks is important to Nintendo since Nintendo's likely to launch the Nintendo Switch's successor at a high price (e.g. $399.99 or $449.99), and recouping costs on manufacturing as soon as possible is important to Nintendo
    • NateDrake thinks selling a model with a LCD display would also allow Nintendo to sell a more premium model 3-4 years down the line (e.g. OLED display, etc.), which NateDrake said Nintendo has done with every handheld Nintendo's launched (e.g. Game Boy Advance to Game Boy Advance SP, Nintendo DS to Nintendo DS Lite, Nintendo DS Lite to Nintendo DSi, Nintendo 3DS to New Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo Switch to OLED model)
    • NateDrake says that although LCD displays do have crushed blacks and outer, LCD displays, depending on the pixel density, and coming from a 8" display, could be of good quality, and won't look abysmal
    • NateDrake mentions that the Nintendo Switch's successor having a 8" LCD display matches with the PlayStation Q having a 8" LCD display
    • NateDrake also mentions the Steam Deck, the Asus ROG Ally, etc., also have LCD displays, which are for cost reasons and/or LCD displays look satisfactory enough for manufacturers
    • MVG mentions that devkits having a LCD display doesn't necessarily mean that retail hardware also having a LCD display is 100% a lock, especially if developers are using preliminary devkits
    • MVG does think Nintendo will launch the Nintendo Switch's successor with a LCD display for cost reduction reasons, and because Nintendo's starting all over again with the Nintendo Switch's successor as a new generation
    • Regarding Video Games Chronicle's article mentioning the Nintendo Switch's successor using a LCD display to lower costs, especially since higher fidelity games require increased storage, NateDrake has heard chatter, which he considers informed speculation (and emphasising that this is not confirmation) that Nintendo's planning on equipping the Nintendo Switch's successor with a fairly significant amount of internal flash storage, with the ceiling being 512 GB, which doesn't necessarily mean that the Nintendo Switch's successor won't necessarily be equipped with 512 GB of internal flash storage, but Nintendo does understand that Nintendo needs to offer more than 32 to 64 GB of internal flash storage
    • NateDrake thinks that if Nintendo decided to use a LCD display instead of an OLED display, so that Nintendo can prioritise having a fairly significant amount of internal flash storage, he endorses Nintendo's decision, with MVG concurring
    • MVG thinks having a larger amount of internal flash storage is a requirement, with 64 GB of internal flash storage not being an option, especially with games having higher resolutions, increased resolution textures, increased asset sizes, increased polygon counts, etc., since everything's going to grow with respect to size, albeit not to PlayStation 5 levels of size
    • MVG thinks games being 30 to 60 GB is the standard for games releasing on the Nintendo Switch's successor
    • NateDrake says that Nintendo has to recognise that Nintendo needs a significant amount of internal flash storage if Nintendo wants Call of Duty, especially with Call of Duty being 100+ GB in size, with MVG agreeing
    New Game Card Tech?
    • Regarding the Video Games Chronicle's article mentioning that Game Cards will continue to be used on the Nintendo Switch's successor, NateDrake says that's not a shock to anyone, given the form factor of the Nintendo Switch's successor, and there's no reasonable way to use a disc format, outside of Nintendo's version of MiniDVD for the GameCube, or Universal Media Disc (UMD) for the PlayStation Portable (PSP), which didn't work out for Sony
    • NateDrake believes Nintendo will change the tech inside the Game Cards, mentioning that the Nintendo Switch Game Cards currently use 2D NAND memory from Macronix, and there are reports about Macronix developing 3D NAND memory
    • NateDrake said he wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo use 3D NAND memory for the Nintendo Switch's successor's Game Cards
    • MVG thinks the Game Card format for the Nintendo Switch's successor's Game Cards will change, or has already changed, due to the limitations and issues with the Nintendo Switch Game Cards (e.g. maximum size for the Nintendo Switch Game Cards in concept is 64 GB, etc.)
    • MVG also thinks Nintendo revised, enhanced, and iterated the Nintendo Switch's successor's Game Card format to not only allow for larger Game Card sizes that won't be as expensive as a 64 GB Nintendo Switch Game Card, but to increase performance, and to enhance security to make hardware hacking much more difficult, mentioning that the Nintendo Switch was able to be hacked very quickly and very easily very early on in the Nintendo Switch's lifecycle, which allowed Nintendo Switch Game Cards to be easily dumped online, with NateDrake concurring with respect to security
    Why Backwards Compatibility Concerns
    • Regarding the Video Games Chronicle's article mentioning that some third party developers said that backwards compatibility with Nintendo Switch games could negatively impact sales of the Nintendo Switch's successor's games, NateDrake thinks some third party developers are talking about concerns that consumers won't buy a "Switch 2" game, because consumers are too busy playing older Nintendo Switch games, or potentially the Nintendo Switch version of the same "Switch 2" game
      • NateDrake creates a hypothetical example where Ubisoft releases "Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope Deluxe" for the Nintendo Switch's successor, which offers a higher resolution, improved frame rates, and all the DLC included, wanting consumers to buy the game the second time
      • But consumers are not buying, since consumers have already bought all the DLCs for the Nintendo Switch version, and consumers are happy with how the game performs on the Nintendo Switch
    • MVG thinks the transition to next generation is Shuntaro Furukawa's biggest test since that has to be done meticulously, or else Nintendo will start to lose customers
    • MVG thinks third party developers are trying to say the following based on his reading of what third party developers are saying about backwards compatibility in Video Games Chronicle's article
      • The Nintendo Switch's successor needs to have its unique features and selling points, such as its own games, its exclusive games, its own first party launch games, despite still being part of the hybrid console ecosystem, from a business standpoint of backwards compatibility
      • The Nintendo Switch's successor is not a mid-gen refresh ("Switch Pro")
      • Considering MVG has heard from people about wanting a more powerful Nintendo Switch that plays Nintendo Switch games, the question is are you only asking for a mid-gen refresh at that point, and not asking for anything else, since that implies you want to continue where things are with the current ecosystem, playing your own games
      • If launching new hardware, the new hardware needs its own unique selling points
    • NateDrake and MVG believe there are many reasons to have backwards compatibility, such as having goodwill from consumers, and digital backwards compatibility is considered as an industry standard and is an expectation from consumers due to the convenience of going digital, with the understanding and expectation that consumers can easily bring digital games over to new devices
    • NateDrake hopes that Nintendo does bring backwards compatibility to the Nintendo Switch's successor, and NateDrake thinks Nintendo not bringing backwards compatibility is a significant blunder on Nintendo's part, which NateDrake will gladly harshly criticise Nintendo for if that's the case
    • NateDrake says Nintendo got a pass from the Wii U to the Nintendo Switch since Nintendo changed everything, going from the Wii U to the Nintendo Switch
    • And although the Wii U does have backwards compatibility with the Wii, NateDrake mentions that although the process of transferring Wii games to the Wii U wasn't smooth, that was during the advent of digital for all the video game console manufacturers, where video game console manufacturers were thinking of the present and not the future, not understanding the importance of an account system
    • NateDrake thinks the Nintendo Switch's successor is a test for Nintendo in terms of if Nintendo views digital as important aspect of the ecosystem, and if Nintendo will do the consumers right by bringing digital backwards compatibility
    • Although MVG did mention in the past that there are clear technical reasons why backwards compatibility will be difficult for Nintendo to provide, MVG does believe backwards compatibility is doable
    • MVG believes Nintendo's concerned with having people investing in and caring about the new platform, like with the Nintendo Switch
    • MVG plays devil's advocate and says the number one reason why backwards compatibility will happen due to the Nintendo Switch's massive install base
    • MVG thinks that throwing away the Nintendo Switch product line, server the cord, and drawing a line in the sand, can have negative ramifications with respect to sales for the Nintendo Switch's successor
    • MVG doesn't know how backwards compatibility will look like with the Nintendo Switch's successor
    • Although MVG doesn't believe backwards compatibility's the number one priority with Nintendo with respecting to launching new hardware, MVG thinks Nintendo's very much aware about people's concerns with backwards compatibility
    • And MVG says that speaking about cost cutting, maybe Nintendo could squeeze a Tegra X1 into the new hardware, since Nintendo has done that before with past hardware, with NateDrake laughing
    • Assuming that Video Games Chronicle's sources are third party development partners, NateDrake believes development partners should be briefed by Nintendo whether or not the Nintendo Switch's successor has backwards compatibility, so that development partners can plan patches or generally planning upcoming releases to take advantage of the new hardware
    • If Nintendo hasn't briefed third party development partners on whether or not the Nintendo Switch's successor has backwards compatibility, NateDrake says Nintendo could still be grappling with how to approach backwards compatibility on the platform
    • NateDrake says that devkits technically don't need to be backwards compatibility in terms of functionality, but third party development partners should still be briefed, with MVG agreeing, especially if development partners are using preliminary devkits
    • MVG thinks Nintendo's holding back briefing third party development partners about backwards compatibility for later, with details on backwards compatibility being leaked out at some point when there's more smoke about devkits
    • MVG thinks people are going to be drip-fed more information about next generation before the announcement of new hardware
    • NateDrake and MVG say that there's nothing that can be taken away from Video Games Chronicle's article about backwards compatibility
    • If Nintendo didn't brief third party development partners on whether or not the Nintendo Switch's successor has backwards compatibility, NateDrake thinks that's a bad decision on Nintendo's part, since development partners need to know, so development partners can plan patches, and/or including enhancements when played on new hardware
    • But NateDrake mentions that depending on the state of the devkits, Nintendo needs to address backwards compatibility within a reasonable amount of time
    • If Nintendo updates devkits in firmware in the upcoming months, NateDrake thinks that's something Nintendo addresses, and there's ample time for Nintendo to do right by third party development partners, and have backwards compatibility fully fleshed out when the time comes to launch new hardware
    Announcement Timing Thoughts
    • MVG said that part of him believes Nintendo could announce new hardware this year, but he isn't sure
    • But MVG believes Nintendo needs to get people mentally prepared and hyped about new hardware
    • MVG ultimately think Nintendo's probably going to announce new hardware early next year, probably on February 2024
    • NateDrake thinks when Nintendo announces new hardware is dependent on launch timing
    • If the earliest Nintendo releases new hardware in 2H 2024 is September 2024, then NateDrake thinks Nintendo's going to announce new hardware in April 2024 after the end of the current fiscal year (ending on 31 March 2024)
    • NateDrake thinks Nintendo wants to achieve the goal of selling 15 million Nintendo Switch units before announcing new hardware
    • Although NateDrake thinks there could be merit to MVG thinking that Nintendo could announce new hardware on February 2024, NateDrake thinks Nintendo wants to wait until the end of the current fiscal year before announcing new hardware
    • NateDrake mentions there are many variables that can affect Nintendo's decision of when to announce new hardware, with devkits as one example since Nintendo knows leaks can happen once more devkits are distributed
    • The question is does Nintendo want to get ahead of leaks from more devkits being distributed, or wait until when production lines start manufacturing new hardware (e.g. early portion of 2024 or Q1 2024 (January - March 2024) based on whispers NateDrake heard (emphasising that this is not confirmation))
    • NateDrake mentions Nintendo informed third party partners on new devkits for the OLED model after the OLED model started mass production
    • Therefore, NateDrake thinks Nintendo could announce new hardware between now (since devkits are being distributed) and the end of March 2024
    • NateDrake thinks that when Nintendo announces the Nintendo Switch's successor depending on when Nintendo thinks Nintendo have maximum impact in terms of timing
    • NateDrake thinks announcing the Nintendo Switch's successor after the end of the current fiscal year is ideal since Nintendo can maximize Nintendo Switch sales and Nintendo won't muddy up any waters, with MVG thinking the logic makes sense
    • NateDrake also thinks there's a possibility Nintendo could surprise people by announcing the Nintendo Switch's successor during a September 2023 Nintendo Direct or on October 2023, or when more third party partners have access to devkits
    • MVG thinks there's a possibility Nintendo could tease new hardware on September 2023
    • NateDrake thinks Nintendo can also wait until third party developers have finished developing games targeting the launch window before announcing new hardware
    • NateDrake says expect more information on the Nintendo Switch's successor with Gamescom 2023 and Tokyo Game Show (TGS) 2023 around the corner via unofficial sources (media outlets talking to third party development partners), and maybe official sources via Nintendo, with MVG agreeing
    • MVG thinks the remainder of 2023 and early 2024 is going to be exciting in terms of information regarding the Nintendo Switch's successor
     
    Last edited:
  • Index
    • Goodtwin said:
    * Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *


    When you look at third party titles like Doom, Doom Eternal, and the Witcher 3, are these publishers going to want to offer free upgrades for these games that while impressive relative to the Switch hardware, were significantly compromised in order to make the transition? Or are they more likely to offer release these games as NSG games with PS4/Pro levels visuals? My guess is that this is indeed what most of them will do. You will be able to continue to redownload the Switch build of these games, but only the newer build will be available for sale going forward. This happens even on Steam where a publisher will delist the original version of a game and then put out the newer remastered version of the game for a higher price. If the original game is in your Steam library, you can still redownload it, but can no longer purchase the older and more often than not cheaper build of the game.
    Click to expand...
    might be my lack of knowledge on game development in general, but couldn’t they just patch the game with the missing stuff? surely they know exactly what the compromises were to get it to run on switch, and i know as a developer (the none video game kind, and relatively new to the field, so again forgive my ignorance) it’s not as simple as turning a switch on and off. but you have the code etc. isn’t this what writing good commits are for? the history is there, you just need to take the time and put the effort in to go through it. here’s your doom 2016, here’s your switch build of doom 2016. here’s the code and architecture for original doom 2016, and the same for the switch build. compare and contrast and then compile.
     
    Does anybody have information on Switch components still in production, and how this could give some impression of the launch window? I thought the X1 was discontinued last year so whatever x million units Nintendo are currently sitting on is the last of their stockpile and likely to start drying up by winter
     
    0
    Hermii said:
    Succ, redacted, NG, Swich deluxe, electric bugaloo, redraketed, switch 2, super switch, switch next, swaitch (play on AI), switch mega drive.
    Click to expand...
    Really just needs to be called Switch 2. Change the name when it becomes something significantly different than what Switch is now. Maybe when they have to move away from ARM or NVIDIA for some reason.
     
    TomNookYankees said:
    I was gonna say, bolded sounds like "no boost mode".
    Click to expand...

    I think it’s way too early to make that claim. I still think that something was happening with the ‘11 devs and spices testing 4K’ article from late 2021. Maybe Nintendo was having developers test the waters for using DLSS to upscale existing games. Not sure. But I don’t think it was nonsense, and I suspect it’ll still be relevant to the product they actually release.
     
    JoshuaJSlone said:
    100+GB would be a big honkin' footprint. Don't 32GB Switches come with something like 26GB free to start?
    Click to expand...
    I rounded down :p

    My 512 GB microSD has around 476GB available once formatted, so I just assumed Nintendo would reserve ~50 GB for the OS, and whatever system functions they may want (like themes, NSO icons, profiles, save DATA) so that leaves around 426GB and to be conservative, assumed 400GB would be readily available for games storage after you factor in space used for user generated content (screenshots, videos etc.)
     
    ILikeFeet said:
    what the hell
    Click to expand...
    Dunno how old you are, but yeah, those first commercials were the Duracell Bunny marching along slowly and then the rad Energizer Bunny comes in with its cool sunglasses and runs circles around it.

    Concernt said:
    Yeah, nah, yeah... Nah.

    It's a Switch. It's an NVN Platform Device. Compatibility should be expected, perhaps even assumed, not brushed off. There is so, so much to suggest that this is a continuation of Nintendo Switch, and nothing, zero, nada, zilch, to suggest that it, in some way, isn't. Breaking compatibility with controllers is not a common practice for Nintendo,
    Click to expand...
    You and I have done 20 rounds on this before, so I don't expect to change your mind, and I don't particularly want to because I am not convinced that Nintendo will break hardware compatibility.

    But there is evidence to suggest that Nintendo won't make a device that can fit in the existing dock or that is immediately compatible with the existing Joy-Con rails - namely the larger screen. Is it definitive evidence? No. It is evidence. Yes.

    Of the 7 consoles Nintendo has made with controllers, only 2 of them were able to use the previous machine's controllers, and only one of them had them work as first class devices. If Nintendo adds significant new functionality to the controllers, why would making the rail support Joy-Cons be a priority? And if it's not a priority, can you literally imagine zero engineering cases where it might be functionally advantageous to alter the rail?
    Concernt said:
    it doesn't make business sense, and it doesn't make logistical sense. It wouldn't simplify development or production compared to reusing existing techniques and parts.
    Click to expand...
    This is factually untrue in almost every way imaginable. Guaranteeing that the existing docks both fit and are thermally sufficient to the new device represents a huge engineering constraint. It dictates the placement of the heatsink, the position of the fan, and its airflow, as well as the thickness of the device. All of this just to reuse a single plastic mold is not, in anyway, a cost savings.

    Similar for the rail. It limits the amount of data that can come over the connection, the amount of charge the NG controllers can draw. It limits the shape of the controllers, as the rail's design can only take a limited amount of leverage. I am sure Nintendo would love to reuse the rail if it can, but it's not a given that it will not impose additional costs on the new system.

    Concernt said:
    There is no advantage for them, and there is plenty of disadvantage, not to mention loss of consumer goodwill, to be found in breaking compatibility
    Click to expand...
    What's frustrating about this conversation isn't disagreeing on what is most likely. It's that you shut down the possibility there is any advantage, and thus shut down speculation. It would be one thing if you were weighing costs and benefits and then had faith in your consideration that the costs outweight the benefits of changing the form factor.

    But there are plenty of advantages. The dock blocks the back of the Switch. The Steam Deck, the Rog Ally, the Aya Neo - they all vent air back there because it's the most efficient place to do so. Is it truly inconceivable that there might be a cost associated with taking a flat chip and a flat fan in a flat tablet and somehow making it vent out the top?

    "I could make it weigh less if I could cut out the three inches of copper if I could just vent it out the back."
    "So make it vent out the back?"
    "We'd have to redesign the dock."
    "It's a chunk of plastic. The visual identity team will want to look different anyway, so just make it vent out the back."

    The connecting pins for the Joy-Cons currently only have to carry a tiny amount of data, and a tiny amount of electricity. Slapping on a camera or a microphone to those things would likely require a change. Altering the ergonomics would put additional stress on the rail due to leverage. All of these changes would be constrained by guaranteeing backward compatibility.

    Again I'm not saying this is definitely the case. Nor am I saying that the Joy-Cons won't be usable via BT or similar, even if they do break the physical shape of the device. But when trying to predict Nintendo's moves, saying "these constraints are less important than hardware compatibility" is very different from "there are no constraints."

    Trying to game out the SOC performance based on the thermal and battery profile of the OG Switch because "there is no reason to change the formfactor" is a self fulfilling idiocy. There is a reason, you're staring it in the face - the SOC performance and the thermal and battery profile of the hardware. Game it out. How much would you get by breaking compatibility? What would it cost you? Is it worth it? Do you think your analysis is Nintendo's analysis? Have you considered the processing demands of Unannounced Gimmick and how that might affect Nintendo's plans?

    I think that's a worthwhile discussion.
     
    What if...

    The 8" can be folded so people wouldn't complain about its size when not in use? Unfold and it looks like one complete bezeless screen like those Samsung phones.

    This way you'll have joycon rails on all sides, except the top and bottom right parts where all the inputs/outputs go, so you can have 3/DS support and slick look too.

    I don't know how much a foldable screen costs though.
     
    Count me in the “docks and joy-cons won’t be compatible at all” camp. It’s the right move. Software compatibility is important, but they should absolutely leave the plastic behind. It needlessly limits their design to have to support these things.

    Joy-con’s themselves all have one foot in the grave as soon as you buy them. Why would you bend over backwards to support them?

    Every new system is going to have a dock and (2) controllers and that’s perfectly friendly for consumers.
     
    oldpuck said:
    The Switch Pro Must Die

    I think relatively soon we're going to get some sort of big reveal, whether official or unofficial. But while we are in this final period of fully black-box speculation, we should kill whatever remnants of Switch Pro thinking are still in our heads.

    The NG is gonna be a more powerful hybrid. That doesn't make it a more powerful Switch. We're past the point of Nintendo treating this as anything other than a proper next-gen follow up, and all the things you might get from a next gen device are on the table. That includes -
    • New control schemes that might make Joy-Cons less than usable.
    • Breaking physical compatibility with accessories, like the Joy-Cons and the dock
    • Changing ergonomics
    • A library that leaves the last gen games untouched
    Anything that Nintendo did in previous generations is on the table as at least worth considering.
    Click to expand...
    I half agree with this. I do think some expectations are being held over from a time of speculation about, not even really a Pro or mid-gen refresh, but at least the idea of an earlier launch for the hardware upgrade which would lead to it coexisting with the current Switch models for an extended period of time. That is very unlikely to be happening to this point, and certain things like cross-gen game releases and support will likely not materialize as imagined in that period of speculation.

    But I do still think it will be called a Switch and be marketed and received as such, and it will in essence pick up where its predecessor is leaving off. And I think there are ways that can be done while still making it a distinct next-generation machine and not "just another Switch model." Solving the problems associated in the minds of consumers with the Switch brand today, while maintaining all its positive associations, is I think a very obvious route for Nintendo, and part of the new hardware's identity can be that it's a Switch that does the things the last Switch couldn't do. That's not going to be the sum total of its identity, but I think it will be part of it.
     
    karmitt said:
    Count me in the “docks and joy-cons won’t be compatible at all” camp. It’s the right move. Software compatibility is important, but they should absolutely leave the plastic behind. It needlessly limits their design to have to support these things.

    Joy-con’s themselves all have one foot in the grave as soon as you buy them. Why would you bend over backwards to support them?

    Every new system is going to have a dock and (2) controllers and that’s perfectly friendly for consumers.
    Click to expand...
    Agreed. I want to buy a system that looks new too. I don't want it looking like an upgrade.
     
    ZachyCatGames said:
    Hidden content is only available for registered users. Sharing it outside of Famiboards is subject to moderation.
    Click to expand...
    Hidden content is only available for registered users. Sharing it outside of Famiboards is subject to moderation.

    Concernt said:
    I don't think it's that impossible a question. At present, on OLED Model, since the screen has metal backing, the midplate is metal, the sides are metal, and the bottom half of the rear panel is covered with a metal kockstand, the antennae are placed basically right up at the corners, the only place they realistically could be. Much like we saw later iPods adopt a "wireless window", and how every metal phone has antenna lines, I'd expect to see similar solitions on the next Switch. Since a metal Game Card tray seems unlikely, and the top of the case needs slots for buttons and ventilation to begin with, I would expect either the top of the case to be plastic in its entirety, for them to populate the space between the vent and the volume buttons (assuming they don't move either) with a wireless window a-la iPod touch, or introduce an antenna line. Say the new kickstand is the prophesized "wraparound" design, an antenna line could look really good if it was at the top of the rear panel, stretching from hinge to hinge, and this has the additional benefit of, if they want to do so, making the top panel (housing the Game Card Slot, etc.) and rear panel seperate parts without sacrificing fit, finish or looks, hiding the seam under a plastic strip.
    Click to expand...
    I'm not saying that achieving good Wi-Fi reception for a device with more metal is impossible. I'm saying that achieving good Wi-Fi reception for a device with more metal is going to be quite difficult, but not impossible.

    I've used to own a HTC 10, which has a completely metal body, and has really poor Wi-Fi reception, despite having antennae lines on the back. (I think one reason is that the Wi-Fi chip used on the HTC 10 is not that great.)

    I think one of the reasons why the upper portion of the OLED model's back is plastic is because of the Wi-Fi antennae placement.

    And that reminds me. Another potential caveat of using more metal is that the hardware could become too hot to touch, especially if people play in TV mode for long periods of time, and if Nintendo's being really aggressive with the CPU, GPU, and RAM frequencies when in TV mode, since metals are also very good conductors of heat.

    I mention this, because I have a launch Nintendo Switch. And I've noticed that when I play in TV mode for 30+ minutes, my launch Nintendo Switch is very warm to the touch (still comfortable enough to touch without hurting myself, but fairly close to the point of being too hot to touch).
    And introducing more metal could make the hardware more susceptible to being too hot to touch, especially as I've mentioned before, people play in TV mode for long periods of time, and if Nintendo's being really aggressive with the CPU, GPU, and RAM frequencies when in TV mode.

    And because metals are very good conductors of heat, metals are very good at dissipating heat, which is good for ensuring the SoC, etc., remains at a reasonable temperature when running, but that could be problematic if someone wants to remove the hardware from the dock 30+ minutes later.
    Perhaps having the top portion be plastic could help with not only the Wi-Fi reception, but also allowing someone to remove the hardware from the dock after 30+ minutes.
    Or perhaps Nintendo could install fans inside the dock.

    Who knows?
    oldpuck said:
    4N doesn't have the issue that 8nm has with node shrinks. TSMC's 3nm node should be an easy node shrink - though it will be a while before it would be an affordable one.
    Click to expand...
    Nintendo and Nvidia also have to re-design Drake with TSMC's N3E process node IP since TSMC's N3E process node is not IP compatible with TSMC's 4N process node. And I imagine the performance gains won't be drastically massive due to the SRAM on TSMC's N3E process node being the same size as the SRAM on TSMC's N5 process node family.
     
    oldpuck said:
    Dunno how old you are, but yeah, those first commercials were the Duracell Bunny marching along slowly and then the rad Energizer Bunny comes in with its cool sunglasses and runs circles around it.


    You and I have done 20 rounds on this before, so I don't expect to change your mind, and I don't particularly want to because I am not convinced that Nintendo will break hardware compatibility.

    But there is evidence to suggest that Nintendo won't make a device that can fit in the existing dock or that is immediately compatible with the existing Joy-Con rails - namely the larger screen. Is it definitive evidence? No. It is evidence. Yes.

    Of the 7 consoles Nintendo has made with controllers, only 2 of them were able to use the previous machine's controllers, and only one of them had them work as first class devices. If Nintendo adds significant new functionality to the controllers, why would making the rail support Joy-Cons be a priority? And if it's not a priority, can you literally imagine zero engineering cases where it might be functionally advantageous to alter the rail?

    This is factually untrue in almost every way imaginable. Guaranteeing that the existing docks both fit and are thermally sufficient to the new device represents a huge engineering constraint. It dictates the placement of the heatsink, the position of the fan, and its airflow, as well as the thickness of the device. All of this just to reuse a single plastic mold is not, in anyway, a cost savings.

    Similar for the rail. It limits the amount of data that can come over the connection, the amount of charge the NG controllers can draw. It limits the shape of the controllers, as the rail's design can only take a limited amount of leverage. I am sure Nintendo would love to reuse the rail if it can, but it's not a given that it will not impose additional costs on the new system.


    What's frustrating about this conversation isn't disagreeing on what is most likely. It's that you shut down the possibility there is any advantage, and thus shut down speculation. It would be one thing if you were weighing costs and benefits and then had faith in your consideration that the costs outweight the benefits of changing the form factor.

    But there are plenty of advantages. The dock blocks the back of the Switch. The Steam Deck, the Rog Ally, the Aya Neo - they all vent air back there because it's the most efficient place to do so. Is it truly inconceivable that there might be a cost associated with taking a flat chip and a flat fan in a flat tablet and somehow making it vent out the top?

    "I could make it weigh less if I could cut out the three inches of copper if I could just vent it out the back."
    "So make it vent out the back?"
    "We'd have to redesign the dock."
    "It's a chunk of plastic. The visual identity team will want to look different anyway, so just make it vent out the back."

    The connecting pins for the Joy-Cons currently only have to carry a tiny amount of data, and a tiny amount of electricity. Slapping on a camera or a microphone to those things would likely require a change. Altering the ergonomics would put additional stress on the rail due to leverage. All of these changes would be constrained by guaranteeing backward compatibility.

    Again I'm not saying this is definitely the case. Nor am I saying that the Joy-Cons won't be usable via BT or similar, even if they do break the physical shape of the device. But when trying to predict Nintendo's moves, saying "these constraints are less important than hardware compatibility" is very different from "there are no constraints."

    Trying to game out the SOC performance based on the thermal and battery profile of the OG Switch because "there is no reason to change the formfactor" is a self fulfilling idiocy. There is a reason, you're staring it in the face - the SOC performance and the thermal and battery profile of the hardware. Game it out. How much would you get by breaking compatibility? What would it cost you? Is it worth it? Do you think your analysis is Nintendo's analysis? Have you considered the processing demands of Unannounced Gimmick and how that might affect Nintendo's plans?

    I think that's a worthwhile discussion.
    Click to expand...
    Not getting into the whole discussion, but can I just say, the air vents should stay where they are now, because that's the place where human hands aren't going to be.
     
    epicmartin7 said:
    In regards to RAM, how well has SSD's done in being used as Pseudo-RAM? Doesn't the PS5 use it's SSD in that way?
    Click to expand...
    That's not really what they intended to do with it, but the unification of all the I/O systems in order to offload the CPU from everything related and this way, greatly increasing the available power for games. On top of that, they wanted the decompression engine to handle storage-RAM transfers near seamlessly to effectively reduce file sizes, while also avoiding to waste the CPU with that stuff.
     
    justanotherperson said:
    Could Nintendo use, like, 6GB swap memory to off-load OS stuff from RAM and make it more available to games (instead of 10/12, use 11.5/12, or 14/16 and get 15.5/16)
    Click to expand...
    it wouldn't even be the first time. back on the 3DS some games used so much ram that you couldn't go to the home screen without a lengthy load time. some switch games disabled OS features for more ram. they didn't use storage for that, but there are ways to stretch the ram amount
     
    oldpuck said:
    You and I have done 20 rounds on this before, so I don't expect to change your mind, and I don't particularly want to because I am not convinced that Nintendo will break hardware compatibility.

    But there is evidence to suggest that Nintendo won't make a device that can fit in the existing dock or that is immediately compatible with the existing Joy-Con rails - namely the larger screen. Is it definitive evidence? No. It is evidence. Yes.

    Of the 7 consoles Nintendo has made with controllers, only 2 of them were able to use the previous machine's controllers, and only one of them had them work as first class devices. If Nintendo adds significant new functionality to the controllers, why would making the rail support Joy-Cons be a priority? And if it's not a priority, can you literally imagine zero engineering cases where it might be functionally advantageous to alter the rail?

    This is factually untrue in almost every way imaginable. Guaranteeing that the existing docks both fit and are thermally sufficient to the new device represents a huge engineering constraint. It dictates the placement of the heatsink, the position of the fan, and its airflow, as well as the thickness of the device. All of this just to reuse a single plastic mold is not, in anyway, a cost savings.

    Similar for the rail. It limits the amount of data that can come over the connection, the amount of charge the NG controllers can draw. It limits the shape of the controllers, as the rail's design can only take a limited amount of leverage. I am sure Nintendo would love to reuse the rail if it can, but it's not a given that it will not impose additional costs on the new system.


    What's frustrating about this conversation isn't disagreeing on what is most likely. It's that you shut down the possibility there is any advantage, and thus shut down speculation. It would be one thing if you were weighing costs and benefits and then had faith in your consideration that the costs outweight the benefits of changing the form factor.

    But there are plenty of advantages. The dock blocks the back of the Switch. The Steam Deck, the Rog Ally, the Aya Neo - they all vent air back there because it's the most efficient place to do so. Is it truly inconceivable that there might be a cost associated with taking a flat chip and a flat fan in a flat tablet and somehow making it vent out the top?

    "I could make it weigh less if I could cut out the three inches of copper if I could just vent it out the back."
    "So make it vent out the back?"
    "We'd have to redesign the dock."
    "It's a chunk of plastic. The visual identity team will want to look different anyway, so just make it vent out the back."

    The connecting pins for the Joy-Cons currently only have to carry a tiny amount of data, and a tiny amount of electricity. Slapping on a camera or a microphone to those things would likely require a change. Altering the ergonomics would put additional stress on the rail due to leverage. All of these changes would be constrained by guaranteeing backward compatibility.

    Again I'm not saying this is definitely the case. Nor am I saying that the Joy-Cons won't be usable via BT or similar, even if they do break the physical shape of the device. But when trying to predict Nintendo's moves, saying "these constraints are less important than hardware compatibility" is very different from "there are no constraints."

    Trying to game out the SOC performance based on the thermal and battery profile of the OG Switch because "there is no reason to change the formfactor" is a self fulfilling idiocy. There is a reason, you're staring it in the face - the SOC performance and the thermal and battery profile of the hardware. Game it out. How much would you get by breaking compatibility? What would it cost you? Is it worth it? Do you think your analysis is Nintendo's analysis? Have you considered the processing demands of Unannounced Gimmick and how that might affect Nintendo's plans?

    I think that's a worthwhile discussion.
    Click to expand...

    I... Frankly don't. Saying "factually untrue" that using proven, already mass produced parts is expensive, developmentally, isn't being honest.

    Saying that adding a camera would mandate a change to the controller's connector, when it ALREADY HAS A CAMERA, that more power would mandate an incompatible connector, or that the connector is somehow not amenable to a superior latching mechanism, when the connector and latch are seperate components that serve different functions. That. Just isn't being honest. That's creating problems, manifesting ones that do not exist, for the sake of argument, and pretending that they are the case. Could new inputs make the existing edge connector undesirable? Perhaps. But it's neither likely, nor is it impossible for the new connector to also be compatible with charging the last generation of Joy-Con. There are already multiple varieties of Joy-Con Rail. Some only deal with power. Some have to communicate with a Joy-Con in its powered off state. These are the facts of Joy-Con Rail.

    To even begin to entertain Bluetooth compatibility you have to keep in mind people still need a way to CHARGE their controllers. For Xbox and PlayStation this is of course very easy, they use standard USB ports. But Joy-Con Rail, it's USB, but it's a non standard shape.

    NG Switch is a Switch. Wii U was a "Wii". Wii U had a sensor bar port. NG Switch, unless they want to, and I want to make this clear, squander consumer goodwill, something they are very explicit about not wanting to do, will need a way to connect, at least to charge.

    Could NG Switch change much, if not all of this? In theory, sure, maybe.

    But is it being HONEST to suggest they WILL, to suggest that the idea of broad compatibility and cross gen "must die"? I don't believe so.

    Nor is it particularly honest to say the rumoured screen, which unlike the SOC, is merely rumoured at present, is evidence to the effect of a different controller connector. Especially when said rumoured screen isn't even too big for Joy-Con Rails. In fact, it fits them perfectly! Joy-Con, bottom to top, and a 7.91" display at 16:9 aspect ratio, that's basically a perfect fit. A millimeter or two for bezel, even. That doesn't sound like evidence AGAINST the use of Joy-Con or Joy-Con Rail in some compatible form. If anything that sounds like the biggest possible screen you could get WITHOUT sacrificing compatibility, even flushness!

    The leaked SOC at say, 5nm, would have a thermal profile pretty much in line with the launch Switch. As it happens, the Nintendo Switch Dock with LAN Port has more ventilation than even the launch Dock. More than any other Dock. Unless they go mad with the clocks, which seems unlikely for a variety of reasons, like this still has to be comfortable to hold and not a space heater, that sits the device perfectly pretty in the Dock with LAN Port with headroom to spare. It could still hold it even if it was wider, even if it was taller, even if it was two millimeters thicker. The sort of design needed to break compatibility (other than keying it differently) would be extraordinarily different. "Extraordinarily different" is something we very much have no evidence to the effect of. As it stands just about everything points to "Nintendo Switch, possible bigger screen, definitely a lot more power."
     
    ILikeFeet said:
    it wouldn't even be the first time. back on the 3DS some games used so much ram that you couldn't go to the home screen without a lengthy load time. some switch games disabled OS features for more ram. they didn't use storage for that, but there are ways to stretch the ram amount
    Click to expand...
    That's great to hear! I think that fact could imply it's possible they do that, specially with storage solutions like UFS 3.1, features for fast load times, and the OS's lightness.
     
    chocolate_supra said:
    Pretty sure that's what they did for BotW on WiiU.
    Click to expand...
    Both Wii U and 3DS played some tricks with the OS to get ambitious games running. Breath of the Wild is of course the big one with its loading screens to leave the Home Menu, but I think the 3DS solutions were more interesting. Sun and Moon on the original 3DS (so, not New 3DS) would basically force the system to reboot every time it launched or closed. These were ambitious games for 3DS, despite what we think of their work on Switch, their 3DS games were nothing to scoff at. What they did when you pressed the HOME button was to display a non-functional simulacrum of the Home Screen, but with it all actually running as part of the game, much like the Home Menu on Wii.

    Essentially, when you pressed HOME, you were opening an in-game menu that just happened to look like your home screen.

    3DS Home was also very complex. It sort of tried to do too much for the hardware, with the Home Screen always accessible while a game is suspended. Multitasking in 2011 with 128mb of RAM was ROUGH. It was amazing what they did for what they were given. I think this may have informed their design of the Nintendo Switch Home Menu, simplified even next to 3DS, but it meant games only had to disable video recording at the absolute worst to get running, since the OS is so lightweight. I get people bemoan the loss of 3DS "charm", but I think developers not having to reboot the system and dump the entire operating system every time you opened it is a fair trade-off.
     
    Dekuman said:
    I rounded down :p

    My 512 GB microSD has around 476GB available once formatted, so I just assumed Nintendo would reserve ~50 GB for the OS, and whatever system functions they may want (like themes, NSO icons, profiles, save DATA) so that leaves around 426GB and to be conservative, assumed 400GB would be readily available for games storage after you factor in space used for user generated content (screenshots, videos etc.)
    Click to expand...
    Difference between GB and GiB. Storage is sold in GB (base-10), but actual storage, including file system size, is in GiB (base-2). 1 Gigabyte is equal to (10^9) / (2^30) gibibytes (or 1 GB = 0.93132257461548 GiB).

    512 * 0.93132257461548 ~= 476.837

    Switch's internal storage is 32GB (really ~29GiB), and with only the OS on internal storage, it's 26GiB, so the OS is really only about 3GiB in size.
     
    Hermii said:
    As I understand it, the OFA is pretty much desktop ampere. Which might actually be a good thing for this device.
    Click to expand...
    No, it’s ORIN, which is very different from desktop.
    Hermii said:
    Lovelace OFA is significantly bigger, takes up more transistors and die space compared to Ampere's which for a handheld device that frame generation probably wouldn't be useful on anyway can be a bad thing.
    Click to expand...
    It’s not that it’s bigger, it’s faster.

    A lot faster.
     
    Discostew said:
    Switch's internal storage is 32GB (really ~29GiB), and with only the OS on internal storage, it's 26GiB, so the OS is really only about 3GiB in size.
    Click to expand...
    SYSTEM gets 2.5GiB (typically 1.5GiB of that is used, HOS itself is ~350MiB, rest is system savedata), the other ~500MiB is unallocated/unused for whatever reason.
     
    ReddDreadtheLead said:
    No, it’s ORIN, which is very different from desktop.

    It’s not that it’s bigger, it’s faster.

    A lot faster.
    Click to expand...
    So I find this an interesting comment because do we know if much has changed in the OFA or does it receive the much faster benefit from being on 4N and having faster GPU core clocks over Ampere.
     
    Concernt said:
    It is reasonable.

    Developers, more specifically, development companies, are unwilling to put in the time and money, and thus additional hires and wages, to optimise for it in time. 10GB isn't some chokehold on development. Corporate mismanagement is, though, and always has been.
    Click to expand...
    When your machine isn't popular enough to be the primary target, anything that adds extra development inconvenience can become a barrier. If a GameCube release was only ever going to sell a fraction of its PS2 counterpart anyway, having to worry about fitting everything on discs a fraction of the capacity was the kind of hurdle that might help you decide to not bother. Same with... well, all kinds of multiplatform games that never hit Switch.
     
    Hermii said:
    As I understand it, the OFA is pretty much desktop ampere. Which might actually be a good thing for this device.
    Click to expand...
    NineTailSage said:
    So I find this an interesting comment because do we know if much has changed in the OFA or does it receive the much faster benefit from being on 4N and having faster GPU core clocks over Ampere.
    Click to expand...
    Unfortunately no.

    But I think expecting the OFA on Orin's GPU to be faster than the OFA on consumer Ampere GPUs is a reasonable assumption to make since autonomous driving benefits greatly from faster optical flow.

    And Drake's GPU's confirmed to inherit the OFA from Orin's GPU.
     
    Dark Cloud said:
    Do you think Monolith Soft is developing for Nintendo’s next hardware already?!?
    Click to expand...
    if there was any studio under nintendo who's best positioned to take advantage of Drake, Monolith would be among them. even a Switch derived game could be a good showcase with some minor upgrades brought on by the hardware. Xenoblade 3 with ray traced GI would be so bitchin
     
    OctoSplattack said:
    Rumors say that various Nintendo EPD teams are making games for the next Nintendo hardware.
    Click to expand...
    NANI?!?!?!?!?!?!

    1_4.jpg
     
    the one thing I always look forward to, is naturalistic light sources

    maxresdefault.jpg


    look at all these lights and windows. now imagine them casting shadows! 🤩
     
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Please read this staff post before posting.

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


    Back
    Top Bottom