• 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.

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

Reader mode
Serif said:
@bossmeran has a point. The decision calculus is now impacted by Switch 2 thanks to diminishing returns, scalability, and DLSS.

Resharing this, comparison between Ratchet and Clank from PS5 (top) and Steam Deck (bottom).

92643470-vollbild.jpg
RatchetClankDefault3.jpg


One is obviously better. If you scrutinize the image you can identify the aliasing, lower texture resolution, and so on. If you blow it up on a 4K TV it will be more apparent. The Steam Deck version also runs at half the framerate.

-- but on a tablet screen or living room viewing distance, how noticeable is all of this to the 'layman'? Even if they identify the top one as better, if you tell them the device spitting out the bottom image can also be carried in your backpack, they'd start to weigh the benefits of the portable device more seriously.

In my experience, 'low' or even lower than low settings don't really result in potato graphics anymore, and I expect a lot of the issues that plagued Switch 'impossible' ports to be alleviated by the increased CPU and RAM as well. Then you introduce DLSS into the equation and you start to muddy the waters more.

There will still be games that miss the Switch 2, or are ported and absolutely push the system and bring it to its knees, probably resulting in some absurd 144p to 720p DLSS or whatever, or being CPU bound and cutting a lot of features. But how common will this be .. actually? Genuine question. And if a game misses the Switch 2, then there's no comparison to be made in the first place. Switch 2 will still be replete with excellent looking Switch games, PS4 ports, cross-gen games, indies, and so on so it's not like there's a shortage.
Click to expand...
The bottom one has this giant weird monster on it, interesting
 
Joy-Boy said:
True, but as of now that's just a one off instance. We'll probably get more deals and compromises down the road, but the games will still make it on the system. I think most will happily sacrifice something like split screen multiplayer if it means getting a Switch 2 version of Bladurs Gate 3
Click to expand...
Honestly from looking at it, Split-Screen barely runs on PS5 as is, so BG3 is very much a fringe case
 
C_Ali said:
Hi former lurker, you’re crazy!
Click to expand...
Why though, that's what I wanna know...
kvetcha said:
'Comparable' does not mean 'as good as.' The Series S is also comparable to the Series X and PS5.
Click to expand...
But "comparable" is often good enough if not near identical to the untrained eye. For an average buyer who just wants to play their FIFA and COD at a good enough quality, this would totally be enough. Switch 1 has shortcomings but Switch 2 should be closing the gap to make the differences near meaningless to the average consumers. Especially the large chunk of casual gamers still playing on PS4 to this day, the ones who haven't upgraded. Portability is just the bonus on top. That is a huge market that Nintendo will be stealing from Sony and to a lesser extent Microsoft. What I'm arguing is the differences will not be enough for the general public to care about the clunky, power hogging, inefficient huge boxes that Sony and Microsoft are trying to convince people to keep in their houses. Why do I need 2 things that do the same thing when I have a smaller, portable and more efficient one that doesn't take up as much space and I can play everything I want on it?
Adulfzen said:
well the Switch 2 won't come close to the PS5/Xbox Series XS regardless in terms of visuals.

It will find ways to close the gap and punch above its weight in specific games/situations but in the same way Switch has shortcoming compared to PS4/Xbox One, this next gen Switch will have issues compared to PS5/Xbox Series XS.

I think it's better to focus on the fact that it will be a massive jump in performance and the possibilities it'll offer to Nintendo world class developers (as well as offering a slew of third party games that didn't make the cut on current Switch for XYZ reasons).
Click to expand...
It will though. It will get very close. I'm arguing that it will get close enough to the point where general consumers will not be able to tell the difference. We've already seen people buying the PS4 versions of games on PS5 by accident and not even realising until someone tells them (frame rate/res is the usual dead giveaway but only enthusiasts like us can tell that and for Switch 2 DLSS will easily close the resolution gap). I genuinely think this poses a risk to Sony and Microsoft. It's a no brainer for devs, it's a free market that doesn't have exposure to their games.
Armoured_Bear said:
To play exclusives from those consoles or to play online or to play with their preferred controller or plenty of other reasons.
Also, "comparable" doesn't mean "as good as".
Click to expand...
Well PS5 and Xbox Series X are increasingly having less and less exclusives especially compared to the PS3/Xbox 360 gen, and of those exclusives they're often timed. Not to mention people may just buy those consoles for the exclusives and instead use Switch 2 as their primary gaming device, meaning most of the money goes into the Nintendo ecosystem. Starfield is the biggest recent one and even that's on PC. Square Enix do most of the exclusives and are publishing mainly on PS5 but I think that will be rapidly changing considering that PS5 is doing terribly in Japan. Soon enough they'll have no choice but to put their games on Switch 2. Not to mention most of these exclusives cater to enthusiasts like us. Controller is superfluous as most controllers can be used on Switch, not to mention Switch Pro Controller is easily the best controller on the market comfort wise. The comparable argument I addressed above.

I seriously think people are underestimating and downplaying the catastrophic impact this could have on the industry. It's really going to shake things up, it's insane!
 
Hello guys. Could theoretically the implementation of DLSS on NG Switch be more efficient with better IQ than on PC due to the static configuration of the platform, unlike PC versions which must run on a wide range of configurations?
 
kinshaad said:
Hello guys. Could theoretically the implementation of DLSS on NG Switch be more efficient with better IQ than on PC due to the static configuration of the platform, unlike PC versions which must run on a wide range of configurations?
Click to expand...
not really, as the training would be agnostic. it's possible for there to be an exclusive data set full of nintendo games for Drake to better improve scaling on "nintendo-esque" art direction
 
0
kinshaad said:
Hello guys. Could theoretically the implementation of DLSS on NG Switch be more efficient with better IQ than on PC due to the static configuration of the platform, unlike PC versions which must run on a wide range of configurations?
Click to expand...
I doubt there is much potential benefit to a "customized" version of DLSS for Nintendo's hardware. They do need to make a custom build for it, since the operating environment (Horizon OS, ARM CPU cores) is new to DLSS, but that's mostly the boilerplate stuff. The important part of DLSS actually doesn't run on a wide range of configurations, it only runs on Nvidia's RTX GPUs, and Nintendo's hardware will have one of those too.
 
LongDrake said:
The most shocking part about the gamescom leak is that those tensor cores everyone thought was just going to be used for dlss will also allowed for ray tracing which is kinda crazy since no one believed a small little hybrid console like that would dream so big.
Though its probably is going to be only available in docked mode.
Click to expand...
What if..... it wasn't small.

😉
 
0
Serif said:
@bossmeran has a point. The decision calculus is now impacted by Switch 2 thanks to diminishing returns, scalability, and DLSS.

Resharing this, comparison between Ratchet and Clank from PS5 (top) and Steam Deck (bottom).

92643470-vollbild.jpg
RatchetClankDefault3.jpg


One is obviously better. If you scrutinize the image you can identify the aliasing, lower texture resolution, and so on. If you blow it up on a 4K TV it will be more apparent. The Steam Deck version also runs at half the framerate.

-- but on a tablet screen or living room viewing distance, how noticeable is all of this to the 'layman'? Even if they identify the top one as better, if you tell them the device spitting out the bottom image can also be carried in your backpack, they'd start to weigh the benefits of the portable device more seriously.

In my experience, 'low' or even lower than low settings don't really result in potato graphics anymore, and I expect a lot of the issues that plagued Switch 'impossible' ports to be alleviated by the increased CPU and RAM as well. Then you introduce DLSS into the equation and you start to muddy the waters more.

There will still be games that miss the Switch 2, or are ported and absolutely push the system and bring it to its knees, probably resulting in some absurd 144p to 720p DLSS or whatever, or being CPU bound and cutting a lot of features. But how common will this be .. actually? Genuine question. And if a game misses the Switch 2, then there's no comparison to be made in the first place. Switch 2 will still be replete with excellent looking Switch games, PS4 ports, cross-gen games, indies, and so on so it's not like there's a shortage.
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed your post, but this is exactly what I meant.
There will still be games that miss the Switch 2, or are ported and absolutely push the system and bring it to its knees, probably resulting in some absurd 144p to 720p DLSS or whatever, or being CPU bound and cutting a lot of features. But how common will this be .. actually? Genuine question. And if a game misses the Switch 2, then there's no comparison to be made in the first place. Switch 2 will still be replete with excellent looking Switch games, PS4 ports, cross-gen games, indies, and so on so it's not like there's a shortage.
Click to expand...
Games like that would've been poor regardless of what system they're on since it's a development issue anyway. As you say I reckon it'll be an absolute rarity and if a game ends up in that situation it'll probably run terribly everywhere, as we've seen with recent AAA releases on PS5/Xbox Series X and PC. I think it will net a lot lot more PS5/Xbox Series X games than people think too. Much like PC handhelds are able to play current PS5/Xbox Series X games, albeit with a few compromises like framerate and resolution. Switch 2 will have the DLSS advantage over every other console on the market which will help to close the gap.
 
Alovon11 said:
Yep, pretty much my general argument on the comparison.

Absolute best case (Assuming your calculated clocks), Docked Switch 2 in pure raster performance may be able to match up to Series S assuming

  1. The Scene is not CPU Bound/Is Purely GPU Raster Bound
  2. The CPU L3 Cache Access/SysLC helps to a good extent, and Ampere Mixed precision (Taking it from the ~3.3TFLOP FP32 to Around 5-5.5TFLOPs Mixed, leaving some headroom on the tensor cores for DLSS and RR to function).
  3. Series S is not memory limited in the scene because Switch 2 is very much looking like it will have 12GB of Memory on the Retail unit, allowing at least 10GB for Devs versus the 8 on Series S.
However, that is an absolute best case, and even then has some speculation on how much Cache, Efficiency, and Optimization for the console can help the architecture versus RDNA2.

However, when trying to compare Ray Tracing, things become a lot easier for Switch 2 to keep up or surpass like you mentioned.

Heck, looking the Path Tracing Efficiency mod for Cyberpunk 2077 on an RTX 3050 Desktop, it can hit 1080p at a stable 30fps using DLSS Performance Mode.

Add in
  • DLSS Ray Reconstruction to help claw back more detail
  • A proper fine-tuned pass for the final implementation of RT Overdrive, or more specifically a console-tuned version for Switch 2 (Object culling, distance of the Path Tracing.etc)
  • Maybe % scale specifically for the Path Tracer's Internal Res rather than rely on the screen res being 1:1 (So EX: 1440p Performance Mode Output, but the Path Tracing for GI/Reflections is done at 480p)
And it probably could run similarly on Switch 2
  • So like,
    • Quality (4K RT at 30),
    • Performance (1440-4K at 60)
    • Performance RT (1080-1440p at 60 with Reduced RT)
    • Overdrive (1080p Output at 30 with Path Tracing)

RT and Upscaling is where Swtich 2's legs will stretch, and shifting the pipeline of content to utilize how efficcently it can perform those effects would help a lot.

I would not be surprised if we see a lot of games use scalable RTGI on Switch 2 for example, we already see a very scalable RTGI solution on OG Switch with SVOGI in Crysis Remastered.
Click to expand...

There will probably be cases where Switch 2 games in docked mode look better than their Series S counterparts (hell, Alien Isolation looks better on Switch than PS4), but I suspect in most cases developers will make very different trade-offs between the two platforms. Series S is the "low res" version of games designed for it and Series X, whereas Switch 2 docked mode is the "high res" version of games designed to work in both handheld and docked, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Switch 2 games having lower settings but better IQ, while Series S games run higher settings without looking as sharp.

The big issue between Switch 2 and Series S isn't the GPU, though, it's the CPU. For CPU-limited games which run at 30fps on Series S all the graphics optimisation in the world won't get them running on Switch 2. For current-gen exclusives which run at 60fps on Series S, I'd expect many of them to run at 30fps on Switch 2 if they do get ported. In that case, it's likely that they will be running at higher settings than Series S, as they have much more frame time to work with, with the obvious trade-off of the lower frame rate.

Regarding Cyberpunk's RT Overdrive mode, as much as I'd love to see them try to squeeze it onto the hardware, there's only so far you can dial back the settings while still getting reasonable image quality. DLSS-RR will definitely help, but to be honest with you Overdrive already looks pretty rough if you're not running it at very high resolutions. There's noticeable boiling when panning the camera, shimmering on specular surfaces and an assortment of other artefacts. I fully expect DLSS-RR to smooth all of this out, resulting in much better IQ, but in the case of Cyberpunk's Overdrive mode I don't think it's going to facilitate much better performance as well. For RT cases where IQ is already solid, I'd expect it to allow a reduction in sample count while retaining good IQ, leading to better performance, but for Cyberpunk's Overdrive mode I think it's mainly a "get decent IQ" tool.
 
BreakAtmo said:
Could the bandwidth be different on handheld and docked modes? I know on Switch it's kept the same.
Click to expand...
The Switch's memory bandwidth is technically the same between docked and handheld, but the operating frequency changes from 1600 MHz to 1333 MHz, so the transfer speed is a little lower.
 
0
catonkatonk said:
RE: Ray-tracing & handheld viability,

Is it even possible to quickly "toggle" ray-tracing in the way that would be required for docking the Switch seamlessly?
Switch is literally the only thing I play games on so I genuinely don't know.
Click to expand...
Ray tracing also scales with resolution so unless the RT cores somehow are clocked far lower than the rest of the GPU (which I am pretty sure is not feasible), if you render in handheld mode at a lower resolution already, I'm not sure why you would need to turn off. With that said, in theory there are plenty of settings you can change to account for handheld mode, if I am not wrong, botw even lowers texture resolution in handheld mode (I might be misremembering though) so if one really desired it I cant see why they couldn't toggle it off.

But the more work you have to do, as people have already added, the less sense it makes, and developers have been on record saying the (virtually) 2x difference between the 1080p docked resolution of Switch and 720p handheld resolution (both max) means that just cutting the resolution down is a far simpler way of handling both modes.

Worth adding as well anything CPU related, such as BVH tree building, wouldnt need to be changed (outside of resolution dependent stuff like framebuffer allocation, etc. which is only cheaper at lower resolutions) in handheld mode since Nintendo keeps the CPU clocks the same (throttling it down would require games to be practically re-coded for the lower clock speeds which would be... problematic).
 
0
bossmeran said:
I think it will net a lot lot more PS5/Xbox Series X games than people think too. Much like PC handhelds are able to play current PS5/Xbox Series X games, albeit with a few compromises like framerate and resolution. Switch 2 will have the DLSS advantage over every other console on the market which will help to close the gap.
Click to expand...
I think it's very possible for Switch 2 to be the 'minimum' target for quite a few third-party multi-platform games, where they aim to make at least an acceptable 1080p 30 (after DLSS) on Switch 2 and scale up for the other consoles, so it's just another platform they're targeting instead of an afterthought where they have to scramble and squeeze to downport a game to later, like how it feels on the current Switch. I think the next Monster Hunter could do this. Some games will obviously try to max out the XSX/PS5 but they're limited by the Series S anyway, and I imagine publishers will want a piece of the Switch pie earlier this time. Unfortunately this will result in many claims of 'Switch 2 holding current gen back', but whatever at this point.
 
Armoured_Bear said:
Who are these "trolls"? Any real-life examples?
Also, returnal is rendered internally at 1080p, not output at 1080p and I'm not sure why you're talking about PS4, why not talk about the current gen where you can choose to play most (not all) at 60fps if you want?
Seriously, we should be over childish console war speak, in terms of hardware, controllers and also games, it's an amazing time, the line-up of games this year is wonderful so why not enjoy that instead of going on about MS and Sony from previous generations.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by real life examples but there are several spaces on the internet where people think these consoles are the second coming and look down on Nintendo. Era is full of drive by concern trolling regarding the Drake, this is not even debatable. It's cool for people to voice concerns over Nintendo's commitment to high-end portable graphics but not when they are laced with backhanded comments that suggest Nintendo never looks to update their tech substantially and that their fans tolerate anything.

I was on Era when Mark Cerny revealed the PS5 dynamic clocks and they lost their minds over XSX being more powerful. This is after they actually believed PS5 would 13.3 Tflops or something crazy lol. So they are doing all this projecting when it comes to this "comparable to PS5" nonsense when only a few people are taking that info and flying too close to the sun. Everyone knows the raw output of the Drake will not come close to PS5.

Not to mention the Marvel's Spider-Man 2 reveal when people were saying it was just a PS4 up port. Those people are 100% delusional or trolling. That game looks great graphically yet people still trashed it as Spider-Man 1.5. Also, 60fps is not a standard. I know this because I still game primarily on my PC for big 3rd party releases and Starfield just came out capped at 30fps on the most powerful home console on the market.
 
Honestly, 12GB of RAM (if true) is really good. That exceeds my expectations. I was thinking 8 to 10GB. So far, the specs of the new switch have exceeded expectations and been on the far optimistic side of predictions.

I just hope this is all true this time and does not fall into the same "this is too good to be true" Nintendo discourse. The console gets revealed, and the specs are inferior to the rumors. It would be refreshing if the actual console ended up even better than "rumors".
 
MadMarvainy said:
Not sure what you mean by real life examples but there are several spaces on the internet where people think these consoles are the second coming and look down on Nintendo. Era is full of drive by concern trolling regarding the Drake, this is not even debatable. It's cool for people to voice concerns over Nintendo's commitment to high-end portable graphics but not when they are laced with backhanded comments that suggest Nintendo never looks to update their tech substantially and that their fans tolerate anything.

I was on Era when Mark Cerny revealed the PS5 dynamic clocks and they lost their minds over XSX being more powerful. This is after they actually believed PS5 would 13.3 Tflops or something crazy lol. So they are doing all this projecting when it comes to this "comparable to PS5" nonsense when only a few people are taking that info and flying too close to the sun. Everyone knows the raw output of the Drake will not come close to PS5.

Not to mention the Marvel's Spider-Man 2 reveal when people were saying it was just a PS4 up port. Those people are 100% delusional or trolling. That game looks great graphically yet people still trashed it as Spider-Man 1.5. Also, 60fps is not a standard. I know this because I still game primarily on my PC for big 3rd party releases and Starfield just came out capped at 30fps on the most powerful home console on the market.
Click to expand...
Yeah there are definitely trolling there and I also think there's a factor of low information posters emotionally invested in their platforms feeling a bit insecure. They probably thought Switch 2 would be a non factor , despite the Switch growing its profile in vis a vis PS4 and XBONE over the generation

I still recall when people just expected Nintendo games and 360 ports from the Switch.

Also the "comparable to PS5" descriptor really annoyed a lot of people. You can tell because they launch into rants or concern trolling about how a portable can't be as powerful as a PS5 not realizing the context or the technology in play
 
lemonfresh said:
This thread is so different than the direct thread lol over there is nonstop hype posting and here its just calm discussion on hardware specs
Click to expand...
I like the hype posting over there.
I almost cried on the bus on my way to work this morning reading the direct leak thread revealing F-Zero GX Remaster.

MOD EDIT: Spoiler tagged Direct leak
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MadMarvainy said:
Not sure what you mean by real life examples but there are several spaces on the internet where people think these consoles are the second coming and look down on Nintendo. Era is full of drive by concern trolling regarding the Drake, this is not even debatable. It's cool for people to voice concerns over Nintendo's commitment to high-end portable graphics but not when they are laced with backhanded comments that suggest Nintendo never looks to update their tech substantially and that their fans tolerate anything.

I was on Era when Mark Cerny revealed the PS5 dynamic clocks and they lost their minds over XSX being more powerful. This is after they actually believed PS5 would 13.3 Tflops or something crazy lol. So they are doing all this projecting when it comes to this "comparable to PS5" nonsense when only a few people are taking that info and flying too close to the sun. Everyone knows the raw output of the Drake will not come close to PS5.

Not to mention the Marvel's Spider-Man 2 reveal when people were saying it was just a PS4 up port. Those people are 100% delusional or trolling. That game looks great graphically yet people still trashed it as Spider-Man 1.5. Also, 60fps is not a standard. I know this because I still game primarily on my PC for big 3rd party releases and Starfield just came out capped at 30fps on the most powerful home console on the market.
Click to expand...
Not replying to your post but this:
Not to mention the Marvel's Spider-Man 2 reveal when people were saying it was just a PS4 up port.
Click to expand...
Is a perfect example of how Switch 2 will change the industry to be portable dominated if not a lot, lot more portable centric at the bare minimum. People often can't tell the difference between PS4 and PS5 versions. If they can have something very very close all on the go, who's to say they won't ditch those big, loud monsters in their living rooms?
 
AxkilAvenger said:
I like the hype posting over there.
I almost cried on the bus on my way to work this morning reading the direct leak thread revealing TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
Click to expand...
Gentle reminder that we've collectively moved Direct spoilers to the Direct thread only. I don't consume Directs as entertainment products, so I don't mind, but some folks care.
 
0
Multiverse said:
I just hope this is all true this time and does not fall into the same "this is too good to be true" Nintendo discourse. The console gets revealed, and the specs are inferior to the rumors. It would be refreshing if the actual console ended up even better than "rumors".
Click to expand...
At this point the specs (other than 12 GB), have been 'leaked' since the Nvidia data breach, and there is no potential alternative chip that exists in time for a next year release. Stolen data is more reliable than secondhand rumors. Even the minimum possible expectation is a device several times stronger than the Switch and posses DLSS, which makes sense. The Switch is a change in direction for Nintendo and they have enjoyed third-party ports because of the Switch's power and modern featureset. At this point I consider it unrealistic to entertain specs inferior than a PS4 because that wouldn't benefit Nintendo in any way whatsoever and they'd have to go out of their way to underutilize this chipset which they're customizing in the first place.
 
Angel Whispers said:
It wouldn’t be Nvidia alone in making suggestions. It would be other developers, as well as a combination of the other circumstances I mentioned. Product development feedback is a natural part of the process. But I come back to the fact that the tweet was written after tape-out, and ask why they put out something showing a 16GB RAM product at all. All I’m saying, in a speculation thread, is that this is credible and with merit. There is also history across the board. Microsoft were advised to put 512MB in the X360, Sony were told “you’re done if you don’t go with 8GB” for the PS4 (Everything at their reveal ran on 4GB dev kits), and Capcom suggested 4GB would be better for the Switch. Every one of those responded accordingly to secure critical support, and as a result, their platforms were successes.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Nvidia's the only company making suggestions to Nintendo.

My point is that just because Nvidia mentioned that Jetson Orin NX has 16 GB of RAM doesn't mean Nintendo's going to automatically do likewise for retail hardware. As I've said before, Nintendo makes the final decision, not Nvidia, nor any company making suggestions to Nintendo.
Speaking of RAM, I don't think the RAM amount's going to be a bottleneck for Nintendo's new hardware. I think like with the Nintendo Switch, the CPU frequency and the RAM bandwidth are going to be the biggest bottlenecks with Nintendo's new hardware, although I don't believe to the same degree as with the Nintendo Switch.
 
MadMarvainy said:
Not sure what you mean by real life examples but there are several spaces on the internet where people think these consoles are the second coming and look down on Nintendo. Era is full of drive by concern trolling regarding the Drake, this is not even debatable. It's cool for people to voice concerns over Nintendo's commitment to high-end portable graphics but not when they are laced with backhanded comments that suggest Nintendo never looks to update their tech substantially and that their fans tolerate anything.

I was on Era when Mark Cerny revealed the PS5 dynamic clocks and they lost their minds over XSX being more powerful. This is after they actually believed PS5 would 13.3 Tflops or something crazy lol. So they are doing all this projecting when it comes to this "comparable to PS5" nonsense when only a few people are taking that info and flying too close to the sun. Everyone knows the raw output of the Drake will not come close to PS5.

Not to mention the Marvel's Spider-Man 2 reveal when people were saying it was just a PS4 up port. Those people are 100% delusional or trolling. That game looks great graphically yet people still trashed it as Spider-Man 1.5. Also, 60fps is not a standard. I know this because I still game primarily on my PC for big 3rd party releases and Starfield just came out capped at 30fps on the most powerful home console on the market.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of frustration I see from the other console corners because Nintendo's output is near-consistent quality title, quality title, quality title; universal acclaim, smashed sales records, glowing write-ups in all the big media journals etc. all despite being nothing but '20fps PS2 graphics baby games', whereas many of us also with PlayStations or Xboxes have been tuning into their showcases and being left wondering just what the hell is going on with Sony and Microsoft lately as the whole games-as-services approach and investment in peripheral hardware nobody seems interested in makes it seem like regular releases of good new titles are no longer a priority, even worse if you have a PS5 or Series X since there are still so comparatively few exclusives for those systems, meaning the design philosophy approach to making many new still titles doesn't have the capability of the current gen in mind, so some level of bitterness should be expected here

But it's now getting to the stage where Nintendo titles are being actively targeted by review bomb campaigns - Tears of the Kingdom was knocked down about 0.4 points on metacritic within a week very recently, and the last couple days I've seen the Switch 2 being slated on various forums and subs simply because it's a Nintendo product, by the same people who I'd also see lauding the Deck mind you
 
Serif said:
@bossmeran has a point. The decision calculus is now impacted by Switch 2 thanks to diminishing returns, scalability, and DLSS.

Resharing this, comparison between Ratchet and Clank from PS5 (top) and Steam Deck (bottom).

92643470-vollbild.jpg
RatchetClankDefault3.jpg


One is obviously better. If you scrutinize the image you can identify the aliasing, lower texture resolution, and so on. If you blow it up on a 4K TV it will be more apparent. The Steam Deck version also runs at half the framerate.

-- but on a tablet screen or living room viewing distance, how noticeable is all of this to the 'layman'? Even if they identify the top one as better, if you tell them the device spitting out the bottom image can also be carried in your backpack, they'd start to weigh the benefits of the portable device more seriously.

In my experience, 'low' or even lower than low settings don't really result in potato graphics anymore, and I expect a lot of the issues that plagued Switch 'impossible' ports to be alleviated by the increased CPU and RAM as well. Then you introduce DLSS into the equation and you start to muddy the waters more.

There will still be games that miss the Switch 2, or are ported and absolutely push the system and bring it to its knees, probably resulting in some absurd 144p to 720p DLSS or whatever, or being CPU bound and cutting a lot of features. But how common will this be .. actually? Genuine question. And if a game misses the Switch 2, then there's no comparison to be made in the first place. Switch 2 will still be replete with excellent looking Switch games, PS4 ports, cross-gen games, indies, and so on so it's not like there's a shortage.
Click to expand...
I’m more looking at the GPU being 96% and the CPU being 49%. So, it’s limited by other things not so much CPU when you observe it. I’m more curious on what the average percentage is of this game for CPU and GPU utilization across the whole game.

Would be hard though….
 
MadMarvainy said:
Not sure what you mean by real life examples but there are several spaces on the internet where people think these consoles are the second coming and look down on Nintendo. Era is full of drive by concern trolling regarding the Drake, this is not even debatable. It's cool for people to voice concerns over Nintendo's commitment to high-end portable graphics but not when they are laced with backhanded comments that suggest Nintendo never looks to update their tech substantially and that their fans tolerate anything.

I was on Era when Mark Cerny revealed the PS5 dynamic clocks and they lost their minds over XSX being more powerful. This is after they actually believed PS5 would 13.3 Tflops or something crazy lol. So they are doing all this projecting when it comes to this "comparable to PS5" nonsense when only a few people are taking that info and flying too close to the sun. Everyone knows the raw output of the Drake will not come close to PS5.

Not to mention the Marvel's Spider-Man 2 reveal when people were saying it was just a PS4 up port. Those people are 100% delusional or trolling. That game looks great graphically yet people still trashed it as Spider-Man 1.5. Also, 60fps is not a standard. I know this because I still game primarily on my PC for big 3rd party releases and Starfield just came out capped at 30fps on the most powerful home console on the market.
Click to expand...
You have fanboy/fangirls of every platform which look down on the others, Nintendo, Playstation and Xbox, it's all childish and pathetic but in no way exclusive to the non-portable consoles.
I never said that 60fps was a standard, I said that it's possible to choose to play most games at 60 fps these days, recent examples I have played include Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon:Forbidden West, A Plague Tale: Requiem, Final Fantasy 16, Ratchet and Clank, TLOU Part 2.
Starfield is coming from one of the jankiest developers in gaming who have always been infamous for poor optimisation so it's more of an outlier than anything else.
 
GigaUltraMoon said:
But it's now getting to the stage where Nintendo titles are being actively targeted by review bomb campaigns - Tears of the Kingdom was knocked down about 0.4 points on metacritic within a week very recently, and the last couple days I've seen the Switch 2 being slated on various forums and subs simply because it's a Nintendo product, by the same people who I'd also see lauding the Deck mind you
Click to expand...
There have been loads of review bombing on all platforms, examples include Horizon:FW and The Last of Us Part 2.
 
I remember when DLSS 2 was initially announced. I'm not a PC gamer, but I could not tell the difference between DLSS Quality Mode, even then before the significant updates it's received, and "real" 4K.Then I got to the point where I wouldn't necessarily know why I prefered "real" 4k, but at least in motion, I could tell the difference. Still looked great.

Then, even as it improved by huge leaps and bounds, I could pinpoint the exact artifacts in motion, and was trying to explain to folks that stills were not a good way to see the tradeoffs DLSS 2 made. Then someone posts early DLSS 2 1440p stills from Death Stranding, and without knowing which is which, I look at one of them and my immediate reaction is "ugh, DLSS 2."

If you game for an hour a day on average, by the end of the generation you will have spent over 100 full-ass days staring at "current gen" video games. You will grow used to the innovations, you'll be able to perceive the differences of the next generation, and you'll grow sick of the compromises. If you remember having your mind blown by the Unreal 3 demo with all the rain, and now you complain that all Nintendo games look like toys, welcome to growing sick of specular lighting.

Of course, it's not just you. There are kids now, who will be teenagers or even adults by the end of the generation, who have never experienced a "next gen" leap in their gaming lifetimes. DLSS 2 isn't magic, this isn't the end of graphics.
 
0
bossmeran said:
Well PS5 and Xbox Series X are increasingly having less and less exclusives especially compared to the PS3/Xbox 360 gen, and of those exclusives they're often timed. Not to mention people may just buy those consoles for the exclusives and instead use Switch 2 as their primary gaming device, meaning most of the money goes into the Nintendo ecosystem. Starfield is the biggest recent one and even that's on PC. Square Enix do most of the exclusives and are publishing mainly on PS5 but I think that will be rapidly changing considering that PS5 is doing terribly in Japan. Soon enough they'll have no choice but to put their games on Switch 2. Not to mention most of these exclusives cater to enthusiasts like us. Controller is superfluous as most controllers can be used on Switch, not to mention Switch Pro Controller is easily the best controller on the market comfort wise. The comparable argument I addressed above.

I seriously think people are underestimating and downplaying the catastrophic impact this could have on the industry. It's really going to shake things up, it's insane!
Click to expand...
Well, sadly exclusives on PS5 do seem to be drying up due to the GaaS bullshit which hopefully will die on it's arse but Xbox (after some horrendous years) has more exclusives in the next few years than since the 360 days.
Switch Pro Controller is easily the best controller on the market comfort wise. The comparable argument I addressed above.
Click to expand...

This is utterly subjective and as much as I like the Pro Controller it's missing some great tech that the DualSense has.
 
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