• 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| (New Staff Post, Please read)

Reader mode
Terrell said:
All this arguing against price drops as “unnecessary” and whatnot is kinda gross, NGL.
It’s like we forget that people exist under the middle class who can’t justify a $300 game console in their budgets and would welcome a price break that puts (as many admit) a highly-desirable product into their price range or, if they’re saving for it, makes it possible to obtain it much sooner. It’s at least a part of why price drops and player’s choice pricing for games exist.
I understand fully why Switch hasn’t seen a price drop yet, but that doesn’t mean I agree with Nintendo’s position not to do one in 5-6 years from launch.
Likewise, arguing that a lack of price drop for Switch wholly justifies a $400+ price tag on new hardware gives vibes of suggesting you don’t care if a subset of gamers can possess one (either in a timely fashion or perhaps ever) because they don’t exist in your socio-economic bracket where such a price tag is NBD.
And while I’m sure some of you making such arguments likely don’t intend to give that impression, it does demonstrate how consumers who exist outside the means you enjoy can easily escape your thought processes. We’ve all been guilty of that at one time or another.

I suggest being more mindful of that when discussing consumer product pricing as a general rule.
Click to expand...
I would think it's pretty clear that most if not all of us are talking about price in the context of what we believe this company would do to serve their own interests best, not what we think they should do to be the most consumer friendly, or morally righteous.

I think it's been pretty clearly an objective analysis at this point, personally I'd hate $450 or $500 and might not even be able to really afford it anytime soon, even if I can find it.

But this discussion isn't about what the best price for consumers of all demographics is, it's about what we believe Nintendo plans to do to maximize their business earnings, both in the short term and long term.
 
Hermii said:
It depends if the game leverages the full extent of the ssd speed for asset streaming, the cpu is likely quite a bit weaker, bandwidth is a big one. Dlss is great for resolution, but a lot of things still requires raw razterizatilon grunt.

It will be interesting to see how it compares to series s in real world comparisons.
Click to expand...
Well, the CPU is an undetermined factor, as if it's on a node better than 8nm it likely could run fairly close.


The L1 and L2 cache stacked with Ampere/Orin's Memory efficiency likely makes Bandwidth less of a worry (Not to mention DLSS)


I will concede on SSDs, but I feel for multiplatform games, the Series S|X will hold games to a degree where Drake can match up more or less.
 
0
Skittzo said:
I would think it's pretty clear that most if not all of us are talking about price in the context of what we believe this company would do to serve their own interests best, not what we think they should do to be the most consumer friendly, or morally righteous.

I think it's been pretty clearly an objective analysis at this point, personally I'd hate $450 or $500 and might not even be able to really afford it anytime soon, even if I can find it.

But this discussion isn't about what the best price for consumers of all demographics is, it's about what we believe Nintendo plans to do to maximize their business earnings, both in the short term and long term.
Click to expand...
Even from that angle, an argument can be made that a price drop of current Switch models serves Nintendo’s interests in the presence of new hardware, but that is most assuredly not an argument being made all that often and is frequently shot down as an absurdity when suggested more often than not. Be it either iterative successor (probably not) or new hardware cycle (probably), a price drop ensures incredibly strong unit sales in the tail end of the Switch life cycle that is fast approaching, either freeing up more disposable income for consumers to use buying new games or making the hardware more accessible to a (as-of-yet) underserved consumer demographic.

And again, I understand Nintendo’s hesitance to drop prices from the perspective of building a war chest to walk into their next hardware cycle in a very comfortable and flexible position, viewing the Lite as a budget-conscious option (though I find it too feature-stripped for that to be credible), even if I disagree that at 5 years on the market, they could achieve such a price drop, using chip shortages and inflation to justify not doing so. At this point, I still believe a price drop will happen, but Nintendo will do it at the 11th hour.

But ITT, what looks like the majority discuss such a price drop as if it will never come and it would be foolish to suggest it as a reasonable idea even from a business perspective, in spite of a new hardware release incoming, while also discussing pricing that new hardware at a price point that is, by virtue of being suggested at $100+ higher than a non-Lite hybrid, less accessible and/or less desirable to consumers currently buying Switches at their current prices.

So when an argument can obviously be made that it’s good business to get hardware in as many hands as they can afford to and increase software spending in the second half of the hardware cycle, saying “we’re talking about it from a business perspective and what best serves Nintendo’s interests” comes with an implication that selling hardware at a price a wider group of people can reasonably afford is inherently bad for business and thus against Nintendo’s interests.

You see how the problem still exists from that angle, yeah?
 
Speaking about the MSRP, I saw two semiconductor industry focused financial analysts mention that Xiaomi doesn't really make any profit when selling smartphones with high-end SoCs, which is why I said comparing smartphone companies with Nintendo, with respect to the MSRP, and with respect to the the amount of profit made from the MSRP, is generally not a fair comparison, especially since Nintendo generally prefers to sell at a profit, unless forced to do otherwise.

Anyway, I don't know how reliable the source here is, so take what's said with a healthy grain of salt.


I'm surprised Samsung hasn't already established a chip testing & packaging centre if true, which makes me wonder if that's one reason why the yields for Samsung's more recent process nodes (Samsung's 7LPP process node, Samsung's 5LPP process node (here and here), Samsung's 4LPE process node, etc.) are not very good.
 
Terrell said:
It’s like we forget that people exist under the middle class who can’t justify a $300 game console in their budgets and would welcome a price break that puts (as many admit) a highly-desirable product into their price range or, if they’re saving for it, makes it possible to obtain it much sooner. It’s at least a part of why price drops and player’s choice pricing for games exist.
I understand fully why Switch hasn’t seen a price drop yet, but that doesn’t mean I agree with Nintendo’s position not to do one in 5-6 years from launch.
Likewise, arguing that a lack of price drop for Switch wholly justifies a $400+ price tag on new hardware gives vibes of suggesting you don’t care if a subset of gamers can possess one (either in a timely fashion or perhaps ever) because they don’t exist in your socio-economic bracket where such a price tag is NBD.
Click to expand...
If Nintendo were able to produce 50 million/year and sell them for $250, that'd be great. That's not feasible, though. Production limits and low price just means they get resold for a higher price anyway.
 
0
Terrell said:
Even from that angle, an argument can be made that a price drop of current Switch models serves Nintendo’s interests in the presence of new hardware, but that is most assuredly not an argument being made all that often and is frequently shot down as an absurdity when suggested more often than not. Be it either iterative successor (probably not) or new hardware cycle (probably), a price drop ensures incredibly strong unit sales in the tail end of the Switch life cycle that is fast approaching, either freeing up more disposable income for consumers to use buying new games or making the hardware more accessible to a (as-of-yet) underserved consumer demographic.

And again, I understand Nintendo’s hesitance to drop prices from the perspective of building a war chest to walk into their next hardware cycle in a very comfortable and flexible position, viewing the Lite as a budget-conscious option (though I find it too feature-stripped for that to be credible), even if I disagree that at 5 years on the market, they could achieve such a price drop, using chip shortages and inflation to justify not doing so. At this point, I still believe a price drop will happen, but Nintendo will do it at the 11th hour.

But ITT, what looks like the majority discuss such a price drop as if it will never come and it would be foolish to suggest it as a reasonable idea even from a business perspective, in spite of a new hardware release incoming, while also discussing pricing that new hardware at a price point that is, by virtue of being suggested at $100+ higher than a non-Lite hybrid, less accessible and/or less desirable to consumers currently buying Switches at their current prices.

So when an argument can obviously be made that it’s good business to get hardware in as many hands as they can afford to and increase software spending in the second half of the hardware cycle, saying “we’re talking about it from a business perspective and what best serves Nintendo’s interests” comes with an implication that selling hardware at a price a wider group of people can reasonably afford is inherently bad for business and thus against Nintendo’s interests.

You see how the problem still exists from that angle, yeah?
Click to expand...
Price drops make sense when demand falls sufficiently lower than supply. Switch has apparently not reached that level yet. It seems unlikely for that to happen anytime soon too, considering the sales and stock we're still currently seeing in most of the world.

I think in a normal time without extreme global complications we'd definitely be anticipating a price drop (if one hadn't happened yet) but, at least to me, it feels rather foolish to expect them to drop the price of a model that they still cannot keep on store shelves.

It's also likely that they aren't making the kind of profit margins you'd normally expect for 5 year old hardware, again due to these extraordinary global circumstances.

None of this is suggesting I don't want them to drop the price of course, again this is just an analysis of what would best benefit their business and while getting the hardware into as many hands as possible is indeed one of their primary goals, doing so while also profiting on each unit is also one of those goals.
 
Skittzo said:
I would think it's pretty clear that most if not all of us are talking about price in the context of what we believe this company would do to serve their own interests best, not what we think they should do to be the most consumer friendly, or morally righteous.

I think it's been pretty clearly an objective analysis at this point, personally I'd hate $450 or $500 and might not even be able to really afford it anytime soon, even if I can find it.

But this discussion isn't about what the best price for consumers of all demographics is, it's about what we believe Nintendo plans to do to maximize their business earnings, both in the short term and long term.
Click to expand...
I mostly lurk because I don't have the technical knowledge to contribute, but @Skittzo is right. The discussion around the price has largely been in good faith and realistic. We're on an enthusiasts' board for luxury products and I think everyone understands that games and hardware aren't available to everyone (and probably never will be) and we don't need to constantly add caveats for everything. Calling the discussion "gross" seems unfair and emotionally charged, especially since no one here will ever have any impact on the price realistically speaking.
 
0
Terrell said:
So when an argument can obviously be made that it’s good business to get hardware in as many hands as they can afford to and increase software spending in the second half of the hardware cycle, saying “we’re talking about it from a business perspective and what best serves Nintendo’s interests” comes with an implication that selling hardware at a price a wider group of people can reasonably afford is inherently bad for business and thus against Nintendo’s interests.

You see how the problem still exists from that angle, yeah?
Click to expand...

I know people don't want to hear this but plain reality is there is more to managing a business and a brand than simply putting units on people's hands and hoping software makes it up. There is lots of literature out there about how discounting in turn makes people more price sensitive.

Nintendo makes like 40-50% of its current revenue on hardware. There is literally 0 reason to take hardware that is going to easily sell 20 million units at its current price and discount it $50 (1 billion revenue) in the hopes that your most price sensitive customers who have not budged on the price in 6 year are magically going to spend more on software than you lost in revenue you didn't need to lose. Especially given your brand takes the hit on premium pricing when you discount.

It makes no feasible difference whether they sell 20m units this year or 22m units to the big picture. But it does highlight now that you're willing to discount you brand that has had record setting sales just on the basis of "it feels like it is time".

I know you don't like it but no, it makes no business sense. Not with the model Nintendo and many premium end products pursue. We're going to see less discounting of hardware across the board as the general value of gaming hardware to the general populace has notably risen.

Obviously everyone would love for this stuff to be cheaper, but that's not what is going ro happen.
 
Terrell said:
See, this thinking inherently suggests that because it's a small percentage of revenue, they can afford to spend it regardless of return because it's a small percentage
Click to expand...

Not “afford” in terms of money, but “afford” in terms of risk/reward.

Their R&D spending/revenue ratio leading to the Drake revision is half of what it was leading to the Mariko revision.

They are essentially risking less with their R&D of the power upgrade than they have been in the past, with the promise of greater reward.

And it’s not “spending regardless of return”, dunno where you got that. I think it’s pretty much accepted that mid gen upgrades increase latter lifecycle engagement. It’s guaranteed to pay dividends. There are millions of people who will buy a bunch of Switch games 2022-2026 because of this new power upgrade than they would have if they were still playing on Mariko machines during that time.

I don’t think this is up for debate, tbh.

but I can tell you with absolute certainty that Nintendo doesn't think this way, because they have first-hand experience with revenue being a moving target, something that can shrink drastically in a matter of a year, as you yourself acknowledge.
Click to expand...

Yep, and Nintendo absolutely believes a powerful mid gen upgrade will keep revenue flowing more than if it didn’t exist. There are multiple occasions where Furukawa has said as much, I’ve referenced a few of them in my previous posts.

They’ve literally addressed their R&D spending and saying they are exploring cutting edge tech…because they feel it’s the way to extending the Switch lifespan and avoiding past mistakes of letting engagement drop.

Hell, most corporations don't operate this way. Project expenses aren't weighed against current revenues, they're weighed against the revenues and profits that project is projected to generate. Every dollar spent is a risk taken to make money, so for every dollar spent, they want that dollar back and more; anything else would be considered profit loss. A 10 billion yen R&D spending increase is still a 10 billion yen spending increase, regardless of how that's represented as a percentage of revenue. It's not more or less conservative based on what they raked in for the year. The only thing in question is whether those costs are properly returned with an appropriate increase to profits. And spending on what qualifies as next generation hybrid hardware development for iterative successor sales figures? That ain't wise spending.
Click to expand...

Eh, you are overthinking all of this. Nintendo is being more conservative in their R&D spending the past couple of years than they have the previous 10 years.

That’s all that needs to be said on this.

This is opposing the idea that they are risking a lot of R&D spending for Drake, they aren’t. You can’t rationalize that they are taking great and unusual risks here.

And again, you are severely underestimating what a mid gen power upgrade does to latter lifecycle engagement. This investment will pay itself back multiple times over in later life software/NSO buys by enthusiasts who would have drawn away.

To the last part that I bolded, though, you think that a brand-new custom SoC costs less money to design
Click to expand...

No

and/or provides a larger return on investment than a simple die shrink to a fully pre-designed SoC
Click to expand...

Yes

that reduced manufacturing costs of every Switch sold since July of 2019 (which is over half of all Switches sold and climbing)?
Click to expand...

I don’t believe Mariko reduced costs compared to the 2017 TX1 models. What’s the evidence that this reduced costs?

You think Mariko was a comparative waste of money?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Why would you ask this??

You must expect this iterative revision you imagine exists to double annual Switch sales figures for this to be taken seriously, because I couldn't stop laughing when I read that. I've tried writing this reply a few times now and had to stop each time because I'd start laughing again.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. You must have misinterpreted something I said.

I imagine this mid gen upgrade model to increase software sales and NSO engagement the next few years, by a lot, than if it didn’t exist. That’s it. It only needs to sell around Lite numbers (or ps4 pro numbers if you prefer) to accomplish this.

I have no idea what you are going on about with this part of your post.

Nvidia has been more than OK to still be making Maxwell architecture chips through to 2023 (or 2027 as you suggest, if we're to believe that this is an iterative revision released alongside current Switch models to elongate its hardware cycle). That'd be 8 (or 12, again as you suggest) years from when the Tegra X1 was first commercially used.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t they be ok continuing to manufacture basic Switch SoC’s? This is what you do when you make consoles. AMD made a revision in 2016 for ps4, and then happily made that for another 4-6 years. Nvidia expects this kind of thing.

But NOW suddenly they're going to take issue with making chips on old architectures for another 4 years until you believe a true successor will happen? C'mon now, that ship has long since sailed.
Click to expand...

?

If this is going to be fashioned as the cutting edge mobile gaming tech, Nvidia will be invested in making sure it’s the best example of this that they can provide.

This shouldn’t be hard to understand. It makes sense.

We’re talking about hardware to render Switch games in 4K and you bring up… a PS4/PS5/PC exclusive? Huh? What a red herring you decided to throw into the conversation.
Click to expand...

Yea you and I definitely aren’t on the same page.

I used a 2019 game that we have lowest end DLSS gpu performance for (rtx 2060)

That’s it.

When we talk about how a portable DLSS gaming machine in 2022 can function, see how it runs a 2019 game shouldn’t be a crazy thing to compare.

People were trying to tell me 1536 CUDA cores was “grotesque overkill” for a DLSS gpu.

I am telling them that 1920 CUDA gpu using DLSS can barely achieve 4K/60fps in performance mode. (Forget about quality mode)

What we know from Drake isn’t overkill to DLSS a game to 4K/60fps in docked mode.

How about we look into what’s required to achieve upscaling with Switch games themselves, hmm?
Xenoblade 2 on PC via Yuzu in double its native resolution with minimal to no visual glitches only needs… a GTX 1050 Ti, a budget Pascal GPU (read: pre-DLSS). Most of the videos and info I'm reading say, for ideal performance at UHD 4K and 60fps, a mid-range Turing GPU is able to tackle that pretty handily for the games I was looking at (and a Turing GPU-based SoC is also a cheaper and capable option in lieu of an SoC with an Ampere GPU). Keep in mind, these cards can achieve these results using unofficial emulation and inefficiently-optimized software modding on PC.
Click to expand...

Please show me links of a pc running Xenoblade 2 at 4K/60fps…and I can show you why you are misguided on this argument.

So, since you've made the case that this is an iterative revision with likely few to no exclusives intended primarily to extend the Switch's lifespan to 2027, it doesn't need to achieve more than that
Click to expand...

It needs to have the bare minimum to DLSS a 4 year old game to 4k/60fps while being clocked extremely low and drawing about 25W.

That’s what we are pretty much looking at with this Drake model, it seems.

I'm sure Nintendo saw the value in DLSS as well, but Ampere isn't required to achieve it.
Click to expand...

If you can prove to me that going with Volta architecture…with less efficiency and having 1st gen tensor cores instead of 3rd gen and having half the FMA throughput from the tensor cores and less bandwidth capabilities…instead of ampere could reasonably perform DLSS 4K/60fps functions with extremely low gpu/cpu clocks and drawing only 25W…then I will agree with your premise.

Until then…

And since you think this hardware is only to last 4 years and will not be sustaining its own software library as an iterative revision to be replaced by a successor in 2027, there's no "future-proofing" required. Saying it needs to be future-proofed is actually working against your own argument that this is merely a 4-year stopgap.
Click to expand...

I expect this to be the lower end option after the next power upgrade model is released. It’s not a stopgap. Dunno where you got that idea from. It’s simply meant to drive engagement during the latter half of the Switch cycle.

And “future proofing” in terms of how this Drake model will be the baseline going forward with Switch (always targeting a low end portable profile and using DLSS to enhance docked profiles). This is the way forward, so this model will represent how Nintendo designs for decades.
 
Last edited:
Terrell said:
All this arguing against price drops as “unnecessary” and whatnot is kinda gross, NGL.
It’s like we forget that people exist under the middle class who can’t justify a $300 game console in their budgets and would welcome a price break that puts (as many admit) a highly-desirable product into their price range or, if they’re saving for it, makes it possible to obtain it much sooner. It’s at least a part of why price drops and player’s choice pricing for games exist.
I understand fully why Switch hasn’t seen a price drop yet, but that doesn’t mean I agree with Nintendo’s position not to do one in 5-6 years from launch.
Likewise, arguing that a lack of price drop for Switch wholly justifies a $400+ price tag on new hardware gives vibes of suggesting you don’t care if a subset of gamers can possess one (either in a timely fashion or perhaps ever) because they don’t exist in your socio-economic bracket where such a price tag is NBD.
And while I’m sure some of you making such arguments likely don’t intend to give that impression, it does demonstrate how consumers who exist outside the means you enjoy can easily escape your thought processes. We’ve all been guilty of that at one time or another.

I suggest being more mindful of that when discussing consumer product pricing as a general rule.
Click to expand...

Who are all these people who can’t justify a $299 gaming console?

The massive amounts of Switch hybrids and Series S machines sold doesn’t suggest this is a huge problem.

The $199 Switch Lite exists.

I think you are over exaggerating the number of gamers who refuse to buy gaming hardware until it hits $199.

And if they do, it’s not because they can’t afford it…it’s because they don’t find value in spending a lot of money for a dedicated video game machine, period. They don’t care that much about console gaming, tbh. Certainly they don’t need to be lamented and championed as if this ISNT a luxury good (it is)

“oh will anyone think of the poor people who will never afford a ps5???” No, I don’t think i will…
 
My Tulpa said:
Who are all these people who can’t justify a $299 gaming console?

The massive amounts of Switch hybrids and Series S machines sold doesn’t suggest this is a huge problem.

The $199 Switch Lite exists.

I think you are over exaggerating the number of gamers who refuse to buy gaming hardware until it hits $199.

And if they do, it’s not because they can’t afford it…it’s because they don’t find value in spending a lot of money for a dedicated video game machine, period. They don’t care that much about console gaming, tbh. Certainly they don’t need to be lamented and championed as if this ISNT a luxury good (it is)

“oh will anyone think of the poor people who will never afford a ps5???” No, I don’t think i will…
Click to expand...
That last line, 😬

Can’t speak for others, but for me I didn’t get a Switch not because I didn’t see value in it, or because I didn’t find value in console gaming. I REALLY wanted a Switch. But money was REALLY low around that time. I ended up trading stuff for a Switch a year later.

It’s a thing for some people. Especially in these trying times.

I do agree with the “I think you are over exaggerating the number of gamers who refuse to buy gaming hardware until it hits $199” line, though.
 
Terrell said:
All this arguing against price drops as “unnecessary” and whatnot is kinda gross, NGL.
It’s like we forget that people exist under the middle class who can’t justify a $300 game console in their budgets and would welcome a price break that puts (as many admit) a highly-desirable product into their price range or, if they’re saving for it, makes it possible to obtain it much sooner. It’s at least a part of why price drops and player’s choice pricing for games exist.
I understand fully why Switch hasn’t seen a price drop yet, but that doesn’t mean I agree with Nintendo’s position not to do one in 5-6 years from launch.
Likewise, arguing that a lack of price drop for Switch wholly justifies a $400+ price tag on new hardware gives vibes of suggesting you don’t care if a subset of gamers can possess one (either in a timely fashion or perhaps ever) because they don’t exist in your socio-economic bracket where such a price tag is NBD.
And while I’m sure some of you making such arguments likely don’t intend to give that impression, it does demonstrate how consumers who exist outside the means you enjoy can easily escape your thought processes. We’ve all been guilty of that at one time or another.

I suggest being more mindful of that when discussing consumer product pricing as a general rule.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this an incredibly weird post. If it depended on me, all consoles would be free and videogames too, specially because everything videogame related is crazy expensive in my country (PS5 official price is 800$! and the lack of stock made the prices go 1000$+). But we are not talking about the best price for the public, but the one that would make sense for Nintendo as a company. Will I be able to afford a Switch 2 at release if it's priced between 400$-500$, not even taking into account the price jump in my country? Probably not unless I start saving right now. But I think it makes sense for Nintendo to use that price? Definitely.
 
My Tulpa said:
Not “afford” in terms of money, but “afford” in terms of risk/reward.

Their R&D spending/revenue ratio leading to the Drake revision is half of what it was leading to the Mariko revision.

They are essentially risking less with their R&D of the power upgrade than they have been in the past, with the promise of greater reward.

And it’s not “spending regardless of return”, dunno where you got that. I think it’s pretty much accepted that mid gen upgrades increase latter lifecycle engagement. It’s guaranteed to pay dividends. There are millions of people who will buy a bunch of Switch games 2022-2026 because of this new power upgrade than they would have if they were still playing on Mariko machines during that time.

I don’t think this is up for debate, tbh.



Yep, and Nintendo absolutely believes a powerful mid gen upgrade will keep revenue flowing more than if it didn’t exist. There are multiple occasions where Furukawa has said as much, I’ve referenced a few of them in my previous posts.

They’ve literally addressed their R&D spending and saying they are exploring cutting edge tech…because they feel it’s the way to extending the Switch lifespan and avoiding past mistakes of letting engagement drop.



Eh, you are overthinking all of this. Nintendo is being more conservative in their R&D spending the past couple of years than they have the previous 10 years.

That’s all that needs to be said on this.

This is opposing the idea that they are risking a lot of R&D spending for Drake, they aren’t. You can’t rationalize that they are taking great and unusual risks here.

And again, you are severely underestimating what a mid gen power upgrade does to latter lifecycle engagement. This investment will pay itself back multiple times over in later life software/NSO buys by enthusiasts who would have drawn away.



No



Yes



I don’t believe Mariko reduced costs compared to the 2017 TX1 models. What’s the evidence that this reduced costs?



Of course not. Why would you ask this??



I have no idea what you are talking about. You must have misinterpreted something I said.

I imagine this mid gen upgrade model to increase software sales and NSO engagement the next few years, by a lot, than if it didn’t exist. That’s it. It only needs to sell around Lite numbers (or ps4 pro numbers if you prefer) to accomplish this.

I have no idea what you are going on about with this part of your post.



Why wouldn’t they be ok continuing to manufacture basic Switch SoC’s? This is what you do when you make consoles. AMD made a revision in 2016 for ps4, and then happily made that for another 4-6 years. Nvidia expects this kind of thing.



?

If this is going to be fashioned as the cutting edge mobile gaming tech, Nvidia will be invested in making sure it’s the best example of this that they can provide.

This shouldn’t be hard to understand. It makes sense.



Yea you and I definitely aren’t on the same page.

I used a 2019 game that we have lowest end DLSS gpu performance for (rtx 2060)

That’s it.

When we talk about how a portable DLSS gaming machine in 2022 can function, see how it runs a 2019 game shouldn’t be a crazy thing to compare.

People were trying to tell me 1536 CUDA cores was “grotesque overkill” for a DLSS gpu.

I am telling them that 1920 CUDA gpu using DLSS can barely achieve 4K/60fps in performance mode. (Forget about quality mode)

What we know from Drake isn’t overkill to DLSS a game to 4K/60fps in docked mode.



Please show me links of a pc running Xenoblade 2 at 4K/fps…and I can show you why you are misguided on this argument.



It needs to have the bare minimum to DLSS a 4 year old game to 4k/60fps while being clocked extremely low and drawing about 25W.

That’s what we are pretty much looking at with this Drake model, it seems.



If you can prove to me that going with Volta architecture…with less efficiency and having 1st gen tensor cores instead of 3rd gen and having half the FMA throughput from the tensor cores and less bandwidth capabilities…instead of ampere could reasonably perform DLSS 4K/60fps functions with extremely low gpu/cpu clocks and drawing only 25W…then I will agree with your premise.

Until then…



I expect this to be the lower end option after the next power upgrade model is released. It’s not a stopgap. Dunno where you got that idea from. It’s simply meant to drive engagement during the latter half of the Switch cycle.

And “future proofing” in terms of how this Drake model will be the baseline going forward with Switch (always targeting a low end portable profile and using DLSS to enhance docked profiles). This is the way forward, so this model will represent how Nintendo designs for decades.
Click to expand...
About that R&d spending that’s supposedly lesser than for Mariko, isn’t it possible that we’re missing something? How did you even calculate that? Doesn’t Nintendo include games in their r&d budget?
 
TinyPikachu said:
That last line, 😬

Can’t speak for others, but for me I didn’t get a Switch not because I didn’t see value in it, or because I didn’t find value in console gaming. I REALLY wanted a Switch. But money was REALLY low around that time. I ended up trading stuff for a Switch a year later.

It’s a thing for some people. Especially in these trying times.

I do agree with the “I think you are over exaggerating the number of gamers who refuse to buy gaming hardware until it hits $199” line, though.
Click to expand...

Understandable.

So if I understand correctly, you bought a Switch in 2018? And it’s the only gaming device you own?
 
Hermii said:
About that R&d spending that’s supposedly lesser than for Mariko, isn’t it possible that we’re missing something? How did you even calculate that? Doesn’t Nintendo include games in their r&d budget?
Click to expand...

They were taking less risks on their R&D budget…being more conservative. Not that they spent less.

Nintendo R&D spending has gone up every year since the Switch launched. But so has revenue/profit. That ZhugeX graph is meant to show that despite the increase, it’s cut into revenue/profit has decreased. (Being more conservative)

Basically, Nintendo was being more aggressive in R&D spending…willing to cut more into their revenue/profit…in 2018/2019 than in 2020/2021

But you are right, there is more to R&D than just hardware investment.

I’m not the one who decided to point to R&D spending and say that proves Nintendo is approaching this new model as a next gen successor type system. That they wouldn’t take such huge spending risks for anything else. (It’s not a spending risk)

I just decided to reply to a poster who did that.

I agree with you, trying to make that argument is silly! For a bunch of reasons, like you mentioned. Even if you pretend R&D spending is 100% new hardware doebfing it’s a silly argument.
 
Terrell said:
All this arguing against price drops as “unnecessary” and whatnot is kinda gross, NGL.
It’s like we forget that people exist under the middle class who can’t justify a $300 game console in their budgets and would welcome a price break that puts (as many admit) a highly-desirable product into their price range or, if they’re saving for it, makes it possible to obtain it much sooner. It’s at least a part of why price drops and player’s choice pricing for games exist.
I understand fully why Switch hasn’t seen a price drop yet, but that doesn’t mean I agree with Nintendo’s position not to do one in 5-6 years from launch.
Likewise, arguing that a lack of price drop for Switch wholly justifies a $400+ price tag on new hardware gives vibes of suggesting you don’t care if a subset of gamers can possess one (either in a timely fashion or perhaps ever) because they don’t exist in your socio-economic bracket where such a price tag is NBD.
And while I’m sure some of you making such arguments likely don’t intend to give that impression, it does demonstrate how consumers who exist outside the means you enjoy can easily escape your thought processes. We’ve all been guilty of that at one time or another.

I suggest being more mindful of that when discussing consumer product pricing as a general rule.
Click to expand...
15 years ago I've been there, had to sell my PS2 in order to afford a DS Lite, even a Wii was out of question. I have friends of very different spend levels, including some who play games but couldn't justify a Switch even if it was at 2DS prices.

Let me tell you, we can still have a blast on very limited budget, specially nowadays with plenty of decent free to play games on low end smartphones. I didn't need pity, nor my friends do.

Maybe it's just anecdotal, but the people I know who are actually in difficult times would be more bothered with posts asking others to be mindful of people who can still spend a couple hundreds of dollars on video games, rather than people (with no control over pricing) who don't sugarcoat that they expect expensive luxury items to get even more expensive.
 
The talk about the price of a console has never fascinated me. Most of the time we talk about differences of 50 or 100 dollars.
A difference of 100 dollars, for a product that you use for 4-5 years, it accounts for 20 dollars a year.
As for the impact on the market, a too high price that slows down sales can always be lowered (as happened a few months after the launch of the 3ds, which from that moment began to sell very well)
 
0
Terrell said:
All this arguing against price drops as “unnecessary” and whatnot is kinda gross, NGL.
It’s like we forget that people exist under the middle class who can’t justify a $300 game console in their budgets and would welcome a price break that puts (as many admit) a highly-desirable product into their price range or, if they’re saving for it, makes it possible to obtain it much sooner. It’s at least a part of why price drops and player’s choice pricing for games exist.
I understand fully why Switch hasn’t seen a price drop yet, but that doesn’t mean I agree with Nintendo’s position not to do one in 5-6 years from launch.
Likewise, arguing that a lack of price drop for Switch wholly justifies a $400+ price tag on new hardware gives vibes of suggesting you don’t care if a subset of gamers can possess one (either in a timely fashion or perhaps ever) because they don’t exist in your socio-economic bracket where such a price tag is NBD.
And while I’m sure some of you making such arguments likely don’t intend to give that impression, it does demonstrate how consumers who exist outside the means you enjoy can easily escape your thought processes. We’ve all been guilty of that at one time or another.

I suggest being more mindful of that when discussing consumer product pricing as a general rule.
Click to expand...
I have a unique take on this I feel because I "technically" live below the poverty line (though, I live in Wisconsin, so given that cost of living is much cheaper here, you wouldn't know it as I can afford many pleasantries that I wouldn't be able to in some other states where I would likely struggle just to pay rent), I actually did grow up quite poor, living in several multiplex apartment complexes and having next to zero toys and was just thankful to have quite literally anything to eat at all, let alone just a blanket to keep me warm at night.

My parents, nor myself, ever expected when living a life where you can't afford a $200, $300, $400 system... to buy one. The idea when living that life of purchasing something you don't really need is very hard to justify at basically any price range, especially when the most desirable games on the platform are going to cost additional money as well... that I also wouldn't be able to afford.

What I am trying to say is: When you live a life where your Budget is so tight that you can't reasonably save up money to buy a $300 console, a $400 console, and the $60 games associated with it - sometimes you have to make sacrifices and in this case, the sacrifice would be that you cannot afford the luxury of playing console video games. Sure, maybe you get to game free to play stuff on a several generation old cell phone, and that's already a luxury growing up I wasn't afforded.

The point I am making isn't to justify there not being a price drop at this point, or that $400 for a new generation Switch isn't somewhat expensive. But my entire life dating back to the Nintendo Entertainment System, even the Atari 2600 - video games are a luxury entertainment avenue. No, not everyone can afford one, and yes, that is absolutely okay. Gaming has already become so accessible, that you only need a smart phone to play.

So having been on both sides of this: Being unable to afford to for a long period of time, to now being able to justify and afford the luxury: I never once felt like they needed to lower the price to meet "my budget", which tbh if you can't afford that budget in a world where gas prices are over $4 a gallon and many people just to fill their tank are approaching $100 a pop - it likely means you're actual budget you have for gaming is incredibly small, and you should probably stick to devices you already have access too and the games available there. In fact, if you can afford $100 for something, maybe that is when you finally go find a used Xbox One or even a PS3/Xbox 360 for cheap and start to play that library of games instead of worrying about what's current.

Reality is: We're talking about a medium where it costs 100's of millions of dollars to make these games. For profit game console companies making billions. They are all for profit businesses. We're fortunate Nintendo even offers a $200 version of their system to try and consider budgets. That being said, truly if $300, $400 is way too much - you probably shouldn't even consider such purchases anyways. Because you are going to need any money you spend on games for other more important things in your life.
 
To me it's pretty simple. Does the market find the $500 Series X and PS5 valuable, Yes! Will the market find the switch with the rumored specs as valuable, in my mind, clearly yes. Nintendo can sell the system for $400-$500 with no issues if Microsoft and Sony can.
 
davec00ke said:
I think theres a 37% chance that it will be $299. Nintendo are not aiming for tech enthusiasts like us.
Click to expand...
12SMs being in this thing says differently.

And of course the fact that they're already selling everything they can of the $350 model makes it very hard to believe they'll put out something so much more advanced at the same or lower price.
 
I don't understand why some feel a $499 Switch 2 wouldn't be an apt price based on what we know.

Yes, that's the price of a Series X or PS5. But a 12 SM Ampere GPU packed into a handheld form factor with DLSS, RT, and an OLED display? This would be the first ever handheld gaming system with dedicated RT cores for ray-tracing and Tensor cores for DLSS.

Expensive, yes. But justified at that price based on the tech? Probably so.
 
$450 - $500 makes sense to me, it's within the Steam Deck pricing (the lowest and mid tiers are $400 and $520) and will include a dock and wireless controllers. I know I will already have a large library of games I can play on it, it's less of a risk than when I got a Switch in 2017 for $300.
 
0
Nintendo should ask whatever they think they can to cover costs and make money, being the thing they produce a luxury item. It’s the salaries what should be incremented in the first place so people can afford living a good life and also some luxury.
 
0
davec00ke said:
I think theres a 37% chance that it will be $299. Nintendo are not aiming for tech enthusiasts like us.
Click to expand...
The only time I can see Nintendo going for $299.99 for the MSRP is if Nintendo's willing to sell at a loss, especially with the price of electronic components projected to continue increasing in 2022, which not even Apple is immune to, going by how the iPhone SE (2022)'s MSRP starts at $429 at the lowest; and Shuntaro Furukawa mentioning the margin of profit for the OLED model is lower than for the Nintendo Switch (2019) and the Nintendo Switch Lite.
 
I emailed Reggie. This is what he sent me.

Nintendo Switch Advance.

  • March 3, 2023.
  • 12SM’s (1536 CUDA cores) @1100mhz docked and 495mhz portable
  • 8x A78AE’s @ 2Ghz
  • 8GB LPDDR5
  • DLSS 2.2
  • 7” OLED 720p screen
  • $449 USD for 128GB
  • $499 USD for 256GB
Source: Trust me bro.
FMyQXKjXoAAfuCP
 
$400 isn’t DOA pricing, but don’t expect it to be as easy of a sell to parents and the casual masses as $300/$200.

The initial pricing won’t matter as there will clearly be demand for an upgraded Switch with better visuals. I also don’t think $400 is a PS3 launch price situation. I do think unlike the Switch it’ll need a price drop over time though to keep sales at a breakneck pace.
 
Hermii said:
It won’t be within splitting difference of a ps5, that’s crazy talk.
Click to expand...

Skittzo said:
Yeah maybe I've been letting the Alovon hype get to me a bit much. What I mean is it'll likely have some games that smartly utilize DLSS very well such that they might look not too far off graphically from how that game looks on PS5.
Click to expand...
It isn't really. In terms of pure numbers and brute power, it may not be, but in real-world performance terms with DLSS, or, if the successor also supports mixed precision, then PS5-lite/like performance isn't so unthinkable. That is to say, you could achieve higher resolution and improved frame rates via the various disruptive means, as well as have feature parity for large parts, but it would be "cosmetic FHD, QHD or UHD with performance boost" rather than native. None of that is to say DLSS is some magical unicorn or whatever, but depending on the will of the developers and the backing of the publishers, it's not out of reach to say that, give or take a little, PS5-lite/like performance is possible. XBox Series S literally does this, and what we're looking that might well eclipse that in the same real-world performance terms, while offering the option of a physical collection, and trade-offs for portable gameplay experiences. It would be super interesting if it did, as certain third parties would have no room for manoeuvre with their excuses.
 
0
10k said:
I emailed Reggie. This is what he sent me.

Nintendo Switch Advance.

  • March 3, 2023.
  • 12SM’s (1536 CUDA cores) @1100mhz docked and 495mhz portable
  • 8x A78AE’s @ 2Ghz
  • 8GB LPDDR5
  • DLSS 2.2
  • 7” OLED 720p screen
  • $449 USD for 128GB
  • $499 USD for 256GB
Source: Trust me bro.
FMyQXKjXoAAfuCP
Click to expand...
Errrm.... Nope.

One doesn't need a rumour mill to know that this is false. Looking at the spec sheet alone, Nintendo and Nvidia won't be using the A78AE processor in their next console.
 
10k said:
I emailed Reggie. This is what he sent me.

Nintendo Switch Advance.

  • March 3, 2023.
  • 12SM’s (1536 CUDA cores) @1100mhz docked and 495mhz portable
  • 8x A78AE’s @ 2Ghz
  • 8GB LPDDR5
  • DLSS 2.2
  • 7” OLED 720p screen
  • $449 USD for 128GB
  • $499 USD for 256GB
Source: Trust me bro.
FMyQXKjXoAAfuCP
Click to expand...
Noooooo did Reggie cancel the Nintendo Switch Colour? The two Marikos duct Taped together model that just had HDR10?

Was really looking for the HDR10 exclusive puzzles in links awakening.
 
Switch Forward [Compatible] aka not backward compatible, typical Nintendo.

/s
 
Dakhil said:
Speaking about the MSRP, I saw two semiconductor industry focused financial analysts mention that Xiaomi doesn't really make any profit when selling smartphones with high-end SoCs, which is why I said comparing smartphone companies with Nintendo, with respect to the MSRP, and with respect to the the amount of profit made from the MSRP, is generally not a fair comparison, especially since Nintendo generally prefers to sell at a profit, unless forced to do otherwise.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say it's a completely unfair comparison. Nintendo's margin on the original Switch in 2017 was likely just as low as Xiaomi makes on its phones, if cost estimates at the time were accurate. They likely make a healthy profit on Switch consoles now, but if they're releasing a successor to the Switch, then we can't rule out a similarly low-margin approach to launch pricing.

Dakhil said:
The only time I can see Nintendo going for $299.99 for the MSRP is if Nintendo's willing to sell at a loss, especially with the price of electronic components projected to continue increasing in 2022, which not even Apple is immune to, going by how the iPhone SE (2022)'s MSRP starts at $429 at the lowest; and Shuntaro Furukawa mentioning the margin of profit for the OLED model is lower than for the Nintendo Switch (2019) and the Nintendo Switch Lite.
Click to expand...

The iPhone SE's price increase is likely more related to the 5G modem than anything else. Apple don't make these themselves, and have to purchase them at considerable expense from Qualcomm. In the iPhone 12, the Qualcomm 5G modem was reported to cost $90 (compared to $40 for the SoC), and while we're now over a year later, and the iPhone SE surely uses a cheaper modem, it could easily account for the $30 increase itself.
 
Vanillalite said:
$400 isn’t DOA pricing, but don’t expect it to be as easy of a sell to parents and the casual masses as $300/$200.

The initial pricing won’t matter as there will clearly be demand for an upgraded Switch with better visuals. I also don’t think $400 is a PS3 launch price situation. I do think unlike the Switch it’ll need a price drop over time though to keep sales at a breakneck pace.
Click to expand...
I don't know why this narrative exists which says "Nintendo must be cheaper/needs a "cheap" option", which doesn't exist for other platforms. Switch Lite and the OLED Model prove that most people prefer the higher performance options with the capacity to switch. If we're keeping it 100, I suspect it's rather online people projecting their own desires in that discourse - The same parents they're concerned about also shell out for PS/XBox (when the cheaper Nintendo alternatives are there) or iDevices (when cheaper Android options exist), but for a Nintendo platform, it's suddenly unreasonable? Sorry, but I'm struggling to square that one. It's surely redundant, especially as you had to pay equivalent prices to PS/XBox, anyway, or even more, to have access to the full Nintendo suite when they had separate home and portable consoles (for example, you paid a combined $399 at launch ($249 for the Wii, $150 for the DS), or combined starting price of $549 ($299 for the Basic Wii U, $250 for the 3DS)). Now, we don't have to do that, BUT as we've been used to buying home and portable, it shouldn't be unthinkable that Nintendo and their customers have considered what "access to the full suite" might look like today - $399 would still be a lower point of entry than the disc-drive PS5 and XSX, but it would also allow them more room to target higher-performing specs and other ideas. When we think about the "cheaper" options for PS/XBox, both are digital-only, and don't offer resale options on games, while digital copies may retain higher prices, and you can't borrow/temporarily exchange copies between friends. Of course, it's understandable to want the dream combination of the easiest price on our wallets AND as much performance per $ as possible, but I don't really accept that it's such a hard sell... unless the hardware design was relatively underwhelming, unambitious and beaten out by mid-range premium to flagship-specced phones upon launch (I've been of the belief that that won't happen...).
 
10k said:
Somebody has to be using the A78AE’s, why do they exist?
Click to expand...
A78AE is the automotive variant, that's why it exists. It's also more power-hungry. A78C is the gaming-specific variant; It makes sense that they would adopt that one.
 
0
Christo750 said:
I like MVG's idea, strictly calling it the Switch 4K, in line with the Switch OLED. Something super on-the-nose, leaving no room for misinterpretation.
Click to expand...
Does leave some room though.

so it’s just a switch that outputs 4k?

Will this benefit me, if I only play portable?

Does leave some wiggle room for interpretation. I would go with super switch or switch 4k. Honestly Switch forward doesn’t sound to bad.
 
Christo750 said:
I like MVG's idea, strictly calling it the Switch 4K, in line with the Switch OLED. Something super on-the-nose, leaving no room for misinterpretation.
Click to expand...
"it's just a switch but in 4K, not a major upgrade. no need to buy it"

it would have the same issue as the n3DS, methinks. but that was actually intended as a side-grade
 
0
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this new, consolidated staff post before posting.

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


Back
Top Bottom