• 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)

I'm concerned considering the shitfest that was the MK1 port on switch (which to this day isn't 100% fixed).
I have MK1 on Switch, the game has been fixed for quite some time.

Besides, in the pre-release the shitfest that was set up was with images without the day 1 patch.
With the day 1 patch it was going well (except tower mode, It suffered crashes and it took them a while to fix it.), it could be improved but it was good.
 
Last edited:

“We screwed up this time. Switch 2 is too expensive! What should we do?”
“Pull yourself together. Let’s just keep support Switch 1.”
“Our developers will skin me if I tell them just now to make NG games cross-gen!”
“Time for some lateral thinking … what if we down port them?” [opening checkbook]
 
If we are talking in Japanese fiscal year,
Q1 2024 = April-June 2024
Q2 2024 = July-September 2024
Q3 2024 = October-December 2024
Q4 2024 = January-March 2025
Then, H2 (Q3-Q4) would start from October.
Right - the point is June doesn't fit the 2H definition using either calendar year or the Nintendo fiscal year.

For what it's worth, fwd-bwd's article mentioning 2H I believe would be calendar year (not a "fiscal year" like one Nintendo uses) but that's an assumption on my part.
 
If we are talking in Japanese fiscal year,
Q1 2024 = April-June 2024
Q2 2024 = July-September 2024
Q3 2024 = October-December 2024
Q4 2024 = January-March 2025
Then, H2 (Q3-Q4) would start from October.
The MoneyDJ article is talking about the calendar year.
 
Damn...didn't realize the gap was that wide :O



Definitely super interested to see Nintendo's 60 fps efforts mixed with RT.


According to the googles, the nvidia equivalent of RX 480 is a GTX 970. If Switch 2 is really close to a RTX 2050, I would have expected it to be much further along than a GTX 970..
Before I begin, newer games will sometimes run better than expected on newer hardware, or worse than expected on older hardware. Note that I am not taking any feature lacking or improvements between some of these cards into account for this comparison, or it'll become too convoluted.

GTX 1060 3GB/GTX 970/RX 480 are all within 7% of each other, and are in-line with the PS4 Pro. Earlier rumors about the Switch 2 being comparable to the PS4 Pro is where this comes from.

RTX 2050/GTX1650/RX 470 are all within 9% of each other and about 15-25% slower than those above, but make more sense given the 1536 shader count (12 SMs) and a low-ball estimated clock at 1GHz. A high estimate would be something like 1.25-1.3GHz, or 25-30% faster, bringing us back to GTX 970/RX 480-class performance.

Even if we were to take the absolute slowest GPU (2050) of the bunch mentioned above, we're still looking at pretty acceptable current-gen ability. DF's RTX 2050 video shows some current gen games running quite well, though I'd say it isn't a perfect 1:1 comparison because of the 4GB VRAM limit. Getting some of the heaviest modern AAA games to run on 4GB without slow down is a bit of a challenge.
 
What does everyone think the odds of patches to unlock resolution for at least first party switch games is?
If you're willing to pay for the patches? Possibly high, though I wouldn't be stunned if Nintendo insists on full blown new releases for 4K/60 fps type upgrades (ie: "special editions").
I mean, we got that in the Switch era. Mario Kart 8 and NSMBU were both uprezzed in their deluxe versions + original DLC, for just the price of the base game. Not a bad deal at all. Make the uprez a $5 DLC, which is included in the Deluxe version.

Existing customers who really care can shell out $5 to get the upgrade, Switch 2 gets a full-price game added to the library, but the net effect is a price cut. Nintendo hates cutting their prices of evergreens, but now they're likely to have a shared, backwards compatible storefront, along with next-gen versions of games in the mix. They're going to have to do something with their older games.
 
MOST of the issues of Mortal Kombat 1's state on the Switch at launch I feel were mainly due to Warner Bros just not allocating the time and resources for them, since we saw they can do a competent port like MK11.

That wasn't perfect at launch either but was in a much better place than MK1's launch. (Also seeing that game on the Switch screen while being played with joycons is wild stuff lol)
 
Last edited:
MOST of the issues of Mortal Kombat 1's state on the Switch at launch I feel were mainly due to Warner Bros just not allocating the time and resources for them, since we saw they can do a competent port like MK11.

That was perfect at launch either but was in a much better place than MK1's launch. (Also seeing that game on the Switch screen while being played with joycons is wild stuff lol)
As I said earlier, it’s more impressive in way that Shiver made a PS5 port run on a handheld in its 7th year.

Like im quite shocked that Warner bro didn’t make Ps4 and Xbox one port
 
I'm concerned considering the shitfest that was the MK1 port on switch (which to this day isn't 100% fixed).
I wouldn't blame them for their work with MK1; they probably couldn't have done much more given the memory limit. It's a proper 9th gen game, since it wasn't on the PS4/Pro or the Xbox One/X. They did what they could within that tiny 3GB memory.
 
We've seen port studios do shit jobs one game and amazing jobs another. Like Grove Street Games, who did those bad GTA Trilogy ports. Only to turn around and report Ark to Switch with great results
 
I see two potential outcomes from this acquisition:
  1. Rather than subsidising or directly paying for ports of in-demand games, Nintendo could reach an agreement with the developer to port the game to Switch 2 in-house via Shiver?
  2. Nintendo is joining Sony and Microsoft in porting certain games to other platforms to maximise their reach. I could easily see some lower tier games like Tetris 99 or Everybody's 1-2 Switch being ported to other platforms because their exclusivity does not offer much of an advantage for Nintendo.

Careful. I got eviscerated for suggesting Nintendo could port games to PC in the future.
 
Please refrain from referencing Hogwarts Legacy in any capacity. For more information, please refer to the banned content list. - ngpdrew, Lord Azrael, IsisStormDragon, meatbag
Considering Shiver has worked on bigger current-gen titles like Hogwarts Legacy and MK1, it actually makes sense to acquire. Were either of these games the best ports? No, they weren't. But you can't argue that they at least have experience with porting larger current-gen titles for Nintendo. With the Switch 2 and there being a much more closer gap to the current gen titles, I'm sure they'll do a much better job with future ports of popular current-gen titles down the line.

Frankly, with decisions like Kingdom Hearts in the Cloud and MK1/Hogwarts Legacy, I don't know why they couldn't just wait until the Switch 2 came out. But considering how much the Switch is selling like hotcakes and it's only just now been stated that we'll hear something this fiscal year, I guess they really just didn't want to wait.
 
We've seen port studios do shit jobs one game and amazing jobs another. Like Grove Street Games, who did those bad GTA Trilogy ports. Only to turn around and report Ark to Switch with great results
There are way too many examples of this. Like Panic Button's Doom being great port but they failed to do the same with Apex legends. Or Virtuos's The Outer Worlds and Nier Automata. But that doesn't mean those studios any less talented as all those failures fixed by patches afterwards. MK1 included, now runs and looks MUCH better.
 
Careful. I got eviscerated for suggesting Nintendo could port games to PC in the future.
I didn't see this prediction, but I'm not at all opposed, and I am sure Nintendo is looking into that as due diligence, it would be stupid of them not to and having Shiver's expertise will help them understand multiplatform porting process should they decide to go that route. Nintendo is all about leveraging expertise of others, so this is a good opportunity for them.

That said, i don't expect BOTW on PC anytime soon, their software drives hardware sales, and doing that directly undercuts the sales proposition.
Sony doing PC games comes down to their games being so expensive to make and market. Nintendo isn't doing that yet, even if dev cots go up for their next-gen stuff.

I wouldn't rule out smaller games showing up though, like how they're doing mobile efforts.
But it will purely be to get the brand out there, not as part of their core business, any money made is a bonus.
 
Careful. I got eviscerated for suggesting Nintendo could port games to PC in the future.
I don't see it happening anyways. Nintendo revels in the strength of their first party IPs; if they allowed a significantly better access to those IPs on PC, sales on the Switch 2 will dry up. MS is suffering from this exact problem right now, and Sony seems to be upto their own shenanigans with region locking and PSN requirements.

And imo, unlike the other two Nintendo sees their hardware as something more than just an platform to sell their software on, which is why they sell at a profit.
 
I see two potential outcomes from this acquisition:
  1. Rather than subsidising or directly paying for ports of in-demand games, Nintendo could reach an agreement with the developer to port the game to Switch 2 in-house via Shiver?
  2. Nintendo is joining Sony and Microsoft in porting certain games to other platforms to maximise their reach. I could easily see some lower tier games like Tetris 99 or Everybody's 1-2 Switch being ported to other platforms because their exclusivity does not offer much of an advantage for Nintendo.
I imagine this will be an upsell for third parties that want to bring their games to the platform. The announcement is pretty explicitly telegraphing that Nintendo doesn't really intend to leverage Shiver's services for their own games.
 
I imagine this will be an upsell for third parties that want to bring their games to the platform. The announcement is pretty explicitly telegraphing that Nintendo doesn't really intend to leverage Shiver's services for their own games.
This is my interpretation as well. They didn't buy Shiver to port their games. They bought them to port other games to the Switch.
 
Or people could simply calm down a bit by assuming something that is entirely reasonable. How many times I was mistaken for a girl when I was little because I was so cute. I didn't start throwing tantrums 😂
Regardless of how someone may or may not respond otherwise, the kind and sensible thing to do is to just not assume someone’s pronouns or gender if you’re not sure. Using gender-neutral language like singular “they” in those situations also helps normalize the usage of that language in general, which is much needed and appreciated by trans, non-binary, and gender nonconforming people. Also, you gotta remember that those people are often misgendered a lot, sometimes intentionally—so it may bother some more than others, understandably, but, again, the best thing to do is just to use gender-neutral language in the first place. Making an effort to do so really matters and can tangibly make a difference and help others.
 
Nintendo is joining Sony and Microsoft in porting certain games to other platforms to maximise their reach. I could easily see some lower tier games like Tetris 99 or Everybody's 1-2 Switch being ported to other platforms because their exclusivity does not offer much of an advantage for Nintendo.
Careful. I got eviscerated for suggesting Nintendo could port games to PC in the future.
Nintendo's software sales are still heavily correlated with Nintendo's hardware sales as of March 2024. So considering that relationship, releasing games on other platforms (e.g. PC) can actually undermine instead of increasing Nintendo's software sales.
 
I see two potential outcomes from this acquisition:
  1. Rather than subsidising or directly paying for ports of in-demand games, Nintendo could reach an agreement with the developer to port the game to Switch 2 in-house via Shiver?
  2. Nintendo is joining Sony and Microsoft in porting certain games to other platforms to maximise their reach. I could easily see some lower tier games like Tetris 99 or Everybody's 1-2 Switch being ported to other platforms because their exclusivity does not offer much of an advantage for Nintendo.
The first one feels much more likely to me.
 
I see two potential outcomes from this acquisition:
  1. Rather than subsidising or directly paying for ports of in-demand games, Nintendo could reach an agreement with the developer to port the game to Switch 2 in-house via Shiver?
  2. Nintendo is joining Sony and Microsoft in porting certain games to other platforms to maximise their reach. I could easily see some lower tier games like Tetris 99 or Everybody's 1-2 Switch being ported to other platforms because their exclusivity does not offer much of an advantage for Nintendo.
You're second point isn't happening.
Careful. I got eviscerated for suggesting Nintendo could port games to PC in the future.
No offense, but that's because it's completely unrealistic considering their philosophy and incredibly strong value of their IPs. It would go against everything they stand for. This acquisition is purely to help with porting of third party AAA games and to bolster/strengthen third party relations going into the next generation with the Switch 2.
 
Nintendo's software sales are still heavily correlated with Nintendo's hardware sales as of March 2024. So considering that relationship, releasing games on other platforms (e.g. PC) can actually undermine instead of increasing Nintendo's software sales.
I literally specified lower-tier games whose exclusivity does not substantially benefit Nintendo. Nobody is buying a Switch just to play Tetris 99 or Everybody's 1-2 Switch, you can definitely make the case that porting such games can help improve Nintendo's reach to new audiences and convert them into Switch 2 buyers.
 
I don't see it happening anyways. Nintendo revels in the strength of their first party IPs; if they allowed a significantly better access to those IPs on PC, sales on the Switch 2 will dry up. MS is suffering from this exact problem right now, and Sony seems to be upto their own shenanigans with region locking and PSN requirements.

And imo, unlike the other two Nintendo sees their hardware as something more than just an platform to sell their software on, which is why they sell at a profit.
Nintendo's software sales are still heavily correlated with Nintendo's hardware sales as of March 2024. So considering that relationship, releasing games on other platforms (e.g. PC) can actually undermine instead of increasing Nintendo's software sales.
You're second point isn't happening, I guarantee you that.
No offense, but that's because it's completely unrealistic considering their philosophy and incredibly strong value of their IPs. It would go against everything they stand for. This acquisition is purely to help with porting of third party AAA games and to bolster/strengthen third party relations going into the next generation with the Switch 2.

I heard the same stuff before the mobile games were announced. I understand though, The people aren't ready for the truth yet.

"Itll undermine hardware sales"...

Iwata: laughs
 
I don’t think PC ports are happening anytime soon but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Way crazier things have happened in the industry lately lol.

Something like Zelda or Mario seems extremely unlikely, but I can see something like Splatoon or some other live service venture benefiting from having a PC version at some point in the future.
 
I'm guessing this means that Mortal Kombat 1 and the transphobic cunt's banned game are first in line for third party enhanced ports. Makes sense.

For sure. Third parties are going to go bananas with the new Switch after how successful the first one is. Midori has confirmed Sega/Atlus and plenty of Japanese developers all ready to support it. Square-Enix also just announced they're giving up on exclusivity because of all their troubles. Acquiring Shiver is another step on that road.
 
The only way I can see Nintendo releasing their own games on PC is if they decide to expand the Nintendo eShop into a PC storefront to compete with Steam and EGS. Which I could potentially see them doing a few decades down the line, once their multimedia endeavors have fully borne fruit and make up a significant share of their revenue, but not in the near future.
 
I don’t think PC ports are happening anytime soon but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Way crazier things have happened in the industry lately lol.

Something like Zelda or Mario seems extremely unlikely, but I can see something like Splatoon or some other live service venture benefiting from having a PC version at some point in the future.
i'm thinking if Nintendo does a GaaS game, a PC port may be likely, just to get the userbase larger. Their SP games are their bread and butter, and will remain on their consoles only.
 
I heard the same stuff before the mobile games were announced. I understand though, The people aren't ready for the truth yet.

"Itll undermine hardware sales"...

Iwata: laughs
The mobile games are a different matter because they're not their mainline games but rather spin-offs that I think are geared more towards advertising their main line games. For example, I don't see a BoTW happening on any non-Nintendo platform, but a Zelda-themed puzzle game? Sure why not.

I guess I cornered myself by saying IP and not mainline games, so that's on me. But that is what I had meant initially.
 
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