If the DLSS model* is the "Next gaming system", I wonder if it will still be part of the Nintendo Switch family of systems, or completely separate from the Nintendo Switch (similar to how the SNES is completely separate from the NES)?
At this point, considering the hardware will likely be quite similar to what already existed superficially (though I except what I assume will be minor tweaks), the only way to determine what it'll be (until Nintendo posts sales from it separately or not on their earnings releases, at least) will be a combination of how much more powerful the SoC is going to be and how software support pans out. And we have a vague idea of the answer to the first piece of that puzzle.
The moment we see an exclusive game from Nintendo in its launch window for a piece of Orin-powered hardware with a 10-20W TDP, I'd figure that will seal the deal on how Nintendo views it. It'll probably still have "Switch" in the name somewhere, but that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things (see: DS to 3DS, Famicom to Super Famicom, Game Boy to GBA)
Poor Wii U
If I were Nintendo, I'd want to largely forget they existed, too. Heck, this was part of a shareholder presentation, they
definitely want to forget those existed.
To Nintendo, Wii U's best feature was that it was a lucrative corpse to pillage for "Deluxe" re-releases on better-selling hardware. Sorry, should have used Nintendo's terminology for that: "
absorb Wii U's architecture". It's harsh, but it's true.
The 4K Switch model will probably end up being 25-30% of total Switch sales. Like the ps4 pro was.
The only verifiable info we have shows
PS4 Pro represented just under 20% of PS4s sold, with 40% of those buyers being upgraders. And this is their consumer base conditioned to care about the "newest and greatest" in flashy audio-visual experiences from them.
But Nintendo.... well, for the past 15 years or so, they've been conditioning their consumer base in the opposite direction. So "same games but in 4K" has to answer the question of "if I can already play Nintendo's games anyways with a regular Switch, why would I bother with flashier Nintendo hardware instead of a PS5 or Series X to compliment my Switch?" And I can't help but think the answer is "I shouldn't", especially if you price a "4K enhancement" at nearly the same price as a PS5 or Series X.
I meant to point it out when it happens. It ludicrous anyone read it any other way. Like you earlier wanting to bet on what hasn’t happened yet. lol
And yet 3 different people did. Maybe more. Hmm.
I never said Nintendo doesn’t care about 3rd-party relations. And I don’t see where I used any strawmen, tbh. I also don’t see what’s “bad faith” in how I’m arguing. It might be abrasive how strongly I put forth my opinions, I’ll give you that, but I’m speculating just like everyone else here. I try to argue against something pretty directly.
Here's your words about 3rd-party relations when discussing this same subject in another thread:
For the Xbox and PlayStation this is true. Not Nintendo. Over 80% of their revenue is from 1st party sales. The opposite is true for Xbox and PlayStation
(for context, this was in response to my statement that the bulk of industry money made by platform holders is 3rd-party royalties and that Nintendo would absolutely want to capitalize on that revenue stream as effectively as they are able... which the last 3 presidents of the company have said they want to)
Getting the level of 3rd party support and sales that the Xbox/PlayStation have absolutely means less 1st party sales for Nintendo. Absolutely it does.
Nintendo wants the ratio it is.
This is a lot of the reason why Nintendo never really bothers to do anything to facilitate more AAA 3rd party support. They won’t change their hardware to facilitate that like Sony did/does. They won’t change the type of 1st party they output to facilitate that like Sony did/does.
So let's be clear...
You said that Nintendo doesn't need to concern itself about 3rd-party royalties and isn't leaving money on the table by not trying to sell more 3rd-party software, even when they did on their prior successful hardware and probably have been on Switch, wanting that to continue and grow.
You said that Nintendo wants to keep the 4-to-1 1st party to 3rd party game sales ratio from the Wii U days. That is demonstrably false.
You said that more 3rd-party game sales means less 1st-party software sales for Nintendo, to suggest a zero-sum scenario with Nintendo in opposition with other game makers for.... some reason? Instead of seeing it as a positive-sum scenario, you prefer to see Nintendo as antagonistic to 3rd-party success on their platform.
You said that Nintendo doesn't bother to do anything to facilitate more 3rd-party support. Though I agree that Nintendo will likely never go to the exact same lengths as Sony or Microsoft will, that doesn't mean they should stop bothering to try to be even remotely more accommodative and, well,
they clearly do take 3rd-party suggestion on the matter of their own hardware.
And then there's what you just said in this very thread:
(They don’t really care how it helps 3rd party porting, that’s just a nice by-product)
More to the point, though, these positions you clearly have taken are antithetical to good 3rd-party relations. You can't claim to believe Nintendo cares about 3rd-party relations while thinking these things.
And lastly, here's the strawman you made:
Hate to break it to you…but the next system released by Nintendo after OLED Switch? Is another Switch hybrid. It will look exactly like the OLED, it will use the exact same dock, it will use the exact same peripherals, it will play the exact same games, it will use the exact same carts
No one, especially not myself, was saying this. We're all in near-100% agreement that the next hardware is another hybrid that will be dramatically similar to current hardware in a vast number of ways, right down to game card and peripheral backward compatibility, but here you were, refuting an argument that no one had made.
That's a textbook example of a strawman.
So yeah.... kinda hard to not take ALL that and not come to the conclusion that you're engaging in the discussion in bad faith. And I don't engage in discussions with people like that. Reply if you like, but just know I won't be reading it.
