• 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
kalosmani said:
I'm genuinely confused about this post, business acumen, if they want to make the most money, then you go and suggest to do that is release free upgrades?
Click to expand...
"Free" upgrades are just the modern version of "Deluxe" editions. If you have a shared eShop across a generation, with assumed backward compatibility, how do you sell last gen content to new users? You give them the DLC + a simple res/framerate update for the cost of a new game, the same way you did with Deluxe editions. It lets you feature the content again in a Direct, bump up sales, and keep the price the same.

Which do you think makes the most money for Nintendo
  1. Breath of the Wild: $60, REDACTED exclusive patch, $0
  2. Breath of the Wild: $60, REDACTED exclusive patch, $15
  3. Breath of the Wild: $45, REDACTED exclusive patch, $15
Scenario 2 is a waste, the market for that is restricted to people who bought the game already, and actually represses sales of the base game as new hardware buyers* don't want to pay $75 for an upgraded last gen experience when they can get a current gen experience for less.

Scenario 3 makes a lot of sense, but it breaks how Nintendo treats their legacy "prestige" content, which is generally to keep the price up, but add value through bundling over time. You make Breath of the Wild $45 and suddenly Nintendo is going to watch all their evergreens drop in units moved as folks "wait for sales" or start to think of 5 year old games as budget titles.

For the record: I'm not convinced Nintendo won't charge. I was convinced back when I was waiting for a Pro, but I'm less convinced now. I think that Nintendo's best strategy is to drip feed free DLSS updates to their evergreens to fill out the schedule, the same way they did with Wii U ports.
 
Raccoon said:
Some recent interactions have me reconsidering the way I present myself and my opinions online, so to that end I intend to avoid the frivolous declarations I have made habit in this thread. However, I told @Serif that I would address the matter with more refined thoughts, and @ReddDreadtheLead politely requested that I be for real for real, so I wanted to return to the matter of the next system's name after spending a five mile walk thinking about it. Despite that, I'll try to keep this brief rather than bloviating about something so trivial for a few more pages.

On what I suggested "Switch 2" means:
I made many allusions to a narrative about Nintendo as a company that the name conveyed, but I never detailed what that narrative actually was. I've tried to sort out my thoughts on the matter and come to a conclusion as to what impression I really had. In short, numberings from Nintendo generally indicate continuation rather than significant progress. The hardware example of the Super Game Boy 2 has been mentioned, but my mind generally turns to games. Super Mario Galaxy 2, New Super Mario Bros. 2, and even my beloved Splatoon series are all sequels that refine and expand rather than having their own identity. I believe that a product called "Nintendo Switch 2" indicates continuation.

On why that really isn't a bad thing:
Often I find that I experience cognitive dissonance between the demands of my Nintendo fanaticism and my actual wants as a real life person. As I walked yesterday, I realized that this is one such case. I want a continuation! I want a new, more powerful Nintendo Switch that makes use of technological advancements to focus and improve on the core essence of "a home console you can take with you on the go." Not only is Drake, via DLSS, exactly that technology, but for years now I have yearned for a "Nintendo Switch Pro." If I want an extension to the generation, why should I fear a new generation that seeks to replicate the system of which I am so fond? If I want "Nintendo Switch Pro," I want "Nintendo Switch 2."

On what I suspect is actually my problem with the name:
All that being said, where did this aversion to the name really come from? Maybe in part I do feel a fixation on the stories of Satoru Iwata's affinity for unique and descriptive names. However, I think it ultimately comes down to a much simpler dislike of how the name sounds. To me, "Nintendo Switch 2" sounds as ridiculous as "Nintendo Switch Pro." Both feel like shorthand names used by fans, and my overexposure to the internet, and thereby said fans (sorry), has left me feeling off about the name. As an aside, I had similar superficial disdain for "Pikmin 3 Deluxe," and while I still think it's a really terrible name, I got over it. It really didn't indicate too much about the company's direction, either, so in summary I feel that I blew the issue completely out of proportion.

Far more importantly than any of that, "Nintendo Switch 2" has the opportunity for such marketing puns as "Switch 2 new games" and "Switch 2 4K resolution," and accordingly could wind up being the most "playful" name of all.
Click to expand...
Oh I don’t really care if it is 2, I just didn’t agree to the reason of before is all. :p
 
0
Raccoon said:
Some recent interactions have me reconsidering the way I present myself and my opinions online, so to that end I intend to avoid the frivolous declarations I have made habit in this thread. However, I told @Serif that I would address the matter with more refined thoughts, and @ReddDreadtheLead politely requested that I be for real for real, so I wanted to return to the matter of the next system's name after spending a five mile walk thinking about it. Despite that, I'll try to keep this brief rather than bloviating about something so trivial for a few more pages.

On what I suggested "Switch 2" means:
I made many allusions to a narrative about Nintendo as a company that the name conveyed, but I never detailed what that narrative actually was. I've tried to sort out my thoughts on the matter and come to a conclusion as to what impression I really had. In short, numberings from Nintendo generally indicate continuation rather than significant progress. The hardware example of the Super Game Boy 2 has been mentioned, but my mind generally turns to games. Super Mario Galaxy 2, New Super Mario Bros. 2, and even my beloved Splatoon series are all sequels that refine and expand rather than having their own identity. I believe that a product called "Nintendo Switch 2" indicates continuation.

On why that really isn't a bad thing:
Often I find that I experience cognitive dissonance between the demands of my Nintendo fanaticism and my actual wants as a real life person. As I walked yesterday, I realized that this is one such case. I want a continuation! I want a new, more powerful Nintendo Switch that makes use of technological advancements to focus and improve on the core essence of "a home console you can take with you on the go." Not only is Drake, via DLSS, exactly that technology, but for years now I have yearned for a "Nintendo Switch Pro." If I want an extension to the generation, why should I fear a new generation that seeks to replicate the system of which I am so fond? If I want "Nintendo Switch Pro," I want "Nintendo Switch 2."

On what I suspect is actually my problem with the name:
All that being said, where did this aversion to the name really come from? Maybe in part I do feel a fixation on the stories of Satoru Iwata's affinity for unique and descriptive names. However, I think it ultimately comes down to a much simpler dislike of how the name sounds. To me, "Nintendo Switch 2" sounds as ridiculous as "Nintendo Switch Pro." Both feel like shorthand names used by fans, and my overexposure to the internet, and thereby said fans (sorry), has left me feeling off about the name. As an aside, I had similar superficial disdain for "Pikmin 3 Deluxe," and while I still think it's a really terrible name, I got over it. It really didn't indicate too much about the company's direction, either, so in summary I feel that I blew the issue completely out of proportion.

Far more importantly than any of that, "Nintendo Switch 2" has the opportunity for such marketing puns as "Switch 2 new games" and "Switch 2 4K resolution," and accordingly could wind up being the most "playful" name of all.
Click to expand...
Oh I don’t really care if it is called 2, I just didn’t agree to the reason of before is all. :p


Edit: scratch that, I do care if it’s called something that relays with utter simplicity what it is, but keeps the originality that matters, especially with Nintendo who loves to play around with things in a creative way.
 
I missed it - what's the Switch factory leak image that people think might line up with the tablet that Zelda is holding in the TOTK artwork?
 
Quoted by: LiC
1
oldpuck said:
"Free" upgrades are just the modern version of "Deluxe" editions. If you have a shared eShop across a generation, with assumed backward compatibility, how do you sell last gen content to new users? You give them the DLC + a simple res/framerate update for the cost of a new game, the same way you did with Deluxe editions. It lets you feature the content again in a Direct, bump up sales, and keep the price the same.

Which do you think makes the most money for Nintendo
  1. Breath of the Wild: $60, REDACTED exclusive patch, $0
  2. Breath of the Wild: $60, REDACTED exclusive patch, $15
  3. Breath of the Wild: $45, REDACTED exclusive patch, $15
Scenario 2 is a waste, the market for that is restricted to people who bought the game already, and actually represses sales of the base game as new hardware buyers* don't want to pay $75 for an upgraded last gen experience when they can get a current gen experience for less.

Scenario 3 makes a lot of sense, but it breaks how Nintendo treats their legacy "prestige" content, which is generally to keep the price up, but add value through bundling over time. You make Breath of the Wild $45 and suddenly Nintendo is going to watch all their evergreens drop in units moved as folks "wait for sales" or start to think of 5 year old games as budget titles.

For the record: I'm not convinced Nintendo won't charge. I was convinced back when I was waiting for a Pro, but I'm less convinced now. I think that Nintendo's best strategy is to drip feed free DLSS updates to their evergreens to fill out the schedule, the same way they did with Wii U ports.
Click to expand...

Pokemon has the Go Plus+. Nintendo can have the Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack Expansion for the DLC /w Drake boost patches.
 
oldpuck said:
"Free" upgrades are just the modern version of "Deluxe" editions. If you have a shared eShop across a generation, with assumed backward compatibility, how do you sell last gen content to new users? You give them the DLC + a simple res/framerate update for the cost of a new game, the same way you did with Deluxe editions. It lets you feature the content again in a Direct, bump up sales, and keep the price the same.

Which do you think makes the most money for Nintendo
  1. Breath of the Wild: $60, REDACTED exclusive patch, $0
  2. Breath of the Wild: $60, REDACTED exclusive patch, $15
  3. Breath of the Wild: $45, REDACTED exclusive patch, $15
Scenario 2 is a waste, the market for that is restricted to people who bought the game already, and actually represses sales of the base game as new hardware buyers* don't want to pay $75 for an upgraded last gen experience when they can get a current gen experience for less.

Scenario 3 makes a lot of sense, but it breaks how Nintendo treats their legacy "prestige" content, which is generally to keep the price up, but add value through bundling over time. You make Breath of the Wild $45 and suddenly Nintendo is going to watch all their evergreens drop in units moved as folks "wait for sales" or start to think of 5 year old games as budget titles.

For the record: I'm not convinced Nintendo won't charge. I was convinced back when I was waiting for a Pro, but I'm less convinced now. I think that Nintendo's best strategy is to drip feed free DLSS updates to their evergreens to fill out the schedule, the same way they did with Wii U ports.
Click to expand...
Or they just do resolution bumps on existing games for now, wait until the game is 10+ years old and do a remaster with changes going beyond graphical updates. At that point, they probably could even get away with no upgrade path for the evergreens.

As for titles around the cross-gen period I expect them to just charge $70 for the game no matter the version rather than $60 and let you upgrade for $10, with TotK being the vanguard. Or make it a part of the game's expansion pass.
 
ToTK is already $70 for Switch, I doubt they’ll ask for a fee on top of that for Drake updates. But I won’t rule it out for $60 titles

edit: was beaten to it by like a microsecond lol
 
daybreak said:
I missed it - what's the Switch factory leak image that people think might line up with the tablet that Zelda is holding in the TOTK artwork?
Click to expand...
Short answer, there isn't one. If you jump through multiple hoops of interpretation of vague hints about questionable info, then this mockup is what you're probably referring to (make sure to read the accompanying explanation so you can see this is not even really a leaked concept, let alone a leaked image). And using that, strictly mostly as a joke, I made this.
 
I see a lot of places mentioning factory uncle was gotten to by Nintendo ninjas, is that actually? Do we know for sure it was Nintendo that requested the thread/posts be removed?
 
ITSMILNER said:
I see a lot of places mentioning factory uncle was gotten to by Nintendo ninjas, is that actually? Do we know for sure it was Nintendo that requested the thread/posts be removed?
Click to expand...
According to the admins of Tieba, another Chinese gaming forum, Nintendo’s PR contacted them and requested them to delete leak information twice. So I assumed similar situation this time. There are details in my previous post.
 
kalosmani said:
Unfortunately I agree, cartridges will hold back the Switch 2 a lot, not just because of drive speed but capacity as well. Many PS4 games were quite large and 3rd parties will cheap out and not want to release on large sized cartridges, we will get download code or highly compressed assets, audio etc.
Click to expand...

This is a crazy idea, but what if they release a Switch that's big enough to fit a disc drive into it? Not like UMDs, but like an actual disc drive.
 
oldpuck said:
"Free" upgrades are just the modern version of "Deluxe" editions. If you have a shared eShop across a generation, with assumed backward compatibility, how do you sell last gen content to new users? You give them the DLC + a simple res/framerate update for the cost of a new game, the same way you did with Deluxe editions. It lets you feature the content again in a Direct, bump up sales, and keep the price the same.

Which do you think makes the most money for Nintendo
  1. Breath of the Wild: $60, REDACTED exclusive patch, $0
  2. Breath of the Wild: $60, REDACTED exclusive patch, $15
  3. Breath of the Wild: $45, REDACTED exclusive patch, $15
Scenario 2 is a waste, the market for that is restricted to people who bought the game already, and actually represses sales of the base game as new hardware buyers* don't want to pay $75 for an upgraded last gen experience when they can get a current gen experience for less.

Scenario 3 makes a lot of sense, but it breaks how Nintendo treats their legacy "prestige" content, which is generally to keep the price up, but add value through bundling over time. You make Breath of the Wild $45 and suddenly Nintendo is going to watch all their evergreens drop in units moved as folks "wait for sales" or start to think of 5 year old games as budget titles.

For the record: I'm not convinced Nintendo won't charge. I was convinced back when I was waiting for a Pro, but I'm less convinced now. I think that Nintendo's best strategy is to drip feed free DLSS updates to their evergreens to fill out the schedule, the same way they did with Wii U ports.
Click to expand...
while i agree that "Free" Updates are more profitable in a long run than charging for them , but i think Nintendo will charge for the Updates just to Market for make NSO+ Feels Fair , i mean Nintendo will not give games for free like M$ did with Game Pass but while Nintendo know very well that Services will takeoff someday and be an important part of the business and they should take a step inside , so i think they will do it like this : keep selling the Base game for $60-$70 and charge $15-25 for each DLC Packs and maybe graphical upgrades for non Subscribers while All DLC for Every Game will be Free for NSO+ Subscribers + keep supporting Classic Gaming and adding more consoles, like this most Nintendo Owners will subscribe with the most expensive NSO+ and think it is a much better options than paying for DLCs individually and be forced to subscribe with the cheaper NSO if they want to play Online...
 
Last edited:
GamerJM said:
This is a crazy idea, but what if they release a Switch that's big enough to fit a disc drive into it? Not like UMDs, but like an actual disc drive.
Click to expand...
It'd be the size of a WiiU gamepad. Not as much of a portable anymore...
 
0
Salah Kalajo said:
while i agree that "Free" Updates are more profitable in a long run than charging for them , but i think Nintendo will charge for the Updates just to Market for make NSO+ Feels Fair , i mean Nintendo will not give games for free like M$ did with Game Pass but while Nintendo know very well that Services will takeoff someday and be an important part of the business and they should take a step inside , so i think they will do it like this : keep selling the Base game for $60-$70 and charge $15-25 for each DLC Packs and maybe graphical upgrades for non Subscribers while All DLC for Every Game will be Free for NSO+ Subscribers + keep supporting Classic Gaming and adding more consoles, like this most Nintendo Owners will subscribe with the most expensive NSO+ and think it is a much better options than paying for DLCs individually and be forced to subscribe with the cheaper NSO if they want to play Online...
Click to expand...
Locking upgrades behind NSO has worse optics than outright charging for them. It would be charging people extra to take full advantage of the hardware they already bought.
 
fwd-bwd said:
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *
Click to expand...
I believe that a Ninja intervention for leaks like those on Zoled and on the artbook is justified.
But it doesn't seem logical to me that they intervene on the information that the funcle had provided. Both because I don't think they harmed Nintnendo in any way (I doubt that Switch sales have dropped because news about some components of an alleged new console has come out), and because on the contrary they have generated a curiosity on the web which commercially could have been a positive effect.

So in my opinion, if it really is related to ninjas, it is part of a larger operation, aimed above all at eliminating the other leaks.
 
kalosmani said:
Didn't Spiderman Remaster become a locked game that's obtainable from Miles Morales PS5 Ultimate addition at launch? I'm not getting you wear Sony was generous with free remasters, at most they did a few free frame rate boosts, and when those Frame rate boost games got remasters such as Ghost of Tsushima getting a paid remaster even though the backwards compatible version for had a framerate boost.
Click to expand...
Spiderman remastered was an exception in that moment.

The rest of the PS games in that period released on PS5 have free upgrades from ps4

In any case, there are few companies that charge for these upgrades on PS5 and series, all of them Western, being the majority of cases due to licensing issues (NBA), a few Western blockbusters (GTAV, CoD), EA and Sony.
 
Last edited:
Would this new switch be significantly bigger and heavier considering the tech it (should) have? I already have neck pain and crumbly hand bones with the current one lol
 
oldpuck said:
"Free" upgrades are just the modern version of "Deluxe" editions. If you have a shared eShop across a generation, with assumed backward compatibility, how do you sell last gen content to new users? You give them the DLC + a simple res/framerate update for the cost of a new game, the same way you did with Deluxe editions. It lets you feature the content again in a Direct, bump up sales, and keep the price the same.

Which do you think makes the most money for Nintendo
  1. Breath of the Wild: $60, REDACTED exclusive patch, $0
  2. Breath of the Wild: $60, REDACTED exclusive patch, $15
  3. Breath of the Wild: $45, REDACTED exclusive patch, $15
Scenario 2 is a waste, the market for that is restricted to people who bought the game already, and actually represses sales of the base game as new hardware buyers* don't want to pay $75 for an upgraded last gen experience when they can get a current gen experience for less.

Scenario 3 makes a lot of sense, but it breaks how Nintendo treats their legacy "prestige" content, which is generally to keep the price up, but add value through bundling over time. You make Breath of the Wild $45 and suddenly Nintendo is going to watch all their evergreens drop in units moved as folks "wait for sales" or start to think of 5 year old games as budget titles.

For the record: I'm not convinced Nintendo won't charge. I was convinced back when I was waiting for a Pro, but I'm less convinced now. I think that Nintendo's best strategy is to drip feed free DLSS updates to their evergreens to fill out the schedule, the same way they did with Wii U ports.
Click to expand...

My opinion, Nintendo will play "both sides". They will release free patches for some evergreens, like Mario Kart 8 (because i'm not sure the next is ready by the time Drake released) simply because the option of doing it via "DLC strategy" is gone as we already have an Expansion Pass.

For others, Nintendo will offer them via Expansion Passes, to "hide" that it basically charges you for a better version. Animal Crossing might be a good example, announce a new DLC expansion for the game on both Switch 1 and Drake, but the Drake version comes with the enhancements.

And for some games, Nintendo simply won't bother. Running without issues via BC = good enough.

fwd-bwd said:
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *
Click to expand...

I mean, the hidden tags are good and all, but if Nintendo (or someone else) really wants to find out what info's being talked about, they can just have one of their PR/Marketing people create an account.

Who knows, they're really good in this stuff, maybe there's already someone here. ;D
 
Bonejack said:
I mean, the hidden tags are good and all, but if Nintendo (or someone else) really wants to find out what info's being talked about, they can just have one of their PR/Marketing people create an account.

Who knows, they're really good in this stuff, maybe there's already someone here. ;D
Click to expand...
Correct, it also happened already. Elsewhere, during Elden Ring leak season.
 
0
Last year we had more leaks and infos suggeting that new Switch will be released at end of last year or in 1st half of this year (and like 90% people here was sure thats case), than we currently have leaks and infos suggesting that Switch will be released at end of this year.
 
Simba1 said:
Last year we had more leaks and infos suggeting that new Switch will be released at end of last year or in 1st half of this year (and like 90% people here was sure thats case), than we currently have leaks and infos suggesting that Switch will be released at end of this year.
Click to expand...
Reality checks? Go away!
 
Zemya said:
Reality checks? Go away!
Click to expand...

Pls manners.
Prove me that I am wrong.

And look at this thread all leaks, infos, rumors and what people were saying here concluding with Nvidia email leaks.


Reality is that most people jump right a way of latest rumor and quickly forget what was happening before that rumor.
 
Simba1 said:
Last year we had more leaks and infos suggeting that new Switch will be released at end of last year or in 1st half of this year (and like 90% people here was sure thats case), than we currently have leaks and infos suggesting that Switch will be released at end of this year.
Click to expand...

While I don't believe in a 2023 release, the big difference which I see is that every year, the probability increases just by virtue of being closer to the console's release date.

Last year, the only real piece of information we had was from the Nvidia hack. The rest was just a narrative pushed by hacks.
 
Pokemaniac said:
Locking upgrades behind NSO has worse optics than outright charging for them. It would be charging people extra to take full advantage of the hardware they already bought.
Click to expand...
it is an option to Subscribe and get free DLC , as it is now you can buy Mario Kart and Animal Crossing or Splatoon etc DLC or you can Subscribe to NSO+ and Get them as part of the package beside Online Play and Selected Retro Gaming ...
 
0
We're more likely to get no upgrades than paid upgrades, I think. If games are poised to be replaced then there's no point in upgrading them. Stuff like Splatoon make their money by expansion passes and NSO subs. Don't see a paid upgrade path for that. Everything else, unless there's a late content addition, just won't get patched
 
ILikeFeet said:
We're more likely to get no upgrades than paid upgrades, I think. If games are poised to be replaced then there's no point in upgrading them. Stuff like Splatoon make their money by expansion passes and NSO subs. Don't see a paid upgrade path for that. Everything else, unless there's a late content addition, just won't get patched
Click to expand...
I expect evergreen and first party titles to get patched.
 
I do not think that they will make a third NSO tier, but I can see them increasing the price of both NSO tiers and include GameCube in the higher one, and GBA or something like that in the lower one.
 
Bosintang said:
While I don't believe in a 2023 release, the big difference which I see is that every year, the probability increases just by virtue of being closer to the console's release date.

Last year, the only real piece of information we had was from the Nvidia hack. The rest was just a narrative pushed by hacks.
Click to expand...

I mean yeah, every year (or every day) we are closer to release. :)

Even last year we had some "factory leaks"..
 
palemire said:
They'll just do a separate NSO premium tier for [REDACTED] patches 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Hahahaha.
No.

Bosintang said:
I do not think that they will make a third NSO tier, but I can see them increasing the price of both NSO tiers and include GameCube in the higher one, and GBA or something like that in the lower one.
Click to expand...
I don't think they can justify a price increase anytime soon. I'd expect GCN in NSO around or soon after the Switch REDACTED launches, REDACTED exclusive.
 
Simba1 said:
I mean yeah, every year (or every day) we are closer to release. :)

Even last year we had some "factory leaks"..
Click to expand...

As we get closer to the release, the rumors have a different weight.

And again, I don't even believe that 2023 is the year.
 
0
Since the Switch 2 most likely lacks a major gimmick like all the previous Nintendo consoles, they kind of have to emphasize the console is a graphical upgrade over the Switch, otherwise theres no reason for consumers to jump over. I think coming right out of the gate saying "with this you can play your Switch library at 4k right now" is a great way to send that message across and making consumers see value on buying the hardware. Charging for that undermines that value by a lot.

Of course, that's what makes sense to me, but what Nintendo finds reasonable is another story. Remember when they launched NSO and they thought they could fly giving us one NES game a month on rotation? I wouldn't put anything beyond them.

But they surely must have some strategy as to how they're gonna market this thing now that they won't have their usual "this is a new way to play videogames" romp.
 
The thought of upgrades being tied to NSO is just... lol. Imagine forgetting to renew and suddenly Xenoblade 1/2 drops back down to 540p handheld, like taking your glasses off. Oops!
 
Leo said:
Since the Switch 2 most likely lacks a major gimmick like all the previous Nintendo consoles
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like the most likely scenario at all. Not only will Nintendo add a new gimmick, but we aren't even certain that this machine is a 'Switch 2'
 
Quoted by: Leo
1
deletarek said:
ToTK is already $70 for Switch, I doubt they’ll ask for a fee on top of that for Drake updates. But I won’t rule it out for $60 titles

edit: was beaten to it by like a microsecond lol
Click to expand...
Nintendo will likely roll out all their major releases on Switch Reacted at the $70 price, so they got ahead of the game with Zelda TotK knowing they would be patching the game making it an evergreen title for Switch Redacted. Zelda TotK basically has the patch cost built into the original release cost.

SiG said:
I expect evergreen and first party titles to get patched.
Click to expand...
I think Switch Redacted will be backwards compatible with the Switch library of games, but most games will not be patched. Assuming patches are not going to require an upgrade fee, it would mean that Nintendo will really be marketing this feature hard with the new hardware. On top of that, Nintendo would have to believe they will be able to continue to sell games like Zelda BotW and Mario Odyssey to millions of new customers throughout the life of Switch Redacted. This approach is very different from what they have done in the past, but this may be exactly what they need in order to avoid the typically peaks and valleys Nintendo has typically endured with generational console transitions. Nintendo's goal isnt to only transition Switch users to Switch Redacted, but to entice brand new customers who never purchased a Switch, and thus are potential customers for these patched Switch evergreen titles.

I also wouldn't set my expectations to high for these patches. They will likely render at 4K with better texture filtering, but I wouldn't go in expecting all new textures, shadows and lighting. That would be remastering the games, and I do not see Nintendo doing that for free.
 
If DLSS is a thing, i don't see why it can't be the gimmick. Nintendo have always strived to produce great looking and performing games. Advertising games at very higf resolutions and games not available to comparable devices in a similar form factor would be a great deal.

If you look at how they positioned the Switch 3rd party library, they've low keyed done that in a way by targeting specific games to come over, completely dispelling the feeling Switch could only run 360 games and mobile ports. There are many games on Switch that isn't on mobile, in fact, very few mobile games have been ported.
 
Leo said:
Since the Switch 2 most likely lacks a major gimmick like all the previous Nintendo consoles, they kind of have to emphasize the console is a graphical upgrade over the Switch, otherwise theres no reason for consumers to jump over. I think coming right out of the gate saying "with this you can play your Switch library at 4k right now" is a great way to send that message across and making consumers see value on buying the hardware. Charging for that undermines that value by a lot.

Of course, that's what makes sense to me, but what Nintendo finds reasonable is another story. Remember when they launched NSO and they thought they could fly giving us one NES game a month on rotation? I wouldn't put anything beyond them.

But they surely must have some strategy as to how they're gonna market this thing now that they won't have their usual "this is a new way to play videogames" romp.
Click to expand...
I'm going to amend my previous statement saying I don't want but expect some gimmicks.

I don't expect many if ANY new gimmicks. Higher resolution screen, more games, better graphics. Same controllers, same Joy-Con, same UI.

But what I'd LIKE would be better motion controls and VR optimisations as I explained previously.

I don't expect the dock to change in any case. No point. Wireless docking would be impractical as technology stands now, as much as I reallly want it, this console's focus is 4K, something wireless docking can't really achieve.
 
Truno said:
That doesn't sound like the most likely scenario at all. Not only will Nintendo add a new gimmick, but we aren't even certain that this machine is a 'Switch 2'
Click to expand...

They will likely have a smaller gimmick like HD Rumble, but I'd eat my hat if they have a major one that will be the focus of the hardware like touch screen, 3D, motion controls and a screen on a controller were.

The hybrid form factor is still exclusive on the market and extremely popular, they don't need anything else.
 
Last edited:
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