• 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
ReddDreadtheLead said:
Hehe, a fun way to have use of Tensor Cores for gameplay and I’m surprised no one has brought it up, is use it for something like Dark Link.


It learns from you, and it’s a boss.

The game mechanic basis in the way it acts on how you did against other bosses. Actively learning to better know and be prepared for you.


I’d like to see an EMMI 2.0 but make use of those somehow.
Click to expand...
Wait till Fromsoft get their hands on this tech.
 
Z0m3le said:
I honestly think whatever clocks we get for the GPU will be fine. The pokemon leak did mention over 60GB/s for memory iirc, in which case 68GB/s would make the obvious choice. I actually think ~17.5GB/s for the CPU is correct... Here is where it gets kind of crazy though...

We can actually get a rough idea of the GPU clock boost from handheld to docked from this memory bandwidth if (GFLOPs : GB/s) is maintained. The docked clock of the GPU should be ~70% higher. Here is again where it gets interesting, the clocks we have seen in NVN offer a ~70% increase from 660MHz to 1.125GHz. 50GB/s + 17.5GB/s = 67.5GB/s, 50GB/s + 70% = 85GB/s + 17.5GB = 102.5GB/s (LPDDR5 at 6400MTs is 102.4GB/s). I'm not saying this proves the clocks found in NVN are target GPU clocks for Drake, I've pointed out why I think that, but I think with the Pokemon dev giving us "over 60GB/s" in handheld mode, we can look at these clocks as strong contenders for final clocks. I personally think with the Ampere bandwidth rates falling in line here too, it's very interesting.

For further reference, Switch's 460MHz handheld mode to it's 768MHz docked mode is ~67%, so very much in line with this ~70% difference that this mysterious DLSS test uses for GPU clocks found in NVN hack.

EDIT: To further strength this idea, 3050 and 3080 have just under 25GB/s per TFLOP, if we look at the 660MHz clock found in NVN, tie it to ~50GB/s with the other ~18GB/s for the CPU, we end up with 2TFLOPs, or 25GB/s per TFLOP... 1125MHz clock offers 3.456TFLOPs, well docked, we are talking about an additional 35GB/s or ~25GB/s per TFLOP.

AI can also empower artists/creatives. Indie games could explode in depth and complexity, with a creative type at the helm, it also empowers people who don't know how to code, to make games. Basically, AI can replace dozens of people working on an indie game, while that is certainly scary, it also frees up those people to work in their own smaller teams, empowers them to make their own games, and use those same tools to give people more equal footing. It certainly can and will be bad for the industry, but it will also be great for the individuals and hobbyist in the industry as well.
Click to expand...
What am I missing here, I didn’t know the Pokémon dev gave spec numbers?
 
Tron1 said:
Okay my wording was off. Mini-dvd is correct. Either way when you are looking to get a game why ask a developer to make multiple disc for your console when they don’t have to for others. Is off putting to developers. Nintendo got Resident Evil 4 as a timed exclusive at the time. They had a lot of mature games. From my recollection GTA didn’t come because of the lack of storage space on the mini dvd. Maybe they did think Nintendo had a kiddi image or the install base wasn’t big enough. What you don’t do is give them reason to keep a game off of your system.
Click to expand...
They were still bullshit excuses nonetheless, and were due to the percieved conceptions towards Nintendo at the time.

It didn’t help that channels like G4TV kept perpetuating those false notions of “maturity”.
 
ReddDreadtheLead said:
Hehe, a fun way to have use of Tensor Cores for gameplay and I’m surprised no one has brought it up, is use it for something like Dark Link.


It learns from you, and it’s a boss.

The game mechanic basis in the way it acts on how you did against other bosses. Actively learning to better know and be prepared for you.


I’d like to see an EMMI 2.0 but make use of those somehow.
Click to expand...
Already been done

 
Tron1 said:
What am I missing here, I didn’t know the Pokémon dev gave spec numbers?
Click to expand...
They didn't. These are the only two posts that were made:

I am a programmer at a pokémon outsourcing company. My English is very poor, so I used machine translation to complete this post.
The theme of the DLC is "Hidden Treasure of Area Zero" and "Hexagon".
Version 1.2.0 includes dressable clothes as a reward for DLC purchasers.
Will include Unerminamo and Tetsunoisaha. These are Paradox Suicune and Paradox Virizion. Uneruminamo Water/Dragon Tetsunoisaha Grass/Esper type.
A Mystery Pokemon with green mask.
Special Terastal appearance.
The 3rd Legendary Pokemon is a large blue turtle.
We are working on a graphics enhancement patch for the new Nintendo Switch models that will be released alongside DLC2
Click to expand...
I am the poster of this post. For identification, The original text of this MD5 HASH 'e9f5c537635560a719749701c5dbe4b6' is 'suka!bai!zero!'.
I'm not going to leak any more information. I just want to add some clarifications to the previous one.
The hexagon is not the third DLC title, but an element that is displayed many times in DLC.
The special Terastal appearance I mentioned is a new game mechanic that was not announced in the PV. Some Pokémon will acquire new Terrastal forms.
The new Switch model I mentioned is 「次世代機」. Also, As far as I know, DLC2 is scheduled to be released in early 2024.
Other contents have already been announced.
Sorry for the unclearness before.
Click to expand...

So I have no idea where the claim about memory speed came from.
 
ddfvvm8-e739894f-7018-43b1-a2c1-201ed1352b70.jpg

Dreamcast was way ahead of its time.
 
SiG said:
They were still bullshit excuses nonetheless, and were due to the percieved conceptions towards Nintendo at the time.

It didn’t help that channels like G4TV kept perpetuating those false notions of “maturity”.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Nintendo had the best relationship with third parties publishers. The sins of their past were coming to haunt them and to an extent still are. What you don’t do in business is burn bridges. That’s rule number 1. You never know down the line years later when you will need someone. I know for a fact Nintendo burnt bridges that are just starting to be repaired in 2021 and 2022. Hopefully they learned from their mistakes.
 
0
robertman2 said:
Dreamcast will always be the fucking goat
Click to expand...

I agree with this and not as a joke. The Dreamcast is in my opinion the best console ever made and the last time I felt genuinely excited for a hardware. The switch gave me that a bit, I admit. But not to that level. Dreamcast games had a "it" factor that I can't put my finger on.
 
Bosintang said:
I agree with this and not as a joke. The Dreamcast is in my opinion the best console ever made and the last time I felt genuinely excited for a hardware. The switch gave me that a bit, I admit. But not to that level. Dreamcast games had a "it" factor that I can't put my finger on.
Click to expand...
It felt like a massive leap from the Playstation/Saturn and released a damn year before the PS2.
 
Bosintang said:
I agree with this and not as a joke. The Dreamcast is in my opinion the best console ever made and the last time I felt genuinely excited for a hardware. The switch gave me that a bit, I admit. But not to that level. Dreamcast games had a "it" factor that I can't put my finger on.
Click to expand...
I'd agree if the JRPG library was more than 3 games.
 
ReddDreadtheLead said:
Why would Nintendo do that? Has Sony allowed any other VR headset besides a PlayStation VR to work on their PlayStation systems? because to my knowledge only PSVR and PSVR2 work on the PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 5, respectively.

Nintendo will never allow such a thing.
Click to expand...

If Nintendo won't allow other companies' headsets to be on the Switch 2, then there just won't be good VR headsets for the Switch 2.

Because Nintendo isn't going to waste money developing a headset that will obviously fail catastrophically.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
If Nintendo won't allow other companies' headsets to be on the Switch 2, then there just won't be good VR headsets for the Switch 2.

Because Nintendo isn't going to waste money developing a headset that will obviously fail catastrophically.
Click to expand...
This feels like a weird hill to die on. I see no reason why Nintendo couldn't build a compelling VR headset with compelling software.

Labo was a fun toy, but I wouldn't consider it a serious entry into the VR space. You had to hold the headset to your head the entire time.
 
I think that VR "enthusiasts" are understanding the problem of low adoption of the technology by the general public, from the wrong perspective. I don't know anyone who doesn't have a VR device, because the hardware sucks, because the screen isn't 1440p, because VR below 90Hz is rubbish, or because it only looks good if you use foveated rendering and have 1 bazilion sensors.
What VR needs is good software and price, Google Cardboard was a great success, but it just didn't go forward for lack of really good software, and not because the general public didn't like the screen serration, but because everything they could get to offer were mini non-interactable 3D experiences like a rollercoaster or video on YT.
Labo VR was just a Nintendo test, if they really wanted it to go forward they wouldn't have put some minigames in Mario or Zelda in third person, but MK8. Stick a Switch in people's heads for 100 dollars, with a comfortable headset and the joycons themselves as controllers, far from being the best VR experience on the market, but having Mario Kart in VR would be enough to cover all PSVR sales in a weekend.
 
LinkURL said:
I think that VR "enthusiasts" are understanding the problem of low adoption of the technology by the general public, from the wrong perspective. I don't know anyone who doesn't have a VR device, because the hardware sucks, because the screen isn't 1440p, because VR below 90Hz is rubbish, or because it only looks good if you use foveated rendering and have 1 bazilion sensors.
What VR needs is good software and price, Google Cardboard was a great success, but it just didn't go forward for lack of really good software, and not because the general public didn't like the screen serration, but because everything they could get to offer were mini non-interactable 3D experiences like a rollercoaster or video on YT.
Labo VR was just a Nintendo test, if they really wanted it to go forward they wouldn't have put some minigames in Mario or Zelda in third person, but MK8. Stick a Switch in people's heads for 100 dollars, with a comfortable headset and the joycons themselves as controllers, far from being the best VR experience on the market, but having Mario Kart in VR would be enough to cover all PSVR sales in a weekend.
Click to expand...

VR's only purpose is immersion so yes, it matters a lot how good the games look on VR.

It also is bad if the framerate is so low (<90 FPS) to cause nausea in long play sessions.

5 minute demos of Google Cardboard are very different from a two hour play session of Mario Kart.
 
Boxle said:
This feels like a weird hill to die on. I see no reason why Nintendo couldn't build a compelling VR headset with compelling software.

Labo was a fun toy, but I wouldn't consider it a serious entry into the VR space. You had to hold the headset to your head the entire time.
Click to expand...

It costs a lot of money to develop a physical headset and basically all VR headsets have been failures, why would they bother. Especially when the Switch 2 is likely to be so relatively to struggle to deliver the immersive content VR fans want.
 
0
VR faces two problems

1. People only want genuinely great VR that has no graphical issues that take them out of the experience or cause the graphics to look much worse
2. People will probably only pay up to $100 for VR

Problem 1 will probably be solved by like 2026

It will take another 8 or so years after that until VR headsets good enough to fulfill 1 are cheap enough to fulfill 2.

Devs have also done so little work on VR that like 99.9% of developers have no idea how VR games do or should work and that will also take a long time to get right.

Don't expect VR to be popular before 2035.
 
LinkURL said:
I think that VR "enthusiasts" are understanding the problem of low adoption of the technology by the general public, from the wrong perspective. I don't know anyone who doesn't have a VR device, because the hardware sucks, because the screen isn't 1440p, because VR below 90Hz is rubbish, or because it only looks good if you use foveated rendering and have 1 bazilion sensors.
Click to expand...
But they'll feel dizzy, isolated from the world, have an uncomfortable experience and just think VR isn't for them.

Making a good headset is hard. And for the 'non enthusiasts', it's not even about raw power or price. The current best headset at a Switch price wouldn't go mainstream. Better games would help for sure, as always, but first the tech need to be easier to use and handle, with a more seamless experience.

I think it's just too soon for Nintendo, especially if they have to spread their resource development (again) and risk their future for it.
 
Last edited:
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
VR faces two problems

1. People only want genuinely great VR that has no graphical issues that take them out of the experience or cause the graphics to look much worse
2. People will probably only pay up to $100 for VR

Problem 1 will probably be solved by like 2026

It will take another 8 or so years after that until VR headsets good enough to fulfill 1 are cheap enough to fulfill 2.

Devs have also done so little work on VR that like 99.9% of developers have no idea how VR games do or should work and that will also take a long time to get right.

Don't expect VR to be popular before 2035.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised there don't seem to be many big VR arcades. Get some cheap props to fill the space, and it feels like you have a hit for some kind of immersive games that merit standing up for.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
VR's only purpose is immersion so yes, it matters a lot how good the games look on VR.

It also is bad if the framerate is so low (<90 FPS) to cause nausea in long play sessions.

5 minute demos of Google Cardboard are very different from a two hour play session of Mario Kart.
Click to expand...
Most people will get nauseous with VR, and the screen refresh rate is not as responsible as many people think, the disconnect between center of balance and visual center that the VR experience provides is something that is very unlikely to be overcome in the next few years.
Better Immersion is indeed important, but again it's useless if your device is expensive and doesn't have good software.
 
LinkURL said:
Most people will get nauseous with VR, and the screen refresh rate is not as responsible as many people think, the disconnect between center of balance and visual center that the VR experience provides is something that is very unlikely to be overcome in the next few years.
Better Immersion is indeed important, but again it's useless if your device is expensive and doesn't have good software.
Click to expand...

"People will get nauseous with VR" is a statement for VR not being popular, VR will never be popular until the hardware is so good and so figured out that it does not cause consumers to get sick. This will not be cheap for a very long time.

There is no reason for Nintendo to be interested in VR during the Switch 2's life.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
"People will get nauseous with VR" is a statement for VR not being popular, VR will never be popular until the hardware is so good and so figured out that it does not cause consumers to get sick. This will not be cheap for a very long time.

There is no reason for Nintendo to be interested in VR during the Switch 2's life.
Click to expand...
My boy, VR will probably make people nauseous forever, the problem is not hardware, the problem is the human brain itself, you are Literally trying to convince your brain that you are somewhere else, doing all sorts of activities, while your inner ear is all the time saying "naaa this is fake, he didn't take a step, he's just standing in the same place".
 
LinkURL said:
My boy, VR will probably make people nauseous forever, the problem is not hardware, the problem is the human brain itself, you are Literally trying to convince your brain that you are somewhere else, doing all sorts of activities, while your inner ear is all the time saying "naaa this is fake, he didn't take a step, he's just standing in the same place".
Click to expand...

Then VR will never be popular!

I completely disagree with your statement about VR's future to be clear. Regardless, no reason for Nintendo to have any interest in VR during the Switch 2.
 
0
Nintendo has shared their reasons why they don’t like VR among other known issues for it. While I expect them to experiment with it behind close doors; I expect not much out of them in the VR market.
 
0
Foltzie said:
The Wii Remotes had a small amount of memory yes.

Follow-up tweets indicate the pattern is related to moving account information. How it differs from what Xbox does today. I don’t know.
Click to expand...
Let's bring back streetpass, but through the controllers this time.
 
Boxle said:
Let's bring back streetpass, but through the controllers this time.
Click to expand...
I unironically think StreetPass using the NSO app would be better (and more versatile) than the controller or console. Same technology as contact tracing, AirTag, or TILE. Maybe they could even use the network to identify and find lost Switches...
 
I only just realized it’s been 2 years since the Bloomberg article went out on a new Switch model with an OLED display.

Probably a dumb thought but if [REDACTED] was using a new, more advanced (resolution, refresh rate, VRR) display, it should’ve/would’ve leaked by now like it did for the OLED model assuming a similar October release?
 
ezidro3 said:
I only just realized it’s been 2 years since the Bloomberg article went out on a new Switch model with an OLED display.

Probably a dumb thought but if [REDACTED] was using a new, more advanced (resolution, refresh rate, VRR) display, it should’ve/would’ve leaked by now like it did for the OLED model assuming a similar October release?
Click to expand...
No.
 
been working so much that i can't follow the thread like i used to, but can someone confirm that if it is true that the T-239 has been taped out and what exactly does that mean?
 
NintenDuvo said:
been working so much that i can't follow the thread like i used to, but can someone confirm that if it is true that the T-239 has been taped out and what exactly does that mean?
Click to expand...
Tape out means that the chip's design has been finished and is ready to be sent to a semiconductor foundry company (e.g. TSMC, Samsung, etc.) to be mass produced.

There hasn't been any explicit confirmation of T239 being taped out. But based on a LinkedIn profile of a Nvidia employee, I think T239 probably has been taped out at around 1H 2022.
 
Meta has sold almost 20 million Quest headsets to date (Quest 1 and 2, and a believe Quest 2 probably sold at least 15kk). Really not bad.
I honestly don't see why switch 2 wouldn't be a good machine for mobile VR. Quest 2 has proved - hardware wise - that you can already have pretty good games on a standalone HMD.

You really don't need foveated rendering using eye-tracking to have compelling experiences. So, for me neither hardware or cost is a problem now. The question for me is whether Nintendo would be interested in dedicating resources to VR games (specially now that they have unified development with the Switch). Even if they went with low-budget productions, most people would want those resources destined to flat content.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
If Nintendo won't allow other companies' headsets to be on the Switch 2, then there just won't be good VR headsets for the Switch 2.

Because Nintendo isn't going to waste money developing a headset that will obviously fail catastrophically.
Click to expand...
That’s not really how that works…
ShadowFox08 said:
The ratios are twice as high on Maxwell 2.0. Could this mean ampere architecture is 2x as efficient at handling bandwidth vs Maxwell?
Click to expand...
Technically yes, as in can do more with less or about the same.
 
Kise Ryota said:
Meta has sold almost 20 million Quest headsets to date (Quest 1 and 2, and a believe Quest 2 probably sold at least 15kk). Really not bad.
I honestly don't see why switch 2 wouldn't be a good machine for mobile VR. Quest 2 has proved - hardware wise - that you can already have pretty good games on a standalone HMD.

You really don't need foveated rendering using eye-tracking to have compelling experiences. So, for me neither hardware or cost is a problem now. The question for me is whether Nintendo would be interested in dedicating resources to VR games (specially now that they have unified development with the Switch). Even if they went with low-budget productions, most people would want those resources destined to flat content.
Click to expand...
Considering their comments hardware is still a problem. It’s not on the power spectrum though but more on one based on isolation.
Cost is also still an issue since the question becomes do they wanna lose money on the product. This is compounded if other devices they are selling are also thin on the margins.
Unified really doesn’t mean much when those resources are tied elsewhere. The better question would be does it make financial sense to dedicate resources away from other games to VR.
 
Tentacle-tropes said:
Considering their comments hardware is still a problem. It’s not on the power spectrum though but more on one based on isolation.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of this patent.

Also, having the TV also showing what the person using the HMD is seeing helps a lot with the isolation argument. You can also have viewers helping the player (like in keep talking and nobody explodes). Nintendo is creativity, they can find ways to explore the technology.

But, like I said: The question for me is whether Nintendo would be interested in dedicating resources to VR games (specially now that they have unified development with the Switch). Even if they went with low-budget productions, most people would want those resources destined to flat content.
 
Although not directly related to Nintendo, I find this interesting.

4U504WB.png

AyPEhV8.png

Google (at 12:28) mentioned FSR 2 requires extra input information, which is why FSR 2's not usually used in a mobile environment.
 
Kise Ryota said:
This reminds me of this patent.

Also, having the TV also showing what the person using the HMD is seeing helps a lot with the isolation argument. You can also have viewers helping the player (like in keep talking and nobody explodes). Nintendo is creativity, they can find ways to explore the technology.

But, like I said: The question for me is whether Nintendo would be interested in dedicating resources to VR games (specially now that they have unified development with the Switch). Even if they went with low-budget productions, most people would want those resources destined to flat content.
Click to expand...
What your describing doesn’t sound like it answers the isolation problem at all from how Nintendo describes it. It just becomes more convoluted then its worth at that point. Sure they’ll find ways to explore it behind the scenes & probably utilize that R&D in other products not related to VR.

What you said doesn’t really refute the points I typed out. The issue with Nintendo dedicating resources that way is entirely economics in quite a few categories. So, the issue isn’t one of interest even if I don’t think they are interested in VR.
 
0
ReddDreadtheLead said:
That’s not really how that works…

Technically yes, as in can do more with less or about the same.
Click to expand...
what was the GB/s bandwidth ratio for PS4 and PS4 pro again? o_O

Switch was definitely punching above its weight too for multiplatforms. It's too bad we'll never know how much 50 GB/s could have helped it. I think it was Z0mbie who said maxwell/turing graphics cards had 50 GB/s VRAM, and they were going toe to toe with Xbone/PS4
 
Again and again, the chances of Nintendo succeeding in the VR market are slim to none.

Even with strong IPs like Mario, Pokemon, and Animal Crossing, they could not succeed in the mobile market (Pokemon GO is Niantic).

This will be the same for VR.
 
majimazio said:
Again and again, the chances of Nintendo succeeding in the VR market are slim to none.

Even with strong IPs like Mario, Pokemon, and Animal Crossing, they could not succeed in the mobile market (Pokemon GO is Niantic).

This will be the same for VR.
Click to expand...
With the mobile market the issues lay in their overall strategy with the market. Both from a business & philosophy point of view. Also I’m really confused as to how Niantic is the succeeding factor in PGO when it has been their most successful game ever in large part due to the IP they are using.

The VR market on the other hand just doesn’t workout from an economics and resource standpoint for Nintendo
 
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