• 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.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

they need to bring back an evolution of the wiimote IR sensor. Just went back to RE4wii after playing the remake demo and my god what a difference. Using dual analog for aiming is so bad....
Nowadays that can be done inside out if they want to, going back to a stationary sensor or IR blaster you have to set up would be a huge PITA. Even if you put it in the dock or console, now you can't have your console docked in an entertainment cabinet or anything that would break line of sight.

Better motion controls are always loved, but IR sensor bar isn't it.
 
I already have that adaptor, but telling people to buy an adaptor to have their old controllers just doesn't work untill it's a specialised controller for a specific game, like GCN and Smash. The type to buy an adaptor is not the casual market. But the type to reuse controllers from the previous generation is the casual market!

(Yes, I know you were joking, don't worry.)

But everyone already has an adapter, their Switch 1.
 
Speaking of docks and backwards compatibility and soforth, something occurred to me that may be of minor interest in the "Did Nintendo cancel a 4K Switch?" discussion.

When Switch firmware 12.0 released a couple of years ago, the homebrew community found a USB configuration setting in it called "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30", which made the mainstream news as it suggested a forthcoming 4K Switch model. To provide a bit of context for this, a USB-C connection has four lanes with which it can transmit and receive data, with a separate USB 2 lane included for auxiliary data. Devices can divide these four lanes in pairs between USB 3 data and various alt modes, and in the case of DisplayPort alt mode (which Switch uses to transmit video and audio data to the dock), you can either use two lanes for DisplayPort and two for USB 3 data, or you can use all four lanes for DisplayPort, which means the only USB data you can transmit is over the USB 2 aux lane.

If we stick to USB 3 and DisplayPort 1.4 or lower, two lanes of DisplayPort aren't sufficient to transmit uncompressed 4K HDR video at 60Hz. You can use either chroma sub-sampling or DSC (Display Stream Compression) to squeeze it in, which would have a relatively minor impact on image quality, but if you can transmit it uncompressed then obviously that's preferable. The "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" configuration setting, then, is clearly to choose between transmitting four lanes of DisplayPort over the USB-C connection, allowing for uncompressed 4K video but no USB 3 data, or transmitting only 2 lanes of DisplayPort and having USB 3 data alongside it.

What I realised is that the "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" setting was definitely not added for use with T239-based hardware, for the simple reason that T239 doesn't have four lanes of DisplayPort output. Here's the relevant code from the Linux commit that gives us info on T239's DisplayPort implementation:

Code:
struct cmd_uphy_display_port_init_request {
    /** @brief DisplayPort link rate, T239 valid: 1620, 2700, 5400, 8100, 2160, 2430, 3240, 4320, 6750 */
    uint16_t link_rate;
    /** @brief 1: lane 0; 2: lane 1; 3: lane 0 and 1 */
    uint16_t lanes_bitmap;
} BPMP_ABI_PACKED;

You can see that the lanes_bitmap variable only supports up to two lanes, and this code is specific to T239 because neither Xavier or Orin support DisplayPort over their UPHY interfaces.

So, if T239 only has two lanes of DisplayPort output, then a "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" setting makes no sense. It can still transmit 4K HDR video that's probably indistinguishable in most cases using DSC or chroma sub-sampling, but it can do that in two lanes alongside USB 3 data, rather than trading off between 4K output and USB 3 data.

If the "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" wasn't added for T239, then it follows that there must have been some other plans for a 4K capable Switch model separate from the T239 project. That doesn't necessarily mean rendering games at 4K, as it's possible it was just planned to take existing Switch graphics and scale it to a 4K output, or even just support video streaming like Netflix or YouTube or whatever at 4K, but there must have existed plans for some sort of Switch model that would output at 4K resolution that didn't use T239.
Good find!

Yeah I still think the most logical and reasonable situation that can fit a "cancelled pro" is a Mariko based pro that they were thinking of launching sometime in 2019 or 2020. Most consumers wouldn't really know the difference between 4k output and native 4k rendering.
 
Now we're talking!

If they don't go with matte black again, I hope they go all-in on the metal construction. OLED Model goes most of the way there. The whole thing finished in brushed aluminium, or even just regular aluminium like a Joy-Con Rail on the Joy-Con Strap. Personally, I think:

Brushed metal back-plate, black plastic coated metal screen frame like the OLED Model, and untreated/plain aluminium on the kickstand and Joy-Con rails, vent, etc. Same size, completely different visually.

OLED Model- Black console, white dock and Joy-Con
[REDACTED]- Metallic silver console, black dock and Joy-Con.

The logo debossed on the back like it is on the Dock with LAN Port.
I thought there were wireless communication reasons why this wasn't a good idea, but if I'm wrong:
nintendo-switch-metal-joy-cons-1160x653.jpg

maxresdefault.jpg


I do quite like these.
 
But everyone already has an adapter, their Switch 1.
I trust you're joking? 😅

Telling people to keep their old console plugged in in the corner just to charge their controllers is more than just a little laughable. I wouldn't put it past Nintendo, but I certainly don't think it's likely.
 
0
Ultimately Nintendo Switch as a concept fundamentally must limit the amount of deviation from the basic design. It's a 7" tablet with an active cooling system. There's only so many ways you can package that, and there's little incentive for them to change the shape when there's other ways to make the device visually distinct. If by limitation of the formfactor it ends up being incredibly similar in size and shape to the console previous, not having the accessories be compatible would be a ridiculous gambit. Suggesting that the Joy-Con would be compatible wirelessly but not attach just isn't viable: they CHARGE BY ATTACHING.
If someone already has Joy-Cons, they have a way to charge them.

Peripherals that rely significantly on the exact shape of the console are pretty low on the priority list for compatibility. It it happens, it happens, but I wouldn't expect Nintendo to design the system around ensuring that compatibility.
Speaking of docks and backwards compatibility and soforth, something occurred to me that may be of minor interest in the "Did Nintendo cancel a 4K Switch?" discussion.

When Switch firmware 12.0 released a couple of years ago, the homebrew community found a USB configuration setting in it called "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30", which made the mainstream news as it suggested a forthcoming 4K Switch model. To provide a bit of context for this, a USB-C connection has four lanes with which it can transmit and receive data, with a separate USB 2 lane included for auxiliary data. Devices can divide these four lanes in pairs between USB 3 data and various alt modes, and in the case of DisplayPort alt mode (which Switch uses to transmit video and audio data to the dock), you can either use two lanes for DisplayPort and two for USB 3 data, or you can use all four lanes for DisplayPort, which means the only USB data you can transmit is over the USB 2 aux lane.

If we stick to USB 3 and DisplayPort 1.4 or lower, two lanes of DisplayPort aren't sufficient to transmit uncompressed 4K HDR video at 60Hz. You can use either chroma sub-sampling or DSC (Display Stream Compression) to squeeze it in, which would have a relatively minor impact on image quality, but if you can transmit it uncompressed then obviously that's preferable. The "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" configuration setting, then, is clearly to choose between transmitting four lanes of DisplayPort over the USB-C connection, allowing for uncompressed 4K video but no USB 3 data, or transmitting only 2 lanes of DisplayPort and having USB 3 data alongside it.

What I realised is that the "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" setting was definitely not added for use with T239-based hardware, for the simple reason that T239 doesn't have four lanes of DisplayPort output. Here's the relevant code from the Linux commit that gives us info on T239's DisplayPort implementation:

Code:
struct cmd_uphy_display_port_init_request {
    /** @brief DisplayPort link rate, T239 valid: 1620, 2700, 5400, 8100, 2160, 2430, 3240, 4320, 6750 */
    uint16_t link_rate;
    /** @brief 1: lane 0; 2: lane 1; 3: lane 0 and 1 */
    uint16_t lanes_bitmap;
} BPMP_ABI_PACKED;

You can see that the lanes_bitmap variable only supports up to two lanes, and this code is specific to T239 because neither Xavier or Orin support DisplayPort over their UPHY interfaces.

So, if T239 only has two lanes of DisplayPort output, then a "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" setting makes no sense. It can still transmit 4K HDR video that's probably indistinguishable in most cases using DSC or chroma sub-sampling, but it can do that in two lanes alongside USB 3 data, rather than trading off between 4K output and USB 3 data.

If the "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" wasn't added for T239, then it follows that there must have been some other plans for a 4K capable Switch model separate from the T239 project. That doesn't necessarily mean rendering games at 4K, as it's possible it was just planned to take existing Switch graphics and scale it to a 4K output, or even just support video streaming like Netflix or YouTube or whatever at 4K, but there must have existed plans for some sort of Switch model that would output at 4K resolution that didn't use T239.
It seems plausible, but that was also likely before T239 was finalized, so I don't think it's the only possible explanation.
 
I thought there were wireless communication reasons why this wasn't a good idea, but if I'm wrong:
nintendo-switch-metal-joy-cons-1160x653.jpg

maxresdefault.jpg


I do quite like these.
There definitely are, but Nintendo Switch already has a big fat metal midplate inside it. OLED Model has its metal kickstand, midplate, metal backed screen, metal frame and metal Joy-Con Rails to contend with, and solves this by putting big square antennae right up at the top. They could use an antenna line across the top of the rear, I think that could be quite stylish, or they could have the vent and surrounding area be plastic with the antennae up at the top, like OLED Model.
Or, perhaps a mix of both. Metal vent, metal back-plate, and a rounded, grey plastic corner where the two metal sheets meet. Easier manufacturing AND an antenna line.
 
If someone already has Joy-Cons, they have a way to charge them.

Peripherals that rely significantly on the exact shape of the console are pretty low on the priority list for compatibility. It it happens, it happens, but I wouldn't expect Nintendo to design the system around ensuring that compatibility.

It seems plausible, but that was also likely before T239 was finalized, so I don't think it's the only possible explanation.
Wait, you're NOT joking? You have to realise how funny it is to expect people to keep their last gen console around just to charge spare controllers, right? Come on. It's not like it's just an older USB cable, it's a whole console that needs to be plugged into wall power just to charge the controllers.
 
no, smaller! stupid piece of shit is already a smidge too big
I would actually love a Wii U Gamepad-sized Switch (2) XL. Too many Switch games are designed (size of objects, UI elements, etc) to be played on a big screen, with portable mode often treated as a bonus or an afterthought.
 
Wait, you're NOT joking? You have to realise how funny it is to expect people to keep their last gen console around just to charge spare controllers, right? Come on. It's not like it's just an older USB cable, it's a whole console that needs to be plugged into wall power just to charge the controllers.
There are multiple cheap adapters/grips which let you charge Joy-Cons via USB.
 
I would actually love a Wii U Gamepad-sized Switch (2) XL. Too many Switch games are designed (size of objects, UI elements, etc) to be played on a big screen, with portable mode often treated as a bonus or an afterthought.
see, to me the unwieldy size of the switch makes portable mode feel like an afterthought (though tabletop definitely redeems it somewhat). that being said, I think it's a decent compromise size, and I'm sure it's as small as was technically justifiable.

I do see the argument for a bigger switch 2, though: the switch already falls outside of portable territory, so why not further improve "home handheld" ergonomics and the screen size for tabletop mode? personally I see that as a diversion from a form factor that I've come to really love, so I'm averse to it.
 
I really hope Nintendo isn't coming with the same joy-con rail. That's a faulty design IMO; with time the joy-cons will start to wobble (3 different pairs here and counting). I just want a more reliable design for the connection, and I don't really care for physical compatibility for the current model (as long as it works through BT)
 
There are multiple cheap adapters/grips which let you charge Joy-Cons via USB.

I already have that adaptor, but telling people to buy an adaptor to have their old controllers just doesn't work untill it's a specialised controller for a specific game, like GCN and Smash. The type to buy an adaptor is not the casual market. But the type to reuse controllers from the previous generation is the casual market!
 
0
I really hope Nintendo isn't coming with the same joy-con rail. That's a faulty design IMO; with time the joy-cons will start to wobble (3 different pairs here and counting). I just want a more reliable design for the connection, and I don't really care for physical compatibility for the current model (as long as it works through BT)
And charge it with what? Fairy farts?

I think a better rail would be welcome, but a better but still COMPATIBLE rail would be even better!
 
Agreed. I would use my switch handheld much more often if it was more ergonomic to hold like the WiiU gamepad was. There's a tradeoff there with backwards compatibility of hardware as being discussed and aesthetics suffer sometimes too. But I would sure like to use the switch's main selling point more often without having to set up a goose neck mount on my couch and bust out the pro controller.

Even if it's just a slightly more curved back to it instead of flat like this fan concept from a few years ago, it would help:


count me IN
or UP
or ON

throw in some magnetic detachable joycons while you're at it
 
0
see, to me the unwieldy size of the switch makes portable mode feel like an afterthought (though tabletop definitely redeems it somewhat). that being said, I think it's a decent compromise size, and I'm sure it's as small as was technically justifiable.

I do see the argument for a bigger switch 2, though: the switch already falls outside of portable territory, so why not further improve "home handheld" ergonomics and the screen size for tabletop mode? personally I see that as a diversion from a form factor that I've come to really love, so I'm averse to it.
As true as that is, Nintendo no longer has a handheld to sell. Nintendo Switch IS their handheld, for better or worse, and that means it has fo fit the handheld niche, as in literally fit.
 
I just put my Switch in a bag this this morning and then played it on the train with no issues.

What about it makes it unwieldy?
it's definitely serviceable, and I've probably overstated the point. but compare it to even the biggest models in the DS/3DS family and it's non-negligibly less convenient. even the lite won't safely fit in most pockets
 
Nintendo Switch Advance

now in Watermelon Red

pocket-flip_02.jpg

pocket-flip_02.jpg

Now that the 3DS is finally well and truly dead, I could see the [REDACTED] MINI being a clamshell rather than a Lite. If it proves a popular platform they could do both: a premium Mini with an optional seperate dock, and a budget Lite with no clamshell and no dock.

I think it would fit well in the market the same way there are three models of Switch around right now.
 
it's definitely serviceable, and I've probably overstated the point. but compare it to even the biggest models in the DS/3DS family and it's non-negligibly less convenient. even the lite won't safely fit in most pockets
Yeah, even the biggest 3DS Model slid comfortably into most pockets and handbags. I think 2DS XL is just about the perfect handheld in terms of balancing features with size.
 
And charge it with what? Fairy farts?

I think a better rail would be welcome, but a better but still COMPATIBLE rail would be even better!

Sorry, but I'm with the others saying you can easily solve this using an accessory (that could even come in the box with the switch 2 (I doubt, but...)), or just buy one that already exists. I don't see this as a reason to stop progress (I don't see how to make it really better using the same design) just because "I want to charge through the console!"
 
it's definitely serviceable, and I've probably overstated the point. but compare it to even the biggest models in the DS/3DS family and it's non-negligibly less convenient. even the lite won't safely fit in most pockets
I put my Switch in my pocket when I take it places.

Granted I wear cargos and it still like 30% sticks out the top of the cargo pocket and my coworkers called me a nerd for wearing cargos all the time but still
 
While I can see the idea of the switch being smaller… can the joy controllers at least be bigger ffs….

I don’t have baby hands, these are uncomfortable half the time.


However, I see the argument against the thing being smaller because it can be hard to actually read or see what’s going on. Can’t say for the OLED model as that has a physically bigger display, but for the V1/2 things look so smol.


But this is in part due to devs not keeping in mind that things change size from docked to portable mode so, they keep it as one and not the other. If it’s suited for portable mode, it looks freaking huge on the TV. If it’s suited for docked mode it looks nearly illegible in portable mode.


I wish there was a way to be able to adjust this dynamically on the fly with little input, but i remember reading a comment on Era that it requires doubling the work for just words to be legible.
 
0
it's definitely serviceable, and I've probably overstated the point. but compare it to even the biggest models in the DS/3DS family and it's non-negligibly less convenient. even the lite won't safely fit in most pockets

Not many people would walk around with a handheld in their pocket and I doubt that defines it a device is portable or not.

Are tablets or laptops in the same boat since I consider those to be perfectly portable?
 
Not many people would walk around with a handheld in their pocket and I doubt that defines it a device is portable or not.

Are tablets or laptops in the same boat since I consider those to be perfectly portable?
if you don't see the utility of something fitting in your pocket we're at an impasse

that said, despite my derision I too am content with the switch's current size. it's on the line though, and it being any bigger would make it tough to fit in many bags
 
if you don't see the utility of something fitting in your pocket we're at an impasse

that said, despite my derision I too am content with the switch's current size. it's on the line though, and it being any bigger would make it tough to fit in many bags

Ultimately, Switch works absolutely brilliantly as a portable gaming device which is a big part of what has led to such great success for the machine.

I think where you’re going wrong is presuming that something portable needs to fit in your pocket where in reality most people wouldn’t keep such a device in their pocket anyway. The OG Gameboy wouldn’t fit in the pocket of my current trousers tbh.

I’ve got a MacBook Air which takes up way less room than a Switch so they’ve got a lot of space to work with yet although I don’t think Switch 2 will be much bigger than the current unit of at all.
 
Now that the 3DS is finally well and truly dead, I could see the [REDACTED] MINI being a clamshell rather than a Lite. If it proves a popular platform they could do both: a premium Mini with an optional seperate dock, and a budget Lite with no clamshell and no dock.

I think it would fit well in the market the same way there are three models of Switch around right now.
pray for 4nm

Any rumblings from GDC yet?
Nvidia's pathtracing sdk is out
 
Sorry, but I'm with the others saying you can easily solve this using an accessory (that could even come in the box with the switch 2 (I doubt, but...)), or just buy one that already exists. I don't see this as a reason to stop progress (I don't see how to make it really better using the same design) just because "I want to charge through the console!"
Bizarre.
 
0
there are a ton of ways to visually distinguish the device without compromising on size

It's not "compromising", it's just choosing to design a next generation console that isn't exactly the same size as its predecessor to the millimetre. Maybe it's a bit thicker, maybe a bit thinner, maybe a bit taller or shorter or whatever. Maybe it's a bit thicker at the bottom and thinner at the top to cleanly integrate with more ergonomic Joy-Cons. There's lots of room for them to change the size and shape of [redacted] without it being any less portable than the Switch. Not being exactly the same size as the current Switch doesn't mean it's suddenly going to become as big as the Steam Deck.

Yes, there are ways to differentiate it from the original Switch without changing the size of the device, but there are far more ways of differentiating it without arbitrarily constraining yourself to exactly the same size and shape of the original Switch. I'm open to the possibility that whatever Nintendo releases next is going to be basically the same size and shape as the Switch, and I'm also open to the possibility that they're going to change things up a bit. I just don't think, as was claimed in the post I was originally responding to, that the design of Nintendo's next generation console is going to be constrained by trying to retain compatibility with something they consider a spare part.

It seems plausible, but that was also likely before T239 was finalized, so I don't think it's the only possible explanation.

I considered this, but I'd expect that I/O requirements are probably one of the first things to be defined when designing a chip like this, particularly as Nvidia have had to design a custom UPHY DisplayPort interface for Nintendo in this case. More importantly, though, why would they go to the trouble of writing software to support switching between four lane DisplayPort and USB 3, and promoting it to a full release, if the hardware team hadn't even decided whether the hardware would support it yet?

I suspect that the project that gave us the OLED model was originally supposed to be some kind of model with 4K output. TX1 supports four lane DisplayPort 1.2a (on a shared interface with HDMI), and the original Switch USB-C crossbar switch supported four lanes of DP1.2, with the missing link being the original dock, which supports four lanes of DP1.2, but is limited to HDMI 1.4 on the output side. The OLED dock rectified this with HDMI 2.0 output, and the "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" setting was added in the same update as initial support for the OLED dock, and IIRC a few other OLED model (Aula) updates as well. My guess is that it's a leftover from when Aula was intended to have some kind of 4K functionality, or perhaps 4K support was still planned when they were working on 12.0.
 
I considered this, but I'd expect that I/O requirements are probably one of the first things to be defined when designing a chip like this, particularly as Nvidia have had to design a custom UPHY DisplayPort interface for Nintendo in this case. More importantly, though, why would they go to the trouble of writing software to support switching between four lane DisplayPort and USB 3, and promoting it to a full release, if the hardware team hadn't even decided whether the hardware would support it yet?

I suspect that the project that gave us the OLED model was originally supposed to be some kind of model with 4K output. TX1 supports four lane DisplayPort 1.2a (on a shared interface with HDMI), and the original Switch USB-C crossbar switch supported four lanes of DP1.2, with the missing link being the original dock, which supports four lanes of DP1.2, but is limited to HDMI 1.4 on the output side. The OLED dock rectified this with HDMI 2.0 output, and the "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" setting was added in the same update as initial support for the OLED dock, and IIRC a few other OLED model (Aula) updates as well. My guess is that it's a leftover from when Aula was intended to have some kind of 4K functionality, or perhaps 4K support was still planned when they were working on 12.0.

Actually, to follow this up, I'm browsing through switchbrew.org, and I do see one other reference that I missed. In nvservices, there's a configuration setting called "external_display_full_dp_lanes", which was added a year earlier in 10.0 and is true for Aula but false for everything else. Although the original Switch SoC and crossbar both supported four lanes of DisplayPort 1.2, I don't know if they actually wired all four lanes up, given that they only ever intended it to output 1080p. This setting may indicate that Aula is the only hardware where use of the full set of four DP lanes to an external display is actually supported.
 
It's not "compromising", it's just choosing to design a next generation console that isn't exactly the same size as its predecessor to the millimetre. Maybe it's a bit thicker, maybe a bit thinner, maybe a bit taller or shorter or whatever. Maybe it's a bit thicker at the bottom and thinner at the top to cleanly integrate with more ergonomic Joy-Cons. There's lots of room for them to change the size and shape of [redacted] without it being any less portable than the Switch. Not being exactly the same size as the current Switch doesn't mean it's suddenly going to become as big as the Steam Deck.

Yes, there are ways to differentiate it from the original Switch without changing the size of the device, but there are far more ways of differentiating it without arbitrarily constraining yourself to exactly the same size and shape of the original Switch. I'm open to the possibility that whatever Nintendo releases next is going to be basically the same size and shape as the Switch, and I'm also open to the possibility that they're going to change things up a bit. I just don't think, as was claimed in the post I was originally responding to, that the design of Nintendo's next generation console is going to be constrained by trying to retain compatibility with something they consider a spare part.
I think a reset from the Switch family and its peripherals would be undesirable, but I guess this wouldn't be the case for Nintendo or most customers. I'll always see breaking away from the Switch dimensions as a compromise, but I see how it'd just be an independent decision that I'd personally really, really hate
 
0
This popped up on my Twitter feed. All rumor, but definitely interesting if true.


it's been dismissed to death but I just want to add that this is one of the worst websites for this stuff, period. like, it's "block the account" calibre bad
 
see, to me the unwieldy size of the switch makes portable mode feel like an afterthought (though tabletop definitely redeems it somewhat). that being said, I think it's a decent compromise size, and I'm sure it's as small as was technically justifiable.

I do see the argument for a bigger switch 2, though: the switch already falls outside of portable territory, so why not further improve "home handheld" ergonomics and the screen size for tabletop mode? personally I see that as a diversion from a form factor that I've come to really love, so I'm averse to it.
Yeah, your point of view is totally understandable, it's just that I have more or less given up on the idea of the Switch as a proper handheld console. Might as well drop the pretenses and make it into a dope tabletop device, ideally with an advanced kickstand solution similar to the iPad Magic Keyboard.
 
I considered this, but I'd expect that I/O requirements are probably one of the first things to be defined when designing a chip like this, particularly as Nvidia have had to design a custom UPHY DisplayPort interface for Nintendo in this case. More importantly, though, why would they go to the trouble of writing software to support switching between four lane DisplayPort and USB 3, and promoting it to a full release, if the hardware team hadn't even decided whether the hardware would support it yet?

I suspect that the project that gave us the OLED model was originally supposed to be some kind of model with 4K output. TX1 supports four lane DisplayPort 1.2a (on a shared interface with HDMI), and the original Switch USB-C crossbar switch supported four lanes of DP1.2, with the missing link being the original dock, which supports four lanes of DP1.2, but is limited to HDMI 1.4 on the output side. The OLED dock rectified this with HDMI 2.0 output, and the "4kdp_preferred_over_usb30" setting was added in the same update as initial support for the OLED dock, and IIRC a few other OLED model (Aula) updates as well. My guess is that it's a leftover from when Aula was intended to have some kind of 4K functionality, or perhaps 4K support was still planned when they were working on 12.0.
It does seem quite likely that Switch OLED isn't what it was originally intended to be. The timing would seem to align with when they'd be at least getting close to the initial factory image for Switch OLED. I have thought for some time that that and the red box Switch are leftovers from a cancelled Switch Pro.

That said, either way, this is an unused feature that managed to slip out into production. That's not exactly an uncommon thing in software. The facts probably support a scrapped/reworked Switch 1 model better, but I don't think it's 100% conclusive
 
This popped up on my Twitter feed. All rumor, but definitely interesting if true.


It’s fascinating how this is now a „3D Open World DK“ that Nintendo is working on. This will definitely create false expectations. I looked at all his content, and NintendoPrime does not know if the game was cancelled or continued at Nintendo. The clickbaity approach to talk about this game as if it would exist and release on Switch 2 is such a stretch from the real information that was making rounds.
 
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