Yep, and besides, Nintendo has Valve syndrome.Start to speak about Switch 3 when drake is release, i think is unnecesary and too early.
But with the 4, poor Metroid PrimeYep, and besides, Nintendo has Valve syndrome.
There is a limit to what they can do without a sensor bar. The motion controls in the joy-cons are about as good as it is possible to get with a camera involved. We're speculated about using RF to guess position but you're limited by the low frequency of the waveform.And I really hope Nintendo will come with better motion control (VR ready). I believe there's still a lot of potential on this even for 'flat games'. I would also include in the box a precise capacitive stylus so we could play DS on handheld mode (using just the tablet in portrait, with virtual buttons when needed).
Because it's neat? And because, in japan especially, couch multiplayer still has cachet.why create some new solution for asymmetric multiplayer when the answer that Nintendo wants is technically easier anyway?
better still, a lot more people are going to have multiple switches when the device is launched
a nintendoland port that uses a drake for the TV and a gen 1 as the gamepad might be a fun pack-in
There is a limit to what they can do without a sensor bar.
I was unclear: the solution nintendo wants and arguably has is multiple switches per householdBecause it's neat? And because, in japan especially, couch multiplayer still has cachet.
And because it is difficult to recreate the exact setup of shared information. Playing Mario chase partially depends on everyone chasing sharing a screen and the player being able to glance up at anytime and gain the same info.
Oh yeah I know. But I think that the big screen is a totally different experience.I was unclear: the solution nintendo wants and arguably has is multiple switches per household
??? one switch is docked, the other is the gamepadOh yeah I know. But I think that the big screen is a totally different experience.
The switch is that though, just done right.Here's a prediction: Nintendo isn't touching with a 5 meters pole whatever is specific to the Wii u concept. This console is cursed.
Wii U concept was asymmetrical gameplay and off-tv play. The Switch only covers the latter. I like that the possibility of revisiting the former is entertained here but generally I really don't think it is worth it.The switch is that though, just done right.
makes more sense to dock the console and use a smartphone app for local second-screen streaming. Make a cheap plastic phone holder to attach to a pro controller, or one to slot some JoyCons into, and bob’s your uncle.Wii U concept was asymmetrical gameplay and off-tv play. The Switch only covers the latter. I like that the possibility of revisiting the former is entertained here but generally I really don't think it is worth it.
I don't think even a lite drake would use wireless streaming to the TV. Its an inferior solution to just dropping the device into a docking station.
Greater latency.
Doesn't charge the device whilst playing.
Worst fidelity than docked running higher clock speeds.
The only benefit is cost reduction not having to provide a dedicated Dock, but in reality I believe a Dock would still be needed as not all tvs support the right casting protocol.
For a device you would want to use online it would also pose another issue as the 5ghz channel of the device would have to be used to broadcast video so netplay would be restricted to inferior 2.4ghz, making online play even worse.
The wireless casting to me seems like tech for the sake of tech. The USBC method Nintendo has now is a simple solution that just works. Much like wireless charging being inferior to just plugging a cable in, in the majority of situations.
The switch is that though, just done right.
6+" 1080p 120 Hz OLED displays also exist and are increasingly used in smartphones nowadays. In fact, more than half of the smartphones in the link use 6+" 1080p 120 Hz OLED displays.Let's entertain the idea of VR this gen:
6+ inches 1080 and 1440p, 90hz Samsung OLED displays are very common in the smartphone market. The problem being they're nearly all 20:9 instead of 16:9.
But I believe considering the spec is being used on even the cheaper phones (300$ and lower), a small, 16:9 notchless process would be even more feasible.
The question here is whether or not they would go for 1440 considering 1080p would be around 540p per eye.
But I think if VR was the gimmick for this gen, nintendo would probably not go balls to the wall with it instead, focusing more on the overall experience and the whole gimmick of it.
I don't use VR headsets, but I'd like to ask those more experienced if 540p would be at the very least, "somewhat acceptable" if the lenses were adjusted properly to compensate and proper aliasing in-game was used.
They could go for a 1920x1080p@90hz sammy OLED display and then, launch a 1440p iteration a couple years later counting on DLSS to aid them.
It specially makes sense considering how they could run switch games in docked mode (targeting close to 1080p resolutions) under drake in portable mode.
Also: I'm considering 1600x900 @ 90hz as an interesting proposition, but I don't know any displays being manufactured nowadays at that specific resolution....
Bruh, we gonna have Playstation 9 and be hooked up to a Sony version of Matrix by then.I think 2043 is a good year for drakes successor’s sucessor’s sucessor to launch.
The best scenario because both Sony and MS will be out of business by then so it will be a pretty clean launch without much competition.
Oh hey look it's the Zelda timeline
It could also use Color TV-Game above NES.That timeline including the Virtual Boy but not Game and Watch, the true Game Boy predecessor ? Lmao
yeah, the inexplicable suggestion that gameboy is descended from nes kind of ruins the chart for meThat timeline including the Virtual Boy but not Game and Watch, the true Game Boy predecessor ? Lmao
My problem is believing they would target 120FPS in VR this gen.6+" 1080p 120 Hz OLED displays also exist and are increasingly used in smartphones nowadays. In fact, more than half of the smartphones in the link use 6+" 1080p 120 Hz OLED displays.
I assume there's no expectation of VRR support as well? As far as I know, all of the OLED displays with VRR support are at least ~1080p with a 120 Hz refresh rate.My problem is believing they would target 120FPS in VR this gen.
720p, 900p or even 1080p at 90hz seems more feasible.
ooo wouldn't it be great if a little yellow rodent fella with insider info said anything about HFR support on drake...
I like that the Virtual Boy is just shunted in there with no actual lines connecting it to anything else.That timeline including the Virtual Boy but not Game and Watch, the true Game Boy predecessor ? Lmao
I thought about this way before the oled model, had a lot of discussions about resolution (everbody is "720 is more then enough" so paying for the higher resolution just for VR was not a popular proposal...Let's entertain the idea of VR this gen:
6+ inches 1080 and 1440p, 90hz Samsung OLED displays are very common in the smartphone market. The problem being they're nearly all 20:9 instead of 16:9.
But I believe considering the spec is being used on even the cheaper phones (300$ and lower), a small, 16:9 notchless process would be even more feasible.
The question here is whether or not they would go for 1440 considering 1080p would be around 540p per eye.
But I think if VR was the gimmick for this gen, nintendo would probably not go balls to the wall with it instead, focusing more on the overall experience and the whole gimmick of it.
I don't use VR headsets, but I'd like to ask those more experienced if 540p would be at the very least, "somewhat acceptable" if the lenses were adjusted properly to compensate and proper aliasing in-game was used.
They could go for a 1920x1080p@90hz sammy OLED display and then, launch a 1440p iteration a couple years later counting on DLSS to aid them.
It specially makes sense considering how they could run switch games in docked mode (targeting close to 1080p resolutions) under drake in portable mode.
Also: I'm considering 1600x900 @ 90hz as an interesting proposition, but I don't know any displays being manufactured nowadays at that specific resolution....
Given the Switch Lite still needed a fan, to get to something like this or smaller, the SoC needs another die shrink to run at docked clocks and probably a good heat sink solution.It could also use Color TV-Game above NES.
And the entire Playstation line as an offshoot of the SNES /s
EDIT: If Nintendo ever makes another TV-only console (or even just a screenless permadocked Switch variant) they should let Miyamoto design the shell of it. Look at this!
Actually, thinking more on it, I don't want a new design. Just slap Mariko in that beautiful thing and sell it for $149.99 and call it a day. And yes, I want to keep the dial, and the exact shade of orange.
Not to mention they still don’t have Netflix.Given the Switch Lite still needed a fan, to get to something like this or smaller, the SoC needs another die shrink to run at docked clocks and probably a good heat sink solution.
Strangely Nintendo was in the Smart TV space well before anyone else. Wii was increadibly popular as a Netflix box in the 2nd half of the 2000s. And they simply did not consider it a market worth going after and let Roku and Amazon fill in the space. I don't see a TV box like this as something Nintendo will pursue. Switch is ubiquitous and will likely remain in production for several more years. A TV box like that is expected to sell in the sub $150 range and add in the need for controller support and it's not really a high priority for them. They probably rather redirect the parts to higher margin Switch consoles or the successor.
This has always been my position with TV only Switch, it's serving a market that's already served. The cost savings of not needing a screen and battery is offset by an equally large drop in perceived value. They can't sell a dockless Switch for the same price as a hybrid model, so the $50-80 they save will be eaten up by the price difference.
I forgot to mention that although this has nothing to do with VR, Nintendo did consider using a 120 Hz screen for Project Indy. So never say never.My problem is believing they would target 120FPS in VR this gen.
they might have just thrown everything on the paper that was technically possible. 120Hz with that proposed hardware (or even the TX1) would have been quite unfeasible outside of some extreme game designsI forgot to mention that although this has nothing to do with VR, Nintendo did consider using a 120 Hz screen for Project Indy. So never say never.
Depends what resolution I suppose. Maybe at 480p for select games.they might have just thrown everything on the paper that was technically possible. 120Hz with that proposed hardware (or even the TX1) would have been quite unfeasible outside of some extreme game designs
Let's entertain the idea of VR this gen:
6+ inches 1080 and 1440p, 90hz Samsung OLED displays are very common in the smartphone market. The problem being they're nearly all 20:9 instead of 16:9.
But I believe considering the spec is being used on even the cheaper phones (300$ and lower), a small, 16:9 notchless process would be even more feasible.
The question here is whether or not they would go for 1440 considering 1080p would be around 540p per eye.
But I think if VR was the gimmick for this gen, nintendo would probably not go balls to the wall with it instead, focusing more on the overall experience and the whole gimmick of it.
I don't use VR headsets, but I'd like to ask those more experienced if 540p would be at the very least, "somewhat acceptable" if the lenses were adjusted properly to compensate and proper aliasing in-game was used.
They could go for a 1920x1080p@90hz sammy OLED display and then, launch a 1440p iteration a couple years later counting on DLSS to aid them.
It specially makes sense considering how they could run switch games in docked mode (targeting close to 1080p resolutions) under drake in portable mode.
Also: I'm considering 1600x900 @ 90hz as an interesting proposition, but I don't know any displays being manufactured nowadays at that specific resolution....
if it is pursued, it will be as an add on like LABO, but probably done better. The Switch configuration is well suited for this, and it will be wireless and be much cheaper. But generally agree VR is still way to cumbursome from prime time.Honestly, I don't think Switch VR can be worth it next to the PSVR2's high res screens, eye-tracking, and foveated rendering.
I’m going to be honest here and I don’t mean to be rude, but this is silly comparison to make.Honestly, I don't think Switch VR can be worth it next to the PSVR2's high res screens, eye-tracking, and foveated rendering.
X360, PS3, Xbox One, PS4 all went 7-8 years. I don't think PS5 and Series lasting about the same is anything they wouldn't have already been figuring on. Anything major they release next year is going to have a lifespan closer to that than just 3 years.How do you guys think Nintendo is taking the news that both Sony and Microsoft won’t release a new console till 2028? Would this affect whether Nintendo drops a pro or switch 2 next year? With this news I think it’d make more sense for Nintendo to release a pro next year and ride it till 2026
Taking the Wii's most core feature and pushing it aside to give prominence to a standard gamepad + screen is not what I consider iterating on Wii.To be fair, iterating on the Wii brought the WiiU. Iteratin on SNES brought N64 and GC
1440 was good for cheap VR 5 years ago. And it would be a real waste to give a much higher resolution screen and arbitrarily limit flatties to using 720p.How about a 1440@120 display to enable VR? 1440 is enough resolution for VR, and in normal gaming mode it could be locked at 720@60 to save battery life and prevent handheld mode from overshadowing docked mode
Using a 1080p screen it wouldn't be 540p per eye, but about 960x1080 per eye. That was what the Oculus Rift DK2 did, which was fair enough for 2014.I don't use VR headsets, but I'd like to ask those more experienced if 540p would be at the very least, "somewhat acceptable" if the lenses were adjusted properly to compensate and proper aliasing in-game was used.
That timeline including the Virtual Boy but not Game and Watch, the true Game Boy predecessor ? Lmao
Both NES and Game Boy were versatile systems with interchangeable cartridges and the exact same button layout. They have a lot more in common with each other than either does with Game & Watch lineup, other than the portability factor.yeah, the inexplicable suggestion that gameboy is descended from nes kind of ruins the chart for me
it also implies nes was a hybrid lmfao
No offense taken. I’m specifically talking about the combined benefit of Foveated Rendering + eye tracking, which allows the PSVR2 to cut down on overall rendering workload by like 50% with little perceivable visual difference. A Drake VR solution wouldn’t bring any such advantage, nor would it benefit from tech like inside-out tracking that would allow it to compete more directly with something like the Meta Quest, unless Nintendo really put some serious weight behind it as an expensive add-on. Basically, I worry it would all seem a bit rinky-dink versus its direct competition, and unappealing as a result.I’m going to be honest here and I don’t mean to be rude, but this is silly comparison to make.
If we are going to compare the two, the only thing missing would be a high resolution display most assuredly.
But the architecture in Drake already has support for VRS that can do Foveated rendering.
Nintendo is no stranger to head tracking, doing it on the NEW 3DS. Nvidia has specialized hardware that is able to do tracking of moving objects, which is why ORIN has Optical Flow Accelerators. This hardware is more important in automotive because you wouldn’t want to drive into a pedestrian.
And to access PSVR2, you need to pay at least $1050 (in the US) to access not only the base console but also the VR device. For something like the hypothetical Switch VR, you wouldn’t even need to pay that much.
The two aren’t comparable at all.
We can argue over what makes a 'true predecessor' to the Game Boy. The Game and Watch should still be included for a complete picture of Nintendo's console timeline - it even originated Nintendo's d-pad cross design - and it's a part of Yokoi's legacy. But this is just my particular obsession for gaming history.Both NES and Game Boy were versatile systems with interchangeable cartridges and the exact same button layout. They have a lot more in common with each other than either does with Game & Watch lineup, other than the portability factor.
Felt the same... The Hori Split Pro Controller is a real game changer for handheld play.to give the wii U credit it's the most ergonimic system with a built-in screen of the lot. I struggled with everything in the handheld line (including Switch) after the DS Phat because they're just too square & uncomfortable.
….why wouldn’t it bring any such advantage? The feature is built into the hardware, it’s not an add-on.I’m specifically talking about the combined benefit of Foveated Rendering + eye tracking, which allows the PSVR2 to cut down on overall rendering workload by like 50% with little perceivable visual difference. A Drake VR solution wouldn’t bring any such advantage