• 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!)

A 64GB 100+MB/s read SD card on amazon is 10$ (cheaper from china actually). The switch cartridge technology is iirc very similar albeit with a different form factor. I find it very hard to believe that switch cartridges currently are 200% hell, even 150-175% faster than that.
Let alone the fact that switch cartridges are read-only, unlike 3ds ones.
Most indie devs on switch are third parties selling games for ~35 to 50$. But they aren't using 16 nor 32GB carts, their games are most of the time under 10GB so they end up using 8GB or less carts as far as I'm aware.
You're right. 100MB/s is a great speed for next gen gaming. Nintendo should totally use 100mb/s carts in the next switch. My arguments have been torn asunder!

And your point about Indie games is also spot on. Indie games are the only games Nintendo will be considering.
 
Has there been further information on how the Drake Switch will achieve backward compatibility given the shader issue? Or is it something we don’t have details/informed speculation on right now and just have to assume NVIDIA and Nintendo will find a way? I think there were some home brewers/data miners vehemently against the idea that this could be achieved but maybe they just have a limited perspective.
 
You're right. 100MB/s is a great speed for next gen gaming. Nintendo should totally use 100mb/s carts in the next switch. My arguments have been torn asunder!

And your point about Indie games is also spot on. Indie games are the only games Nintendo will be considering.
Ideally it would be good for Nitendo to push up the speed a bit, but frankly the storage systems on XS and especially PS5 are quite overengineered. There's no need for Nintendo to match them. 100MB/s of solid state storage will perform quite a lot better than PS4/X1 when paired with a CPU that can keep up.
why not let the cartridges be slow and just install the games from them? the industry already solved this problem
Carts probably aren't even the real obstacle. There's 5+ years of tech advancement there that it doesn't seem like Nintendo is currently leveraging. The real issue is the expandable storage, where (standardized) options that are both fast and mature are currently lacking.
 
Carts probably aren't even the real obstacle. There's 5+ years of tech advancement there that it doesn't seem like Nintendo is currently leveraging. The real issue is the expandable storage, where (standardized) options that are both fast and mature are currently lacking.
Yeah, that's aligned with my thinking. It makes no sense to use bleeding edge storage for distribution when the goal should instead be improvements to how the system stores games
 
Has there been further information on how the Drake Switch will achieve backward compatibility given the shader issue? Or is it something we don’t have details/informed speculation on right now and just have to assume NVIDIA and Nintendo will find a way? I think there were some home brewers/data miners vehemently against the idea that this could be achieved but maybe they just have a limited perspective.
There are no leaks on the subject, only informed speculation. The graphics code that has leaked is stuff that deals with native games.

Certain figures in the homebrew and emulation community have strong opinions on the subject, but many, myself included, think they're just catastrophizing and acting like the issue is much more insurmountable than it actually is.
 
What, and cannibalize Zelda sales? Supply will be limited, and players will hold back till they can get the new device so they can have the full Zelda experience! Extreme backlash from the fans who have been waiting since 2019 for a game and now only have the "lesser" experience

Nintendo's well aware of the challenges of launching their next system. If Furukawa cares that much about very minor cannibalization of sales over launching their next system in the absolute best slate possible, I'd be a bit concerned about the new system.

And I heard the same song and dance for why BotW wont launch on the NX as well because of "backlash" (go read the discussion for when it got announced for the NX). If TotK is any good and does well with critics and players, it's weird to imagine there's going to be any "extreme backlash" that Nintendo will factor in. I'm sure the few guys seething over NX BotW have gotten over it too.
 
Honestly, the problem with the 2017 and 2019 switch displays isn't even the fact that it's LCD.
It's the fact that the digitizer cover is made of the cheapest plastic known to man.
The way light passes through covers on lcd panels affects so much the resulting image it's absurd.

Like, one of the things that pisses me off the most about PC monitors is how NONE absolutely NO PC monitor on the market has a glossy finish (except for the recent crowd-funded EVE spectrum and the apple ones which are stupidly expensive anyways).

Had the switch a gorilla glass cover like any phone on the market today I believe there would be a considerable improvement in clarity and blacks presentation on the v1/v2 switches.

Here's a good comparison of the worst-case scenario (matte covers) vs the best case (a glass glossy cover). The switch's cover is a in-between I'd say.



I do have an OLED samsung phone and I know the difference OLED makes. But I still think IPS LCD is a great technology under the right circumstances
(close to 100% sRGB coverage, at least 1000:1 contrast ratio or above, glass cover, ~=<5ms input lag, anti-flicker (no PWM), little to no ghosting issues).
Hell, even 8bit colour through FRC is imo completely acceptable. To be honest, for a cheap ass device like a portable console, I think even ~70-80% sRGB is fine as long as the contrast ratio is decent, and a glass cover is used.


It’s the air gap between the digitizer and the screen/cover. Laminated LCD screens look fine. The iPhone XR is even better than the OLED (especially with grey shades) to my eyes.
 
0
Every game company wants to go digital only: they'll make more money and cut out the middle man. Each generation they will consider it and look at factors such as cost to produce media, consumer behavior, internet infrastructure, etc before making a decision. It's not silly entertainment, it's a business decision. But by all means, stifle discussion of something new in lieu of the same old conversations about ram amount, clock speed, thermals, and launch date.
I don’t think I’m stifling discussion, because you’ve been on and on with this subject for a while, people already gave their points about how it doesn’t make sense for it to happen on their next hardware (with enough context for you to understand), but the subject is still dragging…

And the thing is, we could totally discuss new forms of distribution of their games, but even then we would need to touch on subjects like storage speed and price per GB. But at the end of the day, you’re distracting people from discussing this because you say Nintendo should do this on their upcoming hardware as if there are only benefits, even though others are pointing out how the cons heavily outweigh the pros. And you’re not only saying they should, you’re saying they will, and that it’s clear as day even though their competitors who rely in digital sales even more than Nintendo are still not there yet. It’s a very bold assumption to make, so everyone is focusing on that…

We can keep discussing a digital-only future, but I think the discussion would go more smoothly if you considered the points others are making and tried to at least challenge them if you disagree. At this moment, it just seems you’re not listening anyway.
 
Every game company wants to go digital only: they'll make more money and cut out the middle man. Each generation they will consider it and look at factors such as cost to produce media, consumer behavior, internet infrastructure, etc before making a decision. It's not silly entertainment, it's a business decision. But by all means, stifle discussion of something new in lieu of the same old conversations about ram amount, clock speed, thermals, and launch date.
Also remember that Nintendo is a toy maker. And toy makers makes physical toys you can buy for your children as a gift on christmas or birthday. A digital purchase would be very underwhelming for a child.
 
"It launches with Tears of the Kingdom, which has upgrades for Drake" - What, and cannibalize Zelda sales? Supply will be limited, and players will hold back till they can get the new device so they can have the full Zelda experience! Extreme backlash from the fans who have been waiting since 2019 for a game and now only have the "lesser" experience
still the best course of action. the game is playable on their old switches. even if they hold out for drake, it's worth it for nintendo because people have shown to be patient enough with PS5 and Series X. besides, it's gonna cost more anyway.



in other news, Unreal Engine 5 is now on version 5.2. what does it have to do with drake? nothing, but it's fun to note. 5.1 launches next month
 
Manufacturing seems imminent, if not already begun. Linux drivers are out, Orin is well past its initial deliveries. We're not a year+ out from launch. I don't know how Nintendo launches this device in the next 9 months, but it seems obvious they're going to.

It seems like Nintendo can't do a big Next Gen rollout, because they've not been softening the ground for it, and there isn't a lot of time.

It seems like Nintendo can't do a New 3DS drop-it-in-a-direct style launch, because it's a giant upgrade.

So they'll either have to do something that seems wrong, or invent a third thing. A generational leap in an identical form factor is a totally new thing for Nintendo, and there is no way to "solve" the launch strategy puzzle by stringing together precedents. I could make a persuasive argument against any launch timing you like.

"It launches with Tears of the Kingdom, which has upgrades for Drake" - What, and cannibalize Zelda sales? Supply will be limited, and players will hold back till they can get the new device so they can have the full Zelda experience! Extreme backlash from the fans who have been waiting since 2019 for a game and now only have the "lesser" experience

"It launches with TotK, but TotK has almost no upgrades for Drake, same as the other cross-gen Zelda games" - This is a generational leap in technology! Wii had motion controls, Switch had portability - why would you launch hardware with a launch title that doesn't show it off? Why would Zelda be your launch title, if it doesn't play any better on the device you're trying to launch?

"it launches before TotK, Q1 2023" - When? And with what title? Announce in January for, what, a March release? That's 6-8 weeks of lead time, that's nothing. What could possibly be the launch title that we don't know about? How is there a big title in H1 2023 that isn't ground to a paste by Zelda, or we haven't heard of? You're saying there is a 3D Mario that is going to go out with 6 weeks of warning? Or maybe no title at all?

"it launches after TotK" - When do they announce it then? E3, launch in October? If you're going to wait till the Switch is 6.5 years old to announce new hardware, why not just do an ordinary generational style launch, get the time pressure off, set yourself up for success.

"It announces March but launches in September, with a nice 6 month promo window" - again, you're going to just launch Zelda, the biggest title of the year halfway through the promo window of your next hardware?

"It announces tomorrow, launches in February" HOLIDAY SALES!!!!

And so on. I have no idea what Nintendo intends, though I'm having fun playing the game, I can counterfactual all day long. We know so much about the SOC, but the marketing plan is clearly missing pieces. Guessing Nintendo's software launch strategy is tricky enough, but we know there are at least 11 games in some level of Drake dev for 18 months+ and we only have hints for what two of them might be.

As I see it, doesn't matter when or how they launch the switch 2; it's going to sell everything they can produce, no matter what. So I think the only question is when it's more favorable for them in terms of cost and availability.
 
I get that there's so much we don't know, but it almost feels like Drake launching with TotK just isn't clever enough for some people. Though on the other hand, I guess just waiting to see if the most obvious course plays out isn't very much fun either lol and also goes against the point of a speculation thread.

Anyway, my speculation is there's nothing set for March yet because that's when the February Direct will be. And it'll be a doozy.
 
Nintendo's well aware of the challenges of launching their next system. If Furukawa cares that much about very minor cannibalization of sales over launching their next system in the absolute best slate possible, I'd be a bit concerned about the new system.
As we've discussed before, what the "best slate" is for Drake depends heavily on how they position it, a thing we don't know

And I heard the same song and dance for why BotW wont launch on the NX as well because of "backlash" (go read the discussion for when it got announced for the NX). If TotK is any good and does well with critics and players, it's weird to imagine there's going to be any "extreme backlash" that Nintendo will factor in. I'm sure the few guys seething over NX BotW have gotten over it too.
I don’t think you’re wrong, but I do think that your responding to something other than my point. My point wasn't that this narrative was true, my point was to game out multiple possible strategies. People playing Breath of the Wild on Wii U did not get a compromised experience, and people playing BotW on Switch got to experience the device's key selling point - that it was portable. If you're launching a new Switch whose USP is a generational leap in power, then you cannot do that again. Either the base Switch version and the Drake version are basically the same, or the Drake version shows off what the device can do.

Which of those is most useful to Nintendo depends on how Nintendo wants to position the hardware - but also what else they might launch with it, and we know that there are at least 9 launch year games for the device we haven't heard of. The number of known unknowns here is high.

I can tell you with 95% confidence what the CPU L1 cache miss rate for BC games running on Drake, along with the associated pipeline penalty for a miss, but not only is marketing not my strong suit, but Nintendo is going to do something unprecedented no matter what strategy they use, and they have chess pieces on the board we haven't even heard of to execute that strategy.

Fun to speculate? Yes. Clinically dangerous levels of salt required for each take? Also yes
 
My take on two core points

"It launches with Tears of the Kingdom, which has upgrades for Drake" - What, and cannibalize Zelda sales? Supply will be limited, and players will hold back till they can get the new device so they can have the full Zelda experience! Extreme backlash from the fans who have been waiting since 2019 for a game and now only have the "lesser" experience
"It launches with TotK, but TotK has almost no upgrades for Drake, same as the other cross-gen Zelda games" - This is a generational leap in technology! Wii had motion controls, Switch had portability - why would you launch hardware with a launch title that doesn't show it off? Why would Zelda be your launch title, if it doesn't play any better on the device you're trying to launch?
We are expecting graphical and performance upgrades, just like with Breath of the Wild with had : better resolution/framerate (+ portability) vs the WiiU version.
Nobody complained

"it launches before TotK, Q1 2023" - When? And with what title? Announce in January for, what, a March release? That's 6-8 weeks of lead time, that's nothing. What could possibly be the launch title that we don't know about? How is there a big title in H1 2023 that isn't ground to a paste by Zelda, or we haven't heard of? You're saying there is a 3D Mario that is going to go out with 6 weeks of warning? Or maybe no title at all?
The Switch launch line-up was unknown until January 2017. Zelda was already announced but not dated (just like Pikmin 4 for instance) while the other Nintendo 1st party game at launch was unnanounced (1-2 Switch).

Either way, even without Drake, we would find it odd that they have one game in January, another one in February but none in March-April when it is a very busy timeframe for them

March 2017 : Breath of the Wild, 1-2 Switch
April 2017 : Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

March 2018 : Kirby
April 2018 : Nintendo Labo

March 2019 : Yoshi
April 2019 :

March 2020 : Animal Crossing, Pokémon MD DX
April 2020 : /

March 2021 : Monster Hunter Rise
April 2021 : New Pokemon Snap

March 2022 : Triangle Strategy, Kirby
April 2022 : Switch Sports

The two only spot empty were April 2019 and 2020 which were likely a consequence of delays (Fire Emblem out of Spring, COVID in 2020).

It is not a mere pattern either. March is the end of the FY (meaning the game can benefit two FYs) while April has Golden Week in Japan.
 
My take on two core points



We are expecting graphical and performance upgrades, just like with Breath of the Wild with had : better resolution/framerate (+ portability) vs the WiiU version.
Nobody complained
Lots of folks complained, but I'm not sure it's relevant. And BotW didn't have higher framerate. And the portability was a USP of Switch that isn't the USP of drake. They are not comparable situations.
The Switch launch line-up was unknown until January 2017. Zelda was already announced but not dated (just like Pikmin 4 for instance) while the other Nintendo 1st party game at launch was unnanounced (1-2 Switch).

Either way, even without Drake, we would find it odd that they have one game in January, another one in February but none in March-April when it is a very busy timeframe for them

March 2017 : Breath of the Wild, 1-2 Switch
April 2017 : Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

March 2018 : Kirby
April 2018 : Nintendo Labo

March 2019 : Yoshi
April 2019 :

March 2020 : Animal Crossing, Pokémon MD DX
April 2020 : /

March 2021 : Monster Hunter Rise
April 2021 : New Pokemon Snap

March 2022 : Triangle Strategy, Kirby
April 2022 : Switch Sports

The two only spot empty were April 2019 and 2020 which were likely a consequence of delays (Fire Emblem out of Spring, COVID in 2020).

It is not a mere pattern either. March is the end of the FY (meaning the game can benefit two FYs) while April has Golden Week in Japan.
Yeah, I 100% agree on your analysis of the calendar.

I realize now that my post wasn't very clear. I'm not saying that any one of the multiple conflicting takes I presented is accurate. I'm saying that you cannot use precedent to guess about Nintendo's behavior in an unprecedented situation with any degree of confidence, especially when we know that they've got as many as 11+ 3rd party games in reserve.
 
Breath of the Wild on Wii U did not get a compromised experience
Eh, that's pretty debatable. Both on the more obvious level of the game performing worse and being subject to multiple technical peculiarities that make it unique among Wii U games, but also because the game clearly had more GamePad oriented controls before the Switch port was decided upon.
 
My take on two core points



We are expecting graphical and performance upgrades, just like with Breath of the Wild with had : better resolution/framerate (+ portability) vs the WiiU version.
Nobody complained


The Switch launch line-up was unknown until January 2017. Zelda was already announced but not dated (just like Pikmin 4 for instance) while the other Nintendo 1st party game at launch was unnanounced (1-2 Switch).

Either way, even without Drake, we would find it odd that they have one game in January, another one in February but none in March-April when it is a very busy timeframe for them

March 2017 : Breath of the Wild, 1-2 Switch
April 2017 : Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

March 2018 : Kirby
April 2018 : Nintendo Labo

March 2019 : Yoshi
April 2019 :

March 2020 : Animal Crossing, Pokémon MD DX
April 2020 : /

March 2021 : Monster Hunter Rise
April 2021 : New Pokemon Snap

March 2022 : Triangle Strategy, Kirby
April 2022 : Switch Sports

The two only spot empty were April 2019 and 2020 which were likely a consequence of delays (Fire Emblem out of Spring, COVID in 2020).

It is not a mere pattern either. March is the end of the FY (meaning the game can benefit two FYs) while April has Golden Week in Japan.
There's definitely gaps to be filled after winter, but to be fair, a third of those were announced the same year.
 
0
Lots of folks complained, but I'm not sure it's relevant. And BotW didn't have higher framerate. And the portability was a USP of Switch that isn't the USP of drake. They are not comparable situations.
I would say it had better framerate. The target was the same (30fps) but one platform reached it far more constantly than the other.
 
Nintendo cutting out the middle man for a digital-only console would not only leave rural fans who have minimal internet access out in the cold unable to download large file sizes that take days if not weeks to download, but it would also require Nintendo to have a functional web storefront in order to fulfill a multitude of Switch console orders and have them shipped out to individual addresses as opposed to distribution warehouses for the big box stores.

I'm sure anyone who recently went through the endeavour of acquiring Xenoblade 3 CEs online feels Nintendo is up to task in shipping out those shiny new console orders in a timely fashion, even if they do have anti-scalper software tech in place.

Or even anyone who's been trying to order their Steam Deck online with Valve, who arguably might have a stronger handle on this.
 
And the thing is, we could totally discuss new forms of distribution of their games, but even then we would need to touch on subjects like storage speed and price per GB. But at the end of the day, you’re distracting people from discussing this because you say Nintendo should do this on their upcoming hardware as if there are only benefits, even though others are pointing out how the cons heavily outweigh the pros. And you’re not only saying they should, you’re saying they will, and that it’s clear as day even though their competitors who rely in digital sales even more than Nintendo are still not there yet. It’s a very bold assumption to make, so everyone is focusing on that…
I invite you to reread my posts more carefully because I have done none of these things.
 
0
this is all well and good but that middle man sells the systems, controllers, and accessories
Best Buy sells tons of devices with digital storefronts. They dedicate a large part of their store to just selling apple devices. The middleman will keep middle-manning even if there's fewer plastic clamshells to line the the shelves. Not to say there's no repercussions, but Best Buy isn't going to stop selling Switch Pro Controllers.
 
Manufacturing seems imminent, if not already begun. Linux drivers are out, Orin is well past its initial deliveries. We're not a year+ out from launch. I don't know how Nintendo launches this device in the next 9 months, but it seems obvious they're going to.

It seems like Nintendo can't do a big Next Gen rollout, because they've not been softening the ground for it, and there isn't a lot of time.

It seems like Nintendo can't do a New 3DS drop-it-in-a-direct style launch, because it's a giant upgrade.

So they'll either have to do something that seems wrong, or invent a third thing. A generational leap in an identical form factor is a totally new thing for Nintendo, and there is no way to "solve" the launch strategy puzzle by stringing together precedents. I could make a persuasive argument against any launch timing you like.

"It launches with Tears of the Kingdom, which has upgrades for Drake" - What, and cannibalize Zelda sales? Supply will be limited, and players will hold back till they can get the new device so they can have the full Zelda experience! Extreme backlash from the fans who have been waiting since 2019 for a game and now only have the "lesser" experience

"It launches with TotK, but TotK has almost no upgrades for Drake, same as the other cross-gen Zelda games" - This is a generational leap in technology! Wii had motion controls, Switch had portability - why would you launch hardware with a launch title that doesn't show it off? Why would Zelda be your launch title, if it doesn't play any better on the device you're trying to launch?

"it launches before TotK, Q1 2023" - When? And with what title? Announce in January for, what, a March release? That's 6-8 weeks of lead time, that's nothing. What could possibly be the launch title that we don't know about? How is there a big title in H1 2023 that isn't ground to a paste by Zelda, or we haven't heard of? You're saying there is a 3D Mario that is going to go out with 6 weeks of warning? Or maybe no title at all?

"it launches after TotK" - When do they announce it then? E3, launch in October? If you're going to wait till the Switch is 6.5 years old to announce new hardware, why not just do an ordinary generational style launch, get the time pressure off, set yourself up for success.

"It announces March but launches in September, with a nice 6 month promo window" - again, you're going to just launch Zelda, the biggest title of the year halfway through the promo window of your next hardware?

"It announces tomorrow, launches in February" HOLIDAY SALES!!!!

And so on. I have no idea what Nintendo intends, though I'm having fun playing the game, I can counterfactual all day long. We know so much about the SOC, but the marketing plan is clearly missing pieces. Guessing Nintendo's software launch strategy is tricky enough, but we know there are at least 11 games in some level of Drake dev for 18 months+ and we only have hints for what two of them might be.

I think it's safe to say this isn't going to follow the pattern of any previous hardware roll out, either from Nintendo or Sony/MS. The circumstances are unique, and the leadership at Nintendo has changed since the Switch launch, let alone any other hardware launches in the past.

As I see it, the reasons you want to have time between reveal and release would be:
  1. Give time to show the hardware, and time for people to understand the unique features/form-factor
  2. Give time to show off the games in development for the new hardware
  3. Get the announcement in before everything gets leaked
  4. Your previous gen hardware is faltering, and you want to keep up interest in the brand by starting to reveal some info early
Item 1 doesn't really require much time these days, and particularly not for a new Switch. If the form factor stays the same, as we're expecting, there's not a lot to get across here.

Item 2 I think is usually the big one. Next gen console reveals are usually accompanied by new game reveals, and you want to give enough time for those games to have a decent amount of PR exposure before release. For the new Switch, I'm personally expecting all the launch window games to also run on the original model, so Nintendo can announce those before the new hardware. I would expect some third-party games that only run on the new hardware, but these games will already have been announced (or even released) for other consoles. Still, I think Nintendo would want to give some amount of time to show off games running on the new hardware. Better looking games than the original Switch (or good looking third party games not on the original Switch) seems to be the main selling point of the new device in the short term, so you would want to give some amount of time for in-depth showcases and press hands-on across the full range of games to really drive the point across.

Item 3 is also a likely factor, as the closer you get to launch the bigger the possibility of leaks, as you run through manufacturing, distribution and retail channels. Then again, the PS4 Pro was extensively leaked before its reveal, but Sony didn't seem to care, so maybe Nintendo won't either?

Item 4 isn't really an issue here, obviously enough.

My expectation is we're looking at around a 3 month cycle from reveal to release. They can't really do what they did with the original Switch, where they reveal the form factor and name in a short trailer, and then come back months later to showcase the games. That video would be basically identical for the new model, from what we know (just sub in TOTK for BOTW), so they really need to go straight to showing off the games. My assumption is that they still want to keep the initial reveal video short, to maximise exposure, but they'll have to take a very different track than the original Switch. I'm thinking basically a micro-direct, which would consist of:
  • Here's our new Switch, the Switch [redacted]
  • It's got a new chip from Nvidia, it can play the latest games with amazing graphics and supports 4K
  • It's also got a 1080p screen/HDR/cameras/brain interface/whatever
  • All your current games can run on it, and we're updating some of them
  • Don't worry, we'll still release lots of games on the original Switch, with updated graphics on [redacted]
  • Some third parties will release games exclusively on [redacted], though
  • Here's a sizzle reel, with obligatory shots of people playing on planes/rooftops/etc.
  • Join us next week for a showcase of the games you'll be playing on Switch [redacted]
Then a full length direct for the games a week or so later, followed by PR events where press can get their hands on it, more in-depth Treehouse-style content for specific games, etc.

I could see them squeezing down the cycle to two months at the very least, but I'm expecting something around the 3 month period, and would be surprised if it's much more than 4 months, which seems unnecessary. With a reveal in January or February, that would put a release between March and May. I'm ruling out anything after May as I can't imagine that they would release TOTK after announcing the new hardware, but before it releases, and I don't see them announcing the hardware after TOTK if the chip's already in production (it would mean basically a full year of chip production before launch).

Also, if we're taking bets on as-yet unannounced games that will be launch window showcases for the new hardware, I'm going to put some money down on Wave Race. Both Wave Race 64 and Blue Storm were launch window graphical showcases, so it would be continuing in a fine tradition (also I just want a new Wave Race).
 
this is all well and good but that middle man sells the systems, controllers, and accessories
Nintendo are probably the one platform holder who have an interest in retail anymore selling stuff like Labo, Ring Fit, Mario Kart Home, Amiibo, toys, even Pokemon codes/cards etc... I think Sony or Xbox could care less but Nintendo seem to be chummy with retail still (in Japan probably even more than other places) - cant see them entirely cutting off physical games
 
I'm not so sure if this is just so black and white, for one going by this Notebookcheck article on PS5"s Oberon Plus APU on 6nm,

"Subsequently, Angstronomics has discovered that the latest PS5 revision also contains a new AMD APU. Codenamed Oberon Plus, the APU replaces Oberon APUs that Sony has used until now in all PlayStation 5 SKUs. According to the website, AMD has built Oberon Plus around TSMC's N6 process, which provides 18.8% greater transistor density than the 7 nm node on which Oberon is based. In practical terms, Oberon Plus has a 15% smaller die than Oberon, measuring in at 260 mm² while maintaining its 10,600 million transistor count."

It would seem that while TSMC's 6nm and 7nm are more energy efficient, but Nvidia are actually getting a higher transistor density on Samsung's 8N process. I'm not totally sure what the Van Gogh in the Steam Deck measures out to, but the only figure I could find was 2.4 billion transistors for the 163mm² die. Both Sony and Microsoft on TSMC's 7nm allows for higher clocks, but Nintendo in this situation would greatly benefit from a more dense SoC that can fit into a smaller form factor with lower clocks.
There’s nothing that really indicates that the 8N that nvidia uses can be denser than the rest of the Ampere lineup. Nvidia also doesn’t use any mobile libraries for the ampere line of GPUs, or especially ORIN which would have made it a lot smaller.

Drake has a much bigger GPU than the Steam deck Van Gogh APU, having 3 times as many shaders to it. The cache on 8nm also takes up a significantly larger amount of die space than on the 7/6 or 5nm node.


The CPU is smaller so it’s fine, x86 are way larger than ARM.

However, the thing is supposed to have 8x16 memory controllers for 128-bit.


Then there’s the logic in this which will be way larger than the better nodes. And that takes a significant chunk of die space.


I’d posit that 8C+12SM SoC would be between 160-180mm^2.

On 7nm it should be 100-115mm^2

6nm like 93 and 99mm^2


On 5nm it should be between 70 and 80mm^2


And 4N should be like 65-65 I think?


And this is based on how ampere is and how it scales with the better nodes. For a soc like this I’d imagine using the mobile libraries would be better though.
 
Also, if we're taking bets on as-yet unannounced games that will be launch window showcases for the new hardware, I'm going to put some money down on Wave Race. Both Wave Race 64 and Blue Storm were launch window graphical showcases, so it would be continuing in a fine tradition (also I just want a new Wave Race).

Same. And I never played Star Fox Zero, but I could also go for a pretty as hell remake of Star Fox 64. May not be worth the effort of developing it for just 16 planets. And I doubt they would toss it in as a free game. But a man can dream.
 
Same. And I never played Star Fox Zero, but I could also go for a pretty as hell remake of Star Fox 64. May not be worth the effort of developing it for just 16 planets. And I doubt they would toss it in as a free game. But a man can dream.
Or we just get a brand new Star Fox game and stop rehashing the same SF game over and over? They’ve been prototyping a new game since 2018.
 
You're right. 100MB/s is a great speed for next gen gaming. Nintendo should totally use 100mb/s carts in the next switch. My arguments have been torn asunder!

And your point about Indie games is also spot on. Indie games are the only games Nintendo will be considering.
I didn't mean that on my last post but okay. I was talking about how cheap flash storage is nowadays and how (most likely) a nintendo switch cartridge is probably not multiple times faster than a regular SD card.



But that last bit, it's a claim without any actual NUMBERS behind it (I'm not convinced by simple videos), so I digress. The thing I'm not going to backpedal on is the fact that indeed, most of those third party indie developers don't need more than 8GB for a cartridge to put their small, 2D game on.
There are multiple, digital-only games already on switch. If a company has a game that can't be asset-optimized down to under 32GB or even 64 in any shape or form, then they might as well make a digital-only release on a next gen switch (which may or may not come with a 128+GB option).
There comes a point however, when even bleeding edge titles need to actually set a scope limit as to how big the base project is getting and at what point they're better off branching the rest of the game for a DLC download.
But some companies are already breaching that limit which people expected to be around ~50GB just a couple years ago with 100+GB downloads.
That was my whole point with "increasing the memory won't be a real solution".

Faster storage is a must? sure, they could support the latest SD card format which iirc is UHS-2 at 300MB/s
And that still might not be enough for some developers considering on PC, the cheapest SSDs usually clock at around ~500MB/s which is quite a bit more. And let's not even talk about how much faster sony's and microsoft's consoles storages are.

I believe what should be done is actually a conglomerate of actions to alleviate the storage issue on the switch (because nintendo won't be able to simply solve it): an upgrade indeed on the switch's SD card technology and the storage size from the OLED's 64GB but also, an effort from developers to actually respect a ~100GB limit (a couple GB more or less, give or take) for at the very least a couple years after the hardware releases.
 
0
I got a suspicion (dire hope, nay, need?) that Nintendo is holding back quite a few titles for the launch window of this new Switch. There are so many possibilities:
  • Metroid 4
  • New 3D Mario
  • New F-Zero or Waverace
  • New Starfox
  • New Nintendoland or 2, 3, Switch
  • New DonkyKong
  • New Pilot Wings
  • Arms 2???
  • Impressive 4K/remasters of Metroid Primes and Zelda Games
  • Pikmin 4 turns out far more graphically impressive than anyone is expecting...
  • Some new IP?

DId I miss any interesting possibilities? Earthbound? Wario game?
 
I remember there was a discussion about disabling some GPU cores in handheld mode, but I didn't follow it to its conclusion. Was there a consensus about the viability?

I'm interested on this because I was thinking about the lowest GPU clock possible, and I read here that they need to have - for BC purposes - the sames clocks on the switch (which goes up to 460MHz). So some were saying that the minimum they expect [for switch 2] is switch's clocks, which leaves me with this question: supposing the Switch 2 cannot maintain a 460 MHz clock with the battery life that Nintendo wants, and then they opt to use it at a lower clock, would it be possible to disable GPU cores so it can get up to 460MHz just for BC? Does Orin do that on those different TDP profiles?
 
I remember there was a discussion about disabling some GPU cores in handheld mode, but I didn't follow it to its conclusion. Was there a consensus about the viability?

I'm interested on this because I was thinking about the lowest GPU clock possible, and I read here that they need to have - for BC purposes - the sames clocks on the switch (which goes up to 460MHz). So some were saying that the minimum they expect [for switch 2] is switch's clocks, which leaves me with this question: supposing the Switch 2 cannot maintain a 460 MHz clock with the battery life that Nintendo wants, and then they opt to use it at a lower clock, would it be possible to disable GPU cores so it can get up to 460MHz just for BC? Does Orin do that on those different TDP profiles?
There's no consensus. Some of us believe there's no point in disabling cores since it would be better an cheaper to just make a smaller chip with those fewer cores
 
I got a suspicion (dire hope, nay, need?) that Nintendo is holding back quite a few titles for the launch window of this new Switch. There are so many possibilities:
  • Metroid 4
  • New 3D Mario
  • New F-Zero or Waverace
  • New Starfox
  • New Nintendoland or 2, 3, Switch
  • New DonkyKong
  • New Pilot Wings
  • Arms 2???
  • Impressive 4K/remasters of Metroid Primes and Zelda Games
  • Pikmin 4 turns out far more graphically impressive than anyone is expecting...
  • Some new IP?

DId I miss any interesting possibilities? Earthbound? Wario game?
Whatever happened to Detective Pikachu 2 🤔
 
I got a suspicion (dire hope, nay, need?) that Nintendo is holding back quite a few titles for the launch window of this new Switch. There are so many possibilities:
  • Metroid 4
  • New 3D Mario
  • New F-Zero or Waverace
  • New Starfox
  • New Nintendoland or 2, 3, Switch
  • New DonkyKong
  • New Pilot Wings
  • Arms 2???
  • Impressive 4K/remasters of Metroid Primes and Zelda Games
  • Pikmin 4 turns out far more graphically impressive than anyone is expecting...
  • Some new IP?

DId I miss any interesting possibilities? Earthbound? Wario game?
Sounds more like hopes to me. MP4 wasn’t even been shown yet, I don’t expect the marketing cycle to start soon tbh. We don’t know anything about 3D Mario. New F-Zero/Wave Race wasn’t in the talks either, maybe a GC remaster for F-Zero. For StarFox, we only know about prototyping which means nothing really, they do that all the time. Nothing about Nintendo Land, Arms, Pilotwings or a new IP either.

Sorry 😬

The only games that are somehow rumored are DK and the MP remaster. Since we kinda expect the next Switch to launch in the first half of 2023, I don’t expect a blow-out as your list suggests. We‘re also set until May with some gaps after February. So I guess we may get 1 or 2 more titles before Zelda, and then that will be the big new thing. Everything else (Metroid, 3D Mario etc) could be considered for next Holiday season.
 
Whatever happened to Detective Pikachu 2 🤔
A developer who supposedly worked on the game has a post on Linkedin suggesting the game is almost ready for launch. I wonder if it will get a shadow drop kinda similar to how the first game did in Japan....

so it sounds like that will definitely be a switch release, and not be for the next console...
 
supposing the Switch 2 cannot maintain a 460 MHz clock with the battery life that Nintendo wants, and then they opt to use it at a lower clock, would it be possible to disable GPU cores so it can get up to 460MHz just for BC? Does Orin do that on those different TDP profiles?
I raised this possiblity at the time, but from the tests people did on Orin, 420 MHz seems to be around the point where lowering the clocks any further brings minimum saving.

Assuming that applies to Drake, even in a situation where 460 is unavailable for Drake games due to battery life, turning off 4x A78 and lowering RAM clocks should over-compensate the higher GPU clock on BC mode, if needed.
 
3A78 @ 1GHz would still offer a noticeable CPU improvement over the 3A57.

You can get less than a watt for 4 A78 cores (3 for games and 1 for the OS if it clocks that low?) I believe, being around 0.46-0.60W just for the CPU.


The other cores would be turned off during this.

And this can offer a 2.39x CPU uplift while being in the same clocks and core config.
How come it's only 2.39x improvement for the same 1 GHz.. I thought the IPC for A78s is roughly 3x that of A57s. Or maybe there is something I'm not getting..
 
Sounds more like hopes to me. MP4 wasn’t even been shown yet, I don’t expect the marketing cycle to start soon tbh. We don’t know anything about 3D Mario. New F-Zero/Wave Race wasn’t in the talks either, maybe a GC remaster for F-Zero. For StarFox, we only know about prototyping which means nothing really, they do that all the time. Nothing about Nintendo Land, Arms, Pilotwings or a new IP either.

I think "holding them in reserve" by definition implies we haven't heard about it, and if it's targeting Drake, then the marketing will be kept under wraps for obvious reasons. And "possibilities" implies "speculation" :)

I think almost all of these are potential "banked" games for Drake are possible. MP4 wasn't built for drake, but it seems possible with the extended dev time that was repositioned to get into good shape.

Sorry 😬

The only games that are somehow rumored are DK and the MP remaster. Since we kinda expect the next Switch to launch in the first half of 2023, I don’t expect a blow-out as your list suggests. We‘re also set until May with some gaps after February. So I guess we may get 1 or 2 more titles before Zelda, and then that will be the big new thing. Everything else (Metroid, 3D Mario etc) could be considered for next Holiday season.

I don't think Thraktor means everything on this list is coming, just that we know Nintendo banks games, and anyone following EPD knows that some teams have been mysteriously quiet, and that dev kits have been in the wild for a while, with at least 11 companies, leaving lots of possibilities of Nintendo overseen projects.
 
0
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