• 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!)

Y'all, it's a Nintendo hardware speculation thread (literally in the title). It's ok to speculate (or not) about future Nintendo hardware that may or may not be released to market. If you are bored with the content, you are free to disengage until you feel that there is something substantial to discuss.

Peace and love to you all. I personally like speculative discussions about tech in general, so I hope this sub-community continues to do what it does best and keep the ideas coming.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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).
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.

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
Because 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.
 
The Wii U has a portable/wireless sensor bar on the Wii U pad. I hate the wires but was thinking maybe they would do something similar to the Wii U pad. But you would have to aim lower. Or they could make it Bluetooth.
Man do I miss IR aiming. Nintendoland, shooters, sports games etc. I've said this before, RE4 remake would be definitive edition on Drake with IR aiming.
 
There is a limit to what they can do without a sensor bar.

'Sensor' bar is a bad solution IMO. FoV extremely narrow. I just prefer the cheap and easy outside-in tracking. The FoV of the camera won't be that big, but it'll be enough to aim with precision and without worrying about drift. The camera could be on the console itself or be USB, I don't care. It would come with an IR LED ring add-on (maybe for the right controller only). That's it.

It's not what I really wanted (because of the tracking limitations), but an inside-out tracking (as I would like) would be expensive. So I'll take Rift CV1 solution.
 
0
Because 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.
I was unclear: the solution nintendo wants and arguably has is multiple switches per household
 
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.
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.
 
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.


(All of this is hypothetical and that I'm probably play devil's advocate here.)

I feel like consumers are willing to accept reasonably higher latency and lower fidelity for a Drake equipped Lite model if the price is low enough (e.g. $200 - $250), especially if consumers still have an option to buy the DLSS model*, which obviously offers lower latency and higher fidelity.

Although not ideal, I don't think the device not charging as the device's streaming wirelessly and as the consumers plays on the device is necessarily a deal breaker, especially when consumers have the option to buy USB-PD supported battery packs, use USB PD supported battery banks, and/or use the included AC adapter.

And I was thinking that maybe Nintendo could provide an adapter that's equipped with an Ethernet port included in the box for a Drake equipped Lite model (e.g. MagicEther), which I think should cost considerably less than a dock.

I want to be clear that I'm not advocating for removing the option for a Drake equipped Lite model to be able to connect to a dock for TV mode. In fact, I think one potential way to allow a Drake equipped Lite model to be able to connect to a dock without cannibalising the DLSS model* is to limit the max supported resolution to 1080p 60 Hz for TV mode, like with the Nintendo Switch and the OLED model, when a Drake equipped Lite model is connected to a dock. (And the DLSS model* obviously supports a max supported resolution of 4K 120 Hz.) But a Drake equipped Lite model won't come with a dock, but is an optional, separate purchase.

What I'm trying to think about is how to make a Drake equipped Lite model more desirable to consumers whilst also maintaining product differentiation without cannibalising the DLSS model*. Nintendo believed that removing the option for the Nintendo Switch Lite to connect to the dock for TV mode is a way to offer product differentiation between the Nintendo Switch Lite, the Nintendo Switch, and the OLED model.

At the end of the day, a Drake equipped Lite model is ultimately targeted towards handheld mode gamers. But I believe offering as many options, whilst still maintaining some sort of product differentiation, helps with making a Drake equipped Lite model more desirable for consumers.

* → a tentative name that I use
 
The switch is that though, just done right.

Absolutely not. The Wii U was Nintendo trying to capitalize on the what made the DS successful, and it was pretty well done. It also offered new possibilities as both screens were independent. But in truth, it just isn't that fun except for specific games like Nintendo Land.

The switch is much more an evolution of the Gameboy than it is of the WiiU. We all dreamt, as kids, to connect our Gameboy to the TV. At core, the Switch is the most conservative console Nintendo has made in 2 decades, and this why it has such strong appeal with the nerds.
 
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....
 
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....
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 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.
 
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.
Bruh, we gonna have Playstation 9 and be hooked up to a Sony version of Matrix by then.
 
Wish we'll have full dive by then that slows down perception of time several fold so we don't use up tons of time just to experience botw. If you can play 200 hours of botw in a day, that would be the greatest gimmick ever.
 
9972-C3-C8-0-A62-41-A0-B4-A9-DB2-F1-E5-CD5-BC.jpg
 
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.
 
That timeline including the Virtual Boy but not Game and Watch, the true Game Boy predecessor ? Lmao
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!

1920px-Nintendo-Color-TV-Game-Blockbreaker-FL.jpg


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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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...
 
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 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.
 
0
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....
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...
it would need to at least meet Quest 2 resolution:
RGB LCD 1832 x 1920 per eye @ 72 - 120 Hz
that's 70% more resolution... and an unusual resolution that would not work for regular play.
The closest reasonably would be 16:9 1440 (2560*1440) ... that would be a pretty high resolution for mobile, would drain the battery more, and rendering 2 scenes, even if both have half the resolution is pretty taxing.
Having a resolution lower then the Quest 2 is not really an option, that is already 2 year old hardware by now, the form factor (16:9) will mean even with better lenses its hard to get there, lower resolution would just not look good (screen door effect) ... and after all that, there is the question about FOV (which is not that great on quest 2 with 89°).

Essentially: the limiting factor is not the SoC (honestly, drake should be strong enough for some not to intense VR experiences and better ones then Quest 2), but the form factor.
 
0
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!

1920px-Nintendo-Color-TV-Game-Blockbreaker-FL.jpg


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.
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.
 
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.
Not to mention they still don’t have Netflix.
 
0
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
Depends what resolution I suppose. Maybe at 480p for select games.
 
0
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....

From someone who have played on Rift DK1, Rift DK2, Rift CV1, HTC Vive, Rift S, PSVR, Quest, Quest 2, and Quest Pro, I would say that ~2k per eye is the minimum. Quest 2, for example, has less then 2k per eye with a screen that's 5.46". I am personally hoping Nintendo will keep the 7" screen on the next Switch. With that size, even 2560 x 1440 wouldn't be good enough; you would waste pixels because of its size. And because you need to give IPD options, with a single panel you end up wasting even more pixels.

And I'm not going to talk about comfort...

BUT, it's Nintendo. If I see something that seems a really bad idea, there's a good chance they'll do it.
 
Honestly, I don't think Switch VR can be worth it next to the PSVR2's high res screens, eye-tracking, and foveated rendering.
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.

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.
 
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
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.
To be fair, iterating on the Wii brought the WiiU. Iteratin on SNES brought N64 and GC
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 me

it also implies nes was a hybrid lmfao
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.
 
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.
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 don’t think it’s worth the effort if it’s going to be a glorified Google Cardboard.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Felt the same... The Hori Split Pro Controller is a real game changer for handheld play.

On the subject of VR... they are definitely interested and most probably internally trying different things especially around Mario Kart I'd guess.
 
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
….why wouldn’t it bring any such advantage? The feature is built into the hardware, it’s not an add-on.


Drake already has hardware support for what would be the equivalent to Foveated Rendering and Eye-Tracking
 
Last edited:
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