• 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!)

Didn't @brainchild have the suspicion on Ye Olde Place that these clouds were likely billboarded?

Correct. The BOTW team is second to none in VFX. The billboards are incredibly convincing, especially due to the shading, but they are indeed just billboards.

The difference is that they swap them out at certain angles and blend the transitions so it's hard to tell, but nevertheless they're billboards.
 
Correct. The BOTW team is second to none in VFX. The billboards are incredibly convincing, especially due to the shading, but they are indeed just billboards.

The difference is that they swap them out at certain angles and blend the transitions so it's hard to tell, but nevertheless they're billboards.
I remember you sharing some videos showing off how crazy billboards can look if you've just got enough of them.

I'm still racking my brain about DF's excitement over 9-months old footage xD .

not that I'm not excited, but I'm a Zelda fanboy so it comes with the territory.
 
I remember you sharing some videos showing off how crazy billboards can look if you've just got enough of them.

I'm still racking my brain about DF's excitement over 9-months old footage xD .

not that I'm not excited, but I'm a Zelda fanboy so it comes with the territory.
I dont think its worth reading anything into it.

Unless we see RT, Ultra settings, the game runs at 4K or 60fps, or something else really obvious its the regular switch version.
 
0
apparently volumetric billboards are a thing. TIL


I would say that the use of the term "volumetric" here is very technical, meaning that the axis about which all of the billboard slices are stacked comprise a 'volume' of data. But this means something completely different than 'volumetric clouds'.

Still it's a very clever method and there are a few methods similar to it that yield convincing results. It's the perfect example of "render smarter, not harder".
 
Disclaimer: I really enjoy DF coverage both because of their technical chops and the personal chemistry they've got going on.

However I'm puzzled by their comments on Zelda 2. It also wasn't the first time they commented on Nintendo stuff without really committing to it resulting in weirdness.
I've seen this with Nintendo repeatedly on DF. It seems to me that they enjoy Nintendo as gamers - John is a proper Nintendo fan, Rich seems to really love portable devices and appreciates the Switch for that reason, Alex is a PC gamer down to the core - but so much of their analysis (and industry insight) is about bleeding edge tech that they miss the mark with Nintendo sometimes.

I don't expect a generational leap with the sequel, but Takuhiro Dohta has been repeatedly clear about how under-optimized BotW is for Switch - they needed to get the WiiU version onto Switch in time for a simultaneous launch, and their was an executive decision to make the gameplay experiences identical between the two - and they were able to achieve performance parity without optimizing the Switch build. Part of that is their relatively future proofed approach, but it's quite likely there is room in a pure Switch version
 
I've seen this with Nintendo repeatedly on DF. It seems to me that they enjoy Nintendo as gamers - John is a proper Nintendo fan, Rich seems to really love portable devices and appreciates the Switch for that reason, Alex is a PC gamer down to the core - but so much of their analysis (and industry insight) is about bleeding edge tech that they miss the mark with Nintendo sometimes.

I don't expect a generational leap with the sequel, but Takuhiro Dohta has been repeatedly clear about how under-optimized BotW is for Switch - they needed to get the WiiU version onto Switch in time for a simultaneous launch, and their was an executive decision to make the gameplay experiences identical between the two - and they were able to achieve performance parity without optimizing the Switch build. Part of that is their relatively future proofed approach, but it's quite likely there is room in a pure Switch version
Can you link where he said the switch version of botw us unoptimized?
 
Can you link where he said the switch version of botw us unoptimized?
afaik he hasn't said it was unoptimized... he talked about specifically making the gameplay the same between the two in a mechanical sense, taking out a lot of the 2nd screen stuff from wii u but nothing about optimization/performance/graphics that I can see, though it might be in the GDC talk they did?:
"In order to make the experience the same across both platforms, the development team actually had to remove features from the game. “We did have the Wii U Gamepad in mind when we created the Sheikah Slate,” Fujibayashi explains. “When we had to create it for the Nintendo Switch, and also make sure that the players had the same experience [on both platforms], we had to do things like remove the touch controls and adjust the button assignment a little bit.”
 
So Nate said in this podcast - "I don't see Nintendo launching a true next-gen successor prior to 2024. A revision, yes. Next-gen successor, no".

I mean, given the power of Drake, that would mean we wouldn't be getting a true next-gen successor until like 2028 at the earliest.

It's weird because on paper Drake is an absolutely monster upgrade relative to the original Switch hardware. This wouldn't be just an upclock of some CPU cores or some extra RAM like past revisions....it's a completely generational leap.

Nate then said this is more of a PS4 Pro rather than a PS5. More similar to the New 3DS or even the....Xbox One S???

"The Switch hardware I have been referring to is more of a revision, think New 3DS from the base 3DS, or even an Xbox One S from the Xbox One."

Huh? Xbox One S was literally the same SoC as the Xbox One, just with a slightly upclocked GPU. And the New 3DS has the exact same GPU as the 3DS.

But again, with a 12 SM Ampere GPU, DLSS, RT cores, A78 CPU cores....I mean, this thing is a complete generational leap. Not really in the same class as the New 3DS or Xbox One S. Really confused by those statements.
 
Last edited:
Tangentially I noticed Krysta in the Kit and Krysta podcast (former Nintendo employees) has mentioned Switch 4K in almost every episode.
 
0
So Nate said in this podcast - "I don't see Nintendo launching a true next-gen successor prior to 2024. A revision, yes. Next-gen successor, no".

I mean, given the power of Drake, that would mean we wouldn't be getting a true next-gen successor until like 2028 at the earliest.

It's weird because on paper Drake is an absolutely monster upgrade relative to the original Switch hardware. This wouldn't be just an upclock of some CPU cores or some extra RAM like past revisions....it's a completely generational leap.
If this was not true next gen. there’s no way it would have been 12sm.

Even 4sm with Orins tensor cores, would have been very good for a revision.
 
Eh, he says it'll still be the Switch product line. No matter how powerful it is, that means it can be classified as "just" a revision.

(please let's avoid 3 more pages of Groundhog Day-next gen/successor discussion please)
 
Eh, he says it'll still be the Switch product line. No matter how powerful it is, that means it can be classified as "just" a revision.
Yea, but this idea that there will be a “true next gen” a few more years from now, is just ridiculous. Drake is too powerful for that.

I think Drake will just gradually morph into the lead dev platform.
 
Eh, he says it'll still be the Switch product line. No matter how powerful it is, that means it can be classified as "just" a revision.

(please let's avoid 3 more pages of Groundhog Day-next gen/successor discussion please)

Yeah, but the Series X|S and PS5 are part of the Xbox and Playstation product lines, yet they are truly next-generation systems.

I was just caught off guard by Nate comparing Drake to a....Xbox One S. Based on what we know about Drake, the Xbox One S would be the last thing I would compare it to. It's literally the same SoC as the launch Xbox One.

Based on what we know about the specs of Drake, and how it compares relative to the original Switch, I think everyone here would be in agreement that this is a PS4 --> PS5 type jump, not 3DS --> New 3DS and certainly not Xbox One --> Xbox One S.
 
Last edited:
He also says, which I 100% agree with: "It's really a matter of semantics in some cases and it's probably one of those thing that gamers need not get that invested in."
 
Prefacing this by saying again that I couldn't care less whether Nintendo or the public calls the new Switch model a revision or a successor.

If the takeaway is "like a PS4 Pro in terms of (relative) capability, and an N3DS in terms of positioning," that's believable to me. Because the only way a New 3DS comparison could make sense is in terms of how Nintendo markets and positions it. I don't care if the CPU was 1000 times stronger; N3DS games look the same as 3DS games, it had almost no exclusives or even enhanced games, and I doubt the majority of consumers were even aware that it's more powerful than the original at all. Comparing that to the jump between an original Switch and a new Switch that has DLSS and ray tracing is way off base. It's not about the SM count or other putative specs -- simply going by the corroborated features like DLSS, and the power that would be needed to use them, 3DS -> N3DS isn't on the same order of magnitude as Switch -> Drake.

And yeah, it's totally possible to do a jump like that and still call it a revision. Maybe Nintendo will do that. Even if that's the case, the N3DS comparison is still a misleading one to me since it implies something about the respective hardware power and not just life cycle/positioning, but the former can't possibly be comparable here.
 
Can you link where he said the switch version of botw us unoptimized?
afaik he hasn't said it was unoptimized... he talked about specifically making the gameplay the same between the two in a mechanical sense, taking out a lot of the 2nd screen stuff from wii u but nothing about optimization/performance/graphics that I can see, though it might be in the GDC talk they did?:
Yes, it's in the GDC talk. The Switch version of Breath of the Wild runs on an identical engine to the WiiU version, containing no Switch specific optimizations. They were able to up the resolution in docked mode and increase the sample rate of sound effects, but neither of these were engine optimizations, just taking advantage of the existing spare CPU/GPU cycles that the Switch had available.

To be clear I did not say unoptimized (though Dohta actually says those words, link below) but underoptimized. Dohta specifically says that the Switch has a remarkably straightforward architecture for a console that made achieving reasonable performance surprisingly easy, unlike other devices he'd worked on that might be underpowered in one area but have another area to compensate, requiring clever optimization tricks.

It seems not so much that the engine can be optimized for Switch, but that unusual optimizations for Wii U can go away, and that a built-from-the-ground-up Switch version can take advantage of the additional performance efficiently from the beginning, rather than uncapping a few settings late in dev.

edit: mentioned a link, forgot to add it. Link includes timestamp
 
0
The easy way to see the way leakers are positioning this is simple
They claimed a switch pro was coming, it didn't come. Possibly because it was canceled, possibly because there never was one, who knows.
But if they admit that, they have to admit they were wrong, which regardless of whether it was accurate information or not, this damages their future credibility as an insider. When they some day leak the switch 2 pro, even if it's real, people will doubt them. The masses will just say "Oh well you said it was coming last time too and it didn't."

So they're trying to use semantics to claim they were right about a pro anyway. The next console is a pro! Who cares if it's 20x stronger and has its own major exclusives, since it's still called switch and is a hybrid that docks to the wall that makes it a revision. Let's ignore the fact that makes the PS5 a revision of the PS4, it's all "semantics" anyway!
 
Yea, but this idea that there will be a “true next gen” a few more years from now, is just ridiculous. Drake is too powerful for that.

I think Drake will just gradually morph into the lead dev platform.
That's the idea, third parties will decide what it'll be. Just like GBC, Nintendo never intended to release exclusive games for it but didn't keep third parties from doing so. Later the system proved to be much popular and there were exclusives all around, Nintendo decided to join in on the fun with titles like Super Mario Bros Deluxe, Kirby Tilt n Tumble and the Oracle games.
 
I'd like defenders of this being a pro version to explain to me the biggest single flaw in the argument.
Game file sizes. True, you could probably find some way to run Drake games on the switch by heavily cutting down performance, removing raytracing, etc, but the biggest single flaw in this idea is the size of game files. The switch only has 32gb of internal storage. In order to take any advantage of this new hardware, file sizes are going to need to increase a lot. The average file size of a switch game is probably somewhere around 6gb (some being substantially less, some being substantially more), whereas the next console is probably going to be closer to 64gb, with some games going for 128gb or even higher. So are you just gonna stop selling new switch games digitally to make them compatible?

And here's what really kills the idea - updates. Updates on regular switch games can get pretty meaty. A large portion of my switch's internal storage is taken up by game updates, not even digital games. A single switch 2 update may honestly be larger than the internal storage.

So to make this at all functional, you'd have to make hugely different versions of each game for each platform which would be extremely time consuming and waste so many resources. Their game development would most likely slow down hard as they essentially have to make two different versions of each game, since it's not like you can just take the 128gb switch 2 game with 32gb of updates and shove it on the switch with 32gb of storage.
 
I'd like defenders of this being a pro version to explain to me the biggest single flaw in the argument.
Game file sizes. True, you could probably find some way to run Drake games on the switch by heavily cutting down performance, removing raytracing, etc, but the biggest single flaw in this idea is the size of game files. The switch only has 32gb of internal storage. In order to take any advantage of this new hardware, file sizes are going to need to increase a lot. The average file size of a switch game is probably somewhere around 6gb (some being substantially less, some being substantially more), whereas the next console is probably going to be closer to 64gb, with some games going for 128gb or even higher. So are you just gonna stop selling new switch games digitally to make them compatible?

And here's what really kills the idea - updates. Updates on regular switch games can get pretty meaty. A large portion of my switch's internal storage is taken up by game updates, not even digital games. A single switch 2 update may honestly be larger than the internal storage.

So to make this at all functional, you'd have to make hugely different versions of each game for each platform which would be extremely time consuming and waste so many resources. Their game development would most likely slow down hard as they essentially have to make two different versions of each game, since it's not like you can just take the 128gb switch 2 game with 32gb of updates and shove it on the switch with 32gb of storage.
Just buy cartridge or 512gb sd card.

EDIT: Oops, I didn't read carefully. Switch can't install updates on sd card?
 
Just buy cartridge or 512gb sd card.

EDIT: Oops, I didn't read carefully. Switch can't install updates on sd card?
Good luck selling that to your consumers, who you need to build trust and respect with. Want to update your game? Well just buy a $40 micro SD card, no problem! Or they could just make it a new console, continue to sell some (but not all) new games on the switch for a year or two and then transition into a new generation like the PS5 is doing. That makes a lot more sense to me than releasing a 15x stronger pro console and somehow trying to develop all your games for two very different platforms. I mean we've seen all the work, blood sweat and tears that went into getting games like the witcher running on the switch, and in that case it's coming from a console that is only 5x stronger. Imagine Nintendo having to make every single new game compatible between a console that is 15x stronger and the switch. It's laughable to think they'd even try.
 
0
I'd like defenders of this being a pro version to explain to me the biggest single flaw in the argument.
Game file sizes. True, you could probably find some way to run Drake games on the switch by heavily cutting down performance, removing raytracing, etc, but the biggest single flaw in this idea is the size of game files. The switch only has 32gb of internal storage. In order to take any advantage of this new hardware, file sizes are going to need to increase a lot. The average file size of a switch game is probably somewhere around 6gb (some being substantially less, some being substantially more), whereas the next console is probably going to be closer to 64gb, with some games going for 128gb or even higher. So are you just gonna stop selling new switch games digitally to make them compatible?

And here's what really kills the idea - updates. Updates on regular switch games can get pretty meaty. A large portion of my switch's internal storage is taken up by game updates, not even digital games. A single switch 2 update may honestly be larger than the internal storage.

So to make this at all functional, you'd have to make hugely different versions of each game for each platform which would be extremely time consuming and waste so many resources. Their game development would most likely slow down hard as they essentially have to make two different versions of each game, since it's not like you can just take the 128gb switch 2 game with 32gb of updates and shove it on the switch with 32gb of storage.
the simple answer is:
  • games made for drake won't come to the base switch
  • games made for mariko will just get updated to a higher resolution and uncapped frame rate.
devs aren't going to go back to update games with increased texture resolution or RT or whatever. few devs even do that. 4A and Rockstar are outliers
 
That's the idea, third parties will decide what it'll be. Just like GBC, Nintendo never intended to release exclusive games for it but didn't keep third parties from doing so. Later the system proved to be much popular and there were exclusives all around, Nintendo decided to join in on the fun with titles like Super Mario Bros Deluxe, Kirby Tilt n Tumble and the Oracle games.
We can be pretty confident Nintendo intends to make exclusives for this new hardware, even if they don't do so right away. It's a very different sort of upgrade from the GBC.
The easy way to see the way leakers are positioning this is simple
They claimed a switch pro was coming, it didn't come. Possibly because it was canceled, possibly because there never was one, who knows.
But if they admit that, they have to admit they were wrong, which regardless of whether it was accurate information or not, this damages their future credibility as an insider. When they some day leak the switch 2 pro, even if it's real, people will doubt them. The masses will just say "Oh well you said it was coming last time too and it didn't."

So they're trying to use semantics to claim they were right about a pro anyway. The next console is a pro! Who cares if it's 20x stronger and has its own major exclusives, since it's still called switch and is a hybrid that docks to the wall that makes it a revision. Let's ignore the fact that makes the PS5 a revision of the PS4, it's all "semantics" anyway!
I mean, this is a pretty big semantics argument. It's been ongoing in the thread since the current set of rumors first emerged. New consoles are much less distinct from their predecessors than they used to be.
 
the simple answer is:
  • games made for drake won't come to the base switch
  • games made for mariko will just get updated to a higher resolution and uncapped frame rate.
devs aren't going to go back to update games with increased texture resolution or RT or whatever. few devs even do that. 4A and Rockstar are outliers
I agree with you totally ILikeFeet, but we have a term for this, it's called a new console. A new video game hardware device that plays a significant number of exclusive games with more powerful hardware is called a new console. We have many of these releases, like the PS5 for example.
 
I mean, this is a pretty big semantics argument. It's been ongoing in the thread since the current set of rumors first emerged. New consoles are much less distinct from their predecessors than they used to be.
It is only a semantics argument because certain people are trying very hard to make it one. In fact, if you ask any random person on the street if the PS5 is a new console or a revision of the PS4, 80% would say it's a new console and the other 20% would ask you what the hell a PS5 is. There is no real debate here. A new piece of gaming hardware that greatly improves power and gets exclusive titles is a new console. It's not the vast majority who think the PS5 is a new console who are wrong, it's the geniuses claiming it isn't. Similarly, if a new Nintendo console launches, is 15x stronger, has new features and exclusive games - only the people here will claim it's a revision, no one else in the world.

It's like claiming there's a semantic argument over whether dogs are actually considered bears because me and 3 other people in the world think they are. No, they're not bears, I'm just wrong.
 
It is only a semantics argument because certain people are trying very hard to make it one.
Yeah, it's only a semantics argument because people refuse to accept others may have a different arbitrary definition than their own arbitrary definition and keep pestering them to stop using it "incorrectly", despite everyone understanding very well what the other person is talking about and being super tired of this semantics arguments.
 
This post, specifically the last paragraph, is unnecessarily rude and confrontational towards another user. Please do not continue to post in this manner - Donnie, Mazi, Hologram
Went and actually watched Nate's video to properly discuss his argument, and it almost feels like he hasn't seen the drake specs, or he's simply choosing to ignore them. I think the best argument he makes is that Microsoft could have positioned the Xbox one X as a new generation, and chose not to, and thus Nintendo could do the same with a more powerful system. This makes sense (aside from the fact, this will be at least 6 years into the switch's life vs 4 years into the Xbox one's life) until you actually look at Drake's specs.

The Xbox one X was about 6x stronger than the Xbox one. Indeed, this would be enough to sell it as a new console. However, it's also not outside the reasonable range of a pro version either. The majority of that increased power could be (and was) used on increasing the resolution from 1080p to 4k. So it was pretty easy to take Xbox one games and pump them up to 4k, without a bunch of effort from the developer and without compromising the quality of the experience on the Xbox one. However, compare this to the drake

The drake is probably close to 9-10x stronger on a basic level, just factoring in increased performance and improved architecture (also, I'll note in the video Nate says that architecture is the main difference between revision/new console and the Drake has a new architecture) Even at the low end this is gonna be at least 7x stronger. But then you also have DLSS and RT cores on top of that. Increasing the resolution of switch games to 4k is not going to nearly use the potential of this device. Thus you can assume one of two things, should they position this like the Xbox one X. Either Nintendo has horrifically failed in designing their revision, by using much stronger hardware than they needed, or they're going to have to make two different versions of each game, which is obviously extremely inefficient and doesn't really make any sense.

Either way, if you're reading this Nate, consider doing some actual research and looking at the leaked hardware before you claim this is comparable to the Xbox one X, when it's clearly a much larger gap and is also coming out later in the console's life.
 
This thread and going around in circles about Pro vs Succ, name a more iconic quartet.

Please let’s not have that again.

No one cares.
 
The debate should be over with the fact that we assume (and there are rumors for) third party exclusives day one. Nintendo very well may position it as a pro/revision (at first) but exclusives on day one show it's more than that.
 
Nate then said this is more of a PS4 Pro rather than a PS5. More similar to the New 3DS or even the....Xbox One S???

"The Switch hardware I have been referring to is more of a revision, think New 3DS from the base 3DS, or even an Xbox One S from the Xbox One."

Huh? Xbox One S was literally the same SoC as the Xbox One, just with a slightly upclocked GPU. And the New 3DS has the exact same GPU as the 3DS.

Yeah, if Nvidia leaks are even partially accurate, Xbox One S comparison doesn't make sense in any case,
this would actually be bigger difference even compared Xbox One X to Xbox One.
 
Yeah, if Nvidia leaks are even partially accurate, Xbox One S comparison doesn't make sense in any case,
this would actually be bigger difference even compared Xbox One X to Xbox One.
Its almost as if people don't know what they are talking about, at least when it comes to comparisons...
 
I agree with you totally ILikeFeet, but we have a term for this, it's called a new console. A new video game hardware device that plays a significant number of exclusive games with more powerful hardware is called a new console. We have many of these releases, like the PS5 for example.
So the game boy color, dsi, and n3DS were all new consoles and the wii is not a new console
 
Either way, if you're reading this Nate, consider doing some actual research
Don't do that. Nate posts in thread, and is the source of several leaks that we're basing our analysis on, the notion that he hasn't done "actual research" is ridiculous. Disagree with analysis all you want, or reasoning, or dispute facts, but don't be an asshole to an active, decent member of this community.
 
0
Went and actually watched Nate's video to properly discuss his argument, and it almost feels like he hasn't seen the drake specs, or he's simply choosing to ignore them. I think the best argument he makes is that Microsoft could have positioned the Xbox one X as a new generation, and chose not to, and thus Nintendo could do the same with a more powerful system. This makes sense (aside from the fact, this will be at least 6 years into the switch's life vs 4 years into the Xbox one's life) until you actually look at Drake's specs.

The Xbox one X was about 6x stronger than the Xbox one. Indeed, this would be enough to sell it as a new console. However, it's also not outside the reasonable range of a pro version either. The majority of that increased power could be (and was) used on increasing the resolution from 1080p to 4k. So it was pretty easy to take Xbox one games and pump them up to 4k, without a bunch of effort from the developer and without compromising the quality of the experience on the Xbox one. However, compare this to the drake

The drake is probably close to 9-10x stronger on a basic level, just factoring in increased performance and improved architecture (also, I'll note in the video Nate says that architecture is the main difference between revision/new console and the Drake has a new architecture) Even at the low end this is gonna be at least 7x stronger. But then you also have DLSS and RT cores on top of that. Increasing the resolution of switch games to 4k is not going to nearly use the potential of this device. Thus you can assume one of two things, should they position this like the Xbox one X. Either Nintendo has horrifically failed in designing their revision, by using much stronger hardware than they needed, or they're going to have to make two different versions of each game, which is obviously extremely inefficient and doesn't really make any sense.

Either way, if you're reading this Nate, consider doing some actual research and looking at the leaked hardware before you claim this is comparable to the Xbox one X, when it's clearly a much larger gap and is also coming out later in the console's life.
Dear poster, here are a few rules to stick to if you want to be a contributor to any thread on any forum on the internet:

1) quote posts if you are referring to materials written on a forum or link to specific timestamps if you want to discuss matters detailed in a video. This helps everyone get back to the source of what is being discussed

2) make sure whatever figure you come up with is agreed on by the majority. If you have your own take on a subject, detail the calculations that helped you reach your conclusions.

3) be nice to people

If you fail at any of these points while writing a post, slap your wrist before pressing the red button. If you fail at two of those, slap your face. If you fail at all three, slap your ball sack.
 
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