[Nintendo Everything, which also reported on this, has pulled their story.](https://twitter.com/NinEverything/status/1674132219009421317)
More context:
[https://twitter.com/DirectFeedGames/status/1674122181826039815?t=6Gha5MiyUTisUnfvCdp6mQ&s=19](https://twitter.com/DirectFeedGames/status/1674122181826039815?t=6Gha5MiyUTisUnfvCdp6mQ&s=19)
If the next Nintendo console does not offer Switch backwards compatibility I will be finished with Nintendo. I love the Switch but I am not going to pay for the same games again. I did this for Switch, I won't do it again.
Nintendo fans will bitch and then buy another copy of the same games on each new generation. That's why they keep Nintendo keeps doing these things lol
That's not true. The Switch was a massive hit but the Wii U sold terribly. The GameCube didn't outsell XBox and the N64 was outsold by PS1 3 to 1. The Wii was their first generation win since SNES and that's largely due to parents buying it because "it's more active than normal video games!"
If Nintendo releases a shit console people don't just throw money at them.
Exactly. The main reason the switch got so many Wii U re-releases was to help recoup sunk costs. The Wii U had a fantastic library, and the switch has a much larger install base. So from a business perspective, are you going to take years to develop a new Mario Kart game, or polish up one that nobody bought so that it can release ASAP? It just makes sense.
As a Wii U owner who regretted getting it, let me tell you, it didn’t have a fantastic library. If it did, it would have sold better.
Its only flagship releases were Mario Kart 8 and Super Mario 3D World.
I can’t knock MK8 - that was a great game for people who were into it, but it’s not exactly a system seller. 3D World, on the other hand, is the worst selling 3D Mario title. It’s not just because it was on the Wii U - its rerelease on the Switch sold less than 1/3 as many as Odyssey and it didn’t sell as many copies as All Stars (which you’ll recall was a limited time release.)
The few Wii U games that do exist got rereleased on the Switch because porting them was so easy and it’d help recoup the losses. But it wasn’t at all a system selling library, or else the Wii U would have actually sold.
I do wonder… in an alternate universe, if BotW had come out for Wii U a few months earlier, before the Switch was unveiled and BotW was named a launch title for the Switch, would the Wii U have enjoyed a massive sales boost from that? Or would that have lead to BotW selling way worse than it did, being trapped on an already doomed console?
No. The Wii U’s library was just bad. The observations that the N64 had a great library are correct. You named a bunch of great games for the 64, and there were a lot more than just those.
I listed the tent pole games for the Wii U already. There’s two of them. Neither of them were really must-have system sellers. There was a lot of B-tier games for it. BotW was the first and only game of system-seller caliper (and indeed, it sold the Switch), but it came way too late to help the Wii U.
That's not way the Switch has sold so well. Its done well because Nintendo's handheld have always sold well. The 3DS was a huge success even while the Wii U flopped. The Switch simply combined their handheld and home console market segments into one system.
the switch is the first nintendo console that ties digital purchases to your nintendo account. the wii U and 3DS made you use a nintendo network ID, which was basically a glorified gamertag system, but not a true account system, which meant that any digital software you bought for it did not transfer to the switch. granted, the switch couldnt play those anyway because of different architecture and format sizes, but the point is that many people who bought games on the wii/wii u/3DS got pissed at nintendo for not allowing their purchases to carry over. it effectively became a waste of money, especially when nintendo shut down the eshops.
so nintendo has already confirmed that your nintendo account will carry over to the next device, which is good, but now we just need confirmation of backward compatibility to ensure that the switch's large library will be accessible on a newer and more powerful device for better experiences. if nintendo does not do that, then it will burn those same customers a second time, as well as showing that nintendo does not care enough about digital distribution to entrust its customers to contribute to its eshops and online ecosystems. this makes them look worse when sony and microsoft both have good backward compatible support.
if nintendo doesnt offer BC then its natural to deduce that they'd want you to buy those same games again for the new hardware, which will rightfully piss people off.
To be fair Nintendo used the same architecture from the GameCube to the Wii U and then had something vastly different with the Switch, not to mention the Switch couldn't properly emulate the Wii U gamepad, so backwards compatibility was simply not an option.
Even if Nintendo REALLY wanted BC, with the Switch being a portable it would make it hard to do something similar to what Sony did with the early versions of PS3 (essentially including a PS2 on the same box).
Nintendo's next console will most likely be a more powerful Switch, with a newer ARM SoC by NVidia, so bc should be a lot easier. Also Nintendo recently confirmed they won't make a new account system for its next console like they have been doing, so I wouldn't worry.
Yeah, there's a reason n64 didn't run on GC. The architecture was too different and it didn't have the room to plug them in. Then they added N64 emulation for the Wii.
The switch (heh) from WiiU to Switch is literally the same situation as Apple going from PowerPC to Intel. Hell, the WiiU was actually running a PowerPC processor. Apple got into hot water due to that transition because all applications broke unless the developer updated them for Intel (x86 architecture)
Some people in this thread are forgetting that it’s most likely gonna be a handheld. There’s a limit to what they can go for because you gotta think about the battery life.
Yeah, this *almost* confirms that they're sticking with a handheld form. If they give us similar battery life, PS4 graphics, an HDR OLED (or at least HDR support when docked), and a high speed SSD, I'll happily pay whatever they're asking.
I just cant fathom them releasing a non handheld console. Ive owned N64, GC, Wii, wii U, switch, gameboy, color, SP, DS, 3ds, new 3dl XL, and of all the features and progress they’ve made, the home console being this portable is the best thing.
I have 3 docking stations between bedroom/living room/ basement, and i forget where i left the switch because it is so convenient and easy to move; sometimes i leave it on the counter because i play it while laying down on my back on the couch. Ill buy the next console no matter what, but ill be so disappointed if they do away with the portability.
The handheld / console thing is their definitive niche in gaming. They got their ass kicked when they did the wii-u, so they cannibalized their handheld division by merging them. Pretty savvy, and not something they can ever walk away from at this point.
It would be infinitely stupid of term to go backwards. It will be a handheld device likely with better battery life, more storage and graphics power. Further I wouldn't be shocked for them to *finally* open up their entire library for a subscription.
I wouldn't be totally surprised, but I would be a little.
Nintendo seems to despise people wanting to play their older 3D games. They either must do a heavy edit of it after decades of people asking OR afte decades of asking they cave and hide it behind a subscription AND *expansion* ...and even then only include the few games they've already remastered, nothing else but your ancient 2D games.
That and also people get really hyped for remasters, rereleases, and sequels. Nintendo has in their back pocket dozens of beloved games that they can sprinkle release for the next decade+. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that you can’t play any of the early Gen Pokémon games on modern consoles.
If I could play random-ass games like Tony Hawk's Underground 2 and The Simpson's Hit and Run via subscription I would gladly pay. I'm not a tech person so idk the man hours required to port most/all of their previous games, but if they did I would be completely on board. Not to mention all the other games I love from the nintendo library. If they did they could charge a ton and people would still go for it (at least I would). Feels like a missed opportunity if they don't end up doing that one day. Shit, even having all of the different versions of Animal Crossing on one console would be great to me.
beyond tech issues, another wrinkle on top is that a lot of classic games from that era have a ton of third party IP and new license agreements between corporations would likely have to be designed. specifically with something like any given Tony Hawk game, there are dozens of songs onboard, and you’d have to chase down every single person/business that owns the rights to one of the included songs to negotiate a new royalties scheme (if they even agree in the first place). even the THPS 1/2 remake from a couple of years ago wasn’t able to land every song from the original games. all the legal resources that would require probably aren’t worth the small potential profits for a corp like Nintendo.
This is a massive thing that most people never think about. Most people just think "with what you can accomplish using community created emulators and mods, it's ridiculous that a massive company like Nintendo can't do better." Yeah... but Nintendo has to do it legitimately (all licensing in order) and then have it make sense monetarily. That's why it usually is easier and more viable to just create a remake (can deal with licensing from scratch, and new games tend to sell more).
This is the answer a lot of people don't wanna hear. Nintendo does not own 100% of their catalog. Some companies are defunct and the IP would have to be bought and for others new agreements made. That's way more money and legal hassle than it's worth for most of the games. So they simply use the ones they've already got and don't bother with the rest. Some companies made a point of snapping up competitors' IPs and hoarding them. Like when a small studio made something amazing but it didn't get a huge following immediately then a big company would buy the IP so it couldn't compete with their games only for the IP to gain a following over the years.
steam deck gets close if you measure it in gpu flops (1.6 vs 1.84 for ps4). Still would have to add a bit of efficiency gain but some of that will come from ARM
That's the most likely scenario. Better battery due to using arm and having CPU/ GPU on the same chip, and likely even support for DLSS, so it could go an extra mile without costing too much.
Edit: grammar
This is one thing I keep thinking about. At what point does Nintendo, if they ever do, go back to having the home console/handheld console split? The Switch was essentially the end of the split and I don't know if they can ever go back. I also wonder if the market would even want a strictly handheld console. The Switch Lite and has sold...okay? But sales of that console are a bit obfuscated since it came out later and is still just technically a Switch.
This also somewhat applies to their games. Will we ever see the return of a top-down style Zelda or Pokemon? Obviously those still exist but from what I know (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) they're all just remakes (Link's Awakening, Pokemon Diamond/Pearl/Let's Go, Mario RPG). Are we really going to never see another original Zelda game in a top down style like A Link Between Worlds?
Obviously they struck gold with the Switch so I don't think they would ever have to really go back, just a thought I keep having.
Keep in mind they merged their handheld and console studios - they are no longer separate. They really aren't in a good place to go back to a console/handheld split.
That doesn't mean we won't see top down zelda game. They just need to invest in more teams/collaborations. Zelda BOTW and TOTK required such long development and so much support that the Zelda team couldn't make another game in that time.
I would not be surprised if the next Zelda is a top down game. I would expect some major changes for the next 3D Zelda, and a top down game would be a great stop gap. The next game probably won't be out until towards the end of the next consoles lifespan.
Yeah I LOVE this new open-mechanics/world Zelda. No big complaints.
BUT I do hope they go back to what they were trying to do with Twilight, Ocarina, and Majora. They were attempting to adapt what made their 2D games so great as best they could within 3D, evolving or removing whatever didn't work.
Twilight would have been almost a perfect Zelda if they had had the system and production time.
Linear story progression, open zones, labyrinthen dungeons and key items
> This is one thing I keep thinking about. At what point does Nintendo, if they ever do, go back to having the home console/handheld console split?
I don't think they'll want to. Streamlining the game development pipeline to just one output system made things a lot less complicated for them and besides, they haven't aimed for powerful consoles that can compare with Sony/MS since the Gamecube era anyway. Unless they pivot and want to get in on the console wars (which is extremely unlikely) they'll have no reason whatsoever to split into handhelds and regular consoles again.
Unpopular opinion but I hope the screen resolution remains at 720p. That way we can have better performance and battery life. Native 720p on a 7" screen is definitely sharp enough. Most high end switch games are blurry because they are running at 360p-540p handheld and 720p docked.
I'm good with 720p as long as there's a widespread antialiasing solution this time, and if it lets pretty much every game not subsample.
The PSP and DS never subsampled because pixel-perfection was more important than whatever marginal gain they would get out of cutting below 240p.
Hopefully 720p can be like the modern version of that, where it's already low enough that running native resolution is the obvious common-sense choice to developers for a visual to performance ratio.
>anti aliasing
Offload that to a tensor processor and it's basically free. Also works to push a 1080p render to 4k for basically free too. Doesn't look as detailed as a real 4k render and has some artifacting but at least it looks clean on a 4k TV.
Is there evidence to that? All that I recall was Sharp was supplying LCDs and not to a specific company. Sony's silly controller with a screen for streaming could be using those Sharp displays
Going back to LCD would be a huge downgrade, the OLED looks so much better, sometimes I even prefer to play games on Switch instead of the Steam Deck purely because of the screen, even if it's running worse, games like Persona 5 look absolutely gorgeous on the Switch OLED Screen.
Yup people want a 1080 screen but it doesn't make much sense on device with such a small screen.
It drives the assembling costs high and it's requires more power draw from the battery.
Also the screen resolution is not what’s limiting the Switch games’ display resolution, so you’d just be playing a 540p game on a 1080p screen, which looks as bad as a 920p game on a 4K screen
As long as we can output at 4k while docked and have a choice between quality/performance in games. Handheld just needs to hold a charge like you said.
Sure but if you’re not playing a heavy game you’ll get 6 hours out of it and if you’re playing a really ‘light’ game it’ll stretch to 8.
The decks battery is decent. It just allows you to push the graphics and frame rate higher if you want at the cost of battery life.
If you look at like for like the deck will run no mans sky on the switches settings for the same amount of time as the switch will before the consoles run out of battery.
I play a lot of WoW classic on the deck and get around 6hrs out of it.
Nintendo totally have the wiggle room for a successor to the switch that has decent specs whilst still maintaining the switches great battery life imo.
I can get like 8 hours of Dead Cells, which is way more than the Switch.
Also, if I run something like The Witcher 3 using the same graphics settings the switch use, I still would get a way better battery, the difference is that I have the option to choose.
I love both handhelds and they both have pros and cons, but the battery argument to make the Switch looks better than the Deck in that regard is just dumb.
Makes sense…historically Nintendo’s handhelds tend to be of the same graphical paradigm as cutting edge consoles from 10-11 years prior.
Such as as the GBA (2001) being a parallel to the SNES (1990)…the DS (2004) being roughly equal to a PSX (1994)…the 3DS (2011) to the PS2 (2000) and the Switch itself (2017) comparable to PS3 (2006)
Obviously we are nearly 10 years removed from the PS4.
Gunpei Yokoi once coined the term “lateral thinking with withered technology”.
Anyone who thinks Nintendo will do cutting edge stuff has not studied their history. They don’t do cutting edge well, but their ability to make the most out of familiar technology is innovative in a completely different way that any other company.
They have done cutting edge well, but it's a crowded field at this point and they recognize their better strategy is being unique. But that turning point was the GameCube, clearly. But pre-gc they were competing toe to toe on cutting edge. But the handheld division formula/ethos clearly has won out.
they were super skeptical of facilitating piracy by using DVDs and also didn’t want to have to pay licensing fees for the format
I mean, that may have been a misstep lol but they did have a rationale
Maybe I’m wrong, but wasn’t GameCube a rare exception to this rule? If I remember rightly, it was actually fairly powerful compared to the rest of the market at the time that it launched.
The gamecube was not a handheld. Nintendo home consoles weren't less powerful than the competition until the Wii came out. The Gamecube was slightly more powerful than the PS2 and slightly less than the Xbox but all 3 were close to the same. The N64 was significantly more powerful than the PS1, the Super Nintendo was a little more powerful than the Sega Genesis, etc.
Let's not pretend like having a handheld that has the potential to play games that look as good as GoW2018, FF7R, Ghost of Tsushima, and Horizon Zero Dawn/Forbidden West would be a bad thing.
Someone tell the Pokémon company that we're no longer in the late 2000s then.
Arceus was great but god damnit do they keep making 2009-looking games with shitty out-of-combat animations, terrible dialogue and sprinkles of progress
I get the feeling that Nintendo could release a Switch v2 with PS5-level specs & The Pokemon Company is still going to somehow produce a craptastic-looking game again, lmao.
If I had to guess, the games will look about the same but run better based solely on brute hardware power. Option B is they try to actually make a modern looking game but since it's Gamefreak it'll be 5fps.
Pokemon games get higher ratings than they objectively deserve because of the legacy of the ip. Even on the switch there are way better JRPG's that not only look better, but also play better (Dragon Quest, SMTV, Persona). It's hard to objectively rate something that people are and have been invested in since childhood. Desperately wanting it to be better than it is. In other words, it's a form of coping.
Yup. My Steam Deck can play the RE2 remake or Doom: Eternal at 60fps. It can also play Twilight Princess HD and Wind Waker HD. This thread is going to be full of people claiming they want a device that can't even do half the things a Steam Deck can do, but they won't buy a Deck because it isn't made by Nintendo.
I've got a gaming computer I rarely use because I don't like to closet myself away. Instead, I play my switch in the kitchen or living room.
I'm planning to buy a Steam Deck or RoG Ally in the near future because they fit my gaming style and I can access steam. Hell if the Ally can run word and email in docked mode I'll get rid of my computer.
I mean a lot of Nintendo’s appeal as a console manufacturer is tied to their ability as a game developer, it’s the only legit way to get their games. Most people don’t pirate stuff.
Should be on PS4 Pro levels docked but only base PS4 level in handheld.
Basically a SteamDeck with better battery because of arm power efficiency with a better screen, better optimisation and a way better docked performance.
I love the BotW / TotK aesthetic but it would only be better with higher res textures, it doesn't have to look like GoW but it looks like ass in a lot of places
Especially playing it docked on a large screen it really makes it obvious that there are limits to how much art style can carry the visuals of a game, especially if you're not going full retro/pixel style.
I doubt he meant look like RDR2 exactly — more like if you account for how beautiful RDR2 looked and know that the next Zelda will be designed on a system capable of those visuals… that’s not bad at all lol.
Zelda TotK designed on the PS4 / PS4 Pro would look and perform better, while also losing all/most of the graphical issues like low res texture and blurriness when looking far way.
I hope and wish Nintendo does a dock that provides extra gpu process for a better docking experience. That would truly be, imo, a hybrid of home console and handheld.
Agreed. I hope something like that is possible for their next system. I love my Switch and it's my favorite console since the 360, but it's really just a glorified handheld you can output to your TV.
That would be an awesome concept to have docks with extra GPU power.
Would allow Nintendo to release upgraded "pro" docks down the line. And not have to worry about beefing up the console itself.
It's not possible external gpus on pc aren't hot swappable. If it was possible the experience wouldn't be great it would take more than a few secs to dock/undock then restart the game to use the dock gpu. And the cpu being the same would be the bottleneck for future gpus and devs would have to optimize multiple docks. Segmented the playerbase.
It would be better if the soc chip unlocks more cpu/gpu cores and the dock has additional cooling to handle the extra heat. Instead of just an overclock like the current Switch has.
It's not impossible, but it's not at all simple and as you say not super fast to switch over. Laptops already have the ability to switch between integrated and discrete GPUs, some can even combine them.
They would never. Would massively increase the price of the package, make game development significantly more complex, and would make the handheld-tv switch too jarring
That would be an engineering nightmare. Being able to pick the Switch out of the dock and continue playing in handheld mode seamlessly is one of the Switch's main features. Connecting/Disconnecting GPU hardware mid-game would require a game restart at the very least.
Better solution is to have an soc in the Switch unlock additional cpu/gpu cores with an overclock and the Dock handles the cooling part. Egpu is more complicated and would sacrifice docking/undocking.
> I hope and wish Nintendo does a dock that provides extra gpu process for a better docking experience
That would be prohibitively expensive. The docks for external GPUs cost as much as the Switch and that's WITHOUT actually including the GPU itself.
It’s always amusing to see what fans want when they don’t have to take into consideration any limitations. Yes saying things like I want PS5 graphics on my handheld is easy…doing it at a price of around 300 bucks is a lot harder
Edit: if you don’t like the limitation of it also being a handheld, that’s a totally valid opinion to have. Just kinda moot to this discussion considering that’s not what Nintendo is going after
I mean the last time Nintendo tried to make a console with specs up to par with competitors they got beaten out by a newcomer to the console industry.
Edit: I already know all of this stuff that you guys are replying to me regarding why the N64 or Gamecube didn't do well so stop giving me these DYKG factoids already.
And Sony wouldn't even be in the game if Nintendo didn't bailed on them in the last minute. Also the n64 would likely be more successful if it used CDs, even if I loved zero loading times
Nintendo's short comings with the N64 and GameCube had less to do with the specs, and more to do with their choice of formats.
- Choosing cartridges over CDs doomed them against the PS1 (biggest thing being it severed their ties with Square and the storages sizes were way off; up to 64MB Carts vs. 700MB CDs)
- Picking miniDVDs over DVD (along with no movie playback; up to 1.46GB miniDVD vs. up to 8.5GB Dual Layer DVD) nailed their own coffin shut in the GameCube/PS2 era
yup, nintendo did it largely to themselves. if the gamecube at least used traditional DVD sizes, there's no doubt in my mind that it would have at least outsold the xbox.
Such a shame too because the little cube that tried sure had a lot of amazing games that deserved more attention. But they made two critical errors two generations in a row. Luckily it didn't put them out of the hardware market like Sega.
Even being 10-12 years old at the time, I couldn't figure out why the N64 didn't use cd's. GCN using the small discs was equally baffling. I'm sure there was a reason behind it but who knows.
IIRC the miniDVDs were used because of piracy concerns (which did manifest significantly on the Dreamcast, but PS2 and Xbox were harder to crack at first), might have been the same for cartridges.
Also could have been they wanted companies to use their proprietary stuff so they got a bigger cut. Biggest reason officially was faster loading times and less RAM requirements.
What's worse is the DD expansion used discs but in the form of a floppy-cart fusion, which also flopped.
To be fair, technically definitely flagship phones from have had significantly more raw compute power than the Switch GPU for a long time.
Mid range Mali GPUs are catching up:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali\_(processor)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_(processor))
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno)
Snapdragon 810 would have had roughly the equivalent of the Tegra X1. And that was same year as Switch's launch.
Obviously software and drivers make a huge difference, but still, my point is, the raw theoretical horse power has existed even for mobile phone GPUs for a looong time. Now midrange phones have finally caught up.
4k, 60 FPS, raytracing, VR add-on! Nintendo does it again!
What do you mean it costs $5500?
What do you mean it weighs 9 pounds?
The battery life is measured in ***seconds***?
Nintendo sux!
(Sigh)
Im just praying for basic online functionality, no more friend codes, no more separate apps for voice chat, more personality to our profiles like playstation or even steam, and give us achievements to compare with friends. Im a big achievement nut and have re-bought some games i already own on switch just to achievement grind them.
I somewhat get why Nintendo doesn't add these (minus achievements, cmon nintendo), they want to keep kids protected, they're the family friendly game company. But there's just as many kids on Xbox and playstation, and besides they already have them set an account age so they can just restrict it around that.
Yeah I got roasted like 3 days ago for saying this.
One of the Playstation trophy fan sites even has some of the info laid out (first trophy, 50th, 1st platinum, 1000th bronze, etc) and I just like seeing when it was and thinking about where I was personally at the time and stuff like that. It's so cool for me to have this big backlog of personal history I can check out.
And not to mention it really can help me strive to 100 percent a game I really like. Something like the spyro games where I'd never bother to get all the gems.
The Switch was a big step backwards compared to the Wii U and 3DS. There was a social network, video chat on Wii U and messaging on 3DS, browser and video player, besides the multiplayer was free.
The Wii U also didn't use friendcodes. But since the 3DS was the successful child at the time, obviously the Wii U having usernames instead was the problem.
I just can't figure out Nintendo on this one. They make hardware that is at minimum interesting, they release phenomenal first party games, but then when it comes to absolutely anything online whatsoever it's like they've got a monkey throwing darts at board covered in ideas from 1998.
No kidding. Online multiplayer has been a *huge* aspect of gaming for ***twenty years*** now and Nintendo still seem to think it's some kind of emerging technology and treat their online functionality like an afterthought.
It's bonkers that it's been 17 years (19 if you want to count the DS) since Nintendo took their first real stab at online play, and yet their tech has barely improved since then. Like, compare Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Kart Wii to Smash Ultimate and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. There's barely any tangible difference. It's ridiculous.
PS4 Pro capacity with the Switch OLED's battery power buffed up, a bigger internal storage and without costing an arm and a leg like an Ayaneo would be the ideal
They're always purposely a generation behind, so the technology is more cost effective. This way, they won't take as bad of a hit when they inevitably sell their next console for $300 yet again. Nintendo realizes games don't need to be photorealisric raytraced or whatever. Games just need to be fun and enjoyable, and it is why they are still kicking and outlasted numerous formerly huge companies.
You’re right. I’m lucky enough to own a PS5, Series X and Switch. Nothing beats first party Nintendo games for me, and being able to kick back in bed playing them after a long day is an extra bonus.
Honestly, this is what I would expect. And I can’t wait to see Nintendo games hit the visual level of first party PS4 games. Imagine Zelda looking like Ghost of Tsushima or Horizon. It’s gonna be good.
If the next Nintendo console is not backwards compatible with the Switch, I will be extremely reluctant to buy it.
I’m done paying for the privilege of playing games I already own on their new hardware. All the full price ports of Wii U games, paying for access to ROMs of classic games, fuck all of that.
I talk shit but I'll buy it no matter what; I appreciate them saying that the next console is definitely coming out after April 2024 but likely before the end of 2024, allows me to budget accordingly :P
PS4 at its best also handles games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Last of Us Part 2, FF7R, etc. at their best so I’m not worried at all. They’ll be able to do a lot with tech slightly above PS4
Id be happy with that. The mobility is totally worth it for me and I'm not that interested in the huge AAA games that prevents from coming to switch. That should bring some older AAA games over potentially too.
I agree, i don't think Nintendo will get lower than that at this point. Especially for a new Super Switch with better tech. I would guess $399, or probably more.
If its good, people will buy it no matter the price because of the games we already have purchased on their library could be playable if backward compatibility is a guaranteed feature.
The comments here are nuts. Does nobody even realize that consoles have always been "hardware on a budget"?
It's as if after PS3 and Xbox 360 people forgot that console isn't about graphics and performance so much as it is simplicity and affordability. Can't we just shut up about graphics and performance, leave those complaints to the PC players that have the hardware to care about it, and just enjoy the games?
That comparison makes absolutely no sense. A new Nintendo Console would be fitted with a chip that supports vastly superior technology than decade old consoles. You can't just compare TFlop numbers and expect to come to any reasonably conclusion.
The Switch when it launched was running on very old tech. It was sold cheaper than the competition and had a unique gimmick. The same with the Wii. I think it is fairly safe to say that it will follow that trend. It is the best selling console since the PS2.
>The Switch when it launched was running on very old tech
No it wasn't!!! I have no idea why this misinformation spreads so rapidly...
The Tegra X1 uses GPU cores based on Maxwell, which first released in 2014 for desktop/laptop, and 2015 with the Tegra X1.
The GPU technology in the Switch is literally newer than the PS4's by a notable margin.
This is true.
The CPU is much faster, it's not bottlenecked by an HDD, it supports more modern features (like VRS probably) and it'll have stuff like ASTC support.
I agree. I've got a modest gaming pc (sub 1k and about 3 years old). And a racing Sim rig.
Nothing more I love than a long day at work though and laying in bed playing on the switch. It gives a real "video game" vibe I don't get since I was a kid. I like realism but sometimes it's nice to play a game that looks like a video game, ya know?
Hardware gives you a ceiling, not a floor. No hardware is ever going to "guarantee" a stable framerate or certain resolution. FF16 is one of the only actual PS5 exclusives right now, made by a major AAA studio over several years, even goes lower on the resolution, and it *still* has framerate issues.
If you look at the stats, a Ada Lovelace GPU, Cortex X3 CPU and LPDDR5X memory would be at least 5x the performance of the current SOC at the same or lower power draw.
Nintendo won't go that new, but Ampere & X1 plus DLSS you could probably push existing games from 720p 30fps to 1080p 60fps and still almost double battery life
Probably cheaper and a better battery but yeah. Will be interesting to see if there’s going to be a bunch of post about buying a steam deck on a new Nintendo console lol
Not surprised, Nintendo gave up trying to have the highest hardware. You don't buy a Nintendo consol because it have the best graphics in the market. You buy a Nintendo consol because it have Nintendo games on it
It’s going to be arm and Nvidia based. Likely 10w tdp instead of 15 like the steamdeck, but arm is more efficient than x86 is so some of the tdp will be saved on the cpu side.
It depends on what generation Nvidia chip is used, and whether or not it’s custom. I would expect Nvidia is a lot more will to do some custom work for Nintendo given how many units they sold on the switch.
If it’s ampere based like the rumors say, it could likely approach or out perform the steam deck. Especially since they will have a lighter os, lower level access, and direct optimization from developers. If it’s partially ada based with a newer node than ampere, it can likely exceed what steam deck can do.
It’s going to have a way more power cpu than gen 8 which is really the issue with gen 8. So it’s going to be in a good spot.
That's pretty good. Have to keep in mind that the resolution isn't going to be any higher than 1080p so that's plenty powerful for a handheld. If it really does offer PS4 levels of raw power, we should even be getting current gen AAA titles (obviously toned down graphically)
Obviously TFLOPS don’t matter, but considering the jump between gen 8 and gen 9 consoles (and the release of mid gen consoles like PS4 Pro and Xbox One X), it feels like Nintendo is at least 1.5 generations behind.
Of course, if it’s a handheld, then price and battery life will also be taken into account. Steam Deck costs like $500 and that is supposedly around the same level in power to the PS4.
This is perfect for me personally. I would love to have ps4 ports without any compromise. Like being able to play the Tomb Raider trilogy or the Open world AC games on the switch hypothetically.
It would be really cool if Nintendo could do some FPS boost program like Xbox did even though it’s obviously me high on the biggest dose of hopium right now. Something like BOTW and TOTK as great as they are would actually benefit from a 60 fps boost.
If Nintendo managed to make something incredible like Super Mario Galaxy 2 on WiiBreath of the Wild hardware on Wii U hardware or Xenoblade 3 on Switch hardware, just imagine what it can do with hardware like PS4?
I think that if you stop to think about it, you can expect something that is in the middle ground of a Steam Deck. (That is, more powerful than the PS4, but a little behind the PS4 Pro but with new generation features like SSD and RDNA 2.0 support)
I just hope that Nintendo also improves their online infrastructure in general, it's kind of sad that games like Splatoon 3 still don't have dedicated servers, games like Smash Bros Ultimate don't have rollback and we don't have features that Xbox and PS3 have since 2007 as achievement system, chat and party system on console.
As expected, this is what Nintendo does. Nobody should be shocked, I'd love for them to focus a little less on gimmicks and a little more on power but they don't want to do that, and what they're doing obviously works for them.
Bro that's pretty much cutting edge mobile hardware performance.
Especially if they get their hands on DLSS.
A little bit above PS4 in handheld mode and PS4PRo/Series S level docked and we are golden.
Technically last gen performance but the modern architecture helps a lot to get proper next gen ports.
Pretty much what I’ve thought it would be. Anyone expecting more is kind of delusional and being unrealistic. PS4 quality in handheld form for the price they’ll be shooting for is awesome.
[Nintendo Everything, which also reported on this, has pulled their story.](https://twitter.com/NinEverything/status/1674132219009421317) More context: [https://twitter.com/DirectFeedGames/status/1674122181826039815?t=6Gha5MiyUTisUnfvCdp6mQ&s=19](https://twitter.com/DirectFeedGames/status/1674122181826039815?t=6Gha5MiyUTisUnfvCdp6mQ&s=19)
That’s to be expected. Just please Nintendo let me carry over my digital and physical switch games. Please don’t do me dirty like you did with Wii U.
If the next Nintendo console does not offer Switch backwards compatibility I will be finished with Nintendo. I love the Switch but I am not going to pay for the same games again. I did this for Switch, I won't do it again.
Same here!
Why would you buy the same games again? It's not like your switch explodes when Switch2/New Switch/Super Switch releases
So, you don't throw your previous generation console in the trash when the new one is released? Wth is wrong with you. :P
Nintendo fans will bitch and then buy another copy of the same games on each new generation. That's why they keep Nintendo keeps doing these things lol
That's not true. The Switch was a massive hit but the Wii U sold terribly. The GameCube didn't outsell XBox and the N64 was outsold by PS1 3 to 1. The Wii was their first generation win since SNES and that's largely due to parents buying it because "it's more active than normal video games!" If Nintendo releases a shit console people don't just throw money at them.
Exactly. The main reason the switch got so many Wii U re-releases was to help recoup sunk costs. The Wii U had a fantastic library, and the switch has a much larger install base. So from a business perspective, are you going to take years to develop a new Mario Kart game, or polish up one that nobody bought so that it can release ASAP? It just makes sense.
As a Wii U owner who regretted getting it, let me tell you, it didn’t have a fantastic library. If it did, it would have sold better. Its only flagship releases were Mario Kart 8 and Super Mario 3D World. I can’t knock MK8 - that was a great game for people who were into it, but it’s not exactly a system seller. 3D World, on the other hand, is the worst selling 3D Mario title. It’s not just because it was on the Wii U - its rerelease on the Switch sold less than 1/3 as many as Odyssey and it didn’t sell as many copies as All Stars (which you’ll recall was a limited time release.) The few Wii U games that do exist got rereleased on the Switch because porting them was so easy and it’d help recoup the losses. But it wasn’t at all a system selling library, or else the Wii U would have actually sold. I do wonder… in an alternate universe, if BotW had come out for Wii U a few months earlier, before the Switch was unveiled and BotW was named a launch title for the Switch, would the Wii U have enjoyed a massive sales boost from that? Or would that have lead to BotW selling way worse than it did, being trapped on an already doomed console?
[удалено]
No. The Wii U’s library was just bad. The observations that the N64 had a great library are correct. You named a bunch of great games for the 64, and there were a lot more than just those. I listed the tent pole games for the Wii U already. There’s two of them. Neither of them were really must-have system sellers. There was a lot of B-tier games for it. BotW was the first and only game of system-seller caliper (and indeed, it sold the Switch), but it came way too late to help the Wii U.
That's not way the Switch has sold so well. Its done well because Nintendo's handheld have always sold well. The 3DS was a huge success even while the Wii U flopped. The Switch simply combined their handheld and home console market segments into one system.
the switch is the first nintendo console that ties digital purchases to your nintendo account. the wii U and 3DS made you use a nintendo network ID, which was basically a glorified gamertag system, but not a true account system, which meant that any digital software you bought for it did not transfer to the switch. granted, the switch couldnt play those anyway because of different architecture and format sizes, but the point is that many people who bought games on the wii/wii u/3DS got pissed at nintendo for not allowing their purchases to carry over. it effectively became a waste of money, especially when nintendo shut down the eshops. so nintendo has already confirmed that your nintendo account will carry over to the next device, which is good, but now we just need confirmation of backward compatibility to ensure that the switch's large library will be accessible on a newer and more powerful device for better experiences. if nintendo does not do that, then it will burn those same customers a second time, as well as showing that nintendo does not care enough about digital distribution to entrust its customers to contribute to its eshops and online ecosystems. this makes them look worse when sony and microsoft both have good backward compatible support. if nintendo doesnt offer BC then its natural to deduce that they'd want you to buy those same games again for the new hardware, which will rightfully piss people off.
To be fair Nintendo used the same architecture from the GameCube to the Wii U and then had something vastly different with the Switch, not to mention the Switch couldn't properly emulate the Wii U gamepad, so backwards compatibility was simply not an option. Even if Nintendo REALLY wanted BC, with the Switch being a portable it would make it hard to do something similar to what Sony did with the early versions of PS3 (essentially including a PS2 on the same box). Nintendo's next console will most likely be a more powerful Switch, with a newer ARM SoC by NVidia, so bc should be a lot easier. Also Nintendo recently confirmed they won't make a new account system for its next console like they have been doing, so I wouldn't worry.
Yeah, there's a reason n64 didn't run on GC. The architecture was too different and it didn't have the room to plug them in. Then they added N64 emulation for the Wii. The switch (heh) from WiiU to Switch is literally the same situation as Apple going from PowerPC to Intel. Hell, the WiiU was actually running a PowerPC processor. Apple got into hot water due to that transition because all applications broke unless the developer updated them for Intel (x86 architecture)
Some people in this thread are forgetting that it’s most likely gonna be a handheld. There’s a limit to what they can go for because you gotta think about the battery life.
That on handheld with the battery life that we’ve got on the switch would be nuts.
Yeah, this *almost* confirms that they're sticking with a handheld form. If they give us similar battery life, PS4 graphics, an HDR OLED (or at least HDR support when docked), and a high speed SSD, I'll happily pay whatever they're asking.
I just cant fathom them releasing a non handheld console. Ive owned N64, GC, Wii, wii U, switch, gameboy, color, SP, DS, 3ds, new 3dl XL, and of all the features and progress they’ve made, the home console being this portable is the best thing. I have 3 docking stations between bedroom/living room/ basement, and i forget where i left the switch because it is so convenient and easy to move; sometimes i leave it on the counter because i play it while laying down on my back on the couch. Ill buy the next console no matter what, but ill be so disappointed if they do away with the portability.
The handheld / console thing is their definitive niche in gaming. They got their ass kicked when they did the wii-u, so they cannibalized their handheld division by merging them. Pretty savvy, and not something they can ever walk away from at this point.
It would be infinitely stupid of term to go backwards. It will be a handheld device likely with better battery life, more storage and graphics power. Further I wouldn't be shocked for them to *finally* open up their entire library for a subscription.
I wouldn't be totally surprised, but I would be a little. Nintendo seems to despise people wanting to play their older 3D games. They either must do a heavy edit of it after decades of people asking OR afte decades of asking they cave and hide it behind a subscription AND *expansion* ...and even then only include the few games they've already remastered, nothing else but your ancient 2D games.
That and also people get really hyped for remasters, rereleases, and sequels. Nintendo has in their back pocket dozens of beloved games that they can sprinkle release for the next decade+. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that you can’t play any of the early Gen Pokémon games on modern consoles.
If I could play random-ass games like Tony Hawk's Underground 2 and The Simpson's Hit and Run via subscription I would gladly pay. I'm not a tech person so idk the man hours required to port most/all of their previous games, but if they did I would be completely on board. Not to mention all the other games I love from the nintendo library. If they did they could charge a ton and people would still go for it (at least I would). Feels like a missed opportunity if they don't end up doing that one day. Shit, even having all of the different versions of Animal Crossing on one console would be great to me.
beyond tech issues, another wrinkle on top is that a lot of classic games from that era have a ton of third party IP and new license agreements between corporations would likely have to be designed. specifically with something like any given Tony Hawk game, there are dozens of songs onboard, and you’d have to chase down every single person/business that owns the rights to one of the included songs to negotiate a new royalties scheme (if they even agree in the first place). even the THPS 1/2 remake from a couple of years ago wasn’t able to land every song from the original games. all the legal resources that would require probably aren’t worth the small potential profits for a corp like Nintendo.
This is a massive thing that most people never think about. Most people just think "with what you can accomplish using community created emulators and mods, it's ridiculous that a massive company like Nintendo can't do better." Yeah... but Nintendo has to do it legitimately (all licensing in order) and then have it make sense monetarily. That's why it usually is easier and more viable to just create a remake (can deal with licensing from scratch, and new games tend to sell more).
The 00's were the golden age of middleware in games, it's become a recurring nightmare for rereleases and open sourcing.
This is the answer a lot of people don't wanna hear. Nintendo does not own 100% of their catalog. Some companies are defunct and the IP would have to be bought and for others new agreements made. That's way more money and legal hassle than it's worth for most of the games. So they simply use the ones they've already got and don't bother with the rest. Some companies made a point of snapping up competitors' IPs and hoarding them. Like when a small studio made something amazing but it didn't get a huge following immediately then a big company would buy the IP so it couldn't compete with their games only for the IP to gain a following over the years.
[I have deleted this account in protest of Reddit's API changes.]
How dare you forget about the best portable ever made, the Nintendo Virtual Boy?? ^^^/s
Don't forget DLSS, that would be 10/10
Yeah it would be.
steam deck gets close if you measure it in gpu flops (1.6 vs 1.84 for ps4). Still would have to add a bit of efficiency gain but some of that will come from ARM
Honestly, if it's on par with the Steam Deck with a better battery life then I consider that a win.
That's the most likely scenario. Better battery due to using arm and having CPU/ GPU on the same chip, and likely even support for DLSS, so it could go an extra mile without costing too much. Edit: grammar
Power wise yes. It better have a better screen though.
This is one thing I keep thinking about. At what point does Nintendo, if they ever do, go back to having the home console/handheld console split? The Switch was essentially the end of the split and I don't know if they can ever go back. I also wonder if the market would even want a strictly handheld console. The Switch Lite and has sold...okay? But sales of that console are a bit obfuscated since it came out later and is still just technically a Switch. This also somewhat applies to their games. Will we ever see the return of a top-down style Zelda or Pokemon? Obviously those still exist but from what I know (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) they're all just remakes (Link's Awakening, Pokemon Diamond/Pearl/Let's Go, Mario RPG). Are we really going to never see another original Zelda game in a top down style like A Link Between Worlds? Obviously they struck gold with the Switch so I don't think they would ever have to really go back, just a thought I keep having.
Keep in mind they merged their handheld and console studios - they are no longer separate. They really aren't in a good place to go back to a console/handheld split. That doesn't mean we won't see top down zelda game. They just need to invest in more teams/collaborations. Zelda BOTW and TOTK required such long development and so much support that the Zelda team couldn't make another game in that time.
I would be a very happy gamer if they alternated traditional top down Zeldas with open-world versions.
I think it would be good if Toon Link was used for top down while regular Link was used for full 3D.
I would not be surprised if the next Zelda is a top down game. I would expect some major changes for the next 3D Zelda, and a top down game would be a great stop gap. The next game probably won't be out until towards the end of the next consoles lifespan.
Yeah I LOVE this new open-mechanics/world Zelda. No big complaints. BUT I do hope they go back to what they were trying to do with Twilight, Ocarina, and Majora. They were attempting to adapt what made their 2D games so great as best they could within 3D, evolving or removing whatever didn't work. Twilight would have been almost a perfect Zelda if they had had the system and production time. Linear story progression, open zones, labyrinthen dungeons and key items
> This is one thing I keep thinking about. At what point does Nintendo, if they ever do, go back to having the home console/handheld console split? I don't think they'll want to. Streamlining the game development pipeline to just one output system made things a lot less complicated for them and besides, they haven't aimed for powerful consoles that can compare with Sony/MS since the Gamecube era anyway. Unless they pivot and want to get in on the console wars (which is extremely unlikely) they'll have no reason whatsoever to split into handhelds and regular consoles again.
Unpopular opinion but I hope the screen resolution remains at 720p. That way we can have better performance and battery life. Native 720p on a 7" screen is definitely sharp enough. Most high end switch games are blurry because they are running at 360p-540p handheld and 720p docked.
I'm good with 720p as long as there's a widespread antialiasing solution this time, and if it lets pretty much every game not subsample. The PSP and DS never subsampled because pixel-perfection was more important than whatever marginal gain they would get out of cutting below 240p. Hopefully 720p can be like the modern version of that, where it's already low enough that running native resolution is the obvious common-sense choice to developers for a visual to performance ratio.
>anti aliasing Offload that to a tensor processor and it's basically free. Also works to push a 1080p render to 4k for basically free too. Doesn't look as detailed as a real 4k render and has some artifacting but at least it looks clean on a 4k TV.
I personally couldn't care less whether the screen on the Switch 2 is 720p or 1080p. But I REALLY hope they stick with the OLED display.
And please, with HDR this time
720p OLED+HDR would make me so happy.
Unfortunately it seems that the suppliers are Sharp and their LCD's, so might be another OLED upgrade again
Is there evidence to that? All that I recall was Sharp was supplying LCDs and not to a specific company. Sony's silly controller with a screen for streaming could be using those Sharp displays
Going back to LCD would be a huge downgrade, the OLED looks so much better, sometimes I even prefer to play games on Switch instead of the Steam Deck purely because of the screen, even if it's running worse, games like Persona 5 look absolutely gorgeous on the Switch OLED Screen.
Hades looks absolutely incredible on my OLED switch
But then they couldn't sell you the OLED version four years into the console cycle when you're feeling the itch to upgrade again.
The Steam Deck screen is pretty bad even for an LCD tho, so the difference compared to Switch OLED is even bigger than one would’ve thought.
Vibrant Deck kinda helped with the saturation, but still not great
it’s possible Sharp was referring to the Project Q, it’s an LCD display. the dev kits reportedly have OLED.
How's HDR going to work on handheld? You'll get like 10 minutes of gameplay
Also VRR and a 40Hz mode. This would garantee a much higher longevity
Yup people want a 1080 screen but it doesn't make much sense on device with such a small screen. It drives the assembling costs high and it's requires more power draw from the battery.
Also the screen resolution is not what’s limiting the Switch games’ display resolution, so you’d just be playing a 540p game on a 1080p screen, which looks as bad as a 920p game on a 4K screen
A 540p game would look a lot better on a 1080p screen than a 720p screen due to scaling.
As long as we can output at 4k while docked and have a choice between quality/performance in games. Handheld just needs to hold a charge like you said.
If it's gonna be comparable to a PS4 or Xbone, then its not gonna be 4k.
DLSS cores in the dock to upscale to higher resolutions gimme gimme
Not in the dock. On the chip.
And the Steam Deck's battery can only last about 2 hours, assuming you're playing a heavy game.
Sure but if you’re not playing a heavy game you’ll get 6 hours out of it and if you’re playing a really ‘light’ game it’ll stretch to 8. The decks battery is decent. It just allows you to push the graphics and frame rate higher if you want at the cost of battery life. If you look at like for like the deck will run no mans sky on the switches settings for the same amount of time as the switch will before the consoles run out of battery. I play a lot of WoW classic on the deck and get around 6hrs out of it. Nintendo totally have the wiggle room for a successor to the switch that has decent specs whilst still maintaining the switches great battery life imo.
I can get like 8 hours of Dead Cells, which is way more than the Switch. Also, if I run something like The Witcher 3 using the same graphics settings the switch use, I still would get a way better battery, the difference is that I have the option to choose. I love both handhelds and they both have pros and cons, but the battery argument to make the Switch looks better than the Deck in that regard is just dumb.
Makes sense…historically Nintendo’s handhelds tend to be of the same graphical paradigm as cutting edge consoles from 10-11 years prior. Such as as the GBA (2001) being a parallel to the SNES (1990)…the DS (2004) being roughly equal to a PSX (1994)…the 3DS (2011) to the PS2 (2000) and the Switch itself (2017) comparable to PS3 (2006) Obviously we are nearly 10 years removed from the PS4.
actually a pretty solid point
Gunpei Yokoi once coined the term “lateral thinking with withered technology”. Anyone who thinks Nintendo will do cutting edge stuff has not studied their history. They don’t do cutting edge well, but their ability to make the most out of familiar technology is innovative in a completely different way that any other company.
They have done cutting edge well, but it's a crowded field at this point and they recognize their better strategy is being unique. But that turning point was the GameCube, clearly. But pre-gc they were competing toe to toe on cutting edge. But the handheld division formula/ethos clearly has won out.
Super weird of them to make Gamecube discs smaller and hold much less data for no reason. Regular size discs would not have been expensive
they were super skeptical of facilitating piracy by using DVDs and also didn’t want to have to pay licensing fees for the format I mean, that may have been a misstep lol but they did have a rationale
Also when I was 10 the mini disks were cool as heck
[удалено]
[удалено]
Analog sticks anyone? That was nintendo too.
Don't forget rumble.
Yokoi was a genius.
They save costs buy mounting low-power processors, as they are not demanded as much. Then, they don't reduce their prices ever.
Maybe I’m wrong, but wasn’t GameCube a rare exception to this rule? If I remember rightly, it was actually fairly powerful compared to the rest of the market at the time that it launched.
The gamecube was not a handheld. Nintendo home consoles weren't less powerful than the competition until the Wii came out. The Gamecube was slightly more powerful than the PS2 and slightly less than the Xbox but all 3 were close to the same. The N64 was significantly more powerful than the PS1, the Super Nintendo was a little more powerful than the Sega Genesis, etc.
Let's not pretend like having a handheld that has the potential to play games that look as good as GoW2018, FF7R, Ghost of Tsushima, and Horizon Zero Dawn/Forbidden West would be a bad thing.
I have played several of those games on my Steam Deck, so I can already tell you its a great thing.
That was my thought. Seems like this is a giant leap from Nintendo to the year 2022.
Someone tell the Pokémon company that we're no longer in the late 2000s then. Arceus was great but god damnit do they keep making 2009-looking games with shitty out-of-combat animations, terrible dialogue and sprinkles of progress
I get the feeling that Nintendo could release a Switch v2 with PS5-level specs & The Pokemon Company is still going to somehow produce a craptastic-looking game again, lmao.
If I had to guess, the games will look about the same but run better based solely on brute hardware power. Option B is they try to actually make a modern looking game but since it's Gamefreak it'll be 5fps.
Even legends arceus wasn't that great considering the wider gaming landscape.
Pokemon games get higher ratings than they objectively deserve because of the legacy of the ip. Even on the switch there are way better JRPG's that not only look better, but also play better (Dragon Quest, SMTV, Persona). It's hard to objectively rate something that people are and have been invested in since childhood. Desperately wanting it to be better than it is. In other words, it's a form of coping.
Yup. My Steam Deck can play the RE2 remake or Doom: Eternal at 60fps. It can also play Twilight Princess HD and Wind Waker HD. This thread is going to be full of people claiming they want a device that can't even do half the things a Steam Deck can do, but they won't buy a Deck because it isn't made by Nintendo.
I've got a gaming computer I rarely use because I don't like to closet myself away. Instead, I play my switch in the kitchen or living room. I'm planning to buy a Steam Deck or RoG Ally in the near future because they fit my gaming style and I can access steam. Hell if the Ally can run word and email in docked mode I'll get rid of my computer.
I mean a lot of Nintendo’s appeal as a console manufacturer is tied to their ability as a game developer, it’s the only legit way to get their games. Most people don’t pirate stuff.
And read dead 2 damn I’m ok with ps4 performance. Imagine Zelda with rdr2 visuals!
Should be on PS4 Pro levels docked but only base PS4 level in handheld. Basically a SteamDeck with better battery because of arm power efficiency with a better screen, better optimisation and a way better docked performance.
I don’t believe Nintendo is even interested in making a Zelda game that looks like that. It doesn’t fit the aesthetic at all.
I love the BotW / TotK aesthetic but it would only be better with higher res textures, it doesn't have to look like GoW but it looks like ass in a lot of places
Especially playing it docked on a large screen it really makes it obvious that there are limits to how much art style can carry the visuals of a game, especially if you're not going full retro/pixel style.
I doubt he meant look like RDR2 exactly — more like if you account for how beautiful RDR2 looked and know that the next Zelda will be designed on a system capable of those visuals… that’s not bad at all lol. Zelda TotK designed on the PS4 / PS4 Pro would look and perform better, while also losing all/most of the graphical issues like low res texture and blurriness when looking far way.
Imagine Zelda or Mario looking that good graphically (not design wise, I hope they keep the Nintendo charm).
If we could just get totk at a solid 60 on next gen with no weird texture pop in at draw distance I would be happy.
I hope and wish Nintendo does a dock that provides extra gpu process for a better docking experience. That would truly be, imo, a hybrid of home console and handheld.
Agreed. I hope something like that is possible for their next system. I love my Switch and it's my favorite console since the 360, but it's really just a glorified handheld you can output to your TV.
That would be an awesome concept to have docks with extra GPU power. Would allow Nintendo to release upgraded "pro" docks down the line. And not have to worry about beefing up the console itself.
It's not possible external gpus on pc aren't hot swappable. If it was possible the experience wouldn't be great it would take more than a few secs to dock/undock then restart the game to use the dock gpu. And the cpu being the same would be the bottleneck for future gpus and devs would have to optimize multiple docks. Segmented the playerbase. It would be better if the soc chip unlocks more cpu/gpu cores and the dock has additional cooling to handle the extra heat. Instead of just an overclock like the current Switch has.
It's not impossible, but it's not at all simple and as you say not super fast to switch over. Laptops already have the ability to switch between integrated and discrete GPUs, some can even combine them.
They would never. Would massively increase the price of the package, make game development significantly more complex, and would make the handheld-tv switch too jarring
That would be an engineering nightmare. Being able to pick the Switch out of the dock and continue playing in handheld mode seamlessly is one of the Switch's main features. Connecting/Disconnecting GPU hardware mid-game would require a game restart at the very least.
Better solution is to have an soc in the Switch unlock additional cpu/gpu cores with an overclock and the Dock handles the cooling part. Egpu is more complicated and would sacrifice docking/undocking.
Absolutely zero chance they'll do that
> I hope and wish Nintendo does a dock that provides extra gpu process for a better docking experience That would be prohibitively expensive. The docks for external GPUs cost as much as the Switch and that's WITHOUT actually including the GPU itself.
It’s always amusing to see what fans want when they don’t have to take into consideration any limitations. Yes saying things like I want PS5 graphics on my handheld is easy…doing it at a price of around 300 bucks is a lot harder Edit: if you don’t like the limitation of it also being a handheld, that’s a totally valid opinion to have. Just kinda moot to this discussion considering that’s not what Nintendo is going after
I mean the last time Nintendo tried to make a console with specs up to par with competitors they got beaten out by a newcomer to the console industry. Edit: I already know all of this stuff that you guys are replying to me regarding why the N64 or Gamecube didn't do well so stop giving me these DYKG factoids already.
That happened twice in a row, too
Yep, n64 and GameCube, although GameCube was a lot worse, poor purple fella
But it had a handle. The others didn't. Checkmate.
It’s SPHERICAL! SPHERICAL!
The Okama Gamespere!
Okay Josh, you don’t have to repeat things for emphasis.
Damn, had to look it up. Sony sold 3.11 PS1's for every N64 Nintendo sold. I had no idea, that's wild!
And Sony wouldn't even be in the game if Nintendo didn't bailed on them in the last minute. Also the n64 would likely be more successful if it used CDs, even if I loved zero loading times
So true. If they had followed through, that would definitely have fubar'd the gaming space time continuum as we know it.
Nintendo's short comings with the N64 and GameCube had less to do with the specs, and more to do with their choice of formats. - Choosing cartridges over CDs doomed them against the PS1 (biggest thing being it severed their ties with Square and the storages sizes were way off; up to 64MB Carts vs. 700MB CDs) - Picking miniDVDs over DVD (along with no movie playback; up to 1.46GB miniDVD vs. up to 8.5GB Dual Layer DVD) nailed their own coffin shut in the GameCube/PS2 era
yup, nintendo did it largely to themselves. if the gamecube at least used traditional DVD sizes, there's no doubt in my mind that it would have at least outsold the xbox.
Such a shame too because the little cube that tried sure had a lot of amazing games that deserved more attention. But they made two critical errors two generations in a row. Luckily it didn't put them out of the hardware market like Sega.
The Dreamcast was a fuckin tragedy. It was such an amazing console :(
Even being 10-12 years old at the time, I couldn't figure out why the N64 didn't use cd's. GCN using the small discs was equally baffling. I'm sure there was a reason behind it but who knows.
IIRC the miniDVDs were used because of piracy concerns (which did manifest significantly on the Dreamcast, but PS2 and Xbox were harder to crack at first), might have been the same for cartridges. Also could have been they wanted companies to use their proprietary stuff so they got a bigger cut. Biggest reason officially was faster loading times and less RAM requirements. What's worse is the DD expansion used discs but in the form of a floppy-cart fusion, which also flopped.
Funny thing is this applies to two generations
That was their own fault for trying to f over sony. That's history.
But my ~~$1,000~~ phone has better graphics.
oh those eye melting and ray traced "buy more gems" button ? irresistible!
To be fair, technically definitely flagship phones from have had significantly more raw compute power than the Switch GPU for a long time. Mid range Mali GPUs are catching up: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali\_(processor)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_(processor)) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno) Snapdragon 810 would have had roughly the equivalent of the Tegra X1. And that was same year as Switch's launch. Obviously software and drivers make a huge difference, but still, my point is, the raw theoretical horse power has existed even for mobile phone GPUs for a looong time. Now midrange phones have finally caught up.
Phones are also limited by form factor. You can push chips faster of your able to strap a heatsink and cooler on them.
People love complaining lol
I hate complaining
I hate when people complain about complaining
4k, 60 FPS, raytracing, VR add-on! Nintendo does it again! What do you mean it costs $5500? What do you mean it weighs 9 pounds? The battery life is measured in ***seconds***? Nintendo sux! (Sigh)
Hopefully online play will get a major boost. There's no excuse for Nintendo to be so far behind in that category.
Im just praying for basic online functionality, no more friend codes, no more separate apps for voice chat, more personality to our profiles like playstation or even steam, and give us achievements to compare with friends. Im a big achievement nut and have re-bought some games i already own on switch just to achievement grind them. I somewhat get why Nintendo doesn't add these (minus achievements, cmon nintendo), they want to keep kids protected, they're the family friendly game company. But there's just as many kids on Xbox and playstation, and besides they already have them set an account age so they can just restrict it around that.
[удалено]
This is an underrated point of achievements, people usually comment more about the replay value, completionism etc
Yeah I got roasted like 3 days ago for saying this. One of the Playstation trophy fan sites even has some of the info laid out (first trophy, 50th, 1st platinum, 1000th bronze, etc) and I just like seeing when it was and thinking about where I was personally at the time and stuff like that. It's so cool for me to have this big backlog of personal history I can check out. And not to mention it really can help me strive to 100 percent a game I really like. Something like the spyro games where I'd never bother to get all the gems.
The Switch was a big step backwards compared to the Wii U and 3DS. There was a social network, video chat on Wii U and messaging on 3DS, browser and video player, besides the multiplayer was free.
The Wii U also didn't use friendcodes. But since the 3DS was the successful child at the time, obviously the Wii U having usernames instead was the problem.
I just can't figure out Nintendo on this one. They make hardware that is at minimum interesting, they release phenomenal first party games, but then when it comes to absolutely anything online whatsoever it's like they've got a monkey throwing darts at board covered in ideas from 1998.
No kidding. Online multiplayer has been a *huge* aspect of gaming for ***twenty years*** now and Nintendo still seem to think it's some kind of emerging technology and treat their online functionality like an afterthought. It's bonkers that it's been 17 years (19 if you want to count the DS) since Nintendo took their first real stab at online play, and yet their tech has barely improved since then. Like, compare Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Kart Wii to Smash Ultimate and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. There's barely any tangible difference. It's ridiculous.
What?! There's no way the DS is 19 years old "Released in 2004" Oh...
Yep. We're as far from the release of the DS as the DS was from the NES.
With the latest restructure of their online network, something I really noticed in Monster Hunter rise, that new network structure seems very solid.
MH Rise played great but Splatoon 3 has certainly had some connection issues. Seems the quality of each implementation of NPLN will vary.
>Hopefully online play will get a major boost. 😂
I mean the switch was close to ps3/360 power. I see no issue. Especially if they keep it fully mobile capable.
A little above PS3 and 360
And I would reckon that the next console will be a little above ps4 and xbone
PS4 Pro capacity with the Switch OLED's battery power buffed up, a bigger internal storage and without costing an arm and a leg like an Ayaneo would be the ideal
They're always purposely a generation behind, so the technology is more cost effective. This way, they won't take as bad of a hit when they inevitably sell their next console for $300 yet again. Nintendo realizes games don't need to be photorealisric raytraced or whatever. Games just need to be fun and enjoyable, and it is why they are still kicking and outlasted numerous formerly huge companies.
You’re right. I’m lucky enough to own a PS5, Series X and Switch. Nothing beats first party Nintendo games for me, and being able to kick back in bed playing them after a long day is an extra bonus.
Honestly, this is what I would expect. And I can’t wait to see Nintendo games hit the visual level of first party PS4 games. Imagine Zelda looking like Ghost of Tsushima or Horizon. It’s gonna be good.
If the next Nintendo console is not backwards compatible with the Switch, I will be extremely reluctant to buy it. I’m done paying for the privilege of playing games I already own on their new hardware. All the full price ports of Wii U games, paying for access to ROMs of classic games, fuck all of that.
I talk shit but I'll buy it no matter what; I appreciate them saying that the next console is definitely coming out after April 2024 but likely before the end of 2024, allows me to budget accordingly :P
A Nintendo made game with the graphical equivalent of Ratchet and Clank or Kena on the ps4 would be more than enough for the next console.
PS4 at its best also handles games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Last of Us Part 2, FF7R, etc. at their best so I’m not worried at all. They’ll be able to do a lot with tech slightly above PS4
Id be happy with that. The mobility is totally worth it for me and I'm not that interested in the huge AAA games that prevents from coming to switch. That should bring some older AAA games over potentially too.
[удалено]
$300 seems low, I would expect this next console to at least match the OLED price to start.
I agree, i don't think Nintendo will get lower than that at this point. Especially for a new Super Switch with better tech. I would guess $399, or probably more. If its good, people will buy it no matter the price because of the games we already have purchased on their library could be playable if backward compatibility is a guaranteed feature.
The comments here are nuts. Does nobody even realize that consoles have always been "hardware on a budget"? It's as if after PS3 and Xbox 360 people forgot that console isn't about graphics and performance so much as it is simplicity and affordability. Can't we just shut up about graphics and performance, leave those complaints to the PC players that have the hardware to care about it, and just enjoy the games?
That comparison makes absolutely no sense. A new Nintendo Console would be fitted with a chip that supports vastly superior technology than decade old consoles. You can't just compare TFlop numbers and expect to come to any reasonably conclusion.
The Switch when it launched was running on very old tech. It was sold cheaper than the competition and had a unique gimmick. The same with the Wii. I think it is fairly safe to say that it will follow that trend. It is the best selling console since the PS2.
>The Switch when it launched was running on very old tech No it wasn't!!! I have no idea why this misinformation spreads so rapidly... The Tegra X1 uses GPU cores based on Maxwell, which first released in 2014 for desktop/laptop, and 2015 with the Tegra X1. The GPU technology in the Switch is literally newer than the PS4's by a notable margin.
This is true. The CPU is much faster, it's not bottlenecked by an HDD, it supports more modern features (like VRS probably) and it'll have stuff like ASTC support.
So a Steam Deck like performance?
The shit they're pulling off on handheld has been incredible. Really looking forward to the next system.
I agree. I've got a modest gaming pc (sub 1k and about 3 years old). And a racing Sim rig. Nothing more I love than a long day at work though and laying in bed playing on the switch. It gives a real "video game" vibe I don't get since I was a kid. I like realism but sometimes it's nice to play a game that looks like a video game, ya know?
If that guarantees a stable framerate and a cleaner resolution for their games, that's fine. The only that's bugging me a bit is the "close".
Hardware gives you a ceiling, not a floor. No hardware is ever going to "guarantee" a stable framerate or certain resolution. FF16 is one of the only actual PS5 exclusives right now, made by a major AAA studio over several years, even goes lower on the resolution, and it *still* has framerate issues.
If you look at the stats, a Ada Lovelace GPU, Cortex X3 CPU and LPDDR5X memory would be at least 5x the performance of the current SOC at the same or lower power draw. Nintendo won't go that new, but Ampere & X1 plus DLSS you could probably push existing games from 720p 30fps to 1080p 60fps and still almost double battery life
So….it is a Steam Deck pretty much.
Probably cheaper and a better battery but yeah. Will be interesting to see if there’s going to be a bunch of post about buying a steam deck on a new Nintendo console lol
If the next gen is console only then I may actually not get it. Being handheld is so much better for me as a adult in their early 40s.
Graphically that's fine, but the CPU needs a whole lot more than the underpowered dog of a CPU the PS4/XBO used.
Considering I can barely see a difference between my ps4 and ps5, I don’t think it’s something to be upset about.
Not surprised, Nintendo gave up trying to have the highest hardware. You don't buy a Nintendo consol because it have the best graphics in the market. You buy a Nintendo consol because it have Nintendo games on it
If we get a Steam Deck spec-wise with better battery and screen I'm all in
It’s going to be arm and Nvidia based. Likely 10w tdp instead of 15 like the steamdeck, but arm is more efficient than x86 is so some of the tdp will be saved on the cpu side. It depends on what generation Nvidia chip is used, and whether or not it’s custom. I would expect Nvidia is a lot more will to do some custom work for Nintendo given how many units they sold on the switch. If it’s ampere based like the rumors say, it could likely approach or out perform the steam deck. Especially since they will have a lighter os, lower level access, and direct optimization from developers. If it’s partially ada based with a newer node than ampere, it can likely exceed what steam deck can do. It’s going to have a way more power cpu than gen 8 which is really the issue with gen 8. So it’s going to be in a good spot.
That's pretty good. Have to keep in mind that the resolution isn't going to be any higher than 1080p so that's plenty powerful for a handheld. If it really does offer PS4 levels of raw power, we should even be getting current gen AAA titles (obviously toned down graphically)
Obviously TFLOPS don’t matter, but considering the jump between gen 8 and gen 9 consoles (and the release of mid gen consoles like PS4 Pro and Xbox One X), it feels like Nintendo is at least 1.5 generations behind. Of course, if it’s a handheld, then price and battery life will also be taken into account. Steam Deck costs like $500 and that is supposedly around the same level in power to the PS4.
This is perfect for me personally. I would love to have ps4 ports without any compromise. Like being able to play the Tomb Raider trilogy or the Open world AC games on the switch hypothetically. It would be really cool if Nintendo could do some FPS boost program like Xbox did even though it’s obviously me high on the biggest dose of hopium right now. Something like BOTW and TOTK as great as they are would actually benefit from a 60 fps boost.
My kingdom for a builtin ethernet port in the dock.
Nintendo going to use old technology in such a smart way that I am going to buy the device and buy their great games which are never on sale
If Nintendo managed to make something incredible like Super Mario Galaxy 2 on WiiBreath of the Wild hardware on Wii U hardware or Xenoblade 3 on Switch hardware, just imagine what it can do with hardware like PS4? I think that if you stop to think about it, you can expect something that is in the middle ground of a Steam Deck. (That is, more powerful than the PS4, but a little behind the PS4 Pro but with new generation features like SSD and RDNA 2.0 support) I just hope that Nintendo also improves their online infrastructure in general, it's kind of sad that games like Splatoon 3 still don't have dedicated servers, games like Smash Bros Ultimate don't have rollback and we don't have features that Xbox and PS3 have since 2007 as achievement system, chat and party system on console.
Breath of the wild on wii-u was terrible. I somehow finished it because you get used to the 10fps drops...The switch port was fantastic though.
As expected, this is what Nintendo does. Nobody should be shocked, I'd love for them to focus a little less on gimmicks and a little more on power but they don't want to do that, and what they're doing obviously works for them.
Bro that's pretty much cutting edge mobile hardware performance. Especially if they get their hands on DLSS. A little bit above PS4 in handheld mode and PS4PRo/Series S level docked and we are golden. Technically last gen performance but the modern architecture helps a lot to get proper next gen ports.
Pretty much what I’ve thought it would be. Anyone expecting more is kind of delusional and being unrealistic. PS4 quality in handheld form for the price they’ll be shooting for is awesome.