Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@JaxonH I think their contract with FIFA demands them to support every system with at least one game. That's probably why we got 18 in the first place; I expect they'll release that game every year with a new number, it's hardly any effort for them.

^hmm not sure why I didn't consider a contract being the reason for the FIFA support. Geez that thought makes it worse.

@Ryu_Niiyama
What about The Sims 4 ?
EA keep milking The Sims 4 franchise for PC, PS4 & Xbox1 users but still NO Chance for Switch player to enjoy The Sims 4 on Nintendo Switch.
EA just only care about FIFA , but NEGLECT the existence of The Sims 4 for Switch.

@Octane
I just don't understand with EA.
Long time ago, when The Sims games were really popular, Nintendo always got the series.
During Wii & NDS era, EA collaborated with Nintendo in My Sims games until My Sims Sky Heroes. The Sims 3 Pets was the LAST The Sims series for Nintendo.
It was so UNFAIR when PS4 & Xbox1 got The Sims 4 (And the DLCs + Expansion packs through online payments) while Switch DIDN'T get any chance.
EA said that they had NO Plan to release The Sims 4 for Switch.
Of course they can said like that because they ONLY care with FIFA Too Much, Abandoned other franchises.

@PCkid
I didn't see where in the page you linked that there's any involvement with Nintendo, much less a "Project Super NX" (Super Switch as you put it)
I'd love to find out more about the possible next gen Switch, where can I find out more ???

@Nemodius

It was a supposition, not a statement. I personally think that Niagara couldn't be really effective on the actual hardware. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I see it.

@JaxonH Valiant Hearts was an amazing game. I think I got it through Games With Gold on XBL.

@PCkid
I wouldn't mind seeing an upgraded Switch, but NOT until 2021, even then, I (personally) don't want it bigger or smaller, I like it as is size & shape wise, fixing the dust covers ffor the sticks and Bluetooth access is a must, I think some 4k graphics is a lot gluttonous, 1080p for the screen sure, 3.xGHz Quad processor, great, 16GB ram, awesome, and 256GB storage, it is realistic and could keep it under $400

it would give the game companies the ability to port anything on Sony and Microsoft over, able to make even greater games and could put Nintendo back over the top, instead of just skimming around the same line of their competitors

but that's just me

@Nemodius

Knowing Nintendo, the Switch 2.0 will be just an upgraded version but in small proportions.
You talk about 16Gb RAM, let me tell you already that it's impossible with Nintendo.
6Gb or 8Gb at the max but 16 no way.

Sony and MS have monsters on the way and third party multiplatform games are gonna stop on Switch in no time.

The only solution for Nintendo is to have a brand new "only home console" to compete with the others if they want to get the next multiplatform games.

@subpopz
that was a link to what he hoped they used, not evidentiary, and I felt me data spoke realistically for itself, which you ended up pulling up the same data and proving my point, except my accidentally leaving out the "$" in front of a number, causing an understandable misunderstanding

anyway, wasn't that like two days ago ???
why you lowering yourself to throwing shade bro ???

@Nemodius
1080p for the screen

That's completely unrealistic. Aside from the fact the ppi for a 6" 720p screen is already incredibly dense, more so than a 1080p television 6 feet away, which means there's no real need for a higher resolution screen, there's the fact that rendering at 720p already pushes 2.5 - 3 hour battery life. Rendering at a resolution 2.25x that would destroy any semblance of battery life left on the system. And if they kept the same battery life then it means it would destroy the graphical fidelity and resolution instead, eliminating any gains from a more powerful system, and then some. It is completely counterintuitive to use a 1080p screen in a handheld gaming device. It's fine when your rendering Candy Crush, it's not fine when you're rendering current generation AAA games on a battery.

And just FYI, they're not going to cram in specs like that. Not even current generation home power consoles are doing 16gb RAM. Not even my PC-based $650 Win 2 gaming handheld is doing 16gb of RAM.

The fact is any hybrid system is going to have to make compromises (which means not getting every single game) as it plays a delicate balance among power, battery life and price, and the sooner people accept that the better. Sure, they can bump it up a bit, they can enlarge that envelope a little bit to where a few more games can run on the system that wouldn't otherwise run. But it's not going to be some monstrous jump.

And I don't think next generation consoles are anywhere close to releasing. Nobody is going to waste money on a next generation console unless its price is reasonable, and unless it offers something more than what we already have. And right now, what we have, costs $500 for the Xbox One X. Which means nobody is going to buy a next generation Xbox or PlayStation if it's not a considerable jump over that. And even if it is, they're not going to buy it unless it's a reasonable launch price (definitely no more than $500, preferably $400). And selling a console that's a considerable jump over the X1X for $400-500 (the same exact price the X1X is now) isn't going to happen for several years, maybe even half a decade. Until the X1X cost has come down to $250-300, it's not even feasible. The fact the X1X is $450-500 right now means that's the best they can offer for that much money. They're not going to magically be able to offer a console an entire generational leap beyond the X1X for the exact same price as of next year.

Which means we are years and years away. And tbh, after seeing Red Dead 2 on the X... I don't think we need next generation consoles for at least another five years anyways. What they're more likely to do, is just stop selling the base models after a period of time. Then slowly phase out games compatible with the base models.

Didn’t 1X just hit last year? Along with 1S shortly before it? I agree that I don’t thing PS5/Scarlet are coming out for at least 2 years. Anything short and they could risk fracturing their user base.
As far as Nintendo is concerned, we’ve already seen (and heard from them) that they are not in the business to build powerful competing spec boxes. They’ve long gotten away from that measuring contest, and for the most part have done well for it.

@JaxonH Holiday 2020 at the latest for next gen. Games like Red Dead 2 and MH World show how old the PS4 is getting and PS5 being on the market with XB1X rather than a next gen Xbox would mean another guaranteed victory for Sony so of course Microsoft will release a next gen Xbox around the same time as the PS5.

@PCkid
Posit: if you had the choice between three next gen systems, all having same processor capabilities, graphical capabilities, ram, storage, ect and each also having very similar user interface controllers, and no third party games are exclusive to any one system
the first all third party games look and play exactly the same between ALL platforms and the others remain the same format of console or hybrid....

The "Sony Box 5" $400 (console)
The "X Station Omega" $400 (console)
The "Nindietendo Switcheroo" $400 (hybrid)

remember this is only a curiosity thing, I obviously am bias towards Nintendo, but this question isn't for me
if you had all the to choose from, but one had the added bonus of act as console or portable, which would you prefer ???

just because a console is portable, does not mean it has to be used as a portable, so don't let any preferences against portables influence a vote against, so.....
realistically, it's not much of a contest save for one thing, first party games and are there enough first party games for the consoles versus the hybrid to make you decide against the hybrid ???

if I over complicated it, think of it like this......

PS 5 (console) & PS5 X (hybrid)
both systems are same price, both have exact same games, exact same hardware, games are exact same format (disk or cart is irrelevant to this question), both systems have same storage, basically EVERYTHING'S exactly the same except one is a hybrid

which would you get ???

@HobbitGamer
I think that's so contradictive to me when talking about Ultra Specs for Next gen machine.
Sony & Microsoft can build Ultra OMG Ultimate machine with 16 GB RAM, 120 fps support, 4K support, 100+ GB Game files, etc, but their games will NEVER attract me anymore if there are still tons of games i hated most.
Unless if there will be The Sims 5 on PS5 & NOT ported on Switch. But the chance for The Sims 5 to be exist on PC & consoles are very low in my opinion, based on what have EA done with their franchises.

Nintendo is ALWAYS able to deliver Cute and Kiddie games on their machines, even Switch now have Neko Tomo, Wakuwaku Sweets, Sumikko Gurashi, and upcoming "Nintendogs" games by Acclaim. Those games don't even require 4K, 16 GB RAM, etc. Just plain simple Family oriented games in Basic HD.

@JaxonH
take it easy it's called "Wishful Thinking" for a reason, I wish for it

but as some very high $$$ tablets prove, it is possible to smash all that power into such a small pack, lots of them (that new Surface Pro 6 business i7 is way too cool), so smashing only 256 store, 16 ram & 3Ghz using less expensive (but still HQ) components makes a $400 Switch 2 realistic, I don't expect it, but know it's realistic

and I have seen 1080p screens as small as 3.5"
(for my friend Subpopz)
https://www.amazon.com/fosa-Display-Raspberry-Acrylic-Protect...

@subpopz
my numbers were 2017, not 2007, but anyway, chill with the Shade Throwing, it's undignified

@Nemodius
I am taking it easy. Simply giving you a rational and logical argument for why that won't happen, and why expecting it is unrealistic. Didn't say it wasn't possible, I said the juice isn't even remotely worth the squeeze, and thus, it's unrealistic as an expectation. It's perfectly viable for non-console-gaming purposes. Not viable for full fat console gaming purposes running on a battery in a $300-400 package. Your more powerful Switch wouldn't provide you with any gains in any area whatsoever except a higher resolution screen, which thanks to already high ppi most wouldn't even notice anyways. The vast majority of people would much rather see improved graphics, performance and battery life. Which is why the company would never do such a thing..

@Grumblevolcano
I think the opposite is true. MH World though, for one, shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Red Dead 2. It's just not as high budget of a game and doesn't look nearly as good. It still looks good though, enough that I would argue the exact opposite is true. Those games show just how viable the PS4 still is. Especially Red Dead, which looked like a full fat next generation title.

Your very point in saying those games show how old the system is, is my very point saying just how viable and how relevant the system still is. The only system that's outdated is the base Xbox One S.

Sony did screw the pooch with their PS4 Pro, which is noticeably less powerful than the X1X, but it's still close enough in the ball park to offer the same games and run the same games even if they are checkerboard rendering or 1440p. I'm not seeing next gen consoles in the next 24 months. And it's a very simple progression of logic that leads me to that conclusion.

The logic goes like this:

1 At the present day and time, the best technology has to offer for $450-500 is the Xbox One X. In order to launch a next generation console, it would need to be an entire generation leap beyond that. Because that's what new generations usher in. If it's not a generational leap above what we already have, then it has no reason to exist.

2 The launch price of a next generation console would need to be in the $400 range. History has proven time and again that consoles which launch for $500 or more struggle.

3 Given Point 1 and Point 2, we can conclude the next generation console from either Sony or MS, would need to be a full generational leap beyond the Xbox One X, and it would need to hit a $400 price point.

4 Given the progress of technology, it should be several years before such a console would be able to offered for such a price.

5 Even ignoring the logistics of price and power, The question must be asked, "to what end, and why?". You don't release a new console unless there is a need for a new console. And Red Dead has proven games haven't even begun to tap out the full potential of what we currently have. Furthermore, each and every new console generation cost them millions (and perhaps even billions?) of dollars. There is an already established install base which is fervently buying games up left and right. Until software sales slow down, there's really no need for such a catalyst. It took them five years to get to the point where they're at. Why throw it all away just for the sake of starting all over again? How does that benefit them? How would it hurt them?

Now. I can definitely see a need for Microsoft to start a new generation because this generation has failed to launch for them. Unfortunately they screwed themselves (and Sony) by releasing the X1X. Because now they are going to have to top that by a generational leap rather than the base model. Meaning the clock started all over again when that console released. That wasn't necessarily the case for New 3DS because it wasn't pushing the limits of technology for the price point offered. But X1X is. Which means they have no choice but to wait for technology to catch up with them, no matter how badly they want to release a new console. You can't just wave a magic wand, abracadabra, and out pops this console a full generation ahead of the X and for $100 less. The mid gen refreshes screwed any chance of a new generation coming in the next couple years, imo.

I do think it's potentially possible to launch in 2020, but that would be cutting it might be close, and the console wouldn't be that much powerful at the $400 price point, and even then they'd probably have to take a fairly sizable loss on each unit sold. I don't think it's impossible- at the end of the day you very well might be right, because none of us have a crystal ball. But after evaluating the evidence, my conclusion is that it is more unlikely than not. I think the PS3/360 generation lasted 8 years, and with diminishing technological returns compounded by mid generation refreshes recalibrating the bar to 0, I think this generation could be the longest we've ever seen in gaming history. And each generation after that will be longer and longer, until there are no more generations. Because the time it takes to see 2-fold returns over the status quo gets longer and longer and longer. So while before you could have a console with visuals that look twice as good in just five years, now it's 10 years, and soon 15 and then 20. Until games look so good you could wait your whole life time and never see a doubling effect of perceived graphical improvement.

@Nemodius

I'd probably choose the "Nindietendo Switcheroo".

My question : Why are you asking me that question ?

@PCkid
not being rough on you, you just seemed pretty rough on the fact the Switch was a hybrid by saying you'd rather have a solid console version

I may have misunderstood, but it just seemed off, like I said, if the next gen had all the power, why would you not be interested in the added function of portability, just curious, nothing judging preferences, I just like to understand other people's thinking

I made a thread once that was basically the same thing, it was for people to try and sell other people why digital or physical is better than the other (not to state preference, but actually, legitimately convince),
honestly, for me it wasn't even about it, no one was going to change their minds anyway, but I wanted to get to know people and how they think and react

some of the conversations got pretty heated, I got to know a lot that week, so just like to get to know people better, not who's idea is better