Forums

Topic: E3 2021 Discussion Thread

Posts 561 to 580 of 592

kkslider5552000

I don't care about the Switch Pro thing I won't buy regardless of what it is or isn't, but I will say, it coming out in 2022 makes a lot of sense when you realize the rest of these 2021 games are not the most popular or massive games Nintendo has made. None of these games will need a Switch Pro in any way, nor showcase why you should buy it. So big games come out later and the Switch Pro goes more or less along with it. Makes sense to me.

Non-binary, demiguy, making LPs, still alive

Megaman Legends 2 Let's Play!:
LeT's PlAy MEGAMAN LEGENDS 2 < Link to LP

skywake

@ThanosReXXX
I'm of the view that a "Switch Pro" is likely either this year or early next year. And that it makes sense to do that because a revision that's ~2-3x the spec allows them to sit on their hands longer. Let the Switch experiment extend out to 2026.

But if they don't do that? Well, how many consoles have lasted more than 7 years? Remember, the Switch is 5 years old early next year. People have talked precedent when discussing "Switch Pro", I see a successor that makes the Switch obsolete ~2024 if we don't get a Switch Pro. That's the alternative.

Frankly I prefer the revision model for hardware. I see no reason for dramatically changing things up. I see the Switch as what Nintendo has been heading towards for the last 20 years. This is the end game. Let's hope they extended it

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

skywake

Balta666 wrote:

@skywake a revision won't have 2-3x the specs. More likely under 1.5x (it would appears to be more because of higher fidelity due to dlss but do not expect to have games above 60fps for instance)

I mean, to be fair to your point, it's hard to define differences in spec. Having more power is one thing the question is how much that power translates into real world performance. There will always be bottlenecks and not every load scales with additional power. With that said, the Switch uses a modified Tegra X1 SoC, first released in 2015. At the time the Switch launched this was the best Tegra SoC Nvidia had: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra#Tegra_X1

If they were doing a refresh now the most likely SoCs would be either Xavier which is pretty recent, about a year old now. At least double the memory bandwidth, if they go for the larger one about 4X. Tensor cores which is where you get DLSS. Raw GPU horsepower between 30% higher than the launch Switch (which is in the range of the current retail Switch) but upto 3X if they go all out. Likely they would go somewhere in the middle. These launched in 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra#Xavier

But it's not 2019, it's 2021. So it's possible they go with the next one up which would mean an Ampere based Tegra. Not much of a spec on this SoC yet because it's just in early sampling but Ampere is quite a leap in terms of efficiency over Volta. So potentially they could get well into the 2-3X range
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra#Orin

Also you have to kinda remember that tech improves exponentially. Generally we see just under a 10X boost in raw performance between console generations. It's been a good 5 years since the Switch launch, a 50% bump in spec just isn't what you do after 5 years. I mean I tend to build myself a new PC every 5 years, I'm certainly getting more than a 50% bump every time. This was my last upgrade, my budget was actually lower for the more recent one....
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-4590-vs-AMD-Ryz...

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Balta666

@skywake I agree with most of your points however I expect them to prioritize both overall cost and battery life. Imo a 2-3x improvement is not a mid-life revision but an overall successor and all games target at that would not run on the original (unless they go for a cloud only solution for those games on the OG).
But in the end I do not see Nintendo doing so at this time.

link3710

Balta666 wrote:

all games target at that would not run on the original.

That's definitely not true. Weve had plenty of PS4 /XB1 ports, and a 2-3x boost in power would put docked mode only at around where those are, and portable mode even less.

link3710

ThanosReXXX

@skywake I suppose that from a "success story" perspective, they'd be crazy not to continue on with the Switch form factor, which would ultimately indeed result in direct successor, such as a Pro or Switch 2, but I do remember their earlier statements, on wanting to stretch the Switch'es life cycle for at least a couple more years, which haven't passed yet.

Of course, that could be seen as "proof" that yet another revision, aka a "Pro" is imminent, or it simply means that they're going to stick to their guns and will simply keep the two models they have now. Of course, they HAVE done more than two iterations of a system before, but that was only with their 3DS handheld line, never with a main line console (I'm not counting the Wii Mini, because that had other reasons, and was actually a downgrade instead of a better version of the original).

But anyway, they still are their own entity, the people at Nintendo, and very rarely do they make decisions that make sense to us, the general, Western audience, so who knows what they'll come up with next. They're all about always finding "new ways to play", after all. And they're never afraid to take risks, something that I actually like and can appreciate about them.

I do agree with you on a personal level that they should probably stick with what works for them, but I also keep my expectations a bit low in that regard, so I'd tell anyone who's open-minded enough to the reality of all of this, that they should perhaps be prepared to be surprised. Or maybe, with its current president, they finally will see the light and won't take that many risks again, but we'll see.

On a side note: I saw you do the whole chip set layout and so on. Interesting read, by the way. But I'd dare to wager a bet that whatever chipset they'd use for any potential direct successor, it'll probably once again be a toned-down version of the original, much like how the current one in the Switch is a lighter, more restricted version of the one in the Nvidia Shield.

'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'

Nintendo Network ID: ThanosReXX

link3710

@Balta666 ...what does that have to do with the idea that a Switch at that power couldn't have games cross-playable with the base model?

link3710

Balta666

@link3710 you said that we already have games from PS4/xbo on switch but the reality is we mostly have ports from previous gen or lesser demanding games (with a few exceptions like Witcher, Doom or mortal kombat). I am arguing such an upgrade in computing power would make that a lot of games would run only on the new system and I don't see that being a reality and in that case why would they have all that power just not to use it properly

Edited on by Balta666

skywake

ThanosReXXX wrote:

Of course, they HAVE done more than two iterations of a system before, but that was only with their 3DS handheld line, never with a main line console

But when you think about it this isn't too surprising. Before the Gamecube the architecture of Nintendo's consoles changed dramatically between generations. I mean everything was, consoles were not general purpose machines. They went from 8bit to 16bit to 64bit, changing from Ricoh to NEC + Silicon Graphics to PPC + ATI/Radeon. And while they hit some architectural stability on the Gamecube they shot themselves in the foot by going with Mini-DVDs. And obviously, by the end of the Wii U era PPC was kinda dead so they needed to shift away.

I think the only real place where they could have technically made a console revision was with the Wii. They could have made a Wii HD around 2010. They openly talk about how they probably should have although you can kinda see why Nintendo's execs held out for the Wii U. If you're going HD 25GB discs are nicer than 5-9GB discs and I can see how the idea of the Gamepad went down well with Nintendo's execs. I mean their whole strategy has been about blurring the lines between portables and home consoles since the late 90s. The Gamepad is something they would obviously jump on.

But with the Switch? They're on a stable architecture and game cartridge size is only limited by the constantly dropping price of flash. They're upto 64GB cartridges now, PS5 can have 100GB discs and in any case we live in the age of digital distribution. Also they've realised the Nintendo dream of a console that successfully merges home and portable consoles with a console that has fully modular controllers. You're right that Nintendo hasn't really revised their home consoles before and they are unpredictable but.... they've never really been in this position before.

I mean maybe you're right, maybe they do ditch the Switch form/architecture for something else. Maybe they go VR or something, maybe they go from Arm to x86. It's possible. But all I can think of is that if I was a game dev at Nintendo whispering in the ears of the hardware dev team? The only thing I'd be screaming for would be more power and maybe some new controllers. Because the Switch is a pretty versatile little machine.

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

ThanosReXXX

@skywake Oh, God no, I REALLY hope they don't go the VR way. Not that it will be as bad as the Virtual Boy, or as basic as LABO, and I also think that in some ways, VR is more than a temporary hype, but it should probably never be the main dish, but an added extra, much like how Sony has done it so far, and how various manufacturers have done it and are doing it with smart devices and on PC.

I'm familiar with the whole Wii HD story, or at least: the what if story, and then we all know what happened. They held out, the Wii U came, they didn't just drop one ball but an entire container full of them, where marketing is concerned, no one understood them, people thought the GamePad was a Wii add-on, the Wii U bombed, and the rest is history.

Basically, the Switch is one HELL of a magical comeback, if you ask me. I'm seriously wondering if any of the other two might also have been able to pull that off or if we would subsequently would have had to be content with only two video game giants instead of three, in that case.

Edited on by ThanosReXXX

'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'

Nintendo Network ID: ThanosReXX

skywake

@ThanosReXXX
Yeah, VR would be a dumb move but I struggle to think of what else upcoming would require dropping the Switch form. I guess that's why I'm a software dev in a small Australian enterprise focused company not some high up in a gaming mega corporation.

But yeah, the only time they've really been in this position before was with the Wii and possible Wii HD. They went the successor path then. It was the wrong move. I hope they've learnt their lesson.

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

link3710

@Balta666 2-3x power is not that much in practice. Honestly, for most of Nintendo's 1st party efforts, that would be just enough to get just about everything running at a stable 1080p60 instead of the usual 900p30 or 720p60 that we see with most offerings right now.

Heck, Xenoblade Chronicles 2 already came out running at sub 480p on this system, I don't think even 2-3x power would get that game running at 1080p60. They're already pushing well past what the system can do with their games, I don't see that changing.

link3710

skywake

link3710 wrote:

@Balta666 2-3x power is not that much in practice. Honestly, for most of Nintendo's 1st party efforts, that would be just enough to get just about everything running at a stable 1080p60 instead of the usual 900p30 or 720p60 that we see with most offerings right now.

Pretty much. I mean people tend to forget the New 3DS, which was largely a uneventful revision, doubled the RAM, doubled(ish) the core count, increased the CPU clock by 3X and increased the GPU clock by 50%. The 3DS was far enough behind and limited by a fairly low res screen to the point where it wasn't a game changer but still. Was enough to dramatically improve loading times and give us significantly more stable framerates in certain titles. Doubling the spec or more is far from out of the ordinary for a hardware refresh

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

skywake

@Balta666
You're talking raw GPU performance there methinks. I mean of course there wasn't much of a GPU bump with the New 3DS, it had a sub standard definition screen

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Dogorilla

skywake wrote:

Yeah, VR would be a dumb move but I struggle to think of what else upcoming would require dropping the Switch form

I don't know anything about VR technology so I could be completely off the mark here but I would have thought the Switch form factor is ideal for VR, and the Labo headset seems like they were testing that idea on a smaller budget. There'd need to be a new Switch model/successor with a higher screen resolution, but then they could make a headset that you just insert the Switch into instead of it having its own screen, and you could use Joy-Cons as controllers. That would be a perfect affordable VR headset, surely?

"Remember, Funky's the Monkey!"

Funky Kong

skywake

@Dogorilla
Not quite what I was going for but lets entertain this thought. How is the current Switch not great as a VR solution and where does it fall short? I'd argue there are four places it falls short: Resolution, refresh rate/framerate, screen type and external tracking. For decent VR you want a stable 90fps or above, you want at least 2x 1080p but more resolution is better, you ideally want OLED screens and you want fast and stable head tracking.

You could get the Switch closer to this by giving it a higher resolution OLED panel that can run at 90Hz. You'd then want more graphical horsepower to drive that screen, enough to get a stable 90fps. At this point, kinda sounding like the rumoured "Switch Pro". But in addition to that? You want some kind of stable head tracking, ideally camera boxes. Which, really, would just be additional accessories to the current Switch form factor.

..... where it deviates from the current Switch is mostly in the housing to contain the hardware. I mean you can do VR with a "device sliding into a headset" but it's not ideal. What you REALLY want is an integrated screen/lens unit. I mean, it's possible a future "Switch" could be that, it's also possible they could to that and have it still be a "Switch". I just don't think the tech or demand is quite there yet for the price it'd end up being.

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Dogorilla

@skywake I see, thanks for explaining. I could still see Nintendo doing something like that in the future even if it's not a perfect solution. Using the Switch itself as the screen would make it much more affordable than the other VR headsets on the market, and it definitely wouldn't be unlike Nintendo to focus on affordability instead of being the most advanced technology, and maybe include some additional gimmick to further set it apart from PSVR and the like. But yes, I agree it's not likely to be something that Nintendo is currently all that interested in.

"Remember, Funky's the Monkey!"

Funky Kong

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic