As a counterpoint, I'd argue most people making games with top tier PS5 or even PS4 era graphics stopped progressing regardless. Like outside of graphical capabilities and maybe size (and other vague, generic "look at our console's power!" flexes)
That Ratchet and Clank game does exist so I don't dismiss your point entirely, but if I want games to be making progress, in most cases, I wouldn't be playing a ton of big budget games in the first place. I think that became clear to me when Shadow of Mordor came out, its Nemesis system looked like the breakthrough of PS4 level technology people were wanting, and then literally zero games beyond its sequel ever did anything like it (and now they can't, thanks WB!)
That doesn't mean I buy the end of console generations. It feels like one of those things where they looked at another successful thing and just decided "THIS IS DEFINITIVELY HOW THINGS WILL GO NOW" for no apparent reason. Like maybe it will happen when VR or cloud gaming becomes popular. I'm sure it will happen any week now. Or month. Or year...
@VoidofLight
You're conflating performance and compatibility, they're different things. I'm talking about consoles going more along the lines of what we see on smart devices and PCs rather than the traditional "start from 0 again" we've seen for consoles over the years. Will there eventually be a cut over point? Obviously yes. Will hardware keep advancing? Yes. But there won't be the clear cut-over.
For example Apple's devices run iOS, you have iOS 1 all the way through 15 and every Apple product gets support across multiple iOS versions. Each new device adds new features, every version of iOS has new features and over time the hardware has become more and more capable in general. As far as developers are concerned you're not really using an iPad 8th Gen, you're running iOS 15. I mean hell, you could be running an iPad Air 2 from 2014 and also be on iOS 15
This doesn't mean hardware hasn't advanced, it doesn't mean there's no performance gap. It just means that there's software compatibility across hardware releases. Also..... I wouldn't be expecting a super fast SSD on Nintendo's next hardware if it keeps the same form factor and a similar price target. And something like RayTracing, simple, just don't enable it on the hardware that doesn't support it
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
@skywake I fail to see the benefit of getting rid of console generations honestly. As far as I’m concerned the PS5 is to the ps4 like what the 3Ds was to the DS, the next generation. The only reason why the ps4 is getting games that were originally supposed to come to the ps5 is because Sony can’t produce enough ps5’s at the moment.
I don’t look forwards to a future where we have 60 or 70 versions of the exact same console, with no real innovations like the phone industry. I’ll never see why people want the game industry to be like the mobile industry, as the mobile industry’s practices are god awful, with the yearly phones that are barely any different than one another, other than being more expensive, and being a bit more powerful. This isn’t a future I like the looks of at all..
"It is fate. Many have tried, yet none have ever managed to escape it's flow."
I don't like how with the Apple model, support is dropped with not much warning. Perfect example is what happened earlier this week, major security issues leading to an update being released (iOS 14.8) but the devices that were getting security updates on iOS 12 as recent as June 2021 got nothing. At least with console generations, the warning is the existence of a successor.
The timings are similar so far (main exception is that summer update in 2020 was split into 2 parts) hence we'll probably get the announcement of the fall update next week for release around September 29th/30th.
I don’t look forwards to a future where we have 60 or 70 versions of the exact same console, with no real innovations like the phone industry. I’ll never see why people want the game industry to be like the mobile industry with the yearly phones that are barely any different than one another
Except you don't have to buy every release. All the more incremental revision model means is that when you buy the device new it's at a spec that is reasonable for the time you buy it. That's it.
Also your complaint here is what? That the newest phone is only incrementally better than last years model? Well guess what, the new Switch is basically identical to the 2017 model internally. Surely if you think that incremental performance improvements every year is bad then, logically, no performance improvements for 5-6 years is worse.
Also, technically, the Switch OLED model is the 4th SKU since launch. There was the launch Switch, the 2019 quiet revision, the Switch Lite and now the OLED model. Before the Switch we had 5 revisions of the 3DS and 4 revisions of the DS. Going back to 2004 that's 9 revisions of portable hardware. If we include Wii U and Wii SKUs that's another 5 which brings us to 14 in the last 17 years. Nintendo basically release a new hardware SKU every year anyways....
I don't like how with the Apple model, support is dropped with not much warning. Perfect example is what happened earlier this week, major security issues leading to an update being released (iOS 14.8) but the devices that were getting security updates on iOS 12 as recent as June 2021 got nothing.
I mean I'm no fan of Apple but one thing that's hard to complain about with Apple is the life of support for old hardware. iOS 14 is available on devices going back to 2014/15. The console equivalent of your scenario here would be like complaining that Microsoft didn't release a security update for the 360. Nintendo discontinued Nintendo WFC in 2014, 2 years after the Wii U launched and "replaced" the Wii on shelves. No contest as to which model is more consumer friendly
Lets take an example here. Lets say Nintendo revises the Switch in 2023 and 2027. In 2028 they release some games that still run on the original Switch, some that require the OLED Model or 2019 revision (now with the clock unlocked) and some that need the 2023 revision. You probably say now that sounds horrible right? But what's the alternative scenario? The alternative scenario is that after around 2024 NOTHING comes out for the current Switch.
You can't make use of better tech for games without having a generation, or making games exclusive for a certain device. For example, many ps4 games don't make use of the ps5's controller capabilities at all, and a lot of games releasing on both probably won't either. I know for a fact game worlds won't function the same, with them either having a choice between using the SSD to help prop up a big seamless game world, or them making a game for a previous gen console, only for it to not take advantage of the SSD at all for the world of the game.
Whilst I take your point I disagree. The fact is that it isn't any given piece of hardware that's limiting innovation - it's the whole model of game development and marketing in 2021.
We saw this with the Wii U - that was an extremely innovative piece of hardware. Third parties hated it and (where they did support the console) they often just ignored all of the innovative features entirely (as indeed some of Nintendo's own internal teams did). The same was true of the Vita and even the motion sensing in the PS3 controller (this isn't just a Nintendo issue).
Third parties just want straight ports that look and play as identically as possible on each piece of hardware. That reduces the workload and gives them more control over the final user experience. The third parties are the bulk of traffic on the roads of the industry so this is what is putting a drag on innovation.
By contrast first party developers have an active interest in pursuing game designs that actively utilise innovative new "gimmicks" that are only found in the latest hardware SKU (because the first party wants to sell the new hardware). You see this with devs like Media Molecule's games for Sony.
@skywake They've done better for devices released after 2015 (products that could upgrade to iOS 13 in 2019 have been able to upgrade to both iOS 14 and the upcoming iOS 15) but 2014-2015 is a mixed bag where some have been able to upgrade meanwhile some got fully abandoned because of the situation earlier this week.
@skywake Yeah, you don’t have to buy every model at release, but if you want the best experience for games, you kind of do. If you want to play the games how they were meant to be played then you have no choice, if the console is more powerful every year.
"It is fate. Many have tried, yet none have ever managed to escape it's flow."
@VoidofLight
Litterally every other tech category on the market has something new and better just around the corner. You're either made of money or are simply an idiot if you have to always have the newest one. Also, frankly, if you're willing to buy every piece of hardware to have the most premium experience why are you defending a model where they don't give you that option?
Anyways, there are two types of consumers the traditional model hurts and you appear to be completely blind to this. People who buy at or near launch are taking a gamble, they can be burned if the console becomes the next Wii U ( kinda ties into the point @StuTwo is making). And even if you're somehow not burned for the first year or so you have a tiny library. Which also hurts the platform holder who has to sell the new hardware on the promise of content. Notice one thing that's very different about the Steam Deck vs every other hardware anouncement? The discussion is about how well games run not if it has enough games
On the other side people who buy late are also burned. If you brought a Wii U late you were pretty quickly abandoned. Breath of the Wild released on both but after that the Wii U is basically forgotten about entirely. Sure the person who jumped on the Wii U late has that catalogue of Wii U releases to buy from they wouldn't have had (yet) if they jumped on Switch. But they're now missing out on Super Mario Odyssey. Sure there's eventually a cuttoff in the "smartphone-like" model also but it doesn't impact the people who jumped on board all the way upto the day before new hardware
Lets say hypothetically Nintendo releases a "new Switch" in 2022. In your ideal world it's an entirely new console generation in all the usual sense of the word. What happens with Metroid Prime 4? And if you say "2022 is too early" well sure, I'd argree, but if you push it further down the road you still run into the same wall with some other title. Does that title release on both requiring Nintendo to redirect development effort to porting? Does it just release on the new hardware burning recent Switch owners? Objectively is your scenario better or worse here compared to the model where the whine is "why do I have to buy new hardware for 60fps and HDR??!?!!" instead of "I brought the Switch for Metroid Prime 4!"
As I said, people are wedded to this idea of console generations. I expect you'll find it impossible to even consider the above. You'll probably try to weasel some new excuse from a partial quote again. But I think it's pretty cut and dry which model is better
edit: Anyways, new controller in March. Probably more NSO content
@skywake Things generally move during development. But in the case of something like Metroid Prime 4, if it were promised for Switch, Nintendo would most likely release it as a cross-gen release. Just like how BotW was a cross-gen release, or Twilight Princess. Usually game companies keep their word when it comes to games that they already promised a release for on a specific console. Nintendo has kept that promise, so saying that not having console gens is better because of this reason makes literally no sense.
Yes, people buying near launch are usually taking a gamble when it comes to buying a system, as the system could flop, or game devs just decide to simply not support the system at all due to a flaw. There's always a chance of that happening, but staying within the confines of a single console is pretty stale as well, given that innovations, while they happen, usually end up happening at a slower pace due to having to comply with past consoles. PC's are a different beast, and while you compared a pc to a games console, it's not exactly the best comparison due to how game consoles work in general. A Phone is a phone, no matter how many times it's upgraded, and same with a pc.
I don't know about you, but I'd hate to have a switch, and then Nintendo decides to release a console that's the same as the switch, but can support 4K 60 fps, with games being built for that instead. While the game would run on the switch I have, it would end up being a even worse experience than the version that's made for the same console, yet more expensive. The upgrade model is just as terrible as the traditional model, if not moreso because of situations like these.
"It is fate. Many have tried, yet none have ever managed to escape it's flow."
@VoidofLight
Not really. I mean you're saying that smartphones and PCs are vastly different to consoles but that's not really accurate at all anymore. This isn't the 90s when every new console had an entirely different architecture, media or controller scheme (often all three!). In terms of hardware a Switch and an iPhone are fundamentally the same, same with a PS5/XBox Series and a PC. It's unlikely that they will change any of those things anytime soon either (PS4/PS5 are pretty similar, same with XBox Series v One). The difference is purely in how much these companies choose to artificially lock down their platform
Also I think you're deliberately missing the point of the theoretical Metroid Prime 4 example I made up. No matter what you say it is an undesputed fact of the console model that the cut-off between generations is pretty sharp. If whatever comes after the Switch 2 doesn't maintain forwards and backwards compatibility? Soon after its launch the current Switch will start missing out on a LOT of content. Even content that isn't particularly demanding
I don't know about you, but I'd hate to have a switch, and then Nintendo decides to release a console that's the same as the switch, but can support 4K 60 fps, with games being built for that instead. While the game would run on the switch I have, it would end up being a even worse experience than the version that's made for the same console, yet more expensive. The upgrade model is just as terrible as the traditional model, if not moreso because of situations like these.
You've litterally killed your argument here. In this scenario you buy this game for the current Switch after the launch of its successor and are disappointed with its performance. But you have the option to choose to buy the upgraded model and continue your game on that. With a traditional console model you're either forced to upgrade for that game or, on the very rare occasion it's cross-gen, you are locked into your decision of console when you purchase the game
@skywake I don't think I killed my argument, given that in both scenarios, yeah you have to buy the game console and the game, but at least you don't have to worry about the game made exclusively for that console running like trash.. where as if you can't fork out the money for a switch pro, then you'll be stuck with an inferior product that barely resembles the experience that marketing promised, while the richer folk who can afford to get the barely upgraded console will be playing the game as intended.
"It is fate. Many have tried, yet none have ever managed to escape it's flow."
@VoidofLight
There are plenty of games on Switch that already run like trash. If I was a budget gamer I'd take being able to run a game on the previous model at 720p/30 with some dynamic scaling over not getting the game at all. And if I wasn't happy with that I'd be happy that there was an option to get better hardware that does 1080p/60 with a larger draw distance, maybe some HDR, possibly some pseudo 1440p via DLSS.
There's no question here that the traditional console model is super weak in this aspect in partucular. I'm willing to concede in theory the vague notion of "innovative entirely new and unknown things not possible". Something that is happening less and less with every generation as we get to the point where performance is the only change per-generation. But in terms of largely static hardware where the only improvements are internal? The argument for not being more forwards compatible is non-existant
New models of game systems, even now, from my perspective, are just reminders that waiting is good. I keep up with Nintendo games more than anything else, and this one has the least issues of getting cool non-Nintendo games since the GCN, so I don't regret my purchase. But now, in the past, maybe especially in the future, the first version is the worst version. Still a real shame the first version of 3DS didn't have the 3D abilities of the New 3DS, it fixes my biggest issue with 3DS' core gimmick.
I mostly just find this to be a non-discussion (which it already is, since I don't think its happening like companies say it is), since it implies yearly updates would lead to a notable amount of games making their games run differently on console, per updated console. And in a way that is fundamentally different from being the weaker console in a console generation with multi platform titles (let alone Ps4 Pro or the like). Both companies bothering and people noticing a difference, simultaneously? Eh, doubt it.
@kkslider5552000 The thing I dread is the infinite wait, since it'll become a thing where you know the device you want is going to be outclassed sooner or later, so you then wait for years and years until you get the peak one, only for the peak one to never come out because it just keeps endlessly going.
"It is fate. Many have tried, yet none have ever managed to escape it's flow."
it implies yearly updates would lead to a notable amount of games making their games run differently on console, per updated console. And in a way that is fundamentally different from being the weaker console in a console generation with multi platform titles (let alone Ps4 Pro or the like). Both companies bothering and people noticing a difference, simultaneously? Eh, doubt it.
The yearly cycle of smartphones is an arbitrary thing Apple uses for their own purposes. There's no reason why it can't be a longer or even a shorter cycle or even nessisarily a change to the core spec on each itteration. For example Intel famously had their "tick-tock" cycle where each new release would alternate between die-shrink and mircoarchitecture change. Nintendo could do something similar with different sizes releasing between internal hardware revisions
In terms of developers developing for the higher tier SKU vs the lower spec one? It already happens in the PC space, it's not an impossible problem to solve. A lot of content won't take advantage of the higher spec other than getting a more stable framerate. Some content will struggle on the lower tier hardware (which already happens). And some developers (think iD, Nintendo) will tune and squeze all they can out of the hardware for the best experience on whatever SKU.
I mean the alternatives are either dropping support for the Switch or supporting the Switch as it is indefinitely. Maybe you guys will get your wish and they'll drop the Switch entirely in 2-3 years. I for one think that would be a dumb move with an install base of ~90mill when, with this architecture, there are alternative options.....
The thing I dread is the infinite wait, since it'll become a thing where you know the device you want is going to be outclassed sooner or later, so you then wait for years and years until you get the peak one, only for the peak one to never come out because it just keeps endlessly going.
Buy them for your enjoyment now, if something new comes out then so be it. I learnt long ago to never regret a tech purchase that was outclassed soon after. It'll always be outclassed the second you make that transaction. You're buying the product for what it can do at the time of purchase.
As a side note, I'm not at all concerned if my Switch becomes incompatible with new releases. I know I'll be the first in line for the "next generation" if that's the path Nintendo goes down. I got the DS, Wii, 3DS, Wii U and Switch either at or within 6 months of launch, I know I'm a sucker for Nintendo's content and improved hardware. What I don't like is the gamble of new consoles, the double purchasing, the unnessisary ports and the reduced usable life of the hardware. Those things are completely unnessisary, anti-consumer and frankly not that great for the environment
Forums
Topic: Next Nintendo Direct?
Posts 9,601 to 9,620 of 20,021
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic