Topic: The Nintendo Switch Rumor and Speculation Thread

Sometimes I wonder if Nintendo really knows what they are doing with this OLED thingy? Nintendo tried something really cool once with a Virtual Boy and then after awhile it went poof and disappeared. I wonder if this is going to go that same route. I hope not.

@Atomic77 Replace 'OLED thingy' with 'Labo VR' and that would make more sense

@GrailUK Not a dumb question, but I suspect you know the answer already
Anyway, if you want to to DLSS (or Nintendo's equivalent) to fake 4K, then you need the latest, or future Tegra SoCs from Nvidia. The X1 SoC used by all the current Switches doesn't have the Tensor cores needed by DLSS, and you can't back port them.

More real talk ... a new SoC will change the integrated GPU, and that will cause compatibility problems for current Switch games. MVG explained it on the talk with Nate - all Switch games have the Maxwell GPU driver integrated into their bundle of code. They discussed 4 options to handling this ...
1) Break compatibility
2) Integrate an X1 SoC onto the new motherboard, or a Maxwell GPU into a new custom SoC
3) Recompile all Switch games
4) Patch all games
Nate really didn't like option 1 because he thought it would break customer expectations now that digital (e-Shop) is so prevalent. Option 2 would add more cost to any new hardware, and options 3 or 4 still might not be done for all games.

How would you feel if a new hardware model couldn't play current Switch games? Maybe this is why Nintendo are talking about 8-10 lifecycle for the Switch - they expect to become a two system company again (like 3DS in parallel with Switch between 2017-2020)?

Technically there isn't much of a limit on the capacity of Switch carts. There's a cost limit sure and technically the largest one is 64GB but in theory? There could technically be larger cartridges. Which in theory means Switch games could be larger because UHD BluRay is limited to 100GB

As others have said DLSS is part of the higher spec. To get into the technical specifics there are different kinds of processors that are better at different kinds of calculations. You know of CPUs and GPUs, there's now a third kind that's great at AI calculations. A good way to think of it, imagine your CPU is a Professor doing some calculations on a whiteboard. Well a GPU is kind of like a lecture theatre full of students and Tensor cores are like a stadium full of monkeys. Which is to say it's not magic, it's just a different kind of processing.

Now let say we get this monkey stadium Switch. Sure, we get the monkeys to do the DLSS which makes the image bigger but there are other areas that could be improved. The students are the ones responsible for things like texture resolution, shadow detail and draw distance. If we had more/better students we could get more in that respect. And what about the professor? He's sitting there decompressing the game file, handing out the worksheets to the students, communicating with other professors over NSO. Surely we'd get something out of a better professor even with our new stadium of monkeys

So yeah, Tensor cores would be a very nice addition but there's more than one part to running a game

@TSR3
Or 5) Include a driver compatibility layer. TBH I'm not a Switch developer so I'm far from familiar with the particular ins and outs here. But It strikes me as odd that Nintendo would not have some kind of foresight here in terms of compatibility. Remember the "NX" announcement was literally framed as Nintendo moving away from developing for multiple platforms. Starting with building NX in such a way to make Wii U ports as simple as possible. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have been prepared for a GPU micro-architecture change

@skywake I may have mis-understood Nate's podcast, I only listened to it once. But I think the patch option was meant to be a compatibility layer. They were assuming Nintendo would have discussed this with Nvidia and planned a solution. They were just speculating what it could be.

For myself I hope there is a comprehensive solution. About 80% of my Switch games collections is from the e-Shop. My assumption had been Nintendo would continue with a single platform and just upgrade components as they go along. Similar to the mobile phone model, but without new hardware every year. However I know old games got dropped from my iTunes library when Apple went 64 bit only, and some developers didn't update their software. Perils of digital collections I guess!

If the Technology is there then why not?

Random rumour thing I saw just now, think it was one pushed last week. Someone saying that Nintendo are working on a digital only Switch revision/successor. Just posting here to say that that idea makes absolutely zero sense

Think about it, the entire reason why digital only consoles exist is to reduce costs. The PSP had a digital only model which meant they didn't have to have the UMD drive which made for a smaller unit that drew less power. The XBox Series has a digital only SKU which removes the need for the UHD BluRay drive and allows for a smaller design.

....... but the Switch uses cartridges. You'd barely save any cost omitting the cartridge slot. It's just a bunch of contacts. There's pretty much no reason for console manufacturers to make digital only SKUs unless they're either dumping physical media entirely or they can significantly reduce costs by omitting it. Neither is true for the Switch

Maybe they meant that the Switch successor will be released in two models with one of them being digital-only (like the Series X/S)?

@BrazillianCara
Yeah, maybe. But it still doesn't really make much sense given the Switch uses cartridges. Cartridges are certainly expensive but cartridge slots are incredibly cheap. When we talk about the XBox Series S we're talking about a $500AU console that lacks the UHD BluRay compatible optical drive. The retail price of a BluRay drive for your PC is about $80AU, UHD BluRay players are about $200AU.

A digital only Switch SKU would only save Nintendo about as much money as removing the GBA port on the DSi or the later revisions of the Wii that lacked Gamecube ports. Or when Apple removed the headphone jack and everyone followed them. Does it save them much money? No, not really. Does it irritate the people who used it? Definitely

@skywake Isn't the biggest reasons companies create digital only consoles that they get a bigger cut from digital purchases than physical purchases and it forces players into purchases that'll ultimately be more expensive long term?

So like if you buy a Series S, the cheapest option short term is to subscribe to Game Pass and buy games/DLC digitally you want that don't appear in Game Pass. However, long term that becomes the most expensive option as at some point Game Pass pricing will increase and the cheap loopholes (like upgrade up to 3 years of Gold for £1) disappear but if you let your subscription lapse you lose access to the stuff you didn't buy outright.

@Grumblevolcano
Except that the digital only SKU is the budget SKU, it kinda has to be because you're giving up an option right? So generally the people buying it aren't as invested in the platform. On average you'd typically sell maybe 10 games per console but the people on the bottom end of that bell curve would be probably a bit less than that. But for arguments sake lets say it's 10 games

A Switch game sells for $70AU whether it's digital or not. Lets say that 20% of that cost is lost when you distribute that game physically vs digitally. Which from what I've read is fairly accurate, especially for larger Switch titles. Nintendo would therefore net about $14AU more per game for a digital only user. Across 10 games that's $140AU. Which probably makes sense

However more than half of the games sold on the Switch are already sold digitally. Grab a random Switch user buying a game, more than half of the time that purchase will already be digital. And likely if you had a digital only SKU you'd be actively selecting users who are ok with digital so the proportion would be even greater than 50% amongst those users. So taking that into account, maybe you get an extra $30-50AU out of those users.... so how much less would you be able to charge for this SKU?

Compare that to the XBox Series X and S. They charge $250AU less for the digital only Series S. It has a significantly lower spec and it doesn't include the disc drive which is probably about $70AU of that price. Given how much lower the spec is? They've probably got a healthier margin on the Series S. They've effectively got two strategies in the two different SKUs. One cheaper with lower tier components and omitted features to get more profit on the sale of the console itself and a higher tier built under the assumption that they'll make that money back over the life of the console

With a cartridge based console? Omitting the cartridge doesn't really increase your margin on the hardware itself. For a portable console what reduces your margin is the screen and battery. Nintendo's strategy with different SKUs for different budgets is what we already see. OLED at the high end, smaller LCD and smaller battery and removing the dock at the lower end

@skywake I wonder if the rumour you saw was someone picking up the references to Calcio from the datamine at the beginning of this year?
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2021/01/rumour_datamine_app...
A cardless device sounds more like a prototype or early dev kit than anything else to me. But there seem to be some people dreaming of a cheap TV only Switch device!

@skywake I saw the same rumour and it came from a source that was saying since early last year that cloud versions would become much more common on switch and to be fair they are.

I would say you are ignoring one major factor. Altough ommiting the cartridge slot saves pennies that is just not true for the cartridge itself. Even the smaller ones are way more costly than CD based ones and if you go for 16gb or above they take a good chunck of profits.
Also if you omit physical versions you not only save on the cartridge itself but also on the box and delivery. On average for a third party I believe they get between 40-55% profits on physical and 70% on digital (30% goes to the platform holder)

I don't even think it's about "saving money on card slot and cartridge" or "getting more per game".

Companies release digital only because it's a product many consumers show demand for, and thus, one more avenue they can take to increase overall hardware sales.

We're far enough in the digital age most consumers prefer digital. A lower cost system that costs a bit less, that still does everything that particular consumer needs it to, is one more way to get a lower cost system out the door and drive hardware sales, and thus drive software sales.

Digital only system for $50 less may mean a smaller profit margin per system sold for Nintendo, but if it means selling an extra 10 million units over the generation, why wouldn't you.

Digital only systems, to me, seem to be a no brainer in this day and age. I'm all digital, and would totally be interested, if not for the fact I already have an OLED so, unless it's smaller and more portable, I would have no incentive to buy. But for those who haven't jumped in yet? A $250 fully featured hybrid Switch would certainly being in some extra sales.

@JaxonH
This is true however you can already be digital only on the current Switch. Digital only consoles justify their existence by being cheaper SKUs or at the very least offsetting the reduced cost of omitting the drive by making improvements elsewhere

A digital only Switch would not be much cheaper in raw BOM cost. We're talking cents. Something that might make sense when dropping backwards compatibility late in a console cycle. Doesn't really make much sense to lock out options for people to purchase games on the current platform for such a small benefit

My current Hardware and speculation timeline:
2021: Switch OLED
2022: Reveal of Switch Mini (targeted at Asian markets)
2023: Release of Switch Mini system (Q1) and reveal of Switch successor/new gen hardware (Q4)
2024: Release of new generation hardware (the processor upgrade that actually matters, not some mid-gen efficiency boost backed by one B-tier franchise )

I wouldn't be surprised if a digital only Switch did release eventually, even the current gen Switch, just without the cartridge slot. Nintendo might want to gauge interest for such a model for future reference.

Now if the next gen Switch will have a digital only version, maybe they foresee that the majority of games at that point won't fit in cartridges (at least no on the cheaper options) and will have mandatory downloads, so they see a digital only version make a lot of sense.

That pic you posted of your collection in another thread says otherwise 😉

@dmcc0
😆

I made the switch to digital but still have collector mentality as I already had so many Switch games after the first year, so I still buy physical because it makes no sense having an incomplete collection.

@JaxonH So do you buy a physical & digital? Not sure my wife would be onboard with that - she already complains about how many games I buy so buying them twice would tip her over the edge I think 😂

I'm by no means a collector, but I do still prefer physical on Switch. I've no issue with digital at all - I have a Series S and do play the odd old/indie PC game - but on Switch it's different for some reason - if there's a regular physical version available then I'll try and pick that up rather than the digital. I'm not really sure why either. It's not really a storage issue on anything like that; I'd actually prefer the whole library on a couple of SD cards for convenience with Switch, but something is still compelling me to buy carts over digital.

@Balta666 I don't think predicting that cloud versions would become more common on the Switch adds credibility to the source. That's been pretty obvious since the new generation came in, and would mean the Switch would find it harder to keep up. I think if the next Nintendo console dropped cartridges, that would be big news, but I think as @skywake suggests, a late model dropping backwards compatibility is more likely if at all. Is it possible to share the link to the original rumour so we can judge for ourselves?