Topic: The Nintendo Switch Rumor and Speculation Thread

Played it, never encountered anywhere near the amount of issues other people have stated. And SV's issues have more to do with Game Freak/TPC being too cheap and lazy to put in enough time and effort, not because the game is pushing the limits of the Switch.

Aside from Genshin Impact, which seems to be suffering more from needing a high amount of memory than high graphical performance, I haven't really seen any games I want that they're reluctant to put on Switch (Genshin Impact has been promised, but they've gone so long without an update that you have to wonder if they're even going to follow through). Maybe if these PS5/XBSX exclusives actually tried to you know.. make games with actual standout artstyles and gameplay mechanics instead of the same tired old tropes I'd actually care if the Switch wasn't able to play them.

It has nothing to do with realism and Nintendo doesn't tend to like hyper-realistic graphics. Diminishing returns applies to graphics across the board, every metric, resolution, frame rate, polygon count, color count, etc., it all suffers from diminishing returns.

@Bolt_Strike I agree Pokemon issues wasn't because of lack of hardware, it was just bad programming. Although it's also true it's easier to program if you have more resources so don't have to optimize as much. frame rate doesn't bother me much, but it was still obvious to me in that game. Of course the most impressive was the insanely low frame rate classroom cut scenes.

I agree Nintendo doesn't want or need hyper-realism in their own first party games. If they had better hardware they would have made the Zelda games (re:trees/grass) prettier, but I feel like easier and sometimes better ports of third party games would be one of the bigger draws of better hardware.

There haven't been a ton of games I personally have really wanted on Switch which can't work on Switch because of resource constraints, but there is enough of a trickle I'll happily buy a Switch 2 when it comes. I don't have any other consoles or a good PC, so it's Switch or nothing for me. Well, Genshin runs on my phone, but I hate the controls in the mobile version.

@FishyS I don't really see enough third parties to justify it, and most of the ones that do don't seem noticeable improved anymore to the point where a new generation has felt justified. Diminishing returns has made it feel like we haven't REALLY needed new console generations since 7th gen. The majority (about 60-80%) of the games I play are first party Nintendo games, I tend not to care much about third party ports unless it's one of the handful of third party games I like. Nintendo tends to focus on new control styles and gameplay mechanics, and when they do focus on graphics it's usually on artstyle more than power. That stands out a lot more.

What I'm looking for in the Switch 2 is an evolution of the Switch form factor that not only does everything the Switch does but has some new control scheme or feature that opens up new playstyles, genres, and/or gameplay mechanics. And I want games that take advantage of those improvements to create experiences different from what we got on the Switch. I don't just want BotW, Mario Odyssey, MK8D, SSBU, etc. all over again with prettier graphics, the Wii U did far too much of that (among other things such as being practically allergic to any amount of exploration gameplay) and it turned me off to the console. I want to see things that the Switch didn't or couldn't do. Make it EXTREMELY obvious that the game concepts they come up with on the Switch 2 can't be done on the Switch. Or if that's not possible, at least get to some gameplay concepts that the Switch didn't get to for one reason or another. Good examples of that would be Mario Kart 9 (or whatever they want to call the new, original, proper entry in the Mario Kart series), DK if they don't squeeze that in on the Switch, a new, original 2D Zelda game, a Star Fox game, or new IPs and spinoffs. The worst thing that can happen to the Switch 2 is that it looks stale and predictable and samey.

Nintendo do have a lot of ips that would benefit from more graphical effects like ray tracing. Chibi Robo in Unreal 5, for example, could look ridiculous! Personally I hope we see Wave Race and Endless Ocean.

@Bolt_Strike
Again, I tend to agree with what you're saying academically if you stand back 10m and squint your eyes. But in the real world where a different spec has all sorts of impacts in terms of performance and library? Yeah, I just don't buy your fantasy land hyperbole

The way you'd have it Nintendo would be next year still selling the Switch as it is for $470AU. When it was released? That spec was fine for the price. And the library makes it still a reasonable value. But it could be better and the gap between what it is now and how much better it could be grows by the day. That's just an objective fact

What we might end up having is a console that's maybe $50-80AU more with:

• 256-512GB of Storage (up from 32GB)
• A significantly more responsive eShop
• Supports VRR when docked, possibly also in portable mode
• Supports HDR
• Has a better battery life, especially for less demanding titles
• Attracts titles like Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring
• Supports the entire Switch library

I mean, no question that's better value. Also I find it amusing that you're saying the higher spec is only there for developers. Because it's kinda true but I think you took it in the wrong direction. You said it's only there for developers because it means they can push the fidelity up and charge more. Which is an odd take given Switch and PS5 games are largely the same price, at least here. But you're right that it is for developers

A higher spec means that developers don't have to spend as much time optimising and don't have to compromise their expectations in terms of fidelity and performance. Both of which are very good reasons why some developers (and publishers) would be skipping the Switch entirely ATM. The easier a platform is to develop for the less the more games will come to it. A higher spec is an easy way to make a platform easier to develop for, and you get higher spec for free by just waiting for the years to pass

@skywake I'm sure not seeing where the specs are having any impact on their ability to run certain games. Only their ability to run certain games at high settings. Again it feels like games like Baldur's Gate and Elden Ring are designed at higher spec because they want the game to look pretty and not because those specs are needed for the actual game ideas to function properly. I'm not seeing the necessity in these high specs to get these kinds of games and that makes the higher specs a hard sell.

@Bolt_Strike You could certainly remove visually fancy attacks, smooth gameplay, add long loading screens etc. to Baldur's Gate 3 but it would be a very different experience even if the core 'gameplay' was the same. I mean, you could play with paper and dice also. Are the high specs necessary to create a similar game? Clearly not. Can you make the exact same overall type of experience without the high specs? no. Honestly, seems mostly like personal preference; games like that sell well because many people enjoy them which is why some devs create them. Regardless, we live in the world where they exist and Nintendo gets to decide how to react.

That said, I assume Nintendo will add new game gimmicks as well as higher specs.

I wish people would stop talking about the Switch 2 or what ever this next system will be called because the Switch hasn’t died yet. After all the OLED version is only has a few years on it.

@Atomic77 OLED is only really much of an improvement for handheld. Half of Switch players use mostly docked.

Although a lot of the recent Switch 2 chatter is simply because leaks convinced a lot of people the next console is coming next year. But even if true, it's not like OLED will stop being supported anytime soon.

@Bolt_Strike
We don't live in this fantasyland where games that are technically theoretically possible all make it. Someone has to port or develop the game within a spec. If a developer or publisher decides a level of fidelity or performance is important? Doesn't matter what your feelings are, that game doesn't get made. Same deal if they decide it's not worth the money to optimise for a lower spec

But we do live in a world where a vastly superior spec portable console can be made than the Switch for a similar RRP and acceptable margins. One that will attract more development. One that will provide users with an objectively better experience and a wider library of content. So it makes sense for one to be developed. I really struggle to see how you think this is not a good thing

@Atomic77 Yes, it hasn’t died but that’s the point; you’re supposed to move to the next platform before your current console dies in popularity to carry that momentum.

Wonder why the Wii U flopped? Yeah, poor marketing is one reason but another is the fact that the Wii was overstaying its welcome during 2011 with a huge drought, so none of that momentum carried to the Wii U.

@DiamondCore
That and also releasing a new platform isn't something that happens overnight. For one thing the software and hardware are fairly inter-dependent, you need the hardware to be a fair way along before you create the development kits and tools that you can then give developers something to develop software to. Then we're talking a good year for a decent QA/QCed port, more if you want to scale game assets up or optimise the game to fit into a more limited spec. So if they're launching for Holiday 2024 they'd want the hardware to be finalised already and in developer hands now... just for ports....

And before you even get to that point you need to have already worked out what your custom SoC is going to look like, what components you can procure, how these will all interact, work out pricing and so on, sign all those contracts. You then need to wait for these components to be manufactured in the millions, then you need to have those components assembled, then you need the final product distributed. All of which take months

I think the Nintendo Switch's development cycle tells us a lot about what this process looks like in terms of timeline. The Switch itself as a broad concept Nintendo has said was talked about in 2013. But they basically went hard into it fairly early when the Wii U's sales were poor. NX was announced in early 2015 but if you look back at the timeline they merged their portable and home console divisions in early 2013. The SoC Nintendo uses in the Switch? It released in 2015. So realistically we can probably say Nintendo had committed to Switch by 2014 for a release in 2017. Which tracks with the fact that a game like Super Mario Odyssey managed to make it to the first year of the console

If "Switch 2" launches next year? It's probably fair to say that that decision was made in 2021. Very before the Switch OLED reveal. Infact the decision to release the OLED model could have come from that early process of Nintendo figuring out what components they could procure at scale and within a reasonable cost. Wouldn't be the first time (Colour screen on the GBC says hi)

Nintendo's jump to new hardware sounds like it's going to be like NES to SNES (as opposed to Gamecube to Wii.) And this makes me super excited!

@skywake Exactly! releasing a new console has an extremely large amount of layers. It’s not a simple button press in the slightest regard.

@skywake wasn't the OLED what remained of an enhanced Switch Pro? I thought the leak was Nintendo were going to do a Pro (3DS vs New 3DS?) But due the pandemic cancelled it?

None of those things sound like they would fundamentally impact the experience.

Now this is just being disingenuous. You can't explore worlds or interact with NPCs with paper and dice, but you can do those things without high end graphics.

Given how some games sell just based on the brand name (see: Pokemon continuing to sell despite declining quality, MK8D continuing to sell despite being a 6 year old port) it sounds more like they sell because people fall for marketing far too easily.

So we just take their word for it that they're putting these games on stronger hardware because it needs it instead of them just wanting a quick buck? LOL okay. And you wonder why developers keep doing chintzy things such as holding content for DLC or microtransactions.

I mean higher specs in and of themselves ARE a good thing but I'm not crazy about them because again, the benefits are not clearly obvious. I don't get the obsession and I'm not on board the hype train for "OMG SWITCH T00 1337 GRAF1X!".

Hell, this whole argument started because I heard about the rumors about the camera for AR and/or VR and I'm more excited for THAT than the graphical increases and you guys insist on trying to argue with me that they're actually a big deal, like this is some zombie cult or something and I'm not allowed to not be excited for the graphics. I don't care about the graphics, just let me be excited about other aspects of the console instead of shoving graphics down my throat for Christ's sake.

@MarioBrickLayer
Yeah, that's the theory. Though I think the two probably overlap somewhat. For example a potential timeline might be something like they started considering the possibility of a "Switch Pro" around 2019/2020. Went around the place working out what was possible. Worked out that an OLED screen was viable

But then COVID hits and they bin the idea around 2021 before it really gets moving. The OLED screen still looks viable so they push on with an OLED Switch SKU which can have a relatively quick turn-around because it's just a new screen. Then they shift focus onto what Switch 2 might be, maybe dragging across some of the other ideas they had

@Bolt_Strike
To be blunt, random hardware party tricks can be fun and if they come up with something truly novel then alright. Like the WiiMote or the DS's touch screen. But generally speaking those kind of hugely impactful hardware changes are fairly rare. The Switch happens to already have implementation of those two examples, which barely see use, and it's successor will likely inherit them. But at the end of the day the hardware is just in service of the software. The better it can do that the better the product is. And specs are a part of that equation

Adding a camera? I mean I want to see something like a camera. Cameras are cheap and adding them, especially with the addition of Tensor-Cores, could allow some interesting software. Ideas that wouldn't be possible without it. But at the same time, for most titles, the camera won't matter. When I'm playing the next big Zelda game the camera almost surely doesn't improve the game. A camera doesn't get us to the point where Rockstar is interested in releasing GTA6 on the hardware. Higher specs do

I think the thing that annoys me is just the mentality a lot of Nintendo fans have. I fully agree that specs aren't everything, that software is king, that there are different ways you can make hardware interesting. These are all reasons why I buy Nintendo's hardware rather than just gaming on my PC. But some people take that idea to the extreme. Where they end up just being almost outright against ever having improved specs unless there's some other kind of hook. Sometimes the hook is the improved specs. Especially when you're 6+ years into the hardware cycle and the opportunity cost of not having new hardware starts to get insane

@skywake I think I agree with you. Nintendo's radical innovation usually comes from repurposing failed ideas. The Wii was a repurposed Gamecube. Conceptually, the Switch is a repurposed Wii U. I don't think the concept of Switch needs repurposing lol. Much like NES to SNES, it needs taking forward. And so a spec increase is a given and it sounds like they are trying to get as good an image to the naked eye as they can without becoming a tech head's wet dream they throw $1000 at! But it's in their DNA to use technology in novel ways if it can introduce new ways to play. I think Nintendo are smart enough (and individual enough) to not fall into the AAAA money pit that SONY and Microsoft fight over.

@GrailUK
I just thinking what kind of new gimmick for Switch 2 ?
We already have Dual Screen from NDS, 3D slider from 3DS, Motion control from Wii, Off TV Play + Gamepad from Wii U, Handheld to Console play from Switch.
What another gimmick that Nintendo will use for Switch 2 that we still have no idea to realize it will be OMG idea ?

The boring fact is that a "Switch 2" has to come sooner rather than later not because there's some incredible new gameplay idea that can't be done on Switch or even because Nintendo wants to make the next Mario more graphically intensive. It has to come because the technology industry moves quickly and when it comes to mass produced computer components it eventually reaches a point where it's cheaper and easier to buy a million units of a brand new design than it is to buy a million units of a 10 year old design.

The gimmicks and the graphics are the headline grabbing things that hook people in and give them a reason to upgrade but at this point it's the boring things that are driving the process.

We'll obviously hear rumours about Switch 2 for the rest of the year (especially if they actually start manufacturing for a spring launch...) but I'd still be personally astonished if Nintendo announces anything before February/March.