Topic: The Nintendo Switch Rumor and Speculation Thread

To be clear, that wasn't really the point I was getting at. My point was more that when people talk about what we'll be able to get from Switch 2 they often talk about 4K via DLSS. But they just kinda ignore the prospect of how much stuff is potentially just going to run 4K native

To put it super bluntly. If you can get (some) Switch games running at 4K (to varying degrees) on overclocked Switch OLED through an emulator? With around a 2X overclock vs what the Switch usually runs at but with the overhead of RUNNING THROUGH AN EMULATOR. Then the newer and more efficient Switch 2 SoC would surely be able to tackle similar titles running at a native 4K when running the code natively. Basically, I don't at all doubt that Switch 2 could run BotW as it is at a native 4K. And if that's the case then potentially backwards compatibility could be interesting

In terms of how they work out the logistics of backwards compatibility? I mean, I'm not quite as cynical as you are here. Mostly because I'm not sure how much sense it would make for them. I think the ideal scenario for Switch 2 is that the Switch catalogue just exists on the eShop from day 1. With all titles just running better generally either via more consistent framerates or less aggressive dynamic resolution scaling. Some titles having very, very small updates that just change the target resolution/framerate. I think that's enough to drag some people into the new hardware and also maintain the value of the existing library of Switch games for Switch 2 owners. As soon as you drop a huge paywall behind that.... the value disappears I think....

Will there be deluxe, ultimate, Switch 2 or UHD editions? Without a doubt. I'm not sure if there will be schemes to allow people to upgrade to them or not, that'll probably be upto the developer. No unlike how if you buy Bayonetta 1 or 2 digitally you get a discount on the other. Or maybe it appears as DLC that they can choose to either make free or set a price for. But there will most definitely be developers who drop the same game again on Switch 2 and have it sit on the shelves as an entirely new title. With that much I agree.....

.......... I just don't think people are going to pay 10s of $ to upgrade games to 4K. For some titles? Sure. But not for most. I think it works better as just another bullet point on the box. Not unlike how back in the day having GB games run in colour was an additional selling point for the GBC. People picked up the GBC for its ability to play the existing library of GB games in colour, not just for the new GBC titles

I'm not going to pay to update Ring Fit Adventure, Switch Sports or Puyo Puyo Tetris to 4K, but if they just by default now run at 4K on Switch 2? That's not a bad reason to upgrade

I'm curious how many people even have a 4k TV. I sure don't.

@FishyS
A quick googling it was 44% of US households in 2021 and I found another article that claimed it was 66% in 2023. And I suspect it would be higher than that for the kind of consumer who would buy a shiny new gaming console. Especially one that will without question have 4K support in the advertising

Whether or not those sets are any good is another question. Because 4K TVs these days are basically just all of the new TVs on the market. If you got a TV in the last 5 years? It's probably 4K. But some of those sets are tiny sets which only support 4K at 30Hz with garbage contrast ratios, none of the modern features like VRR, anaemic peak brightness and shocking image processing. And other sets, probably most of them, are monumental upgrade from even very good 1080p sets from 10 years ago

But, you know, people are .... people ..... being able to say that most of the Switch library now runs at 4K would be one hell of a marketing bullet point. I remember back in the day before BluRay was a thing seeing new release DVDs being marketed as "direct from the HD source". Which for a DVD was, well, meaningless. But being able to attach shiny word to shiny product? That has value

tbh, I'll be a bit annoyed if I can't get the most of Switch 2 games without buying a new tv. 😑 tvs last practically forever, never saw a reason to change off my nice 1080p one.

I apparently got my tv August 2013. 😝

@FishyS
To be blunt, you certainly won't get the most out of it with a 1080p set. Especially one that isn't HDR and lacks all of the shiny new things that modern sets have. But you will still get some benefit

For example Doom Eternal targets 30fps with dynamic resolution scaling between 540p and 720p. The most basic version of backwards compatibility would underclock and you'd get more or less the same. But they could just allow it to use the additional power and you'd end up with the game just always being 720p/30. Which would be great. But I could also see a version of backwards compatibility where, with the same settings, they drop a minor patch which changes the target framerate and resolution. And on a 1080p set that might just mean you now get a locked 1080p/60

And probably just as importantly.... portable mode also exists

... again, I think we've generally underestimated how much of a jump this new hardware will be. I think we've generally slept a bit on how much of a jump even existing titles could get. And this level of enhancement for legacy titles? It'll be great. I think this would be a decent selling point. But I don't think it's such a killer feature that it should be locked behind a per-game paywall

@skywake I've been a believer in the potential of 4K output since the 'Switch Pro' discussion days, so I didn't pay your point about the examples you'd seen on a video as much attention as it deserved. I guess I forget there's a lot of skeptics and Nintendo doomsters out there who doubt a Switch 2 could do better than HD. Without breaking site rules, could you see from the video how much change was made to the games to make them run at 4? You mentioned decomplication?

And regarding pricing and availability of backward compatibility, Nintendo Forecast has just dropped a video on that very topic!

Lets just say that in order to get a 4K output you can't be inside the Switch OS. You have to be inside a different OS that is able to recognise the Switch's display adapter and the various modes it supports. Which for the OLED is upto 4K/60Hz and for the other SKUs 4K/30Hz

Some of the examples were games that exist on Switch but also have native ports on this other OS. Another title was a decompiled title from a 90s era platform recompiled for this other OS. Some additional titles were PC games running through a compatibility layer or straight up running on an emulator

A lot of these they were able to get running at 4K while maintaining either 30 or 60fps. When they pushed into Gamecube emulation it was more like 1440p with a stable framerate. When they pushed into emulation of a console that discussion of breaks the community rules... some of the less demanding ones could do 4K. The more demanding ones, well, lets just say they're already well optimised for their target hardware

Also +1 to Nintendo Forecast

@skywake Thanks for the explanation! Interesting how Gamecube games could be more demanding than some current games, I guess they were retro style

I mean it makes sense. Having hardware that's shackled to your TV limits its usage, you can't play a home console if you're out and about at school/work, doing errands, on vacation, etc. It's just such an obvious benefit that it's not surprising the rest of the industry is following. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they all wanted to do this sooner but couldn't because the technology wasn't there yet. I know that even before the Switch was confirmed to be a hybrid I certainly thought it would be cool to have one.

@SwitchForce I mean those are all great things but aside from maybe the new buttons (and even then it depends on if they're a special type of button or just more regular buttons) nothing much really interesting here. Just feels like more Switch but with better graphics. Hard to really feel like this is going to facilitate new games that the Switch could never do with just these features, just games that feel like they could've been on the Switch but at lower specs. I hope there's more that this rumor just isn't reporting yet.

@PikminMarioKirby Same here until Nintendo admits to it or showcases a unit gaming we can only go off what said so far. But if what the grip maker is stating that is a big reveal since they would need those specs to insure their hardware works and matches up to the Switch 2. But since then I heard those posts have been taken down so that would be something that was internal and not to be made public. So the Ninjas strike again if this did happen.

[quote=TSR3]

This will facilitate new game features-what else would we need more off? I think they are expanding the range of uses for the Switch and it's new Joy-Con buttons and most likely a new Pro controller based on the Switch 2 buttons as well. We've all seen others like xbox/ps5 have more buttons so are you saying those controllers shouldn't have more buttons like they have now and remain like past controller?

@SwitchForce I mean... it depends on what the buttons are. The front button could literally just be a zoom button rather than the weird 'press home button twice after fiddling with the settings' setup which Switch currently has. It might be something more interesting... but it might not. Or it could be something related to bluetooth headphones which would actually be nice since that is a mess with current Switch.

If there really is a new button on the back, I am very curious what that is intended for though; seems like it would be hard to use while using the normal buttons.

Regardless, I think Boltstrike meant new buttons don't automatically lead to fundamentally new types of gameplay; there are already a lot of buttons and most people can use only so many fingers independently at once so new buttons might be more of a convenience than a game changer. As opposed to if they e.g. added a camera somewhere which could be used in some complicated way for augmented reality or whatever and really change certain games.

My main wish for a new pro controller is simply a better d-pad, new buttons or not.

@SwitchForce He's saying that he's hoping for a new hardware gimmick that could in theory open up new gameplay ideas. However, none of the rumors suggest there is one, or at least not one that the entire hardware is based around.

Just give me an Ocarina of Time Remake in HD and Nothing else matters.

We've pretty much reached the end of what graphical improvements can do to provide new gameplay ideas. Hell, I would argue we've even reached the end of that around 7th gen (honestly, what in 8th or 9th gen doesn't look like it could've been done in 7th at 720p/30+ FPS?). 4K/60 FPS (especially 4K) just doesn't seem all that necessary to come up with gameplay ideas the Switch couldn't, it's just going to look slightly prettier. The magnetic Joycon attachments and buttons don't seem to have any tangible gameplay benefit. It seems more for ergonomics and durability than gameplay. New buttons may be intriguing if they're a new TYPE of button. But if they're just adding more buttons for the sake of more buttons, like a C and D/1 and 2/whatever you want to call it where it's just a button and nothing more, what's the point? It lets you do more actions but more actions doesn't necessarily mean those actions are something we couldn't have done on the Switch. And everything else is just more ergonomics, convenience, and preserving Switch features. Those are all good things, but not really game changing, next gen gameplay driving features. My question is, what does the system actually do to let the new 3D Mario game do things that Odyssey couldn't, that Mario Kart 9 or whatever could do that MK8D can't, that the new 3D Zelda could do that BotW/TotK can't? Because if you can't answer that question... then what's the point of having a new generation in the first place as opposed to just continuing with the Switch for another several years? Graphical improvements like what Xbox and Playstation do are flashy but superficial, it doesn't really add much entertainment value to make the new games do anything new and fun. Nintendo's done a much better job with their hardware of making the next gen hardware actually feel like it does something worthwhile to change the gameplay. If this gen moves away from that and it's just an Xbox/Playstation-esque graphics bump then the Switch 2 is going to feel soulless and disappointing. I don't care if they do AR, VR, bringing back dual screens, whatever, as long as it's something useful that does more than just graphics. It's just not going to feel Nintendo otherwise.

I think that ship has well and truly left the port

@Bolt_Strike I think a Switch 2 that's just a power upgrade would be about 3rd party support more than anything else. Nintendo's already said they don't need more powerful hardware for their own games but there is a lot of 3rd party support the current Switch is missing out on.

@Grumblevolcano Which feels relatively pointless, because again, what is that power actually doing? Because again, the power upgrades found in similar hardware like the 8th/9th gen Xboxes and Playstations sure don't seem like they're doing anything tangibly positive. All it really seems to be resulting in is more layoffs because it's bloating the budgets/dev times almost entirely for graphics and gamers don't seem to be caring that much. Honestly, I have half a mind to say Nintendo should just say screw the third parties and let them burn themselves out over this mess, but Nintendo's not quite to the point where they could whether another Wii U-esque third party drought. But still, you have to wonder, if they can't come up with anything more than a graphics bump is stronger hardware really necessary right now? The demand for stronger hardware just feels so artificial.

Even if more hardware resources doesn't fundamentally change Nintendo games, it can bring QoL improvements and other benefits. Peach Showtime was a great game, but the awful loading screens ruined or at least lessened the game for some people. A little more hardware resources and that would be fixed. I'm not a frame rate snob myself, but better hardware could have erased the complaints about 30fps in TTYD without particularly needing extra development time. And there are of course games like TotK which are incredibly technically impressive and might have been able to be both a little prettier and a little cheaper/easier/faster to make if not for the hardware restrictions.

I do agree though the biggest change will be third party. The mantra of 'good game but runs terrible on Switch' has gotten very common lately with new ports, common enough that some people are inevitably shying away from Switch for competitor hardware.

@Bolt_Strike so that Nintendo keeps making monies. And the graphics improvements that you think are superficial might not be to others. At one time we all thought HD was great yet here we are with 4k looking at future 8k TVs. I once had stereo sound. Then 5.1. Now there’s like 9.2 surround. I don’t think anyone actually needs speakers in their ceilings to simulate the sounds of helicopters, planes or birds yet here we are.