Topic: The Nintendo Switch Rumor and Speculation Thread

The same argument could go with not needing ports and remakes.... considering that is a pretty large percentage of all game sales on Switch, the proof is in the pudding in terms of people wanting old games on new hardware. You may not want it yourself, but a large percentage of people do.

I think there are two different use-cases:

1. The person buys the new device and doesn't own the old device. Why shouldn't they get access to all those old great games without waiting for ports? They definitely don't want to buy an old device when they have a new one.

2. Inconvenience of swapping between too many devices. My current tv doesn't even have a port for yet another device and it also just seems unnecessarily inconvenient to swap devices if I want to play one of my recent favorite games while also playing a new game. Since most games on Switch now are digital anyways (and many are ports of pc or mobile or xbox or older Nintendo consoles), 'original hardware' doesn't mean as much with the current generation as it used to.

For me personally, Switch 2 is a day-1 purchase with back compatibility and probably not even a year-1 purchase (conceivably a no-purchase) if it doesn't have it. I've simply built up too much of a library on Switch and it's not really worth it to me right now to start over unless the new console is completely different than Switch which sounds like is not the case.

@Novamii - 100% agree. I really enjoyed The Witcher 3, Doom, Nier Automata (and many more) - on the Switch, and if they get a performance & graphics boost, I will 100% be diving back in. The backward compatibility is what makes this a day 1 purchase for me. If the system is powerful enough to bring games like Elden Ring to the Switch 2, which it really should be, then I foresee my backlog growing pretty rapidly. There are so many games that have come out in the past 5-10 years that I would love the opportunity to play...

@Lazz It's certainly an exciting hypothetical, that said, this all depends on how willing devs are to go back and do an overhaul on previously released games. I would think that, given the Switch's success and the new hardware at their fingertips, they'd see the potential in such an effort as well. Again though, we'll just have to wait and see.

@Bolt_Strike
You've misunderstood my point. The $1000AU laptop was decent, the $500AU laptop is a toaster, the $300AU laptop is a Chromebook with a mobile processor and the $250AU laptop does not exist.

Nintendo is currently charging $530AU for the OLED and $329AU for the Lite. There would be a floor to how cheap they can reasonably go and it's certainly above $200AU. The rumoured price for the Switch 2? People are talking $399US. That tracks and would be around $600AU

So riddle me this. What sane person would buy the OLED model for $530AU when there's a product significantly improved that's only $70AU more? The price of one game. And I can tell you now, that $600AU product couldn't have sold at that price 5 years ago. But more importantly, the OLED will never be something like $300AU new

@skywake How about instead of spending that extra money on a meaningless upgrade you buy an actual game? Or spend that money on something you actually do want? The demand matters here. If the upgrade doesn't do something desirable, it doesn't matter how much of a bargain it is, it's still a waste of money because you're spending money on something that has no value.

@Bolt_Strike You definitely need demand... but it exists. The entire mobile phone industry has been living off the demand of 'a little bit better' for decades. You could argue that that demand is lessening, but it is lessening while I type this on a phone which in some metrics is much more powerful than Switch-- even though it basically has zero reason to be. There are of course somewhat cheaper devices than Switch or Switch 2 for those who want to play games super cheaply but most who buy consoles at all are a little flexible in precise cost they are willing to pay as long as it doesn't get too high. And of course those people going for the bargain bin won't get to play Nintendo games. In the end, the 'new shiny improvement' is part of the pull to initially buy a console, but it only works in combination with new games people want. The second part of the demand Nintendo will artificially create by making Switch 2 exclusives. One could argue that Nintendo shouldn't do that.. but they certainly will.

@Bolt_Strike

That's an absurdist's argument. The new system does do something desirable, it gives the consumer new, more ambitious games, unlike the current Switch, which will likely be a dead platform within a few years. The majority of people who wanted a Switch have one at this point and have played all the biggest releases. Sticking to the same platform simply stifles innovation. The limitations of the technology mean games continue to have the same limitations in textures, resolution, framerate etc. It's boring for both developers and consumers/fans! You can continue to make this argument ad infinitum but there's a clear and obvious trend of declining sales for both the current Switch and new software which will likely continue until a new system finally releases.

Games like a new 3D Mario or Mario Kart 9 need enhanced hardware as well as new gameplay mechanics/ideas in order to make them compelling. Releasing them on the same hardware simply wouldn't differentiate them enough from their predecessors to make them an essential purchase. Sales would inevitably be weaker. It would be a very unwise move on Nintendo's part to embrace these weaker sales rather than give fans and developer's what they want. Releasing more advanced hardware keeps the company relevant both financially and culturally, as the competition continue to advance their hardware going forward.

You're missing my entire point, you might want to take a look at some of my other posts in this discussion. Of course new hardware that does new things is ideal to keep people engaged. But things like resolution, framerate, and textures... don't actually seem to be opening up new gameplay ideas. They've been constantly pushing those every gen but the consoles that do push those things and nothing else, like your Xboxes and Playstations... the shiny new next gen games don't really seem to be doing anything noticeably different gameplay wise from the previous gen games. The specs bump doesn't seem to open up new mechanics for the games, new abilities for the characters, or anything tangible that changes how the game is actually played. All the specs bump seems to do is make the games look flashier and more detailed (and I'd even argue they don't even do that well because games already have so much graphical detail that adding even more is increasingly difficult to notice with the naked eye) but it's otherwise pretty much the same and I'm not convinced in the slightest that most if not all of these game concepts couldn't have worked on previous gen hardware at lower settings. So that kind of upgrade feels boring and pointless. I'm not opposed to the Switch 2 in general. I'm opposed to a Switch 2 that's purely an Xbox/Playstation-esque graphical upgrade. It'd be very dull and un-Nintendolike to basically copy/paste the Switch's design and turn up the graphical settings, they don't really do that sort of thing anymore. If they iterate on a concept like we expect them to in this case, they usually don't just up the power, they also add some kind of twist on the concept. What I want and expect is something more like a DS -> 3DS jump, something that does add power but also does something extra to play around with genuinely new technology that could open up new gameplay possibilities (granted the stereoscopic 3D of the 3DS didn't exactly light the world on fire, but in terms of providing both power and a gimmick the 3DS is probably the best example of this). That would be the more Nintendoey way of making a next gen version of a popular console.

EDIT: Another example I just thought of, but this one's a bit funkier because it involves a mid-gen Pro version. You could consider the DS to be a more powerful version of the GBA SP. It has a similar form factor and even uses the same type of charger. But in addition to being a more powerful SP, it also.... has a second screen for touch controls. Again, they didn't just take the past gen version and make it more powerful and call it a day, they added a unique feature that added completely new functionality.

I'd argue that a gaming console that can run games better is a more valuable upgrade than one that simply has a newer screen technology. And yet people happily upgraded to the OLED, myself included (eventually).

All I'm arguing is that if they are to continue to sell hardware, and why wouldn't they, that it is reasonable to expect that the internal spec would improve over time as the price of a higher spec SoC relative to the base price shrinks

@FishyS
I think remasters and ports for current-gen hardware are extremely, extremely different from inserting a straight-up last gen game into a current console.

I'd be curious to poll how many people on this forum consistently use backwards compatibility. On the Wii U, for instance, how many of us actually used it to play Wii games on the regular, not just for one or two games?

@rallydefault
I'd argue that it depends on how backwards compatibility is handled

Wii games on the Wii U ran in Wii mode which was behind yet another Wii U load screen and didn't really give you any advantage so there was no real reason to revisit titles I'd already played. However they did eventually add the ability to play Wii games off-TV and when they did that I did find myself revisiting some Wii games that supported the Classic Controller (i.e. GamePad as a proper portable). Also they did add Wii games to the Wii U Virtual Console which was a good reason to jump into titles I'd skipped (Metroid Prime Trillogy)

Of course that wasn't the case with the DS to 3DS transition. I rarely used it at all there. Mostly because DS games looked horrible on the 3DS due to the inexact scaling. If the DS games had been downloadable then maybe I would've cared more but even there all we got was DSiWare. Not a surprise given you couldn't download retail 3DS games either at the start. Really, the only reason I used it at all was because Pokemon took a good while to find its way to 3DS and I wasn't going to carry around two consoles

........ but the way I see it the Switch -> Switch 2 transition is likely going to be even smoother than the Wii -> Wii U transition. The way I see it the worst we get is Switch games running exactly as they did on the Switch with availability on the eShop. And if that's all we get then 100% I'll use it. Why would I even slightly care that a game is technically a "Switch 1" title? Especially if the additional power of the newer platform isn't going to give me much for like Indies, 2D titles, retro titles, party games etc. But if they go a tad further and allow existing Switch games to use the additional hardware in some way? Well. Then it's even more compelling.

I think the key thing you're forgetting is that the Switch back catalogue is deep and all digital. I remember a few months after the Wii launched picking up a Wavebird controller on clearance for N64 VC because the Classic Controller sucked. I considered also grabbing a used copy of Wind Waker but didn't pick it up because I'd also have to find a GC Memory card and my local shop didn't have any. Maybe later.... I never did. If Wind Waker had been a simple download on the Wii Shop Channel and ran with no additional hardware? I would've got it. Without hesitation

If Switch backwards compatibility on Switch 2 requires the physical cartridge, makes you sit through a 10sec loading screen before it boots into a sandboxed mode and forces the game to run at 720p on the 1080p portable screen with poor scaling? Then sure. It's a pass. But I don't think that's how it'll play out

Excluding DSiWare on the 3DS eShop we've never had the potential for the previous platform to be as accessible as the Switch will be on Switch 2. And excluding running GB games on the GBC we've never had the potential for older games to run better on the newer hardware on a Nintendo platform like it may on Switch 2. It's not the same equation at all

I can't find that exact poll here, but I found a similar poll on the partner site Push Square about whether PS5 should be back-compatible with PS4:

Do you care about playing old games on your new console? (18,749 votes)
Yes, all consoles should have full backwards compatibility
62%
Yeah, I like going back to older games on my new console
25%
Backwards compatibility is nice to have, but I don't really care
11%
Nah, I'd rather just play new games
1%
No, I don't give a damn about playing old games

So, 87% apparently played old games.

If you did that same poll with Wii U I doubt it would be as high since so few people bought Wii U and since Wii U was not just a direct upgrade of Wii the same way PS5 is and the same way we expect Switch 2 to be.

Closest article I could find on NintendoLife was that opinion article about how Switch 2 doesn't need back compatibility which had 100s of enraged comments 😝

@rallydefault It definitely depends on how backwards compatibility is handled for me. It makes a big difference if you can still purchase the games from previous consoles digitally - like with Xbox and PlayStation this Gen. I still buy X360 and XB1 games for my Series X and I'm sure PS5 owners still buy and play plenty of PS4 games too.

I mostly play handheld games on the newer system now - GB on GBA, GBA on DS, DS on 3DS. I don't/didn't have a Game Cube, so didn't play those games on Wii, but I have since bought a few games now though but have only picked those up in the last year or so. My son did have a WiiU and he did play Wii games there too, even though we still had the Wii at that point. He's bought most of the WiiU games again on Switch, so safe to say he'd probably use backwards compatibility if it existed between WiiU and Switch.

If Switch 2 doesn't allow me to play and buy original Switch games I'm not going to get one for at least a couple of years and just stick to my current Switch - or maybe buy my Son's OLED off him so he can buy a Switch 2!

I'm terrified of the prospect of the sheer size of the Switch eShop moving over wholesale to the Switch 2 and having new releases for both appear.

Then again, I don't think any digital storefront has managed to be browsable and largely functional. Just down to the volume of content and if you were to properly categorize it all, it's very nebulous.

Still, the worst digital storefront I've ever seen is the abomination the PS4 got. The Switch eShop might be slow but at least it has a search function that works.

The Switch eShop was only browsable for about a year before it became laggy chaos so your concerns will likely happen regardless of whether Switch 2 pulls in the old library. At least this time they will know to expect umpteen thousands of games which I'm not convinced they did with Switch.

That said, all they really need is a 'Switch 2 exclusive' sorting option. Personally the idea they don't move it all over terrifies me — I really don't want to keep track of two huge libraries and wishlists and eshops.

Part of the eShop problem is that the Switch is a fairly old mobile device optimised for playing games. The browser version of the eShop on a modern phone is a lot easier to navigate and is significantly faster. I often use it instead of the eShop on the Switch itself. I would guess that throwing faster storage/RAM and more cores at it would solve 80% of the issues I have with the eShop

The other 20% is just general discoverability. Removing the ability for users to rate content was a mistake. That's one thing the Wii U did extremely well. Not only could you rate stuff but you could discuss it, get an idea of what it's like before purchase, see what other people were playing. People always beg for Nintendo to bring back music in the eShop. Nah, bring back user feedback on games!

I understand how good user ratings can be, but sadly it's the kind of system that can be easily abused by enough people with an agenda, unless they put in safety measures like only allowing people who bought a game and played for a specific amount of time to rate it.

The reports of the Switch 2 cartridge slot gives me hope for my current collection. A little extra plastic tab so the kids don't attempt to play a Switch 2 game in a Switch 1. Classic Nintendo right there. Anyways, if true, perhaps I'll there day-one for the Switch 2 launch?

This actually ties into what Nintendo could do, and arguably what I think they should do.

Fortnite and other ubiquitous apps are continuing to transition their always-online service into a persistent virtual space, merging social media mechanisms with Sims/Second Life-esque virtual reality. Meta's stubborn push for their own Metaverse is the perfect example.

Nintendo absolutely needs to maintain parity with the competition, and invest once again in another social media-like, exclusive to their platforms: the first platform being their game console obviously. But the second platform needs to be the evolution of NSO, a ubiquitous Nintendo app available on as many smart devices as possible (requiring a Nintendo Account).

Similarly to Fortnite's collaboration with Disney, Nintendo needs to create a persistent virtual platform themed around their first-party IP. It would be a virtual environment where users can do similar things that you mentioned, discussing games available on Nintendo's latest console, matchmaking for games, partaking in Pokemon GO-like public events, earning and purchasing NSO silver/gold coins, etc etc. For example, NSO's Expansion Pack could unlock a new tier of season pass rewards similar to Fortnite's within Nintendo's persistent virtual space, even allowing different skins unlocked to be utilized in various first-party games. Think of how adorable Paper Mario is with all of his animations; with NSO's new season pass rewards, you could unlock that digital skin and apply it in a game like BOTW or Kirby's Forgotten Land.

Persistent virtual spaces are only increasing in sophistication. Just like how smaller media platforms are eclipsed by giants like YouTube and Spotify, even a company like Nintendo will risk being left behind in the digital realm unless they compete to build their own persistent virtual space with which users can engage commune.

And how many of those people that bought the OLED actually owned a previous Switch model vs. how many bought the OLED as their first Switch device? I'd imagine there's more of the latter than the former.

Maybe, but those improvements are also becoming less and less impactful over time because of diminishing returns. So if they're trying to sell "next gen" hardware, forcing you to dump your existing hardware and buy new hardware, there needs to be more incentive to feel like it's legitimately an upgrade rather than what basically amounts to a several hundred dollar toll to continue supporting new games.