Topic: The Nintendo Switch Rumor and Speculation Thread

I don't think this "we don't need more performance" bit deserves too much attention. This entire media is about the entertainment and escapism. Having fun with something that we don't need but something that's enjoyable. And while there is certainly a cost-benefit equation to consider when moving up and down the spec ladder over time the cost higher spec gets lower and the benefit still exists

I think at the end of the day it's as simple as these two questions. Could Nintendo sell hardware that has a similar real world cost, inflation adjusted, to the original Switch that would measurably improve my enjoyment of content on their platform? And I think the answer is a very strong yes. And frankly there's nothing anyone can say to convince me otherwise

I know that I personally want better performance. Want to see what Nintendo's first party exclusives can do with PS4 level graphics. Especially on a handheld.

Plus there have been some first party Nintendo games lately (and a million third party games)which don't run perfectly on Switch. Whatever someone's feelings on art styles, performance of the game clearly affects gameplay. I would be interested in some ports which can't run on Switch and seeing what Nintendo can do art and gameplay wise with more computational resources, but even if we rarely get 'fancier' Nintendo games on Switch 2 I would be very happy to get the type of games we already have but running better, shorter loading screens, etc.

Without a doubt we'd probably get both. Games with more intense graphics and games that run better that are on par with the graphical capabilities of the current switch.

Again, the most important thing is what are these technologies doing to provide an improved GAMEPLAY experience rather than an improved GRAPHICAL experience? If the answer is "little to nothing", it's not really something a game hardware or software developer should be prioritizing. They're great little bells and whistles but as the primary feature for the console? I see nothing on this list of tech things that can translate into an easily marketable gaming improvement.

What I'm saying is that the specs aren't what offers something new anymore. It's the gimmicks. If they truly want a next gen gaming experience that would get people excited it's new control options, not more powerful internals, that are providing that.

Debatable. The costs get lower over time for the cost of the actual parts but the cost of developing the games is going up, not down, and the benefit only exists from a graphical standpoint, not from a gameplay standpoint.

It depends on the improvements for me. Solely improving power does not move the needle for me. When hardware developers only improve power, the gameplay feels rehashy. We get a lot of NSMB-esque feeling sequels. And that's the exact opposite of what a piece of entertainment should feel like.

We're blind and pretty dumb if we can't all see how the Switch proved gameplay trumps graphics, even in this modern era.

I mean, I've been playing Harvestella on my Lite almost every night for the last month... and holy cow, that game is pretty gross when it comes to the graphics. Muddy textures, limited animations, blah blah blah... and there are TONS of games likes that on Switch, including some of the first-party ones.

But these games still consistently sell over 100k copies. And almost all of the first-party stuff sells millions. It's crazy. But for some reason, I love it, and I have zero desire to buy a PS5 or Xbox... because of the gameplay. I'm done with the repetitive action-adventure games Sony puts out all the time, as beautiful as they are. I'd honestly rather play Sushi Strikers because... wait for it... the gameplay is more unique and FUN.

The next Switch is going to have power around a PS4 Pro. That's enough for Nintendo to do some amazing stuff with their gameplay, and it's enough for third parties to bring some of their bigger games over. If Hogwarts Legacy can run on the original Switch, FF 7 Remake can run on the Switch 2.

It's not debatable, it's a straight up fact. The limitations of the Switch did not stop BotW being as expensive as it was and there are numerous third party titles that required significant additional development effort to port down to the Switch. And in any case, it doesn't cost anything at all for a game to use additional CPU cycles. A stable 60fps version of that TTYD remake on the newer hardware would not have cost any more to develop. You'd get that improvement as part of the improved hardware. Improved hardware that itself gets cheaper over time

Of course yes, the higher spec does open up the ability to make bigger and bigger games. And as you push the asset quality up games are becoming more and more expensive. And I could write at length about how much I prefer solid, contained, well developed gameplay over the heavily story driven cinematic games that Sony likes to push. There's a reason I buy Nintendo's hardware and not Sony's. But the ability to do that does not mean that games which don't push in that direction cannot also take advantage of the additional resources available

............... I don't know why I'm even bothering, your position is frankly absurd

The thing for me is that I want both good graphics and gameplay. I don't think Nintendo needs a control gimmick in order to sell their system or to "enhance" games. The switch inherently has no control gimmick that changes how you approach games. It uses bog standard controls for most games, with the occasional party game that makes use of HD rumble or the touch-screen. The successor to the Nintendo Switch can get by with just having the same "gimmicks" as the Switch itself. The concept of a handheld that plays home console quality games is what's alluring about the Switch. Not the motion control, touch screen, or rumble functions.

I personally would want a switch with the ability to have games with better graphics. The ability to have games run well whilst also looking great- all on a handheld console. There are games I don't even consider buying on Switch- and instead opt to buy them on PC because I want the version that runs well and looks good. If Switch 2 can provide that with a portable form-factor, then I'll be happy. Especially if the exclusives are good.

Like many Nintendo fans I'm also a firm believer that gameplay is more important than the visuals. But better image quality, improved framerates, less loading and other such improvements are still improvements. People are talking as if this is a choice between one or the other. It isn't. It's a wholesale improvement in the specs of the console that will allow significant improvements in terms of load times, image quality and framerates. And that's it. There's no downside other than having to buy into a new platform

It's not like someone at Nintendo is going to be thinking "gee, we wanted to make a new 2D Zelda but we now have 12GB rather than 4GB of RAM to play with. So we're just now forced to make a cinematic game where you press X to hit some quick time event between pages of dialogue". Seriously, what are we even saying here? What's the problem?

Folks playing Nintendo games have at most been stuck in the realm of Wii U's and Switch's power level. Wii U had a situation where the CPU was objectively worse than home consoles before it, and so many games ported over struggled. Switch improved on general performance it while offering a bit more, but even Nintendo's limits were being shown. This was, again, on an off-the-shelf SoC with clocks dropped for the purpose of fitting into a portable power budget. There will always be a space for improved specs.

But we're coming to a point where there is reduced emphasis on raw power, and increased emphasis on "compute power". Switch 2 will get things like AI upscaling and ray tracing through dedicated hardware, the former only starting to hit the home consoles with PS5 Pro, and that wasn't even AMD's decision. For a portable system, having that AI upscaling is a godsend as wanting to hit a particular level of detail can be had at reduced power consumption. For ray tracing, it doesn't even have to be "graphical". It's a fast and efficient way of handling the tracing of rays, and can have multiple applications, like audio.

I think the main change we'll see from this spec improvement isn't a change in the types of games we see. Rather what we'll see will be more of the same but just with less loading, higher resolutions, higher framerates. For Nintendo I suspect the main change is going to be mostly a case of them being able to do the same thing they've always done just without having to cap the framerate at 30fps or do dynamic resolution scaling sub 1080p. TTYD except it's 60fps and 1440p, Link's Awakening HD except it doesn't drop frames in specific areas. Are these game changing changes? No. But they're not downgrades

And for third parties it won't be case of more development effort to get the game upto the higher spec. They're already developing games for a higher spec elsewhere. Instead what we'll see is LESS time required to develop for Nintendo's hardware because they won't have to nip and tuck the assets they've built for other platforms. We'll also see less games that are rushed out the door for Nintendo's hardware and perform horribly. Plus because there'll be less effort required we'll just see more ports generally

There are no downsides to this

@skywake Exactly. They're still going to be making the games they make now. It's just that they'll have more room for the visual end of things. It isn't like they're going to start making cinematic walking simulators or games like The Last of Us. It'll be more of what we're used to with probably more things on screen, more impressive areas, and more room to play with interesting ideas.

Only swimming simulators 😆 In all seriousness though, an Endless Ocean with a little more graphical power would have been great.

@Novamii 3 is what makes me wonder what Monolith will do on Switch 2. That game is genuinely one of the best looking Switch tiles outright. Something with a world like that, but with PS4 graphics and bits of ray tracing would be insane.

@skywake I disagree, there are potential downsides to more power and we've seen them plenty on non-Nintendo hardware since PS4/XB1 arrived. The question is more whether Nintendo goes down that path or whether they show everyone that more power can be sustainable if handled in certain ways.

@Ulysses Exactly! You're understanding what I was getting at. Computing power in consoles can actively make the world feel more alive, and thus help with immersion. It's just as important as gameplay or art direction.

Also I forgot that Scarlet and Violet was far more lively in the overworld back before they culled the render distance for pokemon spawning. I remember though that I was seriously impressed with how lively Pokemon in that game were in comparison to Sword and Shield, where it felt like they just aimlessly wandered around with no awareness of their environments or surroundings. Genuinely hope Gamefreak keeps working at Pokemon feeling more lively.

Name one that's actually due to the additional resources the hardware provides. Most of the things people are complaining about are due to the kinds of games these big studios make and their idea of what makes money. They have nothing to do with how many TFLOPs the GPU has or how many MB/s the storage can pull

Somewhat co-incidentally I tend to upgrade my PC once every 5 years or so. In the late 00's I had something that was 360/PS3 adjacent, 2015 I upgraded to something that was PS4/XBOne tier, 2019 I landed around the Series S. Last year I did just the GPU because the Ryzen 5 3600X I got in 2019 is still plenty but I figured I could do with a new GPU. The GPU I upgraded to and now have is PS5 Pro adjacent

And sure, there are some parts of gaming I don't like in terms of the direction some of it is going. But that has nothing to do with the hardware I'm running. None of these hardware upgrades had downsides. Other than having to spend money on them, and maybe some of the GPUs were a bit loud

The only change a hardware upgrade brings is less time spent researching optimal settings. Instead you just move the sliders to the right and see how it goes. You spend less time wondering whether the game runs well, outside of the usual "is this a crap port" bit. You spend less time sitting in loading screens and less time wasted on games that don't perform well

There are no downsides to a hardware upgrade

And now Nintendo Forecast has a new video where he enthuses about the possibilities presented by the extra USB port

@TSR3
I think people are thinking way too much about the top USB port. I think any idea someone proposes for it should be put through a gauntlet before they run with it:

1. Does it need the extra bandwidth over ports in the dock, Bluetooth or WiFi
2. If they're doing this out of the gate would it make more sense as something built into the hardware
3. If it's exclusively for docked play would it make more sense just to plug it into ports on the dock
4. Would it make more sense as a JoyCon variant?
5. Is there something else about USB Type C that can't be done via some other means

.... of all the ideas people have thrown out there only three really make sense to me. Four at a stretch
1. An additional charging port
2. Direct access on a second device for direct storage access and a modern version of download play
3. Using fight sticks and other wired controllers in tabletop mode
4. VR

This reminds me of how, lowkey, I wish that the Switch 2 fixes the audio delay bluetooth headphones have on the Switch. My Arctis headset is more than enough when playing docked, but it would be nice to be able to use wireless headphones on portable mode without the sound coming half a second late.