Yeah and tell me which console during the gamecube and PS2 era sold better? If that's not bottom of the gaming food chain i don't know what is. I just remember the first time people really started rolling their eyes at Nintendo and saying kiddie console was the N64. Still using carts in 1996 when the rest of the world moved to discs, Then there's the Gamecube mini discs. Using mini discs with half the space of PS2 games. On to Wii with a Non HD console in 2006. Then i don't even have to give you a reason for Wii U.
Aside from their first party stuff which is always great i can't remember the last time Nintendo was a respected game company. Maybe the Snes era.
“We are always looking at technology and how technology can enhance gameplay experiences. It’s not technology for technology’s sake. It’s how specifically can technology enhance a gameplay experience. And then where do you apply that technology? Do you want to apply it on current existing hardware or platforms, or do you want to wait for the next platform? And then what’s the right gameplay experience with that? There’s a host of factors that goes into it, and it’s something we’re always looking at.”
The tinfoil brigade:
See? DO YOU SEE? I friggin' told you so! Nintendo said it themselves, new hardware is coming, so that MUST be the Switch Pro, and they also said it's coming soon... somewhere between the lines... I'm so happy!
Meanwhile, back in real life, people that simply accept these statements for what they are, understand that this is basic Nintendo rhetoric, and something they usually say, almost every generation, when game journalists ask them what their plans for the future are.
I mean, you're not wrong in saying that it's a nothing statement. But being a nothing statement it says nothing. It doesn't confirm the existence of the Pro and it doesn't confirm that the Pro isn't a thing. Given what has been said and given the position Nintendo finds itself with the Switch? A revision is more likely than not. This statement from Nintendo and, frankly, the lack of announcement at E3 itself doesn't change that.
Frankly if anything it's the people saying it isn't happening who are reading into this statement. Let me quote one of the people from under the NL article who quoted the above statement directly and "translated" its meaning...
Meaning:
No, we're NOT releasing a Switch Pro, we're simply always busy trying to find/invent/manufacture new hardware, and more importantly: new ways to play, as soon as the current generation of consoles is in stores, so we can prepare for the next generation. So, when we say future platform, we explicitly mean the next generation of consoles, NOT an intermediate iteration.
I mean, apparently this @ThanosReXXX guy knows something we don't. They have inside knowledge from Nintendo that a Switch Pro is most definitely not happening. I mean how else could they come to that conclusion? The statement quoted, as you said, is a complete nothing statement
But, putting on my "tinfoil hat" as a person of the "brigade" should rightly do. This statement is kinda interesting
“As we enter into our fifth year, Nintendo Switch really is redefining what a console life cycle can look like, and the vibrancy of that overall life cycle with a strong cadence of content"
Now the question I have is, what does a traditional console life cycle look like and how can it be changed? Because to me the traditional console lifecycle is what we've always had. A console releases, we get a bunch of new content, we get ports from previous generations taking advantage of new hardware. Then about 5-6 years later we get a new console that becomes the new platform. We get a bunch of new content and ports from previous generations etc, etc.
Now how could that change? I mean we already know how Sony and Microsoft are changing the traditional console cycle. They just extend the existing platform to the new "console cycles" and have "mid-cycle" hardware refreshes. There is no "XBox Two", we have hardware in the "XBox Series", multiple hardware SKUs and even PCs can play games on the "XBox platform". If Nintendo did this? I would call that redefining what a console life cycle looks like. And it starts with a hardware refresh that is not a clean slate i.e. something like a Switch Pro.
Also if we're talking about Nintendo's medium to long term strategy it's probably worth going back to what their medium to long term plan before the Switch was. None of this is new, Nintendo has been openly talking about moving away from the traditional console cycle for a good 7 years now. So while the idea of a "Switch Pro" freaks out people who are somehow used to the traditional cycle, if they take that path it shouldn't come as a shock. If anything it would be surprising having set this up for them to abandon it. https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/02/iwata_looking_to_em...
Currently it requires a huge amount of effort to port Wii software to Nintendo 3DS because not only their resolutions but also the methods of software development are entirely different. The same thing happens when we try to port Nintendo 3DS software to Wii U. If the transition of software from platform to platform can be made simpler, this will help solve the problem of game shortages in the launch periods of new platforms. Also, as technological advances took place at such a dramatic rate, and we were forced to choose the best technologies for video games under cost restrictions, each time we developed a new platform, we always ended up developing a system that was completely different from its predecessor.
The only exception was when we went from Nintendo GameCube to Wii. Though the controller changed completely, the actual computer and graphics chips were developed very smoothly as they were very similar to those of Nintendo GameCube, but all the other systems required ground-up effort. However, I think that we no longer need this kind of effort under the current circumstances. In this perspective, while we are only going to be able to start this with the next system, it will become important for us to accurately take advantage of what we have done with the Wii U architecture. It of course does not mean that we are going to use exactly the same architecture as Wii U, but we are going to create a system that can absorb the Wii U architecture adequately. When this happens, home consoles and handheld devices will no longer be completely different, and they will become like brothers in a family of systems.
[....]
I am not sure if the form factor (the size and configuration of the hardware) will be integrated. In contrast, the number of form factors might increase. Currently, we can only provide two form factors because if we had three or four different architectures, we would face serious shortages of software on every platform. To cite a specific case, Apple is able to release smart devices with various form factors one after another because there is one way of programming adopted by all platforms. Apple has a common platform called iOS. Another example is Android. Though there are various models, Android does not face software shortages because there is one common way of programming on the Android platform that works with various models.
The point is, Nintendo platforms should be like those two examples. Whether we will ultimately need just one device will be determined by what consumers demand in the future, and that is not something we know at the moment. However, we are hoping to change and correct the situation in which we develop games for different platforms individually and sometimes disappoint consumers with game shortages as we attempt to move from one platform to another, and we believe that we will be able to deliver tangible results in the future.
Basically, 2014 Iwata says one platform is the way to go, what we can probably call "Switch OS" at this point. That's a good way forward because platform change as they had been doing it upto that point ties up development resources which decreases software output. Slow development output -> disappointed consumers -> poor sales. If they take that approach they can make as many hardware SKUs as they want because the software library will carry over. So they can potentially have multiple SKUs like a Switch, Switch Pocket, Switch Pro, Switch TV... you get the idea.
@Zeldafan79 That's just down to marketing, not to power of a system, but re-reading your comment, I see that this is also what you meant, so my bad. Consider my previous comment not written.
@skywake Obviously, I was just being sarcastic. Of course I have no inside knowledge, but the same goes for all the rumor mongers and all the hopefuls. I'm just reading Bowser's statements as a classic Nintendo retort to questions they ALWAYS get, and probably have been getting ever since the NES, so in and of itself, these statements definitely do not contain any hidden meanings or references to any Switch upgrade.
And this statement also doesn't seem to allude to that, looking at it as objectively as possible: “when it comes to Switch, the console is redefining what a console life cycle can look like, and the vibrancy of that overall life cycle with a strong cadence of content.”
If I read "redefining what a console life cycle can look like", then to me, that simply translates to that the Switch is going to be here for much longer than any of their previous consoles, but not necessarily that they're going to upgrade it to a new model. And currently, there also isn't any essential need for it either, seeing as all current models are still selling like crazy. They're probably going to overtake Wii sales numbers before long, if they keep this up.
So, yeah. Even though I was being kinda sarcastic, that is what I make from these statements, basically. Standard business speak, no promises for anything, other than an extended life cycle for their current console and an obvious statement about them always being busy with new hardware once the current model is out there. A statement that could basically also have come from Microsoft or Sony, for that matter.
@Slowdive
Why would they take the time to make the score exactly that, though? Especially if it is an impossible score. Just kinda weird they would take the time to do that if everything else on the screen is pretty normal.
@rallydefault I feel if we were getting GBA games on NSO, we wouldn't have gotten the Advance Wars 1+2 remake because Advance Wars 1 and 2 would be part of the NSO collection.
Asking for a friend but How would Nintendo know people want certain things like gba or n64 on NSO. Every time some one complains on this site people get defensive and say hey you should call up Nintendo and directly tell them because there is no way they have a pulse on what’s going on in comment sections or YouTube. As if reading comment sections to gauge interest or feedback is some sort of gigantic chore for a billion dollar company. Or did the people who want other consoles on nso go through the proper channels to make their requests known?
In the old days there was a comment card on the back of Nintendo power magazines. How do they do it in 2021? Anyone have an uncle inside?
And this statement also doesn't seem to allude to that, looking at it as objectively as possible: “when it comes to Switch, the console is redefining what a console life cycle can look like, and the vibrancy of that overall life cycle with a strong cadence of content.”
If I read "redefining what a console life cycle can look like", then to me, that simply translates to that the Switch is going to be here for much longer than any of their previous consoles, but not necessarily that they're going to upgrade it to a new model. And currently, there also isn't any essential need for it either, seeing as all current models are still selling like crazy. They're probably going to overtake Wii sales numbers before long, if they keep this up.
Ok, you keep saying this, but if it's an extended generation there will be hardware revisions that up the spec. It's just the nature of the beast. It's not about improving sales, although it doesn't hurt, it's about the cost of the higher spec falling. At the same price point there is an exponential growth in the spec on the core components but there are fixed costs which don't move. There is a point where it doesn't make sense to even bother with the lower spec anymore.
It's why there's a massive gap in spec between a laptop that costs (excuse Australian pricing) $600AU and $800AU but not much of a gap between one at $1100AU and $1500AU. It's also why there's a minimum spec laptop that is sold at retail. Regardless of how fast the CPU is or how much RAM you have you're still paying for the keyboard, trackpad, screen, battery, storage, chassis etc. Eventually you get to a point where it just doesn't make sense to sell the lower spec anymore. Apparently that point is ~$350AU with 4GB RAM, 64GB of flash a 2 year old Celeron and ac WiFi.
Take the RAM in the Switch as an example. The Switch is $450AU RRP and it has 4GB of DDR4. The price of the Switch hasn't changed since launch but the price of RAM has. Now they don't pay retail prices but in 2017 at retail 4GB of notebook DDR4 was $50AU and 8GB was $100AU. But at retail it's now, even with inflated component prices, $40AU for 4GB and $60AU for 8GB. A theoretical $50 extra cost on a $450 console? Yeah, that stings. A $20 extra cost when you've already saved $10? Not so much. And you can do the same thing across the board. OLED vs LCD, newer Tegra vs old Tegra etc
It just doesn't make sense to keep selling the same spec for a decade. Upping the spec costs them less than they'd gain from having the higher spec. Mostly because, relative to the cost of the entire console, it doesn't really cost that much at all.
@skywake Upgrading models in extended generations has obviously been done before, but besides (again) the 3DS, never very drastically so. We can also look to the Xbox 360 or PS3 for that matter: they also released "lite" versions, or elite, slim or whatever label they gave them, but all they offered was slightly better chip sets, quieter fans, faster disc drives and smaller form factors, but other than that, nothing that resembled a considerable upgrade.
Only since last gen did they come up with the Pro versions of consoles. But I expressly say "they", as in Microsoft and Sony, because Nintendo never does what the others do, so it doesn't HAVE to make sense to any of us, perhaps that is where you get stuck in your thought process, because they've always done their own thing, so what might seem logical and natural to us, might very well not be what Nintendo is ultimately going to do.
And as mentioned before, there's also no imminent need to upgrade the hardware, because the current versions are still selling so well, so adding for example another two years to their natural life cycle in their current forms, really isn't all that big of a stretch, if you take a moment to really think about that.
But as mentioned before, I'm not completely discounting everything. It could still happen, but to say that it should happen because it's the only thing that seems to make sense, is way off the mark, far as I'm concerned, taking all factors and who and what Nintendo are and what their philosophy is, into account...
'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'
@skywake Upgrading models in extended generations has obviously been done before, but besides (again) the 3DS, never very drastically so.
Well, it's never been done before.... except for the New 3DS (RAM + CPU/GPU), DSi (RAM + CPU), DS Memory Pak (RAM), Gameboy Color (RAM + CPU), N64 Expansion Pak (RAM), N64 DD (RAM + Media), SNES enhancement chips like SuperFX (Various), Satellaview (RAM + Media), Famicom Disk System (RAM + Media), and the 2019 Switch refresh (CPU/GPU). I mean except for those things Nintendo has never been known to do mid generation upgrades to things that would impact performance.
And anyways, it's not like 10 years without a hardware refresh is un-Nintendo. Afterall the longest Nintendo has gone without a new platform or major hardware revision before this was the Gameboy, at 8 years before the GBC and with a failed Virtual Boy after 6 years. And in the home console space 7 years if you take the Japan launch date for the NES only and completely ignore the Japan only Famicom Disk System after 3 years. We're at 5 years now so, definitely wouldn't be out of the ordinary to go another 5 without a significant refresh. Right?
I mean 10 years without any major refresh when there's a ready made SoC they could already use at 5 years and modern software development that can scale..... I mean that just makes sense you know? It's not like Nintendo has made a point of moving towards a more hardware agnostic approach to development. And besides, that's what Nintendo has always done because, you know, they're "unpredictable". Which means they always make cost-inefficient decisions about hardware, or something.
It's not like the majority of their executives are literally software developers, they never really consider what makes sense for developers. Afterall their previous President was most definitely not a CS major. Nintendo are all about not listening to what their developers are asking for right? I mean even their dry PR statements put it pretty plainly. They're just in it for the maximum returns, they're not really the company to consider how new technology can improve the gameplay experience.
we’re always looking at technology. And as we know, technology is constantly evolving and changing. And we’re always looking at what is coming to determine: How can it enhance and improve the gameplay experience? And whether that’s on a current platform, or whether that’s on a future platform, we’re always looking at that
Problem here is you can't keep going back to old tech if you want to get a New Switch out and as parts gets older they are less made and what is next. New updated hardware components that's just how tech works-it moves on and newer hardware will replace older hardware. You can only keep older hardware production going for so long before there are no parts and then what sit on your thumb and turn. That's why business fails-you plan for and get moving onto newer hardware if you want to exist and survive the Gaming scene. I doubt Nintendo is going to keep using outdated hardware for Newer upcoming hardware that be stupid and dumb and shooting yourself in the foot because those chipmaker will no longer make outdated chipsets/hardware. Think about it people-but that is lost in all these Rumors. Eventually comes they can't keep doing Old chipsets those will not longer be available and starting the New Hardware is the right move. That's is why rumor of New Switch exists older hardware will become obsolete as chip makers won't make them anymore.
Has there been any further developments aside from Dougie Bowser MD reminding everyone that they are always looking at new hardware and pioneering game ideas.
I never drive faster than I can see. Besides, it's all in the reflexes.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Rumor and Speculation Thread
Posts 941 to 960 of 4,146
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic