Topic: What do you think the next Nintendo console will look like?

@Sisilly_G haha. Although I suspect you somewhat say this in jest, I do think you've touched upon something we're likely to see more of in future, which is fewer new titles and more games taking the live service route (like GTA5); offering up episodic updates every now and then, in place of true sequels. I'm really not sure that I'm here for it, but it might be unavoidable sadly

@Sisilly_G I see we're eager for that Twilight Princess / Wind Waker Switch port.

Eh.

Eh?

@KingdomTears : I was being facetious, but I think there's a lot of truth to it given the inundation of ports/remakes in more more recent years. Really, the only people with reason to complain are older gamers who are yearning for something new, but it's also a reality we ought to get used to. On the other hand, I see less reason to remake anything from the GameCube generation on as they've aged well for the most part, and I'd rather see older games preserved in (more or less) their original presentations while development resources and talents are spent on something a little more innovative, perhaps.

@Magician : Indeed, but I've yet to play them.

I'm also the kind of dope that bought both the Wii and Wii U versions of Twilight Princess, still collecting dust in the 'ol backlog.

I ultimately passed on Wind Waker HD, not due to a lack of wanting, but suspecting that it too would collect dust, and I think I would have been right.

@Sisilly_G Agreed for the most part. Although I do think there are **some** games from the later SD generations that warrant a new coat of paint from time to time - Metroid Prime Remastered being an obvious example

Games re-released(remastered) is fine as long as the graphics and performance goes along with it. If the graphics remain the same that is basically worthless buy. Games can be remastered but must be done right to fit the next console graphics demand if not why would I buy it. Also a Upgraded GPU Switch will do alot for older games as well in visual performance and if there is software updates to take advantage of the horsepower that is even better to have. And I am guess there will be game exclusives to Switch 2 because of the demanding graphics needs so that can't be lost here. There will be crutches because of this and there is no way around this. So if one wants Switch 2 performance one will have to take the plunge and get the Switch 2 to get it's benefits.

Ok, some thoughts on the OP

Firstly I'm not entirely sure what having an even more modular controller design resolves. Seems to me it's just adding mechanical complexity to tick a "Nintendo oddness" box. What would doing this offer in terms of gameplay vs just having more JoyCon variations?Or even just shifting your hand slightly to get to the D-Pad?... Not much as far as I can tell

Secondly, the dual screen bit. There are a few gaps here I think. Firstly there's again a serious mechanical problem here. How would you make a hinge that's robust enough to hold that sized screen, not be bulky and also detachable? Secondly, asside from DS/Wii U control scheme mimicking what problem are we trying to solve? Seems to me most of the scenarios can either be covered by having a second Switch or by creating a mobile companion app. At least you didn't suggest "reverse Wii U", so that's something I guess

My 2c, I think the safest bet is to expect it to be the Switch again just more capable. I think it's going to land in the ballpark of the PS4 spec but with more modern features and some tricks. Do they add something like a camera? Sure, why not. But I expect this will be more GBA and less DS

Another thought. What if instead of going all Wii U and bundling the second screen into the package they make it an optional thing. In two forms

Firstly as an optional accessory, a proper thin client device that's nothing but screen, battery and WiFi. Basically the same thing the PS Portal is but maybe not quite so premium because it'd purely be for a second screen while docked. I could see a small level of interest for something along those lines. Especially if the price isn't much higher than a Pro Controller. You could maybe even make it more portable than the Switch itself and maybe go full VMU and allow some standalone apps. NSO games anyone?

Secondly, as a free to download app on the eShop. Either keeping your old Switch in service or when you're in a multiple Switch household. Of course, the upfront cost would be higher. Same problem existed when they did this on the DS/Wii and GBA/GC. But.... if you already have it it doesn't cost anything. Why pay for hardware you already have right?

Of course both of these solutions run into problems with adoption rates. You can't really build a game entirely around an accessory not everyone has. Well, you can it's just probably not going to sell as well. However, I feel like the additional cost of including it in the box is a much higher risk than the reward of having it standard would bring

Also, in both cases l, maybe this isn't just streaming video. Maybe the second device has some kind of capability on it's own. Not much but enough that you can load 2D elements and do some rotation/scaling/overlay etc. Why stream a map when you can just render it on device? You know what else we have that's great at displaying 2D content? Web browsers. If you were to do this you'd have to also justify why it couldn't just be done in the same way all those Jackbox games do it already.

From what I can tell the Switch pulls around 10W from the wall when fully charged and running BotW with no screen. The Steam Deck is closer to 20W

Now take this next bit with a bucket of salt because I'm talking rumoured hardware, guestimating stuff and also talking TDP. To be clear TDP is NOT power consumption, TDP is the manufacturer's recommendation for how much thermal load they recommend the cooler should be able to handle. They correlate but they're not the same thing. With all that said, the SoC the Switch uses? It's TDP is 20W... but Nintendo underclocks it so lets call it 15W. "But that's more than the 10W you said before!" I hear you say. Yes. But again, TDP is not power consumption (and it's certainly not real world power consumption)

Nintendo's next console? We have no idea. However NVidia does have SoCs that are in the ballpark of the Steam Deck in terms of raw compute. Their rated TDP is (drumroll) somewhere around 10-20W. So basically the same kind of ballpark TDP as the X1 in the original Switch. In short, I don't think this thing will be anywhere near as bulky as the Steam Deck

If I was to guess (and you know I will) I expect there's a range of possibilities here. On the one end we might end up with something that has more or less the same kind of cooling requirements as the Switch and is kinda like a modern version of a portable PS4. Or Nintendo go power efficiency crazy, make it super thin with a crazy good battery life and hyper aggressive pricing

The diagram posted at the start is a very cool idea, though maybe a little too focused on the module idea. I know the discussion has moved away from that, so I won’t spend a lot of time there.
I am not going into power/specs/FPS/etc… because I know nothing about that. However I will say that as much as I’d love a dual screen to return and bring back some WiiU and 3/DS games, I am also not sure if I would go for it. I like the concept, but I also have littles, which would mean making sure the mini screen ia put away, not stepped on, etc. Whereas the Switch can just be docked when they play and all that have to do is press “Sleep Mode” on screen when they are done and put away the controllers (not that they do this every time anyway, but the controllers I have for them are much chunkier than a screen probably would be). All that to say, I am not sure how a second screen would go, marketing-wise, for larger families. The switch is a family console, and a solo console. A co-op console and a competitive online console. A console and not a console. It is Versatile. A dual screen might very well not be.

since you're calling me out directly, I'll bite

The ability to create multiple button layouts would just be a happy bi-product of a greater necessity here, nothing to do with attempting to offer some "Nintendo oddness". Remember this design is based on an actual patent that Nintendo recently released, meaning R&D work has been carried out, and very likely actual prototypes have been built. So with that in mind, whether they actually make it or not Nintendo are proposing here a system that can be used like a DS device in single player or split into two individual screens for two player (again this is all in the patent, I'm not coming up with any of this) - in this scenario how would you use the joycons in their current form so that when in two-player mode each player has a individual screen and a viable control input? The only way I could see this even being possible would be to connect each joycon to the bottom of each screen, which would be the most convoluted and unmanageable control system imaginable (plus the joycons would need to support the weight of the entire screen and the shoulder buttons would be blocked from use). This is the main reason I'm suggesting this idea of a more modular design. This also provides the benefit of being able to place these modules into other peripherals such as a wii-remote type controller or a light gun reducing the cost of offering up other control methods. It also somewhat solves the ongoing issues with stick-drift since when this occurs only the stick would need to be replaced rather than an entire, expensive joycon with all of its extra bells and whistles.

The hinge/connection-port between these two devices is a major focus of the actual patent here, so it appears that Nintendo has already literally spent time, effort and money working out exactly how this would work already.

The main thing that I believe this solves is a way to play DS, 3DS and Wii U games in their original form without having to majority retool the games to make them work on a single screen - one of Nintendo's biggest strengths is their back catalogue and they are running out of systems that they can pull games from going into this next generation. I also think that Nintendo had a lot of unrealised plans for the Wii U that they never managed to get off the ground during its short lifespan that they would be keen to further explore, for instance Tears of the Kingdom is absolutely begging for a second screen input to help solve it's extremely complex control system - especially when using ultrahand to place, rotate and connect objects for instance.

The problem Nintendo has is that a new system absolutely NEEDS a gimmick that allows it to provide experiences that can't be offered by the Switch. If the only thing offered is more powerful hardware then the majority of games Nintendo makes wouldn't be able to justify being on the new system but not on Switch (with it's 130m+ install base) - can Nintendo claim that a Mario game with ray-tracing provides something unique gameplay wise? And do we even need games such as Mario to be improved graphically anyway? Without providing experiences that cannot justifiably exist on the Switch then you're giving the public very little reason to migrate to the new system, and if third-party games are all you care about then you'd be better off with one of the competitor systems anyway.

Nintendo knows this btw: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/switch-2-nintendo-has-nothi...

@CaleBoi25 yeah definitely all good points and could easily be a reason Nintendo ends up not going beyond the patent stage with this idea, but as mentioned in my post above Nintendo does need some kind of gimmick that separates the new system from the Switch other than raw specs and this is one possibility to achieve that

@KingdomTears
Well, two retorts. Firstly I think you're wrong to suggest that the new system "absolutely NEEDS a gimmick". Nintendo in 2023 isn't in the position they were in the early 2010s or 2000s. They're in a relatively strong market position with a hardware niche that's widely accepted and IP that's stronger than ever. This isn't like the GC era where Sony had just spent a decade tearing up their market dominance. It's not like the late Wii era where the blue ocean had dried up and their core audience had migrated to the HD consoles. This is far more like the Gameboy in the late 90s. Nintendo basically owns this niche but it's been a good while and they need to stay on the curve

Quoting PR statements from Nintendo where they say that they want to deliver something compelling, unique, surprising or delightful experiences? That's not proof of anything. I mean what are they going to say? That they aim to release pedestrian, abhorrent, cooky cutter products? Of course not

In terms of your design, I'm sorry but you still haven't really sold it to me. Even if I was to entertain the idea for a second that porting dual screen games to the Switch is a problem that they desperately want to resolve. Why does it have to be THAT modular? I've seen that patent, I don't see why you'd need to make the controller parts even more modular

Lets step back for a second. Lets make the assumption that in this design the "bottom screen" is like the Switch as it is right now. Ignoring the controllers lets then say that you can have a screen that's about the same size that you can attach to the main unit. Maybe when it folds down it fits snugly over the screen. Maybe it's wider and fits snugly over the whole unit. Either way you could still have the Joycon work as they do now

Then when you want to play docked with the second screen? Unclip the screen, and maybe slide it into something kinda like the JoyCon grip with JoyCon on either side. Or alternatively clip it onto a controller and you land on something kinda like this:

And that's assuming I buy into the idea that porting 3DS/DS/Wii U games is something they can't already do and will open up all sorts of new ideas that are only possible on such a device. And that, of course, improved visuals has no value at all to consumers.....

I'm not sold. I could see some value in a dual screen device but I feel like it's more of an accessory idea than the main hook. It alone isn't enough. The real hook is going to be, to be blunt, more power. The Switch is a flexible enough product as it is it's just, a product that was barely impressive in terms of the hardware in the mid 2010s except for the fact that nobody else took a punt on it and Nintendo has the IP. We just need that again, but brought into the 2020s. That's all. That's enough

If Nintendo springs for a dual-screen device, then it absolutely must be available "out of the box", even if it's completely optional for developers to utilise it.

I would love for a detachable second screen that functions in a similar manner to the Wii U Gamepad in which it wirelessly receives a video signal from the main unit, allowing for dual-screen gameplay and/or on-the-go asynchronous multiplayer without the need for a second console (though the second screen may need its own set of non-detachable buttons or Joy-Con rails if used for this purpose).

The main issues to consider though is that this might be overcomplicating the accessibility of the device just a tad for casual users, and what would the form factor of such a device look like?

In any case, I would love to see download play make a comeback as it was one of the best things about the DS/3DS back in the day.

I think we need to agree to disagree on this one, I think you're wrong to suggest it doesn't need a gimmick (for all the reasons I laid out in my last reply) and you think I'm wrong to suggest it does. Arguing it endlessly isn't going to get us anywhere

No, of course they aren't indeed, but then why mention this at all if they have no intention to innovate with their next console? The only reason to public state this is to essentially say "don't expect a Switch Pro as the successor to the Switch"

Well that's certainly a possibility, but if a system like this were to become a reality (and I'm not saying that it definitely will) Nintendo would want a design that can fit together as a single piece/console rather than having to carry around additional clips and grips if you want to play in modes outside of DS-form, so that would be something that would need to be worked into the design.

I'm not saying that improved visuals has no value to consumers, I'm saying that it's not enough alone. Plus there are very few, if any Nintendo IPs that could benefit from hyper realistic graphics anyway, maybe Metroid but we all know that series doesn't move anywhere near the numbers that Mario, Zelda, Animal Crossing, Pokémon do, so it's a pretty big gamble to bet everything on CPU and GPU grunt alone when most of your core franchises won't see that much benefit compared to the leading IPs from Sony and Microsoft

It might be enough for you (and even me) but it's not going to be enough for a huge number of people who currently make up the majority of the Switch install base, and that's the issue they'll need to address; whether that's what I'm suggesting in my OP or something entirely different

@KingdomTears
I find it amusing that you're dismissing my improvement of your original idea because it "requires additional clips and grips". Despite the fact that my only suggestion is that if they were to do it, and I'm far from convinced of the value, that it would need to be LESS complicated than your original suggestion. Note, your original suggestion had ten individual components. Four "dummy modules", one top screen, one bottom screen and then four controller modules

What I'm suggesting is that instead of doing all of that faffing about with controller modules they just have the Switch as it is. Screen in the middle, JoyCon rails, Joycons, Dock. If a second screen is to be added just, you know, have the second screen clip onto the top of the main screen with a hinge. As it would in your design. But just the screen. Want to use it in a "Wii U mode"? Same dealeo as the Switch docked now... except you can now also grab that second screen and attach it to a controller or JoyCon grip like device. All up? Maybe 5 components. Left JoyCon, Right JoyCon, Main Screen, Second Screen, Grip

But to repeat, I'm not at all convinced Nintendo needs a gimmick to get people excited about new hardware and I certainly don't think they need to have two screens to be able to port Wii U, DS and 3DS titles. What Nintendo needs is something that can keep this cash cow chugging along. Could that be with some kind of wild trick? I mean sure, maybe. But the simplest messages are usually the most successful ones. And I think that "Switch but with more pixels" is far easier to communicate than:

"So we have this modular controller system with 10 individual components and you can swap out the pieces for asymmetric dual screen gameplay or local multiplayer and maybe we port across some Wii U games, remember the Wii U? Oh, not THOSE Wii U games, not the ones we already ported. The other ones like Nintendo Land and Mario Maker, stuff that wouldn't work on Switch. Oh we did make a Mario Maker 2 didn't we, not that one. Anyways it's like a Switch but for ........ wait, where'd he go?"

@skywake huh? when did I dismiss your suggestion? What I actually said was "Well that's certainly a possibility" and that "additional clips and grips...would need to be worked into the design"

You keep coming at me like I'm suggesting this is the way Nintendo will definitely go with their new console but I am only suggesting two main things: 1). that they will need something beyond CPU/GPU upgrade to achieve the sales numbers they want - we've already established an impasse here - and that 2). this is a possible route to achieve this aim. To that end we appear to be working towards a common goal now with both of us proposing a separate routes to essentially achieving the same outcome.

I actually agree with a lot of your points here on the number of modules probably being overly complicated, but that's not really here nor there or what I'm trying to argue; it's just one suggested way to achieve what they've already laid out in this patent as a potential Switch successor with a unique proposition.

As we appear to be working together to thrash out the design of this thing, and you seem to be focused on the sheer number of separate components as a major issue of my modular design, let me suggest a design tweak to simplify the proposition: Instead of the four dummy modules, you could have lightly sprung square panels in the shape of the modules that spring up to meet the rest of the console's body wherever there are no control modules in place, thereby reducing the number of individual components from 10 to 6. This would change the number to the same amount required by your design (you'd need two grips to handle each screen in two player mode)

My expectations would be similar in current Switch designs it might be bulkier and bigger to handle the T239 power requirements. It should come with T239/DLSS3.5/RT/RTL and 512RAM with maybe two SD slots and magnetic Joy-Cons setup. As to color scheme hopefully with color buttons and different case color scheme to go along with the new Switch 2 to make it more different the current Switches. I doubt there be a mini Switch more like a Lite that can't Dock would be the next setup with upgraded GPU to match but in Lite form.

As far as graphics/power goes... What games really need it? I mean, a few could do with boosted FPS and whatnot, but do we need 16K 240FPS gameplay? I... don't think so.

Definitely will not have a look like XBOX Series X machine. It looks ridiculous. That's literally called GameCuboid.

@KingdomTears
Yeah, nah. I don't accept your premise there. I'm not suggesting a solution to same problem, what I'm saying is that I don't think this is a reasonable route to go. It seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. Also, reasonable or not, I think your approach to the solution is far too complex

I'll put it this way. I'm a bit of a tech enthusiast, I'm the sort of person who in my spare time will write fun little programs/automations or will browse catalogues of consumer electronics stuffs. Or, lets be honest, come to sites like this and talk crap. But in spite of that I do hold one firm fundamental belief about technology. Technology is a tool, it's a means to an end. If the goal isn't clear or if the solution adds additional work to the task? You've made an error. You've made both of these fundamental errors in your design. You're the guy in the meeting struggling to get their stylus to connect to their tablet device, I have pen and paper

With the transition to Switch the fundamental problem Nintendo needed to solve was the consolidation of their portable and home console divisions. The Wii U was, I believe, an early attempt to move in that same direction. With the 3DS the 3D was a for two games, 3D Land and Luigi's Mansion. Nintendo had been wanting to make an isometric Mario since SMB3 but without depth perception that perspective is tough to control and Luigi's Mansion is supposed to look like a diorama, 3D was part of their experimentation during development

With the DS? IIRC the touch screen was added partly from inspiration from the title screen of Super Mario 64. I don't think it's a co-incidence that game was ported as a launch title. The second screen was added because when you're using the touch screen your hand covers the screen. Which these days feels like a bit of an outdated concept. Lastly, the Wii was born literally out of Miyamoto putting forward the same argument I am putting forward in this thread. The entire premise of the Wii was to simplify the controller design

Nintendo doesn't do gimmicks, Nintendo implements solutions to problems. The way I see it the physical design of the Switch is already an incredibly well thought out solution to a very clear problem. It's a product designed to be both a home console and a probable console. Everything about the physical design assists in that goal, nothing really gets in the way. Your solution..... seems to just add extra steps in an attempt to reach a goal of making it easier to translate Wii U/DS/3DS games. A problem Nintendo doesn't really seem to have trouble getting around. If that really was a problem? Well, I've suggested ways you could improve your design. But fundamentally I don't think you've outlined a clear problem that needs to be solved. I'm not a fan

From my perspective the main issue of the Switch as it is is pretty clear. Nintendo wants this platform to remain relevant for another 5+ years but they're currently selling a console spec that is a decade behind the competition. The lack of resources available on the Switch hardware is a barrier to a clear goal, have people develop games for your platform. They can reduce that barrier by releasing a product with improved internal specs. Better internal specs is enough, no need to fundamentally redesign the form

@CaleBoi25
Obviously you're being a bit hyperbolic but just to ground that comment. When people here are talking about improved specs we're not talking about "16K/240fps". Or at least I'm not. What I'm talking about is having some games go from 480p, 30fps, low detail to 1080p, 60fps, high/medium detail. I'm talking about games coming to Nintendo's hardware quicker and in less compromised states rather than being delayed for a good year with entire sections reworked/removed or just skipping it entirely

To be clear, it will still be behind the competition, it will still be a portable. There are still perceptions and corporate politics that will play out. Being behind in any way is going to make it harder to port games to Nintendo's hardware. Even so, closing that spec gap does have value. It will ease that burden. And with improvements in hardware over the last 6 years? There's a fair bit of gap they can very comfortably close

More broadly? I do agree somewhat. I don't think we're quite at the point where there are no more returns to be had but we are firmly in the era of diminishing returns. At the super high end we're at the point now where you can take a modern open world game, turn all the dials to 11 and run at 4K 60fps+. Of course, there's still space for more detail even then but I do agree, it's increasingly hard to argue a desperate need for it

....... but lets not get ahead of ourselves, the Switch is very far from that