Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

The name isn’t important.

People just say “Switch Pro” because it easily communicates the idea of an upgraded model revision.

Obviously that’s not going to be the official name, just like Switch Mini was never going to be the official name of what eventually became the Switch Lite, but like Switch Mini, the name Switch Pro quickly and easily conveys the idea of an incrementally more powerful version of the Nintendo Switch.

So it’s not overused, it’s just language that best communicates an idea in two words.

edit
I’ve been thinking about possible Switch Pro solutions, and with this new information about 720p OLED, perhaps some fundamental assumptions I and others have made are wrong.

Up until now, I’ve operated on the assumption that the 4k output meant DLSS, and games not previously able to run meant handheld would have to have a significantly better chip. Which, ok, that may be the case. But what if it’s still a Mariko chip, but with another die shrink (giving significant gains like the v2 got), but this time all those gains go to performance instead of battery. And with a lower power draw using OLED, and perhaps better cooling, slightly bigger battery. Maybe that’s what we’re looking at. It would be just enough power to ensure 720p output across-the-board in handheld, And it would definitely ensure full compatibility as an iteration rather than a new chip entirely that could present problems.

But what about the 4K and DLSS? The more I think about it, and the possibilities proposed by another member here, the more I think I might’ve been dead wrong. What if they did use a supplementary chip in the dock? The problem with this is, I don’t know if USB-C has the capability for that. But one of my main criticisms of such an approach was that DLSS would therefore not be possible in handheld and the game couldn’t run. But... what if it could still run? What if it could still run, but just at 720p? If Switch had double the power, it could probably still pull that off. The assumption was that they would move up to a 1080p screen, but with 720p, perhaps games could still run without even needing DLSS in handheld mode?

I still don’t know how they would figure out supplemental computing with the DLSS for the dock. I don’t think such a thing exists, but as I think about it, we’re talking about two of the most forward thinking corporations on the planet... I’m sure they could figure it out if they intentionally put their minds to it.

Hmm... The more we figure out the more puzzled I become. For now, perhaps it’s best to be as open minded as possible.

Or New Nintendo Switch.

@MsJubilee
Honestly I can see them just going with that lol

It's not terrible, really. It seemed to work pretty well for the 3DS. It signifies that it's new/refreshed but not the Switch 2.

@Ralizah
Agreed.
But the thing is that there are so many other things going against the Switch other than the graphics that, many times more than not, make it the illogical choice if comparing as docked. Onboard storage out of the box has always been rock bottom. It also lacks a robust online ecosystem, as many of us have griped from time to time: friend codes, voice chat differs from game to game, can't form parties/lobbies with friends outside of games, free games are from the 80s and 90s, etc. We all know it lacks quite a few heavy-hitting games that the other systems can give you. If you don't buy a Pro controller, the Joycon can be a love/hate thing for a lot of people (I personally love them and almost prefer them to the Pro controller).

There are always different things that different people look for. For me, the hybrid nature trumps everything else and is why I love my Switch. I believe, however, that for the average gamer they may find fewer things on the Switch that meet their expectations than on the competing consoles. But then, again, enters the brilliant hybrid capability that seems to have hooked quite the range of gamers.

Or it really could just be that the tried and true wisdom that exclusives sell systems applies and Breath of the Wild is the reason why Switch got its legs in the first place.

My hunch is that Switch v3 will just replace v2, in the same subtle way that V2 just replaced v1. Perhaps it will be a bit less subtle, as the changes will be more apparent, but they'll still just call it 'Switch', but once the existing v2s have sold the only model available will be the v3.

@gcunit I think I agree with this assessment. If it is a larger screen though that XL branding might be too tempting to give up. Still I think v2 is on its way out.

@rallydefault And those points you make probably make the difference for some people. I don't play co-op games, though, upgraded my storage soon after launch, and prefer cloud saves not being held hostage behind a paywall that costs 3x as much like on PS4, and actually prefer SNES games to PS+ selections most of the time.

I'm definitely not saying someone might not have a legitimate reason to not play multiplats on Switch, docked or not. What I am saying is that some people are going to prefer playing multiplatform games on Switch regardless of whether they intend to take advantage of the portability it offers, and that's also a legitimate choice if they enjoy doing so more. There are many, many reasons someone might prefer playing on one platform over another. Maybe they like having games on cartridges. Maybe, like you, they enjoy playing games with the joycons (I used to like them, but the weird connectivity issues have started to really bother me, and the Pro Controller/Split Pad Pro are just a way more attractive option for me 90% of the time). On that note, one thing I really like is the wide range of controllers I can use with it, which doesn't seem to be possible on PS4 or Xbox. I played Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon with 8bitdo's M30, which is like a Sega Saturn controller, and it was extremely enjoyable.

When it comes to the appeal of the system overall compared to others, again, that's just going to be a subjective evaluation. I don't play 90% of AAA games that come out, so Switch being unable to run them isn't really a downside to me. Especially if it gets appealing bespoke alternatives to games I would want to play, like MH Rise instead of MH World, or possibly a new Resident Evil built with the specs of the Switch in mind. How much system exclusives appeal to someone will also make a difference.

I got a ton of the platforms released last gen (Wii U, Switch, 3DS, 3DS XL, New 3DS XL, Vita, PS4, and a gaming PC), and, frankly, the amount of choice at my fingertips has been overwhelming. If Nintendo's third-party support continues to be robust, I could see myself soloing this gen with just whatever the new Nintendo device is as my sole addition, and use my existing PC as a supplement for the Jp stuff like Tales of Arise, Resident Evil Village, etc.

@Ralizah
Yea, for the first time since I was a kid I may be sticking just with Nintendo this gen. We'll see if the revision can keep a somewhat steady flow of the AAA third party stuff.

@rallydefault AAA third party seems doubtful. Especially modern-gen. Besides exclusives, of course.

Still, even being worse on that front than the competition, this is the best support Nintendo has gotten in generations. And, if the next device is a solid step up, I'd expect third parties to be on board even quicker, given Switch and its more core gamer playerbase have helped to mend a lot of bridges Nintendo has spent decades burning.

Although, if you already own a PS4 or halfway decent PC, it'll likely be a few years before major games stop targeting systems you own.

On the question of why Switch started selling well in the first place that I forgot to address in my last post: I think Zelda is definitely a big part of the early momentum, although even BotW wouldn't have been able to save the Wii U. The hybrid functionality is unquestionably super popular, and is arguably the greatest hardware gimmick in the history of consoles (Wii's motion controls were also big, but the crowd it attracted didn't stick around very long, whereas Switch owners are fairly engaged gamers). Nintendo's advertising has inarguably been better.

But, at the end of the day, I think certain social forces beyond anyone's control also contribute. The PS4 sold really well for years with just indies, the usual third party stuff, and underwhelming exclusives, and its degree of success largely mystified Sony. Wii U tanked after a decent launch and never caught on, despite an arguably attractive slate of exclusives. Even without Zelda, I think the Switch probably would have caught the mysterious market wings carrying certain platforms to astronomical levels of success.

@Ralizah
It does seem that console sales go up and down from generation to generation with each company, though nothing "failed" quite as badly as the Wii U in recent memory. I bought a Wii U at launch and enjoyed ZombiU (I think that was the title?) and NSMBU. I don't remember what else it launched with. Oh, Nintendoland was fun with friends. But I do remember the long stretch until Pikmin 3 came out.

PS4 was a mystery at launch. It had a Killzone game but not much else. I remember everyone being so perplexed as to why it was selling. I think there is some truth to these "unknown social forces" you speak of.

I mean, its really easy to notice. People cared about an open world Zelda game that Nintendo was doing everything they can to make it a big deal, and several other games coming out early enough. No one cares about any of the Wii U exclusives that came out between the Mario platformers, by comparison. Game and Wario is Warioware but not called Warioware and not as good. Pikmin is niche. Wonderful 101 is niche by Pikmin standards. That lego game is 1 of 800 lego games but without a 2nd brand like other lego games.

Also marketing and having to compete with 3DS and Wii's momentum dying and casuals going towards mobile blah blah blah, we don't need to repeat this discussion again. It's been said.

Ps4 mostly won by default. Ps3 was the most relevant console by the end of its lifespan, Wii U failed, Xbox One was nearly DOA and was more expensive anyway. If a next gen console exists, its easy to see what you'll choose, and it was getting all the popular games so whatever with Sony's own meh lineup. Didn't matter. People just wanted the new gen of console gaming, so they chose the one that mattered.

I think Nintendo having 2 platforms and refreshing them every 5 years played a part in Nintendo fatigue, to the point people really didn’t feel the need to upgrade their Nintendo systems every generation. Because the hardware didn’t offer enough value to justify that kind of frequency to the masses. It also explains the sudden down and up of alternate gens. GameCube down, Wii up, Wii U down, Switch up. And I know there were other factors, but I think this contributed to the downs being as low as they were and the highs being as high as they were. When somebody hasn’t bought a new Nintendo platform in 10 years they might be more inclined to buy the new system. And when they just bought a Wii 5 years ago, they are less inclined to jump on Wii U.

With only one platform that lasts 7-8 years, even with one good incremental upgrade in between, that will no longer be the case.

@gcunit
I considered that possibility. But the thing that ultimately let me to believe otherwise, is the reports of Nintendo telling devs to get games 4k ready, Bloomberg reporting it will have 4k, Nate the Hate saying he knows at least one dev making a Pro exclusive because it can’t run on base hardware, and coming to the realization that a quiet v3 refresh, although it could be somewhat substantial if devoted entirely to power, would still not be anywhere close to enough to justify 4K. The only way that happens is with DLSS. So either two of those reports are wrong, or there’s something more to it. Although I am now starting to question whether it could be a combination of a Mariko v3 die shrink and supplemental power via the dock. I’m not convinced that’s the case but I’m starting to consider the possibility, at least.

@JaxonH When I read that the developers making Switch Pro exclusive titles are third-parties, it made me very relieved. I don't remember the last time Nintendo actively screwed over their customers, but hopefully they don't take the opportunity to do so this year. I only got a new Switch after breaking my old one back in 2019, so any more revisions will permanently cripple my funds!

@TheJGG It wouldn't make much sense for Nintendo to develop first party titles exclusively for the revised Switch. Way too many lost software sales in doing so and we won't even see any first party ports that are exclusive like Xenoblade for the new 3DS as the base Switch can already handle all of their previously released games just fine. The only exclusives I would expect to see are third party ports that wouldn't run on the base model as in that case it's either a 'Pro' version or no version.

@BenAV Yeah, I wanted to buy Xenoblade 3D, but didn't want to get a New 3DS just for the game. I eventually got the New 3DS but I didn't get the game. Of course there's a significantly better edition on Switch, so I didn't really mull over that particular nuance.

One particular genre that won't thrive on Switch is racing games, because the Switch doesn't have pressure-sensitive triggers. They would have worked on GameCube because as I learnt from Super Mario 3D All-Stars, it had different levels of spray pressure.

@JaxonH I think that's the job listing I referenced in our discussion about the future of Switch a while ago. I remember seeing it in 2020 IIRC.

@TheJGG
Oh ya, Nintendo has no reason to do such a thing.

That only happens when a game cannot exist at an level of acceptable quality on the base system, and the base Switch can run all of Nintendo’s games already. Some might be 720p docked, but they can run.

3rd parties, on the other hand... that’s another story. But even then, I don’t expect too many exclusive games. Just the occasional one here and there. Then again, there’s so many games right on the cusp of being able to run, that maybe we’ll see more than expected. Either way, it’s as BenAV said- Pro Switch or no Switch.

@Haruki_NLI
Perhaps.

I can't remember that, but it sure makes a lot more sense in the context of all the info we have now. One more piece to the puzzle coming together.

@JaxonH It'll come down to whether 3rd parties want to do an approach of base Switch gets cloud version, new Switch gets native version. There's also the situation of Microsoft, Phil Spencer likes to tease the future of Xbox with his shelves when he appears in digital events and the most recent one has a Switch:

https://www.purexbox.com/news/2021/03/industry_insider_sugges...

The Switch tease could mean stuff like more Xbox exclusives for Switch or Game Pass for Switch.

@Grumblevolcano
We did hear about “like Mario on Playstation” and several leaks involving Halo on Switch. Maybe that’s finally happening? After all, it took them years to port MCC to PC, and they’re still working on it. I could see a Switch port being a multi-year project. If we got wind of it in the early stages it could be one of those things where we don’t see it and we forget about it and then it pops up 2 years later.

I’m a firm believer in, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” I’m also a firm believer in King Zell’s trustworthiness, before he dropped off the map and out of the leaker scene.

I could see MS putting their older Halo MCC on Switch to expose the ripe Switch fanbase to their star franchise, hoping to lead sales toward Xbox, knowing many Switch owners will buy a power console for 9th gen. Plus, MS has never really offered a handheld alternative. Ya, they have streaming, but they know as well as we do that’s a tiny sliver of the portable gaming market. Seeing Nintendo as someone to collaborate with rather than exclusively compete, they could justify portable Halo as Nintendo helping them to extend their brand’s reach.

Yea I don't know about first-party exclusives. They'll definitely promote the New Nintendo Switch as THE way to play BotW2 and Splatoon 3 and eventually Metroid, but I doubt they'll put up a wall of exclusivity. They got away with it on the 3DS mostly, I guess, but maybe people's attention was just more divided between two consoles so any outrage was diluted. And most people couldn't look away from the wreck of the Wii U lol

I'm not very worried about third-party exclusivity either, to be honest. It's definitely gonna happen, as the rumors say, but the games that would likely require the stronger hardware will also most likely appeal to people who are chomping at the bit or at least willing to buy the updated hardware.

Man, I always love coming on here, and seeing the same five people’s wishlist for “switch pro” or whatever Bloomberg is now calling it. I just have one thing to say, 1. Can you really trust Bloomberg, after every single year, they say switch pro, and drumroll please.....nothing happens. And 2. So we now just follow what every supposed “leaker says on the internet? Like my god at this point I could go onto 4chan and say “oh my god, I got early review copy of switch pro!!!!! 4K graphics with 60000 frames per second!!! Doesn’t even change the way animal crossing looks!!!!!”And I would get famous on here. I shall finish of my rant with if Nintendo is to do this, it’s a bad decision, they saw the issue with scalpers on other new consoles, if a family that doesn’t own a switch, sees the two different versions, they are going to buy the cheaper normal switch, it will be the Wii U all over again.