Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@shadow-wolf this pokemon leaker claryfied this next gen performance patch for Pokemon Scarlet/Violet second DLC is for Nintendo next hardware, so is Nintendo Switch sucessor

@Giancarlothomaz wait that means that new console is coming out late 2023 or early 2024. Gamefreak cannot release the Pokemon S/V DLC in 2025 can it?

So is it "close"?

Does this mean that NIntendo Next is BC with OG Switch since Scarlet/Violet can played and can even made better via patch? Does this leak sorta confirm BC?

(Sorry, its too many questions)

@shadow-wolf @DiamondSky
It's entirely possible that they were involved with the Pokemon Direct in some way and got the info for the Pokemon stuff in that way. Then just made up the other part of it. Or they could have some kind of inside information and maybe misunderstood what was happening. But it seems the most probable thing is that yes, there is a new piece of hardware coming out and yes existing games will be patched to take advantage of the improved performance

In terms of backwards compatibility? There's endless discussion on other parts of the site on this. My view is that backwards compatibility is a relatively easy win that they should be able to accomplish. No interaction from the developer required. But my gut feeling is that there'll only be a subset of Switch games that will be patched to actually take advantage of the new hardware as opposed to simply "run" on the new hardware in some compatibility mode. Pokemon would certainly be one of those titles we're they would want to do this, maybe get a second sales push with a "fixed" version

But yeah, more broadly? The story generally makes business and technical sense

@shadow-wolf
I think at this point it's unlikely. We're in year 7, and by March 2024 we'll be starting year 8. The ship for a "Pro" has long since sailed. The next hardware will be the new generation. It'll likely be BC, but games released for it will almost certainly not play on the original Switch, meaning it can't really be called a "Pro".

Trying to keep the original Switch hardware alive by only releasing a "Pro" would be a fool's errand. The hardware will have run its course.

The longest gap between generations for each of the big 3:

• Nintendo - GB (1989) -> GBA (2001) [GBC released in 1998]
• Sony - PS3 (2006) -> PS4 (2013) -> PS5 (2020) [both gaps are 7 years, PS4 Pro released in 2016]
• Microsoft - 360 (2005) -> XB1 (2013)

We'll find out soon enough if a successor is releasing by March 2024 because of the fiscal year shareholders meeting in May. A GBC style release or no new hardware however could just be shown as Switch expected to sell more.

@JaxonH But surely that was the same logic applied to the original Game Boy, a system which in its heyday was still way more desperately in need of an upgrade than the Switch is now. And yet it lasted for almost 10 years without a “pro” model in the form of the GBC, and about 12 years until its true successor in the form of the GBA.

Nintendo is in a similar spot again competition-wise — it has competitors far more powerful (Game Gear then, Steam Deck now, etc) yet no where reaching the sales and popularity of their own handheld. In theory they could try to keep pushing the lifespan of the Switch — they even did say they wanted it to have a 10 year lifespan. Getting a Pro model would help lengthen that lifecycle even more the same way Nintendo felt the need to launch the GBC even though GBA would come out a few years later.

@Grumblevolcano Was Switch OLED hinted at during the shareholders meeting in May 2021? If not, then that’ll be a good way to find out if it’s a next Gen system or a Pro model incoming (mention = next gen, no mention = pro model or successor coming later next year)

@Giancarlothomaz actually I reread the tweet and the person mentioned the next Nintendo Switch model specifically. So either it’s a Pro model or the successor will be a GBA/3DS style upgrade … which is what we hoped for anyway so that’s great.

@skywake I agree, Nintendo is known to sometimes make … illogical decisions but it would be beyond foolish and silly to not make the Switch successor backwards compatible, especially with the Nvidia Tegra processor. Their own track record usually shows a follow up to a popular system having backwards compatibility so it’s very likely.

@shadow-wolf Switch OLED wasn't hinted at, there were a load of rumours back then but nothing hinted at by Nintendo in the shareholders meeting.

@shadow-wolf
I don't think cherry picking the GameBoy, a 3 decade old battery operated handheld without a backlight, is a reliable indicator for current market strategies.

I tried to play my Switch in handheld mode again to avoid getting overheat as recently I got overheat warning when I docked my Switch for playing ACNH.
I think my Switch fan getting dirty or the thermal paste inside getting dried so I will bring my Switch to local game repair workshop for maintenance after I got my salary.

Gotta say, Advance Wars has a really nice quality and polish I wasn't expecting.

The subtle but noticeable HD rumble is extremely well implemented, and the 5.1 channel surround sound is always appreciated. The colors on OLED look so vibrant it's like eye candy, and the responsiveness is actually impressive. It feels very modern like Fire Emblem games do.

I turned on my Switch and it automatically started downloading something for XC3 so I guess it's downloading Future Redeemed ready for launch. It's taking a long time, 22 minutes remaining at 57% so I'm guessing the file size is larger than Torna.

@JaxonH Another thing I've noticed that reminds me of modern Fire Emblem is how the background track will change during battle cutscenes. That definitely wasn't in the original.

Also love seeing WayForward's vibrant animation work for the character portraits and especially the CO power activation animations.

While I think they could have handled the online aspect better, I'm pretty happy with the release otherwise.

@Grumblevolcano 18.7 GB on my end after it downloaded Future Redeemed. I don't know the exact file size of XC3 after updates, but it launched at 15GB, and XC3 + DLC is 18.7, so I'd guess it's a tad larger than Torna (which was 3.2GB).

As a counter point, platform change is a risk and if there's anything that large corporations will try to do it's minimise risk. Historically platform change has happened because of a forced architecture change (PPC/Z80/Ricoh/MIPS), a dramatic change in the types of games that can run (2D/3D/HD) or otherwise just a general change in tech (Online/Storage/Media). Early on it happened because games were developed at a very low level. In more recent decades it has been for architecture or media changes

The GB -> GBC transition is interesting to look at in terms of the Switch because it was one of the few times where pretty much everything stayed the same but we got significant clock and memory bumps. The other times being GC -> Wii, DS -> DSi, 3DS -> New 3DS and outside of Nintendo PS4 -> Pro, XBOne -> X, Series S/X. Of these the GBC is the one that ended up with the most titles, by a large margin. There were 1046 original GB games and an additional 918 that were either GBC exclusive or "Dual Mode" GBC enhanced titles

Of all the transitions we've seen I think the GB -> GBC transition fits the best. People don't think of the GBC as a next generation of portable from the GB but, really, it pretty much was. It's just that they continued to support the original GB alongside it with GB compatible GBC titles. Something which I think makes sense for the Switch given, for a lot of titles, the additional horsepower will be more of a nice to have then a necessity

GBC and GBA both felt like discrete, albeit far shorter hardware generations in their own right, in-between the far lengthier reign of the Game Boy and Nintendo DS.

Problem with the Switch is that it needs to run third-party software, and most developers aren't going to want to create separate versions for Switch like they used to for older Ninty handhelds. It makes much less sense to release something akin to the GBC at this point.

@Grumblevolcano oh ok that makes sense.

@JaxonH Haha that’s fair. But at the same time, like @skywake mentioned, platform change is a risk and Nintendo themselves have directly addressed it and how they sometimes mess it up. And while Game Boy is completely different than Switch hardware wise, in terms of market position I still say they’re very similar. Nintendo’s primary drive to improve power wise was due to Sony in the case of the DS (replacing the GBA just 3 years after it came out despite it being so successful) and 3DS, and in the case of the Switch to replace the Wii U. Now that Sony is out of the picture and there’s no failing home console to replace, they very well could just drag this out if they really wanted to with a GBC style upgrade, especially considering how many new players have bought a Switch in recent years. Guess we’ll find out what happens! I hope you’re right though cause I would very much rather see a Switch 2 jump than Switch Pro jump.

Who said anything about developing a separate version for the Switch? The GBC "model" is to have a console that's relatively similar with three tiers of games. In case of the GB it was the Grey (A Type), Black (B Type) and Clear (C Type) cartridges. So Pokemon Red/Blue as A Type, Yellow/Gold/Silver as B Type and Crystal as C Type. I could see something similar happening with the Switch. Maybe with a bit clearer branding

These Switch games are "A Type" Switch games. They run on the Switch and the new console but aren't patched in any way to run better. These other Switch games are "B Type" Switch games. They're more or less the same as "A Type" games but they have a patch or were otherwise to developed to take advantage of the improved hardware where possible. Then there are the "C Type" games, only playable on the new hardware, physically incompatible, not on the OG Switch eShop

That's how the "GBC Model" would look in the 2020s

I think the GBA is an interesting case really, wasn't really about power I don't think. Early in the life of the GBA the NGage came out and while it wasn't a huge hit it was a sign of things to come. We were rapidly moving out of the dial-up era and WiFi was just on the verge of becoming mainstream. I mean I'm far from a luddite, I picked up a DS Lite the day it released. It was my second ever device with WiFi. This was the age of PDA phones so, touch screen with a stylus was the other obvious thing to do. Obvious in hindsight at least

Also the GBA was delayed, it had a bit of a clunky development cycle. Then ontop of that Pokemon happened killing any urgency. So it was old when it came out. The relatively quick release of the DS was partly due to that. Partly due to, well, Nintendo needing a portable device that could go online. If the GBA was a little earlier there would have been less need to replace it so soon. If it was a bit later maybe they include WiFi and the DS doesn't need to happen for a few years longer

Either way, the Switch certainly isn't facing any similar kinds of fundamental tech changes

@Ralizah Agreed and I have to say that is one thing I miss about multiplat gaming. It used to actually be multiplat and (usually) tailored or even designed for the system it ran on. That might mean you got a different or shorter game but you still got the franchise. And for some it prompted double dipping.

@shadow-wolf
Obviously nobody knows the future, but if I were a betting man, I'd put odds at 10:1 we get a clean generational leap.

Nintendo abandoned power because it wasn't garnering sales at the time. Now it is. I expect a return to power as a focus moving forward. Before, they were throwing everything at the wall to see what would stick... they've found what sticks with Switch. Which means next Switch will return to a focus on power, now that their market position is cemented.

We already know what chip they're using. It's a full generational leap. One can call it a "Pro" or a "Switch 2" all they want, but if it's a generational leap in power with its own exclusive games... a spade is a spade. If they were gonna use half measures they would have done it already.

@Ralizah
I'm liking Advance Wars a lot more than I expected

Without the fantasy setting I thought I just wouldn't get into it, but it's actually way more strategic than I thought, in ways that differ from FE. Fuel, Ammo, HP affecting damage output, loading infantry and mechanical into APCs to transport, capturing cities, combining units, certain units that have long range but can't move and fire on the same turn...

It's a totally different experience than Fire Emblem. And I'm really into it.

I think that Advance Wars and Advance Wars 2 are two of the only games I've ever played that I'd give an unconditional 10/10 to. They were very ambitious within the framework of the system offered to them and incredibly successful in their execution. They offer near unlimited play-time and the moment to moment gameplay is almost always compelling. Graphically they are still perfect - you could argue that even with unlimited capabilities that the graphics on the GBA are still the graphics you'd choose today. They were head and shoulders above their closest competition and whilst others have got closer in the many years since I don't think any other games have actually over-taken them.

Honestly if anyone has never played those games they need to buy the remakes (I've not done yet but I probably will at some point in the future).