Topic: What if: Your Switch physical collection won't be backwards compatible with the Switch successor.

@StuTwo

Parents in the 90's were saying the same thing when their children, who had an NES, were asking them to purchase an SNES. So what kept Nintendo from simply adding an NES cartridge slot to the SNES?

@Magician Backwards compatibility wasn't an industry standard in 1992 like it currently is in 2023. There were also fewer ways to tackle the problem back in the day.

Moreover, all of Nintendo's handheld consoles have featured previous-gen backwards compatibility to date.

Nintendo will have to figure something out.

Couldn't said it better but oh well....everyone took the bait...

Take the 3DS XL and NEW 3DS XL port where only New 3DS XL games won't work on the older 3DS XL models. So they did that for hardware and to insure only new platform works with the correct hardware. That Notch on the New 3DS XL games prevented that.

This is the story of USB1.1-2.0 to USB3 ports you can still use USB3 devices in older USB ports without issue.

All the games are the same it's just the cart factor that is different so if that was the case then everyone would have to buy New-old all over again to play on the new Switch since the older cart firmware won't run so neither would old Digital games since no update where made for them to run on the New Switch format should be the game then.

@Ralizah I get that perspective and I don't disagree.

However, I think it was more of a case that Nintendo could have offered NES backwards compatibility with the SNES, but that Nintendo chose not to.

The NES had an 8bit CPU, the SNES had a 16bit CPU. They had different instruction sets, different co processors, different bus widths, different amounts of addressable memory. Also both were developed during an era where you programmed to the metal. A lot of the effects games of that era did were done by abusing particular ways the hardware behaved. Right down to swapping modes between scan lines

The Switch is entirely different. ARM is on a VERY mature instruction set. Developers these days generally write higher level code before later optimising for specific hardware. The OS these game consoles run on is very mature. There is a layer between the game and bare metal. You're not coding for specific sound chips or video modes, you're coding to an API which will behave in standardised and predictable ways

Just think about how many cross platform games there were in the 16bit era. Now think about how many of those were identical between platforms. Now think about how many NES games were ported as is to the SNES and GB. Really, not that many right? Ok, now how many games these days release on PC, XBox, PS and Switch with all versions being largely identical except for performance? How many Wii U games were ported to Switch? How many 360 games were ported to Wii U?.... you get the idea

It's an entirely different universe compared to what it was back then. The Switch is in many ways closer to the 3DS than the SNES was to the NES. And you can be fairly sure that whatever is coming next will be closer to the Switch than the Switch was to Wii U or 3DS. Probably closer to the Switch than 3DS was to DS

Yeah, that's not what the video says. Nowhere does it say they're not going with Tegra, because we all know they are going with Tegra. MVG is talking about the GPU micro architecture, which you don't need to watch the video to see. MVG has been pushing this bit for a while, doesn't mean it makes much sense

He's talking about a driver binary that's bundled with Switch titles and how the GPU microarchitecture change could break it. Then claiming the only possible solutions are full stack emulation, entire replication of the X1 and Switch cartridge slot, manual patching of every game or no BC at all. Ignoring entirely other possible options. Like a light translation layer between the old and new calls given you don't need to emulate the entire thing. Automated generation of patches, especially given it's literally just the GPU micro architecture.

Also the dude throws in there randomly that Nintendo would want to move away from Switch cartridges. Citing cost..... because changing the plastic casing shape will magically make 32Gb of NAND cheaper......

Just because someone has a mic doesn't mean they're an authority

Edit: TBF I'm also not entirely sure on how the Switch game is structured in terms of where this driver is supposed to live. After the header and compressed assets there are multiple binaries. One is the game as compiled. Then entirely separate there is a second binary that presumably contains all the libraries i.e. not the game, the SDK etc. The latter Nintendo would provide and, to me, it seems where you'd put something like a driver. It seems to me the latter is all that needs to be patched.... which wouldn't need developer involvement

@Magician I'm not a technical expert in the way that @skywake is but everything he notes certainly lines up with my (far more limited) experience. Consoles and computers more generally were very different back then and the pace of change was far more rapid. I certainly remember throughout the 90's that a PC would be completely outclassed within 2-3 years and obsolete entirely within 5. It simply was a different era and not comparable to today.

The only other thing I would add is that it is pretty clear that Nintendo did originally think about backwards compatibility with the SNES. It's always been widely posited that the only reason they chose the specific processor for the SNES was that they committed to it for backwards compatibility with the NES (the SNES processor was by all accounts a bit of a sluggish relic even at the time of release and the poor performance of games like Super R-Type versus faster performance of similar games on Mega Drive was a big discussion point amongst the technically minded writers in magazines at the time). Of course it never happened in the end - most of the other components weren't compatible - but I think that's more a matter of how the design evolved over time and the rapid change in hardware in the late 80's. My reading of the situation - which may be completely wrong - is that they commercially really wanted the SNES to be backwards compatible but they couldn't clear the technical hurdles without putting 50% on the price (and the poor processor left over in the SNES is a legacy of those struggles).

Sega did completely incorporate the Master System into the Mega Drive (using the processor of the Master System for processing sound on the Mega Drive). A Mega Drive can natively play Master System games (the cartridge slot is slightly different)

Every other generationally "winning" console successor since has had full backwards compatibility with the previous generation (PS1 => PS2, PS2 => PS3, Wii => Wii U, PS4 => PS5).

As long as it takes joycons and procons I don’t overly care. My switch dock will likely stay hooked up unless there is a drastic benefit to migration to the successor (mainly because I don’t wanna migrate/redownload nearly 2TB of data). And if not. Well all my other Nintendo systems are hooked up where I can’t overlap so, eh.

Edit: BC and not digital ports are only important to those that invested in the previous eco system which based on software attach rates still isn’t a ton of people. Folks talk up a good game but ports/remakes/digital access is enough for a large swath of people. Imo. I don’t think there are a lot of folks in my boat needing to push 600 plus games onto the successor.

I think if compatibility of anything is dropped It'll be the JoyCon and dock. They don't even maintain full physical compatibility with those accessories across the current Switch line. I mean I think it would be smart if they did maintain accessory compatibility but I don't think it's necessarily going to happen

Also on the topic of the games again, I think the thing that I disagree with most about the idea of Nintendo not doing BC here is more strategic than technical. You have to remember that generational transitions are a hugely risky thing. There's a reason why backwards compatibility exists and it's not as a nice thing for the fans. It exists to soften that generational transition. When the library is at its weakest BC is a relatively cost effective way of fattening it up

And we're talking here about a product that was literally born out of Nintendo's desire to merge their portable and home console divisions. A product that's library has been dominated by Nintendo's decision to make it easier to port games from the Wii U. A console that was a smash hit as a result and succeeded where their previous console, which had a notoriously thin launch library, was one of their biggest failures

In terms of technical hurdles the barrier here isn't that high. MVG talks about how 360 compatibility exists on XBox Series due to emulation or how the Steam Deck can emulate Switch games. But glosses entirely over the fact that these platforms are entirely different architectures. The 360 was PPC, the XBox Series is x86, the Switch is ARM, the Deck is x86. The Switch is ARM in a Tegra SoC with an NVidia GPU, it's successor will also be ARM in a Tegra SoC with an NVidia GPU

The gap here is more like XBox One to XBox Series. Both were x86 but One was GCN while the Series is RDNA2. Similar architecture overall, more cores, higher clocks, more memory and significantly more modern GPU micro-architecture but fairly similar. The the same language except the listener has the ability to speak faster and has a slightly deeper vocabulary. So the question is, how is XBox One compatibility on the Series? Well, I don't think people even think about that generational transition as a generational transition. You just drop an XBOne game in and it runs, often better. That's how tight that compatibility is. So why are we assuming the Switch won't be able to overcome the same hurdle?

Saying that they're not going with Tegra is a bit of a red herring because, while potentially true, it's not really that relevant. They're almost certainly not going to be able to pick up a next generation replacement for the X1 because subsequent developments in the Tegra range have been more aimed towards the automotive industry rather than games systems.

That won't stop them from procuring a custom SoC from Nvidia though, and they've got good reasons for maintaining that partnership, given the success of the Switch, and that Nvidia are also world-leaders when it comes to gaming GPUs as well as the drivers and APIs to support them. Whether it gets called a Tegra though, is neither here nor there.

Another thought I had on this topic more generally, not necessarily the how and why but more the way some people are saying it's not a big deal even if it did happen. A few people have said here that BC doesn't matter because they'll just keep their old hardware. As someone who has kept just about every single game and piece of gaming hardware I've owned? This is a fair point but not without its downsides

As a couple of personal examples I think about my old Wii and DS games I still have. For a start the Wii, I have a Wii and Wii U and both still work. My current TV doesn't have any analogue AV inputs so that rules out the OG Wii entirely short of getting an component to HDMI box which will chew up another outlet, probably some kind of upscaler also because I'm not sure how my 2022 TV will handle 480p or using an older set for it. So the Wii U is clearly the way to go except it has this massive power brick and I'd need to also plug in the charging cradle for the GamePad and also some kind of supplemental power for the HDD because the Wii U's USB ports didn't provide that much power. It's possible sure, not exactly hassle free

Then there's the DS. My DS Lite is dead now, just proper dead. Screen just flat out doesn't work and even if it did I doubt the battery would hold much charge. My 3DS faired better but not by that much, there's a reason I picked up the 3DS XL. My 3DS XL? Sure, it's fine. But remember, I'm talking about DS games here. The only reason I can still play DS games without buying new hardware is because Nintendo maintained DS BC for the entire life of the 3DS. And with the Wii? Same thing except... the Wii U is still a bit of a pain to setup

So yeah, backwards compatibility does matter even if you think it doesn't because you'll just keep all your old hardware. Just like how I have hundreds of CDs and the only way I can physically play them is through the BluRay drive on my PC or the old BluRay player I have hooked into my AV setup. I'm not a fan of the idea that a new thing comes out and we just allow the stuff we brought for it to become obsolete. The more we can avoid that by having hardware manufacturers maintain compatibility the better

I am transitioning over to fully digital for switch. I am keeping my physical games that have value to me but still picking up the digital versions. I have two OLED switches so being digital is beneficial to me long term.

If they don’t allow BC at all, I probably won’t purchase the next Nintendo console off the bat as I have a 21 game backlog on the switch. If they do allow BC then I’ll definitely grab one or two depending if it’s portable. I’m kind of hoping they have two. One traditional console type and one where it is either hybrid or just full handheld.

@GodLordPaddock That goes so far with the SD memory card storage. So there's a storage limit.

@skywake I don't know what to believe, you obviously have some technical knowledge, but MVG isn't some random grifting youtuber, he's a developer. We'll find out soon enough!

@MarioBrickLayer MGV Does Not work for Nintendo let's get that fact straight. MvG is speculating just look at other YT poster and they poke holes in his claims.

@MarioBrickLayer
Yeah, I mean being a developer isn't necessarily a high bar to clear. Technically I also clear it although I certainly am not a developer of games and definitely not the Switch. I guess the two last things I'll say on this is that it appears MVG's main contention is that the Switch game ROM (XCI/NSP) contains the driver. But my understanding is that the game package is a collection of compressed assets/executables

source: https://www.retroreversing.com/SwitchFileFormats

What it appears to me is that there are multiple binaries in here, the NSO files. There's what appears to be an initialiser (rtld) which is responsible for managing the other binaries. There's the main binary which would be what the developer would have written/compiled. That binary would basically be the game. Then there's the sdk which, well, would be the sdk. All the APIs, presumably all the drivers. Main would be talking to this and this in turn would talk to the hardware. Then additionally there are subsdks which it sounds like are additional libraries. Maybe like NSO, accessories, that kind of thing

MVG's contention is that you'd have to recompile the entire thing because the driver will change. What I'm saying is that it seems more logical to me that the main binary wouldn't really have any idea of the graphics driver. It would talk through the SDK, which is Nintendo's code that they control. So it seems more likely to me that a patch to get the game to run would at most just need to patch either the sdk so it uses a different driver or patch the rtld so it loads a "compatibility mode" sdk. Or alternatively have the OS intersect graphics driver calls from the legacy SDK and translate them where necessary

I mean as it happens I had a somewhat similar problem in my actual developer job last week. There was a significant API change for an integration so I needed to entirely re-write the libraries for it. Which I did, and then compiled said new library. When I did this do you know what I needed to do to update the integration so that it used this new library? .... I copied across the DLL. That was it. Because the main integration has no reason to know the hows and whys, that stuff is hidden. Just like game code wouldn't need to know what GPU it is. You abstract that stuff out, you hide it, you don't think about it at that higher level. That's literally what the SDK is for

Now could MVG have some deeper insight here I'm unaware of casually perusing this topic? Sure, maybe. Could Nintendo have painted themselves into a corner here that is entirely screwing them over with a GPU micro-architecture change? Possibly. Could Nintendo just drop BC for other reasons or just not bother with it at all? I mean it's their console, they can do whatever they want. But nothing I have watched MVG say here has really gone into enough detail to convince me of this. And it seems to me that Nintendo & NVidia would have enough foresight, knowledge and incentive to not have BC entirely foiled by software and hardware they have full control over

edit: I was thinking and maybe a diagram might explain this better. As I understand it this is what a Switch game file looks like:

MVG's contention is that the inner box that contains the main, assets, sdk. All of that will need to be recompiled. Or possibly he's suggesting that main will need to be recompiled. What I'm saying is that really, the only issue is the driver. So what you'd really just need is to add an update that has a patch for the SDK. And you could theoretically go even further and just include that in the OS, so it just has that patch sitting there and it just loads it for legacy titles on boot. The game developer, I wouldn't expect them to be making changes to the SDK

I'm another developer, one who has written a few games even, but hasn't done anything particularly fancy with modern GPUs.

What it mostly comes down to is that AMD have designed their recent graphic architectures to be binary compatible, so that the PS5 and Series X can run previous generation games with little to no modification. Patches are only necessary for a relatively small number of games or to provide enhancements to resolution and/or frame rate.

Nvidia haven't done that, at least not with their PC graphics cards, because they don't need to. PC games don't ship with pre-compiled shaders because they've got to be agnostic to which hardware they're running on and it's down to the drivers to generate them. Older games work with newer GPUs thanks to updated drivers and older GPUs eventually drop off the support list, and you can't use them for the latest games. That's basically how it's been for the past twenty-odd years.

That leaves the Switch successor in a slightly odd place. They can't just stick the latest Nvidia GPU into it and do what Sony and Microsoft have been doing. There'd need to be an extra piece in the puzzle to either built that level of compatibility into the hardware or fix up the software on the fly.

Mainly though, we just don't know enough about what Nintendo's plans are all the people who could give us an answer will be under contract to keep it secret until the time is right.

@Matt_Barber
The big "but" across all of that is that Nintendo and Nvidia have worked together on both platforms from the ground up. There are ways around any problem, especially if you have some foresight and control across everything from the silicon to the SDK through distribution

I don't really buy the idea that they'd get to the point of having the new SoC, be shocked that games don't run as is and then just put their hands in the air and go "oh well"

Sure, they've got options for how they could do it and I've said before that they could probably do some kind of auto-patching system to get the bulk of the games working if it's enough of a priority. However, it doesn't come for free and is probably going to require at least a little bit more work than other current platforms that have had it.

I just don't think it's something that you could call with any degree of certainty until we've got a clearer idea of what Nintendo's next platform is. We haven't even got Nvidia confirmed to be onboard either, for starters.

@skywake That's a very detailed explanation! Ideally you're right as it would mean the cost of backwards compatibility is quite low (some of OS software solution) which means Nintendo are more likely to do it. I'd like to be able to play my Switch games on whatever comes next. I'm not going to dismiss MVG, he is a credible source, but that doesn't mean he's right. We won't know for sure until Nintendo reveal it.