Samsung To "Aggressively Position" OLED Tech In Console Gaming Space

@Thoughts I think LG started with the OLED, and others began making them as well. I think Samsung and another uses them, or maybe it's just Samsung...?

Breaking news! A major tech company wants to sell products!

Actually that is surprising to hear about for Nintendo fans. Since we know Nintendo holds back on so many things they could sell. XD

But for 99.99999% of all other companies, wanting to sell things is kinda the norm.

@Thoughts They started using OLED displays, and then other companies caught on.

NINJA APPROVED

@Thoughts only LG make panels for the home tv market, Samsung make them in smaller sizes for phone, laptop and tablet brands etc.

We need to normalize OLED

I just want to wait and see how this all turns out.

Dealing to the likes of Nintendo I’m sure they had to be quite ‘aggressive’

As OLED matures we're going to see OLED overtake LCD outside of purely premium devices. Smaller screens first like phones, portable consoles. Then monitors and tablet sized devices. Finally OLED will overtake LCD in the TV market.

Looking at a slightly better screen at the same resolution but one inch bigger is going to be a game changer. So excited for the switch pro.

With the recent galaxy phones able to play games at 1080 and above at 60-120FPS why don't Samsung and Nintendo use those as a basis for the switch.
Compare PUBG running on an S20 vs a Switch running Apex and the Comparisons are laughable.

I wouldn't mind paying more if it could run games more smoothly with no Compromises - you pay between £800-£1000 for a phone every year or 2 afterall.
What's the point in keeping the switch at a budget price when it can't keep up with last gen!

Wait a minute, i just remembered and realized something, I thought Samsung did QLEDs...? They do both?

@Joeynator3000 the new TV's are QLED, I'm currently trying to convince the Mrs we need to upgrade ready for when I can grab a PS5.

@Thoughts LG manufacture OLED screens for TVs, but I believe Samsung manufacture AMOLED for their mobile phone screens.

OLED is worthless. High risk of burn-ins which would be terrible on a handheld console. Also they are quite uselses in the dark, see the original PSVita.

MiniLed is where we should look.

Any video panel manufacturer wants profits. Why not target gamers. It just makes sense.

@korosanbo People still do that whole 'first' thing? How quaint.

@Thoughts

No, Samsung is actually bigger than LG in this segment, OLED-screens for embedded devices. LG:s P-OLED for cellphones never really took off

@sanderev

That was back in 2011...OLED-tech has come a long way since then. Burn-ins is not a big issue these days

@RasandeRose

Eh, it's still the same issue that it's always been. It's a fundamental and effectively incurable flaw with the technology and it's not going to go away. The main difference is the general awareness of the issue now. A lot of people learned that leaving their first Samsung S-whatever on full brightness would ruin the display within months, so they are less likely to do so on their follow up purchases. Same with TV's. Early adopters paid the price, a big stink was kicked up about it and now people who did even the slightest homework on their purchase tend to treat their Oleds like it's a Kuro.

@Thoughts
LG bought and own a specific patent on OLED panels that yielded high success rates for large panels suitable for TVs. In recent years all the big brands source these panels and make their own OLED tv range using LGs panels. They use their own stand and speaker design, motion engine and TV OS etc to distinguish their ranges.

Small OLED panels have been manufactured by Samsung and others for a while as they were always easier to do.

Sony was in fact the first to market with a 20 inch OLED tv that I saw in a department store costing 20K like a decade ago.

@jrt87 The latest Nvidia Tegra chip has tensor cores, so it would support dlss scaling. It's a nice upgrade over the x1 - if it's powerful enough to run games at 1920x1080, scaling to 4k wouldn't be that tricky.

Let's be honest, it's not a question of if Nintendo will release a revamped Switch but when they'll do it.
I'd say that this holiday season seems to be a good time and they would be able to keep up with the next gen consoles.
I think that there is no need for 4K yet but at least a powerful enough upgrade capable of keeping the 1080 in docked and 720 in handheld is a must.
I'd be happy to pay a bit more for a Switch that matches the PS4 console without struggling. Also, it would help to have a bezeless screen.

Well a bigger screen is one of the more realistic upgrades I was hoping for!

Everything seems to be falling into place for the Switch Pro, that statement from Samsung is fairly specific and I don't see how many other console screen there could be. I'm looking forward to it, a combination of enough power so Switch games are hitting their target resolutions and smart upscaling technology for playing on the TV will be enough

Shall I remember you guys that OLED and AMOLED screens suffer from something called ''Ghosting'' aka as ''Burn in''? Menus and HUDs are their worst enemis.

@Sebazy

No, not at all. You can go 5-6 years or more withour burn-ins these days on OLED-screens, esp. if the firmware got functions againt burn-ins.

@RasandeRose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX78-Bw9lKM

And others.

A Switch with OLED will get burn-in claims in under a year. Which would be comparable to "drift"-issues.

Not surprised if this is actually the case for Samsung. They're already making a monopoly from screens of their competition, including some Apple products.

If Nintendo's going to use OLED, just fingers crossed they won't cheap out on the panel.

People tend to talk about OLED is just way better than LCD without comparing the specific panel being used on their device.

For example, PS Vita, I have a phat 3G and a slim, all bought new in Japan many years ago. Phat's OLED looks more vivid and slim's LCD looks warmer.
But phat's OLED's color is over saturated, and just like slim's warmer LCD, not accurately reproduced. It also has burn in problem and weird black spot / texture on a black screen when view in dark.
Yet people still using photos taken by camera to compare those displays, while the camera's white balance is often wrong and calibrated using phat's OLED screen which make phat's OLED looks more color accurate and slim's LCD looks even warmer but in reality there are not.

Yes OLED has better contrast ratio and it's more advanced, but a color accurate well made and well calibrated LCD is also very good.

Personally, I just wish Nintendo chose to use high quality LCD, the only thing I actually want from Switch Pro is games could finally be played using current docked mode's graphic settings in handheld mode.

@Mr-Fuggles777 Totally agree! No need to keep it at a budget price as better processor and OLED screen aren't cheap. Even last gen Snapdragon 865 processor was around $160 if I'm not wrong. I don't even mind a $500 Switch Pro but maybe only me lol..

I wonder if this is less about Nintendo actively looking to upgrade the screen, and more that Samsung are offering better tech at a better deal for Ninty?

@sanderev

If you sit on the main OS-menu for a month, sure. Otherwise, no way.
Guy in the video has probably used his TV as a pizza hut menu or something.
Ive got both Samsung 2017 phone with AMOLED and a philips 2017 TV with LG OLED Panel, not even a hint of burn-ins on either one. Its a non-issue these days.

@T0mizawa according to last weeks Bloomberg story Nintendo did go with Samsung's rigid OLED panels because they were cheaper. Cross fingers on both hands and hope it wasn't Nintendo's accountants making component decisions?

@MrGawain I'm starting to think the same. This new model could be more of a component refresh to replace the current version, rather than a premium model that was sold alongside and above the current models

Won't hold my breath on this until I see it happen in the flesh. It's a great idea and I would love a samsung screen on my switch. Let's see come E3.

I honestly don't see the point of a switch "pro" as we all know it still won't be as powerful as the standard ps4 and still struggle to get the bigger third party games like cyberpunk, far cry 6 and destiny 2 etc

Nintendo should just wait to make the switch 2 and make it a beast

I aggressively positioned myself behind to a horse once and ended up in hospital so I’d advise that Samsung take care.

@T0mizawa
Just some additional information regarding OLED.

From a review published 9 years ago by Digital Versus: "PS Vita OLED Screen: Colour Fidelity, Sub-Pixels"
(The site is no longer accessable, should use Internet Archive's wayback machine to read)
http://www.digitalversus.com/games-console/sony-playstation-vita-p12777/ps-vita-oled-screen-colour-fidelity-sub-pixels-n23993.html

Just as a reference. I'm not saying Switch Pro's OLED will 100% suck, but be prepared if Nintendo decide to use cheap low quality panel, it might suck.
Of course, technology advanced a lot in 9 years but remember it was Sony, and PS Vita was very expensive and technology packed at the time.

Quote:
"It's not too much of a surprise to see that colours aren't reproduced accurately. The average Delta E is 5.2, whereas we consider colours to be accurate with a Delta E of 3 or lower."

"We measured an average colour temperature of 8833 K, while the ideal reading should be nearer 6500 K."

"Finally, the gamma (see below) holds up well enough, even if the average reading comes out at 2.3 instead of 2.1."

"Although the PS Vita screen doesn't reproduce colours accurately, it still gives flattering results thanks to its monster contrast ratio."

"It's interesting to note that when you view the PS Vita screen displaying a black image in a dark room, darker black spots seem to appear on the display."

Looking forward to Nintendo filling in that massive bezel on the Switch. That big-ass bezel was already outdated on day one. No need to change the chassis size at all, a bigger screen will fit nicely as-is.

@RasandeRose

Chances are you're either being somewhat cautious with lock times, screen brightness or both.

I promise you with 100% certainty, it's still very possible and not at all difficult for someone unaware to ruin a modern OLED if they don't show a basic level of care for it.

This isn't based on me reading the occasional twitter/reddit rant about a burned in screen. This is me handling large volumes of phones on a daily basis as part of my job. Your handset might not have burned in. But I see significant numbers of Samsung Galaxy S handsets with ruined displays week in and week out. The S6 was by far the worst for this, but S8s, S10s etc are prone to it as well.

I'm not bashing the technology, high end Oled displays are lovely. But trying to pretend that burn in simply isn't an issue anymore is 100% misleading and arguably damaging to people's perception of the technology when they promptly ruin their $1000 handset or $2000+ TV because they didn't apply some basic level of care to it.

@Mr-Fuggles777 who do you know how outright buys these £1000 phones lol, everyone's on contract so you can't compare consoles with phones etc, it's a totally different business model. And you could probably afford it but the millions of parents and gamers who's have both the switch and lite wouldn't even sniff at them silly prices lol. Phones and games consoles are not the same not is the business approach, so nope don't use them as comparisons

@T0mizawa but I hardly think samsung going to make some cheaply made screen I could understand if it were some generic company nintendo was using. But it's Samsung so can't see it being, as this states cheaply made lol

@driftydrift see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/nintendo-plans-switch-model-with-bigger-samsung-oled-display
Quote "Nintendo decided to go with rigid OLED panels for the new model, the people said, a cheaper but less flexible alternative to the type commonly used for high-end smartphones"
It does look like Nintendo's gone for the cheaper end of Samsungs product range

@Mr-Fuggles777 terrible idea and a woeful misunderstanding of tech.
switch already has issues running at 720p on much of its library. why would they then double the resolution and double/quadruple the refresh rate when it often doesn't even make full use of the tech it does have? for a device fundamentally bound by thermal and battery limitations, this a terrible idea.
all it will do is drain the battery faster, while heating up the device more in order to push out the pixels required, and so making the switch louder because the fan now has to work harder.

secondly, youre comparing a mobile phone game with a limitedly populated and mostly flat map with one that has better texture quality and higher detailed models, and far more assets to render.

a game that looks like this https://youtu.be/kSEk_RSNjXw?t=319
compared with a game that looks like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJek8lXBSr0&t=116s
what a laughable comparison.

@driftydrift Sure Samsung is more trustworthy than some random company, but just like TSR3've said, I'm not sure the OLED panel Nintendo decide to use well be good enough since it probably won't be the premium high-end ones in Samsung's range, especially if Switch Pro is not a expensive "Premium Pro" model like PS4 Pro but more of a "Refresh" like a New 3DS.

As a owner of both phat & slim Vita, having bad pixels on all my DS & DS Lite & 3DS, enjoying Vita Slim and Switch's LCD more than Vita Phat's OLED, planning to buy the upcoming Switch Pro, I'm a little bit worrying.

Also I think PS Vita's OLED was from Samsung too. (Sure, that was 9 years ago, a lot has changed)

@driftydrift you do realise you don't have to pay upfront for a console, look at what Microsoft offers with Xbox All Access, and most retailers offer interest free or low interest credit towards more expensive products.

but does OLED display produce burn-in effects and are extremely expensive to make?why would Nintendo choose a display tecnology with this problem for the hipotetic Switch Pro?

@Sebazy

As I said, I don't even consider it a problem these days. If you buy an OLED-TV to have it as a menu-sign for your pizza-place, sure you can get burn-ins and´you can probably get it if you leave your TV with a PC or console dashboard on it for hours. But then its the customers fault, not a real weakness in the technology.

@RasandeRose Hey, I want to believe in what you're saying, because OLED is beautiful. I have a Vita, but I'm required to baby it because the burn in problem was really bad back then.

However, my Samsung phone from around the same time as yours got burn in after two years of very light use. It kind of scared me off the technology, especially if I'll be playing anything with black bars on the side for awhile on Switch.

@pennylessz

lol, PS VIta, that was 10 years ago!
Back then it was "normal" to have 3 or 4 dead pixels without you got it fixed on warrenty and Samsung OLED-screens back then was terrible cause they would be blurry no matter what resolution due to space in between the pixels. Major problems back in 2011 simple isnt major problems to day, they are minor problems.

@Mr-Fuggles777 you do realise lots of the population don't want to sign into a pay monthly console plan and rather buy outright. Using low interest credit to support your argument is laughable. Having people buy expensive items on low interest credit is not a good thing and to use that as a supporting argument is ridiculous.

How anyone can think that Nintendo releasing a handheld at the prices you quote would be a good business decision is astonishing. Who cares that the machine would bomb massively as long as you get your super high end Nintendo games console.

@RasandeRose You said "Ive got both Samsung 2017 phone with AMOLED and a philips 2017 TV with LG OLED Panel, not even a hint of burn-ins on either one. Its a non-issue these days." to show that it's a non issue in modern times.

You then said that Samsung made bad OLED back in 2017, as my comment said "However, my Samsung phone from around the same time as yours." So you refuted your initial statement I was replying to.

If your point is that they're improved at this time (Four years later.) Then we have no qualms here, I have no experience with recently released OLED, but I suspect that this case is a misunderstanding.

@kobashi100 if the next switch doesn't have a significant power upgrade how many people are actually going to bother upgrading and that will come at a premium.
I dont see the point in them releasing another underpowered console and still being left behind by third party devs - especially when focus inevitably turns to current gen consoles instead of skirting last gen like present releases.

I hope not, I'm in the camp of people who get headaches from OLED screens. LCD works well enough and no minuscule improvement in screen quality is worth the migraines it'll cause...

Why can't Nintendo use CRT technology, video games look best on them, no ghosting and the fastest screen response.

Hahahaahah, people once again, "reading" something out of context. And damn you, Nintendo Life and other game sites, that put this as "news".

@pennylessz

I read it as you had problems with a Samsung phone back in the PS Vita days, 2011-2012. I didn't know you meant 2017. I have a 2017 Samsung phone too with amoled, zero problems 4 years later... Their amoled-panels had problems around Galaxy S3-days back in 2012, with burn-ins and unsharpness due to 720p-panels combined with the amoled-problem "space in between pixels". None of these are problems with their 2017-phones. And nowadays, the sub-pixels that degenerate and causes burn-in problems are so much durable in both Samsung and LG Oleds, plus all modern equipment with oled panels has tech that dims bright colors in the least durable sub-pixels.

@Mr-Fuggles777 because the average 10 year old doesn't care! And his/her mum doesn't want to spend £800 so they can play Mario! It's a balance between tech and price.

@TSR3 Not necessarily, it said "cheaper";
a. that doesnt mean they are cheap, or that cost is the only/main reason for choosing it, and
b. that doesnt mean theyll also be at lower quality.

Soft/flexible OLED screens are more shock resistant but have shorter lifespans. More importantly THEY ARE MORE PRONE TO BURN IN as plastic traps in more heat than glass and is more reactive.
https://oempro.com/blogs/news/samsung-hard-vs-soft-oled
https://www.mobiledefenders.com/blog/iphone-x-hard-vs-soft-oled

Hard/rigid OLEDs are far easier to break (because its glass and not plastic, you can look at modern phones to see which is generally more durable) but also cheaper as its easier and more reliable to manufacture, while having solid visual performance.
https://www.mobilescreenfix.co.uk/blog/2021/01/18/soft-oled-hard-oled-or-lcd-whats-right-for-you/

Phones typically use soft OLEDs as theyre more likely to fall, so durability is preferred. The Switch is also prone to falling but less so as its held in 2 hands and generally not used out and around in the same capacity as a phone (it certainly doesnt have the brightness to do so).

Whats more important for the Switch is having the same image on a screen for prolonged periods of time and managing heat. Im sure many people have played for hours and hours in one sitting, which means that the screen will be in use for quite a while and as the Switch itself will get hot (it is a games console, and phones dont get as hot as consistently), heat will also try to dissipate through the screen and so I'd imagine there is a higher chance of burn in, (particularly where the HUD is as that doesnt change nearly as much as whats on the rest of the screen) so having a Hard OLED can reduce this.

@Bonsai_Banana

Phones actually gets far hotter than a Switch or Switch Lite. Not that strange, Switch got a huge heatpipe and actually real ventilation with a fan, pushing the heat straight out from the console. Thats why Switch wont feel hot to the touch even if played for like 6 hours, while a phone can get hot to the touch after 20 minutes using a browser.

@RasandeRose im not sure with what terribly made phone youre using, but phones are quite good at heat management with everyday tasks. of the phones ive used in the past decade (from budget to flagship), not a single one has gotten hot from browsing. the only time they do is occasionally when charging or when playing games, and only then its noticeably hot.

the switch however runs games far more than phones do, because its primary use is gaming. So it'll create more heat and for longer as it performs more demanding tasks and at greater durations in the short and long term.

just because it has a cooling solution doesnt necessarily mean it doesnt run hotter. feel free to touch its cooling solution, perhaps the metal panel behind the backplate or a radiator fin, in the middle of a gaming session and compare it with a phone without a back playing genshin or something.

also, the fact that it even needs a cooling solution at all is proof that it creates and exerts more heat, which was my point. not that it'll feel hot to the touch, but that theres more heat being generated, which could have issues with the display.

@jrt87 Do people really expect BotW2 to run at 4K/60fps in docked mode? I mean we all know it will be a full dive VR game, so the world will be projected directly into our brains. I'm not sure resolution and frame rate apply in this case.

But seriously, I'm not sure what people expect considering even the PS4 pro didn't run any recent game in 4K/60FPS.

@Bonsai_Banana

No, phones are by design pretty bad at managing heat due to they are closed designs. Phones gets far warmer than Switch consoles if you watch movies or play games on them. The fact that Switch has a beafy cooling solution is due to the fact that Nintendo can't make a gaming console that drops the CPU clocks after 20 minutes like phones does to manage heat.

Heat generated isn't the problem when the heat travels by heatpipes and airflow to the outside air, the heat becomes a problem when it gets stuck in the device for a long time as with a phone. Thats when the device gets hot to the touch and might inflict with the display and other components

I've owned both Vita models and settled on the excellent Slim. I just don't care for the 'OLED difference' - ie over the top saturation and burn in concerns. I genuinely prefer the excellent LCD. Also looking at the history of Nintendo's priorities and interests I can't see them caring either. They'll ask the same as most consumers - 'Does a slightly larger OLED screen make for new or better gaming opportunities' - no, no it does not.

@Chris55 the average 10 year old isn't the target market for upgraded hardware - unless it runs fortnite @ 120FPS (My nephew genuinely wants a PS5 just because it runs a F2P game at higher frame rates ffs).

OLED is nice, but is prone to burn in. AMOLED or QLED is where it should be.

@mikegamer

amoled is oled...

@RasandeRose

You can consider it whatever you want but it doesn't change the fact that you are incorrect on this one. Claiming that burn in on 2017 and onwards OLEDs is 'minor' is outright denial of a fundamental and unavoidable flaw in the technology.

You don't simply improve sub pixel durability. Rather the sub pixel gets larger allowing you to not need to drive it so hard to get the same amount of light, thus prolonging the lifespan. However, whilst this benefited OLED TVs quite significantly due to brightness figures stagnating for a number of years, phones haven't really had the same luxury because the larger sub pixels have generally been offset or even exceeded by ever increasing screen brightness figures. The Galaxy S6 was a great example where Samsung pushed the screen far too hard resulting in a shockingly high burn in likelihood rate within a couple of years.

You are genuinely kidding yourself if you honestly think that S8s, S9s and so forth aren't similarly prone to the issue and there's tens of thousands of ruined handsets littering various marketplaces and resellers that would like a word with you.

@RasandeRose Ah, well I was just sharing my experience because my phone did in fact burn in, and I only really used it to text + occasionally play Reigns. Must've been bad luck, I kept it at half brightness and didn't let it sit out or anything.

At the end of the day though, what's important to me is...If I use the Switch pro to play games that have black bars 4:3 or so, will it eventually get the reverse burn in? (I'm sure it isn't called that.) Because I have heard that you can tire out the pixels that are being used, while the bars are turned off, so they'll be noticeably more vivid.

I know it's probably not feasible but a solid state (copper cooling instead of fans) with an aluminum chassis and bezelless OLED from Samsung would be a dream.

@Thoughts here's a thought - Google it. Lol.

@jrt87 handheld 720P 60fps. that's my dream.

@Mr-Fuggles777 Because the Switch is for those that don't want to spend near $1000 to play games.

@NoTinderLife CRTs used to be the best for gaming. Until high refresh rate monitors were invented. CRTs are literally nothing more than dust collectors now.

I mostly want joycons that don’t drift on the Switch Pro >_<

@MetalMan Try playing retro games on OG consoles on a modern TV and tell me the modern TV is "better". It may be limited in its uses, but CRT's are still better for PSOne/N64 era games and earlier and are as good as modern TV's for Gamecube/PS2 and original Wii games. The compressed "squashed" pixels to keep the letterbox screen format on 720p or higher resolution TV's and the sharper image quality actually makes old games look terrible.

OLED with its high potential refresh rate and high brightness, makes it possible for the switch to display 3D images.

3D wired or wireless shutter glasses would be required to view the 3D images.

The switch could potentially emulate a 3DS if held vertically in portrait mode to cover upper and lower screens.

Thanks.

@MetalMan that's a rubbish argument considering the switch has turned out to be one of the most expensive consoles I've ever owned because of all of the hidden charges.
Switch: £300
Pro controller: £60
New set of joy cons because of drift: £65
Micro SD card 256gb: £50
Switch Lite (because Mrs wanted her own AC island): £200
That's £675 before I even take into account the inflated prices of the software or additional accessories (grips, cases etc) I've purchased.
I hardly play on my switch, so it was a kick in the teeth that we couldn't share a console to play Animal Crossing.

@Mr-Fuggles777
Don't forget about rent/mortgage, water + electricity + internet + sewage bills, groceries, clothing, taxes, loan payments, charity, etc...

Take the NES 2, add an OLED panel and joycons, and Nintendo Online via DSL dialup, and call it Nintendo Classic XL

@Thoughts

There are multiple companies producing OLED panels. However LG is the only one that is producing larger panels such as the ones you find in TV's. They bought a patent from Kodak that allows them to use only white oleds with a color filter in front of it unlike the Samsung panels that require RGB oleds. This makes the LG panels a lot cheaper to produce.

But Samsung's process is fine for smaller screens hence they've been producing oled panels for phones since 2013 or something.

@sanderev Uhm....Samsung AMOLED has been the basis for the entire Galaxy line of phones for the past, I don't know, 5, 8+ years? I'm pretty sure Switch won't be running more often with static text than phones, and are beyond visible in direct sunlight (unlike Switch, and albeit at the cost of tremendous battery consumption so such output would be disabled on a Switch, I'm sure.) Using Sony's failed OLED in the VITA is a pretty ancient example. Most of the phone market has been using OLED for years now.

My first thought was it has to be the Switch, since it's a portable, but maybe their making OLED for the PS5 VR screens instead.

@NEStalgia However, many games have HUDs which stay on screen while you play. And if you have only one or two games that can become a problem. Text is not really a problem, and people use their phones quite differently (switching between apps, etc)

@Nintendo_Thumb Does any VR screen use OLED?

I'm not sure it would be profitable to use OLED In such a niche product like a VR screen.

Nintendo will be selling millions of these screens while PS VR would be lucky to break 3 million.

@sanderev Except a lot of people use their phones a lot for games. Heck, some Samsung phones are cross-promoting Game Pass Ultimate/Cloud and include 3 months. And Candy Crush isn't exactly dynamic. And of course they have the always-on-displays on their phones too (or used to before "always on" meant "always on but blank until you touch it." They handle burn-in by shifting the screen a few pixels every so often.) And of course all the premium TVs recommended for optimum console play (the HDMI 2.1 screens with the 120hz refresh, VRR etc for the new power consoles) are mostly expensive OLEDs. If there's one "real" problem for OLED tech it's that brightness (and therefore HDR) is limited to the number of pixels since there's no backlight, each pixel is a light source. So 4k can be significantly brighter than 1080p which is brighter than 720p. That's the one place I'd be worried about a 720p 6.8" screen using OLED. Not that the IPS on the OG switch is bright enough either. And the FHD AMOLED phones are waaaaay brighter than Switch out of the box already.

I think you're really overthinking the state of OLED based on 10 year old Sony tech (which means 15 years old at best )

@NEStalgia It still happens with modern OLED screens. See my youtube link. And it will happen with the Switch "Pro" if it has an OLED screen. Just like Stick-drift it's a problem of the fundaments of the technology. It's not something you can "fix". Okay, you can fix it by using minileds.

And yes, I know that it has been improved. But it will never go away if you use OLED.

@jrt87 @jrt87 ''I think the next Switch will be "4K" in the same way the Series S is. It will be capable of delivering that output for an incredibly narrow band of optimised indie titles and the YT app. Not much else.'' OH THANK YOU someon had to say it. If we are getting a switch any close to the orignal 300 price, then the hardware upgrade will be minimal. There is no way we will get a beef upgrade to play first party games at quad HD under 400 dollar price tag.

The new switchs oled won't get bright enough for burn in. Will also most likely have an automatic dim feature. Burn-in has the be caused from a persistent exact image for 1000s of hours.

@sanderev Certainly the concept of burn in is endemic to the tech, but I also don't think it represents a problem for switch use with what's now required not burn in. Games don't have fully static huds that don't move for long hours. All the interfaces move, are translucent, are always changed for cutscenes, map changes, and the panels themselves can vary pixels do prevent moderate burn in. Much like phones nothing is static for long enough to burn in with gaming.

Where oled has real issues it's digital signage, and diagnostic displays where images are truly static for long durations they move them around periodically but they still have issues.

Games don't do that. Vita had some issues but even vita hasn't had a particular burn in problem. Vita did have a serious problem that all Sony oled had at the time where the blue pixels dimmed over time.

But tablets and phones are going to have static images as much or more than games. And we now have tons of people playing on big $2000+ oled tvs without problems. Oled isn't perfect but it's beyond mature for gaming use. If we were talking a medical monitoring device or commercial signage, yeah, id say avoid oled.

@RasandeRose Gee, really?

@RasandeRose AMOLED is less prone to burn in. OLED is overrated