6 ms·

I'm not as disappointed as others seem to be. It never made sense to me that they would upgrade the hardware much. The whole selling point of the console is tha

by vlunkr 5y ago

I'm not as disappointed as others seem to be. It never made sense to me that they would upgrade the hardware much. The whole selling point of the console is that it can be handheld, despite having much less graphical power than the competition. If they take steps towards upgrading hardware at the cost of portability or battery life, then it's less appealing. And on a minor note, the original kickstand is an absolute joke, it would be nice to try one that actually works.

CaptainBern 5y ago
Yeah, I agree with you. The rumors that have been going around didn't make much sense IMO. (Has Nintendo ever done a hardware upgrade that would have been as drastic? Genuinely asking). Also yes, the original kickstand made me wonder if anyone at Nintendo had actually tried to use it more than once. It's by far my least favorite part of the Switch.
- anotherman554 5y ago
  Nintendo did an upgraded 3ds called "New 3ds" that had a better chip and could run games the regular 3ds couldn't. The only prominent one being a port of the Wii game Xenoblade that they clearly couldn't get working on the regular 3ds.
- danhor 5y ago
  The DSi has four times the ram and the main processor is twice as fast as the DS. The GB Color is also twice as fast and has more than double the RAM. (Although one can argue if it's an upgrade or a real "separate" console) The New 3ds has been mentioned, which is more than 8 times faster and has double the ram. The only handheld generation where Nintendo didn't do this was the GBA, so it's very common.
  - CaptainBern 5y ago
    Thanks for the list! I didn't knew about the 'New' 3DS. Though, I would still argue a 4K upgrade is a little far fetched. Nintendo hardware has always been less powerful than that of its 'competitors', who only recently started pushing 4K. (whether or not Nintendo actually competes with Sony and Microsoft is a whole other discussion :P).
  - dagmx 5y ago
    To be fair, the Gameboy Color was sort of its' own generation separate from the GameBoy and the Mini
  - ac29 5y ago
    Nitpicky, but the New 3DS isnt more than 8 times faster than the Old 3DS: it has a quad core 800MHz processor instead of a dual core 268MHz processor. Even with perfectly scaled multi-threaded code, thats only a ~6x increase.
    - danhor 5y ago
      No idea how that happened, I guess I simply forget the dualcore cpu on the original model. But to one-up the nitpicky-ness one could argue that the "real" game performance still has a more than 8x increase, since both models seem to reserve one core for the OS.
  - Izkata 5y ago
    > The only handheld generation where Nintendo didn't do this was the GBA, so it's very common. Since we're talking things that affect portability/battery life in general: The GBA SP, aside from being their first foldable handheld, was the first with an internal light and a built-in rechargeable battery (instead of taking AA or AAA batteries).
izacus 5y ago
That would be great IF the current hardware could handle the games. It can't - even indie games mostly can't sustain 30fps and rely heavily on resolution scaling which drives the resolution way underneath the internal screens 720p resolution. Just try something like Apex Legends and you'll see how it pretty much looks like you're seeing through an oily film. Even the DLCs for the console darling, Breath of the Wild, can't sustain smooth 30fps gameplay. People didn't expect better hardware to get 4K. People expected better hardware to make their games playable on internal 720p screen.
- vlunkr 5y ago
  > People didn't expect better hardware to get 4K. let me introduce you /r/nintendo lol. I do see your point. Mid-generation upgrades have been done before and they can work. I still don't think it's necessary. Ultimately developers have to target the old hardware still, so it's not like games will change drastically, and it causes confusion for consumers. That's just my opinion of course.
- sylens 5y ago
  This 100%. I find myself not buying that much on Switch these days because it just runs so poorly. To the point where I question why I even have a Switch at all.
- turtlebits 5y ago
  Games should match the hardware spec, not the other way around. It's 100% on the developers to provide a playable game on known hardware spec. It's just a money grab selling underperforming AAA ports on switch.
  - izacus 5y ago
    If Nintendo, the manufacturer of the console can't do it well for the console exclusive, then maybe... just maybe... might be that the hardware is at fault? Switch is hardly competitive with modern phone chipsets with its old architecture.
    - 5y ago
piyh 5y ago
The xbox one s has a minor clock speed bump over the xbone. I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar here.
brundolf 5y ago
The original Switch was released four years ago. Think about how much hardware has improved in that time. They could drop in today's exact equivalent to what they put in back then (same cost, battery life, etc) and it would almost certainly be a big improvement
- jmrm 5y ago
  An upgrade like that implies hardware and software developing and testing, that cost a lot of money. Possibly more than the margin of benefits that could give them versus a simple new screen.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
>If they take steps towards upgrading hardware at the cost of portability or battery life, then it's less appealing. It would result in an opposite effect. New SoC, developed in 5nm process or 7nm process would consume way less energy, which would dramatically increase battery life.

by vlunkr 5y ago

CaptainBern 5y ago

Yeah, I agree with you. The rumors that have been going around didn't make much sense IMO. (Has Nintendo ever done a hardware upgrade that would have been as drastic? Genuinely asking). Also yes, the original kickstand made me wonder if anyone at Nintendo had actually tried to use it more than once. It's by far my least favorite part of the Switch.

anotherman554 5y ago
Nintendo did an upgraded 3ds called "New 3ds" that had a better chip and could run games the regular 3ds couldn't. The only prominent one being a port of the Wii game Xenoblade that they clearly couldn't get working on the regular 3ds.
danhor 5y ago
The DSi has four times the ram and the main processor is twice as fast as the DS. The GB Color is also twice as fast and has more than double the RAM. (Although one can argue if it's an upgrade or a real "separate" console) The New 3ds has been mentioned, which is more than 8 times faster and has double the ram. The only handheld generation where Nintendo didn't do this was the GBA, so it's very common.
- CaptainBern 5y ago
  Thanks for the list! I didn't knew about the 'New' 3DS. Though, I would still argue a 4K upgrade is a little far fetched. Nintendo hardware has always been less powerful than that of its 'competitors', who only recently started pushing 4K. (whether or not Nintendo actually competes with Sony and Microsoft is a whole other discussion :P).
- dagmx 5y ago
  To be fair, the Gameboy Color was sort of its' own generation separate from the GameBoy and the Mini
- ac29 5y ago
  Nitpicky, but the New 3DS isnt more than 8 times faster than the Old 3DS: it has a quad core 800MHz processor instead of a dual core 268MHz processor. Even with perfectly scaled multi-threaded code, thats only a ~6x increase.
  - danhor 5y ago
    No idea how that happened, I guess I simply forget the dualcore cpu on the original model. But to one-up the nitpicky-ness one could argue that the "real" game performance still has a more than 8x increase, since both models seem to reserve one core for the OS.
- Izkata 5y ago
  > The only handheld generation where Nintendo didn't do this was the GBA, so it's very common. Since we're talking things that affect portability/battery life in general: The GBA SP, aside from being their first foldable handheld, was the first with an internal light and a built-in rechargeable battery (instead of taking AA or AAA batteries).

izacus 5y ago

That would be great IF the current hardware could handle the games. It can't - even indie games mostly can't sustain 30fps and rely heavily on resolution scaling which drives the resolution way underneath the internal screens 720p resolution. Just try something like Apex Legends and you'll see how it pretty much looks like you're seeing through an oily film. Even the DLCs for the console darling, Breath of the Wild, can't sustain smooth 30fps gameplay. People didn't expect better hardware to get 4K. People expected better hardware to make their games playable on internal 720p screen.

vlunkr 5y ago
> People didn't expect better hardware to get 4K. let me introduce you /r/nintendo lol. I do see your point. Mid-generation upgrades have been done before and they can work. I still don't think it's necessary. Ultimately developers have to target the old hardware still, so it's not like games will change drastically, and it causes confusion for consumers. That's just my opinion of course.
sylens 5y ago
This 100%. I find myself not buying that much on Switch these days because it just runs so poorly. To the point where I question why I even have a Switch at all.
turtlebits 5y ago
Games should match the hardware spec, not the other way around. It's 100% on the developers to provide a playable game on known hardware spec. It's just a money grab selling underperforming AAA ports on switch.
- izacus 5y ago
  If Nintendo, the manufacturer of the console can't do it well for the console exclusive, then maybe... just maybe... might be that the hardware is at fault? Switch is hardly competitive with modern phone chipsets with its old architecture.
  - 5y ago

piyh 5y ago

The xbox one s has a minor clock speed bump over the xbone. I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar here.

brundolf 5y ago

The original Switch was released four years ago. Think about how much hardware has improved in that time. They could drop in today's exact equivalent to what they put in back then (same cost, battery life, etc) and it would almost certainly be a big improvement

jmrm 5y ago
An upgrade like that implies hardware and software developing and testing, that cost a lot of money. Possibly more than the margin of benefits that could give them versus a simple new screen.

KptMarchewa 5y ago

>If they take steps towards upgrading hardware at the cost of portability or battery life, then it's less appealing. It would result in an opposite effect. New SoC, developed in 5nm process or 7nm process would consume way less energy, which would dramatically increase battery life.