3 ms·

It’s more powerful than a Switch for sure, but they’re different hardware classes. For a handheld, the Switch is far more portable and has a much better screen

by dcow 4y ago

It’s more powerful than a Switch for sure, but they’re different hardware classes. For a handheld, the Switch is far more portable and has a much better screen and battery life. That said, I don't get why Nintendo doesn't do a $500 Switch. I get that they’re about the gameplay and graphics come as an afterthought, but seriously their own launch title could not hit a consistent 30fps which is simply unacceptable. They cant keep using the gameplay excuse for being wildly out of touch with hardware reality.

phone8675309 4y ago
Why spend the money on R&D and retooling the production line when people will buy your Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games that aren't on any other platform? Most people aren't looking for occasional framedrops - they're there to play a game and have fun.
- dcow 4y ago
  They don't need to retool, they just need hardware that can run the games they make with their existing tooling.
  - Tcepsa 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure parent wasn't talking about Nintendo's software tooling, they were talking about the machinery to assemble the hardware. From that angle, I suspect that Nintendo would not be able to simply order something off the shelf that would work with their existing assembly lines. There is no "just" when it comes to changing hardware in a system like the Switch--which is part of why you don't see a bunch of aftermarket upgrade kits. Related, I invite you to review the comments and note how many are focused on the battery life of the Deck, and specifically on how short it is. Even if Nintendo could just upgrade to a faster CPU, that would bring increased power draw, which would lead to either shorter battery life or needing a bigger battery, at which point you are either at people complaining about your battery life or once again back to industrial design and retooling your assembly line. Tldr: They can't just bump the price by $200, drop in a Threadripper, and call it a day.
    - dcow 4y ago
      I don't want a Threadripper. I already have one and an Epyc. From what I've heard Nintendo went with essentially the lowest tier (like 4 gens old at this point) nvidia SoC available (in class). They could have had better hardware in the same form factor on a smaller node with similar power draw. But it would have been more expensive and Nintendo doesn't use hardware as a loss leader.
wilsonnb3 4y ago
> They cant keep using the gameplay excuse for being wildly out of touch with hardware reality. They can and they will because it works. They’ve been printing money since adopting this philosophy with the Wii because they are right.
- dcow 4y ago
  It’s been longer than the Wii. I agree with the philosophy and that it works at a product level. That’s not what I’m criticizing. I am a fan of Nintendo’s exclusive titles. But I don't agree that you can continue a trend of shipping hardware that fails to run even your experience centric resource limited titles and remain relevant. I’m saying there’s a middle ground between barely 720p @ 30fps and 4k @ 120fps with ray tracing and ultra settings. The Switch was marketed as a handheld console hybrid. Not a fancy gameboy. I’m not asking for Nintendo to ship a PS5. But I would like to be able to pay a little more (pass the cost entirely on to me and keep a lower tier for all I care) for a hardware device from Nintendo that can run on my 4k TV in docked mode without looking like pixel art. Nintendo needs to deliver a device that can run low to medium quality graphics at 1080-1440p @ 60fps. That’s a completely reasonable request and still confines Nintendo focused studios to the product centric resource constrained environment they want. It’s sad to see all the interest from devs in porting titles to the Switch but then actually trying them and encountering unplayable garbage. Like Skyrim, what a joke.
  - maxsilver 4y ago
    > Nintendo needs to deliver a device that can run low to medium quality graphics at 1080-1440p @ 60fps. You say this like they didn't spend the last decade selling 75 million devices that barely pushed ~360p, and making a small fortune from it. I get wanting Nintendo to bump the hardware (I'd love a beefier Switch too), but they've proven over and over again that they don't need to do anything. If anything, I kind of like that Nintendo has chosen to cede the market of "indie/port" titles, their decision to mostly ignore that market is a big part of what's allowing Steam Deck to flourish right now. And the Steam Deck might be the healthiest new development the industry has seen in 20 years.

by dcow 4y ago

phone8675309 4y ago

Why spend the money on R&D and retooling the production line when people will buy your Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games that aren't on any other platform? Most people aren't looking for occasional framedrops - they're there to play a game and have fun.

dcow 4y ago
They don't need to retool, they just need hardware that can run the games they make with their existing tooling.
- Tcepsa 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure parent wasn't talking about Nintendo's software tooling, they were talking about the machinery to assemble the hardware. From that angle, I suspect that Nintendo would not be able to simply order something off the shelf that would work with their existing assembly lines. There is no "just" when it comes to changing hardware in a system like the Switch--which is part of why you don't see a bunch of aftermarket upgrade kits. Related, I invite you to review the comments and note how many are focused on the battery life of the Deck, and specifically on how short it is. Even if Nintendo could just upgrade to a faster CPU, that would bring increased power draw, which would lead to either shorter battery life or needing a bigger battery, at which point you are either at people complaining about your battery life or once again back to industrial design and retooling your assembly line. Tldr: They can't just bump the price by $200, drop in a Threadripper, and call it a day.
  - dcow 4y ago
    I don't want a Threadripper. I already have one and an Epyc. From what I've heard Nintendo went with essentially the lowest tier (like 4 gens old at this point) nvidia SoC available (in class). They could have had better hardware in the same form factor on a smaller node with similar power draw. But it would have been more expensive and Nintendo doesn't use hardware as a loss leader.

wilsonnb3 4y ago

> They cant keep using the gameplay excuse for being wildly out of touch with hardware reality. They can and they will because it works. They’ve been printing money since adopting this philosophy with the Wii because they are right.

dcow 4y ago
It’s been longer than the Wii. I agree with the philosophy and that it works at a product level. That’s not what I’m criticizing. I am a fan of Nintendo’s exclusive titles. But I don't agree that you can continue a trend of shipping hardware that fails to run even your experience centric resource limited titles and remain relevant. I’m saying there’s a middle ground between barely 720p @ 30fps and 4k @ 120fps with ray tracing and ultra settings. The Switch was marketed as a handheld console hybrid. Not a fancy gameboy. I’m not asking for Nintendo to ship a PS5. But I would like to be able to pay a little more (pass the cost entirely on to me and keep a lower tier for all I care) for a hardware device from Nintendo that can run on my 4k TV in docked mode without looking like pixel art. Nintendo needs to deliver a device that can run low to medium quality graphics at 1080-1440p @ 60fps. That’s a completely reasonable request and still confines Nintendo focused studios to the product centric resource constrained environment they want. It’s sad to see all the interest from devs in porting titles to the Switch but then actually trying them and encountering unplayable garbage. Like Skyrim, what a joke.
- maxsilver 4y ago
  > Nintendo needs to deliver a device that can run low to medium quality graphics at 1080-1440p @ 60fps. You say this like they didn't spend the last decade selling 75 million devices that barely pushed ~360p, and making a small fortune from it. I get wanting Nintendo to bump the hardware (I'd love a beefier Switch too), but they've proven over and over again that they don't need to do anything. If anything, I kind of like that Nintendo has chosen to cede the market of "indie/port" titles, their decision to mostly ignore that market is a big part of what's allowing Steam Deck to flourish right now. And the Steam Deck might be the healthiest new development the industry has seen in 20 years.