7 ms·

> People complaining about the Switch being underpowered are expecting PS5 level performance on a mobile device. I mean, the SoC on the switch was long in the

> People complaining about the Switch being underpowered are expecting PS5 level performance on a mobile device. I mean, the SoC on the switch was long in the tooth at launch. It's almost exactly the same hardware as in the tegra shield that came out two years prior, but Nintendo clocks it down to 1Ghz, about half the speed of the shield. There's some legitimate complaints that it's a dog slow system because of that. For instance this new Zelda is frame locked to 20fps in some areas apparently.

epolanski 3y ago
The Switch combines lower powered A57 (a soc from..2012 on a 20nm process) with a Maxwell GPU (9+ years old at this point) Honestly this is the time to start working on a Switch successor, they could easily more than double the current compute capabilities while keeping the same or lower power envelope. That doesn't even counts the untapped bonuses from much higher memory speeds. I would instantly buy this, we would be looking at mobile machines more powerful than a PS4 Pro which is imho more than enough for the type of console. Nintendo doesn't even need to build it on the latest state of the art TSMC process, even the 5nm should be enough.
- Tepix 3y ago
  > I would instantly buy this Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Does it enable more fun games? I don't see it. Nintendo has always thrived on underpowered hardware.
  - epolanski 3y ago
    By your logic, why move past the Wii U or Wii or any console before it? The machine I descrive is already quite underpowered compared to Nintendo's competition by magnitude of orders. This limits my enjoyment of Nintendo games and I prefer emulators. Anyway hardware limits are already apparent and yes some games aren't as enjoyable due to very low stuttering performance.
    - Jorengarenar 3y ago
      > By your logic, why move past the Wii U or Wii or any console before it? They said "underpowered", not "outdated" or "ridiculously weaker"
  - doix 3y ago
    A lot of games get limited to 30 fps (and even dip lower) on the switch which makes them unplayable for me. I don't care about graphics at all, I'd rather play in some extremely low poly/low texture mode at 60 fps (ideally higher) than at 30 fps. If they released a new version with a 120hz display that could actually run games at 120hz, I'd be ecstatic. I don't even mind the 720p resolution, it's fine on such a small screen in my opinion.
    - orloffm 3y ago
      That's not really an issue for the stakeholders. Zelda is probably the only game that has this problem. Most hits - Mario Kart, Smash, Splatoon - run at 60FPS.
      - kenhwang 3y ago
        On the other hand, the 5th and 7th best selling Switch games (Pokemon SS and SV) were notorious for being unable to maintain 15fps. A lot of the workarounds made the game legitimately awful looking (downscaling shadows on the fly for demanding scenes, very reduced draw distances, slowing down and synchronizing background animations to slideshow speeds during battle). It seems like the Switch is unable to have more than a handful of moderately complex animated objects at a time. It's a problem for Pokemon because they wanted to show a lot of different Pokemon doing different things, it's a problem in Breath of the Wild with just too many trees, and it's certainly a problem with all the Dynasty Warrior clones because the whole appeal of those games is hack and slashing through a big hordes of enemies.
        Shared404 3y ago
        To be fair, the last two Pokemon games were atrociously optimized cash grabs. They look like Gamecube games honestly, and are generally not impressive from a technical standpoint. I don't necessarily disagree with the overall point, but BotW and Dynasty Warrior clones are probably a better argument over all.
    - mysterydip 3y ago
      What makes them unplayable that a doubling of framerate would fix?
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    > Nintendo has always thrived on underpowered hardware. Correction, Nintendo has more specifically thrived on cheap hardware, which is often correlated with 'underpowered' but does not mean the same necessarily. The Wii's remote wasn't 'underpowered', but it was relatively cheap and added an interesting feature. > Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Does it enable more fun games? These are not the only (though they are important) factors to consider. With a portable platform, battery life, size, weight, heat, all matter much more than with a stationary console. A 2x more powerful Switch with the same power envelope as the original would be able to play games for longer using the same battery due to being more efficient. If you're playing a significantly demanding game, that might mean the difference between only being able to do short sessions on battery, and being able to play for a satisfying amount of time. Or it might mean that you can play it with the screen at a higher brightness, and thus make the game accessible in more environments. And if the games are have performance issues, having more powerful hardware can make those problems less frequent and more bearable. You can argue that gamedevs need to do a better job, but that doesn't eliminate reality where most people just want to play the game and don't particularly care about the specifics of how to get the best experience.
    - aikinai 3y ago
      Nintendo calls it “Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology”[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_with_Withered_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_...
    - Jorengarenar 3y ago
      > The Wii's remote wasn't 'underpowered', but it was relatively cheap and added an interesting feature. I'm not sure why you mention the controller or how to measure its power, but the console itself was definitely underpowered compared to PS3 or X360. Heck, it was comparable to 6th rather than 7th gen.
      - genocidicbunny 3y ago
        That's my point exactly - you can't measure it's power, yet that one feature made the Wii sell like hotcakes, and caused both Microsoft and Sony to try making their own versions.
  - zirgs 3y ago
    Yes, a game that runs smoothly is more fun to play.
  - KptMarchewa 3y ago
    Nintendo has always thrived _despite_ underpowered hardware.
  - X0Refraction 3y ago
    Always is a bit strong isn't it? Prior to the Wii their consoles tended to be similar to their contemporaries in processing power. I certainly experienced areas in BOTW which took a heavy FPS hit and it sounds like TOTK is similar. Such an FPS drop does take me out of the game so if the console was powerful enough to avoid that then you could argue it would allow more fun games
    - nopenotthat 3y ago
      [dead]
    - Jorengarenar 3y ago
      > Always is a bit strong isn't it? Prior to the Wii their consoles tended to be similar to their contemporaries in processing power. Yup, you could say Nintendo always thrived on underpowered (compared to competition) hardware. NES was twice less powerful than SMS; GameBoy didn't even have a color display; SNES vs SMD similarity as NES vs SMS; GBC was weaker than Neo Geo Pocket or WonderSwan; GBA didn't have competition (although, if we count N-Gage...); Wii had hardware from previous generation; NDS was way worse in raw numbers that PSP; 3DS analogically with PS Vita; Switch isn't even comparable to PS4/X1, let alone PS5/XSX; What all of those Nintendo consoles have in common? Being their the most successful. Whereas when Nintendo focused more on being on par in hardware power during 5th gen. (N64) and 6th gen. (GameCube), they didn't sold nearly as much as other generations. The exception to the pattern are Virtual Boy and Wii U. The former was poorly designed then sacrificed as "filler"; the later flopped due to bad marketing (and naming) + poor decision on betting on "casuals". In conclusion: as we can see, there is a clear trend, not a rule, but a trend nevertheless.
      - DerekL 3y ago
        The SNES wasn't at all underpowered compared to the SEGA Mega Drive. In fact, it was better in many ways.
        Jorengarenar 3y ago
  - Jochim 3y ago
    Yes. Older consoles could get away with much more. There's a Dynasty Warriors style Zelda game on switch called "Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity"[0]. It struggles with the hardware to the point that the choppiness of the frame rate makes the gameplay thoroughly unenjoyable. Even Breath of the wild is infamously laggy in certain areas. [0] https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Games/Nintendo-Switch-games/Hyrule-Warriors-Age-of-Calamity-1838129.html https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Games/Nintendo-Switch-games/Hyrul...
  - ilyt 3y ago
    60fps in action game does make it more fun to play
  - aeoliun 3y ago
    >Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Yes. Movement in an action game feels inherently better at 60fps than at 30fps. Metroid Zero Mission (2004), and Metroid Dread (2021) both feel extremely crisp and precise compared to Metroid: Samus Returns (2017) which runs at 30fps. The biggest complaint that Bloodborne gets, outside of not being available on PC, is that it's locked to 30 fps. I can't think of a single reason where a game at 60fps would be more fun at 30fps.
    - CoastalCoder 3y ago
      I'm confused because the last sentence seems to directly contradict the rest of the post. Mind clarifying?
      - aeoliun 3y ago
        Might've worded it poorly. Just meant that a game running at 60fps is always better than that same game running at 30fps. In the worst case scenario, they're the same game.
        Narishma 3y ago
        Not always better. A 30 fps game that you can play twice or three times as long before having to recharge the battery may be better.
        ganoushoreilly 3y ago
        Depends, some might be willing to make that trade. I think most consoles are making that option of performance or visuals these days. As an option, letting the user choose seems to be more the norm these days. If i'm playing plugged in I would want better visuals (as the switch allows with the dock) the primary reason being more power available.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - josephg 3y ago
    > Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? I played Zelda: Breath of the wild through on switch. It was one of the launch titles, and it was fantastic. The slow loading times were the #1 complaint I had about the game. They really broke the immersive experience. Whenever I died, teleported between zones or entered & left shrines the loading time was long enough that I fell briefly out of the zone while playing. I assume loading times haven't gotten any better for Tears of the kingdom, given the hardware hasn't changed. I'd probably buy the new zelda game instantly but when I think back to breath of the wild, my strongest visual memory is that black and red loading screen.
    - art0rz 3y ago
      IIRC load times were improved in a later update (although that update came too late, imo)
  - incahoots 3y ago
    Something to note is Nintendo makes profits on their hardware where as the other two (Microsoft & Sony) typically take a loss on their hardware, until about midway point of the console's life. I believe the other two make up the loss on the hardware with licensing rights on the software side of things. https://www.gamesradar.com/unlike-playstation-and-nintendo-xbox-still-loses-money-when-it-sells-a-new-console/ https://www.gamesradar.com/unlike-playstation-and-nintendo-x...
  - msh 3y ago
    I liked playing their AAA ports like the witcher 3 on the go. A more powerfull console would make such ports easier, so I would hope to see more of them. It rather have a switch than can play nintendo games plus some AAA games, than a steamdeck or something like it.
- mnky9800n 3y ago
  i would rather have a larger catalog of games that are like the 2d metroid game or the remake of links awakening. games that remind me of playing my gameboy but without the limitations of the gameboy hardware nor the limitations of user interface and game design from that time.
  - Omatic810 3y ago
    This isn't a matter of "rather" - nothing is stopping developers from making those very same games on a more powerful system.
    - mnky9800n 3y ago
      yeah of course it's not either or, but if i had to choose, i would prefer a larger catalog of those kinds of games. but also i find the nintendo store to be confusing. i basically find games elsewhere then search for them there. none of the recommendations are very useful. so maybe that catalog is there i just dont find it.
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  >Honestly this is the time to start working on a Switch successor, they could easily more than double the current compute capabilities while keeping the same or lower power envelope. They've been working on successor for 4+ years now. That's how long new console cycles are now. PS5 dev cycle stated 2 years after PS4 released.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    I mean, that might be gaming industry standard, but they should be able to do better than that given that the Switch is essentially just a fairly standard ARM SoC-based tablet, with some joycons attached. Phone and tablet manufacturers are constantly pushing new skews.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  The games are what sells, not the hardware. People who bought a Switch many years ago are still willing to buy new games. They may not all be willing to replace it so soon however if Nintendo release pretty much the same but with better resolution and framerate and the release of a new one would probably mean the stop of new release on the current gen.
- darkteflon 3y ago
  All they have to do to keep me and my kids as customers through the next gen is commit to back compat with our Switch library and build something that can run their big-budget first party titles like Zelda at 720p60 handheld / 1080p60 docked. So sort of 2.5x what we’ve got now. Spend the rest of the TDP budget on pushing out the battery life. Hardware upscaling for bonus points only. Job done. This is Nintendo though so I expect nothing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - docmars 3y ago
    I 100% agree. This is what I was hoping they would maybe surprise-announce just before TotK's release, but my hopes were too high. I'm excited to play it, but $70 for a game with PS3-era visuals at 30fps while everything else has modern visuals at 60-120fps with various techniques is a tragedy.
    - LtdJorge 3y ago
      30fps, lol. Its goes down much below that, sadly.
      - docmars 3y ago
        Yea, they also added a 20fps limiter in certain cases when the hardware is pushed to its limits. Super unfortunate, and honestly, I'd be hard pressed to believe that it helps. Nonetheless, the game performs loads better than BotW ever did. Quite a feat for such old metal.
- SkeuomorphicBee 3y ago
  There is a big problem with any switch upgrade plan: Current GPU architectures are too different to the original Maxwell GPU arch, so it is impossible for Nintendo to make a better console that is hardware compatible to the switch. The games themselves include low level GPU driver stuff, so they won't run in any other GPU architecture without an emulation layer. In the past, Nintendo either forgone backwards compatibility completely (Nes->SNes->N64->GC, Wiiu->Switch), or specially built their upgraded consoles to have a low level hardware compatibility mode were it behaves 100% like the old console (Gamecube->Wii, Wii->WiiU, several handlheld upgrades). Today it doesn't make business sense for Nintendo to build a new console without backwards compatibility, and it is impossible technically to build one with low level compatibility. So they are left with the only option of a incompatible console with some partial emulation, which must be a much bigger step that kneecaps the existing switch once announced, so they will take only after the switch starts its decline.
  - skhr0680 3y ago
    Would it be possible to just put an entire Switch in the Switch 2? (see: PS3)
    - tass 3y ago
      Is that how the wii u ran wii games? The 3ds also showed the old ds interface to configure ds games. I’m not sure if either one actually just dropped a second soc in there though
      - messe 3y ago
        > Is that how the wii u ran wii games? More or less. The Wii U is architecturally very similar to the Wii, just with a higher clockspeed, a couple of extra cores, more RAM and a better GPU; the Wii in turn is just an overclocked overspecced GameCube. It's possible, through a homebrew application, to load and run GameCube games directly on the WiiU. If you're interested in this kind of thing, I'd highly recommend the architecture of consoles series of blog posts[1][2]. [1]: https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles [2]: https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/wiiu/ https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/wiiu/
prmoustache 3y ago
yes and at the same time many much more underpowered 8 and 16-bit emulation consoles still sell like hot cakes.
bena 3y ago
Nintendo cares about battery life above most other concerns. The Game Boy was not the most capable handheld when it was released. It was severely underpowered compared to the hardware that was out there. Atari released the Lynx a few months later. Sega release the Game Gear the following year, which was essentially a portable Master System. However, the Game Boy ran forever on 4 AA batteries. Which is part of the reason why the original Game Boy has outsold every other non-Nintendo handheld gaming system except the original PSP, combined.
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Switching to an ARM SoC and off the (basically dying) POWER architecture was a smart move on Nintendo's part, in order to take advantage of industry economies of scale, etc. However it also potentially makes them vulnerable to being on the upgrade treadmill that e.g. phone manufacturers have to be on. Expectations and pressure will be there to be on the "next" SoC platform. But more so it makes them less "unique" and "bespoke" and it becomes very hard to differentiate the Switch from any mass market phone or tablet. It's basically that, but with Nintendo's own OS instead of Android, and along with that their highly sandboxed environment.
avidphantasm 3y ago
Not saying you are not correct in the details, but Nintendo has long proven they don’t need to have cutting edge hardware to do quite well selling games people enjoy. See Gameboy, SNES and N64.

epolanski 3y ago

The Switch combines lower powered A57 (a soc from..2012 on a 20nm process) with a Maxwell GPU (9+ years old at this point) Honestly this is the time to start working on a Switch successor, they could easily more than double the current compute capabilities while keeping the same or lower power envelope. That doesn't even counts the untapped bonuses from much higher memory speeds. I would instantly buy this, we would be looking at mobile machines more powerful than a PS4 Pro which is imho more than enough for the type of console. Nintendo doesn't even need to build it on the latest state of the art TSMC process, even the 5nm should be enough.

Tepix 3y ago
> I would instantly buy this Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Does it enable more fun games? I don't see it. Nintendo has always thrived on underpowered hardware.
- epolanski 3y ago
  By your logic, why move past the Wii U or Wii or any console before it? The machine I descrive is already quite underpowered compared to Nintendo's competition by magnitude of orders. This limits my enjoyment of Nintendo games and I prefer emulators. Anyway hardware limits are already apparent and yes some games aren't as enjoyable due to very low stuttering performance.
  - Jorengarenar 3y ago
    > By your logic, why move past the Wii U or Wii or any console before it? They said "underpowered", not "outdated" or "ridiculously weaker"
- doix 3y ago
  A lot of games get limited to 30 fps (and even dip lower) on the switch which makes them unplayable for me. I don't care about graphics at all, I'd rather play in some extremely low poly/low texture mode at 60 fps (ideally higher) than at 30 fps. If they released a new version with a 120hz display that could actually run games at 120hz, I'd be ecstatic. I don't even mind the 720p resolution, it's fine on such a small screen in my opinion.
  - orloffm 3y ago
    That's not really an issue for the stakeholders. Zelda is probably the only game that has this problem. Most hits - Mario Kart, Smash, Splatoon - run at 60FPS.
    - kenhwang 3y ago
      On the other hand, the 5th and 7th best selling Switch games (Pokemon SS and SV) were notorious for being unable to maintain 15fps. A lot of the workarounds made the game legitimately awful looking (downscaling shadows on the fly for demanding scenes, very reduced draw distances, slowing down and synchronizing background animations to slideshow speeds during battle). It seems like the Switch is unable to have more than a handful of moderately complex animated objects at a time. It's a problem for Pokemon because they wanted to show a lot of different Pokemon doing different things, it's a problem in Breath of the Wild with just too many trees, and it's certainly a problem with all the Dynasty Warrior clones because the whole appeal of those games is hack and slashing through a big hordes of enemies.
      - Shared404 3y ago
        To be fair, the last two Pokemon games were atrociously optimized cash grabs. They look like Gamecube games honestly, and are generally not impressive from a technical standpoint. I don't necessarily disagree with the overall point, but BotW and Dynasty Warrior clones are probably a better argument over all.
  - mysterydip 3y ago
    What makes them unplayable that a doubling of framerate would fix?
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  > Nintendo has always thrived on underpowered hardware. Correction, Nintendo has more specifically thrived on cheap hardware, which is often correlated with 'underpowered' but does not mean the same necessarily. The Wii's remote wasn't 'underpowered', but it was relatively cheap and added an interesting feature. > Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Does it enable more fun games? These are not the only (though they are important) factors to consider. With a portable platform, battery life, size, weight, heat, all matter much more than with a stationary console. A 2x more powerful Switch with the same power envelope as the original would be able to play games for longer using the same battery due to being more efficient. If you're playing a significantly demanding game, that might mean the difference between only being able to do short sessions on battery, and being able to play for a satisfying amount of time. Or it might mean that you can play it with the screen at a higher brightness, and thus make the game accessible in more environments. And if the games are have performance issues, having more powerful hardware can make those problems less frequent and more bearable. You can argue that gamedevs need to do a better job, but that doesn't eliminate reality where most people just want to play the game and don't particularly care about the specifics of how to get the best experience.
  - aikinai 3y ago
    Nintendo calls it “Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology”[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_with_Withered_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_...
  - Jorengarenar 3y ago
    > The Wii's remote wasn't 'underpowered', but it was relatively cheap and added an interesting feature. I'm not sure why you mention the controller or how to measure its power, but the console itself was definitely underpowered compared to PS3 or X360. Heck, it was comparable to 6th rather than 7th gen.
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      That's my point exactly - you can't measure it's power, yet that one feature made the Wii sell like hotcakes, and caused both Microsoft and Sony to try making their own versions.
- zirgs 3y ago
  Yes, a game that runs smoothly is more fun to play.
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  Nintendo has always thrived _despite_ underpowered hardware.
- X0Refraction 3y ago
  Always is a bit strong isn't it? Prior to the Wii their consoles tended to be similar to their contemporaries in processing power. I certainly experienced areas in BOTW which took a heavy FPS hit and it sounds like TOTK is similar. Such an FPS drop does take me out of the game so if the console was powerful enough to avoid that then you could argue it would allow more fun games
  - nopenotthat 3y ago
    [dead]
  - Jorengarenar 3y ago
    > Always is a bit strong isn't it? Prior to the Wii their consoles tended to be similar to their contemporaries in processing power. Yup, you could say Nintendo always thrived on underpowered (compared to competition) hardware. NES was twice less powerful than SMS; GameBoy didn't even have a color display; SNES vs SMD similarity as NES vs SMS; GBC was weaker than Neo Geo Pocket or WonderSwan; GBA didn't have competition (although, if we count N-Gage...); Wii had hardware from previous generation; NDS was way worse in raw numbers that PSP; 3DS analogically with PS Vita; Switch isn't even comparable to PS4/X1, let alone PS5/XSX; What all of those Nintendo consoles have in common? Being their the most successful. Whereas when Nintendo focused more on being on par in hardware power during 5th gen. (N64) and 6th gen. (GameCube), they didn't sold nearly as much as other generations. The exception to the pattern are Virtual Boy and Wii U. The former was poorly designed then sacrificed as "filler"; the later flopped due to bad marketing (and naming) + poor decision on betting on "casuals". In conclusion: as we can see, there is a clear trend, not a rule, but a trend nevertheless.
    - DerekL 3y ago
      The SNES wasn't at all underpowered compared to the SEGA Mega Drive. In fact, it was better in many ways.
      - Jorengarenar 3y ago
- Jochim 3y ago
  Yes. Older consoles could get away with much more. There's a Dynasty Warriors style Zelda game on switch called "Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity"[0]. It struggles with the hardware to the point that the choppiness of the frame rate makes the gameplay thoroughly unenjoyable. Even Breath of the wild is infamously laggy in certain areas. [0] https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Games/Nintendo-Switch-games/Hyrule-Warriors-Age-of-Calamity-1838129.html https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Games/Nintendo-Switch-games/Hyrul...
- ilyt 3y ago
  60fps in action game does make it more fun to play
- aeoliun 3y ago
  >Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Yes. Movement in an action game feels inherently better at 60fps than at 30fps. Metroid Zero Mission (2004), and Metroid Dread (2021) both feel extremely crisp and precise compared to Metroid: Samus Returns (2017) which runs at 30fps. The biggest complaint that Bloodborne gets, outside of not being available on PC, is that it's locked to 30 fps. I can't think of a single reason where a game at 60fps would be more fun at 30fps.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    I'm confused because the last sentence seems to directly contradict the rest of the post. Mind clarifying?
    - aeoliun 3y ago
      Might've worded it poorly. Just meant that a game running at 60fps is always better than that same game running at 30fps. In the worst case scenario, they're the same game.
      - Narishma 3y ago
        Not always better. A 30 fps game that you can play twice or three times as long before having to recharge the battery may be better.
        ganoushoreilly 3y ago
        Depends, some might be willing to make that trade. I think most consoles are making that option of performance or visuals these days. As an option, letting the user choose seems to be more the norm these days. If i'm playing plugged in I would want better visuals (as the switch allows with the dock) the primary reason being more power available.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- josephg 3y ago
  > Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? I played Zelda: Breath of the wild through on switch. It was one of the launch titles, and it was fantastic. The slow loading times were the #1 complaint I had about the game. They really broke the immersive experience. Whenever I died, teleported between zones or entered & left shrines the loading time was long enough that I fell briefly out of the zone while playing. I assume loading times haven't gotten any better for Tears of the kingdom, given the hardware hasn't changed. I'd probably buy the new zelda game instantly but when I think back to breath of the wild, my strongest visual memory is that black and red loading screen.
  - art0rz 3y ago
    IIRC load times were improved in a later update (although that update came too late, imo)
- incahoots 3y ago
  Something to note is Nintendo makes profits on their hardware where as the other two (Microsoft & Sony) typically take a loss on their hardware, until about midway point of the console's life. I believe the other two make up the loss on the hardware with licensing rights on the software side of things. https://www.gamesradar.com/unlike-playstation-and-nintendo-xbox-still-loses-money-when-it-sells-a-new-console/ https://www.gamesradar.com/unlike-playstation-and-nintendo-x...
- msh 3y ago
  I liked playing their AAA ports like the witcher 3 on the go. A more powerfull console would make such ports easier, so I would hope to see more of them. It rather have a switch than can play nintendo games plus some AAA games, than a steamdeck or something like it.
mnky9800n 3y ago
i would rather have a larger catalog of games that are like the 2d metroid game or the remake of links awakening. games that remind me of playing my gameboy but without the limitations of the gameboy hardware nor the limitations of user interface and game design from that time.
- Omatic810 3y ago
  This isn't a matter of "rather" - nothing is stopping developers from making those very same games on a more powerful system.
  - mnky9800n 3y ago
    yeah of course it's not either or, but if i had to choose, i would prefer a larger catalog of those kinds of games. but also i find the nintendo store to be confusing. i basically find games elsewhere then search for them there. none of the recommendations are very useful. so maybe that catalog is there i just dont find it.
KptMarchewa 3y ago
>Honestly this is the time to start working on a Switch successor, they could easily more than double the current compute capabilities while keeping the same or lower power envelope. They've been working on successor for 4+ years now. That's how long new console cycles are now. PS5 dev cycle stated 2 years after PS4 released.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  I mean, that might be gaming industry standard, but they should be able to do better than that given that the Switch is essentially just a fairly standard ARM SoC-based tablet, with some joycons attached. Phone and tablet manufacturers are constantly pushing new skews.
prmoustache 3y ago
The games are what sells, not the hardware. People who bought a Switch many years ago are still willing to buy new games. They may not all be willing to replace it so soon however if Nintendo release pretty much the same but with better resolution and framerate and the release of a new one would probably mean the stop of new release on the current gen.
darkteflon 3y ago
All they have to do to keep me and my kids as customers through the next gen is commit to back compat with our Switch library and build something that can run their big-budget first party titles like Zelda at 720p60 handheld / 1080p60 docked. So sort of 2.5x what we’ve got now. Spend the rest of the TDP budget on pushing out the battery life. Hardware upscaling for bonus points only. Job done. This is Nintendo though so I expect nothing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- docmars 3y ago
  I 100% agree. This is what I was hoping they would maybe surprise-announce just before TotK's release, but my hopes were too high. I'm excited to play it, but $70 for a game with PS3-era visuals at 30fps while everything else has modern visuals at 60-120fps with various techniques is a tragedy.
  - LtdJorge 3y ago
    30fps, lol. Its goes down much below that, sadly.
    - docmars 3y ago
      Yea, they also added a 20fps limiter in certain cases when the hardware is pushed to its limits. Super unfortunate, and honestly, I'd be hard pressed to believe that it helps. Nonetheless, the game performs loads better than BotW ever did. Quite a feat for such old metal.
SkeuomorphicBee 3y ago
There is a big problem with any switch upgrade plan: Current GPU architectures are too different to the original Maxwell GPU arch, so it is impossible for Nintendo to make a better console that is hardware compatible to the switch. The games themselves include low level GPU driver stuff, so they won't run in any other GPU architecture without an emulation layer. In the past, Nintendo either forgone backwards compatibility completely (Nes->SNes->N64->GC, Wiiu->Switch), or specially built their upgraded consoles to have a low level hardware compatibility mode were it behaves 100% like the old console (Gamecube->Wii, Wii->WiiU, several handlheld upgrades). Today it doesn't make business sense for Nintendo to build a new console without backwards compatibility, and it is impossible technically to build one with low level compatibility. So they are left with the only option of a incompatible console with some partial emulation, which must be a much bigger step that kneecaps the existing switch once announced, so they will take only after the switch starts its decline.
- skhr0680 3y ago
  Would it be possible to just put an entire Switch in the Switch 2? (see: PS3)
  - tass 3y ago
    Is that how the wii u ran wii games? The 3ds also showed the old ds interface to configure ds games. I’m not sure if either one actually just dropped a second soc in there though
    - messe 3y ago
      > Is that how the wii u ran wii games? More or less. The Wii U is architecturally very similar to the Wii, just with a higher clockspeed, a couple of extra cores, more RAM and a better GPU; the Wii in turn is just an overclocked overspecced GameCube. It's possible, through a homebrew application, to load and run GameCube games directly on the WiiU. If you're interested in this kind of thing, I'd highly recommend the architecture of consoles series of blog posts[1][2]. [1]: https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles [2]: https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/wiiu/ https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/wiiu/

prmoustache 3y ago

yes and at the same time many much more underpowered 8 and 16-bit emulation consoles still sell like hot cakes.

bena 3y ago

Nintendo cares about battery life above most other concerns. The Game Boy was not the most capable handheld when it was released. It was severely underpowered compared to the hardware that was out there. Atari released the Lynx a few months later. Sega release the Game Gear the following year, which was essentially a portable Master System. However, the Game Boy ran forever on 4 AA batteries. Which is part of the reason why the original Game Boy has outsold every other non-Nintendo handheld gaming system except the original PSP, combined.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

Switching to an ARM SoC and off the (basically dying) POWER architecture was a smart move on Nintendo's part, in order to take advantage of industry economies of scale, etc. However it also potentially makes them vulnerable to being on the upgrade treadmill that e.g. phone manufacturers have to be on. Expectations and pressure will be there to be on the "next" SoC platform. But more so it makes them less "unique" and "bespoke" and it becomes very hard to differentiate the Switch from any mass market phone or tablet. It's basically that, but with Nintendo's own OS instead of Android, and along with that their highly sandboxed environment.

avidphantasm 3y ago

Not saying you are not correct in the details, but Nintendo has long proven they don’t need to have cutting edge hardware to do quite well selling games people enjoy. See Gameboy, SNES and N64.