Support NeoGAF

[Donnie]

Reading through the last pages in this thread makes me miss the middle ground. Like Nintendo can't realistically be competitive with a high powered and expensive console but also Zelda BotW would definitely benefit so much from a more powerful hardware. From framerate to the ugly textures and aliasing. No, art doesn't compensate for everything. .

It would benefit simply from being design for Switch rather than WiiU.

Textures for example. Those textures have been designed for a system with 1GB of RAM and haven't been changed at all for Switch. So I'm sure it can do better in that department with 3.5GB available. I'd also bet the framerate and resolution could both be improved if designed around Switch hardware.

 

[The_Lump]

Another genius, power depands on clocks so you can set clock so cpu will draw less than 15 W as was shown in link that I gave, tegra x2 consumed 5W and was on level with tegra x1 that consume almost 10W. And if you take away denver cpu (much faster than cpu in tegra x1) you still have double bandwidth and 16nm with higher clocks and less power consumption. But you don't have to take away denver cores as it was proven in benchmarks.

Sounds terrific and all, but either way it wasn't ready for a console being manufactured on the tail end of 2016 for an early 2017 launch. So it doesn't matter.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Man, I remember when playing good games were all that mattered.

Sigh.. I miss those days.

There were never any such days. Arguments about who has better graphics have existed exactly as long as video games.

And this is a very good thing. Games are worse when the graphics are bad. Games are worse when the framerate is bad. Saying, "I don't care about graphics" is the exact same statement as "I don't care how good a game is."

There is no reason Switch can't run at some level any game for xb1 or ps4. It has all the modern features and single threaded performance on par with ps4, it is limited to 3 cores but that is the line developers have drawn for their PC ports. RAM is also plentiful enough to handle ports at lower resolutions.

The qualifier "at some level" makes this statement meaningless. The question is how reduced the games would have to be, and the answer seems to be "substantially". To imply a different answer, you carefully equate Switch's per-core performance with PS4 and its number of cores with PC, ignoring that PS4 has more than twice as many cores, and PC has more than twice the per-core performance. RAM quantity is decent, but you also omit the real bottleneck on the system, the memory bandwidth. No matter the IPC or the packed math or the modern shader architecture, Switch has a memory bus no faster than PS3. This is going to really limit its results. (It's likely why FAST RMX can't really hit 1080p60 and has to use dynamic resolution, just as Wipeout HD did on PS3.)

 

[Mokujin]

No, he's right.

If all we're talking is a beastly powerful home machine then if Nintendo wanted to build that they could. They've got the cash to afford the R&D. They simply don't want to. Whether it would be successful is another thing and the GameCube may have taught them that lesson.

No, he literally said.-

Nintendo absolutely could compete with a powerful home console...

And no they can't compete in the home console space now.

 

[Donnie]

There were never any such days. Arguments about who has better graphics have existed exactly as long as video games.

And this is a very good thing. Games are worse when the graphics are bad. Games are worse when the framerate is bad. Saying, "I don't care about graphics" is the exact same statement as "I don't care how good a game is."


The qualifier "at some level" makes this statement meaningless. The question is how reduced the games would have to be, and the answer seems to be "substantially". To imply a different answer, you carefully equate Switch's per-core performance with PS4 and its number of cores with PC, ignoring that PS4 has more than twice as many cores, and PC has more than twice the per-core performance. RAM quantity is decent, but you also omit the real bottleneck on the system, the memory bandwidth. No matter the IPC or the packed math or the modern shader architecture, Switch has a memory bus no faster than PS3. This is going to really limit its results. (It's likely why FAST RMX can't really hit 1080p60 and has to use dynamic resolution, just as Wipeout HD did on PS3.)

This bandwidth argument just goes in circles. XBox One has a memory bus only slightly above PS3, Two and a half times less bandwidth than PS4, does that mean XBox One can't handle PS4 ports on any level?

When you compare main memory bandwidth between systems you need to be mindful of the architecture, how much will that ram be accessed on each system. For instance standard full scene renderers need more main memory bandwidth than systems like XBox 360/XBox One or Switch. Because they do everything in that external main memory.

A system like PS3 or PS4 uses the external memory for AI, physics, textures, frame buffers, depth buffers, compute buffers, everything. Systems like XBox 360/XBox One and Switch (and WiiU for that matter) move most bandwidth heavy rendering tasks away from main memory. That's how WiiU could more than compete with PS3 with only a quarter of its main memory bandwidth and its how XBox One can compete with PS4 with only about a third of its main memory bandwidth.

 

[Skittzo0413]

Reading through the last pages in this thread makes me miss the middle ground. Like Nintendo can't realistically be competitive with a high powered and expensive console but also Zelda BotW would definitely benefit so much from a more powerful hardware. From framerate to the ugly textures and aliasing. No, art doesn't compensate for everything.

But this seem to be realistically the best specs Nintendo could have used for their proposed scope. And the hybrid idea is more or less the only way out for Nintendo from the corner they put themselves in. Anything else are rather dreams that realistic scenarios.

I'd argue that BotW on Switch suffers more from being a Wii U port (with parity) than it does specifically from the Switch hardware, but yeah obviously more powerful hardware will always allow developers to get more out of their games. They'll also likely increase development budgets, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But yeah this is apparently the best they could do for a hybrid releasing in March 2017. It's still pretty surprising that there are apparently no customizations whatsoever to the chip, specifically related to memory, but it is what it is. Maybe using stock chips will let them drop the price significantly sooner.

 

[KingSnake]

It would benefit simply from being design for Switch rather than WiiU.

Textures for example. Those textures have been designed for a system with 1GB of RAM and haven't been changed at all for Switch. So I'm sure it can do better in that department with 3.5GB available. I'd also bet the framerate and resolution could both be improved if designed around Switch hardware.

Honestly all you wrote here is some nice wishes, let see it done first. Because the first game developed specifically for Switch will be running at 900p and it's far from being as complex as Zelda is. In the end the TX1 can do so much and I would be careful about pushing what can it do into dreams territory.

edit: a couple of you are pushing this very optimistic approach about Switch being able to do some wizardry and then you are surprised when people expect too much from a handheld.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Systems like XBox 360/XBox One and Switch (and WiiU for that matter) move most bandwidth heavy rendering tasks away from main memory. That's how WiiU could more than compete with PS3 with only a quarter of its main memory bandwidth and its how XBox One can compete with PS4 with only about a third of its main memory bandwidth.

Yes, a small fast cache can help make up for low main memory bandwidth. That is indeed how 360, Xbox One, and WiiU elevated their results. Where your argument breaks down is when you add Switch to that category. It does not have such a cache--no ESRAM, no EDRAM. The only sizeable memory is the main memory, with the low bandwidth.

 

[4Tran]

It's not hard to go to a hardware manufacturer and say "give me this, for this approximate pricepoint". That's what Sony did. That's what MS did. That's what Nintendo did.

But this device replacing/converging both product lines necessitated the current strategy. [
And, in my (and their) opiniong, pursuing one that would require an identical strategy to 2 other near-identical consoles would be fruitless regardless. Especially since they wouldn't get anywhere close to the same major third party publisher support no matter what kind of box they put out.

That's sort of my point. The main distinction is that I think that Nintendo first decided that they're not going to try to compete in the home console space.

And why would they want to. Why throw another console out to compete with Xbox and PlayStation when they can create something unique and interesting and probably outsell them all anyway. I'm not the craziest hardcore gamer out there, and when I heard of all this Playstation 4 Pro and Project Scorpio crap I couldn't have been more disinterested. Yay another box that's got a little more power begging for my large amounts of cash. Nintendo have played it smart once again, just like they did in the Wii days. But this time they've actually created the most powerful handheld gaming machine ever, which boosts in performance even further when you plug it into a TV. Thing's a beast.

I don't even play AAA games in general, but that's where the largest audience is currently. So by not providing hardware for this audience, Nintendo is also pushing away some very important stakeholders. The flipside of this is that Nintendo needs a strong handheld, but does anyone else need one? I'm really not sure about that.

The qualifier "at some level" makes this statement meaningless. The question is how reduced the games would have to be, and the answer seems to be "substantially". To imply a different answer, you carefully equate Switch's per-core performance with PS4 and its number of cores with PC, ignoring that PS4 has more than twice as many cores, and PC has more than twice the per-core performance. RAM quantity is decent, but you also omit the real bottleneck on the system, the memory bandwidth. No matter the IPC or the packed math or the modern shader architecture, Switch has a memory bus no faster than PS3. This is going to really limit its results. (It's likely why FAST RMX can't really hit 1080p60 and has to use dynamic resolution, just as Wipeout HD did on PS3.)

I don't think that the technical issues are even all that important. If the Switch was a popular platform to release AAA games on, then it'll get them even if they have to be cut down. However. it's pretty hostile for AAA games, so Nintendo is giving a lot of reasons for the big publishers to avoid Switch releases.

 

[Hermii]

Yes, a small fast cache can help make up for low main memory bandwidth. That is indeed how 360, Xbox One, and WiiU elevated their results. Where your argument breaks down is when you add Switch to that category. It does not have such a cache--no ESRAM, no EDRAM. The only sizeable memory is the main memory, with the low bandwidth.

The tx1 supports tile based rendering which can reduce bandwith requirements significantly. Since Zelda was developed for the Wii U, it probably doesnt utilise tbr and fp16 nearly as efficiently as it could have.

Im not expecting magic out of the Switch, but I don't think Zelda is maxing it out by far.

 

[TLZ]

What makes you think the Switch audience care for games like RDR?

What makes you think they don't? People went crazy when they heard skyrim on the move. Now imagine GTA, rdr, souls games, FF, etc on the move. They'd go insane.

 

[b00_thegh0st]

What makes you think they don't? People went crazy when they heard skyrim on the move. Now imagine GTA, rdr, souls games, FF, etc on the move. They'd go insane.

Remember Chinatown Wars DS? That tanked hard despite being a gem of a game. The majority of the GTA crowd (young adult males) doesn't want to be associated with Nintendo "kiddy" image. The sleekness of the Switch hardware may alleviate that a bit though.

Edit: Souls and FF, that's another story. Anything Japanese actually.

 

[Mokujin]

I don't know about RDR but seeing how GTAV sales hold amazingly strong even right now it would certainly be a pretty safe bet for Rockstar if they decided to do something for Switch, would seem like a pretty easy port for a number of reasons also.

 

[4Tran]

Remember Chinatown Wars DS? That tanked hard despite being a gem of a game. The majority of the GTA crowd (young adult males) doesn't want to be associated with Nintendo "kiddy" image. The sleekness of the Switch hardware may alleviate that a bit though.

Nah, Nintendo fans would play those games just fine. The big question though is whether they would buy those games on the Switch when the same game would be better on a different console or a PC. The AAA publishers are making the same calculation, and they don't seem to think so.

 

[PROOP]

What are the chances that Nintendo keeps the hardware architecture with Nvidia and ARM to be able to roll out new versions of the switch that have higher graphical capabilities ala PS4Pro and Scorpio? Just every 3-4 years, roll out a new switch version that is compatible with the previous version, and by v3, the original switches would be phased out, but the latest ones would still run the original switch software. Is such a thing possible and would it make sense?

 

[b00_thegh0st]

What are the chances that Nintendo keeps the hardware architecture with Nvidia and ARM to be able to roll out new versions of the switch that have higher graphical capabilities ala PS4Pro and Scorpio? Just every 3-4 years, roll out a new switch version that is compatible with the previous version, and by v3, the original switches would be phased out, but the latest ones would still run the original switch software. Is such a thing possible and would it make sense?

I don't see how that cannot be the plan. But then, it's Nintendo.

 

[Skittzo0413]

What are the chances that Nintendo keeps the hardware architecture with Nvidia and ARM to be able to roll out new versions of the switch that have higher graphical capabilities ala PS4Pro and Scorpio? Just every 3-4 years, roll out a new switch version that is compatible with the previous version, and by v3, the original switches would be phased out, but the latest ones would still run the original switch software. Is such a thing possible and would it make sense?

One of the theories (which could wind up being complete BS) is that Nintendo is preparing a dock which has its own GPU, such that you'd be using the base Switch tablet with an upgraded dock to get 4k rendering for Switch games.

So it would be a much better value proposition than the PS4Pro or Scorpio, since it's an upgrade that works with the existing unit (like an N64 expansion pack) rather than a full on console replacement.

Now, we have no idea how feasible this is but Nintendo has a patent detailing this (search for SCD patent), and the Foxconn leak which is partially debunked now (at least the leaker's speculation is debunked) states that a much more powerful Switch devkit was also being made.

 

[z0m3le]

There were never any such days. Arguments about who has better graphics have existed exactly as long as video games.

And this is a very good thing. Games are worse when the graphics are bad. Games are worse when the framerate is bad. Saying, "I don't care about graphics" is the exact same statement as "I don't care how good a game is."


The qualifier "at some level" makes this statement meaningless. The question is how reduced the games would have to be, and the answer seems to be "substantially". To imply a different answer, you carefully equate Switch's per-core performance with PS4 and its number of cores with PC, ignoring that PS4 has more than twice as many cores, and PC has more than twice the per-core performance. RAM quantity is decent, but you also omit the real bottleneck on the system, the memory bandwidth. No matter the IPC or the packed math or the modern shader architecture, Switch has a memory bus no faster than PS3. This is going to really limit its results. (It's likely why FAST RMX can't really hit 1080p60 and has to use dynamic resolution, just as Wipeout HD did on PS3.)

I didn't omit any of those points. I agree with all of them. My statement is still true. 3rd party multiplatform software isn't the killer app it is on PS4. It comes down to Switch's exclusive software offerings and the portable nature of the device.

If Switch is a hit, third parties will bring their games over, substantial reductions in fidelity is something we can't be sure about really, texture sizes should be decent, single threaded performance means that code should be capable of being brought over, and while PS4 has twice the cores, they don't run faster, and code is easier to manage on fewer cores. Very few games are ever going to utilize 5-6 CPU cores on PS4 anywhere near 100% and with Nvidia's API gains, the reduction to CPU overhead should give some leeway to developers here.

Nintendo has a potential hit on their hands and the hardware is good enough to realize that potential, it's up to Nintendo to realize that potential, but it is absolutely there and there is nothing like the Switch on the market, as it replaces the 3DS it will increase it's value even more so. It's a wait and see, but things do look optimistic to say the least.

 

[Sayad]

What are the chances that Nintendo keeps the hardware architecture with Nvidia and ARM to be able to roll out new versions of the switch that have higher graphical capabilities ala PS4Pro and Scorpio? Just every 3-4 years, roll out a new switch version that is compatible with the previous version, and by v3, the original switches would be phased out, but the latest ones would still run the original switch software. Is such a thing possible and would it make sense?

That's most probably is the case, regular consoles cycles are an unnecessary inconvenience for the industry at this point and if anyone know about this, it's Nintendo.

 

[The_Lump]

Nah, Nintendo fans would play those games just fine. The big question though is whether they would buy those games on the Switch when the same game would be better on a different console or a PC. The AAA publishers are making the same calculation, and they don't seem to think so.

A bit early to draw that conclusion, I think. Can fully understand them taking a 'wait and see' approach given how WiiU went. The next year will tell us how much they have been willing to gamble and what 3rd party support will really look like.

 

[fallingdove]

Funny thing is that if Switch is truly successful we may have a chance down the road to a more capable home Switch compatible system, so this approach can potentially be a win-win for everyone.

More capable yes. This would happen regardless of switch success. There has never been a less capable generation than the one previous. But there is no way that Nintendo gets some signal that Switch success means that their next step will need to be portability + power on the level of a PS5. If the switch is successful, expect Nintendo to double down on gimmicks and place even less importance on power.

 

[Skittzo0413]

Nah, Nintendo fans would play those games just fine. The big question though is whether they would buy those games on the Switch when the same game would be better on a different console or a PC. The AAA publishers are making the same calculation, and they don't seem to think so.

Considering Nintendo just doubled their production plans for next year it might be a sign that they've secured some of these AAA games coming this year. I fully expect AC and CoD to hit, and depending on how well the Switch sells through this year I could easily see more third party games being announced too.

It's apparently part of the plan to not be releasing too many late ports around the launch period, so I think we'll wind up getting a good sense of third party support closer to E3 and beyond than we have now.

 

[wonderful103]

But there is no way that Nintendo gets some signal that Switch success means that their next step will need to be portability + power on the level of a PS5. If the switch is successful, expect Nintendo to double down on gimmicks and place even less importance on power.

Apparently we're painfully unaware of the laws of physics here.

 

[PdotMichael]

The lack of fast mobile ram makes any ambitions for some powerful hybrid plain impossible in the next half decade.

 

[lwilliams3]

Considering Nintendo just doubled their production plans for next year it might be a sign that they've secured some of these AAA games coming this year. I fully expect AC and CoD to hit, and depending on how well the Switch sells through this year I could easily see more third party games being announced too.

It's apparently part of the plan to not be releasing too many late ports around the launch period, so I think we'll wind up getting a good sense of third party support closer to E3 and beyond than we have now.

Yep. Beat me to this point.

Honestly all you wrote here is some nice wishes, let see it done first. Because the first game developed specifically for Switch will be running at 900p and it's far from being as complex as Zelda is. In the end the TX1 can do so much and I would be careful about pushing what can it do into dreams territory.

edit: a couple of you are pushing this very optimistic approach about Switch being able to do some wizardry and then you are surprised when people expect too much from a handheld.

What exactly are your expectations for the Switch compared to last gen and current gen? I don't see anything in Donnie's post that should be classified as "dreams," "wizardry," or whatever.

 

[Mokujin]

More capable yes. This would happen regardless of switch success. There has never been a less capable generation than the one previous. But there is no way that Nintendo gets some signal that Switch success means that their next step will need to be portability + power on the level of a PS5. If the switch is successful, expect Nintendo to double down on gimmicks and place even less importance on power.

That's not what I meant, I was implying that in my opinion there is a good chance that if Switch sells quite well Nintendo may release a 4k tv TV Switch (portable unit being the same), they only need about 2GF for a device to accomplish that, so more of an iterative release I was in no way talking about going with a completely new machine against PS5 X2.

And for all the talk about gimmicks, Switch is quite light on them, portability is not a gimmick because that's what the device is.

 

[Peltz]

I don't agree that Nintendo "isn't competing on power" by putting out the Switch. How much more powerful could you realistically expect the Switch to be as a portable device?

Yes, Zelda is only 900p and has a few slowdown issues. But it's a launch game, and a port at that. Xbox One and PS4 launch ports had their issues too.

Nintendo will also be putting out a nice looking 1080p/60fps game in April with MK8 Deluxe. Then another one in the Spring with ARMS.

Sure the device is not as powerful as an Xbox One S or an OG PS4, but it's still absolutely a current generation machine from a graphical perspective when it's capable of hitting 1080p 60fps gameplay more often than not, especially in such a small form factor.

 

[joesiv]

Yeah the Gamecube certainly had some weird issues like the controller that had less buttons than the competition and the smaller media size. It would be interesting to see how the Gamecube would of done if those weren't factors.

It had a lot of issues TBH. I was in highschool when it was announced and then released. Amongst my friends, the big issue was it looking like a lunchbox, and launching purple only (silly I know...).

Also perception that it was less powerful. Nintendo listed specs back then, and their specs were all atainable, whereas the competition all listed theoretical (unshaded polygon throughput for example, whereas gamecube specs were fully lit and shaded).

After the poor reception at launch, I remember reading every EGM, or was it anotherone, where it compared all versions of 3rd party games... gamecube games always looked better than PS2, usually slightly worse than Xbox, but always had worse sound, due to only dolby prologic (2 channel), limited disk space, vs the 5.1 of the competition, never had the online features, and yes, often had problems with control schemes.

Nintendo's reluctance to actually release and develop the broadband adapter was a big issue in light of the competition! But other lame decisions as I mentioned (i'm sure there are more too), also were an issue. Yes the graphics were compatible, but the rest of the console was not.

 

[conpfreak]

Not my words, it comes from the horse's mouth: Nintendo America/Europe said it's their new home console system.

Ocarina of Time was possible because the N64 was significantly more powerful than the PS1, so yeah it does fit my narrative.

The underpowered argument for Xbox One and PS4 doesn't work for one reason: as "underpowered" as they might be compared to a gaming PC, they are still the standard right now in console gaming and get all the multiplatform games for that reason.
Nintendo choosing the portability route, with a Tegra X1, makes it so third parties who want to port their games to the Switch need to do some serious optimization, and I mean, reaaaaally serious.

What comes from that ? Games a lot of people are looking forward to, like Red Dead Redemption 2 for example, have no chance of releasing on the Switch.
You mostly see little indie games (which are awesome, don't get me wrong) on the Switch when we talk third party.

This is what you said:

What I'm saying is: just like Hyrule Castle Town in OoT or TP, it is probably far from what the developers would be able and would want to achieve with more powerful hardware.

Which implies somehow the N64 or Gamecube were underpowered compared to their console counterparts because of a certain town location in the games and were not in line with the best techniques of its time. Really?

The Xbox One and PS4 are getting multiplatform games because the audience is there, not merely because of their power levels. Red Dead Redemption 2 is likely absolutely possible on the Switch if Rockstar cared to port the game. GTAV released on PS3/360 with acceptable performance even though you could absolutely tell the performance was held back by the hardware. Rise of the Tomb Raider was ported to the Xbox 360 and looked good. So it is incorrect to say it isn't possible, because it is and similar ports has happened before.

BTW, no one is buying the Switch for a possible Red Dead Redemption 2 port. They are better served by the PC version and likely already own one of the other consoles. Multiplatforms are nice, but that isn't what sells Nintendo hardware. See: Wii, DS, 3DS

 

[Skittzo0413]

The lack of fast mobile ram makes any ambitions for some powerful hybrid plain impossible in the next half decade.

You think it'll be 5 years before HBM becomes semi-affordable? I thought Samsung was trying to push a "cheaper" low power HBM module as early as 2017.

I honestly don't know, I'm just curious if that's what the current consensus is.

 

[jay]

I think when the 'Nintendo should join the hardware power race' argument is brought up, the Gamecube is usually referenced. It was a beast at the time but sold less than the Xbox and PS2. What they probably learnt is it made them very little money and they had very little differentiation. Then when they went the opposite way with the Wii they made alot of money and sold more consoles than their competitors. To them it was an important lesson.

Nintendo's problem that they largely embraced based off Yamauchi's teachings has always been third party support. They are as capable as any company of releasing powerful or weak hardware. The lesson they should've learned with the Wii is a few lightning in the bottle games can do wonders. The lesson they should have learned with the Wii U is that lightning in a bottle is rare and not a viable business strategy.

 

[The_Lump]

There were never any such days. Arguments about who has better graphics have existed exactly as long as video games.

They have, but the emphasis of fanboy wars nowadays is much more on graphics > gameplay than it was in the early 90's for example.

Sure the 8-16bit era had its console wars, but they were more about what was perceived 'cool' than what was actually statistically better in terms of graphics. Sure they existed, but he polygon wars of the late 90's were where this really took off.

And this is a very good thing. Games are worse when the graphics are bad. Games are worse when the framerate is bad. Saying, "I don't care about graphics" is the exact same statement as "I don't care how good a game is."

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, this part is is just silly. It's not that black and white at all. "Graphics" is such a broad, all encompassing term that saying "Games = worse when Graphics = bad" is asinine. Even if we simplify it into one aspects of visuals which is not subjective: Framerate;

Stable framerate is important. But is a mediocre game (in terms of gameplay) with a rock solid framerate '"better" than a good game (in terms of gameplay) with an unstable framerate? It's better in terms of framerate stability, sure. But everything else is still subjective.

Basically your statement is ham fisted as hell.

 

[Hermii]

The lack of fast mobile ram makes any ambitions for some powerful hybrid plain impossible in the next half decade.

Ofcourse it depends what you mean by "powerful", there will always have to be a compromise when its running on batteries.

Nvidia TX2 has more than double the bandwidth of TX1 and mobile tech in general advances faster than desktop tech.

 

[tbhysgb]

Switch changed my gaming life. I used to forgo gaming because the kids or wife was using the tv so I went and found other things to do. Now I can play it as a handheld and it's comfortable. Handhelds have always made my hands cramp minus the 2ds so it's nice. I don't even care about it's power level at this point.

 

[4Tran]

A bit early to draw that conclusion, I think. Can fully understand them taking a 'wait and see' approach given how WiiU went. The next year will tell us how much they have been willing to gamble and what 3rd party support will really look like.

It's a "wait and see" approach in the sense that they don't think it'll work out, and it'll take a significant amount of AAA sales successes to change their minds. It's already obvious that the Switch isn't suited to the AAA publishers' needs, so why would it take very long to draw that kind of conclusion?

Considering Nintendo just doubled their production plans for next year it might be a sign that they've secured some of these AAA games coming this year. I fully expect AC and CoD to hit, and depending on how well the Switch sells through this year I could easily see more third party games being announced too.

Nintendo's major business decisions are not based on what third parties decide to do. They may be getting another AAA game or two, but the existence of these will not cause them to ramp up their production.

 

[Skittzo0413]

They have, but the emphasis of fanboy wars nowadays is much more on graphics > gameplay than it was in the early 90's for example.

Sure the 8-16bit era had its console wars, but they were more about what was perceived 'cool' than what was actually statistically better in terms of graphics.

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, this part is is just silly. It's not that black and white at all. "Graphics" is such a broad, all encompassing term that saying "Games = worse when Graphics = bad" is asinine. Even if we simplify it into one aspects of visuals which is not subjective. Framerate.

Stable framerate is important. But is a mediocre game (in terms of gameplay) with a rock solid framerate '"better" than a good game 9in terms of gameplay) with an unstable framerate? It's better in terms of framerate stability, sure. But everything else is still subjective.

Basically your statement is ham fisted as hell.

(Adding onto your response):

I'd actually argue that games can (and sometimes do) suffer when more of the budget/development focus is placed upon the graphics. Just look at The Order 1886 or the serious lack of interactivity in Horizon.

Game development is a lot more complex than just "oooh more powerful hardware = better looking games!" You actually need to build these better looking assets, and doing so takes time and budget away from other aspects of the game like programming. One side effect of Nintendo limiting their hardware power is that their games' graphics budgets are not exploding along with the rest of the industry's.

Nintendo's major business decisions are not based on what third parties decide to do. They may be getting another AAA game or two, but the existence of these will not cause them to ramp up their production.

I very much disagree with this. Nintendo knows only too well how important third party games are to their success. Why would they make marketing deals with EA or license exclusives like Mario x Rabbids if they had no interest in acquiring third party support?

 

[jay]

(Adding onto your response):

I'd actually argue that games can (and sometimes do) suffer when more of the budget/development focus is placed upon the graphics.

This should barely be an argument because it's plainly true. There is a reason there are plenty of RPGs that are more complex than newer ones, and it's not just the consolization of PC games.

 

[Bastardo]

Funny thing is that if Switch is truly successful we may have a chance down the road to a more capable home Switch compatible system, so this approach can potentially be a win-win for everyone.

In my opinion this is one of the reasons, why the tablet and the TV cannot be used at the same time in docked mode. This opens the possibility for a "Switch TV" with a Pro Controller and without a screen for 150 bucks down the road.

 

[Hermii]

(Adding onto your response):

I'd actually argue that games can (and sometimes do) suffer when more of the budget/development focus is placed upon the graphics. Just look at The Order 1886 or the serious lack of interactivity in Horizon.

Game development is a lot more complex than just "oooh more powerful hardware = better looking games!" You actually need to build these better looking assets, and doing so takes time and budget away from other aspects of the game like programming. One side effect of Nintendo limiting their hardware power is that their games' graphics budgets are not exploding along with the rest of the industry's.

Yea if devs focus on using the hardware for putting out the most high quality graphics that is true, but BOTW for instance could easily have benefitted from more powerful hardware without increasing the budget. Just look how gorgeus some games looks in Cemu.

 

[Pasedo]

Nintendo's problem that they largely embraced based off Yamauchi's teachings has always been third party support. They are as capable as any company of releasing powerful or weak hardware. The lesson they should've learned with the Wii is a few lightning in the bottle games can do wonders. The lesson they should have learned with the Wii U is that lightning in a bottle is rare and not a viable business strategy.

It seemed they were very confident that they could replicate that same Wii success with Wii U but according to them it failed due to confusing marketing and software drought. They say they've addressed this better with Switch so it appears they are still very confident that it wasn't a lightning in the bottle but a proven strategy. If this fails again they will probably go back to the drawing board...or maybe perhaps come up with more reasons it failed and keep trying the same thing over and over lol.

 

[4Tran]

I very much disagree with this. Nintendo knows only too well how important third party games are to their success. Why would they make marketing deals with EA or license exclusives like Mario x Rabbids if they had no interest in acquiring third party support?

Those are just marketing deals; not major business decisions that cost upwards of $1B.

 

[Liabe Brave]

I didn't omit any of those points. I agree with all of them.

Agree with them or not, you did omit them. They were literally not mentioned by you.

And this is a very strange kind of agreement:

...single threaded performance means that code should be capable of being brought over, and while PS4 has twice the cores, they don't run faster, and code is easier to manage on fewer cores.

Even while admitting the architecture difference, you keep attempting to come up with reasons why three cores at [x] performance will not be an impediment to porting code designed for six cores at [x] performance. Then there's this:

Very few games are ever going to utilize 5-6 CPU cores on PS4 anywhere near 100%....

You're claiming that no PS4 game is ever CPU bound, and most become GPU bound far before the CPU is heavily utilized. This is false on the face of it, given what we know of performance profiles. Your statement also amounts to asserting that developers will see wasted resources and just leave them that way, which has the twin demerits of being both condescending and untrue.

 

[DigitalScrap]

The lack of fast mobile ram makes any ambitions for some powerful hybrid plain impossible in the next half decade.

They just released a powerful hybrid. The most powerful handheld released to date.

I know what you are saying though, and my response is more for the people saying crazy things like Nintendo's next portable should be as powerful as a PS5 that doesn't even exist yet. I guess these psychics are saying that the PS5 will also be a hybrid? Because if not, then expecting a portable to be as powerful as a big ass box with lots of active cooling and massive power draw is insanity that ignores physics.

 

[AmyS]

You think it'll be 5 years before HBM becomes semi-affordable? I thought Samsung was trying to push a "cheaper" low power HBM module as early as 2017.

I honestly don't know, I'm just curious if that's what the current consensus is.

That cheaper HBM should be great for future Tegras and therefore probably, a second generation Switch (if that's Nintendo's intention).

Edit: And 9th gen consoles like PS5, the next Xbox after Scorpio, might be able to use HBM3. It is meant to be less expensive to produce than HBM2
(but obviously more than that Low cost HBM).

 

[ZOONAMI]

Switch 2 actually has a shot at portable PS4 or is that crazy?

 

[franklyshankly]

Switch 2 actually has a shot at portable PS4 or is that crazy?

5-6 years from now? I could see it. But by then Sony and MS will be on PS5 Pro and XB2 Scorpio with 30 TFlop or something nuts.

 

[ZOONAMI]

They just released a powerful hybrid. The most powerful handheld released to date.

I know what you are saying though, and my response is more for the people saying crazy things like Nintendo's next portable should be as powerful as a PS5 that doesn't even exist yet. I guess these psychics are saying that the PS5 will also be a hybrid? Because if not, then expecting a portable to be as powerful as a big ass box with lots of active cooling and massive power draw is insanity that ignores physics.

If switch sells bonkers I actually could see Sony at least releasing another handheld with proper l2 and r2 controls, with a dock as well. Just to have something to compete in Japan.

Essentially a 3rd party machine I bet though as far as software.

 

[jon bones]

What are the chances that Nintendo keeps the hardware architecture with Nvidia and ARM to be able to roll out new versions of the switch that have higher graphical capabilities ala PS4Pro and Scorpio? Just every 3-4 years, roll out a new switch version that is compatible with the previous version, and by v3, the original switches would be phased out, but the latest ones would still run the original switch software. Is such a thing possible and would it make sense?

This makes too much sense, to be honest. Nintendo stepped away from custom hardware for lots of reasons - an easy upgrade path is likely among them.

 

[Leatherface]

They just released a powerful hybrid. The most powerful handheld released to date.

I know what you are saying though, and my response is more for the people saying crazy things like Nintendo's next portable should be as powerful as a PS5 that doesn't even exist yet. I guess these psychics are saying that the PS5 will also be a hybrid? Because if not, then expecting a portable to be as powerful as a big ass box with lots of active cooling and massive power draw is insanity that ignores physics.

This. I mean damn people. It's actually pretty fucking sweet that it is able to pull off the power it has!

..and I'm tired of people calling this system gimmicky. I feel like this is a natural evolution for Nintendo. It's not some parlor trick shit and it's not trying to be the next PS4. The Switch is a culmination of a lot of years of success and failure to get to where we are now. The fact that they are willing to experiment and bring the medium forward time and time again is a testament to their passion. I'm not sure why people were expecting PS4 level graphics out of this thing. That is insane. What they did bring to the table though is a solid and somewhat elegant piece of hardware that easily switches between mobile and traditional gaming. They were able to balance a system with decent console like graphic fidelity, battery life and portability all into one unit, at a reasonable cost no less. All while giving us so many ways to interact. To me this is a pretty fantastic achievement.


As a gamer of course we want super console magic out of this thing but at some point we have to reel in those ludicrous expectations and appreciate the Switch for what it is.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Nintendo has to differentiate itself to survive and thrive as an independent platform holder. I see no problem with what they've done.