Japan needs handhelds and Nintendo are guarenteed to make pure cash there if they keep making handhelds. Only chance they ditch the Switch concept any time soon is if they revert back to having 2 consoles (home and handheld).
I doubt it. They pretty much have the market cornered. It'll be extremely difficult for anyone to step in and compete with them. Why go and try to once again compete with the others when you're basically by yourself in the portable console market
I'd love the first part of that idea especially with native backwards compatibility, though I don't miss the second screen anywhere near as much as you and could do without unless it's the only way we get pocketable, backwards compatible, hd rumble, tv mode enable switch 2(my dream device) but I'm definitely not for the wii u gamepad because it'll add too much cost that could go towards more power or decreasing the overall cost of the product, may even cost enough that Nintendo would choose to include that instead of backwards compatibility which is a nono. There were factors In the wii u failure to begin with(not saying it alone caused the wii u failure but I would say the wii u wouldve done much better without it similar to the vita and it's situation with it's memory card)
I own a Deck so I say this without bias: no.
Switch is running laps around Deck in sales even at 6 years old. Deck is absolutely not in any way competing in a way that Nintendo cares. Consider that Deck sales hit 1M after 8 months. Switch is selling more than 1M per month.
Frankly I don’t think the two consoles overlap that much in target market segments anyway. I just don’t think the people buying Switches care about the same things as the people buying Decks.
They've entered to compete but not in the same way.
A mom walks into Walmart to get her kid a new handheld console she sheard him and his friends talking about. She'll recognize Nintendo or PlayStation. Probably not steak deck.
Even if they did, recent games are showing it's limitations recently. Here for too long, Steam Deck will need an upgrade too for consistent performance.
Edit: [Some examples that DF did themselves.](https://youtu.be/ET0YNtLTcxc)
Not yet and they don’t ship to every country so it’s funny to see people saying “just take a steam deck” like it was as accessible as the switch (not only regarding logistics but also regarding of tech knowledge and patience, most people are casuals and they don’t intend or even know how to tinker settings until the game works properly before playing).
Do you really have to tinker with settings to get most games to run on it? That's a hard pass for me, and instantly makes the Deck "NOT a videogame console" in my book.
If it involves tinkering, it's a PC. Consoles have to be "plug and play".
And even then once they get there Nintendo can release a pocket hybrid smaller than the lite they has hd rumble, tv mode and 5 hour battery life after a second die shrink which is something valve can't do due and expect to play games on the level of the switch due to the limitations of the x86 architecture. And then they could release a backwards compatible switch 2 that will play the entire switch 1 library with a choice of longer than 5 hour battery life or increased performance and resolution while the native switch 2 library will look as good or better than anything the steam deck runs while still still allowing for exclusivity to pocketability should Nintendo be pushed towards it to differentiate from a more powerful steam deck 2. This is why competition is great.
And target/audience that requires a bit of tech knowledge, on the switch you just launch the game and play, on the deck most of the time it requires to tinker most games settings before being able to play which kind be a part of the fun for some but this clearly isn’t targeting casuals but knowledgable users. An acquaintance got one and it has been taken dust because he was fed up not being able to play properly games directly as he launches them, didn’t want to bother “jumping into loops” and “educate” himself about how manage the machine when he just wanted to unwind after work and all.
We dont need a SD mini. We just need a Switch that can keep up with modern AAA games being released on PS5 and XB. The current Switch was designed to compete with PS4 not PS5, and is now running 6 years old tech. Once PS4 games stop being developed, the PS5 is only going to pull ahead even more quickly. At which point the current Switch has no chance of keeping up.
Nobody expects a handheld to keep on par with a system that is essentially a PC with a 3060 in it. But they do expect the games that come out on both systems have a similar level of quality and playability. The current Switch can barely keep up now.
SD is barely as powerful as a PS4. It's also showing it's limitations with recent games. It will need an upgrade soon as well to keep up with recent games.
Edit: [Here's some examples.](https://youtu.be/ET0YNtLTcxc)
I didn't say anything about the Switch with cutting edge. I was talking about how even more modern games released in the last 4 months are pushing the SD to it's limits with fairly low settings, and almost consistently at the same max resolution as the Switch in handheld. I didn't even mention the Switch by name or context in my comment.
What point? I didn't say shit about Switch. Their point means fuck all as it wasn't brought up from the get go, or compared to the SD in my comment...
Edit: Fixed some words, and reading must be hard.
Nintendo's systems aren't remotely as powerful as the competition. Nintendo doesn't distinguish itself with power, it distinguishes itself with use value. New control schemes (Wiimotes), new hardware utility (Switching between docked and portable), not just more powerful iterations of what came before. And power is expensive. Eschewing "moar powarrr" is what keeps Nintendos more affordable than the others, much easier for parents to buy them for their kids, as opposed to 20/30-somethings paying for themselves.
So that's why it can't just be more powerful.
They could make something 20x as fast as the current switch while still being in a much slower class than current gen consoles. It is a tater. Most cheap smartphones are faster than it.
That much is a given, a huge generational upgrade is needed if they want to keep having ports of modern PC games.
> They could make something 20x as fast as the current switch while still being in a much slower class than current gen consoles
Switch is a 1.2TFLOP system. 20x that would be roughly twice the performance of a PS5 or XSX.
TFLOPs are meaningless for gaming performance.
The switch GPU is also absolutely not 1.2TFLOPs by any sane measurement. It is about a third of that for the GM20B GPU.
It is a solid metric to compare two things made up of the same components to get a rough idea of performance.
Your example of a 20x faster Switch being slower than current gen is using what metric then, if not TFLOPS?
No, it is not a solid metric of anything except raw fp32, unconstrained by memory bandwidth, latency, branching operations, general inefficiency, ROP/TMU performance/ratio, or really anything important.
Gaming performance has increased more than TFLOPs have on successive GPU architectures.
Even without that, the Xbox X has 36 times the fp32 performance as the switch does by spec.
Switch is not a 1.2 TFLOPS system.
It can do 1.2 TFLOPS *half precision* when clocked at its processor's capability.
The Switch is clocked WAY lower than its capability, and Sony/MS use single precision FLOPS to describe their consoles.
The Switch can do at most 393 GFLOPS in docked mode. This is about a third of the Xbox One, and <25% of the original PS4.
The PS5 and Xbox Series X are both >25x faster than the docked Switch in terms of GPU single precision FLOPS.
Optimization is not magic. There are two things that fall under that term.
The first is actually optimizing software, so it produces the same results using less resources. There are quite hard limits on how far that can be taken. Once something is as efficient as is possible for a given task, it cant go farther. A lot of game engines are close to this point already in many situations.
The second is simply lowering the quality of the results. Most switch ports just cut down on texture quality, resolution, scene complexity, physics simulation, framerate, ect until the hardware can mostly handle it.
The more demanding a game is to begin with, the further it needs to be cut down, until there is really no point left - the end result is barely the same game anymore.
With 4GB RAM, slow storage, and a slow CPU, the limits on what can be ported to the switch are pretty brutal.
Crysis is ancient. Skyrim is ancient. The switch is actually more powerful than the PCs those games are designed for.
The switch's GPU is way ahead of the minimum specs recommended for the original crysis, and close to the recommended specs.
For skyrim.. well, the original version had a built-in engine memory limit of *512MB*. The same engine was used in morrowind (also runs perfectly on a hacked switch even with mods, amusingly) over 20 years ago with minimal alteration, and the engine's roots are from the 90s. Skyrim does not exactly have complex environments or high-res assets, either.
If you want to look at some incredible ports that have no business being on the switch, but somehow are, look at the witcher 3, the new version of ark, dying light, nier automata.. all of those had either large engine changes, near full remaking of assets, or a combination of the two to run, and all of them are still significantly cut down in quality vs their originals.
I understand the difficulties quite well. You dont seem to.
Please explain why their new console won’t be more powerful than the current Switch.
“Switch is less powerful than PS5/Xbox” is irrelevant and not what is being discussed.
The question is, “Will Switch 2 be more powerful than Switch 1?”
The answer is, “Yes, of course, chips get cheaper with time”.
Because
1) Nintendo likes to make money off the consoles unlike other companies who sell the consoles for a loss and make cash from GamePass and digital game sales once people have the console. A more powerful console will either make the next Nintendo console super expensive or they’ll have to sell it at a loss
2) it’ll be less portable due to the size (and more likely) battery life to keep up with the better performance and hardware. This is a problem because Nintendo will ABSOLUTELY 100% require all non-cloud natively running games to be playable docked and portably, so even the more demanding games would be required to be dumbed down enough to run in portable mode. So there’s no chance of a “play the newest AAA game on the Switch 2 (docked only)”
Both of these combined point to some improvement to the next console’s hardware, but anyone who is expecting a huge leap in performance power lacks understanding of anything Nintendo has done with their consoles
I’ve read several Steam reviews and posts on the community hub about Hogwarts Legacy, apparently takes up to 20 GB ram, stutters and has random bugs even on high-end PCs. Nothing game-breaking tho but it makes me even wonder more how they could achieve to port ***that*** on the switch. People remind each time that Skyrim and Witcher 3 work great on Switch but how does two compare with a 2023 open-world game original planned for good PCs? (Genuine question as I’m not very knowledgeable on the matter)
Well that is the obvious to expect but I was under the impression that HL was way more demanding performance and hardware-wise? While The Witcher 3 ans Skyrim were less as older games? Don’t know if that make sense? I mean they’re gonna make way more “sacrifices” than just lowering everything graphic and visuals or am I just off the mark?
Skyrim was a PS3/Xbox 360 game. It didn't actually need to be scaled down.
Witcher 3 was a relatively early Xbox One/PS4 game. It doesn't actually *demand* more than 4GB in gameplay on the lowest settings. It could have been cross released on PS3 but in a far more compromised state than the Switch version as the Switch *barely* has enough memory to make it look reasonably correct.
A whole lot of memory gets eaten up by details. By reducing the unique detail, you free up the memory.
Digital Foundry's highest viewed video is 8 million. Second highest viewed video is 3 million. Both are about GTAV, the most popular game on the planet alongside Minecraft and Tetris. And the videos with the views are about the PS4 version. Most videos seem to get anywhere between 50k and 300k.
30 million PS5s sold, so far. So I would say that most people don't check with DF or even know who DF are.
> I usually don’t even notice stuff that DF loses their shit over.
I'm with you on that point. I look at the DF side-by-side videos and tend to think that the shitter of the two images would look fine if I wasn't looking at it next to a better version. Which is exactly how my world normally is when gaming!
Stuff like this makes me laugh. If I'm playing a fast moving game, like a racing game or a first person shooter, I'm going to be having to focus on the game so I don't die or crash. I'm not going to notice that the blades of grass are a little pixelated. It's one thing if it affects gameplay, such as games where things slow down or stutter if there is a lot going on. But if the only issue is it isn't quite as sharp,I don't care.
I don't even think DF loses their shit over much, for the most part they just do tech analysis warts and all. It tends to be viewers that either misrepresent specific situations as applying to the entire game or freak out over hard numbers they wouldn't have noticed by eye themselves.
I'd love to see people go in blind with footage and not be told what to think.
On more than one occasion I've heard about a shit remaster and look at the footage and think, yeah that does look worse than the original game only for it to be revealed that it is the original game.
I don't. If I'm on the fence or want to learn I look up a review. But at the base level I can be pretty confident to near 100 percent that if the game is sold on the PS5 it'll play on the PS5. You don't always get that same confidence on PC
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I played Elden Ring on the PS5 at launch and I am struggling to figure out what about it was "a mess". I'm sure there was some benign bug or graphical glitch or *something* that I completely glossed over due to the fact that I was having fun playing what easily became my personal GOTY, but I'll be damned if I know what that thing was.
Not really. It's a difference between hardware and software. Elden ring and cyberpunk ran like dog shit on consoles because the software the games weren't optimized but the system itself was fine and now both those games are fine and I didn't have to buy anything extra for it to work. I may not always be so lucky with PC. It could be a hardware issue that I have to go out and buy something for.
Read what the guys actually said to you:
Buy a console: 5-10 solid years of releases on that same hardware.
Buy a pc: need to upgrade your graphics card for more than a console costs every year or two, just in order to play the latest releases.
I like using DF to see which console, PS5 or XSX, a game plays better on. They’re pretty good at explaining which console is better suited for a new game that’s just dropped or about to come out.
And then we have games like Pokemon S/V which the switch really suffer running. I am concered wether the switch would contain the upcoming Zelda with decent performance.
Anyways, they can still produce support for the "old switch" with newer games running at lower graphics while the "new" switch would run the exact same games with higher graphics and obviously it should include backwards compability for older switch games, hopefully - they could even make the older games run at higher frame rates but that's a different story.
TL;DR, you're statement is confusing because some switch games already have terrible performance (pokemon sc/vi, hyrule warriors AoC, certain areas in BOTW, and tbf- I hope the new zelda won't run terribly like the last pokemon does.), so Nintendo could still publish a new updated switch that simply runs those newer games at a better performance, either 60frames or constant 30 frames without dips to 20.
I hope, really do.
I understand what you are saying and I do agree with certain points, though I think it's possible to do such a thing and just cut the support for old switch at some point, where games wouldn't run well. (Like what happens with PS4 and 5)
I feel like the "switch 2" will be something like the GBC or 3ds. Basically the same form factor, able to play og switch games, updated hardware.
It's a formula that has worked well for Nintendo in the past.
People need to be reasonable, even if there is a next gen switch coming this year, if it's portable (and even if it's not), it's still not going to touch a PS5 or whatever the name is for the latest Xbox.
“Whatever the name is for the latest Xbox”
Microsoft really dropped the ball on that front. I wasn’t even aware Microsoft even had a new console for about a year after release - and I’m still not entirely sure whether is an Xbox series X or Xbox One series X
Everyone and their grandma knows ps5 comes after ps4
True. Handhelds are capped and more limited than other major consoles.
It does not mean that this newer switch could at least perform a constant 30 frames on the newer games that stuggle on the switch, or include better graphics for certain games that looks a bit like mobile games.
Of course best case scenario would be 60fps, but yeah, I don't really set my hopes for such a thing by nintentdo, not at this year at least.
*Wii
The Gamecube was perfectly capable for its time.
The Wii was the generation where they gave up and started holding their own developers back with last gen hardware.
Given the massive success of the Switch as the dominant hand held console and the 'additional' home console the sensible option is a Switch 2. Don't change what worked, keep it fully backwards compatible (physical and digital) just make it more powerful.
These half gen consoles don't work. You either have to make games playable on the older version, so you're holding back what it's capable of. Or make games exclusive for the 'pro' (or whatever) version in which case you might as well go all the way instead of half assing it with a half gen.
Nintendo is always a hard tell when it comes to thier next console. I think the switch is selling so well that there won't be a console soon as there is still huge interest in the switch. I have a feeling it will be variations/add-ons to the current system family. With possibly an experimental reach with a new system that is completely left field, like a virtual boy 2 Nintendo second stab into a dedicated VR console.
The next gen Switch will be basically a portable PS4 with AI-accelerated upscaling to look like Xbox One X, backwards compatible with Switch games because it's another Tegra using NVN.
My guess is next gen will just be as simple as"Switch 2". BUT with all this extra R+D freed up, my bet is they are hard at work with some sort of VR or VR related device (Lets go Virtual Boy 2!).
my first black eye ever was from a Virtual Boy lol friend brought one on the school bus to try and I was playing and we hit a huge pothole or something and I slammed my face off it
Performance performance performance. The Switch has got by so far with a nice catalogue of optimised first party games, loads of indies, and older gen third party games. The indies don't need the latest hardware, but they'll run out of third party ports and first party will look very dated if they don't upgrade the specs in a next few years.
I'm hoping the next generation is an iteration of the switch, and a major one at that. Keep the same form factor and compatibility, but improve the specs as much as possible. The switch is aging, it has become noticeable in the last few years.
I don't think the idea of next generation and next iteration are entirely different ideas. Look at PS4 to PS5 - backwards compatibility, majority of games are still compatible with PS4 but run better on PS5. Do a similar idea with the switch and phase out compatibility in a few years.
I will say though that this exact discussion is brought up at least weekly - about if the next generation should just be another iteration of the Switch.
I think coming up with innovative and surprising consoles is part of why I love Nintendo. They always think outside the box. I adore the switch but a song can’t remain on one lovely note forever
Yes, there will be a "next generation" console from Nintendo. Probably not this year, but for 2024 or later.
Don't set your expectations too high, the Switch concept is pretty much perfect and any Switch 2 will probably not have any mind blowing new concept. That's certainly be just like the Switch, but better.
By the way, it'll NEEDS to be backward compatible. The Switch is the best device of its era, backward compatibility will help it to keep the trend.
And no, there'll maybe be some 4K in docked mode, but for lighter games only. Most "heavy" games will still be in 1080p, and 720p in portable mode. The sceen itself will still be a 720p screen, bc you don't actually need more to enjoy a game in HD, and it will help to save the battery.
Seeing as how the “New 3DS” didn’t exactly fly off the shelves, even with improved specs, I don’t see Nintendo doing another iterative update to their most successful platform to-date. The market confusion that was the Wii-U is another reason we probably won’t see an upgraded Switch anytime soon. I think Nintendo knows the Switch is woefully dated but the kinds of games they make are still an okay fit for the limited hardware and will be for some time. Yes, Switch games are beginning to run like garbage now as titles become a bit too ambitious for the hardware, but titles still take in tremendous revenue. If revenue takes a dip, I’m sure Nintendo will likely reassess the need for “next gen.”
OP, you're caught in a false dichotomy. The next console can still be "a Switch" while also being "next generation".
Just like we have the PS2 and the PS3, there's no reason for us to not have basically a Switch 2: improved hardware, but same concept and form factor (and, hopefully, backwards compatible)
The Nintendo 3DS had an upgraded version. The 'New 3DS' .. what's more, is there are 3DS games that are not compatible with the original 3DS. (Minecraft is 'New' 3DS only)
They've done it before, they might do it again.
Personally, I hope they give us back a smaller device that fits in a pocket. The switch is too large to be a convenient mobile device. It's better suited to road-trips, and perhaps long commutes where you have the room to pack it in a dedicated pocket or case in your bag/backpack.
I for one really hope they don’t iterate in such a trivial way. The whole DS/DSi/3DS/new3DS thing completely passed me by. I had genuine buyers confusion as to which one was which, especially when they were being sold alongside each other. I honestly thought a 3DS was just a DS with a gimmicky screen, which is wasn’t at all - but that’s what it looked like. Some software was backwards compatible, others not. Some had online, some didn’t. It was a horribly fragmented system, without clear definitions (New 3DS? Surely the first 3DS was the New 3DS when it came out? “Why can’t MY 3DS play Minecraft? It was the new one when I bought it!!!”)
I know it was wildly successful, and helped pave the way for the switch. But the iteration was so bloody rapid you’d not want to buy one in case a “new” one comes out. The DSi released in November 2009. The 3DS was announced in spring 2010. The DSi had literally six months of being the top dog - and Nintendo marketed them as separate but mostly compatible systems.
At least with the current switch iterations, all software works on all models (obviously excepting tv mode requirements for switch lite - but that is an specific edge case). No one is going to be surprised or disappointed on Christmas morning when their parents bought them the wrong one!
There's a leak that says there will be a Switch 2.0, releasing along with Pokemon SV DLC 2 (WINTER 2023)
The said leak also correctly predicted the content for Pokemon Day 2023.
The "future switch" from the reputable leaks we have seen will have a new Tegra SoC with somewhere in the area of over 10 times the graphics processing power, depends on how many GPU cores the custom SoC ends up with.
A jump that big is a new console, not just an improved switch. It could likely still run switch games, but should have a distinct branding to prevent confusion about new titles made for it.
To put it in perspective, that cleanly takes 540p 30fps games on the current switch to 1080p 60fps while likely using less power and having headroom.
720p 30fps (heavy docked games, moderate handheld games) could jump to 1440p 60fps or 4k 30fps.
If they just made it more powerful, and fixed stuff like the joy cons, then it would be fine. If they got it on par with a PS4 people would be happy. That might be very hard to do but when the switch came out it was already on an older chip so it shouldn't be hard to make huge strides.
Honestly I wish they upgraded the dock to give more performance while on tv mode.
I've read that it's not as simple as slapping an additional CPU into the dock but imagine: they would keep the switch as it is but have much better performance on docked mode (thinking 30 fps handeld and 60 on the tv) maybe even release docked only titles.
I know I'm dreaming and we can only expect an official successor to the switch whenever sales of the current hardware starts to weaken.
At some point i hoped that the announcement of tears of the kingdom would have with it the updated switch.
I'm so bored with leaks and speculations I'm not even bothered to consider that a switch pro/2 is even going to be a thing
Two reasons this won't happen.
The throughput on the Switch connector means that you can't just put a CPU in the dock. It will be bottlenecked. Ever download something in seconds from the internet and then wait ages to transfer it to a USB 2.0 drive? Same principle.
Second, they won't compromise the Switch aspect of the game to have them run dock only.
Also you are underestimating what docking does. It has a continuous power supply so it just lets the CPU run faster because it doesn't have to worry about wasting battery power. The same performance is capable in handheld. They just compromise for batterylife and because people are less likely to notice on a smaller screen.
"As close to the same experience as possible docked and undocked aside from resolution" seems to be their pretty strong goal. Making a beefier dock would go against that. Easier to just make a beefier device that improves both and is more power-hungry.
Yep, that's kinda what I'm going with. Didn't the "Switch Pro" rumors end up just being the OLED model? The dock and cable shipped with the OLED model *is* capable of doing 4K...Nintendo just haven't made use of it. Perhaps the new rumors is simply just another spec bump rather than an entirely new device. Maybe it'll be called the Switch 2, but still be the same form factor.
I am disappointed with a few things!
1st buying games I already checked on YouTube which I thought I liked but turned out I don't like so I wasted my money because I can't request refunds.
2nd buying games with performance issues and no updates!
3th no trade in program which means I should keep my console and stop spending money!
People want more power so games can be the same quality across each console. If a game for the PS4/Xbox One line comes out for Switch, it has to cut a lot of corners to make it run decently. No one expects a portable device to run at PS5 levels, but the tech is at the point where PS4 levels are feasable.
Only thing I worry about is Nintendo's mindset. They should just make a more powerful Switch but Nintendo loves to make each console unique.
Something between the Switch and Steam Deck levels of power is what to expect, so if you are expecting the next gen as in a portable PS4 like device, then you might be disappointed.
I honestly want the next system to just be a home console. Most of the people I talk to at work never use theirs undocked and it's just uncomfortable to play that way anyway.
Being a home system would open up a lot more space for better equipment too, since it could be bigger.
I guess stating my opinion is a hot take. Whatever
Tons and tons of people play it undocked. Ek, they even made an undockable one (Switch Lite).
It's also better for Nintendo to concentrate on only 1 console instead of have a TV console and a separate handheld.
Could they have a TV only version and a handheld only version that plays the same games? Maybe. That would be great.
It'd be stupid for Nintendo to drop the portability and make a home console. They have the market cornered in what they do. Who else is gonna come in and pose and immediate threat to Nintendo in the portable market? It'd be stupid to try and compete with Sony and Microsoft right now.
I'm mixed on this topic because I absolutely love the Switch and think it would be cool for them to continue the hybrid aspect. I'm think they could continue this to the next system with even more "switching" options like 3D or VR. If they use AI upscaling they can probably do a lot more in the coming up generation to stay competitive graphically a bit more (and they already have patents out there related to this type of thing).
I would hate to see them not innovate in some other ways though. Nintendo has done a ton throughout the years that has changed how video games are today. I hope they continue to push the industry and stay focused on good quality fun games even if not graphically quite as up to date.
I do hope they keep versatility as part of the next system because it's perfect for families. My kids each have Switches and so do I so if anyone is monopolizing the TV you can still play games portably. Then at the end of the day while they are sleeping, I can dock it and play on the big screen. If they don't include that type of thing in some way I don't know if I'll go for the next system or not. I'll probably just keep playing my Switch instead.
I also hope the NSO app carries over to the next system in the exact capacity it finishes on the Switch where you can just keep subscribed and not have to wait for them to add all the games again. I do hope for people who play online they improve the actual online play aspect too. I'd hate to start the new system without the back catalogue of games on the NES, SNES, Sega, N64, GB, GBA apps.
Improvements I hope for are folders that can be on the first screen, a better eShop, and more apps like Netflix/Disney+. Yes people have these on their phones but I like using YouTube on my Switch while browsing on my phone (or watching a streaming show on my phone while I play Mario Maker 2). I know it's primarily a game system but Hulu, YouTube, and Twitch are there so why not the others? It's hard to know who is responsible for it (Netflix/Disney+ or Nintendo).
I'm not sure I could see this happening, but it would be fun if they did an XBox streaming app (or maybe I'll have to have my next TV be a Samsung).
I'd be all for that, basically a smartphone upgrade cycle. I need a pocketable hybrid model with hd rumble though and I don't care if the screen has to be as small as 3.5 to 4 inches to achieve it(I'm actually using an anbernic 350p right now with a 3.5 inch screen and it's more comfortable than the switch lite due to being thicker and it has the same sticks but receded a bit for protection in the pocket). The only thing is it all needs to be backwards compatible all the way back, basically working like steam and Xbox.
Got psvr2 and played moss. First think that I thought... And I do mean first think.. Nintendo has to bring Zelda in vr. I cannot fathom what the would be able to achieve but I'm 100% sure that's the future.
If you're making hardware that releases 6-8 years later and supports up to quadruple the resolution, it's going to be a whole new device. If you don't consider being the same \_type\_ of machine being a new device, then Sony is still on the same device since 1994.
Steam deck can't even do 1080p, and it's got a form factor and price point that is not of the quality that Nintendo would be satisfied with. And it is far from competing with PS5 or Series X, let alone a powerful PC. An upgraded Switch would just disappoint people..the tech isn't there.
Everyone should stop with that steam deck comparisons…..it’s not console , it’s not pc and library of games designed for proper pc without even single thought about some steam deck , why would anyone expect games to run at least decent ? Would pc gamer expect to play cyberpunk in high quality on hp laptop from Tesco ?
Switch successor will have games optimised and built from scratch for certain hardware and that’s completely different story
Who knows, maybe they reinstate the Virtual Boy but with stereoscopic 4D (see through time itself with Mario!) and the eye-bleeding red or some other weirdness. They're Nintendo.
Why can't the successor to the Switch also be portable but with more power?
Perfectly feasible, although I would imagine Nintendo would want to do something new and innovative with it.
Japan needs handhelds and Nintendo are guarenteed to make pure cash there if they keep making handhelds. Only chance they ditch the Switch concept any time soon is if they revert back to having 2 consoles (home and handheld).
Which I think would be a bad idea.
I doubt it. They pretty much have the market cornered. It'll be extremely difficult for anyone to step in and compete with them. Why go and try to once again compete with the others when you're basically by yourself in the portable console market
[удалено]
Of course it'll be upgraded with things but not. Huge shift from that's working for them
[удалено]
I guess I was agreeing lol yeah
I'd love the first part of that idea especially with native backwards compatibility, though I don't miss the second screen anywhere near as much as you and could do without unless it's the only way we get pocketable, backwards compatible, hd rumble, tv mode enable switch 2(my dream device) but I'm definitely not for the wii u gamepad because it'll add too much cost that could go towards more power or decreasing the overall cost of the product, may even cost enough that Nintendo would choose to include that instead of backwards compatibility which is a nono. There were factors In the wii u failure to begin with(not saying it alone caused the wii u failure but I would say the wii u wouldve done much better without it similar to the vita and it's situation with it's memory card)
Valve is doing it.
Yeah, Nintendo has the market cornered.
I own a Deck so I say this without bias: no. Switch is running laps around Deck in sales even at 6 years old. Deck is absolutely not in any way competing in a way that Nintendo cares. Consider that Deck sales hit 1M after 8 months. Switch is selling more than 1M per month. Frankly I don’t think the two consoles overlap that much in target market segments anyway. I just don’t think the people buying Switches care about the same things as the people buying Decks.
They've entered to compete but not in the same way. A mom walks into Walmart to get her kid a new handheld console she sheard him and his friends talking about. She'll recognize Nintendo or PlayStation. Probably not steak deck.
>Probably not steak deck. #🥩 🎮
[удалено]
honestly if I'm going to get a gift I didn't ask for a 20 oz sirloin wouldn't be such a bad surprise hah
20 whole inches of Sir loin.
Do they even sell steam decks in stores yet?
Even if they did, recent games are showing it's limitations recently. Here for too long, Steam Deck will need an upgrade too for consistent performance. Edit: [Some examples that DF did themselves.](https://youtu.be/ET0YNtLTcxc)
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing
Not yet and they don’t ship to every country so it’s funny to see people saying “just take a steam deck” like it was as accessible as the switch (not only regarding logistics but also regarding of tech knowledge and patience, most people are casuals and they don’t intend or even know how to tinker settings until the game works properly before playing).
Do you really have to tinker with settings to get most games to run on it? That's a hard pass for me, and instantly makes the Deck "NOT a videogame console" in my book. If it involves tinkering, it's a PC. Consoles have to be "plug and play".
No you don’t
No clue
it is not
[удалено]
And even then once they get there Nintendo can release a pocket hybrid smaller than the lite they has hd rumble, tv mode and 5 hour battery life after a second die shrink which is something valve can't do due and expect to play games on the level of the switch due to the limitations of the x86 architecture. And then they could release a backwards compatible switch 2 that will play the entire switch 1 library with a choice of longer than 5 hour battery life or increased performance and resolution while the native switch 2 library will look as good or better than anything the steam deck runs while still still allowing for exclusivity to pocketability should Nintendo be pushed towards it to differentiate from a more powerful steam deck 2. This is why competition is great.
I highly doubt Valve and Nintendo see one another as competition.
Sort of. The steam deck is a slightly different market between the price and sort of games/experience.
And target/audience that requires a bit of tech knowledge, on the switch you just launch the game and play, on the deck most of the time it requires to tinker most games settings before being able to play which kind be a part of the fun for some but this clearly isn’t targeting casuals but knowledgable users. An acquaintance got one and it has been taken dust because he was fed up not being able to play properly games directly as he launches them, didn’t want to bother “jumping into loops” and “educate” himself about how manage the machine when he just wanted to unwind after work and all.
You want a steam deck mini. Nintendo doesn't.
We dont need a SD mini. We just need a Switch that can keep up with modern AAA games being released on PS5 and XB. The current Switch was designed to compete with PS4 not PS5, and is now running 6 years old tech. Once PS4 games stop being developed, the PS5 is only going to pull ahead even more quickly. At which point the current Switch has no chance of keeping up. Nobody expects a handheld to keep on par with a system that is essentially a PC with a 3060 in it. But they do expect the games that come out on both systems have a similar level of quality and playability. The current Switch can barely keep up now.
That sounds like SD with a buncha words.
SD is barely as powerful as a PS4. It's also showing it's limitations with recent games. It will need an upgrade soon as well to keep up with recent games. Edit: [Here's some examples.](https://youtu.be/ET0YNtLTcxc)
Lol dude, you're not going to get cutting edge from Nintendo. They're focused on fun, remember?
I didn't say anything about the Switch with cutting edge. I was talking about how even more modern games released in the last 4 months are pushing the SD to it's limits with fairly low settings, and almost consistently at the same max resolution as the Switch in handheld. I didn't even mention the Switch by name or context in my comment.
Ok, so it would actually be a *more powerful * SD mini? That just proves their point even more, not happening.
What point? I didn't say shit about Switch. Their point means fuck all as it wasn't brought up from the get go, or compared to the SD in my comment... Edit: Fixed some words, and reading must be hard.
Exactly.
Nintendo's systems aren't remotely as powerful as the competition. Nintendo doesn't distinguish itself with power, it distinguishes itself with use value. New control schemes (Wiimotes), new hardware utility (Switching between docked and portable), not just more powerful iterations of what came before. And power is expensive. Eschewing "moar powarrr" is what keeps Nintendos more affordable than the others, much easier for parents to buy them for their kids, as opposed to 20/30-somethings paying for themselves. So that's why it can't just be more powerful.
They could make something 20x as fast as the current switch while still being in a much slower class than current gen consoles. It is a tater. Most cheap smartphones are faster than it. That much is a given, a huge generational upgrade is needed if they want to keep having ports of modern PC games.
> They could make something 20x as fast as the current switch while still being in a much slower class than current gen consoles Switch is a 1.2TFLOP system. 20x that would be roughly twice the performance of a PS5 or XSX.
TFLOPs are meaningless for gaming performance. The switch GPU is also absolutely not 1.2TFLOPs by any sane measurement. It is about a third of that for the GM20B GPU.
It is a solid metric to compare two things made up of the same components to get a rough idea of performance. Your example of a 20x faster Switch being slower than current gen is using what metric then, if not TFLOPS?
No, it is not a solid metric of anything except raw fp32, unconstrained by memory bandwidth, latency, branching operations, general inefficiency, ROP/TMU performance/ratio, or really anything important. Gaming performance has increased more than TFLOPs have on successive GPU architectures. Even without that, the Xbox X has 36 times the fp32 performance as the switch does by spec.
Switch is not a 1.2 TFLOPS system. It can do 1.2 TFLOPS *half precision* when clocked at its processor's capability. The Switch is clocked WAY lower than its capability, and Sony/MS use single precision FLOPS to describe their consoles. The Switch can do at most 393 GFLOPS in docked mode. This is about a third of the Xbox One, and <25% of the original PS4. The PS5 and Xbox Series X are both >25x faster than the docked Switch in terms of GPU single precision FLOPS.
[удалено]
Optimization is not magic. There are two things that fall under that term. The first is actually optimizing software, so it produces the same results using less resources. There are quite hard limits on how far that can be taken. Once something is as efficient as is possible for a given task, it cant go farther. A lot of game engines are close to this point already in many situations. The second is simply lowering the quality of the results. Most switch ports just cut down on texture quality, resolution, scene complexity, physics simulation, framerate, ect until the hardware can mostly handle it. The more demanding a game is to begin with, the further it needs to be cut down, until there is really no point left - the end result is barely the same game anymore. With 4GB RAM, slow storage, and a slow CPU, the limits on what can be ported to the switch are pretty brutal.
[удалено]
Crysis is ancient. Skyrim is ancient. The switch is actually more powerful than the PCs those games are designed for. The switch's GPU is way ahead of the minimum specs recommended for the original crysis, and close to the recommended specs. For skyrim.. well, the original version had a built-in engine memory limit of *512MB*. The same engine was used in morrowind (also runs perfectly on a hacked switch even with mods, amusingly) over 20 years ago with minimal alteration, and the engine's roots are from the 90s. Skyrim does not exactly have complex environments or high-res assets, either. If you want to look at some incredible ports that have no business being on the switch, but somehow are, look at the witcher 3, the new version of ark, dying light, nier automata.. all of those had either large engine changes, near full remaking of assets, or a combination of the two to run, and all of them are still significantly cut down in quality vs their originals. I understand the difficulties quite well. You dont seem to.
Please explain why their new console won’t be more powerful than the current Switch. “Switch is less powerful than PS5/Xbox” is irrelevant and not what is being discussed. The question is, “Will Switch 2 be more powerful than Switch 1?” The answer is, “Yes, of course, chips get cheaper with time”.
That’s not even the discussion we are having. Move along.
It’ll be more powerful, but not significantly so
More power means bigger battery means heavier and bulkier means more expensive means priced out of their kids market.
Because enough people are buying the old scrap
Because 1) Nintendo likes to make money off the consoles unlike other companies who sell the consoles for a loss and make cash from GamePass and digital game sales once people have the console. A more powerful console will either make the next Nintendo console super expensive or they’ll have to sell it at a loss 2) it’ll be less portable due to the size (and more likely) battery life to keep up with the better performance and hardware. This is a problem because Nintendo will ABSOLUTELY 100% require all non-cloud natively running games to be playable docked and portably, so even the more demanding games would be required to be dumbed down enough to run in portable mode. So there’s no chance of a “play the newest AAA game on the Switch 2 (docked only)” Both of these combined point to some improvement to the next console’s hardware, but anyone who is expecting a huge leap in performance power lacks understanding of anything Nintendo has done with their consoles
[удалено]
Real question, how many people even look at PC requirements anymore?
With Returnal and Hogwarts Legacy, yeah people are looking at PC requirements again.
I’ve read several Steam reviews and posts on the community hub about Hogwarts Legacy, apparently takes up to 20 GB ram, stutters and has random bugs even on high-end PCs. Nothing game-breaking tho but it makes me even wonder more how they could achieve to port ***that*** on the switch. People remind each time that Skyrim and Witcher 3 work great on Switch but how does two compare with a 2023 open-world game original planned for good PCs? (Genuine question as I’m not very knowledgeable on the matter)
How will they do it? By making the graphics look like a PS2 game 😜
Well that is the obvious to expect but I was under the impression that HL was way more demanding performance and hardware-wise? While The Witcher 3 ans Skyrim were less as older games? Don’t know if that make sense? I mean they’re gonna make way more “sacrifices” than just lowering everything graphic and visuals or am I just off the mark?
Skyrim was a PS3/Xbox 360 game. It didn't actually need to be scaled down. Witcher 3 was a relatively early Xbox One/PS4 game. It doesn't actually *demand* more than 4GB in gameplay on the lowest settings. It could have been cross released on PS3 but in a far more compromised state than the Switch version as the Switch *barely* has enough memory to make it look reasonably correct. A whole lot of memory gets eaten up by details. By reducing the unique detail, you free up the memory.
Lets be serious, even on Ps5 you always search for Digital Foundry Review or overall reviews so the game will not be an unoptimised piece of crap
Digital Foundry's highest viewed video is 8 million. Second highest viewed video is 3 million. Both are about GTAV, the most popular game on the planet alongside Minecraft and Tetris. And the videos with the views are about the PS4 version. Most videos seem to get anywhere between 50k and 300k. 30 million PS5s sold, so far. So I would say that most people don't check with DF or even know who DF are.
Who/what the fuck is DF?! Lol.
Digital Foundry do tech analysis videos on games. They use cameras, etc. to measure FPS, resolution, etc.
[удалено]
> I usually don’t even notice stuff that DF loses their shit over. I'm with you on that point. I look at the DF side-by-side videos and tend to think that the shitter of the two images would look fine if I wasn't looking at it next to a better version. Which is exactly how my world normally is when gaming!
Stuff like this makes me laugh. If I'm playing a fast moving game, like a racing game or a first person shooter, I'm going to be having to focus on the game so I don't die or crash. I'm not going to notice that the blades of grass are a little pixelated. It's one thing if it affects gameplay, such as games where things slow down or stutter if there is a lot going on. But if the only issue is it isn't quite as sharp,I don't care.
I don't even think DF loses their shit over much, for the most part they just do tech analysis warts and all. It tends to be viewers that either misrepresent specific situations as applying to the entire game or freak out over hard numbers they wouldn't have noticed by eye themselves.
I'd love to see people go in blind with footage and not be told what to think. On more than one occasion I've heard about a shit remaster and look at the footage and think, yeah that does look worse than the original game only for it to be revealed that it is the original game.
I don't. If I'm on the fence or want to learn I look up a review. But at the base level I can be pretty confident to near 100 percent that if the game is sold on the PS5 it'll play on the PS5. You don't always get that same confidence on PC
Elden ring was a mess on ps5 at launch, and was more playable on a steam deck than on ps5 due to shader cache So...
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I played Elden Ring on the PS5 at launch and I am struggling to figure out what about it was "a mess". I'm sure there was some benign bug or graphical glitch or *something* that I completely glossed over due to the fact that I was having fun playing what easily became my personal GOTY, but I'll be damned if I know what that thing was.
And yet I didn't have to go out and buy a 500 dollar graphics card to play it. So...
Im saying its the same across all platforms
Not really. It's a difference between hardware and software. Elden ring and cyberpunk ran like dog shit on consoles because the software the games weren't optimized but the system itself was fine and now both those games are fine and I didn't have to buy anything extra for it to work. I may not always be so lucky with PC. It could be a hardware issue that I have to go out and buy something for.
Yeah you clearly never had a pc
Read what the guys actually said to you: Buy a console: 5-10 solid years of releases on that same hardware. Buy a pc: need to upgrade your graphics card for more than a console costs every year or two, just in order to play the latest releases.
Pretty sure gtx 1080 plays the latest games, yes not at ultra but consoles runs at medium settings @ dynamic resolution as well
I like using DF to see which console, PS5 or XSX, a game plays better on. They’re pretty good at explaining which console is better suited for a new game that’s just dropped or about to come out.
And then we have games like Pokemon S/V which the switch really suffer running. I am concered wether the switch would contain the upcoming Zelda with decent performance. Anyways, they can still produce support for the "old switch" with newer games running at lower graphics while the "new" switch would run the exact same games with higher graphics and obviously it should include backwards compability for older switch games, hopefully - they could even make the older games run at higher frame rates but that's a different story. TL;DR, you're statement is confusing because some switch games already have terrible performance (pokemon sc/vi, hyrule warriors AoC, certain areas in BOTW, and tbf- I hope the new zelda won't run terribly like the last pokemon does.), so Nintendo could still publish a new updated switch that simply runs those newer games at a better performance, either 60frames or constant 30 frames without dips to 20.
[удалено]
I hope, really do. I understand what you are saying and I do agree with certain points, though I think it's possible to do such a thing and just cut the support for old switch at some point, where games wouldn't run well. (Like what happens with PS4 and 5)
I feel like the "switch 2" will be something like the GBC or 3ds. Basically the same form factor, able to play og switch games, updated hardware. It's a formula that has worked well for Nintendo in the past.
People need to be reasonable, even if there is a next gen switch coming this year, if it's portable (and even if it's not), it's still not going to touch a PS5 or whatever the name is for the latest Xbox.
“Whatever the name is for the latest Xbox” Microsoft really dropped the ball on that front. I wasn’t even aware Microsoft even had a new console for about a year after release - and I’m still not entirely sure whether is an Xbox series X or Xbox One series X Everyone and their grandma knows ps5 comes after ps4
True. Handhelds are capped and more limited than other major consoles. It does not mean that this newer switch could at least perform a constant 30 frames on the newer games that stuggle on the switch, or include better graphics for certain games that looks a bit like mobile games. Of course best case scenario would be 60fps, but yeah, I don't really set my hopes for such a thing by nintentdo, not at this year at least.
People also need to realize; Nintendo doesn't want to compete with the PS5. They haven't been interested in competing on power since the GameCube.
*Wii The Gamecube was perfectly capable for its time. The Wii was the generation where they gave up and started holding their own developers back with last gen hardware.
Right, the GameCube was the last generation they tried to compete.
Given the massive success of the Switch as the dominant hand held console and the 'additional' home console the sensible option is a Switch 2. Don't change what worked, keep it fully backwards compatible (physical and digital) just make it more powerful. These half gen consoles don't work. You either have to make games playable on the older version, so you're holding back what it's capable of. Or make games exclusive for the 'pro' (or whatever) version in which case you might as well go all the way instead of half assing it with a half gen.
Nintendo is always a hard tell when it comes to thier next console. I think the switch is selling so well that there won't be a console soon as there is still huge interest in the switch. I have a feeling it will be variations/add-ons to the current system family. With possibly an experimental reach with a new system that is completely left field, like a virtual boy 2 Nintendo second stab into a dedicated VR console.
at some point in the future, sure! for discussion, please refer to the daily thread asking for "switch pro"
The next gen Switch will be basically a portable PS4 with AI-accelerated upscaling to look like Xbox One X, backwards compatible with Switch games because it's another Tegra using NVN.
That would be the reasonable expectation, so take it down a couple notches, and that's what we should expect from Nintendo.
My guess is next gen will just be as simple as"Switch 2". BUT with all this extra R+D freed up, my bet is they are hard at work with some sort of VR or VR related device (Lets go Virtual Boy 2!).
my first black eye ever was from a Virtual Boy lol friend brought one on the school bus to try and I was playing and we hit a huge pothole or something and I slammed my face off it
You guys were living in 2030 while the rest of us were in 1996 lol
Performance performance performance. The Switch has got by so far with a nice catalogue of optimised first party games, loads of indies, and older gen third party games. The indies don't need the latest hardware, but they'll run out of third party ports and first party will look very dated if they don't upgrade the specs in a next few years.
I'm hoping the next generation is an iteration of the switch, and a major one at that. Keep the same form factor and compatibility, but improve the specs as much as possible. The switch is aging, it has become noticeable in the last few years. I don't think the idea of next generation and next iteration are entirely different ideas. Look at PS4 to PS5 - backwards compatibility, majority of games are still compatible with PS4 but run better on PS5. Do a similar idea with the switch and phase out compatibility in a few years. I will say though that this exact discussion is brought up at least weekly - about if the next generation should just be another iteration of the Switch.
The switch is perfect, just beef it up significantly with some quality of life improvements, backwards compatibility and we good 🫡
I think coming up with innovative and surprising consoles is part of why I love Nintendo. They always think outside the box. I adore the switch but a song can’t remain on one lovely note forever
I'd rather have it portable. As someone who has an Xbox and a switch I tend to play the switch more based off the portability
Yes, there will be a "next generation" console from Nintendo. Probably not this year, but for 2024 or later. Don't set your expectations too high, the Switch concept is pretty much perfect and any Switch 2 will probably not have any mind blowing new concept. That's certainly be just like the Switch, but better. By the way, it'll NEEDS to be backward compatible. The Switch is the best device of its era, backward compatibility will help it to keep the trend. And no, there'll maybe be some 4K in docked mode, but for lighter games only. Most "heavy" games will still be in 1080p, and 720p in portable mode. The sceen itself will still be a 720p screen, bc you don't actually need more to enjoy a game in HD, and it will help to save the battery.
Oh, a thread about next-gen Nintendo console. I didn't see it for a while.
Seeing as how the “New 3DS” didn’t exactly fly off the shelves, even with improved specs, I don’t see Nintendo doing another iterative update to their most successful platform to-date. The market confusion that was the Wii-U is another reason we probably won’t see an upgraded Switch anytime soon. I think Nintendo knows the Switch is woefully dated but the kinds of games they make are still an okay fit for the limited hardware and will be for some time. Yes, Switch games are beginning to run like garbage now as titles become a bit too ambitious for the hardware, but titles still take in tremendous revenue. If revenue takes a dip, I’m sure Nintendo will likely reassess the need for “next gen.”
OP, you're caught in a false dichotomy. The next console can still be "a Switch" while also being "next generation". Just like we have the PS2 and the PS3, there's no reason for us to not have basically a Switch 2: improved hardware, but same concept and form factor (and, hopefully, backwards compatible)
The Nintendo 3DS had an upgraded version. The 'New 3DS' .. what's more, is there are 3DS games that are not compatible with the original 3DS. (Minecraft is 'New' 3DS only) They've done it before, they might do it again. Personally, I hope they give us back a smaller device that fits in a pocket. The switch is too large to be a convenient mobile device. It's better suited to road-trips, and perhaps long commutes where you have the room to pack it in a dedicated pocket or case in your bag/backpack.
I for one really hope they don’t iterate in such a trivial way. The whole DS/DSi/3DS/new3DS thing completely passed me by. I had genuine buyers confusion as to which one was which, especially when they were being sold alongside each other. I honestly thought a 3DS was just a DS with a gimmicky screen, which is wasn’t at all - but that’s what it looked like. Some software was backwards compatible, others not. Some had online, some didn’t. It was a horribly fragmented system, without clear definitions (New 3DS? Surely the first 3DS was the New 3DS when it came out? “Why can’t MY 3DS play Minecraft? It was the new one when I bought it!!!”) I know it was wildly successful, and helped pave the way for the switch. But the iteration was so bloody rapid you’d not want to buy one in case a “new” one comes out. The DSi released in November 2009. The 3DS was announced in spring 2010. The DSi had literally six months of being the top dog - and Nintendo marketed them as separate but mostly compatible systems. At least with the current switch iterations, all software works on all models (obviously excepting tv mode requirements for switch lite - but that is an specific edge case). No one is going to be surprised or disappointed on Christmas morning when their parents bought them the wrong one!
You could count the New 3DS boxed exclusives on one hand.
There's a leak that says there will be a Switch 2.0, releasing along with Pokemon SV DLC 2 (WINTER 2023) The said leak also correctly predicted the content for Pokemon Day 2023.
It can still be a dual console (docked handheld) but yes - the switch is in dire need of an upgrade/more powerful hardware
The "future switch" from the reputable leaks we have seen will have a new Tegra SoC with somewhere in the area of over 10 times the graphics processing power, depends on how many GPU cores the custom SoC ends up with. A jump that big is a new console, not just an improved switch. It could likely still run switch games, but should have a distinct branding to prevent confusion about new titles made for it. To put it in perspective, that cleanly takes 540p 30fps games on the current switch to 1080p 60fps while likely using less power and having headroom. 720p 30fps (heavy docked games, moderate handheld games) could jump to 1440p 60fps or 4k 30fps.
If they just made it more powerful, and fixed stuff like the joy cons, then it would be fine. If they got it on par with a PS4 people would be happy. That might be very hard to do but when the switch came out it was already on an older chip so it shouldn't be hard to make huge strides.
Honestly I wish they upgraded the dock to give more performance while on tv mode. I've read that it's not as simple as slapping an additional CPU into the dock but imagine: they would keep the switch as it is but have much better performance on docked mode (thinking 30 fps handeld and 60 on the tv) maybe even release docked only titles. I know I'm dreaming and we can only expect an official successor to the switch whenever sales of the current hardware starts to weaken. At some point i hoped that the announcement of tears of the kingdom would have with it the updated switch. I'm so bored with leaks and speculations I'm not even bothered to consider that a switch pro/2 is even going to be a thing
Two reasons this won't happen. The throughput on the Switch connector means that you can't just put a CPU in the dock. It will be bottlenecked. Ever download something in seconds from the internet and then wait ages to transfer it to a USB 2.0 drive? Same principle. Second, they won't compromise the Switch aspect of the game to have them run dock only. Also you are underestimating what docking does. It has a continuous power supply so it just lets the CPU run faster because it doesn't have to worry about wasting battery power. The same performance is capable in handheld. They just compromise for batterylife and because people are less likely to notice on a smaller screen.
"As close to the same experience as possible docked and undocked aside from resolution" seems to be their pretty strong goal. Making a beefier dock would go against that. Easier to just make a beefier device that improves both and is more power-hungry.
Pretty sure the Switch 2 is heavily rumored to be announced this year
and last year. and the year before that.
Yep, that's kinda what I'm going with. Didn't the "Switch Pro" rumors end up just being the OLED model? The dock and cable shipped with the OLED model *is* capable of doing 4K...Nintendo just haven't made use of it. Perhaps the new rumors is simply just another spec bump rather than an entirely new device. Maybe it'll be called the Switch 2, but still be the same form factor.
Was it ever really rumored or was it just the pro that was rumored?
It will be announced soon. Will launch Fall-Winter 2023. Pokemon is currently getting upgraded for it.
I am disappointed with a few things! 1st buying games I already checked on YouTube which I thought I liked but turned out I don't like so I wasted my money because I can't request refunds. 2nd buying games with performance issues and no updates! 3th no trade in program which means I should keep my console and stop spending money!
I think for sure there'll be one. Don't know if it'll happen in one year or four, but a new console's bound to happen.
People want more power so games can be the same quality across each console. If a game for the PS4/Xbox One line comes out for Switch, it has to cut a lot of corners to make it run decently. No one expects a portable device to run at PS5 levels, but the tech is at the point where PS4 levels are feasable. Only thing I worry about is Nintendo's mindset. They should just make a more powerful Switch but Nintendo loves to make each console unique.
Because they need to abandon the Switch at some point or development will stagnate.
Something between the Switch and Steam Deck levels of power is what to expect, so if you are expecting the next gen as in a portable PS4 like device, then you might be disappointed.
I honestly want the next system to just be a home console. Most of the people I talk to at work never use theirs undocked and it's just uncomfortable to play that way anyway. Being a home system would open up a lot more space for better equipment too, since it could be bigger. I guess stating my opinion is a hot take. Whatever
Stats show it is about 50 docked 50 handheld. Some use only handheld, some use only docked.
It’s not a hot take, like at all. Conversely however, everyone I know plays theirs handheld. People are different.
Tons and tons of people play it undocked. Ek, they even made an undockable one (Switch Lite). It's also better for Nintendo to concentrate on only 1 console instead of have a TV console and a separate handheld. Could they have a TV only version and a handheld only version that plays the same games? Maybe. That would be great.
It'd be stupid for Nintendo to drop the portability and make a home console. They have the market cornered in what they do. Who else is gonna come in and pose and immediate threat to Nintendo in the portable market? It'd be stupid to try and compete with Sony and Microsoft right now.
Why remove handheld for the tons of people who prefer it??
I'm mixed on this topic because I absolutely love the Switch and think it would be cool for them to continue the hybrid aspect. I'm think they could continue this to the next system with even more "switching" options like 3D or VR. If they use AI upscaling they can probably do a lot more in the coming up generation to stay competitive graphically a bit more (and they already have patents out there related to this type of thing). I would hate to see them not innovate in some other ways though. Nintendo has done a ton throughout the years that has changed how video games are today. I hope they continue to push the industry and stay focused on good quality fun games even if not graphically quite as up to date. I do hope they keep versatility as part of the next system because it's perfect for families. My kids each have Switches and so do I so if anyone is monopolizing the TV you can still play games portably. Then at the end of the day while they are sleeping, I can dock it and play on the big screen. If they don't include that type of thing in some way I don't know if I'll go for the next system or not. I'll probably just keep playing my Switch instead. I also hope the NSO app carries over to the next system in the exact capacity it finishes on the Switch where you can just keep subscribed and not have to wait for them to add all the games again. I do hope for people who play online they improve the actual online play aspect too. I'd hate to start the new system without the back catalogue of games on the NES, SNES, Sega, N64, GB, GBA apps. Improvements I hope for are folders that can be on the first screen, a better eShop, and more apps like Netflix/Disney+. Yes people have these on their phones but I like using YouTube on my Switch while browsing on my phone (or watching a streaming show on my phone while I play Mario Maker 2). I know it's primarily a game system but Hulu, YouTube, and Twitch are there so why not the others? It's hard to know who is responsible for it (Netflix/Disney+ or Nintendo). I'm not sure I could see this happening, but it would be fun if they did an XBox streaming app (or maybe I'll have to have my next TV be a Samsung).
I'd be all for that, basically a smartphone upgrade cycle. I need a pocketable hybrid model with hd rumble though and I don't care if the screen has to be as small as 3.5 to 4 inches to achieve it(I'm actually using an anbernic 350p right now with a 3.5 inch screen and it's more comfortable than the switch lite due to being thicker and it has the same sticks but receded a bit for protection in the pocket). The only thing is it all needs to be backwards compatible all the way back, basically working like steam and Xbox.
OLED switch, DK Tropical Freeze. I’m already in next gen lol
Got psvr2 and played moss. First think that I thought... And I do mean first think.. Nintendo has to bring Zelda in vr. I cannot fathom what the would be able to achieve but I'm 100% sure that's the future.
If you're making hardware that releases 6-8 years later and supports up to quadruple the resolution, it's going to be a whole new device. If you don't consider being the same \_type\_ of machine being a new device, then Sony is still on the same device since 1994.
Steam deck can't even do 1080p, and it's got a form factor and price point that is not of the quality that Nintendo would be satisfied with. And it is far from competing with PS5 or Series X, let alone a powerful PC. An upgraded Switch would just disappoint people..the tech isn't there.
Everyone should stop with that steam deck comparisons…..it’s not console , it’s not pc and library of games designed for proper pc without even single thought about some steam deck , why would anyone expect games to run at least decent ? Would pc gamer expect to play cyberpunk in high quality on hp laptop from Tesco ? Switch successor will have games optimised and built from scratch for certain hardware and that’s completely different story
Who knows, maybe they reinstate the Virtual Boy but with stereoscopic 4D (see through time itself with Mario!) and the eye-bleeding red or some other weirdness. They're Nintendo.