Topic: The Nintendo Switch Rumor and Speculation Thread

We've pretty much reached the end of what graphical improvements can do to provide new gameplay ideas. Hell, I would argue we've even reached the end of that around 7th gen (honestly, what in 8th or 9th gen doesn't look like it could've been done in 7th at 720p/30+ FPS?). 4K/60 FPS (especially 4K) just doesn't seem all that necessary to come up with gameplay ideas the Switch couldn't, it's just going to look slightly prettier. The magnetic Joycon attachments and buttons don't seem to have any tangible gameplay benefit. It seems more for ergonomics and durability than gameplay. New buttons may be intriguing if they're a new TYPE of button. But if they're just adding more buttons for the sake of more buttons, like a C and D/1 and 2/whatever you want to call it where it's just a button and nothing more, what's the point? It lets you do more actions but more actions doesn't necessarily mean those actions are something we couldn't have done on the Switch. And everything else is just more ergonomics, convenience, and preserving Switch features. Those are all good things, but not really game changing, next gen gameplay driving features. My question is, what does the system actually do to let the new 3D Mario game do things that Odyssey couldn't, that Mario Kart 9 or whatever could do that MK8D can't, that the new 3D Zelda could do that BotW/TotK can't? Because if you can't answer that question... then what's the point of having a new generation in the first place as opposed to just continuing with the Switch for another several years? Graphical improvements like what Xbox and Playstation do are flashy but superficial, it doesn't really add much entertainment value to make the new games do anything new and fun. Nintendo's done a much better job with their hardware of making the next gen hardware actually feel like it does something worthwhile to change the gameplay. If this gen moves away from that and it's just an Xbox/Playstation-esque graphics bump then the Switch 2 is going to feel soulless and disappointing. I don't care if they do AR, VR, bringing back dual screens, whatever, as long as it's something useful that does more than just graphics. It's just not going to feel Nintendo otherwise.

I think that ship has well and truly left the port

@Bolt_Strike I think a Switch 2 that's just a power upgrade would be about 3rd party support more than anything else. Nintendo's already said they don't need more powerful hardware for their own games but there is a lot of 3rd party support the current Switch is missing out on.

@Grumblevolcano Which feels relatively pointless, because again, what is that power actually doing? Because again, the power upgrades found in similar hardware like the 8th/9th gen Xboxes and Playstations sure don't seem like they're doing anything tangibly positive. All it really seems to be resulting in is more layoffs because it's bloating the budgets/dev times almost entirely for graphics and gamers don't seem to be caring that much. Honestly, I have half a mind to say Nintendo should just say screw the third parties and let them burn themselves out over this mess, but Nintendo's not quite to the point where they could whether another Wii U-esque third party drought. But still, you have to wonder, if they can't come up with anything more than a graphics bump is stronger hardware really necessary right now? The demand for stronger hardware just feels so artificial.

Even if more hardware resources doesn't fundamentally change Nintendo games, it can bring QoL improvements and other benefits. Peach Showtime was a great game, but the awful loading screens ruined or at least lessened the game for some people. A little more hardware resources and that would be fixed. I'm not a frame rate snob myself, but better hardware could have erased the complaints about 30fps in TTYD without particularly needing extra development time. And there are of course games like TotK which are incredibly technically impressive and might have been able to be both a little prettier and a little cheaper/easier/faster to make if not for the hardware restrictions.

I do agree though the biggest change will be third party. The mantra of 'good game but runs terrible on Switch' has gotten very common lately with new ports, common enough that some people are inevitably shying away from Switch for competitor hardware.

@Bolt_Strike so that Nintendo keeps making monies. And the graphics improvements that you think are superficial might not be to others. At one time we all thought HD was great yet here we are with 4k looking at future 8k TVs. I once had stereo sound. Then 5.1. Now there’s like 9.2 surround. I don’t think anyone actually needs speakers in their ceilings to simulate the sounds of helicopters, planes or birds yet here we are.

@sixrings Without any context to what that technology actually does to improve the experience, that doesn't really reflect well on the gaming population. What's the moral of the story here? That people are suckers for tech buzzwords?

tbh, that's pretty accurate even with many Nintendo fans.

@Bolt_Strike
I think fundamentally you have it backwards. The question isn't what new experiences will new hardware allow. The question is why restrict developers and shortchange consumers by continuing to sell a product that is at this point an order of magnitude less capable than the hardware you could be selling

More powerful hardware may not excite people such as yourself as much as it does someone like me who enjoys making code go faster so much I made a career out of it. And that's fine. But even you have to admit that more powerful, more power efficient, more reliable and generally more responsive hardware? Those are all objective improvements that will result in a better gaming experience. And that's something worthwhile

Your constant refrain of complaining that it won't result in new gaming experiences? I mean maybe. But what's your alternative? Stick with the same hardware? Because that's certainly not going to be any better than "just a performance boost"

Reminds me of the politicians here when fibre internet was part of the public discourse who argued that 25Mbps was plenty because in 2010 there was no application that needed more. It wasn't that there were no applications that could use it. It was that there were no applications that required it because most people had <10Mbps

@skywake Sticking with the same hardware means they could sell it for cheaper to anyone that may not happen to currently have it. Whereas if you push for stronger hardware? Even the ones that already play the existing hardware are going to need to shell out a couple of hundred dollars. And you're trying to sell that several hundred dollar upgrade on marginally noticeable improvements like the ones you're mentioning? With a diminishing output of games resulting from the improved power that you consider oh so freeing to developers? These things may be beneficial, but are they worth the high price tag for the console and all of these studios continually laying off employees and shuttering their doors? It just comes off as so petulant. They're not taking into account if the hardware improvements actually make the games noticeably better or if they're financially viable. AAA third parties' push towards high end performance seems incredibly unsustainable, Nintendo would be wise not to follow them too closely and come up with additional selling points for their hardware in situations like these where they actually do need to upgrade their hardware.

Honestly a pure performance upgrade just feels like it's setting up for Nintendo to fail. If they do a smaller bump, then it'll be less powerful then competing hybrids and Nintendo will lose significant market share. And if they do decide to compete on power with the other hybrids, it'll be unprofitable because of the sheer cost (both to them and because gamers will be less likely to buy it because it's more expensive). This is why Nintendo stopped competing on power and started doing gimmicks since the DS and Wii. For Nintendo to succeed without that... they need to find the next big innovation. Something completely different and unpredictable that their competitors aren't doing. That's why the gimmicks are so important here.

I feel like these are different things.

Nintendo manages to spend over 100 million dollars and many years on certain single games (e.g. TotK) without slowing down their overall game output or firing people. Last year got a ton of games including TotK afterall. Nintendo makes faster and cheaper games also. I don't see that changing just because their hardware gets better. If they had better hardware to work with they certainly could have chosen to spend even more time and money to make TotK even fancier or they could have used that extra power to make the game the same but marginally more polished and maybe saved a few bucks also. Nintendo being able to port slightly more modern games doesn't mean they are suddenly going to be making hyper-realistic PS5-style games themselves. Better hardware is purely a positive unless the company chooses for it not to be by making bad decisions.

It's true the console itself will cost money, but as you said above, consumers will gravitate to the buzz words and new shiny things. Whether that new shiny thing is more power or a potentially un-needed gimmick. Plus hardware doesn't last forever so people need to buy something new eventually either way — may as well point them towards a new shiny Switch 2 rather than PS5 pro or whatever.

Ehh, no it does feel like releases have slowed down on the Switch. Sure, maybe if you compare it to the 3DS and Wii U individually it does alright, but remember that the 3DS and Wii U were supported simultaneously, and when you compare the Switch's lineup to the 3DS and Wii U's combined lineup? The comparison isn't so favorable. IPs are going a good 4-7 years between entries now whereas because of the staggered releases between home and handheld consoles you might've seen more along the lines of 1-3. And the Switch has more ports/remakes/remasters too, further diluting the output. If you think Nintendo's output hasn't dropped because of the push for higher end hardware you aren't paying attention.

Well first of all I was being sarcastic. And if that was true, well that doesn't say anything good. It means they're scamming themselves.

But no, eventually there's a limit to how much consumers will be suckered. And there's signs we are reaching that limit in the tepid reaction to 9th gen and the inability for these AAA studios to grow their audiences to make up for the more expensive graphics.

Hardware doesn't last forever but it doesn't die naturally after 7-10 years. Gamers don't need new generations that frequently.

That's now how pricing for hardware works. A lot of components of the total price don't get cheaper over time like the screen, battery, assembly, housing, shipping etc. Some other components like storage, RAM and the SoC do but they have a price floor due to raw materials, assembly, foundry time etc

Over time the gap between what they are selling and what they could be selling grows. They could comfortably be selling hardware significantly better than the Switch at a price similar to the Switch

It's not unlike how if I went out laptop shopping $500AU would get me a dual core Celeron with 4GB RAM and 128GB of eMMC storage with windows home. $1000AU doesn't get me twice the spec, it gets me a LOT more than twice the spec. It jumps you upto an i7 with 8 efficiency cores and 2 performance cores, a 512GB nvme SSD, and 8GB of faster RAM. Why? Because the bulk of the price of the $500 laptop is the windows licence, screen, battery, assembly, shipping

If they were still making the 3DS it would cost a similar price to the Switch Lite. If they were still selling the Wii U it would probably cost more than the Lite. Because, again, you're paying for more than just the GLOPS and GB

@skywake Pricing involves both supply AND demand, just because you can provide that stronger hardware at a similar price point doesn't mean that people want it. Look at things from the consumer perspective, you may be getting more than twice the spec, but is more than twice the spec giving you more than twice the impact to justify being twice the cost? Pricing isn't just about how much you can provide at that price point, but how much people want at that price point.

These arguments would make such an amazing podcast

Every time I see these two debate, I always play Ace Attorney music in the back of my mind.

If anyone knows how to make an objection.lol I'd be okay with someone making these arguments into one. Might be funny.

Read the new rumor article about the backwards compatibility. I just think it's so silly. Most people don't use it; just buy the old console if you're into it that much. Tons of people in the retro community prefer playing on original hardware and controllers anyway.

Use that time and energy for stuff that actually matters on the new console instead.

If the rumors are correct and the Switch 2 is backwards compatible, that will be a major selling point for me, more than any other time I have been gaming. Especially if there is a performance boost. I have such a massive backlog, with "miracle ports" that I still need to play through, I'm at the point now where it is worth the wait to see if the new system will improve the performance of the games/ports that I haven't had a chance to invest time into. I only game on the Switch, other console/PC games are not an option - which is driving my excitement for the eventual announcement.

@Lazz That's been something on my mind too. I mentioned it in a couple threads, but the potential of giving bad/underwhelming games and ports a chance to shine is very intriguing to me. There's been plenty of games that people were excited for, only for the finished product to be underwhelming (sometimes just straight up unplayable) given the current hardware limitations. It'd be a very welcome surprise to have those games get a second chance at life, redemption of sorts. I remember people were excited for something like The Witcher 3 or Sonic Frontiers to come to Switch, but by the time they did, people dismissed them as inferior versions and moved on. If next-gen is in a similar ballpark to (at least) previous gen, these "inferior versions" could easily get people's attention again. Not only would these versions that most people ignored be seen as vastly improved, but they could also show just how much more potential we have with the new hardware. Heck, imagine if The Witcher 3 ran around how it did on PS4/Xbox One, that'd be a big deal. Suddenly, people who previously bought the game get a huge new overhaul, and those that ignored it are giving it attention. It works out for the devs too, as now an avenue that didn't seem as profitable when compared to other consoles is suddenly valid for them as well as it is for consumers. With that kind of potential, suddenly "miracle ports" aren't the exception, we don't need to hope and pray for a miracle with every announcement. Not everyone looks to a new console for backwards compatibility, fair enough. But I myself see potential in the idea, we'll just have to see just how it's implemented.