Basically Tegra gives Nintendo the possibility for an Xbox like approach, being forward compatible but having higher res/more fx and better textures etc. on a Switch 'Pro'.

And DSi as well as New 3DS were improved variants with more RAM and higher CPU-clock. So Nintendo has done more powerful variants before and Tegra makes a more powerful version of Switch pretty easy in the near future.

I really think though that they go for lower price and longer battery life first.

You know the other 66% belong to Creatures Inc and Game Freak, Nintendo own 30% of each company, right? Also, Nintendo still own the name of game and all Pokemon. Sony can buy the 66% left but can't use the name  or any Pokemon appeared in the series, unless Nintendo allow to sell it to Sony. You didn't sayyou want Pokemon on PS but you mentioned Pokemon will have no choice but come to PS. And remember, Switch is using the Tegra chip which was provided by Nvidia and Xavier come out this year, smartphone/table always get upgrade model each year with stronger mobile chip. Show me a mobile chip from ADM  that is stronger than X1 and cost only $250 which last 4 - 5 hours or even 10 hours like you said

Perhaps I was unclear. We know the technology was there. Tegra 2 was out well before the Switch came out - with a Tegra 1 processor. But why would they bother? The DSi and New 3DS are marginal improvements at best (Sony did the same with PSP and PSV revisions), and the experiment of "New 3DS exclusive games" was a disaster and very quickly dropped.

I think it's patently ridiculous to think that not only is Nintendo strongly considering a "Switch Pro" that's significantly more powerful than the original switch, but that they're definitely going to do it less than two years after the release of the original Switch. That's completely insane. Just think of third parties (and if you think third parties are of little relevance, and don't do much to make a platform desirable - first party titles couldn't save the Wii U) Nintendo is looking at what Sony and MS is doing with their Pro and X variants and noticing what I predicted when these consoles were first announced - these consoles do little more than give third party developers more work to do with zero expectation that the investment leads to higher game sales. The vast majority of third party developers do the bare minimum for X/Pro compatibility because it's not worth the effort. Nintendo has historically had a hard enough time attracting third parties to their platforms, and has an even harder time keeping these third parties on their platforms due to struggling sales. A Switch Pro makes developing a game for the Switch that much more expensive, when third parties are already expecting lower sales. Where is the benefit, exactly?

On top of that, due to the reasons I mentioned above amongst others,  the PS4 Pro and X1X aren't the hits many predicted them to be, and I wouldn't be shocked at all if this "1.5" console concept is dropped from future console generations. It's quite plausible that these half platforms will never bring a positive return on the investments they required and continue to require, and now Nintendo of all companies is going to jump on that bandwagon? Come on man.


I don't think you're going to see a significantly more powerful Switch. However, as I mentioned previously, I do see them leveraging improvements in technology to give the Switch improved battery life, or a higher resolution screen (or both) similar to what Nintendo has done in the past with the DSi, and New 3DS. That's what Nintendo has done before, and I don't see any reason why they would break the mold.

So how do you think what New 3ds power is when compared it to 3ds?

1. No you weren't unclear. But with a Switch 'Pro' the standard Switch simply could 'simply' be forward compatible. Will Nintendo be doing it under two years after the Switch release? No. Cheaper manufacturing cost and more battery life will likely be first. But we could and might see something like that until spring 2020.

2. I think many people totally misunderstand what the additional power of Pro and X actually can do. We do see lots of devs utilizing it, partially only to resolution. But four times the pixels needs four times the GPU power with most current engines.

And many devs already have higher quality assets and effects for their PC versions.

In case of future Switch ports (and the ever growing power of smartphones and tablets) the additional power of an improved Switch could be well utilized for smaller indie games as well as bigger titles.

I am not talking about games like Xenoblade Chronicles for New 3DS though, but keep in mind that there are not so few games that run better on a New 3DS than on a standard 3DS and yes, we do see many games benefiting from the power of One X and PS4 Pro.

1. I love how people gloss over the concept of "forwards compatibility" as if it's completely arbitrary, and doesn't add a noticable increase to the cost of development. Just ask yourself this: Why aren't the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X the "standard" as you put it?

2. I think I might understand what the additional power of Pro and X actually can do, considering I've programmed console video games in the past. I could be wrong though, but knowing and befriending hundreds of people in the industry from engine devs, to tools developers, to software engineers, to tech leads, to writers, to animators, to graphic artists, to CTOs. Maybe they're lying through their teeth when they tell me how they're repeatedly told to just make sure their games run well on these half consoles and pretty much cap it there. Perhaps it's because that these developers have noticed that it's simply not worth their effort. The additional effort doesn't lead to increased sales. Even when Pro/X support is added back into an existing game, the uptick in sales is minimal at best. I will acknoledge though, that almost all of my contacts in the industry are third party developers. Most of the people from Sony, Nintendo and MS I know have since moved on to other things.

3. Almost every single instance of a game that takes proper advantage of the additional power of the new 3DS, PS4 Pro, and Xbox One X are first party or second party games. There's a lot more incentive to add these features and game modes that take advantage of the additional power when your primary objective is to support the platform the game is on rather than the game itself.

P.S. Rendering is a small part of what a GPU actually does, so no, you do not need "four times" the GPU power to render a 1080p image in 4K. It's not a 1:1 ratio. Not even close.

If it were a portable PS4 then maybe. But it would need to be able to operate as a second PS4 or anyone who owned one. Basically giving people access to their PS4 library anywhere. Which would actually be really cool, but I think it would be too expensive to be viable right now.

Bingo

1. Standard in which way? The concept as a whole is relatively new for consoles while it isn't new in ohter areas. There is a basis of millions of standard Xbones and PS4's so basically that is the reason why it is the standard.

2. Again, i mentioned already existing higher quality assets for actually not so few games that already exist for PC versions, not that every developer creates totally new stuff.

3. Define proper advantage.

As for the P.S., i know that modern GPU's do a lot more than just rendering, yet there are loads of games and engines that scale all to well with GPU-power for resolution.

Finally, Nintendo has done stuff like that in the past and it looks like mid gen updates are becoming kind of a norm. So it wouldn't be that surprising for Nintendo to pull an overhauled Switch out of their hat at some point. But, as mentioned before, i would expect them to cut cost and improve battery life first and then come up with a New Switch or whatever not before 2020.

1. .... like the millions of Switches that would exist when the "Switch Pro" releases that would then take a back seat to the Switch Pro while developers treat the higher spec as the standard development platform rather than develop for the lowest common denominator like has happened in literally every instance when a higher spec version of a console has been released. Why would it be different from the Switch Pro?

2. Maybe higher quality assets exist. And? A standard 4K mode or a 60fps mode isn't exactly pushing the bounds of what the half consoles are capable of, are they?

3. I mean something beyond a resolution or frame rate bump. The vast majority of PS4 Pro and X1X supported titles do nothing more than this.

4. and those game engines that scale, they're PC engines yes? Please do some basic research on the difference between PC and console game development, and why there's actually different layers of abstraction in the engine design philosophy, and figure out why PC engines scale, and console engines don't.

Okay. Brass tax time.
GB vs GB color: Performance difference: zero. Notable features: smaller size, color screen
Advance vs. SP: Performance difference: zero. Notable features: rechargeable battery, lit screen
DSi vs. DS Lite: Performance difference: zero. Notable features - bigger screen, extra camera, sd card slot, OS applications, and lower battery life
DSi vs DSi XL: Performance difference: zero. Notable features: bigger screen, better battery life
3DS vs. New 3DS: Performance difference: minimal. Notable features: second thumb stick, micro SD card slot. Features one exclusive game.

So where is the precedence for Nitnendo to release a half model with much better performance that people are treating as a given?