By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Rumor: Nintendo plans to launch a new Switch SKU in 2020 - UPDATE: Nintendo says no

 

What will the new Switch model be?

Switch 2 4 5.80%
 
Switch Pro 33 47.83%
 
Switch XL 6 8.70%
 
Switch TV 9 13.04%
 
Switch Mini (clamshell) 0 0%
 
Something else 6 8.70%
 
No new SKU in 2020 11 15.94%
 
Total:69
DonFerrari on 08 January 2020
freebs2 said:

A Switch hybrid Pro doesn't convince me; due to technical limitation the improvement would be noticeable but rather irrelevant compared to what competing platforms are offering. Plus it would make the jump to next-gen Switch harder some years later, still due to technical limitations.

If Nintendo releases a TV model it shouldn't be an "affordable version", but rather the premium version that supports things such as 4k 60fps. This is what home console enthusiasts are looking for right now. And as a Nintendo player I would be tempted to play BOTW in 4k, on the other hand I would literally have zero reasons to buy another SKU with the same performance as the current one. The lower end market is already covered by the Switch Lite.

Switch VR is far less unreasonable than it sounds...if they equip to this (hypotetical) Switch TV version with some local video streaming capabilities, they could pair it with an headset and sell it in bundle (like the WiiU console was paired with its controller). That way you would have 1 product that is both a Switch TV / Pro and a stand alone VR device. Is it feasible? I think so. If you consider the substantially lower graphical baseline of Switch games (compared to baseline PS4/XB1) you wouldn't need very expensive hardware to meet the higher rerquirements of 4k and VR. Considering a mid-range VR system (like the Oculus Go) is already avaliable for 200$ I would expect they could sell such system for about 350$.

Does it make sense? Yes, VR is a new market to develop and it's an opportunity to further differentiate the Switch product line from the incoming next-gen consoles. Even if Sony have their own VR device already they're actually in worse position to counter act. Their customers are now focused on the next-gen upgrade and PS5 will be an high-end device; this means a new improved VR headset would need to be high-end (and expensive as well) in order to meet next-gen expectations. Not to mention Nintendo has the most important advantage: games. Think of Metroid Prime, Mario Kart, Spatoon, Arms, Wii Sports, Luigi's Mansion in VR...there is so much potential in terms of software and the media buzz would be huge.

I'm not saying this is what they're going to do, but it would be a great move imo.

I don't think VR on Switch would work well. Even on PS4Pro (mind that PS4 do a lot worse) the IQ is good in PSVR for most games, so on Switch I would expect a not very good experience in VR. One thing is the small screen while playing portable the 540p resolution is fine, and 720p on TV can be accepted by a lot of people. But on VR you need to keep that 60fps to avoid nausea and then since you basically have "2 screens" you have to downgrade the resolution to half so let's say you would have 480p resolution on a screen that appears to be 300" that would be quite bad.

nuckles87 said:
Pemalite said:

In general, the only Nintendo exclusives that will hit 1080P, 60fps reliably are those that are ported over from the Wii U and had stuff all improvements outside of that.

You are probably right that Nintendo gamers are probably happy with 720P/60fps, that audience doesn't seem to care significantly about having the best visuals, but rather are content with just "good enough".

The Switch Lite fills the void for the 3DS just the same as a Switch TV hypothetically fills the void of the Wii U.

The OG Switch is marketed towards both segments.

If a Switch TV comes out, I would sell my current Switch and buy one.

I would argue the current Switch already does a pretty good job filling the void of the Wii U. It’s the same price point and there are no QOL compromises to get it playing on a TV.

The only advantage a Switch TV would bring to the table is a cheaper price, meaning people who don’t want portable play won’t have to pay for a screen and batteries they won’t use. That’s not really filling the Wii U’s void, so much as its just acting as a more budget-friendly way for people to play Switch games.

Which is the same reason for the Lite cheaper for those that don't care about TV connection.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Slownenberg on 08 January 2020

The advantage of a slightly upgraded SwitchTV would be yeah that people who don't want the portable aspect at all might be convinced to get a Switch at a cheaper price, if say let's say a SwitchTV would be like $220 and comes with a pro controller. Plus if its slightly upgraded they could play with a little higher res or framerate or whatever to get that premium Switch experience, like say its strong enough to play pretty much any Switch game in 1080p/60fps.

A much more powered SwitchTV is an option, but it'd just be a 4k Switch, so the question is how many people really care about buying a more expensive Switch just to play with really high resolution? It wouldn't magically make games have Xb1/PS4 level graphics, it'd just play games in 4k. I would imagine there are more people out there who would only play at home and would pick up a cheaper home-only version of a Switch than there are people who don't have a Switch just because it isn't 4k and would pick it up if there was a 4k version with no other graphical upgrades.

I think a theoretical SwitchTV would go with the cheaper route, trying to pick up people who aren't interesting in portable play but would get a Switch if it was cheaper. That could potentially be a few million people. And now that Nintendo has abandoned the "purely Switch" concept with the Lite, I think you could view the Switch concept now as just being "you can play however you want to play" which means you can buy any kind of system you want: portable, hybrid, or home, with portable being the cheapest, hybrid being the most versatile, and home being the premium visual experience at least by a little while still being cheap. I actually think this might be more likely than a premium hybrid Switch right now, considering that Nintendo still hasn't cut the price of the Switch, I think a premium Switch hybrid would be more likely after a price cut so that the new one could be at $300 and they'd probably eventually phase out the original Switch.



freebs2 on 08 January 2020
DonFerrari said:
freebs2 said:

A Switch hybrid Pro doesn't convince me; due to technical limitation the improvement would be noticeable but rather irrelevant compared to what competing platforms are offering. Plus it would make the jump to next-gen Switch harder some years later, still due to technical limitations.

If Nintendo releases a TV model it shouldn't be an "affordable version", but rather the premium version that supports things such as 4k 60fps. This is what home console enthusiasts are looking for right now. And as a Nintendo player I would be tempted to play BOTW in 4k, on the other hand I would literally have zero reasons to buy another SKU with the same performance as the current one. The lower end market is already covered by the Switch Lite.

Switch VR is far less unreasonable than it sounds...if they equip to this (hypotetical) Switch TV version with some local video streaming capabilities, they could pair it with an headset and sell it in bundle (like the WiiU console was paired with its controller). That way you would have 1 product that is both a Switch TV / Pro and a stand alone VR device. Is it feasible? I think so. If you consider the substantially lower graphical baseline of Switch games (compared to baseline PS4/XB1) you wouldn't need very expensive hardware to meet the higher rerquirements of 4k and VR. Considering a mid-range VR system (like the Oculus Go) is already avaliable for 200$ I would expect they could sell such system for about 350$.

Does it make sense? Yes, VR is a new market to develop and it's an opportunity to further differentiate the Switch product line from the incoming next-gen consoles. Even if Sony have their own VR device already they're actually in worse position to counter act. Their customers are now focused on the next-gen upgrade and PS5 will be an high-end device; this means a new improved VR headset would need to be high-end (and expensive as well) in order to meet next-gen expectations. Not to mention Nintendo has the most important advantage: games. Think of Metroid Prime, Mario Kart, Spatoon, Arms, Wii Sports, Luigi's Mansion in VR...there is so much potential in terms of software and the media buzz would be huge.

I'm not saying this is what they're going to do, but it would be a great move imo.

I don't think VR on Switch would work well. Even on PS4Pro (mind that PS4 do a lot worse) the IQ is good in PSVR for most games, so on Switch I would expect a not very good experience in VR. One thing is the small screen while playing portable the 540p resolution is fine, and 720p on TV can be accepted by a lot of people. But on VR you need to keep that 60fps to avoid nausea and then since you basically have "2 screens" you have to downgrade the resolution to half so let's say you would have 480p resolution on a screen that appears to be 300" that would be quite bad.

I know, in fact my suggestion was that a Switch VR (potentially) would be a new SKU, not portable but more powerfull. Since the baseline Switch is much weaker compared to a PS4, on Switch you wouldn't need that much horse power in order to achieve higher resolution and better framerates. In other words you wouldn't need a 4 Tflops to run BOTW at twice the resolution and twice the framerate, probably even half of that can do the job.



DonFerrari on 09 January 2020
freebs2 said:
DonFerrari said:

I don't think VR on Switch would work well. Even on PS4Pro (mind that PS4 do a lot worse) the IQ is good in PSVR for most games, so on Switch I would expect a not very good experience in VR. One thing is the small screen while playing portable the 540p resolution is fine, and 720p on TV can be accepted by a lot of people. But on VR you need to keep that 60fps to avoid nausea and then since you basically have "2 screens" you have to downgrade the resolution to half so let's say you would have 480p resolution on a screen that appears to be 300" that would be quite bad.

I know, in fact my suggestion was that a Switch VR (potentially) would be a new SKU, not portable but more powerfull. Since the baseline Switch is much weaker compared to a PS4, on Switch you wouldn't need that much horse power in order to achieve higher resolution and better framerates. In other words you wouldn't need a 4 Tflops to run BOTW at twice the resolution and twice the framerate, probably even half of that can do the job.

Well isn't BOTW 30fps? So for same graphical fidelity on VR and 60fps you would need 3x more power probably. But yes 2Tf would be doable if they dropped the graphics a little to achieve 60fps.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Soundwave on 11 January 2020

The more I look into the more I think Switch Pro can happen without fracturing the software library.

People have gotten the existing original Switch units (the old 20nm chip) to run at 786 GHz overclocked (which is docked clock speed) undocked. This guy did it for DOOM:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SwitchHaxing/comments/ao9tsq/comparing_doom_2016_on_switch_before_and_after/

Yes, the battery does reduce ... it eats up about 25% in 30 minutes of play ... but that's still about 2 hours of play time, good enough for someone who has a 40 minute commute to and back from work, wants to play for a lunch break, or get in a play session before going to bed.

Nintendo could flash a message for Pro-titles that a battery pack is recommended for these titles as they will drain the battery faster.

For new Mariko Switch models that came out last year, they could run Pro games for 3-4 hours since they have better battery life.

Switch Lite I think can actually run full clock (well 786 GHz, which is 394 GFLOPS) ... the actual size of the device is not far off from the regular Switch, keep in mind the Joycons don't count as space where heat can dissipate. It's curious too that the Switch Lite has a fan at all with multiple vents ... seems massively overkill for a device that's only supposed to run 197 GFLOPS (undocked) only with the Mariko die shrunk chip. I wonder if the fan was put in to accomodate the possibility of docked clocks for portable play (no TV out though).

So that means they could make a Pro model that is 394 GFLOPS undocked, 800 GFLOPS docked (basically double the performance) and these games would still be playable on all Switch models, just with reduced battery life and a recommendation for a battery pack, which is reasonable. But that extra Pro performance would really help the Switch stretch its legs, allow for a lot more PS4/XB1 tier titles, better performance on games like BOTW2. I can see that making some sense.



Around the Network
Jumpin on 12 January 2020

On Switch Pro.

I am sure I recall Nintendo ruling out something like that a while ago. There's no point in making a dead-end upgrade with a pretentiously cucky name (like Switch Pro) when they could make and brand a second-generation Switch and other form factors that would be compelling to new audiences.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Slownenberg on 12 January 2020
Jumpin said:

On Switch Pro.

I am sure I recall Nintendo ruling out something like that a while ago. There's no point in making a dead-end upgrade with a pretentiously cucky name (like Switch Pro) when they could make and brand a second-generation Switch and other form factors that would be compelling to new audiences.

Well obviously a second generation Switch will come at some point, but that is years away. We're talking about what new SKUs of the Switch in the near future, not stuff that will release several years from now. And why would a premium experience of the Switch be a dead end product? I'm sure an upgraded Switch that plays games better, has a better, screen etc, for a bit more money would be quite popular. It might even replace the original on the market eventually like New 3DS did to 3DS.



LGBTDBZBBQ on 12 January 2020
Soundwave said:
The more I look into the more I think Switch Pro can happen without fracturing the software library.

People have gotten the existing original Switch units (the old 20nm chip) to run at 786 GHz overclocked (which is docked clock speed) undocked. This guy did it for DOOM:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SwitchHaxing/comments/ao9tsq/comparing_doom_2016_on_switch_before_and_after/

Yes, the battery does reduce ... it eats up about 25% in 30 minutes of play ... but that's still about 2 hours of play time, good enough for someone who has a 40 minute commute to and back from work, wants to play for a lunch break, or get in a play session before going to bed.

Nintendo could flash a message for Pro-titles that a battery pack is recommended for these titles as they will drain the battery faster.

For new Mariko Switch models that came out last year, they could run Pro games for 3-4 hours since they have better battery life.

Switch Lite I think can actually run full clock (well 786 GHz, which is 394 GFLOPS) ... the actual size of the device is not far off from the regular Switch, keep in mind the Joycons don't count as space where heat can dissipate. It's curious too that the Switch Lite has a fan at all with multiple vents ... seems massively overkill for a device that's only supposed to run 197 GFLOPS (undocked) only with the Mariko die shrunk chip. I wonder if the fan was put in to accomodate the possibility of docked clocks for portable play (no TV out though).

So that means they could make a Pro model that is 394 GFLOPS undocked, 800 GFLOPS docked (basically double the performance) and these games would still be playable on all Switch models, just with reduced battery life and a recommendation for a battery pack, which is reasonable. But that extra Pro performance would really help the Switch stretch its legs, allow for a lot more PS4/XB1 tier titles, better performance on games like BOTW2. I can see that making some sense.

Agreed. 



zorg1000 on 12 January 2020
JRPGfan said:
RolStoppable said:

$149? That's not hope, that's wishful thinking.

Without the screen and dock, battery? probably possible tbh.
Switch lite is 199$ (without battery + screen), it should be a easy 149$ for a Switch Tv.

Dont forget about the Joy-Cons, the only way Switch TV is $149 is if it comes with no controller.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

JRPGfan on 12 January 2020
zorg1000 said:
JRPGfan said:

Without the screen and dock, battery? probably possible tbh.
Switch lite is 199$ (without battery + screen), it should be a easy 149$ for a Switch Tv.

Dont forget about the Joy-Cons, the only way Switch TV is $149 is if it comes with no controller.

Maybe its sold without, or maybe its a budget version of the pro controller without the parts that make it expensive.
I still think 149$ is possible without losses, for a Switch Tv.