NSW is here to Stay!! It’s Life Will Be Long and No Successor Will Come Before 2025!

[Pavolink]

curl-6 said:

Pavolink said:

If 2015 Switch-tech can get those games, 2020-2021 Switch 2-tech can also get AAA games.

No; Switch's chipset was 2 years ahead of PS4/Xbone and those systems had low end CPUs and mid range GPUs for their time.

The Switch successor you propose would be only 1 year or less newer than PS5/XSX which have higher end parts for their time.

As such, the gap would be much bigger and a Switch 2 using a 2020/2021 mobile SoC would be less able to run AAA PS5/XSX games than Switch is able to run AAA PS4/Xbone games.

If you want AAA PS5/XSX ports, you'll have to wait longer for mobile tech to catch up.

Considering this premise, if PS5 and Xbox Series X tech are higher end parts this time, and if the Switch successor needs to wait until mobile tech catch up to get those AAA ports, then Nintendo will have to wait much longer than the 2 years that the original Switch needed, maybe to wait at least to 2023 tech and release at 2025.

Wyrdness said:

Pavolink said:

-The tech I mentioned is expected to be implemented in the mobile/portable market.

-Then I'm wrong saying "active life" and mean main focus or main hardware or main device or whatever. My point is that Switch could see a successor in 2022-spring 2023 and still keep getting some games even after, just like the past Nintendo hardware. Releasing a succesor is not going to kill the Switch, even less if it is retrocompatible.

-Releasing a succesor at the time I pointed is not rushing it. What are the arguments to point that it would be rushed? Was Switch rushed because it came 4 and half years later than the Wii U? At what point can we say it is not rushed? 2024? Why? How do we know that? Also, not every game has a GAAS or mtx approach. Inhouse development of a Switch 2 version could happen if the tech in the device facilitates the development, and afaik, Switch tech is easy to work with, and I expect the same with the succesor. Budgets are increasing and developers are willing to put more versions on shelves if that helps with sales. I honestly don't believe there's an agenda against Nintendo, or at least not from most developers.

- So the tech you're on about isn't even released that makes this point even more pointless you know why? Because we're talking about active tech in the dedicated gaming portable market which is the whole point.

- Releasing a successor means the would be two platforms to then focus on and support and your reasoning for wanting a successor doesn't warranted such a situation especially as the platforms the successor will be deal with have opted to use higher than usual tech for consoles meaning rushing out a new platform seriously hurts chances of the ports you're touting.

- It is rushing it's a text book knee jerk reaction your whole reasoning of the needing to be a new platform to get ports is a rush tactic because in order to be out for 2022 it means that portable tech from now has to be used to be developed into a platform in time for a 2022 release not the tech that comes out in 2021 or 2022. You even said the tech you're talking about is expected to be used meaning it's not on the market yet in other words it would not be whats used in the 2022 platform you're saying should be out you really haven't thought this through as yes it would be rushing especially as PS5 and XSX are using higher level tech than normal for consoles.

Now compare this to how the Switch was handled it was announce 1 and half years in and still had 3 years of R&D it's reasoning for being developed was to compound both the portable and home console sides into one platform as it was no longer viable to have two simultaneous platforms out as even Sony themselves failed at that. Budgets have been increasing since the 360 15 years ago yet developer behaviour remains the same the only reason they do Switch versions is because they're running out of room to avoid the platform and they have to answer to shareholders publishers and developers aren't as willing because it has always come down to business approach and the approach on Nintendo platforms bring in different type of consumers who aren't as receptive to the practices these publishers and developers employ. I guarantee you that is TW3 never was ported over many of them would be using the power excuse.

-And still, Switch does not have the most powerful tech, it has the one balanced enough to give consumers good performance and price. We don't need to look for to infer tech has improve since 2015 and that the TegraX1 chip inside Switch is not the most powerful one, when even Nvidia has already the TegraX2. The other ones are more expensive or for used other purposes right now, which means that they could modify or tweak them and implement in the portable market. There are also rumors about AMD and Samsung being a possible provider for the next console if Nvidia does not have tech ready for Nintendo, with apparently the same architecture than the next gen consoles. We don't know what kind of chipset the successor is going to use, maybe one already released by that time, maybe one done specifically for Nintendo, maybe the AMD's RDNA new ones.

-With retrocompatibility, some developers can target the original Switch and those games could still work on the successor. New games could work on the successor. The only way they'd have to support two different platforms is if they have different architecture that prevents them to make Switch games work on the successor. Mid gen refresher by 2026 could work as good as PS4Pro, XboxX or New 3DS.

-This is not a tactic to get ports, it is one to get the tech that the industry is going to use for further development. The new console don't need to be on par to the next gen consoles, just have the tech that allow most developers to do Switch's successor versions of their games. That's all. Like I mentioned to Curl, waiting until mobile tech catch up to PS5/XBX tech is going to be a long way, up to the point that we could be looking for a 2025 release, 8 years after the original Switch. And I wouldn't be sure that the console will not sustain high sales during that long period, or at least not enough to warrant "Wii/DS-like profits" like Nintendo is looking for.

At this point, third parties are willing to give them "late ports" of this and last gen. By 2024? I doubt it. PC/PS5/XSX pool is big enough to just ignore a platform that may require a big downgrade to get their new games. And I'm not talking only about AAA games, which are still going to be thin in the successor library's compared to the indies and AA games.

Nintendo has said that once they release a new hardware, they always start the R&D of the next one. Successor have already 3 years of R&D, and Switch had at least 4. They don't start R&D after announcement.

Finally, I disagree completly with your last point. Skyrim HD, Doom, Wolfestein and Doom Eternal were announced before TW3. We also have games like Overwatch or Fortnite, heavy online succesful games, before TW released.

If by 2022-2023 they don't release a successor because the tech was not ready for them, it is not going to be the end of the world for Nintendo or for me. They will release one when they consider to be ready. But if by 2022-2023 they release one that has tech enough to satisfy them and other developers, that wouldn't mean it was rushed or that it was a bad bussiness.