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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Foxconn leak rumor turn out to be true for Switch hardware.

Jranation on 17 January 2017
Airaku said:
Jranation said:

If they do, wouldn't it be more expensive? I want the online fee as cheap as possible though.

 

That would be interesting if that's true but I heard that there was some speculation that when he said "4G" he meant "4GB" and it was a type-o but I don't know. That was really the only thing he got wrong if it wasn't. Though don't be surprised if the online fee is on the pricey side. I'd be substantially surprised if it is.

Okay thats good. I mean i wont mind if there is an option for 4G. Hopefully Nintendo is seeing the negativity responses and needs to counter it by making it cheaper, and adding more features (they could include GC, Wii and Wii U games in those monthly free games) 



Pocky Lover Boy! 

Around the Network
dark_gh0st_b0y on 17 January 2017

sounds great, but I wouldn't get too excited, why would Nintendo keep so silent if the specs were as good...

4G internet would just make it perfect, but even if he meant 4GB, a 4G internet version could come anytime after 1-2 years if sales are good enough, and could be sold without the dock too



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^

Zekkyou on 17 January 2017
dark_gh0st_b0y said:
sounds great, but I wouldn't get too excited, why would Nintendo keep so silent if the specs were as good...

4G internet would just make it perfect, but even if he meant 4GB, a 4G internet version could come anytime after 1-2 years if sales are good enough, and could be sold without the dock too

As least as far as power goes while this would be better than what's currently believed, relative to even the standard PS4 and X1 it'd just be dreadful instead of really dreadful. While many will consider the portability justification for that, Nintendo wouldn't share the specifics regardless. 



sc94597 on 17 January 2017
dark_gh0st_b0y said:
sounds great, but I wouldn't get too excited, why would Nintendo keep so silent if the specs were as good...

Nintendo has kept quiet for all of their consoles since the GameCube. Even if they produced a system that they believed to be powerful, I don't think they'd advertise it out of their new philosophy of not providing any information that might be overly scrutinized.

But certainly even this rumor is not as powerful as the X1 or PS4. Whether or not it can get some ports is a different question.



FunFan on 17 January 2017
dark_gh0st_b0y said:
sounds great, but I wouldn't get too excited, why would Nintendo keep so silent if the specs were as good...

4G internet would just make it perfect, but even if he meant 4GB, a 4G internet version could come anytime after 1-2 years if sales are good enough, and could be sold without the dock too

Because the specs pissing contest is all about numbers on paper. Even if by some chance the Switch could have ports that look fairly close to the competition, many will still ignore/hate/shit on it. Nintendo knows that too many people make up their mind when they see the numbers. Remember how the PS2 was supposed to render 66 million polygons per second and the Gamecube a measly 12? Some people still beleave the GC was much weaker compared to the PS2. They havent played Gamecube games.



“Simple minds have always confused great honesty with great rudeness.” - Sherlock Holmes, Elementary (2013).

"Did you guys expected some actual rational fact-based reasoning? ...you should already know I'm all about BS and fraudulence." - FunFan, VGchartz (2016)

Around the Network
fuallmofus on 17 January 2017
Jranation said:
"Says the GPU is 921mhz instead of Eurogamer's 768ghz"

Is that better or worse?

ofc worse. if it would be 768ghz wohooo. but its not



Zekkyou on 17 January 2017
FunFan said:
dark_gh0st_b0y said:
sounds great, but I wouldn't get too excited, why would Nintendo keep so silent if the specs were as good...

4G internet would just make it perfect, but even if he meant 4GB, a 4G internet version could come anytime after 1-2 years if sales are good enough, and could be sold without the dock too

Because the specs pissing contest is all about numbers on paper. Even if by some chance the Switch could have ports that look fairly close to the competition, many will still ignore/hate/shit on it. Nintendo knows that too many people make up their mind when they see the numbers. Remember how the PS2 was supposed to render 66 million polygons per second and the Gamecube a measly 12? Some people still beleave the GC was much weaker compared to the PS2. They havent played Gamecube games.

While it's certainly possible the Switch could hold up better against the competition than many expect, Skyrim is not a great example. Not only do we lack firm details about its performance profiles, but in general it's not a technically complex title. The core tech behind the game is still firmly grounded in the 7th gen, it just has better assets and shaders now (though even those are relatively limited). The Switch getting a decent port of it would be no more indicative of the Switch's capabilities than the Pro version running at a native 4k is indicative of its own. Hell, if it was optimised to the degree something like GTA5 is, even the original PS3 and 360 versions could look significantly better.

The TW3 and DS3 footage from the thread you link is exactly the type of thing people worry about. I imagine most of us can agree the Switch running complex 8th gen titles is definitely possible, but the worry is we'll end up with what you see in those videos. Significant graphical downgrades, a disappointing resolution (768p for both there), and despite all that still running appallingly (15 to 30fps for DS3, and 15 - 20fps for TW3). Actual Switch ports would likley run much better, but i expect many of us would still consider the ports severely lacking. Many of us already do about some PS4 and X1 versions of titles.

The Switch does justify its specs through its portability, but not everyone is going to care about that, nor do they have to. It's part of the risk Nintendo have accepted in many a hybrid console; it'll be held up to the standards of both sides, for better and worse. 



captain carot on 17 January 2017
Wyrdness said:
captain carot said:

Actually, read all that Laura stuff again. It looks like she made everything up that wasn't leaked before by others, like Emily Rogers.

At least we can conclude that we don't have to take their word as gospel in future I remember several times I questioned their claims someone would swear by them. 

Sometimes companies themselves leak false information to not only discredit someone but to also identify who is leaking information.

Basically everything no one else leaked before was wrong. Her having various sources pretty much 100% BS as it looks.



dahuman on 17 January 2017
TheWPCTraveler said:
dahuman said:

https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=108&cp_id=10831&cs_id=1083110&p_id=16240&seq=1&format=2 assuming you are in the US lol

I bolded what I wanted. That is not what I want (though I do want it, I'll see if I can find an equivalent in the Philippines for a good price).

Cobretti2 said:

That really isn't much smller then a regular laptop battery most are around the 4400-5200mAh. Oly the more expensive laptops that are larger have say 6000-8000mAh and generlaly they are a bulky design.

The difference is that they are typically at a higher voltage. For instance, I pulled a battery out of my mom's three year-old laptop.

6.2" Switch with (rumored) : 4.31 Amp-hours at 3.7 V*  = 15.95 Watt-hours

Mom's 11" laptop with 3 hour battery life : 3.35 Amp-hours at 10.8 V = 36 Watt-hours (rated)

You know, if power = voltage*current, then it follows that energy = voltage*charge. I know that I am technically wrong, because I don't want to have to walk you through the calculations necessary. Because, well, integrals.

* - what you should expect from batteries that can be charged from USB power

How bad is the price over there so far? I mean the Switch.



bdbdbd on 17 January 2017
bonzobanana said:
So what have we learnt in this thread?

We aren't confusing retail hardware spec with dev kits are we as dev kits normally perform a little better to give some headroom while developing.

I thought it's the opposite: games running well on lower specs dev kits means that the games will run well on the retail version.

Zekkyou said:
FunFan said:

Because the specs pissing contest is all about numbers on paper. Even if by some chance the Switch could have ports that look fairly close to the competition, many will still ignore/hate/shit on it. Nintendo knows that too many people make up their mind when they see the numbers. Remember how the PS2 was supposed to render 66 million polygons per second and the Gamecube a measly 12? Some people still beleave the GC was much weaker compared to the PS2. They havent played Gamecube games.

While it's certainly possible the Switch could hold up better against the competition than many expect, Skyrim is not a great example. Not only do we lack firm details about its performance profiles, but in general it's not a technically complex title. The core tech behind the game is still firmly grounded in the 7th gen, it just has better assets and shaders now (though even those are relatively limited). The Switch getting a decent port of it would be no more indicative of the Switch's capabilities than the Pro version running at a native 4k is indicative of its own. Hell, if it was optimised to the degree something like GTA5 is, even the original PS3 and 360 versions could look significantly better.

The TW3 and DS3 footage from the thread you link is exactly the type of thing people worry about. I imagine most of us can agree the Switch running complex 8th gen titles is definitely possible, but the worry is we'll end up with what you see in those videos. Significant graphical downgrades, a disappointing resolution (768p for both there), and despite all that still running appallingly (15 to 30fps for DS3, and 15 - 20fps for TW3). Actual Switch ports would likley run much better, but i expect many of us would still consider the ports severely lacking. Many of us already do about some PS4 and X1 versions of titles.

The Switch does justify its specs through its portability, but not everyone is going to care about that, nor do they have to. It's part of the risk Nintendo have accepted in many a hybrid console; it'll be held up to the standards of both sides, for better and worse. 

I remember when Doom came out on Snes. Wasn't anything like the game on PC, but people were happy to be able to play it on Snes. This is how I see the ports from other systems on Switch: they are there for the Switch owners to experience the games, not for them to jerk in a ring around the 720p tablet screen.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.