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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Your thoughts on the Next Ninty Console

Soundwave said:

If Switch Pro has 128GB on board storage, that could hold hypothetically (not saying this game would be out on Switch Pro or not, but lets assume it is):

Red Dead Revolver 2 (lets say approx 80GB, it's 85GB on XBox One) + Super Mario Odyssey + Pokemon Lets Go + Zelda: BotW + Smash all on internal storage. That's a fair amount of games you can store internally. Could be even less if you bought those games on carts (lets say 32GB is the max size devs will use circa 2020), so RDR2 could only require say 50GB in that case. In which case you can now have Splatoon 2 + Skyrim + one other fairly reasonable sized game on there.   

That's before getting an SD Card, which are getting dirt cheap. 128GB are very affordable already and 256GB by 2020 will be cheap.

But Switch can also easily have even now more than 128GB, you can buy 128GB MicroSD for $20-30 and to have 150GB+ memory, again internal memory is not problem. Point is that some big devs want to have hole game or at least most of their game on cart, and they cant do that with 16GB carts with their games and 32GB Switch carts are currently too expansive.



Around the Network
Miyamotoo said:
Soundwave said:

GTA5 Online does not run on a 360/PS3 though that's kind of the problem. 

We don't know how demanding RE7 is, people always say this stuff like they know more than the developer. In any case, Resident Evil 2 Remake likely can't run on the current Switch. 

Wrong, GTA Online was running on PS3/360 but after GTAV launch for PS4/XB1 they focused on online just for those consoles and cut PS3/360 support, and that actually have sense. So GTA5 was running on PS3/360 in any case. Also even if Online is problem for Switch, I dont see how Switch Pro could solve that.

Yes we do know how much RE7 is demanding, point that RE7 runs at locked 1080p with very stable 60PFS on base Xbox (while Doom for instance runs at 830p with FPS that most of time is below 60) is telling us that's not demanding game and that Switch wouldnt have problem running that game (probably at least 900p/30FPS docked). RE2 maybe could run maybe couldn't, but that's different story, we still dont know how will run on XB1/PS4.

 

Soundwave said:

You don't need "most of the 3rd party games". 8-15 of the bigger IP per year is good enough. Eventually the Switch Pro will phase out the current Switch and the developer can continue to enjoy sales from their port as more and more people transition upwards and others join into the Switch ecosystem choosing the Pro model instead of the regular one. 

The main thing is internal storage actually. 32GB will eventually become as cheap as 16GB is, probably by 2020. Even 64GB will eventually be affordable, but the internal storage is the key. Increasing the Switch Pro's internal storage to 128GB should allow anyone the option of having one of the large games. It just comes down consumer choice and how they want to allocate their storage space. 

But thats huge number of games in any case that couldnt run on much higher part of Switch install base, and that's far from realistic scenario that we could have. Pro Switch is not only possible Switch revision, potential lower price point Switch is far more possible than Switch Pro, so its not like that in any time of Switch life span potential Switch Pro would only Switch revision that will be in sale. Also buy time Switch Pro could arrive, current Switch would probably have 50m+ install base, hardly that any 3rd party devs would release game that cant be played on higher number of install base of one platform. Also you need to have your expactions in check, I mean look at New 3DS compared to regular 3DS, you have just few games that couldnt run on older model, similar will be probably with "New Switch" (no Pro Switch, New will maybe have around 2x more power than current Switch), but expecting 8-15 bigger games per year that could run only on "New Switch" is IMO crazy.

Not really, you can easily expand internal memory by MicroSD card, but devs cant do nothing about currently high price of Switch carts. I agree that by time costs of Switch carts will go down, maybe even next year, but I talking about one of current biggest problems when comes to some big 3rd party games that could come to Switch, so for those games its not power problem.

You will have both a Pro model and "kids" models (cheap/smaller/whatever). Nintendo wants to sell the most hardware, the success of the PS4 Pro and XBox One X is a revenue model Nintendo will not look off of, it's too much money and it helps hardware sales too much to ignore. It also allows you to keep selling models at a premium price point which reaps higher profit margins as time goes on, which is something every business suit at Nintendo will like.. PS4/XB1 would be showing larger signs of decline without Pro/X revisions all the sales metrics say that. Just like paid online + smartphone gaming, Nintendo won't be able to ignore that money. Besides that, there are already relaible insiders on ResetEra that basically have stated a "Switch Pro" exists internally at Nintendo. 

Money talks to the new Nintendo, they're not the same company from 15 years ago, the board of directors aside from Miyamoto is completely different and the business priorities are clearly on maximizing revenue/profit, so old rules like "we don't charge for online", and "we'll never make smartphone games, and even if we did we'll never do the gacha revenue model" ... uh nope and nope. 

Switch Pro isn't out today, so the cost of a 32GB cart today is irrelevant. By 2020 that will likely be cheap, and a Switch Pro can have higher internal storage to boot (as the price of that will also be dropping as time goes on). Likely Nintendo is offering 64GB next year because the of a scale down in pricing ... 32GB will likely become as cheap as the 16GB, and 64GB will occupy the price point of the current 32GB. 32GB even for a cartridge supplier is nothing these days. Today's Nintendo won't be able to stay away from the money that premium "Pro" models bring in (Apple does it too, iPhone XS, iPad Pro, etc. etc. the big money is in the fatter profit margins you get). Of that I'm reasonably confident. 

Pro models as a concept are here to stay (not just New 3DS style unimpressive upgrades), MS and Sony are already reaping the benefits of it, it won't be long before Nintendo is too. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 01 December 2018

Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

GTA5 runs on the Xbox 360. Anything that runs on the 360 could run on Switch.

And RE7 is less demanding than Wolfenstein II and Doom, which run on Switch.

GTA5 Online does not run on a 360/PS3 though that's kind of the problem. 

We don't know how demanding RE7 is, people always say this stuff like they know more than the developer. In any case, Resident Evil 2 Remake likely can't run on the current Switch. 

You have a Switch that's 2-3x the performance, which should be fairly easy to achieve by 2020 (the Tegra X1 chip will be 5 years old by then and we already have mobile chips in that range or better being sold today in Apple's A12X) and ports like that and Kingdom Hearts 3 become fairly easy for a dev. 

Miyamotoo already covered some of this, but you can assess how demanding a game is by how is performs on real hardware.

For example, RE7 operates at 1080p and between 50-60fps on Xbox One. Wolfenstein II operates at 810p with a similar framerate, and Doom can drop to 828p or lower and the framerate into the 40s.

On PS4, RE7 is a locked 1080p/60, yet Doom can drop below that in both resolution and framerate, and Wolfenstein II wavers between 50-60fps at 1080p.

Ergo, it can be surmised that RE7 is less demanding than Doom and Wolfenstein II.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

GTA5 Online does not run on a 360/PS3 though that's kind of the problem. 

We don't know how demanding RE7 is, people always say this stuff like they know more than the developer. In any case, Resident Evil 2 Remake likely can't run on the current Switch. 

You have a Switch that's 2-3x the performance, which should be fairly easy to achieve by 2020 (the Tegra X1 chip will be 5 years old by then and we already have mobile chips in that range or better being sold today in Apple's A12X) and ports like that and Kingdom Hearts 3 become fairly easy for a dev. 

Miyamotoo already covered some of this, but you can assess how demanding a game is by how is performs on real hardware.

For example, RE7 operates at 1080p and between 50-60fps on Xbox One. Wolfenstein II operates at 810p with a similar framerate, and Doom can drop to 828p or lower and the framerate into the 40s.

On PS4, RE7 is a locked 1080p/60, yet Doom can drop below that in both resolution and framerate, and Wolfenstein II wavers between 50-60fps at 1080p.

Ergo, it can be surmised that RE7 is less demanding than Doom and Wolfenstein II.

RE7 isn't really any prize anyway. The games you want are RE2 Remake and RE8. You want to have Kingdom Hearts 3 and FF7 Remake. You want to have Call of Duty series (even in Japan, this sells a lot). You want to have GTAV with online play. If a Pro model can accomodate that easily and make it so the dev doesn't have to jump through 3000 hoops to get the game running acceptably, that's probably worth doing. You don't need to have every game but you want to have some of these bigger IP. 

And we're probably at the point with chip tech where that's possible already, the Apple A12X has got to be a good 3-5x better than the current Switch processor, by 2020 a chip of that class will be a good deal cheaper. 

I still think too for OG Switch units there could be a reasonable way to offer the new higher end chip as a supplemental add-on. Nintendo patented this very concept already, and mobile chips are tiny, you could integrate one into something that's like a Switch stand. It doesn't have to be like some giant brick next to the Switch. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 01 December 2018

Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

Miyamotoo already covered some of this, but you can assess how demanding a game is by how is performs on real hardware.

For example, RE7 operates at 1080p and between 50-60fps on Xbox One. Wolfenstein II operates at 810p with a similar framerate, and Doom can drop to 828p or lower and the framerate into the 40s.

On PS4, RE7 is a locked 1080p/60, yet Doom can drop below that in both resolution and framerate, and Wolfenstein II wavers between 50-60fps at 1080p.

Ergo, it can be surmised that RE7 is less demanding than Doom and Wolfenstein II.

RE7 isn't really any prize anyway. The games you want are RE2 Remake and RE8. You want to have Kingdom Hearts 3 and FF7 Remake. You want to have Call of Duty series (even in Japan, this sells a lot). You want to have GTAV with online play. If a Pro model can accomodate that easily and make it so the dev doesn't have to jump through 3000 hoops to get the game running acceptably, that's probably worth doing. You don't need to have every game but you want to have some of these bigger IP. 

And we're probably at the point with chip tech where that's possible already, the Apple A12X has got to be a good 3-5x better than the current Switch processor, by 2020 a chip of that class will be a good deal cheaper. 

People don't buy Nintendo platforms for third party multiplats.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network

Yeah, I'm in the "Super Switch" camp. I don't want to see another wild, "innovative" idea until they've thoroughly utilized their back catalog. There's no reason why a console selling like the Switch can't see a new F-Zero, a new Golden Sun, a new Star Tropics even. Not to mention an HD remaster of this at the very least:



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

RE7 isn't really any prize anyway. The games you want are RE2 Remake and RE8. You want to have Kingdom Hearts 3 and FF7 Remake. You want to have Call of Duty series (even in Japan, this sells a lot). You want to have GTAV with online play. If a Pro model can accomodate that easily and make it so the dev doesn't have to jump through 3000 hoops to get the game running acceptably, that's probably worth doing. You don't need to have every game but you want to have some of these bigger IP. 

And we're probably at the point with chip tech where that's possible already, the Apple A12X has got to be a good 3-5x better than the current Switch processor, by 2020 a chip of that class will be a good deal cheaper. 

People don't buy Nintendo platforms for third party multiplats.

Switch isn't like other recent Nintendo platforms though. There are quite a few third party games on the Switch that are selling quite well, look at the NPD Switch top 10 software for last month, 6/10 are 3rd party games, two years into the product cycle. Fortnite is doing great on the Switch and getting its own hardware bundle. 

Kingdom Hearts 3, RE2 Remake, GTAV, Elder Scrolls VI, could all likely clear 1 million+ on the Switch/Pro. That's a decent foundation to build off of and something to grow from. It's not about getting into a pissing match with Sony/MS, but it's also acknowledging there is demand for experiences beyond just "Nintendo games" in the form factor the Switch offers. 

Switch definitely has a little more of the NES, SNES, even N64 DNA inside of it where people are open to more than just Nintendo software. Look at the eShop rankings too, there's always a healthy number of 3rd party titles in the top 20 all the time. 

There are definitely 3rd party multiplats I've bought on the Switch over PS4/XB1 because I want to be able to play those games on the go. I got Cities Skylines, FIFA, and Diablo, and even paid more for those on Switch because I can't exactly throw an XBox One X into my backpack and play it on a plane or train. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 01 December 2018

Miyamotoo said:

Difference is that Jaguar in PS4 is 8-core CPU that runs at 1.7GHz while A57 is 4-core CPU that runs at 1GHz. If I recall, A57 vs Jaguar core vs core on same clocks had similar results in benchmarks.

The Playstation 4 Operates at 1.6ghz, not 1.7ghz.

ARM A57 and AMD's Jaguar should be roughly equivalent in performance per clock. But Jaguar operates at a higher clock and has more cores. - But you are just reinforcing my argument at this point.

Remember though... AMD's Jaguar was AMD's absolute worst CPU at a time when even their high-end CPU's were trending towards the low-end. - Perspective.

Miyamotoo said:

PS5/XB2 will have huge update in CPU, but possible Switch 2 will also have huge upgrade in CPU side in any case, I mean if just now curently imagine for instance A76 6-core CPU running at 2GHz compared to current A57 4-core CPU runing at 1GHz, we talking about huge difference, and Switch will most likely using more stronger and more advance CPU than latest ARM CPU for potential Switch 2 that would most likely be released in 2023, and that would be most likely enough to runs 4K PS5/XB2 games at 1080p at least in docked mode.

The Switch 2 will also have an increase in CPU capability, it would be pretty asinine to assume otherwise anyway.
The jump from A57 to A72 was 90%.
The jump from A72 to A73 was 30%.
The jump from A73 to A76 was 35%.

The jump from Jaguar to Zen you are probably looking at 400% or more. - 800-900% if it's an octo variant of Zen+.
And that is before we start looking at Zen 2...

Fact is... AMD spent years trailing the industry, where-as ARM hasn't... And that pays off for the current Switch in comparison to the Playstation 4/Xbox One. - But that all goes away next gen as AMD finally has a CPU design worth talking about, the performance delta on the CPU side of the equation is set to grow next gen, that's just a reality of AMD catching up to Intel.

Miyamotoo said:

No I didn't forget, I actually wrote its 20nm, and 20nm is reason why they couldnt go with higher clocks, higher clocks with X1 thats 20nm would mean higher heating and less battery life.

It's part of the reason.
The other is that it's a Maxwell derived part. - nVidia made significant engineering changes with Pascal in order to drive up clockrates for the same amount of power.

Miyamotoo said:

If they for instance used Tegra X2 you can bet they would use higher clocks for CPU and GPU. Biggest bottleneck for Switch is CPU not GPU, and that was obvious from day one.

I disagree, the largest bottleneck is the GPU. - It simply doesn't have the bandwidth/fillrate to drive higher resolutions... And that is evident in the many games that aren't even in HD/720P.
The CPU doesn't really help in some games though.

curl-6 said:

I apologize if you're sick of my constant questions on this topic, but overall, how does the ARM Cortex A57 in the Switch compare to the Jags in PS4/Xbone. Like, if the PS4 CPU was a 100, what would the Switch CPU be, like 50?

(I'm just guessing it's around half since games like Doom and Wolf 2 run at half the framerate on Switch without cutting back on CPU stuff like number of AI, physics, etc)

It really depends on the task, some tasks will perform better on ARM, whilst others will be better on the x86 chips.

In short... As how things are implemented currently, Jaguar in the consoles should beat ARM A57 in the Switch, mostly thanks to higher clockrates and core counts.
However, if you were to normalize everything and have equal clocks, bandwidth, latencies, core counts... Then I would think A57 would pull ahead.

It's difficult to really peg down actual performance numbers... Because none really exists.

Things like Physics can also muddy the situation as well... Some games will drive Physics on the GPU, whilst others on the CPU, really depends on where the developer takes things.

curl-6 said:

GTA5 runs on the Xbox 360. Anything that runs on the 360 could run on Switch.

Anything the Xbox 360 can do, the Switch can do better.

Miyamotoo said:

Again, point that some game isn't on Switch (at least currently) doesn't meant that game couldnt run on Switch. Actually we had multiply different insiders saying that current one of biggest problem for some biggest 3rd party games coming to Switch is size/cost/availability of Switch carts, and games like GTAV and CoD are heavily hinted examples. So Pro model still wouldnt solved currently one of biggest Switch problems regardles big 3rd party games. I mean there is reason why no one using even 32GB Switch carts (so 16GB is biggest cards that are using).

Also can't forget that... The Xbox One and Playstation 4 tend to have uncompressed 7.1 audio, which takes up a massive chunk of space. - And then 1080P FMV on top of that.
Carts are technically superior to optical disks on every front, except... Cost.

It costs to have large capacities, so something has to give somewhere.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

People don't buy Nintendo platforms for third party multiplats.

Switch isn't like other recent Nintendo platforms though. There are quite a few third party games on the Switch that are selling quite well, look at the NPD Switch top 10 software for last month, 6/10 are 3rd party games, two years into the product cycle. Fortnite is doing great on the Switch and getting its own hardware bundle. 

Kingdom Hearts 3, RE2 Remake, GTAV, Elder Scrolls VI, could all likely clear 1 million+ on the Switch/Pro. That's a decent foundation to build off of and something to grow from. It's not about getting into a pissing match with Sony/MS, but it's also acknowledging there is demand for experiences beyond just "Nintendo games" in the form factor the Switch offers. 

Switch definitely has a little more of the NES, SNES, even N64 DNA inside of it where people are open to more than just Nintendo software. Look at the eShop rankings too, there's always a healthy number of 3rd party titles in the top 20 all the time. 

The Switch as it is already offers enough to third parties. If they want to support it, they will, if they won't, they won't. 

Offering a Pro model won't change that, devs won't suddenly decide to put games on it, especially when they can only sell to a fraction of the userbase. It's just flushing R&D money down the toilet for zero gain.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

The Apple A12X destroys the PS4/XB1 CPUs in low power form factor, I suspect ARM is studying that. Hell that chip apparently more than holds its own against Intel mutli-core i7s that are inside high end laptops. 

Mobile tech is really advancing fast.