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

Forums - Nintendo - Could The Switch's Successor Take The GBC Route?

AngryLittleAlchemist on 27 January 2019
thetonestarr said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

"Nintendo have never really fully committed to that approach apart from with the GBC, yeah we have the DSi and the N3DS but those weren't really weren't pro models so to speak as one had internal storage added while other has a slightly better CPU just to run one particular games. GBC was really the only time they committed to something of the sort and it became a successor of the GB even though they're the same platform classification, that said it's not far fetched for that approach to return again where we see a pro model Switch in future that's maybe base around X1 performance that is fully BC and becomes a pseudo successor in the same way GBC did."

 

To me, that sounds more true to the "Pro" model idea than the Gameboy Color. You said it yourself, the Gameboy Color was practically it's own platform, the same can not be said for the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X. The New 3DS offers minimal upgrades over the original edition, just as the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X do. The only difference is that the upgrades in the New 3DS are even more minimal, but at least with your description, I feel Nintendo's recent standard of upgraded models actually falls more in line than what Gameboy Color did. 

Anyways, it's an interesting idea, but I don't really see why? Besides making more sales fall under the original Switch, but even then you called it a "successor". So would this basically just be a disappointing Switch 2, or just an upgraded version of Switch that's a bigger difference in terms of power than the N3DS and DSi?

I personally found the N3DS upgrade to be huge, due to the vastly improved 3D effect. 

I mean I think you could say the same thing about the Xbox One X or Playstation 4 Pro though. Like for example, I would never play Monster Hunter World on a base PS4 ... that framerate just seems pretty bad compared to the Pro version. I just think the Pro and One X are more comparable to a New 3DS then they are a Gameboy Color, because they are decent upgrades but they are not even close to being their own ecosystem like Gameboy Color practically was. 

However, I wasn't really critiquing what was being said in the OP, i'm more so confused by what the difference would be between a Switch revision taking a Gameboy Color approach and a Switch revision taking a Pro approach. I suppose he means a much more powerful upgrade or difference between the Pro model and the regular one? 



Around the Network
Wyrdness on 27 January 2019
Jumpin said:

I hope not. 6-7 years should be gen 3 or 2 going on 3. NVidea is developing the hardware tech. It takes some burden off of Nintendo. Waiting 6-7 year’s sticks them with the same problem Nintendo always suffers with the year 2/3 peak. If they have a new console out at year 2/3, then there is a new interest for potential purchasers who wanted something newer, and also for existing customers to upgrade, thus maintaining the peak sales level instead of letting it slide off a cliff like Nintendo’s past consoles.

I’d love a new Switch tablet with increased performance on certain games: draw distances, frame rates, and resolution. Other feature upgrades could be battery life. Also left joycons that don’t de sync when someone walks past the screen (seriously, this happened to me). Keep the first gen on the market at a marginally reduced price.

All platforms have the year 2/3 peak bringing out platforms every 2-3 years is dangerously close to what caused the crash back in the late 70s/early 80s as you begin to over saturate the market and part of the appeal with consoles is that you have that guaranteed 5 or so period of it being supported and fully pushed not only that you have to factor in costs mobiles can do yearly to 2 year releases because people don't have to pay the 800-1000 quid price upfront due to contract deals.

a 6/7 year release plan is better as it maintains the current release structure of consoles while allowing the potential to have a bigger more viable jump between each model not to mention it allows a bigger library to be built up from the previous model for BC on the newer model.



Jumpin on 28 January 2019
Wyrdness said:
Jumpin said:

I hope not. 6-7 years should be gen 3 or 2 going on 3. NVidea is developing the hardware tech. It takes some burden off of Nintendo. Waiting 6-7 year’s sticks them with the same problem Nintendo always suffers with the year 2/3 peak. If they have a new console out at year 2/3, then there is a new interest for potential purchasers who wanted something newer, and also for existing customers to upgrade, thus maintaining the peak sales level instead of letting it slide off a cliff like Nintendo’s past consoles.

I’d love a new Switch tablet with increased performance on certain games: draw distances, frame rates, and resolution. Other feature upgrades could be battery life. Also left joycons that don’t de sync when someone walks past the screen (seriously, this happened to me). Keep the first gen on the market at a marginally reduced price.

All platforms have the year 2/3 peak bringing out platforms every 2-3 years is dangerously close to what caused the crash back in the late 70s/early 80s as you begin to over saturate the market and part of the appeal with consoles is that you have that guaranteed 5 or so period of it being supported and fully pushed not only that you have to factor in costs mobiles can do yearly to 2 year releases because people don't have to pay the 800-1000 quid price upfront due to contract deals.

a 6/7 year release plan is better as it maintains the current release structure of consoles while allowing the potential to have a bigger more viable jump between each model not to mention it allows a bigger library to be built up from the previous model for BC on the newer model.

If they were running a mobile iterative strategy, they wouldn't cancel support for the previous hardware when the new model comes out; that is not how mobile platforms work. For example, iPhone mandates that software several generations of hardware in order to be approved to the app store - while there are a few exemptions, these are rare, and usually not based on chipsets, but rather new exclusive features. Software support can still be mandated for 5 years, so Switch 2 won't have any software unplayable on Switch 1 until around the time Switch 3 releases. That's the same as mobile and PC, the newer the model, the longer it will be able to play software.

The problem with 6/7 years is it means fewer people are buying hardware each year for half the generation, this is not a healthy strategy; and for Nintendo has ended multiple times with massive brand disinterest and sales crashes; they basically have to start all over again each gen, and can't maintain momentum. Due to the nature of Switch's hardware, following this sort of strategy is no longer necessary. A person buying a Switch 1 will still see the same jump in hardware from their old model in 6/7 years when the Switch 3 is out, and then it's only another 1/2 years before generation 2 Switch owners see a similar gap in power with the Switch 4.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Wyrdness on 28 January 2019
Jumpin said:
Wyrdness said:

All platforms have the year 2/3 peak bringing out platforms every 2-3 years is dangerously close to what caused the crash back in the late 70s/early 80s as you begin to over saturate the market and part of the appeal with consoles is that you have that guaranteed 5 or so period of it being supported and fully pushed not only that you have to factor in costs mobiles can do yearly to 2 year releases because people don't have to pay the 800-1000 quid price upfront due to contract deals.

a 6/7 year release plan is better as it maintains the current release structure of consoles while allowing the potential to have a bigger more viable jump between each model not to mention it allows a bigger library to be built up from the previous model for BC on the newer model.

If they were running a mobile iterative strategy, they wouldn't cancel support for the previous hardware when the new model comes out; that is not how mobile platforms work. For example, iPhone mandates that software several generations of hardware in order to be approved to the app store - while there are a few exemptions, these are rare, and usually not based on chipsets, but rather new exclusive features. Software support can still be mandated for 5 years, so Switch 2 won't have any software unplayable on Switch 1 until around the time Switch 3 releases. That's the same as mobile and PC, the newer the model, the longer it will be able to play software.

The problem with 6/7 years is it means fewer people are buying hardware each year for half the generation, this is not a healthy strategy; and for Nintendo has ended multiple times with massive brand disinterest and sales crashes; they basically have to start all over again each gen, and can't maintain momentum. Due to the nature of Switch's hardware, following this sort of strategy is no longer necessary. A person buying a Switch 1 will still see the same jump in hardware from their old model in 6/7 years when the Switch 3 is out, and then it's only another 1/2 years before generation 2 Switch owners see a similar gap in power with the Switch 4.

Hardware sales are the lower end of Nintendo's earnings most of their money is earned through software and peripherals sold on the hardware this is why on top of cost issues on newer hardware a 6/7 year approach is the only path they can go as dedicated gaming platforms aren't sold on contract deals like mobile phones it also gives developers time to push the hardware with their games.

The GBC approach may have elements similar to mobile releases but it's not fully identical as the consumer sees the products differently from mobile hence why the chaos with Atari back in the 70s as the market doesn't react well to being over saturated with hardware releases plus we're in an era where platforms are on the market for longer than 5 years I'd say with a GBC like approach announced the next version in year 5 but release it in year 6.