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
Soundwave said:

If they were to do a "Switch Pro" with better specs, the way they could get around the issue of splintered userbase is to do this

Pro Switch Specs:

393 GFLOPS undocked (which is the current Switch's docked performance)
800 GFLOPS docked (new higher performance mode for TV)

So old Switch models can't run these games, right? Well not neccessarily.

You can run these games on the older Switch models, but only the 393 GFLOP profile version of the game would run. This isn't impossible, it would just necessitate a battery pak when you are playing portably.

But this is really not a big deal, one can buy a 4500 MaH battery bank for $15, Nintendo could even offer an official one.

This way, games would run across all models, but the Pro model would be getting the better docked home performance is all.

Homebrewers on Switch are able to to get the undocked Switch to run at docked speed ... the system is fine, it doesn't overheat or anything. They're doing stuff like getting The Witcher 3 running at 60 fps undocked. It's just you lose battery life and that could be fairly easily augmented because batteries are dirt cheap and widely available. 

No. that ain't gonna happen. There is no reason for Nintendo to try to confuse the market. A pro version of the Switch I'm sure would have better specs but not by like double, and not to make it so you could only play games when the OG Switch is plugged in. That sounds horrendous. A pro Switch should just deliver a premium experience, which means games that run slow don't run slow anymore, or games that would run at say 720p or 900p docked get to run in 1080p docked instead. Something like that.

I think a premium experience of the Switch would be:

More performance to make games run smoother or higher res (no splintering userbase)

Larger screen the eliminates the dead space in the current model

More disk space

more scratch resistant screen, maybe better kickstand

bluetooth so you can use wireless headphones

The above things seem like something that would be worth coming out with a premium version of the Switch for $50 more than OG Switch, and maybe even eventually eliminating the original, like 3DS did, so that Nintendo keeps the higher price point into the future, and the Lite remains the low price point, so people who want to "Switch" have to get the most expensive but better (than the original) version. Even if off the bat this new version made less profit than the original, they could market it as a better Switch as so keep the price high for longer and therefore make more profit long term.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

I'm thinking $199-229 with a pro controller included

Definitely $199 minimum for a hypothetical Switch TV, but such a console may as well be modified and ditch the SSD storage in favor of an HDD because portability doesn't need to be considered anymore. For example, Switch TV with a 500 GB HDD and Pro Controller for $249-279.

Not to mention semi decent 7200RPM mechanical hard drives can offer more performance than the cheap, slow "SSD" in the Switch currently...

RolStoppable said:

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

Why not? (AUD will be higher of course.)

You are essentially ditching the display, battery, joycons and dock, that substantially lowers your BoM, should end up cheaper than a Switch Lite.

NextGen_Gamer said:

You are forgetting what makes the Switch special - it's a handheld and a console.

Obviously Nintendo doesn't consider those features to be special anymore, hence the handheld-only variant. (Which people said would never happen at one point.)

Pyro as Bill said:

Most of Nintendo's big games already run @1080p60 so wouldn't need a boost

You sure about that? Like... Absolutely certain? List them.





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

Slownenberg said:
Soundwave said:

If they were to do a "Switch Pro" with better specs, the way they could get around the issue of splintered userbase is to do this

Pro Switch Specs:

393 GFLOPS undocked (which is the current Switch's docked performance)
800 GFLOPS docked (new higher performance mode for TV)

So old Switch models can't run these games, right? Well not neccessarily.

You can run these games on the older Switch models, but only the 393 GFLOP profile version of the game would run. This isn't impossible, it would just necessitate a battery pak when you are playing portably.

But this is really not a big deal, one can buy a 4500 MaH battery bank for $15, Nintendo could even offer an official one.

This way, games would run across all models, but the Pro model would be getting the better docked home performance is all.

Homebrewers on Switch are able to to get the undocked Switch to run at docked speed ... the system is fine, it doesn't overheat or anything. They're doing stuff like getting The Witcher 3 running at 60 fps undocked. It's just you lose battery life and that could be fairly easily augmented because batteries are dirt cheap and widely available. 

No. that ain't gonna happen. There is no reason for Nintendo to try to confuse the market. A pro version of the Switch I'm sure would have better specs but not by like double, and not to make it so you could only play games when the OG Switch is plugged in. That sounds horrendous. A pro Switch should just deliver a premium experience, which means games that run slow don't run slow anymore, or games that would run at say 720p or 900p docked get to run in 1080p docked instead. Something like that.

I think a premium experience of the Switch would be:

More performance to make games run smoother or higher res (no splintering userbase)

Larger screen the eliminates the dead space in the current model

More disk space

more scratch resistant screen, maybe better kickstand

bluetooth so you can use wireless headphones

The above things seem like something that would be worth coming out with a premium version of the Switch for $50 more than OG Switch, and maybe even eventually eliminating the original, like 3DS did, so that Nintendo keeps the higher price point into the future, and the Lite remains the low price point, so people who want to "Switch" have to get the most expensive but better (than the original) version. Even if off the bat this new version made less profit than the original, they could market it as a better Switch as so keep the price high for longer and therefore make more profit long term.

There is no confusion if every game can work on every model. It's like saying people couldn't understand the N64 RAM expansion. Saying you need a battery pack for certain games is the simplest and cheapest "hardware upgrade" in the history of gaming. 



Pemalite said:
RolStoppable said:

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

Why not? (AUD will be higher of course.)

You are essentially ditching the display, battery, joycons and dock, that substantially lowers your BoM, should end up cheaper than a Switch Lite.

Because Switch is selling well and Nintendo would be leaving a lot of money on the table by going so low on the hardware price when they absolutely don't need to.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Soundwave said:
Nu-13 said:

That sounds like a terrible idea or something that would be reserved for very few exclusives like the new 3ds.

Why? $15 battery pak for OG Switch owners is a pretty fucking low bar to ask for if it opens the system up to having a dramatically better library as Nintendo's IP library dries up a bit (can't sustain sales just with the same 7 or 8 IP over and over again). Every Switch owner would benefit. 

Because the marketing behind it is terrible. Hey everyone who owns a Switch, you can't play new Switch games unless you buy and lug around a battery pack on the back of your Switch. Why? Just cuz we wanted to accommodate people who would pay more and don't care about the tens of millions who already bought it.

In no world will people be expected to buy a battery pack simply in order to be able to play new games.

Nintendo is not gonna try to splinter the game base between different versions of the Switch with some cheap crap like this. Switch Pro would just runs games more smoothly or at higher res, with the original switch or lite being the target to develop against.

Also why can't Nintendo sustain sales?? I don't see any problem with this. A bunch of franchises or series haven't even come out yet (2d mario, AC, metroid, bayonetta, multiple portable franchises, just to name a few). And some second Switch versions of franchises will sell huge (another pokemon, another botw, another mario 3d, etc) There's a lot more than 7 or 8 IPs.

Switch owners will absolutely not benefit from Nintendo playing cheap tricks with its userbase and splintering the games between different versions of the same system.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
Nu-13 said:

That sounds like a terrible idea or something that would be reserved for very few exclusives like the new 3ds.

Why? $15 battery pak for OG Switch owners is a pretty fucking low bar to ask for if it opens the system up to having a dramatically better library as Nintendo's IP library dries up a bit (can't sustain sales just with the same 7 or 8 IP over and over again). Every Switch owner would benefit. 

Omg what the hell are you talking about? Hardware revisions do not open up anything (and the switch's hardware has nothing to do with not getting games). And you can bet companies don't want to spend a few dollars, let alone 15, as a side effect of another thing that's unecessary.



Slownenberg said:
Soundwave said:

Why? $15 battery pak for OG Switch owners is a pretty fucking low bar to ask for if it opens the system up to having a dramatically better library as Nintendo's IP library dries up a bit (can't sustain sales just with the same 7 or 8 IP over and over again). Every Switch owner would benefit. 

Because the marketing behind it is terrible. Hey everyone who owns a Switch, you can't play new Switch games unless you buy and lug around a battery pack on the back of your Switch. Why? Just cuz we wanted to accommodate people who would pay more and don't care about the tens of millions who already bought it.

In no world will people be expected to buy a battery pack simply in order to be able to play new games.

Nintendo is not gonna try to splinter the game base between different versions of the Switch with some cheap crap like this. Switch Pro would just runs games more smoothly or at higher res, with the original switch or lite being the target to develop against.

Also why can't Nintendo sustain sales?? I don't see any problem with this. A bunch of franchises or series haven't even come out yet (2d mario, AC, metroid, bayonetta, multiple portable franchises, just to name a few). And some second Switch versions of franchises will sell huge (another pokemon, another botw, another mario 3d, etc) There's a lot more than 7 or 8 IPs.

Switch owners will absolutely not benefit from Nintendo playing cheap tricks with its userbase and splintering the games between different versions of the same system.

I mean even the new Switch model (the red box one) wouldn't even need the battery pak, it would simply just default back to the original battery life old Switch models have. 

If doing something like that could open the door to games like Resident Evil Remake 2 + 3, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Red Dead Redemption 2 (listed by a retailer for Switch), Kingdom Hearts 3, etc. that would add a lot of value to the library of the system for what ... $15 for some people? 

That's pretty fucking good trade off if you ask me. And if you don't like any of those games, even simpler ... you don't need to bother. Stick with the Nintendo games + indies. Easy peasy. 

Something like that would probably fairly dramatically improve the kind of software library Switch could offer in the coming years and extend the life cycle of the system for sure. 



Soundwave said:
Slownenberg said:

No. that ain't gonna happen. There is no reason for Nintendo to try to confuse the market. A pro version of the Switch I'm sure would have better specs but not by like double, and not to make it so you could only play games when the OG Switch is plugged in. That sounds horrendous. A pro Switch should just deliver a premium experience, which means games that run slow don't run slow anymore, or games that would run at say 720p or 900p docked get to run in 1080p docked instead. Something like that.

I think a premium experience of the Switch would be:

More performance to make games run smoother or higher res (no splintering userbase)

Larger screen the eliminates the dead space in the current model

More disk space

more scratch resistant screen, maybe better kickstand

bluetooth so you can use wireless headphones

The above things seem like something that would be worth coming out with a premium version of the Switch for $50 more than OG Switch, and maybe even eventually eliminating the original, like 3DS did, so that Nintendo keeps the higher price point into the future, and the Lite remains the low price point, so people who want to "Switch" have to get the most expensive but better (than the original) version. Even if off the bat this new version made less profit than the original, they could market it as a better Switch as so keep the price high for longer and therefore make more profit long term.

There is no confusion if every game can work on every model. It's like saying people couldn't understand the N64 RAM expansion. Saying you need a battery pack for certain games is the simplest and cheapest "hardware upgrade" in the history of gaming. 

Expansion pack was required to run 3 games, and one of those games was sold with it. And you are not saying it'll work on every model, you are saying it'll work on the new models and won't work portable in the older models. Saying you can run a game on a TV but can't in portable mode unless you have a battery pack is very confusing and would guaranteed to be highly unpopular among players. New 3DS had what 5 or less games that couldn't run on older versions, N64 had 2 games that didn't have the expansion pack bundled in that couldn't run without it. So no, not gonna happen. Terrible optics, terrible marketing, would play terrible with the userbase, and a terrible cheap idea overall.



Slownenberg said:
Soundwave said:

There is no confusion if every game can work on every model. It's like saying people couldn't understand the N64 RAM expansion. Saying you need a battery pack for certain games is the simplest and cheapest "hardware upgrade" in the history of gaming. 

Expansion pack was required to run 3 games, and one of those games was sold with it. And you are not saying it'll work on every model, you are saying it'll work on the new models and won't work portable in the older models. Saying you can run a game on a TV but can't in portable mode unless you have a battery pack is very confusing and would guaranteed to be highly unpopular among players. New 3DS had what 5 or less games that couldn't run on older versions, N64 had 2 games that didn't have the expansion pack bundled in that couldn't run without it. So no, not gonna happen. Terrible optics, terrible marketing, would play terrible with the userbase, and a terrible cheap idea overall.

Being able to enjoy modern popular titles for only $15 more versus spending $300-$400 on an entirely new piece of hardware isn't bad optics if you ask me. 

You're getting access to games you wouldn't have otherwise for a tiny marginal cost. RAM pak on the N64 would be a joke by comparison. 



Pemalite said:
RolStoppable said:

Definitely $199 minimum for a hypothetical Switch TV, but such a console may as well be modified and ditch the SSD storage in favor of an HDD because portability doesn't need to be considered anymore. For example, Switch TV with a 500 GB HDD and Pro Controller for $249-279.

Not to mention semi decent 7200RPM mechanical hard drives can offer more performance than the cheap, slow "SSD" in the Switch currently...

RolStoppable said:

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

Why not? (AUD will be higher of course.)

You are essentially ditching the display, battery, joycons and dock, that substantially lowers your BoM, should end up cheaper than a Switch Lite.

NextGen_Gamer said:

You are forgetting what makes the Switch special - it's a handheld and a console.

Obviously Nintendo doesn't consider those features to be special anymore, hence the handheld-only variant. (Which people said would never happen at one point.)

Pyro as Bill said:

Most of Nintendo's big games already run @1080p60 so wouldn't need a boost

You sure about that? Like... Absolutely certain? List them.



Pretty sure nintendo has also noticed how big of a fuck up it was to not make the lite dockable. So I don't think they are too thrilled about trying something similar.