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:
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.



Around the Network
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.



Nu-13 said:
Pemalite said:

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

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.

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.)

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.

Pretty sure Nintendo was 100% aware of what they were doing on the Switch Lite not being dockable and gave zero fucks that a small group on the internet was upset about it. 

Business is business. You want a Switch that plays on TV and you can pay $300 for that just like everyone else does. 



Soundwave said:
Slownenberg said:

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. 

Okay for one, you're just assuming suddenly Switch would get a flood of PS4/XB1 games with a Switch that is a bit more powerful, but still nowhere near as powerful as those two systems.

Two, Switch owners already enjoy modern popular games.

Three, I don't get how you don't understand how confusing the marketing would be to tell people they have to buy a battery pack to play certain games, and forcing them to buy a third party peripheral to play new games.

Four, you are for some reason assuming the newer model of the OG Switch could play the games just fine in portable mode. You don't seem to understand the difference between having a bit extra battery capacity and being plugged in to the dock. If that were the case the the original Switch and the Lite would be able to play any PS4/XB1 game they'd just have less playtime before battery runs out.

Five....how are you not getting this is an awful idea?

Imagine a phone that said hey the best apps on the phone will only work at all if you use a battery pack. That literally makes no sense, and yet this is your argument.



Around the Network
Pemalite said
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.

Mario Kart 8
Smash Bros
NSMB
Splatoon 2 (peak)
Odyssey (900p60 peak)
ARMS
Captain Toad
DKCR
Mario Party
Pokemon is 30fps but who cares? Zelda's the only important one missing and if it can get a VR patch, there's no excuse for not patching improved framerate/res.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Soundwave said:
Nu-13 said:

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.

Pretty sure Nintendo was 100% aware of what they were doing on the Switch Lite not being dockable and gave zero fucks that a small group on the internet was upset about it. 

Business is business. You want a Switch that plays on TV and you can pay $300 for that just like everyone else does. 

The Lite would fry if it docked with increased performance. No reason why it couldn't output at portable resolution but once you add the cost of a dock and controller it would be pretty pointless.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

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.

Did people say all of this before PS4 Pro and XboxOne X?

For some reason it seems as though we act like iterative hardware is some new uncharted waters. So if a Switch Pro is coming out soon and say it's theoretically on par with base PS4, do we expect that next-gen consoles will come and developers will magically forget 150+ million PS4 and Xbox owners? Both of these systems will still receive some kind of crossover support just like generation before them for a couple of years.

People aren't even looking at this from the other perspective. What if the Switch Pro launches (way more powerful than current model) and starts getting lots of other AAA 3rd party games day and date with PS5 and Series X because of better parity. That could bode much better for the current Switch systems out there, because there are clearly plenty of port house studios that would definitely stay extra busy porting the OG Switch version, even if its 3-6 months later(which is already pretty much happening with current Switch versions).



Pyro as Bill said:
Pemalite said

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

Mario Kart 8
Smash Bros
NSMB
Splatoon 2 (peak)
Odyssey (900p60 peak)
ARMS
Captain Toad
DKCR
Mario Party
Pokemon is 30fps but who cares? Zelda's the only important one missing and if it can get a VR patch, there's no excuse for not patching improved framerate/res.

I'm not even paying attention to what you are talking about here, but just thought this post was funny (read: wrong).

Big games? NSMB is a Wii U port, Captain Toad is a Wii U port, DKCR is a Wii U port, and none of those could be considered Switch's biggest games.

Mario Kart is Switch's biggest game but is also a Wii U port. Mario Party isn't exactly a super demanding game.

Arms isn't one of Switch's biggest games.

You list Odyssey as though it fits the criteria but in parenthesis state it doesn't.

So I'll give you Smash and Splatoon. That's two games of the biggest games made specifically for the Switch, and a bunch of smaller games and Wii U ports.

So what you are saying is that Wii U ports and smaller Nintendo games run 60fps/1080p, but big games made for Switch to push it like Zelda, Pokemon, Mario don't run at top stats.



Soundwave said:
Nu-13 said:

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.

Pretty sure Nintendo was 100% aware of what they were doing on the Switch Lite not being dockable and gave zero fucks that a small group on the internet was upset about it. 

Business is business. You want a Switch that plays on TV and you can pay $300 for that just like everyone else does. 

Business is business and the lite was terrible business. The definition of wasted potential.