The future of the Switch | |||
| A long life-cycle within 1 hardware revision | 18 | 34.62% | |
| A long life-cycle with ma... | 28 | 53.85% | |
| A short lifecycle then a ... | 6 | 11.54% | |
| Total: | 52 | ||
RolStoppable said:
I know enough to know that you don't know what you are talking about. |
Stick to talking about generational cycles and Ring Fit, you're out of your element when you talk about technology because it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Nvidia will easily be able to make a chip even in 2022 that destroys a Tegra X1, you're talking about a 7 year old processor by then.
RolStoppable said:
You have a really bad habit of making straw man arguments. We have two possibilities here: 1. You honestly have no clue about technology. 2. You have sufficient knowledge of technology, recognized that I was right with what I said and therefore decided to use a straw man argument. |
What you said was stupid. You said that Nvidia cannot create a processor by 2022 that is significantly more powerful than what's it the Switch.
That is completely baseless and quite frankly idiotic. Of course they can beat a freaking 7 year old processor that started off on a 20nm process, they are top graphics engineers on the planet, even processing power put aside, additions like DLSS 2.0 completely change your rendering budget monumentally so.
RolStoppable said:
"Their customers would not be ready to move on" is a general statement and means the vast majority, not every single one of them. I need to clarify this because of how your question is framed. Now for your questions: 1. Yes, I would still doubt that more than an insignificant tiny minority would be ready to move on to Switch 2 if all cross-gen games would be ported to Switch 2. The reason being that there's no evidence that PS4 ports are in high demand on the current Switch console. Such a Switch 2 would be akin to the Wii U where the predecessor gets sacrificed for the sake of getting games that Nintendo's customers don't have a major interest in; the Wii U was first pitched at E3 2011 with the premise that virtually all major AAA publishers will be on board, but that was met with lots of hostility by Wii owners because they didn't like Nintendo's lack of support for the Wii in favor of forcing a new hardware purchase for Nintendo games that might as well have been made for the Wii. 2. The above answer should answer your second question by default, but I want to emphasize how wrong it is to take something that people care about away from them only to offer them something in return that they care little about, if at all. Software sales data for Switch does not suggest in the least that there's a substantial desire for ports of PS4 games, certainly not anywhere close on a scale that would justify a successor with the main purpose of getting more ports from other consoles. |
Got it. Was just curious. Thanks for putting the extra effort to be clear on ur communication.
RolStoppable said:
Show the people here the post where I said that. |
Switch 2 in 2022 would be incredibly damaging to Nintendo, because on one hand their customers would not be ready to move on at this point (the time to move on is when it's expected that yearly hardware sales drop to below 10m; it's 2020 and Switch has yet to peak), and on the other hand technology won't have advanced enough to see any benefits from an early launch of a successor. Nintendo won't be able to come reasonably close to the PS5 and XSX in 2022 while maintaining acceptable battery life.
This part is largely false, you don't know what you're talking about here. The technology will have easily advanced by 2022 to see a massive advancement.
And yes, factoring in DLSS, PS5/XBX ports would be likely doable.
DLSS 2.0 completely changes that whole equation.
RolStoppable said:
So it turns out that I didn't say that Nvidia cannot create a processor by 2022 that is significantly more powerful than what's in Switch. What I said is that a portable chipset in 2022 won't come reasonably close to the PS5 and XSX while maintaining acceptable battery life, a statement that carries the implication of whether ports of PS5 and XSX games are feasible. You seem to believe that DLSS is some kind of secret sauce. Is it really? |
There's nothing "secret" about it, you are talking about reducing pixel budget massively
In layman's terms A PS5 game rendering at 4K has to draw/process 8,294,400 pixels (this is 3840x2160).
A DLSS 2.0 processor can get that image quality while only having to render at 1080p, which is 1/4th the pixels. And to be honest there's nothing wrong with going even lower than that. It could render at 1280x720 (720p) and give you a very nice looking comparable to 1440p.
While undocked a DLSS 2.0 chip could render a ridiculously lower than (a 2001 piece of technology) GameCube native resolution while outputting an end image that looks comparable to 720p-900p.
This isn't theoretical either, it can be done on games right now using Nvidia RTX cards, people are playing modern PC games right now using this feature.
And this is just DLSS 2.0, it's entirely possible DLSS 3.0, which probably will be available by 2022 can reconstruct images going to even lower base resolutions.
The current Switch has no where near this flexibility, to port a game like DQXI from PS4, which runs at 900p on the PS4, the Switch still has to render it at 540p undocked and 720p docked ... it's not a big disparity, but to Switch 2 that could change from a PS4 game rendering at 1800p-4K but being able to go as low as say 360p undocked ... that is a ridiculous pixel disparity, we're talking like 1/40th of the pixels of the sudden.
Last edited by Soundwave - on 05 May 2020
|
It's definitely a game-changer. You should take a look at some of the videos that show it doing its job. Here's an interesting thread about it: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242226/how-the-switch-2-could-do-4k120fps/1/ |
That is rather interesting. Unfortunately I give the odds nintendo would consider such technology at about 2%. I think ull understand if theyre past hardware decisions have made me quite skeptical. Hope im wrong though. Would love to buy one console that plays big AAA titles and the handful of 10do games I love playing.
RolStoppable said:
What really made DS sales decline sharply was Nintendo's decision to cut the 3DS's price by 10k yen/$80/€80, which put it in the same price range as the DSi and DSi XL SKUs. When consumers have the choice to pay the same price for a last gen system or a backwards compatible current gen system that will play the games of two consoles' libraries, it becomes an obvious choice to pick the newer console at no extra cost. Only the DS Lite was safe from the 3DS's price cut. For the Wii, 2009 was Nintendo's final wave of software for people who didn't consider the N64 and GC up to snuff. 2009's first half saw a significant decline in hardware sales because Nintendo had released only two minor titles in six months; the second half of 2009 had a huge rebound on the back of the big games you mentioned and pushed the Wii above 20m for the year. From 2010 onwards Nintendo had only sporadic releases of games for fans of classic Nintendo, so a terminal decline set in. It's still kind of a miracle that the Wii could sell more than 10m in 2011 because no other console with a broken software pipeline had even sold half of that in the past. 2011 was the 3DS's launch year and Nintendo's focus was pretty much entirely on preventing the 3DS from becoming a failure, so both the Wii and DS had to give. For all the things that were bad about the 3DS and Wii U, Nintendo got at least one thing right with both of them. The length of their respective lifecycles was appropriate relative to their lifetime sales and the transition phase to Switch was smooth. Switch 2 in 2022 would be incredibly damaging to Nintendo, because on one hand their customers would not be ready to move on at this point (the time to move on is when it's expected that yearly hardware sales drop to below 10m; it's 2020 and Switch has yet to peak), and on the other hand technology won't have advanced enough to see any benefits from an early launch of a successor. Nintendo won't be able to come reasonably close to the PS5 and XSX in 2022 while maintaining acceptable battery life. |
Unless I've got the figures wrong, the DS was down 10m in sales between march 2010/March2011. Thats before the 3DS really made any impact and before any prie cut. It's the same year DSi XL just launched in most of the world.
A lot of the talk or readiness is also confusing for me. If the world was ready for the DSi and DSi XL which was sold at a premium compared to Lite, they were ready for Nintendo's next handheld system. Maybe not at $250 (considering what it offered).
Equally I don't buy your argument with the Wii, there's so much to get into but i'll summarise that its about key IPs. Ninetndo's number of key releases actually remained pretty consistent between 2008/2010. 08 had a relatively poor Q4 software wise with only animal crossing releasing from them, 2010 was actually more busy and had the bigger selling Donkey Kong... but holiday 2008 was sold off the demand off mega titles released much earlier like Mario Kart Wii/Smash and of course Wii Sports.
2008: Smash Bros (Feb), Mario Kart Wii (April), Mario Sluggers/Baseball (June), Wii Music (October), Animal Crossing (Novemeber)
2010: Mario Galaxy 2 (May), Xenoblade (June), Wii Party (July) Metroid; Other M (August) Kirby's Epic Yarn (October), Donkey Kong Country (November), Mario Sports Mix (November)
Its not about quantity of software, lets be honest. I really don't think within a generation Nintendo can reliably repeat the hardware magic of the first time Mario Kart/Smash/2D mario hit a platform or When they have a phenomenom like Wii fit or like what we just saw with Animal Crossing. Again look at Mario Galaxy 1 versus 2 sales wise. Or compare 10's great line up versus 2009s fairly mediocre one with just Wii Fit/NSMB/Wii Sports Resort. At the end of the day wii fit was more valuable than any 3D mario, let alone a sequel to game already on the platform.
Finally I can't grasp this "incredible" damage a 2022 Switch would do.
Market readiness? The Switches audience is not just one demographic. The same people who would be willing to buy a new SKU in the next few years could just be directed to a Switch 2. Those not ready (In 2 and half years) are not forced because Ninetndo wouldn't abandon the Switch overnight, but i feel 90% of that audience also won't be buying any switch games in 2022 either lol. This is just how it goes.
Regarding technology, I feel this would apply to a Playstation system but not a Nintendo system based off Nintendo's history. Tegra X1 was released beginning of 2015. Whatever hadrware Nintendo puts in Switch 2, I have a feeling they could have done the same thing (with maybe small concessions including price) 2 years prior. The Switch's release was perfect, but I think with the sequel they can afford to launch at a premium if its a soft transition, they have it at $299 when they want to get aggressive adoption.
But lets just say I'm crazy, we'll have to agree to disagree. I've written way to much in this bye byes! ;)
Last edited by Otter - on 05 May 2020
The PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 were all selling 10+ million in the fiscal year a successor console was released. So was the Xbox 360, Game Boy (Color), and Game Boy Advance.
It's not really that rare.
| RolStoppable said: I am expecting a revision similar to the New 3DS in fall 2021. There are multiple ways how a new chip can be used and upscaling resolutions is one of them. The New 3DS's performance upgrade was used by hardly any games, so even if a variant of this Jetson Xavier goes into a Switch revision, it wouldn't be a major hardware upgrade due to games only using it in limited fashion. Anyway, now we are talking revision instead of successor like before. The DS sold ~20m units during that time period, so clearly it was still going strong despite declining after its peak. It doesn't happen often that a console gets replaced when it's still selling above 10m for the year, but the DS got replaced when it still sold 20m. Not to mention that Nintendo had planned to launch the 3DS during the holiday season 2010 which makes the replacement even more premature. People don't mind hardware revisions because they don't threaten software support for the system they own. That's why Switch revisions and Switch 2 will be judged differently. People will be fine with revisions, but not an early successor. Regarding the Wii, saying that it's about key IPs isn't too different from what I've said. You inject more subjectivity to game evaluation and sales analysis, that's about it. Switch 2 launch timing and technology go hand in hand. The longer Nintendo waits, the better the chipset can be at an affordable price. The better the chipset is, the higher the likelihood for more ports of AAA third party games. With Switch's sales, Nintendo has the luxury to take their time. There aren't any disadvantages that come with waiting. The "strike the iron while it's hot" mentality is entirely misplaced in the cyclical console business. Each generation is a reset, so what matters is a coherent vision and competent execution, two things that almost always suffer when a company rushes a successor. |
Yes exactly.
Switch will obviously have more new versions than just the Lite, I don't think there is any doubt there will be a premium version of the Switch released, and probably next year. I'd expect it to have a small hardware upgrade for that "premium" experience which basically would just translate into running games a little more smoothly than original Switch and Lite. I'd guess at a better/bigger screen, more storage, possibly more battery life, and hopefully bluetooth support. Those would seem to be the main areas they could improve upon with a premium version of the Switch. Nintendo will probably release it whenever Switch sales start to slow and they are ready to drop the price of the original Switch and then offer the premium version at $300. I agree Fall 2021 is likely as there isn't really any reason to do it this year since Switch is so far having by far its best year yet, and 2022 just seems like it'd be a bit late in the life cycle to bring out the first upgraded model.
Agree totally with the idea that the longer Nintendo can keep pumping out Switch sales, and put off Switch 2, the better off they'll be for next gen because that means they can wait for a stronger chipset, and therefore get closer to being able to run downgraded (but still good!) versions of PS5/XBS third party games.
Somewhere there is a sweet spot between cost and being just strong enough to port games from the home consoles without having to significantly degrade the experience. If Switch 2 is powerful enough that third parties can do some fairly easy adjustments to next gen games to port them to Switch 2 we could finally see third party AAA games come back to Nintendo in force after almost 3 decades. The Switch is like juuuust under that sweet spot in relation to PS4/XBO, in that it can get ports but unless the developer works real hard its generally such a downgraded port that it's a shitty experience (or at least that's how it seems from what I've heard). If the Nintendo can hold out on Switch 2 an extra year, say release 2024 instead of 2023, and possibly get to that sweet spot and get same day AAA releases as the two home consoles I'd happily buy like a $350 Switch 2 as opposed to a $300 Switch 2. Also the longer they wait the more upgrades they might get from current OG Switch owners getting a new premium version for the last couple years of the Switch's life.
I think I just now got what the op meant. Ur saying the switch BRAND and CONCEPT will be around for a long time. Not that the
current model as is will just stick around forever releasing new games.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
