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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Bloomberg: Multiple Devs Saying Nintendo Asking For 4K Switch Games

Soundwave said:
Upscaling wouldn't really require conferring with developers, that's just an automatic process.

But they might include bigger textures or textures with a higher resolution to not make the game look too blurry after upscaling. DLSS can only do so much, if the texture is already blurry, it won't be able to sharpen that one beyond the blurryness that it originally had.

As a side effect, this would most probably also mean an extension of the RAM, which will probably go from 4 to 8 GiB. And hopefully a bigger storage while we're at it. 128 GB shouldn't be more expensive now than the 32GB were at the launch of the Switch.



Around the Network

A new Switch model will surely "only" upscale games to 4K and not render it natively. I'm fine with that, but I also hope it can play games like BOTW with 60fps.



Time for the tv-only switch, 4k res and maybe an additional way to play (vr).

Would make so much sense marketwise



I think 4k is smart from a marketing perspective. With the new 4k next gen systems coming out, if Nintendo can say hey we too have 4k on the Switch at $300 with a huge library of games already available, you can get 4k on the hottest system with way more games and cheaper than the other 4k systems.

I think whatever other upgrades it has will be bigger sellers than just the fact that it does 4k, but for some graphic-focused people it might help them finally make the leap to Switch, and for current Switch owners that have a 4k TV it'll add that little bit extra incentive to upgrade so you'll get more people double dipping on the Switch, and it'll just be good marketing to say Switch has 4k just like these expensive new systems.



PAOerfulone said:
What exactly does this article mean by '4K Ready'?

Is this a Switch Pro model capable of native 4K level resolution or is it just upscaling the image to 4K?
Either way, this just adds more fuel to the fire that some type of new Switch hardware is on the way.

I think it mostly has to do with making sure that the textures would look good together when running a game at 4k resolutions.

Im assuming that DLSS will be part of what makes 4k possible on the New Switch and of coarse we are looking at a new chip and more ram.



Around the Network
freebs2 said:

Time for the tv-only switch, 4k res and maybe an additional way to play (vr).

Would make so much sense marketwise

They should eventually make a Switch "Home". I could see it like say in 2023 towards the end of Switch's lifecycle. Like a $200 4k Switch Home to get people who weren't interested in paying more for portability but want access to Switch's incredible library of games. That'd keep the Switch going stronger than Nintendo systems normally are when they are replaced. By then they could have a lineup like: $150 Lite, $200 Home, $250 Premium, with the OG Switch being no longer made in favor of the premium model.



Random_Matt said:
Three years, that was quick for a replacement.

Actually, by Spring 2021, the Switch will be 4 years old.  Besides, are we talking about a replacement, or a mid-gen upgrade/refresh?  The PS4 launched in November 2013 and the PS4 Pro launched November 2016.  That's exactly 3 years.



Y'all saying switch 2 while the same article talks about raising production to 30 million LMAO. Unless they want to build an ecosystem and have the Switch games be compatible, but even then I think it's too early for a totally new gen like they really would lose money at this point.

Next year will have a revision and a price cut, so I do expect another huge year for Nintendo.



xMetroid said:
Y'all saying switch 2 while the same article talks about raising production to 30 million LMAO. Unless they want to build an ecosystem and have the Switch games be compatible, but even then I think it's too early for a totally new gen like they really would lose money at this point.

Next year will have a revision and a price cut, so I do expect another huge year for Nintendo.

Definetely i don't see them not continuing to sell the original Switch. Nintendo likes to have a super cheap option available at all times and will continue the old line of Switch's for some time. Especially the handheld on version. 



Jumpin said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Nothing you said makes any sense.  Wii HD = failure.  Low power Wii = success.  Michael Pachter = wrong.

I think the whole point of a Wii HD is not to raise the price, but to maintain the initial Wii price and then push the original model's price down to economy model levels. It wouldn't be a hard replacement, but rather a phase in next generation console. While most first/second party software would be dual, many third parties could put their exclusive HD software on the platform: Assassin's Creed 2, Mass Effect, and so-on; and unlike the Wii U, people would actually want to play them on Wii HD.

The biggest problem with Wii U is it didn't advance on the Wii. Instead it went in a very different direction with that big fat Game Gear looking controller, and priced-up the hardware quite a bit above the Wii while only offering HD and a controller that was less compelling what came before it.

Granted, for first-party and second-party titles, I am not a fan of cutting out support of the previous-gen entirely, so the idea of keeping games like Galaxy 2 as dual platform games appealed to me... meanwhile Wii Motion+ would be the primary interface, and Sports Resort, Wii Play 2, and Wii Fit+ would all be Wii HD exclusive (Though they'd probably call it Wii+ or Wii 2). Mario Galaxy 2 would have an HD and SD setting, with Wii HD being the more desirable platform to play it on.

I think it would have potentially pushed the Wii to one or two more 20M+ years in 2012 and 2013. Add in a higher quality feeling classic controller and a wireless sub-controller for the Wiimote, and you're golden! Unlike the Wii U, people will actually want to play all of those HD games on the console. The major problem with Wii U is games came out for it, but they weren't compelling to buy. For me, I bought Mario Kart 8 on Wii U, felt bored with it after only hours... also, when people wanted to play Mario Kart, it was Mario Kart Wii or Mario Kart 7 they wanted to play (mostly, that's because when I DID play Mario Kart, those were the versions available); but Mario Kart 8 Deluxe on Switch has several hundred hours of play -- it was simply a better platform.

Anyway, if Wii HD in 2010 was Wii 2, there might have even been a Wii 3 prior to the Switch.

What you are really describing is a whole new system.  Basically you wanted the Wii U in 2010, but without the gamepad.  The gamepad was authenitcally a bad idea, but the biggest problem the Wii U had was software droughts.  Nintendo had to make software for the 3DS and at the same time were not prepared for how resource intensive HD games are.  The Wii U didn't get much third party support and there is no reason to think that your "Wii HD" would have gotten much third party support either.

Meanwhile, the Wii actually was getting a good amount of third party releases in 2010 and beyond.  After 2010 it was basically just third party games selling hardware.  These developers were happier to make Wii games, because there was also a market for these smaller budget games.  These developers didn't want to go to an HD system.  Nintendo was better off not going to HD.  They didn't do a good job making HD games on the Wii U and their Wii partners didn't follow to the system.