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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Rumor: Switch 2 has 12GB RAM and 512GB internal storage

 

These specs would be...

better than I've expected 33 66.00%
 
about what I've expected 14 28.00%
 
worse than I've expected 3 6.00%
 
Total:50
Soundwave on 15 September 2023
burninmylight said:
Soundwave said:

Nobody really does your hypothetical even on the current Switch though. Having to redo your entire texture set is not that easy either, it's more work and zero gain for the publisher.

They're just going to do what they already do ... you get some small portion of the game on a small cartridge to start and you have to download the rest. 

Some people will cry and whine about it and then get over it. Buy a larger SD Card or whatever external storage the Switch 2 will have (proprietary?) and you may have to "clear the fridge" to get a game onto the faster internal flash storage, but that is what it is for everyone, even PS5 owners who only have the 825GB base SSD ... well when it fills up that just means they have to delete an older game to make room for the new one they want to play. 

Uh, yes they do... they did it for all those games that people once swore that the Switch would never get, like Doom and its sequel, The Witcher, Dying Light, Wolfenstein, Dragon Quest XI, Nier Automata, Tony Hawk, and Divinity: Original Sin 2. I'm know there are others that I'm forgetting, but I'm limiting the criteria to PS4/XB1 games.

So which is it, did those developers have to redo any texture work on those Switch ports? If the answer is yes, then why would they suddenly not be willing to do so for Switch 2, a console that they should have even more faith in? If the answer is no, then you're basically saying that they didn't have to anything for those ports other than to turn down the graphical settings and make sure they properly run on a much weaker console.

*I've seen you make the argument that porting games to Switch 2 could be as simple as turning down the resolution and frame rate and letting DLSS do the legwork to get it back up to par for the player to see in the end. Not a word about making artists have to redraw textures. Why would this now be a requirement for outputting lower quality assets on the cart, at say 480p or 720p, and having DLSS display them at 1080p?

*: If I've mixed you up with someone else, then you have my sincere apology. You should really add a picture.

Those games have lower quality textures more likely due to technical issues and lower RAM that the Switch has, not really because the developers are trying to fit the game on the cartridge solely. 

Wolfenstein for example requires a 9GB patch to add Chapters 7 to 12 which aren't on the cartridge. This just becoming more and more the norm and will continue to happen. 



Around the Network
burninmylight on 15 September 2023
Soundwave said:
burninmylight said:

Uh, yes they do... they did it for all those games that people once swore that the Switch would never get, like Doom and its sequel, The Witcher, Dying Light, Wolfenstein, Dragon Quest XI, Nier Automata, Tony Hawk, and Divinity: Original Sin 2. I'm know there are others that I'm forgetting, but I'm limiting the criteria to PS4/XB1 games.

So which is it, did those developers have to redo any texture work on those Switch ports? If the answer is yes, then why would they suddenly not be willing to do so for Switch 2, a console that they should have even more faith in? If the answer is no, then you're basically saying that they didn't have to anything for those ports other than to turn down the graphical settings and make sure they properly run on a much weaker console.

*I've seen you make the argument that porting games to Switch 2 could be as simple as turning down the resolution and frame rate and letting DLSS do the legwork to get it back up to par for the player to see in the end. Not a word about making artists have to redraw textures. Why would this now be a requirement for outputting lower quality assets on the cart, at say 480p or 720p, and having DLSS display them at 1080p?

*: If I've mixed you up with someone else, then you have my sincere apology. You should really add a picture.

Those games have lower quality textures more likely due to technical issues and lower RAM that the Switch has, not really because the developers are trying to fit the game on the cartridge solely. 

Wolfenstein for example requires a 9GB patch to add Chapters 7 to 12 which aren't on the cartridge. This just becoming more and more the norm and will continue to happen. 

And if DLSS was a feature that Switch supports, maybe we would have gotten a Wolfenstein port that was the exactly or nearly same thing graphically, but only now the entire game is on the cart instead of needing a 9GB patch.

I acknowledge and agree that downloading half the game is becoming the norm; I'm saying, and continue to stand by my case that I could see DLSS being used to alleviate that in some cases. It certainly won't be all (again, requiring a download for eight fucking NES roms that could fit on an N64 Game Pak), but if it helps a decent percentage of games and collections make it all onto one game card, then that would be awesome.

Feel free to continue to reply, but if I have nothing new to add afterward, then I probably won't. There's no point in going in circles, and we don't have to see eye-to-eye on this.