Marvel14
Member
Reads like badly informed speculative click bait to me...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Switch successor faces backwards compatibility challenges, MVG suggests
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
- Opinion Trailer Platform
01011001
Member
the dude developed games on Switch and knows the hardware and how the API works.
so not badly informed
Methos#1975
Member
I think the next Nintendo console not having BC when it's competition does is going to really hurt it and piss people off
Comandr
Member
Why would Nintendo make a huge effort to make it BC? Why would anyone want to play BOTW at 720/30 on the switch 2 when they are more likely to just sell a 1440*/60 remaster? Want to keep playing your switch games? Just… keep your existing console. It’s not rocket surgery.
Nintendo made these games for this console and they have no obligation to maintain that compatibility on a next generation device. Certainly not when there’s money to be made on remasters for thirsty fans that want to enjoy an old favorite with some modern paint. Look at Metroid Prime. Arguably the definitive edition. The game is gorgeous and runs beautifully.
Furthermore, I don’t see anyone here saying if it doesn’t have BC I won’t get one. It’s “I won’t get one at first.” Nintendo knows they have you by the balls either way.
Nintendo made these games for this console and they have no obligation to maintain that compatibility on a next generation device. Certainly not when there’s money to be made on remasters for thirsty fans that want to enjoy an old favorite with some modern paint. Look at Metroid Prime. Arguably the definitive edition. The game is gorgeous and runs beautifully.
Furthermore, I don’t see anyone here saying if it doesn’t have BC I won’t get one. It’s “I won’t get one at first.” Nintendo knows they have you by the balls either way.
01011001
Member
BOTW is dynamic 900p, meaning on a more powerful system it would lock to 900p at all times, giving it an automatic upgrade.
which is true for a lot of switch games.
Mario Odyssey for example, also dynamic resolution... or all the iD Tech games.
furthermore, the Switch 2 could automatically run Switch 1 games in docked mode even when used as a handheld, giving the games played in handheld modes a massive free upgrade
also patches are a thing you know? developers can patch in a 60fps mode... or a higher res mode
Last edited:
Comandr
Member
You completely missed the point.
Nintendo has no obligation to, and by extension, nor to the shareholders want them to provide free upgrades, not when they can CHARGE MONEY for the very same upgrades. Why would Nintendo patch a then nearly 7 year old game to make it run better when that is more than enough of a passage of time for many millions of people to easily justify just purchasing a "remaster." You clearly don't understand how mega corporations work. A BoTW: Hero of Time edition or whatever that runs way better and includes all the DLC as a launch title seems like a dead ringer to me.
Last edited:
Seider
Member
With a New Switch twice as powerful as Switch, existing games can run at a better framerate in the New Switch. Thats new life for all games already created for the Switch. You buy the New Switch and have a lot of games that will run better in your system.
Users who already own a Switch will upgrade to the New Switch for get that better framerate in their games. Breath of the Wild running at 60 fps. Thats a way to extend the life of the platform and its games.
And in the future, new games will be released that will run on both Switchs, the old and the new one.... with a better framerate of better grapgics in the new system.
Tams
Gold Member
Because Nvidia are one of the worst companies to work with. They think of all others as below them.
Nintendo only got a good deal on the Tegras as no one else wanted them.
cireza
Member
They can ditch BC, I have kept my Wii U anyway. I don't care anymore, they fucked me when going from Wii U to Switch (hey look these Gamepad features in BotW aren't there anymore !) and I am not planning on supporting them.
If they didn't even future proof their hardware for BC with Switch, then it will simply confirm how much the old Nintendo is dead. If you make a weak-ass console, then at least include features like these and prepare the future.
If they didn't even future proof their hardware for BC with Switch, then it will simply confirm how much the old Nintendo is dead. If you make a weak-ass console, then at least include features like these and prepare the future.
Last edited:
Portugeezer
Member
It's a new thing, I can accept that. Is BC better than no BC? Sure, but not a deal breaker.
That said, I wouldn't rule out BC via emulation, even if it won't be as powerful as a Steam deck.
That said, I wouldn't rule out BC via emulation, even if it won't be as powerful as a Steam deck.
01011001
Member
I did not miss the point, you said "Why would anyone want to play BOTW at 720/30", and I told you why not only that is the wrong number but also how a new console would fix a lot of Switch games without any input needed.
the rest of your argument is purely based on what is best for the shareholders, which we do not know.
not having backwards compatibility could tank the success of the Switch 2 for all we know. you can't just assume you know how much of an influence this would have, especially in a landscape where backwards compatibility is basically expected
Kataploom
Member
Because they are committed to extend Switch brand life, and to keep customers trust as they've said before and after the Switch released with the account system... Also MK8D just got an expansion pack last year out of nowhere, other games like Super Mario Party got an online mode update out of nowhere too and some games like MK8D and other games got updated for using the new servers years after release without telling anyone, Nintendo is random as fuck lol, don't trust yourself trying to predict them
DaGwaphics
Member
It kind of goes both ways with them. There was good BC on the Gameboy and DS lines on many models.
ToTTenTranz
Member
I think the Switch 2's SoC is already out there inside the Jetson Orin Nano development boards.
Its specs are:
6-core Cortex A78 @ 1.5GHz
8GB of 128bit LPDDR5 68GB/s
1024 shader processors at 625MHz (probably downclocked below that in handheld mode).
32 tensor cores at GPU frequency
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
The Switch has an estimate of nearly a billion software sales. That's more than any other Nintendo console in history (DS had 950 million, Wii had about 920 million). Hell that's more than every other game console ever made, with the exception of the PlayStation 2 which did crazy numbers like 1.5B.
This isn't just about first party games though. Indie titles and 3rd party stuff have been huge for the Switch. Nobody is really going to want to re-purchase something like Stardew Valley for the Switch 2, given that it will run identically and be the exact same game. My daughter plays Dead by Daylight on her Switch - if they release a new one, is she going to have to buy the game + all her DLC again? I doubt she (or anyone) would. Same deal with Pinball FX3 tables.
Is Nintendo going to force their third party partners to update their games to enable cross-play between the two consoles, so that people who bought the Switch version of Minecraft will be able to play the game using local multiplayer between the two console generations? Same with online multiplayer - kind of the death knell for most fighting games or online-only games, having to split their player base up.
The fact is, a lot of smaller indie developers aren't going to want to sink a lot of time into porting their existing games to the new system and would much rather just keep riding their existing gravy train. If Nintendo makes the next Switch fully backwards compatible, these devs will be able to bring their games to a whole new market of console owners - in addition to being able to continue to sell to the millions of original Switch owners - without lifting a finger. In fact, I would wager that a lot of the games being sold now have had their rights signed over to a publisher who is taking in the money. In a lot of cases, the original developers probably disbanded long ago and wouldn't be available to remaster these games for another generation of proprietary hardware (like old Telltale games).
It'll definitely be interesting to see how this all plays out.
This isn't just about first party games though. Indie titles and 3rd party stuff have been huge for the Switch. Nobody is really going to want to re-purchase something like Stardew Valley for the Switch 2, given that it will run identically and be the exact same game. My daughter plays Dead by Daylight on her Switch - if they release a new one, is she going to have to buy the game + all her DLC again? I doubt she (or anyone) would. Same deal with Pinball FX3 tables.
Is Nintendo going to force their third party partners to update their games to enable cross-play between the two consoles, so that people who bought the Switch version of Minecraft will be able to play the game using local multiplayer between the two console generations? Same with online multiplayer - kind of the death knell for most fighting games or online-only games, having to split their player base up.
The fact is, a lot of smaller indie developers aren't going to want to sink a lot of time into porting their existing games to the new system and would much rather just keep riding their existing gravy train. If Nintendo makes the next Switch fully backwards compatible, these devs will be able to bring their games to a whole new market of console owners - in addition to being able to continue to sell to the millions of original Switch owners - without lifting a finger. In fact, I would wager that a lot of the games being sold now have had their rights signed over to a publisher who is taking in the money. In a lot of cases, the original developers probably disbanded long ago and wouldn't be available to remaster these games for another generation of proprietary hardware (like old Telltale games).
It'll definitely be interesting to see how this all plays out.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
What you described would not be enough to run existing games at twice the framerate. And even if it could, that would be a disappointing upgrade. 2-3 years ago it would have been cool, but not in 2023-24.
Seider
Member
I think Tegra X1+ should achieve that. Im not sure if Nintendo will use it, im only saying if they dont find anything better, they can still use it and get better perfomance and extend the life cicle of Switch.
And Nintendo has show in the past they dont go with the console wars anymore. They will do what they think will be a success.
Wii was disappointing in graphical power in 2006 and Wii U was disappointing in 2012 too.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
What they have been doing since the GameCube is alternate between generational upgrades and sidegrades. The Wii U was disappointing for 2012, sure, but it was a big leap over the Wii. The Switch was no leap at all over the Wii U, just a small upgrade in some areas. So it's time for another generational leap, they can't be stuck at PS360 level visuals for another generation (that would be three generations in a row).
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
how about they use one of AMD's mobile chipsets and then emulate the switch from there. AMD's portable stuff is some of the most efficient and powerful on the market, and they could easily subsidize the costs! Using another ARM solution just seems boneheaded to me when portable X86 is really getting there
Last edited:
Seider
Member
Wii U had similar perfomance and specs than Playstation 3 and xbox 360 but being released 7 years later. It was a disgrace and it sold so few units it was one of worst selling Nintendo systems of all time.
Switch was a great hand held system, more powerful than Playstation Vita and i think it was great when was released in 2017. I expect Nintendo will continue Switch with a new system that extend its life.
By the way, im a fan of the Playstation family. Sony is my choice as the better hardware manufacturer and i just fucking love Playstation 5. But i like Switch and i like what Nintendo is doing with it.
Quezacolt
Member
They have a contract with Nvidia.
I think it was 10+ years of exclusive use of nvidia hardware.
93xfan
Member
Didn’t need to… what? Comment on a video you didn’t watch? Act arrogant?Sounds like I didn't need to
RoadHazard
Gold Member
As a handheld the Switch was great at release. As a home console (which it also is) it was very poor. Now they're a full two generations behind the competition in terms of visuals, they need to catch up to around PS4 levels with their next one.
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
20 years, actually
Nvidia Expects 20-Year Relationship With Nintendo Thanks to Switch
Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang calls the Switch an 'incredible game console.'
a shame, AMD's work in the portable space is amazing and it'd give Nintendo's next system the BOOST in power it needs to be a more than substantial upgrade over the Switch
Seider
Member
I agree with you 100% in that as a home console it sucks. A lot. I consider Switch a hand held with hdmi output. And just because that i dont think it needs Playstation 4 specs for success. With doubling its perfomance with Tegra X1+ should be enough.
If i want a nice and powerful home console i go to Playstation 5. But about hand helds, i like both Switch and Steam Deck... and i think Nintendo should get better perfomance and better specs because Switch is now too old against Steam Deck.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
The question is if you want the Switch 2 to be just a Nintendo games + indies + farming sim console. Because if it doesn't get to around PS4 levels that's what it's gonna be. Very few proper PS5 games will be ported to it because it won't be possible (I can't wait to see what the hell the Switch version of Hogwarts will look like). Many would probably say they're fine with that, that big AAA games isn't what they have their Switch for (and I kinda agree), but many have also enjoyed having downports of PS4 games to play on the go. Those have already pretty much dried up, and soon there won't be any more of them at all.
Personally, I just want a Nintendo console where games don't look like absolute garbage on a modern TV.
Last edited:
Seider
Member
Switch wasnt getting Ps4 ports in its lifetime. I dont expect Switch 2 will receive Playstation5 games. I dont think it will need them.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Hmm yes it was? Doom, TW3, etc.
Seider
Member
2 or 3 games? Switch wasnt getting third party multiplatform games. Games like Cyberpunk 2077 were impossible to see in Switch due its low power. But again, what i see in Switch is a hand held system. It should get its own games.
Last edited:
daveonezero
Gold Member
Where is the solution of a custom chip that is the same architecture?
I still have no idea how this person reaches their conclusions and solutions.
I still have no idea how this person reaches their conclusions and solutions.
Last edited:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
It IS supposedly getting Hogwarts though. As I said, I can't wait to see it, I can't even imagine what it will be like.
Seider
Member
I cant wait to see that Unreal Engine 4 game going to Switch too. I think its going to be funny to see... if the game isnt cancelled xD
Last edited:
Robb
Gold Member
Must be way more, I can think of 6 just from the top of my head and I’m definitely missing several.
Seider
Member
Even the Wii got a Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare port... but that was painful to see. Would be nice that a hand held could get nice ports of AAA Next Gen games but i think that is asking way too much to Switch or Switch 2.
Robb
Gold Member
Definitely but I don’t think that’s very realistic for a hybrid system. It’s always going to have to be downgraded ports.
That’s the price for portability I guess.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
the dude developed games on Switch and knows the hardware and how the API works.
so not badly informed
He wasn't even right about what makes GCN BC work on Wii.
BlackTron
Member
I'll have you know that I am only just now getting to my second time buying Metroid Prime, TYVM.
Buggy Loop
Member
What if Intel scored an APU deal?
I heard rumbles that Intel scored a big deal, but no names given.
They have a very strong mobile CPU that is only beat by Apple M2 in efficiency, and their upcoming battlemage mobile solution should be pretty good considering it’s tile GPU (MCM) on CPU with a 3D package. This chip would be mass produced for laptops at one point and scale really well with power consumption due to the GPU tile.
Why would Nintendo go there rather than Nvidia? Costs. Intel would likely undercut big time to set foot in the arena. Nvidia might just not have the interest to make a cheap chipset to be used on a future Shield and Nintendo, so if Nintendo is the only customer for a mobile gaming chip, it would be very expensive I bet. Equivalent to a custom design. Very unlike the Tegra solution they had and was basically gathering dust until Nintendo picked it up.
If they keep Nvidia, I have no idea why It wouldn’t be BC considering they’ll likely keep the NVN API. The older rumour with the Tegra 239 leaked by an Nvidia employee has all the specs that would make BC compatibility a joke to implement. That’s why a competitor solution might be in the cards imo if BC is jeopardized.
I heard rumbles that Intel scored a big deal, but no names given.
They have a very strong mobile CPU that is only beat by Apple M2 in efficiency, and their upcoming battlemage mobile solution should be pretty good considering it’s tile GPU (MCM) on CPU with a 3D package. This chip would be mass produced for laptops at one point and scale really well with power consumption due to the GPU tile.
Why would Nintendo go there rather than Nvidia? Costs. Intel would likely undercut big time to set foot in the arena. Nvidia might just not have the interest to make a cheap chipset to be used on a future Shield and Nintendo, so if Nintendo is the only customer for a mobile gaming chip, it would be very expensive I bet. Equivalent to a custom design. Very unlike the Tegra solution they had and was basically gathering dust until Nintendo picked it up.
If they keep Nvidia, I have no idea why It wouldn’t be BC considering they’ll likely keep the NVN API. The older rumour with the Tegra 239 leaked by an Nvidia employee has all the specs that would make BC compatibility a joke to implement. That’s why a competitor solution might be in the cards imo if BC is jeopardized.
Last edited:
coffinbirth
Member
They have a contract with Nvidia, so there's that.
Nvidia completely tosses their mem arch, NVM Stack, and API for basically each Tegra revision, so there's also that.
EverydayBeast
thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Launch the system first and worry about backwards compatibility later is the mindset these days, making remakes, and remasters make them money.
01011001
Member
uhm... what... what did he say?
BlackTron
Member
It's in the OP.
Edit: A better example of this solution would be launch fat PS3 having the PS2 hardware inside.
Last edited:
onnextflix5
Member
considering that nivida has abandoned the tegra, Nintendo have no choice but pay big money to nvidia for a custom chip, if they want backwards compatibility, Nintendo gambled big when they went with nvidia, and lost big time, Nintendo, u should have paid a little more and went with AMD, there is a reason no wants to work with nvidia.
Gambit2483
Member
Developing indie games on a console doesn't make you an expert on its architecture
Last edited:
Buggy Loop
Member
How would we know? Give source for contract.
Only thing I see is Nvidia expecting a 20-year relationship with Nintendo.. that’s not really a contract, and no lawyer worth a damn would sign a contract obligation for a new hardware years ahead.
Hell they could pay an R&D for design and still get out of the contract. These things are sliced into many payment milestones, contract cancellation and even “force majeur“ with penalties that they could even stop the thing on the assembly line if they change their mind.
coffinbirth
Member
That's all confidential. Heavily rumored, etc, etc. But you think Nvidia have been developing NVM2 for years without a contract in place...and then would change course? That's certainly a take.
You honestly think Nintendo will be using anything other than Nvidia for their next console? I'd actually be shocked, unless it is a complete departure from the Switch platform altogether.
Buggy Loop
Member
I would be shocked too but i mean, Nintendo is cheap, i think everyone would agree on that.
Nvidia won't be cheap, as they don't seem to want a gaming Tegra anywhere in their product lineup anymore, they're cutting services on even their Shield and then pointing fingers that they have a solution in the cloud for your needs.
If i was Intel, for sure i would approach Nintendo, they might have a better APU and still be much cheaper because these chips will be mass produced for their products, from 5W to >200W, they just put more GPU tiles as they need.
Let's see.
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
They included the Hollywood chip on the Wii U, even though it had the Latte for new games.
This Switch successor seems to be a repeat of the Wii U situation.
Personally, I think it's best if they ditch BC. As long as they really bring it in other ways.
This Switch successor seems to be a repeat of the Wii U situation.
Personally, I think it's best if they ditch BC. As long as they really bring it in other ways.
Last edited:
coffinbirth
Member
Completely changing architecture would be the last thing I would expect Nintendo to do at this point. Given this is a thread about BC, that would also put them in the worst possible position to use Intel.
Going from ARM to x86 is not a thing I would think Nintendo could pull off gracefully, and would probably eliminate any notion of BC.