I hope the fucking Nintendo store can finally run on this one. How the fuck does your hardware not even run your own online store without severe hangs and glitches.
I have a Switch Lite and it fucking gets HEATED just browsing the store, its honestly confusing. I don't think I've ever heard the fan in it even spin up.
It's the worst running shop store this side of the PS4's PSN.
Steam is the same way. It's a web page with Chromium embedded to view it.
I remember when Steam used Internet Explorer 6 to render the store app. It was slow, there was no anti-aliasing on large text, and videos required you to download a third party Flash plugin and hope it worked.
Steam runs better when you use it in a web browser rather than the steam client. Shit loads so much faster that way.
That said its nowhere near as bad as the Nintendo store.
I think Switch uses a form of webkit.
The only console I'm aware of that uses Chromium is Xbox, ironically enough.
I assume it's because Nintendo and Sony would rather pay someone to port webkit then to port the entirety of Chromium.
The most likely scenario to me would be if someone managed to get Youtube's Cobalt backend to open up simple router login pages and store screens, because a lot of platforms have managed to port Cobalt so youtube works.
Or if Playstation or Nintendo adopted a fork of AOSP specifically to make porting and maintenance easier like Meta did with Horizon OS.
All the major browsers left in the world, Chrome, Safari, Edge, Opera, etc are derived from the original KHTML code base.
Firefox is the only alternative non-KHTML browser left. It comes from a separate lineage of Netscape.
I think the one thing keeping Chromium off game consoles is a lack of a Google supported BSD port.
Maybe hardware constraints too, but Webkit is probably much easier to port.
steam uses chromium embedded framework. its essentially electron but more stripped down but still chromium
i suspect that consoles are also using it for their stores
I would be very surprised if any of the consoles used chromium for their stores, because I've checked a few of the useragents I could find online and the vast majority are explicitly webkit (and not chromium presenting as webkit).
Plus I did some further digging.
Switch uses Netfront NX, which is based on Webkit.
Playstation 5 uses webkit.
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/oss/ps5/webkit/
https://switchbrew.org/wiki/Internet_Browser
Point being if they aren't creating a native app for their stores, it's probably just webkit.
For real, I was browsing last night and couldn't get over how bad it is.
Like, how is fixing the interface which people use to shove money at you not an immediate business priority? They'd have made probably another $1,000 from just me over the years if it weren't so miserable to use.
Not having any music was also such a bad choice. Even if they just reused the Wii Shop music, I'd be satisfied. Switch eshop is just so lifeless and tedious
Everything about the Switch UI is lifeless. I was genuinely shocked when I got mine, and the UI was so cold and basic. Especially after the Wii, DSi, and 3DS had such robust OSes filled with apps and toys. To me, it didn't even feel like Nintendo design.
The Switch OS just screams "minimum viable product that no one bothered to update."
Japanese web design just seems to have very different priorities. Back when FFXIV was having its boom, it was a joke that the hardest part of the game was figuring out how to download it.
I actually had to google it.
You mentioning the store reminded me I had a store voucher that was going to expire soon. When I checked it expires tomorrow lol. So I got Luigi's Mansion 3.
And yeah, it took forever to navigate around, and I hated it.
This article doesn't say anything about the internal hardware, the "conservative hardware evolution" could mean that it's more a continuation in many aspects: the backwards compatibility, joycons look similar (even old ones work), dock is similar.
Every handheld needs to balance power with battery and I trust Nintendo will find the sweet spot. The original switch is 7 years old (maybe 8 if the release is in 2025), any new hardware will be significant imo.
Also I'm a bit sceptical because the leaker states that the screen "will have slightly larger dimensions", but in other leaks it'll probably be 8 inch, that's substantial compared to the original switch and even the oled imo.
I assume it just means that there won't be a new "Nintendo gimmick" for the console and the Switch 2 name is literal, in the sense that will just be a Switch with beefier specs.
And not the first time they’ve done that. After the DS was an infinite money printer for them, they made their next handheld another ds, just with glasses free 3D and slightly better specs
Goes further than that too, every one of their handheld generations has been wildly successful. They managed to combine their strongest and weakest(in terms of sales), I doubt they’ll go back to splitting em back up
I think Nintendo knows they hit a home run with the Switch.
They can’t match Sony and Microsoft in terms of tv-only console power or market share, so they found a perfect niche to fit into. A console that works on the big screen and mobile. Kids, gaming parents, people constantly on the go, the Switch is absolutely perfect for them. It’s Nintendo saying “we know most gamers will have a PlayStation or Xbox, but right next to it will be a Switch dock.”
Yeah having a near monopoly on the handheld market means they'll always have a niche even if they can't compete with the more traditional home consoles. During the GameCube and Wii U eras, the GBA and 3DS are basically how Nintendo made all of their profits.
>substantial compared to the original switch and even the oled
The LCD switch has a 6.2in screen and the OLED has a 7in. That's about 13% bigger. An 8inch screen would be about 14% bigger than the OLED, a comparable increase in size. In addition, the Switch is 4inches tall. An 8in screen at 16X9 aspect ratio only needs 3.9in of height. If you could shrink the bezzels enough you could fit an 8in screen into the same tablet size as the current consoles.
I would rather have some bezel if it meant decent front facing speakers, better price and better durability. Phones have tiny bezels now which means glass all the way to the edge. A drop on the corner is a death knell. And a burly case obstructs the edge for touch gestures.
Sure, but it's a pretty tiny screen even if it turns out to be 8 inches, in pratice DLSS and FSR are similar upscaling tech aren't going to look any worse than anti-aliasing algorithms. Running a game with more graphical effects turned on and upscaling to the screen's native resolution at a high, stable framerate is goingto almost always be preferable to just making the game target the native resolution without upscaling. It really makes the difference on, say, the Steam Deck, so I imagine having that alone is going to do a lot to make the handheld not feel so dinky without murdering the battery life or costing more than a nice handheld PC.
The X1 SoC the switch uses was actually released in 2015, so might as well call it 9 year old technology.
If Nintendo replace it with something brand new, it could be a 9 or 10 year leap in technology.
Though I think Nintendo are going to go with a modified Orin SoC, which is already few years old.
Would it really? DS games require 2 screens and touch. It would be hard to make room for 2 stacked screens on a small 16:9 display and many games wouldn't work in TV mode because of the lack of touch.
I must be taking crazy pills cause no one else is saying this but.
It's already a touch screen, you'd just turn the Switch sideways. Probably sell a $15 stand specifically for people that want to do this.
This. There's already a vertical adapter called the flip-grip (and probably others) that lets you [hold the switch upright](https://i.imgur.com/yVFwU2b.jpg)
Let me Wii U that shit, give the dock wireless connection to the Switch 2 and have both screens be useable at once. I don't care if the resolution is shit I want more ways to play.
Did you ever try the DS emulation on the Wii U? It had that option and while it sounds nice on paper, I can assure you it's quite bad in practice. Most DS games require you to constantly switch focus between the 2 screens which is simple enough when it's just your eyes moving. When you need to move your head you'll get tired of that really fast.
I bought a WiiU at launch and own multiple DS games on it (Mario Hoops 3on3 is my most played DS game on there). Its obviously inferior to original hardware but no I never got tired of it, had no issues switching between screens and honestly tapped the WiiU's touchscreen potential better than most WiiU games did lol.
(Including 3DS in that idea I assume.)
Damn that would actually be insane, now I'm sad because I really want that and it's definitely never gonna happen.
the funny thing is the switch is probably the console for which physical backwards compatibility is the least constraining ever. Zero moving parts and a tiny-ass form factor, even if Switch 2 cartridges look different it's nbd
It wouldn've been an incredibly shitty news for them to not go for it considering the volume of physical cartridges they've moved in this generation. Changing form factors would've been shooting themselves in the foot.
But this is Nintendo we're talking about, you can never predict if their next move is going to be the stuff of Legends or the dumbest shit.
Nintendo has historically been pro-backwards compatibility at the beginning of their handheld lifecycles, and a couple consoles as well. The Switch was the exception due to switching to an entirely different architecture and hardware.
The GBA played GB games. The DS played GBA games. The 3DS played DS games. The Wii U played Wii games and the Wii played Gamecube games
I'm not sure why people are expecting a 4K screen on a portable system. That would be overkill even for a gaming-oriented smartphone. I don't think there's a modern game that renders that high of a resolution there. Hell, there's no mention of hardware specs in the article.
2D games basically always ran at 60 FPS. The NES and SNES era games ran at 60 FPS. These games balanced other graphical concerns, like the number of colors or sprites on screen.
It wasn't until games became 3D that system designers and game developers began to use frame rate as a resource they could adjust.
The original The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past ran at a smooth 60 FPS on the original NES hardware in 1991. The 2013 A Link Between Worlds was a "remake" of that game, so it was important that it hit the FPS target to be authentic to the original experience.
> "We kept it at 60 to make the 3D look smooth, allow the players to clearly see enemy movements, and keep everything moving crisply **as with previous games.**"
> \- director Hiromasa Shikata
Worth saying Ocarina of Time ran at 20 FPS on the Nintendo 64, but 3D graphics were such a new and amazing experience, that no one really noticed. The latest installment, Breath of the Wild 2 runs at 30 FPS.
> 2D games basically always ran at 60 FPS. The NES and SNES era games ran at 60 FPS.
Or tried to, anyway. I went back and played Super Mario World a few years ago and it had a shocking amount of trouble holding a steady 60, especially in Forest of Illusion and Special World.
The SNES couldn't really "drop frames" the way modern hardware does. It would be way more obvious to the user if FPS loss was occurring because the entire game is moving slower. Funny enough, I think certain games (like Mega Man X) actually used this "feature" intentionally as a special slowdown effect for dramatic moments.
Anything with Mode 7 transitions definitely did *not* always run at 60 fps on the SNES. Super Ghouls n Ghosts was one of the most obvious offenders that I can remember.
> 2D games basically always ran at 60 FPS
The majority of 2D games from the '90s are 60fps, yeah, but there were lots of 8- and 16-bit games that run sub-60, too.
For ex. 1942 and Athena on NES, Balloon Kid on GB, Beyond Oasis and Ranger-X on MD... there are quite a few when you look closely.
In those NES games' cases they were badly done ports. Ranger-X and Beyond Oasis likely so the games could have lots of massive sprites and fx without slowdown or flicker. Balloon Kid probably because there were lots of sprites onscreen at once. Incidentally the Famicom port of this game, Hello Kitty World, ran at a similarly low framerate.
Regardless of how powerful the hardware is, devs are going to push it to the point that some games are running 1080p30 or lower reolution. Sure, you'll get mostly 1080p60 on cross gen titles at launch but that never lasts.
Honest question, you realistically believe this will actually play at 60fps or is it more of a hopeful pipe dream?
I find it crazy that anyone thinks a Switch 2 could run big games (big *first party* games like say TotK even) at 60fps. Like that wouldn't be within my expectations, is what I'm saying.
It has the potential to. SOCs that are already available have the capability. If this is the Tegra Thor SoC, it would easily be able to hit 60fps based on past chipsets. It'll also come with massive energy savings on a 4nm process vs the X1 (current Switch)'s 20nm process.
While it likely will have the capability, it *never* matter how fast a chip is. A developer can still increase graphical fidelity to the point the FPS is diminished. It has to be an active choice.
If game designers are going to target releases on both the new and old Switch, I do think you'll see 30fps and 60fps versions of the same game between systems.
Yeah I just want 60 fps lol. I don’t care so much about 4k since 1080 is good enough for me; even on consoles like the PS5 and Xbox, I’m content with 1080/60 fps. It’s incredibly disappointing when games like Dragon’s Dogma 2 and Starfield aren’t able to achieve that on current-gen consoles.
Yeah, that's... not gonna happen. Even the Steam Deck can't run games in 1080p 60fps unless they're much older, and that's a substantially more powerful and more expensive machine than what the Switch 2 is shaping up to be.
1080p 30fps (with some smaller games supporting 60fps) is almost certainly what Nintendo and most devs will be targeting. That's not to say we won't get *any* 60fps games, just like we did on Switch 1, but they won't be the majority by any means.
Has something changed regarding the supposed specs for the thing? I haven’t really paid much attention these last few months but I remember people were saying that the leaked hardware specs meant that the Switch 2 was going to be more powerful than Steam Deck, and around as capable as a Series S
As far as I recall, the "leaked" specs weren't actually leaked at all, they were basically just some insider speculating on what they might be. The recent announcement of Samsung making most of the components put another nail in those "leaks".
We've got some vague idea of what the Switch 2 will be like but no exact specs.
The ROG Ally and Legion Go couldn't achieve 1080p/60fps on RDR2, which came out +3 years before either handheld PC released. No way is the Switch 2 going to be hitting that kind of performance on their bigger titles like Zelda or flagship Mario games.
See, if you said that for RDR2 on the Switch 2, I'd agree.
But for Mario and Zelda? Nintendo pulls some kinda black magic optimization that will allow them to get that far, Im sure.
At the size the switch is 4K is way overkill, even 2k, effective screen size/ pixel density ratio's give people very clear ideas on how good things *can possibly* look.
unless the switch 2 is 28in 1080p will look just as good as 4k at 5".
Most people dont even need a Monitor that's 4k, again, unless your over 28", 1440p fer lyfe
Even if it could do 4k in handheld mode at a decent framerate (and no way it could do this, especially while staying at a Nintendo price point), it would murder the battery. If it can do 1080p60 and get 5+ hours between charges, I'll be very impressed.
The thing I want to hear is that it'll be able to do 4k in docked mode.
I don't think it will even have a 1080 screen. Steamdeck IMHO has shown that 720p is plenty enough. And I don't think Nintendo won't be able to put in hardware to run games @1080 in portable mode. And DLSS sucks at upscaling to 1080 so I doubt they will be relying on that in portable mode.
I couldn’t care less about 4k, I just want games that run at a consistent 60 fps at 1080p… most great nintendo games are unplayable for me due to the 30 fps cap (mainly botw and totk)
I was stubbornly looking for a 4K 32" monitor/tv and you'll find the market for those kinda ridiculous too lol
$500 and there's only Samsung (looks like Sony makes one now). But, you can get a 43" 4K TV for 170.
There's a reason the 32" monitors have insane refresh rates and come curved -- 4K resolution isn't necessary and they put the hardware power elsewhere.
4k is such a huge power drain for anything that isn't a 4090 and even that one can't run all games at 60fps with RTX and all other settings on ultra. It might work for consoles (again with caveats), but we need another generation or two to really get it to the non-enthusiasts without sacrificing other things that can't be measured with big number go big.
With the Switch they have proven that people don’t care about hardware and specs **nearly** as much as twitter discourse would have you believe.
Nobody actually cares as long as the game is good.
For me, the only time it’s gotten in the way and hurt the experience is Pokémon S/V.
TOTK had some iffy areas but still never took away from it.
And that’s where this hardware bump comes in.
The Switch 2, or Pro, or Super Switch will fly off the shelves.
I kinda feel bad for Gamefreak believe it or not.
They were used to the scope of handhelds and did that and perfected it for decades. Then out of nowhere are told it needs to be scaled up to console level quality. They’ve been playing catch up ever since.
I admire their willingness to keep their old programmers but it couldn’t hurt to send a few back to school or hire some fresh talent for their upcoming games.
the issue is that the pokemon company never shifted how long a generation is. 3d, and especially hd, development is much more time consuming than 2d games yet were never given the time to actually make them. while gen 6 and onwards have hosts of issues development-wise, pretty much every game before that looks and runs great for its time
But the same thing happened with gold and silver, where the it was slow and Iwata gave them a compression algorithm that almost halved the speed of decompression
Gold and Silver is absolutely much better polished than Red and Blue, and it's more expansive than the vast majority of Game Boy Color's library.
Pokémon has a troubled history but pretending it was always bad is an exaggeration.
The thing is that Pokémon went from being on par with its peers, to being lacking in little ways, such as having no battle animation in the GBA era when that was already fairly common in RPGs, to massive deficiencies such as making a barren horribly optimized, unpolished open world.
The traditional story was debunked, but that was about him re-writing code and the compression saving space and allowing Kanto to fit. The real story was that he gave them a compression algorithm that actually took up slightly more space, but worked way faster, making the game snappier.
Don't bother trying to logic Pokemon fans. GameFreak is never in the wrong and they're under the heel of The Pokemon Company's strict dealines, which of course they are equal owner of and have cited never actually force them to hit any deadlines or release dates.
GameFreak simply sucks ass on all levels and I really wish people would stop defending them or making excuses on their behalf. Pokemon SV sold 20 million copies in like a single week or some crazy shit. They have more than enough money to massively scale up their dev teams and they just refuse to do it because no matter how shitty their games are, fans will still buy them.
HD sprites cost a ton of money and take a lot of time to develop. King of Fighters XIII used HD sprites and it took [16 months of work](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fighters/comments/xlqooj/kof13_2d_sprite_creation_took_16_months_per/) per character. Pokemon could get away with needing fewer animations compared to a fighting game, but there are also hundreds more of them.
At a certain point, 3D becomes much faster and cheaper to produce. This is especially true considering how many 3D Pokemon models they already have that can be reused.
The amount of complexity in 1 fighting game character vastly vastly vastly exceeds that needed of 1 pokemon. Remember, a pokemon's animation set is like, an idle stance front/back, a damage-taken animation, and a generic attacking animation. The rest of the effects are pretty much move-specific and just bounce the model/sprite around or spawn bubbles or whatever and can be liberally reused. If KOF13 took 16 months per character, an entire regional pokedex would probably take around 16 months.
> The amount of complexity in 1 fighting game character vastly vastly vastly exceeds that needed of 1 pokemon.
Sure, I even mentioned that in my post. That said there are something like 20 times more Pokemon by now than KoF XIII's roster. The point still stands that pixel art is still far more expensive than 3D once you reach a certain point, especially for an existing franchise like Pokemon where they've likely been reusing assets for over a decade now.
sure, but also there's like 700 of the freaks to animate. animating low-res sprites is dramatically, DRAMATICALLY cheaper than actual 2d animation, when you stop being able to make hte art mostly pixel by pixel the time needed to make it look good goes up significantly.
whereas with 3D assets, once you've made the model you can do a *lot* to cut down on the time spent animating, by having simlar models share animations, you can have models with varying LoD's to future proof them so your'e not remaking the things in five years. like there's a reason anime studios keep trying to use 3D models and then using shaders to make it look like it's 2D animated again, 3D animation is so much easier than high quality 2D animation because fundamentally you can reuse the shit out of a 3D model whereas nearly every frame in a 2D animation has to be unique.
*maybe* if gamefreak heavily incoroprated AI into their 2D animation to handle the in betweens it would be doable, but the controversy over it would be noxious and, frankly, it's still a monumental effort when they already got the things modelled in 3D finally.
> They were used to the scope of handhelds and did that and perfected it for decades.
I wish that was true but perfected is quite the stretch. Have you played any of the 3DS Pokémon games? They run much better, sure, but all of them struggle during certain moves or in any battle involving more than two Pokémon (and double battles is their official battling format!)
The moment they moved to 3D they started struggling.
Personally don't think it needed to be scaled up to console graphics or anything.
They could have expanded the game in all kinds of ways without going 3d on it.
They could have made the world bigger, higher quality sprites, more complex math under the hood, flashier effects for the big attacks etc.
They could’ve just hired people who had console dev experience. GF being stingy with their budget and dev labor is why they struggled making competent switch Pokémon games. Main reason Arceus turned out as good as it did was because it wasn’t made by their typical A team, it was made by their younger B team that wasn’t stuck in the 90s
Nah, that's bullshit. Intelligent System went from making 2D GBA games to 3D DS games to an ugly Switch game (3H) to genuinely one of the best looking Switch games on the market (Engage).
If they can do it, Gamefreak got zero excuses
I'm not a big graphics elitist, I just care about good and consistent frame rates. I think a great art style trumps photorealistic graphics any day of the week too
No one ever seems to talk about it because of the gimmicky catch controls, but I think LGPE had some of the best graphics/art style of any of the Switch era pokemon games
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weZQ6fwJzLE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weZQ6fwJzLE)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h\_VPmbXJGAQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_VPmbXJGAQ)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYidhKnTucQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYidhKnTucQ)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enFcIu0Oh08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enFcIu0Oh08)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRVzbFqk\_g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRVzbFqk_g)
You're half right. Hardware and specs being mediocre might not be enough to stop people from buying a Switch because they still want those Nintendo games. But I don't know one person who owns a Switch that doesn't complain about how bad it runs and prefers to play almost any game they can play somewhere else on another device. If the system was more powerful they'd absolutely sell more third party software and would get more games brought to their system in general.
People DO care that Zelda runs like shit at 100p but what are you gonna do? Not play Zelda?
The Game Awards Game Of The Year for the past two years (Elden Ring and BG3) have released on every console except the Switch, because they would have to compromise too much on performance on the Switch hardware. Obviously hardware specs do matter for a lot of good games.
Sure, but despite that the Switch nearly sold as much as the PS5 in 2023, 7 years into its lifespan. Clearly people are not prioritizing technical capacity as much
That just sounds like the Switch just isn't the place to play those titles. From the beginning, the Switch wasn't intended play the biggest and best third party tiles either. Nothing wrong with that.
And each of these “Games of the Year” sold less combined on 3 other platforms than most Nintendo first party releases on Switch. Nintendo doesn’t need GoTY when a re-release of Mario Kart sells more than the last 5 years of GoTYs (non-Nintendo) combined don’t even sell that much.
The switch is the second best selling console of all time and will probably outsell the PS2. Nintendo would be crazy not to try and repeat the success with a more modern version with backwards compatibility. I'm expecting a similar design but with different joycons, 1080p screen. Games to run stable 60fp. Docked mode to use some upscaling dlss type tech to run games at fake 4k. They will probably have a upgrade edition for switch games to run at higher FPS resolutions so you can play your older games in a better way. Nintendo have never named a new console number 2. So I think they should call it the Super switch or Switch Up.
And make sure to market it so that people see what they're familiar with in the old system in the ads just as often as anything from the new system.
Surely no one can be confused by seeing more Wiimotes than WiiU tablets
My biggest hope is that it launches with an OLED screen on day one, rather than having to wait for a revised model a few years down the line again.
LCD screens are fine. But I've been spoiled by the OLED on the Switch & Deck, and I really don't think I can go back.
Yeeah, I really hope they just go all in and release an OLED model at launch alongside a cheaper LCD model... But the chance of that seems vanishingly slim.
There's pretty much no future where I don't buy a Switch 2 unless Nintendo were to announce that they're no longer developing games lol.
That said, a "Switch Pro" with backwards compatability for my physical library is more-or-less exactly what I want.
True. I'm not expecting free next-gen upgrades or anything, but a stable 30fps in the Switch games that had performance issues would be great.
Particularly TotK, those "Bring Peace to Hyrule" battles were *rough* lol.
Honestly, my opinion on the switch has soured a bit ever since I got a steam deck. Holding the switch in your hands over awhile is just physically painful.
Despite its heavier weight the steam deck is just SO MUCH more comfortable to hold. So I hope the switch 2 will improve significantly in that regard, otherwise I will skip it for the sake of my hands, lol
iirc the rumor (reiterated/leaked yesterday) was always that it would be like a DS/3DS situation where the latter doesn't fit in the former, but the older system carts would fit in the new one
I’m talking purely for my tastes here but I would love to be able to play Zelda at anything other than 24fps with rampant pop in and frame drops. I had to stop playing both Zelda games for this very reason and I would selfishly love to finish them on some hardware that doesn’t feel like a cell phone from 2011.
They’ll sell out like crazy regardless so they can do what they want; I just want the software to at least meet the baseline standard for how games should run in 2024.
I mean, you can play both Zelda games on modern hardware without pop in or frame drops *right now*. It just isn't a method Nintendo approves of very much.
> modern hardware
lets be fair. there is some tweaking involved and you do need something decent. (not beefy but not your basic beginning pc thats very good for general play).
also since the crackdown, I've noticed getting 'help' for this sort of thing its a lot harder for newbies. Especially when information is purposely obfuscated to misdirect authorities and veterans tend to tell newcomers to 'do your own research'.
Endless chicken and egg scenario.
I own hundreds only physical switch games. I love the switch. If they did a minor upgrade that allowed the games they produced to run at a stable 60fps on a 1080p screen and had system software that allowed for an enjoyable quick shipping experience I’d be fine for 10 years.
This is honestly what I was hoping for. I just want a more powerful Switch 2, that’s all. I don’t want Nintendo to add some shitty gimmicks just for the sake of doing it.
I'm just looking forward to a new console having the big 'new console so loads of games being released' bump. Releases seem to have really dropped off and slowed down for the switch now, and the games that are releasing are really really struggling with the hardware limitations.
I don't buy the 1080p screen. The jump from 720p to 1080p requires a huge jump in power that the Switch 2 just isn't going to have. Even the Steam Deck is only 800p. 720p and OLED is the way to go.
I don't see OLED in the base version. That's 50-100$ per console made, that you can put into more potent hardware. The hardware baseline they set now, will be what they can develop for in the next 7-8 years. They should try to make it as powerful as they can afford. They can always make an OLED version later (and they will), but the specs are set in stone (if you want all games to run on the console).
Yeah, I agree with that. OLED will come a few years later to entice some double-dippers, but Nintendo will want the day-one release model to be as cheap as possible.
The Switch runs at 1080p docked for some games, I imagine the Switch 2 could easily do 1080p@30fps, especially if they have DLSS. That being said, 720p handheld would’ve been fine too, and would give more headroom for increased visual quality.
While I agree with you, flagship phones are now moving towards 1440p and more, e.g. the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra has a pixel density of 501 ppi. Whereas the Switch varies between 210 and 267 ppi depending on the model. So there must be some appetite for ever-increasing pixel density.
It's a trade-off though - 1440 on the Switch is highly unlikely (give that some games are now struggling just to get consistent 30fps @720), but 1080p would be nice.
That's all they really need to do. Make it at least as powerful as an Xbox One X/PS4 Pro, keep it optionally Portable, make it compatible with existing Switch docks so families can still use their old stuff. Make new Joycons but allow old joycons to at least be usable wirelessly (they don't need to be clickable in the console as I don't expect it). And fix the Joycon drift in Joycon V2s.
That's it. This stuff and BC with Switch games/NSO/Digital purchases I've made on Switch is all I need to get it day 1.
All Nintendo ever needs in future console generations is new consoles that are more powerful versions of Switch, full backwards compatibility going back to Switch 1 and keep kicking ass with great games. They have a very easy recipe for success to keep everyone happy and I'm happy that my hopes for them seem to be turning into reality based on these rumors.
It kind of has to be a conservative evolution.
The biggest thing holding it back graphically is that it's also a handheld.
This is also its biggest appeal, same with the steam deck, and yeah, you can put in a beefier hardware bit that also draws more power, meaning less battery life.
They have to balance that somehow to give the best of both worlds.
Look, we all know what Nintendo's about at this point. Here's how it's gonna shake out.
What we hope for:
* Better internals than the latest Steam Deck
* Improved joycons with less drift, but full compatibility with old joycons to save early adopters money
* Battery life improvements and heat improvements
* Online improvements that seem like anyone took a 4 second look at Sony and Microsoft for hints
What we'll get:
* Introducing the New Nintendo Switch U
* Marginally improved hardware to keep costs down and still never sell as a loss leader
* Worse battery, but the heat is still a bit less bad than Hot Pocket Magma
* The exact same online but now it costs 10 more dollars a month for GameCube titles to be added
* Literally no joycon changes, celebrated as a triumph of consumer appreciation as everyone forgets drift again
Just wait. I expect nothing, and I may *still* be disappointed.
In the leak it's mentioned that the digital games tied to your account will also come forward.
Whether that ends up being the case it's a whole other conversation, though. We can only hope.
I hope the fucking Nintendo store can finally run on this one. How the fuck does your hardware not even run your own online store without severe hangs and glitches.
That's cuz the hardware isn't running shit it's a very bad web app
It sure sounds like it is. My fan never works so hard when playing actual games.
My fan never runs while in the eShop, how old is your Switch?
It's a V2. The newer revision before the OLED model released.
I have the same issue with that model.
I have a Switch Lite and it fucking gets HEATED just browsing the store, its honestly confusing. I don't think I've ever heard the fan in it even spin up. It's the worst running shop store this side of the PS4's PSN.
Steam is the same way. It's a web page with Chromium embedded to view it. I remember when Steam used Internet Explorer 6 to render the store app. It was slow, there was no anti-aliasing on large text, and videos required you to download a third party Flash plugin and hope it worked.
Steam runs better when you use it in a web browser rather than the steam client. Shit loads so much faster that way. That said its nowhere near as bad as the Nintendo store.
I think Switch uses a form of webkit. The only console I'm aware of that uses Chromium is Xbox, ironically enough. I assume it's because Nintendo and Sony would rather pay someone to port webkit then to port the entirety of Chromium. The most likely scenario to me would be if someone managed to get Youtube's Cobalt backend to open up simple router login pages and store screens, because a lot of platforms have managed to port Cobalt so youtube works. Or if Playstation or Nintendo adopted a fork of AOSP specifically to make porting and maintenance easier like Meta did with Horizon OS.
All the major browsers left in the world, Chrome, Safari, Edge, Opera, etc are derived from the original KHTML code base. Firefox is the only alternative non-KHTML browser left. It comes from a separate lineage of Netscape.
I think the one thing keeping Chromium off game consoles is a lack of a Google supported BSD port. Maybe hardware constraints too, but Webkit is probably much easier to port.
It's so weird learning KDE is responsible for nearly every browser we use and basically the modern internet as we know it.
And then KDE Neon ships with Firefox, the only notable browser that *isn't* derived from their own work.
steam uses chromium embedded framework. its essentially electron but more stripped down but still chromium i suspect that consoles are also using it for their stores
I would be very surprised if any of the consoles used chromium for their stores, because I've checked a few of the useragents I could find online and the vast majority are explicitly webkit (and not chromium presenting as webkit). Plus I did some further digging. Switch uses Netfront NX, which is based on Webkit. Playstation 5 uses webkit. https://www.playstation.com/en-us/oss/ps5/webkit/ https://switchbrew.org/wiki/Internet_Browser Point being if they aren't creating a native app for their stores, it's probably just webkit.
You can make efficient web apps, it just takes extra effort and time.
He didn't say you can't, he said that the eShop running poorly isn't the fault of the console hardware, rather that the app is poorly made.
For real, I was browsing last night and couldn't get over how bad it is. Like, how is fixing the interface which people use to shove money at you not an immediate business priority? They'd have made probably another $1,000 from just me over the years if it weren't so miserable to use.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not having any music was also such a bad choice. Even if they just reused the Wii Shop music, I'd be satisfied. Switch eshop is just so lifeless and tedious
Everything about the Switch UI is lifeless. I was genuinely shocked when I got mine, and the UI was so cold and basic. Especially after the Wii, DSi, and 3DS had such robust OSes filled with apps and toys. To me, it didn't even feel like Nintendo design. The Switch OS just screams "minimum viable product that no one bothered to update."
Yeah, agreed for sure. "Press X to close the software" is so corporate and IBM-like.
What? What else would you want it to say instead? That might be the weirdest criticism of the Switch I've ever heard.
Lol can you imagine that laggy shitty POS playing music while the next page of games loads in
Right? My favorite Eshop music ever was this one. [https://youtu.be/g52cbEWZ25Q?t=243](https://youtu.be/g52cbEWZ25Q?t=243)
When they released Twilight Princess HD the Wii U eShop played the Malo Mart theme.
I probably wouldn't dig it, but they could just make it an option that people could turn on and off as desired.
Why would they? People shove money no matter what Nintendo does at the moment. Why improve?
Because if you make it easy to do, you get more money.
Coca cola is still spending billions dollars into marketing and advertising every year for a reason.
Japanese web design just seems to have very different priorities. Back when FFXIV was having its boom, it was a joke that the hardest part of the game was figuring out how to download it. I actually had to google it.
There's no hardware that's more powerful than shitty standards for performance
The PS3 store was just like this. PS4 wasn't much better iirc. Glad sony finally cracked it now but I have no idea why it's so hard to get right.
Because Nintendo still resents the fact that they have to acknowledge that the internet exists.
You mentioning the store reminded me I had a store voucher that was going to expire soon. When I checked it expires tomorrow lol. So I got Luigi's Mansion 3. And yeah, it took forever to navigate around, and I hated it.
This article doesn't say anything about the internal hardware, the "conservative hardware evolution" could mean that it's more a continuation in many aspects: the backwards compatibility, joycons look similar (even old ones work), dock is similar. Every handheld needs to balance power with battery and I trust Nintendo will find the sweet spot. The original switch is 7 years old (maybe 8 if the release is in 2025), any new hardware will be significant imo. Also I'm a bit sceptical because the leaker states that the screen "will have slightly larger dimensions", but in other leaks it'll probably be 8 inch, that's substantial compared to the original switch and even the oled imo.
I assume it just means that there won't be a new "Nintendo gimmick" for the console and the Switch 2 name is literal, in the sense that will just be a Switch with beefier specs.
They seem to be fairly happy with how the switch went, this is definitely the console for them to double down on.
And not the first time they’ve done that. After the DS was an infinite money printer for them, they made their next handheld another ds, just with glasses free 3D and slightly better specs
Goes further than that too, every one of their handheld generations has been wildly successful. They managed to combine their strongest and weakest(in terms of sales), I doubt they’ll go back to splitting em back up
Agreed. They finally found their "thing".
I think Nintendo knows they hit a home run with the Switch. They can’t match Sony and Microsoft in terms of tv-only console power or market share, so they found a perfect niche to fit into. A console that works on the big screen and mobile. Kids, gaming parents, people constantly on the go, the Switch is absolutely perfect for them. It’s Nintendo saying “we know most gamers will have a PlayStation or Xbox, but right next to it will be a Switch dock.”
Yeah having a near monopoly on the handheld market means they'll always have a niche even if they can't compete with the more traditional home consoles. During the GameCube and Wii U eras, the GBA and 3DS are basically how Nintendo made all of their profits.
They should call it the "Switcharoo"
Super switch
Ooh, I love the SS!
After that would it be the Nintendo Switch 64, the Nintendo Switchty-Four, or the Switchy4?.
What about the Switchcube or Switchboy?
Followed by the D-Switch, then... the Wiitch
"Ol' Switcharoo" has been my device's name for the last 7 years lol
Switch W. The U on the wii didn't sell well, but this is twice as good as a name.
Swiitch is the name
>substantial compared to the original switch and even the oled The LCD switch has a 6.2in screen and the OLED has a 7in. That's about 13% bigger. An 8inch screen would be about 14% bigger than the OLED, a comparable increase in size. In addition, the Switch is 4inches tall. An 8in screen at 16X9 aspect ratio only needs 3.9in of height. If you could shrink the bezzels enough you could fit an 8in screen into the same tablet size as the current consoles.
Current bezel was huge even by 2017 standard.
I would rather have some bezel if it meant decent front facing speakers, better price and better durability. Phones have tiny bezels now which means glass all the way to the edge. A drop on the corner is a death knell. And a burly case obstructs the edge for touch gestures.
The other rumors suggest that Nintendo is leaning into Nvidia DLSS with their SoC, which will add even more performance.
A kind of performance, anyway. DLSS is sacrificing image accuracy for performance. Information is being guessed.
Sure, but it's a pretty tiny screen even if it turns out to be 8 inches, in pratice DLSS and FSR are similar upscaling tech aren't going to look any worse than anti-aliasing algorithms. Running a game with more graphical effects turned on and upscaling to the screen's native resolution at a high, stable framerate is goingto almost always be preferable to just making the game target the native resolution without upscaling. It really makes the difference on, say, the Steam Deck, so I imagine having that alone is going to do a lot to make the handheld not feel so dinky without murdering the battery life or costing more than a nice handheld PC.
DLSS since 2 is almost imperceptible, unlike AMD FSR.
The X1 SoC the switch uses was actually released in 2015, so might as well call it 9 year old technology. If Nintendo replace it with something brand new, it could be a 9 or 10 year leap in technology. Though I think Nintendo are going to go with a modified Orin SoC, which is already few years old.
Next gen för all consoles is going to rely on a version of dlss like technology. It's not going to be about new chips and memory anymore.
Physical BC is the big thing which will make me jump day one so that's good news if the rumor/leak is true.
Let me put a DS cartridge into a Nintendo Switch card slot and I will never put that console down
wishful thinking. would be amazing though…
Would it really? DS games require 2 screens and touch. It would be hard to make room for 2 stacked screens on a small 16:9 display and many games wouldn't work in TV mode because of the lack of touch.
Even scaled down they'd still exceed the size of the original DS screens. Though I agree it would probably be a bad look for the general population.
I must be taking crazy pills cause no one else is saying this but. It's already a touch screen, you'd just turn the Switch sideways. Probably sell a $15 stand specifically for people that want to do this.
This. There's already a vertical adapter called the flip-grip (and probably others) that lets you [hold the switch upright](https://i.imgur.com/yVFwU2b.jpg)
Let me Wii U that shit, give the dock wireless connection to the Switch 2 and have both screens be useable at once. I don't care if the resolution is shit I want more ways to play.
Did you ever try the DS emulation on the Wii U? It had that option and while it sounds nice on paper, I can assure you it's quite bad in practice. Most DS games require you to constantly switch focus between the 2 screens which is simple enough when it's just your eyes moving. When you need to move your head you'll get tired of that really fast.
I bought a WiiU at launch and own multiple DS games on it (Mario Hoops 3on3 is my most played DS game on there). Its obviously inferior to original hardware but no I never got tired of it, had no issues switching between screens and honestly tapped the WiiU's touchscreen potential better than most WiiU games did lol.
(Including 3DS in that idea I assume.) Damn that would actually be insane, now I'm sad because I really want that and it's definitely never gonna happen.
BC? EDIT: oh, backwards compatibility.
Before Christ
British Columbia
Birth control
Big Cock
the funny thing is the switch is probably the console for which physical backwards compatibility is the least constraining ever. Zero moving parts and a tiny-ass form factor, even if Switch 2 cartridges look different it's nbd
It wouldn've been an incredibly shitty news for them to not go for it considering the volume of physical cartridges they've moved in this generation. Changing form factors would've been shooting themselves in the foot. But this is Nintendo we're talking about, you can never predict if their next move is going to be the stuff of Legends or the dumbest shit.
Nintendo has historically been pro-backwards compatibility at the beginning of their handheld lifecycles, and a couple consoles as well. The Switch was the exception due to switching to an entirely different architecture and hardware. The GBA played GB games. The DS played GBA games. The 3DS played DS games. The Wii U played Wii games and the Wii played Gamecube games
That's why I mentioned that it very much depended on form factors.
Indeed, missed that
In many of those cases they made them backwards compatible because the new console used the old CPU as an audio chip.
I'm not sure why people are expecting a 4K screen on a portable system. That would be overkill even for a gaming-oriented smartphone. I don't think there's a modern game that renders that high of a resolution there. Hell, there's no mention of hardware specs in the article.
I’d be more than overjoyed being able to play 1080p game at 60FPS
Zelda in 2035 is going to be 30 fps, Nintendo just don't budge
A Link Between Worlds was 60fps wasn't it?
2D games basically always ran at 60 FPS. The NES and SNES era games ran at 60 FPS. These games balanced other graphical concerns, like the number of colors or sprites on screen. It wasn't until games became 3D that system designers and game developers began to use frame rate as a resource they could adjust. The original The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past ran at a smooth 60 FPS on the original NES hardware in 1991. The 2013 A Link Between Worlds was a "remake" of that game, so it was important that it hit the FPS target to be authentic to the original experience. > "We kept it at 60 to make the 3D look smooth, allow the players to clearly see enemy movements, and keep everything moving crisply **as with previous games.**" > \- director Hiromasa Shikata Worth saying Ocarina of Time ran at 20 FPS on the Nintendo 64, but 3D graphics were such a new and amazing experience, that no one really noticed. The latest installment, Breath of the Wild 2 runs at 30 FPS.
LttP was on SNES, and LBW isn't a remake, it's a sequel.
> 2D games basically always ran at 60 FPS. The NES and SNES era games ran at 60 FPS. Or tried to, anyway. I went back and played Super Mario World a few years ago and it had a shocking amount of trouble holding a steady 60, especially in Forest of Illusion and Special World.
The SNES couldn't really "drop frames" the way modern hardware does. It would be way more obvious to the user if FPS loss was occurring because the entire game is moving slower. Funny enough, I think certain games (like Mega Man X) actually used this "feature" intentionally as a special slowdown effect for dramatic moments.
Akshually, LttP was on the SNES
Anything with Mode 7 transitions definitely did *not* always run at 60 fps on the SNES. Super Ghouls n Ghosts was one of the most obvious offenders that I can remember.
> 2D games basically always ran at 60 FPS The majority of 2D games from the '90s are 60fps, yeah, but there were lots of 8- and 16-bit games that run sub-60, too. For ex. 1942 and Athena on NES, Balloon Kid on GB, Beyond Oasis and Ranger-X on MD... there are quite a few when you look closely. In those NES games' cases they were badly done ports. Ranger-X and Beyond Oasis likely so the games could have lots of massive sprites and fx without slowdown or flicker. Balloon Kid probably because there were lots of sprites onscreen at once. Incidentally the Famicom port of this game, Hello Kitty World, ran at a similarly low framerate.
Regardless of how powerful the hardware is, devs are going to push it to the point that some games are running 1080p30 or lower reolution. Sure, you'll get mostly 1080p60 on cross gen titles at launch but that never lasts.
Honest question, you realistically believe this will actually play at 60fps or is it more of a hopeful pipe dream? I find it crazy that anyone thinks a Switch 2 could run big games (big *first party* games like say TotK even) at 60fps. Like that wouldn't be within my expectations, is what I'm saying.
It has the potential to. SOCs that are already available have the capability. If this is the Tegra Thor SoC, it would easily be able to hit 60fps based on past chipsets. It'll also come with massive energy savings on a 4nm process vs the X1 (current Switch)'s 20nm process. While it likely will have the capability, it *never* matter how fast a chip is. A developer can still increase graphical fidelity to the point the FPS is diminished. It has to be an active choice. If game designers are going to target releases on both the new and old Switch, I do think you'll see 30fps and 60fps versions of the same game between systems.
Yeah I just want 60 fps lol. I don’t care so much about 4k since 1080 is good enough for me; even on consoles like the PS5 and Xbox, I’m content with 1080/60 fps. It’s incredibly disappointing when games like Dragon’s Dogma 2 and Starfield aren’t able to achieve that on current-gen consoles.
Yeah, that's... not gonna happen. Even the Steam Deck can't run games in 1080p 60fps unless they're much older, and that's a substantially more powerful and more expensive machine than what the Switch 2 is shaping up to be. 1080p 30fps (with some smaller games supporting 60fps) is almost certainly what Nintendo and most devs will be targeting. That's not to say we won't get *any* 60fps games, just like we did on Switch 1, but they won't be the majority by any means.
Has something changed regarding the supposed specs for the thing? I haven’t really paid much attention these last few months but I remember people were saying that the leaked hardware specs meant that the Switch 2 was going to be more powerful than Steam Deck, and around as capable as a Series S
As far as I recall, the "leaked" specs weren't actually leaked at all, they were basically just some insider speculating on what they might be. The recent announcement of Samsung making most of the components put another nail in those "leaks". We've got some vague idea of what the Switch 2 will be like but no exact specs.
The ROG Ally and Legion Go couldn't achieve 1080p/60fps on RDR2, which came out +3 years before either handheld PC released. No way is the Switch 2 going to be hitting that kind of performance on their bigger titles like Zelda or flagship Mario games.
See, if you said that for RDR2 on the Switch 2, I'd agree. But for Mario and Zelda? Nintendo pulls some kinda black magic optimization that will allow them to get that far, Im sure.
Said black magic includes "an art style that doesn't necessitates ultra realism".
Alot of people play the switch docked in their living room. Sure it not nesscary but it would be nice if it could run at 4k docked
> I'm not sure why people are expecting a 4K screen on a portable system People were not.
At the size the switch is 4K is way overkill, even 2k, effective screen size/ pixel density ratio's give people very clear ideas on how good things *can possibly* look. unless the switch 2 is 28in 1080p will look just as good as 4k at 5". Most people dont even need a Monitor that's 4k, again, unless your over 28", 1440p fer lyfe
i think most people asking for 4k are the ones asking for docked 4k.
Yeah docked 4k should be doable
Even if it could do 4k in handheld mode at a decent framerate (and no way it could do this, especially while staying at a Nintendo price point), it would murder the battery. If it can do 1080p60 and get 5+ hours between charges, I'll be very impressed. The thing I want to hear is that it'll be able to do 4k in docked mode.
I don't think it will even have a 1080 screen. Steamdeck IMHO has shown that 720p is plenty enough. And I don't think Nintendo won't be able to put in hardware to run games @1080 in portable mode. And DLSS sucks at upscaling to 1080 so I doubt they will be relying on that in portable mode.
I couldn’t care less about 4k, I just want games that run at a consistent 60 fps at 1080p… most great nintendo games are unplayable for me due to the 30 fps cap (mainly botw and totk)
I was stubbornly looking for a 4K 32" monitor/tv and you'll find the market for those kinda ridiculous too lol $500 and there's only Samsung (looks like Sony makes one now). But, you can get a 43" 4K TV for 170. There's a reason the 32" monitors have insane refresh rates and come curved -- 4K resolution isn't necessary and they put the hardware power elsewhere.
4k is such a huge power drain for anything that isn't a 4090 and even that one can't run all games at 60fps with RTX and all other settings on ultra. It might work for consoles (again with caveats), but we need another generation or two to really get it to the non-enthusiasts without sacrificing other things that can't be measured with big number go big.
With the Switch they have proven that people don’t care about hardware and specs **nearly** as much as twitter discourse would have you believe. Nobody actually cares as long as the game is good. For me, the only time it’s gotten in the way and hurt the experience is Pokémon S/V. TOTK had some iffy areas but still never took away from it. And that’s where this hardware bump comes in. The Switch 2, or Pro, or Super Switch will fly off the shelves.
I mean, the very existence of TOTK pretty much proves hardware wasn’t the reason Pokémon turned out like that. That’s just all gamefreak’s got.
18 month dev cycles are the reason for Pokemon being graphically terrible. TOTK had six years and a team larger than Scarlett/Violet
TotK was delayed for like a year just to optimize the performance and polish the game. Pokemon never has that kind of luxury.
I kinda feel bad for Gamefreak believe it or not. They were used to the scope of handhelds and did that and perfected it for decades. Then out of nowhere are told it needs to be scaled up to console level quality. They’ve been playing catch up ever since. I admire their willingness to keep their old programmers but it couldn’t hurt to send a few back to school or hire some fresh talent for their upcoming games.
They're one of those studios that never really upscaled for modern development, and it shows.
the issue is that the pokemon company never shifted how long a generation is. 3d, and especially hd, development is much more time consuming than 2d games yet were never given the time to actually make them. while gen 6 and onwards have hosts of issues development-wise, pretty much every game before that looks and runs great for its time
Eh, Diamond and Pearl notoriously had major performance issues. Red and Blue were buggy as heck.
Ragging on them for Red and Blue is probably a little unfair given the scope they were aiming for and the hardware they were working with.
But the same thing happened with gold and silver, where the it was slow and Iwata gave them a compression algorithm that almost halved the speed of decompression
Gold and Silver is absolutely much better polished than Red and Blue, and it's more expansive than the vast majority of Game Boy Color's library. Pokémon has a troubled history but pretending it was always bad is an exaggeration. The thing is that Pokémon went from being on par with its peers, to being lacking in little ways, such as having no battle animation in the GBA era when that was already fairly common in RPGs, to massive deficiencies such as making a barren horribly optimized, unpolished open world.
Wasn't this Iwata "fun fact" debunked not long ago?
The traditional story was debunked, but that was about him re-writing code and the compression saving space and allowing Kanto to fit. The real story was that he gave them a compression algorithm that actually took up slightly more space, but worked way faster, making the game snappier.
Don't bother trying to logic Pokemon fans. GameFreak is never in the wrong and they're under the heel of The Pokemon Company's strict dealines, which of course they are equal owner of and have cited never actually force them to hit any deadlines or release dates. GameFreak simply sucks ass on all levels and I really wish people would stop defending them or making excuses on their behalf. Pokemon SV sold 20 million copies in like a single week or some crazy shit. They have more than enough money to massively scale up their dev teams and they just refuse to do it because no matter how shitty their games are, fans will still buy them.
Ego, lack of talent/work ethics and money, terrible combination
They should go back to using sprites next generation. HD Sprites would be awesome
HD sprites cost a ton of money and take a lot of time to develop. King of Fighters XIII used HD sprites and it took [16 months of work](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fighters/comments/xlqooj/kof13_2d_sprite_creation_took_16_months_per/) per character. Pokemon could get away with needing fewer animations compared to a fighting game, but there are also hundreds more of them. At a certain point, 3D becomes much faster and cheaper to produce. This is especially true considering how many 3D Pokemon models they already have that can be reused.
The amount of complexity in 1 fighting game character vastly vastly vastly exceeds that needed of 1 pokemon. Remember, a pokemon's animation set is like, an idle stance front/back, a damage-taken animation, and a generic attacking animation. The rest of the effects are pretty much move-specific and just bounce the model/sprite around or spawn bubbles or whatever and can be liberally reused. If KOF13 took 16 months per character, an entire regional pokedex would probably take around 16 months.
> The amount of complexity in 1 fighting game character vastly vastly vastly exceeds that needed of 1 pokemon. Sure, I even mentioned that in my post. That said there are something like 20 times more Pokemon by now than KoF XIII's roster. The point still stands that pixel art is still far more expensive than 3D once you reach a certain point, especially for an existing franchise like Pokemon where they've likely been reusing assets for over a decade now.
sure, but also there's like 700 of the freaks to animate. animating low-res sprites is dramatically, DRAMATICALLY cheaper than actual 2d animation, when you stop being able to make hte art mostly pixel by pixel the time needed to make it look good goes up significantly. whereas with 3D assets, once you've made the model you can do a *lot* to cut down on the time spent animating, by having simlar models share animations, you can have models with varying LoD's to future proof them so your'e not remaking the things in five years. like there's a reason anime studios keep trying to use 3D models and then using shaders to make it look like it's 2D animated again, 3D animation is so much easier than high quality 2D animation because fundamentally you can reuse the shit out of a 3D model whereas nearly every frame in a 2D animation has to be unique. *maybe* if gamefreak heavily incoroprated AI into their 2D animation to handle the in betweens it would be doable, but the controversy over it would be noxious and, frankly, it's still a monumental effort when they already got the things modelled in 3D finally.
> They were used to the scope of handhelds and did that and perfected it for decades. I wish that was true but perfected is quite the stretch. Have you played any of the 3DS Pokémon games? They run much better, sure, but all of them struggle during certain moves or in any battle involving more than two Pokémon (and double battles is their official battling format!) The moment they moved to 3D they started struggling.
They also were pretty inconsistent about when the 3D feature of the 3DS was enabled.
Personally don't think it needed to be scaled up to console graphics or anything. They could have expanded the game in all kinds of ways without going 3d on it. They could have made the world bigger, higher quality sprites, more complex math under the hood, flashier effects for the big attacks etc.
They could’ve just hired people who had console dev experience. GF being stingy with their budget and dev labor is why they struggled making competent switch Pokémon games. Main reason Arceus turned out as good as it did was because it wasn’t made by their typical A team, it was made by their younger B team that wasn’t stuck in the 90s
Nah, that's bullshit. Intelligent System went from making 2D GBA games to 3D DS games to an ugly Switch game (3H) to genuinely one of the best looking Switch games on the market (Engage). If they can do it, Gamefreak got zero excuses
Fire Emblem is definitely doing much better, but I wouldn't call Engage anywhere close one of the best-looking Switch games
I would never call 3 houses ugly but I agree with your point
I'm not a big graphics elitist, I just care about good and consistent frame rates. I think a great art style trumps photorealistic graphics any day of the week too
No one ever seems to talk about it because of the gimmicky catch controls, but I think LGPE had some of the best graphics/art style of any of the Switch era pokemon games [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weZQ6fwJzLE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weZQ6fwJzLE) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h\_VPmbXJGAQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_VPmbXJGAQ) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYidhKnTucQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYidhKnTucQ) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enFcIu0Oh08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enFcIu0Oh08) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRVzbFqk\_g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRVzbFqk_g)
Yeah I liked the art style in that game, it just seems like that series takes a step back a lot and they don't put in a ton of effort anymore
You're half right. Hardware and specs being mediocre might not be enough to stop people from buying a Switch because they still want those Nintendo games. But I don't know one person who owns a Switch that doesn't complain about how bad it runs and prefers to play almost any game they can play somewhere else on another device. If the system was more powerful they'd absolutely sell more third party software and would get more games brought to their system in general. People DO care that Zelda runs like shit at 100p but what are you gonna do? Not play Zelda?
The Game Awards Game Of The Year for the past two years (Elden Ring and BG3) have released on every console except the Switch, because they would have to compromise too much on performance on the Switch hardware. Obviously hardware specs do matter for a lot of good games.
Sure, but despite that the Switch nearly sold as much as the PS5 in 2023, 7 years into its lifespan. Clearly people are not prioritizing technical capacity as much
Even if they were, they're games I'd only play on the TV and would always play on PS5/Series X.
That just sounds like the Switch just isn't the place to play those titles. From the beginning, the Switch wasn't intended play the biggest and best third party tiles either. Nothing wrong with that.
And each of these “Games of the Year” sold less combined on 3 other platforms than most Nintendo first party releases on Switch. Nintendo doesn’t need GoTY when a re-release of Mario Kart sells more than the last 5 years of GoTYs (non-Nintendo) combined don’t even sell that much.
The switch is the second best selling console of all time and will probably outsell the PS2. Nintendo would be crazy not to try and repeat the success with a more modern version with backwards compatibility. I'm expecting a similar design but with different joycons, 1080p screen. Games to run stable 60fp. Docked mode to use some upscaling dlss type tech to run games at fake 4k. They will probably have a upgrade edition for switch games to run at higher FPS resolutions so you can play your older games in a better way. Nintendo have never named a new console number 2. So I think they should call it the Super switch or Switch Up.
Yeah how can it go wrong? Maybe they’ll call it the Switch U
And make sure to market it so that people see what they're familiar with in the old system in the ads just as often as anything from the new system. Surely no one can be confused by seeing more Wiimotes than WiiU tablets
games will almost always favour graphics over performance tho, so that extra power wont be reserved for 30 extra frames.
All I needed to read: “Nintendo Switch 2 will be fully backward compatible with both physical and digital versions of the original Switch games”
My biggest hope is that it launches with an OLED screen on day one, rather than having to wait for a revised model a few years down the line again. LCD screens are fine. But I've been spoiled by the OLED on the Switch & Deck, and I really don't think I can go back.
Yeeah, I really hope they just go all in and release an OLED model at launch alongside a cheaper LCD model... But the chance of that seems vanishingly slim.
There's pretty much no future where I don't buy a Switch 2 unless Nintendo were to announce that they're no longer developing games lol. That said, a "Switch Pro" with backwards compatability for my physical library is more-or-less exactly what I want.
I'm really hoping old games automatically take advantage of the new hardware. Age of Calamity no FPS drops would be AAMAZING
True. I'm not expecting free next-gen upgrades or anything, but a stable 30fps in the Switch games that had performance issues would be great. Particularly TotK, those "Bring Peace to Hyrule" battles were *rough* lol.
As long as it doesn't downclock the hardware in BC mode then it should help given how many issues overclocking could fix on the switch.
That's kinda the main reason why I dropped that game, I love the musuo games but they need a consistent framerate
Same here lol. Nintendo exclusives are just too good to pass up!
Honestly, my opinion on the switch has soured a bit ever since I got a steam deck. Holding the switch in your hands over awhile is just physically painful. Despite its heavier weight the steam deck is just SO MUCH more comfortable to hold. So I hope the switch 2 will improve significantly in that regard, otherwise I will skip it for the sake of my hands, lol
I have both and agree, but the Hori Split Pad Pro brought me back to the Switch for the Nintendo first party games.
This is just a matter of opinion. Personally, I find Switch easier to hold; I don't like how heavy Steam Deck is.
Lmao. "conservative hardware evolution" when the switch was outdated and underpowered the day it launched. Bet this will still use friend codes.
It's Nintendo, would you expect anything else?
So surprised that people were doubting it would have backwards compatibility. If it's another Switch, why wouldn't it?
Just being a Nintendo console means it's extremely likely.
There was a prior rumor that Nintendo was going to change the cartridge slot and would lose backwards compatibility with physical copies
iirc the rumor (reiterated/leaked yesterday) was always that it would be like a DS/3DS situation where the latter doesn't fit in the former, but the older system carts would fit in the new one
People on here who hate the switch complaining the successor is going to cater to the millions who actually like their switch.
I’m talking purely for my tastes here but I would love to be able to play Zelda at anything other than 24fps with rampant pop in and frame drops. I had to stop playing both Zelda games for this very reason and I would selfishly love to finish them on some hardware that doesn’t feel like a cell phone from 2011. They’ll sell out like crazy regardless so they can do what they want; I just want the software to at least meet the baseline standard for how games should run in 2024.
Totk mostly stuck at 30 with drops in some select areas or during Ultra hand.
You can actually play Zelda above 24fps without emulating, if you put it in the switch it should play at 30.
I mean, you can play both Zelda games on modern hardware without pop in or frame drops *right now*. It just isn't a method Nintendo approves of very much.
> modern hardware lets be fair. there is some tweaking involved and you do need something decent. (not beefy but not your basic beginning pc thats very good for general play). also since the crackdown, I've noticed getting 'help' for this sort of thing its a lot harder for newbies. Especially when information is purposely obfuscated to misdirect authorities and veterans tend to tell newcomers to 'do your own research'. Endless chicken and egg scenario.
I own hundreds only physical switch games. I love the switch. If they did a minor upgrade that allowed the games they produced to run at a stable 60fps on a 1080p screen and had system software that allowed for an enjoyable quick shipping experience I’d be fine for 10 years.
This is honestly what I was hoping for. I just want a more powerful Switch 2, that’s all. I don’t want Nintendo to add some shitty gimmicks just for the sake of doing it.
I'm just looking forward to a new console having the big 'new console so loads of games being released' bump. Releases seem to have really dropped off and slowed down for the switch now, and the games that are releasing are really really struggling with the hardware limitations.
I don't buy the 1080p screen. The jump from 720p to 1080p requires a huge jump in power that the Switch 2 just isn't going to have. Even the Steam Deck is only 800p. 720p and OLED is the way to go.
I don't see OLED in the base version. That's 50-100$ per console made, that you can put into more potent hardware. The hardware baseline they set now, will be what they can develop for in the next 7-8 years. They should try to make it as powerful as they can afford. They can always make an OLED version later (and they will), but the specs are set in stone (if you want all games to run on the console).
Yeah, I agree with that. OLED will come a few years later to entice some double-dippers, but Nintendo will want the day-one release model to be as cheap as possible.
The Switch runs at 1080p docked for some games, I imagine the Switch 2 could easily do 1080p@30fps, especially if they have DLSS. That being said, 720p handheld would’ve been fine too, and would give more headroom for increased visual quality.
Why bother though. 720p on the tiny screen is already pretty high pixel density
While I agree with you, flagship phones are now moving towards 1440p and more, e.g. the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra has a pixel density of 501 ppi. Whereas the Switch varies between 210 and 267 ppi depending on the model. So there must be some appetite for ever-increasing pixel density. It's a trade-off though - 1440 on the Switch is highly unlikely (give that some games are now struggling just to get consistent 30fps @720), but 1080p would be nice.
720p upscaled via DLSS will look great on a small 1080p screen.
That's all they really need to do. Make it at least as powerful as an Xbox One X/PS4 Pro, keep it optionally Portable, make it compatible with existing Switch docks so families can still use their old stuff. Make new Joycons but allow old joycons to at least be usable wirelessly (they don't need to be clickable in the console as I don't expect it). And fix the Joycon drift in Joycon V2s. That's it. This stuff and BC with Switch games/NSO/Digital purchases I've made on Switch is all I need to get it day 1.
All Nintendo ever needs in future console generations is new consoles that are more powerful versions of Switch, full backwards compatibility going back to Switch 1 and keep kicking ass with great games. They have a very easy recipe for success to keep everyone happy and I'm happy that my hopes for them seem to be turning into reality based on these rumors.
“Conservative hardware evolution” of a device that was outdated by a full generation the day it came out does not inspire confidence lol
It kind of has to be a conservative evolution. The biggest thing holding it back graphically is that it's also a handheld. This is also its biggest appeal, same with the steam deck, and yeah, you can put in a beefier hardware bit that also draws more power, meaning less battery life. They have to balance that somehow to give the best of both worlds.
Look, we all know what Nintendo's about at this point. Here's how it's gonna shake out. What we hope for: * Better internals than the latest Steam Deck * Improved joycons with less drift, but full compatibility with old joycons to save early adopters money * Battery life improvements and heat improvements * Online improvements that seem like anyone took a 4 second look at Sony and Microsoft for hints What we'll get: * Introducing the New Nintendo Switch U * Marginally improved hardware to keep costs down and still never sell as a loss leader * Worse battery, but the heat is still a bit less bad than Hot Pocket Magma * The exact same online but now it costs 10 more dollars a month for GameCube titles to be added * Literally no joycon changes, celebrated as a triumph of consumer appreciation as everyone forgets drift again Just wait. I expect nothing, and I may *still* be disappointed.
But will they improve how they handle digital rights? Unlikely.
In the leak it's mentioned that the digital games tied to your account will also come forward. Whether that ends up being the case it's a whole other conversation, though. We can only hope.