For the Switch 2, Switch 3, etc, is there a limit to how important resolution is for handheld devices?

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Obviously the Switch 1, with its 720p screen and games with dynamic res, that limit hasn't been reached yet. But is like 4K a huge jump for screens this small over 1440p? How far beyond 1080p will handheld screens go in the future and will higher resolution make much of a difference past 1080p?

 

[gabegabe]

Yeah, I think it's kind of unnecessary to have 4k resolution on a 7" screen. For a future Switch (or hybrid console), I think 1440p is enough for portable mode.

 

[Aleh]

It really should never go beyond 1080p, and even then, it's not needed for a long while still.

 

[Gundam]

I'm superbly uneducated on the topic, but wouldn't you be able to see jaggies even more if the system's screen is closer to your face? I barely see them in 1080 television until compared side by side to 4k, but on my switch I feel like it's constantly on everything not retro-sprite style in handheld.

 

[Trojita]

You could just look at modern smart phone screens?

 

[Mr. Shakedown]

1080p is as high as a 7" screen needs to go. If there's ever a Switch XL then maybe 1440p if the size is 12"or greater.

Honestly though considering some people bitch about the size NOW I don't really foresee them making a system much bigger than the current form factor. They can add an inch or so by eliminating bezels but otherwise the form stays the same.

 

[LCGeek]

You could just look at modern smart phone screens?

Click to shrink...

I love this post.

Also Op DPI matters a lot as well when considering the quality of screen.

 

[Nostremitus]

I say keep 720p or at most 1080p, that way no matter how powerful it gets in docked mode it should be able to run it in handheld mode.

 

[Tedmilk]

1080p seems to be the sweet spot.

 

[Dekuman]

I think 1080 is fine. I'd argue a nice 720p screen is preferable to a so so 1080p screen for Switch 2.

On handheld resolution is already good enough and a lot of phones can't even run games anywhere near native resolution

Nintendo is also incentivized to keep resolution in check as with sufficiently updated hardware they can run more next gen games portably instead of dedicating processing power to run it at a higher resolution than is necessary

 

[Aleh]

You could just look at modern smart phone screens?

Click to shrink...

Smartphones aren't displaying graphics intensive games 99% of the time

 

[Advance.Wars.Sgt.]

You could just look at modern smart phone screens?

Click to shrink...

This.

Just keep future iterations of Switch in line with smartphone/tablet build qualities and it should do fine.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Yeah, there's definitely a threshold where increasing the resolution becomes largely pointless for a given screen size and viewing distance. I haven't done any math, but I suspect that something generally Switch-shaped will probably reach that by the time it hits 4k.

 

[Jraphics Horse]

I'd take nicely anti-aliased 720p over 1080p with no anti-aliasing, but that's just me.

 

[Enduin]

I have a hard time coming up with any good justifications for going over 1080p. Both in terms of picture quality at that screen size and performance it just seems like a really bad idea. 720p is great for now, hell most games can't even hit that, so they should probably stick to it for Switch 2 as well and wait for tech to really be above and beyond power/efficiency to provide uncompromised 1080p graphics on the go.

 

[ItsOKAY]

I think, if you make the switch also a good choice for VR...than, yeah, it should be more than 1080p.

 

[Trojita]

Smartphones aren't displaying graphics intensive games 99% of the time

Click to shrink...

But OP just wants an example to see if there would be much of a difference between a 720p handheld screen and 1080p, 4k etc? A modern iphone or android screen could at least show if there is a jump.

 

[Deleted member 43872]

There's obviously a pixel density at which you can no longer discern individual pixels. Apple's "Retina" displays are marketed as reaching that limit, and they vary from about 200 to about 400 pixels per inch, depending on how far from your eyes they're intended to be used. The closest display to the Switch would be the 7.9 inch iPad Mini, which has a 326 PPI display at 2048x1536. There are credible arguments that a "real" Retina display without a discernible pixel grid for users with excellent eyesight would need 2 or 3 times the density, but matching Apple would be a start.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

But OP just wants an example to see if there would be much of a difference between a 720p handheld screen and 1080p, 4k etc? A modern iphone or android screen could at least show if there is a jump.

Click to shrink...

But I don't want to go to the Apple Store because it's too crowded D:

 

[Another Castle]

DPI is what's important. Whether that's 720p or 4k really depends on the screen and size. I don't find myself wanting for more when I play 90% of games on the Switch. I think maybe the only one I even noticed the poorer resolution on was XC2.

 

[Liam Allen-Miller]

720p is honestly more than enough imo considering where mobile GPUs are at now. Getting up to smartphone resolution comes with ugly costs, like extra fast battery drainage and uncomfortably warm devices.

I'm superbly uneducated on the topic, but wouldn't you be able to see jaggies even more if the system's screen is closer to your face? I barely see them in 1080 television until compared side by side to 4k, but on my switch I feel like it's constantly on everything not retro-sprite style in handheld.

Click to shrink...

Games running at native res with a good AA solution can usually clean the image up more than enough considering the pixel density of portable devices. Here are some lookers on the Vita's 540p screen.

 

[chrisPjelly]

Screen quality and type (i.e. OLED) are going to be important after we break 1080p.

Anything beyond that is honestly a little wasteful, unless Nintendo comes out with a Surface sized screen of course

 

[Trojita]

But I don't want to go to the Apple Store because it's too crowded D:

Click to shrink...

 

[bmfrosty]

Only reason for more pixel density is to facilitate a reduction in screen door effect in VR applications. I'm certain that if such a device happens it will be a render at a lower resolution and then scale to the higher resolution.

 

[Morisaki]

I would prefer keeping 720P so that additional computing powers can go to improved frame rate/image quality.

 

[laxu]

Screen quality and type (i.e. OLED) are going to be important after we break 1080p.

Anything beyond that is honestly a little wasteful, unless Nintendo comes out with a Surface sized screen of course

Click to shrink...

Pretty much. I'd say 1080p would be good enough for next Switch. Higher res screens are more beneficial for reading text at these sizes which is what you mostly do on a smartphone whereas 1080p is a good resolution for media content like games and videos.

 

[Deleted member 12129]

I think after having 1440p OLED phone screens being the norm for a while now, anything less on a handheld device just seems cheap and poor quality. I used a Switch for the first time this past week and it was surprising how bad the screen looked in my opinion. I'm not saying we should be aiming for a 1440p Switch or anything, but 1080p with a better panel should be a minimum.

 

[Sub Boss]

Next Switch is going to have 1080p screen with lots of sub native games

 

[Sub Boss]

I think after having 1440p OLED phone screens being the norm for a while now, anything less on a handheld device just seems cheap and poor quality. I used a Switch for the first time this past week and it was surprising how bad the screen looked in my opinion. I'm not saying we should be aiming for a 1440p Switch or anything, but 1080p with a better panel should be a minimum.

Click to shrink...

Thats too much for a mass market system that has to have enough power and battery for modern console games, and still not cost that much

 

[Zool]

It's not important until resolution goes up. See people saying 3ds is not enough anymore since Switch. That will happen again with Switch 2.0

 

[Deleted member 6730]

It's really not needed right now. Hell some games can't even hit it right now. Maybe when the successor comes out five years from now.

 

[Sqrt]

I would prefer keeping 720P so that additional computing powers can go to improved frame rate/image quality.

Click to shrink...

+1 . I was on team 540p for the current Switch too.

 

[Imitatio]

It really should never go beyond 1080p, and even then, it's not needed for a long while still.

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[samred]

Only reason for more pixel density is to facilitate a reduction in screen door effect in VR applications. I'm certain that if such a device happens it will be a render at a lower resolution and then scale to the higher resolution.

Click to shrink...

Not just pixel density but also "fast-switching" capabilities. It'll be interesting to see who they source future LCD panels from, because that'll be telling as to whether or not Nintendo has VR-on-Switch aspirations beyond the very, very limited Labo VR set.

 

[Deleted member 18379]

I'm fine with where it is. Resolution stopped impacting my enjoyment when we reached 720p. VR is the only place where I really need better resolution and I feel it's hindering my experience. They can move to 1080p screens for a bit more clarity but unless the next switch also doubles as a VR screen, it just seems excessive to go higher.

 

[Skittzo]

I think 720p is fine for the forseeable future. When basically all games can be rendered above that in portable mode then you can up it to 1080p, and so on.

I guess the hangup is if they want to focus on VR in the future but if not I don't see the need to rush past 720p.

 

[mutantmagnet]

Without VR support it is pontless to support really high resolutions but we are getting enough hints that future Nintendo devices will support VR going forward so the higher resolutions will be warranted.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

I would be surprised if Nintendo cared more about VR than as a DIY novelty device like they do, since they usually succeed in environments where relatively low-tech solutions are viable due to things like portability and battery life. VR is just too expensive and unwieldy for them to take too seriously even now.

I use my phone at the higher res but I've never looked at my Switch screen and thought that it needed a significant bump-up despite being the same size. The Switch doesn't really work as an e-reader sort of device anyway.

 

[Shoichi]

Resolution wise on the Switch's small screen. Once you get to 1440p or higher it's much harder to tell at that point and just wastes battery life imo on the Switch's screen.

If anything Nintendo would target the most common tv/monitor screen resolution at the time for dock and not worry as much about the actual device screen.

If Nintendo does go after the VR market. As long as their is no screen door effect it's fine for me

 

[Deleted member 4247]

Sure, there's a limit. I can't see any pixels on my phone. But the Switch is faaaaaaaaar from that limit.

 

[TheCrackedJack]

It entirely depends on how large the screen is. At the current size, 720P is acceptable to me. I've played games like Oddmar on Ipad that look similar to Rayman Legends on Switch and honestly the difference in resolution is not that much of a deal to me here.