• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

z0m3le

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,418
Yeah I'm seeing a lot more than a potential screen replacement discussed here pal.
The leak was from a display supplier for the Nintendo Switch, this was just 1 of the suggested upgrades. There is also new hardware and software that they are trying to balance with price, they also call it an upgrade and even deeper in the article compare the new switch to being in-line with the PS4 Pro refresh.

My speculation is based on the confirmed Foxconn leak from October 2016, before the Switch's reveal and dozens of rumors and statements by Nintendo, as well as leaks like Mariko. The Foxconn leak does have to be interpreted where I am speculating, but it's as factual as it gets when it comes to a leak.
 

NateDrake

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,538
How much are they worth (32GB)?
Exact figures aren't publicly known.

Yeah, the price is a problem. I guess we'll see. There's only so much Nintendo can do. That's the world of making a system that uses carts (which was the best decision). I want third party devs to keep making AA games for Switch. They seem to sell very well.
Nintendo needs to subsidize the cost, but doing so would set a bad precedent.
 

Civilstrife

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,286
Man I've been thinking about this all day and I'm so bummed. I was so ready to grab a Switch between October and early November, but this news are making me wait since I can't afford to get a Switch now and get this revision later because I'm planning to grab a Pro and a 4K TV next year, maybe an XBX as well.

Get a Switch now, then sell it when the revision is released. You'll probably only be out ~$100, and for that, you get a year of Switch gaming you wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
 

Dark Cloud

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
61,087
Nintendo needs to subsidize the cost, but doing so would set a bad precedent.

It would be a bad precedent. Now they can say "you've subsidized before..."

It's not like the OG Switch would have gotten those games anyway.

People would still complain. I can't act like how I know this works. If they can get KH3 on the OG Switch even if it looks like crap just to satisfy people who don't want a Switch Pro, then they should go for it .
 

Risq

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account.
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
479
People would still complain. I can't act like how I know this works. If they can get KH3 on the OG Switch even if it looks like crap just to satisfy people who don't want a Switch Pro, then they should go for it .

They wouldn't do this because it would make the hardware and software look like junk if it really had issues running.
 

TDW117

Member
Apr 22, 2018
57
Kinda think it's too soon to be talking about a new Switch tbh, the original one hasn't even been out 2 years yet. Not gonna get the new model myself but if the Switch is your only console I suppose it makes sense to upgrade.
 

John Omaha

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,872
People would still complain. I can't act like how I know this works. If they can get KH3 on the OG Switch even if it looks like crap just to satisfy people who don't want a Switch Pro, then they should go for it .
I could see it being a docked mode only game on the original Switch (equivalent to the revision's portable mode). That would be the only way to make it happen without cloud streaming shenanigans.
 

z0m3le

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,418
Hmm more about the article states: "they are moving to ensure that their "flagship" product does not lose its competitiveness."

Mobile devices have caught up to the Switch and a game dedicated device from someone like gpd hitting a $300 price point and exceeding Switch's performance could absolutely happen next year.
 
Last edited:

Hermii

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,724
Anyone think there's a chance Nintendo could opt for an upgrade to 900p rather than the full 1080?
Why would anyone want higher resolution? A lot of games aren't even native on the current resolution, including first party (odyssey). Imo it's beyyer to keep it at 720p, try for most games to be native and if there's power to spare improve image quality with post processing techniques (aa, af etc).

And in a perfect world add hdr and g sync.
 
Last edited:

MisterSnrub

Member
Mar 10, 2018
5,947
Someplace Far Away
Why would anyone want higher resolution? A lot of games aren't even native on the current resolution, including first party (odyssey). Imo it's beyyer to keep it at 720p, try for most games to be native and if there's power to spare improve image quality with post processing techniques (aa, af etc).
Naturally there would have to be a marginal boost to the specs. I'm more interested I guess in the feasibility of mass producing 900p screens, as opposed to 1080p ones.
 

Sander VF

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
26,131
Tbilisi, Georgia
Developers are free to release games that only work when docked or portable now. There is no rules for this, so if a more powerful Switch is released and developers can't get their games to run well enough on the current Switch, yeah there could be exclusives, but not from Nintendo. Nintendo will wait until they release another more powerful revision later down the road, probably in 2022, setting up a 3 year performance refresh cycle. They will almost certainly still launch cheaper models and I keep hearing about a January reveal, what if they reveal the cheaper kid friendly model in January for a March release. (still matching the docked performance on the go) and a Switch "Pro" in August. The cheaper model wouldn't offer a performance upgrade and would be more like your ds lite, while the more powerful version would get a docked jump.

This would also mean that games designed for the more powerful Switch would still work for the cheaper model, just at the undocked performance level. The current Switch would likely just get the same games and developers wouldn't care much if the larger AAA gets struggle with 30fps but run fine on the newer switch models.
Releasing a game that works in one mode only doesn't fracture the user base, but releasing only for the "pro".

Speaking of userbase, the upgrade's userbase will always be a mere little chunk of the overall pie, especially in the beginning.
 

Aprikurt

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 29, 2017
18,806
I'd pay hundreds for non-creaky joycons. HUNDREDS...

I mean, not hundreds. But a fair bit. My Switch sounds like it has arthritis.
 

ElMexiMerican

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,506
That game was playable in all releases?
Did you see how it ran on an og 3DS though? It was like sub 30 at all times. So i was just saying there necessarily wasn't any precedent for it since it wouldn't be the first time that a game clearly made for an enhanced Nintendo system was allowed to run on a lower spec'd system and play that poorly. I doubt Nintendo would allow it this time though since I'd imagine a Switch Pro would be more successful and thus have more games specifically in mind for it.
 

Mory Dunz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
36,466
lol at saying the mass market will do this or that.

So if I understand correctly, on the basis of a current rumor with no concrete details, people will hold off for One Year on buying a Switch bundle with Fortnite & Vbucks/skins, or a bundled switch with Smash Bros or Pokemon (not to mention there may be a switch for less than $300 for Black Friday deal) in order to.....

wait one year to possibly get a new model that no one knows anything about or if it's even attractive to consumers.
And that will assuredly at least cost 300 dollars.

This is also assuming that the mass market follows forums and gaming websites that discuss rumors lol

makes sense
 

Technika

Alt Account
Banned
Aug 23, 2018
256
I'd pay hundreds for non-creaky joycons. HUNDREDS...

I mean, not hundreds. But a fair bit. My Switch sounds like it has arthritis.

I noticed it a bit on my original model, but it wasnt until I got my warranty replacement that I noticed how flexy/creaky they were.
A new fresh switch feels much more solid and firm.

On topic, a spec update - aka Pro model with a higher res screen would offer more realistic VR options as it would have the performance and acceptable screen fidelity to boot.
 

Sander VF

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
26,131
Tbilisi, Georgia
lol at saying the mass market will do this or that.

So if I understand correctly, on the basis of a current rumor with no concrete details, people will hold off for One Year on buying a Switch bundle with Fortnite & Vbucks/skins, or a bundled switch with Smash Bros or Pokemon (not to mention there may be a switch for less than $300 for Black Friday deal) in order to.....

wait one year to possibly get a new model that no one knows anything about or if it's even attractive to consumers.
And that will assuredly at least cost 300 dollars.

This is also assuming that the mass market follows forums and gaming websites that discuss rumors lol

makes sense
Remember when "Playstation Neo" rumors tanked PS4 sales around the world?

Me neither.
 

tokkan

Member
Nov 1, 2017
143
If there's a Switch Pro, I'll buy 1. If there's a Switch Lite (more portable focused, less expensive), I'll buy 3 (move the kids of 2DSes).

Margins would probably be higher on a Pro, but I'd bet Lite makes more $ overall in volume.
 

Pooroomoo

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,972
Glad I didn't buy the original model. I'll probably get it day one.
I always find the "I'm glad I held off" comment a little off. Of course if you were not really interested and had more than enough things to do/play, it might make sense to you.
But think of how long it took the PS4 to come into its own, to be really worth it for many people - yet by that point the PS4 Pro was on the near horizon...

There is always a newer, shinier thing on the horizon, for any electronics device. Why should I buy a PS5 when by the time it finally starts being worth it for me, the PS5 Pro will come? Why should I buy a PS5 Pro when the PS6 will come out not that much later? Etc etc.

Would be even more ironic if people who might have bought a Switch now and enjoyed playing what it already has now, hold off due to these rumors, and then when the new model comes, it just turns out to be a Switch mini and not more powerful, and they just "lost" a full year they could have enjoyed it.

If there's a Switch Pro, I'll buy 1. If there's a Switch Lite (more portable focused, less expensive), I'll buy 3 (move the kids of 2DSes).

Margins would probably be higher on a Pro, but I'd bet Lite makes more $ overall in volume.
Similar case with me - if there is a Pro, I might buy 1 eventually (or hold off for Switch 2). If there is a Switch lite, I'll immediately buy 2.
 
Last edited:

Quacktion

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,503
People, this is a home console in Nintendo's eyes first and foremost. They aint gonna fuck people over by making a version with super specs and exclusive games, especially THIS early in the console's lifespan. If PS Pro or XBOX X did this there would be riots, they aint that stupid.
 

flipswitch

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,978
Slimmer with better battery life and I'll be happy. 5hrs would be handy.

I'm more worried about the process of transferring my account to a new Switch.
 

Sander VF

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
26,131
Tbilisi, Georgia
People, this is a home console in Nintendo's eyes first and foremost. They aint gonna fuck people over by making a version with super specs and exclusive games, especially THIS early in the console's lifespan. If PS Pro or XBOX X did this there would be riots, they aint that stupid.
This is true.

If it even is a midgen upgrade (if it even is that instead of a slim type of a revision), it will at most run the same games, but better.
 

Skittzo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,037
Power is on the lower end of concerns from third parties. Game cart size capacity is a far bigger issue that needs to be solved for third party support, as are software sale performance.

Yeah I've seen this mentioned a few times by insiders and developers yet most people seem to ignore it.

A pro model would have these same issues on top of a smaller user base.
 

z0m3le

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,418
Yeah I've seen this mentioned a few times by insiders and developers yet most people seem to ignore it.

A pro model would have these same issues on top of a smaller user base.
That's because it's irrelevant to a new model. game card capacity is what it is, you can't make a new Switch that solves this problem.
Also, Power is not on the lower end of concerns, it's something that people will hear from certain developers, but the reality is that porting to the Switch from XB1/PS4 does require retooling the games quite a bit to get acceptable performance, if it's even possible. The reason you aren't getting Call of Duty on Switch this year, is because it wouldn't run at 60fps. This is a problem for these types of games. If you don't believe that example, here is another: Rainbowsix Siege, because the Switch can't run the game at expected performance levels, it can't be ported to the Switch. However, if there was a model that could run the game and had a decent install base of even 10 Million units? Developers would likely bring these games to the Switch platform and allow the current model to struggle with the game or even stream it.

Don't expect a super powerful Switch, but a bump that puts it in the ballpark of current gen consoles, that is something Nintendo can do for the current Switch price, and it's something they should do, to meet the expectations of their developer partners as Next gen gets underway.
 

Deleted member 8791

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,383
If a Pro version does happen, what are we expecting with the og Switch? Possible price drop to push it towards the more budget option? Would this even be realistic?
 

z0m3le

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,418
If a Pro version does happen, what are we expecting with the og Switch? Possible price drop to push it towards the more budget option? Would this even be realistic?
The current Switch could see a drop to $249 today, it's completely up to Nintendo, but yes there is enough profit there now.
 

Dark Cloud

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
61,087
That's because it's irrelevant to a new model. game card capacity is what it is, you can't make a new Switch that solves this problem.
Also, Power is not on the lower end of concerns, it's something that people will hear from certain developers, but the reality is that porting to the Switch from XB1/PS4 does require retooling the games quite a bit to get acceptable performance, if it's even possible. The reason you aren't getting Call of Duty on Switch this year, is because it wouldn't run at 60fps. This is a problem for these types of games. If you don't believe that example, here is another: Rainbowsix Siege, because the Switch can't run the game at expected performance levels, it can't be ported to the Switch. However, if there was a model that could run the game and had a decent install base of even 10 Million units? Developers would likely bring these games to the Switch platform and allow the current model to struggle with the game or even stream it.

Don't expect a super powerful Switch, but a bump that puts it in the ballpark of current gen consoles, that is something Nintendo can do for the current Switch price, and it's something they should do, to meet the expectations of their developer partners as Next gen gets underway.
This. You can't say power is on the low end of concerns. It is most definitely a concern. The cart sizes are what they are. They're expensive and Nintendo can either eat some of it or not. Developers have a better reason to bring games to Switch knowing it's more powerful. At least that helps with one concern. The prices should go down on the carts.
 

Ayirek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,270
I genuinely doubt the specs will be any different. I assume it'll be a board redesign, maybe smaller process, better battery life but overall same form factor and same or really similar specs.
 

NateDrake

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,538
This. You can't say power is on the low end of concerns. It is most definitely a concern. The cart sizes are what they are. They're expensive and Nintendo can either eat some of it or not. Developers have a better reason to bring games to Switch knowing it's more powerful. At least that helps with one concern. The prices should go down on the carts.
I can say it is on the lower end of concern, because cart size and software sales are bigger issues right now. Games have been cancelled for Switch due to the limitations and cost of carts. Other games have been shelved because software sales. Power isn't the issue.

What Nintendo needs to do is bite the bullet and release a game with high sales potential on 32GB cards.

There's a certain, "ultimate" candidate for that role.

Nintendo isn't going to bite the bullet for every third party company that wants to use larger carts. If the costs are $15-$20 higher to use a 32GB cart over an 8GB cart, that's a lot of money. Either you buy the game at retail for $80 or you DL a portion of the game.
 

Dark Cloud

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
61,087
I can say it is on the lower end of concern, because cart size and software sales are bigger issues right now. Games have been cancelled for Switch due to the limitations and cost of carts. Other games have been shelved because software sales. Power isn't the issue.
What's the point of a Switch Pro then? Game carts are changing prices (through time), since there's no benefits to third party devs who weren't bringing games due to cart prices.
 

Simba1

Member
Dec 5, 2017
5,385
Hey these are all great points. And I wouldn't discount the possibility of it happening eventually, Nintendo is gonna Nintendo. But I don't see the point of such a device at this point or anytime soon. You say that the Switch needs to hit $200? Well they are already selling a dock-less sku in Japan for roughly $50 less than the standard sku with a dock. So really they just need to give the current Switch a $50 price cut, keep selling it with a dock for $250, $200 without and keep the current $300 price point for the new Switch.

From the WSJ article we are talking about the only option they offer is that Nintendo might give it an upgraded screen. Doesn't sound like a new budget system to me.

Nintendo will definitely need much more sooner much more affordable price point for Switch instaed of more pricey version, because 3DS is dying they need low price point offer on market $150-200.
They selling Switch whithout charger, dock and cables for only $50 less, so you would need at least to pay extra $50 to buy at least charger, you would need to be crazy to buy that SKU instead for just $50 more that has much more value in any case.

Only sure thing from WSJ article is new version of Switch is coming next year, they dont sound sure about any other details regardless that.


The 2DS was still part of the DS branding. The clamshell is a consequence of the dual screen design, but not the concept itself. 3D was an add on to the dual screen concept. Removing the 3D didn't change the DS branding. I know the 2DS OG was actually one screen under the plastic but it functions and was branded as a DS.

It doesn't really matter, point is they ditch most important feature of 3DS family in order to have much lower price point offer of platform, so its not point about branding (I dont see any problem with Switch Mini/Pocket/Lite, also maybe will have dock support in any case), but point is that they are part of same platform.


But publishers don't even want to use 32GB.

How are they using 64GB?

Maybe they will lower price point of 32GB and 64GB cards want be that expansive.
Vern said that some 3rd party games were delayed even some were canceled due size, availability problem of Switch cards.


When do you guys think they'll announce this new Switch model? Maybe in Spring 2019?

Depends when will be launched, Nintendo usually announcing revisions or new types of hardware only around 1.5 month before launch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.