-
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.
New Switch model coming in second half of 2019, reports Japanese WSJ
- Thread starter Crushed
- Start date
- Status
No surprise here it was too much wishful thinking that Smash was going to use a 32GB card, Nintendo are very known for optimizing to keep their file sizes as low as possible
I'm hoping the new Nintendo boss is willing to invest more resources into hardware R&D.
Apple have huge margins on their products. The $800 iPad Pro price tag is largely Apple tax. Consoles have a different business model whereby they make profit from over priced accessories and games. Game consoles are traditionally sold either at cost price or for a loss in order to be competitive power wise.
Yep - I agree.
This will be a Switch Lite or whatever. A little bit smaller, possibly no joycon, etc.
Don't see them putting out something more powerful or asking for more money, why would they?
My main issue with the current model is that late games are draining the battery faster. Diablo 3 takes 1.5 hours to use 90% of It.
I'm hoping for a better energy performance.
I'm hoping for a better energy performance.
You have to be aware two things, Nintendo wants to make profit with each hardware unit out of gate, and they always looking to have more affordable price point, you will not see Nintendo hardware with price point of $400 or more any time soon.
Yes. But it's not going to be used for another 2-3 years minimum.
Nintendos problem is not spending, they spend a lot on R&D, it is that sometimes they spend it on different things. The wireless chip they worked with broadcom on is really impressive but we all know the wii u didnt sell .
In this case it is clear most people just want more power in a Switch 2.0. But you never know what Nintendo will do
We usually know what Nintendo won't do, though. If there is an opportunity to offer a revised Switch, they will take whatever free performance gains come with it, and that's about it on the performance front. They'll fuss over other things like aesthetics, instead.
I get why they would focus on a DSLite type of revision, though. They know their hook to more sales is with the portable audience.
Doesn't the iPad Pro cost at least 999 dollars though?
I find it strange that people realistically expect the Switch to match Xbox One or PS4 in terms of power. I'm kind of baffled when people even compare them tbh.
A PS4 slim with a game is, what, 350 bucks now?
So, thinking about my PS4 slim, that thing gets hot as fuck when it's running a game and it ain't really all that portable.
So I need to get that thing:
small enough that I can carry it around and play it
cool enough that I can play it on the go
with a big enough battery that I can get 2.5 to 3 hours minimum on one charge
with enough storage space for a few games
at a competitive price
Are people really expecting this by 2019?
I'd be very surprised if Nintendo is selling a thousand dollar console by this time next year.
In isolation, Nintendo wouldn't be likely to put out a more powerful device for the sake of having a more powerful device. However, it's better to think of it in the context of their long-term strategy.
Nintendo has historically operated an insanely cyclical business model. Every five years or so they've completely thrown out their existing hardware and software ecosystem and started more or less from scratch. There were reasonable technological and financial reasons for this, as console hardware was changing so rapidly that frequent updates with forward & backward compatibility would have been impractical, but the end result has been an extremely risky business model. Every five years they've thrown the dice with new hardware, and depending on how that land they're either on the way to years of profits or years of losses.
The Wii U was basically the worst-case scenario for this business model, going from selling over 100 million units to barely a tenth as much, with almost none of the Wii audience moving over. The 3DS and their large cash reserves kept them afloat during this time, but didn't keep them profitable, and this failure is what led to the Switch.
I think it's safe to say that avoiding a Wii U like failure is one of Nintendo's biggest priorities when they were planning the Switch and their future hardware strategy. All the more so as they no longer have distinct home console and portable lines to cushion each other should one fail. The best way to do that is to simply drop the 5 year resets and the entire concept of a console generation altogether, instead releasing incremental updates every couple of years and maintaining full software compatibility throughout.
There are numerous reasons to believe Nintendo are going this route:
- They've explicitly talked about it on numerous occasions after the Wii U. Iwata quite specifically said he wanted to introduce a business model more like iOS or Android, citing that they didn't need to start software development from scratch with each new device.
- They've used CPU and GPU architectures which are virtually guaranteed to still be developed for decades to come.
- They've partnered with Nvidia to develop these, who have been releasing new Tegra chips every year or two for some time now, and can accommodate pretty much any power consumption/performance targets Nintendo might need in the future.
- Nvidia have said they expect to work with Nintendo for decades, indicating that Nintendo are planning for long-term hardware compatibility.
- Despite featuring motion controls, 99+% of Switch software is compatible with traditional controls, which keeps Nintendo's options open for forward compatibility even if they change form factor.
- We know from Switch's OS that a new SoC is going to be used in future hardware running Switch software.
- From this thread and others, we have quite a few sources indicating that a new Switch model will be released next year.
The PS4 slim is a shrunken version of 5+ year old tech. It's not really comparable cutting edge mobile hardware. As far as price, Apple devices are sold at a premium because of the brand, the screens, and because they are generally bleeding edge tech. I don't know that Nintendo will release a device that largely matches current consoles, but I think it's reasonably possible that it could be done. Not in handheld mode of course, but docked probably.
Well said. Tegra allows them to adopt a iOS style business model and will keep development tools and costs down. I fully expect a Switch Pro/Plus next year that runs a X2 chip for longer battery life and slightly improved resolution in docked mode, before the launch of a Switch 2 in a couple of years time that runs a X3 chip, and so on.
It's 800 iirc, and apple gets some decent profit margins out of it like they do with their phones, unlike consoles as someone else pointed out.
It's not impossible at all. If Nintendo could get a 7nm, or perhaps even 12nm node, its possible to have base xbone specs in docked mode, if the electronics can be fit in the same shell. If they can get a 2.5x GPU boost power and have current switch docked specs as the handheld pro specs and 2.5x boost power for docked, it could mean: 1TFLOP docked GPU, with 8GB RAM, 58 GB/s bandwidth(going off X2 at least,) equivalent CPU as xbone, it should be neck and neck with xbone base. The in paper spec of 1TFLOP is lower than xbone's 1.3-1.4 TFLOPs. But nintendo's Nvidia is a lot more efficient per flop, plus it will likely have mixed precision mode still which will narrow power gaps further. I reckon if it gets 1.3 TFLOPs like Xavier, it would be very very close to PS4 GPU. If games are optimized well on it, it should run identical, assuming it doesn't have a noticably inferior CPU, ram, bandwidth speec
What would be nice is if this pro iteration included a low power handheld mode so you can play on current handheld specs to save battery.. potentially double as current switch handheld.Q4 2019-Q1 2020 would be the best time at $300-350. As others have said, the iPad's is multi functional and gaming is just one thing it can do. Nintendo won't need a high resolution screen or other expensive hardware accessories from the ipad. They can stick with 720p and cut a lot of the bezel.
You can get a PS4 slim w/ spiderman for $200 this black friday. But right now you can get a PS4 or xbone base for $250 at least.
Last edited:
Well Nintendo's not gonna be using things like a Retina display, the LCD is by far the most expensive part of an iPad. The chipset usually actually doesn't even cost that much (usually like maybe $50-$60).
I could see a $300-$350 Switch Pro with the base model going down to $200-$250, that way they can have the higher end model with a fatter profit margin AND have a lower cost model too serving both ends of the market. Sony and MS both raised the price for their Pro/X models.
I think just like paid online, Nintendo will want to emulate that model because it makes money and keeps hardware shipments high (it's not a coincidence the PS4 is not showing usually late gen decline while the XBox One X is actually seeing large YoY improvements ... these Pro/X models are the main reason why).
Last edited:
I agree. Not only for a new lineup of Switch models, but even (dare I say it) a next generation stationary home console in the early-to-mid 2020s, using a matured Nvidia RTX technology platform.
I don't think a stationary Nintendo console is ever happening again unless it's basically just a Switch with the screen removed.
But y'know if mobile chips are already at the point where PS4/XB1 tier graphics are now doable ... that likely will keep Nintendo occupied for a while. The graphic leap there is pretty significant, the type of Mario or Kirby or DK game Nintendo could make with a XB1S tier chip even probably begins to resemble CG renders if they really want it to. That cartoony graphics style + XB1/PS4 level performance is going to be a really nice mix.
The iPad Pro is not as powerful as the XBOX One. It has a 1.3 TFLOP FP16 rating at the maximum frequencies. So it has half that in FP32 FLOPs, and then you account for the thermal throttling it most surely has in continuous loads.
Not that it matters, because what's really impressive and useful in that thing is the CPU.
Nintendo and Microsoft are putting their bets on this model. Sony, fuck knows what Sony is doing.
unless the hybrid concept tanks in the future, I don't see this ever being likely. the best you can hope for is a switch set-top that's docked clocks only, but nothing beyond that
Nope, we have pokken battle as well, and that's a first party port. Thee may indeeed not be 100% optimized, but Bayonetta 1&2 on average is 10-15 frames more stable on handheld and docked modes over the wii u.
lThe Switch literally has last generation bandwidth amounts, and it doesn't have ESRAM. I've already provided you examples, notably from Digital Foundry who have commented on the Switch's low bandwidth holding it back. It is your burden of proof now to prove otherwise.
Yes, 58 GB/S for Switch pro might be enough for better performing games from xbone/ps4 ports THE GPU is easily scalable for fidelity and resolution, but CPU and bandwidth speed is a lot more difficult to work around for ports.
Lets look at Doom for example. Switch Doom is averaging 600p resolution docked, targets 30fps, with decreased texture, lighting, shadows, blur, alpha effects VS PS4's 1080p, targets 60fps, and overall significantly better fidelity On paper, the PS4 has 4.5x the GPU speed, but you can't tell me that 2x the fps, 3.24x pixel rate, AND better fidelity is primarily because of the GPU? No, this game definitely pushes CPU and memory for sure. And out of all the hardware components, GPU is the easiest to scale(adjusting resolution, fidelity.. and framerate if necessary), while CPU and bandwidth bottlenecks, you can't really work around without bigger cutbacks. Could Doom on Switch maybe not be 100% optimized? I'm not sure, especially after they released a patch to improve on the resolution and framerate. But CPU and RAM bandwidths definitely widened the power gap performance for this game between PS4 and xbone. I'm not even accounting for Switch's newer hardware and mixed precision mode which is supposed to narrow the GPU speed under the hood between switch and xbone/ps4.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-dooms-impossible-switch-port-analysed
You literally picked an example of an unoptimized game that is not representative of the power gap with the other systems. Look at any of the games I listed above (Including post-patch Wolfenstein II on the same engine) and also look at how they perform docked compared to undocked. You'll always see the 2x pixel throughput that matches the GPU frequency gap. (Even with DOOM BTW)
Digital Foundry has made bandwidth remarks about BOTW, (Subsequently patched) Rocket League (Subsequently patched almost doubling the resolution) and Bayonetta. (An outlier in being the game with the smallest docked/handheld performance gap I know of)
The Switch doesn't need ESRAM because as I said a thousand times it has massive L2 registers and does tile rendering, with the same outcome as if it had ESRAM. That's the reason Pascal and Maxwell use a third of the memory bandwidth a comparable GCN 1.0 GPU would use, and the same applies to the Switch. Again, Nvidia has the best memory bandwidth management in the business bar none.
I'd like to buy a more powerful Switch. But I hope that if this ends up being real that they don't make "New Switch" exclusive titles, that would suck for everyone
Pokken Tournament DX on Switch using higher resolution compared to Wii U, 1280x720 on Switch compared to 960x720 on WiiU.
Also, Pokken Tournament DX is not first party port, its seems is developed buy Bandai Namco Studios, not Nintendo.
So my point still stands, also, if Switch can run Zelda BotW at 900p everage with much better frame rate compared to everage 720p on Wii U (on which has bad frame rate), Switch can definitely at least run Bayonetta 1/2 also at 900p.
Last edited:
This thing needs a better battery. Getting only 2ish hours on a charge and that much time or longer to charge back is miserable
Huh, that's strange. I always get at least 3 hours on any game, and more on some games (MK8D gets 4 hours, for example). What are your brightness and sound settings?
There's only a handful of games that are New 3DS-only games, all of which are ports of Wii/U/Switch games i.e. Xenoblade Chronicles, Fire Emblem Warriors. It would cannibalize their system if they made, say, the next Super Mario Bros. a New Switch exclusive, hence why they mainly limited them to ports.
I agree about possible price point for Switch Pro, my point is simple that Nintendo will not using strongest possible mobile hardware for Switch in any case like Apple is doing with iPad. Nintendo will think about price point of Pro, so dont expect big upgrade in any case.
Xbox X is totally different beast, MS is aiming native 4k gaming with that console, so its expected to be $500+ console
Last edited:
The thing is the Tegra X1 was pretty close to being cutting edge for when Nintendo would've been developing the Switch. It wasn't like Nintendo used some budget 5 year old chip.
I think it's kinda obvious the original plan was to launch the Switch/NX for holiday 2016 too (software just wasn't ready in time so they had to delay a few months), and Tegra X1 came out in spring 2015, that's pretty modern by Nintendo's standards anyway.
It's quite likely I think Nvidia does have a chip comparable to this Apple A12X, they're just not talking about it because the only vendor that would need a chip like that is Nintendo, and Nintendo has about 20 million reasons to not want news of future Switch models getting out.
So just hypothetically, Nintendo using a top of the line year 2018 Nvidia Tegra chip for a 2019 or 2020 product really isn't that far off from the OG Switch using a 2015 top of the line Nvidia Tegra for a early 2017 (really likely intended for late 2016) product.
Brightness is around 50% and sound whatever the default is at usually a little under half max
Also for the people saying "well iPad costs $1000 so that must mean a processor on par with that must require a $1000 console!" ... not even close.
The Google Pixel C is a tablet that uses the same Tegra X1 processor in the Switch and it even launched after the Nintendo Switch. Its cost was $600. Did the Switch cost $600?
Hell no, because the chip really only costs maybe $50-$60. Nintendo sells the Switch for $300 and likely are making a very handsome profit per unit even at that price point.
The Google Pixel C is a tablet that uses the same Tegra X1 processor in the Switch and it even launched after the Nintendo Switch. Its cost was $600. Did the Switch cost $600?
Hell no, because the chip really only costs maybe $50-$60. Nintendo sells the Switch for $300 and likely are making a very handsome profit per unit even at that price point.
Bravo, sir, great post. Someone who gets it and doesn't go with "yeah but ... what about the 5 year cycle?".
I think Nintendo is asking a lot of these same questions internally and have been since the conception of the NX/Switch.
The Wii to Wii U example is a great one, all of Nintendo's hard work on the Wii basically flushed down the toilet in a span of 18 months because they had to start from zero with Wii U. That's an insane business model, many other businesses would scoff at that model entirely. All it does is punish you for success.
And how fucked would Nintendo be if the Switch to "Switch 2" transitions doesn't go swimmingly (hey look at what happened to the Wii, there's no guarantee that can't happen again)? They don't have another hardware platform to really fall back on this time the way the 3DS was at least able to somewhat cushion the blow of the Wii U performing badly.
"Switch 2" and the whole concept of it (a hard reset back down to 0 because that's how things have been done since 1985) IMO is insane, I think Nintendo is 100% talking about this issue internally. A more Apple or Steam like model is the next big "game changing" thing the Switch can tackle (after having broken the construct of what a console and handheld has to be).
Last edited:
First off, I agree with your well thought out post there. It changed my mind on the possibility of this being the case. Second, As an avid Nintendo fan, If they went this route I would hate having to buy new hardware every few years but I'd love it if they didn't fall so far behind in the tech curve like Wii did with PS3 toward the end of its lifespan. Not only that but the possibility of not having to wait an entire 5-6 years for a new Mario Kart for instance is also appealing. Lot of pitfalls with a strategy like this but I have faith they would do it in such a way that it doesn't lose consumer confidence. Having each game be compatible with each hardware iteration will go a long way toward that.
And I mean really you don't really "have to" buy the new Nintendo model the minute it releases. No one buys every new model of PC GPU the second it comes out.
Nintendo's own internal games are probably quite scalable because they don't really push the graphics that hard aside from specific cases. So they could maintain compatibility for their own releases and a lot of indie devs too.
If there is a significant new Switch model every 3 years say, it doesn't mean you have to buy it right away or risk having nothing to play.
Switch ain't reaching Xbox One/PS4 power for awhile. Hell, do you all really even think the iPad can actually run Xbox One games? The iPad Pro isn't even built for gaming in the first place.
This whole discussion is basically confirmation bias. The Switch isn't PS4 level therefore Nintendo should make a PS4 level console. How realistic that actually is be damned.
This whole discussion is basically confirmation bias. The Switch isn't PS4 level therefore Nintendo should make a PS4 level console. How realistic that actually is be damned.
I think that iPad Pro can probably run most XB1/PS4 (base model) games.
Running NBA2K19, while not the most demanding game, at freaking 2.5x the resolution of 1080p at 60 fps is something even an XBox One S would probably have trouble with.
The Switch can handle some PS4/XB1 games, albiet with some heavy compromises, but if you doubled or tripled the Switch's power, PS4/XB1 ports probably become a lot easier. My guess is that Apple A12X chip is probably 3x-4x the Tegra X1 in the Switch at least.
Once you're in that ball park, absolutely PS4/XB1 ports become quite doable. The business model on iOS doesn't make sense for $60 games that take up 60GB+ though with no physical controls, that's the bigger issue, but the chip I think is capable.
Pretty sure they aren't making that much on each Switch sold, but profiting a good bit off of accessories.
They sell the dock-less Switch in Japan seperately for like the equivalent of $250 or so I think, no way they are selling that at a loss, so I would probably guess the manufacturing cost of a Switch is probably around $200-$220.
Keep in mind they only sell that model directly so there's no retailer cut to factor in.
Joycon is a big cost for them. Cost estimates at launch were in the range of $260 per Switch unit. Nintendo isn't making a huge profit margin on hardware. They make their money on software.
It was best option when they were developing Switch from plenty of reasons, one of reason is good price point that Nvidia offered to Nintendo.
I don't think it's obvious that Switch original plan was to be launched in 2016, 3DS was also launched in March.
Maybe Nvidia have mobile chip comparable to A12X, but at what price and is that chip full compatible with Tegra X1? Early infos were saying that Nvidia had millions of unsold Tegra X1 chips and that Nvidia gave Nintendo very good deal for those chips.
Most logical upgrade for Switch Pro would be something like Tegra X2, expecting anything stronger than that will most likely lead to disappointment.
In Japan they selling Switch for $250 whithout Dock, charger, Joy Con Grip and HDMI cable.
Its terible value compared to full package for only $50 more (price for seperate Dock is $80 while for charger is $60).
I dont think NINTENDO will want there hardware platform to be so convoluted. They are not going to make exclusive games on a powerful home console. If Nintendo ever do a homeonly console it will just play switch games with better visuals.
It is going to be interesting what Nintendo are going to do when in like 2021 multipatform games will no longer be possible on the switch.
I don't think things will be very different than today.
From a consumer value POV maybe, but from a mass production POV, the Dock, Joycon grip are pieces of plastic more or less, HDMI cable is pennies, the charger is a few bucks if that.
These chips really don't cost as much as people think. The A12X is probably running Apple $60-$70 tops.
When the Tegra X1 was brand spanking new in spring 2015, Nvidia was able to sell it in a $199.99 console, and for that time it was a top of the line chip, comparable to the Apple A9X, which was in a $900 iPad Pro gen 1.
Not anytime soon. Even if they did it would be minor.
It's a dumb and unnecessary risk to take after Wii U.
- Status