People often speculate that the Switch 2 will be powerful, or at least on par with the Deck.
How could that be when Nintendo needs to take into account having to keep the product at ~300 dollars, at a small/thin form factor, have solid battery life and make profit off of their hardware, which they are so insistent on doing?
mass production
nvidia > amd
we know the SoC because of the nvidia hack so we have a rough idea of the performance, it'll be a powerful system, ick on eck and snoy meltdowns notwithstanding
>we know the SoC because of the nvidia hack so we have a rough idea of the performance, it'll be a powerful system, ick on eck and snoy meltdowns notwithstanding
Why would they meltdown? According to those very leaks it's about as powerful as the Deck and not even close to a PS5.
PS5 doesn't represent an especially meaningful boost over the PS4 pro, insomniac data leak shows the AAA games they depend upon are in big trouble, and the drake chip is enough to support modern multiplats without serious conversions like doom eternal needed
>PS5 doesn't represent an especially meaningful boost over the PS4 pro
Anon, I'm not even a snoy and I know you're moronic.
>and the drake chip is enough to support modern multiplats without serious conversions like doom eternal needed
Sure, but the closest approximation we have of how the Switch 2 will actually run games suggests it runs them worse than the Steam Deck:
?t=878
That video is a pretty unfair comparison for a number of reasons. Obviously the lack of VRAM meant they couldn't play the Matrix Awakens demo, which we know it can run, and having to run on Windows means that it's not getting all the performance it could. Same thing happened when DF used a Shield as a comparison for the Switch, but it didn't get the actual performance of the system because it had to run on Android.
>it's about as powerful as the Deck
it's significantly more powerful, and they'd meltdown because like (You) demonstrate perfectly they're already damage controlling while the thing hasn't even been unveiled yet, itsafraid.jpeg
>it's significantly more powerful
You people do this every single generation. Unless you think it's going to be a $600 system, you are delusional. Even then by the time whenever the switch 2 finally comes out the deck 2 is going to be right around the corner.
>more mindless coping
the rough specs are easily available online, but you know that already and would rather shitpost a year in advance
oh man 2024 is going to be hilarious, can't wait
You mean like the digital foundry video showing it being roughly Steam Deck level?
Not him but anyone using that video or the leak have not a single fricking clue about anything. For all anyone knows they could've upgraded to a newer CPU that still supports backwards compatibility or use an overall weaker chipset due to price gouging or other influences over the cost.
It always passes me off when homosexuals think they know it all from now a nearly two years old leak that nobody knows when that was last updated to the datebase BEFORE the fricking leak happened.
Obviously, but this is a speculation thread. Like it or not it's all anyone has to go off of.
Nintendo will manufacture more Switch 2's in one week than Steam Deck has sold since its launch
the Steam Deck isn't even a console, it's a shitty chinese gaming laptop
all consoles are Chinese pc gay.
sure the ps5/switch are also made in China, but designed in Japan/USA. The difference is that the switch doesn't boot up to a sideways Chinese Bios in recovery mode.
AKA Valve contacted one of those aliexpress laptop makers and just asked to use their laptop firmware. The Steam dick is nothing more than an Acer laptop minus the keyboard.
>Nintendo will manufacture more Switch 2's in one week than Steam Deck has sold since its launch
And they still won't be able to compete with Steam.
That's very impressive on Nintendo's part considering that you're comparing the users of a single device to basically the PC gaming market.
...they are also comparing annual users with monthly users.
I don't get what point you morons are even making
what percentage of steam users own a deck? 0.41%? what a stupid comparison
>2 more weeks
We have the SoC's specs from Nvidia leaks
Somewhere between a PS4 and PS4 Pro iirc
No proof that's for Nintendo nor is there proof it isn't for a scrapped product.
Just let OP and his moronic bots keep talking to himself.
Yeah anon I'm sure the Nvidia SoC that otherwise matches the Switch's use-case, power consumption and price point is actually not bound for a Switch successor and it's actually gonna be a throwaway SoC for a car touchscreen or some shit
Remove South Americans from this board holy shit
why are you replying to him you stupid homosexual
Because I want to see him cop out with "cope and seethe i accept your concession lololololol" for the sake of my own ego, and I get genuine joy from stupid hivemind wienersuckers bringing me the same posts they assembly line out everywhere else in the board
the snoys are coping. just let them.
It'll probably be closer to $400
it's not going to be cheaper than $450 you dumb homosexual
Pointless speculation is pointless.
This. I don't care about some mythical product until Nintendo themselves reveal it.
you are a moron, ninetndo will have more scale thus a cheaper price. the Steam Deck is a much smaller scale, that part the reason they are not upgrading it.
>No proof that's for Nintendo nor is there proof it isn't for a scrapped product.
>WOWZERS NOW I CAN PLAY SPIDERMAN UNDER THE BLANKEY!!
>How could that be when Nintendo needs to take into account having to keep the product at ~300 dollars
After Sony and MS raised the price of their consoles mid gen I'd say Nintendo could sell a console for 400 american moneys and still not seem all that israeli.
System is going to be $349.99 minimum. I expect OLED model to drop $50 on clearance to $299.99. I also expect a dock-only Switch for $149.99 to get rid of the rest of the Mariko chip stock, assuming batteries run out of stock first. Dock only Switch will have no headphone jack, no gamecard slot, and no joycon rails. It will have ethernet for Smash, USB hub for Gamecube adapter, a Pro Controller bundled, and an a microSD card slot. Dock-only model will test the market for an all digital system. Future lite models of next gen will be all digital with no gamecard slot. Backwards compatibility will only be for "select" digital Switch games with a $10 upgrade fee per game. Otherwise you'll have to rebuy Switch games digitally at $50-$70 each, ($80 for Tears of the Kingdom).
terrible ideas, go frick yourself.
Im so glad you're not in charge of anything nor working for Nintendo... so anti-consumer
My prediction is it'll be a bit pricier at $400 but it'll have day one BC through a compatibity layer or emulation.i can't see them locking out 90%~ of the library and charging money for better performance sounds anti-consumer and non-nintendo
>anti-consumer
>non-nintendo
What could be more nintendo, especially modern nintendo where the switch killed all backwards compatibility.
>practically all of Nintendo's portable consoles are backwards compatible
>consoles since GameCube have been backwards compatible
It's almost like there was a major change in the physical form factor of the game media going from Wii U to Switch that precludes backwards compatibility this gen
If you want to use trends then look at the actual historical precedent
When physically reasonable to implement, Nintendo will implement backwards compatibility
>It's almost like there was a major change in the physical form factor of the game media
This is not an excuse and I pity anyone who genuinely thinks it is. Nintendo had an account system, they had a means to tie all of it to that account system and transfer it all over, especially all the digital titles from the virtual console. They don't because they want to force you to triple dip, and get you to buy things like mario all stars.
How are you going to sell to the general public that your physical Wii U games (the vast majority of games sold) won't be backwards compatible but the digital ones are?
Also, there was a major change in hardware architecture (PowerPC to ARM) that is basically impossible to translate/emulate.
>but they could include the chip in the Switch
The Switch is already dense as frick, there's no physical room to include a Wii U chip without blowing it up to 3x its size, i.e. it's no longer a reasonable size for the portable aspect
That still doesn't solve the issue of not being able to play the physical game discs even if the WiiU chip was included
It's not just the Wii U, it's also the 3DS, which uses ARM and the Switch's screen is more than big enough for both 3DS screens. And you wouldn't need it to accept any physical media. Nintendo included keys for Club Nintendo back then, they could've easily had something like that tie those games to your account for future downloading. They could've used the disc perform a check online that it was legitimate and the key wasn't just sold off. They have options, they just choose options that screw their consumers over.
You are now screwing consumers over that don't wanna use internet, anon you can't just do it halfway. Backwards compat is only good if it works fully physically too.
>You are now screwing consumers over that don't wanna use internet
So everyone should be screwed because some people don't want to download their games?
Yes? Also what about those that didn't register their games online, or bought used.
>Yes?
Seriously? Everyone should just have their games rot on dead hardware because some theoretical people might not want to download them on their newer hardware for "reasons"?
>Also what about those that didn't register their games online, or bought used
If Nintendo were consumer friendly they'd say register your games to your account so you can keep playing them on future Nintendo hardware. So those who didn't would miss out. Those who bought used and don't make sure the key is unused are going to miss out too, such is the nature of physical media. Not that Nintendo would care about them, they hate the secondhand market anyway.
I'm not ditching my physical games. I'd rather continue playing my DS and 3DS cartridges on my N3DS rather than having a download on the Switch.
Physical media is the only shred of control you have with consoles so I can understand some attachment to it, but literally nobody is getting screwed by tying games to an account so you can keep playing it 20 years from now on whatever better hardware is out then without having it all tied to an old system that will inevitably die, if the discs and cartridges don't go first.
I guess you just don't get it. When PC games stopped coming on physical media I stopped buying PC games. I still play them, but I will never buy one unless it comes on physical media.
If that's your reason then you're right I will never understand someone like you who cares only about whether it's physical and nothing else.
Hardware backwards compatibility and honoring digital purchases are two completely different things
Not really. Nobody cares if they can pop in their wii u disc, they just want to be able to keep playing their games on modern systems instead of having them be abandoned on dead ones.
You buy a deck and your entire steam library is on it the moment you boot it up, ready to go, zero fuss, no extra cost. There is no reason why nintendo can't do that other than them wanting to force people to keep rebuying, or now renting, the same games.
>PC to Steam Desk is x86 to x86, AMD/Nvidia to AMD
Even then Valve had to spend a shit ton on developing Proton as a compatibility layer
>Wii U to Switch is IBM PowerPC to ARM, custom Radeon to Nvidia
This is your reason why they can't do it
It should really be "DirectX to whatever Linux does to translate DirectX" for PC to Deck
>Even then Valve had to spend a shit ton on developing Proton as a compatibility layer
Only because they wanted linux. It's not something they had to do, they could've just gone with windows. There is nothing forcing nintendo to make all their games incompatible from one generation to the next. Consoles are still PCs at the end of the day, just gimped locked down ones. It's not the hardware that's creating incompatibilities it's nintendo's decisions. People don't just lose all their games when they switch from an amd gpu to an nvidia one.
>Even then Valve had to spend a shit ton on developing Proton as a compatibility layer
Why can't Nintendo?
Valve has WINE as a starting point and again, it's x86-to-x86 and high-level DirectX rather than PowerPC-to-ARM and likely close to metal APIs.
Nintendo essentially has nothing to start from. I don't think IBM or AMD would even want to give Nintendo detailed enough documentation of their ISAs and custom APIs for Nintendo to even start making a semi-competent translation layer.
If valve can do it, nintendo can do it, there is no excuse. The deck uses its own custom amd architecture and it doesn't have this problem. Compatibility wouldn't even be part of the equation were valve not set on linux for entirely different reasons, but because they went with linux they went the extra mile to make sure people's libraries worked, rather than be a gimped, locked down system driven by taking games hostage. Nintendo simply doesn't want to do it, they want to make people rebuy their games and enforce artificial scarcity. Their decision has nothing to do with the architecture and they have full control over what to go with, but what they want to go with is a system they can lock down as much as they possibly can to control their consumers.
I don't think you guys understand what you're talking about.
No, the problem is people are acting like Nintendo's own decisions prevent them from being consumer friendly. It's absurd.
>this portable device that switched from ancient ass ppc to something modern should also have two different cartridge readers and a DVD drive
Ok moron
All they need is backwards compatibility and good launch titles.
It's pure wish fulfillment, that's why. We have essentially direct one to one comparisons for what the switch can be spec wise, we know the capabilities and limits, and people are still acting like it's going to be some super powered device that'll have a slim form factor, 8-10 hours of battery, not get hot or sound like a vacuum cleaner, and all in a nice affordable $300 package. What's better is they think nvidia will somehow make all that happen when nvidia is by far the more expensive option, there's a reason everyone goes with amd, and nintendo couldn't care less about power to begin with. It's delusional.
The switch 2 will be barely a next gen jump and it's still going to take a hit on size, battery life, and price.
nintendo has a 10 year contract with nvidia, switch 2 and most likely switch 3 will 100% have nvidia chips
I'm not saying it won't, I'm saying nvidia is expensive and nintendo likes taking a profit on their hardware. It's going to be an expensive device if it's anywhere near as powerful as people think it is, which is likely part of the reason they're waiting so long is for it to drop in price. Soccer moms and teens aren't going to be gunning for a $500 handheld.
we know the drake chip's specs and have for months
all speculation on its power is pointless
why bother with a shitch? deck plays more nintendo games than the switch does lol
How are they going to sell it for $300 when the Switch 1 still costs $300. What the frick
>da nintendo suitchi tsu wirr retair fow...
>$499 US DORRA
>$499 US DORRA
>$499 US DORRA
$499 is not a lot of money in 2024
and they'll bundle it with OoT Rebirth and you won't be able to buy one for a year
why would i want that when i have ship of harkinian running at 60fps on my deck???
it doesn't matter if (You) want it or not
people will see OoT remade as a BotW clone in 4k60fps and they'll go absolutely rabid
I hate BotW and its sequel but it's a fact normalgays will eat it up
>OoT remade as a BotW clone
OoT would be far too ambitious for a BotW clone and would require an entirely different narrative structure than BotW's optional flashback cutscenes. It'd take actual effort and would turn BotW into more an actual Zelda game, so it's not happening, especially after what Aonuma has been saying.
the only way a switch 2 is worth buying is if all your original switch games still work on it
They obviously will be
Or you can play them on the original switch you still own
Tbf, there are a lot of Switch games that could benefit from a performance increase to 60 fps. TotK, Bayonetta 3, and Age of Calamity are the first that come to mind for me.
It will be between a PS4 and a PS4 pro with shity upscaling technology that will make it slightly closer to a PS4 pro.
No one buys Nintendo Switch for it's 3rd party games. Considering all of their first party games are cartoony by design, they don't need anything more powerful then that.
Their designers will make games that look just as good as ratchet and clank.nsgdr
That shitty upscaling will do jack shit at the low resolutions it will be targeting so it doesn't change the evaluation in the slightest.
>Most people do
what most people? anything 3rd party can be played on a pc, no need to buy a switch to play an inferior version of a game @360p / 23 fps like Hogwarts legacy.
>No one buys Nintendo Switch for it's 3rd party games
Most people do, along with portability. The core Nintendo demographic who only care about 1st party games is only about 13 million.
Cheapest Steam Deck is’t that much over 300$.
Unfortunately it looks like it will only be as powerful as a downclocked 2050.
>at least on par with the Deck
It won't be on paper, but there's a good chance it'll be close (or better!) in practice. Like, on paper Series X is ~30% faster than PS5, what difference does it make in practice? Zero. If anything games often run better on PS5 because it's more popular, so developers spend more time optimizing for it.
So this is what's going to happen in my opinion. On paper it'll be a lot weaker than the Steam Deck, in practice games are going to run the same if not better because SD gets (often) shitty PC ports.
And even with good PC ports, most people have no idea how to tweak their settings: for example, you can crank up texture quality as much as you want most of the time because it only affects VRAM, and the Steam Deck has a ton of memory. The average user only deals with presets, so if a game runs badly he's going to turn everything down at once... when in reality the only setting that is killing performance is, let's say, crowd density. Call it "skill issue" if you want, but most people have no idea what the frick "anisotropic filtering" or "temporal anti-aliasing" or "ambient occlusion" do.
Console games on the other hand come "pre-configured" out of the box. So, for most people, games may end looking better on Switch 2.
Another huge advantage is going to be DLSS. Have you ever tried playing a game at 720p on a TV? It's terrible. FSR2 can be pretty good at high resolutions, but sucks dick below 1440p. DLSS on the other hand can upscale 720p to 4K... fine. It's far from perfect, but it's easily the best upscaler for low resolutions right now.
So, in handheld mode, Steam Deck and Switch 2 may be close (or rather, as I said, it will depend on how dogshit the PC port is). In docked mode? Steam Deck is getting slaughtered, guaranteed.
One thing for sure. Switch 2 will be fast enough to get 8th gen ports (just like Switch 1 got a shitload of 7th gen ports) and a ton of 9th gen ports as well.
>just like Switch 1 got a shitload of 7th gen ports and a ton of 9th gen ports as well
90% of 9th gen ports on Switch 1 are mid-budget rpg games though. I'm expecting Switch 2 to be powerful enough to get all current gen AAA ports at least in the first half of its lifespan
I meant that Switch 2 is getting both 8th gen (easily) and 9th gen (downgraded) ports.
Just like Switch 1 got 7th gen (easily) and 8th gen (downgraded) ports.
But in my opinion, the downgrade won't be as noticeable this time around. For the most part, games on PS5 and Series X will target 1440p 60FPS; so those same games should be able to run fine at 720p 30FPS on Switch 2.
>720p 30FPS
That's the problem. gamers' standards are so high nowadays. They might say things like these games look and run like shit on Switch 2 even though it's perfectly playable on the real hardware
Nintendo can either ignore them or release Pro model to shut them up
For consoles, sure, but people are evidently a lot more forgiving in terms of specs when it comes to a portable system. The fact that these games can be played at all on a handheld will be enough to justify a purchase for many.
It depends on the game. Most people would be fine with Alan Wake 2 running at 30 FPS on a handheld (extremely slow, cinematic, looks good). Same with Baldur's Gate 3, it's turn-based so who gives a shit about the framerate. Heck, the average person is fine with Monster Hunter Rise running at 30FPS, which would be completely unplayable for me. But for over 8 million people (or whatever Rise sold on Switch) this was acceptable.
Another "unacceptable port" for me is The Witcher 3 on Switch. It runs fine, 30-ish FPS is "enough" for that game... but man, it looks so bad. But apparently that port was fine for most people: the average user's standards are way lower than you believe they are.
Also
. If you buy a handheld console, you know what you're getting into.
>just buy a laptop, moron
wat?
Very easy, just use an external GPU in the dock like everyone thought the original Switch was going to.
Matter of fact, they don't need to release a Switch 2, they just need to release a dock with an external GPU, and that can easily be under $200
>blablabla
just buy a laptop, moron
bigger screen, better battery, keyboard, better specs for less money, easier to lug around since you don't need a special case to make sure the sticks don't get fricked
>Very easy, just use an external GPU in the dock like everyone thought the original Switch was going to.
eGPUs are a moronic meme that needs to die already. There are so many problems with dealing with an external GPU that could be avoided by just doing what the Switch does and clock the existing SoC higher.
There's limits to what you can achieve with that. I wonder what a new dock could achieve with thermals.
Such limitations are a lot less of a headache than having to support an eGPU. There's a reason eGPUs have never caught on in any major way.
Nintendo spending the money on two GPUs is out of the question anyway.
Nintendo is unable to make competent hardware.
>keep the product at ~300 dollars
Why would they need to do that?
I just want it to be powerful enough to run games in 720p in portable mode. I'm suck of blurry subhd upscales..
I'm pretty sure the Switch 2 will be BC enabled. Look at how Phil Spencer talks about the idea of lock in and digital libraries, it can be very helpful to retain customers.
Nintendo handhelds have always had BC and so have their last two home consoles. Switch 2 is already known to be using an ARM Nvidia SoC. Switch 2 BC is a certainty.
>The switch will be underpowered!
Don't care, I have a PC for AAA garbage. I just need it to have my niche games that run well enough and a better build quality than the original. Backwards compatibility is a plus.
Switch 2 will be about XOne/PS4 level GPU wise but with an SSD and better CPU and more RAM.
Which will allow for some PS5/XSX ports if devs really want to put in the work. At potato tier quality of course, just like Switch ports of PS4/XOne games
>more RAM
This is a maybe. But I agree with the rest.
And don't forget about DLSS, in practice games will look a lot better on a big screen compared to PS4 and Xbox One. Even if on paper the specs are going to be similar.
I doubt they'll go with 8GB of RAM, capcom told them to increase the amount for the original switch and they probably had the same kind of conversation for the successor given how they'd want to secure monhun for the platform
We know that urban legend is false through the Gigaleak. But I do agree with either 12 or 16 being the most likely.
It's hard to say: 16 would be ideal (same as current-gen consoles) and 12 would also be good (same as Series S). But with Nintendo you never know.
12 is more than Series S. It has 10, and reserved 2 for the OS. Assuming around 1 GB for the Switch 2 OS, that means it'd have 11 compared to the 8 of the Series S.
Ah you're right, it's 10 not 12. In that case 10GB would also be "fine"... but this amount of RAM makes no sense these days. No one sells 2GB chips anymore.
Currently Samsung sells 4, 6 and 8 GB LPDDR5 chips. Imo they'll do 2x6 or 2x8. But maybe they'll do 2x4 and doom that entire generation to save a few bucks :*~~)
for me it's simple : No linear dungeon legacy Zelda = no buy.
They had me once with Botw / Totk bullshit, not again.
Give me a Twilight princess badass zelda with realistic graphics and no massive empty open world
I'd get it for a new mainline 3d mario
which is going to open if you were to believe Z*ppo
It will be worthless if i cant hack it and load up emulators and free games
>People often speculate that the Switch 2 will be powerful, or at least on par with the Deck.
No they don't lol.
What do you think about the leak that suggests the Switch 2 will have an AR camera gimmick? The camera might increase the console's cost too. I'm not sure how inexpensive phone cameras are these days, but Nintendo probably picked the cheapest option, similar to the 3DS camera. I bet it will be Wii U gamepad tier gimmick that literally nobody wants to use