My posts have always been about incremental upgrades hinted at by Iwata, growing a platform that was hardware agonistic and I still believe they are doing that. What I meant is that if a more powerful Switch launched this year, that exclusives won't come until the Switch 2. I've specifically mentioned that RDR2 wouldn't run without massive downgrades, and that I don't expect that game to ever come. Since you went back 9 months for that post, maybe you'll find it around the time RDR2 was released.Lmao ok mate: "Cdprojectred said they wanted cyberpunk on the Switch, it could easily happen with a pro model. There is no reason Rockstar wouldn't put gta6 on the switch if it can run it, and again given the time frame for a new gta game, a much more powerful Switch will be on the market by then. Square Enix said they wanted KH3 on the switch, and they have also said they were looking at porting over any game that would work on it, since ff7r isn't 2019, it could easily land on the switch pro. Ubisoft would love to put their games in the Switch, and wii u got 2 assassin's creed games so why would you think a more powerful Switch would be left out? EA is the only one there that has no interest in publishing for Nintendo, I wouldn't rule out a single other title you mention. Many of those games are multiple years off and a Switch Pro has been confirmed by our most accurate insiders, so I see many of those games coming, but I still don't think people should expect every game to come to the Switch, exclusives exist for platform growth after all." -z0m3le November 29th, 2018
(Before you try and deflect by saying "I didn't mention RDR2", that's covered in the "I wouldn't rule out a single other title you mention" bit, and hardly relevant anyway, seeing as you specifically mentioned other, equally demanding games.)
I have already admitted I was wrong in this thread.Just eat crow and admit that you were wrong, and way, way off the mark with all your speculation about the so-called 'Switch Pro'.
Oh I was wrong, the information I was given doesn't outright go against this, but one piece of information I had heard was that the performance is "twice as much" but I highly doubt that is going to happen, even if we see a modest boost in clocks on the GPU and a better CPU, it will certainly top out much closer to 50% if there is any increase, however I do think Nintendo has room to increase the current model's clocks by 20%, would definitely improve performance across the board.
3rd party AAA open world games like the Witcher 3 right? Nothing I said there has changed, in your post above you mention "yeah new switch might get a power bump but it won't be xb1x" and you make the assumption that elder scrolls 6 won't run on the Switch 2 as well. Just seems like you want to revel in my speculations being off the mark, they are, but yours weren't better, no one really thought Nintendo would re-release the current model until last month, and speculation changed accordingly. I had a 2x range and ending up a month ago when news started to break of the current Switch getting an upgrade, to a 30-50% range if any performance upgrade exists in the new version of the Switch.Or perhaps apologise to me? Seeing as I said:
"Yeah, this is what we're 99% sure to get.
This thread absolutely does my head in. People making these huge, unevidenced assumptions of massive hardware upgrades, and people going on about how the Switch could run games like RDR2 if it wasn't for the small cart size.
And people are still trying to push the "consoles will get incremental upgrades with exclusive games, like phones instead of new console generations" shit, which people on here have been saying for the last three years, and it's been proven to be completely false. Xbox One X and PS4 Pro don't have and will never have any exclusive games, and we're already gearing up for the next generation of consoles proper. Yeah, new Switch may get a power bump and run some stuff at higher resolutions (although knowing Nintendo, I personally think it's unlikely). But that's it. You're not going to be able to play your 3rd party AAA 30fps open world games on it. I'm sorry for your loss.
Can't wait to see the salt tho, when this revision is announced and turns out to be a nice form factor revision, smaller bezel, better kickstand etc, instead of a portable Xbox One X. It'll be like before the Switch launched when everyone was saying "Omg they're definitely going to use the X2, it'll be more powerful than PS4!!".
That's gonna be a PS5 game, no way will it come out on Switch 2. Switch 3 maybe." -Council Pop December 3rd 2018Lwill said:
Elder Scrolls 6... maybe for Switch 2. I thought that wasn't coming anytime soon.
And you replied with the incredibly patronising:
"This is the type of post I see a lot from people who must not read threads like this, and just assume what everyone is talking about. People in general are not expecting something more powerful than the XB1, and X2 is no where near as powerful as the original XB1. No one has said that this device will be as powerful as a XB1X in this thread either... If you don't want to read the comments here, why are you even here in the first place?
As for incremental upgrades over new generations, that comes directly from Iwata, who planned NX and the previous president of Nintendo did confirm that they haven't changed plans from Iwata.
While PS4 Pro and XB1X haven't received exclusives, the last 2 Nintendo handheld mid gen refreshes have seen exclusive games. 3rd parties were particularly ready to jump on n3DS exclusivity with things like Minecraft and Unity engine games. There is something like 3 dozen n3DS exclusives, and it's not even a mandatory part of a Switch "Pro" which could see exclusives after the current model has been out for 5+ years.
Next time, read at least some of the comments in the thread before such a useless rant." -December 3rd
I was in a Speculation thread, Speculating about realistic performance they could achieve and shared real insider information, I admit my speculation was wrong and some of my insider information was also not correct with the "twice as much" quote, as I did when I first started replying in this thread. I don't have salt for you, sorry for that as well. I enjoy speculating and I will continue to do so, when we made those posts above, 3rd parties had access to 196GFLOPs from the GPU, now they have access to 20% more (235GFLOPs), hackers have access to 393GFLOPs when portable and 472GFLOPs when docked, who is to say Nintendo is done adding performance to the current model and there is even more performance waiting for Nintendo to unlock on this new Switch, which has a max clock of 648GFLOPs. Anyways, remember regardless of what you or I think, reality won't change, Elder Scrolls 6 will or won't run on Switch 2, even if we both agree on the outcome, we could both be wrong.I'm sorry to single you out but your presence in those Switch Pro speculation threads was overbearing and slightly aggressive, and the least you can do now is admit that you were simply making wild and incredibly optimistic guesses and trying to represent it as a certainty, and now you're trying to cover your tracks and deny you ever made those claims.
Well done👌🏾My posts have always been about incremental upgrades hinted at by Iwata, growing a platform that was hardware agonistic and I still believe they are doing that. What I meant is that if a more powerful Switch launched this year, that exclusives won't come until the Switch 2. I've specifically mentioned that RDR2 wouldn't run without massive downgrades, and that I don't expect that game to ever come. Since you went back 9 months for that post, maybe you'll find it around the time RDR2 was released.
I have already admitted I was wrong in this thread.
3rd party AAA open world games like the Witcher 3 right? Nothing I said there has changed, in your post above you mention "yeah new switch might get a power bump but it won't be xb1x" and you make the assumption that elder scrolls 6 won't run on the Switch 2 as well. Just seems like you want to revel in my speculations being off the mark, they are, but yours weren't better, no one really thought Nintendo would re-release the current model until last month, and speculation changed accordingly. I had a 2x range and ending up a month ago when news started to break of the current Switch getting an upgrade, to a 30-50% range if any performance upgrade exists in the new version of the Switch.
I was in a Speculation thread, Speculating about realistic performance they could achieve and shared real insider information, I admit my speculation was wrong and some of my insider information was also not correct with the "twice as much" quote, as I did when I first started replying in this thread. I don't have salt for you, sorry for that as well. I enjoy speculating and I will continue to do so, when we made those posts above, 3rd parties had access to 196GFLOPs from the GPU, now they have access to 20% more (235GFLOPs), hackers have access to 393GFLOPs when portable and 472GFLOPs when docked, who is to say Nintendo is done adding performance to the current model and there is even more performance waiting for Nintendo to unlock on this new Switch, which has a max clock of 648GFLOPs. Anyways, remember regardless of what you or I think, reality won't change, Elder Scrolls 6 will or won't run on Switch 2, even if we both agree on the outcome, we could both be wrong.
PS being wrong in a speculation thread is part of speculating, if we had the facts, we wouldn't need to speculate.
Not really an expert on this but in the new DYKG video about Switch hacking they said that all first gen Switches are hackable because the exploit is hardware based.Can I still use my'old (Launch ) unit for home brew if it's in the latest firmware ? If so I'll buy new one
I'm sure this has been asked and answered before but the OP is pretty barren and there are no threadmarks, and 31 pages is too much for me to read
Has the Joycon drifting issue been addressed at all? I'm reluctant to get a Switch while so many people are disappointed in the build quality of this key element
They'd be correct if doing so, both were indeed 'Pro' level upgrades.Are you seriously equating the small jump in power from 3DS to N3DS to a "Pro" upgrade? I suppose the DS to DSi was a Pro upgrade as well then?
No they weren't.They'd be correct if doing so, both were indeed 'Pro' level upgrades.
Like, removing things such as display, battery, and still increasing the price by a significant margin, means that either it would be overpriced or that the power gap would unreasonable within the same platform.I still think the 3rd SKU should be a stationary box with an HDD and 4K HDR capability. For the enthusiasts. OBviously it will sell the least but it will serve the premium market.
Lite = Handheld play, budget device, smallest barrier to entry, 720p, $199
Hybrid = Flagship product, mid-range price, most versatile, allows home and portable play, 720p and 1080p, $299
Home = Premium product, high-range price, designed for the enthusiasts, 4K HDR, $349 or $399 depending on storage
All sharing the same library.
The 3ds to n3ds is a bigger upgrade than we saw with ps4 to ps4 pro.
The XB1 to XB1X is a 4.5x increase, while I think Nintendo should wait for a Switch 2 and just release all 3 form factors at the same time, a console only Switch that is 4.5X the docked Switch is 1.77TFLOPs. Like I said, they should wait, but they can definitely have a reasonable console only Switch on the market.Like, removing things such as display, battery, and still increasing the price by a significant margin, means that either it would be overpriced or that the power gap would unreasonable within the same platform.
Nintendo has already failed itself out of the dedicated home console market, making an expensive home would be chasing the same mistake. If a home console Switch had to exist it should be at best about what the Apple TV is to iOS devices: a more budget friendly ($150 max) small HDMI box with the same SoC running the same software.
The flagship (i.e. best and most expensive) Switch needs to be a real Switch, that supports every mode, that carries the original message does everything. Anything less should be budget products.
And it was done because the new chip was cheaper to manufacture than it was to keep making the old ones. Nintendo didn't make it to appeal to power seekers like Sony did. What Nintendo did was revise hardware as they always do. What Sony and MS did was make a concerted effort to attract a smaller niche of gamers willing to pay more for a power upgrade. Nintendo won't do that.The 3ds to n3ds is a bigger upgrade than we saw with ps4 to ps4 pro.
It was done to put a more capable device on the market, which is why they focused so much on the CPU, (to port gamecube and wii games to it, and then only ported Xenoblade, should have put something like Wind Waker or Sunshine / Galaxy on it instead) either way, they weren't chasing a niche market, you are right, but Nintendo has never had a hardware agnostic platform like they do with the Switch, they could release any number of Switch devices with any performance level they want, it doesn't matter as long as they sell them at a profit and at least 1 of them is a success.And it was done because the new chip was cheaper to manufacture than it was to keep making the old ones. Nintendo didn't make it to appeal to power seekers like Sony did. What Nintendo did was revise hardware as they always do. What Sony and MS did was make a concerted effort to attract a smaller niche of gamers willing to pay more for a power upgrade. Nintendo won't do that.
This is the worst use of R&D I've ever heard of.I still think the 3rd SKU should be a stationary box with an HDD and 4K HDR capability. For the enthusiasts. OBviously it will sell the least but it will serve the premium market.
Lite = Handheld play, budget device, smallest barrier to entry, 720p, $199
Hybrid = Flagship product, mid-range price, most versatile, allows home and portable play, 720p and 1080p, $299
Home = Premium product, high-range price, designed for the enthusiasts, 4K HDR, $349 or $399 depending on storage
All sharing the same library.
They could. And yet nothing in their recent history indicates they care to.It was done to put a more capable device on the market, which is why they focused so much on the CPU, (to port gamecube and wii games to it, and then only ported Xenoblade, should have put something like Wind Waker or Sunshine / Galaxy on it instead) either way, they weren't chasing a niche market, you are right, but Nintendo has never had a hardware agnostic platform like they do with the Switch, they could release any number of Switch devices with any performance level they want, it doesn't matter as long as they sell them at a profit and at least 1 of them is a success.
I agree, but it's easy money and the option exists. Saying they won't do it is a bridge too far, but I don't think they will bother, at least not yet.They could. And yet nothing in their recent history indicates they care to.
He's kinda awful as a hands-on reporter. I'm very disappointed in whom they chose; I can honestly see either interpretation. I can't fathom why he says "I don't know what the Switch lite vent feels like" when he had hands on with the actual unit. Is he referring to texture or something? Ugh. In any case, thanks for bringing up the ambiguity - I hadn't considered that he may be back telling us about the 2017 model again.This was brought up in the Mini thread - he's talking about the original Switch when he mentions the air coming out of the vent.
They are the same weight, it likely means that it does.
You need the joycons to play on the tv in docked mode. At least without buying additional accessories like a pro controller.Or just fix em. The joycon are more a central part of the Switch than any other feature. They're even in the logo that plays before every game.
Power increases in that range should be made while keeping the form factor. The top of the range Switch needs to be a version that does it all, not a HDMI box with a mobile chipset that stays tethered to your TV. There's much less value in that.The XB1 to XB1X is a 4.5x increase, while I think Nintendo should wait for a Switch 2 and just release all 3 form factors at the same time, a console only Switch that is 4.5X the docked Switch is 1.77TFLOPs. Like I said, they should wait, but they can definitely have a reasonable console only Switch on the market.
And it was done because the new chip was cheaper to manufacture than it was to keep making the old ones. Nintendo didn't make it to appeal to power seekers like Sony did. What Nintendo did was revise hardware as they always do. What Sony and MS did was make a concerted effort to attract a smaller niche of gamers willing to pay more for a power upgrade. Nintendo won't do that.
Maybe to leave open the possibility of faster performance modes in future firmware updates.
I'd venture to guess that it needs it for docked mode too, 7+ watts and charging the battery on top of that, active cooling is likely still pushing 11+ watts when docked.Maybe to leave open the possibility of faster performance modes in future firmware updates.
Zero chance of this. Straight up, zero. Assuming that Nintendo is unlocking ANY additional performance profiles (I highly doubt it) to developers, they will 100% have to be patched to work.the newer SOC could provide better results for such games without having to get SW updates, we'll see.
The revised switch is going to replace the old one... But don't like this. A product with significantly better battery life should be distinguished differently with an altered name name, boxing label, and some physical difference to distinguish between this and the older one.
revision listed under orig sx - both listed at $299.99, even though the difference in battery life is highlighted
I think it's mid-August in USA, end of August in Japan and early September in Europe.Says available mid-August there. Was the original thread title accurate with 'end of august'? (i.e. is there something in Japanese saying that? )
The revised switch is going to replace the old one... But don't like this. A product with significantly better battery life should be distinguished differently with an altered name name, boxing label, and some physical difference to distinguish between this and the older one.
The Switch LongThe revised switch is going to replace the old one... But don't like this. A product with significantly better battery life should be distinguished differently with an altered name name, boxing label, and some physical difference to distinguish between this and the older one.
The box is red colored, but Identical otherwise. The battery life and serial number is a bit of a read between the lines thing for casuals. What I'm trying to say was that they should have changed the name and maybe design to really differentiate it from OG model.It has an entirely different box. Also, they have specified that the serial number will start with a different code on Nintendo.com.
The swong, if you will
Zero chance of this. Straight up, zero. Assuming that Nintendo is unlocking ANY additional performance profiles (I highly doubt it) to developers, they will 100% have to be patched to work.
Honestly the boxes are more different than I expected them to be, it wouldn't be hard at all to distinguish the new box.
Honestly the boxes are more different than I expected them to be, it wouldn't be hard at all to distinguish the new box.
It's missing the "Great new looks, same great flavor" sticker of all the food box redesigns. They'll probably get it.
However now would be the best time to sell the OG, resale value will probably drop rather quickly once the updated model is out.
The people who don't know the difference probably aren't even looking for it.
Seems like quite a few here and other parts of the internets are selling there OG switch and getting the updated model.
I want to, but to be honest I've only played my switch like 5 times since launch undocked.
However now would be the best time to sell the OG, resale value will probably drop rather quickly once the updated model is out.