You know, that's a great point! Maybe less bezel?
A Switch that doesn't Switch, or do anything like it's current value proposition? It would still be much weaker than the competition and have nothing special going for it compared to them besides Nintendo IP. Just don't think that makes any sense at all and there's no evidence of it either.
Well, my (again likely incorrect) theory is predicated on the idea that this Mariko SoC is a simple security update, possibly with a boost in RAM, which would simply be the new standard Switch model being sold as early as this year. Not a major revision.
I'm saying -if that's the case- then potentially this revision will have a Thunderbolt capable USBC connector and be able to interface with a separate standalone eGPU dock, which could also release this year as part of the many accessories and add-on hardware Nintendo promises is coming. Then this eGPU dock plus the base Switch/Mariko Switch would give you a performance profile which necessitated those much more powerful devkits the Foxconn leaker described. If the base Switch can also use an eGPU even with the bandwidth constraints then that's even better.
The thing about the SCD concept that I always thought was so incredibly elegant was that it was capable of supplementing processing power both wired and wirelessly, which is something that plays right into the major strengths of the Switch. You could have the SCD supplement X amount of processing when docked to achieve much more stable framerates and resolution on the TV, and 0.5X amount of processing when undocked to achieve much more stable framerates and resolution on the Switch screen. In theory of course.
My comment was about how soon it was, not that there was going to be a revision which is pretty standard and expected. The new 3ds (which is the only that significantly changed the hardware - and a ram increase can be considered significant) came 3 years after the original.
And I don't believe that Switch's hybrid nature is its main value proposition, its games are. People buy it because they want to play Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey and Splatoon 2 and soforth. The hybrid simply gives Nintendo access to the largest possible segment of the market with a single device. A new home console (or dedicated portable) would launch with exactly the same games (minus 1,2 Switch and Labo), and would benefit from the continued future development of games for Switch with minimal additional resources required from Nintendo or third parties.
It should be 3 years at least until they do a revision. A new Switch model after 18 months? Forget about it. If Nintendo were to do this I think there'd be a huge blowback from early adopters.
I thought Nintendo said they're interested in making new peripherals instead of new hardware revisions?
Where did you pull 18 months fromIt should be 3 years at least until they do a revision. A new Switch model after 18 months? Forget about it. If Nintendo were to do this I think there'd be a huge blowback from early adopters.
I certainly would be pissed.
Completely disagree with this. The hybrid nature IS the usp. Having great games did nothing for the Wii U.And I don't believe that Switch's hybrid nature is its main value proposition, its games are. People buy it because they want to play Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey and Splatoon 2 and soforth. The hybrid simply gives Nintendo access to the largest possible segment of the market with a single device. A new home console (or dedicated portable) would launch with exactly the same games (minus 1,2 Switch and Labo), and would benefit from the continued future development of games for Switch with minimal additional resources required from Nintendo or third parties.
reasonably priced device with a good selection of games they're interested in playing. A Switch home console could give them that, and it would be an extremely low-risk venture for Nintendo, as they wouldn't have to develop any games for it, just enable a higher-resolution mode in their existing ones. Even if it "only" sold 10 million units over its lifetime, that would still mean some comfortable profits for Nintendo, as it would mean 10 million extra potential customers for Switch games.
um no?
Apple always release a new phone every year... they dont get blowback? Phones are also more expensive than consoles too.
I e seen this said before but not really. The Wii U was a shit console, but it had no marketing. People thought it was a Wii addon as well. The hardware is just one of the reasons it failed. Also, the games on it weren't all that great. We didn't get a mainline Zelda (till the successor was announced) or a 3D Mario.I disagree. The hybrid aspect of the Switch is the main selling point of the system. Otherwise the Wii U would've sold more and we all know how that went.
It should be 3 years at least until they do a revision. A new Switch model after 18 months? Forget about it. If Nintendo were to do this I think there'd be a huge blowback from early adopters.
I certainly would be pissed.
We got 3D Mario on Wii U.I e seen this said before but not really. The Wii U was a shit console, but it had no marketing. People thought it was a Wii addon as well. The hardware is just one of the reasons it failed. Also, the games on it weren't all that great. We didn't get a mainline Zelda (till the successor was announced) or a 3D Mario.
This. People yelling about Switch Pro and 4K HDR and sock only going to be disappointed.Let me see evidence from non hackers and I'll believe it's something more than a security revision.
Yeah I'm not getting the anger. Devs aren't gonna make switch games exclusive to the new modelwhy tho? either stick with the OG or trade in your OG to offset the cost of the revision
Also a completely different market with different consumer expectations. Let's quit comparing video game consoles with phones.
Though I wouldn't be against ending generations and going towards unified operating systems with hardware revisions every two years or so.
The Wii U had some really great games, which is evident considering how many ports the Switch is getting of them.I e seen this said before but not really. The Wii U was a shit console, but it had no marketing. People thought it was a Wii addon as well. The hardware is just one of the reasons it failed. Also, the games on it weren't all that great. We didn't get a mainline Zelda (till the successor was announced) or a 3D Mario.
Do you mean 3D world? Because it was more of a platformer than like Odyssey/64/Galaxy games etc.
The Wii U had some really great games, which is evident considering how many ports the Switch is getting of them.
If you are Nintendo fan, the portability might be a non-factor in your purchase of the Switch, but for everyone else it was like the number 1 talking point.
That's what I'm thinking.
Like the huge blowback Apple / Samsung / other mobile phone companies get when they release new products every year? If the system is fully forward and backwards compatible then I see no issue - if you're desperate for it then trade your old Switch in and get the new one - as long as the games and accessories still work you won't end up spending that much on the new hardware - probably about as much as many spend on the upfront for a phone upgrade every year.It should be 3 years at least until they do a revision. A new Switch model after 18 months? Forget about it. If Nintendo were to do this I think there'd be a huge blowback from early adopters.
I certainly would be pissed.
It's a handheld. It will get revisions.Haha, yeah no. It's not happening, at least not for a long time. The Switch is a console to Nintendo, and like all of their consoles before it, they'll ride this hardware iteration until the next big idea.
There's no way.
Very interesting.
I hope Nintendo will offer 2 options here :
- an Upgrade Pack ( like the Expansion Pack on the N64 ) for like 99$
- a Switch Plus ( or whatever it will be called ) for 350$
So people have the choice, unlike the Pro and X.
um no?
Apple always release a new phone every year... they dont get blowback? Phones are also more expensive than consoles too.
Also technically I don't believe Kimishima has directly said anything about their immediate hardware plans.
There was a report that cited anonymous sources from Wall Street Journal, but the only thing Mr. Kimishima has said directly is they'd like the Switch's lifecycle to be longer than 5-6 years.
As I said on the last page, having it come from WSJ's anonymous sources actually makes it a bit more trustworthy and believable to me than if Nintendo had said it. Since they have a track record of flat out lying about that.
I don't believe any of the previous Switch devkits have had additional RAM, so it seems strange for them to start now.
I don't think anybody buys something from Nintendo and expects top notch visuals or bleeding edge hardware that rivals the competition.This. People yelling about Switch Pro and 4K HDR and sock only going to be disappointed.
Reading somewhere, TMSC, who manufacture chips for Nvidia, wants to move from 20nm lithography, so i think Nvidia and Nintendo have to do some little revision to the console with a new chip.