It's both amazing and worrying that many still blindly believes in that "pyroco" individual, despite that he has been dreadfully wrong at lately.
He/she claimed that Switch 2 WILL be revealed in march/april for some months ago... Some of you will for sure defend him/her by saying that Switch 2 has been delayed...
BUT the biggest problem is that Switch 2 or its codename has NEVER been revealed by Nintendo yet, hence the so called "delay" is a complete bogus/hoax/hearsay or whatever you want then.
"Pyorco" usually "leaks" directs just 1-2 days before... It's not that so special actually, it had been a different story if now he/she like leaked in weeks or months in advance like some other non-Nintendo leakers does.
Of course I DO to 100% hope that "Switch 2" will be a HUGE upgrade over Switch like N64 to Gamecube. But don't forget that Nintendo won't gives expensive tech for "free" like Sony or Microsoft does. Not a chance that it (Switch 2) will be more powerful than Steam Deck OLED while costing 1/2 to 1/3 less depending of your country.... and having a huge upgraded screen 800p (Steam Deck) vs 1080p (Switch 2). Come again, get real for once...
There're a reason why phones are so unreal expensive, because smaller 1080p screens costs a lot.
@Keman Pretty sure Pyoro never said Switch 2 would reveal in Mar/April; they weren't even part of the delay or hardware release date conversation except for the delayed Partner Direct. As far as I know, Pyoro has still been 100% correct in all predictions. However, as you say, almost all of their leaks have been about Nintendo trailer video drops or directs within a week of them happening. I would say the emphasis on Pyoro is really more an indication of how little we trust every other supposed leaker who often get things wrong. It's not that we think Pyoro will give us useful info, we just don't generally trust info from any other specific leaker.
Although this particular leak is very consistent with other leaks so I tend to think it is plausible, especially since it is almost entirely very logical and not super impressive sounding.
@Keman Pyoro has never claimed any of this. He's been wrong, like, twice, and has owned up to that both times, and the second time, he even expressed skepticism over the accuracy of what he was hearing. Every single other Pyoro leak has been accurate to an unprecedented extent
@PikaPhantom Don't forget that people hold the whole thing they said about Pokemon Black and White against them- when they literally prefaced the whole thing with "The information could be wrong because it was from a few years back."
I don't tend to believe many Nintendo leakers, but Pyoro is probably the most legit out of the ones I've seen. They actually apologize if they get things wrong, and they make sure to clarify things. It isn't just like SamusHunter, where the person is literally just spouting random predictions and then deleting them when they turn out to be wrong. Pyoro has credibility due to getting things right and taking accountability when they get things wrong.
Yeah, Pyoro has always carefully caveated things they aren't 100% sure about, so I wouldn't count those as wrong because they said they didn't truly know those times.
@skywake I doubt Nintendo will give us a Switch Pro through the Switch 2's backward compatibility, at least not for free. I don't disagree with you that it's eminently possible technically. And I'm not skeptical "because Nintendo". I just don't think they'll leave cash on the table if they think they can charge extra for the boost. Which is a roundabout way of saying I think it will happen, but it'll cost us. How much would people pay for a patch for faster backward compatibility? I'm guessing ballpark £15/$20 per game, but maybe they'd rather try and resale Switch 2 optimised versions?
To be clear, that wasn't really the point I was getting at. My point was more that when people talk about what we'll be able to get from Switch 2 they often talk about 4K via DLSS. But they just kinda ignore the prospect of how much stuff is potentially just going to run 4K native
To put it super bluntly. If you can get (some) Switch games running at 4K (to varying degrees) on overclocked Switch OLED through an emulator? With around a 2X overclock vs what the Switch usually runs at but with the overhead of RUNNING THROUGH AN EMULATOR. Then the newer and more efficient Switch 2 SoC would surely be able to tackle similar titles running at a native 4K when running the code natively. Basically, I don't at all doubt that Switch 2 could run BotW as it is at a native 4K. And if that's the case then potentially backwards compatibility could be interesting
In terms of how they work out the logistics of backwards compatibility? I mean, I'm not quite as cynical as you are here. Mostly because I'm not sure how much sense it would make for them. I think the ideal scenario for Switch 2 is that the Switch catalogue just exists on the eShop from day 1. With all titles just running better generally either via more consistent framerates or less aggressive dynamic resolution scaling. Some titles having very, very small updates that just change the target resolution/framerate. I think that's enough to drag some people into the new hardware and also maintain the value of the existing library of Switch games for Switch 2 owners. As soon as you drop a huge paywall behind that.... the value disappears I think....
Will there be deluxe, ultimate, Switch 2 or UHD editions? Without a doubt. I'm not sure if there will be schemes to allow people to upgrade to them or not, that'll probably be upto the developer. No unlike how if you buy Bayonetta 1 or 2 digitally you get a discount on the other. Or maybe it appears as DLC that they can choose to either make free or set a price for. But there will most definitely be developers who drop the same game again on Switch 2 and have it sit on the shelves as an entirely new title. With that much I agree.....
.......... I just don't think people are going to pay 10s of $ to upgrade games to 4K. For some titles? Sure. But not for most. I think it works better as just another bullet point on the box. Not unlike how back in the day having GB games run in colour was an additional selling point for the GBC. People picked up the GBC for its ability to play the existing library of GB games in colour, not just for the new GBC titles
I'm not going to pay to update Ring Fit Adventure, Switch Sports or Puyo Puyo Tetris to 4K, but if they just by default now run at 4K on Switch 2? That's not a bad reason to upgrade
@FishyS
A quick googling it was 44% of US households in 2021 and I found another article that claimed it was 66% in 2023. And I suspect it would be higher than that for the kind of consumer who would buy a shiny new gaming console. Especially one that will without question have 4K support in the advertising
Whether or not those sets are any good is another question. Because 4K TVs these days are basically just all of the new TVs on the market. If you got a TV in the last 5 years? It's probably 4K. But some of those sets are tiny sets which only support 4K at 30Hz with garbage contrast ratios, none of the modern features like VRR, anaemic peak brightness and shocking image processing. And other sets, probably most of them, are monumental upgrade from even very good 1080p sets from 10 years ago
But, you know, people are .... people ..... being able to say that most of the Switch library now runs at 4K would be one hell of a marketing bullet point. I remember back in the day before BluRay was a thing seeing new release DVDs being marketed as "direct from the HD source". Which for a DVD was, well, meaningless. But being able to attach shiny word to shiny product? That has value
tbh, I'll be a bit annoyed if I can't get the most of Switch 2 games without buying a new tv. 😑 tvs last practically forever, never saw a reason to change off my nice 1080p one.
@FishyS
To be blunt, you certainly won't get the most out of it with a 1080p set. Especially one that isn't HDR and lacks all of the shiny new things that modern sets have. But you will still get some benefit
For example Doom Eternal targets 30fps with dynamic resolution scaling between 540p and 720p. The most basic version of backwards compatibility would underclock and you'd get more or less the same. But they could just allow it to use the additional power and you'd end up with the game just always being 720p/30. Which would be great. But I could also see a version of backwards compatibility where, with the same settings, they drop a minor patch which changes the target framerate and resolution. And on a 1080p set that might just mean you now get a locked 1080p/60
And probably just as importantly.... portable mode also exists
... again, I think we've generally underestimated how much of a jump this new hardware will be. I think we've generally slept a bit on how much of a jump even existing titles could get. And this level of enhancement for legacy titles? It'll be great. I think this would be a decent selling point. But I don't think it's such a killer feature that it should be locked behind a per-game paywall
@skywake Even though we're relegated to speculation until we hear official word, the prospects and potential are mesmerizing. So many titles that were held back in one way or another (Resolution, framerate, etc.) could potentially receive a new lease on life depending on how they go about backwards compatibility. I have no doubt that, as you say, plenty of companies will simply sell a new "enhanced" version, but imagine games that are already out there. So many games (1st party, 3rd party, AND indie.) that had such potential, but ultimately didn't reach their full potential. Grounded is a recent example that I loved on PC, but the Switch version is right around passable. Suddenly with new tech, it goes from passable to outstanding (Depending on how bc is implemented.) There's also plenty of games with variable resolution and framerates (Like the aforementioned Doom: Eternal) that with bc could (at the very least) consistently achieve the targeted resolution and framerate. One of my favorite indies "Slime Rancher" runs roughly around 30 FPS throughout, but in certain areas hit a full 60 when the screen isn't busy. That could potentially mean that, on Switch 2, a consistent 60 FPS throughout the whole thing. I'm far from an expert on this subject, so I don't want to sound presumptuous, but the potential of next-gen is really fun to talk about, especially the potential of re-vitalizing previous releases that were long disregarded due to their restrictions and limitations!
Idealism and realism are only a few letters apart, it's a fine line between the two. One must be careful not
to step too far on one end, as it could very easily throw the other off balance.
@skywake I've been a believer in the potential of 4K output since the 'Switch Pro' discussion days, so I didn't pay your point about the examples you'd seen on a video as much attention as it deserved. I guess I forget there's a lot of skeptics and Nintendo doomsters out there who doubt a Switch 2 could do better than HD. Without breaking site rules, could you see from the video how much change was made to the games to make them run at 4? You mentioned decomplication?
And regarding pricing and availability of backward compatibility, Nintendo Forecast has just dropped a video on that very topic!
TL;DR 90% certainty of some form of backwards compatibility, 70% chance without any additional payment, and 50% chance of being gated behind NSO (but I recommend investing the time to watch the whole video, Nintendo Forecasts is one of the better YouTubers out there)
Without breaking site rules, could you see from the video how much change was made to the games to make them run at 4? You mentioned decomplication?
Lets just say that in order to get a 4K output you can't be inside the Switch OS. You have to be inside a different OS that is able to recognise the Switch's display adapter and the various modes it supports. Which for the OLED is upto 4K/60Hz and for the other SKUs 4K/30Hz
Some of the examples were games that exist on Switch but also have native ports on this other OS. Another title was a decompiled title from a 90s era platform recompiled for this other OS. Some additional titles were PC games running through a compatibility layer or straight up running on an emulator
A lot of these they were able to get running at 4K while maintaining either 30 or 60fps. When they pushed into Gamecube emulation it was more like 1440p with a stable framerate. When they pushed into emulation of a console that discussion of breaks the community rules... some of the less demanding ones could do 4K. The more demanding ones, well, lets just say they're already well optimised for their target hardware
@GrailUK I think not. Even if you split Switch players 50/50 between handheld and TV play, and got 70 million, it would be less than that partly because the Switches appeal is that it can do both. Besides, it looks like the rest of the games hardware market is following Nintendo's lead and becoming more handheld focused as well. People talk about the death of physical media, but the next decade may see the death of dedicated TV consoles as well
I mean it makes sense. Having hardware that's shackled to your TV limits its usage, you can't play a home console if you're out and about at school/work, doing errands, on vacation, etc. It's just such an obvious benefit that it's not surprising the rest of the industry is following. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they all wanted to do this sooner but couldn't because the technology wasn't there yet. I know that even before the Switch was confirmed to be a hybrid I certainly thought it would be cool to have one.
@SwitchForce I mean those are all great things but aside from maybe the new buttons (and even then it depends on if they're a special type of button or just more regular buttons) nothing much really interesting here. Just feels like more Switch but with better graphics. Hard to really feel like this is going to facilitate new games that the Switch could never do with just these features, just games that feel like they could've been on the Switch but at lower specs. I hope there's more that this rumor just isn't reporting yet.
@PikminMarioKirby Same here until Nintendo admits to it or showcases a unit gaming we can only go off what said so far. But if what the grip maker is stating that is a big reveal since they would need those specs to insure their hardware works and matches up to the Switch 2. But since then I heard those posts have been taken down so that would be something that was internal and not to be made public. So the Ninjas strike again if this did happen.
@SwitchForce I mean those are all great things but aside from maybe the new buttons (and even then it depends on if they're a special type of button or just more regular buttons) nothing much really interesting here. Just feels like more Switch but with better graphics. Hard to really feel like this is going to facilitate new games that the Switch could never do with just these features, just games that feel like they could've been on the Switch but at lower specs. I hope there's more that this rumor just isn't reporting yet.
This will facilitate new game features-what else would we need more off? I think they are expanding the range of uses for the Switch and it's new Joy-Con buttons and most likely a new Pro controller based on the Switch 2 buttons as well. We've all seen others like xbox/ps5 have more buttons so are you saying those controllers shouldn't have more buttons like they have now and remain like past controller?
@SwitchForce I mean... it depends on what the buttons are. The front button could literally just be a zoom button rather than the weird 'press home button twice after fiddling with the settings' setup which Switch currently has. It might be something more interesting... but it might not. Or it could be something related to bluetooth headphones which would actually be nice since that is a mess with current Switch.
If there really is a new button on the back, I am very curious what that is intended for though; seems like it would be hard to use while using the normal buttons.
Regardless, I think Boltstrike meant new buttons don't automatically lead to fundamentally new types of gameplay; there are already a lot of buttons and most people can use only so many fingers independently at once so new buttons might be more of a convenience than a game changer. As opposed to if they e.g. added a camera somewhere which could be used in some complicated way for augmented reality or whatever and really change certain games.
My main wish for a new pro controller is simply a better d-pad, new buttons or not.
@SwitchForce He's saying that he's hoping for a new hardware gimmick that could in theory open up new gameplay ideas. However, none of the rumors suggest there is one, or at least not one that the entire hardware is based around.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Rumor and Speculation Thread
Posts 4,161 to 4,180 of 4,372
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic