Playstation 5 is looking real good

DukenukemX said:
Having video output on a device doesn't make it a home console. The hardware does that and the Switch is just a beefed up 3DS. How you think the Yuzu emulator was made? The creators of Citra the 3DS emulator noticed that the Switch has not only a similar OS to the 3DS but similar hardware, with exception to the graphics. So it only took the Citra creators a year to make a working Switch emulator.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything else in your post outside of this, assuming conjecture (as know one truly knows, so anything is possible).
As for the Switch, it is a closed-platform for development, which is not at all what any Android or iOS device is.

The 3DS was a handheld console, and the Switch would be considered a portable console, much like the PSP and Vita.
According to what you are saying, though, is that the 3DS, PSP, and Vita are all not consoles, either, and that is simply not true.

You are absolutely right in the fact that it is not a stationary console, but it is indeed a console none the less.
I get that this is from Wiki, but for brevity's sake:

Unlike similar consumer electronics such as music players and movie players, which use industry-wide standard formats, video game consoles use proprietary formats which compete with each other for market share. There are various types of video game consoles, including home video game consoles, handheld game consoles, microconsoles and dedicated consoles.
Click to expand...
So really, the Switch literally falls between home video game consoles and handheld game consoles.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handheld_game_console#Nintendo_Switch

The Nintendo Switch is a hybrid console that can either be used in a handheld form, or inserted into a docking station attached to a television to play on a bigger screen.
Click to expand...
The Switch is a console, and a proprietary piece of hardware that is also a closed-platform.
Android and iOS devices are neither of these, and fall into completely different categories.


From Nintendo's own site: https://www.nintendo.com/switch/system/
Nintendo Switch is designed to fit your life, transforming from home console to portable system in a snap.
Click to expand...
It's a console, deal with it. :D
 
Aurelius said:
Game developers like consoles for reasons beyond the relative dearth of piracy.
Click to expand...
Piracy isn't going away. If PC gaming died and consoles ruled then people would pirate on consoles more.
There's a much larger audience, because they're considerably more affordable and accessible.
Click to expand...
Not if the PS5 is $600.
And you do know that developers on Steam or the Epic Games Store have to give up a significant chunk of their revenue anyway, right?
Click to expand...
Not if studios make their own launchers, like they've been doing. RockStar just made their own launcher recently.
Yeah, some games can certainly run on old computers... but there's a high degree of irony to your complaining that games are being held back by consoles while simultaneously telling less affluent PC gamers to play less demanding games because they can't justify spending $800 every few years on a new rig. You're holding them back when a $400 console would let them play the latest games for 5-7 years.
Click to expand...
The reality is not everyone can afford even a $500 PS5. People do buy laptops with a Core i5 with no Nvidia or AMD GPU for school or work purposes, but would like to play games on it. This does open up the gaming market to developers who want to make a side scrolling MetroidVania type of game. Dungeon Fighter Online is currently the best selling game on PC and it requires a Core 2 Duo and any DX9 capable graphics card. I can run this game on a 15 year old computer.

Also nobody needs to spend $800 on a gaming PC. You spend what you can afford and what you want from your games. That's a number you came up with and insist I'm pushing for it. Built my nephew a $400 PC over a year ago for him to play any game at 1080p. Before you have a shit, yes you can buy one prebuilt. But the idea is that consoles do hold PC gaming forwards and backwards as well, since developers also don't have to make everything into an expensive 3D FPS game to get sales. This is why Indie gaming started and exploded on PC and not console.
Of course I do. But here's the thing: most people need a phone, and they don't need to buy a top-tier phone to play even some of the more demanding games.
Click to expand...
You're right, and that also applies to PC gaming. You don't need an $800 PC to play games. Any PC is a gaming PC. I have a HTC 10 phone I pay $100 for and I'm perfectly fine with that. That's the great thing about PC gaming, you spend what you can afford and what you want to achieve.
And again, you're forgetting some important math here: even if the PS5 costs $600, it'll have several years of playing the latest games. That $800 PC will likely need at least one upgrade (probably the GPU) over that span to stay reasonably current, so you've spent a few hundred more than the PS5... and I can tell you now, that $800 PC probably won't have the PS5's SSD. It might not even have the visual prowess.
Click to expand...
Depends on the PC and when it was built. If I built a PC right now for $800 it can absolutely last as long as the PS5. I would choose a RTX 2060 and stick it with a Ryzen CPU, but it'll certainly last for another several years. There's a YouTube channel called JERMgaming and he built a PC from 2013 for the same price as a PS4 and that machine still plays modern games just fine. The PC can't always play games at 1080p 60fps but neither does the PS4.

Now if I build this PC in 2020 then chances are my $800 will go much further than what the PS5 can do. Nvidia will certainly introduce new GPU's and probably have a proper mid range graphics card that can do Ray-Tracing. AMD will have one as well, as RDNA2.0 or Navi2 is coming out next year. Intel also said they will have a mid range GPU out next year. Sony couldn't have chosen a worse year to release their PS5.
I think PC gaming is a fine hobby, but the notion of that being the only way to play more than mobile games?
That's scary. I don't want to live in a world where fewer people can afford to play the latest games, where kids may have only limited opportunities to play, where you have to bend over backwards to bring gaming to your living room (and thus make it more social).
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that smart phones and tablets are responsible for the death of the 3DS and Sony Vita. Technically the 3DS didn't fail, but if you compare the sales of the 3DS to the DS, there's a huge gap. Nintendo adapted and created the Swtich to try and stay relevant in mobile gaming, and it worked but for how long? People who game on phones instead of a portable console have lost a lot. No physical buttons, the games are mostly free2play micro-transaction hell, and most phones are more expensive on average than a portable console. People think the mobile market has taken away gamers from consoles and PC, but nope. There was already a huge market that Nintendo dominated for a long time, and they lost a good deal of it to smart phones.

If the PC market dominates you lose nothing. You can plug your PC to your TV in the living room, and even use a PS4 or Xbox One gamepad on it without issue. You lose nothing and gain everything.
 
Red Falcon said:
I agree with everything else in your post outside of this, assuming conjecture (as know one truly knows, so anything is possible).
As for the Switch, it is a closed-platform for development, which is not at all what any Android or iOS device is.

The 3DS was a handheld console, and the Switch would be considered a portable console, much like the PSP and Vita.
According to what you are saying, though, is that the 3DS, PSP, and Vita are all not consoles, either, and that is simply not true.

You are absolutely right in the fact that it is not a stationary console, but it is indeed a console none the less.
I get that this is from Wiki, but for brevity's sake:


So really, the Switch literally falls between home video game consoles and handheld game consoles.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handheld_game_console#Nintendo_Switch


The Switch is a console, and a proprietary piece of hardware that is also a closed-platform.
Android and iOS devices are neither of these, and fall into completely different categories.


From Nintendo's own site: https://www.nintendo.com/switch/system/

It's a console, deal with it. :D
Click to expand...
That's great and all but I never said the Swtich wasn't a console. I said it wasn't a home console. It is a portable console. I can prove my point with the Switch Lite. Can the Switch Lite be hooked up to a TV? No? Then it's a portable console. I have a Genesis Nomad, does that make the Sega Genesis a hybrid console that does both mobile and home gaming? Calling the Switch a home console is completely arbitrary.

Also a perspective on things, the Nintendo DS sold 154.02 million while the 3DS sold 75.45 million units. The WiiU sold 13.56 million. The Switch which is Nintendo's only current console sold 16.95 million units. If I were Nintendo I would definitely be pushing the Switch as a portable console, because without the 3DS they lost a boat load of sales. Nintendo didn't officially stop supporting the 3DS, but I don't see many new games released for it.
 
Switch certainly is a hybrid console. Many never use the console as a standalone unit and the battery life of the original wasn't good in the slightest. The Lite is obviously meant for the market that wanted a proper mobile experience.

Obviously you can hook other mobile devices up to a screen, but none of them are as quick and seamless as the Switch because none of them were designed with that in mind.
 
Red Falcon said:
Uh, no.
https://venturebeat.com/2019/10/31/nintendo-switch-sales/

You are seriously reaching.
Sure, the Switch is a portable console with a dock - and your point is...?
Click to expand...
Doesn't change anything. My point is that Nintendo had the DS with 150 million units sold and the Wii which had 100 million units sold. With the introduction of smart phones the 3DS only has 75 million and the Wii U had ~15 million. Even with 41 million units sold for the Switch, it shows that Nintendo has fallen from a very high point. Certainly the Switch will eventually reach 100 million or more units sold before the end of its life, but it's a far cry from the 100+150=250 million consoles that Nintendo had sold at one point.

Nintendo doesn't want to make a home console as powerful as the Playstation or Xbox in fear of being totally destroyed by Sony and Microsoft. At the same time Nintendo doesn't want to get pushed out of the mobile gaming market by smart phones and tablets. Nintendo is feeling pressure from all sides.

Flogger23m said:
Switch certainly is a hybrid console. Many never use the console as a standalone unit and the battery life of the original wasn't good in the slightest. The Lite is obviously meant for the market that wanted a proper mobile experience.

Obviously you can hook other mobile devices up to a screen, but none of them are as quick and seamless as the Switch because none of them were designed with that in mind.
Click to expand...
The reason it's purely a mobile device is because it has a Tegra K1 SOC. That'll do for now, but once the PS5 is released the Switch won't be able to keep up. There's a limit to how much performance you can get out of a portable device due to heat and power consumption. I should know because I own a Switch as well, and modded both the hardware and software. I removed the thin copper sheet they put on the SOC, and put clean thermal paste as well as a thermal pad on memory because the Switch's are known to warp and make the plastic brittle from the heat it outputs. The K1 is severely under-clocked compared to other Nvidia Shield products that it's in. No matter what I'll still get at best 3 hours of battery life.

The reason the Switch can be a pseudo home console is because the PS4 and Xbox One were so weak in specs in 2013 that the SOC in the Switch can pull it off to some degree. But it is a weak console because my PC can emulate it on a single CPU core at full speed using Yuzu, with better graphics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
DukenukemX said:
Piracy isn't going away. If PC gaming died and consoles ruled then people would pirate on consoles more.

Not if the PS5 is $600.

Not if studios make their own launchers, like they've been doing. RockStar just made their own launcher recently.
Click to expand...

Rolling these into one because it's a mess to deal with them all at once.

There's a common theme here: lots of speculation and "what ifs." Yeah, if PC gaming died there'd be more piracy on consoles, but it won't and there won't be; the truth remains that PCs are much more of a haven for piracy. We'll deal with the PS5 costing $600 if Sony announces something to that effect, but it's fairly pointless to argue against a hypothetical that's far from certain. And on launchers? EA just signalled that it's putting games on Steam despite having its own launcher. It's still true that most game developers feel compelled to put their games in central portals like Steam or the Epic Games Store because that's where PC gamers are.


DukenukemX said:
The reality is not everyone can afford even a $500 PS5. People do buy laptops with a Core i5 with no Nvidia or AMD GPU for school or work purposes, but would like to play games on it. This does open up the gaming market to developers who want to make a side scrolling MetroidVania type of game. Dungeon Fighter Online is currently the best selling game on PC and it requires a Core 2 Duo and any DX9 capable graphics card. I can run this game on a 15 year old computer.

Also nobody needs to spend $800 on a gaming PC. You spend what you can afford and what you want from your games. That's a number you came up with and insist I'm pushing for it. Built my nephew a $400 PC over a year ago for him to play any game at 1080p. Before you have a shit, yes you can buy one prebuilt. But the idea is that consoles do hold PC gaming forwards and backwards as well, since developers also don't have to make everything into an expensive 3D FPS game to get sales. This is why Indie gaming started and exploded on PC and not console.
Click to expand...

Not everyone could afford a PS5, and it's true that PC developers cater to audiences that can't play the latest shooters. But in your dream world, where everyone is forced to buy gaming PCs, you would have no other choice but to pony up for an expensive machine if you want a game's full experience. And had you considered that this fantasy would also increase the odds of PC developers targeting a much lower common denominator for even their most advanced games, since the only way to reach audiences comparable to today's would be to support very low-end PCs from years ago. I'm glad indie 2D games exploded on PCs, but if you had your way, those would be the only titles some people would be allowed to play.

DukenukemX said:
Depends on the PC and when it was built. If I built a PC right now for $800 it can absolutely last as long as the PS5. I would choose a RTX 2060 and stick it with a Ryzen CPU, but it'll certainly last for another several years. There's a YouTube channel called JERMgaming and he built a PC from 2013 for the same price as a PS4 and that machine still plays modern games just fine. The PC can't always play games at 1080p 60fps but neither does the PS4.

Now if I build this PC in 2020 then chances are my $800 will go much further than what the PS5 can do. Nvidia will certainly introduce new GPU's and probably have a proper mid range graphics card that can do Ray-Tracing. AMD will have one as well, as RDNA2.0 or Navi2 is coming out next year. Intel also said they will have a mid range GPU out next year. Sony couldn't have chosen a worse year to release their PS5.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming it's a system with comparable hardware built around the same time as the PS5 is available. And keep in mind that custom chipsets and software optimizations make this tricky. People complained that the PS4 was using a GPU equivalent to an outgoing mid-range chip of the era (they even complain about the PS4 Pro), but developers could also optimize the hell out of their games for the PS4's hardware. PS5 devs can safely assume they have access to a raytracing-capable GPU, a very fast SSD and similar perks the moment the PS5 ships; PC developers can't make those assumptions for a while yet.

DukenukemX said:
If the PC market dominates you lose nothing. You can plug your PC to your TV in the living room, and even use a PS4 or Xbox One gamepad on it without issue. You lose nothing and gain everything.
Click to expand...

Not quoting the Switch bit since that was debunked already.

And claiming "you lose nothing" is an explicit, malicious lie. You lose ease of use; you lose a consistent hardware target that ensures many people can play the latest games; you introduce security and stability issues that generally don't exist with consoles today. I'm not going to connect a keyboard and mouse in my living room, and I don't think anyone should have to.

What I don't get is why you seem oblivious to just how snobbish you're being, like you genuinely believe console players are inferior people. Thankfully, you've already lost this argument as far as the industry's concerned. Consoles will continue for the foreseeable future; games will continue to be genuinely accessible; people will have fun in spite of your desire to take it away from them.
 
Aurelius said:
Rolling these into one because it's a mess to deal with them all at once.

There's a common theme here: lots of speculation and "what ifs." Yeah, if PC gaming died there'd be more piracy on consoles, but it won't and there won't be; the truth remains that PCs are much more of a haven for piracy.
Click to expand...
People already pirate on consoles, it just isn't as wide spread as PC.
And on launchers? EA just signalled that it's putting games on Steam despite having its own launcher. It's still true that most game developers feel compelled to put their games in central portals like Steam or the Epic Games Store because that's where PC gamers are.
Click to expand...
I think that has more to do with declining sales from EA. Their stock has been declining a lot lately, and I believe they brought games to Steam to try and boost sales. I believe the situation for EA is that their recent sports titles have been so horrendous with loot boxes and micro-transactions that it began to have a negative effect in sales.


Not everyone could afford a PS5, and it's true that PC developers cater to audiences that can't play the latest shooters. But in your dream world, where everyone is forced to buy gaming PCs, you would have no other choice but to pony up for an expensive machine if you want a game's full experience.
Click to expand...
Nobody is forced and nobody has to spend a lot of money on an expensive PC for full experience. That's just the direction the market is going. As a consumer if a gaming PC only costs $100-$200 more than a PS5, plus you save money on Xbox Live or PS Online, it just makes more sense to jump on PC. Plus you can buy games from multiple sellers, and... it's a computer. Computers don't just play games only. Some people need to do homework, or work, or just web browsing, or print.
And had you considered that this fantasy would also increase the odds of PC developers targeting a much lower common denominator for even their most advanced games, since the only way to reach audiences comparable to today's would be to support very low-end PCs from years ago. I'm glad indie 2D games exploded on PCs, but if you had your way, those would be the only titles some people would be allowed to play.
Click to expand...
Before console gaming absorbing PC titles, we had games that sold very well that pushed PC hardware. Doom, Quake, Quake 3, Half Life are all games that didn't immediately have a console port but did require a powerful PC. There was no Half Life 2 or Doom 3 for the Playstation until the PS3 was released. Lots of people did what they could to get their PC to play these games, like getting Cyrix to run Quake.



I'm assuming it's a system with comparable hardware built around the same time as the PS5 is available. And keep in mind that custom chipsets and software optimizations make this tricky. People complained that the PS4 was using a GPU equivalent to an outgoing mid-range chip of the era (they even complain about the PS4 Pro), but developers could also optimize the hell out of their games for the PS4's hardware. PS5 devs can safely assume they have access to a raytracing-capable GPU, a very fast SSD and similar perks the moment the PS5 ships; PC developers can't make those assumptions for a while yet.
Click to expand...
Like I said, there's no console magic here. If you think a PS4 can make better use of its hardware than a PC then look at this video where a R7 260X is the same as a PS4 and Xbox One. Or just look at JERMgamings Potato masher which was a $375 PC built in 2013 being benchmarked against a PS4.




And claiming "you lose nothing" is an explicit, malicious lie. You lose ease of use;
Click to expand...
No you don't. Like what exactly is making it harder to play games on PC?
you lose a consistent hardware target that ensures many people can play the latest games;
Click to expand...
Like the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X? That's about as consistent as a 32X and Sega CD.
you introduce security and stability issues that generally don't exist with consoles today.
Click to expand...
Like the red ring of death?
I'm not going to connect a keyboard and mouse in my living room, and I don't think anyone should have to.
Click to expand...
So don't. Do what I do and connect a DualShock4.
What I don't get is why you seem oblivious to just how snobbish you're being, like you genuinely believe console players are inferior people.
Click to expand...
Aren't they?
i6tAWtu.jpg

Thankfully, you've already lost this argument as far as the industry's concerned. Consoles will continue for the foreseeable future; games will continue to be genuinely accessible; people will have fun in spite of your desire to take it away from them.
Click to expand...
You act like I'm doing it to them, when in reality they'll do it to themselves. Just like how mobile gamers went from Nintendo and Sony to Android and iOS. You always need a phone and you can always play games on it, where as you don't always need a portable console. You do need a PC, you don't always need a home gaming console.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
Derangel said:
So, you're saying PC players are shallow, lifeless, dolls that exist solely to look at and have no redeeming value beyond that?
Click to expand...
It seems like that's what you are insinuating, not him.
I think the argument has always been PC always gets a superior experience when it comes to games because they power isn't limited like on consoles. Not that the people are superior, anyone who thinks that should be slapped.
 
SomeoneElse said:
It seems like that's what you are insinuating, not him.
I think the argument has always been PC always gets a superior experience when it comes to games because they power isn't limited like on consoles. Not that the people are superior, anyone who thinks that should be slapped.
Click to expand...

You took a joke way too seriously.
 
Darunion said:
Yea let the kids have their consoles, at least it satisfies their low expectations.
Click to expand...

funny, i met some guys from russia on a job and they said over there "consoles are for kids"! LOL pretty much the same way i look at it, but prob just one more reason foreigners look at us as "lazy americans".
 
DooLocsta said:
Will I end up getting a PS5 yes, do I like this design so far? Hell No!
Click to expand...

that pic that's circulating is a fake. it was being discussed when it first came out. there's no way they would release something like that. maybe a dev kit if anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this
d3athf1sh said:
that pic that's circulating is a fake. it was being discussed when it first came out. there's no way they would release something like that. maybe a dev kit if anything.
Click to expand...

The pic is real, but it’s of a dev kit and not the final unit. I doubt the retail system will look all that different from the PS4. Just a box with some decoration.
 
Bowman15 said:
Choose either the PC or Consoles. You are not allowed to have and enjoy both. Pick a side and go full on fucking retard. :shifty:
Click to expand...

Lol, pretty much.

I never understood the elitism aspect of gaming.. I like games, therefor I play on every platform that has games/exclusives worth playing (PC, Switch, PS4, and even mobile). They all have their trade-offs, such as the show-stopping bugs on PC games like I had just this weekend with Modern Warfare, or of course lower performance and IQ in most console games where it's generally not a big deal because Sony's exclusives hold up well graphically to any PC game still even if they only run at 30-60 FPS. Then there's the awesome portability aspect of the Switch where I can play for a bit in bed before crashing or while away from home. Options are never a bad thing, regardless of how the ignorant elitists in this thread like to say otherwise.
 
Verge said:
no piracy on xbox one, no piracy on ps4 past may 2018. Excluding the switch, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Piracy on PS4 is limited to 5.05 firmware, and anything above that can't be jailbroken, at least not yet. There is no jailbreak on Xbox One but it's probably for the same reason why hardly anyone cares about emulating Xbox. All the games worth playing on Xbox One are already on PC.
 
T4rd said:
Lol, pretty much.

I never understood the elitism aspect of gaming.. I like games, therefor I play on every platform that has games/exclusives worth playing (PC, Switch, PS4, and even mobile). They all have their trade-offs, such as the show-stopping bugs on PC games like I had just this weekend with Modern Warfare, or of course lower performance and IQ in most console games where it's generally not a big deal because Sony's exclusives hold up well graphically to any PC game still even if they only run at 30-60 FPS. Then there's the awesome portability aspect of the Switch where I can play for a bit in bed before crashing or while away from home. Options are never a bad thing, regardless of how the ignorant elitists in this thread like to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I pretty much gave up arguing with folks and enjoy what I purchased with MY hard earned money. :) ;) Hey, if they want to buy everything for me than..... nah, no thanks, I prefer choices. (3 Gaming capable computers, XBox One X, XBox 360 and XBox OG)
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this
DukenukemX said:
Doesn't change anything. My point is that Nintendo had the DS with 150 million units sold and the Wii which had 100 million units sold. With the introduction of smart phones the 3DS only has 75 million and the Wii U had ~15 million. Even with 41 million units sold for the Switch, it shows that Nintendo has fallen from a very high point. Certainly the Switch will eventually reach 100 million or more units sold before the end of its life, but it's a far cry from the 100+150=250 million consoles that Nintendo had sold at one point.
Click to expand...
You are just counting the figures for consoles sold; what about software and online sales?
The market has changed drastically since the early 2010s, and even more so since the 2000s with your previous figures.

There is also a massive difference between 16 million consoles sold vs 41 million consoles sold - your numbers were were extremely off, so how much of your other data is way off, or outdated???
I'm not even trying to defend Nintendo or their consoles or anything, either, but wow!

Your posts are showing a lot of ignorance on how these industries operate and how revenue is actually generated.
There is more to a company than with the sales of consoles, and especially so if you compare these figures to previous generations such as Sony's PS3 which was loss-leader.

In other words, revenue and sales of consoles are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Do you understand this concept?

Nintendo doesn't want to make a home console as powerful as the Playstation or Xbox in fear of being totally destroyed by Sony and Microsoft. At the same time Nintendo doesn't want to get pushed out of the mobile gaming market by smart phones and tablets. Nintendo is feeling pressure from all sides.
Click to expand...
Nintendo is also following the business practices of Gunpei Yokoi, i.e., less is more.

The reason it's purely a mobile device is because it has a Tegra K1 SOC. That'll do for now, but once the PS5 is released the Switch won't be able to keep up. There's a limit to how much performance you can get out of a portable device due to heat and power consumption. I should know because I own a Switch as well, and modded both the hardware and software. I removed the thin copper sheet they put on the SOC, and put clean thermal paste as well as a thermal pad on memory because the Switch's are known to warp and make the plastic brittle from the heat it outputs. The K1 is severely under-clocked compared to other Nvidia Shield products that it's in. No matter what I'll still get at best 3 hours of battery life.
Click to expand...
But, it isn't "purely a mobile device" as it has a dock with it, thus as I and others have pointed out to you again and again, makes the Switch a hybrid console.
You are arguing semantics and splitting hairs for the sake of arguing now, and again, your point is...?

As for battery life, it depends on the game and software running.
Some games will play for upwards of 5 hours or more, and others will run for less than 3 under full load; it's that way for any device with a battery, mobile or otherwise.

Also, the GPU in the Switch is far more powerful than any GPU that is present in any smartphone or tablet; big shocker that it consumes more electricity when under load compared to other mobile devices. :rolleyes:



Reading through all of your posts, you aren't a console fan, we get it. :D
 
Last edited:
Red Falcon said:
You are just counting the figures for consoles sold; what about software and online sales?
Click to expand...
The Wii has many games that made it to the top selling games of all time. Breath of the Wild is at the bottom with Mario Kart 8 near the middle. The top is mostly populated by Wii games.

There is also a massive difference between 16 million consoles sold vs 41 million consoles sold - your numbers were were extremely off, so how much of your other data is way off, or outdated???
I'm not even trying to defend Nintendo or their consoles or anything, either, but wow!
Click to expand...
I've shown where I get my data and acknowledge that you're correct. It just doesn't make what I said incorrect. The Switch will have 100 million units sold by the end of its life, but it won't be 100 million like the Wii and 150 million like the DS. Remember the Switch is the only console Nintendo is creating from now on, which means that's it. Nintendo lost a bunch of gamers.
Your posts are showing a lot of ignorance on how these industries operate and how revenue is actually generated.
There is more to a company than with the sales of consoles, and especially so if you compare these figures to previous generations such as Sony's PS3 which was loss-leader.

In other words, revenue and sales of consoles are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Do you understand this concept?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. You can't sell games to people who don't own the hardware, but just because people have the hardware doesn't mean people will buy games for it. My point is that Nintendo maybe looking to be like Sega where they become multi-platform but a lot of focus on mobile, because sales of hardware are significantly down. The Switch isn't a failure by any means, but Nintendo as a whole would love to go back to when they had the DS and Wii practically printing money.

But, it isn't "purely a mobile device" as it has a dock with it, thus as I and others have pointed out to you again and again, makes the Switch a hybrid console.
Click to expand...
The problem with the Switch is the same problem that all mobile devices have, which is limited performance. As amazing as the Switch is with Doom 2016 and Witcher 3, it just isn't a PS4 or Xbox One. And because it came out 3 years after those consoles were released, it will soon have to contend with the PS5 and Xbox Two. Its portable nature does save it from scrutiny but that means it's a portable console.

Also, the GPU in the Switch is far more powerful than any GPU that is present in any smartphone or tablet; big shocker that it consumes more electricity when under load compared to other mobile devices. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Where did you get that info? The Tegra X1 has long ago been dethroned by Apple and Qualcomm. The Snapdragon 845 is faster than a Nvidia Shield TV, which is not a Switch. The 2017 Shield TV runs the CPU cores at 2Ghz while the Switch runs at 1Ghz. The GPU on the Shield TV runs at 1Ghz while the Switch runs at 768 MHz and 307.2 MHz depending if it's in docked mode.

Also keep in mind the Tegra X1 has active cooling when a Snapdragon 845 doesn't. Also we're up to the 855, so no the Switch doesn't have the fastest mobile GPU. That crown belongs to Apple unfortunately.

3DMark Sling Shot Extreme Unlimited (OpenGL ES 3.1/Metal)
  1. Snapdragon 845 (reference device) - 5,102
  2. NVIDIA Tegra X1 (NVIDIA Shield TV) - 4,132
  3. Snapdragon 835 (Google Pixel 2) - 3,531
  4. A11 (iPhone X) - 3,175
 
DukenukemX said:
The reason it's purely a mobile device is because it has a Tegra K1 SOC. That'll do for now, but once the PS5 is released the Switch won't be able to keep up.
Click to expand...

CPU/GPU really has nothing to do with a device being mobile or not. The Switch certainly isn't a pure home console, but again it isn't purely a mobile device either. If we talk about the Lite then yes, that is clearly designed as mobile only.

The Switch doesn't keep up with a PS4 and certainly won't with a PS5 but it isn't a direct competitor, nor does it need to be. If you're looking for high end specs, get a gaming PC.
 
DukenukemX said:
Where did you get that info? The Tegra X1 has long ago been dethroned by Apple and Qualcomm. The Snapdragon 845 is faster than a Nvidia Shield TV, which is not a Switch. The 2017 Shield TV runs the CPU cores at 2Ghz while the Switch runs at 1Ghz. The GPU on the Shield TV runs at 1Ghz while the Switch runs at 768 MHz and 307.2 MHz depending if it's in docked mode.

Also keep in mind the Tegra X1 has active cooling when a Snapdragon 845 doesn't. Also we're up to the 855, so no the Switch doesn't have the fastest mobile GPU. That crown belongs to Apple unfortunately.

3DMark Sling Shot Extreme Unlimited (OpenGL ES 3.1/Metal)
  1. Snapdragon 845 (reference device) - 5,102
  2. NVIDIA Tegra X1 (NVIDIA Shield TV) - 4,132
  3. Snapdragon 835 (Google Pixel 2) - 3,531
  4. A11 (iPhone X) - 3,175
Click to expand...

Well damn, I stand corrected!
 
Flogger23m said:
CPU/GPU really has nothing to do with a device being mobile or not. The Switch certainly isn't a pure home console, but again it isn't purely a mobile device either. If we talk about the Lite then yes, that is clearly designed as mobile only.
Click to expand...
I like how we took a PS5 topic and moved it to about the Switch. Anyway, it really doesn't matter since no matter what console Nintendo makes, people go to it for their exclusives anyway. It really shouldn't matter to a consumer, but to Nintendo it means a world of difference. I think since the Wii that Nintendo wanted to avoid competing against both Sony and Microsoft in fear of being stomped out, and by having one foot in and one foot out of the mobile market suggests that Nintendo maybe looking at mobile gaming for their future. Nintendo's best selling consoles were the DS, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance, and even the 3DS at 75 million units which is the lowest of the mobile consoles. The only home console to gain a substantial amount of sales was the Wii. So it makes sense that Nintendo would want to treat the Switch as a mobile console since that's where the real money exists. I'm sure we'll see a lot of revisions of the Switch with hardware that has better battery life and smaller size but not so much as a home console.
The Switch doesn't keep up with a PS4 and certainly won't with a PS5 but it isn't a direct competitor, nor does it need to be. If you're looking for high end specs, get a gaming PC.
Click to expand...
Yea, I guess? If the Switch is to get 3rd party games then the hardware will eventually be a limitation. The PS4 and XB1 weren't all that fast when released in 2013, and that helps the Switch as it wasn't that far behind these consoles, but the PS5 and Xbox Two are going to be different. They're going to be powerful and the games made for them are going to have Ray-Tracing. That won't happen even for the Switch 2.0.
 
DukenukemX said:
I like how we took a PS5 topic and moved it to about the Switch. Anyway, it really doesn't matter since no matter what console Nintendo makes, people go to it for their exclusives anyway. It really shouldn't matter to a consumer, but to Nintendo it means a world of difference. I think since the Wii that Nintendo wanted to avoid competing against both Sony and Microsoft in fear of being stomped out, and by having one foot in and one foot out of the mobile market suggests that Nintendo maybe looking at mobile gaming for their future. Nintendo's best selling consoles were the DS, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance, and even the 3DS at 75 million units which is the lowest of the mobile consoles. The only home console to gain a substantial amount of sales was the Wii. So it makes sense that Nintendo would want to treat the Switch as a mobile console since that's where the real money exists. I'm sure we'll see a lot of revisions of the Switch with hardware that has better battery life and smaller size but not so much as a home console.

Yea, I guess? If the Switch is to get 3rd party games then the hardware will eventually be a limitation. The PS4 and XB1 weren't all that fast when released in 2013, and that helps the Switch as it wasn't that far behind these consoles, but the PS5 and Xbox Two are going to be different. They're going to be powerful and the games made for them are going to have Ray-Tracing. That won't happen even for the Switch 2.0.
Click to expand...

future... witcher3 looks like ass on swtich
 
Bowman15 said:
Choose either the PC or Consoles. You are not allowed to have and enjoy both. Pick a side and go full on fucking retard. :shifty:
Click to expand...
What about my midrange PC and a PS2 fat? Best console ever IMO.
 
Mega6 said:
Report: PS5 GPU Outperforms a GeForce RTX 2070 Super

"if the PS5 GPU does end up running at 2GHz it will equate to 9.2 teraflops of performance on RDNA"
Click to expand...
FLOPS is not a great comparison to use for gaming performance.
I'm shocked that metric is still used for any "gaming" comparison outside of GPGPU applications.

Comparing it to the RTX 2070 with purely FLOPs is apples to oranges at best; in the world of compute, it would make more of a difference, depending on the workload.
This is just blast processing marketing, at best; anyone who reads that article should accept that information with a bag of salt.

FLOPs ≠ gaming performance
 
They probably think it's better than nothing and they can't very well test "gaming performance" until the entire thing is put together
 
Stoly said:
And an emulation beast.
Click to expand...
Now that the price has come down I was thinking of using one as a Kodi/emulator box as well. For a family member, not myself.

Mega6 said:
Report: PS5 GPU Outperforms a GeForce RTX 2070 Super

"if the PS5 GPU does end up running at 2GHz it will equate to 9.2 teraflops of performance on RDNA"
Click to expand...
This is Sony remember. Have they ever exaggerated the specs of their consoles? Remember when Sony said the PS2 could do 75 million polygons per second? Or that the Cell chip in the PS3 was so powerful that Sony tried to get Apple to use it in their Macs. Despite the PS4 having an equivalent to a Radeon HD 7850, it regularly performs like a Radeon HD 7770.

Also the whole thing is based on a Tweet that says the GPU on the PS5 will be 2Ghz, which they then assume that based on RDNA performance that it'll be around 9.8 Teraflops. If the PS5 is built like the PS4 then it'll use GDDR6 memory shared between the Zen2 based CPU and RDNA based GPU. Some performance between the GPU and CPU will be lost due to this, much like how the PS5 lost performance. We also don't know how many Stream cores or pipelines will exist either, which matters a lot.
 
A 2070S equivalent part in the SoC would be pretty crazy for either console. Either way, just by what was accomplished on PS4/Xbone hardware the next gen gaming landscape looks great imo.

I distinctly remember the great console wars of 2013 here in the Console forum when the PS4/Xbox One were released. It was in good fun, hopefully Vladracula or whatever his/her name will make a reappearance. I don’t see MS making sure a huge mistake like last time.

Regardless I’m personally super stoked about the next consoles. Ever since I got married and had kids 10 years ago I haven’t really played any PC games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top