Nintendo Switch

limitedaccess said:
From a consumer stand point I'm puzzled why a lot of people on PC tech forums seem overly concerned about the relative graphics competitiveness of consoles especially as it relates to third party content.

Being on a PC forum one has to assume that crowd is going to have some knowledge about PCs and likely have a gaming one. If graphics were the main concern it isn't like any of the consoles will be matching the PC either.

At the least Switch has the portability factor going for it which so far PC based offerings haven't been done very well aside from possibly in home streaming devices. ARM based Tablet and smart phone devices also seem to tend to serve primarily cater to a different gaming niche with the type of games predominately available and control interface limitations.

Is another traditional console clone really that important? A third entrant isn't really going to make prices lower for existing ones either, at least not any significant point that makes them more affordable. Software prices will be not effected at all. So I don't see why having Nintendo making a PS4/Xbox One direct competitor is very interesting at all. If you want one of those they exist already in the form of the PS4 and Xbox One. Or if you want one with better graphics you can build a PC.

Well actually I do have my suspicions why the Switch might be somewhat polarizing in PC communities and it has nothing to do with it in terms of it as an actual gaming product ;)
Click to expand...

I agree. A third traditional console sounds boring and quite frankly isn't something that really fits the market. There really hasn't been many generations where there was a viable third option. The PS2-GCN-Xbox and PS3-360-Wii were the only ones where that really happened and even then the Wii was an anomaly. Outside of that most generations have been one big console, a 2nd place, and then the consoles that barely made a splash. Whether we're talking about the Wii U, the Dreamcast, the Saturn, Neo Geo, 3DO, etc, etc, etc. If the Switch was just another console it would be competing against 3 years of people already buying the PS4 and XB1, that is a crazy uphill battle. It's simply not a good position to be in for any company. Nintendo absolutely has to do something different there is no room for them in the traditional console market right now.

cybereality said:
I think the issue is not that people want the graphics to be on par with other consoles, is that they want the games from other platforms. With previous gens, 3rd party developers never ported popular games because they claimed the Nintendo console was too under-powered.

It remains to be seen what will happen this time, but it's a valid concern. As good as Nintendo first party games are, the console won't be a big success without third party devs getting in on the action.
Click to expand...

It really depends on sales of both the hardware and the software. 3rd parties will support it if it's going to make them money regardless of if it matches the power of modern consoles.
 
It's starting already. "But it's a portable system!" "Horsepower doesn't matter - I care that the games are fun!" "Do we really need 3rd party games?"
Those are both awful signs for a system that isn't even out yet.
 
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis

Clock-speeds are a crucial piece of information required to get some idea of Switch's capabilities beyond the physical make-up of the Tegra processor. As many have speculated, the new Nintendo hardware does indeed feature two performance configurations - and the console is categorically not as capable in mobile form, compared to its prowess when docked and attached to an HDTV. And we can confirm that there is no second GPU or additional hardware in the dock itself regardless of the intriguing patents that Nintendo has filed suggesting that there might be. With battery life and power throughput no longer an issue, the docked Switch simply allows the GPU to run much faster. And to put it simply, there is a night and day difference here.

Where Switch remains consistent is in CPU power - the cores run at 1020MHz regardless of whether the machine is docked or undocked. This ensures that running game logic won't be compromised while gaming on the go: the game simulation itself will remain entirely consistent. The machine's embedded memory controller runs at 1600MHz while docked (on par with a standard Tegra X1), but the default power mode undocked sees this drop to 1331MHz. However, developers can opt to retain full memory bandwidth in their titles should they choose to do so.

As things stand, CPU clocks are halved compared to the standard Tegra X1, but it's the GPU aspect of the equation that will prove more controversial. Even while docked, Switch doesn't run at Tegra X1's full potential. Clock-speeds are locked here at 768MHz, considerably lower than the 1GHz found in Shield Android TV, but the big surprise from our perspective was the extent to which Nintendo has down-clocked the GPU to hit its thermal and battery life targets. That's not a typo: it really is 307.2MHz - meaning that in portable mode, Switch runs at exactly 40 per cent of the clock-speed of the fully docked device. And yes, the table below does indeed confirm that developers can choose to hobble Switch performance when plugged in to match the handheld profile should they so choose.
Click to expand...

Pretty much confirmed by Laura Kate Dale (who has an unimpeachable record with Switch leaks so far):
 
Eurogamer has popped up with a new rumor. This one talking about clock speeds. Warning: It's not pretty. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis

Docked or undocked the CPU cores run at 1020MHz

When undocked the GPU runs at 307.2MHz

When docked the GPU can run up to a maximum of 768MHz but developers have the option to force it stay in tablet mode even when docked.

Docked or undocked developers have the option of running the memory controller at either 1331MHz or 1600MHz.

For reference: The Shield TV's GPU runs at 1GHz and the CPU cores can operate at up to 2GHz

Having the Switch stay at a consistant CPU clock speed no matter the mode makes sense, large charges could mess with game logic and make it harder for developers to design games for the system. The GPU clock being that low even while docked is rather surprising though.
 
Derangel said:
Eurogamer has popped up with a new rumor. This one talking about clock speeds. Warning: It's not pretty. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis

Docked or undocked the CPU cores run at 1020MHz

When undocked the GPU runs at 307.2MHz

When docked the GPU can run up to a maximum of 768MHz but developers have the option to force it stay in tablet mode even when docked.

Docked or undocked developers have the option of running the memory controller at either 1331MHz or 1600MHz.

For reference: The Shield TV's GPU runs at 1GHz and the CPU cores can operate at up to 2GHz

Having the Switch stay at a consistant CPU clock speed no matter the mode makes sense, large charges could mess with game logic and make it harder for developers to design games for the system. The GPU clock being that low even while docked is rather surprising though.
Click to expand...

Limited by choosen form factor. Not shocking at all. Less powerful then the X1.
 
Better be 149.99 or this thing will bomb. Nintendos OS and ecosystem are already 10 years behind.

This might be their last console.
 
Nintendo Switch to support Vulkan, OpenGL 4.5 and OpenGL ES.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...to_support_Vulkan_OpenGL_45_and_OpenGL_ES.php

Good thing is that Vulkan is a game changer! The power speed over OpenGL is awesome!

Bad thing is that as far as I know, Nvidia seems to give zero f*cks about Vulkan on the PC looking at benchmarks from 2016 on Pascal. Maybe they have some secret Maxwell sauce for the Nintendo Switch?
 
cageymaru said:
Nintendo Switch to support Vulkan, OpenGL 4.5 and OpenGL ES.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...to_support_Vulkan_OpenGL_45_and_OpenGL_ES.php

Good thing is that Vulkan is a game changer! The power speed over OpenGL is awesome!

Bad thing is that as far as I know, Nvidia seems to give zero f*cks about Vulkan on the PC looking at benchmarks from 2016 on Pascal. Maybe they have some secret Maxwell sauce for the Nintendo Switch?
Click to expand...

Yes, but Nintendo aren't idiots, and their OS doesn't exactly run Windows drivers. I have a feeling it will gel just fine with the Tegra/Vulkan/etc. They're not going to allow poor performance because Nvidia only half-asses where Vulkan is concerned. They can get away with that on the PC, but not on a co-developed console. This is the last thing that I would worry about personally.

At this point, I'm just holding off until their announcement in January. Who knows how old the spec is that the above article is based on. Could be brand new and spot on, but reading that article sounds like it was educated, but still a bit of guess-work.

As to being $150, that's less than a 3DS costs, and that would be absolutely asinine. Nintendo is aware of their current position, what people think, and they've publicly stated that they plan to change that. I'm not exactly taking that at 100% face-value, but I have to think that they have a decent idea of how this is all going to work. It's not going to come out and just plain suck.
 
It's all speculation at this point, but this feels more like a successor to the 3DS that just happens to be easy to play on your TV, too.
I guess it puts them in a unique space where they can argue that they aren't competing with the other consoles...yet Skyrim being shown in their demo suggests otherwise.

I think I'm in the mode where I hope the damn thing tanks and this is the last time we have to buy Nintendo hardware. Every single system since the SNES has been full of caveats and eye rolls and I'm sick of it.
 
J3RK said:
Yes, but Nintendo aren't idiots, and their OS doesn't exactly run Windows drivers. I have a feeling it will gel just fine with the Tegra/Vulkan/etc. They're not going to allow poor performance because Nvidia only half-asses where Vulkan is concerned. They can get away with that on the PC, but not on a co-developed console. This is the last thing that I would worry about personally.

At this point, I'm just holding off until their announcement in January. Who knows how old the spec is that the above article is based on. Could be brand new and spot on, but reading that article sounds like it was educated, but still a bit of guess-work.

As to being $150, that's less than a 3DS costs, and that would be absolutely asinine. Nintendo is aware of their current position, what people think, and they've publicly stated that they plan to change that. I'm not exactly taking that at 100% face-value, but I have to think that they have a decent idea of how this is all going to work. It's not going to come out and just plain suck.
Click to expand...


My money is on $249 base model, $299 deluxe. Basically the same points as both the Wii and WiiU at launch.
 
Domingo said:
It's all speculation at this point, but this feels more like a successor to the 3DS that just happens to be easy to play on your TV, too.
I guess it puts them in a unique space where they can argue that they aren't competing with the other consoles...yet Skyrim being shown in their demo suggests otherwise.

I think I'm in the mode where I hope the damn thing tanks and this is the last time we have to buy Nintendo hardware. Every single system since the SNES has been full of caveats and eye rolls and I'm sick of it.
Click to expand...

I actually would hate this. They are the ONLY game company that still makes DIFFERENT hardware. Sure some of it is gimmicky, and they don't always get a hit, but at least they provide an alternative to PlayBoxes. How many consoles do we need that play the same games the same way. XBox One, PS4 and PC all play THE SAME GAMES... Sure there's an exlusive here or there, but why in the hell would we want yet another one from Nintendo? It's covered. Exceedingly well. I don't understand why people can't appreciate the difference, and just want them to be another cookie cutter system.

You either like Nintendo or you don't really, and that's fine, but the day they just provide the same thing that other companies do, is the day I lose interest.

The landscape is different now. When the SNES came out, it was Sega and Nintendo. Home computers were very much separate things then, companies like NEC/Hudson (I loved the TG16 btw.) were trailing by a long way (at least here in the West.) When Sony hit with the PSX we had Nintendo, and Sony, with Sega now trailing behind. I'll call the Dreamcast Sega's Wii U, only I don't wish the same fate on Nintendo that befell Sega. Now with MS in the ring for the past decade, Nintendo has taken the only sensible route, which is to differentiate themselves from the two main, mainstream AAA competitors. It's something that if Sega was a bit smarter at the time, could possibly have done. (at least for another generation or two)

There's simply not enough room for the PC and three nearly identical consoles. I don't know why anyone would actually want that scenario in the first place. It's really puzzling.

It does limit Nintendo's appeal in some cases and with some people, but IMO they provide something that nobody else does, and that's far more valuable than adding yet another BoxStation to a crowded market.

Also, on your SNES comment, the N64 and GameCube were both highly competitive with the other consoles of the times. The Gamecube blew the doors off of the PS2, and look what happened there. It still sold the least amount of system for the generation even with decent third party support, and excellent technology. The same thing would happen now if they released a Nintendo equivalent of the XBOne or PS4. I think what they've got here is incredibly cool. I would love for it to have more performance than people are hinting at, but just from the footage they've shown, they have enough power to do what they need to do IMO. If those last couple of linked articles turn out to be spot on, sure, I will be a bit disappointed from my technology-guts-nerd perspective, and wish they had waited to pack a Pascal inside, but on the other hand, if it's plenty faster than the Wii U, works at 1080/60 on TVs and 720/60 while undocked, while have excellent first party and "anything better than Wii U" third party, I can't see myself being much happier about it as an addition to my PCs and other systems.
 
I think it's a matter of me not having any desire for a 3rd console at all. I'd much rather have Nintendo's games on the Xbox One, PS4, PC, VR, etc. than to have to drop $200-400 for a Nintendo system I don't actually want.

I don't have any need for a quirky system with proprietary controls, disks, carts, etc. Especially when almost no developers care about the advantages those quirky systems can offer. They'd rather spend their time with a game that can either reach 3 other systems OR they can get fat paid to make an exclusive. The Nintendo games I really want (Mario Kart, Smash, Mario, Metroid, Zelda, etc.) didn't benefit from any of those gimmicks anyway. If anything, those are games that could benefit from more horsepower and/or better audio - 2 things Nintendo has slacked off on.
Sega got exactly what they deserved, because they were going a similar route. New "innovative" hardware showing up constantly without a plan to actually support it. I owned a Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, Saturn, etc. and don't feel bad about them tanking at all.

I certainly don't want any sort of hardware monopoly, but having a 3rd system that I don't actually want or have any faith in is worse. Give me a dark horse company like Oculus or even Valve entering the fray with their own system. I'd rather have Sony, MS, the PC (+ someone else I still have faith in) without the burden of Nintendo's latest attempt at innovating at the cost of other features or standards. The renaissance of video gaming in the 80's was led almost entirely by 2 console companies + PC, so it's not like losing another console company will bury the industry.
 
Domingo said:
I think it's a matter of me not having any desire for a 3rd console at all.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.

For me though, I like to buy new toys. And if I'm going to get a new toy, I'd like it to be different than my other toys. I'm probably a special case though, and don't really matter in the long run as far as any gaming company is concerned (except Valve since I have 300 games in Steam).

Just to give you an idea of why I want something different, here is what's currently in my house in full service/operation and used on a regular basis. (First I have a wife, a son, and three daughters, so there are some varied interests in the house.)

Everyone in the house has a laptop (I have three).
My son and I have decently powerful desktops, plus there's a spare.
We have an old 27" iMac that kind of sits in this or that location depending on the latest renovation or rearrangement of this or that room.
I have an Nvidia Shield TV mostly so I can stream from the main floor to the top floor, in case I want to play in bed. :D
We have a Wii that's attached to the little panel in the kitchen. My wife uses it to toss Netflix on, but the kids play Zelda and Mario games in there too sometimes.
We have a Wii U attached to the living room TV along with a decently powerful PC.
My oldest daughter has an XBox One in her room.
My son has a PS4 in his room.
There's a Gamecube in my work-room so the kids can play while I'm working on projects.
We have a DS, 2DS, 2x 3DS, N3DSXL, and a clamshell GBA.
I have a stack of old C64Ses in my work room (all functional)
Then I emulate all of the older stuff. (I still have the systems and cartridges in boxes at my parents' house.)

Yes, I'm a big nerd. Anyway, the last thing I need is one more PC/XBox/PS4 system if I want to try something new. I want something that does something better or differently than what I have. The Switch does portable better than what I have now. Check. It's more powerful than the Wii U. Check. It plays games that the other current gen consoles won't. Check Sounds good to me. Then the Wii U will get shifted to the guest bedroom or something. :D

Sorry for giving you the life-story post. Just illustrating why Nintendo's systems tend to appeal to me. They offer something a bit different to everything else in the house. I like new things to play with. I get enough of the big name 3rd party AAA stuff on the PC. The latest Nintendo device gives me something different to look forward too. Even when it's a different way to play similar games to their older games. It's still enough of a difference to make it worthwhile.

I suppose that yes, if Nintendo start making their games for other platforms I would still play them, but then they lose a bit of the somewhat undefined magic behind what they've always been.

I think your reasoning is perfectly sound. If you don't want/need another system, you don't want/need another system. I get that. I just like to get excited over something new, and N gives me the biggest reasons to get excited BECAUSE of their odd approach.
 
Even if the Switch tanks they still have the 3DS. They will keep them afloat even if they have to wait a few years. Don’t see Mario coming to PC, Xbox or PS anytime soon.
 
Kinsaras said:
Even if the Switch tanks they still have the 3DS. They will keep them afloat even if they have to wait a few years. Don’t see Mario coming to PC, Xbox or PS anytime soon.
Click to expand...

There's always room for them to change their mind, but they've gone on record a few times saying that the day they stop making hardware is the day they stop making games. Cool sentiment. I don't know that if it came right down to it if they'd really just close for good or not, but I like that they're pretty firm about that. They definitely haven't made hardware to go up against the biggest competitors in a long time, but the things they do make are pretty cool at least IMO.
 
I tend to like gadgets, but more along the lines of the high end rather than the unusual. Other than craft beer, travel, and living expenses, it's where almost all of my money goes. It's a bit foolish at times and I'll admit that readily.
I own a PS4 Pro and a PSVR now. I'll probably end up with a Scorpio at launch. I keep an up-to-date gaming PC.
I have a 4K TV with HDR and a 7.1 surround-sound system with the latest formats.

Yet I don't own a tablet. I've never owned a laptop in my entire life. I don't have an Alexa or a Chromecast. I don't play mobile games at all.
I generally hate every piece of Nintendo hardware since the SNES days, in spite of some having classic games.
Whenever a new console or piece of hardware comes out, I tend to sell my old ones ASAP. Backward compatibility and emulation have usually been friendly toward that until recently.

For me, all of those things feel like lesser versions of things I already have, but with some minor caveats. I appreciate antiques, but in my mind (right or wrong), old tech is pointless to me.
Nintendo's consoles always feel like that because they're almost always lesser in some major way. It burns me up :p Just once I want Nintendo to come out with a system that literally trumps the competition in every way without some kind of catch.
 
Yeah, that would be entirely welcome. :D I'd love to see that too. It's not like I'd rather they went less powerful. It's just that I do appreciate some of the different directions they've gone. Some of the ways they've veered toward efficiency, the 3DS concept is cool too. Shovel Knight in 3D is incredible! They're willing to try things out. Some work out, some don't, but they definitely do some different and interesting things. I hear you on the high-end thing. I actually design analog synthesizers, and tend to lean toward higher end components, high quality hardware/switches/knobs/panel materials/etc. I also enjoy higher end audio hardware (though not the insane audiophile type,) just good gear. I also refuse to have devices that I have to talk to. Fucking machines. :D

Also, historically, they've always had gimmicks. I mean... A robot that spins a top with what, one or two games that supported it? :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Domingo said:
I tend to like gadgets, but more along the lines of the high end rather than the unusual. Other than craft beer, travel, and living expenses, it's where almost all of my money goes. It's a bit foolish at times and I'll admit that readily.
I own a PS4 Pro and a PSVR now. I'll probably end up with a Scorpio at launch. I keep an up-to-date gaming PC.
I have a 4K TV with HDR and a 7.1 surround-sound system with the latest formats.

Yet I don't own a tablet. I've never owned a laptop in my entire life. I don't have an Alexa or a Chromecast. I don't play mobile games at all.
I generally hate every piece of Nintendo hardware since the SNES days, in spite of some having classic games.
Whenever a new console or piece of hardware comes out, I tend to sell my old ones ASAP. Backward compatibility and emulation have usually been friendly toward that until recently.

For me, all of those things feel like lesser versions of things I already have, but with some minor caveats. I appreciate antiques, but in my mind (right or wrong), old tech is pointless to me.
Nintendo's consoles always feel like that because they're almost always lesser in some major way. It burns me up :p Just once I want Nintendo to come out with a system that literally trumps the competition in every way without some kind of catch.
Click to expand...

It's simply not viable for Nintendo to go the "outpower everyone route". Unlike their competitors Nintendo is not a massive multimedia or electronics company. They may have a lot of money in bank, but they still can't afford to compete on the same level. In order to beat the upcoming console refreshes they'd be spending billions and billions on R&D and they'd have to be willing to take big losses on hardware in order sell it at a reasonable price. For zero real benefit because there simply is not room for a 3rd super powered console in the game industry and the other two already have customers that are not likely to want to ditch their expensive gaming machines or another expensive gaming machine that plays the exact same games they already can. It would be suicide for Nintendo to try to compete on that level.
 
The specs are absolutely an unmitigated disaster. This will be the first Nintendo console I don't buy at launch since the original NES. Tragic.
 
Blackstone said:
The specs are absolutely an unmitigated disaster. This will be the first Nintendo console I don't buy at launch since the original NES. Tragic.
Click to expand...

K, bye.

Frankly the specs don't matter and the 3DS proves that. At the end of the day Nintendo's first party development groups put out outstanding titles that are fun to play. No one gives a shit about specs as long as they are putting out fun games.

And i'm not really sure why anyone should care about specs given the fact that we already have two X86 based boxes that let people play Call of Duty 57: Return to Grenada or whatever flavor of the week "AAA" shovelware is coming out. I'll tell you that as someone with a high-end PC I absolutely do not care what the specs are of Nintendo consoles as I already have a device that can play technology pushing games.
 
Blackstone said:
The specs are absolutely an unmitigated disaster. This will be the first Nintendo console I don't buy at launch since the original NES. Tragic.
Click to expand...

Still staying your opinion as fact huh Blackstone? You'll never change. Too set in your narrowminded ways.
 
ZodaEX said:
Still staying your opinion as fact huh Blackstone? You'll never change. Too set in your narrowminded ways.
Click to expand...
LMAO. Who the hell are you and what did I ever do or say to deserve such targeted trolling.

Seriously though, weren't you hoping for quite a bit more power than Wii U? This is the hardware set that will set the technical limitatations for my favorite franchizes, especially Zelda. And now I found out it isn't as powerful as a GeForcre Shield? If they want to make retro games like a Link Between Worlds, I'm in, but let's say the next open world 3D Zelda launches in six years based on this hardware. Breath may be awesome NOW, but how will we feel about its sucessor, full of aliasing and jaggies, six or seven years from now.

They need to get their software on PS4 and XBOX. Nobody needs or wants this thing and I am a guy that has a green Zelda bathrobe and green stocking cap with elf ears on my holiday wish list, so yes my opinions on this matter should carry some weight.

It was time to give their games some GPU horsepower.
 
Blackstone said:
LMAO. Who the hell are you and what did I ever do or say to deserve such targeted trolling.

Seriously though, weren't you hoping for quite a bit more power than Wii U? This is the hardware set that will set the technical limitatations for my favorite franchizes, especially Zelda. And now I found out it isn't as powerful as a GeForcre Shield? If they want to make retro games like a Link Between Worlds, I'm in, but let's say the next open world 3D Zelda launches in six years based on this hardware. Breath may be awesome NOW, but how will we feel about its sucessor, full of aliasing and jaggies, six or seven years from now.

They need to get their software on PS4 and XBOX. Nobody needs or wants this thing and I am a guy that has a green Zelda bathrobe and green stocking cap with elf ears on my holiday wish list, so yes my opinions on this matter should carry some weight.

It was time to give their games some GPU horsepower.
Click to expand...

Why would your opinions carry more weight than every other random person on the internet? You're not a developer, you don't work for Nintendo, you don't offer up anything substantial beyond your own thoughts. They're not worth more than anyone else's opinions. And don't pretend you can decide what every single person needs or wants, because you can't.
 
Nintendo might be overstating performance a bit:

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Nintendo-Switch-News-and-Rumor-Round

The FLOP calculation of Sony and Microsoft is 2 x Shader Count x Frequency, but the calculation of Nintendo’s Switch is 4 x Shader Count x Frequency. FMA is the factor of two, but the extra factor of two in Nintendo’s case... ...

Yup, the Switch’s performance rating is calculated as FP16, not FP32.

Reducing shader precision down to 16-bit is common for mobile devices. It takes less transistors to store and translate half-precision values, and accumulated error will be muted by the fact that you’re viewing it on a mobile screen. The Switch isn’t always a mobile device, though, so it will be interesting to see how this reduction of lighting and shading precision will affect games on your home TV, especially in titles that don’t follow Nintendo’s art styles. That said, shaders could use 32-bit values, but then you are cutting your performance for those instructions in half, when you are already somewhat behind your competitors.
Click to expand...

If true, then the given GFLOP numbers are overstated by a factor of two. For FP32, you'd get around 393/158 GFLOPs Docked/Undocked, which is paltry compared to the 1310/1840 GFLOPs of the XB1/PS4. In fact, they'd be lower then the WiiU.

So yeah, the switch is basically limited to FP16, which tells you all you need to know about its performance. It's a mobile device, and it should be treated as one. Anyone trying to compare this to a non-mobile device is going to be badly disappointed.
 
gamerk2 said:
Nintendo might be overstating performance a bit:

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Nintendo-Switch-News-and-Rumor-Round



If true, then the given GFLOP numbers are overstated by a factor of two. For FP32, you'd get around 393/158 GFLOPs Docked/Undocked, which is paltry compared to the 1310/1840 GFLOPs of the XB1/PS4. In fact, they'd be lower then the WiiU.

So yeah, the switch is basically limited to FP16, which tells you all you need to know about its performance. It's a mobile device, and it should be treated as one. Anyone trying to compare this to a non-mobile device is going to be badly disappointed.
Click to expand...

The
 
The whole system is starting to look like a cynical cash grab with no technical justification for even existing. Everything about this unit is compromised. This is not even a game console. I hope it fails and they just develop for mobile and PS4/XBONE

They are offering up a turd sandwich and using the Wii U Zelda to hide the smell. Any device with these specs held out as a full console is bad, bad news. Actually this looks more like the end of their console business than a new chapter. Mobile only Nintendo is what we are getting and it ain't pretty.
 
Blackstone said:
This is not even a game console.
Click to expand...

It never was.

The Switch is a 3DS replacement first and foremost. The fact it can dock is Nintendo trying to have it both ways, but this is primarily Nintendo focusing on mobile (which we've known they've been heading toward for a while now) and giving up on mainline console development.

I've said from day one the Switch is not a console, and should not be treated as such. View it for what it is: Nintendo's next handheld.
 
gamerk2 said:
Nintendo might be overstating performance a bit:

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Nintendo-Switch-News-and-Rumor-Round



If true, then the given GFLOP numbers are overstated by a factor of two. For FP32, you'd get around 393/158 GFLOPs Docked/Undocked, which is paltry compared to the 1310/1840 GFLOPs of the XB1/PS4. In fact, they'd be lower then the WiiU.

So yeah, the switch is basically limited to FP16, which tells you all you need to know about its performance. It's a mobile device, and it should be treated as one. Anyone trying to compare this to a non-mobile device is going to be badly disappointed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm going to call BS on their numbers. There is no chance that it's weaker than the Wii U. Comparing Zelda footage from both system clearly shows the Switch version running smoothly while the Wii U runs incredibly choppy. Visually there appears to be no noticeable difference between the two. If the Switch was weaker than the Wii U there is no way in hell it could run Breath of the Wild well. Not to mention the Switch can run non-mobile version of UE4 according to UE4 documentation. On top of that there is Todd Howard basically confirming that that Switch is getting Skyrim and stating that it is "stronger than you expect" (something to that effect, I don't remember the exact quote off hand). So there is zero chance of it being weaker than the Wii U.
 
Well if it is not a console and there is no console in the works, this is Nintendo's death knell.

Breath of the Wild might be the last game of its kind. I don't expect much from it, also.

The disparity in visual fidelity will put them out of the open world adventure game genre. I thought Skyward Sword was unplayable launching against Skyrim, for example.

If it is a new mobile machine, they sure have created a lot of confusion about it.

Having said that, Ocarina 3D and A Link Between Worlds were 3DS games and two of my favorite experiences on any platform. I don't mind if they make less ambitious but fun games so long as they can give them a polished look. There is nothing worse than a game that looks like it needs a ton of anti-aliasing.
 
Like I figured. If the specs were good, then it's "Nintendo is BACK and changing the game."
If the specs are especially soft "It's a portable - what did you expect!?!"

Nintendo is lucky they inspired my generation to buy whatever they're selling, otherwise they probably wouldn't have made it this far.
 
gamerk2 said:
It never was.

The Switch is a 3DS replacement first and foremost. The fact it can dock is Nintendo trying to have it both ways, but this is primarily Nintendo focusing on mobile (which we've known they've been heading toward for a while now) and giving up on mainline console development.

I've said from day one the Switch is not a console, and should not be treated as such. View it for what it is: Nintendo's next handheld.
Click to expand...

I can't read Japanese, but according to this guy Nintendo disagrees with you, so I'm not sure where you came up with the Switch being a 3DS replacement. There may still be a 3DS replacement coming:


Have to wait and see what NS battery life is like. I'm disappointed in the Switch being so neutered but I don't play much on consoles anymore. Actually prefer the Wii-U to the X/PS4 and will pick up a Switch as well for the Zelda and Mario experiences.

But definitely won't be un-docking it. I got a 3DS years ago and don't think I played it once.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How Nintendo wants to market it is their problem. They want to sell it as a console , then I would rather buy something else. The key is what can it offer on games. Nintendo is very good at their own games but so far other offerings have been lacklustre and this was already going on on the GameCube.

Were not talking about 1001 different first person shooters but some variety is welcome as long as Nintendo can manage that who cares if it is a console or a handheld ;)
 
Derangel said:
Yeah, I'm going to call BS on their numbers. There is no chance that it's weaker than the Wii U. Comparing Zelda footage from both system clearly shows the Switch version running smoothly while the Wii U runs incredibly choppy. Visually there appears to be no noticeable difference between the two. If the Switch was weaker than the Wii U there is no way in hell it could run Breath of the Wild well. Not to mention the Switch can run non-mobile version of UE4 according to UE4 documentation. On top of that there is Todd Howard basically confirming that that Switch is getting Skyrim and stating that it is "stronger than you expect" (something to that effect, I don't remember the exact quote off hand). So there is zero chance of it being weaker than the Wii U.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point here: If the mobile version is using FP16 functions, then what you're seeing is pretty much expected. You lose a bit of fidelity in exchange for performance.
 
gamerk2 said:
You're missing the point here: If the mobile version is using FP16 functions, then what you're seeing is pretty much expected. You lose a bit of fidelity in exchange for performance.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have to use FP16 in both modes or is it capable of using 32 when docked? Being on par or slightly under the Wii U when in tablet mode I could totally buy, especially since it supposedly limited to 720p, but I'd have a hard time believing that it's weaker when docked. Maybe not significantly stronger, but still stronger.
 
CCLMD said:
I can't read Japanese, but according to this guy Nintendo disagrees with you, so I'm not sure where you came up with the Switch being a 3DS replacement. There may still be a 3DS replacement coming:


Have to wait and see what NS battery life is like. I'm disappointed in the Switch being so neutered but I don't play much on consoles anymore. Actually prefer the Wii-U to the X/PS4 and will pick up a Switch as well for the Zelda and Mario experiences.

But definitely won't be un-docking it. I got a 3DS years ago and don't think I played it once.
Click to expand...

Of course Nintendo is saying that.

But again the reason for the Switch is so they can merge their software lines. Sure, the 3DS will be around for another couple years - But the 3DS 'successor' will just be a more portable version of the switch IMO.
 
Mchart said:
Of course Nintendo is saying that.

But again the reason for the Switch is so they can merge their software lines. Sure, the 3DS will be around for another couple years - But the 3DS 'successor' will just be a more portable version of the switch IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah. People also need to remember how Nintendo handles replacements. They claimed that the 3DS wasn't a successor to the DS, they claimed that the DS wasn't a successor to the Gameboy. Heck they went as far as trying to claim that the Wii, DS, and Gameboy were three pillars of their strategy. Then the DS ended up replacing the Gameboy and the 3DS replaced the DS. Nintendo never admits that they're phasing out a handheld. Don't buy into their claims, they'll keep the 3DS around for a bit as long as it's selling well and as long as it gets support but don't count on Nintendo themselves giving it a lot of games. If the rumor of Gamefreak making a third version of SuMo for the Switch is true then that all but confirms that Nintendo is done with the 3DS.
 
Agreed. Gamefreak tends to stay an extra year or two on the old platform, but they're already talking of a Sun/Moon version. I imagine it will split the player base. I also doubt we'll see another Pokemon game on the 3DS; which would be odd to only have a single Gen 7 game on the system. But if they're already going to the Switch it is safe to say they want to build their community around the new console.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top