No new Switch this year as Nintendo plans to ramp up production post pandemic induced shortage

Marees

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
2,163

Nintendo Switch Report Could Mean Longer Wait for Next Console​


according to a new report from Bloomberg, Nintendo actually plans to increase production on the system! Nintendo cut sales expectations last year as a result of the global chip shortage, but now that the shortage seems to have ended, the company is apparently planning to ramp production back up.

For this fiscal year, Nintendo is aiming to sell 19 million units, and Bloomberg's sources say that the company plans to exceed that number in the next one

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/nintendo-switch-lite-oled-report-longer-wait-next-console/

P.S.
Old report from more than a year ago (late 2021):

During a Q&A call transcribed and summarised by analyst David Gibson, Nintendo was specifically asked about the next console. While it had nothing concrete to say, it added that the Switch is probably in the middle of its life cycle.

So, assuming the Switch continues to receive support for another four years, you could see Nintendo’s next console at some point in 2025 or 2026.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/05/nint...d-for-sometime-in-the-next-78-years-15550317/

P.S.2
Switch pro cancelled due to supply crunch. Nintendo to focus on Switch Next

Rumor: Digital Foundry claims mid-generation Switch hardware refresh was once planned​


Digital Foundry’s John Linneman has now weighed in on the situation in the outlet’s latest podcast. After speaking with some developers, he believes Nintendo was at once point toying around with a Switch hardware refresh. However, “that seems to no longer be happening” and the company is apparently pursuing a true successor instead.

Linneman’s full words:

“So I think at one point internally from what I can understand from talking to different developers, is that there was some sort of mid-generation Switch update planned at one point and that seems to be no longer happening. And thus it’s pretty clear that whatever they do next is going to be the actual next-generation hardware. I don’t think it’s going to be 2023.”

https://www.essentiallysports.com/e...2-being-delayed-to-an-unspecified-later-date/
 
Does the strange rumors that Nvidia forced them away from the old Tegra APU that they stopped producing in 2021 and Nintendo was running on reserve will die off ?
 
I think the OLED Switch is hard evidence they planned to do a Switch pro. Larger, OLED screen. Metal Joycons. Metal dock---with 4K output. Built-in LAN. I think they had planned on putting a better CPU/GPU in there. But couldn't, due to shortages.
 
I think the OLED Switch is hard evidence they planned to do a Switch pro. Larger, OLED screen. Metal Joycons. Metal dock---with 4K output. Built-in LAN. I think they had planned on putting a better CPU/GPU in there. But couldn't, due to shortages.

Likely. I'm guessing they're sitting on a design (and likely a choice of chip), but can't/couldn't move forward due to capacity issues. Current Switch is still selling (with a 6 year-old chip), so why rush anyways?

In any case, even a new SoC is going to be at least a few years outmoded on any Nintendo device. I'm thinking ultra low-power Ampere with 2000-2500 cores, 128-bit, gflops and rasterization somewhere around a 3050... but even that is likely optimistic.
 
Wild guess, they're going to come out with something that's quirky (borderline gimmicky) and underpowered.
No matter what it turns out to be, there will be people that defend it endlessly and repeatedly say "I don't care about graphics, I only care about fun." Those things being mutually exclusive, of course.
Those same people will buy 2-3 more for their kids (along with Mario/Luigi clothing), who will abandon that old people stuff and go back to playing Roblox and Fortnite.
We'll probably get a single Zelda game, Metroid game, Mario Kart game, Smash game, and Mario game...although at least two of those will be just be ports from the Switch. New F-Zero? Pfffft. No. Ports of games on the other systems that aren't a joke? Pfffft. No. Versions of the console in multiple colors? HELL YES!
 
Switch pro cancelled
This was always a stupid name. Nintendo would never call it "Switch Pro". That's not how they name stuff. They barely even differentiate the new OLED model from the original--the packaging material just says OLED at the bottom of the box.
 
So no new SHIELD either, though with killing GameStream, also not really a problem either
 
Wild guess, they're going to come out with something that's quirky (borderline gimmicky) and underpowered.
No matter what it turns out to be, there will be people that defend it endlessly and repeatedly say "I don't care about graphics, I only care about fun." Those things being mutually exclusive, of course.
Those same people will buy 2-3 more for their kids (along with Mario/Luigi clothing), who will abandon that old people stuff and go back to playing Roblox and Fortnite.
We'll probably get a single Zelda game, Metroid game, Mario Kart game, Smash game, and Mario game...although at least two of those will be just be ports from the Switch. New F-Zero? Pfffft. No. Ports of games on the other systems that aren't a joke? Pfffft. No. Versions of the console in multiple colors? HELL YES!
Well, there's only so much gaming potential in ~18 watts. And I don't think the power envelope for the next system will be much different.
There are things they could do, for docked mode. Such as have more heatsink surface area in Switch 2, so that when it is docked, they can go up to 30 watts or something. But...I'm not so sure they will do that.

I think the Switch has been great, really. And I don't think Nintendo's next system will be very different. I think it will basically be a next gen Switch (A handheld you can dock. Has detachable controllers). The biggest differences, aside from stronger CPU and GPU, will hopefully come from a lot more features in the OS. And better support for online features.
 
Wild guess, they're going to come out with something that's quirky (borderline gimmicky) and underpowered.
No matter what it turns out to be, there will be people that defend it endlessly and repeatedly say "I don't care about graphics, I only care about fun." Those things being mutually exclusive, of course.
Those same people will buy 2-3 more for their kids (along with Mario/Luigi clothing), who will abandon that old people stuff and go back to playing Roblox and Fortnite.
We'll probably get a single Zelda game, Metroid game, Mario Kart game, Smash game, and Mario game...although at least two of those will be just be ports from the Switch. New F-Zero? Pfffft. No. Ports of games on the other systems that aren't a joke? Pfffft. No. Versions of the console in multiple colors? HELL YES!
If they were to release one this year say around Christmas, at this point I would expect them to base it on the Nvidia Orion platform, probably the 6-core variant, Nvidia's cost on it is almost identical to the X1's Nintendo uses for the switch, and it has the same power and thermal ratings, but going from 4 A57 cores with a Maxwell GPU to 6 A78 cores and an Ampere GPU would be a big step up.
Nvidia already has it available as an SoC order for bulk integration, TE980-M
 
If they were to release one this year say around Christmas, at this point I would expect them to base it on the Nvidia Orion platform, probably the 6-core variant, Nvidia's cost on it is almost identical to the X1's Nintendo uses for the switch, and it has the same power and thermal ratings, but going from 4 A57 cores with a Maxwell GPU to 6 A78 cores and an Ampere GPU would be a big step up.
Nvidia already has it available as an SoC order for bulk integration, TE980-M
I would expect Nintendo to release this as the next gen switch in 2025/2026

What process node is it on btw?

I wouldn't expect samsung's nodes to be efficient enough to power a handheld. Probably TSMC 6nm !?
 
confused. Is this sarcasm?
LOL, yes. "I only care about games being fun" is this strange rallying cry of Nintendo diehards whenever anyone brings up their last-gen graphics. You'd think that graphics and fun can't ever coexist. It also seems to ignore that everyone's favorite Nintendo system, the NES, was overpowered AF compared to the Atari, Coleco, Intellevision, etc.
 
LOL, yes. "I only care about games being fun" is this strange rallying cry of Nintendo diehards whenever anyone brings up their last-gen graphics. You'd think that graphics and fun can't ever coexist. It also seems to ignore that everyone's favorite Nintendo system, the NES, was overpowered AF compared to the Atari, Coleco, Intellevision, etc.

I mean yes but at the same time how long have you/we seen Nintendo makes products with lower/older spec parts......

The argument both ways is "how do you not get it by now" IMO
 
I would expect Nintendo to release this as the next gen switch in 2025/2026

What process node is it on btw?

I wouldn't expect samsung's nodes to be efficient enough to power a handheld. Probably TSMC 6nm !?
It’s a 2022 product so it’s TSMC but could be anything from 8 to 6nm I can’t find details there. But Nvidia moved all their stuff back to TSMC, Samsung burned them bad.
 
I mean yes but at the same time how long have you/we seen Nintendo makes products with lower/older spec parts......

The argument both ways is "how do you not get it by now" IMO

I absolutely get it (we're seen 3 underpowered systems in a row), and it's why I dislike this strange free pass Nintendo gets from the 80's generation. There are a lot of 'em and apparently Facebook seems to think I need to see suggested posts from their gigantic groups.
 
I absolutely get it (we're seen 3 underpowered systems in a row), and it's why I dislike this strange free pass Nintendo gets from the 80's generation. There are a lot of 'em and apparently Facebook seems to think I need to see suggested posts from their gigantic groups.

it goes back to the NES/Gameboy though

it's not a free pass all these decades later not complaining about how Nintendo isn't bleeding edge, it's just obviously how they do it 9.999999 times out of 10
 
If only Apple would allow Nintendo to license the M series chips. The new switch would actually perform and have amazing battery life.
 
If only Apple would allow Nintendo to license the M series chips. The new switch would actually perform and have amazing battery life.
The Nvidia SoC is actually really good and uses a more traditional setup than the M chips. It would also greatly improve backward compatibility as there isn't a huge difference between the older A57 cores and the newer A78 cores, the same with Maxwell and Ampere architectures. Nvidia could simply update the OS on the switch but unless they broke it intentionally there wouldn't be any reason existing switch titles wouldn't work on the new silicon as the only modifications Nintendo had made were for clock speeds and power states. There weren't any commands cut out from the stock Tegra X1 so forward compatibility should be fairly simple, unlike the Microsoft and Sony consoles which use customized graphics cores.
 
LOL, yes. "I only care about games being fun" is this strange rallying cry of Nintendo diehards whenever anyone brings up their last-gen graphics. You'd think that graphics and fun can't ever coexist. It also seems to ignore that everyone's favorite Nintendo system, the NES, was overpowered AF compared to the Atari, Coleco, Intellevision, etc.
I mean, nintendo for the last few generations have differentiated themselves from PS and Xbox. gamecube and nintendo wii were considerably cheaper. and then nintendo switch is portable. I suppose nintendo could match graphics, but then you would just have another PS / Xbox (power consumption increase, cost increase)? In that case why not just buy a PS/ Xbox? Not sure I see what the benefit would be (neither to nintendo nor consumers).
 
This was always a stupid name. Nintendo would never call it "Switch Pro". That's not how they name stuff. They barely even differentiate the new OLED model from the original--the packaging material just says OLED at the bottom of the box.
Nintendo never officially announced or even hinted at a pro. That was a fan made up name.
 
it goes back to the NES/Gameboy though

it's not a free pass all these decades later not complaining about how Nintendo isn't bleeding edge, it's just obviously how they do it 9.999999 times out of 10

That's not necessarily the case, though. The SNES, N64, and even the Gamecube were on par with the other systems if not flat out better at many/most things. It's only been the last 3 systems where they decided to be quirky for the sake of being quirky.

There is a strange obsession with Nintendo being capable of doing no wrong...because of the 1980's, and Howard and Nester, and the Nintendo 64 Christmas kid, and stuff and things. If you mention that the graphics are last gen, "I only care about fun." Online play is nearly unplayable. "I don't care about online play." Why are they only releasing one franchise game per system now? "That's all I need." Their system doesn't support analog triggers? "I don't need those." This multi-platform game totally sucks compared to the other ones. "I don't care about those games." The Switch is too big as a portable and underpowered as a console. "I like carrying a Halliburton-sized Switch case and I only have a 720p TV." They're charging you to re-buy a game from the 1990s for the 4th time, and it's still $25? "I would pay $500 to keep playing Super Mario 3 if they'd let me." You can't stream on this thing? "I stream on my phone." The list keeps going and going. There's never a concession of "Yeah, I wish they didn't do that." You won't see that from anybody who thinks Sony or Microsoft are the bees knees. They'll burn 'em at the stake for even the slightest misstep. Yet the Nintendo legions would defend every move they make whether they agree with it or not. They'll just change their stance and buy one of each color.
 
The Nvidia SoC is actually really good and uses a more traditional setup than the M chips. It would also greatly improve backward compatibility as there isn't a huge difference between the older A57 cores and the newer A78 cores, the same with Maxwell and Ampere architectures. Nvidia could simply update the OS on the switch but unless they broke it intentionally there wouldn't be any reason existing switch titles wouldn't work on the new silicon as the only modifications Nintendo had made were for clock speeds and power states. There weren't any commands cut out from the stock Tegra X1 so forward compatibility should be fairly simple, unlike the Microsoft and Sony consoles which use customized graphics cores.
Sure, but every game developer already works with the Apple SOC's and you can pretty much emulate the switch on really cheap hardware now. The M series chips are super super efficient compared to anything Nvidia and really anyone else while having desktop class power and we know it can be passively cooled. The only downside is the cost, but nintendo would not have to worry about supply issues. They could use the M1 chip and that would probably be close to the old Xbox series X except it uses 1/3 the power than the X1 currently does and is 10x more powerful. I don't think Nvidia has anything like the M1 right now. The battery life of a Switch with M1 would be 3x longer.
 
That's not necessarily the case, though. The SNES, N64, and even the Gamecube were on par with the other systems if not flat out better at many/most things. It's only been the last 3 systems where they decided to be quirky for the sake of being quirky.

OK if we're gonna disregard all the handhelds then, which fine cause "cause Nintendo" or "cause portability", so there's that whole problem/debate

So even if it were

Weak: NES, Wii, Wii U, Switch

OK: SNES, N64, Gamecube

It just seems they tried making 'not weak' systems for a bit, didn't work out for them, and went back to making 'weak systems'

I don't really have a dog in the fight one way or the other, and if someone on [H] is gonna complain about weak hardware, that is also not surprising and should be expected lol - it just feels like yelling at the grass for being green to me is all :p
 
LOL, yes. "I only care about games being fun" is this strange rallying cry of Nintendo diehards whenever anyone brings up their last-gen graphics. You'd think that graphics and fun can't ever coexist. It also seems to ignore that everyone's favorite Nintendo system, the NES, was overpowered AF compared to the Atari, Coleco, Intellevision, etc.
Strong graphics capabilities and fun can certainly coexist, but the fact remains that the Switch has a generally good game lineup, and it's appealing to audiences that Sony and Microsoft either don't serve as well (kids) or at all (handheld gamers). Never mind the fans... it seems like Nintendo's strategy has been just fine for the past five years. Is the Switch behind the curve? Yes. Does it really matter? Not right now, at least.

The tech community has this odd obsession with specs meritocracy, where the device with the biggest spec numbers "deserves" to sell the most units. But the reality is that everyday people buy tech they feel will best accomplish their goals, and sometimes it's about more than just specs. A parent buying a Switch for their 10-year-old isn't thinking about 4K support or polygons per second; they're thinking about their child will have something to play Animal Crossing on the family road trip, or Splatoon without hogging the TV.
 
So after reading the article, and looking over previous quotes from the Nintendo CEO, these "No new devices in 2023" statements are all referring to Fiscal 2023, which ends in March, not calendar 2023.
Also Back in 2021 Nintendo stockpiled the Tegra X1 chips they use for the Switch as Nvidia stopped making them, so they 100% would want to flood the market with the existing purchased and paid-for hardware before launching a new product as they won't move once the new stuff hits the shelves.
Lastly, the 2022 Nvidia hack revealed the existence of the Tegra 239 SoC platform for an unnamed 3'rd party, the 239 is a customized variant of the 234 Orion NX SoC, changing out the A78 cores for their low-power A78AE cores and places the saved power into the GPU cores.
 
That's not necessarily the case, though. The SNES, N64, and even the Gamecube were on par with the other systems if not flat out better at many/most things. It's only been the last 3 systems where they decided to be quirky for the sake of being quirky.

There is a strange obsession with Nintendo being capable of doing no wrong...because of the 1980's, and Howard and Nester, and the Nintendo 64 Christmas kid, and stuff and things. If you mention that the graphics are last gen, "I only care about fun." Online play is nearly unplayable. "I don't care about online play." Why are they only releasing one franchise game per system now? "That's all I need." Their system doesn't support analog triggers? "I don't need those." This multi-platform game totally sucks compared to the other ones. "I don't care about those games." The Switch is too big as a portable and underpowered as a console. "I like carrying a Halliburton-sized Switch case and I only have a 720p TV." They're charging you to re-buy a game from the 1990s for the 4th time, and it's still $25? "I would pay $500 to keep playing Super Mario 3 if they'd let me." You can't stream on this thing? "I stream on my phone." The list keeps going and going. There's never a concession of "Yeah, I wish they didn't do that." You won't see that from anybody who thinks Sony or Microsoft are the bees knees. They'll burn 'em at the stake for even the slightest misstep. Yet the Nintendo legions would defend every move they make whether they agree with it or not. They'll just change their stance and buy one of each color.
So, no.

1.) If Nintendo competes on graphics, then they have to compete on graphics.
2.) If they compete on graphics, then that means they will have a console of roughly equivalent cost.
3.) Price is still a major differentiating factor for consumers buying Nintendo based consoles. People who are "casual gamers" that would never buy an XBox or PS console buy Nintendo products (EG: Wii. Even retirement facilities utilized Wii Fit, parents that don't game for their kids, family consoles, etc etc).

Slapping a Nintendo sticker on something doesn't make it a sales hit. You should reexamine the market if you think this. Basically every year that Nintendo was competing graphically with Sony/Microsoft, they pushed lower console sales and were often in third position. As you note, Gamecube was the last console to compete graphically and it came in third place. That gen, PS2 sold the most consoles ever (150 million), and even XBOX (original, not even 360) came it at 24 million, 3 million above the Gamecube. In the N64 generation, which came before it, they sold 1/3rd as many consoles, 33 million vs Sony, which sold 102 million.

It wasn't until Nintendo did something you call "quirky" with the Wii that trend reversed.

And to show that even cost isn't enough, that trend quickly reversed again with the terribly selling Wii U.

Then they figured out another winning formula with the Switch.

Nintendo's niche is in fact low cost hardware that is interesting (whereas the Wii U was apparently confusing for a lot of people). Just creating a console that competes graphically with Sony and Microsoft, pretty much guarantees that they will have the lowest sales. That thing you keep being sarcastic about is in fact Nintendo's strong suit. Which is essentially creating low cost consoles that are novel and fun. It's in fact this strategy that has allowed Nintendo to have way more sales than their competitors and also not have to compete on graphics. If you don't want that, that's fine. But it's apparent that the difference between 25million console sales and 100 million console sales for Nintendo is about $200. If Nintendo could create a console that they can make profit off of every sale (as opposed to at a loss), have it compete graphically, and only cost $300 they would do it. But unless AMD (or nVidia) and TSMC drop their costs like a rock, that ain't happening anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
This was always a stupid name. Nintendo would never call it "Switch Pro". That's not how they name stuff. They barely even differentiate the new OLED model from the original--the packaging material just says OLED at the bottom of the box.
There's a South Park joke in there somewhere...

SwitchPRO Ultra-X Mega Zone Stuffed Crust
 
The Nvidia SoC is actually really good and uses a more traditional setup than the M chips. It would also greatly improve backward compatibility as there isn't a huge difference between the older A57 cores and the newer A78 cores, the same with Maxwell and Ampere architectures. Nvidia could simply update the OS on the switch but unless they broke it intentionally there wouldn't be any reason existing switch titles wouldn't work on the new silicon as the only modifications Nintendo had made were for clock speeds and power states. There weren't any commands cut out from the stock Tegra X1 so forward compatibility should be fairly simple, unlike the Microsoft and Sony consoles which use customized graphics cores.
The GPUs in the PS5 and Xbox Series S/X were made specifically to be able to run PS4/Xbone games in a hardware supported backward compatibility mode.

Nintendo has recently made statements about backwards compatibility and seems well aware of its importance. I expect whatever they do for Switch 2, won't simply be an off the shelf part. I think it will be customized with Nvidia, to ensure that BC is as smooth a process as possible.
Also, I think Switch 2 will launch in Fall this year. They will sell Zelda tears of the kingdom for a few months, to current Switch. And then they will release Switch 2 for Fall/Holiday buying season. And of course, a better performing version of ToTK, will become available.
That's not necessarily the case, though. The SNES, N64, and even the Gamecube were on par with the other systems if not flat out better at many/most things. It's only been the last 3 systems where they decided to be quirky for the sake of being quirky.
Sega lost. Xbox moved in. And Gamecube struggled. Nintendo realized that the market doesn't really support 3 of the same thing**. So, they started trying different things. And basically landed on "We have always dominated the handheld segment." So, they doubled own on that and gave us a pretty unprecedented hardware format.

They absolutely need to have more OS features. Better online features. They need to have giftable digital game codes from their store. etc etc.
But as a hardware format----they nailed it. And the sales reflect that. they are close to outselling the PS2.

**IMO, Sony and MS should pool their money for a shared hardware platform. Subsidizing that hardware cost even more, for an even more powerful platform. And then they both freely publish games on it. Because their two consoles are otherwise very nearly the same thing, delivered in a different physical shape. And it costs gamers more money, to buy the same shit, twice.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but every game developer already works with the Apple SOC's and you can pretty much emulate the switch on really cheap hardware now. The M series chips are super super efficient compared to anything Nvidia and really anyone else while having desktop class power and we know it can be passively cooled. The only downside is the cost, but nintendo would not have to worry about supply issues. They could use the M1 chip and that would probably be close to the old Xbox series X except it uses 1/3 the power than the X1 currently does and is 10x more powerful. I don't think Nvidia has anything like the M1 right now. The battery life of a Switch with M1 would be 3x longer.
One Apple will not sell their SoC to anybody, two Apple's SoC isn't really any more efficient than anybody else's, on the CPU side Apple's efficiencies come from their heavy use of specialized accelerators for task-specific acceleration which they customize their OS to make heavy use of. In essence, Apple has to an extreme degree tied its software to its hardware at a level only really seen in consoles. The Apple GPU itself is actually decent but is severely lacking in features when compared to AMD and Nvidia's offerings. Apple's performance there is caused by their extreme integration of Metal into the core OS and removal of hardware features for older graphics APIs, from a pure number-crunching standpoint, it isn't much better than most Intel solutions where it gains the most advantage is from its high-speed unified memory.
 
Nintendo has recently made statements about backwards compatibility and seems well aware of its importance. I expect whatever they do for Switch 2, won't simply be an off the shelf part. I think it will be customized with Nvidia, to ensure that BC is as smooth a process as possible.
Also, I think Switch 2 will launch in Fall this year. They will sell Zelda tears of the kingdom for a few months, to current Switch. And then they will release Switch 2 for Fall/Holiday buying season. And of course, a better performing version of ToTK, will become available.
The existing Switch uses a slightly modified off-the-shelf part, as did all their consoles before it. The Switch uses an off-the-shelf Tegra X1, but they hardware disable the A53 cores so they can clock up the A57 cores and still maintain the same power draw.
 
on the CPU side Apple's efficiencies come from their heavy use of specialized accelerators for task-specific acceleration

Also see the recent marketing for Sapphire Rapids from Intel lol
 
One Apple will not sell their SoC to anybody, two Apple's SoC isn't really any more efficient than anybody else's, on the CPU side Apple's efficiencies come from their heavy use of specialized accelerators for task-specific acceleration which they customize their OS to make heavy use of. In essence, Apple has to an extreme degree tied its software to its hardware at a level only really seen in consoles. The Apple GPU itself is actually decent but is severely lacking in features when compared to AMD and Nvidia's offerings. Apple's performance there is caused by their extreme integration of Metal into the core OS and removal of hardware features for older graphics APIs, from a pure number-crunching standpoint, it isn't much better than most Intel solutions where it gains the most advantage is from its high-speed unified memory.
One I said it would be nice. Two if they were able to license the SoC's they would probably license iOS and use most of the api's already built and add some to it. Apple should do it themselves but they never will. While the integration helps the M1 draws half the power the Qualcom does while still being faster than the qualcom soc.
 
One I said it would be nice. Two if they were able to license the SoC's they would probably license iOS and use most of the api's already built and add some to it. Apple should do it themselves but they never will. While the integration helps the M1 draws half the power the Qualcom does while still being faster than the qualcom soc.
That says more about Qualcomm than it does Apple... But this is more an ARM problem, ARM provides a basic template of what an ARM CPU looks like but it's then up to each company to use it as is or to modify it for their individual uses but none of those modifications are required to be shared back to ARM, so you are left with ARM researching to advance their own platform, while Apple, Qualcomm, Mediatek, Nvidia, and a handful of others all pay to advance it on their own often duplicating each others work, and ultimately just giving up and trying to reverse engineer Apples hardware in a way that doesn't get them sued because Apple at this stage has a commanding 2 generation lead on their mobile rivals.
 
Switch is less than 6 years old. We've been reading articles about a Switch replacement for the past 3 years. Why do people think they would move onto a new console generation so quickly? When the Switch is perhaps Nintendo's best console in history outside of the DS? The Switch sales will surpass the Gameboy.

Possibly around a year from now when the console is 7 years old Nintendo will have something new. 2025 seems likely though.
 
That says more about Qualcomm than it does Apple... But this is more an ARM problem, ARM provides a basic template of what an ARM CPU looks like but it's then up to each company to use it as is or to modify it for their individual uses but none of those modifications are required to be shared back to ARM, so you are left with ARM researching to advance their own platform, while Apple, Qualcomm, Mediatek, Nvidia, and a handful of others all pay to advance it on their own often duplicating each others work, and ultimately just giving up and trying to reverse engineer Apples hardware in a way that doesn't get them sued because Apple at this stage has a commanding 2 generation lead on their mobile rivals.
Very true and I agree with a lot of what you said. But I don't think there is a single company developing ARM SoCs that are close to apple. I think like you said everyone is at least a generation behind, probably 2. Qualcomm is the largest one outside of Apple now and their brand new 8 cx gen 3 is not even as good as the M1 which is pretty sad considering the M2 has been out longer than the cx gen 3 and the M3 is coming.
 
Nintendo has been successful with every mobile iteration of a system they have shipped going back to the original Game Boy, when Jesus and the Dinosaurs both walked the Earth........but they haven't had a home-run in the console space since the N64 and the Wii......and I think we all know the Wii was more Gadget than Console. Seems Nintendo has finally learned their lesson: They can't compete with the Playstations or the Xboxes in the 4K wars......but what they *can* do is launch another slightly-more-capable hand held/portable, which really means focusing on their core domestic Japanese market needs, and it will be a guaranteed success worldwide and make them money hand over fist.

You can't fault those people for knowing their own market, make it small and portable for the Japanese consumer to play on their 4 hour train rides or in their small Tokyo apartments, and then combine that with knowing that there will always be 8 year olds all over the globe just getting into gaming with parents that want something that can go in the back of the SUV with them AND have have some "safe space" games that extend beyond the PS5/Xbox standards like "Call Of Honor 5" or "Super Brutal Eviscerator Battle pt. 4".

Nintendos biggest problem is what format the new handheld will take.......do they go bigger, do they go smaller, do they just keep the same format and throw in a faster drop-in replacement APU......
 
Nintendo has been successful with every mobile iteration of a system they have shipped going back to the original Game Boy, when Jesus and the Dinosaurs both walked the Earth........but they haven't had a home-run in the console space since the N64 and the Wii......and I think we all know the Wii was more Gadget than Console. Seems Nintendo has finally learned their lesson: They can't compete with the Playstations or the Xboxes in the 4K wars......but what they *can* do is launch another slightly-more-capable hand held/portable, which really means focusing on their core domestic Japanese market needs, and it will be a guaranteed success worldwide and make them money hand over fist.

You can't fault those people for knowing their own market, make it small and portable for the Japanese consumer to play on their 4 hour train rides or in their small Tokyo apartments, and then combine that with knowing that there will always be 8 year olds all over the globe just getting into gaming with parents that want something that can go in the back of the SUV with them AND have have some "safe space" games that extend beyond the PS5/Xbox standards like "Call Of Honor 5" or "Super Brutal Eviscerator Battle pt. 4".

Nintendos biggest problem is what format the new handheld will take.......do they go bigger, do they go smaller, do they just keep the same format and throw in a faster drop-in replacement APU......

I am sure they will implement some gizmo even if it is a side show in the successor. I think the Switch has worked well and Nintendo found their place, at least for the time being. A somewhat mobile console that can easily and seamlessly be docked for use on a bigger screen. Better than phone gaming as it is build purely around a controller (touch controls are trash), has the mobility, is small and easy to set up, and fits well in both the Japanese, Asian markets while also finding a niche in the west.
 
Very true and I agree with a lot of what you said. But I don't think there is a single company developing ARM SoCs that are close to apple. I think like you said everyone is at least a generation behind, probably 2. Qualcomm is the largest one outside of Apple now and their brand new 8 cx gen 3 is not even as good as the M1 which is pretty sad considering the M2 has been out longer than the cx gen 3 and the M3 is coming.
This is why ARM has gone from being valued worth $36B down to $6.7B after the Nvidia purchase failed to go ahead, ARM tech may be in just about everything right now but the one doing the most with it is Apple and they don't have to pay ARM for doing so and only makes ARM's offerings look bad in comparison.
 
I mean yes but at the same time how long have you/we seen Nintendo makes products with lower/older spec parts......

The argument both ways is "how do you not get it by now" IMO
Nintendo didn't start making "underpowered" consoles for the generation they release in until the Wii. So three console generations over 16 years of their 39.5 year console history.
 
Back
Top