Topic: Switchmas Eve Rumors and Speculations Thread

[Lemonade]

That sounds pretty good to me. I will be using it mostly while docked

[Agent-X-]

I guess Michael Pachter has it on good authority (read: developer sources) that the Switch is by far the easiest platform of the three (referring to PS4, XB1) to develop for.


Honestly, I won't be shocked if the Switch sees a ton of ports. If the thing will just sell, we could even see games developed for Switch and ported to the others with improved textures, etc.

[Kairon]

I know that March is a REALLY odd time to launch, but I really like it for a couple of reasons:

1. The hardcore early adopters can buy it without competing with holiday crowds
2. It gives Nintendo a couple months before the Holidays to work out kinks and fix things that pop up as glaring errors
3. If demand is huge, then Nintendo has a couple months to try and up production for the Holidays
4. By the time Holidays role around, there might be sales for those sitting on the fences, PLUS there's a bit more of a software library to entice the next couple waves of slightly-less-educated/convinced consumers
5. If necessary, Nintendo can use sales/price drop during the Holidays to really try to whip up demand

[Kairon]

I guess Michael Pachter has it on good authority (read: developer sources) that the Switch is by far the easiest platform of the three (referring to PS4, XB1) to develop for.

That makes me hopeful. I mean, in my other thread you can see I'm reticient to be gung-ho about this, but I really do think that the adoption of NVidia and their modern CPU and Graphics tech will be the main driver of the biggest increase in third-party support for Nintendo in a long while.

I mean, Indie Support for the Wii U has been great, but even there we're no getting parity with MS and Sony. I think it's not too outlandish that we could start seeing parity support in at the very least that specific developer segment.

[Soren]

I guess Michael Pachter has it on good authority (read: developer sources) that the Switch is by far the easiest platform of the three (referring to PS4, XB1) to develop for.

Great, now Switch will be the hardest console to develop for.

[nickmitch]

So, if Nintendo has fixed the ease of porting games over, what do they do about willingness?

[NWR_insanolord]

So, if Nintendo has fixed the ease of porting games over, what do they do about willingness?

If it truly is that easy, all they'll need to make them willing is a strong install base. It all comes down to whether they think the Switch version will sell well enough to justify the work it takes to make it, and if the amount of work is relatively minor, the less it will take to convince them of that.

[MagicCow64]

I've pitched this idea before, but I think it would be a smart move at this point for Nintendo to set up a big port shop for western third parties. Offer to do the work themselves (or at a subsidized rate) in exchange for a percentage of money from the sales. Even if it would be profitable to port stuff to the Switch for any given 3rd party, it still might be less profitable to use those resources on that versus something else. A Nintendo-run midwife outfit could remove this calculus, and also develop American talent they could feed into bigger projects, their own ports or remasters, or an expanded Retro/new 2nd party (or functionally equivalent) studios.

[nickmitch]

So, if Nintendo has fixed the ease of porting games over, what do they do about willingness?

If it truly is that easy, all they'll need to make them willing is a strong install base. It all comes down to whether they think the Switch version will sell well enough to justify the work it takes to make it, and if the amount of work is relatively minor, the less it will take to convince them of that.

But will the install base be there without the support?  Sort of a chicken-and-egg scenario.

I've pitched this idea before, but I think it would be a smart move at this point for Nintendo to set up a big port shop for western third parties. Offer to do the work themselves (or at a subsidized rate) in exchange for a percentage of money from the sales. Even if it would be profitable to port stuff to the Switch for any given 3rd party, it still might be less profitable to use those resources on that versus something else. A Nintendo-run midwife outfit could remove this calculus, and also develop American talent they could feed into bigger projects, their own ports or remasters, or an expanded Retro/new 2nd party (or functionally equivalent) studios.

I've seen things about Devs complaining about how hard it is to work with Nintendo.  They might not even have to subsidize ports to this extent, if they can work on that, but something of this sort would be helpful.  I worry how costly this would be on Nintendo's part.  Sort of a risky investment.

[Stogi]

So, if Nintendo has fixed the ease of porting games over, what do they do about willingness?

If it truly is that easy, all they'll need to make them willing is a strong install base. It all comes down to whether they think the Switch version will sell well enough to justify the work it takes to make it, and if the amount of work is relatively minor, the less it will take to convince them of that.

But will the install base be there without the support?  Sort of a chicken-and-egg scenario.

It'll be there. With Mario Kart, Mario, Zelda, and a rumored Pokemon game in the same year, I don't see many Nintendo fans skipping the Switch.

[Soren]

So, if Nintendo has fixed the ease of porting games over, what do they do about willingness?

If it truly is that easy, all they'll need to make them willing is a strong install base. It all comes down to whether they think the Switch version will sell well enough to justify the work it takes to make it, and if the amount of work is relatively minor, the less it will take to convince them of that.

But will the install base be there without the support?  Sort of a chicken-and-egg scenario.

It'll be there. With Mario Kart, Mario, Zelda, and a rumored Pokemon game in the same year, I don't see many Nintendo fans skipping the Switch.

That's not a big group, though.

[nickmitch]

So, if Nintendo has fixed the ease of porting games over, what do they do about willingness?

If it truly is that easy, all they'll need to make them willing is a strong install base. It all comes down to whether they think the Switch version will sell well enough to justify the work it takes to make it, and if the amount of work is relatively minor, the less it will take to convince them of that.

But will the install base be there without the support?  Sort of a chicken-and-egg scenario.

It'll be there. With Mario Kart, Mario, Zelda, and a rumored Pokemon game in the same year, I don't see many Nintendo fans skipping the Switch.

That's not a big group, though.

So, what does Nintendo do to reach people outside that group? Other than make sure they have the inventory.

[Soren]

From Takashi Mochizuki's Twitter (WSJ tech reporter in Tokyo) - https://twitter.com/mochi_wsj

Ace Research Institute analyst Yasuda:
- Switch uses DisplayPort over USB-C; internal bus speed at 5GBps, faster than 3DS' 128MBps.
- Switch's resolution not likely 1080 to 720 but WQHD(1440p) to 1080.
- VR just for patent purpose. Not likely to be used.
- Patent filings show Switch's architecture good for open-world games.

[Stogi]

Bus speeds seem awfully low, like first gen USB 3. I guess that means no "upgraded dock" as the connection speed can't handle both the display and running an extra gpu/cpu.

1440p. That seems ambitious. I honestly don't know what Nintendo is thinking. It doesn't fit what we have heard from other sources at all. There's no need to have the definition that high if all your gonna pair it with is an X1. All the games are gonna be 720p regardless. This is raising the cost of the device for no reason. It's extremely unlike Nintendo.

[Agent-X-]

I've pitched this idea before, but I think it would be a smart move at this point for Nintendo to set up a big port shop for western third parties. Offer to do the work themselves (or at a subsidized rate) in exchange for a percentage of money from the sales. Even if it would be profitable to port stuff to the Switch for any given 3rd party, it still might be less profitable to use those resources on that versus something else. A Nintendo-run midwife outfit could remove this calculus, and also develop American talent they could feed into bigger projects, their own ports or remasters, or an expanded Retro/new 2nd party (or functionally equivalent) studios.

I've seen things about Devs complaining about how hard it is to work with Nintendo.  They might not even have to subsidize ports to this extent, if they can work on that, but something of this sort would be helpful.  I worry how costly this would be on Nintendo's part.  Sort of a risky investment.

Possible understatement. If I've heard correctly, Wii U dev kits may not have even come translated. Everything was supposedly in Japanese. All the documentation was Japanese-only. This is all message board rumor, but it's what I've seen suggested.


Now compare this with Switch, whose dev kits I'm going to assume have had a large amount of help from Nvidia. I'll just assume that this thing is fully documented in at least 5 different languages, including English. That's bound to help get developers started with it.

[ThePerm]

5GB per second? Talk about future proofing.

With something like that Nintendo could release a cheap memory expansion at stores.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Bus speeds seem awfully low, like first gen USB 3. I guess that means no "upgraded dock" as the connection speed can't handle both the display and running an extra gpu/cpu.

1440p. That seems ambitious. I honestly don't know what Nintendo is thinking. It doesn't fit what we have heard from other sources at all. There's no need to have the definition that high if all your gonna pair it with is an X1. All the games are gonna be 720p regardless. This is raising the cost of the device for no reason. It's extremely unlike Nintendo.

5GB (GigaByte? or Gigabit?) per second seems slow? (edit: it was Gb, and in comparison to other stuff 5Gb is slow)

and if Nintendo is building the Switch to natively handle 1440p, then that is nothing but good news, because since it will normally be rending at 1080p or even 720p, then it should have plenty of horsepower left over for other stuff.

but personally I think this sounds wrong. It sounds great, but I don't think it sounds right.

[Stogi]

5Gbs is too slow to run a separate CPU/GPU or dual monitors or etc. I have a USB-C Thunderbolt 3 connection on my laptop and its bus speed is 40 Gbs. It can do all those things I mentioned at once.

[ThePerm]

if it's Gb then it's slow. If it was GB then 5GB is all you would need.

[Soren]

Mochi clarifies some stuff RE: WQHD to 1080.

Sorry for confusion. this means internal chips can ha[n]dle WQHD and downgrades to 1080 when docked & undocked. why? https://twitter.com/mochi_wsj/status/811851139553456128 …

he says that way can produce better 1080 pics and leaves future possibility for better docked or undocked display quality when things ready.

[ThePerm]

If Nintendo chose some hirez screen its because it was the cheaper screen.

[Evan_B]

In regards to the "Gigi bits v Giga bytes: dawn of seconds" discussion, was there a specific reference to the speed being greater than the 3DS? Fact checking the 128MBps statistic would affirm whether or not it was bits v bytes, correct?

Also, can I get a clarification in regards to this resolution talk? You're saying docked Switch outputs in WQHD on the TV bit 1080 when undocked? I'm a bit confused by this.

[ShyGuy]

I think the chips can go up to WQHD, but the output is limited to 1080p. I am guessing the Switch Pro of 2020 will do the WQHD

[BranDonk Kong]

Not sure what you guys are talking about, but the X1 in the Shield can do 4K @ 60FPS (and does in the Nvidia Shield Android TV).

[Agent-X-]

I think the claim, as I understand it, is that the video source from the GPU is at the higher resolution but is then "right-scaled" by the GPU to the display "native resolution." This is actually a nice way of leveraging the muscle of a GPU to create a nicer, sharper image onto the screen. I've known gamers to bump their GPU resolution to 4K and "right-scale" it to their native resolution to get better visuals.


Of course, this is something you would do if you have GPU to spare, heh. In other words, wouldn't you rather process visuals at a lower resolution and use the GPU memory to handle more details on screen? Or, this may be Nvidia's finest API package EVER. I do trust them above anyone else to squeeze more out of their hardware than anyone else ever could.


Can't wait to find out the facts.