Based on the Switch's design, would an upgrade every 2 years be acceptable to you?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for lifelessablaze
lifelessablaze

832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#1 lifelessablaze
Member since 2017 • 832 Posts

I mean, it's a tablet after all...I imagine Nintendo tweaking and upgrading a few components wouldn't be of any issue.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

14572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 14572 Posts

Every two years? No. One or two revisions during its lifespan, sure.

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

15468

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 osan0
Member since 2004 • 15468 Posts

im old school when it comes to consoles. once a console is released its performance point shouldnt change. if it does then it should be a new console. the Pro, X1X and new 3DS shouldnt exist as far as im concerned.

the switch should be as is performance wise for the next 4-5 years.

what they should look at is form factor and other improvements such as:

1) making it more power efficent. if they get the SOC on a smaller node they may be able to remove the fan in a future model. good for battery life on 2 fronts.

2) a better dock(s): release a mini dock so its easier to connect your switch to different TVs. release an upgraded dock that takes the output from the switch and improves it (adds AA, upscales the image before it gets to the telly, that kind of thing). note: this is not a GPU devs have any access too or control over. it would just take the output from the switch and improve it.

3) different models. a switch mini thats more pocket friendly. a bigger switch. perhaps add a mini HDMI port so its less of a faff to plug it into different TVs. maybe a switch console thats cheaper to make.

but the SOC shouldnt change until the switch's successor

Avatar image for npiet1
npiet1

2581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#4 npiet1
Member since 2018 • 2581 Posts

@osan0:This, Except the X1X I do like how it just a download patch for better graphics, Allowing people to not have to upgrade their console. I just got my son a 2ds before the new 3ds was announced.

I think a cheap nonportable switch would be great.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
Random_Matt

4382

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#5 Random_Matt
Member since 2013 • 4382 Posts

Nintendo fans yes.

Everyone else no.

Avatar image for techhog89
Techhog89

3804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Techhog89
Member since 2015 • 3804 Posts

@osan0 said:

im old school when it comes to consoles. once a console is released its performance point shouldnt change. if it does then it should be a new console. the Pro, X1X and new 3DS shouldnt exist as far as im concerned.

the switch should be as is performance wise for the next 4-5 years.

what they should look at is form factor and other improvements such as:

1) making it more power efficent. if they get the SOC on a smaller node they may be able to remove the fan in a future model. good for battery life on 2 fronts.

2) a better dock(s): release a mini dock so its easier to connect your switch to different TVs. release an upgraded dock that takes the output from the switch and improves it (adds AA, upscales the image before it gets to the telly, that kind of thing). note: this is not a GPU devs have any access too or control over. it would just take the output from the switch and improve it.

3) different models. a switch mini thats more pocket friendly. a bigger switch. perhaps add a mini HDMI port so its less of a faff to plug it into different TVs. maybe a switch console thats cheaper to make.

but the SOC shouldnt change until the switch's successor

The problem is that Nintendo doesn't want to only have Switch on the market for 4 years. They want 6-7 years at least. That's gonna require a Switch Pro.

Avatar image for trugs26
trugs26

7535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 trugs26
Member since 2004 • 7535 Posts

@MirkoS77 said:

Every two years? No. One or two revisions during its lifespan, sure.

Well a 6 year console life span is pretty typical, so what you said is a bit of a contradiction, isn't it?

Year 0: Launch
Year 2: Revision 1
Year 4: Revision 2:
Year 6: Next gen.

Avatar image for enzyme36
enzyme36

4293

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 enzyme36
Member since 2007 • 4293 Posts

PS4 and XBO both already had 2 revisions... looks like TC needed a reminder

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

26859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By KungfuKitten
Member since 2006 • 26859 Posts

Sure... I wouldn't buy one every 2 years. Probably every 4. But I would be OK with that. There wouldn't be much of a downside for the consumer would there? Unless the games from revision 2 couldn't be played on revision 1 but I assume that's not the case? If the newest games support at least 1 revision prior then I would be fine with it.

Avatar image for PCgameruk
PCgameruk

2273

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 PCgameruk
Member since 2012 • 2273 Posts

Easy to just say but the hardware isn't available like consoles. Nintendo need to rely on Nvidia for an all in one chip. Tegra X2 isn't worth the upgrade but Xavier for this year might be something.

Avatar image for Celsius765
Celsius765

2415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#11 Celsius765
Member since 2005 • 2415 Posts

I think a revision in or after year 3 would be acceptable

Avatar image for Phreek300
Phreek300

664

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#12 Phreek300
Member since 2007 • 664 Posts

I'd go for every 3-4 years.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c746fddbe486
deactivated-5c746fddbe486

193

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#13 deactivated-5c746fddbe486
Member since 2017 • 193 Posts

The Switch is all Nintendo will focus on in the future, it will become its only brand like the iPad, no more new consoles or handhelds just more powerful iterations of its Switch hardware

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

31728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 R4gn4r0k
Member since 2004 • 31728 Posts

Since Nintendo doesn't care about graphics, why would they do a revision ?

Avatar image for APiranhaAteMyVa
APiranhaAteMyVa

4132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By APiranhaAteMyVa
Member since 2011 • 4132 Posts

If Nintendo consolidate their handheld and console developers and make all their games exclusively for the Switch, I think they could have a good 5-7 year cycle, releasing only minor iterations like the new DS or DS XL variants.

Due to the nature of Nintendo exclusives favouring art style over pure technical powerhouses, the Switch will not look dated for some time. The only console and handheld that Nintendo made that felt really dated was the Wii, because it looked bad on HDTVs and the 3DS which had a screen with a resolution far too low and the semi 3D games looked awful even at launch.

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

15468

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 osan0
Member since 2004 • 15468 Posts

@techhog89: why? for indies and AA titles the switch is fine. most games in that segment dont push the hardware to the extent that its not viable on the switch. as for nintendos own games, they seem happy with where the switch is in terms of performance.

its only AAA multiplats which will be a problem but they dont sell on nintendo platforms anyway. its just not a segment worth chasing.

nintendo is out of the hardware race. they have been since the wii. they dont care if the tech they are using is coming up to a decade old. if its working for them then they are happy to use it. they are not concerned with where the other consoles or PCs are in terms of performance.

Avatar image for techhog89
Techhog89

3804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By Techhog89
Member since 2015 • 3804 Posts

@osan0 said:

@techhog89: why? for indies and AA titles the switch is fine. most games in that segment dont push the hardware to the extent that its not viable on the switch. as for nintendos own games, they seem happy with where the switch is in terms of performance.

its only AAA multiplats which will be a problem but they dont sell on nintendo platforms anyway. its just not a segment worth chasing.

nintendo is out of the hardware race. they have been since the wii. they dont care if the tech they are using is coming up to a decade old. if its working for them then they are happy to use it. they are not concerned with where the other consoles or PCs are in terms of performance.

Even Nintendo's devs will want to be challenged sometime, and they still want some third-party support. On top of that, the node that they're using for their SoC is a bad one and won't last more than a couple more years, so they'll have to shrink it at some point. They could keep the power the same and just increase battery life, but they could also increase performance a little. Nothing mindblowing though. Maybe 50%.

Avatar image for TheEroica
TheEroica

18491

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19 TheEroica  Moderator
Member since 2009 • 18491 Posts

It won't need a revision for a decade if they can keep up making great games. The design is perfect. I wish developers didn't feel pressure to upgrade hardware...

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

15468

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 osan0
Member since 2004 • 15468 Posts

@techhog89: development is already challenging enough and keeping the performance relatively low helps keeps development costs in check (which is critical when developing for just one system). i think nintendos developers are more concerned with ideas rather than visual fidelity. i mean dont be at all surprised if the next zelda for the switch is an isometric one like a link between worlds. it may be an avenue they want to look at again. this is just how they operate. it always has been. i dont think the switch is holding nintendos developers back in terms of doing things they want to do.

the only reason to be concerned about performance for them is AAA 3rd party multiplat support which i think is pretty useless for nintendo anyway.

as for node shrinks: yes they will need to shrink it at some stage as fabs move on from older processes. it shouldnt be an issue. but, going by nintendos MO, i think they would prefer to have a more power efficent SOC that they can stick in many form factors. as i mention it can also save on costs in manufacturing (remove the fan, the chip itself is cheaper, maybe reduce the battery size and cost if they want to keep the same battery life; though better battery life would be nice).

a 50% upgrade in performance is nothing. not worth it. it would buy them nothing. thats a smaller jump than the jump from the gamecube to the wii or the jump from the wiiu to the switch. even 500% is a small jump (or at least should be) in console land.

Avatar image for techhog89
Techhog89

3804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 Techhog89
Member since 2015 • 3804 Posts

@osan0: Then explain New 3DS.

Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
JustPlainLucas

79426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 226

User Lists: 0

#22 JustPlainLucas
Member since 2002 • 79426 Posts

If the Switch is destined to be the successor to the 3DS as I believe it to be, then it's inevitable. Their Game Boys have gone through many iterations before they had true successors. We had the Game Boy, which ended up having the Pocket, a smaller front lit version. There was the Game Boy Advance, which had a smaller front lit version with a clamshell design. There was also the Game Boy Advance Micro, a ridiculously small version. The DS has had the DS Lite, the XL and the DSi. The 3DS... dear God... has had the XL, the New 3DS, the New 3DS XL, the 2DS and the New 2DS. So, an improved/redesigned Switch is more of being when than if.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
Gaming-Planet

20047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#23  Edited By Gaming-Planet
Member since 2008 • 20047 Posts

If all it did was provide better resolution and frame rates, yes.

Maybe a small visual bump, options for AA, motion blur, Anisotropic filtering, some post process effects.

Anything as long as it's not a hassle for developers.

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

15468

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 osan0
Member since 2004 • 15468 Posts

@techhog89: what about it? it was a waste. i think it has 1 exclusive (thank god). what did the bump in horsepower give? nintendo themselves didnt really use it except to improve loading times.

if i was to speculate i reckon that it actually cost nintendo practically nothing at all to have those extra cores and the PICA200 GPU was just restored to its original spec. the SOC in the 3DS was already very low end and power efficent at launch so there was nothing to be saved by moving to a lower node and keeping the same spec. may as well stick in a couple of extra cores and up the clock speed a bit. they also probably needed 1 extra core (or at least some extra grunt) to deal with the head tracking for the improved 3D so that would have been a factor in the CPU upgrade.

the switch is different. unlike the 3DS and new 3DS, the switch runs hot and there are power savings to be made. the SOC itself is also more expenisve than the one in the 3DS (understandibly). so there are savings to be made. if you have seen a switch tear down the cooling is quite robust for a portable device and the battery is huge. a node shrink would make the SOC cheaper, the battery smaller and would possibly remove the need for active cooling completely. there are real savings to be made in the switches manufacturing (which is something nintendo have said they are looking to improve on).

Avatar image for techhog89
Techhog89

3804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By Techhog89
Member since 2015 • 3804 Posts

@osan0 said:

@techhog89: what about it? it was a waste. i think it has 1 exclusive (thank god). what did the bump in horsepower give? nintendo themselves didnt really use it except to improve loading times.

if i was to speculate i reckon that it actually cost nintendo practically nothing at all to have those extra cores and the PICA200 GPU was just restored to its original spec. the SOC in the 3DS was already very low end and power efficent at launch so there was nothing to be saved by moving to a lower node and keeping the same spec. may as well stick in a couple of extra cores and up the clock speed a bit. they also probably needed 1 extra core (or at least some extra grunt) to deal with the head tracking for the improved 3D so that would have been a factor in the CPU upgrade.

the switch is different. unlike the 3DS and new 3DS, the switch runs hot and there are power savings to be made. the SOC itself is also more expenisve than the one in the 3DS (understandibly). so there are savings to be made. if you have seen a switch tear down the cooling is quite robust for a portable device and the battery is huge. a node shrink would make the SOC cheaper, the battery smaller and would possibly remove the need for active cooling completely. there are real savings to be made in the switches manufacturing (which is something nintendo have said they are looking to improve on).

A 50% increase would allow more stable frame rates and resolutions while still increasing battery life. As for removing the fan, that could just be the plan for a lower-cost model a la 2DS. It would also cost nohing extra since it's just a clock increase, and 7nm would improve power efficiency by nearly 3x so they could possible have the increase and still remove the fan AND still have better battery life. Also, making the battery smaller would be stupid outside of a smaller model. Why would anyone want that?

Also, you're clearly never played a New 3DS enhanced game and compared it to regular 3DS. The difference for Pokemon S/M/US/UM and Hyrule Warriors is very noticeable. Frame rates are much better. And pretty much every game Nintendo made from release of it was enhanced. A 50% increase in CPU and GPU clocks on a smaller node would be completely free, while meaning stable frame rates in games like BotW and Doom.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

3414

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By jeezers
Member since 2007 • 3414 Posts

I don't want Nintendo to go all in on the switch. Stick with the handhelds. Love the handhelds but the switch isn't practical for me.

Avatar image for davillain-
DaVillain-

38648

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#27 DaVillain-  Moderator
Member since 2014 • 38648 Posts

@R4gn4r0k said:

Since Nintendo doesn't care about graphics, why would they do a revision ?

As long as Nintendo just makes more exclusive games until whenever there ready to move on into there next-gen console only, I'm okay with that.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

14572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#28 MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 14572 Posts

@trugs26 said:
@MirkoS77 said:

Every two years? No. One or two revisions during its lifespan, sure.

Well a 6 year console life span is pretty typical, so what you said is a bit of a contradiction, isn't it?

Year 0: Launch

Year 2: Revision 1

Year 4: Revision 2:

Year 6: Next gen.

Well, considering that Kimishima came out just one month ago and stated that he intends to support the Switch for 7-10 years instead of the average 6, no, I fail to see any contradiction.

Avatar image for deactivated-5ac2b8b36d9ec
deactivated-5ac2b8b36d9ec

83

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 deactivated-5ac2b8b36d9ec
Member since 2017 • 83 Posts

Knowing how Nintendo is with handhelds, there's going to be about 4-5 revisions.

Avatar image for superbuuman
superbuuman

6400

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#30 superbuuman
Member since 2010 • 6400 Posts

Every 2 year upgrade?...that's just batshit crazy....unless there's a major design flaw with the original - eg, uncomfortable to hold for long period of time, missing 2nd analog stick. :P

Avatar image for techhog89
Techhog89

3804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 Techhog89
Member since 2015 • 3804 Posts

@jeezers said:

I don't want Nintendo to go all in on the switch. Stick with the handhelds. Love the handhelds but the switch isn't practical for me.

Or you could hope for a smaller Switch? They aren't going back to two systems, ever.

Avatar image for trugs26
trugs26

7535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#32 trugs26
Member since 2004 • 7535 Posts

@MirkoS77 said:
@trugs26 said:
@MirkoS77 said:

Every two years? No. One or two revisions during its lifespan, sure.

Well a 6 year console life span is pretty typical, so what you said is a bit of a contradiction, isn't it?

Year 0: Launch

Year 2: Revision 1

Year 4: Revision 2:

Year 6: Next gen.

Well, considering that Kimishima came out just one month ago and stated that he intends to support the Switch for 7-10 years instead of the average 6, no, I fail to see any contradiction.

He can say whatever he wants. Doesn't mean it'll be true. Going by actual trends, it's 5-6 years. And even if he managed 7 years, my logic still holds true.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

14572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#33 MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 14572 Posts

@trugs26: your logic only stands when you create your own standards to apply it to. Nintendo’s always been one to walk to the beat of their own drum, so I’ll go by what they say, thanks. And in that, my logic stands.

Though why such a petty thing is so important to you fails me.

Avatar image for trugs26
trugs26

7535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By trugs26
Member since 2004 • 7535 Posts

@MirkoS77 said:

@trugs26: your logic only stands when you create your own standards to apply it to. Nintendo’s always been one to walk to the beat of their own drum, so I’ll go by what they say, thanks. And in that, my logic stands.

Though why such a petty thing is so important to you fails me.

What you're saying is completely reasonable, but it doesn't discard my reasoning either. Your logic is using intention, my logic is using past trends. Both are valid ways of seeing how things will play out.

However, your claim is based on the assumption of a 7-10 life cycle. With that in mind, it's not a contradiction, and I do apologise for my previous petty response.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

14572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#35 MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 14572 Posts

@trugs26: No worries, and I apologize for any snideness in my tone.