I truly only want a more powerful version of the switch, but with the QoL improvements that the 3ds had. The fact that we never got themes, folders, and the eshop is a poorly implemented webpage...
I truly only want a more powerful version of the switch, but with the QoL improvements that the 3ds had.
The fact that we never got themes, folders, and the eshop is a poorly implemented webpage are honestly wild to me. Or rather, would be, if it wasn't Nintendo lol.
I think being backwards compatible is key to consumers though, I'll be very upset if it isn't.
The final thing I'll say, is I hope that it is powerful enough to stay relevant, not just powerful enough to be relevant for a year or two (in regards to AAA games). I don't need or expect it to be more powerful than current gen consoles, but at least more powerful than PS4/xb1.
The steam deck, and the future of premium handhelds on the horizon, is a huge competitor to Nintendo's space and I'd hate to see them fall behind.
I wouldn't expect it to be more powerful than the PS4. At best equal. DLSS can help, but in the end, if you want to be a) a tablet and b) <=$350 c) actually have a positive profit margin, there's...
I wouldn't expect it to be more powerful than the PS4. At best equal. DLSS can help, but in the end, if you want to be a) a tablet and b) <=$350 c) actually have a positive profit margin, there's only so much you can do.
The steam deck, and the future of premium handhelds on the horizon, is a huge competitor to Nintendo's space and I'd hate to see them fall behind.
It's really not. The deck is of zero threat to Nintendo. In terms of performance, they're behind and will always be behind the Deck and all the deck copycats. But that's not what they're going for and has never been.
The Steamdeck is and will continue to be a niche product, good for fiddlers, but ultimately the UX, first party support (or the nonexistence of, rather), and enthusiasts tradeoffs like the large...
The Steamdeck is and will continue to be a niche product, good for fiddlers, but ultimately the UX, first party support (or the nonexistence of, rather), and enthusiasts tradeoffs like the large size and low battery, make it no more than that. The Lenovo legion is no more a competitor to the XPS or macbook.
In addition to what @stu2b50 said about the hardware, Nintendo also has an edge in software (the games). If you want to play Nintendo games, Nintendo consoles are the only way to do it (besides...
In addition to what @stu2b50 said about the hardware, Nintendo also has an edge in software (the games). If you want to play Nintendo games, Nintendo consoles are the only way to do it (besides emulation). The vast majority of current Switch owners have not and will not consider the Steam Deck as an alternative cause you can't (easily) play Mario, Zelda, or Animal Crossing on it.
Conversely, the Deck has provided a valid alternative, such that the Switch gets relagated to first-party titles. I've got a friend who mostly does singleplayer gaming, and prior to the Deck was...
Conversely, the Deck has provided a valid alternative, such that the Switch gets relagated to first-party titles.
I've got a friend who mostly does singleplayer gaming, and prior to the Deck was exclusiviely a console player. His Switch and the PS5 have been gathering dust because the Deck slots in nicely between the two. And for a singleplayer gamer, the Deck is barely worse than a Switch from a UX perspective.
Especially if you top out at having 3 hours to game a day anyhow, the Deck is a serious contender, especially since it lets the game library exist independent of any particular hardware vendor.
Edit: Additionally, Steam's cloud saves are miles above Nintendo's. The Deck is also at an advantage for budget-minded folks, given that a lot of functionality isn't also gated behind a monthly/annual subscription.
The Deck is cheaper than a Switch after 2 years of paying for the Nintendo membership.
I don't think Nintendo has a problem with that. But numbers wise, I imagine a new Switch in its first month will outdo the Deck and it's successor's lifetime sales, so current trends point toward...
Conversely, the Deck has provided a valid alternative, such that the Switch gets relagated to first-party titles.
I don't think Nintendo has a problem with that. But numbers wise, I imagine a new Switch in its first month will outdo the Deck and it's successor's lifetime sales, so current trends point toward Deck being the alternative device in these situations.
To a lot of Nintendo fans, there is no alternative because nobody makes games like Nintendo does. Sure people can mod and emulate and get things working, but that's a lot of extra effort for the...
To a lot of Nintendo fans, there is no alternative because nobody makes games like Nintendo does. Sure people can mod and emulate and get things working, but that's a lot of extra effort for the people who just want to play Nintendo games anyways.
Personally I don't know if Valve even wants to be an alternative. They've always been friendly with Nintendo, and the recent Dolphin story shows that Valve is proactive about being on Nintendo's good side. Perhaps they're hoping to one day strike a deal to have Nintendo titles on Steam, but however likely (or unlikely) that may be it seems to be a priority for Valve. Though of course if that does ever happen, the Deck would actually become an alternative to the Switch, so that really only happens in a world where Nintendo leaves the handheld concept behind.
I mean I could live with those things, if considering their nature they were well implemented basically. As in, yeah, themes would be nice. If the actual fixed UX is awesome, no biggie. It isn't....
The fact that we never got themes, folders, and the eshop is a poorly implemented webpage are honestly wild to me. Or rather, would be, if it wasn't Nintendo lol.
I mean I could live with those things, if considering their nature they were well implemented basically.
As in, yeah, themes would be nice. If the actual fixed UX is awesome, no biggie. It isn't.
Folders would be awesome. If the searching/sorting/filtering worked well, no biggie. But it doesn't work well.
If the eshop were just a web page, so are many things. Like this one here. Would actually be kinda neat. But it's not, is a laggy mess filled 99,5% with shovelware crap.
Nintendo hasn't really had the same form factor with better performance for any of its hardware releases. The Wii, WiiU, and Switch had echoes of each other's design, but were wildly different...
Nintendo hasn't really had the same form factor with better performance for any of its hardware releases. The Wii, WiiU, and Switch had echoes of each other's design, but were wildly different devices.
I remember back in the day people wanting the Wii but with PS3 performance, then the WiiU with a better GPU and resolution, then now Switch more capable than a high-end phone. They're more likely to make their own unique new thing than try and improve an older version.
Two interesting points stand out to me: increasing development costs, and the slowing down of the console cycle. For the first point, it seems that with its handhelds at least, Nintendo has...
Two interesting points stand out to me: increasing development costs, and the slowing down of the console cycle.
For the first point, it seems that with its handhelds at least, Nintendo has enjoyed the benefits of lowered development costs (which meant games cost less for them, but so much for that). The Switch still gets some of that, but it does feel like it's all benefit for Nintendo at this point, and not consumers. I wonder whether the benefits gained from a lower floor for development costs (and cheaper hardware) aren't offset by getting a technically worse experience for certain AAA titles and paying $70 for Zelda anyway. Ultimately I do still like where the Switch is at, I guess I just miss the DS/3DS and being able to pay less for games that were still just as fun.
Anyway the other thing is the console cycle slowing down. Hardware advanced aren't happening as fast, and these ballooning development costs mean that developers aren't taking full advantage of the consoles' power as rapidly. Because of that, it still feels like there's a lot of time in the current generation's lifespan. At the same time, Nintendo has taken an approach to some of its games that makes me wonder what's next. Like the article mentions, Mario Kart is really solid right now, and it's been going very strong for a long time now. I'd say the same for Smash Ultimate. They've also leaned so hard into remakes and remasters that it feels like the pace at which we're getting truly new experiences has slowed down dramatically on the software side as well as the hardware side. Not sure what it means for the next console, but at the very least, it would be braindead (and not in line with Ninty's strategy) to not make it backwards compatible.
It's a mix, especially since we're talking about the Switch. Playing Tears of the Kingdom has shown that Nintendo has definitely gotten all out of the Switch that they could out of the system. And...
Hardware advanced aren't happening as fast, and these ballooning development costs mean that developers aren't taking full advantage of the consoles' power as rapidly. Because of that, it still feels like there's a lot of time in the current generation's lifespan.
It's a mix, especially since we're talking about the Switch. Playing Tears of the Kingdom has shown that Nintendo has definitely gotten all out of the Switch that they could out of the system. And outside of Nintendo there were a lot of games that couldn't easily be optimized.
At the same time, mobile hardware has become night and day since the Switch Launched. There will be a surprising and noticeable performance and fidelity boost if you haven't played any modern mobile games. I'm curious what a dedicated system could do with such power.
It's not as much a revelation as going from the PS2 -> PS3, but getting smoother games on a handheld device will feel all the more better. If they utilize it, DLSS can also help make games be upscaled easier and play smoother as well.
Yeah, I can't help think that a new console cycle is unwarranted. I've got a PS5 and it feels like I'm still waiting for games to take full advantage of it. I can't see any reason for needing a...
Yeah, I can't help think that a new console cycle is unwarranted. I've got a PS5 and it feels like I'm still waiting for games to take full advantage of it. I can't see any reason for needing a PS6 any time soon.
For the Switch in particular, I suppose it's relatively underpowered, but it's still running some of the best games available in one of the best form factors of all time. I just put hundreds of hours into Tears of the Kingdom and my much more powerful PS5 is mostly collecting dust. I'm not in a huge rush for a new one.
That being said, if they make overall improvements and make it backwards compatible, I could see jumping in for that. I'm a little concerned that, because it's Nintendo, it'll be something completely out of left field that doesn't actually work for me. But, I've got an open mind at the moment at least.
I do wish the race to photo realistic graphics slowed down and AAA companies focused on content, story, and gameplay. Hiring a massive art department can't be cheap, and paying them to make hyper...
I do wish the race to photo realistic graphics slowed down and AAA companies focused on content, story, and gameplay. Hiring a massive art department can't be cheap, and paying them to make hyper realistic trash cans that players will never look at doesn't seem to be the best use of their time. Nintendo has given themselves an advantage by not chasing that photo realism. Granted, I feel like it's hurting them at this point. TotK could definitely have used some extra horsepower to up the frame rate while also allowing for more detail.
The thing that bugs me is that all of this art budget doesn't affect the impact of the visual art. For all the technical advances we've seen, it seems like making impactful art has actually become...
The thing that bugs me is that all of this art budget doesn't affect the impact of the visual art.
For all the technical advances we've seen, it seems like making impactful art has actually become harder than it used to be. I think about games like The Last of Us and while the art is more than competent it's not super memorable. On the other hand I think of games like Saga Frontier 2 which has art so beautiful that it's managed to stick with me all of these years, but was made with an infinitely smaller budget, dramatically few resources, and for hardware so much more limited that you could probably emulate two or more instances of it at the same time in the hardware The Last Of Us was designed to run on.
Maybe the video game industry should take more cues from the animation industry about how to produce their assets; instead of trying to make the world entirely in 3D with complicated shading and lighting techniques, maybe try to add more 2D elements and forced perspectives. Not every game needs to be first-person, and not everything needs to be able to explored in three dimensions.
I agree with everything you said except the lighting and shading. I think that a game with a strong art direction like most Nintendo games would be absolutely incredible with better lighting and...
I agree with everything you said except the lighting and shading. I think that a game with a strong art direction like most Nintendo games would be absolutely incredible with better lighting and shading. There are hints of it in some places in TotK like in the underground where having better shadows and lighting would make everything really pop. Even Minecraft RTX is pretty incredible and that game is just blocks and textures. Lighting and shading can do a lot of work even with low poly/cartoony art styles.
also we're seeing huge flops like forsaken, where development is invested in graphics (and not much else) and the game goes on to bomb hard, so they're learning that maxing out nothing but...
Anyway the other thing is the console cycle slowing down. Hardware advanced aren't happening as fast, and these ballooning development costs mean that developers aren't taking full advantage of the consoles' power as rapidly.
also we're seeing huge flops like forsaken, where development is invested in graphics (and not much else) and the game goes on to bomb hard, so they're learning that maxing out nothing but graphics on the development pie-chart doesn't lead to blockbuster sales like it had in past generations.
Plus (and this has already been talked about in information released in the Microsoft/Activision merger) there are already plans to re-release xbox one/ps4 gen games to any theoretical switch 2 console, so Nintendo enjoys a built-in large library of quality titles rapidly releasing other console platforms won't see.
It always kind of mystifies me that these articles and discussions constantly bring up concerns a new console won't have backwards compatibility with the Switch. Nintendo has a strong history of...
It always kind of mystifies me that these articles and discussions constantly bring up concerns a new console won't have backwards compatibility with the Switch. Nintendo has a strong history of backwards compatibility with the immediate previous generation: GBC > GBA > DS (original and Lite, not DSi) > 3DS, and GameCube > Wii > Wii U.
The Switch is the first time they broke that trend in years, because it's not a direct successor to either the handheld or home consoles. (That, and the 3DS and Wii U were both reliant on dual-screen gimmicks so they couldn't really build off that any further with brand new consoles.) They know that backwards compatibility is one of their strongest selling points, even if the launch titles are weak the backwards compatibility guarantees people have stuff they can play. At this point, I would be more shocked if they didn't have it backwards compatible with the Switch.
That said, I do share the concerns about backwards compatibility with the virtual console titles. They didn't really handle that well between the 3DS/Wii U and Switch. I'm honestly a bit miffed that I bought the Pokémon TCG game on the 3DS, and it looks like they'll add it to the GBC library for Switch Online at some point.
If it’s backwards compatible and preferably confers some performance benefits on Switch titles (think running PS4 games on a PS5), it’s probably an instant buy from me, someone who’s never owned a...
If it’s backwards compatible and preferably confers some performance benefits on Switch titles (think running PS4 games on a PS5), it’s probably an instant buy from me, someone who’s never owned a Switch.
I could be wrong but I think there’s probably a market of considerable size that consists of people like myself. This makes backwards compatibility seem like a no-brainer to me, because there’s probably more to be made (in the long term) from selling this group consoles than could be with making Switch games virtual console titles.
If the new console isn’t backwards compatible, these people are going to be buying second-hand Switches and Steam Decks to play those games on instead.
As a current Switch owner, if it's not backwards compatible, I doubt I will bother buying the new one anytime close to release. When I got a Wii, for a long time the vast majority of games I had...
As a current Switch owner, if it's not backwards compatible, I doubt I will bother buying the new one anytime close to release. When I got a Wii, for a long time the vast majority of games I had for it were GameCube games. Same for getting a 3DS. I knew I'd need one eventually, and only got one near release because I damaged my DS Lite's screen and needed a replacement. Speaking of the DS Lite, I got that to replace my damaged original DS. I'm pretty sure the DSi was out by then, but I chose the Lite because it had a slot for GBA games.
I'll buy whatever console comes next eventually, as a lifelong fan of Pokémon and Animal Crossing (which was bizarrely the driving reason for buying the GameCube, DS and Wii). But I won't be in any rush, and a lack of backwards compatibility will lower any drive to get one even more.
Nintendo works in very mysterious ways, and not always in ways that makes sense. They were stubborn on adopting DvD's and by the time they did it probably didn't matter. They had one of the most...
Nintendo works in very mysterious ways, and not always in ways that makes sense. They were stubborn on adopting DvD's and by the time they did it probably didn't matter. They had one of the most successfful consoles of all time that brought families together and then decided to market its successor as if it was an add-on, one that couldn't hook up 2 of the bundled controllers even if you wanted to. Nintendo usually doesn't chase trends, but the 3DS happened and it got to a point where they started not supporting 3D on later titles, and launch a 2DS.
Their only consistency is never having a proper network infrastructure compared to competitors. Otherwise, nothing is off the table.
I've noticed for a while now that Nintendo runs on its own logic rather than following trends like Sony and Microsoft do. They've leaned into the idea of game consoles being primarily for games...
I've noticed for a while now that Nintendo runs on its own logic rather than following trends like Sony and Microsoft do. They've leaned into the idea of game consoles being primarily for games for a while now. It's why they resisted having any streaming apps or even a proper browser on the Switch, and took so long to even add YouTube to previous consoles.
In some ways their internal philosophy works, some ways it doesn't. Overall, I think they're able to take more risks and be experimental than Sony and Microsoft though. I've heard before that they have enough money that they could do bad for 50 years without going bankrupt, and game development is also their company's primary focus. So Nintendo doesn't really have to focus on profits to the extent of the other big console developers, who have to justify their value to the rest of the company.
Nintendo is stable enough to do whatever the heck it wants, market demand be damned. The results are definitely interesting, and you're right that nothing is off the table for them. The new consoles have major innovations that impact gameplay itself and make them stand out from competitors. Sometimes the experimental gimmicks ends up with gems like the Wii's motion controls and DS's dual screens and touch screens, sometimes they fall flat like the Wii U. When it pays off though, it really pays off.
And that experimental nature is why I think they'll absolutely feature backwards compatibility in a Switch successor: even if the new console is ultimately a flop, players will still be more likely to buy it if they can still play their other games on it. The biggest hurdle is getting someone to buy the new console. I'm pretty sure that's part of why they eased up on third party title restrictions with the Switch, they didn't have backwards compatibility as a fallback and wanted to maximize incentives for people to try it after the Wii U flopped.
So, not many details yet, but it sounds like good news. The Wii and the Switch were pretty innovative and unique - one of the many things that helped them carve out a niche and sidestep direct...
So, not many details yet, but it sounds like good news.
The Wii and the Switch were pretty innovative and unique - one of the many things that helped them carve out a niche and sidestep direct competition with PlayStation and Xbox. Still, I have a hard time imagining how this will be anything more than a faster, more powerful Nintendo Switch, which would still be fine with me.
It will be interesting to see if they've come up with some crazy, outside-of-the-box idea or if they're going to do the Sony/Microsoft model of just building up what they already have.
VR support would be interesting, if unlikely. Fixing the joycon stick drift would be even more interesting, though maybe more unlikely.
I hope they look at their most successful games and enable developers to make more of them. The Nintendo store is a little depressing once you play your top 5 or 10 games.
It's true that a ton of the best stuff on Switch is first party, but at least the console exclusives or semi-exclusives are really worthwhile (IMO). Maybe it's because I also have a gaming PC, but...
The Nintendo store is a little depressing once you play your top 5 or 10 games.
It's true that a ton of the best stuff on Switch is first party, but at least the console exclusives or semi-exclusives are really worthwhile (IMO). Maybe it's because I also have a gaming PC, but PlayStation store is much more depressing for me than the Nintendo store. It's largely stuff I can, and would probably prefer to, play elsewhere. If a Switch 2 and a PS6 both dropped next year, I'd probably jump on the former, but the latter would take a lot of convincing.
The problem with the switch store is the insane Nintendo tax. Games that are $4 on Steam are $35 on Switch. I will only play Nintendo exclusive games on Nintendo hardware.
The problem with the switch store is the insane Nintendo tax. Games that are $4 on Steam are $35 on Switch.
I will only play Nintendo exclusive games on Nintendo hardware.
It's not really a tax. The cut from the nintendo store is the same as the cut on steam. When you put up a game on the Nintendo store, there tends to be higher demand, as a higher optimal price as...
It's not really a tax. The cut from the nintendo store is the same as the cut on steam. When you put up a game on the Nintendo store, there tends to be higher demand, as a higher optimal price as a result. There's a number of reasons for that, from there being less competition since the library being smaller, to having higher utility since the switch is a portable console.
But it is, what it is. Not a specific doing of Nintendo, although I'm sure they're happy that their customers tend to have looser wallets.
Sure. If you compare the number of shovelware games Steam has accumulated over two decades, it's not even comparable. But that's also the wrong angle. The point is that, if you own a Switch, there...
Sure. If you compare the number of shovelware games Steam has accumulated over two decades, it's not even comparable.
But that's also the wrong angle. The point is that, if you own a Switch, there are less other games to spend your money on, and thus you are more likely to spend more money on a particular title. That title has less competition on the platform.
Shovelware, as a result, does not matter for either, as shovelware isn't competition for actual quality games.
Yeah, that's totally fair. And agreed, I'd generally only play exclusives on the Switch (and expect to pay more or less full retail price for them). It's just that there are a good number of...
Yeah, that's totally fair. And agreed, I'd generally only play exclusives on the Switch (and expect to pay more or less full retail price for them). It's just that there are a good number of Nintendo exclusives that I've been pretty happy to do that for, much less so for the PS5.
They've been pretty good at identifying upcoming tech trends and capitalizing with both of those consoles. Going backwards from portable is probably not on the table, but I do wonder if they'll...
Still, I have a hard time imagining how this will be anything more than a faster, more powerful Nintendo Switch, which would still be fine with me.
They've been pretty good at identifying upcoming tech trends and capitalizing with both of those consoles. Going backwards from portable is probably not on the table, but I do wonder if they'll look into modular? Same concept as now, but with the dock actually being stronger.
If it is VR, I think we can safely say the debate on whether or not it's a fad will be over. I think the Apple Vision already proves that, and clearly several companies are anticipating massive...
If it is VR, I think we can safely say the debate on whether or not it's a fad will be over. I think the Apple Vision already proves that, and clearly several companies are anticipating massive developments in the field of VR.
I'm happy with the quality of the 1st party games and being able to hang my console above my face as I lay down in bed, but I hope they make better controllers.
I'm happy with the quality of the 1st party games and being able to hang my console above my face as I lay down in bed, but I hope they make better controllers.
Sigh. The real reason there is a new Nintendo console coming out is because Atlus has finally gotten around to releasing Etrian Odyssey on the current generation. A new EO release is always the...
Sigh. The real reason there is a new Nintendo console coming out is because Atlus has finally gotten around to releasing Etrian Odyssey on the current generation. A new EO release is always the sign of a console on its last legs. EO3 was great on the DS but nobody bought it as it came out in 2010 just before the 3DS. Then EOV and Nexus came out on the 3DS when the Switch was already taking off. This year Atlus finally released a fairly conservative remaster of the original DS Etrian games on Switch, so of course the Switch will be replaced soon. And us EO fans will have to wait another few years for news of the next installment!!
I truly only want a more powerful version of the switch, but with the QoL improvements that the 3ds had.
The fact that we never got themes, folders, and the eshop is a poorly implemented webpage are honestly wild to me. Or rather, would be, if it wasn't Nintendo lol.
I think being backwards compatible is key to consumers though, I'll be very upset if it isn't.
The final thing I'll say, is I hope that it is powerful enough to stay relevant, not just powerful enough to be relevant for a year or two (in regards to AAA games). I don't need or expect it to be more powerful than current gen consoles, but at least more powerful than PS4/xb1.
The steam deck, and the future of premium handhelds on the horizon, is a huge competitor to Nintendo's space and I'd hate to see them fall behind.
I wouldn't expect it to be more powerful than the PS4. At best equal. DLSS can help, but in the end, if you want to be a) a tablet and b) <=$350 c) actually have a positive profit margin, there's only so much you can do.
It's really not. The deck is of zero threat to Nintendo. In terms of performance, they're behind and will always be behind the Deck and all the deck copycats. But that's not what they're going for and has never been.
Why do you feel it isn't a threat?
The Steamdeck is and will continue to be a niche product, good for fiddlers, but ultimately the UX, first party support (or the nonexistence of, rather), and enthusiasts tradeoffs like the large size and low battery, make it no more than that. The Lenovo legion is no more a competitor to the XPS or macbook.
In addition to what @stu2b50 said about the hardware, Nintendo also has an edge in software (the games). If you want to play Nintendo games, Nintendo consoles are the only way to do it (besides emulation). The vast majority of current Switch owners have not and will not consider the Steam Deck as an alternative cause you can't (easily) play Mario, Zelda, or Animal Crossing on it.
Conversely, the Deck has provided a valid alternative, such that the Switch gets relagated to first-party titles.
I've got a friend who mostly does singleplayer gaming, and prior to the Deck was exclusiviely a console player. His Switch and the PS5 have been gathering dust because the Deck slots in nicely between the two. And for a singleplayer gamer, the Deck is barely worse than a Switch from a UX perspective.
Especially if you top out at having 3 hours to game a day anyhow, the Deck is a serious contender, especially since it lets the game library exist independent of any particular hardware vendor.
Edit: Additionally, Steam's cloud saves are miles above Nintendo's. The Deck is also at an advantage for budget-minded folks, given that a lot of functionality isn't also gated behind a monthly/annual subscription.
The Deck is cheaper than a Switch after 2 years of paying for the Nintendo membership.
I don't think Nintendo has a problem with that. But numbers wise, I imagine a new Switch in its first month will outdo the Deck and it's successor's lifetime sales, so current trends point toward Deck being the alternative device in these situations.
To a lot of Nintendo fans, there is no alternative because nobody makes games like Nintendo does. Sure people can mod and emulate and get things working, but that's a lot of extra effort for the people who just want to play Nintendo games anyways.
Personally I don't know if Valve even wants to be an alternative. They've always been friendly with Nintendo, and the recent Dolphin story shows that Valve is proactive about being on Nintendo's good side. Perhaps they're hoping to one day strike a deal to have Nintendo titles on Steam, but however likely (or unlikely) that may be it seems to be a priority for Valve. Though of course if that does ever happen, the Deck would actually become an alternative to the Switch, so that really only happens in a world where Nintendo leaves the handheld concept behind.
I mean I could live with those things, if considering their nature they were well implemented basically.
As in, yeah, themes would be nice. If the actual fixed UX is awesome, no biggie. It isn't.
Folders would be awesome. If the searching/sorting/filtering worked well, no biggie. But it doesn't work well.
If the eshop were just a web page, so are many things. Like this one here. Would actually be kinda neat. But it's not, is a laggy mess filled 99,5% with shovelware crap.
Nintendo hasn't really had the same form factor with better performance for any of its hardware releases. The Wii, WiiU, and Switch had echoes of each other's design, but were wildly different devices.
I remember back in the day people wanting the Wii but with PS3 performance, then the WiiU with a better GPU and resolution, then now Switch more capable than a high-end phone. They're more likely to make their own unique new thing than try and improve an older version.
Two interesting points stand out to me: increasing development costs, and the slowing down of the console cycle.
For the first point, it seems that with its handhelds at least, Nintendo has enjoyed the benefits of lowered development costs (which meant games cost less for them, but so much for that). The Switch still gets some of that, but it does feel like it's all benefit for Nintendo at this point, and not consumers. I wonder whether the benefits gained from a lower floor for development costs (and cheaper hardware) aren't offset by getting a technically worse experience for certain AAA titles and paying $70 for Zelda anyway. Ultimately I do still like where the Switch is at, I guess I just miss the DS/3DS and being able to pay less for games that were still just as fun.
Anyway the other thing is the console cycle slowing down. Hardware advanced aren't happening as fast, and these ballooning development costs mean that developers aren't taking full advantage of the consoles' power as rapidly. Because of that, it still feels like there's a lot of time in the current generation's lifespan. At the same time, Nintendo has taken an approach to some of its games that makes me wonder what's next. Like the article mentions, Mario Kart is really solid right now, and it's been going very strong for a long time now. I'd say the same for Smash Ultimate. They've also leaned so hard into remakes and remasters that it feels like the pace at which we're getting truly new experiences has slowed down dramatically on the software side as well as the hardware side. Not sure what it means for the next console, but at the very least, it would be braindead (and not in line with Ninty's strategy) to not make it backwards compatible.
It's a mix, especially since we're talking about the Switch. Playing Tears of the Kingdom has shown that Nintendo has definitely gotten all out of the Switch that they could out of the system. And outside of Nintendo there were a lot of games that couldn't easily be optimized.
At the same time, mobile hardware has become night and day since the Switch Launched. There will be a surprising and noticeable performance and fidelity boost if you haven't played any modern mobile games. I'm curious what a dedicated system could do with such power.
It's not as much a revelation as going from the PS2 -> PS3, but getting smoother games on a handheld device will feel all the more better. If they utilize it, DLSS can also help make games be upscaled easier and play smoother as well.
Yeah, I can't help think that a new console cycle is unwarranted. I've got a PS5 and it feels like I'm still waiting for games to take full advantage of it. I can't see any reason for needing a PS6 any time soon.
For the Switch in particular, I suppose it's relatively underpowered, but it's still running some of the best games available in one of the best form factors of all time. I just put hundreds of hours into Tears of the Kingdom and my much more powerful PS5 is mostly collecting dust. I'm not in a huge rush for a new one.
That being said, if they make overall improvements and make it backwards compatible, I could see jumping in for that. I'm a little concerned that, because it's Nintendo, it'll be something completely out of left field that doesn't actually work for me. But, I've got an open mind at the moment at least.
I do wish the race to photo realistic graphics slowed down and AAA companies focused on content, story, and gameplay. Hiring a massive art department can't be cheap, and paying them to make hyper realistic trash cans that players will never look at doesn't seem to be the best use of their time. Nintendo has given themselves an advantage by not chasing that photo realism. Granted, I feel like it's hurting them at this point. TotK could definitely have used some extra horsepower to up the frame rate while also allowing for more detail.
The thing that bugs me is that all of this art budget doesn't affect the impact of the visual art.
For all the technical advances we've seen, it seems like making impactful art has actually become harder than it used to be. I think about games like The Last of Us and while the art is more than competent it's not super memorable. On the other hand I think of games like Saga Frontier 2 which has art so beautiful that it's managed to stick with me all of these years, but was made with an infinitely smaller budget, dramatically few resources, and for hardware so much more limited that you could probably emulate two or more instances of it at the same time in the hardware The Last Of Us was designed to run on.
Maybe the video game industry should take more cues from the animation industry about how to produce their assets; instead of trying to make the world entirely in 3D with complicated shading and lighting techniques, maybe try to add more 2D elements and forced perspectives. Not every game needs to be first-person, and not everything needs to be able to explored in three dimensions.
I agree with everything you said except the lighting and shading. I think that a game with a strong art direction like most Nintendo games would be absolutely incredible with better lighting and shading. There are hints of it in some places in TotK like in the underground where having better shadows and lighting would make everything really pop. Even Minecraft RTX is pretty incredible and that game is just blocks and textures. Lighting and shading can do a lot of work even with low poly/cartoony art styles.
also we're seeing huge flops like forsaken, where development is invested in graphics (and not much else) and the game goes on to bomb hard, so they're learning that maxing out nothing but graphics on the development pie-chart doesn't lead to blockbuster sales like it had in past generations.
Plus (and this has already been talked about in information released in the Microsoft/Activision merger) there are already plans to re-release xbox one/ps4 gen games to any theoretical switch 2 console, so Nintendo enjoys a built-in large library of quality titles rapidly releasing other console platforms won't see.
It always kind of mystifies me that these articles and discussions constantly bring up concerns a new console won't have backwards compatibility with the Switch. Nintendo has a strong history of backwards compatibility with the immediate previous generation: GBC > GBA > DS (original and Lite, not DSi) > 3DS, and GameCube > Wii > Wii U.
The Switch is the first time they broke that trend in years, because it's not a direct successor to either the handheld or home consoles. (That, and the 3DS and Wii U were both reliant on dual-screen gimmicks so they couldn't really build off that any further with brand new consoles.) They know that backwards compatibility is one of their strongest selling points, even if the launch titles are weak the backwards compatibility guarantees people have stuff they can play. At this point, I would be more shocked if they didn't have it backwards compatible with the Switch.
That said, I do share the concerns about backwards compatibility with the virtual console titles. They didn't really handle that well between the 3DS/Wii U and Switch. I'm honestly a bit miffed that I bought the Pokémon TCG game on the 3DS, and it looks like they'll add it to the GBC library for Switch Online at some point.
If it’s backwards compatible and preferably confers some performance benefits on Switch titles (think running PS4 games on a PS5), it’s probably an instant buy from me, someone who’s never owned a Switch.
I could be wrong but I think there’s probably a market of considerable size that consists of people like myself. This makes backwards compatibility seem like a no-brainer to me, because there’s probably more to be made (in the long term) from selling this group consoles than could be with making Switch games virtual console titles.
If the new console isn’t backwards compatible, these people are going to be buying second-hand Switches and Steam Decks to play those games on instead.
As a current Switch owner, if it's not backwards compatible, I doubt I will bother buying the new one anytime close to release. When I got a Wii, for a long time the vast majority of games I had for it were GameCube games. Same for getting a 3DS. I knew I'd need one eventually, and only got one near release because I damaged my DS Lite's screen and needed a replacement. Speaking of the DS Lite, I got that to replace my damaged original DS. I'm pretty sure the DSi was out by then, but I chose the Lite because it had a slot for GBA games.
I'll buy whatever console comes next eventually, as a lifelong fan of Pokémon and Animal Crossing (which was bizarrely the driving reason for buying the GameCube, DS and Wii). But I won't be in any rush, and a lack of backwards compatibility will lower any drive to get one even more.
Nintendo works in very mysterious ways, and not always in ways that makes sense. They were stubborn on adopting DvD's and by the time they did it probably didn't matter. They had one of the most successfful consoles of all time that brought families together and then decided to market its successor as if it was an add-on, one that couldn't hook up 2 of the bundled controllers even if you wanted to. Nintendo usually doesn't chase trends, but the 3DS happened and it got to a point where they started not supporting 3D on later titles, and launch a 2DS.
Their only consistency is never having a proper network infrastructure compared to competitors. Otherwise, nothing is off the table.
I've noticed for a while now that Nintendo runs on its own logic rather than following trends like Sony and Microsoft do. They've leaned into the idea of game consoles being primarily for games for a while now. It's why they resisted having any streaming apps or even a proper browser on the Switch, and took so long to even add YouTube to previous consoles.
In some ways their internal philosophy works, some ways it doesn't. Overall, I think they're able to take more risks and be experimental than Sony and Microsoft though. I've heard before that they have enough money that they could do bad for 50 years without going bankrupt, and game development is also their company's primary focus. So Nintendo doesn't really have to focus on profits to the extent of the other big console developers, who have to justify their value to the rest of the company.
Nintendo is stable enough to do whatever the heck it wants, market demand be damned. The results are definitely interesting, and you're right that nothing is off the table for them. The new consoles have major innovations that impact gameplay itself and make them stand out from competitors. Sometimes the experimental gimmicks ends up with gems like the Wii's motion controls and DS's dual screens and touch screens, sometimes they fall flat like the Wii U. When it pays off though, it really pays off.
And that experimental nature is why I think they'll absolutely feature backwards compatibility in a Switch successor: even if the new console is ultimately a flop, players will still be more likely to buy it if they can still play their other games on it. The biggest hurdle is getting someone to buy the new console. I'm pretty sure that's part of why they eased up on third party title restrictions with the Switch, they didn't have backwards compatibility as a fallback and wanted to maximize incentives for people to try it after the Wii U flopped.
So, not many details yet, but it sounds like good news.
The Wii and the Switch were pretty innovative and unique - one of the many things that helped them carve out a niche and sidestep direct competition with PlayStation and Xbox. Still, I have a hard time imagining how this will be anything more than a faster, more powerful Nintendo Switch, which would still be fine with me.
It will be interesting to see if they've come up with some crazy, outside-of-the-box idea or if they're going to do the Sony/Microsoft model of just building up what they already have.
VR support would be interesting, if unlikely. Fixing the joycon stick drift would be even more interesting, though maybe more unlikely.
I hope they look at their most successful games and enable developers to make more of them. The Nintendo store is a little depressing once you play your top 5 or 10 games.
It's true that a ton of the best stuff on Switch is first party, but at least the console exclusives or semi-exclusives are really worthwhile (IMO). Maybe it's because I also have a gaming PC, but PlayStation store is much more depressing for me than the Nintendo store. It's largely stuff I can, and would probably prefer to, play elsewhere. If a Switch 2 and a PS6 both dropped next year, I'd probably jump on the former, but the latter would take a lot of convincing.
The problem with the switch store is the insane Nintendo tax. Games that are $4 on Steam are $35 on Switch.
I will only play Nintendo exclusive games on Nintendo hardware.
It's not really a tax. The cut from the nintendo store is the same as the cut on steam. When you put up a game on the Nintendo store, there tends to be higher demand, as a higher optimal price as a result. There's a number of reasons for that, from there being less competition since the library being smaller, to having higher utility since the switch is a portable console.
But it is, what it is. Not a specific doing of Nintendo, although I'm sure they're happy that their customers tend to have looser wallets.
Is the Switch library really considerably smaller? There is a lot of shovelware junk on the eStore.
Sure. If you compare the number of shovelware games Steam has accumulated over two decades, it's not even comparable.
But that's also the wrong angle. The point is that, if you own a Switch, there are less other games to spend your money on, and thus you are more likely to spend more money on a particular title. That title has less competition on the platform.
Shovelware, as a result, does not matter for either, as shovelware isn't competition for actual quality games.
Ah, I get what you mean now.
Yeah, that's totally fair. And agreed, I'd generally only play exclusives on the Switch (and expect to pay more or less full retail price for them). It's just that there are a good number of Nintendo exclusives that I've been pretty happy to do that for, much less so for the PS5.
They've been pretty good at identifying upcoming tech trends and capitalizing with both of those consoles. Going backwards from portable is probably not on the table, but I do wonder if they'll look into modular? Same concept as now, but with the dock actually being stronger.
It'll be VR/AR goggles, (like Apple Vision Pro), and it'll be the Virtual Boy we always wanted.
If it is VR, I think we can safely say the debate on whether or not it's a fad will be over. I think the Apple Vision already proves that, and clearly several companies are anticipating massive developments in the field of VR.
I'm happy with the quality of the 1st party games and being able to hang my console above my face as I lay down in bed, but I hope they make better controllers.
Sigh. The real reason there is a new Nintendo console coming out is because Atlus has finally gotten around to releasing Etrian Odyssey on the current generation. A new EO release is always the sign of a console on its last legs. EO3 was great on the DS but nobody bought it as it came out in 2010 just before the 3DS. Then EOV and Nexus came out on the 3DS when the Switch was already taking off. This year Atlus finally released a fairly conservative remaster of the original DS Etrian games on Switch, so of course the Switch will be replaced soon. And us EO fans will have to wait another few years for news of the next installment!!