Nintendo Switch Tech Speculation discussion

[Blazkowicz]

Well, if they ever do a shrink that doesn't upgrade the console in any way except 4K 60Hz output (the classic console shrink) :

- new full Switch with everything, GPU plays at 768MHz on the go not at 307MHz anymore (except 307MHz-only games)
- Switch boy, always play at 307 MHz (passively cooled?) perhaps enough battery for the kids on the back seat
- Switch home, the small nothing-box. Perhaps comes with Joycons still because you do party games. It's unimportant whether it runs the older or the newer SoC

- the Switch grip. You know how some consoles are built into a controller? Well let's build the console into one of those damn gold-plated grips . USB + power + HDMI run to the power brick on USB-C, which is plugged into the TV. In fact, a monitor or TV might in theory have a USB-C connector and you only plug the Switch grip into that, at the end of a 3m long cable. (but I wouldn't count on that yet)

 

[Exophase]

Looks like the console might support bluetooth headsets for voice chat after all:
https://mynintendonews.com/2017/01/...ean-voice-chat-isnt-only-handled-through-app/

Maybe not, that product description says:

Plug in your headset to your system, marvel at the crystal clear sound design brought to you through powerful 40mm Neodymium drivers, and bring the full Nintendo Switch gaming experience to life.

You don't plug a bluetooth headset into your system.

Could Switch lack bluetooth altogether? Could it be talking to the phone app over wifi instead??

 

[eastmen]

I think this is pretty much whats going to happen. We might even see the portable version in two years with a dongle so you won't even need a dock. I fully expect a version without a screen as well.

There's a lot of places they can go with it if they want to, tbh.

They could. I would imagine they could even go the firestick / chrome cast route . Esp if they get Netflix and other items

Well, if they ever do a shrink that doesn't upgrade the console in any way except 4K 60Hz output (the classic console shrink) :

- new full Switch with everything, GPU plays at 768MHz on the go not at 307MHz anymore (except 307MHz-only games)
- Switch boy, always play at 307 MHz (passively cooled?) perhaps enough battery for the kids on the back seat
- Switch home, the small nothing-box. Perhaps comes with Joycons still because you do party games. It's unimportant whether it runs the older or the newer SoC

- the Switch grip. You know how some consoles are built into a controller? Well let's build the console into one of those damn gold-plated grips . USB + power + HDMI run to the power brick on USB-C, which is plugged into the TV. In fact, a monitor or TV might in theory have a USB-C connector and you only plug the Switch grip into that, at the end of a 3m long cable. (but I wouldn't count on that yet)

I bet the switch boy comes when they move down in micron process. They may be able to keep clocks the same or may even be able to it at docked speeds at that point. So why do I think they would do that ? Compatability with switch 2 which will most likely come out in 4 years

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Switch game boy 4-5 inch screen with the controllers intergrated nto the system. Should be able to fit inside a pocket. Would be good for kids like the 2ds was.

Then switch home which is just the switch as a small box ala shield tv. No screen or anything.

They should be able to shave a lot of money off both those products and could open up new markets

I disagree. How much money can they really save? A not-that-great 720p screen doesn't cost that much. A battery doesn't cost that much and neither does the hardware inside the dock. Nintendo won't likely get rid of the joycons because that would break games that use them.

Now you have to offset whatever they save on production to having to run three productions lines, keep stock for three different product, having retailers allocate space for three different product, going through the marketing hell of three products that are essentially the same, but very different (how will grandma know which of the three her grand kid wants?) etc.

Current switch to a shield tv like switch will save what, 20, maybe 30 bucks at most? A portable dockless switch will cost pretty much the same as the current switch minus the dock. So if Nintendo wants to keep the same profit margins its not going to make a big difference in price.

Is that worth all the extra trouble? Consoles are 300 ~ 400 dollars, so are half decent phones/tablets. Why do people think 300 for switch is that outrageous?

 

[BRiT]

Because ShieldTV is only $200.
And you could get Xbox One S or PS4 with games for $212 just a month ago.

 

[Malo]

Because ShieldTV is only $200.
And you could get Xbox One S or PS4 with games for $212 just a month ago.

To be fair neither the ShieldTV or the consoles have a display and battery.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I disagree. How much money can they really save? A not-that-great 720p screen doesn't cost that much. A battery doesn't cost that much and neither does the hardware inside the dock. Nintendo won't likely get rid of the joycons because that would break games that use them.

In the case where they aren't used because people aren't interested in playing coop on a 7" screen at arms length, they could be removed. You basically lose functionality of local two-player gaming or motion gaming which is fine for a handheld to replace a DS.

Now you have to offset whatever they save on production to having to run three productions lines, keep stock for three different product, having retailers allocate space for three different product, going through the marketing hell of three products that are essentially the same, but very different (how will grandma know which of the three her grand kid wants?) etc.

That's an overkill description. Nintendo had no trouble managing 3DS, 3DS XL, 2DS, etc. Sony is fine handling PS4, PS4 Slim, PS4 Pro, Vita, all with various SKUs.

Current switch to a shield tv like switch will save what, 20, maybe 30 bucks at most? A portable dockless switch will cost pretty much the same as the current switch minus the dock. So if Nintendo wants to keep the same profit margins its not going to make a big difference in price.

Save on screen, battery, and joycons by using a fixed clamshell configuration. I can see $100 saving in that.

Is that worth all the extra trouble? Consoles are 300 ~ 400 dollars, so are half decent phones/tablets. Why do people think 300 for switch is that outrageous?

Because it's not a console (not powerful enough, won't play the console staples like COD and FIFA) and it's not a decent mobile phone (can't make calls, run apps, text). It's a handheld gaming device with TV out, which typically sell for a lot less. eg. 3DS launched at $250. Consoles cost 300+. Mobiles and tablets cost 300+. Surely $250 for a handheld is reasonable? No. It was rejected at that price and Nintendo slashed it to $170 which was more in line with what consumer value a dedicated portable gaming device at.

Multifunction devices rarely work out that well. Combo TV/DVD etc don't sell en masse. People typically prefer dedicated machines as appropriate. Trying be a console and a handheld puts Switch at a disadvantage as it fails to accomplish either role ideally. If broken up into two products, it can be more cost effective and better targeted. I expect that's what'll happen (like Vita TV) if Switch fails to gain traction on account of its USPs.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

You are missing the point. Switch is a gaming device and at some point will probably run some apps.

Apps won't be as good as phones/tablets but the games will be much better.

No it's not as powerful as a console but your ps4 isn't portable, switch is.

Yes 3ds was cheaper but it also came with much more basic hardware.

I'm not saying Nintendo necessarily made the best/right decision designing switch to be what it is but looking at other products offering similar hardware I don't think 300 bucks is that high. 250 would be better but they can always lower the price come next holiday season when they might actually have some games ready...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You may well think $300 is good value. The question is whether everyone else things it's good value, and everyone else (save the Nintendo fans!) will be comparing the device to both other alternatives and what they get from Switch. If the added extras that drive up the cost of Switch don't result in greater value for the consumers, it'd behove Nintendo to remove them and provide what the market has shown it wants regards a handheld gaming device.

Personally I think the chances of the extras being meaningful market drivers as about 10%, especially without the software to back them. I consider it a low probability that the mainstream consumer will see it as anything other than a pricey handheld gaming device which is why an optimally designed handheld gaming device would do better. It's also a shame that Nitnendo do an actual ecosystem as they suggested, with discrete console and handheld that played the same games. That'd have been fairly compelling, with handheld owners choosing to get a console to play on TV, and console owners choosing to add a handheld unit to play their library on the go.

 

[Lalaland]

This is the thing with Switch right now, the Nintendo crowd are as excited as they always are for a new platform and will largely be there day 1 but they all bought Wii Us and that platform was hardly a belter sales wise. This time around they seem to have decided to consolidate their mobile and console dev teams to back one device but appear to have fallen into somewhat of a design by committee hole. So we have a powerful handheld that is simultaneously an underwhelming console, a straight forward clean mobile design that also splits into 3 pieces to support even better waggling and permanently ossify family power relationships ("here you can have the right joy-con little bro/sis, again").

As a mobile device that plugs into a tv it's attractive but expensive especially when you consider the costs of trying to get local multi-player going on anything but two button games. If they had just shuttered the console side of the house, made the Switch unibody, reigned in the cost of the dock (pure margin that thing) and the pads (just make people get off the couch to read amiibo) for $250 we'd be having different conversations. As it is we have a really complex device with features that might be exciting in 2-3 Nintendo titles at best but otherwise just add to the BoM for little gain to the platform overall (WiiU pad).

As an aside I think the kick stand mode is utter guff as unless Nintendo have some truly amazing speakers in that thing the odds of being able to hear anything in a normal environment (let alone at your roof party or underpass street ball game) are nil.

 

[Goodtwin]

Because it's not a console (not powerful enough, won't play the console staples like COD and FIFA)

Switch is getting Fifa, and we don't know about COD yet. Obviously Activision wasn't going to announce this years COD at the Switch reveal. Wii got ports of those games, and was far more problematic for developers. The power chasm between Switch and Xbox/PS4 isn't a death sentence for these games, its a hurdle. It comes down to sales of the hardware, and then software sales performance. Even if Switch sells very well, if Activision puts COD on the platform, and doesn't sell a million units or more, they will likely decline to continue brining the game to the platform. COD is probably one of the easier games to port, seeing as how they can knock the framerate down to 30fps just like they did on Wii.

Nintendo is selling Switch for a profit, and regardless of how much value you may personally put on many of the features, they certainly aren't free. The screen, the battery, the HD rumble, the accelerometer and gyroscope, IR sensor and dock all cost money. Even the fact that the Joy Cons are removable comes at a price. If the controls weren't removable, this would save cost. I agree that the price isn't super attractive, I was really expecting $249, but I can at least understand how the cost can add up to the point where the selling price is $299. The market will dictate if the price is inline with the product or not. Everyone has their own priorities.

Over at Nintendo Life they did a Q&A with a few developers, and one comment that really stood out to me was about the Switch being an immediate replacement for Wii U, and an eventual replacement for the 3DS. The Switch is a product that should easily come down in price over the years. Assuming its a necessity to keep sales going, I would think they can get to $199 or less within a couple years, and still make money. Seeing as how the 3DS XL is the more popular model, the majority of consumers interested in portable gaming find $199 to be acceptable.

 

[BRiT]

I think they will get to $225 in a matter of months not years because they wont sell otherwise.

 

[Goodtwin]

I think they will get to $225 in a matter of months not years because they wont sell otherwise.

I'm not so sure. There seems to be a lot of positive reception within my circle of people that aren't core gamers. Obviously the hardcore Nintendo "console" fans will be there early. This will get a few million units sold in the first couple months. That's when it will get interesting. Historically, even with the Wii U, game releases like MK8 and Splatoon spiked hardware sales. If Nintendo can maintain 200-300k consoles sold per month world wide leading into the Christmas season, I doubt they would do a big price cut. More likely to have start including a game.

The one thing Switch has that most consoles don't is visibility in the market. People are going to be playing their Switch in public, giving Nintendo a lot of free exposure. Its going to bring people hands on with the product that likely wouldn't have otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

You may well think $300 is good value. The question is whether everyone else things it's good value, and everyone else (save the Nintendo fans!) will be comparing the device to both other alternatives and what they get from Switch.

I'm getting a switch (well almost certainly probable that I won't cancel my pre-order) and I'm not a Nintendo fan, nor do I think it's particularly good value given the only launch game I'm that keen on is Zelda. What I am sold on it the proposition of a console where I can play the same games on the move as I can on my TV using the exact same controls. That is hugely appealing.

Is buy a new Nintendo console a gamble? Definitely, but Switch is offering something neither Sony or Microsoft are trying which is particularly disappoint given Sony have released two portable PlayStation consoles and PlayStation branded mobile phones. How the hell did Nintendo do this before Sony?

 

[eastmen]

I disagree. How much money can they really save? A not-that-great 720p screen doesn't cost that much. A battery doesn't cost that much and neither does the hardware inside the dock. Nintendo won't likely get rid of the joycons because that would break games that use them.

Now you have to offset whatever they save on production to having to run three productions lines, keep stock for three different product, having retailers allocate space for three different product, going through the marketing hell of three products that are essentially the same, but very different (how will grandma know which of the three her grand kid wants?) etc.

Current switch to a shield tv like switch will save what, 20, maybe 30 bucks at most? A portable dockless switch will cost pretty much the same as the current switch minus the dock. So if Nintendo wants to keep the same profit margins its not going to make a big difference in price.

Is that worth all the extra trouble? Consoles are 300 ~ 400 dollars, so are half decent phones/tablets. Why do people think 300 for switch is that outrageous?

well i'm talking about when the soc drops in micron again so you would get the savings from that and ram prices being cheaper. Also for games that use the joy cons unattached to the system you can just pair joy cons to it ? I don't see the problem ? The joycons will simply be built into the system with all their featuers you ca even still have that stupid camera .

Nintendo runs 3 production lines today. 2ds , new 3ds and new 3ds xl .

so I would expect the switch boy to come in at $200 after the die shrink.

I think they would be able to slot a switch tv in at $200 . You get the die shrink , you could even put a larger low rpm fan in to use chips that don't hit the voltage they want in switch boy or main switch. They don't need to throw in docks to this one so that would save a few bucks. You still have the cost of joycons and the grip in there so that would be a wash.


Remember that the 3ds until this Christmas was only about $50 bucks less than the 3ds xl and the 2ds was about the same difference from the 3ds. They all managed to sell quite well and have their own markets.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm getting a switch (well almost certainly probable that I won't cancel my pre-order) and I'm not a Nintendo fan, nor do I think it's particularly good value given the only launch game I'm that keen on is Zelda. What I am sold on it the proposition of a console where I can play the same games on the move as I can on my TV using the exact same controls. That is hugely appealing.

That solution could have handled in a less esoteric way. Have an HDMI out port on the device and allow a controller to be paired. It works on the Shield Tablet just fine. Only thing lacking is controls on the mobile mode.

I do like the ideas and intentions of Switch, definitely, but I think it's an unrealistic product in the real market and it's not what people are going to want or pay for. As a business plan it's all shades of misdirected. (My Fedora is ready to be eaten...)

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That solution could have handled in a less esoteric way. Have an HDMI out port on the device and allow a controller to be paired. It works on the Shield Tablet just fine. Only thing lacking is controls on the mobile mode.

And that's a big deal on a mobile device. It's what causes many PC/console genre games awkward to play on phones and tablets and even purpose designed devices like PSP (one stick) and Vita (two shoulder buttons). No matter which way you slice it, switching from a DualShock 4 to Vita's controller to continue playing a PS4 game using streaming is jarring,

I do like the ideas and intentions of Switch, definitely, but I think it's an unrealistic product in the real market and it's not what people are going to want or pay for. As a business plan it's all shades of misdirected. (My Fedora is ready to be eaten...)

I agree with this. It's debatable if there is any substantive market for people who want to play full console games on the move, compared to dip-in-and-out mobile/casual games but I'm incredibly happy Nintendo are trying something different to Microsoft and Sony. But it's hard to predict what will gain traction. To me Wii looked like absolute casual motion gaming nonsense but it sold gangbusters. Switch as a device you can use everywhere (at home on the TV and on the go) seems less insane to me and it's simple to understand. Time will tell. It certainly needs a price drop but that will likely happen in time.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

You may well think $300 is good value. The question is whether everyone else things it's good value, and everyone else (save the Nintendo fans!) will be comparing the device to both other alternatives and what they get from Switch. If the added extras that drive up the cost of Switch don't result in greater value for the consumers, it'd behove Nintendo to remove them and provide what the market has shown it wants regards a handheld gaming device.

I would say $300 is a good value if it came with the pro controller. I think this hd rumble is a mistake, they had a brilliant innovation with the wii mote and its ir pointer, hate to see it forgotten. Without the hd rumble the cost would be lower.

 

[Rootax]

Did Nintendo explained why they don't put analog triggers anymore ?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Did Nintendo explained why they don't put analog triggers anymore ?

Wait the triggers aren't analog?