Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]

[Silent_Buddha]

I haven't seen any games require separate joy-cons except for maybe 1, 2 Switch... Which honestly I don't think people will miss much. Even ARMS will have the option to just play with a controller. Snipper Clippers has single player as well.

Eh? Every single game designed for the Switch basically requires separate joy-cons if those games want to be played in both portable and non-portable modes. How else are you going to have a single control scheme that can work for both docked and undocked mode without driving up the cost of the console? IE - having non-detachable controls and requiring an additional controller for docked use would drive up the cost of the console.

So, yes, in absolute terms, it isn't "required." But WRT minimizing the cost to the consumer it basically is required.

Regards,
SB

 

[Rikimaru]

I'd buy $199 downsized Switch handheld. It's unusable as a handheld for me now.
$99 dock + joy cons + charging joy cons grip for those who want home experience.

 

[Entropy]

I'd buy $199 downsized Switch handheld. It's unusable as a handheld for me now.
$99 dock + joy cons + charging joy cons grip for those who want home experience.

So what you are basically saying is: "I'm only interested in mobile solo play, and refuse to consider that any other way of playing could have value to me. Besides, the Switch is too expensive anyway, I want something cheaper. "
And this is fine. So you are not the target demographic of the Switch, and definitely not an early adopter! You will join the 99% of the population who won't buy a Switch. (Or any other dedicated game device, for that matter.)

But that doesn't mean that the Switch is flawed or designed with the wrong priorities. And this is what bothers me with these posts. You don't want the Switch, you want something else, and harp on the product for not being designed for you. It's like saying (car analogy coming up!) "I don't want a car, I want a bike and a truck!" Which happens to be exactly what I have done in my personal computing since palm pilots, but I don't complain about the existance of laptops (unwieldy, overpriced compromise crap devices!).
Because they obviously fit the priorities of other people.

That you can use a TV for solo or local multiplayer gaming when that is appropriate, or the stand alone device, also for both solo and multiplayer when that would fit is, like it or not, the defining concept of the device. Producing Switch compatible devices that loose this flexibility is a questionable proposition.
It has been pointed out that Nintendo produced the 2DS, but that only removed a feature that was always optional, and where years of experience showed that it wasn't much used. But it's disingenious to point to that while also not acknowledging that the 2DS flopped sales wise, and that Nintendo spent design effort splintering their product, undermining the unique selling point of the 3DS for no good reason.
I don't think that was lost on them.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You've oversimplified the argument. It's not about personal preference, but what design would best suit Nintendo's goals of TV play, wide appeal and profitability. The personal anecdotes are just references showing other designs would find different appeal.

The 2DS reference doesn't work well because the design lost the clamshell, making the system an awkward alternative. What if 2DS was exactly like 3DS but with a 2D screen and $30 cheaper? It was instead a far cheap, more for kids, design, unanalogous to a highly polished, well engineered alternative handheld Switch design.

There is in fact no point of reference. There rarely is for any product, because companies aren't in the habit of releasing multiple variations and letting consumers decide which they really want save a couple of minor feature tweaks. Leading to theoretical discussions like this one.

 

[Entropy]

You've oversimplified the argument. It's not about personal preference, but what design would best suit Nintendo's goals of TV play, wide appeal and profitability. The personal anecdotes are just references showing other designs would find different appeal.

The 2DS reference doesn't work well because the design lost the clamshell, making the system an awkward alternative. What if 2DS was exactly like 3DS but with a 2D screen and $30 cheaper? It was instead a far cheap, more for kids, design, unanalogous to a highly polished, well engineered alternative handheld Switch design.

There is in fact no point of reference. There rarely is for any product, because companies aren't in the habit of releasing multiple variations and letting consumers decide which they really want save a couple of minor feature tweaks. Leading to theoretical discussions like this one.

Fair enough. But such discussions are fundamentally not about the Switch, which is in consumers hands right now. It would make more sense to have such speculation in threads about a future handheld from Sony, or whatever. It's actually quite clear why the Switch is designed the way it is and how they balanced the necessary compromises. Which could also serve as fodder for how Nintendo could improve the device over time, as opposed to doing functionality reduced versions. Essentially making DSi or n3DS inspired revisions as opposed to 2DS ones, strengthening your message as opposed to shooting it in the knee.

 

[Rikimaru]

So what you are basically saying is: "I'm only interested in mobile solo play, and refuse to consider that any other way of playing could have value to me. Besides, the Switch is too expensive anyway, I want something cheaper. "
And this is fine. So you are not the target demographic of the Switch, and definitely not an early adopter! You will join the 99% of the population who won't buy a Switch. (Or any other dedicated game device, for that matter.)

But that doesn't mean that the Switch is flawed or designed with the wrong priorities. And this is what bothers me with these posts. You don't want the Switch, you want something else, and harp on the product for not being designed for you. It's like saying (car analogy coming up!) "I don't want a car, I want a bike and a truck!" Which happens to be exactly what I have done in my personal computing since palm pilots, but I don't complain about the existance of laptops (unwieldy, overpriced compromise crap devices!).
Because they obviously fit the priorities of other people.

That you can use a TV for solo or local multiplayer gaming when that is appropriate, or the stand alone device, also for both solo and multiplayer when that would fit is, like it or not, the defining concept of the device. Producing Switch compatible devices that loose this flexibility is a questionable proposition.
It has been pointed out that Nintendo produced the 2DS, but that only removed a feature that was always optional, and where years of experience showed that it wasn't much used. But it's disingenious to point to that while also not acknowledging that the 2DS flopped sales wise, and that Nintendo spent design effort splintering their product, undermining the unique selling point of the 3DS for no good reason.
I don't think that was lost on them.

I have a Switch. Bought on a launch day.
But it does not replace my 3DS and Vita which are pretty much EOL. So I won't have a new portable system to play.
I'd buy handheld version too (only if lower price though).
It's about flexibility. Some people could buy "full" version. Some will buy a handheld and maybe upgrade to home experience later.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Fair enough. But such discussions are fundamentally not about the Switch, which is in consumers hands right now.

I disagree. It's called a 'post mortem' and plenty of companies do them to learn better practice for future choices. We have what Switch is, and also what it could be. We do the same with other consoles too, like why the heckers did Sony have TV out with PSP but not Vita? What comes from this discussion would then lead into a speculative discussion on a future handheld, which would then be released and reviewed and a post mortem performed.

The only real issue I see with the Switch at the moment is it's early days and we don't really know how the choices are resonating with consumers. But personal opinions as consumers are still valid discussion points. In a way, we don't have any genuine GameBoy class handheld any more. 3DS and Vita are EOL'd, and Switch is a different beast.

 

[Eteric]

Eh? Every single game designed for the Switch basically requires separate joy-cons if those games want to be played in both portable and non-portable modes.

So, yes, in absolute terms, it isn't "required." But WRT minimizing the cost to the consumer it basically is required.

Regards,
SB

The portable would only be for single player for a single person (unless it's interacting with other Switches). This is for people that want to put something like Zelda or Mario Kart in their pocket. It would lose the joy-con separation feature because it's made for one person. It, of course, would still be able to interact and play with other original Switches in local and online multiplayer (I have an original Switch, and I'd be able to play 2p racing with someone with a pocket Switch).

As for a stationary Switch box for home only use, it could still come with joy-cons. It would just need to come with the charging grip.

 

[Cyan]

Definitely a portable sku without detachable controlers and just tv out would make a killing.

199$ replacing 3ds.
If you want the tv experience just grab the pro controller

as other people explained, that would split the user base. in the times of the X360 that didn't work out that well, because the arcade model was very cheap and you got top notch 2005 hardware for 300$, which was great, but it got to a point where games started to require a hard drive or they wouldn't launch.

Other than that, they could probably get rid of the cartridge slot but that wouldn't make a massive difference. Downsides aside, like not being able to lend games to a friend or try a game a friend of yours wants to show you. I guess consoles like Scorpio are going to have a SKU without the BR drive, it saves space and the BR drive is like 37$ BOM, which should add some additional savings.

 

[Cyan]

Overwatch will run on some really old hardware. And it doesn't need a ton of RAM either (it'll run on GPUs with only 512 MB of RAM and will use less than 4 GB of system RAM). Graphical effects will need to be toned down a bit, but I imagine it's more just about supporting an additional platform. Note that while typically Blizzard likes to make all their games available on MacOS, they haven't made a MacOS version of Overwatch either.

Regards,
SB

Overwatch is not my forte, but I could also see games like F-Zero looking amazing on Switch, if you take into account how good F-Zero GX looked back in the day and made me buy a GC to play it.

Btw, Mario Kart was a mistake, it was born as a multiplayer prototype of F-Zero, which means it was born from F-Zero. For those who grew up with F-Zero games that kind of makes the game even more special.

https://phoneia.com/super-mario-kart-was-born-as-a-prototype-of-f-zero-multiplayer/

“Our original plan for Mario Kart didn't include, nor Mario nor karts"

 

[Eteric]

as other people explained, that would split the user base. in the times of the X360 that didn't work out that well, because the arcade model was very cheap and you got top notch 2005 hardware for 300$, which was great, but it got to a point where games started to require a hard drive or they wouldn't launch.

Other than that, they could probably get rid of the cartridge slot but that wouldn't make a massive difference. Downsides aside, like not being able to lend games to a friend or try a game a friend of yours wants to show you. I guess consoles like Scorpio are going to have a SKU without the BR drive, it saves space and the BR drive is like 37$ BOM, which should add some additional savings.

If Nintendo ever goes down the "iterative" route, than this might be a problem anyway. If they release a Switch 2.0 that has like, Volta in it or whatever, there will probably be games that run on it that won't run
on the old model. What I'm hoping is that Switch 2.0 is compatible with 1.0's dock and controllers, that way people that bought the original can upgrade or trade in the old tablet to get the new one for a reasonable price.

It might be impossible, of course. Its easier to get people to upgrade phones than it is to get them to upgrade consoles.

It's hard to say where they're going to go. MS and Sony seem to sort of be experimenting with this now. The Pro and Scorpio will not (as far as I know) have games exclusive to it. But will this remain the rule forever is the real question. If Scorpio or Pro get exclusive games it could cause at shit storm. Or, people may be more willing to accept it as time passes.

It's a confusing thing to be honest.

 

[Entropy]

I disagree. It's called a 'post mortem' and plenty of companies do them to learn better practice for future choices. We have what Switch is, and also what it could be. We do the same with other consoles too, like why the heckers did Sony have TV out with PSP but not Vita? What comes from this discussion would then lead into a speculative discussion on a future handheld, which would then be released and reviewed and a post mortem performed.

The only real issue I see with the Switch at the moment is it's early days and we don't really know how the choices are resonating with consumers. But personal opinions as consumers are still valid discussion points. In a way, we don't have any genuine GameBoy class handheld any more. 3DS and Vita are EOL'd, and Switch is a different beast.

Exactly. The Switch is a different beast. Which means that a functionally reduced "handheld" or "stationary" describes a different kind of product from what the Switch sets out to be. While certainly possible, either variation would lack design integrity and carry baggage from the Switch that doesn't really benefit the class of device they would be. You can't make a much smaller or longer running pure handheld since you wouldn't be able to fit either the necessary battery or cooling solution. And as a stationary, you could easily give the processor a factor of ten more power, there is no need to constrain a mains tethered console to such low power draws. The Switch has design integrity for what it is. It doesn't necessarily carry over well.

And that's where the majority of the on-line whining about the Switch originates - people wishing that it simply was another class of device, be it pure portable or stationary. Eventually, it gets tiresome.

(I'd contend that there is a reason why we don't see GameBoy type devices any more, and that reason is cell phones. As cell phones creep ever lower in age brackets, the motivation for anyone, even quite small kids, to carry around such a device is mostly gone. It can be said that Nintendo served/es what is left of that market with the DSi. They are certainly in the best position of anyone on the planet to assess the viability of that market. And they have chosen to make cell phone games rather than introduce a new low level portable.)

We are very far from being able to make a market post mortem analysis of the Switch. It has gotten off to a good start but to what extent it will continue to be successful is impossible to say at this point in time. As a publisher I would support it, because it to some extent adresses another demographic than the mains powered TV attachments, and thus expands their market. But I'm not a publisher, (and wouldn't privately mind if the console business model withered and died), so I neither know or care much if they let that market opportunity pass them by.
I'll say this though for proprietrary gaming platforms - they can allow innovation in ways which are difficult on multicultural devices. To that extent, the Switch is an example of what gives consoles a reason for existing at all.

 

[Esrever]

A purely mobile version of the switch wouldn't be much problem from a design perspective. It is in the same vein as the 2DS. I fully expect a mobile only switch to launch in a year or so for a cheaper price to capture as much of the market as they can.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The portable would only be for single player for a single person (unless it's interacting with other Switches). This is for people that want to put something like Zelda or Mario Kart in their pocket. It would lose the joy-con separation feature because it's made for one person. It, of course, would still be able to interact and play with other original Switches in local and online multiplayer (I have an original Switch, and I'd be able to play 2p racing with someone with a pocket Switch).

As for a stationary Switch box for home only use, it could still come with joy-cons. It would just need to come with the charging grip.

Here's the problem with that. Due to the Switch serving both portable and non-portable markets, in theory it sells more units. Selling more units means that economies of scale come in to reducing the cost of manufacturing.

If you then split that into 2 different devices. One with non-removable controls and one with no controls, you increase the cost associated with manufacturing the devices. IE - a switch with non-removable controls isn't going to be any smaller, and it isn't going to be much cheaper. The screen was chosen purely for portable mode. The screen, the battery and the cooling solution are the major determining factors for how large the device will be.

As a non-portable device the Switch is very underpowered and different design considerations could have been used for a home console.

A non-dockable Switch additionally is highly unlikely to sell more units than the hybrid switch and isn't going to save much money. A non-portable switch is likely going to have significantly less sales. Together it would likely mean a lower install base and less incentives for developers to make games for it.

Nintendo could have made a purely portable devices and a purely non-portable home console. Each would have been a different beast to what we currently have in the Switch. A purely portable device likely would have had a much less powerful SOC, a smaller screen, and a more portable form factor. A home console would likely have had a more powerful SOC.

That would have meant significantly higher design and manufacturing costs for Nintendo. It would have meant split user bases for portable and home console. That in turn means that titles would have to be ported from one to the other with no guarantee that developers would bother to port a game from the home console to the portable and vice versa.

From a business perspective considering Nintendo doesn't have the cash reserves of Microsoft nor the business diversification of Sony to help fund and amortize the cost of their console business, the Switch was a good device to attempt to address both the portable and home console market.

Additionally, while there's obviously people that don't like the design decisions that are integral to concept like this (detachable joy-cons, less powerful home console, slightly larger portable console, etc.) there's a lot of people that do like it. No console is perfect. For example, I have no use for either the PS4 or XBO at the moment. The portable mode for Switch is the main draw, but if it was the only one, I wouldn't be interested. It's the fact that I can use it in both portable and non-portable mode that makes me want to get a Switch.

So yes, no matter what Nintendo chose to do, they were going to alienate some portion of the gaming market. The question then becomes, is their hybrid design enough to attract more consumers (sales) than a home console or purely portable device? It's a good gamble considering that Sony and Microsoft are very entrenched with core gamers for a home console and portable gaming is increasingly being threatened by smartphones and tablets. Only the future will tell if it was the right choice and/or if their design compromises reverberate with a significant portion of the buying public.

Regards,
SB

 

[Eteric]

I'd like to clarify that when I say a Switch-mini, I don't mean this is going to happen any time soon. I expect this to happen when the chips can be shrunk down to no longer really need active cooling and be waaay more power efficient than it is now. Right now a Switch mini isn't feasible. A Switch box is possible, but not really necessary right now as there's so many ways they can push the current Switch (price drops, bundles, etc).

I think I'm more curious about how Nintendo will handle generations from here on out. Will they just release new Switches with better Tegra SoCs? Maybe have a program encouraging you to trade your gen 1 Switch tablet for a gen 2 Switch tablet? Or will they drop the Switch in 4 years and do a whole new generation of system completely?

It's the most interesting question in regards to the Switch IMO.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

My guess would be a new device every couple of years. Devs already have to deal with a portable and docked mode and I don't see anybody being too happy about having to support two additional profiles for every hardware update.

It also negates the main reason people buy dedicated gaming devices to being with; the fact that you buy a device once and can be reasonably confident it will play all games for the next couple of years.

 

[Eteric]

I really hope they don't dump the Switch for another new crazy idea (unless tech has changed a lot by then). I love the concept of the Switch, really fits in with my life (basically fucking off and not being in front of a TV all the time).

 

[Entropy]

I really hope they don't dump the Switch for another new crazy idea (unless tech has changed a lot by then). I love the concept of the Switch, really fits in with my life (basically fucking off and not being in front of a TV all the time).

I have to agree, and I have pointed out before that I have surprised myself with how nice I've found it to simply be able to play a game in bed, or in a particularly comfy armchair, or out on the porch, never mind on trips. The freedom is seductive, and it now feels quite restrained to have to be parked in front of a big screen, even though it is nice under certain conditions. My kids are young and they've asked me why wired telephones exist. It's a good question.

Nintendo is interesting precisely because they can and will do the unexpected or unprecedented with the aim of creating novel gaming experiences (while being quite conservative in other respects).
However, one of the main driving forces for Nintendo to take the Switch path was so that they could unify their game development resources, rather than split them between platforms. I would guess that this would be a quality they would like to keep, if they feel the Switch works out for them.
Assuming this, they can't do much to improve the mobile platform until they have access to new silicon. It barely makes sense for them to move to (16/12nmFF) even though that would yield power draw benefits. I would assume that they wouldn't want to commit to new silicon before they know how the uptake of the Switch seems to be going, and if they were to commission a new SoC on 16nm, they would have to make a financially big commitment (probably already) with relatively little to show for it. 7nm seem like a better node for a mid-life bump of the design. Just transferring the design would drop die size to roughly a third, which would save them money at high volumes, and power draw would likewise drop to a quarter or so, which could be used to both extend battery life, and to get rid of the cooling fan even for docked mode. They can't make the actual device all that much smaller if they want to keep the joy-cons and the screen size. They might bump the performance slightly for increased pleasantness, but not enough to create a new platform. Apple will ship a few hundred million A11 SoCs built on TSMC 7nm, but will according to current plans move on from there to the EUV enhanced version in 2019, and to 5nm in 2020. So - 2020 could be a good year to introduce that 7nm mid-life kicker, and the Switch platform would extend to 2023 or so, similar in life time to the 3DS.

Another route though would be to follow the pattern of Sony and Microsoft, and introduce a distinct new but compatible product at around the same time, keeping a similar die size to the current, yielding a 3-4 times performance improvement along with hopefully a corresponding factor of 2.5-4 in RAM bandwidth, on board solid state storage and speed and so on. That would simplify multiplatform ports, and extend the valid lifetime of the console a bit, which could be a good thing in the foggy uncharted waters of a future where Moores law has severe difficulties, VR and AR may or may not come down in price and size, consumer habits may shift, and China may stop lending money to the USA. Making predictions now about the gaming landscape of 2023/2024 takes some serious crystal balling. Introducing something more powerful but backwards compatible on 7nm around 2020 synchronises nicely with stationary console upgrade cycles (for ports), and maintains a safely extended software environment for consumers as well as developers.

These two paths would make sense, and fit the time constraints of access to suitable lithographic nodes at reasonable cost for Nintendo volumes. But as I said in the beginning, Nintendo makes their own future.

 

[Urian]

Is it possible to use Checkerboard 720P to port games from PS4 to Switch? Do you see it as a good option or image quality could be seriously compromised?

 

[turkey]

Is it possible to use Checkerboard 720P to port games from PS4 to Switch? Do you see it as a good option or image quality could be seriously compromised?

Is the GPU even the limiting factor here?