Where exactly did I state this ?
What supplier currently works for them now doesn't necessarily mean that they'll keep it that way depending on the conditions ...
Switch 2 Speculation
- Thread starter Goodtwin
- Start date
The bit about their current supplier having a disdain for small dies and high end features. Both of those statements are unfounded unless you’re referring to a different “current supplier”.
Yes but what conditions do you see changing that their current supplier can’t / won’t accommodate?
arandomguy
Veteran
I don't think first year sales of the PS5 or anything gaming during that time period should be straight forward compared in a historical context due to the impact of the pandemic.
When do you think was it the last time that they released a sub-150mm^2 part ? Something that could actually be used to fit inside the Switch's current form factor ...
Do you think hardware that small and clocked low can actually be used to realistically power UE5's high-end features ?
My entire point is that Nintendo is in a somewhat more vulnerable position this time around and their current supplier (Nvidia) is just an example of how extreme their trade-offs can be ...
If they're not going to get hardware BC (due to incompatible architecture changes) or high perf/area then what exactly do they get out of sticking with them again with their next portable system ?
If go in a similar route like Sony/Microsoft, they'll get robust HW RT implementation and AI upscaling at the cost of a larger die size which is usable for any small system ...
Or they could find the so called "middle way", where they offset the balance between portable and high powered systems by sourcing more expensive components ? (newer process/latest mobile memory standards/etc)
How can you be certain that Nintendo and Nvidia are in alignment this time around when they can potentially have diverging aims/goals/requirements ?
AD107 is a desktop part at only 160mm^2. Surely they can make even smaller portable friendly chips.
No idea but what does UE5 have to do with the success of Switch 2?
Why are you assuming they won’t get hardware BC or high PPA? Like MS and Sony, Nintendo must have cost, performance and feature targets in mind. They’re not going to pay for features they don’t want or need. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there’s no hardware RT support at all in Switch 2because there’s no room on the die and it’s not required for Nintendo’s next console to be successful. Upscaling is probably a given as that’s a high PPA win.
They can also potentially have perfectly aligned goals. Have you seen some indication that they aren’t aligned? My understanding of these arrangements is that Nintendo says what they need and they choose a supplier that can provide it.
Maybe if they cut feature parity (RT/AI upscaling) and some more hardware (cache/SM) they can fit in the CPU but otherwise ...
It may not have anything to do with success but what about tool compatibility ?
As far as I understand from other driver/emulator developers, console games (including Switch's) ship hard coded shader binaries which are incompatible between different GPU architectures. Nintendo's solution to hardware BC has to ALWAYS been to introduce DUPLICATE hardware between their different systems. How Sony/Microsoft managed to gain hardware BC is unique to them because AMD opted to simply extend their previous architecture over introducing an incompatible design but even that STILL did not stop AMD from duplicating HW because they have two redundant geometry pipelines (legacy geometry pipeline vs NGG) for the purposes of BC ...
With Nvidia's HW designs being incompatible with each other, there would almost surely be far more HW implementation redundancy to achieve HW BC eating into their die size budget ...
I have yet to see a HW AI upscaling implementation on integrated gfx solutions so your claims of "high PPA win" remains to be exhibited in practice for that specific case ...
In some cases (high powered system) I can see them being aligned but for others (portable system) that may not be the possibility. It's up to them to decide what trade-offs their willing to do ...
Do you think it's the case that their aligned in ALL of the different scenarios ?
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
Oh no, Nintendo's 36% profit margin, what terrible fate befalls them! 
Yeah I think they will need to make sensible compromises to accommodate the form factor, assuming it’s still a portable setup. Nintendo won’t pay for RT & upscaling if they don’t want those features.
You mean the rumored Ampere vs the existing Maxwell? If their intent is to run switch binaries natively on switch 2 then that decision seems orthogonal to their choice of supplier for the new console. Doesn’t make sense to speculate since we have no idea what they plan do for BC.
Maybe Arrow Lake will show the way.
Nvidia and Nintendo are obviously pursuing different corporate strategies. Nintendo isn’t selling AI and graphics and Nvidia isn't selling home consoles. Not sure what you mean by aligned but on the specific issue of building a chip for Nintendo’s next console we must assume they’re aligned otherwise there would be no engagement.
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
I don't think it's a non sequitur at all. Tangential at worst ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The paltry launch lineups of the PS5 and Series consoles didn't matter too much in isolation, just as their feeble subsequent years wouldn't matter too much in isolation. Combined, they're an issue by the time the prospect of purchase reaches the normie gamer - at launch, they didn't hear of exclusive must-plays; years in, they haven't heard of exclusive must-plays.
It's why I said I think there's "something to it" not that I think it paints the whole picture. I certainly agree that the high price is probably the primary cause.
Maybe. We just know so little that it's impossible to say.
At present, we can judge Sony and MS for floundering based on their actions. Soon enough, we may be able to judge Nintendo the same way, but we can't judge where we're only capable of speculation.
As things stand, Nintendo is rumoured to have delayed the Switch 2 so that it has a strong lineup - if true, they're a gaming company focused on releasing a gaming device with solid games to play on it. That strikes me as sensible.
As things stand, Sony is scrambling to regain their focus in the wake of Bean Counter General Jim Ryan spunking years of development away on his GaaS obsession and next quarter thinking. Whether they'll return to being sensible is still up in the air.
And as things stand, Microsoft managed a year with solid games for the first time in a long time... followed almost immediately by talk of going multiplatform to just really take the wind out of their fledgling sails. I'm not holding my breath that they're ever going to be sensible.
Would the launch line-up matter at all if the library right now was the greatest collection of games ever made? The issue if there is one, is a lack of compelling games. When those games were introduced doesn't matter by year three. Players just want good games. Similarly, if there was an insane marketing push of the best 12 games ever made coming to PS5 or XBS this year, people would be tempted for the games coming out, irrespective of what they didn't play in the first 6 months.
The library matters. If you launch with a good library, you get that influence for first buyers. If not, you lose interest, but then ramping up the games ramps up the interest over time.
I'm almost sure that they won't be able to maintain that once their new console launches.Oh no, Nintendo's 36% profit margin, what terrible fate befalls them!
I don't know if I'd describe Sony's position to be 'floundering' since they have the most established/recent gaming system so far. Yes, they're slightly behind their predecessor but they're also well on their way to clearing 100M+ units again despite not being able to do any price drops in hard times ...
As for Microsoft, they're only just finding out now that their current strategy doesn't work but it's not as if anyone can spin that it's ever 'worked' before ...
For the most part, Sony and Microsoft are just simply continuing similar strategies in a different world that's become more hostile overall than they had known before ...
The factors that once made the Switch a success such as porting over an old catalogue of games to reach more customers or likely having a process technology advantage compared to others are gone. There's also fewer 'fallbacks' that they can rely on such as price drops and it's up in the air if their hardware supplier will extend a lifeline to them by implement hardware BC ...
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
That's what I'm wondering about. The Playstation 2 cleared 160 million almost 20 years ago, the world is more populace and richer since then. As a proportion of the amount of people they could sell too even Nintendo has gone down, Sony moreso, Microsoft may as well be cratering versus the potential sales.
A console as successful as the PS2 should be clearing 200-250 million. Maybe Nintendo could do it if they managed to get third parties interested in their hardware, but they don't seem to care that much.
The PS2 was a cheap dvd player. The Wii was a family friendly gaming system. The Switch combined mobile and home console functionality. All these system have a selling point which was "zeitlos" at release.
Switch 2 will deliver PS4/Xbox One image quality. At this point graphics dont matter any more.
Switch 2 will deliver PS4/Xbox One image quality. At this point graphics dont matter any more.
A part of why the reason why PS2 was "peak game console" was because Sony made it a living hell for any multiplatform developers to even attempt to release their games on other platforms. The PS2 had both true software exclusivity in large droves and lead platform status combined with a potent exotic hardware architecture meant that they had nearly shored up the entire console industry that was not Microsoft or Nintendo ...
Sony had to give up on attaining software exclusivity with exotic architectures since their follow up ended in failure and went with standardized architectures because they thought that being the lead platform was more important to them than real exclusivity hence some of their loss in market power ...
It'll be interesting to see what Nintendo does next because they haven't been exposed yet to the same or WORSE elements as either Sony/Microsoft ...
cheapchips
Veteran
It'll be two screens. Nintendo's go to next move is always two screens.
arandomguy
Veteran
But this viewpoint is a bit I guess "core" gamer centric? The gaming market itself has grown propotionally since the PS2 era but the options have expanded as well.
I wonder how much a factor in the number of PS2 unit sales was due it I believe being the last console that was relatively easily jail broken to play pirated games? Especially in terms of the impact in less well off regions which might have then shifted to PC gaming and later on mobile.
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
Supposedly the memory configuration is 7500 MTS at 12gb, putting it at a 96bit bus. That's 17% more memory bandwidth than Steamdeck, combined with Ampere that puts it at, just over/under half Series S depending on if Raytracing is used, though I'd take it probably won't be for most things all considered.
I mean, that's my point. If consoles had grown proportionate to the gaming industry they'd be selling 200+ million by now. Phones have taken over this sort of sad half competition space. They're not big enough and/or don't have the controls for a large number of games, but are enough competition to drive people off buying a $400 dollar box they can only use at home. I'd love to see the console makers try and compete better (at least Nintendo is trying), or phones to somehow get better.
Whichever one grows the higher end game market again. Civ VI and Tycoon games and Cities Skylines could be a hit on touchscreens alone, if phones weren't capped to 6.7 inches and thus the UI ends up feeling cramped. Of course it would help if Google and Apple weren't monopolizing assholes, even though the % is the same I'd bet Steam could start selling high end games on tablets much better than Apple or Google could, maybe all this long overdue anti-trust fudge could finally see something there.
I mean, that's my point. If consoles had grown proportionate to the gaming industry they'd be selling 200+ million by now. Phones have taken over this sort of sad half competition space. They're not big enough and/or don't have the controls for a large number of games, but are enough competition to drive people off buying a $400 dollar box they can only use at home. I'd love to see the console makers try and compete better (at least Nintendo is trying), or phones to somehow get better.
Whichever one grows the higher end game market again. Civ VI and Tycoon games and Cities Skylines could be a hit on touchscreens alone, if phones weren't capped to 6.7 inches and thus the UI ends up feeling cramped. Of course it would help if Google and Apple weren't monopolizing assholes, even though the % is the same I'd bet Steam could start selling high end games on tablets much better than Apple or Google could, maybe all this long overdue anti-trust fudge could finally see something there.
Charlietus
Regular
12 gb of ram means that 99% of games could get a port without too many problems. Much better positioned compared to the original switch with 4gb.
That bandwidth is even less than the PS4 (176GBs). So in situations when bandwidth starved, what would be some things they would do to compensate? Drop the native resolution and/or resolution of effects? Just curious how they could overcome such a big gap.
