Charlietus
Regular
I think so, but it doesn't matter anymore honestly. It's coming out in 3-4 months, so a week or a month doesn't change much.
Switch 2 Speculation
- Thread starter Goodtwin
- Start date
Dominik D
Regular
Except numbers prove you wrong. For instance UK stats indicate that around 40% of Playstation and Xbox owners have Switch. They sure don't have it for multiplatform titles. Over 50% of Switch owners have either Xbox or Playstation. In general if you're playing games and have disposable income, you got Switch at some point. Unless your daily routine is absolutely incompatible with handheld gaming, or the only thing you care about are resolution, frames per second, and raytracing. PC gamers tend to overemphasize that second group, as if everyone must care about numbers more than they do about experiences.
NES to SNES to N64 weren't much about experimentation. Same for GB to Gameboy Color to GBA. Shift from DS to DSi to 3DS wasn't that massive either. There were several lineups of 2.5-3 iterations on the same concept. Nintendo doesn't reinvent the wheel with each generation. Going from Wii to Wii U to Switch is an exception, not a rule. I'm fairly optimistic that there's something Super Switch will bring on top of (slightly) better performance but even if it doesn't it's really hard to predict how existence or lack of a new gimick will affect sales without exploring alternative timeline with different product.
Both of which don't exist. And I'm fairly confident MS won't build a dedicated handheld in the next 4 years. Satya is more interested in burning money on AI than on new valuable experiences.
Numbers don't prove me wrong (well maybe they actually do but I don't have access to the true all-seeing power as of today).
To me, numbers you provided just show that when a given device is innovative enough and is basically the only solid option on a given market, it will sell to more people. So yes, people with a PS or an XBox or a powerful PC also have a Switch. But same people may buy a handheld PC or a PSP3 this time around because they now have the option to. Of course they may also go with the Switch 2, but we gamers are so diverse it's guaranteed that some will go buy a non Nintendo handheld to play CoD or GTA or any other big third-party AAA title.
I agree, PSP3 and Portable Xbox don't exist yet (note that the Switch 2 does not exist yet either). But handheld PC already does. And the Switch 2 is supposedly here for 7-8 years. So even if the PS3/PXBOX arrive in 3-4 years, they may take significant market shares to the Switch 2. And we may revive a Wii-like scenario where the Switch 2 starts strong the first few years and its flaws start to show off badly after serious competition is here, tanking sales. Having no major flaw is the best way I can see to avoid such a situation.
We still don't know if T239 is fabbed on SEC8N, but if true, and if all other leaks are correct (mostly larger 1080p 8" screen and "small" <20Wh battery), the only way the console can still have acceptable battery life would be by using super low clocks that will really cripple the system potential.
In any case, I can only see a stronger Switch 2 would offer a better future to Nintendo. Last thing I want to see is sales starting to tank after 2-3 years and having Nintendo rushing to design a new half-baked successor. But like you noted, my pessimism being wrong here is obviously possible. So maybe Nintendo knows better and chose the best option, but the way the GC/Wii/3DS/WiiU went tells me Nintendo can't foresee the future any better than the average gamer.
It's a shame that ultimately regardless of the Node portable performance will be mostly dictated by the cheap battery Nintendo goes with.
Nintendo is in a unique situation compared to SteamDeck and other handhelds. They are expected to sell 100+ million. The opportunity cost of even a $10 more expensive SoC or Battery comes out to $1 Billion dollars in lost profit. So while Switch 2 on a smaller node and larger battery could surely be done at $400 and still be profitable. Nintendo would never leave Billions of profit on the table just to have a higher fidelity experience.
Nintendo is in a unique situation compared to SteamDeck and other handhelds. They are expected to sell 100+ million. The opportunity cost of even a $10 more expensive SoC or Battery comes out to $1 Billion dollars in lost profit. So while Switch 2 on a smaller node and larger battery could surely be done at $400 and still be profitable. Nintendo would never leave Billions of profit on the table just to have a higher fidelity experience.
Dominik D
Regular
Sure they may, but why would they? If you claim something will happen then at least provide a coherent explanation as to why. Not all things are equal. Just because N options exist doesn't mean that they have the same appeal. Also PSP3 doesn't exist - people can't buy it instead of Super Switch. PC-based handhelds, maybe. But so far this hasn't been the case. Switch sold almost 150mln units. Steamdeck sold 4-5mln, Ally supposedly sold north of half a million.
"People will buy the more powerful handheld" is the same fantasy that dominated discourse when NDS and PSP launched. NDS outsold PSP 2:1 even though even I bought PSP first as it was supposedly eating NDS for breakfast.
For Switch 2 (even if it's just a slightly more powerful console than the original Switch) to sell really in the same ballpark PC handhelds do there would have to be some massive shift in consumer perception and developer interest. And from what I can tell talking to developers - there's a massive interest in supporting S2. New online store is also a huge draw for indie developers. You can get tons of eyeballs on your product if store is less crowded than, say, Steam where 500 games release each month. Historically adopting new online store early and releasing a decent game can yield sales in single-digit percentage of store users. That's huge for a console that sells, let's say, 6mln units in its first year (IIRC Switch sold 14-ish).
There are many things Nintendo can get wrong. They could price it too high. They could face production volume or quality issues. They could fumble developer support (but as far as I know this is not the case).
You're fixated on how underpowered it's going to be. I'm sure people play Cyberpunk on their Steam Deck but it is primarily there for you to play all the indies you (a person in general, not you specifically) bought and never launched while you're on holidays. If you're the type of gamer who oozes over pixel quantity and quality, why would you subject yourself to playing high-end AAA games on a portable PC? It's not going to deliver the experience you want. IDK if you have a handheld PC or just white room the experience. Certified for Steam Deck tag on a game doesn't mean it runs well. It simply means it's not incompatible with what deck offers. There's no guarantee Super Switch will run games Steam Deck is good for worse than the deck (or whatever else is there on the market later this year). Not to mention: Steam Deck is heavy AF (same for Ally and others). It limits the appeal to people who aren't obsessed with performance.
I have the OG Switch. The poor battery life is not a big issue for me because I don't game as much as I used to and when I do play, it's not for hours in one sitting, more like about an hour before I put it down.
I think mobile devices have influenced this as well as old age and other diversions than gaming. That is mobile games you play in short sessions and you can resume and pause or stop many times during a day when you find small durations of time to kill during your day.
Switch enables this kind of rhythm, whereas consoles do not.
Sure Nintendo makes games which deserve your attention, your sustained attention, to have a better sense of immersion. But there are so many things which pull for your attention nowadays.
Hypothetically, if Nintendo were to forgo Tensor cores, how many CUDA cores could fit in their place?
For a portable where space is a premium wouldn't AMD's approach of having dual purpose cores make more sense? Then developers could choose how to allocate power...
For a portable where space is a premium wouldn't AMD's approach of having dual purpose cores make more sense? Then developers could choose how to allocate power...
I'm doubtful about this claim.the hybridizing has commenced. The new JoyCon of Switch 2 can be used as a mouse because they include an optical sensor. This is the same as the Lenovo Legion Go whose joypads can be put vertically and be moved like a mouse thanks to the optical sensor.
cheapchips
Veteran
The position of the optical sensor on the Switch 2 joycon is different to the Lenovo. It's on the top, so it would slot into a mouse base with the attachment magnet strip thing it uses to attach to the console. That doesn't sound like it would be especially comfortable to use.
Nintendo must have more than resurrecting Mario Paint in mind for the optical sensor. It'll be fun to find out. Labo seems to have died a death. That's a shame when the senior would offer some interesting options for that .
Sensor's in the middle here, next to SL.
Nintendo must have more than resurrecting Mario Paint in mind for the optical sensor. It'll be fun to find out. Labo seems to have died a death. That's a shame when the senior would offer some interesting options for that .
Sensor's in the middle here, next to SL.
Last edited:
Hi. And well, I find your take a bit weird. Why would people buy something else than the Switch 2? I mean, do you really think Valve/Asus/Lenovo/MSI/Sony/Microsoft and co are investing millions designing handhelds for fun? The Switch basically created the "high-end" gaming mobile market. Different actors are giving it a try. Different customers will go with whatever product they think is best for them. There is no "coherent explanation" to give here. Just imagine you're someone else, with different needs.Sure they may, but why would they? If you claim something will happen then at least provide a coherent explanation as to why. Not all things are equal. Just because N options exist doesn't mean that they have the same appeal. Also PSP3 doesn't exist - people can't buy it instead of Super Switch. PC-based handhelds, maybe. But so far this hasn't been the case. Switch sold almost 150mln units. Steamdeck sold 4-5mln, Ally supposedly sold north of half a million.
"People will buy the more powerful handheld" is the same fantasy that dominated discourse when NDS and PSP launched. NDS outsold PSP 2:1 even though even I bought PSP first as it was supposedly eating NDS for breakfast.
For Switch 2 (even if it's just a slightly more powerful console than the original Switch) to sell really in the same ballpark PC handhelds do there would have to be some massive shift in consumer perception and developer interest. And from what I can tell talking to developers - there's a massive interest in supporting S2. New online store is also a huge draw for indie developers. You can get tons of eyeballs on your product if store is less crowded than, say, Steam where 500 games release each month. Historically adopting new online store early and releasing a decent game can yield sales in single-digit percentage of store users. That's huge for a console that sells, let's say, 6mln units in its first year (IIRC Switch sold 14-ish).
There are many things Nintendo can get wrong. They could price it too high. They could face production volume or quality issues. They could fumble developer support (but as far as I know this is not the case).
You're fixated on how underpowered it's going to be. I'm sure people play Cyberpunk on their Steam Deck but it is primarily there for you to play all the indies you (a person in general, not you specifically) bought and never launched while you're on holidays. If you're the type of gamer who oozes over pixel quantity and quality, why would you subject yourself to playing high-end AAA games on a portable PC? It's not going to deliver the experience you want. IDK if you have a handheld PC or just white room the experience. Certified for Steam Deck tag on a game doesn't mean it runs well. It simply means it's not incompatible with what deck offers. There's no guarantee Super Switch will run games Steam Deck is good for worse than the deck (or whatever else is there on the market later this year). Not to mention: Steam Deck is heavy AF (same for Ally and others). It limits the appeal to people who aren't obsessed with performance.
If all you really want is play CoD, GTA and EA FC on the go, why not pick the "best" device, as opposed to as "the only one"?
If you're first and foremost a PC gamer, but you want to play on the go. Same if you're an XBOX gamer. Same if you're a PS gamer. Capitalizing on your main platform seems like the natural thing to do.
It just happens that this was not possible before the SD (for Steam gamers). And it won't be mainstream for XBOX and PS gamers till we get new offerings from Microsoft and Sony. So naturally many people just went with the Switch.
The DS vs PSP example is funny. Of course the DS outsold the PSP. Do you think a future where the Switch 2 sells 100M and the supposed PSP3 sells 50M is a win for Nintendo vs what happenned during the Switch generation? I'm not saying Switch 2 will fail (it won't). I'm not even saying it's underpowered per say. I think it may be underpowered relative to the new competition in the market, thus leading to a lesser success of the device.
Switch sold 150M+ thanks to many factors. Having no real competition for the major party of its life sure is one of them.
Anyway, I'm not here to convince anyone people will buy the more powerful hardware or whatever. I'm only discussing why I find it risky for Nintendo to lowball this hard this time around. Time may prove they made the right choices and Switch 2 bring them as much money as the Switch did, but as of now, I just don't think the decisions they made for this device are the best in the 2025-2032 context.
Also important: Nintendo lowballing would only be true if the chip is indeed SEC8N. Maybe this chip is Samsung 5LPP and is so big because of indredibly large caches to make it super power efficient... but let's stay realistic :'(
Dominik D
Regular
Are they producing games for those platforms? PC handhelds are self-cannibalizing and even with fairly lax Lot Check for Nintendo platforms the resulting experience is far better than what you get with games validated for Steam Deck.
You can't be serious. Tons of crap was ported from phones but the majority of sales come from 1st- and 2nd-party titles with indies the close third. Calling Switch a high-end phone is naive.
It's not my problem in this thread. Majority of your claims that people will rush for PC handhelds they way they yet haven't is based on assumption that people care primarily about the hardware and how powerful it is. This is most likely because this is your outlook and you're unable to see beyond that.
No, that's why I wouldn't play those games on a portable device. How is it that you're willing to compromise experience going from top end PC to some overweight yet still underpowered PC handheld but you can't make the same leap of faith going from, say, Steam Deck to Switch?
What's funny is your insistence on people buying products that don't exist as opposed to products that do.
So was it a high-end mobile or not? You can't have it both ways.
Not remotely enough to make up for the advantages that DLSS will give them in place of alternative upscaling/reconstruction solutions.
But really, not a lot. It varies a bit, but calculations showed that Turing RTX vs Turing GTX was roughly a 10% difference or so in SM size. Obviously not the same architecture anymore, but these aren't like massive blocks on the GPU or anything. And with low power limits and bandwidth limitations, simply adding a few more CUDA cores wouldn't make any big difference in its capabilities.
It's all gonna be much like Switch 1. Fairly limited hardware that's enough to do the job and little more.
It's ok to have your own opinion, but I don't think it's sane to think of it as the only truth. I'm sure many gamers find that the SD or the Ally or whatever is better value value than the Switch, and I don't think they are all stupid or wrong.
I have to apologize here. Indeed, I worded it wrong. Was not thinking about mobile (phone) at all, but handheld (portable) gaming. That's because portable and mobile words have actually the same meaning in my language, so my bad.
Not my assumption at all, but I won't bother to try explaining it again.
To be clear, that's not about me. My main gaming device for the past 8 years is the Switch. I have 3 of them, along with more than 120 games for the system. I also have a PS5. And pretty much all consoles from Nintendo and Sony before that, handheld included.
I just happen to think that the Switch got many games because of its huge success, and I attribute this success to a lot of things, but mainly and mostly to the innovative concept of the console at the time of release and the lack of competition.
I want the Switch 2 to succeed as much as any Nintendo fan. I see this may be less of a success if it's a bit too much underpowered vs the new competition for the next 8 years. And I find it frustrating because we know the tech exists. But if we are in for a Wii like scenario, so be it.
I'm not sure it's worth continuing this argument as I don't think you're trying to respond in a constructive way.
The problem here is you're making an argument without any evidence or basis, making it a wild guess. The request is that you present something a little more concrete as to why you think things will happen.
That said, I'm not even sure why it's being discussed. Was the argument that NSW2 won't sell as well? Had something to do with the cost of using 8nm or 4nm, but I'm not sure what. I think the argument is using lower power won't massively affect hardware sales. The difference now is that NSW2 will have competition for high-end portables that NSW didn't have. The counter from those of us looking at data is that simply these high-end portables aren't selling in significant numbers, and can't be expected to when they cost a lot more than a Switch. Also that Nintendo's handhelds gain added value from Nintendo's exclusives. Ergo, they can use low-spec hardware without losing massive market share against more capable, more expensive rivals that play 3rd party games better but lack the Nintendo first party.
The argument against that would need to show increasing interest in high-end portable sales - currently the only 'evidence' presented seems to be more companies are making them, ergo there must be a market - and/or that NSW gamers and buyers aren't interested in Nintendo's games, bought NSW for third parties, and would have bought something more powerful instead if they had an option.
Switch is on its last legs. Steam Deck was released in 2022, why has it only sold 4 million units? Why has Rog Ally sold less than a million?
if gamers simply care about the best performance then these handhelds should be selling mainstream numbers since they are way more powerful than Switch 1
if gamers simply care about the best performance then these handhelds should be selling mainstream numbers since they are way more powerful than Switch 1
It's a wild guess yes, triggered by this last motherboard leak, based on nothing else that my own views about the state of the market for the next 8 years.
You sum it up pretty well (minus rumored upcoming handhelds from Sony and XBox
), and I don't think stating my worries how a less powerful Switch 2 would fare in the long term vs a renewed competition should lead to any request or calling or discussion for more than one reply. And certainly no aggressive communication.So my apologies for that much off-topic and the derailed discussion, I feel like your original take on this (let's discuss this in a few years) was a good way to "move on". As stated in my last post, I won't engage with Domink anymore regarding this topic.
