Couldn’t it also be the rumoured PS5 pro?
I hope Nintendo actually makes this a huge step up from the Switch we’ve had since 2017. The OLED switch was nice, but it’s what the switch should’ve been from day one.
Oh and dear lord PLEASE let them fix the joycon issues. I would love to play my switch more in handheld mode but because both of my joycons have drift, it’s impossible to play in anything but docked mode with a pro controller.
I wish for all controller manufactures to use that magnetic joystick instead
Hall Effect Joysticks!
I think the copyright for that technology is, well…copyrighted. So Nintendo would need to pay a licensing fee to use it in their Joycons (as would any gaming company for their joysticks). That would add significant cost to the controllers.
Same reason we haven’t seen back buttons adopted into controllers as a standard yet despite being the next logical evolution in controller design.
@StarServal, you mean patents (not copyright), since it is about inventions.
And there is at least one hall effect controller patent that already expired. It is from 1988, so hall effect joysticks are not a new thing at all.
I think it would need to be a patent, not a copyright. Also, Hall effect sensors were in use before someone decided to put them into a joystick. I would hope that “use the thing for which it was designed” isn’t patentable but, knowing the USPTO when it comes to technology…
Tried em, they don’t fix the issue long term. Eventually it’ll creep back and I’m stuck with the same issue again.
Replace the sticks with hall sensor sticks off amazon. They will never drift. Takes about 10 mins.
Note that I’m not excusing nintendo here. If anything it shows how pathetic it is that nintendo isn’t using hall effect sticks.
> > > The OLED switch was nice, but it’s what the switch should’ve been from day one. > >
The processor was long in the tooth and the joycons were unacceptably flawed on day one. The OLED switch changed none of these things and it still frustrates me a lot that people weren’t more critical of it tbh.
Yeah they’d fill should’ve upgraded the processor for the OLED switch, and I totally agree about the joycon situation. I was more talking about the screen, Nintendo easily could’ve made the first Gen switch OLED but they didn’t.
I feel the price was already a little high at launch (since they are adamant about making a profit on hardware as opposed to Sony/Microsoft who sell at a loss) so the addition of a more expensive screen would’ve probably pushed the price too high tbh. It was 2017, OLED’s were still pretty new and very expensive.
Nintendo would have solidified the design and specs of the SoC and committed to a bulk contract for them just before we saw some big leaps in hardware; specifically in GPU and ARM SoCs, memory bandwidth and PCIe bus performance, and chip die resolution.
Think about where mobile processors were in 2014; it’s been almost 9 years. Think about where Apple silicon is now (also an ARM SoC platform). We’re truly “living in the future”.
Since the products were already in consumer hands as these innovations where happening, it was too late to change anything. It’s a rock and a hard place; especially for Nintendo who caters to so many casual enjoyers - if you upgrade the hardware, you’re gonna need to do another launch. The alternative would be that people with older switches wouldn’t be able to run newer games. You also don’t want to anger your customers by saying “remember that $400 you spent 3 years ago? Yeah you’re gonna need to go ahead and give us another $400”. Additionally, if they had done that, we’d probably be complaining about THAT machine being underpowered now. The Switch was selling like hotcakes regardless, they weren’t going to disrupt that revenue. Money talks and the world told Nintendo what they wanted, whether they meant to or not.
Now that even 1st party titles are struggling on the system, the writing is on the wall, the tech has improved massively, and consumers are warming to the idea of a new console, it makes sense that Nintendo would have been doing the legwork to be at the point when suppliers are leaking info, when investor calls subtly reveal dates when at a minimum we’ll get our first official info, etc. I bet they’ll start shipping dev kits in the fall (if they haven’t already) if all this info is accurate.
Just put in a modern chip to start with if the hardware will be the same for 7-8 years
But then if becomes the price of a Rog Ally or similar. Nintendo need to hit the cost/power ratio for a mas audience.
Ironically my joycons that I’ve had since launch day have been fine (regarding drift, anyway), but my pro controller got drift last year, and I just had to replace it.
That’s wild. My release day joycons drift like a bitch, but I have never once had an issue with my pro controller. I didn’t even know the pro controller could have drifting issues tbh
If you are in the European Economic Area (EEA), UK and Switzerland Nintendo will fix your joycons for free. If you are anywhere else, just buy some new sticks and replace them.
What are the chances it’s backwards compatible with Switch games? Digital and physical?
@WestyFlyer With how long first party games are taking to bring to market these days, it almost has to be backwards compatible, just for the sake of having a playable library at launch.
I’m guessing it will be backwards compatible. The Wii, Wii U, DS, and 3DS all had backwards compatibility, and the only reason the Switch didn’t is because it has a vastly different architecture from the Wii U (and no space for a disk drive). I can’t imagine that the Switch 2’s architecture will be vastly different from the Switch, and they’ll both presumably use cartridges, so I’d say there’s a very good chance of backwards compatibility.
It should be. If it’s just a more powerful Switch with a similar design then there’d be no reason not to. It’d really hinder adoption if everyone had to replace their console and still keep Switch 1 around. The Wii U was backwards compatible with Wii games even though it changed up the format a bit.
Let’s look at the track record.
Backwards compatible handhelds:
- GameBoy Colour (to GB)
- Gameboy Advance (to GBC)
- Nintendo DS (to GBA)
- Nintendo 3DS (to DS)
Home consoles:
- Wii (to GC)
- Wii U (to Wii)
Not backwards compatible:
- SNES
- VirtualBoy
- Nintendo 64
- GameCube
- Switch
Lack of backwards compatibility to the previous generation has usually followed from a change in media format, and even then there has been a willingness to make an effort (the DS with its two slots being the prime example). Backwards compatibility seems to be a good way to ensure a wide selection of games at launch, and the negative aspect (not being able to sell the re-releases of the same games yet again to those desperate enough) seems to be outweighed by the positive (availability of games at launch; maintained interest in games from previous generation).
There’s no real reason for Switch cartridges to grow any smaller, and I doubt they’ll go back to discs. So I would say there’s a pretty good chance of backward compatibility.
Assuming it’s built on the same Tegra line of chips, there could be issues with back compat according to MVG. But there are ways around that that Nintendo could take, and they have a lot of incentive to make it backwards compatibile
Nintendo has been quite keen on backwards compatibility across quite a few devices, particularly those based around the same general architecture. If this rumored Switch 2 A) exists, and B) has physical capabilities the same or comparable to the Switch (using Joy Cons and controller compatibility, being able to function in docked and handheld modes, etc.) it’s a pretty good bet that it will also be able to play Switch games.
We can hope, perhaps, that in its backwards compatibility mode it might even be able to get Tears of the Kingdom to run at a decent frame rate. The fanboys will hit the moon if so.
The Gameboy Advance could play Gameboy games. The DS could play Gameboy Advance games. The 3DS could play normal DS games. (And DSi games, but no one cared about those.) The Wii could play Gamecube games. The WiiU could play regular Wii games. Nintendo’s track record on backwards compatibility, at least across a single system generation, has historically been quite good.
On the digital front, you could transfer your digital stuff from the Wii to the WiiU, and you could also (I believe the plug on this capability has since been pulled) transfer your stuff from a DSi to a 3DS. Again, if the architecture is the same I think transfer of your digital assets will also likely be possible.
100.0%. There is just no benefit whatsoever to rocking that boat. The Switch is a converted Android gizmo, ARM is still the only sane answer for high-performance mobile platforms, and their video hardware is from the company that bought ARM. To say nothing of the PR shitstorm it would be to slice their market in half.
That said, you’ll still have to buy Virtual Console games separately, because Nintendo.
I seriously doubt Nintendo would get into a situation where they are less than a year away from a new console without even soft announcing it’s coming in an investor meeting or anything. They announced Switch (as the upcoming NX) in April 2016 for a March 2017 launch. WiiU was announced April 2011, for a November~Dec 2012 launch. The Wii was hyped 2 years in a row in 2004 and 2005 before releasing in 2006, and the Gamecube was announced August 2000 before a Sept~Nov 2001 release. Nintendo may very well be launching new hardware early next year, but history points more to a Switch Pro unless they announce VERY soon and the release window is more late summer~fall 2024.
My thought too. My guess is the early 2024 date is for an announcement for a late/holiday 2024 release, if there is anything actually going on soon. Announcing late this year for an early-year launch makes little sense from a marketing and timing standpoint. You’re both cutting the pre-launch buildup awfully close for the comfort of publishers, consumers and retailers, and also potentially screwing up your holiday sales window for this year since people will likely want to hold out for the new console rather than invest in the late-year releases, which then also screws with third parties’ bottom line at a critical sales point in the year. If there really is a planned early 2024 release date for this thing, the earlier the announcement, the better at this point.
This is definitely a possibility. As the Switch 1 was announced in October 2016, it’s very likely it will be announced this fall.
So will it happen during the fall direct that is likely in September or will they announce it separately? Either way we should have some fun announcements from them this fall.
