Indeed, I really doubt that bit because it doesn't make much sense, earlier attempts such as as Vita 3G haven't had much success.
Nintendo Switch Dev Kit Stats Leaked? Cortex A57, 4GB RAM, 32GB Storage, Multi-Touch.
- Thread starter Robert at Zeboyd Games
- Start date
- Status
Indeed, I really doubt that bit because it doesn't make much sense, earlier attempts such as as Vita 3G haven't had much success.
ShadowFox08
Member
Not that I believe in the rumor, but why not? I know we usually think of mass production of the thousands and millions of products, but you don't think its possible that Nintendo could request to foxconn to make dozens of specialized dev kits? Could be cheaper than in house.
Or is this something that has been 100% confirmed that dev kits aren't made in foxconn?
Well, the below quote is what I was going to suggest. I don't get why everyone has this fascination with magnets, there's always a cheaper solution for things first. What I'm referring to before was during the NX rumours that people were speculating that the Joy-Cons would connect to the Switch via magnets but the problem with that is they'd need to align correctly so they wouldn't be offset and that they'd have to have a strong magnetic force so the Switch doesn't fall out, like when you pull the Switch out of the dock as an example.
Probably the dock is a heavy piece of plastic as well.
Or has those sticky rubbers underneath that will prevent it from being lifted up alongside the Switch if you do it too quickly/abruptly.
The possibilities
Nostremitus
Member
It means more than squat in the short term. IIRC,one of the complaints about Wii U was lack of documentation that made development more difficult than it needed to be.
Cuningas de Häme
Member
Why wouldn't they put 3G/4G stuff on the Switch? I mean, it just would allow some people to keep the machine connected to internet always, just like tablets.
Or is there something fishy going on in the US regarding mobile internet? Some spoke something about making a deal with some ISP (is that the right term).
US needs to get its shit together regarding internet stuff, it is so strange how the big businesses can just abuse customers and everyone is seemingly ok with it. I understand that not every country can have stuff like we in the Nordic countries, but come on! I really feel for you in the US who are struggling with shitty Internet without a chance for better. (Of course big cities/rich areas etc. have better stuff, but...)
EU is going to set a limit to roaming costs when you go from one country to another, so it will benefit customers hugely. Imagine that, bringing Switch with you on holiday, using your own internet to do online stuff...
It would be an optional feature anyway, most of the people would probably keep it connected only to Wifi.
Is there something I'm missing? Please, enlighten me, I've no idea if there is some real difficulties with mobile internet.
Or is there something fishy going on in the US regarding mobile internet? Some spoke something about making a deal with some ISP (is that the right term).
US needs to get its shit together regarding internet stuff, it is so strange how the big businesses can just abuse customers and everyone is seemingly ok with it. I understand that not every country can have stuff like we in the Nordic countries, but come on! I really feel for you in the US who are struggling with shitty Internet without a chance for better. (Of course big cities/rich areas etc. have better stuff, but...)
EU is going to set a limit to roaming costs when you go from one country to another, so it will benefit customers hugely. Imagine that, bringing Switch with you on holiday, using your own internet to do online stuff...
It would be an optional feature anyway, most of the people would probably keep it connected only to Wifi.
Is there something I'm missing? Please, enlighten me, I've no idea if there is some real difficulties with mobile internet.
th3sicknness
Member
Cuningas de Häme;225751180 said:
If they add anything it would be 4G LTE.. And the reason they wouldnt include it would be for battery life concerns. LTE eats through battery so fast. Rumors are already coming out that this thing has somewhat poor battery life in the 3 to 4 hour range..
Also keep in mind they have not established this as a tablet yet. We are assuming it is going to be a tablet based on Nvidias work with the Shield Tablet. Although I think it would be a nice Trojan horse into peoples homes if it could be used as a standalone tablet while not gaming.. Not sure id count on that but it would be nice.
I agree with your post, just want to point out on the bolded part: There was a rumour and it was almost certainly based on use of a devkit, probably a fairly early dev kit too given the timing. It's unlikely the devkit for a semi-stationary console would need a full sized battery for portability (devs aren't taking this thing out on the commute with them!), so I wouldn't read too much into it just yet.
But yeah, LTE would kill the battery either way.
Woudnt that about bc be true no matter what vendor they choose? If the PS5 and Xbox one 2 is Nvidia, wouldnt bc be difficult?
You might be going in a bit strong here
Sure, would be another job to do. But it's not a road block.
NeOak
Member
But they wouldn't have to pay license fees since technically Sony and MS own the design of the chips. And they are using high level APIs they own too, unlike Nintendo with NVN.
So MS could do how they do 360 BC on the XBO.
You might be going in a bit strong here
Sure, would be another job to do. But it's not a road block.
I sure hope it isn't, but NVIDIA has a record with this stuff.
How do you know Nintendo doesnt own the chip design and the API?
I'm excited to find out to what extent Nvidia designed and implemented the APIs. I think it would be a huge mistake to write something completely original, as that's what would make porting more difficult.
But it may just be that they use vulkan for graphics and NV wrote out all the OS APIs. Which brings up another question: who's making the OS? The majority of the API calls are going to be dictated from that, and I highly doubt NV wrote them an OS.
But it may just be that they use vulkan for graphics and NV wrote out all the OS APIs. Which brings up another question: who's making the OS? The majority of the API calls are going to be dictated from that, and I highly doubt NV wrote them an OS.
Omnistalgic
Member
Main reason I just completely skipped the WiiU.
I'm not in HS anymore and have 10 hours to game whenever I feel like it. Those details add up quickly and become important, and of course its better to have the console that has the bulk of games across the industry, not just a group of high quality exclusives. Hopefully Switch fixes a lot of this, or it'll likely be another skip from me or a wait until it's dirt cheap purchase. I will say it feels a little weird Nintendo coming with a new console mid-way into the gen already.
Nvidia definitly worked on the OS, but I assume its a Collaboration. From the blog post:
We’ve optimized the full suite of hardware and software for gaming and mobile use cases. This includes custom operating system integration with the GPU to increase both performance and efficiency.
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/10/20/nintendo-switch/
Nintendo seems much better prepared now than With the Wii U imo. With the Wii U it was rumored they planned to have EA help them out With online and account system (unprecedented partnership), but when that went to hell they had to put something together last minute.
For this launch they bought a lot of shares in Dena, and that deal was as much about account system and online for Switch as it was about Smartphone games. The reason Dena was in the partners list was because they are making the account system.
Definitely sounds like a collaboration. That makes it pretty clear the OS is separate and they just hooked into it. Which is good; that should be the way to do it.
Still makes me curious to what extent their API work was. It would be incredibly silly to write a new video API with vulkan around.
Same here. At least I hope they took a look at Steam, Live and PSN, because when they designed all that for WiiU they didn't have a fucking clue.
th3sicknness
Member
The difference is that when the PS4 / Xbox1 get upgraded they are still going to be using x86 and that is the basis for development on the PC so it is easier in general to port up and down regardless of API. I was under the impression the x1 was using direct x so that makes things a lot easier from that standpoint.
Nintendo had its own thing with Power PC after everyone shifted to x86 and now they have their own thing with ARM. Granted it is used in mobile development which makes things a bit different than the situation they were in with the Wii U. It is still somewhat of a road block to development that some devs may not want to take on.
Skittzo0413
Member
It's really not, no matter how much people repeat this. ARM is far more prevalent than x86 these days, and any game engine can easily be ported to ARM.
A lot of people who actually do this for a living have said this is a complete non-issue (x86 to ARM) so please stop worrying about it.
th3sicknness
Member
Most the content creators I have spoken with have said optimization is going to be the hardest part outside of the porting. Getting the game to ARM may not be an issue as you have stated, but optimizing it to run well is going to be the bear. DICE / EA may not want to take the risk of trying to get bf1 to run on the switch because of all the time necessary to get it to run well and look decent for the limited return it may produce.
Skittzo0413
Member
Well yeah, of course optimization is the major focus of any port, but I doubt most of that optimization has much to do with the CPU architecture. I'd imagine GPU, RAM and APIs are much more important in that respect.
Cuningas de Häme
Member
I wouldn't expect BF1 to come for Switch...
It will be fairly old by then and it already has large playerbases divided to 3 sections. No room for third. There is absolutely no reason to bring that for Switch.
More so with the Battlefront. Old and already has a playerbase (small, but still).
Don't look the games that are already out, might be more fruitful to concentrate on the upcoming games...
And for those, making a port alongside the others is not as hard. They can build a little lighter version for Switch without having to swap everything for lighter. Or so I think, not really a dev.
It will be fairly old by then and it already has large playerbases divided to 3 sections. No room for third. There is absolutely no reason to bring that for Switch.
More so with the Battlefront. Old and already has a playerbase (small, but still).
Don't look the games that are already out, might be more fruitful to concentrate on the upcoming games...
And for those, making a port alongside the others is not as hard. They can build a little lighter version for Switch without having to swap everything for lighter. Or so I think, not really a dev.
th3sicknness
Member
Cuningas de Häme;225763866 said:
I was only using BF1 as an example of a big third party game. But I dont think you should discount ports of old games because it seems that Nintendo didnt learn its lesson with the Wii U. It seems that ports at full price of first and third party games already released is what they believe will push the Switch IE Skyrim, FIFA, NBA2K, Mario Kart, and Splatoon.
Who said it's not Pascal?
I assume he was referring to the op.
Cuningas de Häme
Member
You know that sports games tend to come every (or almost) year?
Skyrim is truly one of the most well known games out there.
And what on Earth can Nintendo do about 3rd parties releasing old games? Should they say no?
The trailer had nothing to do with games, they were the least important thing there. The trailer was for showing how Switch can be used anywhere and that young, hip people were playing, from filthy hipsters to sportsters and young single women. Skyrim was for showing that "hey, Switch plays the biggest open world games!" (not actually, but the most of the people don't know that), NBA was to show how neat it is to play sports with it, instant multiplayer. Then there was Nintendo's usual suspects to show that they haven't forgotten the usual customers.
January is where they set the pace for games. There will be an onslaught (hopefully). That is the place where we can make assumptions about the games Switch would most likely get. Not before. We haven't seen anything yet, just a merest taste of the honey.
And about the specs leakers, there haven't been a single leak that would tell us the actual power of the console. I think that most likely the leaker(/s) is/are among the testers and other non-dev people...
th3sicknness
Member
Cuningas de Häme;225773096 said:
Of course they wouldn't say no.. but they could have spent more time asking third parties to make more exclusive titles for their system rather than sending over old games. An example would be Bayonetta, Devils Third, Wonderful 101, and Beyond Good and Evil 2 (allegedly in dev). Maybe they need to help fund more third party development to get ideas off the ground.
Nintendo's plan at this point is somewhat obvious to have a steady pipeline of games. Combine their portable and home console IPs and dev teams to create a steady stream of high quality first party titles on 1 platform. And then hope that their move towards ARM will help mobile / indie developers bring their ip to the system with ease. If they get third parties on board through massive hardware sales it is cake for them.. It is a big gamble and assumption that I know we all hope will become reality.
Exclusive games don't solve the problem of multiplats as the examples listed in your post show. Unless it would be something huge, but Nintendo can't afford that.
What it could help would be having some multiplats bundle, having some exclusive content (like DLC or pre-order DLC) for the best sellers out there. And Nintendo being willing to put money on the table for cross-promotion.
Okami Haundo
Member
You mentioned this in a previous thread and I still think you're missing something important. The late ports we saw on Wii-U had a long list of marks against them. To name a few:
- Being a "sequel" on a platform that didn't see the original games
- Being single-player focused games with finite gameplay options
- Failing to use the Wii-U gamepad in any meaningful way
By comparison, some of the ports we're seeing rumored for Switch have:
- The native ability to utilize the most unique feature about the console (changing between TV and handheld on the fly)
- Plenty of replay value via multiplayer modes and/or the nature of the game itself (Skyrim)
- Substantial content not seen in the original game (Splatoon and Mario Kart)
While you're not wrong that Switch getting late ports is "similiar" to what we saw on Wii-U, it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. Time will tell how this works for them, but they've certainly thought things out more than they did with Wii-U.
Who says Splatoon and Mario Kart are ports? Also FIFA wasn't even shown.. The NBA game wasn't necessarily a port either, out of the games you've mentioned Skyrim is pretty much the only definite port.
Who says they aren't?
Are you kidding?.. The poster I replied to made a assertion based on the claim that those games were ports. That kind of assertion can't be made purely on lack of evidence that they aren't ports, you actually need evidence that they are.
You have got to be concern trolling right now. It's already been pointed out that compilers deal with architectures and do not require some specialist to deal with.
Nintendo weren't doing its own thing with PowerPC, Xbox 360 had a PowerPC CPU, and IBM developed Cell.
There are other reasons publishers didn't put their games on Wii U and CPU architecture wasn't even on the list of reasons.
Tell that to religious people.
Candescence
Member
Yep. Architecture is a non-issue, and has been for quite a long while.
-Mutsukki-
Member
...what
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Actually APIs make half the effort at porting. The other half is performance. ISAs are statistical noise in this picture.
Granted..
I have been of the idea nintendo needs a first-party western studio that does nothing more than port games to it's system, that third parties can use if they don't want to make a port in-house. Nintendo can cherry pick the projects it believes in for it's audience together with the publishers and carry part of the risk.
Compare it with a first party Bluepoint Games, that will have a reputation of making high quality ports that nintendo enthousiasts value highly, just like sony fans know that a bluepoint game port has high standards - which might result in higher sales.
Tantalus is kind of that studio. They ported mass effect 3 and deus ex human revolution to Wii U, both highly regarded ports. After tphd I can imagine their relationship with Nintendo is tighter than ever before.
Toadthemushroom
Member
There's more evidence to suggest that they aren't ports. Heck, the footage shown in the Switch trailer obviously shows that they aren't fundamentally identical games, and it'd be hard to believe that the Mario Kart team spent 2-3 years doing nothing but porting an old game to the Switch.
There's also the question of expectations - I don't think people will be impressed or particularly care about a Splatoon port, particularly in Japan. That's a region where people actually bought new hardware to play Splatoon. Players there aren't going to buy new hardware to play the same Splatoon.
Leaks suggest it's an enchanced version of mk8 with more content and battle mode and not mk9.
Well hold on....don't we only know they exist* based on a rumour/leak which also states they are ports?
If so then I'd say the onus is on you to prove they aren't, if that's what you're claiming
*aside from the promo footage in the Switch reveal, of course. Which imo does nothing to dispel the original rumour that they are indeed 'enhanced' ports.
True! And imo Nintendo should invest heavily in them and see them as their gateway into getting back western support.
I'd also emphasise that *tons* of PS360 multiplatform games had a PC version as well... that should clearly prove architecture has been basically a non-issue for a long, long time.
Skittzo0413
Member
So seeing as how Zelda: BotW is a complex open world game with many different physics systems, how much do we think the frame rate will improve solely due to the Switch CPU being hugely improved over the Wii U CPU?
That's before we consider the GPU and overall much more modern feature set.
That's before we consider the GPU and overall much more modern feature set.
2 maybe 3
I predict 1080p 30fps stable. But I would also be fine with 720p 60.
Basically this
Both are fine as long as there is some good AA added.
- Status