Dr. Wilkinson
Member
No, but they do charge a fee to upgrade your owned game to the PS5 version. Not sure why you're quoting me. Maybe just read my post again, I've already stated this
Last edited:
Rumor: Random Internet Forum User claims Switch 2 BC sent to developers
But that's not BC. That's buying a new version of the game.
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Disappointing? Define that. 140 million install base and poised to be likely the best-selling game system of all time
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
It's upgrading your already-owned version to a native app specially made for the new console. I'm not sure why you're attempting to argue with me. I made my point and then you quoted me attempting to correct your own misunderstanding of what I originally wrote. Many people have a personal gray area of what BC means so it's worth mentioning paid upgrades of owned games, when having this conversation. I don't make the rules I just state facts as they are.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
What are you talking about ? Totally unrelated to the current discussion. Nobody said the console sales were disappointing.
Have you already forgotten the reaction to the console having a Tegra 1 back then ? It certainly looks like so. People weren't exactly excited for it.
Last edited:
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
On the contrary, I recall basically everyone being really excited for it. It was the first hybrid console ever, and people that hadn't been interested in Nintendo for decades all the sudden needed to have one. Quite the opposite of how you're portraying the initial reaction. People honestly didn't care too much about the specs at the time, tbh. Hence the ridiculously high sales.
Nintendo hasn't cared about high technical specs for 20 years, and none of us expected more than what it had in it. If you were you weren't really paying attention. And Switch wasn't successful because of its SoC, it was successful because of what it could do and the games that you could play on it.
Last edited:
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Nintendo wants people to buy their new console and they know everyone basically expects BC at this point. They will not disappoint. BC has become a default expected feature since the Switch came to market.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
I would say they never cared at all to be frank. It was always the cheapest components possible since the NES.
Yeah sure, none of us.
I am personally fine with shitty hardware from Nintendo. Wii U was three upgraded Gamecube CPUs duck-taped together (more or less) and it was a fine console as far as I am concerned (even if it was a bit shit for the date it was released, but it had full hardware BC with Wii and GC).
I think that many are expecting more with their next console (as with every single gen). Switch topics are full of people seeing that Tegra 1 was certainly not going to be a huge bump. So your assertion of "none of us" is quite comical. Maybe you, but certainly not every single person on Earth.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
Ultimately I am down for both options regardless
It isn't though because the original/post point I was making is Nintendo has a (recent)history of such practices and overcharges to boot.. so I am hopeful this business practice doesn't repeat in the next generation.
This only makes sense if you conflate ports and BC. For most of their history, they had both. Recently, they had a new architecture and media so we only had one, and we got more of it to make up for lack of the other. Now, it's looking likely we will have both again.
BTW I'm one of the 7 people that bought all those Wii U games first and TBH kinda wished I hadn't. But at no point did the thought even cross my mind that Nintendo was "charging me for BC" on Switch. They pushed the reset button fully, which sometimes means tearing the bandaid off for a better future. BC on Switch 2 in ARM for Switch 1 games is far more valuable than BC would have been on Switch 1 with Wii U titles -which would never have worked with all my physical disc copies anyway, even if they wanted to just give you the port as "BC" digital, Xbox style. Most people would be in this same boat grabbing most copies of Mario, Zelda and Donkey Kongs on physical.
I don't think it would be smart to market them as "Wii U BC games" like MS does with 360 games anyway. Wii was a tanked brand, and those games didn't get a chance. They just released them on a different/better platform for them to shine, as "Switch Games", and buried the past.
LavitzSlambert
Member
And what does that have to do with Switch 2? You seem to go from one point to another, just making claims and not providing any of your own commentary or reasoning. Yeah, there's going to be a big jump from Switch to Switch 2. Regardless whether Nintendo uses "deprecated hardware" iterating on the Tegra chip, regardless of backward compatibility.
cireza
Member
The entire history of Nintendo hardware choices has nothing to do with their hardware choices for their next hardware ?
We won't even reach PS4 levels of performance with Switch 2 is what I am expecting. If you are happy with this or consider that this is a huge jump, then more power to you.
Shake Your Rump
Banned
Last edited:
iHaunter
Member
Or BOTW not running at 18 fps half the time.
Goalus
Member
It would be even greater if they implemented X-enhancements similar to the Xbox 1 X.
TheUsual
Gold Member
Oh absolutely. I would love to see BOTW and TOTK with an X-enchanced style update
Marvel14
Banned
I'd pay 5-10 smackers for some decent visual and Sonic upgrades.I never really doubted BC. Nintendo is on record ( albeit in a somewhat coy manner) that the current Nintendo account is set up to ease the transition to the Switch successor. Cutting off legacy Switch software seems antithetical to that. Why restart that ecosystem at this point with 140 million ( and going) Switches out there?
Enhancements though?
Question is will it be free enhancements or they'll paywall them ala select PS4-PS5 upgrades. I'm guessing it will similarly be case by case but something like bumping resolution and frames IMHO should just be brute forced via the hardware without paying( not that I claim to know how these things work).
cireza
I am expecting PS4 Pro ish or a bit lower components that should be from 2022-21 at worst. With DLSS2.0 at least, it should have no problem matching PS4. DLSS3.0 should put it in PS4 Pro territory.I'm not a tech gbutso these are guesses but I think their strategy is clear: release new hardware 2-3 years into the new gen with performance in hybrid form that exceeds the previous gen.
It's the power sweet spot. Not cheap, quite attractive specs for a very portable mobile form factor but not bleeding edge either.
Last edited:
bigdad2007
Member
This helps give credence to the rumor that games will more or less have to be patched on a game by game basis like on Xbox.
Which means that some devs like SE may or may not decide to patch. I also wouldn't put it passed Nintendo to sell the patches since they are game specific.
There is a history of them doing this sort to thing .
Which means that some devs like SE may or may not decide to patch. I also wouldn't put it passed Nintendo to sell the patches since they are game specific.
There is a history of them doing this sort to thing .
asdasdasdbb
Member
PS4 Pro/Series S not happening. Base PS4 yes.
