[Megathread] Nintendo Switch

[mvaliz]

1) Thought it did so my bad. (Personally fuck move controls I rather use a controller)

2) PSVR IMO is a great experience and I have yet to play a game that has shit frame rate with it. To be clear I am playing on the Pro so no clue how the base system handles it. I also haven't read anything about its frame rate being shit.

3) I think the graphic's are great even more so seeing how weak the system is.

If you don't like it that's fine but what you said is just a opinion not a fact sorry.

(About to play some Doom VR as soon as it installs)

I know I may make you wince a bit when I say this, but I'm still hoping that the next No Mans Sky patch (apparently announcing soon via WT again!) has VR support. If they announce that, I'd buy that VR headset in a heartbeat! ^_^

[Tech614]

I know I may make you wince a bit when I say this, but I'm still hoping that the next No Mans Sky patch (apparently announcing soon via WT again!) has VR support. If they announce that, I'd buy that VR headset in a heartbeat! ^_^

I understand the VR discussion has kind of come about because of Nintendo's fake AR they're using with the robot labo but what in the blue hell does No Man's Sky have to do with this thread or discussion? Not only does it have nothing to do with Nintendo, it also has nothing to do with the current VR discussion and is just random speculation?

......

[Jtbrig7390]

I know I may make you wince a bit when I say this, but I'm still hoping that the next No Mans Sky patch (apparently announcing soon via WT again!) has VR support. If they announce that, I'd buy that VR headset in a heartbeat! ^_^

Nope not gonna wince at all.

If they release a VR patch for NMS ill buy it. Hell after the updates it has gotten I have considered it.

[Chickat]

Nope not gonna wince at all.

If they release a VR patch for NMS ill buy it. Hell after the updates it has gotten I have considered it.

NMS seems like it would have fared a hell of a lot better had it released as early access. Probably would have sold more copies too.

Ontopic: I saw a video last night, and have seen rumors recently that Nintendo might release a smaller switch in 2018 or 2019. I thought they might a year ago, but a 199 switch thats doesnt have removable joycons, but has joycon/dock support when in tabletop/docked would be interesting.

Id personally rather have a New Nintendo switch with better battery, and hopefully more powerful chip, guessing same cores but maybe clocked at 1.5ghz or something, and a higher clocked gpu. That could all probably be possible including better battery in a year or two. Not saying its going to bring it in line with xbox one, but it could help a bit. Might push it over the edge into being able to get more ports than the normal switch, especially if its a better cpu. I would even be willing to pay more money than 300 for it too.

- - - Updated - - -

I think maybe what they should do is release a Switch 2 that is fully backwards compatible with Switch 1 in fall 2021. thats 4.5 years of switch, and if you want to upgrade your switch after that you can get something that is better than an xbox one potentially depending on the leap 5 years of mico architecture can make.

I also think that perhaps the next gen system games for PS5/XBOXwhateverthehelltheycallit might be a smaller leap than we think. Guessing those have strong enough gpu to push the same level of games we have now but at 4k, and maybe more cpu related tasks because I think the cpu will see a larger leap than the gpu. Might mean a Switch 2 could receive a significant amount of ps5 ports at 1080p instead of 4k.

Question. Does the Switch2 need to have 4k support? Would upscaling to 4k be enough with simpler games having native 4k?

[Jtbrig7390]

Question. Does the Switch2 need to have 4k support? Would upscaling to 4k be enough with simpler games having native 4k?

No it doesn't need 4K support, 4K still isn't common yet and won't be for a few more years to come. Also as for Nintendo releasing a more powerful switch (Like PS4 to PS4 Pro) it would have to be a outright new system.

If they Overclocked the CPU/GPU in this thread it will run into overheating issues. So the next system would need to run the Terga 2 (example) or be much bigger to add better cooling. Ether way it will cost equal to if not more then the current Switch does.

Now they could re-release it with a better battery like how the Vita Slim/3DS XL is better then the original.

I also think that perhaps the next gen system games for PS5/XBOXwhateverthehelltheycallit might be a smaller leap than we think.

No chance in hell it will be smaller.

Its highly likely the new Playstation System (and Xbox) will be using Ryzen, That is leaps and bounds better then the current systems including Pro and X. The GPU would have to be outright junk for it to be smaller.

[Chickat]

No it doesn't need 4K support, 4K still isn't common yet and won't be for a few more years to come. Also as for Nintendo releasing a more powerful switch (Like PS4 to PS4 Pro) it would have to be a outright new system.

If they Overclocked the CPU/GPU in this thread it will run into overheating issues. So the next system would need to run the Terga 2 (example) or be much bigger to add better cooling. Ether way it will cost equal to if not more then the current Switch does.

Now they could re-release it with a better battery like how the Vita Slim/3DS XL is better then the original.

No chance in hell it will be smaller.

Its highly likely the new Playstation System (and Xbox) will be using Ryzen, That is leaps and bounds better then the current systems including Pro and X. The GPU would have to be outright junk for it to be smaller.

I dont mean smaller. I mean that the graphical leap will not be that great aside from 4k. Most games with be native 4k, but the current graphical level of the ps4 (not resolution) will be a smaller bump. Meaning that I think a lot of ps5 games would play just fine on a ps4 pro or OneX at 1080p instead of 4k. When you get into the cpu side, I suppose it means more complex ai etc but for some games that dont utilize the new cpus last gen systems could run them. Thats about what I was getting at.

I realize my wording/grammar isnt that great. Only had 4 hours sleep in 2 days, but hopefully you understand what I mean.

- - - Updated - - -

And you dont think a Switch successor in 5 years would need 4k for tv support? I feel like it would be necessary. Even if its just up-scaling.

[Jtbrig7390]

I dont mean smaller. I mean that the graphical leap will not be that great aside from 4k. Most games with be native 4k, but the current graphical level of the ps4 (not resolution) will be a smaller bump. Meaning that I think a lot of ps5 games would play just fine on a ps4 pro or OneX at 1080p instead of 4k. When you get into the cpu side, I suppose it means more complex ai etc but for some games that dont utilize the new cpus last gen systems could run them. Thats about what I was getting at.

I realize my wording/grammar isnt that great. Only had 4 hours sleep in 2 days, but hopefully you understand what I mean.

- - - Updated - - -

And you dont think a Switch successor in 5 years would need 4k for tv support? I feel like it would be necessary. Even if its just up-scaling.

Top: My bad then I read that wrong I thought u was talking about over all and ya I don't see PS4/Pro XboxOne/X losing support any time soon even if they get new systems out. Down scaling the games to those systems is just a flip of a switch. I mean Hell Witcher 3 runs on these systems and pulls 60FPS on the XboxOne X.

Bottom: Unless 4K tv's get insanely more cheaper not really no, 1080p Is still used by the vast majority. At most I would say up-scaling but even then I doubt it. 4K tv's are getting cheaper but until they hit that sub $200 level the majority will still be using 1080p.

[Keile]

Top: My bad then I read that wrong I thought u was talking about over all and ya I don't see PS4/Pro XboxOne/X losing support any time soon even if they get new systems out. Down scaling the games to those systems is just a flip of a switch. I mean Hell Witcher 3 runs on these systems and pulls 60FPS on the XboxOne X.

Bottom: Unless 4K tv's get insanely more cheaper not really no, 1080p Is still used by the vast majority. At most I would say up-scaling but even then I doubt it. 4K tv's are getting cheaper but until they hit that sub $200 level the majority will still be using 1080p.

They are getting damn close to that. Right now they are in the $300-$400 range for a decent sized one (up to about 50in) LED one. OLED cost a lot more, though (but have even better picture due to better lighting).

[Jtbrig7390]

They are getting damn close to that. Right now they are in the $300-$400 range for a decent sized one (up to about 50in) LED one. OLED cost a lot more, though (but have even better picture due to better lighting).

Yep getting close but still not there, Not only do they need to reach that sub $200 mark they also need to be there for a few years. That's why I'm saying its still going to be quite awhile before 4K is owned by the majority.

There also needs to be way more 4K content made and with current service provider's dicking people around that will be awhile as well.

[Keile]

Yep getting close but still not there, Not only do they need to reach that sub $200 mark they also need to be there for a few years. That's why I'm saying its still going to be quite awhile before 4K is owned by the majority.

There also needs to be way more 4K content made and with current service provider's dicking people around that will be awhile as well.

For me, they just hit the threshold. I just bought one at about $347 after taxes (49inch, 120hz Vizio). That's about what I paid for my current 39in 1080p TV (tells you how old the thing is) that keeps giving me issues (sometimes the screen refuses to turn on...).

[Chickat]

I mean we are talking 4-6 years from now. A majority of people should own 4k tvs by then.

[Jtbrig7390]

I mean we are talking 4-6 years from now. A majority of people should own 4k tvs by then.

Unless they drop more in price and more 4K content comes out that isn't just DVD's then that won't be the case. It took quite awhile before people even owned 720p/1080p tv's as a majority.

[zito]

I mean we are talking 4-6 years from now. A majority of people should own 4k tvs by then.

Unless my TV dies I'm not replacing it. People don't have spare cash like that for a 4k TV. If nothings wrong with their current they won't upgrade unless they have to.

[Lahis]

Unless they drop more in price and more 4K content comes out that isn't just DVD's then that won't be the case. It took quite awhile before people even owned 720p/1080p tv's as a majority.

How many minutes of 4K video can one fit to a DVD?

[Jtbrig7390]

How many minutes of 4K video can one fit to a DVD?

DVD Zero.

By DVD I mean blu-ray and a 4K Blu-Ray DVD is 50-100GB in size.

[Lahis]

DVD Zero.

By DVD I mean blu-ray and a 4K Blu-Ray DVD is 50-100GB in size.

Blue-Ray disk is not a DVD.

[Tech614]

Blue-Ray disk is not a DVD.

What's a DVD? All my movies are on CDs.

[Remilia]

What, no VHS?

[Chickat]

Do those fancy hd dvd things not exist?

- - - Updated - - -

And what about betamax?

[SirBeef]

I mean we are talking 4-6 years from now. A majority of people should own 4k tvs by then.

4k is on track to be in around 50% of home in 2020. You still have to remember that not all of them will have game console hooked up to them. In America game consoles ownership dropped from 51% of home to 48% in 2016. It will be a while before a majority of gamers own 4k sets.