I wish people would stop craving and talking about a potential switch 2. It’s useless. For those who want to game now the switch works fine, is good hardware, has lots of games and new ones keep coming and it keeps selling new consoles. They could not release a new switch for the next 5 years and it wouldn’t matter at all.
This is all about the nerds of the latest and hottest tech craving for something new. Most Nintendo players are not those type of people.
And it’s obvious that whatever comes next will fully support and run the current the games the existing switch, if not they wouldn’t be releasing new games for it.
I fully agree with you there. The switch has time and time again proven to be more than capable. Monster Hunter Rise, Xenoblade 1-3 and Shin Megami Tensei V - just to name a few - pretty much have me satisfied. Sure, there are better looking games out there, but I don’t care beyond what these games already deliver.
I have lived through amazing graphical breakthroughs in video games, but at least for me, they stopped happening at least 10 years ago. Like, they are there for sure if I were to compare screenshots. But, once I’m emerged in the actual game play, they are lost on me.
To be fair, it’s not really a “potential” anymore. Nintnedo confirmed back in March that the successor would be announced “within the fiscal year.” So it’s completely realistic that speculation is happening, as such an announcement implies Nintendo is much further into development than most of us initially predicted.
Nintendo is always good at supporting its systems past the end of the generation, especially portables. Based on past behavior, I expect that when the Switch 2 comes out, Nintendo is going to market the Switch as a cheap alternative for families who are uncomfortable with the new console price.
“Buy the Switch Lite, now with a lower MSRP, and start enjoying its vast library of great games. Once we release some great Switch 2 games and you are in a better financial position (or saved up), you can buy a Switch 2.”
Nintendo has been more about innovation in gameplay more than graphics pretty much since the turn of the century, and aside from the Wii U it’s paid off for them pretty well, so why should they change that model? Further, this isn’t like the Wii days in which they got only shovelware or severely butchered versions of 360/PS3 games from third parties: the main difference in many third party Switch games compared to their MS/Sony counterparts is mostly just running at 30 vs 60 FPS with no other major graphical or gameplay changes.
That said, Nintendo has been blessed to have mostly weak competition in the handheld console market up to now, so also hasn’t felt much pressure from outside in the handheld world until recently. Their handhelds have had quite the long lifespans: the Game Boy lasted from the late 80s to the 2000s before the upgrade to the GBA, and even after the Switch released the 3DS was still seeing relatively strong support until the turn of this decade, putting that at around a nine-year life cycle. I mention this because the Switch for many is as much a handheld as a home console. Now the Steam Deck and similar handheld PCs are giving Nintendo their first strong handheld competition since the PSP (among dedicated gaming machines, I don’t include smartphones). That handheld challenge may also be behind fans’ push for a Switch 2 soon and/or featuring more graphical power than Nintendo may have originally been wanting. But even then, they are mostly best off moving at their own pace and not trying too hard to keep up with the competition. It’s when they have tried to keep up that they hit their lowest numbers compared to MS/Sony, such as the GameCube and the Wii U. When they do their own thing and take the time to get it right is when they are at their best.
the main difference in many third party Switch games compared to their MS/Sony counterparts is mostly just running at 30 vs 60 FPS with no other major graphical or gameplay changes.
I would disagree on this point.
Many third party games that release on Sony/Microsoft consoles and Switch do feature noticeably downgraded graphics, even comparing PS4/Xbox One to the Switch. Whether that prevents someone from enjoying those games is entirely down to personal preference, but I think it is disingenuous to say that the framerate and resolution are the only differences.
Take a look at the Digital Foundry comparison between The Witcher 3 on Switch versus (standard) PS4 and you’ll see a good example of all the optimizations and trimming that they had to do to get the Switch version running at passable framerates. It still runs well, and it’s still a fun game, but if someone is looking for high visual fidelity, they’d be better served with any other platform (and notably, the PS5/Xbox Series received visual enhancements to take advantage of the better hardware for their respective ports of the game).
It’s not as common as the Wii days, but the Switch still does see neutered versions of some games ported to the system. Kingdom Hearts 3, for example, doesn’t even run on the console. The Switch just streams it from the cloud. So when those servers eventually go down, that’s it, no more game. It’ll be effectively un-released. EA never stopped the old strategy for their FIFA games either (while they still had the rights to that franchise) where the Switch versions of the game were simply missing features available on other platforms for some arbitrary reason.
It’s weird that fanboys still desire the latest tech from Nintendo. They haven’t given a damn since the GameCube.
And you know what, i still like my graphical fidelity, but thats what the PC is for. Nintendo consoles are for the great gameplay loops they always manage to develop into there games.
I guess the issue is that the Switch has viable competition in form factor from the Steam Deck. There’s no longer any illusion that Nintendo put the best tech possible into a portable console.
When a competitor can run the Switch’s games on an emulator better than the Switch can run them natively, that’ll definitely leave people wishing they could play their Switch games legitimately on more powerful hardware.
Just wanted to say that while I agree with the spirit of your comment, there are so many Nintendo first party titles that barely hit 30 fps, that a power bump would be nice.
I’m not expecting 4k 144 fps, but just hitting a consistent 30 (or call me crazy, 60) would make me very happy. Playing Xenoblade at sub 720p, or Tears of the Kingdom at less than 30, is just unacceptable imo.
I don’t even care about a Switch 2, just give me a Switch Pro or something, something that can play all the available games well.
It would have been nice to play it without the framerate drops.
I felt the same at launch with Breath of the Wild.
I would have been happy to play a more powerful hardware variant that focused on being a home console. Instead Nintendo offered more portable versions :/
I wish people would stop craving and talking about a potential switch 2. It’s useless. For those who want to game now the switch works fine, is good hardware, has lots of games and new ones keep coming and it keeps selling new consoles. They could not release a new switch for the next 5 years and it wouldn’t matter at all.
This is all about the nerds of the latest and hottest tech craving for something new. Most Nintendo players are not those type of people.
And it’s obvious that whatever comes next will fully support and run the current the games the existing switch, if not they wouldn’t be releasing new games for it.
So stay calm and keep playing.
Useless noise, so annoying.
I fully agree with you there. The switch has time and time again proven to be more than capable. Monster Hunter Rise, Xenoblade 1-3 and Shin Megami Tensei V - just to name a few - pretty much have me satisfied. Sure, there are better looking games out there, but I don’t care beyond what these games already deliver.
I have lived through amazing graphical breakthroughs in video games, but at least for me, they stopped happening at least 10 years ago. Like, they are there for sure if I were to compare screenshots. But, once I’m emerged in the actual game play, they are lost on me.
To be fair, it’s not really a “potential” anymore. Nintnedo confirmed back in March that the successor would be announced “within the fiscal year.” So it’s completely realistic that speculation is happening, as such an announcement implies Nintendo is much further into development than most of us initially predicted.
Nintendo is always good at supporting its systems past the end of the generation, especially portables. Based on past behavior, I expect that when the Switch 2 comes out, Nintendo is going to market the Switch as a cheap alternative for families who are uncomfortable with the new console price.
“Buy the Switch Lite, now with a lower MSRP, and start enjoying its vast library of great games. Once we release some great Switch 2 games and you are in a better financial position (or saved up), you can buy a Switch 2.”
Nintendo has been more about innovation in gameplay more than graphics pretty much since the turn of the century, and aside from the Wii U it’s paid off for them pretty well, so why should they change that model? Further, this isn’t like the Wii days in which they got only shovelware or severely butchered versions of 360/PS3 games from third parties: the main difference in many third party Switch games compared to their MS/Sony counterparts is mostly just running at 30 vs 60 FPS with no other major graphical or gameplay changes.
That said, Nintendo has been blessed to have mostly weak competition in the handheld console market up to now, so also hasn’t felt much pressure from outside in the handheld world until recently. Their handhelds have had quite the long lifespans: the Game Boy lasted from the late 80s to the 2000s before the upgrade to the GBA, and even after the Switch released the 3DS was still seeing relatively strong support until the turn of this decade, putting that at around a nine-year life cycle. I mention this because the Switch for many is as much a handheld as a home console. Now the Steam Deck and similar handheld PCs are giving Nintendo their first strong handheld competition since the PSP (among dedicated gaming machines, I don’t include smartphones). That handheld challenge may also be behind fans’ push for a Switch 2 soon and/or featuring more graphical power than Nintendo may have originally been wanting. But even then, they are mostly best off moving at their own pace and not trying too hard to keep up with the competition. It’s when they have tried to keep up that they hit their lowest numbers compared to MS/Sony, such as the GameCube and the Wii U. When they do their own thing and take the time to get it right is when they are at their best.
I would disagree on this point.
Many third party games that release on Sony/Microsoft consoles and Switch do feature noticeably downgraded graphics, even comparing PS4/Xbox One to the Switch. Whether that prevents someone from enjoying those games is entirely down to personal preference, but I think it is disingenuous to say that the framerate and resolution are the only differences.
Take a look at the Digital Foundry comparison between The Witcher 3 on Switch versus (standard) PS4 and you’ll see a good example of all the optimizations and trimming that they had to do to get the Switch version running at passable framerates. It still runs well, and it’s still a fun game, but if someone is looking for high visual fidelity, they’d be better served with any other platform (and notably, the PS5/Xbox Series received visual enhancements to take advantage of the better hardware for their respective ports of the game).
It’s not as common as the Wii days, but the Switch still does see neutered versions of some games ported to the system. Kingdom Hearts 3, for example, doesn’t even run on the console. The Switch just streams it from the cloud. So when those servers eventually go down, that’s it, no more game. It’ll be effectively un-released. EA never stopped the old strategy for their FIFA games either (while they still had the rights to that franchise) where the Switch versions of the game were simply missing features available on other platforms for some arbitrary reason.
And to lesser extents, the N64 and GameCube.
And to greater extents, the Virtual Boy and the partnership with Phillips for the CD-i games.
It’s weird that fanboys still desire the latest tech from Nintendo. They haven’t given a damn since the GameCube.
And you know what, i still like my graphical fidelity, but thats what the PC is for. Nintendo consoles are for the great gameplay loops they always manage to develop into there games.
They develop it into here games, too!
I guess the issue is that the Switch has viable competition in form factor from the Steam Deck. There’s no longer any illusion that Nintendo put the best tech possible into a portable console.
When a competitor can run the Switch’s games on an emulator better than the Switch can run them natively, that’ll definitely leave people wishing they could play their Switch games legitimately on more powerful hardware.
deleted by creator
Just wanted to say that while I agree with the spirit of your comment, there are so many Nintendo first party titles that barely hit 30 fps, that a power bump would be nice.
I’m not expecting 4k 144 fps, but just hitting a consistent 30 (or call me crazy, 60) would make me very happy. Playing Xenoblade at sub 720p, or Tears of the Kingdom at less than 30, is just unacceptable imo.
I don’t even care about a Switch 2, just give me a Switch Pro or something, something that can play all the available games well.
Tears of the Kingdom really made the switch show it’s age. It would have been nice to play it without the framerate drops.
Guess I should have emulated it.
I felt the same at launch with Breath of the Wild.
I would have been happy to play a more powerful hardware variant that focused on being a home console. Instead Nintendo offered more portable versions :/
lol no