The next Nintendo system after The Switch...

[The Big Bang]

...they would be in a PRIME position to release a traditional system with a focus on power.

Said console could be modular as well...(linking multiple systems together for exponential computations...etc) which would allow for CRAZY potential for THE most insane games...

Meanwhile, The Switch could completely take over their handheld gaming division.

The goodwill that Nintendo has gained due to the MASSIVE success of The Switch basically allows them to do whatever they want going forward...

...and I for one would be in awe if they were to go back to a more traditional system while maintaining their handheld gaming of course.

Oh the possibilities...

 

[method115]

I prefer their next system (and all consoles in general) move to a handheld\docking system. The ability to take my games with me trumps graphics IMO.

 

[The Big Bang]

I prefer their next system (and all consoles in general) move to a handheld\docking system. The ability to take my games with me trumps graphics IMO.

In my OP I said that The Switch should remain.

However, if they also had a more traditional system, then...oh my.

 

[SeefourDC]

...they would be in a PRIME position to release a traditional system with a focus on power.

Said console could be modular as well...(linking multiple systems together for exponential computations...etc) which would allow for CRAZY potential for THE most insane games...

Meanwhile, The Switch could completely take over their handheld gaming division.

The goodwill that Nintendo has gained due to the MASSIVE success of The Switch basically allows them to do whatever they want going forward...

...and I for one would be in awe if they were to go back to a more traditional system while maintaining their handheld gaming of course.

Oh the possibilities...

It's too bad you don't understand at all how programming or hardware works and/or interfaces with each other.

 

[GhostZ06]

...they would be in a PRIME position to release a traditional system with a focus on power.

Said console could be modular as well...(linking multiple systems together for exponential computations...etc) which would allow for CRAZY potential for THE most insane games...

Meanwhile, The Switch could completely take over their handheld gaming division.

The goodwill that Nintendo has gained due to the MASSIVE success of The Switch basically allows them to do whatever they want going forward...

...and I for one would be in awe if they were to go back to a more traditional system while maintaining their handheld gaming of course.

Oh the possibilities...

they had rumors that they had a testing 4k Switch rolling around with a 1060GTX in it

 

[jefferz]

In my OP I said that The Switch should remain.

However, if they also had a more traditional system, then...oh my.

Is the touch screen an absolute necessity for some of the games? I'm surprised they haven't released a stripped down version without the screen. I'd buy a Switch that was more like a console.

 

[The Big Bang]

It's too bad you don't understand at all how programming or hardware works and/or interfaces with each other.

lol

I am friends with a Nintendo dev, (as I've mentioned here in the past) and I know many programmers.

Linking systems to augment power is not some alien tech.

 

[Cygnus A]

lol

I am friends with a Nintendo dev, (as I've mentioned here in the past) and I know many programmers.

Linking systems to augment power is not some alien tech.

latency is a bitch

 

[The Big Bang]

latency is a bitch

All I know is that...4 Gamecubes to play 4 Swords was worth it when I played with friends at the time.

Mind you, that's not what I'm talking about in terms of linking systems, but it's a corollary worth mentioning.

 

[SeefourDC]

lol

I am friends with a Nintendo dev, (as I've mentioned here in the past) and I know many programmers.

Linking systems to augment power is not some alien tech.

You clearly don't know that many devs/any at all. Are you aware that most PC games only use 1 or 2 threads of you CPU because it becomes more difficult programming wise to program the game? That's why the number 1 most important factor in your CPU is how fast the individual processor speed is. Having 10 cores means absolutely nothing in regard to gaming. This was also a major issue before with consoles because they required you to take advantage of multi-threading non-GPU setups and so it was ultra complicated to program a game for PC and for say... PS3 which was a 7 thread processor. Actually linking systems together would require very specific programming to make it useful for anything. Devs don't have time for that bull.

So... in conclusion. You either don't know any devs or you take their "it is possible" talk too seriously. It would never be worth the time to do this. Have you heard that SLI is only like 30-50% efficient for example? Even using a second GPU has fallen out of programming favor because it's just not worth the time...

 

[Madmick]

Why on earth would they do that? Why on earth would you abandon a winning focus?

The Switch is an unexpected runaway success; nay, rather, it's not just unexpected, it's defying virtually all industry projections and predictions. Splitting their focus to compete with the PS4P/XBX in a venue where they are vastly inferior and inexperienced just sounds retarded. I've thought about this quite a bit, and it seems apparent to me, finally, that the reason the Switch is succeeding is precisely because it is refusing to compete in that space. Sony and Microsoft have gone all-in on the eSport trend of the future. That's proven far more lucrative, but the Switch has proven a punchy underdog despite adopting the identical hardware strategy to the disastrous Wii U.

Why? The best answer is that it's because Sony and Microsoft have alienated and abandoned so many of the single-player experience gamer base. Thinking that Nintendo could be competitive in shooters misreads all the most cogent possible explanations for why the Switch has succeeded so wildly. The very first response from @method115 hit it on the head: graphics/netcode aren't what Nintendo gamers want. The social dimension of the Switch lies in games like 1-2-Switch, Mario Kart, or Arms. It's couch co-op stuff and IRL social gaming; not virtual social gaming like on the PSN/XBL. Nintendo has no presence in that dimension.

In other words, Nintendo had a good idea, but they timed it poorly the first time around. They just needed to wait a little longer for the microtransactions and e-bro world of competitive online gaming to disenfranchise that many more among an old school world of gaming that is still obviously quite relevant; coupled with ten million moms dragging a bundle of munchkins hanging off their sleeves screaming about how the Wii is so old, they want the new one, and the moms not being able to fight them off by declaring they just bought the new console 2 years ago.

Finally, MS/Sony aren't picking up as many sales due to the tangential appeal of their own consoles as media centers; the market is saturated with households-- unlike in 2013-- that already have added some contemporary HTPC device (replacing their former system that tended to be a discrete Blu-Ray player) that handles all the streaming and apps of the world. Sprinkle in the fact that Sony decided the Vita wasn't profitable enough to pursue, while Google/Apple have made no real effort to compete outside an exclusive touchscreen format, and you get the perfect storm of niches coming together to form a powerful secondary market.

 

[The Big Bang]

Why on earth would they do that? Why on earth would you abandon a winning focus?

The Switch is an unexpected runaway success; nay, rather, it's not just unexpected, it's defying virtually all industry projections and predictions. Splitting their focus to compete with the PS4P/XBX in a venue where they are vastly inferior and inexperienced just sounds retarded. I've thought about this quite a bit, and it seems apparent to me, finally, that the reason the Switch is succeeding precisely because it is refusing to compete in that space. Sony and Microsoft have gone all-in on the eSport trend of the future. That's proven far more lucrative, but the Switch has proven a punchy underdog despite adopting the identical hardware strategy to the disastrous Wii U.

Why? The best answer is that it's because Sony and Microsoft have alienated and abandoned so many of the single-player experience gamer base. Thinking that Nintendo could be competitive in shooters misreads all the most cogent possible explanations for why the Switch has succeeded so wildly. The very first response from @method115 hit it on the head: graphics/netcode aren't what Nintendo gamers want. The social dimension of the Switch lies in games like 1-2-Switch, Mario Kart, or Arms. It's couch co-op stuff and IRL social gaming; not virtual social gaming like on the PSN/XBL. Nintendo has no presence in that dimension.

In other words, Nintendo had a good idea, but they timed it poorly the first time around. They just needed to wait a little longer for the microtransactions and e-bro world of competitive online gaming to disenfranchise that many more among an old school world of gaming that is still obviously quite relevant; coupled with ten million moms dragging a bundle of munchkins hanging off their sleeves screaming about how the Wii is so old, they want the new one, and the moms not being able to fight them off by declaring they just bought the new console 2 years ago.

Finally, MS/Sony aren't picking up as many sales due to the tangential appeal of their own consoles as media centers; the market is saturated with households-- unlike in 2013-- that already have added some contemporary HTPC device (replacing their former system that tended to be a discrete Blu-Ray player) that handles all the streaming and apps of the world. Sprinkle in the fact that Sony decided the Vita wasn't profitable enough to pursue, while Google/Apple have made no real effort to compete outside an exclusive touchscreen format, and you get the perfect storm of niches coming together to form a powerful secondary market.

The Switch would STILL EXIST in my scenario.

But concurrently they would have a traditional system that could achieve WHOA graphics on WHOA TV's.

Said system wouldn't have to be the most powerful as compared to Sony and MS, but as long as it's capable enough to compete in that regard... Look out.

 

[Madmick]

The Switch would STILL EXIST in my scenario.

Yes, my post acknowledged that, and still critiqued your suggestion. Read more carefully before complaining that others aren't reading you carefully.

But concurrently they would have a traditional system that could achieve WHOA graphics on WHOA TV's.

Said system wouldn't have to be the most powerful as compared to Sony and MS, but as long as it's capable enough to compete in that regard... Look out.

No, Nintendo has absolutely no capacity whatsoever to compete in that domain.

It's struggling to compete in this one. While Switch sales might be soaring, Switch games aren't, and Nintendo doesn't even possess the microtransaction model that has become the chief source of revenue by software, these days. Right now everything in their strategy is about ROI.

 

[The Big Bang]

Yes, my post acknowledged that, and still critiqued your suggestion. Read more carefully before complaining that others aren't reading you carefully.

No, Nintendo has absolutely no capacity whatsoever to compete in that domain.

It's struggling to compete in this one. While Switch sales might be soaring, Switch games aren't, and Nintendo doesn't even possess the microtransaction model that has become the chief source of revenue by software, these days. Right now everything in their strategy is about ROI.

Yeah...

Get back to me late in 2018 when there will be an ARRAY OF GAMES.

I'm telling you, if they make a small/sexy/powerful system that is basically focused on power, MANY PEOPLE WOULD COME.

...literally and figuratively.

 

[Da_Rev_Ong]

Yeah...

Get back to me late in 2018 when there will be an ARRAY OF GAMES.

I'm telling you, if they make a small/sexy/powerful system that is basically focused on power, MANY PEOPLE WOULD COME.

...literally and figuratively.

The potential split in their own market share would not be worth it without the other non-physical revenue streams that the other first-party console manufacturers have to compliment their physical console and game releases. It's nice to postulate, but I think such a thing is the farthest thing from Nintendo's plans going into the future. Remember, no matter how globally successful they are, they're market and infrastructure decisions are going to be focused on Japan first (and soon China since the console ban is lifted). That "WHOA HORSEPOWER/4K/TERAFLOPS" pseudo-techno post-modern marketing may get fanboys hackles all a stiff, but that doesn't mean anything to the general consumer that makes up the grand majority of their native user base.

 

[Madmick]

Yeah...

Get back to me late in 2018 when there will be an ARRAY OF GAMES.

I'm telling you, if they make a small/sexy/powerful system that is basically focused on power, MANY PEOPLE WOULD COME.

...literally and figuratively.

You mean like with Rocket League right now? Like FIFA & NBA 2K?

No, they have absolutely no ability to compete.

Case in point: the Nintendo Switch was reportedly the #1 selling product on Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Yet their bestselling game in terms of physical sales (where they already disproportionately sell a much larger ratio of their games than MS/Sony) during this same week was still Zelda, a half year later, and it only ranked #10 in terms of sales.

FIFA 18, mentioned above, part of this higher-graphics world simulating realism, and which also sees strong competitive online play, sold 593K physical copies on the PS4, and 123K copies on XB1. It managed 33K sales on the Switch. That figure for the PS4 is better than 3x the total number of units sold for the game on the Switch for all weeks.

One of the reasons the Switch did so much better than the Wii U was its incredibly low launch price (making it brand new, and yet still as cheap as the current original Xbox One and PS4). They do not have the money/size to compete with the big boys on the big boy field. They've fashioned a wonderful niche playground over on the side, and it's killing it for them. Splitting their product focus when they're already so small strikes me as a cancerous idea.

 

[The Big Bang]

You mean like with Rocket League right now? Like FIFA & NBA 2K?

No, they have absolutely no ability to compete.

Case in point: the Nintendo Switch was reportedly the #1 selling product on Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Yet their bestselling game in terms of physical sales (where they already disproportionately sell a much larger ratio of their games than MS/Sony) during this same week was still Zelda, a half year later, and it only ranked #10 in terms of sales.

FIFA 18, mentioned above, part of this higher-graphics world simulating realism, and which also sees strong competitive online play, sold 593K physical copies on the PS4, and 123K copies on XB1. It managed 33K sales on the Switch. That figure for the PS4 is better than 3x the total number of units sold for the game on the Switch for all weeks.

One of the reasons the Switch did so much better than the Wii U was its incredibly low launch price (making it brand new, and yet still as cheap as the current original Xbox One and PS4). They do not have the money/size to compete with the big boys on the big boy field. They've fashioned a wonderful niche playground over on the side, and it's killing it for them. Splitting their product focus when they're already so small strikes me as a cancerous idea.

I appreciate your insight, but...The Switch certainly doesn't not exist in a "niche playground". Again, see me in 2018 when a huge influx of games come out.

All I'm saying in terms of a traditional console is that...it would be insane for Nintendo to relatively compete in that graphical department.

...whereas Microsoft is half-assing it with their systems, but that's another subject altogether.

Lastly, imagine if you had a Switch...and then docked it to the aforementioned traditional console for exponentially HOLY FUCK graphics... Does that concept not appeal?

 

[Total Immortal]

TS, you do understand Nintendo's focus has never been and most likely never will be graphics? Like some others have said, Nintendo can't really compete with Sony and Microsoft in that area. Even if they could they wouldn't. All of their original IPs don't rely on or need insane graphics to capture the charm they exude. I'll take a beautifully cel shaded game like Breath of the Wild over some ultra realistic version of Zelda any day.

 

[Fraz]

The ramifications of the computations would be exponential

 

[The Big Bang]

TS, you do understand Nintendo's focus has never been and most likely never will be graphics? Like some others have said, Nintendo can't really compete with Sony and Microsoft in that area. Even if they could they wouldn't. All of their original IPs don't rely on or need insane graphics to capture the charm they exude. I'll take a beautifully cel shaded game like Breath of the Wild over some ultra realistic version of Zelda any day.

I'm just thinking ahead bro.

Nintendo has shown a willingness to change...and change again.

On a relevant corollary, the future of computing can change...FAST.

https://futurism.com/the-first-quantum-computer-you-own-could-be-powered-by-a-time-crystal/