Nintendo reveals more specs for the Switch except for the ones that matter? That's not good....

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, JoaoPRSousa said:

 

Pls no, Pokemon GO isn't even a Pokemon game...

best opinion i've seen in this entire thread, including my own

[Bouzoo]

35 minutes ago, Bcat00 said:

I totally disagree here. The main factor is always money. Show the company they will earn big, then i guarantee they will jam whatever hardware needed and whatever excuse down our throat.

Yeah, and charge us $600 and then we'll complain how expensive it is. It's a never ending circle. 

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Nintendo has officially revealed some more specs for the Nintendo Switch game console.

 

The screen is a cool 6.2 inch 1280x720 display (probably IPS or OLED).

The console itself has a meager 32GB of internal storage (granted, of the shelf ARM CPU cores don't have native support for SATA. This requires custom chip design to achieve)

The unit has 802.11ac Wi-Fi (presumably also BT4.0).

 

Battery life will be between 2.5 and 6 hours depending on how intensive and demanding the game is.

 

 

Some kind of underwhelming specs, not gonna lie.

 

Both Nvidia and Nintendo are staying mum on the SOC which is a major letdown and hints at what kind of a failure the SOC was.

 

http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/1/13/14261876/nintendo-switch-specs-32gb-720p-screen-battery-life

You do realise Nintendo still haven't officially confirmed what hardware they used in the Wii & Wii U, right. I mean we know because people have taken them apart but big N have never made any statement on the subject.

 

Expecting them to ever say what hardware they used for Switch is akin to expecting them to allow full frontal nudity in a game on a Nintendo platform. Its never going to happen.

 

For me what was more worrying was the severe lack of launch titles on the platform, in a 1hr 20m presentation 40 minutes was dedicated to games and only 2 of the games shown were confirmed to be launch titles. If the thing launches with only 2 games it is going to struggle.

 

Also anybody else notice the lack of a Wii U logo in the ZBOTW trailer?

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, Prysin said:

@AluminiumTech. Arm supports Sata3 speeds even for SD cards,  arm even goes up to NVMe speeds (apple has NVMe storage in iPhone) 

I don't think that's the point, the point is that it's harder to pack a lot of storage in without significantly raising the cost.

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I don't think that's the point, the point is that it's harder to pack a lot of storage in without significantly raising the cost.

not really. Flash memory costs nearly nothing. It is a order of magnitude cheaper for fast NAND then it is even for LPDDR3 chips.

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Of course it is! Do you think anybody would buy the 32GB model if there was no micro SD card support?

Plz........ My phone has more storage than this potato console and it doesn't need to store AAA games built using UE4........

A 2016 top end phone has the same specs as this potato console. A 2017 flagship will be as fast or faster. I'd rather have a Apple A10 in there then some outdated Tegra chip with a small OC.

[skywake]

53 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

For me what was more worrying was the severe lack of launch titles on the platform, in a 1hr 20m presentation 40 minutes was dedicated to games and only 2 of the games shown were confirmed to be launch titles. If the thing launches with only 2 games it is going to struggle.

 

Also anybody else notice the lack of a Wii U logo in the ZBOTW trailer?

Nintendo were typically clunky with their presentation. I think its fair to say that we'll hear about more launch titles before launch but that those two will be the Nintendo games. Also Mario Kart which was shown but not actually mentioned is coming out in April. Splatoon 2 is coming out not long after. So it's less barren than it initially looks I think. Hopefully we find out a bit more in the next few days.

 

Also they confirmed Zelda:BotW on the Wii U will be launching at the same time. They just haven't tried to draw much attention to it because they want people to get it on the Switch. And lets be honest, most Wii U owners are pretty dedicated Nintendo fans. You'd have to be to own a Wii U and still have it. Just as a sheer numbers thing given how few Wii Us actually sold. Most of those people will be migrating over to the Switch pretty quickly.

[Sauron]

42 minutes ago, Prysin said:

not really. Flash memory costs nearly nothing. It is a order of magnitude cheaper for fast NAND then it is even for LPDDR3 chips.

fast flash is still close to a $ per GB, in a relatively low cost product it could make a difference. Either way given that games will be on their cartridges (at this point I think it's safe to assume no installation will be required) it shouldn't be too much of an issue - although I wonder what plans they have for digital distribution. Hopefully there will be a way to expand it, maybe with external storage.

[Prysin]

8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

fast flash is still close to a $ per GB, in a relatively low cost product it could make a difference. Either way given that games will be on their cartridges (at this point I think it's safe to assume no installation will be required) it shouldn't be too much of an issue - although I wonder what plans they have for digital distribution. Hopefully there will be a way to expand it, maybe with external storage.

it costs around 26$ per 32G Toshiba NAND chip if you buy in 25 unit bulk... i cannot find the 1k+ bulk price, but looking at the price drop from 1 to 5 to 10 to 25 i'd bet 1k+ is no more then 18.somthing$ a chip.

[porina]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

$300 is expensive for the performance Nintendo is touting.

 

The PS4 and XB1 have better specs and now  they cost $300 or 250 in some cases (I know the initial price of both were higher).

The built in screen and battery life of the PS4 and XB1 are so much superior... if you're going to compare, at least try to make it somewhat like for like.

2 hours ago, treeroy said:

There is NO development cost for allowing people to play at 60fps, it just requires dev to make a graphics options menu.

 

there is no excuse for not running a game at 60fps.

People of a certain age might recall the days when PC games struggled to even reach 30fps, fiddling with options to get it as good as you can at a decent framerate. That was good enough for everyone we thought at the time. Then 60fps happened. Then 120, 144fps, and ever increasing... Is 60fps the minimum acceptable these days? Why not more, or less? Some, but far from all games, may have some benefit from the higher refresh.

 

Hitting 60fps is certainly possible at any reasonably modern hardware level, but the question is at what visual quality? I don't associate Nintendo with extreme time sensitive reaction type gaming where higher fps can be beneficial. Of course people may choose to buy or not buy it for various reasons, but I'd bet that frame rate will not be a consideration for the overwhelming majority of people who are genuinely interested, as opposed to those who will rant about it but were never a serious consideration.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, porina said:

The built in screen and battery life of the PS4 and XB1 are so much superior... if you're going to compare, at least try to make it somewhat like for like.

People of a certain age might recall the days when PC games struggled to even reach 30fps, fiddling with options to get it as good as you can at a decent framerate. That was good enough for everyone we thought at the time. Then 60fps happened. Then 120, 144fps, and ever increasing... Is 60fps the minimum acceptable these days? Why not more, or less? Some, but far from all games, may have some benefit from the higher refresh.

 

Hitting 60fps is certainly possible at any reasonably modern hardware level, but the question is at what visual quality? I don't associate Nintendo with extreme time sensitive reaction type gaming where higher fps can be beneficial. Of course people may choose to buy or not buy it for various reasons, but I'd bet that frame rate will not be a consideration for the overwhelming majority of people who are genuinely interested, as opposed to those who will rant about it but were never a serious consideration.

I can hit 60fps in World of tanks (well, did-the laptops chassis+motherboard snapped in half when I last dropped it) at 1366x768 minimum settings with the Mobility Radeon HD4250, and hover around 30 at medium (I found that out accidentally when I forgot to switch to the secondary HD5650)

[i_build_nanosuits]

honestly who gives a shit how powerful it is...give nintendo a potato they will make wonders out of it...they used to it...all nintendo consoles are potato and all nintendo games are wonderful. end of the story.

 

it won't play BF1...but it will play mario, mariokart, zelda, donkey kong, metroid, smash bros, starfox etc. that's all that really matters.

[AlTech]

2 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Lucky SOB. I was stuck at around 30 (most of the time less) at minimum settings 640x480 for years (Riva Vanta aka utter POS even in 1997<Mobility Radeon 9000igp<Geforce 7200Go/uadro NVS110M<GTX 650ti<GTX 970). And its why I still prefer my old GTX 650ti OC 2GB over my GTX 970-that graphics card combined with my first post 2006 CPU the i5 4440 and my 1024x768 85Hz screen to this day is the biggest improvement I've ever seen with anything.

To be fair, the rig I'm using now is my first PC rig EVER.

[Prysin]

27 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

honestly who gives a shit how powerful it is...give nintendo a potato they will make wonders out of it...they used to it...all nintendo consoles are potato and all nintendo games are wonderful. end of the story.

 

it won't play BF1...but it will play mario, mariokart, zelda, donkey kong, metroid, smash bros, starfox etc. that's all that really matters.

Nintendo wont make wonders out of it, they will put their logo on it, because they know that their rabid fanboys will buy their products based on emotion, not user experience.

[Prysin]

12 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

To be fair, the rig I'm using now is my first PC rig EVER.

wow that is sad. You have my sincere condolences

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

wow that is sad. You have my sincere condolences

I'm 17. Not 70. Get over yourself lol.

[Sauron]

42 minutes ago, Prysin said:

it costs around 26$ per 32G Toshiba NAND chip if you buy in 25 unit bulk... i cannot find the 1k+ bulk price, but looking at the price drop from 1 to 5 to 10 to 25 i'd bet 1k+ is no more then 18.somthing$ a chip.

for 32GB yes, however if they wanted to include, say, 500GB of flash storage it would impact the final price significantly.

[Scruffy90]

4 hours ago, manikyath said:

to be honest.. i dont understand why people care about the performance of the hardware in nintendo's stuff so much.

 

in the end, all that freaking matters is that the game's fun to play, and that it doesnt chug.

This. A lot of people who are playing the current batch of consoles are bitching about specs, yet a lot of the games on the ps4 and xbox one are still chugging along despite being "powerful consoles."

 

4 hours ago, treeroy said:

2 hours battery life is f*cking terrible for a supposed "portable" console

This bad, but not the worst scenario considering it could be recharged via usb c and a battery pack most likely.

 

4 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

If I were going to buy that (let's be honest here. I'm not going to, no matter what happens), Nintendo would need to make sure ALL games run at 60fps or above AT ALL TIMES.

 

I doubt it'll be an issue with first party games. Third party on the other hand has been questionable on the last batch of Nintendo consoles.

 

4 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Of course it is! Do you think anybody would buy the 32GB model if there was no micro SD card support?

 

Do you really want the answer to this question? lol

[manikyath]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

You do realise Nintendo still haven't officially confirmed what hardware they used in the Wii & Wii U, right. I mean we know because people have taken them apart but big N have never made any statement on the subject.

we have figured out what's in those two by now, and the answer (especially on the original wii) is like always with nintendo "far less than we expected, and beyond that, custom."

36 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

honestly who gives a shit how powerful it is...give nintendo a potato they will make wonders out of it...they used to it...all nintendo consoles are potato and all nintendo games are wonderful. end of the story.

 

it won't play BF1...but it will play mario, mariokart, zelda, donkey kong, metroid, smash bros, starfox etc. that's all that really matters.

a word of sense from mr. nanosuits, i'm finding all kinds of nice people here today

[Master Disaster]

32 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

honestly who gives a shit how powerful it is...give nintendo a potato they will make wonders out of it...they used to it...all nintendo consoles are potato and all nintendo games are wonderful. end of the story.

 

it won't play BF1...but it will play mario, mariokart, zelda, donkey kong, metroid, smash bros, starfox etc. that's all that really matters.

The Wii U played all of the afore mentioned games, that didn't work out to well.

 

Its simple, the die hard Nintendo fans will buy Switches regardless, the casual fans and the non Nintendo fans won't touch the thing unless Nintendo attract third party developers and the Wii U has proven that the die hards are not enough to make a system profitable.

 

Even Nintendo have finally woken up and realised they need the third party titles on their platform, that's why they made a point of showing Sega, Bethesda & EA at the presentation and why they've relaxed their absurd rules on development for Nintendo platforms. Without third party and AAA games Switch will end up in the same place Wii U ended up.

[Guest Kloaked]

Could we not circlejerk about hardware for a couple months and just see how it is when it actually comes out?

[MetEishYa]

1 hour ago, skywake said:

Nintendo were typically clunky with their presentation. I think its fair to say that we'll hear about more launch titles before launch but that those two will be the Nintendo games. Also Mario Kart which was shown but not actually mentioned is coming out in April. Splatoon 2 is coming out not long after. So it's less barren than it initially looks I think. Hopefully we find out a bit more in the next few days.

 

Also they confirmed Zelda:BotW on the Wii U will be launching at the same time. They just haven't tried to draw much attention to it because they want people to get it on the Switch. And lets be honest, most Wii U owners are pretty dedicated Nintendo fans. You'd have to be to own a Wii U and still have it. Just as a sheer numbers thing given how few Wii Us actually sold. Most of those people will be migrating over to the Switch pretty quickly.

 

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

You do realise Nintendo still haven't officially confirmed what hardware they used in the Wii & Wii U, right. I mean we know because people have taken them apart but big N have never made any statement on the subject.

 

Expecting them to ever say what hardware they used for Switch is akin to expecting them to allow full frontal nudity in a game on a Nintendo platform. Its never going to happen.

 

For me what was more worrying was the severe lack of launch titles on the platform, in a 1hr 20m presentation 40 minutes was dedicated to games and only 2 of the games shown were confirmed to be launch titles. If the thing launches with only 2 games it is going to struggle.

 

Also anybody else notice the lack of a Wii U logo in the ZBOTW trailer?

Just check Nintendo web page for the switch. Says mario kart will release the 28th April, Arms Spring 2017, Mario odyssey Holidays 2017, Splatoon 2 Summer 2017, Skyrim Fall 2017, NBA 2K18 September 2017, Super Bomberman March 2017, Minecraft TBD. Release games Zelda and 1+2 switch.

 

http://www.nintendo.com/switch/home/

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

The Wii U played all of the afore mentioned games, that didn't work out to well.

 

Its simple, the die hard Nintendo fans will buy Switches regardless, the casual fans and the non Nintendo fans won't touch the thing unless Nintendo attract third party developers and the Wii U has proven that the die hards are not enough to make a system profitable.

 

Even Nintendo have finally woken up and realised they need the third party titles on their platform, that's why they made a point of showing Sega, Bethesda & EA at the presentation and why they've relaxed their absurd rules on development for Nintendo platforms. Without third party and AAA games Switch will end up in the same place Wii U ended up.

the problem the U had was that it wasnt revolutionary, it may have been one of their, if not THE only product they ever made that didnt have something revolutionary about it compared to the last one.

 

in terms of hardware, the most "revolutionary" thing about the U is that they finally made it into the "gigabyte of ram" range

 

and on top of that.. their lineup of games was a rather disappointing incremental upgrade

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Could we not circlejerk about hardware for a couple months and just see how it is when it actually comes out?

i think at this point we're mostly circlejerking about the usual lack of hardware in nintendo consoles seeing the amount of fun you get out of them

 

remember, 88MB of system ram is what got us wiimotes

[AlTech]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

for 32GB yes, however if they wanted to include, say, 500GB of flash storage it would impact the final price significantly.

a 500GB HDD would be really welcomed.