Nintendo Switch 2

[Quagmire]

I think one thing that really changed from the 16bit era that hurts pricing is all games mostly having the same price despite having way different budgets. I know this is where indie developers come in but,

Why should at launch something like Order 1886 cost as much as Red Dead Redemption 2? I cant image the budgets are anywhere near close. Should Super Mario Wonder cost as much as Zelda BotW (at launch)? Again I would imagine SMWo was a lot cheaper to develop than BotW. Maybe Im talking out my ass and I am way off the mark in terms of budgets.

Bigger games costing more makes sense, but much smaller scale games doesnt make as much sense to me.

 

[Smacktard]

Can we the console makers at least agree that we don't need a new console cycle for another ten years, minimum? The jump from PS4 to PS5 has been pretty marginal. I can't imagine the PS6 will be an incredible improvement over the PS5.

 

[shortkut]

Can we the console makers at least agree that we don't need a new console cycle for another ten years, minimum? The jump from PS4 to PS5 has been pretty marginal. I can't imagine the PS6 will be an incredible improvement over the PS5.

But 6 is bigger than 5

 

[Ben]

I assume new console generations generally follow PC hardware upgrade points. Between PS4 and PS5, PC GPUs got ray-tracing, etc.

In recent years PC GPU have been trash and largely pandering to AI farms instead of gamers, though, so there doesn't seem to be a big reason to jump console generations.

 

[Quagmire]

But 6 is bigger than 5

 

[dimmerwit]

Can we the console makers at least agree that we don't need a new console cycle for another ten years, minimum? The jump from PS4 to PS5 has been pretty marginal. I can't imagine the PS6 will be an incredible improvement over the PS5.

I would say that 30 v 60 is far from marginal, even if it's not quite the leaps of old. Also remember the SSD which is game changing. Waiting around for the PS4's laptop HDD to spin up was excruciating.

 

[Quagmire]

I would say that 30 v 60 is far from marginal, even if it's not quite the leaps of old. Also remember the SSD which is game changing. Waiting around for the PS4's laptop HDD to spin up was excruciating.

One could put a SSD in there or you release a new model with SSD.

I do agree about FPS is a good update, but we are to a point of diminishing returns with each update

 

[Smacktard]

I would say that 30 v 60 is far from marginal, even if it's not quite the leaps of old. Also remember the SSD which is game changing. Waiting around for the PS4's laptop HDD to spin up was excruciating.

I dunno mang, I appreciate those improvements, but they are pretty marginal. If the PS2 launched with almost new noticeable graphical improvements over the PS1, but with better shadows, better framerate, and faster load times, would you feel like that were worth being considered a new generation of console gaming?

Anyway, the point is, what's next? 120 FPS? Even SHARPER shadows? Load times going from 10 seconds to 5 seconds?

 

[Ben]

I dunno mang, I appreciate those improvements, but they are pretty marginal. If the PS2 launched with almost new noticeable graphical improvements over the PS1, but with better shadows, better framerate, and faster load times, would you feel like that were worth being considered a new generation of console gaming?

Anyway, the point is, what's next? 120 FPS? Even SHARPER shadows? Load times going from 10 seconds to 5 seconds?

As I said in my last post, it's probably plateauing now where GPU are already capable of photorealism, 4k+ fidelity, etc. The graphics probably won't get much better, because who the fuck really needs 120fps or above?

I'd assume further improvements for consoles would come in the form of more RAM allowing more complex and detailed worlds. I'm thinking all the small things like more dense foliage, environmental interaction, render distance, or amount of entities on screen at once. But... That's not necessarily something that would sell me on buying a new console.

The next big innovation beyond graphics is probably going to be AI in gaming. That's the largest 'breakthrough' I could see them building a next generation on... Truly having NPCs that think and react in their own ways, where nothing is scripted beyond their personality/history. If I could pay Baldur's Gate 3 but rather than having a handful of dialog lines to pick from, I could give Shadowheart my own pickup line that she'd understand and respond to... That'd be something.

But that's likely going to have a big cost both financially and environmentally, so I don't even know if I'd want it.

 

[dimmerwit]

The load times thing, yeah, I like that. In fairness one of the PS5 games I play the most is Gran Turismo 7, and it really is game changing there. Loading in a standard race at Trial Mountain takes 33.17 seconds on PS4, on PS5 it is 0.09 seconds.

On the technical side I think PS4 to PS5 was enough. The PS4's low-grade laptop CPU from 2013 was holding the whole industry back. I think you're underselling the impact of doubling the frame-rate, especially since Sony themselves said 75% of people pick performance mode when given the choice, and the PS5 outputs better looking stuff than PS4 even when accounting for the doubled framerate - in fact it beats the PS4 Pro whilst doing that. Is it smaller than PS1 to PS2? Ultimately yes, but we're obviously not in the 90s or early 2000s and I don't think that necessarily means that people didn't find the PS4->PS5 kind of generational uplift meaningful.

As for PS6, it's interesting. I'd say that the leap will definitely be smaller, but I do think that much better RT (something the PS5 is weak at) and a proper FSR4 based upscaling solution are not to be underestimated. Ben's point about AI dialogue is more interesting. But ultimately, yeah, it'll be a challenge. 120FPS is really nice though...

 

[Smacktard]

As I said in my last post, it's probably plateauing now where GPU are already capable of photorealism, 4k+ fidelity, etc. The graphics probably won't get much better, because who the fuck really needs 120fps or above?

Those questions were rhetorical.

I'd assume further improvements for consoles would come in the form of more RAM allowing more complex and detailed worlds. I'm thinking all the small things like more dense foliage, environmental interaction, render distance, or amount of entities on screen at once. But... That's not necessarily something that would sell me on buying a new console.

All of these things are secondary to gameplay. They're neat little add-ons, but they're not things that really substantially change the world, or the way you interact with or, even perceive it. The environments in TotK can be shockingly empty compared to the density and detail seen in some specific places in the Shadow of the Colossus remake, for example, or certain parts of Uncharted 4.

Plus, these things would add drastically to already ballooning cash and time budgets. So, not only will future gains be marginal, but they'll come at a huge, ever-increasing expense.

The next big innovation beyond graphics is probably going to be AI in gaming. That's the largest 'breakthrough' I could see them building a next generation on... Truly having NPCs that think and react in their own ways, where nothing is scripted beyond their personality/history. If I could pay Baldur's Gate 3 but rather than having a handful of dialog lines to pick from, I could give Shadowheart my own pickup line that she'd understand and respond to... That'd be something.

This is a good point. Hadn't thought about that. AI in games will eventually create some truly unique and interesting experiences, and benefit games in completely brand new ways. But, even still... I see their use being kind of limited. They'll be great for games like WRPGs, but how would better AI benefit platformers? Puzzle games? Metroidvanias? Hell, even competitive games like racers and FPSes probably wouldn't benefit that much from beefed-up AI given how good AI has gotten in these types of games already. Any uses outside of WRPGs and the like would probably be pretty niche or interesting, but not game-changing.

 

[Smacktard]

I think you're underselling the impact of doubling the frame-rate, especially since Sony themselves said 75% of people pick performance mode when given the choice, and the PS5 outputs better looking stuff than PS4 even when accounting for the doubled framerate

I mean, I'd pick performance too, but only because I don't like my game dropping below 30 FPS. That's when I start to notice hiccups and it affects gameplay. But I don't notice a difference between 30 FPS or 60 FPS -- especially when camera blurring on camera movement has become such a common and necessary technique in modern games.

 

[dimmerwit]

That's fair enough. After well over a decade as a mostly PC guy I basically can't play at 30 any more. I tolerated it for PS4 exclusives but PS5 was very liberating in that regard.

 

[Quagmire]

That's fair enough. After well over a decade as a mostly PC guy I basically can't play at 30 any more. I tolerated it for PS4 exclusives but PS5 was very liberating in that regard.

I don't even know what my game is run on on PC, I kind of have always been mid range and not worried about top of like frlakkxs9, and I think I can hit 60 if I don't crank up all the graphics but never really paid much attention

 

[Ben]

This is a good point. Hadn't thought about that. AI in games will eventually create some truly unique and interesting experiences, and benefit games in completely brand new ways. But, even still... I see their use being kind of limited. They'll be great for games like WRPGs, but how would better AI benefit platformers? Puzzle games? Metroidvanias? Hell, even competitive games like racers and FPSes probably wouldn't benefit that much from beefed-up AI given how good AI has gotten in these types of games already. Any uses outside of WRPGs and the like would probably be pretty niche or interesting, but not game-changing.

Outside of the obvious RPG use, I'd mainly guess it could provide actual enemy AI that learn from YOUR playstyle.

Like, a Smash Bros bot that learns you like to use a certain move and develops a counter to it, so you have to try different tactics.

Or FPS enemies that actually respond to the surroundings, investigate noises, move around unpredictably but with a definite goal. Not just following a programmed patrol path and going right back to it when you're out of sight. Probably not the best utilization, but possible.

I did see a video not long ago about an AI put into Trackmania that learned to use some glitch to make itself go insanely fast, though, so... Maybe we don't need to program cheaters into the games.

Not likely to be worth the computing power needed, but probably where it'll go at some point in the future.

 

[The Flame]

Unlike a lot of people seem to be, I don't really take issue with the console's price tag at all. This is pretty much what I expected. I don't think I'd get annoyed unless it started hitting the $550-600 range. The 80-90 dollars for games is insane though. For reasons everyone has already stated here, but also because modern games are not even worth $60 most of the time, and money is going to be tight for a lot of people, especially now that we're in Trump World. Games like Elden Ring and BG3 are rare, and Nintendo already regularly disappoints me with its bland, undercooked releases. I played through the demo for that Peach game and was like "I mean...it's not bad...but I'm not really having fun", and that's the expectation I have going into most first party Nintendo games these days. You can tell there's some love in there, but the games always feel lacking and like they needed to give it another year or so. I've been waiting for a sequel to Kirby Air Ride for years, but even though it's in good hands with Sakurai, I'm scared that it's going to fall to the same fate. The company also has some serious balls on them to charge that much for these games that we technically won't actually own anymore. And that system manual tech demo better have some awesome mini-games in it if they think anyone's going to pay them for that garbage. What's worse about the $80-90 price tags, though, is that Nintendo games almost never see a price drop. And once other companies see Nintendo get away with that price tag, they'll probably follow suit.

With all that said, I'm still going to have to reluctantly buy a Switch 2. I want Mario Kart and Air Riders at the very least, so I'll get the Kart bundle on release. I'm interested in the DK game, but I'm gonna wait and see if it's a Mario Odyssey or a stinker. Not a fan of this new design, and the trailer didn't show anything that really wowed me. I want to be excited about the FromSoft game as well, but I'm wondering how well it's going to run, and if the gameplay will be something I will actually be interested in. I'm sure it will be fun, but if it's as different as Nightreign is, it might be a pass. Gamecube virtual console is a plus, but I already own a Gamecube and a Wii so it's whatever.

My initial plan was to just start buying Nintendo games used from now on, but I'm wondering if that will even be possible with these new game cards. Anything I do shell out for will just be digital at this point since it no longer matters. Unfortunately it might be time for me to go the route all my friends are already on.

 

[finlandguy]

I would say 4k is even today kind of too much. Does it look gorgeous if you can run high settings? Absolutely. Is it worth (IMHO) the reduced FPS/smoothness? In only a few cases.

I have a 4k monitor on my PC on a 3080. I can run most things on high/ultra settings bordering 60FPS with older games easily over 100. I come from the time when I was playing choppy FPS games on a 720p monitor without a care in the world. 60FPS was a pipe dream and until I experienced it myself I didn't know what better performance would feel like. The same then later happened when SSDs became mainstream and I didn't have to wait minutes for things to open. Then when I got to FPS higher than 100, the old 60 doesn't look so nice anymore at all.

I would love 4k with stable 120fps all the time, but without upscaling nonsense being pushed currently it's not really possible with everything cranked. In the end you weigh whether you prefer eye candy or performance. Some games that are slower, more deliberate, or like turn based things, the old 30fps can still be perfectly viable as you don't really notice it. Get to more fast paced games, like fps, racing, fighters, and so on, you immediately notice how much worse 30 is to 60. I see difference between 60 and 90 as well not to mention 120.


But uhhh... Yeah. This argument is more interesting on the console side as PC enthusiasts have had all these goodies for a while. The biggest thing consoles had/have going on for them is devs building the games for specific hardware. No worrying about 12587 different types of cpus, ram, mobos, gpus, etc. You make it run on that hardware and you learn how to do it better. You can just compare any console's release titles to the end of life releases. Good example is FF7 into FF8 into FF9. All on PS1. Same hardware, but they made each game look better and run nicer.

I was about to start ramble so I will stop here.


... wait, this was all a ramble anyhow. Dammit.

 

[Quagmire]

Unlike a lot of people seem to be, I don't really take issue with the console's price tag at all.

I don't think most have issue with console, most of what I've seen is people complaining about the game cost

. Unfortunately it might be time for me to go the route all my friends are already on.

Join us! Now I do have some rules I do try to buy the games I know I will love or support smaller studios, I would never in a million years Pirate Kingdom Come Deliverance 2, but would I GTA6? quite possibly depending on the price

 

[Quagmire]

But uhhh... Yeah. This argument is more interesting on the console side as PC enthusiasts have had all these goodies for a while.

We have and old hard ware can still run a lot of new games just at deceased graphics and when you fully upgrade you still have access to your old games (older game compatability not with standing)

 

[Fool's Requiem]

4K is massively overrated. It's a marginal improvement over 1440p or even 1080p and all it does is increase the filesizes of games. 4K textures are just about the biggest reason games are so massive now.

 

[dimmerwit]

Strong disagree on that one.

 

[Kat]

I was going for more they could cost less

We don't need super big open worlds and a lot use already built engines and they don't have to learn radically different hardware

It's getting to a point like capitalism where you must continually make more money for that becomes less feasible, these games don't need to get bigger and bigger and bigger

I agree some games are ridiculously big to the point of being a detriment, but I wasn't talking about those. Current 3D Mario games are a lot more complex than Super Mario Bros on the NES. Using an existing engine makes things easier, but that just means it's feasible to add more complex features.

Software development generally isn't done with the approach of "we want to make this thing for as cheap as possible". It's more "these are our available resources; let's make the best thing possible using them." There's always so much more you want to do than you're able to do. That's why all AAA games sell for the same price: they're selling for the most they can, so they can maximize their resources, so they can make the best game possible. That's kinda the definition of a AAA game.

and the graphics are already pretty good we're not seeing the leaps and graphics nor will we ever see them again like we went from like ps1 to Ps2. Gaming as a whole would probably Improve if they narrowed the scope for most of these games

Just because the improvements are marginal in their results doesn't mean they're marginal in effort to create. I agree that dumping more and more resources into making a photo realistic game generally isn't worth it, but a large portion of the market disagrees. I have to admit it is nice to sometimes play a gorgeous, expansive game, so I am glad the top price of games allows their development.

I guess I don't get the complaint about expensive, giant games existing because there are plenty of alternatives. I can't even remember the last time I spent more than $20 on a game.

I'll admit there isn't much in the way of $60 games that are a bit smaller in scope and have slightly worse graphics than $70 games, but that's because most people aren't interested in them. I'm certainly not.

That being said, pricing games by how much playtime you'll get out of it seems like a more fiscal approach. Or at least, evaluating that when buying. A $70 game you play for 100 hours is costing you $0.70 per hour, over $70 for a 5 hour game being $14 per hour. They'd better pack some fucking marvelous plot into that 5 hours for that to seem worth it.

Not all hours are the same. They're are lots of features that increase a player's enjoyment without adding to hours of gameplay (think voice overs, better graphics, fewer bugs). Some might even decrease total hours (better UIs, fast travel, faster loading). Plus more hours of gameplay doesn't necessarily mean more development costs. A sandbox game can be played for as many hours as you can entertain yourself. How much would you pay for Minecraft with that approach?

I agree I wouldn't pay $70 for a five hour game, but I wouldn't necessarily consider $70 for 100 hours of gameplay to be a better deal than for 20 hours.

 

[Kat]

120FPS is really nice though...

Is it?? I can't even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

Maybe I need a new TV.

 

[Tommy Boy]

Not all hours are the same. They're are lots of features that increase a player's enjoyment without adding to hours of gameplay (think voice overs, better graphics, fewer bugs). Some might even decrease total hours (better UIs, fast travel, faster loading). Plus more hours of gameplay doesn't necessarily mean more development costs. A sandbox game can be played for as many hours as you can entertain yourself. How much would you pay for Minecraft with that approach?

I can see it now... Minecraft 2, coming in 2035: $7,999 MSRP

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Is it?? I can't even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

Maybe I need a new TV.

30 FPS feels like a slide show. Also, if the frames are not stable below 60, it can be annoying to watch the game randomly slow down. Over 60, I've never noticed much of a difference for most games but if you want to play something that requires a high deal of accuracy and fast reaction times, the higher the better.

But a stable 60+ will be perfectly fine for the vast majority of gamers.

Edit: This only applies to video games. Movies, TV, and especially animation look weird when "upscaled" to 60FPS.

 

[Tommy Boy]

Is it?? I can't even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

Maybe I need a new TV.

I opted for a PC that could support a 144hz monitor rather than 4K in 2020. The instant I played a game and saw what 144 frames was like, I was unable to play any of my frame locked 30 FPS games on my PlayStation 4. (Fallout 76 was a huge one) It was quite literally the last time I booted it up to play a game. Nowadays, I visibly notice the frame lock when playing my Switch, but I'm not a hardcore gamer enough to need that everywhere. I would love to play TotK or Pokemon at 60+ FPS, though. Pretty much why I will definitely purchase a Switch 2, with the immediate second reason being that I want to mod my Switch 1 the second I have a Switch 2 in my hands.

 

[dimmerwit]

Is it?? I can't even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

Maybe I need a new TV.

I think maybe it's what you're used to?

Me and Jawneh are both PC guys with the equipment to push 120, so we're used to that. I personally don't mind 60 as much but the difference is pretty clear.

30 meanwhile is like sticking daggers in my eyes. One of the best demos of the Switch 2 was the Zelda games running at 60, which I know you can already do with PC emulation.

 

[Quagmire]

I guess I don't get the complaint about expensive, giant games existing because there are plenty of alternatives. I can't even remember the last time I spent more than $20 on a game.

If you want Nintendo, you're not gonna get a first party nintendo game that cheap unless it is used

I do think games should come at different prices, even for AAA games

I agree I wouldn't pay $70 for a five hour game, but I wouldn't necessarily consider $70 for 100 hours of gameplay to be a better deal than for 20 hours.

Agreed

 

[Quagmire]

Is it?? I can't even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

Maybe I need a new TV.

Same, like I will notice difference when it drops but that is about it

 

[dimmerwit]

Pretty much why I will definitely purchase a Switch 2, with the immediate second reason being that I want to mod my Switch 1 the second I have a Switch 2 in my hands.

Yeah, this is a solid reason. Do you have a paperclip vulnerable model?

(that was hilarious when they figured that out)

 

[Tommy Boy]

Yeah, this is a solid reason. Do you have a paperclip vulnerable model?

(that was hilarious when they figured that out)

Ugh I wish. I have three switches in this house and none of them are the easy model. But at the very least, we have two backup consoles in case I really blow it

 

[finlandguy]

4K is massively overrated. It's a marginal improvement over 1440p or even 1080p and all it does is increase the filesizes of games. 4K textures are just about the biggest reason games are so massive now.

I mean, yeah? 4k textures are 4 times the size of 1080p textures. And that's before any better shaders or higher quality 4k textures. It's definitely far from just a marginal improvement. Though you do need the correct hardware to see the proper difference. And see it in person.

You could see if you can play something in 540p and see if 1080p looks any better. That's functionally the equivalent to 1080p to 4k. Just make sure you run fullscreen for that. It's surprisingly jarring to see the difference.

But I would not say 4k is not entirely overrated. I personally do regret going 4k instead of 1440p as I like performance over things looking super nice, but also existing hardware is so much better at running 1440p. And then there's a whole basket of technical nonsense that also is related to things looking good or better than something else that I don't want to get into.

Is it?? I can't even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

Maybe I need a new TV.

Newer TV and also seeing if there's a toggle in settings to run any specific game at 30 or 60. Many these days have that option where you have a choice between smooth 60 or fancier looking 30. I think FF7R was among the first ones to push that unless I missed any previous ones.

 

[dimmerwit]

There's all the Treehouse stuff. Day 1 was videos 1-9. Day 2 had some of the same but showed Kirby, Street Fighter and Bravely Default.

Link because it's supposed to be a playlist.

 

[Smacktard]

Outside of the obvious RPG use, I'd mainly guess it could provide actual enemy AI that learn from YOUR playstyle.

Like, a Smash Bros bot that learns you like to use a certain move and develops a counter to it, so you have to try different tactics.

Or FPS enemies that actually respond to the surroundings, investigate noises, move around unpredictably but with a definite goal. Not just following a programmed patrol path and going right back to it when you're out of sight. Probably not the best utilization, but possible.

I did see a video not long ago about an AI put into Trackmania that learned to use some glitch to make itself go insanely fast, though, so... Maybe we don't need to program cheaters into the games.

Not likely to be worth the computing power needed, but probably where it'll go at some point in the future.

The uses for Smash and FPS you're describing aren't really generative AI and don't need that processing boost to exist. IIRC, the Smash AI you're describing already exists in the latest game. The FPS AI should already be in modern FPS games (as long as they're not cutting corners), but there also becomes a question of fun and fairness vs realism if you need up the AI too much. Anyway, these are just traditional uses of enemy AI in games.

 

[Quagmire]

Physical Nintendo Switch 2 Edition games are reportedly Switch 1 carts with codes in the box | VGC

Nintendo Switch 2 Editions will include visual upgrades and more…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[Smacktard]

Physical Nintendo Switch 2 Edition games are reportedly Switch 1 carts with codes in the box | VGC

Nintendo Switch 2 Editions will include visual upgrades and more…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[Fool's Requiem]

there needs to be more backlash on this shit...

 

[Quagmire]

 

[shortkut]

 

[Smacktard]

Choosing a modern Sonic game over a good game because of its price is like eating a $3 intestine sandwich because the cheesesteak was $8

 

[Quagmire]

Choosing a modern Sonic game over a good game because of its price is like eating a $3 intestine sandwich because the cheesesteak was $8

Sonic Frontiers is solid and Sonic Racing Transformed was great

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Sonic Frontiers is solid and Sonic Racing Transformed was great

I finally got around to playing Sonic Racing Transformed. It plays well enough, and the level changes are interesting, but the racing, items, and music are pretty dull.

But I get to race as BD Joe, so that makes it a win.

 

[Smacktard]

Sonic Frontiers is solid and Sonic Racing Transformed was great

 

[Quagmire]

View attachment 29109

Conveniently skip the user scores which is 8.2

 

[Smacktard]

Conveniently skip the user scores which is 8.2

Not conveniently, but very, very intentionally.

 

[Quagmire]

Funny enough Frontiers has a higher percentage of fans giving it an unfavorable score than critics where in all of your examples it is flipped

Also what about Wii's sonic colors? Or Sonic Generations? Or even Mania?

I stand by what I said. I played Frontiers and I liked it and found it solid. High 70s or Low 80s feels right to me

 

[Smacktard]

Funny enough Frontiers has a higher percentage of fans giving it an unfavorable score than critics where in all of your examples it is flipped

What? No it doesn't. You even said the user score is 1.2 higher than the critic score.

Also what about Wii's sonic colors? Or Sonic Generations? Or even Mania?

Sonic Mania is a really good game. It's the only Sonic game from the examples I searched with a higher critic score than user score.

 

[Quagmire]

What? No it doesn't. You even said the user score is 1.2 higher than the critic score.

I was looking at the colors Green, yellow and red. Red is a 0-4 score and a higher percentage of users have Frontiers a score of 0-4 than professional reviewers, it is the flip for those you posted. So fans were harsher on Frontiers compared to critics than those examples. Not sure if that makes total sense what Im trying to get across

Sonic Mania is a really good game. It's the only Sonic game from the examples I searched with a higher critic score than user score.

It is a good game and I think the best since Sonic and Knuckles. I did like Colors and Generations, I think both are solid. I didnt hate the sonic stages in Unleashed, but no thank you on the werehog stages

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Werehog stages were tedious.

But man... what a pretty Sonic game.

 

[finlandguy]