Rumor - New Switch model coming in 2019.

[lynux3 2,057]

2 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I've already explained this. How many game builds need to be designed for those two systems?

We're not even sure what the new model will entail exactly. I also wouldn't call it a game "build"... more like a game profile. It's not like the whole damn game needs to be remade for the shitty Xbox One OG.

[Goukosan 2,251]

updating the thread title to reflect the topic as a rumor. 

[Goukosan 2,251]

27 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Xbox One (2013) - $500

Xbox One S (2016) - $400

Xbox One X (2017) - $500

 

yeah right.

Its like DynamiteCop doesn't understand how revisions of a current system works.. lol 

[Playstation Tablet 1,725]

It could end up just being a simple screen and battery revision or something.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

1 minute ago, lynux3 said:

We're not even sure what the new model will entail exactly. I also wouldn't call it a game "build"... more like a game profile. It's not like the whole damn game needs to be remade for the shitty Xbox One OG.

The OG code natively operates on the X, this does not work in the other direction. It's two completely different software builds.

 

The point is for the OG and the X two independently coded and optimized builds of the game exist. For the Switch this may be of the same build however the game has to be optimized for two different hardware states. It has to function competently in both; one with full and the other with roughly half GPU compute. If a new model came a long that was more powerful and aimed to keep the hardware competitive with what is available now and coming that device would also require two different hardware states.

 

So developers would either have to draw a hard line and effectively kill support for the original system which would be horribly damaging for Nintendo or create two builds one for the Switch and one for the Switch 2.0, and then four hardware states (2 on each system) all of which would need to be optimized independently for function. It would be a development nightmare. 

[Playstation Tablet 1,725]

I honestly think you're the only one that thinks the Switch needs a hardware revision powerwise to remain "Competitive"

Edited October 4, 2018 by Beta Bux Romeo

[lynux3 2,057]

14 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

The OG code natively operates on the X, this does not work in the other direction. It's two completely different software builds.

 

The point is for the OG and the X two independently coded and optimized builds of the game exist. For the Switch this may be of the same build however the game has to be optimized for two different hardware states. It has to function competently in both; one with full and the other with roughly half GPU compute. If a new model came a long that was more powerful and aimed to keep the hardware competitive with what is available now and coming that device would also require two different hardware states.

 

So developers would either have to draw a hard line and effectively kill support for the original system which would be horribly damaging for Nintendo or create two builds one for the Switch and one for the Switch 2.0, and then four hardware states (2 on each system) all of which would need to be optimized independently for function. It would be a development nightmare. 

Yeah so different I could buy one game (X enhanced), keep both the OG and X offline (as in not download any patches) and it'll run natively on both consoles. Just stop.

Edited October 4, 2018 by lynux3

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

2 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

Yeah so different I could buy one game, keep both the OG and X offline (as in not download any patches) and it'll run natively on both consoles. Just stop.

Yes, because the X disables half of its compute units for operation and compatibility purposes for legacy code. This is the same reason when you enable "Boost Mode" on the PlayStation 4 Pro it warns you that you may experience compatibility issues. 

 

The X is backward compatible with legacy code, it requires a separate software package to update the code base for enhanced system operation, i.e. execute the X build of the game. 

[lynux3 2,057]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Yes, because the X disables half of its compute units for operation and compatibility purposes for legacy code. This is the same reason when you enable "Boost Mode" on the PlayStation 4 Pro it warns you that you may experience compatibility issues. 

 

The X is backward compatible with legacy code, it requires a separate software package to update the code base for enhanced system operation, i.e. execute the X build of the game. 

I understand what you're saying, but you're making it sound like it's this whole ordeal and it's really not. The X and Pro work similarly is how they run legacy code or try to enhance it. I assume Switch will be the same assuming there is even a performance upgrade.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

8 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

I understand what you're saying, but you're making it sound like it's this whole ordeal and it's really not. The X and Pro work similarly is how they run legacy code or try to enhance it. I assume Switch will be the same assuming there is even a performance upgrade.

I think you're thinking of the Switch (2019) as a linear hardware rollup, maybe a transition to a smaller and more efficient hardware process with natural benefits and maybe an uptick in frequencies e.g. the Xbox One S. I'm thinking (especially with this being 2 years from now) of a rapid departure from the base similar to the X/Pro, such a rapid departure it requires a separately coded software build for operation as those two systems currently do.

If that is indeed the case then like the X/Pro there would need to be two builds of the game. But with the Switch as it stands having two hardware states with two systems that would require four hardware states which means four levels of optimization for a single piece of software. The X and Pro introduce a new build and each require their own optimization, so on each side they only have two levels of optimization. For a Switch Pro let's call it, there would be four.  3rd parties already avoid the Switch like it has herpes, do you think that would get better if they had to mess with all that?  

Edited October 4, 2018 by DynamiteCop!

[lynux3 2,057]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I think you're thinking of the Switch (2019) as a linear hardware rollup, maybe a transition to a smaller and more efficient hardware process with natural benefits and maybe an uptick in frequencies e.g. the Xbox One S. I'm thinking (especially with this being 2 years from now) of a rapid departure from the base similar to the X/Pro, such a rapid departure it requires a separately coded software build for operation as those two systems currently do.

If that is indeed the case then like the X/Pro there would need to be two builds of the game. But with the Switch as it stands having two hardware states with two systems that would require four hardware states which means four levels of optimization for a single piece of software. The X and Pro introduce a new build and each require their own optimization, so on each side they only have two levels of optimization. For a Switch Pro let's call it, there would be four.    

Right out the doors the Switch's design is flawed. I've seen many issues with plastic chipping, scratches from being docked/undocked, etc. Could just be a design revision with the same ol' hardware. I'm honestly not thinking Nintendo will be throwing in a new SoC or clocking the thing higher. Could be wrong, though, and if I am it'll be interesting to see how support will roll out between the old and the new. I'd personally just like them to fix battery life, the screen and the design to address the issues I mentioned previously.

[lynux3 2,057]

I see where you're getting 4 levels of optimization. I think it is as simple as a slider or similar to PC graphics settings. The only thing happening is that the Switch detects it's in portable mode, down clocks components for battery life purposes and brings down the graphics/resolution dynamically. Having to make 4 separate or even 2 separate builds of a game is ridiculous. These businesses are a lot smarter than that. All of this shit is mostly dynamic and/or emulated in some form or fashion.

[jehurey 3,230]

I love how Dynocrap keeps on trying to insinuate that nVidia doesn't know how to introduce new processing hardware while still being able to natively run, and intuitively "boost" software that was designed for the previous Switch spec.

 

.................and also not have developer tools already in place for developers to easily improve their game to run on better nVidia specs.

 

For anybody that does not know, Nintendo's agreement to use nVidia hardware also includes development tools and software libraries from nVidia.

Edited October 4, 2018 by jehurey

[lynux3 2,057]

19 minutes ago, jehurey said:

For anybody that does not know, Nintendo's agreement to use nVidia hardware also includes development tools and software libraries from nVidia.

I'd hope so, lol. It'd be an otherwise terrible partnership if they didn't provide any documentation.

[jehurey 3,230]

11 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

I'd hope so, lol. It'd be an otherwise terrible partnership if they didn't provide any documentation.

lol, not documentation.

 

Nintendo develops games for the Switch using middleware tools developed by nVIdia, and so would third-parties.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

9 minutes ago, lynux3 said:

I see where you're getting 4 levels of optimization. I think it is as simple as a slider or similar to PC graphics settings. The only thing happening is that the Switch detects it's in portable mode, down clocks components for battery life purposes and brings down the graphics/resolution dynamically. Having to make 4 separate or even 2 separate builds of a game is ridiculous. These businesses are a lot smarter than that. All of this shit is mostly dynamic and/or emulated in some form or fashion.

Well that's where a problem is presented, PC's and their software in terms of 3D rendering applications like gaming are intrinsically unoptimized, or rather optimized to a lesser degree. The way PC's function at large is they receive general optimizations which account for wide arrays of hardware and very infrequently are fine tuned for specific configurations, that's where drivers come into play. Their modus of operation is for a lack of better words brute forcing code with high compute ceilings, this has gotten better with more metal level API's and the like but it's still a victim of variance. PC's are an unregulated faceless market that have omnidirectional representation whereas consoles are unidirectional and have a manufacturer behind them which are responsible for the software they allow to be released. 

 

Consoles and PC can't be thrown into the same bucket and be viewed the same as they're not only designed and function differently, their coding is handled differently, optimization is handled differently and accountability is entirely different. Products released have to be better regulated because they're operating on fixed software builds designed specifically for a fixed hardware package with a manufacturer behind them bearing responsibility. PC's are all over the map as I said unregulated and as such results and subsequently performance, operation and problems are as well. PC has no target, consoles have operational targets that they're designed for, it's how they're able to get the most out of them.

 

You can't introduce a bunch of sliders and graphical settings to console games, they have to maintain or at least close to their targets, it has to be regulated for product consistency and function. That's why for something like Rise of the Tomb Raider on Xbox One X there are three different modes, three modes which all have different fine tuned targets that have been independently optimized for fixed function. PC games they just kind of throw out there into the world and say "this is what is needed to run this" and "this is what is ideal to run this based upon our testing", beyond that there's no guarantees, it's a mixed bag of thousands of different configurations and whatever people want to shove in their system. 

 

PC's have loose standards, consoles should not. 

 

For this 2019 Switch do you think a 720p display on a portable system will be acceptable in 2019? We've had phones for years with 4K displays and some with HDR, the natural iteration of a Switch releasing two years after the initial system would by all accounts be at least a 1080p display which would come with higher rendering demands. Regardless of what you're saying there would still need to be two builds, code still has to be ported for operation on a new platform like this to make extended use of it. The Pro and X both need code ported for advanced operation, this would be no different. Then you have to factor in this new systems docked mode, there's so many variables at play here but if they pushed a better hardware package the software would also have to reflect that. 

 

 

[102020393023445948594 2,223]

hope so, then we can get RE2:R and DMCV on the Switch and I can get rid of the clunksters consoles.  

[hoshino 148]

TLHBO

TCHBO

You kids are terrified of a more powerful switch  

This will be a day 1 buy for me  

[102020393023445948594 2,223]

A more powerful Switch literally means the end of SW. Switch only lags behind PS4 in multiplats, the exclusives demolish PS4. Switch has better 3rd party support than anyone thought, but Nintendo with comparable hardware will soak up all the multiplats we miss now.

 

we're #1 and the industry is taking notice. You're witnessing N return to the top spot in the industry. 

 

Switch - Incredible 1st party, okay for 3rd party

Sony - Okay first party, good for 3rd party

Xflop Done/PeeC -  Shit 1st party, shit 3rd party support, irrelevant cheeto platforms.  

[Goukosan 2,251]

5 hours ago, lynux3 said:

I see where you're getting 4 levels of optimization. I think it is as simple as a slider or similar to PC graphics settings. The only thing happening is that the Switch detects it's in portable mode, down clocks components for battery life purposes and brings down the graphics/resolution dynamically. Having to make 4 separate or even 2 separate builds of a game is ridiculous. These businesses are a lot smarter than that. All of this shit is mostly dynamic and/or emulated in some form or fashion.

This is correct. 

 

For some reason, DynamiteCop has it in his head that Switch currently gets two versions of each game