Switch 2 will be backwards compatible with Switch

>not because anybody is bad but because the space is so big now.

I completely agree but I would actually extend this principle even more aggressively. Even if, for whatever reason, we were hard capped technologically at Windows 98, even that space could be fruitfully explored practically without end, creating new genres, new stories, new games.

Fiction writing carries on just fine in books, and music has certainly benefited from new tech and new methods but there would always be music even if that weren't the case, and same with cinema. I would put tabletop games in this category too. Its continued future viability, independent of future tech advancements may be an important factor in settling whether its art.

Full credit to Nintendo for recognizing they had plenty of unused creative space to play in, and choosing to play by different rules.

It's an emerging reality, but it will be sustained by the market of kids and adult-kids who need "new thing" to play, and have a group of friends in the same boat.

I've said before that I've got a list of games going back 20-odd years that I'd like to play through in retirement, so I'm not the target market, but for online multiplayer games there needs to be a player base that makes it worthwhile, and the swarms are fickle and fast-moving. Helldivers 2 being a recent example to where a large community swarmed.

Having said that, and as someone else pointed out, enduring games like Fortnite will have to cut off certain aging hardware at some point if it's to remain a viable magnet to the swarms.

Aside: I used to go to LANs back in the Quake2 days, and was annoyed with Counterstrike because it essentially halved the player pool of Q2 FFA fragfests. The fragmentation of the market has only continued since then, but the market has also greatly increased in size. I did very much enjoy the unchained chaos of large scale Q2/Q3 FFA and Rocket Arena. Good times.

> Hollywood has always faced this issue and it has historically managed to make money anyhow.

It's harder for video games, because movies take only a couple hours to finish, and you generally want something you haven't seen before each movie night. Video games can take hundreds of hours to play to completion, and some games you can enjoy replaying tens of thousands of times. So the competition from the existing games library is very tough.

Either that, or you've gotten older. The young always want to play that one specific NEW game. Currently that usually means PS5, either Fortnite or Call Of Duty (and yes that one specific version). PS5 only has PS4 backward compatibility, and it isn't going to be emulated any time soon.

> the space of "games that would run well on the Switch" is still fairly unexplored

That's not true at all, many games don't bother with the Switch at all because of dev costs, and Fortnite, one of the most popular games in the world, is struggling on the Switch. I know because I play FN on Switch occasionally, and you can quite literally see all the pain that went into making all that complexity work at approx 25fps.

Even Nintendo can't make the latest Zeldas run at >30fps, and they're relatively low fidelity.

I stopped playing games in 2020 and when I started again late 2024 it was as if nothing has changed since say 2017. The most popular games are still very popular today. I think the reason for this is that I don't play games alone anymore. I always spend time playing with a friend I already know. All those single player games that come and go don't interest me.

You're absolutely spot-on!

I've been organizing LAN parties with my friends for 26 years now and around 2010 to 2016 was the time when games became so good that stopped making sense to upgrade in-between LAN parties.

- Left 4 Dead 2

- Killing Floor 2

- CS:GO

- Grid 2

- GTA V

- StarCraft II

plus nowadays there's stiff free competition, e.g.

- Rocket League

- Brawlhalla

- Dota 2

- LoL

but also from OpenRA, which modernizes Red Alert.

Plus, it's challenging to tell based on screenshots if you're looking at Assassin's Creed III (from 2012) or Assassin's Creed Mirage (from 2023) and there's been 7 !!! other Assassin's Creed games in between.

And looking at the Switch, I'd say the situation for new games is brutal. There's lots of evergreen games with great replay-ability and thanks to the cartridges you can easily borrow them among a group of friends. It's been a while since I last bought a new one because there just wasn't anything different enough from what I already have and like.

My biggest wish for the Switch has been that it'll one day drive my screen at 144Hz to make movement smooth. And it looks like Nintendo is going to deliver exactly that: More powerful hardware for the same old games.

I wonder if Nintendo will also eventually be forced to implement a subscription model and/or if they will start to aggressively push older games without updates out of their store (like what Apple does) because otherwise I just don't see many openings for developers to build a new Switch game and make the financials work. Currently, you're competing with a back catalogue of 4,747 games, so good luck finding anything where you can stand out by being better.

> That hardware can no longer compete with platforms that don't throw away their entire library on every release is probably one of the first impacts of games finally maturing. My "next console" was a Steam Deck for partially this very reason, the fact that it came preloaded with years of previous acquisitions.

This was something that confused me about the concept of consoles in the 90s. The nonexistent value proposition of a console hasn't changed since then.

I assume they serve two purposes:

(1) They're marketed as toys you might buy for someone as a gift.

(2) You might own a console if you don't want to own a computer.

Purpose (2) seems to have withered and died.

> There's been a number of articles about how $NEW_GAME never even reached a peak player count of something like Skyrim. I think that's currently being written as a sort of a "ha ha, that's sorta funny", but it represents a real problem. It is not unsolvable; Hollywood has always faced this issue and it has historically managed to make money anyhow.

One major aspect of copyright law is making it difficult for people to consume media from the past.

It's true that the progress in games is much slower now, but I believe in the console world the main factor is hardware.

Consoles used to have very bespoke architectures, but now are switching to customized versions of relatively off-the-shelf components. Both the PS5 and the last XBox use x86 AMD CPU+GPU combos, probably a variation of their regular G product line.

It's definitely the case for Fortnite, but it still doesn't sit well with me that a service bought on specific hardware can just be taken away with no recourse. I'm not sure what if anything can or should be done about it, but it's weird knowing that many of the most popular PS4 games will be straight up unplayable in a few years

It's like how mobile games can stop supporting old phones. e.g. Hearthstone

Depends on the level of hardware access.

If the GPU access is through a relatively "thick" API like DX/Vulkan and shaders stored in an intermediate representation like DXIL or SPIR-V, sure, swapping out the hardware implementation is relatively easy.

But if they're shipping GPU ISA binaries as the shaders, you'll have a much harder time ensuring compatibility.

Same with things like synchronization, on both the CPU and GPU (and any other offload devices like DSPs or future NPUs). If they use API-provided mechanisms, and those are used /correctly/, then the implementation can likely be changed. But if they cycle-count and rely on specific device timing, again all bets are off.

Things like DX12 and Vulkan have a large number of sync points and state transition metadata to allow different implementations to be "correct" in things like cache or format conversions (like compression). Not all those transitions are required for every vendor's hardware, and we regularly see issues caused by apps not "correctly" using them when the spec says it's required, as the vendor's hardware they happened to test on didn't require that one specific transition that another implementation might, or they happened across some timing that didn't happen to hit issues.

I guess my point is Compatibility is hard even if the APIs are intentionally designed to allow it. I have no idea how much the idea of such compatibility has been baked into console APIs in the first place. One of the primary advantages of consoles is to allow simplifications allowed by targeting limited hardware, so I can only assume they're less compatibility focused than the PC APIs we already have Big Problems with.

It is cheap only if you don't change CPU or GPU architectures. This is why the PS4 doesn't have PS3 compatibility.

When apple switched to ARM even with x64->ARMv8 translation layer (NOT emulating) it was still noticeably slow in a lot of software. Even though some x64 games worked on ARM macs they still lost A LOT of performance.

The backwards compatibility of the PS2 was due to the PS2 literally including an extra PS1 CPU (technically PS1-like CPU underclocked to match the original PS1 CPU when running PS1 games). On PS2 games this PS1 CPU handled only I/O so it wasn't completely wasted when running PS2 games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2_technical_specif...

The PS2 CPU is a MIPS III while the PS1 CPU is a MIPS I. I am not an expert but I think but I think MIPS III is only backwards compatible to MIPS II, not MIPS I

GB/GBc/GBa, DS/3DS (we don't talk about DSi) come to mind if you count them as consoles. You can even play GBa in the original DS, but not in the 3DS as far as I know.

In addition to supporting GameCube discs, the Wii had physical ports for plugging in GameCube controllers and memory cards. So, not much of a stretch.

That's exactly what they called it when its internals became known: an enhanced Gamecube with waggle controls.

The graphics chip was even fixed-function, like the Gamecube's, not shader-based like the Xbox 360 or PS3.

The Wii is pretty much a souped up Gamecube, hardware wise. the GPU, Hollywood (Wii) is a faster Flipper (GameCube). The CPU is an IBM PPC Broadwell, the direct successor to the Gekko in the GameCube. Memory, etc. The only difference is the controllers, really. And even then, since everything was external including the IR bar, there wouldn't be much preventing you from doing this on the GameCube. The very reason you can pop in a GameCube game in it and have it run without emulation is because... It's the same, but faster. Same thing that the Switch and Switch 2 will be.

It's not a "stretch", it is exactly that. It's widely known by anyone familiar with the hardware that Gamecube and Wii are basically the same console: it's the exact same architecture but the Wii has upgraded/faster components and (this whas the key:) different peripherals and bet on the motion controls. It's more or less like comparing the Intel 386SX with 20 MHz and the AMD 386DX with 40 MHz.

You could just ask the developers of Dolphin (Gamecube/Wii emulator). There's a reason for why the same emulator can emulate both consoles.

Wii, Wii U, GBC, GBA, DS, 3DS all had backwards compatibility.

Incorrect. The Wii is far more similar to the Gamecube than the WiiU.

I'm certainly not blaming game makers in general because of the situation of Apple dropping 32bit Intel support, but I think Valve is a different story:

- They've been very diligent in the past about keeping their games up to date.

- Valve owning Steam means their flagship games are a strong signal about macOS support on Steam.

- If they really wanted, they could; they certainly have the resources to do so should they want to+; which means, they don't want to, which is a signal in the other direction: they stopped caring about macOS.

+ HL1 has a FOSS engine that apparently supports it, and more: https://github.com/FWGS/xash3d-fwgs/blob/master/Documentatio...

macOS is actually notorious for lack of binary compatibility. Most commercial apps are online distributed, and most non-commercial are open source, so they're quickly updated and compatibility issues are less often noticed.

The SNES and the Gamecube did have the Super Game Boy and Game Boy Player respectively though, but I'd probably count that as sideward compatibility rather than backward compatibility.

I said "past couple decades" for a reason. The N64 is pushing 30

babe. there were so many stupid toys and collectibles for kids until the 2000s. chill out lol

The main hardware security bugs[0] were very low hanging fruit associated with taking over the boot chain at ring 0- it's more likely that Nintendo themselves were in a rush to get the product on the market after the perceived failure of the Wii U. Even with a secure software stack, people found a way to defeat the Xbox 360 hardware[1] by physically drilling into a chip that enforced a software lock, and George Hotz became known for his work in finding ECDSA flaws in the PS3. Companies can design these locks to last for a few years of a console's lifespan, but I think people now are determined enough to dive into these difficult problems that they're unlikely to be secured forever.

[0] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/unpatchable-hardware-exploit-l...

[1] https://gbatemp.net/threads/scanned-drilling-template-16d4s-...

Microsoft and Sony have successfully prevented their systems from being jtaged or mod-chipped. Not sure you can prevent dumping the actual game binary on the internet. That has lots of software and hardware attack vectors and only needs to be done once by a professional enthusiast.

The modern versions of the switch with those catastrophic bugs patched are still hackable though through mod chips. It's too hard for the casual user to install, but it's plenty accessible for a hacker who just wants to dump ROMs and reverse engineer the OS.

Even if the software is absolutely bulletproof, you can hack almost everything by modifying the hardware. Cutting the power of the CPU for a tiny amount of time for example can cause it to glitch in a way that bypasses the security checks. This is accessible enough for at least one person to get in and dump games.

> can be more or less perfected

When it comes to video games. That's not much of a demonstration in the grand scheme of things.

Sounds like Nintendo's problem. They should step up their security to prevent leaks.

As for people choosing an emulator over buying a Switch: too bad, that's how competition works.

Emulation is legal, per established case law. Sony v Bleem, Sony v Connectix, Sega v Accolade.

There are legal issues around how to legally obtain emulatable copies of the games you own, but emulation is absolutely legal.

(This is not a commentary on whether the emulators in question were careful in every other way.)

If only anyone been able to establish this as a credible defense in court.

From what I understand, people are much more into physical media in Japan. Nintendo also actually finishes their games and gets a working build ready before release so the carts actually have a game on them that don't require a patch, which is unfortunately not standard across the industry.

You could transfer your digital games from the Wii to the Wii U, but it wasn't done for you.

Because they can get more money by selling the same game twice. But they can still claim backwards compatibility with download-only games.

You probably want to add a notch or something that makes it impossible to put the "new" carts into the "old" slots; like they did for DS/3DS:

http://i.imgur.com/OQLR0xM.jpg

there always is:

- smaller

- energy efficient

- cost saving

and they are all valid reasons, it's a handheld, the form factor will evolve until perfected

There are now cart dumpers that can copy and store multiple Switch games on an SD card. If the same form factor is used its likely these will still work for original Switch games.

The newest Xbox model doesn't have any new features; they stripped the drive so they could offer a lower-cost model. And while the newest PlayStation model doesn't have a drive, they sell one separately. So physical games are still alive and well for all three competitors.

You are forgetting the handheld line

Gameboy Color supported OG Gameboy games

GBA supported GBC games

DS supported GBA and(?) GBC games - Could be wrong about that

3DS supported DS games.

The important part is that backwards compatibility became a focus after the Gamecube and it has been ever since. Like, this is just a fact. The Wii supported Gamecube games and controllers. Even the WiiU had the internal capability to run GC games, it just lacked the disc drive for it, and it ran Wii games just fine. The same goes for every single of their portable consoles (GB games work on the GBC, GB and GBC games work on the GBA, GBA games work on the Nintendo DS, etc).

CPU and GPU architectures used to wildly change from one generation to the next. Backwards compatibility wasn't always practical or feasible.

Now we've arrived at a fairly locked in set of architectures.

The DS and 3DS were.

Hopefully this trickles down into an nvidia shield tv successor. I am dreading the day mine dies.

There are some hints that Nvidia wants to seriously enter the ARM CPU market (again)? Switch guarantees high demand/volume regardless of anything else. Not clear how lucrative the contract is on its own, though.

Presumably it will reduce their current gross margins (which won't necessarily look great in their quarterly report. Nvidia's total revenue is only ~20% higher than Intel's was back in 2021 despite the insane valuations (in large part due to their obscene margins).

Because it is a mobile console, therefore battery life is a limitation and adding an extra layer of indirection (and therefore, work) will drain that battery faster.

The fact that the Switch 1 SoC is so outdated now is the main reason the console is replaced with a Switch 2. E.g. there a fewer and fewer cross-platform releases that come to the Switch. So having an outdated SoC means shaving of years of the console's potential life span.

> The only exception which comes to mind is Splatoon.

It does, but it's hidden behind an unlisted button combination (Zl + Zr + L3 for Splat 3) and every player needs their own console and copy of the game: https://splatoonwiki.org/wiki/The_Shoal#LAN_Play

Thanks. I was thinking though how much more UI hassle the modern systems are for 5-year olds as I have nephews; if you can still load with cartridges and use wired controllers -- that's pretty close to the classic systems with respect to UI. I am still nostalgic for a larger cartridges, SD cards are so puny.

As well as local multiplayer, there's a feature to sync game updates without an internet connection. So even if people start off with different versions of a game and have no internet connection they can still play together.

I am a little disappointed they don't have anything like the DS's download play feature though.

Can you recommend any good co-op options which aren't shooters/fighters/competitive? People often suggest the same 5-6 titles while

I'd like some actual story-based co-op to play with my partner but mainly it's karting, fighting, shooting, farming or partying without any story or co-op at all.

The controller was amazing though

...

What?

The thumbstick was super shoddy and was prone to mechanical failures, the ridiculously tiny d-pad was literally made for ants. The N64 was a lot of things, but I don't know anyone who's giving out accolades for the controller design.

The GC controller (outside of the HUGE shoulder bumpers that were used as analog in a grand total of like 4 racing games) was a vast improvement on it, and I would say that the Switch Pro Controller ranks up there as one of Nintendo's best though the cost of $60/$70 kind of stung.

A beefier iteration is the Xbox PlayStation way. To many people what makes Nintendo special is that they often avoid that. Wii, Switch, snd DS being successful examples.

>Hopefully Nintendo learned its lessons from the Wii U.

That’s my concern, Nintendo doesn’t like incremental titles like “Switch 2”. They’d rather call it something weird like “Switch Me” which only confuses non informed customers.

> Hopefully Nintendo learned its lessons from the Wii U

But... this is in direct contradiction to what you're saying.

The Wii U was essentially a beefier Wii and it failed. It wasn't revolutionary, wasn't much of a new form factor. But it did have beautiful games.

If you look at all the Nintendo consoles that ate up the competition, none of them are "iterations". They're brand-new things. DS, Wii, Switch were all major departures from what came before them.

The only thing I want is to be able to play totk without horrific fps drops. That’s all

Agreed, a lot of people were expecting a bump in processing power in the OLED refresh, but it's pretty clear now that they were saving that for the Switch 2.

Yeah playing emulated Switch games is a much better experience on a Steam Deck than it is on the Switch. Nintendo is in a weird spot now because the competitive landscape is much different.

I was / (am still sort of) expecting Nintendo will make a product that’s exciting. Not a Switch 2 we can look back on and say “man this company hasn’t made a significant console since 2016”.

To be fair, I predict a Netflix of gaming in the future so maybe this is a safe move, idk.

I can just see them snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by calling this thing something stupid like "Switch U" or "SwIItch" confusing the hell out of consumers again.

The Switch thankfully avoided this, but there when the "New 3DS" came out, there were a handful of games that only worked on that hardware revision.

But, you can still pair most types of extra controllers to it (including a set of Joycons), and the eShop is aware of games the few games that can only be played on a tv and warns of incompatibility.

Plus the Switch OLED, which was the Switch but switchier.