This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Nintendo has had a trend for the past couple decades of releasing "sequel" consoles that are essentially a modernized version of the old one with extra features, compatible with everything that released on the predecessor.
With all three major console manufacturers prioritizing backwards compatibility, and the rise in PC gaming (universally backwards compatible), people are starting to catch on to the fact that old games don't "expire" after 10 years. I wouldn't be surprised if backwards compatibility just becomes the standard for all gaming consoles going forward.
Tangential, but I'm also interested in seeing how games that released on old consoles and are continued to be played, like Fortnite, will support aging hardware. I don't like that Epic can one day announce the game just no longer works on that console, rendering your purchases null and void until you upgrade your hardware, but I can't expect them to update that version of the game forever.
Games don't have the generational differences they used to. They're mature now. Tech is rarely the blocker anymore. The Switch was "underpowered" at release and is even more underpowered now but the space of "games that would run well on the Switch" is still fairly unexplored, not because anybody is bad but because the space is so big now.
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.
We're also just seeing the leading edge of the game industry having to deal with the fact that it now has to compete against itself. 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. But I think AAA gaming is only just beginning to reckon with the fact that they aren't going to get a "free reset" on every console generation. $NEW_GAME really is is competition with Skyrim now, along with a lot of other things. It's not a joke, it's an emerging reality the industry is going to have to grapple with.
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.
Fortnite and Call of Duty are not great examples given they both still run on the PS4. Even the latest Call of Duty iteration that launched barely two weeks ago still runs on last generation consoles, because there's still so many players who haven't felt the need to upgrade to the successor generation after four years.
I don't think there's ever been a console generation before where the last generation was still getting big new releases this deep into the next one. The PS5 Pro is out now and the PS4 is still getting new games.
Yeah but the only discernible difference to most gamers from last gen to this gen is load times… the ps5 pro side by side to a ps5 screenshot of an enhanced game vs the unenhanced version is crazy.
"The young always want to play that one specific NEW game."
And people want to see that specific one NEW movie, too, not even just "the young". Even now, after all that has happened, Hollywood can still put butts in theater seats for a new movie, even though the attendees probably average several dozen movies at home and probably still have literally hundreds of movies they would enjoy as much or more than the one they are watching in the theater. A lengthy essay could be written on why, which I'll let someone else write.
But I can promise you from personal experience that a 2024 gamer has an easier time picking up and enjoying a 2014 game than a 2004 gamer would have picking up a 1994 game, to the point that it is not even close.
Checking a list of games from 2014... heck, I've got personal proof, my young teen recently started Shadows of Mordor. While it didn't "stick" (we got Skyrim somewhat after that and that has stuck, however, while initial release is 2011 on that the history is complicated and I won't complain if someone wants to forward-date that at least a bit), he wasn't like "oh my gosh this looks so bad and the QoL is so terrible I can't play this anymore". Others from 2014 include Super Smash Bros Wii U, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, and The Last Of Us: Left Behind. Really not that dissimilar from what is being put out today.
Whereas 2004 to 1994 is the delta between Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas and Sonic 3 and Knuckles. That's huge. Yes, I'm old enough to have been there and I can you from personal experience that in 2004 "Sonic 3 and Knuckles" was very definitely legacy in a way that The Last Of Us: Left Behind is not. If you tell someone today that you just started the latter, they might wonder why you're late to the party but they're not going to think anything more of it.
> Unless we are nearing some sort of ARM horizon for consoles, that is.
The documents accidentally leaked from the FTC vs. Microsoft trial revealed that Microsoft was at least considering switching to an ARM CPU with the next Xbox generation, but they hadn't decided yet at the time those documents were written. Either way they would still use an AMD GPU, so it would be AMD+AMD or ARM+AMD.
> I don't like that Epic can one day announce the game just no longer works on that console, rendering your purchases null and void until you upgrade your hardware, but I can't expect them to update that version of the game forever.
Traditionally for these "Live Service"-type games, they announce cutting support for a console, but let you carry your purchases in that specific game (subscription, add-on items, etc), forward to the same game on the next gen of that console.
"Nintendo has had a trend for the past couple decades of releasing "sequel" consoles that are essentially a modernized version of the old one with extra features, compatible with everything that released on the predecessor."
Isnt it pretty much just the Wii and Wii U? I guess you could play GameCube disks on a Wii but calling the Wii a modernized version of the GameCube is a real stretch.
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.
The 3DS actually has a GBA CPU that was used when Nintendo gave some free GBA games away to early 3DS buyers after they lowered the price, as a sort of refund for the difference in prices. You can access it now buy jailbreaking your 3DS, but if you have a New 3DS, emulation on the main CPU is more convenient.
Backwards compatibility is very "cheap" these days though? With no arcane architectures and chip designs. PS5 and Xbox are basically just generic PCs running a restricted OS and Switch is just a phone/tablet.
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.
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
Although the handhelds have been backwards compatible, only the Wii and the Wii U had backwards compatibility. The SNES, N64, Gamecube and Switch did not have backwards compatibility.
It would really be surprising if it wasn't backwards compatible. The Switch breaking backwards compatibility was exceptional, apart from that every Nintendo console since the Wii on the stationary side and the GameBoy Color on the handheld side had at least one generation of backwards compatibility.
That's an oddly cherry-picked version of a pattern. There was no compatibility between the NES, SNES, N64, or GameCube. Wii and Wii U each supported their predecessor's games, but the Switch did not. Those 2 out of 7 were outliers
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).
The hard part of emulating the Switch 2 probably isn't going to be the actual emulation, but breaking the security so that the games and firmware can be extracted and decrypted. Nintendo pretty much nailed their software security with the Switch 1 but were undone by catastrophic hardware bugs, so we'll have to see how well they learned their lesson on the hardware front next time.
Microsoft and Sony have demonstrated that hardware security can be more or less perfected, neither of their systems have been compromised via hardware attacks for several generations now.
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.
There's a reason why you have to go back to the 360 and PS3 for those examples, Sony and Microsoft stepped up their hardware security dramatically after that generation. Neither the PS4, PS5, Xbox One or Xbox Series systems have ever been compromised via hardware attacks, and those earlier ones are over a decade old now.
The Xboxes have held up extremely well on the software front as well, and although the Playstation software isn't so robust (they use FreeBSD and routinely get owned by upstream CVEs) their secure boot has never been broken, which limits how much you can do with a software jailbreak. PS3 jailbreaks had continuity where you could upgrade an exploitable firmware to a non-exploitable one while retaining a backdoor, but the PS4s secure boot put an end to that.
I mean, it is a classic example. If you have access to the hardware and the dedication to do so, you could break almost any security. That's a hilarious example to physically drill into a chip, though
This could be “famous last words”, but as someone who has worked with chip security I’d be very surprised if anyone breaks this generation of hardware at the chip level.
A decade ago the engineers designing these chips knew there were several angles of attack but there just wasn’t enough resources put into closing these holes.
Now every know angle of attack is closed. Even if you delid the chip and reverse engineer every single gate and can probe individual metal wires on the chip, it’ll still be nearly impossible to break the hardware security. Power supply and EM glitching is also protected against (can’t speak for Switch 2 but I’m speaking in general about chips going forward)
Could be bugs and mistakes that allows someone to bypass security, of course. Both in hardware and software. But I don’t think there will be general purpose angles of attack that can be used to bypass security going forward.
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 game binaries are encrypted, sure you can image the Blurays and put them online but they won't do anyone much good without access to the keys buried in the firmware, which are also a moving target since they can be rotated via mandatory firmware updates if they get compromised. In the case of the Switch, you also have to contend with the proprietary carts requiring a crypto handshake before they'll let you even read the encrypted game data.
I mean the keys can be rotated for future game releases, so extracting the keys from firmware X doesn't allow you to decrypt all new physical games in perpetuity, because past a certain point they'll start using a key that only exists in firmware Y onwards. Key rotation was moot in the case of the Switch 1 since the early models were so thoroughly broken that Nintendo couldn't do anything to stop the new keys from being extracted every time, but it worked for Sony and Microsoft whose systems generally only get one-off software exploits that can be closed forever via firmware updates.
They're being purposely coy though on what this actually means. Backwards compatibility with digital/e-games, or backwards compatible with the physical carts?
I'd be shocked if it doesn't support physical carts, given Nintendo's history with backwards compatibility. And given the rough equivalence of digital games and carts on the Switch, I'm hoping that means digital purchases transfer too - but that would be a first for Nintendo, I think. Fingers crossed!
There isn't a technical reason to change the cartridge format. I don't see why they wouldn't just use the same carts if backwards compatibility is the goal.
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.
I would be unsurprised if the cartridge has the same form factor but has internal differences for Switch2-only games. If they want to try to lock Switch2 cartridges down more, there's plenty of ways to do that while maintaining a similar enough form factor for Switch1 compatibility.
The carts are already plenty small. Yes, they could be smaller, but any smaller (without being downloads only) and they'd be difficult to handle.
For cost, they could likely reduce the pincount for new cartridges, by changing the number of data pins, but that doesn't preclude using the same slot. Reducing cost of cartridges is more effective than reducing the cost of the console. Reducing pin count would probably save more money than shrinking the small amount of plastic case.
For energy efficiency, maybe they can eliminate 3.3v and only keep 1.8v for new carts, maybe redesign the insertion detection pins to detect old and new.
they could have made them smaller the first time around, but I have to imagine they intentionally chose not to — we have to remember that they're also optimizing these things for children... so smaller isn't always better for things like swallowing (which is why they add a bitterant to the current cards)
I would be more excited if they released it in console form instead of an iPad with a docking station; N64 was basically the perfect form factor -- load games manually (tactilely) and no fussing with bluetooth or controller charging; and prioritize local co-op games instead of online play.
- Almost every first-party multiplayer Nintendo game on the Switch that I know of has offline local multiplayer. The only exception which comes to mind is Splatoon.
- The Switch has a cartridge slot, and leaks suggest the Switch 2 will too.
- Battery life isn’t really a problem on full-sized controllers (and the failure modes are “walk the dog around the block while it charges enough for a couple-hour session” or “it becomes a wired controller for a few minutes”) including the Nintendo ones, just the damn joy-cons. Those do suck, but the basic idea of wireless controllers has proven to be really good, not like the old Wave Bird days.
- The Switch is easily the best local multiplayer modern console AFAIK, including lots and lots of co-op options.
I really love when backwards compatibility is incorporated in new products. I’m pleasantly surprised because Nintendo has been bit so many times. For example GameCube compatibility on Wii is why we had hacked Wii so quickly.
Huh, I'd been assuming the Switch 2 would be AMD Z2 based. I guess they've managed to convince nVidia to make them another SoC. A little surprised, would have thought nVidia would want to use any spare fab time for AI chips, though maybe they have some older process capacity?
Nintendo optimizes for cost, not maximum performance and almost always selects older technology. AMD Z2 chips go into $600+ bulky low margin PC gaming handhelds whereas Nintendo likely will want to hit $300-350 while keeping a healthy margin.
This also means that the Switch SoC doesn't use an expensive cutting edge manufacturing process. And it probably won't be made in TSMC factories at all. Leaks pretty clearly indicate an Nvidia Ampere based SoC built on Samsung's 8nm process, so it's the same tech as Nvidia's consumer line circa 2020.
I imagine something like the Switch is a great revenue stream for nvidia. It's relatively easy work and they'll be minting Switch 2s, thus paying licensing fees, well into the 2030s.
Even if they don't need that money, it's still good to deny the competition of such a lucrative contract.
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).
The basis for the rumour is basically Linux kernel code and other leaks/hacks for a "T239" SoC that seemingly has all the streamlining and features you'd want for a mobile gaming processor (as opposed to a automotive SoC like the T234 it's supposedly derived from).
I’ve got to assume that fab capacity for SoC ships verses H100s are two different things. With the automotive industry down there could be spare capacity ?
The Switch SoC is now built on a 16nm process, so there's no need to go for the cutting edge to achieve a sizable improvement. The Samsung fabs Nvidia relied on until very recently could do the job.
As usual with Nintendo products, they will not use the best / fastest chips available, but older ones where the production capacity is not that constrained.
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.
I hate to break it to you, but battery life will be at the bottom of the list of Nintendo's concerns when giving you backwards compatibility. If Yuzu was able to get 2.5-3 hours of battery life on the Steam Deck (which isn't that far off from what it gets playing a lot of "native" games) essentially flying blind, Nintendo should be able to do at least that.
You'd hope so, but this is likely a move to placate detractors so the army of Nintendo fans buy whatever insanely underpowered and overpriced device they eventually release.
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.
So another six years of fractured marketing, where you need a spreadsheet to know if the game you want to buy will run on your device. Is it for the Switch, the Switch 2, the Switch 2 Advanced, or the Switch 2 Advanced S AI Cloud VR?
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.
There wasn't a Switch Advanced/Pro or anything like that though. There's the Switch and Switch Lite, the Lite can't attach to a TV and the controllers are fused to the system.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Nintendo has had a trend for the past couple decades of releasing "sequel" consoles that are essentially a modernized version of the old one with extra features, compatible with everything that released on the predecessor.
With all three major console manufacturers prioritizing backwards compatibility, and the rise in PC gaming (universally backwards compatible), people are starting to catch on to the fact that old games don't "expire" after 10 years. I wouldn't be surprised if backwards compatibility just becomes the standard for all gaming consoles going forward.
Tangential, but I'm also interested in seeing how games that released on old consoles and are continued to be played, like Fortnite, will support aging hardware. I don't like that Epic can one day announce the game just no longer works on that console, rendering your purchases null and void until you upgrade your hardware, but I can't expect them to update that version of the game forever.
Games don't have the generational differences they used to. They're mature now. Tech is rarely the blocker anymore. The Switch was "underpowered" at release and is even more underpowered now but the space of "games that would run well on the Switch" is still fairly unexplored, not because anybody is bad but because the space is so big now.
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.
We're also just seeing the leading edge of the game industry having to deal with the fact that it now has to compete against itself. 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. But I think AAA gaming is only just beginning to reckon with the fact that they aren't going to get a "free reset" on every console generation. $NEW_GAME really is is competition with Skyrim now, along with a lot of other things. It's not a joke, it's an emerging reality the industry is going to have to grapple with.
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.
League of Legends and Minecraft came out ~15 years ago and never left the top 10 most played PC games.
It's hard to release new live-service games too. Many people will just be happy to play LoL for the rest of their lives.
Fortnite and Call of Duty are not great examples given they both still run on the PS4. Even the latest Call of Duty iteration that launched barely two weeks ago still runs on last generation consoles, because there's still so many players who haven't felt the need to upgrade to the successor generation after four years.
I don't think there's ever been a console generation before where the last generation was still getting big new releases this deep into the next one. The PS5 Pro is out now and the PS4 is still getting new games.
Yeah but the only discernible difference to most gamers from last gen to this gen is load times… the ps5 pro side by side to a ps5 screenshot of an enhanced game vs the unenhanced version is crazy.
"The young always want to play that one specific NEW game."
And people want to see that specific one NEW movie, too, not even just "the young". Even now, after all that has happened, Hollywood can still put butts in theater seats for a new movie, even though the attendees probably average several dozen movies at home and probably still have literally hundreds of movies they would enjoy as much or more than the one they are watching in the theater. A lengthy essay could be written on why, which I'll let someone else write.
But I can promise you from personal experience that a 2024 gamer has an easier time picking up and enjoying a 2014 game than a 2004 gamer would have picking up a 1994 game, to the point that it is not even close.
Checking a list of games from 2014... heck, I've got personal proof, my young teen recently started Shadows of Mordor. While it didn't "stick" (we got Skyrim somewhat after that and that has stuck, however, while initial release is 2011 on that the history is complicated and I won't complain if someone wants to forward-date that at least a bit), he wasn't like "oh my gosh this looks so bad and the QoL is so terrible I can't play this anymore". Others from 2014 include Super Smash Bros Wii U, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, and The Last Of Us: Left Behind. Really not that dissimilar from what is being put out today.
Whereas 2004 to 1994 is the delta between Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas and Sonic 3 and Knuckles. That's huge. Yes, I'm old enough to have been there and I can you from personal experience that in 2004 "Sonic 3 and Knuckles" was very definitely legacy in a way that The Last Of Us: Left Behind is not. If you tell someone today that you just started the latter, they might wonder why you're late to the party but they're not going to think anything more of it.
You must have some very old young.
The young I know play free mobile games they downloaded from clickbait ads.
> PS5 only has PS4 backward compatibility, and it isn't going to be emulated any time soon.
But that compatibility is not achieved with emulation, right?
The PS6 can hopefully keep compatibility with PS5 and PS4 in a similar way. Unless we are nearing some sort of ARM horizon for consoles, that is.
> Unless we are nearing some sort of ARM horizon for consoles, that is.
The documents accidentally leaked from the FTC vs. Microsoft trial revealed that Microsoft was at least considering switching to an ARM CPU with the next Xbox generation, but they hadn't decided yet at the time those documents were written. Either way they would still use an AMD GPU, so it would be AMD+AMD or ARM+AMD.
Most folks now play one, or a couple, of live service games and that is about it.
A platform inside the platform.
That is why console sales are so bad, in comparison with previous generations growth sales.
fortnite battle royale came out in 2017... hardly new at this point i think
> I don't like that Epic can one day announce the game just no longer works on that console, rendering your purchases null and void until you upgrade your hardware, but I can't expect them to update that version of the game forever.
Traditionally for these "Live Service"-type games, they announce cutting support for a console, but let you carry your purchases in that specific game (subscription, add-on items, etc), forward to the same game on the next gen of that console.
For example, how Final Fantasy 14 ended PS3 support - https://www.gamedeveloper.com/game-platforms/-i-final-fantas... and how Grand Theft Auto 5 ended PS3 support - https://www.ign.com/articles/gta-online-support-ending-xbox-...
It's not a guarantee, but I'd expect something similar for Fortnite.
"Nintendo has had a trend for the past couple decades of releasing "sequel" consoles that are essentially a modernized version of the old one with extra features, compatible with everything that released on the predecessor."
Isnt it pretty much just the Wii and Wii U? I guess you could play GameCube disks on a Wii but calling the Wii a modernized version of the GameCube is a real stretch.
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.
The 3DS actually has a GBA CPU that was used when Nintendo gave some free GBA games away to early 3DS buyers after they lowered the price, as a sort of refund for the difference in prices. You can access it now buy jailbreaking your 3DS, but if you have a New 3DS, emulation on the main CPU is more convenient.
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.
The Wii Hardware was also basically a beefed up GameCube. Plus the Wiimote.
Wii, Wii U, GBC, GBA, DS, 3DS all had backwards compatibility.
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 graphics chip
The graphics architecture was even the same between Wii and GameCube - ATI's Flipper, just with 50% higher clocks on the Wii.
And in fact bug for bug compatible.
> prioritizing backwards compatibility
Backwards compatibility is very "cheap" these days though? With no arcane architectures and chip designs. PS5 and Xbox are basically just generic PCs running a restricted OS and Switch is just a phone/tablet.
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
Although the handhelds have been backwards compatible, only the Wii and the Wii U had backwards compatibility. The SNES, N64, Gamecube and Switch did not have backwards compatibility.
I said "past couple decades" for a reason. The N64 is pushing 30
It would really be surprising if it wasn't backwards compatible. The Switch breaking backwards compatibility was exceptional, apart from that every Nintendo console since the Wii on the stationary side and the GameBoy Color on the handheld side had at least one generation of backwards compatibility.
That's an oddly cherry-picked version of a pattern. There was no compatibility between the NES, SNES, N64, or GameCube. Wii and Wii U each supported their predecessor's games, but the Switch did not. Those 2 out of 7 were outliers
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.
DS did not support GBC 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).
And this reveals the real reason Nintendo came after Switch emulators - to buy some extra time before Switch 2 gets properly emulated.
The hard part of emulating the Switch 2 probably isn't going to be the actual emulation, but breaking the security so that the games and firmware can be extracted and decrypted. Nintendo pretty much nailed their software security with the Switch 1 but were undone by catastrophic hardware bugs, so we'll have to see how well they learned their lesson on the hardware front next time.
Microsoft and Sony have demonstrated that hardware security can be more or less perfected, neither of their systems have been compromised via hardware attacks for several generations now.
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-...
There's a reason why you have to go back to the 360 and PS3 for those examples, Sony and Microsoft stepped up their hardware security dramatically after that generation. Neither the PS4, PS5, Xbox One or Xbox Series systems have ever been compromised via hardware attacks, and those earlier ones are over a decade old now.
The Xboxes have held up extremely well on the software front as well, and although the Playstation software isn't so robust (they use FreeBSD and routinely get owned by upstream CVEs) their secure boot has never been broken, which limits how much you can do with a software jailbreak. PS3 jailbreaks had continuity where you could upgrade an exploitable firmware to a non-exploitable one while retaining a backdoor, but the PS4s secure boot put an end to that.
I mean, it is a classic example. If you have access to the hardware and the dedication to do so, you could break almost any security. That's a hilarious example to physically drill into a chip, though
This could be “famous last words”, but as someone who has worked with chip security I’d be very surprised if anyone breaks this generation of hardware at the chip level.
A decade ago the engineers designing these chips knew there were several angles of attack but there just wasn’t enough resources put into closing these holes.
Now every know angle of attack is closed. Even if you delid the chip and reverse engineer every single gate and can probe individual metal wires on the chip, it’ll still be nearly impossible to break the hardware security. Power supply and EM glitching is also protected against (can’t speak for Switch 2 but I’m speaking in general about chips going forward)
Could be bugs and mistakes that allows someone to bypass security, of course. Both in hardware and software. But I don’t think there will be general purpose angles of attack that can be used to bypass security going forward.
> Power supply and EM glitching is also protected against (can’t speak for Switch 2 but I’m speaking in general about chips going forward)
Microsoft talked openly about implementing those safeguards in the Xbox One, and they've held up for a decade or so now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7VwtOrwceo
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 game binaries are encrypted, sure you can image the Blurays and put them online but they won't do anyone much good without access to the keys buried in the firmware, which are also a moving target since they can be rotated via mandatory firmware updates if they get compromised. In the case of the Switch, you also have to contend with the proprietary carts requiring a crypto handshake before they'll let you even read the encrypted game data.
What on earth do you mean? How does a physical blu-ray’s encryption keys get rotated?
Do you mean that the protection on the firmware gets refreshed with updates, but the secret it protects always stays the same?
I mean the keys can be rotated for future game releases, so extracting the keys from firmware X doesn't allow you to decrypt all new physical games in perpetuity, because past a certain point they'll start using a key that only exists in firmware Y onwards. Key rotation was moot in the case of the Switch 1 since the early models were so thoroughly broken that Nintendo couldn't do anything to stop the new keys from being extracted every time, but it worked for Sony and Microsoft whose systems generally only get one-off software exploits that can be closed forever via firmware updates.
MSFT largely did this by building the xbox platform basically on a local hyper-v system that they can control and not have to worry about hardware.
Mig Switch should work then.
They're being purposely coy though on what this actually means. Backwards compatibility with digital/e-games, or backwards compatible with the physical carts?
I'd be shocked if it doesn't support physical carts, given Nintendo's history with backwards compatibility. And given the rough equivalence of digital games and carts on the Switch, I'm hoping that means digital purchases transfer too - but that would be a first for Nintendo, I think. Fingers crossed!
There isn't a technical reason to change the cartridge format. I don't see why they wouldn't just use the same carts if backwards compatibility is the goal.
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.
I would be unsurprised if the cartridge has the same form factor but has internal differences for Switch2-only games. If they want to try to lock Switch2 cartridges down more, there's plenty of ways to do that while maintaining a similar enough form factor for Switch1 compatibility.
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
The carts are already plenty small. Yes, they could be smaller, but any smaller (without being downloads only) and they'd be difficult to handle.
For cost, they could likely reduce the pincount for new cartridges, by changing the number of data pins, but that doesn't preclude using the same slot. Reducing cost of cartridges is more effective than reducing the cost of the console. Reducing pin count would probably save more money than shrinking the small amount of plastic case.
For energy efficiency, maybe they can eliminate 3.3v and only keep 1.8v for new carts, maybe redesign the insertion detection pins to detect old and new.
they could have made them smaller the first time around, but I have to imagine they intentionally chose not to — we have to remember that they're also optimizing these things for children... so smaller isn't always better for things like swallowing (which is why they add a bitterant to the current cards)
Even at the size they are, I wish they were closer to GBA—cart sized.
I would be more excited if they released it in console form instead of an iPad with a docking station; N64 was basically the perfect form factor -- load games manually (tactilely) and no fussing with bluetooth or controller charging; and prioritize local co-op games instead of online play.
Good news for you :)
- Almost every first-party multiplayer Nintendo game on the Switch that I know of has offline local multiplayer. The only exception which comes to mind is Splatoon.
- The Switch has a cartridge slot, and leaks suggest the Switch 2 will too.
- And you can connect two (possibly more with a hub) Pro controllers with a true wired connection: https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/...
Fingers crossed that the Switch 2 maintains this pattern.
- No cords is really nice.
- Battery life isn’t really a problem on full-sized controllers (and the failure modes are “walk the dog around the block while it charges enough for a couple-hour session” or “it becomes a wired controller for a few minutes”) including the Nintendo ones, just the damn joy-cons. Those do suck, but the basic idea of wireless controllers has proven to be really good, not like the old Wave Bird days.
- The Switch is easily the best local multiplayer modern console AFAIK, including lots and lots of co-op options.
The N64 was significantly limited by its form factor.
Many games were not ported to it because it used a cartridge that couldn't hold near the data of a CD ROM like its peers.
The controller was amazing though.
I really love when backwards compatibility is incorporated in new products. I’m pleasantly surprised because Nintendo has been bit so many times. For example GameCube compatibility on Wii is why we had hacked Wii so quickly.
Lego City Undercover with a higher framerate/resolution would be fantastic - even if only AI upscaled.
Bonus if they invent an AI that can fix the crash bugs in the binary.
Huh, I'd been assuming the Switch 2 would be AMD Z2 based. I guess they've managed to convince nVidia to make them another SoC. A little surprised, would have thought nVidia would want to use any spare fab time for AI chips, though maybe they have some older process capacity?
Nintendo optimizes for cost, not maximum performance and almost always selects older technology. AMD Z2 chips go into $600+ bulky low margin PC gaming handhelds whereas Nintendo likely will want to hit $300-350 while keeping a healthy margin.
This also means that the Switch SoC doesn't use an expensive cutting edge manufacturing process. And it probably won't be made in TSMC factories at all. Leaks pretty clearly indicate an Nvidia Ampere based SoC built on Samsung's 8nm process, so it's the same tech as Nvidia's consumer line circa 2020.
I imagine something like the Switch is a great revenue stream for nvidia. It's relatively easy work and they'll be minting Switch 2s, thus paying licensing fees, well into the 2030s.
Even if they don't need that money, it's still good to deny the competition of such a lucrative contract.
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).
Rumour mill has been an NVidia SoC (derived from their automotive line) and manufactured by Samsung on a non-bleeding edge process.
https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2023-inside-nvidias...
The basis for the rumour is basically Linux kernel code and other leaks/hacks for a "T239" SoC that seemingly has all the streamlining and features you'd want for a mobile gaming processor (as opposed to a automotive SoC like the T234 it's supposedly derived from).
The Samsung fab is based on T234 being fabbed by Samsung using a ~5 year old process, and Korean industry rumours (https://m-mk-co-kr.translate.goog/news/business/10999380?_x_...).
I’ve got to assume that fab capacity for SoC ships verses H100s are two different things. With the automotive industry down there could be spare capacity ?
The Switch SoC is now built on a 16nm process, so there's no need to go for the cutting edge to achieve a sizable improvement. The Samsung fabs Nvidia relied on until very recently could do the job.
As usual with Nintendo products, they will not use the best / fastest chips available, but older ones where the production capacity is not that constrained.
Why wouldn't they just use an emulation layer? There have already been several Switch emulators that run on x86 in the wild.
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.
I hate to break it to you, but battery life will be at the bottom of the list of Nintendo's concerns when giving you backwards compatibility. If Yuzu was able to get 2.5-3 hours of battery life on the Steam Deck (which isn't that far off from what it gets playing a lot of "native" games) essentially flying blind, Nintendo should be able to do at least that.
You'd hope so, but this is likely a move to placate detractors so the army of Nintendo fans buy whatever insanely underpowered and overpriced device they eventually release.
Pro: We won’t have to repurchase games.
Con: Assuming native compatibility, this likely won’t be a very exciting console.
A beefier Switch is what everyone wants. The number 1 complaint I hear about it is how game X looks worse on it than the Xbox/PS version.
Hopefully Nintendo learned its lessons from the Wii U.
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.
How practical to include some emulator once you shut down all the other emulators
Who said anything about emulation?
Cool cool.
So another six years of fractured marketing, where you need a spreadsheet to know if the game you want to buy will run on your device. Is it for the Switch, the Switch 2, the Switch 2 Advanced, or the Switch 2 Advanced S AI Cloud VR?
Unless they choose some stupid name other than "Switch 2".
People understand Playstation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 just fine so that simply isn't true.
Also consumer confusion is not a good excuse to ignore having backwards compatibility.
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.
For all the things Nintendo does wrong, I feel like this isn't one of them.
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.
I think Microsoft suffer worse for this, not only with the bizarre console names, but also their cloud gaming packages.
There wasn't a Switch Advanced/Pro or anything like that though. There's the Switch and Switch Lite, the Lite can't attach to a TV and the controllers are fused to the system.