Switch Will the Switch get a hardware upgrade?

Demon_Skeith

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
86,707
2007
4,319
Awards
30
Credits
21,740
Steal Penalty
You're Rich Money Bags Award
Profile Music
I can't help but feel down the line, like in 2 years or so Nintendo is going to come out with a sort of stronger Switch console similar to what they did with New 3DS and how Sony did with PS4 pro.

Anyone else think this might be likely? It seems to be an increasing trend these days.
 
I feel that Nintendo may just spend most of its time on making good games for the Switch, and trying to attract more third-party game makers for the Switch.

Releasing faster versions of the Switch may not help sell a lot more new Switch consoles if there are not many good games for the Switch.

The Switch handheld tablet console also uses a small 6.2 inch screen where people may not see a huge quality improvement when gaming on a faster console compared to gaming on a 4K or 1080P HDTV.
 
I feel that Nintendo may just spend most of its time on making good games for the Switch, and trying to attract more third-party game makers for the Switch.

Releasing faster versions of the Switch may not help sell a lot more new Switch consoles if there are not many good games for the Switch.

The Switch handheld tablet console also uses a small 6.2 inch screen where people may not see a huge quality improvement when gaming on a faster console compared to gaming on a 4K or 1080P HDTV.

only thing 3rd party makers want is power house hardware, as such Nintendo may have to up the Switch specs to get them.
 
only thing 3rd party makers want is power house hardware, as such Nintendo may have to up the Switch specs to get them.

I agree, third-parties would want a power house hardware. 3rd-parties also want a lot of gamers who own the Switch before making many games for the Switch.

Sometimes, third-parties may release games for a console even if the console is less powerful. I think the Playstation 2 was less powerful than the Nintendo Gamecube and Xbox, but it has a lot of games for it because of the popularity of the PS2, and many good exclusive games.

Releasing many good first-party games like Zelda, Smash Bros, Pokemon, and Mario is one way of getting a lot of people to buy the Switch, and making third-parties interested in releasing games for the Switch because of the huge amount of gamers on it.
 
I agree, third-parties would want a power house hardware. 3rd-parties also want a lot of gamers who own the Switch before making many games for the Switch.

Sometimes, third-parties may release games for a console even if the console is less powerful. I think the Playstation 2 was less powerful than the Nintendo Gamecube and Xbox, but it has a lot of games for it because of the popularity of the PS2, and many good exclusive games.

Releasing many good first-party games like Zelda, Smash Bros, Pokemon, and Mario is one way of getting a lot of people to buy the Switch, and making third-parties interested in releasing games for the Switch because of the huge amount of gamers on it.

hrmmm, not really sure but I'm pretty sure PS2 was stronger than gamecube.
 
hrmmm, not really sure but I'm pretty sure PS2 was stronger than gamecube.

PS2 game makers maybe better and spent more time at making good looking games. I remember games like God of War, and Final Fantasy games look great on the PS2. The PS2 gaming community is huge. I think the PS2 is one of the best selling consoles, so if a game maker makes a game like Kingdom Hearts which looks good, and is fun to play, they can get a lot of game buyers and fans.

The Gamecube never got as many console owners like PS2, so some game makers may not care as much about making their Gamecube game which use all of the Gamecube's performance, and rather spend more time on making their game for PS2 look great to get more buyers.

PS2 used Full size DVD disc to record the games to. Dual layer DVD disc maximum storage is 8.5GB of data. But, Gamecube MiniDVD disc can only hold 1.5GB of data according to Nintendo optical discs - Wikipedia

I think Gamecube games needed to have lower quality graphics, sound, and fewer levels to save space on the disc because 1.5GB of space is not a lot of space even in the early 2000s.
 
GC is definitely stronger than the PS2. During that gen, Xbox was the strongest, followed closely by GC with PS2 trailing a ways behind.

1368645384-000000.jpg


I do wonder if Nintendo will produce a mid-gen upgrade. Only time will tell.
 
Thanks for the image, I guess this is why Sony flopped on the PS3 launch.

I think the PS3 did not do well because its PS2 backwards compatibility was not good, the PS2 was too good, and cause many people to continue playing it, and its large library of great games like Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, and Gran Tourismo. The PS2 can also play Playstation 1 games if you have a PS1 memory card, and games.

I think the PS3's PS2 backwards compatibility was not good where PS2 games look worse played on the PS3 compared using a PS2.

I was also pretty happy with the current selection of PS2 games, so I was never really interested in the PS3 at the time. The PS3 also was more expensive than the Wii, and Xbox 360 arcade which saved game save files, and small mini games to a memory card which you inserted into the 360.
 
PS3 had a rough launch due to a weak lineup and a hefty price tag of $600. It also didn't help that it came out a year after the 360. Backwards compatibility was one of its only saving graces. It did a good job at upscaling PS2 games, producing a cleaner picture on an HDTV than the PS2 could.
 
PS3 had a rough launch due to a weak lineup and a hefty price tag of $600. It also didn't help that it came out a year after the 360. Backwards compatibility was one of its only saving graces. It did a good job at upscaling PS2 games, producing a cleaner picture on an HDTV than the PS2 could.

HDTV were also less common in homes when the PS3 was released, so the lack of HDTV televisions in many homes may of hurt the PS3 sales. Some people may feel it is less worth the $600 price tag to play the PS3 on a regular TV.

Some people may rather stick to playing a PS2, and cheaper new consoles at a the time like the Wii, and 360.
 
HDTV were also less common in homes when the PS3 was released, so the lack of HDTV televisions in many homes may of hurt the PS3 sales. Some people may feel it is less worth the $600 price tag to play the PS3 on a regular TV.

Some people may rather stick to playing a PS2, and cheaper new consoles at a the time like the Wii, and 360.

Simply what was said, weak software and a high price choked the PS3 much like the Wii U. Not to mention Sony lots millions on the PS3 for a few years.
 
Simply what was said, weak software and a high price choked the PS3 much like the Wii U. Not to mention Sony lots millions on the PS3 for a few years.

There weren't also a lot of good Blu-Ray movies when the PS3 came out, so buying the PS3 which has a Blu-Ray disc drive was not as worth it if you plan on watching a lot of Blu-Ray movies on the PS3. There just weren't enough good Blu-Ray movies and TV series when the PS3 was released. I bet, there are still a lot of classic films, and TV shows are not available on Blu-Ray, and can just be watched on DVD, websites like YouTube, or downloaded with Bittorent and other legal and non-legal online websites.
 
There weren't also a lot of good Blu-Ray movies when the PS3 came out, so buying the PS3 which has a Blu-Ray disc drive was not as worth it if you plan on watching a lot of Blu-Ray movies on the PS3. There just weren't enough good Blu-Ray movies and TV series when the PS3 was released. I bet, there are still a lot of classic films, and TV shows are not available on Blu-Ray, and can just be watched on DVD, websites like YouTube, or downloaded with Bittorent and other legal and non-legal online websites.

that to, PS3 was simply a head of its time. Which it was lucky that time caught up to it.
 
that to, PS3 was simply a head of its time. Which it was lucky that time caught up to it.

The PS3 also benefited from poor internet speeds and movie selections from services like Netflix , and many ISPs were too slow to stream DVD and Blu-Ray quality movies and TV shows.

Back in the past, if you wanted to watch movies which look better than DVD and TV, you need to get a Blu-Ray player and buy Blu-Ray movie discs because Netflix library of movies and TV shows were not as huge back then, and most ISPs had slow download, upload and ping speeds which made watching HD movie video streams very slow.

I think Pay per view movies from the Cable channel is also not as good as Blu-Ray movie discs if you are a huge anime, video game movie, classic, and foreign film fan.
 
Back
Top