Nintendo Switch is powered by NVIDIA

[Kaido]

It does sound odd that is the biggest problem they got.
Why wouldn't they want something with much higher specs, and it seems to be, they are going after the portable market with good battery life.
I don't think they have realized that smartphones are going to eclipse their new system specs soon, and they will take the Sega way out of the hardware business.
The only rub is, they might indeed be working on a actual console that will be pretty powerful, we just don't know.

imo they don't need power (especially not when they're already competing against the Playstation/Xbox/PC), they need a better-designed system. The original Wii was a fantastic idea because of motion controls. It stalled out because good games quit coming out for it. That was the whole issue, period, the end - you can only play Mario Kart for so long until you want to play something else, something new. They later introduced Motion Plus remotes, which enhanced precision, but by then it was too late. So then they came out with the Wii U, which had crummy system software & a weird primary remote. Why not make ALL the controllers the same? That bugged me quite a bit tbh. The majority of people only bought the Wii U for the flashship games they already loved - Karts, Smash, Zelda, etc. And that's it! You can't even buy a Wii U new off Amazon anymore.

What they SHOULD do is: first, make it cheaper, to compete - like a $199 bundle with a flagship game & a pair of remote sets. It's more of a kids console (due to the graphics & available content) and the price should reflect that. Second, make all of the controllers the same (also, make them rechargable & make the nunchuck wireless). Third, license the Kinect system from Xbox (c'mon, they're not using it!) to augment the Wiimotes. Fourth, focus on "augmented exercise" - push out more games like Shape Up, Just Dance, etc. VR is coming on strong with this & they can still snag the market for things like monitored calisthenics (you can get pretty ripped just doing pushups & dips and stuff). Fifth, line up developers on a release schedule to keep the goods trickling in. I'm talking one AAA title every month for 24 months, and launch with half a dozen quality titles.

I would TOTALLY buy that system! Imagine if the NX came out for $200 with two sets of wireless, rechargable controllers & Mario Kart, plus a sensor bar with integrated Kinect. At launch, have Mario Kart, Smash, Super Mario, Zelda, Rayman, and Mario Maker available - all the favorites. Maybe optimize everything for 4K, because let's be honest, you can pick up a 50" Seiki 4K TV for $299 at Walmart & it looks pretty dang good (that doesn't mean you need amazing graphics, just 4K-capable cartoony graphics). Then, have major releases EVERY MONTH for at least a year, if not two years, to keep people's interest going. Nintendo should bankroll the developers so they have a vested interest in success (hey, just look at Pokemon Go!). Do a big release of fitness games that are actually FUN! In VR, I'm playing Holopoint, AudioShield, Virzoom Arcade, etc. for cardio. That would really set the NX apart from other consoles...it's cheaper, it has a slew of stuff readily available at launch, it gets regular releases so it doesn't become abandonware, etc.

It's not rocket science. I actually think Android could do this if they got their act together, but the GUI is too fragmented (you can DIY with a Chinese set-top box & some wireless remotes tho...plenty of fun games available, even DDR!). But Nintendo could KILL it if they really wanted to. I'm constantly amazed they've done virtually nothing with the system since what feels like the first month of release of the original Wii...yeah yeah we have Mario & stuff, but c'mon.

 

[sirmo]

I'm with Russian on this. I badly want a normal console from Nintendo. Throwing in gimmicks just ruins the experience for me. A Nintendo console has the potential to be the perfect compliment to a gaming pc. I love Zelda/Mario and the rest of Nintendo's IP but games like Skyward Sword were lost to me as I have no desire to sit there and wiggle a wiimote in an attempt to do something precise.

Same here. I am usually not a console gamer.. in fact I passed on the last generation of consoles altogether. But would have been willing to get the NX if it meant AAA ports and Nintendo exclusives. The way it's looking it will be another gimmicky and underpowered device.

 

[HiroThreading]

Completely agree with RS on this one.

Many of us who grew up with NES, SNES/Genesis, N64 have been waiting for a "no nonsense, no gimmicks" powerful Nintendo console, with traditional media, improved online, and 1st + 3rd party support, traditional controllers, and by all accounts the 2017 NX appears to be NONE of those things. Nintendo just constantly makes excuses why the traditional, powerful home console wouldn't work for them but that's because every single console since SNES that they made had major flaws.

After the casual Wii, what many Nintendo fans wanted was a "PS4"-equivalent Nintendo console in 2012-2013, and yet here we are approaching 2017 and Nintendo is going to miss what many have asked for by a country mile! Nintendo simply abandoned the young gamers who grew up with them during NES/SNES/N64 eras and there is almost no chance that NX will bring them back.

So much this.

I grew up with the SNES, N64 and Gamecube (and Gameboy Colour, Advance and DS), and I've been waiting for ages for Nintendo to just release a console that is on par with its competition in order to attract much needed third party support. Now, when presented with the golden opportunity of the entire console industry moving toward x86 and AMD GPU compute, they're going back toward custom APIs and bizarre hardware solutions.

I am NOT buying an NX if it's some bizarre hybrid mobile contraption.

I sure hope their console sells but it's already off to a horrible start with a focus on mobile gaming in an era of smartphones/tablets.

Yes. So many rabid Nintendo fanboys (who quite frankly are suffering from delusion) do not realise that dedicated mobile gaming devices are a Titanic -- and Apple and Android are the icebergs.

Nintendo is also underestimating the upgrade path strategy Sony and MS have set up. There are already more than 60M XB1+PS4 gamers. By the time the NX launches, there will be > 70M gamers. Once Scorpio and Neo come out and these gamers can just take their existing gaming library with them, they could just sell / trade-in their old consoles for the next SKU. Instead of paying $300+ for an unproven Nintendo console with non-existent gaming library, why would current XB1/PS4 owners just not trade in their PS4/XB1s for a more powerful console, keep playing all of the existing games and get the benefits of 4K gaming of next 'half-gem'?

Absolutely. Not to mention the supreme backwards compatibility that x86 and GCN provides. PS5 and Scorpio owners will have access to their entire PS4/One library, not to mention that I expect the PS5/Scorpio to be powerful enough to emulate PS3/360 games.

 

[Ancalagon44]

The problem with Nintendo and the rumours going around about the NX is that none of them really address the complaints that modern gamers have with Nintendo's offerings. The biggest complaints that I am aware of are lacking game libraries especially for the Wii U, poor online capabilities, and difficulty (or outright impossibility) of moving content between devices.

So it looks like Nintendo is trying the same tactic of coming up with a gimmick that they hope will sell. Now even if the NX is the best gimmick that anyone has ever thought of in the entire world, it still doesn't solve the problems mentioned above. Hopefully Nintendo is investing in developing first party games that are ready for release with the NX, because if they don't do at least that, they may as well shut the company down.

I agree with Russian about the problem of having a device that can do both handheld gaming and home console gaming. The performance characteristics of each use case (namely power consumption, heat production and gaming performance) are wildly different. I just can't see a practical solution for it.

 

[MarkizSchnitzel]

I really could not care less about specs. As long as they deliver on 1st party games. Which they have not been doing for years now. Too few of them. If there were 2 Mario and Zelda games, and a bunch of sidegames, that would be enough for casuals and kids.

I don't know what amount of time you guys have to be able to play all of those 3rd party AAAs, on top of 1st party gems by nintendo.

I got a PC for AAAs. I get nintendo for Mario.

 

[zlatan]

Don't overdo the hype guys. The Nintendo NX performance is nowhere near as good as Xbox One or PS4. It's ~4 times slower in the practice. Bit this is a mobile product!

 

[antihelten]

Don't overdo the hype guys. The Nintendo NX performance is nowhere near as good as Xbox One or PS4. It's ~4 times slower in the practice. Bit this is a mobile product!

Honestly for a handheld console I think this level of performance is perfectly ok, and I have previously been quite positive about the NX. However my positive outlook was based on it being a handheld first and a hybrid second. So basically something the size of an overgrown phablet (i.e. PSP Vita sized), that could coincidently be hooked up to a TV. However based on the tweet RS linked, it looks like this will be tablet sized (6.2" is the same screen size as the Wii U Gamepad), and that's just too big for a handheld console imho.

So then we end up with something that's really too big to be a decent handheld and too slow to be a decent home console.

 

[Kaido]

The problem with Nintendo and the rumours going around about the NX is that none of them really address the complaints that modern gamers have with Nintendo's offerings. The biggest complaints that I am aware of are lacking game libraries especially for the Wii U, poor online capabilities, and difficulty (or outright impossibility) of moving content between devices.

Really it just boils down to lack of games. The way you keep any computing platform relevant is by continuing to add value.

They really need to fund developers & lay out a release schedule for exclusives. If they were smart, do like a full 2-year release schedule with a couple dozen AAA games, one per month. Do the loyalty games like Mario up-front, but then focus on new-territory games, indie games, fitness games, etc. that are all wildly exciting to play. I remember having a blast with even simple stuff like Wii Sports when it first came out because nobody had anything like that. Even my grandparents were getting into bowling & doing bowling moves haha. Obviously a lot has changed in the last decade, but the fact that people are always looking for fun new games hasn't changed.

 

[HiroThreading]

Really it just boils down to lack of games. The way you keep any computing platform relevant is by continuing to add value.

They really need to fund developers & lay out a release schedule for exclusives. If they were smart, do like a full 2-year release schedule with a couple dozen AAA games, one per month. Do the loyalty games like Mario up-front, but then focus on new-territory games, indie games, fitness games, etc. that are all wildly exciting to play. I remember having a blast with even simple stuff like Wii Sports when it first came out because nobody had anything like that. Even my grandparents were getting into bowling & doing bowling moves haha. Obviously a lot has changed in the last decade, but the fact that people are always looking for fun new games hasn't changed.

The issue is that other mediums are stealing away the casual market from Nintendo. The biggest is probably the iPad, which many adults use as their gaming and Netflix/HBO device. They have no loyalty to Nintendo, and so you can't cater a console to them... Not unless you plan to show up Apple -- and good luck to any company which tries that.

As for first party AAA games, they're taking longer and longer to develop as graphical fidelity has increased over time. This is why having good third party is so vital -- they essentially cover your bases as you prefer first party killer apps and games. This is what boggles the mind about Nintendo's decision not to just go with an AMD x86 SoC. No developer is going to undergo an expensive and painful process of porting games from the PS4/One/PS5/Scorpio to the NX.

 

[Thala]

This is what boggles the mind about Nintendo's decision not to just go with an AMD x86 SoC. No developer is going to undergo an expensive and painful process of porting games from the PS4/One/PS5/Scorpio to the NX.

What boggles me is the idea, that instruction set architecture is related to porting effort.
The porting effort is a function of differences in runtime environment and is not related to differences in ISA (e.g. x86 vs ARM).

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

What boggles me is the idea, that instruction set architecture is related to porting effort.
The porting effort is a function of differences in runtime environment and is not related to differences in ISA (e.g. x86 vs ARM).

Actually, that's not true ...

Games are not just about the content but their also about having real time interactivity and feedback so performance matters to the experience too. In some extreme cases, extensive usage of a hardware specific feature can prevent having a viable port for other platforms ...

 

[Headfoot]

What boggles me is the idea, that instruction set architecture is related to porting effort.
The porting effort is a function of differences in runtime environment and is not related to differences in ISA (e.g. x86 vs ARM).

What boggles me is the idea that somebody really thinks in 2016 that console developers aren't optimizing to the instruction level for the common CPU used by both Xbone and PS4

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nintendo makes some great games, too bad they routinely go light on the hardware. I kind of wish Nintendo would go the Sega route and make their games on everything.

Also, I'm surprised Nvidia wanted this business. I hear consoles are low margin, high volume... The type of contract only a struggling company that needs revenue would take. And Nintendo is probably going to be the lowest seller of them all.

 

[FatherMurphy]

Nintendo makes some great games, too bad they routinely go light on the hardware. I kind of wish Nintendo would go the Sega route and make their games on everything.

Also, I'm surprised Nvidia wanted this business. I hear consoles are low margin, high volume... The type of contract only a struggling company that needs revenue would take. And Nintendo is probably going to be the lowest seller of them all.

If you look at the Tegra division as an isolated product, perhaps it makes more sense. A contract with Nintendo for a low margin, high volume Tegra chip might not result in much profit (at least in comparison to the rest of the company), but it will help spread the risk of developing expensive Tegra silicon, which will also be used in the higher margin automotive industry.

 

[RussianSensation]

Don't overdo the hype guys. ....Bit this is a mobile product!

This is what boggles the mind about Nintendo's decision not to just go with an AMD x86 SoC. No developer is going to undergo an expensive and painful process of porting games from the PS4/One/PS5/Scorpio to the NX.

Zlatan hit it on the head with his comment that while the NX hybrid, it is primarily a mobile product. As a result, x86 was a non-starter. I am just utterly floored if Nintendo decided to replace a dedicated handheld and a home console with a 2-in-1. As has already been reiterated in this thread, it's going to be very hard to create a well-balanced, reasonably priced system to serve both markets at the same time. It appears what Nintendo has decided to do is incorporate all of the aspects of the PS Vita/New 3DS, Wii and Wii U into the NX.

"Custom Nvidia GPU chip
Region Free (No region lock) <– Confirmed this.
Six inch (6.2 inch?) multi-touch screen (Heard nothing about a stylus)
The touchscreen has 720p resolution. <— 100% Confirmed.
32GB of built-in internal storage
SD card support
Supports USB 2.0 and 3.0
The dock has two 2.0 usb ports and one 3.0 usb port.
The device is around 14 – 15 mm in thickness.
The right analogue stick will be below the face buttons.
Camera and microphone are not built into the NX portable device.
Cooling is still a little noisy
Detachable controllers (motion controls and next-gen vibration technology) <– Everything Laura Kate Dale said in her article was correct.
There are at least two shoulder buttons. I haven’t heard anything yet about triggers.
Battery Life — Ehhh not great. I haven’t heard an exact number of hours, but it doesn’t sound great.
Below PS4 and XB1 in raw power.
Supports Unreal Engine 4 and Unity Engine."
http://wccftech.com/nintendo-nx-doc...t-battery-life-not-great-rumor/#ixzz4JJ5JZyDn

Everything about this console screams that Nintendo smelled a sure thing monopoly in the "hardcore" portable gaming market once Sony dropped out with PS Vita. Then they simply designed a next generation portable console and tacked on the dock and detachable controllers for HDTV connection since they appear to have just given up on the idea of a traditional home console. However, replacing the New 3DS and Wii U with just 1 console has some major risks imo:

1. It assumes no imminent competition in the portable gaming market - that neither Sony nor MS will re-enter the mobile gaming market in the next 5 years. If they do, Nintendo's share of the total addressable market will shrink due to competition, increasing the risk of the NX successfully replacing both the 3DS and Wii U consoles.

2. It assumes 1 hybrid console can service 2 distinct market segments - Trying to replace 2 products that targeted 2 distinct markets (3DS/New 3DS and Wii U) with a portable console that appears to be a "nothing special" home console is a risky move to put it lightly. It means that if the NX doesn't sell the combined sales of their historical home consoles + 3DS/New 3DS, their effective target market will shrink tremendously. This matters a great deal since Nintendo needs a large install base to make $ on the software sales.

3. Consumer mind-share/image of Nintendo will permanently shift over time - If they do not introduce a traditional home console soon, by giving up on the PS4/XB1 core customer base with the NX, the new generation of gamers will associate Nintendo with mediocre traditional home consoles such as the Wii and Wii U, not NES, SNES, N64, GameCube. The kids of the millennial generation will not have fond memories of those older Nintendo consoles, which means that Nintendo's image/perception for new generation of consumers will be shaped completely differently than prior generations were. This could set Nintendo up for a dangerous spiral to be viewed as a casual gaming company that no longer delivers hardcore gaming experiences. The last spot a primarily gaming focused company wants to be in is in a position where a lot of gamers do not have trust in it and don't take it seriously. Nintendo is quickly going down this path generation after generation with no change of direction in sight.

4. Nintendo continues to fall even further behind the technology curve - Let's not forget that NES, SNES, N64 and GameCube were all either the most or close to the most powerful consoles in their eras. No one could make claims that those consoles were outdated console tech when they launched in their respective generations. Both the gamers and the developers had respect for them. As Sony and MS are about to enter the 4K and VR-Ready gaming era, surely their next generation consoles released in 2021 and beyond will make the NX look completely pre-historic. Now, some of you will defend this and say well it doesn't matter since as long as you can buy great games, the hardware specs don't matter. If Nintendo continues to be a full generation behind, then both the 3rd party and 1st party games will themselves look a generation behind. If Nintendo continues to be behind in software developer, it will be that much harder to later enter the 4K and VR-Era of gaming. Not everyone wants 4K gaming or VR gaming in 2021 and beyond but it seems Nintendo isn't even positioning themselves as a player. They are forfeiting this entire market segment of consumers to MS/Sony. The issue is the longer they are out of this market segment, the harder it will be to convert these consumers back to Nintendo. Sooner or later the kids of the millennial generations will grow up and some of them will want 4K (or by then 8K or 16K) and VR gaming consoles. That's why I think it's paramount for Nintendo to have both a portable and a traditional home console.

5. How healthy is the portable 'hardcore' gaming market worldwide? - Is there even a large viable, growing market for 'hardcore' portable gaming where games cost $40-60? Just how the Wii was a successful one-time fluke, what's to say that PS Vita's failure isn't a foreshadowing that the hardcore portable gaming market itself isn't in a decline?

From early 2011 to June 2016, the 3DS sold about 60 million units. Otoh, the New 3DS only sold ~ 9 million units in ~1.5 years since release. It seems that the 3DS was far more popular than the New 3DS/XL are. It's very possible that the 3DS/New 3DS market Nintendo is aiming at will continue to shift away from a $200-250 portable gaming consoles with $40-60 games. There is a downward trend for hardware and software sales for Nintendo's portable console which may or may not indicate shifting market preferences for this style of gaming platform.

"3DS 'family' Hardware Sales (old and New) - a downward trend

1st April to 31st December 2015 - 5.88 million units (4.23 million 'New 3DS' units)
Target for end of year (31st March 2016) - 7.6 million units

1st April to 31st December 2014 - 7.08 million units
End of year (31st March 2015) - 8.73 million units

For comparison: end of year (31st March 2014) - 12.24 million units

3DS Software Sales

1st April to 31st December 2015 - 38.87 million units
1st April to 31st December 2014 - 53.04 million units"
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...e_a_real_chance_to_revive_the_portable_family

What's more alarming, is that roughly 50% of New 3DS sales have come from Japan. This is a terrible sign for consumer preferences for the rest of the world:

"New 3DS Hardware Sales

New Nintendo 3DS to date - 1.71 million units
New Nintendo 3DS XL to date - 5.79 million units
New Nintendo 3DS 'family' total sales - 7.5 million sales

Geographical Breakdown

Japan:

New Nintendo 3DS to date - 990,000 units
New Nintendo 3DS XL to date - 2.74 million units
New Nintendo 3DS 'family' total sales - 3.73 million units

The Americas:

New Nintendo 3DS to date - 50,000 units
New Nintendo 3DS XL to date - 1.91 million units
New Nintendo 3DS 'family' total sales - 1.96 million units

'Others':

New Nintendo 3DS to date - 670,000 units
New Nintendo 3DS XL to date - 1.14 million units
New Nintendo 3DS 'family' total sales - 1.81 million units"
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...e_a_real_chance_to_revive_the_portable_family

6. "Jack of all trades, Master of None" & Other risks

Portability compromised?
- A console with a 6.2" controller is not exactly that portable anymore either. On the original Nintendo 3DS, the screen measures at 3.53 in (90 mm), while on the 3DS XL it measures at 4.88 in (124 mm). 6.2 inch screen will make the NX a larger console to carry on the go.

Performance compromised?
- It's not possible to have a hybrid portable console that's going to provide on average a similar home console experience to 2017 home consoles. That's just a fact by design limitations due to the form factor. Not only that, but expect developers to take at least 2-3 years before they learn the ins and outs of Tegra X2 and maximize its full potential. In contrast to that, developers are already maxing out PS4/XB consoles. That means the gaming experiences will look even more premium on PS4 Neo/XB Scorpio in 2017.

Battery life and screen quality/pixel count compromised?
- The higher the screen pixel count is, the more GPU power it will need. The more GPU power it will need, the more battery it will use. This means it's going to be very, very difficult to make a powerful next generation portable console with battery life much more than 5-6 hours. I suppose, for those gamers who play on the go, chances are even 5 hours battery life will be sufficient for them. The sound of a 6.2" screen with 720p resolution doesn't exactly sound 2017 tech when 5.1-5.5" phones are already on 2560x1440. Even if we accept that 720p on a 6" screen is satisfactory, there are many other key limitations that ensure this will never be the traditional home consoles many people wanted Nintendo to make.

Shifting the profits even more to software?
- It's hard to envision Nintendo hitting the $199-249 price point with the NX without barely making $ or for the first time, taking a loss on hardware. The higher the price of the NX, the more it will seem overpriced in relation to PS4 Neo and XBox Scorpio. Let's just go with the flow that the 2 consoles aren't even direct competitors. For Nintendo to hit an attractive price point it, but yet still manage to sell games on 32-64GB SD cards, it will undoubtedly mean that prices of games will remain higher for a lot longer than on the PS4/XB consoles. Customers will start comparing the entire cost of the gaming eco-system over 4-5 years, not only the upfront cost of the hardware. If Nintendo tries to make up for low hardware profits via software sales, we can safely bet they are going to be more reluctant to have big game discounts or they will at least wait a lot longer before implementing them. That means the software back-end on the NX will potentially cost more than buying PS4/Neo or XB One S/Scorpio and picking up games 6+ months after release.

7. Customer Confidence in Nintendo possibly at all-time low - This time, very few gamers will give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt and buy their console early on. The issue is that a slow update in install base will scare away 3rd parties as the x86 to Tegra X2 ports will not make financial sense. This is why I was of the view that even if the NX had Titan X and a 6-core i7 inside, by launching in 2017, the timing was all wrong. As long as Nintendo doesn't have a traditional home console, the existing XB1/PS4 owners will shift to XB2/PS5 in 2020+. The warning signs are that Iwata's statements never hinted that Nintendo would have more than one NX console:

"Before his death in July 2015, former Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata told investors something similar -- that the NX would be a "new concept" and not "a simple replacement" for the 3DS or the Wii U."

 

[antihelten]

Overall I largely agree with you post RS, just had a few comments to some of your points.

1. It assumes no imminent competition in the portable gaming market - that neither Sony nor MS will re-enter the mobile gaming market in the next 5 years. If they do, Nintendo's share of the total addressable market will shrink due to competition, increasing the risk of the NX successfully replacing both the 3DS and Wii U consoles.

Honestly I don't think this is much of a risk, I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this stage that Sony and MS is not going to re-enter/enter the handheld market.

Performance compromised?
- It's not possible to have a hybrid portable console that's going to provide on average a similar home console experience to 2017 home consoles. That's just a fact by design limitations due to the form factor. Not only that, but expect developers to take at least 2-3 years before they learn the ins and outs of Tegra X2 and maximize its full potential. In contrast to that, developers are already maxing out PS4/XB consoles. That means the gaming experiences will look even more premium on PS4 Neo/XB Scorpio in 2017.

I think it's important to remember that at this stage we don't actually know how Nintendo is going to market the console. If they are going to market is a proper home console and a replacement for the Wii U, then they could very well be in trouble. On the other hand if they simply market is purely a replacement for the 3DS, with the added gimmick that it can be conveniently and easily hooked up to a TV, then I think it could be quite a different story, since the bar for handheld performance is obviously much lower.

So in other words whether or not the performance can be considered to be compromised would depend upon how Nintendo markets it and what segments they target it at.

Battery life and screen quality/pixel count compromised?
- The higher the screen pixel count is, the more GPU power it will need. The more GPU power it will need, the more battery it will use. This means it's going to be very, very difficult to make a powerful next generation portable console with battery life much more than 5-6 hours. I suppose, for those gamers who play on the go, chances are even 5 hours battery life will be sufficient for them. The sound of a 6.2" screen with 720p resolution doesn't exactly sound 2017 tech when 5.1-5.5" phones are already on 2560x1440. Even if we accept that 720p on a 6" screen is satisfactory, there are many other key limitations that ensure this will never be the traditional home consoles many people wanted Nintendo to make.

It really shouldn't be that hard to make such a handheld with more than 5-6 hours of battery. The PSP Vita had an advertised battery life of 5-6 hours, however the Vita also had a tiny battery for its size (only 2200 mAh), when smartphones half the volume has batteries twice the size. Given a screen size of 6.2" the overall size of the NX should be much bigger than the Vita thus leaving room for an even bigger battery (6-7000 mAh?).

Also a 6.2" screen at 720P isn't perfect, but it should be adequate for the purpose seeing as it's still a fairly decent 237 PPI.

 

[beginner99]

If Nintendo continues to be behind in software developer, it will be that much harder to later enter the 4K and VR-Era of gaming. Not everyone wants 4K gaming or VR gaming in 2021 and beyond but it seems Nintendo isn't even positioning themselves as a player. They are forfeiting this entire market segment of consumers to MS/Sony.

I agree with most you wrote except this. Here I see Nintendo remaining conservative is a good thing. For me 4K and VR is just marketing to sell you new TV (which you don't really need) and new gear (which you don't really need) to keep the factories running at full blast and make more money.

There is hardly any 4k material. If you don't get a huge 70" + screen or sit very close to it, the benefits of 4k are lost anyway. See

For a 70" 4K screen, approx. 2.5 meters is the max distance you can see a difference compared to 1080p. Most people already have too small 1080p TVs and with 4k the benefit is lost even more,

VR is another hype. It's just not practical in the real world and extremely nerdy and geeky. There is a market for it in console/PC gaming but I doubt it's huge due to price. For mobile, I don't see it at all. See Google Glas, which compared to VR was small and light.

 

[imported_bman]

That chart assumes 20/20 vision while most people have around 20/16. Also it does not take into account the time integration that the brain performs or spatial integration from having two eyes to produce a super resolution effect. Even if TV resolutions are hitting the limits of the human eye it is still useful going higher to a point since higher resolutions will help reducing various aliasing artifacts. I think that 4k is going to be the highest resolution needed for TV displays, though having a higher internal resolution and downsampling to 4k will still yield noticeable differences.

 

[RussianSensation]

I agree with most you wrote except this. Here I see Nintendo remaining conservative is a good thing. For me 4K and VR is just marketing to sell you new TV (which you don't really need) and new gear (which you don't really need) to keep the factories running at full blast and make more money.
....
For a 70" 4K screen, approx. 2.5 meters is the max distance you can see a difference compared to 1080p. Most people already have too small 1080p TVs and with 4k the benefit is lost even more,

I know that in the real world, most console gamers will never maximize the benefits of 4K HDTVs due to most of them having smaller screens and sitting far away in the living room. Also, I am not going to deny that an LG OLED 1080p TV will look better than 95% of 4K LED TVs out there in terms of IQ. However, what matters is the perception and ultimately the resultant consumer purchasing decisions, which are often driven by marketing.

The shift to 4K is happening much faster than the move to HD did
"The transition from standard definition televisions to high-definition sets seems like it happened in the blink of an eye yet in reality, it was a drawn-out process that carried on for many years. The shift from HD to 4K, as it turns out, isn’t taking near as long. During a recent press event in San Francisco, Consumer Technology Association CEO Gary Shapiro said that at year four of the transition to HD, they only sold 2.9 million units. Now, four years into the jump to 4K, that figure has climbed to just over 15 million units.

What’s more, Shapiro said that four out of every 10 units shipped this year – and nearly ever set over 50 inches – will be of the 4K variety. The rapid adoption of 4K technology is largely a result of lower prices. In 2015, the average 4K television sold for $1,048 but this year, it has dropped to just $861."
http://www.techspot.com/news/66398-shift-4k-happening-much-faster-than-move-hd.html

The price premium for 4K TVs is declining which suggests that consumers in the market for a new TV over the next 2-4 years are much more likely to purchase a 4K TV over a 1080p. Since the NX launches in the Spring of 2017, and let's assume it will have at least a 5 year life cycle, the NX will compete against not only PS4/XBOneS, 4K PS4 Pro and 4K XB Scorpio, but potentially even overlap the next generation 2020-2021 PS5 and XB2.

In the UK, we can already see the huge impact on sales with XB One S.

"The release of the 500GB and 1TB Xbox One S helped push Xbox One sales up by 989 percent week-on-week in the UK, according to GfK. Xbox One sales are up 76 percent year-on-year, for the week ending September 24."

I don't work for MS or Sony but it seems 4K is a big selling feature for XBOne S:

"It’s great to see how popular both the Xbox One S and the FIFA 17 Xbox One S consoles are with fans, not just over the last week but since the Xbox One S was released in August. 4K video streaming and 4K UHD Blu-ray have been extremely well received and we believe there is no better value right now for those looking to upgrade their console,” Xbox UK marketing boss Harvey Eagle told MCVUK
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/265988/500gb-and-1tb-xbox-one-s-help-boost-sales-1000-in-the-uk/

The other major weakness for Nintendo during the Wii U era was its pricing. It was simply priced too high.

Right now in Canada, the 32GB Wii U still sells for $329.99, but Xbox One S sells for $349.99-399.99. PS4 Pro is priced aggressively at $499.99. Considering that Nintendo sells the New 3DS for $239.99, it's hard to envision how Nintendo will be able to bring out a console that's not priced at least at the Xbox One S/PS4 Slim price levels. If we recall the pricing strategy for N64 or Wii, they were very affordable. Since Nintendo likes to make $ on hardware, and given that Wii U flopped so hard, it's not going to be easy to negotiate low volume pricing with component suppliers for the NX. The higher the NX's price, the more it will be directly compared by parents and consumers to PS4 Pro and Xbox One S 1TB. When these comparisons will be made, naturally, the consumer will start comparing existing gaming libraries. In that comparison, Xbox One's and PS4's 3.5-year-old gaming libraries will blow Nintendo NX's 2017 library out of the water. The NX risks being perceived as overpriced (due to small initial game library) and underperforming (due to the hybrid nature which due to current hardware limitations means it will never approach the power of PS4 Pro and XBOne Scorpio).

VR is another hype. It's just not practical in the real world and extremely nerdy and geeky. There is a market for it in console/PC gaming but I doubt it's huge due to price. For mobile, I don't see it at all. See Google Glas, which compared to VR was small and light.

Forget VR for a second. What Nintendo seems to be banking on is replacing both the Wii U and Nintendo New 3DS with just 1 console. Now there are new rumours that state the NX is actually made up of 3, not 2, distinct components:

1) Docking station (with a hard drive and ability to connect to the TV)
2) Performance module - this has a separate CPU/GPU
3) Portable/hybrid component
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WEG5QiDN-U

That sounds like an awfully complex device that I just cannot see being priced much more aggressively than the PS4 Slim/Xbox One S. As such, Nintendo's console has to set the world on fire after burning gamers with the Wii and Wii U if it is to price the console at or above the current gen consoles (which will be 3.5 years old by the time the NX launches!). The scary part is the recent rumours coming out of Foxconn suggest the console is far from even reaching the regular $299 PS4 Slim in performance. That's not surprising of course given the mobile nature, but then it goes back to everything I keep saying -- trying to make a great mobile and home console in 1 console is a major engineering undertaking that seems too far ahead of its time. The technology simply isn't there to even achieve 1080p 60Hz in modern AAA games from a mobile SOC.

Given how impressive the Xavier Tegra SOC looks, it almost seems Nintendo should have waited 1 more year before technology caught up to really make a huge impact given their mobile hybrid concept. IMHO, there is a big risk to the NX launching both overpriced and underpowered given the rumoured X1 or Tegra X2 specs.

 

[Azix]

Nintendo makes some great games, too bad they routinely go light on the hardware. I kind of wish Nintendo would go the Sega route and make their games on everything.

Also, I'm surprised Nvidia wanted this business. I hear consoles are low margin, high volume... The type of contract only a struggling company that needs revenue would take. And Nintendo is probably going to be the lowest seller of them all.

I dont think they even need to go light on hardware in this case. ps4 and xbox one are already around $300 on original designs. They could have released a console near that price using AMDs chips.

 

[Phynaz]

That chart assumes 20/20 vision while most people have around 20/16.

Umm what?

That makes zero sense, 20/20 means that at 20 feet, you can see something that should normally be seen at 20 feet.

If MOST people had 20/16 vision, that means you are saying most people can see something at 20 feet that can normally been seen 16 feet.

In other words you are saying that most people have abnormally good vision. Which would make it normal.

 

[antihelten]

Umm what?

That makes zero sense, 20/20 means that at 20 feet, you can see something that should normally be seen at 20 feet.

If MOST people had 20/16 vision, that means you are saying most people can see something at 20 feet that can normally been seen 16 feet.

In other words you are saying that most people have abnormally good vision. Which would make it normal.

Having 20/20 vision simply means that you can dissolve details separated by 1 arcmin, it doesn't really have anything to do with what is normal or not (it's probably more accurate to say that 20/20 vision is the lowest cutoff for which one would say that you don't have a problem). What can be considered normal vision in humans depends a lot upon age (also sex, with men generally having better acuity), with young people on average having better than 20/20 vision (somewhere around the 20/16 bman mentioned).

So it's may not be correct to say that 20/16 is what most people have, it is however correct to say that somewhere around 20/16 is average for young people.

 

[imported_bman]

Umm what?

That makes zero sense, 20/20 means that at 20 feet, you can see something that should normally be seen at 20 feet.

If MOST people had 20/16 vision, that means you are saying most people can see something at 20 feet that can normally been seen 16 feet.

In other words you are saying that most people have abnormally good vision. Which would make it normal.

Unfortunately the original standard was developed in the 19th century so the average was poorly defined, like the above poster mentioned the ratio is now seen as measure of angular acuity. If you go to an optometrist ask for your visual acuity after corrective vision is applied there is a good chance it will be better than 20/20.

 

[Phynaz]

Having 20/20 vision simply means that you can dissolve details separated by 1 arcmin, it doesn't really have anything to do with what is normal or not (it's probably more accurate to say that 20/20 vision is the lowest cutoff for which one would say that you don't have a problem). What can be considered normal vision in humans depends a lot upon age (also sex, with men generally having better acuity), with young people on average having better than 20/20 vision (somewhere around the 20/16 bman mentioned).

So it's may not be correct to say that 20/16 is what most people have, it is however correct to say that somewhere around 20/16 is average for young people.

Unfortunately the original standard was developed in the 19th century so the average was poorly defined, like the above poster mentioned the ratio is now seen as measure of angular acuity. If you go to an optometrist ask for your visual acuity after corrective vision is applied there is a good chance it will be better than 20/20.

http://www.aoa.org/patients-and-pub...eye-and-vision-conditions/visual-acuity?sso=y

20/20 vision is a term used to express normal visual acuity

 

[antihelten]

http://www.aoa.org/patients-and-pub...eye-and-vision-conditions/visual-acuity?sso=y

"normal" in this context simply means that your visual acuity doesn't have any issues or problems, it doesn't mean that it is good or even average. Again think of it as simply a cutoff value between ok and not ok.

Here's a graph with measurements from 5 different studies, 20/20 is equal to 0.0 on the left scale and 6/6 on the right scale, lower is better:

As you can see the mean value for people 50 years and younger sits below 20/20 in all 5 studies and they thus have better visual acuity (source).