• Welcome to Talking Time's third iteration! If you would like to register for an account, or have already registered but have not yet been confirmed, please read the following:

    1. The CAPTCHA key's answer is "Percy"
    2. Once you've completed the registration process please email us from the email you used for registration at percyreghelper@gmail.com and include the username you used for registration

    Once you have completed these steps, Moderation Staff will be able to get your account approved.

The dividing line between Switch Pro and Switch 2

Honest question that might make for interesting discussion: If the next Nintendo hardware is backwards compatible with Switch software and control schemes, has increased 4K resolution and frame rates, what in your mind would be the dividing line between "Switch Pro" and "Switch 2"?

A new type of cartridge? A new type of controller? More or fewer screens? Announced software that is exclusive?
 

Phantoon

I cuss you bad
I'd say a combination of exclusive software and a big increase in power. I'll be interested to see what's coming, it's been five years and a generational leap wouldn't be entirely unexpected.
 

Sarge

hardcore retro gamin'
Yeah, I'd have to see a big, big bump in power. Less PS4 to PS4 Pro and more PS4 to PS5.

I actually think they should keep the design in the ballpark of the current system, though, with some meaningful tweaks like improving the controllers.
 
I'm looking for a big bump in power, hopefully capacity as well but that's not as big a deal with microSDs continuing to increase in size and go down in price.

Also, the ability to make folders and controllers that don't malfunction all the time would be pretty nice.
 
It's not a new system unless you can't play a new game on the old one.

I do think that sometimes Nintendo reaches that point on a bit of technicality, like the New 3DS having about a dozen New 3DS only games (with the Xenoblade port being basically the only one anyone remembers), plus SNES/SFC virtual console games.

(This is why my personal answer to this question is: At this point in time, it's a spectrum, not a binary, and there is no dividing line. Also, it may not be clear where what space a new system occupies on that dividing line until well after its release.)
 

Adrenaline

Post Reader
(He/Him)
The ultimate technicality is that Game Boy carts had a little notch in them that allowed the power switch to slide on and that Game Boy Color-only games didn't have that notch, physically preventing you from turning an old Game Boy on while they were plugged in.
 
The fact that New 3DS (and DSi) had exclusive games, but were technical jumps even smaller than PS4 Pro make this messy. The real confusing thing will be if -- hypothetically but not implausibly -- the Switch Pro comes out now, and then the Switch 2 comes out some years down the line, but it *still* has the same controls as Switch, the same hardware features as Switch, and no obvious additions besides specs. It might come down to "does official first party messaging commit to guidance that cross-compatible software will only last for the first X years" ?

But then again, after X years the cross-compatible nature would have to also fall off a cliff to feel like a successor. If there is only a sprinkling of exceptions, we're back to New 3DS territory.
 
Last edited:

MetManMas

Me and My Bestie
(He, him)
The ultimate technicality is that Game Boy carts had a little notch in them that allowed the power switch to slide on and that Game Boy Color-only games didn't have that notch, physically preventing you from turning an old Game Boy on while they were plugged in.
And the Game Boy Pocket does not have that power switch lock so games still had to put in a "Playable only on Game Boy Color" splash screen.

Another interesting thing about the GBC is that besides the color display it's also a li'l more powerful than the OG Game Boy. Doesn't show in most games as far as I know but Mega Man Xtreme runs far better on the color handheld than it does on the monochrome one.
 

muteKi

Geno Cidecity
Well, I won't say they were lesser new systems per se, but I think the interest in creating consoles that had such high backward compatibility (while nowhere near perfect; plenty of PS1 games are left off the PS2 compatibility list) comes at a cost in terms of either actual price or ability to create a system whose design lends to a streamlined, efficient structure that can muster more power out of newer components. They were without question the least powerful consoles of their generation (though debate over where the Dreamcast falls in hardware generations could put it in that spot, but it was also optimized for specific rendering features that aren't always taken for granted, so the DC and PS2 will succeed in different benchmarks relative to each other).

The fact that basically no original GB games are broken in the switchover to GBC is one of the reasons I consider the GBC the original mid-gen hardware refresh. And then the GBA removed the GBC's IR port, which broke features in some of the most significant games on the hardware (I think every Pokemon game used it for something); a minor change with significant consequences that signals a commitment to a new generation of hardware decisions.
 

karzac

(he/him)
You could still play most Game Boy games on Game Boy Advance though. Right? I'm not misremembering that, am I?
 

Sarge

hardcore retro gamin'
I wouldn't say "plenty" of PS1 games were left off the list. There's a little over 40 games that have some form of issue (ranging from small to full crash) in most PS2s, and a ton of those titles were games we never got.

Honestly, there are a lot of things that really make it a new hardware generation, but the only reason PS2 can run PS1 to begin with is that it includes the PSX hardware for the network controller. It's not dissimilar to the situation with the Sega Genesis, which gives SMS BC by including a Z80 that serves as the audio controller. Both are clearly a new generation with completely different hardware for the games they were intended to run. PS3 does the same thing, except I'd argue that doesn't count for PS1 (software emulation) and PS2 again includes all the hardware (only in the older models).

PS2 was the weaker system, but it also came out well before the GC and XBOX, so that's understandable. Wii, on the other hand, really straddles the line between hardware refresh and next generation. The base level hardware really is just a boosted Gamecube, but the peripherals made it a completely different experience. Does the novel control interface supply enough to make it a "new" generation? I can see arguments cutting both ways.

GBC is definitely a mid-gen hardware refresh, though, because at its core, it's just a souped up GB. GBA is once again a case like the Genesis/PS2. It has the hardware from the last generation to handle running older titles.
 

4-So

Spicy
For a Switch Pro, I'd think there'd be modest gains in power. Certainly a bit of a bump to help with resolution and FPS, likely entirely backward compatible with the current Switch library and I'd imagine Nintendo would mandate that all games that play on Switch Pro will also work on Switch. In other words, a half-measure PS4 Pro kinda thing.

For a Switch 2, I'd expect to see major hardware revisions. Not the form factor itself, which seems to be doing very well, but in terms of compute. And, yeah, maybe a second-gen version of the joycons to iron out those kinks. Personally, I'd like to see faster load times and storage I/O. Admittedly, the PS5 and Series X have spoiled me here. I've commented before that it feels like playing on a cartridge, depending on the game. It's just jump-jump with no real loading to speak of. I recently went back to play New Pokemon Snap and I furrowed my brow every time I had to load in for new island hop. "Why is this taking so long?"

If Nintendo can provide me with faster load times and a resolution above 1080P and FPS above 30 (on the games I care about), I'd be a happy camper, regardless of which system it shows up in. If the rumors turn out to be true, it looks like the Switch Pro would do that via Nvidia DLSS.
 
Personally, I'd like to see faster load times and storage I/O. Admittedly, the PS5 and Series X have spoiled me here. I've commented before that it feels like playing on a cartridge
The thing about this is SSDs are still relatively expensive hardware and represent a significant hardware cost for the manufacturers. Nintendo usually wants to make a profit on each unit on day one instead of being happy with their machines being loss leaders. To me, that tells me this specific feature is a whiles off. Maybe a switch 2 or 3, not 1.5 at the best. Esp since you and I may be spoiled by current gen consoles but most people aren’t yet. Esp Nintendo fans, a lot of whom only really play Nintendo and won’t know the grass is greener when they never even see the other side of the fence.
 

Becksworth

Aging Hipster Dragon Dad
Switch games would need to be on average significantly larger to make the jump to SSD make sense too. Games on XBox and PlayStation being routinely 40+ GBs was what was probably the main factor making reading straight from the disc and hard drives untenable.
 

Gaer

chat.exe a cessé de fonctionner
Staff member
Moderator
Nintendo systems have had Flash Drives earlier than MS and Sony, even if they haven’t been huge ones.
 
Top