Nintendo Switch Successor Announced

[Ashley]

I think instead of mouse-con we go with Joy-ce instead

 

[Happenstance]

[Julius]

2 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

I think most "upgrades" will be paid, but hopefully well-priced. Rumour mill is pointing towards BOTW and Odyssey "remasters" which will run in 1440p at 60fps. Both games were 900p on the OG Switch, and BOTW was 30fps, of course. 

I would be ok with stuff like this if it was a £5-10 upgrade, but I can also see them fully remastering some games to take proper advantage of the new hardware and charging full-whack for them. How heavy the lean into that will be interesting. Hopefully not too much. 

I think the most we can expect for "free" is simply for all games which use dynamic resolution scaling to always run at their max resolution, so BOTW would be 900p without frame dips. Stuff like Doom Eternal and The Witcher 3 would be interesting from that POV, I suppose.

Agreed with pretty much all of the above, that's how I see it playing out too. I think evergreen titles - you mention BOTW and Odyssey and I think both would absolutely fall under that umbrella - will be the ones to get true and proper remasters, and others will probably be brute forced into better performance where possible on a per-game basis. The only evergreen titles I struggle to see getting remasters are games which have since had sequels and are likely candidates for further sequels (such as Splatoon 2 and 3), as well as the Pokémon games. 

I could see them offering an upgrade path if you already own the game, purely because PlayStation do the same with their PS5 remasters of PS4 titles, and I think there's potential for bad publicity if it's not offered and the only way to play a higher fps, higher fidelity version of, say, Breath of the Wild is by dropping £60 or £70.

But then, it's Nintendo, so who knows 

2 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

We may also see some games treat Switch 2's handheld mode as the old docked mode, so if the rumours are to be believed, they will run at a higher res than 720p, given the talk that that new screen is supposedly 1080p, which is absolutely crazy IMO because it's a needless drain on battery for minimal visual gain at a size that small, but that's another discussion. 

While I generally agree, I think the release of the OLED means that they pretty much have to jump to 1080p if they're going to backpedal to an LCD screen. I'd argue a 720p screen should've got more blowback than it did back in 2017 with the initial Switch reveal and launch - purely because of where phones and tablets were at the time - and I think anything sub-1080p and which doesn't allow you to throw "HD" in there for marketing purposes is a terrible idea, even if it is a battery drain. 

It also leaves them room for a 1080p OLED model down the line, which, I'll be honest, sucks when it's more than feasible to have that from launch, but it is what it is. 

2 hours ago, Dcubed said:

I'd hope for no less than a full 4k 60FPS Docked for a native BOTW/TOTK port.  The hardware should be more than beefy enough.

This is the most positive/optimistic I've ever seen you about either game since the launch of BOTW  but yeah, I'll hop aboard this train. 

2 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

The fact the OLED can go 9 hours on a single charge, depending on the game of course, is a huge thing that attracts more handheld play

This is genuinely the first time I've heard about the OLED having such great battery life and now I'm even more gutted we're probably back down to the 4-5 hours range with an LCD for Switch 2 

17 minutes ago, Ashley said:

I think instead of mouse-con we go with Joy-ce instead

Nah, I'd vote Joi-Con instead, every day of the week 

[Ashley]

2 hours ago, Happenstance said:

tfw the joy-con drift hits

[Julius]

Replaying Armored Core VI at the moment and at the end of a mission I found myself wondering: "huh, I wonder what this could be like on Switch 2?" I mean, it has a last gen Xbox One/PS4 version as it is, so technically it seems very feasible based on all the purported hardware leaks for the thing. 

And then I thought a bit more about it, and just how much of From Software's modern catalogue is very feasibly on the cards – and, more pertinent to a thread like this, I started thinking about how they'd get doled out, and their potential presence in April during the Switch 2 Direct. 

Demon's Souls and Bloodborne need to be taken out of the equation simply because they're PlayStation IP, and Dark Souls Remastered was the only modern From game to make its way into Switch with its Remastered version which was, uh, not the same as the Remastered releases of the game elsewhere; in fact, interestingly, some people think it might be the version which is best from a faithful remaster perspective, even with a lower frame rate than on other platforms:

That leaves Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin, Dark Souls III, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, Elden Ring (and it's Shadow of the Erdtree DLC) and Armored Core VI as the currently released games which have yet to come to Switch and all of them could very feasibly come to the Switch 2 – From still hasn't made a next-gen (well, current now, I guess) exclusive title, meaning that all of these had PS4/Xbox One releases. 

My questions are, with there being a backlog of beloved and critically acclaimed modern From Software titles to get onto Switch 2: how do you think Bandai Namco should go about curating these games for a Switch 2 release? Which comes first? And do you think Activision take the step to release Sekiro on Switch 2, being the game's publisher in the west? 

For me, Elden Ring is the obvious centrepiece of this whole thing, and while I do think there would be merit and thought behind the idea of first releasing the other Dark Souls titles on Switch 2 first purely from the perspective that it is a successor series...the game is too big for Bandai Namco to be thinking that way, and I think Elden Ring arrives in the first 6 months of the Switch 2's life if it's not there at launch, and could really help set the bar in terms of what the system is capable of. I absolutely think this shows up at the Switch 2 Direct in April, regardless of when it releases, and I think 

I then think that the Dark Souls games get collected and released as a trilogy – similar collections are available on other platforms, and it nicely bundles Remastered with II and III in a way which means it wouldn't need its own separate Switch 2 re-release, but still adds value to a wider package. It's hard to commit to a timeframe considering that we don't know when the Switch 2 is set to launch, but I could see this trying to be squeezed in ahead of Christmas in, say, November, if not by the time of III's 10th anniversary next March. Depending on how far ahead the Switch 2 Direct dares to look - are they just focusing on launch and the following few months? Are they about to lay down a marker with every commitment being made by every party involved for the next few years? - I think there's a 50/50 chance that the Dark Souls Trilogy turns up at the Switch 2 Direct in April. 

The ones I can't figure out for the life of me are Sekiro: Shadows Twice and Armored Core VI. Perhaps if a new Armored Core released next year I could see them using an Armored Core VI release on Switch 2 as a way to start up its marketing cycle and build excitement, but Sekiro very much seems like a franchise which won't be getting a sequel. Similarly, I could see Armored Core VI and the Dark Souls Trilogy being thrown out by Bandai Namco as titles they're bringing to the Switch 2 without hard dates or windows at the Switch 2 Direct, but Sekiro is Activision's to publish over here in the west – and so they likely don't really care for whatever Bandai Namco has planned for their release curation with their games, and could very well like it up for a release at launch or in the first few months of the Switch 2's without giving much thought to the release of Elden Ring on the system. It's such an odd duck. 

Anyone have any thoughts on how they might go about handling this? 

Edited 12 hours ago by Julius

[Hero-of-Time]

I suppose it depends on how easy it is to port games over. If it's a simple process then I can't see why they wouldn't bring everything over. Elden Ring is a must though and I think if they only bring one game over it will be that.

[Dcubed]

Both From and Namco seem to have ongoing beef with Nintendo, so Elden Ring (or indeed any other From Soft game) is very unlikely from a political standpoint.

Don't forget that Namco purposely sabotaged Dark Souls Remastered on Switch, pulling the exact same stunt that EA pulled with Mass Effect 3/Trilogy.

Edited 4 hours ago by Dcubed

[Julius]

58 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Both From and Namco seem to have ongoing beef with Nintendo, so Elden Ring (or indeed any other From Soft game) is very unlikely from a political standpoint.

I can think of 5-10 million units or so why they'd probably think about burying the hatchet if there is any ongoing beef, though I'll admit, this is the first I'm hearing about it. What's happening? 

Also, isn't Bandai Namco publicly traded? They'd have shareholders in revolt not selling one of the best-selling games of the generation on the newest and shiniest platform. 

58 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Don't forget that Namco purposely sabotaged Dark Souls Remastered on Switch, pulling the exact same stunt that EA pulled with Mass Effect 3/Trilogy.

Purposely sabotaged how, exactly?

I know the Switch release got delayed, but that always seemed to me like it was due to low effort and poor management on their side; hardly a common occurrence in the industry. And let's not forget, the Switch was young when Dark Souls Remastered was announced and then released, so I can see why Bandai Namco might not have given it the attention it perhaps warranted in hindsight. 

What did EA pull with Mass Effect 3/Trilogy? 

 

Look man, I'm just trying to think ahead and plan a third Armored Core playthrough over here 

Edited 3 hours ago by Julius

[V. Amoleo]

57 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Both From and Namco seem to have ongoing beef with Nintendo, so Elden Ring (or indeed any other From Soft game) is very unlikely from a political standpoint.

Don't forget that Namco purposely sabotaged Dark Souls Remastered on Switch, pulling the exact same stunt that EA pulled with Mass Effect 3/Trilogy.

I wonder if that's over them taking Namco off of in-flight projects.  We know they were taken off of Smash Bros and Metroid Prime at the very least.

[V. Amoleo]

On 1/16/2025 at 1:03 PM, Julius said:

IT IS TIME! 

 

It makes me sad that they've taken all the colour away!

It was totally expected that we'd get a traditional successor but in a world of Steam Decks, they've got a lot more competition than last time.  I went from buying pretty much any third party game I wanted to play on the Switch to just buying first party games again since I got a Steam Deck a few years ago.  Obviously I'll still buy it because Nintendo but I think they might struggle to get the 'western gamer' segment this time and fall back on just the fans and families again.  Though catching families will be massively dependant on price.

[Dcubed]

32 minutes ago, Julius said:

Purposely sabotaged how, exactly?

I know the Switch release got delayed, but that always seemed to me like it was due to low effort and poor management on their side; hardly a common occurrence in the industry. And let's not forget, the Switch was young when Dark Souls Remastered was announced and then released, so I can see why Bandai Namco might not have given it the attention it perhaps warranted in hindsight. 

What did EA pull with Mass Effect 3/Trilogy? 

Oh God, I forgot you're that young lol.

Anyway, EA put out a neutered version of Mass Effect 3 on Wii U as a full price retail release on the exact same day that they released a Trilogy package on PS3/360 that contained all three Mass Effect games... for the same price.

Namco did exactly the same thing with Dark Souls Remastered on Switch... only it was even more transparently a sabotage attempt because they purposely delayed the Switch version for around 9 months so that it would come out on the same day as the Dark Souls Trilogy pack on PS4/Xbone.

31 minutes ago, V. Amoleo said:

I wonder if that's over them taking Namco off of in-flight projects.  We know they were taken off of Smash Bros and Metroid Prime at the very least.

Nah.  Namco have been feuding with Nintendo ever since the late Famicom era.  This is their natural state.

It all started when Nintendo first usurped Namco as the market leader within the arcades back in the early-mid 80s.  Nintendo managed to appease Namco to come on board as an official licensed 3rd party developer for the Famicom by giving them a behind-the-scenes sweetheart royalties deal; which is why so many of their 80s arcade hits came to the console initially... Eventually this deal expired, and Namco were then given the same licensing agreement as every other Famicom 3rd party developer... and Masaya Nakamura ended up going apeshit.  From that point on, Namco pulled support completely from the console in favour of the PC Engine (and later the Mega Drive as well).  This is why almost every Namco game for the NES/Famicom remained Japanese exclusive, and why the SNES got practically diddly dick all in terms of Namco releases, despite being the runaway winner of that console war in Japan.

Not only that, but they also jointly set up a little company alongside Atari you may have heard of... Tengen.  Yes, that Tengen.  The one that started producing unlicenced carts for the NES (many of which just so happened to be Namco games that were previously unreleased in the US!).  They hated Nintendo so much that they committed corporate espionage to spite them.

Then when Sony came a knocking with the PS1? Namco basically became a first party developer, to the point where they even switched over most of their arcade releases to PS1-based arcade hardware.  Ridge Racer was the first ever game produced for the PS1, before even Sony's own internal development started (which is why it's listed as catalogue No 1 on the Japanese disc, SCSP-00001), a statement of intent if there ever was one.  PS1 was as much a Namco console as it was a Sony one.

We did get a brief period where Nintendo did manage to patch things up with Namco, when Iwata took over and the Gamecube came out.  Very famously, Iwata went out of his way to court 3rd parties and Namco was one of the biggest gets of all (ending what was then, a roughly 17 year long feud with Hiroshi Yamauchi).  This lasted until around 2007 or so, until they gave up on Nintendo hardware again... and then came back again when Iwata basically started bankrolling their studios to help develop basically all of Nintendo's games from 2014-2018... including Metroid Prime 4.

But that all seems to have fallen apart when Metroid Prime 4's development went to shit.  Nintendo then publicly threw the development team under the bus with that video, and shortly afterwards, Namco's support for Switch conveniently vanished (gee! I wonder why?).

So while yes, it probably is related to Metroid Prime 4, it's not so much because of Metroid Prime 4 itself so much as it is Namco returning to their natural state.  They've hated Nintendo's guts since the mid-80s, and the grumpy old men in charge love to hold a grudge.

Edited 3 hours ago by Dcubed