• The new bonus episode of the Smash Brothers Documentary Metagame, Godslayer, is now available on Vimeo

  • Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Nintendo Announces New Switch Model

Switch_OLED.jpg


Nintendo announced a new model for the Nintendo Switch on July 6th, 2021 called the “Nintendo Switch (OLED model)”.


This new OLED model comes with a couple of upgrades from the standard Nintendo Switch. Firstly, it has a 7 inch OLED screen as opposed to a 6.2 inch LCD screen. Secondly, it comes with a wider kickstand. It also has enhanced audio in the portable mode, a LAN port and has 64 gigabytes of internal storage space, double that of the original Switch. Also, it notably won’t have more RAM or a stronger CPU than the original Switch, Nintendo confirmed that in a statement to The Verge.

The Nintendo Switch’s OLED model will launch on October 8th, 2021 and retail for $349.99 USD.

Author’s Note: Personally, I'm not super excited, I mainly play docked and I wasn't very interested in purchasing an updated model in the first place. However, I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who'll love this, it's just not my cup of tea. What do you think about it though? Please let use know in the comments below!

Credits:
Editing & Writing: Zerp Zerp
Graphics: Zerp Zerp
Social: Zerp Zerp

Source: The Verge, for providing Nintendo’s statement
 
Last edited:
Mitchell "Zerp" Brenkus

Comments

I think if there weren't rumors about upgraded specs and hardware, this would be received better. Instead of getting a Switch Pro like people were hoping, it's definitely more of a Switch Pr-oh. Don't get me wrong, if I ever have to replace my Switch I'll definitely get the new OLED one, but without any mention to improved internals or docked performance, it's a moot point for me. I do dig the black and white color scheme though.
 
Last edited:
people expecting nintendo to suddenly change are delusional especially when it comes to hardware Nintendo values having its consoles be cheaper. the tech that people wanted installed would raise the price considerably. Nintendo doesnt care about graphical power and other things outside of gameplay..
 
people expecting nintendo to suddenly change are delusional especially when it comes to hardware Nintendo values having its consoles be cheaper. the tech that people wanted installed would raise the price considerably. Nintendo doesnt care about graphical power and other things outside of gameplay..
The issue I have is Nintendo seems to be cutting corners with specific games as well. Games such as Sword and Shield and Star Allies are all using Game Engines/Assets since before the Wii U released. Not every game is like this but everything in house that gets praised as a AAA exclusive release from Nintendo is this way.

They are just getting stale in my eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xzx
Not surprised but a tad disappointed. It'll get bought bc we didn't like the switch lite and this is obviously meant to bolster handheld gamers which I must say Metroid looked legit in handheld but anyway it is the Switch OLED so I guess the next hardware release will be a Switch PRO (sic) but it's a die roll if it happens I'm guessing right now about 90% chance they've researched the How and are stuck on the $$ until supply chains normalize... And a 30% chance they've decided to go ahead with a release in this direction leaving a 70% chance they may do something else altogether.
 
how do you know that?
Since New Super Mario Bros became a mainstay, Nintendo has had a history of maximizing the longevity out of their game engine and assets. Hal Laboratories has been using the same Kirby engine since Return to Dreamland for every game with the exception of projects like Epic Yarn or Canvas Curse. They will go thru some changes in visuals and new assets can be added now and then, but it's generally the same thing.

This normally is not a bad decision. Most sequels use the same engine and assets and turn out great like Ocarina of Time & Majora's Mask. However, when using the same engine with little to no changes, it can definitely feels like at times you are playing the same type of game over and over. In this case, Kirby and Pokémon Sword and Shield are the biggest culprits of reusing a game engine and it's assets from a decade ago. A game engine should last you 3-4 years tops before moving on. Considering Sword and Shield's engine was meant for the 3DS, the end result of it being on the Switch is less than favorable and resulted in the worst mainline Pokémon ever.

Currently, HAL is looking to phase out their Dreamland Engine for something new which is why there have been some interest in seeing what's to come for the next Kirby game. Regarding Pokémon, they better have something new planned with Gen 9 or whatever they want to do next because I don't something like this should be worth $60 ever again...

 
Since New Super Mario Bros became a mainstay, Nintendo has had a history of maximizing the longevity out of their game engine and assets. Hal Laboratories has been using the same Kirby engine since Return to Dreamland for every game with the exception of projects like Epic Yarn or Canvas Curse. They will go thru some changes in visuals and new assets can be added now and then, but it's generally the same thing.

This normally is not a bad decision. Most sequels use the same engine and assets and turn out great like Ocarina of Time & Majora's Mask. However, when using the same engine with little to no changes, it can definitely feels like at times you are playing the same type of game over and over. In this case, Kirby and Pokémon Sword and Shield are the biggest culprits of reusing a game engine and it's assets from a decade ago. A game engine should last you 3-4 years tops before moving on. Considering Sword and Shield's engine was meant for the 3DS, the end result of it being on the Switch is less than favorable and resulted in the worst mainline Pokémon ever.

Currently, HAL is looking to phase out their Dreamland Engine for something new which is why there have been some interest in seeing what's to come for the next Kirby game. Regarding Pokémon, they better have something new planned with Gen 9 or whatever they want to do next because I don't something like this should be worth $60 ever again...

so no
 
Nintendo values having its consoles be cheaper
Its not though. You can buy a LAN adapter for $10, a 32GB SD card for $20, and a aftermarket stand for $15 to get most of these upgrades for your original Switch. That leaves $300 for an OLED screen and hardware from 2017, a price that the original Switch launched at.

The Playstation and Xbox may have literal higher price tags, but they offer much better value for the money. Nintendo's basically charging launch prices for minor refreshes on super cheap hardware like memory. It's a bad deal at current prices.

the tech that people wanted installed would raise the price considerably.
Tech depreciates in value quickly. You can absolutely match price/performance from four years ago with more modern tech.
 
Lol

If you don't understand, that's fine. But if you think I am wrong at least come back with a better counter argument than that. It just makes you look foolish.
I asked you for proof in other words to cite your sources but you just gave some text backed only by a gif that proves nothing
 
I asked you for proof in other words to cite your sources but you just gave some text backed only by a gif that proves nothing
Nintendo doesn't disclose what engines they use like other companies. The most I can remember is Brawl and Smash 4 were made with Havok while Ultimate is something different. But in terms of how the industry works, they were definitely working with the same engines from X/Y and Dreamland respectively. I get there is no reason to remake a new engine for every new game, but there is something really slimy about using the same one for over a decade and still putting an never to be discounted premium price on it.
 
Nintendo doesn't disclose what engines they use like other companies. The most I can remember is Brawl and Smash 4 were made with Havok while Ultimate is something different. But in terms of how the industry works, they were definitely working with the same engines from X/Y and Dreamland respectively. I get there is no reason to remake a new engine for every new game, but there is something really slimy about using the same one for over a decade and still putting an never to be discounted premium price on it.
but you’re just guessing?
 
do you mean the games themselves or that gif from a different company?
You're missing the point. The games are all made with the same dated engine. The gif I provided is just an example. I'm not gonna go and post Kirby's Walk/Run cycle from every game dating back to Return to Dreamland lol

You can still think the games are good, but you might be turning a blind eye to the fact they are made with the same engine/assets. Short answers are just proving your ignorance further.
 
Last edited:
You're missing the point. The games are all made with the same dated engine. The gif I provided is just an example. I'm not gonna go and post Kirby's Walk/Run cycle from every game dating back to Return to Dreamland lol

You can still think the games are good, but you might be turning a blind eye to the fact they are made with the same engine/assets. Short answers are just proving your ignorance further.
no the short answers are cause I’m trying to understand your point not counter them. The gif is from two Pokemon games made by game freak which is still a separate company from Nintendo so their practices might not be the same.
 
The issue I have is Nintendo seems to be cutting corners with specific games as well. Games such as Sword and Shield and Star Allies are all using Game Engines/Assets since before the Wii U released. Not every game is like this but everything in house that gets praised as a AAA exclusive release from Nintendo is this way.

They are just getting stale in my eyes.
pokemon company has its own issues i'd suggest watching this video
.
pokemon didnt have graphical or animation experts until GEN 5. pokemon issue was a lack of experinece not money or even talent. and now with a jump to 3d they once again have an experience issue.

i dont think they are getting stale i think people are overly loyal to nintendo and they enable this stuff and nintendo is only putting money in very few games at a high level zelda, splatoon, bayo 3, prime 4, ect. i'll agree some games havent looked great and are depending more so on dlc but since it still sells it wont matter to them. ever since mk switch dlc was a huge success along with smash ninntedo has been more open to dlc.

Its not though. You can buy a LAN adapter for $10, a 32GB SD card for $20, and a aftermarket stand for $15 to get most of these upgrades for your original Switch. That leaves $300 for an OLED screen and hardware from 2017, a price that the original Switch launched at.

The Playstation and Xbox may have literal higher price tags, but they offer much better value for the money. Nintendo's basically charging launch prices for minor refreshes on super cheap hardware like memory. It's a bad deal at current prices.


Tech depreciates in value quickly. You can absolutely match price/performance from four years ago with more modern tech.

nintendo doesnt care about that. they care that they can market thier console for hundreds less than the others. even if in reality the prices even out when you account for things that a switch needs. but nintendo has chosen to not be direct competition to the other consoles, they have chosen to create thier own market. and its really hard to argue when they are setting sales records from their decisions.
 
Since New Super Mario Bros became a mainstay, Nintendo has had a history of maximizing the longevity out of their game engine and assets. Hal Laboratories has been using the same Kirby engine since Return to Dreamland for every game with the exception of projects like Epic Yarn or Canvas Curse. They will go thru some changes in visuals and new assets can be added now and then, but it's generally the same thing.

This normally is not a bad decision. Most sequels use the same engine and assets and turn out great like Ocarina of Time & Majora's Mask. However, when using the same engine with little to no changes, it can definitely feels like at times you are playing the same type of game over and over. In this case, Kirby and Pokémon Sword and Shield are the biggest culprits of reusing a game engine and it's assets from a decade ago. A game engine should last you 3-4 years tops before moving on. Considering Sword and Shield's engine was meant for the 3DS, the end result of it being on the Switch is less than favorable and resulted in the worst mainline Pokémon ever.

Currently, HAL is looking to phase out their Dreamland Engine for something new which is why there have been some interest in seeing what's to come for the next Kirby game. Regarding Pokémon, they better have something new planned with Gen 9 or whatever they want to do next because I don't something like this should be worth $60 ever again...

Kirbys engine isnt really to old! Its just that star allies has bad Leveldesign!
 
Kirbys engine isnt really to old! Its just that star allies has bad Leveldesign!
I still can't justify a decade old game engine still selling games at a premium price. Uibsoft gets this kind of flack for Assassins Creed and Nintendo deserves this criticism too. If these games weren't worth $60 and were at a price actually worth playing I wouldn't have as much of an issue as I have with it right now.

For the franchise's sake, they need something new
 
I still can't justify a decade old game engine still selling games at a premium price. Uibsoft gets this kind of flack for Assassins Creed and Nintendo deserves this criticism too. If these games weren't worth $60 and were at a price actually worth playing I wouldn't have as much of an issue as I have with it right now.

For the franchise's sake, they need something new
believe me there are bigger monetary problems than any of nintendo newly made games costing 60 bucks like how tekken 7 has less contenet but costs more than older games for example!
 
believe me there are bigger monetary problems than any of nintendo newly made games costing 60 bucks like how tekken 7 has less contenet but costs more than older games for example!
You could make this argument for Animal Crossing or Sword and Shield compared to former gamers in in series.. Even Star Allies at one point.
However they are all still priced at $50-$60 years after release with no planned QoL updates or additional plans.
 
Last edited:
The issue with Sword & Shield isn't asset re-use or continuing to use an "old" engine, that's merely a symptom.

It's the breakneck development cycle that gives the developers literally no time to make any real improvements or changes to the series. Ever since Platinum (which released in 2009), they've put out a game every year or two.

And there's no reason to expect them to change anything about their development cycle, as the series prints money for them, and the one and only thing a corporation cares about is money. Despite the most recent few generations generally being considered underwhelming, with each of X?Y, Sun/Moon, and Sword/Shield being contenders for the worst in the series depending on who you ask, they still sell as well as any other Pokemon game. Sword & Shield in particular is:
-the 3rd best selling Pokemon game ever, dethroning Diamond/Pearl from that position
-the 3rd Pokemon game to break 20+ million in sales
-within 2-3 million sales of Gold/Silver, which has long held the spot of being the 2nd best selling Pokemon game

....anyway that's my mildly drunk post for the evening
 
The issue with Sword & Shield isn't asset re-use or continuing to use an "old" engine, that's merely a symptom.

It's the breakneck development cycle that gives the developers literally no time to make any real improvements or changes to the series. Ever since Platinum (which released in 2009), they've put out a game every year or two.

And there's no reason to expect them to change anything about their development cycle, as the series prints money for them, and the one and only thing a corporation cares about is money. Despite the most recent few generations generally being considered underwhelming, with each of X?Y, Sun/Moon, and Sword/Shield being contenders for the worst in the series depending on who you ask, they still sell as well as any other Pokemon game. Sword & Shield in particular is:
-the 3rd best selling Pokemon game ever, dethroning Diamond/Pearl from that position
-the 3rd Pokemon game to break 20+ million in sales
-within 2-3 million sales of Gold/Silver, which has long held the spot of being the 2nd best selling Pokemon game

....anyway that's my mildly drunk post for the evening
...uhh, if this is only mildly drunk, I'd be interested to see what happens if it went a step farther.

I do have to admit that it didn't really cross my mind that reusing of assets was a symptom of executive scheduling... although, now that I think about it, I remember talking with a friend about it and he pointed out why Pokemon games NEVER seem to get delayed like other anticipated games. TPCi does also handle all the marketing for everything else in the franchise, and the merch and anime series does tend to coincide with the release of the games... delaying a core game's release would make a mess of all that.

case in point, though... Pokemon's been on a decline among older fans who noticed the changes... I primarily noticed it because there was a very noticeable lack of postgame activities... and I wasn't that interested in competitive battling online. last time I had a fulfilling postgame in Pokemon was either Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky (which also holds the crown for best game plot in the series IMO) and Black2/White2 (Join Avenue predating Streetpass, the PWT, more Pokestar Studios shenanigans, searching for N's Pokemon, as well as the stock standard Battle Tower Subway)

so this whole discussion of Nintendo changing as little as possible for a new iteration of the Switch (of any other mainstay game series) also doesn't surprise me... you know what WOULD surprise me... is if some godlike hermit out there modded up a proper improvement to the console and pitched it their way (pipe dreams are all I have to stay optimistic).
 
Last edited:
Given how they handled the DS and 3DS, it's really not a surprise that the OLED brings so little. It's basically a Switch XL.

Let's just be grateful they didn't handle it like the Wii where every single revision was an objective downgrade, from the "family edition" that removed GameCube compatibility to the Wii mini that outright removed online play years before they actually shut down WFC.
 
Last edited:
nintendo doesnt care about that. they care that they can market thier console for hundreds less than the others. even if in reality the prices even out when you account for things that a switch needs. but nintendo has chosen to not be direct competition to the other consoles, they have chosen to create thier own market. and its really hard to argue when they are setting sales records from their decisions.
I'm not disputing the likelihood of Nintendo's scummy corporate practices continuing, I'm more saying that even within their own market the Switch Pro isn't competitive with the original. I was using the other consoles as a comparison.

The only people who are still interested in a Switch already bought one or are holding out for a cheaper price. It doesn't make sense for a current Switch owner to pay $350 for an OLED screen when most of the new features can be had for their original Switch for around $50 or so. Paying an extra $50 over the old Switch obviously isn't going to be enticing for people looking for a lower price. And that's assuming the old Switch doesn't get discounted when the new one drops.

That's before getting into the rather quick depreciation in value tech cycles have. Hardware from four years ago is naturally going to have a steep drop in price. Simultaneously, performance improves considerably with each generation, especially for mobile processors. This then means that not only is the original Switch's hardware much cheaper now, but also that you can find newer hardware that performs better for around the same price as the original Switch's hardware.

Meaning that Nintendo just blew an opportunity to give people a hardware upgrade at roughly the manufacturing cost of the original Switch. You are likely paying more than you did at launch with current prices even if they throw in a OLED screen. While I can appreciate other factors preventing a true upgrade or Switch games potentially not benefiting from it or whatever other excuse that can be thrown out, there's no real excuse for prices of both versions to be what they are. Nintendo went for higher margins rather than better value for the prospective buyer.


This isn't out of the ordinary for Nintendo for sure, but that doesn't mean that it is somehow ridiculous for people to be annoyed by a more egregious example like this one. My broader point was that it wouldn't break the bank for Nintendo to price something fairly for once.
 
Last edited:
I asked you for proof in other words to cite your sources but you just gave some text backed only by a gif that proves nothing
You did not ask for proof and neither did you ask for sources. You just asked how he knew that. Your question could have been answered by just telling you how he knew that, which would in itself not be evidence nor require sources

As for how someone can know, Pokemon uses the exact same models up to every polygon for every old Pokemon. That proves that the are reusing assets. You can easily look this up because there are plenty of videos clearly demonstrating this if you want evidence. He showed one example, but SwSh is full of examples like that.

Personally I would not mind that if the animations were not so ugly. I think that that it is disappointing that they still not managed to top PBR when it comes to graphics, especially since SwSh is a console entry with the price tag of a console game.
 
You did not ask for proof and neither did you ask for sources. You just asked how he knew that. Your question could have been answered by just telling you how he knew that, which would in itself not be evidence nor require sources

As for how someone can know, Pokemon uses the exact same models up to every polygon for every old Pokemon. That proves that the are reusing assets. You can easily look this up because there are plenty of videos clearly demonstrating this if you want evidence. He showed one example, but SwSh is full of examples like that.

Personally I would not mind that if the animations were not so ugly. I think that that it is disappointing that they still not managed to top PBR when it comes to graphics, especially since SwSh is a console entry with the price tag of a console game.
yeah there’s hundreds of videos of everything that means nothing

and why respond to something from ages ago?
 
no the short answers are cause I’m trying to understand your point not counter them. The gif is from two Pokemon games made by game freak which is still a separate company from Nintendo so their practices might not be the same.
So it is GF that cuts corners, and Nintendo merely approves it and makes profit off of it.
 
It seems that all data miners universally agree on this. Also, the one in the linked video provides a lot of detail which would make it considerably harder to fake.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom