A friend wrote the emulation layer for Xbox. He wrote an auto patcher. It was a lot of work, but they were able to generate per-game patches for almost all titles. There were 20 or 30 titles not released on physical media in the US, so they sent a Microsoft employee out to second hand stores in Akihabara to find the discs. I don’t remember the pull forward, but it was almost 100%. There are a lot of funny stories there, but that’s another day
a friend of mine, made a xbox 720 it is was more power full than any console, even today. It was ready for 8K. Source trust me bro. But that's another day
@@drueckglueck9918 This person provided specific details, and is posting from an account with personal uploaded content and his picture, not the usual rando with a random avatar posting from an empty account - I'm inclined to believe him.
@@ahoyrobi I would imagine because said consoles released a lot of content that appealed to regional tastes in their home region. The Saturn/Vita had a ton of RPGs, which are incredibly popular in Japan and more niche elsewhere, the X-Box had a ton of FPS/sports titles which tend to do well in the West and so-so elsewhere.
@@yellowblanka6058 Plus, the auto-patching the Xbox 360 did for its backwards compatibility is actually something we've known about since around the time the console released.
@@clydefrosch if they do it they will have a massive problem in that the other systems ARE. The marketing nightmare that would unfold could break their next system.
The GPU binary problem also applies to PS4-on-PS5 and XboxOne-on-XboxSeries, as the GPU architectures are vastly different. Both consoles solved it by using modified GPUs with extra BC modes and it's entirely possible for NVidia to offer similar modifications for their next Nintendo SOC. The issue of the drivers being included in the games is fixable by including replacements in the new console firmware and hot-swapping when loading a BC game, which is how PS4 games (which use a different graphics API) work on PS5. This time around Nintendo won't be able to slap an underclocked off-the-shelf Nvidia SOC and call it a day: none of Nvidia's SOCs after the X2 seem to be "tablet-ready" and the bigger focus on AI components means it will likely need to be more customized than the X1 was. Nvidia itself is also probably more on top of this since after the Switch's success this is their sole foothold on the console industry.
Not to mention Nvidia tried to outright buy ARM a few years back. Nvidia probably would rather pull an Apple and develop an ARM SoC fully in-house instead of tacking their GPU tech onto a licensed ARM design
@@gustavrsh I doubt they will - ARM (on a modern process node, that is) is still more power efficient than AMD's mobile APUs, and I doubt they'd change the architecture if they want to have any shot at backwards compatibility at product launch
I think it's likely they will build in a compatibility layer. Dynamically recompiling shaders and perhaps an ARM compatibility mode. ARM has a long history of hardware compatibility support.
I think better solution were they just embed tegra x1 in the new silicon. Tegra X1 is tiny in modern standard. With 5nm or hell 7nm, it would occupy next to nothing. Nintendo can leverage the X1 by using as OS processors in the background to adding support like discord etc.
I do not think that CPU compatibility would be a big deal, but the GPU could get really tricky. Modern Vintage Gamer said you can simply swap you graphic cards and update the driver on a computer; no: NVIDIA sometimes has to quirk their drivers for certain games and GPUs to work proper. Smaller games have to do the leg work them self and release patches. That is with an abstraction layer and testing on many GPUs during development; the switch is one plattform. There is no good way to have and test abstraction, so some hardware quirks are just part of the game.
I'm gonna take a wild guess in that they'll go with a compatibility layer similar to the Wii U running Wii games, with the games running on a tweaked version of the Wii's OS and the hardware limiting itself in that mode with likely some API wrappers. It worked really well at the time with only a tiny handful of games having issues. As far as the cartridges go, they could do something similar with what they did with the 3ds.
It wasn't so much a compatibility layer, as the system had to reboot into that environment. A kind of multi-booting that computers have. Even the 3DS did this with DS/i and GBA titles, though that at least could list the titles within the 3DS OS.
@@stuartmcallister3341 Good point, and ya it would be nice to have the ability to see your games within the main OS. In both cases it works quite well for the sake of compatibility.
The Wii U is a hardware solution. They designed the Wii U CPU and GPU so that it had those of the Wii built into them in a fashion that allowed them to re-use most of the common architecture. It's so good that you can even put the vWii into backwards compatibility with the GameCube with the aid of hacks, and almost every game will work on it. I don't think we'll see the likes of it again though, as it was an expensive exercise that didn't really help the Wii U in sales much. I'd think it far more likely that they'll do it in software, either with game-level patches - with the onus being on the developers to provide them - or virtualization and automated shader recompilation.
I wouldn't expect emulation. Translation like DXVK probably would work, but I fully expect Nintendo to put the work on the developers to recompile and resubmit games.
DXVK simply implements the D3D API in terms of the Vulkan API. It sits between the game and the driver translating graphics calls. On Switch the driver is compiled into the game, there's no way to put anything between them.
@@WhiteG60 That obviously wouldn't be at the driver level then. The hardware is reading command buffers produced by the driver. This would class as low level emulation instead, and would be a lot less simple. This whole discussion misses the more pressing point that DXVK (or command buffer translation) would not translate the pre-compiled shaders used on Switch. On PC Vulkan can compile and run the same shader code as DX12, but an Ampere or Lovelace GPU can't run shaders already compiled for Maxwell.
@@WhiteG60 what you're suggesting isn't getting between the game and the driver. It's getting between the driver and hardware. On Switch the driver is compiled into the game, it's not a separate library being linked at run time, it's not a part of the OS. There is no longer a distinction between the game and the driver. Thus there's no way to get between them.
@@faustianblur1798 IDK much about the driver architecture in Horizon OS or whatever Switch's OS is called, but it's likely the case that MVG saying "the driver is bundled into the game" is an oversimplification. Generally graphics drivers are divided up into a kernel module and a user mode driver library. It is likely the case that the user mode driver is the only thing that is bundled with the game. I would be quite surprised if it's hot swapping kernel modules with every game launch. The kernel module is necessary for address patching into kernel space (references to buffers), semaphores for command buffer timing, etc. It is very unlikely they allow a publisher developed game to monkey around in kernel space with that kind of power. So that being said, it is most likely very feasible to put a low level emulation shim between the driver & the game to do necessary command translations on the fly. The problem I see comes with what you referenced earlier, the compiled shaders. There may be some way to do a recompiled and optimized translation like that on the fly but I have no idea how that would work, I don't think it's possible on the fly on something that low powered. And yeah, agreed that you likely can't just re-use them. So yeah, it certainly wouldn't be like DXVK, but they should be able to do something of the sort there, but IDK how they'd handle shaders at all., and I certainly don't think they'll cough up the tough for a TX1 order. I don't think they'd completely kill back compat, I think it'd piss a lot of people off at this time, so not really sure what their options are all things considered.
The switch 2 or whatever not only needs to have backwards compatibility but also improves the resolution and framerates of previous generation games. It would be a disappointment if this doesn’t happen
I was thinking about this just yesterday. It's an absolute deal breaker for me, especially after *so* many Switch releases were basically just up-rezzed WiiU releases.
There are more Switch exclusives than Wii U ports. I’m constantly surprised seeing this opinion thrown around in 2023, it was only true in 2018 lol. Did yall just sell your Switches in 2018 or smtg?
Another option would be to create a decompiler for precompiled shaders and automatically recompile them for the new architecture. For cartridge games, this could be done the first time the game is played and the results could be cached in on-board flash storage.
An auto-patching layer would be fairly trivial to implement I'd imagine (into the new OS), with full library compatibility released in steps. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they forced a login/stream option to prevent piracy which they are currently pretty salty about.
It's only a matter of time before the Switch 2 gets pwnd and it hasn't even been announced yet lol. I think the reason people haven't been as dead set on looking for a software hack for the newer Switch models is because it's much easier to obtain an OG one and if you're really looking for a new one like an OLED then the hardware hack is perfectly fine. When the Switch 2 comes out, people are gonna be firing on all cylinders to get that think cracked.
I can imagine that some games for some specific reason in certain areas get strange visual glitches (that can be game breaking). Getting to 99% compatibility is a thing; but even Switch Online N64 emulation is not perfect (and we know that nintendo applies some runtime patches to some specific games to workaround certain issues).
As others have pointed out, some sort of API translation layer a la DXVK would probably be a solid option. Maybe Nintendo could also go the way of Microsoft and opt for something similar to their Smart Delivery, with older Switch games getting some form of performance boost. The translation layer could act as a sort of fallback if the game hasn't been patched for the newer hardware.
The problem is not the API but rather the compiled shaders / gpu drivers. They will probably update the API but making that backwards compatible isn't really the issue.
I think it’s also worth noting that not all of the hardware needs to be pure software emulated thanks to ARM64: the PSP’s PS1 emulator only emulates the GPU components and runs CPU instructions as native code.
@@crimson-foxtwitch2581 sure, but that doesn't mean it works just like the switch - Tegra1 is just some arm stuff the same as your phone, and tegra 2 is noticeably different. A lot of the issues is with the gpu bits on top of that.
Imagine you bought most of the first party titles on the Wii U, then rebought them on the switch. and then with the new consoles you gotta buy the games again.
Well, you don't have to buy them again. No one is holding a gun to your head. If you played those games on Wii U and then on Switch again, do you really need to play them again on different hardware?
It's Nintendo, you never know, they might just actually do that, they literally did that from the Gamecube to the Wii, the Wii was just little an overclocked Gamecube, so I wouldn't discount as an option that Nintendo might be considering. Which would be a joke for sure lol
I definitely hope Nintendo and Nvidia figure something out; given how manny good Switch games are there, back. comp. would be a way to get newer fans to play those - unless of course, Nintendo would consider more profitable to re-release them instead lol
It would be an insane never ending controversy, every other platform offers back compat. I doubt people would accept that when it's feature normalized on the entire rest of the market.
People will buy regardless of comparability. The average consumer does not watch this channel. As long as they have IP like Mario and Zelda people will buy their product.
@@Matanumi eh, i would argue the wii u hw is quite capable, what took the console down was the stupid pad no one liked. and the games gave a clunky experience when paired with that. both consumers and developers quickly went away. but there are great games nonetheless. almost all were then ported to switch
I kindof agree that not having backward compatibility won't hurt Nintendo in the long run, but I think including it will help with early hardware adoption. Personally if I know the next console will still play my existing games I'll go ahead and spring for it early on since there's already an established library. If not then I would probably wait a couple years for the new library to fill up before springing the money for a brand new console.
I personally think this, plus making specific titles BC, would be their business-preferred option. They literally dont need a new switch, but just to give a refresh with enhanced graphics for the smaller portion of the fanbase that really wants it, while new software piles up, which will slowly induce the rest of the base to switch over. And they can keep doing this every 5 years or so, so that the switch remains cheap too.
Exactly. I'm in this same boat. It'd be a shame if it wasn't backwards compatible considering the huge switch library. People will still buy it if it's not, but I won't buy it for a few years if it's not. I've still got switch games to finish. If it is though, I wouldn't mind getting one around release. One of the things that made their older handhelds so useful and popular was the backwards compatibility and access to older titles.
NES was the origin for Nintendo's console market... SNES wasn't BC. N64 wasn't BC. GameCube wasn't BC. Wii was with GC only. Wii U was BC with Wii and GC (iIrc). Switch isn't BC. Could Switch 2 (or whatever Nintendo decides to call Switch's successor) have BC? Find out, sometime in the undisclosed future! (GameBoy Pocket through the Nintendo DS were all BC with the OG GameBoy through GBA while N3DS had BC with NDS software so BC is only a problem for Nintendo when it comes to home consoles for some reason.)
But the thing is your average consumer isn’t stopping from purchasing the new console just for not having BC. Nintendo is a games company more than a technology company. Maybe this was different during their NES/SNES/N64 days, but what drives sales is an innovative console gimmick with your new Marios, zeldas, and all other games that help sell the system
I think there's a disparity between how much people play old games on new hardware, vs how much they want the option. IIRC it was Sony who talked about that market research and I think it was a way of dismissing Xbox's achievements, but just because I'm not constantly playing Xbox 360 games on my Xbox Series X, doesn't mean that I don't want an easy way to do so when it suits me. Backwards compatibility is a huge deal for game preservation, and as the medium matures I think it's absolutely essential.
@@Scarabola So were plenty of people who bought Gamecube’s… and Wii’s… and Wii U’s. Nintendo still doesn’t care if you can’t play it on their new hardware.
They have to because of Smash and it's potential licensing issues? lol. Adorable. Hell, Smash might be the perfect reason to not have BC that way they can sell you the game again.
I think a standardized translation layer wouldn't be too horribly difficult in this case. Translate the GPU and CPU calls on the fly to the new hardware. We're talking ARM64 > ARM64 and Nvidia to Nvidia hardware. They aren't that much different in how they accept and process the data. There will be issues with some titles but those can be resolved with title specific patches.
Assuming the new console will even be ARM/Nvidia based. They could easily go for RDNA2 instead, seems to be the most popular chipset out atm and we know Nintendo prefer proven hardware.
@@Intelligenz_Bestie AMD has stated that RDNA has full support for the GCN instruction set. Meaning shaders and command buffers compiled for a GCN GPU will run natively on an RDNA one. That is not normal practice and none of Nvidia's architectures are backwards compatible like that.
@@0x1D3A That would be ridiculously expensive. Hence why AMD made _all_ their RDNA line backward compatible even though they only needed it for the consoles. If Sony and Microsoft didn't account for such a huge volume of their chip production it wouldn't be there. Nvidia have much more profitable markets than Nintendo consoles, they really don't need to take that sort of hit to make Switch users happy.
To be fair, backwards compatibility has always been a thing. I remember watching a video about the SNES where parents were upset they couldn’t use NES games on the new console
You completely overlooked the most likely solution, translation. They can develop a software translation layer for the new hardware. Since the two SoCs are so similar a translation layer should be very efficient compared to emulation. They are also using graphics APIs derived from the same ones used on Switch so I’m sure that continuity will add to efficiencies in translation. What am I missing? NVida and Nintendo will make this work. The future of Nintendo depends on it.
While I don't disagree that backwards compatibility via a translation layer would be good, Nintendo's future has never depended on backwards compatibility.
@@soviut303IMO it’s not something they can afford to overlook with so much riding on Switch 2. They only have one platform now. It’s certainly possible the Switch 2 could be a massive success without it, but that would be an incredibly stupid risk to take for no reason.
@@RETR0_P0CKET What's riding on Switch 2 that wasn't riding on their other consoles that weren't backwards compatible? For example, I can't plug a GBA game into my DS, nor is any of the software compatible.
@@soviut303 The stakes are higher because they only have one platform. When Wii U failed they leaned on 3DS. They’ve always leaned on their handhelds. That’s the difference IMO.
@@RETR0_P0CKET Perhaps, but there's no saying the next console will even be anything like the Switch. The switch may become their new handheld while they experiment with something completely different. Besides, they've got massive war chests built up from the record setting sales of the Switch and their first party software that's bolstered further by their online service.
I also want to say that the fact nintendo are still announcing dlc and season passes to existing software and are releasing tears of the kingdom on the og switch should show that they are at least aware that we can have some accsess to these titles on the next console.
Nah, they'll just sweat the Switch for 2 years after the NG release. I hope it isn't the case, but Nintendo hate their users and only want to rinse them.
They continued to release 3ds software even after the release of the switch with no backward compatibility so I'm not so sure. This is Nintendo were talking about. They don't do 'consumer friendly'
They've had this ability for a while now. It's called a graphics API wrapper. Kind of like what they did with Windows 98 voodoo fx glide to work with Windows 10.
@@circuit10 Nah, they could still do it with a wrapper. It would intercept API/library calls and replace them with patched ones. They could write a translation layer to interpret the compiled shaders/drivers, or even distribute replacements/patches/etc through the eShop
@@clebbington They could still do it but it would be a bit of a hack since they’d have to hook into the calls to the original driver and replace them, which would be a bit harder
The biggest reason I don't think they'll do backwards compatibility with the Switch is market saturation- there are already Zelda, Mario, Mario Kart, Pokémon and many more games on Switch. Keeping backwards compatibility could be one more reason for people who bought the new model to *not* buy the new exclusive games, such as Mario Kart 9 (whenever that comes out) or the next mainline 3D mario game, Pokémon games etc.
If they cease to produce physical media I'll not be buying the console. The customer should have control of what they own, not the developer/distributor/publisher. I hate the way that digital media takes the ownership away from the customer (and yes, I know even physical media is a 'licence to play' but you know what I mean). Digital only games can be removed or disabled at the flick of a switch and that's incredibly anti-consumer.
I’m don’t think all digital would be a good idea even tho most things are nowadays.. No one bats an eye with Steam tho interestingly.. I’m sure big N has the power to implement both physical & backwards compatibility like they’ve almost always done so everyone would be happy
The most probable scenario in my mind what’ll happen is that Nintendo will offer two variants of the Post-Switch console: a more expensive version that’s backwards-compatible with physical Switch titles and a less pricier option with no physical backwards compatibility.
I would not be against this but I don't think it would happen. I just want backwards compatibility on all devices moving forward. We should have the technology to plan this stuff out but we don't, and then we shoot ourselves in the foot later trying to make it work.
I mean its still gonna use a cartridge because its handheld, I imagine they could just use the same cartridge slot like the 3ds but the access to games will be limited to 1st party and 3rd party developers.
Interesting idea. Sony had kind of done something similar to this with the PlayStation 3. Having the launch console very pricey but very versatile, with backwards compatibility, extra USB, and even a SD card slot I think? The models afterwards were much cheaper, but too many things were getting cut out which I didn't like, such as the PS2 compatibility. I think Nintendo has also done a similar approach, keeping backwards compatibility at launch before cutting it down the road once the current portables success is established. Like the DSi cutting the GBA slot I think, and the Gameboy Advance Micro not being able to play Gameboy games if I remember correctly.
@@deus_nsf Exactly what I was thinking. They can run a stub before the main executable and dynamically relink the NVN functions to NVN2 using their associated mappings. I would say this is similar to what TheFlow did with PSV and Android games.
@@guspaz is it possible that a developer would modify the driver themselves to get additional performance or work around bugs - thus breaking this “Patch the driver” strategy unusable?
I would have thought there could be some kind of compatibility shim between the old drivers/shaders and the new hardware, kinda like the x86 emulation on Apple Silicon via Rosetta
Same, I'm not sure what MVG is thinking that translation and emulation layers can't easily fix driver issues. I mean there's a 19 year old girl that currently working on Linux drivers for the M1 and M2 chips. What makes a little driver compatibility issue a roadblock?
Is there a reason a wrapper/translation layer can’t handle this? They don’t need to actually run the NSO drivers, just re-interpret calls based on identifying the NSO version from a known list? Shaders can still be extracted too if the format is standardized?
Even if we're talking about GPU emulation and enable a "hybrid" solution doesn't sound so bad; the base Switch handled GPU emulation like a charm with Mario 3D All-Stars. Wii games ran flawlessly even though only part of the game was re-compiled.
Yeah, if Apple could find a way to get x86 software to run on their new ARM SoC, I find it unlikely that Nintendo couldn't pull off a similar feat with two ARM SoCs. Obviously this could lead to a performance hit, but as long as they can at least match the native Switch performance then it should be fine for most people. Shaders and Binaries could also be re-compiled on first launch, or Nintendo could compile themselves and have the Switch 2 download the shaders and binaries when a Switch game is inserted/downloaded. There's a lot of theoretical ways to do this, especially when both SoCs are known quantities.
Shaders need to be recompiled on the fly, which will introduce stutters. The problem is not the CPU, the instructions, it's the GPU and shaders. This is also where all emulators struggle the most. Projects like Skyline do just that, they run the CPU code natively on Android because it's the same architecture, but GPU is really what's limiting them for now (they're doing great progress each day however)
@@MK73DS Thing with shaders is that you can pre-compile them. It is a viable option when it comes to emulation and what some developers use on PC (although ALL of them should provide it), when you are launching the game for a first time. There is also a case of Steam Deck - there's only one configuration to worry about and Steam OS is delivering pre-cached shaders generated using Fossilize toolset. You are downloading them with the game. Steam has also allowed sharing pre-cached shaders between Linux users for a long time now.
@@kamilciura7953 Did you watch the video? Shaders don't work the same way between PC games and Nintendo Switch games. Talk to any Switch emulator developer, they'll tell you you can't extract all shaders from a game and precompile them. This has to be done on the fly. Of course, you can cache them, but they have to be compiled once, and you'll experience stutters the first time. Sharing shaders would require a ton of work from Nintendo to precompile them all, and there's some legal issue sharing them too since they contain proprietary code.
If they don't provide back compat, Switch 2 is dead to me, actually Nintendo is. I've invested too much (physical games especially) into the Switch for it not to work on the NG version. Adding Tegra hardware for BC is pointless, why would I want to pay for new hardware when my back catalogue runs as crappily as it does now?
well because they wont upgrade every game even if they can you wont get 60fps patches like on the xbox only for special games most will only have more stability and higher dynamic res anyways
Best to emulate them. You can play Zelda and Pokemon and everything else at 60fps with patches. I'm finally getting around to playing last year's Kirby game since I found the 60fps patch.
I expect the Switch 2 to be wayyy more locked down than the OG Switch. That being said, I'd be shocked if they actually managed to address software piracy and homebrew to a level that would really stop it or significantly reduce it.
I feel like the consumer expectations for Nintendo's next console is a Switch 2 with specs that can pull off 4K and backwards compatibility. BC seemed like a fun bonus during the PS2/GBA days where all the games were physical but with online stores and accounts the expectation is to still have access to your existing library with new hardware. Aside from this potential backwards compatibility issue I've also heard rumours of Nintendo going with something unexpected, like what the Wii was compared to the Gamecube. Either of those would be a huge mistake. Nintendo's history has had them flip in generations between runaway successes and flops. They come across less like savvy company that's got their finger on the pulse of the video game market and more like a scattershot company that sometimes hits on wild guesses and has good enough business sense to survive when they guess wrong. I can't help but think of the transition from the Wii to the Wii U where it was clear that they did NOT know what the market wanted and had gotten lucky with the Wii. The Switch is a brilliant concept but it's also a fairly straightforward one. But Nintendo doesn't really understand straightforward iteration, they tend to think more in gimmicks. So my concern is that rather than do the conventional Switch upgrade we all want they figure they'll need to come up with a "new gameplay experience" that may or may not land.
I'm a little lost; what's the problem with having the same cartridge format on the newer system? DS and 3DS games shared the same cartridge format no problem.
@@Dairunt1 I'm saying that will be there justification for not adding the cartridge slot, my goodness man keep up, these are billion dollar companies that Like to virtue signal it's just my opinion man you don't have agree with it.
I think the main issue is likely the size capacity and cost. I presume the Switch successor will have some ginormous games at a whopping 80gb or more, similar to pc and the latest PlayStation/Xbox installs. Unless, maybe of course Nintendo do something special with it, like getting manufacturers to install games through a code in the box and WiFi, or need of install through heavily compressed files of the current carts (much like on pc with disks).
I remember when the Switch was launching and people were asking about Eshop backwards compatibility and nintendo just kept saying "we will have more to announce later" and then they dropped the switch online thing and were just like "yeah thanks for buying stuff on the eshop idiots".
@@TomaszKucza Hmmm, who should I believe. The game developer who made a 12 minute video going over the problems thoroughly, or some random guy in the comments who’s educated response is “this is bullshit.” …. Hard to believe, but imma go with MVG on this one.
The compatibility break between the switch and WiiU made sense. Totally different pieces of hardware and architecture. Between the Switch and whatever comes next I would say there is less of an excuse. Unless Nintendo is planning to swap CPU architectures again, most games should be compatible. The only outliers would be games that bypass the graphics API and talked to the GPU directly. Although in these cases you could probably use an emulation layer to circumvent this. Other then that I would expect Nintendo has something planned to slow down emulation devs from emulating the next generation of Switch...
good speculation, but i feel like you left out one option. >build a software shader recompiler: much like modern emulators do, recompile the shaders at start up and save the shader cache so it only needs to be done at first launch.
Another option is that Switch 2 isn't a portable console at all... It's a beefy dock that you plug your switch into that takes the calls the switch is sending and translates it into the new dock to be output to the TV. That would be insane, but if they want to get more power out of it and can't get the battery life they want, maybe it's an option that's on the table.
I could see a potential scenario where digital backwards compatibility is supported, but not physical. There's a precedent in the form of the PS Vita, which could play digital PSP games but obviously not physical ones due to the lack of a UMD slot.
I was thinking the same, it would fit Nintendo's efforts to steer people towards digital distribution and subscription models. However, people still want physical copies, as evidenced with current Metroid Prime situation, where people are waiting for physical availability instead of digital version.
yes but no psp to vita was a format swap from optical disks to flash cartridges so yeah of course that didn't work but for the switch there's no logical reason to change the cartridges they do NOTHING special there essentially sd cards with at best a security chip inside there isn't much sense to changing the cartridge between versions because there's nothing to gain other than forcing people to buy more games at least with PSP they wanted to swap from optical to the smaller game cards
If anything is stopping Nintendo from incorporating backward compatibility into their next console, it is probably not the hardware/software challenges, but security concerns as we all know that backward compatibility layer is a great potential point of initial entry for hackers.
NVidia's Maxwell 28nm microarchitecture was not only the last NVidia architecture to use Planar transistors, it was already based off the 4 year old Kepler v1 architecture from the GTX 600/Quadro 2/3/4/5000 series. The chip in the Nintendo Switch is based on technology that is older than the Xbox One/PS4/Wii U... Preliminary GK1XX series dies were rolling out of TSMC in July of 2011... 12 years ago!
Yea they released tegra x1 in 2015 2 years before the switch was even made. They were already outdated on release day. With how cheap chips are getting you would think Nintendo would make a break from these bullshit low end specs.
The fabrication process is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And if you wanna go that route... EVERY chip is based on DECADES old technology. Also even the newest Lovelace etc isn't entirely new, parts of it are very well based on Kepler as well. This is not a bad thing or something that makes sense to criticize. On a sidenote, they use FinFET in the shrinked version of the Switch SoC (TSMC 16nm).
@@Xirtamani those chips are BASED on old hardware...they are not old hardware. I'm literally saying that if nentendo was giving you a gaming PC. They are basically building one with a 10th gen processor and a GTX 960 in it. Then selling it to you for prices like it was current gen. They need to finally decide if they want to keep up with competition or stay a handheld that is meant for children and Pokemon weebs.
I do think one advantage of seamless backwards compatibility is not just playing older games, but also seamless development for Switch Indie scene, since there is likely a lot of developers make less demanding games who may have ongoing projects or low demanding projects who would be able to stick with developing on the switch rather than moving to a new architecture and this would make the new Generation transition seamless for Nintendo if they already have new games coming out.
Nintendo being Nintendo, I can see them embrace the opportunity to sell you the games you already own again. And they will definitely go even crazier in terms of security, encryption, etc to completely kill emulation, and real backwards compatibility would always be a hole in that. And third party publishers will probably port their big sellers, to squeeze more money out of them. The financial incentives really are heavily against backwards compatibility, even ignoring technical feasibility.
I'm surprised you didn't mention what would arguably be the simplest solution. A translation layer. Or as I usually view it very thin emulation. Essentially most of the game is actually binary compatible with the Switch 2. All that needs to be done is to intercept those calls that are not supported by the new hardware, translate those commands to supported ones and it would just work. This is also a well established form of achieving such a feat. Wine for Linux/MacOS is essentially a more advanced version of such a translation layer. Windows games are X86 after all, and Linux (and MacOS back in the day) usually also run on X86. All that has to be done in that case is intercept syscalls and translate them to native syscalls. From the sound of it, a simple sandbox that allows for intercepting of calls to the old included GPU driver with a translation to the new GPU driver should already be enough to essentially guarantee every single game work (with of course the potential for bugs in the translation layer to cause issues, but nothing which can't be fixed).
The CPU will unlikely require any emulation or translation layer. ARM architecture since v7 has been able to natively run CPU code of older ARM architectures down to v7. Switch is v8, and the successor will at least be that. For the GPU side, a translation layer for GPU calls is likely, but the problem is shader code, which is pre-compiled. This will be something Nvidia already has a solution for.
An updated Switch would be nice, I’m still hoping they release a screen-less Switch. Eventually these screens are gonna go out, eliminating the screen would help future proof the system a bit, they could market it as “Switch Home” or something.
Or you do the classic Nintendo move. You dont have backcompat and release remasters of popular switch games in 4k(ish)60fps for close to fullprice for the new system XD
I don't think they'll keep the Tegra X1 SOC till the end of times. At some point they'll upgrade the SOC in their systems. They might have (say we have another refresh) a new SKU with the same chip but again smaller, and squeeze even more battery, but at some point this conundrum will happen. I think the new idea is the translation layer as a way to get games not made for your system. We've seen it on the Steam Deck and also in the Intel ARC lineup of GPUs. It could be that the "Switch 2" will have a small overhead in the style of this compatibility layer and maybe have some games with a "Switch 2"-specific executable on the side, at the expense of the developer. What is also true is that, as we see dynamic resolution and framerate, it actually could be easier, or plainly feasible, for games to simply perform better if specs are better. But this might be me.
I don't understand how Nintendo could go on about their "account system" where they say all your purchases will carry over yet not support backwards compatibility.
If they go the route you suggest, patch all their first party games (excluding stuff like Labo) and try to get this parties on board. I think they would get away with it if they focus on and prioritise the best selling and highest rated third party games. I doubt many people will cry foul if most of the eShop shovelware is left out.
Thanks for your thoughts and opinion, very competent...as always! Personally, if Nintendo doesn't make the current switch library (or at least the ones that sold well so far) compatible in some way, I will "boycott" buying the new "Switch 2"...this would be a real problem and cost Nintendo quite much customers I guess...maybe this move would even turn out more expensive in the end, due to the loss of customers, instead of patching the games up, in order to make them compatible for the next switch model.
I liked the expanded explanation from a game dev perspective. I hope that backwards compatibility does happen in whatever form. Yes the way they did it like the 1st gen wii and gamecube compatibility would probably be best. But who knows at this point. Nvidia could have some magic going on with the next chip nintendo picked and was added with little cost. Time will tell. If need be I'll continue to keep a switch 1 for what may not work if it's not compatible on the switch 2.
I kinda doubt that switch games won't at least to some degree be backwards compatible especially with games still coming out for it and the massive library that it has amassed
Switch has a pretty big library of games. It sold really well and users already have a lot of games and digital purchases. Whenever a new console comes out, people wanna play games on that and expect an improved experience, as you said. Though older switch games could have all sorts of improvements on a newer console too. Not just fps and resolution, but also screen[size}, audio, ergonomics and battery life. Without backwards compatibility Nintendo would have to pump out quality games for it, so people would be interested in a purchase. Also, it would suck if not a single previously purchased game would run on the newer console. It'd be like releasing the 3DS without DS support, I highly doubt Nintendo would do that.
We upgrade phones every year with new hardware - new SoCs, new screens - and new OSes. And oftentimes old apps and old games carry over just fine. The OS provides a layer of abstraction. Why would something like that not be possible here? Maybe Switch 2 carries over the Horizon OS (which, iirc originated as the OS for 3DS) and the NVN apis?
What if they embedded a Tegra X1 onto a dock similar to the Gameboy Player on the GCN? They could then recycle old stock into docks, and sells Back-Compat Docks for a premium.
And who says there is ever going to be a Switch 2 in the first place? It is Nintendo we are talking about here, going to a completely different direction than what the public asks for is not unheard off for them but the standard.
I'm a bit suprised about the UDA - after all games would call the DirectX, OpenGL or Vulkan API to interact with the GPU - and the calls would be translated by the kernel for both CPU and GPU. For the Switch this might be OpenGL, Vulkan or NVN - couldn't NVN2 simply be backwards compatable with NVN. Some shaders would need dynamic recompilation, but this shouldn't be an issue.
I sincerely hope their solution is emulation; if Miyamoto is confident that backwards emulation is easier than ever then some GPU emulation solution had to have been done by Nvidia and Nintendo.
@@andreaciccarello There's always the idea that maybe Nvidia took the time and developed that solution in house instead of Nintendo. If there's no bc attached then what stops Nintendo to get AMD or Samsung to work on the next chipset? Nvidia has to convince them to keep working with them.
full emulation is just stupid even the steam deck which has a much more powerful cpu than the next switch will have struggles playing heavy switch games the max you can expect is semi emulation like the xbox 360 on the xbox one and wii on wii u
@@xtr.7662 idk but you are kinda confident steam deck is more poweful than a console you don't even know its name yet, not saying it can't happen, but still
9:55 While market research suggests backwards compatibility may not be as important, it can't be used to deflect and say gamers want to have new experiences with the new hardware. Otherwise, it wouldn't account for why games are re-released on new hardware if it doesn't support BC or the publisher wants to rip the consumer of more money for a game they already owned.
Surprised nobody ever considered that they could just make a die shrunk Maxwell chip with a ton more cores in 7NM or smaller. Yeah it wouldn't be the newest architecture, but it would be much better in performance and keep the compatibility. There's a million alternatives they could go with that would work nearly as well that others have discussed. Even some hardware alternatives. They'll make it work. Since the Wii and the Gameboy Color they've done a pretty good job with backwards compatibility, and it was always a hardware solution. Hell, even the Wii U had the hardware to play Gamecube games, they just never made a disc drive that could accept the discs. This is why modded Wii Us can play Gamecube roms without software emulation. The only reason the Switch didn't have compatibility is with Wii U is probably just because they had a change of form factor ALONG with the architecture working against it.
So the graphic driver is statically linked to the game itself. This is an odd choice. Apart from recompiling, that does not leave much wiggle room unless the GPU on the new SoC has some sort of compatibility mode or the new OS some translation layer that can work with the original Switch graphic driver.
This is how I think Nintendo will do this - they'll strong-arm developers to recompile their games with the updated Switch 2 SDK, and then implement Smart Delivery-like system to distribute the updated binaries. They're going to say "Hey Dev X, your game is going to lose Nintendo licensing status and be delisted from our storefront if you don't recompile it in the newest version of the SDK." Developers will go into the new SDK, set a compile target as Switch 2 (or whatever it'll be called), and then export the new binary and submit to Nintendo. It's up to Nintendo to make the new SDK so good that it can auto-patch on recompile, but I think they could pull it off. As far as cartridges go, if you insert an original Switch cartridge into a Switch 2, it will just download the Switch 2 binary to the internal storage or SD card - kind of like Smart Delivery on Xbox. If you try to run the cart offline, you'll just get a "This game requires an update in order to run. Please connect your Switch 2 to a network and try again."
What about the option that a new Switch might have an compatibility mode on the OS and/or hardware level (pre compiled shaders could also be solved either via some extra memory in the system where game specific shaders can be stored via a download or via a translation layer that runs on the hardware extra CPU and GPU compute that isn't used otherwise for current Switch games) and game patches are just required if wanting to take advantage of the new/extra hardware capabilities. For the option you mention if Nintendo would stay on the same Tergra architecture it could be made on a much smaller node to make it run on higher clocks at same or even less power usage, include more of the Maxwell GPU compute units as well as have an updated IO to bring the system up to speed as well as bring faster and more up to date connectivity standards in regard to USB/Bluetooth/WiFi/network etc.
I think they will prevent backwards compatibility from happening. Not only because of the work but because of the profit. Some of us bought "virtual console" titles on wii and wii u. That should have been easy to port to the switch... *BEEEP* wrong, sorry, we have a "new" online service now, you cant keep any of that. But thank god they found a way to not get trapped in that corner again. They just turned the retro games in a live service. They would give too much away if you can just buy games one time and keep them over generations. :/ I am so glad about my chipped Mariko Switch. Retroarch and ScummVM on the go :)
I think Nintendo got bit by the remaster bug with the Switch. If there will be backwards compatability with brand new hardware, then its going to be intentionally limited We might not see 60 dollar re-releases like we did with Tropical Freeze, but I think we will get more in the way of remasters and ports rather than any software compatability. I don't know if Nintendo is will to leave that concept alone now that its clearly got a taste for it in recent years I'm also concerned that Nintendo is looking at the other platforms, all of which boasts backwards compatability, and double down on their forced scarcity practice they've been doing as of late to make their catalogue seem more valueable than it is. They're the only brand that has the library to get away with that, and I would not put it past them to do it after the Switch's success Hell, Metroid Primes physical release was out of stock for maybe a week and a half and it was already being re-sold for absurd prices. For a game that was being advertised as digitally availabe for the foreseeable future
Yep, ding ding ding! We have a winner here! If they can get away with ripping off mugs to buy a metroid prime "remaster" and the 3d Mario trilogy "port" *cough, it's a bundle of overpriced ROMs* then they will get away with anything they greedily can and will if continue to let them, they have no intention of preserving anything for consumers, remasters are a big business now
There is one thing you didn't mention that could work. While emulation is too much for Nintendo Hardware and full on patches might be too much work why not meet in the middle and make a compatibility layer. Based on your video it seems like the major issue is Graphics because of NSO files. So kind of like how on Linux we have DXVK to convert the DirectX driver to Vulcan for Windows games why can't Nintendo make a graphics compatibility layer for the switch? Compatibility layers are way more lightweight but do have stability and compatibility issues. Nintendo will probably have to have a game allow list for something like this. Also since Nintendo has a very high level of control of the processors and the software stack they may even be able to pull off something similar to Apple's Rosetta translation layer. Another thing to consider with this translation layer is the new system's processor will have more similarities then differences which would help greatly and make this a very feasible option. Let me know what you think about this
I think there's another solution not really mentioned here. Just embed a translation layer between Tegra X1 GPU and next-gen GPU. Similar how WINE/Proton works with DirectX & Win32 APIs on Linux and other OS'es. Also similar how Rosetta translates x86 code to ARM on new Macs (albeit this is for CPU and not GPU) Create some kind of sandbox that will "cheat" the game that it runs on Tegra X1 and translate all GPU-related code (including the drivers, or ignoring them) to new architecture. It probably won't give 100% compatibility, and maybe recompiling will be needed to get more performance/features from older games, but that's the approach from current gen Xbox for example. It can run older titles but newer features requires a new build.
Translation layer could work. It would have less overhead than emulation, but still more overhead than a recompile. I think it's more likely they'd just use the eShop to distribute per-game updates and patches, like how they currently distribute patches for cartridge-based games.
Honestly I'd say overall Nintendo has been pretty good with backwards compatibility despite the many differences in hardware between their consoles and handhelds over the years. And I feel if they were to not give the Switch any sort of backwards compatibility they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, especially with how much they're still pushing this hardware.
My only concern is, if there truly is a Switch successor coming, how will we be able to crack open Mariko revision Switches and Switch Lites? I care nothing for new hardware, I want total control finally over the hardware that I own without having to buy a v1 Switch or a dodgy modchip.
If Nintendo went the route of providing the hardware into the system for you to just "plug and play" your old games, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they actually do that BUT remove the cartidge slot. I know that wouldn't go over well, but I almost feel Nintendo would more likely just make it so you can only bring youur digitial libraries first before your physical library. Nintendo likes to be a bit Apple like that at times, and for some reason this sounds like something today's Nintendo would do.
Switch 2 is most likely digital only, no cartridge slot, but ability to transfer games to the new Switch 2, if they are supported. Similar to the Wii/Wii U virtual console.
If they want to offer digital only backwards compatability (because of a new format) they could check for which account the gold points were claimed. This way they make sure you can't "dupe" the game. But will probably won't happen.
For me, the best solution would be to offer 2 options, a normal priced New NS, and a bit pricier backward compatible New NS with an embedded Tegra X1 chip on the motherboard.
Being backwards compatible would mean I would be willing to buy a new system earlier than I otherwise would. Especially with Switch, I would definitely buy a BC-supporting successor device on day 1 to play Switch games I haven't gotten around to playing yet with faster load times, higher (or smoother) framerates and maybe a bit higher resolution (or at least less DRS) while waiting for the system's true "killer app". Even if a true system seller never ended up materializing, it would be worth it just to make some of the more performance lagging Switch games play better, given the size of my Switch library at this point. If it wasn't BC, then I'd probably wait a few years until a number of interesting exclusive titles were released that I was interested in playing came out before dropping what is likely to be $400+ on something that could only play newer titles.
They could do a hybrid approach: provide patches for first-party games to take full advantage of the new chipset (a la PS5 mode for PS4 games), and also put an X1 on the mobo as a fallback for unpatched games. Or, another hybrid approach: patch select games, and use a compatibility layer on the chip as a fallback
That really sucks that nintendo has to build the next So C with battery life in mind I can't tell you how much that disappoints me, With that kind of metalogy they're not gonna build anything that has the power of 865 chip or whatever snap dragon chip is out when this comes out it will be obsolete already crazy
You could say the same with the Tegra X1, but the reality is that this is the cause as to why Nintendo Switch's OS is so lightweight (a philosophy that I think will still carry on with the new one). If you make a bloated operating system, you're taking resources away that could apply to more powerful games; Android is a bloated OS for something that's solely for games as there are also notifications, gps, mobile data, etc. taking up processing power. So even if Nintendo's next chipset is comparable to an 865, it will vastly outperform Android games running on it because of how the OS handles games. Also, most mobile phones only use 20-40% of their CPU/GPU capacity to avoid overheating, but since Nintendo Switch consoles have a built-in cooling fan, they can bump those numbers up. That has always been Nintendo's greatest strength in hardware; they've always worked with relatively cheap hardware and make the most out of them.
@@Dairunt1 Wouldn't it be awesome if nintendo kept the switch as its hand held line, and came out with a proper competitor to the PS5 and xbox once again. One can dream, yeah I do understand what you're saying with the overhead on android but the fact is it still can emulate switch games pretty good.
I disagree, I also would like to have a high powered Nintendo device, but for portable play battery life and size is very important, i find myself carrying my switch around much more than my steam deck because the deck is just too big and the battery life is too low, so I cant justify carrying a huge brick around for 2 hours of battery life when I can get my much lighter switch which will last 4 or 5 hours. And Nintendo has to stick to the 300 dollars MSRP, they cant try to sell at 400 since that would match the PS5 digital pricing. When you consider 300 dollars machine + low weight + battery life = low power, its unavoidable. Hopefully NVidea will implement good upscalling, like DLSS.
@@FerreiraFredes I'm ready for some real nintendo HD graphics look at the new Mario movie that's coming out don't you think we deserve graphics like that already
@@FerreiraFredes I think the next Switch will be $400. The current Switch also competed with the PS4 Slim's $300. But I really hope it delivers hardware-wise if that's the case, because that's also Steam Deck territory.
Having a Tegra X1 included would just be too damn expensive! They SHOULD have created Tegra X1 modes into their new SOC! That would have been the smart thing to do.
The T239 (likely successor candidate) already handles the CPU side no problems. GPU side is the problem, mainly the shader situation. I trust Nvidia will have this working.
@@stuartmcallister3341 The GPU is also part of the SOC of course, same thing. They could add the X1 functionality to the custom SOC if they wanted. & they absolutely should if they are smart.
An easier path, if indeed the new hardware/OS is incompatible with old games, would be to go the same way of Valve/SteamDeck: proxy the old drivers with the new ones with a Proton like layer, the same way we translate Direct X to Vulkan with DXVK ou Metal to Vulkan with MoltenVK, etc. They have full control over the hardware and software, way more control than Valve has with PC games. It's very feasible, especially using an LLVM based solution to do the heavy lifting.
Unless Nintendo really prepared their libraries and SDKs for the move to a new hardware base, I am certain we end up with software emulation which however can read Switch cartridges. Not forever mind you but at least for the next generation.
Sorry about all the attention this got, just feel assured you made a great video! And the internet is just being the internet about it and there's no good reason for those who have acted out unreasonably. They likely failed to even actually watch the video. Anytime who has seen your content knows what to expect, and appreciates your insights to be sure! You're a brilliant person. Keep shining!
This is why - despite growing up with Nintendo and just loving it - I slowly walked away from Nintendo consoles. I have consoles with no online capability left and I can't even connect to the old store - one of my Mario games is only bound to that specific console, if it breaks I'll lose my game. Meanwhile I have my Steam account and can still play most of the old stuff - so I guess for me it's more beneficial to just play everything on an emulator now? Guess the old saying - if you pirate it, it's mostly a service issue - is pretty true. How sad.
The only thing that would need tweaks, usually is the graphics. Armv8 instructions can run natively, if backwards compatibility is a prio while developing horizon OS 2, and there will probably be a compatibility layer to translate some graphics API instructions like we´ve seen on Intel ARC for older Direct X APIs. After many driver updates and tweaks, they finally managed a decent performance on anything below Direct X 12. This however isn´t just software emulation, if at all needed. Skyline Emulator uses an ARM compatibility layer, which isn´t real software emulation either. You don´t have to emulate another architecture, you have to get the horizon OS libs up and running like wine on linux would do. And the steam deck shows how good this can work out. Some recent android devices also can already run a few switch games at almost full speed, using arm native libs. With other words: Don´t worry, let them do their job and it´s probably going to be alright.
hmm So as I understand it now, it's much more than a driver problem? You could avoid massive patching for each individual game by including the driver updates as a kind of wrapper in the firmware. So that all the driver packages that are required are available in the firmware and then the drivers on the cards, for example, are overwritten when querying, so that they are loaded from the firmware instead of on the card. You could then also use the Game ID to regulate that the right ones are then selected. The only disadvantage is that if the developers would have to work with Nintendo if they then used their own drivers and that updates would then have to be regulated with firmware updates
A friend wrote the emulation layer for Xbox. He wrote an auto patcher. It was a lot of work, but they were able to generate per-game patches for almost all titles. There were 20 or 30 titles not released on physical media in the US, so they sent a Microsoft employee out to second hand stores in Akihabara to find the discs. I don’t remember the pull forward, but it was almost 100%. There are a lot of funny stories there, but that’s another day
a friend of mine, made a xbox 720 it is was more power full than any console, even today. It was ready for 8K. Source trust me bro. But that's another day
@@drueckglueck9918 This person provided specific details, and is posting from an account with personal uploaded content and his picture, not the usual rando with a random avatar posting from an empty account - I'm inclined to believe him.
@@ahoyrobi I would imagine because said consoles released a lot of content that appealed to regional tastes in their home region. The Saturn/Vita had a ton of RPGs, which are incredibly popular in Japan and more niche elsewhere, the X-Box had a ton of FPS/sports titles which tend to do well in the West and so-so elsewhere.
@@yellowblanka6058 Plus, the auto-patching the Xbox 360 did for its backwards compatibility is actually something we've known about since around the time the console released.
My uncle works at Bungie...
If it isn't backwards compatable with the orignal switch than that's a huge fail.
Historically, re-releasing games on the next system is a lot more profitable that backwards compatibility.
@@clydefrosch if they do it they will have a massive problem in that the other systems ARE. The marketing nightmare that would unfold could break their next system.
then
@@morriganrenfield8240 And all Nintendo handheld were backwards compatible too, at least one generation.Except for the Switch.
I’d rather play a powerful new console that’s not dragged down by backward compatibility
The GPU binary problem also applies to PS4-on-PS5 and XboxOne-on-XboxSeries, as the GPU architectures are vastly different. Both consoles solved it by using modified GPUs with extra BC modes and it's entirely possible for NVidia to offer similar modifications for their next Nintendo SOC.
The issue of the drivers being included in the games is fixable by including replacements in the new console firmware and hot-swapping when loading a BC game, which is how PS4 games (which use a different graphics API) work on PS5.
This time around Nintendo won't be able to slap an underclocked off-the-shelf Nvidia SOC and call it a day: none of Nvidia's SOCs after the X2 seem to be "tablet-ready" and the bigger focus on AI components means it will likely need to be more customized than the X1 was.
Nvidia itself is also probably more on top of this since after the Switch's success this is their sole foothold on the console industry.
There were a lot of fun tricks going in between the GB and the GBC so I don't see why other fun tricks can't be done with the Switch and Switch 2 :)
@@beardalaxy There's DS (and GBA) on the 3DS as well.
It would be cool if Nintendo went the AMD APU route
Not to mention Nvidia tried to outright buy ARM a few years back. Nvidia probably would rather pull an Apple and develop an ARM SoC fully in-house instead of tacking their GPU tech onto a licensed ARM design
@@gustavrsh I doubt they will - ARM (on a modern process node, that is) is still more power efficient than AMD's mobile APUs, and I doubt they'd change the architecture if they want to have any shot at backwards compatibility at product launch
I think it's likely they will build in a compatibility layer. Dynamically recompiling shaders and perhaps an ARM compatibility mode. ARM has a long history of hardware compatibility support.
I was thinking, if Vita games can be made to run on the Switch what is stopping Switch games running on the Switch 2 with the same method?
I think better solution were they just embed tegra x1 in the new silicon. Tegra X1 is tiny in modern standard. With 5nm or hell 7nm, it would occupy next to nothing. Nintendo can leverage the X1 by using as OS processors in the background to adding support like discord etc.
Skyline is already doing it. It's a compatibility layer with some yuzu code.
@@vaibhavdabwalv1 oh yeah you're right lol, totally forgot about that.
I do not think that CPU compatibility would be a big deal, but the GPU could get really tricky.
Modern Vintage Gamer said you can simply swap you graphic cards and update the driver on a computer; no: NVIDIA sometimes has to quirk their drivers for certain games and GPUs to work proper. Smaller games have to do the leg work them self and release patches.
That is with an abstraction layer and testing on many GPUs during development; the switch is one plattform. There is no good way to have and test abstraction, so some hardware quirks are just part of the game.
I'm gonna take a wild guess in that they'll go with a compatibility layer similar to the Wii U running Wii games, with the games running on a tweaked version of the Wii's OS and the hardware limiting itself in that mode with likely some API wrappers. It worked really well at the time with only a tiny handful of games having issues. As far as the cartridges go, they could do something similar with what they did with the 3ds.
That's what I am hoping for. The Wii mode on the WiiU was pretty cool, and we still use it
It wasn't so much a compatibility layer, as the system had to reboot into that environment. A kind of multi-booting that computers have. Even the 3DS did this with DS/i and GBA titles, though that at least could list the titles within the 3DS OS.
@@stuartmcallister3341 Good point, and ya it would be nice to have the ability to see your games within the main OS. In both cases it works quite well for the sake of compatibility.
similarly, the initial wii consoles would do the same with gamecube titles.
The Wii U is a hardware solution. They designed the Wii U CPU and GPU so that it had those of the Wii built into them in a fashion that allowed them to re-use most of the common architecture. It's so good that you can even put the vWii into backwards compatibility with the GameCube with the aid of hacks, and almost every game will work on it.
I don't think we'll see the likes of it again though, as it was an expensive exercise that didn't really help the Wii U in sales much. I'd think it far more likely that they'll do it in software, either with game-level patches - with the onus being on the developers to provide them - or virtualization and automated shader recompilation.
I wouldn't expect emulation. Translation like DXVK probably would work, but I fully expect Nintendo to put the work on the developers to recompile and resubmit games.
DXVK simply implements the D3D API in terms of the Vulkan API. It sits between the game and the driver translating graphics calls. On Switch the driver is compiled into the game, there's no way to put anything between them.
@@WhiteG60 That obviously wouldn't be at the driver level then. The hardware is reading command buffers produced by the driver. This would class as low level emulation instead, and would be a lot less simple.
This whole discussion misses the more pressing point that DXVK (or command buffer translation) would not translate the pre-compiled shaders used on Switch. On PC Vulkan can compile and run the same shader code as DX12, but an Ampere or Lovelace GPU can't run shaders already compiled for Maxwell.
@@WhiteG60 what you're suggesting isn't getting between the game and the driver. It's getting between the driver and hardware.
On Switch the driver is compiled into the game, it's not a separate library being linked at run time, it's not a part of the OS. There is no longer a distinction between the game and the driver. Thus there's no way to get between them.
@@faustianblur1798 IDK much about the driver architecture in Horizon OS or whatever Switch's OS is called, but it's likely the case that MVG saying "the driver is bundled into the game" is an oversimplification. Generally graphics drivers are divided up into a kernel module and a user mode driver library. It is likely the case that the user mode driver is the only thing that is bundled with the game. I would be quite surprised if it's hot swapping kernel modules with every game launch.
The kernel module is necessary for address patching into kernel space (references to buffers), semaphores for command buffer timing, etc. It is very unlikely they allow a publisher developed game to monkey around in kernel space with that kind of power. So that being said, it is most likely very feasible to put a low level emulation shim between the driver & the game to do necessary command translations on the fly. The problem I see comes with what you referenced earlier, the compiled shaders. There may be some way to do a recompiled and optimized translation like that on the fly but I have no idea how that would work, I don't think it's possible on the fly on something that low powered. And yeah, agreed that you likely can't just re-use them.
So yeah, it certainly wouldn't be like DXVK, but they should be able to do something of the sort there, but IDK how they'd handle shaders at all., and I certainly don't think they'll cough up the tough for a TX1 order. I don't think they'd completely kill back compat, I think it'd piss a lot of people off at this time, so not really sure what their options are all things considered.
From what i heard, Nintendo ask developer to make their game 4K ready ( more likely upscaling) for the future..
The switch 2 or whatever not only needs to have backwards compatibility but also improves the resolution and framerates of previous generation games. It would be a disappointment if this doesn’t happen
100 % agree
They don't necessarily. It's only quite a limited market that would care about that.
Millions of Pokemon fans: Nah fam, 13 fps is good enough for me!
Millions of Pokemon fans: Nah fam, 13 fps is good enough for me!
Good luck they are probably gonna go with amd chip so nothing is going to be automatically backwards compatible
I was thinking about this just yesterday. It's an absolute deal breaker for me, especially after *so* many Switch releases were basically just up-rezzed WiiU releases.
So you just won't buy the new Switch or its games?
@@BigSnipp yeah
@@Getlucky12 I get that and would feel screwed too, but there's no way I'm skipping BOTW 3 on the Switch Pro.
@@BigSnipp ok
There are more Switch exclusives than Wii U ports. I’m constantly surprised seeing this opinion thrown around in 2023, it was only true in 2018 lol. Did yall just sell your Switches in 2018 or smtg?
Another option would be to create a decompiler for precompiled shaders and automatically recompile them for the new architecture. For cartridge games, this could be done the first time the game is played and the results could be cached in on-board flash storage.
Love the technical talk. I don’t understand most of it, but it’s fun to listen to.
Same
An auto-patching layer would be fairly trivial to implement I'd imagine (into the new OS), with full library compatibility released in steps. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they forced a login/stream option to prevent piracy which they are currently pretty salty about.
It's only a matter of time before the Switch 2 gets pwnd and it hasn't even been announced yet lol. I think the reason people haven't been as dead set on looking for a software hack for the newer Switch models is because it's much easier to obtain an OG one and if you're really looking for a new one like an OLED then the hardware hack is perfectly fine. When the Switch 2 comes out, people are gonna be firing on all cylinders to get that think cracked.
I can imagine that some games for some specific reason in certain areas get strange visual glitches (that can be game breaking).
Getting to 99% compatibility is a thing; but even Switch Online N64 emulation is not perfect (and we know that nintendo applies some runtime patches to some specific games to workaround certain issues).
As others have pointed out, some sort of API translation layer a la DXVK would probably be a solid option. Maybe Nintendo could also go the way of Microsoft and opt for something similar to their Smart Delivery, with older Switch games getting some form of performance boost. The translation layer could act as a sort of fallback if the game hasn't been patched for the newer hardware.
The problem is not the API but rather the compiled shaders / gpu drivers. They will probably update the API but making that backwards compatible isn't really the issue.
I think it’s also worth noting that not all of the hardware needs to be pure software emulated thanks to ARM64: the PSP’s PS1 emulator only emulates the GPU components and runs CPU instructions as native code.
@@crimson-foxtwitch2581 sure, but that doesn't mean it works just like the switch - Tegra1 is just some arm stuff the same as your phone, and tegra 2 is noticeably different. A lot of the issues is with the gpu bits on top of that.
Imagine you bought most of the first party titles on the Wii U, then rebought them on the switch. and then with the new consoles you gotta buy the games again.
Well, you don't have to buy them again. No one is holding a gun to your head. If you played those games on Wii U and then on Switch again, do you really need to play them again on different hardware?
@@Aki_Lesbrinco that's not the point though is it? It's pretty scummy corporate behaviour and I don't condone that.
Just pirate at that point
Pirating games you already own is morally correct
@@KaitouKaiju It's not pirating if you already own them...
I laughed out loud when you said they may just overclock the Tegra X1😂
It's Nintendo, you never know, they might just actually do that, they literally did that from the Gamecube to the Wii, the Wii was just little an overclocked Gamecube, so I wouldn't discount as an option that Nintendo might be considering.
Which would be a joke for sure lol
Yeah but then the system would be something else. Like folding screens or two screen system
@@heisenbergwhite00 Isn't the Wii U a super overclocked GCN?
@@estignatic i don't think the Wii U was a GCN, I think the Wii U was actually totally different than the GC and the Wii
@@heisenbergwhite00 I thought they were similar since the Wii U could play both Wii and GCN (hacked) perfectly. They are all PowerPC based.
I definitely hope Nintendo and Nvidia figure something out; given how manny good Switch games are there, back. comp. would be a way to get newer fans to play those - unless of course, Nintendo would consider more profitable to re-release them instead lol
It was a solid excuse for the break off for the Wii U 3DS error to switch.
They can't pull that shit off again without massive controversy
It would be an insane never ending controversy, every other platform offers back compat. I doubt people would accept that when it's feature normalized on the entire rest of the market.
People will buy regardless of comparability. The average consumer does not watch this channel. As long as they have IP like Mario and Zelda people will buy their product.
@@Matanumi eh, i would argue the wii u hw is quite capable, what took the console down was the stupid pad no one liked. and the games gave a clunky experience when paired with that. both consumers and developers quickly went away. but there are great games nonetheless. almost all were then ported to switch
The Nintendo way...smdh
I kindof agree that not having backward compatibility won't hurt Nintendo in the long run, but I think including it will help with early hardware adoption. Personally if I know the next console will still play my existing games I'll go ahead and spring for it early on since there's already an established library. If not then I would probably wait a couple years for the new library to fill up before springing the money for a brand new console.
I personally think this, plus making specific titles BC, would be their business-preferred option. They literally dont need a new switch, but just to give a refresh with enhanced graphics for the smaller portion of the fanbase that really wants it, while new software piles up, which will slowly induce the rest of the base to switch over. And they can keep doing this every 5 years or so, so that the switch remains cheap too.
Exactly. I'm in this same boat. It'd be a shame if it wasn't backwards compatible considering the huge switch library. People will still buy it if it's not, but I won't buy it for a few years if it's not. I've still got switch games to finish. If it is though, I wouldn't mind getting one around release. One of the things that made their older handhelds so useful and popular was the backwards compatibility and access to older titles.
NES was the origin for Nintendo's console market...
SNES wasn't BC.
N64 wasn't BC.
GameCube wasn't BC.
Wii was with GC only.
Wii U was BC with Wii and GC (iIrc).
Switch isn't BC.
Could Switch 2 (or whatever Nintendo decides to call Switch's successor) have BC? Find out, sometime in the undisclosed future!
(GameBoy Pocket through the Nintendo DS were all BC with the OG GameBoy through GBA while N3DS had BC with NDS software so BC is only a problem for Nintendo when it comes to home consoles for some reason.)
But the thing is your average consumer isn’t stopping from purchasing the new console just for not having BC. Nintendo is a games company more than a technology company. Maybe this was different during their NES/SNES/N64 days, but what drives sales is an innovative console gimmick with your new Marios, zeldas, and all other games that help sell the system
@@edgaracosta9976
To drive home that fact point the nay-sayers to The Nintendo Switch's sales!
I think there's a disparity between how much people play old games on new hardware, vs how much they want the option. IIRC it was Sony who talked about that market research and I think it was a way of dismissing Xbox's achievements, but just because I'm not constantly playing Xbox 360 games on my Xbox Series X, doesn't mean that I don't want an easy way to do so when it suits me. Backwards compatibility is a huge deal for game preservation, and as the medium matures I think it's absolutely essential.
Thing is, they HAVE TO make it work if they want the system to sell because there's no way anyone can make the legal nightmare for Smash work again.
Nintendo doesn’t care about that. They really, really don’t.
@@Scarabola So were plenty of people who bought Gamecube’s… and Wii’s… and Wii U’s. Nintendo still doesn’t care if you can’t play it on their new hardware.
Of all reasons this is the hill you're going to die on? As if smash hasn't had 5 different releases up to this point?
They have to because of Smash and it's potential licensing issues? lol. Adorable. Hell, Smash might be the perfect reason to not have BC that way they can sell you the game again.
@Leeartlee they got away with that a bit becuase of the form factor changes
I think a standardized translation layer wouldn't be too horribly difficult in this case. Translate the GPU and CPU calls on the fly to the new hardware. We're talking ARM64 > ARM64 and Nvidia to Nvidia hardware. They aren't that much different in how they accept and process the data. There will be issues with some titles but those can be resolved with title specific patches.
EXACTLY i do not understand MVG's point here at all, how does he thnk the ps5 did backcompat with ps4 ? RDNA isn't GCN
Assuming the new console will even be ARM/Nvidia based. They could easily go for RDNA2 instead, seems to be the most popular chipset out atm and we know Nintendo prefer proven hardware.
@@Intelligenz_Bestie AMD has stated that RDNA has full support for the GCN instruction set. Meaning shaders and command buffers compiled for a GCN GPU will run natively on an RDNA one. That is not normal practice and none of Nvidia's architectures are backwards compatible like that.
@@faustianblur1798 Maybe Nvidia and Nintendo are planning new architecture that is compatible with Maxwell
@@0x1D3A That would be ridiculously expensive. Hence why AMD made _all_ their RDNA line backward compatible even though they only needed it for the consoles. If Sony and Microsoft didn't account for such a huge volume of their chip production it wouldn't be there.
Nvidia have much more profitable markets than Nintendo consoles, they really don't need to take that sort of hit to make Switch users happy.
To be fair, backwards compatibility has always been a thing. I remember watching a video about the SNES where parents were upset they couldn’t use NES games on the new console
Lack of backwards compatibility is what made me sail the high seas in the first place
You completely overlooked the most likely solution, translation. They can develop a software translation layer for the new hardware. Since the two SoCs are so similar a translation layer should be very efficient compared to emulation. They are also using graphics APIs derived from the same ones used on Switch so I’m sure that continuity will add to efficiencies in translation. What am I missing? NVida and Nintendo will make this work. The future of Nintendo depends on it.
While I don't disagree that backwards compatibility via a translation layer would be good, Nintendo's future has never depended on backwards compatibility.
@@soviut303IMO it’s not something they can afford to overlook with so much riding on Switch 2. They only have one platform now. It’s certainly possible the Switch 2 could be a massive success without it, but that would be an incredibly stupid risk to take for no reason.
@@RETR0_P0CKET What's riding on Switch 2 that wasn't riding on their other consoles that weren't backwards compatible? For example, I can't plug a GBA game into my DS, nor is any of the software compatible.
@@soviut303 The stakes are higher because they only have one platform. When Wii U failed they leaned on 3DS. They’ve always leaned on their handhelds. That’s the difference IMO.
@@RETR0_P0CKET Perhaps, but there's no saying the next console will even be anything like the Switch. The switch may become their new handheld while they experiment with something completely different. Besides, they've got massive war chests built up from the record setting sales of the Switch and their first party software that's bolstered further by their online service.
I also want to say that the fact nintendo are still announcing dlc and season passes to existing software and are releasing tears of the kingdom on the og switch should show that they are at least aware that we can have some accsess to these titles on the next console.
Nah, they'll just sweat the Switch for 2 years after the NG release. I hope it isn't the case, but Nintendo hate their users and only want to rinse them.
that doesnt say anything
Yeah it would suggest that since they are releasing all of this stuff they would at least think of keeping it backwards compatible.
They continued to release 3ds software even after the release of the switch with no backward compatibility so I'm not so sure. This is Nintendo were talking about. They don't do 'consumer friendly'
@@lpnp9477 this is exactly my point
They've had this ability for a while now. It's called a graphics API wrapper. Kind of like what they did with Windows 98 voodoo fx glide to work with Windows 10.
As he said the GPU driver is statically linked into the game so replacing it would be difficult
@@circuit10 Nah, they could still do it with a wrapper. It would intercept API/library calls and replace them with patched ones. They could write a translation layer to interpret the compiled shaders/drivers, or even distribute replacements/patches/etc through the eShop
@@clebbington They could still do it but it would be a bit of a hack since they’d have to hook into the calls to the original driver and replace them, which would be a bit harder
The biggest reason I don't think they'll do backwards compatibility with the Switch is market saturation- there are already Zelda, Mario, Mario Kart, Pokémon and many more games on Switch. Keeping backwards compatibility could be one more reason for people who bought the new model to *not* buy the new exclusive games, such as Mario Kart 9 (whenever that comes out) or the next mainline 3D mario game, Pokémon games etc.
I think its a mistake to not have backwards compatibility.
Be very interesting to see what they do next. Just hope it's not all digital
I wont be buying it if its all digital thats my only issue
If they cease to produce physical media I'll not be buying the console. The customer should have control of what they own, not the developer/distributor/publisher. I hate the way that digital media takes the ownership away from the customer (and yes, I know even physical media is a 'licence to play' but you know what I mean). Digital only games can be removed or disabled at the flick of a switch and that's incredibly anti-consumer.
That’s the cheapest option though lol
I’m don’t think all digital would be a good idea even tho most things are nowadays.. No one bats an eye with Steam tho interestingly..
I’m sure big N has the power to implement both physical & backwards compatibility like they’ve almost always done so everyone would be happy
@@Mintcar923because steam games are always supported no matter your pc since "PC2" isnt a possinle comcept
The most probable scenario in my mind what’ll happen is that Nintendo will offer two variants of the Post-Switch console: a more expensive version that’s backwards-compatible with physical Switch titles and a less pricier option with no physical backwards compatibility.
I would not be against this but I don't think it would happen. I just want backwards compatibility on all devices moving forward. We should have the technology to plan this stuff out but we don't, and then we shoot ourselves in the foot later trying to make it work.
I mean its still gonna use a cartridge because its handheld, I imagine they could just use the same cartridge slot like the 3ds but the access to games will be limited to 1st party and 3rd party developers.
@@Saz103 or they could be all digital. I don't like this future, but it makes a lot of sense for publishers.
Interesting idea. Sony had kind of done something similar to this with the PlayStation 3. Having the launch console very pricey but very versatile, with backwards compatibility, extra USB, and even a SD card slot I think? The models afterwards were much cheaper, but too many things were getting cut out which I didn't like, such as the PS2 compatibility.
I think Nintendo has also done a similar approach, keeping backwards compatibility at launch before cutting it down the road once the current portables success is established. Like the DSi cutting the GBA slot I think, and the Gameboy Advance Micro not being able to play Gameboy games if I remember correctly.
Sounds like a marketing disaster
Nvidia could have a NVN to NVN2 intermediary stub just for this purpose, it would handle translating calls from NVN to NVN2.
exactly, just like what Proton does with DXVK (but more complex I guess).
The trick is that NVN and the rest of the GPU driver stack is statically linked into the game's executable, but that's not an insurmountable problem.
@@deus_nsf Exactly what I was thinking. They can run a stub before the main executable and dynamically relink the NVN functions to NVN2 using their associated mappings. I would say this is similar to what TheFlow did with PSV and Android games.
@@guspaz is it possible that a developer would modify the driver themselves to get additional performance or work around bugs - thus breaking this “Patch the driver” strategy unusable?
I'll make it simple for them. It's backwards compatibility with my vast library that I've accumulated or no buy.
It's a tablet from 2014.
Even the steamdeck can do it.
But then it's Nintendo a company known for not having the best consumer friendly practices
I would have thought there could be some kind of compatibility shim between the old drivers/shaders and the new hardware, kinda like the x86 emulation on Apple Silicon via Rosetta
Same, I'm not sure what MVG is thinking that translation and emulation layers can't easily fix driver issues. I mean there's a 19 year old girl that currently working on Linux drivers for the M1 and M2 chips. What makes a little driver compatibility issue a roadblock?
Rosetta 2 is the most impressive emulator ever made. It's way beyond the technical capabilities of Nintendo.
Is there a reason a wrapper/translation layer can’t handle this? They don’t need to actually run the NSO drivers, just re-interpret calls based on identifying the NSO version from a known list? Shaders can still be extracted too if the format is standardized?
Even if we're talking about GPU emulation and enable a "hybrid" solution doesn't sound so bad; the base Switch handled GPU emulation like a charm with Mario 3D All-Stars. Wii games ran flawlessly even though only part of the game was re-compiled.
Yeah, if Apple could find a way to get x86 software to run on their new ARM SoC, I find it unlikely that Nintendo couldn't pull off a similar feat with two ARM SoCs. Obviously this could lead to a performance hit, but as long as they can at least match the native Switch performance then it should be fine for most people. Shaders and Binaries could also be re-compiled on first launch, or Nintendo could compile themselves and have the Switch 2 download the shaders and binaries when a Switch game is inserted/downloaded. There's a lot of theoretical ways to do this, especially when both SoCs are known quantities.
Shaders need to be recompiled on the fly, which will introduce stutters. The problem is not the CPU, the instructions, it's the GPU and shaders. This is also where all emulators struggle the most.
Projects like Skyline do just that, they run the CPU code natively on Android because it's the same architecture, but GPU is really what's limiting them for now (they're doing great progress each day however)
@@MK73DS Thing with shaders is that you can pre-compile them. It is a viable option when it comes to emulation and what some developers use on PC (although ALL of them should provide it), when you are launching the game for a first time. There is also a case of Steam Deck - there's only one configuration to worry about and Steam OS is delivering pre-cached
shaders generated using Fossilize toolset. You are downloading them with the game. Steam has also allowed sharing pre-cached shaders between Linux users for a long time now.
@@kamilciura7953 Did you watch the video? Shaders don't work the same way between PC games and Nintendo Switch games. Talk to any Switch emulator developer, they'll tell you you can't extract all shaders from a game and precompile them. This has to be done on the fly. Of course, you can cache them, but they have to be compiled once, and you'll experience stutters the first time.
Sharing shaders would require a ton of work from Nintendo to precompile them all, and there's some legal issue sharing them too since they contain proprietary code.
If they don't provide back compat, Switch 2 is dead to me, actually Nintendo is. I've invested too much (physical games especially) into the Switch for it not to work on the NG version. Adding Tegra hardware for BC is pointless, why would I want to pay for new hardware when my back catalogue runs as crappily as it does now?
well because they wont upgrade every game even if they can you wont get 60fps patches like on the xbox only for special games most will only have more stability and higher dynamic res anyways
Best to emulate them. You can play Zelda and Pokemon and everything else at 60fps with patches. I'm finally getting around to playing last year's Kirby game since I found the 60fps patch.
I expect the Switch 2 to be wayyy more locked down than the OG Switch. That being said, I'd be shocked if they actually managed to address software piracy and homebrew to a level that would really stop it or significantly reduce it.
I feel like the consumer expectations for Nintendo's next console is a Switch 2 with specs that can pull off 4K and backwards compatibility. BC seemed like a fun bonus during the PS2/GBA days where all the games were physical but with online stores and accounts the expectation is to still have access to your existing library with new hardware. Aside from this potential backwards compatibility issue I've also heard rumours of Nintendo going with something unexpected, like what the Wii was compared to the Gamecube. Either of those would be a huge mistake. Nintendo's history has had them flip in generations between runaway successes and flops. They come across less like savvy company that's got their finger on the pulse of the video game market and more like a scattershot company that sometimes hits on wild guesses and has good enough business sense to survive when they guess wrong. I can't help but think of the transition from the Wii to the Wii U where it was clear that they did NOT know what the market wanted and had gotten lucky with the Wii. The Switch is a brilliant concept but it's also a fairly straightforward one. But Nintendo doesn't really understand straightforward iteration, they tend to think more in gimmicks. So my concern is that rather than do the conventional Switch upgrade we all want they figure they'll need to come up with a "new gameplay experience" that may or may not land.
I'm a little lost; what's the problem with having the same cartridge format on the newer system? DS and 3DS games shared the same cartridge format no problem.
They'll probably say something about climate change and it helping the environment and people will eat it up
@@Dairunt1 I'm saying that will be there justification for not adding the cartridge slot, my goodness man keep up, these are billion dollar companies that Like to virtue signal it's just my opinion man you don't have agree with it.
Its an expensive Preparatory card much like the SD card was for the Vita
I think the main issue is likely the size capacity and cost. I presume the Switch successor will have some ginormous games at a whopping 80gb or more, similar to pc and the latest PlayStation/Xbox installs.
Unless, maybe of course Nintendo do something special with it, like getting manufacturers to install games through a code in the box and WiFi, or need of install through heavily compressed files of the current carts (much like on pc with disks).
It's a bit of technological dead-end. Not fast and not big enough for modern games in the current state.
I remember when the Switch was launching and people were asking about Eshop backwards compatibility and nintendo just kept saying "we will have more to announce later" and then they dropped the switch online thing and were just like "yeah thanks for buying stuff on the eshop idiots".
MVG out here spittin’ out more great content that I somewhat understand.
He doesn't understand it either and is talking bullshit to get more views. It is a non-issue.
@@TomaszKucza Okay, random guy in the comments. I totally believe you. 100%
@@TomaszKucza Hmmm, who should I believe. The game developer who made a 12 minute video going over the problems thoroughly, or some random guy in the comments who’s educated response is “this is bullshit.” …. Hard to believe, but imma go with MVG on this one.
Interesting how this was expected and a non-issue before and now there are problems everywhere.
This is click bait ...... there are NO problems .
@@BennyBsolo I know, my comment had some sarcasm, I controlled myself so I don't sound like an asshole.
The compatibility break between the switch and WiiU made sense. Totally different pieces of hardware and architecture. Between the Switch and whatever comes next I would say there is less of an excuse.
Unless Nintendo is planning to swap CPU architectures again, most games should be compatible. The only outliers would be games that bypass the graphics API and talked to the GPU directly. Although in these cases you could probably use an emulation layer to circumvent this.
Other then that I would expect Nintendo has something planned to slow down emulation devs from emulating the next generation of Switch...
Couldn't Nvidia just give Nintendo access to depreciated Maxwell shaders on a custom chip and then there would be unlikely to be any issues with BC?
good speculation, but i feel like you left out one option.
>build a software shader recompiler: much like modern emulators do, recompile the shaders at start up and save the shader cache so it only needs to be done at first launch.
Another option is that Switch 2 isn't a portable console at all... It's a beefy dock that you plug your switch into that takes the calls the switch is sending and translates it into the new dock to be output to the TV. That would be insane, but if they want to get more power out of it and can't get the battery life they want, maybe it's an option that's on the table.
I could see a potential scenario where digital backwards compatibility is supported, but not physical. There's a precedent in the form of the PS Vita, which could play digital PSP games but obviously not physical ones due to the lack of a UMD slot.
I was thinking the same, it would fit Nintendo's efforts to steer people towards digital distribution and subscription models.
However, people still want physical copies, as evidenced with current Metroid Prime situation, where people are waiting for physical availability instead of digital version.
yes but no
psp to vita was a format swap from optical disks to flash cartridges so yeah of course that didn't work
but for the switch there's no logical reason to change the cartridges they do NOTHING special there essentially sd cards with at best a security chip inside there isn't much sense to changing the cartridge between versions because there's nothing to gain other than forcing people to buy more games
at least with PSP they wanted to swap from optical to the smaller game cards
If anything is stopping Nintendo from incorporating backward compatibility into their next console, it is probably not the hardware/software challenges, but security concerns as we all know that backward compatibility layer is a great potential point of initial entry for hackers.
NVidia's Maxwell 28nm microarchitecture was not only the last NVidia architecture to use Planar transistors, it was already based off the 4 year old Kepler v1 architecture from the GTX 600/Quadro 2/3/4/5000 series. The chip in the Nintendo Switch is based on technology that is older than the Xbox One/PS4/Wii U... Preliminary GK1XX series dies were rolling out of TSMC in July of 2011... 12 years ago!
Wow, never knew that about Maxwell. Although even then it's wild to think that the 900 series came out 8 years ago.
Yea they released tegra x1 in 2015 2 years before the switch was even made. They were already outdated on release day. With how cheap chips are getting you would think Nintendo would make a break from these bullshit low end specs.
The fabrication process is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And if you wanna go that route... EVERY chip is based on DECADES old technology. Also even the newest Lovelace etc isn't entirely new, parts of it are very well based on Kepler as well. This is not a bad thing or something that makes sense to criticize.
On a sidenote, they use FinFET in the shrinked version of the Switch SoC (TSMC 16nm).
@@Xirtamani those chips are BASED on old hardware...they are not old hardware. I'm literally saying that if nentendo was giving you a gaming PC. They are basically building one with a 10th gen processor and a GTX 960 in it. Then selling it to you for prices like it was current gen. They need to finally decide if they want to keep up with competition or stay a handheld that is meant for children and Pokemon weebs.
it doesnt really matter when the tegra x1 released it was the high end mobile chip
I do think one advantage of seamless backwards compatibility is not just playing older games, but also seamless development for Switch Indie scene, since there is likely a lot of developers make less demanding games who may have ongoing projects or low demanding projects who would be able to stick with developing on the switch rather than moving to a new architecture and this would make the new Generation transition seamless for Nintendo if they already have new games coming out.
Nintendo being Nintendo, I can see them embrace the opportunity to sell you the games you already own again. And they will definitely go even crazier in terms of security, encryption, etc to completely kill emulation, and real backwards compatibility would always be a hole in that. And third party publishers will probably port their big sellers, to squeeze more money out of them.
The financial incentives really are heavily against backwards compatibility, even ignoring technical feasibility.
Fingers crossed to migrate our games to the new hardware. Also a better eShop. 😮💨
This is Nintendo we're taking about here. I fully expect no back-compat, and full price ports of certain games.
Maybe even subscription only backwards compatibility like how they do for retro games
@@ThomastheDankEngine8900 almost all handhelds from Nintendo except the switch were backwards compatible
I'm surprised you didn't mention what would arguably be the simplest solution. A translation layer. Or as I usually view it very thin emulation. Essentially most of the game is actually binary compatible with the Switch 2. All that needs to be done is to intercept those calls that are not supported by the new hardware, translate those commands to supported ones and it would just work.
This is also a well established form of achieving such a feat. Wine for Linux/MacOS is essentially a more advanced version of such a translation layer. Windows games are X86 after all, and Linux (and MacOS back in the day) usually also run on X86. All that has to be done in that case is intercept syscalls and translate them to native syscalls.
From the sound of it, a simple sandbox that allows for intercepting of calls to the old included GPU driver with a translation to the new GPU driver should already be enough to essentially guarantee every single game work (with of course the potential for bugs in the translation layer to cause issues, but nothing which can't be fixed).
The CPU will unlikely require any emulation or translation layer. ARM architecture since v7 has been able to natively run CPU code of older ARM architectures down to v7. Switch is v8, and the successor will at least be that. For the GPU side, a translation layer for GPU calls is likely, but the problem is shader code, which is pre-compiled. This will be something Nvidia already has a solution for.
An updated Switch would be nice, I’m still hoping they release a screen-less Switch. Eventually these screens are gonna go out, eliminating the screen would help future proof the system a bit, they could market it as “Switch Home” or something.
Or you do the classic Nintendo move. You dont have backcompat and release remasters of popular switch games in 4k(ish)60fps for close to fullprice for the new system XD
I don't think they'll keep the Tegra X1 SOC till the end of times. At some point they'll upgrade the SOC in their systems. They might have (say we have another refresh) a new SKU with the same chip but again smaller, and squeeze even more battery, but at some point this conundrum will happen.
I think the new idea is the translation layer as a way to get games not made for your system. We've seen it on the Steam Deck and also in the Intel ARC lineup of GPUs. It could be that the "Switch 2" will have a small overhead in the style of this compatibility layer and maybe have some games with a "Switch 2"-specific executable on the side, at the expense of the developer. What is also true is that, as we see dynamic resolution and framerate, it actually could be easier, or plainly feasible, for games to simply perform better if specs are better. But this might be me.
MVG: "I don't want to be a bearer of bad news, but..." *_Becomes what he sought to destroy_*
I don't understand how Nintendo could go on about their "account system" where they say all your purchases will carry over yet not support backwards compatibility.
that left joystick at 6:42 got my enxity levels rise above average
If they go the route you suggest, patch all their first party games (excluding stuff like Labo) and try to get this parties on board. I think they would get away with it if they focus on and prioritise the best selling and highest rated third party games. I doubt many people will cry foul if most of the eShop shovelware is left out.
Thanks for your thoughts and opinion, very competent...as always! Personally, if Nintendo doesn't make the current switch library (or at least the ones that sold well so far) compatible in some way, I will "boycott" buying the new "Switch 2"...this would be a real problem and cost Nintendo quite much customers I guess...maybe this move would even turn out more expensive in the end, due to the loss of customers, instead of patching the games up, in order to make them compatible for the next switch model.
This is just silly.
@@leeartlee915 Please be so kind and let me know what you think about the issue and what you consider to be silly. 😀
I liked the expanded explanation from a game dev perspective. I hope that backwards compatibility does happen in whatever form.
Yes the way they did it like the 1st gen wii and gamecube compatibility would probably be best. But who knows at this point. Nvidia could have some magic going on with the next chip nintendo picked and was added with little cost. Time will tell. If need be I'll continue to keep a switch 1 for what may not work if it's not compatible on the switch 2.
I kinda doubt that switch games won't at least to some degree be backwards compatible especially with games still coming out for it and the massive library that it has amassed
Switch has a pretty big library of games. It sold really well and users already have a lot of games and digital purchases.
Whenever a new console comes out, people wanna play games on that and expect an improved experience, as you said.
Though older switch games could have all sorts of improvements on a newer console too.
Not just fps and resolution, but also screen[size}, audio, ergonomics and battery life.
Without backwards compatibility Nintendo would have to pump out quality games for it, so people would be interested in a purchase.
Also, it would suck if not a single previously purchased game would run on the newer console.
It'd be like releasing the 3DS without DS support, I highly doubt Nintendo would do that.
We upgrade phones every year with new hardware - new SoCs, new screens - and new OSes. And oftentimes old apps and old games carry over just fine.
The OS provides a layer of abstraction. Why would something like that not be possible here?
Maybe Switch 2 carries over the Horizon OS (which, iirc originated as the OS for 3DS) and the NVN apis?
What if they embedded a Tegra X1 onto a dock similar to the Gameboy Player on the GCN?
They could then recycle old stock into docks, and sells Back-Compat Docks for a premium.
Don't give them ideas for fucks sake :S.
That'd take away the ability to play original Switch games in portable mode and has zero benefit vs just including it into the console itself.
And who says there is ever going to be a Switch 2 in the first place? It is Nintendo we are talking about here, going to a completely different direction than what the public asks for is not unheard off for them but the standard.
Also interested in the blurred out box in the background :P
They should also bring hall effect joysticks for joy cons...
I love these videos. Your content is always so well put together. I aspire to gain this knowledge on your level one day. Bravo MVG!
I'm a bit suprised about the UDA - after all games would call the DirectX, OpenGL or Vulkan API to interact with the GPU - and the calls would be translated by the kernel for both CPU and GPU. For the Switch this might be OpenGL, Vulkan or NVN - couldn't NVN2 simply be backwards compatable with NVN. Some shaders would need dynamic recompilation, but this shouldn't be an issue.
i appreciate that you give detailed explanations about why you make these inferences
I sincerely hope their solution is emulation; if Miyamoto is confident that backwards emulation is easier than ever then some GPU emulation solution had to have been done by Nvidia and Nintendo.
Emulation is the last thing that they’ll do.
@@andreaciccarello There's always the idea that maybe Nvidia took the time and developed that solution in house instead of Nintendo. If there's no bc attached then what stops Nintendo to get AMD or Samsung to work on the next chipset? Nvidia has to convince them to keep working with them.
full emulation is just stupid even the steam deck which has a much more powerful cpu than the next switch will have struggles playing heavy switch games the max you can expect is semi emulation like the xbox 360 on the xbox one and wii on wii u
@@xtr.7662 idk but you are kinda confident steam deck is more poweful than a console you don't even know its name yet, not saying it can't happen, but still
@@Elchinodawn its pretty much 100% chance the next switch wont have a cpu as powerful as the steam deck and 16gb ram
9:55 While market research suggests backwards compatibility may not be as important, it can't be used to deflect and say gamers want to have new experiences with the new hardware. Otherwise, it wouldn't account for why games are re-released on new hardware if it doesn't support BC or the publisher wants to rip the consumer of more money for a game they already owned.
Agreed. Backwards compatibility is something everyone says they want, and research show they barely use it.
Surprised nobody ever considered that they could just make a die shrunk Maxwell chip with a ton more cores in 7NM or smaller. Yeah it wouldn't be the newest architecture, but it would be much better in performance and keep the compatibility. There's a million alternatives they could go with that would work nearly as well that others have discussed.
Even some hardware alternatives. They'll make it work. Since the Wii and the Gameboy Color they've done a pretty good job with backwards compatibility, and it was always a hardware solution.
Hell, even the Wii U had the hardware to play Gamecube games, they just never made a disc drive that could accept the discs. This is why modded Wii Us can play Gamecube roms without software emulation.
The only reason the Switch didn't have compatibility is with Wii U is probably just because they had a change of form factor ALONG with the architecture working against it.
So the graphic driver is statically linked to the game itself. This is an odd choice. Apart from recompiling, that does not leave much wiggle room unless the GPU on the new SoC has some sort of compatibility mode or the new OS some translation layer that can work with the original Switch graphic driver.
This is how I think Nintendo will do this - they'll strong-arm developers to recompile their games with the updated Switch 2 SDK, and then implement Smart Delivery-like system to distribute the updated binaries.
They're going to say "Hey Dev X, your game is going to lose Nintendo licensing status and be delisted from our storefront if you don't recompile it in the newest version of the SDK." Developers will go into the new SDK, set a compile target as Switch 2 (or whatever it'll be called), and then export the new binary and submit to Nintendo. It's up to Nintendo to make the new SDK so good that it can auto-patch on recompile, but I think they could pull it off.
As far as cartridges go, if you insert an original Switch cartridge into a Switch 2, it will just download the Switch 2 binary to the internal storage or SD card - kind of like Smart Delivery on Xbox. If you try to run the cart offline, you'll just get a "This game requires an update in order to run. Please connect your Switch 2 to a network and try again."
What about the option that a new Switch might have an compatibility mode on the OS and/or hardware level (pre compiled shaders could also be solved either via some extra memory in the system where game specific shaders can be stored via a download or via a translation layer that runs on the hardware extra CPU and GPU compute that isn't used otherwise for current Switch games) and game patches are just required if wanting to take advantage of the new/extra hardware capabilities.
For the option you mention if Nintendo would stay on the same Tergra architecture it could be made on a much smaller node to make it run on higher clocks at same or even less power usage, include more of the Maxwell GPU compute units as well as have an updated IO to bring the system up to speed as well as bring faster and more up to date connectivity standards in regard to USB/Bluetooth/WiFi/network etc.
I think they will prevent backwards compatibility from happening. Not only because of the work but because of the profit. Some of us bought "virtual console" titles on wii and wii u. That should have been easy to port to the switch... *BEEEP* wrong, sorry, we have a "new" online service now, you cant keep any of that. But thank god they found a way to not get trapped in that corner again. They just turned the retro games in a live service. They would give too much away if you can just buy games one time and keep them over generations. :/ I am so glad about my chipped Mariko Switch. Retroarch and ScummVM on the go :)
I think Nintendo got bit by the remaster bug with the Switch. If there will be backwards compatability with brand new hardware, then its going to be intentionally limited
We might not see 60 dollar re-releases like we did with Tropical Freeze, but I think we will get more in the way of remasters and ports rather than any software compatability. I don't know if Nintendo is will to leave that concept alone now that its clearly got a taste for it in recent years
I'm also concerned that Nintendo is looking at the other platforms, all of which boasts backwards compatability, and double down on their forced scarcity practice they've been doing as of late to make their catalogue seem more valueable than it is. They're the only brand that has the library to get away with that, and I would not put it past them to do it after the Switch's success
Hell, Metroid Primes physical release was out of stock for maybe a week and a half and it was already being re-sold for absurd prices. For a game that was being advertised as digitally availabe for the foreseeable future
Yep, ding ding ding! We have a winner here! If they can get away with ripping off mugs to buy a metroid prime "remaster" and the 3d Mario trilogy "port" *cough, it's a bundle of overpriced ROMs* then they will get away with anything they greedily can and will if continue to let them, they have no intention of preserving anything for consumers, remasters are a big business now
“We don’t want to rebuild our player base”
Nintendo potentially:
There is one thing you didn't mention that could work. While emulation is too much for Nintendo Hardware and full on patches might be too much work why not meet in the middle and make a compatibility layer. Based on your video it seems like the major issue is Graphics because of NSO files. So kind of like how on Linux we have DXVK to convert the DirectX driver to Vulcan for Windows games why can't Nintendo make a graphics compatibility layer for the switch? Compatibility layers are way more lightweight but do have stability and compatibility issues. Nintendo will probably have to have a game allow list for something like this.
Also since Nintendo has a very high level of control of the processors and the software stack they may even be able to pull off something similar to Apple's Rosetta translation layer. Another thing to consider with this translation layer is the new system's processor will
have more similarities then differences which would help greatly and make this a very feasible option.
Let me know what you think about this
I think there's another solution not really mentioned here. Just embed a translation layer between Tegra X1 GPU and next-gen GPU. Similar how WINE/Proton works with DirectX & Win32 APIs on Linux and other OS'es. Also similar how Rosetta translates x86 code to ARM on new Macs (albeit this is for CPU and not GPU)
Create some kind of sandbox that will "cheat" the game that it runs on Tegra X1 and translate all GPU-related code (including the drivers, or ignoring them) to new architecture. It probably won't give 100% compatibility, and maybe recompiling will be needed to get more performance/features from older games, but that's the approach from current gen Xbox for example. It can run older titles but newer features requires a new build.
Translation layer could work. It would have less overhead than emulation, but still more overhead than a recompile.
I think it's more likely they'd just use the eShop to distribute per-game updates and patches, like how they currently distribute patches for cartridge-based games.
No back compat is a great way to piss off 120+MILLION Switch owners! Can’t see Nintendo doing that.
Honestly I'd say overall Nintendo has been pretty good with backwards compatibility despite the many differences in hardware between their consoles and handhelds over the years. And I feel if they were to not give the Switch any sort of backwards compatibility they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, especially with how much they're still pushing this hardware.
My only concern is, if there truly is a Switch successor coming, how will we be able to crack open Mariko revision Switches and Switch Lites? I care nothing for new hardware, I want total control finally over the hardware that I own without having to buy a v1 Switch or a dodgy modchip.
If Nintendo went the route of providing the hardware into the system for you to just "plug and play" your old games, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they actually do that BUT remove the cartidge slot. I know that wouldn't go over well, but I almost feel Nintendo would more likely just make it so you can only bring youur digitial libraries first before your physical library. Nintendo likes to be a bit Apple like that at times, and for some reason this sounds like something today's Nintendo would do.
Switch 2 is most likely digital only, no cartridge slot, but ability to transfer games to the new Switch 2, if they are supported. Similar to the Wii/Wii U virtual console.
If they want to offer digital only backwards compatability (because of a new format) they could check for which account the gold points were claimed. This way they make sure you can't "dupe" the game. But will probably won't happen.
For me, the best solution would be to offer 2 options, a normal priced New NS, and a bit pricier backward compatible New NS with an embedded Tegra X1 chip on the motherboard.
Being backwards compatible would mean I would be willing to buy a new system earlier than I otherwise would.
Especially with Switch, I would definitely buy a BC-supporting successor device on day 1 to play Switch games I haven't gotten around to playing yet with faster load times, higher (or smoother) framerates and maybe a bit higher resolution (or at least less DRS) while waiting for the system's true "killer app". Even if a true system seller never ended up materializing, it would be worth it just to make some of the more performance lagging Switch games play better, given the size of my Switch library at this point.
If it wasn't BC, then I'd probably wait a few years until a number of interesting exclusive titles were released that I was interested in playing came out before dropping what is likely to be $400+ on something that could only play newer titles.
They could do a hybrid approach: provide patches for first-party games to take full advantage of the new chipset (a la PS5 mode for PS4 games), and also put an X1 on the mobo as a fallback for unpatched games. Or, another hybrid approach: patch select games, and use a compatibility layer on the chip as a fallback
Nvidia doesn't manufacture the chip anymore. Hasn't done so for two years already.
@@dr_ubo If Nvidia doesn’t make the X1 chips anymore, then why is Switch still in production?
That really sucks that nintendo has to build the next So C with battery life in mind I can't tell you how much that disappoints me, With that kind of metalogy they're not gonna build anything that has the power of 865 chip or whatever snap dragon chip is out when this comes out it will be obsolete already crazy
You could say the same with the Tegra X1, but the reality is that this is the cause as to why Nintendo Switch's OS is so lightweight (a philosophy that I think will still carry on with the new one). If you make a bloated operating system, you're taking resources away that could apply to more powerful games; Android is a bloated OS for something that's solely for games as there are also notifications, gps, mobile data, etc. taking up processing power. So even if Nintendo's next chipset is comparable to an 865, it will vastly outperform Android games running on it because of how the OS handles games.
Also, most mobile phones only use 20-40% of their CPU/GPU capacity to avoid overheating, but since Nintendo Switch consoles have a built-in cooling fan, they can bump those numbers up.
That has always been Nintendo's greatest strength in hardware; they've always worked with relatively cheap hardware and make the most out of them.
@@Dairunt1 Wouldn't it be awesome if nintendo kept the switch as its hand held line, and came out with a proper competitor to the PS5 and xbox once again. One can dream, yeah I do understand what you're saying with the overhead on android but the fact is it still can emulate switch games pretty good.
I disagree, I also would like to have a high powered Nintendo device, but for portable play battery life and size is very important, i find myself carrying my switch around much more than my steam deck because the deck is just too big and the battery life is too low, so I cant justify carrying a huge brick around for 2 hours of battery life when I can get my much lighter switch which will last 4 or 5 hours.
And Nintendo has to stick to the 300 dollars MSRP, they cant try to sell at 400 since that would match the PS5 digital pricing.
When you consider 300 dollars machine + low weight + battery life = low power, its unavoidable. Hopefully NVidea will implement good upscalling, like DLSS.
@@FerreiraFredes I'm ready for some real nintendo HD graphics look at the new Mario movie that's coming out don't you think we deserve graphics like that already
@@FerreiraFredes I think the next Switch will be $400. The current Switch also competed with the PS4 Slim's $300.
But I really hope it delivers hardware-wise if that's the case, because that's also Steam Deck territory.
I'd be surprised if they did backward compatibility, twice as surprised if 4k updates are added to any of the Switch games that are out now.
Having a Tegra X1 included would just be too damn expensive! They SHOULD have created Tegra X1 modes into their new SOC! That would have been the smart thing to do.
The T239 (likely successor candidate) already handles the CPU side no problems. GPU side is the problem, mainly the shader situation. I trust Nvidia will have this working.
@@stuartmcallister3341 Hope so! They are likely to create a unique SOC based off their mainline so I don't see why they couldn't make it work.
@@stuartmcallister3341 The GPU is also part of the SOC of course, same thing. They could add the X1 functionality to the custom SOC if they wanted. & they absolutely should if they are smart.
An easier path, if indeed the new hardware/OS is incompatible with old games, would be to go the same way of Valve/SteamDeck: proxy the old drivers with the new ones with a Proton like layer, the same way we translate Direct X to Vulkan with DXVK ou Metal to Vulkan with MoltenVK, etc. They have full control over the hardware and software, way more control than Valve has with PC games. It's very feasible, especially using an LLVM based solution to do the heavy lifting.
Unless Nintendo really prepared their libraries and SDKs for the move to a new hardware base, I am certain we end up with software emulation which however can read Switch cartridges.
Not forever mind you but at least for the next generation.
I personally think it will be similar to vWii mode on the Wii U
Sorry about all the attention this got, just feel assured you made a great video! And the internet is just being the internet about it and there's no good reason for those who have acted out unreasonably. They likely failed to even actually watch the video. Anytime who has seen your content knows what to expect, and appreciates your insights to be sure! You're a brilliant person. Keep shining!
This is why - despite growing up with Nintendo and just loving it - I slowly walked away from Nintendo consoles. I have consoles with no online capability left and I can't even connect to the old store - one of my Mario games is only bound to that specific console, if it breaks I'll lose my game. Meanwhile I have my Steam account and can still play most of the old stuff - so I guess for me it's more beneficial to just play everything on an emulator now? Guess the old saying - if you pirate it, it's mostly a service issue - is pretty true. How sad.
My answer. I choose not to play the game. I have tons of games spanning over 20 years. The switch will be my last system.
Because of emulators like Yuzu it won’t happen. There is no way they will keep release titles that will run better on Windows PC or free
The only thing that would need tweaks, usually is the graphics.
Armv8 instructions can run natively, if backwards compatibility is a prio while developing horizon OS 2, and there will probably be a compatibility layer to translate some graphics API instructions like we´ve seen on Intel ARC for older Direct X APIs.
After many driver updates and tweaks, they finally managed a decent performance on anything below Direct X 12.
This however isn´t just software emulation, if at all needed.
Skyline Emulator uses an ARM compatibility layer, which isn´t real software emulation either.
You don´t have to emulate another architecture, you have to get the horizon OS libs up and running like wine on linux would do.
And the steam deck shows how good this can work out.
Some recent android devices also can already run a few switch games at almost full speed, using arm native libs.
With other words:
Don´t worry, let them do their job and it´s probably going to be alright.
hmm
So as I understand it now, it's much more than a driver problem?
You could avoid massive patching for each individual game by including the driver updates as a kind of wrapper in the firmware.
So that all the driver packages that are required are available in the firmware and then the drivers on the cards, for example, are overwritten when querying, so that they are loaded from the firmware instead of on the card.
You could then also use the Game ID to regulate that the right ones are then selected.
The only disadvantage is that if the developers would have to work with Nintendo if they then used their own drivers and that updates would then have to be regulated with firmware updates