IGN - Nintendo details the differences between The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild on Switch/Wii U

- Both launch on the same day, March 3.
- Both have a frame rate of 30fps.
- Both versions of the game offer the same content.
- On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p.
- The Nintendo Switch version has higher-quality environmental sounds. As a result, the sound of steps, water, grass, etc. are more realistic and enhance the game’s Open-Air feel.
- The physical copy of the Wii U version will require 3GB of available memory on the Wii U system or an external drive.
- Some icons, such as onscreen buttons, differ between the two versions.
- A Special Edition and Master Edition of the Wii U version are not available.


Tue Jan 17 17 04:58pm
Rating: 1

Double dipping. The Wii U version of BoTW will no doubt be a rare commodity in the future.

Tue Jan 17 17 05:02pm
(Updated 2 times)

They will both be found, I doubt the WiiU version will be rare but who knows. Also edited comment because I saw it said IGN.

That's the thing, you never know with Nintendo these days. The Wii U version won't be hanging around for too long on shelves.

The same thing was said about gamecube TP. It got so rare that it's on ebay for more than what it was priced.

I thought the same thing. It could be, but perhaps no more than Twilight Princess is for the Cube.

Nin already confirmed 1080p so why are sites still saying 900p?

Source? I want to believe it.

There was a report that listed 1080p but that was a mistake by IGN. It is 900p (DF confirmed this as well)

Ah ok. Well lets hope Nin starts later this year to sell upgraded docks to increase the look of the games.

Tue Jan 17 17 05:45pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

The dock already maxes out the switch's performance. We need to wait for the New Nintendo Switch XL for it to have better chips and graphics.

I think Nin is just going to release upgraded docks because the system is already the right size as we can see. Plus upgraded docks will be below the $300 price point making fans that want to upgrade much faster.

Pretty unlikely IMO. Like I said, an upgraded dock won't make the Switch go any faster than it already is unless those docks have processors on their own and the switch's current chipset supports something like sli or crossfire.

Well whats inside the system is a custom chips which can be over clock & upgrading the dock can help. Nin already has a patent that shows a dock like unit hooked up to the Switch. As of now Nin ain't talking about upgrades as we know it because they are trying to sell as much Switch units as they can before they bring in the any kind of new upgrades seen on the patent.

Tue Jan 17 17 08:11pm
(Updated 1 time)

A new dock won't help with overclocking of all things. Overclocking is making the current hardware run at a higher clock speed, which is not something that involves new hardware

EDIT: Now, SLI or CrossFire on the other hand, like ShadowBuster said...

No matter what Nin will not release a Switch XL because that would kill off any chance of fans buying a new one as the price of it is already high enough. The Switch is not their 3ds line up where they release mid upgrades every so often. So the Switch is going to stay the way on how it looks until they release a new gen console after its 5 year market stay. We'll just have to wait until Nin releases that unit to see what it brings to the table.

Okay. But that seems outside of the scope of my argument, so I'm not sure why you're telling me that. I'm just saying that a new dock won't help with overclocking.

Check out the link on spwan wave. He even talks about it & on SMD64 even he goes into very deep detail about the patent about server dock upgrade.

I could not be more uninterested in rumors

So a patent that Nin has that clearly shows what it does is a rumor ok.

The 5th word in the article immediately calls it a rumor, dude...

When Nin releases their supplementa comml devices its going to be huge. Not only will it increase the speed or quality of the players experience but it will also be a huge game changer. I'll be there to buy the beast when its ready & its a good thing they patent the ideas they have for it because what they are doing is unheard of. There are other cloud gaming but this thing is beyond that & its in its own world that no one has done ever.

So in response to comments made on another post in relation to a "difinitive version", just based on sound quality alone, the Switch version is the definitive version it seems...not to mention resolution when docked.

The physical copy of the Wii U version will require 3GB of available memory on the Wii U system or an external drive.

I remember before Wii U came out, Nintendo executives said the Wii U disc read speed was so high, you wouldn't need to install things!

The Nintendo Switch version has higher-quality environmental sounds. As a result, the sound of steps, water, grass, etc. are more realistic and enhance the game’s Open-Air feel.

I remember before Wii U came out, Nintendo executives said Wii U uses only uncompressed linear PCM so you can enjoy the best sound quality possible!

Guess who doesn't believe a word Nintendo executives say anymore? If one of them said the sky was blue, I'd still feel compelled to check.

Tue Jan 17 17 06:14pm
(Updated 1 time)

Why are you bringing up these two points only now? I though they were debunked with the Xenoblade Chronicles X demands of asset DLC packs for smoother loading and stuff

fred duck
Tue Jan 17 17 06:44pm
(Updated 1 time)

Only now? I've mentioned them before. However, now was a perfect time to bring them back up because someone is busily overhyping a new system in a fashion eerily reminiscent of the last time they tried to busily overhype a new system. (I'm not naming any names here.)

There's also a difference between requiring you to copy data off the disc and having the option to download data off of a remote server that will not be available in future. A mandatory install reeks of poor/minimal optimization and/or not targeting current hardware.

edit: subject-verb agreement. Sorry. I'm eating cake.

Tue Jan 17 17 06:46pm
(Updated 1 time)

Thanks for the full image! I just asked due to me only knowing the skinny about the Xenoblade situation.

Like with all things technology, it improves so what was true five or six years ago is no longer true today.

Funny, I don't remember them saying "installs wouldn't be required for a few years." They said the drive was so much faster than the ps3/xb2's that you wouldn't need to worry about doing it.

Also, what on earth are you talking about? The main benefit of consoles is that the standard hardware is standardized for the length of the console's life. So, barring peripherals or a mid-cycle update, what's true about hardware specs should ALWAYS be true. If that wasn't the main selling point, we'd all be PC gamers.

Tue Jan 17 17 07:07pm
(Updated 1 time)

I was actually referring to your quip about the sound. Why wouldn't the Switch have better sound than the Wii U? Srsly...

This isn't the 16-bit days where systems competed on how many simultaneous voices they could produce.

Nowadays, the sky is basically the limit, so you can have as many concurrent sounds as you want and if you're dealing with linear PCM playback, that's as good as that's going to be. The only real difference would be in how compressed the original sample was, and if it's disc vs cart, surely the disc would have enough space to match the cart.

I wonder now if Nintendo didn't cheap out this time. I hope they licensed something because my $300 receiver can do surround sound from every console from the last two gens EXCEPT Wii U because it doesn't do LPCM over HDMI. New receivers don't have nearly as many ports as mine does, so I don't want to get a worse receiver or spend way way more.

Maybe this refers not to sound from a digital data point of view, but from a hardware point of view. In other words, the speakers.
...Actually, does the Switch itself even have speakers? I haven't seen them, actually, but I can't imagine it not having speakers because off-TV multiplayer is heavily advertised

Yes and I'm sure the people back in the vinyl days sang a similar tune. Matter of fact I know they did...

Actually, there are plenty of audiophiles today who still prefer vinyl because of the warm sound it creates or something

Not to get your hopes up since my receiver may be newer but I was completely surprised by a tip online that someone found. By purposely setting your Wii U sound settings to stereo my receiver then shows all the typical Dolby surround sound options. This apparently works due to the fact that most stereo audio has surround sound coded within it. Mind you, this trick was specifically for Xenoblade Chronicles X which shockingly only offered stereo but this change allows full surround sound for XCX. I also only do this for that game seeing as how my receiver does automatically do LPCM surround.

AROD79 said:
This apparently works due to the fact that most stereo audio has surround sound coded within it.

Not true. Any DPLII receiver will happily fake surround from any stereo source.

However, unless the source material is actually encoded in DPLII, you're not going to get real directional sound because sound effects are simply played on top of the music and the receiver has no idea where in the soundfield they should be. Many Wii game cases actually have DPLII logos on them and the system itself supported DPLII from the menu.

I doubt most people at first blush would be able to tell the difference between matrixed sound and the discrete channels of Dolby Digital 5.1, which is one reason so many people turned to the DPLII fakery for XBCX. To me, however, that's like telling your TV to stretch a 4:3 TV show picture so it fills the whole widescreen image area of TVs these days. They're just being snobs, but not for accuracy...for "using hardware." I suppose these people would also force a monaural recording to play out of every speaker instead of only the centre channel just because.

In Japan, WS TVs have been common for a long time but surround sound is a comparative rarity, likely due to space limitations. That's why even today, a lot of anime has only a stereo Japanese mix, while the horrible English track is in 5.1.

Nintendo cheaped out by not licensing any codecs for Wii U and apparently went with a crappy sound chip that wouldn't be able to handle anything even if they wanted to license them at a later date. So, their $1 savings would cost me surround sound.

Then, of course, there are the weird issues Nintendo has with sound, like filling surround channels with silence in NSMBU. Baffling, baffling.

Interestingly, I've done research on this in the past and I do understand it in theory, but I haven't really been able to tell much difference between regular stereo, DPL2 and 5.1 by just listening to it. I said something similar somewhere else, but I don't know if I should be happy or sad I can't tell the difference

Well, unless the game is hitting you over the head with it, you shouldn't really notice the rear channels. It's the same with movies. I remember watching one that had a dragon circling overhead as he spoke, just so they could show off their positional sound.

If you're playing something like an FPS or Musou game were there can be enemies attacking from behind, you'll probably notice it. They might have ambient noises or mix the music for 5.1 but that's not really a make-or-break thing unless you have no imagination. :P The problem is that if you do like the kinds of games where surround is helpful, Nintendo not licensing Dolby codecs for Wii U apparently made a bunch of games have audio problems that they don't on other platforms.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it still didn't sound quite right on XBX. It's absurd for Nintendo to be that cheap with Wii U especially considering the amount saved for such a sacrifice.

Anyone know if Switch has real surround?

fred duck
Wed Jan 18 17 02:43pm
(Updated 2 times)

It's the same reason Nintendo didn't license DVD playback for Wii even though the hardware is perfectly capable of handling them. Money.

The problem I see with Switch is that as of right now, it looks like a psp/vita in that on paper, it looks more like a portable you can plug into a TV. However, it's being marketed as a home console you can use if your parents want to use the telly. This means that a lot of people are expecting home console (ps4/xb3)-level specs but they're worse and it's more expensive than a ps4 or xb3, to boot! Trying to serve both handheld and console markets with one platform saddles the thing with the problems of both. Instead of dedicating all engineering and manufacturing costs towards power OR portability, they have to compromise on both.

If you treat it as a portable, you'll be irked not to have things like StreetPass or a decent battery life. Then, since the JoyCon come off it's a bit less sturdy. At least you can put your expensive system in front of you where hopefully thieves won't snatch it.

If you treat it as a regular console, you'll be irked that a lot of the money you spent was blown on a screen you'll never use. This was a major problem with Wii U because for instance, the revolutionary Wii U GamePad did very little for most games other than act as an inventory/map or TV off-screen. However, it's ~$100 to replace if it breaks and certain games (especially Ubisoft ones like Rayman Legends or Your Shape Fitness Evolved 2013) refuse to run without a revolutionary Wii U GamePad. They also put NFC chips in them, which NO ONE asked for. Since they had them they figured they might as well use them and came out with stupid plastic figures that contaminated most of their big titles in some way...and this didn't improve games the slightest but someone figured that would make them more money than spending money on a slightly better sound chip.

That's what disturbs me the most about Nintendo recently. They used to be legendary with customer support and offering good values for hardware and software. Now, it's all about money to a rather psychotic degree. Sad

Don't get me wrong. When handled properly, LPCM is "real surround." It's all uncompressed channels, which is too much data to carry over an optical cable. This is why Dolby (lossy-compressed) formats exist. Audiophiles will say that LPCM is therefore the best, which is true, however unless you have golden ears, a super high-end sound system, and A-B testing, you will never notice. It's just a body part measuring contest. You know how most people game? Headphones or built-in speakers, neither of which have the kind of hardware you'd need to be able to tell apart lossy and lossless sounds! Not to mention you don't know what sound libraries the devs used in the first place.

HOWEVER, what irks me most about the two examples I originally cited are that Nintendo takes design limitations and pretends that they're for the benefit of the customers. They also said they went with resistive touch screens instead of capacitive to "minimize input lag." Oh, right, not because it was way cheaper.

Edit: I forgot to mention one thing. Everyone's focusing on Switch using carts instead of discs, which was kind of a given since it's a portable, unless they wanted to sink money into licensing a weird small disc or developing their own. However, with Wii U and 3DS, we've seen Nintendo DOES NOT want us to even have our save data. With disc-based systems starting from the Turbo CD, SegaCD on, you can copy your save files to some kind of backup device and move them to another system if something happens to your original system. With Wii U, those saves are LOCKED to that exact system and that format of the system, so if your system gets wiped, you can't even restore from a backup.

I'll bet you right now that Switch games will save to their carts and not allow you to copy that data unless you switch to the digital rental, as is done with 3DS games today. There are a few rare exceptions, but there's NO technical reason why you can't choose whether to save to cart or the SD card for every game. It's done for lock-in. The bottom line is money. :\

The physical version requires 3GB of memory?

For quicker loading, apparently.

It's common in modern games. It's so the game can run better because it's faster to run directly off a hard drive, than to run off a disc.

900p is bad enough, but 30fps is terrible. Even though people will buy it anyway, this doesn't exactly look like the best way to show off a powerful new system.

I can honestly remember similar numbers from launch titles for the competitor's systems. Though I'll also admit I'm not too knowledgeable on this

That sounds accurate, but those are for consoles that were released over three years ago. 1080p/60fps (or at least one of those) should be the standard by now.

It would be nice if that were the case, but it's not a requirement. If I recall correctly, The Last Guardian released with a 30 FPS framerate? And I don't think people really complained about that either. (Now, the game's controls and UI popups, that's a whole other matter.)

The two games are actually pretty comparable in that regard. They're both doing experimental things that push the hardware and it means that the framerate is capped at 30 FPS. People are willing to make that sacrifice if it's justified, like it seems to be for Zelda: BotW

MK8DX does run at 1080p/60fps, so it's not like the Switch can't handle it. It just depends on the direction of the game. Will it aim for that 1080p/60fps, or will it try to push the hardware to achieve other things?

I suppose it's not a requirement; it's just surprising to me that this game that's been hyped for so long wouldn't meet this standard. It's not like it's a new boundary for Nintendo to pass, either; Smash 4 had 1080/60 on a Wii U. Hopefully you're right and this is due to the game as a whole being more technologically demanding than we know.

Pretty sure there was never a 3D Zelda higher than 30fps. Could be wrong though.

I'm really annoyed the Wii U version won't be getting a special edition. Honestly, its a slap in the face to Wii U owners. Those who bought it at launch and still bought Nintendo games for it, but for fans like me, knew Zelda would be there and couldn't wait for it. Zelda is the one series where I don't mind going overboard and buying their special editions. It's worth it to me.

I also don't have the money right now to spend on the special edition PLUS the Switch itself (broke college kid)

To be fair...the person who would buy a 'collectors edition' of Zelda is likely a person who would also be buying a new Nintendo console.

They're celebrating here...is it really a big deal?

I just find it really wrong to build BOTW on Wii U, say it's going to be on the Wii U, delay it and still say it's coming to Wii U, only for it to arrive on Switch with the "collector's edition" and give absolutely nothing to the Wii U owners who wanted it for Wii U, not Switch.

And besides, Nintendo hasn't sold me on the Switch just yet. I'm waiting a year to make sure 3rd party support is stable and quality. I'm not buying the system for just one game when I have no idea of it's future when I can still buy the same game on a system I already own.

And this is why NA and EU should offer the same thing the Japanese My Nintendo shop does: The collector's edition without the game, for the people who either already bought the game, will buy the game digitally, or will get the game for the Wii U

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!