Login

RUMOR: Wall Street Journal claims two Switch redesigns are on the way, and could launch Summer 2019

This rumor just got a lot more interesting

The Wall Street Journal has up a new feature on the long-rumored redesign for the Switch, but they've added in some new details that haven't been shared anywhere else. Their information comes from 'people familiar with the matter,' as well 'as 'parts suppliers and software developers who have access to a prototype,' so take that as you will.

- Nintendo will launch two new versions of the Switch
- the launch could happen as early as this Summer
- one version will have enhanced features targeted at avid gamers
- this version will still not be as powerful as PS4/XB1
- the other version is a cheaper option for casual gamers
- the new models are likely to be unveiled at the E3, and possibly released a few months later
- these Switch redesigns aren’t just similar-looking new versions with a higher or lower performance
- to cut costs for the cheaper version, Nintendo plans to eliminate some of the functions used in the original Switch console
- cuts could include the vibration feature
- Nintendo believes the new Switch model won’t need the vibration feature because not many games use the full benefit of it
- Sharp Corp. is expected to provide liquid-crystal displays for the new Switch designs
- as always, Nintendo is preparing to release new game titles from well-known franchises

Thanks to KrazyKernal for the heads up!

Categories: Top Stories, Rumors, Consoles
Tags: switch

Comments

Top Rated Comment
t27duck
Mon Mar 25 19 08:05am
Rating: 5

Not being on par with the current gen PS4 or XBOX ONE is disappointing.

It will be interesting to see what happens, since changing the form factor isn't really a valid option without removing the ability to use Joy-Con or dock the system.

Great if true. I was getting a bit worried that the first redesign would just be a cheaper version instead of something better.

This would be a good opportunity to fix some of the first model's issues.
I think this is somehow more important than more powerful hardware, for example. At least for me.

Improved WiFi, please! The chip in there now is a complete joke.

impurekind
Mon Mar 25 19 05:40am
(Updated 1 time)

Three Switch models on the market at once just seems strange. I hope Nintendo really has figured out a way to make this work and not confuse consumers. And, if it's going with three Switch models then now would probably be a good time to drop the 3DS too and just give consumers a single [three version] console to work with.

Still too early imo. People may say “bbut the DS/3DS!”, but this is their mainline console for the generation as well.

The Switch is a handheld and it is an evolution of the Wii U. There absolutely will be new Switch models. They've all their eggs in one basket so to speak, so they can't afford to be complacent and not have Switch revisions ready to roll off the factory line.

The rumoured upgraded Switch that’s still not as powerful as the PS4/XB1 seems a bit pointless to me.

The internet is already having a bit of a fit about the more powerful model, as if Nintendo is going to alienate 32,000,000 Switch owners by ditching the original model for a more powerful one. If they do release a stronger model it'll get middling support, with a handful of exclusives at best or slightly enhanced functionality. This'll be a New 3DS situation.

This is exactly my concern. Everyone acts like they want more power, but at what cost? If the Switch user base is split into two over this, it’s not a net gain for gamers. Much better to improve the screen, battery life, maybe remove the fan if possible, joy-con that don’t drift after 6 months. This sort of thing. Putting a more powerful processor in the thing makes a new console, and with only 2 years on the market, we don’t need the successor to the Switch already.

At least they werent talking about a handheld only with non-detachable joy-cons, because that would just ruin the entire point of the SWITCH. Well if there is any truth in this I agree that the 3DS is out. It's time anyway. Would be neato if we could just purchase the "tablet" and still use our old joy-cons and dock to save some money. A way to transfer data from the old console to the new (and an easy way at that) would also be great.

Curious...

koopaul
Mon Mar 25 19 04:47pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

What if you could still sync other controllers and joycons to that Switch? But the Joycons it comes with aren't detachable. To tell you the truth, any time I play the Switch undocked I never remove the Joycons. And when I play it docked, I just use the Pro controller.

Joycons are terrible little controllers. And their function to be able to become two tiny uncomfortable controllers is just awful.

The idea to bring the system on the go is nice. The idea to play the system at home is nice. But why do the controllers on the system need to detach?

But all that you wrote is all your taste. I love the joy-cons for several games. I need my split joy-cons for Spla2n, BOTW. I can NOT play those games with a pro controller, nor in the grip! I have to have that freedome. I am not alone with this by the way. I also love to play on with split joy-cons with friends when they are over. It's the core of the Switch that you can switch.

And then there are games that can use just one Con. World of goo for examle,,... No... Take all the options away and the Switch is not a Switch anymore.

It's the core of the Switch that you can switch.

I always assumed "Switch" was referring to switching between playing at home or on the go. Which is what most people were excited about and praised the system for. While I do see some people praise the Joycons, the system is mostly praised because you can easily pull the system out of it's dock and bring it with you. That is what I believe the core of the system is.

I am also really surprised you can't play video games with a normal controller. What have you been doing all these years? Also if you can't play Splatoon 2 without Joycons, how were you able to play Splatoon 1?

Honestly I think the system would have been fine without Joycons. I think people would have still loved it because the portability is what people were most enamored by anyway. But yeah, since the system came with them there was obviously going to be games that required them and were built around them like Super Mario Party. But I feel like that game is worse for forcing us to use them. You can't even play SMP in handheld mode because this. In a way, the joycons (or a atleast the motion controls) hurt the portability aspect of the system in my opinion. Mario Odyssey encourages you to play with them so you can perform special moves, but if you tried to perform them in handheld mode you have to shake your Switch around.

But back to my original point, it doesn't even matter if they make a new Switch with non-detachable joycons because I'm sure you'll be able to synchronize detached joycons to that new Switch anyway.

You can switch between handheld, docked AND table top mode. And that last one is important for some good rides with Smash, Street Fighter or Mario KArt. Or any two player arcade-y games really. You get two controllers out of the box. It was also a selling point. So, in your example, we would have to purchase extra Joy-cons for Mario Party etc rather than have them from the get-go. No, just no. It ruins a big aspect of the Switch.

I can play Spla2n with the pro controller but it sucks donkey compared to the freedom I get from playing with the split Joy-cons. Same with BOTW. It's just so much better and even relaxing for me like that. Splatoon had the advantage that I had the map on the Gamapa at all times, which I very much miss from the Switch, but it was sacrificed to ahving those great split Joy-con controllers. SMO is also way better, for me, with split controllers. But, Bayonetta, is just superb with the pro controller. I have all the options and it should stay so for everyone. It's oart of the system.

t27duck
Mon Mar 25 19 08:05am
Rating: 5

Not being on par with the current gen PS4 or XBOX ONE is disappointing.

100% agreed! It should at least be on par with the original Xbox One.

But then again it seems this is more akin to the DS-->DSi or 3DS-->New 3DS. So I want to call it the I-Switch! Smile

But come on! The Xbox One's tech is pretty outdated by now...

The portability of Switch will always have its drawbacks. (i.e. it will never have high end chips that drain battery life even faster)

We all knew that the hybrid nature of the Switch would have it's up and downs, but seriously, the original XO is a bit old now. But then again, this is a rumour.

I’m not disagreeing. Just saying it makes sense, unless they put in a bigger battery, which will make the whole thing thicker. It’d take some wicked engineering. Then again, I think Fortnite runs better on my iPhone than it does on my Switch, and the phone is way smaller.

And Fortnite would run better on an upgraded Switch and all that...

Indeed! One would hope, anyways. A lot of games could use more horsepower for the docked version.

zaakro
Mon Mar 25 19 11:18am
Rating: 1

It actually says Xbox One X and PS4 Pro in the article and not the base models.

I went on to the link, but I am not registering to read news, so... This is fascinating.

Mon Mar 25 19 08:10am
(Updated 1 time)

I don’t understand these concerns that having multiple models would be too confusing for people (not specifically here but I’ve been seeing comments all over about it). By the time these release if they’re real (say November) it’ll be nearly 3 years since the Switch launched. Plenty of time for people to understand the core gimmick of the traditional system. If you don’t know what the Switch is by then I’m not sure you’d ever be interested in it. If you have any interest in game consoles at all you probably already know what the Switch is and what it does.

Having different models, say one without removable controllers that doesn’t come with a dock as standard (no reason why you couldn’t buy one separately down the road) just gives options and as sales inevitably slow down, more options rejuvenates the console. Nintendo have always done this with their handhelds and they have never cared about sticking to what the original vision was for the platform. They always keep that original vision around but have offshoots of it to appeal to different crowds.

Does it affect Apple that they have multiple current versions of the iPhone? Nope. If you want an iPhone you’ll look at the options you have available to you and choose the one that fits you. It doesn’t seem to have impacted Sony by them having the PS4 and Pro. It didn’t seem to have impacted Nintendo when they had 3DS, New 3DS, 2DS, New 2DS and all the XL options they had around at the same time. I don’t think having a couple different variations of the Switch will alienate people either.

I just do NOT understand why people still argue about the non removable joy-cons! Some games need the joy-cons unattached.

And using the iPhone argument is another odd one to me. They upgrade all the time and make their old phones obsolete soon thereafter...And they are not dedicated gaming platforms either.

Mon Mar 25 19 01:37pm
(Updated 2 times)

There were DS games that required the GBA slot (a few from Nintendo themselves) and they got rid of that with the DSi, GameCube games that required GBA connectivity that they locked out of being able to play with on Game Boy micro by changing the link cable connector- to name just a few times Nintendo abandoned previous features for different hardware iterations. Call these lesser issues than removing joy cons but my point is that Nintendo have shown time and time again that they have no problems with changing or removing features that were once heavily marketed to adapt hardware to different audiences. The only games I can think of that require detached joy cons are...1-2 Switch and Mario Party? Fitness Boxing? Not worth holding back the design of a budget friendly console so that it can have 100% compatibility with all games when only a few games require the feature- which again, Nintendo are not strangers to doing. Besides, there’s nothing stopping them from it being able to connect to external controllers and be docked, so those games could still be played but would require more accessories. If you’re interested in that stuff from the get go, maybe plumping for the standard Switch would be better. Such is the beauty of having these supposed options.

My comparison to iPhones is disregarding the regular revisions they get, it was just to highlight that it’s expected from people that there are typically multiple versions of the core device and that isn’t confusing to people in general. But even disregarding that comparison, there’s plenty of examples in the game space anyway. PS4/Pro, Xbox One/S/X. The myriad of Nintendo hardware redesigns. Giving people options, even if they stray from the original message of the core device in question, is no bad thing. I guarantee there are a lot of people who would be interested in owning a cheaper Switch that as standard doesn’t come with a dock or removable joy cons because they just don’t care about those features. As long as Nintendo’s messaging is clear about what makes it different to the traditional Switch, there’s no reason why different versions couldn’t co-exist.

EDIT: Well...somehow Labo slipped my mind. Definitely a big wrench in the idea of unremovable joy cons. I shall eat crow accordingly!

The GBA slot and DS slot were just for backward compatibility . The 3DS going 2DS wasn't a problem for ANY game (even though some lost depth hehe...). But the Switch is the Switch and has to have those detachable joy-cons.

Actually! What I would like is the stronger Switch to have a damn fine 3D screen! And more VR options. But that's me!

iphone vs Switch: I never said that Nintendo will keep the Switch going from now on to forever, but for the moment they will ride the Switch thing/brand and work so. iPhone does NOT work like that.

I honestly don't see the point in releasing a "more powerful" Switch if it can't even match PS4/X1... What's the point? In my opinion, if a company is making a game for X1/PS4, then they aren't going to want to make adjustments for that game 2-3 times for different tiers of the Switch. Maybe if the more powerful one connects with Xbox like those rumors a little bit ago... Where you can play the Xbox games on the Switch (either streaming or something else), then I could see them needing something a little more powerful... But I still think it should be as powerful as X1... Maybe this is an opportunity for Nintendo and Microsoft to announce a joint console since they're so "buddy buddy..." Who knows, but I am curious to see what comes of it. XD I love me some Nintendo!

Mon Mar 25 19 08:36am
(Updated 1 time)

There's been a vibrator in the Switch this whole time!?

Good point. Maybe it'll just include joy-con's that lack vibration? Or the special joy-con's will be permanently attached to the system and lack vibration?

If they’re really going to do a power upgrade, I hope it affects older games. A lot of Switch games, especially ports, have been sub-720p and have framerate issues.

I'd be fine with a boost to all existing games for frame rate and visuals. Otherwise I don't see what else a redesign would do except alienate the games already available on the system.

I don’t think it works this way, at least not on Nintendo’s consoles. Consoles have been upgraded in the past, especially Nintendo’s portables, and it doesn’t affect gameplay for the better on older titles. The game was carefully programmed with a specific chipset and memory restrictions in place. Now, if the game was developed for both chipsets at once, then it could play better on a newer system, but otherwise this is wishful thinking.

They could always patch the games.

I imagine that a revision will happen eventually, just not this year.

The cheaper / more entry-level Switch makes sense. The more powerful one does not.

The more powerful one does not

Care to explain?

cbattles6
Mon Mar 25 19 10:46am
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

    A more powerful Switch would likely require developers to build one or two more "states" into their Switch games (original handheld, original docked, "pro" handheld, "pro" docked). This would increase development costs and barrier to entry for the Switch, and would hit indies hardest, which seems counter-productive for Nintendo.

    Plus they've already learned with the New 3DS that having games and modes that are exclusive to one iteration of your hardware doesn't work. There's just a lot about this that screams "bad idea" to me.

    Some games on Switch are in dire need for more juice though. Yeah, Panic Button did a great job with Doom and Warframe and all, but the extra bit of power would really help those games. Hell! Even BOTW would benefit greatly from it.

    I have no idea why this would affect indies. Seriously.

    For the New 3DS argument, I think it would be more like with the PS4 Pro and XOs/X. All the games still work, but look and perform better on the new Switch thingy. Maybe some devs could make exclusive content if they wished though.

    I basically agree with you and also think it would fracture the userbase somewhat.

    But they could solve some of those issues just by making it so the higher-powered Switch has a 1080p screen and its extra horsepower just makes it so handheld mode runs as well as the original Switch's docked mode.

    But still, I agree with you that this could make development too convoluted.

    Maybe by more powerful they mean better battery, brighter screen, better speakers.

    If two redesigns appear, the original one will be faced out shortly after.

    The cheap model could work as an overall price reduction, offering the same old switch without the dock and perhaps cheaper materials (screen, redesigned joy cons with lame old rumble instead of HD rumble) to slash 100 bucks from the price.

    The high power could retail for the old 300 USD, and as I see it might contain token upgrades to the battery, internal memory, screen brightness, perhaps better designes joy cons (less drift please) and at the very best, some small increase in settings that could produce less framerate dips in some games.

    If Nintendo is going to make a more powerful Switch, it really should be at least as powerful as the original Xbox One. They can't last a whole generation like this with current switch-level power. Else it's gonna be Wii all over again where once the third year rolls around there's zero third party support. The Xbox One is already considered really weak when even compared to the original PS4, much less the One X, so if it can't even match the One while docked that'd be really unfortunate.

    Since when has Wall Street Journal been legit?

    What's the point of a Switch Pro that isn't 4k? Or at least on-par with previous incarnations of the PS4/XONE?

    I'm not doubting new versions of the Switch are coming at some point. That much any fool can predict but i'm very sceptical of media articles when they use words like "might" and "maybe" and then say "sources say" When a journalist uses unnamed "sources" in an article they can basically go on to say whatever the hell they like. Fact or fiction.
    There is nothing in the article that is definite or stated as fact by the author if you read it properly. The devil is in the detail and that WSJ story is as vague and wishy-washy as an article can be.

    Mon Mar 25 19 03:04pm
    (Updated 1 time)

    Here's some new rumors about specs/price points:

    https://youtu.be/anhuc9mAfYQ

    Want to join this discussion?

    You should like, totally log in or sign up!