Nintendo's backward compatibility Problem... | MVG

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
9,574
Interesting

"With recent next generation Nintendo hardware news last week - It's assumed that Nintendo will provide Switch backward compatibility for their next generation hardware. However, there are some technical hurdles that must be overcome. In this episode we discuss the concerns with backward compatibility and why I have some doubts that Nintendo will bring the entire Switch library to new hardware"

Source:

 
I will be shocked if this is the case.

The more likely scenario is that the next gen switch will be underpowered so that it can be on a similar enough architecture to remain backwards compatible.
 
Nintendo cares not for backwards compatible. They don't even do a good job milking people with their e-store.
 
Nintendo does have a history of backwards compatibility on their first year or so of sales on the new generation until they give it a hardware revision.
Gameboy and Gameboy Advance, GBA and DS, Wii and GC, WiiU and Wii, I am sure Nintendo is going to put a slot on there for Switch and the "Switch 2", which will get removed on the first hardware revision after a year or two. There would be a history for that.
As for the chip thanks to that Nvidia hack we know they had the T239 in development which was a modified version of the T234. The modification kept the A78AE cores but ditched the high-efficiency cores ( same modification made for the switches T210 chip), but between process and architecture differences is roughly a 10x performance increase per watt which we can assume they will keep the same, and the A57 is fully compatible with the A78AE so there wouldn't be much of an issue there unless the OS forbids it but that would be a Nintendo decission.
 
Lakados said:
Nintendo does have a history of backwards compatibility on their first year or so of sales on the new generation until they give it a hardware revision.
Gameboy and Gameboy Advance, GBA and DS, Wii and GC, WiiU and Wii, I am sure Nintendo is going to put a slot on there for Switch and the "Switch 2", which will get removed on the first hardware revision after a year or two. There would be a history for that.
As for the chip thanks to that Nvidia hack we know they had the T239 in development which was a modified version of the T234. The modification kept the A78AE cores but ditched the high-efficiency cores ( same modification made for the switches T210 chip), but between process and architecture differences is roughly a 10x performance increase per watt which we can assume they will keep the same, and the A57 is fully compatible with the A78AE so there wouldn't be much of an issue there unless the OS forbids it but that would be a Nintendo decission.
Click to expand...
I wonder what's better for business: tempting Nintendo fans with backwards compatibility so they invest in the new hardware, or denying backwards compatibility and reselling it to them because customers will bend the knee anyways?
 
erek said:
what do they care about?
Click to expand...
Trying out new gimmicks.

Seriously, Nintendo has ALWAYS been a gimmick company, sometimes it has worked, sometimes it has failed. The Switch is an example of a gimmick that worked: A portable game system you can dock and make a TV game system. The Wii U is an example of a gimmick that failed: A tablet in your controller. But this goes all the way back to the OG NES and its light gun, robot, power glove, and so on. They just love trying out new gimmicks and do so each generation.

While the smart money would be to make a Switch 2 that is just a next gen, more powerful, better, handheld I could totally see them not doing that and instead doing something radically different just because that is how Nintendo do.

They also don't plan well for this shit, as is indicated by this video. Smart design these days is to abstract your hardware from your software, even on an embedded device. This means if you want to, or have to, change the hardware later you can and it isn't a big deal. It also easily allows for things like backwards compatibility. It isn't hard to do with a modern embedded OS either. However, Nintendo didn't, and you have binaries tied to this specific chip as a result.

Lakados said:
unless the OS forbids it but that would be a Nintendo decission.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of the OS forbidding it, but rather them using DOS-era coding practices as the video talked about. So basically each game binary is statically linked in with the graphics drivers, and as such compiled for the specific graphics chip. It's not compatible with a new chip, even if fairly similar in the same way an old GPU driver won't work on a new GPU. This is similar to how DOS games did it back in the SVGA days before VESA. There was no abstraction layer so you had to code the game to any graphics chips you wanted to support. A new chip wouldn't work with the game unless it got redone to support it.
 
t1337duder said:
I wonder what's better for business: tempting Nintendo fans with backwards compatibility so they invest in the new hardware, or denying backwards compatibility and reselling it to them because customers will bend the knee anyways?
Click to expand...
Backward compatibility, the launch library would be far too small and having backward compatibility until the library is larger is a big selling point.
 
Sycraft said:
It's not a matter of the OS forbidding it, but rather them using DOS-era coding practices as the video talked about. So basically each game binary is statically linked in with the graphics drivers, and as such compiled for the specific graphics chip. It's not compatible with a new chip, even if fairly similar in the same way an old GPU driver won't work on a new GPU. This is similar to how DOS games did it back in the SVGA days before VESA. There was no abstraction layer so you had to code the game to any graphics chips you wanted to support. A new chip wouldn't work with the game unless it got redone to support it.
Click to expand...
They would be moving from Maxwell to Ampere they are similar enough that it won't be as big an issue as this guy thinks. The dev system for the switch is also a lot more modern than he gives credit for, I mean most of their games are developed in Unity.
 
You know what could keep old Switch games compatible with the new Switch?

Yuzu-Switch.jpg
 
vegeta535 said:
Nintendo cares not for backwards compatible. They don't even do a good job milking people with their e-store.
Click to expand...
Spot on. The only time there will not be, or with a nonexistent technological reason, they would not have backwards comparability is it THEY CHOOSE IT! It is ARM with straight up or go emulation. We can all go emu so I am sure Nintendo can too.






Ya?
 
Lakados said:
They would be moving from Maxwell to Ampere they are similar enough that it won't be as big an issue as this guy thinks. The dev system for the switch is also a lot more modern than he gives credit for, I mean most of their games are developed in Unity.
Click to expand...
The modernity of the platform is irrelevant. Even if a simple recompile is all that is going to be required for compatibility, it still would depend on effort and goodwill from the developers and publishers whether a game would get compatibility. Which is not a good thing from the end user's perspective.
 
erek said:
Emulation blows compared to native
Click to expand...

3rd party emulation, perhaps as they have to basically reverse engineer the whole bloody hardware with no documentation. Nintendo should have much less problems with it as this is their hardware we are talking about.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Selling new hardware and new games as well as selling software licenses to third parties to make games on their platforms.
Click to expand...
Not to mention reselling games from previous generations. I understand there was no way for them to make disc versions of Wii U games to the Switch, but even people who paid for Wii U games digitally were screwed. Nintendo could have at least done some sort of a program where your Wii U digital titles entitle you to a Switch version or something.

In this respect I applaud Microsoft and Sony for at least putting in money and resources into backwards compatibility.
 
Lakados said:
They would be moving from Maxwell to Ampere they are similar enough that it won't be as big an issue as this guy thinks. The dev system for the switch is also a lot more modern than he gives credit for, I mean most of their games are developed in Unity.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, it matters how the code is built. If the code is built such that it is highly architecture specific, it won't run on the new system. Try to make a maxwell only nVidia driver work for an ampere chip, it won't happen. The games would have to be ported. Could the be? Of course, but it would require a rebuild, presuming the binaries are actually how he says they are which I can believe because:

1) That is right up Nintendo's alley they may make good games but their system side of things has always been more iffy.

2) This dude knows more than most, he coded emulators back in the day. No it doesn't mean he knows everything, but he's got the skill set to analyze their shit.


We'll see what happens, of course, but with Nintendo I wouldn't make any bets.
 
erek said:
Emulation blows compared to native
Click to expand...
Honestly, except for 20+ year old console based systems, I find emulation to usually be superior to the native hardware because you can do stuff like increase the arbitrary resolution, decrease load times, and fix a lot of the bottlenecks that were inherent in really old hardware. PS5 and Xbox Series X 4k emulation of older titles is absolutely superior to running it on the old systems. Same with doing stuff like Dolphin, PCSX2, Citra, Yuzu, etc. on PC.

I'm pretty sure that Switch 2 or whatever will be able to emulate whatever small parts of a Yuzu equivalent it will need to emulate in order to run games faster than the base switch can. The switch is a common enough architecture that uses modern enough standards that there, frankly, isn't any reason for new hardware to not support all of its stuff anyway.
 
Sycraft said:
Trying out new gimmicks.

Seriously, Nintendo has ALWAYS been a gimmick company, sometimes it has worked, sometimes it has failed. The Switch is an example of a gimmick that worked: A portable game system you can dock and make a TV game system. The Wii U is an example of a gimmick that failed: A tablet in your controller. But this goes all the way back to the OG NES and its light gun, robot, power glove, and so on. They just love trying out new gimmicks and do so each generation.

While the smart money would be to make a Switch 2 that is just a next gen, more powerful, better, handheld I could totally see them not doing that and instead doing something radically different just because that is how Nintendo do.

They also don't plan well for this shit, as is indicated by this video. Smart design these days is to abstract your hardware from your software, even on an embedded device. This means if you want to, or have to, change the hardware later you can and it isn't a big deal. It also easily allows for things like backwards compatibility. It isn't hard to do with a modern embedded OS either. However, Nintendo didn't, and you have binaries tied to this specific chip as a result.


It's not a matter of the OS forbidding it, but rather them using DOS-era coding practices as the video talked about. So basically each game binary is statically linked in with the graphics drivers, and as such compiled for the specific graphics chip. It's not compatible with a new chip, even if fairly similar in the same way an old GPU driver won't work on a new GPU. This is similar to how DOS games did it back in the SVGA days before VESA. There was no abstraction layer so you had to code the game to any graphics chips you wanted to support. A new chip wouldn't work with the game unless it got redone to support it.
Click to expand...
Nintendo must have done something right being over 100 years old
 
erek said:
Emulation blows compared to native
Click to expand...
This isn't a new argument, but most people who think they're playing games on native are actually on a emulator. Nitnendo, Microsoft, and Sony have all done emulation and not with always great results. Anyone who makes this argument doesn't have anything to point at.



There's also those cases where it just runs better on a emulator.


TheSlySyl said:
I'm pretty sure that Switch 2 or whatever will be able to emulate whatever small parts of a Yuzu equivalent it will need to emulate in order to run games faster than the base switch can. The switch is a common enough architecture that uses modern enough standards that there, frankly, isn't any reason for new hardware to not support all of its stuff anyway.
Click to expand...
If the new Nvidia hardware still runs ARM, which it should, then the only concern is the GPU, which is really easy to emulate. Nintendo has total control over the OS, so therefore they can implement a sort of wrapper that will allow older Switch games to work on the Switch 2. If Switch games aren't compatible with the Switch 2, then that's by design. Considering how the industry loves to re-release games to get people to buy the same game over and over, it's not hard to see why Nintendo isn't incentivized to work on backwards compatibility.
 
erek said:
what do they care about?
Click to expand...
Creating ewaste I suppose the next gen will have Graphics on Par with the PS5. I'm actually interested in the New Zelda game but don't own a Switch the OLED switches sell out pretty quick saw like 3 of them instock sold out in a day. I think the should bring back the Nintendo Wii the most successful Nintendo console since the Nintendo Wii and Switch are sedatary.
 
Last edited:
DukenukemX said:
This isn't a new argument, but most people who think they're playing games on native are actually on a emulator. Nitnendo, Microsoft, and Sony have all done emulation and not with always great results. Anyone who makes this argument doesn't have anything to point at.



There's also those cases where it just runs better on a emulator.



If the new Nvidia hardware still runs ARM, which it should, then the only concern is the GPU, which is really easy to emulate. Nintendo has total control over the OS, so therefore they can implement a sort of wrapper that will allow older Switch games to work on the Switch 2. If Switch games aren't compatible with the Switch 2, then that's by design. Considering how the industry loves to re-release games to get people to buy the same game over and over, it's not hard to see why Nintendo isn't incentivized to work on backwards compatibility.
Click to expand...

is it an emulator if it's an actual Nintendo Entertainment System? are we being deceived somehow and not realizing it?

idk, i can easily tell the difference between the original console and modern interpretations of hw/sw combinations

the way it goes about rendering and just the general feel of that isn't close. i do understand the benefits of higher resolutions and other features.. but still doesn't replace the true native rendering hardware

there was a project on github that was going for pure accuracy and even modern hardware was struggling to run it

"Transistor level NES-001 simulation."

MetalNES Is The Ultimate NES Emulator But Your PC Isn't Fast Enough To Run It https://hothardware.com/news/metalnes-ultimate-nes-emu-your-pc-isnt-fast-enough
 
Actually the Switch just surpassed the Nintendo Wii for sales I wonder what 100 million Nintendo's would look like stacked in a Football Stadium.
 
MaZa said:
3rd party emulation, perhaps as they have to basically reverse engineer the whole bloody hardware with no documentation. Nintendo should have much less problems with it as this is their hardware we are talking about.
Click to expand...
Except if you are Sony and the disgraceful PS1mini.
 
Red Falcon said:
For a purist experience, agreed.
For casuals and/or those on a budget, you do what you gotta do.
Click to expand...
Also depends on what you want. Emulation can improve over the original device, perhaps in ways that you like. For example BTOW has crap frame rates, it can't hold a sold 30, much less 60, on the switch. On emulators you can have it silky smooth given enough power. Or with old school systems like the SNES or Genesis, they didn't have the cleanest audio outputs in the world by modern standards.
 
erek said:
is it an emulator if it's an actual Nintendo Entertainment System? are we being deceived somehow and not realizing it?

idk, i can easily tell the difference between the original console and modern interpretations of hw/sw combinations

the way it goes about rendering and just the general feel of that isn't close. i do understand the benefits of higher resolutions and other features.. but still doesn't replace the true native rendering hardware

there was a project on github that was going for pure accuracy and even modern hardware was struggling to run it

"Transistor level NES-001 simulation."

MetalNES Is The Ultimate NES Emulator But Your PC Isn't Fast Enough To Run It https://hothardware.com/news/metalnes-ultimate-nes-emu-your-pc-isnt-fast-enough
Click to expand...
Most modern NES emulators are already clock-cycle and pixel accurate. There isn't much you can improve upon with that level of accuracy. Going down to the transistor level is just for bragging rights.
 
Emulating oldschool consoles and more modern hardware are entirely different beasts. Old-school consoles like the NES are weird, one-off compute platforms that sometimes had unique chips on a per game basis.

Once games started coming on discs, unless you were Sony and just trying to be weird for the sake of being weird with the PS2/PS3*, pretty much all consoles started using off-the-shelf parts and standards. Trying to emulate a Switch doesn't require the same level of precision as trying to emulate a SNES and that one game that uses a unique audio chip.

Hell, I'm sure a huge portion of Switch games already have a translation layer involved, which is how it gets so many shitty unity ports.

*These can be emulated superior to the original console already. Just the Emotion Engine and Cell processors were weird architecture.
 
Last edited:
erek said:
is it an emulator if it's an actual Nintendo Entertainment System? are we being deceived somehow and not realizing it?
Click to expand...
The NES classic is just an emulation machine. All the classic NES, SNES, N64 games are running on emulators on the Switch.
Nintendo-NES-Classic-Edition-Entertainment-System-Console.jpg

idk, i can easily tell the difference between the original console and modern interpretations of hw/sw combinations
Click to expand...
I'm sure anyone can, but is it because it looks worse on original hardware or because of some magically experience that you can only feel?
the way it goes about rendering and just the general feel of that isn't close. i do understand the benefits of higher resolutions and other features.. but still doesn't replace the true native rendering hardware
Click to expand...
Again, you say this but what evidence do you have besides feels?
there was a project on github that was going for pure accuracy and even modern hardware was struggling to run it

"Transistor level NES-001 simulation."

MetalNES Is The Ultimate NES Emulator But Your PC Isn't Fast Enough To Run It https://hothardware.com/news/metalnes-ultimate-nes-emu-your-pc-isnt-fast-enough
Click to expand...
If it's emulating the transistors then that would explain why it's really slow. Also the end result won't change, just the frames per second. This argument breaks down quickly when you discuss 3D rendering as newer hardware is just fantastically better at it.
 
DukenukemX said:
The NES classic is just an emulation machine. All the classic NES, SNES, N64 games are running on emulators on the Switch.
Nintendo-NES-Classic-Edition-Entertainment-System-Console.jpg


I'm sure anyone can, but is it because it looks worse on original hardware or because of some magically experience that you can only feel?

Again, you say this but what evidence do you have besides feels?

If it's emulating the transistors then that would explain why it's really slow. Also the end result won't change, just the frames per second. This argument breaks down quickly when you discuss 3D rendering as newer hardware is just fantastically better at it.
Click to expand...
It’s about the real world nostalgia feel and not just apparent image quality improvements


I won an nes classic back in the day during a hackathon and the difference is so dramatic for me compared to my original childhood nes that I still have and for the wrong reasons it has this different feeling on the rendering

Also for competition it’s no good, just look at the billy Mitchell saga
 
TheSlySyl said:
Emulating oldschool consoles and more modern hardware are entirely different beasts. Old-school consoles like the NES are weird, one-off compute platforms that sometimes had unique chips on a per game basis.

Once games started coming on discs, unless you were Sony and just trying to be weird for the sake of being weird with the PS2/PS3*, pretty much all consoles started using off-the-shelf parts and standards. Trying to emulate a Switch doesn't require the same level of precision as trying to emulate a SNES and that one game that uses a unique audio chip.

Hell, I'm sure a huge portion of Switch games already have a translation layer involved, which is how it gets so many shitty unity ports.

*These can be emulated superior to the original console already. Just the Emotion Engine and Cell processors were weird architecture.
Click to expand...
Technically the NES was using OTS parts, they were just slightly modified for various reasons.
erek said:
It’s about the real world nostalgia feel and not just apparent image quality improvements


I won an nes classic back in the day during a hackathon and the difference is so dramatic for me compared to my original childhood nes that I still have and for the wrong reasons it has this different feeling on the rendering

Also for competition it’s no good, just look at the billy Mitchell saga
Click to expand...
The NES Classic Mini is an official console release. The speedrunning community is all about official releases, but for some reason there are some leaderboards that don't accept emulated runs despite hobbyist emulators being far more accurate than the NES Classic.
 
Armenius said:
Technically the NES was using OTS parts, they were just slightly modified for various reasons.

The NES Classic Mini is an official console release. The speedrunning community is all about official releases, but for some reason there are some leaderboards that don't accept emulated runs despite hobbyist emulators being far more accurate than the NES Classic.
Click to expand...
Because games run at different speeds I believe. They would require separate categories which they normally do. Original hardware runs are just more popular.
 
It's a combination of gatekeeping, emulation accuracy and the ability to very easily cheat with emulation.
 
Sycraft said:
Doesn't matter, it matters how the code is built. If the code is built such that it is highly architecture specific, it won't run on the new system. Try to make a maxwell only nVidia driver work for an ampere chip, it won't happen. The games would have to be ported. Could the be? Of course, but it would require a rebuild, presuming the binaries are actually how he says they are which I can believe because:

1) That is right up Nintendo's alley they may make good games but their system side of things has always been more iffy.

2) This dude knows more than most, he coded emulators back in the day. No it doesn't mean he knows everything, but he's got the skill set to analyze their shit.


We'll see what happens, of course, but with Nintendo I wouldn't make any bets.
Click to expand...
The switch uses the stock Unity developer's environment. It’s not complicated I have high schoolers that do it.
The Switch is widely known as the most accessible Nintendo console to program for and the easiest to self-publish on.
The only reason the switch successor will or won't be backward compatible will be locks done on the hardware's OS side.
Nintendo has also made it the easiest to start developing for: https://developer.nintendo.com/tools, with low buy-in costs for start-up.
Nintendo has been trying to get more 3'rd party buy-in support and has been somewhat vocal on its support of independent publishers, if they were to undo all of that, especially for the eStore a lot of them would be pretty salty and it would undo a lot of the work they have done over the past 5 years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top