What does Switch 2 mean for gaming on Apple platforms?

[trusso]

Before they debuted the Xbox, Microsoft tried to buy Nintendo. Nintendo was not interested.

Apple is not the sui generis they once were, but even if they were, Nintendo would not sell to them either.

They are a proud Japanese company, and rightfully so. I say this as someone who lived in Japan for a time: this is something that doesn't fully register with most Americans until you live there.

I fully support Nintendo continuing to tell American (or any) companies to **** right off.

 

[spac3duck]

Cultural/geographic considerations as a constraint is certainly not what I had in mind when thinking about what the Switch 2 means for gaming on Apple platforms. Especially, as someone not biased in either country it seems a red herring to consider. Regardless, going down that pathway would imply it would be good to bring back things such as region locking gameplay to specific countries.

When did Apple even become the sui generis and if they were, can you guarantee when they stopped?

I don't understand all this pessimism about considering the idea if two amazing companies were to combine.

 

[diamond.g]

"Grouchy old man" syndrome

 

[Zest28]

Switch uses NVIDIA GPU's, it's completely different than Apple devices.

Since NVIDIA is the market leader, it's much more easier for game developers to make something work with NVIDIA GPU's, rather than being forced to use Apple their own graphics API, which hardly anyone uses.

 

[kiranmk2]

Interesting discussions in recent days

I think you are absolutely right on all of these points, to which I would add the following:

I'm more likely to be willing to pay more for a game on a different platform because I'm pretty confident that my PC games, my Xbox games or my Playstation games will still function on my hardware in a few years. I never bought a Switch, but I'm considering getting one now, and in 8 years -- assuming a similar longevity -- it will still play Breath of the Wild which will have been out 16 years by then. On the other hand, there's absolutely no guarantee that Apple will not break compatibility at some point and a developer will simply see no more economic incentive to support a particular game.

These days you are taking a risk thinking even a physical game will be playable in 15 years - it looks like nearly all Swtich 2 "physical" games are the key cards that are basically just a physical licence to play the game - if the game is delisted, or the e-shop is dropped, that physical game is just a small paperweight.

The problem is, it isn’t neon CPU instruction optimistion that matters, it’s GPU optimisation and the Apple GPU architecture is completely and utterly different to Nvidia and AMD, with its Tile Based Deferred Rendering architecture.

Yes, sure it can run metal, and via a shim (MoltenVK), it can run Vulkan. It doesn’t mean that it is optimised unless the developer puts the work in to optimise for what is a very niche platform for AAA, as per above @redcarian ) - the cost for competitive hardware vs. a console or PC is exhorbitant.

The closest the ipad, iphone and low end mac really comes (for 90% of mac users in the consumer space) is something similar to switch 2 power really as far as gaming is concerned.

People aren’t buying Ultras to run games (as per above, you’d have to be brain damaged to consider it). People aren’t buying a lot of ultras, period, but those who are, are using them for niche video production/development/llm applications. Not games.

The thing that made me start this thread was two things

1. The Nintendo Switch 2 has horsepower very similar to the M1 (handheld) and M2 (docked) and is based on an ARM instruction set
2. The Switch 2 is going to sell millions (>3 million sold in a week by all accounts), meaning that developers are going to have to support it, even though it is underpowered compared to the XBox/PS5, and if they are putting in the work to get it working on a 2/3 Tflop ARM device (handheld/docked), it shouldn't be that hard to port to Mac

Therefore, is it not possible that even an M1 MacBook or iPad should be able to get Switch 2 handheld quality games (720p-1080p) and the M2 devices get Switch 2 docked quality games (1080p-4k)? I'd hazard a guess that playing on a 13-16" screen (or even 24" iMac screen) would be fine in 1080p. The Pro/Max chips could then offer higher resolutions, higher fps & maybe even RT features.

If studios are still unwilling to port, perhaps Apple can licence out Game Porting Toolkit so developers can just put out their Switch version in a GPT wrapper (in the same way that GOG retrogames come in a DOSbox wrapper). The D3D to Metal translation layers seems to be remarkably efficient. It's actually very sad to see how much joy Valve have had creating a successful product out of similar technologies to get Windows games working on SteamOS while Apple seemed to not do too much with GPT.

I'm more hopeful about this than expectant - Apple seem to have dropped the ball on gaming so many times in the last 10 years, so I'm

Unpopular opinion but I'd personally love to see: Imagine if Apple acquired Nintendo.

When the Switch 1 was announced, I did think Apple should have bought them - the Switch 1 seemed like an iPad with a supplied controller dock and a glorified USB-C to HDMI dock and Apple seemed to be on a gaming push with all that guff at the time of the Apple TV 4th gen launch. At the time Nintendo's share price was in the toilet after the WiiU debacle - who knows, another WiiU-esque failure could have put them in serious trouble. As Nintendo is a public company, I'm not sure what they could have done to stop Apple buying enough shares on the open market to get a some board seats. Perhaps if Apple Silicon was around, this might have gone somewhere. At the time, Apple was still in with Intel - 2015 was the time Apple launched a new product that relied on Intel sticking to their development timelines (the retina MacBook) - when Intel funked the transition to the 10 nm node, it rendered the retina MacBook to the scrap heap.

Now, of course Nintendo's share price is soaring, so any kind of tie-up is pretty unthinkable. Even their experimentation with mobile games seems to have come to an end.

You mean potential increase in userbase? We know that 100% of folks that buy Nintendo hardware will play a Nintendo game. We also know that not 100% of folks that buy Apple hardware would buy a Nintendo game and they have proven that with "sales" of Mario Run and whatever they called the Mario Kart game. Plus no controller pack in means poor controller only game sales (like every add-on in console history, can't rely on your userbase having what isn't included).

1. I'm not sure Apple would give Nintendo the creative freedom to do things like make a Wii U, or even the original Switch.
2. Nintendo has been very stingy about online features in what they consider to be kids toys, so I am not sure why they would care about this that much.
3. for a lot of $$$ to the end user... You think if the Switch 2 had Apple hardware it would be selling for 449 USD?
4. After Virtual Boy I think Nintendo is pretty shy about some of this. Besides TPC could have already come out with a true AR Pokemon if they thought they could make money from it. They don't need Nintendo's permission (per se).
5. Maybe. If a sub to AA also got you access to the Expansion Pack part of NSO that could be useful (assuming you wanted to play emulated Nintendo games).

I guess I am pretty pessimistic about this. I don't see how Apple would buy Nintendo and then leave them to their own devices, nor how that would make for better Nintendo games for the customer. Or even on the hardware front, would Apple make Nintendo upgrade the Switch hardware every (other) year? If not how long would they let them use "old" chips. Would we get into a PC situation where some new Apple Switch games don't run right on "older" hardware because Apple added some new hardware feature in a later chip or made changes to their API's that they didn't backport?

I would like to think that Apple would have given Nintendo free reign to design the concepts of the consoles (and, of course the games) and then helped them with the design and manufacture of the consoles, as well as access to the forthcoming Apple Silicon chips. In terms of caution around content, have people forgetten that Nintendo was the company that removed the blood from Mortal Kombat (or changed the colour palette to make it "sweat")?

 

[throAU]

If studios are still unwilling to port, perhaps Apple can licence out Game Porting Toolkit so developers can just put out their Switch version in a GPT wrapper (in the same way that GOG retrogames come in a DOSbox wrapper). The D3D to Metal translation layers seems to be remarkably efficient. It's actually very sad to see how much joy Valve have had creating a successful product out of similar technologies to get Windows games working on SteamOS while Apple seemed to not do too much with GPT.

GPT is an x86/x64 Windows API emulation layer, and will do nothing for switch titles. Switch does not use D3D, x86 or x64, or the other Windows APIs.

Also as discussed above - the GPU in A or M series is very different to what is available on PC and has more in common with the Sega Dreamcast (PowerVR tile based rendering is the common ancestor in terms of design philosophy) in the way it renders things.

Optimizing for M series is very different to optimising for Nvidia, intel or AMD.

 

[redcarian]

If studios are still unwilling to port, perhaps Apple can licence out Game Porting Toolkit so developers can just put out their Switch version in a GPT wrapper (in the same way that GOG retrogames come in a DOSbox wrapper). The D3D to Metal translation layers seems to be remarkably efficient. It's actually very sad to see how much joy Valve have had creating a successful product out of similar technologies to get Windows games working on SteamOS while Apple seemed to not do too much with GPT.

Apple doesn’t really want you running x86/AMD64 code at all. The mere fact Rosetta isn’t installed by default is a clear signal of intent here.

When the Switch 1 was announced, I did think Apple should have bought them - the Switch 1 seemed like an iPad with a supplied controller dock and a glorified USB-C to HDMI dock

Yes, it was definitely a shonky little thing, with iffy controllers and meh build quality, but it ran Mario Kart.

I would like to think that Apple would have given Nintendo free reign to design the concepts of the consoles

Not if it’s getting an Apple logo on it.

(and, of course the games)

Well, yes. Apple has reliably shipped exactly one game, and we’ve all got it. Chess.app!

and then helped them with the design and manufacture of the consoles, as well as access to the forthcoming Apple Silicon chips.

I doubt whether Apple has any appetite for making a console with a screen and two controllers and a dock, all for £450. I suspect Apple would consider such pricing a direct threat to iPad.

 

[diamond.g]

Interesting discussions in recent days


These days you are taking a risk thinking even a physical game will be playable in 15 years - it looks like nearly all Swtich 2 "physical" games are the key cards that are basically just a physical licence to play the game - if the game is delisted, or the e-shop is dropped, that physical game is just a small paperweight.


The thing that made me start this thread was two things

1. The Nintendo Switch 2 has horsepower very similar to the M1 (handheld) and M2 (docked) and is based on an ARM instruction set
2. The Switch 2 is going to sell millions (>3 million sold in a week by all accounts), meaning that developers are going to have to support it, even though it is underpowered compared to the XBox/PS5, and if they are putting in the work to get it working on a 2/3 Tflop ARM device (handheld/docked), it shouldn't be that hard to port to Mac

Therefore, is it not possible that even an M1 MacBook or iPad should be able to get Switch 2 handheld quality games (720p-1080p) and the M2 devices get Switch 2 docked quality games (1080p-4k)? I'd hazard a guess that playing on a 13-16" screen (or even 24" iMac screen) would be fine in 1080p. The Pro/Max chips could then offer higher resolutions, higher fps & maybe even RT features.

If studios are still unwilling to port, perhaps Apple can licence out Game Porting Toolkit so developers can just put out their Switch version in a GPT wrapper (in the same way that GOG retrogames come in a DOSbox wrapper). The D3D to Metal translation layers seems to be remarkably efficient. It's actually very sad to see how much joy Valve have had creating a successful product out of similar technologies to get Windows games working on SteamOS while Apple seemed to not do too much with GPT.

I'm more hopeful about this than expectant - Apple seem to have dropped the ball on gaming so many times in the last 10 years, so I'm


When the Switch 1 was announced, I did think Apple should have bought them - the Switch 1 seemed like an iPad with a supplied controller dock and a glorified USB-C to HDMI dock and Apple seemed to be on a gaming push with all that guff at the time of the Apple TV 4th gen launch. At the time Nintendo's share price was in the toilet after the WiiU debacle - who knows, another WiiU-esque failure could have put them in serious trouble. As Nintendo is a public company, I'm not sure what they could have done to stop Apple buying enough shares on the open market to get a some board seats. Perhaps if Apple Silicon was around, this might have gone somewhere. At the time, Apple was still in with Intel - 2015 was the time Apple launched a new product that relied on Intel sticking to their development timelines (the retina MacBook) - when Intel funked the transition to the 10 nm node, it rendered the retina MacBook to the scrap heap.

Now, of course Nintendo's share price is soaring, so any kind of tie-up is pretty unthinkable. Even their experimentation with mobile games seems to have come to an end.



I would like to think that Apple would have given Nintendo free reign to design the concepts of the consoles (and, of course the games) and then helped them with the design and manufacture of the consoles, as well as access to the forthcoming Apple Silicon chips. In terms of caution around content, have people forgetten that Nintendo was the company that removed the blood from Mortal Kombat (or changed the colour palette to make it "sweat")?

Haven't forgotten. That Nintendo may want to talk to the newer Nintendo....

 

[MRMSFC]

Haven't forgotten. That Nintendo may want to talk to the newer Nintendo....

View attachment 2520033

Buy do I hope the joy cons are easy to clean…

 

[Cameront9]

Anyone suggesting that Apple buy Nintendo has no idea of Nintendo's company history and culture. They will go out of business before they sell to another company--especially a western company.

I'm not convinced that Apple "has" to do anything in gaming, period. I think they're pretty well where they want to be, and that is iOS gaming is first and everything else is secondary. Maybe the new gaming app has some long-term goals of increasing gaming service revenue, but that's about it. They're never going to be a huge presence in gaming and I think they're fine with that.

 

[spac3duck]

Anyone suggesting that Apple buy Nintendo has no idea of Nintendo's company history and culture. They will go out of business before they sell to another company--especially a western company.

I'm not convinced that Apple "has" to do anything in gaming, period. I think they're pretty well where they want to be, and that is iOS gaming is first and everything else is secondary. Maybe the new gaming app has some long-term goals of increasing gaming service revenue, but that's about it. They're never going to be a huge presence in gaming and I think they're fine with that.

Maybe, although there are always circumstances where longevity of a company outweighs executive pride and philosophy e.g. Sharp, the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, parts of Asahi etc.

As to Apple and gaming, I get where you’re coming from, but I actually think an Apple–Nintendo deal would be a triple win. Apple has been growing its stake in gaming for decades — the App Store alone is a massive gaming cash cow, and mobile gaming revenue rivals consoles. But anyone who’s done serious PC gaming knows there’s still a clear gap between Mac and PC gaming capability. Acquiring Nintendo could close that gap overnight, bring true console-quality gaming across iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Vision Pro, and give Nintendo the resources to innovate even further. Done right, it benefits Apple, Nintendo, and ultimately all of us as users.

 

[redcarian]

As to Apple and gaming, I get where you’re coming from, but I actually think an Apple–Nintendo deal would be a triple win. Apple has been growing its stake in gaming for decades — the App Store alone is a massive gaming cash cow, and mobile gaming revenue rivals consoles.

Most of that is the 30% cut on the microtransactions in F2P games like Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, etc.

Nintendo’s revenue is hardware and sales of full-price games. Mario Kart World for the Switch 2 retails at £70, and you can bet it’ll sell by the boatload.

But anyone who’s done serious PC gaming knows there’s still a clear gap between Mac and PC gaming capability. Acquiring Nintendo could close that gap overnight, bring true console-quality gaming across iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Vision Pro, and give Nintendo the resources to innovate even further. Done right, it benefits Apple, Nintendo, and ultimately all of us as users.

No, I don’t think it would close that gap. Most of the draw of PC gaming is in multiplayer, and Nintendo will never get into things like COD, FIFA, NBA, etc. They’ve never shown even the slightest interest. They’ve got their own properties and platforms over which they exercise total control, and that’s the way they like it.

Look at Nintendo’s entire history: we have always played Nintendo games on a Nintendo system, from Game & Watch to Switch 2, where Nintendo has had total control of literally every pixel the system ever displays.

Nintendo curates the experience to the maximum extent possible. They’re not going to start letting users run Mario Kart World.app on a system where it could run like trash and they have no control over that.

 

[spac3duck]

Most of that is the 30% cut on the microtransactions in F2P games like Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, etc.

Nintendo’s revenue is hardware and sales of full-price games. Mario Kart World for the Switch 2 retails at £70, and you can bet it’ll sell by the boatload.


No, I don’t think it would close that gap. Most of the draw of PC gaming is in multiplayer, and Nintendo will never get into things like COD, FIFA, NBA, etc. They’ve never shown even the slightest interest. They’ve got their own properties and platforms over which they exercise total control, and that’s the way they like it.

Look at Nintendo’s entire history: we have always played Nintendo games on a Nintendo system, from Game & Watch to Switch 2, where Nintendo has had total control of literally every pixel the system ever displays.

Nintendo curates the experience to the maximum extent possible. They’re not going to start letting users run Mario Kart World.app on a system where it could run like trash and they have no control over that.

Historically, you’re spot on — Nintendo has always controlled the full experience end-to-end. But they are shifting: the Switch 2 sets the stage for real AAA parity with PlayStation and Xbox in some areas, especially with confirmed FIFA and COD contracts and stronger online multiplayer support. They’re modernising without losing their unique IP focus.

Yes, they guard their ecosystem fiercely, but they’re clearly more open than before — we already see Mario Kart Tour and Mario Run on iOS. A deeper partnership with Apple could push that even further, blending Nintendo’s classic curation with Apple’s reach and performance. The next phase may look more flexible than the last.

 

[throAU]

Look at Nintendo’s entire history: we have always played Nintendo games on a Nintendo system, from Game & Watch to Switch 2, where Nintendo has had total control of literally every pixel the system ever displays.

Nintendo's whole strength is unique content catered to their own platform.

The day they start just porting stuff from the other platforms is the day they die.

 

[MRMSFC]

Maybe, although there are always circumstances where longevity of a company outweighs executive pride and philosophy e.g. Sharp, the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, parts of Asahi etc.

The problem with this is that Nintendo is nowhere near worrying about longevity. Nissan was circling the drain before the Renault alliance and losing money fast.

Nintendo, despite many (justified) grievances from many people is printing money.

 

[dmccloud]

If studios are still unwilling to port, perhaps Apple can licence out Game Porting Toolkit so developers can just put out their Switch version in a GPT wrapper (in the same way that GOG retrogames come in a DOSbox wrapper). The D3D to Metal translation layers seems to be remarkably efficient. It's actually very sad to see how much joy Valve have had creating a successful product out of similar technologies to get Windows games working on SteamOS while Apple seemed to not do too much with GPT.

Apple would have to create an entirely new version of the GPTK, as the Switch does not run Windows. Consequently, none of the components in the current GPTK focused on converting Windows/x86 API and DX calls to MacOS/ARM would even be of use for converting games built for the Switch.

 

[diamond.g]

Yeah the Switch (and probably Switch 2) use NVN, which is a Nintendo version of NVAPI. Vulkan is supported though it isn't clear what you "lose" by using it over NVN.