Gaming Why Switch has no backwards compatibility (and other possibilities/workarounds)

[Axido]

I don't really need it, but even if it's true that the Switch tablet has a touchscreen for convenience, you'd still need proper emulators. DraStic yet hasn't been RE'd to the point that anyone could port it to any other ARM device, if I'm not mistaken. For 3DS it might take some kind of "3DraStic" emulator instead of Citra to get satisfying results. I'd actually like to see that in the future, since it opens up 3DS games for smartphones as well.

 

[Deleted-401606]

Many people are disappointed to see that Nintendo announced that the Switch has no backwards compatibility for physical discs/cartridges. This is probably because there's no touchscreen; Both Wii U gamepad and 3DS has touchscreens, and not to mention 3DS has TWO screens while the Switch clearly has one.

So that you buy the 3ds and wiiu . Duh lol. PLus 3ds cant be ported because the switch has no touch screen on the gamepad.

 

[RemixDeluxe]

Everyone is crying about no backwards compatibility. It's never been a selling point since I never sell my systems.

I'll be upset if Nintendo once again decides to region lock this console.

 

[Gamer4647]

So that you buy the 3ds and wiiu . Duh lol. PLus 3ds cant be ported because the switch has no touch screen on the gamepad.

Currently speculation, with articles here, here, and just earlier here about IR functionality in the Joy-Con controllers
Since it can be used as a regular console, it does seem practical to not include a touchscreen

As usual, we'll have to wait for official confirmation

 

[O_d-esk]

I kinda see the point in this case since the Wii U is not exactly cheap.

But the Switch is a totally different design, so, it's understandable.

 

[civickm]

I understand, I am fine with using my original consoles to play games on, but it is nice to play Link to the past on the 3ds when traveling...

 

[JoostinOnline]

Many people are disappointed to see that Nintendo announced that the Switch has no backwards compatibility for physical discs/cartridges. This is probably because there's no touchscreen; Both Wii U gamepad and 3DS has touchscreens, and not to mention 3DS has TWO screens while the Switch clearly has one.

It has no backwards compatibility because they've finally learned their lesson. For backwards compatibility, you need to stay in the same processor family. The Wii and Wii U both had basically the same processor as the Gamecube. One the Wii, it was overclocked. On the Wii U, they added two extra cores.

For comparison, imagine trying to run one of today's PC games on a Pentium 3 processor. It doesn't matter if you get the nicest one they make, it's still going to be at a huge disadvantage.

While I doubt the Switch will be as powerful as the PS4 or X1 (it is mobile, after all), using technology that isn't from 2001 will put them at a more level playing field.

 

[the_randomizer]

It has no backwards compatibility because they've finally learned their lesson. For backwards compatibility, you need to stay in the same processor family. The Wii and Wii U both had basically the same processor as the Gamecube. One the Wii, it was overclocked. On the Wii U, they added two extra cores.

For comparison, imagine trying to run one of today's PC games on a Pentium 3 processor. It doesn't matter if you get the nicest one they make, it's still going to be at a huge disadvantage.

While I doubt the Switch will be as powerful as the PS4 or X1 (it is mobile, after all), using technology that isn't from 2002 will put them at a more level playing field.

Thank you, I'm glad someone else sees it from this perspective; Nintendo didn't drop BC for a bad reason, using the same architecture for the past what, fifteen years has been a pretty big mistake in terms of practicality. Going to ARM is a much better direction for them in the long run.

 

[civickm]

It has no backwards compatibility because they've finally learned their lesson. For backwards compatibility, you need to stay in the same processor family. The Wii and Wii U both had basically the same processor as the Gamecube. One the Wii, it was overclocked. On the Wii U, they added two extra cores.

For comparison, imagine trying to run one of today's PC games on a Pentium 3 processor. It doesn't matter if you get the nicest one they make, it's still going to be at a huge disadvantage.

While I doubt the Switch will be as powerful as the PS4 or X1 (it is mobile, after all), using technology that isn't from 2001 will put them at a more level playing field.

I fully agree with this!

 

[JoostinOnline]

Thank you, I'm glad someone else sees it from this perspective; Nintendo didn't drop BC for a bad reason, using the same architecture for the past what, fifteen years has been a pretty big mistake in terms of practicality. Going to ARM is a much better direction for them in the long run.

I wish they would switch (hehe) to AMD like the other consoles, because it would be much better for cross-platform games, but it's still so much better than sticking to the old PPC one.

 

[the_randomizer]

I wish they would switch (hehe) to AMD like the other consoles, because it would be much better for cross-platform games, but it's still so much better than sticking to the old PPC one.

The x86 architecture would be ideal, but ARM is much better in terms than sticking to the less-then-friendly PPC

 

[JoostinOnline]

The x86 architecture would be ideal, but ARM is much better in terms than sticking to the less-then-friendly PPC

Lol imagine if they stuck a couple of Xeon Skylake CPU's in that sucker.

PS: Is the upload button missing for anyone else? I've just got a blank space between "Post Reply" and "More Options...".

 

[the_randomizer]

Lol imagine if they stuck a couple of Xeon Skylake CPU's in that sucker.

PS: Is the upload button missing for anyone else? I've just got a blank space between "Post Reply" and "More Options...".

Huh, I can see the upload button fine on my end, are you using mobile? I'm using a PC for browsing, maybe it's still broken after that maintenance a few days back? Anyways, it would be nice,
like I said, but it's not entirely a deal breaker really, and with Bethesda backing Nintendo, that too is a good sign. So is Unreal Engine 4, the team officially supports Nintendo; they wouldn't do that with the Wii U either.

 

[eyeliner]

I'm pretty sure there has to be touch screen. If there's Wii/Wii U remasters or eShop specific games that use the touch screen, if there's any chance the games will run on the Switch, it has to have the same functionality.

And it would be a step back. And also, using the screen only for gaming is dumb. It would be a great companion tablet to browse the web/eShop and spend money.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Huh, I can see the upload button fine on my end, are you using mobile? I'm using a PC for browsing, maybe it's still broken after that maintenance a few days back? Anyways, it would be nice,
like I said, but it's not entirely a deal breaker really, and with Bethesda backing Nintendo, that too is a good sign. So is Unreal Engine 4, the team officially supports Nintendo; they wouldn't do that with the Wii U either.

I was using Firefox on PC when I wrote that. I'll report it later.

Speaking of Bethesda, it turns out all the gameplay in the trailer was added later. It's possible that Skyrim can't actually run on the Switch.

Sent from behind you

 

[the_randomizer]

I was using Firefox on PC when I wrote that. I'll report it later.

Speaking of Bethesda, it turns out all the gameplay in the trailer was added later. It's possible that Skyrim can't actually run on the Switch.

Sent from behind you

But why would they show it though? It hasn't been officially confirmed, but that doesn't mean it's been denied either. It'd be pretty stupid of them not to port something over. If Skyrim can run on the Xbox 360, it can run on the Switch.

Makes no sense for them to be deceptive.

 

[RemixDeluxe]

Is it even legal to have shown gameplay like that if it won't/can't run it. If Bethesda won't port Skyrim then why bother showing?

 

[osirisjem]

probably because there's no touchscreen

The Switch probably has Touchscreen.

 

[RemixDeluxe]

The Switch probably has Touchscreen.

Was that necessary? There is no proof or disproof at this time of the tablet having a touchscreen. Saying it 1000x times doesn't make you more right.

 

[osirisjem]

Was that necessary? There is no proof or disproof at this time of the tablet having a touchscreen. Saying it 1000x times doesn't make you more right.

It's not likely a portable gaming device in 2016 has no TouchScreen.
When was the last Nintendo released without some TouchScreen option ?
WiiU had Touchscreen. 3DS had TouchScreen.

TouchScreens are cheaper and popular today ... more than they have ever been.

And you think Nintendo releases a portable gaming device without TouchScreen ?

Not going to happen.

If they do ... they made a HUGE mistake.