In the past, Nintendo either forgone backwards compatibility completely (Nes->SNes->N64->GC, Wiiu->Switch), or specially built their upgraded consoles to have a low level hardware compatibility mode were it behaves 100% like the old console (Gamecube->Wii, Wii->WiiU, several handlheld upgrades). Today it doesn't make business sense for Nintendo to build a new console without backwards compatibility, and it is impossible technically to build one with low level compatibility. So they are left with the only option of a incompatible console with some partial emulation, which must be a much bigger step that kneecaps the existing switch once announced, so they will take only after the switch starts its decline.
More or less. The Wii U is architecturally very similar to the Wii, just with a higher clockspeed, a couple of extra cores, more RAM and a better GPU; the Wii in turn is just an overclocked overspecced GameCube. It's possible, through a homebrew application, to load and run GameCube games directly on the WiiU.
If you're interested in this kind of thing, I'd highly recommend the architecture of consoles series of blog posts[1][2].
[1]: https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles [2]: https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/wiiu/
But also it should not be needed at all. The switch has a older but somewhat "normal/standard" graphics API (and also support actually standard Graphics APIs, especially indi games and similar likely use that one).
My guess is that due to various factors Nintendo decided that it is _financially_ the best decision to extend the Switch lifetime and maybe skip the "follow up console" instead only bringing out the OLED Switch (or change the design of the follow up console).
When compiling for Nvidia chips there's only one target. I believe all Nvidia chips despite different architectures use the same underlying assembly language. So a cuda binary should work everywhere.
It's not gpu architecture here. Nvidia makes sure that the API to that architecture remains constant. The differences that are happening are high level architectures. Consoles aren't like PCs that follow the same overall architecture. They are usually massively different each generation, with different central chips different board layouts, etc. Etc. Sony use to get really creative with this... I remember the cell architecture was extremely innovative at the time.
However I believe for the most recent generations of playstation and for all Xboxes those consoles have closely followed the PC architecture. Nintendo consoles have yet to do this though, each console is massively different from the PC and each other with the exception of GameCube and Wii u which were largely similar.
> When compiling for Nvidia chips there's only one target. I believe all Nvidia chips despite different architectures use the same underlying assembly language. So a cuda binary should work everywhere.
Because on the PC, Nvidia only exposes high level targets for the shaders. Even PTX, the assembly you might be familiar with combined with cuda, isn't actually the device's asm, but instead it gets compiled down to the device's asm using a full compiler. It's poorly named and more a compiler IR than an asm.
The Steam Deck, AIUI, more or less at least matches the Switch 1 in emulation. Haven't done anything with it myself.
I don't think emulation is even remotely impossible, and every year it gets easier for them.
To sum up, it is impossible for them to make a hardware compatible console, impossible to make a 100% compatible emulator, so the only option is to market it as a completely new console (not backwards compatible by default), then have a small curated list of backwards compatible titles (either thru their "virtual console", or something like Microsoft did going from the original XBox to the 360, where you could put the original game and it would download a patch for the new console, only compatible with a limited list of games). But this limited backwards-compatibility options would create a big break in the Switch lifetime, so not something to be undertaken while the console is still going strong.
People obviously want this and would pay for this.
Its a really strange company, able to produce amazing software but horrible, terrible outdated hardware (ie joycon durability saga) that they stubbornly consider OK in 2023. Its not so much graphics details themselves, they have chosen graphic style well in this case, but ie overall responsiveness of device, FPS etc. We are talking about very well optimized phone thats 10 years old. More and more not so much up to current standards, ie low PFS puts too much strain on eyes.
Emulated Switch games run fluently on a Steam Deck.....
In difference to previous Nindendo consoles the graphics API of the switch is very similar to "normal" PC/Console graphics APIs. Sure somewhat older ones but you can run many "switch old" PC games on modern hardware, if there are problems they often come from areas like DRM. But most switch games don't have DRM additional to what the switch provides...
I mean this similarity is one of the major reasons why there are so many 3rd party games from smaller studios one the Switch. (Through due to the switch hardware being incredibly slow for modern standards this is increasingly no longer the case as it requires small studios to better optimize their games, and while many of this optimizations are not switch specific at all they still are costly for a small studio).
Through there are some problems, one is that there was no (usable) successor for the chip they used.
My guess is:
They originally wanted to bring out a bit faster "switch pro" but due to a combination of there being no (usable) successor to the chip they have in the Switch and COVID and chip shortage and the CPU market stalling wrt. improvements (when the decision was made), and crypto mining making Nvidea not care about making a Chip for Nintendo they decided to skip it and bring out instead just the OLED upgrade. I.e. they skipped the next console directly went to developing the follow up maybe with the hope of bringing it out a year or so earlier.
But now on one hand the generational improvements in the CPU marked stopped stalling on the other hand maybe their follow up has delays due to technical challenges.
But in the end it's probably a financially good decision to just stretch out the life of the Switch. The only risk is that people will stop buying the switch or switch games because it being so slow that it isn't fun anymore. But given that people will still buy the new Zelda and the amount of money they made with the Switch and saved by cutting the development of the hypothetical direct successor that rally doesn't matter to them. It still sucks for the gamer anyway.
