Fact: Nintendo to release HD console + controllers with built-in screen late 2012

Yes but tech doesn't guarantee success in this industry. Very rarely has the most powerful console won the race. Sony and Microsoft both need a ten year cycle to offset their costs in order to make decent money this generation. PS4/Xbox3 won't be out until 2014 at the earliest. Nintendo is sticking with a 5 year cycle which is why they use tech with a lower entry costs.

 

So I'm concerned by how these split generation will affect development of games for 3rd parties.
Does Nintendo become the odd one so devs have to build tech just for that system,or can game engines scale to various specs.
For example if the Wii2 has similar components to a 360 like CPU/VPU at slightly faster speeds and with some more features and say 1-2 GB of RAM vs 512 RAM, is it easy enough for devs to adapt their current game engines to this Wii2?

 

Samaritan demo was running on 3x GTX 580 in SLI if my memory serves me right, so regardless of "closed box enviroment" I doubt any R700-iteration would be capable of even close to it. And I sincerely hope they'll use Evergreen-variant instead of R700-variant to get more motivation for (proper use of) DX11 in PC world too

edit:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multim..._Next_Gen_Console_Code_Named_Cafe_Report.html
XBitLabs suggests it's DX11 chip, so Evergreen based

 

That article is conflating Evergreen with the R700 line, so I wouldn't go by anything they say. They're just misreporting rumors from other sites anyway.

 

A system which forces developers to design for 1080P will ensure games which can run at 720P stereo. So for 2D, 1080P should be the design target.

 

If you're planning ahead I doubt that stereoscopic 3D would require twice the performance from the machine to achieve exactly the same image effectively but represented for each eye to fool the brain into perceiving 3D on a 2D screen. Why not instead go with the native resolution of 4 of the supposed screen/controller things? If it all adds up to say 1600 by 1000 then why not go with that for simplicities sake?

 

Wow, looking at those slides it seems Nintendo is really targetting 3rd parties this time, like they've never done before.

It'll be nice to see a Nintendo home console with Crysis, Rage, up-to-date CODs, the AAA Final Fantasies, some Unreal Engine love, etc. With the touchscreen we might even see MMORPGs and RTSs coming from the PC.
If they keep Wii compatibility (done right), it'll be even better.


Quoting xbit, they really don't seem to know what they're talking about:

I'd like to know where the original R700 rumour came from.
It'd be a bit disapointing to see a 4-generation-old architecture from AMD in the console.
R700 would basically nullify the possibility of having tesselation in titles ported from the PC (which should be pretty much standard in 2012).

 

We already know what's in PSP2, and it isn't a dual score series 6.

 

We can strip the 'Rumor' bit from the title, because Nintendo confirmed it will announce the Wii successor at E3 and it will launch in 2012.

As for the theory that the hardware is similar to 360, with only a newer GPU, that would make a lot of sense for Nintendo - they will suddenly get a lot of ports of existing 'HD' games to their 'new' platform that their audience (Wii owners) haven't seen yet, and for about two years they will still have a console on the market that is (even if marginally) potentially superior for multi-platform games while still having that mainstream pedigree of the original Wii. The real question is what the controller will be like. I wouldn't put it beyond them to keep the Wii Remote+ as that didn't nearly get enough attention last time, but add something like that rumored touch screen to it which would in fact allow DS ports as well as other type of innovations. Perhaps the Wii will even be able to do 3D support at full res vs the often dialed back resolutions of the PS3 and 360, and then be able to run 3DS ports as well as regular HD multi-platform titles with 3D support at minimal cost to developers. We'll see come E3.

 

I don't think it would nullify the possibility, just make it harder. Also this is ignoring the possibility of added functionality, you can bet the GPU in Nintendo's console won't be exactly the same as R7xx. Who knows what changes will be made to the architecture.

 

Then why ever come out with a more powerful console at all? Save money, lower price, and make a less powerful successor! PS3 should have been $79 and N64 power level! It couldn't lose!

:/

You can have a different opinion, but you are wrong. Too bad it wont be clear for 2-3 years, and even then you'll blame Streams downfall on something else than the true cause (hell some people still claim Wii doesnt get third party support for reasons other than it's lack of graphics).

The only shot Nintendo has here is if they are smart enough to actually be planning ahead for staggered cycles (if they actually have a conscious plan to launch Stream in 12, PS4/720 in 2014, then launch Stream 2 in 2016-17). I strongly doubt they are, though. Even then, I suspect the costs would be too high for them. Stream 2 topping PS4/720 will be too rich for their blood even two years later I think.

I really dont see a good outcome here for Nintendo at all, and it's nothing new, they just reported profits down 52%...it just seems Japanese companies struggle these days...

PS, Nintendo just reported 1.36m Wii shipments for March quarter, PS3 should be around 2.1 and X360 maybe 1.8 or 1.9. So those more powerful consoles that never win combined outsold Wii about 3-1.

Maybe Nintendo's last chance after Stream will be my Onlive style idea (disruptive), I actually think that has a pretty good chance of coming to pass...were Nintendo not so seemingly out of it...

 

I really don't get this controller thing, honestly I don't!!

The only way this makes sense for me is if the 3DS is stealthy and is already built with tech to support this online type of streaming. My reasoning is this, Nintendo already has a lot of handhelds in peoples homes, they are going to treat these controllers like a handheld but they wont be able to leave their home with them! So then they would have to have a 3DS if they wanted to take their gaming with them.

This gets even more hurtful when the sales of smartphones are going through the roof and those gadgets are starting to provide some portable gaming near levels of last generations portables. That means Nintendo will have a home console with an aspect of portable gaming but lose that once those people decide to leave their home. They have to hope that people don't abandon the 3DS or other handheld market in favor of smartphone gaming.

The amount of money they are investing into each controller for this is wasted, utterly wasted by the simple fact its tied to the location of the console it is paired with.

My advice, scrap the controller; invest that money into making the 3DS itself more economical friendly for people to purchase multiples of and release the console with standard controllers with the 3DS connectivity/streaming the selling point. Hell you conviced people paying $70+ for crappy waggle controllers was a good deal, you conviced them that $250 for a GC1.2 was a good deal you can convince them to spend $150 on a console and then $100 on a 3DS or with a bundle package bonus of 2 3DS's and a console for $300.

My point is they already have better hand held tech available then what they are going to be willing to put into a controller anyways. I'm pretty sure knowing Nintendo if they do make this controller we are looking at the controllers costing 1/3 - 1/4 the cost of the consoles!!! ($100 - $125 per controller)

 

Rumored photos of the console or devkit

 

Obviously you can't regress in graphics, but you don't need to go for a massive improvement either.

 

I don't understand where you're coming from here. Unless you think the controllers are in effect full handhelds with real gaming hardware inside, which they aren't. Otherwise I don't see why your talking about 3DS and smartphones.

3DS is a handheld games system, the Project Cafe controllers are just console controllers with streaming capabilities and a screen to allow easier offline multi-player and interaction with your console anywhere in the home. Why would you use a 3DS to do the job when it limits not only the ergonomics of your controller, but also the screen size, controls AND cost (the controller has no significant hardware inside so it'll be cheaper to make then a 3DS).

Also your description of 3DS as a GameCube 1.2 is erroneous.

EDIT: Its been pointed out that you meant Wii was a GameCube 1.2, still wrong IMO.

 

They're not going to release until 2012?

Then why announce it now?

Usually, when they show at E3, they ship and release by Christmas of that same year.

If they are not releasing until 9 or more months after showing, that kills whatever current sales they have.

I know that the spring is a big release period in Japan but not in the rest of the world. So could they release in Japan in Spring of 2012 and release it elsewhere for Christmas 2012?

That would mean almost 18 months between showing at E3 in 6/11 and releasing in 11/12 or 12/12.

 

Hey, if that's a slot-loading DVD (or blu-ray) drive, then the console is huge, specially for a Nintendo console.
What happened to the "we're concerned with the small houses in Japan"?

AFAIK, hardware teardowns haven't found any "obscure" communications chips.
The Mitsumi Wifi chip in the 3DS only supports wireless G, so with an average throughput of 22mb/s, I doubt the console could stream four 800*240(+320*240) video streams + sound and real-time input through wifi ad-hoc.

I think the purpose is not to replace a portable console, but to allow people to choose between having a 4-splitted screen (like Mario Kart, Goldeneye, etc) in a 1080p TV and\or letting each player look at their own POV in their controllers.

Being a touchscreen also brings an unprecedented input for any console so far, allowing for kinds of games that have never really worked with gamepads or motion controllers (RTSs), and taking advantage of all the touchscreen-based inventive gaming concepts we've seen for smartphones.

Well, you could say that about any home console controller, couldn't you?

As I said before, I don't think it's technically possible to use the 3DS as a controller+screen for the new console. Had it bundled a Wireless-N chip and it might have been possible, but with a 22mbps average throughput, it should be really hard to stream everything between the Café and 4 3DSs.

Plus, the 3DS has only one analog controller, making all the 3rd party ports they want so much a lot harder to achieve.
And the fact that the controller is supposed to stay at home gives nintendo more freedom about its size (the 3DS has to be pocket-sized, the controller doesn't have to), hence the big 6" screen vs the 3DS' 3.5".

The controller will probably just have something like an ARM R4, a video encoder\decoder, gyroscope+accelerometer IC, the touchscreen and not much more. They won't be needing any cutting edge and power-consuming ICs in there, so I doubt the controllers will reach that price.

I think he was talking about the Wii.

The 3DS was shown at E3 2010 and launched in March\April of 2011.

Even the first "official statement" about the 3DS came out around this time last year.

Sure, it'll probably strangle the Wii's sales even more, but it's not like its sales are going well anyways.

 

This is going slightly offtopic, but was it ever found out what did they add to the Wii GPU? Out of my memory, it was 2-3 times too big to be just a shrink of GameCube GPU

 

Some rumours pointed at doubling the number of TEV units. Plus, the Hollywood has an integrated ARM9 (Starlet) dedicated to handling the bluetooth controller I/O and sleep-state updates.
And the 24MB 1T-SRAM are also embedded in the Hollywood (not stacked), whereas in the gamecube those were external.

 

No one said you shouldn't use better technology when developing a new console. I said the most powerful console rarely wins -> which is historical fact. What that means is that it's not just tech that determines a console's success but the overall experience on offer. That includes the interface, the strength of the software library, ease of development, the marketing, the price point etc etc. It's the sum of all the various variables.

Wrong in what way. Explain?

Why do you think costs would be too high for them 2017? Besides technology would have changed by then and we could all be gaming in the cloud. So Stream 2 may not exist at all and Stream 1 could evolve into a thin client to play cloud games on our TV's.

Profits are low because they are due for a new console cycle. That's why companies release new products to increase revenue. The Wii was only designed for a 5 year life span at most.