Is Nintendo getting squeezed out?
- Thread starter g35er
- Start date
I apologize for not participating more in these discussions. It seems like I just drop in out of nowhere with some obvious comment.. well.. I'm tired.
Over the years I've posted literally a good one to two thousand posts from all around the internet of quality gaming debate and it really just gets old. I rather just read what others have to say and digest it..
That said, on the topic of Nintendo being squeezed out of the industry.. two things..
A. I agree with anybody who says that the N5 situation is dire. Sony and MS have momentum, Nintendo doesn't.. at least not yet.
B. Regardless, they will not be squeezed out of the home-console segment of the industry.. nor will they take less than 15%.
Mark my words.
Over the years I've posted literally a good one to two thousand posts from all around the internet of quality gaming debate and it really just gets old. I rather just read what others have to say and digest it..
That said, on the topic of Nintendo being squeezed out of the industry.. two things..
A. I agree with anybody who says that the N5 situation is dire. Sony and MS have momentum, Nintendo doesn't.. at least not yet.
B. Regardless, they will not be squeezed out of the home-console segment of the industry.. nor will they take less than 15%.
Mark my words.
Great points Acert, and I agree, those are exactly the reasons that Stringer is in the position he is now.
Sony has certainly dropped the ball in a number of areas, and it's all the more frustrating if you go digging into the reasons why these things happened, because you see that they shouldn't have. There's just too much inter-departmental gamesmanship at Sony, a lot of 'turf-wars',and I think Stringer's job one way or another is going to be to stamp that out.
Their 'must-have' product right now, that's obviously the PSP, but whether it's being supported in the way it should in order to convey to the public it's full range of functionality, or whether they've spread themselves 'thin-milk' with conflicting messages as to the devices purpose, we'll see soon enough. I definitely think there is a 'critical mass' at which the PSP will ignite for them, it's just a matter of them reaching it sooner rather than later. I guess either way though you're right, that's just SCEI making them some money again and not the consumer electronics division like it should be.
Completely on the side, one more point I want to make concerning MGM.
I don't believe MGM was purchased for the movies they make now whatsoever, but soley for the movies they already have the rights to. Having the largest catalog of movies of any studio, they can be leveraged in a significant way to promote blu-ray, with HD re-releases of this-and-that movie; their movie catalogue is easily worth, in terms of movies that can be brought out, probably any two other studios combined - so when MGM supports blu-ray, which they obviously do, it means something more than might immediately be apparent in terms of support. And, of course whether blu-ray wins, HD-DVD wins, or some other format wins, these are movies that will always be there for Sony, to be dragged out and sold again every format generation - so for them it's an IP and steady returns model with MGM rather than a traditional studio play like with Columbia.
Sony has certainly dropped the ball in a number of areas, and it's all the more frustrating if you go digging into the reasons why these things happened, because you see that they shouldn't have. There's just too much inter-departmental gamesmanship at Sony, a lot of 'turf-wars',and I think Stringer's job one way or another is going to be to stamp that out.
Their 'must-have' product right now, that's obviously the PSP, but whether it's being supported in the way it should in order to convey to the public it's full range of functionality, or whether they've spread themselves 'thin-milk' with conflicting messages as to the devices purpose, we'll see soon enough. I definitely think there is a 'critical mass' at which the PSP will ignite for them, it's just a matter of them reaching it sooner rather than later. I guess either way though you're right, that's just SCEI making them some money again and not the consumer electronics division like it should be.
Completely on the side, one more point I want to make concerning MGM.
I don't believe MGM was purchased for the movies they make now whatsoever, but soley for the movies they already have the rights to. Having the largest catalog of movies of any studio, they can be leveraged in a significant way to promote blu-ray, with HD re-releases of this-and-that movie; their movie catalogue is easily worth, in terms of movies that can be brought out, probably any two other studios combined - so when MGM supports blu-ray, which they obviously do, it means something more than might immediately be apparent in terms of support. And, of course whether blu-ray wins, HD-DVD wins, or some other format wins, these are movies that will always be there for Sony, to be dragged out and sold again every format generation - so for them it's an IP and steady returns model with MGM rather than a traditional studio play like with Columbia.
Acert93 said:
The only problem with this argument (and I believe someone else already brought this up) is that these very same companies have been asked to do this already. I mean, it's not as if MS asked IBM/ATI to design something big and inefficient.
The real question will be, how much will the difference in time make up for the difference in real estate?
Ty said:The only problem with this argument (and I believe someone else already brought this up) is that these very same companies have been asked to do this already. I mean, it's not as if MS asked IBM/ATI to design something big and inefficient.
The real question will be, how much will the difference in time make up for the difference in real estate?
That's right. It's not as though Nintendo can say to ATI, "Can you give us a better processor than MS but can we pay less?"
I do think the Rev will be in the same power ballpark as the PS3 and ATI, but think of this senario--the numbers may not be exact but the idea is the same:
It's 2006. MS has already released their console for several months at $299 and then drops it $50 to $249 when Sony releases at $299. Rev releases sometime after the PS3. Being a newer console, their manufacturing costs are higher than MS and Sony. Let's say their manufacturing+marketing costs per console is $350. Where do they price it? Based on their past consoles, the consumer might expect them to be lower than the others. That's their squeeze. Price lower and lose more per console or price equal or higher and risk lower adoption.
g35er said:
Whose is to say Nintendo is asking ATI of such a thing. This gen people were wondering how nitnendo was going to take on Sony hardware wise and they manged to do better and cheaper. I just love speculation on a console no one knows anything about including the gaming media. Revolution has been in development for at least 4 years, which why I don't get the doubts about the system so far. You would think after two generations gamers would get the clue nintendo doesn't lack in hardware nor charges an unreasonable amount for it either. IIRC has a nintendo console ever debuted more than 250$?
Lastly g35er how did you rationalize the last portion of your last post. Are you saying the consumer price for PS3 and Xbo360, while saying the price to manufacture and market revolution, why not just stick to one format for all 3?
Ty said:Acert93 said:
The only problem with this argument (and I believe someone else already brought this up) is that these very same companies have been asked to do this already. I mean, it's not as if MS asked IBM/ATI to design something big and inefficient.
The real question will be, how much will the difference in time make up for the difference in real estate?
MS asked them to do that in 2005.
Nintendo asked them to do that in 2006.
I thought those were givens
Of course MS did not want something big but powerful; but they also wanted certain performance markers by the end of 2005. *If* Nintendo is asking for similar performance, they are giving them another year. That would be the difference between what MS and Nintendo may have asked. At this point, Nintendo does not even need to beat MS in power, just be close.
Like I said, with IBM/ATI/NEC in their corner, and coming out a full year later from MS, they have the *possibility* of being in the same ballpark in performance but with a small design. They could take the "Easy" way out and not try to even compete... but that was not my point. The point is I think they CAN compete if that is their choice.
For example, 65nm is in store for 2006. So Nintendo could go with a similar multicore CPU and aim at say, 90% of the performance. So they get a chip that is 1. smaller, 2. more effecient, and 3. produces less heat. This means less ventelation and a smaller HSF. 100GFLOPs, 90% of the XeCPU, is still ~5x faster than current desktop PCs. And as this generation showed, that would probably be close enough to remain competitive and get decent ports.
Next, it does not look like Nintendo will go with a HDD. So you can remove that space from the case. Similarly it looks like Nintendo has gone with a slim DVD device (like a laptop) which does not take up a lot of room.
The GPU is an unknown, but an extra year can mean a lot. It looks like MS will hit 90nm this fall, but I have a hard time seeing a GPU hitting 65nm by the end of 2006. So maybe Nintendo will go with a slightly larger chip clocked lower (e.g. power pipelines, less clock frequency). Or, again, they may feel hitting the same features but slightly less performance (lets say 90% again) will be more than enough to compete. GPUs are a funny thing. Sometimes the first chips on a process run really hot, but refreshes at the same process run cooler and faster. 1 year is a long time. We know the GPU is not complete (whereas the R500 taped out in the fall it appears). Anyhow, if Nintendo is going for smaller (As it appears) 1 year gives enough time to come up with a design that is in a ballpark but produces less heat.
Simiarly, in the Nintendo tradition, make the power supply external. That makes the case smaller and keeps less heat in the case. I am sure there are other things they can do, but just these 3 or 4 things could make them smaller AND competitive.
Anyhow, it is possible. That is all I was saying. The fact MS wanted powerful/elegant in 2005 only has slight bearing on the fact Nintendo may be asking for something similar in 2006.
Of course you are correct that it depends on how Nintendo uses the next year, but all I ever said is that it *is* possible. And if that is Nintendo's goal (I do not know that it is), Nintendo is partnered with the right people to make it happen.
theafu, I think you misunderstood my post. Yes, MS and Sony's unit costs will probably be similar, say $350. And yes, they will lose roughly as much as Nintendo, but maybe a little less. Again, the specific numbers are just being used as examples--you can bump it all +/- $100 and the ideas are still the same. But MS will have production of maybe 6-8 months, which will render cost savings due to manufacturing efficiencies/maturities and scalability. Sony will possibly also be out for a little while.
My point is, can Nintendo price their console the same as MS and Sony? At this point, consumers may be expecting them to have a console that costs less in a similar vein that people expect Fords to be less than Hondas for similar models. If Nintendo prices the same, they risk losing adoption. If they price lower, they risk losing $ per console.
I did say I believe the Rev will be in the same power ballpark as the other two. Again, no fanboyism here. Just some speculation. Fun and informative.
My point is, can Nintendo price their console the same as MS and Sony? At this point, consumers may be expecting them to have a console that costs less in a similar vein that people expect Fords to be less than Hondas for similar models. If Nintendo prices the same, they risk losing adoption. If they price lower, they risk losing $ per console.
I did say I believe the Rev will be in the same power ballpark as the other two. Again, no fanboyism here. Just some speculation. Fun and informative.
I don't think we can say that for certian .
The x360 is a tri core cpu which is said to be smaller than the cell chip (dunno exact size anyone have it ?) which will be cheaper than the cell obviously
a gpu which is going to be around the same size of the rsx .
one pool of gddr that will be cheaper than 256 of gddr and 256 of xdr ram
Also the fact that the x360 has less external busses meaning the pcb will be cheaper (less layers )
then add in the fact that they will be mass produced for around 6 months and i would say they would could less than sony to produce.
As for nintendo i think its obvious that they will have the least powrfull console . However i think the diffrence in power will be the same tiny diffrence that we see between the x360 and ps3 with the rev coming in under the x360 but close enough that no one will ever notice the diffrence .
I meant the costs of MS, Sony will be similar to Nintendo
jvd, I agree that the costs will not be the same for all 3, but I think they'll be within "1 standard deviation", maybe +/- $50 difference. And yes, MS will have that 6-8 months manufacturing time. My main point is where can Nintendo price their console relative to the others? Same or less?
OT, the back of the PS3 looks like a freaking beehive.
jvd, I agree that the costs will not be the same for all 3, but I think they'll be within "1 standard deviation", maybe +/- $50 difference. And yes, MS will have that 6-8 months manufacturing time. My main point is where can Nintendo price their console relative to the others? Same or less?
OT, the back of the PS3 looks like a freaking beehive.
Acert93 said:MS asked them to do that in 2005.
Nintendo asked them to do that in 2006.
I thought those were givens
Hey now, I didn't ask when, I simply asked how much is possible during that difference in time?
Acert93 said:
I'm certainly open to this possibility. I was merely asking the question of how much is possible during this year of extra time?
Acert93 said:
To go down this train of thought we can look at current process maturity and also look at future process maturity.
In other words, IF 65nm (and I have NO idea about where process maturity is at or where fabs state they will be at when Revolution is due) is going to be cutting edge, then Nintendo is taking a gamble. If on the other hand, 65nm will be common place, then we can have someone here whip up a rough idea of what the extra die space buys them.
Acert93 said:
This is not just true for GPUs I would imagine.
Acert93 said:
I agree. Perhaps you're reading an overstatement of my post or I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't trying to imply that Revolution would never have a chance to compete. Just that ATI/IBM already set their sights high for X360 so it's not as if Revolution will have an easy time catching up to it given the restrictions.
Acert93 said:
That's what I'm saying to, just from the other end it seems.
I think the price diffrence may be very diffrent . It all depends though.g35er said:
I'm thinking with hdd the x360 will cost ms about 400+ to make when it launches and by the time the ps3 comes out it will be under slightly lower than 400$ to make .
I'm thinking the ps3 is going to be closer to 450$ to make if not slightly higher for the first launch .
The ns5 i think will be about 250$ to make .
g35er said:
I just don't understand where you're coming from here, so I have simple historical models on which to base some questions for you.
How much did GameCube cost when it launched?
How much did GameCube lose relative to it's 'big brothers?'
How powerful was GameCube when compared to it's competitors?
You think that the majority of the cost savings come from manufacturing efficiencies and maturity, but Nintendo doesn't build their own stuff, and I can assure you whatever fabs they use will have efficiencies to spare - especially if it just ends up being another IBM PPE derivative CPU. Add to that that the CPU may in fact be smaller on the same process, launch at a smaller process, and have system componentry likewise designed for a launch platform with lower thermals and power requirements, and you start to see cost savings add up quickly.
If Nintendo launches with the equivelent technology of XBox 360, there is no reason to believe that they cannot begin manufacturing their systems right off the bat for whatever cost MS is manufacturing them at that time, give or take. If they launch with lower system specs, then there's no reason to believe that their manufacturing costs might in fact not undercut MS's straight off, even though they would be coming later to the party
representation3
Newcomer
Nintendo made some really idiotic decisions in the past: screwing over third party support in NES, sticking to cartridge in N64, bad design/marketing for Cube, coming up with DS. To me Nintendo is the kind of company that comes up with really good ideas (NES and GB) and drives them to the ground. Nintendo will probably be sticking to counsels and hand held market, but they will never regain their past glory. It is time to try out new ideas (No, DS does not count)
Again, you're focusing on the numbers too closely. I'm speculating Rev will be in the same manufacturing ballpark as 360. But MS's 6+ months manufacturing does give them a little cost savings. Most thing that's been manufactured for a while gets cheaper.
My question is, can they price it the same when consumers might be expecting them to price it less? Is there a Ford/Honda mentality for them in the public?
On the other hand, if jvd is saying $250 for Rev vs. $400+ for the others, the numbers are important and that's a different story.
My question is, can they price it the same when consumers might be expecting them to price it less? Is there a Ford/Honda mentality for them in the public?
On the other hand, if jvd is saying $250 for Rev vs. $400+ for the others, the numbers are important and that's a different story.
really ? i would thinking coming out with a system that continues to outsell the psp globaly was a good idea .
Or was coming up with the psp that is getting out sold by the ds the good idea ?
oh so whats a new idea ? INternet connection ? no that was done by sega already in the 32 bit generation ..... putting in an optical drive that can play other popular media ? no that was done with turbo graphic 16 cd , sega cd and others .
Really what do you consider a good idea ?
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions about Sony's profits. The Sony Corporation is massive and has many divisions. It's the consumer electronics division that are making the big losses (ie. DVD players, LCD TVs, Hi-Fi - partly because Sony was so reluctant to embrace MP3 hardware technology and follow up the success of the WalkMan, but that's another story). However, Sony Entertainment and the Games division (which covers their consoles) are making a healthy profit, despite the fact they have plunged billions into R&D for 2 new consoles recently that have yet to pay dividends. Imagine what those profits will be like when they start recouping the costs of the PSP and PS3?
- http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-15015-1884-4-6-x
Similar threads
