MS - Nintendo Union !!!

[Teasy]

Do you have an actual source for that? (Or is this an assumption on your part?)

Nintendo/ATI announced, a while ago, that they had entered into a new technology partnership, which is obviously going to be Nintendo's next console (what else would it be considering they own the company that made the last 2 Nintendo console GPU's?)

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/news/article.php/2077991

Also the following comment is from Matt Casamassina from IGN in response to an email in IGN Cube's N-Query section:

ATI has been in development with a graphics chip for "GCN 2" for more than a year, it's supposedly coming along very nicely

The full response with that info in is here under the title "GameCube 2":

http://cube.ign.com/mail/2003-06-26.html

I agree, though nVidia and ATI are unquestionably the graphics chip market leaders in the PC space.

Yeah I agree, but I don't think current success in the console space is all important for picking a console GPU maker. Its certainly a plus, but definitely not essential (just look at past console GPU's for proof of that).

 

[AzBat]

Do you have an actual source for that? (Or is this an assumption on your part?)

Nintendo/ATI announced, a while ago, that they had entered into a new technology partnership, which is obviously going to be Nintendo's next console.

I think Joe's point was that no official source has stated ATI is making the graphics chip for the successor to the GameCube. The press release pretty much states that the technology will be used be used in Nintendo products. It doesn't say console or handheld, etc. Hell, they may want just want to use their cheap low power display chips for a Pokemon add-on. So it's pretty presumptious to say that it's "obviously going to be Nintendo's next console". I wouldn't even consider IGN's Mail Bag a good source to prove your theory. Let's just wait a little longer before we make up our minds for sure, ok?

Tommy McClain

 

[Tahir2]

Well said AzBat

 

[Teasy]

But the major problem with using another company outside of ATI or nvidia is that you would have to monetize the development cost yourself instead of sharing the cost with the PC market.

MS paid Nvidia a large amount of money for NV2a R&D costs. The NV2a is not used in the PC space. Obviously Nvidia being in the console space would have saved MS money on NV2a R&D since NV2a is similar to a Nvidia PC chip, so NV2a didn't have to be created totally from the ground up. But there are other companies out there who already have GPU designes developed or in development (and are always updating there technology). So its not as if Nintendo would have to go to a company and say "ok we want you to design a GPU from the goround up, here's all the money you'll need to do it" just because the company is not Nvidia or ATI. I hate to mention IMGTEC again (I love to really ), but they already have Series 5 in advanced development and they have a console derivitive of that chip too.

 

[Teasy]

I didn't take Joe's question as having any point (I don't mean that in a bad way ). I just took it as a straight forward question of wether I had just made a wild assumption that ATI were working on GC2's GPU or if I had info to back it up.

Nintendo and ATI (who now own the company who made Nintendo's last 2 console GPU's) announce a technology partnership for future Nintendo products. Then Matt at IGN says that ATI have been working on the GC2 GPU for a while now. I'd say when you add those two peices together it makes for a lot more then just an assumption on my part.

I wouldn't even consider IGN's Mail Bag a good source to prove your theory.

Who cares if it was posted in IGN's mailbag or on the moon?.. it still comes from a person that knows what he's talking about when it comes to Nintendo.

 

[AzBat]

I didn't take Joe's question as having any point (I don't mean that in a bad way ). I just took it as a straight forward question of wether I had just made a wild assumption that ATI were working on GC2's GPU or if I had info to back it up.

Gotcha.

Nintendo and ATI (who now own the company who made Nintendo's last 2 console GPU's) announce a technology partnership for future Nintendo products. Then Matt at IGN says that ATI have been working on the GC2 GPU for a while now. I'd say when you add those two peices together it makes for a lot more then just an assumption on my part.

Well, the only problem I had was with this comment...

"obviously going to be Nintendo's next console"

Yes, you could conclude that it's likely ATI's graphics will be used in the next Nintendo console, but that's a lot different then saying that it's "obviously going to be Nintendo's next console". So, like I said it was pretty presumptious on your part to go that far. I was also waiting for you to add that you was going to bet one of your, um, parts that it was true.

I wouldn't even consider IGN's Mail Bag a good source to prove your theory.

Who cares if it was posted in IGN's mailbag or on the moon?.. it still comes from a person that knows what he's talking about when it comes to all things Nintendo.

I care. The source is VERY important to me and I don't know him from Jack. Plus, he didn't even consider the info enough for a news piece? Whatever. I'll wait for better sources thank you very much!

Tommy McClain

 

[Teasy]

Well, the only problem I had was with this comment...

"obviously going to be Nintendo's next console"

Ok fair enough, maybe "obviously" wasn't quite the right word for me to use there.

I was also waiting for you to add that you was going to bet one of your, um, parts that it was true.

No I can't do that again, it was funny the first time (had half the 3d forums on the net entertained for a while ), but it'd just be boring to do it again

I care. The source is VERY important to me and I don't know him from Jack. Plus, he didn't even consider the info enough for a news piece? Whatever. I'll wait for better sources thank you very much!

Well yeah of course you care about the source of the info, and so do I. But wether the source posts his info in a mail section or in an article doesn't change the source. Of course an article is more official, but in the end its still Matt from IGN. I read a lot of the mail section at IGN and Matt just doesn't come out with comments like that lightly so I know he wouldn't post info like that if he thought it was just rumour. But of course if you don't know him at all then by all means don't take his word for it yourself.

 

[jandar]

The GameCube is already profitable.

I was just saying that it is a distinct possibility that the Gamecube hardware was ALWAYS profitable from the get-go.

Gamecube only lost like 50-75$ a console when first released. 6 months later the price was making Nintendo money. Compared to the 150$ or so the Xbox was losing, and the $150 the PS2 was losing. Thats selling at retail, so ad another 20-50 for sale prices to retail stores. Im sure QRoach has better cost numbers there.

According to most estimates, Sony's PlayStation 2 cost the company $450 per unit upon initial production in early 2000

Microsoft's Xbox is believed to have an initial cost to the company of about $425,

At press time, its GameCube console was expected to sell for $199 at launch. Over time, Nintendo should be able to reduce the cost of its system from $275

http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue106/games.html

 

[Magnum PI]

Early in the cycle yes it is a fact. If you want the numbers go look them up yourself.

early in the cycle.. but now ?
i was speaking about now..

I think you’re missing the point. Entering a new business, especially one with the economics of the console business is expensive. It is almost guaranteed that they will burn through a few billion while they gain experience and market share. If people thought MS was going to instantly dominate the console business they were foolish.

i understand you have to invest some money to enter this business, but at least you should be able to make some money sometime in the lifecycle of your console..
4 or 5 years is more than just intering a new business..

and there is some time left in this generation so maybe xbox will at least stop making losses...

As it is, MS has acquired itself a tentative 2nd place in market share and has shown it can put out a serious console. When XB2 and PS3 are released at the same time it will be interesting to see how Sony handles the competition.

i don't think MS has the second place, except if you exclude japan..
i do not expect gamers switch from playstation to xbox.. lots of hurdles.. lack of motives..

but we'll see..

 

[Josiah]

If Cell finds it home in other devices it will not be exotic but generic. A PC graphics chip is exotic in that it only works in a PC.
Being different does not mean 'exotic' as this implies rarity and expense IMHO.

Something is exotic if it is untraditional. In computer graphics, the SGI model has been traditional for ~20 years. The design of PS2 is untraditional, even though it is in widespread use, and PS3/Cell will probably have a similar design.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I didn't take Joe's question as having any point (I don't mean that in a bad way ). I just took it as a straight forward question of wether I had just made a wild assumption that ATI were working on GC2's GPU or if I had info to back it up.

It was a straightforward question of whether or not there has been any official confirmation to back your factually stated assertion. I am well aware of the ATI/Nintendo technology announcement, which doesn't say anything about GameCube successor.

GameCube2 is certaily a valid guess, but it is not a fact. That's all.

Nintendo and ATI (who now own the company who made Nintendo's last 2 console GPU's) announce a technology partnership for future Nintendo products. Then Matt at IGN says that ATI have been working on the GC2 GPU for a while now. I'd say when you add those two peices together it makes for a lot more then just an assumption on my part.

No, anything that hasn't been officially announced is exactly an assumption on your part.

It was a pretty widely known "assumption" that X-Box was going to have gigaixel and AMD components. Info leaked by "industry insiders" who apparently either did not have the correct information....or ALL the information.

Again, I was asking if there had been some public, official announcement that I may have missed. There hasn't been. So, it is not a fact, and it is an assuption.

 

[cybamerc]

http://www.ati.com/companyinfo/press/2003/4611.html

"ATI has had an excellent relationship with Nintendo for many years," said David Orton, President and Chief Operating Officer, ATI Technologies Inc. "We are pleased to enter into this major technology development agreement with Nintendo."

Compared to the ridiculous PS3 and Xbox 2 speculation that takes place on this board I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that ATI is making the gfx chip for the next Nintendo console based on this press release.

While the deal may extend beyond the successor to the GameCube and also include other things such as the next iteration of the Game Boy it's only logical to assume that the main priority is the GameCube 2 chipset. Nintendo has a long standing relationship with core ppl at ATI, from when they worked at SGI (then Silicon Graphics), to when they left and formed ArtX - something SGI did not approve of and Nintendo sorted out - to when they finally joined, and, arguably, took over ATI. Personal relations aside ATI's recent track record speaks for itself. A track record the ArtX ppl incidentally is very much to thank for.

 

[Teasy]

No, anything that hasn't been officially announced is exactly an assumption on your part.

To assume is to believe without any evidence to back it up. I'm not plucking ATI making Nintendo's next console GPU out of thin air.

It was a pretty widely known "assumption" that X-Box was going to have gigaixel and AMD components. Info leaked by "industry insiders" who apparently either did not have the correct information....or ALL the information.

I don't know anything about that, what evidence was there to back that up? Had Gigapixel designed MS's last 2 console GPU's? Had they just announced a major technology partnership for future MS products? Had a person I respect said that Gigapixel had been working on XBox's GPU for 1 year now.. the register or Spong saying that Gigapixel were doing the XBox GPU is quite different to this situation.

Again, I was asking if there had been some public, official announcement that I may have missed. There hasn't been. So, it is not a fact, and it is an assuption.

You asked me if I had any source for this info or if it was just an assumption on my part. Well I do have sources for the info and its not just an assumption. Its not 100% fact either, but definitely not just an assumption.

 

[Ali-G]

Didn't ATI recieve around $20-30 million recently from Nintendo for this major technology partnership?

When you look at all the evidence I think its an extrmely big stretch to think that this deal is for anything but GC-2's GPU. I mean common, this is ATI, a major GPU maker who own the company who made Nintendo's last 2 console GPU's, announcing a major deal with Nintendo for future products. IMO anyone who really doubts that ATI will produce GC-2's GPU only does so because they just don't want it to happen.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

While the deal may extend beyond the successor to the GameCube and also include other things such as the next iteration of the Game Boy it's only logical to assume that the main priority is the GameCube 2 chipset.

Like I said. ASSUME.

What's the big deal over this. All I wanted to know is if there had been some OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT FOR WHICH NO ASSUMPTIONS ARE NEEDED.

Geezus....

I'm not interested in whatever logic, good or bad, you have for making the assumption. The fact is, it's still an assumption. I myself believe that it is a logical assumption, and a best guess that ATI is in fact working on the GameCube successor.

That doesn't change the fact that there has been no official announcement to this effect. And the way Teasy initially stated things lead me to believe there might have been one, and I missed it. Sheesh.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

To assume is to believe without any evidence to back it up. I'm not plucking ATI making Nintendo's next console GPU out of thin air.

Christ you console freaks are touchy.

I asked you a simple and driect question. I did not claim you made your assumption out of thin air, or didn't have any reasonable basis for your assumption. All I wanted to freaking know is if it was an assumption or an officially known and publically announced fact!

And it is an assumption. No need to keep clarifying with "why" you made that assumption.

You asked me if I had any source for this info or if it was just an assumption on my part. Well I do have sources for the info and its not just an assumption. Its not 100% fact either, but definitely not just an assumption.

Yes, it IS "just an assumption." What is a 50% fact, anyway?

It could be an assumption with a valid basis, but it's still just an assumption.

Here is YOU DIRECT STATEMENT that I had questioned, and asked for a source on:

Nintendo already have a contract with ATI for there next console GPU and the GPU is already well underway.

THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION. It is NOT an "official fact" that ATI and Nintendo have a contract for the next console GPU.

Is that a reasonable assumption? Sure. I'm already well aware of all the basis out there for making that assumption. I'm not asking you to regugitate the basis for your assumption. I asked if you had a source to back that particular statement of yours.

In any case, my question has been answered. You don't have a source that corroborates that statement as fact.

 

[Teasy]

And the way Teasy initially stated things lead me to believe there might have been one, and I missed it. Sheesh.

Yeah ok I can see that my original comment did make it sound like it was absolute fact. If you'd asked me, has there been any official announcement that ATI and Nintendo have partnered for GC2's GPU then I would have just said, no. But you did ask me if I had any source for this info or if it was just an assumption, which made me think you just wanted any info at all not only 100% official fact. After all I don't know what news or announcements you've already seen in the past, for all I know you might have missed the major tech partnership.

So lets start again, no I don't have any official announcements that actually say that ATI are working on Nintendo's next console GPU.

 

[Teasy]

Christ you console freaks are touchy.

Oh and your not touchy at all are you Joe. Your just ranting and raving, calling people freaks and using bolded block capitals all over the place. Infact you better calm down, because people have been warned by mods for far less then your current behaviour.

I asked you a simple and driect question. I did not claim you made your assumption out of thin air, or didn't have any reasonable basis for your assumption. All I wanted to freaking know is if it was an assumption or an officially known and publically announced fact!

This is what you asked me:

Do you have an actual source for that? (Or is this an assumption on your part?)"

You asked me if I had any source at all or if this was just an assumption (as in an assumption without anything to back it up).

Yes, it IS "just an assumption." What is a 50% fact, anyway?

No it isn't just an assumption. If it was just an assumption then there would be no evidence at all to back it up.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh and your not touchy at all are you Joe. Your just ranting and raving, calling people freaks and using bolded block capitals all over the place. Infact you better calm down, because people have been warned by mods for far less then your current behaviour.

Then they can PM me.

So infact you asked me if I had any source at all or if this was just an assumption (as in an assumption without anything to back it up).

Teasy, an "assumption with things to back it up", is still an assumption..

No it isn't just an assumption. If it was just an assumption then there would be no evidence at all to back it up.

Stop using bold face! I'll sic the mods on you!

Eh? are you trying to say that "just an assumption" is different from "an assumption?"

You ask me for "a source" and you expect me to know what info you already know....

No, I asked you for a source precisely so I can tell if what you know is any different from what I know. I know what I know, and based on what I know, it is an ASSUMPTION that ATI has a contract with Nintendo to build the next GameCube GPU.

As it turns out, you have no more information / sources than I do.

So in the end, It's JUST AN ASSUMPTION, not a fact.

 

[Vince]

When you look at all the evidence I think its an extrmely big stretch to think that this deal is for anything but GC-2's GPU.

Exactly. This debate is entirely pointless and entirely based on people who don't keep-up with Nintendo's history and people who are basically clueless to the tangible facts unraveling before them and instead attack semantics from a PR.

The current "Nintendo" position regarding ATI is the same as the "SCE" one regarding cell. It was clear as shit what the intentions of SCE were in the comming 5 years, Kutaragi himself expressed his opinions only to be ridiculed by morons on here due to the language barrier. We've endured over a year of utter retards debating every frickin' PR release based on words and not the situation. We still have people and some "mainstream press" (shows just how clueless they are) thinking it won't be used, won't be on time, et al - all based on twisted words and convoluted though that to anyone following the company would be obvious.

Unfortunatly, Teasy must now endure this same thing. Fighting people totally unfamiliar with the console industry, with Nintendo's history of technological partners, of the sheer fact that they need someone to design what's generally a non-mainstream, custom IC and times awasting (it's T-1.5yrs).

What do people think? There is a concurrent R&D project for Nintendo's Gamecube outside of whatever ATI is doing? Looking at the sheer timeframe, the announcement falls into place as plausible for a 2005 launch window. But I digress.... I've fought this fight once too many already and I don't need more vindication in my life.

http://www.planetanalog.com/news/OEG20030304S0007