- Status
Yep. But the same architecture makes that a lot easier! 
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
By that definition aren't the PS4 and Xbox One 4K consoles? They can both output 4K.
Rikimaru
Veteran
There are a lot of games which are coming out on PS4/PS3/Vita on the same day. It's difficult to imagine more diverse hardware platforms.Yep. But the same architecture makes that a lot easier!
Isn't end of 2016 when Zen will be available at retail? I don't think that that in itself removes it as a possibility for use in a late 2016 console.
I think what removes it from contention (or at least reduces it's likelihood) is Nintendo's recent history in being conservative with new hardware choices. Basically, Zen isn't tried and tested, so it doesn't really fit Nintendo's usual MO.
That adds cost to the devs who have to make three versions, even using a middleware like Unity. Same architecture would allow cross device support without needing a hefty API abstraction or tricky middleware or dev headaches.
Not that N. have to go with same architecture, but if they can, it'd make their life easier. And that'd be important for the software. They may have third parties happy to make portable games but not enthusiastic about porting to the home console. If it just works, no aggro, then the home consoles gets a library.
And I think that's key for Nintendo. If they make it simple enough, there's less risk for Publishers.
Rikimaru
Veteran
Actually everyone wants just a good API abstraction. Pretty much nobody wants to code in the assembler.
Who's talking about assembler? I said 'hefty API abstraction'. PS4 offers both a hefty, slow API and a lean, lightweight, fast API, and it's the latter that's preferred (by performance targeting games anyhow). But it's not just the dev effort we're talking about, but the management by Nintendo and bug concerns. Look at two ecosystems with hardware abstraction - Windows and Android. Both offer a 'transparent' way to target different hardwares, but both have bugs that the devs can't do anything about because the hardware and the OS don't play nice. Now of course Nintendo would only have to support a couple of architectures, but that's still more trouble than a single one. So if there's a hardware solution that's scalable and solves that problem, why not choose it? The only reason to go with two different architectures is if the benefits outweigh the costs, so let's say a 'desktop' solution offers far better relative performance than a 'mobile' solution scaled up. Which comes down to N. intentions. But overall, one hardware platform is definitely to be prefered by everyone. Means less bugs, easier ports, lower development costs and maintenance.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
"a lot of games" and "Vita" do not belong in the same sentance - and I'm a day 1 Vita owner!
Then used PICA 2000 GPU on 3ds. It's not tried and tested.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but I thought PICA200 was at least a couple years old when 3DS launched? If so it's hardly the same scenario as NX using a CPU which launches at the same time as the console launches.
Rikimaru
Veteran
Pretty much every console indie is on Vita too.
PICA200 is a 2006 tech from a japanese company.
ARM11 MPCore - 2005.
True, but I am hoping that Nintendo has the confidence in AMD to go forward with a chip that can be the foundation of their products for the next decade. Im also going by that old quote from AMD talking about a new ARM chip and a new X86 chip, with at least one being used a new gaming console to be announced in 2016. Its out of character, sure, but perhaps the significant issues with Wii U have changed their minds on some things.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Nope.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
That's a long way from "pretty much every" console indie. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of indie developers.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm talking about the ones that aren't lazy!
Pica is old but nobody else used it. It's not tried and tested.
- Status
Similar threads
