Nintendo increases R&D spending - N5 not a GC sucessor ?
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
Well I think you're way off
I certainly wasn't way off on which consoles were more techinically powerful this generation. I also wasn't way off on how well I thought each console would do in the different sales regions.Here's my prediction, we'll wait ans see if it's true..
1. There won't be a gameboy 2, Not while the DS exsists and is already a leap above game boy in graphics and has backwards compatability. In other words, nintendo wouldn't introduce gameboy 2 until the DS has lived it's product lifetime. it is possible nintendo could just call the DS gameboy DS or something along those lines before it's released. IMO I wouldn't be surprised.
2. N5 and gamecube 2 are the same machine. Ity will be more powerful than gamecube but not nearly as powerful, or costly to produce as Xbox 2 & PS3. Nintendo isn't concerend with having the most powerful hardware and they are already starting to downplay the need for incredibly realistic graphics. This is why Nintendo has already stated it isn't a true sucessor to the gamecube and how they want to extend the life of the current gamecube.
Qroach said:
Well I think you're way off
Here's my prediction, we'll wait ans see if it's true..
1. There won't be a gameboy 2, Not while the DS exsists and is already a leap above game boy in graphics and has backwards compatability. In other words, nintendo wouldn't introduce gameboy 2 until the DS has lived it's product lifetime. it is possible nintendo could just call the DS gameboy DS or something along those lines before it's released. IMO I wouldn't be surprised.
2. N5 and gamecube 2 are the same machine. Ity will be more powerful than gamecube but not nearly as powerful, or costly to produce as Xbox 2 & PS3. Nintendo isn't concerend with having the most powerful hardware and they are already starting to downplay the need for incredibly realistic graphics. This is why Nintendo has already stated it isn't a true sucessor to the gamecube and how they want to extend the life of the current gamecube.
Agreed, more or less.
You think MS is going to make the same graphical leaps it took this generation? they completely realised they did not know what they were doing on the hardware end and they spent themselves out of far too much money, this round they are out to make a profit. From what we know so far, Xbox 2 and GC2 are pretty much using the same CPU's and GPU's.
Well i can agree on most of it. There won't be a GB2 soon, the GBA is still doing great and will continue to do so. All the possibly existing portable 3D gaming needs will be satisfied by the DS (or PSP).
However i think the Revolution will not be not nearly as powerful as the XBOX2 (PS3 is a different story). It will be less powerful, but only slightly. Revolution is GC2 though, meaning they don't have another home console planned for the next few years. I believe they will continue to support GC though, probably with less sophisticated games (usually branded as kiddy games), because the younger folks can't tell the difference in graphics anyway or simply don't care even if they can.
However i think the Revolution will not be not nearly as powerful as the XBOX2 (PS3 is a different story). It will be less powerful, but only slightly. Revolution is GC2 though, meaning they don't have another home console planned for the next few years. I believe they will continue to support GC though, probably with less sophisticated games (usually branded as kiddy games), because the younger folks can't tell the difference in graphics anyway or simply don't care even if they can.
Pepto-Bismol
You really don't understand a thing about how Nintendo create a console do you? They have never fully R&D'd any of there chips and they have never built fabs to make them either. They don't do it that way and neither do MS.
So Nintendo (and MS) don't need to spend anywhere near what Sony do for R&D.
There's a reason Sony and Toshiba are spending so much on Cell? No shit sherlock. They are doing so because Cell is supposed to be there revolutionary chip that goes into just about everything they make, not just PS3. Nintendo aren't planning to create a new processor architecture to use in many different devices. They are simply partnering with other companies to create a console. For instance IBM may R&D and fab the CPU while ATI may R&D the GPU and NEC fab it (like GC). Nintendo buy the chips from IBM/NEC and make a console with them. So basically what your saying is totally and utterly irrelivant.
You really don't understand a thing about how Nintendo create a console do you? They have never fully R&D'd any of there chips and they have never built fabs to make them either. They don't do it that way and neither do MS.
So Nintendo (and MS) don't need to spend anywhere near what Sony do for R&D.
There's a reason Sony and Toshiba are spending so much on Cell? No shit sherlock. They are doing so because Cell is supposed to be there revolutionary chip that goes into just about everything they make, not just PS3. Nintendo aren't planning to create a new processor architecture to use in many different devices. They are simply partnering with other companies to create a console. For instance IBM may R&D and fab the CPU while ATI may R&D the GPU and NEC fab it (like GC). Nintendo buy the chips from IBM/NEC and make a console with them. So basically what your saying is totally and utterly irrelivant.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I think all three of the upcoming consoles will be comparable in graphics. all will be capable of pushing hundreds of millions of fully featured polys in-game. If Revolution pushes a hundred or so million less than PS3, it won't really matter.
Nintendo only said that it would be wrong to simply call it a continuating of the normal home console. Because it will be different to anything seen in the past. That says nothing of its graphics capabilities. Also Nintendo have always downplayed realistic graphics. Yet look at GC, its not as powerful as XBox, but its easily close enough. So if this new system is to PS3 what GC is to XBox then I think everyone will agree they're close enough (no idea about XBox 2 since I'm not sure if it might release early).
Your entitled to your guess on the matter of course. Lets see if it comes true at E3 2005.
BTW I remember Nintendo saying, right from the start, that they planned to support GC for 7+ years. Even after there next system had released. So I think they've always planned on it lasting quite a while. They'll have to pick things up a bit if they want that to happen.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
by the time Unreal 3 ships, R420 and Nv40 will be old, and the minimum graphics cards capable of running it. like Radeon 8500 and GeForce3/4 running Doom 3.... or rather actually R300 and NV30 running Doom 3.
N5 will likely be cheaper than PS3 or Xenon looking at Nintendo's previous consoles since a large portion of their target audience are younger adults.
It will roughly be on par in performance with them too. If you look at how GCN compares to the current Xbox with regards to cost, features, performance, it doesn't seem to be that much underpowered. Then when you see games like RE4, RS3, Zelda, etc., it becomes entirely irrelevent.
Whichever console is the most powerful in the next generation is also irrelevent.
It will roughly be on par in performance with them too. If you look at how GCN compares to the current Xbox with regards to cost, features, performance, it doesn't seem to be that much underpowered. Then when you see games like RE4, RS3, Zelda, etc., it becomes entirely irrelevent.
Whichever console is the most powerful in the next generation is also irrelevent.
Steve Dave Part Deux
Newcomer
If you think Dreamcast could even begin to run the FF:CC engine then you've completely lost your mind.
In mainstream gamer's eyes the system specs are quite irrelevant, as seen in this gen.PC-Engine said:N5 will likely be cheaper than PS3 or Xenon looking at Nintendo's previous consoles since a large portion of their target audience are younger adults.
It will roughly be on par in performance with them too. If you look at how GCN compares to the current Xbox with regards to cost, features, performance, it doesn't seem to be that much underpowered. Then when you see games like RE4, RS3, Zelda, etc., it becomes entirely irrelevent.
Whichever console is the most powerful in the next generation is also irrelevent.
It's funny that even though GCN is universally considered as being less 'powerful' than xbox, or even PS2 (by specs), it still has some of the best looking games this gen. To my eyes it looks like the GCN is the most 'powerful' of the three.
Steve Dave Part Deux said:
Was this directed towards me?
If so, do tell what in FF:CC would be so impossible to recreate on the DC. The scenery isn't overly complex, the draw distance isn't immense. Characters are fairly low-poly, and on top of it all it runs at 30fps (25PAL).
A DC version certainly wouldn't miss MUCH, that's for sure.
The reason Nintendo says N5 is not GC2 is a way to say "do not stop buying the GC when N5 goes out". They are very envious to see that ps1 has a very long lifetime after ps2 launch and they miyamoto said that he wants the GC to have 8years lifetime (comaprable to the 8 years for the ps1 and pthe rojected 10years for the ps2).
Does, the unreal engine 3 screen shot's look like a leap over today's consoles? I'd say yes, and I fully expect you'll be able to do lot's more witht eh graphics hardware on xbox 2 or PS3.
They are out to make a profit by getting more bang for theri buck and licensing the rights to produce the chips they want instead of buying all off the shelf parts. I think the only difference now is that they are in control of cost and customization.
We don't know that at all really. What we do know is that Nintendo and MS have two different GPU chips in development at ATI, and we know nothign abotu what nintendo is doig with the CPU. I fully expect it to be a power PC chip, but only single core like gamecube.
teasy,
Nintendo has always downplayed the need to talk about hardware. However they have never downplayed the need for better graphics until recently. They certainyl didn't talk about graphics or how concerned they are over graphical complexity until about 2 years after the gamecube released.
This is why I don't think they will have a console with graphics on par with the next gen consoles. It will still be fine, but I don't think it will have all the bells and whistles.
Well, nintendo never said that from the start, but they did say that a while after GC was launched. I think Nintendo was hoping GC would have a similar life to the PS1. I wouldn't be suprised if gamecube still got games from nintendo in the 7th year, but I wouldn't expect any third parties to stick around that long. PS2 on the other hand will still be supported by third parties and xbox will probably die out with gamecube unless they release a smaller low cost version, and even then very few thrid parties would still support it.
Nintendo has always downplayed the need to talk about hardware. However they have never downplayed the need for better graphics until recently. They certainyl didn't talk about graphics or how concerned they are over graphical complexity until about 2 years after the gamecube released.
This is why I don't think they will have a console with graphics on par with the next gen consoles. It will still be fine, but I don't think it will have all the bells and whistles.
Well, nintendo never said that from the start, but they did say that a while after GC was launched. I think Nintendo was hoping GC would have a similar life to the PS1. I wouldn't be suprised if gamecube still got games from nintendo in the 7th year, but I wouldn't expect any third parties to stick around that long. PS2 on the other hand will still be supported by third parties and xbox will probably die out with gamecube unless they release a smaller low cost version, and even then very few thrid parties would still support it.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Graphics and Semiconductor Industry
