Nintendo increases R&D spending - N5 not a GC sucessor ?

[Megadrive1988]

From what we know so far, Xbox 2 and GC2 are pretty much using the same CPU's and GPU's.

not true. only the CPU and GPU companies are the same. two different teams at IBM and two different teams at ATI are desiging the CPUs and GPUs/VPUs for Nintendo and MS. the graphics processors are probably going to be quite different from each other. possibly as different as Flipper and Radeon 8500 are from each other. though possibly sharing some of the same elements.

 

[Squeak]

From what we know so far, Xbox 2 and GC2 are pretty much using the same CPU's and GPU's.

not true. only the CPU and GPU companies are the same. two different teams at IBM and two different teams at ATI are desiging the CPUs and GPUs/VPUs for Nintendo and MS. the graphics processors are probably going to be quite different from each other. possibly as different as Flipper and Radeon 8500 are from each other. though possibly sharing some of the same elements.

I'm not so sure about ATI anymore. Some guy from ATI said in an interview, possibly here on Beyond3d, that they are not working with Nintendo anymore.
Has this been confirmed since?

 

[Pepto-Bismol]

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.

You're right. Nintendo has never been a hardware manufacturer per se. :|

However, with each console generation, they have become less and less involved in the (increasingly) messy details of process design.

With Family Computer, Nintendo Co. was intimately intertwined in its pen & ink design and manufacture. After all, everything was being reduced to silicon. Twenty years later on GameCube, the company has become a general contractor of sorts, doling out specifications to subcontractors and letting them worry about all of the implementation details.

 

[Pepto-Bismol]

not true. only the CPU and GPU companies are the same. two different teams at IBM and two different teams at ATI are desiging the CPUs and GPUs/VPUs for Nintendo and MS. the graphics processors are probably going to be quite different from each other. possibly as different as Flipper and Radeon 8500 are from each other. though possibly sharing some of the same elements.

Well I don't know about you, but that -- along with the outrageous price Microsoft paid for Rare -- sounds like a red herring to me. I bet these two numbnuts are collaborating on a next generation solution.

You don't have to be the CFO to realize that, unless there's some collusion going on, letting your competitors use the same vendors for the same functional pieces (in the same generation) of the same class of electronics is not good for business. If that were any other industry, both ATi and IBM would have been mummified in non-compete agreements. :?

 

[Qroach]

I don't remember seeing that Squeak. Are you sure someone from ATI said that?

 

[archie4oz]

Twenty years later on GameCube, the company has become a general contractor of sorts, doling out specifications to subcontractors and letting them worry about all of the implementation details.

Actually that's a bit inaccurate... Nintendo certainly had a lot closer participation with it's hardware partners than MS did... ATI and IBM did not design the GCN, nor was it an issue of leaving implementation details up to the hardware vendors. And more specifically it was HAL Labs that designed and engineered the machine, not Nintendo proper...

 

[Ooh-videogames]

I think your way off, the graphics capabilities will be comparable.

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.

So your saying Nintendo can't have a technically powerful console if its not their main focus of development. Having the most powerful console shouldn't be their main concern, games should be their main concern. Having a powerful console is a given, IIRC Iwata said it isn't enough. I believe the consoles will all be comparable in power and capabilities, but Nintendo console will be more than just a powerful console, but a console that would be capable of introducing new forms of gameplay. It might just be new additions to controllers. I find it disturbing when discussions about the next gen is only focus on the processor technology and not advancements of input devices that ultimately what really pushes gameplay foward. The physical interaction with game is part of the draw, its what sets it apart from the film industry.

The thumbstick and dual analog thumbsticks changed gameplay on consoles, if these two forms of input had not been introduce we would still be waiting for the FPS genre to come consoles.

 

[pc999]

So your saying Nintendo can't have a technically powerful console if its not their main focus of development. Having the most powerful console shouldn't be their main concern, games should be their main concern. Having a powerful console is a given, IIRC Iwata said it isn't enough. I believe the consoles will all be comparable in power and capabilities, but Nintendo console will be more than just a powerful console, but a console that would be capable of introducing new forms of gameplay. It might just be new additions to controllers. I find it disturbing when discussions about the next gen is only focus on the processor technology and not advancements of input devices that ultimately what really pushes gameplay foward. The physical interaction with game is part of the draw, its what sets it apart from the film industry.

The thumbstick and dual analog thumbsticks changed gameplay on consoles, if these two forms of input had not been introduce we would still be waiting for the FPS genre to come consoles.

Agreed

 

[Steve Dave Part Deux]

A dreamcast version of FF:CC would probably lose the specular lighting, the per object self shadowing, projected shadows and reflections, the environment mapped bump maps, the fur shading, the dynamic local lighting, and the particle system. You could probably also halve the texture resolution and geometry. The animation and skinning would also be hacked. The engine is leaps and bounds above most next generation titles, Dreamcast aside.

 

[Squeak]

I don't remember seeing that Squeak. Are you sure someone from ATI said that?

On second thought, it might have been the Inquirer, up to their usual shenanigans.
I just remember it like it was a (supposedly) direct quote from someone working at ATI. :?

 

[Qroach]

So your saying Nintendo can't have a technically powerful console if its not their main focus of development.

Not at all... I was saying they "wouldn't" based on thing I 've seen they quoted saying. Not that they can't. Also, when one company downplays a feature in something they are or plan on selling, it's usually because they don't or can't compete with that feature in some manner.

Yes, input is a really big part of gaming, but I don't think the input is what has really pushed gameplay forward. It's innovative game design that has really pusehd gameplay forward IMO. As there's going to be good and bad games on a platform no matter what the input is.

 

[Ooh-videogames]

So your saying Nintendo can't have a technically powerful console if its not their main focus of development.

Not at all... I was saying they "wouldn't" based on thing I 've seen they quoted saying. Not that they can't. Also, when one company downplays a feature in something they are or plan on selling, it's usually because they don't or can't compete with that feature in some manner.

Thats not necessarily true, considering the fact Nintendo is putting a extra 100 million dollars into R&D for their next console. They're not downplaying graphics, they're downplaying the industry focus on just delivering great graphics without making efforts to put as much focus on gameplay. Graphics are not a feature, its a given part of videogame console design. The Unreal images today are being done on todays technology, not the next two cycles. Nintendo know they don't have to put that much focus on talking about technology, because the technology to put realistic graphics on PC monitors and televisions already exsist.

Yes, input is a really big part of gaming, but I don't think the input is what has really pushed gameplay forward. It's innovative game design that has really pusehd gameplay forward IMO. As there's going to be good and bad games on a platform no matter what the input is.[/quote]

The games you and I play today could not have been realized if the input devices that exsist today had not been implemented. If the industry stuck with the digital D pad, game development would have hit a wall. Atari made the mistake of not pushing input design, and we all know what happen to them.

 

[Qroach]

Thats not necessarily true, considering the fact Nintendo is putting a extra 100 million dollars into R&D for their next console.

Um, so? Do you have any idea how much they where spending before this 100 million on R&D? All I know is I don't think they were spending anything close to what MS and Sony were spending to develop thier next consoles.

They're not downplaying graphics, they're downplaying the industry focus on just delivering great graphics without making efforts to put as much focus on gameplay.

That's a load of BS IMO. Game play hasn't really changed in years (since the move to 3D) and it's as good now as it always have been despite the move towards flashy graphics. That might not be the way nintendo see's things, but I think that's what happened. There are people coming up with innovative gameplay, and great realistic graphics. Perhaps nintendo needs to do better in the graphics department. I think Nintendo is also downplaying the style of today's games in favor of smaller games too which is a trend I can only partly agree with. They seem to think these big bugdet games with deep invovling plotlines isn't the way to go. I just think gamers are getting older and more mature, and thus require more invovling content. I don't think the save "the princess story" is nearly invovling enough to catch older gamers attention as much as it once did.

Nintedno seems worried about a lot of trends in the market, but I have no reason to agree with everythign they say. I don't see the competition complaing about any of these things which makes me think nintendo is loosing touch with a portion of the market.

Graphics are not a feature, its a given part of videogame console design.

Sorry but I don't agree. Of course powerful graphics hardware is a feature. IMO, the only thing that's a given on each console is that it will have a controller and connect to a TV.

Nintendo know they don't have to put that much focus on talking about technology, because the technology to put realistic graphics on PC monitors and televisions already exsist.

Nintendo knows they themselves don't need hardware capable of realistic graphics, because they themselves don't require it. Since when has Nintendo ever needed/wanted realistic graphics in any of thier games?

The games you and I play today could not have been realized if the input devices that exsist today had not been implemented. If the industry stuck with the digital D pad, game development would have hit a wall. Atari made the mistake of not pushing input design, and we all know what happen to them.

I really don't know where you get this idea. To some extent certain game play features have evovled from having a analog stick. However it certainly hasn't been all that "revoloutionary" for gameplay. Adding analog sticks to consoles were a natural progression from PC gaming. As analog sticks have long since been available in that market segment. Infact, I wouldn't be suprised if ananlog stick were available for consoles even back in teh atari/colleco/intellivision days.

Atari died for reasons that had NOTHIGN to do with input design. They died becuase they allowed the market to be over saturated with with poor games and this ruined thier own market. Perhaps you weren't around to see the big video game market crash, but that's what happened.

 

[Rodéric]

That's a load of BS IMO. Game play hasn't really changed in years (since the move to 3D) and it's as good now as it always have been despite the move towards flashy graphics.
...
There are people coming up with innovative gameplay, and great realistic graphics.
...
I just think gamers are getting older and more mature, and thus require more invovling content. I don't think the save "the princess story" is nearly invovling enough to catch older gamers attention as much as it once did.

Why do I end up playing Dune, Dune II, Chrono Trigger, Outcast if current games are so good ?
Because they are not, in fact their gameplay sucks, if not inexistant, graphics are just a way to introduce you into a game, that's not an end, just a mean.
That's true that deepers stories are interesting, however they severly reduce replayability, but the story don't matter that much, see Mario, Zelda, Doom, Quake...
Do we play them because of the story ?
Of course not, it doesn't matter, we play them because of gameplay (and graphics for ID Software games)

IMO graphics have evolved enough, it's time for gameplay to evolve as much as graphics did in the past years, because having beautifull boring repetitive "games" isn't appealing at all.

Better run Humus demos !

 

[Pepto-Bismol]

Actually that's a bit inaccurate... ATI and IBM did not design the GCN, nor was it an issue of leaving implementation details up to the hardware vendors. And more specifically it was HAL Labs that designed and engineered the machine, not Nintendo proper...

Since FAMICOM some twenty years ago, the roles Nintendo has played in console design and fabrication have diminished. In other words they have become less and less involved in the daily grind. This is not unusual for custom-built IC customers . . . :|

With its first console, Nintendo's technologists were involved in day-to-day tasks, but somewhere along the way their role became more managerial: they looked over the shoulders of other workers whose companies had been commissioned to do the work. With GameCube, it has evolved into something that is more executive -- Nintendo's teams were briefed (and made decisions) on issues, but they were no longer involved in daily operation.

"We worked with IBM on making changes to their Power PC, to make it better for gaming, and worked with MoSys on how the interface to the memory should look . . . The focus of Japan [Nintendo Company Limited] and our team's work together included the disc drive, the controllers, and the peripherals. What the graphics would be -- the OS, the APIs -- was more of the focus of our team working with Howard's team [Nintendo Technology Development in Redmond]." – Greg Buncher, vice president of engineering research at ATi

 

[Clashman]

They have an office in Redmond, WA? How far away is that from MS HQ?

 

[GwymWeepa]

They have an office in Redmond, WA? How far away is that from MS HQ?

I could have sworn its relatively speaking across the street.

 

[London Geezer]

They have an office in Redmond, WA? How far away is that from MS HQ?

I could have sworn its relatively speaking across the street.

Do you usually see posters saying "WANKERS" hung outside the window? Do they throw eggs at each others? Toilet paper?

 

[archie4oz]

They have an office in Redmond, WA? How far away is that from MS HQ?

Pretty much across the street... NoA has been there for quite a while actually...

With its first console, Nintendo's technologists were involved in day-to-day tasks, but somewhere along the way their role became more managerial: they looked over the shoulders of other workers whose companies had been commissioned to do the work. With GameCube, it has evolved into something that is more executive -- Nintendo's teams were briefed (and made decisions) on issues, but they were no longer involved in daily operation.

It's no different... The Famicom was thrown together with off-the-shelf parts to be a cheap as possible... There was no need to work with outside sources on it because there was little to design... And yes Nintendo (NCL) was pretty involved on a daily basis... I had a rather dandy chat with one of the GCN engineers a while back (during a job interview at HAL Labs), and happend to provide quite a nice bit of illumination on the subject...

 

[Megadrive1988]

Nobody at ATI has ever said anything publically regarding not working with Nintendo anymore. only those rumor mongers at Inquirer made up an outright lie saying ATI has cut ties with Nintendo.

Nintendo and ATI have a very good relationship.

the Nintendo graphics processor is not the exact same chip as the Microsoft graphics processor, according to ATI themselves. Also, MS holds patents that Nintendo does not. there will be things in the MS graphics processor that are not in Nintendo's, and vice versa.

there is nothing to suggest ATI is not making a graphics processor for Nintendo. they have a technology agreement and Dave Orton has mentioned it several times in the past 2 years.

until something concrete and substantial emerges regarding Nintendo and ATI not working on a console graphics processor, I will just assume work on it is ongoing, since 2001-2002 when work on Nintendo's next graphics processor began.