Nintendo patent...not sure what to make of it.

Battery life can be great as i'm sure the gc chips wont run anywhere the full speed to emulate gba games .

Second they don't need to make a system that can run gc games . They can change the format if they want to and i'm sure they can have a mini dvd drive that runs on little batery life as it is my discman gets 40 hours of play time on 2 aa batterys .

ALso this will work hand in hand. It will do what both of those systems can and will be portable extending the life of the gamecube tech and give new life to gba games .

 

Sounds like emulating old consoles on a new one. Backwards compatibility?
(and why is this patentable anyway? ;p)

 

That's patent application, if they don't have the patent number the patent probably hasn't been granted, YET

 

It's already been mentioned that a portable DVD player with a 9" screen can get 8 hours of playing time. If Nintendo included a custom battery pack, there's no reason why either the mini-DVD drive or screen would limit a GCP's battery life to anything less than that. The problems would be with Gekko and Flipper, (although I was under the impression that Apple powerbooks with PowerPC's had great battery life, and we all already know about ATI's prowess in developing mobile GPU's. So in reality I don't think power consumption would be all that great of an issue).

 

It's talking about two games though. It sounds more like something in the vein of Animal Crossing. Running one game on a certain architecture and at the same time running code written for a different architecture emulated on the same hardware as the first game.

As much fun as it is to apply this patent to next gen speculation.. its probably for something as simple as including an old version of a game in its sequel, or any inclusion of older games in newer games. We've already seen this.

At least thats how the language sounds to me.. but I'm trying to decode lawyer in real time here. ;P

 

Using what size/weight of a battery pack? And is 8 hours enough for Nintendo? Apparently it wasn't as the afterburner mod for the GBA puts it squarely in that time and even Nintendo didn't want a backlight. If I remember correctly that is.

Says who? In otherwords, do you have figures that prove this? Not meant as an attack but I'll be a skeptic till I see it either with numbers or 'see' it working in person.

Nintendo has dropped out of being the most technologically advanced (intentional shift on their part) and all of a sudden they're going back to it?

 

I foresee a lot of excitement and speculation, then a big wave of disapointment when the final product is something very underwhelming.

 

EXACTLY. We saw this before on this board with talk of the uber wireless networking device that was going to magically connect every GCN in existence, cook your 7 course dinners, and trump the latest technology from every cellular company.

 

Too bad Sega missed out on all the universal product hyping... They could have at least had more fun.

 

Ohhh... think I get it... remember that Metroid Prime had the original NES Metroid unlockable in the game? Well they're patenting that now ;p

 

Apparently the model referred to, (I wasn't aware of this at the time), is the Panasonic DVD-LA95. The playing time comes from an additional battery pack which pushes battery life to between 6 and 10 hours. The player battery pack together weigh about 3 pounds, (with the battery itself around a pound). There are some key differences that should be noted here:

1. The DVD player features a much larger screen than would likely exist on a GCP, probably at least 4 times as much, (a 4.5 inch screen would have 1/4 the area of a 9 inch screen). Screens used to be the most hungry part of laptops, (and they may well still be), so that could be a huge factor in determining the potential battery life and size of a GCP.

2. The LA95 features a full-sized DVD player that will be spinning continuously throughout the duration of the movie. Besides using MiniDVD's, I'm sure that many GC games do not need to constantly access data throughout the game. In many instances the drive will mostly be used for loading up levels.

3. Granted, the player is not processing intensive 3d graphics like a GCP would. This is something that is going to cut into battery life significantly, but ATI in particular is the king of mobile chipsets.

4. This player and battery pack were released in 2000. They'll be 4 years old by the time PSP is released, surely there have been advancements made in the past 4 years allowing for greater battery life, no?

5. It is already possible to get a battery powered GC that lasts for 2+ hours. How hard is it to believe that they could squeeze a couple more hours out of it by die shrinking it and reengineering the thing for a mobile device?

I tried to address this earlier in the post, but if you want further elaboration please state specifically what you want elaborated on.

It doesn't matter how technically ho-hum the past gameboys have been. Sony has pushed Nintendo into a technological race with their PSP, which I think they have to counter in order to maintain a strong leadership position in the handheld market. They can use ATI and IBM to do it. And I think right now Nintendo wants nothing more than to bloody Sony's nose a little. A portable GC is simply the best, (if not only), way to do it.

 

Portable GC2? Who knows. IGN ran this quote from Iwata:

"It should be a hint to the next generation of hardware. This will be the year that we put up a serious fight with this new product."

Gamecube Network ran an article with some of the same Iwata quotes from the newspaper interview, but ran a little update to the story with this:

UPDATE: It was also announced that the unit will "play back existing titles."

I think that Nintendo would want to save any portable GC technology until the next GBA. That type of new portable would cut into GBA sales, and would be a consumer alternative to the eventual GBA2.

Sounds like some type of portable Ique type of emulator device. Hopefully something that's cheap to develop, cheap to convert the old games to the new format, and cheap to produce. Nintendo could use a nice little chunk of cash (in the absence of pokemon) to get ready for the real next generation.

 

Why . This would be the next gba . They can call it game boy 2 .

It wouldn't cut into gba sales as the gba would be dropped in price and this system would be around 200$ . By playing gb games it will be an upgrade to the gba and by the time they can drop it to gba price point the gba will be retired.

 

So what is the default playing time? Obviously way less. In addition I always find that the estimations for battery life are fairly generous, at least for me.

That's quite heavy.

Used to? Data on consumption please. How do you know it's not hard-drives, CD Roms, RAM, and CPU cycles?

Yep and of course the juice necessary for the GPU, RAM, Sound DSP, etc. Don't forget that spinning up the DVD drive requires more energy at first then keeping it running for the same period of time.

ATI is certainly versed in this department.

I'd wager not many as the battery pack you linked to is Lith-Ion already, the very same type used in the GBA-SP. Don't also forget that advanced the cells are (density, hybrids, unique compositions) the more expensive they are.

A lot. How large is the size of that battery pack (for the portable GCN?) Now imagine your requirement of shrinking the pack size & weight while simultaneously multiplying the runtime charge by 5x (using Nintendo's own standard of 10+ hours for a portable).

Just the above will do for now. In a nutshell I think yours and JVD's posts make a ton of assumptions without real proof that it's technically feasible in the near future.

Who says Nintendo has to counter technology for technology? I think the 50 gazillion Gameboys out there prove that technology is NOT king and Nintendo knows this.

 

It's all about maximizing profits. Nintendo probably could have accelerated the release of the GBA six to eighteen months sooner. Why didn't they? Because they were still pulling in GB money hand-over-fist. Why should Nintendo consider releasing GBA2 anytime soon when GBA is a guaranteed money-maker?

There really is no market competitor to the GBA now or in the near future. Not until the PSP gets marked down to the $150-$200 price range. I don't expect to see that until 2006 or later. Until then, Nintendo is going to wring every last cent out of the GBA/SP. (Or that's what I suspect the "old" nintendo would do. Iwata might be willing to play a little more risky.)

I predict that the true GBA successor won't show up until 2007 (or later). Nintendo wants to play safe, see what Sony is up to and how the public reacts to the PSP. If it appears to be a serious competitor (in terms of gaining market share), Nintendo will respond accordingly. If the PSP turns out to be a high-price niche toy, Nintendo will sit smugly and release the GBA2 whenever they want.

 

Because they had no competition in the handheld market.

Nintendo could do as you said obviously, let Sony role along with PSP until PSP reaches a competitive price and then bring out a competitor then. But by then Sony might have gotten a good foothold in the market. Also Nintendo may want to take Sony down a peg or two. Sony have dominated the console market for two generations, a market Nintendo dominated before them. Now Sony come waltzing into the market that is basically owned by Nintendo.. "who the hell do they think they are?" could be what Nintendo are thinking. Hence Nintendo won't wait for Sony to challenge them, they'll challenge Sony and send then away with a bloody nose.

But then, this is just speculation on why Nintendo "may" want to challenge PSP in the highend tech gadget/gaming device market. Personally I don't think it will happen.

 

Hence why I think they should split their portable players in two--they could certainly support both. The GBA could be continued indefinitely, with periodic updates (better screen, some more power, etc) keeping it fresh, but always keeping its price point and backwards compatibility. They COULD challenge Sony on the higher-tech end as well, but that's something I think will be tricky for them and their image to pull off right unless they take advantage of certain things they may well be able to pull off that the PSP couldn't. If it's just another high-performance portable gaming device like the PSP, it will likely lose on image and not add a lot of unique interest (other than having more gaming devices to hook up to which at least has potential, though they're not really moving on just the GBA/GC link in games as it stands). If, however, it could play GameCube disks innately...? Heck, it could give the PSP 2-3 years on the market, release at a higher price, and STILL blow past them quickly! (It would also keep fuelling the GameCube's afterlife while all the next gen consoles were getting the attention.)

From a technical perspective though, while this seems plausable, it also seems it would take a LOT of time and effort to pull off (at least without other large concessions, like huge physical size, one hour of battery life, or rampant costs ), and doesn't seem like a maneuver Nintendo is prone to pursue.

 

Using a 90 nm process along with power saving features I'm sure they would get much much more battery life than what they currently get. Considering that the battery pack out currently for the game cube feeds all game cubes including the first production gamecubes and of course the 5 inch portable screen .

The portable cube wouldn't be using a 5 inch portable screen and the system would have been modified to use less power and be on a smaller process thus using even less power.

I can see it done. THey can announce it this year and release it early 2005 . I'm sure they can easily get 10 hour out of the battery . IF you look at the one in the gba sp its very small and powers the system for 10 hours . I'm sure a battery the same length and width but 3 times as deep could easily give 10 hours to the gc portable .

I really don't see a portable gc taking up much more power than the psp .

 

The default playing time is 2 1/2 hours using only an nimh battery. I gathered my estimates of battery time not from the official specs, but from the user reviews on amazon. Check it out for yourself.

If you'll look at this PDF here: http://www.e-insite.net/ednmag/articles/pdfs/EDN/20010621/14df1t1.pdf

The LCD, DVD Rom, and Harddrive, (which the GC doesn't have and therefore won't have to worry about), take up approximately 40-60% of all power resources in laptops, with the LCD comprising the biggest energy drain.

That battery pack is for a fullsized GCN with 5% screen, which was never, ever, intended to be used as a battery powered solution by itself, and the components were not die-shrunk for power consumption, as they would surely be with a portable GC. And a GCP does not need to run for 10+ hours in order to be competitive with PSP. Most people are expecting PSP to go from 4-6 hours. If a GCP can equal or beat that, most people looking at getting one of the two would be plently happy with a GCP's battery life.

If it's technically feasible for Sony then why not for Nintendo? Do you really think PS2 is such a quantum leap over GC that expecting Nintendo to be able to compete with Sony in the field they've dominated for over a decade is completely unfeasable? Gimme a break.

Nintendo hasn't faced a competitor like Sony in the handheld arena here before and everyone knows it. And to those who would like to bring up Sega and the Gamegear, I'd like to point out that Sega never held the kind of dominance over Nintendo that Sony has in the home console area, (which is to say, Sega never soundly whupped Nintendo's competitive offering for 2 generations in a row). Despite that, the Sega Game Gear did in fact outsell Gameboy on a consistent basis for a couple of years. Unfortunately for Sega, Nintendo had a 2 year head start on them, and after awhile new AAA games were much easier to find in GB than GG.

 

That patent sounds like the GBA-NGC connectivity thing, which is already in use.
Is it possible that Nintendo only recently patented the methods, even though the actual service has been already available, before Sony would patent something similar with their PSP ?