Nintendo's hardware philosophy: Always old, outdated tech?

[Tahir2]

The only theme I see as constant regards Nintendo is that they tend to be conservative with RAM, both capacity and bandwidth.

I also see using chips that are efficient in terms of die size and power consumption. Gekko was only 43mm2 and Flipper estimated die size is even lower since it is an LSI and incorporates other processors on the same die.

However they are definitely highly conservative when it comes to cost of their hardware which from a business point of view is not a bad thing. From a geeks point of view it hurts.

I agree Nintendo does not indulge in RAM speed or quanity either. They are balancing the systems power and memory speeds for efficiency and cost rather than performance. No point in oodles of bandwidth if the GPU and CPU are unable to take advantage of it.

 

[Reznor007]

I am confused about what Mode 7 could do in the released SNES without an extra chip in the carts. Is Mode 7 boosted by the DSP? Can SNES actually do scaling & rotation without the DSP?

Yes, that's part of the built in video hardware. The DSP chips used in Pilotwings, Mario Kart, and several other games was a uPD77C25 with built in program ROM. There was 5 different versions of it used, with only the built in program changed. I'm unsure what the various games used it for specifically though.

EDIT-a few emulation fans donated money to have all of the various DSP chips decapped and get the programs extracted from them, so that SNES emulators could accurately run the DSP games instead of a guessed DSP emulation.

 

[liolio]

For Nintendo clearly the philosophy for a while has been "more is less" .

 

[Deleted member 13524]

For Nintendo clearly the philosophy for a while has been "more is less" .

That and making money on day one on hardware sales, and at the same time selling cheaper consoles.

That pretty much means they haven't been willing to spend big bucks on high-performance hardware, which keeps their solutions far away from the ones willing to sell their initial consoles at a loss.

 

[ERP]

I don't think Nintendo has a "Hardware Policy", they have product visions.
They don't use hardware as a loss leader, they set target price points and they decide what's important to the product. With Wii the product was the controller.

I think all 3 console manufacturers are going to be looking for ways to differentiate their next generation consoles, other than bigger better faster.

 

[lilbroK]

I don't see the point in this thread, at least as far as the speculations goes, because Nintendo has always stated their goals for each console clearly.

They're goal for the N64 was to have the strongest hardware. They're goal for the GC was to focus solely on games and to take a number 2 spot which. They're goal with the Wii was to make a console that appealed to everyone but was really cheap (Myamoto said that they actually wanted the console to cost $99 but that just wasn't possible).

With Nintendo the ideals and goals come first then they design the system to match those and they have always been about making things as affordable as they could.

Whatever Nintendo's next console specs are, they will not be made with things in mind like "Use weaker technology" like the OP suggest. They will be made to fit they're ideal as closely as possible and to be as affordable as they make it for the consumer. They don't intend to compete with bigger numbers anymore as they haven't since the N64.I thnk they made have actually said that. There was something about their market shares slipping with the N64 more than they ever had that prompted them to change their strategy

What we need to look for is what Nintendo intended target selling point will be for there next console.

They already set the next Nintendo console to innovate "like" they did with the Wii so we should expect the focus to be on what you can do with the system, not how much stronger it is as that doesn't seem to be a concern for Nintendo one way or the other. I wouldn't be surprised if their next system was weaker than the PS3 and 360 as the other companies system strength is really not a concern for them.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I think all 3 console manufacturers are going to be looking for ways to differentiate their next generation consoles, other than bigger better faster.

But it would be REALLY funny if one console was actually just bigger, better, faster, without any regards to unannounced gimmicks and turned out to "crush" its competitors in sales numbers as the Wii did this time.

 

[zed]

Most ppl agree that the next console from nintndo will be first, now so they do something radical, whats to stop sony/ms from copying them with something better & release a year later.
eg if the wii released in 2005 & then the ps3 with move & xbox360 with kinect in 2006, would the wii of had its large lead now, me dont think so.

 

[lilbroK]

I don't think Nintendo has a "Hardware Policy", they have product visions.
They don't use hardware as a loss leader, they set target price points and they decide what's important to the product. With Wii the product was the controller.

I think all 3 console manufacturers are going to be looking for ways to differentiate their next generation consoles, other than bigger better faster.

Nah, Sony made it clear with their new portable. They are all about the biggest numbers, and Microsoft is all about copying whats working for everyone else and reverse engineering it till it looks like something original. Sony is likely going see what Nintendo has, release something with higher specs and Microsoft will make something with similar specifications to Sonies machine with some with a ton of gimmicks and glitter attached.

Most ppl agree that the next console from nintndo will be first, now so they do something radical, whats to stop sony/ms from copying them with something better & release a year later.
eg if the wii released in 2005 & then the ps3 with move & xbox360 with kinect in 2006, would the wii of had its large lead now, me dont think so.

This is exactly what I expect to happening expecially with the outbreak of heavy piracy and super hacking on the PS3 which is why I hope Nintendo isn't stupid enough to release a new console this early. The Wii is still turning a sizable profit and so are their first party games. I will lose all respect for their business sense if they release a new console now. Nintendo should at least wait until Sony announces a finally system before they drop anything.

 

[wsippel]

Wut?
DS: arm9 from the early 90's and a "basic" gpu with no texture filtering.
Gamecube: gpu from 3 year old alladin igp and G3-ish PowerPC from mid 90's
Wii: rehashed gc gpu with no extra functionality and same, higher clocked cpu
3DS: 4 year old gpu.


How can you not agree that Nintendo has been using old hardware for the last 10 years?

Fun fact: By the time the NGP launches, it's GPU will be just as "old" as PICA200 was when the 3DS launched. PICA200 was announced in 2006, SGX543MP4 in 2007.

Also, Flipper has nothing to do with any ATI GPU - IGP or otherwise - ever released on the PC market. It wasn't even developed by ATI. And the PowerPC 750CXe, the CPU Gecko was based on, was introduced in 2001, the same year the Gamecube launched. It was as bleeding edge as it gets.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They're goal for the N64 was to have the strongest hardware. They're goal for the GC was to focus solely on games and to take a number 2 spot which.

Have you got a link that shows Nintendo were actually aiming to be second?

They're goal with the Wii was to make a console that appealed to everyone but was really cheap (Myamoto said that they actually wanted the console to cost $99 but that just wasn't possible).

I don't believe that. Wii could have been priced less, and could have been price-dropped more aggressively. Okay, seeing the machine selling well at the higher price, one can understand Nintendo not dropping down to $100 ASAP. But Wii is in effect the same machine as GC, being sold at retail for $99 in 2003. Wii selling for $250 3 years later shows Nintendo were never intending a $99 console. Or maybe they wanted $99 hardware but decided they'd charge full price.

Ultimately though, Wii's choice was low spec hardware for maximum profits, the like of which console hardware has never seen before.

 

[function]

I agree for the most part. Very interesting post, actually.

Your post reminded me of something....I recall reading a usenet post about the Super Famicom/SNES. Among other things, it mentioned how the SFC/SNES was originally supposed to have stronger sprite and/or background manipulation hardware (re: scaling & rotation) than it had (Mode 7). This more advanced hardware was cut out of the released console, but added back into certain games in the form of various DSP chips in the carts. That's how I understood it anyway.

Ahh here it is:

I remember reading about the cuts to the SNES 3D stuff years back. IIRC, the split screen two player Mario cart was only possible because of the extra DSP. What that means I don't know - maybe the SNES hardware on it's own was only able to rotate a single background layer? Anyone know?

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.apple2/msg/c48edd4e1b8fd69c?hl=en&dmode=source

I am confused about what Mode 7 could do in the released SNES without an extra chip in the carts. Is Mode 7 boosted by the DSP? Can SNES actually do scaling & rotation without the DSP?

I think that mode 7 was a background manipulation mode for a single background layer, allowing scaling and rotation about two axis, x and y (as opposed to the 3 axes the Saturn could rotate two planes around). I don't think the SNES could actually do sprite scaling - effects that looked like sprite scaling were actually a background layer that looked like a sprite being manipulated using the mode 7 stuff. Ironically, the Megadrive did occasionally scale sprites (using it's more powerful CPU)!

 

[function]

Microsoft is all about copying whats working for everyone else and reverse engineering it till it looks like something original.

i) Microsoft's biggest successes are Live and Kinect, which were copied from no-one.
ii) I don't think reverse engineering means what you think it means.

Sony is likely going see what Nintendo has, release something with higher specs

This would be unlike Sony. PS1 came out before N64. PS2 came out before GC. PS3 came out at the same time as the Wii and was in development many times longer. PS3 wasn't a higher spec version of the Wii.

If the PS4 comes out after the next Nintendo machine (and it probably will) it won't be because Sony want to wait and see what hardware Nintendo is going to use so they can release something higher spec.

Microsoft will make something with similar specifications to Sonies machine with some with a ton of gimmicks and glitter attached.

This would be unlike MS too, who have so far released quite different machines and differentiated successfully with a compelling service in Xbox Live and now by using the most innovative controller since the first analogue joypad (and no, that wasn't Nintendo).

 

[(((interference)))]

As a consumer, I'm quite incensed by Nintendo's hardware policy of charging ridiculous amounts of money for out of date albeit gimmicky hardware. I mean Apple & Sony get criticised for overpriced hardwarebut Nintendo are far worse than any other electronics firm out there.

All recent Nintendo consoles and handhelds (besides the Gamecube and N64) have been poor value for money compared to MS & Sony offerings.

They do the same thing with their ridiculously overpriced handheld games - thankfully the smartphone gaming market is seriously threatening their business model.
(and then of course, they complain about the 'unfair' competition)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As a consumer, I'm quite incensed by Nintendo's hardware policy of charging ridiculous amounts of money for out of date albeit gimmicky hardware.

As a consumer you should thusly be outraged at the huge amount of unnecessary markup most companies charge. Such is free market economics - you charge as much as people are willing to pay.

 

[ShadowRunner]

The only home console nintendo has released that hasnt been competative hardware wise is the Wii, its hardly enough to make it the rule rather than the exception. Portables are a different matter, here power consuption, form factor etc. have a much bigger impact on hardware choices.

Nintendo said themselves that the primary reason for the underpowered wii hardware was to mitigate risk, making such a profit on each console meant they could still be a viable buisness even if it didnt take off. It wasnt because of some deeper philosophy. If they go a radical new direction again that they are uncertain of its success we will likely see another wii-like hardware configuration. If they play it safer this time and feel more secure about its position in the market place they will likely target something thats more competetive with what they feel the competition is likely to offer.

 

[zed]

i) Microsoft's biggest successes are Live and Kinect, which were copied from no-one.

you do realize kinect was offered to both sony and nintendo as well as MS, i.e. like most things from MS it was developed by another company they just brought the rights to it/ownership. If youve been following IT stuff as long as I have you'll realize this is the chief modus operandi of MS, even back to their first OS MS-Dos, was actually developed by someone else. MS just brought the rights to it.

 

[function]

you do realize kinect was offered to both sony and nintendo as well as MS, i.e. like most things from MS it was developed by another company they just brought the rights to it/ownership. If youve been following IT stuff as long as I have you'll realize this is the chief modus operandi of MS, even back to their first OS MS-Dos, was actually developed by someone else. MS just brought the rights to it.

So what?

Nintendo didn't invent gyroscopes.

Edit: And no, they weren't the first to use them in game controllers either. At least MS were the first to use a 3D camera (and directional mic) as a console controller.

 

[ShadowRunner]

So what?

Nintendo didn't invent gyroscopes.

Edit: And no, they weren't the first to use them in game controllers either. At least MS were the first to use a 3D camera (and directional mic) as a console controller.

PSEye has a directional mic.

 

[(((interference)))]

As a consumer you should thusly be outraged at the huge amount of unnecessary markup most companies charge. Such is free market economics - you charge as much as people are willing to pay.

No not really, because say with Apple or Sony products which are often more expensive than their similarily specced competitiors at least you are getting a competitive product that is not 8 year old tech, this is completely unlike the situation on consoles where the 360 is cheaper than the Wii despite having vastly more modern technology.

Portables are a different matter, here power consuption, form factor etc. have a much bigger impact on hardware choices.

That excuse is not particularly good as you can just look at all the smartphones or the iPod touch to see that you can have great graphics with decent battery life.
Hell look how bad the battery life on the 3DS is (and how long the recharge times are) to see how that argument doesn't hold.