That I did not know. Good work by Sony then. They still didn't invent directional mics though - which isn't a criticism of Sony, I just want to point out that Zed's rubbishing of MS for not inventing everything in Kinect is unfair and ultimately meaningless.
Nintendo's hardware philosophy: Always old, outdated tech?
- Thread starter Tahir2
- Start date
That I did not know. Good work by Sony then. They still didn't invent directional mics though - which isn't a criticism of Sony, I just want to point out that Zed's rubbishing of MS for not inventing everything in Kinect is unfair and ultimately meaningless.
theLonely1
Newcomer
Smarthphone battery, while gaming, isn't really much better than the 3DS. And the iPod Touch's is worse.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Did the battery life on more recent smartphones improve much? If I play Gameloft's shoddy Guitar Hero knock-off on my Iphone 3g, the battery is dead in about 3 hours, which is very underwhelming. I can get around 4 hours (which is still rather underwhelming) worth of SFIV out of my 3ds if I lower screen brightness, use headphones and disable wifi. My PSP 3000 provides me with around 6 hours worth of Kingdom Hearts Birth By Sleep, which I think is pretty damn impressive.
Yeah, it has an array of 4 microphones, and their sampling frequency is a little higher than Kinect's.
However, Kinect's secret here I think is that it has a much wider body, and you can see 3 microphones relatively close together on one end, and then 1 on the extreme other. So I'm guessing it is better suited for background noise cancelling than the PS Eye setup.
Nintendo didn't sacrifice as many capabilities and features to have better battery life as they usually do with their portables, but Nintendo did made some decisions to reduce power comsumption. Iwata even elaborated on how they chose the PICA200 with fixed shaders to get similar results without using as much power. Nintendo wouldn't have to worry about things like that with a console.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
On the other hand, let's be honest: they could have put a much larger battery in there. They had the space and the resources for it. Not getting one was pure greediness, even more with the $250 price point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you got a link that shows Nintendo were actually aiming to be second?
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.
If you don't want to believe what I say, that is your business. I'm not going to go out of my way to convince you otherwise as this is not something that is important to me. I'm just stating what I remember. If you want links , I'm not stopping your web browser from searching for them.
Your prices estimates are being made using your logic and beliefs in the present, not Nintendo's .
Kinect = motion controls. It is a copy of concept.
Reverse engineer is to break something down to its source.
In the instance, I am referring to they went back to the source of Nintendo's success and broke it down. Then they made something that "looks" original with it. They did the same thing with Windows when it was stolen from Apple. The same thing with the Xbox( straight from the Dreamcast and so are its services). The same thing with Zune (straight from the Ipod). Same with Silverlight (straight from Flash). That is very "like" Microsoft.
Did you read what I said about Sony? Do you understand what now means? What they did 15 years ago and now are two different things. I'm very aware that Sony has always had the weaker and earlier released console until "now". Now they have a different strategy and goal. Read the slogan "It only does everything". This is how they do things "now". The current Sony's goal is all about having the strongest tech.
Last edited by a moderator:
But Nintendo and Sony didn't come up with concept of motion controls. Sega did lots of work with motion control games (controller sensors and even a camera) before the Wii and PS2 and they didn't come up with the concept either.
You can't reverse engineer something till it looks different. Nintendo made big splash with the Wii and that encouraged MS and Sony to release products that competed in the same expanded market. Both MS and Sony came up with different approaches to the motion control market. No reverse engineering necessary.
MS's approach is by far the most ambitious and uses the most advanced technology. That should be applauded by anyone who's a fan of gaming.
Xerox.
The Xbox is very different to the Dreamcast, and MS's vision of the platform's online service is very different to Sega's. They were strongly influenced by Sega's pad designs, but so was everyone else [edit] Well, maybe not Sony, who were so strongly influenced by SNES era Nintendo. [/edit].
Sony's goal has always been to launch with the strongest tech that they could. There is no evidence to suggest that has changed, or to suggest that they will from now on delay their systems specifically so they can come out later than their competitors.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you believe there is something wrong with a company developing products to compete in a market if there is already an established product or products in that market? It seems that you do, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.
If you remove Apple from the statement i would agree with you.
Looking at the hardware specs of Macbooks Pro's, my 9 months old 13" laptop that costed me $1000 has better hardware than all but the most expensive version, which is $3000 in norway.
What's your point. I never said they came up with it. That was never "the" or even "a" point in what I said.
The point was that they made there product specifically to compete with the Wii as matter of fact and that in doing so, they were aiming directly at the Wii's market.
In other words I was pointing out that there would be no Kinect or Move right now if not for Nintendo's success and that Sony and Microsoft made there device with the intention of leaching off of its immediate success. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is so much wrong here but I fear the purposeful misconstruing that would be applied by certain parties if i followed though with an explanation.
...??? Of course they are different, they are two different things made by two different companies at two different times. Microsoft's design was not the result of mere influence. Sega and Microsoft had been in an unofficial partnership since the Dreamcast. That is why so many Dreamcast games used MicrsoftCE. Microsoft even bragged about the ease of portability of PC games to the Dreamcast that came as a result. They're was a lot of Windows related tech implemented in the system.
The design of the Xbox was taken directly from the Dreamcast. Even Yu Suzuki made note of this when making Shenmue 2 for the Xbox. It was an okay thing with both companies.
Strange thing. There was no suggestion of this from me either. The thought of them delaying their system for anything was never a factor at all.
I never even inferred anything of the sort. You missed the intended point of what I wrote entirely. Please don't alter the context of what I say then try make an argument against it as if I said it. I will not even bother to reply to such a thing again.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not the only one who seems to have problems understanding your points. What exactly WAS your point then? Do you have a problem with iteration and feel that new products should always throw out everything that has been done before and start from scratch? Please elaborate beyond, "You missed the point." Or is it not important to you that people understand you?
Did you actually read my post? It was the first thing I wrote.
All of this arguing is not even necessary though. Like I said in my first post in this thread. Nintendo's ideals on technology are to it make it to match there ideal. It has little to do with strength, age or any of that.
If you have trouble understanding then say so or ask for an explanation. Don't just assume.
They only make the system as strong as what they see is needed to do what they want while still being as cheap as they can "ideally" make it.
Ideally as in their "ideal profit". Apparently Shifty did not understand this so I am saying it more clearly.
Last edited by a moderator:
IMHO, Kinect is not competing with the Wii, it's replacing it in households. Faster harder better stronger. It's really almost a new console on the market that happens to use an X360 as one of its components.
I do agree that MS needed to see the success of the Wii to justify the huge investment in tech and especially in marketing that was required for this.
But they did not reverse engineer in the strict definition of the word.
MS do invent things sure, but WRT its size its well known for being very conservative and non innovative (just read how many times they mention innovation in their press releases
I would say that's a mis-characterization. IMO it would be more correct to say that they aren't known to create innovative products. What products they do create, however, often have innovative features or implement their features in innovative ways.
How is Nintendo different in this than either Sony or Microsoft? Especially if we look at this last generation where in contrast to Nintendo both Sony and Microsoft were selling their systems at a loss to start. Is it that Nintendo has a different ideal (beyond making as much money as possible) than the other 2?
So what exactly did they invent?, except for the name (which is dubious originality as well)
Whether invent is the right word or not I'm not sure, but generating player skeletal data from a 3D image, and making both these things available through a library, is pretty damn cool and I don't think any other games console has done it. It's at least as original as Eyetoy (which also wasn't the first gaming camera input device) and it is using state of the art tech (so much so that Kinect is the device that researchers are buying to do more of this stuff).
Also, Kinect and kinetic are different words.
MS do invent things sure, but WRT its size its well known for being very conservative and non innovative (just read how many times they mention innovation in their press releases
Microsoft's biggest problem seems to be failing to make the best use of stuff they come up with. Years before the Wii, some MS researcher dude had made a gyro enabled pointing device (with mic and iirc buttons) for controlling a house with, and had identified it's potential for games. MS then sat on that and did nothing with it.
Nintendo are great because they identify the potential of new technologies then actually do something with it. Nintendo have vision and also have balls. Microsoft seem to have trouble using both at the same time, at least at the upper management level. They pulled it off with Kinect through, and it's an example of MS' gaming division at its best.
I have to agree with Function here, very true. There's been a good article about how Windows and it's supporters can pretty much kill a lot of other innovation at Microsoft which I think is pretty much the explanation for all that we see (also including stuff like mobile phone OS and so on). Kinect is actually a rare exception and I'm somewhat surprised that it has turned out to be this good in its execution; although I'm still waiting for a real killer app to arrive.
So what exactly did they invent?, except for the name (which is dubious originality as well)
snip/IMG][/QUOTE]
are you trying to give credit to Sony for a word based on a 'game' that no one ever heard of?
Hint, its a word, it's in the dictionary. Sony didn't make it up. And of course Kinect name is a play on that word.
