Official Nintendo's Next Game Platform Thread

[megadrive0088]

the next Nintendo won't launch in 2004, not in our wildest dreams

in our wildest dreams, it would launch in 2005, but even that is very unlikely. Nintendo always says it will launch its console a given year, then delays it one year.

Super Famicom, annouced for 1989, released 1990 (SNES 1991 USA)

Ultra64/N64 , annouced for 1995, released 1996

Dolphin/Gamecube , annouced for 2000, released 2001

Next Nintendo console, annouced for 2005, releases in ???

see the pattern?

while this time, more than any other, Nintendo has the greatest of reasons for launching the year that they have annouced (2005) this time, with their market share and profits erroding. however, its in doubt that even the PS3 will launch in 2005. Nintendo won't launch first. they never do. (although its not impossible) the most likely time for Next Nintendo console is fall 2006 in the USA. perhaps the next Gameboy will be out in 2005.

 

[bryanb]

Now, if you could formulate a real reply or thoughts on Nintendo's next gen console I would appreciate it. There's nothing to be gained from regurgitating "Nintendo = Sega".

Dammit, bryanb, I'm not fucking trying to say Nintendo = Sega!

All I'm saying, is if they release their next console a year early, they'll be DOING WHAT SEGA DID WITH THE DREAMCAST.

I hate to remind you but you said, "replace every Nintendo with Sega".

And guess what? Your statement didn't make any f'in sense. I guess we were all just supposed to know what you meant.

The state of the industry and the many strengths of Nintendo as compared to Sega are so wildly different that your statement makes no f'in sense regardless of what you meant.

 

[bryanb]

As long as the GameCube 2 is close in peformance to PS3 and XBox2, so that they 3rd parties can continue to port across all 3 platforms, the technological differences are meaningless.

Indeed only way that can be is launching near or after...
NO WAY in h#ll can you launch in 2004 a low-price console with a profit per unit,and expect it to exceed or equal 2005-2006 h/w priced $100 higher and at a $200-300 per unit loss.

Nintendo's plan obviously is not to exceed or equal the PS3. As I said before the Nintendo goal is to be close enough in hardware that the 3rd parties can still port between the 3 consoles. I would say that they can easily acheive this goal. They will stick with the same basic GameCube design and throw in the latest ATI technology.

Nintendo realizes that the strength of their 1st party titles is what is securing their current 15 to 20% market share. They want a 12 to 16 month window where their 1st party line up can really shine and increase that market share. The current GameCube technology is already holding back its 1st party titles and pushing the strength of those titles is Priority #1 for Nintendo.

Its also become obvious to Nintendo that having a machine that is just slighly superior to the PS2 (which the current GameCube is) is not as big a factor as they had hoped.

No one at Nintendo gives a shit about not launching prior to the PS3 simply cause people will be "waiting" on the PS3 instead of buying a GameCube2. At this point Nintendo knows it has secured its key market and they want to push beyond that.

The only one I see taking a big fall is the XBox. It doesn't have the benefit of Nintendo's console "secure" market following. XBox2 HAS to be superior to PS3 or it will be history.

 

[mkillio]

Sorry if someone already said this but I'm tired and did not feel like reading the entire thread.

Nintendo needs to have a built in GB player that will work with both the GBA and the GBA-2 on their next console unless the GBA-2 doesn't use the same type of media. In which case they should still have a built in GB player at the bottom and the GBA-2 needs to use discs that the GC-2 can read.

 

[bryanb]

Sorry if someone already said this but I'm tired and did not feel like reading the entire thread.

Nintendo needs to have a built in GB player that will work with both the GBA and the GBA-2 on their next console unless the GBA-2 doesn't use the same type of media. In which case they should still have a built in GB player at the bottom and the GBA-2 needs to use discs that the GC-2 can read.

The GBA-2 won't be using any type of disc, ie CD/DVD. You can't put a spinning CD/DVD disk in a hand held unit due to battery and durability concerns. It will use a newer and backwards compatible cart interface.

 

[wazoo]

Its also become obvious to Nintendo that having a machine that is just slighly superior to the PS2 (which the current GameCube is) is not as big a factor as they had hoped.

I think nobody at Nintendo thinks that "being slightly superior" is an advantage. From the previous generation, they learnt that being the most powerful is useless. MS is learning this too at the current time.

 

[Natoma]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What gave the PS2 its edge this generation is the fact that it is backwards compatible with PS1 from the get go. That's why the Gameboy continues to have unfettered dominance, and will continue to do so.

If GC2 isn't backward compatible with the GC, you can forget about it. PS3 will have the entire PS1 and PS2 library to cull from even if its launch games suck (which is frankly what happened with PS2. launch games sucked, but lots of people just kept on playing their PS1 games on PS2 until better games came out), as will XB2 no doubt.

That should be first and foremost in Nintendo's mind imo.

 

[jvd]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What gave the PS2 its edge this generation is the fact that it is backwards compatible with PS1 from the get go. That's why the Gameboy continues to have unfettered dominance, and will continue to do so.

If GC2 isn't backward compatible with the GC, you can forget about it. PS3 will have the entire PS1 and PS2 library to cull from even if its launch games suck (which is frankly what happened with PS2. launch games sucked, but lots of people just kept on playing their PS1 games on PS2 until better games came out), as will XB2 no doubt.

That should be first and foremost in Nintendo's mind imo.

We have any proof on ps3 being backwards compatible with ps1 and ps2 games? Not for nothing but the ps2 actually has the ps1 as one chip in the ps2 system . So the ps3 would need to have the whole ps2 in one chip inside the system and then the ps1 inside the system. Going to be expensive isn't it ?

 

[Grall]

I don't think it's entirely certain either PS3 or XB2 will be backwards compatible.

I'm almost entirely 100% certain GC2 (or whatever) won't be, as no previous stationary Nintendo system ever was.


We've discussed Cell in thread after thread and speculated Hammer or P4 or whatever (hell, some even suggested Itanic, lol) for XB2. What do you peeps think Nintendo will pick for GC2? IBM has a reeeeally nice PowerPC chip you know... Read about it here: http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/powerpc.html and here: http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html for more information.

It's based on their screamer of an architecture that is the Power4, and it's got Altivec SIMD extensions too (which is superior to 3DNow/SSE2 I heard) with a whopping 32 128-bit FP registers (4x more than SSE/2 and twice as much as AMDs Hammer SSE2 implementation). With some additional gaming-centric optimizations, this could be a monster CPU to stick in the next Nintendo console considering its phat FSB bandwidth, big cache etc. It doesn't even have that many trannies so at higher levels of integration it could either have even more cache and possibly dual cores, or be very small and cheap.

In 2005, this chip would only run even faster and be even more monster in every concievable way. Nintendo is already buddies with IBM from the GC days (they both design and manufacture the Gekko CPU, remember? Don't they fab flipper too?) I consider this a very likely candidate. Devs would like the continuity too I bet, moving from one PPC chip to another.

So, whaddya think? Quite frankly I can't think of any more likely candidate.

*G*

 

[DeanoC]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What gave the PS2 its edge this generation is the fact that it is backwards compatible with PS1 from the get go. That's why the Gameboy continues to have unfettered dominance, and will continue to do so.

If GC2 isn't backward compatible with the GC, you can forget about it. PS3 will have the entire PS1 and PS2 library to cull from even if its launch games suck (which is frankly what happened with PS2. launch games sucked, but lots of people just kept on playing their PS1 games on PS2 until better games came out), as will XB2 no doubt.

That should be first and foremost in Nintendo's mind imo.

We have any proof on ps3 being backwards compatible with ps1 and ps2 games? Not for nothing but the ps2 actually has the ps1 as one chip in the ps2 system . So the ps3 would need to have the whole ps2 in one chip inside the system and then the ps1 inside the system. Going to be expensive isn't it ?

PS2 doesn't have a PSX on board. It has 1 chip that happens to look alot like the main CPU of the PSX (also the soundchip is basically the same but that was because they didn't need more than just sticking 2 PS1 sound chip inside). It also has a few DMA modes that are similar.
The chip that looks alot like the cpu of PSX also has a use in PS2 mode, so its not wasted silicon. IOP != PSX CPU (They have subtle but major differences, mainly they are clocked at different speeds and IOP has a cache). The IOP is a fundemental part of the architecture, they could have picked any processor. Oldest trick in the book is having a second lesser processor.

Sony's genius was making this relatively unimportant chip compatible with there original machine, and getting almost free backwards compatibility. PSX compat is no different from running spectrum software on a SEGA Megadrive's sound chip (I know of at least 1 game that ripped the game logic straight out of the spectrum version and stuck on the sound chip)

PS3 could just have another IOP that this time is alot like an EE. Clever software will emulate everthing else. Relegate PS2 IOP to a sound DSP and promote PS2 EE as the IOP. A PS2 EE has enough power to run a fair amount of texture decompression/disk streaming and control/network logic. Also your PS1 and PS2 emulator would run alot faster than pure software

Which is why Xbox2 will stay x86, a faster x86 will be backwardly capable easily (the alternative of mounting an Xbox intel processor with another non-intel processor sounds like a nightmare). If you stay x86 all you need is a software layer to convert the API, as your not aloud to close to the metal on Xbox this will be quite easy.
GCN2 is harder to guess, mounting a Gekko as a sub processor may be possible but then they could just use a more advanced PowerPC chip. In the past Nintendo have used both approachs for backwards compatibility (GB Color is just a faster Z80, whereas GBA has a Z80 for GB compat).

BTW Its fairly common knowledge that no major console will ever be launched without backwards compat (there even be suggestion of cross-backwards compat). I'd put money on the big 3 all being backward compat with their own system and I reckon their will be research (both hardware and legally) about PS2 compat on non-Sony hardware.

 

[Grall]

DeanoC,

SNES was not NES compatible. N64 was not SNES compatible. GC was not N64 compatible. Nuff said.

No next-gen platform can ever be legally cross-compatible with one from another manufacturer, eg Sony. Ever heard of the DMCA? Sony would sue their asses off in a nanosecond, and they'd win too.


*G*

 

[Tagrineth]

DeanoC,

SNES was not NES compatible. N64 was not SNES compatible. GC was not N64 compatible. Nuff said.

No next-gen platform can ever be legally cross-compatible with one from another manufacturer, eg Sony. Ever heard of the DMCA? Sony would sue their asses off in a nanosecond, and they'd win too.


*G*

Well, SNES was partly NES compatible, and Nintendo originally planned to release an add-on that would allow NES games to run on an SNES (much like Sega's device for running Master System games on the Megadrive). And SNES's CPU is an extended variant of NES's.

And... look up AMD's adoption of MMX technology for the second part.

 

[DeanoC]

DeanoC,

SNES was not NES compatible. N64 was not SNES compatible. GC was not N64 compatible. Nuff said.

No next-gen platform can ever be legally cross-compatible with one from another manufacturer, eg Sony. Ever heard of the DMCA? Sony would sue their asses off in a nanosecond, and they'd win too.


*G*

But that was a different era, the market has changed. Gameboy -> Gameboy Colour -> Gameboy Advance. And as Tagrineth said, the SNES was partially compatible. Also Nintendo have seen a good market for there old games (GBA updates of SNES, Animal crossing NES games, SNES All-Stars, Zelda OOT on GC). Nintendo have learnt that they have a major asset in their past title. The internal N64 emulator was around before the GC was released, its a media thing that stops GC playing N64. I wouln't be surpised if they didn't bundle in a SNES disc with the GCN2 with a dozen classic SNES games.

Also they've seen Sony get away with very few decent titles on PS2 (in the early days) on PS1 titles. Why would Nintendo throw away Metroid Prime 1&2, Zelda WW, Mario Sunshine + Mario 128 on there new GCN2?

 

[zidane1strife]

Nintendo's plan obviously is not to exceed or equal the PS3. As I said before the Nintendo goal is to be close enough in hardware that the 3rd parties can still port between the 3 consoles. I would say that they can easily acheive this goal. They will stick with the same basic GameCube design and throw in the latest ATI technology.

Again a console that costs $150-180 to make and is released 1-2yrs earlier than h/w that costs $500-600 to make, will MOST LIKELY NOT GET DECENT PORTS...

With the accelerated pace in dev. we have today... IT would be like porting from xbox to dc... aka not pretty...

 

[a4164]

In 2005, this chip would only run even faster and be even more monster in every concievable way. Nintendo is already buddies with IBM from the GC days (they both design and manufacture the Gekko CPU, remember? Don't they fab flipper too?) I consider this a very likely candidate. Devs would like the continuity too I bet, moving from one PPC chip to another.

So, whaddya think? Quite frankly I can't think of any more likely candidate.

*G*

NEC fabs Flipper. I'm not so sure IBM will get the contract. They seem to be putting alot of time/money/resources into Cell (do you think IBM is disappointed in how GC is doing and would rather work with SONY?).

At this time, its still up in the air as the whether PPC970 will even go into Apple's new machines. On that front, people keep screaming for super-high GHz Intel chips Power4 and PPC970 is also what IBM wants in their high-end servers, so I don't know if those things would ever be cheap enough to get into a console. IBM does have great fabs though. PPC970 would give a big kick to Apple also, the G4 is just not cutting it anymore. I would like to see PPC970 get into the consumer market, its specs are quite nice.

And if you are still wanting to pursue a PPC chip, what about Motorola. They have had the G5 in the pipeline for some time, but seem reluctant to release it because they are more interested in the DSP, embedded CPU market than making a powerful RISC core. There is also the G6 or G7 for a 2005/2006 time frame. Very doubtful Nintendo would turn to Motorola though. However, Motorola is no stranger to the console biz, their CPUs have been in the Genesis, NeoGeo, Jaguar, etc.

Then what I was really pondering about was NEC doing a MIPS based processor, maybe something from their VR series for the next Nintendo console. Combine that with NEC getting the contract to fab an ATI chip (assuming Nintendo goes with ATI again). Slip in some MoSys technology and you could be looking at NEC fabbing just about everything for Nintendo's next console. I don't know if that would be appealing or not. NEC did get the N64/GC contracts.

What about the disc drive, another Matsushita proprietary drive ?

 

[Grall]

Motorola has never EVER been directly involved in the making of a console CPU. Companies buying their 68000 chip to stick in a console is no more being involved than if some other company buys their chip and sticks it in an industrial robot or a fuel injection electronics box or whatever.

People buying your chip doesn't mean you're involved. Besides, G5 is in limbo afaik, is it even still being developed? Moto seems to have its head firmly stuck up its bum these days, as far as high-end microprocessor development is concerned at least.

What superpowered MIPS designs are there these days? MIPS themselves seem only to concentrate on fairly pedestrian low-power chips for SGI server clusters and such these days. I don't think that is much of an option in comparison.


*G*

 

[a4164]

G5 is dead in the water at the moment, and Motorola seems very much disinterested in continuing their PPC line. But I'm just throwing out options. If Motorola gave them a good price, I'm sure they would go with Motorola. Motorola doesn't have to custom design anything.

If Nintendo wanted a MIPS core because it fit their price/performance ratio or their power concerns they would do it. If Takeda is still around I'm sure he will have his say as well.

MIPS, ARM, SuperH are the only lines of embedded CPUs that I could see being put into a console. They may not have the performance at the moment (especially ARM, power and ARM don't go together ). They aren't 'Cell killers.' They are low power RISC cores more at home in the next GameBoy than Nintendo console. I'm not saying Nintendo will use these. I'm just saying there are others that can be contracted outside of the IBM PPC, Intel/AMD CPUs that most people think are a lock for next gen consoles. Whatever goes into Nintendo's next console, may not even exist yet. In any case Takeda is no Kutaragi, in design or philosophy, so we will just have to see. An IBM PPC970 would be righteous for a next gen console. If Nintendo are doing a 'Cell Killer', well I have no clue who gets that contract. After N64, I don't think Nintendo really cares if its the most powerful on the block. Easy to program for and cost effective are the key words.

 

[DeanoC]

DeanoC

Ever heard of the DMCA?

*G*

No whats that?, I'm British it means absolutely nothing . If MS or Nintendo wants to hire me to do it, Sony can't do nada (though they had better hurry a similar EU law is coming in soon)

And I hate travelling, so no real worries about holidays in the States.

 

[DeanoC]

Persoanally the GCN2 CPU is the big question mark out the entire next generation. Their just doesn't appear to be an easy answer except the bigger PowerPC and yet that seems to have its own problems....

If they do go with PowerPC, which one... PowerPC970 is nice but a console doesn't need the 64 bit modes (don't think a Nintendo console is going to need 42 bit addressing). Whereas the Power4 has 2 32 bit cores but only 1.3 Ghz vs 1.8 Ghz (at the moment).

I suspect a Power4 based core or maybe a hybrid... A 2 core 32 bit PowerPC970 each at 2Ghz?

I'm just guessing but that sounds pretty sweet?

I guess the other question for GCN2 is hard-disk? I think yes, small but very fast. Nintendo hate load times, I guess they could go with some kind of silicon disk... but I can't see them getting size/cost ratio in the next couple of years.

 

[Grall]

DeanoC:

Surely you have heard of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? It says, if you try to circumvent any kind of copy(right) protection scheme you not only go to jail forever, you have to pay ten bajillion dollars in fines too.

Doesn't matter if a company tries to emulate PS2 in a country outside the US, you could never sell that console in the US anyway and that means you can't afford to develop that tech to begin with. Besides, Sony would sue anyway; M$ is an american company and Nintendo has a US branch.

And while you might not need 64-bit TODAY, what about TOMORROW or 2+ YEARS off in the future? Cell is 64-bit, isn't it? If M$ goes with Hammer, that will be 64-bit. Even if M$ goes with a P4 and Cell is 32-bit only that means Ninty gets bragging rights as the only 64-bit CPU system in town. Besides, surely there are tasks where 64-bit processing can help. And PPC940 still uses fewer trannies for 64-bit computing, 96 general purpose registers and 512k cache than P4 does for 32-bit, 24 not so general purpose regs and 512k cache... This looks like a hottt chip to me.


a4164:

Why are you even LOOKING at embedded CPUs? None of them are suitable to drive even THIS generation of devices, much less the upcoming. ARM? Jesus christ you gotta be kidding me here! SuperH? Don't think they're up to it. MIPS R16k looks kinda decent MAYBE but its performance is still low. Since it draws only like 12W, maybe if Nintendo stuck four of em in the box they'd get a high performance system, but that would be too many chips... I consider MIPS about as attractive as Moto these days.