PSP: Playable on show floor, impressions inside.

[Phil]

JVD:

DOesn't matter

How so? How about explaining why it doesn't matter? Simply negating my argument with your personal belief doesn't hold much weight in this debate nor in reality unfortunately.

Yup your point ?

The point that having other companies do fabbing for you costs money. You can't expect to have the same price for shrinking chips as your competitor that is in control over their entire process. Going through other external companies will make prices go up. Fail to recognise this and your belief or your simplistic calculation is damned to fail.

Well how much power would the geko and filper draw running at the current speeds on 90nm tech ?

How much would they use with modifications for running in set up like this ?

Heh. you're the one that is trying to convince us that a portable GameCube would be possible at a price at $250 or lower. Seeing the way Sony designed their PSP and the rumoured price of $299 or higher makes it quite evident to me that it obviously isn't as easy. If PS2 were that easy to shrink and give it the price of a portable GC that you are dreaming of, I have absolutely no doubt Sony would have done that. Afterall, lower price and easier portable PS2 <-> PSP portings == no aditonal effort. Plus considering a PS2 portable at that price would even give them the advantage that SDK's are already available, developers can re-use their libraries for existing PS2 projects... The benefits of "JVD" scenario (no offence intended) are limitless... BUT wait! No, Sony however didn't go with a portable PS2 - they went with a PSP that isn't all that different to beginn with, but nonethless. Why JVD, why?

Is it because of insufficient battery life? Costs? I don't know, but I do know that it must be a pretty good reason why Sony decided to go with a slightly modified design. There is a reason why PSP, that I have no doubts is already optimized for optimal battery length, only has betweed 2.5 and 10 hours of playtime. There is a reason why Sony is considering selling it at a price range of $299 or higher. Bad company decisions? Or is it the best they can actually do with roughly PS2 specs? Do you really believe that a PS2 portable would be cheaper to make than the PSP as it is now - Let alone a GC portable being even cheaper? Sony's decisions and facts on the already customized PSP are confirmation enough that your scenario isn't quite on the basis of reality.

Yes the lcd is a factor. Of course they don't need to put the same lcd as sony does .

Of course not. They can just stick in the GBA advance display. Or wait, better - instead of a display, the can just put in a VGA-out and sell the mini displays with their own battery packs seperately.

Honestly, no one is suggesting that they need to have the exact same LCD in there as PSP. However, what they would need for a portable GameCube is certainly more expensive than what they are putting in GBA's and DS. They would also need to get them from outside since they don't make their own LCDs so expect you can add in more costs as well.

They don't need to have umd , they don't need to have mp3 playback.

Mp3 didn't cost PSP a cent more JVD - not relevant. MP3 is done purely through software - even PC-Engine argued with me that the GBA could play mp3s with the right add-ons. Did Mp3 capability add costs to the PSP? No. Is it relevant to the on-going discussion? No. Case dropped.

UMD is a Sony in-house development. I have no reason to believe it added to the costs of the PSP anymore than it would have implementing mini cd's.

The only thing i can see as a problem is the disc drive.
Of course they can just use a cartridge based or another based distrubution .

Deja vu. Didn't Nintendo find themselves in a very similar position when they launched N64 years back? No cd-drive but then decided to go with cartridges. Sure, one can argue that the later cartridges did reach 256 MB (or was it 64MB) - I don't really want to question how much it costed Nintendo or the developers to actually use such an expensive cartridge. Same applies in this case with a portable GC. From what I have read on these forums, the maximum to expect in the near future on high performance cartdidges are 512MB? Lets assume they do use these cartridges: how much more expensive would it be for a dev to actually use such a cartridge opposed to a PSP dev using a disc (UMD)? Either the dev would pay, or Nintendo would. Either way, it adds cost which must be considered if the company behind it wants to turn a profit someday.

After all many of u are willing to rebuy ps2 games on umd for your psp.

We weren't talking about content - this started about you saying that a portable GameCube is feasable at around $250. Conent is an entirely different discussion, one I wish not to discuss since it's not relevant to this discussion. However, I do wish to point out that most games are unique and not "ports" - though I have no doubt that there will be quick ports. That's up to consumer to decide though and really is not relevant on your claims on a portable GameCube.

RIght and nintendo has been working in portable gaming devices for what now 12 years and has had succesfull products in that field . Basicly holding a monoply over it . Has sony been succesfull in this field yet ?

I brought up Sony's "consumer electronics" experience for a distinct reason: Through that, they have ACTUAL experience and know-how to make low-cost and low-power gadgets - a field they have specialised in since the birth of the walkman. This is valuable experience and is surely considered when making a handheld system like PSP. This means they have actual KNOW-HOW and EXPERIENCE in-house. Just look at their MiniDisc portables that have a play-time of 70 hours (firt generation portables had 2 to 3 hours). This valuable know-how is surely used within PSP. A portable GameCube would have to have similar power-saving technology/techniques behind it to be able to compete on battery time with "GameCube hardware".

Yeah, Nintendo does have 12 years experience - one in which they held back the industry on a technlogy side and milked it for what it was worth. Really not comparable to what Sony had to invest to make their walkmans comparable to actually compete with hundreds of other companies. I am not disputing that Nintendo does have valuable experience - I am just question how their experience is all that relevant when it comes to making a portable system with GameCube hardware for under $250. Especially if they want to actually turn a profit on hardware which is the reason why I fail to see a GC portable for that price feasable.

right but not only does sony need to pay for the fabs , the new tech in the psp , the tweaking and the people to tweak it . Where as nintendo would pay someone else to deal with all these problems .

Ever studied basic economics JVD? It is clear that those fabs had to be build - but they were build for a reason and that reason was certainly worth it, or else a company such as Sony wouldn't have built them in the first place. A fab adds to the intial cost of a product, but yields great advantages since you don't pay per chip (you make them yourself) and you can drive down costs as you upgrade. In addition, one fab can be used for various products at the same time, as like Sony intends to do with CELL which will not only be used in PlayStation 3 products but also in other consumer electronics. The advantage of driving down costs and not paying per chip is far greater and cheaper for a company such as Sony than a company like that doesn't / can't. This is the biggest advantage Sony has and the best one too: they can push technlogy as far as their fabbing technology allows them to and still turn a profit. Nintendo's best option is to make deals - and with every deal, there's someone more making bucks.

RIght ibm , ati and whoever owns the ram. Which nintendo already has good relationships with and the companys have experiance with both of these chips and lay outs which sony doesn't have the privliage of with the psp.

In business relationships "good" is relative. Its all about the money. True, Sony doesn't build everything themselves and needs to rely on "business releationships" as well. The point is though, Sony has most things in-house while Nintendo clearly doesn't. Sony can drive down costs as the technology gets cheaper and have at all times on their own in-house development the lowest cost. In Nintendo's case (or anyone that gets things done through other companies), someone else is there to make money too.

Right the gamecube costs 100$ to sell to us. We don't know how much it costs them. But lets say a 100$ .

We do not know the size of the chips nor the process they are built on . The speeds of which they run at are now very low for this day. I'm sure on 90nm the yields will be high and they can run at very low voltage with out any powersaving tweaks done to them .

Right. I already covered this one. Despite your popular belief that it's possible, I look at Sony and wonder why they don't go with a portable PS2. Wasted resources? Maybe. But the advantages of a portable PS2 are sheer limitless as outlined above. For some reason however, Sony didn't. For some reason, PSP will be sold at $299. For some reason, the battery life will be somewhere between 2.5h and 10 hours. And PSP isn't as powerful as a GameCube, obviously. Plus you need to consider that Sony has 90nm too and will have 65nm in 2005. They are right up there with the most advanced processes available. Given this advantage, I am sheer amazed that you even expect a portable GameCube to be even less expensive than what the PSP is going for in addition to all the technology and changes they have made to the system - and still it is priced at atleast $299, it's battery life is not too impressive. How do you propose is Nintendo going to actually make a GameCube portable that is 1.) more powerful 2.) and cheaper - than PSP when they don't even have their own resources to actually have the lowest cost option (that Sony has)?

You loose the disc drive most likely but are stuck with the other format . That will prob negate each other.

negate? They will drive up costs for sure. Maybe not compared to a disc-drive out of NIntendo's view, but certainly in relation to what Sony is offering with PSP.

Any company can launch a product at any given price. The question begs: at how big of a loss must it be sold? We don't want to compare Microsoft scenario in which the company has BILLIONS of cash backing them in the bank. Given we are talking about Nintendo here, a portable GameCube would IMO not be possible since the costs would surely be higher than a PSP and would be too expensive for THEM in the long run if they were to compete. Making a portable GameCube at that price would be definately sold at a loss and if they have to use cartridges, they may even loose support over time because price would be more expensive. We saw this happen to an extend with PlayStation / Nintendo64 years back. I really don't see this situation all that different. Actually, far from it: portable devices have always required more effort and more technology backing. They are more expensive to make and there are more factors to consider (those factors you are more or less ignoring).

 

[Phil]

thop:

Not sure if you listened to the E3 conference because that's exactly the point! They don't want to.

No I haven't, but thanks. Perhaps you can do a better job at explaining it to JVD. It's clear to me that they have their reasons why they don't want to - maybe they are so confident or they realised that it obviously isn't easy to launch something as good while being competitive at the same time. I think it's a mixture of both - but ultimately, I stand by my points and Nintendo's action seem to confirm it (because if you can applying to a wider audience AND being competitive is always a good thing, if you can).

 

[London Geezer]

I just wanted to mention that Nintendo can get VERY good prices for technology that goes into their gaming machines because they sell millions of them. They buy parts in the millions. Having everything manufactured in-house doesn't automatically equal cheaper than outsourcing. Sometimes it's better/cheaper to outsource.

huh? If u sell millions, it's cheaper wheter its in-house or outsourced. In-house is always cheaper (unless there are "issues" involved): fewer people involved in the process. Fewer people to pay. Cheaper. Simple as that.

 

[PC-Engine]

I just wanted to mention that Nintendo can get VERY good prices for technology that goes into their gaming machines because they sell millions of them. They buy parts in the millions. Having everything manufactured in-house doesn't automatically equal cheaper than outsourcing. Sometimes it's better/cheaper to outsource.

huh? If u sell millions, it's cheaper wheter its in-house or outsourced. In-house is always cheaper (unless there are "issues" involved): fewer people involved in the process. Fewer people to pay. Cheaper. Simple as that.

Umm...but in-house you have to build the factories. It's not as cut and dry as it seems. When you outsource you don't need to build billion dollar factories.

 

[Phil]

I just wanted to mention that Nintendo can get VERY good prices for technology that goes into their gaming machines because they sell millions of them. They buy parts in the millions. Having everything manufactured in-house doesn't automatically equal cheaper than outsourcing. Sometimes it's better/cheaper to outsource.

True PC-Engine. "Having everything manufactured in-house doesn't automatically equal cheaper than outsourcing".

I have no trouble seeing that it's cheaper for Nintendo to outsource. I also see that for Sony it is not. The thing I am questioning is, if you are competing with a company that already does more or less everything in-house and has the lower cost at all times - how do you compete with technology?

Either you find someone with better processes/lower costs and get a really good price or you are damned to cut somewhere back. And in Nintendo's case, I think they'd have to cut back a bit too much in certain areas to make a portable GameCube a realistic, profitable possibility (other factors as outlined in my above reply).

 

[London Geezer]

I just wanted to mention that Nintendo can get VERY good prices for technology that goes into their gaming machines because they sell millions of them. They buy parts in the millions. Having everything manufactured in-house doesn't automatically equal cheaper than outsourcing. Sometimes it's better/cheaper to outsource.

huh? If u sell millions, it's cheaper wheter its in-house or outsourced. In-house is always cheaper (unless there are "issues" involved): fewer people involved in the process. Fewer people to pay. Cheaper. Simple as that.

Umm...but in-house you have to build the factories. It's not as cut and dry as it seems. When you outsource you don't need to build billion dollar factories.

And you think that the company you outsource your chips are building their fabs for free??? Do you think that Nintendo doesn't ultimately pay for that in the fees chared by the third party manufacturer? That's very naive, PCEngine.

It's common economics theory. If you build your own fabs, you incurr an enormous cost initially (sunk costs), which is then paid off once the company starts being profitable.

If you outsource your chip production, you keep paying off the third party, whatever your situation is.

It's like buying a TV instead of renting it. Sure, if u buy it, u incurr a big cost initially, but if u were to rent it, there will be abreaking point when the cost of renting will be higher than the cost of buying it in the first place.

 

[a688]

It's common economics theory. If you build your own fabs, you incurr an enormous cost initially (sunk costs), which is then paid off once the company starts being profitable.

If you outsource your chip production, you keep paying off the third party, whatever your situation is.

It's like buying a TV instead of renting it. Sure, if u buy it, u incurr a big cost initially, but if u were to rent it, there will be abreaking point when the cost of renting will be higher than the cost of buying it in the first place.

It NOT always cheaper to do stuff inhouse. If you had taken basic economics you would have known that. If it was do you think that there would be outsourcing at all? Get some common sense. Doing it yourself doesn't necessarily make something cheaper or easier. Hell, if you rent a TV you can always return it and then rent a higher end model. You pay for the TV and you are stuck with it. If you do it inhouse YOU are responsible for a lot more than if you outsource ("rent") something.

EDIT: It all depends on your needs, so quit thinking that you are correct when it is PC-Engine that is correct. Hell think about ATI/nVidia/3dfx. 3dfx purchased their own fabs and they went out of business. ATI owns their own fabs and realized its cheaper/easier/better for them to outsource their pcb and fabbing to others.

 

[PC-Engine]

And you think that the company you outsource your chips are building their fabs for free??? Do you think that Nintendo doesn't ultimately pay for that in the fees chared by the third party manufacturer? That's very naive, PCEngine.

The manufacturing companies share the cost with ALL of their customers not just one.

It's common economics theory. If you build your own fabs, you incurr an enormous cost initially (sunk costs), which is then paid off once the company starts being profitable.

You see that's the thing. When do you start becoming profitable that's the question. If it takes 10 years to become profitable then you better pray that your products will last that long without needing additonal investments otherwise those 10 years would need to be pushed back even further.

If you outsource your chip production, you keep paying off the third party, whatever your situation is.

Sure but if you get a good deal and can still make a profit then who cares?

It's like buying a TV instead of renting it. Sure, if u buy it, u incurr a big cost initially, but if u were to rent it, there will be abreaking point when the cost of renting will be higher than the cost of buying it in the first place.

And that breaking point is the key issue. If you rent it you can have the newest technology every year because you didn't spend all of your money to buy it

 

[London Geezer]

The manufacturing companies share the cost with ALL of their customers not just one.

Yes, therefore Nintendo (or whoever else) WILL pay for it. Never said they were the only ones.

You see that's the thing. When do you start becoming profitable that's the question. If it takes 10 years to become profitable then you better pray that your products will last that long without needing additonal investments otherwise those 10 years would need to be pushed back even further.

Well that's not the problem, really. If it takes 10 years for Nintendo to get profitable, then they're in the same boat... Look at MS, how long did it take them to stop losing money on each and every Xbox? If they have stopped, that is.

Sure but if you get a good deal and can still make a profit then who cares?

Same thing. Who cares if it's in-house and still make a profit...?

And that breaking point is the key issue. If you rent it you can have the newest technology every year because you didn't spend all of your money to buy it

I know it is, and this is why i was the first to say that Sony is risking A LOT by fabbign their own chips. Months ago, when this all thing came up, i was the first to say that Sony is taking a HUGE risk by doing everything in-house.
All i'm saying is that if there are NO issues, then it will ultimately be cheaper for them.

 

[Phil]

Guys. The point you guys are arguing has already been established. No one is arguing that every company is better of having their own fabs. Of course it is clear that some companies are better off outsourcing. No one is disputing that. Having that said, no one is saying Nintendo would be cheaper fabbing their own chips. The point is, they are competing with a company that obviously can fab their chips and that at an advantage.

What it all boils down to is:

How do you compete on a technology level with a company that already fabs their own ships at a very low cost - while the best you can do is outsource to some company? In the case Sony, they already have a very low price as the fabs they are using are not only used to support 1 product, but potentially the entire consumer electronics devision.

All this talk about why outsource or not is really not relevant. Lets keep this on-topic. We've already established "the basics of economics". This is not about if outsourcing is good or bad. As everything, there's an upside and a downside.

 

[London Geezer]

Guys. The point you guys are arguing has already been established. No one is arguing that every company is better of having their own fabs. Of course it is clear that some companies are better off outsourcing. No one is disputing that. Having that said, no one is saying Nintendo would be cheaper fabbing their own chips. The point is, they are competing with a company that obviously can fab their chips and that at an advantage.

What it all boils down to is:

How do you compete on a technology level with a company that already fabs their own ships at a very low cost - while the best you can do is outsource to some company? In the case Sony, they already have a very low price as the fabs they are using are not only used to support 1 product, but potentially the entire consumer electronics devision.

All this talk about why outsource or not is really not relevant. Lets keep this on-topic. We've already established "the basics of economics". This is not about if outsourcing is good or bad. As everything, there's an upside and a downside.

Thank you.

Back to topic.

 

[PC-Engine]

Yes, therefore Nintendo (or whoever else) WILL pay for it. Never said they were the only ones.

But they don't pay for the the cost of a whole factory so it's irrelevent.

Well that's not the problem, really. If it takes 10 years for Nintendo to get profitable, then they're in the same boat... Look at MS, how long did it take them to stop losing money on each and every Xbox? If they have stopped, that is.

But Nintendo is not in the same boat as MS or SONY. MS losing money on Xbox doesn't prove anything except they have lots of money in the bank and can afford to. SONY is the one taking out loans.

Same thing. Who cares if it's in-house and still make a profit...?

You're the one who said it's more expensive to outsource not me which is false btw.

 

[London Geezer]

You're the one saying outsourcing is cheaper, which is not always true.

Back to topic?

 

[PC-Engine]

How do you compete on a technology level with a company that already fabs their own ships at a very low cost - while the best you can do is outsource to some company? In the case Sony, they already have a very low price as the fabs they are using are not only used to support 1 product, but potentially the entire consumer electronics devision.

How will N5 and Xbox 2 compete with PS3 on a technology level?

 

[London Geezer]

How do you compete on a technology level with a company that already fabs their own ships at a very low cost - while the best you can do is outsource to some company? In the case Sony, they already have a very low price as the fabs they are using are not only used to support 1 product, but potentially the entire consumer electronics devision.

How will N5 and Xbox 2 compete with PS3 on a technology level?

I think the above is bull. But hey that's me. Sony are not the best chip manufacturers. Not yet at least. Until they prove they are, there is no point in discussing "How will MS and Ninty compete on a tech level with Sony".

What we can discuss is "how much are those companies willing to lose on each unit to guarantee they have the best technology". But that's not for this thread...

 

[PC-Engine]

You're the one saying outsourcing is cheaper, which is not always true.

Back to topic?

Umm...I said sometimes it's better and cheaper.

What we can discuss is "how much are those companies willing to lose on each unit to guarantee they have the best technology". But that's not for this thread...

Going by past history SONY will initially be taking huge losses on hardware while Nintendo will be taking minimal losses. The only way to have the best technology is to release the machine later than the competiton.

 

[Phil]

PC-Engine

Question:

How will N5 and Xbox 2 compete with PS3 on a technology level?

Answer:

We saw this happen to an extend with PlayStation / Nintendo64 years back. I really don't see this situation all that different. Actually, far from it: portable devices have always required more effort and more technology backing. They are more expensive to make and there are more factors to consider (those factors you are more or less ignoring).

To resum and elaborate further (in relation to a portable GameCube): portable devices require more effort, more factors to consider. You can't just stick in the cheapest components as you have battery life to consider. Heat. Portables have always been an extreme situation compared to their home counterparts.

 

[PC-Engine]

Yes, but how does that prevent Nintendo from making a GCP for the same cost as the PSP???

 

[London Geezer]

Guys... the thread will bo locked if we keep going THIS much off-topic. I can open a new thread to discuss this. But knowing Sonic and JVD, seen how this has alrady gone off-topic, we're lucky they're not around at the moment.

 

[Phil]

PC-Engine:

I took about an hour to outline the reasons why (and we weren't talking about PSP price which is still unclear, but a GCN portable at $250 or below). I suggest reading my reply above and then take it from there.