What should the GBA2 be?

[jarrod]

Phil, you're making the mistake though of assuming a PSP competitive chipset would automatically raise the next GameBoy's price to PSP levels... when the truth is PSP's customized MIPS chips and VPU are likely some of the least costly of it's components. It's that huge, high contrast, high color, outsourced screen that Sony's really breaking the bank on. Nintendo could shave unit costs using a lower quality screen or solid state media among other factors... though I'd say "Premium" handhelds seem to be they way the market's going. Nintendo's doesn't want to get left behind either, GameCube was a lesson well learned. It's really a moot point though, DS buys them enough time to realize a low cost, high performance Game Boy (to counter PSP) without much trouble. We may even get it by the end of 2006 alongside Revolution.

I agree that the Game Boy line has a history of using low end technology to naturally maximize profit margins and battery expectations. And if PSP fails to make a significant impact, I'd expect that philosphy to definitely continue. The GameCube example was more to show what Nintendo's engineers are capable of if needed though, there seems to be a lingering idea that somehow Nintendo can't possibly compete with Sony/MS when it comes to technology. People forget they had arguably the best designed chipset this generation, and did it for far less cost wise too.

 

[Phil]

jarrod;

I wasn't assuming - merely putting forward two scenarios that outline the possibilities Nintendo has with GBA2.

1.)
If we assume that Nintendo will put out a GBA2 that 'blows' PSP specs away in 3 years from now, I very much expect it to be sold in the similar price range, probably at a minor to major loss as Sony is at the moment. Sony controlling their fabbing is making it possible for them to bring down the price extremely fast and maximizing profits quick. Nintendo won't have this luxury, though they'll have a 3 year timeframe to which IMO will balance it out making a 'superiour' or equally speced GBA2 similar expensive. This however will be hard to be targeted at their usual younger aged audience (which is the concern I voiced in my last reply).

2.)
The screen, I admit, is one of the more expensive units within the PSP, but seeing that Sony is fabbing a lot on their own, it becomes very difficult to talk about where the major costs are involved (i.e.: R&D, fabs maybe?). In short, only Sony knows. The situation for Nintendo is quite different though, so I expect even a 3 year later GBA2 to be technically a challenging project which is why I see it being similar priced or being sold at a loss (= no profits per hardware).

The GameCube example was more to show what Nintendo's engineers are capable of if needed though, there seems to be a lingering idea that somehow Nintendo can't possibly compete with Sony/MS when it comes to technology. People forget they had arguably the best designed chipset this generation, and did it for far less cost wise too.

Point aside that Nintendo engineers weren't solely responsible for the chipset - we get to the most important point in where Nintendo is failing: Let me requote from your reply:

"People forget they had arguably the best designed chipset this generation, and did it for far less cost wise too."

...exactly! And yet, they are left behind, being drawn to their hardcore and younger market. The reason is simply put: content. In short, you can have the most powerful hardware at the cheapest possible price - without the necessary content, your strategy is damned to fail. GameCube is a wonderful example in this regard. Please read on ->

It's really a moot point though, DS buys them enough time to realize a low cost, high performance Game Boy (to counter PSP) without much trouble. We may even get it by the end of 2006 alongside Revolution.

[ continued from above ] ... and the DS will not counter the PSP effectively because the "low-cost, high performance Game Boy" [Nintendo DS] is aimed at a different audience all together! Price is different, content is different - the whole selling point is different! The specs, the design and the content indicate that Nintendo is selling this new product to their usual crowd - how will they effectively counter PSP at any level? They won't! They'll have the sales, but not by the same people but by the majority of their 'usual' Gameboy supporters. Younger people for the most part or parents buying it for their kids.

And this, makes the comment

"GameCube was a lesson well learned" very questionable. If GameCube lesson was learned, I would have expected a PR of a GBA2 being in the works with at least the same specs and the same content coming our way. Resident Evil, 3d Metroid Prime, Portable GTA, mp3 capabilities, portable divx movies, hightech design and what not! I'm sorry to say, but a DS will simply not be any competition to the PSP at all. Perhaps Nintendo fans like to think otherwise (how many are there anyway? 15 million?), but there are 75 million PS2 buyers (plus another 15 million Xbox crowd) on the other side and I doubt the majority (that hasn't owned handhelds to beginn with) will even think about buying a DS when they haven't even bought into a GameCube in the first place.

 

[Readykilowatt]

I'm sorry to say, but a DS will simply not be any competition to the PSP at all. Perhaps Nintendo fans like to think otherwise (how many are there anyway? 15 million?), but there are 75 million PS2 buyers (plus another 15 million Xbox crowd) on the other side and I doubt the majority (that hasn't owned handhelds to beginn with) will even think about buying a DS when they haven't even bought into a GameCube in the first place.

Yes, we know that all those people buying the GBA (more of them are buying GBAs than PS2s ) are suddenly going to throw them away and buy a PSP instead of buying a backwards-compatible NDS. I've said it before and I will say it one last time........... Killzone.

 

[Phil]

Readykilowatt, please stop trolling the thread. The PS2's market and the GB's market for the most part are different users. I.e. the people buying GBA are not the same people that buy consoles. The DS will sell to its own crowd. PSP will sell to a different market, which is why the DS isn't "competition".

 

[jarrod]

jarrod;

I wasn't assuming - merely putting forward two scenarios that outline the possibilities Nintendo has with GBA2.

1.)
If we assume that Nintendo will put out a GBA2 that 'blows' PSP specs away in 3 years from now, I very much expect it to be sold in the similar price range, probably at a minor to major loss as Sony is at the moment. Sony controlling their fabbing is making it possible for them to bring down the price extremely fast and maximizing profits quick. Nintendo won't have this luxury, though they'll have a 3 year timeframe to which IMO will balance it out making a 'superiour' or equally speced GBA2 similar expensive. This however will be hard to be targeted at their usual younger aged audience (which is the concern I voiced in my last reply).

2.)
The screen, I admit, is one of the more expensive units within the PSP, but seeing that Sony is fabbing a lot on their own, it becomes very difficult to talk about where the major costs are involved (i.e.: R&D, fabs maybe?). In short, only Sony knows. The situation for Nintendo is quite different though, so I expect even a 3 year later GBA2 to be technically a challenging project which is why I see it being similar priced or being sold at a loss (= no profits per hardware).

Honestly, I don't see either of those concusions to be off base, but I think you're overestimating some costs while undercutting others. Kutaragi confirmed that PSP's RAM, screen & WiFi chip are all being outsourced... that 32MB of RAM & Sharp screen being undoubtedly the most expensive pieces of PSP. While some costs will be brought down quick as production lines ramp up, it's hardly going to be the speedy decline PS2 enjoyed. Unless that Samsung partnership takes over for Sharp?

Secondly, there's a wealth of high end mobile solutions on the horizon from a variety of vendors. I really don't see what's stoppping Nintendo from entering into another sweetheart profit sharing, risk reducing deal with NEC and ATi for a new premium Game Boy... granted outsourcing has drawbacks but it also has it's advantages and Nintendo always somehow manages to the most bang for their buck. GameCube again being a good example.

And third, we're talking 2007 here. PSP will probably be selling at $99 by then, "similarly expensive" doesn't have to mean expensive per se. An ARM/ATi powered $99 Game Boy that outdoes PSP isn't exactly a long shot given the timeframes we're dealing in.

The GameCube example was more to show what Nintendo's engineers are capable of if needed though, there seems to be a lingering idea that somehow Nintendo can't possibly compete with Sony/MS when it comes to technology. People forget they had arguably the best designed chipset this generation, and did it for far less cost wise too.

Point aside that Nintendo engineers weren't solely responsible for the chipset -

And yet Nintendo put together a far more efficent, far cheaper machine than Sony in a shorter time period only a matter of months later. Despite having not nearly the same internal resources. Nintendo's design philosophies with GameCube were so well done, they've inspired Microsoft to ape them for Xenon.

It's also worth pointing out that none of the last gen machines can be solely attributable to their hardware maufacturers. PS2 had more than Sony engineers on it as well.

we get to the most important point in where Nintendo is failing: Let me requote from your reply:

"People forget they had arguably the best designed chipset this generation, and did it for far less cost wise too."

...exactly! And yet, they are left behind, being drawn to their hardcore and younger market. The reason is simply put: content. In short, you can have the most powerful hardware at the cheapest possible price - without the necessary content, your strategy is damned to fail. GameCube is a wonderful example in this regard. Please read on ->

Er, you're jumping arguments here. I'm not sure what relevance retreating to market strategy has (when the discussion's been centered on hardware design so far) but I'll keep reading...

It's really a moot point though, DS buys them enough time to realize a low cost, high performance Game Boy (to counter PSP) without much trouble. We may even get it by the end of 2006 alongside Revolution.

[ continued from above ] ... and the DS will not counter the PSP effectively because the "low-cost, high performance Game Boy" [Nintendo DS] is aimed at a different audience all together! Price is different, content is different - the whole selling point is different! The specs, the design and the content indicate that Nintendo is selling this new product to their usual crowd - how will they effectively counter PSP at any level? They won't! They'll have the sales, but not by the same people but by the majority of their 'usual' Gameboy supporters. Younger people for the most part or parents buying it for their kids.

True, I see DS catering more to their kid friendly base (PR be damned). Saying DS was a counter to PSP might've been the wrong choice of words, but it does seem timed to steal some thunder and slow PSP down none the less. Again it's buying Nintendo time, and if DS proves moderately successful they could always push it further as a budget platform alongside their premium GameBoy (if Sony succeeds in moving the market that direction). No doubt the thing's cheap to make.

And this, makes the comment

"GameCube was a lesson well learned" very questionable. If GameCube lesson was learned, I would have expected a PR of a GBA2 being in the works with at least the same specs and the same content coming our way. Resident Evil, 3d Metroid Prime, Portable GTA, mp3 capabilities, portable divx movies, hightech design and what not! I'm sorry to say, but a DS will simply not be any competition to the PSP at all. Perhaps Nintendo fans like to think otherwise (how many are there anyway? 15 million?), but there are 75 million PS2 buyers (plus another 15 million Xbox crowd) on the other side and I doubt the majority (that hasn't owned handhelds to beginn with) will even think about buying a DS when they haven't even bought into a GameCube in the first place.

Well, one of Nintendo's major mistakes with GameCube was catering to the same crowd as GBA off the bat. And rather than buy a GameCube, kids & parents bought GBAs and PSones instead. That's part of the lesson learned, not to target the same market twice... which funny enough Sony's looking to do with PSP. There'll be some overlap but undoubtedly one market will suffer. Nintendo really should've aimed GameCube directly at the PS2 segment like Microsoft did with Xbox.

Annoucing a new GB 3 years before release would be suicide. That faster than anything would kill DS, which right now looks like it'll be inheriting GBA's 55 million base... GBA itself actually doesn't look to be slowing down either (in fact it's been consistantly outselling even PS2 in America and Japan for years, last month it outsold all three home consoles combined). There's no point in announcing a feature heavy premium GB now, Nintendo would be hurting their own market more than Sony's using that strategy. And again, the whole concept of a premuim GB is only really necessary if Sony manages to shift the market at large that way, which by no means a sure thing.

 

[jarrod]

Readykilowatt, please stop trolling the thread. The PS2's market and the GB's market for the most part are different users. I.e. the people buying GBA are not the same people that buy consoles. The DS will sell to its own crowd. PSP will sell to a different market, which is why the DS isn't "competition".

GBA and PS2 are really casual driven machines at this point, though I'd say both userbases are less diverse than notable past casual machines (NES, GB, PS1). DS and PSP both look to be selling to only a segment of those bases so far, though I'd say it's far more likely that DS will pick up GBA owners than PSP will PS2 owners... the problem with PSP is that it really only looks to be supplementary to PS2 while DS is clearly the successor to GBA (again, PR be damned). I see both platforms doing well, but neither will be able to reach GBA's lofty heights.

 

[Phil]

jarrod:

Honestly, I don't see either of those concusions to be off base, but I think you're overestimating some costs while undercutting others. Kutaragi confirmed that PSP's RAM, screen & WiFi chip are all being outsourced... that 32MB of RAM & Sharp screen being undoubtedly the most expensive pieces of PSP. While some costs will be brought down quick as production lines ramp up, it's hardly going to be the speedy decline PS2 enjoyed. Unless that Samsung partnership takes over for Sharp?

Secondly, there's a wealth of high end mobile solutions on the horizon from a variety of vendors. I really don't see what's stoppping Nintendo from entering into another sweetheart profit sharing, risk reducing deal with NEC and ATi for a new premium Game Boy... granted outsourcing has drawbacks but it also has it's advantages and Nintendo always somehow manages to the most bang for their buck. GameCube again being a good example.

And third, we're talking 2007 here. PSP will probably be selling at $99 by then, "similarly expensive" doesn't have to mean expensive per se. An ARM/ATi powered $99 Game Boy that outdoes PSP isn't exactly a long shot given the timeframes we're dealing in.

Maybe true, though I clearly wasn't trying to make any concrete estimates on how expensive the units within the PSP is. In fact, I think there is no way to effectively know what the costs involve, as there are too many factors relevant to the PSP process to consider. That includes R&D, chip fabbing, optical drive, casing, screen, battery and many others - as well as factoring in that many of the mentioned units are in fact manufactured by Sony and therefore are 'as cheap as it can get'.

So, lets just concentrate for a second on the basics in which we assume that

1.)
PSP is being sold at a minor loss at sub $200.

2.)
DS is being sold neither at a loss nor a profit at $150.

Can we agree on that? I think that is quite reasonable and the $50 dollars that the PSP is more expensive, can be attributed to Sony's strategy in selling the unit at a minor loss as well as their internal manufacturing, R&D and fabbing capabilities.

I am also aware that Nintendo obviously can outsource the lot, but as of yet, Nintendo has yet to release a technical competitive handheld. In short, in the last few years, Nintendo didn't have any comparable handheld competition, so there was never any need to go for the best solution. If they are to compete in 2007, they will need to go for something equivilant and that's where the challenge will lie in. Considering the DS with its current tech being sold at $150 today and I am quite confident that something equivilant in 2007 won't sell for less than that (and as you say, by then, PSP will be probably selling for $99).

Do you believe Nintendo will bring out something with 'better than PSP' specs in 2007 for less than they are selling the DS today (which is clearly less capable)?

Er, you're jumping arguments here. I'm not sure what relevance retreating to market strategy has (when the discussion's been centered on hardware design so far) but I'll keep reading...

Because Nintendo will have to make a choice in either competing with the PSP in favor of the market Sony is targeting or to keep aiming at the Gameboy crowd. Both cases require different marketing, design and performance.

True, I see DS catering more to their kid friendly base (PR be damned). Saying DS was a counter to PSP might've been the wrong choice of words, but it does seem timed to steal some thunder and slow PSP down none the less. Again it's buying Nintendo time, and if DS proves moderately successful they could always push it further as a budget platform alongside their premium GameBoy (if Sony succeeds in moving the market that direction). No doubt the thing's cheap to make.

You can't fight someones thunder by aiming at something else. Seriously, you can't fight Sony in aiming at the older crowd by bringing out something that's primarely targeting something else! Since we established that Nintendo is aiming at a younger crowd with DS, I still am amazed that the belief is still around that it will steel some thunder. Perhaps a first glance of the consumer in knowing there's something else around, but with different content, different marketing, different appearance, I think that "thunder" will die down extremely fast. Simply put: there's no product comparable to PSP at the moment (comparable in that it targets the same audience).

Annoucing a new GB 3 years before release would be suicide. That faster than anything would kill DS, which right now looks like it'll be inheriting GBA's 55 million base... GBA itself actually doesn't look to be slowing down either (in fact it's been consistantly outselling even PS2 in America and Japan for years, last month it outsold all three home consoles combined). There's no point in announcing a feature heavy premium GB now, Nintendo would be hurting their own market more than Sony's using that strategy. And again, the whole concept of a premuim GB is only really necessary if Sony manages to shift the market at large that way, which by no means a sure thing.

I wasn't proposing that Nintendo announces GBA2 now. I actually think the DS is a big mistake and should have been substituted with concrete GBA2 plans and announcements. Nintendo's "wait and see" approach is very dangerous - it could be their end if it works out well for Sony and PSP gains a name in the market and opens up a new "untapped" market. Nintendo should have brought a mass-market handheld years ago. Their passiveness is their doom and the GameCube is just a mere example of what may come.

 

[jarrod]

Maybe true, though I clearly wasn't trying to make any concrete estimates on how expensive the units within the PSP is. In fact, I think there is no way to effectively know what the costs involve, as there are too many factors relevant to the PSP process to consider. That includes R&D, chip fabbing, optical drive, casing, screen, battery and many others - as well as factoring in that many of the mentioned units are in fact manufactured by Sony and therefore are 'as cheap as it can get'.

Well I agree with all that... indeed I didn't make any specific cost estimations either, but come on. Common sense dictates that with so much of the machine outsourced, costs can't possibly drop as fast as PS2. It's not rocket science to figure that the screen and RAM being the big costs here either in terms of components, use your head.

So, lets just concentrate for a second on the basics in which we assume that

1.)
PSP is being sold at a minor loss at sub $200.

2.)
DS is being sold neither at a loss nor a profit at $150.

Can we agree on that? I think that is quite reasonable and the $50 dollars that the PSP is more expensive, can be attributed to Sony's strategy in selling the unit at a minor loss as well as their internal manufacturing, R&D and fabbing capabilities.

Wait what?!? What happened to "I clearly wasn't trying to make any concrete estimates on how expensive the units within the PSP is"? But if you really want to play that game...

PSP per unit cost estimations are all over the map, I've seen trusted sources quote anywhere from $250 to $450. People thought this thing would be a loss taker at $299, I'd say "minor loss at sub $200" is more best case scenario than anything right now.

As for DS, Nintendo was willing to go as low as 10,000 yen (about $95) at launch. I doubt they're only breaking even at $150, nothing in the platform is exactly cutting edge outside possibly the WiFi component.

I think you're way off on both counts here.

I am also aware that Nintendo obviously can outsource the lot, but as of yet, Nintendo has yet to release a technical competitive handheld. In short, in the last few years, Nintendo didn't have any comparable handheld competition, so there was never any need to go for the best solution. If they are to compete in 2007, they will need to go for something equivilant and that's where the challenge will lie in.

Well again, they only need to compete if Sony carves out a significant market. And they've already shown they have the know how to slap together a competitive platform and by your own admission it was never really necessary in the handheld space before. I don't get what you're arguing exactly?

Considering the DS with its current tech being sold at $150 today and I am quite confident that something equivilant in 2007 won't sell for less than that (and as you say, by then, PSP will be probably selling for $99).

I don't think you have a good grasp at what these technolgies are really costing. GBA was said to be fully manufactured for under $35 at it's launch in mid 2001, it's pretty clear DS is following that same low end low cost scheme given it's comparable technolgies (ARM chipset, low res screens, etc). Sure there's differences but DS hardly looks to have any high cost components.

PSP's big costs would be the screen (which is higher quality than anything ever used in handheld electronics before) and that 32MB of RAM... both those costs will drop over the next three years however, not to mention Sony's own internal cost reducing measures (production getting up to speed, chipset revisions, etc). I'd be genuinely shocked if PSP isn't $99 by 2007.

Do you believe Nintendo will bring out something with 'better than PSP' specs in 2007 for less than they are selling the DS today (which is clearly less capable)?

Yes. Technology advances after all... just look how far mobile technolgies have come in the last 3 years.

Because Nintendo will have to make a choice in either competing with the PSP in favor of the market Sony is targeting or to keep aiming at the Gameboy crowd. Both cases require different marketing, design and performance.

Once more, it's only necessary based on PSP's performance. And really, what's keeping Nintendo from aiming at both markets simultaneously with a kid friendly DS and potential high end Game Boy?

You can't fight someones thunder by aiming at something else. Seriously, you can't fight Sony in aiming at the older crowd by bringing out something that's primarely targeting something else! Since we established that Nintendo is aiming at a younger crowd with DS, I still am amazed that the belief is still around that it will steel some thunder. Perhaps a first glance of the consumer in knowing there's something else around, but with different content, different marketing, different appearance, I think that "thunder" will die down extremely fast. Simply put: there's no product comparable to PSP at the moment (comparable in that it targets the same audience).

Erm, DS already has stolen some "thunder". Not everything divides down into neat sectioned market segments in the real world and the fact is that both PSP and DS will be competing for the same resources from publishers, consumers and the media. Don't be naive.

Just by virtue of being a Nintendo handheld makes DS competitive to some extent... it's gotten the platform heavy developer and industry recognition so far. I don't doubt consumers will follow, not at all bad for what's essentially a stall tactic. DS won't kill PSP obviously, but it makes sure PSP doesn't have the handheld sector to itself alongside the antiquated GBA and trivial niche machines (N-Gage, Zodiac, Gizmondo, etc).

I wasn't proposing that Nintendo announces GBA2 now. I actually think the DS is a big mistake and should have been substituted with concrete GBA2 plans and announcements. Nintendo's "wait and see" approach is very dangerous - it could be their end if it works out well for Sony and PSP gains a name in the market and opens up a new "untapped" market. Nintendo should have brought a mass-market handheld years ago. Their passiveness is their doom and the GameCube is just a mere example of what may come.

Er, Game Boy isn't "mass-market"???

And it's not as if Nintendo's just playing "wait and see". They have DS ready in the interim, with better software support than any previous handheld right out the gate. If DS tanks then just sweep it under the rug (alongside Virtual Boy & Pokemon Mini) and get ready for round 2 with a "real" Game Boy. Sure there's some risks in potentially letting PSP get a lead, but there's going to be risks regardless when facing the PlayStation brand.

Personally, I don't think Nintendo's being agressive enough with DS pricing. They should probably drop the price to $99 for launch in an effort to secure more media/developer confidence against PSP and make sure sofware pricing doesn't exceed $29 to get consumers behind them. They have a major advantage in that hardware costs and software R&D will be far cheaper than PSP, they should be using that to try and bleed Sony out of the market (like Sony did Sega with PS1). Unfortunately, I don't see profit conscious Nintendo going that route with DS. :/

 

[Readykilowatt]

Readykilowatt, please stop trolling the thread. The PS2's market and the GB's market for the most part are different users. I.e. the people buying GBA are not the same people that buy consoles. The DS will sell to its own crowd. PSP will sell to a different market, which is why the DS isn't "competition".

Trolling?

Apparently you're saying that the PSP will succeed based upon the supposition that a huge chunk of the PS2's userbase will purchase a PSP. I'm saying that, that is not necessarily going to happen. Not everyone that is interested in handheld gaming is interested in console gaming and vice versa. I know many people who have Gamecubes but do not own a Gameboy and vice versa. I know people who think highly of the Lexus brand, but they don't like SUVs. Do you think that they will suddenly buy a Lexus SUV when they see one?

Will Sony "shake up" the handheld industry by releasing the PSP? Probably they will, but keep in mind that the PSP might end up underperforming or even worse, straight up failing. Just because the Sony and the Playstation brands are strong in one area of an industry, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to be strong in all areas of the same industry. Do you recall what happened to Mercedes Benz? The Mercedes Benz brand is very strong yet when they tried to enter the mid range/low end car market in America, they got stomped by the already established players Toyota and Honda. Toyota successfully broke into the high end car market, but they did it under another brand (Lexus). Believe it or not, I think that Sony may be making a mistake by calling their new handheld the "Playstation" Portable. But that is an argument for another thread.

BTW, I've already explained why I believe that the NDS will succeed in another thread.

 

[Phil]

For the sake of the general argument (which I think you're still missing), I'll be ignoring various parts off your reply not relevant to my point.

PSP per unit cost estimations are all over the map, I've seen trusted sources quote anywhere from $250 to $450. People thought this thing would be a loss taker at $299, I'd say "minor loss at sub $200" is more best case scenario than anything right now.

Lets not kid ourselfs here, we all have our "trusted" sources... In the end though, neither you nor I have the real numbers - numbers that could mean anything simply because you'd have to consider the entire process. The price between $250 to $450 could mean anything at this point. For arguments sake, I'm happy to go with your numbers as it wouldn't change my argument anyway (as I said, my argument isn't trival to exact cost estimates of the PSP) - in fact, PSP actually costing even more in reality would make it even more doubtful to assume Nintendo could pull off something better 3 years down the road at less the price and loss...

...well unless you want to see a PSP speced GBA2 with a monochrome GameBoy screen or something.

Once more, it's only necessary based on PSP's performance.

I must have forgotten that this is what Nintendo had planned when PS2 came out: "it's only necessary [to compete] based on PS2's performance". Oh wait, that's what they were thinking too before the original PlayStation came out. Silly me.

Erm, DS already has stolen some "thunder". Not everything divides down into neat sectioned market segments in the real world and the fact is that both PSP and DS will be competing for the same resources from publishers, consumers and the media. Don't be naive.

Just by virtue of being a Nintendo handheld makes DS competitive to some extent... it's gotten the platform heavy developer and industry recognition so far. I don't doubt consumers will follow, not at all bad for what's essentially a stall tactic. DS won't kill PSP obviously, but it makes sure PSP doesn't have the handheld sector to itself alongside the antiquated GBA and trivial niche machines (N-Gage, Zodiac, Gizmondo, etc).

It may have stolen some "thunder" in loosing its own fanbase to the PSP - I never argued this though - in fact, I even agreed that DS will secure its own market successfully. I am still left wondering though how it could possibly steel any "thunder" in regards to the audience PSP is targeting. For arguments sake, let me repeat that the PSP is targeting iPod users, console supporters (primarily PS2 buyers) etc. - in other words, for the most part older teenagers to adults that don't buy Gameboy products. The market is segmented into different individuals. We established already that both handhelds are targeting different markets - you're still yet to prove me how DS is steeling any "thunder" with the market PSP is targeting.

Er, Game Boy isn't "mass-market"???

No. It becomes * mass market when it appeals to all audiences (not only just kids and hardcore fans). The SNES wasn't * mass market either. The PlayStation was (it targeted not only hardcore gamers but the * mass market). The GB still has a large gap to fill - a gap the PSP is now targeting. In the end, if the Gameboy is * "mass-market" by your or my definition or not is not relevant anyway - what counts and what's relevant is that the Gameboy lacks the support of the crowd PSP is targeting. The people among those x million PS2, iPod, GameCube, Xbox, mp3, PC users that haven't bought into the Gameboy brand at lack of the content they desire.

what's keeping Nintendo from aiming at both markets simultaneously with a kid friendly DS and potential high end Game Boy?

IMHO Nintendo themselves and time. They have left a wide market untapped with their Gameboy products in the past and now Sony is heading after it [as they did last generation with the PlayStation]. In 2007 if Nintendo goes forth with a Gameboy successor, it better have the content and the specs ready to compete directly in favour of the market they have ignored up until then. I sincerely doubt though that they will have any success. In fact, I expect Nintendo to continue what they do best:

the atitude as described above by you with "Once more, it's only necessary based on PSP's performance. ". This kind of passive behaviour had Nintendo lose their number 1 position in the console industry and it will sooner or later lose them their handheld market as well. Differences aside, we'll have a better picture in 2007 on what Nintendo has in stock and if we'll see history repeat itself.


EDIT: * Looked up the word "mass-market". Seems like the word I was refering to is rather "mainstream" (it was late when I wrote it). Still, the point should be clear enough if one reads the entire paragraph. Cheers.

 

[Readykilowatt]

Er, Game Boy isn't "mass-market"???

No.

Oh my God! *rubs eyes* Am I hallucinating?.....

Er, Game Boy isn't "mass-market"???

No.

OK, this will be my last post to you Phil. You're either detached from reality or you're a Sony employee. Either way, I feel sorry for you.

 

[ultimate_end]

I know people who think highly of the Lexus brand, but they don't like SUVs. Do you think that they will suddenly buy a Lexus SUV when they see one?

You'd be surprised at how fickel some people actually are.

Do you recall what happened to Mercedes Benz? The Mercedes Benz brand is very strong yet when they tried to enter the mid range/low end car market in America, they got stomped by the already established players Toyota and Honda. Toyota successfully broke into the high end car market, but they did it under another brand (Lexus).

To be fair, the Mercedes A-Class wasn't entirely aimed at the low end Toyota/Honda market. Also remember that Mercedes Benz does not sell any cars in the multiple millions, so their expectations were almost met with regards to sales. They were not "stomped" as you suggest. They have higher profit margins and higher costs - it's a different business model.
I suspect that Sony, at least for the near term, are also not expecting "massive" sales for the PSP either. Again, it's a different product. Yes the markets overlap substantially, but the PSP has other fish to fry, so to speak.

As for Lexus breaking into the luxery market, that certainly only applies to North America, and Americans aren't always known for their taste are they?


Back to the issue at hand:

At the end of the day, I think the question isn't one of Nintendo "stealing Sony's thunder", but rather Nintendo attempting to retain as much of their current user base as they can. The DS may well be the solution to this.
Or it might be a flop. Only time will tell, as they say.

 

[one]

The GameCube example was more to show what Nintendo's engineers are capable of if needed though, there seems to be a lingering idea that somehow Nintendo can't possibly compete with Sony/MS when it comes to technology. People forget they had arguably the best designed chipset this generation, and did it for far less cost wise too.

Point aside that Nintendo engineers weren't solely responsible for the chipset -

And yet Nintendo put together a far more efficent, far cheaper machine than Sony in a shorter time period only a matter of months later. Despite having not nearly the same internal resources.

Matter of months later?

PS2 launch: March 2000
GC launch: September 2001
Xbox launch: November 2001

Besides, the new PS2 is far smaller than the GC, which means the PS2's manufacturing cost is now clearly lower than the GC's, which means PS2 has a larger price-cut margin now. I bet the late revisions of PS2 had similarly small chipsets, too.

 

[ultimate_end]

I must say that Renesas SH3707 is looking rather tasty indeed.
It would have almost twice the transform and lighting capability of the Dreamcast, based on the power of that Floating point unit. I believe fillrate is significantly improved as well. Given the TBDR, that baby is in XBox territory IMO, given enough memory.
Imagine that in the new Gameboy

However, Renesas claims it is shipping Q1 2005, so unless Nintendo is pulling a fast one, that aint no Gameboy. Atomiswave2 perhaps? :?

 

[PC-Engine]

Besides, the new PS2 is far smaller than the GC, which means the PS2's manufacturing cost is now clearly lower than the GC's, which means PS2 has a larger price-cut margin now.

Oh if only life were that simple...

Ok back to topic. Let's recap.

1. GBA2 will need to be small with only a single backlit touch screen around 3.2-3.7" QVGA or higher resolution maybe even make the LCD 3D.
2. Media will be either Matrix ROMs or something similar to Dataplay discs which is being sold today for $4.50 per 500MB.
3. Skip the D pad in favor of an analog stick like the NeoGeo Pocket.
4. More buttons like on NDS.
5. Price from $100-$130 depending on the launch window.
6. Processing power equal to PSP or higher.
7. Built-in WiFi and mic.

Oh I'm willing to bet the GBA2 doesn't need to be more powerful than PSP to be a runaway success. If Nintendo follows the same physical design philosphy as GBA SP ie make it very small and pocketable. I can see Nintendo squeezing in a bigger screen and still have GBA2 the same size as SP. If you look at the actual SP screens, you'll notice that it has a black boarder in addiction to a thick case frame. For GBA2 they could design the display where there's only a top and bottom frame only and no side frames. This in addition to removing the black borders could give them room to increase the screen to maybe 3.5" which a lot of Pocket PCs use today.

 

[Lazy8s]

ultimate_end:

Given the TBDR, that baby is in XBox territory IMO, given enough memory.

With the low requirements on memory bandwidth it has, a lot of inexpensive DDR-SDRAM could very well be a possibility for such a device.

 

[ultimate_end]

ultimate_end:

Given the TBDR, that baby is in XBox territory IMO, given enough memory.

With the low requirements on memory bandwidth it has, a lot of inexpensive DDR-SDRAM could very well be a possibility for such a device.

I couldn't agree more. It could very well be a lot more than XBox's 64MB unified memory. And that would pack quite a punch gaming wise. That much memory would be for a console or such obviously.
Speaking of UMA, apparently the PowerVR MBX core that the chip uses is optimised for unified memory architecture. What could be more perfect for a handheld console? I am not sure how that carries over to the Renesas chip though.

Given that we have this technology now, that is relatively cheap and energy efficient, in 2 years the next Gameboy could be quite impressive indeed.

-edited emoticons-

 

[jarrod]

For the sake of the general argument (which I think you're still missing), I'll be ignoring various parts off your reply not relevant to my point.

Please, feel free to spell out your "general argument" for me. I think I got lost when you leaped from hardware potential to market potential.

Lets not kid ourselfs here, we all have our "trusted" sources... In the end though, neither you nor I have the real numbers - numbers that could mean anything simply because you'd have to consider the entire process. The price between $250 to $450 could mean anything at this point. For arguments sake, I'm happy to go with your numbers as it wouldn't change my argument anyway (as I said, my argument isn't trival to exact cost estimates of the PSP) - in fact, PSP actually costing even more in reality would make it even more doubtful to assume Nintendo could pull off something better 3 years down the road at less the price and loss...

Not even marginally better? Do you think the same applies to Sony? And what exactly are the big costs involved in PSP?

Again, I don't think you have a solid grasp on costs here or how quick technology advances. 3 years is an eternity for semiconductors.

...well unless you want to see a PSP speced GBA2 with a monochrome GameBoy screen or something.

Or they could just opt for DS level... which would also help extend battery life. Personally, I'm hoping OLED is a viable option by the time the next Game Boy's ready though. An OLED PSP SP would be nice too, really OLED is the only way I can see a PS2/GC level handheld achieveing GBA level battery performance in the near future. Good thing both Sony and Nintendo have sunk cash into Kodak's R&D.

I must have forgotten that this is what Nintendo had planned when PS2 came out: "it's only necessary [to compete] based on PS2's performance". Oh wait, that's what they were thinking too before the original PlayStation came out. Silly me.

With PS2 Sony was the market leader, the market was already theirs to steer. With PS1 they didn't pull ahead until 1997 really, 3 years after launch. And even then Nintendo maintained a sizeable chunk of marketshare (unlike today in consoles). Cute remarks aside what exactly does this have to do with your "general argument"? Are invalid comparisons a key component?

It may have stolen some "thunder" in loosing its own fanbase to the PSP - I never argued this though - in fact, I even agreed that DS will secure its own market successfully. I am still left wondering though how it could possibly steel any "thunder" in regards to the audience PSP is targeting. For arguments sake, let me repeat that the PSP is targeting iPod users, console supporters (primarily PS2 buyers) etc. - in other words, for the most part older teenagers to adults that don't buy Gameboy products. The market is segmented into different individuals. We established already that both handhelds are targeting different markets - you're still yet to prove me how DS is steeling any "thunder" with the market PSP is targeting.

Reread what I wrote. Keep doing it, it'll sink in eventually.

No. It becomes * mass market when it appeals to all audiences (not only just kids and hardcore fans). The SNES wasn't * mass market either. The PlayStation was (it targeted not only hardcore gamers but the * mass market).

Well then going by that lovely definition, PS2 isn't really "mass market" either as it's base is overwhelmingly 16-24 year old males worldwide. Losing diversity has actually been a big problem for Sony this generation, despite userbase rapidly growing... in fact one of their internal mandates for 2004 is to try and regain the sizable female audience they lost after PS1. PS2 is a less diverse platform than NES, GB or PS1 actually. GBA does cater to a kid friendly base, but the SP redesign and Famicom Mini/NES Classic campaigns have made surprising inroads in the adult market. Both Sony and Nintendo seem to be addressing concerns that their major platforms aren't as diverse as in the past.

The GB still has a large gap to fill - a gap the PSP is now targeting. In the end, if the Gameboy is * "mass-market" by your or my definition or not is not relevant anyway - what counts and what's relevant is that the Gameboy lacks the support of the crowd PSP is targeting. The people among those x million PS2, iPod, GameCube, Xbox, mp3, PC users that haven't bought into the Gameboy brand at lack of the content they desire.

iPod worldwide base after 3 years~ 3 million
GBA worldwide base after 3 years~ 55 million

...how do we define mass market again? The established 55 million GBA owners, the 3 million iPod owners or the mythical adult market PSP hopes to carve out?

IMHO Nintendo themselves and time. They have left a wide market untapped with their Gameboy products in the past and now Sony is heading after it [as they did last generation with the PlayStation]. In 2007 if Nintendo goes forth with a Gameboy successor, it better have the content and the specs ready to compete directly in favour of the market they have ignored up until then. I sincerely doubt though that they will have any success. In fact, I expect Nintendo to continue what they do best:

Once more, this is only really necessary if Sony can convince their PS2 base to buy into a $199 supplementary handheld. Which isn't by any stretch a sure thing.... you keep saying Nintendo's ignoring some lucrative market as if that market already exists?

the atitude as described above by you with "Once more, it's only necessary based on PSP's performance. ". This kind of passive behaviour had Nintendo lose their number 1 position in the console industry and it will sooner or later lose them their handheld market as well. Differences aside, we'll have a better picture in 2007 on what Nintendo has in stock and if we'll see history repeat itself.

DS though is a sign that Nintendo isn't reacting passivley... in fact it's pretty clear DS a stopgap thrown together to answer PSP's launch and buy time. Nintendo's humbling in the console arena is exactly why you see them more active with Sony entering the handhled sector, rather than waiting things out a few more years with GBA.

EDIT: * Looked up the word "mass-market". Seems like the word I was refering to is rather "mainstream" (it was late when I wrote it). Still, the point should be clear enough if one reads the entire paragraph. Cheers.

"Mainstream" is a subjective word. GBA is more "mainstream" than iPod I'd say though.

 

[jarrod]

Matter of months later?

PS2 launch: March 2000
GC launch: September 2001
Xbox launch: November 2001

I'm talking technology timeframes not release timeframes. GameCube was finalized in time for a late 2000 release, Nintendo sat on the technology a year to drive down costs and ready software. By comparison, both PS2 and Xbox hit market as soon as possible, relying mainly on 3rd party and bought out software support upfront with massive losses incurred per unit.

Besides, the new PS2 is far smaller than the GC, which means the PS2's manufacturing cost is now clearly lower than the GC's, which means PS2 has a larger price-cut margin now. I bet the late revisions of PS2 had similarly small chipsets, too.

Clearly? Explain please?

According to NPD last June...

GameCube~ $110-120 total estimated manufacturing costs per unit
PlayStation 2~ $130-140 total estimated manufacturing costs per unit
Xbox~ $160-180 total estimated manufacturing costs per unit

....PS2 has seen much faster drops thanks to Sony controlling manufacturing/production themselves, but that's still a relatively risky strategy that requires massive upfront losses/investment and demand a level of phenominal success from the product to make any return. Nintendo's strategy of profit sharing hardware alliances and good engineering/balancing reduced risk burdens and really gave them the best chipset for their money, even though it's failed to perform as hoped. Had GameCube used the same strategies as PS2, Nintendo would likely be going the way Sega went.

 

[one]

I'm talking technology timeframes not release timeframes. GameCube was finalized in time for a late 2000 release, Nintendo sat on the technology a year to drive down costs and ready software. By comparison, both PS2 and Xbox hit market as soon as possible, relying mainly on 3rd party and bought out software support upfront with massive losses incurred per unit.

Wrong. PS2's EE was unveiled in Feb. 1999 at ISSCC 1999 (the published clock speed was lower than final one though). The processor itself had to be taped out before it. It's said that PS2's release was delayed because of the shortage of RDRAM which was supplied only by Toshiba back then (NEC rejected the request).

PS2 has seen much faster drops thanks to Sony controlling manufacturing/production themselves, but that's still a relatively risky strategy that requires massive upfront losses/investment and demand a level of phenominal success from the product to make any return. Nintendo's strategy of profit sharing hardware alliances and good engineering/balancing reduced risk burdens and really gave them the best chipset for their money, even though it's failed to perform as hoped. Had GameCube used the same strategies as PS2, Nintendo would likely be going the way Sega went.

So what? SCE invested the money they earned with PS1 into PS2's plants and R&D. Very simple and clear. Nintendo invested into... what? Where did the huge money they earned with N64 vanish into? If you say the cheap price of GC is the answer, as a consumer I would like to buy something more polished with technical refinement rather than mere business decisions.