Support NeoGAF

[ZeroX03]

This is such a stupid thread as it ignores that the latest Vita model already gets acceptable battery life in the 2013 model while outputting a resolution more than twice that of the 3DS. By 2016 I'm pretty sure Nintendo should be able to pull something off that's more power that has at least it's battery life. Even the games which miss full resolution are still running at twice the resolution of the 3DS, so I'm not sure why you bring it up as a negative in the OP. If they can't manage 1080P and a large screen fine, but we've already seen that there are better alternative routes Nintendo can take but probably won't, and it's time people stop making excuses for them as they never pass their savings on to the consumer anyway.

Vita's resolution isn't more than double the 3DS, it's slightly less than double. The Vita is/was also not a profitable system.

That doesn't account for tech developments since then obviously. But we're looking at Vita or iPod Touch level specs as a target for a cheap system and not beyond that really.

 

[DragonSworne]

Smartphones costs $600+ to make. Nintendo is going to make a handheld that costs $150 to make and charge $200 for it.

So no, Nintendo's next handheld will not have 1080p screens.

 

[LeleSocho]

I bet the current gen iPod touch could do it. Well, not sure on the 4 hours part. But considering the Xbox ran HL2, I'm sure they could port it to the modern mobile architecture. That's, what, $199?

Not really since the iPod Touch uses an A5... that reeeally old tech. Also even if it did as you said it couldn't do it for 4 hours and it has not a 1080p screen.

 

[watershed]

It can be sub HD and still look good. The 3ds screens are trash. I don't think Nintendo will do that again.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Smartphones costs $600+ to make. Nintendo is going to make a handheld that costs $150 to make and charge $200 for it.

So no, Nintendo's next handheld will not have 1080p screens.

I've had heard that this isn't true as the prices for parts have gone down. So I'm going to need a source for that claim.

 

[pinkurocket]

I have hopes for a 480p display, that's about it.

And honestly, even beyond the idea of Nintendo possibly being able to compete with smartphone specs. They aren't a huge company like Samsung or whoever, who put millions into r&d and release new devices every few months.

 

[Newline]

Not going to waste any more time on you. You don't know what you're talking about and you can't prove your initial absurd claim.

It's much easier to just say 'Nintendo couldn't possibly produce a reasonably priced HD handheld in 2015'.
However far removed from the truth that is, the truth being Nintendo doesn't want to. Which is btw a perfectly fine stance for them to take.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Vita's resolution isn't more than double the 3DS, it's slightly less than double. The Vita is/was also not a profitable system.

That doesn't account for tech developments since then obviously. But we're looking at Vita or iPod Touch level specs as a target for a cheap system and not beyond that really.

What proof do you have that the Vita is sold at a loss? When it launched all we knew was that it was close to the break even point with maybe a small loss, and that was for the original model in late 2011. Seeing as how he gaming division has not reported major loses since the system launched, it seems like a pretty bold claim that it is somehow losing money per unit manufactured.

Also I won't argue with you about adding both screen resolutions together and counting full-3D mode, but you should probably include those details in your post. Because when most of us talk about battery life for the 3DS (Which is the main point of this topic) we're assuming that 3D is turned off anyway.

 

[Y2Kev]

Not really since the iPod Touch uses an A5... that reeeally old tech. Also even if it did as you said it couldn't do it for 4 hours and it has not a 1080p screen.

OK so how about a Nexus 7?

I think, pretty importantly on the Vita, it benefitted from scale due to the growth in the mobile market. Sony also dropped the most expensive component (the OLED screen) so I find it hard to believe the device is sold at a loss now. Whether the NPV of the project is positive is a different question, but you would have to assume those factors wouldn't be in play for Nintendo.

 

[Snapshot King]

What proof do you have that the Vita is sold at a loss? When it launched all we knew was that it was close to the break even point with maybe a small loss, and that was for the original model in late 2011. Seeing as how he gaming division has not reported major loses since the system launched, it seems like a pretty bold claim that it is somehow losing money per unit manufactured.

Even if the original units did lose money, the 2000s without the OLED screen cost way less to manufacture and are assuredly selling at a profit.

 

[abstract alien]

They seems pretty invested in having a 3D screen, so I'd have to agree from my armchair analyst standpoint. Not sure what a high end portable 3D screen would cost, along with the hardware to maximize it.

 

[ZeroX03]

It's much easier to just say 'Nintendo couldn't possibly produce a reasonably priced HD handheld in 2015'.
However far removed from the truth that is, the truth being Nintendo doesn't want to. Which is btw a perfectly fine stance for them to take.

this was bullshit and you keep spouting bullshit:

You can buy a $200 phone thats quad core, 1080p, ultra thin and can play games at max load for 3-4hours plus...

It's not a case of it cant be done right now, and it certainly wont be the case by the time the 3ds's successor is released.

We all know the real reason it wont be done is because Nintendo simply doesn't want it to. It's totally wrong to expect it from Nintendo because they don't focus on that stuff. Anyone coming up with other excuses is skirting round that issue and well it's not even an issue that needs to be diverted from. Nintendo has been this way for years, it's their jam.

What proof do you have that the Vita is sold at a loss? When it launched all we knew was that it was close to the break even point with maybe a small loss, and that was for the original model in late 2011. Seeing as how he gaming division has not reported major loses since the system launched, it seems like a pretty bold claim that it is somehow losing money per unit manufactured.

That's why I said is/was. I don't know the numbers now.

 

[outunderthestars]

They seems pretty invested in having a 3D screen, so I'd have to agree from my armchair analyst standpoint. Not sure what a high end portable 3D screen would cost, along with the hardware to maximize it.

I don't think their next handheld will have a 3d screen. The market just doesn't seem to care for that feature.

 

[LeleSocho]

This is such a stupid thread as it ignores that the latest Vita model already gets acceptable battery life in the 2013 model while outputting a resolution more than twice that of the 3DS. By 2016 I'm pretty sure Nintendo should be able to pull something off that's more power that has at least it's battery life. Even the games which miss full resolution are still running at twice the resolution of the 3DS, so I'm not sure why you bring it up as a negative in the OP. If they can't manage 1080P and a large screen fine, but we've already seen that there are better alternative routes Nintendo can take but probably won't, and it's time people stop making excuses for them as they never pass their savings on to the consumer anyway.

I don't know why you bring the 3ds resolution and make comparisons with that though, i actually think that Vita's resolution (qHD) is actually the sweet spot and what Nintendo should aim for. I was simply talking about 1080p+ resolutions.

Vita's resolution isn't more than double the 3DS, it's slightly less than double. The Vita is/was also not a profitable system.

Depends on what you are talking about though, if you add both 3ds' screens then yes VIta's resolution is less than double but if you count only the bigger one then he's right.

 

[enanogrande]

Man, if I was a mod I would totally be a complete thread title grammar nazi.

 

[Vena]

OK so how about a Nexus 7?

Which one? The OG? That was 1280x800.

I assume you mean 7 (2013) which is the 1200p? But that's not exactly a great processor either, its quite large since its a tablet so that gives it room for a bigger battery, and its not that cheap with a price ranging from 190$ to 250$ based on the seller. Might be possible to run the game but I don't know how reasonable that would be if you scaled down the 7 (2013) into a smaller profile. Of course its old tech now, and you'd be better off using the LG G2 in these discussions as it is probably the best high-end cheap phone on the market, and a good metric with its outstanding battery life... but even that is limited when putting it under heavy load.

 

[ZeroX03]

Depends on what you are talking about though, if you add both 3ds' screens then yes VIta's resolution is less than double but if you count only the bigger one then he's right.

Why wouldn't you count both screens? Very few games only use one screen.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

They seems pretty invested in having a 3D screen, so I'd have to agree from my armchair analyst standpoint. Not sure what a high end portable 3D screen would cost, along with the hardware to maximize it.

Not after releasing the 2ds. And honestly, it didn't seem to make a difference in 9/10th the games on the system anyways. Dropping it in favor of something else seems pretty obvious a choice.

 

[ArchedThunder]

800x480 at 4 inches would give the next handheld a PPi of 233.24, which would actually be a little higher than the Vita's. I think it would be a pretty good option for cost and power consumption and the lower resolution would also mean they wouldn't have to spend top dollar on the graphics hardware to get beautiful graphics.
We know they don't want another 3DS launch situation, so they are likely going to cut as many costs as possible to launch it under $200.

 

[Prisoner]

Man, if I was a mod I would totally be a complete thread title grammar nazi.

If I were a mod.

 

[TouchMyBox]

Considering that any mobile SoCs shipping in 2016 or 2017 should be able tobhandle 720p likr a fucking champ, I don't see why it shouldn't be at least 720p. Most low end phones have 720p screens too, so they are probably pretty cheap since they are mass produced.

 

[LeleSocho]

OK so how about a Nexus 7?

Not even that, the most powerful N7 is highly less powerful than the Tegra4 that manages to run the game at 720p for two hours with a battery roughly the double of the Nexus 7.

 

[Y2Kev]

Which one? The OG? That was 1280x800.

I assume you mean 7 (2013) which is the 1200p? But that's not exactly a great processor either, its quite large since its a tablet so that gives it room for a bigger battery, and its not that cheap with a price ranging from 190$ to 250$ based on the seller. Might be possible to run the game but I don't know how reasonable that would be if you scaled down the 7 (2013) into a smaller profile. Of course its old tech now, and you'd be better off using the LG G2 in these discussions as it is probably the best high-end cheap phone on the market, and a good metric with its outstanding battery life... but even that is limited when putting it under heavy load.

Not even that, the most powerful N7 is highly less powerful than the Tegra4 that manages to run the game at 720p for two hours with a battery roughly the double of the Nexus 7.

Yeah, but I wouldn't expect Nintendo to go with such a high quality screen. My point was that were they to launch a device in late 2016 (which they are going to) with the internals of a 2015 Nexus 7, hypothetically, I could see them targeting 720p and people could -reasonably- expect that. Which is why I think the idea that people should expect less than that to be setting expectations really low. Nintendo's device will definitely be thicker, too. Could support a bigger battery.

I don't think anyone's reasonably expecting a 1080p screen out of Nintendo.

Running half life 2 at a reasonable visual quality would be a huge leap forward for a Nintendo handheld, so I'm not even sure I would expect that.

Man, if I was a mod I would totally be a complete thread title grammar nazi.

Subjunctive mood.

 

[nampad]

What proof do you have that the Vita is sold at a loss? When it launched all we knew was that it was close to the break even point with maybe a small loss, and that was for the original model in late 2011. Seeing as how he gaming division has not reported major loses since the system launched, it seems like a pretty bold claim that it is somehow losing money per unit manufactured.

Also I won't argue with you about adding both screen resolutions together and counting full-3D mode, but you should probably include those details in your post. Because when most of us talk about battery life for the 3DS (Which is the main point of this topic) we're assuming that 3D is turned off anyway.

There are differing statements. Kaz said that they expect the Vita to be profitable within 3 years (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=433075). People took that as the Vita is sold at loss although it could also mean that other costs will be amortized.

Scott Rhode said on GT that they don't lose money on it on day 1 (http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/w92058/e3-2011--lineup-interview around 1:40).

 

[Pie and Beans]

I find it pretty disturbing the amount of people that would accept 480p as a passing grade in 2016 and not find that ridiculous. They match Vita resolution (540p) or they've failed. This isn't just a case of "whats good enough for 2016", its whats good enough for 2020/21 unless they start upping the res of their revisions every two years and adopt a smartphone rollout approach.

On the opposite end, no, theres not much point in 1080p on a Nintendo handheld, so 720p should be the max of estimations there. Power draw to GPU misuse makes it a bum note, plus they'll be pushing the console version of their upcoming handheld as the one you can play 1080p+ versions of the same games on.

Then to the $600 = 1080p smartphone crowd, nope! Already now and certainly by 2016, those top of the range smartphones are gonna be 2k to 4K crazed power bitches. The mobile arms race has pushed portable tech through the fucking stratosphere. VR is going to have a similar push on screen resolution too. People can already fix a damn 2K screen to their face right now and enter a fully realised consumer VR product with one phone, and another very soon most likely.

Then on the other side, yeah, sure, put out another dim LCD 480p screen next year. Announce it to that world of technology and early adopters.

 

[Newline]

this was bullshit and you keep spouting bullshit.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-iOcean-X7-Smartphone.96434.0.html
$212 and can be purchased at retail.
1080p
Quad Core
Minimum battery life runtime of 3 hours 20 mins, max 17 hours (bad idling)

The idea that it isn't possible is the only thing thats absurd.

 

[LeleSocho]

Man, if I was a mod I would totally be a complete thread title grammar nazi.

What is wrong in the title? D:
"h" is a vowel so i had to use "an"

Why wouldn't you count both screens? Very few games only use one screen.

Just pointing that out.

 

[Y2Kev]

What is wrong in the title? D:
"h" is a vowel so i had to use "an"



Just pointing that out.

I'm not sure this is the rule. The h in high isn't even silent. You don't say "an 'eye res screen."

 

[Pandy]

Not after releasing the 2ds. And honestly, it didn't seem to make a difference in 9/10th the games on the system anyways. Dropping it in favor of something else seems pretty obvious a choice.

How about after releasing the New 3DS/XL with improved 3D viewing?

With other tech companies pushing AR and VR as new hotness, it doesn't seem silly to keep the 3D, especially if they can improve the outward 3D camera and make the AR a much stronger feature.

 

[nampad]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-iOcean-X7-Smartphone.96434.0.html
$212 and can be purchased at retail.
1080p
Quad Core
Minimum battery life runtime of 3 hours 20 mins, max 17 hours (bad idling)

The idea that it isn't possible is the only thing thats absurd.

Some people just either don't know their way around mobile tech or ...

 

[TheGreyHulk]

I think 720p is fine for handhelds. The ppi would still be high and the you dont need a gpu as strong to run it vs 1080p

 

[ArchedThunder]

I find it pretty disturbing the amount of people that would accept 480p as a passing grade in 2016 and not find that ridiculous. They match Vita resolution (540p) or they've failed. This isn't just a case of "whats good enough for 2016", its whats good enough for 2020/21 unless they start upping the res of their revisions every two years and adopt a smartphone rollout approach.

On the opposite end, no, theres not much point in 1080p on a Nintendo handheld, so 720p should be the max of estimations there. Power draw to GPU misuse makes it a bum note, plus they'll be pushing the console version of their upcoming handheld as the one you can play 1080p+ versions of the same games on.

Then to the $600 = 1080p smartphone crowd, nope! Already now and certainly by 2016, those top of the range smartphones are gonna be 2k to 4K crazed power bitches. The mobile arms race has pushed portable tech through the fucking stratosphere. VR is going to have a similar push on screen resolution too. People can already fix a damn 2K screen to their face right now and enter a fully realised consumer VR product with one phone, and another very soon most likely.

Then on the other side, yeah, sure, put out another dim LCD 480p screen next year. Announce it to that world of technology and early adopters.

Nintendo handhelds have never been about having modern tech, the whole point is to use old tech that developers are familiar with. They made a huge mistake launching the 3DS at such a high price and they need to go back to keeping costs low. Besides, the PPi of a 4 inch 800x480 screen would actually be higher than the Vita's.

 

[enanogrande]

Subjunctive mood.

Ouch.

The irony.

What is wrong in the title? D:
"h" is a vowel so i had to use "an"

Well, I just totally ruled all my views on grammar irrelevant with my previous post xD... but 'h' isn't a vowel here? 'High' has an audible H.

It's not important to the discussion at hand though so whatever.

 

[ZeroX03]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-iOcean-X7-Smartphone.96434.0.html
$212 and can be purchased at retail.
1080p
Quad Core
Minimum battery life runtime of 3 hours 20 mins, max 17 hours (bad idling)

The idea that it isn't possible is the only thing thats absurd.

That's not under $200 and not battery estimations at full load.

 

[ArtHands]

Even if the original units did lose money, the 2000s without the OLED screen cost way less to manufacture and are assuredly selling at a profit.

Yah, except that it came nearly 2 years later after the original. We are not even sure the profit off the 2000 has covered the 2 year losses off the vita1000 yet (which I really doubt so) let alone profit as a whole for the vita.

 

[Newline]

That's not under $200 and not battery estimations at full load.

When you have to start being pedantic to hold a point it's already over.

 

[StevieP]

Some people just either don't know there way around mobile tech or ...

Or are extremely stubborn and ignore what they're posting. Quad core cortex a7 with a 286mhz sgx544 GPU fed by 1gb of lpddr2 and a battery life of 3.5 hours under load.

 

[ZOONAMI]

OnePlus one has top level specs and is $300. The $600+ level phones are only that expensive to account for advertising budgets, and higher margins. Cost of production is $200 tops.

The target should be at least 720p for next Nintendo handheld.

 

[LeleSocho]

Yeah, but I wouldn't expect Nintendo to go with such a high quality screen. My point was that were they to launch a device in late 2016 (which they are going to) with the internals of a 2015 Nexus 7, hypothetically, I could see them targeting 720p and people could -reasonably- expect that. Which is why I think the idea that people should expect less than that to be setting expectations really low. Nintendo's device will definitely be thicker, too. Could support a bigger battery.

I don't think anyone's reasonably expecting a 1080p screen out of Nintendo.

Running half life 2 at a reasonable visual quality would be a huge leap forward for a Nintendo handheld, so I'm not even sure I would expect that.



Subjunctive mood.

The problem is that Nintendo is going to use 2 screens and that will kill the battery, i agree that if they use modern (as in max 1y/o) hardware and aim at Vita quality IQ they could use a single 720p screen though but that's a big if...

I'm not sure this is the rule. The h in high isn't even silent. You don't say "an 'eye res screen."

I do and the h totally sounds silent to me
My bad though English it's not my first language if you want to fix the title please do so.

When you have to start being pedantic to hold a point it's already over.

Oh the irony.

 

[Vena]

Yeah, but I wouldn't expect Nintendo to go with such a high quality screen. My point was that were they to launch a device in late 2016 (which they are going to) with the internals of a 2015 Nexus 7, hypothetically, I could see them targeting 720p and people could -reasonably- expect that. Which is why I think the idea that people should expect less than that to be setting expectations really low.

I don't think anyone's reasonably expecting a 1080p screen out of Nintendo.

Running half life 2 at a reasonable visual quality would be a huge leap forward for a Nintendo handheld, so I'm not even sure I would expect that.

Oh I see what you are talking about, apologies I jumped in halfway and didn't follow the quote line moving back. But, depending on the screen size, I don't think certain resolutions make much sense. If we're still working with a 5" screen, then there's not much need in exceeding 720p. The G2 has a 5.2" screen and 1080p, and it has a rather needless 423 PPI. 300 PPI is a good number to aim for, if Nintendo aims for good PPI.

Hypothetically a 5" at 720p would be: 4.36" × 2.45" = 10.68in² at 293.72 PPI

By 2016, I'd expect specs better than the N7 when looked at from a gaming perspective but, probably, worse from a phone perspective. Also, if AMD is the producer, we'll probably be looking at ARMv8a and they will likely be selling them to Nintendo without much of a mark-up. Might see fairly decent, robust specs in the next handheld. Of course, this also depends on how many screens the next handheld will be driving, if its two, then I think 480p~ish is a safer bet.

 

[Steel]

Running half life 2 at a reasonable visual quality would be a huge leap forward for a Nintendo handheld, so I'm not even sure I would expect that.

You can buy an nvidia shield portable for $200(you can be sure that nvidia aren't selling a niche piece of hardware at a loss either) that can play Half life 2 easy with a 720p screen and a better network card than nintendo would ever put in one of their handhelds. I think it's reasonable to expect the next nintendo handheld to be around that level of performance.

Or at least I hope it's reasonable.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Nintendo handhelds have never been about having modern tech, the whole point is to use old tech that developers are familiar with. They made a huge mistake launching the 3DS at such a high price and they need to go back to keeping costs low. Besides, the PPi of a 4 inch 800x480 screen would actually be higher than the Vita's.

In the year 2016, 540p to 720p is already ancient 5-year old tech.

We'll see if they go 3D again. I'd like them to, sure, but I'd want 540p 3D. Matching their hardware rivals previous handheld should be a like... bare minimum threshold. Not even squeaking past the PSP's with 3DS was already fairly ridiculous, but it got something of a free pass for the "new tech" of glassesless 3D. Not new anymore, expectations march ever onwards.

 

[ArtHands]

There are differing statements. Kaz said that they expect the Vita to be profitable within 3 years (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=433075). People took that as the Vita is sold at loss although it could also mean that other costs will be amortized.

Scott Rhode said on GT that they don't lose money on it on day 1 (http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/w92058/e3-2011--lineup-interview around 1:40).

He could be referring to profit per unit.

In other words, when you put two and two together, it most probably means Sony expected the profit from these units to cover the R&D and other pre-production costs for the Vita within 3 years.

 

[EightBitNate]

Smart phones these days can have 8+ hours of battery usage. Idk what OP is talking about.

 

[baphomet]

Lol, and what actual information is this based off of?

 

[Fourth Storm]

Realistically speaking, if we are talking 2016 and 16/14nm nodes, w/ AMD graphics Nintendo are still going to struggle to produce solid 720p visuals on a handheld/small tablet. I think 540p is the way to go...

 

[Newline]

Oh the irony.

Me? Pedantic?

Hang on didn't you say all my examples were abstract?

 

[Arondight]

What about the iPod touch? Not subsidized, not on a phone contract, I think the performance isn't too bad, battery life is OK, and the screen res is nice. Nintendo should be targeting 720p capacitive.
I think they probably are. Honestly I can't imagine it's cheap to even get a screen these days with that low DPI.
I bet the current gen iPod touch could do it. Well, not sure on the 4 hours part. But considering the Xbox ran HL2, I'm sure they could port it to the modern mobile architecture. That's, what, $199?

I think Ipod is a pretty good comparison. The pixel density is around 300 which is actually pretty solid, internals are decent,far greater build quality and sells for around $200. When talking in terms of battery life, I think people forget how thin and small these devices are and how they're more multimedia orientated. It's roughly 5 times smaller than the 3DS. It would be pretty saddening if the successor can't even get to it's level and have better battery life given how it's probably going to release in 2016/17 and probably be far larger.

 

[……forgetit]

Seriously we live in the HD age, if Nintendo doesn't at least put out a qHD console then they can kiss their already slim profits goodbye.

 

[Snapshot King]

Yah, except that it came nearly 2 years later after the original. We are not even sure the profit off the 2000 has covered the 2 year losses off the vita1000 yet (which I really doubt so) let alone profit as a whole for the vita.

That doesn't matter. We're discussing unit cost as a function of what tech is going into the device. The point is that Nintendo could easily, EASILY make a handheld that could match the Vita and come in way under cost THIS YEAR, let alone in 1 or 2.