No the VIta is bigger, period.
3DS is 13,4*2,1*7,4= 208 cubic centimeters
Vita is 8,5*18,3*1,5= ~272 cubic centimeters
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why it's totally wrong to expect Nintendo's next handheld to have an high res screen.
- Thread starter LeleSocho
- Start date
No the VIta is bigger, period.
3DS is 13,4*2,1*7,4= 208 cubic centimeters
Vita is 8,5*18,3*1,5= ~272 cubic centimeters
They already are. Every piece of hardware Nintendo released after the Gamecube / GBA was "laughable" in exactly that way. Of course nobody actually laughs when the price is good and the margins are better. Nintendo's engineering work is respectable. What they are doing is not some bumbling incompetence you'd scoff your nose at. They are just penny pinching to unparalleled extremes.
finalflame
Gold Member
Cheap to manufacture? Sure, especially with companies that have really low quality standards. For every regularly priced device, there is a shitty cheap chinese knockoff. Mobile device are no exception.
Phone produced by manufacturers with decent quality control and a footprint the size of Nintendo retail for $600+ in the performance category that people in this thread want. Why should Nintendo strategy and pricing be compared to chinese knockoff companies as opposed to other industry leaders?
Snapshot King
Member
If it was native res, then yeah, it is. 540p is fine. The lowest they can possibly acceptably go. 720p'd great but no one expect them to actually put decent hardware in anything anymore. 1080p is a pipedream and probably overkill.
Hmmm. So it is. Huh. I must have been using an XL for too long. The XL is surely bigger, right?
Depending on context? Like how? You want a 1080p screen when the GPU isn't powerful enough to output games in 1080p? Then what's the point? Even if a higher resolution screen doesn't cost more. In order to really take advantage of it, the rest of the hardware has to follow suit.
No, you can't.
Right now the LG G2 is probably the highest quality "cheap" high-end phone you can buy if you get a factory dump (other comparable hardware is either stuck with Windows 8.1 or more expensive). You can buy it for <200$ (in fact I bought one not long ago for its OIS on the camera) but what you speak of is pure fantasy. Max load for 3-4 hours? Phones aren't optimized for gaming or such crazy loads.
Average every day use puts it under 7 hours. You try loading that up to play heavy games and you'll have one hot-ass phone and dead battery.
frankie_baby
Member
I expect a 1080 screen but I expect only 1 of them
I have the SM-N900 (Galaxy Note 3), it has a 1080p screen, quad core processor and the results while playing Asphalt speak for themselves.
Oh and it has the ever present 3200mAh battery which on average gets 3-4 hours of juice across devices.
None of the tech present in the note 3 is currently expensive to produce.
Yes if you wanted a handheld that would directly output to TV sure it would upscale well.
If they're just using a similar architecture between console and handheld so they can run the same games but use different internal tech, the rendering resolutions wouldn't matter because the console could just drive more natively anyway.
lmfao
Snapshot King
Member
I was referring to your statement on cost. Why are you rebutting with something completely different about power? The same concepts apply though. Parts costs go down as the parts themselves rise in popularity and manufacturing costs decrease, but if you're using old enough technology, their relative scarcity of use actually makes costs go up because of production scaling. There's a point where putting out old tech is actually more expensive than putting out new tech, and Nintendo likely passed that line last year and thus we have a New 3ds.
finalflame
Gold Member
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F5PGBEE/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Yes the MSRP of a Note 3 at launch was $799, and is now still at $564.
Yes and thats produced by Samsung. There are other much cheaper manufacturers.
And it's not like Samsung have particularly good profit margins either.
HOLY SHIT I SAW THAT EDIT. $200 on contract you loon.
finalflame
Gold Member
Nintendo is not a cheap Chinese knock-off company, so people need to stop trying to compare their prices to said companies. Comparing to prices by the likes of Samsung, LG, and Apple are all perfectly reasonable.
No, you're right! Same engine.
I'm guessing Bend's inFamous pitch would've used it too.
Naughty Dog gave them assets and supevised the game itself. But Bend wasn't downporting PS3 code, they developed their own engine.
If you want more examples of subnative original games there's Unit 13, Resistance Burning Skies, Wipeout 2048 (dynamic res), Soul Sacrifice, Hot Shots Golf 6. And that's just from Sony, they have more subnative original games than they do ports (just LBP, GOW Collection and Resogun). Again, it's not just subnative ports here.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
People who keep comparing this situation to smart phones are forgetting Nintendo has to sell this at 200 or less and still make a profit, IMO.
Even Xiaomi doesn't go anywhere near that cheap.
Snapshot King
Member
Vita costs about 200 now right? For a machine that came out 3 years ago? It'd be embarassing if the new Nintendo handheld doesn't even match it.
I haven't read the thread and I'm way too drunk right now, but I agree with the thread title. As a developer I'd be disappointed if the next Nintendo handheld screen is any higher res than 480p or so. It'd be a massive waste of GPU power IMO
If they keep the 3D, it'll obviously affect the resolution as well and anything higher would be crazy
If they keep the 3D, it'll obviously affect the resolution as well and anything higher would be crazy
Samsung devices cost around $250 to manufacture, most of which is down to the ridiculous tech they pump tonnes of R&D into. Like for instance their AMOLED displays. Now have you seen the LCD displays present on the 3DS/WiiU Controller?
It's much fairer to compare the nintendo manufacturing process to a cheap knockoff brand than Samsung/Apple.
1) Asphalt 7 is a mobile game that sincerely looks like crap and runs like crap and nowhere near as complicated as a handheld game
2) The note 3 does not cost like you cheapo chinese 200$ smartphone nor you will find an equivalent at that much (and no the fact that is "quad core" doesn't mean they are as powerful if you knew something of technology)
3) 4 Hours of battery life isn't great at all
The 3DS was estimated to cost $100 to manufacture while it retailed at what? $250? Nintendo is in the cheapo Chinese manufacturing business lmfao. Oh and it's battery life was always abysmal... just like the Vita.
The estimates you see on the net are all wrong. All of them. Stop paying attention to them. Nintendo lost a ton of money on the 3ds when they dropped it to less than 200 bucks.
To manufacture. When you include other costs and not just internet estimations of manufacturing costs, at $170 the 3DS was selling at below cost.
...?
You're grossly misinformed or not looking at the whole picture of how production of a good works.
GloriousBagel
Banned
Everyone wants Vita specs but no one wants a Vita.
（°o°；）
（°o°；）
Snapshot King
Member
If the Vita was the one getting Monster Hunter 4 U most of these threads wouldn't exist.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
The Vita was sold at a loss.
There is a reason why Sony dumped it after a year or so.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Swap the library of the Vita and the 3DS and the Vita would be doing great and 3DS would be struggling.
They're trying to recoup losses, the Vita was a loss-leader and marketed that way to try and curtail the market away from the weaker 3DS... which was also a loss-leader. Just imagine how much of a loss the Vita was being sold at.
Swap the ps4 and wii u library and... Oh wait, that's a useless argument. There's a reason why the 3ds has the library it does. Development costs on the platform are also lower.
All i see is you talking about abstract facts trying to avoiding all the points.
Find me a single phone that manages to run a game like Half Life 2 well at native 1080p for 4 hours or more that costs 200$ to the consumers or less.
Then if you manage to do so we can nuke this thread and put me in worst shame possible.
I guess i'll see you in 2017-2018.
Ingueferroque
Banned
Id guess they would almost have to go out of their way to find a supplier for a new, low resolution screen.
I dont see how it would be acceptible for them at this point.
I dont see how it would be acceptible for them at this point.
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.
The majority of Vita games run at native res. "20-25 at most" lol. Maybe that's most Vita games!
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 they probably are. Honestly I can't imagine it's cheap to even get a screen these days with that low DPI.
The majority of Vita games run at native res. "20-25 at most" lol. Maybe that's most Vita games!
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?
Yes a product has to hit a price that covers advertising, research, development and marketing along with the manufacturing. Hence why overall costs end up being higher. That doesn't change anything though. A galaxy smartphone still costs 2.5x more to manufacture than the 3DS does. Why? Because it uses rather cheap parts. If instead of the outdated tech Nintendo choses to use for reasons unbeknownst to the public, they used current mobile technology. They could easily manufacture a HD device with a decent battery life. The 3DS is yet to produce a game yet that would be technically challenging to run at HD on a current smart phone...
……forgetit
Member
How about the nexus 7, has everything you just said, plus it's sub $200.
No. The loss was per unit. It did not include research development advertising etc. Educate yourself
I bought mine but it was $229 so I thought it was disqualified.
There are Multiple Reasons.
People want 3DS games more than they want Vita specs.
……forgetit
Member
Edit: guess I was wrong
airmangataosenai
Member
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.
In my opinion there's close to 0% of getting 720p or better. You must also remember that higher resolution will simply mean higher production costs. It would be the final nail in dedicated handheld gaming.
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.
Ingueferroque
Banned
News to me! Here I am, Vita still relevant with plenty of upcoming titles.
Snapshot King
Member
My point is do you honestly think the parts that went into the Vita will cost the same 5 years later? Of course not. If Nintendo can't make a profit in 2016 with 4-5 year old hardware then they're more incompetent than I can imagine.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
http://www.examiner.com/article/sony-to-sell-playstation-vita-for-a-loss-profitable-3yrs
Sony stated before Vita launch, that they hopes to be profitable in 3 years with the Vita. That was when they forecast the Vita will sell 10 million within 3Q of Vita's initial fiscal year.
Obviously things didn't go according to that plan, since Vita only reached that milestone probably recently. There's a high chance they have not recoup everything yet.