Support NeoGAF

[Fourth Storm]

Hmmm. So, I'm thinking mid 2016 maybe early summer. That's still a ways off and 720p will be pretty much expected. If Nintendo go w/ a 14nm/16nm finFET SoC I guess performance is good enough for Nintendo style games to run smooth...

 

[javadoze]

Not really expecting a really super high res screen for the next handheld. It doesn't need to be like the vita screen, it just needs to be better than 240p. Maybe 480p or something.

 

[SystemUser]

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.

Nintendo didn't lose money by dropping the price to $200. Nintendo lost money by pricing it at $250 and it not selling well. There is no way that the 3DS cost more than $100 to manufacture in 2011. Which parts do you think would push up the manufacturing cost? Compare the specs of a $200 prepaid/off-contract smartphone and the 3DS still gets blown out of the water. Name another $250 device released in 2011 with only 128 MB ram.

This is a really generous estimate. I think Nintendo has people that are a lot better at procuring hardware than me so it would a bit cheaper than this:
$20 - The two low res screens
$5 - Buttons, d-pad, circle pad
$5 - Battery
$5 - Chassis
$45 - CPU, GPU, RAM
$20 - Misc parts and labor

 

[Fourth Storm]

Nintendo didn't lose money by dropping the price to $200. Nintendo lost money by pricing it at $250 and it not selling well. There is no way that the 3DS cost more than $75 to manufacture in 2011. Which parts do you think would push up the manufacturing cost? Compare the specs of a $200 prepaid/off-contract smartphone and the 3DS still gets blown out of the water. Name another $250 device released in 2011 with only 128 MB ram.

$75?! Your'e joking!

 

[Vena]

Really? I thought they had billions of dollars in the bank.

Having money doesn't mean you can or should throw it away and burn it.

Nintendo didn't lose money by dropping the price to $200. Nintendo lost money by pricing it at $250 and it not selling well. There is no way that the 3DS cost more than $75 to manufacture in 2011. Which parts do you think would push up the manufacturing cost? Compare the specs of a $200 prepaid/off-contract smartphone and the 3DS still gets blown out of the water. Name another $250 device released in 2011 with only 128 MB ram.

75$? Wtf?

 

[StevieP]

Hmmm. So, I'm thinking mid 2016 maybe early summer. That's still a ways off and 720p will be pretty much expected. If Nintendo go w/ a 14nm/16nm finFET SoC I guess performance is good enough for Nintendo style games to run smooth...

Hmm. Tsmc and gloflo both have that capability as I believe Samsung and Apple are both vying for that

 

[Matt]

Nintendo didn't lose money by dropping the price to $200. Nintendo lost money by pricing it at $250 and it not selling well. There is no way that the 3DS cost more than $75 to manufacture in 2011. Which parts do you think would push up the manufacturing cost? Compare the specs of a $200 prepaid/off-contract smartphone and the 3DS still gets blown out of the water. Name another $250 device released in 2011 with only 128 MB ram.

...are you joking?

 

[Chezzymann]

Doubling the 3DS' screen to 480p And keeping the size at around XL levels would be acceptable for the next handheld. 200ppi is the optimal resolution for handhelds when factoring in that these are designed to play games, unlike smart phones. I'd argue that most smartphones that have north of 400ppi and over 1080p are just going overkill and you're paying for something that you literally cannot tell the difference with. For smart phones I'd say 300 ppi is the optimal resolution.

 

[Sandfox]

Nintendo didn't lose money by dropping the price to $200. Nintendo lost money by pricing it at $250 and it not selling well. There is no way that the 3DS cost more than $75 to manufacture in 2011. Which parts do you think would push up the manufacturing cost? Compare the specs of a $200 prepaid/off-contract smartphone and the 3DS still gets blown out of the water. Name another $250 device released in 2011 with only 128 MB ram.

Wouldn't Nintendo have been making bank these past few years if that were true?

 

[StevieP]

Nintendo didn't lose money by dropping the price to $200. Nintendo lost money by pricing it at $250 and it not selling well. There is no way that the 3DS cost more than $75 to manufacture in 2011. Which parts do you think would push up the manufacturing cost? Compare the specs of a $200 prepaid/off-contract smartphone and the 3DS still gets blown out of the water. Name another $250 device released in 2011 with only 128 MB ram.

Dude they sold it at a loss. Per unit. It's documented. Learn what that means. Learn why part of their margins need to be given up as part of that per unit cost.

Remember the wii? You know, the overclocked upgraded GameCube? It apparently made nintendo 6 bucks per unit at launch because of these factors. There's more to manufacturing than the cost of the chips themselves.

 

[……forgetit]

It's higher than you think, but lower than some hope for.

So guessing this guy knows? Well most assume 540 I think and 720 is the most hoped for, so I'll say 680.

 

[Muskieratboi]

854x480, same rez as the gamepad, higher PPI cause It'll be about 5 inches rather than 8. 70-80% chance of this one for the top screen at least. Double horizontal rez if they go for 3d again.

 

[tensuke]

Like it or not, Apple has taught an entire generation that the resolution of a screen matters with their retina screen stuff that prompted an entire industry to go screen crazy for five years. Shit, even my parents ask if the new iPad is 'properly' retina, and they don't know what they're talking about. Casual consumers care about screens now. They won't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p, but try selling them 420p or something two years from now and they're going to glance at the phone in their pocket, back at your new device's screen and wonder 'what the fuck am i spending money on here?'

The resolution has always mattered. I cared about my phone's screen res long before Apple made it a selling point.

 

[Vena]

Doubling the 3DS' screen to 480p And keeping the size at around XL levels would be acceptable for the next handheld. 200ppi is the optimal resolution for handhelds when factoring in that these are designed to play games, unlike smart phones. I'd argue that most smartphones that have north of 400ppi and over 1080p are just going overkill and you're paying for something that you literally cannot tell the difference with. For smart phones I'd say 300 ppi is the optimal resolution.

I think 540p+ is a better guess to upwards of 720p, but 1080p is absurd for a handheld and, hell, even phone that isn't a phablet. As you said, anything over 300PPI is going outside the realm of even distinguishable unless you hold the object right in front of your nose.

I'd guess around 680p? But that seems like a very bizarre resolution, does it scale well if Nintendo plans on having easy development channels between handheld and console?

 

[Bony Manifesto]

That's not how Nintendo operates, and they're not exactly in a financial position to lose money.

When is a business ever in a financial position where they'd aim to lose money? The point is that they'd lose money up-front in order to be in a more advantageous position down the line. And that's something they're not shy about - they love pumping money into R&D to make their own custom hardware (though all this seems to have done in recent years is increase their costs at every stage of the process).

Having said that, I think the smart move is for Nintendo to go ultra low spec, ultra high margin, and get as much money out of their core audience as possible. Unless they catch lightning in a bottle again with a gimmick that captures the imagination of the mass market, I can't see them growing their audience, no matter how powerful their hardware is.

 

[VariantX]

Please be at least 540p and both screens being the same size again. That's all I'm really asking for.

 

[Coriolanus]

Wouldn't Nintendo have been making bank these past few years if that were true?

It's kinda hard to determine that because, when you look at their stats, you can't easily distinguish how profitable the 3ds is from how unprofitable the wii u is.

Kinda fun to see the charts nosedive after wii u was released tho.

 

[staticneuron]

Ys and Uncharted are two off the top of my head that run sub-native and they're ground up efforts. It's not just last gen downports.

Nope, Bend developed the engine themselves. They even commented on it being a shame that it only ended up being used for a single game given the work they sunk into it.

Ys Celceta uses the PhyreEngine.

Well......

http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/181082/postmortem_sony_bend_studios_.php?page=2

To ensure development could proceed most of the game was actually developed on PS3. “In fact all production continued on our PS3 engine up until the final year, prior to launch of the PS Vita in Japan.

As far as the arguments against a higher resolution screen, the most silly idea is "power" because the screen is 1080p doesn't mean that a game is required to run at native resolution. To use that argument is a total fallacy.

 

[Vena]

When is a business ever in a financial position where they'd aim to lose money? The point is that they'd lose money up-front in order to be in a more advantageous position down the line. And that's something they're not shy about - they love pumping money into R&D to make their own custom hardware (though all this seems to have done in recent years is increase their costs at every stage of the process).

Having said that, I think the smart move is for Nintendo to go ultra low spec, ultra high margin, and get as much money out of their core audience as possible. Unless they catch lightning in a bottle again with a gimmick that captures the imagination of the mass market, I can't see them growing their audience, no matter how powerful their hardware is.

Not aim to lose money, but a business can gamble money on returns. The PS3 is a perfect example of Sony leveraging losses (and their brand) to gain traction on BluRay and Cel. It didn't pay off, and then they had to burn even more money to regain market share and mind share. Arguably, their commitment and sacrifice of money got them in a good place for the PS4 but it could just as easily have completely destroyed the Playstation brand like it destroyed the Playstation profits.

Your suggestion a bad one for longevity. The next handheld will not be ultra-high margin. It will likely have a positive but very, very small margin. They need to place themselves on a generally competitive level with mobile offerings in terms of screen quality and other, more tertiary, functionality like wireless card and so on. They can't, or really shouldn't, be offering a screen with sub-200 PPI like the 3DS but they don't need to push over 300 PPI because it has no use. The only reason to have PPI over 300 would be if someone was planning on reading exceedingly fine print at 2" from their eyes. And that's to avoid them seeing jagged pixelation.

 

[Prisoner]

Having money doesn't mean you can or should throw it away and burn it.

Of course. But you said they are not in a position to lose money. If a company with billions in reserves is not in a postion to lose money, then nobody is.

 

[ArchedThunder]

Nintendo didn't lose money by dropping the price to $200. Nintendo lost money by pricing it at $250 and it not selling well. There is no way that the 3DS cost more than $75 to manufacture in 2011. Which parts do you think would push up the manufacturing cost? Compare the specs of a $200 prepaid/off-contract smartphone and the 3DS still gets blown out of the water. Name another $250 device released in 2011 with only 128 MB ram.

You realize that they only recently started making a profit on the 3DS hardware, right?

 

[Fourth Storm]

The other thing is I keep coming back to that rumor of the custom-shaped screen. I don't believe in a doughnut hole screen, but something w/ the screen carved out for the thumb sticks and buttons w/ little indicators right next to them is something that's not outside of Nintendo's unique character.

 

[The Sarcastic Dude]

Nintendo didn't lose money by dropping the price to $200. Nintendo lost money by pricing it at $250 and it not selling well. There is no way that the 3DS cost more than $75 to manufacture in 2011. Which parts do you think would push up the manufacturing cost? Compare the specs of a $200 prepaid/off-contract smartphone and the 3DS still gets blown out of the water. Name another $250 device released in 2011 with only 128 MB ram.

You have no clue what your talking about. The raw materials for the 3DS cost $101 dollars. This doesn't include manufacturing cost, R&D cost or marketing cost either.

 

[Vena]

Of course. But you said they are not in a position to lose money. If a company with billions in reserves is not in a postion to lose money, then nobody is.

Its a pointless venture because they don't gain much of anything out of "mega-specs". They'd be better off gambling profits/money on selling a competent to good specced handheld at lower costs while funding software than trying to subsidize some sort of super machine subsidized by software sales which would, themselves, be getting galvanized by the subsidizing.

At the end of the day, I think everyone would be better off with a handheld sold at cost or close to it, and it being relatively good in PPI and gaming functionality. Nintendo can sink the money that would have been lost in subsidizing... into making more software.

 

[StevieP]

I wish folks would stop taking stuff like isuppli as gospel. Per unit losses don't include things like research and advertising.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Your suggestion a bad one for longevity. The next handheld will not be ultra-high margin. It will likely have a positive but very, very small margin. They need to place themselves on a generally competitive level with mobile offerings in terms of screen quality and other, more tertiary, functionality like wireless card and so on. They can't, or really shouldn't, be offering a screen with sub-200 PPI like the 3DS but they don't need to push over 300 PPI because it has no use. The only reason to have PPI over 300 would be if someone was planning on reading exceedingly fine print at 2" from their eyes. And that's to avoid them seeing jagged pixelation.

But is any of that stuff going to sway someone into buying their hardware? People like you and me are going to buy it no matter how poor it is, simply because it'll have some good games for it. Whether the pixel density is slightly lower than the competition or way below the competition is neither here nor there.

 

[nampad]

Well......

http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/181082/postmortem_sony_bend_studios_.php?page=2





As far as the arguments against a higher resolution screen, the most silly idea is "power" because the screen is 1080p doesn't mean that a game is required to run at native resolution. To use that argument is a total fallacy.

Also, it is a launch title but of course that doesn't matter for someone like him. Meanwhile, Freedom Wars, one of the best looking games, is native res. Borderlands 2, a PS3 port with big levels, is native res. Killzone: Mercenary, the best looking game, is dynamic res with the native one at best and KZ is also based on the PS3 engine.

 

[keakster]

The other thing is I keep coming back to that rumor of the custom-shaped screen. I don't believe in a doughnut hole screen, but something w/ the screen carved out for the thumb sticks and buttons w/ little indicators right next to them is something that's not outside of Nintendo's unique character.

I thought that was for their QoL device? Hopefully we'll find out those hardware details Feb. 17

 

[Vena]

But is any of that stuff going to sway someone into buying their hardware? People like you and me are going to buy it no matter how poor it is, simply because it'll have some good games for it. Whether the pixel density is slightly lower than the competition or way below the competition is neither here nor there.

You and I are informed enthusiasts. Nintendo needs to position itself in a way that they can make themselves look at least relatively comparable to mobile gaming offerings to the general public as a dedicated gaming device at a good price point. That means functionality as well as image quality.

 

[nampad]

That's not how Nintendo operates, and they're not exactly in a financial position to lose money.

Yeah just that they said the Wii U was sold at loss at launch and they have one of the hugest war chests thanks to Wii and DS...
3DS was also allegedly sold at loss after the first price cut.

 

[Biker19]

And also has an abundance of disgusting subnative res games.

Resolutions of games for PS Vita can't go any higher than 960 x 544, because that's the screen's max resolution.

Just look at this list here, most games on PS Vita run at that resolution.

 

[LeleSocho]

Hmmm. So, I'm thinking mid 2016 maybe early summer. That's still a ways off and 720p will be pretty much expected. If Nintendo go w/ a 14nm/16nm finFET SoC I guess performance is good enough for Nintendo style games to run smooth...

Nintendo using 14/16nm fInFET is only a dream unless they launch in 2018, if you look at the last 3 console launch (Wii, 3ds and WiiU) you'll see how old the nodes they use are.
They'll use 28nm at 95%, 4.9% they'll go with 20nm and 0.1% 16nm finFET.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Nintendo using 14/16nm fInFET is only a dream unless they launch in 2018, if you look at the last 3 console launch (Wii, 3ds and WiiU) you'll see how old the nodes they use are.
They'll use 28nm at 95%, 4.9% they'll go with 20nm and 0.1% 16nm finFET.

Wii (90nm) and 3DS (45nm) both used the current nodes for the time. Wii U (45nm CPU and 45?nm GPU) only uses a lower node than available because of the rare type of eDRAM it has on the GPU and CPU. Actually, IBM probably would have shrunken the CPU by now but it's henceforth out of the manufacturing game.

20nm is a failure of a node and 28nm isn't going to give them the performance/die area they need (I'm assuming lots of on-die SRAM since eDRAM on lower nodes won't be available w/ the foundries they will likely use).

 

[Green Wiggly]

This is some "I'm an expert" level shit lol, well played.



Isn't Killzone Mercenary like...one of maybe 3 games that aren't 2D that run at Native res on Vita?

Edit: Ok it's more than 3, but it's maybe like 20-25 at most.

According to this there were at least 55 as of October.

 

[Taker666]

Well......

As far as the arguments against a higher resolution screen, the most silly idea is "power" because the screen is 1080p doesn't mean that a game is required to run at native resolution. To use that argument is a total fallacy.

True ..but Nintendo usually tends to builds to a specific level. If they intend for most of their games to run at 540p...then a 540p screen is what you'll get.

I certainly can't see them going above 540p if they are having a 3D screen and second screen again.

 

[Vena]

Yeah just that they said the Wii U was sold at loss at launch and they have one of the hugest war chests thanks to Wii and DS...
3DS was also allegedly sold at loss after the first price cut.

I don't think we want to use either as a metric. They were both total clusterfucks.

 

[sörine]

Well......

http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/181082/postmortem_sony_bend_studios_.php?page=2

As far as the arguments against a higher resolution screen, the most silly idea is "power" because the screen is 1080p doesn't mean that a game is required to run at native resolution. To use that argument is a total fallacy.

Did you read that post-mortem you're sourcing? It says they used PS3 for prototyping and artifically limited bandwidth to Vita theoreticals because they didn't have a prefabbed engine handed to them to use (or even hardware for most of the dev cycle). They made it themselves, they didn't port Naughty Dog's engine. They even say as much here clearly:

We did not port the Uncharted code from Naughty Dog, but instead used it more as a blueprint on how to approach the development for a PS Vita version of Uncharted.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

You and I are informed enthusiasts. Nintendo needs to position itself in a way that they can make themselves look at least relatively comparable to mobile gaming offerings to the general public as a dedicated gaming device at a good price point. That means functionality as well as image quality.

But even if they do manage to convince people that their hardware is competitive with rival products, how do they get the uninformed non-enthusiasts to buy into the idea of premium priced games? I know Nintendo are making baby steps into the word of freemium and low-priced titles, but Iwata has made it very clear that he's against them, and its the big £30-£45 games where their profit comes from. It's a really tough sell if you're not someone who is already familiar with Nintendo's games and why they're worth paying the extra for.

 

[Fisty]

Itll be 480p no question. They arent going to make a handheld with hardware strong enough to play anything 3D with a better resolution than that. Remember that the 3DS and the Vita were the same price at their respective launches... Nintendo has no problem shortchanging hardware and jacking up the price, at least until they get some competition in the dedicated handheld space. We'll see how they proceed now that they are on the back foot this time around.

 

[Griss]

But even if they do manage to convince people that their hardware is competitive with rival products, how do they get the uninformed non-enthusiasts to buy into the idea of premium priced games? I know Nintendo are making baby steps into the word of freemium and low-priced titles, but Iwata has made it very clear that he's against them, and its the big £30-£45 games where their profit comes from. It's a really tough sell if you're not someone who is already familiar with Nintendo's games and why they're worth paying the extra for.

We just had a thread the other day that Nintendo is actively looking at getting more low price software and free-to-try games on the 3DS. i think they're waking up regarding software price, but obviously won't go full F2P (thank god). But I wouldn't be surprised if the average price of software on their next device is way down, maybe back to 30 dollars, ideally at 20. If that means scaled-back games then so be it.

 

[LeleSocho]

Wii (90nm) and 3DS (45nm) both used the current nodes for the time. Wii U (45nm CPU and 45?nm GPU) only uses a lower node than available because of the rare type of eDRAM it has on the GPU and CPU. Actually, IBM probably would have shrunken the CPU by now but it's henceforth out of the manufacturing game.

20nm is a failure of a node and 28nm isn't going to give them the performance/die area they need (I'm assuming lots of on-die SRAM since eDRAM on lower nodes won't be available w/ the foundries they will likely use).

Pretty sure that 65nm was in 2006 and 28nm was in 2011

Edit: Actually 65nm was in 2007 my bad.

 

[……forgetit]

Can we all just except the fact that no matter how much power nintendo pumps into there next handheld,Pokemon will still run like shit.

 

[nampad]

I don't think we want to use either as a metric. They were both total clusterfucks.

Which has nothing to do with them being subsidized...

 

[whitehawk]

I think at the most they'll match the vita screen at 540p. They might just do 480p though.

 

[whitehawk]

Resolutions of games for PS Vita can't go any higher than 960 x 544, because that's the screen's max resolution.

Just look at this list here, most games on PS Vita run at that resolution.

what are you talking about. A bunch of the larger budget 3D games run at subnative.

 

[GiantEnemyCrab]

Increasing resolution means art assets have to be higher-fidelity, which means higher development costs. Nintendo wants to keep game development affordable across its ecosystem, but especially on its handheld device. That, price, and power consumption are the three main factors Nintendo is considering. I would be surprised to see a 720p screen on its next handheld, and astounded to see a 1080p screen. I expect we'll see something in the neighborhood of 480p or 540p for the main screen, and a bit less for the second screen. Don't expect them to ditch the resistive touch screen for a more expensive capacitive screen, either.

 

[Wolfgang Jr]

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

You mean, Retina, right?

 

[Corgi]

resolution, who cares.


More importantly give me a screen with good color accuracy. PLEASE.

who's bright idea to give me a piss orange filter over my 3ds xl screen?

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Increasing resolution means art assets have to be higher-fidelity, which means higher development costs. Nintendo wants to keep game development affordable across its ecosystem, but especially on its handheld device. That, price, and power consumption are the three main factors Nintendo is considering. I would be surprised to see a 720p screen on its next handheld, and astounded to see a 1080p screen. I expect we'll see something in the neighborhood of 480p or 540p for the main screen, and a bit less for the second screen. Don't expect them to ditch the resistive touch screen for a more expensive capacitive screen, either.

There's absolutely nothing stopping companies from using PS2 assets on a powerful platform and raising the resolution, thats what japanese companies do all the time on Vita/PS3/PS4.

 

[ascii42]

There's absolutely nothing stopping companies from using PS2 assets on a powerful platform and raising the resolution, thats what japanese companies do all the time on Vita/PS3/PS4.

Or using PS2 assets and a PS2 resolution, in the case of P4G and the God of War games.