-
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.
Nintendo looking for Lead Graphic Engineer for Next-Gen Console SoC in Redmond
- Thread starter BY2K
- Start date
And I thought I was overly optimistic when it comes to specs of future Nintendo hardware.
Captain Europe
Member
How long was the lifespan of the latest Nintendo DS revision before the 3DS came out?
SwiftDeath
Member
It's not so much the idea that such a GPU at such a power rating is impossible or 10 years out but that it's very unlikely to be 2 or 3 years out in a form factor that Nintendo would go for.
But of course that's just like my opinion
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
I don't think they will either; I think they'll focus on an efficient architecture that wrings the most possible performance out of the lowest possible specs rather than play the numbers game of more flops / cpu cycles = better.
doctordoak
Member
Where's Martin Hollis?
If Nintendo wants to be a success in the home console market, they need to wake up and smell the coffee. With the release of the PS4/X1 it has shown that consumers care about power.
I think they should release a console in 2017 at $399 and make it as powerful as they can make it, so it will be able to accept ports from PS5/X2, I'm thinking 16gb Ram with 2gb reserved for OS, The latests notebook low end AMD CPU with8 cores, the latest mid range AMD GPU that's about 4.5tflops, and a 1TB HD. If they can get third parties on board they could really catch Sony and ms with there pants down, with there next gen consoles coming at 2018 at the very earliest. It may not see Wii level success but SNES level defintitly just based on the head start alone, imagine the ports it would receive, 2k or maybe 4k ps4 ports at 60fps, hardcore gamers would be sold on that fact alone.
It not a hard strategy? I can't understand why Nintendo wouldn't do it. If they release a x1 level console in 2017 they deserve sub 15million lifetime sales for the obvious stupidity.
Hopefully the WiiU has shown them they can't get away with making the same mistakes.
I think they should release a console in 2017 at $399 and make it as powerful as they can make it, so it will be able to accept ports from PS5/X2, I'm thinking 16gb Ram with 2gb reserved for OS, The latests notebook low end AMD CPU with8 cores, the latest mid range AMD GPU that's about 4.5tflops, and a 1TB HD. If they can get third parties on board they could really catch Sony and ms with there pants down, with there next gen consoles coming at 2018 at the very earliest. It may not see Wii level success but SNES level defintitly just based on the head start alone, imagine the ports it would receive, 2k or maybe 4k ps4 ports at 60fps, hardcore gamers would be sold on that fact alone.
It not a hard strategy? I can't understand why Nintendo wouldn't do it. If they release a x1 level console in 2017 they deserve sub 15million lifetime sales for the obvious stupidity.
Hopefully the WiiU has shown them they can't get away with making the same mistakes.
Third parties won't come back because of power. At all. It's perceived audience and demographics that are the stumbling block, not power.
People that really care about power (as opposed to console wars) have gaming grade PCs. Not consoles.
This. I'm hoping that Nintendo create a haven for 3rd parties but shy away from AAA blockbuster titles. Steal plenty of mid-tier/"high end" mid-tier titles from them instead.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
That's your takeaway from weaker-than-usual-at-launch hardware and a seemingly hugely contracted market?
Okay.
Resoultiongate and PS4 sales show otherwise.I also think this would be the best way to get third parties back, a more powerful machine creates viable selling points.
If they release a ps4 level machine they will just have the same problems they have had for the past 2 gens
Exactly what I thought, but there's no need to stress. We just need to realise that Nintendo will never get back into the hardware race. It's too expensive and they don't see value in it. Expect to see a PS4 1.1 next time. So long as you accept that, you can enjoy the games and not stress.
I agree with the first part. It would take much more than power to get third parties back with Nintendo. Third party audiences are huge on the XB1 and PS4 already and how many Nintendo only gamers are there who are only waiting for the third party games to be on Nintendo's machines?
They will need to get them with something innovative and new, in a market where third parties can see big returns on their investment.
However, I disagree on the second part. People do care about power, and those people do not all go to PC because of it. Consoles offer a lot of pluses over PCs but some still care about the power of the relative consoles.
The audience needed for the games that these 3rd party publishers release are firmly rooted into Sony and Microsoft's ecosystem. It'll take a fuckton more than just "a powerful console" to get 3rd party, as well as the audience, back.
Nintendo needs to get their own shit together first, and a "fancy console" ain't going to cut it.
The whole, "graphics = more sales" have only applied to the PS4, while in previous gens, the weaker powered console didn't sell as much in the first few years of their console cycle. (GC/PS3).
Plus, lets be honest, stigma is a hell of a thing, and Nintendo's reputation as a "kiddy" console has been engrained after so many years that I doubt they'll be able to shrug off that reputation without completely overhauling their company philosophy.
The PS3 showed that consumers do not care about power alone. It took many years of remodelling and price drops to make the PS3 palatable and help Sony recover lost ground. The turnaround they performed was nothing short of astonishing. And the lesson they learned? Bringing their home console launch price down from $599 to $399. Engineering not for pure power, using exotic architecture, but simplifying, bringing down cost, making it very very efficient. One of the main reasons they lead as much as they do right now, is not so much to do with the power advantage, but the price advantage as well. Funnily enough, simplifying, bringing down costs and making things efficient is also a skill Nintendo have demonstrated - sadly not on Wii U.
I personally think it's about the price-feature-power balance more than graphics or processing power. People look at the price and evaluate what they're getting for it.
The $299 and $349 hurt them this time around because the gamepad accounted for a decent chunk of the price. The pad and backwards compatibility both had a suppressive influence on their final spec, while also making it more expensive than the 3rd and 4th iterations of PS3 and Xbox 360.
Let's play a game of what ifs: Take the gamepad out and launch the console cheaper? Maybe the Wii U performs better. Lose the gamepad, beef up the console and launch it at the same price? Maybe the Wii U performs better. Keep the gamepad, beef up the console and go to $399 or even $449? Try and go toe to toe with the next gen consoles? It sounds dangerous - but off the back of a success like the original Wii - who knows!
What is important in this next design phase, is that they don't make their USP too much of an upward influence on launch price. As long as the console makes a better case for itself, as a value proposition, against the generation both before and after it, it will do better than Wii U. It needs a better brand and a whole bunch of other things, but their pricing and positioning between PS360 and PS4One this time around was a calculated gamble that failed horribly. Had it come earlier, in 2010 or 2011, it might not have seemed so bad.
They weren't ready to do it in 2010/11 though. They weren't even ready to do it in 2012.
That's another thing Nintendo did wrong in the run up to Wii U. Call it hubris, over-confidence, or lack of understanding, but they rushed in to launching a console without explaining it properly and without showing the full potential of software on it. They deviated from their usual practice of showing a sizzle reel of first party Nintendo titles. They attempted to take games like NintendoLand and ZombiU front and center, they gave EA stage-time at E3 2011, and devoted a lot of time to Activision at E3 2012. That's fine - but that doesn't preclude them from showing what the console is going to do for their own games!
Spaceworld 2000, Gamecube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zr0Nu24OCU
- Meowth / Pokemon
- Luigi's Mansion
- The infamous Zelda demo
- The return of fucking METROID
- Super Mario 128 demo
- Everything looking and sounding amazing when compared with N64 counterparts.
- The additional Rebirth demo (also Spaceworld 2000): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylyXEMPaVHQ
E3 2006, Wii, Launch Year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKp6PLwxsM
4 remotes, dual wielding remotes, motion control tennis, golf, gyro steering Excite Trucks, Super Mario Galaxy, speaker in the remote, Pilotwings demo, Metroid Prime 3, Wario Ware, Baseball, Red Steel, Twilight Princess with waggle sword, hookshot, bow, fishing etc. Nintendo franchises, with games well in development, and things nobody had seen or done before. Nintendo prepared.
Compare that with Wii U's feature-reveal in 2011.
Following their confusing brand decision explanation, a rambling Reggie gives way to the worst console introduction I have ever seen.
- New Super Mario Bros shown for off TV play (cool feature, but we've seen that game before)
- Art Academy / someone drawing Link (cool, but we've seen that on DS/3DS)
- 2 player 'Go' played on the gamepad (okay, but I'll go back to Candy Crush now)
- Wii Sports and Wii Fit (again. That's nice but didn't we get Wii Sports Resort and Wii Fit+ recently?)
- Video calling (Skype)
- Web Browsing (Every device ever)
- Pre-rendered Zelda video (the one cool thing people wanted)
I remember my feelings at the time. "Have they been twiddling their thumbs since Skyward Sword? I like it but where the hell are the games?". This was Nintendo, totally unprepared.
So three things:
1) the consumer has to feel the price matches the value of what the console can do. If its not graphics selling the thing it needs to be something fun that people have not experienced before (a la Wii, not Wii U). There is a scale to this market. It's okay for them to come in with lower power as long as it can sell at the price they set.
2) it needs to be timely
3) the reveal needs to be confident, full, and forward looking - showing games, or at the very least - videos pretending to be games
Imagine if the console had launched with a better name, and a better price, with everyone knowing in advance the kind of potential that games like Mario 3D World, Wind Waker HD, Pikmin 3, Mario Kart 8, and Bayonetta 2 had. They might not have so quickly lost the PR war and all of their partners. It's taken 2 years to get to this point, they can't be so slow next time.
ShockingAlberto
Member
It may have had something to do with the PS4 being a cheaper system than the Xbox one.
Well I think the whole point of deemphasizing the sheer graphics performance of Nintendo's machines was to relieve the pressure to max out budgets. Like, if a person does buy the Nintendo machine, they've selected themselves as a person who won't put an emphasis on games that need big budgets. That way, even if the next machine could, say, run a game that can be made on the PS4/XB1, it wouldn't need to be the kind of blockbuster game that tops the charts of the PS4/XB1. What stresses me out then isn't hardware performance (I have a PS4 and a WiiU and Xbox 360 and Wii and I've been enchanted by the visual impact of games on all of those machines), but rather, that the kind of content that tops the charts of the PS4/XB1 is the only kind that is viable at retail any more. Some day the PS5 will be old news and some people will moan that Nintendo's machine for that gen is just a low wattage PS5.1 with 32GB of ram, haha (or maybe it'll have 16GB of ram reserved for the OS and only 16 available for games ;-) )
If you're talking about horsepower, I would not agree with that. Wii U has less power than PS3 / Xbox 360 by many measures, although not all.
Between those three consoles, each one has different strengths and different weaknesses compared to the other two. They are all in the same 'class' though.
All about value proposition. PS4 is more powerful at a cheaper price. People notice those things.
LordOfChaos
Member
The Moto G (which I have - not a bad performer at all) and the HTC something or other use the Snapdragon 400 with quad A7s.
As to the "base assumption", it's Nintendo, they can always surprise us with how low they shoot hardware-wise.
Anywho, I would place money on whatever it will use not being a big.LITTLE config, that makes less sense in a dedicated gaming platform. Could be something like four A53s, the 64 bit A7 successor, without the A57 larger core cluster.
Or it could be something that blindsides all of us, like the Pica200 few people would have guessed at.
The CPU has its unfortunate bottlenecks, and I believe people have the GPU rated at doing fewer flops than Xenos, but as we know flops aren't everything when it comes to graphics processing, flop measurements are purely a math thing. Generations of GPU can differ in shader architecture, fixed features/instructions, different implementations of cache etc. Shin'en say the GPU is different class and normally, while I know there'd be reason to suspect bias, they also develop for PlayStation now and I suspect they know their stuff. It's important to recognise that the console carries its weight in the same 'class' while also being able to do things that were only introduced on the other consoles in this 'new' generation too (game suspension, social sharing etc).
ChiefofCitadelSecurity
Member
I wonder if they'll try to keep backwards compatibility. I love that they did it for the Wii U. It's one of the things I'm looking forward to when I get a Wii U.
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Many thought gaming as a whole was entrenched in the PlayStation brand after the PS2, which didn't stop the PS3 from losing a ton of marketshare to the 360. Others believed most of the 360 crowd would never switch to the PS4 after investing almost a decade in their XBL account, but the exact opposite seems to be happening right now, and at a record-breaking pace. I think most consumers would be open to a switch if the product is appealing enough.
That I agree with. Nintendo needs to invest a lot more resources into less whimsical IPs if it wants to get that audience's attention. I'm not saying they have to reboot and bro-up most of their iconic franchises, but they at least 3-5 high profile IPs with a more "grown-up" presentation.
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
I'm guessing one of the biggest contributors to the Wii U releasing so late was due to the gamepad. IIRC there was an interview done which talked about streaming to the gamepad and latency taking up a lot of time.
What they should have done was release Wii U along with Motion + and Wii Sports Resort and named the system something else like Wii 2, Wii Two, Wii Too, Wii HD, Super Wii, etc. Adding more face buttons or even head tracking would have greatly reduced the price. What's sad is that all of this was already done, and the demand for it was really high. All they need to do was package it together.
Ideally, if they were going after hardcore gamers, their best option would be to try and one up PS4 and XB1 in power and release the system next holiday with as much third party support as possible. This would require them cutting their losses on Wii U. The odds of this happening are slim to none.
A more realist scenario is them extending the 3DS as long as possible and cutting the Wii U short. The absolute earliest I could see them releasing it is 2016 w/2017 being more likely. I also think the odds of the new Zelda releasing in 2015 are 50/50. It's a series that's known to get delayed. Couple that in with Retro's next game which will be 2016 at the earliest and we have the same situation as we did when Nintendo was transitioning from GC to Wii. My point is that I think there's a good chance the new Zelda and Retro's game could (probably should be) launch games for whatever their next system is - even if it means releasing it on two systems like Twilight Princess.
Nintendojitsu
Banned
Nintendo needs surprise more than anything.
I think more than anything they need a great value proposition. Hence the focus on accounts and OS as a platform to potentially see all software playable across all hardware.
GhostTrick
Banned
Yup. In long term, the ideal would be that all their catalogue, from NES to Wii U ends up being available on their consoles. With such an ecosystem, they'd make a lot of money.
Alcoholikaust
Member
I wouldn't say "of course"
Canis lupus
Member
TBH if Nintendo were to plan a console for the end of 2016/2017, a 4TFLOP console would probably be relative to what Wii U was at release.
GhostTrick
Banned
Good to see one of the few knowledgeable posters on the first page is getting completely ignored, while the rest goes on for pages (only read the first few pages after that) about how strange it is for Nintendo to hire someone outside of Japan. So i will quote:
Agree about 2017 and nothing else. The console needs to be as good as Xbone, no more. 300$ should be the max price even for their premium package. Trying to be future proof for PS5/X2 would only be caastrophic. I don't see the consoles coming before 2020, how can you target 3 years later with 399$??
I hear all this talk about Nintendo's console power but i wonder.. what do they realy need, i mean realistically, with their man power right now and their aesthetic. I'm sincerely asking, what do they need.
I would think.. If you take a MK8. I want better animations (they are great but they can go even farther to make it look like a dynamic cartoon), but i don't need better models honestly, they are perfect. Now the background could be a lot more rich, textures etc.. Object motion blur, 1080p with perfect iq and especially global lighting would be cgi like already. Same for something like Mario 3d World. Now what power do you need for that...
Of course for Zelda it's different, they will never have enough for the kind of realism and scope they're going for.
I would think.. If you take a MK8. I want better animations (they are great but they can go even farther to make it look like a dynamic cartoon), but i don't need better models honestly, they are perfect. Now the background could be a lot more rich, textures etc.. Object motion blur, 1080p with perfect iq and especially global lighting would be cgi like already. Same for something like Mario 3d World. Now what power do you need for that...
Of course for Zelda it's different, they will never have enough for the kind of realism and scope they're going for.
Well, they could always hire, but with their man power they need to make every dollar count. Every dollar spent on a handheld game should be a dollar spent on a console game. Their console should play all handheld titles with better specs PC style. They need way more F2P games to increase value proposition as well. As much as we hate that. In terms of specs, whatever they can get with a machine costing $249.99.
A full 6 to 7 years after those consoles launches.
I'm just saying, anyone thinking Nintendo is gonna suddenly go back into the numbers game is making a big mistake.
If i was them, i'd focus on holding onto the dwindling handheld structure they've got going.
GhostTrick
Banned
Yup, I agree with you. Considering what Nintendo can achieve with the really weak Wii U, I think the only thing they need is higher res, better effects and maybe better modelisations.
Just look at how Wind Waker HD worked pretty well.
That's why I think Nintendo should limited their handheld to be on par with Wii U, maybe slightly better, with a 540p screen, while their home console should be based on the same architecture, with a GPU with more cores, but not really that powerful.
1Tflops should be fine for them.
Yup. Nintendo has enough man power. But being split with handheld and home console can't work anymore. That's why they need their library to be platform agnostic. Also, as for F2P games, I can't help to agree... but to a certain degree. They need to have premium versions at premium prices, with everything unlocked. Basically what you see with Dead or Alive 5. F2P model would work with a lot of their older titles, such as Custom Robo Arena. As for the machine costing... I think they could do it for 199 dollars.
$199 is actually too cheap IMO, gives an air of "cheapness". $249 is a great spot at being very affordable while not coming off cheap. They do not necessarily need to go so low, I mean, it didn't help Gamecube even when its competitors were more expensive.
I'm still intrigued by how this new shared architecture will influence the software output, I think it will be one of this:
Share the entire library
Share the core library with a few exclusives
Don't share games
Share the entire library
- More games would be released
- Console-only and portable-only people wouldn't miss any game
- Cross a save would allow people to keep playing wherever they like
- Maybe less hardware sales due to no real incentive to buy both platforms
- Not every game is a good fit for a console or portable, which may affect the quality of the game
Share the core library with a few exclusives
- The software output would still be higher than the current
- The exclusives could make people buy both
Don't share games
- Developers could be easily moved between games without the need to learn new tools and how the other platform works
GhostTrick
Banned
Well, I could see them releasing two SKUs.
250 dollars being the premium one and 199 dollars being the cheap one.
But they need to go back to the basics.
140-190$ handheld
200-250$ console
I don't think shared library would lead to less hardware sales. People would buy the platform of their choice for the library. Some would own both on different purpose. But in the end, what will matter for them is the userbase.
You are kidding yourself if you think power isn't a huge factor in 3rd party support, especially in today's market. PS4 is comfortably in first place, what are its distinguishing features? Exclusives? OS? No, it's the most powerful console and the public knows it and bought it. 3rd parties will be much warmer to the idea of coming back to Nintendo if their console at least competes performance wise with PS5/Xbox two. Why would a 3rd party want to spend time and money to downgrade a port to get it to run on the one weaker 3rd system?
Power won't do it (see GameCube).
Great games won't do it (see GameCube and Wii U).
3rd party support won't do it (people are comfortable with PS and XB - why switch now?).
Value proposition won't do it (GameCube was very cheap, sold terribly).
Making their equivalent of the Vita (ultimate machine to appeal to gamers but no real hook) won't work.
Account system won't do it (this is just standard and frankly ridiculous they don't have it now).
The only thing that will sell a new Nintendo console is a new gameplay gimmick. Wii U had a weak gimmick (tablet play has existed for a long time and is not interesting. Not to mention Wii U looks like a cheap toy compared to iPad), and therefore had weak sales.
Great games won't do it (see GameCube and Wii U).
3rd party support won't do it (people are comfortable with PS and XB - why switch now?).
Value proposition won't do it (GameCube was very cheap, sold terribly).
Making their equivalent of the Vita (ultimate machine to appeal to gamers but no real hook) won't work.
Account system won't do it (this is just standard and frankly ridiculous they don't have it now).
The only thing that will sell a new Nintendo console is a new gameplay gimmick. Wii U had a weak gimmick (tablet play has existed for a long time and is not interesting. Not to mention Wii U looks like a cheap toy compared to iPad), and therefore had weak sales.
I don't see Nintendo using VR tech, especially considering how many people get ill using it. I do not believe there are any major gimmicks left to exploit. Motion controls was the last real big one, again apart from VR. And I do not think VR will become the next blockbuster feature, but a major value add for years.
Eolz
Member
That it was a pretty bad fake.