• 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

CLEEK

Member
The negative effects of generational transition vs the negative effects of being on ancient technology that only they still use that is different from the industry norms because fuck you that's why.

It depends on whether they stick to their recent formula of ensuring hardware BC in new devices.

Due to the complexity of the Gamepad and dual screen + 3D effect, it would be a perfect chance for a clean break without being bogged down in hardware support for all of the input and output methods.

New branding - ditch the 'Wii' and 'DS' names - and new architecture for a clean slate.
 

Snakeyes

Member
Also lastly, for the love that is all holy, DO NOT NAME THE NEXT CONSOLE WITH "Wii" IN IT!

The Wii has had a bad rep for years for being a "kiddy" console and the Wii U name is even worse for different reasons.
The Wii had the least "kiddy" reputation for a Nintendo console since the N64, at least in its first few years on the market. Not that I want them to keep the Wii branding either.
 
Low power doesn't refer to the processing power, it refers to the energy consumption. As in, less electricity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall the PS4 being pretty low on that, too.

Yeah, low power is not a bad thing. It's a goal of everything new in computing, despite things getting more powerful: desktop processors, new consoles, phones

Asking for low power expertise is expected of every hardware company, and I guarantee MS and Sony had meetings on the same subject
 

Snakeyes

Member
We know Nintendo is making their own OS now, so maybe they will borrow from Android. I'm a little worried about the potential for a million hardware SKU's like Android.

Multiple hardware configs (i.e. more than two) could actually benefit them in the long run.
 

wsippel

Banned
The negative effects of generational transition vs the negative effects of being on ancient technology that only they still use that is different from the industry norms because fuck you that's why.
Not to mention switching to ARM for everything would be quite easy for Nintendo considering they use that architecture for years now. Longer than anybody else in the industry. Every studio and every team they have worked on ARM - they have the experience and their own custom tools.
 

strata8

Member
Wow, that's actually better than I expected.

I made a graph for this earlier in the year.

SCx5Jnc.png
 

virtualS

Member
If there's ever been a good time for a clean break from PPC it's now. I get the feeling POWER will remain a part of Nintendo for a while yet though. Scaled down WiiU on a more efficient process for the next handheld and scaled up WiiU for the next console with perfectly scalable software able to run on both systems.
 

Scum

Junior Member
I...didn't know that.

We know Nintendo is making their own OS now, so maybe they will borrow from Android. I'm a little worried about the potential for a million hardware SKU's like Android.

Reasonably priced multiple hardware will do Nintendo a world of good, I say.
 

Bass260

Member
A little from column A and a little from column B IMO.

I think publishers are above "burning bridges": even the likes of EA. If they believe that a manufacturer is buying in to a common vision, or offering them something they can exploit, and if they believe in the manufacturers ability to sell, they'll get their games licensed and continue to develop for them. It's that simple.

The problem for Nintendo is that they do not exist in a bubble. The Wii U is probably the most feature-packed and interesting console that Nintendo have ever developed, I bet there are tonnes of individual developers and artists who actually love the thing and want to see it do well.

It's Nintendo's history, prior form and the buying habits of their userbase that have the publishing houses feeling sketchy. Despite a wealth of evidence and sales successes, it's like they don't know how to sell to Nintendo's audience. When Nintendo gave them a casual audience with the Wii, there were some publishers who 'got it' and jumped on board with the likes of Just Dance etc. But in a normal gaming environment - they just don't know how to do it. Personally? I think its partly Nintendo's fault but also partly the publishers' fault. Again and again, they fail to recognise what the Nintendo audience finds interesting and fun. In my opinion, they should start by listening to what Nintendo say themselves. They say it in all of their investor relations material, and in every interview: they want to surprise and please people.

In 1995/6, with the market interjection of big media companies like Sony, there has been a schism in gaming - whereby narrative, story-based games and bombastic action games have flooded the market, driven the market and sold consoles. Influential, storied-franchises like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil and Tomb Raider were born in the PlayStation era of gaming. Naturally, powerful media boxes that emphasise the sound and presentation of these games are more suited to the bleeding edge of that kind of content. When Microsoft joined the party and gave the world a successor to SegaNet (Xbox Live), online services began to gain more and more influence too - and this again, is an area that Nintendo has not traditionally dabbled in. Even now, while I would personally consider it an area that Nintendo has recently innovated in and shown great promise, their competitors benefit from all the wealth and experience of developers and publishers who have produced online content on PC for decades.

For N64, Gamecube and Wii, Nintendo have played catchup on all fronts. They have kept themselves afloat with a sound (and beautiful) philosophy of crafting everything they do around charm and fun. It works for them, but it doesn't work for their third party partners, who have grown accustomed to selling certain kinds of content. When it HAS been attractive to third parties, there has still been a wealth of bad-PR, and other roadblocks in the way. Purely due to bad planning really - hardware limitations, storage limitations etc.

I think to tackle Software buying habits, you have to tackle the content, and the nature of the software itself. Tackle the question: is this actually marketable to a Nintendo audience? If not, can that audience be changed over time? Is there anything Nintendo can do to help me?

Sony and Microsoft consoles play home to high-quality, gameplay-mechanic-focussed games every bit as much as Nintendo consoles, but in their eco-systems, third party games do not have to compete with Nintendo games. When a person walks in to Gamestop, they do understand that Uncharted is a Sony exclusive. They will understand that Forza and Halo are Microsoft exclusives. Only the hardest of the hardcore will appreciate the difference between a Naughty Dog and Sony Bend version of Uncharted. Only a few will know which Halo games came from Bungee, Ensemble Studios or 343 Industries. When a Nintendo console owner walks in to a store, they probably don't know the exact development teams involved either. But the distinctive Nintendo logo is like a seal of quality in and of itself. Their characters and brands are so friendly to all ages, and so powerful, that games sitting alongside them struggle for attention. They have been making console games since the 1980s, so their hardcore fans include a contingent who have been around just as long. Some of them are so old that they are rearing their own children on the Nintendo brand. Is it so radical to think that these people have been buying Nintendo consoles alongside PlayStations and Xboxes for the last 15-20 years because Nintendo actually offers something different? And if that is the case, what sense was there in the first place of trying to sell them the exact same games that are available elsewhere?

I don't believe there has EVER been a sound logic in throwing Watch_Dogs, Call of Duty, or FIFA on Nintendo consoles and expecting automatic sales. Dedicated versions with dedicated features might work, but late, feature-deficient versions? Historically, Star Wars, Disney, Sonic the Hedgehog, Rayman, arcade games, puzzlers, platformers and art games have all done well. That is the kind of thing that Nintendo and others have cultivated an audience for, so I'm often puzzled to not see more of that kind of activity. The recently revealed Rogue Squadron game for Wii would have been an incredibly easy sell, but for some reason (LucasArts?) it never materialised.

I might be projecting here, but I also suspect Nintendo fans are more market savvy than publishers give credit for. They are open to offerings on other consoles. Publishers might suspect they don't really know how to exploit the Nintendo audience properly, but maybe they already are - on other consoles! EA, Activision and others have certainly sold me games on 360/PS3 and Xbone that I would have otherwise bought on Nintendo consoles. Some fans just KNOW when a Nintendo version ISN'T the version to get.


The current trajectory of the Wii U probably leads a lot of people to err on the side of pessimism, but some of the things they have attempted - Miiverse, TVii, etc. - show a Nintendo wanting to embrace positive, unique, online services and change. Their more open development environment is resulting in a lot of indie content (good and bad). Maybe having a situation in which there are no mainline-AAA games bombing on the console might actually be a good thing. In the absence of huge failure stories on a struggling console, maybe we will be able to zone in on what DOES sell as opposed to what doesn't.

I personally feel like their fallout with EA has been hugely detrimental to the Wii U. The absence of EA games has been like a black-hole that has been sucking in other publishers. It may owe a lot to a difference in vision - we can also observe EAs relationship with Sony is a lot different to their current relationship with Microsoft (EA Access). I would love to know what truly happened between Nintendo and EA.

EA is still the biggest power-player in town, especially thanks to their partnership with Disney. If Nintendo want to succeed in creating a good environment for big third parties next time around, I think they need to extend an olive branch and acquiesce somewhat with EA. Following that, Disney and Warner Bros are hugely influential players who are both big enough (outside of videogames) that they do not need to curry favour with the console manufacturers. If there are interesting new deals and Western exclusive deals to be done, I would suggest they should try and do them there. Ubisoft and Activision seem Nintendo-friendly to me. They want to continue to do business, they just need to see the receipts so to speak.

So yeah, I'm not feeling doom and gloom at all. Building a new architecture that finally severs itself from the Gamecube/Gekko/Flipper lineage is the perfect time to renew what a Nintendo console is, and what a Nintendo console means. Its the perfect time to re-establish relationships and try to come up with some kind of new Nintendo revolution.

What an amazing post! Thank you for that insight :)
 

big_z

Member
I'm sure it's for a new handheld that'll be coming around 2017-2018. They wouldn't push the New 3DS if they had something in store for the next year or two. If they were to release a new home console this early, hopefully Wii U owners get something out of it.


By the time a new console is ready to come out wii u will be at least 5 years old. These things take years to create, figure out marketing, make games, etc. They wont owe anyone anything at that point.

It's also possible this job position already existed and Nintendo simply filling it after someone left. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are always working on the next console, shortly after they launch one. The job posting doesn't mean a new console is imminent. all we can differ is that nintendo is still interested in pursuing another console at some point in the future.
 

Zalman

Member
By the time a new console is ready to come out wii u will be at least 5 years old. These things take years to create, figure out marketing, make games, etc. They wont owe anyone anything at that point.

It's also possible this job position already existed and Nintendo simply filling it after someone left. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are always working on the next console, shortly after they launch one. The job posting doesn't mean a new console is imminent, all we can differ is that nintendo is still interested in pursuing another console at some point in the future.
I'm glad to see people talking sense in this thread instead of jumping to conclusions.
 

catmario

Member
Nintendo's dat low power obsession............. :( I don't like this.

I already adapted to Sony and Microsoft's high power consumption.

Even if ignoring power consumption could make consumer to pay high electric bills, but That's no problem to me... Just I want to see Next-gen high quality processing powers.
 

AmyS

Member
Most of us agree that Gamecube's architecture (IBM PowerPC Gekko CPU, ArtX Flipper GPU, MoSys 1T-SRAM, etc) was highly efficient and fairly powerful for when it was released (Sept and Nov. 2001) but also realize that the GPU was mainly designed during 1999. ArtX was brought on board in 1998, that's when the design process was started.


Covering white paper design to final silicon, we interview ATI's Greg Buchner about GameCube

IGNcube: Can you discuss your position at ATI and how you became involved with Nintendo® and the design of the Flipper graphics chip?

Greg Buchner:

So, going back in history, in 1997 a lot of people left SGI (Silicon Graphics Inc.), which wasn't doing well, so a bunch of us started ArtX and we aimed at doing graphics in the PC space. In early '98 we started talking to Nintendo® about being their provider for the graphics and system logic for what has become GameCube. At ArtX I was vice president of engineering and part of the founding team of ArtX.


IGNcube: You say you began talking to Nintendo® in 1998. So from white paper designs and initial design to final mass production silicon how long was the development process?

Greg Buchner:

Well, there was a period of time where we were in the brainstorm period, figuring out what to build, what's the right thing to create. We spent a reasonable amount of time on that, a really big chunk of 1998 was spend doing that, figuring out just what [Flipper] was going to be. In 1999 we pretty much cranked out the gates, cranked out the silicon and produced the first part. In 2000 we got it ready for production, so what you saw at Space World last year was basically what became final silicon.

Gamecube was meant to be ready to go for Holiday 2000 but Nintendo delayed the release almost 1 year (Sept 2001: Japan - November 2001: NA) in order to get enough software ready.

So what I'm saying is, even though GameCube came out in fall 2001, the hardware was really a late 90s design

The basis for the Gekko CPU was IBM's PowerPC 750xxx (used in the Mac G3) with copper interconnects. IBM had those basics down a few years before they officially partnered with Nintendo in 1999.

It's no different than any console, or any hardware for that matter.

Another example: Everyone remembers the Sega Dreamcast launched on 9/9/99 in NA, and most know it at already launched in Japan in Nov. 1998. The design of its Hitachi SH-4 CPU and custom NEC/Video Logic PowerVR2 chip was mainly done during 1997.
 
Yeah, I'm completely fine with keeping power consumption low.
Nothing to worry about here. Nothing really to infer here either.
As stated in the first page, the biggest news here is that this job was posted outside of Japan.
 

wsippel

Banned
By the time a new console is ready to come out wii u will be at least 5 years old. These things take years to create, figure out marketing, make games, etc. They wont owe anyone anything at that point.

It's also possible this job position already existed and Nintendo simply filling it after someone left. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are always working on the next console, shortly after they launch one. The job posting doesn't mean a new console is imminent. all we can differ is that nintendo is still interested in pursuing another console at some point in the future.
Right. There apparently has been some kind of change of the guard at NTD in recent months. Quite a few people who worked on Wii U, even veterans who've been with NTD forever, left. That includes their former Lead Graphics Engineer and even the former head of NTD himself. But assuming Nintendo really plans to unify their platforms, their new project is apparently already well underway - under supervision of the new guard.
 

AlStrong

Member
In an alternate universe where I'm in charge, I'm targeting a 2017 launch @100W power draw during gaming.
Based on the chart, the formula is clearly:

P(N) ~> P(N-2) + P(N-3)

"~>" meaning "approximately greater than"

e.g.

P(Wii) ~> P(N64) + P(SNES) = 8+7
16 ~> 15

P(WiiU) ~> P(Gamecube) + P(N64) = 23+8
33 ~> 31

THEREFORE

P(Nintendo Next) ~> P(Wii) + P(Gamecube) = 16+23 = 39W

Nintendo Next must be around 42W.
 

Arkam

Member
To be honest, at this point, I wouldn't even be mad if they used PPC for both handheld and home console. Even the old 1999 one, as some people says.

Basically, I think the only chance for Nintendo to be profitable is to be Nintendo. Basically ? Being their own thing. Their own ecosystem. Their own library. There's no way they'll get multiplat AAA titles. That bridge is dead, and let's face it, never going to be build again.

But I think Nintendo would work better with their 1st party output (basically, Nintendo games), selected 3rd party partnerships (cross over, funded games such as Bayo2), 3rd party exclusives(you know, the kind of games that works only on Nintendo, such as Youkai Watch or just that makes sense on the platform, such as MH) and indie titles.

The main problem here is that they need to pursue 2 goals for this to be a success:
Cheap entry prices and not competing with themselves.
The first one is obvious, I mean at most 170 dollars handheld at release. As for the second, I mean that the handheld, the home console or even the tablet if they do one shouldn't compete against each other... so have all the same games. And for that, they need one SoC.


While i completely agree that Nintendo is better off doing their own thing than following the actions of MS/Sony. BUT I would like to argue against the bold. I was working for a Major Western publisher when Nintendo first started talking about the WiiU. With what Nintendo TOLD us we were fully on board and had some serious plans. THEN the box and docs showed up... plans changed fast! We had been told it was more powerful than 360/Ps3 and shouldnt be too hard to port existing products would be easily ported over.... That was pretty much not true. So I would say there is always a chance if the right device/ecosystem was presented.
 

DizzyCrow

Member
While i completely agree that Nintendo is better off doing their own thing than following the actions of MS/Sony. BUT I would like to argue against the bold. I was working for a Major Western publisher when Nintendo first started talking about the WiiU. With what Nintendo TOLD us we were fully on board and had some serious plans. THEN the box and docs showed up... plans changed fast! We had been told it was more powerful than 360/Ps3 and shouldnt be too hard to port existing products would be easily ported over.... That was pretty much not true. So I would say there is always a chance if the right device/ecosystem was presented.
That's really interesting, could you give more details?
 

AmyS

Member
Wii U would have been really sweet in 2012 if its GPU had the same level of horsepower as the RV770 (HD 4850) which launched in 2008. That was 1.0 TFLOP (HD 4870 was 1.2 TFLOP).

Obviously though, a RV770 based GPU with 800 SP would have consumed quite a bit more power than Latte ( which has 160 SP right ? ).
 

Arkam

Member
Did you cancelled a new game or made huge changes?

Did you talk about the hardware with the Nintendo guys?

1. Well we did cancel most of the games slated for the new console. We had planned to bring over the next iteration of each of our annual titles and a couple new IPs. Most were still in early pre-pro so nothing lost but great ideas and headcount on some game teams.

2. We did a lot of internal chatter between the studios when we first bench-marked the demo hardware. We were all kinda shocked by what Nintendo was planning to release. Not sure if we pressed them for changes or not at the corporate level. If we did it was never known to my studio.
 

DizzyCrow

Member
1. Well we did cancel most of the games slated for the new console. We had planned to bring over the next iteration of each of our annual titles and a couple new IPs. Most were still in early pre-pro so nothing lost but great ideas and headcount on some game teams.

2. We did a lot of internal chatter between the studios when we first bench-marked the demo hardware. We were all kinda shocked by what Nintendo was planning to release. Not sure if we pressed them for changes or not at the corporate level. If we did it was never known to my studio.
Damn, Nintendo really fucked up, smh. Thanks for the as answers!
 
I don't think they're going to drop a new handheld and console at the same time, despite the unified OS. It'd just be flooding the marketplace
 

Trago

Member
1. Well we did cancel most of the games slated for the new console. We had planned to bring over the next iteration of each of our annual titles and a couple new IPs. Most were still in early pre-pro so nothing lost but great ideas and headcount on some game teams.

2. We did a lot of internal chatter between the studios when we first bench-marked the demo hardware. We were all kinda shocked by what Nintendo was planning to release. Not sure if we pressed them for changes or not at the corporate level. If we did it was never known to my studio.

Interesting. You'd think Nintendo would be asking for as much feedback as possible if they wanted serious third party support. Hopefully they will communicate better with publishers next go around.
 

Trago

Member
I don't think they're going to drop a new handheld and console at the same time, despite the unified OS. It'd just be flooding the marketplace

Dropping the new handheld first makes more sense since their handheld generation has been going on longer than the console one.

It would be a good way for them to test the waters of this new OS with the masses and let them work out any kinks before a console launch. Imagine that, a smooth console launch lol.
 
Dropping the new handheld first makes more sense since their handheld generation has been going on longer than the console one.

It would be a good way for them to test the waters of this new OS with the masses and let them work out any kinks before a console launch. Imagine that, a smooth console launch lol.

I agree, handheld will be here first. Console the next year

A smooth console launch. I can only dream
 

jblank83

Member
There's no way they'll get multiplat AAA titles. That bridge is dead, and let's face it, never going to be build again.

There is no bridge. There never was. There never will be. This isn't a land war. There are no troops.

Entrepreneurial software projects have one overriding goal: make money. Exposing product to as large a purchasing audience as possible, as cheaply as possible, is the primary concern. Companies don't care if it's Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Valve, or anyone else.

Once upon a time when every console was a vastly different technological proposition, there was more pressure to "choose a platform." Nowadays, as technology becomes more standardized in the console space, you can see how prevalent multiplatform has become. There's still money to be made supporting a single platform, be it by garnering goodwill from the dedicated fans of that platform or through lucrative deals with platform holders, but multiplatform is the rule now, not the exception.

Hardware that is easy to port to is the problem, not corporate brands. Before Wii U was launched, every major developer showed interest, from EA to Activision and on. Reggie got up on stage and talked about how Wii U was going to change Nintendo's presence in western markets with western dev/pub support.

After the hardware was known, those devs/pubs dropped Wii U like a rock. They even laughed about it. But what they laughed about was how weak the hardware was, not the fact that it was Nintendo.

If software is cheap to port and there is any chance at a health profit, that software will be ported. To get there, however, Nintendo will need to rethink their hardware engineering approach and the quality of their development tools.
 
Top Bottom