Twenty7KVN
Member
They have to do more than drop the wii name to rebuild their image.
-
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
Eolz
Member
Of course they will. Even if their next console has a similar philosophy, the brand is completely tarnished now.
anexanhume
Member
- Too expensive and not in that business.
- Never done custom before. ARM seems unlikely for home console.
- Not in custom business. ARM unlikely for home console.
- Not in that business. ARM unlikely for home console.
- They left the SoC business entirely.
- A sinking ship. No data suggest they're even competent.
Want to keep going? Chinese companies (AllWinner, Rock Chip, etc.) are likely out over copied design concerns, above ARM concerns. ST just left the business too.
nephilimdj
Member
Pancakes R Us
Member
Me too. Very surprising that all of these important roles aren't being hoarded in Japan. Cause you know NoA/E have no real autonomy, just puppets on a (Japanese) string.
icecoldkilla
Banned
hopefully it doesn't include a stupid looking controller like that big ass tablet looking thing. Stick with the original roots and use the gamecube controller
Maninthemirror
Banned
Redmond? isn't that where Microsoft headquarters are?
It's been repeated enough times already but the designers have been in the US for a few generations now
These things typically start after the product they finished working on releases in the console world
Graphics Horse
Member
They've been talking about their new system strategy since early 2013.
Is that also true for the system software (tools, os, etc.)?
Interesting, I always though the engeneering leads were in Japan, but you say makes sense since they sent constant requirements to IBM, and since the vender is foreign... Also Nintendo acts like a supervisor about philosophy, and hw requirements.
When you think about it, this could be the first time in 14+ years that Nintendo change their core architecture. Since we first learned of Dolphin in 1999, which used IBM's Gecko and ArtX's Flipper (ArtX were later bought by ATI) - we've had home systems from Nintendo that have been entirely derivative of those technologies. Even Wii U, the most removed, still uses IBM and ATI descendents of that technology on a single chip.
Whoever takes this job could really make a name for themselves by defining the next 10+ years of Nintendo.
Given they want to have a more unified home system and handheld eco-system, I could see them wanting to go further down the route that Microsoft and Sony have by following the market and using x86-64 and/or ARM.
Although the usual factors apply to the third party exodus from Nintendo systems, I suspect a large part of their absence is now due to the fact that not only is the Wii U closer in power to PS360 than PS4, but Wii U is the only remaining PPC-based system in town, and they have deliberately built it to be low power efficient. Backwards compatability with the Wii has stymied their ability to invest in other areas, so the differences between Wii U and other platforms are greater than they might have otherwise been.
It's not that porting code and tweaking variables for Wii U is particularly difficult, but porting between the other systems (and even PC) is probably that much easier. You might ask why they didn't just up-port PS360 games. You'll recall that initially they did, before the exodus. Shin'en put it this way:
Sounds like considerable effort for a port to a new system with a userbase that Western publishing and development still don't seem to trust. PS360 porting was a matured process that developed over 5/6 years, and it wasn't always without hiccups. I was not really surprised when games were being ported to those consoles, and not the Wii U.
The various differences between Xbox One and PS4 (RAM, processing power) are probably enough to grapple with when trying to produce anything like parity. Having to scale down for 2GB of RAM and lower grunt generally, whilst also trying to do something with the Gamepad - is probably something that only the most enthusiastic Nintendo partners will be comfortable with.
So going forward? I expect they'll still try and do innovative things. I also expect they'll still try and be cost efficient and power efficient - as keeping the price down is hugely important - however, I believe they might invest heavily in designing a progress map for their architecture that can serve them for the next 15-20 years - and bring them more in line with what other console manufacturers are doing.
My hope is that they build the next handheld and console synergistically, and provide the tools to the development community that make porting between both a breeze. For us, the gaming consumers, I think it would be really attractive to people if they could play certain Nintendo games on both devices. Handheld-only customers would certainly be more amenable to buying in on the home console front if their cash was going towards games that existed in that combined eco-system.
That will be all well and good, but the OS / software side is hugely important too. People could have quite easily ported apps and games from IOS to Android to Windows RT or Blackberry OS 10, but they didn't do that, and they don't do that - for market reasons. If 3DS' successor wants to win over some development talent from IOS/Android, I feel like they have to do something very clever to do that. I would personally like to see them actually do their own fork Android, port the Dalvik VM with the usual Nintendo level of security.
Whoever takes this job could really make a name for themselves by defining the next 10+ years of Nintendo.
Given they want to have a more unified home system and handheld eco-system, I could see them wanting to go further down the route that Microsoft and Sony have by following the market and using x86-64 and/or ARM.
Although the usual factors apply to the third party exodus from Nintendo systems, I suspect a large part of their absence is now due to the fact that not only is the Wii U closer in power to PS360 than PS4, but Wii U is the only remaining PPC-based system in town, and they have deliberately built it to be low power efficient. Backwards compatability with the Wii has stymied their ability to invest in other areas, so the differences between Wii U and other platforms are greater than they might have otherwise been.
It's not that porting code and tweaking variables for Wii U is particularly difficult, but porting between the other systems (and even PC) is probably that much easier. You might ask why they didn't just up-port PS360 games. You'll recall that initially they did, before the exodus. Shin'en put it this way:
The Wii U GPU is several generations ahead of the current gen. It allows many things that were not possible on consoles before. If you develop for Wii U you have to take advantage of these possibilities, otherwise your performance is of course limited. Also your engine layout needs to be different. You need to take advantage of the large shared memory of the Wii U, the huge and very fast EDRAM section and the big CPU caches in the cores. Especially the workings of the CPU caches are very important to master. Otherwise you can lose a magnitude of power for cache relevant parts of your code. In the end the Wii U specs fit perfectly together and make a very efficient console when used right.
Sounds like considerable effort for a port to a new system with a userbase that Western publishing and development still don't seem to trust. PS360 porting was a matured process that developed over 5/6 years, and it wasn't always without hiccups. I was not really surprised when games were being ported to those consoles, and not the Wii U.
The various differences between Xbox One and PS4 (RAM, processing power) are probably enough to grapple with when trying to produce anything like parity. Having to scale down for 2GB of RAM and lower grunt generally, whilst also trying to do something with the Gamepad - is probably something that only the most enthusiastic Nintendo partners will be comfortable with.
So going forward? I expect they'll still try and do innovative things. I also expect they'll still try and be cost efficient and power efficient - as keeping the price down is hugely important - however, I believe they might invest heavily in designing a progress map for their architecture that can serve them for the next 15-20 years - and bring them more in line with what other console manufacturers are doing.
My hope is that they build the next handheld and console synergistically, and provide the tools to the development community that make porting between both a breeze. For us, the gaming consumers, I think it would be really attractive to people if they could play certain Nintendo games on both devices. Handheld-only customers would certainly be more amenable to buying in on the home console front if their cash was going towards games that existed in that combined eco-system.
That will be all well and good, but the OS / software side is hugely important too. People could have quite easily ported apps and games from IOS to Android to Windows RT or Blackberry OS 10, but they didn't do that, and they don't do that - for market reasons. If 3DS' successor wants to win over some development talent from IOS/Android, I feel like they have to do something very clever to do that. I would personally like to see them actually do their own fork Android, port the Dalvik VM with the usual Nintendo level of security.
Colonel Mustard
Banned
Nintendo's too.
In fact, I think both offices are pretty darn close to each other.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
NOA and Microsoft are across the street from one another.
Nintendo has been comfortable with ARM for their handhelds, and they're unifying their architecture for the next round. Why would they dump both ARM and PowerPC? PowerPC is the only dead end here.
None of those canidates even seem likely. Intel seem like the closest and I don't have the slightest idea what the would possibly put in a console. Especially an industry that is obviously shifting silicon budget to GPU space.
I'm pretty sure Nintendo will go all ARM in the future. PowerPC is no longer viable and x86 isn't really all that efficient. So basically any company capable of designing ARM based SoCs with adequate GPUs is a possibility. Personally, my money would be on Qualcomm or AMD (ARM based APU), maybe Nvidia.
Graphics Horse
Member
wsippel I can never remember if you know who this supplier is or just heard hints that there is one, could you remind me? 
In the last 5 years there's been tons of ARM based home consoles vs 3 which aren't. Even Sony made one!
In the last 5 years there's been tons of ARM based home consoles vs 3 which aren't. Even Sony made one!
Wait what? Why didn't hear about this before? Seems not to be widely reported either, but that quite significant for Tat Iwamoto having been one of the core Wii U design managers within Nintendo Technology and Development.
How would that affect the porting of x86 console and PC games?
TheMoon
Member
Wow seriously? Yes, both MS and NOA are based in Redmond, Washington.
Amazing how many minds are being blown with all of this very well established info^^
Discomurf
Member
hehe
Nintendojitsu
Banned
Splatoon irl.
Most software is written at a fairly high level, it probably wouldn't be a big impact, the biggest issue would be the initial engine port. It's more the differences in architecture and things that bottle neck on one system that don't on another.
Schnozberry
Member
They already put a plan in place to merge their software environments. Why not just make one reasonably powerful piece of hardware in a handheld format? Use that Wii U Streaming Tech to make an HDMI dongle for a television, and stream from your handheld. No console required anymore.
All three research departments (IRD in Kyoto, NTD in Redmond and NERD in Paris) work on operating systems and tools as far as I know.
Yeah, I've noticed it a while ago digging through Linkedin. Even more surprising, Robert Champagne left Nintendo to join Amazon in August. He was pretty much the head of NTD as far as I can tell and has been with Nintendo since the 90s.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
Japanmanx3
Member
"Hol' up, Hol' up. Wii Them Thriis. Hol' up, Hol' up, Hol' up!"
If this is related to the next handheld, would Nintendo's recent decision (New 3DS model) of using more than two cores define the scalability of their new hardware? Which SoC would be the best equipped for them in your opinion?
Reminds me of the whole Wii HD thing people here wouldn't let go of last gen lol
Why does Apple/Google/MS have a watch, phone, tablet, laptop, and STB? Because one-size cannot possibly fit all. The number of screen sizes is increasing, not decreasing and more than the software, there are design and usability differences between each.
Schnozberry
Member
Nintendo was going to use Nvidia for the 3DS, but Nvidia couldn't deliver the SOC in time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Nintendo go back to them for their next handheld. In an ideal world, Nintendo would have one device, and they could just rebrand it the Nintendo Entertainment System and call it a day.
Depends on the architecture or the cost of including the current chip die shrunk to handle some other functions while running the main OS. Though it seems somewhat unlikely since only Nintendo is using Power. I assume that an ARM chip will win out for the next system.
The handheld line seems to be nearly binary compatible with the original Gameboy.
No idea, but I could see them using two versions of same SoC with a different number of cores in both handheld and console.
anexanhume
Member
x86 has been making strides toward mobile form factors. What do you think Jaguar was designed for originally?
Hence my post.
x86 is now challenging ARM in performance per watt in the mobile space. Intel has made great in-roads and so has AMD. Intel has proved x86 can scale down. Is everyone confident that mobile designs can scale up to 50 watt or higher parts?
How are those all doing, BTW?
It's true, but the power draw in the image you posted is still low; it's less than 200 watts universally.
Schnozberry
Member
Nintendo doesn't have the luxury of sinking billions of dollars into R&D for another commercial flop. They should build one device, and do it well.
Yeah but how much do they need to be competitive with PCs though? Certainly not enough to loss lead by any significant margins.
One device that does all will do nothing well.