Support NeoGAF

[Panajev2001a]

Message(#[edited out])

Hello and thank you for contacting Nintendo,

Great question! The Nintendo DS will not play older Game Boy games from the 8-bit Game Boy systems (DMG, MGB and CGB.)

The Game Boy Advance contained a Z80 processor which allowed it to play original 8-bit Game Boy games. Because of the age of the processor, and the difficulty in adding that processor to an already highly complicated architecture, the Z80 was not included in the final design of the DS.

For more information about the Nintendo DS, be sure to check out our website at www.nintendo.com.

Do not get me started on the issue of software emulators (we have a 67 MHz ARM9 and a 33 MHz ARM7 with a fulkly integrated sprite engine in Hardware plus 4 MB of main RAM)... or on the "ultra high" cost of adding a minusculous chip like the GBC CPU to the ARM7 SoC.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

That's kinda lame...then again, who still plays those ancient carts when Nintendo keeps re-releasing them for each major step of the line's evolution?

 

[Dagless M.D.]

to be honest, its not a huge loss. But it just reeks of cheapskatary on Nintendo's part.

 

[ge-man]

It's just their PR response. You'll be able to play all those old games on the true GB successor.

 

[GDGF]

The last 'Gameboy' or 'GBC' game that I played was the original Pokemon Red. I don't think anyone is going to care too much.

 

[PanopticBlue]

Oh well...I still have two GBCs and two GBAs in perfect working condition so it's not a big deal, they're trying to save a penny wherever they can I suppose.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It's just their PR response. You'll be able to play all those old games on the true GB successor.

Why not on the DS ?

Is it because they would lose $0.05 out of their high profit margin ?

 

[Panajev2001a]

The last 'Gameboy' or 'GBC' game that I played was the original Pokemon Red. I don't think anyone is going to care too much.

Well, I do.

This way I cannot trade in my GBA (I hate the shape of GameBoy Color and I do not feel like buying an old GBC for $40) and while that would have not been worth like $200, it would have been a step towards making the DS mine.

 

[Wario64]

Don't worry, they'll re-release Gameboy games to be playable on the GBA/NDS for $19.99 a pop

"Gameboy Series 1: Tetris"....

 

[GDGF]

Why not on the DS ?

Is it because they would lose $0.05 out of their high profit margin ?

Yeah, probably. That, and I doubt their profit margin is going to be all that high on the DS (at least compared to the GBA)

 

[ge-man]

It has nothing to do with money Pana. It's about perception. Nintendo has maintained that this is NOT the new GB. This is just one way where that fact is emphasized. I wouldn't sell off my GBA if I were any of you.

I know a lot a people aren't convinced about the whole third pillar thing, but I think they were being pretty damn serious.

 

[GDGF]

Well, I do.

This way I cannot trade in my GBA (I hate the shape of GameBoy Color and I do not feel like buying an old GBC for $40) and while that would have not been worth like $200, it would have been a step towards making the DS mine.

That's a shame, but if you really want, you can find a GBC for alot less than 40 bucks. I got one for 25 bucks, and that was about four years ago. Pawn shops are great for that kind of thing

 

[capslock]

let's say it adds a 1.50 to the cost of each DS, if they aim to sell about 10 million a year, in 2 years, that's 30 million....let's say that about 15,000 people refuse to buy the DS because it doesn't support the GBC (I doubt the number will be this high), that's 22.5 million of lost sales.


30 - 22.5 = 7.5


all of the above is purely speculation of course, as I know neither the final price of the DS nor the cost, nor do we know how many games or accessories those 15k would have bought or whether even there would be that many people boycotting, but I guess Nintendo's reasoning is somewhere around those lines.


I mean seriously Panajev, would you boycott the PS3 if it didn't play PS1 games?

 

[Mejilan]

Seriously, most people that'll buy the NDS probably have some prior iteration of GB tech. And those that don't will be able to pick up a GBC, GBA, or even an SP, for cheap by the time the DS launches anyway. Don't get me wrong, I've got a shitload of GB and GBC games I'd like to play at any time, and having it be fully backwards compatible would have been nice. But it's not THAT much of a big deal either, given just how much better the GBA library is over its predecessors', imho.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

It has nothing to do with money Pana. It's about perception. Nintendo has maintained that this is NOT the new GB. This is just one way where that fact is emphasized. I wouldn't sell off my GBA if I were any of you.

Then why bother even putting in GBA compatibility? Anyway, a Z-80 should be less than a dollar in mass production...hell, why not make a perfect Z-80 emulation via the new chip set?

 

[akascream]

Backwards compatibility is a non-issue for me, except on handhelds. I own all the gameboys, but I don't want to carry more than one around. There are some great GB and GBC games, most of which haven't been re-released (both 1st and 3rd party). Too bad.

 

[Tenguman]

I mean seriously Panajev, would you boycott the PS3 if it didn't play PS1 games?

lol

 

[ge-man]

Then why bother even putting in GBA compatibility? Anyway, a Z-80 should be less than a dollar in mass production...hell, why not make a perfect Z-80 emulation via the new chip set?

The main GBA chip is one of the processors in the DS, except it's clocked higher. There's almost no extra cost to Nintendo to make the DS compatible with the 500 or so GBA games available. That's why they bothered the GBA and not the GB/GBC.

 

[Panajev2001a]

let's say it adds a 1.50 to the cost of each DS, if they aim to sell about 10 million in 2 years, that's 30 million right there....let's say that about 15,000 people refuse to buy the DS because it doesn't support the GBC (I doubt the number will be this high), that's 22.5 million of lost sales.


30 - 22.5 = 7.5


all of the above is purely speculation of course, as I know neither the final price of the DS nor the cost, nor do we know how many games or accessories those 15k would have bought or whether even there would be that many people boycotting, but I guess Nintendo's reasoning is somewhere around those lines.


I mean seriously Panajev, would you boycott the PS3 if it didn't play PS1 games?

I might wait a month or two, just out of spite... I had to wait to get PlayStation 2 till almost January 2001 due to shhortages.

The Nintendo DS is not GBA 2 or the next generation GameBoy, it is a side project or as Nintendo fans calll it: the third pillar.

I will boycott Xbox 2 at launch for the same reason: which means I will get it when the price drops, like I did with Xbox 1.

In both cases, few months later I have the hardware I really want to get at launch.

In the first case is PSP, in the second is PlayStation 3.

I might still get the DS near launch, but it just got a little bit harder to justify: especially since we all know the GBA 2 will probably be out by the end of 2005 or early 2006.

 

[SpoonyBard]

If I remember correctly, GB/GBC carts also need 5V current, while GBA games use 3.3V.

 

[fugimax]

Who cares?

Buy a GBC for $10 and get over it. I'd rather DS be $10 cheaper than pay for backwards compatability all the way back to original GB. GBC is so cheap these days, I really think this is a non-issue.

 

[speedpop]

Yeah I think personally it'd be insane to sell off a GBA SP.

 

[Kobun Heat]

At this point, it's a total non-issue. GBA needed to be backwards compatible because there were still GB Color games coming out, and it was a selling point. And now? Now, the overwhelming majority of people couldn't give a shit. What they care about is that it's BC with GBA games. And it is. The end.

 

[Panajev2001a]

let's say it adds a 1.50 to the cost of each DS, if they aim to sell about 10 million in 2 years, that's 30 million right there....let's say that about 15,000 people refuse to buy the DS because it doesn't support the GBC (I doubt the number will be this high), that's 22.5 million of lost sales.


30 - 22.5 = 7.5

$1.50 per unit to make sure that backward compatibility with GBC (and in turn GB) works ?

Quite probably the GBA 2D Hardware can be used for backward-compatibility and what you really need then is a simple Z80.

How about we take other stuff out of the DS to further increase the profit margin ?

Still, if Nintnedo really wanted to intelligently cut the the production costs added by the processors used (one 67 MHz ARM9 and one 33 MHZ ARM7 whose R&D costs are shared with the GBA and GBA SP ?!?) they can use the help of their partner NEC and the fabs they have and churn out a nice SoC with basically the complete Nintendo DS chipset in a single chip at 130 nm or less.

I mean:

ARM9, ARM7, slightly custom Z80, 4 MB of RAM and maybe even the WiFi chipset (ther should not really be a problem having all that in a single chip).

You made a mistake assuming that the cost added by the extra processor would remain constant over Nintendo DS's life IMHO (or did you expect those 30 Million units sold in a week ?).

 

[sprsk]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I CAN NO LONGER PLAY MY GLORIOUS BLACK AND WHITE GAMESSSSS

 

[Panajev2001a]

Who cares?

Buy a GBC for $10 and get over it. I'd rather DS be $10 cheaper than pay for backwards compatability all the way back to original GB. GBC is so cheap these days, I really think this is a non-issue.

HAHAHAHHA... you really think they, Nintendo, lowered the DS price just because they are not giving backward-compatibility with the GBC/GB ?

You would be paying the same price, with or without backward compatibility: the only difference is that Nintendo adds few more cents to their profits.

 

[Diomedeskun]

Kid Icarus GBA, Zelda Oracles, and Final Fantasy Legend III are all I really care about on the classic systems. I guess Donkey Kong 94 and Dragon Warrior III would be nice also, but I would happily purchase remakes/upgrades at a DS level of all of the above.

Of course, a Zero Mission style game for Metroid II would be much appreciated, especially one where the last boss is less Track and Field button hammering of missiles and more strategy.

 

[Panajev2001a]

If I remember correctly, GB/GBC carts also need 5V current, while GBA games use 3.3V.

They are using the same ROM interface the GBA used in the DS (plus one port for the new ROM technology by Matrix).

 

[GDGF]

HAHAHAHHA... you really think they, Nintendo, lowered the DS price just because they are not giving backward-compatibility with the GBC/GB ?

You would be paying the same price, with or without backward compatibility: the only difference is that Nintendo adds few more cents to their profits.

It's cool. You can get a GBC for so cheap, now. You could also just play them on your GBA.

 

[Deku Tree]

I don't care about GB & GBC bkwds compatibility as much as GBA bkwds compatiblity.
I have a GBA player and a GBA SP for the rare occasions when I want to play those GB, GBC games.

 

[ge-man]

$1.50 per unit to make sure that backward compatibility with GBC (and in turn GB) works ?

Quite probably the GBA 2D Hardware can be used for backward-compatibility and what you really need then is a simple Z80.

How about we take other stuff out of the DS to further increase the profit margin ?

Still, if Nintnedo really wanted to intelligently cut the the production costs added by the processors used (one 67 MHz ARM9 and one 33 MHZ ARM7 whose R&D costs are shared with the GBA and GBA SP ?!?) they can use the help of their partner NEC and the fabs they have and churn out a nice SoC with basically the complete Nintendo DS chipset in a single chip at 130 nm or less.

I mean:

ARM9, ARM7, slightly custom Z80, 4 MB of RAM and maybe even the WiFi chipset (ther should not really be a problem having all that in a single chip).

You made a mistake assuming that the cost added by the extra processor would remain constant over Nintendo DS's life IMHO (or did you expect those 30 Million units sold in a week ?).

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Frankly I think BC was the least of their concern for the DS. They want people to buy the new software. The only reason we are getting GBA compatiblity is to ease in current GBA owners who might be interested in the machine.

If this was the next Gameboy, I could sympathize with your plight.

 

[Greekboy]

The Game Boy Advance contained a Z80 processor which allowed it to play original 8-bit Game Boy games. Because of the age of the processor, and the difficulty in adding that processor to an already highly complicated architecture, the Z80 was not included in the final design of the DS.

Like I've been saying, the GBA was underpowered.

Bring on the DS!

 

[jarrod]

Like I've been saying, the GBA was underpowered.

The Z80 was simply used for GB/GBC backwards compatibilty, it wasn't used at all in GBA software.

 

[Mejilan]

lol

 

[SteveMeister]

First, I thought this has been widely known for months -- GBA compatibility, but not GB/GBC compatibility.

Second, I too don't think this is a huge deal. The only GBC game I played on my GBA was the Zelda: Oracle of Ages game. I certainly don't plan on buying any NEW GB/GBC games, and I don't have any lying around at home either. By the same token, I'm not planning to get rid of my GBA or GBA/SP when I get my DS. So on the extremely rare occasions where I might want to play a GB/GBC game, I can still pick up one of the GBA's & play on that. Those of you with large GB/GBC libraries don't have to get rid of your GBA's when you get a DS, either. I can see some convenience to being able to play all of the games -- it's just not that big a deal to me.

Finally, I'm sure cost IS the major factor behind Nintendo's decision. This is, after all, a company that didn't include a headphone jack on the GBA because of cost. They didn't include a backlight on the original GBA because of cost and the concern for battery life. So it's not all that shocking that they didn't include the hardware necessary to allow GB/GBC games to play on the DS. Dual screens, one of which is touch sensitive, and the wireless networking capability are pretty expensive. They had to cut costs SOMEWHERE, and IMO GB/GBC compatibilty is a pretty good choice.

Oh yeah, and at E3 Nintendo specifically said that they were targeting DS at older gamers (a quick look at the advertising campaing they showed for it verifies this), as well as to NEW gamers (the main reason they offer for incorporation of the touch screen). Obviously new gamers won't have a library of GB/GBC games lying about, and perhaps Nintendo doesn't feel that older gamers will, either.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

I am unimpressed with Pana's dramaedy.

 

[Deg]

We knew baout this for months.

First, I thought this has been widely known for months -- GBA compatibility, but not GB/GBC compatibility.

Second, I too don't think this is a huge deal. The only GBC game I played on my GBA was the Zelda: Oracle of Ages game. I certainly don't plan on buying any NEW GB/GBC games, and I don't have any lying around at home either. By the same token, I'm not planning to get rid of my GBA or GBA/SP when I get my DS. So on the extremely rare occasions where I might want to play a GB/GBC game, I can still pick up one of the GBA's & play on that. Those of you with large GB/GBC libraries don't have to get rid of your GBA's when you get a DS, either. I can see some convenience to being able to play all of the games -- it's just not that big a deal to me.

Well it is IMO but that is what the GBA is for.

Finally, I'm sure cost IS the major factor behind Nintendo's decision. This is, after all, a company that didn't include a headphone jack on the GBA because of cost. They didn't include a backlight on the original GBA because of cost and the concern for battery life. So it's not all that shocking that they didn't include the hardware necessary to allow GB/GBC games to play on the DS. Dual screens, one of which is touch sensitive, and the wireless networking capability are pretty expensive. They had to cut costs SOMEWHERE, and IMO GB/GBC compatibilty is a pretty good choice.

Yeah no headphone jack was silly although it hasnt caused much problem. Backlight wasnt possible at the time of GBA's release however. I beleive DS will cost quite abit however. PSP and DS should be about par for costs. Thats why both have been quiet for so long. Once the prices get out the hype will fall considerably.

 

[human5892]

You have to think of it in terms of the "THIRD PILLAR". Nintendo doesn't want you to sell your GBA for a DS, because the DS is not supposed to be a GB replacement. You're supposed to own them both. IMO, GBA compatibility is only in the DS because Nintendo was nervous about its reception...so they compromised their third pillar vision a bit and just left out the GB/GBC compatibility.

As someone else said, if this was the GBA 2 or Nintendo Revolution or PS3 or whatever, I would be behind you 100%, but in this instance, from Nintendo's point of view, the extended backwards compatibility doesn't make sense for the product line.

 

[Greekboy]

How do we know for sure if there will be a GBA2? If the DS takes off is it possible that Nintendo will just go with a DS2 at a later date?

 

[Jacobi]

has to get gba player

btw maybe therell be a thirdpartyadapter ?

 

[human5892]

How do we know for sure if there will be a GBA2? If the DS takes off is it possible that Nintendo will just go with a DS2 at a later date?

It's possible that we'd see a DS2 waaaaay down the line, but I think we'd see a GBA2 first. That way, Nintendo could make even more profits by having two successful product lines -- buy a DS this year, a GBA2 in 2007, a DS2 in 2010, a GBA3 in 2012, etc.

 

[AirBrian]

How do we know for sure if there will be a GBA2? If the DS takes off is it possible that Nintendo will just go with a DS2 at a later date?

This is Nintendo we're talking about. There will be a true successor to GBA.

 

[Greekboy]

It's possible that we'd see a DS2 waaaaay down the line, but I think we'd see a GBA2 first. That way, Nintendo could make even more profits by having two successful product lines -- buy a DS this year, a GBA2 in 2007, a DS2 in 2010, a GBA3 in 2012, etc.

I see your point but how can this be done without both glutting your own market and confusing your consumers?

 

[human5892]

I see your point but how can this be done without both glutting your own market and confusing your consumers?

It'd be tricky, certainly, but Nintendo would find a way. One thing they could do would be allow a little more space between the releases than what my example showed; if the DS is successful enough, for instance, they could ride it for a long time, like the original GB.

Whatever they do, I'm certain we'll get a GBA2, as it's far too lucrative of a brandname to supplant with "DS".

 

[Panajev2001a]

I am unimpressed with Pana's dramaedy.

I do not give a crap .

I give you how I feel, no more no less.

 

[Tekky]

If the GB/GBC can be emulated on DS, then at least some third party will do it.
Think about it: you can plug a DS mini cartridge into the DS slot, and then plug
the GB/GBC game into the GBA slot.

Probably Nintendo didn't do it just because the DS is a rush-job response to PSP.

 

[human5892]

Probably Nintendo didn't do it just because the DS is a rush-job response to PSP.

*sigh*

 

[Mustang]

I predict people will bitch around here, for some reason, when Sony announces the PS3 will not have PSOne compatibility.

 

[Mama Smurf]

Probably Nintendo didn't do it just because the DS is a rush-job response to PSP.

You're right, they probably couldn't spare the 2 minutes it would have taken to figure out how to include it.

CASE SOLVED

 

[xsarien]

How do we know for sure if there will be a GBA2?

Because Nintendo's said that they're working on it.