Topic: Episode 240: They Call Him 'The Streak'

[Crimm]

Yeah. Wanted a splash of color, but not a lot of hardware publicity shots straight on the unit (not rotated/askew) with it closed.

[Yoshidious]

1080p60 depends on the developers, not the hardware. Few HD games run on 60 FPS while Nintendo almost always delivers 60 even though the Wii is much weaker than the HD systems. Developers have to decide how to allocate the system's resources and if they decide to spend the power on making it pretty instead of making it fast then the resolution and framerate are going to suffer no matter what the hardware does.

I think Nintendo will likely make games run at 1080p at a steady 60 frames per second. That's just how Nintendo operates.

Of course you are right that developers make choices about the resolution and framerate that their games run in, but let's not overly downplay the importance of hardware in how these outcomes are reached. Hardware specs define the set of trade-offs that developers face when crafting a game's visuals, and therefore establish the set of options that developers have to choose from before they apply their preferences and priorities to the problem and reach a balance that they think fits their game design best. 

For instance, it was possible to achieve 60fps even on N64 (as demonstrated by F-Zero X), but the sacrifices necessary to achieve this in terms of detail, draw distance, polygon count etc. were so severe that it would not have been really viable for Nintendo to try and make, for example, a Zelda game that ran in 60fps on N64. I'm sure it wasn't literally impossible, but in practice the hardware limitations of the N64 essentially prevented this from happening, not just Nintendo's discretion.

Of course, today's consoles (and tomorrow's in the case of Project Cafe) don't present constraints nearly as severe as the N64, but they are not yet so powerful that fundamentally similar trade-offs have ceased to exist, and so again certain kinds of games are less likely to run in 60fps and/or 1080p than others. Nintendo develops and publishes a very wide range of games, so I don't expect to see a one-size-fits-all policy from them.

In many cases I think framerate will be a priority: responsiveness-leveraged games like Mario, Punch-Out!! or F-Zero are very likely to run at 60fps on the new console, and if it's significantly easier to do that at sub-1080p resolution, then chances are Nintendo will make that trade-off. On the other hand, a game like Pikmin with its unique, highly-detailed visual style would likely benefit more from 1080p support than a silky smooth framerate, and again--dependent on the hardware specs--it may be not be possible to have both without compromising Pikmin's aesthetic in some way, which Nintendo probably would not think is a worthwhile sacrifice just for a better framerate in a game of its kind.

I do think though that Nintendo tends to prioritise functionality and is clearly far less concerned with making games that look gaudy in screenshots and online videos than most HD developers have been, so it wouldn't surprise me if we saw more 1080p/60fps games from them than anyone else, I just don't expect it to be nearly enough of a priority for them to see it happen across the board or even the majority of the time--they will tailor the visuals to the needs of each individual game according to the possibilities set out by the hardware, creating a whole spectrum of different results. 

[Ceric]

I have to disagree here.  The Gamecube, if memory serves, had a set resolution you had to program to.  I think it be a huge folly if Nintendo didn't make it a point to take the most intensive game they made this gen and make sure they could run the most intense part at 1080p 60fps as a baseline.  I would also simulate the most intense sequences from the other consoles going that way.  I don't see Nintendo going half in when they make the jump HD.  It would be a mistake not to just go ahead and take the bull by the horns.
 
@Crimm: I like the Cap Shield you picked for the impression square.

@RFN:  Retroactive,  When we be seeing the new vote?

[sambskn]

I've been playing more Radiant Historia since listening to this episode, I'm around 10 hours in and I finally understand James' aching over the character and his arm parts. I really couldn't  agree about how little use he is in battle. But the game is still incredible.

[Jonnyboy117]

GameCube developers had the option of 480i or 480p. There is some performance hit associated with progressive scan, although supposedly it is less than doubling resolution from 240i to 480i (the so-called "hi-res" mode on N64, usually featured in games supporting the RAM Expansion Pak).

[TrueNerd]

I started listening to RFN again after years (years!) of neglecting it. It's good. Better than I remember it. You guys have a good team assembled. I'm sorry I ever abandoned RFN. It won't happen again.

[Chocobo_Rider]

Just a quick question to pose to the room:

What will mean more to you, Project Café being significantly more powerful than the PS3 but carrying a $600+ price tag? Or, being somewhat on par with the PS3 and coming in closer to $400?

Personally, I'm already in the midst of saving up for a 3DS for NEXT year.  I can't imagine heaping a new console on top of that.

Thoughts?

[Crimm]

It isn't significantly more powerful.
It will not cost $600.


None of my research on the topic has indicated either are even remotely possible.

[Ceric]

It isn't significantly more powerful.
It will not cost $600.


None of my research on the topic has indicated either are even remotely possible.

This sounds like a personal challenge.

Shame though you haven't found some place that says it will be significantly more powerful.

[oohhboy]

It's trivial to have more power at a lower cost for game oriented purposes than the PS3 especially after 5+ years of developments in processor tech and factoring the fact most of the so called power is poorly orientated to gaming. The GPU was a generation old compared to the 360, it only had one general purpose unit on the CPU. The rest were pure maths units which was overkill for physics and really inefficient for graphics since it had to do all sorts of hoop jumping to render it along side the GPU which sits on it's own memory with terrible bandwidth between them.

Most of the cost was due to the experimental nature of the Cell with high R&D and low volumes since it was pretty much exclusively used on the PS3. While the Cell was suppost to be used in super computers, it mostly found it's way in to that application via PS3 clusters. A Cell variant found it's way in the the Road Runner Super Computer(Fastest during 2008/2009).

As long as Nintendo makes a game console, not a super computer tech demo masquerading as a console, price won't be an issue. What I worry about the new Nintendo console is the price of the controllers, it's getting out of control.

[Chocobo_Rider]

What I worry about the new Nintendo console is the price of the controllers, it's getting out of control.

No pun intended? =P

I've thought about this controller thing.  Here's my guess: the new controller will be like a dreamcast controller (traditional button layout with a (touch)screen) but with gyroscopic motion controls.  It will not be cheap, but it will be a one-time purchase unlike the stacking purchases from nunchuks, M+, CC, etc.

As for motion controls, my guess is Nintendo will make the existing Wiimote Plus work with Project Cafe.  Sure, they might release a new one that is cosmetically consistent with the new console.  But we know the wiimote will have to work since the system is B/C... and I highly doubt Nintendo would be releasing a new controller whose motion was EVEN BETTER than (near) 1:1.

Dig it?

[Ceric]

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/3dsteardown.php

That is a breakdown of the 3DS cost and DSi.  Which would be similar in somethings.  Taking out the different parts that aren't needed I can see the controller costing about $45 to make with what we think it has.  If I were Nintendo I take a small margin because its only an enabler to move software.  So I price it at  $55-60.  I did  some research and I couldn't find what they normally make off of controllers.  I would really like those numbers and the breakdown cost.

[NWR_insanolord]

If they can do it for under $60, that'll work. Maybe $70, but I don't know. Anything more isn't feasible.

[motang]

Funny how you guys teasing Jon about not ever finishing up Chrono Trigger, really hit home. So I also popped my DS card back in couple of weeks ago and started playing again (I had stopped at the spot with Magus' first encounter).  Now I am bit further, and can't put the game down. Awesome game, once I am done with Chrono Trigger I will move on Radiant Historia.

[Jonnyboy117]

I think the Blu-Ray drive was also a major cost factor when PS3 first launched. It was the first mass consumer device with that technology (shipping orders of magnitude more drives than any of the competing movie players at that time). Clearly, such a component is not nearly as expensive these days, and that goes for other tech as well. This new console will be more about Nintendo catching up to industry standards than about exceeding those standards. Because they are coming into it so late, it will be far more cost-effective for them. I have no doubt that Sony and Microsoft will follow-up with much more powerful hardware, but that will be a couple of years later at significantly higher prices.

[noname2200]

I have no doubt that Sony and Microsoft will follow-up with much more powerful hardware, but that will be a couple of years later at significantly higher prices.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but I'm wondering if this part  will be true. It's clear that the tech is available, yes, but with dev prices already as insanely high as they are now, would devs be able to afford to make games for a system that's much more powerful than what we have at this moment? They've certainly shown that they generally can't squeeze a profit from the current prices; wouldn't going much higher just ensure that they'll get as little third-party support as Nintendo does now?

[Ceric]

I have no doubt that Sony and Microsoft will follow-up with much more powerful hardware, but that will be a couple of years later at significantly higher prices.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but I'm wondering if this part  will be true. It's clear that the tech is available, yes, but with dev prices already as insanely high as they are now, would devs be able to afford to make games for a system that's much more powerful than what we have at this moment? They've certainly shown that they generally can't squeeze a profit from the current prices; wouldn't going much higher just ensure that they'll get as little third-party support as Nintendo does now?

I honestly think Dev costs won't go much up from here once everything settles at 1080p assets.  Thats going to be the biggest for a while.  No one is truly ready for the next jump yet.  In fact I think the next bump will bring more parity to the systems.

[Crimm]

I have no doubt that Sony and Microsoft will follow-up with much more powerful hardware, but that will be a couple of years later at significantly higher prices.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but I'm wondering if this part  will be true. It's clear that the tech is available, yes, but with dev prices already as insanely high as they are now, would devs be able to afford to make games for a system that's much more powerful than what we have at this moment? They've certainly shown that they generally can't squeeze a profit from the current prices; wouldn't going much higher just ensure that they'll get as little third-party support as Nintendo does now?

It's already been semi-confirmed they're both targeting two years from now for their new systems

[Chocobo_Rider]

Yea, I really just think that the graphics/processing side of technological advancement is yielding diminishing returns both in the experience and in the profits to be made.  Unfortunately, that means less bang for more bucks - and that's not a business model I'm psyched about.

So, I would love it if Nintendo kept doing "their thing" - lower costs and better (IMO) gaming experiences.  I also admire that they have been moving technology diagonally forward (IR pointing, touchscreens on handhelds, various forms of motion control) as opposed to just straight forward with higher processing power/screen resolutions.

Now, I know that admiring Nintendo and not caring about dick-waving system specs must mean I'm a """fan boy."""  But keep in mind, this is all coming from a guy who hadn't owned a Nintendo platform since the NES/GB.  I only got a SNES, N64 and Gamecube when my (now) wife and I got our place together (yea, she's a catch ^_^ )

And wouldn't a 2013 release of the PS4 be breaking their "10 year life cycle" of the PS3? Or is it gonna be like how they still think we're in the PS2's life cycle because the thing keeps selling?

[Ceric]

Yea, I really just think that the graphics/processing side of technological advancement is yielding diminishing returns both in the experience and in the profits to be made.  Unfortunately, that means less bang for more bucks - and that's not a business model I'm psyched about.

So, I would love it if Nintendo kept doing "their thing" - lower costs and better (IMO) gaming experiences.  I also admire that they have been moving technology diagonally forward (IR pointing, touchscreens on handhelds, various forms of motion control) as opposed to just straight forward with higher processing power/screen resolutions.

Now, I know that admiring Nintendo and not caring about dick-waving system specs must mean I'm a """fan boy."""  But keep in mind, this is all coming from a guy who hadn't owned a Nintendo platform since the NES/GB.  I only got a SNES, N64 and Gamecube when my (now) wife and I got our place together (yea, she's a catch ^_^ )

And wouldn't a 2013 release of the PS4 be breaking their "10 year life cycle" of the PS3? Or is it gonna be like how they still think we're in the PS2's life cycle because the thing keeps selling?

To be honest as a Game System the PS3 is a flop.  As a Blu-ray Player/Home Media Center its great and a wild success. 

[noname2200]

I honestly think Dev costs won't go much up from here once everything settles at 1080p assets.  Thats going to be the biggest for a while.  No one is truly ready for the next jump yet.  In fact I think the next bump will bring more parity to the systems.

That's what I'm thinking too. The hardware to make consoles have far more horsepower than we have now is certainly commercially viable. The PC, for example, has been able to outstrip the HD consoles for years now, as it has in every previous generation, but this is the first generation I can remember where PC games don't really go far above-and-beyond, in terms of horsepower, above their console counterparts. I have to imagine it's due to commercial viability: by and large developers and publishers this generation are swimming in red ink like no generation before, notwithstanding that revenues are at historically high levels. Like ninsage, I have to imagine that the HD consoles are near the cieling of what's commercially viable, in terms of dev costs, at least until much better dev tools become available.

If that's the case, can the new MS and Sony consoles really be a huge leap, horsepower-wise, beyond the current HD consoles?

It's already been semi-confirmed they're both targeting two years from now for their new systems

 True, but that's not what I was getting at. I've no doubt that new consoles are coming from MS and Sony. I must doubt that those new consoles will be "much" more powerful. Stream will likely end up being the weakest of the three, but only to the degree that the PS2 was weaker than the Gamecube and Xbox. I think MS and Sony will have to pull a Wii, and make something beyond mere added horsepower be the primary hook of their new system.
 

[adadad]

True, but that's not what I was getting at. I've no doubt that new consoles are coming from MS and Sony. I must doubt that those new consoles will be "much" more powerful. Stream will likely end up being the weakest of the three, but only to the degree that the PS2 was weaker than the Gamecube and Xbox. I think MS and Sony will have to pull a Wii, and make something beyond mere added horsepower be the primary hook of their new system.

The tech aspect I think is going to depend on several different factors: one, the cost and whether or not the game divisions at Microsoft and Sony can get the permission to sell their hardware at a loss again (seems highly unlikely in Sony's case at least). Second, is a tech hike going to affect third party support adversely due to the financial barrier of entry - we know devs are tech whores but aside from companies like Epic and id it's easy to imagine other, smaller companies being priced out of the market if the graphics hike is too large. I think you're probably right noname, that Nintendo's console will be the least powerful but not by a huge amount, and that could make all the difference for third party support. This generation one of the major advantages Nintendo's competitors have had is that ports are easy to make across PC, PS3 and 360, and the install base for these systems is large enough for it to be worth the risk of putting out big budget titles (especially considering by the time the Wii came out and started making sales waves there were already 10 million 360s out there). A smaller divide between the three consoles would mean ports all round. For that reason I actually wonder whether Sony and Microsoft might push for a large tech increase simply to try and remove Nintendo's console from the port equation like this gen, but I doubt it will happen.

One of the disadvantages of the new Nintendo system might be, assuming its horsepower is similar to that of the PS3 and/or 360, that there might not be enough of an incentive for...shall we say...traditional gamers (I don't want to say hardcore - I'm referring I suppose to people who like gaming with traditional, dual analog-y controls) to upgrade if N's system isn't getting third party exclusives. What I mean is that it won't be enough for Nintendo to simply get ports of, say, a new mainline Call of Duty game if it's going to look virtually identical to versions being released on last-generation consoles (360 and PS3), because then there's no incentive for those console owners to upgrade unless they happen to be a Nintendo fan. A hypothetical situation which, of course, would probably be more than enough to satisfy Nintendo fans, but I'm sure Nintendo are going to be looking for a PS2 level of dominance this time around, which means they need to appeal outside of their own hardcore fans and casual players (as well as bringing in those too of course!).

[NWR_Lindy]

After this generation, I think that Nintendo has lost the "hardcore" fans forever.  They've painted themselves into a corner, gamer demographic-wise, that I don't think they'll ever be able to get out of.  Granted, that corner has netted them sales of 80+ million consoles and more money than any of us can imagine, so you can't say it's been a bad move.  But I think that, as a brand, Nintendo is viewed more than ever as catering exclusively to families and Nintendo fans. I don't even think that gamers looking for edgier fare (first-person shooters, fighting games, cutting-edge RPGs, violent action games) even consider Nintendo an option at this point.  In a way, it's a realization of the process Nintendo started with the SNES; they're officially the video game Disney, and that's exactly what they've always wanted to be.

The Golem Sisters took a dirt nap, BTW.  Now I need to wrap up the Ocean Palace (haven't had a chance to get back to it since Friday).