Author Topic: New Gameboy (Read 28642 times)

MaryJane · « **Reply #25 on:** February 27, 2006, 08:05:01 AM »

hmmmm, that makes me think, wouldn't making the next gameboy, (which has to come sooner than 5 yrs from now, since we'll probably have the new DS in 5 yrs) too innovative cut into the DS? i could see adding a mic, but give the gb touch screen and there's no longer a reason to have 3 pillars. i might be wrong, but i wouldn't be surprised to see a new gb at e3 2007.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #26 on:** February 27, 2006, 08:33:59 AM »

"What I meant was, the portable gamecube could feature a 3-d screen. Like those Sharp 3d monitors. So new games would be in 3d."

Considering that technology doesn't exist yet for consoles how could it possibly be included with a portable? Portables follow consoles because as technology gets older it's cheaper to make smaller. If 3D screens were already small enough and cheap enough to work in a portable they would already be pretty widespread.

jasonditz · « **Reply #27 on:** February 27, 2006, 06:05:20 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"What I meant was, the portable gamecube could feature a 3-d screen. Like those Sharp 3d monitors. So new games would be in 3d."

Considering that technology doesn't exist yet for consoles how could it possibly be included with a portable? Portables follow consoles because as technology gets older it's cheaper to make smaller. If 3D screens were already small enough and cheap enough to work in a portable they would already be pretty widespread.

Yeah, that's why we saw dual screen technology and touchscreens on the consoles before...

err... wait.

wandering · « **Reply #28 on:** February 27, 2006, 07:00:45 PM »

Quote
Considering that technology doesn't exist yet for consoles how could it possibly be included with a portable?

Because consoles have never been bundled with screens and portables always have been?

Ian Sane · « **Reply #29 on:** February 28, 2006, 06:43:04 AM »

"Yeah, that's why we saw dual screen technology and touchscreens on the consoles before..."

Okay fine. But touchscreens have been common in other electronics prior to the DS. Consoles is too limiting of an example. A better one would be popular technology period. We don't really see technology in portable game systems that have never been used anywhere else before.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #30 on:** February 28, 2006, 10:02:24 AM »

what about the e-reader?

Ian Sane · « **Reply #31 on:** February 28, 2006, 10:22:46 AM »

But the e-reader sucks so it doesn't count.

Whatever. I just don't see 3D screens making it into a portable without it costing a huge chunk of change.

animecyberrat · « **Reply #32 on:** February 28, 2006, 08:41:49 PM »

Its funny the E-Reader, becaus ewhen you think about it Nintendo started out as a CARD company then latter on they started making video games, and then they make a game system that puts the games on CARDS.

If they could prefect the E-reader technology THATS what the next GB should use for its medium. They just need to figure out how to make them have more storage and flexability. Maybe thast what they are looking for.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #33 on:** March 01, 2006, 06:00:36 AM »

"If they could prefect the E-reader technology THATS what the next GB should use for its medium."

How is swiping a card any better than putting a cartridge in a slot? At least the cartridge method works and doesn't need a bunch of extra R&D.

MaryJane · « **Reply #34 on:** March 01, 2006, 06:10:29 AM »

If nintendo is going to make a portable with more graphical capabilities than a DS but less than a Rev, why not use gc discs? It would almost be stupid not too, why create new technology when you have it readily available to you already? The battery life can be dealt with by the time they'd be ready to release the system. but i definitely don't see any advantages to using a card reader system

jasonditz · « **Reply #35 on:** March 01, 2006, 07:38:50 AM »

The advantage of a card reader is that its really cheap to print cards. It's an unrealistic system to use though, because you can't print in high enough depth on standard card stock to store really big games.

I like the whole idea of carts over discs for a portable for a number of reasons: portability (you don't need to carry a CD wallet with you, and you can't keep a GC disc unprotected in your pocket), lower power consumption, faster loading, and no skipping. Given the advances in the next couple of years, it seems likely that the cartridge capacity on the next system will be pushing a gigabyte anyhow, so the only real advantage of discs over carts (capacity) will be mostly a non-issue by then.

jasonditz · « **Reply #36 on:** March 01, 2006, 07:43:00 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Yeah, that's why we saw dual screen technology and touchscreens on the consoles before..."

Okay fine. But touchscreens have been common in other electronics prior to the DS. Consoles is too limiting of an example. A better one would be popular technology period. We don't really see technology in portable game systems that have never been used anywhere else before.

How about stereoscopes? I don't think I ever saw one used in popular technology before the VB.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #37 on:** March 01, 2006, 07:56:51 AM »

"How about stereoscopes? I don't think I ever saw one used in popular technology before the VB."

The Virtual Boy was a total failure. Why would you even bring up that system?

trip1eX · « **Reply #38 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:06:30 AM »

A gb with gc discs is great on paper. In reality tho it seems that optical discs aren't made for handhelds. They are battery suckers and load time extenders. Do you think optical discs help or hurt the PSP?

Also Nintendo isn't going to make a GB where you don't have to buy new software. They want to make money off selling you new games. Not off just the new hardware. Between folks having alot of GC games and used GC games all being $10 and under in a couple of years this is another strike against a GB playing GC discs.

So in the end what you're looking at here is basically a PSP where you don't have to buy $50 games. You already own the games or can find them at Gamestop for dirt cheap. I don't think Nintendo could do that model without making the unit itself much more expensive than a PSP. The PSP I'm sure was and probably is sold at a loss and depends on games and movies to make money for Sony. Nintendo would have to make a profit (and a bigger profit than they usually make because they won't be able to rely much on software sales) and thus the cost I'm sure would be up at $500 or so.

What Nintendo really needs to do is make a handheld with a hard drive or large flash memory cache on there and then combine that with their virtual console system. Ngames instead Itunes. And ideally let you rip your GC games to it as well.

jasonditz · « **Reply #39 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:10:06 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"How about stereoscopes? I don't think I ever saw one used in popular technology before the VB."

The Virtual Boy was a total failure. Why would you even bring up that system?

Because it used a technology that hadn't been seen in popular technology before.

If we're going to limit this to portables that were a commercial success and rule out any addon device which you think "sucks", we're going to be stuck with a damned short list.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #40 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:14:53 AM »

Fine. My "rule" is flawed to all hell. I still don't see 3D screens happening on a portable any time soon. It just sounds too damn expensive. And I think being a commercial success is an important factor.

And the Virtual Boy isn't really a portable anyway.

jasonditz · « **Reply #41 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:52:07 AM »

The VB was plenty portable... I used to take mine to college all the time.

jasonditz · « **Reply #42 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:05:03 AM »

Incidentally, I think you're overestimating the cost of the Sharp 3D display. Now, I'm not an optical engineer (although that is what my degree is in), but it doesn't seem like it should cost any more than twice what a standard LCD of the same size would cost.

Sharp's 3D screen isn't totally experimental anyhow. They've been on the market for nearly 3 years now in high end laptops.

Also, it's worth noting the Sharp ported the API to Qtopia, which is leading some to speculate that the next generation of Sharp Zaurus PDAs might come with them as well.

Artimus · « **Reply #43 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:25:31 AM »

I'm really confused, how do these 3d screens work? Can I see a photo or video of them in action? I have no clue what they actually look like.

Pale · « **Reply #44 on:** March 01, 2006, 11:13:19 AM »

They don't. At least for a significant part of the population. For a very basic idea of how they work, you know those cards you used to get in cereal boxes? When you turn them and look at them from different angles you see different images?

Now take tech similar to that, factor in the distance between your eyes, 'aim' the right image at each eye, and it kind of looks 3D. I've seen it. It gave me a headache.

jasonditz · « **Reply #45 on:** March 01, 2006, 12:16:41 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
I'm really confused, how do these 3d screens work? Can I see a photo or video of them in action? I have no clue what they actually look like.

They basically have two LCDs stacked on each other with a parallax barrier in-between. Then the difference in the two images presented gets interpretted as 3D in the brain. The end effect is somewhat similar to those old movies that they used to have where you had to wear the 3D glasses, only obviously without the need for the glasses.

The neat thing is that unlike for instance the VB where you had a few discrete planes on which to display an image, with enough horsepower (which would probably be reasonable in a portable device in a couple years), you could basically have objects moving around in the 3d space in real time.

Artimus · « **Reply #46 on:** March 01, 2006, 01:11:49 PM »

Why would I want a blurry weird semi-3D thingy?

jasonditz · « **Reply #47 on:** March 01, 2006, 02:17:49 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Why would I want a blurry weird semi-3D thingy?

Because people like eye candy?

MaryJane · « **Reply #48 on:** March 01, 2006, 02:19:34 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Why would I want a blurry weird semi-3D thingy?

Good question.

I really don't see this happening anytime soon, Nintendo has a way of wanting their technologies whether proprietary or not, to be perfect and suitable for everyone to use before releasing it in any way shape or form. well at least they do since the might fall of the vb.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #49 on:** March 01, 2006, 03:57:55 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Why would I want a blurry weird semi-3D thingy?

People spend good money on illegal substances to get that effect.

Why want it, indeed!

News:

Author Topic: New Gameboy (Read 28642 times)