Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

They arent going to lose much at all. PSP will generate good revenue quickly. Parts are also falling sharply in price.

But they are losing a lot currently, and it's been established a million times that they are losing a lot of money on this initially.

Where do you think they would have got the tech from at the time? From the skies? :lol

Yes, the skies! The heavens in fact. No such technology existed at the time. R&D could not have produced such amazing leaps in technology in the year 2001, no sir ree!

Nope...nothing at all like that... nothing bleeding age could have been developed in 2001... even though Nintendo's Project Atlantis was ALREADY supposed to be 32bit technology before they scaled it back... but no... impossible!

No but some of the people here are however. And others are through blue-flavoured shades.

Yup...

Yeah like there were much better screens at the time

I hope you're joking.

 

[jarrod]

I obviously have nothing under than my theories, but I suspect the PS2 would have at least put in a bit more powerful such as extra VRAM and perhaps some built-in processes with the dev kit to enhance the polygon pushing power. This would have made the difference between the GC and PS2 so negligible that only the well trained could see the difference, I bet. But you're right, I don't know if they'd actually be even. Nintendo did have quite a nice bit of cheap, efficient technology when they released GC.

Well, sure but you'd still need to consider budgets. Imagine if Nintendo was charging $299 for GameCube upfront and willing to take a $100 or so loss. Gekko and Flipper could've been sped up a good amount and RAM probably would've doubled, or more. We'd have a machine than blows even Xbox away much less a PS2 with more VRAM. Really, GameCube has pretty amazing technology as is considering the costs involved.

I agree. But I do think that when Nintendo releases at the same time as a competitor (especially considering the new competition, Sony and Microsoft) that they refuse to bleed money so it's likely they wouldn't have equal tech. Xbox is more powerful than GC, for instance. PSP is more powerful than DS. So you see where I'm going with this. It'll be interesting to see if PS3 and Revolution are around the same amount of power or if one is significantly more powerful than the other, considering the rumoured similar release dates.

I'd agree here, Nintendo just has different priorities. They want to get technology as cheap as possible immediately and work with close hardware partners (NEC, Matsushitsa, ATi, IBM, ARM, Sharp, etc) to shoulder cost burdens and share risk. Sony largely counts on pushing bleeding edge tech, usually internally developed (though they'll work with outside firms like IBM, Toshiba or nVidia when necessary), relying on internal manufacturing to drop costs as economies of scale grow. Microsoft... we'll they're kind of crimping from Nintendo now after Xbox. :/

I'm guessing Revolution won't match PS3 on paper, but performance wise all three next gen platforms will probably be closer than DC/PS2/GC/Xbox.

 

[Culex]

Where do you think they would have got the tech from at the time? From the skies? :lol

There was this amazing piece of tech called the Gamepark, from a no-name Korean company in Feb 2002. USB, Linux support, PC interface, full SNES emulator and better overall tech than the GBA.

The tech existed.

 

[bitwise]

Thank god the Japanese know what a good game is, unlike you americans.

thats rich, coming from a UK'r.

ever see one of your country's sales charts? :lol

 

[soundwave05]

If GameCube had a $300 budget, it probably would smoked even the XBox, but I think its a bit misleading to then say "well Revolution > Xenon because Nintendo is teh efficent!".

Microsoft slapped the XBox together in less than half the time Nintendo had to spend on the GameCube. With Xenon they've had a lot more time, and of course with IBM and ATi have the same hardware partners.

Nintendo got really lazy after Zelda: OoT in 1998. They really should have been roaring to go with the GameCube and probably should've launched in late 2000, not 2001.

 

[Deg]

Ok, but I don't give a crap about sales just for Nintendo to succeed. The only reason I'm glad Jungle Beat is selling better is because it's a good original game and I don't want developers to see bad sales for these titles and be put off trying new things themselves.

These games will sell well ofcourse. Just not overly well. I agree that broadening the type of games we play is a good thing. Thats why i like the DS. Although i'm more of a PSP/GBA person right now although i will also get the DS.

There's no way the GBA in 2001 is equivalent to the PSP in 2004. :lol

Honestly, the GBA should have been released when the GBC was out (1998 or 1999) and the DS should have come out around the time the GBA SP hit.

There's no excuse for that original GBA screen though, regardless of whether it was released in 1999 or 2001. That's just pathetic cost cutting on Nintendo's part to go with such a poor quality display.

You forget how primitive LCD screens were in those days. GBA's screen was great for 'its time'.

 

[Amir0x]

Well, sure but you'd still need to consider budgets. Imagine if Nintendo was charging $299 for GameCube upfront and willing to take a $100 or so loss. Gekko and Flipper could've been sped up a good amount and RAM probably would've doubled, or more. We'd have a machine than blows even Xbox away much less a PS2 with more VRAM. Really, GameCube has pretty amazing technology as is considering the costs involved.

I agree. What I am saying is Nintendo wouldn't have charged 299 and upped that stuff because they refuse to lose money, thus the reason I feel PS2 would have been really close.

But, again, I agree. Gamecube is pretty good stuff.

I'd agree here, Nintendo just has different priorities. They want to get technology as cheap as possible immediately and work with close hardware partners (NEC, Matsushitsa, ATi, IBM, ARM, Sharp, etc) to shoulder cost burdens and share risk. Sony largely counts on pushing bleeding edge tech, usually internally developed (though they'll work with outside firms like IBM, Toshiba or nVidia when necessary), relying on internal manufacturing to drop costs as economies of scale grow. Microsoft... we'll they're kind of crimping from Nintendo now after Xbox. :/

hehe. Well, I can't wait for this next generation. It should be interesting to see how aggressively Microsoft tries to take out Sony this time around.

I'm guessing Revolution won't match PS3 on paper, but performance wise all three next gen platforms will probably be closer than DC/PS2/GC/Xbox.

Well, we'll see. I hope it's really close so that the graphics whores will simma down.

 

[ge-man]

There was this amazing piece of tech called the Gamepark, from a no-name Korean company in Feb 2002. USB, Linux support, PC interface, full SNES emulator and better overall tech than the GBA.

The tech existed.

Not to mention that almost all of the original GB's competitors where also above the curve. Nintendo hasn't been forced to go bleeding edge on their portables. If PSP does do well, I think we will see GC level machine for the GBA2.

 

[soundwave05]

The GBA was HORRIBLE even for its time.

The Neo Geo Pocket which came out 2 years earlier from a much smaller company had a far better screen.

 

[Culex]

You forget how primitive LCD screens were in those days. GBA's screen was great for 'its time'.

No it wasn't. The Wonderswan, Neo Geo Pocket Color, and GP32 had better looking screens.

 

[Amir0x]

You forget how primitive LCD screens were in those days. GBA's screen was great for 'its time'.

No, even for its time it was shitty. And the lack of backlight was even more ridiculous, which even Nintendo had to concede after a million people were forced to modify the GBA with Afterburner.

And then what excuse do you give to the DS? Both screens combined only equal 60% of the PSP screen quality. But, alas, dual screen equals massive generational leaps in technology, am i rite? Where would they have gotten two high quality screens in the year 2004!/

 

[ge-man]

If GameCube had a $300 budget, it probably would smoked even the XBox, but I think its a bit misleading to then say "well Revolution > Xenon because Nintendo is teh efficent!".

Microsoft slapped the XBox together in less than half the time Nintendo had to spend on the GameCube. With Xenon they've had a lot more time, and of course with IBM and ATi have the same hardware partners.

Nintendo got really lazy after Zelda: OoT in 1998. They really should have been roaring to go with the GameCube and probably should've launched in late 2000, not 2001.

I think the differences in development time may give Nintendo an edge just because of the way in which technology is constantly changing. That doesn't mean that Nintendo is going to blow MS away regardless, but time factor will give them advantage depending on how much they are willing to spend.

The efficency thing will definately go out the window next gen as Nintendo's competitors (MS in particular) seem to be looking at making their machines more streamlined and easy to develop on (like the GC.)

 

[soundwave05]

The DS has good quality screens IMO. You have to remember one of the screens is a touch panel, which is more expensive.

The original GBA though, there's no defending that.

DS actually I think is a good hardware, but Sony just went for something spectacular, technology wise with the PSP. If the PSP didn't exist, DS would actually be more or less what a lot of people were bitching and moaning about in terms of what Nintendo would never do -- ie a PSOne/N64 level handheld (with WiFi, touch display, etc. to boot).

I still think Revolution will be something completely wacky with a significant portion of the budget going to the interface (new controller).

 

[Deg]

There was this amazing piece of tech called the Gamepark, from a no-name Korean company in Feb 2002. USB, Linux support, PC interface, full SNES emulator and better overall tech than the GBA.

The tech existed.

But its not a direct comparison at all. :lol That would be like throwing out the M2 against the N64.

thats rich, coming from a UK'r.

ever see one of your countries sales charts? :lol

:lol

The lack of lighting of the GBA screen was clearly wrong but the screen spec was fine. It was a little better than wonderswan in res too. Could have been better but it wouldnt have been that different. People forget that LCD's have improved greatly lately. Most of the old flat panel arguments dont hold true anymore.

 

[Amir0x]

The DS has good quality screens IMO. You have to remember one of the screens is a touch panel, which is more expensive.

They're better quality than GBA by far, but they're still not up to what they could be. I won't give it the excuse just because it has a touch panel. Touch panels aren't prohibitively expensive.

DS actually I think is a good hardware, but Sony just went for something spectacular, technology wise with the PSP. If the PSP didn't exist, DS would actually be more or less what a lot of people were bitching and moaning about in terms of what Nintendo would never do -- ie a PSOne/N64 level handheld (with WiFi, touch display, etc. to boot).

The DS is good hardware. It's just not bleeding edge. And the screens are put to shame, the one area I won't defend on DS no matter how much I love it. The PSP showed, without a doubt, what screens should do.

 

[Culex]

But its not a direct comparison at all. :lol That would be like throwing out the M2 against the N64.

HOW is it not a direct comparison? The two systems were released closely to eachother.

Both are handhelds with support from 3rd parties. Are you a moron?

 

[soundwave05]

The PSP screen is beyond the curve. Sony just went for something ridiculous there, and good for them.

My personal feeling is Nintendo has just been a step behind with handhelds just because they've gotten lazy. The GBA should've been out in 1999. GBA SP lets say in 2001 (even if the original GBA screen was great, the size revision and addition of ion-lithium warrants a SP model anyway), and the DS in early 2003.

 

[Amir0x]

The PSP screen is beyond the curve. Sony just went for something ridiculous there, and good for them.

So there's "behind the curve", "on the curve", "ahead of the curve" and "beyond the curve", and the PSP is beyond? Heh.

Anyway, yes there's no doubt the PSP screen is beyond the curve. And because the DS has two screens there would have to be some sacrifice. But they could have definitely upgraded things significantly and still be at a good middle ground. As it is, both screens combined only equal 60% of the PSPs screen quality which is downright ridiciculous.

 

[ge-man]

Never mind.

 

[Deg]

The DS has two screens so you can forgive them although according to Gamespot the PSP has screen has a worser response rate. The resolution of both systems is low compared to some mobile phones out early next year. PSP screen res is already being topped by other devices however. GBA didnt have much in its league at the time. We now even have portable dvd players and media players to compare against.

 

[soundwave05]

There's nothing portable wise on the market, not from Apple, not from Sony's other divisions which is comparable to what the PSP is for $200, so you really can't fault Nintendo there.

If the $250 i-Pod mini had a DS level color screen, people would be going apeshit.

 

[Amir0x]

The DS has two screens so you can forgive them although according to Gamespot the PSP has screen has a worser response rate. The resolution of both systems is low compared to some mobile phones out early next year. PSP screen res is already being topped by other devices however. GBA didnt have much in its league at the time. We now even have portable dvd players and media players to compare against.

Link. Also, you keep with this GBA didn't have anything in its league crap. Stop it. It has already been established you were wrong.

 

[jarrod]

I agree. What I am saying is Nintendo wouldn't have charged 299 and upped that stuff because they refuse to lose money, thus the reason I feel PS2 would have been really close.

Yeah I agree with that. Nintendo's always been as low cost as possible, usually cutting conrners and scaling back hardware when posible (GBA's downgrade from Atlantis, SNES losing the DSP chip and CPU clock reduction, N64 lacking a sound chip, etc).

hehe. Well, I can't wait for this next generation. It should be interesting to see how aggressively Microsoft tries to take out Sony this time around.

I think Microsoft is really going to shock people. Xenon demos in early 2005 will probably make casuals forget about Nintendo & Sony's handheld scuffle almost entirely.

Well, we'll see. I hope it's really close so that the graphics whores will simma down.

Ditto.

 

[Amir0x]

I think Microsoft is really going to shock people. Xenon demos in early 2005 will probably make casuals forget about Nintendo & Sony's handheld scuffle almost entirely.

Next year is going to be so awesome. We'll finally get a glimpse at what to expect for the next 6 years, so it's going to be a doozy.

 

[Deg]

Link. Also, you keep with this GBA didn't have anything in its league crap. Stop it. It has already been established you were wrong.

Gamespot complained about ghosting.

You want me to pretend technology for everything was better than it really was back then? :lol You can think of GBA like the PS2 of home consoles. Thats how it was. It was powerful but not without flaws.

 

[soundwave05]

Deg --

I really don't think that was the public consensus at the time.

There was a general feeling the GBA as released in 2001 was alright, but definitely not the best Nintendo was able to put out.

Nintendo sat on Project: Atlantis for like 4 years to milk Pokemon and then had the nerve to bring it out with a shitty screen.

I have real doubts that the DS would even be on the market right now if Sony hadn't announced the PSP. They probably would've eventually released what we know as the DS as the Game Boy Next in 2005/2006.

 

[Deg]

Deg --

I really don't think that was the public consensus at the time.

who is this 'public'?

There was a general feeling the GBA as released in 2001 was alright, but definitely not the best Nintendo was able to put out.

Nintendo sat on Project: Atlantis for like 4 years to milk Pokemon.

I have real doubts that the DS would even be on the market right now if Sony hadn't announced the PSP. They probably would've eventually released what we know as the DS as the Game Boy Next in 2005/2006.

The DS to me is underpowered not GBA. Anyways i am sure there will be some nice surpises instore in the future. I personally wish Nokia make a 'good' handheld console They might do eventually.

 

[soundwave05]

These boards for one. There was a lot of complaints in general about the screen and I don't really think people were going "OH MY GOD! SUPER NINTENDO level graphics!"

The GBA could have been out probably in 1999, Nintendo just sat on it because of Pokemon's success and because there was no reason to release it. Nintendo signed the deal with ARM for Project: Atlantis like in 1995/96 for crying out loud.

I mean you're equating the GBA to the what the PSP is today, the GBA didn't exactly blow the NG Pocket out of the water, whereas the PSP is leagues beyond the DS.

The GBA as released in 2001 was behind the curve of what was possible IMO. I don't buy for a second that was the best they could do.

The DS I think is more or less, just on the curve. There's a ton of technology there for only $150.

PSP is way ahead of the curve.

 

[Culex]

The DS to me is underpowered not GBA.

That's a very flawed and biased statement.

The GBA (not the SP) did very little in terms of improvement. It's a 16-bit system with a half-assed 32-bit processor slapped on. There were virtually zero improvements with the sound, too, other than a few more channels.

Fact: Project Atlantis was going to be a true 32-bit handheld, with PSX type graphics.

Not to mention, even though pushed out of the market, the Wonderswan, Neo Geo Pocket Color and GP32 are all far more technologically advanced.

The GBA was a disappointment in the hardware area, period.

 

[ge-man]

The DS to me is underpowered not GBA. Anyways i am sure there will be some nice surpises instore in the future. I personally wish Nokia make a 'good' handheld console They might do eventually.

Both are underpowered. There were rumors of a N64 level portable even before the GBA's release, which I bet eventually became the DS.

 

[soundwave05]

No, Project: Atlantis I think IS the GBA, it was supposed to however come out years before. I remember reading about Atlantis in like 1995/96, there's no way the spec for the unit could've been for 32-bit 3D graphics.

With the unforseen success of Pokemon though, Nintendo I believe decided to sit on the Atlantis technology for a couple of years. And then they even downgraded the friggin' screen. :lol

Nintendo is completely shameless in their cost cutting.

I bet in Nintendo's R&D labs they have like 4-5 different Game Boy/DS models that tech-wise they're just sitting on, that may or may not ever be released.

 

[Deg]

That's a very flawed and biased statement.

The GBA (not the SP) did very little in terms of improvement. It's a 16-bit system with a half-assed 32-bit processor slapped on. There were virtually zero improvements with the sound, too, other than a few more channels.

Fact: Project Atlantis was going to be a true 32-bit handheld, with PSX type graphics.

Not to mention, even though pushed out of the market, the Wonderswan, Neo Geo Pocket Color and GP32 are all far more technologically advanced.

The GBA was a disappointment in the hardware area, period.

Not quite GBA was more powerful than all of those save for GP32 which is like a PS1 vs N64 comparsion.

 

[Amir0x]

Gamespot complained about ghosting.

I'm sorry, complaining about ghosting does not prove that one or the other has a 'lower response rate.' No, indeed, it could mean that it's simply much more noticeable on a screen of such high resolution. So, again, I ask you to provide a link which shows one or the other has a higher/worse "response" rate. If you do that, I concede.

You want me to pretend technology for everything was better than it really was back then? :lol You can think of GBA like the PS2 of home consoles. Thats how it was. It was powerful but not without flaws.

No, I want you to understand that it's a fact that there were SEVERAL handheld devices that came out around the time GBA did and they were all more powerful than the GBA was, and with a better screen. On top of THAT, Nintendo WAS going to release a more powerful handheld back in 2001 - they just scaled it back. So every last bit of information proves that you are, in fact, wrong... including Nintendo's own plans.

 

[soundwave05]

Yeah, but there was absolutely no real competition.

By 2001, even Neo Geo and Bandai had really shelved any plans for better hardware.

I mean patting Nintendo on the back for slightly outpacing the WonderSwan Color is like giving a high school kid a high five for dominating elementary school kids in sports.

The GBA was late (very late). Sega had the Nomad out in 1996 or 1997, like four or five years earlier. What Nintendo did with the GBA is pretty shameful IMO. They should have either released it instead of the Game Boy Color in 1998/99 or released something far more powerful in 2001.

The deal they signed with ARM for Project: Atlantis was like waaaaaay back in 1995.

 

[Brofist]

GBA was more advanced when it released compared to PSP. Easily. Its pretty clear how some of you ignore what hardware was like back in the day.

you really have no clue.

 

[ge-man]

Yeah, but there was absolutely no real competition.

By 2001, even Neo Geo and Bandai had really shelved any plans for better hardware.

I mean patting Nintendo on the back for slightly outpacing the WonderSwan Color is like giving a high school kid a high five for dominating elementary school kids in sports.

The GBA was late (very late). Sega had the Nomad out in 1996 or 1997, like four or five years earlier.

How powerful was the Lynx? I imagine that the GBA just barely surpasses that and that machine competed against the original GB.

Deg is living in lala land I'm afraid.

 

[Deg]

you really have no clue.

You need to back up why. You're forgetting that a PSP console was not possible back then. Niether was DS.

Some of you give too much credit to the competition. None of those were better than GBA. Some of them its a stretch to even call a console. All of them were overpriced. Some dont even have true software support.

How powerful was the Lynx? I imagine that the GBA just barely surpasses that and that machine competed against the original GB.

Deg is living in lala land I'm afraid.

Uhh right. Lynx doesnt compare to GBA like the others.

 

[Amir0x]

How powerful was the Lynx? I imagine that the GBA just barely surpasses that and that machine competed against the original GB.

Deg is living in lala land I'm afraid.

Whoa whoa. The Lynx isn't that powerful, although it absolutely destroyed the GB.

LYNX:
CPU: Dual 16-bit custom CMOS -Mikey and Suzy (16MHZ / custom CPU on its own is 8-bit)
RAM: 64KB DRAM
Colors: 4096 (16 simultaneous per scan line)
Resolution: 160x102 pixels
Screen: LCD 82.55mm x 47.75mm (88.9mm/3.5" diagonal)
Sound: 8-bit 4 channel (mono for Lynx, stereo for Lynx II)
Game Media: 2MB (16Mbit) cartridge
Power: 4 hours for Lynx/5 hours for Lynx II (6 AA batteries)

You need to back up why. You're forgetting that a PSP console was not possible back then. Niether was DS.

Some of you give too much credit to the competition. None of those were better than GBA. Some of them its a stretch to even call a console. All of them were overpriced. Some dont even have true software support.

Jesus, stop while you're behind. In 2001, a PSP "console" was not what we were asking for. We're asking for competent PSX/low N64. Shit, not even low N64... just freakin' competent PSX. And it didn't even deliver that, which it EASILY could have.

And now you're adding in qualifiers. We are NOT talking about software support or how overpriced they are of if it's a stretch to call one a console. We're talking about technology. NOMAD came out 4 or 5 years earlier than GBA and it was Genesis level already. Stop being ridiculous.

And it is a fact that the GBA could have been much, much more powerful at the time it came out. Period. End of debate, jeebus.

 

[soundwave05]

I still can't believe the PSP is possible today for $200. That's unbelievable.

The Nomad is comparable to the GBA. It'd probably be closer to the GBA in terms of size/power efficency if Sega had just decided to make a Genesis-level portable rather than a flat-out portable Genesis.

And that came out in like 1996 or early 1997 IIRC, 4-5 years earlier.

 

[Deg]

I still can't believe the PSP is possible today for $200. That's unbelievable.

The Nomad is comparable to the GBA. It'd probably be closer to the GBA in terms of size/power efficency if Sega had just decided to make a Genesis-level portable rather than a flat-out portable Genesis.

And that came out in like 1996 or early 1997 IIRC.

$200 is overpriced. And they will easily be making profit if thats proft instantly if thats the case.

I think its clear most of you dont know much about handheld hardware in general. A good comparison is with mobile phones. Screen tech on those were pretty slow at improving in the early days since the 80's. It acccelerated very recently in that area. In general the tech is improving massively. Smartphones now are more than 100% faster than many released just 6 months ago. We even have OLED mobilephones and phones with megapixel cameras for affordable prices.

 

[ge-man]

You need to back up why. You're forgetting that a PSP console was not possible back then. Niether was DS.

Some of you give too much credit to the competition. None of those were better than GBA. Some of them its a stretch to even call a console. All of them were overpriced. Some dont even have true software support.

You need to seperate support from hardware. Yes, it's true that GB had far better support. What's not true is that Nintendo has been ahead or on the curve in terms of hardware. Every single competitor had a portable that was more powerful than Nintendo's.

 

[soundwave05]

$200 is overpriced? :lol

Sony's electronic division could sell this EXACT same product, without any game functionality, for $200 alone, and it'd still be worth it as a media player.

 

[Amir0x]

$200 is overpriced. And they will easily be making profit if thats proft instantly if thats the case.

What the Christ?

Do...Do you even realize what is inside the PSP?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Stop turning every thread into a PSP vs. DS a-thon! :lol

 

[Doom_Bringer]

dumb nin10do bots.

 

[Amir0x]

Stop turning every thread into a PSP vs. DS a-thon! :lol

This is not a PSP vs. DS a-thon, thank you very much. We're comparing whether the GBA for its time was comparable to PSP, tech-wise, for our time. That's a much different debate.

 

[Deg]

You need to seperate support from hardware. Yes, it's true that GB had far better support. What's not true is that Nintendo has been ahead or on the curve in terms of hardware. Every single competitor had a portable that was more powerful than Nintendo's.

They did because they kept failing and were asking for more. Were they well designed handhelds? NO. PS1 had its N64. Not to mention all the cosnoles that came out in the SNES and Megadrive period that were alot more powerful.

 

[Amir0x]

I think its clear most of you dont know much about handheld hardware in general. A good comparison is with mobile phones. Screen tech on those were pretty slow at improving in the early days since the 80's. It acccelerated very recently in that area. In general the tech is improving massively. Smartphones now are more than 100% faster than many released just 6 months ago. We even have OLED mobilephones and phones with megapixel cameras for affordable prices.

I'm literally speechless.

 

[Deg]

I'm literally speechless.

Of course it doesnt help that all these 'competitors' turned out to be messups(being kind) save for Game Gear which was also a big mess. If you dont understand that then think of how slowly things improved in the stone age compared to nowadays.

 

[soundwave05]

Portables have improved incrimentally because of Nintendo, not despite Nintendo.

They sat on the GBA chipset for years.

Nomad was comparable and was released five years (a lifetime) earlier.

I love Nintendo as a software company, but hardware wise, ugh, forget about it man. If Sony hadn't entered the market there wouldn't be a DS right now.