Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
nuff said
-
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.
History of pro consoles? What was the first!?
- Thread starter RoboFu
- Start date
Unknown Soldier
Member
People tend to forget Nintendo been doing this with their handhelds forever
Game Boy -> Game Boy Color
Game Boy Advance -> Game Boy Advance SP
Nintendo DS -> Nintendo DS Lite
Nintendo 3DS -> Nintendo 3DS XL -> New Nintendo 3DS + XL
Nintendo Switch -> Nintendo Switch OLED
Game Boy -> Game Boy Color
Game Boy Advance -> Game Boy Advance SP
Nintendo DS -> Nintendo DS Lite
Nintendo 3DS -> Nintendo 3DS XL -> New Nintendo 3DS + XL
Nintendo Switch -> Nintendo Switch OLED
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
I agree...
Nintendo did this a lot back then (and still do), like.....a lot lol
Sega too lol
ResilientBanana
Member
It’s remarkable that this functioned
nuff said
DSi was well before that.
Also Panasonic Q and PSX.
Only GBC and XL really qualify from that list - the rest were cosmetic revisions - so not really 'pro' in any sense.
But see above for more that weren't.
Technically, Switch OLED is a pro revision too, the mariko cpu revision can be clocked way higher than the original Tegra X1 without overheating, For the people that can jailbreak an OLED, they can play BotW at 60fps
kevboard
Member
Kings Field
Member
Famicom disk system. Better sound, visuals, and was how Nintendo originally made Legend of Zelda and then downgraded it for the famicom/snes. At the time it was the “best” way to play Nintendo games if they came in that format.
Also, Sharp came out with the twin famicom which was a famicom and fds all rolled into one.
Also, Sharp came out with the twin famicom which was a famicom and fds all rolled into one.
Last edited:
RetroGamingUK
Member
SweetTooth
Gold Member
Did any of these systems enhance the performance of current games?
By your criteria we can add Playstation-> PsOne (added a portable screen)
Sony did release an upgraded PS1 that changed the GPU to use SGRAM rather than VRAM which improved the colour rendering. These are the SCPH1000 models that audiophiles sometimes use for their DAC sound quality. Some of the early titles like Tomb Raider had a lot of colour banding with the older GPU.
SCPH-7502 = Better graphics ? ("PS1.2")
Staying on the PS1, there were rumours that Sony would release an actual clock boosted model based on the improvements found on the arcade boards (Sony ZX1/Namco System 12 that had the CPU clocked at 48MHz and 2MB of VRAM) which would have allowed a faithful port of Tekken 3.
Later slim revisions of the PS2 had the processor clocked at 299Mhz rather than 294Mhz, however I'm not sure if that had any noticeable effect in games. Would the PSX DVR count?
SCPH-7502 = Better graphics ? ("PS1.2")
Staying on the PS1, there were rumours that Sony would release an actual clock boosted model based on the improvements found on the arcade boards (Sony ZX1/Namco System 12 that had the CPU clocked at 48MHz and 2MB of VRAM) which would have allowed a faithful port of Tekken 3.
Later slim revisions of the PS2 had the processor clocked at 299Mhz rather than 294Mhz, however I'm not sure if that had any noticeable effect in games. Would the PSX DVR count?
Physiognomonics
Member
It should have enhanced games otherwise a PS4 Slim could be seen as a Pro.
Last edited:
That's - technically true but I don't think that we can really count 'Pro' as revisions that users enhance. Later PS2/PS3 models also overclock better but I don't think we'd want to count those either.
PS2 Slim also had a faster IOP processor, but no - it didn't make a difference the way it was designed to operate.
PSX I would totally count though (as well as the Q), they both greatly enhanced the base console functionality(at a premium price) - even if not strictly upgrading the chipset speeds.
DSi definitely had enhanced games though - I know there was like 4 or 5 exclusives also but that's really getting into semantics.
New 3DS didn't do either though IIRC (no enhancements or exclusives)?
Team Andromeda
Member
Some people here don't seem to understand the difference between an add-on to a new system. Like some have said on here. It's really got to go to the GameBoy Color and Super Grafx
In saying that Atari 7800 ProSystem beats them all, it right down the name LOL
In saying that Atari 7800 ProSystem beats them all, it right down the name LOL
Kusarigama
Member
It has to be NeoGeo CD and NeoGeo CDZ systems. No divided between the playable games, but the loading times being a lot better on CDZ system. Also the pricier tag.
metareferential
Member
I'd say SNES and Genesis Chip-on cartridge solutions kinda fit the discussions.
They didn't enhance the base games, but provided really big upgrades.
They didn't enhance the base games, but provided really big upgrades.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
I don't know why people always try to give credit to Nintendo for pioneering everything. When we look at the PlayStation 4 Pro and Xbox One X, we have to ask what these two consoles did that caused them to be "Pro" consoles. The two things that they accomplished were maintaining the existing game libraries (e.g. no exclusive content) and providing performance improvements over the original console. Using this criteria, let's see how these fare:
- Game Boy Color: Had exclusive content, thereby removing it as a Pro contender since this makes it a console in its own right.
- Game Boy Advance SP: Did not boost performance for Game Boy Advance games, thereby removing it as a Pro contender.
- Nintendo DS Lite: Did not boost performance for Nintendo DS games, thereby removing it as a Pro contender.
- Nintendo 3DS XL (2015): Had exclusive content, thereby removing it as a Pro contender since this makes it a console in its own right.
- Nintendo Switch OLED: Did not boost performance for Nintendo Switch games, thereby removing it as a Pro contender.
Crowza
Member
You are right, Sony did change the business by being the first console manufacturer to pay exclusivity money for a developer to NOT release games on other systems (Tomb Raider 2). Congratulations, that business practice has been nothing but good for consumers!It supplemented the whole console biznez. I can barely hear your arguments over the sound of my snowboard against the ice *does kickflip*
But, now that you posted "Coolboarders", I get the sarcasm (I even added my own). Sarcasm is difficult to detect on the Internet, so I apologize.
Last edited:
What they accomplished is irrelevant - they were marketed and sold as 'premium experience' over the 'amateur' consoles - which included exclusive functionality that amateur consoles did not have.
The 'library improvements' are entirely semantics - there's a fair share of titles that got no improvements on the Pro/1X as result of how consoles work (those with locked framerate/resolution). Noone counts that because it didn't matter, it was billed to users as an upgraded experience.
Anyway to the role of Nintendo - DSi did improve existing titles the same way Pro did (faster CPU = better framerate where things weren't stable). Yes it also had a handful 'exclusive' titles - but that's like saying PS2 Slim wasn't a PS2 because 5 titles weren't BC on it. It's stretching semantics to the extreme, and it's irrelevant to how the device was marketed and sold.
I'll agree that GBC is more questionable since - reviewing the history (I didn't experience any of this first hand, so I have to trust the records) it seemed like Nintendo was marketing it more as a new GameBoy platform, not an iteration of GB.
Also as I said above - Q and PSX both count - they weren't billed as 'something something other' - they were a 'more expensive PS2/GCN that does all this extra stuff that your basic PS2/GCN don't'). They also sold much worse than other 'Pro' consoles - and both companies learned from that in their future iterations.
PS2 and PSP after all both had multiple 'pro' prototypes that never made it to the market as well (yes, with actual chipset improvements) - and we had to listen for 5 years about WiiHD, long before it eventually morphed into WiiU. So I'd make a modem-eating bet that that also existed in prototype stages.
Monicker yes - but strictly speaking MS established the same criteria 4 months earlier. But that's still semantics - you need only look at audience reception to WiiU reveal - where even the press was convinced what they just saw was some kind of WiiHD/Add-on - ie. a Pro in all but name. Nintendo corrected them shortly after - but audiences knew what 'upgraded console SKU' was, long time before Sony called it a 'Pro'.
Minsc
Gold Member
I don't think the ability to play games which aren't on the original would disqualify anything for me as long as the device could play ~100% of the games released from it and a portion of them were enhanced.
If it's just backwards compatibly on a newer device, I wouldn't consider that a pro console. But a future device that had 100% compatibly of a console which also played them at better quality would qualify. The ability to play other games seem arbitrary to me.
A PS5 is a better PS4 Pro when it comes down to it, as it also plays PS5 games. Not unlike how a PS6 would likely also be better at being a Pro PS5 console than the PS5 Pro is.
Trilobit
Gold Member
I'd say I'm more ironic than sarcastic. I've never liked sarcasm as it has a mocking or mean tone whilst irony(at least according to some defitinition of it) doesn't. I think if I ever get tagged on this site it'd be: "He can't be serious"
Black_Mamba
Member
MSX had an expanded RAM cartridge created by Konami which also included a more advanced sound chip. That worked like a mid-gen refresh of the MSX hardware and you could even run the same games without the sound chip, if you had the pirated game.
Physiognomonics
Member
I agree. I don't see other console the way PS4 Pro is. I wonder who exactly designed the concept? Because it's a really good design when you think about it and actually new.
Probably Cerny and his team? But who got the idea in the first place?
I disagree with this. The Game Boy Color was a 'Game Boy Pro' if we follow the criteria you mentioned. First, it could play the entire DMG library (maintaining the existing game libraries) with basic color (which is an improvement from a monochrome console). At launch, there were black cartridge 'DX' games that could be played on the original hardware but offered enhancements if played on the GBC (performance improvements over the original console, full-color experience, and some games ran at double-speed CPU mode). It was only later after the launch that exclusive GBC games (transparent cartridges) arrived.
Unknown Soldier
Member
New 3DS had some exclusive titles too, including Xenoblade Chronicles 3D
If you hacked your 3DS, you can force it to run in New 3DS (faster CPU) mode with regular 3DS games, some games benefited from this but others would crash
Last edited:
NeverYouMind
Member
As far as portables are concerned Nintendo DSi XL. I think as far as consoles are concerned the Xbox One X beat PS4 Pro to market? (Assuming no new games on upgrade.)
Last edited:
Wouldn't this definition just mean any new iteration/gen was a "Pro" console? A PS2 played PS1 games. It also had games that only ran on PS2. It provided a premium experience over the amateur console that came before it. That's a weird definition I think. A Pro console is a console that plays the exact same games as another ameteur one with improvements. No exclusive pro only games allowed.
Last edited:
Wtf are you talking about? PS4 Pro released a year before One X.As far as portables are concerned Nintendo DSi XL. I think as far as consoles are concerned the Xbox One X beat PS4 Pro to market. (Assuming no new games on upgrade.)
NeverYouMind
Member
Yeah, I was not certain about it. That is why I stated it as a thought instead of a fact. Doesn't really matter as NeoGeo CDZ is the right answer.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Gold Member
Again, exclusive games...not really. It was a new thing that was BC with GB1 games.
GBA was the same.
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
Hoddi
Member
I kinda want to name the Commodore 128 here. Most people will consider that a computer but I think that's only because it had a keyboard. But, in practice, it had fixed hardware with games that were designed for that hardware and everything else that people typically associate with consoles.
The C128 had loads of games that were enhanced over the C64 so I think it kinda counts.
The C128 had loads of games that were enhanced over the C64 so I think it kinda counts.
No, the GBC wasn't a new thing besides the color lcd and extra ram, hardware wise it was almost the same as DMG, the cpu core and memory bus was kept intact, Nintendo only added the double speed mode and new registers for color, infrared and the extra ram banking management.
If the exclusive games is the argument to make a console a different system, then the DSI is the succesor of the DS, the same for the New 3DS as they have exclusive games too
And GBA was a totally different machine
BlackTron
Gold Member
I mean, the dsi felt like a bullshit variant of ds with what, only a couple exclusive games iirc? The GBC had massive numbers of exclusive games, as in, over five hundred lmao. The carts were a different shape, and could not be inserted in a game boy. I would say Pocket was a refresh and Color was a new platform. I mean, if people have to go out and buy it to play the new Zelda game, then it's a new system. I don't know what else to tell you.
I didn't realize until now New 3DS has its own games too. I see it has 8 (DSi had 6). I think this is super shitty and is pretty much like putting an exclusive game on PS Pro. Where they are trying to "bend the rules". But the reason it's bending the rules is that these systems are trying/intending to just be upgrades that play the same stuff otherwise the library wouldn't be the same down to 6 games. Color was always a new thing you better buy or you miss out on 500 titles...if you really want to get technical on this one whatever man
Last edited:
The GBC was an anomally, it wasn't meant to be the DMG's successor in the first place, the GBA was already in development at that time. However, the WonderSwan made Nintendo nervous, so they made a quick move by releasing the GBC. The thing is, it sold like hotcakes, which caused Nintendo to delay the GBA release, resulting in many exclusive games. Imagine if the same had happened with the New 3DS, Nintendo would have surely released more GameCube/Wii ports like Zelda TP or WW for it.
BlackTron
Gold Member
The only part of your story that doesn't sit well with me is the one where they changed their plans because it sold like hotcakes. It doesn't appear to me that Nintendo delayed GBA due to this; they released GBC exactly because they wanted to rush the thing out, and GBC only had a two year run before GBA. How much earlier could they have planned to launch GBA before delaying it in response to the success? At best, they had a backup plan to fast track GBA in case color bombed.
I agree GBC is a very incremental hardware upgrade. But its changes make it a different system, not just superficially though cart molds, but legitimately: the mere presence of color in a system so shitty we hadn't teched to backlights yet was in itself a highly coveted upgrade that sent people flying to Electronics Boutique and Toys R Us en masse. I don't know if you were there for it, but its a gen of product that could barely be more distinct from the last while still being completely familiar. Try telling someone there isn't acchtually a big difference between a b&w and color tv when it actually happened because reasons...
Similar threads
- Locked