Support NeoGAF

[Glass Joe]

If a developer was shown footage of a Nintendo game with Nintendo art direction, its plausible they thought it was a 'nudge' above 360 based on what they saw.

That is a good point. Many of Nintendo's IPs are more cartoon / fantasy oriented, so if those styles of games are what they show at E3, it could be misleading. We'd have to see games that are trying to be realistic to have a true indicator of what Cafe can do. Racing games, GTA, Resident Evil, stuff like that. Stuff like Galaxy 3 would surely look gorgeous, but Galaxy 2 running at 720p on Dolphin already does as well.

 

[JCRedeems]

Am I only the one who is skeptical of the rumored Stream and its touch screen controllers? It seems the whole concept of it would cannabalize its handheld sales. Moreover it seems it would be pricey, there is no way Nintendo will be able to sell it at an affordable price and make a profit.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Even if the gpu really is the dual gpu r700, that is still technology from 2008 that is releasing on a console debuting in 2012, meaning it's already four year old technology. And from the sound of things, the r700 is a best case scenario. The gpu could be any of the less powerful cards in the r700 family.

I would assume that the Wii 2 will look pretty damned underpowered when the next Xbox and Playstation come out in 2013 with technology from 2013. Both the 360 and PS3 had cutting edge components when they debuted and expect the same with their successors.

I would totally agree with you if the Stream was a very sleek, small unit like the Wii. The only rumor I've seen for its size is that of IGN, saying it would be the size of the original Xbox 360. IF this is true, there's just no reason to have such a large system unless you anticipate having to cool down something which sucks the electrons...more electrons, more power, strong likelihood of a decently powerful GPU.

Now, yes its 4 years old...but with proper tweaking it could still be a pretty powerful piece of kit beyond its implied age. Now this is the worst type of speculation, since its based on so little...but I'm hoping for another gamecube in terms of power to cost ratio similar to that machine. It was such an efficient bastard. If we get a heavily tweaked top of the 4xxx line single GPU solution (I don't believe this 2x non-sense), it will actually be very hard to beat the graphics such a chip could create within the next year or so without breaking the bank. Perhaps by 2014 you can get something into a sub 200 watt machine that will make it cringe but man, by then Nintendo is nearly half-way through their product cycle.

 

[LCGeek]

Good work, you can cherry pick examples for optimal results. I can do that too:

Now, the 4870 does scale better on average than I expected (from memory I thought games only started approaching 90% scaling with the 5000/6000 series cards), but that was only one of several points I brought up.

That's pointless considering anyone who has dealt with crysis know it's crap in terms of optimization. Crysis2 does more so why not show benchmarks with the r700 on that game.

 

[strata8]

That's pointless considering anyone who has dealt with crysis know it's crap in terms of optimization. Crysis2 does more so why not show benchmarks with the r700 on that game.

It doesn't even make sense to use these benchmarks, considering how weak the PC-equivalents of the consoles' GPUs are. Try running Crysis 2 on a 7800GT at 720p.

 

[Glass Joe]

Am I only the one who is skeptical of the rumored Stream and its touch screen controllers? It seems the whole concept of it would cannabalize its handheld sales. Moreover it seems it would be pricey, there is no way Nintendo will be able to sell it at an affordable price and make a profit.

Additional controllers would be expensive, yes. And it does worry me that some of the features would make the 3DS less appealing too. But I think the streaming rumor is pretty solid. As for the console itself being pricey, there's really no way to tell just yet. I doubt that Nintendo would release a $350-$400 console, but I woulda said the same about a $250 handheld last year. Only thing I feel confident on is whatever they decide, console sales won't LOSE them money out of the gate.

 

[Maxwell House]

That's pointless considering anyone who has dealt with crysis know it's crap in terms of optimization. Crysis2 does more so why not show benchmarks with the r700 on that game.

The r700 is a card from 2008. I doubt any site has ever benchmarked it with Crysis 2. I think they stopped manufacturing the card at least 18 months ago.

 

[Luigiv]

I'm under the assumption that they meant streaming "game content" and not streaming "entire games" aside from VC titles and such. I think the TV will still be used as the main display. Otherwise, why get an HD-capable GPU if it's going to be wasted on a 6 inch screen?

Balderdash. PC games look amazing downscaled to 3DS resolution. They'd look fine on a 6" WVGA screen too. <3 Free Super Sampling <3

 

[Igor Antunov]

I would assume that the Wii 2 will look pretty damned underpowered when the next Xbox and Playstation come out in 2013 with technology from 2013. Both the 360 and PS3 had cutting edge components when they debuted and expect the same with their successors.

Highly unlikely.

If the three companies were people, nintendo would be the nanny, the other two would be 3 year old toddlers smearing chocolate all over their faces and shitting their pants.

 

[Vagabundo]

Exact quote from IGN is:



You don't really refer to "an architecture" if you mean a specific video card. Other sites reported IGN's story as saying "r700 family".

And honestly, you are a crazy person if you think they would go with a dual-GPU solution, instead of a single, faster GPU.

I wonder if their would be any benefits to have two slower GPUs if you were designing with 3D screens in mind.

 

[Vinci]

Highly unlikely.

Never, ever doubt Sony or MS's willingness to cut its own throat.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Highly unlikely.
http://www.sharingsys.com/life/z8/65249ed93bee23784d0b995dd88c1e8a.png[IMG][/QUOTE]

Wait wat?

Microsoft lost MORE money than Sony?

I was always under the assumption that Microsoft did very well for itself off the back of Xbox Live fees.

 

[Vinci]

Wait wat?

Microsoft lost MORE money than Sony?

I was always under the assumption that Microsoft did very well for itself off the back of Xbox Live fees.

Sony went through all the profits from the PS1 and PS2, which kept them from going cumulatively negative. MS never was profitable with the X-Box, which then was compounded with the 360's release, but has slowly crept upward from there. So really... I don't know which I would consider worse in an absolute sense.

 

[Igor Antunov]

Wait wat?

Microsoft lost MORE money than Sony?

I was always under the assumption that Microsoft did very well for itself off the back of Xbox Live fees.

Microsoft only started to make money recently, but they were so far in the red to begin with...

Sony basically reversed all it's ps1/ps2 gains with the ps3. Thank blu-ray.

Microsoft can absorb massive losses forever thanks to it's other divisions. Sony is basically suffering as a whole, if their game division doesn't pick up, a successor to the ps3 may be unlikely, they may just choose to stick with portable gaming, or maybe release a cheaper weaker console as nintendo did in 2006.

Microsoft are the only ones with the financial capital to lose another few billion with another beefy console, but the shareholders may have grown tired of tese antics....

 

[Stephen Colbert]

So the chart doesn't take into account the revenue Sony got from blu ray disc licensing fees and blu ray players?

Anyone have a fair estimate on how much winning the format war netted them so far?

If the three companies were people, nintendo would be the nanny, the other two would be 3 year old toddlers smearing chocolate all over their faces and shitting their pants.

If you were a stock holder, sure.

If you're a gamer, then Nintendo is Scrooge McDuck, and Microsoft and Sony are Santa Claus.

I don't know about you, but I'm rooting for Santa.

 

[Vinci]

If you were a stock holder, sure.

If you're a gamer, then Nintendo is Scrooge McDuck, and Microsoft and Sony are Santa Claus.

I don't know about you, but I'm rooting for Santa.

Only difference is Santa Claus will never go broke or exit the market due to shareholder coercion.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I rooted for Santa once too. It was called SEGA. Guess where it ended up? Yeah, not too great. I'd honestly prefer something like that never happen again, so I'd prefer if at least Sony got its shit together and started making money.

 

[Igor Antunov]

If you were a stock holder, sure.

If you're a gamer, then Nintendo is Scrooge McDuck, and Microsoft and Sony are Santa Claus.

I don't know about you, but I'm rooting for Santa.

Smash bros, mario, zelda, metorid, pokemon......smells like santa to me. Mario and pokemon are best selling franchises for a reason.

So the chart doesn't take into account the revenue Sony got from blu ray disc licensing fees and blu ray players?

Anyone have a fair estimate on how much winning the format war netted them so far?

In the entire lifetime of blu-ray, sony will never come close to recouping these kinds of losses. Chump change.

 

[Maxwell House]

Highly unlikely.

If the three companies were people, nintendo would be the nanny, the other two would be 3 year old toddlers smearing chocolate all over their faces and shitting their pants.

What does any of that have to do with a discussion of the graphical prowess of the systems????

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I guess that would depend on how much Coke is paying Santa in licensing fees to brand him onto all their products every christmas.

It seems the chart doesn't take into account the revenue Sony got from blu ray disc licensing fees and blu ray players?

Anyone have a fair estimate on how much winning the format war netted Sony so far?

In the entire lifetime of blu-ray, sony will never come close to recouping these kinds of losses. Chump change.

That sounds like a wild guess. Many tens of millions of blu ray movies get sold every year.

Do you have a link to suggest what the revenue from blu ray disk licensing fees actually is?

 

[Igor Antunov]

What does any of that have to do with a discussion of the graphical prowess of the systems????

It tells us much about the future direction of each company in terms of hardware on release.

 

[freddy]

What does any of that have to do with a discussion of the graphical prowess of the systems????

It has a lot to do with the power of any new systems that come out. I'm sure the gaming divisions of both Microsoft and Sony are under pressure from investors/the board to come out with systems that are profitable day 1 and not follow the loss leader model they have in the past.

 

[Vinci]

I guess that would depend on how much Coke is paying Santa in licensing fees to brand him onto all their products every christmas.

It seems the chart doesn't take into account the revenue Sony got from blu ray disc licensing fees and blu ray players?

Anyone have a fair estimate on how much winning the format war netted Sony so far?

I'm not as aware of the numbers to go with this statement, but I believe most aware GAF members have stated, emphatically, that Sony will never, ever come close to receiving royalties to offset even half of what they've lost this generation from Blu-Ray.

 

[AniHawk]

Sony went through all the profits from the PS1 and PS2, which kept them from going cumulatively negative. MS never was profitable with the X-Box, which then was compounded with the 360's release, but has slowly crept upward from there. So really... I don't know which I would consider worse in an absolute sense.

microsoft lost 7-8 billion dollars sure, but sony's fumble lost them profits made off of a couple billion games sold and probably 200 million units of hardware, not to mention their position as the undisputed market leader.

i think both will provide reasonable upgrades. ones that keep the system temperature cooler than the sun, and the msrp below $400.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I'm not as aware of the numbers to go with this statement, but I believe most aware GAF members have stated, emphatically, that Sony will never, ever come close to receiving royalties to offset even half of what they've lost this generation from Blu-Ray.

Again, it sounds like those gaf members are taking a wild guess. They may be right. But until I see some actual data to back up their claim, skepticism seems warranted.

Sony collects licensing fees on every blu ray disk sold, every blu ray player sold, and blu ray probably helped push adoption of HDTVs as well, which Sony also sells in large quantities.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

I love it. I really hope its only as powerful as the current gen, 512 RAM and the rest of it. The incredible bitter tears will wash over this planet like a flood.

 

[Vinci]

microsoft lost $7-$8 billion dollars sure, but sony's fumble lost them profits made off of a couple billion games sold and probably 200 million units of hardware, not to mention their position as the undisputed market leader.

True. So yeah, Sony's probably worse off altogether.

Again, it sounds like those gaf members are taking a wild guess.

And what would your 'wild guess' be?

 

[Glass Joe]

That chart does put things into perspective. Easy to forget the money Microsoft lost/invested by putting their hats in the market to begin with.

Are there any rumors / theories about the Cafe's software medium? I haven't noticed any so far. That's been something that's burned Nintendo a lot in the past (expensive carts in N64, tiny discs for GC). With Nintendo's love for their own weird formats, does anyone have any thoughts? Blu-Ray or not Blu-Ray? Their own specialty disc / card? Standard DVD?

 

[Maxwell House]

It tells us much about the future direction of each company in terms of hardware on release.

The 360 is profitable now and PS3 is getting there (not sure it will ever be profitable). I'd bet anything that the successors will continue to push the bleeding edge of technology available when they release. Sony and Microsoft have always released consoles at a loss in order to release state of the art, powerful consoles. I doubt either changes their routine with the successors.

Microsoft spent (invested in their eyes) billions to get their foot in the door into a brand new industry. Breaking into new industries isn't cheap. They see it as an investment and so far they have done a pretty good job of adding a substantial amount of market share with their second console. They aren't about to go cheapo all of a sudden with their next console and piss off all their hardcore fans. There is no way.

And it is Nintendo's insistence that they sell all their new consoles at a profit immediately that will be one of the main reasons the Wii 2 will be the least powerful next gen console by a substantial amount, IMO.

If the Wii 2's price tag is $350 you can bet it only costs Nintendo about $300 to manufacture right out of the gate in 2012.

 

[Graphics Horse]

If there's one thing they need to do to give the console some future proofing, they should try to put 4-8 GB ram in it. I know they won't though...

 

[Wolves Evolve]

It won't be Blu-Ray. The licensing structure and the required patent system is notoriously bullshit. Sony's operating reports from the last year didn't indicate any great influx of income from Blu-Ray, largely because the format hasn't taken off at the speed they had hoped.

 

[Vinci]

The 360 is profitable now and PS3 is getting there (not sure it will ever be profitable). I'd bet anything that the successors will continue to push the bleeding edge of technology available when they release. Sony and Microsoft have always released consoles at a loss in order to release state of the art, powerful consoles. I doubt either changes their routine with the successors.

The PS3 will never, ever be profitable. It's an outright impossibility. Do you not get what we're saying? That one console has entirely cancelled out all the money Sony made in ten years of utter dominance. Selling systems at a substantial loss for the sake of an immature penis contest is not worth it.

And it is Nintendo's insistence that they sell all their new consoles at a profit immediately that will be one of the main reasons the Wii 2 will be the least powerful next gen console by a substantial amount, IMO.

If the Wii 2's price tag is $350 you can bet it only costs Nintendo about $300 to manufacture right out of the gate in 2012.

That is because Nintendo is a company, and companies want to make money. That's the whole damn point.

 

[Glass Joe]

If there's one thing they need to do to give the console some future proofing, they should try to put 4-8 GB ram in it. I know they won't though...

I doubt Nintendo would spend the money to stuff tons of RAM in the console if they're not sure they need it, but making it expandable wouldn't be completely out of the question.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

The PS3 will never, ever be profitable. It's an outright impossibility. Do you not get what we're saying? That one console has entirely cancelled out all the money Sony made in ten years of utter dominance. Selling systems at a substantial loss for the sake of an immature penis contest is not worth it. .

Worth repeating anytime someone starts to suggest Nintendo are going to massively high-ball the next console.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

The PS3 will never, ever be profitable. It's an outright impossibility. Do you not get what we're saying?

Blu Ray won the format war off the back of the PS3. HD-DVD had just about everything in it's favor (it was cheaper, ready earlier, had players earlier, and had more studios backing it), and I really don't see how Sony could have won the format war without the PS3.

The PS3's high manufacturing costs were an investment to making blu ray a success. And it's only fair to account for the profits blu ray generated for Sony when determining if the PS3 was a net positive or negative for them.

Maybe adding blu ray and yanking up the cost of the PS3 was a bad move, but until you can show me how much Sony has made off of blu ray licensing fees, it's premature to say that was a net negative for them.

Not only is blu ray selling really well right now, it's fair to say that blu ray will be around for a long long time, and will be netting fees for Sony that whole time.

Without the numbers to support that, it's just guessing whether it was a mistake or not.

Sony's operating reports from the last year didn't indicate any great influx of income from Blu-Ray, largely because the format hasn't taken off at the speed they had hoped.

Do you have a link to their operating report, or any report showign what the influx of income from bluray actually is.

Blu Ray has taken off just fine. Blu Rays adoption has significantly by a wide margin outpaced the adoption rate of both VHS and DVD.

They sold 3 million blu ray movies in just the first 11 weeks of 2008. And since 2008, many different sources have all reported a large surge in blu ray sales.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1147

Selling tens of millions of blu ray every year doesn't seem bad at all.

 

[Vinci]

Do you have a link to their operating report, or any report showign what the influx of income from bluray actually is.

Blu Ray has taken off just fine. Blu Rays adoption has significantly by a wide margin outpaced the adoption rate of both VHS and DVD.

They sold 3 million blu ray movies in just the first 11 weeks of 2008. And since 2008, many different sources have all reported a large surge in blu ray sales.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1147

Selling tens of millions of blu ray every year doesn't seem bad at all.

Yes, but it's not as if Sony is getting a large percentage of the royalties. The Blu-Ray forum is rather large.

 

[Vic]

I don't see MS and Sony being aggressive with their next-gen configurations but hey, we never know!

 

[legend166]

Again, it sounds like those gaf members are taking a wild guess. They may be right. But until I see some actual data to back up their claim, skepticism seems warranted.

Sony collects licensing fees on every blu ray disk sold, every blu ray player sold, and blu ray probably helped push adoption of HDTVs as well, which Sony also sells in large quantities.

If I could get to my post history, I'd show you a post where I did some research into it and made some educated guesses - even if Blu-Rays ended up selling as much as DVDs (they won't, for a variety of reasons), Sony wouldn't come close to recouping their losses with Blu-Ray royalties. They aren't as much as you think. From memory, I think the licence for a read only disc is somewhere around 11c. And Sony don't get all that. Let's say they get 3c.

For Sony to make $100 million a year from Blu-Ray royalties a they'd need to sell 3 billion Blu-Ray discs.

 

[Maxwell House]

Yeah Sony has to share the Blu Ray royalties with many other companies. Their share isn't huge.

 

[French]

I don't see MS and Sony being aggressive with their next-gen configurations but hey, we never know!

Well, Sony is already aggressive with the NGP.

Fortunately MS and Sony are not like Nintendo.

 

[jman2050]

The last number I remember reading as far as BluRay royalties for Sony goes was about $80 million for an entire year(?)

So yeah, if my memory doesn't suck, that's total chump change.

 

[Instro]

Well, Sony is already aggressive with the NGP.

Fortunately MS and Sony are not like Nintendo.

Considering the NGP is using off the shelf parts(that have been around for a little bit havent they?) I would say its a more conservative design than the PSP.

 

[stilgar]

Well, Sony is already aggressive with the NGP.

Fortunately MS and Sony are not like Nintendo.

Fortunately MS and Sony are not alike.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Another day another derailment. Can't believe Colbert is now arguing that losing 5 BILLION in a few years and wiping out your entire profits from PS1+PS2 both hardware and software was a good move for the long term.

It's not even Sony's format, they only own about 30% of the IP. Panasonic is the largest stake-holder. The royalty rate was also halved in 2009 to try and encourage the format to take off, and possibly has been lowered again since.

You are talking royalties of about $10 per Blu-Ray drive, and mere cents per disc, divided by the owners of the format. Do the maths. The PS3 will never even be close to being profitable, and was by far the biggest misstep in Sony's history from a financial point of view.

 

[_Alkaline_]

Well, Sony is already aggressive with the NGP.

Fortunately MS and Sony are not like Nintendo.

Why lump MS in with Sony? You have no idea what MS are doing with their next console.

 

[watershed]

Another day another derailment. Can't believe Colbert is now arguing that losing 5 BILLION in a few years and wiping out your entire profits from PS1+PS2 both hardware and software was a good move for the long term.

It's not even Sony's format, they only own about 30% of the IP. Panasonic is the largest stake-holder. The royalty rate was also halved in 2009 to try and encourage the format to take off, and possibly has been lowered again since.

You are talking royalties of about $10 per Blu-Ray drive, and mere cents per disc, divided by the owners of the format. Do the maths. The PS3 will never even be close to being profitable, and was by far the biggest misstep in Sony's history from a financial point of view.

I think he's either thinking about it purely from a gaming perspective like "what I get out of it are games I like" or he for some other reason really likes Sony's business strategy and is definitely NOT invested in them.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Considering the NGP is using off the shelf parts(that have been around for a little bit havent they?) I would say its a more conservative design than the PSP.

Sony was also aggressive with PS2. They invested quite a bit into the Emotion Engine. And it panned out for them spectacularly.

From what I recall, they were aggressive with the PSX as well, and that panned out for them specatcularly as well.

The PSP I think made them a decent chunk of change as well.

So really, Sony being aggressive only hurt them with the PS3.

And I maintain that what ran up the costs of the PS3 so much was the blu ray drive, which was several hundreds of dollars when the PS3 launched.

Blu Ray wasn't a technological neccesity to push the hardware. Sony could have easily pushed the hardware and made money.

The Xbox 360 made Microsoft a decent amount of money. It was the original Xbox that was a money pit for them, but the Xbox 360 was very profitable for Microsoft. Sony could have followed in MS's footsteps with the PS3 to deliver a console that both nets them profit and pushes hardware.

 

[legend166]

Blu Ray won the format war off the back of the PS3. HD-DVD had just about everything in it's favor (it was cheaper, ready earlier, had players earlier, and had more studios backing it), and I really don't see how Sony could have won the format war without the PS3.

The PS3's high manufacturing costs were an investment to making blu ray a success. And it's only fair to account for the profits blu ray generated for Sony when determining if the PS3 was a net positive or negative for them.

Maybe adding blu ray and yanking up the cost of the PS3 was a bad move, but until you can show me how much Sony has made off of blu ray licensing fees, it's premature to say that was a net negative for them.

Not only is blu ray selling really well right now, it's fair to say that blu ray will be around for a long long time, and will be netting fees for Sony that whole time.

Without the numbers to support that, it's just guessing whether it was a mistake or not.



Do you have a link to their operating report, or any report showign what the influx of income from bluray actually is.

Blu Ray has taken off just fine. Blu Rays adoption has significantly by a wide margin outpaced the adoption rate of both VHS and DVD.

They sold 3 million blu ray movies in just the first 11 weeks of 2008. And since 2008, many different sources have all reported a large surge in blu ray sales.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1147

Selling tens of millions of blu ray every year doesn't seem bad at all.

Blu Ray will never reach the heights of DVDs. That's not to say that Blu-Rays have failed, or anything. But it's clear as day. For these reasons:

- You won't get everyone to upgrade their entire library like they did going from VHS to DVD
- Digital distribution means some will ignore Blu-Rays altogether
- Blu-Rays will never make it as a pure storage device, like DVDs did. Not with USB sticks, SD cards, portable drives, etc.


Blu-Ray licencing will be a nice supplementary income stream for Sony. But it won't replace the billions lost on the PS3.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Another day another derailment. Can't believe Colbert is now arguing that losing 5 BILLION in a few years and wiping out your entire profits from PS1+PS2 both hardware and software was a good move for the long term.

Can't believe you have so much difficulty reading.

I was quite clear, that maybe blu ray was a net negative, but unless and until someone can post data on blu ray revenues to back that up, it's merely speculation.

That chart ignores every sector other than gaming, when the whole reason the PS3 lost so much money was the crazy expensive blu ray drive they included with it at launch, and the revenues for that don't show up in the gaming division.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I think he's either thinking about it purely from a gaming perspective like "what I get out of it are games I like" or he for some other reason really likes Sony's business strategy and is definitely NOT invested in them.

He just seems to have problems with seeing the bigger picture, and then gets caught up on Googling isolated things to try and support his viewpoint while ignoring everything else. Cue constant thread derailments.

PS3 was a catastrophic mistake business-wise, that would have taken down smaller companies or led to a swift exit from making consoles like Sega.

Microsoft also bled money, but that was their plan to buy their way into an industry and control content-delivery which was more important to them than games. For Sony to throw away their previous dominance of the industry and wipe out all their profits while doing so can only be seen as utterly disastrous.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

This user is on your ignore list.