• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

I mean it's definitely true when it comes to home consoles, not for handhelds though.

Playstation as a brand is a HUGE behemoth that cannot be stopped. From the PSX onwards, they began to absolutely wipe the floor with the incumbent console makers, forcing them both to diversify/fall back on their strengths - SEGA focused on the arcades, Nintendo on handhelds (the Wii was an exception which gave their home consoles a temporary lifeline, until that ended with the Wii U). Obviously that happened to Sony too eventually after the Vita, they fell back to their strength of being the de facto home console, even Sony was unable to support 2 platforms. Their brand is so strong that Sony's black sheep, the PS3 which was needlessly self-indulgent and ridiculously complicated, ended up catching up to Xbox 360 which already had a headstart on time, price and everything else. The PS3 launch/design almost had everything done wrong/suboptimal to some degree yet they still caught up. It's insane. The Playstation brand mindshare is just that strong and fair play to 'em.

Nintendo and Sony are sort of opposites in that PS has the strongest brand in home consoles, and Nintendo in portables (since there's literally no other mass market option available they have it by default.)
Whether you look at their chart for home consoles only or not, it's particularly false in both cases. If it is only for home consoles, then Nintendo would practically not be on it. But if it isn't just about home consoles, then the gap between Nintendo and Sony would be far smaller, with Nintendo having higher points at least in some cases such as the releases of Animal Crossing and whatnot.

The thing about Sony, and I know this is going to rile up some people, is that they tend to be manipulative when they need a push, and generally do nothing when they don't need to. They got their start with PS1 from trying to collaborate with Nintendo with a contract that would have cut Nintendo out of royalties while using their IPs to boost themselves. Then there's the situation with Tomb Raider 2 for Saturn, which initially was claimed to not be possible because of technical issues was actually because of an exclusive deal between Eidos and Sony as TR2 was fully made for Saturn. With PS3, they had competition with MS, but made a system so costly while at the same time unable to keep up with the 360 that they had to slash the price of it just to sell it, draining their PS2 profits, just to inch ahead of MS at the very end. With PS4, much of its momentum wasn't from Sony. It was from everyone else tripped at the starting line. Remember the "sharing" video? Even now, there's a problem with PS5, where the console is selling a ton, but the ratio of games being purchased is low.

Anyways, this whole "statistic" business here reminds me of when Sony told people years ago how PS+ had around a 98% positive rating from existing subscribers. Could that technically be true? Yes, but honestly, if a person was unhappy and let their subscription lapse beforehand, they were not counted.
 
Technically BotW had a mandatory partial install on Wii U. Only time Nintendo's ever done that.
Technically Wii had one, though not published by Nintendo. Theoretically they could ALLOW it for some games where the Game Card doesn't make the game possible (rather than merely providing a diminished experience).

All modern games will run, even if with some pain, on spinning rust, in one form or another. Game Cards already pretty much match HDD speeds, or are at least close enough, but the next generation can always be a lot faster than what we have now. When every game (at least that I know of, excluding PS5 exclusives) can run from a HDD, even if imperfectly, a format that's FASTER than a HDD isn't going to be a limiting factor to get those game running. Nothing wrong with optional installs for better performance.

Another thing to consider is that the Switch is still a portable console, one where storage is naturally constrained, and where people want to just plug and play games and not wait around for them. Frictionless play is especially important for such a device. I think Nintendo knows that.
 
It looks like you're right about Sony responding to Nintendo. I've just read this on another site ...
... where Sony are claiming PS has more 'brand momentum' than their competition?!

Whether you look at their chart for home consoles only or not, it's particularly false in both cases. If it is only for home consoles, then Nintendo would practically not be on it. But if it isn't just about home consoles, then the gap between Nintendo and Sony would be far smaller, with Nintendo having higher points at least in some cases such as the releases of Animal Crossing and whatnot.

The thing about Sony, and I know this is going to rile up some people, is that they tend to be manipulative when they need a push, and generally do nothing when they don't need to. They got their start with PS1 from trying to collaborate with Nintendo with a contract that would have cut Nintendo out of royalties while using their IPs to boost themselves. Then there's the situation with Tomb Raider 2 for Saturn, which initially was claimed to not be possible because of technical issues was actually because of an exclusive deal between Eidos and Sony as TR2 was fully made for Saturn. With PS3, they had competition with MS, but made a system so costly while at the same time unable to keep up with the 360 that they had to slash the price of it just to sell it, draining their PS2 profits, just to inch ahead of MS at the very end. With PS4, much of its momentum wasn't from Sony. It was from everyone else tripped at the starting line. Remember the "sharing" video? Even now, there's a problem with PS5, where the console is selling a ton, but the ratio of games being purchased is low.

Anyways, this whole "statistic" business here reminds me of when Sony told people years ago how PS+ had around a 98% positive rating from existing subscribers. Could that technically be true? Yes, but honestly, if a person was unhappy and let their subscription lapse beforehand, they were not counted.

That chart is about Sony surveying people regarding what they think of the "general momentum of a brand". It's basically entirely subjective, probably highly skewed towards PS owners and practically worthless outside of making an impressive chart to toss into a Business Segment Meeting slideshow.
 
Whether you look at their chart for home consoles only or not, it's particularly false in both cases. If it is only for home consoles, then Nintendo would practically not be on it. But if it isn't just about home consoles, then the gap between Nintendo and Sony would be far smaller, with Nintendo having higher points at least in some cases such as the releases of Animal Crossing and whatnot.

The thing about Sony, and I know this is going to rile up some people, is that they tend to be manipulative when they need a push, and generally do nothing when they don't need to. They got their start with PS1 from trying to collaborate with Nintendo with a contract that would have cut Nintendo out of royalties while using their IPs to boost themselves. Then there's the situation with Tomb Raider 2 for Saturn, which initially was claimed to not be possible because of technical issues was actually because of an exclusive deal between Eidos and Sony as TR2 was fully made for Saturn. With PS3, they had competition with MS, but made a system so costly while at the same time unable to keep up with the 360 that they had to slash the price of it just to sell it, draining their PS2 profits, just to inch ahead of MS at the very end. With PS4, much of its momentum wasn't from Sony. It was from everyone else tripped at the starting line. Remember the "sharing" video? Even now, there's a problem with PS5, where the console is selling a ton, but the ratio of games being purchased is low.

Anyways, this whole "statistic" business here reminds me of when Sony told people years ago how PS+ had around a 98% positive rating from existing subscribers. Could that technically be true? Yes, but honestly, if a person was unhappy and let their subscription lapse beforehand, they were not counted.
Hey I never said they didn't put the pressure on people lol! They are quite cutthroat you're right, I suppose that's just how the business world is. All these corporations do the same, abhorrent behaviour.

But with Sony's history it's simply a matter of framing. For them to come back from every single one of those missteps says something about their brand power and what they provide clearly being of huge value to the market. I would argue the same for Nintendo in the handheld market (3DS especially). Your viewpoint on the PS4's performance on the market is debatable as while it's true the other 2 console makers s**t the bed, I do still think they made a lot of improvements from the PS3 making it the platform that flourished the most in the 8th generation. It's sort of a lucky coincidence for them that there was little competition.

In my opinion you're very much underestimating the power of Playstation as a brand, and it was all set in stone from the PSX. That thing changed the market forever in various ways. I think part of it was their ability to market video games much better than the incumbent console manufacturers did or probably would have ever been able to. I think they reached people who until then had never even considered games consoles as a viable form of entertainment. It was the perfect storm.

Most people I know here has a PS1 or PS2 as their first video game home console and a DS as their first handheld.
 
Last edited:
I live in a country(Argentina) where PS owners are higher than the other 2 and i think is only because PS was more agressive with the marketing than Nintendo. My country breaths Football so 99% of PS owners have it primary because of the Fifa and they get a new console because of the new fifa. Obviously not all, i know ppl that LOVES mortal combat or other games, but those also like to play in other plataforms(primary PC)
Im like the black sheep as i love nintendo, maybe i wouldnt get a table console if i could play all the exclusive games on my PC BUT the switch changed that because i can go from TV to bed and keep playing. Thats something i cant get from the other 2.
 
Last edited:
I live in a country(Argentina) where PS owners are higher than the other 2 and i think is only because PS was more agressive with the marketing than Nintendo. My country breaths Football so 99% of PS owners have it primary because of the Fifa and they get a new console because of the new fifa. Obviously not all, i know ppl that LOVES mortal combat or other games, but those also like to play in other plataforms(primary PC)
Im like the black sheep as i love nintendo, maybe i would get a table console if i could play all the exclusive games on my PC BUT the switch changed that because i can go from TV to bed and keep playing. Thats something i cant get from the other 2.
Part of it is probably also ease of piracy (for the PS2) and affordability no? unless you're talking new Playstation consoles. Also can't play many football games on Nintendo consoles other than SNES and the few odd ports like on Wii or Switch
 
Part of it is probably also ease of piracy (for the PS2) and affordability no? unless you're talking new Playstation consoles. Also can't play many football games on Nintendo consoles other than SNES and the few odd ports like on Wii or Switch
yes but even ps1 had a high demand (more after the ps2 boom with families that couldnt afford the new console) so some came from that time. But for example my boyfriend's family has 3 ps2(they are still working), like 2 ps1, 1 ps3, from years of collecting them (mind you its a big family and some of the consoles are from cousins that didnt play with them anymore)
Now i have a switch(if somoene saw my post like last page, now i own it hahaha) and my bf is waiting mortal combat 1 as his pc is old and wont be able to play it there and getting a new pc is out of the question with the economic problems that we have.

And there we have another reason for the amount of PS owners.... the cost.... here a ps5 cost us$821 and a new high end pc is more than us$2000 (switch oled neon with pokemon scarlet cost me us$606 and it was "cheap")
 
I know I'm derailing this gamecard conversation, but I was thinking; can the A78C run 6 or even 4 cores at higher clocks( if higher single core grunt is required by the game) and just not run the other CPU cores? Like could devs decide if they want to work with 4 2.4ghz cores or 7 1.8 ghz ones? Or is this just a redundant feature
You don't need to apologize for staying on topic.
 
Playstation as a brand is a HUGE behemoth that cannot be stopped.
I think this only became true recently, as in the past decade or so. They were getting beat pretty badly by Microsoft and Nintendo in the PS3 era, and I don't think a few improvements to the hardware would have helped them very much.

But now that Microsoft's studios have been incompetent for close to a decade while Sony's have really gained a strong identity of their own? Yeah, it's gonna be hard to make a dent in their brand. Nintendo are still too insular and esoteric to be considered as reliable long-term partners by third parties.
 
What I meant was that I'm assuming they inform each other of the date, or at least general timeframe, of any of their planned showcases/directs/etc. I doubt any of them want to end up having something scheduled for the same day - or even the following day now that they don't have to squeeze everything into E3.

I didn't watch the video, but it's not like Nintendo's plan is just to do nothing for the rest of the year. And even if you believe that, thinking because of Sony they'll change their mind and do something? Nah. Would they toss in a little something extra or make slight alterations to their plan after seeing the Showcase? I wouldn't rule that out.
Oh, I’m not saying they aren’t going to dl anything. I think they’ll do a general Direct. Just that I don’t see them doing it because Sony did

Well, psvr 2 is 530$ on top of a 500$ console.

Drake VR wouldn't be anywhere near that.

Not saying Nintendo VR would be successful, just saying it's not apples and apples.
Nintendo could make affordable VR tech, but again, operationally, it’d be too much IMHO

I don't see the need for it if the margins are there. we've seen time and time again that the higher tiers win out. I get having the psychological win with the lower tier, but I think it's a waste
Lower tier products, nowadays, are sometimes to push the consumer to get the premium one, that costs more to manufacture. Which is why the difference between the iPhone Plus and the Pro is only $100. So it’s probable customers would prefer the Switch with more storage.

Something else Nintendo can do is limit higher storage SKUs to limited edition, themed consoles. That way they have a better control of inventory

I don't think that Nintendo is going to make a VR product any time soon, but if PSVR2 fails as a product, it's not for some underlying market reason - it's because Sony dropped an effectively 1000 dollar enthusiast product with zero marketing. It felt like Sony was actively trying to kill the product.
Good points.
 
Hey I never said they didn't put the pressure on people lol! They are quite cutthroat you're right, I suppose that's just how the business world is. All these corporations do the same, abhorrent behaviour.

But with Sony's history it's simply a matter of framing. For them to come back from every single one of those missteps says something about their brand power and what they provide clearly being of huge value to the market. I would argue the same for Nintendo in the handheld market (3DS especially). Your viewpoint on the PS4's performance on the market is debatable as while it's true the other 2 console makers s**t the bed, I do still think they made a lot of improvements from the PS3 making it the platform that flourished the most in the 8th generation. It's sort of a lucky coincidence for them that there was little competition.

In my opinion you're very much underestimating the power of Playstation as a brand, and it was all set in stone from the PSX. That thing changed the market forever in various ways. I think part of it was their ability to market video games much better than the incumbent console manufacturers did or probably would have ever been able to. I think they reached people who until then had never even considered games consoles as a viable form of entertainment. It was the perfect storm.

Most people I know here has a PS1 or PS2 as their first video game home console and a DS as their first handheld.
Yeah, Playstation simply became the gateway and standard to the entire industry through pure effort. They supported devs early on in the PSX era and even listened to them in order to make the console extremely easy to program for, the opposite of Nintendo which made a mess of a console with a massive storage bottleneck for everything. The brand is ridiculously powerful and rightfully so, they earned it in every generation except the PS3 (where they even steered the ship and beat the Xbox 360 by a small margin) and nowadays, they've never had such a strong 1st party portfolio that the entire world is salivating upon right now, literally. IMO the brand has never been this great, although I do miss Nintendo's direct competition in their space, they still offer unique stuff that might as well run on potatoes unfortunately.
 
Yeah, Playstation simply became the gateway and standard to the entire industry through pure effort. They supported devs early on in the PSX era and even listened to them in order to make the console extremely easy to program for, the opposite of Nintendo which made a mess of a console with a massive storage bottleneck for everything. The brand is ridiculously powerful and rightfully so, they earned it in every generation except the PS3 (where they even steered the ship and beat the Xbox 360 by a small margin) and nowadays, they've never had such a strong 1st party portfolio that the entire world is salivating upon right now, literally. IMO the brand has never been this great, although I do miss Nintendo's direct competition in their space, they still offer unique stuff that might as well run on potatoes unfortunately.
We could still have FF on Nintendo consoles, im still crying because of that
 
can it be done, yes. will nintendo allow it, probably not. at least not if it's not the default option. predictable performance is the priority. maybe they can have profiles available to devs, but I'm not sure if there's anything to gain. devs can just not have tasks on other threads and that achieves the same thing, practically
if I understand correctly your saying that the dev would not make use of the threads themselves however in that case the clocks would still be 1.8 ghz or whatever since that is what nintendo set. I'm asking if nintendo had separate performance profiles for different CPU numbers and clocks, so the dev can choose what suits them. Only this way could you get above 2 ghz without pulling lots of power.
 
0
I'm very meh about MS and my Series X but really love the different things than my Playstation and Nintendo give me.
On the Sony side, nothing is as special as my Nintendo true loves (Mario, Zelda, Metroid etc.) but they have some brilliant 1st party games now and Playstation is the home for some of my favourite third party stuff, especially the Yakuza games.
It's great to have them both in gaming.
 
I'm very meh about MS and my Series X but really love the different things than my Playstation and Nintendo give me.
On the Sony side, nothing is as special as my Nintendo true loves (Mario, Zelda, Metroid etc.) but they have some brilliant 1st party games now and Playstation is the home for some of my favourite third party stuff, especially the Yakuza games.
It's great to have them both in gaming.
If you love Nintendo, you should try Hi Fi Rush on gamepass. Great game!
 
If you love Nintendo, you should try Hi Fi Rush on gamepass. Great game!
I am playing it, it's fantastic, a breath of fresh air, Ghost of Tsushima has been taking most of my time though, I'll finish it then give Hi-Fi Rush and Metroid Prime Remastered the attention they deserve.
 
2A79DC34-41DF-4ED3-997E-F19EF4FA249F.jpeg



And there she is, 185mm^2 for the die on 4N. For AD106.

It does show that with the 4N process, Drake can easily come in at the same size as the Tegra X1, probably closer to Mariko rather than Erista. The form factor of the tablet will not have to change if Nintendo wishes it to be so. Fit this to a slightly more dense battery, and Nintendo is able to offer really nice performance and still get V2 Switch battery life.
 
It does show that with the 4N process, Drake can easily come in at the same size as the Tegra X1, probably closer to Mariko rather than Erista. The form factor of the tablet will not have to change if Nintendo wishes it to be so. Fit this to a slightly more dense battery, and Nintendo is able to offer really nice performance and still get V2 Switch battery life.
Drake would be smaller than Mariko.
 
I think this only became true recently, as in the past decade or so. They were getting beat pretty badly by Microsoft and Nintendo in the PS3 era, and I don't think a few improvements to the hardware would have helped them very much.

But now that Microsoft's studios have been incompetent for close to a decade while Sony's have really gained a strong identity of their own? Yeah, it's gonna be hard to make a dent in their brand. Nintendo are still too insular and esoteric to be considered as reliable long-term partners by third parties.
They were getting beat pretty badly by Microsoft and Nintendo in the PS3 era
I suppose to an extent it was the case in the short term, just as Nintendo was getting given a hard time by smartphones during it's first few years on the market, as well as Nintendo's questionable decisions when it came to the 3DS in general. But in the long term, they managed to come back, by the end of the generation at that, that's outstanding performance for such a huge, huge mess up. Idk if I'd say Nintendo was "beating" them as the Wii was always it's own thing where you couldn't, and still can't, experience anything like it on any other console. Hence why a lot of people got one along with their other console of choice (X360/PS3).

It's hard to discern, but it's easy to say that they are only doing well due to competition incompetency, since we don't really see an alternate universe with fiercer competition. But I've learned one thing which is never bet against Playstation. As much as I'd like them to do more style of games like they were on the PSX/PS2, clearly they're resonating with the market. I'd say the same about Nintendo.
 
Double post, but here it is:




* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *

Just seems like Sony wants to capitalize on remote play in a fashion that preserves their controller.
Looks flimsy but I can understand the decision as not to split development since budgets have escalated since the PSP and Vita.
 
How foolish I was to think that it was gonna look anything like the Vita 💀

It looks kinda fragile, like I can snap it in two.
 
How foolish I was to think that it was gonna look anything like the Vita 💀

It looks kinda fragile, like I can snap it in two.

Looks like it snaps like a wishbone. Even Wii U GamePad looked better than this.
 
Y’all it’s not that bad. It’s a dedicated streaming device for home - 99% of the time I play Switch it’s at home. I’ll eventually look to have a solution like this for Series X. Not sure if I can just use a backbone + iPhone?

Missed opportunity with it not being OLED. Any chance this is the Sharp LCD product that was hinted at?
 
I suppose to an extent it was the case in the short term, just as Nintendo was getting given a hard time by smartphones during it's first few years on the market, as well as Nintendo's questionable decisions when it came to the 3DS in general. But in the long term, they managed to come back, by the end of the generation at that, that's outstanding performance for such a huge, huge mess up. Idk if I'd say Nintendo was "beating" them as the Wii was always it's own thing where you couldn't, and still can't, experience anything like it on any other console. Hence why a lot of people got one along with their other console of choice (X360/PS3).

It's hard to discern, but it's easy to say that they are only doing well due to competition incompetency, since we don't really see an alternate universe with fiercer competition. But I've learned one thing which is never bet against Playstation. As much as I'd like them to do more style of games like they were on the PSX/PS2, clearly they're resonating with the market. I'd say the same about Nintendo.
To be clear, I'm not arguing the bolded. It's a combination of PS being really focused since the late PS3 era and their main competition (Xbox) fumbling the bag since roughly that time as well.
 
Y’all it’s not that bad. It’s a dedicated streaming device for home - 99% of the time I play Switch it’s at home. I’ll eventually look to have a solution like this for Series X. Not sure if I can just use a backbone + iPhone?

Missed opportunity with it not being OLED. Any chance this is the Sharp LCD product that was hinted at?
I think its a good bet, as I would be surprised that Nintendo will release a more expensive console with a "worse" display.
 
I mean it's definitely true when it comes to home consoles, not for handhelds though.

Playstation as a brand is a HUGE behemoth that cannot be stopped. From the PSX onwards, they began to absolutely wipe the floor with the incumbent console makers, forcing them both to diversify/fall back on their strengths - SEGA focused on the arcades, Nintendo on handhelds (the Wii was an exception which gave their home consoles a temporary lifeline, until that ended with the Wii U). Obviously that happened to Sony too eventually after the Vita, they fell back to their strength of being the de facto home console, even Sony was unable to support 2 platforms. Their brand is so strong that Sony's black sheep, the PS3 which was needlessly self-indulgent and ridiculously complicated, ended up catching up to Xbox 360 which already had a headstart on time, price and everything else. The PS3 launch/design almost had everything done wrong/suboptimal to some degree yet they still caught up. It's insane. The Playstation brand mindshare is just that strong and fair play to 'em.

Nintendo and Sony are sort of opposites in that PS has the strongest brand in home consoles, and Nintendo in portables (since there's literally no other mass market option available they have it by default.)
I'm not sure i buy this. Most normal people just see Switch as another console that has a different approach (hybrid). Only hardcore gamers care about the handheld / home console dichotomies or pidgeonholing products into numbered generations on wikipedia.
 
but Nintendo themselft killed the Wii U, due to the horrible and confusing marketing they did for the console.
I mean maybe it failed just because it was a bad console with too little games
* leaves the thread in panic getting cancelled for saying the truth *
 
I mean maybe it failed just because it was a bad console with too little games
* leaves the thread in panic getting cancelled for saying the truth *
Honestly, the former leads to the latter, plus a bunch of other issues that assured its death on arrival.
 
Please read this staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited:


Back
Top Bottom