• 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.

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

Reader mode
RoyalGoldenFES said:
Longest since the Famicom to Super Famicom (which was also 7 years, 1983 to 1990). Overall, the Game Boy still holds that title with the 12 years between it and the GBA (or 9 years if you count the GBC).
Click to expand...
Two things :

* Super Famicom was initialy presented 2 years before his release, and was delayed.

* You miss the Virtual Boy, released 6 years after the Game Boy. It's a big failure, but still a new hardware...
 
Alone-Ad6816 said:
I dont get why everyone consider gbc as a minor upgrade
Should we consider switch 2 as minor upgrade if it has full backward compatibility 🤔
Click to expand...
Because it's basically an overclocked GB that even Nintendo themselves treat as not a distinct platform. It got a fair number of exclusives due to some unique historical circumstances, but it shouldn't be mistaken as a distinct platform due to that.
 
Alone-Ad6816 said:
I dont get why everyone consider gbc as a minor upgrade
Should we consider switch 2 as minor upgrade if it has full backward compatibility 🤔
Click to expand...
Define everyone?

Nintendo reports the GB and GBC products as a single line, just like the DS and DSI, and 3DS and New 3DS lines.

Regarding the GBC it’s similar to the DS and 3DS revisions in terms of hardware upgrades. Yes a color screen was a big deal, but the CPU was the same as the GB, just faster and more RAM.

Beyond that it’s just an etymological debate.
 
Foltzie said:
Define everyone?

Nintendo reports the GB and GBC products as a single line, just like the DS and DSI, and 3DS and New 3DS lines.

Regarding the GBC it’s similar to the DS and 3DS revisions in terms of hardware upgrades. Yes a color screen was a big deal, but the CPU was the same as the GB, just faster and more RAM.

Beyond that it’s just an etymological debate.
Click to expand...
True, but:
  • Intelligent Systems has GB and GBC as separate platforms on their website. The company developed the SDK for Nintendo handhelds up to the 3DS;
  • During an Iwata Asks, Ishihara from TPC said that Nintendo DS was the first console with two different Pokémon generations (Gold and Silver weren't GBC exclusives, but they were marketed and programmed as GBC games first and foremost);
  • While Smash Brawl had GB and GBC games grouped together, Smash Ultimate had GBC as its own platform in the Terry video;
  • GBC was its own platform on 3DS Virtual Console. Games were more expensive and had their own banner;
  • After a short cross-gen period, most GB games released by Nintendo from 1999 onward were GBC exclusives. Moreover, both in the West and in Japan, third-party developers released a ton of exclusive games from key IPs (new Resident Evil and Metal Gear titles, the Dragon Quest remakes, etc.). This does not apply to DSi or New 3DS. You can count their retail exclusive on one hand, and while DSi had DSiWare games, a lot of them were re-released of physical DS games (like Elektroplankton splitted into 10 DSiWare titles);
  • Nintendo didn't really advertise DSi extra power to the the general public, nor to the devs. DSi was a DS with camera, not a more powerful DS. GBC, on the other hand, was noticeable more powerful (for the time), it wasn't just a Game Boy with colors. Letting a dev chiming in:
8u8csII.png


So while there are some similarities between GBC and DSi/n3DS, there are also a lot of differences, and I am more inclined to see the GBC as an almost-a-proper-successor than a glorified revision.
 
Last edited:
Alone-Ad6816 said:
I dont get why everyone consider gbc as a minor upgrade
Should we consider switch 2 as minor upgrade if it has full backward compatibility 🤔
Click to expand...
It will be at best similar to previous console upgrades from them. I know how yo temper my expectations.
 
0
Eclissi said:
Wow, this topic has experienced many phases of stasis, but we had never gotten to the point of talking about the semantic issue regarding the fact that the GBC should be considered a new console 😅
Click to expand...
It should not for the same reason the N3DS isn’t considered a new console.

And we’ve all went through this before, I don’t know if it was here or Resetera
 
Pokemaniac said:
Because it's basically an overclocked GB that even Nintendo themselves treat as not a distinct platform. It got a fair number of exclusives due to some unique historical circumstances, but it shouldn't be mistaken as a distinct platform due to that.
Click to expand...
I can tell you from reading homebrew reverse-engineered docs that the GBC wasn't simply an OCed GB. There are a good number of specific memory registers that are utilized for GBC use that don't exist on the GB. The way graphics are set up and utilized is completely different. There are GB-only games, GBC-only games, and then there are dual-system games which include separate binaries for GB and GBC in the same cart.
 
Discostew said:
I can tell you from reading homebrew reverse-engineered docs that the GBC wasn't simply an OCed GB. There are a good number of specific memory registers that are utilized for GBC use that don't exist on the GB. The way graphics are set up and utilized is completely different. There are GB-only games, GBC-only games, and then there are dual-system games which include separate binaries for GB and GBC in the same cart.
Click to expand...
You've got all that sort of stuff on the DSi and New 3DS, too. Though I don't think it's accurate to describe games that natively support both as having multiple binaries. Pretty sure that was more of a mode switch based on hardware detection.

The point is that the hardware has been modified only to make it more powerful and to support other, non-spec related new hardware features, just like other revisions of this type. The library looks different than later "pro" revisions, but that mostly comes down to the system existing in a vastly different context than anything else comparable.
 
chocolate_supra said:
I'd say the Nvidia leak that this thread's work is significantly based on is pretty concrete since Nvidia themselves admitted it was legit, and it contained (as far as I know) far more detailed info about the Switch 2 than is typically leaked ahead of any Nintendo launch.

Stuff about launch timing, tapeout, button colors (I still believe) and things like that, yeah I agree is not concrete even where compelling evidence has been found, but I think part of the issue of feeling like there's an info drought lately is because that first initial confirmed leak was so huge and so early that by now we're just kinda waiting around for a few missing pieces (just RAM and clock speeds, right?) because the leak contained almost everything else.
Click to expand...
Yep, there have been several times where we got what would have been huge info, but because of the Nvidia leak it was taken as further confirmation of what we already knew.
 
Pokemaniac said:
You've got all that sort of stuff on the DSi and New 3DS, too. Though I don't think it's accurate to describe games that natively support both as having multiple binaries. Pretty sure that was more of a mode switch based on hardware detection.
Click to expand...
The developer I mentioned before explained it in details:
Those black GB-compatible GBC games really were just Gameboy games with color. They weren't able to put the system into "GBC Mode" where the CPU was faster and more memory was available. The code just checked a flag at bootup that would tell it if it was running on a GBC or not, and if so the code could change how a certain part worked, but there definitely wasn't room on the cartridges for two versions of every routine (especially a DMG-compatible cart, those couldn't get nearly as big as the GBC carts could).
Click to expand...

It should be noted that the Conker Pocket Tales cartridge effectively loads a different game on GB and GBC (that is, the GBC game is not the GB game but in color), and AFAIK with game such as Wario Land 2, saves made in GBC-mode are not compatible with GB-mode and vice-versa.

But that is for GB/GBC cross-gen games (black cartridge). GBC-exclusive games (transparent cartridge), on the other hand, could benefit more from the GBC.
Speaking as a developer, GBC could be run at twice the speed, had a few new very useful features, much larger cartridges (DMG couldnt use those), more memory, and of course colors. The hardware bump was a HUGE increase, especially the new features - having the ability to easily do scanline effects meant more sprites, more colors, cool effects, and being able to super-quickly move data from the cartridge to memory meant lots of great tile animations. But aside from that, the GBC wasnt really different than the DMG, internally - everything else about it was programmed exactly the same, from how memory was mapped to the registers. I personally consider GBC a new generation up from the DMG, especially as my company really pushed the limits of what the GBC could do so our games would never have been remotely possible on DMG, but it could be argued either way.
Click to expand...

I believe GBC-only games had access to more colors; compare the cards from Pokémon TCG1 (crossgen) and 2 (GBC-exclusive).

Saying that is "just an overclocked GB" is underselling the platform -- for exclusive games you also get more memory, more colors and larger cartridges (effectively you have a new media format).
 
plank said:
Nintendo could make it so that the system would run on only one of the 8 cpu core for all we know.
Click to expand...
I assume by system you mean the OS? If so, yes. That's how Nintendo has been operating since the 3DS and Wii U. One core is dedicated for the OS while the others are exclusively available for gaming applications. Switch 2 will probably follow the same, so 1 core for OS and 7 cores for gaming applications. Which is also in line with Xbox Series (1 core reserved) and PS5 (1.5 cores reserved).
chocolate_supra said:
Okay I'll admit I'm not knowledgeable in the field but if they were only gonna use one of the 8 cores then why would the chip have 8 cores? 😅 I feel like that can be pretty confidently ruled out, can't it? That sorta seems to be out there with the "Switch 2 won't do raytracing even though it has dedicated RT cores" arguments from a while ago. If this chip was customized by Nvidia to suit Nintendo's needs then I'd expect things that are on the chip would be in use.

But if I have this wrong then I'm genuinely interested in hearing the reasons why.
Click to expand...
You're right. On a game console, unless you're using off the shelf stuff (Like Tegra X1 and the A53 core complex), you design your SoC to have as many cores needed and nothing more. That's because more cores mean more energy usage, higher latency and more area used.

There is one case where Nintendo shipped a device with an SoC designed by themselves and which had a useless core: New 3DS. But that's a special case and a side-effect of being a superset of the original 3DS. In the New 3DS, Nintendo doubled the amount of cores of the original 3DS ( 2 -> 4). Core 0 was used for gaming applications, Core 1 was dedicated to the OS (30% available for developers), Core 2 used for Eye-Tracking for stable 3D and Core 3 was wasted.
 
Raccoon said:
how do you reserve half a core?
Click to expand...
Have your core and eat it too.

For Nintendo, T239 isn't multithreading cores, and can't, so they'll have to choose between one or two cores for the OS. Hexacore would be odd, but a direct doubling of cores available for games over Nintendo Switch, so, they could, maybe? But in all likelihood they won't, one core in T239 is a lot more than one core in Tegra X1, and they survived this generation using just one core.

What's more interesting to me is that their operating system and any features they implement into it will remain single-threaded for another decade, on Xbox and PlayStation, their operating systems and small applications have two and three threads respectively. Nintendo will continue to use just one. This probably won't affect things too much, but it may have an impact on the number of features they can stuff into the operating system without causing lag, especially with how the eShop and NSO app turned out.
 
Concernt said:
Have your core and eat it too.

For Nintendo, T239 isn't multithreading cores, and can't, so they'll have to choose between one or two cores for the OS. Hexacore would be odd, but a direct doubling of cores available for games over Nintendo Switch, so, they could, maybe? But in all likelihood they won't, one core in T239 is a lot more than one core in Tegra X1, and they survived this generation using just one core.

What's more interesting to me is that their operating system and any features they implement into it will remain single-threaded for another decade, on Xbox and PlayStation, their operating systems and small applications have two and three threads respectively. Nintendo will continue to use just one. This probably won't affect things too much, but it may have an impact on the number of features they can stuff into the operating system without causing lag, especially with how the eShop and NSO app turned out.
Click to expand...

It sort of makes sense - I've heard multithreading is partly about increasing usage of idle cores, but on a handheld you don't mind idle cores so much because they aren't draining battery. Shame they can't have it in docked mode alone or something.
 
adiGuba said:
Two things :

* Super Famicom was initialy presented 2 years before his release, and was delayed.

* You miss the Virtual Boy, released 6 years after the Game Boy. It's a big failure, but still a new hardware...
Click to expand...

Funny thing about this is the only reason the Game Boy released was because the Super Famicom (shown to the media/developers in 1988 as you said) was delayed.

Yamauchi had cancelled the Game Boy, Nintendo's console division was laughing at it as (what they considered) lame black and white low end game machine.

But when the Super Famicom got delayed, turns out the Game Boy team continued to work on the project in secret and Yamauchi agreed to release it simply because they didn't have the Super Famicom ready to sell.
 
Machrider said:
Funny thing about this is the only reason the Game Boy released was because the Super Famicom (shown to the media/developers in 1988 as you said) was delayed.

Yamauchi had cancelled the Game Boy, Nintendo's console division was laughing at it as (what they considered) lame black and white low end game machine.

But when the Super Famicom got delayed, turns out the Game Boy team continued to work on the project in secret and Yamauchi agreed to release it simply because they didn't have the Super Famicom ready to sell.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty interesting way to accidentally demolish the handheld gaming sector alright.
 
ns156 said:
That's a pretty interesting way to accidentally demolish the handheld gaming sector alright.
Click to expand...

Well I mean there basically wasn't a handheld gaming sector at the time lol. Gunpei Yokoi wanted the Game Boy to be some kind of more disposable, low end type of product like the Game & Watch, but other Nintendo designers wanted it to be basically like a pocket Famicom with different cartridges. It got so heated that Yokoi apparently got yelled at and finally reneged, but Yamauchi had also just flat out cancelled the project entirely (lol).

It's only because the Super Famicom was delayed (think Nintendo wanted to launch in 1989) that the Game Boy ever made it to market.

Virtual Boy was kind of a similar thing I believe, they only really released it because the N64/Ultra 64 kept falling behind schedule and they really wanted something to sell for 1995 but had nothing (N64 was behind schedule and Project: Atlantis, the Game Boy successor was also having problems). Although in that case, Yamauchi probably should have cancelled the project for good.
 
Machrider said:
Virtual Boy was kind of a similar thing I believe, they only really released it because the N64/Ultra 64 kept falling behind schedule and they really wanted something to sell for 1995 but had nothing (N64 was behind schedule and Project: Atlantis, the Game Boy successor was also having problems). Although in that case, Yamauchi probably should have cancelled the project for good.
Click to expand...
Didn't the Virtual Boy also originate from a more ambitious VR headset for the N64?

Atlantis ended up becoming GBA, and its specs in 1995 (at least on the PPU side of things) were probably almost identical to the final product. In 1995 the system would have been physically huge though.
 
BreakAtmo said:
It sort of makes sense - I've heard multithreading is partly about increasing usage of idle cores, but on a handheld you don't mind idle cores so much because they aren't draining battery. Shame they can't have it in docked mode alone or something.
Click to expand...
It's an architectural limitation of the ARM core design they're using. While I see people being pessimistic about the CPU, I find myself less so. It's still seven cores, each of very good performance per clock, even if raw performance will worknout below current gen consoles, it's such a leap from last gen that it's still comparatively next generation and will be much more capable than PS4 wirh some certainty.

It has me wondering what they've done to optimise task hand-off, like have they made it easier for developers to use the GPU (or Tensor) cores to perform typically CPU operations. That could make things easier for some games.
 
Machrider said:
Funny thing about this is the only reason the Game Boy released was because the Super Famicom (shown to the media/developers in 1988 as you said) was delayed.

Yamauchi had cancelled the Game Boy, Nintendo's console division was laughing at it as (what they considered) lame black and white low end game machine.

But when the Super Famicom got delayed, turns out the Game Boy team continued to work on the project in secret and Yamauchi agreed to release it simply because they didn't have the Super Famicom ready to sell.
Click to expand...

I feel like this was something covered in a LowSpecGamer video, correct? Not that I need a reason to watch the dude's documentaries on low spec hardware.
 

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

Comparing Switch 2 to Game Boy now, we down bad
 
Shoulder said:
GBC is to GB as N3DS is to 3DS.

It is new, but it’s not some generational leap in performance either. They're both “Pro” versions of the same damn system.
Click to expand...
New 3DS had 15 games that couldn't be played on 3DS. Game Boy Color had 145 games that couldn't be played on Game Boy. There's a point where a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.
 
“Is the Game Boy Color a new console or a hardware revision”

1) why can it only be one of those two things?
2) how does categorizing it change literally anything?
 
MilkyChance said:
Not that it matters, but Samsung is already trying to get manufacturers to get onboard with their 2 nm Fab, and will give them a discount. It won't be release until 2025, but could be ideal if Redacted gets a refresh or second model in the future. Assuming if Nintendo goes with Samsung moving forward.

Click to expand...
I think that depends on if Nvidia has any plans to secure any capacity for Samsung's SF2 process node to fabricate multiple products. As far as I know, that's Nvidia's modus operandi, with the Tegra X1 being the only product from Nvidia fabricated using TSMC's 20 nm* process node being the only exception.
* → a marketing nomenclature used by all foundry companies
 
MilkyChance said:
Not that it matters, but Samsung is already trying to get manufacturers to get onboard with their 2 nm Fab, and will give them a discount. It won't be release until 2025, but could be ideal if Redacted gets a refresh or second model in the future. Assuming if Nintendo goes with Samsung moving forward.

Click to expand...
Indeed. Samsung is very desperate to win customers back to their bleeding edge nodes and giving huge discounts/favorable contract conditions. They were able to get Tenstorrent and it's said QCOM will fab the 2026 Snapdragon SoC for Galaxy on SF2.

Samsung 4LPP wouldn't be a bad node for a low power device such as Switch 2. Specially if Samsung gives favorable deals. But would depend on Nvidia buying allocation and would also have the risk of the only product being fabbed there being the Nintendo T239 SoC.

In others news:


Mobile DRAM and Storage prices are on the rise after some years in the slump. Might signify that Nintendo has very little room to maneuver with regards to RAM and Storage and whatever they have chosen, it's final spec by now.
 
Last edited:
Retroactively applying 'Pro' labels to consoles like the GBC, DSi, n3DS, feels anachronistic. All of these devices had different goals. B&W to Color is a significant shift, so it's not surprising that the GBC had a life of its own as a (short-lived) separate platform with games built for the ground up with the increased palette, CPU power and RAM. The DSi existed in an early smartphone age and made the DS into a more personal computing device with a featured OS and camera, there was no emphasis on performance, and the DSi exclusive games specifically leveraged these features or were DSiWare. And you didn't really pick up a New 3DS for better performance across the board cause a lot of games were locked to their old 3DS clocks, I think the only New 3DS enhanced games came out after the revision was released, and the exclusives were far and few between. It was more like an overall QoL enhancement.

I think you can make the case that once there is a significant amount of titles that can only be played on a device, it is more of a new platform than a revision, even if Nintendo counts GB and GBC sales together. You often see the 'GBC library' being evaluated separately from the 'GB library', and I think of titles like Pokemon Crystal, the Oracle games, Shantae, Wario Land 3, Mega Man Xtreme, etc. And if the GBC lasted for more than three years, who knows how much this library could have grown. Maybe in a different world the New 3DS would have amassed a larger library of exclusives and become more of its own platform. Wind Waker on New 3DS? 🤔
 
Concernt said:
It's an architectural limitation of the ARM core design they're using. While I see people being pessimistic about the CPU, I find myself less so. It's still seven cores, each of very good performance per clock, even if raw performance will worknout below current gen consoles, it's such a leap from last gen that it's still comparatively next generation and will be much more capable than PS4 wirh some certainty.

It has me wondering what they've done to optimise task hand-off, like have they made it easier for developers to use the GPU (or Tensor) cores to perform typically CPU operations. That could make things easier for some games.
Click to expand...
And that's a question I wanted to ask... so with the FDE, and all the other features to take work off the CPU and GPU. How much of the CPU can be dedicated solely for gaming? No loading, No assisting other rendering component? How much?
 
redmutineer75 said:
New 3DS had 15 games that couldn't be played on 3DS. Game Boy Color had 145 games that couldn't be played on Game Boy. There's a point where a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.
Click to expand...

I'm only going to disagree because compared to the Game Boy, the 3DS sold a lot less, over 40 million units less. That’s a massive difference, plus the 3DS never had the success of the Game Boy. Now, I do believe the DSi also did not have a lot of exclusive titles either, but again, I think that comes more down to the time and place when the DS, let alone 3DS we’re launched. Touch screens were all the rage, and the Smartphone was starting to come to fruition with the iPhone being center stage. The markets were vastly different then compared to when the GB/GBC were launched.

The way I see it, the lack of exclusive games for New 3DS was more about the lack of continued support for the 3DS in general in the mid-2010s, and not the difference in horsepower. Hell, just looking at the specs between GB, and GBC, it’s broadly similar in principle to what Nintendo did for the New 3DS compared to the 3DS: Faster CPU, and more Ram primarily was the jist of the differences (DSi was similar as well). It'd be like upgrading your desktop PC from a Core i5 to a Core i7 of the same generation, and maxxing out the ram in your motherboard while leaving your GPU the same. You'll see differences, but hardly a generational leap in performance.

Even going to Nintendo's own website, they list the GB/GBC as part of the same generation of hardware rather than separate. The same applies for DS/DSi, and 3DS/n3DS.

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/hard_soft/index.html
 
Gingerbread Man said:
True, but:
  • Intelligent Systems has GB and GBC as separate platforms on their website. The company developed the SDK for Nintendo handhelds up to the 3DS;
  • During an Iwata Asks, Ishihara from TPC said that Nintendo DS was the first console with two different Pokémon generations (Gold and Silver weren't GBC exclusives, but they were marketed and programmed as GBC games first and foremost);
  • While Smash Brawl had GB and GBC games grouped together, Smash Ultimate had GBC as its own platform in the Terry video;
  • GBC was its own platform on 3DS Virtual Console. Games were more expensive and had their own banner;
  • After a short cross-gen period, most GB games released by Nintendo from 1999 onward were GBC exclusives. Moreover, both in the West and in Japan, third-party developers released a ton of exclusive games from key IPs (new Resident Evil and Metal Gear titles, the Dragon Quest remakes, etc.). This does not apply to DSi or New 3DS. You can count their retail exclusive on one hand, and while DSi had DSiWare games, a lot of them were re-released of physical DS games (like Elektroplankton splitted into 10 DSiWare titles);
  • Nintendo didn't really advertise DSi extra power to the the general public, nor to the devs. DSi was a DS with camera, not a more powerful DS. GBC, on the other hand, was noticeable more powerful (for the time), it wasn't just a Game Boy with colors. Letting a dev chiming in:

So while there are some similarities between GBC and DSi/n3DS, there are also a lot of differences, and I am more inclined to see the GBC as an almost-a-proper-successor than a glorified revision.
Click to expand...
While your points are reasonable, this isn't the sort of thing where there is going to be consensus, especially with Nintendo themselves providing conflicting messaging. So there is no right or wrong, there is just the weird frustration of data/language not fitting.

Therefore, if you enjoy entomological debates I invite you to listen to A Way With Words, it is a fun show and language can be a funny thing.

Also, thank you for sharing the Nintendo list. . . How did I not know there was a GBC version of DKC and why the heck isn't that on NSO?
 
0
Derachi said:
“Is the Game Boy Color a new console or a hardware revision”

1) why can it only be one of those two things?
2) how does categorizing it change literally anything?
Click to expand...
This is how I feel about NG Switch. I still expect it to be both, with any games that can span the generations doing so.
 
ReddDreadtheLead said:
I think with the case of Microsoft, it’s admitting that they can’t hold off the last two years in a 7-8 year console cycle and have to go for a 6 year console cycle this time because otherwise it’s detrimental since they have no gain and only loss in that absent last two years with no new major event. That they don’t have to keep into the PlayStation cycle to compete, that being in an off year cadence is as competitive if they can deliver whatever it is to support their platforms in the long term
and that 7 year cycle being the norm isn’t guaranteed, yet again
.



The Series is in a sense the Wii U of Microsoft, and the XB1 is the Wii, where the console came a bit too late, could have been a better success had it come a bit earlier. As in, it could have had a higher potential ceiling by taking advantage of the momentum it had.


If this pans out, it’s another console not doing a 7-8 year cycle though.

GCN->Wii 2001 to 2006, 5 years.
OG XB~> 360 would be ~4 years
Wii~>Wii U is about 6 years
DS to 3DS was about 6 ish years?
PS2>PS3 about 6.5 years I think
WiiU->NSW is about 4.5 years.
Or conversely, 3DS to NSW was about 6 years.
Series ~> XBOX NEXT(???) 6 years?


GBA I’m not gonna count, or the PS1. I feel like that’s cheating a bit, but they were around 6 or less :p

Cool to notice lol
Click to expand...
It should be noted that Microsoft really wants to get out of the $500 console business and wants to change the business model to streaming. Arguments on technical merit of such an endeavour is currently the big question and the part that's not really solved. They want the business model to be that they sell you a controller that talks to whatever device is hooked to your TV and you pay a subscription for gamepass games, and buy non-gamepass games individually, then they run the games on whichever Azure hardware fits the bill.

The big hurdle is latency, and apparently RFC9330 improves that a huge amount.
 
bmfrosty said:
It should be noted that Microsoft really wants to get out of the $500 console business and wants to change the business model to streaming. Arguments on technical merit of such an endeavour is currently the big question and the part that's not really solved. They want the business model to be that they sell you a controller that talks to whatever device is hooked to your TV and you pay a subscription for gamepass games, and buy non-gamepass games individually, then they run the games on whichever Azure hardware fits the bill.

The big hurdle is latency, and apparently RFC9330 improves that a huge amount.
Click to expand...
Setting aside latency, not having control over the hardware leads to other issues. Project Keystone was their solution, but they couldn't get the hardware under $129 w/ a controller.

With the current AppleTV at $129 I wonder if that project comes back in the future.

Edit: I wonder where the BOMs are for the Series S and X these days.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
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