• 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.
  • General system instability
    🚧 We apologise for the recent server issues. The site may be unavaliable while we investigate the problem. 🚧

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

Reader mode
Thraktor said:
iPhones do use NVMe, they just don't use off-the-shelf PCIe NVMe drives. It's worth noting that NVMe is just a protocol for communicating with non-volatile memory, and doesn't actually mandate the physical interface that the communication happens over. On NVMe SSDs that people use in their PCs it runs over PCIe, but it doesn't have to.

In Apple's case, they build an NVMe flash controller into all of their SoCs, and then use raw NAND chips for storage. To software, this is the same as a PCIe-based NVMe drive, but there's no PCIe involved, the controller just sits on the SoC, presumably directly on the main SoC bus. This is the case not just for iPhones, but for Macs, iPads, and I suspect even Apple Watches. This allows Apple to have a single shared flash controller architecture, and NVMe driver, across their entire product stack, and scale it from wearables all the way up to professional workstations.

As to it being "best in class", that's quite subjective, but it probably is in at least some ways. I doubt it offers the highest sequential read speeds, but phones don't really need 4.5GB/s flash storage. One significant advantage of building the flash controller onto the SoC is that it uses the SoC's manufacturing process, in Apple's case TSMC 4nm, soon to be 3nm, compared to SSD controllers typically being manufactured on older 12nm-era processes. This should confer a significant power consumption advantage, particularly when combined with eliminating the PCIe link (or M-PHY link in the case of UFS). I'd wager that the iPhone's storage is best in class when it comes to power efficiency. Also, with the flash controller on-die, and Apple having complete control over the hardware and software, I wouldn't be surprised if there are advantages to having everything so tightly integrated, like reduced access latency.



I wouldn't say 16GB is overkill. It's unnecessary, but not overkill. I think part of it is the perception that if the much more powerful PS5 and XBSX have 16GB of RAM, then it must be overkill for Switch NG, but I'd argue that 16GB is underkill for those machines moreso than it is overkill for Nintendo's hardware.

From PS1 to PS4, RAM capacity increased by between 12x and 16x each generation, whereas the jump from PS4 to PS5 is only 2x. This isn't Sony cheaping out on the PS5, it's just the realities of the market. Advances in DRAM lithography have slowed significantly, so capacity increases aren't what they used to be, and GDDR6 in particular only has a very limited selection of parts, meaning their only options are power-of-two capacities, and I don't think more than 16GB was even a possibility with the parts available, even aside from the cost.

It's not entirely a coincidence that this meagre growth in RAM capacity occurred at the same time as Sony and MS began focussing on super fast storage. They still want a generational leap in asset quality, and if they can't achieve that by an increase in RAM capacity, they'll instead focus on making as much use as possible of the RAM they have by aggressively streaming assets into it from a fast SSD. That doesn't mean more RAM would have been overkill. I'm sure if 64GB of RAM was economically viable Sony would have been happy to use that much in the PS5 (it still would have been the smallest capacity increase they've ever had).

While Sony and MS launched their consoles in pretty much the worst economic climate for RAM prices (particularly for GDDR), things are much better for Nintendo. LPDDR prices have dropped by nearly 50% over the past year, and LPDDR5 is available in a much wider range of capacities than GDDR6, meaning Nintendo have a lot more wiggle room to push RAM capacity up if they need to. Looking at Micron's part list, who supplied the GDDR6 modules for the launch PS5, even 3 years later Sony still wouldn't be able to use more than 16GB of GDDR6 without pushing the bus width higher. Meanwhile Nintendo could hit 12GB, 16GB, 24GB, 32GB or 36GB on a 128-bit bus with readily available parts.

That's not to say Nintendo can't do a similar thing as Sony and MS have and rely on asset streaming from a fast storage solution to help achieve higher asset quality. Alongside RAM, NAND has also dropped in price significantly, and fast UFS storage is cheap and ubiquitous, which could allow them to get good results with even 8GB of RAM. However, that doesn't mean a fast storage solution and more RAM wouldn't be better. Sony and MS didn't really have the option for that, but Nintendo do, whether they take it or not.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction.

As for capacity and storage, I'm still in the field of Game Cards forming the speed ceiling for the vast majority of games and 12GB being the most likely setup.
 
Shoulder said:
I'm surprised more people didn’t pick up on this, especially when you factor that even certain AAA 3rd party titles on Switch were vastly a lot smaller in size compared to their unadulterated counterparts on more powerful systems.

Let’s say someone mentions how some game is over 80GB on PC I’m like, “Yeah? So? Compression exists, reduced complexity of assets exist, plus there are development tools for the system itself that can help with that also.“

That 80GB title can easily fit into a 32GB cart, possibly even a 16GB, though that’d be cutting it close, and might end up with downloads. And we already have a game that is exactly that. It’s Doom Eternal for Switch, which clocked in at 17.5GB on Switch. Can easily fit into a 32GB cart with plenty of headroom to spare.

64GB carts will be necessary I think going into the Switch 2 like 32GB carts are right now, but I have doubts a 128GB cart would be needed for example.

EDIT: Mark Cerny even talked at length about duplicated assets on the disc, and how it wasn’t needed with much faster storage mediums. And this was back in 2019/2020 when he brought this up during that PS5 showcase.
Click to expand...


Its mostly irrelevant because sales are trending in favor of digital, even on Nintendo Switch half of all game sales are digital and this has been increasing year over year. Even if Nintendo offers 64GB or even 128GB carts, third parties wont use them and will instead use smaller lower cost carts and have mandatory downloads. Considering how massive games like Xenoblade Chronicles 3 and Zelda TotK are and are still under 20GB, I am confident 32GB will be sufficient for 99% of Nintendo's first party games, and even the majority of PS4 ports to Redacted will fit within a 32GB cart. On PS4 there wouldn't have been as much have been much incentive to compressor anything as long as it fit within the 50GB Bluray disk, and even then the incentive was much because they still downloaded everything into the hard drive anyway. Making 32GB carts as affordable as the 16GB carts have been for Switch should be the goal.
 
I have no idea where in this report the "supplying for new game console in Q1" is supposed to be.

I'm guessing it might be in the "meeting minutes" or "meeting agenda" part of the financial release instead of the report itself, but those are a collection of images instead of text so Google translate isn't bothering to translate.
 
Goodtwin said:
Its mostly irrelevant because sales are trending in favor of digital, even on Nintendo Switch half of all game sales are digital and this has been increasing year over year. Even if Nintendo offers 64GB or even 128GB carts, third parties wont use them and will instead use smaller lower cost carts and have mandatory downloads. Considering how massive games like Xenoblade Chronicles 3 and Zelda TotK are and are still under 20GB, I am confident 32GB will be sufficient for 99% of Nintendo's first party games, and even the majority of PS4 ports to Redacted will fit within a 32GB cart. On PS4 there wouldn't have been as much have been much incentive to compressor anything as long as it fit within the 50GB Bluray disk, and even then the incentive was much because they still downloaded everything into the hard drive anyway. Making 32GB carts as affordable as the 16GB carts have been for Switch should be the goal.
Click to expand...
if nintendo starts designing their games for 4K output, then 32GB might not be enough. if even a couple of gigabytes of Zelda is devoted to textures, that's a 4x increase in file size
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I have no idea where in this report the "supplying for new game console in Q1" is supposed to be.

I'm guessing it might be in the "meeting minutes" or "meeting agenda" part of the financial release instead of the report itself, but those are a collection of images instead of text so Google translate isn't bothering to translate.
Click to expand...
Might be in the Q&A session mentioned above.
 
0
OKAY SO

I bothered my wife about this and feel terrible for wasting her time (she says she thought it was fun but...)

Anyway, she says the MoneyDJ article is just talking about the financial report of the company (saying it did well) and randomly states "the supply chain suggests a new Japanese game console will be released in Q1 2024 which should also help their financials as they are partners with this Japanese game console company."

No links to anything are given and no suggestion is given by the author that this is taken from their financial reports.

The summaries in the meeting minutes for PixArt do not suggest anything.

Basically, the MoneyDJ writer seems to just be giving her own speculation about PixArt's upcoming financial performance, using her own prior rumor about a Q1 2024 release date.

WccfTech bizarrely misread a summary of the article and thought that the financial report and the rumor were connected, that the company had reported that they were expecting higher revenues due to the release of a new Japanese game console in Q1 2024. This does not seem to be the case based on everything I've seen.
 
WccfTech says they're just reporting rumors from other sites but... What is this trash?

As reported by Notebook Check and MoneyDJ, Chinese manufacturer PixArt, which provided the SoC powering the JoyCon sensors as well as other parts for previous Nintendo home consoles such as the Wii and the Wii U, revealed in its latest financial report that a new console from a Japanese company that hasn't launched a new system in years they are supplying parts for will release in early 2024.
Click to expand...

Okay, so they're just going by Notebook Check's translation of the MoneyDJ article, what does that say?

Not long ago, an article published by MoneyDJ talked about Foxconn’s business, with the item stating that Nintendo was planning on releasing its Switch successor in the first quarter of 2024. Now a new financial report from the same source has been discussing another one of Nintendo’s frequent business partners, PixArt Imaging. The intriguing part for Switch 2 observers is machine-translated as this:

However, it is worth noting that the supply chain pointed out that the Japanese game machine will be launched early next year, which has been absent for many years, the game machine is also one of the key customers of PixArt.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell, the article reckons that PixArt has generally had a good business year in 2023, with a boost coming from AI developments, and that 2024 could be just as fruitful with the “Japanese game machine” helping things along. While neither "Nintendo" nor "Switch" are specifically mentioned, this is likely an allusion to what is commonly called the Switch 2 console.

PixArt has worked with Nintendo on numerous occasions, including with the Wii and the OG Switch. The company specializes in “CMOS image sensor SoCs” and is probably partially or wholly responsible for the motion camera sensor found on the bottom of the Switch Joy-Con. Naturally, Nintendo would want to work with reliable partners on the Switch 2, so PixArt would likely be onboard.

While it could be argued this “Japanese game machine” could also be something to do with the Sony PlayStation 5, its latest related hardware, the Project Q handheld, is expected to arrive later this year rather than early next year. Interestingly, the reporter states the information comes from the “supply chain”, giving one of the firmest pointers so far of a Nintendo Switch 2 release date falling in early 2024.
Click to expand...

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

How do you get the WccfTech article from this article??????
 
Erika said:
If you can tell me where it may be in the 63-page report or 20-mon video I can take a look
Click to expand...

It's nowhere in the 63 page report, it would have to be somewhere in the Q&A or the meeting minutes or another document that a collection of images that isn't text, but I'm pretty sure we would be wasting your time as I think Wccftech (intentionally?) misread an article and there's actually nothing here.
 
This Wccftech article is so bad that I have to assume that it's an intentional misreading for clicks.

The original MoneyDJ article is baffling according to my wife (as the author just randomly brings up a new game console launching in Q1 2024 out of nowhere), but the translation actually is more clearly written than the original article and is very easy to understand.

And Wccftech linked to it and... Still misunderstood it?
 
0
Thraktor said:
I wouldn't say 16GB is overkill. It's unnecessary, but not overkill. I think part of it is the perception that if the much more powerful PS5 and XBSX have 16GB of RAM, then it must be overkill for Switch NG, but I'd argue that 16GB is underkill for those machines moreso than it is overkill for Nintendo's hardware.
Click to expand...
I take your point on the general arc of RAM usage, and it's certainly true that RAM is at a premium in the current gen machines.

I'm not a professional game developer, so there is a certain element of me talking out my ass, caveat emptor, but - there doesn't seem to be a feeling that the last gen consoles were particularly RAM constrained. There isn't a change in rendering technology this gen like the switch to physically based rendering in the last gen.

If you're doing a last-gen port, 8GB + Nintendo's smaller OS is a very comfortable place to be on a 2 TFLOPS machine.

If you're doing a current-gen multi plat, I don't think the 8GB is your primary worry. It's less of a squeeze than the GPU or the CPU relative to, say, the Series S. More RAM is nice, but so is more everything. Cutting resolution and complexity will likely be required just to hit your GPU targets, and that will naturally reduce RAM usage.

12GB, plus Nintendo's OS, means as much RAM available to games as Series S. At 16GB you can keep asset quality the same as PS5, and still have room left over. And then you'll start cutting the RAM usage of those assets anyway, because you need to get GPU load down to PS4 levels. That's why it feels like overkill to me.

Switch's 3GB of available RAM was a huge leap over the 360, despite similarly powerful GPUs, but the PS4/XB1 era saw physically based rendering, and that RAM leap was necessary to employ modern rendering techniques. The closest thing to that this gen is RT, which the other consoles are barely tapping, an 4 extra GB of RAM is enough to keep all of Manhattan in Spider Man: Mile's Morales BVH tree. I think that the CPU and the RT clocks will be the primary limiter at that point.

Not to say that exclusives can't take advantage of 16GB of RAM, but that the amount of advantage over 12GB is vanishingly small.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
It's nowhere in the 63 page report, it would have to be somewhere in the Q&A or the meeting minutes or another document that a collection of images that isn't text, but I'm pretty sure we would be wasting your time as I think Wccftech (intentionally?) misread an article and there's actually nothing here.
Click to expand...
Yeah I spent several minutes on the video and they didn’t mention any specific product.
 
0
Seems like the game of telephone here is MoneyDJ using their previous supply chain rumor about a console launch to suggest that Pixart will have a big 2nd half. Rather than Pixart saying anything to that effect in their financial reportings. Unless there's something in that Q&A meeting.

From there western websites took it to mean Pixart said something they didn't, rather than it basically being a regurgitation of the previous rumor.
 
if there's one benefit of having 16GB of ram it's that caching more data for faster loading, as Ratchet and Clank shows with an HDD and sufficient amounts of ram
 
Excess of RAM is better than lack of RAM, specially as this is a device meant to last until 2030+. I think 12GB would be ideal. It's more than Series S, where memory is a huge complaint from developers and would facilitate ports of SS builds to Switch 2.
Erika said:
I’m a native speaker.
But why are you looking at PixArt?
I read their financial report briefly and … it is too long, 63 pages and seems nothing interesting.
Click to expand...
Thank you for looking at it! I wanted to see if PixArt had truly mentioned a game console in their financials, as some folks were claiming, but it was just a nothing burger.
 
ILikeFeet said:
if nintendo starts designing their games for 4K output, then 32GB might not be enough. if even a couple of gigabytes of Zelda is devoted to textures, that's a 4x increase in file size
Click to expand...

Texture resolution will certainly go up, but when you look at Nintendo's art styles for their games, its unlikely to go up 4x. Even without texture upgrades, Zelda TotK looks terrific running on an emulator at 4K. More so than bumping up the highest resolution textures, going through and bumping up the resolution of the lowest resolution textures would bring substantial improvement. Many of the textures in TotK look fine even at 4K, but then there are others that stand out as low res even when viewed on Switch at 900p. If memory serves me correctly, nearly half of all first party published Switch games are under 8GB and none of them are larger than 20GB. Combine the increased capacity along with superior file compression and I find it hard to believe that Nintendo will have any trouble fitting their first party games onto a 32GB cart.

Zelda BotW is 14.4GB vs Zelda TotK that is 16.3GB and yet Nintendo chose to go with a 32GB instead of finding additional compression opportunities or simply having a required 2GB download. There is little doubt in my mind that this was to get a head start on brining down the prices of 32GB carts, but not because they will be needed for Switch, but instead because they will be in high demand for Redacted.
 
Goodtwin said:
Texture resolution will certainly go up, but when you look at Nintendo's art styles for their games, its unlikely to go up 4x. Even without texture upgrades, Zelda TotK looks terrific running on an emulator at 4K. More so than bumping up the highest resolution textures, going through and bumping up the resolution of the lowest resolution textures would bring substantial improvement. Many of the textures in TotK look fine even at 4K, but then there are others that stand out as low res even when viewed on Switch at 900p. If memory serves me correctly, nearly half of all first party published Switch games are under 8GB and none of them are larger than 20GB. Combine the increased capacity along with superior file compression and I find it hard to believe that Nintendo will have any trouble fitting their first party games onto a 32GB cart.

Zelda BotW is 14.4GB vs Zelda TotK that is 16.3GB and yet Nintendo chose to go with a 32GB instead of finding additional compression opportunities or simply having a required 2GB download. There is little doubt in my mind that this was to get a head start on brining down the prices of 32GB carts, but not because they will be needed for Switch, but instead because they will be in high demand for Redacted.
Click to expand...

I'm highly doubtful these prices for 32 GB carts will ever get reasonable based on how expensive 16 GB carts still are.
 
eye0h said:
I am trying to understand what this all forking means tbh
Click to expand...
You can think of forking in this context as being somewhat analogous to a fork in a path. You're making a copy of the codebase which is managed separately and travels in a somewhat different direction. The fork and the original can sometimes share changes with each other, but this gets harder and harder the longer lived the fork is and the more it diverges.

When it comes to services like GitHub, the way it uses the word "fork" is technically correct, and many are traditional forks, but a lot of GitHub forks are in practice closer to development branches. In this analogy, they're like nearby side paths with a lot of opportunities to cross back over to the main path. The reason why this happens is that git's decentralized nature means that forks are pretty cheap and also an effective way to manage access control for outside contributors. The line between forking and branching can be a little blurry at times (especially when it comes to services like GitHub), but the key difference is that forks have some level of permanent separation, even if it's not always very big, and either a separate owner or separate physical location where they're stored. Any determination on whether a fork has happened for a closed source project will always be a guess coming from an external perspective, but it can be a pretty informed one when you're generally familiar with how these sorts of things work.

The transition from 3DS OS to Switch OS was probably a fork because the two very heavily diverged, both internally and externally, and by the time the Switch launched, the only thing they really shared were occasional security fixes that applied to both due to their shared history. From Switch to the next gen Switch, it's probably not a fork because we're already seeing a bunch of what appear to be next gen targeted changes mixed in with the Switch builds of the OS. They could always choose to fork later, but, with the possibility exception of the UI, it seems unlikely that they'll do this at this point, at least for the next system.
TLZ said:
Yea forget running this off HDD. Similar speed SD would be as bad.
Click to expand...
Any halfway decent solid state memory will outperform a HDD in workloads dominated by random reads, which is how games tend to be.
 
fwd-bwd said:
It feels like I live in the Groundhog Day. When it comes to non-English rumors, always check the primary source instead of trusting these content farms.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm complaining about the content farms, not people sharing stuff on this thread, which is good!
Click to expand...
And it now spreads due to no one doing their due diligence to check the original source. I have seen the WCC article cited on Twitter several times in the last hour. Oh well.
 
Bonejack said:
Given there's big rumblings about Capcom wanting to release MHW2/MH6 before March next year, and with more rumblings coming up about ReDraketed launching in early 2024 ... i hope Capcom has a ReDraketed version ready for that timeframe.

Imagine that, launching with a fresh MH game. That would be one hell of a kickstart 3rd party game for launch.
Click to expand...
Please don't say that, don't give me hope...
 
yohoopzcrazy said:
Please don't say that, don't give me hope...
Click to expand...
Capcom software forecast doesn't support the theory of MH Next coming this FY. The rumblings of they announcing and releasing a big game until March come from Bloomberg and are non-reliable. It's more likely that MH Next will come in the next fiscal year (2024 - 2025).
 
TLZ said:
Yea forget running this off HDD. Similar speed SD would be as bad.
Click to expand...
John Linneman literally said it's fine off a high speed HDD, which even a UHS-1 SD card would match or beat.

If UHS-1 SD card can do Rift Apart provided a modern CPU and decompression, I really doubt there's a need for anything faster from Nintendo's point of view.
 
I suspect Mochizuki is piggybacking and/or getting wires crossed. Dusk Golem had a similar rumor a couple weeks ago, but it was that a game would be announced this year, and release fall 2024, not launch in the FY.
 
Instro said:
I suspect Mochizuki is piggybacking and/or getting wires crossed. Dusk Golem had a similar rumor a couple weeks ago, but it was that a game would be announced this year, and release fall 2024, not launch in the FY.
Click to expand...

IDK, his tweet is him saying that Capcom said this.

It's a really weird tweet with no context to where they said this.
 
0
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
(It's more likely that Monster Hunter Next is multiple years away as they probably would have announced it already if it was coming soon by 2024)
Click to expand...
Possibly, but on the other hand World and Rise were both announced close to release. Like 6 months. That said with how free flowing MH leaks have been in the past, I'd kind of expect more direct rumors if it were coming next year.

Gonna pencil it in as Breath of Fire instead 🤡
 
One thing I love is that journalists for Bloomberg and AP are told by their bosses to give no context whatsoever to their reporting tweets so you have no idea where the info is coming from.

Super good idea from Bloomberg and the AP.

This is more common with like economic or financial indicator data where they just say some news and then... do not link to the agency producing the news for some reason?

I would like to read the report instead of just look at your tweet, actually.
 
Pokemaniac said:
The transition from 3DS OS to Switch OS was probably a fork because the two very heavily diverged, both internally and externally, and by the time the Switch launched, the only thing they really shared were occasional security fixes that applied to both due to their shared history.
Click to expand...
This was largely a hard rewrite. Early on they may have ported certain critical userspace processes from Horizon CTR as a starting point (NintendoSDK 0.7.0 had a SRV0 process that at a glance looks suspiciously similar to 3ds srv), but that was all long gone well before any game devs had hardware.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
One thing I love is that journalists for Bloomberg and AP are told by their bosses to give no context whatsoever to their reporting tweets so you have no idea where the info is coming from.

Super good idea from Bloomberg and the AP.

This is more common with like economic or financial indicator data where they just say some news and then... do not link to the agency producing the news for some reason?

I would like to read the report instead of just look at your tweet, actually.
Click to expand...

More context in his Japanese tweet which (twitter translated) says "From Capcom financial statements:" instead of "says"

 
Bonejack said:
Given there's big rumblings about Capcom wanting to release MHW2/MH6 before March next year, and with more rumblings coming up about ReDraketed launching in early 2024 ... i hope Capcom has a ReDraketed version ready for that timeframe.

Imagine that, launching with a fresh MH game. That would be one hell of a kickstart 3rd party game for launch.
Click to expand...
That's also a hell of a statement for the Japanese audience, which is almost always Nintendo's first thought. You could have those things flying off shelves if you've got Monster Hunter & Mario Kart coming out within the first few months.
 
ILikeFeet said:
if there's one benefit of having 16GB of ram it's that caching more data for faster loading, as Ratchet and Clank shows with an HDD and sufficient amounts of ram
Click to expand...

Question, would developers prefer 12GB of RAM along with fast SSD internal storage or 16GB of ram with slower internal storage similar MicroSD speeds?

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I'm highly doubtful these prices for 32 GB carts will ever get reasonable based on how expensive 16 GB carts still are.
Click to expand...

Source? We know carts are more expensive than BluRay disk that are around $4 to print, but this was true for 3DS where games were sold for $40. So I think the cost of carts is a bit overstated. So if I am going to believe that a 16GB cart cost more than $8-10, I will need to see some proof. I'm guessing that 8GB carts are only marginally more expensive than $4 BluRay disk, probably around $6 and that is why so many third parties stuck with 8GB carts in order to maintain similar margins as other platforms. 32GB carts may have been nearly double a 16GB cart throughout the generation, potentially close the $20 price that Nintendo had with N64 carts.
 
Goodtwin said:
Question, would developers prefer 12GB of RAM along with fast SSD internal storage or 16GB of ram with slower internal storage similar MicroSD speeds?



Source? We know carts are more expensive than BluRay disk that are around $4 to print, but this was true for 3DS where games were sold for $40. So I think the cost of carts is a bit overstated. So if I am going to believe that a 16GB cart cost more than $8-10, I will need to see some proof. I'm guessing that 8GB carts are only marginally more expensive than $4 BluRay disk, probably around $6 and that is why so many third parties stuck with 8GB carts in order to maintain similar margins as other platforms. 32GB carts may have been nearly double a 16GB cart throughout the generation, potentially close the $20 price that Nintendo had with N64 carts.
Click to expand...

Nate says that Nintendo charged $14 per cart for 16 GB carts to third-parties last year.

famiboards.com

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

It seems odd that T239 was taped out 2 years ago. I wonder if the original plan was 2023, but Nintendo opted to delay starting manufacturing for a year due to software readiness. this is the rumor, you have to remember Covid played its part.
famiboards.com famiboards.com
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Nate says that Nintendo charged $14 per cart for 16 GB carts to third-parties last year.

famiboards.com

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

It seems odd that T239 was taped out 2 years ago. I wonder if the original plan was 2023, but Nintendo opted to delay starting manufacturing for a year due to software readiness. this is the rumor, you have to remember Covid played its part.
famiboards.com famiboards.com
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate for a moment. How do we know Nate's figures are correct? Did he ever cite a source, or is it based on what his own "sources" tell him? I'm not disputing his numbers or anything, just asking for clarification, especially since this thread is all about providing sources, and link's to sites.

14 dollars does seem about right, though I would imagine by this year, that figure would have dropped a bit to maybe 10-12 dollars per 16GB cart. That said, I have doubts a 32GB cart would be literally double the price at about 25 dollars. Though, it would help explain why TOTK was sold for 70 dollars rather than the typical 60 for US markets.

EDIT: Looking a couple posts down, a Tweet said 32GB carts are 60% more expensive than a typical 50GB Blu-Ray. Does that mean those discs are more than 4 dollars to print? 8 dollars? 10 dollars? Assuming 10 dollars for a 50GB Blu-Ray, that's only 16 dollars for a 32GB Cart, which isn't THAT bad. And that Tweet was back in 2017. So what is the case nowadays?

It just seems like something doesn't add up.

EDIT2: Again, asking for clarification.
 
Shoulder said:
Playing devil's advocate for a moment. How do we know Nate's figures are correct? Did he ever cite a source, or is it based on what his own "sources" tell him? I'm not disputing his numbers or anything, just asking for clarification, especially since this thread is all about providing sources, and link's to sites.

14 dollars does seem about right, though I would imagine by this year, that figure would have dropped a bit to maybe 10-12 dollars per 16GB cart. That said, I have doubts a 32GB cart would be literally double the price at about 25 dollars. Though, it would help explain why TOTK was sold for 70 dollars rather than the typical 60 for US markets.

EDIT: Looking a couple posts down, a Tweet said 32GB carts are 60% more expensive than a typical 50GB Blu-Ray. Does that mean those discs are more than 4 dollars to print? 8 dollars? 10 dollars? Assuming 10 dollars for a 50GB Blu-Ray, that's only 16 dollars for a 32GB Cart, which isn't THAT bad. And that Tweet was back in 2017. So what is the case nowadays?

It just seems like something doesn't add up.

EDIT2: Again, asking for clarification.
Click to expand...

Nate could be wrong or ZHuge could be wrong or both could be wrong.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Nate could be wrong or ZHuge could be wrong or both could be wrong.
Click to expand...

NervousHappygoluckyIndianhare-size_restricted.gif
 
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