The Nintendo 3Ds

[Evil Star]

No matter what they do, it'll be impossible to out show the 3DS. What are you going to do? Dual analog? Meh. Higher res screen and more graphics power? Nobody cares.

Ohhh...god-forbid they do that, that would be terrible :rolleyes:

Maybe Sony will add a holographic display with liquid memory to beat Nintendo in a gimmick to gimmick war, it's the FUTURE...see.

 

[Goity]

I never stated anything about hardcore graphics being the way to sell the most consoles. Just that Nintendo's hardware is deeply uninspiring. When "off the shelf" solutions from the last few years seem to be outputting more raw power than Nintendo's custom solution, something is clearly wrong.

Off topic, but comparing the PSP to a Gamegear is absurd. In terms of hardware sales, it's been one of the most successful consoles ever made, currently sitting at around 60 million sold.

 

[migo]

The PSP isn't a success, it had its pants beat off by the DS, and Nintendo doesn't even consider them a threat.

 

[Exophase]

The PSP isn't a success, it had its pants beat off by the DS, and Nintendo doesn't even consider them a threat.

You don't have to slay your opposition to be considered a success. Really the only reasonable measure is whether or not it turned a profit, and I'm sure PSP has done that several times over.

Having said that, you can't really compare units sold to get a good picture of DS vs PSP. DS may have "only" sold twice as many units as PSP, but its game sales completely dwarf PSP's. DS clearly has a much higher attachment rate.

 

[SomeGuy99]

In terms of sales, the PSP is the closest rival Nintendo has ever had.

According to Wikipedia, it's sold 60 million. The next closest rival is the Game Gear at 11 million.

 

[Orion4874]

Looks pretty damn good to me!!!

 

[migo]

You don't have to slay your opposition to be considered a success. Really the only reasonable measure is whether or not it turned a profit, and I'm sure PSP has done that several times over.

Having said that, you can't really compare units sold to get a good picture of DS vs PSP. DS may have "only" sold twice as many units as PSP, but its game sales completely dwarf PSP's. DS clearly has a much higher attachment rate.

Sure, the PSP did well enough to see a sequel, but so did the GP32. In that sense the GP32 is a better analogue do the PSP, but the GP32 was also running against the GBA, which rather stupidly didn't have 4 face buttons and was around for much less time. The DS is the second longest running line since the GameBoy. The thing with the PSP is it has the exact same things wrong as the GameGear - better graphics but coming in with less battery life and a higher price. A big reason I think for the low attach rate is that UMD just sucks, and anyone could tell that the moment it was announced. The PSP is struggling to get developer support and being kept alive by Sony's stubborness. The DS is the most successful handheld console ever, and devs are flocking to the 3DS.

I'd also say a measure of success is the PS and PS2 - best selling consoles 2 generations in a row, and coming from nowhere to shove Nintendo in 3rd place. The PSP came in and saw the DS be more succesful than the GameBoy, essentially doing nothing. Nintendo doesn't even care that the PSP exists.

In terms of sales, the PSP is the closest rival Nintendo has ever had.

According to Wikipedia, it's sold 60 million. The next closest rival is the Game Gear at 11 million.

iOS devices have sold over 75 million in about half the time. In sales per year iOS matches the DS line, and is more than double that of the PSP. Up until now every era can be named with a Nintendo device, we're looking at a good shot that the next one could be named with iPhone or iPod touch. That's success. If we're talking just turning a profit to stay in competition, the GP32/GP2X is also a success.

 

[klikklak]

Don't forget that when rendering in 3D it has to render images for both eyes, effectively halving the available power when compared to flat 3D.

 

[migo]

I don't think that's a huge deal really, I'm sure they'll find a way to render that efficiently.

 

[klikklak]

You can't really cut corners with it. I mean, if you need to render a scene from two angles you need to render twice. I fail to see how this could be skipped.

 

[Nova]

Do you really think that Nintendo wouldn't have thought of this before unveiling the console? They obviously don't think it's a problem, so neither should you.

 

[quote]

Do you really think that Nintendo wouldn't have thought of this before unveiling the console? They obviously don't think it's a problem, so neither should you.

The point I think klikklak was trying to make is that games won't look as good in 3D as they will in 2D? The screen isn't flitting between two angles like normal 'gaming 3D', it's displaying them both at once, as he said.

 

[klikklak]

Quote, that's right. On the PC games generally take twice as much GPU power to render in S-3D.

EDIT: In case someone has doubts about the optics, it might not be 120hz split in to 60hz, but it's NOT magical optics that somehow takes 2D picture and turns it in to 3D. If that were the case we'd have 3D mona lisa So it still has to render twice no matter how it separates the light for both eyes.

 

[EvilDragon]

Craig, you've been saying this stuff ever since Sony sued you. It's understandable you feel this way, but it's clear you have a bias as a result of this.

What? That the PSP2 won't be open? I also doubt that will happen...

 

[Nova]

Do you really think that Nintendo wouldn't have thought of this before unveiling the console? They obviously don't think it's a problem, so neither should you.

The point I think klikklak was trying to make is that games won't look as good in 3D as they will in 2D? The screen isn't flitting between two angles like normal 'gaming 3D', it's displaying them both at once, as he said.

Yes and my point was that if the 3DS wasn't powerful enough to comfortably handle this, Nintendo would have known by now, so what exactly is the problem here?

 

[quote]

Yes and my point was that if the 3DS wasn't powerful enough to comfortably handle this, Nintendo would have known by now, so what exactly is the problem here?

Of course it can comfortably handle it . We're just wondering if 3D quality is as good as 2D.

 

[Nova]

Yes and my point was that if the 3DS wasn't powerful enough to comfortably handle this, Nintendo would have known by now, so what exactly is the problem here?

Of course it can comfortably handle it . We're just wondering if 3D quality is as good as 2D.

Well obviously the 2D capabilities of the 3DS will now surpass the DS, because it's had a spec bump. What I'm saying is that the 3DS can now do 3D as well as the DS can do 2D, because of said hardware upgrade.

 

[quote]

Well obviously the 2D capabilities of the 3DS will now surpass the DS, because it's had a spec bump. What I'm saying is that the 3DS can now do 3D as well as the DS can do 2D, because of said hardware upgrade.

Yes, but can the 3DS do 3D as well as the 3DS can do 2D?
That's all we're asking.

 

[Nova]

Well obviously the 2D capabilities of the 3DS will now surpass the DS, because it's had a spec bump. What I'm saying is that the 3DS can now do 3D as well as the DS can do 2D, because of said hardware upgrade.

Yes, but can the 3DS do 3D as well as the 3DS can do 2D?
That's all we're asking.

Well no. Obviously it can't. The hardware requirements are higher.

 

[Nova]

Fuck you GP32x.