Is Nintendo following Atari's footsteps?

[Andromeda Stardust]

Reformatted for emphasis

That's an awful lot of words for a completely hypothetical situation ... or did I miss the place where Sony stated that their current console generation is expected to last for fifteen years?

 

Did Nintendo promise that the Nintendo Switch would be their last platform ever? I think I missed that, too.

 

Then again, with the end of Moore's Law coming soonish, maybe we should get used to the idea of the end of computing progress as we know it. I thought this was a good long read on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/26/vanishing-point-rise-invisible-computer

Excellent point Flojo (as much of my reply is also targeted at Schizophretard). I also agree that games being required to work with previous models is only a stop gap. Maybe for a year or so, no "exclusive" PS4 Pro / Xbox Scorpo games, but newer games are incresingly going to be unoptimized and poorer experience on the "launch" models, that before long, developers will start putting out games that cannot or will not run on the older system.

 

It's no different than how some GBC games work on monochrome GB but many don't, and 3DS or N64 games perform better on N3DS or expansion pak, while few more require it. Any yes, Moore's Law is effectively dead now. CPU speed hit a roadblock in the mid 2000s, Hard drive density and micron process around 2010, and flash storage gains are slowing down. The fact we are seeing 200Gb SD Micro before 256Gb is evidence we are nearing capacity. And it would not surprise me to see full size SD cards making a comeback with larger capacities due to having more die space. When we hit the 2Tb SDXC limit, they may be full size only for a while. And potentially the mobile upgrade circuit will slow down as well if sales decline as slightly older phones proove not to be "junk".

 

Hopefully "4k" video lasts 40+ years as a standard just like SD video lasted 60 years or more. Much over 4k is beyond the resolution of human retinas and essentially a placebo effect.

 

What effect will this have on gaming I have no idea. The big push in gaming has been advances in technology. Perhaps fads will change and playstyles, but aside from motion controls and VR, very little has changed in 15 years. Compare the Dual Shock to the PS4. But if people continue playing older games because they're "just as good" as newer ones, where does this leave the industry? DRM and digital downloads seem a viable strategy to force consumers to upgrade, but IMO a dickish move by the industry and a slap in the face to preservationists.

[BillLoguidice]

Hopefully "4k" video lasts 40+ years as a standard just like SD video lasted 60 years or more. Much over 4k is beyond the resolution of human retinas and essentially a placebo effect.

 

 

No reason to place limits. SD was a limit of the technology, but current resolutions should have no real limit. If we can get to 8K, we will. With that said, it's obviously not all about resolution, it's also about color reproduction (which is why HDR capability is so important with 4K, versus 4K sets without it) and other factors. Anyway, I hope in 40+ years, we've achieved "reality vision," i.e., resolutions that are indistinguishable from reality, including depth, etc., i.e., perfect holograms with a side of holodeck. All of these technologies - even if some of them are early days for consumers - are clearly heading there.

[Gentlegamer]

I want 60 FPS standard vidya gaems.

 

Is that too much to ask?

[BillLoguidice]

I want 60 FPS standard vidya gaems.

 

Is that too much to ask?

 

Apparently. Not even powerful PCs can guarantee that. I think what's more important than 60, or 30, or 24 FPS is a consistent frame rate. It's the dips that are most detrimental to an overall gameplay experience.

[+GoldenWheels]

I've always figured they'll just end up a software producer at some point, where you'll see their flagship franchises on some other company's (coughPScough) system. To me that will make it more like they ended up following Sega's footsteps.

[Gentlegamer]

 

Apparently. Not even powerful PCs can guarantee that. I think what's more important than 60, or 30, or 24 FPS is a consistent frame rate. It's the dips that are most detrimental to an overall gameplay experience.

 

NO! FPS>resolution!

 

DEMAND BETTER!

 

Sorry, but I've been playing Wii and PS2 era games and basking in the wonderful 60 FPS. I'd rather all games be designed to a 60 FPS spec instead of "how pretty can we make screenshots and pre-rendered cutscenes" with lower FPS or dips.

[D.Daniels]

 

I'm not saying they can't. I'm just saying that I think it was things like 4K, UHD Blu-ray, VR, etc. that made it necessary for them to release brand new consoles mid-cycle but since it would have made the generation too short it also made it necessary to market them as just upgrades to the current consoles while also requiring the new games to work on the old consoles. But I also think it will go the other way around where the generation will start to seem too long with gamers not tolerating PS4 still being a modern console in 2027 and developers of new games in 2027 not tolerating being forced to make their games work on the 2027 model of the PS4 all the way down to the 2013 model.

 

 

Insightful point, even PC's in 90's had to have an extra tag like Pentium 1,2,3 etc as it couldn't just be an Intel PC, and remember how if you had a really dated PC, something like Duke Nukem would enable you to shrink the window until its the size of a Gameboy screen. PC's were known to be dated within a year and a half in the 90's, so it came with the territory that you had to upgrade, theres little chance you could expect 2013 PS4 owners in 2027 to be playing a watered down Gran Turismo 2027. If that is the case it would technically be a modern retro game on one system while cutting edge on the other.

Edited January 27, 2017 by D.Daniels

[BillLoguidice]

 

NO! FPS>resolution!

 

DEMAND BETTER!

 

Sorry, but I've been playing Wii and PS2 era games and basking in the wonderful 60 FPS. I'd rather all games be designed to a 60 FPS spec instead of "how pretty can we make screenshots and pre-rendered cutscenes" with lower FPS or dips.

 

I have to admit, reading someone romanticizing Wii and PS2 frame rates is a new one for me...

[Andromeda Stardust]

I want 60 FPS standard vidya gaems.

 

Is that too much to ask?

Every vintage 240p console = 60Hz.

[D.Daniels]

I want 60 FPS standard vidya gaems.

 

Is that too much to ask?

 

kind of as it would mean developers reducing their vision, like those giants in Shadow of the Colossus or say 22 cars on an F1 racing game. I guess you could find ways to reduce things like lightening and make the models smaller for 60fps, but then by that time you might have a PS3 quality game and its pretty PS4 visuals that sell. F-Zero on the N64 was 60 fps and it graphically looked bland to be honest.

Edited January 27, 2017 by D.Daniels

[Gentlegamer]

Every vintage 240p console = 60Hz.

 

Yes (aside from rare exceptions)!

 

DEMAND 60 FPS

 

 

I have to admit, reading someone romanticizing Wii and PS2 frame rates is a new one for me...

 

Play some Super Mario Galaxy and enjoy the silky smooth 60 FPS.

!

[Gentlegamer]

 

kind of as it would mean developers reducing their vision, like those giants in Shadow of the Colossus or say 22 cars on an F1 racing game. I guess you could find ways to reduce things like lightening and make the models smaller for 60fps, but then by that time you might have a PS3 quality game and its pretty PS4 visuals that sell. F-Zero on the N64 was 60 fps and it graphically looked bland to be honest.

 

How about instead of multiplying the resolution, let the visuals catch up to a 60 FPS standard at 1080p first.

 

I'm a dreamer.

[DracIsBack]

 

It did die out fairly quickly. The later years of the Wiis life were rather bleak compared to the early excitement.

We don't agree on the definition of "fad" which is usually something highly popular for a few months to about a year and then sales evaporate almost entirely.

 

The Wii was moving tens of millions of units of hardware and in excess of a hundred million units of software for several years.

 

Perhaps it was a fad with a segment of its userbase but it didn't move 95 million units in 2007 and then suddenly fall off to nothing

[D.Daniels]

 

How about instead of multiplying the resolution, let the visuals catch up to a 60 FPS standard at 1080p first.

 

I'm a dreamer.

 

your profile avatar keeps making me laugh good one!

 

your not a dreamer, 60 fps would be my ideal, I cant reply to that other bit, I'm not that technical but I guess 4k owners wouldn't be happy, 1080p fine for me, I remember the Atari 2600

Edited January 27, 2017 by D.Daniels

[Flojomojo]

I think that

A fastframe rate is nice

A CONSISTENT framerate is essential.

[toptenmaterial]

Rather antidotal, but wasn't the VCS 60fps?

[BillLoguidice]

Rather antidotal, but wasn't the VCS 60fps?

 

Did someone say poison? Anyway, I think there's some confusion between refresh rate and frame rate. Those are two different things. I don't believe frame rate as it relates to this discussion is really an issue for 2D games, although there can still be slowdown, flicker, and other visual artifacts. Again, frame rate is typically only an issue if it's particularly low or extremely variable, and is relevant to discussions surrounding 3D gaming.

[toptenmaterial]

What is it, anticdotal? Is that a word? I'm trying my best. I don't get out or speak or breathe much.

[Flojomojo]

Anectodal?

[D.Daniels]

Anectodal?

 

anecdotal

1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

   ​almost the same word, but t and d swapped around,

   surly a definition for all fan boys (joke)

Edited January 28, 2017 by D.Daniels

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

How about instead of multiplying the resolution, let the visuals catch up to a 60 FPS standard at 1080p first.

 

I'm a dreamer.

Perhaps let the gamer decide via menu selection if he/she would rather have 1080p30 or 720p60.

[Schizophretard]

Reformatted for emphasis

That's an awful lot of words for a completely hypothetical situation ... or did I miss the place where Sony stated that their current console generation is expected to last for fifteen years?

 

I am unaware of any such statement from Sony one way or the other. I was responding to Bill's opinion:

 

Good analysis, although I obviously don't agree with all of your points. I particularly don't think there will be a PS5 or Xbox Two within the next decade. I think what we're seeing now is what the new normal is, and it's what Nintendo will follow with the Switch should it prove to have a viable market, i.e., incremental, backwards-compatible upgrades that don't make the previous version of the system obsolete for those not ready to upgrade.

That is where I'm coming up with the 2027 number because he doesn't think there will be a PS5 or XBOX ONE TWO by then but the same current generation being incrementally updated with the games designed for the most recent iterations working on the original base models from 2013. In other words, in 2027 you could walk into Walmart and still see a PS4 but a model that is a few increments of power higher than the original with the shelves still full of games that say PS4 on them that work on the original 2013 model but better on the 2027 model.

 

I don't think that is likely for the reasons I explained but here is another one. If it is perceived as a norm then it makes what your competitor is going to do predictable which allows you to do the unpredictable to break the norm and hurt your competition. For an example, Sony could make it seem like one of their new models is just going to be another PS4 upgrade that will have new games for it that could still work on the original base model. Then they wait for Microsoft to release their upgraded XBOX ONE first. Once it is already heavily marketed and on the shelves they release theirs but instead of calling it PS4 Pro Ultra + or whatever they decide to call it just the PS5 and they end the requirement for the games to have to run on the original PS4 but still have backwards compatibility with the PS4. So, now that it has a clear next gen name and developers can fully push the hardware instead of holding their games back to also run on the original it would make this new XBOX ONE and its new games look last gen. Microsoft could change their policy to also end the requirement for the games to have to run on the original XBOX ONE after the fact but the damage would already be done because Sony would already have these more graphically intense games that couldn't possibly run on the original PS4 and the branding to match that they went next gen while Microsoft would look a generation behind. Short version, the first to allow developers to fully push the hardware and clearly market that they are next gen while their competitor isn't would be the one to break the norm which is one reason why I doubt it will become a norm in the first place.

 

Did Nintendo promise that the Nintendo Switch would be their last platform ever? I think I missed that, too.

 

No, but I think it is very likely that the Switch would be a very long line of backwards compatible consoles that are upgrades on the previous ones just like the Game Boy/Color/Advance line and DS/DSi/3DS/New 3DS line. In other words, Nintendo has had two of these kind of lines and I believe it is likely that they plan on the Switch to be the third.

 

Then again, with the end of Moore's Law coming soonish, maybe we should get used to the idea of the end of computing progress as we know it. I thought this was a good long read on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/26/vanishing-point-rise-invisible-computer

That was a good read. Thanks. I think I could get used to the idea of the end of computing progress as we know it but I think it will be a while before I have to. That is because even with Moore's Law coming to an end the very best computers that can be produced at that end are presently worth thousands of dollars more than I have. So, as I wait for them to go from luxury computers for the rich to being as cheap as my Chromebook it would still feel like computing progress as I know it. In other words, if over the next couple of decades or however long it takes I'm still getting better computers because the prices drop to make the luxuries of today the necessities of tomorrow then I would still in practice be experiencing Moore's Law long after it is dead because presently my wallet isn't keeping up with Moore's Law.

[AtariDude]

The reason that Nintendo is losing against both Microsoft and Sony is that they have been for the past few years catering to the casual gamers / kids markets. Both Sony and Microsoft cater to gamers who are in their early to late teens who want more mature games that have violent themes, and not games that are sugar coated. They have been pumping games based upon Mario, Zelda and certain other properties. Eventually people want to try new games and not the same thing over and over again.

 

You can see the pattern even with the New Switch that they released. While it sold well out of the gate, there are only a handful of games available (one article i read said there were only 10 games at launch) and it seems for now, only the Zelda game is getting any kind of attention. I wonder how long it is going to take to get new games once people get tired of the Zelda game.

[Tanooki]

There is a list of games out there with quite a few on it some with dates to the day, some to the month, and a few to the quarter. It's not like it's a mystery what's coming and this isn't even going all that deep into the digital only including virtual console stuff as well.