Griking Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Nintendo doesn't make any money off their NES, SNES, or N64 games anymore. The only people making money off that stuff are GameStops and the like. What about the e-Reader and games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Nintendo doesn't make any money off their NES, SNES, or N64 games anymore. The only people making money off that stuff are GameStops and the like. This is not quite correct. Nintendo is taking advantage of many of their old properties. As an example, the E-Reader that plugs into the Gameboy Advance allow you to play original NES games on your GBA, simply by swiping a card (or, uhrr, several cards) into the reader. They are making very real money by selling these, especially considering how cheap it is to print cards versus making cartridges. To say nothing about the collectible side of it. Whoever came up with this idea is a genius. Nintendo has also used their older games as part of newer games. For instance, Animal Crossing for the Gamecube has older games built-in that you can play (I don't remember if they are NES or SNES games--I don't have Animal Crossing).. And there are many Gameboy Advance games are straight ports from their SNES counterparts. For example, Super Mario Advance is a cart that contains Super Mario Bros. 2, as well as an enhanced version of the original Mario Bros.. ..Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 My feelings on emulation is that companies have mostly benefited from it. Without the emulation scene, I don't know that many companies would have tried putting together compilations of older games that they could sell and make a profit from. The technology for some of these products is actually based on the same emulators we are playing games on, or they are often written by the same people who have written emulators. The emulation scene demonstrates the potential for older games to continue their run on newer consoles, breathing new life into a company's better classic titles. Also keep in mind that most people in the game industry are avid game players themselves and that many of them use emulators to play games. These are often the same people that get the ball rolling with new projects that encompass classic games, and emulators allow easier proof of concept designs as well as a demonstration that there is a market for these products. If the emulation scene was quashed, I think it would have a negative impact in this market, and I also don't think we'd see as many classic games making their way to newer consoles. ..Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaXpress Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Wise words from Albert. Would we be seeing things like the Activision Anthology if it wasn't for the proven popularity of emulated classics? Without emulation feeding the hobby, would there have been such interest in the Pleiades release? Classic gamers also willingly buy commercial releases of games they already have emulated. Classic gaming doesn't have magazines and milliondollar marketing budgets to keep it alive. It exists only because of the efforts of independent fans and emulators are the best tool for winning new converts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artlover Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 It looks to me like you're mixing up the audible frequency range and the sample rate. It makes no sense to talk about a sample rate with analog recordings... the sample rate is infinite and continuous. Most humans can hear frequencies in a range (roughly) of 20 Hz to 20 kHz. The standard sample rate for CDs is 44.1 kHz, which means there are 44,100 sample "slices" per second. The standard sample rate for DVDs is 96 kHz, meaning 96,000 samples per second. But those sample frequencies have nothing to do with the audible pitch frequencies they can play. First, I'm not mixing up anything. I've been working with digital audio for over a decade and am fully aware of the difference between frequency responce and sampling rate. Second, DVDA is not the same as regular DVD audio. DVDA supports sampling rates up to 192khz providing a max of 96khz frequency responce. Snippit from DigitalAudioGuide The greater the number of bits used for Sample Size and the greater the number of Samples per second (Sample Rate) the more accurately the analog signal can be represented in digital form. With a Sample Size of 24 bits and a Sample Rate of 192KHz (24/192), DVD-Audio is capable of recording an audio signal with a frequency range of 0 to 96KHz with a dynamic range of 144dB. So I do believe my original post stands correct, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Room 34 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 What is the point of developing a technology that can produce a 96 kHz frequency response when the human ear can't hear past 20 kHz? I'm sorry... I am not trying to belittle your knowledge of the field. Perhaps DVDA technology really CAN record audio to a pitch frequency of 96 kHz, but I think it is kind of ridiculous to even talk about that... most speakers can't reproduce those frequencies and the human ear certainly can't hear them. It ought to be a good way to rid your house of unwanted rodents and insects, though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Dude Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 They are making very real money by selling these, especially considering how cheap it is to print cards versus making cartridges. To say nothing about the collectible side of it. Whoever came up with this idea is a genius. Not to mention the big N was originaly a card manufacturer ..... Oh the painful irony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Dude Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 What is the point of developing a technology that can produce a 96 kHz frequency response when the human ear can't hear past 20 kHz? So you can send your neighbours dogs F*KING CRAAAAAZY!!!! This is assuming you're using a high-end cartridge Use the word stylus or you'll confuse all the classic gamer types that seem to hang around here I own some shitty stock styli and I can't tell the difference against the expensive ones I'v used (sure I know it can't be doing my fantastic black plastic any favours but as soon as I have some spare Yen... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artlover Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 What is the point of developing a technology that can produce a 96 kHz frequency response when the human ear can't hear past 20 kHz? Perhaps DVDA technology really CAN record audio to a pitch frequency of 96 kHz, but I think it is kind of ridiculous to even talk about that... most speakers can't reproduce those frequencies and the human ear certainly can't hear them. I suspect there are a lot of reasons. #: Non-human use. Researchers who record anaimal sounds, and stuff like that. #: Audiable sub-harmonic effects of higher frequencies. In the real world, sounds arn't neatly limited to the range of human hearing. Sounds use as much range as they need for their sound to be made. Recording all of that sound is the only way to reproduce it correctly with the same fullness and body. Limiting it to the range of human hearing eliminates that mostly inaudiable, but subtle difference. #: Some people can hear higher then 20khz. Granted not as much as 96Khz, but still more then most formats out there are able to reproduce. I'm sorry... I am not trying to belittle your knowledge of the field. No problem. I'm sorry I snapped at you like that. I tend to be overly defencive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avid Fan Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Those super low frequencies are meant to be FELT not heard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artlover Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 This is assuming you're using a high-end cartridge Use the word stylus or you'll confuse all the classic gamer types that seem to hang around here Hahahaha. Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Room 34 Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Audiable sub-harmonic effects of higher frequencies. In the real world, sounds arn't neatly limited to the range of human hearing. Sounds use as much range as they need for their sound to be made. Recording all of that sound is the only way to reproduce it correctly with the same fullness and body. Limiting it to the range of human hearing eliminates that mostly inaudiable, but subtle difference. Ah, you definitely do have a point here. I recorded a piece of music recently with a deliberately placed LOUD (but to my ears inaudible) 20 kHz tone throughout. On most sound systems I played the final mix on, I could not hear the tone at all. However, on my car stereo, while I STILL could not hear the tone, it imposed a shrill distorted hiss on all of the sounds within the audible range. So, your point is well-taken. And I apologize for my contentiousness. I have been on edge lately and I guess maybe I was unintentionally picking a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.