Sheikah

I put a pea sized blob on the centre and then layer the heatsink down on it.

I would like it so that you can set specific friends to get notifications about when they login.

I thought Japan already had the passport system when the Vita launched?

That's cool. I hope they add the ability to change your PSN avatar on PS4 too.

Ooohhh yeahhh. Just what I needed.

To be honest, I don't really understand it. I just remember back when the 7850s went really cheap that people were suggesting to run a dual setup because they were so easy to clock and affordable. Although I've also heard about game compatibility issues with dual card setups... so maybe best to stick to just one card. As for the aftermarket cooler, it's pretty cheap and I think that you should definitely get it. The 16GB RAM is up to you, but useful if you plan to run a lot at once. A decent motherboard is often if you want to overclock your processor to get the most out of it, although I'm not really sure about the pros of the really expensive motherboards. And for the monitor, at least get one that supports the beast resolutions that you intend to run games at.

My point has always been that 3D is generating double the number of pixels anyway (800 x 240), and that proves that the system is capable of doing more than the 400 x 240 you really end up seeing. On a new device, if you dropped 3D and made use of those pixels for a single image output, you don't have to keep to '800 pixels across'. If we go with the idea that the 3DS could really output the same number of pixels in a singe image if you dropped 3D entirely (ie. the 192K pixels in the combined 800 x 240 ouput) then you could maintain the 1.67:1 aspect ratio (as in 400 x 240) by distributing the pixels evenly. For instance a 560 x 336 display would be just shy of 192K pixels but still the same aspect ratio. New games developed at this resolution could scale down to the old resolution on old devices, or use the higher resolution on newer devices. I've always been arguing they can do both to deliver a higher resolution - that is, the option to drop 3D and improve the processor. I've never said anything as blunt as 'double the clock to double the resolution'. Don't you think they've shown they're willing to kill some consumer confidence already? They're pretty much saying you have to buy almost the same £200 machine again in order to play a specific game (and potentially some more, but we don't know how many developers will want to make games that only a small portion of the fanbase can buy. Could result in limited support...). Rather than make a Xenoblade game that worked on the system, they've chosen to do this. I'm not sure we can say that Nintendo think like everyone else when it comes to these things. I distinctly remember that the price of the N64 got dropped significantly and very quickly, leaving a lot of customers unhappy. They did that, so we can't say for sure they wouldn't do this either.

In 3D mode, the machine is already sending 800 x 240 pixels in the form of two slightly different images of 400 x 240 pixels each. True, if you ditched doing this 3D effect on a new model and went straight for a single 800 x 240 output then that could use more resources. But given you've ditched 3D and have the chance to boost the processor, I think (and I acknowledge that this is just my opinion) that 800 x 240 2D would be achievable. Unless Nintendo ever say it's impossible and that they've tried it, this is just going to go back and forth as we clearly both believe differently.

You're being rude and arrogant now. And you totally misunderstood the point I just made, which was that they could double the resolution on new units. I'm not saying current 3DS units can display more pixels, because they can't. Why did you think I was saying that? I'm feeling kind, so I'll consider it a misunderstanding, rather than a straw man argument. What I'm saying is that games are effectively running at 800 x 240 pixels already, yet for all intents and purposes are displaying as 400 x 240. Thus, the 3DS could be capable of outputting at 800 x 240, if the screen supported it, assuming they disabled the 3D mode entirely throughout the game. It's possible that this would use up more resources than when the 800 x 240 was being used to generate the 3D effect, but it's likely they could improve the clock of the processor enough to support that (especially with the freed up resources by dropping 3D). Then we're agreeing? The 3D effect is basically a curse if you're not that interested in it. In situations that are demanding (e.g. double Pokémon battles) then the 3D effect is dropped. Thus, they can free up resources by disabling the 3D effect - something that they could do on a new XL unit with a better screen that would support higher resolutions.

I'd recommend ditching the heatsink/fan that comes with the processor and getting your own ('aftermarket') cooler, since they are better at cooling the processor. I have the Hyper 212 evo which is good. If money is no object you can up the RAM to 16GB and invest in a second graphics card. You can run two of the same graphics card on one motherboard (check the motherboard supports it). For AMD cards the dual setup is called Crossfire, for nVidia it's called SLI.

They could very easily double the resolution, but they could even go less than double if they so wished. Consider if they provided the option to disable the 3D mode (similar to how Microsoft took out Kinect to free up resources). For the 3D effect, the top screen is basically 800 x 240 pixels, but really it only comes across as 400 x 240 since the extra pixels are used just to generate the 3D effect. Suddenly, you're going from 400 x 240 to 800 x 240. The resolution of the top screen (the screen in which most gameplay usually takes place) is instantly doubled. Any additional grunt you needed to support this resolution could come in the form of a clock speed bump. It's very doable, but alas, it unfortunately hasn't happened. It makes far more sense than developing games that only a subset of your userbase can play.

I appreciate that you go into detail, but the dots really don't connect. They can easily improve the clock speed of the processor and offer a 2D only mode to free up resources. It seems like they could very much provide a sizeable bump to the resolution of the XL if they did this. I'm still not seeing any reason why they can't make 3DS games output at higher resolutions on specific pieces of hardware. A resolution switch is a very common thing in PC games (and some PS4 games I've played) so it clearly can't be that difficult to implement. On Vita at least, developers have the option of setting the resolution of their games (as you've said, many are below the max supported resolution of the device). So setting the resolution is very much possible - it's all about whether they can bump the hardware enough to support it. Which I believe they definitely can.

Do you have evidence of that? You're saying a lot of technical things here, but I don't see the justification. They're already upping the processor on the new 3DS to play exclusive games. Yet, as you can see, the new 3DS can still play non exclusive 3DS titles, too. To me, it makes perfect sense that you could also run games at a higher resolution if such a setting in new games were to exist. In FFXIV on PS4, I have the option to change resolutions, while in a lot of other games on PS4 I can't. So it seems to me it's dependent on developers to add such modes, such that the absence of the mode isn't due to technical limitations (but decisions of the devs). Again, they are changing the hardware but it will still play 3DS games, so I don't see how that could be true.

What? Who made you the authority on "How much extra processor power constitutes a successor"? I actually have no idea what you are talking about. Nintendo have made a new revision that plays games that the other previous systems can't. That itself would make it more a 'successor' than a revision compared to the model that I am instead proposing.

Obviously? Wasn't it clear that I was saying they have missed an opportunity? In saying that, don't go wrongly thinking 'it'd be unaffordable'. As shown by android tablets that sell for £100, it's certainly affordable to just up the specs enough to support a slightly higher resolution. Not a resolution anywhere near 720p, mind. That's not what I'm proposing at all. A model which can run the same games at a higher resolution setting does not mean the games suddenly look next generation, or that it wouldn't run the same games the other systems run. It just means that the games wouldn't look so blocky on the XL.

But they are revising the hardware, and have fractured their audience themselves (New 3DS 'only' games). Seems silly to take that plunge and not provide a decent upgrade to the poor DPI of the XL, which is what the system really needs. In saying 'several orders of magnitude better' you're making it sound like it would be too difficult or expensive to do to support the increased resolution. It most definitely wouldn't be. There are android tablets that are £100 with a better screen DPI and graphical capabilities than this. You're also ignoring the possibility where they could allow you to disable 3D to make use of a higher resolution, since some of the power and lines go to producing the 3D effect. I'm not advocating that they improve it too much so that this could basically be their next console. Rather, that they improve it enough to support future 3DS games at a higher resolution.

I remember first using mine as I just started playing AC4. The sound of the waves, Edward's feet on wood surfaces, the wildlife and the shanties...god damn. That headset made the game so much more.

Yes. Yes it is. Affordable, rechargeable, wireless, comfy, has a mic and excellent sound. It's the go to headset for the system. :p

Don't know, but I bet they could make it for peanuts today. You see what I'm saying? Not sure how it could be too profit draining to sell something that is just on par with a 7 year old device in one aspect. They're already upping the processor power and they could do so to accommodate a resolution bump (which still wouldn't be difficult, as we're not talking 720p resolutions here).

Even if you found more use for Miiverse, the improvements to its loading (if that even will happen - it's not like we know that'll be improved significantly yet) would still be less impressive than upping the really poor DPI of the XL. And I'm saying this only because it's so bad - if it were ok, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But as it stands, 2D mode on the XL is 95 DPI. To put that into perspective, the original iPhone launched in 2007 and was 163 PPI. So the blocky pixel screen on the XL is basically pre-'1st gen' smartphone era, something you might be used to looking at around 10 years ago. It's very jarring if you're used to playing with other devices, and I don't doubt people would have seen this as a MASSIVE reason to upgrade. That's why I don't think they've addressed the most important issues with this model (also, increasing download speeds seems odd to gun for given their account system and seemingly little benefit for buying games online vs physical copies from online retailers).

You're wasting your time, trust me. If you look back, he thought the idea of using processor power to download games quicker (something people rarely do, particularly on Nintendo handhelds) and to navigate the OS (which again, how often do people do that relative to playing games) was a better use than a massive visual bump that would be evident throughout playing games (which is pretty much what you spend >99% of the time doing). There is no logic to be found here. Seriously.

Correct. Faster downloads and OS is nice, but given we spend 99% of our time actually playing games I'd rather have a noticeable improvement 99% of the time than 1%. Plus, the XL really fucking needs it. And there's no reason why the beefing up of the system for resolution purposes wouldn't have an effect on the OS, too. Some bollocks-but-not-really-bollocks statistics there, because I know you love statistics. Also, they've already made a divide doing this (New 3DS only games). With my proposal, everyone can still play the games, just the New 3DS owners can do so at higher resolution. Out of interest, when playing games on 3DS how often do you go into the OS and do something else? Don't most people surely either just select their games, or open their device and resume playing from where they left off? I'm sure there will be people who use every feature and defy what seems like the average user's routine here, but to say that this is more worthy than a resolution bump seems a bit nuts.

They're already upping the power, and for something a lot less useful. Like I said, they could either offer an option with no 3D for increased resolution (which loads would no doubt take up), or provide some still pretty affordable newer tech (since the 3DS really is pretty low tech) and be able to up the resolution. You only need to look at super cheap tablets that have far better spec than what I'm suggesting to see how doable it is. Also offering multiple resolutions in console games is nothing new. For anyone asking what is wrong with the resolution, for the 3DS XL in particular it is really bad (same number of pixels as 3DS but stretched out further).

They've done it once or twice before but they sell out pretty quick.

It could be made that 2 x resolution would be enabled only in 2D mode. I'm sure everyone would trade for 3D in a heartbeat. Plus it shouldn't be difficult or expensive to up the specs enough to double the resolution of what the 3DS does. Compared to what else is out there, 3DS is rather low end given the low res it outputs.