Nintendo 3DS Direct - 29/08/2014 - 12pm

[Dcubed]

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.

 

You can't really do that without changing the hardware all together. This is an upgrade that is using boosted versions of the same hardware architecture that is inside the current 3DS. Doing what you're suggesting would require them to completely overhaul the entire system chipset - something that you do for a successor console, not a revision.

 

Don't forget that 3DS/console games aren't built like iOS games (which work pretty much just like PC games). If you change the hardware, you break all existing games, whereas iOS/PC games are designed to run on sets of variable hardware (performance is somewhat unpredictable, but scales up or down depending on the resources available). What you're suggesting would not work.

 

We'll see. My money is on an E3 2016 reveal with a release November 2016.

 

I personally view this as the same purpose as the DSi, not the DSi XL.

 

The 3DS is less than four years old. It's way too soon.

 

Yeah, I agree with this. November 2016 sounds about right. The DSi granted the DS another 2.5 years of life, so it's not hard to imagine that the New3DS will give the 3DS another 2 years-ish.

 

The following year we'll probably see the Wii U's successor too. And since both handheld and console will be based on the Wii U's hardware architecture, development for both should go smoothly as both machines will be able to share assets, code and operating systems

[Sheikah]

You can't really do that without changing the hardware all together. This is an upgrade that is using boosted versions of the same hardware architecture that is inside the current 3DS. Doing what you're suggesting would require them to completely overhaul the entire system chipset - something that you do for a successor console, not a revision.

 

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).

 

Don't forget that 3DS/console games aren't built like iOS games (which work pretty much just like PC games). If you change the hardware, you break all existing games, whereas iOS/PC games are designed to run on sets of variable hardware (performance is somewhat unpredictable, but scales up or down depending on the resources available). What you're suggesting would not work.

 

Again, they are changing the hardware but it will still play 3DS games, so I don't see how that could be true.

[Dcubed]

[/b]

 

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).

 

It's still going to be using a dual core ARM 11 chip, it has to in order to be able to run 3DS games (and no, a Cortex processor does not feature the full instruction set of ARM 11), probably just with a boosted clock speed on a smaller process node and a few minor tweaks to the instruction pipeline. Both the DSi and the GBC saw the same kind of upgrade - same general chip with boosted clocks and minor efficiency upgrades.

 

You can't just plonk a different ARM chip in there and expect everything to work. It's the reason why the 3DS still has the DSi's ARM 9 chip inside it, rather than just trying to run everything off the ARM 11 (It also has the DSi's ARM 7 chip inside it too, which is what allows it to run the GBA ambassador games )

 

Again, they are changing the hardware but it will still play 3DS games, so I don't see how that could be true.

 

It's a boosted version of the same hardware, that downclocks itself when running original 3DS games, that's why it still works. It's the same way that the DS runs GBA games (The DS/DSi's ARM 7 chip is the same as the GBA's, just running at twice the clock speed and with some minor tweaks - it just downclocks itself when running in GBA mode and switches off DS related hardware functions), the same way that the GBC plays GB games and the same way that the Wii runs GCN games.

 

Smartphone/PC games are built on an abstracted layer that sits on top of the hardware itself. When you're building a game for PC/smart devices, you're actually writing it for the operating system and the drivers that power it (Direct X/Open GL). This allows you to support a multitude of hardware configurations, but reduces performance.

 

Console games however are built for one specific piece of hardware and are completely designed to take advantage of every little quirk and feature to gleam maximum performance from the hardware that it runs on. Changing the way the hardware works after the game has already been made for it will result in the games being broken - that's why you can't just swap out chipsets like you can with a PC or a smartphone.

 

As an aside, Nintendo also like to use the old hardware chips in their new games too. 2D graphics in DS games almost always ran off the ARM 7 processor (which is why the 3DS has to include it for purposes of DS backwards compatibility), while the ARM 9 chip inside the 3DS is often used for background processing tasks like WiFi communication, SD card access and stuff like that. Sony did the same thing with the PS2, which used the PS1 hardware to handle audio related tasks.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Dcubed

[Hogge]

I find it an odd decision to make some 3DS games which can only be played on the new version. On one hand it's great that we'll get better looking handheld games, on the other it'll probably cause confusion among consumers.

 

But this is great revision. Had Nintendo announced phonecall support, I would have bought it, so I would only have to own one portable machine.

[Wii]

This is getting old and as nobody but yourself seems to be asking for it, please move this to PMs.

 

Aye aye captain! : peace: Welcome to my ignore list @Serebii It's quite a populated village by all accounts. I'll leave with this parting shot. I welcome a balanced discussion but you're incapable of that or giving a straight answer. I'm not going to beat around the bush anymore, you're a liar.

[Debug Mode]

I can't see a true successor to the 3DS for at least another 4 years. They are quite clearly bringing this to market to revitalise the 3DS and to maximise their investment in the handheld. The Wii U is still struggling, they need a guaranteed money maker on the field and the 3DS was stagnating in the East (hence why a few of us were convinced that the Japanese market was going to get a new 3DS). They're going to drag this one out, I just hope the New 3DS is capable enough to justify it (and I don't think this ugly port is going to be the title to make us believe in the potential).

[Dcubed]

I can't see a true successor to the 3DS for at least another 4 years. They are quite clearly bringing this to market to revitalise the 3DS and to maximise their investment in the handheld. The Wii U is still struggling, they need a guaranteed money maker on the field and the 3DS was stagnating in the East (hence why a few of us were convinced that the Japanese market was going to get a new 3DS). They're going to drag this one out, I just hope the New 3DS is capable enough to justify it (and I don't think this ugly port is going to be the title to make us believe in the potential).

 

Nah, 4 years is way too long. That's 2018!!

 

2-3 years is all but assured and that's fine by me. Plenty of life still left in the 3DS and late 2016/early 2017 for the next handheld sounds about right. That would give the 3DS a total lifespan of about 6-7 years, as software support will probably last until around late 2017/early 2018 (that 3DS userbase isn't going to switch overnight after all )

 

The big ? for me at the moment though is how they're planning on doing backwards compatibility in the next handheld (if at all). If they're really going to base their next handheld and console on the Wii U's hardware architecture, then than means a switch over to a Power PC CPU... (as crazy as it sounds for a handheld to not use ARM... but then again, the Wii U does only use a pitifully low 33 watts and that includes everything like the disc drive, the USB slots and the wireless...)

 

Will they take the same approach and include an ARM11/ARM9 in the next handheld? That seems like a very expensive approach to take the next time around... (on the other hand, if they do the same thing with their console - that would mean that it would be capable of playing 3DS games too!)

 

I suppose that it might be possible to emulate the ARM9, considering that Nintendo already have a fully functioning DS emulator up and running on Wii U. That would save some money on the BOM, but who knows how fully featured that emulator is, or to what extent it might be possible...

Edited August 31, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

It's still going to be using a dual core ARM 11 chip, it has to in order to be able to run 3DS games (and no, a Cortex processor does not feature the full instruction set of ARM 11), probably just with a boosted clock speed on a smaller process node and a few minor tweaks to the instruction pipeline. Both the DSi and the GBC saw the same kind of upgrade - same general chip with boosted clocks and minor efficiency upgrades.

 

You can't just plonk a different ARM chip in there and expect everything to work. It's the reason why the 3DS still has the DSi's ARM 9 chip inside it, rather than just trying to run everything off the ARM 11 (It also has the DSi's ARM 7 chip inside it too, which is what allows it to run the GBA ambassador games )

 

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.

 

 

It's a boosted version of the same hardware, that downclocks itself when running original 3DS games, that's why it still works.

 

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.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Sheikah

[Agent Gibbs]

you guys are mad! the 3DS will not have that long a life span, we'll get a successor by Christmas 2015 in Japan and the US/Eu in early 2016 unless its a combined Home Console/Handheld as rumours are suggesting in which case maybe launching the combined thing mid 2016 around E3

[Dcubed]

I appreciate that you go into detail, but the dots still don't connect. They can improve the clock speed of the processor and offer a 2D only mode to free up the processor. It seems like they could very much provide a sizeable bump to the resolution of games 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. Obviously it depends on the hardware being able to support a higher resolution, but they're capable of achieving that.

 

Just doubling the CPU clock speed isn't going to suddenly allow the console to render at double the resolution. Even if they gave the GPU the same x2 bump, it's not going to guarantee that they can bump up the resolution like that (especially if the game is running in 3D, where the requirements are twice as high as in 2D). There's so many variables involved that there's no way to guarantee that (to put things in perspective, many games on iPhone such as Infinity Blade ran better on the iPhone 3GS than they did on the iPhone 4 - despite the latter iPhone having supposedly twice the graphics performance on paper).

 

It doesn't make sense to spend much more money on a screen that's twice the resolution, where only a small subset of games might be able to take advantage of it. It's just a huge waste of money and hardware resources.

 

you guys are mad! the 3DS will not have that long a life span, we'll get a successor by Christmas 2015 in Japan and the US/Eu in early 2016 unless its a combined Home Console/Handheld as rumours are suggesting in which case maybe launching the combined thing mid 2016 around E3

 

So this New3DS is going to last only a year? Really? You think that's remotely likely?

 

This thing will be launching in March/April next year outside of Japan. Do you really think that they would release it then and then just 2-3 months later suddenly announce a successor at E3? Come on! People would revolt, and rightly so!

 

Oh and Iwata has already said that the next hardware is not going to be a hybrid console/handheld. They're just going to be based on the same hardware architecture (like how an iPad and iPhone use the same hardware architecture, but different chipset specs).

Edited August 31, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Just doubling the CPU clock speed isn't going to suddenly allow the console to render at double the resolution. Even if they gave the GPU the same x2 bump, it's not going to guarantee that they can bump up the resolution like that (especially if the game is running in 3D, where the requirements are twice as high as in 2D). There's so many variables involved that there's no way to guarantee that (to put things in perspective, many games on iPhone such as Infinity Blade ran better on the iPhone 3GS than they did on the iPhone 4 - despite the latter iPhone having supposedly twice the graphics performance on paper).

 

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 doesn't make sense to spend much more money on a screen that's twice the resolution, where only a small subset of games might be able to take advantage of it. It's just a huge waste of money and hardware resources.

 

It makes far more sense than developing games that only a subset of your userbase can play.

[Dcubed]

I give up. It's like talking to a brick wall...

 

You clearly have no idea what you're on about. You can't even display 800 x 240 on the 3DS' screen because there are only 400 pixels visible on the screen (the screen resolution is split in half by the parallax barrier)

 

And for the record games on 3DS DO get a boost when running in 2D. Many games use the left over grunt to do 2x vertical or horizontal SSAA (downscaling from 800x240 or 400x480), while some other games run at double the framerate in 2D (Street Fighter 4 3D and DOA Dimensions spring to mind).

 

3D is something with a fixed cost. You effectively cut your GPU performance in half when you enable it as your game now has to render the same scene twice. That's why there's an obvious blanket performance improvement from running in 2D that any game can take advantage of with little developer work required (though this only applies to the GPU of course. If your game is CPU limited instead, then running in 2D instead of 3D won't have any effect.)

 

Just blindly doubling clock speeds doesn't necessarily mean double resolution. If the hardware is still fillrate limited, then you're stuffed! If it still lacks the pixel throughout and memory bandwidth needed, then it's gonna perform badly at higher resolutions, even if it's running at twice the speed on paper.

 

If you can't understand that, then there's no point continuing to talk about it

Edited August 31, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

I give up. It's like talking to a brick wall...

 

You clearly have no idea what you're on about. You can't even display 800 x 240 on the 3DS' screen because there are only 400 pixels visible on the screen (the screen resolution is split in half by the parallax barrier)

 

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).

 

And for the record games on 3DS DO get a boost when running in 2D. Many games use the left over grunt to do 2x vertical or horizontal SSAA (downscaling from 800x240 or 400x480), while some other games run at double the framerate in 2D (Street Fighter 4 3D and DOA Dimensions spring to mind).

 

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.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Sheikah

[Dcubed]

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.

 

Dropping 3D would mean that the console could output double the polygons, or double the framerate in GPU limited games, or running in 800 x 240.

 

Doubling the CPU or GPU clock speed does not guarantee any of these though. That's the point I'm making.

 

It's stupid to suggest that they could just double the CPU or GPU clock speed and then suddenly start running everything at double the resolution. It doesn't work like that! You don't necessarily get that kind of blanket improvement like you do when you turn off 3D...

 

And there's only so far you can take the same piece of hardware... You can't just keep upping the clocks forever.

 

A higher resolution screen doesn't make sense for a revision of a handheld using boosted versions of the same hardware. It's when you are releasing a new piece of hardware that is many times more capable in all respects that a resolution bump makes sense.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Dropping 3D would mean that the console could output double the polygons, or double the framerate in GPU limited games, or running in 800 x 240.

 

Doubling the CPU or GPU clock speed does not guarantee any of these though. That's the point I'm making.

 

It's stupid to suggest that they could just double the CPU or GPU clock speed and then suddenly start running everything at double the resolution. It doesn't work like that! You don't necessarily get that kind of blanket improvement like you do when you turn off 3D...

 

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.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Sheikah

[Dcubed]

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.

 

Yes that would be achieveable, guaranteed, because 3D comes at a fixed cost (though it would be stupid, because the aspect ratio would be completely wrong for running 3DS games on a 2D 800x240 or 400x480 screen). The kind of resolution bump you would want would be a clean x4 (I.e 800x480), because it would mean that existing 3DS games could be evenly scaled with no loss in quality - that's the reason why Sony chose that specific resolution that the Vita uses, because it's exactly 4x the resolution of the PSP's screen.

 

That has nothing to do with the idea of them increasing the resolution of games via just increasing the clock speed of the same CPU/GPU like you suggested though. Because there's no way to guarantee the viability of a blanket resolution improvement with just a simple clock bump, a resolution bump is not a sensible option to attempt with a revision of the same hardware.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Dcubed

[Goron_3]

So this New3DS is going to last only a year? Really? You think that's remotely likely?

 

This thing will be launching in March/April next year outside of Japan. Do you really think that they would release it then and then just 2-3 months later suddenly announce a successor at E3? Come on! People would revolt, and rightly so!

 

Again, they announced the Micro at the same time as the DS and they announced the 3DS 4 months after they launched the DSi XL launched, before showing it at E3. You don't wait until sales of a console are dead in the pan before releasing a successor, especially as new consoles don't tend to pick up sales until years 2-3. Nintendo have always released a final iteration of a handheld console to keep the old console selling at decent numbers whilst the newer one finds it feet. People didn't revolt when the DSi XL was released and the 3DS was announced, and in the case of the DS, the GBA actually outsold it for some time.

 

They are well aware that the DS brand is weaker than it has been in the past and they also know that the 3DS has already had its year of strongest growth and sales (2012); they can't keep the thing out there if it's doing nothing for the market. I predict Nintendo will act as they normally do in this situation, as they always have.

 

We'll see. My money is on an E3 2016 reveal with a release November 2016.

 

I personally view this as the same purpose as the DSi, not the DSi XL.

 

The 3DS is less than four years old. It's way too soon.

 

The age is irrelavent, as Nintendo showed with the GBA launch and the DS reveal. It's about business, which is maximising sales and profit. Also, a E3 2015 reveal and early 2016 release will mean the 3DS would have been out 5 years (it launched in 2011, remember). It will also have had 4 years of declining hardware sales, especially compared to the 2012-2013 fiscal year sales.

 

Another point on age...360 and PS3 had 7 E3 shows before their successors were shown...the GBA had 2 to itself (2002,2003) before the DS was shown, and it was selling like HOT CAKES at the time. So yeah, ignore age It's more about market, momentum and other factors which affect cashflow.

[Dcubed]

Again, they announced the Micro at the same time as the DS and they announced the 3DS 4 months after they launched the DSi XL launched, before showing it at E3. You don't wait until sales of a console are dead in the pan before releasing a successor, especially as new consoles don't tend to pick up sales until years 2-3. Nintendo have always released a final iteration of a handheld console to keep the old console selling at decent numbers whilst the newer one finds it feet. People didn't revolt when the DSi XL was released and the 3DS was announced, and in the case of the DS, the GBA actually outsold it for some time.

 

They are well aware that the DS brand is weaker than it has been in the past and they also know that the 3DS has already had its year of strongest growth and sales (2012); they can't keep the thing out there if it's doing nothing for the market. I predict Nintendo will act as they normally do in this situation, as they always have.

 

 

 

The age is irrelavent, as Nintendo showed with the GBA launch and the DS reveal. It's about business, which is maximising sales and profit. Also, a E3 2015 reveal and early 2016 release will mean the 3DS would have been out 5 years (it launched in 2011, remember). It will also have had 4 years of declining hardware sales, especially compared to the 2012-2013 fiscal year sales.

 

Another point on age...360 and PS3 had 7 E3 shows before their successors were shown...the GBA had 2 to itself (2002,2003) before the DS was shown, and it was selling like HOT CAKES at the time. So yeah, ignore age It's more about market, momentum and other factors which affect cashflow.

 

If they do that, they instantly kill all consumer confidence in their handheld line. It's the same attitude that ended up dooming SEGA in the mid 90s. Who the hell would buy a 4DS after seeing the New3DS killed within a year?

 

The idea is absurd! No. If they're releasing this, they need to support it for at least 2 years - like with the DSi (which is the equivilent example here, not the GBMicro or the DSiXL - speaking of which, the DSiXL is the equvilent of the GBMicro - not something that got its own games like the GBC/DSi/New3DS).

Edited August 31, 2014 by Dcubed

[Goron_3]

If they do that, they instantly kill all consumer confidence in their handheld line. It's the same attitude that ended up dooming SEGA in the mid 90s. Who the hell would buy a 4DS after seeing the New3DS killed within a year?

 

The idea is absurd! No. If they're releasing this, they need to support it for at least 2 years - like with the DSi (which is the equivilent example here, not the GBMicro).

 

What are you talking about? They wouldn't kill the New 3DS off at all. They'll treat it just as they did when the GBA and DS were out at the same time, or the DS or 3DS. Remember, early adopters buy successor consoles at launch, not the masses. It won't make a difference if they announced the next handheld at E3 2015 and released in early 2016, over a year after the New 3DS launched.

 

Remember, the New 3DS is not a successor, it's just a new iteration. It's not going to be purchased by the same people that would purchase a new console in the first 12 months. It's for the people who, over the next 2-3 years, decide to grab a handheld for their kids or whatever. The Sega example is also irrelevant; Sega failed because they released the 32X, CD and Saturn all ridiculously close together with the message that the 32X and CD were basically the future of Sega, not just the Genesis. They were all also ridiculously expensive. Sega of America didn't know about the Saturn until very late which sent a mixed message to the audience. This is a convo for a different thread though.

[Dcubed]

It most certainly would be purchased by the same audience. The first people who are gonna dive into the New3DS will be the same early adopters who would buy into the 4DS early and an announcement made so ridiculously shortly after the release of the New3DS would cause riots! I'd be fucking livid, as would a large chunk of their core audience!

 

It's like basically saying, "oh, that new handheld you just bought a couple of months ago? It's broken and shit now! Should've waited for the real hotness!"

 

There's no faster way to piss off your audience than by selling them a console that is to be supplanted by a true successor less than a year later. It makes zero sense on every level. The concept is simply absurd!

 

The whole point of the New3DS is to buy them time while they prepare the true handheld successor. Supplanting it within a year completely defeats the purpose of releasing it in the first place!

 

2-3 years and you'll see a true 3DS successor.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Yes that would be achieveable, guaranteed, because 3D comes at a fixed cost (though it would be stupid, because the aspect ratio would be completely wrong for running 3DS games on a 2D 800x240 or 400x480 screen).

 

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.

 

That has nothing to do with the idea of them increasing the resolution of games via just increasing the clock speed of the same CPU/GPU like you suggested though. Because there's no way to guarantee the viability of a blanket resolution improvement with just a simple clock bump, a resolution bump is not a sensible option to attempt with a revision of the same hardware.

 

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'.

 

The idea is absurd! No. If they're releasing this, they need to support it for at least 2 years - like with the DSi (which is the equivilent example here, not the GBMicro or the DSiXL - speaking of which, the DSiXL is the equvilent of the GBMicro - not something that got its own games like the GBC/DSi/New3DS).

 

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.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Sheikah
Automerged Doublepost

[Ronnie]

There's no way they're going to start fresh with a new handheld within a year's time, it would mean starting with an install base of zero and that's just too risky a proposition at the moment. I'd agree with others with a 2016 launch of their next handheld.

[Debug Mode]

For those who think another 4 years of the 3DS is too long, I need to remind you that the original DS came out in 2004 and the 3DS in 2011

[Dcubed]

For those who think another 4 years of the 3DS is too long, I need to remind you that the original DS came out in 2004 and the 3DS in 2011

 

True, but times have changed. The DS was the most successful console of all time after all...

 

Besides, a 2016/early 2017 release would still be 5/6 years before seeing a successor. That sounds about right to me (the life cycle would only be about 0.5-1 year shorter than the DS was - don't forget that it came out in November 2004 and the 3DS came out in February 2011, so the DS actually lasted 6 years and 3 months before seeing a successor)

 

What you're suggesting would mean that the 3DS would actually have a longer lifespan than the DS did, which just sounds like madness to me!

Edited September 1, 2014 by Dcubed

[Pestneb]

Mine sure does. I have wondered how widespread the issue is though.

 

Anyone else here have vertical scratches on the edges on the top screen of their XL?

 

Well I don't.. Just thought you'll need to know how many aren't affected to get a better idea of how common the issue is, otherwise those who have issues will just be a number without context