Soundwave said:
Miyamotoo said:
Soundwave said:
Miyamotoo said:
Soundwave said:
Steamboy is sold at a large profit margin though because the manufacturer doesn't make money off games, and Nintendo is also a much larger vendor that can order parts in huge volume (millions) so they get better pricing on parts.
That said I don't think it would be the worst idea in the world if Nintendo went with a slightly higher price point this time around ... say $219.99 or $229.99 at launch.
As long as they have strong games at launch this time around (Mario, Zelda, Dragon Quest XI, ahem) and launch closer to the holidays, I don't think they'll have the same problems the 3DS did.
That extra $20-$30 on hardware can allow for a lot more breathing room with RAM, GPU power, battery size, screen quality, etc.
Then maybe 8-12 months post-launch once the early adopters have bought theirs, then you drop the price to $199.99, by this time manufacturing costs should be dropping.
Also a 720p screen probably is actually cheaper than a 540p screen. No one really asks for qhd displays (540p), 720p displays are still mass produced at least at a decent clip. Don't assume better tech = more expensive all the time. If you're ordering weird exotic parts (like a LCD display with a resolution no one else but you ask for), you will pay more. |
Its not only about cost of screen, screen with higher resolution requires stronger hardware, stronger hardware requires stronger battery, stronger hardware and stronger battery affects on higher price of device.
|
Not neccessarily, just because the screen is 1280x720, doesn't mean every game has to run at that resolution. I'd bet 90% of people probably can't tell which Vita games run at non-native resolutions (ditto for iPad or Android games).
Heavy duty 3D games like say a port of Final Fantasy XV could run at 960x540 .... a game like Mario Maker or Star Fox or a 2D Zelda or a Kirby game could run fine at 1280x720. No one but people who sit on message boards counting resolution pixels would ever probably know.
720p screen are dirt cheap these days, even like $130 kids tablets have screens at that res today, let alone fall 2016.
Nintendo may actually have to pay *more* for a 960x540 screen simply because no one in their right mind orders screens at that resolution any more, so a supplier would basically have only Nintendo ordering that particular type of panel ... which again is part and parcel why the Wii U is so poorly designed ... lots of propietary hardware demands that aren't even great on performance.
|
Offcourse, but some games will certanly work in 1280x720 and they will need stronger hardware for that resolution than for 960x540.
540p screen maybe would be more expensive than 720p, but hardware required for 540p would be certainly cheaper than hardware required for 720p.
|
The GPU in a $200 iPod Touch (the Apple A8) can run games at 1280x720 in its sleep, and that's a product sold at a massive Apple mark up.
I think you're underestimating where portable tech is today, running many of the types of games that Nintendo makes at 720p on a portable would be easy to do even on a sub-$250 budget by fall 2016. It's easy enough even today to be honest.
|
I don't underestimating anything, my point is that lower resolution display means lower price of device itself, because resolution of display effects on power of CPU, RAM, GPU and battery. And in era of cheap smartphones that can play almost any game, Nintendo need to offer lower price point for their handheld, $150-199.
That said, I would love 720p display, it much stronger standard than 540p, it allow Nintendo to easy port Wii U games or some other benefits...but I dont think Nintendo will go for 720p display.
Of Course, we dont know anything for sure, this just is assuming that Nintendo will release again separate handheld and home consoles, but maybe we will get some kind of hybrid device with stronger specs.
