| Soundwave said: I'd also maintain I think there are factors at play beyond just "whether or not a new hardware is needed!". Would you do a large job for anyone and then accept not being paid once the job is finished? Why do people expect Nvidia to behave that way? There's not much logic in sitting on a finished chip that you have to pay for, not making any money off of it, and then on top of that having a declining existing hardware that's bringing in lower and lower hardware sales and profit on a yearly basis to go with that. |
It isn't unheard of for a manufacturer to begin or even finish R&D on a chipset only for it not to be used.
Some notable examples:
- Atari Panther: Scheduled for release in 1991. Hardware included a Motorola 68000 CPU (same as several other consoles from that era), but with a higher clock speed, 32Kb of RAM, and a 32-bit custom GPU made by Flare Technologies. Hardware was pretty much completed and even sent out to multiple developers. Product was cancelled in favor of the Atari Jaguar (which incorporated some of the technology here, with some changes)
- Sega "Blackbelt" (a.k.a. Saturn 2): Sega hired a team to create their next console. Sega contracted with 3DFX for the GPU, and were going to use a Motorola PowerPC CPU, though later changed to SH-4 by Sega's request. Hardware had been shown to some developers. At some point in development a different team began to look at creating a different console and contracted with NEC for the system we know today, the Dreamcast. 3DFX tried to Sega due to Sega actively exploring alternative hardware manufactures claiming it was a breach of contract (they settled out of court).
- Project INDY (a.k.a. Nintendo Switch): This console was surprisingly feature rich (BC with 3DS, bluetooth support, voice chat, GPS, etc), but hardware-wise is a major step down from what was actually released. The console would feature an 4-core ARM A53 (released Switch has this too, but they are disabled and it instead only uses ARM A57 CPU) 1GB of RAM (as opposed to the 4GB in the released model), screen resolution of 854x480 (a little over twice the resolution of 3DS whereas the Switch that was released is almost 5x the resolution), and a GPU based on the Wii U's Latte chip, but reduced in power and features.
- SNES CD (a.k.a. The Playstation): You probably know what happened here overall. Nintendo and Sony begin to work together on a CD add on for the SNES. Nintendo decides they don't like the contract that was built, so they announce a partnership with Philips. About a year later, Philips, Sony, and Nintendo get together to form a partnership on better terms, and also agree to include a 32-bit CPU and extra RAM into the CD add on. They reveal the release date to be in 1994, but a few months later Nintendo announces the cancelation of the add-on entirely.
There are a whole bunch of other examples, from Project Atlantis, Panasonic M2, to so many other Atari projects, do console manufacturers like doing this? No, they don't. However, sometimes these moves are necessary. Everything really depends on how far along the product was in development and what the contractual agreements are, and whether releasing the product is the best decision for the company. Honestly, I highly doubt any console manufacturer would sign a contractual agreement 3-4 years before a product launch that states they are legally bound to integrating a currently unfinished chipset into a product and supporting/selling that product for any meaningful amount of time.
