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.

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.

DanneSandin said: Teeqoz said: Water is wet.   OT: What will the specs be? For the Steam Boy? Didnt you read the OP? ;)

Besides the ram and the resolution, there's not much concrete info on the specs in the Op. It only says it's a jaguar based SoC.

I am already sold on the 4G Smach Zero. Been looking for an upgrade from my 3G PS Vita for about 2 years, and this looks like the ticket.

However, I would much rather support Sony or Nintendo, so if either comes with a 4G gaming device, then that will be where I go. I will never support iOS or Anrdoid again, and I think anyone that games should avoid them like the plague as well.

Even if the next Nintendo handheld is 50% of this Smach Zero, as long as it has 4G I will buy it day one. Just not a fan of Steam or PC in general, so I don't want my money going their if possible.

Teeqoz said: DanneSandin said: For the Steam Boy? Didnt you read the OP? ;) Besides the ram and the resolution, there's not much concrete info on the specs in the Op. It only says it's a jaguar based SoC.

Sorry, thats all Ive got :)

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. 

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.

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. 

forethought14 said: NX Go! won't have the 4G (I doubt Nintendo will bother), nor will it have the same resolution (probably not that high, more like 540p). I'd say it'll be less powerful due to the fact that a $299.99+ Handheld will sell horribly for Nintendo. $199.99 max. I'd say it's possible that the NX Go! will have 32GB flash memory internal, not a whole lot, will be surprised if it had more. Considering the jumps in RAM from Nintendo Handheld to Handheld, if from DSi we went from 16MB to 128MB in 3DS, a same jump from New 3DS's 256MB would lead to 2GB of RAM for the NX Go. A Quad Core CPU is likely considering the New 3DS is a Quad Core, though anything modern in architecture will be a SIGNIFICANT leap in power from those ancient ARM11 cores. For GPU, I don't know. May not match Wii U in that department, don't know what architecture they'll be using for that. AMD GCN architecture is likely, the RX 2XX would be a good fit. RX 3XX seems too recent, but you'll never know. Since it'll be priced lower than this SteamBoy, it won't match it's RAW power.

The recent AMD RX 3XX series is just a rebrand of older graphic cards with some of them having more Ram, including cards from the AMD RX 2XX series.

I think the key in the hybrid-console-handheld-business is scaling your games for the different machines. PC Games are very good with scaling their requirements for a wide range of possible hardware-configurations, there are even auto-configuration-tools like Geforce Experience from nVidia. Steam-Machines are going to do the same and this Smach Zero will play most games on low settings.

You can see similar things for example on iOS where some games can run on hardware that is four years old, but the same games are shining on the last iPad. This good perfomance on a so transforming platform (doubling graphics-perfomance every year) is simpler to implement when there is a litte number of hardware configurations that a programmer can detect and test in a reasonable period of time time like one new iPhone/iPad every fall.

This could reduce costs of developement for games that are released for this one platform on multiple machines, but this fact doesn't imply that the home console has to sacrifice most of the perfomance because of the handheld. Create a good handheld with a low-power SoC from AMD, put 2 GB of Ram in the device and a 720p screen. Runs all new games from Nintendo, but with lower graphics-quality for 199.99$ launch-price.

The home console can have a chip with higher perfomance, a higher resolution (1080p) and higher graphics-quality with 4 or 8 GB of faster Ram for 299.99$. The difference between games on those two devices would be closer than what we have seen with Smash Bros. on 3DS and WiiU.

Factory-Costs would drop soon with the use of standard-parts and it would be possible to maintain attractive hardware-prices with making some money on every sold machine. When 2018 or 2019 arrives and 4K is the new gold-standard for TV's like FullHD is today, new games could implement a third graphics-tier, a new home console with 4K launches and a new handheld with 1080p-support. No game-drought, because the whole library of games would be compatible, older games without 4K-tier-graphics just would be upscaled.

This is the only way hybrid should work.

AMD never really worked for anything with batteries. For something that size, it will either be weak, severely underclocked or have terrible battery. If Nintendo actually waits for 7nm chips, it might compete in power.