By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nvidia employee acknowledges Tegra 239 SoC rumored to be powering Switch 2

SKMBlake said:
DonFerrari said:

Not sure what you are calling premium on other manufacturers because both Series X and PS5 with disc lose money for MS and Sony just lose less than Series S and discless PS5.

Also if you want to pay cheaper for the chip yes you have to get things that are far from top tier.

Nope, not the Disc PS5 anymore

The break even was something that Sony mentioned before the inflation explosion, but with the price hike yes it is likely profitting. But it isn't a premium product at all, it is the standard version.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Soundwave said:

By 1996, Nintendo probably could have put a  CD-ROM in the N64 if they really wanted to and sold it for $250, which was supposed to be the original launch price anyway (Nintendo lowered the price to $199.99 even before the system released). CD drive prices were dropping fast by '96, this is why Playstation was able to cut its price to $199.99 as well in 1996 to match the N64's price tag. 

Keep in mind that back then CD Rom Drives were still like $100+ AUD back then.
And Sony was building it's own optical drives, where Nintendo wasn't.

And even if we fast forward to today, Microsoft and Sony are selling consoles without optical drives with a chunk of change off the MSRP.
It's a cost.

Soundwave said:

The Tegra X1 in the Switch while cutting edge for 2015 was never that expensive even in 2015. The Nvidia Shield released in spring 2015 for $199.99. 

nVidia tends to charge a premium for it's parts, even when they offer less performance.

Soundwave said:

Display and batteries are much cheaper today as they're hugely mass produced in so many devices (phones, tablets, etc.) unless Nintendo is planning to use some kind of ridiculously high resolution display, a 720p or even 1080p display is going to be cheap and so will a 4800-6000 MaH battery. These are not expensive components. They could probably really just keep the same 720p OLED panels they use in the Switch OLED model as its probably fairly cheap as Nintendo keeps ordering millions of them by 2023-2024 etc. it will be a dirt cheap component. 

Still a cost you won't have associated with the Playstation or Xbox.

The components themselves are also only part of the equation, building the power delivery, routing, PCB and controllers all costs as well.

Soundwave said:

A Tegra made for 2023 should be easily 5-6x more powerful than a Tegra X1 made in 2015 and modern Nvidia architectural features like DLSS via Tensor Cores is not really that big of a deal either, it's part of the package with modern Nvidia processor. There's nothing mind blowing about that. 

Agreed.

Soundwave said:

Nintendo also doesn't price hardware for the lowest common denominator any more, all the hardware makers have learned that premium pricing tiers are attractive as they yield higher profit margins over time. I don't think the Switch successor is going to be less than $399.99 when it launches and unless Nintendo makes stupid design or software decisions it will likely be sold out for a while. 

Probably 2 years after Super Switch/Switch 2 releases you'll get a cheap model option in the Super Switch Lite or Switch 2 Lite for like $249.99 maybe but by then the component costs will really have shrunk anyway. 

Inflation is reducing the purchasing power of a dollar the world over, higher prices is likely something we need to get used to.
Commodity parts like NAND and Ram are all over the shop... And TSMC/Samsung still has production bottlenecks to resolve.

A cost reduced variant would make economical sense, smaller/inferior display, no dock... That sort of thing.

Good console for the kids in the back of the car each.

- I mean consumer CD-drives were $100, but no way were massive corporations like Sony or even Nintendo paying $100/drive (this would 1/2 the entire price of the Playstation in 1996). I mean even as a consumer you would likely get a pretty sharp discount if for some reason you ordered 10 million CD drives even back then, lol. Nintendo should've used the delay of the N64 from 1995 to fall 1996 to add an optical drive. Even if they did something "Nintendo-ey" like use propietary mini-CDs in a protective caddy, that would've offered them a cheap format with 200+MB of storage ... would've resulted in a ton more happy 3rd party partners. 

- If the Switch successor launches at $399.99 ... that's plenty of overhead for a pretty nice chip (like say ... a Tegra 239). There's no chance this thing will be $299.99 even when the Switch OLED itself is $350 and selling just fine. 

Even with inflation and economic slowdown ... the game industry seems to be doing just fine. The Switch is selling well for a system its age, you still really can't find PS5's on storeshelves even after a price *increase* (lol), and it sounds like the XBox is outselling the XBox One. People still want to be entertained. 

If Nintendo has a successor hardware ready, likely they won't be able to manufacture enough for demand anyway, so they can afford a higher price point. 



Soundwave said:
Pemalite said:

Keep in mind that back then CD Rom Drives were still like $100+ AUD back then.
And Sony was building it's own optical drives, where Nintendo wasn't.

And even if we fast forward to today, Microsoft and Sony are selling consoles without optical drives with a chunk of change off the MSRP.
It's a cost.

Soundwave said:

The Tegra X1 in the Switch while cutting edge for 2015 was never that expensive even in 2015. The Nvidia Shield released in spring 2015 for $199.99. 

nVidia tends to charge a premium for it's parts, even when they offer less performance.

Still a cost you won't have associated with the Playstation or Xbox.

The components themselves are also only part of the equation, building the power delivery, routing, PCB and controllers all costs as well.

Soundwave said:

A Tegra made for 2023 should be easily 5-6x more powerful than a Tegra X1 made in 2015 and modern Nvidia architectural features like DLSS via Tensor Cores is not really that big of a deal either, it's part of the package with modern Nvidia processor. There's nothing mind blowing about that. 

Agreed.

Inflation is reducing the purchasing power of a dollar the world over, higher prices is likely something we need to get used to.
Commodity parts like NAND and Ram are all over the shop... And TSMC/Samsung still has production bottlenecks to resolve.

A cost reduced variant would make economical sense, smaller/inferior display, no dock... That sort of thing.

Good console for the kids in the back of the car each.

- I mean consumer CD-drives were $100, but no way were massive corporations like Sony or even Nintendo paying $100/drive (this would 1/2 the entire price of the Playstation in 1996). I mean even as a consumer you would likely get a pretty sharp discount if for some reason you ordered 10 million CD drives even back then, lol. Nintendo should've used the delay of the N64 from 1995 to fall 1996 to add an optical drive. Even if they did something "Nintendo-ey" like use propietary mini-CDs in a protective caddy, that would've offered them a cheap format with 200+MB of storage ... would've resulted in a ton more happy 3rd party partners. 

- If the Switch successor launches at $399.99 ... that's plenty of overhead for a pretty nice chip (like say ... a Tegra 239). There's no chance this thing will be $299.99 even when the Switch OLED itself is $350 and selling just fine. 

Even with inflation and economic slowdown ... the game industry seems to be doing just fine. The Switch is selling well for a system its age, you still really can't find PS5's on storeshelves even after a price *increase* (lol), and it sounds like the XBox is outselling the XBox One. People still want to be entertained. 

If Nintendo has a successor hardware ready, likely they won't be able to manufacture enough for demand anyway, so they can afford a higher price point. 

Nintendo burnt bridge with both Sony and Phillips for CD development, so there was little possibility of they going CD back them after that.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Soundwave said:

- I mean consumer CD-drives were $100, but no way were massive corporations like Sony or even Nintendo paying $100/drive (this would 1/2 the entire price of the Playstation in 1996). I mean even as a consumer you would likely get a pretty sharp discount if for some reason you ordered 10 million CD drives even back then, lol. Nintendo should've used the delay of the N64 from 1995 to fall 1996 to add an optical drive. Even if they did something "Nintendo-ey" like use propietary mini-CDs in a protective caddy, that would've offered them a cheap format with 200+MB of storage ... would've resulted in a ton more happy 3rd party partners. 

- If the Switch successor launches at $399.99 ... that's plenty of overhead for a pretty nice chip (like say ... a Tegra 239). There's no chance this thing will be $299.99 even when the Switch OLED itself is $350 and selling just fine. 

Even with inflation and economic slowdown ... the game industry seems to be doing just fine. The Switch is selling well for a system its age, you still really can't find PS5's on storeshelves even after a price *increase* (lol), and it sounds like the XBox is outselling the XBox One. People still want to be entertained. 

If Nintendo has a successor hardware ready, likely they won't be able to manufacture enough for demand anyway, so they can afford a higher price point. 

Nintendo burnt bridge with both Sony and Phillips for CD development, so there was little possibility of they going CD back them after that.

Sony and Philips didn't have a monopoly on CD ROM by the mid-1990s, there were tons of CD-ROM manufacturers at that point that they could have gone with, although I'm pretty sure they fulfilled their contractual obligation to Philips anyway. There was still Hitachi, Matsushita/Panasonic, Toshiba, NEC, JVC, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, that they could've gone with but I don't think Philips would've said no to supplying a CD drive either. I mean from Philips' POV a Super NES CD add-on released late in the system's product cycle realistically was going to sell what? Maybe 5 million units tops? The Sega CD sold 2.24 million life time. An order for N64 CD drives which every system would have to include could net them 40-50+ million orders, that sure beats an add-on, so I think even if Nintendo wanted to work with Philips, Philips would be smart enough to see an N64 CD was a far better deal for them than a SNES CD add-on (add-on's always being limited in user adoption).

Nintendo simply bit way too hard on the CDs aren't suitable for games nonsense. Should have compromised on that but kept the cartridge slot and they could've had cartridge games, which would've allowed Mario 64 to be released no problem, but also benefitted from CD based games. Even cart + CD combo games would've been smart you could keep cart sizes at only 8-16MB and offload extra data like music to a 10 cent CD to save yourself from having to spend on 32/64MB carts. That would've saved Nintendo money that probably would've paid for the CD drive on its own many times over. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 25 October 2022

Soundwave said:
DonFerrari said:

Nintendo burnt bridge with both Sony and Phillips for CD development, so there was little possibility of they going CD back them after that.

Sony and Philips didn't have a monopoly on CD ROM by the mid-1990s, there were tons of CD-ROM manufacturers at that point that they could have gone with, although I'm pretty sure they fulfilled their contractual obligation to Philips anyway. There was still Hitachi, Matsushita/Panasonic, Toshiba, NEC, JVC, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, that they could've gone with but I don't think Philips would've said no to supplying a CD drive either. I mean from Philips' POV a Super NES CD add-on released late in the system's product cycle realistically was going to sell what? Maybe 5 million units tops? The Sega CD sold 2.24 million life time. An order for N64 CD drives which every system would have to include could net them 40-50+ million orders, that sure beats an add-on, so I think even if Nintendo wanted to work with Philips, Philips would be smart enough to see an N64 CD was a far better deal for them than a SNES CD add-on (add-on's always being limited in user adoption).

Nintendo simply bit way too hard on the CDs aren't suitable for games nonsense. Should have compromised on that but kept the cartridge slot and they could've had cartridge games, which would've allowed Mario 64 to be released no problem, but also benefitted from CD based games. Even cart + CD combo games would've been smart you could keep cart sizes at only 8-16MB and offload extra data like music to a 10 cent CD to save yourself from having to spend on 32/64MB carts. That would've saved Nintendo money that probably would've paid for the CD drive on its own many times over. 

Sure those companies wouldn't deny selling the product, but after those 2 companies putting their own money in R&D Nintendo backtracked on the project why do you think they would have tried a 3rd time?

Cartdrige and CD on the same console would likely be problematic, we had bad examples besides extra cost.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Soundwave said:

Sony and Philips didn't have a monopoly on CD ROM by the mid-1990s, there were tons of CD-ROM manufacturers at that point that they could have gone with, although I'm pretty sure they fulfilled their contractual obligation to Philips anyway. There was still Hitachi, Matsushita/Panasonic, Toshiba, NEC, JVC, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, that they could've gone with but I don't think Philips would've said no to supplying a CD drive either. I mean from Philips' POV a Super NES CD add-on released late in the system's product cycle realistically was going to sell what? Maybe 5 million units tops? The Sega CD sold 2.24 million life time. An order for N64 CD drives which every system would have to include could net them 40-50+ million orders, that sure beats an add-on, so I think even if Nintendo wanted to work with Philips, Philips would be smart enough to see an N64 CD was a far better deal for them than a SNES CD add-on (add-on's always being limited in user adoption).

Nintendo simply bit way too hard on the CDs aren't suitable for games nonsense. Should have compromised on that but kept the cartridge slot and they could've had cartridge games, which would've allowed Mario 64 to be released no problem, but also benefitted from CD based games. Even cart + CD combo games would've been smart you could keep cart sizes at only 8-16MB and offload extra data like music to a 10 cent CD to save yourself from having to spend on 32/64MB carts. That would've saved Nintendo money that probably would've paid for the CD drive on its own many times over. 

Sure those companies wouldn't deny selling the product, but after those 2 companies putting their own money in R&D Nintendo backtracked on the project why do you think they would have tried a 3rd time?

Cartdrige and CD on the same console would likely be problematic, we had bad examples besides extra cost.

Well Nintendo and Philips only had one deal, so it wouldn't be back tracking 3 times, they would be going ahead with a N64 CD drive instead of a Super NES one, which frankly is a way better deal for Philips if Nintendo felt like they wanted to work with Philips. If not them, Nintendo did end up working with Panasonic and IBM on the GameCube and both of them made CD-ROM drives, but so did numerous other companies as I mentioned like Toshiba, Hitachi, Fujitsu, JVC, NEC I'm sure would've been happy to supply Nintendo with a drive if asked. 

Cartridge slot really doesn't cost much at all, don't see what would be problematic about that at all. 

For that gen especially where 2x speed CD-ROM drives were pretty slow, having a fast cartridge in combination with a CD that could just handle large textures, audio, video, voice data, etc. would've been actually a pretty kick ass setup for Nintendo/Rare games. A game like Star Fox 64 for example could've off-loaded all the voice data onto a 5 cent CD instead of using up like 1/3 of the cartridge's space for voice audio. 3rd parties probably just would've made CD-only games, but who knows I could see things like fighting games being cart + CD combo (Street Fighter III was rumored for the N64, but I think there were cartridge space limitation issues). You could probably do other things like use the cartridge (say 8-16MB) as a faster higher speed texture cache of sorts and have the disc just stream textures straight to the cartridge to hold. 

If anything I think what would've happened is maybe Nintendo would've amalgamated the cartridge slot and RAM Expansion slot the N64 had (it also had an expansion slot on the bottom of the system for the 64DD which wouldn't be needed ... so it had three high speed ports ... people forget that). You could lose one of those slots, maybe even two. The Saturn's cartridge slot for example could run both cartridge games but also it could run the RAM Expansion, so probably that would've saved Nintendo a few bucks. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 25 October 2022

Soundwave said:
DonFerrari said:

Sure those companies wouldn't deny selling the product, but after those 2 companies putting their own money in R&D Nintendo backtracked on the project why do you think they would have tried a 3rd time?

Cartdrige and CD on the same console would likely be problematic, we had bad examples besides extra cost.

Well Nintendo and Philips only had one deal, so it wouldn't be back tracking 3 times, they would be going ahead with a N64 CD drive instead of a Super NES one, which frankly is a way better deal for Philips if Nintendo felt like they wanted to work with Philips. If not them, Nintendo did end up working with Panasonic and IBM on the GameCube and both of them made CD-ROM drives, but so did numerous other companies as I mentioned like Toshiba, Hitachi, Fujitsu, JVC, NEC I'm sure would've been happy to supply Nintendo with a drive if asked. 

Cartridge slot really doesn't cost much at all, don't see what would be problematic about that at all. 

For that gen especially where 2x speed CD-ROM drives were pretty slow, having a fast cartridge in combination with a CD that could just handle large textures, audio, video, voice data, etc. would've been actually a pretty kick ass setup for Nintendo/Rare games. A game like Star Fox 64 for example could've off-loaded all the voice data onto a 5 cent CD instead of using up like 1/3 of the cartridge's space for voice audio. 3rd parties probably just would've made CD-only games, but who knows I could see things like fighting games being cart + CD combo (Street Fighter III was rumored for the N64, but I think there were cartridge space limitation issues). You could probably do other things like use the cartridge (say 8-16MB) as a faster higher speed texture cache of sorts and have the disc just stream textures straight to the cartridge to hold. 

If anything I think what would've happened is maybe Nintendo would've amalgamated the cartridge slot and RAM Expansion slot the N64 had (it also had an expansion slot on the bottom of the system for the 64DD which wouldn't be needed ... so it had three high speed ports ... people forget that. You could lose one of those slots, maybe even two. The Saturn's cartridge slot for example could run both cartridge games but also it could run the RAM Expansion, so probably that would've saved Nintendo a few bucks. 

And Sega Saturn is a perfect example of a system that tried to accomplish 2 different things on the system with the 2D and 3D processing and failed because that added complexity and cost. But sure Nintendo could have changed mind again and made a N64CD+Slot for the same price.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Soundwave said:

Well Nintendo and Philips only had one deal, so it wouldn't be back tracking 3 times, they would be going ahead with a N64 CD drive instead of a Super NES one, which frankly is a way better deal for Philips if Nintendo felt like they wanted to work with Philips. If not them, Nintendo did end up working with Panasonic and IBM on the GameCube and both of them made CD-ROM drives, but so did numerous other companies as I mentioned like Toshiba, Hitachi, Fujitsu, JVC, NEC I'm sure would've been happy to supply Nintendo with a drive if asked. 

Cartridge slot really doesn't cost much at all, don't see what would be problematic about that at all. 

For that gen especially where 2x speed CD-ROM drives were pretty slow, having a fast cartridge in combination with a CD that could just handle large textures, audio, video, voice data, etc. would've been actually a pretty kick ass setup for Nintendo/Rare games. A game like Star Fox 64 for example could've off-loaded all the voice data onto a 5 cent CD instead of using up like 1/3 of the cartridge's space for voice audio. 3rd parties probably just would've made CD-only games, but who knows I could see things like fighting games being cart + CD combo (Street Fighter III was rumored for the N64, but I think there were cartridge space limitation issues). You could probably do other things like use the cartridge (say 8-16MB) as a faster higher speed texture cache of sorts and have the disc just stream textures straight to the cartridge to hold. 

If anything I think what would've happened is maybe Nintendo would've amalgamated the cartridge slot and RAM Expansion slot the N64 had (it also had an expansion slot on the bottom of the system for the 64DD which wouldn't be needed ... so it had three high speed ports ... people forget that. You could lose one of those slots, maybe even two. The Saturn's cartridge slot for example could run both cartridge games but also it could run the RAM Expansion, so probably that would've saved Nintendo a few bucks. 

And Sega Saturn is a perfect example of a system that tried to accomplish 2 different things on the system with the 2D and 3D processing and failed because that added complexity and cost. But sure Nintendo could have changed mind again and made a N64CD+Slot for the same price.

Yeah but that's a different issue, their *chipset* for the Saturn was more of a 2D processor than a 3D one. 

The format really didn't hurt it though.

I think there's no real point in ditching a cartridge slot, cartridge slots really don't cost that much, so when people position the debate as "cartridge vs CD!" it didn't really need to be that way at all. 

I mean even Nintendo by announcing the 64DD basically the same time as unveiling the N64 was basically conceding even at that point that cartridges alone weren't sufficient. They should've just swallowed their pride a bit at that point and just agreed to add in a CD drive. 



Soundwave said:

- I mean consumer CD-drives were $100, but no way were massive corporations like Sony or even Nintendo paying $100/drive (this would 1/2 the entire price of the Playstation in 1996). I mean even as a consumer you would likely get a pretty sharp discount if for some reason you ordered 10 million CD drives even back then, lol. Nintendo should've used the delay of the N64 from 1995 to fall 1996 to add an optical drive. Even if they did something "Nintendo-ey" like use propietary mini-CDs in a protective caddy, that would've offered them a cheap format with 200+MB of storage ... would've resulted in a ton more happy 3rd party partners. 

I never asserted that Nintendo and Sony were paying $100 AUD a drive, hence why I stipulated "consumer".

The Nintendo 64 had other issues that held it back as well, like the 4kb texture size limitation which forced games like Mario 64 to use Gourad shading instead of textures.

CD Drives were an additional cost, they still are in current consoles, hence why discless consoles are cheaper.

Soundwave said:

- If the Switch successor launches at $399.99 ... that's plenty of overhead for a pretty nice chip (like say ... a Tegra 239). There's no chance this thing will be $299.99 even when the Switch OLED itself is $350 and selling just fine. 

Even with inflation and economic slowdown ... the game industry seems to be doing just fine. The Switch is selling well for a system its age, you still really can't find PS5's on storeshelves even after a price *increase* (lol), and it sounds like the XBox is outselling the XBox One. People still want to be entertained. 

If Nintendo has a successor hardware ready, likely they won't be able to manufacture enough for demand anyway, so they can afford a higher price point. 

The purchasing power of a dollar world-wide is decreasing, so higher prices should be the expectation.

OLED panels are also getting cheaper, they are starting to filter downwards into lower-end devices finally.


Yeah, manufacturing a sufficient stockpile is going to be crucial to not have a repeat of Switch/Series X/Playstation 5 shortages again.


Soundwave said:

Sony and Philips didn't have a monopoly on CD ROM by the mid-1990s, there were tons of CD-ROM manufacturers at that point that they could have gone with, although I'm pretty sure they fulfilled their contractual obligation to Philips anyway. There was still Hitachi, Matsushita/Panasonic, Toshiba, NEC, JVC, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, that they could've gone with but I don't think Philips would've said no to supplying a CD drive either. I mean from Philips' POV a Super NES CD add-on released late in the system's product cycle realistically was going to sell what? Maybe 5 million units tops? The Sega CD sold 2.24 million life time. An order for N64 CD drives which every system would have to include could net them 40-50+ million orders, that sure beats an add-on, so I think even if Nintendo wanted to work with Philips, Philips would be smart enough to see an N64 CD was a far better deal for them than a SNES CD add-on (add-on's always being limited in user adoption).

Nintendo simply bit way too hard on the CDs aren't suitable for games nonsense. Should have compromised on that but kept the cartridge slot and they could've had cartridge games, which would've allowed Mario 64 to be released no problem, but also benefitted from CD based games. Even cart + CD combo games would've been smart you could keep cart sizes at only 8-16MB and offload extra data like music to a 10 cent CD to save yourself from having to spend on 32/64MB carts. That would've saved Nintendo money that probably would've paid for the CD drive on its own many times over. 

Sony was a pretty big player in the CDROM component manufacturing... But I doubt they would have prevented any company from using their technology, otherwise the word "Anti-Trust" get's thrown around pretty hard.

Soundwave said:

Yeah but that's a different issue, their *chipset* for the Saturn was more of a 2D processor than a 3D one. 

The format really didn't hurt it though.

I think there's no real point in ditching a cartridge slot, cartridge slots really don't cost that much, so when people position the debate as "cartridge vs CD!" it didn't really need to be that way at all. 

I mean even Nintendo by announcing the 64DD basically the same time as unveiling the N64 was basically conceding even at that point that cartridges alone weren't sufficient. They should've just swallowed their pride a bit at that point and just agreed to add in a CD drive. 

Cart slots are always cheaper than an optical or mechanical drive.

But it's the media where the costs become extremely one-sided where carts command a massive price premium over optical.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Soundwave said:
DonFerrari said:

And Sega Saturn is a perfect example of a system that tried to accomplish 2 different things on the system with the 2D and 3D processing and failed because that added complexity and cost. But sure Nintendo could have changed mind again and made a N64CD+Slot for the same price.

Yeah but that's a different issue, their *chipset* for the Saturn was more of a 2D processor than a 3D one. 

The format really didn't hurt it though.

I think there's no real point in ditching a cartridge slot, cartridge slots really don't cost that much, so when people position the debate as "cartridge vs CD!" it didn't really need to be that way at all. 

I mean even Nintendo by announcing the 64DD basically the same time as unveiling the N64 was basically conceding even at that point that cartridges alone weren't sufficient. They should've just swallowed their pride a bit at that point and just agreed to add in a CD drive. 

You would still have controllers, processing and mixing data from CD and cart in the same game could be quite complex. But sure it would be something new.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."