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

Pemalite 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. 

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.

The OLED display in the Switch OLED is so good honestly Nintendo should probably just re-use it for a Switch successor. It's honestly probably the first time with a Nintendo portable I've gone "wow, this screen is amazing" instead of "well this just good enough I guess". OLED display just makes colors pop so much more and blacks are inky black, which is perfect for Nintendo's games especially, and yeah this tech is just getting cheaper and cheaper because it's used in so many other devices these days. It's actually the one thing I noticed with Steam Deck is the lack of an OLED display is definitely noticeable. 

Regarding CD-drives I mean by the mid-90s basically every PC being shipped had this kind of a CD drive, I wonder if most people even knew what company made their CD-drive, a lot of PCs just shipped with a "generic" brand less CD-ROM drive. 

My CD drive in my PC (circa 1994) growing up I think was made by Creative. But there were so many CD-ROM manufacturers, even companies like Pioneer, Yamaha, etc.

My guess would be that Nintendo if they didn't want to work with Philips they would have probably turned to NEC or Panasonic (who they did work with on the GameCube). NEC had a history with Nintendo as early gen Famicom/NES games were coded on NEC computers and NEC had made CD drives for game systems before (PC Engine/Turbo Grafx 16). Nintendo even considered buying the PC Engine/Turbo Grafx 16 chip I believe to be the NES successor. But even more than that the N64's 64-bit CPU was the NEC VR4300. So NEC was already invested in the N64, I'm sure they would've been happy to make a CD drive for it if Nintendo asked. 



Around the Network
Soundwave said:

The OLED display in the Switch OLED is so good honestly Nintendo should probably just re-use it for a Switch successor. It's honestly probably the first time with a Nintendo portable I've gone "wow, this screen is amazing" instead of "well this just good enough I guess". OLED display just makes colors pop so much more and blacks are inky black, which is perfect for Nintendo's games especially, and yeah this tech is just getting cheaper and cheaper because it's used in so many other devices these days. It's actually the one thing I noticed with Steam Deck is the lack of an OLED display is definitely noticeable. 

It's a good price-sensitive panel, but it's not the best OLED has to offer... Far from it.
Nintendo can take things a step further than what you have seen on the Samsung OLED panel in the Switch.

10-bit, HDR would be a massive upgrade. 120hz perhaps? Or maybe variable refresh rate technology?

But we need to keep in mind that consoles aren't high-end devices that use high-end parts, so I would hope the next console has at-least a 900P panel.

Soundwave said:

Regarding CD-drives I mean by the mid-90s basically every PC being shipped had this kind of a CD drive, I wonder if most people even knew what company made their CD-drive, a lot of PCs just shipped with a "generic" brand less CD-ROM drive. 

The thing is, it may be a no-named branded CD Rom drive, but a lot of the internal components that make up the drives are made by different manufacturers... Or different brands may use identical components.

I.E. OSI Optoelectronics might produce the Photodiode optical sensor in a Sony -and- Pioneer optical drive.

Which is why brand loyalty in electronics tends to be silly... Often components are sourced from the same manufacturers.

Soundwave said:

My CD drive in my PC (circa 1994) growing up I think was made by Creative. But there were so many CD-ROM manufacturers, even companies like Pioneer, Yamaha, etc.

My guess would be that Nintendo if they didn't want to work with Philips they would have probably turned to NEC or Panasonic (who they did work with on the GameCube). NEC had a history with Nintendo as early gen Famicom/NES games were coded on NEC computers and NEC had made CD drives for game systems before (PC Engine/Turbo Grafx 16). Nintendo even considered buying the PC Engine/Turbo Grafx 16 chip I believe to be the NES successor. But even more than that the N64's 64-bit CPU was the NEC VR4300. So NEC was already invested in the N64, I'm sure they would've been happy to make a CD drive for it if Nintendo asked. 

Absolutely.

There are plenty of choices available.

But in general, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft need to weight the cons/benefits of every design on offer by manufacturers and opt for the one with the greatest benefit to their end console design that fits a price budget. And that is the key thing... Price.

It's why IBM was chosen as the defacto CPU core in the 7th gen, but fell behind in the 8th and 9th gen as more cost efficient and performant CPU designs became readily available in a consoles limited budget.

In saying that... Carts do have some massive technical advantages over optical drives... I.E. SSD type access latencies which means streaming and random reads are a thing, reducing the need for data to be pre-loaded into RAM. - I.E. Just send the texture from cart to the 4kb texture cache and bypass the RDRAM entirely.



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

Nintendo would be buying the same chip on contract, several years at a time. People should keep that in mind, Nintendo pays the average 3 year price for a SoC, not the buy one in 2022 price. The price from nVidia is cheap. They could easily sell a Super Switch with 1700 GPU cores for $400 if they wanted to. I'm just trying to get ready to be disappointed with only 1000 cores. But anything is better than what we have now. Just a ram speed and capacity upgrade to 16GB and 4x faster RAM because of the wider bus the Tegra X2 uses, for example, would make a huge difference even without many cores. Even just 700 of them.

I want Nintendo to adopt 16GB of ram like the Steam Deck, that would make me happy, even if the GPU is weaker.



When Nintendo released Super Mario Run (first on Iphone, 2016) I thought: Is this a partnership? Well, it would be interesting to see they working together.



Pemalite said:
Soundwave said:

The OLED display in the Switch OLED is so good honestly Nintendo should probably just re-use it for a Switch successor. It's honestly probably the first time with a Nintendo portable I've gone "wow, this screen is amazing" instead of "well this just good enough I guess". OLED display just makes colors pop so much more and blacks are inky black, which is perfect for Nintendo's games especially, and yeah this tech is just getting cheaper and cheaper because it's used in so many other devices these days. It's actually the one thing I noticed with Steam Deck is the lack of an OLED display is definitely noticeable. 

It's a good price-sensitive panel, but it's not the best OLED has to offer... Far from it.
Nintendo can take things a step further than what you have seen on the Samsung OLED panel in the Switch.

10-bit, HDR would be a massive upgrade. 120hz perhaps? Or maybe variable refresh rate technology?

But we need to keep in mind that consoles aren't high-end devices that use high-end parts, so I would hope the next console has at-least a 900P panel.

Soundwave said:

Regarding CD-drives I mean by the mid-90s basically every PC being shipped had this kind of a CD drive, I wonder if most people even knew what company made their CD-drive, a lot of PCs just shipped with a "generic" brand less CD-ROM drive. 

The thing is, it may be a no-named branded CD Rom drive, but a lot of the internal components that make up the drives are made by different manufacturers... Or different brands may use identical components.

I.E. OSI Optoelectronics might produce the Photodiode optical sensor in a Sony -and- Pioneer optical drive.

Which is why brand loyalty in electronics tends to be silly... Often components are sourced from the same manufacturers.

Soundwave said:

My CD drive in my PC (circa 1994) growing up I think was made by Creative. But there were so many CD-ROM manufacturers, even companies like Pioneer, Yamaha, etc.

My guess would be that Nintendo if they didn't want to work with Philips they would have probably turned to NEC or Panasonic (who they did work with on the GameCube). NEC had a history with Nintendo as early gen Famicom/NES games were coded on NEC computers and NEC had made CD drives for game systems before (PC Engine/Turbo Grafx 16). Nintendo even considered buying the PC Engine/Turbo Grafx 16 chip I believe to be the NES successor. But even more than that the N64's 64-bit CPU was the NEC VR4300. So NEC was already invested in the N64, I'm sure they would've been happy to make a CD drive for it if Nintendo asked. 

Absolutely.

There are plenty of choices available.

But in general, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft need to weight the cons/benefits of every design on offer by manufacturers and opt for the one with the greatest benefit to their end console design that fits a price budget. And that is the key thing... Price.

It's why IBM was chosen as the defacto CPU core in the 7th gen, but fell behind in the 8th and 9th gen as more cost efficient and performant CPU designs became readily available in a consoles limited budget.

In saying that... Carts do have some massive technical advantages over optical drives... I.E. SSD type access latencies which means streaming and random reads are a thing, reducing the need for data to be pre-loaded into RAM. - I.E. Just send the texture from cart to the 4kb texture cache and bypass the RDRAM entirely.

I think we'd be surprised how chaotic and (not sure if this is the right word) unprofessional Nintendo was with hardware design in the 80s/90s. 

It was very much a fly by the seat enterprise and Yamauchi was often all over the place and Nintendo's own internal teams were at each other's throats. 

There was a lot of crazy things going on. We'd like to think there was a lot of logic to decision making, but in studying Nintendo (and Sega too) of the 80s/90s you start to realize there was a lot of egos and frankly pig-headed management decisions that were all over the place. 

For starters, how did Nintendo ever even sign the initial contract with Sony that gave them licensing fees for CD based games on a SNES CD-ROM was insane. Did no one bother to read the document before they signed it? Did they properly vet it? I don't think their legal department at the time (they signed this deal in 1988) really was up to snuff. Someone had to have been fired over that gong show. By the early 90s they realized they had signed a terrible deal and had to weasel out of it, my question is why would you even allow to be put in that bad of a spot in the first place. 

You would think that might be a one off thing but Nintendo did the exact same thing with the Game Boy, they had an agreement with Citizen to make the screen and they then reneged on the deal after Citizen had been told the deal was theirs and went with Sharp instead, spurring Citizen to go work with Sega on the Game Gear. 

The SNES I believe had its CPU scaled back almost at the very last minute on Yamauchi's orders. The GBA's display was changed very late in development for a terrible version of the screen too. 

The decision to go cart-only with the N64 I'm sure was filled with a lot of stupid politics that didn't make sense. There's a lot of egos at Nintendo and Yamauchi encouraged the dev teams to basically be hostile to each other too in vying for his love/attention. 

We kinda forget, Nintendo wasn't really always a game company, they were a random small Japanese company that got thrust into making video games and home video games in particular due to the unexpected success of the Famicom and really was making up the rules as they went along in many instances. 

Cartridges had some advantages yes, although Nintendo also demonstrated that Super Mario 64 was able to run on the 64DD with fairly minimal load times ... the 64DD had disc read speeds about roughly in line with a 4x-8x CD-ROM drive. The timing was kind of bad too, CD-ROM prices plummeted in 1996 and especially 1997 and 4x CD drives were all over the place by 1997, if that had happened maybe even a year earlier maybe it would have been more obvious to Nintendo. Because CD-ROM was basically became the epitome of cheap tech, ironically the 64DD was almost certainly more expensive hardware than what a 4x CD drive would've cost by the end of '97. We saw also, Sony had no problem basically cutting the price of the Playstation to match any price cuts Nintendo did because the price of the CD drive became negligible as 1997, 1998 wore on. Every time Nintendo tried to cut the price of the N64 to give them more market traction, Sony would just respond by cutting the Playstation's price too. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 26 October 2022

Around the Network
Soundwave said:
Pemalite said:

It's a good price-sensitive panel, but it's not the best OLED has to offer... Far from it.
Nintendo can take things a step further than what you have seen on the Samsung OLED panel in the Switch.

10-bit, HDR would be a massive upgrade. 120hz perhaps? Or maybe variable refresh rate technology?

But we need to keep in mind that consoles aren't high-end devices that use high-end parts, so I would hope the next console has at-least a 900P panel.

Soundwave said:

Regarding CD-drives I mean by the mid-90s basically every PC being shipped had this kind of a CD drive, I wonder if most people even knew what company made their CD-drive, a lot of PCs just shipped with a "generic" brand less CD-ROM drive. 

The thing is, it may be a no-named branded CD Rom drive, but a lot of the internal components that make up the drives are made by different manufacturers... Or different brands may use identical components.

I.E. OSI Optoelectronics might produce the Photodiode optical sensor in a Sony -and- Pioneer optical drive.

Which is why brand loyalty in electronics tends to be silly... Often components are sourced from the same manufacturers.

Absolutely.

There are plenty of choices available.

But in general, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft need to weight the cons/benefits of every design on offer by manufacturers and opt for the one with the greatest benefit to their end console design that fits a price budget. And that is the key thing... Price.

It's why IBM was chosen as the defacto CPU core in the 7th gen, but fell behind in the 8th and 9th gen as more cost efficient and performant CPU designs became readily available in a consoles limited budget.

In saying that... Carts do have some massive technical advantages over optical drives... I.E. SSD type access latencies which means streaming and random reads are a thing, reducing the need for data to be pre-loaded into RAM. - I.E. Just send the texture from cart to the 4kb texture cache and bypass the RDRAM entirely.

I think we'd be surprised how chaotic and (not sure if this is the right word) unprofessional Nintendo was with hardware design in the 80s/90s. 

It was very much a fly by the seat enterprise and Yamauchi was often all over the place and Nintendo's own internal teams were at each other's throats. 

There was a lot of crazy things going on. We'd like to think there was a lot of logic to decision making, but in studying Nintendo (and Sega too) of the 80s/90s you start to realize there was a lot of egos and frankly pig-headed management decisions that were all over the place. 

For starters, how did Nintendo ever even sign the initial contract with Sony that gave them licensing fees for CD based games on a SNES CD-ROM was insane. Did no one bother to read the document before they signed it? Did they properly vet it? I don't think their legal department at the time (they signed this deal in 1988) really was up to snuff. Someone had to have been fired over that gong show. By the early 90s they realized they had signed a terrible deal and had to weasel out of it, my question is why would you even allow to be put in that bad of a spot in the first place. 

You would think that might be a one off thing but Nintendo did the exact same thing with the Game Boy, they had an agreement with Citizen to make the screen and they then reneged on the deal after Citizen had been told the deal was theirs and went with Sharp instead, spurring Citizen to go work with Sega on the Game Gear. 

The SNES I believe had its CPU scaled back almost at the very last minute on Yamauchi's orders. The GBA's display was changed very late in development for a terrible version of the screen too. 

The decision to go cart-only with the N64 I'm sure was filled with a lot of stupid politics that didn't make sense. There's a lot of egos at Nintendo and Yamauchi encouraged the dev teams to basically be hostile to each other too in vying for his love/attention. 

We kinda forget, Nintendo wasn't really always a game company, they were a random small Japanese company that got thrust into making video games and home video games in particular due to the unexpected success of the Famicom and really was making up the rules as they went along in many instances. 

Cartridges had some advantages yes, although Nintendo also demonstrated that Super Mario 64 was able to run on the 64DD with fairly minimal load times ... the 64DD had disc read speeds about roughly in line with a 4x-8x CD-ROM drive. The timing was kind of bad too, CD-ROM prices plummeted in 1996 and especially 1997 and 4x CD drives were all over the place by 1997, if that had happened maybe even a year earlier maybe it would have been more obvious to Nintendo. Because CD-ROM was basically became the epitome of cheap tech, ironically the 64DD was almost certainly more expensive hardware than what a 4x CD drive would've cost by the end of '97. We saw also, Sony had no problem basically cutting the price of the Playstation to match any price cuts Nintendo did because the price of the CD drive became negligible as 1997, 1998 wore on. Every time Nintendo tried to cut the price of the N64 to give them more market traction, Sony would just respond by cutting the Playstation's price too. 

I don't think Nintendo decision had to do with the price of the drive or it not being mainstream. It likely had more to do with the fumble of Sega-CD, CD-i and a plethora of other CD based consoles that came before N64 that they likely used to validate their decision and them became surprised that PS1 found success.



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 think we'd be surprised how chaotic and (not sure if this is the right word) unprofessional Nintendo was with hardware design in the 80s/90s. 

It was very much a fly by the seat enterprise and Yamauchi was often all over the place and Nintendo's own internal teams were at each other's throats. 

There was a lot of crazy things going on. We'd like to think there was a lot of logic to decision making, but in studying Nintendo (and Sega too) of the 80s/90s you start to realize there was a lot of egos and frankly pig-headed management decisions that were all over the place. 

For starters, how did Nintendo ever even sign the initial contract with Sony that gave them licensing fees for CD based games on a SNES CD-ROM was insane. Did no one bother to read the document before they signed it? Did they properly vet it? I don't think their legal department at the time (they signed this deal in 1988) really was up to snuff. Someone had to have been fired over that gong show. By the early 90s they realized they had signed a terrible deal and had to weasel out of it, my question is why would you even allow to be put in that bad of a spot in the first place. 

You would think that might be a one off thing but Nintendo did the exact same thing with the Game Boy, they had an agreement with Citizen to make the screen and they then reneged on the deal after Citizen had been told the deal was theirs and went with Sharp instead, spurring Citizen to go work with Sega on the Game Gear. 

The SNES I believe had its CPU scaled back almost at the very last minute on Yamauchi's orders. The GBA's display was changed very late in development for a terrible version of the screen too. 

The decision to go cart-only with the N64 I'm sure was filled with a lot of stupid politics that didn't make sense. There's a lot of egos at Nintendo and Yamauchi encouraged the dev teams to basically be hostile to each other too in vying for his love/attention. 

We kinda forget, Nintendo wasn't really always a game company, they were a random small Japanese company that got thrust into making video games and home video games in particular due to the unexpected success of the Famicom and really was making up the rules as they went along in many instances. 

Cartridges had some advantages yes, although Nintendo also demonstrated that Super Mario 64 was able to run on the 64DD with fairly minimal load times ... the 64DD had disc read speeds about roughly in line with a 4x-8x CD-ROM drive. The timing was kind of bad too, CD-ROM prices plummeted in 1996 and especially 1997 and 4x CD drives were all over the place by 1997, if that had happened maybe even a year earlier maybe it would have been more obvious to Nintendo. Because CD-ROM was basically became the epitome of cheap tech, ironically the 64DD was almost certainly more expensive hardware than what a 4x CD drive would've cost by the end of '97. We saw also, Sony had no problem basically cutting the price of the Playstation to match any price cuts Nintendo did because the price of the CD drive became negligible as 1997, 1998 wore on. Every time Nintendo tried to cut the price of the N64 to give them more market traction, Sony would just respond by cutting the Playstation's price too. 

I don't think Nintendo decision had to do with the price of the drive or it not being mainstream. It likely had more to do with the fumble of Sega-CD, CD-i and a plethora of other CD based consoles that came before N64 that they likely used to validate their decision and them became surprised that PS1 found success.

There were probably a bunch (of stupid) reasons.

I think for one, as much as I like Miyamoto, he should not have been allowed to influence hardware design to the degree that he did. A console has to be made to work for a wide variety of designers including 3rd party partners. Yes, Mario 64 may sell 10 million copies ... but how many games did Capcom, Konami, Squaresoft, Enix, EA, Acclaim, Activision, etc. etc. sell combined on the SNES or Playstation? Probably a shit ton more than 10 million copies, of which Nintendo got a $10 cut of every copy for basically doing nothing. That said as I've stated it never had to be an either/or case scenario anyway, Mario 64 was brilliant and could have ran just fine off a cartridge slot, no one is saying you have to lose the cartridge slot, the Saturn had one and a CD drive no problem. 

The Sega CD and CD-i weren't successful but the Sega CD was an add-on after all ... Nintendo's own Famicom Disk System only sold 4.4 million units for example, Nintendo should have known not to judge a tech based on what it sells as an add-on. The Philips cd-i barely had any games one could take seriously. 

I believe Nintendo had also at the time made a big investment in a cartridge manufacturing factory and they probably did not want to lose face by going with CD. But you shouldn't be making hardware decisions that impact a company for 5+ years on the basis of one factory investment. It's just not sound business logic. 



Soundwave said:
DonFerrari said:

I don't think Nintendo decision had to do with the price of the drive or it not being mainstream. It likely had more to do with the fumble of Sega-CD, CD-i and a plethora of other CD based consoles that came before N64 that they likely used to validate their decision and them became surprised that PS1 found success.

There were probably a bunch (of stupid) reasons.

I think for one, as much as I like Miyamoto, he should not have been allowed to influence hardware design to the degree that he did. A console has to be made to work for a wide variety of designers including 3rd party partners. Yes, Mario 64 may sell 10 million copies ... but how many games did Capcom, Konami, Squaresoft, Enix, EA, Acclaim, Activision, etc. etc. sell combined on the SNES or Playstation? Probably a shit ton more than 10 million copies, of which Nintendo got a $10 cut of every copy for basically doing nothing. That said as I've stated it never had to be an either/or case scenario anyway, Mario 64 was brilliant and could have ran just fine off a cartridge slot, no one is saying you have to lose the cartridge slot, the Saturn had one and a CD drive no problem. 

The Sega CD and CD-i weren't successful but the Sega CD was an add-on after all ... Nintendo's own Famicom Disk System only sold 4.4 million units for example, Nintendo should have known not to judge a tech based on what it sells as an add-on. The Philips cd-i barely had any games one could take seriously. 

I believe Nintendo had also at the time made a big investment in a cartridge manufacturing factory and they probably did not want to lose face by going with CD. But you shouldn't be making hardware decisions that impact a company for 5+ years on the basis of one factory investment. It's just not sound business logic. 

Agree with your points.

And I didn't say it was the right decision to look at Sega-CD (add-on) and CD-i (a new entrant project) and compare to a new gen system from a dominating power. But people with power of decision that wanted to avoid CD may have used those as excuses to not have CD.

We will never know all the details of why they didn't had CD and how much having it would change on cost, performance and sales, but sure it is something that we always wonder.



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:

There were probably a bunch (of stupid) reasons.

I think for one, as much as I like Miyamoto, he should not have been allowed to influence hardware design to the degree that he did. A console has to be made to work for a wide variety of designers including 3rd party partners. Yes, Mario 64 may sell 10 million copies ... but how many games did Capcom, Konami, Squaresoft, Enix, EA, Acclaim, Activision, etc. etc. sell combined on the SNES or Playstation? Probably a shit ton more than 10 million copies, of which Nintendo got a $10 cut of every copy for basically doing nothing. That said as I've stated it never had to be an either/or case scenario anyway, Mario 64 was brilliant and could have ran just fine off a cartridge slot, no one is saying you have to lose the cartridge slot, the Saturn had one and a CD drive no problem. 

The Sega CD and CD-i weren't successful but the Sega CD was an add-on after all ... Nintendo's own Famicom Disk System only sold 4.4 million units for example, Nintendo should have known not to judge a tech based on what it sells as an add-on. The Philips cd-i barely had any games one could take seriously. 

I believe Nintendo had also at the time made a big investment in a cartridge manufacturing factory and they probably did not want to lose face by going with CD. But you shouldn't be making hardware decisions that impact a company for 5+ years on the basis of one factory investment. It's just not sound business logic. 

Agree with your points.

And I didn't say it was the right decision to look at Sega-CD (add-on) and CD-i (a new entrant project) and compare to a new gen system from a dominating power. But people with power of decision that wanted to avoid CD may have used those as excuses to not have CD.

We will never know all the details of why they didn't had CD and how much having it would change on cost, performance and sales, but sure it is something that we always wonder.

The 64DD was another problem too, Nintendo bit hard on magnetic disks being the saving grace to cartridges. I don't think the plan ever was for the N64 to be a cartridge only system. 64DD was supposed to be the solution to many of the N64's problems. For those who don't know this the 64DD and Dragon Quest VII exclusivity for 64DD was basically announced when Nintendo first unveiled the N64 at Space World (Shoshinkai 1995) and the system was clearly designed for the 64DD because having a RAM expansion like it did probably had to have taken some serious engineering time. 

I think 64DD was Yamauchi's "solution" to the cartridge problem, but the only thing it actually accomplished was keep Nintendo from accepting the truth that CD-ROM was better. CD-ROM killed magnetic media in general, Iomega Zip Drives were moderately successful in the mid-90s, but even rewritable CD-ROM drives became so cheap so fast that Iomega couldn't compete, even though they desperately tried to up the storage size of their disks as time went on. 

I think Yamauchi was so invested in the 64DD that Nintendo basically had to release the 64DD in a tiny launch in Japan to basically save face for him. There's a lot of weird Japanese corporate politics that go into a lot of these decisions. 

It is a little odd we still don't know the full story of the fateful fall out of the SNES CD-ROM and N64 cartridge decision ... I suspect this is because it would be embarrassing for some of the people who still work at Nintendo, so maybe one of these days will get the full story on who made what decision but probably not until after all the parties involved are retired. That probably means Mr. Miyamoto. Hopefully one day there will be a book done on this. 

To be honest for one, I find Nintendo not just flat out buying a stake in Squaresoft circa 1994/95 to be odd as well. Square was so close to Nintendo, they should have just locked that relationship down ironclad, from a Nintendo enthusiast POV it's such a shame Sony was able to exploit that and create a rift. In the mid-1990s a studio outside of Nintendo being allowed to make a Mario game like Super Mario RPG was a huge honor ... even Rareware wasn't allowed to use Mario by Nintendo. Squaresoft and Final Fantasy used to be completely synonymous with Nintendo. 



Alistair said:

Nintendo would be buying the same chip on contract, several years at a time. People should keep that in mind, Nintendo pays the average 3 year price for a SoC, not the buy one in 2022 price. The price from nVidia is cheap. They could easily sell a Super Switch with 1700 GPU cores for $400 if they wanted to. I'm just trying to get ready to be disappointed with only 1000 cores. But anything is better than what we have now. Just a ram speed and capacity upgrade to 16GB and 4x faster RAM because of the wider bus the Tegra X2 uses, for example, would make a huge difference even without many cores. Even just 700 of them.

I want Nintendo to adopt 16GB of ram like the Steam Deck, that would make me happy, even if the GPU is weaker.

Just to steer the conversation back to the Switch succ, I'd be pretty happy with just a standard full generational leap. 

PS4 visuals are still impressive and if you have DLSS so you can you can render natively at lower resolutions (like 480p portable, 900p docked) but have the image look like it's 720p docked, 1440p or even 4K docked, that'll be quite a machine for Nintendo. Hopefully they keep the OLED display too. 

I mean the Zelda or Mario game they're going to be able to make for a chip that powerful is going to be wowza. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 26 October 2022