I was thinking that Nintendo would be in a better position than most of their competitors because they're using LPDDR5X RAM, which isn't typically used in the server market and where the price rises have been relatively modest.
However, it turns out that Nvidia recently introduced new server modules that use it, so it's probably headed the same way soon.
If anyone is thinking of building a PC for gaming or emulation, I'd suggest finding a motherboard that can take DDR4 RAM. Mind you, even that's probably only cheaper while stocks last too.
I think many are kind of in a bubble thinking there's any sort of mass market for older consoles. The NES and SNES minis sold a couple million but then capped out.
I would say that still constitutes a "mass market", just not one as big as the Switch. And those sales were at least partially limited by supply, which was eventually less tight but still never exactly "mainstream console" levels of available. The main reason the Mini Retro Console boom collapsed was due to the increasingly dubious quality of the me-toos, IMO. If Sony put as much love into the Playstation Classic as Nintendo did the SNES Classic, we'd likely still be seeing them manufactured to this day.
However, this is ultimately tangential to the topic, because these are fundamentally not the same thing as "new retro consoles", and could never be. They are emulation boxes with fixed curated libraries. They could be mass market affordable precisely because they aren't actual original hardware, but a cheap modern system on a chip. If you tried to make an "SNES Classic" that was an actual functional SNES that played actual SNES cartridges, it would be several times more expensive and sell basically nothing.
The best way to think of mini consoles is not as hardware, but as software, IMO. The SNES Classic is an $80 collection of SNES games, that just happens to be self-playing.
SNES Classic sold 5 million in a few months, I distinctly remember this, which probably puts it on the level of the Wii U in the same time period, at worst. :V
I'd think the PlayStation Classic shows the limitations of taking the mini format to more modern consoles. You need much stronger hardware to run it on, the emulation isn't terribly accurate even with that, and it's far more difficult and expensive to put a compelling game collection together.
Had Nintendo attempted to do something similar for the N64, I've a feeling that it probably wouldn't have been a lot better. It's taken them quite a while to get the NSO offering up to snuff, after all, and that's on a platform that's essentially modern and with the ability to accept over-the-air updates.
Eh, the PS Classic wasn't restricted by hardware or library. Even using the existing hardware, and the off-the-shelf open source emulator that it used, people got significantly better performance out of the thing by all of "actually configuring its settings". Likewise for library, the PS1 had desirable, saleable games, that were even owned by Sony, but not used. Its poor quality was entirely down to Sony being shockingly indifferent to making it a good product.
As for the N64, the real limiting factor there, IMO? Controller size. A slightly more powerful chip able to run N64 games wouldn't be a problem, but there is no way to get around the fact that the N64 controller is a giant that would force each unit to be much bigger. Both a problem in that larger boxes = larger logistics costs; and also that one of the big selling points of the N64 was "multiplayer".
I think one of the issues with these so called classic consoles from actual Console manufacturers is the cheap SOCs they go for which typically barely emulate the console and have issues. The SOCs are often unavailable to buy in normal android boxes as they are so low performance and have so little memory and storage. Some Android boxes are only £10-20 and deliver far more performance for emulators than these classic console versions. They are so small too that it would be easy to put the circuit board into a new 3D printed case that matched your chosen console.
@metaphysician Sure you can mod it to make some games run better, and add to the library, but the same goes for the NES and SNES Classics. Neither of those is exactly using the best available emulator settings nor has every single game that Nintendo own or could secure the rights for.
The point is rather that it was much easier for Nintendo to make them good enough, but things would have got much harder if they had tried to do the same with the N64, let alone something like the GameCube or Wii. They quit at the right time and let Sony embarrass themselves instead.
Most of the "economies of scale" savings are from 1 unit to 100 units.
The difference in unit costs from 100 units to 100,000,000 units is like $1 per unit, which they would obviously just pass on to us in the form of a $20 price increase for whatever reason Switch 2 games need to cost $80 VS Switch 1 games costing $60.
@metaphysician: This is not actually true.
Most of the "economies of scale" savings are from 1 unit to 100 units.
The difference in unit costs from 100 units to 100,000,000 units is like $1 per unit, which they would obviously just pass on to us in the form of a $20 price increase for whatever reason Switch 2 games need to cost $80 VS Switch 1 games costing $60.
I think you are not factoring in R&D costs, marketing etc, those costs can be huge and shared over 100,000 units is a lot less than shared over 500 units etc. Factory door prices for products is surprisingly low in China but there are other costs. A bicycle may have a factory door price one quarter of its retail price but shipping, tax, R&D, marketing, sponsorship all adds to costs. Yes a bicycle is much larger than a console so shipping is much more but its all relative. I remember iphones coming out of a factory for less than $100 dollars a unit but sold around $1000 but of course that is a premium product with an incredibly high profit margin, much more than other brands and that is going back a few years when it was cheaper to manufacture in China, they are not as cheap today.
Remember a much more powerful android box sells for starting at £10 on Aliexpress often with free shipping around the world. What is the real manufacturing cost of that unit, $2-4? That includes the main unit and a power supply and remote control. The SOC is probably less than one dollar and maybe 3x as powerful for the chipset as these dedicated classic consoles.
Yes, it would be excellent if Nintendo released a new N64, compatible with the old cartridges, in addition to selling new cartridges again. But I think that will never happen, unfortunately.
My biggest problem with keeping old systems these days is CRT TVs. I have a 29" one, and it weighs a ton.
I'm moving house next month, and I'm already thinking about how awful it will be to carry it around.
@BonzoBanana: I guess my point is the Super Nintendo only cost $200 tops when it was current tech.
Isn't it a given that, if mass produced today, it would only cost $150 tops?
People are commenting that the Super Nintendo would be more expensive than Switch 2 today.
That's because it would be more expensive. . . because none of its parts are current hardware. Electronics do not intrinsically get cheaper because of age. Electronic parts get cheaper, the longer they are in production and the larger the amount are produced. If you wanted to make a new SNES, you'd basically need to create entire production lines from scratch for every one of its components. . . because nobody actually uses or makes them. And even if someone were convinced to start manufacturing them, they would all be single-product items, because no one whose not making new-old SNESes would have any use for them.
That feels impossible. Super Nintendo tech would be so basic by today's standards.
@metaphysician: If what you said was true, it would be impossible to emulate Super Nintendo games at all.
Aren't most of the production lines the same components, but you just change the head out for the exact item?
So yes, if an individual wanted to make Super Nintendos, they would have to create a whole production line, but Nintendo could easily just stop making Switches for 1 month and just make Super Nintendos instead.
@sportymariosonicmixx If you want a machine that can emulate the SNES that's built out of Switch components, sure. They could make one of those.
I just don't see much point when it would cost as much to make as a Switch - because there wouldn't be a whole heap of things that you could leave out - and a Switch can already do an acceptable job of emulating the SNES, alongside everything else that it can do.
It seems people need to realize that emulation is not the same thing as "an actual ____". If you are asking for an SNES emulator, sure, that would be cheap to make. That's what the SNES Classic was, after all. But that is not the same thing as actually making an SNES. The ability to stick emulation software on a modern cheap SOC has no bearing whatsoever on the cost of actually assembling the hardware of an SNES.
@BonzoBanana: I guess my point is the Super Nintendo only cost $200 tops when it was current tech.
Isn't it a given that, if mass produced today, it would only cost $150 tops?
People are commenting that the Super Nintendo would be more expensive than Switch 2 today.
That feels impossible. Super Nintendo tech would be so basic by today's standards.
It could be very cheap but it would be emulating rather than having the original hardware. It would basically be like one of those classic consoles but with a cartridge socket added etc. I have no idea how you would build the console with original components because many don't exist today and even though old processors are still manufactured in very low quantity runs they are very expensive. I'm not going to lie though I prefer playing retro games emulated with much cleaner graphics, ability to save the game anywhere, take perfect screengrabs etc. I'm not one of those people that has to play the game on original hardware. Emulation is superior to me except for the high input lag some configurations introduce. I still enjoy CRT gaming because of the zero input lag of the screen means games can be incredibly responsive. Also plasmas can be brilliant as some have low input lag plus the pixels are so fast to change (pixel response) to give a fantastic smooth display in motion. Many modern tvs have brilliantly low input lag but poor pixel response so gaming can be responsive but a little jerky in comparison. I know OLED has very fast pixel response but plasma has pixel fade that can make movies and games appear smoother and you don't get strobing effects and other issues.
I guess I'm more a fan of older display technology rather than the original console hardware.
Sometimes I'm somewhat bummed that I didn't get the NES/SNES minis when they were still in production. If Nintendo were indeed to release a full-size version of the NES/SNES or N64 with a few modern quality of life additions such as save states and HDMI output, I'd probably be all over them.
@BentIeyma
Yea, but one of the biggest reasons we enjoy owning retro consoles and games is that they are free of all the modern weights that you're talking about. To add all of that modern stuff would just destroy the retro experience.
Forums
Topic: Would You Buy a Rereleased Older Nintnendo Console If The Switch 2 Got A Price Increase
Nintendo Switch 2 is finally here, check out our guide: Nintendo Switch 2 Guide: Ultimate Resource.
Posts 21 to 40 of 50
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic