@skywake: That point was more about how scalable PC architecture. with people like Alienware and Razer giving you this expandable option.
Also that game development. Games are created to a level where a company will offer at least 2 spec levels, minimum and recommended, they will then offer variations on that depending if you have an AMD or Intel CPU. Intel, AMD or nVidia GPU.
Console gaming has moved more into the same space as PC gaming, with engines that mean a game can be built for one engine and then "quickly" ported to multiple system without needing to get whole teams working on ports for different consoles.
So it was more a concept rather than a method.
But if they did do this I would see the portable being the controller and maybe the second display for the home unit. Like the WiiU does currently. To stream there is enough bandwidth in Bluetooth 4 ad 25Mbps or Wi-Fi Direct at 250Mbps which may mean the addition of an extra Wi-Fi module.
But there could also be an option for the system to offer extra processing power in the same way that Microsoft Cloud will offer more processing power for games on Xbox One. Crackdown 3 being a good example. This is additional processing carried out on servers across the internet to have a similar situation but with a local box should offer greater speeds.
Again all of this is just my pie in the sky thinking about how Nintendo might produce the next console based on some patents they've applied for.
@iKhan: That was the point I was going for. The "portable" game would be on the handheld/controller. The home unit would then download a home version (where the game is fine tuned for the other hardware and maybe offer extras that would have been not workable on the portable.
4k will likely be the avenues they explore NEXT generation of consoles, PS5, Xbox 4, NX2 etc.
I would tend to agree.
Even if the next generation consoles have reasonable performance enough to handle 4K games, it doesn't mean Sony and Microsoft will mandate that games be native 4K / 2160p. Developers will have a wide choice in native resolution, depending on their target goals for each game. Some developers will probably opt for native 1080p and go all out on graphics complexity, effects and framerate. Other games would be native 4K / 30fps and more modest graphics complexity. While remasters of PS4/XBone games, and new games that aren't too complex, and many indie games could hit native 4K @ 60fps. I think a lot of games will be rendered at various resolutions lower than 4K, but higher than 1080p, such as 1440p. These consoles will automatically upscale and output at 4K, just like 360/PS3 could upscale to 1080i / 1080p.
Lets not forget, when PS3 launched in 2006, it launched with a native 1080p 60fps game, Ridge Racer 7, which was not some PS2 remaster, it was basically a fleshed out version of Ridge Racer 6 on Xbox 360 from 2005 which was just a bit above native 720p.
Given that next gen consoles won't hit the market until the end of 2019 at the earliest, possibly not until 2020, I'd be willing to bet they have 4K capability, even if not every game is actually native 4K resolution.
That point was more about how scalable PC architecture. with people like Alienware and Razer giving you this expandable option.
By literally extending PCIe outside of the main unit. It's also worth noting that the base unit they're expanding on are not little mobile devices. They're fairly high end laptops with fairly high end CPUs. And you pay quite a premium for it. To the point where a common complaint about these setups is that you're paying more than you would if you just got a low end laptop and a gaming PC.
Also that game development. Games are created to a level where a company will offer at least 2 spec levels, minimum and recommended, they will then offer variations on that depending if you have an AMD or Intel CPU. Intel, AMD or nVidia GPU.
Console gaming has moved more into the same space as PC gaming, with engines that mean a game can be built for one engine and then "quickly" ported to multiple system without needing to get whole teams working on ports for different consoles.
It doesn't really work in the way you're suggesting. A developer will develop one version of the game for the operating system. Then after release or slightly before there will be drivers that will come out with optimisations. They don't develop for the drivers, the drivers are tweaked to work with the game. And it's just one game. The recommended and minimum specs are not for two different versions of the games either. They're just a basic idea of how well the game works on different hardware configurations.
Plus, with PC gaming there's a different kind of spec gap than there is between a portable and a home console. Because in order to work on two platforms a game has to be built for the lower spec machine and then scaled up. For a PC game that's fine because the lower "gaming PC" spec is at this point hovering around where the PS4 is. With portables it's different.
Typically a portable system is about two generations behind the bleeding edge spec. The 3DS is most like the Gamecube, the DS was most like the N64, the GBA was most like the SNES. The same was true of Sony's portables (despite the marketing the Vita was closer to the original XBox than the 360/PS3). I think it's fair to assume that Nintendo's next portable will be a bit under the 360/PS3 spec. For a portable a game made for that spec will be great on a small likely 480p screen. But on the TV? At 50"+? 1080p or 4K? In 2017-2022? It'll be very underwhelming.
But if they did do this I would see the portable being the controller and maybe the second display for the home unit. Like the WiiU does currently. To stream there is enough bandwidth in Bluetooth 4 ad 25Mbps or Wi-Fi Direct at 250Mbps which may mean the addition of an extra Wi-Fi module.
The Wii U doesn't use Bluetooth for the GamePad. They use 5Ghz Wireless N and I think it's fair to assume they're getting 60Mbps or so out of it fairly reliably. If they went to Wireless AC I think it's fair to assume they could bump the resolution up to 1080p without much trouble. Or better yet 720p with less compression.
But all of this is well short of the 10Gbps+ that you'd need to physically connect a more powerful GPU. You'd have to have some kind of physical connection for that to work in the way you're thinking. Streaming something that was rendered somewhere else is one thing, having a GPU/VRAM and CPU/RAM in different locations is another thing entirely.
We expect a small recovery in shipments of flat-panel displays for game devices because of Nintendo’s new game hardware expected to be released in 2016. Their expectation is that displays sized between 3.1 – 5 inches wide will increase to 16.5 million units this year, growth from 14.1 million units last year. However, data has shown that OLED displays would remain unused by the market
Worth noting that that display spec covers the Wii U, 3DS and Vita and the numbers line up for last year. The 3DS and Vita are in decline currently, assuming that continued you would have expected something closer to 8-12mill units for the three combined. If it is accurate then 16.5mill does suggest that we're going to get something new. Actually, I think it'd be better explained in a graph.....
Blue line = Actual numbers
Red line = If the Blue line continued on that slope
Yellow line = What's being said in that article
The WSJ article's source is primarily the LCD display industry. I wonder how they count displays. The 3DS has 2 screens, so if NX-portable is a single-screen unit, you might need double the NX-portable shipments to even maintain parity with the cannibalized 3DS shipments.
@skywake: So, let me get this straight, because the display sales are expected to rise, we're probably going to see a new portable that causes the bump in sales? It's what I've been expecting, so it does makes sense if my wording is correct.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 581 to 600 of 69,785
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic