Digital Foundry Does a Deep Dive on the Super NES Classic / SNES Mini Emulation

Let's see how it fares. . . .

No offense but how ironic. Graphics masters assessing old hardware. Great

So not quite perfect--it still boggles my mind that Nintendo can't basically reproduce its own retro games on new hardware 100%*--but pretty good all-round.

*Seriously, why can't Nintendo do something like remake all the original SNES chips and stuff 100% accurately but just shove them in a smaller box, then perfectly copy the original game files/code and and load them onto the machine as though it were just a giant cartridge? Or something like that, but the main point is basically running the games 100% flawlessly.

To me, there's no genuinely good reason why Nintendo can't get a game like Yoshi's Island running 100% perfect on its own new hardware that's basically supposed to be the SNES but just remade for today.

@impurekind

It would be very costly to reproduce them. Even more costly to pay the r&d to shrink them. It's very good for what it is. Which is an $80 emulator box. FGPA solutions which emulate hardware like the AVS and analogue nt mini will be available soon and will provide excellent hardware emulation. But they'll cost more than $80.

@cleveland124 Let's face it, there's pretty much zero doubt Nintendo could remake and re-release the exact original SNES for less than $70/£70 nowadays, so I see no truly good reason it couldn't just basically do that but in a smaller shell (much of the original SNES was probably just air anyway). It's basically the equivalent of making a literal SNES Mini but like nearly 30 years down the line. And if it could make a SNES Jr.* back then at sub $100, I think it could make a SNES Mini now for $70/£70, even with the 21 digital games included and HDMI.

(the SNES Jr. was already nearly half the size of the original SNES as is)

Now this is just being petty.

@impurekind Because those original chips were also designed to run the games off of carts and nothing else. Its not designed to work in the way it would need to for modern days. They'd basically have to make another SNES with completely different chips for HDMI, upscaling, reading games from memory and not a cart, so on and so forth.

Plus, with stuff like Yoshi's Island, the chips that do these effects are in the game carts, not the system itself. So to do that, the way you suggest, they'd have to remake the SFX chips, build them into the system itself, reconfigure the games to access those assets via the system and not the other way around, and then play them back to the system.

It would require complete reworking and redesigning of some of the games, and the hardware.

@BLP_Software Well, there's zero reason I know of why the hardware couldn't interpret a tiny bit of plastic with the ROMs on it like it was a compilation cart inserted directly into it. Imagine . . . you take a normal SNES and permanently wedge a Super Mario All-Stars-plus-Super-Mario-World-like compilation cart into it, just with 21 games rather than 4, then put it all in a slightly smaller package. It's likely just Nintendo trying to do things in the cheapest and simplest way possible--which I can't really blame it for but it does mean the end user has to sacrifice a little bit.

From my experience the emulation is pretty darn spot on with the SNES Classic, my only complaint is that the audio is just a little off from perfect.

Overall I am very happy with my purchase.

"It would require complete reworking and redesigning of some of the games, and the hardware."

Then, imo, they should have done that--and nailed it 100%.

My solution: Shrink down all the original hardware chips where necessary but still make them function 100% exactly like the original and put them in the smaller casing. And create an internal official SNES "cartridge" that contains all the necessary additional chips, like the Super FX chip, as well as compilation of all the 21 included games in one (just like Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World managed for those games). And add the up-scaler in there too to output the whole thing in HD as the last part of the display output process, in the same way third party external up-scalers can do this with original SNES hardware now.

@impurekind Just my two cents worth on your comments - I do hear what your saying and it would be nice to get an actual mini version of the actual SNES for sure (with the built in games for example) but unfortunately it would (as mentioned by others) increase the R&D costs (although it is completely doable and no where near as difficult as some people here have implied) but then they would end up charging more for it..... and so they basically say (as with any company or item) - ok we can do x number of hours work and sell to x number of customers... or we can double the work and sell to slightly more people (and/or increase the price and sell to even less)... It would be great, but like any company, it comes down to cost vs potential demand vs profit. Unfortunately these days it's more about getting 90% of the way there for 50% of the cost, which sucks (if seeking related analogies for this look at early game releases that rely on DLC/updates) compared to older releases which just have to be 100% - ealry release... early money).

@Hikingguy
I always called it S-N-E-S spelled out. But since everyone else just calls it SNES, I've grown to call it that as well.

@FTL I fully expect they could charge exactly the same price if they planned it like this from the start and counted on the sales figures to justify the up-front R&D costs. At $70/£70 I'm more than convinced even my version of the system would still turn a decent profit. And, if they really did offer 100% perfect emulation of all the games then I imagine the system would be receiving even higher review scores across the board--especially if Nintendo also included obvious stuff like proper length controller cables and a shortcut to return to the Home menu too--and even more gamers would be rushing out to get one too; so it's kinda like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

@impurekind There's no guarantee that would have worked though.

Do you really think rebuilding how some games stream their assets, effectively having to reprogram them, spending R&D time and money on rebuilding decades old hardware, paying people to do so, opening a production line that would require more time per unit than what is currently being done for the SNES Classic, and then having to get another factory to then produce different boards for the NES Classic that doesn't need all the reworking and extra hardware, in 2018 for the re-run there.

Would it be possible? Sure, I don't see why not. But there is no guarantee the results would be better than emulation. It would be more costly, for unknown results.

And further, regarding this being the same board as the NES Classic, that's called efficiency. It helps if parts are homogenous.

@impurekind Im sure they could... but hardware design is expensive.. and doing it the way they have, means almost zero hardware design, it's all software which is (relatively) cheap.

I too would like them to do it, don't get me wrong.. I just know why they didn't.

@Hikingguy
100% agreed. sometimes i say it as one word for the classic edition cuz it's so long, but i always feel dumb. S.N.E.S is the true way

@BLP_Software Yeah, I think you're now exaggerating how much hassle and effort it would truly take to do what I'm asking. There's even a pretty high chance they could fit everything from the original into a box that's probably half the size or less now*, without shrinking any of the chips, and just build the equivalent of a mini cartridge containing the games directly inside the system too. So, it could have been as simple as getting their hardware designer to rearrange the components into a smaller space, removing any redundant parts and then just reducing the outer casing a little. Sure, it's not quite THAT simple, but you get the idea.

If it were the exact same hardware at a technical level and the exact same game files at a code level then there's zero reason the games wouldn't run 100% perfectly from what I know--it's literally just a smaller SNES model running official games (just not burned onto individual physical carts for each and every separate game).

And, yeah, I too know why they didn't--I just wish they would.

(Even the SNES Jr. was already around half the size of the original system)

@Hikingguy
Everyone here. Everyone online at any Nintendo site. I never hear anyone spell it out.

I've heard it called the SNES, S. N. E. S, Super NES, Super N. E. S, Super Nintendo, and Super Nintendo Entertainment System

@Hikingguy Most people in the UK just call it SNES as one word. We even pronounce the last S more like a Z. SNEZ. lol

@FTL @impurekind I'm with you guys, it is technically possible. If Nintendo can emulate Super FX2 games quite well on crappy off-shelf hardware then they can redesign the original hardware to play games natively, they wouldn't need to worry about improving the emulation, which still isn't perfect after 27 years, just making a newer native SNES. There are engineers that have done similar things with retro consoles but not Nintendo who knows and owns the original SNES. I would pay much more money for that than the SNES Classic RRP.

Nintendo care about old games, they just released Star Fox 2 and some ROM distribution sites have received the cease and desist letter regarding Nintendo titles just days before the SNES Classic launch. If there's a company that should make a true SNES with HDMI output and upscaling it's Nintendo.

Side superficial note:
I call it SNES as one word but John is American, I don't know if that's the reason.

@impurekind It wouldn't be the exact same code for the games, or the exact same SNES hardware though. FOr stuff like Yoshi's Island, using the SFX chip, that is built into the physical cartridge of the game. So the game is programmed to believe that chip is there, inside of it, instead of referencing a chip that is external, in the system itself.

If all the chips were to be condensed, which is possible, games using the SFX would have to be reworked to know the chip isn't where the game is programmed to think it is. By having the chip in the game cart, the functionality is quite literally built into the game. It would need to be rebuilt to establish that those components are now external to the ROM, hence they just choose to emulate the effect of the chip instead, so they don't have to tell the ROM to look elsewhere.

@BlueOcean To be honest, before we ever saw the likes of the NES Mini and SNES Mini models, I was actually hoping Nintendo would basically just re-release the original SNES but in a smaller form factor and with HD output.

Yes, I even would have liked it to take proper cartridges too, which Nintendo could have re-released again also and made a whole load more money.

But, as something half way between the two, I would have loved it if it had released that smaller form-factor original SNES [HD] with a smaller cartridge slot that took only new smaller carts, and those carts would each contain a compilation of say 20 of the SNES's best games. So, you'd have a single small SNES Mini HD that took a handful of official mini cartridges that each contain around 20 games from the SNES library--meaning there'd not be that many you could collect before you have pretty much every game you'd ever want to play on a new SNES anyway--and this would even allow modern developers/publishers to release brand new SNES Mini titles going forward too, or to re-release any classic SNES games that maybe wouldn't be included in any of the compilation carts just because of whatever reason.

THAT I would have gone gaga over.

@Hikingguy You are correct.

The snes mini is great , my only niggle is that the original crt is the best option as the other 2 make everything look too pixelated

@BLP_Software OK . . . really use your imagination on this one. . . .

Imagine I took a Yoshi's Island cart and rammed it into the slot of a SNES . . . then I wrapped the whole thing in a "New" SNES shell where you couldn't actually reach the cartridge to remove it again. . . .

That would technically be a self-containd SNES that played Yoshi's Island, built-in, as it were--right?

So, take all the actual chips from a SNES and move them around a bit to take up much less room (even make smaller versions if it's possible and doesn't compromise anything to do with playing the games 100%)--just like Nintendo already did with the SNES Jr.-- and then wedge a "cartridge" that contains all the necessary expansion chips internally in there too, and inside that cartridge you burn/write (whatever the correct word is here) a game compilation like Super Mario All--Stars but with 21 of the best SNES games rather than 4 Super Mario games, and finally put it inside a new SNES Mini casing with HD output. . . .

Job done.

Do you get what I'm saying here?

There is zero reason Nintendo couldn't make a SNES Mini that runs all its own games 100% perfectly as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not saying it would, or that it would cost the company less to do than the easier option of the current SNES Mini--I'm just saying that's how I would have done it personally because I value those amazing SNES games running 100% perfectly above many of the other factors Nintendo obviously deemed more important from a business point of view.

It's similar to how I'd have included full length controller cables rather than presumably trying to save a couple of pennies on every controller cord but causing pretty much every single player a bit of unnecessary hassle in the process.

@impurekind That would be awesome! Besides, Nintendo loves physical distribution and Nintendo fans love physical stuff as well, so that would allow people to add more games officially without hacking the system. Compilations sound like great value. And yes, I could see some special third-party releases. Haven't Capcom just re-released Street Fighter II for SNES?

@impurekind

The snes jr had different components though and had some issues playing certain games.

I really think you are underestimating how much $ building a 30 year old chip would cost much less shrinking it. No manufacturing companies are set up to produce those chips and none of those dies exist. It would be very costly for an item that probably will sell only 10 million. Not withstanding it doesn't actually fix a big issue using old analogue consoles with digital displays. There's a reason for the XRGB $300 scaler market. And that's because usually the cheap digital converters work really poorly. Here they are just using over the counter parts to produce a digital signal upfront.

@BlueOcean It's nice to know you get where I'm coming from.

@BlueOcean Yeah, in the US it's mostly S.N.E.S., also Super N.E.S. and Super Nintendo but those aren't used as often.

@impurekind Entirely possible.

But then, that's an ideal for US answer. For everyone else, for the costs involved, the price hike, the fact they'll need to spend more money to remanufacture NES Classic now? Remember, they share a board and chipset, identically. There is a reason for that.

I just call it the Super Nintendo, since that’s what it actually says on the hardware. No need to add the Entertainment System part as that’s relatively useless, in my opinion.

@BLP_Software Again, I do not believe a price hike would be necessary for the end consumer at all. The SNES Jr. cost lest than the original SNES yet it was nearly half the size. I'm basically just suggesting that same thing in principle here, along with including all the modern connections and stuff the SNES Mini already has anyway. I don't see why it would really cost that much more to potentially re-print old SNES components in 2017 than print the components that are on the current SNES Mini hardware. I can see how this means Nintendo couldn't use the same boards for both the Mini systems, but that's not quite the same thing as me talking about how I would go about making an ideal SNES Mini without really adding any cost to the end consumer. Anyway, I'm sure Nintendo could add the NES chips into the SNES model for next to no cost and then once again just use the one board for both models again. Seriously, I don't think it would cost more to make a 2017 NES/SNES hybrid board that runs some version of the official chips than whatever they're using right now to be honest.

Again though, I know why they went with the current design--I'm just saying I wish they'd have prioritized that 100% replication a little higher than all the cost-time-saving measures they went for that meant the end consumer experience had to suffer a little. It could have been perfect, and still made Nintendo a whole load of profit as far as I'm concerned.

@impurekind Let me add that you are absolutely right, there's no need to re-programme the software. Take Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island code and put the chips wherever you like, once everything is connected it doesn't matter where the chips are placed. SNES cartridges' circuitry is worthless on its own, it needs to be connected to the SNES hardware to complete the circuits. Thus, you can make a console with the cartridge chips built-in.

@BlueOcean Exactly.

@cleveland124 You are missing the point, we are not talking from a stokeholder's point of view. However, I don't think it would be soooo expensive to make clone chips these days. Yes, it would be more expensive than the off-shelf components that SNES Classic use, but not a fortune and Nintendo could use those proprietary chips in future hardware for milking SNES games forever without worrying about their emulator's imperfections.

@impurekind you're comments really go to show how little knowledge you have of both engineering, coding, manufacturing and pretty much everything that goes into producing a product. Your wishful thinking is neither practical or cost effective for mass production. Do some research into R&D and warehouse manufacturing. Costs per unit don't turn up as much of a profit as you think.

I can't wait to hear what they say about Star Fox 2, it's towards the end.

@BlueOcean

All the clone consoles on the market suck though because they are trying to reproduce old hardware with new parts.

Also Nintendo has emulators and they are at least releasing SNES emulation on the Switch with the online plan. So at worst this is really trying out the emulator with the public to see what they should release with the Switch.

@MaSSiVeRiCaN Show me exactly where anything I've said is impossible, unreasonable, unfathomable, unrealistic or whatever other negative assertion you'd like to apply here--as in, Nintendo simply couldn't do what I'm saying, and for roughly the same price as the current SNES Mini--and then we can talk further. Otherwise . . .

@Hikingguy Yes, they are basically the only really professional original source in the gaming pseudo-journalism world of today.

@samuelvictor

Yeah all modern tech has some lag. The only game that bothers me a little is Mario Kart. Still playable, but the handling seems slippery to me whereas on a crt it's very tight. But that's a game I love and play alot.

@cleveland124 Yet Nintendo knows their hardware well enough to be able to design a clone/modern SNES. They managed to emulate Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island pretty well already on a crappy off-shelf hardware when it is very difficult to emulate on a much more powerful PC. Nintendo knows their old hardware and software so well that there you are, NES Classic re-branded as SNES Classic emulating Super FX2 games.

@cleveland124 I remember the first time I played Donkey Kong Country on Wii after growing up with SNES I immediately noticed the lag. That's why a low lag TV is so important when buying a non-CRT TV. I learnt that lesson.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE DF doesn't do full reviews on gameplay. They're more about the technical aspects of the game.

Basically the only negative DF mentioned is the framerate, but it's Starfox, we already know that. Otherwise, they're very impressed with the technical achievements of the game.

@impurekind you run your own games company. Well by all means please enlighten me and direct me your site so I may see for myself the quality of your games. Do you have any products on a manufacturing line? Are your games available for purchase at retail? Please. I don't have access to Nintendo's books and accountants so what your asking from me to show you otherwise is neither possible and unrelatble.

@masterLEON Yes, Star Fox 2 impressed them as a SNES game. I still haven't received my SNES Classic but I will be trying the games I know best first (Super Mario World 1+2, Donkey Kong Country...) just to check the emulation and after beating Star Fox I will play the sequel.

@MaSSiVeRiCaN Until you do what I asked, I have zero reason to believe you speak with any experience, knowledge or authority whatsoever that makes what you have to say even close to being valid, and I have zero cause to debate the point any further with you: You have yet to show me any evidence that invalidates a single word I've said regarding how I believe Nintendo could have approached the SNES Mini in a way that's entirely possible and not entirely unreasonable . . .

@impurekind I'm sure that the cost would increase significantly if they did what you said. Don't forget that the Super NES Classic Edition comes with 21 games. If they did what you said and included 21 games, the price might be $200, and that would be too expensive for many people.

Anyway, if you are unsatisfied with what Nintendo is offering, you can always vote with your money. People always do that.

@impurekind wow. I've spoken with many devs, publishers and designers, not only are there some right here on this site that have commented but I have a few that are personal friends. Anyone that makes games for a living and is running a company does not shy away from having more exposure for games their proud of or a company they run. Especially when asked for. Yet you won't share that info with me based on something I have no access or capability to prove. Please keep your game and your game company's information, I neither want it nor need it at this point. You sir don't come off as a veteran dev or business oriented so please don't make it sound as if Nintendo has unlimited resources and skimped out because they didn't produce a product which don't meet your standards. They've put out an incredible little piece of affordable kit with minor flaws. Add to that the fact you can add as many games as you like no cartridges necessary and it's a pretty big winner.

@cleveland124 Yeah, I still don't believe those would be major issues for Nintendo in 2017 if it chose to actually go down [roughly] the route I suggested. I've seen no evidence so far that Nintendo couldn't make a console that runs a compilation of SNES games 100% in 2017 and for the same basic price as a SNES Mini. In fact, I even believe Nintendo could literally remake the original SNES and included a single 21-in-1 cart in the box for the same price as a SNES Mini if it really wanted. A SNES with two controllers and Super Mario World cost £150 at launch in the UK, and the SNES Jr. cost $100 when it launched in the US; common sense tells me Nintendo could be manufacturing and selling that exact same system and bundle for far, far less now. And, again, I've seen zero evidence to suggest otherwise. On the contrary, however, I've seen a lot of evidence across these tech industries in general to suggest it should in fact be much cheaper to make an original SNES or SNES Jr. now than it cost back in 1990 when the tech was basically brand new and cutting-edge; so I' just applying that logic and thinking to how I might approach a SNES Mini if I were in charge at Nintendo and I really cared about making those games run 100% authentically to the originals.

@MaSSiVeRiCaN You've still not said anything at all to support your assertions that my assertions regarding my take on how Nintendo could have approached the SNES Mini are somehow wrong, bad, misinformed, unfair, ignorant, whatever . . .

Why should I give you the time of day beyond that when you've accused me of something negative yet apparently based on complete and utter ignorance yourself?

@BlueOcean

The Nes classic was quite a bit more powerful than the Wii according to teardowns. The Wii did N64 emulation pretty well.

@NinNin I don't believe that, and, like most people debating me in here, you've not shown any evidence to support your assertions regarding my ideas.

I'm simply suggesting how Nintendo might have approached this a slightly different way in order to give consumers that 100% experience with the games, and you're saying I'm somehow wrong, ignorant, misguided or some other negative implication in my assertions. Now, prove it . . . or . . .

I have already bought my SNES Mini and paid my money, so I've voted and I'm largely very happy. And now I'm simply offering an opinion on how Nintendo might have done things slightly differently to offer an even more accurate experience--given what we've learned from the video above regarding some of the minor emulation issues with the current SNES Mini--which I don't think is unrealistic or unreasonable, and I've yet to see anyone prove otherwise outside of just saying they don't think . . .

If you're going to state I'm somehow wrong or being unfair to Nintendo--prove it. . . .

@impurekind or make classic systems that can actually play the old carts too! They'd make a killing.

@impurekind I didn't know there was such a thing (snes jr)😱

@sandman89 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New-Style_Super_NES

I just wish there was a home button on the controller it's daft having to get up n press reset 🙄

@sandman89 I wouldn't want them to add a physical button because I love the controller exactly as is--and I know they'd just **** it up somehow if the added a new button somewhere on the design--but I would have loved a shortcut command to take you to the Home menu (possibly something like holding down Start and Select together or something like that).

@cleveland124 Yes, I mean, Super FX2 games that are so hard to emulate on much more powerful PCs. Apparently, Nintendo is emulating the chips somehow, another evidence of that they know their old hardware and software well, obviously.

Anyone else noticing serious slowdown in Megaman X?

@NinNin I have paid for a SNES Classic and that doesn't mean I can't express my thoughts and what it should have been, even if it was more expensive. After all, the article is exactly about the emulation issues so the topic of this thread should be about that as well.

No need to imply that Nintendo is perfect 24/7 even when the topic is about their imperfections or to tell people to not buy their products just because.

Also, vote with your wallet doesn't work with Nintendo but they listen to fans... sometimes.

Seriously whining about the CRT filter? Is it fair to compare the mini filter versus a Sony PVM?! That was a medical grade/tv studio grade 4 figures expense non-broadcast level TV only true CRT collectards and overkill collectors would own. You pop that filtered mini down against a standard CRT and it fits. That begged looking for an excuse.

@tanookisuit They just explained its flaws and the games that look better or worse with the filter on and off, like they explained that the pixel perfect mode makes round objects look oval. Because they are reviewing the emulation and the visual modes I'd say it's a good call. Why should they ignore that?

@BlueOcean Because it's not a legitimate real world problem. Gamers did not use or have access to those grade of CRT back in the day. People who bought and used a SNES in the period were stuck on mostly rounded 80s/early 90s CRT tvs, if lucky and loaded a flat panel from Sony. A PVM is into a league of its own beyond the quite expensive screens even arcade cabinets had. That one aspect just felt like grasping at straws to whine about an illegitimate concern. PVM aside the different mode descriptions were quite good in the handling but it would have been more accurate/fare to rate the CRT filter against a period consumer device. I would imagine they look pretty spot on similar in that respect.

@impurekind Once again, I agree it would be good, but just to comment specifically on your mention of the SNES Jr. being cheap originally - it's because it (probably?) used original stock chips but just a new compact circuit board/housings etc.... it didn't use all new designed chips etc..

Meanwhile, let it be known I would definetely pay more for a proper one.

@impurekind a button wouldn't bother me if done correctly. A command would be fine though

@tanookisuit They compare it also to the original CRT "effect", which is not an effect but they way it is. It's an objective review with several references so people know what to expect compared to the original and alternative displays.

Cool video. I love the DF Retro series and it's one of the main reasons I enjoy the channel. My concerns with the SNES Classic is from the emulation side of things, which is mostly handled near the beginning towards just before the middle of the video. I like that they improved the scaling and most of the audio issues though the harshness is still somewhat there.

The CRT filter does look more pleasing to these old eyes. Though there's one thing John mentioned in the video about the scanlines. The Sony PVM he uses is a broadcast quality monitor, something that would normally be used in TV stations and not people's homes back in the day. The scanlines produced by a normal TV are not as pronounced and sharp, except for maybe a consumer grade Trinitron (Sony) or Diamondtron (Mitsubishi) which starts to approach that quality. The 'glow' from the neighboring pixels would actually start to fill in the gaps somewhat, though using an S-Video connection, the best connection available at the time, sharpens the image up considerably. What the SNES Classic puts out is fine comparison for what was the most common baseline CRT that people had back in the day.

@kbshadow Where's the slowdown? I haven't tried it out yet, but I'd like to check it out when I get there.

@BlueOcean @cleveland124 It's an SoC (System on Chip) that has all the bits that describe how the SNES works on it so the code and special coprocessors (the SuperFX 1 and 2 and the SA1) from the games can execute as if it's actual hardware. The SNES Classic has 512MB of flash on board which is plenty of overhead to do that, plus storage for the games. Even the ideas that @impurekind is suggesting can likely be done because of the SoC nature, and those original chips are no longer in production. Though they'd have to come up with a controller of some sort that can handle the carts or maybe something like a SD or micro SD with a cartridge-shaped shell. I mean, the NEOGEO X did that, so it can't be that hard to accomplish. It wouldn't have that satisfying PCB insertion feel, but at least the cartridges would look the part.

However, that 100% emulation can't be achieved due to the "end-to-end" lag John mentions in the video. Sure, the SoC can do what most PC emulators can't do without brute forcing the emulator with higher spec machines. It's more about the combination of the video buffer in the SNES Classic (which, I imagine, the original hardware had contrary to the video, but the way it draws to a CRT is fundamentally different than today's TV), whatever the new fangled TVs are using to decode the signal (even with "game mode" on the TV), and whatever that "anti-seizure" tech that Nintendo sticks on everything that was mentioned in the video (which has been the thorn in my side since VC started and classic game compilations on the Wii are forced to have which makes the emulation not 100%, though HAMSTER may actually be getting around that with the ACA NEOGEO titles). The sound lag I can't explain except maybe that's timing issue with the R16 itself and/or the SNES sound emulation.

In all, I feel the SNES Classic does a better job than the NES Classic. And 99.97% of the general public won't be able pick up on it's emulation flaws.

@impurekind cost. Pure and simple.

@masterLEON That was long but interesting. I wish that Nintendo does something like that even if it was more expensive, I wouldn't mind. It could even play more than just SNES games. I said it before, the fact that you need a very powerful PC to emulate some SNES games and the fact that Nintendo is emulating Super FX2 games with cheap off-shelf components means that they can make the perfect SNES again, obviously. This is the first time that they are emulating Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and it's running decently on cheap hardware, they really know their hardware and software.

Are the chips that went into the original consoles and cartridges still made today? I'd be surprised... chip manufacturing has moved on massively, original chips might be more expensive to make if you can't source them easily.

@masterLEON throughout when it gets intense.

@BlueOcean I didn't say that you couldn't express your thoughts, and I didn't imply that Nintendo was perfect. I can suggest things to people. It's ironic that you want to express your thoughts, but it seems that you don't want other people to express theirs.

Let's face it almost nobody is going to be able to tell the difference between playing this or an actual SNES. I as many did have played on the SNES for a ridiculous amount of hours and this feels exactly the same, so just enjoy all these great games

@MarioBrickLayer You can make or programme the equivalent.

@NinNin Of course I want you to express your opinions and that's why I answer you, if I didn't care about you I would ignore you like I ignore other people. I think you can do better than them. Read my message again, what I tell you is that you can't tell people to not buy SNES Classic if they have something negative to say about it.

@BlueOcean As I said, I can give suggestions to people. It doesn't mean that they're decrees that people have to follows. You know what suggestions mean. People can disagree with my suggestions. I just find it strange that you don't want me to give suggestions, which are my thoughts, to other people, yet you want to express your thoughts. It's contradictory.

@NinNin Look, I don't want to argue with you, I think that you are a nice guy, I just wanted you to realise that this comment "Anyway, if you are unsatisfied with what Nintendo is offering, you can always vote with your money" doesn't make any sense to me for three reasons:

a) this is the comments section of the SNES Classic emulation review made by Digital Foundry,

b) even if I don't think that "what Nintendo offers" is perfect I can still buy it and say the positives and negatives about it and

c) Nintendo pays more attention to fan requests, at least Nintendo of Europe, than to wallet votes that most of the times are unclear.

I know that your comment was not addressed to me but I just wanted you to realise.

@masterLEON as I understand things, the snes without add-on chips would have no framebuffer like was said in the video. It would draw directly to the screen. From what I've read, the tile-based graphics of the old consoles was a smart way around needing a buffer since memory was so expensive in those days.

@MsgBoardGamer

Nice to see you still won't let that go.

@kbshadow Is it additional slowdown or slowdown that was already there? I admit it's been a while so I don't remember off the top of my head what spots are supposed to have it (the Armored Armadillo stage comes to mind). I'd really need to sit down with it in order to see but I'm on my way to work right now.

@impurekind I can't prove it, but you can't prove it that Nintendo can make a Mini SNES the way you wanted and have profits by selling it for $70 either.

I can't prove it, but I can use reasons. What do you think is a fair price of an SNES game that is included with the console? I think $2.5 is a fair price, so the fair price of 21 games is $52.5. What's a fair price of an SNES controller? I would say $10 or $15. Let's say it's $10, the fair price of two SNES controllers is $20. The total price excluding the console, a power cable, and an HDMI cable is $72.5. If you want to sell this package for $80, the cost of the console must be very low. It should be less than $7.5, so you can profit from fair prices of other components (included games and controllers). I don't think it's possible to manufacture a Mini SNES the way you suggested and keep the cost of the console under $7.5.

If you have evidence or explanations that the cost of manufacturing such console isn't more than $7.5, please elaborate.

@NinNin A similar R16 SoC that runs the thing comes up starting around $6.50 each on aliexpress, if that's any kind of reference point. In bulk it'll likely be cheaper.

@masterLEON Thanks for the information. I meant the cost of manufacturing a miniature SNES hardware that doesn't use emulation, though, in case you misunderstood my post.

The different SNES systems:

http://retrorgb.com/snesversioncompare.html

@BlueOcean Okay. We can disagree. That's fine. However, I believe that you misinterpreted my comment. When I said that you could vote with your money, it doesn't mean you can't say positive or negative things about it. It doesn't mean that you mustn't buy it either, but it's your prerogative to not buy it. It's simply an option, and it's not the only option. Regardless of the option you choose (buy or not buy), you can always praise or criticize it to your heart's content. I hope this clear things up.

Would be nice if I could get my hands on one but am hoping to pick up a SNES mini later. There are more games I want on it though, wish there was an option to buy more - Illusion of Gaia (aka Illusion of Time) looks cool.

Alot of complaints on here - To be fair this is as accurate as emulation is likely to get and good luck getting that picture quality from a real SNES.

Unfortunately not many of us had access to those pin sharp professional CRT monitors and so the CRT filter replicates what 99% of gamers got in the 90's.

Still perhaps Nintendo could've made a few variations of scanlines for us to choose from. All in all an excellent console.

@Damo None of us know how difficult and/or expensive it would be for Nintendo to do this. And I never said it was THAT simple or that this is the EXACT way it should be done either. I'm simply acknowledging there are some emulation issues with the SNES Mini, as clearly demonstrated in the video above and a couple of other examples, and that I think Nintendo could have taken one of a few possible slightly different approaches that probably could have resulted in a better result for the end consumer in terms of the quality of the "emulation". And, again, none of us know how expensive or difficult any of the alternatives I have suggested would be for Nintendo. Speculating it's sooo hard and/or expensive it just that--speculation. Personally, I believe it's not only entirely possible but also feasible in terms of coming out at a similar cost to the end consumer as well.This is not some tiny homebrew outfit trying to make tiny runs of copies of Nintendo's hardware based on online specs or whatever; this is Nintendo using its own official hardware, tech and designs and producing them in huge bulk. But, hey, I'm just speculating and going on my gut--and, so far at least, no one else's "gut" is doing a great job of convincing me that their speculations, regarding what my idea may or not mean for Nintendo in terms of cost and resources, are more accurate and/or realistic than mine. So, again, I believe and I say that Nintendo could release basically a more direct remake of the original SNES hardware and chips but just in a smaller shell, and still with 21 built-in games and HDMI output for the same price of its current SNES Mni.

@liveswired

If you use rgb with xrgb or ossc you can get that quality out of an original Super Nintendo.

@impurekind This doesn't sound like a speculation at all:
"Let's face it, there's pretty much zero doubt Nintendo could remake and re-release the exact original SNES for less than $70/£70 nowadays, so I see no truly good reason it couldn't just do that but in a smaller shell"

It's jumping to conclusions.

@Damo There is no "logic" that sways towards your view or mine. It's hardware, firmware and software that we know nothing about in terms of how hard or costly it would be for Nintendo to mass produce in 2017 in such a form that it could 100% replicate how the SNES works while allowing all the games to be built-in and output in HD. I say it's possible and for the same end consumer price as a SNES Mini; you [presumably] say it's not. We'll never know the real truth--because Nintendo did not in fact use my approach on the product as we know it.

@impurekind Did you miss my post?
"If you have evidence or explanations that the cost of manufacturing such console isn't more than $7.5, please elaborate."

@NinNin It's absurd--you literally plucked random end-numbers out of thin air that pretty much have no relevance in any real context at the design and manufacturing end of the process--so I ignored it.

@NinNin Learn to read English: "There's PRETTY MUCH zero doubt . . ." That means it's more than likely but we can't really say for 100% absolute fact that it is the case. However, simple common sense tells me that if Nintendo wanted to it could go in and get the original design docs/specs, mass re-print/re-produce all the original hardware and circuits pretty much as is, with minor adjustments for newer best-practices and the like, and then sell the thing at a fraction of the cost the same tech and components would have cost nearly 30 years ago when it was cutting-edge tech--it could. Prove otherwise. . . . And, to be clear, right now you're "common sense" reasoning as to why it couldn't work doesn't trump my common sense reasoning as to why it could work as far as I'm concerned.

@impurekind Could you please explain what is absurd? In your opinion, what should be fair prices of an SNES game and an SNES controller?

@NinNin Basically saying that some random/speculative end cost/price has any relevance on the actual cost/price to the manufacture. Does that explain "absurd" to you?

@impurekind Did you even read my post? This is the entire post:
"I can't prove it, but you can't prove it that Nintendo can make a Mini SNES the way you wanted and have profits by selling it for $70 either.

I can't prove it, but I can use reasons. What do you think is a fair price of an SNES game that is included with the console? I think $2.5 is a fair price, so the fair price of 21 games is $52.5. What's a fair price of an SNES controller? I would say $10 or $15. Let's say it's $10, the fair price of two SNES controllers is $20. The total price excluding the console, a power cable, and an HDMI cable is $72.5. If you want to sell this package for $80, the cost of the console must be very low. It should be less than $7.5, so you can profit from fair prices of other components (included games and controllers). I don't think it's possible to manufacture a Mini SNES the way you suggested and keep the cost of the console under $7.5.

If you have evidence or explanations that the cost of manufacturing such console isn't more than $7.5, please elaborate."

Now, can you answer my question?

@NinNin Again, throwing around random end numbers that you plucked from thin air is just absurd in the context of this whole discussion, and particularly when trying to argue that Nintendo couldn't do [in bulk] what I'm suggesting at basically the same cost as a SNES Mini.

Example: You think a "fair price" has some kind of actual production cost relevance to including 21 games on the SNES Mini (trying to break down the cost per game as some way to calculate how much it must cost at a min to create the kind of hardware/software combo I'm talking about), as just one example, and I think you using that [as just one] example is utterly absurd. It doesn't have any relevance at all; those games, for the most part, can be included basically free on Nintendo's part (at least the first party ones)--their "fair price" is not a factor here in terms of what I'm suggesting.

@impurekind Okay, let's say that my estimations are absurd. What are your estimations of fair prices of an SNES game and an SNES controller? I just want to know what you think.

@NinNin Do you not understand basic English?

The fact you're using these kinds of estimations is the absurd part.

No estimation in this context--the way you are using them--is relevant.

It's about how much it would cost Nintendo to mass produce the actual hardware and various internal components (including any necessary R&D and whatever else) and what price it could sell the thing at and still turn a profit when taking into account those actual costs.

How much you think any individual game is worth, or you taking random guesses at what's a "fair" price for the final controller, etc, ultimately has no bearing on that whatsoever.

@impurekind Okay. Thanks for the information. I disagree with you, though. The prices of games and controllers have to be taken into account because Nintendo can't give those away for free. There are several third-party games included, and Nintendo has to pay for those, which increases the overall cost. First-party games also have prices associated to them because it's likely that most people who buy the Super NES Classic Edition won't buy the included games again if they are available on the Virtual Console for the Nintendo Switch in the future. Two controllers that come with the console also add to the overall cost, so I think they are very relevant.

@NinNin But not in the way you're thinking: Those things have to be taking into account in terms of the cost to R&D and manufacture the various components of the hardware and stuff (including the actual cost to include the software, which is nigh-on zero for all the Nintendo first party games), and then how much Nintendo would have to charge in order to sell the full package at a profit. So, you come up with a "fair" end consumer price of say $10 for a SNES controller, whereas it might only cost Nintendo $1 to make each controller and it would be turning a profit selling them at basically anything above that. So, while you're trying to add up random end consumer prices to get to $70, and deciding whatever is left is how much Nintendo would surely have to develop the physical console for, you're not thinking about how much it actually costs to make all that stuff for Nintendo in the first place, which is way less than the figures you're plucking out of thin air--especially your "fair" price for the games. It's just totally broken logic.

Here's what actually needs to be calculated: How much does it cost for any R&D around the SNES Mini? How much does it cost Nintendo to manufacture the hardware and components (from the box to the controller and cables)? How much do any licensing fees cost for the included third party games? What's the min price Nintendo needs to sell these systems to make a profit? What's the price it's gonna charge in order to strike the right balance between making as much profit as possible while also offering the thing at a reasonable price to the customer?

That's the kind of stuff you should be looking at--and none of us realistically knows the actual costs to Nintendo of any of those things. I am, however, suggesting my version of the hardware probably wouldn't ultimately be that different in cost to the current version of the hardware at the end of the day, and particularly not once you get to the end consumer price of the thing (which could mean making slightly less profit on each unit sold--but still profit).

@NinNin Yes, no problem.

@Hikingguy I’m 29 years old, and my friends and I were the SNES/Genesis Generation...and uh, everyone I know spells it out. I’ve never heard it said as a monosyllabic word until recently, haha.

@NinNin gotcha. Sorry about that.

@impurekind It isn't illogical. Fair prices in this case mean prices that are fair for consumers and Nintendo still receives reasonable profits.

To simplify this, imagine that Nintendo sells a Mini SNES with two controllers without games for $30, and they want a 30% GPM, the cost will be about $23.1. If the fair price of each SNES controller is $10, the cost of producing it will be $7.7.

If you don't know the cost of the console, there are two ways to calculate it if you know the fair price and the cost of the controller.

The first way is to start with the cost, the cost of two controllers is $15.4, which means that in order to achieve the 30% or higher GPM target, the cost of the console mustn't exceed $7.7 (23.1-15.4).

The second way is to start with the fair price. The fair price of two controllers is $20. If Nintendo only wants to get reasonable profits from the controllers (gives away the console for free), the cost of the console mustn't exceed $10 (30-20). However, if Nintendo wants to get an overall 30% GPM, the difference of the cost and the price of the console must be 30%. In other word, the cost must be $7.7 (the difference of 7.7 and 10 is about 30%).

I think you notice that the same cost can be deduced by using two different methods. You can replace my numbers with any numbers. It isn't illogical to start from fair prices.

I expected I'd get some push back over the CRT filter bit and my comment is more than fair, but that said let's ignore that and look at the rest.

It's one hell of a review. And as if not enough people had said it already here I'll do it too — even more so than the NES Classic last year, this one the SNES Classic is so damn near perfect only the most techno-nuts and picky will ever notice the difference.

This right here is the true example (for a closed system) how to do it right. For years we have suffered the odd quirks almost across the board of poorly done retro system emulation/simulation. ATGames the brunt of endless well deserved crap catch hell for their Sega Genesis emulation on the SD level. You pay $60 and you get over key, off pitch, and off an octave music, sound, and sampled audio. It ranges from only fanboys would notice, to someone who still could maybe hear something but are legally declared deaf would grind their teeth over it. On top of that up until recent hacks for set few games no SRAM and they dared sell a unit advertising Mega Man Wily Wars which requires a battery. Worst of all, get the unit that uses real games and it can't even let a legit game save to its own chips. Throw in the list of games with graphical problems ranging from minor to the game breaking scrolling of Contra (SD card handheld or legit cart) and it's a disaster. Their later ARM level stuff with Coleco/Int is overall good but still obviously off. Earlier on they did license a SMS/Game Gear closed handheld, that one at least is quite accurate. Step away to the EA, Capcom, Konami, and other licensed TV games drek that ranges from horrible to decent you have to wonder. Namco stepped it up in most recent iterations but it took like 15 years of Jakks tv garbage to get there which is sad.

Then in comes Nintendo with the NES last Christmas and SNES now in September and the NES was a true A-/B+ effort depending on your personal feelings, and the SNES went a good step better against those to perform at even a closer to amazing level. Nintendo again raises the bar for quality even in a dippy cheapo TV games unit. Look at ATGames it shamed them into making both an HD level home Genesis console and HD level Atari2600 and Atari/Activision 2600 HD units which perform finally at a great level.

Perhaps this one two punch will drag more of these idiots into doing stuff right instead of doing stuff at best passably and usually at a grating level only people don't care or don't know better won't mind.

@impurekind “Seriously, why can't Nintendo simply remake all the original SNES chips and stuff 100% accurately but just shove them in a smaller box”

Because that can’t be ported into other systems like the Switch. I think it’s a no brainer that the software based emulation being developed for these somewhat limited run consoles is intended to be reused elsewhere, namely the Switch which hasn’t yet been given a virtual console. Going the dedicated hardware route locks them into supporting a single niche hardware solution, where a good software emulator can be reused time and time again and ported to current and future devices.

The other thing is 99.5% of the people buying this don’t need 100% perfect emulation. It’s close enough for them. Developing hardware adds cost and would bring no tangible benefits to most gamers. Their money would probably be better spent just adding more titles to the same software which I think customers would appreciate more generally.

@MaSSiVeRiCaN @NinNin

Never mind @impurekind and his obviously uneducated/immature speculation (I understand it comes from wishful thinking, but it's unfortunately far removed from (business) reality as most people with more than a few years' life and work experience under their belts percieve it, I'm afraid; sorry bro).

You've just fallen into his rhetorical trap: In this discussion it's not you who is making claims and assumptions out of thin air, but him. If he wants to be taken seriously, HE needs to bring proof to the table, not just speculation, and trying to turn the tables by asking you to present some sort of "proof" that supports your doubt is a cheap parlor trick (easy to see from the outside, I might have fallen for it, too, if it had been me active in the discussion though). It's absolutely fair to doubt his assumption (I believe it's common sense even), but he's the one who needs to convince us (with actual facts and numbers that make actual sense), not the other way round.

Him saying that he will not prove anything unless you do, too, shows perfectly well that there's nothing but hot air, he has no real proof to back up his claim, and it's absolutely Kindergarten and not how a mature person argues (again, sorry buddy, but that's what it looks like from the outside).

Later it became even more apparent, when he tried to extenuate what he wrote earlier by admitting that it's only speculation, which is of course true. It's an opinion, but not a very well researched one, but one that just says "oh, wouldn't it be nice...".

Nothing he has written convinces me so far. I still doubt that Nintendo could have done any better without increasing development and production costs considerably, making it an unaffordable product.

I suggest to not play his game any longer. It is my belief that he knows he's wrong in the meantime, but of course he can't admit that anymore at this point. I understand that. It takes a person of a different caliber for sure. It's Mark Twain and Bill Murray in full effect at this point.

I'm still ticked that it is not expandable (Chronotrigger could come later via SNES Mini e-shop) AND have a slot for real carts. then it could replace the SNES in my living room right now someday when it bombs.

Does anyone know what Display setting I should have the SNES mini be on?? The graphics are REALLY blocky when I compare them side by side with the Wii U downloads. Or should it be my TV display settings?? (I don't think so as it's fine with all other systems) Thx

@impurekind By all means, learn C/ASM and reverse engineer the SuperFX-2/GSU-1 in order to convert the code from Ricoh CPU architecture for ARM and let me know how that goes. Have a nice day.

So many armchair developers and programmers on here.

@impurekind They can’t reproduce all the hardware because of manufacturing costs. To make the system affordable, they would have to produce the unique chips again in mass production in order to drive unit costs down. The problem with this is that the initial run will be very expensive. Nintendo will not make a profit off of the unit selling it at the price that the SNES Mini is at the moment and the unit will have to be sold long term to drive costs down to turn a profit.

The current SNES Mini setup where they emulate the hardware is much cheaper to do with off the shelf parts, allowing for a cheaper, profitable product to be sold at an affordable price.

Hopefully this makes sense, I had to rush this post on my lunch break.

So many backseat drivers on here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still (very) happy being lucky enough to have secured a SNES Classic, however, this DF analysis feels a bit of a kick in the teeth for anybody believing what we have in our hands is anything better than a good Raspberry Pi setup. I'd have loved - just to be proven wrong - DF to have done a side by side with these 2 heavyweights.

A tad bit off the subject of the article. I hope Nintendo keeps it promise of providing enough stock for this thing. I'm already seeing people put theirs up on Facebook's marketplace for over double and almost triple the price in some instances. They either don't read gaming news and aren't aware of Nintendo's plan to keep stock flowing or they're banking on suckers who don't and will panic die to the NES Classic fiasco

Edit: to chime in on the debate on what we called the console back in the day, the most popular name I heard was Super Nintendo. Followed probably by Super NES. I rarely heard anyone say SNES and when they did, they spelled it out

I'm going to watch the full video on my telle. I'm very curious about this one.

@electrolite77 And I never claimed I wasn't just suggesting an idea based on what I'd like to see. I did, however, say that I personally believe it's possible for Nintendo to take the approach I suggested and still make a profit (which I still stand by)--and nothing has been put forward thus far prove otherwise. I don't have to prove to some random what I'm proposing as an alternative solution because I've never stated it as anything other than that, a possible alternative that I believe is doable (both from and hardware and cost perspective). Some random coming in and outright accusing me of being totally wrong and ignorant of whatever junk, and basically stating outright that it simply could not be done the way I am proposing (based on literally nothing but their own complete ignorance and total speculation), should maybe have something to back up their accusations though.

@dereq Do you even know how to write a proper sentence, bro?

@TheMadPolarBear That's pure speculation on your part: You have ZERO idea of how much it would cost Nintendo to do what I suggesting, how they might realistically go about doing it in some way that's similar to what I'm suggesting, or how much they would be able to charge at the end of the whole process. There's absolutely no evidence provided by anyone in here so far to say Nintendo couldn't make basically a fully working SNES in 2017 that would play these digital games 100% perfectly and for roughly the same price as the current SNES Mini.

@mikegamer Sure, sure.

@JunkRabbit Show me that you have a SINGLE clue contrary to what I have suggested that unequivocally proves Nintendo could not do what I am suggesting, both in terms of the hardware and end cost to the consumer. . . .

Otherwise, you know what you can do . . .

@NinNin Again, you have no clue as to what it actually costs to make these things, so you have no clue as to what is a "fair" price in terms of what Nintendo would need to charge in order to turn a profit on the current SNES Mini--Nintendo could be making a massive 400% profit on every single SNES Mini sold for all you know--let-alone the version of the system I am suggesting. What you think is a "fair" price for each part of the console and its games on the consumer end of things has literally ZERO bearing on whether Nintendo could manufacture the version of the system I am suggesting and still make a profit on it--so it does NOTHING to suggest my idea is implausible, impractical, unrealistic, impossible, unfair, whatever.

@PtM "Voting with your wallet" is such an asinine concept".

Yep, that's what I was explaining to @NinNin.

I did my own comparison on Yoshi's island. It looks a lot cleaner and plays smoother on the SNES mini compared to my hacked Wii which I have connected with an official Nintendo RGB cable.

It could be to do with the tiny ROMs used in the hacked Wii. The rewind feature is very good. I'm finding myself using it a lot in my quest for perfect scores in Yoshi's island.

@electrolite77 Hence why I've never really said it has to copy them EXACTLY without any possible variation or newer method of reproducing them in 2017. In fact, I think it would make sense to make modern versions of those chips with smaller and newer components and stuff, but just technically the exact same functionality so as to be 100% compatible with the games--and I've said as much from very early on. Nintendo doesn't have to remake the EXACT same SNES as far as I'm concerned; it could just make a modern version of the chips that function the same as the originals. So, a mini SNES shell with slightly modern versions of all the necessary original chips (both the console and cartridge chips), or whatever it needs so it can play the games 100%, and with HD output. Again, nothing says that can't be done and nothing says it can't be done within basically the same end price of the current SNES Mini when done at the kind of numbers Nintendo is producing these system in. A bunch of you are saying it simply couldn't be done and that I have no clue what I'm talking about, blah, blah, blah--based on literally no real evidence to the contrary or actual knowledge yourselves of how Nintendo might possibly go about doing this and/or how much it might cost the company to do so. Until any one of you actually shows otherwise, with proper evidence, I see no reason why my suggestion isn't both plausible and financially feasible too. And, again, it's just one alternative idea that I'm personally putting forward anyway--I'm not preaching some gospel that requires naysayers to fervently oppose and disprove the word of God or something.

@impurekind Cool, cool, lemme know how that goes XD

I've definitely found significant input lag while playing Super Mario World.
Donkey Kong Country however, played fine. Still looking to try the others out.

@impurekind

That's just my point, isn't it? We do not have to prove anything to you. It is you who have to come up with the evidence to support your claim, which (so far) you failed to do.

Unless you can give us the hard, true figures how much it has cost (and continues to cost) Nintendo to give us what we got precisely, including R&D, production of the parts, assembly, distribution, marketing, etc., and then enlighten us with YOUR proven knowledge how much it would in fact cost to make the product you'd wish for (in truth, not by a wild guess without knowing any details what kind of effort is really involved, mind you), including some sort of plausible info why you have knowledge of these figures, there is no reason for any of us to take your claim seriously.

It's easy: Since you were the one who made the claim in the first place, it is your obligation to support it, otherwise it remains just a wild guess without any basis in truth or fact. There is no need for us to disprove your theory. If I would claim that the second moon around the third planet of Proxima Centauri is made of cheese (and say that everybody knows it and there is pretty much zero doubt about it, like you did), you would also be well advised to doubt this statement, and I am certain you would either ignore the statement as the utter nonsense it is, or ask me to present some solid proof, without which you couldn't take my assumption seriously.

You see, a theory is not automatically right until disproven. It's really the other way round. A theory remains only speculation (or in this case utter nonsense) until proven. It would be childish for me to say: "Hah, I am right, unless any of you prove to me that I am not!". It just doesn't make sense.

So please: It's your theory. Prove it, or just let it go if you can't. Anyway, time for me to take my own advice.

@JunkRabbit No, it is exactly the opposite: I'm simply suggesting one potential alternative way of doing things and defending my position that I haven't seen any reason or evidence it couldn't be done the way I've suggested (only when you guys made such accusations against me). I don't have to prove the viability of an idea/suggestion for an alternative and speculative [but based on some reasonable presumptions, past examples and a couple of other bits and bobs) method of doing something to you or anyone else--you just imagine I do. People like you, however, are literally accusing me of being clueless and ignorant of such things and stating that it basically couldn't be done (like it's a matter of objective fact). So, if people like you are going to make such outright and personal accusations and assertions as though they are objectively true (based on total and utter ignorance and/or complete speculation and nothing else as far as I can see)--prove it. . . . Otherwise . . .

@junkrabbit This guy knows what he's talking about, and why I haven't made another reply at all towards this. Waste of breath. @impurekind it would clearly be more expensive to manufacture old chips or do the R&D to have new chips function like old chips. This Is based on common sense and cost of old tech not readily available being put back into production. Whereas an SoC that's already in Mass production and easily attainable, clearly going to be more cost effective. There's just doesn't seem to be a logical basis to think that somehow what you're suggesting wouldn't be more expensive period. Which rules out Nintendo making similar profits to what they're currently making with the S-N-E-S Mini 😋

@MaSSiVeRiCaN Now . . . show me how any of that proves Nintendo could not make a system akin to the one I'm suggesting and release it for a similar end consumer price to the current SNES Mini. . . .

Otherwise . . .

I mean, do you even have the slightest clue whatsoever how much it costs to manufacture each SNES Mini or what profit Nintendo is currently making on each SNES Mini?

Do you have any clue whatsoever as to how much it would cost Nintendo to manufacture a SNES Mini similar to the one I'm suggesting or what profit it would make on each system sold?

That's right--I didn't think so.

AM I WRONG WHEN I ACCUSE YOU OF THIS?

Again, no, I didn't think so.

Nintendo could be making a 400% profit on each SNES Mini for all you know--not that I'm claiming it is--and there's currently ZERO evidence provided by any of you to say it couldn't make a system akin to the one I'm suggesting and sell it at the same price as the current SNES Mini while still making a profit (even if it's likely a smaller profit).

So again, you're basically accusing me of being completely wrong, utterly ignorant, and talking total junk--now prove it. . . .

Otherwise . . .

@impurekind I'm not about to do all the research for u big guy but feel free to get all the info required. Again some common sense in business practice and manufacturing will make it clear that Nintendo would have to charge more due to (for the umpteenth time you're being told) having to acquire old parts or recode new chips to behave like old parts and putting all this new tech, manhours and parts into production. For Nintendo to make the same profit margin they're currently making who do you think will eat all the additional costs. The consumer. Those costs would be passed onto us because there is no way based on current business practices to achieve what you're suggesting and have Nintendo make the same profit margin at a measly $80.

Whoops double post by accident

@MaSSiVeRiCaN Again, read the comment above.

What clue to you have, whatsoever, as to how much it costs Nintendo to make the current SNES Mini and what profit it's making on each system?

NONE!

So, one more time, either prove Nintendo could not make basically the system I'm suggesting and sell it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini, or . . .

Yea something happened where it duplicated my post several times. My apologies.

@MaSSiVeRiCaN Again, read the comment above.

What clue to you have, whatsoever, as to how much it costs Nintendo to make the current SNES Mini and what profit it's making on each system?

NONE!

So, one more time, either prove Nintendo could not make basically the system I'm suggesting and sell it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini, or . . .

@MaSSiVeRiCaN Again: What clue to you have, whatsoever, as to how much it costs Nintendo to make the current SNES Mini and what profit it's making on each system?

NONE!

So, one more time, either prove Nintendo could not make basically the system I'm suggesting and/or sell it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini, or . . .

@impurekind They're working with off the shelf SoC's on the market probably very cheap for them and then paying for programmers/devs/software engineers to then work on these chips with readily available tech. You start adding new proprietary tech to the mix it's going to be more expensive period.

@MaSSiVeRiCaN One more time: And how does that prove Nintendo could not make basically the system I'm suggesting and sell it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini?

Again, you literally have no clue whatsoever as to how much it costs Nintendo to make the current SNES Mini or how much profit it's making on each system. So, you have just as much clue, literally zero, as to whether it could make my suggested system and sell it for a similar price or not.

I'm simply speculating it could (based on some similar examples and common sense). But people like you are outright telling me that I'm wrong, I'm ignorant, I have no clue, it could not--based on literally zero actual evidence.

So, prove it. . . .

And, similarly, you have literally zero clue as to what old tech--or a modern version of old tech--Nintendo could manufacture right now if it actually choose to.

@impurekind ... you're clueless as to manufacturing and warehouse practices is what you're saying then. Simple.. a product that is already available and being manufactured in bulk will be cheaper to put into production then new tech which has to be designed, engineered, tested then put into production. This goes for any company which chooses to put a product into market not just Nintendo. Proof that it would be more expensive for them to put a new product into market which as a business they will not offset by eating the costs of production but rather pass it onto the consumer for operational net profit.

@MaSSiVeRiCaN I'm saying my speculation doesn't require any more than me speculating--it's literally a little bit of speculation (which I just happen to believe is achievable both in terms of the hardware and the end consumer price based on some prior examples, common sense, and a few other things).

People like you stating basically outright and objectively that it simply could not be done and certainly not for the current end user cost of a SNES Mini, and calling me ignorant, clueless and whatever else, does require some proof as far as I'm concerned--especially when it becomes a personal, and as of yet completely unsubstantiated, insult based on nothing else but your own complete ignorance and lack of evidence to the contrary.

So, prove your accusation that my idea is completely impossible, unfeasible, unfair, unrealistic, ignorant, etc. (be it technologically and/or financially), otherwise . . .

@PtM @BlueOcean Actually, not buying means no. What do you think Miyamoto thinks when Star Fox Zero doesn't sell well? What do you think Nintendo thinks when Yoshi's New Island, Metroid Prime: Federation Force, and The Legend of Zelda: Tri Force Heroes don't sell well? What about Super Mario Run? Why do you think Nintendo released a major update? Also, why do you think Nintendo keeps making good Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, and Mario Kart games?

@PtM When I don't think a product is good enough, I vote no by not buying it. Anyway, it's just my suggestion. You don't have to agree with me. I vote with my money. My vote is only one vote, though. And as I said, voting yes or no doesn't deprive you your right to criticize or praise the product.

@BlueOcean I don't think what you told me was an explanation. It was a misconception. It seems you thought that you couldn't say positive or negative things about it if you decided to vote with your money. That's unreasonable. I already explained it to you that it's not the case. I thought you understood it when you read my explanation.

Wouldn't the games have to be recoded to support a different architecture? It's more than possible. The question is if it's worth it in cost-benefit...

@impurekind The average quarterly gross profit margin of Nintendo in the past five years is 37.43%: https://ycharts.com/companies/NTDOY/gross_profit_margin.

@JunkRabbit Well said.

@impurekind

Sorry bro, you got it so backwards. You're right in one thing however: Yes, we do believe that you absolutely don't know what you're talking about. Partly because what you're proposing is against common sense, partly because of the way you fail to support you're theory, and partly due to how you argue (which involves not only cheap rhetorical tricks when your assumption is put to the test, but also uses contradiction instead of concrete arguments, not to mention getting offensive, when all else fails).

The beauty of it is that it's not necessary for us to have the first clue of the issue in order to justifiably doubt your theory, to put it to the test and ask you to prove it and present some hard evidence. That's simply because you're implying that you're smarter than the rest of us and know something we don't (the professionals at Nintendo included actually!), and all we need to say is: We don't believe you. We think that you're just as oblivious as any of us. How come you can make such a preposterous claim? Can you back it up? Or is it just hot air? I just need to say "no, I don't think that makes sense, it doesn't feel right", and I can do so without knowing anything about the numbers. Maybe I don't have the first clue (or maybe I do; though I dare say I have common sense), but that doesn't automatically mean that you're not an idiot, too (figuratively speaking of course).

It is still up to you to prove that you aren't, that you truly know what you're talking about, which - I can only repeat it - you have so far failed to do. Continually repeating that any of us need to disprove your theory does not make it true, and is the opposite of a scientific approach (or a successful business approach). It is also not how a serious discussion or argument is opened and held. It's just immature noise. Sorry for being so blunt, I apologize.

@MaSSiVeRiCaN @NinNin

Just to keep you in the loop. I told myself earlier to take my own advice, but I was weak... I will not engage in this any further, as it really makes no sense. (I mentioned Mark Twain and Bill Murray before; I'll add Dunning and Kruger...). "This is not an argument, it's just contradiction!" - "No it isn't!" - "Yes it is!" - "No it isn't!"...

@JunkRabbit Trust me, it's people like you that have it all backwards.

And, again, let's see you actually go and categorically prove in any way, shape or form your idiotic statement that it's beyond common sense is factually true. . . .

You can't, because you're talking out your ***, and you can't provide a single piece of evidence to prove otherwise.

Now, just apply that to everything you're saying. . . .

Again, mine is just a proposed idea for how Nintendo could try something different (and it's an idea I believe is totally doable). I don't need to prove anything to put forward such an idea (or to say I believe in it).

Your assertion, however, is put forward as though it's an indisputable and provable fact (based on literally zero evidence whatsoever)--that my idea simply isn't possible for the price I'm suggesting and that I simply don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

So, prove your factual statement is indeed factual and that Nintendo couldn't possibly make the console I'm talking about for the end consumer price I'm talking about . . .

Or shut the . . . !

And, let's be clear: As is almost always the case in here, you guys got personally offensive and accusational first with your wording in response to something I put forward (comment #45 got that ball rolling)--before I said a single personally negative thing about any of you guys in response. So, I'm not the one causing that kind of unnecessary hostility (basically demeaning people for no good reason--and with literally ZERO evidence to back up such asinine assertions), but I will respond to people like you in kind.

So, again, get your most basic facts right (as a start) before you make such accusations.

Or shut the . . . !

@impurekind I got the ball rolling? I simply stated you have little knowledge of said things in the comment. Which obviously was neither a lie, exaggeration or insult. Many people including myself here have clearly given you information and statements as to why your proposed suggestion is illogical, would me more expensive and would lead to less profit for the same price to the consumer. You've chosen to ignore it so I'm done. I honestly don't care. Think what u want obviously but I won't sit back and listen to your drivel as if it were something that u know is true, because it's not

@impurekind Speculation? I have a degree in business management. The parts you are suggesting them to manufacture are not in production. It would cost Nintendo far more money to go and restructure to manufacture the parts again. This cost would then naturally be passed onto the consumer, with a higher price.

This is basic knowledge, you do not need a degree to know this. Buying mass produced parts (which have already been produced and therefore lowers the cost of each individual part), which does NOT require Nintendo to produce themselves enables Nintendo to sell the NES/SNES mini at a far lower price point, enabling them to make a profit whilst selling people an affordable product. The easiest way to explain it would be this - Since mass produced parts are readily available, Nintendo has more power over how much it costs to purchase the parts to build the NES/SNES mini, not the supplier. Even if Nintendo were to outsource manufacturing of the original parts, the supplier would still have the power over Nintendo to set the price, as there are no other alternatives out there. This is another simple part of a businesses relationship with its suppliers.

I did not attack you in my original post but I have given you a reason. I and many others would love 1:1 performance with original hardware but it does not make economical sense to do so right now.

@TheMadPolarBear Again, you have literally ZERO clue as to the actual cost to Nintendo of producing these parts (in the SNES Mini or otherwise). So, one more time, you have literally ZERO clue as to whether Nintendo could make the system I'm talking about for the same end consumer price of the current SNES Mini or not--therefore, you can't say all matter-of-fact-ish that it isn't feasible/possible (without basically just talking out of pure ignorance and speculation). Its literally THAT simple.

Or, show me that you are in fact not talking out of pure ignorance and speculation; show me the cost to Nintendo to produce all the current SNES Mini parts, and show me how much it would cost Nintendo to produce the parts in a SNES Mini akin to the one I'm suggesting. Show me, with facts and figures, that Nintendo could not make the system I suggested and release if for the same end consumer price of the current SNES Mini. . . .

Otherwise . . .

And, NOTE: It's people like you who are stating your side of this argument like it's some kind of indisputable fact, like my idea is simply and literally impossible and totally illogical and completely misguided and whatever else. Whereas I've continued to state my view in terms of "I think", "I believe", "I see no good reason why it couldn't", "there's pretty much zero doubt", etc--no statements to be taken as though they are pure fact but simply what I believe is more than likely given the various information available to me and indeed all of us at this time (both in the present and historically).

So, people like you are outright telling me I'm wrong and that it can't be done, as though it's a fact. PROVE IT!

@MsgBoardGamer That's really broken logic right there. It's just you making huge assumptions and then pretty much claiming them as some kind of factual evidence to support something you don't actually know one way or another.

You STILL haven't shown with anywhere near a single FACT that Nintendo couldn't make the console I'm talking about and/or release it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini.

I've said "I believe it could"--my opinion. You've said "it can't"--a statement made as though it is objectionably and factually true. Now PROVE IT!

@MaSSiVeRiCaN It is a total load of bull is what it is. And until you can prove I'm incorrect in my suggestion--until you can factually show/prove that it is literally impossible for Nintendo to make the version of the SNES Min I mentioned and/or sell it for the same price as the current SNES Mini--it is in fact utterly personally insulting with no fair or informed basis for being so. You are making outright claims that my idea is basically impossible based on assumptions you literally know nothing about--you have no facts about the cost of producing these parts in front of you or anything like that--going so far as to basically claim I am some kind of ignoramus who is totally clueless. And, on top of that, you STILL haven't provide a single shred of evidence to support this notion than Nintendo simply couldn't make basically the version of the console I'm talking about for the same price as the current SNES Mini. So, I simply made a suggestion for a different approach Nintendo might take (one I personally believe is plausible); you claimed it's basically impossible (making it a very clear personal judgment on me and my ability to come to rational and informed conclusions), as though it's an indisputable fact. Now PROVE IT! Prove it's impossible for Nintendo to make basically the console I'm suggesting and/or for the price of the current SNES Mini. . . . Prove yYOU aren't the one that's actually just talking out your *** and making supposedly "factual" statements from a place of complete and utter ignorance. . . . Or shut the . . .

@PtM @NinNin
Of course sales are counted. You can't do business successfully otherwise. Where do you think all the charts come from, and why they exist in the first place (hint: the figures are not compiled for entertainment purposes... )? Companies watch the sales of their products very closely to base future business decisions on. And just like every vote counts, every sale (or lack thereof) counts of course.

The difference between not purchasing a product out of indifference and "voting with your wallet" is that in the first case you're simply not interested in the thing, while in the second case you're basically interested, but some part of it rubs you the wrong way, so you decide against it (usually some business practices involved that you want to make a statement against, like micro transaction for example or putting out a game unfinished and buggy).

@impurekind exactly what is it about "Parts that are not in production being more expensive to both acquire and manufacture", are you not understanding? That is a FACT for any business that wants to create something! Nintendo still has to outsource and make contracts with its suppliers over products which are currently either no longer available or do not exist. @madpolarbear and many of us may not know the "exact cost" that you keep on requesting & ranting about but it would be more expensive than what they're paying for currently since parts are already available and in production. I think plenty of us have said that. It's the law of supply and demand and Nintendo does not fall outside of that category and normal business practice.

@MaSSiVeRiCaN "exactly what is it about . . ."

The actual practicality and costs, which you have literally ZERO clue about.

So, ONE MORE TIME, you cannot, with any level of authority or factual accuracy and certainty, say if the parts I am suggesting can or cannot be made today, and you cannot say what it might or might not cost to make said parts either. Therefor you cannot say if Nintendo can or cannot make a system like the one I am suggesting in 2017, and you cannot say if it could or could not do so for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini.

Again, I never said it was a matter of fact it could be done, only that I would like it to be done and I personally think/believe it could be done and for the same end consumer price of the current SNES Mini. People like you are the ones stating/asserting it simply cannot be done as though it is some indisputable and objectively measurable and provable fact. And, in such a way that you are absolutely attacking me personally--that's what it amounts to when you outright state my suggestion is impossible and that I have no idea of what is involved and whatever else you guys have said about me--yet without a single bit of evidence yourselves to actually make such "factual" accusations.

I really don't have to "prove" what amounts to a proposal, a suggestion, or what I personally think/believe. You really should, however, back up your supposed "objective" and "factual" statements and accusations against me that my idea simply cannot be done and that basically I am some kind of ignoramus for even suggesting it--don't you think!

So, PROVE IT, otherwise shut the . . .

How hard is this for you too grasp?

@impurekind I can say with absolute certainty that anything that hasn't already been engineered and is not currently in production is going to cost more to manufacture and produce. Period. Nintendo does not fall outside the scope of that statement. They do not own the manufacturing warehouses and they're not a supplier. I'm not saying that they can't make the type of machine you're proposing especially in this day and age. I'm simply stating based on current business practices that it would simply be more expensive and unless Nintendo wants to eat that cost of production ( which we know they never sell at a loss) that the cost would be passed onto us therefore making units of your particular suggestion more costly than the SNES Mini. Nintendo does not fall outside the realm of of business in production just because they're Nintendo. Same goes for apple and Microsoft. . It would without a doubt cost more to make proprietary chips designed in the way you're speaking.

@MsgBoardGamer "you're the internet gamer who's not looking for a profit or knows as much as a video game industry giant about business but just wants his console."

You're making a lot of random assumptions and claims there.

Where did you grasp that total junk from?

I don't have to offer any proof: I haven't stated anything as though it were an actual indisputable fact that needs proof or evidence; I've simply expressed my ideas and opinions and beliefs. It's people like you who are claiming a bunch of random "facts" as though they are indisputably true and throwing around accusations against me with literally zero evidence to support them.

So put up or shut up!

@MaSSiVeRiCaN You can't say anything with such certainty because you have zero clue.

And, regardless, I've never once said Nintendo could do what I'm saying at a lesser or even the same cost than what it costs to manufacture the current SNES Mini. All I've said is that I firmly believe Nintendo could make a system like the one I suggested and sell it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini and still turn a profit. Learn to read and understand basic English better before you argue stuff you are clearly totally confused and ignorant about.

Now, again, PROVE that Nintendo simply couldn't make the system I'm talking about and sell it [at a profit] for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini. . . .

Or shut up!

Because, I'm not claiming it matter of indisputable fact could, but you are claiming it matter of indisputable fact could not--so, PROVE IT!

@impurekind -_- umm.. yeah that's my point I actually can say that because it's a fact that it's cheaper for companies to manufacture something that is easily attainable and in production then to put a brand new product made with New proprietary tech through a manufacturing run.

So they wouldn't set it at the same priceto the end-user and make the same profit as the SNES Mini. They may well be able to make a profit but their margin would be considerably lower.

@MaSSiVeRiCaN No, you can't say that: You have literally zero clue how much it would cost Nintendo to re-print its nearly 30 year old 16bit SNES chipset (especially if it decides to modify it slightly to cut materials and costs even further) vs a modern PC-level quad-core Allwinner R16 (4x Cortex A7, Mali400MP2 GPU) system on a chip, SKHynix (256MB DDR3) RAM and Spansion 512MB SLC NAND TSOP48 flash storage, regardless of the old chipset being out of manufacturing and the new one being available "off the shelf". Printing that old SNES chipset again now could be the equivalent of printing a frikin' '90s digital watch chipset relative to a '90s console's chipset back in the day (in terms of relative specs and costs)--for all you know. And, to be clear, for all I know too. But I basically only ever said I think/believe it could be done and sold for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini (and I never once claimed the margin would be the same either--but I have said I think it could still sell the system at a profit):

@MsgBoardGamer

"PRETTY MUCH zero doubt . . . RELEASE for less than $70/£70 . . . I fully EXPECT they could charge exactly the same price . . . $70/£70 . . . I'm more than CONVINCED even my version of the system would still turn a DECENT profit."

None of what I said is done so as a statement of indisputable fact about how much it would cost to manufacture the kind of system I'm talking about (or even what profit Nintendo would make on it); it's just what I think is more than likely to be the case in terms of selling at a similar end consumer price based on the information available to all of us at this time (and I stick by it). I do not need to prove something that is clearly stated as my opinion and as though it is possible and highly likely as far as I'm concerned but not absolutely certain.

Do you understand basic English?

People like you, however, are the ones stating things as though they are absolute indisputable facts, especially in regards to saying my idea simply is not possible to achieve as I have suggested (in terms of manufacturing and selling it at the same end consumer price)--so PROVE IT!

@PtM

You mean that a company doesn't care if they've sold a million copies or only 50k and do not count sales? Of course a lack of sales is closely analysed (or "counted" to remain in this figure of speech). I'm sorry, but there is no doubt in my mind that a company very much considers the reasons why a game may have failed to meet their sales expectations. If they don't they won't stay in business for very long. If they draw the right conclusions from the figures is another matter.

@PtM Well, I disagree. If I create a product, I don't want my target audience to feel indifferent about it. Feeling indifferent essentially means "no." I want them to like it enough to buy it. I don't think any company wants its potential customers to feel indifferent about its products. If most people feel indifferent about my product, and it sells poorly, I'll receive the message. I'll figure out the reasons and improve my product or create a new product.

Do you think Nintendo doesn't consider the GameCube and Wii U failures because the "no" votes don't count? Why do you think Nintendo released the Switch and discontinued the Wii U?

@JunkRabbit Yes, companies care about sales. It's easy to understand.

@impurekind The fact that it's a 30-year-old chipset will most definitively make it more expensive. Christ it's damn near going Vintage lol.

@impurekind You are literally failing to grasp basic economics. The chips are out of production. The chips are not for sale anywhere and have to be re-produced, which drives the cost up compared to mass produced, cheap off the shelf parts.

If you want to keep baselessly claiming that it is speculation whilst ignoring facts, go for it. Anyone with any basic business comprehension does not need the ‘cost’ statistics because they already know it will be higher than what is offered.

If it wasn’t the case, then look at the cryptocurrency issue with GPU’s. Scarce availability of parts due to the products all being bought quickly has lead to a price increase. New products using newly produced parts have a traditionally higher price, as production ramps up and chip availability is easier for the company to acquire, price goes down.

Your ignorance shows you are unwilling to listen and therefore, nothing more needs to be said. I have given you the reason twice now but you are trying the old “give me statistics” when you know it Nintendo will not give you exact figures, despite providing you with the relevant theories and evidence that supports the reasoning why Nintendo WILL NOT be able to produce and sell a replica in the NES/SNES mini form factor for the same or similar price. On top of this, you’re asking them to re-produce old chips AND do the relevant R&D to make them in a smaller form factor?

You’re hiding behind a baseless defence. So using your own argument, what evidence or theories do you have to support YOUR argument that Nintendo can produce an identical NES/SNES mini in a small form factor, for the same price? I have provided multiple reasons, you’ve yet to provide any counter argument.

We’re done here.

@PtM When a company concludes that its product doesn't have an audience or has a very small audience, a logical thing to do is to create a new product that is different or better. The Switch was released because a lot of people hadn't bought the Wii U. If the Wii U had outsold the PS4, it's very likely that the Switch wouldn't have been released. The same goes for the Wii. If the GameCube had sold more than 150 million units, the Wii might not have existed.

Poor sales which result from a lot of "no" votes (not buying) directly affect decisions of companies.

@TheMadPolarBear Again, show me ANY actual evidence that shows Nintendo could not manufacture a machine like the one I suggested in 2017 and release it for the same end consumer price of the current SNES Mini (which is what you are claiming as though it is an indisputable fact). . . .

If you can't do that then everything you're saying is basically worthless.

@MsgBoardGamer No, it's my opinion based on all the information available to all of us, and I believe it to be basically possible. You say i am totally wrong, as though it is a fact--prove it!

@impurekind Again, show me any actual evidence they can. You have no argument.

I have already told you why whilst you have failed to provide any evidence to support your argument.

@TheMadPolarBear Are you really this daft?

I'm not claiming matter-offact they can, and I never have, so I have zero I need to to prove. I'm just giving my opinion and it's my belief that they can, and I stand by that.

People like you are the ones stating outright, like it's an actual provable fact, that it can't possibly be done.

So YOU prove it. . . .

@impurekind I have given you evidence and an argument. Your only basis is your belief with no evidence to the contrary.

Your counter argument is one of financial data neither you nor I have access to. Based on this, your counter argument asking for financial proof is just as futile because you cannot dispute what I have said either.

Therefore, my points still stand whereas once again, you have not provided any counter points to support your argument.

Furthermore, you have provided no evidence to support your belief other than “because i said so”. When asked again to provide any logic or reasoning, your response is to cross your arms and say i don’t have to do anything.

All you have done is shown you have no argument or grounds to support your beliefs whilst I have, initially through what I thought would be a friendly discussion, provided you with real world examples using real world theories as to why your idea is financially unfeasible.

If your next response is to once again say i am wrong with no evidence or “speculating”, news flash, business do it all the time with their planning and finances. On a balance sheet, these are called assumptions, where you assume a cost that an action will incur to the business. I therefore, once again, with the evidence and arguments I have provided, given you my reasonings for why it is unfeasible.

Now, one last time, I politely ask you to refute my arguments with counter points and to provide my with reasonings behind your beliefs. Failure to do so and I will consider this discussion over due to willful ignorance on your part with no argument, in which case, enjoy your evening and I would suggest you better educate yourself on the business world.

@MsgBoardGamer I do not have to prove anything; I'm not stating things like they're absolute objective facts that require me to go and prove anything to the likes of you. If you're one of the people claiming it's a "fact" it simply can't be done, YOU PROVE IT!

@TheMadPolarBear You've given NOTHING to prove that Nintendo could not matter-of-FACT create the system I am talking about and release it for the same end-consumer price as the current SNES Mini, which is how you are phrasing your view (like it's an indisputable fact and anyone who says otherwise is clearly ignorant of manufacturing and business and whatever other crap you and people like you have spewed).

So, PROVE your supposedly solid "factual" claims; PROVE it is FACTUALLY not possible for Nintendo to create the system I suggested for the same end consumer price of the current SNES Mini. . . .

I'm claiming no such "facts", so I have nothing to prove to the likes of you.

@MsgBoardGamer "Screaming" would usually be done [in my case] in all caps for more than one or two words in a complete sentence/paragraph. You don't even know what REAL screaming is. lol I'm simply EMPHASIZING important words every now and then, that is all, with a couple that have exclamation marks just so you don't miss them. SEE!

And, all I'm asking is for YOU to prove it simply cannot be done, since it's people like YOU stating something as though it's an objective and indisputable FACT, not me.

So, YOU prove it. . . .

Note: And, just to be DOUBLY CLEAR: The main reason I use caps in here for certain words is because it's far easier than figuring out how to put italics on the words I want to emphasize (since using italics is not a simple clickable option in here).

[removed]

If people like you are gonna accuse me of not having a clue or whatever--in a way that is definitely not put across as just your OPINION but instead as though it is pure objective FACT--then PROVE you have a clue with actual measurable facts to the contrary of my simple SUGGESTION and OPINION--otherwise

@kbshadow I'll have more time to try it out on the weekend, but I did go through Armored Armadillo's stage and nothing seems out of place. That is, including all the slowdowns. I watched Arin from Game Grumps and ProJared (I don't like that guy) and noticed the drop of framerate in the same spots, mostly involving the mining cart and that tunneler robot, and those are old videos. Arin typically uses original hardware with a Framemeister to aid in capturing video, Jared looked like he used an emulator (those pixels were way too crisp).

In my opinion, a good emulator will also emulate the deficiencies of the hardware. As long as the slowdowns happen in expected situations (like 4 enemies with explosion particle sprites, projectiles on screen and X using Fire Wave as opposed to 2 enemies and not much going on) then all is well. And so far, the SNES Classic is doing a great emulation job!

@impurekind
You are the one that made an assertion: that Nintendo could make a hardware replica of the original SNES with perfect accuracy for $70.

Others disputed your assertion, and instead of backing up your assertion with evidence, you have attempted to put the burden of proof on them, asking them to prove that what you said isn't possible. But that's not how evidence works. It's impossible to prove a negative; you made an assertion, and you should provide actual evidence of your own to support that assertion.

@MsgBoardGamer One more time for all the people like you: I never made any claims as though they are indisputable facts; they're just ideas and suggestions I put forward (and I personally believe they are possible and will not back down on that belief unless people like you measurably and factually prove otherwise), and they require no evidential proof on my part.

People like you, however, are the ones stating matter-of-fact that my idea is simply not possible, that I am clueless about engineering and business to make such suggestions and believe they are doable, and that it can't be done and sold for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini, and whatever other unsubstantiated crap.

Now PROVE IT. . . .

@MegaAdam Correction: I phrased it EXACTLY like this: "Let's face it, there's pretty much zero doubt Nintendo could remake and re-release the exact original SNES for less than $70/£70 nowadays . . ."

Now, do you see the part where I said, "there's pretty much zero doubt"? That means, with little doubt on my end, I personally believe it's extremely likely to be possible (and I stand by this belief)--but it's not stated as an indisputable fact such that requires me providing solid evidence in order to be an entirely valid personal statement.

People like you, however, are the ones saying my idea is basically impossible, that I am clueless about engineering and business to make such suggestions and believe they are doable, and that Nintendo simply could not make the console I am suggesting and sell if to the same end consumer price of the current SNES Mini--and you're not stating it like it's an opinion; you're stating it like it's an indisputable fact. So PROVE IT (with actual measurable facts to support your assertions that are made as though they are indisputably factual). . . .

@MsgBoardGamer Again, if this is your response--which means you are saying, as though it's a measurable and provable fact, that what I'm suggesting simply ins't possible--then show me ANY actual factual evidence that Nintendo simply could not produce the console I suggested and sell it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini--or shut the . . .

@impurekind Are you really that stupid? Jesus christ, let me break it down for you one last time so maybe your little mind can comprehend:

Current NES/SNES mini:

• Manufacture small case
• cheap off the shelf parts (backed by Digital foundry). Consumers can do the same in the form of a raspberry pi emulator
• Create an official emulator software (backed by DF)

Impurekind’s proposed no added cost bs model:

• Manufacture small NES/SNES case
• Restructure manufacturing to reproduce old chips OR outsource manufacturing to another supplier. Due to no other supplier of the chips being available, the price will be far higher due to the power being with the supplier as Nintendo cannot go to someone else for cheaper (business/supplier relationships)
• Research and Develop a way to shrink the old chips down to fit into the SNES mini (R&D costs millions)
• Research and Develop a suitable cooling system for the old chips to fit into the mini case (again, R&D costs millions)
• Research and Develop a way to somehow add HDMI support to the motherboard and get the SNES mini to support it.
• Research and Develop a way to support the Super FX chip to allow support for those titles
• Research and Develop a way to somehow add the 512mb Flash memory to the motherboard
• The SNES only supported up to 256x224 resolution. The console has no upscaler and is nowhere near powerful enough to drive 1920x1080 games compared to a cheap emulator like the current setup.

Impurekind, you are completely ignorant to the way the world works. As I, and apprently many others have told you multiple times, it is not financially viable compared to the current SNES mini. It is impossible for Nintendo to release what you are saying at that price. It will be more expensive due to all the added costs, issues and manufacturing issues outlined above. The biggest issue is the out of production chips, which due to no other supplier being available, drives the cost up and gives the power to the supplier to set the price.

With the current setup, Nintendo bought cheap off the shelf components (supported by DF). If their supplier sets a price Nintendo doesn’t like, they can easily go to someone else because Nintendo has multiple choices to choose from.

Add to the fact modern hardware is infinitely more powerful combined with an emulator, the current SNES mini can easily support HDMI, 1920x1080, upscaling etc with the only cost involved being writing the software to do so. Though one can argue thanks to the virtual console emulator, Nintendo probably only had to do some tweaking.

Why are you being so ignorant? It’s actually amusing now how stupid you’re being.

@TheMadPolarBear I don't even have to read your last comment to know there is literally zero evidence in it to prove that Nintendo simply could not make the version of the console I mentioned and release it at the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini, which is what you are claiming as though it is an absolute and indisputable fact.

Note: But I did read it, and my above assertion is 100% accurate--zero proof to back up your apparently indisputably "factual" claim.

@impurekind Just stop posting. You have not once backed up your claim and all evidence provided you don't like, you disagree with. Please go to school and learn a thing or two.

Where, mr genius, are the costs for Research and Development going to go then?

@TheMadPolarBear Again: It's you who has to back up your apparently indisputably and objectively "factual" claim, not me who has to back up my idea/suggestion and personal belief.

So, until you provide such evidence, you really should take your own advice.

@impurekind You are making a claim, that the SNES mini can be released as a small original console, based on nothing. We have backed up why this is impossible.

You are not giving any evidence to support or back up your claims, nor are you disputing what we say. All you are saying is "you're wrong" with no evidence to say why we're wrong.

Fact 1# R&D costs millions
Fact 2# SNES chips are out of production. Supplier would have power to set costs
Fact 3# SNES does not support 1920x1080 or HDMI
Fact 4# SNES would need to be shrunk down and reduce heat and power consumption, requiring R&D to figure out how.
Fact 5# Off the shelf parts that have been mass produced are far cheaper
Fact 6# Super FX cartridge chips would need to somehow be supported. The console cannot emulate these chips so would have to somehow be added to the board.

I guarantee you're going to come back and say "These are not facts" when yet, they are. If you took 2 seconds to educate yourself, you would be able to have a discussion and understanding why it is impossible.

Instead, all you are doing is once again, not backing yourself up and just saying you're wrong. Are you trolling at this point?

Because I pity you, do some reading on the following topics to help educate yourself:

Manufacturing costs
Product development
R&D costs
Buyer/Supplier Power Matrix.

This will help you have a better understanding as to why your claims are ridiculous.

@TheMadPolarBear I have not made a single claim in such a way as I simply have to "prove it" in any way, shape or form.

People like you, however, have now repeatedly stated it is impossible in such as way to be interpreted that it is literally an indisputable and provable fact--so prove it!

And, one more time: Not a single thing you have said has factually proven that Nintendo simply could not make a system like the one I suggested and release it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini--which is what you are literally claiming is impossible.

So, again--prove it!

@impurekind It has already been proven. Read the following topics to learn:

Manufacturing costs
Product development
R&D costs
Buyer/Supplier Power Matrix.

Bonus points if you can tell me who came up with the theories.

@TheMadPolarBear I think you maybe need to learn basic English and concepts like logic/deduction/facts better: None of what you typed above proves Nintendo simply could not make the system I am suggesting and release it at the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini.

Are you seriously too ignorant to understand/comprehend this simple FACT.

And, yes, that one is a statement of actual FACT--and, I'll prove it right here and right now: What you have said above provides literally ZERO evidence to measurably demonstrate/prove that Nintendo simply could not make the system I am suggesting and release it at the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini. That's because there are LITERALLY zero figures of actual costs and expenses of creating such a thing provided by you, because you simply do not and cannot know them. My proof of you not providing any facts to support you supposedly indisputably "factual" claim is literally your lack of any actual measurable proof whatsoever (actual costs, numbers, figures--FACTS). You have provided nothing but sheer speculation on your part, based on what I like to called totally and utterly broken and misguided logic.

You actually could be right--I personally very highly doubt it (and I completely disagree with your belief)--but you've not provided a single bit of factual evidence to support something you have now repeatedly stated as though it is literally an indisputable fact.

Now, where is your evidence? Where are the actual facts and figures that indisputably demonstrate and prove without debate it could only be how you say and no possible other way? I'm still waiting. . . .

Do you even comprehend why we are going around in circles here?

@impurekind backup your claims, then we’ll talk, since you cannot dispute mine either.

@TheMadPolarBear Again: I don't have to prove an idea, suggestion, or personal opinion and/or belief that I am not basically claiming to be an indisputable fact.

It is you who is responsible for providing evidence of this apparently indisputable fact you speak of, where you claim it is simply not possible for Nintendo to do what I have suggested for the price I have suggested.

Show me all your evidence that Nintendo simply could not make the system I have described above and release it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini. . . .

@impurekind Again, backup your claims, dispute what i’ve said with evidence and try again.

@TheMadPolarBear I see: Now you are [apparently] resorting to acting like a child.

I guess you know when you are beat . . . huh.

I shall repeat: I don't have to prove an idea, suggestion, or personal opinion and/or belief that I am not basically claiming to be an indisputable fact.

Prove your "fact". . . .

@impurekind My points have been proven on the grounds you have no argument and are refusing to backup your claims and dispute what i’ve said,

So again, backup your claims, dispute what i’ve said and try again.

@TheMadPolarBear Prove your "fact". . . .

And, for every other response you make until you do so, please refer to this post (#230).

Have a good day . . . to the power of infinity . . . plus . . .

@impurekind Again, facts have been proven with supported evidence and theories. You have made the claim I am wrong.

So again, backup your claims, dispute what i’ve said and try again

@TheMadPolarBear #230

@impurekind I am glad to see you have accepted that you have no argument or counter points.

Interesting review by Digital Foundry, makes a change from their usual snoozefests, but I the feel the differences in the emulation from the Mini SNES appear negligible in the grand scheme of things, I still haven't had a chance to pick one up but they look great.

@impurekind Alright, let's keep the discussion civil. And go easy on the caps, OK?

@Octane Then can you please also tell all the other people in here that are personally insulting me, by saying I'm totally ignorant and have no clue about engineering and business and that my ideas are just wishful thinking and couldn't possibly be done and sold for the same price as the current SNES Mini so I'm just talking rubbish and whatever else--without a single bit of evidence/proof to back up their claims or justify their personal accusations and attacks--to stop doing so.

Those are personal insults and attacks, you understand, because they are unwarranted and completely unsubstantiated accusations made towards my person and character. You do understand that, right?

Personal insults and attacks with literally no factual basis are far more insidious and hurtful than the use of some caps to emphasize a point--and I'd like to believe you understand that without need for further explanation or discussion. And, to be very clear, I did not start openly insulting anyone personally (and I'm not crying about it either); I am simply defending myself against such attacks (using a similarly blunt approach and personal wording to that of the attackers). So, I am not the only one you should be singling out and reprimanding as though I am the sole instigator here.

If you don't want me to talk to those people the way I am talking to them then maybe you should similarly tell them to stop talking to me the way they are talking to me (and I mean singling them out in the same way you currently have only me).

Every single one of those people throwing insults and accusations my way has literally zero evidence to support such personal accusations and claims against me or to prove that what they have stated as though it were some indisputable fact is even remotely close to being a fact--so they are the true instigators here.

Certain people in here keep telling me to "prove" my ideas/suggestions/beliefs, which is tantamount to bullying because it basically does not allow me to freely have and express personal ideas/suggestions/beliefs (which I've never claimed to be indisputable fact) unless they basically approve of and agree with them, which in entirely unfair. Whereas I'm simply asking them to prove the bold assertions they have made (in such as way as to come across as though they are stating them like they are absolute and indisputable fact). So, if they're basically telling me my ideas/suggestions/beliefs are bull (by repeatedly asserting that I'm ignorant and Nintendo simply cannot make the console I suggested and release it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini, as if it is an indisputable fact) and acting as if their assertions are absolute indisputable fact, then all I'm asking from them is to prove they are indeed actually fact--that is not unreasonable or unfair on my part.

Right now, however, you are literally singling me out and reprimanding/warning only me when everyone else is being just as much of a douche as you presumably think I am--and they are the ones that did in fact start it too (that is to say directly and personally insult me and my character before I ever did any such thing to them).

I feel very uncomfortable and threatened right now, because, as a mod, you have the power to ban me, and right now you are specifically targeting and singling only me out--which means I'm the only person in your firing line and I am visibly being made the example by being the only one you've openly called out--even though there's far more people than just me arguing and being a douche in here, and most of them threw the first stone no less. And, still, literally zero of them have yet provided any factual evidence whatsoever to actually back up their claims and give them fair grounds to throw such personal accusations and insults at me in the first place. But, again, it's only me you singled out and warned.

So, @Octane, can you at least reprimand and warn some of the other posters in here too and not just single only me out specifically (please), which is not really fair or properly considered on your part imo, thank you?

@impurekind You can always report those comments if that happens, then we'll have a look at it. I directed my comment to you because you triggered the filter with your caps. But I think it's common sense that it applies to everyone in this comment section.

@impurekind
"and you're not stating it like it's an opinion; you're stating it like it's an indisputable fact."
I haven't done anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out that you made an assertion and have refused to actually support that assertion, and instead have attempted to shift the burden of proof onto others.

You're trying to use weasel words, but when you say there's pretty much zero doubt something could happen, you're making an assertion that it could happen. Your weasel words don't change the semantic content of the message. Back up your assertion, and if you can't, don't be surprised when you get called out on it, as you have been here.

@Octane My use of caps a handful of time across literally tens of posts containing thousands of non-capped words--and I'm talking about only my posts and words here--triggered the comments filter?

Might I be so bold as to suggest the filter maybe isn't doing its job perfectly--unless it's seriously there to instantly come down on people who sparingly use caps to emphasize one or two words per post and one time include a whole sentence of caps (one time out of literally tens of posts). That seems a bit over the top to me, but it's your filter, so whatever.

And, if it's "common sense" that it applies to everyone, don't you think it's a bit strange and possibly unfair that you singled only me out and completely ignored all the other people involved in this situation (both in regards to keeping things civil and watching the use of caps)?

I hope I'm not being unreasonable in bringing that to your attention in basically my own defense?

@MegaAdam Anyone asserting that my idea for how Nintendo could have approached the SNES Mini slightly differently simply can't be done and/or released for the same price as the current SNES Mini without including phrases like "in my opinion", "I don't think", "it probably can't", "it likely cannot", "almost certainly cannot", etc--which is exactly what I have done every time--is basically saying it as though it is a fact; they're not stating it as if it's just in their opinion (at least based on how the English language normally works). And, when they say it in this way alongside claiming I have no clue about engineering and business, that it's just wishful thinking, I don't know what I'm talking about and I need to stop, etc., then they are ones causing unnecessary conflict in this thread, especially when they themselves have literally zero evidence to support their own apparently factual assertions and personal accusations.

And you can call them "weasel words" all you like, but unlike the other people in here, I'm at least conscious of adding some words to each idea/suggestion/belief I post so as to be clear I'm not saying it as though it is an indisputable fact that requires any proof on my part to be considered a valid personal opinion. And this is why I will continue to refuse to be bullied by the likes of you into providing factual proof for something I have never claim to be an indisputable fact. If I were claiming it as though it were some indisputable fact, like the people in here have repeatedly done with their assertions, then I'd be more than willing to provide the evidence I would surely have to have to make such assertions.

Now, what about all the people in here who are stating things in complete opposition to my ideas/suggestions/beliefs as though their assertions are indeed the only true and accurate indisputable facts. . . .

And, if you are in fact one of those people who wants to outright state that Nintendo simply could not create the SNES Mini I'm talking about and release it for the same end consumer price as the current SNES Mini--without adding any of the phrases I mentioned above or something along those line to make it clear that you simply think this is highly likely to be the case but have literally zero actual proof one way or another--then please provide the facts to support such an assertion. . . .

That was interesting. Now if I somehow managed to get a Snes classic, I'll try to compare it with my old Snes.

@cleveland124 Yeah, probably....But the expense!!!