New Nintendo Console Debuting At E3 This June, Launching In 2012 Update: New Details

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Ironically enough, the stream is probably going to be the best place for 3D for third party titles by a mile. If it's specced for 1080p, 720p in 3D pushes almost the exact same amount of pixels. HDMI 1.4 is only specced for 24fps in 1080p 3D, so that's unusable for games until a new HDMI spec comes out, and that would even require a new TV, so its possible HDMI 1.5 won't even be supported by the next Sony/MS.

720p 3D support is top of the line ATM, so I find it kind of strange that they're not focusing on 3D on the console when it's going to be a very legitimate selling point when applied to 3rd party ports. As a 3DTV owner I can attest to the fact that the current console 3D experience is total fucking garbage. On a 1080p console, 720p 3D is basically a freebie that their hardware can handle without breaking a sweat and support comes free with a modern HDMI port.

In fact, I'm looking far more forward to that than the modest image quality increase you get going from 720p to 1080p. I really hope they don't just ignore it....a dx10 level super mario galaxy 3 in 60fps 720p 3D? Hell yes I want that.
 

simonizor

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2010
1,312
0
0
Ironically enough, the stream is probably going to be the best place for 3D for third party titles by a mile. If it's specced for 1080p, 720p in 3D pushes almost the exact same amount of pixels. HDMI 1.4 is only specced for 24fps in 1080p 3D, so that's unusable for games until a new HDMI spec comes out, and that would even require a new TV, so its possible HDMI 1.5 won't even be supported by the next Sony/MS.

720p 3D support is top of the line ATM, so I find it kind of strange that they're not focusing on 3D on the console when it's going to be a very legitimate selling point when applied to 3rd party ports. As a 3DTV owner I can attest to the fact that the current console 3D experience is total fucking garbage. On a 1080p console, 720p 3D is basically a freebie that their hardware can handle without breaking a sweat and support comes free with a modern HDMI port.

In fact, I'm looking far more forward to that than the modest image quality increase you get going from 720p to 1080p. I really hope they don't just ignore it....a dx10 level super mario galaxy 3 in 60fps 720p 3D? Hell yes I want that.

Dude, 3D is a gimmick; it always has been. We've had 3D for YEARS now, and it's never really been popular. Why? Because it's cheesy and fake looking. The pictures do seem to jump out, but not in any sort of realistic way that makes you believe that something is actually part of your environment. 3D is wannabe virtual reality, and it fails miserably.

Nintendo realizes that 3D is nothing more than a gimmick (a gimmick that might make a few sales, but is not worth banking on), and will fade out just as it has in the past.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Dude, 3D is a gimmick; it always has been. We've had 3D for YEARS now, and it's never really been popular. Why? Because it's cheesy and fake looking. The pictures do seem to jump out, but not in any sort of realistic way that makes you believe that something is actually part of your environment. 3D is wannabe virtual reality, and it fails miserably.

Nintendo realizes that 3D is nothing more than a gimmick (a gimmick that might make a few sales, but is not worth banking on), and will fade out just as it has in the past.

Oh I'm sorry, I hadnt realized I'd been enjoying 3D all this time. Thanks for letting me know. Clearly nintendo thinks 3D is a gimmick that wont catch on, so they made a portable designed around it.

Anyways, there are other threads dedicated to bashing 3D, please dont turn this into one.
 

Falkenad

Junior Member
May 3, 2007
4
0
0
Dude, 3D is a gimmick; it always has been. We've had 3D for YEARS now, and it's never really been popular. Why? Because it's cheesy and fake looking. The pictures do seem to jump out, but not in any sort of realistic way that makes you believe that something is actually part of your environment. 3D is wannabe virtual reality, and it fails miserably.

Nintendo realizes that 3D is nothing more than a gimmick (a gimmick that might make a few sales, but is not worth banking on), and will fade out just as it has in the past.

Perhaps that explains the lackluster sales figures of the 3DS. 3D is a good concept that has traditionally fallen flat upon execution. We need a better implementation before it really takes off- and then it has potential to change things.
 

Medu

Member
Mar 9, 2010
149
0
76
I agree with the Dreamcast comparisons- however, I think that Nintendo will garner enough support to keep the software machine churning.

Sega were forgotten about by the time the DC was released. It's launch was so low key that hardly anyone knew it had been released! Nintendo are in a very different position as they are going to be releasing the follow-up to their most successful console to date which will give them loads of free press.

But I suspect a paradigm shift like the PS2 to PS3/Xbox to Xbox 360 style leap in processing power is not in the cards for Nintendo.

Nor do they really need it. The jump from 480p to 720p is very noticeable, from 720p to 1080p less so. The same is true with all aspects of graphics- diminishing returns kick in.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
Ironically enough, the stream is probably going to be the best place for 3D for third party titles by a mile. If it's specced for 1080p, 720p in 3D pushes almost the exact same amount of pixels. HDMI 1.4 is only specced for 24fps in 1080p 3D, so that's unusable for games until a new HDMI spec comes out, and that would even require a new TV, so its possible HDMI 1.5 won't even be supported by the next Sony/MS.

720p 3D support is top of the line ATM, so I find it kind of strange that they're not focusing on 3D on the console when it's going to be a very legitimate selling point when applied to 3rd party ports. As a 3DTV owner I can attest to the fact that the current console 3D experience is total fucking garbage. On a 1080p console, 720p 3D is basically a freebie that their hardware can handle without breaking a sweat and support comes free with a modern HDMI port.

In fact, I'm looking far more forward to that than the modest image quality increase you get going from 720p to 1080p. I really hope they don't just ignore it....a dx10 level super mario galaxy 3 in 60fps 720p 3D? Hell yes I want that.

too bad 3D TV's are way too expensive and selling very poorly. the one person i know with one never uses the 3d part.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
too bad 3D TV's are way too expensive and selling very poorly. the one person i know with one never uses the 3d part.

HDTVs were expensive and lacked content once too, now we can't imagine a console that doesn't support it. It's an issue that will solve itself over time. A good start will be a console that can do a much better job in 3D, which in essence means a console that can properly do 1080p, and the stream is the first candidate. The choice for the user will be between 1080p or 3D, and neither has to suffer for the other. I just hope we get the choice, and everyones happy.
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
Perhaps that explains the lackluster sales figures of the 3DS.

No, I think the really, really poor launch-lineup is to blame with that. if only Nintendo shipped their 3DS with a nice first party title.
 

A5

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2000
4,902
5
81
Perhaps that explains the lackluster sales figures of the 3DS. 3D is a good concept that has traditionally fallen flat upon execution. We need a better implementation before it really takes off- and then it has potential to change things.

Yeah they only sold 3.6 million instead of 4 million. DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

The DS started with crap sales, too.
 

reallyscrued

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2004
2,618
5
81
Sega were forgotten about by the time the DC was released. It's launch was so low key that hardly anyone knew it had been released! Nintendo are in a very different position as they are going to be releasing the follow-up to their most successful console to date which will give them loads of free press.



Nor do they really need it. The jump from 480p to 720p is very noticeable, from 720p to 1080p less so. The same is true with all aspects of graphics- diminishing returns kick in.

People really need to specify screen size matters when it comes to resolution.

If you've got a 50+ inch screen display, you can bet the difference from 720p to 1080p will be noticeable if you're sitting front row. But it's true, 480 to 720 is a 3 fold leap, 720 to 1080 is a 2 fold leap, so diminishing returns are definitely present.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
HDTVs were expensive and lacked content once too, now we can't imagine a console that doesn't support it. It's an issue that will solve itself over time. A good start will be a console that can do a much better job in 3D, which in essence means a console that can properly do 1080p, and the stream is the first candidate. The choice for the user will be between 1080p or 3D, and neither has to suffer for the other. I just hope we get the choice, and everyones happy.


3D still means you have to buy the glasses at $50 a piece or whatever the rip off price is. with HDTV all you had to do was call time warner cable for a new box or buy a new direct TV box

i look at the 3d tv's in the store and it's not worth it having to put up with the glasses and the possible health risks that were found by studies in the 1990's

best deal now is a dumb TV and a game console that will act as the online hub for services or a box like boxee or apple tv
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
3D still means you have to buy the glasses at $50 a piece or whatever the rip off price is. with HDTV all you had to do was call time warner cable for a new box or buy a new direct TV box

i look at the 3d tv's in the store and it's not worth it having to put up with the glasses and the possible health risks that were found by studies in the 1990's

best deal now is a dumb TV and a game console that will act as the online hub for services or a box like boxee or apple tv

Again, its a problem that solves itself with time. The glasses have already drastically reduced in price, from like $150 to $50 in a single year.

The point is that nintendo isn't looking forward enough, isn't aiming high enough. There weren't as many HDTVs in 2006, so they made an SD console. Was fine for a few years, but gamers and devs have almost entirely abandoned the obsolete platform.

By dismissing 3D because it's not widespread in 2011, and putting out a "good enough" console in 2012, they're sowing the seeds of their own obsolescence. Again.

Who REALLY wants another underpowered nintendo console? Certainly not the core gamers. Many will buy it for those first party games, but they'll abandon it for everything else as soon as the "real" next gen comes around. 3D is just one facet of that.

Maybe they don't need to think bigger to survive or even succeed, but I'm not going to stand up and cheer for mediocrity. I don't think anyone should.
 

slag

Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
10,473
81
101
Here's the other thing: Everyone has an HDTV now. Everyone's got a 1080p capable flat screen.

Nope, not everyone. In fact, I'd almost bet that over 50% of people still don't have TVs that do 1080p. 720 maybe, but not 1080p.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
3D still means you have to buy the glasses at $50 a piece or whatever the rip off price is. with HDTV all you had to do was call time warner cable for a new box or buy a new direct TV box

i look at the 3d tv's in the store and it's not worth it having to put up with the glasses and the possible health risks that were found by studies in the 1990's

best deal now is a dumb TV and a game console that will act as the online hub for services or a box like boxee or apple tv

Only if a person wants games. Otherwise, it's cheaper to get a smart tv or a dvd player with internet capabilities.
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
Again, its a problem that solves itself with time. The glasses have already drastically reduced in price, from like $150 to $50 in a single year.

The point is that nintendo isn't looking forward enough, isn't aiming high enough. There weren't as many HDTVs in 2006, so they made an SD console. Was fine for a few years, but gamers and devs have almost entirely abandoned the obsolete platform.

By dismissing 3D because it's not widespread in 2011, and putting out a "good enough" console in 2012, they're sowing the seeds of their own obsolescence. Again.

Who REALLY wants another underpowered nintendo console? Certainly not the core gamers. Many will buy it for those first party games, but they'll abandon it for everything else as soon as the "real" next gen comes around. 3D is just one facet of that.

Maybe they don't need to think bigger to survive or even succeed, but I'm not going to stand up and cheer for mediocrity. I don't think anyone should.

It was just over a year ago that just over half (53%) the households in the US finally possessed at least one HDTV. And only 46% of them even receive/use HD programming, SD is far from abandoned.

Obsolescence by what measure? If you're comparing to PCs, then all three present consoles were obsolete 6-12 months after their release. If you're comparing them to current consoles, then they're all on roughly equal footing. Sure, the 360 and the PS3 are better pixel pushers, but barring the bigger is better selling point, I think a lot of console gamers are already pretty happy with console capability and what determines the platform of choice comes down to what sets each console apart. Image, unique features, games, etc.

As consoles progress the hardware powering them is becoming/will become less important; I think much in the same way the PC industry has experienced and the phone industry will likely experience as well.

Anything Nintendo puts out next year will be leaps and bounds more powerful than the current crop of consoles by default. So they can approach this a few ways, try to cram a huge, hot, power hungry card into a console that may very well still end up playing games on a SD TV and be one-upped in a matter of months, or pick a budget-level card that will dramatically reduce cost/heat/power/footprint/noise and provide almost the exactly same experience and still yield a dramatic performance increase from the previous generation.

It's not a matter of mediocrity, it's a matter of knowing your audience and building a product that's suited to them. That means inexpensive and capable. One of the biggest draws of a console is the price, and if your console costs the better part of a thousand dollars it starts to alienate a lot of consumers.

And if these "core" gamers are so concerned with power, what're they doing on a console :D
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Clearly I'm coming at it from the perspective of a person with high expectations that's willing to pay for it. The PC doesn't fit my needs for far too many reasons to list, even if it is technically the most capable.

IMO if they're not subsidizing the console for the first few years they're just not being forward looking. Theyre not stepping up to compete with those who are going to take that gamble in order to provide the best experience for the gamer over competing platforms, and watching the software sales follow.

We'll see if the rules really have changed in that regard...I suspect they haven't.
 

simonizor

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2010
1,312
0
0
HDTVs were expensive and lacked content once too, now we can't imagine a console that doesn't support it. It's an issue that will solve itself over time. A good start will be a console that can do a much better job in 3D, which in essence means a console that can properly do 1080p, and the stream is the first candidate. The choice for the user will be between 1080p or 3D, and neither has to suffer for the other. I just hope we get the choice, and everyones happy.

The difference is that we've had 3D since the 50's and it has NEVER taken off. HDTV first started appearing in the early 90's and it only really took 10-ish years to take off. If 3D was the next big thing, it would have taken off long ago. If it was the next big thing, all new TVs would be 3D, just as we saw happen with the conversion to HDTV. Why isn't this happening? The truth is that it's just gimmicky and fake looking. Just as I posted before, it's wannabe virtual reality in the sense that it tries to bring objects from your TV into your environment, but it doesn't look realistic in any way.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
The difference is that we've had 3D since the 50's and it has NEVER taken off. HDTV first started appearing in the early 90's and it only really took 10-ish years to take off. If 3D was the next big thing, it would have taken off long ago. If it was the next big thing, all new TVs would be 3D, just as we saw happen with the conversion to HDTV. Why isn't this happening? The truth is that it's just gimmicky and fake looking. Just as I posted before, it's wannabe virtual reality in the sense that it tries to bring objects from your TV into your environment, but it doesn't look realistic in any way.

There's a whole host of reasons why you'll end up being wrong, but this ain't really the thread for it.
 

simonizor

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2010
1,312
0
0
There's a whole host of reasons why you'll end up being wrong, but this ain't really the thread for it.

I'll end up being wrong when we have VR or holographic imaging. Until then no 3D tech that anyone makes up will suffice. You just can't trick the human eye enough to make images jump off the screen in a realistic manner.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
i forgot the exact sales figures, but a few months ago Engadget ran a story about 2010 3D tv sales and they were pretty bad. something like only $50 million worth of sales last year. and supposedly the glasses sales don't match up to TV sales. i know of at least one person that bought a 3d tv and uses it as a regular TV. he just bought it because it had the biggest spec sheet

it's one of those things where you want to keep selling a product at a certain price level and you have to keep looking for features to command that price since last year's features are now a commodity

but nintendo might just include 3d support just because it's cheap. as i said earlier the resolution has held steady for the last 5 years. unlike the huge increase in resolutions from the mid 1990's. the hardware to support these isn't going to be that expensive. it's not like PC's where monitors are always supporting higher resolutions along with the cards. 1920x1080 should be no big deal to low end cards next year

for my next console i want features like home entertainment streaming, blu ray playback, internet, local home network wifi media streaming, youtube, etc. i want one box on top of my TV that will be supported with new features for years. whether one has better graphics by a tiny amount is no big deal
 
Last edited:

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Yes, it's been established that the market for high end TVs (which encompasses 3D) isn't very large. Lots of people don't care for 3D, it's got a number of drawbacks, it gives some people headaches, it by no means a perfect technology and I don't expect to see widespread use for a very, very long time.

But just like multichannel surround sound, especially lossless multichannel, while it won't be used by everyone or probably even the majority, it will likely be supported by just about everything before this decade is out. It's not going away for those who care to take advantage of it.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
Sega were forgotten about by the time the DC was released. It's launch was so low key that hardly anyone knew it had been released! Nintendo are in a very different position as they are going to be releasing the follow-up to their most successful console to date which will give them loads of free press.

lol, Sega was not forgotten and Dreamcast was not forgotten either. Dreamcast set the record for fastest selling console of all time when it was released. 9/9/99 commercial and billboards were everywhere. It was not a low-key launch. Dreamcast was only forgotten when PS2 came out.
 

TheUnk

Golden Member
Jun 24, 2005
1,810
0
71
Lots of chat about 3D so thought I would chime in...

I just dropped $1500 on a 50" 1080p 3D Plasma and 2 pairs of glasses (which still cost $120/ea btw). A new 50" Panasonic 1080p 3D Plasma for $1199... This is hardly "high-end" pricing anymore.

I got the TV initially for the 2D capabilities, but later decided that since I already had a PS3 I got some glasses for the hell of it, plus thought my kid would enjoy it.

This is one of those "Full HD 3D" ones, so it's sending 1080 to both eyes. For movies at least.

Now I've seen 3D movies both on a TV and Theater before this purchase and was not impressed by either.

However, after seeing it with this setup I am now a fan. It is much more about DEPTH than things popping out at you. Images are bright and crisp with very, very minor flickering that I remembered seeing before. I was really blown away..

I can't wait to hook up my PC and give Nvidia's TV 3D play a go, and now if a game supports 3D you can bet your balls I wont be playing it in any mode but.
 

reallyscrued

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2004
2,618
5
81
Who REALLY wants another underpowered nintendo console? Certainly not the core gamers. Many will buy it for those first party games, but they'll abandon it for everything else as soon as the "real" next gen comes around. 3D is just one facet of that.

I love when someone thinks they can speak everyone. Who really wants another underpowered Nintendo Console? Apparently the Japanese population. The popular opinion on the Japanese gaming boards seem to be that if it's any more powerful than a PS3, it would be a waste because of diminishing returns, that and they want prices to stay low. (These aren't my opinions, they're theirs. I was hoping for a 300 watt supercomputer of a console.)

I'm reversing my position. I think it will be very similar to the PS3 based on the hunch that Nintendo probably thinks more like the citizens of its home country than Americans.
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
5,959
2,286
136
Big mistake IMO, has anyone mentioned that this completely feels like Dreamcast? I think both Sony and MS are going to completely ignore it seeing as it's so early and we're in the middle of a recession.

This feels nothing like the Dreamcast. Sega was having problems selling consoles before the Dreamcast. The Mega Drive add-on was mildly successful but the Sega Saturn was a clunker. Those combined failures made the Dreamcast a make or break system for them. Obviously it broke. Sega was on a downturn prior to the release of the Dreamcast. They were still loved by hardcore gamers (I owned a Dreamcast) but had lost mind share to Sony. Nintendo obviously has been wildly successful the last 5 years. Their popularity has been the highest since the NES/SNES days. Parents, who make a lot of buying decisions, have Nintendo on the front of their mind when buying game consoles in the next few years.

Sony is almost hoping beyond hope that they don't have to release a console in the next year or two because they will have lost billions on the Sony PS3 with no way to recoup those costs if they move to a new console. To a lesser degree this is true of Microsoft as well but they'll have to write off much much less than what Sony has to. Microsoft also has a huge war chest of cash to burn.

Nintendo's Wii is a bit long in the tooth and will have been it its sixth year going into 2012. Considering the HD resolution limitation of 1080p and the diminishing return from increased graphics power, it's quite conceivable any response to the new Nintendo console will seem like a minor upgrade in power. Hell, it'll likely look like nothing but a minor update to each companies respective current console.