Next Generation Nintendo Console (Wiii)

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
well this is where your point gets screwed up about not having to do with numbers.

I didn't say that.
Which means that i didn't say that:
"game sales or how many games are good, doesn't have a relation with the term 'third party support'" (isn't that obvious?, i mean the relation)
What I said is:
"game sales or how many games are good doesn't have an exact 1:1 correlation with the term 'third party support' which is a broader meaning in my understanding

So game sales or how many games are good are indicative terms but not the only factors to take account in order to define the meaning of the term best 'third party support'

I hope now that I made more clear my understanding

Originally posted by: purbeast0
the amount of money and human resources that third parties put into a game are based upon how many copies (numbers) and how much money (again, numbers) they think they will make from it.

Yes I agree that amount of money and human resources that third parties put into a game are based on expectations, wishes, forecast (tell it how you like)

Originally posted by: purbeast0
and the fact that now, 3 years after the launch, you see less and less good third party games on the wii, does indeed have to do with the fact that there aren't many games being sold or money to be made from the third parties.

I am not sure that the good third party games on the wii was more on 2006-2007 instead of 2008-2009, but let's say i agree becauce like explained above it doesn't matter, we don't argue (i think)

Originally posted by: purbeast0
since there is less money to be made on these third parties from game sales, of course the third parties are going to put less money and resources into developing them.

To reach to this conclusion it involves time so third party didn't know these things in 2006 & 2007 they start exploiting this scenario from Q4 2008 and on.

It is not that clear decision, becauce you see, the managers in each company will start arguing about what factors lead up to this point and even if they conclude that it is the fault of Nintendo market stratification,

many will think with your logic "that third parties are going to put less money and resources into developing them" and they will understand that there is a possibility to capitalize the upcoming void, and they will keep repeting the cycle again

 

[bunnyfubbles]

A safer prediction is another duct tape job where we have a Wii HD that is 100% compatible with Wii and GC games but can play new games in HD. Whether or not old Wiis can play the new Wii HD games only in an SD resolution with reduced textures (not unlike reducing settings on a PC game with slower computer) would be the more interesting thing to contemplate.

Nintendo went with the all encompassing affordable approach because they simply couldn't afford to keep up in the hardware arms race after they started to lose ground after the SNES. Now that they have reestablished their position back at that top I think they could afford go after that "hard core" niche they essentially abandoned.

 

[gorcorps]

Your English is ATROCIOUS.

That is all

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MODEL3
Actually I think that the safer prediction regarding the next generation consoles falls with the Wii.
As we all know the Wii is the most successful current gen console, but still hasn't got the third party support of XBOX360 & PS3.There are many reasons and 3 major reasons are the following:

1. in the beggining, when most of the third parties listen the final spec of Wii and general the business plan of Nintendo they said No freakin way (their Loss)

2. The track record of Nintendo's 2 last generations (N64 & GCN) wasn't so good (In relation with the competition of cource).

3. All, they wanted (or already have started) to invest in the next generation engines (in order to learn, understand and prepare for the future).After all the Wii was the only non Direct X 9.1/10 level of hardware and all the others (XBOX360,PS3,PC) was a group with similar specs (well I mean, in order to port a game from one to another)

I suspect now that all (I suppose I have to exclude EA since they said at launch that the Wii is going to capture 1/3 of the market) they have learn their lessons, so I suppose that the willingness to support Wii next is going to be higher.
All Nintendo has to do is make their decision a little bit easier.

99% of the third parties they understand the level of XBOX360/PS3 hardware and have of cource engines, tools, games etc.Wouldn't be sweet from a business perspective the next gen Wii to have the same level of power/features as the XBOX360 & PS3, so the developers can port with easy (wishful thinking) their engines, tools, games?

After all PS3 is projected to have a long life (freakin 400$ in Q3 2009 anyone?) so the PS3 & the Wii next can form another group (in order to influence the third parties away from PC and next gen XBoX360 group).

So here are the specs for the next gen Wii:
Remember the concept is very simple:
XBOX360/PS3 level hardware (but with the capability (my wish) to run these games at 1080p instead 720p and retain all the quality per pixel) with Wii type controler:

1,5-2X the power of the XBOX360 CPU (It depends from the architecture - if it is classic PowerPC based 1,5X is sufficient, if it is something a little more exotic (even if it is PowerPC based, but non classic) 2X becauce the developers should first learn to adapt to the architecture.

1G RAM (twice the Ram for all those lovely textures at 1080P)

2-3X the power of RSX/Xenos (again for all those lovely 1080P visuals, again it depends on the architecture)

All I can say without getting into the technical details, is that from a financial point of view the cost for Nintendo to make the next gen Wii is going to be similar or a little less in relation with Wii (2006 cost) if it has only DVD-ROM (DVD-9 media as those used by XBOX360) or a little more if it has BD like PS3 (in the date I'm forecasting the next gen Wii to launch the FOB price of a BD drive is going to be much lower than to date, actually the FOB price of a 4X BD-Rom right now is less than 50$ FOB price (LiteOn iHOS104), or more if it includes and HDD.

Regarding the launch date, this is more difficult to predict than the actual specification level, since we have a console (Wii) that is selling so many units as it's opponents (XBOX360, PS3) combined, without a drop in price since it's launch in Q4 2006, freakin unbelievable.

We heard recent rumours that the sales of the Wii have drop a little (but nothing to serious except in Japan) even if the situation go worse Nintendo can do the following:

Q4 09 Wii 199$ (maybe with motion plus controller bundle from now on)
Q4 10 Wii 149$ (if the sales keep decline)
Q4 11 Wii 99$ (if the sales keep decline and still make money on the Wii hardware)
Q4 12 next gen Wii

Of cource this is the worst case scenario for the Wii regarding price drops.

But I suspect something else, I suspect that the people at Nintendo are getting a
little arrogant and greedy and they start thinking that they should have 150$ net profit per console on the hardware and that they changed the people perception for the console business and that they expanded the market and that all the above was intentional and projected and strategically planned but none of the above is accurate, they just made a clever business decision and they got lucky, sometimes the time is right, you never know.

Actually what I'm proposing now for the next gen Wii is essentially what Nintendo did with the Wii in 2006 (which is a very logical business decision) except everybody though it was too early for such a move (the graphical fidelity of the Wii was not acceptable enough in contrast with the level of the 360, the motion controller scheme was not mature enough etc.)

So with Nintendo being arrogant and greedy they may launch the next Wii in Q3-Q4 2011
I am not suggesting Q4 2010 mainly for 3 reasons:

1. Never Nintendo before had less than 5 years cycle (and on much less susseful consoles)
(not counting handhelds which is entirely different thing)

2. In order to have the same profit on the hardware level (in the DVD-ROM scenario) as they had with Wii in 2006 they will have to do it at 2011 (2,2 nm) or beyond

3. it doesn't seem right (I really can't find a single reason that will force Nintendo to release a next gen Wii in 1 year and 1 quarter from now, not with a so successful current console)

people prefer the Wii because its completely different from the PS3/XB360... making it more like them isnt an improvement.
you know not what you speak.

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Your English is ATROCIOUS.

That is all

I am just too lazy to correct them before i post.

For example, I wrote:

Originally posted by: MODEL3
I used the term "third party support for a reason" which doesn't include factors such if games are going to be good or sales is going to be good (what includes are human & money resources)

What i meant is that:

I used the term "third party support" for a reason .

The reason was, that factors such as "the quality of games" or such as " the volume of sales" does not define equivocally the term (a better definition of the term derive from factors such as "the allocation of human & money resources")

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

also comments that I made such as:

Originally posted by: MODEL3
I didn't say that.
Which means that i didn't say that:
"game sales or how many games are good, doesn't have a relation with the term 'third party support'" (isn't that obvious?, i mean the relation)

Is nearly Yuda-like, but I prefer to have fun in the forums, than to allocate more time in my grammar or syntax
(time consumption like that, is not fun for me but i can also understand that there may be a possibility that reading my posts may be not that much fun for you).

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: sao123
people prefer the Wii because its completely different from the PS3/XB360... making it more like them isnt an improvement.
you know not what you speak.

it's me that, I don't know what I speak?

My prediction was about the graphics and general hardware level of next gen Wii.

You think people prefer the Wii becauce it has completely different graphics than PS3/XB360?

It's foremost about the controller and the games designed with this kind of control.

Get your facts right!

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: sao123
people prefer the Wii because its completely different from the PS3/XB360... making it more like them isnt an improvement.
you know not what you speak.

it's me that, I don't know what I speak?

My prediction was about the graphics and general hardware level of next gen Wii.

You think people prefer the Wii becauce it has completely different graphics than PS3/XB360?

It's foremost about the controller and the games designed with this kind of control.

Get your facts right!

No... my facts are right.

YES...People prefer the Wii because it has different graphics than the PS3/X360...
BECAUSE IT COSTS 50%-66% LESS THAN THE OTHER SYSTEMS.

If you bring the graphics and hardware up to that level of the other systems, there will no longer be such a wide disparity in the price difference between the wii and the other systems.

Furthermore, if current statistics are accurate, only 33% of homes in america have HD TV's... So that leaves 66% of the population that wouldnt even be able to notice any difference.

Thus the next generation wii will no longer be purchased for the main reason why people buy it now. BECAUSE ITS CHEAP!! its popularity will diminish, and sales will fall.

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: sao123
YES...People prefer the Wii because it has different graphics than the PS3/X360...
BECAUSE IT COSTS 50%-66% LESS THAN THE OTHER SYSTEMS.
...
why people buy it now. BECAUSE ITS CHEAP!! its popularity will diminish, and sales will fall.

I suppose with the term "people" you mean consumers, right?

So you mean that consumers buy:
1.the hardware
2.the retail games
3.the accessories
4.the network deliverd games
5.some of the above? all of the above? (and my addition, none of the above?)

becauce it is 50%-66% less than XBOX360 (I suppose the term "OTHER SYSTEMS" includes the XBOX360, right?)

I rest my case

Originally posted by: sao123
If you bring the graphics and hardware up to that level of the other systems, there will no longer be such a wide disparity in the price difference between the wii and the other systems.

see above

Originally posted by: sao123
Furthermore, if current statistics are accurate, only 33% of homes in america have HD TV's... So that leaves 66% of the population that wouldnt even be able to notice any difference.

Oh man, you are such an easy target.

In my original post my prediction for a next gen Wii launch was for Q4 2011 or Q4 2012.

So you are saying that the launch date for next Gen Wii is Q3 2009 (33% is until now or even earlier)
or that in Q4 2012 there will be only 33% of homes in america that have HD TV's?

Also, about XBOX360 CRT display quality, "the difference is there!"

I suppose that your next move is, to say that you are aware of some very "respectful" predictions (bs), that they verify the possibility in Q4 2012 to be, only 60% (or something) the percentage of homes in america that have HD TV's
and that Nintendo is going to capitalize the rest 40% (please don't do it, I already know the answers...)

Please say that you are making Fun (I am sure that, this is what you will say in the end)

Oh this is so embarrassing, I know it is Saturday so, have you been drinking? please say yes and take this opportunity to save your reputation (I am just teasing you)

Originally posted by: sao123
Thus the next generation wii will no longer be purchased for the main reason why people buy it now. BECAUSE ITS CHEAP!! its popularity will diminish, and sales will fall.

BECAUSE ITS CHEAP? (what is your salary anyway?)
Again, see above (my first reply)

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
I came into this thread thinking Nintendo had made some kind of announcement regarding future console plans. I was let down.

I too was let down... this thread reeks of FAIL :frown:

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MODEL3

I suppose with the term "people" you mean consumers, right?

So you mean that consumers buy:
1.the hardware
2.the retail games
3.the accessories
4.the network deliverd games
5.some of the above? all of the above? (and my addition, none of the above?)

becauce it is 50%-66% less than XBOX360 (I suppose the term "OTHER SYSTEMS" includes the XBOX360, right?)

I rest my case

Ok, I said the sentence wrong, it should have said the wii costs 50%-66% of what the other systems costs. Or costs 33%-50% less than the other systems.

Wii - $249.99
XBOX360 pro - $299
XBOX360 elite - $399
PS3 80GB - $399
PS3 160GB - $499

Games at release
Xbox360/PS3 - 49.99-59.99
Wii - 39.99-49.99

Extra Controllers
PS3 - 42.69
Xbox360 - 37.96
Wii - 29.99

Originally posted by: MODEL3
Oh man, you are such an easy target.

In my original post my prediction for a next gen Wii launch was for Q4 2011 or Q4 2012.

So you are saying that the launch date for next Gen Wii is Q3 2009 (33% is until now or even earlier)
or that in Q4 2012 there will be only 33% of homes in america that have HD TV's?

I didnt read when that you said launch in 3 years. OP tone implied launch emminent now or the immediate future.

Originally posted by: MODEL3
I suppose that your next move is, to say that you are aware of some very "respectful" predictions (bs), that they verify the possibility in Q4 2012 to be, only 60% (or something) the percentage of homes in america that have HD TV's
and that Nintendo is going to capitalize the rest 40% (please don't do it, I already know the answers...)

the correct figure for 2012 % of homes to have HD is closer to 78%. Which probably doesnt matter, because only 44% of owners of HDTV's still subscribe HD TV service, due to the cost over standard.

Originally posted by: MODEL3

BECAUSE ITS CHEAP? (what is your salary anyway?)
Again, see above (my first reply)

Annual Household salary (me + my wife) is just under 80K. Which is above average for my state.



So what you are saying is that if you launch the Wii^2 at a price point equivolent to the 360/PS3 launched at (399/499), just so it has equivolent graphics of the last generation consoles, then everyone is going to rush out and buy one?

The current Wii isnt outselling the current PS3/360 by a 3:1 margin because its powerful... ITS BECAUSE IT COSTS LESS.


there is a 99% chance you are not in the target market for this device.

The wii is marketed for the population segment desiring a lower powered "budget console"... Raising the power and the cost of the device directly removes it from the market segment it was designed to be sold to.

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: sao123
Ok, I said the sentence wrong, it should have said the wii costs 50%-66% of what the other systems costs. Or costs 33%-50% less than the other systems.

O.K.

Originally posted by: sao123
Wii - $249.99
XBOX360 pro - $299
XBOX360 elite - $399
PS3 80GB - $399
PS3 160GB - $499

I know something is missing, but i don't seem to be able to figure out what (I only got this feeling, it is like that feeling I had, when I was young, when I was playing Daytona USA)

Oh, here it is, it's the word Arcade.
Does this ring any bell?
Where is the 199$ XBOX360? (179? in Europe ,the Wii cost 249?)

It's obvious from a mile apart that you are trying to fix the numbers in order to suit your point.

And don't try to find the weighted average with methods to suit your point.
No scratch that, the weighted average doesn't play any factor at all in your point.

The consumers choose to buy the Wii at 249$/? although there is a cheaper console in the market at 179?/199$ and don't tell me that the Nintendo public wants a HDD (pro) (in your point, the nintendo consumers care foremost for the cheaper price)

Originally posted by: sao123
Games at release
Xbox360/PS3 - 49.99-59.99
Wii - 39.99-49.99

Extra Controllers
PS3 - 42.69
Xbox360 - 37.96
Wii - 29.99

I want even bother (like I did above), to contradict your point, you just fixing the numbers to suit your point.
Everyone that bought good Nintendo games (like SMG, Zelda, SSBB etc.) knows.

Also if you add games like Wii Fit, you quickly start to realise the "real" cost of Nintendo games and the cost of all those extra accessories like Wii board and Wii motionplus)

Originally posted by: sao123
I didnt read when that you said launch in 3 years

O.K.

Originally posted by: sao123
So what you are saying is that if you launch the Wii^2 at a price point equivolent to the 360/PS3 launched at (399/499), just so it has equivolent graphics of the last generation consoles, then everyone is going to rush out and buy one?

Why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?
I never said anything about (399/499).
I didn't even mention a price.
On the contrary, if you want to talk about prices then my prediction is that the next gen Wii is going to be at 250-200$.

That's one of the reasons, I examined what year TSMC will have 2,2nm (if they don't try to skip it like they did with 45nm, but maybe the cost can also be achived with a mature 2,8nm and with a good deal)
becauce it needs this manufacturing process in order to achive the cost per chip, in order to have that kind of margin that Nintendo wants (DVD-ROM scenario)

They can do the manufacturing with another plant if they choose but I used TSMC as an example mostly becauce it has the best price/perf ratio until now (of cource excluding Intel and the likes in the perf. ratio)

It's all in my original post.

Originally posted by: sao123
Annual Household salary (me + my wife) is just under 80K. Which is above average for my state.

I was only joking, You didn't need to provide all those personal information.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: sao123
YES...People prefer the Wii because it has different graphics than the PS3/X360...
BECAUSE IT COSTS 50%-66% LESS THAN THE OTHER SYSTEMS.

That's two completely different arguments. The graphics are most certainly not a selling point for the Wii in any way. It's the price and different control scheme. Yes, they sacrificed graphics to get to the lower price, but that doesn't mean those graphics are now the selling point. It just means that consumers were willing to sacrifice the graphics as well. Put it this way, do you think that consumers would turn down an HD capable Wii if they could get it for the same price? I seriously doubt that, but your logic says they would.

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: sao123
YES...People prefer the Wii because it has different graphics than the PS3/X360...
BECAUSE IT COSTS 50%-66% LESS THAN THE OTHER SYSTEMS.

That's two completely different arguments. The graphics are most certainly not a selling point for the Wii in any way. It's the price and different control scheme. Yes, they sacrificed graphics to get to the lower price, but that doesn't mean those graphics are now the selling point. It just means that consumers were willing to sacrifice the graphics as well. Put it this way, do you think that consumers would turn down an HD capable Wii if they could get it for the same price? I seriously doubt that, but your logic says they would.

He just didn't use the English language in order to express himself correctly (I do this thing all the time)

But it is clear what he meant.

He meant that, people are willing to make a compromise in the quality of the Graphics in order to buy something 33-50% cheaper, which for many people it's true.

Since Your reply is only 6-7 minutes after my reply to him probably missed my points about why Wii is not 33-50% cheaper than the competition.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: sao123
Ok, I said the sentence wrong, it should have said the wii costs 50%-66% of what the other systems costs. Or costs 33%-50% less than the other systems.

O.K.

Originally posted by: sao123
Wii - $249.99
XBOX360 pro - $299
XBOX360 elite - $399
PS3 80GB - $399
PS3 160GB - $499

I know something is missing, but i don't seem to be able to figure out what (I only got this feeling, it is like that feeling I had, when I was young, when I was playing Daytona USA)

Oh, here it is, it's the word Arcade.
Does this ring any bell?
Where is the 199$ XBOX360? (179? in Europe ,the Wii cost 249?)

It's obvious from a mile apart that you are trying to fix the numbers in order to suit your point.

And don't try to find the weighted average with methods to suit your point.
No scratch that, the weighted average doesn't play any factor at all in your point.

The consumers choose to buy the Wii at 249$/? although there is a cheaper console in the market at 179?/199$ and don't tell me that the Nintendo public wants a HDD (pro) (in your point, the nintendo consumers care foremost for the cheaper price)

Originally posted by: sao123
Games at release
Xbox360/PS3 - 49.99-59.99
Wii - 39.99-49.99

Extra Controllers
PS3 - 42.69
Xbox360 - 37.96
Wii - 29.99

I want even bother (like I did above), to contradict your point, you just fixing the numbers to suit your point.
Everyone that bought good Nintendo games (like SMG, Zelda, SSBB etc.) knows.

Also if you add games like Wii Fit, you quickly start to realise the "real" cost of Nintendo games and the cost of all those extra accessories like Wii board and Wii motionplus)

Originally posted by: sao123
I didnt read when that you said launch in 3 years

O.K.

Originally posted by: sao123
So what you are saying is that if you launch the Wii^2 at a price point equivolent to the 360/PS3 launched at (399/499), just so it has equivolent graphics of the last generation consoles, then everyone is going to rush out and buy one?

Why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?
I never said anything about (399/499).
I didn't even mention a price.
On the contrary, if you want to talk about prices then my prediction is that the next gen Wii is going to be at 250-200$.

That's one of the reasons, I examined what year TSMC will have 2,2nm (if they don't try to skip it like they did with 45nm, but maybe the cost can also be achived with a mature 2,8nm and with a good deal)
becauce it needs this manufacturing process in order to achive the cost per chip, in order to have that kind of margin that Nintendo wants (CD-ROM scenario)

They can do the manufacturing with another plant if they choose but I used TSMC as an example mostly becauce it has the best price/perf ratio until now (of cource excluding Intel and the likes in the perf. ratio)

It's all in my original post.

Originally posted by: sao123
Annual Household salary (me + my wife) is just under 80K. Which is above average for my state.

I was only joking, You didn't need to provide all those personal information.

I intentionally ignored the 360 arcade, since it only comes with standard cables, and wont do HD with an additional 39.99 purchase. <<--- which would actually lend credibility to my statment, if people actually buy this... they are willing to sacrifice graphics for lower cost.


unfortunately while your thought process tries to follow a certain logic, it just doesnt compute. You cant start with a mature technology, unless it is something you have already developed, own the patents to, and have deployed already in selling products.

if nintendo does have higher hardware in existence but not yet on shelves, the R&D costs will have to be accounted for, and the price will ultimately go up.

Let me remind you, The wii was able to be built so cheaply, because kept an identical architecture as the GC, with only smaller faster compents. Most of the R&D was done a generation prior, with the late addition of the motion controls. The launch price/unit for a wii was only slightly higher than the launch price/unit of the GC. $249 vs $199. Technically the wii really could just be considered a 6.5 generation console, instead of a 7th generation system.

ITs not as simple as to just take a wii, and swap out a video chip for the latest and greatest. The entire architecture now has to change.

And you are not going to develop an all new hardware platform (7th or 8th generation) completely from scratch, without an initial 399/499 cost, as proven by both the launch points of the 360 and PS3.

 

[MODEL3]

Although sao123 didn't meant what I am about to say, he made accidentaly a good point about the art direction.

You see, for some people (mainly the older people that had never bought a console before) XBOX360/PS3 graphics seem intimidating, they feel threatend by them (I supspect it's all those textures, the motion blurring, the complexity of the image and the lack of clarity)

I mean clarity, in the way the artistic style interprets reality. Here in Greece we have a term from the old times (that like most of the good things from that era here in Greece is dead)

The term is philosophical but formulated from a famous mathimatician so you can say
that, it is applied philosophy in a way, the term is: Every form encompass content

Since my language is much more complex than english (especially the ancient, which we still learn at school, at least at my time) and we have many more words per meaning

and most importantly those words are complex, from other basic root-words with other meanings that they can show the origin of the notion that they represent,
it is very difficult for my to express the meaning correctly in English

for example the true meaning of the greek word "encompass" is like encompass+embosom+confine I don't even want to try for the other words (is anybody still with me?)
If you break it into such other root-words there are more meanings (such define)

Anyway what I mean in this scenario (lack of clarity) is, that the lack of clarity in form automatical means lack of clarity in the essence (in the state of being or in the state of meaning) this is a simple explanation of the term but my english don't make justice to it.

So the people don't comprehend easily what they are seeing and their mind start fillling all the missing details and comes to a state that all this situation (and effort) is offensive, distressing and awkward.

So I think that Nintendo made a very clever decision regarding the art style of the games (mainly party type games) that target the particular audience (mainly the older people that had never bought a console before)

They just have to retain that particular policy in the next Gen Wii.
Amen

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: sao123
I intentionally ignored the 360 arcade, since it only comes with standard cables, and wont do HD with an additional 39.99 purchase. <<--- which would actually lend credibility to my statment, if people actually buy this... they are willing to sacrifice graphics for lower cost.

Alrighty then, so you were intentionally wrong

Originally posted by: sao123
unfortunately while your thought process tries to follow a certain logic, it just doesnt compute. You cant start with a mature technology, unless it is something you have already developed, own the patents to, and have deployed already in selling products.

There are 2 factors in the manufacturing efficiency
1.What TSMC is doing to improve their manufacturing capabilities
2.What every customer does for his part

I was reffering to the first factor.
I was using the term mature Like that:

the 5,5nm was mature enough for nvidia to bring 9800+ in Q3 2008
but the 4,5nm was not mature enough for ATI to bring the 4770 in Q2 2009

Originally posted by: sao123
if nintendo does have higher hardware in existence but not yet on shelves, the R&D costs will have to be accounted for, and the price will ultimately go up.

Of cource you are correct (about the R&D cost I mean) but that's why I said 2,2nm and not 3,2nm, in order to account for the extra R&D cost

Originally posted by: sao123
Let me remind you, The wii was able to be built so cheaply, because kept an identical architecture as the GC, with only smaller faster compents. Most of the R&D was done a generation prior, with the late addition of the motion controls. The launch price/unit for a wii was only slightly higher than the launch price/unit of the GC. $249 vs $199. Technically the wii really could just be considered a 6.5 generation console, instead of a 7th generation system.

It is not exactly identical but of cource it is cheaper than what will happen in next Gen. And Nintendo paid ATI for Wii for R&D also (especially in the software department which also cost substantial money)
Also if the controller in next gen Wii is something like Wii motionplus (or close) then the the R&D cost is less for Next Gen for control R&D.

Technically the wii (CPU/GPU and the rest components) is a 6th generation system (I don't know where do you start the counting but let's just say 6th to save time)

Originally posted by: sao123
And you are not going to develop an all new hardware platform (7th or 8th generation) completely from scratch, without an initial 399/499 cost, as proven by both the launch points of the 360 and PS3.

It is not completely from scratch, all the R&D in ATI and NVidia or IBM for a DX9 level of hardware has been done already for the most part and in Q4 2012 we will be (DX12) 3 generations ahead (I think intel (larrabee) will push Microsoft for faster transitions, I mean 2 years from now on)
Also Let's just say for arguments sake that it is from scratch.
Let's take the (DVD-ROM scenario)
Like I said I propose a XBOX360 level of hardware for next Gen Wii.
So you are saying:

That the initial cost of the the next Gen Wii (XBOX360 arcade equivalent in the DVD-ROM scenario) will be in 2012 400$ (or in the BD scenario 500$)

How is that possible, since the cost of the XBOX360 arcade was less than or around 400$ in 2006 with 90nm tech?

Also how is it possible in 2012 a supposed 32nm (22nm but I have to account the extra R&D cost) XBOX360 arcade to cost 400$, when today with 65nm cost a little bit more than 200$ (in worst case scenario, or below 200$ in a good case scenario)?

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Your English is ATROCIOUS.

That is all

It's not that his english is bad, his ideas don't make any sense and he gets argumentative with anyone who disagrees.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: sao123
I intentionally ignored the 360 arcade, since it only comes with standard cables, and wont do HD with an additional 39.99 purchase. <<--- which would actually lend credibility to my statment, if people actually buy this... they are willing to sacrifice graphics for lower cost.

Alrighty then, so you were intentionally wrong

Oh really? So what console/tv combo can actually do 720P/1080P on the red white and yellow cables which you get with the 360 arcade version??
None. They are limited to standard definition. If you want HD, you have to BUY SEPERATELY the Red Green Blue White Red cable set.

Text

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: sao123
unfortunately while your thought process tries to follow a certain logic, it just doesnt compute. You cant start with a mature technology, unless it is something you have already developed, own the patents to, and have deployed already in selling products.

There are 2 factors in the manufacturing efficiency
1.What TSMC is doing to improve their manufacturing capabilities
2.What every customer does for his part

I was reffering to the first factor.
I was using the term mature Like that:

the 5,5nm was mature enough for nvidia to bring 9800+ in Q3 2008
but the 4,5nm was not mature enough for ATI to bring the 4770 in Q2 2009

improving your manufacturing capabilities will allow you to produce more chips cheaper, but not develope an entirely NEW chip.

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: sao123
if nintendo does have higher hardware in existence but not yet on shelves, the R&D costs will have to be accounted for, and the price will ultimately go up.

Of cource you are correct (about the R&D cost I mean) but that's why I said 2,2nm and not 3,2nm, in order to account for the extra R&D cost

The extra costs arent just associated with shrinking the die.
You would need a different mainboard, as the BUS isnt wide enough for the amount of video data needed to process for 1080P, compared to what it can process now at 480P.
The CPU would need to be completely redesigned to match the new data rate/width of the new BUS. The memory controller/arcitecture will have to be replaced.
And finally whatever new directx 9 chip you put in place has to be developed.

Additionally, now the mainboard BIOS has to be written from scratch for all the new hardware, and the OS needs to be rewritten to be able to make use of all the new memory, interrupts, shaders, and timings.

The wii graphics API is called the GX, and is the complete opposite approach of the directX approach of the 360, and the OpenPSL of the PS3. Since the original wii is based on a proprietary video API all backward compatibility is lost (unlike GC->Wii), and a NEW SDK must be sent to all publishers. Backwards compatibility may be possible through some sort of emulator, which on both PS3/360 was only partially successful.
you dont just write games and they magically appear on the screen, you have to program them with the video API, which if you change, then the entire development process changes.

PLUS... nintendo would have to aquire/license directx from microsoft, which would not come cheap, or RISK getting sued.

This isnt like taking your PC apart and dropping in a new video card for the latest and greatest.

This is the equivloent of trying to take a honda transmission and dropping it into a ford taurus... without some MAJOR redesign work, it isnt going to work.

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: sao123
Let me remind you, The wii was able to be built so cheaply, because kept an identical architecture as the GC, with only smaller faster compents. Most of the R&D was done a generation prior, with the late addition of the motion controls. The launch price/unit for a wii was only slightly higher than the launch price/unit of the GC. $249 vs $199. Technically the wii really could just be considered a 6.5 generation console, instead of a 7th generation system.

It is not exactly identical but of cource it is cheaper than what will happen in next Gen. And Nintendo paid ATI for Wii for R&D also (especially in the software department which also cost substantial money)
Also if the controller in next gen Wii is something like Wii motionplus (or close) then the the R&D cost is less for Next Gen for control R&D.

ATI only did the R&D on the video chip... who is going to do the long process to make it work with the rest of the new hardware? see above.

Originally posted by: MODEL3
Technically the wii (CPU/GPU and the rest components) is a 6th generation system (I don't know where do you start the counting but let's just say 6th to save time)

Lets jsut say you are wrong, since there were 6 generations prior to the wii
Generation 1 = Atari Pong + Magnavox Oddyssey 100/200
Generation 2 = FVES + Atari 2600/7800 + RCA + TI99/4a
Generation 3 = NES + Famicon + Colecovision + Sega Master
Generation 4 = SNES + Genesis + Turbo Grafx + Neo Geo
Generation 5 = Atari Jaguar + N64 + 3DO + Sega Saturn + PS1
Generation 6 = PS2 + GC + Xbox1 + Dreamcast
Generation 7 = Wii + 360 + ps3

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: sao123
And you are not going to develop an all new hardware platform (7th or 8th generation) completely from scratch, without an initial 399/499 cost, as proven by both the launch points of the 360 and PS3.

It is not completely from scratch, all the R&D in ATI and NVidia or IBM for a DX9 level of hardware has been done already for the most part and in Q4 2012 we will be (DX12) 3 generations ahead (I think intel (larrabee) will push Microsoft for faster transitions, I mean 2 years from now on)
Also Let's just say for arguments sake that it is from scratch.
Let's take the (DVD-ROM scenario)
Like I said I propose a XBOX360 level of hardware for next Gen Wii.
So you are saying:

That the initial cost of the the next Gen Wii (XBOX360 arcade equivalent in the DVD-ROM scenario) will be in 2012 400$ (or in the BD scenario 500$)

How is that possible, since the cost of the XBOX360 arcade was less than or around 400$ in 2006 with 90nm tech?

Also how is it possible in 2012 a supposed 32nm (22nm but I have to account the extra R&D cost) XBOX360 arcade to cost 400$, when today with 65nm cost a little bit more than 200$ (in worst case scenario, or below 200$ in a good case scenario)?

There is a big difference between taking the xbox 360 from 120nm to 90nm, the system itself stayed the same. Redevelopment isnt required for a shrinking die. Its an identical chip, only smaller.

Putting that same chip in a wii, is a completely different type of operation.
The wii isnt directx compliant, it isnt even close. your not just dropping in a smaller chip, its a completely different chip, which requires architectural changes.

See above explaination.

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: sao123
Oh really? So what console/tv combo can actually do 720P/1080P on the red white and yellow cables which you get with the 360 arcade version??
None. They are limited to standard definition. If you want HD, you have to BUY SEPERATELY the Red Green Blue White Red cable set.

Your original argument was, that people buy the Wii becauce is 33-50% cheaper than the competition.
Like I said, in order for someone to determine that cost, has to take account the following factors: (Console,games and accessories price)

On the part of the console price, the cost of XBOX360 arcade+cable is way lower (at least here in Europe where I live)
The original cable cost 13,99 &#65533; or you can find third party cables as little as 6,2 &#65533;
(So the cost start from 186 &#65533; and the Wii cost 250 &#65533; .

I just have to find only 1 console model that is cheaper than the Wii in order to reject your point. (I hope that you can understand the logic behind this)
This Console is XBOX360 Arcade.
Also I hope that you can understand, that i did not say that overall (Console,games and accessories price) XBOX360 arcade is cheaper. I had the "33-50%" text in my previous reply in bold.
So overall I think that difference in price is too small (and not 33-50%) to make a difference (the difference you imply)

Originally posted by: sao123
improving your manufacturing capabilities will allow you to produce more chips cheaper, but not develope an entirely NEW chip..

Where did I say the opposite?
I just said, that I was using the term "mature" like that:

TSMCs 55nm manufacturing was mature enough (from the part of TSMC) in order for Nvidia to launch in Q3 2008 the 9800+ without so many defects (relatively high yields)

while TSMCs 40nm manufacturing was not mature enough (from the part of TSMC) in order ATI to launch in Q2 2009 the 4770 without so many defects.

Even if you disagree with how I used the term mature, you can understand my point so why are we doing this?

Originally posted by: sao123
The extra costs arent just associated with shrinking the die.
You would need a different mainboard, as the BUS isnt wide enough for the amount of video data needed to process for 1080P, compared to what it can process now at 480P.
The CPU would need to be completely redesigned to match the new data rate/width of the new BUS. The memory controller/arcitecture will have to be replaced.
And finally whatever new directx 9 chip you put in place has to be developed.

Additionally, now the mainboard BIOS has to be written from scratch for all the new hardware, and the OS needs to be rewritten to be able to make use of all the new memory, interrupts, shaders, and timings.

The wii graphics API is called the GX, and is the complete opposite approach of the directX approach of the 360, and the OpenPSL of the PS3. Since the original wii is based on a proprietary video API all backward compatibility is lost (unlike GC->Wii), and a NEW SDK must be sent to all publishers. Backwards compatibility may be possible through some sort of emulator, which on both PS3/360 was only partially successful.
you dont just write games and they magically appear on the screen, you have to program them with the video API, which if you change, then the entire development process changes.

I never said anything to contradict the above.
For example, you making arguments about, if backward compatibility may be possible in my scenario which I never implied.
Do you confusing my scenario with Michael Pachter's scenario about "Q4 2010 backward compatible Wii HD"? (Just joking)
In my scenario the next gen Wii will have only S/W compatibility (Like XBOX360 did) and since it is going to suck (like XBOX360's) it will be only useful as a marketing tool.
For me backward compatibility is desirable but not essential. If you disagree I respect your opinion.

Originally posted by: sao123
PLUS... nintendo would have to aquire/license directx from microsoft, which would not come cheap, or RISK getting sued

I never saidirectX 9 compatible what I said was: DirectX9 level of hardware
Also the licence part I think slides to ATI or NVIDIA side and not Nintendo's (But I am not sure, maybe you are right)
But anyway it doesn't matter since I said DirectX9 level of hardware

It is like a comment that made a Ms executive (I don't remeber his name) in EDGE magazine in 2001:
"PS2 is DirectX6 level of hardware and Gamecube is DirectX 7 level of hardware, ours is directX 8, so we are one generation ahead"
I used the term "level of hardware" with the same analogy (PS2 was not DX6 nor the GC was DX7) and i didn't want to be specific (like OpenGL 2.0 or something else)

Originally posted by: sao123
ATI only did the R&D on the video chip... who is going to do the long process to make it work with the rest of the new hardware? see above

Yes correct, I used ATI as example (I didn't mean that ATI did the whole Hardware R&D)

Originally posted by: sao123
Generation 1 = Atari Pong + Magnavox Oddyssey 100/200
Generation 2 = FVES + Atari 2600/7800 + RCA + TI99/4a
Generation 3 = NES + Famicon + Colecovision + Sega Master
Generation 4 = SNES + Genesis + Turbo Grafx + Neo Geo
Generation 5 = Atari Jaguar + N64 + 3DO + Sega Saturn + PS1
Generation 6 = PS2 + GC + Xbox1 + Dreamcast
Generation 7 = Wii + 360 + ps3

But I said that we agree (I just said that, I didn't know if you were starting the count from Nintendo 1st generation (NES) or from Pong (I didn't know if you were reffering to Nintendo's generation or in general, although now it is obvious)
And I didn't analyze it becauce it doesn't matter at all in our original argument

Also we were talking about in what generation the hardware level belongs so I stand by my original view (6th gen)

Originally posted by: sao123
There is a big difference between taking the xbox 360 from 120nm to 90nm, the system itself stayed the same. Redevelopment isnt required for a shrinking die. Its an identical chip, only smaller.

Putting that same chip in a wii, is a completely different type of operation.
The wii isnt directx compliant, it isnt even close. your not just dropping in a smaller chip, its a completely different chip, which requires architectural changes

120nm?
Again for all your other points i think I was clear enough (which means I never said any of those things you are implying that I said (like Wii DX compl., redevelopment etc.)

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MODEL3
It is like a comment that made a Ms executive (I don't remeber his name) in EDGE magazine in 2001:
"PS2 is DirectX6 level of hardware and Gamecube is DirectX 7 level of hardware, ours is directX 8, so we are one generation ahead"
I used the term "level of hardware" with the same analogy (PS2 was not DX6 nor the GC was DX7) and i didn't want to be specific (like OpenGL 2.0 or something else)

whoever said that is a complete moron... no wonder your so confused.


There is no such thing as a directx level of hardware at any number 7,8,9...
directX is a graphics API. directX 9 works on every video card, from the now extinct 3dfx voodoo 1000, to the newest latest and greatest.

Saying you want DirectX 9 level hardware, is like saying you want a car with a red steering wheel.

Direct X doesnt have anything to do with what the hardware can or cant do, or how good of a picture it will have. the purpose of a standardized API, is so that the programmers know how to make games easier.

following my own analogy... you can drive fords, toyotas, and hondas, ALL because they have a steering wheel, a break pedal, and a gas pedal.




If you want to develop a level of hardware, you need to talk in terms of hardware:
Which ones will you include, and how many of each?

Shader Model
Shaders - Vertex, Geometry, Pixel, Transform & Lighting, Translation & Rotation,
Texture Mappers, Frame Buffers, Rasterizers, AntiAliasers, Renderers
Pipeline Length (stages) & Depth
Multithreading, Multicore
Memory Bus Width & throughput

See the thing about directx 9 is, you can none or all of the above, and it still works.
so... what level of video do you want again?

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: sao123
whoever said that is a complete moron... no wonder your so confused.

I don't know but it seemd to me just fine.

Originally posted by: sao123
There is no such thing as a directx level of hardware at any number 7,8,9...
directX is a graphics API. directX 9 works on every video card, from the now extinct 3dfx voodoo 1000, to the newest latest and greatest.

Saying you want DirectX 9 level hardware, is like saying you want a car with a red steering wheel.

Direct X doesnt have anything to do with what the hardware can or cant do, or how good of a picture it will have. the purpose of a standardized API, is so that the programmers know how to make games easier.

following my own analogy... you can drive fords, toyotas, and hondas, ALL because they have a steering wheel, a break pedal, and a gas pedal.

If you want to develop a level of hardware, you need to talk in terms of hardware:
Which ones will you include, and how many of each?

Shader Model
Shaders - Vertex, Geometry, Pixel, Transform & Lighting, Translation & Rotation,
Texture Mappers, Frame Buffers, Rasterizers, AntiAliasers, Renderers
Pipeline Length (stages) & Depth
Multithreading, Multicore
Memory Bus Width & throughput

See the thing about directx 9 is, you can none or all of the above, and it still works.
so... what level of video do you want again?

Although I agree with many of your points, I disagree with the primal point (if the term "DirectX level of hardware" has value)

You see any API has some fundamental values (for example DX7 brought geometry transformation in the GPU among other things or DX8 brought shaders (although basic)

When we say that a GPU can support an API it must have some fundamental values in the hardware level.

So in order to save time, instead of writing 20 lines of text detailing those specific features we can simply state the level of "DX analogue"

With this method we can take a shortcut and imply all those features that a GPU incorporates.

for example: Do you remember some older Imagination chips that could do on chip geometry transformation?
These had an implementation of OpenGL 1.1 or 1.2 API if I remember correctly
But if Imagination wanted, they could choose to write a DX 7 API implementation.

So although those GPUs had not a DX7 API implementation, they were "DX7 level of hardware" becauce they had all those basic elements and features in their design that a DX7 implematation was possible.

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
A safer prediction is another duct tape job where we have a Wii HD that is 100% compatible with Wii and GC games but can play new games in HD.

Sorry for not replying earlier, I guess I just missed your post.

Yes, it's the well known by now Michael Pachter's scenario about the next Gen Wii.
It was all over the gaming forums before a month or two.
And probably it is more likely to be correct with all the volume of inside information that he has.
But he was in the past so wrong about some of his projections (sometimes he jokes about it, himshelf) that i really doubt.

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Whether or not old Wiis can play the new Wii HD games only in an SD resolution with reduced textures (not unlike reducing settings on a PC game with slower computer) would be the more interesting thing to contemplate.

If I understood correctly, you are not implying the every developer will have 2 versions in a DVD (which makes the development cost way higher)
Although the potential market is Wii + next gen (which means that some developers may think positive about this scenario, most will not probably)

Also i am not sure that the majority of the games will fit in a DVD (although the party type games will fit)
So Nintendo will have to change the way they charge developers per disk.

And since the party type games is the majority, well this scenario has some chance (just joking, or am I?) .

So what you examine, is the possibility of the next gen Wii to be something like, what Wii was to Gamecube?
You mean for example, like 600Mhz "Hollywood" GPU with 8-6MB embedded memory and 1,8Ghz "Broadway" processor?

Form my view, 720p "DX7 level of visuals"

(or better "OpenGL 1.1 level of visuals" since although the "Hollywood" GPU has a proprietary API, the guys that did the GPU (artX) were THE OpenGL guys, they were at SGI before, and ATI just bought the company that they made, Nintendo made a deal with them before even ATI starts the negotiations, It's old story and I don't remember the names)

isn't going to be that better than a Wii + a scaler (I just joking, but it is not too far from the truth)

If you mean something like "OpenGL2.0 level of GPU" AND also compatible with the "Hollywood" GPU then the fee ATI will ask should be much higher that the option that exclude compatibility.

And shouldn't also be the texture space twice in each disk for all the above scenarios?

I know that many of the guys that bought a Wii, would like the scenario of Wii to be able to play the games of the Next Gen version, but it is not so likely to happen in my opinion.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
A safer prediction is another duct tape job where we have a Wii HD that is 100% compatible with Wii and GC games but can play new games in HD. Whether or not old Wiis can play the new Wii HD games only in an SD resolution with reduced textures (not unlike reducing settings on a PC game with slower computer) would be the more interesting thing to contemplate.

Nintendo went with the all encompassing affordable approach because they simply couldn't afford to keep up in the hardware arms race after they started to lose ground after the SNES. Now that they have reestablished their position back at that top I think they could afford go after that "hard core" niche they essentially abandoned.

This is pretty much in line with my prediction.

I think it will come around 2012 or maybe Christmas 2011 at the earliest.

1) 720p Games, HDMI port, optical port, and 5.1 DD+ support.
2) DVD video support will be added.
3) Loses Gamecube controller/memory card ports and will add Gamecube games to the Virtual Console listings. Gamecube "classic controller" add-on will be released and also be used for more "hardcore" FPS/etc. games.
3.1) Gamecube memory cards will be virtualized with a $20 piece of hardware required for a one-time transfer of your old gamesaves off the physical Gamecube memory cards to the virtual memory cards.
4) 8GB or better internal flash memory and SDHC slot for further expansion.
5) Built in wireless network card.
6) Additional media streaming capabilities (music, video files, and pictures over a home network).
7) Wiimotes with built-in WM+ sensor in a form factor identical to the current Wiimote sans the WM+ add-on.
8) It will come in 4 different colors.

Thus it is said, thus it shall come to pass. Golgatha knows!!

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
A safer prediction is another duct tape job where we have a Wii HD that is 100% compatible with Wii and GC games but can play new games in HD.

Sorry for not replying earlier, I guess I just missed your post.

Yes, it's the well known by now Michael Pachter's scenario about the next Gen Wii.
It was all over the gaming forums before a month or two.
And probably it is more likely to be correct with all the volume of inside information that he has.
But he was in the past so wrong about some of his projections (sometimes he jokes about it, himshelf) that i really doubt.

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Whether or not old Wiis can play the new Wii HD games only in an SD resolution with reduced textures (not unlike reducing settings on a PC game with slower computer) would be the more interesting thing to contemplate.

If I understood correctly, you are not implying the every developer will have 2 versions in a DVD (which makes the development cost way higher)
Although the potential market is Wii + next gen (which means that some developers may think positive about this scenario, most will not probably)

Also i am not sure that the majority of the games will fit in a DVD (although the party type games will fit)
So Nintendo will have to change the way they charge developers per disk.

And since the party type games is the majority, well this scenario has some chance (just joking, or am I?) .

So what you examine, is the possibility of the next gen Wii to be something like, what Wii was to Gamecube?
You mean for example, like 600Mhz "Hollywood" GPU with 8-6MB embedded memory and 1,8Ghz "Broadway" processor?

Form my view, 720p "DX7 level of visuals"

(or better "OpenGL 1.1 level of visuals" since although the "Hollywood" GPU has a proprietary API, the guys that did the GPU (artX) were THE OpenGL guys, they were at SGI before, and ATI just bought the company that they made, Nintendo made a deal with them before even ATI starts the negotiations, It's old story and I don't remember the names)

isn't going to be that better than a Wii + a scaler (I just joking, but it is not too far from the truth)

If you mean something like "OpenGL2.0 level of GPU" AND also compatible with the "Hollywood" GPU then the fee ATI will ask should be much higher that the option that exclude compatibility.

And shouldn't also be the texture space twice in each disk for all the above scenarios?

I know that many of the guys that bought a Wii, would like the scenario of Wii to be able to play the games of the Next Gen version, but it is not so likely to happen in my opinion.

720P is merely 1280 x 720 x 60FPS...
we've been doing that since windows 98... @ 1280x1024x75hz...which by the way came with directx 5.

again... 720P says nothing about, what shader model, or other graphics features are available.

you can make a NES play at 720P, but that doesnt improve the picture... it merely makes it larger.


The levels of video capabilities in any PC and and non360 console are completely different.

you gotta stop doing that... kumquats and apples arent the same thing, there not even close.

Originally posted by: MODEL3
It is like a comment that made a Ms executive (I don't remeber his name) in EDGE magazine in 2001:
"PS2 is DirectX6 level of hardware and Gamecube is DirectX 7 level of hardware, ours is directX 8, so we are one generation ahead"
I used the term "level of hardware" with the same analogy (PS2 was not DX6 nor the GC was DX7) and i didn't want to be specific (like OpenGL 2.0 or something else)

I just wanted to reiterate, whoever said this is the biggest moron ever.

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: sao123
720P is merely 1280 x 720 x 60FPS...
we've been doing that since windows 98... @ 1280x1024x75hz...which by the way came with directx 5.

again... 720P says nothing about, what shader model, or other graphics features are available.

you can make a NES play at 720P, but that doesnt improve the picture... it merely makes it larger.


The levels of video capabilities in any PC and and non360 console are completely different.

you gotta stop doing that... kumquats and apples arent the same thing, there not even close.

Are you trying in some way to keep this topic alive?
Becauce you arguing about things I never implied.

From all my posts, did you really understood that I have the need from someone to explain to me what 720p is?

Also the point you made about "NES level of visuals at 720p" is exactly what I implied about, what visual quality will have a possible 600Mhz "Hollywood" GPU at 720p.

Originally posted by: sao123
I just wanted to reiterate, whoever said this is the biggest moron ever.

This is my response in your persistence to keep repeating it.

I hope your reiteration doesn't have purpose to make an indirect attemt to label me moron.

You can do better than that