New Nintendo HD Console to be revealed at E3; Launches after April 2012

[rumblina]

I don't like it because it doesn't mean anything, should I assume that "HD Console from Nintendo" is to mean they will release a console with blurry images much like the PS3 and Xbox?

No, you should assume that they will release something that will not be bested in 3 months by the 'next big thing' and will still be able to maintain "HD" graphics while not having to upgrade to a new vid card (or two) to do so.

 

[Bigbazz]

No, you should assume that they will release something that will not be bested in 3 months by the 'next big thing' and will still be able to maintain "HD" graphics while not having to upgrade to a new vid card (or two) to do so.

Why does a discussion about the meaning of HD and the new nintendo console have to do with a bad and misinformed stereotype about needing to upgrade a PC every 10 seconds.

My 2007 computer is still doing a fine job of being more powerful than a console and running all games currently available, and they are still run at higher resolution and higher quality than my equally old (technology wise) PS3.

You forget that just because you do not (cannot) upgrade your console, it doesnt mean that technology stays still, If you buy a decent gaming PC now it will still be a decent gaming system in 4 years time, it will be far behind the technology, but it will still run any game. Just as buying a console, it will likely be surpassed before it is released, but it will still be running the new games in 4 years time.



My dislike is with the term HD in relation to consoles, not an arguement between PC vs Consoles.

 

[rumblina]

My 2007 computer is still doing a fine job of being more powerful than a console and running all games currently available, and they are still run at higher resolution and higher quality than my equally old (technology wise) PS3.

It is all comparative. You are essentially saying you can run Portal2 (for example) into a 1920x1080p display at full graphic ability of said generation in a PC whilst maintaining the same playable frame rates to something like the PS3 which is what, 5 years old?

HD terminology aside, my GT5 looks alot (and noticably) better than in standard output when going though HDMI into a TV capable of 1080p. As far as I am concerned, it is a higher definition/nicer look, hence the tag 'HD'

 

[Azuremen]

Bigbazz, sounds like you have more issues with the textures involved with the games on the PS3 rather than the output resolution. Or you simply have your crap setup wrong. There is an obvious difference between a PS2 output resolution versus anything on the PS3.

As for the 90s and early 00's PC games, most had 1280x1024 in mind at best and generally ran between 640x480 or 800x600. I think you really want to consider sorting out what terms you are using, as virtually every PS3 game natively runs at 720p if not 1080p. Any lack of detail is a result of the textures, not the output resolution.

Consoles are HD, and you are not playing games at any higher resolution on your PC than on your PS3. You are bitching about texture from what I can tell.


Also, nothing from 2007 is relevant in terms of PC gaming now. Yes, you can play Source games, you sure as hell aren't going to run anything remotely new at 1080p with high settings and get a smooth 60frames.

 

[Bigbazz]

It is all comparative. You are essentially saying you can run Portal2 (for example) into a 1920x1080p display at full graphic ability of said generation in a PC whilst maintaining the same playable frame rates to something like the PS3 which is what, 5 years old?

HD terminology aside, my GT5 looks alot (and noticably) better than in standard output when going though HDMI into a TV capable of 1080p. As far as I am concerned, it is a higher definition/nicer look, hence the tag 'HD'

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I can run any game at maximum quality, but neither can the console. Most modern games will run at beautiful quality and decent resolution (I play at 1680x1050 in most 1920x1080 in some) without having to set the game at maximum settings, it is infact the higher settings that cost the extra power, diminishing returns at its most extreme, to run any modern game at medium settings does not require a high powered computer and it will still look better than a console.

A brilliant example is the recent Crysis 2 game, which runs amazingly well for a 2011 game, runs smoother than the much older Crysis 1 and looks amazing. I tried it on the console (PS3) and it was just not even in the same league.


New technology for the PC always gets replaced soon enough, but that does mean it needs to be replaced. People will always be chasing higher quality and higher FPS and the diminishing returns on both is massive.

On medium settings my computer will run any game at 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 pretty good, but you turn those settings up and it will cripple it (crysis 2 on highest settings), but does it look much better? Not really, only very subtle differences. I run iRacing at default settings (shadows on lowest) at 1920x1080 and it hits 140fps quite often, but if i turn those shadows up its like watching a picture slideshow.




Back in 1999 I recall running unreal tournament at 1280x1024, but my graphics card was capapble of 1920x1080 and with the right monitor the game would run it at that (the magazines were doing it back then). In terms of crispness Unreal Tournament at 1280x1024 on my 17 inch monitor was absolutely perfectly crisp far more so than any console game available today, the graphics were dated as you would expect for back then, but crisp and jaggy free they were. The consoles are mostly jaggy free, but instead blurry.

To Azureman, why do you attempt to insult my intelligence by saying "you simply have your crap setup wrong". You did not read or understand the full of my previous posts and you don't seem to understand what I am talking about, so I will leave it there with you.

I am not talking about textures, if you cannot understand what I mean then you're likely not experienced enough with the comparisons to really discuss the subject.

 

[Alex p.]

Bigbazz, sounds like you have more issues with the textures involved with the games on the PS3 rather than the output resolution. Or you simply have your crap setup wrong. There is an obvious difference between a PS2 output resolution versus anything on the PS3.

As for the 90s and early 00's PC games, most had 1280x1024 in mind at best and generally ran between 640x480 or 800x600. I think you really want to consider sorting out what terms you are using, as virtually every PS3 game natively runs at 720p if not 1080p. Any lack of detail is a result of the textures, not the output resolution.

Consoles are HD, and you are not playing games at any higher resolution on your PC than on your PS3. You are bitching about texture from what I can tell.


Also, nothing from 2007 is relevant in terms of PC gaming now. Yes, you can play Source games, you sure as hell aren't going to run anything remotely new at 1080p with high settings and get a smooth 60frames.

I do not understand what there is not to understand about Bigbazz's point. He is absolutely right in saying that right now ps3 and 360 are often not HD, or sub-HD. Why? Because if you want to have similar poly-count and effects like on the pc for certain games, you, as a developper, have to lower the native resolution of the game or it simply will not run.
Sounds like you are a total console fanboy. (Oh and I hate pc gaming btw. and play only consoles myself, so don't even try...)

Black Ops has a native resolution of what was that?...1000x800 or lower.
PGR3, yes 3, released way back in 2005 had not even a native resolution of 720p.
And please don't even start telling anyone how games run in 1080p on the ps3, how many games do this? 10, maybe 15? Of how much? Hundreds of games. Why is that? Because in that resolution you will not be able to display good grahics, MGS4, GT5 and other "Sony games" do NOT run in 1080p, so please.
Oh and let's just think of some 1080p games...RR7, Virtue Tennis 4, Lair...they all do not look too pretty, especially Lair, I was amazed at how bad this game can look and 1080p is the reason why.
Not the ps3, nor the 360 have been build to display native 1080p, period.
Sony were the ones telling people this stuff because teh power of teh Cell will make all possible, just like the Emotion Engine in the ps2...yeah right.

Microsoft never said their console is built for 1080p, although the ram in the xbox is the same as in the ps3 and although the GPU is even better than in the ps3.

So there you have it. (Oh and hey, I can have a debate after all, can't I?)

 

[Azuremen]

I do not understand what there is not to understand about Bigbazz's point. He is absolutely right in saying that right now ps3 and 360 are often not HD, or sub-HD. Why? Because if you want to have similar poly-count and effects like on the pc for certain games, you, as a developper, have to lower the native resolution of the game or it simply will not run.

Hey, wait, what is the definition of HD again? Oh yeah, anything over 480p.

Sounds like you are a total console fanboy. (Oh and I hate pc gaming btw. and play only consoles myself, so don't even try...)

You've apparently never read any of my posts. I play almost all my games on the PC. I could care less what you play your games on.

Black Ops has a native resolution of what was that?...1000x800 or lower.
PGR3, yes 3, released way back in 2005 had not even a native resolution of 720p.

Hey, wait, 1000x800? That isn't even a wide screen resolution. Ironically, 800 > 480 so it is still HD.

And please don't even start telling anyone how games run in 1080p on the ps3, how many games do this? 10, maybe 15? Of how much? Hundreds of games. Why is that? Because in that resolution you will not be able to display good grahics, MGS4, GT5 and other "Sony games" do NOT run in 1080p, so please.
Oh and let's just think of some 1080p games...RR7, Virtue Tennis 4, Lair...they all do not look too pretty, especially Lair, I was amazed at how bad this game can look and 1080p is the reason why.
Not the ps3, nor the 360 have been build to display native 1080p, period.
Sony were the ones telling people this stuff because teh power of teh Cell will make all possible, just like the Emotion Engine in the ps2...yeah right.

I never attempted to say everything runs at 1080p, or even the majority. I said some stuff does. Hey look, Wipeout HD is 1080p and it doesn't look half bad. And the PS3 does support native 1080p, just most games are cross platform developed and thus end up running at what is easiest to code for the XBOX360.

Microsoft never said their console is built for 1080p, although the ram in the xbox is the same as in the ps3 and although the GPU is even better than in the ps3.

Again, anything over 480p is HD.

So there you have it. (Oh and hey, I can have a debate after all, can't I?)

Have what, a clear idea of how little you grasp the concept of what HD is? Or how you cannot string a solid argument together?

Basically, this is all you need to know

HD > 480p

Polygon counts, texture resolution, and all that have nothing to do with whether content gets defined as HD. I'm not arguing for or against consoles, I'm just stating how the definitions work.

To Azureman, why do you attempt to insult my intelligence by saying "you simply have your crap setup wrong". You did not read or understand the full of my previous posts and you don't seem to understand what I am talking about, so I will leave it there with you.

I am not talking about textures, if you cannot understand what I mean then you're likely not experienced enough with the comparisons to really discuss the subject.

Oh, no I read what you are saying. With the AA applied to almost everything these days, images are pretty smooth and crisp coming out of a PS3. I have a 42 inch 1920x1080 TV in my living room that I use for my PS3, and I've never had these issues of blurry games that you are talking about unless my output settings are wrong. 1920x1080 is also what I happen to play games on my PC at, it they are generally just as sharp, though maybe a touch sharper because 21.5 inch displays have a much higher pixel density so if I am sitting at the same distance, well yeah.

Like I said, system building for 15 years, PC gaming for over 20, console gaming for just as long, and I do photo editing and all that. I can also spot in a moment if the source for video source is DVD, Blu-ray, and 720p or 1080p.

Also, what are earth PC are you running that you built in 2007 that is playing most new stuff smoothly. Would seem at best a Core 2 Duo and an 8000 series nVidia card, or similar...

 

[Tornado]

Microsoft never said their console is built for 1080p, although the ram in the xbox is the same as in the ps3 and although the GPU is even better than in the ps3.

Mostly because Sony threw it in there after the fact to ease the porting process.

 

[Terronium-12]

All I'm going to say is texture disparity, especially at a distance is often accredited to a lack of aniso filtering. Which neither of the two consoles support that I know of.

 

[Alex p.]

And the PS3 does support native 1080p, just most games are cross platform developed and thus end up running at what is easiest to code for the XBOX360.

Again, anything over 480p is HD.

Funny little post you made there, great effort. 👍

Ok, I'll say it for the last time, ps3 and xbox 360 were never really designed for outputting 1080p, fact, live with it.

Oh, and if "everything over 480p" is HD for you, I'm fine with that. Doesn't change the fact that most PC games still look MUCH crisper BECAUSE they actually run in 1080p or higher.

Oh and me not being able to argue properly is because I'm not a native speaker smartass.

 

[Azuremen]

Funny little post you made there, great effort. 👍

Why thank you.

Ok, I'll say it for the last time, ps3 and xbox 360 were never really designed for outputting 1080p, fact, live with it.

Never said they were, but they do have native 1080p titles. Or at least the PS3 does. Fact.

Oh, and if "everything over 480p" is HD for you, I'm fine with that. Doesn't change the fact that most PC games still look MUCH crisper BECAUSE they actually run in 1080p or higher.

Fact - most all displays are 1080p, though you could have an older 1200p height display, so it doesn't matter if they support higher.

I was also just stating what HD is defined as, since it seems you guys are convinced it is just a lie and consoles shouldn't be claiming it.

Oh and me not being able to argue properly is because I'm not a native speaker smartass.

Then don't try to advertise you can?

 

[Bigbazz]

Hey, wait, what is the definition of HD again? Oh yeah, anything over 480p.





You've apparently never read any of my posts. I play almost all my games on the PC. I could care less what you play your games on.



Hey, wait, 1000x800? That isn't even a wide screen resolution. Ironically, 800 > 480 so it is still HD.



I never attempted to say everything runs at 1080p, or even the majority. I said some stuff does. Hey look, Wipeout HD is 1080p and it doesn't look half bad. And the PS3 does support native 1080p, just most games are cross platform developed and thus end up running at what is easiest to code for the XBOX360.



Again, anything over 480p is HD.



Have what, a clear idea of how little you grasp the concept of what HD is? Or how you cannot string a solid argument together?

Basically, this is all you need to know

HD > 480p

Polygon counts, texture resolution, and all that have nothing to do with whether content gets defined as HD. I'm not arguing for or against consoles, I'm just stating how the definitions work.



Oh, no I read what you are saying. With the AA applied to almost everything these days, images are pretty smooth and crisp coming out of a PS3. I have a 42 inch 1920x1080 TV in my living room that I use for my PS3, and I've never had these issues of blurry games that you are talking about unless my output settings are wrong. 1920x1080 is also what I happen to play games on my PC at, it they are generally just as sharp, though maybe a touch sharper because 21.5 inch displays have a much higher pixel density so if I am sitting at the same distance, well yeah.

Like I said, system building for 15 years, PC gaming for over 20, console gaming for just as long, and I do photo editing and all that. I can also spot in a moment if the source for video source is DVD, Blu-ray, and 720p or 1080p.

Also, what are earth PC are you running that you built in 2007 that is playing most new stuff smoothly. Would seem at best a Core 2 Duo and an 8000 series nVidia card, or similar...

Athlon FX60, 2GB OCZ EL DDR PC-3200 Dual Channel Platinum, Radeon HD3870.

The computer at the time was pretty high end, but by todays standards it is not very powerful at all, still powerful enough to run games at a higher quality than my PS3, by quite a margin.

I have also been tinkering with and building my own computers for 15 years, and have been PC gaming for slightly longer than that, though just as much of my gaming has been done on consoles until my late teens. When I was around 16 I was pretty obsessed with benchmarking and overclocking pc's, I had an Athlon Thunderbird 1000, Geforce 2Ti, 512mb SDRAM, and overclocked the **** out of it trying to get higher scores in 3D Mark 2001.

As for the blurryness on the PS3, you can even see it in the PS3 screenshots (or Xbox 360), google a PC/PS3 comparison and it is very easy to notoce, almost like there is a wash over the screen, or even a layer of transparent custard. When you're sitting less than 2ft away from a computer screen then it is extremy noticeable, moreso than in a screenshot. This isn't something that only I have noticed, its well documented around, most of the console games are upscaled images, a result of the consoles working too hard to try to achieve PC level graphics.


You keep talking about what HD means, I know what it means and never argued it, What I am saying is that it is a marketing term with little relation to the literal meaning of the words high definition, also to the fact that before the term HD was used in gaming the technology or resolutions had already been around for years.

In TV HD makes sense, because prior to it we did not have that quality, it was something new, in the gaming world it was putting a new name on something we had already had for years.

 

[Azuremen]

Athlon FX60, 2GB OCZ EL DDR PC-3200 Dual Channel Platinum, Radeon HD3870.

The computer at the time was pretty high end, but by todays standards it is not very powerful at all, still powerful enough to run games at a higher quality than my PS3, by quite a margin.

No.

There isn't any reason to continue this now I've realized.

 

[Bigbazz]

No.

There isn't any reason to continue this now I've realized.

Do make sense?

I think this means I win! But just as an example

Crysis 2, high (default) settings, 1680x1050 resolution (AA is on with default settings 2x I think) = 40-60fps - usually around the 49fps range.
Crysis 1, gamer settings, 1680x1050 resolution, 2x AA, 25-40fps
World of Warcraft Cataclysm - Medium/High settings, 2x AA, 1920x1080 resolution = 25-60 fps depending on how busy it is.
iRacing - Default settings but shadows on low, 1920x1080 resolution, 2x AA = 100-140fps

I would love to see either the PS3 or Xbox 360 run those kind of quality images and genuine native resolutions (stretching images doesn't count) while maintaining FPS, it just doesnt happen. GT5 cannot maintain 60fps and that was proven in a few tests by reviews on release. GT5 being well known as one of the best looking and most well optimised games on the PS3. Black ops on the Xbox 360 (not seen it on the PS3) is no different. Those who believe the consoles genuinely maintain 60fps are hopelessly optimistic, fraps isnt available on consoles!


This Nintendo HD console, you just can't seem to understand and feel the need to argue with my opinion that the whole HD thing is a load of ****e, and the facts behind my reasoning are solid. HD does not mean quality, but it is marketed as a tool to bring buyers who believe it is.


I don't feel the need to argue this any more, your entire arguement seems to be revolved around stating the screen resolutions that count as HD, when the discussion was never about that in the first place.

 

[Alex p.]

Then don't try to advertise you can?

Ballsy much?

 

[Alex p.]

New stuff:

Exclusively for Loading.se, A source close to Nintendo has all the information regarding the company's next home console. June 7th is the date that everyone has been waiting for. Nintendo unveils their next home console at E3 in Los Angeles. But Loading can already now reveal some of the hottest (and most trustworthy) rumors about the machine. This is all we got to know about Nintendo Feel. Our source, who has a close connection to the company, speaks about the console in a conversation with us. We choose to deliver the information unedited and untranslated [from Eng to Swe]: - Nintendo wants to change the way we play - again. The success of Wii was essentially proof that the controller is every bit as important as graphical technology. When Nintendo unveils its next piece of hardware on June 7th, the presentation will be as much about the feel, as the look, of its new games. The revolutionary aspect will once again be found in the controller itself. After Touch comes Feel We already know Nintendo is developing a controller with a built-in screen. Since that info got leaked there have been paralels between Apple's iPad and how Nintendo used the GBA as a controller for a few Gamecube-games. But this new "Screen-controller" brings another dimension - Feel. Our source uses the name "Nintendo Feel" - Haptic technology is a form of tactile feedback used to simulate the experience of touching different objects shown on screen. The player can move their fingertips across a surface and clearly feel the difference between soft, smooth or rugged textures. Electronic companies across the world have been conducting research in this field for years. It's been rumored that Apple is close to patenting a similar technology, and we've seen the Toshiba demonstration of 'New Sensation UI Solution', that applies a thin film over a screen in order to achieve a haptic effect. In Nintendo's case, this is a natural progression of both the Nintendo DS touch screen and the Wii technology. Hardcore meats Casual After having recieved the information on Nintendo Feel from our source we have gotten confirmation that the technology exists. Toshiba seems to have shown it to the public and we have had a Novint Falcon in the office for a long time. Novint was one of the first companies to introduce haptic feedback to the gaming world. According to our source the work for the new console has been going on for a few years, and throughout this whole time the goal has been to create an as direct and easy-to-understand concept as the Wii. - You have to try Nintendo Feel to really understand. But the idea itself is very easy to sell, no matter if you are aiming for hardcore players or the wider audience that was first introduced to games through DS, Wii or Kinect. And sure, anyone can suddenly realize the feeling of fur agains the fingertips would do for Nintendogs. You don't have to be unfamiliar to The Legend of Zelda to understand the epicness in drawing patterns in a desert, feeling the breeze from a lake, the burning sensation from lava or realizing the structure of a very old tree. At the same time, Nintendo Feel is an experience that doesn't want to explain itself in words, but rather tell the player through his hands. Which is probably why Nintendo will bring playable demos to E3, even tho the finished console won't be available until 2012. http://loading.se/news.php?pub_id=15144 We can only wait until E3.

 

[Coxis]

I think this smilie best describes my reaction to the above.



I don't know what concept Nintendo has of "hardcore" gamers, but I don't think a texturized touchscreen on a controller will lure them back.

 

[Moglet]

the whole HD thing is a load of ****e, and the facts behind my reasoning are solid. HD does not mean quality, but it is marketed as a tool to bring buyers who believe it is.

Nobody ever suggested that it means 'quality'. HD is just an easy way of saying that it runs on TVs that support 720 and 1080p/i

What exactly do you have against people using a shortened term to describe a higher than normal resolution? You seem to be using this thread as a way to simply show off about your PC setup. Describing the current HD standard as ****e just because not everyone wants to spend silly money on PC gaming setups is pretty childish!

 

[Azuremen]

Crysis 2, high (default) settings, 1680x1050 resolution (AA is on with default settings 2x I think) = 40-60fps - usually around the 49fps range.
Crysis 1, gamer settings, 1680x1050 resolution, 2x AA, 25-40fps
World of Warcraft Cataclysm - Medium/High settings, 2x AA, 1920x1080 resolution = 25-60 fps depending on how busy it is.
iRacing - Default settings but shadows on low, 1920x1080 resolution, 2x AA = 100-140fps

You win nothing - explain why you have 2 different resolutions given please.

Also, anything under 40 FPS isn't worth comparing to the PS3 in most cases, and I certainly wouldn't settle for playing a game at that speed. I can notice when SC2 drops below 60FPS...

 

[Terronium-12]

To be fair, Moggy...an FX-60 is nothing to be spouting off about, nor is an HD3870.

And I gave up trying to argue with half of these nitwits ages ago. You should do the same.

EDIT: Cody, no! We've talked about this already.

 

[Moglet]

With all these pony avatars floating around it's going to look like we're assaulting people together.... I hope nobody takes it too seriously!

 

[icelt]

🤬 here we go. Maybe.

Rumor: Microsoft Preparing to Announce Xbox 360 Successor at E3 in June

By Mike Sharkey | May 6, 2011
www.gamespy.com

One report says EA already has dev kits for the new console.

Nintendo plans to unveil its Wii successor at E3 in June, and according to one report, it might not be the only console maker revealing next gen hardware on gaming's biggest stage. UK publication Develop is reporting that Microsoft could be preparing to counter Nintendo's Project Cafe with its Xbox 360 successor at E3.

Citing an unnamed "senior, trusted, well-placed" source, Develop writes that an Electronic Arts studio now has development kits for Microsoft's next console on its desks.


"The source believed, but did not have certain information, that the new Xbox would launch by the end of 2012," Develop reports. "The individual expects an announcement will be made, at least in some form, at E3."

No specifics were provided on the hardware and Microsoft and EA have officially declined comment.

Develop's report has sparked a bit of a frenzy, much as the first report of the Wii successor did last month, and one outlet is already pouring cold water on the rumor. Eurogamer, citing its own unnamed "respected source" reports that "an E3 2011 reveal for Microsoft's next Xbox is highly unlikely."

UPDATE: Responding to the rumor, EA's Corporate Communications VP Jeff Brown said, "This story is a total fabrication –- 100 percent not true."

Hopefully both Sony & MS will wait at least one more year before falling in line, but maybe they're too just gun shy at the prospect Ninty getting too big a hold on the "next" next gen market.

 

[Terronium-12]

Insight from bit-tech. A rather interesting article if I say so myself.

Nintendo Project Café Rumours Analysis

Trying to second-guess Nintendo is a bit like trying to work out why people watch Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps; the end result usually defies all logic and reason. Not only is Satoru Iwata's team notoriously tight-lipped about any unannounced products, but it also has a habit of coming up with plenty of surprises. The Wii had a fraction of the power of the Xbox 360, the GameBoy was similarly feeble compared with the Atari Lynx and the original DS looked like a clunky electric abacus next to the PSP, yet they all turned into cash-generating machines.

As such, bear in mind that anything you read about Project Café at the moment is rumour, conjecture, speculation or possibly a bit of all three. That includes this feature. What we do know is that Nintendo definitely has a new console in the works, it's codenamed Project Café and it's scheduled to be unveiled at E3 in June. There have also been plenty of rumours about the new device, which may or may not be true - all we're trying to do is disect the rumours in an informative manner.

These were really popular. Seriously, they were

The CPU

According to IGN's sources, the CPU is going to be a triple-core IBM PowerPC chip that's similar to the Xenon CPU in the Xbox 360. This rumour has surprised some people, as there were previous rumours that the next Nintendo console would be based on an AMD Fusion CPU. However, if the triple-core PowerPC rumour is true, then it would certainly make a lot of sense, given that Nintendo also based the Wii and GameCube on the PowerPC CPU architecture.

Backward-compatibility is going to be important to Nintendo – all its portable consoles have maintained backward compatibility with their predecessors on release, and the Wii could also play GameCube games. Even with a great deal more processing power, it's unlikely that Project Café will have enough horsepower to play Wii games using pure software emulation, and while you can port a single game from PowerPC to x86 simply enough, doing this with the entire Wii back catalogue would result in a lot of complications, as well as a lot of mucking around in machine code to get every single game working properly. This would mean extra costs, delays and potential compatibility problems.

According to IGN, Project Cafe will feature a triple-core PowerPC CPU, much like the Xbox 360's Xenon chip

Even now, not every Xbox game runs on the Xbox 360, following a change in processor architecture from x86 to PowerPC, and Sony had to basically reinstall the Emotion Engine in the PlayStation 3 to get it to run PlayStation 2 games. Sticking with PowerPC makes sense for Nintendo, not only in terms of backward compatibility with old discs, but also in terms of easily making GameCube and Wii games potentially available via the online Virtual Console (or whatever Nintendo calls it this time around). Nintendo's exclusive first-party back catalogue is a major asset for the company, and a PowerPC CPU makes it potentially much easier to offer this up on the new console, as well as the backward-compatible ATI GPU.

IGN also claims that the chip will have a faster clock speed than the Xenon, although we're guessing the clock speed won't be very much faster. The Xenon's three CPU cores (six threads), which are based on the PPE part of the Cell architecture, are already clocked at 3.2GHz. Given that Project Café's main task will be gaming, it's not going to need an awful lot more than this in the way of processing power and significantly higher clock speeds are likely to result in thermal problems. If it is clocked any higher than 3.2GHz, then we'd hazard a guess that it's more likely to be in the 3.6GHz ballpark than the 6.4GHz area.

Project Cafe Analysis

Also, while the rumours say that the CPU isn't going to be based on Fusion, it could share some similarities with AMD's CPU and GPU in one design. After all, the Xbox 360's Xenon chip is currently fabricated at GlobalFoundries; AMD's former fabrication wing. Not only that, but the CPU and GPU in the Xbox 360 S are now combined into a single package (called an XCGPU), combining an AMD GPU and a triple-core IBM PowerPC chip in one unit.

If GlobalFoundries can do this for Microsoft, then we'd imagine it will be able to do it for Nintendo too. Combining the two into one package will not only help Nintendo to keep down costs, but will also enable it to cut down on PCB real estate – both areas that have been key for the company in recent years.

If GlobalFoundries can put a Power PC CPU and ATI GPU into the same package for the Xbox 360-S, then there's no reason it can't do the same for Nintendo (photo courtesy of PC Perspective)

The Graphics Chip

The difference, of course, is that Project Café looks set to have a very different GPU design from the Xbox 360. Back in 2005, 48 unified stream processors (or ALU pipes, as Microsoft called them back then) was revolutionary, but it now looks pretty weedy compared with the 1,536 stream processors found in the Radeon HD 6970 2GB. Of course, the 48 scalar units found in the Xenos GPU are not directly comparable to the stream processors found in AMD's Radeon HD PC chips, but there's still a gulf between them in terms of graphics processing power.

According to IGN, Project Café's GPU will be based on a 'revamped' version of AMD's R700 GPU, which will out-perform the GeForce 7-series GPU in the PlayStation 3. This doesn't give us a lot of information, though, seeing as the R700-series spanned chips with everything from 80 to 800 stream processors.

Given that there seem to be some big claims being made about Project Café's technical superiority to the PS3, it seems a reasonable guess that its GPU isn't going to have 80 stream processors and a crippling 64-bit memory interface - particularly if it is indeed going to output at 1080p (1,920 x 1,080) resolutions. However, the amount of power and cooling needed for 800 stream processors in a cramped space isn't going to make the Radeon HD 4850, 4870 and 4890 GPUs look attractive for use in a console either.

We're not going to completely rule this out, seeing as we're now dealing with 40nm transistors, which are much smaller and power efficient than the 4800-series' original 55nm manufacturing process. The process shrink could - if it's used - also help lower the cost of each GPU. However, if we were to make an educated guess, we'd say that the GPU is likely to be based on something smaller and less complicated than the 800 stream processor GPU.

A 40nm chip based on the Radeon HD 4670 could provide a sensible balance between speed and thermal/power requirements in a cramped space

For example, the Radeon HD 4670 had 320 stream processors (the same as the top-end parts from the Radeon HD 2000 and 3000-series), but only required a small cooler, and didn't require additional power connectors either. Produce a chip such as this on a 40nm process, and you potentially end up with a small, low-power chip with adequate gaming horsepower.

We say 40nm, rather than 28nm, simply because historically Nintendo has usually chosen to use chips produced on a tried and tested manufacturing process, such as the 90nm CPU in the Wii, rather than taking a risk with new processes. Technical prowess and bragging rights have never been as important to Nintendo as reliability and keeping down support costs. The Wii might have been grossly underpowered, but it also never suffered from the Xbox 360's red ring of death, or the PlayStation 3's over-heating problems.

Despite the fact that Project Café looks set to be several times more powerful than the Wii, the rumoured specs have also resulted in a fair bit of mockery online. After all, even 800 stream processors would be pretty weedy compared with a gaming PC, and fewer than this would make it look comparatively anaemic...

Project Cafe Rumours

It's easy to point and laugh at the numbers, but we shouldn't also lose sight of what this potentially means for gaming. Firstly, if Project Café does indeed have an R700 GPU, then DirectX 10.1-level shaders will finally make it outside of the world of PC gaming, potentially resulting in more developers creating games that can take advantage of what was previously PC-exclusive tech, such as the geometry shader. If DirectX 10 shaders become mainstream, then this can only be good for the development of PC games too.

The fact that Nintendo will potentially have a console with such an advanced shader system is a massive deal for Nintendo fans. Of course, we could expect a new Zelda adventure with properly shaded graphics, and Zelda is always a series that benefits from more realistic (or more creative) graphics. It's also likely that the usual Nintendo franchises, such as Mario and Donkey Kong (yawn) will also be given a graphical overhaul.

Will the next Zelda game look better than this? We bloody well hope so

More importantly, though, the introduction of advanced shaders will give Nintendo's in-house creative team a hell of a lot more flexibility, which could result in some exciting new IP. Pikmin was a greatly-received new in-house title on the GameCube, but at the time Miyamoto said he originally came up with the concept in the N64 days. The problem was that Nintendo couldn't make it on the N64 because the console didn't have the processing power to handle so many moving sprites at once at a decent frame rate. It was only the extra processing power that enabled Shigeru Miyamoto to get the final game made; just imagine what Miyamoto and his team could do with hundreds of unified shaders at their disposal.

Okay, so it won't be as powerful as a top-end gaming PC, but it doesn't have to be. Even 320 stream processors would put Project Café in a completely different league from the Wii, hopefully resulting in a whole new era of creativity. Nintendo has always been more about innovative, quality games than cutting-edge graphics. Project Café doesn't need to be more powerful than a top-end PC; it just needs to provide enough flexibility for game developers to free up their creativity.

The Controller

The other major component of Project Café is, of course, the controller. IGN says that the console's controller will feature a comparatively massive 6in touchscreen, which has been rumoured elsewhere to feature an HD resolution. The latter is pretty unlikely, we reckon, simply because it would add so much to the cost without any visible benefit. However, a large touchscreen controller would really fit in with Nintendo's current gaming vision for a number of reasons.

GameCube games such as The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords have already demonstrated the potential for controllers with screens via a GameBoy Advance link-up cable

Not only has Nintendo already been dabbling with dual-screen gaming with the various incarnations of the DS, but it also attempted a similar feat with the GameBoy Advance, which you could hook up as a secondary controller with a screen in GameCube games, such as Zelda: Four Swords. Nintendo has had plenty of practice with dual-screen gaming, moving features such as maps and HUDs to the second screen to reduce clutter on the main screen, while also providing a mouse-like control system.

The latter is going to be the key component here if Nintendo really wants to woo back the core gaming crowd, as well as appealing to the casual gaming market that it targeted with the Wii. The Wii controller works surprisingly well in sports games, and it also enabled some games to innovate with the control system – WarioWare: Smooth Moves, for example, really showed the innovative potential for free-hand motion control.

Project Cafe

However, many other games suffered from developers trying to shoehorn motion control into games that would be better-served by a gamepad. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Super Paper Mario might be good games, but we'd argue that they're good in spite of the controller, rather than because of it. Even with Wii Motion Plus, the Wiimote simply doesn't have the precision needed for some games, and it's also incredibly annoying when you accidentally wave it out of range of the sensors.

A touchscreen removes these problems, providing more precision, while also providing a flexibile mouse-like controller that you simply can't get from a pair of thumbsticks. There's great potential here for console-based first person shooters, particularly when you consider the console's rumoured graphical horsepower – think Metroid Prime: Hunters, but with Call of Duty-quality graphics.

Wii games such as Super Mario were good in spite of the
Wiimote, rather than because of it

However, there's also a great deal of room here for innovation – this is a whole new control system that could result in some exciting new ideas, particularly as the rumours say the console will be able to stream games to the controller. You might not even need a TV – you could potentially just take the controller upstairs and play your games (if they support single-screen gaming) wherever you want in the house, but without the graphical restrictions of a handheld console. With two screens, including a touchscreen, Nintendo will also have the ability to offer DS games on the Virtual Console, freeing up yet more of the company's back catalogue to more gamers.

The main problem presented by a touchscreen controller is the cost of the device. A second controller is likely to cost a fair chunk of cash, and it's also likely to be a while before third-party controller manufacturers manage to get together their own designs, if they even bother.

We also doubt that we've seen the last of the Wiimote – not if Nintendo wants to maintain compatibility with Wii games. In fact, if the touchscreen controller doesn't have motion control built-in, the box may even include a Wiimote-like control, or one be made available as an add-on, much like the Wii's Classic game controller.

Motion control was a major part of the Wii's success, and it's important for Nintendo to keep catering for this market, just as a basic business decision. You could probably think of the rumoured touchscreen controller as just one of the options available to developers, which are also likely to include a motion control device, and probably a standard gamepad too. There's also nothing to stop game developers producing new motion-control games for the console either, and with the benefit of superior graphics.

Don't think you've seen the last of motion control - Project Cafe is
likely to be backwards compatible with the Wii

Conclusion

As with any pre-release speculation, this should all be taken with the appropriate serving of sodium chloride at the moment. Nintendo hasn't confirmed any of the rumoured specifications, and even if it had, our speculation in this article could also prove to be way off the mark. Nintendo has a habit of being unpredictable, but if the rumoured specifications are true, then Project Café is a potentially exciting device.

There's some really good potential for Nintendo to start producing innovative in-house games again, while also providing backward compatibility and hopefully attracting third-party developers such as Crytek with the extra processing horsepower. If Project Café does indeed feature DirectX 10-level shaders, then this is also good news for PC gaming, as well as console gaming. We just need to hope that the console has plenty of decent games, as that's the main problem for the 3DS and the Wii at the moment. That means exciting new in-house titles, rather than just rehashes of old Zelda and Mario games, and it also means decent third-party games that people want to play.

Please don't mess this up, Nintendo.

The article touches some important key points: Nintendo, if most of these rumors prove to be true, are opening the doors to Hell, Heaven, and everything in-between with Cafe; they just need the third-party support and I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't get it this time around. Depending on what the actual GPU is, it has the full capacity to slap both the 360's and PS3's in the face and anywhere else it pleases. The innovation is another key element that can make or break Cafe and considering Nintendo doesn't skimp out on the 'wow' factor I'm not at all worried about that. I'm already picturing how the next LoZ game can look, and more importantly how long it can be...

A tri-core CPU opens up the window for more complex instruction sets, better utilization of power (when needed), and efficiency. What Nintendo or anyone else decides to do with that power is completely up to them, but they're definitely stepping in the right direction. Just as the article concludes" "Please don't mess this up, Nintendo."

 

[Tornado]

they just need the third-party support and I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't get it this time around.

I can think of a few.

Depending on what the actual GPU is, it has the full capacity to slap both the 360's and PS3's in the face and anywhere else it pleases.

That doesn't do them a lot of good if Nintendo is the only one that bothers. Wii had the capacity to destroy the original XBox, but an awful lot of games ended up looking like early PS2 games (even ones that didn't get PS2 ports). The "developers could have access to DirectX 10 shaders!" bit is probably moot for similar reasons.

That article also makes the same mistake of "R700 is more powerful than the RSX, so Cafe must be more powerful than the PS3."

 

[Terronium-12]

I can think of a few.

Such as?

That doesn't do them a lot of good if Nintendo is the only one that bothers.

True enough. Won't find me arguing with that.

The "developers could have access to DirectX 10 shaders!" bit is probably moot for similar reasons.

Especially when you consider the next Xbox is more than likely to use DX11. 10 tanked, thanks in part to whatever Vista was trying to be. The "Cafe uses DX10! OMFG!" Limelight won't last very long to say the least...

That article also makes the same mistake of "R700 is more powerful than the RSX, so Cafe must be more powerful than the PS3."

Didn't even notice that this time. We both know what they mean though.

 

[Tornado]

Didn't even notice that this time. We both know what they mean though.

I know what they think they mean, but I'm not sure that they do.

Such as?

For starters, Nintendo has to basically not be the way Nintendo has been since 1984. Nearly everything that Nintendo does that Nintendo fans love them for are reasons that third party companies hate them.


For example, there wasn't anything at all for third parties to like about the Gamecube, but Nintendo didn't care. Nintendo was making money on it, so it made no difference to them whether publishers/developers hated the thing. And when the Gamecube ended up being a failure because of all of those problems (which in hindsight really shouldn't have surprised anybody), Nintendo blamed everyone but themselves for it. To say nothing of how they have conducted themselves since the Wii became a success.

That attitude... no, that arrogance, has to stop if Nintendo wants to get third parties on board, and actions speak far louder than words in that regard.

 

[Terronium-12]

For starters, Nintendo has to basically not be the way Nintendo has been since 1984. Nearly everything that Nintendo does that Nintendo fans love them for are reasons that third party companies hate them.


For example, there wasn't anything at all for third parties to like about the Gamecube, but Nintendo didn't care. Nintendo was making money on it, so it made no difference to them whether publishers/developers hated the thing. And when the Gamecube ended up being a failure because of all of those problems (which in hindsight really shouldn't have surprised anybody), Nintendo blamed everyone but themselves for it. To say nothing of how they have conducted themselves since the Wii became a success.

That attitude... no, that arrogance, has to stop if Nintendo wants to get third parties on board, and actions speak far louder than words in that regard.

Yeah...can't really argue with this either.

I agree they're arrogant (although at times rightfully so) but still you have a point all-around.

 

[rhys159]

How is a controller with a screen going to be profitable for Nintendo?

 

[Terronium-12]

How is a controller with a screen going to be profitable for Nintendo?

If utilized in such a way that's sensible how could it not be profitable? And they've gotten years of experience with the prospect, the only way it won't make any sense is if Ninty screws it up.

 

[icelt]

If utilized in such a way that's sensible how could it not be profitable? And they've gotten years of experience with the prospect, the only way it won't make any sense is if Ninty screws it up.

Also more simply, it will be profitable if the costs of the peripheral are outweighed by the sales price. As long as this is the case, even if no 3rd party SW company uses it (which is ludicrous of course) it will still be technically "profitable" to Ninty's bottom line.

The only way it won't be is if the whole darn console fails to sell to expectations.