When did Nintendo decide to give up on technology?

[WCP]

Ok, hear me out on this one. Back in the day, Nintendo was very interested in having the most badass gaming systems. The Super Nintendo was a technological powerhouse for it's time, and the Nintendo 64 was also a very high-end, technologically advanced system. Yet it seems that after the N64, Nintendo decided to step away from trying to be so technologically advanced with their hardware. The GameCube, while a relatively decent system overall, was quite a bit underpowered compared to the other system that came out the same month, the original Xbox. It was a year after the arrival of the PS2, so you'd think the GameCube would be considerably more powerful than the PS2, but they were pretty close in terms of graphical fidelity.


Then, obviously with the Wii, an even bigger departure from having a technologically advanced system.

What made Nintendo decide to no longer compete in the raw power category? They definitely were top dogs during the 16-bit and 32-bit era's, cartridge format withstanding... Certainly, the lack of graphical fidelity on the Nintendo Wii hasn't really hurt them in any major way, profits wise, but I just think it would be cool for Nintendo to return to their former technological dominance. I just don't think it's ever going to happen again. I'm guessing this is mostly due to the arrival of Sony into the marketplace. Nintendo probably feels that their engineers can't compete head to head with Sony, so they might as well not try to win a battle that would be impossible for them to win, so instead, they go with a low-tech strategy.

[GarrettCRW]

Two words: Game Boy.

That line (and the DS, as well) have been chronically underpowered from the start.

[ubersaurus]

Nintendo sees value in producing systems that are cheaper to make and cheaper to develop for. Part of the reason the Wii has such massive clumps of shovelware are the comparatively lower development costs.

Cube was definitely superior to the PS2 though, let's not kid ourselves and claim that they're that close. I think it's pretty common knowledge that PS2 had the weakest multiplatform versions. But the NES? It was pretty good by 1983 standards, though as I hear it, still relatively underpowered vs. what they could have done. Nintendo just dragged out the lifespan with all the mappers. I get the impression the SNES was pushed pretty hard similarly.

[j_factor]

Nintendo never really went all out on technology. All of their systems have had drawbacks against the competition. They never made anything like the Xbox which was designed simply for all-around power. Likely because the Xbox was sold at a hefty loss, which was against Nintendo's business plan. Compounding that was Nintendo's insistence on sticking to the $200 price point. Considering the difference in cost, Gamecube was damn good at the time.

I think with the Wii they made the calculation that this time around, they really can't compete on power, so let's not even worry about it and try to stand out in other ways.

[G-Boobie]

Glasses-free 3D screen technology seems pretty out there, technology wise.

It should also be pointed out that Nintendo is pretty much the only company making money off every console sold: Microsoft and Sony take a hit on their consoles for the first few years of the unit's lifecycle and make up the difference in licensing fees. That means that even 'failures' like the N64 and Gamecube were profitable right from the get go.

[Spartacus]

I guess as gamers it's only natural for us to look at games and infer from them that one console was better or worse than another. Some of it comes from our biases based on what we've played and admittedly, some comes actual differences in hardware. But deep down, I think all of us know that it's really up to developer's to get the most out the hardware platform. If a developer is just pushing software out the door because of time or budget restraints, it's going to show. People see it and unfairly assume it's the console’s fault. All the console manufactures ask for developer input while in the design stage. What do they need? What would they like to have? Then they start to compromise with what's economically feasible. I'm sure every one of them felt they were making the most rational compromise decisions.

From Dean Takahashi's book "Opening the Xbox", I learned that Microsoft had tried wooing Factor 5 to jump ship from Nintendo and develop the next Rogue Squadron for the Xbox. Factor 5 had been consulted on the development of the Gamecube's hardware and thought Nintendo's engineer's had come up with a clever well thought out solution for processing 3-D images. They felt Microsoft was simply relying on the brute force of the Nvidia coprocessor without much thought about preventing bottlenecks in data flow. Of course, Microsoft thought that Factor 5 was just being unfairly biased towards Nintendo. I've read about other developer's who'd worked with the Gamecube and praised the care and effort that went into it’s architecture to produce an efficient streamlined flow of data.

The PS2, Gamecube and Xbox all had games that were unflattering to that particular console. But if you look hard enough and try to be totally unbiased, you'll realize that all three also had games that really proved what they were capable of. In my opinion, based on what I've seen, their capabilities were not THAT far apart. I’ve been impressed with games on all three. So I don't think Nintendo jumped off the technology curve with the Gamecube at all.

Undoubtedly, the Wii isn't a PS3 or Xbox 360. It just can't do some of the things they can. But it does everything it was intended to do very well. It was designed to be low cost, profitable, easy to use and appealing to casual gamers. It did all of those things better than anyone could have predicted. Just because it went a different direction, doesn't mean it's technologically inferior. It's technology is perfect for what it was intended to do.

I think Nintendo has the experience and resources to develop whatever type of system it cares to do. As a user of Nintendo products, I've always been able to pick up on the care and attention they put into their products. I may not always like the direction they are going with their product, but I would NEVER say it's poorly designed.

These differences in direction and design benefit us as consumers because we now have more choices than ever before. Something we all want and can appreciate.

By the way, Dean’s book also goes into why Microsoft got into the game console manufacturing business into the first place. You don’t think Microsoft really gives a damn about gamers, do you? No, Microsoft cares deeply about PC’s and more importantly, which operating system they run on. That’s how THEY make billions. When Sony was shooting it mouth off about how powerful it’s processors were and about it’s online capability, Microsoft worried that maybe people would use the PS2 for something other than playing games. What if they used it to surf the net, send email, hell, even do word processing. It seems ridiculous to those of us who have a PS2 and know it’s online capabilities are sort of craptacular, but Microsoft knew that Sony did not use Windows software and had consistently rebuffed all of Microsoft’s attempts to foist Microsoft software on their platforms. So Microsoft felt an imperative to get itself into this market, to prevent Sony domination, and to ensure that it’s software was in the game, so to speak. In short, they were in it to bring down Sony and you have to admit, they’ve done a good job of it.

When Microsoft was negotiating with Nintendo to buy Nintendo, I think Nintendo picked up on Microsoft’s angst about perceived threats to it’s software via online capability. Perhaps that’s why Nintendo has deftly maneuvered itself to stay clearly out of the path of Microsoft’s juggernaut by making its online capability –uhmm gimped?

By the way, Nintendo told Microsoft “Why should we sell? We’re making money!” LOL

[joshnickerson]

By the way, Nintendo told Microsoft “Why should we sell? We’re making money!”

Even when Nintendo was in "last place" in the console wars of the previous generation, they still made money hand over fist.

I'll agree with j_factor that Nintendo has really never played the technology game (the sole exception maybe the Nintendo 64, and we all know the lessons they learned from that), instead relying on what I've heard referred to as "withered technology", or building their systems with older parts that were just good enough, then producing fantastic results from the so called limitations. You can go back as far as the Game & Watch to find examples of that.

[InboRenge]

When? Day one

http://blog.samkahn.net/?p=82

[norkusa]

When? Day one

http://blog.samkahn.net/?p=82

Yeah, low-tech was always Nintendo's strategy. It has been a while since I last read it, but in the Game Over book by David Sheff, he writes about how Nintendo almost made the NES a 16-bit machine. They made the decision to go with 8-bit instead to cut costs and sell more consoles.

[Swamperon]

[QUOTE=InboRenge;1792704]When? Day one

And it certainly has worked very well for them. Despite naysayers declaring their end is nigh for the past 20 years.

And you can bet if they did go belly-up, Sony/Microsoft would shell out megabucks to get their games to be exclusives.

[Peonpiate]

I agree Nintendo has taken a different approach to their system's power since the Gamecube. They are going purely for ease of development and profit now. But even with the SNES and N64 there were obvious drawbacks all in the name of money [but nowhere near as severe that we see in the WII].

The SNES cpu for example was lackluster at best...3.6mhz even at that time was dog slow. There were rumors that Nintendo originally intended to have a 10mhz 68000 cpu in the SNES but scrapped that idea due to the increased cost. If they went with the 10mhz cpu the SNES would have been alot better than it was [which is saying alot since it was/is a awesome console].

N64, this one is obvious. A 2x speed CD drive added on $100 to the cost of a system back then, 4x would be $150'ish. N64 launched at $249 so it would have been $349-$400 with a CD drive or Nintendo would have to eat losses on hardware to keep it at $249.

There is the load time argument about CDs sure, and the piracy angle...But no matter how you look at it CDs would have benefited the system immensely if Nintendo wasnt cheap. Third parties likely would not have abandoned Nintendo if they didnt force them to stick with cartridges purely for Nintendo's bottomline.

Gamecube is the odd man out. That system had virtually no drawbacks imo, it only lacked 3rd party support since Nintendo lost some prestige with the N64. But technology wise it was better than PS2 and competitive to the Xbox. Of course the WII is basically a repackaged Gamecube so its not even worth comparing a Wii to a 360 or PS3...

[Swamperon]

They are going purely for ease of development and profit now.

And that's a bad thing? Compared to the alternative? That's worked out really well for the Playstation 3.

[sheath]

And that's a bad thing? Compared to the alternative? That's worked out really well for the Playstation 3.

Special optimizations cater to the system's core strengths. The systems that are purely low level optimized/focused have tended to fail (32X, Saturn, Jaguar and more) but not always (See Playstation 2 especially).

Positive Brand recognition, Marketing, licensing contracts, and media support seems to be the largest determining factor for the mass market success of a console.

[Peonpiate]

And that's a bad thing? Compared to the alternative? That's worked out really well for the Playstation 3.

Never said it was bad, he asked a question about why the WII is a repackaged Gamecube and thats the answer. Nintendo gambled and won, and that paid off for them in spades. And even if the WII bombed they would not be bleeding money like Sony is with the PS3, the WII is cheap tech. Overall they made a great decision business wise.

[Collector_Gaming]

actually if you haven't noticed Nintendo has been following a strategy they been holding together since day one

They release family fun games for the most part...

we always called them kiddie for doing so but look at this

they may not be the top seller every time but most nintendo games do pretty damn good cause they cater to everyone.
and their systems are fairly cheap to make and sell cheap so people wanting a system but don't have tons of cash will buy this for its afford-ability

This is why Game Boy dominated every time

we look back at the dawn of Game Boy and Game Gear days

We looked at Game Boy who was black and green simple graphics for the most part
Game Gear who was Full color and supporting graphics that almost run up with its Genesis console.

Gameboys were cheaper to make.. there for were cheaper to market then the game gears

game gear games generally were games you had to get fully involved in
while game boy games such as its major hit Tetris was a game you could play for 15 minutes. have fun and turn it off and be done with it. Good stuff to play on long trips in the back seat while your siblings annoy the hell out of you
and its this exact same method that nintendo has followed ever since.

thats not saying the other consoles or their games suck... its just not as broadly beloved as the games nintendo brings to the table.

[WCP]

N64 launched at $249 so it would have been $349-$400 with a CD drive or Nintendo would have to eat losses on hardware to keep it at $249.


I might be mistaken, but I could have sworn that I payed $199.99 for my N64, and I bought it on launch day. Off course, I paid more than $199 that day, because I also bought Mario 64.

[j_factor]

N64 was $199 at launch. It was originally announced as $249, but they changed it to be more competitive with Playstation and Saturn, which were selling for $199 at that time.

[Icarus Moonsight]

When everyone else gave up on innovation.

[duffmanth]

Nintendo has always maintained a pretty affordable price point for their consoles over the years, and they've done that by keeping their systems fairly simple and not on the leading edge of technology. There systems have always been game consoles, nothing more and nothing less. They've never tried to compete with Sony and MS by trying to make their systems these do it all consoles that Sony and MS have released. I guess this strategy has both benefited and hindered Nintendo at the same time. It's helped keep their systems the cheapest on the market, but it's also left them well behind in areas like graphics, online gaming, and HD.

This approach seems to be working for them with the Wii for the time being, but somewhere along the line they're gonna have to step things up and enter into the HD and online world that gaming has become.

[WanganRunner]

This comes down to a simple business criteria of Nintendo's.

They ALWAYS make money on hardware sales. They will not sell hardware at a loss.


Sony and M$ will gladly take losses on hardware, and thus they will always sell more powerful systems, given that the amount of money people will pay is pretty much fixed at any given time.

[WCP]

I know that the SNES cpu was slow, but Nintendo engineers felt that once developers learned to the use the system correctly, the CPU speed wouldn't be an issue. Most of the games with slowdown problems were early games.

Personally, I consider the SNES to be some very advanced technology at the time of it's US release in August 1991. I was lucky enough to play SNES at launch, and F-Zero's mode 7 seemed absolutely Next-Gen at that time. Those that didn't experience it first hand, and only played F-Zero at a much later time, have no idea how Next-Level that game was at that particular time.

The SNES had boatloads of color, and a killer sound chip.


The N64 was even more technologically advanced for it's time. Doesn't everybody remember Project Reality and their partnership with Silicon Graphics? It was the epitome of Next-Generation pie the the sky technology. Sure, the lack of a CD drive limited the effectiveness of the GPU within the N64, but we can't deny how Next-Gen Mario 64 was when it first showed up on the scenes. I was lucky enough to go to the e3 show in 1996, and I was able to play Mario 64 about 5 or 6 months before it was released, and it was about as next-level as a game gets for mid 1996.


Sure, the NES wasn't any kind of technological powerhouse, and Nintendo's handhelds have never been technological powerhouses, but from 1990 to 1996, Nintendo was very interested in having high-end technology in their primary home system. Even beyond 1996, when you consider the expansion pack for the N64. The expansion pack was like a band-aid to try to add more memory for having different textures. Nintendo obviously later changed their tune, and started to back away from being in the technological race, but it wasn't always like that.






They ALWAYS make money on hardware sales. They will not sell hardware at a loss.


I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. There is no way in hell that Nintendo wasn't losing at least a tiny bit of money on every N64 sold at $199.99 that first year. As for the SNES, I'm pretty sure that it was either sold at a very slight loss, or maybe break-even, when it was sold at $199 in August of 1991. I'm sure that Nintendo wasn't losing money on either of those systems for a very long time, and they weren't losing that much on either system when they did, but it's totally inaccurate to say that they have never sold hardware at a loss. Making a profit on their hardware from launch is actually only a more recent phenomenon with their home consoles.

[j_factor]

Actually I think the NES was the closest thing to high technology Nintendo ever came out with, if one considers the 1983 release of the Famicom. Although, I'm not entirely clear on the extent to which the Famicom was originally portrayed as a computer rather than a console. But even then, I think it compares pretty well with any other computer that was available at the time (C64, 800XL, etc.), which is more than I can say for N64.

SNES isn't just the slower CPU. Mode 7 itself is a trade-off, and F-Zero illustrates this -- it does provide a very smooth experience, and the rotating floor is nice, but it sacrifices other things to get that. Compared to other racing games of the time, there are fewers racers on screen, there are no "objects" anywhere, and every track is completely flat. I wouldn't say it has better graphics than Out Run, and I know that's an arcade game but it was also five years old by then.

Also it's not just Genesis; the SNES came out after Turbo CD and Neo Geo and just before CDTV and CDi. In the context of its time it doesn't seem like any kind of powerhouse. I don't mean to bash it, I'm just saying it had its strengths and weaknesses, rather than outperforming on all fronts.

When N64 came out, CD-ROM seemed long standard on PC's and we'd seen at least 10 different CD-ROM based consoles or add-ons. Its use of cartridges felt like a weird throwback. Since the SNES the only new cartridge systems had been Jaguar and 32x. It meant that even some games that were way old by 1996 wouldn't be (or seemingly wouldn't be) possible on the new system. There's no denying that Mario 64 was an advanced game at the time, but it also showed some technical weaknesses, particularly texturing and the environments. I definitely wouldn't say Mario 64's engine was stronger than Quake's, and other games were more advanced in different ways.

[kirbykirb]

nintendo is firstmost a software company.
Hardware was second.

Why should a software company invest heavily in the best hardware; when adequete hardware already exists. Nintendo doesn't profit featuring top of the line graphics; they profit from the gameplay of games and their intelluctual property such as Mario.

Mario can exist on litreally any platform; it is also one reason why Microsoft and Sony were struggling for so long; loosing money on every system sold and selling the console as a loss leader is not what nintendo does. They actually profit off every console sold.

[Chadt74]

I think a lot of people are posting good points, but I think most of you are missing an important side of the argument. When you speak of the consoles you are speaking of the supply side, or the makers, but the demand side, or consumers offers a good answer to the OPs questions.

The 'hardcore' gaming market, those that will shell out 300+ for a console at or near launch (and risk a gun shot in the PS3s case) is a limited market. This market appears to only support a limited number of consoles. Instead of going head-to-head in this fickle market when there was a large amount of risk (such as which HD format to choose) Nintendo has tried to expand the market and focus on the casual gamer. If you are Nintendo and see Sony coming off the PS2 and Microsoft who has enough cash to buy you and shown a commitment to the Xbox why would you try and jump in and fight for a limited market with these two competitors, one of whom has an impressive established on-line network?

In retrospec it makes perfect sense that Nintendo decided to recognize that most of their first party games are not Mature, thus targeted the console as a family gaming unit, or 2nd unit in the house (saw a quote someone about this). Also look at your Xbox360 and PS3 controller, both have something like 15+ buttons on it, this presents a huge learning curve for any person to try and pick up and play almost any game, except the Wii. The results are pretty clear, the Wii sells lost of consoles and fewer games than either of the other two, but as many posters have pointed out, if you are making money on the console this can be a lucrative path, especially when leveraging your 8 and 16 bit library which can run pretty well on this hardware.

Just my thoughts on Nintendo.

[Icarus Moonsight]

It's not the quantity of e-peen tech in the box, it's the application that matters.

Less can be more. Not always, but it's possible.

[The 1 2 P]

Although I don't think that Nintendo is the most innovative company they once were, when they do innovate they do it well. As for the OP's question, they are just focusing on what they do best. They don't need the most powerful hardware or the most robust online network(or even a competent one for that matter) when they are making money on every system sold. And at the end of the day, thats why all three companies are in the gaming business: to make money. They all go about this their seperate ways but what Nintendo does works for them.

Having said that, you will of course get those that complain that the Wii not being on an equal power playing field means that they will miss out on many good games this gen like the GTA's and the Arkham Asylum's but by now I figured that most people don't buy Nintendo systems for their lackluster assortment of third party games, they buy them for their legacy collection of first party games. Does that mean they will miss out on sales because the fps fan or the graphics whore fan doesn't want to buy their system? Of course, but that doesn't matter to them. They are all about making money and if you won't buy their technologically gimped(in a manner of speaking) system then thats ok because their are 50+ million soccer moms and grandparents that will.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Since we're on to slinging feces... Why would they put their hardware design and game-crafting ability into pleasing the core-tarded gamers that already had long abandoned them? In a sense, one could say that they gave up on catering to the tardkoar gaemir and sought greener (ironically, the color of money) pastures. Instead of giving up on tech, they refocused the emphasis.

Motion control, touch screen handhelds, mobile 3D screens... Hardly giving up on tech. Especially since Sony, the graphic whores current mistress, is copying anything successful that Nintendo does. They already botched it up once, when they tried their own thing. Won't make that mistake again! LOL

The tail doesn't wag the dog...

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

Nintendo no longer has to rely on technological advances since they have such a large following of fans who grew up playing a Nintendo-branded system. It's like comfort food. When a person plays a Nintendo game, they get taken back to a happy time in their life.

While there are people who grew up with a PS1 in the house, I don't think the system was too catered to children. Basically, they weren't able to reach the entire demographic like Nintendo has over the years. So I think Sony has to make up for the gap by staying ahead in the technology department.

[Enigmus]

Although I don't think that Nintendo is the most innovative company they once were, when they do innovate they do it well.

Like it's been said, 3D portables (3DS), digital camera incorporation (Game Boy Camera, DSi), motion control (Wii), and portable printing (GB Printer) all prove this to be a moot point. Keep in mind that motion controls, 3D portable(s), and successful camera usage have happened within the past decade.


Having said that, you will of course get those that complain that the Wii not being on an equal power playing field means that they will miss out on many good games this gen like the GTA's and the Arkham Asylum's but by now I figured that most people don't buy Nintendo systems for their lackluster assortment of third party games, they buy them for their legacy collection of first party games. Does that mean they will miss out on sales because the fps fan or the graphics whore fan doesn't want to buy their system? Of course, but that doesn't matter to them. They are all about making money and if you won't buy their technologically gimped(in a manner of speaking) system then thats ok because their are 50+ million soccer moms and grandparents that will.

Urgh, I thought the "Wii is for soccer moms and grandparents" stipulation died in 2009. Personally, I'd rather see gameplay that is solid and not copycat in nature (FPS reeks of this nowadays) than having to hear roomfulls of "OH MY GOD LOOK AT THE TEXTURE BLENDING" out of the mouths of idiots who think that everything before the Xbox appeared around the time the monolith came to Earth. Out of all the people I've seen gush over graphics, 2/3 of them still work at McDonalds under a workers' permit. To me, the gameplay goes first, music second, and then the graphics.

[The 1 2 P]

Urgh, I thought the "Wii is for soccer moms and grandparents" stipulation died in 2009.

You do know that "soccer moms and grandparents" is just an analogy for casual gamers right? To date the Wii has sold 80+ million systems worldwide. I can assure you that the majority of them were not "core" gamers.

As for graphics, I'd also rather have a good story and sub par graphics than have a lackluster story and really good graphics. But my point was that the reason the Wii misses out on alot of third party games(Arkham Asylum, Bioshock, etc) is because the developers can't make those games look nearly as good if they custom fit them to appear on the Wii. So instead of downgrading their graphics engines to fit the Wii they just pass on it all together. It doesn't really matter to me since I have both a Wii and 360 but for those that only have a Wii they tend to miss out on alot of those third party games.

[Leo_A]

I doubt they don't come to the Wii just because 3rd party developers don't wish to downgrade the graphics of their games.

They don't come to the Wii because so many of the buyers aren't interested in mainstream games and the Wii's hardware is underpowered compared to the competition and requires a lot of extra work to downgrade and shoehorn a 360/PS3 game on it.

Because it's extra work compared to porting a PS3 game to the 360 and vice versa and because the market largely isn't interested in them, they're not brought to this platform. But you can bet they'd love to downgrade the graphics and sell them to this segment if Wii owners would actually buy them.

[Hep038]

Since we're on to slinging feces... Why would they put their hardware design and game-crafting ability into pleasing the core-tarded gamers that already had long abandoned them? In a sense, one could say that they gave up on catering to the tardkoar gaemir and sought greener (ironically, the color of money) pastures. Instead of giving up on tech, they refocused the emphasis.

Motion control, touch screen handhelds, mobile 3D screens... Hardly giving up on tech. Especially since Sony, the graphic whores current mistress, is copying anything successful that Nintendo does. They already botched it up once, when they tried their own thing. Won't make that mistake again! LOL

The tail doesn't wag the dog...


Yeah that post is full of shit. :)

[chrisbid]

Ok, hear me out on this one. Back in the day, Nintendo was very interested in having the most badass gaming systems. The Super Nintendo was a technological powerhouse for it's time



i stopped reading right there... the snes had two full years on the genesis, and failed to significantly surpass it.

nintendo has always had the mentality of a toy company, maximize profits by reducing production costs. there is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach, it is how the company turned a profit during the gamecube despite a slim market share.

[kedawa]

The most underpowered part of the Wii is really the included controller.
There are plenty of games that just don't work well without the classic controller or a GC pad, and developers have to assume that only a fraction of Wii owners will have those controllers.

[WCP]

i stopped reading right there... the snes had two full years on the genesis, and failed to significantly surpass it.




Wuh???

I was there in August of 1991. I bought a SNES the day it dropped, along with Pilotwings and F-Zero. That system blew the Genesis out of the water, the day it dropped. Sure, ultimately the Genesis had the better sports games, (they flowed better on Genesis), and some of the multiplatform platformers had tighter controls on the Genesis, but other than that, the SNES was quite a bit superior. Don't get it twisted... I like the Genny as much as the next guy, but the SNES was... and is... pound for pound the best video game system ever released (when considering it's rivals of it's day, and the price it retailed for).

[kupomogli]

The differences between SNES and Genesis back then were very minor. It's not like today where a major graphical update will look about the same. So what chrisbid is saying, is that the SNES shouldn't just be more powerful than the Genesis, it shouldn't even have been as close as it was. Nintendo did nothing more than make the system noticeably better rather than what they could have did.

[j_factor]

Blew the Genesis out of the water? It should have surpassed its older competition in every way (technically speaking). It didn't. The SNES had the same amount of time from the Genesis that Playstation did over the Jaguar. Now that's a system that got blown out of the water.

Hell, in Japan, the length of time between PC Engine and Super Famicom was greater than the length of time between N64 and Dreamcast.

[WCP]

Blew the Genesis out of the water? It should have surpassed its older competition in every way (technically speaking). It didn't. The SNES had the same amount of time from the Genesis that Playstation did over the Jaguar. Now that's a system that got blown out of the water.

Hell, in Japan, the length of time between PC Engine and Super Famicom was greater than the length of time between N64 and Dreamcast.


Remember, the SNES launched with TWO controllers and SUPER MARIO WORLD in the box.... all for $199.99. It was a balancing act for Nintendo. Personally, I think they came out with a tremendously powerful system all things considered. (especially considering that price and everything that was bundled in with the system from day 1)

Games like F-Zero, Pilotwings, Super Mario World, Final Fight, U.N. Squadron, Actraiser, Super Ghouls and Ghosts, Final Fantasy II and Super Castlevania IV were blowing me out of the water in late 1991. Maybe I'm just easily amused or something. At the time, those games were absolutely groundbreaking, and they were lightyears beyond what the Genesis was bringing to the table in late 1991. No disrespect intended to the Genesis, as I have much love for that machine, but I gotta call em like I see em.

[j_factor]

Remember, the SNES launched with TWO controllers and SUPER MARIO WORLD in the box.... all for $199.99. It was a balancing act for Nintendo. Personally, I think they came out with a tremendously powerful system all things considered. (especially considering that price and everything that was bundled in with the system from day 1)

Games like F-Zero, Pilotwings, Super Mario World, Final Fight, U.N. Squadron, Actraiser, Super Ghouls and Ghosts, Final Fantasy II and Super Castlevania IV were blowing me out of the water in late 1991. Maybe I'm just easily amused or something. At the time, those games were absolutely groundbreaking, and they were lightyears beyond what the Genesis was bringing to the table in late 1991. No disrespect intended to the Genesis, as I have much love for that machine, but I gotta call em like I see em.

How does any of that make SNES a "technological powerhouse"? I could care less about debating its library (at the moment anyway :p); I was merely talking about the hardware.

[Gameguy]

Wasn't the SNES processor slower than the Genesis processor even though the SNES came out 2 years later?

[j_factor]

Wasn't the SNES processor slower than the Genesis processor even though the SNES came out 2 years later?

Yes. In fact it's also slower than the Turbografx CPU. Of course, the SNES has other advantages.

[kupomogli]

Who's to say that all the games you mentioned couldn't have been done on the Genesis? The problem with the Genesis was that Sega didn't have the third party support that Nintendo had, kind of like the lack of third party support that Nintendo's had since every non handheld console they've released since(mandatory Nintendo flame.)

You made mention of F Zero. Space Harrier 2 came out two years earlier. The amount of objects on screen at the same time,while moving and getting bigger based on their location to the screen to give a 3d effect(super scalar,) and still keeping their graphical detail. Super Thunderblade has even more stuff on screen at the same time.

With games like Space Harrier 2, Super Thunderblade, Ristar, Landstalker, Sonic 3d Blast, and all multiplatform games looking almost as good as the SNES version, you can't say the Genesis was blown out of the water.

Now not having as many great games as the SNES is another story. The SNES was my favorite system that gen, but for coming out two years later it wasn't much more powerful and that's really what the discussion is about.

[Enigmus]

Space Harrier II uses prescaled sprites. F-Zero did it in real time. Same goes for Super Thunder Blade.

[Icarus Moonsight]

This thread belongs in a parallel dimension...

One can overclock an M68k. The CPU is a legendary beast.

[j_factor]

Space Harrier II uses prescaled sprites. F-Zero did it in real time.

No it did not. Play F-Zero sometime and look at the sprites. You can see them redraw. Although it certainly looks a lot better than Space Harrier II, which is pretty hideous IMO. The only thing F-Zero "scales in real time" is a background layer. That's all that Mode 7 actually does -- scale* and rotate a background.

A good comparison on Genesis is Bimini Run. The sprites scale just as well as, if not slightly better than F-Zero. But F-Zero "feels" a lot smoother because of that floor.

* My understanding is that technically, it's not even scaling, but zooming. The difference being that it can only make it larger, it can't add detail as you zoom in. Which is why Mode 7 stuff tends to look blocky.

[Greg2600]

Nintendo has NEVER been overly concerned about technology. They are foremost concerned about profit, which is probably why they're still in business. They are also concerned about usability and reliability, and their stuff usually is. Game Gear, Lynx, TG Express, failed due to battery life. Gameboy, bad graphics and all, kept going. Wii is not even in HD, they don't care, keeps rolling in the bucks. Anyone checked the kinds of losses Sony has incurred on the massively overbuilt PS3? Didn't they almost fire the CEO over that? And then there's Microsoft, who lose money on every console, not to mention the mountain of repairs they continue to have to do. When you look at the success of games sold on mobile devices and facebook, you can make plenty without high technology, costly games. I don't like that, but it's business, and that's all Nintendo cares about.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Technology and profit go hand in hand.

You guys realize that a wheel or controlled fires are also technology right?

Technology provides a surplus value, and a surplus value is taken by profit. Selling at a loss is outright admitting that you fucked up. The market not buying your product until you take a loss is the market telling you you've fucked up. Any enterprise not chiefly interested in profit is doomed at the start. Profit seeking is not a guarantee of success, you still have to earn it by providing a surplus value in your products. That requires an application of technology and some good heads to do it.

[Peonpiate]

Who's to say that all the games you mentioned couldn't have been done on the Genesis? The problem with the Genesis was that Sega didn't have the third party support that Nintendo had, kind of like the lack of third party support that Nintendo's had since every non handheld console they've released since(mandatory Nintendo flame.)

You made mention of F Zero. Space Harrier 2 came out two years earlier. The amount of objects on screen at the same time,while moving and getting bigger based on their location to the screen to give a 3d effect(super scalar,) and still keeping their graphical detail. Super Thunderblade has even more stuff on screen at the same time.

With games like Space Harrier 2, Super Thunderblade, Ristar, Landstalker, Sonic 3d Blast, and all multiplatform games looking almost as good as the SNES version, you can't say the Genesis was blown out of the water.

Now not having as many great games as the SNES is another story. The SNES was my favorite system that gen, but for coming out two years later it wasn't much more powerful and that's really what the discussion is about.


Yea the SNES wasnt as strong as it could have been, the CPU is really the weak spot for the system and Nintendo knew it. Just look at how many of the games needed a faster cpu to run correctly. Games like Mario Kart would not have been possible on the stock 3.6 mhz snes cpu [they used a 10mhz cpu for that game].

[Leo_A]

Yea the SNES wasnt as strong as it could have been, the CPU is really the weak spot for the system and Nintendo knew it. Just look at how many of the games needed a faster cpu to run correctly. Games like Mario Kart would not have been possible on the stock 3.6 mhz snes cpu [they used a 10mhz cpu for that game].

10mhz sounds way too much for the DSP-1, but I can't seem to find much in the way of technical specifications on the chip to know for certain.

[Swamperon]

Wasn't the SNES processor slower than the Genesis processor even though the SNES came out 2 years later?

The Genesis had 'blast processing' ;) But yes I think that is the case. Or if not, the Snes is slower than the Gen in some aspect.

[Gameguy]

The Genesis had 'blast processing' ;) But yes I think that is the case. Or if not, the Snes is slower than the Gen in some aspect.
Oh yeah, the Blast Processing too. :)

Blast Processing = DMA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_memory_access


So what did DMA do for the Genesis? Actually, not as much as you would think, but it did help out. As confirmed by Bruce Tomlin, Genesis had a DMA unit which could be programmed to do copies and fills both to and from main memory, as well as VRAM-to-VRAM copies, with an arbitrary increment so that you could do column fills as well as row and block fills. During display time, it was about the same speed as doing CPU writes, but — here’s the part that could arguably be called “blast processing” — during vertical blanking it was much faster than the CPU. You may not think that the CPU in a console could get everything ready fast enough to take advantage of VRAM copies during the vertical blanking interval, but you have to remember that the Genesis sported a 7.6MHz 68000 — a 32-bit CPU with no less than 8 32-bit general-purpose registers as well as 8 address registers. That is huge, and Genesis could easily give the DMA controller enough to do.

http://trixter.oldskool.org/2008/12/05/blast-processing-101/

[otaku]

why go all high tech when you can make money (and great games regardless without all the fancy tech? Apple does this with computers they tend to be underpowered and overpriced but the company makes money and sells well. Also not being real high tech allows nintendo to sell more machines at a lower price undercutting the competition and to make money more quickly to