How will Nintendo keep up in the portable market?

pr0pensity said:
I stopped reading there.

I'm honestly trying to have an intelligent discussion about this, but you're making it difficult. The graphical ability of the ds is comparable to the n64, is it not? It has the same space requirements as an n64. Its not an opinion, its a clear fact.
 
I bet most people think that cartridges are cheap and low-tech compared to DVD's which they believe are the future or more advanced. What those uninformed people fail to realize is that the SRAM chips used in cartridges are thousands of times faster to read data from than DVD's and can be made in densities that equal or even best DVD's (density meaning storage capacity). Not only that, since there are no moving parts battery life is DRAMATICALLY increased using cartridges. Add all that to the increased durability and there is no reason for any handheld to ever use optical media.
 
Namork said:
ORLY?

Most DS games are about $30, AAA titles might go for $35, and I've never seen one for $40. PSP games tend to start at $40 and get as high as $50 easily.

The medium for the DS might be more expensive, but you'd never know it from the game prices.

For some insane reason FF3 is $39.99 for DS. :(

Other than that DS prices rock.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
I'm honestly trying to have an intelligent discussion about this, but you're making it difficult. The graphical ability of the ds is comparable to the n64, is it not? It has the same space requirements as an n64. Its not an opinion, its a clear fact.
Aside from the fact that this isn't 1996 and devolopers have different requirements, the N64 was also space limited. And I'd say it's closer to the playstation in power.
 
Nintendo doesn't have to "keep up" with anyone when they're leading the handheld market by leaps and bounds.

Their hardware and software sales are pummeling the "competition". Microsoft would encounter a similar fate if they went in the way Sony did.
 
CodeX said:
I bet most people think that cartridges are cheap and low-tech compared to DVD's which they believe are the future or more advanced. What those uninformed people fail to realize is that the SRAM chips used in cartridges are thousands of times faster to read data from than DVD's and can be made in densities that equal or even best DVD's (density meaning storage capacity). Not only that, since there are no moving parts battery life is DRAMATICALLY increased using cartridges. Add all that to the increased durability and there is no reason for any handheld to ever use optical media.
No one's saying optical is any more or less futuristic than solid state memory. Thanks for the strawman argument, though.

Anyways, SRAM is irrelevant: there's the tiny little fact that your DS games aren't stored in SRAM - just save games. If they stored the entire game in SRAM, DS games would probably cost as much as Neo Geo carts. :)

Or, as the old saying goes: fast, high-capacity, cheap - pick 2. The PSP is high-capacity and cheap. The DS is fast and cheap.
 
pr0pensity said:
Aside from the fact that this isn't 1996 and devolopers have different requirements, the N64 was also space limited. And I'd say it's closer to the playstation in power.

Well, the playstation and the n64 weren't all that far off, but the n64 was definitely more powerful (and the ds a bit more than either). The playstation used most of its storage space (in particular, the games that spanned multiple discs) on fmvs, which led to a plethora of jrpgs. The n64 had space constraints, definintely, and just couldn't do fmv, so it developed different types of games and these are the kinds that are coming to the ds.

Nowadays its textures and audio comprising a lot of storage space, but its still the same idea. Its not bad one way or another, its just a better fit for the requirements of the system and the types of games each company wants the system to support.
 
Probably something similar to SD will stick around at 1GB-2GB until we have holigraphic memory cards(mmmm 1TB in my pocket)
 
greenhorn1 said:
For some insane reason FF3 is $39.99 for DS.
FF 3 is the largest title to date, weighing in at 1 gigabit (128MB), IIRC. Coincidence?
 
erwos said:
FF 3 is the largest title to date, weighing in at 1 gigabit (128MB), IIRC. Coincidence?
Probably has a lot more to do with the cost of porting and developing such a large amount of data and such a large game than it does with the cost of the media itself.
 
but still, you can't tell me it costs more to port an existing game than to create a new game from scratch specifically for the DS. I honestly think they're just charging what they believe the market will bear in this case.
 
erwos said:
FF 3 is the largest title to date, weighing in at 1 gigabit (128MB), IIRC. Coincidence?

Oh i'm sure it's not, but you also have to wonder about how much of that price is related to the memory costs, and how much rests on the fact that it's a new (for American gamers) Final Fantasy game. I wouldn't be surprised if the game cost that much even if it took up the same space as smaller games.

I guess what I'm saying is that production costs aren't always directly correlated to retail prices. Just like how UMD games are sold for more than DS games, in spite of how much they cost to manufacture.

Something to think about...
 
greenhorn1 said:
but still, you can't tell me it costs more to port an existing game than to create a new game from scratch specifically for the DS. I honestly think they're just charging what they believe the market will bear in this case.
It's a remake, not just a port. The code was completely rewritten and entirely new graphics made. Only the story is the same, and even that's speculative.
 
greenhorn1 said:
but still, you can't tell me it costs more to port an existing game than to create a new game from scratch specifically for the DS. I honestly think they're just charging what they believe the market will bear in this case.
Why not?

Let's ignore the fact that this is a Final Fantasy title and they can charge $5 more that alone. Do you think that it costs less to code, say, Kirby Squeak Squad, than it does to completely rewrite, re-imagine, redraw, and remake FF III?
 
FoolOnTheHill said:
Oh i'm sure it's not, but you also have to wonder about how much of that price is related to the memory costs, and how much rests on the fact that it's a new (for American gamers) Final Fantasy game. I wouldn't be surprised if the game cost that much even if it took up the same space as smaller games.

I guess what I'm saying is that production costs aren't always directly correlated to retail prices. Just like how UMD games are sold for more than DS games, in spite of how much they cost to manufacture.
Oh, don't get me wrong: I think it's two-fold. First, the cost of manufacturing the physical media, and, second, the cost to develop the game. The cost was probably relatively high on both, and to maintain their profit margins (which need to be proportional to cost), they raised the price on the game. There's nothing particularly sinister about it - FF5A retails for $35, so it's not purely a Final Fantasy tax.

But, back to the original argument: if, instead of using carts, they used UMDs, the cost of the unit wouldn't have gone up, and the game would have been cheaper - in theory.
 
erwos said:
Oh, don't get me wrong: I think it's two-fold. First, the cost of manufacturing the physical media, and, second, the cost to develop the game. The cost was probably relatively high on both, and to maintain their profit margins (which need to be proportional to cost), they raised the price on the game. There's nothing particularly sinister about it - FF5A retails for $35, so it's not purely a Final Fantasy tax.

But, back to the original argument: if, instead of using carts, they used UMDs, the cost of the unit wouldn't have gone up, and the game would have been cheaper - in theory.

Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to refute you, just giving a little food for thought. In the end, we can't know for sure how much of the cost is from development, manufacture, or the "Final Fantasy Tax." And, yes, more expensive memory still is more expensive memory.
 
FoolOnTheHill said:
Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to refute you, just giving a little food for thought. In the end, we can't know for sure how much of the cost is from development, manufacture, or the "Final Fantasy Tax." And, yes, more expensive memory still is more expensive memory.

Just a little food for thought- pricing structures are in fact much more fluid in Japan than they are here. FF3 cost ~$53 USD over there... linky

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "ff tax" but square has certainly been known to be a little full of itself from time to time.
 
erwos said:
No one's saying optical is any more or less futuristic than solid state memory. Thanks for the strawman argument, though.

Anyways, SRAM is irrelevant: there's the tiny little fact that your DS games aren't stored in SRAM - just save games. If they stored the entire game in SRAM, DS games would probably cost as much as Neo Geo carts. :)

Or, as the old saying goes: fast, high-capacity, cheap - pick 2. The PSP is high-capacity and cheap. The DS is fast and cheap.

SRAM is volitile.. a DS cart has exactly ZERO SRAM in it.. people get your technology straight.. jesus...

the only SRAM is in the DS handheld itself.. not in the game carts...
 
CodeX said:
I bet most people think that cartridges are cheap and low-tech compared to DVD's which they believe are the future or more advanced. What those uninformed people fail to realize is that the SRAM chips used in cartridges are thousands of times faster to read data from than DVD's and can be made in densities that equal or even best DVD's (density meaning storage capacity). Not only that, since there are no moving parts battery life is DRAMATICALLY increased using cartridges. Add all that to the increased durability and there is no reason for any handheld to ever use optical media.


sorry but you obviously don't know what you're talking about..

SRAM is volatile.. you cannot store a game in SRAM LOL.. i cannot believe you just typed that...

a DS cart has NO SRAM....

it is literally impossible to store a game in SRAM unless you have a battery connected to the cart lol 24/7 and make sure the battery never dies.. otherwise the game would get erased lol.. using volatile memory like SRAM to store agame is retarded lol...

like i said before.. they use solid state ROM like Psedu NMOS ROM... with a dash of Flash to hold saved game data

however you are correct in that solid state memory is WAY faster than optical memory like DVD or UMD... but a DS cart has no SRAM in it...
 
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
SRAM is volitile.. a DS cart has exactly ZERO SRAM in it.. people get your technology straight.. jesus...

the only SRAM is in the DS handheld itself.. not in the game carts...
Bzzt, wrong. Another genius who's never heard of non-volatile SRAM. Did you even bother to do a Google search before you "corrected" everyone?
 
erwos said:
Bzzt, wrong. Another genius who's never heard of non-volatile SRAM. Did you even bother to do a Google search before you "corrected" everyone?


How much do you want to bet that a Ds cart has no SRAM.. even non volatile??

non volitale SRAM has a built in battery.. they usually will last about 10 years only..

what game company in their right mind would make a cart that only lasts 10 years???

maybe for save data.. but the entire game itself will not be loaded in SRAM...

by nature SRAM is volatile.. "non volatile SRAM" only has a battery on chip.. that's all..

and the battery will run out.. then you lose you game information.. it's rediculous to have an entire game saved into SRAM with a battery.. it's just stupid.. they don't do that...

like i said.. maybe only game saves and stuff like that.. but not the whole game..
 
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
How much do you want to bet that a Ds cart has no SRAM.. even non volatile??

non volitale SRAM has a built in battery.. they usually will last about 10 years only..

what game company in their right mind would make a cart that only lasts 10 years???

maybe for save data.. but the entire game itself will not be loaded in SRAM...

by nature SRAM is volatile.. "non volatile SRAM" only has a battery on chip.. that's all..

and the battery will run out.. then you lose you game information.. it's rediculous to have game data depending on a battery.. perhaps saved game data.. but not that entire game itself..
Who says it cant charge off of the system...
 
MrBojangels said:
Who says it cant charge off of the system...

sure that's possible.. but i bet you no game company would do that.. that's fucking retarded..

so you're saying that periodically you will have to plug your game into the DS in order to let the game charge?? lol...

that is the dumbest thing any company could ever due.. again.. this is not the case with DS carts
 
also.. pseudo NMOS rom can be just as fast as SRAM.. and is far cheaper than SRAM.. there's no point to using SRAM to store a game... just get off the SRAM stuff already..

it's not USED.. period
 
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
sure that's possible.. but i bet you no game company would do that.. that's fucking retarded..

so you're saying that periodically you will have to plug your game into the DS in order to let the game charge?? lol...

that is the dumbest thing any company could ever due.. again.. this is not the case with DS carts
Oh lord, god forbid you keep a game for 10 years and never plug it in to play.
 
MrBojangels said:
Oh lord, god forbid you keep a game for 10 years and never plug it in to play.

people forget

as a company you don't want to put that burden on the customer.. you simply don't...

it would suck ballz to put the game in storage.. come back 11 years later just wanting to relive an old experience.. and blam.. the game doesn't work..

it's just plain stupid.. sorry if that's a lame reason for you.. but it would be a DUMB move on part of nintendo to do something like that... that's just dumb

it's just lame to have to plug you game back in every couple of years so that it won't erase on you... it's just straight up lame...

as i've said.. aside from all that.. NMOS ROM can be just as fast as SRAM and is WAY cheaper..

look

let's just get off the SRAM... it's just not a good solution PERIOD...

if it were a good solution companies would have been doing this a long time ago... but they're not... and for a good reason too..
 
MrBojangels said:
Oh lord, god forbid you keep a game for 10 years and never plug it in to play.
I pulled out my 2600 a few months ago and had a blast playing Megamania, Combat, and Warlords.

I would have been pissed if the games all didn't work because I hadn't used them in 10 years.
 
dear god... you are all fighting over why a ff game, a premium title sells at a premium...

Let's face it, while there may be a price difference in the memory, it's by no means the major contributing factor in pricing a game. They will charge simply what they think the market is willing to pay for a product. One only needs to look at certain games that are released worldwide to see this concept in action.

Nintendo wouldn't use those ROM catridges if they weren't getting them cheap, it's just suicide for it to take up even 10-20% of the cost of the game on the shelf.
 
Slade said:
dear god... you are all fighting over why a ff game, a premium title sells at a premium...

Let's face it, while there may be a price difference in the memory, it's by no means the major contributing factor in pricing a game. They will charge simply what they think the market is willing to pay for a product. One only needs to look at certain games that are released worldwide to see this concept in action.

Nintendo wouldn't use those ROM catridges if they weren't getting them cheap, it's just suicide for it to take up even 10-20% of the cost of the game on the shelf.


indeed
 
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
also.. pseudo NMOS rom can be just as fast as SRAM.. and is far cheaper than SRAM.. there's no point to using SRAM to store a game... just get off the SRAM stuff already..
You're right - they don't use SRAM. But, in my defense, the area that gets saved to _is_ called SRAM in the homebrew community. You were indeed wrong that SRAM is always volatile, though.
 
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
people forget

as a company you don't want to put that burden on the customer.. you simply don't...

it would suck ballz to put the game in storage.. come back 11 years later just wanting to relive an old experience.. and blam.. the game doesn't work..

it's just plain stupid.. sorry if that's a lame reason for you.. but it would be a DUMB move on part of nintendo to do something like that... that's just dumb

it's just lame to have to plug you game back in every couple of years so that it won't erase on you... it's just straight up lame...

as i've said.. aside from all that.. NMOS ROM can be just as fast as SRAM and is WAY cheaper..

look

let's just get off the SRAM... it's just not a good solution PERIOD...

if it were a good solution companies would have been doing this a long time ago... but they're not... and for a good reason too..
This isn't every couple of years, this is once a decade.....if you aren't going to play a game atleast once per decade something wants me to ask why keep it.
 
MrBojangels said:
This isn't every couple of years, this is once a decade.....if you aren't going to play a game atleast once per decade something wants me to ask why keep it.
Why have a limit at all? I understand that 10 years is quite a time but if there is a cheaper route that works just as well then it would simply be stupid to chose the more expensive route that has a time limit. That is if I am reading this thread right :p
 
erwos said:
You're right - they don't use SRAM. But, in my defense, the area that gets saved to _is_ called SRAM in the homebrew community. You were indeed wrong that SRAM is always volatile, though.


that's just a technicallity though.. SRAM is volatile.. "non volatile" is when they add a battery to it.. but the SRAM cell itself is still volatile.. because without that battery it will lose it's info... i'm not sure if you follow what i'm saying here... but i guess it doesn't matter

so in my book SRAM is still volatile no matter how you put it... the only way to make it "non volatile" is to use a battery.. but again.. the SRAM itself is still volatile..
 
Darakian said:
Why have a limit at all? I understand that 10 years is quite a time but if there is a cheaper route that works just as well then it would simply be stupid to chose the more expensive route that has a time limit. That is if I am reading this thread right :p


you're correct..

battery + SRAM = time limit.. and is more expensive that just ROM
 
erwos said:
No one's saying optical is any more or less futuristic than solid state memory. Thanks for the strawman argument, though.

Anyways, SRAM is irrelevant: there's the tiny little fact that your DS games aren't stored in SRAM - just save games. If they stored the entire game in SRAM, DS games would probably cost as much as Neo Geo carts. :)

Or, as the old saying goes: fast, high-capacity, cheap - pick 2. The PSP is high-capacity and cheap. The DS is fast and cheap.

If they're both "cheap", though, why is it that PSP games cost $10-20 more than DS games on average? :)
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
If they're both "cheap", though, why is it that PSP games cost $10-20 more than DS games on average? :)
Higher production costs and perceived value. The PSP costs more, and the market perception is that the games are higher quality.. hence, they should cost more.
 
kumquat said:
Higher production costs and perceived value. The PSP costs more, and the market perception is that the games are higher quality.. hence, they should cost more.

If the market perception were that the games are higher quality, they'd also be likely to sell more. I really don't think you can make an argument that people think PSP is a higher quality value than DS is, LOL.
 
MrBojangels said:
This isn't every couple of years, this is once a decade.....if you aren't going to play a game atleast once per decade something wants me to ask why keep it.


some people like to keep their games... and play them way on down the road.. some people on these forums still have an NES and play the games they have..

it would be a shitty business move.. and on top of that.. like i said.. it would be more expesive to use "non volatile" SRAM as oppose to just regular solid state ROM..

that's not even a question.. you use solid state ROM not "non volatile"
SRAM in this kind of situation... it's just as fast, and cheaper...
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
If the market perception were that the games are higher quality, they'd also be likely to sell more. I really don't think you can make an argument that people think PSP is a higher quality value than DS is, LOL.
The marketing is what it is. The games may not be more fun, but the PSP is marketed as a more capable machine with better graphics and more horsepower. It's a mobile multimedia powerhouse, or so the ads would lead you to believe. The hardware and software cannot be priced at the same point as the DS.
 
Back
Top