No More 3DS Models in the Near Future

[heartgold]

Nope, the Slim has a stronger CPU/GPU. Just google for "360 slim faster" and you'll find evidence for that Too bad no one actually went on and proved it with hard proof. It's mainly people's experience, so nothing trustworthy, but if so many people say it, I don't see why it shouldn't be a believable change.

Sure, no Slim-only software coming, but that was just MS's call. Still, I'm sure pretty much nobody in the world calls the DSi the successor to the DS

You have to entertain the fact that as time passes, new revisions of the same hardware are released and they have increased stability, simply due to the fact that the manufacturing process has been perfected or because one part has been replaced with a newer generation one, or because the manufacturer thought that this slight tweak will increase the overall experience. As long as the end hardware runs the same software under the same firmware and there is no exclusive content for the new edition, we can't speak of a successor but of a revision. The DSi had exclusive content, the Gameboy Colour had exclusive content - those are not revisions, they're successors of their previous consoles.

The GBA SP saw several revisions (4 if I'm not mistaken), all of which had small hardware differences. Did either receive any special content? Nope. I'll look into the whole "Slim is Faster" issue, but I don't expect the differences to be substantial - the general setup remains the same, what changes are minor components, their layout or the technological process behind making them, not the core design.

When the company who actually manufactured those products says they are not, then sorry your opinion isn't going to stand.

It's futile trying to argue this case. Otherwise DSi sales wouldn't be counted towards total sales of the DS series, Nintendo created DSi as a revision with slightly more capability.

 

[Foxi4]

When the company who actually manufactured those products says they are not, then sorry your opinion isn't going to stand.

It's futile trying to argue this case. Otherwise DSi sales wouldn't be counted towards total sales of the DS series, Nintendo created DSi as a revision with slightly more capability.

When marketing meets physical evidence, physical evidence wins. Get used to the fact that companies lie or bend the truth. The GBC and the DSi are not revisions of the GB or the DS line, they run on new hardware and firmware, they use compatibility layers for backwards compatibility. If you're going to base your argument on "I was told so" then you may just as well not speak up at all. The DS and the DSi don't even share a devkit - the DSi received a new one entirely.

@[member='raulpica']

As for the "faster operation of the Slim", you are *partially right*, in the sense that there is a new CPU involved. Unfortunately, it's the same architecture and specs. Let me explain.

These are the subsequent revisions of the 360 CPU-GPU. As you can see, the latest revision combines the CPU and the GPU on one piece of silicone. Moreover, they're made in a new technological process, allowing for smaller size and lower energy consumption. All in all, they're *the same architecture* but made on a smaller and more efficient scale. Other changes include a faster hard drive, enabling for faster HDD operations... but all in all, it's still the same machine. I hope that brings some light to the issue.

 

[heartgold]

When the company who actually manufactured those products says they are not, then sorry your opinion isn't going to stand.

It's futile trying to argue this case. Otherwise DSi sales wouldn't be counted towards total sales of the DS series, Nintendo created DSi as a revision with slightly more capability.

When marketing meets physical evidence, physical evidence wins. Get used to the fact that companies lie or bend the truth. The GBC and the DSi are not revisions of the GB or the DS line, they run on new hardware and firmware, they use compatibility layers for backwards compatibility. If you're going to base your argument on "I was told so" then you may just as well not speak up at all. The DS and the DSi don't even share a devkit - the DSi received a new one entirely.

Listen to this guy, we should now start considering GBC and DSi as successors to their counterparts. My point was it's futile trying to argue, not that you are incorrect or Nintendo is lying. It's Nintendo's business to what and how their products are seen as. No one is going to look at your post and will start considering GBC and DSi as true successors. we just treat them as minor upgrades of a revision.

 

[Foxi4]

Listen to this guy, we should now start considering GBC and DSi as successors to their counterparts. My point was it's futile trying to argue, not that you are incorrect or Nintendo is lying. It's Nintendo's business to what and how their products are seen as. No one is going to look at your post and will start considering GBC and DSi as true successors. we just treat them as minor upgrades of a revision.

The DSi was no minor update - it has twice the processing power, four times the RAM, cameras and improved WiFi. The fact that it was never fully utilized doesn't mean that it's not a fact. By your logic, we should threat the Wii as a revision of the Gamecube because the hardware is relatively similar. The GBC was also quite different than the Gameboy Pocket and it was a hardware revolution in its time.

It doesn't really matter how the community "treats" those machines - I'm laying down simple, easily understandable evidence to back up my point. What you're doing is saying that we should accept what we are told, and what we're told doesn't always reflect the reality. So yeah, "look at this guy" all you want as long as all the evidence you have to back up your point is "what some PR guy said".

 

[heartgold]

Listen to this guy, we should now start considering GBC and DSi as successors to their counterparts. My point was it's futile trying to argue, not that you are incorrect or Nintendo is lying. It's Nintendo's business to what and how their products are seen as. No one is going to look at your post and will start considering GBC and DSi as true successors. we just treat them as minor upgrades of a revision.

The DSi was no minor update - it has twice the processing power, four times the RAM, cameras and improved WiFi. The fact that it was never fully utilized doesn't mean that it's a fact. By your logic, we should threat the Wii as a revision of the Gamecube because the hardware is relatively similar. The GBC was also quite different than the Gameboy Pocket and it was a hardware revolution in its time.

It doesn't really matter how the community "treats" those machines - I'm laying down simple, easily understandable evidence to back up my point. What you're doing is that we should accept what we are told, and what we're told doesn't always reflect the reality. So yeah, "look at this guy" all you want as long as all the evidence you have to back up your point is "what some PR guy said".

Geez yes you aren't going to persuade a lot of people when the official company says another thing. It was a minor update, nothing ground breaking like extra 50MB RAM or 1Ghz processor in todays standards. Ok what you are trying to say another meh 12MB RAM and 66mhz horsepower says alot. Sure it does!

DSi had the same CPU as the DS, just that the ARM 9 was overclocked and you would need more RAM for DSiware. One would say this was an experiment for Nintendo in the handheld digital world. A taster product to see how things turn out and improve upon for the upcoming 3DS. It's basically a DS with some digital element, that's how it's regarded as but not a true successor. Obviously Nintendo created this as a new product to get some insight for handheld online gaming distribution.

However it is a successor in terms of specs one could say but not in anyone's eyes when they look at it. I know what you are trying to say, I just think your efforts will go to waste. save some energy and give it a rest. Unless you really think you can change everyone's opinion then keep fighting your point.

By the way I do agree with your statement. I see it as a successor too. Only ever slightly.

 

[Foxi4]

Geez yes you aren't going to persuade a lot of people when the official company says another thing. It was a minor update, nothing ground breaking like extra 50MB RAM or 1Ghz processor in todays standards. Ok what you are trying to say another meh 12MB RAM and 66mhz horsepower says alot. Sure it does!

DSi had the same CPU as the DS, just that the ARM 9 was overclocked and you would need more RAM for DSiware. One would say this was an experiment for Nintendo in the handheld digital world. A taster product to see how things turn out and improve upon for the upcoming 3DS. It's basically a DS with some digital element, that's how it's regarded as but not a true successor. Obviously Nintendo created this as a new product to get some insight for handheld online gaming distribution.

However it is a successor in terms of specs one could say but not in anyone's eyes when they look at it. I know what you are trying to say, I just think your efforts will go to waste. save some energy and give it a rest. Unless you really think you can change everyone's opinion then keep fighting your point.

By the way I do agree with your statement. I see it as a successor too. Only ever slightly.

But it was not the exact same processor - it had a different clock, it just shared the same architecture. The DS can be overclocked via hardware modification, but the facts are that it runs at different stock values than the DSi one.

The DSiWare didn't necessarily need the extra RAM, it just utilized it because it was there. There's nothing that's inheritently demanding more RAM in digital downloads - DSiWare are standard DSi binaries, and here's another difference, the binary itself. DS and DSi binaries are ever so slightly different. Be it on a game cart or on an SD card, the binary can use the same streaming mechanisms, so the additional RAM was a design choice, not a necessity stemming from DSiWare.

Please understand that I'm not fighting to change the world, by no means. I'm simply stating my opinion on a few given pieces of hardware. For some, the jump may be major, for others negligable, but the jump isn't what it's all about.

I have only one very simple and golden rule - if the two pieces of hardware substantially differ in the content they can boot, if there are differences in the hardware from which that stems and if the OS isn't almost identical, we're not talking about revisions anymore. I think it's valid and easy to apply to any case - this is what differentiates the Gamecube from the Wii, this is what differentiates the DS and the DSi, this is what differentiates the Gameboy from the Gameboy Colour, and by proxy, this is what makes the 3DS XL a revision, not a successor - the very point of this conversation that we seem to stray away from.

All this techno mumbo-jumbo was supposed to illustrate that the 3DS XL is a revision of the 3DS hardware, but unlike a successor, it does not make the original 3DS obsolete in any way. They're two designs that are sold at the same time and the user has the choice on which to choose - choosing either will not make the user miss out on any content at all. That's all I wanted to say, really.

 

[chartube12]

Yes, I know well. Still, it's a design completely based on the old console, and just adding a bit more MHZs and graphical capabilities doesn't warrant an entirely new name to a console.

Look at the 360, the Slim introduced a slightly faster GPU/CPU - which kinda helps with Kinect and the System menu, but no one goes around calling it a new console
I know, the features aren't required for anything, but it's still there.

If you really want to differentiate it from the original console, call it an evolution or something

Now, now, now - don't jump into deep water. The changes are purely cosmetical between the 360 and the Slim and they're both made to support the same games, just like in the case of any other revision. The Slim has no specific "Slim-Only" software coming up for it and the hardware changes were merely a face-lift in an effort to make it more stable. With the GBC and the DSi, the changes were made to support new, exclusive software. This is what separates a revision from a successor.

There's small changes that are made to increase stability and there are changes that transform the end product into something entirely new - surely you understand my point.

Nope, the Slim has a stronger CPU/GPU. Just google for "360 slim faster" and you'll find evidence for that Too bad no one actually went on and proved it with hard proof. It's mainly people's experience, so nothing trustworthy, but if so many people say it, I don't see why it shouldn't be a believable change.

Sure, no Slim-only software coming, but that was just MS's call. Still, I'm sure pretty much nobody in the world calls the DSi the successor to the DS

Correct. If I remember the documents before 7sins took them down, the cpu and gpu are on a single dye. They are both slight faster (5.6% each). A smart filter was put into place. Locking the speed down to the original 360's unless the knect is connected. the extra power is given to it. Also the way the 360s kenel is programmed, the extra power would only decrease load times if someone found a way to unlock (turn off the filter). Then why lock it down in the first place?, Bungie claimmed it was to keep slim owners from getting an unfair advantage in online games.

 

[Foxi4]

Correct. If I remember the documents before 7sins took them down, the cpu and gpu are on a single dye. They are both slight faster (5.6% each). A smart filter was put into place. Locking the speed down to the original 360's unless the knect is connected. the extra power is given to it. Also the way the 360s kenel is programmed, the extra power would only decrease load times if someone found a way to unlock (turn off the filter). Then why lock it down in the first place?, Bungie claimmed it was to keep slim owners from getting an unfair advantage in online games.

As I said...

http://gbatemp.net/topic/329675-no-more-3ds-models-in-the-near-future/page__view__findpost__p__4288543

You have a picture there you could reffer to. 5-6% of increase is negligable and can be treated as a stability tweak, really. The chips themselves are hardly different, but as you can see, they are indeed on the same die of silicone. I'm not sure as to whether or not this "Extra horse power" is locked out or not, I'll read more about that tomorrow, but I think it's not really an issue here as it's merely a few MHz to increase Kinect stability, not an actual step-up. This is really just an evolution of design rather than a complete revamp, the chips are still relatively the same, they're just laid out differently. Hell, even by analyzing the photos alone you can tell that they're the same chipsets, just smaller.

 

[heartgold]

Geez yes you aren't going to persuade a lot of people when the official company says another thing. It was a minor update, nothing ground breaking like extra 50MB RAM or 1Ghz processor in todays standards. Ok what you are trying to say another meh 12MB RAM and 66mhz horsepower says alot. Sure it does!

DSi had the same CPU as the DS, just that the ARM 9 was overclocked and you would need more RAM for DSiware. One would say this was an experiment for Nintendo in the handheld digital world. A taster product to see how things turn out and improve upon for the upcoming 3DS. It's basically a DS with some digital element, that's how it's regarded as but not a true successor. Obviously Nintendo created this as a new product to get some insight for handheld online gaming distribution.

However it is a successor in terms of specs one could say but not in anyone's eyes when they look at it. I know what you are trying to say, I just think your efforts will go to waste. save some energy and give it a rest. Unless you really think you can change everyone's opinion then keep fighting your point.

By the way I do agree with your statement. I see it as a successor too. Only ever slightly.

But it was not the exact same processor - it had a different clock, it just shared the same architecture. The DS can be overclocked via hardware modification, but the facts are that it runs at different stock values than the DSi one.

The DSiWare didn't necessarily need the extra RAM, it just utilized it because it was there. There's nothing that's inheritently demanding more RAM in digital downloads - DSiWare are standard DSi binaries, and here's another difference, the binary itself. DS and DSi binaries are ever so slightly different. Be it on a game cart or on an SD card, the binary can use the same streaming mechanisms, so the additional RAM was a design choice, not a necessity stemming from DSiWare.

Please understand that I'm not fighting to change the world, by no means. I'm simply stating my opinion on a few given pieces of hardware. For some, the jump may be major, for others negligable, but the jump isn't what it's all about.

I have only one very simple and golden rule - if the two pieces of hardware substantially differ in the content they can boot, if there are differences in the hardware from which that stems and if the OS isn't almost identical, we're not talking about revisions anymore. I think it's valid and easy to apply to any case - this is what differentiates the Gamecube from the Wii, this is what differentiates the DS and the DSi, this is what differentiates the Gameboy from the Gameboy Colour, and by proxy, this is what makes the 3DS XL a revision, not a successor - the very point of this conversation that we seem to stray away from.

All this techno mumbo-jumbo was supposed to illustrate that the 3DS XL is a revision of the 3DS hardware, but unlike a successor, it does not make the original 3DS obsolete in any way. They're two designs that are sold at the same time and the user has the choice on which to choose - choosing either will not make the user miss out on any content at all. That's all I wanted to say, really.

TL; DR

Please understand that I'm not fighting to change the world, by no means. I'm simply stating my opinion on a few given pieces of hardware. For some, the jump may be major, for others negligable, but the jump isn't what it's all about.

Okay

All this techno mumbo-jumbo was supposed to illustrate that the 3DS XL is a revision of the 3DS hardware, but unlike a successor, it does not make the original 3DS obsolete in any way. They're two designs that are sold at the same time and the user has the choice on which to choose - choosing either will not make the user miss out on any content at all. That's all I wanted to say, really.

Exactly! GBC and DSi were technically successors as they clearly offered more over their counterparts. 3DS XL will not effect the current userbase nor the original 3DS.

 

[Foxi4]

Exactly! GBC and DSi were technically successors as they clearly offered more over their counterparts. 3DS XL will not effect the current userbase nor the original 3DS.

That's probably another reason why companies are so reluctant to admit that they are working on revisions of their hardware constantly - people don't always understand the difference. There's nothing to fear when it comes to revisions - if one comes out, you're still not missing anything. The problems start when people start confusing this term with "successor", and it's even worse when the companies follow suit.

Of course the XL is bigger, but does it really change anything? Not really, and knowing life, it's going to be way more expensive than the 3DS in comparison, so by definition, getting the 3DS now, right before the revised one reaches the market doesn't really mean that you lost anything - you'd have to pay more for the XL anyways.

 

[VMM]

A question i've been wondering for awhile. Don't they get empty for money when they just do all those crap like that? Are they actually earning on those new models?

There are tons of people that sell their old systems and buy the new one,
even more people buy the new version,
then it maximize benefits,
and they no longer care about the early adopter

 

[Skelletonike]

I don't really agree with what people say about the Gameboy Color being gen as Gameboy and Gameboy Pocket, Nintendo themselves said back then that the Color was the successor. Not to mention that there were many games exclusive to the gameboy color, while some were compatible with the old systems, the most powerful ones couldn't (like Crystal, which had animations and better colouring than Gold and Silver). The main issue with the DSi was that it was never really used, well, people bought it and stuff, but the developers themselves didn't release unique games for the DSi, only via DSi Ware, otherwise, the most they'd do was add camera function, while still being compatible with the normal DS's, whereas Gameboy color had plenty of game that only worked on the GBC alone.

On topic tho, I do think that Nintendo might revise the system, but I have a hunch they'll never add dual analogs to it, just like the PSP never got them. z.z

 

[Foxi4]

A question i've been wondering for awhile. Don't they get empty for money when they just do all those crap like that? Are they actually earning on those new models?

There are tons of people that sell their old systems and buy the new one,
even more people buy the new version,
then it maximize benefits,
and they no longer care about the early adopter

That's a two-edged sword. While some people sell their old 3DS'es and get the new version, others buy the pre-owned 3DS'es rather than new ones, in which case Nintendo doesn't get any benefits. They complain about the second-hand market but at the same time, they over-saturate it with their own hardware. It's really a viscious circle.

Obviously the newer version is more expensive than the older one, so more profits do come in, but there are also some losses in normal 3DS sales. Money-wise it's a profit, stock-wise it can sometimes cause a stand-still of sales.

 

[VMM]

That's a two-edged sword. While some people sell their old 3DS'es and get the new version, others buy the pre-owned 3DS'es rather than new ones, in which case Nintendo doesn't get any benefits. They complain about the second-hand market but at the same time, they over-saturate it with their own hardware. It's really a viscious circle.


Obviously the newer version is more expensive than the older one, so more profits do come in, but there are also some losses in normal 3DS sales. Money-wise it's a profit, stock-wise it can sometimes cause a stand-still of sales.

But still this is such a profitable business that
Nintendo made 2 revisions and a extra large version,
probably we will see the same with 3DS.
A second version with 2nd analog and some new stuff(and a XL),
And then a third by the end of 3DS life-cycle,
with bluetooth, 4g, Amoled screens, Multitouch,
10 MP cameras, better resolution, lightier, and more compact(and the XL)

 

[Rasas]

Huh...?

How would they lose money from making a new model?

The cost to manufacture it?

Which is offset by the price they sell it at.


Using that logic, all companies would lose money whenever they release a product.

Well you have to add in the development costs as well which isn't that low and if the company is or is not selling it at a loss hoping another area will make it go to the green.

That's a two-edged sword. While some people sell their old 3DS'es and get the new version, others buy the pre-owned 3DS'es rather than new ones, in which case Nintendo doesn't get any benefits. They complain about the second-hand market but at the same time, they over-saturate it with their own hardware. It's really a viscious circle.


Obviously the newer version is more expensive than the older one, so more profits do come in, but there are also some losses in normal 3DS sales. Money-wise it's a profit, stock-wise it can sometimes cause a stand-still of sales.

But still this is such a profitable business that
Nintendo made 2 revisions and a extra large version,
probably we will see the same with 3DS.
A second version with 2nd analog and some new stuff(and a XL),
And then a third by the end of 3DS life-cycle,
with bluetooth, 4g, Amoled screens, Multitouch,
10 MP cameras, better resolution, lightier, and more compact(and the XL)

Doesn't the used hardware market somewhat help assuming they don't make much money or lose money for each 3ds sold. So someone buying a used 3ds and then some new 3ds games benefit Nintendo greatly. Granted they might buy some used games at first but they might buy new later.

Also with the 360 slim and PS3 slim developing software just for those systems seem like a bad idea. A lot of people will stick with the phat version till they fail and dividing the market is never a good strategy. Look at some DSI only carts sales or better yet the PSP-2000 they just made have more ram to improve load times. The improved chips were mostly to decrease hardware failure chances.

 

[Foxi4]

Doesn't the used hardware market somewhat help assuming they don't make much money or lose money for each 3ds sold. So someone buying a used 3ds and then some new 3ds games benefit Nintendo greatly. Granted they might buy some used games at first but they might buy new later.

Also with the 360 slim and PS3 slim developing software just for those systems seem like a bad idea. A lot of people will stick with the phat version till they fail and dividing the market is never a good strategy. Look at some DSI only carts sales.

Nintendo isn't Sony - they're not selling the 3DS at a loss. Every unit counts.

 

[Rasas]

Doesn't the used hardware market somewhat help assuming they don't make much money or lose money for each 3ds sold. So someone buying a used 3ds and then some new 3ds games benefit Nintendo greatly. Granted they might buy some used games at first but they might buy new later.

Also with the 360 slim and PS3 slim developing software just for those systems seem like a bad idea. A lot of people will stick with the phat version till they fail and dividing the market is never a good strategy. Look at some DSI only carts sales.

Nintendo isn't Sony - they're not selling the 3DS at a loss. Every unit counts.

There was a article about them selling it at a loss near march but I guess things drop in price.
http://www.engadget....s-expects-that/
Guess you were wrong well w/e I should of researched it instead of assumed. Plus I guess higher sales numbers might help stock holders, investors and other things so maybe it is somewhere in the middle of helpfulness.

 

[Foxi4]

Doesn't the used hardware market somewhat help assuming they don't make much money or lose money for each 3ds sold. So someone buying a used 3ds and then some new 3ds games benefit Nintendo greatly. Granted they might buy some used games at first but they might buy new later.

Also with the 360 slim and PS3 slim developing software just for those systems seem like a bad idea. A lot of people will stick with the phat version till they fail and dividing the market is never a good strategy. Look at some DSI only carts sales.

Nintendo isn't Sony - they're not selling the 3DS at a loss. Every unit counts.

There was a article about them selling it at a loss near march but I guess things drop in price.
http://www.engadget....s-expects-that/
Guess you were wrong well w/e I should of researched it instead of assumed. Plus I guess higher sales numbers might help stock holders, investors and other things so maybe it is somewhere in the middle of helpfulness.

True, my bad.

 

[raulpica]

These are the subsequent revisions of the 360 CPU-GPU. As you can see, the latest revision combines the CPU and the GPU on one piece of silicone. Moreover, they're made in a new technological process, allowing for smaller size and lower energy consumption. All in all, they're *the same architecture* but made on a smaller and more efficient scale. Other changes include a faster hard drive, enabling for faster HDD operations... but all in all, it's still the same machine. I hope that brings some light to the issue.

You never keep in mind who you're talking about, I'm a geek and a tech-maniac, I know these kind of things like the back of my hand

Still, I can't see anywhere that the CPU/GPU is clocked at the same exact clock For as much as we know, they might be heavily downclocked.

EDIT: Missed chartube's post. Anyway, I wasn't around when the GBC was released, so I didn't know that Nintendo treated it as a GB success This invalidates my entire theory. Nevermind

 

[[M]artin]

No, FUCK THIS. I remember reading, weeks before E3, Reggie and others from Nintendo saying there would be no 3DS revision.

Fuck you Nintendo, you hurt me bad.

Lying sacks...

Spoiler