ATI Touting 3D Gaming Chip For Cellphones

An anonymous reader writes "According to their website, ATI have just announced a new 3D game-orientated chip specifically designed for cellphones. The Imageon 2300 'offers the first hardware 3D graphics implementation in the handheld space... [and] also represents the first OpenGL ES 1.0 compliant device on the handheld market'." The ATI release mentions "...that wireless gaming is on the rise and will generate USD $1 billion in wireless gaming revenue by 2006 for wireless carriers in the United States", and it's interesting to note the TapWave Zodiac Palm-based gaming device already has an earlier ATI Imageon chip in it.

Comments

Why gaming?

[dstillz]

Shouldn't this thing be used for a wireless, 3D map service, or other, more useful applications? Mobile phone gaming isn't nearly ready to compete with Nintendo, and small screens aren't appropriate for 3D games.

And isn't it time to retire the "-eon" suffix?

Re:Why gaming?

[Ayaress]

The other thing is that 3D on phones ends up being a catch-22, which is why I figured back when it was announced that the N-Gage was not going to make a splash, but more of a loud plunk followed by the sound of crickets chirping.

For one, you'll never be able to hold a candle to the GBA for a long time. Nintendo has made some blunders with the GameCube, but they havn't missed a beat with the GBA.

For two, as soon as you start basing your system on graphics (The GBA is mostly 2D and mode 6 fake 3D, so its games have to market more heavily on gameplay and other aspects - Nintendo has a good track record with making low-end graphics compete successfully against high-end graphics. PCs far outclassed the SNES/SFC for most of its life, but the SNES even gave the PS1 and Sega Saturn a run for their money in Japan before the N64 came out) people look at it, and say, "Psst. My PS2 has far better graphics." Don't even try to bring up the, "Yeah, let's see you stick your PS2 in your pocket and play on the bus" argumentwith them, becuase it doesn't work.

My theory on gamers is that we're broken into three classes:

Eye Class: What some people call graphics whores. Sometimes I think they'd play XtremE Couch Sitting 2004 if it has good enough graphics. Unfortunately for RPG and strategy gamers, this is by far the largest group of gamers there is, and the group responsible for video games passing from the playthings of techies, nerds, and geeks to the mainstream popular culture, and it's their wants that hold the highest sway over the gaming industry in general.

Brain Class: Those people who wax nostalgic and call videogames the next form of literiture. Mostly play RPGs, but usually look for strong plot and character in games, and will readily sacrifice graphics, sound, even gameplay in some cases for that experience. This is the dominant group you find in discussion boards for old game systems like the SNES, and contribute more than any other to the "immortal games" that still get played a decade or more after their contemporaries pass into obscurity.

Endorphin Class: The people who just want to have fun. They may appreciate plot, or like graphics, but when it comes down to it, it's a game, and they just want to have fun. Gameplay is key, and will excuse poor graphics or lack of plot. I tend to lump sports gamers into this group, since most of them I've known are after the "___ball experience." Also, most young gamers will fall into this category, and my nephews have just as much fun goofing around with my old Atari as with their own PS2's, which gives me hope that they won't turn into Eye Class gamers in the future.

Now the problem with making a handheld system and basing it on the cutting edge 3D graphics is that those cutting edge 3D graphics are still pretty crude. By talking about graphics graphics graphics graphics graphics, you get the attention of the Eye Class, and may even deter the Mind and Endorphin Classes from looking at the system. The Eye Class sees it, and decides (rightfully) that it has crude graphics, and rejects it, and the system flops (a la N-Gage).

Nintendo has the right idea. They go for the Mind and Endorphin groups, and GBA games either emphasize storyline, character, and even cloaked commentary, like the RPGs that fill GBA racks, or just sheer fun, like most of the platformers. They havn't wasted their time squeezing half-assed 3D out of the GBA, because it won't really help their games.