Smattering Of New Nintendo DS Details Revealed

Thanks to 1UP for its article revealing several new technical details regarding Nintendo's just-announced DS dual-screen portable. In particular, Nintendo of Japan noted the DS will "...have two different processors, an ARM9 main CPU and an ARM7 subprocessor. Both of these are used in many cellular phones, PDAs, and other mobile devices - an ARM9 CPU is the heart of Tapwave's new Zodiac handheld, while the Game Boy Advance employs an ARM7." It's also confirmed that the screens will "...both be equipped with a backlight... with a light source behind each LCD. The Game Boy Advance SP, by comparison, uses a frontlight." Game Informer has an interview with a Nintendo of America spokesperson which reveals a little more, including confirmation that the screens "will be in the vertical position", not "side-to-side." The piece also features the spokesperson stopping short of a denial about GameBoy/GameBoy Advance backwards compatibility ("We haven't announced anything about that, yet.")

Comments

Wooohooo!

[forkazoo]

I have to say, as somebody who has always preferred to use dual head systems, I've always wondered what game developers might come up with in a dual-head environment. RTS games with a full map and a zoomed-in view simultaneously. A FPS with front and rear views. Even without thinking hard, it's really easy to come up with novel and potentially fun uses for two screens.

Now... (And, I hope I don't get modded too far down for this...) Imagine a beowulf cluster of these things! he he.

Personally, I'm still waiting for the end form of what Virtual Boy wanted to be. A pair of small, light wight glasses that are no bulkier than a convenient pair of sunglasses, with enough CPU to make some interesting 3D scenes. Add in an accelerometer, and a bearing sensor, and you have a kick ass augmented reality platform. I'd love to see what guys like Miyamoto could do with that sort of gear!

Also, the ideo of a video- iPod suddenly stops sucking so badly when the display is a pair of glasses instead of a cheezy box you have to hold in front of yoru face.

Re:Wooohooo!

[Jerf]

I've always wondered what game developers might come up with in a dual-head environment. RTS games with a full map and a zoomed-in view simultaneously. A FPS with front and rear views.

If this was so awesome, we'd probably have seen it by now. Nothing stopping current games from taking their head-to-head 2-player mode and providing the user with two views, even in one-player mode. Nothing preventing RTSs from dedicating half the screen to a map.

The reality is, if you have X viewing space, at the resolutions we have right now, you want about 4X or 5X space dedicated to your main task. The only thing that this might help with is a form-factor that is not conducive to RTS or FPS (depending on if the screens are arranged vertically or horizontally)... but that's a weakness, not a strength.

It looks damn cool, but if you really seriously try to think clearly about holding one of these in your hands, seriously playing an RTS, see if you don't start wanting the two screens to become just a bigger integrated view onto the playing field.

Splitting the screen is only useful when the value of the two views is such that BOTH of the following are true: You want to see both screens immediately at all times, AND both screens are so close to equally valuable as to make no difference. Again, if those conditions were true, we'd already be playing games that dedicated half their screen to maps or something.

The console may make it, but after a first generation of games, we will not see "one entire screen dedicated entirely to a map" anymore. Instead, it will be a bigger screen onto the relevant playing field, and while you may be able to pull up a map onto just that screen, you'll have to invoke it, it won't be there full time, and you'll begrudge that extra space, not be thankful the second screen is there for the map. First generation games always fall prey to hype and learn the hard way what really works about the system.

It's a variation on the standard money fallacy: "If I just had twice as much money, I'd be happy." The reality is, your expectations will rise with the extra income and on average it will not make you happier. (The key is to manage expectations, not make tons of money necessarily, though you do need a certain amount of raw material to work with.) "If I just had a second screen..." turns into "I miss the days when you looked at a map and the game was actually paused" pretty fast.

Someday we'll have so much resolution we really can piss it away on things like a usable "rear view mirror" in a racing game that can be used just like the real thing. We're not there on desktops yet, we're a long way from being there on handhelds.

Fanboys, before you flame away, try to really seriously imagine being in the situations I talk about here, and try to remember how rarely hype=reality in earlier ideas. (Everyone who sent a video e-mail today, raise your hand. One... Two... anybody else? Guess that aspect of the broadband internet didn't turn out like the hype said, huh?) If you're not already routinely actually using your windowing system (vs. always maximizing the current window, which Windows ends up encouraging)... on handheld-sized screens... then you're not going to want a dedicated screen split from your main task. (I use split windows... but just barely at 1024x768, they only get really useful at 1280x1024, and become mandatory at 1600x1200.)

Re:Wooohooo!

[PainKilleR-CE]

If this was so awesome, we'd probably have seen it by now. Nothing stopping current games from taking their head-to-head 2-player mode and providing the user with two views, even in one-player mode. Nothing preventing RTSs from dedicating half the screen to a map.

It's not about dedicating half the screen, though, it's about supporting dual-monitor setups. This means setting up your software to talk to 2 video cards (or a dual-head video card which should appear more or less like 2 video cards to the programmer) concurrently, and deciding on what to offer the player for the second view without short-changing the users that don't have a second monitor. On the other hand, with the platform being standardized with 2 monitors which can be used as 1, you simply have to decide whether what you want to present to the user is worth using part (or all) of that second monitor for.

The reality is, if you have X viewing space, at the resolutions we have right now, you want about 4X or 5X space dedicated to your main task. The only thing that this might help with is a form-factor that is not conducive to RTS or FPS (depending on if the screens are arranged vertically or horizontally)... but that's a weakness, not a strength.

With games that typically support multiple monitors, you generally end up with either peripheral views in the second (and third) monitor, or with support views (ie maps and other info). The idea is that the information on the secondary monitor is secondary information. Just because you've extended the view in an FPS to >90 doesn't mean you're always focusing on the second monitor, because you generally will not (unless you have a pair of really small monitors on your computer).

It looks damn cool, but if you really seriously try to think clearly about holding one of these in your hands, seriously playing an RTS, see if you don't start wanting the two screens to become just a bigger integrated view onto the playing field.

Splitting the screen is only useful when the value of the two views is such that BOTH of the following are true: You want to see both screens immediately at all times, AND both screens are so close to equally valuable as to make no difference.

And the developers have the option of using both screens as one or splitting the view. This should encourage developers to use the second screen for valuable information rather than useless things. That being said, your eyes will focus on the area containing the most valuable information, and can still take in the remaining information peripherally, allowing you to shift focus when needed.

Again, if those conditions were true, we'd already be playing games that dedicated half their screen to maps or something.

Except, again, that most people don't have dual-screen/monitor setups, so they'd be adding the feature for minimal use. As it stands, we have context shifts in almost every type of game we play, whether it's for menus, full-screen maps, or whatever. Perhaps RTS games could even have more useful maps if the developers knew that end-users had 2 monitors and they could move the map to full screen on the 2nd monitor.

The console may make it, but after a first generation of games, we will not see "one entire screen dedicated entirely to a map" anymore. Instead, it will be a bigger screen onto the relevant playing field, and while you may be able to pull up a map onto just that screen, you'll have to invoke it, it won't be there full time, and you'll begrudge that extra space, not be thankful the second screen is there for the map. First generation games always fall prey to hype and learn the hard way what really works about the system.

I think we'll see most of the first generation 3rd party games using the 2 screens just as you say, for one big playing field. This will most likely be the easiest way for them to port existing games, even though they have to split the rendering between two processing paths. The second generation gam

Re:ARM also..

[Bagels]

Yes, it will run Linux... on their site, they list the supported OSes, which include Linux, as well as Palm OS, Windows CE, and Symbian OS.

On an aside, a point I wanted to make about the 128MB of memory announced for this device - I'm guessing that this may be for storing downloaded games, much like the iQue that Nintendo's released in China... 128MB is definitely overkill for handheld games as RAM (the PSP is only set to have 32MB), but as flash or similar it could store several GBA-sized or N64-sized games on it.

Interpretation...

[NanoGator]

Well here's what I think:

- The hint of backlighting (as opposed to front lighting) and their suggestion of it being in-between portable and console tells me that it'll be handheld, but still require AC.

- They intend for new media to go into it, but could potentially play GBA games, as evidenced by their choice of processors. However, it stands to reason that they will do what they can to encourage new games to be delivered to it.

- The two screens may not exactly be 'seperate', but rather two individual screens with maybe a thin line between them.

- We'll see it at E3, but probably won't be able to buy it until fall 05.

- It'll be a 3rd system in the market, with continuing games being developed on the other two systems. My guess is this is a 'test the waters' system, but not a full fledged effort.

Eh I think that's it for my assumptions here. Go ahead, discuss away.

Cool, but probably a flop

[rhetoric]

Like Sexy Pants said here "...though this looks like an obvious bomb, I want to support them all the way."

Nintendo has always seemed to me to have the most innovative (not necessarily original) products of any console company and I've been a supporter since I picked up the first issue of Nintendo Power magazine (which IMHO sucks now). I had a Virtual Boy. It was fun, but there weren't many games available, and of course only some of the games were fun. I remember loving Mario Tennis. Maybe I'll buy one of these, but I doubt it. I've done my part in this lot by talking my parents into buying me a Virtual Boy. For me to consider purchasing a DS, I'll at least have to see some good games released, and some sort of acceptance from the gaming public in the form of them buying the damned thing.
>
We've already been discussing all of this in the thread linked above, but the technical specs released give me a little hope. The fact that it's backlit is a huge plus, every frontlit device reminds me of the 3rd party clip on light I had for my original Game Boy... such crap. I also like the idea of the screens being in a vertical positio. I was having trouble imagining cool possibilities horizontally: with this being a handheld device, and presumably folding in some way as it's meant to be small, I was imagining a screen folding out horizontally and it was obviously a very awkward idea. I'm dissapointed that Nintendo didn't mention, as the article points out, "...the clock speed of either CPU, however, which would provide a clearer picture of the system's processing power and battery consumption." That would be nice to know :D

This MAY turn out to be a fun system and/or commercial success, most likely it will flop, but it's certainly a cool idea, and my hat goes off to Nintendo for another innovation. Actually I lost my hat- proves my worthlessness, mod appropriately.

Re:Nice but...

[DarthWufei]

You must understand that this was just announced, and also we have just as much information, maybe slightly more, about the PSP which will also be releasing very soon. I wouldn't expect any such information to be released until E3. That's given way too much. Nintendo likes working around speculation, though as of late I don't think it's worked in their favor as everyone seems to get disappointed. They're just generating hype which is a good thing, it could get them quite the crowd at E3, not like they, or any other console, draws one. :p I just wouldn't expect much for a while.

Game & Watch

[sofakingl]

The old Game & Watch games sometimes had this kind of display. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new G&W game on this system.

Game & Watch lives?

[shoptroll]

What cracks me up about the earlier announcement about two screens being used in a hand-held is calling it innovative, revolutionary, etc.

If anyone knows the history of nintendo, you might wanna check out something called the Game & Watch series... There are a couple of games in there that used two screens. I know at least Mario Bros. (Not the same game everyone is familiar with) and Donkey Kong used this display method.

anti-shock protection?!

[MagicM]

From the GameInformer article:
With an increased amount of storage in a small package, we think this semiconductor memory will allow us to maintain our stellar anti-shock protection while keeping the size and weight of the portable device to a minimum. Its not going to be optical discs.

What kind of a device needs anti-shock protection, but does not use optical disks? Will this thing include a tiny hard drive?

I've got a theory....

[Daetrin]

- They intend for new media to go into it, but could potentially play GBA games, as evidenced by their choice of processors. However, it stands to reason that they will do what they can to encourage new games to be delivered to it.

...

- It'll be a 3rd system in the market, with continuing games being developed on the other two systems. My guess is this is a 'test the waters' system, but not a full fledged effort.

Here's what i think. I have no insider knowledge, so this is just a guess, but it relates to something i've been thinking they need to do for awhile.

The PSP is going to use mini-disks, it's going to be 3d, it's basically going to be a mini PSX, er PS1 (damn Sony and their naming schemes!)

Nintendo has the perfect counter to this, a mini-GameCube since the GameCube already uses mini-disks. However the technology to package a GameCube in a handheld format at a reasonable price isn't available yet.

Unfortunatly by the time it will be afordable the PSP will already have a foothold in the market, and making the Nth generation of the GameBoy play GameCube disks but still be backwards compatible with the older cartridges will be akward and possibly expensive (making space to put two readers in there, plus the cost of both readers, etc.)

Giving up the backwards compatibility would be a real problem, but if the PSP does well they'll eventually need to match that capability or be doomed, and the longer they wait the worse it will be.

So my theory for this new device. The two screens are mainly a gimick. Sure, Nintendo may have some cool ideas for what to do with them, and they'll encourage developers to take advantage of them. However the main point of the system will be that it uses mini-disks, the same size as GameCube disks. This is why Nintendo is efectively denying the backwards compatibility.

I don't know if the first generation of games will be 2D or PSX/N64 level 3d (tie in to iQue perhaps?) but the point will be to establish a third line of products, to make this device destinct fromt he GameBoy so that DS sales won't be canabalizing from the GameBoy.

So at first it would be a kind of competition with the PSP. If you're going to buy a second handheld, are you going to get a DS or a PSP? However the big thrust will occcur in the next generation. They'll release the 2nd (or maybe 3rd) generation DS with the capability to play GameCube games, and backwards compatibility with earlier DS games. The second screen for this edition will either be able to be folded back when you're playing GameCube games, or it will be detachable. Or perhaps they'll have a larger than normal screen (good for GameCube games) that will emulate the double screens for older games.

So i think this is a long term attempt to compete with the PSP without damaging the GameBoy market directly.