Talk:Nintendo DS/Archive 3

GB(A) successor(s)

I removed the following, recently posted, information snippet from the article and put it here on the Talk page for further discussion; if the interesting part could be confirmed it would be relevant for the article:   « In February of 2004, Nintendo stated that the Nintendo DS is NOT a sucessor (sic) to the Game Boy Advance and that Nintendo is currently developing a sucessor (sic) to the Game Boy Advance. »

The first statement (DS no successor to GBA) is already confirmed and part of the article, and so needs no repetition. The second statement, however, is potentially quite important, and should be included in the article if it can be confirmed by an external link. --Wernher 11:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is absolutely true, an interview with Perrin Kaplan of Nintendo of America confirmed that a successor gameboy is also in the works. --Anonymous

Thanks -- I notice this is now reflected in the article. Also, during the period after my own previous edits of the article, I see that the GBA compatibility issue has been resolved as well. --Wernher 00:38, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PictoChat ad

Who ever said PhotoChat DS, you're wrong! It's PictoChat DS! Too late to fix it! I already did. --Anonymous

I removed the PictoChat DS remark, that's like advertising.--naryathegreat 02:24, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Information loss

How come all this info was removed in just one day? (see this link for the differances) Can anyone explain this?
--Fern 12:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First, to be more precise: the info was actually removed in one minute (see diff). Second, it was done/perpetrated by the eminent Mr/Ms Anonymous from the above thread re "PictoChat", who according to the logged contributions haven't done much else on Wikipedia (at least not from that IP address). If we feel like it, we might of course go and see whether some of the removed stuff should be put back in. As for me, I'm not sure we should just put everything back -- some of it seemed to be (intelligent) ruminations on the possibilities of the DS hardware, which is no sin in and of itself, but which might not have a place in an encyclopedia. --Wernher 00:38, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"64-bit graphics"?

An hour of so ago I corrected a statement of the DS being a "64-bit console" to 32-bit, based on the wordlength of its two ARM processors. However, some Googling left me slightly in doubt as to whether the DS should be considered a console with "64-bit graphics" (which might be the case, say, if its graphics hardware has 64-bit GPUs/datapaths). Anyone having read more about this? --Wernher 00:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bits of the processor have no baring on quality of the graphics. For example, GBA is 32 bit, its not capable of PSX/DS graphics, PCs are also 32 bit and largely outdo consoles.

Exactly. It seems a daft statement to me- however, it's not part of the 32-bit era, and while it has two 32-bit processors, it'd be a bit off to call that 64-bit hardware. So I nixed the statement. See ruminations on bit-counts/eras usage. --Sockatume 03:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Game Boy 2

I took out the reference to the Game Boy 2, because not only is it irrelevant, it's unsubstantiated. Where does anyone from Nintendo say "Game Boy 2"? Adding 2 to consoles is something that has come from PlayStation 2's dominance over mainstream games - all consoles from Nintendo have had codenames (Project Reality, Project Dolphin, Project Revolution, etc.) Back to the relevance point - whenever we get real information from Nintendo, it should go to the Game Boy article. Andre 04:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should we use that 50-something list of DS releases?

Eh? Lockeownzj00 21:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean the one on List of Nintendo DS games? Maybe we should move it out of See also into a more prominent area. Andre 22:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see someone's put up a list of launch titles. While that's fair enough for the time being, I'm probably going to remove it on launch day. It's too bulky and too slight to be worth keeping. Sockatume 01:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Update on pricing

Sept 24 AP article about Sony PSP at Tokyo Game Show, but includes pricing for DS: $149.99 in US and 15,000 yen ($135) in Japan. Link at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/entertainment/2004-09-24-psport_x.htm Petersam 04:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This promotional campaign

Can someone clarify exactly what it is? –Andre (talk) 18:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A series of heavily-photoshopped images from the folk at WarpPipe. In a recent interview, they've claimed they're working on something "different" for the DS which won't be packet-tunneling technology. Aside from that, they've refused to comment further (or on whether they're now working for Nintendo or have become an authorised thirdparty developer for the system). Sockatume 22:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is the concept design of the Nintendo DS needed?

It doesn't add anything to the article besides a bias trying to make the Nintendo DS seem like a gimmick.

I don't think it adds much, but I don't think it's biased either, nor do I feel it takes away anything from the article. If you can think of another reason to remove it, I'll support its removal. Andre (talk) 22:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

It takes up space, but it's relevant as a historical footnote perhaps. On the other hand, there aren't pictures of the PS2 or XBox prototypes on their articles... maybe time for a "Games hardware prototypes" article? The "satirical" image should go, though.Sockatume 17:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Sockatume. The DS does not look like that any more. As a historical footnote, it is far too prominent on the page. Agreed on the satirical image as well - let's clean this page up a bit. -Armaced 19:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I actually think that the original creator of this section was referring solely to the satirical image, but I like the article as it is now. Andre (talk) 20:07, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks, Andre. -Armaced 20:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DS Picture Link formatting

It was made into a link on purpose, as it makes a good footnote but it's considered unnecessary and cluttering as an image. Sockatume 20:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, didn't realize you could do that thing with the colon. >>;

Er... I'll leave it alone for now. That was a bit of a mess-up. --Shadow Hog 22:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*chuckle* Well, that was confusing. Sockatume 22:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we've got it now. Andre (talk) 22:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

802.11b or 802.11n?

The page says the DS uses the N frequency right now, but that hasn't even been standardized. Shouldn't it be B?

I'm pretty sure it uses an early version of n. Andre (talk) 19:31, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, someone could've stabbed a bit too far right when aiming for their B key. ;) Sockatume 21:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everything I've read has said it's 802.11b. K1Bond007 07:18, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Playstation Portable link?

Why is a link to the Playstation Portable [sic] included in the links section? Regardless of the perceived war between DS and PSP lovers, links to information about the PSP are not relevant to this article. -

Nah, it's relevant enough IMHO. PSP and DS are competitors and in the same portable generation, and the DS was arguably conceived of to begin with to fight Sony's entry into handhelds. Andre (talk) 06:14, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

MiB versus MB

Please refer to Binary prefix. As a description of solid-state memory, both instances of MB in the article actually refer to mebibytes. UTSRelativity 06:15, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

My bad, somebody pointed out that I got my meanings of the prefixes backwards (I'd remembered Mibi etc. as the decimalised, round-numbers version), but I forgot to actually revert my revert. Will do immediately Sockatume 12:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Screen Manufacturer

There's an edit-war going on here between two anonymous users; it's quite likely there's a similarly heated discussion going on in a forum somewhere with each side seeking to use the Wikipedia as evidence. The issue is who built the NDS' screen; one claims it's Sharp (manufacturer of the PSP screen), one claims it isn't. As the only information I can trawl from Google regarding the DS screen's manufacturer is an unsubstantiated forum topic, I cannot say with certainty who is correct. I call for both parties to cease their editing immediately and resolve the dispute by posting any evidence for their case here. If not, I'll consider contacting an admin and having the article protected until such a time as the dispute can be resolved by third parties. Sockatume 20:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall where I saw it, but it was an article on dead pixels, it mentioned the screen being made by sharp. Sorry I can't be of much help, but I'm almost certain sharp makes the screen. [[User:GregNorc|-GregNorc (talk) ]] 00:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of other articles mention it as well, so I'd be willing to let it go up, but I'd be a bit wary until there's some evidence, lest there be more edit-war feeding. Sockatume 13:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My edits

Mostly to improve NPOV nature and trim down a bit; I moved the DS-and-PSP image down the page, and removed redundant links (IIRC it's standard to only include one wiki link to a specific article in a page, so save overloading with blue text), and because the DS-and-PSP image just seems far more appropriate in a segment listing other handheld machines. Sockatume 14:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed speculation section....

It contained no references to substantiate the claims it made.

It contained links to interviews with the people in the company in question, didn't it? It should've, they're easy enough to find. [1] Sockatume 17:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ping Pals

Ping Pals was not a US launch title...see e.g. [2]. Also the fact that I work in a game store and we didn't get it until the date listed on that page. ;) --Tubedogg 07:05, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

That's not true. I saw it in the store on launch day myself, even debated buying it. GregNorc (talk)

I find it hard to believe that GameFAQs [3], IGN [4], and Gamespot [5] are all wrong about the release date. The official website says "December". [6] Nintendo says December 7. [7]

Also as I said before, the game store I work at got it on December 8 which lines up with when they all think it was released. (We get games one day after the official release date typically, except for very popular games.)

Therefore, rving. --Tubedogg 19:26, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I saw it, in the store, on the release date of the DS. I remember considering buying it. I don't care how many links you have, I SAW IT ON LAUNCH DAY. News sites can have erronous information, I don't. I haven't even been in a game store since I got my DS, so I know I'm not confusing two trips. GregNorc (talk) 19:38, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

You may have seen an empty "coming soon" box (which we do a lot at GameStop), or confused it with something else, but when every site (including the sites of the platform manufacturer and publisher of the game) disagrees with you, your "I'm never wrong" stance looks a little sketchy. THQ (the publisher) has a press release on their site stating they shipped the game on December 7. [8] Unless you are now claiming that the company that created the game doesn't know when they shipped it, please stop rving. --Tubedogg 06:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link, second result on google for "Nintendo DS Launch games" http://ds.ign.com/articles/554/554867p1.html GregNorc (talk)

1. The article is dated October 7, 2004, 6 weeks before the launch actually happened. Things change from day to day, let alone in 6 weeks.

2. Even ignoring that, read the article — it says "other third-party titles available during the launch period [include Ping Pals]..." (emphasis mine) and it defines launch period as "the first 30 days of the system's launch", not the singular launch date.

3. You didn't trust IGN when I posted a link to what they say is the release date, why do you trust them now?

4. Regardless of any of that, THQ, the PUBLISHER OF THE GAME, says it was shipped on December 7. I really don't care what you think you saw or didn't see, publishers don't accidentally issue press releases 3 weeks after a game is shipped stating the game was released the day of the press release. Stop reverting it, you are wrong. --Tubedogg 22:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. It also mentions the rest of the titles. If you don't like it, tough. I have both the fact I saw it in the store, AND a link. If you want, I can remove the whole section, since all those games are cited as in the "launch window". I'll be reverting now. Also, why would that article show up second on google if it's wrong? The first site didn't refute my claim.

-GregNorc (talk)

This is your evidence:

1. You claim to have seen it in the store.

2. You have an article, written on October 7, that you claim says Ping Pals is a launch title.

My rebuttals, again:

1. I believe you are mistaken. You may have seen a coming soon box, or a promotional box, or some other empty box, but given that the publisher states without uncertainty that the game wasn't actually shipped to retailers until December 7, I have no choice but to believe you are mistaken. (Some games ship to stores prior to their release dates...Halo 2 for example was in the back room at my store by October 25. However, stores are contractually obligated, under penalty of heavy fines — $250,000 in the case of Halo — to not release a game until its' official release date. Even assuming it shipped to the store early, which given the publisher's statement I don't believe happened, it was not intended to be available on November 21 and therefore one store putting it out early would not qualify it as a launch day title.)

2. The article is correct, but you are misinterpreting it. The article states that Ping Pals would be released within the launch period, not on the launch day. The list of games on the DS page are those that were (officially) released on launch day. Since Ping Pals was not, according to numerous sources including the publisher, it does not belong on the list. Even if the article said "Ping Pals will be released on November 21", the article was written six weeks before the events actually transpired, and information updated after the events took place trump conjecture written prior.

My evidence is as follows:

1. The links I posted above to GameFAQs [9], IGN [10], Gamespot [11], Nintendo [12], and THQ [13], all stating December 7 as the release date (with the exception of THQ which says "December 2004"); and the link I posted to the press release, dated December 7, stating that the game had in fact been shipped on December 7 [14]. If you want an article written before the release date which states that Ping Pals would not be a launch day title, you can reference this other press release [15] on THQ's site (look for the section titled Handheld Leadership, about 1/3 of the way down the page).

2. You misunderstand how Google works if you are questioning why an article about DS launch titles shows up at #2 given a search for "Nintendo DS launch titles", and why it would be #2 if it were wrong. Google shows the pages that are most relevant to your query, and in some order of popularity - IGN is an extremely popular website, and an article about DS launch titles is relevant to your query; and the article is not wrong, again you are misinterpreting it.

Regarding your assertion that the titles listed were released within the "launch period", that is accurate - but as it happens, they also happen to be the titles released on November 21, and hence are called launch titles. Ping Pals, as shown by all of the information above, was not released on November 21, therefore it doesn't qualify.

Please stop reverting the page. I modified the language earlier to make it clear that the titles listed are from November 21, not the "launch period" that IGN invented. If you continue to revert, given all the evidence you are wrong, I will be forced to initiate dispute resolution. --Tubedogg 07:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, why would an erronous article have a high pagerank? Especially an old one. If this information was false, IGN would have issued a follow up article, and it would most likely be viewed more often than the erronous artice. I'm reverting, go ahead and initiate dispute resolution. Just leave me a link on my talk page, or here, so I can rebutt you please. -GregNorc (talk)

Actually, I can easily answer that one: because everybody wanted to know, before the DS came out, what games would be available for it at launch, hence the IGN article came up rather high. IGN doesn't usually edit articles (or if they do, I've never noticed it), so they might have made a mistake and never bothered fixing it, OR the release date was pushed back AFTER the article was written and therefore IGN ignored it (you can't spell ignorant without...).

Either way, IGN themselves list a different release date, so if I had to pick a side in this irritating little debate (seriously, the reverting upon reverting is getting annoying), I'm with Tubedogg; he has several sources to prove his point, while you have one that's already contradicted by one he posted. Consider it two against one... just so we can get this thing over with. x_x; --Shadow Hog 03:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two points in response to GregNorc:

1. The article is not wrong. Again, you are interpreting the article as stating that every game listed would launch on November 21, when the article clearly says otherwise.

2. Even if the article was erroneous, it was correct at the time it was written. Just as all of the articles written on IGN's site prior to the announcement of Halo 2's actual release date state what turned out to be an incorrect date or time period, this article was written prior to the actual release of Ping Pals and therefore may state information that is later made incorrect. Just because they didn't create an article saying "OK, here are the actual release dates for all the games we listed in the DS launch article" does not mean the information contained in the original article is either correct or timely.

Oh, and 3. the article has such a high pagerank because IGN has a very high pagerank, because of their popularity. --Tubedogg 04:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you insist on saying your edit is correct when you don't offer any other evidence. Tubedogg has offered plenty of evidence in his position, yet your stuck on a high rated page from Google? Don't you think it is kind of ignorant to say "see talk page, this version is correct" when you don't offer any more evidence than hear-say? How about you find a few other sources that explicitly calls Ping Pals a launch title? I'm reverting. Ritz 03:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverts from "vandal"

I had made changes to the article changing US refrences to North America as appropriate. Then it was reverted back because the IP was from a school proxy that has been known to contain vandals. I can see why it was done, however, in error. I would just ask that you check the changes to the article before you revert it. It is a school proxy and therefore is used by anyone in the school... some are vandals, yes, but some (like myself) are trying to improve it. Please check for vandalism before you alledge it. Thanks. Ritz 22:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I must note that some Americans seem to attribute things that apply to both the States and Canada or all of North America to only the US. It is very inconsiderate. I am not saying that all Americans do so, but I have half a mind to put POV check notices on articles with that problem as I find them.

-- UTSRelativity 05:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About DS media

Should a comment be made that talks about Nintendo's decision to use Flash media to avoid moving parts in thier system? I think it is relevant, as I see the danger of having moving parts jarred out of place when dropped... however, that might be a biased or ignorant statement. I tried making the edit, but I had it removed and named "bull****", interestingly enough by the same person who reverted my US to North American edit "vandalism"...

Any suggestions as to what might be a more valid or complete entry of the subject? Ritz 02:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, it is relevant too. My problem with the way it was originally stated is that I do not know whether Nintendo made that decision for this reason to any degree at all. There should be no problem with adding the fact that flash media does not have moving parts, etc. and noting the benefits of that simply as commentary.

-- UTSRelativity 04:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly why I removed it the first time. It wasn't specifically designed because of that, and it sounds SO much like one of the trolling "strawman" arguments that pop up between the PSP and DS articles, particularly recently. Ritz's re-write of it is excellent. In addition, there have been a lot of edits from the same IP (Calgary Board of Education) that has contributed 50 acts of Vandalism in the last two weeks, many of them on this page (also the reason why I reverted the North America reference on site, because of that IP). Ritz went the extra mile for that IP and verified the info for that. Terrapin 16:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)