Robustness in hardware design

[marurun]

But it's a whole can of worms if you really get into it. Console X was a "market loser" but each console was sold at a profit. Console Y was a "market winner" but sold at a lost. Then to further complicate things, Console X has little to know first party software, while Console Y had major first party software. Who really won?

You're going a little too far down the rabbit hole... I think overall hardware design was divorced from market success with the exception of key critical features. The PS2 was an insane success, early on because it could play DVDs, despite that it was the weakest hardware of its generation and the hardest to develop for. It was arguably the worst overall design for an effective 3D gaming platform and succeeded on other strengths, like Sony's market influence.

But that's exactly the point. The extra hardware raises the cost of production... but only on carts that need them! There's something like 800 SFC games, but only about 50 or 60 games with enhancement chips... And out of the rest of the library, how many games really have a problem with slowdown? I know some early games had slowdown when too many sprites were on the screen (SMW) or that plus mode 7 going on (one level in Castlevania 4) but it's not even that big of a deal. So I'd have to say as a whole, Nintendo's decision to go with a slower CPU didn't negatively effect the console. It was a smart idea, and kinda risky, but it payed off.

It didn't so much "pay off" as it simply didn't matter. Nintendo had a dominant enough market position that it could kinda do whatever it wanted. As for games with significant slowdown... most early shooters, for one. Contra 3. Fortunately for Nintendo, shooters were on the wane and platformers and fighters have less for the CPU to do. The only way for Nintendo to screw up was to make something decidedly worse than the two older systems that comprised its primary competition. As it stands, the Super Famicom should likely have been a stronger hardware design than it was.

I still stand by my assertion that the SFC's hardware design was, overall, a weak one. Certainly good enough for Nintendo's needs at the time, but not as robust as its competitors, given when the competitors were originally designed.

[Ziggy]

You're going a little too far down the rabbit hole...

I spend most of my time in rabbit holes.

I still stand by my assertion that the SFC's hardware design was, overall, a weak one.

The CPU might have been weak, but I think the design was awesome. Was there another game console that was specifically designed to use add-on co-processors if needed?

[marurun]

I'm not sure how easy or difficult it would be to prove or disprove that co-processors specifically were or were not intended in a particular hardware design from the get-go.

Most systems had expansion ports that had varying levels of system access.

Here's a blurb from GameSX.com on the PC Engine's expansion port:

The PC Engine expansion connector is a hacker's dream port. It includes pins for just about everything you'd ever want, including the entire cartridge port, RGB, audio, video and a few other goodies. Completely uselessly it also has access to the communications between the video chip and the CPU, a mess of pins you're almost certainly never going to use. Perhaps these were available for planned video upgrades like a SuperGrafx-like module, but that's irresponsible speculation.

Hudson or NEC likely were keeping as many options open as possible.

The Sega CD expansion for the Genesis went far beyond any of the co-processors in SNES cartridges. Unlike the 32x, I think the Sega CD was an actual hardware expansion rather than hardware replacement.

[Ziggy]

I'm not sure how easy or difficult it would be to prove or disprove that co-processors specifically were or were not intended in a particular hardware design from the get-go.

Most systems had expansion ports that had varying levels of system access.

Yes, pretty much every console has an expansion port of some kind. But how many consoles have direct access to the CPU form a cart? An expansion port will only allow for additional hardware. Having enhancement chips inside carts, it allows for a hardware add-on on a per game basis without the additional purchase of a hardware add on, just the game.

[CRTGAMER]

I'm thinking there are three or four stages that might contribute to the robustness level.

1. Pong Consoles - No Cart contact issues or Drives to wear out
2. Cart Consoles - NES toaster exempted
3. Disc Based consoles - First motor driven parts inside a console
4. Disc and Hard Drive consoles - Throw in lead free solder and hotter more powerful chips

Speaking of earlier cart consoles, what about the cost cutting on the various renditions of the older Atari systems?

2600 1st/2nd/3rd generation- Huge with solid metal framed cart connector inside
2600 Jr - Cart port no longer metal framed, overall cost size reduction, but still a durable console
5200 - Copy of 400 to save on development costs. If size is a measure, no cost cutting here though the controller buttons are crap
7800 - Sound chip went took a serious nose dive, what were they thinking

I can atest to the robustness of the Atari consoles. I bought a 2600jr that was left in the garbage exposed to weather and moisture as evidenced on the corrosion when I took it apart. The little console that could still works, doubt any drive based console would have survived.

[ApolloBoy]

2600 1st/2nd/3rd generation- Huge with solid metal framed cart connector inside

It's not a metal frame, the six-switch consoles have thick shielding all around the motherboard. The 400 and 800 are like this as well because of the more strict FCC guidelines at the time. The 4-switch models have thin metal shielding that doesn't show through the cart slot.

2600 Jr - Cart port no longer metal framed, overall cost size reduction, but still a durable console

I wouldn't call it durable, the plastic is actually quite brittle and the screw posts strip pretty easily. The dust cover posts on the cartridge port also break off fairly easily.

5200 - Copy of 400 to save on development costs. If size is a measure, no cost cutting here though the controller buttons are crap

Not just the buttons, the entire controller has fairly lousy build quality. The carbon contacts on the buttons tend to wear down the contacts on the flex circuit which essentially gums them up. The flex circuit is also quite fragile and susceptible to broken traces.

7800 - Sound chip went took a serious nose dive, what were they thinking

That's because there was no room on the motherboard to add a POKEY or any other sound chip, so GCC (the designers of the 7800 and a second-party developer for Atari) made do with what they had. At least the 7800 had a provision for external audio, and GCC originally planned to design a low-cost sound chip that could be included on all future games.

The 7800 also suffers from having brittle plastic just like the 2600 Jr.