Nintendo Revolution will be the cheapest next gen console [Archive]

risc

Nov 10, 2005, 06:00 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/10/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm

..."Value has been a key card for us this generation and we'll continue to play it," Fils-Aime told me. "Do I expect us to be at a lower price point than our competition? Yes I do. Have we determined a price yet? No we haven't."...

...One thing's for sure: The Revolution will not support high definition video, a marked divergence from the path Microsoft and Sony are taking. And it's not something the company is re-thinking, despite the fervent hopes of some hardcore gaming fans.

Casual and non-gamers, the company feels, are less interested in flashy graphics than enjoyable games. And the large files that go hand in hand with high definition video result in "almost interminably long" load times for games, said Fils-Aime, something that would also be detrimental to a mainstream audience.

"What we'll offer in terms of gameplay and approachability will more than make up for the lack of HD," he said...

Well now that it is official the Revolution wont support HD you can count me out. It is 2005 building a NON-HD console is retarded at best imho. Oh well let the wait begin for the 360 and PS3 launches.

James Philp

Nov 10, 2005, 06:13 PM

You won't have to wait that long for the 360.
Anyone who thought that the Revolution would be technologically on-par with MS or Sony only have to look at the DS to see where Nintendo are going.
They will go for gameplay over graphics, fun over hardcore, universal over niche most days. Expect some really fun games on the rev. but don't expect the same level of pixel-pushing as the other next-gens.
Personally, as long as I have one friend with nintendo hardware, there is no real need to buy! A couple of hours every now and again satisfies my nintendo tooth! Jeez though, I wish a zelda would come out for my PSP!

rockthecasbah

Nov 10, 2005, 06:14 PM

i think HD would be nice but isnt necessary for me to love Mario and Zelda right now..the fact is many people still don't have HD TVs so why waste the money with the capabilities for something many people won't be able to use?

As for the price, it is pretty obvious that The Revolution will be the most inexpensive of the consoles, it is what the consumer expects from Nintendo. I expect a $199-$249 price range, i think if it goes above $250 people will be turned off and just save more for a PS3 or whatever.

risc

Nov 10, 2005, 06:29 PM

i think HD would be nice but isnt necessary for me to love Mario and Zelda right now..the fact is many people still don't have HD TVs so why waste the money with the capabilities for something many people won't be able to use?

I do have an HD LCD TV and as much as I love my GameCube the stretched out pixelfest I need too look at is annoying. I was hoping for HD in the Revolution for just this reason. Even though only a few people have HD TVs at the moment the number is only going to increase and IMHO the Revolution should of had HD support for future proofing at least, given the current life of a console is say 4 to 5 years in 2010 what kind of TV do you think you'll have, I doubt anyone will have a SD TV then?

risc

Nov 10, 2005, 06:29 PM

You won't have to wait that long for the 360.

I'm in Australia we don't even have a release date yet. ;)

Eidorian

Nov 10, 2005, 06:31 PM

I can't wait! Anything over $199 is too much for me. :(

I've already spent my money making my iMac my media center. I don't need a console that tries to do that too.

Dagless

Nov 10, 2005, 06:32 PM

I dont know about that James Philp, in another interview somewhere a developer basically came out of the woodwork and said that the Revolution will have comparable graphics to the other consoles. Put all 3 next to each other and they will all be similar.

There is extreme power in the Rev; just no HDTV support.

Anyways who honestly didn't think the Rev would be the cheapest console? When have Nintendo overpriced a console? since I've been able to buy machines myself I have never paid more than £130 for a Nintendo system. ever. I doubt the Rev will be anything more than £150.

I discounted all the other consoles when I realised they were nothing more than a graphical update. The Xbox controller even took away buttons. I dont know. I dont think any next gen system is really next gen right about now. If the Rev had HDTV and HD-DVD support then it would be the only real next gen machine. but no. no doubt i'll spend an insane amount of hours addicted to that controller though. roll on 2010?

James Philp

Nov 10, 2005, 06:41 PM

I also have an HD-ready LCD.
Since I bought my xbox I've never looked back. But I will judge the next-gen as I did the last - by gaming lineup (though the temptation for a 360 may be too huge). I like the kinds of games that were out on the xbox more - simple as that. I just used a trial of xbox Live and I have to say it's awesome! I also lucked out, as the xbox is far superior technologically to he PS2, and I enjoy the same titles as my friends with playstations, but with a much improved graphical and audio experience.

I am not brand-loyal however. I recently got a PSP and it's great. Despite owning GTA LCS, I love Lumines More (/off topic, sorry!).
The HDMI input on my LCD will be purr-fect for the 360 and PS3 I think - great. I have to say, not even supporting HD seems a little future-unproof, but then the 360 WONT have a blu-ray or HD DVD drive so meh.

JMO but I really don't like the idea of the Revolution's controllers - I like to relax as I play. Lounge, scratch bits, etc. I like to hold the control apparatus and let my thumbs and fingers do the work. I wanna be able to take a hand off the controller and sip some tea/beer/juice without anything going belly-up. Those Revolution cotrollers seem a little too "involved" for my liking! But that's just me. :cool:

James Philp

Nov 10, 2005, 06:46 PM

There is extreme power in the Rev; just no HDTV support.
...
I discounted all the other consoles when I realised they were nothing more than a graphical update. The Xbox controller even took away buttons. I dont know. I dont think any next gen system is really next gen right about now. If the Rev had HDTV and HD-DVD support then it would be the only real next gen machine. but no. no doubt i'll spend an insane amount of hours addicted to that controller though. roll on 2010?
You don't need to know much about gaming to know that to run games at higher resolutions takes a lot more power. - No HD means less power needed - that's the big deal.
Have you seen any of the data on these consoles? The bandwiths and data rates on these systems are HUGE! Their graphical and processing power far exceed anything available in console form today. They are in no way "graphical update"s, unless this is the term you use for every single gaming hardware advance ever. Hell, why don't we all just play on the N64 - that had 3D right?!

Plus, the new xbox controller has exactly the same no. of buttons but black and white are replaced with a L2 R2 system similar to the PS. This makes me think that maybe you don't know all that much about it...
And just "James" would be fine! :)

TheMonarch

Nov 10, 2005, 08:53 PM

Oh why, Nintendo, why must you kick me square in the balls right before I buy (Hopefully by Xmas) a 24" HD Dell screen, why?!:(

So many inputs, so, so much HD, and yet, not Revolution to use it. Damn... Somehow I knew...

Oh well, that won't make or break the Revolution, and I still want it.

And I agree, the Revolution will be "comparable" only because of its greatly reduced fill-rate in resolution (0.3 million pixels on the Rev. [480p] VS Sony's 2 million pixel resolution, 1080p [Or 4 million total, if you buy into the dual connection], 1 million on the 360 [1080i])

But hopefully, and I'm hopeful, is that since the revolution will only need to fill less than 1/3 of the resolution of the 360, and only 1/6 the resolution of the PS3 [Or 1/12 :eek:, depending on how you look at it], even if the Revolution is say 1/2 to 1/3 the power of the PS3 or 360, It may very well be much more than enough to fool the mainstream into looking very powerful.

GFLPraxis

Nov 10, 2005, 08:56 PM

We've known it would be the cheapest for a while, we just don't know by how much.

Also, the above posters are right, Nintendo has said that it will be on the same level as the other two consoles.

Something that just struck me based on James Philip's comments.

The lack of HD means that less BANDWIDTH is needed. The system will be outputting 7 times less pixels versus 1080i. That means the GPU can probably be cheaper as it won't have to support those higher resolutions and the required bandwidth. Further, it also means it gets more from the same amount of space. Compare a HD video with an SD video file if they're both encoded in H.264; the normal video takes much less space. Well, if both the Revolution and the XBox 360 use DVD's, but the cutscenes and textures are all HD-level on the XBox 360, the 360 will have MUCH less usable space left over on its disks. On top of that, it means the Revolution will have the fastest loading times.

Cheapest price, fastest loading times, graphics on par with competitors, at the cost of the lack of High-Def support. Is it worth it? IMHO yes, at least for me. And remember, the Revolution still supports 480p.

2nyRiggz

Nov 10, 2005, 08:57 PM

Yayy Nintendo...lets it get started now

Bless

risc

Nov 10, 2005, 09:37 PM

... And remember, the Revolution still supports 480p.

And that is meant to be a good thing? I'm sorry but I can tell the difference between SD TV and HD TV, I can also tell the difference between 640x480 and 1680x1050 HD is important, if you don't think so it just means you have a crap TV. :rolleyes:

DavidLeblond

Nov 10, 2005, 10:44 PM

Me and my good ol' non-HD TV welcome the Revolution with open arms. HD looks nice, but my eye sight is so poor I can barely tell the difference anyway. :P

PlaceofDis

Nov 10, 2005, 10:54 PM

i won't be missing the lack of HD support, as i doubt i will have an HD TV any time soon, i am more than happy with my current 27" Standard TV

but then again, i don't need the bleeding edge of technology to be happy either

James Philp

Nov 10, 2005, 11:24 PM

I played through "Brothers In Arms" on the xbox in 3 different difficulties.
I then played it for 5 minutes on my friend's PC, which was running at a far higher resolution. (640x480 vs 1600x1200 or summit). Wow, what a difference a few pixels make. All I can say is that HD will enhance these kinds of games to a great extent. Imagine being able to see further, in much more detail, in every game! Really be drawn into the worlds and environments, really believe in what you're playing - this is what higher resolution can do.

I just pre-ordered Half-Life 2 for the xbox, but I know playing it on my 26" 1360x768 (probably running in 640x480) will in no way compare to my friend's 24" 1960xwhatever display (running at that resolution) which I have done before. Not only in graphics, but in gameplay also. Being able to see more detail really does benefit gameplay too.

In response to [b]GFLPraxis[b], what you say is perhaps true, but remember that internal bandwidth will also be important and also the structure of memory and data flow. It may not be the case that load times will be bad with the PS3/360, if a fast enough drive is used in conjunction with good data throughput. I will not judge or cast aspersions until I see all the machines working, but I would say load times are of high priority to all game developers (hardware and software).
From what I can tell, all three machines should kick ass - console gaming is entering a new age, let's hope it's a golden one (like the days of the mega drive and the snes - ahhh.)

/Thinks : What is the resolution of the Human eye anyhow? :confused:
/Asks : So what resolution will the revolution run in?
Jeez, you only need to change the "s" to a "v" - the irony!

satans_banjo

Nov 11, 2005, 02:00 AM

i myself never even considered getting a nintendo console. they look, feel and are cheap and if you're buying a games console you want something nice and top-of-the-line so it lasts. i bought my xbox 2 years ago and since then ive modded it, upgraded the hard drive and transformed it into a digital media centre. it has never got boring. i even put linux on it (but thats really just for ***** n giggles). people i know who have bought the gamecube really just play it a bit and then leave it. no DVD player. terrible, terrible controllers. rubbish, cartoon-like games. even pro evo 4 feels crap on one of those controllers. on my xbox i play xbox live, xlink kai, i watch HDD-loaded movies (from my comptuer through FTP) and much more

GFLPraxis

Nov 11, 2005, 02:22 AM

people i know who have bought the gamecube really just play it a bit and then leave it.

Dude. A console is there...to play games on.

no DVD player.

I have five DVD players.

terrible, terrible controllers.
You seem to be quite biased here. The Wavebird is my favorite controller of the current gen. Maybe you haven't tried it.

rubbish, cartoon-like games.

And this, right here, is the sign of one who makes their decision despite having never actually played the games. Sigh.

TheMonarch

Nov 11, 2005, 02:30 AM

Dude. A console is there...to play games on.
I have five DVD players.

You seem to be quite biased here. The Wavebird is my favorite controller of the current gen. Maybe you haven't tried it.

And this, right here, is the sign of one who makes their decision despite having never actually played the games. Sigh.

I wouldn't bother much arguing this age-old battle of the "Mature VS Kiddies". It just seems that a good game is one that is full of realistic blood and simulates real-life driving. Remember, graphics are Everything... Because they're mature :rolleyes:

And I agree, the WaveBird ROCKS!!!

Dagless

Nov 11, 2005, 05:25 AM

zim

Nov 11, 2005, 06:59 AM

How dare Nintendo place their emphasis on game play and not on using the latest and greatest technology! My goat has defiantly been provoked on this one :mad:!!

Seriously, I nor half the people I know do not have an HD ready tv and we all consider ourselves serious games players. Come t think of it I am still yet to buy those component cables for my gameCube so that my picture would be "enhanced." I for one am fully behind Nintendo and their concept of lowering prices as well as increasing game play and game design creativity. I honestly do not think that this will effect most peoples decision when buying.

thequicksilver

Nov 11, 2005, 08:25 AM

In all honesty, just in general I reckon that Nintendo have made a simple deduction:

Most of the people who want a HD ready console probably wouldn't actually buy a Nintendo console in the first place.

The PS3 and X360 are already offering HD support. If Nintendo were going to, would it honestly pick up that many converts from those two? I believe not, and given that it would push the price of the Revolution up, it might even remove Nintendo's biggest attraction - price - and diminish their sales on that front.

Given that HD is still very much a niche market - especially in Europe - I honestly don't see this being a defining factor for that many people. When it's time for the PS4/Xbox 1080 and the Nintendo Reconstitution, it's then that a lack of HD support would become a real market share ruining factor.

IMHO etc.

jdechko

Nov 11, 2005, 08:32 AM

I cant say that I'm surprised with the news, its better for me, because it makes it more affordable :D . The lack of HD support, is old news, though, but I agree with their decision not to... Nintendo is trying to appeal to the casual gamer: someone without (necessarily) an HDTV, who doesn't care about the graphics... they care about the gameplay, and if theres a lot of loading/long loading times (Half-Life on PS2... so many loading times :mad: ), they'd end up getting tired of waiting, and go do something else.

i myself never even considered getting a nintendo console. they look, feel and are cheap and if you're buying a games console you want something nice and top-of-the-line so it lasts.

But consoles DO last... my original 8-bit nintendo is just as playable as it was day 1... same with the gamecube. For a console, you dont have to worry about how a game will look that comes out 2 years later... it will run just fine on the computer... its why consoles are better for gaming that computers are. Just think, in 5 years, you'd have to replace just about everything on your computer to get it to run the latest games, but a works fine. Top-of-the-line is very subjective when it comes to this sort of thing. Personally, I buy a console (nintendo) for the game lineup... its something that no other console can EVER match... Mario, Zelda and Metroid. And because they are first party characters, I dont worry about the other consoles, because I will never even consider one.

BTW, I also feel like the GC's controller is by FAR the BEST controller of them all.

wrldwzrd89

Nov 11, 2005, 09:38 AM

mrgreen4242

Nov 11, 2005, 10:18 AM

There's some rumors out there abount a possible $99 Revolution launch. I doubt it, personally, but would that ever be cool. A $149 price point would actually be a huge deal, imo.

Anyways, I wanted to chime in about the HD. I have an HD TV (30" CRT, nothing fancy). It looks SPECTACULAR at full 1080i. It also looks VERY GOOD at 480p. If Nintendo does this right and supports 480p widescreen (they call that EDTV or something right?) they would do well I think. DVDs look very nice on an HDTV, even though they are SD sources when they are converted to progressive scan and encoded in anamorphic widescreen they are "close enough" to HD.

Aside from letting them "get away with" cheper hardware, the cost of developing games will be kept down. The competition is warming us up for $60 games next generation. They have to, I suppose. With textures that high resolution they are going to be spending a fortune on artist and modelers. Plus, both Sony and MS are completely rediesgning their console. New CPUs and new architectures altogether. Nintendo has basically buily a GC 2.0 with a new controller system. It has a similar hardware and similar API. The cost to transition your GC development over to Revolution will liekly be much lower than for the others. This should keep the games at least at the $50 price point, and I'm hoping that as they are really just upgrading and streamlining current development systems and procedures, could actually lead to a decrease in game prices.

What if Nintendo launches the Revolution for $149, and a $39 price for it's first party games? Even without HD, as long as it looks GOOD, do the other even stand a chance?

Yvan256

Nov 11, 2005, 10:53 AM

Most expensive, least expensive.... They've got Metroid and Zelda.

What could be funny is seeing the next Zelda on the GameCube having graphics almost as nice as first-gen Xbox360 games.

GFLPraxis

Nov 11, 2005, 11:02 AM

There's some rumors out there abount a possible $99 Revolution launch. I doubt it, personally, but would that ever be cool. A $149 price point would actually be a huge deal, imo.

Nah, no way. At $99, it would be a GameCube + WiFi in a smaller form factor. I have heard those rumors though, I just don't believe them.

Since they say on par, I'm going to say $200-$250. Thats just my guess.

GFLPraxis

Nov 11, 2005, 11:05 AM

mrgreen4242

Nov 11, 2005, 12:12 PM

About HD:

I was looking into buying an HDTV actually. I can get a $650 HDTV, 720p and 1080i, for $350 with my sister's Best Buy discount. Then I found out I'll need a $200 tuner to actually watch anything :eek:

I may get it at a later date however. The thing is, if I get an HDTV, I want to get a good one, because the lower end Hdtv seem to blur the pixels a tad and don't look as good as the over-$1000 ones.

You can get a good HD tuner for $100 if you look around (hint: check radio shack). Also, if you have cable or satellite TV you can get the tuner for $5 a month extra or so. I have a "lower end" HDTV and the image quality is superb. It's a CRT, though, so the cheaper LCD/plasma sets may suck, I can't speak to that.

Nah, no way. At $99, it would be a GameCube + WiFi in a smaller form factor. I have heard those rumors though, I just don't believe them.

Since they say on par, I'm going to say $200-$250. That's just my guess.

I don't buy into it either but it would be an interesting move. Also, since we are talking next year, the Rev. could conceivably be pretty powerful for $100. Personally, I think the most we will see the Revolution launch at will be $200. I think they saw the success they had with the DS at a $149 though, and may quickly get it down to that point. If they have a summer launch (currently speculated), say June/July '06, at $200 they could go down to $149 for the holiday shopping season (late November/early December) pretty easily. They would sell buckets at those prices.

rockthecasbah

Nov 11, 2005, 12:36 PM

Most expensive, least expensive.... They've got Metroid and Zelda.

What could be funny is seeing the next Zelda on the GameCube having graphics almost as nice as first-gen Xbox360 games.
don't forget mario, that little plumber has a broader fanbase than Samus ;)

jdechko

Nov 11, 2005, 12:37 PM

Personally, I think the most we will see the Revolution launch at will be $200...If they have a summer launch (currently speculated), say June/July '06, at $200 they could go down to $149 for the holiday shopping season (late November/early December) pretty easily. They would sell buckets at those prices.

Wasn't the original price of the GC $199? If so, then I think we will see the Revolution released at the same price. I got at $149, but I got the Zelda Pack with Wind Waker, Oot/MQ, a Memory Card, and a Gameboy link cable. I hope it is a Summer release... my birthday is at the end of July, so I will tell my wife to get me one for my birthday. (She already said we, er... I, could get one if we had the money.) :D :D :D

Oh, man... Super Smash Brothers Revolution is going to be the best fighting game ever!!! ***Drools***

Yvan256

Nov 11, 2005, 01:02 PM

don't forget mario, that little plumber has a broader fanbase than Samus ;)

Yeah, but that kind of argument isn't expected here (hint: Windows with its 95% marketshare). ;)

Anyway, I don't even have any Mario-related game for my GameCube, that's why I didn't list it.

I do agree that Metroid has a very small fanbase (compared to Mario, Donkey Kong or even Zelda), but that's the main reason (along with Zelda) I buy Nintendo consoles (hint: I don't have and have never owned a Nintendo 64).

I can't wait to play the next Metroid on the Revolution though (finally a controller that's MADE for first-person games).

Xeem

Nov 11, 2005, 01:13 PM

When have Nintendo overpriced a console?

Three words: GameBoy Advance Micro. You can almost get a DS for its price.

I could be wrong, but I think that the Revolution may be Nintendo's last stand in the non-portable console market; they just don't have the fan base anymore. The Gamecube alienated most Nintendo fans I know that are more than 12 years old, and (like it or not) the controller of the Revolution has alienated still more. I believe the DS will continue to dominate the portables, and older fans will have to look there to find the Nintendo they grew up with.

Dagless

Nov 11, 2005, 01:33 PM

Three words: GameBoy Advance Micro. You can almost get a DS for its price.

I could be wrong, but I think that the Revolution may be Nintendo's last stand in the non-portable console market; they just don't have the fan base anymore. The Gamecube alienated most Nintendo fans I know that are more than 12 years old, and (like it or not) the controller of the Revolution has alienated still more. I believe the DS will continue to dominate the portables, and older fans will have to look there to find the Nintendo they grew up with.

its funny you should say that; the Rev has a huge following, online polls (whilst not being the best base for facts) have showed that the controller has increased interest in Nintendo machines.

I whole-heartedly disagree with everything you said. I'd say that Microsoft and Sony have more chance of ending their gaming divisions. Microsoft won't want another $4 billion loss, Sony are taking on a huge gamble with Blu-Ray and bad internet playing. the next generation can really go any way it wants.

Most of my mates, all at university bought a PS2 on launch, realised they didn't play it much and traded it for a Cube. then discovered the classics (prime, windwaker, f-zero etc) and actually do say they never realised it was such a brilliant machine. and hey, my 13 year old sister has just become addicted to Smash Bros. i laugh at your '12 year old' comment.

Yvan256

Nov 11, 2005, 01:57 PM

Most of my mates, all at university bought a PS2 on launch, realised they didn't play it much and traded it for a Cube. then discovered the classics (prime, windwaker, f-zero etc) and actually do say they never realised it was such a brilliant machine. and hey, my 13 year old sister has just become addicted to Smash Bros. i laugh at your '12 year old' comment.

Nintendo reminds me of Apple, sometimes.

Take this quote above and replace "PS2" by "Windows" and "Cube" by "OS X". People put down stuff they don't know or even used. The "GameCube is for kids" argument is as flawed as "Macs are only for designers".

There's no need arguing with Playstation and Xbox fans, just like there's no arguing with Microsoft fans (and Linux fans, to some extent).

Also, we shouldn't forget about the "I'm gonna get an Xbox360 and a Revolution" or "I'm gonna get a PS3 and a Revolution" comments. Nintendo may very well end up getting the biggest marketshare this time around (not that they're in financial trouble or anything).

jdechko

Nov 11, 2005, 02:30 PM

Nintendo may very well end up getting the biggest marketshare this time around (not that they're in financial trouble or anything).

Maybe this is the "revolution" that nintendo is talking about. I think that Sony and Microsoft have lost sight of what's truly important here. It's not about marketshare or specs... only silly fanboys toss specs around. (Where are the specs for the Rev? I havent seen one credible source, yet the Revolution is still getting a lot of talk). Specs and personal attacks on the other systems are the only things the fanboys know. It's true, read just about any forum regarding the consoles... Sony is better... no, M$ roXorz we have halo... I like the game cube... haha, u r lame, stupid noob... etc.

Nintendo, has something that neither of the other companies can see what with the $ in their eyes. It is the pure spirit of gaming (sorry to get sappy, but i think its the truth). When asked why anyone would buy a Nintendo console, its always the same set of responses... the gameplay, the first party line up that cannot be matched by HALO or whatnot, and the simple fact that for many of us, the first console we owned was an 8-bit nintendo (or something else that was that old). What we had then wasnt great graphics or realistic physics or online connectivitiy... all we had was the gameplay... and I salute nintendo for sticking with what got it to the top in the first place. Sure the court jesters get some of the attention away from the royalty, but in my book nintendo is still king... and no set of specs is going to change my mind about it.

GFLPraxis

Nov 11, 2005, 03:32 PM

I suggest everybody read all four pages of Reggie's latest speech. It's a very good read.

One interesting part, to quote Reggie:
I want to move on today by talking about our upcoming home console, codenamed Nintendo Revolution, in ways that also make it clear how it serves as a potential case study for blue ocean strategy or the Innovator's Dilemma.

Clayton Christensen points out that so-called sustaining, or existing market technologies, are inherently geared to deliver incremental increases in performance to customers who value what's already being delivered. A better description of the linear advances represented by both the new Sony and Microsoft consoles could not be written.

Christensen also observes that this kind of strategy frequently result in, "overshooting the market, giving customers more than they need -- or are willing to pay for."

Will the new competing consoles also match this description? Well, I'm sure everyone is anxious to find out.

Nintendo Revolution is decidedly not running in this race. Not because we can't afford the entry fee. But because we don't want the prize. There is no guarantee that even the winner among these two will be rewarded with profits. It's clear that the billions invested can only be rationalized by considering a larger corporate goal. It takes a long time to escape the red ink when billions are spent before the first machine is sold, and more money is lost every time the cash register rings.

We intend for Revolution, just like every other Nintendo system, to actually make money.

As I've said, the strategy for maximizing our return is twofold: attract new players and attract current players with new forms of play.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/665/665952p1.html

Dagless

Nov 11, 2005, 04:48 PM

I think Nintendo knows what they want to do with their console. In case you haven't figured out by now, Nintendo abhors loading times. This is why Nintendo stuck with cartridges for so long, and why they used miniature discs for the GameCube (if you have one, like I do, you'd be impressed by the loading times being as low as they are - usually load times are less than 1 second).

This also explains the lack of HD support - including it would increase load times above Nintendo's tolerance level. As far as the cost goes, that, too, is typical Nintendo strategy. Don't try to make it "insanely great", just make it fun to use, cheap for consumers, and profitable for us.

exactly. I dont know where I read it but Nintendo has a set of rules to follow, a lot of companies do. 2 of them are battery life and loading times. they are key issues to Nintendo and a main reason why the regular GBA had no backlight. so they come to an excellent solution; drop AA battery support and use their own high-powered battery as seen in the SP, DS and Micro.

Maybe I'm too old a gamer. But I was brought up on the Amiga way back in the early 90's and a Spectrum when I was extremely young. I have done my time loading. I never want to see a loading screen again, at least not like the ones the Xbox and PS2 have. Seriously I just borrowed GTA:SA off a mate and it took about 2 minutes to load up, another mates PSP took god knows how long to load up GTA:LCS. My amiga was doing that in 1991.

I also see part of the their strategy as adding HDTV is like the gamble Sony are doing with BluRay. BluRay has a 50% chance of being the format of choice, HDTV is definitely going to happen, but its a gamble for Nintendo in that will HDTV be the thing that makes the Rev suceed? are the revs secret features enough to render HDTV as an ineffective factor? will people be bowled away just by playing with the most intuitive input devised for a games system? if it makes the system cost any less then its got my vote. i do NOT want to be paying Xbox360 and PS3 prices for a system. no way, no how.

GFLPraxis

Nov 11, 2005, 05:23 PM

Dagless

Nov 11, 2005, 06:14 PM

takao

Nov 11, 2005, 06:26 PM

Maybe I'm too old a gamer. But I was brought up on the Amiga way back in the early 90's and a Spectrum when I was extremely young. I have done my time loading. I never want to see a loading screen again, at least not like the ones the Xbox and PS2 have. Seriously I just borrowed GTA:SA off a mate and it took about 2 minutes to load up, another mates PSP took god knows how long to load up GTA:LCS. My amiga was doing that in 1991.

yeah you know something is wrong when the mmporg on the pc takes less time to load than a racing game on a console ;) (burnout revenge vs WoW)

i still remember those 5 minutes loading times with disc swapping on the c64
i'm not interested in them coming back... ever

AP_piano295

Nov 11, 2005, 06:29 PM

The revolution is a novelty system... Its taken novelty toys like the eye toy and made it the actual controler. Nintendo is notorious for not keeping up with the current tech last gen lacked internet. This generation lacks HD which in a couple of years will become very common considering the goverments choice to convert all tv to digital in the immediate future it will push more people to buy hd tvs. The ability to download old games is kind of cool but far from amazing I buy a new system to play the new games not to replay the old ones for a price. Like I said before the controlers are a party toy and in the end everyones going to end up having to buy the regular controler adapter wich will hurt the "lower price point"

*ps-Another excellent idea from nintendo was not using discs with the n64 instead of the cartrige which was well outdated.

*And what was with the gamecube using mini disks portability is nice but I dont move a system very often. (I dont know if this effects storage space but it seems it would)

AP_piano295

Nov 11, 2005, 06:40 PM

Yeah, but that kind of argument isn't expected here (hint: Windows with its 95% marketshare). ;)

Anyway, I don't even have any Mario-related game for my GameCube, that's why I didn't list it.

I do agree that Metroid has a very small fanbase (compared to Mario, Donkey Kong or even Zelda), but that's the main reason (along with Zelda) I buy Nintendo consoles (hint: I don't have and have never owned a Nintendo 64).

I can't wait to play the next Metroid on the Revolution though (finally a controller that's MADE for first-person games).

made for first person games...what about moving, the mouse is the controller made for the first person game and that was inventeded a while ago
;)

wrldwzrd89

Nov 11, 2005, 07:03 PM

Dagless

Nov 11, 2005, 07:23 PM

*ps-Another excellent idea from nintendo was not using discs with the n64 instead of the cartrige which was well outdated.

*And what was with the gamecube using mini disks portability is nice but I dont move a system very often. (I dont know if this effects storage space but it seems it would)

umm... they have nothing to do with portability? Have a look at when the current gen consoles were chipped. Look at the GC, its only been in the last year or so that chipping has even taken off! mini discs that read back to front. its taken up to now (Viper 3 is it?) that the Cube can truly be chipped.

They used cartridges for no loading times? its already been said though.

and the shell controller comes free with the Revolution? along with the numchuck?

Talk all you want about the US getting HDTV channels, in the UK they want to switch off analogue in 2009. HDTV are not going to be in the majority of UK homes until 2010. no sir-ee. Sky are planning on releasing a HD version of Discovery channel and MTV in 2006. heh. long way to go here :)

GFLPraxis

Nov 11, 2005, 07:46 PM

The revolution is a novelty system... Its taken novelty toys like the eye toy and made it the actual controler.

I disagree with this assessment. The reason EyeToy remained a novelty is that it is not practical for use in most games. As is the way with most novelties. The Light Gun for NES was only useful for two or three games, and was useless outside of that.

What Nintendo has done is, not taken a novelty and made it the actual controller, but created an entirely new control method that combines all known methods. Consider that it either has or can mimick the functionality of:

1) an analog stick
2) a wireless mouse
3) a remote control
4) a light gun
5) the EyeToy in a way (motion sensing)
6) a tilt sensing gyroscope

Essentially, it's combined every proven control method (a mouse, and an analog stick) with the novelties (light gun) and a motion/tilt sensor.

Personally, I think it's brilliant.

*And what was with the gamecube using mini disks portability is nice but I dont move a system very often. (I dont know if this effects storage space but it seems it would)

One thing I love about Nintendo is that they admit their mistakes and actually learn from them. They forgot online play, well, they make up for it double time with free online play and hundreds of downloadable games. They forget backwards compatability, they create the 'virtual console' that can play ANYTHING. Reggie actually stated that last generation, they thought portability would be a big factor (hence the handle and minidisks) and were proved wrong. The minidisks served two other purposes;
1) Faster load times
2) Very, VERY difficult to rip ROMs off of, killing piracy.

Dagless

Nov 11, 2005, 08:22 PM

an interesting question; does anyone have a chipped Gamecube and plays pirated games, or know anyone who does so? is it just me or do people just not pirate Nintendo games as much as Xbox and PS1+2?

GFLPraxis

Nov 11, 2005, 09:18 PM

an interesting question; does anyone have a chipped Gamecube and plays pirated games, or know anyone who does so? is it just me or do people just not pirate Nintendo games as much as Xbox and PS1+2?

I don't but I know how it is done (copying the games). You have to buy the broadband adapter, buy some special equipment to load an app onto the GameCube through the memory card slot (or use Phantasy Star Online and have it download a script to do so), and have it upload the GameCube disk contents to a server on the internet somewhere, as I recall. It's a tad complicated.

Then you have to get it chipped, and burn those games you ripped onto mini-DVD's. It's all a big pain.

Eidorian

Nov 11, 2005, 09:33 PM

I suggest everybody read all four pages of Reggie's latest speech. It's a very good read.

One interesting part, to quote Reggie:

http://cube.ign.com/articles/665/665952p1.htmlThat's the best article I've read in ages. Reggie is great.

risc

Nov 11, 2005, 10:45 PM

an interesting question; does anyone have a chipped Gamecube and plays pirated games, or know anyone who does so? is it just me or do people just not pirate Nintendo games as much as Xbox and PS1+2?

Why does having a modded console have to mean you pirate games? My Xbox and PS2 were modded and I didn't pirate 1 single game, I was more interested in playing games from all over the world. I have considered getting a Freeloader for my GC for the exact same reason. Personally I find region encoding of consoles (like DVD players) to be nothing more than a PITA.

GFLPraxis

Nov 12, 2005, 01:06 AM

Considering that the DS has no region lock, I wonder if the Revolution will follow suit.

Dagless

Nov 12, 2005, 04:10 AM

Why does having a modded console have to mean you pirate games? My Xbox and PS2 were modded and I didn't pirate 1 single game, I was more interested in playing games from all over the world. I have considered getting a Freeloader for my GC for the exact same reason. Personally I find region encoding of consoles (like DVD players) to be nothing more than a PITA.

whoa relax, thats why I said who has modded the console AND plays pirate games. i covered myself there. AND was the keyword. i should have underlined it perhaps?

Yvan256

Nov 12, 2005, 09:23 AM

It's interesting. Sony's taking a 50-50 gamble on Blu-ray, and Nintendo is taking a gamble that it's efforts to expanding the market will be more profitable than attempting to make a system that appeals to the existing market.

Microsoft is the only one playing it safe, it seems. Take the XBox, upgrade graphics and Live, and throw in Media Center integration, and ta-da, new system.

I agree on Sony's (expensive) gamble on Blue-ray. And I've heard Cell is very hard to code for (and also expensive to manufacture). However, the PS3 is supposed to be backward-compatible to both the PS1 and PS2 (last time I've heard), which is a good thing for gamers. The final (high) price of the PS3, however, might be Sony's demise (I don't care if it's a Blu-ray movie player, media center and all if the thing costs 500$CAD).

Nintendo isn't gambling anything at all (they don't need to expand the market, they're already the most profitable company out of the three). They're taking a gamble with the controller, yes, but Nintendo are the innovative ones (kinda like Apple with their software). I, for one, can't wait to play Metroid with that new controller (first-person games just suck with a gamepad/analog sticks. The Revolution's controller, however, might give my keyboard/mouse setup a run for its money). Also, I've read that coding for the Revolution is like coding for a "GameCube 2" (meaning, it's still easy and doesn't require too much learning to code for the new console). The Revolution will also be able to run games for the NES, SNES, N64 and GameCube (it'd be nice if it could also play GBA games, like the GameCube with a GameBoy Player, but built-in), so I don't see the "old/new users gamble" that you see. The Revolution remote seems like it can be used as a NES gamepad (sideways), it has GC inputs (for GC games) and it has its Revolution controller for the new games. And while the Revolution won't have HD-DVD (nor Blu-ray), they won't have an HD output either, so they won't need massive amounts of storage for HD textures (I've read somewhere the Revolution will be about "2 or 3 times as powerful as a GC", which will be good enough for me as far as graphics go - take a look at Metroid Prime 2 if you need proof that the GC can do decent graphics). Anyway a regular DVD is still bigger than Nintendo's current GC discs. Nintendo is also keeping costs down by using DVD (DVD-ROM drives are now dirt-cheap) and not making the Revolution a DVD player by default (licenses). Add to that Nintendo's usual "lowest priced console" policy, and they'll sell tons (if the Revolution is everyone's "2nd console", they end up being in ALL homes, as opposed to the Xbox 360 and PS3).

Microsoft is taking a huge gamble, IMO. They have to make binaries for old games (new CPU and new GPU), didn't increase the GPU enough (according to most people who played it at demo kiosks), Live is still useless to most people (yes I've heard it works fine, but who wants to pay a monthly fee on top of their already expensive internet connection?) and "media center" is just a gimmick (I don't know anyone using his current Xbox as a music jukebox, and the PS3 will probably do as much as the Xbox 360 as far as "media center" goes). They'll also continue using regular DVDs (like the Xbox) so there's no "next-gen" progression going on for game storage capacity (can't wait to see those over-compressed textures). Microsoft needs more storage space than a regular DVD can provide! With Microsoft trying to back up HD-DVD (to stop Blu-ray), you'd guess they'd include HD-DVD on the Xbox 360... Also, don't forget the Xbox division is now 140M$ in the red, so the Xbox 360 has to make twice as much money as it should for the Xbox division to even start making a profit. But we already know the Xbox 360 will also be sold at a loss (just like the Xbox), so it doesn't bode well for the MS-Xbox division. Especially with two models at launch, which will only confuse most people.

Of course, these are my opinions. You have the right to disagree with them. :cool:

AP_piano295

Nov 12, 2005, 10:23 AM

I disagree with this assessment. The reason EyeToy remained a novelty is that it is not practical for use in most games. As is the way with most novelties. The Light Gun for NES was only useful for two or three games, and was useless outside of that.

What Nintendo has done is, not taken a novelty and made it the actual controller, but created an entirely new control method that combines all known methods. Consider that it either has or can mimick the functionality of:

1) an analog stick
2) a wireless mouse
3) a remote control
4) a light gun
5) the EyeToy in a way (motion sensing)
6) a tilt sensing gyroscope

Essentially, it's combined every proven control method (a mouse, and an analog stick) with the novelties (light gun) and a motion/tilt sensor.

Personally, I think it's brilliant.

One thing I love about Nintendo is that they admit their mistakes and actually learn from them. They forgot online play, well, they make up for it double time with free online play and hundreds of downloadable games. They forget backwards compatability, they create the 'virtual console' that can play ANYTHING. Reggie actually stated that last generation, they thought portability would be a big factor (hence the handle and minidisks) and were proved wrong. The minidisks served two other purposes;
1) Faster load times
2) Very, VERY difficult to rip ROMs off of, killing piracy.

You have alot of good points there, the main reason I dont like the revolution controller is that I just cant think of any good way to play with it but I suppose Im really judging it to early. Need to try it before I decide that I dont like it.

Yvan256

Nov 12, 2005, 10:58 AM

made for first person games...what about moving, the mouse is the controller made for the first person game and that was inventeded a while ago
;)

Well, the keyboard+mouse combo doesn't work very well in the living room, sitting on the sofa. And imagine multi-player. ;)

GFLPraxis

Nov 12, 2005, 03:05 PM

Nintendo isn't gambling anything at all (they don't need to expand the market, they're already the most profitable company out of the three). They're taking a gamble with the controller, yes, but Nintendo are the innovative ones (kinda like Apple with their software).

Well, those are the same things. The controller is how they're expanding the market. They're expanding the market at possible risk of alienating the current graphics-obsessed market.

Personally, I think it'll pay off. I'm dying to play with the controller. I have never bought a console FPS because I HATE dual joysticks, it's a cheap substitute for a mouse. However, the general public doesn't always think the same.

The "old/new users" gamble is that older users that cared about graphics (remember, GameCube had better graphics than PS2 and was cheaper than XBox, so it wasn't a bad deal at all graphics-wise) will pass it up completely.

(I've read somewhere the Revolution will be about "2 or 3 times as powerful as a GC", which will be good enough for me as far as graphics go - take a look at Metroid Prime 2 if you need proof that the GC can do decent graphics).

This was actually proven false.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/522/522559p2.html

Q: Is Revolution "two-to-three times more powerful than GameCube"?

A: USA Today reported this news based on a comment from Nintendo of America's vice president of corporate affairs, Perrin Kaplan. The information was later determined to be false. We do not yet know how much more power Revolution wields over its predecessor.

Microsoft is taking a huge gamble, IMO. They have to make binaries for old games (new CPU and new GPU), didn't increase the GPU enough (according to most people who played it at demo kiosks),

Nah, that's because all the demos are up-ports from older systems or PC.

Live is still useless to most people (yes I've heard it works fine, but who wants to pay a monthly fee on top of their already expensive internet connection?)

Exactly as it was before. Playing it safe.

and "media center" is just a gimmick (I don't know anyone using his current Xbox as a music jukebox, and the PS3 will probably do as much as the Xbox 360 as far as "media center" goes).

Agreed.

They'll also continue using regular DVDs (like the Xbox) so there's no "next-gen" progression going on for game storage capacity (can't wait to see those over-compressed textures).

Playing it safe, don't want to invest in a format that might lose.

Microsoft needs more storage space than a regular DVD can provide! With Microsoft trying to back up HD-DVD (to stop Blu-ray), you'd guess they'd include HD-DVD on the Xbox 360... Also, don't forget the Xbox division is now 140M$ in the red, so the Xbox 360 has to make twice as much money as it should for the Xbox division to even start making a profit. But we already know the Xbox 360 will also be sold at a loss (just like the Xbox), so it doesn't bode well for the MS-Xbox division. Especially with two models at launch, which will only confuse most people.

Of course, these are my opinions. You have the right to disagree with them. :cool:

Oh don't get me wrong. I feel that Microsoft is making a lot of mistakes. But I think those mistakes are because of a desire to play it safe. Don't want to take the risk that a storage format might fail, so better stick with DVD. Don't want to risk alienating an audience, so make everything exactly the same just with better graphics and keep the same buyers.