Nintendo Revolution will be the cheapest next gen console

risc

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Jul 23, 2004
2,756
0
Melbourne, Australia
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

macrumors 65816
Mar 5, 2005
1,494
0
Oxford/London
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

macrumors 68020
Apr 12, 2005
2,395
2
Moorestown, NJ
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

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Jul 23, 2004
2,756
0
Melbourne, Australia
rockthecasbah said:
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?
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
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.
 

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,552
2,886
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

macrumors 65816
Mar 5, 2005
1,494
0
Oxford/London
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

macrumors 65816
Mar 5, 2005
1,494
0
Oxford/London
raggedjimmi said:
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

macrumors 65816
May 6, 2005
1,469
1
Bay Area
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

macrumors 604
Mar 17, 2004
7,091
404
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.
 

risc

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Jul 23, 2004
2,756
0
Melbourne, Australia
GFLPraxis said:
... 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

macrumors 68020
Jan 6, 2004
2,198
286
Raleigh, NC
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

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
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

macrumors 65816
Mar 5, 2005
1,494
0
Oxford/London
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 GFLPraxis, 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

macrumors regular
Sep 12, 2005
218
0
SE London
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

macrumors 604
Mar 17, 2004
7,091
404
satans_banjo said:
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

macrumors 65816
May 6, 2005
1,469
1
Bay Area
GFLPraxis said:
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!!!
 

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,552
2,886
satans_banjo said:
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
When you say you watch HDD loaded movies, you do know you can stream data from your computer to your Xbox? assuming your using XBMC?

hehe "cartoon-like games". i laugh in your general direction
 

zim

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2002
1,332
0
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

macrumors 6502a
Sep 19, 2004
769
0
Birmingham
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

macrumors 601
Jul 1, 2004
4,059
198
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.


satans_banjo said:
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

macrumors G5
Jun 6, 2003
12,106
73
Solon, OH
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.
 

mrgreen4242

macrumors 601
Feb 10, 2004
4,352
1
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?