Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Nintendo Businesses Entertainment Games

Revolution Least Expensive Next-Gen Console 580

Posted by Zonk
from the cheap-and-wacky dept.
exdeath writes "Today, one of Nintendo's most public faces said the Revolution will stand out from its competition for a reason besides its innovative controller: price. Speaking to CNN/Money correspondent Chris Morris Reggie Fils-Aime, executive vice president of sales and marketing, predicted that the Revolution would be cheaper than both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. How low will Nintendo go? It's hard to tell. Microsoft is selling two Xbox 360 SKUs--the no-frills $299 core Xbox and the $399 standard model with hard drive and wireless remote. In his interview with Morris, Fils-Aime also reiterated that the Revolution will not support high-definition televisions. 'What we'll offer in terms of gameplay and approachability will more than make up for the lack of HD,' he said. Both Microsoft and Sony are making much of the 360 and PS3's HD capabilities. Fils-Aime also implied that the DS will see redesigns, just as the Game Boy Advance has."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Revolution Least Expensive Next-Gen Console

Comments Filter:
  • Smart Move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fistfullast33l (819270) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:35AM (#14007223) Homepage Journal
    Nintendo, of the three, targets children better than any other of the big three console developers. The average parent doesn't want to spend $400 to keep their child happy (nevermind that the odds that the child will use the majority space of the harddrive on the xbox360 is slim to none). They did it with the DS (unintentionally?) and it's helped them as well. It's now a semi-proven model of competition for them that works.
    • Re:Smart Move (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GweeDo (127172) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:46AM (#14007292) Homepage
      The DS is for kids? Man, I thought it was for people that wanted to play fun games. Looks like I should tell all my 20+ friends to get rid of their kiddie toy along with me!

      Seriously though, when will this "Nintendo is the kidie!" sentiment just die. Nintendo makes games that are fun for ALL age groups. They also have third party support if you just have to have a game with a big "M" on it (Resident Evil 4 = one of the best games ever).

      Personally, I can't wait to play my kiddie Mario Kart DS and Animal Crossing online [witendofi.com]. Go back to watching Spider Man 2 on your UMD while I play some games.
      • by Max_Abernethy (750192) on Friday November 11, 2005 @10:07AM (#14007951) Homepage
        Even if Nintendo platforms did only have brightly-colored family friendly games, it would still be a stupid argument. Games like, say, Halo aren't more "mature," they're more violent. I know the ESRB sticks an "M" on them, but it pretty obviously doesn't mean you're an older or more sophisticated person if you play them. I don't know when the two terms got equated, but it is a little bit irritating when people who just like violent games consider their pastime superior. Obviously, if I'm not shooting something, I'm engaging in some sort of absurd, childish activity. When you start spending your time sipping tea and reading classics instead of yelling "faggot" at strangers over the internet while attempting to obtain their flag, you can talk down to me.
      • Re:Smart Move (Score:5, Informative)

        by fistfullast33l (819270) on Friday November 11, 2005 @10:39AM (#14008268) Homepage Journal
        The DS is for kids?

        I didn't actually say that Nintendo was only for kids, I said it targeted children better than the others. I think there's a big difference between the two.

      • Re:Smart Move (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kollivier (449524) on Friday November 11, 2005 @10:47AM (#14008336)
        The DS is for kids?

        Uhm, that's not what the parent poster was saying. He said that it targets children better than other consoles, which is absolutely true. Many kid-friendly games are Gamecube/GBA/DS exclusives. Some developers develop for, or port to, the PS2 but these days but for the most part the PS2 and XBox are filled with sports and FPS games. Nintendo's systems have a larger variety of games that don't need to be rated "M", and thus, I think it's fair to say that Nintendo is more careful to make games that are kid-friendly.

        I do agree with you that sometimes people do call Nintendo games/systems "for kids", but parent poster did not say that.

    • he average parent doesn't want to spend $400 to keep their child happy

      Yup, but, what will make your child happy? a Revolution, a 360 or a PS3? These days I think it all depends on marketing as in what is everyone else playing.

      So, what good would it be for parents to buy the Revolution to their sons, if they will just throw it in the corner and continue asking for that costly 360 thingy?
  • by ChrisF79 (829953) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:35AM (#14007226) Homepage
    When you look at the specs of the PS3 or Xbox 360, it appears to me that your money is getting you a better system. With the Revolution not supporting high-definition, it should be discounted. I'm sure it will be better than the gamecube, but it just seems odd to me that they wouldn't support HD. When I bought my television last year, suddenly my PS2 got a lot fewer hours on it. The Xbox just looked so nice. And after all, I paid enough money for the TV that I want to see it the way it is intended.
    • by hal2814 (725639) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:44AM (#14007276)
      "When you look at the specs of the PS3 or Xbox 360, it appears to me that your money is getting you a better system."

      What's funny is that I remember two of my friends using the same argument to buy a Saturn over the Playstation at launch time. Better hardware != better system. (Personally, I think the Saturn was a better system but I'm obviously in the minority.)

      Also, while HD sounds nice, the majority of Americans aren't onboard yet. Nintendo is merely betting that HD won't become a big factor over the course of this console's lifespan (which will probably be 4-6 based on typcial console lifespans). I don't think that's a terrible bet given HD's slow adoption rate thus far.
      • by digidave (259925) on Friday November 11, 2005 @10:37AM (#14008245)
        I think you got it. Even buying a real HDTV set is hard given the current state of labelling everything HDTV even if it doesn't support HD in native resolution and downsamples everything. Tons of EDTVs are labelled HDTV. Many don't have 16:9 screen resolutions so you get stretched pictures or black bars on both 4:3 and 16:9 video.

        Screw 'em. I'll get an HDTV when they sort out this crap. I hope most everybody else feels the same way. I'll also buy a Revolution and it'll look great on my 32" Wega.
    • by aussie_a (778472) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:47AM (#14007304) Journal
      It all depends on what you want. Do you want the same old games we've been getting for years now, updated with flashy graphics? Or do you want a new gameplay experience with an innovative remote allowing for a unique experience?

      If the control is used well, and not used as a gimmick, then I can see the Revolution being a hell of a lot better then PS3 and Xbox 360. But it has to be used to good effect. Of course, those that will lap up whatever "XXX 200X" gamecompanies spew out, will of course like their flashy graphics, because for them that's one of the few ways a game can improve in.

      I'm just hoping the Revolution gets a good healthy library from a large range of developers, and isn't inundated with gimmicky games and Mario Bros XX.
    • Gameplay is the thing though. I don't care about incremental improvements in graphics

      Disclaimer: I will be getting all three next gen systems (unless Sony pulls that "no used game" crap, or the system requires internet access)
    • Ars Technica (Score:4, Interesting)

      by JanneM (7445) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:51AM (#14007351) Homepage
      Ars Technica had a good piece related to this. Very briefly, they point out that most titles are written to be cross-platform, thus erasing a lot of the relative hardware benefits of each platform.

      http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/cr ossplatform.ars [arstechnica.com]

      I think Nintendo is on to a winner; we'll see if the execution is as good as their ideas.
    • Nintendo admits that revolution's graphics will not be as good as ps3 or xbox

      So, what's the deal. Worse technology, better price. I don't see why people wouldn't buy it it the games are good...
      • by Grey Ninja (739021) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:31AM (#14007625) Homepage Journal
        "Nintendo admits that revolution's graphics will not be as good as ps3 or xbox"

        Eh? I recall no such thing. I recall Iwata saying that Revolution's graphics will be indistinguishable from Xbox 360 or PS3. I recall spec sheets clearly stating support for 480p. I recall Iwata saying that Revolution could be hooked up to a computer monitor. At no time do I recall him saying that Revolution's graphics won't be as good. He just said that Revolution's focus is not on graphics, but on gameplay.
    • But the PS2 sold the most units by a long shot for the last generation. And it was the least technologically advanced. The technical abilities of a system have nothing to do with how well it will sell.
    • by mausmalone (594185) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:28AM (#14007604) Homepage Journal
      When you look at the specs of the PS3 or Xbox 360, it appears to me that your money is getting you a better system. With the Revolution not supporting high-definition, it should be discounted.
      While I'll agree with out that the non-support for HDTV should lead to a lower cost (and almost certainly does), I would like to point out that:
      • There are no specs release for the Revolution at all (outside of some extremely unsubstantiated rumors), and the PS3 ones are still a little vague (as is its price point)
      • Outside of Sony and Nintendo, almost nobody has gotten to play a real PS3 or Revolution game yet, so it is a little hasty to make qualitative judgements (i.e. "better system") until you actually have a chance to play with them a little.
      • It's definitely too early to say which gives you the most bang for your buck, since we don't know what "bang" the Revolution will give you, nor how much "buck" the PS3 will cost.
      I don't want anyone to think I'm evangelizing for anyone... but calling systems "better" or "worse" based on rumors are how flame wars get started. Even if you're not saying it in a mean way, there's someone out there who will take it personally.
    • by shorgs (874640) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:52AM (#14007807)
      Nintendo is obviously foolish. Their biggest selling points to me was that you would be able to play their entire back catalog. Now I don't know. I can't imagine playing Mario 3 without my HD hardware.
  • by DilbertLand (863654) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:36AM (#14007232)
    Considering the $50+ price tag of new games, is the console price really that important?
    • with nintendo yes... if you grab a gamecube, and 2 or 3 games youre set. super monkey ball, mario kart, even mario all have hundreds of hours of gameplay in them, not tens like most games released predominantly for other consoles. so if the arguement is revolution + 3 games against xbox 360 + 5 games, it becomes even more of a factor. and as to the kids arguement, you need to keep them satisfied over the long run, you dont but a console and several games at one, you buy ONE game, then more later, or buy sev
    • by Sockatume (732728) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:24AM (#14007574)
      If games consoles shared a standard, it wouldn't matter, but Nintendo's software will only be playable on their consoles. No console sale, no game sales. By making their machine cheaper there's a greater chance someone will buy it over its competitors.
  • by thebosz (748870) <thebosz.gmail@com> on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:44AM (#14007280) Homepage Journal
    I predict that the Revolution (or whatever it'll be called) will be launched at a price point of $200 USD. Why? Because the GameCube launched at that price. Because the Nintendo 64 launched at that price. Because the Super Nintendo hit mass market appeal at that price and because the NES hit mass market appeal at that price. (Obviously, I'm going off of memory with the numbers.)

    But, as the article says, is that enough for Nintendo? Gamecube was/is priced considerably lower than the PS2 and Xbox, but doesn't have nearly the mindshare (not even mentioning the marketshare). I'm not planning on getting either PS3 or Xbox 360 until they reach price points comparable to what the Revolution will launch at; for me, $200 is the sweet spot. Any more and I won't buy it.

    Personally, I'm most excited about the possibilities of the Revolution (the controller, download old games, internet play, Super Smash Bros. Revolution Online, etc.) but I fear that it might be too little too late.

    • by cowscows (103644) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:24AM (#14007572) Journal
      Nintendo will do just fine with the Revolution. One of the great mysteries to me is how, with very similar worldwide sales numbers, the Xbox is considered such a success, while the GC is considered a failure. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that Nintendo's marketshare has historically had nowhere to go but down, while MS could only go up.

      But really, both companies have the ultimate goal of making money by selling video games, and Nintendo is certainly very good at that. They've been doing it pretty consistently with the GC, and I see no good reason to believe otherwise. It might be too little too late to win over the hardcore young adult gamer crowd, but I think Nintendo has proved already that they can make plenty of profit without them.

      Nintendo will never regain a huge dominate marketshare. I don't think we'll have that sort of monopoly over the console market ever again. Sony and MS will most likely battle it out to pretty much a draw, and the only unknown is where Nintendo will end up compared to them in marketshare. But I think we can say with a good bit of confidence that Nintendo will continue to make money. Even if they didn't manage to grow their market, they've already got a pretty good hold on their current customers, and nothing MS or Sony are doing appears to threaten that in any significant way. The worst I can imagine Nintendo doing is pretty much a repeat of GC sales levels, and Nintendo's bank account would be fine with that.
      • To be honest, I really don't see the Xbox doing well until they get the idea of exclusive games into their business model. From the beginning, Nintendo has had certain games that you simply cannot get on other systems: Metroid, Zelda, Mario. Sega tried to get in on this very good idea with the Genesis, and I think it is one of the reasons that that machine was so popular.
        I own a Gamecube right now, and I'll buy a Revolution... Because I'm hooked on the Metroid games, always have been. But also, because the
      • Nintendo will do just fine with the Revolution. One of the great mysteries to me is how, with very similar worldwide sales numbers, the Xbox is considered such a success, while the GC is considered a failure.

        Nice guy answer: because Nintendo has been in the business for 2 decades, and Microsoft was a n00b.

        More realistic answer: Most young'uns have short memories, but when the Xbox was first announced, it was pretty much the laughing stock of the gaming industry. Microsoft? an x86 console? WTF? When it was r
  • by Sockatume (732728) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:48AM (#14007318)
    I know of quite a few people who bought a GC to go alongside a PS2 or an Xbox, because of its comparatively low price. Perhaps Nintendo noticed this and is aiming the Revolution to be everyone's "other" next-gen console, given their emphasis on different kinds of games than the indistinguishable powerhouses from MS/Sony.
    • I know of quite a few people who bought a GC to go alongside a PS2 or an Xbox, because of its comparatively low price.

      It's more then that. I have a GC for Nintendo brand games, which are always very high quality and very well designed. Most games I buy Its very clear that nobody every seriously play-tested them, because the games have annoynances and bugs that would have been fixed during the process... for instance:

      Nightmare Before Christmas: To save your game you have to goto a specific character, a

  • by DannyO152 (544940) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:50AM (#14007338)
    It's Not a SONY.
  • Chinese Market (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alucinor (849600) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:53AM (#14007364) Journal
    With a low price-point, it sounds like they want to clean up in the Chinese market that's sprouted up this time 'round. And it's not like they have a lot of HDTVs.

    Personally, I could care less about HD ... I've seen what it can do, and it doesn't seem to be that great of an advancement to me. Besides, a non-HD Nintendo means beautiful frame rates ... and games with a cell-shaded look to them will look the same whether on HD or regular TV.
  • by CDPatten (907182) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:01AM (#14007420) Homepage
    Meryl Lynch reported that the Xbox 360 could be as low as $250 this spring and MS would still make a profit. The revolution won't be out that soon, and when it does come out, chances are MS will only be charging a couple hundred dollars at the most. So unless the revolution starts at $100 at release, it will most likely be the same or more then the Xbox 360.

    http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/11/03/console/in dex.php [macworld.com]
    • by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Friday November 11, 2005 @10:26AM (#14008119) Homepage
      Merrill Lynch aren't journalists, they aren't a video game company. They aren't Microsoft. They aren't Sony. They aren't accountable to anyone. They're analysts. They guess. If they're wrong, there are no consequences to them.

      Merrill Lynch also seems to make awfully consistent guesses about the next generation, specifically: Whatever is good for Microsoft. The persistent claims in the last several months that the Playstation 3 will cost exorbant amounts of money also, if you follow sources, inevitably stem from guesses by Merrill Lynch. Contrast this with Merrill Lynch's guesses in 1999, which predicted the ps2 would sell for well more than it ever did. [zdnet.com]

      Other recent winning predictions by analysts about the video game industry have been that the PSP would be a smash success and knock the Nintendo DS and Game Boy outside of the market (it's outsold neither); that Nintendo would die every year for the last five; that Apple would die every year for the five before that; that Nintendo DS online would launch with free VOIP; and that the PS3 will launch in 2007.
  • Nintendo's 'problem', if you can call it that, is that they don't target people who don't already play games. I don't know many people who bought a GC as their only console, and almost everyone I know who did buy a GC bought one because they were fans of an existing Nintendo franchise (Mario, Zelda) and wanted the newest title in the range.

    The new input device looks to be a way to introduce non-gamers to the machine, but it may look a little gimmicky to them. I'm not a Nintendo fan (I got my GC for Monkey B
    • Re:Non-Gamers? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sockatume (732728)
      That's exactly who they're targeting with the Revolution, based on comments in interviews. And the same approach worked for the DS, so they'll be feeling somewhat confident. I suspect this is their way of ducking out of the increasingly cutthroat specifications war, by carving out a new market niche.
    • "I got my GC for Monkey Ball!"

      Glad I'm not the only one.
  • Not to knock Nintendo here, but I'll probably never own one. The reason is simple. The problem is not the controller (I have to admit, it's a neat idea, although I'm skeptical about how comfortable it is), or the hardware, or even the fact that it's Nintendo. It's Nintendo's target audience. The games designed by Nintendo are primarily for kids. We can expect to see more of the cute loveable nintendo icons in many of their titles reincarnated a few thousand times more. These aren't the titles I want o
    • It's a big problem, alright, and the only real way around it is with good thirdparty support (as Nintendo are probably not going to ditch Mario, Link, and Samus any time soon). The problem is that good thirdparty support depends on good sales of the console, and good sales of the console depend on there being good games (usually from thirdparties). Chicken and egg.
    • Really, there are so many ignorant people out there. I'm glad you got marked troll, because thats exactly what you are doing. Nintendo has always said they make their games for everyone. Mature people dont need edgy violence and crap to make fun games. They just make good gameplay. If good gameplay isnt enough for you, then you should probably not be buying games to begin with.
    • by LordKronos (470910) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:01AM (#14008510) Homepage
      The problem is...The games designed by Nintendo are primarily for kids. We can expect to see more of the cute loveable nintendo icons in many of their titles reincarnated a few thousand times more. These aren't the titles I want out of a console, and this will probably be the only reason I'll get an xbox 360 and skip the revolution all together. To me, price won't be the determining factor. The titles availabale will be.

      Oh, don't worry one bit. Nintendo definitely has games for you folks. I heard one of the launch titles for Revolution is going to be "Extreme Animal Crossing". It's the same basic game, but all the character are rendered photorealisticly. After you catch a fish, you get to gut it, and it leaves a giant pool of blood on the ground. In addition to collecting fish and bugs, you now get a rife to go with you net and fishing pole so you can hunt deer and hang them on your cabin wall.

      If you manage to get the entire exotic collection in your upstairs bedroom and can get it all setup with the proper Feng Shui orientation, I hear that Huggy stops by for a visit and gives you an exotic dance before going down on you. But if you can't get Huggy to stop by because Tom Nook can't get that exotic bed in stock, just bitch slap and pistol whip him and he'll get your point really fast.

      And if Biskit starts mailing you death threats because you moved in on his inter-special relationship with Huggy, just set his house on fire. If that doesn't make him back off, all you need to do is slap a laser scope onto your hunting rifle and wait on top of the museum for him the next time he comes to drop off a new fossil. You can dispose of his body by throwing him in the town well. If Officer Copper's investigation eventually leads to you, just throw him a few insider tips on the turnip market and he'll gladly look the other way.

      But I don't want to give away too much. Just suffice it to say, you are going to love it.
  • by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:13AM (#14007483) Journal
    With the DS Nintendo have officially stopped playing Sony/Microsoft's game. They can clearly see that games are being put in a box now with nothing but graphics improving, so they picked up there ball and started a new game. Sony and Microsoft can stay with the graphics grind where as Nintendo will start making some intresting games and change the scene.

    Maybe it'll be a hit (like the DS), maybe it'll fail. It's a new direction and a some fresh blood in the old games markets heart. It's not going to hurt Nintendo any if they screw this up because the DS will keep them a float. The cube has a dedicated fanbase (I love mine) which wants to play fun games and graphics don't matter all that much to them. These are the same people who will buy the revolution and love it.

    Nintendos job in this "generation" is to try something new, keep their fans happy and forget about Sony and Microsoft. The PSP VS DS "battle" so far has been pretty much 99% in Nintendos favour. Theres a few PSP fans but mostly people have no intrest or are disapointed by their handheld. If it had been GBA Mark 2 VS PSP then the PSP would of won hands down. Yet Nintendo changed the entire game and have so far (Nintendogs being a major part of it) totally owned Sony.

    As long as Sony and Microsoft keep throwing thud around about "Hard drive this" and "Media centre" that they'll never beat Nintendo. They may sell more consoles or make more money, but people will only go "ooohhh shiny" so often.
  • by Junks Jerzey (54586) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:13AM (#14007489)
    Sony developed an entirely new CPU architecture for the PS3.

    Microsoft went well beyond the current state of the art for desktops: three custom PowerPC cores on one die, running at 3+ GHz.

    And honestly, that's where much of the expense is coming from. It's not like SEGA (with the Genesis) or Nintendo (with the SNES or GC or GBA) or even Sony in the days of the PS1 decided to go with custom processors, let alone processors that shoot for the ultra-high end. Consoles have always been about custom hardware for some things, lowish-end commodity parts for everything else.
    • Which really seems right insane to me (in Microsoft's case). It just seems like Microsoft wanted to put in lots of big numbers. Sony wants to push Cell through the door, and they wanted a whole lot of computing power. Sony's architecture has always favoured lots of number crunching, as traditionally, their GPU's have been fairly weak or non-existant. Making the CPU required for graphics work. This time, they actually do seem to have included a powerful GPU, making one wonder why they need that much com
    • Both Sony and Microsoft are buying their chips of IBM, and they are not even close to state of the art (except probably power consumption). This is just the first time such large multi-core chips have been put in a consumer device, and because of their unique design they will be significantly harder to program for, so don't expect many cutting edge games in the first year.
  • by gathas (588371) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:19AM (#14007543)
    I think HDTV gameplaying may happen at a slower rate than HDTV adoption. In our house the game system (a gamecube) is relegated to the den on a second TV. When we get a big HDTV its going in the family room and I'm not going to let the kids usurp this TV all day to play games. While this comment clearly puts me in the "video games are for kids" camp, I still think this is the predominant demographic. There's a market for adult game playing and it's growing and I'm sure there is money to be made there, but I still think alot of game systems get relegated to secondary TVs in other rooms. In other words this market is maturing and fragmenting into different niches.
  • Zelda (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm buying a revolution simply because Mario and Zelda are two of the best series I've ever played... I would pay $200 just for the new zelda coming out on the gamecube.
  • Broader Picture (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:29AM (#14007612)
    An 8 year old doesn't care about HD (High Definition as opposed to Hard Drive as some posts didn't read the actual article) at all. If fact, there isn't one friend of my teenagers whom cares one bit if a show is in HD or not! None of the individuals I work with care and nor do any of my relatives.

    HD is not a technology being pushed by the end user in any real commercial way. The "masses" aren't shouting for it in any country anywhere. Instead it is a technology being pushed by the U.S. and the companies which stand to profit from new hardware sales.

    Hardware hasn't mattered for a long time in this market. Positioning and sales have been based on marketing and software saturation. If you market a product properly it can beat out a better competitive product. It happens all the time! Add in a better selection, in the case of consoles, of games and you will end up with a larger market share.

    The Revolution (a.k.a whatever they really end up calling it) won't in the end suffer from not having HD except for in a very few cases. Where it will suffer is strictly in the area of poor marketing and game titles. If they can avoid those 2 pitfalls, which they have managed to walk right into blindly for a while now, their new console should be much more of a mover and a shaker in the next console war.
  • HD *is* important! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by EGSonikku (519478)
    OK Nintendo. There is NO reason not to support High Definition. Zero. The rumored hardware should handle it easily. It's seems like Nintendo is chosing not to support it just so they can say " Hey look, no fancy buzzwords here grandma!"

    However, for many people who own an HDTV, not supporting is going to be the reason I don't get it. Let me elaborate...

    I bought a nice 51" Sony WEGA about 5 months ago. It's rear projection, but for $1600 I got 480i, 480p, *real* 720p, and 1080i support, and every connector im
  • by gozar (39392) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:35AM (#14007650) Homepage
    How many people that are whining about no HD support in the Revolution have used the current systems on an HDTV?

    Metroid Prime at 480p looks pretty darn good, GT4 for the PS2 at 1080i is ok, Halo at 480p is probably the worst out of these three examples. When you are 18" from the monitor, high resolution is important. When you're sitting 8' away from your 48" TV, higher resolutions aren't as ground breaking.

    I think Nintendo will do just fine, as long as they support 16:9 mode. BTW, game developers, if you offer split mode game play, make use of the 16:9 screen and let me split the screen side by side instead of just top/bottom.

  • by teknopagan (912839) <bigdaddyj.gmail@com> on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:35AM (#14007657)
    This is what it really breaks down to for me:

    There is the Xbox 360, which brags about it's HDD support but does not make the HDD a standard option. How many 3rd party devs are going to support a peripheral that maybe a third or less of the market has? Obviously some will, but most won't bother. Plus, it's Microsoft, and they just piss me off.

    Then there's the Playstation 3. Made by Sony, a company who installs rootkits on people's PC's, settles for poorly manufactured digicam CCD's, and has generally been riding their name for the past 3 years or so (Hey, we're Sony! People will buy our crap regardless of how craptastic it is!). Sony pisses me off.

    Last but not least, we have the Nintendo Revolution, which is not only the least expensive of the three, but is likely to bring about a wave of excellent new gameplay styles with their innovative new controller format (btw, for those who still complain and want their old-style controllers, Nintendo is making one [joystiq.com]). Most importantly, Nintendo hasn't done anything to piss me off lately.

    Disclaimer: If a really good new Ratchet and Clank game comes out for it...I might end up with a PS3 anyway. Damn that addictive Lombax!

  • by Bushcat (615449) on Friday November 11, 2005 @09:41AM (#14007701)
    When one visits Nintendo, it's like visiting a relatively small company that does stuff like collect cloisonne plates for the walls, and everyone seems to know everyone else. Microsoft is like visiting a big business. Sony is like visiting a big business at war with itself. Somehow, the Nintendo consoles and games seem to reflect this difference. I don't know how it spills over to the games, since they're made by third parties, but the general environment seems to work quite well for them. The games seem to work at any scale.
  • by CashCarSTAR (548853) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:28PM (#14009456)
    Which nobody has answered yet, even though it's in the open.

    Prepping a game for HD, means way more detailed models/backgrounds/whatever. Easy. Nintendo is rejecting this for several reasons, 2 reasons are public, and one reason is my personal speculation.

    Confirmed ones first.
    #1. Not needing the ultra detailed models will keep development costs down, keeping prices lower and profits higher. Seems reasonable for a business.
    #2. The HD models will require additional loading time. Nintendo is trying to keep loading time at a minimum. Again, very reasonable. Now, how much of an advantage this will be, we'll need to see next-gen loading times of course. But it's a wait and see thing.

    And my speculation, considering the Ars Technica article on potential Revolution specs.

    #3. Using system memory in resources for HD, the Revolution just isn't designed for. The system is designed to maximize non-graphical computations, making for better AI and physics. Personally, when it comes to gaming I'm more than willing to take a graphics hit for better AI and physics.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...