Revolution Least Expensive Next-Gen Console 580
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."
Smart Move (Score:5, Insightful)
Does console price really matter that much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Nintendo doesn't cater to the hardcore.
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You get what you pay for, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Price Point Prediction: $200 USD (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Smart Move (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't even have HDTVs nor surround sound nor a computer that can handle high end games at that resolution. You're a huge minority, especially considering Nintendos "casual gamer" target demographic.
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I'm still using an old 15' CRT television to play my games and I'm more that satisfied with it. I've tried HD TV, and I don't see that benefits in the increase in resolution offset the enormous costs of
a) Purchascing such a device
and
b) The loss of CPU and GPU cycles to increasing resolution that could be put to better uses eleswhere, like gameplay or AI.
You may have enjoyed the 1600x1200 resolution, but I seriously doubt you enjoyed it at the same framerate or lighting quality or perhaps even texture and model quality as someone who was using good old 1024x768 resolution. There's a payoff here, and in terms of what makes a game look better, increasing resolution beyond 1024x768 ranks pretty low on the list of options.
Of course the number one way of making a game look better is better art design. This fact slips past most developers.
The gamer's "other" console? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chinese Market (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I could care less about HD
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nintendo arn't playing your game any more (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:You get what you pay for, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing's for sure: The Revolution will not support high definition video, a marked divergence from the path Microsoft (Research) and Sony (Research) 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.
They are talking about HiDef. The current norm seems to be that HD=HiDef, HDD=Hard Disc Drive. The Revolution won't have either, but that won't keep me from buying one. If it's $200 at launch, I'll grab one, otherwise I will wait for the first price drop or used sales to get below $200.
That's pretty beside the point, however. I suspect that while the "majority of people" will not have HD in 5 years, the majority of people buying a new video console WILL. I still don't think it is a mistake, though. I have an HDTV (a modest 30" widescreen CRT). At full 1080i it looks spectacular. At 480p widescreen (ie DVD) it looks REALLY GOOD. If Nintendo supports widescreen/anamorphic 480p (the GC does, so it's not that far fetched) and either component or full digital outputs it will look very nice. For $100 cheaper system and $10 cheaper games, plus having spare GPU cycles to render lighting, mapping, whatever effect is the new hotness, it'll DAMN good.
Re:Development flexibility... (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, I'm not following the whole 512 MB USB stick thing... but as for why you'd remove HD support from 3rd party developers is because of the hardware costs. To render a full screen (assuming no overlap of polygons, which is laughable) at 640x480 and 60 fps requires an 18 megapixel fill-rate. To do it at 1280x720 (720p) takes 55 megapixels (about 3x the fill rate), and 1920x1080 (1080p/1080i) takes 124 megapixels (about 6.8x the fill rate). And that's just the bare minimum required just to draw the screen, much less do anything worthwhile with it. This should make it clear that supporting higher resolutions requires more powerful graphics processors, which in turn cost more money. I think it's obvious that the only real reason they have to hold the support back entirely is so that they can keep the console's price point at about $200 (using the MSRP for the N64 and Gamecube as a predictor) because increasing resolution means increasing fill rate, which means higher priced GPUs.
I think that for the majority of people (who don't have or don't have access to HDTV monitors), the lack of HD support will mean nothing whatsoever. They still will support component cables, which means I can wire it up like an HD device (which simplifies my home theater), and that's all I really care about.
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be shrooming. 720p on a good HDTV makes DVD look like ass.
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point, yes... but why would anybody even consider buying a non-HD TV for their main living room set these days? Any old-format TV is going to need a separate tuner in a couple years to even get over-the-air broadcasts.
Re:Does console price really matter that much? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Does console price really matter that much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You get what you pay for, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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.Broader Picture (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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 imaginable up to HDMI.
HD shows looked fantastic! Watching Baseball, football, and shows like LOST has been totally great. You know what hasn't been great?
Games.
Iv'e tried using my PS2 (with component cables) as well as my xbox (also with component cables) and not couting GranTurismo 4's "1080i mode" (which appears to be some kind of upscan trick) everything is in 480p, which, while still better than 480i, still looks *horrible* on an HD set. I gave up playing games on this set and moved my consoles to the 27" TV in the bedroom.
So I had a great TV that I couldn't really game on. But only for 11 more days. Iv'e had an Xbox 360 on preorder for a while. ALL titles support *at least* 720p (1280x720) and some may support 1080i (1920x1080)! This will make full use of my TV's capabilities, and will look absolutely stunning.
That being said, I do like Nintendo. Iv'e owned ALL of thier consoles and handhelds (including the VirtualBoy
For those that say HDTV's aren't that prevailant now, i'd say they are a LOT more common than even just a year or so ago, and with more and more HD programming coming, and (relativly) cheap prices compared to the past (a decent 27" set can be had arount $500 if you look around), HD set's should sell like mad this Christmas and next, in part fueled by the Xbox 360 and the upcoming PS3!
By not even having HD as an option, Nintendo may come off to many as not being a "serious" console with staying power. As more and more people pick up HD sets, the more and more people won't be buying a Revolution. And it seems that's where they want to be. The "non-scary buzzword your grandma can play it" system. But, they are turning away the people that grew up with the NES, in exchange for the non-techie gaming newcomer. I want to support Nintendo, but the lack of vision in not supporting some form of HD is a killer for me
Re:You get what you pay for, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
HD support is not a deal breaker (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Look at the manufacturers... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't underestimate the power of shiny things. It's that allure that has supported the entire graphics card industry for almost a decade.
Walking around Nintendo, MS & Sony (Score:3, Insightful)
There are benefits (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Reduction in console cost for Nintendo (and hopefully the customer) at the cost of a feature that very few people actually use. I'm sure the percentage of the population that own an HDTV is small ( less than 5%). The percentage of HDTV owners who are interested in the revolution but won't buy one because of its lack of HDTV output is even smaller. Not to mention that the Revolution isn't targeted at your typical HDTV owner, it's targeted at families who may not want to dump out $2000 for a TV for the kids.
2) Game development costs go down. Microsoft requiring all games to be HDTV ready is going to increase development costs. Since there is no such thing with the Revolution, hopefully that will result in a lower standard MSRP (I believe both Sony and Microsoft have said they want to raise game prices).
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:3, Insightful)
At those costs, I think I'll limp along with the DVD's for the one or two shows I like which are not broadcast for free.
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You get what you pay for, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be ridiculous. As history has shown us, it'll be "Super Mario XX"
Also:
Mario Kart XX
Metroid XX
F-Zero XX
and who could forget,
Mario [sportname]
Nice price ($200?), shame about the HDTV (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't have a HDTV currently, but I will probably buy one within 2 years. It'd be a shame if I couldn't play, e.g., Mario Kart Revolution, in high resolution on the TV with other people. I assume that it'd still be capable of 480p however, so it is some kind of improvement over 480i currently.
Is the graphics hardware really so weak that it can't handle 1280x720p? Hell, how about 640x720p? Or is it merely the console's outputs?
Of course, for the average
Re:HD *is* important! (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, if everything else is equal (lighting, framerate, AI, etc.) will higher resolution look better? Of course! Will higher resolution make a dull/repetitive/derived game any better? No way.
Right now, that is my biggest problem with the XBox360. Yes, the games look nice and would graphically shine on my TV. But, none of them excite me (well ES:IV does, but I'll get that for the PC). I think it is just I have gamed long enough (TI 99-4a was my first game system, heh) that graphics, honestly, don't matter. So, if there are no games I want, not amount of purty pictures will sway me. Now, I know this is not true for the 14 - 21 demographic Sony/MS are targetting. But, for adults and kids alike, good games can sell regardless of graphics.
Yes, the Rev will not please the hardcore (define that as you will) gamer that is only concerned about graphics. For those hardcore gamers and others that are looking for gameplay, I think the Rev has a good shot. Of course, I can't make a final decision until we see and play the games for the rev. Who knows, maybe XBox360 will end up having the most innovative and fun titles when all is said and done. But, their launch line-up sure doesn't show it
Ultimately (you see this on HT forums a lot), I think it is easy for HT enthusiast to get trapped in their ivory tower and believe that HD is as important and awesome to the masses as it is to them. But, I think we are a few years away from the general public seeing HD as an important and necessary feature in their gaming system.
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if you assume that people buy a new TV every 10 years (possibly a little conservative), that means that in 2004, 2.2% of existing US TV owners upgraded to HDTV, and in 2005, an additional 2.7% of existing US TV owners upgraded to HDTV, and in 2006, an additional projected 3.7% of existing US TV owners upgrade to HDTV.
So, by the time the Revolution is out, market penetration will be ~8.5% in the US. In Japan, market penetration will be a fair bit higher, because they're buying HDTV's at a faster rate. And note that not everyone who has a TV will buy a console, gamers tend to be more tech oriented, so the number of console users who own an HDTV will be a higher percentage.
Nintendo is taking a great risk (Score:1, Insightful)
By early '06 Dish Network and DirectTV will be offering over 100 HD channels. Digital cable companies will not be far behind due to the constant battle going on in that industry. HDTV's are dropping like rocks in price. These will be the standard within 2 years.
Nintendo could be a 'niche' console if they stray too far from Nintendo and Sony. Why? There are still a ton of games made for all 3 consoles and many of these companies may choose to stop supporting Nintendo. Making a game for the 360 and PS3 will be easy (support the same technoligies and relatively the same power), but Revolution will be drastically different and may not be worth the price.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You get what you pay for, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Smart Move (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No HD support? Wake up... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Games that are aimed exclusively at young childeren (in the way you seem to think Nintendo's games are) are extremely rare, and far more likely to be released for everything that's electronic and plays games (PS2, Gamecube, Xbox, PC, GBA, DS, PSP, possibly others). Stuff like the endless stream of Spongebob Squarepants or Disney games, or whatever. These games are absolutely awful, because they're developed with the idea that kids are too stupid to know any different, and they largely sell because parents who don't know any better buy them. Anyone over the age of 6 finds them unplayable, and even then they aren't very good games.
That's not even close to what Nintendo's games are like. Nintendo's games are designed for everyone. They aren't intended to exclude everyone over a certain age as kids' games are, and they aren't intended to exclude everyone under a certain age either. In order to be playable by everyone, they need to qualify for the appropriate ratings, so that means they can't include content that would kick their rating too high.
If you thing those ratings are the same as the age ratings on a toy, or a jigsaw puzzle, or whatever (the ones that say things like "Ages 6 - 11" or "12 and up"), you're seriously deluded.
Re:You get what you pay for, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Discounting a system just because it won't support the latest and greatest technology seems extremely short-sighted to me. There's more to a system than "OMG teh shiny grafix0rz!" - that being the games that you actually play on it. A game with realistic 3-D, excellent physics, etc. is crap if it doesn't have good gameplay. A game with none of the above *but* good gameplay is still considered a good game. I'l llet you decide which you really want.
The question is..why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Developers & HD: Don't Count On It (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider textures. There is a lot of talk about dynamic lighting for next-gen consoles. Say you want to use normal maps. Now you go from one texture map to 3 or 4 (the base texture map, the normal map, possibly a specular map, and maybe a depth map). That will result in a 3-4X increase in texture space. And that is not even considering that you would probably want to up-rez the textures. Heck, you would need to up-rez to support HD. So you double the resolution. You now have a 4X increase in the size of each texture. Not looking good.
There are things that can be done to save some of this space, such as folding different texture types into one texture by being cleaver with how you use the RGBA channels. Still, it will be on average a 4-6X increase in overall texture space. Processor speed and memory aside, how to you pull that data in from disk fast enough? Your code it going to have to get really smart to do the kinds of predictive loading/unloading it needs to do to get those textures where they need to be at exactly the right time (otherwise you quickly run out of texture memory).
From just this simple example concerning one area of game production, the problems caused by HD are many. You also have to render more screen space at higher densities. HD is just flat out computationally expensive. It is expensive for the productions since artwork has to be developed to support HD resolutions. That impacts production pipelines because the datasize has increased. It just keeps going. How many developers do you think will flock to HD when the problems it causes are large and the financial gains are small?
And that is the rub. It is going to take developers 2-4 years just to get down the basics of making next-gen games. Until then, you are going to see a lot of ports. That is exactly what I was working on. Taking an existing game, art content and all, and porting it to Xbox 360. We worked to up-rez textures. We had to change completely how characters got modeled because we wanted lots of photo real char stuff that doesn't mesh well with current methods for modeling. Games involve lots of "cheats" in both tech and art. Many of those "cheats" are incompatible with next-gen content creation.
So Nintendo made the right choice. While Sony (who none of us should be considering buying from) and Microsoft (ditto) chase after the bleeding edge of tech, Nintendo will trail a short way behind making games the other 90% of the world might enjoy. I love my WoW as much as the next geek, but that experience does not minimize what Nintendo continues to do for the gaming world. It brings in new customers. That can only be good for all of us.
--kev