New Possible Revolution Specs

P.S. Stop thinking with your Graphics Horniness and think with your *wallet*, and you'll understand Nintendo's position.

THEY DON'T WANT TO CREATE A $1000 CONSOLE. They could. They could create a Nintendo Revolution with 1600x1080 widescreen resolution, a 1000 gig hard drive, and free 100-Base-T ethernet connection, and a 50 gig HD-DVD.

But they don't. They want a $150-200 console that people can afford. Why can't you understand that simple proposition? Have you never paid bills? Do you not understand "budgeting"?

troy
 
Also, I think you people far over-estimate HDTV penetration. Out of 110 million homes, only 7 million have HD-capable sets (with a growth rate of 2 million per year = 17 million by 2010). It seems silly for Nintendo to target games for HD, when ~90 million homes can't see it.
Click to expand...

Your numbers are way off. Here's a number/quote from 2004 courtesy of AVSforum...in fact, the article is called "the HDTV revolution takes time" so it's not exactly positively spun...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=544127

Research company In-Stat (a division of B&C parent Reed Elsevier) reports that 12.9 million households had HD television sets at the end of 2004. But only 3.9 million were receiving HD programming. Moreover, 51.7 million homes are projected to have HDTV sets in 2008, with 17.4 million receiving HD programming.
Click to expand...


That's a lot of HDTVs.

By the arguments you are making, why does anyone buy a new console? Yes graphics don't matter (to a point), but could you play the aforementioned Mario 64 on a NES? Or why move on to gamecube if N64 has good enough graphics? Or, why bother with a new console, Nintendo can keep the old trusty gamecube, since graphics don't matter?

And YES, a 720p video chip *will* cost more than a 480i/p chip. It costs more to develop, and more to manufacture (more stringent quality control). It's obvious that Nintendo is going for a cheap console that even kids can afford.
Click to expand...

OMG no it doesn't. The ATI graphics chip will fully have enough power to push whatever HD resolution they want. On my PC, my 3 year old architecture 9800pro, currently $120, runs Doom fucking 3 @ 1280x960 quite decently. Newer cards do even better. The extra resolution takes only a little more video card power, of which it should have plenty of. The new-core chips in the console should wipe the floor with my PC for a couple of years as they are very specialized and have lots of high-speed GDDR3, etc.

The only thing that might cost more would be development, to support the extra resolution - not that much work (there's a reason PC games support droves of resolutions - it's not that hard to program apparently).


Have you ever played a PC game and seen the difference between a 640x480 game (minimum standard these days is 800x600) and a game running at 1280x960, 1600x1200, etc? We're not yelling for 1080p support or anything, 1080i or 720p is perfectly fine.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']GROWTH: Strategy Analytics forecast by 2008, 37 million US households will receive high-definition programming. - http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/hardware/article.php/3421201

That's higher than my estimate, but *my point still stands* - Why would Nintendo want to include expensive hardware for 720p games, when ~70 million homes don't have HD and can't see it? Where's the need?[/QUOTE]

If there are going to be 30 million more people with HDTVs by 2008 then Nintendo is really really stupid. That means that by 2010 (4 years into the Revolution's lifecycle and when the majority of AAA games should be coming out) there should be roughly a minimum of 67 million out of the 110 million homes that have HDTV and this is completely ignoring any type of growth rate due to HD signal penetration to every part of the country and the cost of the TVs decreasing dramatically over the next 4 years. That's just insane.

Right now, in 2005, including myself 5 of my closest friends ALL have HDTVs and no one is even remotely rich or anything. If we have them today, in 4-5 years almost EVERYONE will have one. In fact, I'd say after Christmas of this year, no one in the market for a new TV will buy a non-HD set. It wouldn't make any sense. Nintendo really has its head up its ass.
 
Show me where the chip costs $50. Find the cost of it in the current Xbox and its parts. It's doesn't cost that much, especially when you're buying millions of them from a company that wants your contract. You're lying to make your argument have weight.

The Xbox has a hard drive, it had HD support, it plays DVDs, it offered online play (we're talking about chips, not the actual product). It's $179 and was $299 at launch, well within the accepted price range. Considering what a distant third Nintendo is in the US and lack of third party titles, with the cheapest console on the market nonetheless, it obviusly doesn't matter to most people.

They're too worried about being profitable on the hardware itself. I know that sounds stupid, but in this gaming market (especially the way it is today), you need to impress the masses, and if that means taking a hit on the console to push software, you do it. It's the razor/razor blade buisness sense. The more features you have on that box, the better you look.

37 million households. That's a LARGE market to miss, and these houses are the ones that are technically sound, the most likely ones to own game systems.

I think with what system offers me what I want. A lot of people want HD or this wouldn't be all over the internet message boards like this one.
 
Let's flip that around:

Why did it take so long for consoles to switch from 240i to 480i? Computers had 480i resolution as early as 1985..... but we didn't see it on home game machines until 1999 (dreamcast). N64 and PS1 games rarely broadcast higher than 240i.

Why? What do YOU think?




As for your question: People upgraded from NES-to-SNES-to-N64, because the processing was faster, and the images looked better. The resolution didn't change.

Even though the Revolution will have a resolution equal to the Cube, it will NOT look the same. The graphics *will* look better.

troy
 
I'm tired of this debate. If you all hate Nintendo so much, why the hell are you here? GO AWAY. We don't want your hatred.

troy
 
If you all hate Nintendo so much, why the hell are you here? GO AWAY. We don't want your hatred.
Click to expand...

I've got a NES, SNES, and Gamecube hooked up on my audio rack to my 800x600 DLP projector (along with a Sega Saturn, Dreamcast, Genesis, Xbox picked up this past January, and a PS2). I consider the SNES my favorite system ever. My wife has a GBA which I tend to play more than she does (and I have more games).

The thing is, 720p and 1080i games will wipe the floor with 480i games, graphics-wise. Sales of the console with the worst graphics, and the worst resolution on HDTVs, is going to suffer in the long run. Why would people buy the console with the worst graphics, not with 2 other competitors in the Market. Historically the "cheaper price but suckier graphics" approach has rarely worked.

I don't even have a device capable of 720p/1080i at this point. But I know I will in the next few years when I upgrade my projector to a 720p model (waiting for DLP price drops) or get a daylight-viewing HDTV. And right now 480p matters to me.

Seriously, I repeat, have you seen the difference between a game at 640x480 and a higher rez like 1024x768 plus? Even on a 19" CRT the difference is VERY huge.
 
Game systems ran in a lower resolution because of hardware power, period, like I said 10 posts ago. There was no need for a high resolution with 2-D (not that it doesn't look great, Guilty Gear) The N64 had a few titles that offered expansion pack support and ran in 640 x 480, and so did the PS One (just a a few).

And yes, the image looked better from the NES and SNES, just like it does from standard def to hi-def. You just ruined your whole argument. You have never seen a game running in hi-def to understand your argument. It shows. You're the one who's too blinded by Nintendo to admit they're making a mistake. We can see it, you won't admit it.
 
Let's flip that around:

Why did it take so long for consoles to switch from 240i to 480i? Computers had 480i resolution as early as 1985..... but we didn't see it on home game machines until 1999 (dreamcast). N64 and PS1 games rarely broadcast higher than 240i.

Why? What do YOU think?




As for your question: People upgraded from NES-to-SNES-to-N64, because the processing was faster, and the images looked better. The resolution didn't change.

Even though the Revolution will have a resolution equal to the Cube, it will NOT look the same. The graphics *will* look better.

troy
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod']Game systems ran in a lower resolution because of hardware power, period, like I said 10 posts ago. There was no need for a high resolution with 2-D [/QUOTE]I played many games in hi-res 2D back in the 1980s (PC games).




This conversation is frustrating me. It feels like everyone's already decided that Nintendo is trash, and they haven't even seen the system. I don't think that's fair.

How can anyone possibly decide a system is going to suck, when you haven't even seen it yet?!?!?





And yes, the image looked better from the NES and SNES, just like it does from standard def to hi-def. You just ruined your whole argument. .... You're the one who's too blinded by Nintendo to admit they're making a mistake.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. My favorite console is the Sony PS2.

And no I didn't damage my argument. My argument was that *with no increase in resolution*, there was still a noticeable improvement in NES-to-SNES-to-N64 graphics. You don't have to increase resolution, to improve graphics. That was my point.

troy
 
And how much were new PC's back then?

We've said nothing about how the Rev will suck, nothing. We'd be stupid to do that. We're saying from a buisness perspective this is a bad move, and they can't afford to do that. They seem content being #3. That's why we have a problem. If anything, we're supporting them.
 
If Nintendo is content to be #3, so what? They make fistfulls of money right now from the backseat. The market can obviously support 3 consoles. It seems as if most folks here (and I as well) view the Nintendo console as dedicated to first-party games. Multi-platform games are purchased for one of the other systems. That probably won't change for the next-gen. Dr. Pepper has no chance of supplanting Coke or Pepsi, that doesn't mean it will disappear from the market.
 
Watch Nintendo beat Xbox, and become #2 next gen..... not because of better graphics, but because of having the best games.

troy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top