Poll: Is HD Capability Important When Chosing your Next Gen System?

[quote name='javeryh']It also makes me mental when people say graphics don't matter and it's the gameplay that counts so therefore HD doesn't matter. I've said it before - good graphics can't save a crappy game but they can make a great game even better. What would you rather play: Twin Snakes (GCN) or MGS (PS1)? Resident Evil (GCN) or Resident Evil (PS1)? Mario (NES) or Mario All-Stars (SNES)? If all things are equal 99% of people would rather play the better looking game so therefore better graphics do matter and do make a game more enjoyable.[/QUOTE]
For the MSG comparison, I'd rather play on the PS1 because of the controller. The graphics aren't any draw to me, since its kinda the same game (we'll disreguard the changes in gameplay for this little speech), and thus I'd rather take familier hand comfort over pretty pictures, when it doesn't matter since its a game, and games aren't supposed to be hyper realistic looking anyway.
Same goes for RE, and as for Mario? playing it on the console it is originally intended for is worth it simply for the nostalgia factor. The game doesn't get any better or worse in the transition.
 
[quote name='javeryh']It also makes me mental when people say graphics don't matter and it's the gameplay that counts so therefore HD doesn't matter. I've said it before - good graphics can't save a crappy game but they can make a great game even better. What would you rather play: Twin Snakes (GCN) or MGS (PS1)? Resident Evil (GCN) or Resident Evil (PS1)? Mario (NES) or Mario All-Stars (SNES)? If all things are equal 99% of people would rather play the better looking game so therefore better graphics do matter and do make a game more enjoyable.[/QUOTE]

Also, you're comparing the same game from different generations. That doesn't make for a fair comparison. The graphical difference shouldn't be as great with the Revolution between the other two - the main difference being 480p and 1080i as opposed to solid power (at least until we actually see a side-by-side comparison of all three systems).
 
It's always better to have more features(ala: bots,HD support,online,etc) then less so why not just add it. The problem I have with the rev is that because of the lack of HD support those of us who have widescreen TVs will have to stretch games out and box them on the screen, meh I doubt I will buy one.
 
[quote name='Michaellvortega']It's always better to have more features(ala: bots,HD support,online,etc) then less so why not just add it. The problem I have with the rev is that because of the lack of HD support those of us who have widescreen TVs will have to stretch games out and box them on the screen, meh I doubt I will buy one.[/QUOTE]

Simple - cost. Unless you'd be willing to spend the extra $100 or so so the Revolution can produce true HD.

Although I'm pretty sure 480p can go wide screen just fine. At least, that's how I felt about RE4 for the PS2 on my parent's 60 inch HD-TV.
 
[quote name='Ecofreak']Simple - cost. Unless you'd be willing to spend the extra $100 or so so the Revolution can produce true HD.

Although I'm pretty sure 480p can go wide screen just fine. At least, that's how I felt about RE4 for the PS2 on my parent's 60 inch HD-TV.[/QUOTE]

I doubt it would cost $100 more for a mass produced device to put out a higher res then 480p and 480p is a square pic so RE4 was just adjusted(not that they did a bad job) I'd rather Nintendo put up a real fight with GREAT looking FUN games then gimmick controls. Just IMO.
 
I don't know about cost of being able to pump out HD out of the revolution costing $100. From the info leaked it is weaker then the other systems, so you are telling me that the difference in cost of the alleged $150 for the revolution is mostly because of not supporting HD. I highly doubt that it cost that much. And if nintendo fans never knew they were thinking about dropping it at $150 a unit, and decided to go with HD support, at $200 they still would have the different controller, and be over $100 cheaper then the xbox 360 CORE system. IMO it was a bad move, I wouldn't be bitching about them going at $200, and I doubt anyone else would either. I still will pick one up when games that I want are out. But they lost all 3rd party support purchases from me as well. And I know they say developers are happy about the controller, how many 3rd parties supported the gb to gc connection, or how many 3rd party companies make DS that utilize the features of the DS, and still have a good game.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I don't know about cost of being able to pump out HD out of the revolution costing $100. From the info leaked it is weaker then the other systems, so you are telling me that the difference in cost of the alleged $150 for the revolution is mostly because of not supporting HD. I highly doubt that it cost that much. And if nintendo fans never knew they were thinking about dropping it at $150 a unit, and decided to go with HD support, at $200 they still would have the different controller, and be over $100 cheaper then the xbox 360 CORE system. IMO it was a bad move, I wouldn't be bitching about them going at $200, and I doubt anyone else would either. I still will pick one up when games that I want are out. But they lost all 3rd party support purchases from me as well. And I know they say developers are happy about the controller, how many 3rd parties supported the gb to gc connection, or how many 3rd party companies make DS that utilize the features of the DS, and still have a good game.[/QUOTE]

can I get a Amen!
 
Well, since 82% of respondents in this poll say the lack of HD would not prevent them from buying a console, I don't see how Nintendo made a poor move. The fact that some people who buy it would have been happier if it supported HD doesn't change the fact that they bought it.

I'm reminded of a clip from Dave... "We're spending forty-seven million dollars to make people feel better about a car they've already bought?" Not totally relevant, but I love that movie ;)

And honestly... would HD support make third-party developers develop for the Rev controller if they weren't going to already? I think not.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I don't know about cost of being able to pump out HD out of the revolution costing $100.[/QUOTE]

Well, considering that the core unit for the Xbox 260 costs $299 and the Revolution expected to launch at $200, I'd say that the supposed graphical difference could be the main attribute in the cost difference.

Also, some believe that M$ is losing money on each 360 sold, so it may actually cost more to use the components necessary to produce HD graphics.

[quote name='ryanbph']But they lost all 3rd party support purchases from me as well. And I know they say developers are happy about the controller, how many 3rd parties supported the gb to gc connection, or how many 3rd party companies make DS that utilize the features of the DS, and still have a good game.[/QUOTE]

And as I said before, Nintendo wants the Revolution to be a supplement to the other controllers - not main competition. So it would come as little surprise that anyone with a 360 or PS3 would buy a port for those consoles and not the Revolution unless there was some additional features added.

It's the unique games that utilize the controller that Nintendo are after - ala the DS.

And it's exactly this mentality that will differentiate their product and create a clear difference between the Revolution and the rest. Because when you ask an uninformed customer why they want a PS3 or 360, they'll probably shurg and say, "Better graphics?" But with the Revolution, hopefully they'll say, "Because of the new game play possible."
 
Does anyone really think (outside of Ruined), that having a third and weaker dual shock clone system is really going to help Nintendo?

I think that a lot of the specs/lack of HD and things like that, is not a question of being cheap for Nintendo, its about being cheap for DEVELOPERS

I really dont think Nintendo should really be after poor multiplatform ports. The people who buy Nintendo are buying for the first party games, they're not buying so they can play Prince of Persia, Madden, or whatever multiplatform game you'd like to mention.

The DS is sort of a half-assed experiment into the whole, 'having a new control scheme' idea. Since its virtually an snes controller outside of the stylus, developers will more often go to what is more familiar with them

How the Revolution is different, aside from the classic controller shell idea, its a jump into the deep end of the pool. When you release a game for the Revolution, you DONT have the option like the DS to use a more traditional control scheme.

I'm not completely discounting 3rd party for this round though. You have 3 very distinct multiplatform options. People that will be buying multiplatform for the Revolution, will be doing so, not for graphics, but for the control scheme (or maybe secondarily, for the simple online interface [like the DS]). Any game on the Revolution will be a completely different experience than the 360/PS3, even with the same multiplatform title. This is where their strength lies.

a) Madden 360: Robust Online Experience
b) Madden PS3: Robust Graphics (lets assume for simplicity)
c) Madden Revolution: A New level of control.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']
I'm not completely discounting 3rd party for this round though. You have 3 very distinct multiplatform options. People that will be buying multiplatform for the Revolution, will be doing so, not for graphics, but for the control scheme (or maybe secondarily, for the simple online interface [like the DS]). Any game on the Revolution will be a completely different experience than the 360/PS3, even with the same multiplatform title. This is where their strength lies.

a) Madden 360: Robust Online Experience
b) Madden PS3: Robust Graphics (lets assume for simplicity)
c) Madden Revolution: A New level of control.[/QUOTE]

I hear what you are saying there, but if nintendo is striving to make it cheaper/easier for developers to make games, then why would they make is so fucking difficult to port the said madden game. Also, if it is cheaper, then they better be cheaper then the $50 price tag on first party 360 and allegedly ps3 games.
 
[quote name='MadFlava']I'll be making my first large TV purchase soon. It's a shame that 1080p Plasma's aren't out on the market yet. Are there any flat panels capable of doing 1080p out on the market yet?[/QUOTE]
not flat, but I just got a 50 inch sony tv, that is 1080p, and uses lycos technology. It was $3k
 
I havent heard anything yet that would lead me to believe that Revolution games will be more than $50.

I think 3rd parties can technically charge what they want though.
 
Im just saying Rev is (from what we KNOW) turning into Gamecube 1.4, Companies are going to skip REV all togather like they do with games on gamecube now. This is going to cause people to skip REV because "They cant's play the Madden 07 on REV YO!" Nintendo was in a akward position from the start but saying no to HD is like saying no to air condition in your car.
 
I'd like it but don't see myself buying an HD TV anytime soon.

I'm pretty happy with my normal 32" television, although it weighs more than I do.
 
Definitely HD for me. I didn't spend all of that money on that TV to not have my games be HD. Only have xbox, no 360. But, after I got my cables, I could for sure tell the difference.
 
[quote name='Michaellvortega']Im just saying Rev is (from what we KNOW) turning into Gamecube 1.4, Companies are going to skip REV all togather like they do with games on gamecube now.[/QUOTE]

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I dont see that to be the case. I think the Revolution support could be even better than the robust support that the DS is getting, though it might take a little while to kick in. The DS didnt really take off until Q4 '05.

The Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2, I think that by itself can discount raw power being a 3rd party factor.

I think one of the bigger factors was that it had less storage capacity than the other two. The control scheme was marginally different, but not terribly hard to adapt a game to.

As it stands, Revolution storage capacity is roughly equal to the 360, with the PS3 being the outlier on the high end with Blu-Ray.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I dont see that to be the case. I think the Revolution support could be even better than the robust support that the DS is getting, though it might take a little while to kick in. The DS didnt really take off until Q4 '05.

The Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2, I think that by itself can discount raw power being a 3rd party factor.

I think one of the bigger factors was that it had less storage capacity than the other two. The control scheme was marginally different, but not terribly hard to adapt a game to.

As it stands, Revolution storage capacity is roughly equal to the 360, with the PS3 being the outlier on the high end with Blu-Ray.[/QUOTE]

I ment that not in a raw power sense but the way Devs just discount Nintnendo because they don't want to have to make a game from scratch for each and every system. It's going to be easier to do it from 360 to PS3 or PS3 to 360 then either to REV, and thats where I think 3rd party support will suffer. While you make a excellent point about people buying nintnedo for first part titles. I take more of a business stand point being why bother with Nintendo at all if the owners of the REV are NOT going to buy my Port of Madden or Splinter cell becuase A:they would rather get the better PS3/360 version or B:just are not intrested in the first place.
 
[quote name='Michaellvortega'] Nintendo was in a akward position from the start but saying no to HD is like saying no to air condition in your car.[/QUOTE]

That's funny - because that statement is in direct contrast to the current results of the poll, which says only 18% of will really use HD capability is an absolute must.

And I think this is a pretty indicative poll, considering the very wide range of tastes that CAG covers.

[quote name='Michaellvortega']I ment that not in a raw power sense but the way Devs just discount Nintnendo because they don't want to have to make a game from scratch for each and every system. It's going to be easier to do it from 360 to PS3 or PS3 to 360 then either to REV, and thats where I think 3rd party support will suffer. [/QUOTE]

Yet another point of contention. As many devs had said, programming for the Revolution is very similar to making games for the Gamecube. So companies that already have experience with the existing hardware would have a MUCh easier time making games for the Revolution than the 360 or PS3, where they have to learn to use a whole new architecture.

[quote name='ryanbph']Also, if it is cheaper, then they better be cheaper then the $50 price tag on first party 360 and allegedly ps3 games.[/QUOTE]

It's not up to Nintendo to determine how much 3rd parties will charge for their games. But I think it'd be unlikely for 1st party games to go for more than $50 WITH bonuses (extras, free Virtual Console downloads, etc.)

With new Revolution exclusive games, however, I don't see why companies would be forced to charge an extra $10 to make a good profit - if, in fact, the Revolution is easier to develop for and hence, cheaper.
 
On a different note, we're getting off-topic. My original intention was that this thread not fall into a "Nintendo vs. Everyone" trap.

We're arguing about whether or not HD is important in deciding your next gen system - not the possible philosphies behind each company.
 
The Revolution development kit is SUPPOSED to be very similar to the Gamecube dev kit. I really dont know how much harder it is to develop because of just the control scheme. I heard taking advantage of multi-core processing is supposed to be tricky though.

A lot of these developers who have expressed delight over the control, they are doing more than just talk. People like Suda 51, Kojima and others are actually WORKING on Revolution titles.

But being cheap might ultimately be to their advantage. A lot of people are going to get only TWO consoles. That being the case, the Revolution probably has a much higher chance of being everyone's second console (as opposed to buying BOTH a 360 and PS3)
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']But being cheap might ultimately be to their advantage. A lot of people are going to get only TWO consoles. That being the case, the Revolution probably has a much higher chance of being everyone's second console (as opposed to buying BOTH a 360 and PS3)[/QUOTE]

This is very true. I plan on buying all three but if I was forced to choose only 2 the revolution would definitely be one of them. I just wish it supported HD.
 
[quote name='Ecofreak']That's funny - because that statement is in direct contrast to the current results of the poll, which says only 18% of will really use HD capability is an absolute must.

And I think this is a pretty indicative poll, considering the very wide range of tastes that CAG covers.



Yet another point of contention. As many devs had said, programming for the Revolution is very similar to making games for the Gamecube. So companies that already have experience with the existing hardware would have a MUCh easier time making games for the Revolution than the 360 or PS3, where they have to learn to use a whole new architecture.



It's not up to Nintendo to determine how much 3rd parties will charge for their games. But I think it'd be unlikely for 1st party games to go for more than $50 WITH bonuses (extras, free Virtual Console downloads, etc.)[/QUOTE]





CAG polls are not reflective of the real world. my OPINIONS can be diffrent from a CAG poll and it's no big deal.

Your kidding your self if you think that widespread dev's are going to make a REV game over PS3 and XB360 because it's easier or similar to making a cube game. Heck Im sure they all know BASIC so why don't they just make PC games in BASIC all day? Dev's are going to make games for the biggest(most sold units/most popluar) system out there and then drip down from there. Sony has MASSIVE third party support due to this FACT.
 
[quote name='Michaellvortega']Your kidding your self if you think that widespread dev's are going to make a REV game over PS3 and XB360 because it's easier or similar to making a cube game. Heck Im sure they all know BASIC so why don't they just make PC games in BASIC all day? Dev's are going to make games for the biggest(most sold units/most popluar) system out there and then drip down from there. Sony has MASSIVE third party support due to this FACT.[/QUOTE]

I can understand your point - but you have to consider the total cost of the game. If it does in fact cost millions of dollars to produce a game on the PS3 or 360, a fair number of games would need to be sold to recoup the investment and make a decent profit that would justify the effort.

If, however, it costs a few million less to produce on the Revolution, companies wouldn't need to sell as many to make a good return on investment assuming there is a decent sized consumer base.

And as the markets have shown, even the games that everyone think will be run-away hits do not always prove to be that way.

I think companies will actually be taking a greater financial risk developing for the PS3 and 360 than the Revolution. I'm using the development costs of a DS game vs. a PSP game as a basis for this argument - yes, I know you can't really compare handhelds and home units but there are some similarities.

[quote name='shipwreck']I think the way the poll is worded skews things more towards what Revo fans would like to hear as well.[/QUOTE]

Trust me - I tried to find a way to word them as not to be biased. After taking an psychology class, I know how hard it is to create an unbiased poll.

If you can think of a better way to word them then we'll start a new poll.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']I think the way the poll is worded skews things more towards what Revo fans would like to hear as well.[/QUOTE]

yeah - what about the choice "It is inexcusable in this day and age to not offer widescreen HD support on a console but since I love Nintendo games I'll be buying one anyway but let's make this clear my purchase is not an indication of approval of the HD omission but rather the sad realization that I'm just a slave to whatever the morons in charge of Nintendo decide to do no matter how unbelievably short sighted it may be because Mario and Zelda own a piece of my soul."

I'd have picked that one.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']I think the way the poll is worded skews things more towards what Revo fans would like to hear as well.[/QUOTE]
I dunno... the poll is basically this:

Does a console have to support HD for you to buy it?
Yes: 18%
No: 82%

Do you want a console you buy to support HD?
Yes: 77% or more
No: 23% or less

Seems pretty reasonable to me when some people arguing for HD (javery, et al) are planning on getting a Rev.

Edit: javeryh succeeds in making my simplification look far too simple.
 
:applause: :applause: [quote name='javeryh']yeah - what about the choice "It is inexcusable in this day and age to not offer widescreen HD support on a console but since I love Nintendo games I'll be buying one anyway but let's make this clear my purchase is not an indication of approval of the HD omission but rather the sad realization that I'm just a slave to whatever the morons in charge of Nintendo decide to do no matter how unbelievably short sighted it may be because Mario and Zelda own a piece of my soul."

I'd have picked that one.[/QUOTE]

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

My point exactly, I voted it would be nice, because I do plan on getting a revolution, so I didn't want to say it was a deciding factor. but that doesn't make me a happy person with HD tv in my house, not being utilized.
 
The main problem with HD games are the Prices. To me that is gonna be the deciding factor. It's a good feature but i won't be paying extra money to get HD.
 
[quote name='captaincold']The main problem with HD games are the Prices. To me that is gonna be the deciding factor. It's a good feature but i won't be paying extra money to get HD.[/QUOTE]

I'm not swayed by this kind of arguement. It's really a nominal cost at most. So the system might be an extra $100? Big deal. That's less than it costs to go out on the weekend. Better yet, buy 2 less games over the 5 year life of the system and there's your $100.
 
It seems that one of the main arguments is that people have bought HD TVs, and if their video games don't utilize the HD function, it feels like a waste to them. Seems rather poor to me.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I'm not swayed by this kind of arguement. It's really a nominal cost at most. So the system might be an extra $100? Big deal. That's less than it costs to go out on the weekend. Better yet, buy 2 less games over the 5 year life of the system and there's your $100.[/QUOTE]
In that case, bring on the $1000 PS3, and if I avoid buying 20 games, the system is free! ;)

That'd be like if you decided to forego paying for digital cable for a few months to recoup some of the cost of your HDTV.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']It seems that one of the main arguments is that people have bought HD TVs, and if their video games don't utilize the HD function, it feels like a waste to them. Seems rather poor to me.[/QUOTE]

yeah that is one way of looking at it, the other being you can't afford or don't need an HD tv at this moment, so screw the 20% that defintly want it, and screw the 60% that would like it (adding the favorable sections of the poll) according to the cag poll. I don't know what it would cost as a markup on the system, I don't think it would be more then $50, and I doubt it would affect the cost of games, as most likely the 3rd party and nintedo games will stay at $50 rather then going down in cost. The last 2 sentences were my opinion, I have no proof, and I don't even know where to look for the proof, but people making comments on it drastically increasing the cost of the console are also speculating. If nintendo had included the hd support, would those who don't have an HD be bitching about paying (guessing) $200 on a console, saying it wasn't necessary...most likely not, it was a poor choice by nintendo imo.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']yeah that is one way of looking at it, the other being you can't afford or don't need an HD tv at this moment, so screw the 20% that defintly want it, and screw the 60% that would like it (adding the favorable sections of the poll) according to the cag poll. I don't know what it would cost as a markup on the system, I don't think it would be more then $50, and I doubt it would affect the cost of games, as most likely the 3rd party and nintedo games will stay at $50 rather then going down in cost. The last 2 sentences were my opinion, I have no proof, and I don't even know where to look for the proof, but people making comments on it drastically increasing the cost of the console are also speculating. If nintendo had included the hd support, would those who don't have an HD be bitching about paying (guessing) $200 on a console, saying it wasn't necessary...most likely not, it was a poor choice by nintendo imo.[/QUOTE]

Again, break down the systems.

Xbox 360 core (Has HD): $299
Nintendo Revolution (No HD): Speculated at $200 (With some companies saying $150)

Keep in mind that Nintendo always makes money on their systems from Day 1, while M$ is losing money on each unit produced.

So where does that extra $100+ come from? My guess and opinion is from the more complex hardware necessary to churn out HD output. People have already said that a lot of the processing power for the 360 goes into HD output and since the technology is pretty new at this stage in the life cycle, I wouldn't be surprised if it costs a good deal more.

Listen to the newest podcast from RevolutionReport.com to hear their thoughts on why they believe it costs more money to produce games for the 360 and soon-to-be PS3. Good food for thought - I'm too lazy to type it out.

And I think your choice of wording by using "screwed" puts people's opinions in a much more negative light than they should be. From the way I've read posts on this thread, only a few people are upset by Nintendo's decision but will buy the system regardless for the 1st party games. Hardly think that people on CAG feel "screwed."
 
screwed might have been an overstatement, but around 19% of those polled won't even consider it due to it not having HD. While they may have never been nintendo fans, but you can't discount those people. Add in the other 39% that want it but it isn't a deal breaker for them. That is the majority of the people that took the poll on cag would like to have hd. Using the Core system as a starting point is wrong as well, as only 20% of the units shipped so far are the core, and a lot of the people that I saw in line getting stuck with the core, bought a Hard Drive, so you are still at about $400 out of pocket for the system before tax. The overwhelming majority of articles I have seen have the rev at $150, some speculate $200, and some even $100. Now pricing may be an issue, but I would like to see numbers on nintendo die hards, that will be the first in line to get the revolution. Would they be willing to spend $200 on it, how about $300. Yes it is nice for nintendo to cater to the lower income/people that don't want to waste an arm and a leg on a system, but if they release in the US next holiday season, the majority of owners are going to be die hard nintendo fans. What would have been the break even point on what they are willing to pay. Would they still sellout of systems at a $300 pricepoint? Yes one can argue about it not being as powerful as the other systems, but nintendo can talk about changing the way we game, and give the perceived value of the controller and how it works as being the reason they are asking $300.

Would nintendo actually struggle by have HD support? I personally think the success of the rev, is going to come down to how well that controller actually works, if non nintendo gamers are actually intrigued by it, and how much support from the controller will they get by other developers. We all know nintendo will make good to excellent games for it. But there release dates are very spread out. They need for other developers to pick up the ball on it. Now lets say they sell 25million units of the cube by the end of its life cycle (made up number, but it still sells and if drops in price, and twillight princess comes out on it,it may increase sales some) They have been losing market share over the past generations. So lets say they loose 10% of gamecubes market due to other systems,lack of faith in nintendo, getting out of gamine etc...Now most likely the remaining 22.5mill users will get a rev at some point. They consider selling the same as the cube a failure for the revolution. So not only do they need to gather an extra 2.5million users (made up numbers), they have to sell to more for it to be deemed a success. I think they could have gotten away with charging $300 for the system at launch, be less powerful, had the hd support, and drop prices each year going down the road.

I forgot the name of the mag, but there were a couple of them in oct/nov/dec talking about how this time around, msft is in control on fixed costs of the systems, and that as of 01/01/06 they should be making money on them (possible reason the third factory which was originally announced in nov, didn't start untill febuary/late january making systems) The article went on to state how they could do about a $100 a year price drop and still make money on it, and that this could help keep sony off there back) If msft could manage a way to not be loosing a ton of money on the systems, I am sure nintendo could have figured it out.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']screwed might have been an overstatement, but around 19% of those polled won't even consider it due to it not having HD. [/QUOTE]

Interesting points you brought up and unfortunately, I don't have time to address them all.

But with regards to the lack of HD, Nintendo feels that their next gen console doesn't need that capability to succeed. Case in point with online gaming - Everyone who has Xbox Live generally have positive things to say about it on the whole. Yet only 20% of all Xbox owners use live - a liberal estimate if I remember correctly. And while Nintendo didn't fare too well in the US, it did better in Europe and respectable in Japan (in terms of sales).

Were consumers who bought the GC and didn't have such functionality available to them disappointed? Probably - but broadband simply hadn't reached the point where it was an economically viable option (and I'm really curious to see how much money M$ is making off Live after taking into account servers, service, tech support, etc).

Now that broadband has reached a certain point, Nintendo feels like they need to have it and will indeed provide such a service ala Nintendo Wi Fi.

As such, I am positive that Nintendo's next gen console will undoubtedly have HD capabilities - when the market is really ready for it.

Furthermore, Nintendo doesn't want to compete head-to-head w/ the other two. They're happy being the 2nd console in the house - Which could ultimately lead to Nintendo having the most units sold in the end. A simple stratagem with potentially huge positive returns.

Also, I was one of those who voted "Meh - It'd be nice but not a deciding factor" - For me, that translate into "HD Capability has 0 Weight on my decision. It'd be a bonus to me and nothing more." So I don't think it's far to assume that everyone who voted for that option feels like they're missing out.
 
very true on the meh portion, but I voted that way as well, and am not happy with there decision, but will get it for the 1st party games. I don't understand why nintendo wants to not compete, I understand why, as they want it solely as a gaming machine. Consumers today, want more for there dollar. Nintendo could compete with xbox, as it is the system of FPS, and the revolution controler may be ideal for fps. The lack of power, they have stated to curtail the cost of making games. Before the rev, when has nintendo ever gave a shit about 3rd party companines. Trying to be the 2nd console in eveyones home is great, and may lead to more sales, but why not try to compete to be number 1. They keep on saying we are in a different market, but there console plays games as does sony's and msft's systems. If this controller is as good/better then it has been hyped, they could take down sony/move well ahead of msft. Why are they handicapping themselves and talking down there system. Making statements along the lines of we aren't as powerful, we aren't competing with them are defeatist statements. At some point msft and sony will come up with similiar technology. There even was a 3rd party controller very similiar to nintendo's setup at one of the trade shows recently. While the 3rd party one allegedly sucked, it is possible for sony/msft to come in and steal there thunder. Yes they will be behind the ball and will need to work quick, and probably make a ton of mistakes with it, compared to nintendo having the first to market with it. But what if the ps3/xbox 360 has a controller very close to what the rev has a year or 2 from now. What is going to be the difference between them in favor of nintendo, besides nintendo's first party games, which is the difference in them in this current gen.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I don't understand why nintendo wants to not compete, I understand why, as they want it solely as a gaming machine. Consumers today, want more for there dollar. Nintendo could compete with xbox, as it is the system of FPS, and the revolution controler may be ideal for fps. [/QUOTE]

I'll let the wonderful Ms. Perrin Kaplan handle this one (from a new interview w/ Forbes, released today):

[quote name='Interview']What makes Nintendo's corporate culture and tactics different from its competitors?

Inside Nintendo, we call our strategy “Blue Ocean.” This is in contrast to a “Red Ocean.” Seeing a Blue Ocean is the notion of creating a market where there initially was none--going out where nobody has yet gone. Red Ocean is what our competitors do--heated competition where sales are finite and the product is fairly predictable. We’re making games that are expanding our base of consumers in Japan and America. Yes, those who’ve always played games are still playing, but we’ve got people who’ve never played to start loving it with titles like Nintendogs, Animal Crossing and Brain Games. These games are Blue Ocean in action.

So what aspects of the new Revolution are "Blue Ocean" and will create a new market?

Well, first there’s this new controller. It is out of this world, literally! You can now move your hand, arm, wrist or body to control the game. If you were playing a fishing game, before you would just press buttons on a controller held in both hands in front of you. With this, you can move your arm back and forth and cast your bait. It senses depth. As someone who doesn’t spend hours per day gaming, I was thrilled with the experience.

We’re also offering what we call the “virtual console"--the ability to download nearly every kind of Nintendo game going back to the original Nintendo Entertainment System through the GameCube. We think there is an untapped nostalgia market: Gamers who grew up and cut their teeth on these older games could come back. [/QUOTE]

In summary, they chose not to compete to break away from the stigma that video games are too complex and only for the really enthusiastic players. They're working on expanding the market and I believe will be very successful.

Especially when you take a look at the popularity the DS is enjoying, which continues to grow with each new game that isn't quite a game (Nintendogs, Brain Trainer, Electroplankton, etc).

[quote name='ryanbph']At some point msft and sony will come up with similiar technology. There even was a 3rd party controller very similiar to nintendo's setup at one of the trade shows recently. While the 3rd party one allegedly sucked, it is possible for sony/msft to come in and steal there thunder. [/QUOTE]

Again, I refer to the power of patents to protect Nintendo's key distinguishing factor. The only reason why 3rd parties can produce 3rd party versions of the controller is because Nintendo is licensing the necessary patents. Without those agreements, the controllers would never get off the ground.

So, if Nintendo has done their HW and secured the technology so they hold they make it sufficiently difficult for competitors to copy it, it could 1)Takes years for them to develop a product that is sufficiently different to get around the patents yet have similar functionality, or 2) License the patents from Nintendo. Ha!

And for those who are not familiar with the power of patents, have you heard of the Blackberry portable messaging device (also known as Crackberry)? There is a huge patent fight right now that threatens the device itself, and may result in stoppage of Blackberry production. I think right now all service has been suspended till the case is finished in courts.

Do you know how many people rely on these things in consulting firms and the government? Based on a Washington Post article posted on Feburary 5, 2006, there are over 4 million users - and these people cannot do their work without it!

Link to the interview (From the Print version for easier reading): http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/07/xbox-ps3-revolution-cx_rr_0207nintendo_print.html
 
those are very good points, but the ds has very good graphics on it anyways. For each sale they get in that blue ocean they talk about, how many games are they selling. Yes nintendo is making some money on each console sole, but how many of the ds, and the revolutions sold is actually going to the blue ocean market or non traditional gamers. I have a ds, 2 different nintendogs games, and plan on getting brain trainer. Are non gamers parting with $150 or so for a system, and then buying one game? Or are they getting hooked and buying more games. I don't know the answer to those ?'s, and would like to, but I would think the sucess of the ds is coming from people that were going to buy the next nintendo handheld, and not the non gaming market. I make this assumption looking at the sucess of all the different colored gameboy/gamboy advance systems sold. The controller would itself on the revolution make interacting with games easier, but will they actually get a bunch of new people into the market. Just making the game interface easier will not be the sell, they will need a major media push. How the hell are these non gamers going to know about this simplified way of gaming? They probably don't read the gaming mags or visit gaming sites, or pay any attention to e3. Was the DS touch commercials beneficial to the non gaming crowd, or did it just get the nintendo fans excited. I haven't found most of nintendo's or msft commercials appealing, it has come thru on reading up on them thru gaming mags and cheapass. Sorry to be one of the main reasons this thread has turned into nintendo only, but I feel they missed the boat without going HD. Just like they did by not supporting online play, but 10% or roughly 2 million people on msft, would have easily translated into an extra 2 million gamers on the cube and maybe more. It could have been the difference in 2nd and third place in this current gen.
 
i have a 50 inch plasma hdtv and a 7.1 surround sound hookup. so Hd is very important to me. I got the x360 at launch because of the Hd compabilities. I will probably get the PS3 later on, I won't be getting the Revolution.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']those are very good points, but the ds has very good graphics on it anyways. For each sale they get in that blue ocean they talk about, how many games are they selling. [/QUOTE]

I'll contend that it's better that someone buy a console and one game than no console at all. At least they've made one purchase that wouldn't otherwise have occured - and once a consumer has one game, they're more likely to buy another. Then another.

Nintendo has support from all walks of gamer life - casual, more enthusiastic, and even hard core. The only support they seem to lack are those who absolutely must have HD with their games. And I argue that is a small fraction of the overall potential market. Nintendo knows that there is much more to gain by courting the non-gaming community than fighting it out w/ Sony and M$ over, as Ms. Kaplan said, a finite number of consumers.

So they are going for a demographic that Sony and M$ will have, I believe, little success in courting.

[quote name='ryanbph']Just making the game interface easier will not be the sell, they will need a major media push. [/QUOTE]

I am sure you forgot to mention that it won't be just easier, but also a totally different way of interacting with games, which is really what the selling point - not ease of functionality.

Nintendo wants all games for the Revolution to be immediately intuitive - pick up the controller and after 5 minutes of messing around automatically know what to do. A lofty goal, indeed, but it's the same kind of mentality that Apple has executed very well. So there is precident for success. (And let's not change topic and discuss why Apple isn't beating M$ if this is the case).
 
I thought it was a given in mentioning the fact that it was a different way to game. Nintendo has said over and over how complex games are. And who is it better for selling only 1 game, nintendo or the third party develpers that want to make games on the rev. I buy things that I have a use for. I got the cube, when there was several games that I wanted on the market, and more in the pipeline that I wanted, and not at launch like it was for the ps2/xbox and the 360. If I was a nongamer, I wouldn't spend roughly $160 or so to just play nintendogs. Hell on this gaming board, you can't even get people to justify spending an extra $200 to get an HD tv (going by the sale best buy has now, the diffence in a tv at 27" being $220 for non and $400 for an hd unit, same tv otherwise)

also your argument about if the nongamer buys a system and one game, they will buy another etc...that will come to an end...I own a cube, I only have about 10 or so games...the last one I bought for the cube was resident evil 4 over a year ago. They havne't released anything that interests me...yes they made there money on selling me the system, but unlike the xbox, they haven't made any money on me the past year.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I thought it was a given in mentioning the fact that it was a different way to game. Nintendo has said over and over how complex games are. And who is it better for selling only 1 game, nintendo or the third party develpers that want to make games on the rev. I but things that I have a use for.

also your argument about if the nongamer buys a system and one game, they will buy another etc...that will come to an end...I own a cube, I only have about 10 or so games...the last one I bought for the cube was resident evil 4 over a year ago. They havne't released anything that interests me...yes they made there money on selling me the system, but unlike the xbox, they haven't made any money on me the past year.[/QUOTE]

Your arguments are now focusing on the games that Nintendo offers rather than what the console itself has to offer and the lack of HD capabilities.

In that case, it's up to Nintendo and the 3rd parties to ensure enough games as to keep consumers interested.

And I think that the complexity you are referring to doesn't lie in the movements or actions themselves, but rather the button combination necessary to pull off moves. If the same action can be conveyed with a motion of the arm, doesn't that cut down on the complexity while also keeping the same level of functionality?
 
Only time will tell? If REV beats Xbox360 in TOTAL units sold woldwide by this time next year. I will buy Ecofreak a REV system. I don't believe 3rd party support is going to be strong for Nintendo and I don't think Nintendo can pull off enough 1st party support to keep REV afloat. With N64 and Gamcube having few and far between good games I cant see this next system(REV) a true success.My thoughts for what will happen in 2006 is. Sony is going to be a ass and try to secure as many exclusives as it can and MS is going to be lame and release cool limited edition 360's the US will never see. HD will be a selling point as much as blueray tech is in PS3 but thats still going to be fair. As a cable technican its VERY suprising to see older people buying LCD/Plasma HD TV's, and with all the stay at home moms putting HD LCD's in there Kitichens(which are a bitch to install) I see HD a very fast groing thing that will be important.
 
[quote name='Michaellvortega']Only time will tell? If REV beats Xbox360 in TOTAL units sold woldwide by this time next year. I will buy Ecofreak a REV system. [/QUOTE]

A generous offer indeed - although the probability of that happening is practically 0%, considering that M$ will have had over 1 year to sell the console while the Revolution will have been out for half a year in Japan and a few months in America.

Or perhaps that was a challenge - empty, at best.

[quote name='Michaellvortega']I don't believe 3rd party support is going to be strong for Nintendo and I don't think Nintendo can pull off enough 1st party support to keep REV afloat. [/QUOTE]

Certainly a possibility. But, there are indie developers that are begging Nintendo to let them develop for the Revolution.
Case in Point (From Revolution Report)[quote name='Article']NIBRIS is a game developer based in Poland who plans to release its first title, Raid over the River, exclusively for the Nintendo DS and the upcoming next-generation Revolution console.[/QUOTE]

Now, you may think "Who the heck is NIBRIS. They're a non-issue b/c they have no credibility."

Fair, but then again, have you heard of ANY indie developers begging Sony or M$ to produce for their respective systems? Based on my research, I have yet to see one.

And granted, they are only small companies who may release a few games. But you never know when a new Rockstar or Capcom will be born. People complain about gamer fatigue - too many sequels w/ no innovation. The New York Times even released a new report today saying just that - too many sequels and not enough innovation is hurting the industry.

Well, perhaps these small firms are just what the industry needs to get out of the slump.

Only it will cost too much to develop for the 360 (at least) for many small groups since they require that all games have HD output standard. Why eles do you think that all these companies are merging? It costs so dang much to produce a game and the risks are now so great.

And what about Nintendo and all of their sequels? Mario 30 and Zelda 26?

I argue that each game is sufficiently different from the one before that any gamer could immediately tell that two games from the same franchise were different. Can that be said about the Xbox? Well, I contend that if you take a casual gamer and have them look at two televisions - one with Halo and the other with Halo 2 (and some how got the two to be graphically equal), they couldn't tell the difference.

'Course, the same could be said for Metroid Prime and Prime 2, but I think this situation is more noticable in the other systems. Or perhaps using FPS as an example is a bad idea in general.

Regardless, here is a list of companies that have confirmed game development for the Revolution from a report via 4ColorRebellion:

AQ Interactive
Atari
Bandai
EA
GameFreak
Gearbox
Grasshopper Interactive
HAL Laboratory
Intelligent System
Koei
Konami
Mad Catz
NIBRIS
Nubytech
Retro Studios
Square Enix
Ubisoft

Article: http://www.n-sider.com/articleview.php?articleid=497

While the list may not be as long as many would like, it is still a good start. Companies are understandingly hesitent to produce a game for an untested system - but if the 1st party titles can move systems that hesitency will turn into enthusiasm, no doubt.

[quote name='Michaellvortega']With N64 and Gamcube having few and far between good games I cant see this next system(REV) a true success.[/QUOTE]

Another common argument. But tell me, of the games you bought for the PS2 and more importantly, Xbox line, how many of those were really classic games? I have a pretty large library of PS2 and PS1 games, and of those, I'd really only consider 30% of them really worthwhile and completed. We often see threads and posts that say something like "Ohh, I have all these games that I started but never got around to finishing."

Why is that? Distracted by other games? Or was that game not worth finishing?

I contend that if it was worth finishing, that game would have been completed.

If Nintendo can get its production up to speed and launch more 1st Parties, that fear will hopefully become a non-issue, with other companies following suit by using the new controller.

[quote name='Michaellvortega']My thoughts for what will happen in 2006 is. Sony is going to be a ass and try to secure as many exclusives as it can [/QUOTE]

I think that's doubtful. If it costs so much money for companies to produce games on the PS3 and 360, I expect to see a lot more cross-platformers. There will be an exclusivity period like what we're seeing right now, but nothing really exclusive.

Which is the beauty of the Revolution's scheme. You can port games from the PS3 and 360 onto the Revolution (albeit with possibly lower graphical output and no HD) but the opposite doesn't hold true.

So we'll have to see if that is an issue down the road.

[quote name='Michaellvortega']and MS is going to be lame and release cool limited edition 360's the US will never see. [/QUOTE]

I think you're referring to Japan in this argument, and I don't think that's a big concern if M$ gets games that appeal to the Japanese Market. That should be their primary concern, not limited edition systems. Who cares, in my opinion? Unless you happen to be in the market right when one gets released - I'd sure as heck not wait or buy a new model.

Kind of a non-issue.

[quote name='Michaellvortega']HD will be a selling point as much as blueray tech is in PS3 but thats still going to be fair. As a cable technican its VERY suprising to see older people buying LCD/Plasma HD TV's, and with all the stay at home moms putting HD LCD's in there Kitichens(which are a bitch to install) I see HD a very fast groing thing that will be important.[/QUOTE]

What part of the nation are you living in? Sounds upper class and definitely outside the norm or the average American household.

BTW - I am not a fanboy in case you're wondering. I owned a N64 and was a disappointed due to the lack of RPGs (although I loved Zelda and Rouge Squadron). I skipped the Game Cube entirely. But it's Nintendo's new philosophy and bold heading that has gotten me enamored once again with the Big N. Hopefully, my arguments seem logical and not too fanboy-ie.
 
[quote name='Jetrangers00']i have a 50 inch plasma hdtv and a 7.1 surround sound hookup. so Hd is very important to me. I got the x360 at launch because of the Hd compabilities. I will probably get the PS3 later on, I won't be getting the Revolution.[/QUOTE]
Another argument for "I bought all this shit, therefore I Have to find things that use it".
 
I have a 57" Sony HDTV love it to death. Sports look amazing.

Games are games. I dont play games for fancy flashy graphics. I play them because they are entertaining, not because I get a crisper nicer look. That is why I will be getting a Revo for sure. Cheap, always reliable and there games usually put a smile on my face.

Will probably be getting a PS3 as well.
 
I was in an EB earlier today just browsing, and this guy in there had a conversation with the clerk for like 10 minutes, about the PS3 and the 360. No idea how long he was there before I showed up, but he never used the word, 'game' or 'gameplay' once. Just graphics and resolutions x10. A little ATI and talk about chipsets here and there.

I felt like telling him that I heard there was a mysterious 3rd company putting out a console this year. I didnt though. Ugh.

But seriously. Its cool if you have all this fancy video/audio equipment. However, hooking up a Revolution or what have you to it and not using your fancy hardware to the maximum of its capacity for a little while ISNT going to make the game not fun. Seriously.

Like Resident Evil 4 for the PS2. Its still fun, even though it looks like crap compared to the Gamecube version ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top