New Possible Revolution Specs

Blah! REV will be the underdog of this gen...

as much as I luv Nintendo... They have been making all the wrong move lately... If they don't pull it off this gen.. They will share the fate as Sega...
 
[quote name='Spoon_si']Blah! REV will be the underdog of this gen...

as much as I luv Nintendo... They have been making all the wrong move lately... If they don't pull it off this gen.. They will share the fate as Sega...[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt that. There is absolutly no way Nintendo will suffer the same fate. If they lose in the home console market, they have such a strong hold on portables that no one can topple them. PSP is putting up a good fight, but can't topple the nintendo dynasty.

Even if the REV is the underdog, in terms of its specs, nintendo will defenitly deliver more top notch titles on their system. Nintendo's systems always are good about preventing alot of 'fluff'/crummy-mainstream titles showing up on their systems. I still have yet to see Xbox (or the "American System" as I like to call it, after I got rid of mine) put out a game with as much quality as the games Nintendo has on its GC system. And all the 1st party games on the GC look 10X better/more polished than most XBox games, even with the Xbox being more powerful. I applaud the comming of all the new systems (especially REV and PS3), but I don't think specs will determine what makes or breaks a company in the market. ahh gawd... i talk too much.
 
[quote name='RelentlessRolento']. Nintendo's systems always are good about preventing alot of 'fluff'/crummy-mainstream titles showing up on their systems.[/QUOTE]

Obviously you weren't around for the 8 bit NES :) Man they had some shit games. Nintendo has been doing much better this last go-round though.
 
[quote name='Spoon_si']Blah! REV will be the underdog of this gen...

as much as I luv Nintendo... They have been making all the wrong move lately... If they don't pull it off this gen.. They will share the fate as Sega...[/QUOTE]

I don't understand how people can make an intelligent comparison of Nintendo to Sega. Why not compare Microsoft to Atari? IBM to GM? Coke to Google?

Sure they (at one point in time) were both large video game powerhouses, but that is where the comparison ends. Nintendo has a working business model. Sega did not. Nintendo has 8 billion dollars in its coffers. Sega did not.

And where Sega could not maintain their relationships with developers, Nintendo, for all of their missteps and wrong decisions, still has a large presence in the minds, hearts, and souls of video gamers and developers.

Even if they 'fail' this generation, Nintendo will be around for the long haul. I know it's to be taken for a grain of salt, but there was a quote years back by a Nintendo exec to the tune of "As long as their is home gaming, there will be a Nintendo."

Not to mention... it will cost developers upwards of $10-$15 million to develop a game on PS3 and Xbox 360. Recent quotes put Revolution development at $2-$5 million. Can anyone say "Accessible, powerful, great independent development magnet?" I can.

/end fanboy rant
 
12MB of memory on the Graphics Chip?...that sounds awkward to me.

Also, TWO 1.8 ghz processors inside something that is smaller than a mini-mac, which tops out at only one? 1.6 ghz.

Thats pushing the limit, but I suppose it could be done.
 
[quote name='Backlash']Obviously you weren't around for the 8 bit NES :) Man they had some shit games. Nintendo has been doing much better this last go-round though.[/QUOTE]


good point! forgot about the "Old School Fluff" :lol:
 
as much of solid grip nintendo has on the handheld market, and with the psp having a pathetic group of games due out in the future...you can never say never about nintendo not holding the top spot...you never know what will come out in the future :)
 
[quote name='ryanbph']as much of solid grip nintendo has on the handheld market, and with the psp having a pathetic group of games due out in the future...you can never say never about nintendo not holding the top spot...you never know what will come out in the future :)[/QUOTE]


unless you are fromthe future... /jk
 
[quote name='ryanbph']as much of solid grip nintendo has on the handheld market, and with the psp having a pathetic group of games due out in the future...you can never say never about nintendo not holding the top spot...you never know what will come out in the future :)[/QUOTE]

indeed. Although Nintendo didn't have AS big of a grip on the console market, they were still number 1 for quite some time. Then the newcomer sony was able to take a hold of that. Now as far as sales go, Nintendo is number 3.
 
[quote name='psiufoxx2']
Even if they 'fail' this generation, Nintendo will be around for the long haul. I know it's to be taken for a grain of salt, but there was a quote years back by a Nintendo exec to the tune of "As long as their is home gaming, there will be a Nintendo."
[/QUOTE]
The thing is that Nintendo has failed the last two generations. I see the GCN a much better system then the N64 was. I am a Nintendo fanboy and allways will have a place in my heart for Nintendo but a don't see myself buying a Revolution next gen. My stance will more then likelly change when the next gen Zelda comes out but at this moment Nintendo is not keeping up. I have played the shit out of all the old NES, SNES & N64 games so the download old Nintendo games is moot IMHO. No HDTV support is big news. Being the weakest is not a big deal but not moving forward is a huge deal.
 
[quote name='RelentlessRolento']I seriously doubt that. There is absolutly no way Nintendo will suffer the same fate. If they lose in the home console market, they have such a strong hold on portables that no one can topple them. PSP is putting up a good fight, but can't topple the nintendo dynasty.

Even if the REV is the underdog, in terms of its specs, nintendo will defenitly deliver more top notch titles on their system. Nintendo's systems always are good about preventing alot of 'fluff'/crummy-mainstream titles showing up on their systems. I still have yet to see Xbox (or the "American System" as I like to call it, after I got rid of mine) put out a game with as much quality as the games Nintendo has on its GC system. And all the 1st party games on the GC look 10X better/more polished than most XBox games, even with the Xbox being more powerful. I applaud the comming of all the new systems (especially REV and PS3), but I don't think specs will determine what makes or breaks a company in the market. ahh gawd... i talk too much.[/QUOTE]

agreed, nintendos top notch titles will be the system seller no matter how much better Xbox 360 and PS3's graphics are.
 
[quote name='RelentlessRolento']I seriously doubt that. There is absolutly no way Nintendo will suffer the same fate. If they lose in the home console market, they have such a strong hold on portables that no one can topple them. PSP is putting up a good fight, but can't topple the nintendo dynasty.

Even if the REV is the underdog, in terms of its specs, nintendo will defenitly deliver more top notch titles on their system. Nintendo's systems always are good about preventing alot of 'fluff'/crummy-mainstream titles showing up on their systems. I still have yet to see Xbox (or the "American System" as I like to call it, after I got rid of mine) put out a game with as much quality as the games Nintendo has on its GC system. And all the 1st party games on the GC look 10X better/more polished than most XBox games, even with the Xbox being more powerful. I applaud the comming of all the new systems (especially REV and PS3), but I don't think specs will determine what makes or breaks a company in the market. ahh gawd... i talk too much.[/QUOTE]

Well, thats one euphemism for a major lack of third party support. Slow suicide is anorther but hey, semantics is funny that way.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']12MB of memory on the Graphics Chip?...that sounds awkward to me.

Also, TWO 1.8 ghz processors inside something that is smaller than a mini-mac, which tops out at only one? 1.6 ghz.

Thats pushing the limit, but I suppose it could be done.[/QUOTE]

It may be a similar design to what is going into the Xbox 360. The onboard memory is not the frame buffer but justa stage the data passes through for various functions like anti-aliasing and Z-culling. Considering the vendor, it could have many features in common with Microsoft's video.

x86 chips from VIA are getting into the speed range but have a tiny size and run very cool. The clock speed is a meaningless number without the rest of the specs to give it context. Many people mistakenly thought the Xbox 360 CPU was derived from the IBM 970 chips and couldn't understand why Apple couldn't get comparable parts. The answer is that these core were custom designed for video game objectives and left off a lot of transistors not needed for that task and reducing power draw and heat expressed as a side benefit. Much as has already been seen in the Gekko CPU IBM produced for the GameCube.

We also don't know if the Revolution chipset will be initial produced in the same 90 nm process as the other two next gen consoles or if Nintendo is holding out for 65 nm so as to have a very inexpensive, low power draw, and low heat output product. That would explain why it currently seems they'll be last to launch, possibly by several months. If having a very low launch price is a major part of Nintendo's strategy the delay for chipset availability would be a minor issue in the long term. Make the machine well under the temptation level of a large and sell a vast number of them as secondary systems to owners who regard their PS3 or Xbox 360 as their main console. What does Nintendo care so long as they buy the machine and Nintendo's exclusive franchises for it. Once you give up on third party support you're free to try different strategies instead of being stuck in a traditional role that no longer suits your product..
 
[quote name='psiufoxx2']I don't understand how people can make an intelligent comparison of Nintendo to Sega. Why not compare Microsoft to Atari? IBM to GM? Coke to Google?

Sure they (at one point in time) were both large video game powerhouses, but that is where the comparison ends. Nintendo has a working business model. Sega did not. Nintendo has 8 billion dollars in its coffers. Sega did not.

And where Sega could not maintain their relationships with developers, Nintendo, for all of their missteps and wrong decisions, still has a large presence in the minds, hearts, and souls of video gamers and developers.

Even if they 'fail' this generation, Nintendo will be around for the long haul. I know it's to be taken for a grain of salt, but there was a quote years back by a Nintendo exec to the tune of "As long as their is home gaming, there will be a Nintendo."

Not to mention... it will cost developers upwards of $10-$15 million to develop a game on PS3 and Xbox 360. Recent quotes put Revolution development at $2-$5 million. Can anyone say "Accessible, powerful, great independent development magnet?" I can.

/end fanboy rant[/QUOTE]
Geez, why does every have to kick Sega in the fucking balls?
Dreamcast did not fail. The 'gamer' did when they bought the PS2 crap hype (Of course over time the PS2 came to mature(took about 3 Gens though))

Back on topic. I applaud Nintendo for trying to place price controls by keeping the hardware/specs/development costs within reason therefore keeping the $50 price point for games. I think this approach will at least keep them in them in the game as parents are the most price-conscious of consumers & will be easier to penetrate the market with a lower price point.
 
I wouldnt think Nintendo would hold off on launching ONLY for 65nm over 90nm. They could always just update it at a lower cost later, with the benefit of launching earlier. That seems like a better option to me anyway.
 
[quote name='psiufoxx2']Not to mention... it will cost developers upwards of $10-$15 million to develop a game on PS3 and Xbox 360. Recent quotes put Revolution development at $2-$5 million. Can anyone say "Accessible, powerful, great independent development magnet?" I can.

/end fanboy rant[/QUOTE]

This is a common misconception. PS3 and Xbox 360 games are not going to arbitrarily cost in the eight figures to produce. That only applies to high end productions that feature things that cannot be offered on less capable systems. When you have massive detail you have to pay those people who create that detail and as the potential to display and use still further detail becomes available it costs to exploit it, at least to the extent that automation, such as 'growing' trees on the fly, cannot be used. There will be plenty of games produced for far lesser budgets on these consoles. Just as can be seen in any generation they won't fully exploit the platform but rather will do prettier versions of what has gone before, which has always had a certain amount of value. "The best looking version of X but still just X."

If Nintendo doesn't change the policies that drove away third parties, large and small, no aspect of their platform will matter more than that. Most publishers will prefer to produce budget titles for the platforms they find more accomodating if they cannot muster the capital and talent for a high end project. Being limited in what the platform can do is not in of itself an attraction to small developers when a low budget game is just as easily done anywhere.
 
I definitely agree with Nintendo not making the Rev HD compatible. How many gamers actually own HD compatible TV's? Especially since so many people are bitching about the potential cost of games going to $60 and the ps3 being $400+, who's gonna wanna spend $1000 on an HD tv???
 
I call bullshit on this article and the released specs because Nintendo already stated at E3 this year that the Revolution will use DVDs.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I wouldnt think Nintendo would hold off on launching ONLY for 65nm over 90nm. They could always just update it at a lower cost later, with the benefit of launching earlier. That seems like a better option to me anyway.[/QUOTE]

Updating the chipset later won't have the same value. The idea is to start with a much lower cost. Nintendo remains staunchly against hardware subsidies so there are limited options. The specs given in the rumor would cost a fair bit less than the Xbox 360 chipset, IF we can also assume the chipset, having the same two vendors, has much in common designwise while incoroporating direct binary compatibility to the GameCube. That alone cuts the price but since they seem to be waiting for something before launching it isn't unreasonable to suppose they might have a very practical reason for this and one that further presses the low price angle.

If you aren't vying for the lead in a muscle competition other traits should used to advantage. Throughout this generation the GameCube always had a 33% price advantage but other issues prevented it from being leveraged as well as it should have been, largely because Nintendo was still trying to fulfill a role that no longer suits it. Imagine the difference if in early November of 2006, the new Nintendo game console appears with a list price of $129. It doesn't have the same jaw dropping abilities of the other new machines cost well over twice as much but it's still a good jump over its predecessor and it plays all of that machine's existing games. In addition to being the exclusive platform for all the Nintendo franchises new and old it also has versions of multiplatform titles but with a difference. Because it cannot reproduce what the more expensive machines are doing it has games using a lot of the same art assets and IP but that are distinctly different products. The lazier publishers will just produce a low end version of the same game but the smart ones will instead seek to create something that player who own the PS3 or Xbox 360 version will also choose to buy, much as they do with the better GBA versions of multi-platform titles.

A low price point doesn't have to be a low quality dungeon. It can simply serve as a separate target market with strong crossover into the the high end and portable markets. Being the secondary console of choice can mean huge sales if they embrace it rather than just resinging themselve to it.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I call bullshit on this article and the released specs because Nintendo already stated at E3 this year that the Revolution will use DVDs.[/QUOTE]

They said they would use a DVD compatible drive but that doesn't mean that the games will ship on a disc that an off the shelf DVD-ROM unit would recognize. The GameCube disc format isn't just a mini-DVD. It has assorted added requirements that make it very hard to pirate with a BIG investment in equipment. That cost is minor from Nintendo's perspective because it's just customized version of equipment they were going to buy anyway and the profit margin on the discs pays it off pretty quickly. If you're a small pirate operation that cannot afford to spend millions on the hardware and modifications (going to the equipment maker and saying you need to duplicate the GCN format is like going to ink companies and asking them for a match to the color on a $100 bill) you're going to look elsewhere for low hanging fruit.

Nintendo is likely doing the same on Revolution. They get all of the advantages of using a widely supported standard but add some complications that require a certain amount of capital to duplicate.
 
[quote name='daschrier']I definitely agree with Nintendo not making the Rev HD compatible. How many gamers actually own HD compatible TV's? Especially since so many people are bitching about the potential cost of games going to $60 and the ps3 being $400+, who's gonna wanna spend $1000 on an HD tv???[/QUOTE]

The thing is not many have a HDTV now but the life span of a console is 5-6 years. HD sets are getting cheaper every year. The Revolution will come out at the end of 2006 and will/should be around until 2011. By 2011 the HD market will be huge. Nintendo is not looking forward to the future. This is as bad as the N64 not using a CDROM. Nintendo needs to change its views on its home consoles or they will always be known as the kiddy system. I don't mind the value route they are taking but not going with HD support is going to leave Nintendo in Sony & MS dust the second half of the next gen.
 
The hardware IS DVD.

The Gamecube disks are 1.8 inch DVD disks.


Saying they aren't just because the software differs is like saying PS2 and Xbox don't use the DVD-ROM format for games either.

An off-the-shelf DVD-ROM unit WILL recognise a GCN mini-DVD, but it can't do anything with it because of the security features and software incompatability.
 
[quote name='daschrier']I definitely agree with Nintendo not making the Rev HD compatible. How many gamers actually own HD compatible TV's? Especially since so many people are bitching about the potential cost of games going to $60 and the ps3 being $400+, who's gonna wanna spend $1000 on an HD tv???[/QUOTE]

Gee, I don't know, people wanting to watch HD quality content, perhaps?

HD display sales are growing at a good clip amd prices are steadily dropping. A perfectly good HD screen can be had for much less than I paid for my current TV ten years ago and will have far better specs in addition to the HD resolution. Spending the same amount for a TV in 1995 and 2005 will get me far more of an upgrade than spending the same amount in 1985 and 1995. Seems like great prgoress to me.

Gamers have long invested in better equipment to better enjoy their play. The newer platforms offer features that merit the investment. How many bothered with surround sound before the current generation? How many saw a big screen as meaning much for displaying NES games but thought differently when more powerful platforms and far lower bigscreen costs came around.

The question isn't if you'll buy but when.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']The hardware IS DVD.

The Gamecube disks are 1.8 inch DVD disks.


Saying they aren't just because the software differs is like saying PS2 and Xbox don't use the DVD-ROM format for games either.

An off-the-shelf DVD-ROM unit WILL recognise a GCN mini-DVD, but it can't do anything with it because of the security features and software incompatability.[/QUOTE]

When you do things that break the standard and normal drive cannot deal with then what you have is a separate format. The same drive mechanism and firmware may be able to handle standard discs but that doesn't change the fact that piracy is impeded. It isn't just software. It's differences at a level below software access local to the drive mechanism and thus things like mod chips don't help.

THe PS2 and Xbox disc formats are pretty conventional and the discs are easily examined with off the shelf PC drives. Their security functions are implemented the DVD-ROM standard. Nintendo's are done at a lower level.

Having a drive that can deal with multiple standards isn't a big deal. You can run out an buy a drive that handles a whole alphabet soup of standards but those are all openly published and licensed. Anyone can pony up $5,000 and get all of details of a DVD-ROM disc for implementation. Nintendo isn't putting that infor out in the public view. Not even developers can produce their own discs. They burn test discs for use on non-standard hardware. Having the implementation involved both a modified drive mechanism and disc format makes it a lot harder to pirate. It added a little cost to the GameCube but well worth it considering how little piracy they see compared to PS2 and Xbox. The size of the disc is a minor issue. If it was an open format there would be factories in China cranking out blanks for pirate use by the million.
 
[quote name='daschrier']I definitely agree with Nintendo not making the Rev HD compatible. How many gamers actually own HD compatible TV's? Especially since so many people are bitching about the potential cost of games going to $60 and the ps3 being $400+, who's gonna wanna spend $1000 on an HD tv???[/QUOTE]

You need to open your eyes before making blanket statements like "HDTVs are $1000"..

Wal-Mart sells a 30" tube set for $600 TODAY....Amazon sells 26" LCDs with 12 ms response time for $600 TODAY.

These will get cheaper by next xmas when the revolution is out...Come talk to me next christmas after doing some research, and we'll see what your stance is.

I know that I don't want to be the guy with the revolution buying the one or two good games that nintendo has every year nor do I want to get kicked in the balls by xbox 360 and ps3 owners, who will get MORE games AND HDTV..
 
[quote name='Spoon_si']Blah! REV will be the underdog of this gen...

as much as I luv Nintendo... They have been making all the wrong move lately... If they don't pull it off this gen.. They will share the fate as Sega...[/QUOTE]

except for the whole part about nintendo profitting
 
[quote name='gsr']You need to open your eyes before making blanket statements like "HDTVs are $1000"..

Wal-Mart sells a 30" tube set for $600 TODAY....Amazon sells 26" LCDs with 12 ms response time for $600 TODAY.

These will get cheaper by next xmas when the revolution is out...Come talk to me next christmas after doing some research, and we'll see what your stance is.

I know that I don't want to be the guy with the revolution buying the one or two good games that nintendo has every year nor do I want to get kicked in the balls by xbox 360 and ps3 owners, who will get MORE games AND HDTV..[/QUOTE]

And the consoles haven't even been released yet. Imagine when Blu-ray, HD-DVD, and the next-gen consoles hit how much cheaper these TVs will be. You need to look in the long run. I think it will be a huge factor towards the middle and end of the console life.
 
[quote name='RelentlessRolento']I seriously doubt that. There is absolutly no way Nintendo will suffer the same fate. If they lose in the home console market, they have such a strong hold on portables that no one can topple them. PSP is putting up a good fight, but can't topple the nintendo dynasty.[/QUOTE]

The DS, although intriguing and I may pick one up with the free mario 64-DS this month, definitely cannot compete with Sony and the PSP in the long run. If the DS isn't the new Game Boy (a statement that I am beginning to believe is complete bullshit), then what is, when will we see it? I personally believe the DS to be selling more than the PSP simply because of brand recognition and price. Once PSP falls to a competing price next to the DS, I think PSP sales will skyrocket and kick Nintendo out of its handheld throne.

I am anxious for the Revolution... I am hoping that the controller isn't a joke. While the rumored specs are nice, and the ability to download old-school games is totally bad ass, if the console is too gimmicky then it will fail just like the Virutal Boy.
 
Thats odd how the umd's are smaller than a gcn disc but yet they still can hold more data. I think no HD is no good. I don't have a HDTV yet but my next tv purchase will be a HDTV in the next couple of months.
 
[quote name='redgopher']The DS, although intriguing and I may pick one up with the free mario 64-DS this month, definitely cannot compete with Sony and the PSP in the long run. If the DS isn't the new Game Boy (a statement that I am beginning to believe is complete bullshit), then what is, when will we see it? I personally believe the DS to be selling more than the PSP simply because of brand recognition and price. Once PSP falls to a competing price next to the DS, I think PSP sales will skyrocket and kick Nintendo out of its handheld throne.

I am anxious for the Revolution... I am hoping that the controller isn't a joke. While the rumored specs are nice, and the ability to download old-school games is totally bad ass, if the console is too gimmicky then it will fail just like the Virutal Boy.[/QUOTE]

Why would the DS still be at that price point when the PSP drops? The same ra that sees a $150 PSP will almost certainly also offer and $80 DS. There will remain a significant gap in cost of entry.

The new GameBoy would likely appear next year after the DS is well established and everything has been squeezed from the GBA.
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1059296&postcount=30
 
[quote name='gsr']You need to open your eyes before making blanket statements like "HDTVs are $1000"..

Wal-Mart sells a 30" tube set for $600 TODAY....Amazon sells 26" LCDs with 12 ms response time for $600 TODAY.

These will get cheaper by next xmas when the revolution is out...Come talk to me next christmas after doing some research, and we'll see what your stance is.

I know that I don't want to be the guy with the revolution buying the one or two good games that nintendo has every year nor do I want to get kicked in the balls by xbox 360 and ps3 owners, who will get MORE games AND HDTV..[/QUOTE]

Ok, good HDTV's cost $1000 plus....you get what you pay for.
 
Ok, good HDTV's cost $1000 plus....you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

Actually the Sanyo HDTVs that Walmart carries have been well received over at AVS forum (there was a long thread devoted to them). Decent CRT HDTVs aren't too expensive these days. Hell, the truly sucky Advent 27" HDTV was like $300 at Best Buy. Samsung makes a decent 27" HDTV at $500ish.

Sometimes even something fairly cheap can be good. :D
 
[quote name='daschrier']Ok, good HDTV's cost $1000 plus....you get what you pay for.[/QUOTE]

another blanket statement..How would you know about the quality of hdtv's when you still think they're all over $1000?

The walmart set has been selling out faster than I can say, "yo momma."

It is a Sanyo set and Sanyo is the GOLD standard of crt direct view sets.

[quote name='GreenMonkey']Actually the Sanyo HDTVs that Walmart carries have been well received over at AVS forum (there was a long thread devoted to them). Decent CRT HDTVs aren't too expensive these days. Hell, the truly sucky Advent 27" HDTV was like $300 at Best Buy. Samsung makes a decent 27" HDTV at $500ish.

Sometimes even something fairly cheap can be good. :D[/QUOTE]

preach on brother...doing your homework is a wonderful thing.
 
Ahhh, the usual Nintendo bashing. (And yet, we all still love to play those old games like Banjo and Zelda and Metroid. We hate Nintendo but love the games... very odd split personality there.)

Anyway...

When are people going to learn that it's NOT the technology that creates success? It's the games. Historically speaking the most-advanced console was NOT the winner:

1977-82 = Atari 2600 (#1 seller, but technically inferior to Intellivision)
1985-90 = Nintendo ES (#1 seller, but technically inferior to Sega MS)
1990-95 = Super Nintendo & Sega Genesis (virtual tie)
95-2000 = PS1 (#1 seller, but technially inferior to N64)
2000-05 = PS2 (#1 seller, but technically inferior to Cube & Box)



History shows that the best technology does NOT equal the most successful selling console. These consoles succeeded despite their technical inferiority, and looking at the specs of X360, Revolution, or PS3, tells you *nothing* about future sales potential.

troy
 
I can not see the article, but I'm guessing it says, "Only supports 480i or 480p." I can understand that position. Nintendo included progressive scan support on the Cube, and virtually no games used it, so including that hardware was just a waste of money (and later removed).

Very few people have HDTVs capable of showing anything higher than 480i/p, so including the capability would, again, be a waste of Nintendo's money.




Also remember, just because a TV can show higher resolutions, doesn't mean games have to go that high. We played for roughly 20 years (1977-97), in only 240 interlaced, even though analog TVs could show higher resolutions, and we *liked* it.

Having a lower 240i resolution didn't detract from the fun of classic games like Mario 64, Final Fantasy 6, or Link to the Past.

troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Very few people have HDTVs capable of showing anything higher than 480i/p, so including the capability would, again, be a waste of Nintendo's money.

Also remember, just because a TV can show higher resolutions, doesn't mean games have to go that high. We played for roughly 20 years (1977-97), in only 240 interlaced, even though analog TVs could show higher resolutions, and we *liked* it.

Having a lower 240i resolution didn't detract from the fun of classic games like Mario 64, Final Fantasy 6, or Link to the Past.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, but those games didn't NEED a higher resolution. Why do PC games now support insane resolutions like 1800 x 1200? It makes the game easier to play. You can seperate enemies in the distance from barrels. You can't do that with 640 x 480. It's an actual gameplay benefit (and I'm sure someone here owns one and will say the same thing), and if the videos from E3 indicate anything, graphical detail is going to be higher than it's ever been. Even 480p will make a difference. There's no reason not to just inlcude it, nor is it a waste of money.

Think of it this way:

Joe Schmoe walks into Best Buy to buy a new HDTV, his first set. What will they be demoing on it? A PS3 or 360. Joe's going to buy that new set and the competition.

Look, we're gamers, die hard ones likely. We know better than to be taken in by a sales pitch, but the vast majority do not. They want Madden, they want GTA, and there's a damn good chance that within the life span of these consoles, they'll want them in HD. No amount of Mario's and Zelda's will save them in the mainstream, and that's the biggest market right now.
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod'] There's no reason not to just inlcude [HDTV], nor is it a waste of money.[/QUOTE]Nintendo has told us the reason: So they can sell their Revolution at $150 or $200, instead of $300, and thereby undercut the competition. Games like Mario 64 and Zelda 64 were fun at 240i. There was no reason to go higher. And their sequels will be fun at 480p. So why complain?

Answer:

It's NOT the graphics that make a game fun. I've seen the most beautiful games in the world, FLOP, because they were not fun. It's the gameplay that matters.




Why do PC games now support insane resolutions like 1800 x 1200? It makes the game easier to play. You can seperate enemies in the distance from barrels.
Click to expand...
It is unlikely Nintendo will have FPSes, so that won't be an issue. (Note: Metroid is not an FPS. It's an FPA. It's a third-person adventure, converted to first-person adventure.) The Cube saw almost no FPSes, and I doubt the Revolution will be any different.


BTW, store demos won't use game consoles. At Sears we don't use HDTV Xboxes. We use Discover HD, and IMAX videos of mouth-dropping scenery, not lowly game machines.

troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Nintendo has told us the reason: So they can sell their Revolution at $150 or $200, instead of $300, and thereby undercut the competition. Games like Mario 64 and Zelda 64 were fun at 240i. There was no reason to go higher. And their sequels will be fun at 480p. So why complain?

Answer:

Because you're still naive' enough to think graphics matter. It's NOT the graphics that make a game fun. I've seen the most beautiful games in the world, FLOP, because they were not fun.

BTW, store demos won't use game consoles. At Sears we don't use Xboxes. We use Discover HD, and IMAX videos of mouth-dropping scenery, not lowly game machines.

troy[/QUOTE]

Did you read what I said? I played through the 2600 era, NES era, SNES, Genesis, so on. I know graphics don't matter. In fact, I wrote an entire article on the subject:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/10/023952.php

I also know that certain games that are bound to become classics this generation haven't sold because they weren't embraced by the masses (Beyond Good and Evil). That's the new market, and Nintendo doesn't realize that. To say they won't have FPS's is ridiculous, especially considering how popular they are.

You may not like it anymore that I do, but as a HDTV owner, I know what it's like to play games in HD, and it DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE in GAMEPLAY in some games. If you've never seen it done right, then you won't understand. There might not even be 480p support on the Rev. That's just stupid. HDTV owner #'s increase everyday.

It's not going to add $100 to the console. That's a sad, PR lie. The Gamecube had at the least 480p support. It's not going to cost anymore to include 720p or 1080i. There's a reason to go higher, so they're not, yet again, a generation behind in technology (carts, no DVD/online play), and ignoring another change.

It's what the masses want. They're the ones buying stuff and they made it into a billion dollar industry, not the die-hards.

And of course your store won't have a game system hooked up NOW. The Xbox is the only console to have a few sporadic games that support anything higher than 720p. Next gen, when the TV's become affordale which they're already becoming, you'll start to see it. Some high-end EB's already have HD sets on their kiosks.
 
[quote name='electrictroy'] It is unlikely Nintendo will have FPSes, so that won't be an issue. (Note: Metroid is not an FPS. It's an FPA. It's a third-person adventure, converted to first-person adventure.) The Cube saw almost no FPSes, and I doubt the Revolution will be any different. [/QUOTE]

The logic there is astounding.

Because the Revolution isn't centered on FPS games, there is no need to have a clear graphics?

Adventure games are supposed to be played with jaggies and blurs?
 
You focused on the weak part of my argument, and ignored the strong part:

- People played 240i games on TVs capable of 480i for ~20 years. Just because you CAN push games to maximum resolution, doesn't mean you have to, because people will still play them. For ~20 years, games only used HALF the resolution available.



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.



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.

troy
 
Developing a 720p/1080i game will cost more money. Nintendo is obviously targeting a lower price point for its hardware, and I imagine they'd like cheaper games to go with it. I bet there are plenty of developers who don't want to put in the extra time and money to make their niche game (that isn't going to sell a million units no matter what it looks like) even more expensive.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']
- People played 240i games on TVs capable of 480i for ~20 years. Just because you CAN push games to maximum resolution, doesn't mean you have to, because people will still play them. For ~20 years, games only used HALF the resolution available.

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.

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.

troy[/QUOTE]

Yes, and people played the NES for 10 years. Then they moved to the SNES. Then the N64... and so on. Things change. Is it neccesary to own a SNES? No. It's never neccesary to upgrade, but I bet you have. 240i was a system/hardware limitation. That's no longer a factor.

And you missed my counter argument: Graphics are far more advanced than Mario World. It's coming time that we DO need HD.

The growth rate statement is terrible. Prove it. They're coming down in price rapidly, it's hard to find standard def TVs. People are upgrading, and as prices continue to drop, that growth rate is going to increase rapidly, far more then 2 million a year.

Games are already going up in price anyway. It would cost a few extra dollars to implement support, and by not doing so, they're going to alienate far more people then you think, potentially even third party developers.
 
[quote name='adamsappel']Developing a 720p/1080i game will cost more money. Nintendo is obviously targeting a lower price point for its hardware, and I imagine they'd like cheaper games to go with it. I bet there are plenty of developers who don't want to put in the extra time and money to make their niche game (that isn't going to sell a million units no matter what it looks like) even more expensive.[/QUOTE]

And there's no reason for them not to include it for devlopers who wish to use it.
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod']And there's no reason for them not to include it for devlopers who wish to use it.[/QUOTE] A 480i chip is ~$50 cheaper than a 720p chip. That's a reason. The lower-res chip is cheaper to build.



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?

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