HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
"Revolution"ary price structure
tsumake - Aug 24, 2005
  tsumake Aug 24, 2005
With everyone talking about the "XBox 400" and it's high price plan, I've been thinking that maybe the Nintendo Revolution has a fighting chance in the next round. I know this is an SX board, but recently the big N is becoming the next-gen Sega.

While supposed not nearly as powerful as the Xbox360 or the PS3, the revolution is reported to be sold under the 200 dollar mark. Also, while it won't support all the high-def standards (only 480p), it won't really matter much for the next couple of years, because I don't really think the HD market has really penetrated consumers that much. How many people are willing to dish out a few thousand on a HDTV they could get for a couple hundred non-HD?

In terms of game quality, Nintendo seems to be one of the last bastions that focus to some degree on innovative gameplay, even to its detriment. While everyone else is crying "720p!" Nintendo is experimenting with new controllers and interesting game design. Just yesterday I picked up "Geist" for the cube and honestly while the shooters mechanics are piss, the ghost-play elements are intriguing and original. "Killer7" is a really freaking esoteric game, one that pushes style and proclaims it to be substance, and though it's also on the PS2, it's really meant for the Cube. I don't really see games like these on the Xbox or PS2. While the culture of risk-aversion reigns in the gaming industry, Nintendo is definitely taking a different route.

Side note: Does Killer7 remind anyone else of those freaky-deaky Dreamcast and Saturn games like "Enemy Zero" and "D2?"

 ExCyber Aug 24, 2005
Nintendo is smart in that since N64, they've figured out that they don't have to be the #1 super-duper-hot-shit console in order to actually make money, as long as they control their expenses and keep a healthy minority of the market interested. Nintendo is also the only console manufacturer left that doesn't have some delusional plan to be the savior of your living room, absolver of all your entertainment sins, and bringer of HD to the unwashed masses, and I think that counts for a lot. Nintendo has stated that with Revolution's design they are focused not at all on badass specs, and very much on reducing the cost of making games. With any luck, this approach should attract some of the riskier projects that would just be too damn expensive to do on the "cool" systems...

 lordofduct Aug 24, 2005
Like those kick ass freakin' games that SEGA puts out... they are always dreaming up weird ol' ideas like XX/XY on the DS or like in the old days with stuff like Nights and Burning Rangers

Had to toss some Sega in there. Yeah, thats what I'm looking for though, for the niche games and old school styling to come back! People bug out when Contra returned to its 2d roots in that early PS2 release "Shattered Soldier"... I sure as hell LOVED it, I mastered that bitch to the point that me and my buddy Brian (who never plays console games) can beat it on hard with out losing a single life and killing something near almost all guys in each level. ONLY WAY TO GET an 'A' RANKING!

 CrazyGoon Aug 24, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by ExCyber@Thu, 2005-08-25 @ 05:31 AM



Nintendo is smart in that since N64, they've figured out that they don't have to be the #1 super-duper-hot-shit console in order to actually make money, as long as they control their expenses and keep a healthy minority of the market interested. Nintendo is also the only console manufacturer left that doesn't have some delusional plan to be the savior of your living room, absolver of all your entertainment sins, and bringer of HD to the unwashed masses, and I think that counts for a lot.




[post=138719]Quoted post[/post]


Flashback to the early 90's console manufacturers' ad campaigns

And as for who's gonna win, I'm guessing the first to launch with a killer app, and comparatively good price. Let's see how this guesstimate works out when the dust clears.

M seems to be launching first, but I think the prices have people thinking twice, and I'm not sure whether they have a killer app or not. Their current position seems pretty risky to me.

 Pearl Jammzz Aug 24, 2005
I always think what the xbox would of ended up as if it didn't have Halo at launch...I reallythink it would of failed.

As for the 360, ya, where is its must have? I have not heard anythign and it'd supposed to be here soon.

Also, is the revolution THAT underpowered? From what peopel are saying it's going to be weak as shit compared to the others. Graphics aren't everything but it does help. No need to have a way underpowered system...

 tsumake Aug 24, 2005
It's not exactly weak. Nintendo it would "only" be twice as powerful as the Gamecube, while the comptetitors are claiming theirs to be ten times as powerful as their predecessors.

 it290 Aug 25, 2005
Yeah, but trusting anything Sony says as far as specs are concerned is a dubious proposition to say the least. Anyway, I think Nintendo will do fine with the Revolution as long as they get it out in a somewhat timely manner. They do need to do something to shake the image of their console being a 'cheap looking toy' (not that I feel that way), although I think the concept design for the Rev helps a bit in that department.

 RitualOfTheTrout Aug 25, 2005
I recently read an article on how the Xbox 360 and PS3 are using some sort of dual core processors and other such things. A poll of developers had most of them complaining about how complex its going to be to develope for these systems. (Reminds me of the Saturn)

Of course sony and M say with every new console there is some sort of learning curve.

Nintendo is also planing on the ability to play alot of the older titles on the Revolution. To me this is a great idea. I think alot of folks that are into classic gaming will go for the Rev for that reason. Just hopefully the games don't expire, IE once you pay to download them they are yours to keep.

 ExCyber Aug 25, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			It's not exactly weak. Nintendo it would "only" be twice as powerful as the Gamecube, while the comptetitors are claiming theirs to be ten times as powerful as their predecessors.

And if you adjust those claims for the historical spec-hype factors of the respective companies, it's probably going to be even less of a difference in reality. When Sony and Microsoft were tossing out BS theoretical poly numbers like 75M, Nintendo was saying 6-12M for Gamecube because that's what they actually got in their demos and expected developers to get in real games. I recall an interview with a Factor 5 programmer who said it wasn't that hard to get 15M. Show me a PS2 or Xbox game that even breaks 50% of the figures they were claiming early on and I'll be shocked.

 it290 Aug 25, 2005
Well, Sony's claim, they later admitted, was for untextured, unlit polys. Either way, if you're talking 75M polys, I don't think there are that many pixels on a TV screen, so it's a pretty useless figure in that sense as well.

edit - I mean per second, not just at once.

 ExCyber Aug 25, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Well, Sony's claim, they later admitted, was for untextured, unlit polys.

And I've never heard of anyone even getting anywhere near that number, not in tech demos or anything. I very, very strongly suspect that it was purely a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on clock speeds and cannot be done by programming PS2 systems that exist in reality, even if you are only drawing untextured/unlit.

 SilentSnipeR Aug 31, 2005
I just bought a gamecube 2 weeks ago for $99 AUD (brand new). I've been scoping out eb for pre owned games. Currently have starfox, metal gear solid, rez zero, and viewtiful joe.

Man, I always used to hate the cube cause of its controller but after playing you find they are very comftrble. (i'm waiting on 2 wavebirds from lik-sang as we speak).

Anyway, If the revolution is priced nicely it will probably be the first console I buy in these new console wars.

Also, I remember reading that nintendo produced games for the nes/snes will be free but you may have to pay a fee for the other third party games. It's all rumours anyway.