Matt from Ign explains his thoughts on the Rev specs

[Shifty Geezer]

MS's wand is made up of off the shelf parts. The hardware to make it is already for sale, so it would be a bit hard for Nintendo to get a patent for it.

If only the patent system worked that way. Patenting common things for which there's plenty of prior art happens, despite that contravening the rules of patents. The main point is a lot of these bogus patents are never challenged, so they're not thrown out and the idea that patent == infallible right is substantiated.

 

[pc999]

Why do you insist that a GCN x2 would only be "about $50 bucks"? None of us here (including yourself) have the experience to actually evaluate the cost of a closed system. Unless you do, in which case you should share it with us.

If you want you can see here, for a table of die size/cost, it is not the entire system but in 90nm both GC chips (in one die) would cost about 13,40$. (Both chips would be about 41mm^ and I am using the 56mm^ as reference, so it should be even cheaper or they would have a lot of room to upgrade it, I even wonder how good would this be as a handheld console chip, anyway using this table it is easy to see why I say that it is easy to creat a more powerfull console even at a very low price)

Really? You have access to the cost to produce GCNs? Again, please share it with us.

This post show that GC price as indeed very associated to cost.

In the beginning the GC was indeed sold at a loss, but became profitable for almost the following 2 years iirc. Primarily all of '02 & the majority of '03 at the $149.99 price-point. After steadily declining market share & retailer demand even halting GC production for a time, Nintendo lowered the price to $99 in October of '03. Even then the platform was only losing $10-15 dollars per console. To further cut any continuing losses however in May of '04 Nintendo opted to remove the digital A/V output
(the DOL-101 revision) & move primary GC manufacturing to China. This allowed Nintendo to sell their consoles now at cost, or for a negligible profit.

Yes Quad-core is the same as 1T-SRAM-Q. It's name is derived from the fact that it is 4x as dense as conventional 6T-SRAM memory solutions, & its bit cell is 2x as small as those of 1T-SRAM's. (with major enhancements over both) I've written about it in the past here, & my next post will provide all the information you could want to know about the Rev's main & embedded memory pools.

BTW about the patent thing, they can patent the aplication or something like, that is why only Sony can sell consoles with DVD on it, and the others need a add on to play DVD. I am not sure but if Sony can do that the DVD why couldnt N do the same for the remote.

 

[Cobra101]

Please re-read the argument - you're irrelevently responding. It was about the Revolution's controller being gimmicky. The same argument was made against the DS and I don't think anyone says it's gimmicky now.

Well, the DS still uses the D-Pad and the other buttons quite a bit, just like handhelds before it.

PDA's have used a stylus and touchscreen for years. Just Nintendo adapted it for gameplay usage.

The Rev. is a fair bit more different.

As I cannot give a hoot about MArio and Zelda (not a troll, they are good games but do not appeal to me), it really comes down to how the 3rd parties utilize the new controller for me to buy a Rev.

Well, I might get one for the 5 and 6 year old nephews. I can see them having fun with it and they like Mario et al.

 

[Ty]

If you want you can see here, for a table of die size/cost, it is not the entire system but in 90nm both GC chips (in one die) would cost about 13,40$. (Both chips would be about 41mm^ and I am using the 56mm^ as reference, so it should be even cheaper or they would have a lot of room to upgrade it, I even wonder how good would this be as a handheld console chip, anyway using this table it is easy to see why I say that it is easy to creat a more powerfull console even at a very low price)

Here's an interesting exercise if you don't mind. Take the chips GCN used when it debutted and let us know the cost.

 

[pc999]

Well

Gekko does have a die size of 43mm^ so price cost of less than 13$
Flipper does have a die size of 120mm^ so a price cost should be at least 68$ (very probably my math is wrong, because they couldnt sell it at 99$,meybe if they still sell it at 199$), anyway this are general numbers Nintendo may have a higher or lower failure rate(?)/productivity that will change the price as they mature both the process and the chip, I am using this just a geral guide that should be good to give a nice idea in a mature chip and process (both should be by H2 of 06).

But, please, correct me if I am wrong.

Edit BTW http://www.segatech.com/gamecube/overview/

...IBM was able to build the chip on a 43-mm2 die, said Takeda.
The 3-D graphics technology is from ArtX Inc. (Palo Alto, Calif.), which is fabricating the embedded system chip, a 120-mm2 device...

 

[Ty]

Well

Gekko does have a die size of 43mm^ so price cost of less than 13$
Flipper does have a die size of 120mm^ so a price cost should be at least 68$ (very probably my math is wrong, because they couldnt sell it at 99$,meybe if they still sell it at 199$)

Now you see my point. The price of chips alone does not dictate retail price of a product.

 

[pc999]

Now you see my point. The price of chips alone does not dictate retail price of a product.

Ok fair enought, but for example looking at the number from mature chips/process (and moderate speeds) I think that must people would prefer to pay +15$ if that can mean the diference between a 2x Gekko and a 970FX with 256Kb (even if at 1,6Ghz) and a brutal upgraded flipper instead of just a overclocked one.

So I think I can say that it is easy for them to have more than a 2xGC, for cheap, as 15$+ is not a problem on a console.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

BTW about the patent thing, they can patent the aplication or something like, that is why only Sony can sell consoles with DVD on it, and the others need a add on to play DVD. I am not sure but if Sony can do that the DVD why couldnt N do the same for the remote.

Huh? I thought it had to do with DVD licensing fees, not because Sony had some wonderful patent about playing DVDs without the use of an additional remote.

Sony chose to pay for the dvd licensing fee on each PS2 themselves. MS decided to save that cost and passed it on to those people who actually wanted to use the Xbox as a dvd player by including it in the purchase price of the remote.

Pretty sure it had nothing to do with patents.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony chose to pay for the dvd licensing fee on each PS2 themselves. MS decided to save that cost and passed it on to those people who actually wanted to use the Xbox as a dvd player by including it in the purchase price of the remote.

Pretty sure it had nothing to do with patents.

Yep. MS saw the cost of licensing DVD payback as something owners of XB would choose to have or not, rather than seeing everyone pay for it whether they use the system as a DVD player or not.

 

[L_i_n_k]

I see it this way.

The controller can be gimmicky looking and it has the industrial design witch reminds me of
the first 8 bit nintendo conroller they made , im sure this is intentional. Its like when they
firs introduced Nes ,they kept it simple for the same reasons, horsepower did not keep
that gameplay complicated from simplisity fun mantra from selling. The same happened when they
introduced analog controlled and games that really expanded to that ne dimension of conrolling the games in that way.

To this point mouse has become norm in pc space for freely conrolling the camera movements and objects ect in 2d/3d space.
Curretly i see this new conroller as a extension for this type of control scheme, 3dimensional movement measurement
sounds natural to me for free movement gestures in 3d spaces and for the livingroom. Even if this first iteration does not open
the full possibilities. Even if it is called "far fetched gimmicky technologies". This industry bleeds for innovation like this,
2d games are still lot more natural for gamepad . Becouse of the 2d nature and legacy thinking of the device for the games of that time.

Nintendo measured all the gategories witch contribute to the enjoyment of what they wanted their user to experience.
And they saw that the new conroller is more important for the continyity of the better interaction and experiences
in their future game scenarios. than in the other "classic technology gategory improvements" to allow the continuing expansion
of the gameplay experience, it was this potion mix for them witch answered the questions they seek salvation from. Great design is not about
puttin maximum effort in the basket that brought fruits in the past. Graphics only brought fruits last generation becouse they lacked so much behind
the expectations of the gamers that were used to "grispy" 2d graphics and generally they did not display grisp enought picture
for glearly visually interpreting the happenings , so it was a big cap. But this gen im more conserned about the fluid dynamics , animation and
procedural dynamics not being good enought. This is the element of visual that contribute to gameplay witch they might be laking
behind, specially if sony and ms do use this card to the maximum efect (extra soup dimension against new one). But it makes you wonder,
can you control this level of visual and dynamical accuracy in a game without being only visual gimickry , i think it can be done.
Nintendo in the other hand could use less accurate math for these dynamics, but has more suitable conroller for manipulating this
data in 3d natural motion (im not sure nintedo will ever implement adnvanced physics anyways in their games but i could be wrong).

In the end Nintendo levelled all these things from the past again for this generation, the continuity that they saw their succes coming
was never from technology. It was allways from bringing new gameplay experiences for the user. Whatever it will be succes or not
They have measured and thought about these things alot more than quick fix, they are the ones who have done this before,
if this is a miss then it is a miss,(Nintendo:s misses dont include gameplay tuning as much as bussines side). Never the less its someting
new and something new is allways intresting and should not be considered as a threat of any kind becouse it will be accumulated and
overall this is good for as all even if it fails, me thinks positive now.

 

[pc999]

Nice post I think I agree with you for the most things.

But this gen im more conserned about the fluid dynamics , animation and
procedural dynamics not being good enought. This is the element of visual that contribute to gameplay witch they might be laking
behind, specially if sony and ms do use this card to the maximum efect (extra soup dimension against new one). But it makes you wonder,
can you control this level of visual and dynamical accuracy in a game without being only visual gimickry , i think it can be done.
Nintendo in the other hand could use less accurate math for these dynamics, but has more suitable conroller for manipulating this
data in 3d natural motion (im not sure nintedo will ever implement adnvanced physics anyways in their games but i could be wrong).

I think you are here talking about a living, organic and responsive (game)world, this should be what the remote brings to the gaming industry, probably for many the big question is if the Rev itself will be on pair with the remote.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's actually an important question IMO. The Revmote would be ideally coupled with physics based skeletal animation. Using a sword fighting example, the arm should move just how yours does in response to Revmote positioning. If you are constricted to captured animations, the Revmote won't have a 1 to 1 relationship with what's on screen. Swishing the Revmote in that case would be similar to pressing an attack button, only perhaps the speed of the Revmote determing the speed the animation is played. I think Revolution would benefit greatly from advanced physics seeing as it's such a natural physical interface to the games.

 

[pc999]

Yes it is. Not only animation, here you would be able to do a infinite amount of animation but that "you" couldnt do (in game), but physics itself would need a boost to make accurrate hits/interactions/... or in anouther eg a table tennis game should be a real blast in Rev but only if the ball is really responsive and you can really control it (ie physics based), plus AI would also need to be souped up to so it can be at least something even close to a chalange to a player that can do anything.

That is my main reason why I find so hard Rev to be so underpowered, what is the point of having a controler that can give you infinite control but with a console that only do a very very very limited reaction

 

[L_i_n_k]

Thanks , its interesting to see if nintendo has any custom logic in hardware to contribute and better utilize the functionality of the controller in these types of tasks, after all they must have thought this alot in practical scenarios and what it needs from hardware.
Maybe less objects interacting and lower resolution dynamics like at the start of the 3d era.
Of course Nintendo did some actual tests with it`s software catalogue to see how they matched agaist the last gen control schemes and how to work them out in hardware vice.
I can`t see them doing this if the those test results did not show green light in practical scenarios what they wanted to improve and expand. Its not easy to convince the execs with gracy unproven ideas without thought trhought consepts. Even as that happened with virtual boy im sure they learned a lesson from that.

 

[L_i_n_k]

Yes even if it is full math based animation ect, its not nessessarily fun for long time to throw that rope from the back of your sholder for only becouse you can see how it behaves differently in every throw. Ofcouce you can go wrong in gameplay with this as well as with normal gamepads but it opens new paths and sounds natural for the general interaction in 3d spaces and it let you have more diversity from using your body movements as and natural extension to the virtual world. Same as when 3d came, it was not exactly better in every way from the start, but the freshness of the experience made it intresting and showed ways to go forward.

*corrected joystic to gamepad and let you have more diversity from using your body movements as and natural extension to the virtual world*

 

[blakjedi]

If the revmote is dependent on movement to be used properly its a gimmick.

Have you ever played a videogame with someone or watched a little kid play and seen them jumping all around or holding the controller high in the air or to the side while they are playing? There is unnecessary physical movement to accomplish the task.

Much like the jump mat for games like DDR, Revmote is great as a peripheral for games which could actually be enhanced with physical movement (a fishing game may be a good use for revmote but still not as good as a rod).

I dont see why they bothered since eventually advances in tools like Eyetoy could capture everything revmote is trying to do and then some.

 

[L_i_n_k]

Yes it is. Not only animation, here you would be able to do a infinite amount of animation but that "you" couldnt do (in game), but physics itself would need a boost to make accurrate hits/interactions/... or in anouther eg a table tennis game should be a real blast in Rev but only if the ball is really responsive and you can really control it (ie physics based), plus AI would also need to be souped up to so it can be at least something even close to a chalange to a player that can do anything.

That is my main reason why I find so hard Rev to be so underpowered, what is the point of having a controler that can give you infinite control but with a console that only do a very very very limited reaction

Yes the dynamical procedural nature of future games will become big part of gameplay someday, is it time from hardware standpoint or is revolution really up to this, who knows?. They surely can be controlled with current controllers as well, but only to certain degree and after a certain point become only visual cream over the budding passing your eyes bye. Specially if you don`t have any natural control over them, they become too complicated to general user to act on. Thats why i think new kind of controllers to these naturally behaving virtual worlds are a nessesity.

 

[L_i_n_k]

If the revmote is dependent on movement to be used properly its a gimmick.

Have you ever played a videogame with someone or watched a little kid play and seen them jumping all around or holding the controller high in the air or to the side while they are playing? There is unnecessary physical movement to accomplish the task.

Much like the jump mat for games like DDR, Revmote is great as a peripheral for games which could actually be enhanced with physical movement (a fishing game may be a good use for revmote but still not as good as a rod).

I dont see why they bothered since eventually advances in tools like Eyetoy could capture everything revmote is trying to do and then some.

I see this more like doing mini gestures witch feel natural for mimicking these full body movements, like with mouse you move it just a littele vertically and horisontally to accomplish bigger movements accurately in the game.

 

[L_i_n_k]

By the way, im not trying to force my view, if it can be proven false ,offcourse im willing to change my stance. This is the view i have come up to in my little head. All other viewpoints are welcomed with kisses

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If the revmote is dependent on movement to be used properly its a gimmick.

Have you ever played a videogame with someone or watched a little kid play and seen them jumping all around or holding the controller high in the air or to the side while they are playing? There is unnecessary physical movement to accomplish the task.

That's precisely why it's a good idea. Those movements are involuntary; the brain in wanting to control a character on screen is sending motion commands to the muscles as that's the way to affect motion. They are natural. Revmote should hopefully use these natural control methods so instead of having to suppress the arm waving and control the game with the skills of small thumb movements, the arm waving is allowed to work naturally and control the game.

From an ergonomics point of view it definitely makes sense. The major hurdle I see is developers understanding how to use it, which might mean having to give up longh-held traditions of computer games.