I just saw this posted over at GAF. I'm not sure what the exact link is but I htink this was a forum or blog post possibly.
http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=92702
http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=92702
"So we've posted an updated look at the Revolution specs and the message boards have collectively imploded. A quick browse through some threads shows that Nintendo fans are by and large in an uproar over the console's power. This is an unfortunate eventuality, and also one that stems mostly from a mentality that insists Nintendo is competing with Microsoft and Sony, which it isn't.
As could be predicted, a few stupidly devoted posters out there refuse to budge from their position that Nintendo can do no wrong, and have as a result launched a counter-attack against IGN or, even better, me. Some incredible douchebag on another forum even referred to me colorfully as "Assamassina," which I admit is a pretty cool handle; I have used it once or twice myself. This same person then called into question my credibility, saying that my track record speaks for itself. Indeed, it does. If you've read the Nintendo section of IGN for any amount of time, you know that we have our sources, we break stories, and far more often than not, our information is accurate. I don't need to defend myself beyond that.
These Revolution specs should come as no surprise to most people. Back in December we reported more or less the same thing without hard numbers. Let's move past that, though. Nintendo's own leaders have stated more times than can be counted that Revolution is not a console focused on horsepower. Its executives have flat-out dismissed the possibility of high-definition graphics on the system. When Revolution is the topic, three words keep coming up: small, quiet, affordable. Where does massive horsepower fit into this equation?
Even so, I want to be clear on the point that hardware specs rarely tell the full story. We listed Xbox's CPU and GPU speeds compared to Revolution's, but readers should not assume that they are really comparable. These are different architectures. Fact is, GameCube's PowerPC-based Gekko CPU and ATI-developed Flipper GPU held their own against Xbox despite the fact that Microsoft's console's speeds were -- on paper -- dramatically faster. Further, these specs do not account for bandwidth, RAM speed, and other important factors. I expect that when Revolution finally surfaces, it will be a console whose strengths are greater than the sum of the parts we've listed thus far. Please, please keep that in mind.
At the same time, if you're still holding out for the miracle, do me a favor and stop. It seems that every time we write anything hardware related, there are the skeptics with the retaliatory comment, "Why does IGN post hearsay as fact? Nobody has final development hardware!!11111" Yes, the "1s" are there to demonstrate that these people are freakin' morons. I did not wake up today, roll into the office and write a piece of literary fiction for readers to enjoy in lieu of legitimate news. This is not "hearsay" or rumor. These specs we post, they are copy/pasted to us directly from Nintendo's latest (as in, in the last couple of weeks) Revolution documentation. Quoted to us verbatim. And these quotes do not come from creatures that exist inside my head. I am talking with numerous development sources with hardware; people who have been briefed by Nintendo about what to expect from the final machine. Some of these people are preparing games to show at E3 2006, which is one month away. in short, they know what to expect; they aren't working with old materials; they aren't relaying old specs; and we aren't posting out-of-date information.
Is everything set in stone? Nope. If history has taught me anything, it's that hardware specs can and do change. Xbox 360 had 256MBs of RAM during a major phase of the development cycle. That number only doubled later in the cycle, likely after Sony relayed specs for PlayStation 3 to studios. That being true, there's always the chance that some of Revolution's numbers may change before the system finally hits retail shelves. I certainly wouldn't mind if the 88MBs of main RAM in the console increased before or after E3 2006. At the same time, you're not going to see the CPU and GPU suddenly quadruple in speeds; it just doesn't work that way. The numbers we have now -- they're the same as they were in December and before that. Final dev kits in June will be reflective of that -- not in conflict with it.
GameCube saw some beautiful, epic games, and Revolution utilizes almost twice the power. The console is going to get its fair share of gorgeous software, I can guarantee you.
Some gamers are -- whether they have admitted it to themselves or not -- obsessed with the notion that Revolution must compete visually with Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. From that point of view, it's easy to look at the console's tech specs and wonder why they are not as powerful as the others. But I propose you take a different point of view -- one that puts graphics in the back seat and gameplay up front. Ask yourself why Microsoft and Sony have not advanced their controllers. Look at what Nintendo is attempting with Revolution's free-style pointer. Look at the technology in place there. Now, imagine the gameplay possibilities that may await because of this new device, which is, at least to me, fundamentally more important than any bump in graphic horsepower. This is the driving force behind Revolution. Whether the final system will live up to Nintendo's ambitions, I have no idea. But I'll tell you, quite honestly, that the potential is enormous."
. The question is what would justify charging more than that?
