Matt from Ign explains his thoughts on the Rev specs

[Guden Oden]

Sell that at 200$ is stealing, even at 99$...

Let's be realistic here alright?

It'll be a console launch price. If Nintendo feels they can get away with gouging us on the price because the demand is high, they will set the price at $200. Maybe if they feel their position is a bit weak, they might consider lowering it a bit, who knows.

I would happily welcome a sub-$200 price, but I wouldn't dare to bet anything on it. At most, I'll permit myself to dream about it for a bit before waking up to a cold, harsh reality again.

 

[OtakingGX]

The success of the DS has 0% to do with the Revolution. 99% of the handheld market already had Nintendo systems. That's not the case on the console side of things.

He's not basing the Revolution's success on the DS's success. He's basing the success on an innovative new product that changes the way people use that product and attracts new people to that product on the success of the DS.

You say: And underpowered product CAN'T be competitive in the market.

He say: The DS is...

 

[Inane_Dork]

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.

This line of thinking has some merit, but ultimately, it's worthless.

Graphics are a pretty clear thing. Yes, architectures and strengths vary between companies, but there is an overall 1 dimension, good v. bad spectrum that graphics is adequately graded on. Art quality screws with the spectrum somewhat, but doesn't do away with it.

Controllers, on the other hand, are not adequately judged on such a spectrum. Which is better, the X360 gamepad or a keyboard & mouse? Well, there's not a clear victor, is there? And that's exactly my answer to the faulty line a thinking that Matt and other Nintendo fans put forth. The wand is not superior to a gamepad. It's an alternate. It has the capability of limiting developer ingenuity just as a gamepad does. As to how much, that could be debated endlessly.

So when people ask about how much Sony and Microsoft put into their controllers with the clear indication that an entirely new controller type represents superiority, I disagree. I might as well complain that Nintendo is still not on the Eye Toy bandwagon even after it's been clearly shown to work and be profitable.

 

[scooby_dooby]

He's basing the success on an innovative new product that changes the way people use that product and attracts new people to that product on the success of the DS..

First you have to prove that DS's success is attributed to it's little touchscreen, and not the form factor, price and game library. Otherwise DS's success has nothing to do with being innovative, it's simply a good product at a good pricepoint with a good game library.

Also, I think you could have a lengthy debate about how much of a priority GFX are in handhelds vs consoles. I would graphic quality would be much more important for console buyers than handheld, just due to the viewing size of the screen if nothing else.

N is certainly aiming for a different customer, who isn't concerned with GFX, however that doesn't mean the DS proves that a console with MUCH lower graphic quality can compete. That's simply never been tried before, in every previous generation consoles where at least in spitting distance of eachother. It's never been shown whether a console can succeed if it is signifigantly worse than it competitors in graphic quality. DS is not a valid example.

 

[pc999]

Let's be realistic here alright?

It'll be a console launch price. If Nintendo feels they can get away with gouging us on the price because the demand is high, they will set the price at $200. Maybe if they feel their position is a bit weak, they might consider lowering it a bit, who knows.

I would happily welcome a sub-$200 price, but I wouldn't dare to bet anything on it. At most, I'll permit myself to dream about it for a bit before waking up to a cold, harsh reality again.

Even if you do have reason, a good strategy demandes low price IMO, they will still stealing us if they put it at more than 99$ because its value is much less than that IMO.

 

[fearsomepirate]

First you have to prove that DS's success is attributed to it's little touchscreen, and not the form factor, price and game library.

All you've done is pointed out there's more to DS than the screen, which I would readily agree with. But definitely a large part of the appeal for me and other adopters is how ridiculously streamlined and smooth the interface has become for games like Advance Wars, Nintendogs, Metroid Hunters, and Animal Crossing. Using traditional gamepad controls on those kinds of games feels clunky and stupid to me now, the way the Final Fantasy games on PSx felt clunky and stupid to me after years of playing PC RPGs like Baldur's Gate with a mouse. I think the Revolution is going to do wonders for RPG, strategy, sim, and FPS gaming. It won't revolutionize the genres so much as make the old controls for certain games feel like typing with boxing gloves on...you know, the way most UT vets feel when they play Halo. ;-)

 

[Ty]

Why would that be a good compromise? The GameCube cost $200 (half the price of the 360 premium) when it was first released yet it was 30+ times more powerful then Nintendo's previous console iteration. GC now costs about $50 to make using 2001 technology. Using 2006 tech the same $50 would probably already buy Nintendo a console near twice as powerful as GC..

And what of the technology that went into the R&D for the whole remote? That didn't come for free.

I think it's a little out of your (all of ours actually) league to try and break down the argument into X dollars should buy Y performance.

Not that I believe for a second that Revolution will be only twice as powerful as GC of course.

Don't believe or don't want to believe? Or both?

Sell that at 200$ is stealing, even at 99$...

And what are you basing this value on? See above about the remote costing $.

The success of the DS has 0% to do with the Revolution. 99% of the handheld market already had Nintendo systems. That's not the case on the console side of things.

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.

First you have to prove that DS's success is attributed to it's little touchscreen, and not the form factor, price and game library. Otherwise DS's success has nothing to do with being innovative, it's simply a good product at a good pricepoint with a good game library.

Though it's obviously completely subjective in nature, it's plain to me that the DS has more innovative games than its competition (I own both btw). As many games make decent use of the DS' "innovative" features, I don't think it's fair for anyone to qualify those features now as gimmicky. That was that particular argument.

 

[pc999]

And what are you basing this value on? See above about the remote costing $.

Consumer perception, you can buy a GC, 512Mg, every feature from Rev at less than 200$ and giving money to much more people and if the remote is that costly then multiplayer will be very hard and it would make lmid-ong term strategy very hard as a remote isnt probably easy to lower the production cost.

 

[mckmas8808]

He's not basing the Revolution's success on the DS's success. He's basing the success on an innovative new product that changes the way people use that product and attracts new people to that product on the success of the DS.

You say: And underpowered product CAN'T be competitive in the market.

He say: The DS is...

WHAT?!? I never said that. The PS2 sold more than the GC and Xbox and it was the least powerful. An underpowered product can be cometitive in the market. What I'm saying is Nintendo had full marketshare in the handheld market, so taking its success and making an opinion on the Rev's success is flawed.

 

[Ty]

Consumer perception, you can buy a GC, 512Mg, every feature from Rev at less than 200$ and giving money to much more people and if the remote is that costly then multiplayer will be very hard and it would make lmid-ong term strategy very hard as a remote isnt probably easy to lower the production cost.

Just because they're dumping GCNs for $50 bucks does not mean there is only $50 bucks worth of technology in it.

And since none of us have much of a clue as to how sophisticated the remote is, why are you so quick to discount its value? Surely it costed something to develop.

Keep in mind, Sony and MS are losing a TON of money on their consoles. Nintendo has vowed not to. Then consider the often held notion that Nintendo is conservative. This means that they likely targeted a design that they conservatively felt would still sell for a break even point when it debutted - even though they know that sometimes targets aren't reached.

WHAT?!? I never said that. The PS2 sold more than the GC and Xbox and it was the least powerful. An underpowered product can be cometitive in the market. What I'm saying is Nintendo had full marketshare in the handheld market, so taking its success and making an opinion on the Rev's success is flawed.

Do you consider the DS gimmicky now? When does something move from gimmicky to innovative feature?

 

[Fafalada]

Even if you do have reason, a good strategy demandes low price IMO, they will still stealing us if they put it at more than 99$ because its value is much less than that IMO.

What does that mean for value of PS2 generation consoles which sell at ~150$?
And I could swear that many people think PS2 would be great value at 100$...

Anyway, I think people need to get off the idea Rev is competing for the same market as 360/PS3, it won't be in the same price bracket, and it won't be selling to the same audience (for most part).
IMO the closest real competition would be for the casual market that PS2 is selling to right now, and if that turns into direct battle Sony could have more reasons for concern then Nintendo.

 

[mckmas8808]

Do you consider the DS gimmicky now? When does something move from gimmicky to innovative feature?

I didn't even say that the DS is a gimmick. Why did you even say that?

 

[Ty]

I didn't even say that the DS is a gimmick. Why did you even say that?

Because you stepped into an argument about the Revolution's controller being gimmicky.

 

[Sonic]

I honestly believe Nintendo wants to go a completely separate direction with Revolution than Sony and MS are going with their respective consoles.

It isn't all about hardware specs or the biggest and baddest graphics this side of Mars. Nintendo is content on bringing gaming back to a pure state where it is based upon fun gameplay that will immerse the player and not just the graphics. Graphics are still important but the company believes that the current level of technology they have with Gamecube is good enough to immerse gamers and tha tit is time to go back to gameplay for the answer.

 

[mckmas8808]

IIt isn't all about hardware specs or the biggest and baddest graphics this side of Mars. Nintendo is content on bringing gaming back to a pure state where it is based upon fun gameplay that will immerse the player and not just the graphics. Graphics are still important but the company believes that the current level of technology they have with Gamecube is good enough to immerse gamers and tha tit is time to go back to gameplay for the answer.

But with all due respect Sonic it's not as if Sony isn't going to have those pure immersive fun gameplay like games either. To me that's the red herring of this all. An Okami 2 with a similar graphics engine just scaled up a bit with some kind of eyetoy support could be done too.

It's not as if Sony and MS say, "normal maps this" and "100,000 polygons that" all the time. I just hate this whole only Nintendo cares and apprecieates gameplay madness.

 

[Blade]

Sonic: Good point.

That said, Rev = "GCN but twice as powerful." Am I right? IGN seems to think so. Twice the power of the machine that ran RE4 is just fine for $100-200 IMO.

It should be noted that yes, it will be less powerful than Xbox 360 or PS3... but what do those consoles offer beyond their higher prices and sexier graphics? Take a gander at the MGS4 trailer. Nothing in it couldn't be done on the current generation gameplay-wise, it's only graphically in another league.

Perfect Dark Zero could have been for Xbox. So could Oblivion, albeit less detailed. The wildly popular Geometry Wars would run on PS1, or hell, SNES.

Basically, Nintendo knows that there is a market for high-end systems and this time they've decided to bow out of it. They have a low-cost system that will have lots of developer support (including IMO the best publisher in the industry, ahem, Nintendo themselves) and appeal to the non-gamer, and to those who want an all-in-one box.

It'll probably be more readily available than a console with a tri-core CPU, too.

The most powerful console doesn't always win; it's the one that sells the most.

If Console A has sold 10 units, and Consoles B and C have sold 3 units combined... which console will get all of the support?

 

[Sonic]

I apologize if I made it seem like Sony and MS do not care about gameplay. That's not what I wanted to say at all. Sony and MS are both focusing very much on bringing great gameplay to the masses with their own strategies. And they will both achieve that with 1st and 3rd party titles. But you must remember that thee two new systems from Sony and MS are a very big advance in terms of CPU and GPU power. They are focusing on bringing better graphics to the table as a way to immerse a player in a game. That is not their only focus of course but it is still a key selling point for each machine.

Nintendo has opted to get out of the graphics race and focus on gameplay. They put their R&D into a new controller that they believe will bring a new experience of gaming to people. Whether it is a good experience or not remains to be seen, but that is where they are focusing most of their attention, not just some of it.

I hope this makes it a little better to understand my viewpoint. Sony and MS both care a great deal about gameplay, but it is not necessarily their main or sole focus with PS3 and Xbox 360. The Eye Toy will definitely be a great thing on PS3 and give us new kinds of gameplay also. Xbox Live has already proven itself to be a great online network and it only continues to get better.

If we are going to continue this conversation about the differences between Nintendo and MS then we will have to create another thread for it.

 

[blakjedi]

The revmote is gimmicky as is the DS touchscreen stylus. Nintendo also isnt into pure gaming. Nintendos stranglehold "QA" in the nineties has as much to do with their loss of marketshare as Playstations CD media.

 

[overclocked]

Nintendo is smart as they are making alot of cash but they made there fair share of mistakes in the past.
I see this Rev compete with ps2/xbox.

They lost both F5 and SK(Rare earlier also of course but thats not related to the tech of Rev anyhow)so for me theres nothing *left* that attracts me like it did with the Gamecube that i enjoyed greatly.

I really dont see why they couldnt be in a techrace with great gfx and cheap console(BC) as the Gamecube was/is with all the features that Rev will have.
And with techrace im not talking about anything that would touch PS3/Xbox on papper but well could do on screen.

Want too add that for me GC was a "Revoultion" .

 

[Corwin_B]

And with techrace im not talking about anything that would touch PS3/Xbox on papper but well could do on screen.

But what did that bring them this gen ? Although it was pretty evident on screen that GC had plenty horsepower and could have great-looking games, it was still seen by the masses as vastly inferior to the XBox (it was inferior, but not by a large factor), but also to the PS2 (remember the "PS2 can push 75 millions polys/sec while the GC can only do 5-6" arguments).

Regarding the price point, it could be that the Revmote is indeed very expensive to make (not sure why it would be, but Iwata's comments point toward it), and that corners were cut on hardware (CPU/GPU/RAM) in order to be able to sell extra Revmotes at a little loss so that consumers are not scared by the price of additional Revmotes.