Matt from Ign explains his thoughts on the Rev specs

[overclocked]

But what did that bring them this gen ?

Well me as a consumer with the devs/games they had, but i dont think im a general spokesman exactly for the Nintendo community.

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).

I think very much has to do with the image of the company and how they PR themselfs.
They could pissed the techrace if they wanted to.

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.

Yeah i dont have any clue about any cost but as you say it could well be expensive.
I dont think its the most likely though and im sure they could have made a Revoultion with
*better* specs anyway. When devs are leaving you because of it i think it speaks for itself really.

 

[Teasy]

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.

Who said anything about R&D money?, not me. I'm talking about manufacturing cost, unless you think the Revolution controller will cost over $100 more then a standard controller to make then I don't think you have much of a point here.

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

What a silly question, if I believed something then what would it matter what I wanted to believe

 

[fearsomepirate]

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.

That's kind of weird, since F5 and SK were neither the most prolific nor the most talented developers on the Gamecube, especially Factor 5, who hasn't seemed to master much beyond flying an X-wing when it comes to gameplay (indisputably great gfx engines, though--maybe they'll license the Rebel Strike engine for Revo). SK leaving probably had more to do with their philosophy of breaking the bank hiring Latin-speaking voice actors and taking a decade to make a game than technology. I'm more concerned about Ubisoft, Square, Namco, Konami, and Capcom myself.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

especially Factor 5, who hasn't seemed to master much beyond flying an X-wing when it comes to gameplay

He he. Do you think Lair will be dragon shaped X-wings?

 

[pc999]

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.

PS2 at least is also a DVD player (usually I never see those at less than 40-50 euros) and if I am not mystaken it cames with one game, so at 99$ it is great value IMO too.

Personally I realise and even agree with their strategy (I think even that my sig shows that) besides those specs, anyway there is two things that one should consider that even if it is very sucessfull amoung no gamers, in the first 6 mouths or so with will be bought by gamers that know it could be much better with very few cost added to the cost.

Plus there would have a lot of good things from marketing, from value percetion, from gaming gains (eg physics and HL2 that you said it isnt possible unless 5x the power), from avoiding this talk, from the great possibility of fast gain of units sold/market share (vital for dev suport)...

Note that I am not talking of XB360 at 480 gfx (probably wouldnt be that hard anyway, or close from that at least) but easly (just eg) a 7300 (edram isntead of the video) and a 970FK (1,6Ghz and only 256Kb) would give a brutal boost to the visual qualitity and would be really cheap it would add relatively little cost even to a low cost console .

There is too cheap and too much to gain with better specs to not made better specs IMO.

BTW I also expect that top game to be much cheaper as it will still use basically the same/little more technics/content as the GC and those games will cost much less than 1/3 of the cost of the others (ir is said that on average a GC game costs 800.000$ with every next gen game being multi miliion dollars and companys being addapted for that). Every thing much be really cheap going this way.

Plus the remote cant be very costly, or a no gamer going to the shop
No gamer-I want a Rev and 3 remotes and one game.
Sales man- Ok that is 400$
NG- Forget
SM (even if mediocre)- Try instead a PS2 with ET, or using 3 thierd part controllers that cost 10$ each and with software that it is now sold at 1/3-1/2 of the price, there is much more and great party or solo games and it can even play CDs/DVDs etc... all at ~200$ (console+game+3 controlers)
NG-- that is very interesting ...(using Rev marketing to sell PS2s )


The truth is that it is possible to make a much better console at 150$ (probably even at 99$) that can make everyone happy.

 

[Ty]

Who said anything about R&D money?, not me. I'm talking about manufacturing cost, unless you think the Revolution controller will cost over $100 more then a standard controller to make then I don't think you have much of a point here.

Because manufacturing cost is but ONE part of the total outlay for producing a console. Everything else has to amortized into the sales prices. Just looking at production costs is pointless.

What a silly question, if I believed something then what would it matter what I wanted to believe

You're too emotionally vested in the whole 'Revolution will be comparable to PS3/X360'. All signs are pointing to that it won't. I'm just trying to get you to question WHY you can't possibly believe that the Revolution is not going to be about specs. It's for your own sanity, man.

 

[NavNucST3]

The fundamental flaw with all of these "gameplay" arguments is that everyone keeps saying Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft; forgive me for being obtuse, but when did they become the ONLY three developers?

I love my DS, I think it has great games, I love my 360, I think it has great games. At the end of the day, I am convinced the majority of gamers don't seem to want "better" gameplay. Which can be seen by the sales numbers of EA sports anything, Final Fantasy anything, 50 cent (fu**ing 50 CENT!!!!) vs games like Otogi, Beyond Good and Evil, Crimson Skies (forgive me for not including more PS2 games, as I don't own a PS2), take a look on the game websites for good/great games no one is playing/buying.

It may piss off some, but I am one who thinks that better graphics does help gameplay. I mean what is fundamentally different about Wolfenstein 3d vs what we have now as FPS games; vehicles, and is that innovation or evolution? Graphics is not the end all be all, I think sound is even more important for immersiveness than graphics. Which is why Condemned on the 360 with its graphics, amazing sound, no tearing, no aliasing = best game no one is playing for the 360, and the same will probably happen when released for PC.

Geometry Wars was a really good game, but Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved is great, thanks in part to the hardware and its graphics, also I'm not sure if GW:RE could be done on the PS1 in its current form.

 

[pc999]

You're too emotionally vested in the whole 'Revolution will be comparable to PS3/X360'. All signs are pointing to that it won't. I'm just trying to get you to question WHY you can't possibly believe that the Revolution is not going to be about specs. It's for your own sanity, man.

It is possible to make a much better low cost console than 2x the GC that it is not comparable to XB360.

 

[greg3d]

Note that I am not talking of XB360 at 480 gfx (probably wouldnt be that hard anyway, or close from that at least) but easly (just eg) a 7300 (edram isntead of the video) and a 970FK (1,6Ghz and only 256Kb) would give a brutal boost to the visual qualitity and would be really cheap it would add relatively little cost even to a low cost console .

The true is that it is possible to make a much better console at 150$ (probably even at 99$) that can make everyone happy.

Hey! Finally I agree with you! That's why I don't think/can't believe these specs are real.

Unless Nintendo's working this tech to make porting a title to/from Gameboy/Revolution easy (which I can't see them doing for these chips just yet) then I don't get it from a performance standpoint.

Just because they're not competing on a tech level doesn't mean they'd artificially keep the specs low from a price/performance viewpoint.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I think the most interesting aspect of all of this, and it's been mentioned by others but glossed over and ignored, is that power actually IS important.

If you take the assumption that the Revremote will actually revolutionize gaming and developers will fall over themselves to make games that take advantage of it, then you can be damn certain that both MS and Sony will simply copy it.

Now, you'll have all the 'revolutionary' aspects of N's console but on vastly superior PS3 and X360 systems.

So N will still lose.

If the revremote is truly just a gimmick and no more worthwhile than a pair of kongo bongo drums, then there will be little adoption and nobody will care and N will still lose.

N has chosen to compete by being a niche player, a 2nd console, a less expensive console, a "fun" console, and one with great IP and interesting art direction and design from their 1st party developers.

They can most likely do so and make a profit while Sony and MS battle each other on power and trade debt for market share.

But the instant the revremote actually proves to be "revolutionary" and the game experiences from the revolution start to earn them market share, they'll instantly be copied by Sony and MS.

Of course this is all just my opinion, blah blah

 

[Ty]

It is possible to make a much better low cost console than 2x the GC that it is not comparable to XB360.

Nothing is stopping you from going out there and doing it then. Hell, you have my word that I'll buy TWO of them the day they come out.

 

[pc999]

Nothing is stopping you from going out there and doing it then. Hell, you have my word that I'll buy TWO of them the day they come out.

"Just" make a "Moore law like update" to GC and you do have a much more powerfull console at 99$, if the rest doest fit in 100$ then you are in trouble no matter what kind of HW you do have.

 

[ROG27]

"Just" make a "Moore law like update" to GC and you do have a much more powerfull console at 99$, if the rest doest fit in 100$ then you are in trouble no matter what kind of HW you do have.

Nintendo knows that their core competancy is imaginative, easy to pick-up and play games with great gameplay. On the hardware end, they are good at making interfaces simple and intuitive and hardware durable. Technology is not one of their core competancies. For them, it is just an enabler. So, price is on their side.

Make a Game Cube slightly more powerful tech-wise, but create new interfacing, I/O, and hardware packaging.

The revolution is going to be $99 bucks. Or bundled with a game for $149. NES #2.

Awesome.

They are going old school gamer with a new twist IMO. And I will like it.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Seriously guys, Nintendo knows WTF they are doing. Just calm down and relax. Have they ever not created a killer little console? Even the GC, as ugly and stupid as it looked, was a good console that put out some great games.

Even if it just triples the power, which is likely with a modern GPU and higer clockspeed, it should easily be able to put out great visuals at 480p.

Nintendo knows what they're doing IMO, rev will be cool. I think it will sell just fine, not to us, but there's definately a market there for simpler cheaper innovative games.

 

[mckmas8808]

Nintendo knows that their core competancy is imaginative, easy to pick-up and play games with great gameplay. On the hardware end, they are good at making interfaces simple and intuitive and hardware durable. Technology is not one of their core competancies. For them, it is just an enabler. So, price is on their side.

Make a Game Cube slightly more powerful tech-wise, but create new interfacing, I/O, and hardware packaging.

The revolution is going to be $99 bucks. Or bundled with a game for $149. NES #2.

Awesome.

They are going old school gamer with a new twist IMO. And I will like it.

So can Nintendo do the same thing in 2011? Will Sony and MS just run away from Nintendo every single generation? If so I would hate to see the visual comparisons of the consoles in the year 2015.

 

[Natoma]

I think the most interesting aspect of all of this, and it's been mentioned by others but glossed over and ignored, is that power actually IS important.

If you take the assumption that the Revremote will actually revolutionize gaming and developers will fall over themselves to make games that take advantage of it, then you can be damn certain that both MS and Sony will simply copy it.

Now, you'll have all the 'revolutionary' aspects of N's console but on vastly superior PS3 and X360 systems.

So N will still lose.

You almost have a point, but your premise is fundamentally flawed.

1) There's a HUGE difference between the standard system controller and a peripheral that introduces new functionality, as you mentioned with the Kongo Bongo drums. Or the numerous light guns. Or the power gloves. And so forth and so on.

2) Nintendo patented the hell out of the Revmote. It wouldn't be a simple matter of copying it. At the very least, it wouldn't be simple for this generation, when it would matter most.

If the revremote is truly just a gimmick and no more worthwhile than a pair of kongo bongo drums, then there will be little adoption and nobody will care and N will still lose.

The comments coming from developers all over the gaming industry would sink your premise before it even begins.

N has chosen to compete by being a niche player, a 2nd console, a less expensive console, a "fun" console, and one with great IP and interesting art direction and design from their 1st party developers.

They can most likely do so and make a profit while Sony and MS battle each other on power and trade debt for market share.

But the instant the revremote actually proves to be "revolutionary" and the game experiences from the revolution start to earn them market share, they'll instantly be copied by Sony and MS.

Of course this is all just my opinion, blah blah

See above.

 

[Solzhenitsyn]

it will be interesting.

can nintendo deliver an inexpensive console ($99 would be a real statement) with inexpensive games ($30-35 would be a coup)?

If they do, will software houses think the lower development costs offset the thinner profit margin per game sold?

 

[Inane_Dork]

He he. Do you think Lair will be dragon shaped X-wings?

Lock S-Foils in flap position!

 

[pc999]

If they do, will software houses think the lower development costs offset the thinner profit margin per game sold?

Afew games this gen already lauch at that price, old gen games too.

Plus if they have sucess they can possible sell to much more people.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

You almost have a point, but your premise is fundamentally flawed.

1) There's a HUGE difference between the standard system controller and a peripheral that introduces new functionality, as you mentioned with the Kongo Bongo drums. Or the numerous light guns. Or the power gloves. And so forth and so on.

Doesn't address my point. Especially not since "typical" controllers are also supposed to be compatible with the Rev. The revremote very well could be just a peripheral. Note: could be, not saying it is. That was the first point.

2) Nintendo patented the hell out of the Revmote. It wouldn't be a simple matter of copying it. At the very least, it wouldn't be simple for this generation, when it would matter most.

I would say you are vastly underestimating Sony and MS, as well as Immersion Tech, Logitech, and everybody else who also hold numerous input patents or license agreements to those patents.

I'd say that the second N introduced the revremote and made such a big deal out of it and made it the primary selling point of the console, MS and Sony had their engineering teams pulling all the patents on the device, reverse engineering the device or investigating how it works, and examining all the other licenses and patents they own to see how they can duplicate the device, and I would imagine that already have prototype mock-ups of their own versions of the revremote at this very minute just in case it does become such a huge selling point.

And if it does, I would expect Sony and MS to be able to roll out their own versions copying the functionality within months of that realization.