Matt from Ign explains his thoughts on the Rev specs

[Powderkeg]

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.

http://research.microsoft.com/~awilson/wand/default.htm

Microsoft's does just about everything the Revolution controller does, and also has voice recognition commands.

And Microsoft had that controller a full year before Nintendo announced theirs.

 

[dukmahsik]

no wonder the rev devkit was basically a GC devkit

 

[GregLee]

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

Ok, suppose they can avoid infringement and can figure out a way to connect the new controller to their system, avoiding the latency problems that are said to have plagued the Revolution. Then what? They make a few million controllers and wait for the orders to start pouring in? But none of the games for their systems are designed to use these new, very different controllers. Where would new games that do use them come from?

I just don't see how this would work.

- Greg

 

[StefanS]

http://research.microsoft.com/~awilson/wand/default.htm

Microsoft's does just about everything the Revolution controller does, and also has voice recognition commands.

And Microsoft had that controller a full year before Nintendo announced theirs.

I don't think that the argument who was first is a very productive one, since it is not clear who actually was first nor who mainstreamed the technology.

 

[pegisys]

I don't think that the argument who was first is a very productive one, since it is not clear who actually was first nor who mainstreamed the technology.

sony could still launch with something like it, and could even have it standard since the input device is not final

[conspiracy theory] It could be the reason for the PS3 delay [/conspiracy theory]

 

[aaaaa00]

http://www.gyration.com/en-US/GyroTech.html

Other companies have come up with this kind of tech already. I wouldn't be suprised if the tech inside Rev-mote is actually licensed.

 

[Ty]

"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.

The current price of GCNs are low because the cost to develop the chips have already been paid for.

 

[GregLee]

The current price of GCNs are low because the cost to develop the chips have already been paid for.

So Nintendo could be making more money by charging more for the GC, but they wish to avoid excessive profits. It's interesting that capitalism can work this way.

-
Greg

 

[Corwin_B]

So Nintendo could be making more money by charging more for the GC, but they wish to avoid excessive profits. It's interesting that capitalism can work this way.

-
Greg

What about supply and demand, which are parts of capitalism too ? If Nintendo could sell the same amount of NGC at a higher price, no doubt they would. They lowered the price hoping to increase sales.

 

[Teasy]

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.

Of course its a part of the cost, just like it was for GC. But its paid off bit by bit during the life of the console, mainly by game sales. Even if you tacked the cost of R&D on to the console's price its hardly significant next to the cost of manufacuring the thing. For example if you expect to sell 25 million consoles and your R&D costs are $500 million then that's $20 of R&D costs per console and the rest if manufacturing costs. Just how much extra (compared to GC) do you think they spent on R&D for Rev's controller in order to make a $200 retail price a fair one for something that wouldn't cost much (if any) more then $50 to manufacture (a GC times two)?..

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.

Thank you for telling me that I believe Revolution will have comparable graphics power to 360 and PS3. I had no idea that was my opinion, considering I've never claimed such a thing..

 

[Teasy]

The current price of GCNs are low because the cost to develop the chips have already been paid for.

GC's retail price never strayed far from its manufacturing price. It certainly wasn't selling at a big profit to begin with in order to pay for R&D. The reason the console's price is low now is the same reason it was higher earlier in its life cycle, because it costs around that price to manufacture. R&D costs are mainly paid for by game sales.

 

[GregLee]

What about supply and demand, which are parts of capitalism too ? If Nintendo could sell the same amount of NGC at a higher price, no doubt they would. They lowered the price hoping to increase sales.

Yes. I was kidding.

 

[Natoma]

http://research.microsoft.com/~awilson/wand/default.htm

Microsoft's does just about everything the Revolution controller does, and also has voice recognition commands.

And Microsoft had that controller a full year before Nintendo announced theirs.

Actually, you don't know that. Microsoft hasn't attempted to mass produce that controller. Remember the trouble Sony got into with their Dual Shock? No one stopped them while the Dual Shock was in development, only when they started selling them.

That page is just that, research. Nothing more, nothing less. Wake me when they've got a viable product.

 

[Natoma]

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.

Indeed they are compatible, but they are addons, not the default controller scheme. 100% of Revolution owners will be using the Revmote. Some smaller % will be using 3rd party controllers. Developers always develop with the standard baseline in mind.

You are coming up with possibilities that just don't work and have never worked in the history of videogaming.

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.

See my last post, just above this one.

 

[Natoma]

So Nintendo could be making more money by charging more for the GC, but they wish to avoid excessive profits. It's interesting that capitalism can work this way.

-
Greg

Not necessarily. Say your cost to produce the GC hardware was $180 when it first cameout, and they sold it at $199. Then after years have gone by, cost to produce the hardware drops to $50, and they sell it for $99. They've more than doubled their profit on the hardware while giving the consumer a nice price drop.

This is just an example, but it shows that you can't merely look at "well if they'd charge more they'd make more money".

 

[Powderkeg]

Actually, you don't know that. Microsoft hasn't attempted to mass produce that controller. Remember the trouble Sony got into with their Dual Shock? No one stopped them while the Dual Shock was in development, only when they started selling them.

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. Chances are, the people who made the parts already hold the patents.

Not to mention it's highly unlikely that MS would publically publish their research without already having it covered by any applicable patents.

That page is just that, research. Nothing more, nothing less. Wake me when they've got a viable product.

How is that relevent? The claim was made that it would be very hard for MS to make a Revolution styled controller. My point was that MS already had one, so clearly it wouldn't be that hard to put a similar device into production.

If it's actually in production now or not is irrelevent. They have one, and could easily refine it to a mass production product if they thought it was actually worth doing.

 

[Powderkeg]

I don't think that the argument who was first is a very productive one, since it is not clear who actually was first nor who mainstreamed the technology.

I don't think anyone was making an argument about who had it first, only how hard it would be for MS to come up with a similar controller.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I think I know what MS controller where talking about and the main difference is that the MS has the X and Y axis to work with but the Nintendo's Revolutions Controller uses a Z axis (so you get that 3D depth).

Also, I don't think the MS controller is necissarily for "pointing and clicking but for gestures. Like waving the wand in a certain way gets a reaction from your PC or something. I read about this a while back though and I posted the same thing (about the tech being similar) and almost got killed by Nintendo fans.

 

[Natoma]

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. Chances are, the people who made the parts already hold the patents.

Not to mention it's highly unlikely that MS would publically publish their research without already having it covered by any applicable patents.

How is that relevent? The claim was made that it would be very hard for MS to make a Revolution styled controller. My point was that MS already had one, so clearly it wouldn't be that hard to put a similar device into production.

If it's actually in production now or not is irrelevent. They have one, and could easily refine it to a mass production product if they thought it was actually worth doing.

Your argument is supremely spurious Powderkeg.

I never made the claim that it would be hard for MS to make a Revolution styled controller from a technological standpoint. I said that the patents would make it difficult for them to get said controller into production without being sued.

Sony, I'm sure, tried patenting the Dual Shock, or at the very least tried their best to make sure they weren't infringing on any existing patents. And yet, they were sued by Immersion and lost not only the original suit, but the appeal earlier this year. They're either going to have to stop selling the Dual Shocks, or pay VERY hefty royalties. Maybe even both if they can't come to a legal compromise.

Immersion has no interest in stopping Sony from selling Dual Shocks and will most likely seek royalties. Nintendo would DEFINITELY have an interest in stopping Microsoft from selling their own wand controller, and would certainly seek to have the offending controller removed from the market if it was found to be infringing.

Add in the fact that for the MS and Sony systems, the wand controller would be a peripheral and not the base controller, and the ports would be few and far between. It'd be another power glove or eye toy or light gun for them. Maybe some pocket success here and there, but nothing on the scale Nintendo is attempting to do.

As I said before, it's not a simple matter for this generation, which is when it would really matter.

And again, all of this is mere speculation. Wake me when Microsoft has a viable product on the shelves.

 

[Ty]

Just how much extra (compared to GC) do you think they spent on R&D for Rev's controller in order to make a $200 retail price a fair one for something that wouldn't cost much (if any) more then $50 to manufacture (a GC times two)?..

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.

Thank you for telling me that I believe Revolution will have comparable graphics power to 360 and PS3. I had no idea that was my opinion, considering I've never claimed such a thing..

I'm glad that I got the chance to shake up your world view. Hopefully now you'll be less emotionally involved in Nintendo and be OK with Revolution should it turn out to be just as IGN said.

GC's retail price never strayed far from its manufacturing price.

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

Somehow between you and Matt from IGN, I think the smarter money would be to bet on Matt - unless you're willing to take another bet to eat your wiennie?