Report of REV being 2-3 more powerful than GC is false!
- Thread starter c_k_i_t
- Start date
thundermonkey
Newcomer
Nintendo was cocky that the GCN would sell 50 million units by 2007. Doubt it ever gets there.pc999 said:
MS predicted 100 million Xbox's sold by 2005. Nintendo came a lot closer to their number then MS came to theirs. And now MS expects over 1 billion people to be touched by XBL. Sony's the only company that came anywhere close to their initial braggard numbers.
It's kinda funny how often the matter of profitability comes up that gets used different ways for different companies--many times by the same people. With Sony it tends to get alternatively used to criticize them for the initial cost of the PS2 (and the reason they left many things out to charge separately) and also applaud the advantages of their vertical model through the changes and cost savings it can bring later. With Microsoft it's used to criticise the overall profitability of the Xbox division, and alternatively used to praise them for providing a high-end gaming machine with lots of included extras for us to use (they spend more, so it gives US more value for our money.) With Nintendo, it's mainly used to highlight their higher margins and crow about their cash stockpile (in comparison to Sony, of course, since the only one who can compare his cash stockpile to Microsoft is Scrooge McDuck.jvd said:
).How, then, is it seemingly so unfathomable that people might expect them to perhaps lose money on their console (which they have from time to time with the GameCube during its price drops); that what every other company does is silly to even think about? Moreover, that there is somehow only TWO levels they could possibly sit at: drawing a profit, or going bankrupt. Buh...?
Kolgar is absolutely right in that respect: why in hell SHOULD we care about a company drawing a profit on their hardware? We can certainly understand why they would want to and evaluate it from a business perspective (not that we have nearly enough context to judge if all we're looking at is "initial profitability" or the like), but why should we care? Consumers have already shown that they most certainly don't--we have shown that we don't through many complaints and contrasts between the systems--and ultimately, short of actually tearing a company apart financially, we don't care if a company sits on four billion dollars or six billion dollars... We want to see the outcome of that investment! And mostly, we want to be pure beneficiaries.
Natoma--disctinctly a Nintendo fan--finds an exclusion like that to be dumb, and dumb it would be. Not from a straight-up financial standpoint, but from a "why in heck would a company not do XXX when their competition has? or it would be utterly easy to?" DVD-playing-wise, they did do it on the Xbox... and people bitched. If they do it on the Revolution... bitch they will again, fan or not! We complain about any system's lacks compared to another's mainly because--whether we care to use the feature much--it would cost us money to do so, whereas if we had YYY other system it would not. If it's easy and convenient, consumers will expect it there--plain and simple. If it's not, it becomes a negative for the system--and just what financial impact that would have against the competition is harder to measure, but nevertheless still there.
Back to the "profitability" point again, it still pointless to judge it in a vacuum. Is it needed to offset pre-launch R&D? How much R&D will be used for future redesigns, and will they bring manufacturing savings as well? Does a system need to hit certain sales points to accrue further savings from their manufacturing partners, and would how might the inclusion/exclusion of certain features affect sales? How much will software for the system offset the hardware costs, how much sales can we expect from one hardware configuartion over another, and how much would THAT affect additional software sales? We can't instantly judge the financial impact of any particular feature because we can't see the actual costs, we can't map out the related costs/profits, and we don't know the full system context to put it in.
So as of now, all we can REALLY do is say "omitting XXX feature would be really tacky and dumb if it's basically expected and their competition will have it" (mind you we don't know that for sure yet, but I'll lodge similar complaints their way if they don't
) and assume that a few $$ for our convenience is not going to break their bank. And otherwise... why should we care? Much of the time people demand it. The whole "two or three times" thing sounds like Nintendo being conservative. Two or three times the power of a GameCube sounds like hardware from two or three years ago. Why would the parts still be in development if all they have to match is three-year-old hardware? Something doesn't add up with the info we've got.
Could be parts from around that time being re-worked for lower heat profiles or lower energy consumption, so it's entirely possible that the "two or three times" scenario is completely accurate, but still... Seems a bit "iffy" to me.
Later
Could be parts from around that time being re-worked for lower heat profiles or lower energy consumption, so it's entirely possible that the "two or three times" scenario is completely accurate, but still... Seems a bit "iffy" to me.
Later
Somebody set us up aplomb.
mckmas8808
Legend
I mean really how much will the add-on be? You can buy dedicated DVD players for under $50.
________
Windsor casting
________
Windsor casting
Last edited by a moderator:
mckmas8808 said:
Actually you could buy dedicated DVD players for less than $25 but anyway to us a few dollars is nothing, but to a company that will sell tens of millions of units those few dollars will add up to tens of millions. I'd rather they make the DVD playback an option and use the savings to stick in a standard DVI/HDMI connection instead.
Similar threads
