Revolution in June?
- Thread starter Ty
- Start date
Ty said:
Hmmm...if that article hold true, than the speculated Revolution price would be in the $299 range.
BOOMEXPLODE
Regular
But remember MS is at $299 with their basic system, and Nintendo usually has the cheapest hardware. Based on recent-past statements by them I expect that will continue with Revolution. =]
Also expect price drops when PS3 launches. I could see MS dropping XBox 360 (basic) to $250. So I would say ~$200 for Revolution.
Also expect price drops when PS3 launches. I could see MS dropping XBox 360 (basic) to $250. So I would say ~$200 for Revolution.
i'd take that news with a shovel of salt. merchants do no appear to be the most credible release date sources these days. my local toy'r'us has big flyers and kiosks all over the place about a christmas zelda release with preorders. wishful thinking in combination with slow reaction times..
Exactly - these merchants just take their 'best guess' and start booking your pre-order revenue as soon as they can. For whatever reason, in this past year it's gone totally out of control. Remember the DS pre-launch? Retailers were openly admitting they had no idea what the actual launch price would be, but they were selling the systems and saying they would either refund or charge extra when the price was finally announced.
I have to agree with most people here that this Amazon release date for Rev really isn't worth much. Its most likely total guess from in order to get pre-orders started.
Anyway the other Revolution thread got locked (for very little reason AFAICS). Since this thread is about Revolution and release dates (and seems to be dead anyway) I'll respond here. .
I did think we were discussing US release dates here. PS2 released in the US on the 26th of October 2000, GameCube released in the US on 18th November 2001. But lets say we use Japanese release dates as a guideline and accept that Nintendo needed 1 and a half years to make a much smaller much cheaper system more powerful then its competition (which is dubious IMO). In that case 1 year would surely be enough to make a much smaller cheaper system as powerful as the competition.
In the end GameCube is a more powerful system and that's all that matters in this case, nit picking into indivudual specs doesn't change that.
Anyway the other Revolution thread got locked (for very little reason AFAICS). Since this thread is about Revolution and release dates (and seems to be dead anyway) I'll respond here. .
I did think we were discussing US release dates here. PS2 released in the US on the 26th of October 2000, GameCube released in the US on 18th November 2001. But lets say we use Japanese release dates as a guideline and accept that Nintendo needed 1 and a half years to make a much smaller much cheaper system more powerful then its competition (which is dubious IMO). In that case 1 year would surely be enough to make a much smaller cheaper system as powerful as the competition.
In the end GameCube is a more powerful system and that's all that matters in this case, nit picking into indivudual specs doesn't change that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Magnum PI said:
I don't think you could definitively say either is more powerful. One is better in some areas, the other is better in others. For every example you could give of one system doing something the other can't, I could give you an example of the opposite.
It's a give and take, and each went a slightly different direction. You may have a personal preference or opinion, but it should not be mistaken for fact.
Teasy said:
Don't forget that the PS2 used an internal power transformer, a full sized, motorised DVD tray and (except for the very first Asian models) featured an internal HDD bay.
Take this into account, and I thnk the PS2 could have been very close to the GC's size long before the GC launched, though perhaps with a more sophisticated cooling system. I think someone posted a picture of the PS2's main board on here a while back. Suprisingly small, I remember thinking - looked kind of like it might have fit into something like the Dreamcast.
Depends what happens in that year. If new manufacturing process become available I imgine this could be the case, but if you're stuck using the same one it would probably be much more difficult.
Powderkeg said:
They're probably broadly similar on balance. EA's benchmark figure showed the two as being pretty close in terms of polygon counts.
What's clear from their history is that Nintendo aren't on the same technology curve as their competitors. This isn't an accident, it's a choice, and so it's nothing for Nintendo fans to get defensive about. And given Nintendo's continued ability to make large profits it's something that should be respected, regardless of what you as a consumer like to see hardware vendors pushing for.
function said:
Oh no, not the infamous EA benchmarks from 2001.. I agree there are situations where each console shines but taking EA's opinion on this matter is like asking my paralyzed uncle which high school has the best running track. It doesn't matter cause they cant take advantage of any of them.
Pozer said:
You think EA Canada's technical staff are too stupid to benchmark hardware? Who are you to be taking the piss out of those guys and making references to cripples and running? Why don't you present opposing evidence, and point out exactly where they went wrong in trying to compare the performance out of these machines at pretty standard tasks?
"Ooh, EA suck and so anything they say about consoles must be wrong because they aren't good enough to understand anything."
It isn't luck that got them to and kept them at the no1 publisher spot. Don't confuse business decisions about what to release and how to make it with "their programmers being stupid/useless".
BOOMEXPLODE
Regular
The only benchmark that really matters is how good the games look.
BOOMEXPLODE said:
I disagree .
Games would tell the story if both systems had equal investments int o the games .
But with the ps2 as the platform of choice it wont be a fair comparison
Also your comparing a system that still cost over 300$ per system when the gamecube was released vs the gamecube that cost a little over 200$ at that point .
PRicing will allways play a role .
The launch PS2's heatsink alone was already HUGE and I'm not talking wide yet thin. I'm talking about a huge brick about 6x3x4".
I think what some people are trying to say is that if Revolution is released at the same time as say Xbox 360 at a lower price in a smaller box, then it would indeed need to be less powerful which is only half true because you have not factored in the how much each is losing per console. If we assume that MS is willing to lose more then yes a $200 Revolution launched at the same time as Xbox 360 will likely need to be less powerful, but I don't think this was ever disputed. Indication is that it will launch a full year after Xbox 360 and may even cost $249.
Last edited by a moderator:
If it is going to be as powerful as Xbox 360 then why does Nintendo not want to support HD? I understand that it might cost a little extra in terms of outputs and what not, but there really is no reason to go for something as powerful as 360 if you do not plan to support HD.
If Revolution is going to be as powerful as the competitors, why are Nntendo saying such things as 'it's not all about the graphics' and 'unlike the other's we're not just trying to make the most powerful console'? If they were to match their rivals in terms of power AND add this 'revolutionary' controller system, surely they'd be making a big noise about both? 'Everything the other consoles are and more...'
Nintendo at present don't seem concerned with sheer horsepower as seen in their recent hardware relases. DS isn't really cutting-age performance technology, and their latest release is another revamp of old technology (which was funny given some people's hope of a mighty handheld GC with support for GC games, and all that appeared was a pricey GBA
). If Nintendo can get by with less expensive and thus more profitable hardware, why stick more in there? There's no need, whichi is why, surely, Nintendo are saying 'it's not all about power' and not 'we're as quick as the next guy'.
Nintendo at present don't seem concerned with sheer horsepower as seen in their recent hardware relases. DS isn't really cutting-age performance technology, and their latest release is another revamp of old technology (which was funny given some people's hope of a mighty handheld GC with support for GC games, and all that appeared was a pricey GBA
