Revolution in June?

[µCOM-4]

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.

I think it's the same reason why only 1% of GC owners purchased the component cable. Nintendo figures they can save silicon to either lose less money per unit or sell at a lower price or both. If they sell it for $250, then they could add more silicon somewhere else instead of the GPU for HD.

 

[Teasy]

I fail to see in the other thread the demonstration of the gamecube being more powerful than the PS2. Every fact that i remember seeing on this board seemed to show otherwise. For example there was some benchmark of the current gen consoles from electronic arts.

I didn't say there was any demonstration of GC being more powerful in that thread. There didn't need to be since Shogmaster accepted that GC is a more powerful system (as most people do), or he did initially.

EA's benchmark was worth very little overall. It was a PS2 engine ported to GC in a few months. Yet despite that I remember GC still having a small edge even in that benchmark. Honestly refusing to admit that GC is a more powerful system then PS2 is like refusing to admit that XBox is more powerful then GC.

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.

But don't you think PS3 and 360 will be similar in that respect? Sony and MS have both shown in the past that having a very small system at launch is not something they're interested in. Also just FYI GameCube's case also has a good amount of empty space (about 1.5 inches of its height is empty casing for addon ports).

 

[Teasy]

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...'

This has been answered so many times here yet it keeps coming up, why?

Why would Nintendo be downplaying graphics if Revolution can put out as good graphics as the competition? Well to answer the question then ask yourself why did Nintendo play down GameCube's graphics when it could out out as good graphics as the competition? Because they're mad?.. possibly. Whatever the reason its clear that Nintendo playing down graphics doesn't equal Nintendo making a graphically inferior console.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But don't you think PS3 and 360 will be similar in that respect? Sony and MS have both shown in the past that having a very small system is not something they're interested in.

Huh? What about PSOne and Slimline PS2? Sony have shown they'll happily reduce the size of a machine once components allow, and cash in on the savings.

 

[Epik]

hmmm?

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'.

aren't you taking that out of context a bit there?

Nintendo was basically saying what they did with GC. They don't like blowing up numbers because they want to establish trush with developers and form a sense of reliablity.They are very modest on how they present thier numbers.Sony and Microsofts models are more hype and show than anything else.They want to put the most powerful theoretical parts most bandwidth more capacity more ram. They don't care if there are bottlenecks and design flaws that may cut the "theoretical power" down by say 1/3. All they care about is putting up big numbers and to pay-off the media to hype the fruaduant specs.While Nintendo keeps it honest so that developers can trust them. Didn't nintendo say GCN may not be more powerful than PS2? And it ended up being way more powerful(proof rogue squadraun sp? and RE4 and look at Mario Sunshine... color wise) than anything on PS2.

If you want detailed proof I can pull up some documents that prove GCN is as power as an Xbox(well its still being argued).
But to break it down....

*Nintendo doesn't present fruadualent specs because they don't want to get on the bad side of developers(I think they say its weaker than it really is just to make developers think "wow thats a lot more than nintendo said cool!")

*If Revolution is so much weaker than its competitors. Port would have to be recompiled or toned down. That would make it harder to develope for.Thus contradicting what nintendo has already said about making it easier for developers and cheaper to developer for. I am I right?

*Why would nintendo release a underpowered console a year after 360 and months after PS3 knowing that they are going to get more 3rd party support from being out longer? Even when if they did release it that late they will have technologies that can make it more powerful than 360.See there is no point to it. I think a CEO to a multibillion dollar corperation has the reasourses and professional maret analysts to tell him that would put revolution a disavantage.

*nintendo has never released a underpowered machine in its lifetime

*If we are judging from what nintendo said they did say they were competing with Sony.They said they were going to release it around sony not microsoft. Why would they release a grossly underpowred console near PS3 while letting microsoft have the headstart? Agian common sense says they aren't worried about microsoft and sony is the real threat.(funny Sony is afraid of microsoft. Remember all the senseless attacks and bashes by ken kutaragi? Seems pretty insecure in the CELL)

*How can you say nintendo will be without a doubt be the weakest if nintendo a)hasn't finished the chips(probably intentional)
b)hasn't released specs
c)hasn't released any screens(the leipzig screens were not run a revolution neither was the metriod demo)(run on a GC)
d)hasn't released any demos
f)everyone that knows about it works at nintendo and are under a strict NDA that if the leak it they will loose thier job and be sued.
e)any other company(the ATI interview was fake if they really would have said that they would have been sued by nintendo)
that has been working on the hardware are under NDA and face the same penalty.

 

[Teasy]

Anyway instead of playing devils advocate I'm going to give me opinion on how I think the systems will stand, graphically, next gen.

I believe that if Revolution is released a full year after XBox 360 then both systems will be similarly powered. Each system will have its advantages in certain area's and each will have there own standout games (graphically). So there will be plenty of room for "no Rev is more powerful", "No 360 is more powerful" But in general most will admit they are pretty evenly matched. The majority of people will admit that PS3 is the most powerful system of the generation.

 

[Teasy]

Huh? What about PSOne and Slimline PS2? Sony have shown they'll happily reduce the size of a machine once components allow, and cash in on the savings.

Revamping a console to make is smaller years after release in order to get more sales is quite different from starting off small. Clearly Sony do not see an initial small design as important.

 

[Epik]

they are annoyed

This has been answered so many times here yet it keeps coming up, why?

Why would Nintendo be downplaying graphics if Revolution can put out as good graphics as the competition? Well to answer the question then ask yourself why did Nintendo play down GameCube's graphics when it could out out as good graphics as the competition? Because they're mad?.. possibly. Whatever the reason its clear that Nintendo playing down graphics doesn't equal Nintendo making a graphically inferior console.

they see it for what it. A segnificant piece. A destraction from the main show gameplay. They see it as everyone obsessing on graphics and not gameplay when non-players are kept in gaming by fungames and are attracted by shiny games. After the hype and swooning over the polys wear off they get bored and see the game for what it is...shiny crap.But guess what the unnamed developer sold that game didn't they?(Short sighted success but long term blunder But is johnny non-gamer going to pay another video game when he lost his money repeatedly over polished up horse dung? No he'll get bored and do one of three things....

.a)buy risk being turned off or humilated by his or her friends and buy a reportedly fun game

b)retires from gaming all together with a bad taste in his mouth.

c)get smart and start renting games then buying them thus increasing his chances of actually finding a good game but will lead him to "A)" eventually.

 

[see colon]

*nintendo has never released a underpowered machine in its lifetime

nintendo DS

 

[Teasy]

See Colon, I think you know very well that he meant in the console market..

GB was an underpowered handheld compared to GameGear, but that had no baring on Nintendo's home console (SNES) which was competetive as ever graphically.

 

[µCOM-4]

See Colon, I think you know very well that he meant in the console market..

GB was an underpowered handheld compared to GameGear, but that had no baring on Nintendo's home console (SNES) which was competetive as ever graphically.

Yeah the portable market is totally different. The Turbo Express was WAY more powerful than the GB. It's like comparing a NES to a SNES.

 

[Epik]

Yeah the portable market is totally different. The Turbo Express was WAY more powerful than the GB. It's like comparing a NES to a SNES.

Thanks guys for clearing that up.

Nintendo has never made an underpowered home console in its history...

 

[function]

Thanks guys for clearing that up.

Nintendo has never made an underpowered home console in its history...

Depends on where you're coming from. From Nintendo's perspective, no they haven't, because producing the most powerful console they can wasn't and isn't their primary concern. From the point of view of developers, publishers and customers, sometimes they have.

Sega, Sony and Microsoft work to a different plan, and they place (or placed in Sega's case) far more emphasis on delivering powerful systems.

 

[Epik]

Depends on where you're coming from. From Nintendo's perspective, no they haven't, because producing the most powerful console they can wasn't and isn't their primary concern. From the point of view of developers, publishers and customers, sometimes they have.

Sega, Sony and Microsoft work to a different plan, and they place (or placed in Sega's case) far more emphasis on delivering powerful systems.

but they weren't more powerful. End of story.

how much they focused on hardware is irrelevant. They weren't more powerful.

Nintendo has never made an underpowered console. And until they release underpowered specs its not a reality.

 

[function]

What are you trying to refer to?

but they weren't more powerful. End of story.

Who wasn't more powerful? When? I was talking about how much importance the companies placed on delivering "power".

how much they focused on hardware is irrelevant. They weren't more powerful.

Stop trying to ignore the big picture.

Given the time of their arrival, their competitors delivered far more powerful systems (and I'll stress this - relative to the point of their introduction). Nintendo come along 18 months+ later and deliver something roughly the same or a little better, at a time when ther competitors would have delivered something vastly superior. But Nintendo make big profits (or any profits), so it's obviously a good stratagy for them.

And Xbox is more powerful than GC. A good deal more powerful.

Nintendo has never made an underpowered console. And until they release underpowered specs its not a reality.

You're a frustrating man to try and talk to. Stop throwing around the word "underpowered" at people as a catchall when they're going to a good deal of effort to define exactly what their point is.

 

[µCOM-4]

Nintendo come along 18 months+ later and deliver something roughly the same or a little better, at a time when ther competitors would have delivered something vastly superior

So did Xbox.

And Xbox is more powerful than GC. A good deal more powerful.

On paper sure, however in realworld performance it's not that much more powerful considering it was $300 compared to GC which was $200. GC at $300 with 128MB of RAM would be quite powerful.

 

[Epik]

What are you trying to refer to?



Who wasn't more powerful? When? I was talking about how much importance the companies placed on delivering "power".

and your puting words in nintendo's mouth. They never said it would be underpowered. They have never done that. So I guess nintendo focuses on "power" but its not the whole picture or say all be all


Stop trying to ignore the big picture.

Given the time of their arrival, their competitors delivered far more powerful systems (and I'll stress this - relative to the point of their introduction). Nintendo come along 18 months+ later and deliver something roughly the same or a little better, at a time when ther competitors would have delivered something vastly superior. But Nintendo make big profits (or any profits), so it's obviously a good stratagy for them.

And Xbox is more powerful than GC. A good deal more powerful.

good deal no. slightly yes

You're a frustrating man to try and talk to. Stop throwing around the word "underpowered" at people as a catchall when they're going to a good deal of effort to define exactly what their point is.

I am only "frustrating" when talking to biased "nintendo is DOOMED" sony and microsoft fans.

Its ok.

 

[Xenus]

If the Revolution is coming in June, it means it is most likely on th 90nm process which means if it is the same size as the render. It is physically impossible for the Revolution to have the same amount of power at least theoretically as the other two. This may not be true in practice depending on the effeciency of the Revolution and to what degree the other two are actually tapped. Though to think the Revolution will be just as powerful as the other two without atleast one process drop and being as small as it is thought to be in just plain fallicy unless you think the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the Revolution.

 

[function]

So did Xbox.

No. Xbox offered a far bigger step up over PS2 than GC did.

On paper sure, ...

In reality.

however in realworld performance it's not that much more powerful considering it was $300 compared to GC which was $200.

I never said that the GC didn't offer good value for money, or reasonable performance for it's price. The whole point I've been repeatedly trying to get across (and seeminginly banging my head into a wall over) is that Nintendo don't want to go for the highest performce, most expensive console they can get away with like MS and Sony.

 

[Magnum PI]

On paper sure, however in realworld performance it's not that much more powerful considering it was $300 compared to GC which was $200l.

I suppose that the BOM for the xbox would be more than 1.5 time the GC one.