Revolution Tech Details Emerge ( Xbox1+ performance, 128 MB RAM )

[Joe DeFuria]

NO !
I want to pay that much to get something way better than a NGC on steroïd (see my previous post).

For the sake of sanity and the safety of those around you, I would encourage you to take my earlier advice: if you want a console with "next generation power", convince yourself to get an XBox360 or PS3.

IMO, a $200 console is the absolute worst thing Nintendo could do. That would be too expensive to attract the non-gamers, and not powerful enough to really compete with the big boys.

The valid approaches are either to try and compete directly with sony / MS and build a similarly powered machine (with similar costs), or to target $99-$149 "mass market" price point and try and snag a whole new class of gamers. Going in the middle, (at say $200) would accomplish nothing IMO other than getting the Nintendo faithful to buy the console, which is not good for N.

 

[expletive]

For the sake of sanity and the safety of those around you, I would encourage you to take my earlier advice: if you want a console with "next generation power", convince yourself to get an XBox360 or PS3.

IMO, a $200 console is the absolute worst thing Nintendo could do. That would be too expensive to attract the non-gamers, and not powerful enough to really compete with the big boys.

The valid approaches are either to try and compete directly with sony / MS and build a similarly powered machine (with similar costs), or to target $99-$149 "mass market" price point and try and snag a whole new class of gamers. Going in the middle, (at say $200) would accomplish nothing IMO other than getting the Nintendo faithful to buy the console, which is not good for N.

I agree with Joe here.

It seems at $99 Nitnendo would be losing money on the hardware, have they ever done that? I personally dont think its in their strategy to EVER do that.

Given a $249 360 core system this time next year, a $50 difference will eb a tough sell for N in Holiday 2006. By then there will be lots of great games out for 360 both on optical media AND XBL. The community stuff should really be taking hold as well. $149, as Joe so aptly put it, is almost inevitable.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, $150 seems a good target price. For those that want better there's alternatives. If you want them cheaper, wait a couple of years. Nintendo's plan seems to be offer a cheaper alternative for those that want better now and who aren't willing to pay for the best possible. asking Nintendo (or anyone else) to offer an XB360/PS3 level machine at $200 entry price is asking them to commit financial suicide!

 

[BlueTsunami]

It makes me wonder how much it costed Nintendo to develop the remote (strictly R&D). Theres also another secret that Nintendo is supposedley holding back

Some say some type of Holograms or 3D system <---I laugh at this but who knows what Nintendo will pull....

 

[MechanizedDeath]

A cheap price didn't help the GC a lick. I don't agree with their strategy, or the suggested pricing. Yes, I like cheap. But jeez, the specs make it sound so damn cheap. Even with my SDTV, I can't convince myself to be excited by the Rev news. The new type of gamer they'll get with this approach will probably be the same type of gamer they got with the GC, cheapskates about to get a healthy dose of buyer's remorse. Then again, I might be the only one who bought a GC b/c it was $80 less than the PS2 and Xbox, and then regretted it after realizing that Wind Waker was the best game it had. PEACE.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

A cheap price didn't help the GC a lick....Then again, I might be the only one who bought a GC b/c it was $80 less than the PS2 and Xbox...

You were saying?

The bottom line is a significantly cheaper price makes it available to a wider audience. It will of course be the games that will ultimately make or break the system.

 

[Druga Runda]

A cheap price didn't help the GC a lick. I don't agree with their strategy, or the suggested pricing. Yes, I like cheap. But jeez, the specs make it sound so damn cheap. Even with my SDTV, I can't convince myself to be excited by the Rev news. The new type of gamer they'll get with this approach will probably be the same type of gamer they got with the GC, cheapskates about to get a healthy dose of buyer's remorse. Then again, I might be the only one who bought a GC b/c it was $80 less than the PS2 and Xbox, and then regretted it after realizing that Wind Waker was the best game it had. PEACE.

well if it is in the price, this time the price will be significantly less plus the console will have a clear distincition in the controller and not only in "nintento games"... that is why GC failed (or at least did not do as good as hoped)... while visually on par with the other two... it was just that "on par" and since the others are bigger and can spend more to either sell the console at a loss, or spend huge marketing sums, or both... N could not afford it and that is why it got only the N faihfull, mostly to buy... Why would you go do N console when it didn't have all the other games for only 80$ less? and the other end of the cycle - why would you develop games for N if you don't get big enough audience, in any case not even incentives like from MSFT or huge market like with PS2...

This gen it looks to me that they are taking the best approach possible (actually creating a new market) and I'd expect a much better success story, anyhow the controller sold me @ possible £100 it's even better!!!

 

[Powderkeg]

I'm still having a hard time with this .


I find it hard to believe that a chip made (even as a budget chip) for a 2006 release will only be slightly faster than a p3 700 mhz . Hell even a gekko on a modern process should be able to hit double or tripple the speeds of the original gekko with out a hit to yields . I can't see why they would get bad yields on a gekko at 90nm clock around 1.5-2ghz . and if they designed something new I can't see why it be so slow as a p3 700. Heck even an athlon 64 3000+ is pretty cheap today and compared to the p3 700 , it just blows it away.


Then comes graphics . Even ati's chips from last gen. The 9600pro will blow away a geforce 2 /3 lvl card . I'm also sure that a 9600pro chip has to be down around 15$ or so to make now . If not less . Hell the x600 is most likely around that price too.

So i don't see how nintendo is going to end up with a system so weak. It just doesn't make much sense

How much do you think the Revolution controller, plus the extra "shell" controller, plus the "nunchaka" thumbstick attachment, plus the sensor bars costs compared to a standard gamepad?

Nintendo blew a major part of their budget on the controller. They didn't have a lot of money left for the rest of the system. I told you this would be the case months ago.

 

[Powderkeg]

You were saying?

The bottom line is a significantly cheaper price makes it available to a wider audience. It will of course be the games that will ultimately make or break the system.

There is a counterpoint to that belief.

Being priced 33% cheaper than your competition makes you look like a "cheap" product.

Case in point, how many people do you know that own Aiwa televisions because they are half the price of Sony or Toshiba? Most people don't even look at them because the far cheaper price makes them think it's a shoddy product.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A cheap price didn't help the GC a lick.

The GC didn't have any differentiation though, apart from 1st party titles. Revolution offers, in theory, an expreience unattainable elsewhere, so where you could get GC-like games on PS2 and XB, you won't be getting Revolution gameplay on either console.

Nintendo need to price the machine at what they think people will pay for that experience. $300 might be too much, if they're targetting 'casuals' who don't want to shell out lots to get started on a new hobby. So make it cheaper, using cheaper hardware, to get it in lots of homes who then buy the profitable software.

@ BlueTsunami : I don't think R&D would be too much. The techniques are well known, gyros and triangulation have been used elsewhere, and they can use off-the-shelf components. Should be much, much cheaper than developing a new CPU or GPU.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Being priced 33% cheaper than your competition makes you look like a "cheap" product.

Yes, so it won't particularly appeal to those wanting "the biggest, baddest console" you can buy.

How many times do I have to say that Nintendo is not positioning the console that way?

Most people don't even look at them because the far cheaper price makes them think it's a shoddy product.

Correction. Most enthusiasts would pass them by.

Now ask, how many consumers as a whole buy "cheap, Wal-Mart TVs" vs. the more expensive ones?

 

[expletive]

A cheap price didn't help the GC a lick. I don't agree with their strategy, or the suggested pricing. Yes, I like cheap. But jeez, the specs make it sound so damn cheap. Even with my SDTV, I can't convince myself to be excited by the Rev news. The new type of gamer they'll get with this approach will probably be the same type of gamer they got with the GC, cheapskates about to get a healthy dose of buyer's remorse. Then again, I might be the only one who bought a GC b/c it was $80 less than the PS2 and Xbox, and then regretted it after realizing that Wind Waker was the best game it had. PEACE.

You make the assumption that the GC would have been better off charging $299 and having better hardware. For all we know the cheap price was the only thing keeping nintendo in the game at all last gen. Its quite possible that a GC priced in line with the PS2 and xbox would have been decimated in sales.The fact is that we have no idea if GC would have been better, worse, or same, last gen with an alternate strategy.

 

[Rodéric]

Cheap Console is only half of the deal, you need cheap games too.
So a 100/150€ console should have games priced around or under 50€, current console games are 60€ and PC games 50€.

Otherwise there's no point going on the "cheap" road at all.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Case in point, how many people do you know that own Aiwa televisions because they are half the price of Sony or Toshiba? Most people don't even look at them because the far cheaper price makes them think it's a shoddy product.

Nintendo has a much stronger brandname that AIWA, so that comparison is flawed IMO. A better comparison would be, Samsung TV's at half the price of Sony TV's, would the consumer by the Samsung? Most would.

Price may make your product look cheap, but only in the eyes of hardcore gamers. Casual gamers (the majority) don't care about stupid stuff like that, they just care about rationalizing spending hundreds of dollars on a video game console, that means it needs to have lots of good games, be cheap (< $200), and some bonus functionality like DVD playback never hurts.

It's really all about the games, I don't know how much room for optimism there is though. If N had 3rd party support issues before, it'll probably be even worse with this new controller.

edit - got toshiba and samsung mixed up!

 

[scooby_dooby]

You make the assumption that the GC would have been better off charging $299 and having better hardware. For all we know the cheap price was the only thing keeping nintendo in the game at all last gen. Its quite possible that a GC priced in line with the PS2 and xbox would have been decimated in sales.The fact is that we have no idea if GC would have been better, worse, or same, last gen with an alternate strategy.

Exactly. People say price never helped GC, but for all we know if they had've priced higher they might have done even worse, who can say?

Obviously they were missing the other piece to he puzzle (games) so the low price can't be blamed for the lack of success.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Case in point, how many people do you know that own Aiwa televisions because they are half the price of Sony or Toshiba?

Aiwa is Sony! They're a subsidiary, merged in Dec '02 I believe.

 

[mckmas8808]

Guys, can you please stop talking about the possibility of Rev being $200?

NO!! Why, so everyone here can live there little wet dream and think that they can get a next-generation console for the same price as a freaking Gameboy Micro?

Joe the GBM cost $99 today. Why in the wally wally world would Nintendo sell their next-gen console (that should have a living shelf life of at least 5 years) for $99 at launch? What price do they fall back on when the others come down in price $49? We can't even get a darn SP for $49 I don't think.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

NO!!

Then you can dispense with the requests to stop talking about a $99 Revolution.

Joe the GBM cost $99 today. Why in the wally wally world would Nintendo sell their next-gen console (that should have a living shelf life of at least 5 years) for $99 at launch?

Because they can? Because they want it to be seen as more of an "impulse buy" than a gaming investment?

Again, to be clear, I'm expecting $149. But $99 is not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[expletive]

Lets all just agree on a $149 launch price. That way when nintendo calls us to ask, we're on the same page.

 

[Entropy]

Lets all just agree on a $149 launch price. That way when nintendo calls us to ask, we're on the same page.

For the sake of sanity, remember that we have no solid rumors (much less official info) regarding CPU, GPU, memory architecture or launch price. None.
The only datapoint that has any kind of value (and that rumour is feeble as it is) is the amount of RAM.