Why would nintendo release an underpowered console a year after the release of 360?

[swaaye]

Debatable. Gamecube could do many things well, but it's lack of System RAM really hurt it's true "power."

For instance:

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/093/reviews/924557_20050404_screen018.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/086/reviews/921914_20050328_screen026.jpg

Same spot, same game, but what a difference.

Well I see a lack of more advanced pixel shading more than anything. Which is a hardware limitation of the GPU. And it looks like a photo of a TV playing the game lol.

And honestly crossports don't get my money very often because they are usually junk in many ways. Though I guess Splinter Cell is decent, though I only played it for a few mins once.

 

[Ooh-videogames]

Debatable. Gamecube could do many things well, but it's lack of System RAM really hurt it's true "power."

For instance:

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/093/reviews/924557_20050404_screen018.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/086/reviews/921914_20050328_screen026.jpg

Same spot, same game, but what a difference.

Well, the pics don't hold any weight. You post Xbox shots, then compare them to a GC shot. Only problem the GC version is a PS2 port. If it had been a Xbox-GC port, then I would a agree. I'm not suggesting that the GC can do everything the Xbox can, but the pics don't really get your point across.

 

[Powderkeg]

Well, the pics don't hold any weight. You post Xbox shots, then compare them to a GC shot. Only problem the GC version is a PS2 port. If it had been a Xbox-GC port, then I would a agree. I'm not suggesting that the GC can do everything the Xbox can, but the pics don't really get your point across.

Why do you think they ported the PS2 version to the GCN instead of the Xbox version? The Xbox version was already complete, so they could have ported it and released the GCN version sooner.

Why didn't they?

 

[darkblu]

Why do you think they ported the PS2 version to the GCN instead of the Xbox version? The Xbox version was already complete, so they could have ported it and released the GCN version sooner.

Why didn't they?

so they could use all the nice s3tc textures from the ps2 version on flipper.. oh, wait..

really, why didn't they? how about:
'we don't really have a clue why they based the gc version on the ps2 version so there's really zero weight in speculating this into a this-is-what-the-gc-could-afford argument.' ?

 

[therealskywolf]

so they could use all the nice s3tc textures from the ps2 version on flipper.. oh, wait..

really, why didn't they? how about:
'we don't really have a clue why they based the gc version on the ps2 version so there's really zero weight in speculating this into a this-is-what-the-gc-could-afford argument.' ?

Look Gamecube cant handle the Xbox version. So since they sure as hell wouldnt make 1 version just for the GC, they decided that the Ps2 version ported to the Cube would look better than Xbox version ported to the cube.

GC is a cool system, but not all that powerfull, look at RES4, now look at REs4 on the Ps2. Pfft....no wonder, the game is low rez textures galore and it doesnt really use any particularlly shader intensive work.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Again the point is the Mac Mini is smaller then Revolutions case. Plus it isn't entirely a custom design (it has a graphics card for instance and normal ram in a normal ram slot rather then having all these chips soldered straight to the motherboard which would save space). Also it has a 40GB Ultra ATA1 80GB HDD. Take all of this into consideration and its not hard to see that Nintendo can make a much more powerful system in 2006 (bigger case, more ventilation, custom design, no HDD and released 2 years later).

Is it smaller?, Iwata said at E3 that the final console will be smaller than what he showed and I think Macminis volume is more than 3 dvd cases, but my point wasn't that Nintendo can't make more powerful system than Minimac, What I said/meant was that beating minimac is nothing, they will have to go way beyond that, that's why minimac is a bad example.

 

[darkblu]

Look Gamecube cant handle the Xbox version.

i see. did you try to port it?

So since they sure as hell wouldnt make 1 version just for the GC, they decided that the Ps2 version ported to the Cube would look better than Xbox version ported to the cube.

i must be dumber than usual today as i absolutely cannot see how you draw your conclusion in the above statement based on the premises used: 'they wouldn't make a separate version for the GC' => 'they decided that a port of the ps2 version would look better'.

pardon my french, but WTF??

GC is a cool system, but not all that powerfull, look at RES4, now look at REs4 on the Ps2. Pfft....no wonder, the game is low rez textures galore and it doesnt really use any particularlly shader intensive work.

your point above being? that the game is a low-res galore on the GC? or on the PS2? or on both? where doesn't it use any intesive 'shader' work? on the PS2? on the GC?

ps: the less use of the adjective 'powerful' on you part, the more seriously people will take you.

 

[Nightz]

Look Gamecube cant handle the Xbox version. So since they sure as hell wouldnt make 1 version just for the GC, they decided that the Ps2 version ported to the Cube would look better than Xbox version ported to the cube.

GC is a cool system, but not all that powerfull, look at RES4, now look at REs4 on the Ps2. Pfft....no wonder, the game is low rez textures galore and it doesnt really use any particularlly shader intensive work.

I'm not too convinced with that. The gamecube version is a very different beast, made by a different team using the ps2 engine & art assetss not the xbox originals. Metal Arms (Swinging Ape) is a good example of Gamecube doing an Xbox game justice.

 

[Shogmaster]

Again the point is the Mac Mini is smaller then Revolutions case.

I don't know which Mac Mini you have, but:

Rev: 5.4"x7.5"x1.5" = 60.75 cu in
Mac Mini: 6.5"x6.5"x2" = 84.5 cu in

From here, it looks like Rev is smaller in volume.

Plus it isn't entirely a custom design (it has a graphics card for instance and normal ram in a normal ram slot rather then having all these chips soldered straight to the motherboard which would save space).

Vertical single DIMM would be more efficient for mobo realestate than soldered ones on the mobo. Also, there is no seperate video card in the Mac Mini. It's on the mobo.

Also it has a 40GB Ultra ATA1 80GB HDD.

Which is a 2.5" HDD, would be smaller than the difference in volume between Rev and Mac Mini.

Take all of this into consideration and its not hard to see that Nintendo can make a much more powerful system in 2006 (bigger case, more ventilation, custom design, no HDD and released 2 years later).

Smaller case, less ventilation, cheaper cost, and hardware BC. I guess it's all just depends on your perspective, eh?

GameCube had all three..

Gamecube and Xbox both debuted in late 2001. If GC was as powerful as XBox, you might have a case there, but....

 

[swaaye]

Well relatively the Xbox and Gamecube might as well be equal since if you look at them in comparison to today's hardware the differences between them are almost trivial. And honestly there are no games on Xbox that blow my mind to the degree that utterly shames Gamecube.

Comparing F-Zero GX, RE4, and say Rogue Squadron 2&3 to Xbox's best (Halo2 in my experience) is not night and day whatsoever. RE4 in particular is an absolutely gorgeous game that is utterly amazing considering it's running on a 475MHz G3+/ GF2 combo.... The machines might as well be equal IMO, and honestly I've had a lot more fun with the 'Cube. I'll go so far to say that the Gamecube was a far better engineered console from the price and ease of development angles. Factor 5 had the Cube going almost all out on launch with Rogue Leader. The developers on the forum have said several times that Cube is a highly efficient design that is easy to get the most out of. So you can have a more "powerful" Xbox which is a lot harder to take advantage of and costs far more to build, or a lean mean little machine with high integration and small, cheaper components that are geared for efficiency and price over brute force.

I fully expect Nintendo to be quite competitive with the two other players in the market. If they want to target the middle-high of tech, well good for them because they will be the ones making more or losing less money as the price of these machines drop.

 

[see colon]

I'll go so far to say that the Gamecube was a far better engineered console from the price and ease of development angles.

i'll start by saying i'm a big nintendo fan, i prefer to buy GC games over ps2 and xbox games if all things are equal (and the generaly are not, with xbox and ps2 games tending to support multi-console multiplayer either over lan or live), but the whole "GC is easier to program" argument isn't really important to me, as a consumer. who cares if 3 apes and a chimp could make a GC game if noone is producing titles on the system?

the flip side to this is that it doesn't matter how much more "powerfull" the xbox is than the ps2 or GC if no developer taps into that extra horsepower for anything meaningfull. there are a select few multiplatform games that shine exclusivly on one console and not on the others.

that said, i still tend to pick up GC games (and then ps2 games, and then xbox games) because nintndo (and sony) have comitted themselves to being backwards compatable out of the box with basicly universal compatability (that is, without buying any "premium" packages or anything like that). much of my gamecube infatuation at this point relys on the high quality, first party wireless controllers (wavebirds) and future backwards compatability. especialy for things like arcade and classic game collections that i can buy now, and play well into the next generation, without digging out my old hardware to play it on.

 

[Inane_Dork]

If they want to target the middle-high of tech, well good for them because they will be the ones making more or losing less money as the price of these machines drop.

Not necessarily true. In the above case, the price of the Rev's tech will not drop as much as it will for the X360 or PS3. The return is that it costs less from the get-go. But if you charge more for the cutting edge, the advantage becomes unclear. By 2009, for all we know, MS may be making more or losing less per unit than Nintendo.

 

[Teasy]

I don't know which Mac Mini you have, but:

Rev: 5.4"x7.5"x1.5" = 60.75 cu in
Mac Mini: 6.5"x6.5"x2" = 84.5 cu in

Revs case will be more like 6.5"x8.5"x2" (110.5 volume).

3 DVD cases is 5.2"x7.5"x1.8". Nintendo say that Revolution will be about the same height as 3 DVD cases which tells me its slightly taller (if it was the same they'd say the same and if it were smaller they'd say smaller). For length they say a bit longer then 3 DVD cases so an inch longer is a good conservative guess. For its width look at a pic of Revolution and take notice of the DVD slot. That slot has to be slightly wider then a DVD disc (so the slot itself is about the width of a DVD case). Another way to look at it is to compare the Rev pic with a pic of the Mac Mini, since they will both have the same size slot more of less. Using that as a guideline they look about the same width to me (Rev might even be slightly wider but not significantly).

Vertical single DIMM would be more efficient for mobo realestate than soldered ones on the mobo

For mobo realestate yes, but not for case realestate. With a ram stick you have extra packaging for the memory chips which means less space and worse airflow.

less ventilation, cheaper cost, and hardware BC. I guess it's all just depends on your perspective, eh?

Mac Mini has almost no ventilation so what makes you think Rev will have less (it'd have to have none to have less to be honest).

Gamecube and Xbox both debuted in late 2001. If GC was as powerful as XBox, you might have a case there, but....

I'd say that being able to put out visuals that compete well with the best on any other console that generation makes a console powerful. Maybe you should change your sig to "Small, Most Powerful, Cheap: You can have only 2"

 

[ninzel]

Ya I always saw the Rev as lisghtly larger than the Mini. The Mini is perfectly square,whereas the Rev looks rectangular. The height should be the same , the Rev looks to be slightly wider and deeper.

 

[Teasy]

Is it smaller?, Iwata said at E3 that the final console will be smaller than what he showed and I think Macminis volume is more than 3 dvd cases, but my point wasn't that Nintendo can't make more powerful system than Minimac, What I said/meant was that beating minimac is nothing, they will have to go way beyond that, that's why minimac is a bad example.

Nintendo actually didn't say that Revolution would be the size of 3 DVD cases. They said it would be about the same height as 3 DVD cases and a bit longer and they were talking about the final design not the one shown at E3. Also it has to be wider then a DVD case since the DVD slot itself has to be the same width as a DVD case (slightly wider then a DVD disc).

Also I know you didn't mean that Nintendo can't make something more powerful then Mac Mini. What I was saying is if we take the extra case size, extra ventilation, custom design and time into consideration then its not hard to see how Nintendo could make something considerably more powerful then the Mac Mini (expecially if that time gets them to 65nm). That's why I don't think it was such a bad example (even though it wasn't my example ).

 

[Powderkeg]

so they could use all the nice s3tc textures from the ps2 version on flipper.. oh, wait..

really, why didn't they? how about:
'we don't really have a clue why they based the gc version on the ps2 version so there's really zero weight in speculating this into a this-is-what-the-gc-could-afford argument.' ?

Maybe you don't have a clue, but if you thought about it, you basically have two options. You could port the superior Xbox version to the GCN, or you could port the inferior PS2 version to the GCN.

What logical reason could you come up with to justify porting the inferior version over? Especially when Xbox hardware is a lot closer to the GCN than PS2 hardware is, making it easier and cheaper to port the Xbox version.

 

[Powderkeg]

I'd say that being able to put out visuals that compete well with the best on any other console that generation makes a console powerful. Maybe you should change your sig to "Small, Most Powerful, Cheap: You can have only 2"

I would say that if visuals are all you judge power by, you don't understand what you are playing.

I don't care how pretty you make it, Mario Kart doesn't require anywhere near the processing power of Forza. You can have all of the pretty graphics you want, you aren't going to get the Forza physics and AI from GCN hardware.

It falls back to the RAM. Anything the GCN can do, the Xbox can do. But the Xbox has 40MB more system RAM, so it can do a lot of things the GCN cannot. There is no replacement for RAM, and it factors just as much into the "power" of a system as the GPU does.

 

[JasonLD]

I would say that if visuals are all you judge power by, you don't understand what you are playing.

I don't care how pretty you make it, Mario Kart doesn't require anywhere near the processing power of Forza. You can have all of the pretty graphics you want, you aren't going to get the Forza physics and AI from GCN hardware.

It falls back to the RAM. Anything the GCN can do, the Xbox can do. But the Xbox has 40MB more system RAM, so it can do a lot of things the GCN cannot. There is no replacement for RAM, and it factors just as much into the "power" of a system as the GPU does.

Lol, I don't see any reason that games like Forza cannot be done on Gamecube...why you think you can't get realistic physics and AI like Forza from Gamecube hardware? In terms of CPU horsepower, Xbox is not really better than GC.

 

[darkblu]

Maybe you don't have a clue, but if you thought about it, you basically have two options. You could port the superior Xbox version to the GCN, or you could port the inferior PS2 version to the GCN.

What logical reason could you come up with to justify porting the inferior version over? Especially when Xbox hardware is a lot closer to the GCN than PS2 hardware is, making it easier and cheaper to port the Xbox version.

i can come up with a miriad of logical reasons. funny how you can't. for example, the fact that you can take the inferior version, and just get the engine ported and use the art assets as they are - now that's cheaper than any downgrading and refactoring you'd have to do on the xbox assets, ain't it?

 

[Reznor007]

I would say that if visuals are all you judge power by, you don't understand what you are playing.

I don't care how pretty you make it, Mario Kart doesn't require anywhere near the processing power of Forza. You can have all of the pretty graphics you want, you aren't going to get the Forza physics and AI from GCN hardware.

It falls back to the RAM. Anything the GCN can do, the Xbox can do. But the Xbox has 40MB more system RAM, so it can do a lot of things the GCN cannot. There is no replacement for RAM, and it factors just as much into the "power" of a system as the GPU does.

Gamecube has 43MB of RAM (24MB main RAM, 16MB aux, 3MB framebuffer/texmem), Xbox has 64MB to split between main RAM and graphics, and I think it's been said here that GC can use S3TC textures directly, but Xbox has to decompress them before they go into the GPU cache. So much for 40MB more...