Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 10:17:34 AM
This was mentioned in the Thurdayaton thread but after reading it I felt it deserves it's own topic.
Reading it I see a few things popping out at me that really concern me.
Miyamoto says that 2006 is the year of the Revolution and the way he's saying everything it gives me the feeling that the Rev won't be shown proper until next year which is complete unacceptable. Now he also says that Spaceworld is a possibility so we're not screwed for sure and I think it's possible that Nintendo could change their mind about when to show it at virtually any time. They probably think right now that waiting is a good idea. They wouldn't have bombed on their conference otherwise. I think however they'll see how damaging the Rev no-show is and will show something in the next few months.
This interview really gives the impression that the Rev is underpowered. They ask about the power TWICE and he dodges it both times with all sorts of BS about creativity and how raw power doesn't matter and stuff like that. That sounds like an excuse. It sounds like an attempt to justify a stupid decision on Nintendo's part. If the Rev isn't underpowered then surely he would say "don't worry. It will be comparable to the other consoles." But he doesn't and Nintendo only dodges stuff like that when they know you won't like what the real answer is. I have a feeling Nintendo is back on the drawing board freaking out over how superior the specs of the other consoles are in comparison. I think they grossly underestimated what everyone else was doing.
Third parties don't have dev kits yet and there's no planned timetable for when they will. In other words Revolution third party support is going to SUCK and Nintendo is making very little effort to fix that. Third parties needed dev kits yesterday if they plan on releasing anything for launch. They need dev kits NOW. Not a few months from now, not next year but RIGHT NOW. Being similar to the Cube won't accomplish much because the Cube had sh!tty third party support. The third parties that I want to see on the Cube don't have much experience with Cube dev kits.
Reading this interview suggests to me that Nintendo wasn't prepared for what Sony was going to show. They're WAY behind and it shows and they have to bust their ass to salvage this mess. I don't think they expected Sony to show any game related footage or announce any titles or to just show that much. I don't think they thought the PS3 would be as powerful as it is. They have to get those third parties in the loop and they have to beef up the Rev's power and they have to do that very soon. They're going to have to bust their ass just to deliver the bare minimum let alone to go above and beyond expectations.
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 10:22:32 AM
Post by: Nigel on May 19, 2005, 10:27:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I have a feeling Nintendo is back on the drawing board freaking out over how superior the specs of the other consoles are in comparison. I think they grossly underestimated what everyone else was doing.
it's scary just how true this can be.
Post by: HereticPB on May 19, 2005, 10:36:10 AM
Post by: mantidor on May 19, 2005, 10:48:53 AM
I dont know what to think about the specs anyway, Im sure games will look really great, and thats enough for me. I dont see such a big difference in the overall impressions from the general audience about the next gen console's graphics, because it would hard to compare them and say which ones look better, this time it will all depend on the art direction and the effort of the devs and not just the raw horsepower of the machines.
Post by: TMW on May 19, 2005, 10:52:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: HereticPB
Smart really as the other companies tipped their hands and shown their cards and controllers. Nintendo actually doing the copying this time?
Um...there is nothing to steal.
You have a Dreamcast clone and a Sony Sextoy.
Post by: Arbok on May 19, 2005, 10:52:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: HereticPB
Smart really as the other companies tipped their hands and shown their cards and controllers. Nintendo actually doing the copying this time?
Copying isn't the word, as I doubt they will steal any of Xbox360's or PS3's ideas.
EDIT: Or what TMW said, damn my slow typing...
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 11:03:43 AM
We've heard that before. They used that excuse with the Cube and it didn't improve things. Does the Rev play games? Yes. Therefore it competes with Sony and MS.
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 11:17:40 AM
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 11:18:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Or it means they don't want to compete with Sony and Microsoft because they're looking for a different type of product."
We've heard that before. They used that excuse with the Cube and it didn't improve things. Does the Rev play games? Yes. Therefore it competes with Sony and MS.
And despite all the doom and gloom about the specs the Cube was not underpowered for the generation. Far from it.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 19, 2005, 11:23:20 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 19, 2005, 11:27:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: NigelQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I have a feeling Nintendo is back on the drawing board freaking out over how superior the specs of the other consoles are in comparison. I think they grossly underestimated what everyone else was doing.
it's scary just how true this can be.
Quote
From the interview
Shigeru Miyamoto: You know, I didn't get a chance to see the Sony and Microsoft presentations for myself, but from what I've heard from people it sounds like they are going to be using cutting-edge technology, as are we. However, the way that they are planning on implementing that technology is obviously very different from the route that we're going to be taking. On the business side of things I see where we're going and I see where they're going and I'm not worried at all. I don't think it's going to influence us at all. We're good to go.
Shigeru Miyamoto: You know, in regard to the power of the Nintendo Revolution versus, say, the Xbox 360, we're looking at making a small, quiet, affordable console. If you look at trying to incorporate all that, of course we might not have the (raw)horsepower that some other companies have, but if you look at the numbers that they're throwing out, are those numbers going to be used in-game? I mean, those are just numbers that somebody just crunched up on a calculator. We could throw out a bunch of numbers, too, but what we're going to do is wait until our chips are done and we're going to find out how everything in the game is running, what its peak performance is, and those are the numbers that we're going to release because those are the numbers that really count.
Not so sure if they are going back to the drawingboard, or if they just didn't want to show more of the same (even though some pre rendered target videos would have been nice). As usual Nintendo wants to show actual games running on actual hardware, Not target videos ala PS3.
Post by: Unsung Zero on May 19, 2005, 12:40:45 PM
Post by: Arbok on May 19, 2005, 12:46:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Unsung Zero
They have their special controller, and now they can match the specs of the other systems if they so choose (think along the lines of how quickly new technology becomes available in the computer world.)
Sony has that advantage as well, Microsoft is the only one losing out there as they are putting their system out the door so quickly.
Post by: stevey on May 19, 2005, 01:03:14 PM
Post by: trip1eX on May 19, 2005, 01:03:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Or it means they don't want to compete with Sony and Microsoft because they're looking for a different type of product.
Exactly. That's what they are doing. They are competing by differentiating. Their console will be low cost, quiet, smaller, have a new controller and give you access to the backlog of Nintendo games. They want you to be able to get experiences that are different from the other consoles.
Post by: Spak-Spang on May 19, 2005, 01:16:38 PM
It also appears that Nintendo is actually trying to take technology a different direction. So I think Miyamoto was trying to say in Raw horsepower they may have us beat, but in technological advancements that matter to gaming, we are coming up with something special.
Last very important fact is Nintendo is still looking at a reasonable price mark. If you look at the price quoted for the PS3...it will come out at $400.00!!! I am willing to bet that the Xbox 360 will be similarly priced. That is insanely expensive for a video game system. I am basically going to have to have $500.00 saved up to entire the next generation market of gaming. I can't afford that. And I don't think many can. I think the Xbox 360 will have a slower launch than Microsoft is hoping for...same with Playstation 3.
However, Nintendo could come in with a reasonably priced system that offers unique differences to the Xbox and Playstation. If that happens people may board on the cheaper, less powerful system. Plus with the option to download your favorite games, I can see that selling point making Nintendo Revolution the MUST HAVE second system in your house. Because it will play Everything else.
Post by: pudu on May 19, 2005, 01:22:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Or it means they don't want to compete with Sony and Microsoft because they're looking for a different type of product."
We've heard that before. They used that excuse with the Cube and it didn't improve things. Does the Rev play games? Yes. Therefore it competes with Sony and MS.
Yea Nintendo is definately sticking to that crazy notion that they are so "different" that they don't even need to compete...whatever that means. Ok so you can put off the next "real" GB for a "third tier" system aka the DS and say it doesn't compete with the PSP. But in truth, as everyone knows, it is PSPs competition regardless. Nintendo can say what they want as far as what they believe to be true but nothing overpowers the fact that the general public, stores, and the press all WILL make comparisons between the Revolution and the other consoles just as they did with DS vs PSP (funny that Nintendo is now basically living with this fact and comparing sales figures with PSP even though by their definition it isn't even it's competition).
Shigeru Miyamoto: Let me pose a question to you. When we launched the Nintendo DS, we didn't really say too much about its power. Do you think we've suffered?
IGNcube: No. Definitely not.
I beg to differ. There is no way to say that if the DS had more under the hood and did more multimedia things it wouldn't have done better (or posibbly worse). I think that with portables graphics are less important in general then with consoles. Now considering the difference in graphics between the PS2 and Xbox I am hoping that the Rev turns out to be no less powerful in comparison to the PS3 (by this I mean I hope it's not more of a gap then there was between PS2 and Xbox). At this difference in graphics I could deal with it and be happy for all the features and games but if it's similar to the average pc graphics of today then I'm going to be a little upset. No one can deny they don't enjoy good graphics. Graphics CAN immerse you in a game and open a whole new world of possiblities! More polys mean more to interact with, larger environments to explore, more details to include, more characters on screen, more emotional connection, etc etc. Let's just hope Nintendo has both superior control AND graphics! You hear me Nintendo?
What do you guys think superiour graphics and physics can add other then eye candy???
Edit: spelling (sorry if there is more...)
Post by: ThePerm on May 19, 2005, 01:26:18 PM
he has other people doign his projects for him and he isn't even examining the competition.
They are a business. They have to realise this. They are worried about being copied? so what?
Being first is more important to everyone else than being copied.
Seriosuly I watched both microsoft and sony's conferences and they were 1000 times better than
nintendo's
Post by: LuWoo75 on May 19, 2005, 01:30:42 PM
I do agree that Nintendo didnt count on sony showing this much of there stuff right now. I feel sony felt like they had to in order to keep my post is a train wreck from dominating this year's E3. Think about it for a minute if Sony didnt do what they are doing they woulda took E3. Sony did exactly what it had to do come out with the highest specs or at least an illusion of even if they had to fudge the #'s no one is going to second guess it cause there is no software running on it to back it up.
Nintendo wasn't ready for this and there arn't going to fudge #'s just to play the same game. I even bet Nintendo wasnt' even going to show or even have a final design on the rev until sony started showing theirs.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 01:31:38 PM
The problem with this logic is that it only works for exclusives. Companies like EA, Ubisoft and Activision aren't going to take the time to make use out of what the Rev provides. They're going to take the version of Madden, Splinter Cell, and Tony Hawk that the other consoles get and shoehorn it into the Rev, even if they have to remove stuff to do it. So you get the same situation as the Cube where the exclusives are amazing but everything else is a half-assed port. By providing comparable hardware Nintendo doesn't get stuck with the sh!ttiest version of every multiplatform game. And the problem is that Nintendo isn't in a position where they can rely on third party exclusives. They have the weakest third party support. For now they have to rely on multiplatform games to fill in the gaps. In order to increase the amount of exclusives they get they have to increase their market share and they can't do that if they always get the worst version of Madden because they didn't match specs.
The PS2 gets the best versions of most multiplatform titles because it's the market leader. The Xbox gets the best versions of a lot of multiplatform titles because it's the most powerful console. The Cube rarely gets the best version of multiplatform titles because it is neither. If the Rev is underpowered it's in the same position that the Cube is in.
Post by: LuWoo75 on May 19, 2005, 01:49:29 PM
I was pleased to hear Kid Icarus is going to make an appearance on the nrev though.
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 02:00:45 PM
Nintendo is not going to magically get more third party exclusives either. The depth of the 1st, 2nd party library and the small market share make it the worst possible target for most games right now.
They've got three cards to play this generation.
1) Price. The Revolution will almost certainly be the cheapest of the three consoles
2) 1st and 2nd Party Exclusives: Nintendo always has the deepest library of quality 1st party and 2nd party titles. Microsoft proved last generation that money can't buy that kind of support. Not even a whole LOT of money.
3) History: Nintendo has been around the longest and despite its current position is still synonymous with gaming to many.
All signs point to them realizing this and playing them
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 02:37:07 PM
They don't sell consoles but they help not sell consoles. Negatives add up. If the Rev has the worst versions of Madden and Tony Hawk that's a negative and it's something that someone considers when they buy a console. One of the Cube's biggest problems is that it had a whole buttload of little negative things. On their own they weren't that big of deal but combined they made on big fat reason to NOT buy a Cube. Having the worst version of Madden didn't put the Cube in last place. No it was that combined with no DVD playback, no online games, a restrictive controller, no demo discs, small memory cards, component cables that have to be ordered online, weak third party support & not enough mature games.
If the Rev is underpowered it already has two negative points in that it's the weakest hardware and if has the worst versions of multiplatform titles. Two negative points that Nintendo can see coming a mile away and can stop right now. There's always going to be some negatives that the console maker has no control over. But they should always try to nail the ones they do have control over so those combined with the uncontrollable ones don't mess everything up. The Rev is going to have weak third party support. Nintendo can't fix that problem overnight. Combined with those other two that they can fix overnight already we've got a big fat reason not to buy a Rev and we don't even know all the details yet. They'll never EVER overcome the uncontrollable negatives without first addressing all the ones that they do have direct control over. How can anyone have faith in a console maker that has had two "loser consoles" in a row that doesn't fix problems starring them right in the face a year before launch?
I don't know about you but I got pretty sick last gen of Nintendo creating their own problems and then not solving them. Nintendo has never been more unpopular than they are right now. All it takes is ONE EXCUSE for people not to care and they won't. Well here's one excuse and it's a big one.
Post by: Kairon on May 19, 2005, 02:49:21 PM
I've never been a Nintendo fan for their marketshare, nor for their graphics. I stay interested In Nintendo because they do some of the best innovation and gameplay I've gotten my hands on.
You seem to want Nintendo to be everything Sony and MS are, AND more. Well, I'd just like to tell you, it can't be done. You simply CAN'T one-up Sony or Microsoft at their own game. It's all Nintendo can do to just keep up.
Therefore, Nintendo will ALWAYS have those negatives. Nintendo's only hope to survive is to create positives via quality games and innovative gameplay that can balance those negatives out. This is what Nintendo seems to be pursuing.
Look Ian Sane, you're asking for Nintendo to BE Sony and Microsoft. They simply can't. They don't have the resources, the know-how, nor do they have the pervading market presence or any brand at all outside the videogaming field. What you're asking for is impossible, and it is all Nintendo can do to simply keep up.
Look at it this way: Nintendo is NOT a hardware maker. They are a software maker who maintain a presence in the hardware market to make their software innovations possible. If you want a cutting edge powerhouse system, fine, get a PS3 or XBO360. Sony and Microsoft can give you what they want, but Nintendo, a company whose NES was ALREADY inferior technology against its competitors, they're not the company you're looking for.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Arbok on May 19, 2005, 02:56:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I can't wait for you to stop caring Ian Sane.
I must add that the day Ian Sane stops caring will be a sad one indeed, he may be tough on Nintendo, but one would be hard pressed to deny that he doesn't bring a lot of important points to the table.
In regards to the power of the Revolution, I'm sure Nintendo is not going to drop the ball here. They still have a lot of time left to work on this, and if anything seeing the Xbox360 and PS3 likely pointed them in the right direction if perhaps they were going for something else. Only speculation, though, of course.
Post by: jasonditz on May 19, 2005, 02:59:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
If the Rev is underpowered it already has two negative points in that it's the weakest hardware and if has the worst versions of multiplatform titles. Two negative points that Nintendo can see coming a mile away and can stop right now.
How. We've seen the PS3's specs. We've also heard reports that its going to cost $450 at launch in Japan. The only way Nintendo can make their hardware as strong is to make it as expensive. So, if Nintendo whips out the Revolution as the unquestioned leader in performance and then announces a $500 launch price, is that stopping a problem or creating a bigger problem?
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 03:23:17 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 05:17:51 PM
No I don't. If I wanted that I wouldn't even be on this forum. I would just buy a PS2 or Xbox. I want Nintendo to be Nintendo. Ever played the NES, SNES or any Gameboy? That's the Nintendo I want Nintendo to be. They've got it in them. Look at the GBA. It's the current Nintendo on top of it's game providing a system that delivers on all fronts. Why is it so weird to want the same thing for Nintendo consoles? The SNES was in direct competition it's whole life. Nintendo didn't have a monopoly or anything. They were under pressure and they delivered huge. That's the Nintendo I became a fan of and that's the Nintendo I want to see.
I want Nintendo to do well because I like their games and I like their quality. I see a game industry full of idiots raised by the Playstation who are turning the industry into crap. I want Nintendo to have a bigger presence. I want them to be respected. I want them to call the shots. I don't want Nintendo to be Sony and MS. I want Sony and MS to be Nintendo. I want to see a game industry where Nintendo influences where the industry goes instead of non-gaming corporations like Sony and Microsoft who only care about taking our money. Gaming was better when Nintendo had more influence.
Post by: ThePerm on May 19, 2005, 05:29:12 PM
I want graphics too...but not because im a gfx whore...i just know that some things in gameplay can only be achieved if the graphic realisation is high
Post by: foolish03 on May 19, 2005, 05:40:04 PM
Post by: Kairon on May 19, 2005, 05:49:36 PM
You do realize that the era when Nintendo had more influence was when Hiroshi Yamauchi was illegally opressing the other game companies right? They would dictate which games WOULD and WOULDN'T be released due to their own interpretation of the game's quality, they put restrictions on the number of games third parties could release in any one year, they were also naturally conservative in the content of games, though the quality of graphics those days probably made it unnecessary.
The Nintendo you want is a Nintendo made possible only by the incompetence of third parties, the collapse of the videogame industry in '83, and by Hiroshi Yamauchi's hated tactics.
It certainly was a golden age, but it was a golden age because the genies we have today hadn't been let out of the bottle. Those genies are competent third parties who can make decently successful games, the evoltuion of technology to a point where Nintendo can no longer stay on top, and the successful rebirth of an Industry that Nintendo saved, such that it has more stylistic directions than Nintendo could probably care about.
Sure, that golden age was great, and it was necessary. The collapse of '83 put the industry in a spot suchas where only Hiroshi Yamauchi and Nintendo could save it. They saved it by impinging on developer's freedoms (Nintendo dictated Q & A, max # of games that could be released in a year) and by completely obliterating the "adult" portion of videogaming, instead, recasting it towards children.
In a sense, Nintendo's success at saving videogames has evolved the market to such a point where Nintendo simply can't take the game industry further in certain ways. This is when Sony came in, to do things with games that Nintendo couldn't. (Become more hardware centric, let third parties blossom, re-enter the adult videogame market)
This isn't a bad thing, but the viewpoint allows one to reinterpret Nintendo. Nintendo is perhaps the most important videogame company of all time: they saved videogames. But the period where videogames needed intensive care is over. Gaming, now constantly changing and evolving, is too large an enterprise to be overseen by one micro-managing perfectionist company like Nintendo.
Nintendo still has a lot to give to videogaming, but not as the be-all and end-all of interactive entertainment. I agree with you, a lot of todays games are simply...lacking... and Sony and Microsoft have turned the entire gaming world commercialistic and mass market. Yet that's part of what gaming is now, for better or worse, and it's precisely that way because Nintendo taught the world that videogames were fun.
I wouldn't know what to make of it if Nintendo was in the top dog position again. I bet it would be good overall, but I doubt that Nintendo has anywhere NEAR the energy, resources, to last long in such a position. But I feel that Nintendo has already been in that position during the 80's and early 90's, and that they were able to give the gaming industry so much in that time that there's probably nothing left the game industry could learn from them in that form.
Now I see a Nintendo who's still creating amazing games and still driving forward with their beliefs in innovation, game control, all-age access, and quality. I don't see a company that used to BE videogames, I see a company that is more successful than ever at making new and brilliant games in their own style, a company that innovates, and can lead by example instead of merely by monopolistic Yamauchi-esque edicts.
I agree though... EVERY Nintendo fan wants Nintendo to be #1 again. But I'd hope that Nintendo fans also realize that they never really loved Nintendo because they were in a position of power over other companies. I'd hope they realized that Nintendo gave us the first battery-backed saves in the original Zelda, gave us warp zones in Super Mario Bros., the portable gameboy, Mario Paint and Pokemon, the oft-copied light world/dark world mechanic from Zelda:Lttp, the analog control from the N64 and the lock-on battle system from Zelda: OoT and WW.
All of these never came because Nintendo was #1. They came because Nintendo refused to compromise their values in the face of adversity, and even though this may have cost them the #1 position in the industry, their games were able to be realized in the way that Nintendo wanted them to be.
In a way, I ultimately believe that the world benefits more from Nintendo's freedom to create things the way they want to, than from Nintendo being in a position to babysit all the other companies.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 06:20:58 PM
Post by: Caillan on May 19, 2005, 06:56:20 PM
Quote
You do realize that the era when Nintendo had more influence was when Hiroshi Yamauchi was illegally opressing the other game companies right?
He specifically mentioned the SNES era, when Nintendo had influence because they were big, but they couldn't coerce developers because they'd go to Sega.
Quote
. . . the evoltuion of technology to a point where Nintendo can no longer stay on top. . .
Nintendo can keep up with technology. The Cube has pushed more polygons than the XBox ever has, and the DS is still powerful, even if it's overshadowed by the PSP in that respect.
Quote
I wouldn't know what to make of it if Nintendo was in the top dog position again. I bet it would be good overall, but I doubt that Nintendo has anywhere NEAR the energy, resources, to last long in such a position.
Being the market leader gives you energy. The PS2 would have crumbled at launch if Sony wasn't the market leader in the first place. An expensive console with a terrible launch line-up backed up by mainstream media penetration won this generation.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2005, 07:10:05 PM
You act as if these too things are mutually exclusive. Ever played Goldeneye or Ocarina of Time. HUGE games. Sold millions and millions of copies. Both incredibly innovative both pure Nintendo. Both catered to the current market. There's no rule that you can't make a cool game that the mainstream likes that is innovative and really good. It's been done and it's been successful.
Post by: Artimus on May 19, 2005, 07:38:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"You guys want Nintendo to cater to the status quo and Nintendo wants to innovate in another direction."
You act as if these too things are mutually exclusive. Ever played Goldeneye or Ocarina of Time. HUGE games. Sold millions and millions of copies. Both incredibly innovative both pure Nintendo. Both catered to the current market. There's no rule that you can't make a cool game that the mainstream likes that is innovative and really good. It's been done and it's been successful.
Both those games were on the #2 system.
Post by: Mario on May 19, 2005, 08:03:18 PM
Post by: ThePerm on May 19, 2005, 10:24:26 PM
Post by: Arbok on May 19, 2005, 10:28:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
up reggie interview on gamespot...he said the right things again..he should be king of the company.
Yeah, watched that too, very well done. I liked the part where he wanted to take questions from the crowd around him before it was over.
Post by: ThePerm on May 19, 2005, 11:16:55 PM
Post by: ThePerm on May 19, 2005, 11:41:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"You guys want Nintendo to cater to the status quo and Nintendo wants to innovate in another direction."
You act as if these too things are mutually exclusive. Ever played Goldeneye or Ocarina of Time. HUGE games. Sold millions and millions of copies. Both incredibly innovative both pure Nintendo. Both catered to the current market. There's no rule that you can't make a cool game that the mainstream likes that is innovative and really good. It's been done and it's been successful.
Both those games were on the #2 system.
actually..it was the number one system till 2000...its funny how everyone talks of playstation like it really beat nintendo hard. BUT ITS BOGUS. in 1999 nintendo anounced they had majority market share. playstation 2 was released in 2000 and at the same time 2000 was an almost dead yerar fro nintendo (as well as 2001) ...so it basically gave the market to sony by not having anything. It had nothing to do with cds versus carts..it was all to do with the lack of games nintendo had. I'm tired..i remember reading the market announcement years ago..but i cant find the link on ign64...i used to have it bookmarked.
wait it might be in here
http://www.forbes.com/1999/06/22/feat.html
http://ign64.ign.com/articles/083/083355p1.html more accurately
Post by: Artimus on May 20, 2005, 02:28:13 AM
Post by: stevey on May 20, 2005, 06:45:26 AM
Shigeru Miyamoto: [Laughs] You're doubting me, aren't you? I can see that you're over there mistrusting my word. I understand. [Laughs]
Of course. It's set in stone. It has been determined. I'd love to show it to you. I'd love to be able to show you the features of the Revolution controller and tell you about them. However, unfortunately if we do that too early those ideas would be stolen. We know that from past history. Analog stick. Boom - gone. Rumble Pak. We bring it out and everybody has to have rumble. We got the wireless out first and now there's wireless everywhere. So we have to keep it under wraps. "
Read it! Stop doubting nintendo. They not going to die ike sega did they not losing money. The rev not going to be crony, and in term of power the rev is to the 360 as the cube is to xbox. Ian and every body that think nintendo dose not know what there doing forget E3*03 they know they f*ck up but didn't have nothing to show and fix it at 04, and 05 was a no show because there going to be a space would right before 360 release. So stop bashing nintendo idea unless they relly suck for sure
ps sony stole the 3D glass idea with sly 3d
Post by: Ian Sane on May 20, 2005, 07:14:00 AM
That's not good. The Cube was the second most powerful console. The Rev would be the third. The Rev should be to the PS3 as the Cube is to the Xbox. The Rev is coming out after the Xbox 360 and thus should have better hardware.
Post by: wandering on May 20, 2005, 01:37:18 PM
I don't think little mistakes like that were the problem. Strong positives trump minor negatives....it's just that GameCube didn't really have any strong positives (except great first party games). GC wasn't the first console out, it wasn't the most powerful console, it didn't have name brand recognition, and it didn't have a killer app at launch. In short, it didn't have anything to make it stand out...except the color purple, which didn't help any.
The situation is ENTIRELY different this time around. Now, Microsoft and Sony are the ones without anything of value to offer. They have improved graphics and underwhelming games. The mainstream doesn't care. No one seems excited by these new consoles. Last time around, when ps2 was unveiled, everyone ate it up. Now, well, the unveiling of the ipod mini got more press coverage than the unveiling of the ps3 and 360.
Now, let's look at Nintendo. Look what they're already offering: 20-year backwards compatability and free online. Huge positives that the competition can't offer....and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Apparently, we're also getting a revolutionary controller, new types of games with broad appeal, an incredible launch lineup that includes Super Smash Bros. ONLINE and a new Miyamoto game, and an affordable price. Those are all huge positives that will register with the mainstream and won't be offered by Sony or Microsoft.
Yes, the 360 an early launch (though I don't think Microsoft is offering enough to convince many to splurge and switch over just yet). Yes the PS3 has the best graphics and the ability to play blue ray movies (which might count for something if the console is actually affordable. I doubt it will be.) But- and maybe I'm missing the boat here - I really think Nintendo has the upper hand.
Quote
The Cube was the second most powerful console. The Rev would be the third. The Rev should be to the PS3 as the Cube is to the Xbox. The Rev is coming out after the Xbox 360 and thus should have better hardware.
I agree that would be ideal.
And I AM worried about graphics. Miyamoto brought up the DS vs. PSP, but graphics don't matter nearly as much in handhelds as they do in consoles. The Rev cannot look a generation behind the PS3. As good as graphics are becoming, people will still be able to see the difference if there's a big enough gap. So, I'm hoping Nintendo doesn't underestimate the value of good graphics as much as, say, Rare underestimates the value of a good framerate.
On the other hand, I don't think I'd mind that much if the Revolution was on par with the Xbox 360 visually, even if some of the innards weren't technically up to snuff. Here's a couple of things to keep in mind: a) ps3's actual graphics won't look nearly as good as they do now, b) the ps2 was underpowered, and c) Revolution's fist party visuals will still likely look better then 360's because of good art direction and such.
As long as the consoles all LOOK the same, as they pretty much do this generation (though hopefully this time they'll be even closer), I'll be happy.
Should Nintendo really pay an exorbitant sum of money just to get a tiny incrcrease in the quality of the visuals?
Yes, mindshare is important too, but I don't think having the 'most powerful' console will mean much this time around. I think we're past the point where people nuts over something just because you tell them it has better specs. The games need to look great and play great, that's all that really matters..... and I think revolution will deliver.
Post by: mantidor on May 20, 2005, 03:39:38 PM
Post by: Galford on May 20, 2005, 03:42:12 PM
What tells me Rev is underpowered is the size. One reason the PS3 is so big is it generates a lot of heat. How many people here know that the XBox360 is water cooled? That is the only reason that XBox360 is the size it is.
The Rev at best is the size of CD-ROM player. There is no way in hell an air-cooled system that size could be more powerful then either XBox360 or PS3.
Post by: BlackGriffen on May 20, 2005, 04:55:35 PM
Nintendo and MS are going to the exact same company for the graphics chips (ATI)
Nintendo, MS, and Sony are all going to the exact same company for the CPUs (IBM)
Without getting too much into the nitty gritty details of the arch of the systems I will say that there's a good reason Sony turned to Nvidia for a graphics chip instead of just using the Cell (like I believe they'd originally planned): the graphics chip will be the most critical component determining how much graphical power the devs will use. All that raw horsepower the Cell has is really nifty on paper but actually utilizing it is no mean feet. Given that difficulty, in terms of how much CPU power devs will actually utilize, I would be genuinely surprised if the three systems didn't come out to be pretty comparable.
In terms of the graphics chips, it's more interesting. Rev is launching later, so it should, in theory, have a better chip than XBox360 (Nintendo may opt for a roughly comparable one that is cheaper, though). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo opts for a very similar chip to the one in the XBox 360. What makes me say that? Well, we know that NEC is licensing MoSys's 1T-SRAM for use in the Rev (according to MoSys). We also know that NEC is actually manufacturing a part of the graphics chip being using the the XBox360 that gives it full screen MSAA (anti-aliasing) and a number of other things "for free" (ie with no impact on the main chip core). This part is a bunch of memory surrounded by some logic for doing that stuff. If it turns out that this part of the graphics chip uses 1T-SRAM, then I would be genuinely surprised if it doesn't get used in the Rev.
Nvidia, on the other hand, is behind Sony's chip, so what it boils down to is: who will have the better graphics chip, ATI or Nvidia? Given the current situation of the graphics chip market, I'd be surprised if either was a break out leader.
Long story short: it would be surprising if the Rev is significantly underpowered.
BlackGriffen
Post by: jasonditz on May 20, 2005, 05:00:52 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 20, 2005, 05:15:39 PM
Post by: mantidor on May 20, 2005, 07:27:16 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on May 20, 2005, 11:37:15 PM
Quote
What tells me Rev is underpowered is the size. One reason the PS3 is so big is it generates a lot of heat. How many people here know that the XBox360 is water cooled? That is the only reason that XBox360 is the size it is.
The Rev at best is the size of CD-ROM player. There is no way in hell an air-cooled system that size could be more powerful then either XBox360 or PS3.
You're judging a book by it's cover.
Here's what I think. I think the Rev's controller isn't going to be revolutionary. I think that's just a red herring to throw us off from the REAL revolution.
I think the Rev is going to be eight times as powerful as the PS3 and Xbox combined. And it was designed to be super-small on purpose. It's so that it can generate heat. Because the Rev is entirely wireless, and that includes not needing to plug into an electrical outlet. The Rev is powered by the heat that it generates. This doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics, because the energy fueling the reaction is being provided by the "burning" of the CPU, which will be quite burned out after about a decade or two of heavy use.
Post by: Caillan on May 21, 2005, 12:38:29 AM
Post by: Nephilim on May 21, 2005, 12:53:44 AM
also is a G4 interview with him
personally I think the vision is good so far
More worrying is the people who are blowing this out of the water
many arguement are downright silly
Things like the size.... doesnt mean anything, u can fit a ultrapowerful computer in the cube easly using laptop parts
fans....my computer has 6fans, doesnt mean its more powerful then 360 gosh, just cause the 360 has 2, doesnt mean much
Post by: OptimusPrime on May 21, 2005, 02:52:25 AM
Nintendo probably was allready distributed some Appel G5's with Ati cards in it and some early specsheets to developers like months...same as Microsoft and Sony. At E3 they probably showed the finalised controller to the big third parties...Yuji Naka probably has a great quirky idea in his head allready.
And the Rev underpowered... this is Nintendo, they are developers themselves and if you look at the average first party game those developers like to put in some kick-ass graphics in their game. Nintendo isn't going to block its own teams, they have huge input in the design of Nintendo's consoles.
The Revolution will probably have the most efficient hardware of the 3 consoles by a long shot. Efficientcy means more power without a increase in heat or all the other negatives you get by increasing power. Efficientcy means huge ease of development.
probably IBM is making a new more efficient and powerful version of the Gekko (offcourse up-to-date with everything and so on). No one ever read those interviews with the main-engineer of the Gekko? He stated that Nintendo was so closely involved with the development of the Gekko that it almost felt he worked for Nintendo instead of IBM.
And Perrin Kaplan is a first class dum-dum when it comes to technicallities. What in blazes does she know about technology. She's probably one those persons that go estatic that the lights switches on when she hits the lightswitch.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 21, 2005, 11:14:26 AM
Interview with Iwata
Quote
Question: All three consolemakers, yourself included, have unveiled their plans for the next console generation. How do you feel about Nintendo's prospects with Revolution at this point?
Iwata: In the first place, Sony and Microsoft are taking about the same approach for the future by making machines with powerful and sophisticated technology. Nintendo is taking a little bit different approach, and I think this is an interesting contrast.
Of course, we are applying advances in technology. But when you use those advances just to boost the processing power, the trade-off is that you increase power consumption, make the machine more expensive and make developing games more expensive. When I look at the balance of that trade-off -- what you gain and what you lose -- I don't think it's good. Nintendo is applying the benefits of advanced technology, but we're using it to make our machines more power-efficient, quieter and faster to start. And we're making a brand-new user interface. I think that way of thinking is the biggest difference.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on May 22, 2005, 01:22:37 AM
Post by: jasonditz on May 22, 2005, 05:47:31 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on May 22, 2005, 06:54:56 AM
