Post by: Requiem on February 21, 2006, 07:33:45 PM
That's tiny.
I never actually tried stacking DVD cases together. I'm around them so much that I didn't feel the need to. I must say, now that I actually tried it out, it shocked me.
The Rev is ridiculously tiny. Tinier then I imagined. But why?
Why is the console so small?
I remember a qoute from Square-Enix
Quote
"Not just a portable, not just a console - it's exactly what we wanted in that it's the birth of a completely new platform."
What the hell does that mean?
I have a feeling that the third Revolutionary feature has to do with its size. To think about it logically, why would Nintendo essentially shoot themselves in the foot by making their system vastly underpowered than the competition, if not for a good reason? They wouldn't. They must have a good reason.
They say its to have a cheap system that everyone can enjoy, but I believe that has nothing to do with the reason for making it so small.
I don't think Nintendo is trying to sport the Rev as some console that you can attach a screen to and take on trips. If this actually happened, I'd be pleased, but I feel its a waste since the DS handles that side of things very well. Plus, it would be impossible to play REV games on it since you have to place the sensors where they are unlikely to move (at least that's my understanding). So all you could play are games already out.
I don't know what else it could be though......It's late and my creativity has dwindled.
nintendo-revolution.blogspot.com has spouted some claims about 3D projection. As much as I would like to believe that Nintendo has some Nasa like glass in store for us, my skeptical side says its a little far-fetched. And I doubt Nintendo, the one that has been spouting "Non-gamer! Non-gamer!" for a while now, would make people wear here some sort of googles or visors.
Anyway, what do you guys think?
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 21, 2006, 07:46:49 PM
Why else would you need a stand to charge it on?
Post by: wandering on February 21, 2006, 07:52:07 PM
They went with less advanced, but possibly more specilized tech, to keep costs down for consumers and themselves. They saw they could use this tech to make a smaller console. They did.
Size is important to people. The popularity of the ipod nano and mac mini and tiny cell phones are proof of this. Someone (Ian) is going to bring up that size didn't help the cube. That's because graphics were much more important last generation (also, the cube was purple.)
This generation, graphics have reached a plateu... and I think to the consumer, "next-gen graphics" is a bullet point that all three consoles will have, no comparison necessary. You can see this in the discussions people are having on message boards: specs are debated, but nowhere near as much as last gen. So, to the average consumer, the rev will have "next gen graphics" with an amazing form factor (and cool blue light), and the competition won't. This will be a huge boon for Nintendo that a lot of people aren't factoring in.
Post by: IceCold on February 21, 2006, 07:53:21 PM
Post by: Mario on February 21, 2006, 08:21:57 PM
Post by: Talon on February 21, 2006, 08:43:24 PM
Now back to reality the reason the Rev is so small will be most likely to appeal to the Japanese consumer. Japanese like small things to put in their shoebox apartments (space is a big reality in Japan). If you look at the size of the Xbox360 and the George Foreman Grill 3 (ps3) they are monsters compared to the revolution and would be less appealing to the Japanese consumer. You also have to remember that Nintendo is targeting non-gamers this generation and alot of people dont like big huge boxes cluttering up their living spaces. Not to mention the fact that the technology they have invested is alot smaller in size than their counterparts.
Personally id rather a smaller console for aesthetic reasons. But at the end of the day I just like everyone else on these boards would be considered part of the "Hardcore" demographic and really couldnt care less if the rev was the size of 3 shoeboxes stacked on each other.
Post by: Artimus on February 21, 2006, 08:45:00 PM
The cube is small width/length wise, but it's really tall. It only fits at the very bottom of my entertainment space at home, none of the other shelves are high enough.
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on February 22, 2006, 01:24:40 AM
Post by: Ceric on February 22, 2006, 03:49:04 AM
That being said I move around alot and small consoles are good for that. Nintendo has, since the Cube, had the philosophy that your console should be able to get up and go. I mean they included a handle. Also your right Japan space is tight and so it is in most of the civilized world besides North America.
Post by: MaryJane on February 22, 2006, 04:33:04 AM
When I first pulled my cube out of it's box, with my brother and mom standing next to me we all went, "That's it?". Not in a bad way, but in a good surprised manner. It was rather shocking and pretty cool to think, wow this little thing is gonna me provide with endless of hours of quality nintendo entertainment. Then bringing the cube around my xbox/ps2 friends they were all like what the hell, the xbox ppl were blown away by it's size, the ps2 morons who constantly told me the cube was inferior to graphics finally believed me that something half the size of their machine was better. Shock (or cool) factor.
Then fast forward to e3 last year, Iwata walks on stage and I'm thinking where the hell is the console... and he pulls in out of jacket pocket... if you're like me and wear suit jackets often you know they're not all that big, I was friggin astounded when he did it. Now imagine reactions of 360/ps3 peeps when they see an even smaller revolution. (it is a lot different seeing something in person than on t.v, we can't all go to e3, hey that rhymes... moving along) while the graphics won't be better than sony this time around, they will be comparable. It won't be like a 64 to an NES.
I totally agree with other reasons, like it's been long said about how much the Japanese value space, and so do I my room is cluttered with collectibles and the stuff i don't clean up, so if i can stick my rev in the little space between my tv stand, and computer desk i'd be very please cuz i have to put the cube on my bed when I want to play and in my closet when not. So, there are tons of reasons.
Post by: JonLeung on February 22, 2006, 04:54:14 AM
Also, you can carry it around. It helps the "hey, check this out factor", without having a handle that some people seem to have issues with.
I should stack 3 DVD cases and check that out myself. I remember first seeing, with my own eyes, a GBC and a GameCube and thinking both were very small at those times.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 22, 2006, 06:45:02 AM
Money. Nintendo likes to make profits from everything and can't stand to ever lose money. To get the price point they want with no loss and perhaps even a profit margin on consoles sold Nintendo has to skimp on the hardware. Whenever Nintendo compromises something you can pretty much always assume it's to save money.
The size I imagine is in response to the Japanese market. The Rev period is in response to the Japanese market. The whole non-gamer strategy for example is directly related to the market in Japan. Nintendo has also made a big deal about how quiet the system is. No one in North America gives a sh!t so I assume that's also a Japanese thing. NCL seems really trapped in their little bubble and are making worldwide decisions without any regard to the other markets.
I imagine Nintendo saying things like "people are becoming bored with games" and showing off a console the size of three DVD cases makes tons of sense to Japanese gamers. Here in North America we're just like "why are they cutting out HD again?"
Post by: RiskyChris on February 22, 2006, 06:49:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"To think about it logically, why would Nintendo essentially shoot themselves in the foot by making their system vastly underpowered than the competition, if not for a good reason?"
Money. Nintendo likes to make profits from everything and can't stand to ever lose money. To get the price point they want with no loss and perhaps even a profit margin on consoles sold Nintendo has to skimp on the hardware. Whenever Nintendo compromises something you can pretty much always assume it's to save money.
The size I imagine is in response to the Japanese market. The Rev period is in response to the Japanese market. The whole non-gamer strategy for example is directly related to the market in Japan. Nintendo has also made a big deal about how quiet the system is. No one in North America gives a sh!t so I assume that's also a Japanese thing. NCL seems really trapped in their little bubble and are making worldwide decisions without any regard to the other markets.
I imagine Nintendo saying things like "people are becoming bored with games" and showing off a console the size of three DVD cases makes tons of sense to Japanese gamers. Here in North America we're just like "why are they cutting out HD again?"
What do you want? Nintendo to make a system catered to American gamers and completely ignore the Japanese market? They had to make a decision either way. I know a lot of people who are bored with games (myself included) who will probably jump onto the Nintendo bandwagon (I've been a supporter my whole life).
Look at iPod sales in the states to see how much the American public cares about design and simple functionality.
Post by: JonLeung on February 22, 2006, 06:58:54 AM
Japanese games are what I mostly play (seeing as how I play a lot of Nintendo games, but also games from longtime developers which tend to be Japanese). I don't mind if they don't care much for American concerns, especially tastes in games. Do I need another generic FPS, like another in a long line of WWII shooters? No. Do I care for realistic sports games? No. I'm generalizing, of course, but those genres seem more to be from Western developers who care too much about realism. If I could say I'm getting bored of games, it's not because of the Japanese.
Post by: MaryJane on February 22, 2006, 07:09:45 AM
Don't believe me? Here's a quote from sony (copied and pasted from an ign report): In a recent interview with Japanese economic website Tokyo Keizai, Kutaragi said the company wants "for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."
wow that's really how you want a company to think of you? as a pawn who'll buy they're system no matter by what means they must do it? we don't care if people start prostituting themselves to buy our system, as long as they buy it. real nice.
small, cheap, quiet, usuable by everyone, that doesn't really seem to japanese only.
EDIT: I went back to get the exact quote.
Post by: TMW on February 22, 2006, 07:51:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Money. Nintendo likes to make profits from everything and can't stand to ever lose money. To get the price point they want with no loss and perhaps even a profit margin on consoles sold Nintendo has to skimp on the hardware. Whenever Nintendo compromises something you can pretty much always assume it's to save money.
Christ, Ian. You make it sound like thats a bad thing.
Take a step back for a moment and try to look at this objectively . Both Sony and Microsoft are practicing BAD BUSINESS. They are going to LOSE money everytime they sell a console. Its stupid, and somehow they've managed to convince everyone that its the way things are done.
So, when Nintendo comes along and does things the way they are supposed to be done, people get all uppity cause Ninty doesn't want to provide the raw, cost prohibitive horsepower of the other two and lose money just so they can claim equality.
In short, don't assume that Sony and MS are doing this the right way. Look at MS and Sony for what they really are. Big, Multifaceted Corporations using videogame consoles to push non-gaming related technologies on the consumer.
Post by: Caliban on February 22, 2006, 08:20:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Nintendo has also made a big deal about how quiet the system is. No one in North America gives a sh!t so I assume that's also a Japanese thing. NCL seems really trapped in their little bubble and are making worldwide decisions without any regard to the other markets.
I imagine Nintendo saying things like "people are becoming bored with games" and showing off a console the size of three DVD cases makes tons of sense to Japanese gamers. Here in North America we're just like "why are they cutting out HD again?"
I for one want it as mute as possible, to have another humming electronic object at home is quite pollutive to the domestic environment and my ears.
If you think Nintendo is making decisions without any regards to other markets, well I agree with you but then again so did Sony and MicroSoft and many other companies not related to the video-game industry.
I wonder who's really trapped in their own little bubble. Everyone has their own little bubble...
HD? Well, at the moment I really don't care, plus I can't invest on a HD set right now (I have college, and my other hobbies are already using my hard-earned money), and nor will my parents get one because it's pointless and it would have no use for them. Now that's just what happens in my house but I bet there are alot of people that are in a similar situation.
I would rather support a company that supports consumers with little budgets, and to boot, those with mid to big budgets will also be content because they are saving money that they can use for other things.
Blah! Blah! Blah!
Post by: KDR_11k on February 22, 2006, 08:23:46 AM
I'm not saying the Rev will sell few games, just that it shouldn't be assumed and relied upon that it'll sell many.
Post by: JonLeung on February 22, 2006, 08:26:51 AM
Now while I'm sure Nintendo doesn't stand to lose as much on each one, do they actually profit? I can understand the GBA being profitable as it wasn't exactly based on the best technology even when it first came out in 2001 but was the GameCube profitable when it first came out? And is it still, being sold for just under $100 now?
Is there a law against something like Microsoft buying every PS3 and destroying them? I guess that'd be a dirty business practice and Microsoft gets into enough trouble as it is... Anyway, it'd be that Sony spends all this much money getting these manufactured but they don't get it back from a consumer sale or from software since no one actually would have one to play it on. Thus, Sony spends millions, or even billions, on nothing. Yeah, there'd be suspicion. Just a weird thought.
I guess I just think that selling things at a loss is a stupid business practice. Sure, they make it back from software and whatnot, but until then, you're pretty much encouraging people to buy what will put you into more debt. I know a long-term forecast has to be considered...but it still feels dumb.
You'd think that at this point Sony would sell official PS2 emulators for the PC. If people were buying the game discs without having to buy the hardware, they'd actually be making their money back sooner. If they can get the PC gaming market into the living room, you'd think in the future there wouldn't be game hardware - just emulators. Another weird thought.
Post by: Ceric on February 22, 2006, 09:08:53 AM
I recently read some stories about the PS3 and what was everyone thoughts about it. One of the things that came up was that the shell they always show is empty. One of the reasons is that as of right now the technology they want to pack into the PS3 doesn't fit. The devoloper units are suppose to be the size of a tower PC. Even being conservative lets say there exaggerating a little and it's just a Mid-Size tower. Thats larger than that shell. It was also mentioned that the release date got pushed because of the unstability of the Blu-Ray standard. How it's looking some people are predicting that the low ball cost of the system to produce will be $300 and it could peak at $700. Sony just recently stop taking loses on selling PS2's if that tells you anything.
Nintendo on the other hand is still making a profit on each system sold. Since they found someone to make Gamecubes cheaper they still make money off of everyone sold at least $10 if memory serve. Probably more. As it stands Sony may have to delay the PS3 longer and that would really hurt it. Even though they sell a lot of software a $300 dollar hit per console could serious hurt them. Nintendo is playing to not have to worry about that sort of debt management. Let the console incur debt at the R&D stage where it belongs.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 22, 2006, 09:26:06 AM
It's only a bad thing in the sense that Nintendo's view regarding profits is very shortsighted and the idea of risking a temporary loss to improve future profits never occurs to them. All they think about is making a profit next quarter. So they'll skimp on something to stay in the black for one year but in reality by skimping on that thing they complete gut their market share and sell way below their expectations. If Nintendo made chocolate bars they would skimp on the sugar to save money and then wonder why their chocolate bars weren't selling.
Looking at how their market share drops significantly each gen I think it would be in their best interest to sell as many consoles as they can and then try to make a profit from game sales and third party licencing fees. Or at the very least even if they took a loss this gen a better image and more popularity among gamers would give them more security for making a profit next gen. If Nintendo continues to lose market share they will either go under or be forced to abandon consoles. That's just logical. Eventually they would sell so few consoles that it would impossible to make a profit. So ideally to survive and make more profit in the future they have to increase their market share and if that requires a temporary loss to accomplish it, so be it.
I look at Nintendo almost like an injured athelete who won't rest their injury. They're in the triathlon. They're the best in the world at swimming and insist on always being the leader at the end of the swimming portion. But they're injured and in order to always win the swimming portion they aggravate their injury which complete kills them in the cycling and running parts. So they never win the race and each year they fall farther and farther behind and their injury becomes more serious. Eventually, if things continue as is, they're going to be unable to complete the race at all. If they just went easier on the swimming part, even if it meant not winning that portion, they would give their injury a chance to heal and then they would do better overall and thus have a chance of doing better in the overall race. After the injury has healed to a confortable level they could go back to dominating at the swimming portion while at the same time being secure enough to do well overall.
Post by: MaryJane on February 22, 2006, 09:43:45 AM
here's a line from nintendo: "I'm rich biatch"
anyway, you say nintendo loses market share and so on, could that be why they took such a huge risk with the revolution instead of making the same old same old console? that cant be the reason can it? maybe they took the risk to skimp out on graphics, good trade, this could totally go wrong so lets make it graphically inferior also. or maybe they thought, let's reinvent but keep it simple so we don't lose anybody, and attract newbies.
Post by: trip1eX on February 22, 2006, 09:45:31 AM
The 'Cube was pretty small compared to its competition (and that was with comparable specs) so I don't think there's much of a conspiracy theory going on here with the size. Basically every electronics manufacturer tries to make their product as small as possible.
The only far-out stuff I can see benefitting from a small console are:
1) Wireless streaming to your TV.
or
2) Goggles.
Number one would mean you could set the console near you and load your discs in it or throw in a movie without getting up. A small console would help this. I'm not saying this is a great feature or anything, but a small console helps this. And it's not hard to imagine cords will be old hat in the future. And the tech to do this at 480i I believe is here today. Still is this really a big dealio?
Number 2 means you could move it to any room and have fun w/o a TV. And again having a small console fits in with this. But hard to fathom them throwing on Goggles on everybody. It seems to go against their company motto to make gaming inviting. YOu know the whole reason they went with the remote-shaped controller in the first place. Then suddenly they go virtual boy on you?
Post by: animecyberrat on February 22, 2006, 10:06:13 AM
Seriously the NES was teh largest, then SNES, N64 was close to SNES size but was shorter, GC was very small and Rev is going to be even smaller.
Is it possible, that by some twist of fate that thier market share is proprtional to their console size?
Its like the total opposite with the handhelds the smaller ones alwasy out sell the bigger ones, so maybe its thier fate , yo knwo less is more and who ever is first will be alst whoever is last will be fist or something like that?
Ok so its a wild theory but come on theres alot to think about here.
Post by: wandering on February 22, 2006, 10:20:44 AM
Quote
The size I imagine is in response to the Japanese market. The Rev period is in response to the Japanese market. The whole non-gamer strategy for example is directly related to the market in Japan. Nintendo has also made a big deal about how quiet the system is. No one in North America gives a sh!t so I assume that's also a Japanese thing. NCL seems really trapped in their little bubble and are making worldwide decisions without any regard to the other markets.
eh, speak for yourself. Small and quiet is in these days. Bulky and loud is out.
The "non gamer" strategy is similiary universal. Average gamers have grown out of Nintendo games and Nintendo is making them more intuitive for everybody. Doesn't sound like they're in a bubble to me.
Quote
I look at Nintendo almost like an injured athelete who won't rest their injury. They're in the triathlon. They're the best in the world at swimming and insist on always being the leader at the end of the swimming portion. But they're injured and in order to always win the swimming portion they aggravate their injury which complete kills them in the cycling and running parts. So they never win the race and each year they fall farther and farther behind and their injury becomes more serious. Eventually, if things continue as is, they're going to be unable to complete the race at all. If they just went easier on the swimming part, even if it meant not winning that portion, they would give their injury a chance to heal and then they would do better overall and thus have a chance of doing better in the overall race. After the injury has healed to a confortable level they could go back to dominating at the swimming portion while at the same time being secure enough to do well overall.
So......you want Nintendo to ease up on making great games? The swimming portion represents making great games, right?
Post by: couchmonkey on February 22, 2006, 10:55:05 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 22, 2006, 11:01:23 AM
Would you sacrifice performance that the competition is offering to have something small and quiet? What good is having a small quiet console if the games are compromised to reach this? Yeah it's popular but I think the hardware performance is more important. If the Rev always gets the worst version of third party games are you going to say "but it's quiet so it's worth it"? If a PS3 game is incapable of being ported to the Rev because the hardware can't handle it are you going to say "but it's small so it's worth it"? I imagine not.
"So......you want Nintendo to ease up on making great games? The swimming portion represents making great games, right?"
No the swimming portion is the "making a profit every quarter no matter how it affects the longterm" part of Nintendo. I'll admit that wasn't a very good analogy. A better way to put it is that Nintendo has a goal that they try to reach every couple of months. They consistently reach this goal. But they have a chronic problem that in the future will make it impossible to reach this goal and may be permanent. So they either have to stop and fix the problem even if it means missing their routine goal a few times in order to continue to achieve their goal for the longterm or continue reaching their goal only to eventually find they can't reach it anymore because they never fixed the problem.
The shrinking market share is a threat to Nintendo's profit. Therefore they should address it, even if it means they take a temporary loss.
Post by: zakkiel on February 22, 2006, 12:38:06 PM
QuoteI think that's nonsense. Initially, to be sure, the Rev games won't look much different than the competition. It's built on hardware that's already been optimized, as it were, where as the other two are completely new territory for programmers. In six years, though, it will still be basically where it is when it launches, judging by the rumored hardware. If you look at where games have come since five years ago, that's not a fun thought. And for those who don't see any graphical difference between this generation and the last, I'd like some of what you're smoking.
This generation, graphics have reached a plateu... and I think to the consumer, "next-gen graphics" is a bullet point that all three consoles will have, no comparison necessary.
Now, of course there's much more to gaming than graphics, and I for one find it almost pathetic that graphics are almost all the PS3 and 360 plan to improve. I'm damn excited about the freehand. And it's unlikely to hurt sales-wise. But gaming is a visual medium, and given the choice between Oblivion and Morrowind graphics, I have no difficulty deciding which is more likely to suck me in.
So for me, personally, small is not a winning feature.
Post by: RiskyChris on February 22, 2006, 01:03:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"eh, speak for yourself. Small and quiet is in these days. Bulky and loud is out."
Would you sacrifice performance that the competition is offering to have something small and quiet? What good is having a small quiet console if the games are compromised to reach this? Yeah it's popular but I think the hardware performance is more important. If the Rev always gets the worst version of third party games are you going to say "but it's quiet so it's worth it"? If a PS3 game is incapable of being ported to the Rev because the hardware can't handle it are you going to say "but it's small so it's worth it"? I imagine not.
"So......you want Nintendo to ease up on making great games? The swimming portion represents making great games, right?"
No the swimming portion is the "making a profit every quarter no matter how it affects the longterm" part of Nintendo. I'll admit that wasn't a very good analogy. A better way to put it is that Nintendo has a goal that they try to reach every couple of months. They consistently reach this goal. But they have a chronic problem that in the future will make it impossible to reach this goal and may be permanent. So they either have to stop and fix the problem even if it means missing their routine goal a few times in order to continue to achieve their goal for the longterm or continue reaching their goal only to eventually find they can't reach it anymore because they never fixed the problem.
The shrinking market share is a threat to Nintendo's profit. Therefore they should address it, even if it means they take a temporary loss.
You're obviously not in Nintendo's target demographic. You are the one who is in a bubble, not Nintendo.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 22, 2006, 01:14:07 PM
But I've been a longtime supporter of Nintendo and a loyal customer. So are you saying Nintendo is abandoning their existing fans? Because that issue has been brought up a lot since the Rev remote was shown and all this "non-gamer" talk was brought up.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 22, 2006, 01:14:24 PM
When I get around to buying an HD "display device," it's going to be a PROJECTOR.
Post by: BigJim on February 22, 2006, 01:16:35 PM
"Bulky and loud is out."
We'll see what the market says. I'm thinking it's not so important as long as they get to play the games they want to.
As for HD again, the word choice is interesting. People say supporting HD is "pandering" because they're a minority? That's not fair or consistent. Resetting a controller to something nobody knew they wanted until they were told they did, skipping DVD playback that "wasn't wanted" last gen but for some reason it is wanted now (when it's even less important), and forced wireless connections... these things are all forms of pandering. If 25% of households have HDTV by the end of the year as estimated when Rev launches, even fewer will have wireless networks.
Nintendo panders when it's cheap and/or convenient for them. One of the most cash-rich companies in the world is tighter than a cheap Uncle. Pandering (or not pandering) is not an issue. It's their purse strings. Even today's low-range graphic cards with a full 256 MB of RAM and minimal cooling can handle 720p widescreen. Their only reasoning is their desire not to absorb (or charge us) an extra whopping $30 or less in manufacturing expenses, or blow up their art department's budget (to hell with those that might want to make HD games.)
Post by: wandering on February 22, 2006, 01:17:50 PM
Quote
Would you sacrifice performance that the competition is offering to have something small and quiet? What good is having a small quiet console if the games are compromised to reach this?
Well, I do own apple products, so maybe I'm not the best person to ask.....
Quote
"You're obviously not in Nintendo's target demographic. You are the one who is in a bubble, not Nintendo."
But I've been a longtime supporter of Nintendo and a loyal customer. So are you saying Nintendo is abandoning their existing fans?
No. Just you
Post by: RiskyChris on February 22, 2006, 01:29:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"You're obviously not in Nintendo's target demographic. You are the one who is in a bubble, not Nintendo."
But I've been a longtime supporter of Nintendo and a loyal customer. So are you saying Nintendo is abandoning their existing fans? Because that issue has been brought up a lot since the Rev remote was shown and all this "non-gamer" talk was brought up.
I'm a deperately loyal follower of Nintendo, and I fully support every decision Nintendo has been making in the past year and a half (even delaying TP again -_-). Having HD support is ridiculous, because I can hardly name a handful of people I know who can make use of such features. Nintendo didn't say it was abandoning its fans, just that it was broadening its scope of gamers.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 22, 2006, 02:00:17 PM
My biggest beef with no HD is that it's Nintendo's typical "we'll tell you what options you don't need" routine and I was hoping that maybe they would learn that stupid attitude is exactly why they're in last place.
"Nintendo didn't say it was abandoning its fans, just that it was broadening its scope of gamers."
Of course Nintendo has never said it. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. If it did happen I don't think Nintendo would even realize they were doing it. I'm sure they THINK that they can just broaden their scope. But they probably don't realize that an existing fan might not be interested in games aimed at non-gamers. I imagine when Nintendo stuck with cartridges on the N64 they thought that third parties would gladly deal with it and that it wouldn't be an issue.
Post by: MaryJane on February 22, 2006, 02:44:20 PM
Quote
My biggest beef with no HD is that it's Nintendo's typical "we'll tell you what options you don't need" routine and I was hoping that maybe they would learn that stupid attitude is exactly why they're in last place.
I see no HD as saying you don't need it so we won't give it. I think that's much better, than you don't need it but we're shoving it down your throat anyway, and taking an extra $30 out of your pocket! (insert evil laugh) Oh and they're 2nd in the world for sales, 1st in profit.
I love everything about the Rev which is why e3 kind of scares me. How much more painful will it be to wait for this amazing machine when I know more about it?
Post by: antman100 on February 22, 2006, 02:58:28 PM
I don't care.
I have a HD TV.
I'm really bummed that the Revo will not support it fully.
Look..I'm all for Nintendo making a profit, but who says they have to make a ton of profit? If Nintendo made as much money on the GC as everybody here said they did, maybe they could have scaled it back a bit. Nintendo will likely have at least $100 to play with and still be less than any competitor. A little more power, HD support? Yeah, I probably would have paid $250 for that, even if it was as big as a XBox. Also, it is likely that this year, new HD TV sales will greatly outnumber SD TV sales, for what that's worth.
Given the specs that we know, or we think we know, I don't see myself paying more than $150 for it. If Nintendo is right and Revos sell faster than hotcakes, or rubbers (name that obscure reference), I'll be happy for them. Is a small form factor going to help them sell? We'll see.
Post by: ThePerm on February 22, 2006, 03:48:37 PM
in other words Sony and MS are cheating, Nintendo is a big company, but doesnt have the assets of the other company. There is a reason they are cheap. They have to be.
Post by: TMW on February 22, 2006, 04:20:22 PM
Post by: IceCold on February 22, 2006, 05:05:29 PM
The shrinking market share is a threat to Nintendo's profit. Therefore they should address it, even if it means they take a temporary loss.
Nintendo IS trying to address this. As MaryJane and others in the past have pointed out, the Revolution is an enormous risk. Don't you realise? They're putting everything on the line this time; it has to succeed. Now you may not like the direction they're headed, but please don't say that they're not trying to fix their problem.
As for HD again, the word choice is interesting. People say supporting HD is "pandering" because they're a minority? That's not fair or consistent.
I'll assume you didn't hear this piece of information.
QuoteNow that's just ridiculous
King-Kong, developed by Ubisoft, was one of the hot titles that populated XBox 360's launch game list. But now, officials at Ubisoft say gamers should avoid the XBox version.
Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot said that King-Kong on the X360 can appear too dark on standard TVs, making the game "unplayable." "I'm a bit disappointed that we didn't see it when we were developing the game," Guillemot said.
...
The problem comes out of the fact that the team who developed the game didn't test it on ordinary TV sets but only on high definition TV.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 22, 2006, 06:13:38 PM
Here is what I see as good points for the revolution being so small, I will also counter with what I see as wrong with it after but hear me out.
Nintendo’s primary goal right now, and rightfully so, is to reclaim their homeland. They have achieved exceptional success in the handheld market, BUT thats nothing new. It was to be expected.
Nintendo knows that a small quiet system with a brand new way to play video games is a great way to appeal to Japanese gamers. Now thats fine and all and they should focus everything they have on winning Japan considering they are losing their territory to a company that makes TVs and tape decks, and has no real heart for video games.
There’s a couple other things I see with the rev that really will attract a lot of Japanese gamers and thats 1st the virtual console, which will bring back all the great Nintendo games from he past that have gotten ignored or forgotten in recent years.
Also its worth noting that the original Famicom was a lot smaller than the US NES, which was originally a bulky flashy looking pc look alike.
Now its possible that Nintendo has chosen to focus on the Japanese market the most because its their home market, and at the same time its still very possible that, like Famicom to NES , they may redesign the Revolution to more appeal to US gamers. Now it would be more expensive to do so and at the same time it would cause problems with a world wide launch, but its possible non the less.
The problem with making the system so small is it makes it look underpowered to some people, but also remember that technology has always gotten smaller as it progresses and people are so used to smaller devices being more advanced than the larger ones its possible that the public perception will be the rev is the more powerful technologically, maybe not visually per say but it will be the most advanced out of the three considering the VC and Revmote. When a sale person describes the unique features of the rev people will know its from the "future" and will gladly take a chance on this brand new technology as long as it promises to provide new experiences and, with backwards compatibility and VC, the are providing familiarity.
If you take ALL of these together it seams to me that its possible that Nintendo is positioning themselves as
the most technological, because people will ask, what makes PS3 better than Revolution? a sale person will have to say well Rev can play GC games and uses this exciting new technology that is the wave of the future, and it also plays DVDs and uses a DVD style remote, and the sales person describes what the emote can do, WOW, the will say (and I GARUNTEE average joe consumer WILL SAY WOW or some other expression of being impressed)
Then when pitching the PS3 all they an say is it will display games in High Definition, lay Blu Ray disks (which wont even be available in mass market when ps3 arrives) and it will have better graphics. Then people will respond, well will it work on a normal tv or do I have to have HD, they will assume that it wont look as good or wont work at all and right there people will pass it up.
You know when Gc came out every time I heard it pitched I wanted to cringe, there was just no way to make it sound better than the competition, I means seriously it didn’t play dvds, it wasn’t online, it was childish looking, and it just was hard to sell.
BUT every time I pitch the system to someone, whether it be the controller or the Virtual Console, I always get a positive response and most people seam to think it sounds like the next big technology.
I haven’t heard anyone bash it yet like they used to with GC, and the k!ddey argument wont hold p when it launches with fighting games and 1st person shooters that blow Halo away.
Every day I analyze it differently, and GC and N64 taught me to be overly critical, and yet I can’t seem to find any argument that would prevent someone from buying a Revolution, and I heard all the excuses back when ps2 came out and MOST people just were sold on its DVD player or it would play Ps1 games. So anyway you slice it I think the Revolution will be a phenomenal success, I just have a gut feeling(which my instincts all along were against Gc despite how much loved it I just always new it would fail)
Other than that I can’t say why else I expect, genuinely expect the rev to be the number one system for the next few years, but I will wager on it I am that confident in their strategy and everything I have heard so far.
Edited spelling just cuz
Post by: Talon on February 22, 2006, 06:24:55 PM
In america where bigger is better you will probably find that peoples perceptions of the Rev will be that it is underpowered and they are right. Nintendo has stated that they arent looking to have the biggest bad ass console on the market.
The whole idea of them having a smaller console is to market it at people who generally dont play games.
Its small, its sleak, its quiet.
The aesthetics of the console is irrelevant, has no bearing on gameplay and is used for marketability. Look what happened with the gamecube people thought it was a Fisher Price toy but when you were playing a gamecube game did you really pay any attention to what it looked like?
Personally I couldnt give a rats arse about what the Rev looks like as long as the games are awesome on it.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 22, 2006, 06:32:31 PM
Post by: animecyberrat on February 22, 2006, 06:39:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Talon
Sorry animecyberrat but that post was way too long to read with such bad spelling.
>>>In america where bigger is better you will probably find that peoples perceptions of the Rev will be that it is underpowered and they are right. Nintendo has stated that they arent looking to have the biggest bad ass console on the market.<<<
BS, really if this was so true why is Ipod out selling Walkman or PSP? Bigger is better has NEVER applied to elecronics especaily in America. Look at Cell phones, PDAs, GBA vs SP, GB Micro, Pocket Pcs,Laptops, dvds vs Laser disk, etc etc. come one your argument fails only when its about cars or rvs or things liek that do peopel want the bigger and better, with electronics everyone knwos smaller is better, why, well saves space, portability, you can fit more ina smaller disk 9yeah never figured that oe out but people accept it as truth.
>>
The aesthetics of the console is irrelevant, has no bearing on gameplay and is used for marketability. Look what happened with the gamecube people thought it was a Fisher Price toy but when you were playing a gamecube game did you really pay any attention to what it looked like?<<<
agian you didnt read my post I ALSO used that same argument, so uh? whats your point you just liek to argue?
Average Jo Shmoe doesnt care about the games, whydid thet get PS2s, cuz yo can put it in the family room and watch mvoies AND play tetris, puzzle bobble, Madden football, etc. and teh kdis could play thier GTa, and FF, and Jak and Dexters.
With Revolution now peopel can put THAT in the family room cuz its someting mom and dad will be abel to enjoy, plus it plays movies, and it lets yo play yor old favorites like DUCK HUNT, a massive hit with the people who 'out grew' video games.
next time read my post before arguing you basicaly agreed with me but tried to sound like we disagreed.
Post by: ShyGuy on February 22, 2006, 07:10:30 PM
Post by: IceCold on February 22, 2006, 07:12:31 PM
Post by: Chris1 on February 22, 2006, 07:59:29 PM
Post by: BigJim on February 22, 2006, 09:10:49 PM
That attitude wouldn't help. They'd still be dictating what we need, without giving options. $30 more for more forward-thinking insurance is a bargain IMHO, if they insisted on not taking the financial hit themselves.
"in other words Sony and MS are cheating, Nintendo is a big company, but doesnt have the assets of the other company. There is a reason they are cheap. They have to be."
Like I said, they're one of the most cash-rich companies in the world. They don't need to take a $100 hit on a console or sell it for $400, but they don't need to break even immediately out of the gate either. At the end of the day they'll still be one of the most cash-rich companies. They treat their war chest literally like it's "In case of WW3" holdings while they continually get marginalized. If the pattern continues, they'll be forced to use it out of default or subsidize it with their portable market (which people are so fast to point out that Sony and MS do-- subsidize). How embarrassing would that be to them, rather than being proactively competitive? They'd love people to believe less is more (especially when THEY are the ones offering less). But we'll see what happens. HD isn't make or break, but they're still penny pinchers even when they don't have to be.
"but they know a $600 console won't sell, and they don't want to take a loss when they can make a comparable machine with NEW TECHNOLOGY and have it be at the nice, comfortable $200 price point."
A system doesn't need to be $600. Sure, throw in all the new technology, but adding tens of dollars to the cost to support a higher output resolution is not going to blow anybody's bank. The PlayStations proved that people are willing to pay for what they want to buy. Being so gal-darn cheap that people are just compelled to buy it didn't help the GameCube. Didn't help the DS (although it does sell well) and it's not likely going to help the Rev either anymore than it did any other products.
"I'll assume you didn't hear this piece of information. Now that's just ridiculous"
I did. And I don't understand the importance. So Ubisoft were morons not to fully test their product. What does that have to do with what I said?
Post by: nemo_83 on February 22, 2006, 09:40:22 PM
The Revolution is ridiculously small; it's suspiciously small.
Post by: Artimus on February 23, 2006, 02:49:46 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 23, 2006, 04:50:38 AM
Post by: MaryJane on February 23, 2006, 05:30:32 AM
Oh and there a lot of things people are saying nintendo did things only to satisfy the japanese market place... why the hell would they do that? quiet, small, cheap, how is that only japanese? how much smaller and cheaper hav ipod's or mp3 players in general become? i just ordered one from archos that takes pictures, movies, plays movies, displays pictures, can download from other devices other than a computer, (god i hope it can do it from the rev), play and record music, and it cost me just as much as the one i just broke did which i bought 3 years ago. but is like 2times better, and about the same size. advances in technology always make things smaller, look at ur computers, flat screen t.v's, even cars for goodness sake. it's not a japanese thing, it's world wide economics. plus i think it's pretty damn cool that i can carry it in say the pocket of my cargo pants (tested 3 dvd's succesfully) and bring it to a friends house who would never dream of picking up their 100lb 360. but maybe i'm the only one who thinks so.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 23, 2006, 05:43:36 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2006, 07:16:00 AM
So? The "guts" of the machine will be the same so if they compromise the hardware to make the Japanese version a certain size that limitation will be present in the American version regardless of what the case around it looks like.
A lot of people are saying that the fact that Nintendo is taking a big risk with this new controller and everything shows that they're trying to fix the market share problem. But the problem is their attitude regarding profits is still handicapping them. They want to expand their market share but they still don't want to risk having a loss for that first quarter. So they're cutting features and making trade-offs and denying us options. I'd say they're hoping that being different will give them an edge because it doesn't require them to spend any money. To directly compete at this stage would require them to risk taking a bit of a hit. They don't have to spend like MS but they have to spend something to match expected features and attract third parties back. So they're trying to dodge the competition to avoid spending money. They did the same thing on the Cube with the connectivity thing. They didn't want to spend money on online gaming so they tried to be different with something that wouldn't cost them money. They hoped being different would be good enough. It wasn't and providing tradeoffs and lame alternatives rarely does. I'm very doubtful of the remote giving Nintendo any advantage because their penny-pinching has made it an "either or" situation. If they were willing to spend a couple bucks they could have given us something with HD and with comparable hardware that also has a unique controller that the competition doesn't have. They would have a cool extra feature that would make them seem "better". But instead people have to choose what's more important to them. Do I go with this new way of controlling games or do I go with a console that gives me more options and has less hardware limitations? Giving people a choice is insane for Nintendo because there's such a bias against them that most would choose a competitor. They need to make it so that there is no choice; you HAVE to buy a Rev and if you can only afford one console that's the only one you buy. Their penny-pinching is preventing that.
Post by: RiskyChris on February 23, 2006, 07:18:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"heres a tidbit often overlooked, the prototype revolution WASNT that small, and when teh said it would get smaller they MIGHT have been talking the Japanese version only, theres still a chance that the larger prototype will be the one released in the US if Nintendos marketing research shows that Americans want a larger tha3 dvd case system."
So? The "guts" of the machine will be the same so if they compromise the hardware to make the Japanese version a certain size that limitation will be present in the American version regardless of what the case around it looks like.
A lot of people are saying that the fact that Nintendo is taking a big risk with this new controller and everything shows that they're trying to fix the market share problem. But the problem is their attitude regarding profits is still handicapping them. They want to expand their market share but they still don't want to risk having a loss for that first quarter. So they're cutting features and making trade-offs and denying us options. I'd say they're hoping that being different will give them an edge because it doesn't require them to spend any money. To directly compete at this stage would require them to risk taking a bit of a hit. They don't have to spend like MS but they have to spend something to match expected features and attract third parties back. So they're trying to dodge the competition to avoid spending money. They did the same thing on the Cube with the connectivity thing. They didn't want to spend money on online gaming so they tried to be different with something that wouldn't cost them money. They hoped being different would be good enough. It wasn't and providing tradeoffs and lame alternatives rarely does. I'm very doubtful of the remote giving Nintendo any advantage because their penny-pinching has made it an "either or" situation. If they were willing to spend a couple bucks they could have given us something with HD and with comparable hardware that also has a unique controller that the competition doesn't have. They would have a cool extra feature that would make them seem "better". But instead people have to choose what's more important to them. Do I go with this new way of controlling games or do I go with a console that gives me more options and has less hardware limitations? Giving people a choice is insane for Nintendo because there's such a bias against them that most would choose a competitor. They need to make it so that there is no choice; you HAVE to buy a Rev and if you can only afford one console that's the only one you buy. Their penny-pinching is preventing that.
Cheaper system = bigger pool of customers. If all three nex gen systems were greater than $300, those who would only pay $200 would not buy a system. They're seriously not trying to compete with Sony or Microsoft. They can't. Sony and MS are producing a console for a type of gamer than Nintendo simply cannot steal, and as such their market strategy changes.
I'm glad you're not calling the shots at Nintendo HQ.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 23, 2006, 07:32:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane
Iwata walks on stage and I'm thinking where the hell is the console... and he pulls in out of jacket pocket... if you're like me and wear suit jackets often you know they're not all that big, I was friggin astounded when he did it.
And he's not exactly a big guy, either.
Nintendo admits they want to be like Apple.
Think iPod and you'll understand why the Rev is the size it is.
Post by: MaryJane on February 23, 2006, 07:45:08 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 23, 2006, 07:49:57 AM
That doesn't make sense. Having only one type of Revolution made makes it easier to redirect shipments (only have to reset the region jumper) if the demand changes and in general it allows Nintendo to make one line of Revolutions, ship them to NoE, NoA, etc and not having to worry about keeping two different production lines properly filled. The issue is whether Nintendo deliberately reduced the system's power to make it fit the case or whether it just fit after Nintendo built it. Americans don't want big, either. But Ian thinks that Americans want power more than small size.
Ian: One big problems with the technologies Nintendo forfeited was that all previous attempts at using them failed because noone wanted that. Nintendo had online at a level that rivals XBox Live back on the NES but noone wanted it. After three generations of online that noone bought they arrived at the conclusion that online really isn't good, ironically that was when online suddently stood in the spotlight (and interestingly it didn't become big until MS told everyone they want online, noone said the PS2 was doomed because the Dreamcast had online and the PS2 didn't). Same for CDs, noone wanted the Sega CD, the CDi and all the other junk so Nintendo decided not to use it. Same for HD. The XBox had HD. The PS2 had HD. The Cube had at least ED. Noone used it. Maybe Sony and MS are brainwashing customers into thinking they really want those new features (even though they could have used them before) since before they heavily advertised them noone seemed to care.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2006, 08:04:19 AM
Nintendo can still have a cheaper system without removing HD or compromising their hardware to all hell. The competing systems are insanely expensive. Nintendo has a lot of wiggle room for pricing. The rumour is that the HD support would cost like an extra $30. Who gives a f*ck about $30 when the console is still hundreds of dollars cheaper than the other consoles? Nintendo could probably offer something comparable for a lower price. Instead their console is cheaper because it skimps on features. It's not a bargain. You get exactly what you pay for: inferior hardware at a lower price.
IGN is reporting that the Rev might cost $150. If that's the price they could easily put HD in there and up the hardware and still sell for only $200. Nintendo's goal should be to find a price that is low enough from the competition to give them an advantage but not so low that they have to make a weak ass console to do it. Then they should jam the thing to the gills with every feature imaginable that they can afford to include without taking a loss. They should not make a penny of profit on the thing and they should not go under $200. They should not deny us features to appeal to non-gamers or to make a profit on the hardware.
Post by: Ages on February 23, 2006, 08:15:58 AM
That is very improbable. Nintendo has touted universally recognized systems (systems that look the same no matter the region) since the end of the SNES era. Building a second shell to house the same hardware is just another expense Nintendo doesnt need to take right now. Especially with the press the Rev has been getting. Everyone loves the look. If anything, Nintendo will probably shrink the console down some in the same style of case.
Post by: MaryJane on February 23, 2006, 08:17:28 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 23, 2006, 08:22:40 AM
However, if you drop HD then you have a system that when compared on a SD screen can do everything that the new systems can do...and you are bringing it at a quality price, and innovating with a controller.
I think its a great vision for this coming generation.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 23, 2006, 08:42:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Ian Sane: HD is more than just putting the outputs for HD. You must have enough RAM to run high defination graphics. You must have more powerful CPU to push greater polygon counts so that it will look right on an HD screen.
However, if you drop HD then you have a system that when compared on a SD screen can do everything that the new systems can do...and you are bringing it at a quality price, and innovating with a controller.
I think its a great vision for this coming generation.
Agreed in full.
A 27" HD TV with the necessary tuner is still around $1100, Meanwhile, AV experts agree that the benefits of HD won't even be apparent to the human eye until you reach 36" and sit back at least 10 feet or so.
HD has been out for long enough that the price should have come down and yet it hasn't. It's one of those technologies which intends to remain as expensive as possible for as long as possible, it seems.
Focusing on an unobtrusive console that actually brings something new and different to the gaming world is the right strategy. Apple did it with the iPod and now they rule the online MP3 market with an iron fist. Not only does Nintendo's ROM store sound a great deal like the iTunes Store, but the focus on bringing something to gamers which they haven't seen before is going to renew interest (if done properly, and I think it will be).
For every hardcore gamer I know, I know 5 people who used to play videogames but can now barely even classify as casual gamers or have outright abandoned gaming entirely. I seriously think Nintendo is on the right track. Sony and MS are interested in working and reworking existing gaming concepts while Nintendo wants to shift the whole paradigm to something different.
Apple shifted the paradigm and put mp3 players in the hands of the non-technical. Nintendo aims to shift the paradigm and put their controller in the hands of the non-gamer.
I think it's the right way to go.
Post by: IceCold on February 23, 2006, 08:48:26 AM
QuoteThey're making it cheaper so that people who aren't appealed by $400 consoles may give it a shot - the nongamers. Again, you may not agree with this strategy, but there's a reason for it. And how do you know it's $30 for HD support? It could be a lot more.. You also can't forget about the controller; even though they licensed it from Gyration, it still costs a lot more than a regular controller would.
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Cheaper system = bigger pool of customers."
Nintendo can still have a cheaper system without removing HD or compromising their hardware to all hell. The competing systems are insanely expensive. Nintendo has a lot of wiggle room for pricing. The rumour is that the HD support would cost like an extra $30. Who gives a f*ck about $30 when the console is still hundreds of dollars cheaper than the other consoles? Nintendo could probably offer something comparable for a lower price. Instead their console is cheaper because it skimps on features. It's not a bargain. You get exactly what you pay for: inferior hardware at a lower price.
IGN is reporting that the Rev might cost $150. If that's the price they could easily put HD in there and up the hardware and still sell for only $200. Nintendo's goal should be to find a price that is low enough from the competition to give them an advantage but not so low that they have to make a weak ass console to do it. Then they should jam the thing to the gills with every feature imaginable that they can afford to include without taking a loss. They should not make a penny of profit on the thing and they should not go under $200. They should not deny us features to appeal to non-gamers or to make a profit on the hardware.
Post by: BlkPaladin on February 23, 2006, 08:48:52 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 23, 2006, 08:57:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlkPaladin
In HD its not the polygon count, polygon count is usually lower in HD it higher quality textures that are taking up more power. (It takes more computational power to process textures than it does to add a few more (thousands) vectors. Why do you think Microsoft and Sony are not pushing polygons with their new machines and rather the quality of the textures.
For this reason, Nintendo's games might actually wind up looking better because their games won't be forced to run in HD, leaving a lot more processing power to handle polygons in better looking models.
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 23, 2006, 08:59:18 AM
Still my point is...you can't simply just look at what the Revolution is now, and think oh if only Nintendo spent $50 more dollars and made it $200-$250 then we could have that HD we are missing.
HD television is viewed as a luxury item, and until it is the standard and only way to watch television then it will remain a luxury item. Meaning, it will remain at a premium price.
I bet it doesn't cost that much more to make an HD television compared to the Standard Defination televisions. The issue is marketing the product to be more valuable in the eyes of the consumer. This is one reason you should never adopt new technology early. You pay a huge premium.
Post by: MaryJane on February 23, 2006, 10:36:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
For this reason, Nintendo's games might actually wind up looking better because their games won't be forced to run in HD, leaving a lot more processing power to handle polygons in better looking models.
i'd like to agree with this except it's hard to swallow, i don't like ms and sony's tactics but they aren't stupid either. especially with the ps3, it's powerful, that cell processor is powerful, it can do a lot. i agree that running in HD put more strain and ties up computing graphics, but i'm sure they already thought of that. the ps3 will have beautiful graphics, and it will be huge and heavy. the rev is small and light, with very sufficient graphical power, tons of innovation, and the ability to save me gallons of money by letting me dl classic games instead of rebuying older systems which i almost did when this classic gaming store opened not too far from my house... i might still get a genisis though. anyway. you could be right SB but i just wouldn't be surprised if you werent
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 23, 2006, 10:45:21 AM
I think the GC's graphical power was very rarely harnessed to its full, only by games like MP and TP have shown us just what it can do when you push it.
Post by: Artimus on February 23, 2006, 10:58:35 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2006, 11:21:58 AM
I don't think it's the same thing. An iPod is still an MP3 player. The MP3's still sound the same. Any song I could load to an MP3 player I can load to an iPod with no problems. The iPod isn't really different, it's better. And it also is way more expensive then a regular MP3 player.
Games don't transfer to something new as easily as sound recordings. I can say with 100% certainty that several of my favourite games would be unplayable on the Rev remote. You can try to map things all you want but there just aren't enough buttons to cover certain games without a major revision of the controls and even then I can at best see things merely as workable but not as good and a lot of the feel would be missing. Yeah I've never used the remote but I don't need to to know that a game that uses 8 buttons and an analog stick would be ill-suited for an NES controller with motion control.
The iPod isn't really new and different, it's BETTER. The Rev is just new and different. They've abandoned a proven controller design for an unproven one that is missing key functionality. It's like if the iPod was incapable of playing recorded drum sounds correctly and had to substitute them with something else or if certain genres of music were just plain incompatible.
Everyone likes music, not everyone likes games. The iPod wouldn't attract anyone who doesn't like music. Gaming is far too dependent on hardware for things like the interface to be simplified for the mainstream without a direct effect on the games being made.
You guys act like Nintendo is just making a tweak and now everyone is going to love their games. They're telling us that gaming is broken. They're telling us that our favourite Cube games are BROKEN which is bullsh!t.
Post by: RiskyChris on February 23, 2006, 11:27:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Focusing on an unobtrusive console that actually brings something new and different to the gaming world is the right strategy. Apple did it with the iPod and now they rule the online MP3 market with an iron fist."
I don't think it's the same thing. An iPod is still an MP3 player. The MP3's still sound the same. Any song I could load to an MP3 player I can load to an iPod with no problems. The iPod isn't really different, it's better. And it also is way more expensive then a regular MP3 player.
Games don't transfer to something new as easily as sound recordings. I can say with 100% certainty that several of my favourite games would be unplayable on the Rev remote. You can try to map things all you want but there just aren't enough buttons to cover certain games without a major revision of the controls and even then I can at best see things merely as workable but not as good and a lot of the feel would be missing. Yeah I've never used the remote but I don't need to to know that a game that uses 8 buttons and an analog stick would be ill-suited for an NES controller with motion control.
The iPod isn't really new and different, it's BETTER. The Rev is just new and different. They've abandoned a proven controller design for an unproven one that is missing key functionality. It's like if the iPod was incapable of playing recorded drum sounds correctly and had to substitute them with something else or if certain genres of music were just plain incompatible.
Everyone likes music, not everyone likes games. The iPod wouldn't attract anyone who doesn't like music. Gaming is far too dependent on hardware for things like the interface to be simplified for the mainstream without a direct effect on the games being made.
You guys act like Nintendo is just making a tweak and now everyone is going to love their games. They're telling us that gaming is broken. They're telling us that our favourite Cube games are BROKEN which is bullsh!t.
Yeah too bad there won't be a controller shell to put the remote into for certain genres.
And gaming is broken when all I'm playing on XBox 360 is Halo 2.5 with better graphics and triple wielding guns.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2006, 12:04:12 PM
How often do you think Nintendo is going to use the shell? I imagine they'll rarely if ever use it. We don't even know if the shell is included as standard issue yet. Nintendo is going to push the remote pretty heavy, especially at first. They're going to take their old franchises and tinker with them to use the remote. The shell to Nintendo might as well not exist. So those games have to deliver and have to be as good or better than they were before. Actually they have to be better because there's no reason in them giving us this new controller if it doesn't improve on gaming in any way.
"And gaming is broken when all I'm playing on XBox 360 is Halo 2.5 with better graphics and triple wielding guns."
You guys act like it's impossible to make an innovative game using the existing setup. Personally I give developers a little more credit and Nintendo in particular more credit. Do you think Nintendo is unable to make innovative games using a normal controller? Just because they choose to release so many unneeded Mario spinoffs doesn't mean that they need to completely reinvent the wheel to innovate. And if they are unable to innovate with the current setup then they're out of ideas and using a new controller isn't going to fix that.
Post by: nemo_83 on February 23, 2006, 12:12:50 PM
The only way to defend these criticsms is to show the graphics, which they refuse to which goes back to what I posted last time. Either they have flat out pitiful visuals or something more revolutionary than the controller in store.
Post by: RiskyChris on February 23, 2006, 12:23:28 PM
Quote
And if they are unable to innovate with the current setup then they're out of ideas and using a new controller isn't going to fix that.
The DS touch screen proves that with innovative changes in functionality comes innovative changes to gameplay.
Post by: trip1eX on February 23, 2006, 12:35:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
A 27" HD TV with the necessary tuner is still around $1100, Meanwhile, AV experts agree that the benefits of HD won't even be apparent to the human eye until you reach 36" and sit back at least 10 feet or so.
Actually you need to sit closer to the same sized hdtv to notice the hi-def experience. The further back you sit the more you won't be able to tell the difference between sdtv and hdtv.
I read you need a 68" screen at 10 ft to fully appreciate 720p.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2006, 12:36:34 PM
Could the Cube compete with the Rev the same way the GBA competes with the DS? There's a lot of talk about Nintendo using Twilight Princess to sell Revs. Well if Mr. Cheapskate goes to the store and sees two consoles capable of playing that Zelda game he wants which one is he going to buy? One is cheaper and the only thing that really seperates the two is that one has a wacky controller. I wouldn't be surprised if he buys the Cube because the Rev doesn't have any sort of noticable leap for him other then the fact it has a weird controller. There is one big difference in that the Rev has the download system but Nintendo isn't going to benefit much if someone buys their console just to download old games. They need people buying new games.
And what if the remote bombs? Let's say the remote just doesn't take off and games that use it don't sell. What does Nintendo do then? Logically they would have to make traditional games using the shell. But they would be stuck for five years with out-of-date hardware. Their special functionality would be gone and they would left with just a souped up Gamecube. At least if they make a console that has comparible hardware they have a safety net. If the remote bombs they can make traditional games that can compete on a technical level with the competition's traditional games.
Post by: MaryJane on February 23, 2006, 12:36:39 PM
and of course nintendo is going to push the controller hard at first, look at how hard the 360 is pushing it's hi-def graphics, every friggin 10 secs it's hi-def this hi-def that. why wouldn't you push the best thing about your system?
oh and nemo, you should read what the developers who have the kit are saying about them. at first they're a little disappointed in the fact that the rev's graphical capabilities are less than that of xbox360 (god that's an annoying name to type) but once they pick up the controller, all their disappointment floats away. sounds good to me.
Edit: spelling and response to nemo instead of double posting.
Post by: MysticGohan on February 23, 2006, 12:41:04 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2006, 12:49:02 PM
How much money has Nintendo made off your mom? She bought your DS from you. That means no money for Nintendo. How many games has she bought? How many games in a year will she typically buy? Does the idea of buying games per game even make sense for her?
The attach rate from non-gamers is a big issue. My friend's mom loves Kirby's Pinball Land. She owns the game and a GBC. She has never bought another game for it. She doesn't even want to try another game. She is content with that one game for all her "gaming needs". That's why I think this non-gamer idea is flawed. The gaming industry relies on repeat customers. Nintendo doesn't benefit from a person buying only one or two games and nothing else. They need loyal customers who buy a couple games a year and consider gaming an interest, instead of just a diversion when they're bored. People who just play the Sims or Tetris aren't gamers. There is no use in selling them a console because they just don't buy enough games because they're not passionate about it. Yet Nintendo is trying to attract these people and are potentially turning away people that do buy several games a year.
Maybe that's why Nintendo is so focused on profits. If they took a hit on the hardware they would be f*cked because their target market is super casuals who won't buy enough games to make up for the hardware loss.
Post by: MaryJane on February 23, 2006, 12:53:03 PM
Post by: RiskyChris on February 23, 2006, 01:12:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"she is the kind of gamer Nintendo is looking for, i just sold my mom on the DS (literally 2 hours ago, I got her to buy mine cuz my lite will be here soon :-D )with the mini-games in Super Mario 64"
How much money has Nintendo made off your mom? She bought your DS from you. That means no money for Nintendo. How many games has she bought? How many games in a year will she typically buy? Does the idea of buying games per game even make sense for her?
The attach rate from non-gamers is a big issue. My friend's mom loves Kirby's Pinball Land. She owns the game and a GBC. She has never bought another game for it. She doesn't even want to try another game. She is content with that one game for all her "gaming needs". That's why I think this non-gamer idea is flawed. The gaming industry relies on repeat customers. Nintendo doesn't benefit from a person buying only one or two games and nothing else. They need loyal customers who buy a couple games a year and consider gaming an interest, instead of just a diversion when they're bored. People who just play the Sims or Tetris aren't gamers. There is no use in selling them a console because they just don't buy enough games because they're not passionate about it. Yet Nintendo is trying to attract these people and are potentially turning away people that do buy several games a year.
Maybe that's why Nintendo is so focused on profits. If they took a hit on the hardware they would be f*cked because their target market is super casuals who won't buy enough games to make up for the hardware loss.
How jaded can you possibly be? He wouldn't buy a DSL until someone bought his old DS. Since his mom indirectly influenced his decision to buy a DSL, she in turn indirectly funds Nintendo.
The number of casuals Nintendo will bring in will far dwarf the number of "hardcore nintendo fans" they lose. You seem to be the most offended by Nintendo's practices, yet I can guess that you'll buy a revolution anyway. Point Nintendo.
Post by: Ceric on February 23, 2006, 01:32:32 PM
Second, If anyone beleives that Nintendo won't use the shell if it be more appropriate, two words: Mario Kart. It doesn't use the touch screen and it's a DS game. Which most people will argue that the Touch Screen is the "big thing" for the DS.
Post by: Michael8983 on February 23, 2006, 01:36:13 PM
Post by: BigJim on February 23, 2006, 01:54:03 PM
"Cheaper system = bigger pool of customers"
Nintendo would LOVE to have's Sony's pool of, what, 80+ million units sold? Like I said, people will pay for what they're willing to buy. They could go after their customers if they made products those customers were interested in. Ignoring their existance like the 18-34 y/o males suddenly evaorated and trying to make my mom a gamer is dubious. I'd be somewhat amused to see a Bingo game where the controller acts as the dauber (and not amused in a good way).
"Nintendo had online at a level that rivals XBox Live back on the NES but noone wanted it"
Ehhh, this isn't exactly a good comparison. And I wouldn't consider stock trading to be a compelling gaming alternative to Live. Online activity, in general, didn't take off until the mid 90's. Anyone before that were largely hobbyists. The N64 not being online capable was basically ok since computers were still finding their bearings, but GameCube didn't have as much of an excuse. Live, even as broadband-only, was a pretty convincing service. BTW, online was big on the PC long before Live.
"You must have enough RAM to run high defination graphics. You must have more powerful CPU to push greater polygon counts so that it will look right on an HD screen."
Mid-range graphic cards, with a full 256MB of RAM can output an HD resolution and retail for $100, according to a trip to NewEgg. The cost to manufacture is a fraction of that. If ultra high-end graphics cost in the neighborhood of $80 to manufacture, a modest mid-range chip with 80% of the performance, sold at-cost, isn't going to freak anybody's bank out. Since TVs are stuck at 60 frames per second, that's still a hellalotta performance IMHO. It doesn't have to be polygon-for-polygon equivalent. I do believe in the notion of diminishing returns. But that line doesn't end at SD rez vs. HD rez.
"HD has been out for long enough that the price should have come down and yet it hasn't. It's one of those technologies which intends to remain as expensive as possible for as long as possible, it seems."
You must not do much pricing. My HDTV. 32". 1080i. Toshiba. Looks brilliant. $800. You don't need a tuner for a console. It's a bulky tube, but I'll take that over the new Plasma, DLP, and LCD technologies chasing their own tales just to re-create the blacks and colors that CRTs aready provide. Rationalizing the price of HDTVs doesn't change fact that there is an estimation of 25% household penetration by the end of the year, vs. the wireless networks that Nintendo hopes we have that won't be anything like that.
"Apple shifted the paradigm and put mp3 players in the hands of the non-technical. Nintendo aims to shift the paradigm and put their controller in the hands of the non-gamer."
That sounds like a Reggie speech. Apple created a new market where there wasn't much of one... and what market there was, was greatly disorganized. Consoles are a mature market. Revolution will not sweep the world by storm. They'll likely do better than GameCube, but partially because Nintendo also couldn't do worse. They're good enough to stay afloat on their fan base and war chest interest.
"For this reason, Nintendo's games might actually wind up looking better because their games won't be forced to run in HD, leaving a lot more processing power to handle polygons in better looking models. "
Well, hope springs eternal.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2006, 02:06:02 PM
Although the DS is doing incredibly well in Japan it isn't totally mopping the floor in North America. The PSP is still a threat. I attribute the DS's success largely to the fact that it was the follow-up to the GBA and thus has sold well based on the momentum of its predecessor. If the roles were reversed and Sony was the market leader and Nintendo was trying to beat them with new functionality attached to inferior hardware I don't know if it would be doing as well. The PSP was overpriced and there is too much focus on movies. That's why the DS is beating it. Maybe I'm wrong and the stylus is just so amazing that people are going ga-ga over the DS but I don't see it and there's no way to prove that whatever "plan" Nintendo has carried out for the DS is going to work on the Rev. GBA = market leader. Gamecube = loser console no one bought. That's a big difference. When you're the market leader you can get by basically not f*cking up. When you're in last place that room for error isn't there. The DS hasn't proven to me that offering something unique and different at the expense of hardware results in big sales in North America.
Post by: ShyGuy on February 23, 2006, 02:10:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
Accepting sacrifice has become a common M.O. New controllers and HD is not an either/or proposition. Why people think it is is beyond me. Having both is not asking for too much. Nor does it push system costs to $600 or higher.
No, put it would probably push system costs to $400 or higher. Unless you want Nintendo to sell the Revolution at a loss.
Post by: BigJim on February 23, 2006, 02:41:57 PM
I wouldn't believe that either. See the rest of my post.
Post by: antman100 on February 23, 2006, 02:43:26 PM
By all accounts, Nintendo could charge $300 for the Revo and likely still be the 'cheapest' console. This is probably $100 more that Revo will actually end up costing. I refuse to believe that N couldn't add a little more gumption and some bells & whistles for that $100.
Also, I don't see how you can compare consoles to handhelds. If for no other reason, in terms of handhelds, Nintendo was king. That is assuredly not the case in consoles.
Does Nintendo deserve to make a profit? Absolutely, how about one dollar? Charge $1 more than it costs to make the thing. You could always make that up in volume. And we would be paying $121 for the Revo, give or take.
To add at least a little back to the topic: I still don't believe size is a determining factor in consoles. Unless it is smaller than a PDA or bigger than an A/V receiver.
P.S. I sit about 8-9 feet from my 32" screen and HD channels look frickin' sweet. I don't know where that figures into your calculations.
Post by: Ceric on February 23, 2006, 02:56:59 PM
D versus at launch wouldn't be hard considering that Warppipe worked. So lets recap. Nintendo DID offer online no one used it. Sony eventually offerred online and Square used it. If Sony would have gotten PSO and Nintendo would have gotten FFXI I'm sure we be wondering how they change the online experience for the Rev. Therefore that means the only player who had a different online strategy was MS and they did it well.
So everyone stop complaining how Nintendo didn't offer online. They did. If you want to complain about something Nintendo said they would have but didn't complain about the Digi-adapter. In fact when I got my Network adapter they they were pretty much everywhere. (On that note someone please tell me an online title that Sony developed and when it was released? I'll bet it was post FFXI.)
Post by: RiskyChris on February 23, 2006, 02:59:24 PM
All of you saying "I'd pay $100 more if Nintendo would put in more features" are not representative of the whole population. Different people are willing to pay different prices, and right now I suspect a very large portion of consumers would value a new console at around $200. A demand curve for an economy is just that, curved. You folks are higher on the curve, willing to pay a larger price, but the total quantity of units sold will be less because of the lost sales to people only valuing a Rev at $200.
Post by: Aussiedude on February 23, 2006, 03:02:32 PM
Sure a HD game will look better but at wht cost?
- higher system price (x2)
- higher development cost for the game (XBOX360 already 20 - 30 AUD more expensive than current gen)
- longer development time due to increased graphics (or same time but less gameplay)
- due to high cost publishers wont take many risks with new franchises
Graphics are not the major driver, if they were PS2 would still not be market leader. This has been reinforced with the DS, but to a lesser extent in the US.
If Nintendo can release the system for $150 to $200 USD it should sell well, heck even the wireless connector for XBOX60 is selling in AUS for about $125 AUD.
Post by: IceCold on February 23, 2006, 03:22:37 PM
Of course they could. But..
1) As Risky said, you may be able to afford a $300 console. BUt a $200 one is A LOT more appealing, and will help Nintendo to get a quick start in terms of userbase. Which comes to the second point..
2) Nongamers. You think they owuld buy a $300 console? Not a chance.. That's the main reason Nintendo is keeping the price down; for them. If there's one or two launch games that appeal to them and the console is cheap enough, and throw in the VC too, then they may pick it up.
Post by: antman100 on February 23, 2006, 03:28:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: RiskyChris
I feel like half the people in this thread have never taken even an introductory economics course.
q]
And apparently the other half think HD is for those young whipper-snappers with their jet packs and their rock 'em-sock 'em robots.
Hey man, I hope you're right. I hope Grandma, Uncle Jesse and Cooter use the hell out of their RevMotes.
Although Grandma might get the Carpal Tunnel.
Post by: Talon on February 23, 2006, 03:48:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Aussiedude
In Australia HD sets (no name brand) are becoming quite cheap, buy I'm now not convinced nintendo is wrong.
There is going to be a huge explosion in the number of people in Australia that will own HD sets in the next month. Being a country full of sporting fanatics the commonwealth games is going to be the catalyst for most people to go out and buy a decent HD (plasma or lcd) for quite a cheap price. You will have noticed most of the major electronic retailers have been really pushing plasma and lcd tvs with the current price drops. But as a rebuttle to this argument in the videogame world Australia isnt a major player we just cant generate the sales as Japan, North America and Europe can and thus are constantly overlooked. Nintendo will have an extremely hard time winning over Aussie fans as they are pretty much non existant currently. Most people are gearing up for the impending X360 launch or the subsequent PS3 launch.
HD is probably going to be a big driving force here purely because more and more people will own HD tvs especially with the current price drops of HD tvs. I suspect SONY to once again reign supreme downunder with Microsoft not so far behind. Not sure how nintendo is going to position themselves in australia but if they keep going the way they are then the only way your going to be able to get Nintendo games here is through imports.
Post by: Aussiedude on February 23, 2006, 04:00:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TalonQuote
Originally posted by: Aussiedude
In Australia HD sets (no name brand) are becoming quite cheap, buy I'm now not convinced nintendo is wrong.
There is going to be a huge explosion in the number of people in Australia that will own HD sets in the next month. Being a country full of sporting fanatics the commonwealth games is going to be the catalyst for most people to go out and buy a decent HD (plasma or lcd) for quite a cheap price. You will have noticed most of the major electronic retailers have been really pushing plasma and lcd tvs with the current price drops. But as a rebuttle to this argument in the videogame world Australia isnt a major player we just cant generate the sales as Japan, North America and Europe can and thus are constantly overlooked. Nintendo will have an extremely hard time winning over Aussie fans as they are pretty much non existant currently. Most people are gearing up for the impending X360 launch or the subsequent PS3 launch.
HD is probably going to be a big driving force here purely because more and more people will own HD tvs especially with the current price drops of HD tvs. I suspect SONY to once again reign supreme downunder with Microsoft not so far behind. Not sure how nintendo is going to position themselves in australia but if they keep going the way they are then the only way your going to be able to get Nintendo games here is through imports.
Yeah I agree basilcally with that. But Ninteno's attitude here (no advertising, HEY you want your DS fixed under warrenty then go jump or sue me) has a lot to do with it.
Plus the fact most Aussies wont buy a system (console) unless they can get pirated games. But if the Revo is cheap, the games are cheap, and none of the other systems can be pirated (a big ask) and Nintendo support get off ther big fat arssses then there is a slim chance here.
Still in AUS I expect PS3 to be first, XBOX360 second (AUS is XBOX's best territory) and revo a distant last (as I really cant see Nintendo here changing).
Post by: trip1eX on February 23, 2006, 04:05:16 PM
Obviously if you want hi-def and that's your main concern then the Revolution isn't for you.
Nintendo is taking their games and moving to a different playground.
Post by: Aussiedude on February 23, 2006, 04:10:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: trip1eX
I thought this thread was about why the REv is small. Now it's about why they didn't go hi-def.
Obviously if you want hi-def and that's your main concern then the Revolution isn't for you.
Nintendo is taking their games and moving to a different playground.
Why should this thread be the first one to stay on track
.Any how, it is somewhat related, in that it is possible to be small due to no hi-def.
Post by: Artimus on February 23, 2006, 04:23:19 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2006, 04:56:29 PM
That's like saying Nintendo offered component cables and no one used it so was okay for them to remove the functionality from later Cubes. In that case Nintendo didn't advertise the functionality at all (you just had to know about the cables), didn't allow third parties to make cables, and only sold the cables online and until a few years ago Canadians had to PHONE Nintendo to order the cables.
Nintendo did not help third parties with their online games at ALL and they didn't push the feature at all and they didn't use the feature at all. And they would constantly bash the concept in interviews and speeches and successfully trained their fanboys to think that online was evil (just like how they've convinced those same people that HD is evil). They sabotaged the feature. They didn't want to use it so they intentionally made sure it didn't succeed. Saying the Cube was online is only correct on a technicality. For all intents and purposes it wasn't and Nintendo never had any intention on making it so.
"Your average person doesn't even understand what HD is, they just want a big TV."
You're assuming this ignorance is permanent. If someone goes to a store to buy a new TV they're going to see "HD" stickers on models and the salesman is going to talk about it. If they're buying a console and do their research they'll discover the Rev doesn't support a feature and the other two consoles do (ie: the Rev is cheap because it's an inferior piece of junk, or so one would naturally assume). And if they don't do their research the guy at EB or Best Buy or Toys 'R' Us is going to mention it when they ask him about the different consoles. It doesn't matter if that person doesn't know what HD is, the second they hear "it doesn't support HD" they're going to sour on the Rev. Maybe not enough to prevent a sale but it will be a negative. People get turned off by missing features all the time. "Well this model doesn't have internal deramificaton." "It doesn't? Oh man that sucks."
Post by: RiskyChris on February 23, 2006, 04:58:37 PM
So far every decision regarding the Rev has been about making the gameplay elements as good as possible while maintaining an affordable price range.
HD is the most overrated thing since sliced bread.
Post by: Michael8983 on February 23, 2006, 05:02:35 PM
The vast majority of people who buy the REV won't even know it doesn't have HD support. Even the ones who DO have HDTV's won't know. So if Nintendo can sell the console a lot cheaper and even make a larger profit by excluding a feature that probably over 90% of its users won't know to miss, why not do it? Sure it might p*ss off a few tech-junkies but alienating a small percentage of the market in exchange for making a product much more accessible to the majority is reasonable. But the real benefit is the Rev will be much quicker and easier to develope for. Which is a necessity in order to convince developers to take a chance on it with some unique new games.
"If they're buying a console and do their research..."
They won't.
If consumers did research and made smart buying decisions Sony would have gone out of business long before it entered the gaming market.
"And if they don't do their research the guy at EB or Best Buy or Toys 'R' Us is going to mention it when they ask him about the different consoles."
Hopefully they'll mention the REV is a hundered or even two hundered dollars cheaper than the others.
Honestly they probably won't. But sales clerks will probably try and convince people to buy a 360 or PS3 over a REV regardless. Even if it had HD support it wouldn't make a difference.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2006, 05:17:32 PM
I agree and it's not that big of a deal on its own. It's a problem in that it represents Nintendo continuing to skimp on features and make excuses and tell us what we should think is important. And that attitude is Nintendo's overall problem. What else are they going to skimp on? What other excuses will there be? Plus Nintendo is in full control of this issue. Some negatives can't be foreseen. What is Nintendo going to miss that no one can foresee if they're intentionally making such blatant obvious oversights for their console? And why have we heard so many negatives about the Rev but the positives are all largely theoretical? Most of the concrete facts are negative while the good stuff is largely dependent on Nintendo's word with no actual proof. "Well it's worth it for all these innovative games." What innovative games? We've got nothing. If HD and lesser hardware doesn't matter then why haven't we seen PROOF that it doesn't matter? I'm kind of assuming that we haven't seen such proof because it doesn't exist.
Post by: RiskyChris on February 23, 2006, 05:20:43 PM
A play on Schrodinger's Cat (spelling!).
Just because there is no sight of quality, innovative gameplay doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We'll wait and see at E3.
Post by: Michael8983 on February 23, 2006, 05:22:35 PM
Either way Nintendo has to skimp on something. Either it can skimp on the HD or skimp on the low price the way MS and Sony have.
I'd say price is very important and most consumers would agree. Sony and MS are the ones telling consumers what to think is important by making them pay extra for a feature most can't even use.
Post by: BigJim on February 23, 2006, 06:02:49 PM
Nintendo targetting the non-gamer is a *result* of foregoing competition (and offering weaker hardware), after the fact. One comes after the other. Of course HD and non-gamer aren't entirely compatible. They wouldn't target the non-gamer if they wanted to compete. So since they aren't, HD is dropped as an option. I reject the notion that HD doubles the system price, though.
"Either way Nintendo has to skimp on something. Either it can skimp on the HD or skimp on the low price the way MS and Sony have"
Again with the sacrificing. It's not either/or. The cost does not automatically skyrocket out of control. What people pay for (or, rather, don't pay for) in the 360 and PS3 is absolute bleeding-edge. So new it's difficut to even manufacture. You don't need up-to-the-second bleeding edge to have HD resolution.
"I'd say price is very important and most consumers would agree. Sony and MS are the ones telling consumers what to think is important by making them pay extra for a feature most can't even use."
MOST consumers bought PlayStations and Xboxes. For 50% more than GameCube. It's silly to say Sony and MS are doing the spinning when Nintendo is right there with them spinning a message of what we REALLY need and don't need.
Post by: IceCold on February 23, 2006, 06:05:59 PM
Negative features? Hmm, no HD support. What else?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 23, 2006, 07:44:49 PM
On the other end, "popular" home consoles, HD movie players, surround sound receivers, etc. continue to boast more powerful components with the downside of being bulkier, heavier, and hotter.
I tend to like sound, efficient engineering rather than chunky, cutting-edge power.
Post by: nemo_83 on February 23, 2006, 08:29:29 PM
If the console launches at $150 how much will it be in three years, its price will be marked down so much it won't exist in the eyes of consumers. Once a home console drops below a certain mark it has an affect on people's minds, they smell death and droughts, and thus as gamers avoid the console the imagined death becomes real and stores nolonger carry the software for the console.
By the way I just read a rumor a company called 3Dh may be involved with the revolution.
Post by: Khushrenada on February 23, 2006, 08:47:57 PM
"Every home game machine in history has married a controller to a console, and a console to a television. "
"How these four elements: Controller, Console, TV, and Internet interact with each other forms a central difference in Revolution design."
There was also this comment that may or may not be unrelated: "But, our advances in our technology will also relate to areas that have no direct bearing on gameplay."
Let's not forget the comment by Square Enix that was mentioned in the beginning about "not just a console, not just a portable"
Now whether the small size of the Revolution has something to do with this or not, I'm not sure. But right now, we know how the controller and console interact, and we have a bit of information as to how the internet and console interact but nothing seem to have been discussed with how the T.V. and console interact. Unless it's a reference to the sensor bars you have to put beside the T.V. for the Revmote to work but I think there might be more.
In fact, the only thing I can recall with reference to this was a question in a recent IGN mailbag about whether the Revmote would work on any T.V. The answer was that Reggie had been traveling around to different developers and showing them a Revolution unit. Reggie said that he had hooked the unit up too all kinds of T.V.'s and there never was a problem. It always worked. No time-consuming fiddling.
Of course, I could be way off that this has anything to do with the yet unveiled secret but I've been wondering about it for awhile.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 23, 2006, 08:53:18 PM
Now getting back to the rev and HD.
To teh average consumer they are nto goign to knwo t doesnt suport HD because it WILL support Progressive scan which still looks goog on an HD TV set.
someone said Nintendo could sell it for 1 dollar profit adn still make money, sorry you must not haev taken economics or bussiness classes at all, besides covering your manufactoring cost, and your shipping cost and your marketing cost in order to profit you must cover your operating cost as well, that means you haev to make enough money to pay for LABOR, and BUILDINGS, ELECTRICITY, INSURANCE, TAXES, and many other smaller things that makea difference.
Most Bussinesses earnings only generate what equals 5% profit for them It takes a LOT of money to make a profit epsecialy when yoru talking gaming systems
Lets do some math.
In order for 1 Revolution to get made Nintendo has to pay for the factory buiulidng and equipmewnt, they haev to pay for pwoer to run the equipoment, they have to pay people to operate the equipment, and payf or training, they have to have insurance to cover accidents or theft/damage etc.
They have to pay property taxes, AND they have to pay taxes on the equipment they use.
Then they have to pay for pakaging, and shipping. Pakagin costs include the copst of the materials, and the equipment to make the package, shippng cost include paying form someone to label it corectly, put it on whatever transport tthey use and then cover the cost of the transport.
NOW lets say they pay thier laborers minimum wage, they most likely DONT but for sake of numbers lets assume 5.15 per hour.
Ol lets say they can make 500 revs in an hour and it takes 50peopel to make that number of revs. Then lets say the assembly line and ect cost them an initial start up of 50,000 dollars. (rough estimate but from what i have studied pretty close cost for manufactroing equipment of this nature)
Ok now then you say it costs them 75 dollars in parts for every rev they make. Now they have to sell each console at enough profit to cover all their costs, yo do the equation and tell me what you come up with.
Lets say that the total cost for Nintendo to sell a revolution is 125 dollars, tahst after paying all expenses, now the retail store has to make a profit, they have to pay for the truck it was shipped to them they have to pay the shippng/recieving team who unloads the truck and puts it on teh shelfe, they have to pay for retail space (the building) and insurance, electricity, etc. Now lets say for a store to make 1 dollar profit from the sael they HAVE to price the rev at 199.99 now lets say that the price of adding HD (parts) is 30dolalrs, now you haev to redesign the assembly line to accomodate that extra peice of hardware, now your talking uppng the cost a lto more than 30dollars.
Post by: IceCold on February 23, 2006, 09:15:28 PM
QuoteThat is the quote I'm most puzzled about.. I know there's something else about the Revolution, but what? Is it someting embedded in the Revolution hardware? If so, will they even reveal it until Sony finalises their hardware?
There was also this comment that may or may not be unrelated: "But, our advances in our technology will also relate to areas that have no direct bearing on gameplay."
Post by: nemo_83 on February 23, 2006, 09:51:39 PM
"Level 5's Akihiro Hino, producer of Rogue Galaxy and Dragon Quest VIII, believes that the Revolution will give birth to new types of games. He is personally interested in making an RPG where you hold a shield in one hand, a sword in the other and mount a head set on our head"
Post by: KDR_11k on February 23, 2006, 11:02:32 PM
And personally I haven't seen a single HDTV in a reasonable price range yet. Projectors, yes. PC monitors, yes. But no TVs.
Never mind that many people have no idea what HD really is. They buy a HDTV, run it at SD and with horrible stretching and think it's better just because it's a better screen than their old one. A survey showed that less than 50% of all HDTV owners even use it fo HD content.
nemo: Please, realize that noone WANTS a headset. It's dorky, it's nauseating, it's pointless.
"If no one is looking at the moon, it doesn't exist"
A play on Schrodinger's Cat (spelling!).
I think that's more what a philosopher says than what Schrödinger says.
Post by: Ceric on February 24, 2006, 05:52:11 AM
Lets face it. Live was a relative success but all the simply online offerrings of Sony, with the exception of FFXI, were relative "Oh, that's nice."
I mean if Nintendo hadn't been so stuck on people being together to play games and pushing the GBA connectivity I'm sure we would have seen the online thing. Also if this generation Nintendo would have become on online power house, which mind you wireless did not until recenctly become reasonable, people would be clamoring for the GBA to go online. Which it simply can not. It could be done but it's much to complicated. The larger prevalance of Wireless is making things click more with the Nintendo philosophies since the N64.
Post by: MaryJane on February 24, 2006, 06:12:07 AM
i've never met any of these people who think that because something is cheaper it must not be good. everyone i know looks at something inexpensive and sees a bargain. Hypthetical situation: "Hey check out the new Nintendo system" "Oh is that the one with that weird controller" "Yeah, Hey WOW check it out man it's only $200" "Awesome I can afford that no problem, it'll be worth it just to try that controller" Then after buying the system, who wouldn't fall in love with the new controller (everyone who's played it thus far has)
I believe in Nintendo, yes they've made some bad decisions in the past, but i think their current situation looks good, offer something completely new, never before done, for a very good price. maybe some people will never be satisfied, i garuntee if the rev was as big as a 360 and had HD the same people who are hating in this thread would be complaining about how there's not going to be any 3rd party support for the rev because they think the controller is scaring them away. complainers always complain. do i think the rev is perfect? nope. am i going to buy one? of course. is anything going to deter me from getting one? nothing i can see. is anyone here not going to get one because it's too small or doesn't off HD? idk but those are both pretty stupid reasons not to buy it. game quality and innovation, two things you can always count on nintendo to deliver and they are most important things in the video game industry. (at least to me)
Post by: Ian Sane on February 24, 2006, 07:09:53 AM
Well all this talk about weak hardware. We know the hardware isn't up to snuff and that HD is dropped. I would consider a weird controller no one asked for as a negative as well until we see it in action. For positives we know that the system looks nice, has a download system of some sort, and is online for free. But we don't know the pricing for the download system. Nintendo is heavily hinting at forcing us to have wireless internet access for a stay at home console and will not clarify the issue. They talk about the graphics being good enough but never show them. They say the controller will have a shell but haven't shown it. They say the new controller is innovative and will introduce cool new ideas but they've shown nothing. Most of the postive stuff sounds good in theory but is missing the really important details that determines if it's a good idea or not. And Nintendo is incredibly secretive about those important details. It's suspicious. It looks like they're hiding things from us. It is very easy to come to the conclusion that the Rev isn't that great but it takes blind faith in Nintendo to believe the opposite. We really have no reason to assume the Rev is anything even remotely good because our only source of that info is Nintendo themselves and they're obviously biased.
Post by: MaryJane on February 24, 2006, 07:16:24 AM
Quote
It's suspicious. It looks like they're hiding things from us. It is very easy to come to the conclusion that the Rev isn't that great but it takes blind faith in Nintendo to believe the opposite. We really have no reason to assume the Rev is anything even remotely good because our only source of that info is Nintendo themselves and they're obviously biased.
Nintendo isn't the only person saying how great it is. IGN reported on the love developers have for it with just the dev kits (i thought this was old news) and they're not hididng from us, they're hiding from the competition who has a long history of stealing nintendo's ideas. MS wants to make a portable to combat the ipod, and psp, what's the betting it features a touch screen?
Post by: Ian Sane on February 24, 2006, 07:45:44 AM
Then why did Nintendo show off the controller already? Wouldn't that make more sense to hide than anything else? I guess the idea would be that the use of the remote is the real idea and that's what they feel is more important but it's still weird. They say this whole remote design gives them this big advantage because everyone is familiar with a TV remote. They say they don't want the competition to steal their ideas and that we have to see the remote in motion to really see how great it is. Then they reveal the secret but don't show us how it works? So now Sony and MS know what Nintendo's big secret controller is and we're all staring at it going "wha?" because they haven't shown us it in use which apparently was a requirement for us to like it. That just doesn't make any sense. The secret's out and we didn't have a good first impression of the controller. I thought those two things were exactly what they were trying to avoid.
It would benefit Nintendo significantly to show more than what they're showing. People say the hardware isn't up to snuff. Well they could prove us wrong with a couple screenshots. People say the controller is too limiting to work with traditional games. Well they could prove us wrong by demonstrating some titles. But they don't so it's very natural to assume it's because they can't. When someone accuses you of something negative and you have proof otherwise you show it. The only reason you wouldn't is because you can't or you're a total f*cking idiot. When accusations of insufficient hardware were flying around Nintendo could have been all "Oh yeah? Check this sh!t out!" and blown us away with some screens. But they didn't and the negative buzz about the Rev being underpowered has spread. Why would they not use that opportunity to put that negative rumour to rest? They're either stupid or they've got nothing.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 24, 2006, 08:17:26 AM
Quit making up ultimatums.
From my perspective, 360 and PS3 (and their games) are designed to perform and look at a certain level at HD. Once you force them to run at SD, I don't expect these games to perform any better with the extra resources that have now been freed (that is, if they're still forced to run at HD specs, plus a resolution downsize.) I haven't heard any accounts of a game that has some framerate hiccups in HD running smoother when in SD.
Nintendo, I see it, just cut out HD specs and went to maximize SD performance. Weaker hardware? Oh yes, especially when enforcing the HD standard. But considering the majority of the playing field is SD, will the performance be comparably weaker? I think not.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 24, 2006, 08:21:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
It would benefit Nintendo significantly to show more than what they're showing. People say the hardware isn't up to snuff. Well they could prove us wrong with a couple screenshots. People say the controller is too limiting to work with traditional games. Well they could prove us wrong by demonstrating some titles. But they don't so it's very natural to assume it's because they can't. When someone accuses you of something negative and you have proof otherwise you show it. The only reason you wouldn't is because you can't or you're a total f*cking idiot. When accusations of insufficient hardware were flying around Nintendo could have been all "Oh yeah? Check this sh!t out!" and blown us away with some screens. But they didn't and the negative buzz about the Rev being underpowered has spread. Why would they not use that opportunity to put that negative rumour to rest? They're either stupid or they've got nothing.
...or they always have ignored rumors and gossip and they always will.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 24, 2006, 08:23:32 AM
How does an NDA affect Nintendo? It's their console.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 24, 2006, 08:39:14 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 24, 2006, 08:43:32 AM
But the NDA affects everyone else. All this tension was built up cuz they didn't have a Spaceworld last year to show off non-playable movies, couple that with the fact that near-full-speed dev kits are barely coming out in the next couple months, it's obvious they didn't have hardware mature enough in the past 5 something months to show us something accurate and reflective of the finalized performance level.
Madden on 360 doesn't compare with the Madden E3 "demo footage" preceding it. Ghost Recon 3 doesn't compare with the E3 "demo footage" preceding it. Killzone only existed thanks to the magick of Maya 3D and Adobe Premiere. MGS4 ran live on a machine, but probably wasn't a "PS3" (according to the Sony artist that got fired). Spare me the lies.
Post by: MaryJane on February 24, 2006, 08:53:47 AM
Quote
Then why did Nintendo show off the controller already?
so you'd have less to bit<h about
Quote
It would benefit Nintendo significantly to show more than what they're showing. People say the hardware isn't up to snuff. Well they could prove us wrong with a couple screenshots. People say the controller is too limiting to work with traditional games. Well they could prove us wrong by demonstrating some titles. But they don't so it's very natural to assume it's because they can't. When someone accuses you of something negative and you have proof otherwise you show it. The only reason you wouldn't is because you can't or you're a total f*cking idiot. When accusations of insufficient hardware were flying around Nintendo could have been all "Oh yeah? Check this sh!t out!" and blown us away with some screens. But they didn't and the negative buzz about the Rev being underpowered has spread. Why would they not use that opportunity to put that negative rumour to rest? They're either stupid or they've got nothing.
they should the controller.
also what would be more fun? punching a guy like 10 times and making him pass out, or hitting him over the head with a steel beam and seeing brain matter fly? I choose the latter, and obviously so does nintendo. e3 = steel beam. brain matter = all doubts.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 24, 2006, 08:55:31 AM
I was respoinding to Ians remakrs about the NDA shouldnt affect Nintendo and Iw a saying how it certainly does. anyways I agree and I think Nintendo learned their lesson last time around, with the space world 2000 fiasco. Again more reasons to have faith in them this tiem, because they are addressing every issue form every angle, and I still maintian HD ownt matter one bit BECAUSE people are already starting to notice 360 does NOT look as good in Sd as HD and that since its made to be HD it looks bad on SD so Rev will look better in comparison, or at elast comparable, Iwato said that himself as has others I believe.
I haev 1 question for Ian Sane, do YOU even have an HD televison? cuz if not it does not affect you one bit either so why all the fuss? I mean you generaly make good points, and I tend to defent you from time to time, but the HD thing is a losing battle and I just cant figure out why you even fight it.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 24, 2006, 09:12:51 AM
Also, by not saying anything, they effectively prevent Sony and MS from boasting superior graphic capability. Rumor is one thing, proof is another and without proof, no one can say anything for certain.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 24, 2006, 09:29:56 AM
I don't but my parents do and I wouldn't mind trying the Rev out on that. I'm not thinking strictly in terms of what I want or need. I'm partially thinking about how this will affect the Rev within the next five years. Since I like Nintendo I don't want their console sales to be limited by what I see as an obvious oversight. And I could buy an HD within the next five years. If I did I would want my console to support it. That's a huge part of the point. HD isn't really needed now but what about in 2011? Nintendo has to make sure their console serves the needs and wants of the public within the next five years. I think HD is going to increase in popularity each year and having a console that doesn't support it is going to look very out-of-touch and out-of-date. Plus I'm just f*cking sick of Nintendo telling me what I should find important or not. Give me the damn option.
Plus don't all of us own PC monitors? Wouldn't it be cool to hook your console up to your monitor and see the games at a higher resolution? It's funny because that was one of the first things Nintendo revealed about the Rev and it probably no longer applies.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 24, 2006, 10:15:47 AM
Not sure about your neck of the woods, but the US economy is headed straight into the sh!tter. Most people will be more worried about buying food than HDTVs.
HDTV saturation is roughly 10% of US households right now. 10%. Including a feature that less than 1% of your customers will ever use it flat out retarded.
Post by: BigJim on February 24, 2006, 12:02:00 PM
Nobody knows. Only Iwata claims it'll look the same due to less fillrate issues on SD. It's still built weaker from the ground up, and comparing the prime best of Cube vs. the weakest of the 360 is a weak defense. We certainly know what will look better on an HD TV, though.
"people are already starting to notice 360 does NOT look as good in Sd as HD and that since its made to be HD it looks bad on SD so Rev will look better in comparison"
Want some more Kool-Aid? We know squat about what Rev will look like on anything. I would hardly suggest 360 looks bad on either SD or HD, much less claim Rev somehow looks even better on weaker hardware when you still haven't see a thing.
"HDTV saturation is roughly 10% of US households right now. 10%. Including a feature that less than 1% of your customers will ever use it flat out retarded."
There is an estimated 25% HDTV penetration expected when Revolution launches, and that's a higher % than the wireless network Nintendo expects us to have. If HD is retarded, then it doesn't say much for their internet service.
Post by: trip1eX on February 24, 2006, 12:19:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
It would benefit Nintendo significantly to show more than what they're showing. People say the hardware isn't up to snuff. Well they could prove us wrong with a couple screenshots. People say the controller is too limiting to work with traditional games. Well they could prove us wrong by demonstrating some titles.
E3 man. I know it's hard to believe Nintendo's business plans and timetables don't revolve around some armchair quarterbacks on a forum, but ..
Post by: antman100 on February 24, 2006, 03:06:10 PM
A potential argument one could have is that, with wireless internet, the Revo is meant to be moved from place to place, for parties and such. The problem is that I don't think you can use that in advertising because what you are telling people essentially is that if your buddy has one, you don't really need to get one. Just call him/her/grandma up and tell them to bring it over. I don't know, I suppose there must be a reason. Small for the sake of small doesn't do anything for me.
P.S. No HD support.
Post by: Artimus on February 24, 2006, 03:27:45 PM
We KNOW the Revolution is less power, its been confirmed. Considering Nintendo's stance against using CGI and FMV to show off fake graphical capabilities, showing screenshots would only allow Sony to show them up. The key isn't screenshots or info released, its whether or not the press gets behind the Rev. Screenshots aren't going to help that in the SLIGHTEST.
Don't put your own anxious impatience onto Nintendo as some sort of fault.
Post by: Caliban on February 24, 2006, 03:38:47 PM
In saying this, I also agree with Ian's prior comments (other threads) about Nintendo's marketing will be very important to their success but I don't agree with his technological comments (from this thread) because I don't see it of that much importance and it's all bullshit in my view.
Post by: BigJim on February 24, 2006, 03:53:35 PM
The good news with the press, at least, is that since they are apparently launching at the same time, PS3 stories are harder to write without at least mentioning Revolution. There is automatic "rub" by association. They also definitely need to get people trying it out to make their case. That'll be a challenge. Hopefully they'll have more kiosk POP presence as well as a tour like they did with Cube.
And Sony not having a 2 year headstart helps everybody for sure too.
Post by: 31 Flavas on February 24, 2006, 09:49:08 PM
QuoteOk Ian, we get it, you need to have your ego stroked by your console and sissy remotes or stylii just don't stroke you, perhaps they even anti-stroke you. You don't like it and want Nintendo to throw millions into the dick sizing contest. But Nintendo won't and instead goes after markets where the competition is not so cut-throat, like non-gamers. So you're frustrated. We get it Ian, everyone gets it. But it isn't what Nintendo wants to do and you're not going to convince them otherwise so get over it. Nintendo should certainly know whats best for themself, better then you. If you don't like that, well too bad.
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"HD is not gameplay altering like online play is."
I agree and it's not that big of a deal on its own. It's a problem in that it represents Nintendo continuing to skimp on features and make excuses and tell us what we should think is important.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 24, 2006, 10:54:30 PM
Miniaturization arouses technolust. The Rev is going to look pretty sleek next to the other two oversized, overheated, bulky monstrosities.
Post by: MaryJane on February 25, 2006, 06:38:41 AM
oh wait none of that is true.
Post by: Renny on February 25, 2006, 06:52:46 AM
Post by: RiskyChris on February 25, 2006, 07:27:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Renny
31 Flavas raises and interesting point. Perhaps Nintendo likes to make things small so our members will look bigger. They do tend to cater to the Japanese market, afterall.
I've been meaning to say this for a while now, but I thought it was wildly inappropriate. =)
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 25, 2006, 06:18:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
There is an estimated 25% HDTV penetration expected when Revolution launches, and that's a higher % than the wireless network Nintendo expects us to have. If HD is retarded, then it doesn't say much for their internet service.
*cough*
"However, some HDTV providers don't expect HDTV sets to become mainstream until pricing falls below $500 and manufacturers discontinue analogue sets. The most common HDTV sets being sold are in the 40" range consisting of LCD, Plasma and rear projection sets.
...
In fact, there may be several other items the consumer must get before they can begin watching true HD content. Probably the cheapest option to start off would be to watch terrestrial HD content (if available) or subscribe to a satellite / cable TV service that offers HD programming. Unfortunately, if the consumer is looking for HD players or recorders, these come quite expensive with most HD compatible PVR's costing $1,000 or higher, such as the one available with DirecTV."
I'm not convinced that the feature and forcing your developers to support it will be worth it at all. If Sony and MS are going to push the envelope on all games having HD textures, then I strongly feel that, yes, it WILL be detrimental to the development process and discourage development for their consoles.
I can't speak for other countries, but the US is not exactly going through a period of financial "growth" right now. It would be grossly incorrect to assume that HDTV will become the standard when, as of yet, networks are not pushing it and it has yet to be widely adopted. Furthermore, the damn things are expensive, and if you truly want to get HD, you need an HD Tuner which, as the article implies, will run you another $1,000.
Nintendo is aiming for the audience on a budget, and that's a sound concept because it's safer to assume people do NOT have money than assuming they do. HD isn't worth it. It's not worth the extra money for having the feature on the console and it's not worth having developers make textures for it when 9 of 10 customers won't ever see them.
Post by: IceCold on February 25, 2006, 06:43:23 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 25, 2006, 06:49:33 PM
Broadband allows you to accomplish things you cannot do with dialup and is very cheap, and yet it still hasn't taken a mass market yet because people only buy what they need. HDTV allows you to see pictures sharper. That's it. You can't watch anything with HD that you cannot watch with a regular TV.
And broadband progression is FAR better than 10%.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 25, 2006, 06:51:04 PM
Post by: Artimus on February 25, 2006, 06:54:33 PM
I thinK HD will be becoming the standard within the last two years of the Rev's life. And by that point its fate will be long decided anyway.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 25, 2006, 07:13:39 PM
on second thought I take that back, I had an widescreen HDTV a while back, sold it when i moved, and it did make my SNES games look better even, but not so much better that I HAD to play my games on HD
so I guess I am torn, but I dont think it will affect REv sales AT ALL.
Post by: Artimus on February 25, 2006, 08:20:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: animecyberrat
I still dont get why all the fussover HD anyways, I goto walmat every day and look at teh HDTV sets and still dont see why the big fuss, so it looks btter not so much better to make regular tv look bad.
on second thought I take that back, I had an widescreen HDTV a while back, sold it when i moved, and it did make my SNES games look better even, but not so much better that I HAD to play my games on HD
so I guess I am torn, but I dont think it will affect REv sales AT ALL.
That really makes little sense. SNES games would look just as good on an SDTV. The HDTV would probably have better clarity, but the colours wouldn't be as good.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 25, 2006, 08:31:35 PM
The SDTVs would have benefitted it just as much, and the Rev will support those.
Post by: BigJim on February 25, 2006, 10:34:03 PM
One in Four Households Expect to Have HDTV Within 2006
"I'm not convinced that the feature and forcing your developers to support it will be worth it at all."
I disagree with Sony's and MS's approach of forcing it just as much as I disagree with Nintendo for omitting it. I've always called for making it an option. No forcing anything.
"Nintendo is aiming for the audience on a budget, and that's a sound concept because it's safer to assume people do NOT have money than assuming they do"
I still believe people will buy what they're willing to pay for. I still believe 360's and PS3's will sell in droves when supply is available. The budget audience is ideal in theory but only does so much for them, as their market shows.
There's no relation to this topic and HD players/PVRs (except in Sony's case since they're the only ones with an HD player). The article does not mention tuners alone, just PVRs with tuners. You technically don't even need an HD tuner to play HD games.
The costs and barriers to entry for HDTV can keep being brought up but it still doesn't change the fact that it's being adopted whether any of us are personally adopting it or not.
"And Jim, I really don't see why you keep bringing up Nintendo's Wi-Fi connection and comparing it to HD. Wireless routers are extremely cheap these days; you can get good ones for only $30-$40 CDN. Can't say the same about HDTVs.."
How much manufacturing cost do you think it adds to bump graphics an extra, say 256MB, and support 720 resolution? If you're under the belief that it costs hundreds of dollars, then of course a $30 Wi-Fi router makes worlds more sense.
I'm looking at a list of graphics cards. ATI x1000 series parts that can push pretty respectable frames per second on some respectable games. And they have *retail* prices for around $100 USD give or take. Manufacturing is a fraction of that. They're not bleeding edge GPUs like what PS3 and 360 have, but certainly respectable and resolution capable, if games were given such an option. And again, if any game is just so sensitive that framerates are weak, then there's always the SD option.
So, comparing the retail cost you'll pay for a typical wi-fi router vs. the at-cost or less you'd pay for the better GPU/memory, fairly close one.
Of course, if Nintendo came out from the start and declared their system would be $250 USD and supported HD, I highly doubt most people would complain. The love would continue just the same... because people will pay for what they want to buy.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 25, 2006, 11:59:52 PM
The Rev supposedly uses SRAM, that's more expensive than DRAM (because it uses 8 transistors per bit instead of one) but it also delivers better performance. 256MB of that would be VERY pricey (100+$) so they'd have to add DRAM and that'd start the headaches of what can be kept in what RAM and end up being a large disc cache. Allowing higher resolution output shouldn't cost much but should remain optional for developers. I think Nintendo did make a bad decision in not even allowing it (though maybe they will allow it but not use it much). After all I made a 2MB SVGA card output 1600x1200 back in the 486 days so there's almost no price attached to higher resolution.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 26, 2006, 05:56:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I was letting the issue drop with my previous post in this thread because nobody's mind is going to be changed, but alrighty then.
One in Four Households Expect to Have HDTV Within 2006
Flaws with the article:
1. "A new survey from Panasonic reveals..."
Sorry, but show me a consumer census which is not gathered by the company who relies upon projecting strong sales of the product they ask about.
2. "This survey was conducted nationwide by phone with 1061 adults aged 18 to 65. The margin of error is plus or minus five percent. For additional information on the survey, please contact Panasonic ."
So they asked a little over a thousand people and assume that this accurately represents "all US households". Who is their demographic? What kind of income did these households have?
This survey is meaningless. All I see is a pile of BS from Panasonic saying that their TVs will sell well. Phone-based surveys are immensely easy to "fix" to get whatever results you want because you can pick and choose who you want to call in the first place and omit data which you don't see as relevant.
Sorry, but if you want to prove that HDTVs are going to be more than a luxury in a year, the survey will have to provide more information as to the demographic they surveyed and not be done by a company which already has a personal stake in the outcome.
Post by: antman100 on February 26, 2006, 06:38:50 AM
But...stop using the fact that you don't or can't own one to justify ridiculous statements: HD only looks good for TV and movies, it only looks good if I am in my neighbor's basement. A 60" HDTV can only be viewed from the moon to get the proper detail. HDTVs can't make my morning coffee, so why the hell should Nintendo include it?
If you think SD is the be all, end all...I'm happy for you. Don't use Nintendo's technology decisions to insinuate that people HDTVs got hood-winked or short-changed.
Nintendo is not going to support HD. The truth is, what any of us think only represents a very small percentage of potential buyers. Let's restart this thread in 3 years and see how things are going.
For the record, I actually tried to post based on the title, but I can now see that it's a lost cause. Can I lock a thread for myself?
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 26, 2006, 07:15:29 AM
But what ridiculous statements do you mean? That most networks don't even support the format yet or that a 27" HDTV (with the necessary tuner) costs the same as a 40" SDTV?
EDIT: And it looks like Hollywood has decided to screw HDTV owners. REALLY glad I didn't buy one now...
Post by: animecyberrat on February 26, 2006, 07:35:23 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 26, 2006, 07:39:31 AM
HDTV won't look better unless the content is specifically designed for it.
Post by: Strell on February 26, 2006, 07:39:34 AM
That sort of crap is ridiculous. You might notice a difference, but you don't suddenly become so accostumed to HDTV that anything else is like stabbing your retinas with forks, qtips, or some other object.
The other thing I've noticed is that in most cases, gamers in forums are kids who had their parents buy them the HDTV set -OR- they are still living at home, and thus happen to have access. And yes, that's an unfair generalization, but everytime I read some 16 year old talking about their 50" set, I can't help but imagine them being huge spoiled brats.
I'm for Nintendo's decision because it keeps cost down, and since I'm a fresh college grad representing the HEIGHT of the demographic, I'd rather get a system plus games, knowing I'm sacrificing something that, in all reality, isn't THAT huge of a leap in technology and will do little to enhance the experience.
Those of you who have purchased HDTVs with your own hard earned cash, I must admit I am jealous. So there's no need for you to reply with some sort of insulting post, because I'd much rather have what you have.
Edit: Oh, and SB's link to the HDMI thing? Ouch. I will echo his comments in saying that I am super glad I have waited (mostly due to money concerns, but again, that's the whole jealousy thing acting up).
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 26, 2006, 07:59:28 AM
As the article implies, the movies which will take advantage of the format, HD-DVD and BluRay, won't even be compatible with current HDTVs, making them damn near worthless in the grand scheme of things.
If you disliked HDTV owners because they were elitist, congrats: they all just took a huge kick to the teeth, courtesy of Hollywood.
Post by: Artimus on February 26, 2006, 08:57:25 AM
HDTV is GREAT, but DVDs don't take advantage of it...And the picture quality for video games just doesn't matter that much...
Post by: lastexit on February 26, 2006, 09:04:14 AM
The majority of hdtv's out there aren't operating in real hdtv resolutions. A huge percentage DON'T OWN HDTV TUNERS. I know several people who have hdtv's in their house and they don't even use it's higher resolutions. This is because until this year tv's weren't required to have tuners. Only now are the largest sizes required. My xmas 2007 timeframe is rather realistic. Only then will HDTV be a real issue.
That said, in Japan high-def tv is a reality and has been for quite some time. Nintendo has an office full of hdtv sets. That's probably all they play games on. Progressive scan, moderately improved graphics and wide-screen support are what the next gen of consoles really need. Programming games to take advantage of HDTV is a major cost for a limited improvement. Video games are falsely created worlds, there are zillions of tricks to make things look better and more real that CANNOT BE APPLIED TO LIVE TV. Television gains quite a bit from real HDTV. Video games? not nearly so much. Progressive scan is responsible for a significant percentage of the "performance increase" people see in hdtv games.
Further, Nintendo has a HUUUGE advantage. Development. Developing has become very expensive as more and more people are trying to get into the biz. They know that smaller, independent (for now at least) outfits can and will produce good games if given the chance. The GC development kits have been out there for years. The Rev will have very solid games coming out in its first year because it's development platform is maturing. The "ceiling" has not been reached at all, but it's going to start out in its stride whereas the PS3 will be a newborn at that time and xbox360 will just be starting to walk. Developing for HDTV is a major expenditure.
The fact of the matter is that most people won't be able to tell the difference when shown a Revo game on a widescreen hdtv and most 360 and ps3 games. There are studies that show that most consumers can't really tell the difference on hdtv's/sdtv's right now. Sad, but true. WE can, but we're mostly techies.
As for Ian Sane, he lives in a bubble. He's way too concerned about appearing uncool in public and is very aware of public perception in that manner. The other way to perceive public perception acutely is to be a leader, a trendsetter. Ian Sane is not a trend setter, he's a catastrophist. Nintendo's marketing this time around is so far very very good. Reggie is doing a number on their way of doing things.
Price point also makes a huge difference. Console design is VERY BIG. The Revo will appeal to a huge number of people who wouldn't buy the ps3 or xbox. This is a reality. Watch sales of DS-Lite when it comes out for confirmation. THEY WILL EXPLODE.
Nintendo is doing everything right. If the third-party developers come along for the ride things will work out. Sony is going broke on the PS3.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 26, 2006, 11:33:29 AM
If they absolutely blow the doors out of E3, then follow it with a stellar launch and solid 3rd party support, they win. Game over.
I think the industry is in need of something new and innovative. God knows, I've played every genre (FPS, RPG, sports sim, racing sim, life sim, pet sim, adventure game, etc.) to death.
Time we had something new...
Post by: BigJim on February 26, 2006, 01:21:05 PM
And yours was outdated, posted from last May. The information, not just a Panasonic survey, was all over CES from everyone and their mother, independent and not. It was one sample article that happened to be at the top of a google search. It's expected, broadly.
"As the article implies, the movies which will take advantage of the format, HD-DVD and BluRay, won't even be compatible with current HDTVs, making them damn near worthless in the grand scheme of things.s"
The situation is not quite as dire as the article claims, though it's not a rosey picture either. Those being screwed are the VERY early adopters that bought HDTVs with no digital HDCP-compatible inputs (and the players aren't completely unusable, the video is down-rez'ed when viewed in analog, which the article got wrong). HDTVs made in the last few years are largely ok. I don't agree with their attack on fair use, but that's the story.
"they all just took a huge kick to the teeth, courtesy of Hollywood."
Everybody is getting kicked in the teeth, current HDTV owners or not, if AACS rules stand in their current form.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 26, 2006, 01:30:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
It was one sample article that happened to be at the top of a google search. It's expected, broadly.
Like I said, link me a source which doesn't have a personal stake in it and I'll believe you. They expect the technology to propagate because it's new and because it's improved. They also expected betamax to do the same, as well as mini-disc, and look where those are now.
You can't "force" the marketplace to move. Consumers will buy new TVs when their old ones die and the HD is low enough in price that its economical. I do not believe this will be in the next 3-4 years.
They haven't stopped manufacture of the older sets yet (because, surprise, people are still buying them) and HD broadcast hasn't claimed enough of the airwaves to justify getting one for the average consumer. I think HD is a forced format which is not going to benefit gaming companies and it's being given far too much credit for its price tag.
Quote
Everybody is getting kicked in the teeth, current HDTV owners or not, if AACS rules stand in their current form.
Agreed, and like the article said, it'll be this which kickstarts the online media distribution, tenfold.
Post by: BigJim on February 26, 2006, 01:57:32 PM
Reports and quotes from Jupiter, Forrester, and other random news items. You can buy the whole report from Jupiter for $800, but I passed.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 27, 2006, 06:52:29 AM
And you know this about me how? If I personally cared about public perception do you think I would post unpopular opinions on this board? Lord knows it would easier if I just shut up and followed what everyone else says. Unless I'm misinterpretting what you're saying.
You guys are getting way too hung up on the HD stuff. The issue is not HD. The issue is Nintendo telling us what's important and what we should or shouldn't care about. It's Nintendo deciding that not only do we not want to need HD but that we won't for the next five years. Someone said lets start this thread again in three years. Three years is within the five year span before Nintendo's next console would be released. If HD will be an issue then, then it's an issue NOW.
I don't like how Sony and MS are forcing devs to support HD. I think it's too restrictive to the developer. If they want to cut costs and not support the feature they should have the option. But Nintendo's method of "no HD for anyone" is equally restrictive. What if a dev wants to support HD? Multiplatform companies like EA and Ubisoft have to originally design the game with HD in mind anyway so they aren't going to save any money. Plus Nintendo is also restricting their userbase, while Sony and MS are not. A real advantage would be total flexibility. The option should be there for whoever wants to use it. If third parties want to save money they can and no one is forced to do anything. But Nintendo doesn't have that so they have no advantage. They're equally restrictive (or perhaps moreso) and thus gain nothing. They're just different. They should be BETTER.
In the end HD probably won't make a difference but combined with other problems it might depending on how things work out. But it isn't good for Nintendo to still have that "do as we say" attitude. That attitude is why they're in last place and I don't think they'll have a serious chance of breaking out of that position as long as they have that attitude.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 27, 2006, 07:28:01 AM
BUT I do not think HD is goign to sell that many people on the system or turn that many people away. The only people I think it will affect IS the developers, but I dont think it matetrs too much ebcasue REV can still display progressive scan which ISNT that bad either.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 27, 2006, 07:33:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
Super Googleization Power Activate!
Reports and quotes from Jupiter, Forrester, and other random news items. You can buy the whole report from Jupiter for $800, but I passed.
First of all, a lot of those are based on the same article put out by Panasonic.
Second, unless HDTVs see a MASSIVE price drop in the next 4 years, then I still say that these articles are exercising something the business world calls "optimism".
The "saturation" will come when they stop manufacturing analogue TV sets, which they have yet to do.
And Ian, I think you're reading too far into Nintendo's comments. Even if they say, "We don't think it's important." that's what they have to say for the sake of stockholders. It's your right as a customer to disagree, and if you disagree enough, buy a competing system.
Post by: Strell on February 27, 2006, 07:34:55 AM
As for the HD stuff, it's been debated to death and the fact is that the positives far outweigh the negatives. Low cost, faster development times, and graphics just as crisp and clean as the other two consoles when relegated to SDTVs is fine. If the market honestly DOES become 25% HDTV by the end of the year, and continues to grow at the rate they expect it to for the next five years, then so be it, but it won't change the fact that the games on the Rev will look and play nicely. It might be a restrictive measure, but it's done with the consumer in mind, and right now the best thing to do is sit back and see how it affects everyone.
We're thinking forwardly, and that is good. But we represent the utter minority by being online tech-leveled gamer nerds. The vast majority of....the majority won't even care.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 27, 2006, 07:49:23 AM
I don't think comparing Sony and MS providing more options for people and having it suceed to Nintendo deciding that we don't want something is a good comparison. What difference would it have made if the harddrive for the Xbox wasn't well received? Nothing. The Xbox was no more expensive than the PS2 so it wasn't like people felt they were paying for something they didn't want. If it flopped it would just have taken up space in the console but really wouldn't be that big of a deal. When Nintendo tells us what we want they're usually telling us we DON'T want something that they're not including or they're making a tradeoff and are telling us we'll like their way better than the other one. With Sony and MS it's typically just something being added. In excess that can be bad but if anything Sony and MS have demonstrated that providing options for both third parties and consumers is the secret to a successful console. Successful in terms of market share anyway.
Name me some popular consoles where the console maker consistently denied the public options and told them they didn't need this or that. When has Nintendo saying "you don't need this" every not blown up in their face?
Post by: MaryJane on February 27, 2006, 07:54:17 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 27, 2006, 07:56:54 AM
Too bad nothing else was...
Post by: Strell on February 27, 2006, 08:02:40 AM
The HDD adds cost. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A CORE SYSTEM NOW FOR THE 360.
Given that, what if the HDD failed constantly? What if it ties you to Microsoft and is used for DRM measures? What if you can't replace it when it starts to fail AND save your information? What if it is required for online play? What if it segments the market?
There's a whole slew of reasons why it would suck to have that added, and if Microsoft does it with the intention of bettering their bottom line AND restricting customers to what they can and can't do (both of which have happened), then I'd say it's a terrible decision that hurts the consumer.
The converse is true also. CAse in point, HDD on the PS2. Wow, people paid a hefty sum for something that was utilized in maybe 10 games, if even that, and was so underwhelmingly impactful that no one cared. Sony was telling us all these great things they could do with it, but then they just don't give a sh*t, and don't ask developers to work with it in mind, and ultimately becomes useless.
Both instances where added costs and extras - the options, as you call them - can fail and ultimately piss people off.
As for Nintendo's actions, I'd say they have fared well over time. They said we didn't need backlight on the Gameboy to increase battery life. They said we didn't need CDs and 3D graphics on the current generation of portables. They said you don't need multitaps with the N64, but instead we'll give you 4 player out of the box. They said you don't countless add-ons for the SNES, something that saved them against Sega and rallied them against Playstation for a while.
Now have they made mistakes? Yes, but if you're not going to let me compare Nintendo to Sony and MS, I'm not going to let you compare hem either. The difference between the situations is, like you said, the HDD (drive, I mean) didn't add cost compred to the PS2. *BUT* removing HD lowers the cost fo the Rev versus the 360 and the PS3. I don't see why it can be one way but not the other.
Furthermore, their decisions in the past are far less gravitational than the HD argument, if you get what I'm saying. Carts versus CDs was disasterous. Compared to that, no HD is hardly registering on anyone's radar. The consumer market can damn well see the difference between CDs and carts, physically and with price, but they will almost entirely FAIL to see HD versus non-HD. I believe that is why it was significant to report than a small percentage of actual HD owners ACTUALLY USE THEIR HD CAPABILITIES, while the others are CLUELESS.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 27, 2006, 08:26:57 AM
Well they never said that. And that wasn't the reason the Jaguar failed. I think it was the "almost every game sucks" factor.
"They said you don't need multitaps with the N64, but instead we'll give you 4 player out of the box."
That would be providing more options. They were basically offering the same thing only Nintendo ensured that 100% userbase had access to four player support which would thus encourage third parties to widely support the feature.
The other points are pretty good, though I see the add-on thing with the Genesis related to "you don't need CDs" which was obviously a really stupid move. If the cost issue is that big of a deal then it makes sense. But I don't think HD drives the cost up by hundreds of dollars. I don't think having a really cheap console if it's gutted and compromised is an advantage.
The Xbox 360 "Premium System" comes with an HD component cable, headset, ethernet cable, and hard drive. The Rev isn't expected to come with ANY of that stuff and it really has no need to. Those things drive the cost up. MS and Sony are expensive because they give you everything with the assumption that you'll use everything. Thus they're denying options. Live related accessories or HD related accessories should be sold seperately. Nintendo has that thing right. They're not going to force us to buy stuff we might not need. Therefore they can have a lower price without having significantly inferior hardware or no HD. They already have a very logical way to avoid high costs. Part of the reason for the high price of the PSP is that it comes with all sorts of bundled junk.
If they remove the bundled junk they're got a cheaper console that provides more flexibility. But once they start removing features outright they bring in their own inflexibility and now people have to weigh their options. Sony and MS are not providing much flexibility this gen and Nintendo has a golden opportunity to benefit from that but instead they're being just as restrictive but in a different way. It could be "this guy assumes I'm going to use HD and thus forces me to buy the cable but this guy doesn't force me to buy the cable but instead gives me the option if I want it." Intead it's "this guy assumes I'm going to use HD and thus forces me to buy the cable but this guys assumes I'll NEVER use HD and won't even give me the option."
Post by: Strell on February 27, 2006, 10:28:32 AM
But that's not the case. We're talking about something that is industry wide at this point. Nintendo's omission of HD will decrease development time for everyone, first through third parties. It lowers the cost to all consumers. It forces people to think less about superfluous pretty graphics, and instead on gameplay. It returns the game to video game.
The big problem I have with super grpahis is that all too often, developers use that as their reason for you to give any consideration toward their game. Lack of gameplay? No sweat. All I'm going to see before buying the game, even as a hardcore tech internet nerd, are clips and impressions, and half the time those are picked with the intention of making the game look better than it is. There's moles everywhere, and review companies are being paid nicely to give out sparkling reviews. I mean, gosh, just look at the graphics in the commercial!
But the bottomline is that when I get the game and determine it's nothing more than an overwrought boring by the book FPS game, or a sports game with new rosters, or a platformers devoid of any kind of charm or innnovation, or an RPG starring a spunky 17 year old boy and his trusty girl friend-from-childhood white magic sidekick, or a racer that brings nothing to the table, etc etc etc, I could care less about graphics or reviews or impressions.
The fact is that graphics are the most easily exploitable component of a game, and the least important. Period. I'm not some idiot thinking graphics make the game.
I want gameplay. Fun gameplay.
And personally I think that is Nintendo's aim. Throw out all that bs people are spouting about graphics and generational leaps in polygons, or the fact that basketball players can sweat, that dimples are on the football AND bump mapped, or that realistic cheerleaders are on the sidelines. Or useless hundreds of enemies when I can only interact with 3-4 of them at a time, or drawing the same tree over and over with slight variations.
It's only like Nintendo is trying to get everyone to WAKE UP and realize that these are games on game systems. They aren't tech demos, they aren't graphics displays, they aren't some trumped up soulless piece of technology to show us what WW2 was like for the umpteenth time.
They are meant to entertain. They are meant to be played, not watched.
If the HD issue was as simple as removing a cable or including it, then we might be on the same page. But we're not because I'm seeing what Nintendo wants to accomplish by ommitting it entirely - a return to roots and less emphasis on shallow reasons to be interested in a game to begin with it. I'll gladly take 2D sprites or low polygon games if it means they entertain me longer than the tripe that is out these days. And quite frankly Nintendo seems to be on board with that idea by telling people to shut the hell up about graphics, that it's a ceiling we've nearly reached, and instead of pushing it up an inch further for 10% graphic quality increase with 2X development time, we can safely remain where we are and focus on the experience.
THAT is far more intelligent. MS isn't giving you a cable and caring whether or not you are using it. They are giving it to you because they know they make a profit on it, and don't give a damn afterward. They know they can charge a premium (no pun intended) with the idea that a small percentage of their customers CAN use it. Now if 100% of those people buy an HDTV within the next 5 years, then yes, good decision. But we all know that isn't the case - parents bought them for kids who don't know any better, teenagers who can't afford it, college students who don't have the cash or space, etc etc etc. I'd suspect less than a third of their userbase will be HDTV compliant within the next five years, meaning the other two thirds got screwed.
There's also the fact that they can use it as marketspeak to no end.
So we can be pessimistic or optimistic about it. 100% of the Nintendo userbase gets screwed, or 100% of them save lots of cash, and hopefully gain access to games that were able to be developed quickly and still be innovative.
What fun is it being given the HD capable machine if you know you can't get money for it? I'm pissed enough as is not being able to play progressive scan games right NOW, let alone knowing that the next generation can display a zillion pixels and my SDTV can't handle it. I mean, I was thinking a few years ago an 800 buck tv would be sufficient, but thank god I didn't bite, because I would have been SCREWED. And NOW I have to get a 1200 dollar one AT LEAST to be gauranteed that I can watch the next generation of media? Where the hell does it all end?
And that's when I think about the Rev and think well at least I know SOMETHING is going to work with whatever I have, and I don't have to be wrapped up in a lot of useless jargon and red tape by a bunch of corporate big wigs are sh*tting on my paycheck and laughing about it.
A cable doesn't magically give you HD. Hundreds of hours of development time, skyrocketing costs, a nice television, lots of hours working for all that equipment, a huge (and dangerously inept in some cases) power supply, and a dozens of other things do. If it WERE just the cable, Nintendo would sell it on the street and make a tidy profit, knowing that most of their fans won't use it, don't have the capability, or don't understand what they are getting.
Kinda like Microsoft.
I'm sure if we ran some developers down, they'd be annoyed by the HD issue too, but that's another thread.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 27, 2006, 11:08:27 AM
The cost of games will be the same for everyone unless Sony and MS start charging more. If third parties started saving tons of money they would still charge the same amount and just get more profit. And if Nintendo just provided the option there would be nothing stopping anyone from choosing not to support it in order to cut down on development costs. At least then if a third party wanted to support HD they could and if it's so unimportant like everyone says it is then it's not like third parties would feel pressure because if it doesn't really matter because the sales won't be affected. And if it does matter well cutting the feature outright would have a worse effect.
"It forces people to think less about superfluous pretty graphics, and instead on gameplay. It returns the game to video game."
I don't buy that for a second. Nintendo cut HD because they're penny-pinchers. They do care a lot about gameplay but this decision isn't part of some goal to bring gaming back to its roots or anything like that. And even if it was it would never work. Nintendo doesn't have that kind of influence anymore.
I want gaming to focus on being gaming again too but I don't think cutting HD is the answer. The problems with gaming today is related to the content of the games themselves. There are too many generic military games and games with licenced music and celebrity voice actors and crap like that. It has never been a problem of graphics but rather of glitz. Gaming is hurt by too many games getting by on glitz. No HD is not going to remove that glitz because it existed prior to HD's existence. If Nintendo wants to "save gaming" or whatever they need to regain their foothold in the market which will give them more influence. They need some new big hits that sell systems and establish them as a relevent game maker instead of just a franchise farm that releases the same Mario stuff again and again.
Some would probably consider the remote as a response to this. I don't see it that way but that makes way more sense then saying that removing HD is Nintendo making a statement.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 27, 2006, 11:48:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
The cost of games will be the same for everyone unless Sony and MS start charging more.
They ARE charging more.
PD0 retails for $59.99 and some games are even more than that.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 27, 2006, 12:22:00 PM
PD0 retails for $59.99 and some games are even more than that."
I didn't notice that. Here in Canada the prices are what they've always been.
Still for some games it won't make a difference. EA already has to spend the money for HD for Madden so they don't save any money with the Rev version. They might still overcharge.
Post by: Artimus on February 27, 2006, 12:27:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"They ARE charging more.
PD0 retails for $59.99 and some games are even more than that."
I didn't notice that. Here in Canada the prices are what they've always been.
Still for some games it won't make a difference. EA already has to spend the money for HD for Madden so they don't save any money with the Rev version. They might still overcharge.
Some XBOX360 games here at 69.99. GCN games are 49 or 59...
Post by: Ian Sane on February 27, 2006, 01:42:09 PM
Doesn't matter I guess because the American prices are the big issue.
Post by: Strell on February 27, 2006, 02:20:32 PM
It might also be a penny pinching move, but it's completely in line with their current philosophy.
Hence why I brought it up.
Post by: BigJim on February 27, 2006, 03:03:59 PM
I doubt someone is going to try to re-sell a Panasonic survey for $800 and call it a report. We simply disagree. The discussion has gone far off point. I believe Nintendo is cheap and overly conservative. Nobody here has to like HDTV, be able to afford it, agree with it, or believe it. It's there. It's being adopted. People that know far better than either of us are saying it. Our opinions about HD don't matter.
"A cable doesn't magically give you HD. Hundreds of hours of development time, skyrocketing costs, a nice television, lots of hours working for all that equipment, a huge (and dangerously inept in some cases) power supply, and a dozens of other things do."
I'm sorry if you think MS's standard equates to some kind of requirement for HD. But the good news is, it doesn't.
"I can't think of a better way for Nintendo tell everyone to shove it on graphics than to drop HD, can you? Shows they are serious."
Luckily that's not Nintendo's attitude. It'd be frightening if it were. "We're Nintendo, damnit! What you want is Pong in 2011!"
Post by: Strell on February 27, 2006, 03:57:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I'm sorry if you think MS's standard equates to some kind of requirement for HD. But the good news is, it doesn't.
Right, I forgot. They aren't forcing developers to broadcast the game in HD format and keep comparable framerates. I mean, none of that adds to development time. They throw that in on the final day before going gold. Surely they haven't said that over and over and it hasn't been documented from developers.
I guess I just made that all up.
Post by: trip1eX on February 27, 2006, 07:39:50 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 27, 2006, 08:21:37 PM
Post by: BigJim on February 27, 2006, 08:24:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: StrellQuote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I'm sorry if you think MS's standard equates to some kind of requirement for HD. But the good news is, it doesn't.
Right, I forgot. They aren't forcing developers to broadcast the game in HD format and keep comparable framerates. I mean, none of that adds to development time. They throw that in on the final day before going gold. Surely they haven't said that over and over and it hasn't been documented from developers.
I guess I just made that all up.
My carpet, TV, or the addition I built onto the house to contain the radiation of large power supplies haven't caught on fire yet, so I guess someone lied to me when they said I was getting HD.
Post by: IceCold on February 27, 2006, 08:40:57 PM
QuoteReally? I never bought a new game for over $60.. and as Artimus said, nowdays some are down to $50..
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I know. $69.99 is what I paid for Cube games at launch. I don't see that as abnormal. A lot of new games cost that much or did. I haven't bought a new console game in over a year so maybe the prices changed. All I know is that Rogue Leader cost me $69.99.
Doesn't matter I guess because the American prices are the big issue.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 27, 2006, 09:49:00 PM
It is that simple. You don't need to do anything else except allocate more RAM to the framebuffer. On the PC changing resolution is exactly one line of code. That's it. High Definition. What it does to performance or the looks is somebody else's problem. And if it's optional to use it then it can be completely ignored if it causes too much trouble.
Or useless hundreds of enemies when I can only interact with 3-4 of them at a time, or drawing the same tree over and over with slight variations.
Yeah, useless hordes of hundreds of enemies even though you can only interact with 3-4 of them in Smash TV. Wait... But hell, who wants 100 Pikmin, anyway? Aren't 10 sufficient? Do they really need better pathfinding?
Trees can have a wide variety because of Speedtree. And since a forest consists of many trees and you can't use fakery if you want to allow the player to roam freely in the forest it's important that you can draw many trees. Or would you prefer games to keep very narrow pathes through forests so the fakery works?
And what kind of innovative game needs hundreds of objects lying around? Except for the highly popular Katamari Damacy, that is?
Power allows new ideas and while the next leap in power won't allow as many new ideas you're still restricting your games if you opt for less power.
Right, I forgot. They aren't forcing developers to broadcast the game in HD format and keep comparable framerates. I mean, none of that adds to development time. They throw that in on the final day before going gold. Surely they haven't said that over and over and it hasn't been documented from developers.
I guess I just made that all up.
If a game can't run at a decent framerate it can't run at a decent framerate. No matter what causes that it has to be fixed. Increased resolution doesn't suddently add a whole new set of power sinks, it just scales up an existing power sink and thus changes one variable for that process. Framerate optimization still has to happen except now it's happening while the system outputs a HD signal.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 06:49:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I doubt someone is going to try to re-sell a Panasonic survey for $800 and call it a report. We simply disagree. The discussion has gone far off point. I believe Nintendo is cheap and overly conservative. Nobody here has to like HDTV, be able to afford it, agree with it, or believe it. It's there. It's being adopted. People that know far better than either of us are saying it. Our opinions about HD don't matter.
My thoughts on HD stem from a broader view of the current US economy and the way it's heading. I just can't see 25% of US households buying something which the current early adopters admit they don't even have a use for when unemployment is getting worse and people are losing jobs daily.
But we'll wait and see. It's silly to be arguing about it now before we've even seen what the Rev does.
Post by: Strell on February 28, 2006, 09:29:56 AM
Because I haven't said this exact thing about 4-5 times in this thread? Somebody else's problem = the developers, the same people who are working overtime to get HD working. Nintendo is eliminating that, and I'm sure if we see cross-platform games this generation, Nintendo's could be released earlier simply because no one would be using dev time on HD versions of their game.
Yeah, useless hordes of hundreds of enemies even though you can only interact with 3-4 of them in Smash TV. Wait... But hell, who wants 100 Pikmin, anyway? Aren't 10 sufficient? Do they really need better pathfinding?
Obvious I am not talking about games that actually utilize a multitude of characters effectively, I am talking about games like Dynasty Warriors where you see hundreds of enemies on the screen, but none of them do anything worthwhile until you are directly attacking them. At the best it gives me an idea of scale, but even that is one of the worst ways to utilize power.
Also, when was Smash TV put into 3D? Oh, right. It hasn't.
Trees can have a wide variety because of Speedtree. And since a forest consists of many trees and you can't use fakery if you want to allow the player to roam freely in the forest it's important that you can draw many trees. Or would you prefer games to keep very narrow pathes through forests so the fakery works?
Again, see above comment. I'm talking about pushing a system to draw things that make absolutely no bearing on gameplay. I'm not talking about deleting immersion or forcing linearity. You are putting words in my mouth and you know it.
And what kind of innovative game needs hundreds of objects lying around? Except for the highly popular Katamari Damacy, that is?
For the third time, this isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying what if Katamari drew EVERYTHING 100% of the time, but you can only see/interact with the closest 20 objects? Namco used a bunch of tricks to forcing the game into hiding polygons that weren't needed, and none of the objects were complex to begin with. Now had they drawn footballs with full bumpmaps and fish with individual scales, THEN we'd be on the same page. You know as well as I do that the objects in Katamari were super low polygon models. Plus this was being done on the PS2, arguably the weakest of the current generation, which only reinforces my comments earlier that we've essentially got all the power we need. So thank you for agreeing with me, whether you know it or not.
Power allows new ideas and while the next leap in power won't allow as many new ideas you're still restricting your games if you opt for less power.
I agree with this, but I'm saying at this point power is becoming rapidly useless. It's like how you could run Windows 95 on 1/4th the resources Windows XP requires, but both of them look and act largely the same. What is all that increased power providing? Hardly anything. And that is the way consoles are headed if you just continually pump more juice into them. There's been so little in the way of innovation lately, but for some reason people think more power is going to magically grant them new genres? It might lead the way to them, but they won't start popping out of people's asses like you seem to be inferring.
If a game can't run at a decent framerate it can't run at a decent framerate. No matter what causes that it has to be fixed. Increased resolution doesn't suddently add a whole new set of power sinks, it just scales up an existing power sink and thus changes one variable for that process. Framerate optimization still has to happen except now it's happening while the system outputs a HD signal.
And this negates my argument that it requires more power/development time....how? If you suddenly need more power, you have to draw that from somewhere, and it's going to come in the form of optimizing the code and added juice where needed. That is development, I'm not sure what else it could be.
Now KDR I know you are smarter than that, so you can drop the devil's advocate position now.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 09:44:53 AM
RE4 was great because the graphics were good enough to fool people just walking into the room into thinking you were watching a movie. It was hard not to take the gameplay seriously because it all looked so real (the gameplay itself was also good, though). However, for every good game with excellent graphics, I can name five with excellent graphics and the games sucked.
The Rev controller will do for console gaming what the DS's touchscreen did for handheld gaming: it'll be more intuitive for certain games (Stylus is to RPG, RTS what Revmote is to FPS, melee combat, sports) and it'll allow new genres to exist (Stulys is to Surgery Games what Revmote is to ?????).
Post by: KDR_11k on February 28, 2006, 10:06:00 AM
Did online turn out to be anyone's problem on the Gamecube? So why is offering the OPTION bad?
If you want your game to support HD then you should optimize it for HD instead of SD, simple as that. You'll have to optimize it at some point anyway because games don't just magically run at 60FPS if you run them in SD.
Obvious I am not talking about games that actually utilize a multitude of characters effectively, I am talking about games like Dynasty Warriors where you see hundreds of enemies on the screen, but none of them do anything worthwhile until you are directly attacking them.
Yes, I mean, what kind of game needs more than two buttons? I'm not talking about games that use a multitude of buttons effectively, I'm talking about games where you have dozens of buttons but only use two of them! In other words: One game that doesn't make good use of a feature absolutely doesn't mean that there's no use for the feature at all, especially when there are games that use it well.
Again, see above comment. I'm talking about pushing a system to draw things that make absolutely no bearing on gameplay. I'm not talking about deleting immersion or forcing linearity. You are putting words in my mouth and you know it.
Backgrounds have absolutely no bearing on gameplay. But that doesn't mean we should abolish them. Immersion is not a part of the gameplay, many of the features you want removed DO impact immersion. E.g. in Dynasty Warriors you're in a war and without hundreds of soldiers it wouldn't feel like war.
For the third time, this isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying what if Katamari drew EVERYTHING 100% of the time, but you can only see/interact with the closest 20 objects? Namco used a bunch of tricks to forcing the game into hiding polygons that weren't needed, and none of the objects were complex to begin with. Now had they drawn footballs with full bumpmaps and fish with individual scales, THEN we'd be on the same page. You know as well as I do that half the objects in Katamari were super low polygon models.
And? Where do you draw the line? Are full bumpmaps too much? Is anything more than ASCII graphics too much? Why does everything have to be ugly? Are you afraid that you can no longer claim superiority since you play games with bad graphics? Would Super Mario Bros have been better if everything was colored blobs? Did it suffer from getting better graphics in the SNES port?
And this negates my argument that it requires more power/development time....how? If you suddenly need more power, you have to draw that from somewhere, and it's going to come in the form of optimizing the code and added juice where needed. That is development, I'm not sure what else it could be.
It negates it by saying the same optimization already happens and aiming for (slightly, it's not that big of a difference) different numbers won't add more costs. Reducing a particle spawner's output by 54% instead of 50% won't make much of a difference.
Post by: Strell on February 28, 2006, 10:19:07 AM
Optimizing in SD and HD both take time. It is only shortened if you have to do one OR the other, not both.
"One game uses a feature effectively...."
How is this different from what I said? Which is that simply doing something doesn't mean it is good unless it has reason to be done?
DW example. Ok, DW PS3 will be different from DW PS2...how? All those soldiers on the screen will be more detailed. But so what? That does nothing to enhance the gameplay and chances are good it will play EXACTLY the same. And furthermore the same thing can be accomplished with less soldiers, less power. THAT is the definition of having more power in a system being uselessly used.
Where do you draw the line? Simple - you draw it when everything becomes extraneous and causes a bunch of overhead, but does nothing for the player. Full bumpmaps won't do crap in Madden, Katamari, or several other games. Obviously they are nice to have but why waste processing power on that? And why tell people they need more power for things like that, when it doesn't change the gameplay experience? At that point you are paying your hard earned cash for a game that you could have played last year, but the helmets weren't shiny.
In fact, maybe you'd like to explain to me why increasing power, but giving the same game, is a good thing? You're arguing that all that extra juice can lead to innovative new gameplay experiences and increase the immersion for the player, but at the same time you are telling me better graphics are enough. Those things don't make sense. You can't condone better graphics but sterile gameplay and then sit back and tell me increased power will lead to innovative gameplay. THat's the difference between effective usage of power and meaningless upgrades.
You can stop your slippery slope arguments about ASCII characters and other nonsense. That's the whole words in my mouth thing again acting up. I didn't say things couldn't be detailed, couldn't be beautiful. I'm saying there is a line when it's entirely superfluous. If it isn't obvious right now, with the 360 offering inferior ports of games with prettier graphics, then there's no other way to convince anyone.
Reducing output from 54% to 50%? I'd like you to please explain those numbers to me, especially because HD draws a lot more on the screen than SD does. I don't know the numbers, but there's more lines, hence more pixels, hence a lot more strain being pushed onto the system. Perhaps you'd like to tell me why that only consumes another 4% of available power.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 28, 2006, 10:28:47 AM
How do you do just HD? MS and Sony may force all games to be HD compatible but they have to be able to be played on a regular TV as well. I'd assume it's either SD or SD and HD.
Post by: Strell on February 28, 2006, 10:34:09 AM
Doesn't change what I originally said - the only way it would shorten dev time would be to have to do one. If there was something beyond HD - Ultra Definition or some nonsense - then you'd have three. Doing one, two, or three of the defs would alter dev time.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 10:39:01 AM
This will require additional resources and time, otherwise the game will look like crap in HD.
Post by: vudu on February 28, 2006, 11:14:09 AM
QuoteTell that to the Ubisoft team who did King Kong for Xbox 360.
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
How do you do just HD? MS and Sony may force all games to be HD compatible but they have to be able to be played on a regular TV as well. I'd assume it's either SD or SD and HD.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 28, 2006, 11:32:29 AM
This is just pure speculation since I don't really know how it works but I would assume that when one makes a texture they initially would make it at a pretty high resolution to get all the details they want. Then they would shrink it down to fit the game. That's just the common way to make picture art. You start off big because it's easy to shrink a picture down but pretty much impossible to make one bigger. So if you already make a big texture how much work would it be to make the same texture at two different resolutions? I can take a 1024x768 pic and easily make it 800x600 and 640x480. It takes like a minute to do that.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 11:39:08 AM
The reality is, you'll need to write the code which will tell the game which texture to load based on the output. The textures will need to be stored separately, both will have to be adjusted to make sure they scale properly without any "jagging", and they'll need to be tested separately for graphical glitches.
Not to mention that, even if what you said is true, the company would need to start with larger textures to begin with, making it more work overall in even the BEST scenario.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 28, 2006, 12:06:05 PM
I guess that brings up an important question. How big are the initial "big textures" to begin with? If they're already big enough then it doesn't matter.
"The reality is, you'll need to write the code which will tell the game which texture to load based on the output."
If you're a smart coder that wouldn't be too hard. I don't code games but if I was making a program for windows my logic would be to have two folders, one with the HD textures and the other with the SD textures. The directory is stored in a variable. At the beginning of the game is a check to see which "mode" you're in and the variable is set appropriately. The corresponding textures for each "mode" have the same name so it just looks in one place or the other. It wouldn't be that hard at all. Testing is another issue obviously.
I'm not saying HD isn't going to take more work. That's a fact. The issue is how much more work it is. And that still isn't a good explanation to me on why including the option is a bad thing. Increasing the price of the system isn't a bad reason to exclude HD but with optional use no one is forced to spend more money making an HD game so it makes no sense to use that as an excuse. They can always choose to not spend the money.
Post by: nemo_83 on February 28, 2006, 12:07:41 PM
Nintendo is not likely to surprise us with a large disk format, but they also don't need it to store HD textures; Sony and MS are so wrong for dragging the game industry into that ugly format war between BlueRay and HDDVD.
Post by: MaryJane on February 28, 2006, 12:45:57 PM
(P.S damn there are some long posts in this thread, ease up, you're not nintendo)
Post by: KnowsNothing on February 28, 2006, 02:07:16 PM
Kinda random
MaryJane reminded me of it, because she pretty much perfectly described it.
Post by: BigJim on February 28, 2006, 03:16:08 PM
Possibly anecdotal, but it's a little bit of evidence that HD in itself doesn't automatically blow up expenses. There are a lot of elements that go into costs. He still curses PS2 because they were constantly adjusting to accomodate the weaker hardware. Literally spent weeks screwing with it, and he wasn't getting home until way after midnight (this was at the time of the EA spouse fiasco). And products were getting bumped a month or two. If that's not a time consumer/cost spender, I don't know what is. So costs that may go into HD could also possibly be negated by less hardware hassle and better tools in general.
Or if you have crappy tools (cough, PS3) then your costs will go up no matter what.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 28, 2006, 11:27:04 PM
That line is NOT obvious. Let's take FPSes: When were graphics sufficient? Did Wolf3D need to use VGA or was Catacomb Abyss good enough in using EGA? Does the detail level of Quake suffice for all games? After all it can convey anything you'd possibly want. Quake 3 Arena already added superfluous polygons, even though by today's standards the game is blocky as hell. Unreal Tournament 2004? That's the level the current generation is at. But it uses thousands of polygons per character and gigantic textures. Doom 3? OMG, normalmaps! While the polygon numbers went back down again we suddently have much more and much larger textures. Unreal Engine 3.0? Polygon numbers that we haven't seen outside of fighting games combined with all kinds of textures including faked SSS to make skin appear like skin instead of plastic. Which one is the first past the line?
Other examples would be almost every game on the Gamecube. Did Wind Waker need to use more detailled characters than Ocarina? Why does Sunshine have these water shaders that severely impact the performance? Couldn't SSBM have used the graphics from SSB while merely updating the gameplay mechanics?
If there is such a line it's constantly past current gen and in front of next gen games because that's how people always complain.
You can stop your slippery slope arguments about ASCII characters and other nonsense.
Have you ever heard Nethack fans arguing about how superfluous graphics are and how the imagination is much greater than any graphics can be? Seriously, there are people who say Diablo is just a shallow Nethack clone that is only successful because of its graphics.
The reality is, you'll need to write the code which will tell the game which texture to load based on the output.
Modern graphics chips can choose the proper MIP levels themselves.
I guess that brings up an important question. How big are the initial "big textures" to begin with? If they're already big enough then it doesn't matter.
Depends on the company and artist, usually they keep the final resolution in mind (e.g. they won't add small details to a texture for a PS2 game since that'll look bad downsampled like that anyway). Some draw at the final res right away (if it has been decided upon, that is), others prefer to work larger.
But anyway, PC developers produce multiple 1024x1024 textures per character these days, for a comparison the GTA main characters had one 256x256 texture at max. Larger texture resolutions need more time but since many are using modified photos for levels and normalmaps for characters these days resolution isn't as much of an issue anymore.
Dual development of SD and HD also requires you to burn both versions of the game on the same disk taking up space.
Wrong. The only difference between HD and SD is a single instruction. You DO NOT NEED TO RECOMPILE YOUR GAME FOR SOMETHING THIS TRIVIAL. PC games support 20+ resolutions each and they do it with one binary.
I just hope Nintendo uses dual layer high density dvd's as they originally said. I really want to play a 200hr rpg.
Baldur's Gate 2 took up four CDs (as opposed to the five of Baldur's Gate 1) and provided 200 hours of gameplay with meaningful choices that affect the plot development.
I asked him how long it took them to do all that, and it wasn't any longer than it would take for a typical current gen platform, because they had much better tools at their disposal and better hardware to play it on.
Mark Rein (Epic Games) stated that they need 1.5x as much time and ressources for a next gen game as they do for a current gen one.
Post by: Strell on March 01, 2006, 03:01:10 AM
I like how you completely missed the ASCII characters thing by bringing up one example of a game that, for the most part, was developed with graphical limitations in mind.
ALSO, I like how you bring up Nethack, since it so perfectly illustrates my opinion to begin with.
You tell me first that graphics may or may not be superfluous, something that I'm arguing against by saying gameplay is what matters, and then you bring up Nethack. So good job destroying your entire argument.
You can't argue that there's no line and then talk about Nethack. That's like saying roster upgrades don't make a game, but then talking about how Madden is so amazingly well done year after year.
I gaurantee the differences in HD versus SD cause development times. Gaurantee it. If you honestly think it doesn't, you literally have no clue about programming. None. Increased resolution = more detail on the screen = takes more juice = computer has to know how to handle that increase versus SD = the rendering engine has to respond differently = must be programmed to do so. There's no magical switch that says HD = true, and suddenly the engine just knows what to do.
I doubt it is a huge monolithic thing to program, but it most certainly deserves to be taken into consideration. In fact, I'll ask my programmer friend, who is currently writing a 3D engine from scratch, what he has to say on the matter. And yes, I know this last paragraph looks like bs and everyone and their mom has used this argument before, but I gain nothing from saying things I can't deliver on.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 01, 2006, 03:40:26 AM
I thought you said immersion shouldn't be hurt in the process? These details are important if you want it to appear believable. Having an audience that is completely oblivious to the match hurts the immersion. Seeing that the audience is just a row of cardboard standups hurts the immersion. I still don't see what your arbitrary definition of superfluous is.
I gaurantee the differences in HD versus SD cause development times. Gaurantee it.
I guarantee that it's not more than 2%.
Increased resolution = more detail on the screen = takes more juice = computer has to know how to handle that increase versus SD = the rendering engine has to respond differently = must be programmed to do so.
Increased resolution DOES NOT mean more detail. Most of that detail would be added in SD as well since in 3d an object does not have a fixed screen size and you don't want things to look bad when you get close if you can avoid it. You will ALWAYS use all the ressources the machine offers, no matter what resolution your game is running at. Look at SSBM, those characters are very detailled despite not being larger than 100px most of the time. There is no difference between optimizing for SD and for HD, you will always make sure to have as much detail as possible without dripping the framerate. HD just changes a tiny bit of the testing environment.
I can't imagine a single scenario where HD would require optimization and SD doesn't.
Post by: Ceric on March 01, 2006, 05:07:32 AM
So why would you want only 1 resolution? Graphics, for the most part, are represented with a matrix. There has been a lot of study around this particular data structure. Weird ways to optimize. Having a fix resolution let you embed some of those optimization. We all can agree that hardware will always beat software when doing the same task when designed at the same level. So having 1 resolution will allow Nintendo to leverage this like they can in the handheld market.
Now just a sample. I can't think of what this is named but back when I was taking Algorithms we were taught an alternate way to do matrix multiplication but it only worked on Square matrices and the had to be of a certian size (I beleive they had to be some form of 70x70 matrix, 140X140, 210X210, etc). Dr. Kosa then proceeded to explain that this wouldn't give you neglible venefit if it was really small like two 5x5. But it would greatly benefit you if you went not that much larger then that. Now heres the kicker. The difference was that you replaced a multiplication with 2 additions. For a human that would have you no speed benefit whatsoever since multiplication for most people takes about as much time as addition. On most computer architecture (Von Neumann(sp?)), I think Harvard it doesn't but accessing memory is also 1 cycle operation to, multiplication takes longer to do then addition because it requires storage and more operations. It is much faster because of that underlying difference. Computer Science is full of that stuff.
Also could you think about the virtual console? Most HDTV have built into them a pretty good system to upconvert SDTV so why reinvent the wheel? If Nintendo went HD then the best solution, at least in my mind, would be to black bar the virtual console games. They already have to compensate for being progressive which will make some of the "hacks" to make effects on older games not work correctly.
At the end of the day HD would just add one more big developement item for Nintendo onto a laundry list that they already have pretty full. Because we've already seen that if Nintendo doesn't support it then no one else is going to either, in the context of there own consoles (Disclaimer made).
The next console will have it. In fact Nintendo may even release a Revolution later with basic support for it. At this junction I think they are just really concentrating on working the kinks out of there new toys. Much like when CD-Roms first came on the seen. They were "over-engineered" old age is about the only thing that could kill an early CD-Rom drive when it was fighting against rewriteable media. It will even read the newest formats that some new drives won't. Same concept here. Get the iffy stuff solid to win people over. Then you can't break what's not broken to make it better. I'm sure that as soon as the Rev is out and it's settled down some Nintendos R&D will be back to working on the next iteration with HD in mind.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 01, 2006, 06:27:45 AM
What matrix? Do you mean the transform matrices used by the 3d engine or just the pixel array that is the screen (not really a matrix since no matrix operations are used on it, only blits and blending)? The screen is as optimized as it can be, the difficulties come from the 3d rendering and most of that is resolution independent. The matrices in 3d engines are always 4x4 and the hardware is already optimized for that. They are 4x4 at 320x200, they are 4x4 at 1920x1080. And they are really not that big of a problem.
Post by: Strell on March 01, 2006, 06:37:17 AM
At this point I am asking myself why I would even bother responding to something like that.
Post by: trip1eX on March 01, 2006, 06:51:16 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 01, 2006, 05:59:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
KDR, you just suggested a higher resolution doesn't put more detail on the screen.
At this point I am asking myself why I would even bother responding to something like that.
I agree with KDR here. Imagine a simple, yellow 3D-rendered polygon, a triangle (triforce, lol), on a black background rendered at the wonderfully low-rez NES standard. The pixels are horrendously huge, and the jaggies are big enough to climb up.
Now, maintain the same viewing/monitor size, and increase the resolution, rendering the triangle again. The most obvious effect of an increased resolution is the perceivable flaws at pixel borders are reduced (jaggies), providing some "cleanliness." Bumping up the resolution DIDN'T increase the "detail" -- it's still a simple yellow triangle. What's being confused is higher resolutions increase the POTENTIAL for greater detail -- more pixels to play with -- BUT it's still up to the developer (the image source) to decide how to occupy those extra dots.
I can see how the Megapixel rating in Digital Cameras imply "more rez -> more detail," but that works simply because the image source provides an insanely high level of detail; that source being the photons in visible light. Look at the "CG" art Nintendo provides for some its games, like Metroid Prime. A lot of the art are basically high-rez renders of in-game models w/ in-game textures. The jaggies are mostly gone and the lighting is a little cleaner, but the textures hardly express new/extra details.
Post by: Strell on March 01, 2006, 06:27:55 PM
