Topic: Less power an advantage for Revolution?

[wandering]

Here's an interesting article on the upcomming next-gen platforms. It suggests that, because multi-plaform games will likely be written for the lowest common denominator (in this case, Revolution), and because high next-gen costs will drive publishers to dish out more multi-platform games, next-gen games won't look that different from each other despite differing tech specs:

Quote

This article makes the following predictions:

   * The growing cost of development for games on next-gen platforms will increase demand from publishers to require new games to be deployed on many platforms.
   * Increased cross-platform development will mean less money for optimizing a new game for any particular platform.
   * As a result, with the exception of in-house titles developed by the console manufacturers themselves, none of the three major platforms (Xbox 360, PS3 and Nintendo Revolution) will end up with games that look significantly different from each other, nor will any platform show any real "edge" over the others. Many games will be written to a "lowest common denominator" platform, which would be two threads running on a single CPU core and utilizing only the GPU.

All other market factors aside, the platform most likely to benefit from this situation is the Revolution, since it has the simplest architectural design. The PC, often thought to be a gaming platform on the decline, may also benefit. Conversely, the platforms that may be hurt the most by this are the PlayStation 3 and the XBox 360, as they may find it difficult to "stand out" against the competition.

The article goes on to speculate that microsoft and sony didn't go with complex hardware to make games better, so much as to create an impression that the console is powerful to the consumer, and to "lock" devs in to their console by making hardware which makes it hard to port games to other systems.....

Quote
So the real question remains: why exactly did Sony and Microsoft choose such complicated designs over simpler ones? The answer probably lies not with technology at all, but strategic marketing.

....

In entering the next round of console wars, Sony believes they are starting off with a still-dominant position, and so have increased the complexity of the PlayStation 3 architecture in an attempt to lock in the next generation of developers. Microsoft, believing that they have seriously damaged Sony's position and will continue to gain share by launching the Xbox 360 ahead of the PS3, have gone to a more complicated architecture as well. Because of their knowledge of software development, Microsoft believes it can "have its cake and eat it too" by making the 360 development kits as easy to use as possible. Many developers, including John Carmack, have praised the 360 dev kits as being a step up from what they are used to from console companies. It is only Nintendo, still a perennial underdog, that seems to be promoting a simpler design for their Revolution console. With neither Sony's market advantage or Microsoft's software advantage, Nintendo is attempting to combine a simple development platform with unique types of innovation (such as the motion-sensitive Revolution "wand" controller) in order to maintain its position in the three-horse race.

What none of the three console companies have really foreseen, however, is the fact that rising development costs are causing publishers to force more and more cross-platform releases from the third-party development companies. All the moves made to try and distinguish consoles from each other by building complicated new architectures may, in the end, be pointless.

The article also notes that market leaders tend to make complex and powerful hardware, and underdogs tend to make hardware that is as easy to program for as possible. It notes that this strategy worked for underdog Sony in the PSX-N64 race, but didn't work for Sega in the Dreamcast-PS2 race.

The question that remains, obviously, is whether this strategy will work for Nintendo in the upcomming race. I think it will. You'll note that the original playstation won because of fmvs - people saw amazing graphics in commercials and that made people want the playstation more than n64. With the DreamCast, word of mouth about the amazing new graphics-powerhouse playstation 2 cast a shadow over the DreamCast, and people decided they wanted the greater (perceived) power of the ps2 inspite of the dreamcast's early availability and larger games library. Note that in both cases the most powerful console did not win.

This time around, I think the REV's unique control scheme will wow people more than graphical differences (if there even is any perceivable graphical differences this time around), in the same way that the original playstation's fmvs wowed people more than the actual graphical differences between the ps and n64. I'm imagining that lower costs, dev-friendly hardware, and a lack of perceived graphical differences may clear the way for Nintendo to steal the show next-gen with it's unique controller. But what do you guys think?

Will increased multiplatform game development lead to graphics that are generally the same across platforms? And will that lead to a Revolution victory?

[MrMojoRising]

I could see some of the lower profile games being fairly similar across all the platforms, but I really don't see the Splinter Cells and Burnouts not being really revved up on the 360 and PS3.

I've come to the conclusion that it is practically impossible to actually predict what's going to happen as far as console sales go.  Industry leaders can change so quickly that it makes predictions nothing more than wild guesses.

I don't think that less power will be an advantage per se, but the cheaper price point that will come with it may help.

[attackslug]

If the Xbox360 sells well enough, that will most likely be considered "the lowest common denominator" regardless of how well the Rev sells.  It worked for the PS2, but the Rev will most likely not have the same stranglehold on the market and it will (hopefully) have such a fundamentally different development process due to the controller that porting to the other systems would require redesigning the play mechanics of the game from the ground up.

If a third-party company is smart, multiplatform titles would need some serious extra dev time on the Rev in order to take the controller into proper account, perhaps drastically reworking the title not only to fit the unique aspect of the Rev's controller but maybe also reworking the graphics or game engine to the point that the Rev version of whatever multiplatform game is essentially a different animal than it's PS3 and Xbox360 cousins (in the worst-case scenario that it really is as technically inferior as alleged).  I'm thinking big game studios will do (or ought to do) what they did with the PS2 versions of the Splinter Cell games or Ghost Recon 2, that is essentially make the same game as the Xbox version using a different engine and/or audio/video assets that best fit the system's abilities.

[Ian Sane]

"If the Xbox360 sells well enough, that will most likely be considered 'the lowest common denominator' regardless of how well the Rev sells."

I agree.  Half the time when discussion of the next gen comes up the Rev isn't even mentioned.  While having the "base hardware" makes sense in theory I think that Nintendo doesn't have a big enough market share to make that strategy work.  These days when a multiplatform game is being made and the publisher, to cut back costs, cancels a version which one is always the first to get canned?  The Gamecube, because it's the last place console and thus if you're going to drop one of the three that's the one with the least potential sales lost.  The Rev by default is going to start in last place so it might be the exact same situation.  Sure I could make the Rev the base platform or I could just skip the Rev altogether and thus make use of the superior hardware of the competition.  I think the real question is how similar the PS3 and X360 are.  Sure they're complex but if they're both similarly complex then the Rev is the oddman out and thus would just get excluded.

Plus the Rev isn't as "simple" as one would think.  It has a much more complex controller than the other consoles.  Now I don't make games but I imagine a motion control controller is going to be a whole not more difficult to code for than a more traditional controller which follows conventions that developers have been working with for years.  The controller really changes things up.  Of course there's still the shell so it might not be so bad.

I see the next gen as being between two very similar competitors and an oddball.  The X360 and PS3 both use almost exactly the same controller and are both hardware beasts.  The Rev compromises the hardware to the point where Nintendo won't even reveal the specs and has a controller unlike anything seen before.  Oddball Nintendo is going to be the one left out, not the base system.

I figure the Rev will get very little multiplatform games and will rely almost entirely on exclusives, both first party and third party.  If the PS3 and X360 are too different what will likely happen is that different publishers will pick a different console as the base and the other will get crappy ports.  So for example EA will pick the PS3 and thus all their X360 games will be crappy while Ubisoft will pick the X360 and thus all their PS3 games will be crappy.

Or potentially Nintendo's controller is so well received that it becomes the new standard and Sony and MS are sh!t out of luck because they're too different from Nintendo's model.  That's a best case scenario thing though.

[Don'tHate742]

Why would a third party company do that though?

They have no real incentive to take advantage of the REV controller other than to bump up sales a bit. However, through a cost/benifit analysis, it might not even be worth it.

If the REV was say, the market leader, then yes, they would probably spend the time to develope games that take full advantage of the REV. I just don't see it happening though. If the REV controller is as aww-inspiring as we hope, then becoming at least 2nd is plausible. I know Japanese gamers will eat it up, but the rest of the world needs the title that makes them want the REV really bad. A FPS is crucial to the REV's success in my opinion. They can have as many non-games, epic adventure, and even dual-wielding games as they'd like, but nothing says "this is the console to have" other than a damn good FPS.

Either way, I'm buying a REV soley on what Nintendo will do with it, and maybe a few titles from Japanese companies that Nintendo was able to garner support from.

[The Omen]

Quote
Less power an advantage for Revolution?

No.  It can't be advantageous when the sect of the gaming community who drive sales perceive it as a negative.

The only way it works is if the games resemble each other enough so that the controller becomes the determining factor.  

[trip1eX]

I don't think it's an advantage except that it will then be priced lower.   I would say on a  regular TV (or at 480p) tho the Revolution could possibly end up more powerful than their competition because it doesn't take nearly as much power to render a game at 480p than at 720p.  Surely it will be on fairly equal ground here.  And thus it would easily be able to handle ports.

It's just a matter of selling well enough to attract the 3rd parties or going the extra mile with a few 3rd parties at the start to help sell even more consoles and thus attract even more 3rd parties.

I don't think you should compare the systems directly anymore.  IT's obvious Nintendo is going their own route.  It's really basically what they did with the DS.  A lower priced entry with unique functionality.


 

[ThePerm]

hey psx has butugly graphics. As long as  revolution has a decent  disk size it  probably wont be a problem.

[Guitar Smasher]

We're forgetting what's going to sell next gen games on the competitor's consoles - better graphics.  It's been no secret that Sony and Microsoft are making graphics the main prerogative of their respective consoles.  For any game to be competitive, it's going to have to have the best graphics feasible, otherwise, what's its selling point?

[zakkiel]

Quote
No. It can't be advantageous when the sect of the gaming community who drive sales perceive it as a negative.

Is there any historical evidence that greater graphical power is an appreciable advantage? It gets talked about a lot before a console's release simply because no one has anything else to talk about. After release, I haven't seen it make any difference.

[Hostile Creation]

I like how all the Playstation fans didn't care about graphics this generation, but now they're all up in arms about "Nintendo is underpowered."
I'm with zakkiel on this one.

[wandering]

I like how all the Playstation fans didn't care about graphics this generation, but now they're all up in arms about "Nintendo is underpowered."
...and how Nintendo fans made fun of playstation's graphics this gen, but are now saying graphics don't matter.

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Sure I could make the Rev the base platform or I could just skip the Rev altogether and thus make use of the superior hardware of the competition. I think the real question is how similar the PS3 and X360 are. Sure they're complex but if they're both similarly complex then the Rev is the oddman out and thus would just get excluded.

Plus the Rev isn't as "simple" as one would think. It has a much more complex controller than the other consoles. Now I don't make games but I imagine a motion control controller is going to be a whole not more difficult to code for than a more traditional controller which follows conventions that developers have been working with for years. The controller really changes things up. Of course there's still the shell so it might not be so bad.

Well, the thing is, multi-core development is really complex. So much so that first-gen 360 titles won't even be using it, and developers are really complaining about it and saying that going with such complex hardware was a bad move. The article I linked above goes into some of the nasty details. I'm sure devs will figure it out eventually, but, yeah. The Rev's controller, on the other hand, isn't nearly so complicated - Retro retro-fitted MP to use the new controller in 2 weeks - AND, Nintendo is offering help to third part devs who want it. And of course, in contrast to the other system's complex hardware, devs seem to love the Rev's controller.

As for 360 being the base system....I'm not so sure about that. Sure, if a dev decides to leave the rev out and only work on 360 and ps3, they might chose to start with the 360....but how many devs will chose to do that in the beggining? Nintendo "lost" this gen, sure, and some devs have begun to pull their support....but keep in mind that Nintendo still has about the same marketshare as microsoft, that most of the big publishers are still bringing games to all three systems, and that publishers are almost certainly eating up Nintendo's talk of going after a broader market next gen. So, Nintendo is almost certainly still in the game as far as publishers are concerned. And, if the big publishers are going to be plaaning on releasing games on all 3 systems, as they almost certaintly are, than what makes more sense....developing games in a platform-neutral environment and keeping the lowest common denominator in mind? Or struggling with the 360's more powerful hardware, and then struggling again to port games off of that?  

[Hostile Creation]

"...and how Nintendo fans made fun of playstation's graphics this gen, but are now saying graphics don't matter."

Oh please.  They've been saying that since the start of the PSP vs DS debate.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I made fun of it after playing Mario64.

[The Omen]

Quote
Is there any historical evidence that greater graphical power is an appreciable advantage? It gets talked about a lot before a console's release simply because no one has anything else to talk about. After release, I haven't seen it make any difference.

In this context, yes, it makes a difference.  If these three console makers were on even footing, then no, it wouldn't.  

The reason it makes a difference now, and more for Nintendo, is that they are already perceived as the inferior console.  Sporting graphics noticeably lacking in comparison to the 360 would be a negative.  It would be what's expected by the majority.  That's why it falls on Nintendo to level the playing field.

[stevey]

the most powerful system always loses look at snes v weaker SG, N64 v weaker ps, GC v weaker ps2, psp v DS, ps3 v REVO!, ngage v GBA /qd v SP and who won all the vs?  

[slacker]

I think there is one major potential benefit that dev studios could take advantage of.  That is, with the uniqueness of the control, it is certain to spawn new gameplay elements as well as new genres.  The games don't have to be graphically superior to other games on Revolution or other consoles.  It just has to be very fun, lasting, and the graphics must complement its theme well.  This opens up new windows of opportunity for small devs and mid-size devs that hope to be the next squaresoft (before the fall) or even the next EA.  If these devs were responsible for a whole new, fun, and exciting genre, and the game sells very well, it could propell them financially as well as creatively, to the top of the list in the gamers' mind.  Think how long it took Nintendo to earn its reputation as a creative and elite game developer.  Unlike the other consoles, the financial reward (on the Rev)  to many of the small devs far outweighs the reward on the other consoles.  The other console's audience is expecting traditional gameplay with a great story, great voice acting where appropriate, and finally photorealistic graphics.  The small devs don't have the finances to engage in such a project unless they are backed by a major investor.  I don't think being underpowered relative to the competition is that big of a weakness.  The real risk of the Revolution is whether or not the controller will be utilize effectively and consistently throughout the life of the system.  In conclusion, the Revolution puts a lot of big and small devs on a level playing field to introduce new genres and dominate it.  Whoever dominates a new genre will definitely reaps its reward.  I think in this sense, the Revolution will not be left short of third party developers.  Its the major third parties that will probably be more reluctant to come.

[Guitar Smasher]

Now that you mention it, Revolution is just waiting for a completely original game idea coming from a random develloper, to take it by surprise.  I think Revolution has more potential than the other systems to have a 'Halo' game, as in the complete console dominance of Halo.

[OptimusPrime]

Nintendo could force the Revolution of becoming the weakest denominator, it has a few edges their competitors don't have. One is the obvious easier and therefore cheaper gamedevelopement on the Rev and two is the potential new market Nintendo is trying to knit to the allready existing gamemarket and such enlarging it.
The first asset is one we can be sure of and could motivate developers to use the Rev as indeed the weekest denominator but could also not be enough. Combined with the second asset it could be enough to convince third parties to to make maybe one or two exclusives on it and also every multiplatform game (even without NRC-usage).
Problem with the second asset is that it's a potential market, it isn't there yet and must first be pulled in by making new kinds of software which is a risk. The DS however showed that Nintendo does have the expertise to tap into that potential. However it's still has a big 'if' factor in it.

Nintendo probably is using those 2 assets to pull third parties as we speak, showing tech-demo's to prove that they can pull in that new potential market as they partly did with the DS. If you think about it, Nintendo is actually better equipped to tackle the changes that every market has...the growth of nichemarkets, hell Nintendo has the potential to create a nichemarket into the existing gamemarket, something Sony and Microsoft doesn't have (as mush as the N).

Nichemarkets have proven to be quite profitable and a system that caters to many nichemarkets at once can make a lot more money then a machine that only caters to the main market(what Sony and MS are seeminly doing).

The problem is...do third parties have marketing duds in their ranks who can think as far as most of us can? Can Nintendo convince third parties of the assets their machine can offer that the other 2 can't? Will MS and Sony use money hats to convince third parties otherwise? It comes down what happens behind the scenes right about now, problem is, we don't hear what happens behind the scenes and that can be quite frustrating.

[Ian Sane]

"snes v weaker SG"

SNES beat the Genesis.  Funny how ten years later people still don't know this.

I think the issue with the hardware is that Nintendo is launching after the X360 and perhaps the PS3 with a weaker console.  That's never happened before.  The rule of consoles is that the newer they are the more powerful they are.  The Rev is launching after the X360 so it therefore is expected to be more powerful.  That's how it works.  Technically the Cube launched after the Xbox in North America but it was like only a few weeks difference and the Cube did come out in Japan before the Xbox launched anywhere.  Anyway the point still stands.  To willingly release a console with inferior hardware after a more powerful console is just plain weird and goes against the "rules" of the console market.  But then so does having a controller vastly different than everyone else's so the Rev is pretty much breaking the rules anyway.

"Revolution is just waiting for a completely original game idea coming from a random develloper, to take it by surprise."

I'm skeptical of that happening, just because of Nintendo's past methods of attracting third parties.  Nintendo doesn't go after the random small developer.  They focus too much on the big third parties like EA, Capcom, Konami, Square Enix, etc.  All thoughout the Cube's life when Nintendo made a third party deal it was for big titles by big publishers.  They never went to someone like SNK or Nippon Ichi.  They don't usually go after the smaller guys.  When they talk about getting dev kits out they talk about giving them to the big devs.  This fits Nintendo's "everybody" approach.  Every game has to be a big blockbuster with mass appeal.  Nintendo usually doesn't care about niche stuff.  It's all about the blockbuster.

The problem is this "out of nowhere" hit will never come from a proven third party.  Nintendo can't accidentaly stumble on a big hit with this method.  GTA3 came out of nowhere.  No one thought it would be as huge as it was.  It wasn't even that big at E3 2001.  I didn't hear about it at all until the game came out and cleaned up on reviews.  Nintendo could have had that game.  They had DMA's (now Rockstar North) support on the N64.  But that was a small potatoes dev so Nintendo didn't really court them and BOOM, massive hit for the competition of which Nintendo doesn't even get a port of.

Though now that Nintendo is focusing on this "cheaper game development" stuff maybe now they will target the smaller guys.  It's hard to say because we don't have a list of third parties on board.

[Don'tHate742]

Wow Ian, you can't be more wrong.

Basically what your saying is, that Nintendo probably won't have a Killer app come from nowhere because of a bunch of CRAP reasons you gave. With your logic and examples, that means Sony and Microsoft won't have a killer app either.

Either way, even with your weird logic that doesn't make any sense, Nintendo still has the best chance of a Killer app coming to the table.

Quote
I'm skeptical of that happening, just because of Nintendo's past methods of attracting third parties. Nintendo doesn't go after the random small developer. They focus too much on the big third parties like EA, Capcom, Konami, Square Enix, etc. All thoughout the Cube's life when Nintendo made a third party deal it was for big titles by big publishers. They never went to someone like SNK or Nippon Ichi. They don't usually go after the smaller guys. When they talk about getting dev kits out they talk about giving them to the big devs. This fits Nintendo's "everybody" approach. Every game has to be a big blockbuster with mass appeal. Nintendo usually doesn't care about niche stuff. It's all about the blockbuster.

Umm....what? What evidence do you have to show that? The DS has more than enough evidence to show otherwise. Please Ian, stop throwing assumptions out as if they are facts. Your starting to go from IanSane, to Insane....and i'm not joking.  

[Bill Aurion]

I like how Ian's idea of Ninty's dealing with small devs is completely wrong...If you notice, Ninty PUBLISHES a lot of small dev stuff so you never notice it...Devs like Cing (Trace Memory), Suzak (Thief Wario DS), and RED (Detect Hacker DS) come to mind...

Quote
Nintendo usually doesn't care about niche stuff. It's all about the blockbuster.

Hahahaha, is this split-personality disorder, or what?  Yesterday you complain that Ninty concentrates too much on non-gamer niche software, today they concentrate on blockbuster...What will your stance be tomorrow?

[Ian Sane]

"Umm....what? What evidence do you have to show that?"

The fact that the only time Nintendo ever has healthy support from smaller devs is when they have an insanely large market leader market share.  The Cube was Nintendo's first example of them trying to attract third parties and they didn't really get anything unexpected or any decent support from smaller devs.  With the Cube Nintendo made some big deals with big names and didn't really do much else.

MS has virtually no market share in Japan but they still had games like Metal Slug 3 on the Xbox.  Why?  Because they made an effort to get these games.  Nintendo didn't or if they did they sucked at it because aside from Ikaruga (which I don't think they had anything to do with anyway) they didn't get any "surprise hits" or smaller dev games.  Every time they made a third party deal it was with big guns like Capcom, Sega, Square Enix, Namco, EA and recently Konami.  I'm just assuming that's how things are going to be because that's how it was on the Cube, Nintendo learns very slowly, and we don't know enough about the Rev to say they're doing anything different.  I do know that whenever they talk about third party stuff and getting dev kits out they talk about the big guns.  They're saying the same things they said with the Cube.

In theory the design of the Rev might change this but we don't know yet.  After all it doesn't help smaller devs much if Nintendo isn't providing them with dev kits yet.  We need to know who has the dev kits and who is working on stuff before we can assume that Nintendo suddenly has figured out how to attract third parties.  For all we know Nintendo might still be charging the highest licence fees.

[Don'tHate742]

Ian, stop bitching about the past. It'll get you NO WHERE! Your like the guy who won't stop bitching about how they're leg hurts after they fell an hour ago.

The whole design scheme of the REV is to attract small developers with that one "big idea." Remember E3? That was one of the main points made. How can you still be mad at Nintendo when they are addressing everything you've been complaining about for years?

What are they doing wrong right now in our eyes? Talk about the actual REV and what it does and not how they're releasing information.

[Ian Sane]

"Yesterday you complain that Ninty concentrates too much on non-gamer niche software, today they concentrate on blockbuster"

Nintendo's non-gamer strategy is based around attracting mass appeal though.  Their goal is to attract a huge amount of non-gamers.  When I'm taking about niche in this example (I'll admit I'm loose with word definitions) I mean games that are designed just to appeal to a core audience.  Mass appeal may happen by accident but it isn't the goal.  The game isn't designed to be a colossal hit it just maybe ends up being one.

Nintendo typically tries to have every game be a big hit.  They rarely make games that are just supposed to be hardcore fanbase stuff.  They have that same approach when they make deals to get third party games.  So while I want them to get that suprise hit from a small dev I wouldn't say for sure that they really are attracting that group.

"What are they doing wrong right now in our eyes?"

I don't know.  I can't say what they're doing right with third parties either because we don't know enough.  But it makes a lot more sense to speculate based on past actions than future things they could do but have no history of doing before.