Topic: Why is the console so small?

[trip1eX]

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.  
 


 

[Ian Sane]

nemo's comment about cheap consumers made me think of something else.  The DS isn't selling as well in North America as it is in Japan.  The GBA continues to sell remarkably well over here despite a new Nintendo portable having been out for over a year now.  What does that potentially tell us about budget minded consumers?  I think it's pretty likely the GBA is eating into DS sales and why wouldn't it.  The DS has a very minimal hardware jump over the GBA and relies on fancy new doodads, that no one knew they wanted until Nintendo told them they did, to justify its very existence.

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  But they would be stuck for five years with out-of-date hardware.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.

[MaryJane]

Nintendo is out to make money. Just like every other company in the world. (even non-profit companies make money they just don't tell you). About 4 months ago at a friends house partying and playing ps2 we tried to get one my friends gf's to play a game with us(4 months is way too long ago to remember the specifics of a party such as that one) she picks up the controller with one hand looks at it and goes, it has too many buttons, i won't know what to do, and then puts it back down. so i said you've never played video games? her response was not since SNES even that had too many buttons. 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, she doesn't like (as she calls them) running games, the basic simplicity of puzzle games is what she likes, and the revolution is set to expand on the concept of simple games aka nintendo is going to make money, just like they should,  and if your console is bigger than your head it doesn't really suggest simplicity, but discreet, and compact,and people say.  hmm this looks easy to use. and besides we still got the shell controller and nunchuck for the "hard-core games and gamers"

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.

[MysticGohan]

Or Technically a 48" HDTV

[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.

[MaryJane]

I don't know how many games she's going to buy but i'm gonna get her tetris (when it comes out)and nintendogs and she wants to buy crap i forgot the name of the game... is bubble bop bubble bobble, something of that nature, when i told her it was on that system cuz it's one of her favorites. that's 3 games 2 by nintendo. score 3 points for the non-gamer (unflawed) approach.

[RiskyChris]

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.

[Ceric]

First off.  Whoever states that the DS is not a leap from the GBA in comparable features need there *** kicked.  I will never trust there opinion on hardware again.  They probably beleive the Pong and the Playstation Pong remake look exactly the same. *slap* Go back to your corner.

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.

[Michael8983]

The people arguing against the success of the Revolution and criticizing Nintendo's choices with it are the same people who a year ago were doing the same with the DS. They argued the DS was underpowered, it was just too different to reach the mainstream, it lacked the extra features consumers wanted, that third-parties would shun it, and it just didn't stand a chance against the PSP. It's easy to see why people were skeptical about the DS. It broke all the rules. It was not what people expected or even wanted and didn't seem at all like an appropriate competitor to Sony's new handheld which seemed to be everything people did want and expect in a next-gen handndheld. But a year later and the DS is a massive success and the PSP is being left in the dust. Nintendo with its long history in gaming simply knew better than Sony what would make for a successful handheld. They knew what consumers wanted even when the consumers themselves didn't know. Nintendo is smarter than people give it credit for. If the DS hasn't, the REV might just force people to wake up and realize it.

[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.


"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.
     

[Ian Sane]

"The people arguing against the success of the Revolution and criticizing Nintendo's choices with it are the same people who a year ago were doing the same with the DS."

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.

[ShyGuy]

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.

[BigJim]

"No, put it would probably push system costs to $400 or higher. Unless you want Nintendo to sell the Revolution at a loss."

I wouldn't believe that either. See the rest of my post.

[antman100]

I'll go partly in with BigJim.  I know a lot of you mean well, but HD is not the marginalized, pure luxury item that everybody makes it out to be.  You can find a 26-27" HDTV at a Brick and Mortar store (does anybody shop those anymore?) for around $500.  In terms of established user base, yes, HD is not widespread.  In terms of sales from today forward, I think it will closer to 50-50.  Some people have said that HD is 'new' technology, some say that it has been around for a while, but still hasn't dropped in price.  Which is it?  HDTVs have dropped by about 40% over the last two years.  Someone else said that it probably doesn't cost manufacturers any more to produce HDTVs, but they still charge a premium.  Why not say that about Nintendo and its products?

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.

[Ceric]

I'm getting quite grumpy lately it seems.  BUT I will point this out.  Nintendo went online BEFORE the Playstation 2.  In fact Sony and Nintendo both had the same online model.  Give the developers the feature and if they want to use it sure.  The only difference is that Square got Sony to do the Harddrive.  Nintendo, finding that PSO was the only game that took advantage of the online capability, decided to stop production on an accessory no one planned to use.  They then turn around and make games that use the Network adapter.  Weird huh?  Who wants to bet that the Rev will leverage those games?  MKD 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.)

[RiskyChris]

I feel like half the people in this thread have never taken even an introductory economics course.

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.

[Aussiedude]

In Australia HD sets (no name brand) are becoming quite cheap, buy I'm now not convinced nintendo is wrong.

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.  

[IceCold]

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.

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.

[antman100]

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.

[Talon]

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.

[Aussiedude]

Quote
Originally posted by: Talon

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.

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).
 

[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.  

[Aussiedude]

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.

[Artimus]

The "HD effect" isn't how many people OWN an HD TV, it's how many people care about high definition in general. Your average person doesn't even understand what HD is, they just want a big TV. As long as HD is niche, it'll be just for those who really care about HD. Once it because a standard, 99% of the people who own one won't care the slightest bit that its HD, they'll jsut want a 'good' TV. The HD thing might help initially for the PS3 and 360, trying to get them to been seen as powerful, but already that just isn't work. The large majority of American console sales are casual, to people who just play games for a little fun. They own some good games, but mostly its Halo or Madden. Those people aren't going to care about HD if they can have fun with their friends on a big screen.

[Ian Sane]

"Nintendo DID offer online no one used it."

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."