Topic: Why is the console so small?

[KDR_11k]

nemo: Option 4: They designed a cheap console and noticed they could make it fit into a tiny case so they did.

[MaryJane]

Ok to expound a little on my previous points: anytime a company builds a product they build it with specifications they think people want, sometimes they make trade-offs (with the rev, innovation over graphics) but the whole point is to build what people want. There's one problem with that "you can't please everyone all the time" someone made that quote famous but i can't remember, but anyway it's one of those things that will always hold true, so what's a company to do? make a product to please the greatest amount of people they believe possible. sony and ms try to do this by giving us really powerful desktop pc's to attach to our t.v's. (ps3 comes with Linux right?) nintendo try's to do this by innovating a way to get bored gamers excited again, and retired gamers playing again. it's going to be awhile until we know who took the best approach, but both will work to one degree or another.

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.  

[animecyberrat]

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 I still say wait and see, nothing is official about the size so far because they only SAID it would be ABOUT the same size as 3 dvd cases STACKED, the made no claim regarding the length or width of the system. My Cable box isnt taller than 3 dvd cases stacked, neitehr is my regular DVD player, so maybe its nto as small as we think.  look at teh E3 vidoe from last year, it' snot that small, they only said it would get smaller but maybe they only meant height.

[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.

[RiskyChris]

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.

[Smash_Brother]

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.

[MaryJane]

you make a good point ian. about nintendo not wanting to lose money and making trade offs. they can't afford to lose money. as you well know their last two systems didn't sell all that well, and they don't have multi-billion dollar companies behind them that have sales in other divisions that can pooled to their video game division. they are only video games, so while they take a risk by giving us a brand new controller they can't take the risk of losing hundreds of dollars on each system. what if the rev flops? and it cost them $900 to make each one, they have to take their past history into account and realize hey, this system is great but we have obstacles to overcome, we can't risk losing a ton of money if people don't accept our system.  

[KDR_11k]

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

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.

[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.

[Ages]

" 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"

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.

[MaryJane]

hey man if you don't like it don't buy. this topic is called why is the console so small. it's small so it gives a shock factor, saves space, looks like new technology cuz all new technology is small, and it can accomplish what it needs to without being the size of a new born elephant or an xbox360 which is roughly the same size.  

[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.

[Smash_Brother]

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.

[IceCold]

Quote
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.

They'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.  

[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.

[Smash_Brother]

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.

[Spak-Spang]

OOPS. Thank Blk for the lesson.

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.

[MaryJane]

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

[Smash_Brother]

Yeah, it's one of those things where it'd be nice but I'm not holding my breath either.

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.

[Artimus]

The key, imho, is for games to offer 16x9 support. A SD signal isn't going to look horrifically bad if you own an HD set, especially not for a game. If they're in 16x9 and 4x3 then they'll look great on all systems!

[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.

[RiskyChris]

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.

[Ian Sane]

"Yeah too bad there won't be a controller shell to put the remote into for certain genres."

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.

[nemo_83]

People who don't want a three hundred dollar system buy a GameBoy, wait for price drops, or a system from the last gen and their cheap asses can't be relied upon for attach rates.  I don't believe Nintendo is launching at $299, judging from the size of the system and the rumored specs I estimate a $150 launch and it is too damned far.  America is the king of this market now, it is where all the sells go down, Japan's market is two steps from an apacolypse, and Nintendo needs to get with the program.  These are your customers, your media, and developers--  Americans who don't give a damn about size in a home console (granted it isn't larger than their PC tower) when the console is hardly more powerful than the previous generation hardware.  And even when the Cube could compete with the power of Xbox its size didn't give it an advantage where it mattered, here in the USA.

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.      

[RiskyChris]

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.