I have two questions.
1) What does Nintendo think they will gain by changing the name, if all it's going to do is piss off their user base?
2) Are they changing it because they don't want confusion re: 360 = a revolution?
Keep the name, Nintendo. Nothing is better than Revolution.
And as for Beth...sigh. It's not cute anymore, you know? Her snarky little attitude. J Allard and Phil Harrison might be prime rib idiots, but I don't like the polar opposite either, which is what she is - a lot of flippant, glib little replies.
IGN - Tell us about Revolution.
Beth - OH IT WILL HAVE GAMES.
IGN - Tell us more.
Beth - GOOD GAMES!
IGN - When will we hear about them?
Beth - THE FUTURE.
*sigh*
You know there is completely a right and wrong way to handle PR, and she clearly doesn't know what the distinction is. Because this isn't simply being secretive, this is flat-out ignoring and concentrated attempts to be as unhelpful as possible. I'd almost take a generic Gamestop employee telling me God of War 3 is in development for the Rev over her bullshit.
It also pisses me off that she's contradicting other statements by Nintendo personnel. For example, the last secret about the Rev, to her, is "oh it could be any number of things." Wtf? And when asked about Zelda:TP Rev control, she insists "oh it's just a GC title and nothing more."
That is borderline damaging to potential customers, whether or not it's confined to the digital realm. Sure Joe Consumer won't hear it, but there are plenty of techies out there watching this information like hawks. We don't need someone who is obviously clueless running around acting like a school girl looking for a date to the dance.
I mean here's a woman telling IGN that she almost literally doesn't know a damn thing about the system outside of the bare minimum ("It will have games! Games you play! ....With Controllers!"), and we're supposedly 8 months or so away from launch. That's retarded. They could hire any one of us and we could do a better job, and I'm not even kidding.