Topic: IGN Promises Rev Specs: Evening 3/29/06

[wandering]

However much money it would take to bribe Oprah to get on her book club, Nintendo should pay it.

Yeah, yeah, Barin Training isn't technically a book. But 'the computer' wasn't technically a man, either...and that didn't stop it from being a Time magazine Man of the Year.

[BlackNMild2k1]

But when you play Brain Training you have to hold the DS like a book and that is close enough.

[BigJim]

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering

Quote
There still isn't proof this is a joke...At best there's a very blurry video that even if it does say what people think, still doesn't prove this is a hoax.

Right. The video could be the thing that's a joke. Especially since it also mentions VR and such, which ign never reported on.

The one thing that makes think this could be an april fool's joke is the fact that the mods on the ign forums forced all discussion of the rev specs into one thread. Now, in your average (good) forum, that wouldn't be unusual, but, on ign, having 20 different threads on the same topic is pretty standard.

...Dunno. Just seemed suspicious.

Exactly... At least the video (and the list) would make sense since THAT was released on April 1. The to-do list itself can be a joke.

What exactly is so unbelievable about those specs, seriously, and what are people expecting? Are folks either expecting 360 specs or do people think they need some multi GHz machine to push graphic detail they won't be able to see on an SDTV?  

[MysticGohan]

heh, not exactly BJ. I'm kinda expecting a single core processor in or around the Ghz range. But nothing like the mess the 360 and PS3 are. We'll have to wait and see, I'd never doubt Nintendo, But Matt Cassama I have mixed feelings about.

[KDR_11k]

What exactly is so unbelievable about those specs, seriously, and what are people expecting?

They are unbelievable because even bottom-of-the-range equipment is specced higher than that, never mind that he claims both chips use architecture that has been obsolete for years now (CPU upgraded GC CPU, GPU doesn't support shaders). Oh and of course that the RAM is split into two blocks with different size but identical behaviour. Either Nintendo crippled themselves with legacy support even more than Windows 95 or those specs refer to a quickly hacked-together alpha devkit. If it's indeed a devkit you would have to compare it to those Macs MS sent out.

[Kairon]

Quote
They are unbelievable because even bottom-of-the-range equipment is specced higher than that, never mind that he claims both chips use architecture that has been obsolete for years now (CPU upgraded GC CPU, GPU doesn't support shaders). Oh and of course that the RAM is split into two blocks with different size but identical behaviour. Either Nintendo crippled themselves with legacy support even more than Windows 95 or those specs refer to a quickly hacked-together alpha devkit. If it's indeed a devkit you would have to compare it to those Macs MS sent out.

If you're going to sell a piece of hardware for a mass market price and not bankrupt yourself, then yeah, it'd have to be cheap to make. It's said that Sony took 5 years to actually turn a profit on the PS2 if you take into account it's real R & D costs. The XBox lost Microsoft $6 billion over it's entire lifecycle. It's said that the X360 costs anywhere from $500 to $900 to make, then sells for a huge loss for Microsoft. Now, not only does Nintendo not have anywhere near as deep pockets as Sony or MS, but they're asking gamers to buy the Revolution IN ADDITION TO the PS3 or X360, and at the same time trying to get non-gamers like grandmas and parents to see the system as an appealing "lifestyle choice" impulse buy.

The only thing that leaves a big question mark amongst all of this is the RAM set-up. Sure, there's the comment that the external RAM is as quickly accessible as the internal RAM, but that still isn't reassuring. I would like to know how exactly that RAM configuration came about and how that hampens an otherwise non-complicated development process.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Kairon]

It's important to note that the amount of money that the XBox lost for Microsoft, $5-6 billion, is the same amount of money Nintendo is supposed to have in it's warchest.

Now, the GameCube and the XBox sold roughly the same amount of consoles worldwide, about 20 million units, with the XBox selling a little more. If Nintendo had released the XBox, they would've gone practically bankrupt. But if the XBox and GC had such similar numbers, how did Nintendo actually endup MAKING money instead of losing all their savings? Sure, they had the handheld business, but another huge factor is that the GC didn't cost Nintendo money everytime they sold one.

Let's face it, all it takes is one fiscally irresponsible bomb to financially erase Nintendo. All their savings wiped out in one XBOX-esque hardcore-gamer-pleasing venture and Nintendo would be ripe to be bought out wholesale and lose any possible control over their own future and their own vision of what videogames can become. With that sobering teetering-on-the-edge-of-failure thought, it makes perfect sense that Nintendo declines to compete in a high-stakes graphics hardware war when they believe that such an endeavor is a dead-end of diminishing returns.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Deguello]

Quote
There's no such thing as an "early April Fools joke."

This is not true.  As a recent example:

"On March 29th, 2006 95.5 WBRU, an alternative rock station in Providence, RI announced that they were being bought out, and would cease operations by 5 PM on Friday, March 31st. Soon after WBRU went off the air, Buddy FM, a parody of the Jack FM radio format, began broadcasting random pop and techno music along with occasional pre-recorded station bumps until a mock takeover was staged by WBRU DJs at 12:16 PM on April 1st. The prank continued in some form until roughly 4:09 PM, April 1st."

[KDR_11k]

No, what he means is that there's only an April's Fools joke that's on time or a lie. A premature joke would be a lie, not a joke. Or at least a joke that hurts your credibility.

Kairon: Noone's saying Nintendo should buy top of the line hardware, however they traditionally haven't made anything this bad either. Look at the Gamecube. Small, cheap, profitable and nowhere near as underpowered as this in comparison to contemporary hardware. Hell, even if they went for a lower price with the GC it wouldn't end up as bad as this simply because this thing seems to be composed of stuff so old you'll have to pay extra just to have them dig out those ancient blueprints again. It wouldn't have killed Nintendo to go with modern architecture. I'd gladly pay 50€ more for the system if that means more RAM than this, i.e. larger environments and less frequent loading (plus better streaming). RAM can kill a gameplay concept. In other words: Expensive tech does not enable new gameplay but cheapening out on it certainly disables some gameplays.

Let's face it, all it takes is one fiscally irresponsible bomb to financially erase Nintendo.

That'd have to be quite a big bomb. The XBox was designed to establish a market presence at all costs. Nintendo wouldn't do that. But Microsoft's losses stem mostly from inefficient tech and stupid business decisions (causing higher component costs), not from overly high specs. Nintendo could have built a system with one PPE instead of 3 (though a vector helper unit would certainly be useful for all this direct interaction with objects the controller promises), maybe 64MB SRAM and 128 MB DRAM or something like that and a modified version of the R520 midrange version (or something roughly comparable), it wouldn't outdo the XC but it'd cost MUCH less and provide more than adequate performance for most tasks. Should be doable for 200$.

[mantidor]

I thought the norm was to not make the joke  on april 1st because it would be obvious. Basically no one believes any news reported on april 1st.

Not saying that this is a joke or not. Maybe the joke was on Matt.

[KDR_11k]

I thought the norm was to not make the joke on april 1st because it would be obvious. Basically no one believes any news reported on april 1st.

If you want to put your jokes on other days around 1. April you just end up alienating your readers that think you're not reliable for an unknown timespan before and after 1. April. I think some serious publications have a "no April's Fools" policy, i.e. they don't make those jokes because quite frankly they aren't funny and they just make people question everything you say.

[Strell]

I won't assume this is/is not a joke until a confirmation appears.

But I will say this - if this ends up being a "joke" set 3 days early, I will never go back to IGN.com.  Ever.

This sort of juvenile bs can damage Nintendo's reputation.  Even if it is refuted later on down the line, fanboys and other clueless people will continue to talk about "omfg 729 megaherts" forever.  And since Nintendo has already said they'd bypass releasing specs, I fail to see how this is anything other than a ruse to get visitors to IGN.  If I were in Reggie's shoes, I'll haul down to their offices, take Matt's name, and kick his ass.  

Obviously the average consumer didn't see this news, and frankly, won't care.  So it's not a widespread thing.  But it is still potentially damaging enough.

Besides, I'm sick of how IGN doesn't update for sometimes days on end, and even then the "news" is useless.  At this point I'd rather just get news from PGC.com and Kotaku.   Especially if this "joke" ends up being a joke, I will erase them from my bookmarks and urge others to do the same.

[mantidor]

I stopped going to IGN ages ago for what I think its a more valid reason, the overall anti-nintendo bias from Matt's own section to the whole site. The "successful launch of the psp" and the "lackluster launch of the DS" articles were just one of many, many examples. Nothing has been more entartaining than ign (and actually the whole gaming media) having to eat their own words regarding the psp vs ds battle.

I dont see this numbers as something terrible, whether a joke or not, give me screenshots and more importantly video footage, because thats all I'll believe, and everyone should do the same if the have any memory about what happened with specs released from all three console manufacturers this generation.

[Artimus]

Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
I stopped going to IGN ages ago for what I think its a more valid reason, the overall anti-nintendo bias from Matt's own section to the whole site. The "successful launch of the psp" and the "lackluster launch of the DS" articles were just one of many, many examples. Nothing has been more entartaining than ign (and actually the whole gaming media) having to eat their own words regarding the psp vs ds battle.

Matt has more than once admitted how wrong he was (including in the now infamous 'list' video). He's also the most pro-Rev guy on the internet right now (with any sort of power).

And they up date daily about 95% of the time. Sometimes there's just nothing to update for Rev. DS is almost always updated.

And yes, an 'early' April Fools Joke is a lie, not a joke. Because if we start doing them on March 29, why not March 28? Or the 25th? If 3 days is funnier than 1, then surely six days is funnier than 3! We'll basically have to not trust any news stories for like the entire second half of March.

[MysticGohan]

Actually, Craig Harris runs the DS Channel, not Matt. Rarely will you see an update on GC or Rev unless it's Recycled news from earlier.

The Problem with Matt is he admitts too little and far far too late when he's wrong, and it really hurts his creditability as an editor to be able to forsee thing's, obviously he was wrong about the PSP vs. DS debacle, and now singing a different tune. A year ago you couldn't get him to shut up in the mailbag without him bringing up the PSP for god knows what pointless reason.

[Kairon]

Frankly KDR, neither of us have the technical know-how to make any broad statements about the capabilities of the Rev hardware. Neither of us know any further technical features, and neither of us has the technical knowhow to gain a full understanding without external expert opinion anyhow.

This is why I'm not claiming that the Rev will be as good as the PS3 or X360. At the same time though, we don't have any real foundation to say that the hardware is incapable of competent effects, nor that it represents a real miserly move on Nintendo's part. For example, people are gravitating towards a $200 price point for the Revolution launch. But what if additional hardware like you wish for bumped up the cost to $250? After all, no one has factored in the bluetooth licensing, built-in wireless technology, dual-media-compatible disc drive, OR the very thing that Nintendo claims was the most expensive thing for them to create: the controller. Throw all those factors together and you can see how the $200 price point starts to look very tight.

Of course, we don't know for sure. We should wait for the official launch price, both the controller's AND the console's, as well as hardware analysis from groups that open up the real hardware and calculate price. And, like people keep reiterating, we should also wait for screenshots and videos and gameplay feedback before we declare the hardware to be dirt cheap, inadequate, or incapable.

~Carmine M. Red
~Kairon@aol.com

[Artimus]

Quote
Originally posted by: MysticGohan
Actually, Craig Harris runs the DS Channel, not Matt. Rarely will you see an update on GC or Rev unless it's Recycled news from earlier.

The Problem with Matt is he admitts too little and far far too late when he's wrong, and it really hurts his creditability as an editor to be able to forsee thing's, obviously he was wrong about the PSP vs. DS debacle, and now singing a different tune. A year ago you couldn't get him to shut up in the mailbag without him bringing up the PSP for god knows what pointless reason.

Again, you're saying random things that are hyperbolic at best. He received a ton of letters about the PSP thing and the debate went on. He wasn't just inserting random comments.

Also, I know very well Craig Harris runs the DS channel. Mantidor said IGN, not Matt. And the Rev/GCN channels are updated when there IS news. Often the main cover story doesnt' change but the actual news articles do. And Rev has been updating at least 4/5 days for the past month or more. Look at PGC's rev news, they'd update once a week at best (because news is slim). Matt generates a LOT of good content to keep the site updated. If you think IGN never updates then compare them to PGC. You'll see they update more.

[KDR_11k]

At the same time though, we don't have any real foundation to say that the hardware is incapable of competent effects, nor that it represents a real miserly move on Nintendo's part.

No shaders means no shaders. Same architecture means same architecture. What's so hard to understand about that? If you think shaders are just bloom and other lensflare-like effects you're sorely wrong, shaders are used to implement skin shaders , for example, that are set to rectify the biggest problem with realtime graphics at the present: Characters that look like they are made of concrete or plastic (Doom 3's plastic look can be done without real shaders). Oh and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what 88MB RAM means.

For example, people are gravitating towards a $200 price point for the Revolution launch. But what if additional hardware like you wish for bumped up the cost to $250?

Then the machine costs 250$. If they can't get reasonable specs at 200$ like they did before they're doing something wrong. Because they managed to build a next gen console for 200$ all the past generations, why can't they repeat that? Because they chose style (small console, slot loading drive, ...) over substance?

Reggie put it best: Next-gen graphics are the cost of entry. If they don't deliver that they're shooting themselves in the foot, even moreso if these specs are merely chosen to enable backwards compatibility. I'd gladly give up that feature if it meant better Rev games because ultimately the Rev games will be the only thing truly unique to the system. And I'd really hate to see games that would be perfect with the rev rod leave or get cancelled because the rev hardware can't support them.

[Kairon]

Quote
Next-gen graphics are the cost of entry. If they don't deliver that they're shooting themselves in the foot, even moreso if these specs are merely chosen to enable backwards compatibility. I'd gladly give up that feature if it meant better Rev games because ultimately the Rev games will be the only thing truly unique to the system.

Ah, but here's where you make the leap that I can't follow KDR. Yes, no-shaders means no shaders, but by no means do you have anywhere near a full feature set on the Revolution's capabilities, nor do we have any information on whether there are workarounds available on a hardware basis. I'm perfectly willing to claim that the Rev is incapable of competent graphics, I'm perfectly willing to claim that it will be non-exceptional or even mediocre, but only once I have information that amounts to near irrelevant clockspeeds, a single note on a missing feature, and contrasting statements on architecture. (Matt claims it's an extension of Flipper, ATI in a previous interview said that that they did not take Flipper and merely add on some things.)

And the X360 was slated to have 256 MB of RAM before they got feature creeped upped to 512 MB just to one-up Sony. That number would be significantly lower if they didn't need HD textures. 88 MB, one-third of MS' HD-logged amount.

The thing is KDR, I'm perfectly willing to call the Rev an underpowered machine. Hell, the NES was an underpowered cost-cutting razor-thin-featureset of a machine! But I will not call it an underpowered machine until we can fully evaluate just how much of that "underpoweredness" appears in the games. I don't care what the specs are if the games on screen don't show any significant defects to those of us who AREN'T videophiles.

Oh...and one last thing. I didn't spell this out fully in my last post, but I will now. Nintendo's major cost issue for the Rev is not their backwards compatibility or the size of the thing, or the blue LED light even. Iwata said the thing that was exorbitantly expensive was the controller. And especially considering how gyroscopic hardware has never been in mainstream consumer hands anywhere near this level before, I'm starting to guess that the Rev controller is actually THE most expensive part of the Rev... It's starting to look more and more a really direct trade-off between the controller's innovation and possible blue-ocean non-gamer appeal and the hardware capabilities of the system.

Lol. Not only did Nintendo blow their entire R & D budget on the revmote, but their entire manufacturing budget as well!

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[jasonditz]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k


For example, people are gravitating towards a $200 price point for the Revolution launch. But what if additional hardware like you wish for bumped up the cost to $250?

Then the machine costs 250$. If they can't get reasonable specs at 200$ like they did before they're doing something wrong. Because they managed to build a next gen console for 200$ all the past generations, why can't they repeat that? Because they chose style (small console, slot loading drive, ...) over substance?

What if, however, what Nintendo is offerng is a reasonable spec for this generation, and what Microsoft and Sony are doing with their machines is akin to what Philips and Panasonic were doing in the early 90's, bring machines to market that are just way higher spec than can be produced for a reasonable price... Microsoft is taking an absolute bath on hardware costs on the 360s, and the real version STILL costs $400... analysts are saying the PS3 will be even more pricey.  

[Smash_Brother]

Looking at it from a business standpoint, Nintendo's strategy is the only feasible solution.

They cannot afford to lose money on console sales like Sony and MS do. Either they could try again, in futility, for their next gen console which would likely be graphically inferior to their competitors' anyway to do the exact same stuff they did last generation, or they could do what they're doing with the DS and move the market out from under the competition.

Pepsi did it, Apple did it, and it works like a goddamn charm.

The current market of gamers has already made its decision when it comes to their gaming tastes? Then FIND A NEW MARKET!

There's a REASON why elderly couples in Japan are buying DSes, a market segment which was among the LEAST likely to pick up a portable console.

There's a reason why game developers are hesitant to leave out Rev support right now, even ones which haven't developed on a Nintendo console in two generations. They don't want to be left behind in case the Rev takes off. That right there says to me that Nintendo is going in the right direction.

Nintendo needed something new and different, not GC2. Sony and MS are trying to do everything they can to snuff Nintendo out by using as much of their billions of dollars as possible to push the graphical standards higher, even if it means losing money on hardware development, something they know Nintendo cannot afford to do. Nintendo is doing exactly what they need to do to survive: instead of pushing the graphics higher, they're pushing the market out from under Sony and MS by taking gaming in new directions.

I can understand skepticism, but the reality is, the GC2 would have been Nintendo's undoing in the home market and anyone who understands the market has no choice but to agree.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Great post Smash, to add a bit to it, I personally believe taking the market in a different direction is what console gaming needs. Let's face it, if Xbox 360 is any indication, the console market is morphing into a cheaper alternative to updating your PC, you get the same games, but you don't need to worry about upgrading. That is not how gaming started, even in the N64 vs PS1 era, console and PC gaming provided different experiences. Now days that started to melt together, and consoles are becoming cheap multimedia computers. With revolution, Nintendo has a chance to get back what I feel was lost, and that is unique gaming experiences not found anywhere else.

[Spak-Spang]

The more I read on this topic the more I just have to throw my hands up and admit I don't know.

I don't know what these SPECS mean in the scheme of game design and what it will allow and disallow.  

I don't know even if these SPECS are real.

All I do know is that I have enjoyed Nintendo created games and hardware more than any other company...and I have never been disappointed with Nintendo's consoles they have created.

So, I will wait and see.  If these Specs are real, I will judge the system on its value and its games nothing else.  If these Specs are false I will not have wasted energy and emotions stressing on the unknowns.

[Ian Sane]

"the GC2 would have been Nintendo's undoing in the home market and anyone who understands the market has no choice but to agree."

I would agree but that's just because the Cube was one of the most botched consoles I've ever seen.  It was like if there was a wrong way to do something Nintendo always did it.  I'm not very keen on the blue ocean strategy but I've never asked for Gamecube 2.  A traditional console doesn't have to be Gamecube 2 or N64 3.  Nintendo still hasn't made a 3D console that hasn't been handcuffed by REALLY questionable, and in some cases just outright dumb, decisions.  In fact I'd argue that with the Rev that they still haven't.  Anyone asking for a traditional console from Nintendo isn't asking for another Gamecube.  They're asking for Gamecube DONE RIGHT and that's a big difference.

Gamecube 2 would undoubtably fail.  Competent Gamecube that isn't an exercise in screwing up?  I think something like that always has a chance provided it's marketed well and the company making it isn't bleeding money (ie: Sega).

[GoldenPhoenix]

What dumb descision handicapped GC? It was a powerful console, with a relatively big storage medium. The only flaw I can think of in the GC is the mini disks, and even that isn't a big handicap. I think GC failed because of rushed products and lack of truly innovative gaming experiences.