Topic: 2-3 Times as powerful as GC true, sez IGN

[Kairon]

Ign is reporting on their source's descriptions of the Rev's capabilities so far.

Revolution tech Details Emerge

Some key quotes:

"Readers are advised to make two notes before continuing with this article. The first is that developers are still working with incomplete Revolution hardware. Most studios are, in fact, developing on "GameCube-based kits," according to major software houses we spoke to, which have asked to remain anonymous. The second is that developers are still without final specifications for Revolution's ATI-developed graphics chip, codenamed Hollywood."

""To be honest, it's not much more powerful than an Xbox. It's like a souped up Xbox," a major third party source revealed to us. "But it's the controller that makes the difference and the controller is really nice." "

"Revolution will not have the RAM capacity to store and display an abundant source of high-definition textures. Third parties have revealed to us that the console will top out with 128MBs of RAM, and possibly even less. One studio would not give us an exact figure, but did say, "The same as GameCube plus an extra 64MB of main RAM." That number is by comparison nearly triple the amount of memory in GameCube. However, it is a far cry from the 512MBs present in Xbox 360."

"No developer that chatted with us had, or was willing to share, details on the console's GPU, Hollywood."

"Finally, quizzed about publishers' internal reaction to the device, a source responded: "People are interested, but they're still taking it all in at the moment. I'm sure [Nintendo is] going to get a fair amount of support. Probably a lot of people will initially look at existing franchises and whether or not they can kind of do customized versions for Revolution using most of the assets they've got. But whether they'll say, "Okay, let's do something completely original for it," that's the other question because it could be quite expensive to do that. Not as expensive as doing a PS3 or Xbox 360 game. But if you're a third party and you want to do cross platform, if you're doing a game on 360 you can do it on PS3 or PC using the same assets and that does make it a bit easier.""


My personal take:

Seeing what the GC can do with RE4 and Zelda:TP, the Rev will do perfectly fine on standard definition TVs. Also, this is NOT GC level graphics, we are looking at an increase in power, but an increase that doesn't push into diminishing returns like the PS3 or X360.

What this actually does suggest is that Nintendo may be looking at really hitting a low price point. Very impressive, especially if they can launch at sub $190. Can you imagine the revolution dropping to $99 within one year of it's release, yet still being competitive with PS3 and X360 based purely on revolutionary gameplay experiences?

But of course, we're still apparently waiting for news on the graphics chip.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[ThePerm]

well this hurts me...but lets go on it....

this means gamecube had 40 mb of ram total(i think) thats 120...round up 128mb
processing speed 485....round up 500x3 1.5ghz
162 mhz gpu...162*3=486mhz
could do 20 million polygons(according to factor 5) with all necassary effects on
60 million...but eh lets round way up since gpus are so much more efficient now....
150 million polygons
textures....3 times better then the ones an star fox adventures
characters look 3 times better than they did on re4

also....

xbox 360-revolution
512mb 128mb
3.2 ghz  1.5 ghz
500mhz 486mhz
 

[Caterkiller]

Im not worried. Mainly because of games like Zelda:TP, Doom 3, and Resident Evil 4. And right now looking at the visuals of the X-Box 360, what am I really missing? Sure things will get better with time, but how much better?  Even if they do get to a top "Toy Story" like quality, if playing with a standard controller feels dated then I don't think Nintendo has anything to worry about.

[KnowsNothing]

Apparenlty the Xbox is three times as powerful as the GameCube.  Or something.  Or an Xbox with soup, but what the hell does that mean.  The 360 is nothing more than  a souped up Xbox, and the PS3 is nothing more than a souped up PS1.

Time to make more sense.

[mjbd]

This isnt really suprising to me, and to be honest, it doesnt bother me one bit.  I am actually impressed by what I have heard so far.  The jump is pretty big, and there is no doubt that you will definately see a differance.  Look how many games looked better on Xbox than on GC, and Xbox wasnt that much more powerful.  Look at it this way, if they could do RE4 and Metroid Prime Echoes on GC, imagine what they will be able to pull off with a system 3 times as powerful.  Rev is going to be a system full of exclusives.  Can you imagine if Free Radical is on board making a FPS for Rev?  Who cares if we dont have the best look shooter, ours will be superior when it comes to gameplay.  I cant wait to hear more comments from developers.

[mjbd]

I think what they meant about Rev being a souped up Xbox is that its not a drastic increase in power like Xbox360 or PS3.  What if Nintendo's price point isnt $200, what if its less?  It would make alot of sense when going for the non gamer.

[Kairon]

To me, the X360 is a souped up XBox, lol.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[BigJim]

A GameCube on steroids, basically. I guess that makes backward compatibility almost free, and cheaper R&D.

Well if they're decidedly not going for HD, then they don't need the same horsepower the other systems have. There's only so much detail that an SD-TV is going to be able to distinquish. The performance won't blow any skirts up (and I won't be saying "wow") but it's probably adequate... aside from the "no HD" thing.

That said, a 2-3x boost is probably the wimpiest upgrade to date in console land. CPUs and GPUs have moved mountains in that time period.

For the most part in the past, the console would probably account for 90% of the technology while the controller was a cheap, mindless pad of buttons. The Rev controller seems to be much more intelligent than normal. I wonder if Nintendo spent less than usual on the console to be able to account for this controller.

[Kairon]

I'll still be saying WoW if the gameplay is all it's cracked up to be.

Either way, it's become apparent that the "Revolution" won't just be the controller, but probably also a mass-market price right out of the door.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[mac<censored>]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Either way, it's become apparent that the "Revolution" won't just be the controller, but probably also a mass-market price right out of the door.

That would be very interesting -- if Nintendo can crack the "oh why not" price barrier, the Rev will probably become ubiquitous.

As they've shown with the DS (vs PSP), it's not always raw horsepower that wins.  A Rev that hits a sweet spot of lowish (but not lowest) price and good (but not best) graphics, combined with a controller thath gets people interested (it doesn't really have to be perfect, just enough to make people take a 2nd look), would look awfully similar in approach to the DS...

For a company like Nintendo (who though rich can't drop quite the bundles of cash their competitors can) that seems a pretty intelligent strategy.

[attackslug]

The way I see it, a souped-up Xbox is a pretty nice guess.  Metroid Prime with 2x sharper textures or fully bump/gloss/normal/specular/etc mapped environments would look pretty damn nice.  Resident Evil 4 with upped texture resolution/shader detail and real-time shadows is also quite impressive in my mind.  I doubt we'll be seeing the impressive crowds of enemies that are omnipresent in every Xbox360 or PS3 screenshot, but I have a feeling that in pro-scan or standard resolutions there will indeed be little to no difference in visuals between the three systems.
And even if there is a huge gap in graphical quality, dammit, that controller is still going to change gaming as we know it.

[couchmonkey]

This is a bit disappointing as I didn't really expect it to be this lacking...I didn't expect it to be as powerful as Xbox 360, either, but I was hoping it would at least be half an Xbox 360.  I'll wait until I see some games to really judge though, and I'm still far more interested in this system than either of the others.

With this amount of power, I'm hoping Nintendo can more than break the $200 mark, I'd like to see it debut at $150 like the DS.  

Edit: IGN is also reported that devs are being told that a Thanksgiving weekend launch is likely.  If true, I find that very disappointing.  Nintendo really doesn't seem to care about competing at all; while that may not matter if the company is able to market this system as a product for a different market but it may seal the Revolution's fate if the system doesn't catch on outside of the hardcore market.

[BiLdItUp1]

I doubt we'll see $150, and frankly I'm not sure if I wanna see $150, not right off the bat - it runs the danger of being typecast as too cheap. As far as I know, they've never released a bonafide home console for less than $199. That's the sweet spot, and that's where I say it's gonna be - which is extremely reasonable, considering the Rev's features.  

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey

Edit: IGN is also reported that devs are being told that a Thanksgiving weekend launch is likely.  If true, I find that very disappointing.  Nintendo really doesn't seem to care about competing at all; while that may not matter if the company is able to market this system as a product for a different market but it may seal the Revolution's fate if the system doesn't catch on outside of the hardcore market.

couch, you have to remember the way most people's money works.  Assuming the Revolution could launch in the summer, many people are on or will go on vacation so that is money they can't spend on a console.  Fall brings about school meaning back to school supplies (shoes and new wardrobes for kids & tuition and books for colleges kids).  November is about the time when most people can recoup from those previous expenses, just in time to drop some dough for Christmas.  Novemeber is the sweetest spot for anyone to launch.

"Asked if it was developing for Revolution, one major third party source said that it was well past the experimental stage and was evaluating what types of games might work on the platform. "We are looking at it quite differently. It's like another current generation platform for us. But it's such a nice controller that it opens up a lot of possibilities. It's very different and it's very precise."

I don't know why but this quote kind of excites me.  The Revolution is similar enough to current gen that developers can just jump right in and seemingly the only that is holding them back would be interesting concepts.

[Kairon]

Given that an XBox360 looks basically indiscernable from modern gen systems on a standard TV, I'm not at all worried about the Rev's graphics.

As for the $150 price point idea, it could happen but I don't think we'll hit quite that low. My highest hopes reside around the $169 to $179 price range, but of course the most believable route is the $200 mark.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[attackslug]

200$ with a game would sell one to me with no questions asked.  Hell, 200$ with a playable demo disc or some free downloads would be fantastic.

[couchmonkey]

November is the sweetest spot for anyone to launch until you think about the huge games drought that follows in the next 6 months, and the huge game drought that I as a Cube owner will have to endure next year.  This date still isn't set in stone, but if true, I have to make Zelda last all year.  Nintendo makes this same stupid mistake every generation and this time I have the money to just go out and buy another console instead of settling for the three worthwhile games Nintendo releases next year.

I actually agree that November is financially the best time for a launch, but for me, it stinks.  And when Sony and MS have 100+ games to play in the first half of 2007 while Nintendo sits on a library of 20-30 games, it's going to look pretty stinky to a lot of other hardcore gamers too.

BiLdItUp1: I don't see any reason to charge $200 other than to make a profit (which of course Nintendo should try to do).  I also see the potential for consumers to think it's "cheap", but hardcore gamers will already know that it's less powerful than the others, and the non-gamers Nintendo is going for will not pay high prices for something they never felt they needed, so there are two demographics that will basically want the cheapest price possible.  Given non-gamers are the audience Nintendo wants the most, I think a low price is best.

[zakkiel]

Quote
hat said, a 2-3x boost is probably the wimpiest upgrade to date in console land. CPUs and GPUs have moved mountains in that time period.

I think Moore's law is at two years for doubling now. Theoretically, hardware hasn't gotten much more than 3 times as powerful.

The only specific stat in that article is the RAM, and Microsoft officials admitted off the record that the Xbox's 512 RAM was mostly so people who didn't know anything about consoles wouldn't freak out. There's no need for that much memory.

Personally, I'm waiting on the graphics card. That's the decisive factor for the graphics.

The bad part about this news is not the vague commentary on graphics by developers who gamecube kits. After all, they are gamecube kits. No, it's the fact that developers still don't have real Rev stats, let alone Rev kits, at this point in the cycle. I don't need Nintendo to do marketing at this point, but I definitely need them to support independent developers better than this. What the hell, Nintendo?

Also, for the record, I think a launch PP of under $199 would be a big mistake. At that point, you just lose visibility and credibility as a home console and start entering the territory of those "it's fun to learn" devices. Actually, I think they'd be smart to go to $250.

[BigJim]

If 360 and PS3 display in true 1920x1080, that's literally 6.5x the resolution their hardware needs to account for. Thus, their hardware is apropos. With twice the memory of Xbox and 2-3x performance over Cube, pound for pound the Revolution should be just fine for SD games, graphic-wise. I wish the Rev had the beef for HD games, but as it is we're not getting hardware fresh off the turnip truck either.

Even the Xbox is still losing money at $150, so I don't think the hardware is quite as cheap as people think. This still reads like a $199 price. I think it'll come out that Rev is better than just a slight bump over XB1.

Edit: Moore's law refers to the number of transistors doubling every 18-24 months. Performance is a misquote.

I also don't like that dev kits still aren't widespread. Sure games can be made on Cube kits, but there's no way to do anything with the control scheme when even as of the TGS the technology on the whole wasn't finalized. Fresh code has to be built to accomodate it, and memory considerations need to be kept in mind... so the first 6 months of 3rd party games probably won't take good advantage of it.

[pudu]

At first I was quite upset about it but rereading the quotes I don't think devs have all their facts straight yet.  A decent GPU and CPU could be utilized at a cheaper price point.  The way I see it you can get the best of the best in CPU's or GPU's for the PC at enourmous price points or go a step or two down and get a still really good CPU/GPU that can still run all the top games and compare to the best, just not as extreme.  128 MBs of RAM?  Please.  Do they even release graphics cards with less then 128 anymore?  Add in the at least 64-128 MB system memory and you getting a conservative (yet far more respectable) 196-256MB of total RAM.

Lets just wait and see if it is a "souped up Xbox" or simply more reasonable, yet still comparable console power wise.  As long as it is capable of decent physics, a respectable amount of objects on screen for game interactions, and delivers comparable (not necessarily better) graphics who cares?  If it turns out being limited as far as those aspects go Nintendo will be shooting themselves in the foot giving devs the opportunity to use this amazing controller but not giving them the proper system power to create some truley immersive game environments.  The big problem they face, really, is with this sort of control that puts you more into the game, gamers will expect more out of the environments since they are interacting with them on a deeper level.

[Kairon]

Personally, I'd be disappointed with a Nov. 2006 launch date.

I wonder whether PS3 will really launch March 2006 like they say, so it's not at all an issue of "first or last." It's an issue about how far along their game development is. Nov 2006 would mean that their launch games have in excess of a years development with full dev kits, and in excess of 1.5 years counting preliminary development on GC kits. That's not a long time, but it just seems to me too long considering the following.

If Nintendo really knew what their controller was back in mid 2005, then they knew all they needed to do to plan out their games conceptually if not actually. That conceptual process I would like to think would allow them to develop faster than the 12 month cycle. Let's not forget that Rogue Leader 2 was done in 9 months.

I'm not expecting any of the Rev's launch titles to be so deep that they require heavy investment in content creation or concept, I'd expect them to be all gameplay centered (or more sparkling innovationy even) and thus not need to stay in development longer just to add content.

Also, if the Rev is really easier to develop on than these newer consoles then I'd expect Nintendo to prove it with relatively fast turn-around times. Definitely Nintendo does a lot of demos and testing, but once again I thought that they could have done this lengthy experimentation process mid 2005 so that they'd be ready to jump right in with the relatively easier coding once dev kits are finalized.

Finally, why should the IBM cpu be done a year in advance of the system? Surely it wouldn't take them that long to start the manufacturing process!

But anyways, I wonder whether prices on the console will eventually drop so low that we could see the widespread re-emergence of the "pack-in" title. If the Rev console price drops to below $99 in 2-3 years or so we could start seeing $99 Rev + Game bundles that'd really rake in the casual game buyers.

Finally, I'd prefer an earlier lackluster launch to a later decent launch. I'd think a console could ride for maybe 2 months on launch excitement alone (and "proof-of-concept" rev controller titles) before it really needs to deliver the solid games, so instead of a Nov 2006 launch (if it is true) I'd much prefer a much weaker Aug 06 launch that only has it's killer apps hit in Nov or Dec.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com  

[Guitar Smasher]

Personally, I was most excited about the possibility of Rev with pack-in Zelda:TP.  That's if they release at the same time.  The new Zelda won't sell GameCubes, but it has the ability to sell Revs, I believe.

[nemo_83]

"Can you imagine the revolution dropping to $99 within one year of it's release"

Can you imagine the revolution not being around in three years?  Graphics do matter to an extent; a rehashed Gamecube will not sit well with anyone.  Nintendo has their security, the controller; now they can afford to step up and compete power wise with the competition who is using most of their power on resolution rather than actual AI, physics, or polys.

If the console truly is so lacking in ram (AND still has no harddrive forcing you, requiring you whether you have a wifi enabled modem or not, to buy Nintendo's overpriced wifi peripheral to be able to conect your console to your PC to eat up its harddrive to save your downloads; thankyou Nintendo, I almost lost faith in your ability to one up the connectivity blunder from the GameCube) it equals Nintendo having their controller stolen from them and mass marketed by MS and Sony in five years on the big stage.


A lot of 360's cost comes in not only the HD hardware in the system, but the fact there are three of those 3.5 ghz chambers; I believe Nintendo should at least match them with a single core 3.5 ghz CPU.  Developers will have a hard time using all three cores on 360 so most games will only use on core meaning the other two are a waste of money.  Basically Nintendo could get the same bandwidth (if not more since its not using HD) as 360 at one third the cost just from the forsight, the knowing that few developers will be able to aford to make many games using multithreading.  

Even if the final kits prove more powerful, and even if the gpu has some tricks; there is no denying the limited bandwidth they are talking about and lack of a harddrive meaning the internal flash memory can't be relied upon for use in games.  If Nintendo really goes for the $200 mark they better include a healthy packaged in harddrive; otherwise I will feel like I'm paying two hundred for a controller.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
"Can you imagine the revolution dropping to $99 within one year of it's release"

Can you imagine the revolution not being around in three years?  Graphics do matter to an extent; a rehashed Gamecube will not sit well with anyone.  Nintendo has their security, the controller; now they can afford to step up and compete power wise with the competition who is using most of their power on resolution rather than actual AI, physics, or polys.

If the console truly is so lacking in ram (AND still has no harddrive forcing you, requiring you whether you have a wifi enabled modem or not, to buy Nintendo's overpriced wifi peripheral to be able to conect your console to your PC to eat up its harddrive to save your downloads; thankyou Nintendo, I almost lost faith in your ability to one up the connectivity blunder from the GameCube) it equals Nintendo having their controller stolen from them and mass marketed by MS and Sony in five years on the big stage.


A lot of 360's cost comes in not only the HD hardware in the system, but the fact there are three of those 3.5 ghz chambers; I believe Nintendo should at least match them with a single core 3.5 ghz CPU.  Developers will have a hard time using all three cores on 360 so most games will only use on core meaning the other two are a waste of money.  Basically Nintendo could get the same bandwidth (if not more since its not using HD) as 360 at one third the cost just from the forsight, the knowing that few developers will be able to aford to make many games using multithreading.  

Even if the final kits prove more powerful, and even if the gpu has some tricks; there is no denying the limited bandwidth they are talking about and lack of a harddrive meaning the internal flash memory can't be relied upon for use in games.  If Nintendo really goes for the $200 mark they better include a healthy packaged in harddrive; otherwise I will feel like I'm paying two hundred for a controller.

Nemo, increased graphical power means nothing if you don't own an HD TV. Sure, there will be the need to push a number of characters onscreen at any one time, but The Rev is already looking capable of matching the X360 tit for tat...on a standard TV. With HD prices still as high as they are, Nintendo's bet is that penetration only exists and only matters to a small number of people. I see no reason to question this upon a review of HD TV prices.

And the RAM on the X360 is so high because of the unprecedented demand for HD size textures. Remove that and you simply don't need 512 MBs of ram. Oh, and the Rev will be using faster RAM than the X360's off the shelf stuff, come to think of it. One wonders how much Ram the graphics card will add to that too.

And I don't see why you bring up a hard drive. I have not seen any true killer apps that justify the use of a harddrive. For a media center you need one, but for a gaming console, like the Rev shall be, it's simply unnecessary. Especially compared to the smaller size, higher reliability, and less moving parts of 512 MBs of Flash memory, PLUS expandability, all a Hard Drive nets you is the chance to download huge MMORPG patches. And, let's face it, Nintendo's WiFi is pushing more for a "one system host for others in a limited multiplayer environment" than a consistent online world with a big expensive and not-free server farm: Nintendo is not gunning for any FFXI any time soon.

I don't understand what makes the XBox 360 so appealing to you. It's got so much technological brute force, but none of it is focused on providing anything more than the ability to rip your CDs onto the 360 and get the most out of a $600-$1800 tv. Certainly the system's power is essential to providing a game experience, but the X360 brought us a very expensive HD revolution that is simply not worth the price of entry (meaning the price of an HD TV for the average consumer). In the end, the X360 will need quality game design to compete.

And that is still where Nintendo is focused. By not getting into an HD grudge match they can cut down on a lot of fat which would only exist if HD were needed, thus saving costs and offering a comparable experience. This is key to Nintendo's second-console strategy: they need to be cheap enough so that they can become impulse buys, and even more appealing impulse buys that use more exciting controller technology. In a sense, they're looking to exploit a gameplay edge with their controller, come in at an easier-to-swallow price, and still offer the same visuals of the PS3 and X360 to the majority of people who wouldn't get any benefit from HD at all.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com  

[Nile Boogie]

What I foresee as The Revolutions abitlies:

RE4 with better textures and Zombies that respawn but don't fade after death.
Metriod Prime 3 with triple the poly count.
F-Zero Gx with real time physics reaction. (PPU?)
Grand Turismo 4 with Hi textured back drops.
Rouge Leader with 3x the ships on screen.
MGS3 with more fluid animation
The Wind Waker with...um...well nothing, The Wind Waker is graphic perfection.

Even after playing Call of Duty 2 on anXboX360 w/HD, these games(above) still look really good.  HD texturs are nothing but sexy, its true and there is no way around it but if you can push SD textures to the limit then you'll almost have Pixar quality gaming at DvD quailty resolutions. I'm sure most of us would be more than happy with the results.