Post by: ShyGuy on October 06, 2005, 08:46:29 PM
This is the blog of that German Reporter who quoted Peter Molenyuex (sp?) commenting on the revolution.
Post by: Dasmos on October 06, 2005, 08:56:58 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 06, 2005, 09:01:52 PM
Oh wait, the 99 dollar price point bit...Hmmm, I sorta doubt it considering the peripherals being packed in, but anything can happen, I guess...
Post by: Rancid Planet on October 06, 2005, 09:30:08 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 06, 2005, 11:47:05 PM
Post by: Nile Boogie on October 07, 2005, 04:01:36 AM
Post by: Artimus on October 07, 2005, 06:41:47 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 07, 2005, 07:23:50 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 07, 2005, 07:34:46 AM
I can live with "two or three times" cube graphics. My concern is more due to Nintendo losing support or losing sales because of it and the effects that has on Rev owners. Nintendo didn't really make exceptional use of even the Cube's graphic capabilities (all the Mario games from Sunshine on didn't look so hot) so it's not like they would be affected much by it. But as always what's good enough for Nintendo isn't always good enough for third parties and I don't want to see any third party not support the console just because they don't think there's enough horsepower under the hood.
$99 is insane. That price is, as odd as it sounds to those of us with a brain, too low. The general public would probably think the Rev is some inferior low budget machine with that price. It's silly but the mainstream isn't exactly logical. Nintendo probably can't afford to launch at that price anyway. When it comes to price Nintendo just has to be comparible to last generation. The competition is overpriced so Nintendo should be "normal priced." Being even lower than any console before is just overkill and it's going to have the opposite effect of what Nintendo wants. Was the Cube considered too expensive? No, so the Rev won't be if it launch at the same price unless the thing has N64 graphics or something.
Post by: Pale on October 07, 2005, 08:35:17 AM
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on October 07, 2005, 08:37:27 AM
And two to three times better than Resident Evil 4 is more than enough.
Post by: wandering on October 07, 2005, 09:30:54 AM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 07, 2005, 09:42:43 AM
But seriously, Ian's right $99.99 is too low, unless they only launch with just the console and make you buy the games, controllers and peripherals seperately.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 07, 2005, 09:46:54 AM
Oh God. Not even getting a controller with it? That wouldn't go over very well at all. Let's just avoid a $99 price altogether.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 07, 2005, 09:55:24 AM
Post by: ThePerm on October 07, 2005, 10:42:08 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 07, 2005, 11:50:33 AM
I don't believe this number, but I think it would be smart, and here are my thoughts.
1) $99 is a price point that parents would by the system for kids, nongamers might take a chance with a new system. A gamer would spend to have an exclusive title and secondary gaming system.
2) This price can be easily obtained. Remember Nintendo has invested and licensed the technology used to create the new controller, they didn't do all the R&D which saved them money. If this new Hollywood and Broadway are just minor steps up above the Gamecube then once again we are looking at cost effective machine.
3)Nintendo could afford to take a minor loss to help jump start its marketshares, if the system cost Nintendo 125-130 to make, and they sell it for $99, then you won't loss too much compared to the market share you will make up.
4)Nintendo can make losses up in selling download games, controllers, controller additions, the new controller shell as well as games.
5)If you are going to have an inferior system, people won't complain if it is priced at extreme budget pricing, however if it only minor savings then people will complain. $99-$150 I will spend for a new system, but I won't and will never spend $399. Several people will look at the price point and decide, this is better from me.
I hope this rumor is true, because if so I will be buying one with several launch games and controllers.
Post by: Kairon on October 07, 2005, 11:59:41 AM
Purely pricewise, 99 dollars may make it look too cheap in comparison, may hint at low quality.
But 200 bucks makes it look like just another console. Remember, by then the X360 and PS3 will have dropped prices.
My thoughts are on 150 bucks or a little more.
But then again, who cares how cheap it is if you can't sell them because you're having launch shortages?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on October 07, 2005, 12:32:47 PM
$200 compared to $400 is still a pretty significant savings and it doesn't create the stigma of a cheap console being inferior.
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 07, 2005, 01:43:17 PM
The $100 dollar difference people decided to go with the more expensive (more powerful system, it seemed like a better deal.)
Now, Nongamers aren't going to care about comparing specs. They will want to buy something that is fun. (Nintendo has that with their new controller, and the price makes it easier to swallow...its the price of an article of clothes or something.) Then gamers will recognize it as a bargin to get a new style of play, and a cheap console.
Remember only the hardcore are willing to spend uber bucks on a system and not even consider the competition which is less.
Post by: ThePerm on October 07, 2005, 03:49:42 PM
Post by: nickmitch on October 07, 2005, 04:37:31 PM
Post by: Rancid Planet on October 07, 2005, 10:50:04 PM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on October 08, 2005, 12:16:11 AM
Post by: nickmitch on October 08, 2005, 03:00:08 PM
If that preveously discussed points system comes true then a few free points, maybe enough for 2 NES games, 1 N64 game or 1 SNES game and a left-over point, would work.
Post by: animecyberrat on October 09, 2005, 11:32:38 AM
Post by: IceCold on October 09, 2005, 05:35:15 PM
QuoteHa, not likely...
3)Nintendo could afford to take a minor loss to help jump start its marketshares, if the system cost Nintendo 125-130 to make, and they sell it for $99, then you won't loss too much compared to the market share you will make up
I know everyone would like it to break the $200 US mark, but I'm guessing it will go for $229.99 US including a controller/analogue attachment, as well as possibly a shell. Then there might be a bundle with SSB:R or Mario 128 with the same inclusions for $259.99. Then maybe include a few downloadable games to sweeten the deal.
That would be about $270 CDN for the basic and $305 for the bundle. Not too shabby because of the exchange rate.
Post by: ThePerm on October 09, 2005, 05:39:27 PM
Post by: Rancid Planet on October 09, 2005, 09:38:39 PM
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on October 10, 2005, 06:12:40 AM
either way, what will stop people from buying a rev? it'll be hard for even teh most diehard graphics whores and sonybots to dismiss the new opportunities in gaming available at a much lower price point. Also, online options will likely be free for the best games, saving them yet another $50 that they'd dish out for Xbox Live.
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on October 10, 2005, 12:38:13 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 10, 2005, 01:25:26 PM
I also expect Nintendo to sell the controllers with everything included. Shell, Analog stick, and remote...simply because it will help developers know what consumers have out there at their utility to play the games.
Nintendo won't go back to packaging free games inside the box, and I doubt they will allow free downloads unless that shell is provided (who knows if they would have the equipment to play the games.)
The only thing we might get is a system with 2 controllers included...but this would most likely be reserved for a special bundle system...and controller sales bring in $$$ to the company...so why waste the extra revenue.
We won't be seeing the system debut at $99 but we also won't see it around $250 either.
I expect somewhere firmly in the middle...most likely $199, but I could see Nintendo trying for $149 to sell along the same price as the DS opening.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on October 10, 2005, 02:47:11 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 11, 2005, 08:28:36 AM
If that's too expensive they can always go with downloads. Seriously how much for the download possibly cost Nintendo? There's no physical production required. It's just a download. Why not include an extra for free? It would get people trying out the service and encourage going online from the get-go. I say they include a free NES, SNES, and N64 download. Let everyone get a play with all the past consoles.
And finally another option is to include a demo disc of all the launch games and some upcoming titles. So once you get your Rev you can try everything out and then maybe you'll feel the need to go out and buy more games. Demos of future games would be especially important so that Nintendo can get the whole existing userbase hyped for a game's release.
Post by: vudu on October 11, 2005, 09:13:45 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 11, 2005, 09:35:08 AM
If you don't have a broadband connection I have a feeling you're not the type to ever buy a console within the initial launch period anyway.
I don't know what everyone else is thinking but my strategy regarding free download games is to attract the fence sitters. It's to get hardcore gamers that plan on eventually getting all three consoles to buy a Rev sooner rather than later or to get people who just want a console and aren't really paying much attention to give the Rev a second look. If you're got someone who wants to get a game console for his kids for Christmas and the salesman says "this one costs this much less and comes with free games" that guy's going to consider it. People like stuff that's free so I think it just provides an extra little incentive to get a Rev at launch or to pick one over a competing console.
Nintendo did do something like this with the Metroid Prime Hunters demo. Did that help convince any of you DS owners to buy one at launch?
Edit: Just thought of something. What helped MS pull ahead of the Nintendo and not look back? The Sega bundle at Christmas 2002. The Xbox came with two free games while the Cube came with squat. The Xbox sold much better and just sold better and better over the next few years. The Cube however started it's downward spiral into obscurity. People like FREE STUFF.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 11, 2005, 09:46:41 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on October 11, 2005, 10:44:45 AM
Granted that there are games I never played from past systems that I have always wanted to play(i.e. SMRPG - snes), but if I have done without for this long, its not gonna bother me if I never play it either. Its not gonna be the talk of the year, its not gonna come up in casual convo, and since it was sooo long ago that I never played it, I'm not gonna remember(or care about) what I'm missing.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 11, 2005, 11:29:53 AM
What would be so neat about the special edition? I really don't like double-dipping. I'd rather not feel like a chump for buying the Cube version early and it's probably in Nintendo's best interest that no one feels that way. Some might buy the Rev for the special edition but some would probably just get really pissed off and I think Nintendo's at a position where they can't afford to piss off many of their fans. It takes a lot of patience to stay loyal to Nintendo right now and that sort of thing could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Plus I think providing variety and choices for a pack-in helps ensure that almost everyone is satisfied. It's not much fun getting a pack-in you didn't want or you already have.
Post by: Artimus on October 11, 2005, 01:18:25 PM
Post by: Zach on October 11, 2005, 01:25:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
While a free download or two would be nice, I don't think it's going to be a big selling point. Remember, there are still many households in America (and I assume Europe and Austraila, too) that don't have broadband connections. Free downloadable games aren't going to be big selling points to those customers.
keep in mind that downloading a game is not the same as playing a game online, you do not need a fast connection. Think about it like a file sharing program (ie limewire) you can do it with a slow connection, but it takes FOREVER, it would be the same situation. So even though broadband is needed to play games online, you dont need it to download games, it just really helps speed things up.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 11, 2005, 01:43:41 PM
I don't think the Rev supports anything other than broadband though. Hell I'm not sure if it takes anything but wireless broadband but that's a different issue altogether.
I wonder if there's another way they could do the downloads. Doesn't the Rev have like a big memory card for saving? What if you could remove the card, take it to a store like EB or Toys 'R' Us, and use a download kiosk to get games? So that feature is still available for those offline, it just requires a little more effort from the consumer.
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 11, 2005, 01:51:51 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on October 11, 2005, 02:08:18 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 11, 2005, 02:27:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I wonder if there's another way they could do the downloads. Doesn't the Rev have like a big memory card for saving? What if you could remove the card, take it to a store like EB or Toys 'R' Us, and use a download kiosk to get games? So that feature is still available for those offline, it just requires a little more effort from the consumer.
Saves and games are saved on the actual hardware, and you can use an SD card to transport your saves and games (or free up space on your flash drive)...Or that's what I've gotten from it...
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 11, 2005, 02:36:02 PM
And $250 is a great price point, less than the competition, but enough to justify what it comes with.
The problem with the downloads is you lose a great opportunity to show off the wand in a breakthrough game.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 11, 2005, 02:39:44 PM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 11, 2005, 02:51:48 PM
It'll go big with the HP fans.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on October 11, 2005, 04:11:24 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 11, 2005, 06:20:55 PM
Those of us who assume Nintendo aren't a bunch of stupid doorknobs who would shoehorn classic games into a controller they obviously weren't designed for. I suppose they might do it but it would take a bunch of extra effort and I'm VERY sceptical that it wouldn't, well, be an unplayable mess for anything other than NES games. They got the shell so why not use it for the old games and make them as authentic and accurate as possible?
Post by: Zach on October 11, 2005, 08:57:14 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 11, 2005, 09:37:53 PM
Now...I'm more interested in NEW games that require you to hold the remote sideways like a NES controller AND at the same time use the gyroscope feature... don't ask me why though, lol, it sounds ridiculous when you can just plug in the shell.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on October 11, 2005, 10:01:43 PM
If the REV launches at 200 bucks, it won't solicit anything but a shrug from me. MS will just drop their console price a hundred bucks by then easy: all the early adopters will have picked one up, and where MS goes Sony will have to follow.
My thinking is that, slightly modified from my earlier post, the sweet spot will be $179, somewhere in that region. Hypothetical sweet spot of course, I haven't factored in hardware costs and supply issues. But if I did not have any problems otherwise, I'd be aiming at a $179 launch.
Then again, I don't work in the industry and I'm probably completely off my rocker.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 12, 2005, 05:48:11 AM
Post by: IceCold on October 12, 2005, 10:34:45 AM
Post by: zakkiel on October 12, 2005, 01:03:10 PM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 12, 2005, 01:10:37 PM
In fact I perused 3 gamestops and a Funcoland yesterday on the issue of the core system VS. the full system, basically only 3 core systems had been preordered in total, the core system really isn't an issue.
Post by: Kairon on October 12, 2005, 02:07:05 PM
Either way, the hardware will need to be manufactured in sufficient quantity to meet demand at and ater launch, and whether the supply can keep up with demand, or whether the demand exists, will probably be as much or more of an issue than 20 or 30 dollars difference in pricing.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 12, 2005, 02:17:18 PM
Both the Nintendo 64 and the Gamecube sold really well in initial sales at that price.
Dropping the price lower WILL appeal to some people. People are always budgeting, and only the very image conscious or the hardcore do not budget their money.
In fact, if Nintendo is trying to become the 2nd console in your home as well as a console for new gamers and Nintendo fans then keeping the price as low as possible is key. I would love $99 but that won't happen. Perhaps $179 is a good deal, but still unlikely. $200 is key.
I don't care what people think about supposed value or image...(the Gamecube did not fail because people thought it was inferior.)
Post by: Ian Sane on October 12, 2005, 02:26:07 PM
Traditional non-gamers? What the hell are those?
I don't think the core X360 is going to be an issue but it does reveal a big hole in Nintendo's plans. It's practically fact that the Rev is going to be the "weakest" console in terms of hardware. The rumours have been out for months, IGN has pretty much confirmed it, and Nintendo has made no effort at all to say otherwise. The plan seems to be to have hardware that's "good enough" but not exceptional in order to have a lower priced console and to make development cheaper.
Trading off hardware for a lower price was a pretty decent strategy when Nintendo has trying to beat the PS3 to the market. The PS3 is really expensive so the lower price could give Nintendo a bit of an edge. But it's now widely assumed that the Rev will launch last. Launching last with the weakest hardware is pretty lame. People typically expect the newest consoles to be the most powerful. The price is supposed to make up for it but if Nintendo launches last the price of the competing consoles is a big question mark. What if MS can get their "superior" hardware to the same price point by the Rev launch? What if the PS3 has had a cut by then? The price has to be significantly lower or having "inferior" hardware is just going to be a big blotch on the Rev's image. Realistically the Rev could seem OVERPRICED if the more powerful X360 is selling for a similar amount of money by the time the Rev launches. It's probably too late to change something like that now but if Nintendo's not careful they could be launching against consoles with more games available, better graphics, and comparable prices for better hardware.
Post by: The Omen on October 12, 2005, 02:47:21 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 12, 2005, 02:52:55 PM
Anyways, if the REV was a regular console then I'd agree with your negatives Ian. But that's just the thing ain't it? Nintendo's coming at this from a different angle. They want their console to offer new gaming interactions such that even if you own a PS3 or X360, you still need it. They want the REV to be able to capture the imaginations of people who saw the appeal of dancing on DDR mats, but never picked up a controller. They want it to be priced low enough such that it's a convenient second choice for gamers, and an impulse buy for nongamers. And for all of these goals, a low price is not only desirable but necessary: the rev can't be a second console or a "non-gamer's" impulse buy if it costs a lot, regardless of it's level of technology.
Nintendo is saying that the big challenge for videogame consoles today is not offering the fastest technology, but capturing an additional 5, 10, 20 million people who never seemed to be interested before.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on October 12, 2005, 02:55:18 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on October 12, 2005, 03:03:44 PM
I know. But I think the Rev has to compete as a "regular" console as well since this non-gamer market is largely unproven and if it blows up in their face Nintendo needs to be able to survive on the existing gaming market for the next five years. Relying on the uniqueness of the Rev is Nintendo putting all their eggs in one basket. I think they need to make sure the Rev is competitive with the other consoles with or without the nifty remote controller.
Plus my interest in Nintendo's success is entirely based on how it helps me. I'm not interested so much in profit for example because marketshare is what gets me better third party support. It's the same with non-gamers. The Rev being incredibly popular with non-gamers doesn't make a difference to me because that would just attract more non-gamer stuff. I want Nintendo to popular with the traditional market as well (or period) so that it attracts more games targetted towards me.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 12, 2005, 03:21:58 PM
I don't think we will see a lot of third party early on...a couple of games here and there at first, but if the demos shown before the release are great, then devs will sign on and within a year of the release the third party titles will start rolling out.
but yeah the key is the software demos, probably around E3, that'll probably also factor into how much ninty can charge for the system at launch.
Post by: Kairon on October 12, 2005, 03:30:28 PM
Yet, yes, it is a risk and one that Nintendo can't rely solely upon, and obviously isn't relying solely upon. When Nintendo talks about FPS' with their Rev controller, you know that a lot of what they're enabling is new ways to tackle traditional genres as well.
Now, as regards your approach to the Nintendo question, it's perfectly fine to say that your only interest in the matter is in how it benefits you as a single consumer. I, personally, have found that my gaming perspective is so aligned with Nintendo's that whatever Nintendo believes in, I tend to support naturally as well. This is, after all, what makes me a Nintendo Fanboy: I think I'm someone whose interests are in such alignment with Nintendo's that it seems like I'm merely parroting what they say when instead I find myself only doing so after some deep soul-searching and critical thinking... or at least I flatter myself so.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ThePerm on October 12, 2005, 03:39:41 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 12, 2005, 05:41:49 PM
If the system is something that is engaging, but too expensive it still will not be enough to bring in new buyers...but if the system is engaging and cheap then new gamers will come.
Women are playing more and more internet games, because they are engaging, simple, and CHEAP. Nintendo can't ignore any of those elements when bringing new software and hardware to these potential gamers.
Post by: Rancid Planet on October 12, 2005, 10:31:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
But I think the Rev has to compete as a "regular" console as well since this non-gamer market is largely unproven and if it blows up in their face Nintendo needs to be able to survive on the existing gaming market for the next five years. Relying on the uniqueness of the Rev is Nintendo putting all their eggs in one basket. I think they need to make sure the Rev is competitive with the other consoles with or without the nifty remote controller.
All true. And here is where my concern begins.
We all know how lousy Nintendo are at marketing. And yes they have made great strides lately and are really pushing their software and such better than I've seen in years. But compared to MS and Sony, they still suck on it hard and long I'm afraid. And not just when it comes to simple advertising of games. MS and Sony are much better at getting simple points across and making themselves look uber cool in all that they do. Nintendo is so weak in this arena it's not funny...at all.
When the Rev launches, and shortly beforehand I imagine, Nintendo will begin whatever qualifies at NCL as a "marketing blitz" to go after it's targeted audience. And like I agreed earlier, Nintendo need to both aim at the non-gamer crowd and the already a-gamer crowd at the same time or else risk putting all their eggs in one basket as Ian said.
Can we REALLY count on Nintendo doing BOTH at the same time? I'm worried about that to say the least. If Nintendo were to focus almost exclusively on the non-gamer sect and then Uh-OH it turns out to be what we call in econ class a "TEH TURD MARKET" then what? Fall back on the legions of hardcore Nintendo fans who will surely be supporting the system already? Well, that crowd is shrinking. And Nintendo can no longer simply assume that they have this magical built in fanbase of diehards. They do, but as I said they need to compete here and the diehard Nintendo gamers are a dying breed.
Of course this is all a moot point if the non-gamer crowd latches on to the Rev with both hands and one spare foot but the cause for concern on this matter is justified I feel.
Post by: MrMojoRising on October 13, 2005, 12:33:02 AM
Post by: BigJim on October 13, 2005, 01:03:08 AM
However, building a new audience may or may not be tougher than stealing Sony's. If a gamer buys the smoke that Sony is blowing up their chimney, they've probably already made up their minds to get a PS3. Be it reputation, personal experience, assumption that they'll be the winner again, or any combination of the 3. And the fact that they're not even beating Sony to market to steal the thunder, forget it.
We know that Nintendo was successful in re-creating the market with NES. And we know that Sony was able to grow the market again with the PS, which many people scoffed at at first. I was one of those people that thought Nintendo and Sega would blow them away. A slight miscalculation.
I don't think they can reclaim the top spot in one generation, but Nintendo CAN improve their base to get it started. They need to wake up. The sleeping giant routine put them into this tight spot. They have to be aggressive. I really do believe this will be a sink or swim console for Nintendo that can go either way. They have more than enough resources to make it swim, but by god they just need to wake the hell up and paddle.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on October 13, 2005, 05:19:38 AM
btw, how many n64 titles do you think we're going to get? how many titles qualify?
Post by: ThePerm on October 13, 2005, 11:13:03 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 13, 2005, 02:59:06 PM
But reality, to those that uber power and graphics matter they will ALREADY know that the Revolution is inferior and that the game console is riding more on concept than power.
The other companies also will be getting the same information out through advertisements and such. Game stores with well intentioned but not greatly informed sales-representatives will also be informing and influencing opinions in this regard.
A great way to battle this perception is to admit it like Nintendo is doing, and aggressively price it at a market value that admits its is not the almighty but PS3, but is a concept system that is extremely well for such a big REVOLUTIONARY concept in gaming.
You are really telling me that someone that is wanting a system for power and graphics alone is going to see the Revolution concept and change their mind about not buying it? NO OF COURSE NOT.
Also, someone that knows that it is inferior graphics and power may be more willing to pick it up and try the console if it is priced at $99-$150...specially if the new concepts in gameplay intrigue him. Raising the price to $250 will not make him think, huh this is probably not as underpowered as I thought. He will probably say, DAMN, it cost alot of money to create this new concept.
The arguement about perceived value I think is mute, because we are at an age where most buyers are educated buyers and it is very easy to find the facts you need.
Post by: ThePerm on October 13, 2005, 07:41:42 PM
Post by: Rancid Planet on October 13, 2005, 09:11:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MrMojoRising
Nintendo should focus more on the gamer population earlier and get them excited and have some word of mouth carry over into their all out "media blitz" where they try to reach all of the non-gamers closer to launch. If they can get gamers excited early they are less likely to lost interest as quickly as non-gamers probably would.
I couldn't agree more.
And on the subject of Rev pricing. I really think we ought to get this 99-150 dollars price range right out of our heads. While the Rev may be the least expensive of the three next gen systems it just seems retarded to think Nintendo would charge so little for the Rev at first. I think $199 is about as low as we can realisticly hope for the system to debut at.
Post by: wandering on October 15, 2005, 10:57:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rancid PlanetWe all know how lousy Nintendo are at marketing. And yes they have made great strides lately and are really pushing their software and such better than I've seen in years. But compared to MS and Sony, they still suck on it hard and long I'm afraid.
Sorry, but Nintendo is kicking Sony's ass in the portable marketing department.
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83I assume that due to the controller the system will be at least $199. Nintendo believes they can make a more streamlined system and still attain equal graphics compared to the competition by not going 720p.
We don't know this yet. Actually, the latest rumor is that, while Nintendo may not go all the way to 1080, they'll probably use 720 for some games. Personally, I'm expecting them to have about as many 720 games for the rev as they had progressive scan games for the cube.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
It's practically fact that the Rev is going to be the "weakest" console in terms of hardware. The rumours have been out for months, IGN has pretty much confirmed it, and Nintendo has made no effort at all to say otherwise.
I'm still not convinced that it'll be the weakest of the three.
1) Nintendo has said that the games will look as good as the compeition's, and have also made frequent allusions to the power of the console (Perrin Kaplan had a comment about it being a "jaguar" inside or something like that).
2) Nintendo generally under-promises and always keeps stuff like this to their chest, possibly out of fear of dissapointing people (remember, for example, how they denied that Double Dash would have 8-player LAN support, or how they created the impression that GameCube was weaker than the PS2?)
Personally, I'm expecting the system to be on par with the 360 specs-wise (being better than the 360 in some areas and worse in others). And, I'm expecting the games to actually look better than 360 games, but not quite as good as PS3 games.
But we'll see.
Post by: odifiend on October 16, 2005, 07:15:51 AM
Though Nintendo has traditionally underplayed specs, I thought Iwata pretty much confirmed that Rev would be the weakest just because they are concentrating on something else entirely.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 16, 2005, 08:11:07 AM
Nintendo doesn't develop thoser chips themselves, IBM and ATi are doing that. And while Nintendo may not have high demands those companies won't deliver junk.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 16, 2005, 08:21:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
wandering: Nintendo is kicking some ass in the portable market but none of that has to do with advertising. It is entirely word of mouth and previous experience that is selling GBs & Dses.
Comparing Nintendo and Sony, Nintendo has done a FAR better job with their marketing...
And everyone stop worrying about the visual prowess of the Rev already...
