Topic: Why is the console so small?

[Requiem]

Besides arguing about Zelda TP, I've been thinking about the Rev lately. Nintendo said that by the time it ships, the Rev should be about the size of three DVD cases stacked together.

That's tiny.

I never actually tried stacking DVD cases together. I'm around them so much that I didn't feel the need to. I must say, now that I actually tried it out, it shocked me.

The Rev is ridiculously tiny. Tinier then I imagined. But why?

Why is the console so small?

I remember a qoute from Square-Enix

Quote
"Not just a portable, not just a console - it's exactly what we wanted in that it's the birth of a completely new platform."

What the hell does that mean?

I have a feeling that the third Revolutionary feature has to do with its size. To think about it logically, why would Nintendo essentially shoot themselves in the foot by making their system vastly underpowered than the competition, if not for a good reason? They wouldn't. They must have a good reason.

They say its to have a cheap system that everyone can enjoy, but I believe that has nothing to do with the reason for making it so small.

I don't think Nintendo is trying to sport the Rev as some console that you can attach a screen to and take on trips. If this actually happened, I'd be pleased, but I feel its a waste since the DS handles that side of things very well. Plus, it would be impossible to play REV games on it since you have to place the sensors where they are unlikely to move (at least that's my understanding). So all you could play are games already out.

I don't know what else it could be though......It's late and my creativity has dwindled.

nintendo-revolution.blogspot.com has spouted some claims about 3D projection. As much as I would like to believe that Nintendo has some Nasa like glass in store for us, my skeptical side says its a little far-fetched. And I doubt Nintendo, the one that has been spouting "Non-gamer! Non-gamer!" for a while now, would make people wear here some sort of googles or visors.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

[Smash_Brother]

I think they'll reveal at E3 that the console, in fact, is the controller.

Why else would you need a stand to charge it on?

[wandering]

I doubt Nintendo went "-hmm, which is better, lots of power or small size?" I also doubt there's a secret revolutionary feature that has to with the rev's size.

They went with less advanced, but possibly more specilized tech, to keep costs down for consumers and themselves. They saw they could use this tech to make a smaller console. They did.

Size is important to people. The popularity of the ipod nano and mac mini and tiny cell phones are proof of this. Someone (Ian) is going to bring up that size didn't help the cube. That's because graphics were much more important last generation (also, the cube was purple.)

This generation, graphics have reached a plateu... and I think to the consumer, "next-gen graphics" is a bullet point that all three consoles will have, no comparison necessary. You can see this in the discussions people are having on message boards: specs are debated, but nowhere near as much as last gen. So, to the average consumer, the rev will have "next gen graphics" with an amazing form factor (and cool blue light), and the competition won't. This will be a huge boon for Nintendo that a lot of people aren't factoring in.  

[IceCold]

It's very possible that the Rev will be portable with a screen hook-up. But you're right; the sensors probably have to stand still. However, it could always be used as a portable DVD player with the dongle. And you could use the DS as a remote..

[Mario]

It's so people need to buy more of them to construct Rev Houses.  

[Talon]

Its because the Revolution's actual name is GameBoy Next and Nintendo have decided to support portables only!!

Now back to reality the reason the Rev is so small will be most likely to appeal to the Japanese consumer.  Japanese like small things to put in their shoebox apartments (space is a big reality in Japan).  If you look at the size of the Xbox360 and the George Foreman Grill 3 (ps3) they are monsters compared to the revolution and would be less appealing to the Japanese consumer.  You also have to remember that Nintendo is targeting non-gamers this generation and alot of people dont like big huge boxes cluttering up their living spaces.  Not to mention the fact that the technology they have invested is alot smaller in size than their counterparts.

Personally id rather a smaller console for aesthetic reasons.  But at the end of the day I just like everyone else on these boards would be considered part of the "Hardcore" demographic and really couldnt care less if the rev was the size of 3 shoeboxes stacked on each other.

[Artimus]

RE: The Cube's Size

The cube is small width/length wise, but it's really tall. It only fits at the very bottom of my entertainment space at home, none of the other shelves are high enough.

[kirby_killer_dedede]

The size does have something to do with it but not in the way to think.  I'm thinking it's some specialized tech that allows costs to be down but manages to push graphics like competitors with the small size.

[Ceric]

Lets face it.  There is no good reason for it not to be small.  When I can get a computer sporting dual sli 7800GXT from Nvidia, there top of the line card I might have gotten the name wrong,  Audigy 2 level of sound, a Top of the line AMD 64FX processor, 2 gigs of Memory and a DVD burner and SATA harddrive into a case that is the same size as the Cube and have cooling technology that prevents it from overheating in heavy use.   Those are all heat monsters.  Now I'm Nintendo and I'm seeing this knowing  I can one up it because I can put this all on one board instead and use a specialized cooling tech without really uping the overall cost.  I do it.  Now that being said the exhaust may end up being like a jet engine but that is a cost I'm willing to pay.

That being said I move around alot and small consoles are good for that.  Nintendo has, since the Cube, had the philosophy that your console should be able to get up and go.  I mean they included a handle.  Also your right Japan space is tight and so it is in most of the civilized world besides North America.

[MaryJane]

Two words: cool factor. or maybe. shock factor.

When I first pulled my cube out of it's box, with my brother and mom standing next to me we all went, "That's it?". Not in a bad way, but in a good surprised manner. It was rather shocking and pretty cool to think, wow this little thing is gonna me provide with endless of hours of quality nintendo entertainment. Then bringing the cube around my xbox/ps2 friends they were all like what the hell, the xbox ppl were blown away by it's size, the ps2 morons who constantly told me the cube was inferior to graphics finally believed me that something half the size of their machine was better. Shock (or cool) factor.

Then fast forward to e3 last year, 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. Now imagine reactions of 360/ps3 peeps when they see an even smaller revolution. (it is a lot different seeing something in person than on t.v, we can't all go to e3, hey that rhymes... moving along) while the graphics won't be better than sony this time around, they will be comparable. It won't be like a 64 to an NES.

I totally agree with other reasons, like it's been long said about how much the Japanese value space, and so do I my room is cluttered with collectibles and the stuff i don't clean up, so if i can stick my rev in the little space between my tv stand, and computer desk i'd be very please cuz i have to put the cube on my bed when I want to play and in my closet when not. So, there are tons of reasons.  

[JonLeung]

If they can make it small, all the power to them.  There aren't many advantages to having it big.

Also, you can carry it around.  It helps the "hey, check this out factor", without having a handle that some people seem to have issues with.

I should stack 3 DVD cases and check that out myself.  I remember first seeing, with my own eyes, a GBC and a GameCube and thinking both were very small at those times.

[Ian Sane]

"To think about it logically, why would Nintendo essentially shoot themselves in the foot by making their system vastly underpowered than the competition, if not for a good reason?"

Money.  Nintendo likes to make profits from everything and can't stand to ever lose money.  To get the price point they want with no loss and perhaps even a profit margin on consoles sold Nintendo has to skimp on the hardware.  Whenever Nintendo compromises something you can pretty much always assume it's to save money.

The size I imagine is in response to the Japanese market.  The Rev period is in response to the Japanese market.  The whole non-gamer strategy for example is directly related to the market in Japan.  Nintendo has also made a big deal about how quiet the system is.  No one in North America gives a sh!t so I assume that's also a Japanese thing.  NCL seems really trapped in their little bubble and are making worldwide decisions without any regard to the other markets.

I imagine Nintendo saying things like "people are becoming bored with games" and showing off a console the size of three DVD cases makes tons of sense to Japanese gamers.  Here in North America we're just like "why are they cutting out HD again?"

[RiskyChris]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"To think about it logically, why would Nintendo essentially shoot themselves in the foot by making their system vastly underpowered than the competition, if not for a good reason?"

Money.  Nintendo likes to make profits from everything and can't stand to ever lose money.  To get the price point they want with no loss and perhaps even a profit margin on consoles sold Nintendo has to skimp on the hardware.  Whenever Nintendo compromises something you can pretty much always assume it's to save money.

The size I imagine is in response to the Japanese market.  The Rev period is in response to the Japanese market.  The whole non-gamer strategy for example is directly related to the market in Japan.  Nintendo has also made a big deal about how quiet the system is.  No one in North America gives a sh!t so I assume that's also a Japanese thing.  NCL seems really trapped in their little bubble and are making worldwide decisions without any regard to the other markets.

I imagine Nintendo saying things like "people are becoming bored with games" and showing off a console the size of three DVD cases makes tons of sense to Japanese gamers.  Here in North America we're just like "why are they cutting out HD again?"

What do you want? Nintendo to make a system catered to American gamers and completely ignore the Japanese market?  They had to make a decision either way.  I know a lot of people who are bored with games (myself included) who will probably jump onto the Nintendo bandwagon (I've been a supporter my whole life).

Look at iPod sales in the states to see how much the American public cares about design and simple functionality.

[JonLeung]

I don't mind those Japanese concerns.  There's no reason for it to be big and noisy if small and quiet is possible.  Sure, I may want HD but it's not going to make me refuse to buy it if it doesn't have it.

Japanese games are what I mostly play (seeing as how I play a lot of Nintendo games, but also games from longtime developers which tend to be Japanese).  I don't mind if they don't care much for American concerns, especially tastes in games.  Do I need another generic FPS, like another in a long line of WWII shooters?  No.  Do I care for realistic sports games?  No.  I'm generalizing, of course, but those genres seem more to be from Western developers who care too much about realism.  If I could say I'm getting bored of games, it's not because of the Japanese.

[MaryJane]

Right on chris. i care about size, small is good. i bought a new dvd player cuz my old one was too loud, quiet is important to me. Why'd they cut HD? who has it? I don't... do you? even if you do, they'd be catering to an even smaller market and making decisions that have no effect on their main consumer base. Sony and Microsoft approach: let's make our consoles the biggest and with the best technology available no matter what the cost and who can actually use it, people are sheep once they hear what our product can do it won't matter if they can use it. Nintendo: let's be practical, we'll make use the best technology available to provide people with a unique experience that is can be fully utilized by the t.v's they currently own.  a 37" inch 1080p t.v cost $2,000 i don't have that kind of money to spend on a t.v i'm still in college, and even with a decent paying job, my money has to be budgeted. So i definitely like nintendo's plan, it's much better than the other two's shove stuff down the consumer throat plan.

Don't believe me? Here's a quote from sony (copied and pasted from an ign report): In a recent interview with Japanese economic website Tokyo Keizai, Kutaragi said the company wants "for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."

wow that's really how you want a company to think of you? as a pawn who'll buy they're system no matter by what means they must do it? we don't care if people start prostituting themselves to buy our system, as long as they buy it. real nice.

small, cheap, quiet, usuable by everyone, that doesn't really seem to japanese only.  

EDIT: I went back to get the exact quote.  

[TMW]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Money.  Nintendo likes to make profits from everything and can't stand to ever lose money.  To get the price point they want with no loss and perhaps even a profit margin on consoles sold Nintendo has to skimp on the hardware.  Whenever Nintendo compromises something you can pretty much always assume it's to save money.

Christ, Ian.  You make it sound like thats a bad thing.

Take a step back for a moment and try to look at this objectively .  Both Sony and Microsoft are practicing BAD BUSINESS.  They are going to LOSE money everytime they sell a console.  Its stupid, and somehow they've managed to convince everyone that its the way things are done.

So, when Nintendo comes along and does things the way they are supposed to be done, people get all uppity cause Ninty doesn't want to provide the raw, cost prohibitive horsepower of the other two and lose money just so they can claim equality.  

In short, don't assume that Sony and MS are doing this the right way.  Look at MS and Sony for what they really are.  Big, Multifaceted Corporations using videogame consoles to push non-gaming related technologies on the consumer.  

[Caliban]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Nintendo has also made a big deal about how quiet the system is.  No one in North America gives a sh!t so I assume that's also a Japanese thing.  NCL seems really trapped in their little bubble and are making worldwide decisions without any regard to the other markets.

I imagine Nintendo saying things like "people are becoming bored with games" and showing off a console the size of three DVD cases makes tons of sense to Japanese gamers.  Here in North America we're just like "why are they cutting out HD again?"

I for one want it as mute as possible, to have another humming electronic object at home is quite pollutive to the domestic environment and my ears.

If you think Nintendo is making decisions without any regards to other markets, well I agree with you but then again so did Sony and MicroSoft and many other companies not related to the video-game industry.

I wonder who's really trapped in their own little bubble. Everyone has their own little bubble...

HD? Well, at the moment I really don't care, plus I can't invest on a HD set right now (I have college, and my other hobbies are already using my hard-earned money), and nor will my parents get one because it's pointless and it would have no use for them. Now that's just what happens in my house but I bet there are alot of people that are in a similar situation.

I would rather support a company that supports consumers with little budgets, and to boot, those with mid to big budgets will also be content because they are saving money that they can use for other things.

Blah! Blah! Blah!

[KDR_11k]

Indeed. The GC had the lowest tie-in ratio IIRC, even worse for the GBA. Kids and nongamers don't buy many games so relying on that might not be profitable (the second console strategy might add to that). The Rev can't afford the lose money on console, make money back on games strategy. And since nongamers aren't willing to pay that much the console has to be cheap. I do believe Nintendo will not lose too much power to that, the GC wasn't underpowered either.

I'm not saying the Rev will sell few games, just that it shouldn't be assumed and relied upon that it'll sell many.

[JonLeung]

I've always heard that Sony and Microsoft lose money on each console they sell - which makes perfect sense.

Now while I'm sure Nintendo doesn't stand to lose as much on each one, do they actually profit?  I can understand the GBA being profitable as it wasn't exactly based on the best technology even when it first came out in 2001 but was the GameCube profitable when it first came out?  And is it still, being sold for just under $100 now?

Is there a law against something like Microsoft buying every PS3 and destroying them?  I guess that'd be a dirty business practice and Microsoft gets into enough trouble as it is...  Anyway, it'd be that Sony spends all this much money getting these manufactured but they don't get it back from a consumer sale or from software since no one actually would have one to play it on.  Thus, Sony spends millions, or even billions, on nothing.  Yeah, there'd be suspicion.  Just a weird thought.

I guess I just think that selling things at a loss is a stupid business practice.  Sure, they make it back from software and whatnot, but until then, you're pretty much encouraging people to buy what will put you into more debt.  I know a long-term forecast has to be considered...but it still feels dumb.

You'd think that at this point Sony would sell official PS2 emulators for the PC.  If people were buying the game discs without having to buy the hardware, they'd actually be making their money back sooner.  If they can get the PC gaming market into the living room, you'd think in the future there wouldn't be game hardware - just emulators.  Another weird thought.

[Ceric]

Don't you love it when you finally get to use the knowledge that you gleam from the Internet and you can't find where you found it?  On that note.

I recently read some stories about the PS3 and what was everyone thoughts about it.  One of the things that came up was that the shell they always show is empty.  One of the reasons is that as of right now the technology they want to pack into the PS3 doesn't fit.  The devoloper units are suppose to be the size of a tower PC.  Even being conservative lets say there exaggerating a little and it's just a Mid-Size tower.  Thats larger than that shell.  It was also mentioned that the release date got pushed because of the unstability of the Blu-Ray standard.  How it's looking some people are predicting that the low ball cost of the system to produce will be $300 and it could peak at $700.  Sony just recently stop taking loses on selling PS2's if that tells you anything.

Nintendo on the other hand is still making a profit on each system sold.  Since they found someone to make Gamecubes cheaper they still make money off of everyone sold at least $10 if memory serve.  Probably more.  As it stands Sony may have to delay the PS3 longer and that would really hurt it.  Even though they sell a lot of software a $300 dollar hit per console could serious hurt them.  Nintendo is playing to not have to worry about that sort of debt management.  Let the console incur debt at the R&D stage where it belongs.  

[Ian Sane]

"Christ, Ian. You make it sound like thats a bad thing."

It's only a bad thing in the sense that Nintendo's view regarding profits is very shortsighted and the idea of risking a temporary loss to improve future profits never occurs to them.  All they think about is making a profit next quarter.  So they'll skimp on something to stay in the black for one year but in reality by skimping on that thing they complete gut their market share and sell way below their expectations.  If Nintendo made chocolate bars they would skimp on the sugar to save money and then wonder why their chocolate bars weren't selling.

Looking at how their market share drops significantly each gen I think it would be in their best interest to sell as many consoles as they can and then try to make a profit from game sales and third party licencing fees.  Or at the very least even if they took a loss this gen a better image and more popularity among gamers would give them more security for making a profit next gen.  If Nintendo continues to lose market share they will either go under or be forced to abandon consoles.  That's just logical.  Eventually they would sell so few consoles that it would impossible to make a profit.  So ideally to survive and make more profit in the future they have to increase their market share and if that requires a temporary loss to accomplish it, so be it.

I look at Nintendo almost like an injured athelete who won't rest their injury.  They're in the triathlon.  They're the best in the world at swimming and insist on always being the leader at the end of the swimming portion.  But they're injured and in order to always win the swimming portion they aggravate their injury which complete kills them in the cycling and running parts.  So they never win the race and each year they fall farther and farther behind and their injury becomes more serious.  Eventually, if things continue as is, they're going to be unable to complete the race at all.  If they just went easier on the swimming part, even if it meant not winning that portion, they would give their injury a chance to heal and then they would do better overall and thus have a chance of doing better in the overall race.  After the injury has healed to a confortable level they could go back to dominating at the swimming portion while at the same time being secure enough to do well overall.

[MaryJane]

huh? nintendo is good at swimming?
here's a line from nintendo: "I'm rich biatch"
anyway, you say nintendo loses market share and so on, could that be why they took such a huge risk with the revolution instead of making the same old same old console? that cant be the reason can it? maybe they took the risk to skimp out on graphics, good trade, this could totally go wrong so lets make it graphically inferior also. or maybe they thought, let's reinvent but keep it simple so we don't lose anybody, and attract newbies.  

[trip1eX]

The small thing plain and simple is a result of them not chasing hi-def.  I'd be more shocked if the console was as big as the 360 or PS3 and yet didn't support hi-def and has lesser specs.

The 'Cube was pretty small compared to its competition (and that was with comparable specs) so I don't think there's much of a conspiracy theory going on here with the size.  Basically every electronics manufacturer tries to make their product as small as possible.  

The only far-out stuff I can see benefitting from a small console are:

1)  Wireless streaming to your TV.  

or

2)  Goggles.  

Number one would mean you could set the console near you and load your discs in it or throw in a movie without getting up.  A small console would help this.  I'm not saying this is a great feature or anything, but a small console helps this.  And it's not hard to imagine cords will be old hat in the future.  And the tech to do this at 480i I believe is here today.  Still is this really a big dealio?  


Number 2 means you could move it to any room and have fun w/o a TV.  And again having a small console fits in with this. But hard to fathom them throwing on Goggles on everybody.  It seems to go against their company motto to make gaming inviting.  YOu know the whole reason they went with the remote-shaped controller in the first place.  Then suddenly they go virtual boy on you?

[animecyberrat]

I just realisez something, Nintendos consoles have shrunk accordingly wiht thier market share, if tahst true than Revolution doesnt havea prayer.



Seriously the NES was teh largest, then SNES, N64 was close to SNES size but was shorter, GC was very small and Rev is going to be even smaller.

Is it possible, that by some twist of fate that thier market share is proprtional to their console size?
Its like the total opposite with the handhelds the smaller ones alwasy out sell the bigger ones, so maybe its thier fate , yo knwo less is more and who ever is first will be alst whoever is last will be fist or something like that?


Ok so its a wild theory but come on theres  alot to think about here.  

[wandering]

Quote
The size I imagine is in response to the Japanese market. The Rev period is in response to the Japanese market. The whole non-gamer strategy for example is directly related to the market in Japan. Nintendo has also made a big deal about how quiet the system is. No one in North America gives a sh!t so I assume that's also a Japanese thing. NCL seems really trapped in their little bubble and are making worldwide decisions without any regard to the other markets.

eh, speak for yourself. Small and quiet is in these days. Bulky and loud is out.

The "non gamer" strategy is similiary universal. Average gamers have grown out of Nintendo games and Nintendo is making them more intuitive for everybody. Doesn't sound like they're in a bubble to me.

Quote
I look at Nintendo almost like an injured athelete who won't rest their injury. They're in the triathlon. They're the best in the world at swimming and insist on always being the leader at the end of the swimming portion. But they're injured and in order to always win the swimming portion they aggravate their injury which complete kills them in the cycling and running parts. So they never win the race and each year they fall farther and farther behind and their injury becomes more serious. Eventually, if things continue as is, they're going to be unable to complete the race at all. If they just went easier on the swimming part, even if it meant not winning that portion, they would give their injury a chance to heal and then they would do better overall and thus have a chance of doing better in the overall race. After the injury has healed to a confortable level they could go back to dominating at the swimming portion while at the same time being secure enough to do well overall.

So......you want Nintendo to ease up on making great games? The swimming portion represents making great games, right?