Nintendo Revolution: the cheap and powerful alternative...

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-07 09:37pm

DarkSilver wrote:The Gamecube managed to get away with so little RAM, as did the previous generation because of one thing (it looks like to me): their not using hi-def resolutions for thier graphics.

Please, someone with more knowledge correct me if I'm wrong, but the primary reason the PS3 and the X360 have 256mb and 512mb respectivly, is because of the 720i, 1020i and 1020p resolutions they offer, higher resolutions requires more system resources, thus the need for more RAM to go with thier processors.

By sticking with standard resolutions avialable on regular televisions today, they bypass this concern, and are able to keep the pricepoint of the system down.

It is true that you need more graphics memory for higher resolutions. However, this is not the only thing you use RAM for, even in a graphics capacity. Memory still increases irrespective of resolution on both system and graphics.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-07 09:40pm

SirNitram wrote:
*SPEW* The Spirits Within? Advent Children? Games?!?!

I'm sorry, I had to record that for posterity. The keyboard'll need a wash.

I'm not going to argue it can't be done. But there are diminishing returns; the difference between the SNES and the N64 was huge, the Playstation and the PS2? Not so much.

The SNES was a 2D console, not a 3D one. It was only capable of 3D through extremely primitive add on chips in the cartridges. It was never designed for 3D.

And yes, it is not only technologically possible to do TSW/AC graphics on a console, it is inevitable.

Gosh, you talking about holding on for a while? I'm fine with waiting. But the differences so far isn't much. And as I said, this is nothing new.

I was talking about how Halo on an X360 is not supposed to be an upgrade at all. Waiting to see what the X360 is a different argument, comparing Halo on the X360 as a test for its capability is ridiculous.

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2005-12-07 09:54pm

After reading the article, only one word comes to my mind:
Nintend0wned.

m.castaldo · Post by **m.castaldo** » 2005-12-07 10:28pm

SirNitram wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:What's the price of downloading old games, though?
None announced for third party. There have been indications first party(Every single game made by Nintendo itself.. The zeldas, the Marios..) will be free.

Oh yes. There's a party in my pants tonight.

... wow... that... yeah, just...*swoon!*

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-12-07 11:58pm

$150? Fucking sign me up!

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-12-08 12:03am

SirNitram wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:What's the price of downloading old games, though?
None announced for third party. There have been indications first party(Every single game made by Nintendo itself.. The zeldas, the Marios..) will be free.

Oh yes. There's a party in my pants tonight.

Assuming that that's true, and the price is true, then it's worth the cost of the system just there without ANY additional software.

Sharpshooter · Post by **Sharpshooter** » 2005-12-08 12:04am

Any word on the MP abilities of the system? Maybe we can organize some official SD.net games once the system and the proper titles/accessories ship out.

Instant Sunrise · Post by **Instant Sunrise** » 2005-12-08 12:47am

I believe Nintendo is doing a central online service like Xbox Live.

I KNOW that the next super smash brothers games WILL be online.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-12-08 12:50am

SirNitram wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:What's the price of downloading old games, though?
None announced for third party. There have been indications first party(Every single game made by Nintendo itself.. The zeldas, the Marios..) will be free.

Oh yes. There's a party in my pants tonight.

No, Nintendo specificly said they are not free, but they will give free games as bonuses left and right (say, old Zelda games free if you buy the latest Zelda game).

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-12-08 12:54am

The Kernel wrote: EDIT: Plus, if rumors are to be believed about the launch date (and given the unveiling at E3 2006 it wouldn't surprise me), then Nintendo will be looking at a release around Q4 2006 if they are lucky. By that time Microsoft could drop the Core system to $199 if they feel the Revolution is a threat. Obviously the PS3 can't compete, but the X360 certainly can expect a price cut by next Christmas.

Are you serious? Analysists are saying the core system is selling at a $75 loss, at $300 a pop. You really think Microsoft can drop it to $199 by next year?

I do agree though, I would LOVE to see them launch earlier. Fortunately that was just developer speculation. Last official Nintendo statement was sometime after April in 2006. Rather vague.

You've still had some people on this board like Praxis claiming that the Revolution might be able to be a wash with the X360 and only slightly less powerful than the PS3.

Well, I thought "lower price point" ment $250-$200 at the time...

And I didn't say it would be a wash with the 360. I felt it would, as Nintendo put it, be able to keep up. You're exaggurating my position a little bit; I thought the Revolution *might* be on the same level as the 360. Apparently, not.
EDIT:
It wasn't just me. Read Arstechnica's last article, they speculated that the Revolution would have more cache than the other systems and possibly outperform the others on physics and AI, while being less powerful at graphics-related tasks (and not having HD). They were right about it having more cache, but apparently it's much less powerful than they speculated.
[/END EDIT]

This just means that the Revolution will be cheap enough that I can get it at launch, be happy, and still have money for a PS3 as a second console later. Kudos to Nintendo. I have friends with very little money, that were going to have to wait a year or two if the Revolution had launched for the usual $200-$250 Nintendo prices their systems at and are now planning to buy them at launch.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 12:59am

Praxis wrote: Are you serious? Analysists are saying the core system is selling at a $75 loss, at $300 a pop. You really think Microsoft can drop it to $199 by next year?

The analyst who said that was insane and was easily debunked by not only other analysts, but common sense. But of course, how utterly like you to take the most high end of estimates.

I do agree though, I would LOVE to see them launch earlier. Fortunately that was just developer speculation. Last official Nintendo statement was sometime after April in 2006. Rather vague.

They aren't even showing it publically until E3 which is in May. Q4 2006 at the very earliest, they need that time to build some level of consumer awareness. Unless you really think that Nintendo is going to buck all trends, come out with a stealth launch AND launch quickly in North America?

Well, I thought "lower price point" ment $250-$200 at the time...

And I didn't say it would be a wash with the 360. I felt it would, as Nintendo put it, be able to keep up. Apparently, not.

That's what a wash means. The difference would be negligable.

This just means that the Revolution will be cheap enough that I can get it at launch, be happy, and still have money for a PS3 as a second console later. Kudos to Nintendo. I have friends with very little money, that were going to have to wait a year or two if the Revolution had launched for the usual $200-$250 Nintendo prices their systems at and are now planning to buy them at launch.

Or they can buy the Xbox or PS2 which have game libraries of hundreds of games for even less money. The Revolution might be cheap, but without a good game library, it isn't as good of a value.

For someone like me, it's all about choice. If a great third party game comes out, I want to be able to play it. Nintendo has crap in the way of really great third party titles with few exceptions, so all I lose by buying an X360 or a PS3 is not to get to play first party Nintendo games (which aren't all the prolific in the first place). If I just had a Revolution, I wouldn't be able to play the latest third party title OR the great first party titles.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-12-08 01:02am

The analyst who said that was insane and was easily debunked by not only other analysts, but common sense. But of course, how utterly like you to take the most high end of estimates.

I've seen this estimate quoted everywhere and have not seen other estimates. Show me a better/more realistic one, please, and I'll easily accept it.

They aren't even showing it publically until E3 which is in May. Q4 2006 at the very earliest, they need that time to build some level of consumer awareness. Unless you really think that Nintendo is going to buck all trends, come out with a stealth launch AND launch quickly in North America?

We don't necessarily know that. We know:
1) Revolution will be playable at E3 2006 in May.
2) There will be no more info revealed in 2005.

They could possibly unveil more prior to E3, though in all likelyhood you're probably right.

I'm just hoping against the odds that they launch during summer. Wishful thinking, probably.

EDIT: Just to emphasize that I wasn't ignoring Nintendo's statements and being a fanboy when I thought the Revolution would be on par with the 360, I would like to point to Nintendo's numerous statements that "there would be no visible difference" and "it will be on the same level as the competitors".

I figured, okay, the Revolution will probably be to the XBox 360 and PS3 what the PS2 was to the GameCube and XBox. And without HD it can be a bit cheaper.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 01:10am

Praxis wrote: I've seen this estimate quoted everywhere and have not seen other estimates. Show me a better/more realistic one, please, and I'll easily accept it.

Link

Merrill Lynch wrote: Xbox 360 Component Est. Cost at Launch Est. Cost after 3 Years
CPU IBM PPC $ 100 $ 35
GPU ATI GPU $ 100 $ 30
Optical Media DVD-ROM $ 25 $ 10
Memory 512MB GDDR3 $ 50 $ 25
HDD detachable 20GB HDD $ 25 $ 15
USB 3 ports $ 5 $ 3
Ethernet Ethernet $ 5 $ 4
Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g $ 5 $ 3
Controllers up to 4 wireless NA NA
Other Analog IC, ASICs, I/O $ 25 $ 20
Total
$ 340 $ 145

And this is the Premium system.

We don't necessarily know that. We know:
1) Revolution will be playable at E3 2006 in May.
2) There will be no more info revealed in 2005.

Which means that it's not launching in Japan until at least late Summer. You think it can realistically launch in the US before Q4? If that were the case Nintendo would be making both a huge mistake and a very atypical move.

They could possibly unveil more prior to E3, though in all likelyhood you're probably right.

They've already said they are unveiling at E3.

I'm just hoping against the odds that they launch during summer. Wishful thinking, probably.

Even in Japan that's highly unlikely and it would be stupid to do it. A console needs time to gain word of mouth.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-12-08 01:15am

A few more things to note:

I do agree that its bad for third party support to be way below the competition, ESPECIALLY in the RAM department because that means they'll have to do a lot of work shaving stuff off to get it to fit. So this will make it really hard to port games down. Although I do remember hearing something about the Unreal 3 engine being able to run on the Revolution. Confusing.

And while I think $150 price point is a great business decision, I have to say that for myself I would prefer the system be $250 and be to the 360 what the PS2 was to the GameCube so we can get the third party games too.

I wonder how accurate IGN is being though. Some of the statements in the article make no sense, such as referencing using Flash memory as RAM (not only is it too slow, it only has a limited amount of times you can write to it before it gets toasted, correct?), and is EXTREMELY vague about the processor (2 times better than GameCube but with much more cache?) and virtually no info on the GPU (does the GPU have its own dedicated VRAM, like the PS3 has 256 MB, or is it shared like the 360?).

Loner · Post by **Loner** » 2005-12-08 01:17am

I remember Nintendo saying they're looking at launching the Rev the same way they launched the DS.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-12-08 01:22am

The Kernel wrote:
Praxis wrote: I've seen this estimate quoted everywhere and have not seen other estimates. Show me a better/more realistic one, please, and I'll easily accept it.
Link

Merrill Lynch wrote: Xbox 360 Component Est. Cost at Launch Est. Cost after 3 Years
CPU IBM PPC $ 100 $ 35
GPU ATI GPU $ 100 $ 30
Optical Media DVD-ROM $ 25 $ 10
Memory 512MB GDDR3 $ 50 $ 25
HDD detachable 20GB HDD $ 25 $ 15
USB 3 ports $ 5 $ 3
Ethernet Ethernet $ 5 $ 4
Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g $ 5 $ 3
Controllers up to 4 wireless NA NA
Other Analog IC, ASICs, I/O $ 25 $ 20
Total
$ 340 $ 145
And this is the Premium system.

Alright, much more believable, I've just heard the other number quoted much more.

We don't necessarily know that. We know:
1) Revolution will be playable at E3 2006 in May.
2) There will be no more info revealed in 2005.
Which means that it's not launching in Japan until at least late Summer. You think it can realistically launch in the US before Q4? If that were the case Nintendo would be making both a huge mistake and a very atypical move.

A Jim Merrick interview claimed global launch within 12 weeks although I don't remember how reliable the site the interview was allegedly done with was. The Nintendo DS launched in U.S. before Japan, and was the first console launch since Satoru Iwata became CEO, so it's possible it might come out in the U.S. first.

There's not enough info here for a real arguement, but there's the *possibility* of a U.S. launch first (remember, Satoru Iwata is doing a lot of changes here).

Mostly wishful thinking, probably, but Fall isn't set in stone.

I remember Nintendo saying they're looking at launching the Rev the same way they launched the DS.

The DS launched in the U.S. first.

I'm just hoping against the odds that they launch during summer. Wishful thinking, probably.
Even in Japan that's highly unlikely and it would be stupid to do it. A console needs time to gain word of mouth.

True.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 01:24am

Praxis wrote: I do agree that its bad for third party support to be way below the competition, ESPECIALLY in the RAM department because that means they'll have to do a lot of work shaving stuff off to get it to fit. So this will make it really hard to port games down. Although I do remember hearing something about the Unreal 3 engine being able to run on the Revolution. Confusing.

Not at all. The engine can run perfectly, that doesn't mean you can use the same assets or that the limitations are the same. Technically the Doom 3 engine could run on a PII 200 if it was setup for it, but that doesn't mean it would work properly with games on the same engine designed for different hardware.

An engine is a base for a game, that's all.

And while I think $150 price point is a great business decision, I have to say that for myself I would prefer the system be $250 and be to the 360 what the PS2 was to the GameCube so we can get the third party games too.

With Nintendo's legendary pride? Keep dreaming. By the look of things, they are slighting the third parties even more this generation.

I wonder how accurate IGN is being though. Some of the statements in the article make no sense, such as referencing using Flash memory as RAM (not only is it too slow, it only has a limited amount of times you can write to it before it gets toasted, correct?),

That is only their opinion as possible (and stated as such) not addressed directly by developers. Besides, it's still possible so long as it is in a preload, low write situation (such as a single load for certain repeated assets). I would doubt it though because the quality control would be hell.

and is EXTREMELY vague about the processor (2 times better than GameCube but with much more cache?)

Not unusual at all. Prescott with 2MB of cache can often be slower at equivalent clockrates to Northwood with 512kb of cache. Same with every other processor out there. Cache has severely diminishing returns.

and virtually no info on the GPU (does the GPU have its own dedicated VRAM, like the PS3 has 256 MB, or is it shared like the 360?).

There is some information there that is interesting. If Nintendo is indeed going cheap, it would make sense to extend the original ArtX design for extreme cost savings. This fits with the rest of the design philosophy.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-12-08 01:29am

Good points.

Not unusual at all. Prescott with 2MB of cache can often be slower at equivalent clockrates to Northwood with 512kb of cache. Same with every other processor out there. Cache has severely diminishing returns.

I didn't mean that it was unusual, just that IGN was being very vague. "Two times better with extra cache" is not really something people usually benchmark processors with, or a way that a developer would refer to new hardware.

Instant Sunrise · Post by **Instant Sunrise** » 2005-12-08 01:31am

Shouldn't the devs be under NDA with the hardware details?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-12-08 01:32am

I would have thought so.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 01:42am

skyman8081 wrote:Shouldn't the devs be under NDA with the hardware details?

Even under strict NDA's, things slip out. Devs are notoriously bad at talking when they shouldn't, and as long as they can't be identified, it's relatively easy to get away with. For example, when I worked as a tech journalist, we had three devs from the IG3 team tell us about the Parhelia about a month before Matrox told anyone, and that was a tight NDA (there were virtually no leaks, even we didn't say anything because we got an exclusive benchmarking out of the deal).

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2005-12-08 01:47am

Maybe this is misinformation?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2005-12-08 04:25am

Wow, if that price holds up then this will be on my shopping list!

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-12-08 03:24pm

The Kernel wrote:Whether or not the hardware is sufficient depends entirely on what developers want to do. However, I would say that it will be difficult to port games from the X360/PS3 to the Revolution on this hardware, even in SD mode.

But you have to remember that many developers have no problems "porting" games to the GBA, which often involves a total remake of the whole game. If Revolution gets popular enough, surely they could do the same thing. Of course, the GBA is also ridiculously cheap and easy to develop for. I don't know if that's true for Revolution.

But if there's a large enough user-base, and judging by the price (and seriously $99, that's just a little more than many console games cost here, for Pete's sake! $149 is still cheap as hell), and potential ease of use (depending on how good the controller really is) it could be quite big. It could encourage third-party developers to actually make more Revolution-exclusive titles, simply because there are so many potential buyers. I think that is Nintendo's strategy here, or at least that's what they're hoping will happen. And you know, judging by the posts in this thread, it might not be that unlikely

It would actually be interesting if games were to start on the Revolution and then later see graphically enhanced ports to the other consoles. Especially those "big" games that are always ported to every console in existance. It'd be like it is for the GBA, but the other way around... That'd be funny...

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-12-08 05:08pm

Dooey Jo wrote:
But you have to remember that many developers have no problems "porting" games to the GBA, which often involves a total remake of the whole game. If Revolution gets popular enough, surely they could do the same thing. Of course, the GBA is also ridiculously cheap and easy to develop for. I don't know if that's true for Revolution.

The GBA not only has a huge install base, but it is a 2D platform with relatively simple game designs.

But if there's a large enough user-base, and judging by the price (and seriously $99, that's just a little more than many console games cost here, for Pete's sake! $149 is still cheap as hell), and potential ease of use (depending on how good the controller really is) it could be quite big.

Don't bet on it simply because of a low price. The Gamecube also drastically undersold its comptetitors, does that mean it is hugely popular? Hell, it is at $99 right now, yet I don't see it selling in huge numbers.

It could encourage third-party developers to actually make more Revolution-exclusive titles, simply because there are so many potential buyers.

There is no way that Nintendo is going to touch the sales numbers of the PS2 and it is extremely unlikely that it will reach X360 numbers in anywhere but Japan. Heck, in Japan they ran a poll recently and more people were interested in the X360 then revolution at the Tokyo Game Show! That doesn't mean I think the X360 will outsell the Revolution in Japan, but its certainly an interesting data point.

And as far as third parties go, by all indications Nintendo is actually losing third parties compared to the dismal Gamecube generation. Capcom is pulling Resident Evil as an exclusive (and by the looks of things, as a game for Revolution at all) and with the differences between the Revolution and the X360/PS3, devs would have to spend more money on ports for a system that will likely have a smaller install base.

Nintendo could combat this by offering incentives to devs like Microsoft and Sony do, but they won't because unlike MS and Sony, Nintendo sees devs as their comptetition rather than an asset. Nintendo is a games company, not a hardware company, it's the games that give them their strength. In their minds, any game that sells for their system that isn't one of theirs is taking away sales from a Mario, Zelda or Metroid game.

I think that is Nintendo's strategy here, or at least that's what they're hoping will happen. And you know, judging by the posts in this thread, it might not be that unlikely

Don't kid yourself, everyone around here loved the Gamecube too, does that mean it was a commercial success? If you judged by message boards, AMD kills Intel on sales, is that what is really the case?

It would actually be interesting if games were to start on the Revolution and then later see graphically enhanced ports to the other consoles. Especially those "big" games that are always ported to every console in existance. It'd be like it is for the GBA, but the other way around... That'd be funny...

Need some tissues?