Nintendo Revolution: the cheap and powerful alternative...

[Uraniun235]

While it was phrased "inappropriately", Kernel's point about it not being as big a deal still stands; if a lot of people can already accomplish what Nintendo's supposedly offering with the Revolution for free, regardless of the legality it still diminishes the potential impact that such a feature would otherwise have had.

You'll note I've not offered up any discourse or arguments against it; just oppressed his own comments about his own activities. You know, doing my job. The idea that doing my job might somehow defeat his argument is pretty insulting; who the fuck would use that to win an argument? That's pretty base abuse of powers.

I simply felt that The Kernel's point was a good one, and not knowing whether or not he would take the time to restate it, I decided that rewording it myself would be a good opportunity to also voice my agreement with it while reintroducing it to the thread. I did not intend to imply any abuse of power.

[Mad]

I never claimed that I engaged in an illegal activity. Ever. Emulation is not illegal, and it would only be against stated board policy if I was providing links to sites where you can download ROMs.

The only thing I made reference to was SNES9x, a program which is totally legal. And I'm not telling you how to do your job, I'm telling you that what I said was not illegal. If you want to suppress statements about legal activities, then be my guest, I won't stop you.

From the back of my Goldeneye 007 manual for the N64:

WARNING: Copying of any Nintendo game is illegal and is strictly prohibited by domestic and international copyright laws. "Back-up" or "archival" copies are not authorized and are not necessary to protect your software. Violators will be prosecuted.

Of course, this goes against Fair Use if taken completely literally (which is how it was intended to be read, I'm sure), so the warning may not apply in that case. But the warning is there in every Nintendo manual.

[SirNitram]

I simply felt that The Kernel's point was a good one, and not knowing whether or not he would take the time to restate it, I decided that rewording it myself would be a good opportunity to also voice my agreement with it while reintroducing it to the thread. I did not intend to imply any abuse of power.

I'm just twitchy about that. Been getting bogus claims elsewhere lately on a game, which makes me yet more stressed. I'm always a bit twitchy on the subject of my appropriate use of power. Pardon for anything sounding like an accusal.

[Uraniun235]

No problem, glad this could be settled amicably.

[The Kernel]

From the back of my Goldeneye 007 manual for the N64:

WARNING: Copying of any Nintendo game is illegal and is strictly prohibited by domestic and international copyright laws. "Back-up" or "archival" copies are not authorized and are not necessary to protect your software. Violators will be prosecuted.

Of course, this goes against Fair Use if taken completely literally (which is how it was intended to be read, I'm sure), so the warning may not apply in that case. But the warning is there in every Nintendo manual.

Nintendo cannot revoke fair use, no matter what their EULA says.

To be fair, the area is somewhat grey, but it certainly hasn't been deemed illegal for those with copies of the original cartridge. And the board policy deal with WAREZ/ABANDONWARE something that emulation is not.

[SirNitram]

And the board policy deal with WAREZ/ABANDONWARE something that emulation is not.

There are policies against all illegal activities and I prefer to err on the cautious side of it. Exactly what brownie points do you think you're earning by continuing this? Mary Jane ain't warez/abandonware, but you're not to talk about smoking it either.

[General Zod]

To be fair, the area is somewhat grey, but it certainly hasn't been deemed illegal for those with copies of the original cartridge. And the board policy deal with WAREZ/ABANDONWARE something that emulation is not.

I can't quite remember where, and I'll have to see if I can find it again, but one interpretation I recall reading in regards to copyright law applies only to copies you make yourself. So while you can legally back up cartridges you already own as long as you do it yourself, you cannot legally download a copy of a backup from somebody else, even if you own the original item.

[Praxis]

However it should be noted that Nintendo never sold the GameCube for a loss excepting one quarter when they first dropped the price to $99. It made a profit during its entire life cycle.

Nintendo made money on every system sold and the games. Microsoft and Sony lost money on every system sold and Sony made it back on the games.

Both methods are valid business tactics, Nintendo's is not inherently superior.

I didn't say it was, but I was pointing out that per system sold, Nintendo made a lot more money than the other companies.

Granted, Sony sold around 3-4 times more systems. But Nintendo wasn't exactly writhing in pain.

And btw, from the looks of things developers have been praising the Revolution. The only developer who had complained publicly about the Revolution was Mark Reign, but he hadn't even seen the dev kit or used the controller, and shortly thereafter Nintendo sent him a dev kit and he changed his mind.

So what? Praise doesn't mean they will develop for it does it? It's not the platform that turns away third parties, it's the market share and the marketing practices.

In the last hour, EA announced support for Nintendo.
http://revolution.ign.com/articles/674/674617p1.html

Square Enix has made highly positive comments.

They made positive comments about the Xbox 1 too, yet they never developed for it.

They've announced a Crystal Chronicles game for Revolution IIRC.

Ubisoft is developing a Revolution-exclusive game.

One game. Yay!

One exclusive game. IGN also has King Kong listed for Revolution, though I haven't heard of any official announcement. Splinter Cell 4 is also coming to Revolution.

The developers of Killer 7 have pledged support. Sega has made positive comments and has expressed interest in getting Sega games downloadable on the Revolution. Molyneux has praised it. The founder of Atari has praised it. No one other than Mark Reign has said anything negative about the system. Nintendo has made a point that it will be the cheapest to develop games on in their speeches.

Blah, blah, praise, maybes, and possibles. That's all you've got here, it's not a solid lineup of exclusive games now is it?

Nintendo has said they will be giving a list of developed games at E3. We know that the Killer 7 developers are working on a game, EA is working on games, Ubisoft is working on a game, Retro is working on a game, and many other companies have praised it. Koei and Namco are working on Revolution games. Blitz is bringing Possession over.


To quote Wikipedia:

Square Enix is working on a sequel Crystal Chronicles title, Ubisoft is releasing Splinter Cell 4 on all major consoles including Revolution, and has announced an exclusive FPS and another non-exclusive game. The exclusive title is being coined off as a 'Doom' clone. Blitz has announced that Possession will come to all three next-gen consoles. Koei and Namco/Bandai (merging) have made announcements that they will make games for Revolution but not what games yet. Also, Camelot has announced that they are currently working on a Revolution RPG. Some rumors say that this may very well be the third Golden Sun game. Killer 7 producer Goichi Suda, aka Suda 51, has confirmed that Grasshopper Manufacture is planning to make a Revolution game. [26] According to Game Informer, Hideo Kojima is developing a Revolution game with the team from Kojima Productions that developed Metal Gear Acid. [27] A new video game company called NIBRIS is said to make an exclusive game called "Raid Over The River." It will be a military game, but at this time, it is unknown whether it will be a FPS or other.

And might I add that the companies that have dropped Revolution support is MUCH longer?

To the contrary, I have yet to see one company announce that they will have no support. Some companies have not yet stated whether they will support it or not (such as, until today, EA), but nobody has stated they won't support it.

They lost exclusivity from Capcom. That's about all I've heard in the way of losses.

Meanwhile, we have devs publicly complaining about the difficulty of PS3 development and the high costs of developing next-gen games in general.

Too bad, they'll do it anyway. It didn't stop anyone from developing on the PS2.

Of course, but it might encourage Rev development (much cheaper to develop for).

And as far as ease of development, Microsoft still holds the crown here from sharing PC tools/Shader code.

They have the best tools, but the developers will still have to write code for six threads, will have to develop supporting 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i, and live up to much higher standards on the graphics.

So far I haven't seen any indications that third party support will be less than GameCube. Please provide evidence as to your assertion.

Capcom has dropped Resident Evil, EA is talking about only offering partial or zero support for Revolution, and we haven't heard any serious third party devs touted. Good enough for you?

EA just announced support and we've heard quite a lot of third party devs announce that they were developing games, some exclusive (Square Enix, Koei, Namco/Bandai, Ubisoft, etc). Good enough for you?


My point is that it's too early to make judgements on the third party support. It could do quite well.

[Praxis]

I never claimed that I engaged in an illegal activity. Ever. Emulation is not illegal, and it would only be against stated board policy if I was providing links to sites where you can download ROMs.

The only thing I made reference to was SNES9x, a program which is totally legal. And I'm not telling you how to do your job, I'm telling you that what I said was not illegal. If you want to suppress statements about legal activities, then be my guest, I won't stop you.

From the back of my Goldeneye 007 manual for the N64:

WARNING: Copying of any Nintendo game is illegal and is strictly prohibited by domestic and international copyright laws. "Back-up" or "archival" copies are not authorized and are not necessary to protect your software. Violators will be prosecuted.

Of course, this goes against Fair Use if taken completely literally (which is how it was intended to be read, I'm sure), so the warning may not apply in that case. But the warning is there in every Nintendo manual.

The backup exception is only valid if you rip the N64 ROM yourself. This is admitted on Nintendo.com IIRC. Downloading someone else's copy, however, is 100% illegal.

If I rip my own GBA game (quite easy) I can emulate it legally. If I download someone else's GBA ROM of a game I own, I am still breaking the law. Although its unlikely to ever be enforced.

And its extremely difficult to rip N64 roms, enough that you can assume that 99% of people doing N64 emulation downloaded it.

[Bounty]

FWIW, this was posted on IGN, it's supposedly the answer you get when you ask NoA about the specs of the Revolution :

Our competitors would have you believe that the next generation of gaming will be solely defined by high definition graphics. High definition graphics look fantastic, but come at a price. To shine, high definition games must be played on high definition televisions, which aren't cheap. Games with high definition graphics are expensive to develop because they must be developed in both standard and high definition formats. Those development costs are passed on to you in the form of more expensive software. Finally, playing games with high definition graphics requires a system with loads of RAM and costly high-end graphics chips, both of which make it prohibitively expensive for most consumers.

Sharper graphics are certainly part of the next generation. We know that games for the Revolution will look brilliant whether played on a standard television or on a high definition television. However, is that all there is to next-generation gaming? We feel that sharper graphics should be combined with a new way to interface with the game itself. Our controller is a sharp departure from the current standard, to be sure, but it will provide a level of interactivity you can't get currently.

We believe in providing a single system that can play not only the previous generation's titles, but also games from a massive library built over 20 years of creating innovative and exciting games. We also believe in providing a complete wireless online experience right out of the box.

Nintendo has created a gaming system that is sleek and compact in size, powers up quickly with minimal load times, makes game development easy and fast, is easy to use, and is affordable for everyone. We are confident that gamers and non-gamers alike will support the truly next-generation experience only Nintendo can provide. Once you have a chance to play games on the Revolution, we think you'll agree!

Nintendo of America

http://revolution.ign.com/articles/674/674611p1.html

[Andrew J.]

Of course it's a plan, it's a remarkably stupid plan though. Everyone knows it is much harder to increase the size of a market than to win back market share. I'd really like to hear exactly what groups Nintendo expects to capture, if they think they are going to catch adults with this, they are sorely mistaken.

It's cheap and intuitive to use-if it's marketed right, I don't see why newbie gamers of all ages wouldn't be attracted to it.

[Faram]

G&C RULES! Now including ROM's because they where not explicitly stated, but I argue that it was included in Wares and or Abandonware.

[Dooey Jo]

Both. 2D games don't require the same sort of assets, nor do they require anywhere near the sort of depth or scale considering their paltry cartridge size.

And when you say assets, depth and scale, you mean mostly graphically? How do you equate that to a simple game design? I'd say that's more a question of content than actual game design, which would have to be really damned complicated before the cartridge size would matter. You know, I don't think you know the first thing about game design and actually mean something entirely different.

That reason is bullshit, the PSOne sold like hotcakes at $99 and it was also four years old at the time it was released.

No, that is bullshit. The PSOne was a cosmetic "improvement" of the PS, in that sense it was brand new. That's like saying that the GBA Micro is as old as the original, or at least the SP, when that's not how the market will see it.
Are you actually saying that Revolution will sell as much at its launch as it will four years down the line? That's either incredibly optimistic or pessimistic, or you just have to disagree with everything I say because you're a useless jerk...

Do you want a fucking dissertation on the matter or could you take a look at the last two generations of game consoles and figure it out yourself?

So you're saying Revolution is going to sell bad because the N64 and GC did? I take it you assume Nintendo are a bunch idiots who did not learn anything from those consoles?

1) Bad corporate strategy--Nintendo is strong as a games company, not a hardware company. If they wanted to make a smart business decision they'd either pull a Sega and do games exclusively (at least in the home sector, their portable hardware unit is successful and should remain) or sell themselves to Sony or Microsoft (Microsoft would be the better choice as they could both afford Nintendo, and would be willing to pay handsomely for them).

Why is that a good business strategy when they're actually making lots money from their consoles, not to mention their games and other departments? Do I smell MS-wank? One MS to rule all, eh? Perhaps you should keep those tissues you speak of...
Also, are you saying that they are going to sell less than the 360 because they should sell themselves to MS? Not only is that totally illogical, it's border-line flame bait.

2) No deep pockets--Nintendo is very successful as a games company, but they don't have the other divisions to both financially support them and to offer diversity in other areas. Their portable division is all that kept them afloat during the Gamecube era, without it they would be in serious financial trouble today.

Where are your sources for this claim? You do know that Nintendo do other things than just games and consoles, right?

3) Terrible Third Party Support--Nintendo doesn't give third party games the same push they give to their own titles. Microsoft and Sony take the oppositte approach pushing the games that get the biggest buzz regardless of ownership rights.

They don't pay for other companies' marketing, and that's what you call "terrible" third party support? Did you know that "support" in the game industry does usually not mean "financial support"? Giving excellent but not financial support is hardly terrible.

And who is going to make these games? Nintendo? They don't have the capacity to support a console by themselves.

There will always be developers willing to make games. That question is, frankly, a load of crap. Nintendo not giving marketing support is not going to drive away third party developers and if you think it is, you'd better provide damn good sources.

Whether they admit it or not, Nintendo is competing with MS and Sony. Whether or not they are financially successful is the only goal that matters, and they won't be able to do that with a 10% market share.

They will only partly compete if their target demographic is the general population and not your average gamer. You forgot to explain why their idea is doomed to fail.

I can only assume you are an ignorant moron from this statement. When I say give devs support I am talking about giving them marketting support for their games.

If that's what you mean, then I concede, Nintendo don't do that a lot. But neither do they see the games they actually make money from through licenses and what-not as competition. That was pure bullshit from your side.
With that said, you are clearly the moron; developer support or developing incentives does not at all equal marketing support. That is two entirely different things and if marketing support was what you meant, that is what you should have written.
Developers also often leaves marketing to different teams, or sometimes altogether different companies...

Ignorant shit, this seems to be par for you. The "mainstream" are the people that buy the other game consoles you clod. Nintendo can harp all they want about "new markets" and "hyperactive synergy" but it doesn't mean shit unless they have actual proof that they can appeal to new markets. And you haven't provided shit on this subject.

I thought the example of effectively creating a handheld market for games was fairly obvious to everyone. Others tried but failed miserably at it. And who plays handheld games these days? That's right: Everyone, even, or maybe especially, people who'd never dream of touching today's stationary consoles.

Yeah, cause the Gamecube was so much more when it was launched.

Are you trying to be an ass or just an idiot, actually thinking that a cheaper console will actually sell less than the same console at a higher price?

Now THIS is wank. You think Nintendo will capture the majority of the market? Do you have any idea how much of it Sony owns right now?

Do you have any idea how much of the market Nintendo owned when Sony joined in

Nintendo can't even keep up with Microsoft worldwide despite a commanding lead in Japan and you think they can capture the world market?

They're trying an entirely different approach to gaming. Your entire reasoning is irrelevant for Revolution, because you assume they will do the same things, target the same audience and have the same marketing strategies as MS and Sony. They won't and you still haven't explained why you think that is so impossible a goal to accomplish. Everyone likes to play games, far fewer like the way games are played on consoles today.

[Xon]

Both. 2D games don't require the same sort of assets, nor do they require anywhere near the sort of depth or scale considering their paltry cartridge size.

And when you say assets, depth and scale, you mean mostly graphically? How do you equate that to a simple game design? I'd say that's more a question of content than actual game design, which would have to be really damned complicated before the cartridge size would matter. You know, I don't think you know the first thing about game design and actually mean something entirely different.

2D games are considerably simpler in design than 3d games. Most 3d games have sometype of physics, and 3d physics is orders of magnitudes harder & complex than 2d physics. Also the simple nature of the content allows vastly simplier drawing algorithms.

The more complex the engine, the more complex the content & data you need to drive it. The cartridge size puts a hard cap on the size of the content & data which inturn puts a hard cap on the overall complexity of the data and thus the game engine which uses the data.

[Dooey Jo]

2D games are considerably simpler in design than 3d games. Most 3d games have sometype of physics, and 3d physics is orders of magnitudes harder & complex than 2d physics. Also the simple nature of the content allows vastly simplier drawing algorithms.

The more complex the engine, the more complex the content & data you need to drive it. The cartridge size puts a hard cap on the size of the content & data which inturn puts a hard cap on the overall complexity of the data and thus the game engine which uses the data.

Yes, obviously, but the complexity of your game is not limited to how large or powerful your game engine is. Think of card games for instance, what's their "engine"? 52 different pieces of paper. Yet you can create some of the most intricate designs with it, even though it seems at first glance that you're totally limited. I've even seen ideas for RPG-like things played only with normal cards...

My point is that the design of the game's engine is different from the design of the actual game. In no way other than the most basic will the actual game design be limitied by cartridge size.

Designing the engine is also a different process than designing the game...

Edit:
To expand, yes, many 2D games are of considerable simpler design (and here I do mean game design) than many 3D games. But apart from the sheer size and view, the game design in Morrowind, for example (because that's what was at the top of my head), is not that different from some 2D RPGs. Or the whole near-total freedom is quite unique, but there's nothing to say that you need a certain amount of ROM size to achieve something like that. I don't think it would be that hard to make a fun 2D version of Morrowind, and while you maybe won't be able to have quite as many NPCs and items and quests (ie: content), the actual game could be very much same. However, the graphical design will of course be totally different

Also, think about Quake and similar FPSs. Those games are incredibly simple in design, and instead the developers put most of their energy into the graphics and physics (that's not to say those games aren't any fun, which I know many people think they are. Tetris is also incredibly simple in design yet ever popular).

[Darth Wong]

2D games are considerably simpler in design than 3d games. Most 3d games have sometype of physics, and 3d physics is orders of magnitudes harder & complex than 2d physics.

Nonsense. 3D physics adds (surprise!) one more dimension to 2D physics, but does not necessitate significantly more complexity in any other respect. We're only talking about extremely basic kinematics here, and 3D vector math is not much harder than 2D vector math. Do you know what "orders of magnitude" means? I'd love to see anyone who seriously has 100 or 1000 times more trouble with 3D vector math than 2D vector math.

It's the graphics where 3D engines require a lot more power, and that's because they render things in a totally different way, ie- with real models instead of just moving sprites around.

[LordShaithis]

All I know is that everyone to whom I've mentioned this reacts along the lines of "It's only HOW much? Shit, I'll buy one. Why not?"

[Praxis]

Same here.

[Sir Sirius]

I haven't bought a console since I got the NES in -89, but if this rumour turns out to be true and the oldies will be sold at an agreeable price I might just buy this thing.

[Praxis]

You know, the way I'm seeing this is that the Revolution will be the ultimate budget console.

It'll be halfway between the XBox and XBox 360 in terms of power, but

* cost less than half (possibly 1/4) of the XBox 360 ($150 or $99 compared to $400, considering that the Revolution comes with built in storage and a wireless controller like the 360's premium package)

* have free online play (vs $50 a year or $8 a month)

* have the cheapest games (Nintendo has stated their games will be $49- Microsoft and Sony are selling them for $59)

* have hundreds of downloadable games so you can get entertainment even cheaper.

This makes me happy.

[InnocentBystander]

And when is it going to come out?

[Qwerty 42]

^ their TGS presentation had "COMING 2006" at the end. At this point it'll be holiday 06.

[Loner]

Fall of '06 is what everyone is guessing.

[Ford Prefect]

All I know is that everyone to whom I've mentioned this reacts along the lines of "It's only HOW much? Shit, I'll buy one. Why not?"

Yeah, I got that and one 'lol nintendo is a kiddy console' reply.

[Vendetta]

If it wasn't for Halo 3 and KOTOR 3 down the road, I'd definately be getting this. 360 news has been pretty unimpressive, but due to my limited budget and enjoyment of only a very few console games, I'll have to pass.

Who gives a shit about KOTOR 3? the second one soured the whole damn barrel. I'd rather see what Mass Effect is like, an original property, like the very fun Jade Empire, but promising character freedom like the old Baldur's Gates.