Revolution specs beginning to be revealed

[voodoolily]

When I saw Sauced play Shadow of the Collosus on 16:9 progressive scan, I wanted to cry. It does make a difference. For some things.

We got our DLP on sale (a couple hundred bucks off), after Sauced wanted one for ages and watched and waited for the price to fall. I would never had dropped that kind of cash myself, cuz' I'm just kind of a tightwad when it comes to new toys. But it is a really nice thing to have, if you need a new TV (our old one was starting to crap out anyway).

However! The main incentives for buying the Rev are 1) Nintendo (i.e., Miyamoto) fangirlism and 2) affordability in next gen is rare. These are the same incentives I had for buying the GC and the N64 before that. I'll prolly end up playing a lot of older titles while I wait for more Mario and Zelda stuff, and this way I won't need to have the N64 and SNES hooked up in the living room (they don't fit in the geek room).

[Jamiko]

Timely comments considering the discussion:

Nintendo's Official Stance

"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."

Follow the link if you want to read the rest.

[Strazos]

Is Nintendo actually being sane and realistic for once?

[Lemming]

Is Nintendo actually being sane and realistic for once?

Yes, they are.  Now you just need to pray that they actually get a decent lineup of exclusive third party games.

[Strazos]

I probably will only care very little about what they release; I just want the past library.

[schild]

I don't think they're being sane, but they are certainly realistic. There's no way they could've afforded to make a system that could compete in terms of power with the PS3 or 360. They simply don't have the money or marketshare to do it. Their money is better spent trying to skirt the competition.

If they were being sane, they would have stopped making all hardware other than the gameboy back when the Playstation 1 came out.

[Triforcer]

I don't think they're being sane, but they are certainly realistic. There's no way they could've afforded to make a system that could compete in terms of power with the PS3 or 360. They simply don't have the money or marketshare to do it. Their money is better spent trying to skirt the competition.

If they were being sane, they would have stopped making all hardware other than the gameboy back when the Playstation 1 came out.

As long as they hold Mario and Zelda, they'll keep cranking out systems.  Without those two franchises they probably would have stopped about then.

[Shockeye]

As long as they hold Mario and Zelda, they'll keep cranking out systems.  Without those two franchises they probably would have stopped about then.

To a lesser extent Pokemon.

[schild]

As long as they hold Mario and Zelda, they'll keep cranking out systems.  Without those two franchises they probably would have stopped about then.

To a lesser extent Pokemon.

The gameboy survives on pokemon and abstract versions of pokemon alone.

[Yegolev]

If they were being sane, they would have stopped making all hardware other than the gameboy back when the Playstation 1 came out.

Quiet, you.  I know that I usually have some Miyamoto stuck in my teeth, but I like the gadgetry I can get for the Cube.  Those other two just make controllers and cables, for the most part.  Yes, I have the GB player and the card reader. =)  If nothing else, they provide some innovation which will eventually influence the hardware leader.

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.

Smells like victory.

[Sky]

I don't know anyone IRL that has an HDTV or is planning to get one, so it looks to me like the market is there. The only places I see HD TVs are bars.

I'll see your personal experience and raise you a "every gamer I know has an hdtv or is saving for one".

I know guys on welfare with hdtvs. Guys who can't put the money together for a decent pc, they are playing their xboxs on the hdtvs. And they were in line at walmart for the 360 to plug into their hdtvs. A lot of poor people spend a lot of money on home entertainment. And pot.

Just finished RE0 on the Cube. Fun game. Now to get RE4.

[Hoax]

I think it really is a console gamer vs. pc gamer thing.

I can't justify spending $700 on a TV when I have one that works when there are so many cool things I could upgrade / add to my pc with that money (more hd space, more cooling -NEVER TOO MUCH- more ram, special gamer keyboard, expensive fps mousepad made of glass etc).  But I spend about 10x more time in front of my pc then my TV.  If it was reversed then I can believe I would want the HD experience.

[squirrel]

If you're sitting on the couch ten feet from your TV, HD is going to make much less of a difference.  Resolution matters more on a PC because you're close enough to see the pixels.

No. Just no. HD signals are a VAST improvement over SD. VAST. If you don't want an HDTV fine, but don't make silly arguments. 1080/720p movies are so superior to SD it's not even a comparison, whether you're 2 feet or 15 feet away.

BTW go to Best Buy and look at TV's. See how many HD sets there are. Then see how many CRT SD sets there are. That's the future folks. And if you can't find a decent 36-42" HDTV for under $1500 you're a horrible shopper.

Oh and the Revolution will do just fine. It doesn't need HD. That doesn't mean HD is bad.

[Strazos]

BTW go to Best Buy and look at TV's. See how many HD sets there are. Then see how many CRT SD sets there are. That's the future folks. And if you can't find a decent 36-42" HDTV for under $1500 you're a horrible shopper.

That's the point - it's just too damn expensive for some people (or it should be).

There are very few things I myself could justify spending that much money on - a TV is one of them.

[Margalis]

Let's not forget the fact that CRT has a better picture than plasma or LCD.

I don't think HD is bad. It's just too expensive and not something I'm interested in at the moment. When it's cheaper and more channels are in HD I'll be a lot more interesting.

In the meantime I don't think "we support HD" is a compelling reason to buy a system. The best game in the next 6 months is going to be a Gamecube game (Zelda) and games are what matters IIRC. NBA2k6 with higher resolution? Not so impressed.

[Fabricated]

I think Nintendo is shooting itself in the foot by not allowing devs to at least use Hi-Def as an option. Who says that devs need to be required to support it like MS insists they do for the 360?

Also, I'm wondering if I'm not interpeting the "no HD" thing right. Does this mean no Progressive Scan even? I don't think supporting 480p would kill the rev too badly.

Does the public or Nintendo really NEED HD support? Not really...it'd be nice to have as an option at least though. You can get a nice 27 inch HDTV for $600-700 if you look around. We're not talking shit brands either, Toshiba, Samsung, and Sony all sell CRT HDTVs at about that pricerange.

[Strazos]

That's about 6 weeks' pay for me.

Well, technically it's an infinite number of weeks' pay, when you don't get paid because you don't have a job.

[Velorath]

Does the public or Nintendo really NEED HD support? Not really...it'd be nice to have as an option at least though. You can get a nice 27 inch HDTV for $600-700 if you look around. We're not talking shit brands either, Toshiba, Samsung, and Sony all sell CRT HDTVs at about that pricerange.

Which brings us back to the point in the conversation where some people don't want to spend that much on a hobby.  Typically we're the same people that hate buying games before they've been dropped down to $20 and hate watching TV for the most part (cable TV to me wouldn't be worth even as little as $20 a month let alone the prices most people pay for it).

[schild]

You can get a 27" HDTV for $400-500 actually.

This is like deja vu. I thought I already did this.

Who are the people who refuse to drop money on a game before it's $20? Maybe if less people did that shit game developers wouldn't be dropping like flies.

[Fabricated]

I dunno if I'd buy an HDTV just for gaming. I bought mine because I liked the whole package. DVDs, gaming, and regular HDTV.

edit: Holy shit at that deal. Almost makes me wish I had the cash to replace my current off-brand iffy-quality HDTV with that one.

[schild]

That's not a deal. That's a regular price. Suriously man. I got my 30" for $599.99 and plan on upgrading to a 32" LCD for $200 more (go go Costco return policy).

[Velorath]

You can get a 27" HDTV for $400-500 actually.

This is like deja vu. I thought I already did this.

Who are the people who refuse to drop money on a game before it's $20? Maybe if less people did that shit game developers wouldn't be dropping like flies.

You're just going to have to forgive me for not thinking of the poor game developers when it comes to deciding how to spend my hard earned money.  99.99999999% of the games out there just aren't worth $40-50 to me.  I don't drop 20 or 30 bucks at a time to help feed starving children in 3rd world countries let alone lose sleep over not doing enough to help game developers.

But then given that less than half of your 20+ reviews were deemed worthy of buying new, maybe I should just assume that you forgot the green text or were making some sort of joke that just went over my head.

[Jain Zar]

Who are the people who refuse to drop money on a game before it's $20? Maybe if less people did that shit game developers wouldn't be dropping like flies.

Umm me?  Because most games aren't worth 50 bucks.  20 bucks is more discretionary, and I don't feel bad if I don't finish a game at that price.  Long as I spend a good 5 hours on it I have gotten a better deal than going to see a movie. (Once you put some snacks on the menu.  And thats just for my loser ass going alone.)

Like I said, I just bought a new computer.  A lovely yet overpriced iMac.  (So worth it though.)
I bought some games for it, 11 as a matter of fact. (Ok, Jedi Academy was free if I bought 3 other titles.)
Only Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 cost me more than 30 bones. I think Amazon was selling it for 40.
That's a TON of entertainment for a cheap price.  Most of my gaming purchases are like that.  I get 1 40-50 dollar game for
every 4-5 sub 30 ones on average.  I have a very nice collection of games that way, and am burned less as folks like you
get to beta test or actually play the game first for me. 

Its also another reason I like the N Gage and DS over the PSP.  Games are under 40 bucks, most 20-30. 

I aint a bad person for waiting till games come down in price.  I am a consumer who doesn't like to be ripped off and wants a
better money to entertainment ratio.  Plus I tend not to give a shit if I have to wait a year or 2 to play a game.  Because a great
game is TIMELESS.  Hell, I have been waiting patiently to get a Vectrex system for a good 10-20 years now and I will keep
only bidding up to a certain amount on ebay till I get it at my pricepoint.  I can wait.

Besides, this "Sell huge in 3 months then go away" thing has been proven to be complete ass for the game industry.  Its long
term sales and popularity that truely win the race.  Its why Blizzard games stay solid sellers for years and people still play them.
Its how gaming worked back in the good old days. 

None of this preorder so you can dickwave on day 1 bullshit.

[Margalis]

I'll buy a game for $50 if I think it's worth $50. Instead of blaming the consumer, why not blame the supplier? Make your game worth $50, or sell it cheaper. The new version of Madden each year is NOT worth $50. I played Madden for the N64 and 3 years later the Gamecube version was basically the same, and the 360 version is still basically the same. $30 might be a reasonable price for that.

If developers could make fun games with a smaller budget and then sell for a lower price that would probably be a lot better model than spend a lot of money on some utter crap, charge $50 for it and have it sell no copies.

Developers are dropping like flies for tons of reasons, but consumers not buying games really isn't one of them. Consumers buy lots of games, and the market is increasing every year. The reason developers drop like flies is that a developer will spend 10 million on a game that can realistically only hope to sell a couple hundred thousand copies at best. Or because developers chase the "next big thing" by putting out a poor copy of a far superior game that beat them to market by months or years.

Most businesses fail. Game development isn't any different from any other business in that regard. Send too much money and don't make enough is what happens to most businesses in most industries.

[schild]

I'll buy a game for $50 if I think it's worth $50. Instead of blaming the consumer, why not blame the supplier? Make your game worth $50, or sell it cheaper. The new version of Madden each year is NOT worth $50. I played Madden for the N64 and 3 years later the Gamecube version was basically the same, and the 360 version is still basically the same. $30 might be a reasonable price for that.

I know a mess of people that waited for stuff like God of War to drop because it was only 8 hours long.....consumers get to have their cake and eat it to. But should they?

If developers could make fun games with a smaller budget and then sell for a lower price that would probably be a lot better model than spend a lot of money on some utter crap, charge $50 for it and have it sell no copies.

Probably. But EA won't let them. It's all about who's setting the bar for the masses. The drooling masses. And right now, EA is. For every 100 people on the intarweb that say Madden sucks on the 360, there's 2,000 out in the world that thinks it's just the cats fucking meow.

[Samwise]

I know a mess of people that waited for stuff like God of War to drop because it was only 8 hours long.....consumers get to have their cake and eat it to. But should they?

Capitalism is a bitch.

[schild]

I know a mess of people that waited for stuff like God of War to drop because it was only 8 hours long.....consumers get to have their cake and eat it to. But should they?

Capitalism is a bitch.

So are customers.

[Dren]

I know a mess of people that waited for stuff like God of War to drop because it was only 8 hours long.....consumers get to have their cake and eat it to. But should they?

Capitalism is a bitch.

So are customers.

This situation is no different for most any commodity.  Products are pushed onto the market at their highest prices at launch.  They lower the price as competition increases and/or demand decreases.  For some crappy products, this downward turn is quicker than others.  In the meantime, you work on that next big marketing push for higher margin products, and the cycle continues.

For computer/video games, each new product is a "new" product.  For those that look like games that have already been done, they don't do as well, because the perceived worth of that product isn't there.  For those games that are truly unique, they enjoy a very nice high price entrance into the market and typically see a longer sales curve, unless the game sucks while being uniique. (Uniquely Sucks?)

You have two types of customers.  Those that have to have the next best thing because that makes them feel they have made a good purchase.  Then you have those that worry more about a price tag than status and shiny.

All of this is taken into account when companies prepare to hit the market with a product.  To blame the customers for an environment that is well known beforehand, is unproductive.

The customer is always right.

[Velorath]

You can get a 27" HDTV for $400-500 actually.

This is like deja vu. I thought I already did this.

So what happens when the PS3 comes out next year and you start telling us that playing on a TV that supports 1080p is a soooooooo much better experience than playing in 1080i and it would just cost us a little over a grand for a new TV?

edit: over a grand, not under

[Yegolev]

Who says that devs need to be required to support it like MS insists they do for the 360?

The BorgCorp, Inc. marketing department.  If someone puts a "HD" tag on the box, everyone is going to have to do it.

[Dren]

Who says that devs need to be required to support it like MS insists they do for the 360?

The BorgCorp, Inc. marketing department.  If someone puts a "HD" tag on the box, everyone is going to have to do it.

Not without putting another thing on the box ---> A higher price.

[Dren]

You can get a 27" HDTV for $400-500 actually.

This is like deja vu. I thought I already did this.

So what happens when the PS3 comes out next year and you start telling us that playing on a TV that supports 1080p is a soooooooo much better experience than playing in 1080i and it would just cost us a little under a grand for a new TV?

That's another thing that prevents me from getting into this HD thing, hidden technical jargon.  I see the great prices that seem to jump from nowhere and still have to hold up and think, "what's the catch."  There seems to always be one.  What the hell is the difference between 1080p and 1080i?  Hell I had to look 2-3 times to even notice the difference in the designation (small "p" versus small "i".)

I had the opportunity to see a nice big 43" HD tube television this weekend.  My wife's cousin, who probably makes $11/hour packing boxes, just bought a brand new one.  He says he spent $1200 on it.  When I was looking at buying T.V.'s, this was too much for me and I make a hell of a lot more than him, but he's living with his girlfriend in an apartment without kids.  Whatever.

He proceeds to do the same thing anyone does that just got a T.V. like this.  He shows me the difference between having the HD on and off.  When I walk in, the HD is on.  He's watching a football game in true HD and sure it looks good.  Did I know it was HD?  Nope, I had to ask.  That's when he switches it to non-HD and sure enough it looks like total ass.  But you know what, it also looked 5x worse than my standard TV at home.  This always seems to be the case.  I assume it has something to do with the HD units not being able to handle analog well or something.  But, it sure makes HD seem teh awesome!!!

No thanks.

[Yegolev]

My wife's cousin, who probably makes $11/hour packing boxes, just bought a brand new one.  He says he spent $1200 on it.  When I was looking at buying T.V.'s, this was too much for me and I make a hell of a lot more than him, but he's living with his girlfriend in an apartment without kids.  Whatever.

Not everyone is good with money, and everyone has different priorities.

That's when he switches it to non-HD and sure enough it looks like total ass.  But you know what, it also looked 5x worse than my standard TV at home.  This always seems to be the case.  I assume it has something to do with the HD units not being able to handle analog well or something.  But, it sure makes HD seem teh awesome!!!

It's really that a SD TV blurs the image enough that you don't notice.  It's like the analog TV has really good antialiasing.

Regarding the Rev and "HD" or 480p or whatever... the older GameCubes supported 480p while the newer ones don't, so I had assumed that the Rev was only going to support good old 480i (interlaced).  I don't think any resolution above 480 was ever a consideration.  I might read up on it if I gave a shit, but since I am going to buy a Rev at launch anyway, I'll spend my valuable time making enlightening posts on F13 instead.  Personally, the difference between 480i and 480p to my eyes (on any of my XB/GC/PS2) is minimal enough that I am not going to let it be an issue.

What I really need is a new PC monitor.  That or a UI mod for Dungeon Siege II that lets me read the damned text at 1280x1024 on a 17" CRT.

[HaemishM]

Who are the people who refuse to drop money on a game before it's $20? Maybe if less people did that shit game developers wouldn't be dropping like flies.

Me. The games I bought new this year was The Movies, and I got $25 off because I traded in a bunch of games, and ESPN MLB 2k5 which was $20 new. That's it. The wife bought Resident Evil 4 new at $49, but that was new with a Gamecube system and strangely all of my purchases have been worth it. Otherwise, I buy used games at cheap prices because I have other shit to pay for. Like a large credit card debt from my younger days of being a fucktarded consumer who bought all the new shit he could.

Game developers need to stop living hand to mouth, need to stop sucking the publisher's cock for table scraps, and need to stop trying to hope they can cash in on the sales figures from 1 week out of the goddamn year. They need to quit chasing EA's tail and do something different businesswise, because it's obvious what they are doing ISN'T WORKING. Game industry revenue has increased substantially EVERY FUCKING YEAR, yet more Troika's and Looking Glass Studio's are going under every fucking day. That tells you that the money is there, but it's being funneled away from the developers.

The problem isn't the consumer wanting a good value for his dollar, the problem is the developers throwing good money over bad with shitty business plans. Oh, and publishers and retailers. The PC game industry is on fucking life support and will be dead soon, simply because it's relying on the bad business models of the EA's and EB/Gamestop's of the world. Oh yes, and not taking advantage of that Intarweb thingy.

I didn't say I hate HD. I said fuck HD until it can provide a price point for me that is what I consider a reasonable value for the return AND provide me as much entertainment as SD. That's it. I give it a few years. Until then, I let the suckers clear the way for me, just like I do when I buy used games that someone paid $50 for and only played for 5 hours.

[HaemishM]

Also, read what Margalis said about supporting HD resolutions on a console. In order for the console to do it, it needs to have something like 4 times the memory and/or processing power in order to be able to render that stuff. Which means all your hardware specs have to be better, which is more expensive. So if the Rev is to support (but not require) HD, it has to be a good bit more expensive. A lot more. Obviously about $200 more. So at that point, you might as well require HD support on all Rev games, because you have to throw so much money at the hardware that not requiring that support is assinine. Not to mention that adding all that support would drive the price point of the unit up a great deal, which totally blows the "we want a console anyone can afford at launch" thing right out the window.

Seriously. A $400 console IS FUCKING STUPID. I don't care what it supports, it's retarded. It was one of the reasons the 3DO never made it big. $300 seems to be the tipping point, and I'm amazed at how fervently people are trying to get the the 360.