Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Spokesman Talks Next-Gen and MS
Thanks to GamesIndustry.biz for an article outlining comments made by Nintendo VP of sales and marketing Reggie Fils-Aime. His comments confirm that Nintendo's next console will release around the same time as the PS3, and bashed MS for rushing to the next console generation. "Our focus is this: we will bring Revolution to the marketplace roughly at the same time as the competition," Fils-Aime told US website IGN. "We are driving our timetables based on what we believe Sony will do."
What is Microsoft's motivation here anyway. I mean... Right now all they can really boast about over the PS2 is that they have a years worth of hardware advancement better graphics, and even that isn't helping the bottom line. If they come out way ahead with the next generation machines and Sony maintains it's development lineup strength, they won't even have better graphics to boast about in the next generation. All you have to do to see that being first isn't what makes you successful is to look at the Dreamcast.
The only think I can think of is that perhaps they're still losing money on each Xbox they sell, so the pressure is on to get something with lower manufacturing costs out the door...
All the way up the corporate ladder, even the VP of Sales and Marketing for Nintendo knows that they are only playing catch-up to the big boys. "We'll do what Sony does" because god knows we can't afford anything else after fast-tracking the DS.
That's the spirit Nintendo! Cut your morale and business practices down, because everyone knows with that attitude you'll never be on top again.
Sigh...
I like Nintendo, I really do, but I can't help but watch this company fumble and bumble in every aspect of their company down the press releases. What happened to bravado and innovation they once had?
quote from the link:
speaking at the ELSPA Game Summit in London last June, former Nintendo Europe boss David Gosen said that "in every cycle, some manufacturer not profiting from the current cycle is eager to kick-start the next one..."
the signs are there:
M$ tried to steal the market by being the first cutting the price on their console Xbox, and now they're going for a head start to steal the nextgen console market..
IMO, aside from HALO, xbox doesn't have much to offer (pls no flaming,xboxers).. since the start, they jumped into a highly competitive market that needs carefully precised timing of release & strategy.
The way I see it, in global terms PS3 will have a breezy launch with slight competition from Nintendo and even less from M$
That's what I was most interested to see in this article. This leads me to believe that the DS will have built in wireless networking capabilities, and given the low cost of ethernet hardware, I would bet that it will also have a port for wired broadband. I suspect that the NRevolution will likely function as a wireless AP for nearby DSes. My biggest question is wether or not the Revolution will be backward compatible with the GC. That's something that Nintendo has never done (with it's consoles) and I think may be important if MS decided to ditch backwards compatibility in the XBNext and Sony sticks with it for the PS3.
Think about it. In the 8-Bit days, the NES came out after the Sega Master System and Atari systems.
The 16-bit days, the SNES waited until after both the Sega Genesis and NEC's Turbografix-16 came out.
The 32/64-bit days, they waited to bring out the N64 long after the PSX and Sega Saturn. The same thing occurred with the Gamecube arriving just after the PS2 and XBox.
Nintendo likes to sit back and see what the competion comes out with and then trumps it shortly after.
Later to market isn't always a bad thing.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
MS releasing the xbox2 so early is a slap in the face to thier customers. With the PS2, and DS, they commited to a long product lifecycle, giving thier customers more years of value and game development, while with the xboxii it's imho too early. I think nintendo tested the waters earlier with leaked reports of an early gamecube successor, but backed off because it wasn't well received EOLing the GC so early, but MS just doesn't seem to care about thier loyal customers of the current console.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Nintendo is setting up some of the most original hardware I have ever seen. Me and my friends are making a hobby of thinking up things that were never before possible before the Nintendo DS. The possibilites are truly endless and amazing. I predict, and hope, that the Revolution will act as a hub for Nintendo DSes.
Here is my vision:
16 DSes can linke wirelessly. If the revolution can link to all those DSes then you can do this. Have a game with four teams, four players per team. The big screen attached to the revolution has the readout for the entire game, each player has two screens on their DS to do their personal bit.
Even better. If the revolution has a net connection. Then you can have two revolutions connect over the net or via lan cable. Two teams of 16 can fight each other. One team in one room in one country, the other team on the other side of the world. The teams can communicate with microphone that plugs into the ds. The idea of a game like this is the best thing ever. Imagine, online teamplay gaming without even a possibility of cheating!
Nintendo is making the hardware which makes this possible. But I am worried they will not make the software that takes full advantage of the possibilities. At least Warp Pipe looks like they are moving in that direction.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
About the timetable for release, it makes perfect sense. Every generation, you get one console out that's much earlier than the others (genesis, ps2, etc.), and usually by the end of the generation it's looking pretty long in the tooth hardware-wise. On the other hand, if you're the last one to release, the competitors get a huge established customer base that's hard to compete with. Now, admittedly Sony was successful in releasing the ps2 earlier than the gamecube or xbox (but look at the dreamcast), but the ps2's strategy was largely to build off the established ps1 customer base, and that won't work as well for nintendo.
If they release around the same time as Sony, people will have to make the decision of whether to buy a ps3 or a Revolution. It'll be interesting to see what choices people make.
hot foreign sheep.
IIRC, the reason Nintendo was behind Sony in the 32 bit days was because the Playstation was actually orginally developed as a Sega-CD type add-on for the SNES. I can't remember the details of this turn of events very well though. Anyone have any further insight into this?
Don't Blame me if I seem bitter, I'm at work, and the TV only plays soap operas.
I've only ever heard that from Sega and/or Sony fanboys. :)
Fanboyism aside, what makes you say that Nintendo traditionally has the weakest hardware? Please don't try to explain how the PS2 is actually a supercomputer but developers haven't been able to unlock its huge potential.
I'm not sure I'd call the N64 and Gamecube "trumps" persay. You'd think, as well, that with a year's delay they'd come up with more and better launch titles than Pilotwings 64 and Luigi's Mansion. Maybe they're just slow?
I think you're confusing "Not caring" with "sitting back and see what the competition comes out with."
Where did that comment come from?
I really hate you Nintendo bashers.
NES was definitely better than the SMS and Atari.
SNES was unquestionably stronger than Genesis.
I'm sure some could argue the N64 was better than the PSX, but using cartridges really hurt the N64. I think the N64 was a weaker system because of it.
The Gamecube has much better hardware than the PS2, but weaker hardware than the Xbox. Although again, I'm sure some could argue that the GC's hardware has been put to better use.
For the record I have all three consoles. My Gamecube gets the most play time, followed by my PS2, then the Dreamcast, and finally my Xbox... which I use to play emulated SNES on.
Uhh... no. Speaking from the hardware perspective, they've had some superior features since at least the N64 days.
The N64 was far more powerful than anything else on the market before the Dreamcast. Sadly, the decision to go with cartridges more than balanced out this otherwise superior hardware.
The Gamecube hardware is on average as powerful as the X-Box, being better in some aspects and weaker in others. It's also almost universally better than the PS2.
I can't really speak for consoles before the N64, as I didn't really start following the hardware before then. But really, I don't know where you're getting your information if you think they traditionally have the weakest hardware.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
So i'm glad that they're going to match step with Sony now, but that wasn't what i remembered them planning earlier. But i could just be confused.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
typo in first line.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
That all depends on how you define 'weakest'. The SNES compared to the Genesis, for example, was a lot slower in terms of Mhz (3.54 to 7 I beleive) but it more than made up for it in different ways. The built in scaling (mode 7) features allowed for racing/flying games that couldn't be done on the Genesis (see Mario Kart/Pilotwings) and is was capable of handling transparency effects with no problems, unlike the Genesis, which had to create a sprite with holes in it to simulate the effect. The genesis also has a display color limitation much lower than the Super Nintendo. I believe it was capable of 32 simultaneous colors on-screen, while the SNES could do 256. Sure, the Genesis Motorola 6800 was faster but the SNES was more technically capable. I didn't mention the add ition of the FX chip or the 100 dollar Virtua Racer cartridge, which was actually adding hardware through the cartridge, so it doesn't really count.
I'm not sure you could say that the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube have trumped the Playstation and XBox respectively.
Well, XBox might be arguable, but there's no way you can realistically consider the Nintendo 64 more successful than the Playstation. And the XBox just does so much *more* than the Gamecube does, you know?
Comment of the year
Raises hand, Sega Owner!
Saying nintendo has better hardware because people take advantage of hacks?
N64 vs Ps1 hmmm there's a tough choice.
I loved Super Mario Kart, Starfox and other's, but technically... not super awsome.
"SNES was unquestionably stronger than Genesis."
Genesis had an 8 MHz 68000, SNES a 3 or 1.5 MHz 65c816 (d6502 with added instructions).
Genesis had higher resolution (SNES had a 512 pixel wide mode but it wasn't useful).
Genesis had more sprite sizes (up to 32x32 but only 80 compared to SNES 128 and some problems with too many sprites on a single line).
Genesis didn't do bankswitching.
In my experience, Genesis was far less of an obstacle to program on than SNES, so in my opinion there is no doubt that Genesis was superior to SNES but I also think the SNES games were generally superior to Genesis games.
Then I guess Genesis developers just sucked.
All SNES games ran faster/looked better than their Genesis counterpart.
The only area of the hardware where PS1 beat the N64 was storage media. This was critical though, as both game length and music quality were affected by it. However, the best games for N64 are much better than the the best ones for PS1 (with the possible exception of Castlevania:Symphony of the Night), and the PS1 never produced realtime 3d graphics to equal even Mario 64, much less later games that used the memory pak.
Also, the examples you cite raised the bar in the console world. Super Mario Kart for being a playable game that made heavy use of the SNES' "mode 7" abilities (really just hardware scaling and rotation), and StarFox for containing a primitive 3d accelerator in the cartridge.
That's news? I thought we all knew this by now
You are wrong about the NES. The NES came out a full year before the Master System [christmas of '85 instead of '86], and even though the Atari 7800 had be completed in '84, it had been shelved because of the crash. Atari brought it back in '86 when they saw how well Nintendo was doing.
the PS1 never produced realtime 3d graphics to equal even Mario 64
Bullshit. Although Mario 64 was the better game, Crash Bandicoot was graphically (and technically) way more impressive.
You are a fucking fool.
What is Microsoft's motivation here anyway. I mean... Right now all they can really boast about over the PS2 is that they have a years worth of hardware advancement better graphics
They have Live, which is a big advantage.
PS2s CAN be online, but MS has really taken the lead on this.
You can't take the sky from me...
Jade Empire is unreleased, and will likely be a multi-platform title.
KOTOR 2 is unreleased, and will be a multi-platform title.
Kingdom Under Fire is (yes, today is 10/11/04) unreleased.
Starcraft Ghost is unreleased, and will be a multi-platform title.
If "all the Xbox has is Halo" is an out-of-touch statement according to you, perhaps you are trying to touch the wrong things. It is true, as you have confirmed for us, n00b.
"Genesis had an 8 MHz 68000, SNES a 3 or 1.5 MHz 65c816 (d6502 with added instructions)."
The SNES processor was a little under 4mhz. It also had a graphic co-processor that handled the 'mode 7' graphics that made games like F-Zero and Mario Kart work.
"Genesis had higher resolution (SNES had a 512 pixel wide mode but it wasn't useful)."
So the Genesis had higher resolution but it didn't? Err okay, whatever. The SNES had a far broader color pallette, and it showed.
"Genesis had more sprite sizes (up to 32x32 but only 80 compared to SNES 128 and some problems with too many sprites on a single line)."
I thought Donkey Kong Country settled that stupid sprite debate.
"In my experience, Genesis was far less of an obstacle to program on than SNES, so in my opinion there is no doubt that Genesis was superior to SNES"
Superior? The Genesis was easy to develop for if all you wanted to do was make side-scrollers. If you wanted to break out of that mould, then the SNES was a far better choice. It offered more (i.e. the Mode 7 graphics) to play with. In short, the SNES had broader gaming capabilities. (Not to mention sound hardware, but conveniently that wasn't mentioned in your original post.) I wonder if I should bring up the superior controllers or the Super FX chip...
"Derp de derp."
Do we have any idea(rumors) on what sort os specs, hardware power and features the GC2/Revolution will boast? Will it have full-sized disks? More memory, better graphics card, multiprocessor, wireless ad-hoc connectivity with the DS for LAN gaming, Ethernet port and internet system(X-box live) by default? Anyone?
Microsoft is. If they are aiming at Sony, they are going to miss.
<sarcasm>
Exactly. That's how Nintendo has managed to stay #1!
</sarcasm>
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
The Gamecube hardware is on average as powerful as the X-Box, being better in some aspects and weaker in others. It's also almost universally better than the PS2.
Are you insane? The PS2 has faster main memory bandwidth, *way* more graphics memory bandwidth, much more vector processing capability, four times as many graphics pipelines, etc.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Nintendo may call its new console a "Revolution", but it's not a real Revolution until Konami ports its flagship Bemani title.
Here's another baseless speculation: perhaps Revolution controllers will have screens built in and communicate wirelessley with the console
Doesn't Sega already have a patent on that, with the Visual Memory Unit in the Dreamcast controller?
You could concievably turn off your TV (leave the console on), go outside, and keep playing on your controller screen.
At least Nintendo wouldn't be able to get a broad patent on this, given the prior art that is GNU Screen.
"NES was definitely better than the SMS and Atari."
The Sega Master System had a larger colour palette and could deal with larger, brighter sprites. The reason it was not so hot was because of the limited controller design and the lack of games for the system.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I find it particularly intersting because about this time a year ago, Nintendo was talking about how they wanted to be first to hit the market for the next generation. Basically, at the time they felt poor sales of the GCN were related to PS2 hitting the market ahead of the GCN and having a much larger base of games to compete with.
Now the question is, did they change their opinion because of better GCN sales following the $99 price drop, or are they just falling behind in production and the shot at microsoft is just to cover a release that's running behind schedule?
I don't think Microsoft expects to make a decent profit on Xbox until Xbox 3. The reason they're going early is that they don't want to be in the same position as they were the last time around, where the launched when the PS2 was already firmly embedded. Of course, they also want to avoid the curse of the Dreamcast where everybody waits for the more-powerful Playstation that is coming along.
So - I don't think they'll be expecting to make a profit, especially at the beginning. They need to make the Xbox 2 at least as powerful as the PS3 (and preferably more powerful), and launching it earlier than the PS2 is going to mean that at first they'll be taking a huge hit on each console and will probably have to sell it at below cost.
However, you've got to look at the alternative - they certainly can't launch later than the PS3 - that would suicidal. The PS2 has such a big mindshare that they have to launch first - I imagine they hope that by the time the PS3 is coming out with its launch titles, the Xbox 2 will be getting its first second-generation titles, and that will be enough to win over some of Sony's customers...
Then why do the games look like crap?
Lalala
Basically, Nintendo got nervous about what Sony was doing (The SNES CD-Rom extension). It seemed like Sony intended to use their deal with Nintendo to take over the video game industry and make Nintendo dependant on them. Of course, Sony did end up taking control of the video game industry, but Nintendo remained an independant company.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
"Please don't try to explain how the PS2 is actually a supercomputer but developers haven't been able to unlock its huge potential."
Thank you for saying that! As the happy owner of a GC, I am very fed up with annoying PS2ers going on about the brilliant architecture of their machine, but when faced with the fact that overall while the PS2 is indeed a nice system, cross-platform games on the GC and XBox just tend to look better, they then go on to denounce pathetic devs who are incaple of realizing its true brilliance, and harp for the day when the programmers will finally catch up the PS2. Please. Before that would happen, guess what, PS3 will be out, and people will stop developping for it.
Alright, enough ranting for now...
And their games still look like shit.
Well if you mean in terms of profit, Nintendo is way ahead.
And the PS2 has practically no textruing capabilities, as well as a mere 8 MB of VRAM to work with.
Extra memory bandwidth and such don't mean shit when you can't texture your games worth a damn to allow for less polygons to be needed while still maintaining a great looking game, as well as only 8 MB of VRAM to work with.
I could put out a console that produces polygons like mad; but if I limit my video memory to a mere 8 MB, and don't build in texturing capabilities that are worthwhile (the good textured games on the PS2 are from developers fighting the system and figuring out how to get the textures despite Sony's design and lack of adequate documentation on how to do it), it won't matter. The other consoles that do have more VRAM and better texturing capabilities will just have their games look better, period.
And the PS2 has practically no textruing capabilities,
It's got twice the textured fill rate of the Gamecube.
as well as a mere 8 MB of VRAM to work with.
Actually, it's 4MB of VRAM, but that's compared to the gamecube's 1MB of VRAM. It also runs at 48GB/sec compared to the gamecube's 10.4GB/sec.
The gamecube's architecture allows it to get more "free" special effects, but the PS2 has much more raw power.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The games look different than on the Gamecube. Most Gamecube games have lot's of special effects, bright colors, nicely filtered textures, etc. However, their models are relatively low polygon count. The PS2 tends to have very high-detail models, but with lower image quality. Personally, I prefer the high-detail look of the PS2.
Also, you have to consider that even though the PS2 is more powerful, it's a lot harder to program. The PS1 had games that looked much better than what you found on the Saturn, but the Saturn was significantly more powerful.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I couldn't care less. I'm not a gamer, and I don't own a PS2 (indeed, I own a gamecube). However, it's inaccurate to say that the GC is more powerful.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Raw power doesn't mean anything when you can't do anything with it.
Also, Sony and Microsoft state theoretical numbers. Nintendo states real world numbers with "Real-world polygon : 6 million to 12 million polygons/second (Peak) (Assuming actual game conditions with complex models, fully textured, fully lit, etc.)."
Here are the websites if anyone is curious.
Nintendo
Sony
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I don't give a shit what the games look like. I'm not a gamer! I'm am only pointing out that it is inaccurate to say that the GC is faster than the PS2.
Also, Nintendo *does* list maximum theoretical numbers in their SDK docs. The GC can push a max of about 32M polygons per second, with no texturing and simple shading. This is much lower than the ~60M polygons per second the PS2 can push under the same circumstances.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
You're talking fill rates while I'm talking the texturing and mapping abilities of the consoles.
The PS2 can't bump map well, can't mip map well, can't normal map at all, etc. When we talk of textures in games and such, it mainly involves the ability to use different maps and effects and such that allow for games to look better. The PS2, in this regard, simply can't handle it.
Actually, it's 4MB of VRAM, but that's compared to the gamecube's 1MB of VRAM.
So I overestimated the PS2's VRAM, but you are assuming the embedded RAM on the Flipper GPU is the only VRAM the GC has. The 1 MB you speak of is simply texture buffering RAM, embedded into the GPU, and is in addition to a 2 MB Z-buffer that is embedded into the GPU as well. Like the Xbox, though, the GC can use it's main system RAM for graphics as well.
Technically, the GC and Xbox have no dedicated VRAM set aside just for main graphics memory, the PS2 does, and only uses that VRAM for graphics, and doesn't utilize any of the rest of the system memory for graphics ability.
The gamecube's architecture allows it to get more "free" special effects, but the PS2 has much more raw power.
The GC has a faster CPU, faster GPU, and more main system RAM (which is also more efficient RAM than the PS2's).
Your source of IGN for the GC's max polygon perfomrance is the only site that seems to magically have the numbers that Nintendo has never released to the press, and game developers would have NDAs against giving it out unless Nintendo gave them out, so I call them more of IGN's bullshit.
And, as has been said before, raw power alone isn't enough. Somemone might be able to put a F-16's engine in a Pinto for tons of raw power, but it won't mean shit if the Pinto can't move under the weight of the engine.
And, as per your other comment: if you aren't a gamer, why are you so adamant about touting the PS2's raw power? It's been shown that the PS2 is the WEAKEST console in this gen many times over. Hell, AnadTech showed it before, as has Tom's Hardware, and other reputable sources; which I'll say I can trust more than you and your listening to IGN's magic numbers on things that have never been released to the press/public.
You're talking fill rates while I'm talking the texturing and mapping abilities of the consoles.
What the hell do you think fill rate measures? It measures how many textured pixels the console can draw at once.
The PS2, in this regard, simply can't handle it.
Yes, the PS2 supports less special effects. But that doesn't change the fact that the PS2 has more computational capability.
Like the Xbox, though, the GC can use it's main system RAM for graphics as well.
So can the PS2. It's designed to be a streaming architecture.
The GC has a faster CPU
The PS2's CPU is faster. The "CPU" is the main CPU + VU0. Heck, VU0 by itself is more powerful than the core CPU in the gamecube.
faster GPU
The PS2's GPU has 1.2-2.4 gpixels/sec compared to the GC's 600 mpixels/sec. The pixels don't look as good, because the PS2 doesn't have the dedicated hardware to do extra special effects, but it has much more pixel throughput.
and more main system RAM
The main system ram on the GC is 24MB, and the PS2's main system memory is 32MB. The 16MB of A-RAM on the GC is so slow (81MB/sec), it's really only fast enough to use for storing fmv and audio.
only site that seems to magically have the numbers that Nintendo has never released to the press
The numbers are from the gamecube's SDK. I think ArsTechnica had them too. There is a PDF of part of the docs floating around on the internet, and there is a PDF of the PS2 manual as well.
And, as per your other comment: if you aren't a gamer, why are you so adamant about touting the PS2's raw power?
Because the original comment was about power, not about how games look.
It's been shown that the PS2 is the WEAKEST console in this gen many times over.
The main cause of performance problems is underutilization of the hardware. An SCEE study showed that most games only utilizes 8% of VU0. That's wasting a huge fraction of the console's power.
Good study of PS2's performance.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...