Slashdot Mirror


Revolution Least Expensive Next-Gen Console

exdeath writes "Today, one of Nintendo's most public faces said the Revolution will stand out from its competition for a reason besides its innovative controller: price. Speaking to CNN/Money correspondent Chris Morris Reggie Fils-Aime, executive vice president of sales and marketing, predicted that the Revolution would be cheaper than both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. How low will Nintendo go? It's hard to tell. Microsoft is selling two Xbox 360 SKUs--the no-frills $299 core Xbox and the $399 standard model with hard drive and wireless remote. In his interview with Morris, Fils-Aime also reiterated that the Revolution will not support high-definition televisions. 'What we'll offer in terms of gameplay and approachability will more than make up for the lack of HD,' he said. Both Microsoft and Sony are making much of the 360 and PS3's HD capabilities. Fils-Aime also implied that the DS will see redesigns, just as the Game Boy Advance has."

580 comments

  1. No HD support? Wake up... by squarooticus · · Score: 0, Troll

    Having started playing FPS's at 1920x1200 and 1600x1200 on my 6800, I don't think it would be possible for me to go back to NTSC resolution for modern games. This is a big black mark against this console.

    --
    [ home ]
    1. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. You are a minority.

      2. Nintendo doesn't cater to the hardcore.

    2. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't care that much about HD, but I would like to see routine support for widescreen and progressive scan

    3. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HDD = Hard Disk Drive
      HD = High Definition, High Density

    4. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      640x480 should be enough for anyone.

    5. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by AsiNisiMasa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good think you don't matter to Nintendo, then. It would have been a disaster is their business model depended entirely on you.

      Most people don't even have HDTVs nor surround sound nor a computer that can handle high end games at that resolution. You're a huge minority, especially considering Nintendos "casual gamer" target demographic.

      --
      Help a student gain some exp. http://www.halovariants.com/touchup/index.php
    6. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having started playing FPS's at 1920x1200 and 1600x1200 on my 6800, I don't think it would be possible for me to go back to NTSC resolution for modern games.

      Well I'm still using an old 15' CRT television to play my games and I'm more that satisfied with it. I've tried HD TV, and I don't see that benefits in the increase in resolution offset the enormous costs of

      a) Purchascing such a device
      and
      b) The loss of CPU and GPU cycles to increasing resolution that could be put to better uses eleswhere, like gameplay or AI.

      You may have enjoyed the 1600x1200 resolution, but I seriously doubt you enjoyed it at the same framerate or lighting quality or perhaps even texture and model quality as someone who was using good old 1024x768 resolution. There's a payoff here, and in terms of what makes a game look better, increasing resolution beyond 1024x768 ranks pretty low on the list of options.

      Of course the number one way of making a game look better is better art design. This fact slips past most developers.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    7. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Kwelstr · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I agree, not to talk about the eye strain from NTSC either :-(

      --


      ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
    8. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to buy a new TV to play videogames and I think I'm not the only one.

    9. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      a huge minority huh? is that like a definite maybe?

    10. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      I agree. Even though I have an HDTV, I could care less about HD support as long as it supports progressive scan and widescreen. I don't see a big enough reason to make the HD jump with current technology. System power would be better spent rendering special effects, lighting, bump mapping, upping poly count, etc. Why spend extra system power to bump up the resolution when you can still count the poly's in the majority of games on the market?

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    11. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by CPUGuy · · Score: 1

      Well, 1024x768 is a HUGE improvement on the standard NTSC resolution.

    12. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      a huge minority huh? is that like a definite maybe?
      No, silly, it's like Star Jones.
    13. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by interiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      SD looks like crap on HDTV's. Seriously. If any of your friends have HDTV, ask them. And a lot of people are saying that production of HDTV's in 2006 will be much higher, ergo, the price will be lower, and a lot of people will be introduced to HDTV for the first time. BAD time to release a console that all those new HDTV owners will think looks like crap. You don't need 1080p, 1280x720 is the minimum that XBox 360 will do, and it wouldn't be so bad if Revolution at least said that they'd support that for some games. I guarantee you that 85% of HDTV owners, if they're choosing between the Revolution and a different console, will choose the other console.

    14. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by CPUGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Progressive Scan does not get you ANYTHING at all unless you have a TV that can play that progressivly scanned DVD.

      Progressive Scan DVD players are called that because they can output at 480p (some can even do 720p). As you may have guessed, the p is where the progressive comes in. Where as standard NTSC resolution is 408i (or interlaced).

      So you see, your clamoring for progressive scan and not caring about HD support doesn't really make any sense, as they are one in the same.

    15. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Have you ever really compared the difference between a WMVHD file at 1080p with a DVD movie at 480p?

      For those that haven't what you will notice is that the 1080p image is crisper but nothing to really get too excited about; 480p to 1080i or 720p is barely noticable on most displays. Now I know what you're thinking, a real-time generated 3D image produces artifacts that make it no where near the quality of a DVD image; after all at 1600x1200 a PC game still has jaggies without AA, and the textures are blurry without AF. What you don't realize is that by increasing the resolution they may (in fact) be lowering the image quality and performing at a far worse level. The reason is simple, as shading hardware becomes more powerful, and shaders become more complex, the greater the performance hit will be from increasing the resolution by even a small ammount. If you look at most benchmarking of new games you will notice that (almost) all games have dramatically better performance at 1024x768 with 8xAA and 8xAF than they do at 1600x1200 with no image processing; at 480p I suspect that (on equal hardware) you could have 16xAA and 16xAF and have a much higher framerate than you could at 1080i or 720p.

      Just look at FEAR:

      http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=5

      At 1280x1024 (a good estimate of HD resolutions) you're getting between 20-40 FPS on most new hardware [in this test]; using the same cards at 640x480 (a good estimate of 480p) you're getting between 50-100 fps. I'm willing to bet money that the main reason the XBox 360 looks like "the XBox at high resolutions" is that it is highly difficult for a developer to produce a game, use high quality shaders / textures and models and maintain a decent framerate.

    16. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Delphiki · · Score: 2, Insightful
      For those that haven't what you will notice is that the 1080p image is crisper but nothing to really get too excited about; 480p to 1080i or 720p is barely noticable on most displays.

      You must be shrooming. 720p on a good HDTV makes DVD look like ass.

      --

      Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".

    17. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've heard that the revolution is going to have VGA out. I'm not sure if this is true, or what resolutions it will support, but it will be nice. I'm not interested in buying a hi-def tv just to get hi-def games. I already own a monitor capable of some very high resolutions. And if i'm sitting 3 feet from it, it doesn't have to be 60 inch, 19 is enough at that distance.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    18. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Golias · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most people don't even have HDTVs

      At this point, yes... but why would anybody even consider buying a non-HD TV for their main living room set these days? Any old-format TV is going to need a separate tuner in a couple years to even get over-the-air broadcasts.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    19. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by cg0def · · Score: 1

      Well I think you should look up the specs for your TV before posting something like this next time. Even if you are one of the people that currently own an HDTV set ( despite the mind blowing lack of programming )your TV still runs at a much lower resolution than the one that you use for playing games on your PC (at least in your case). However your TV set is setup so that the difference is not as noticeable as it would be on your computer monitor. Plus last I checked noone really watches TV 15" away from the screen ;) All that said I couldn't care less if Revolution will cost less than PS3 and xbox360. The games are shit and there is no hdd. Oh yeah and not to forget the weirdest controller ever made. What else could they have going against them ...

    20. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      480p is Standard Definition, not High Definition.

    21. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by timster · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't even *know* anyone who still watches over-the-air broadcasts.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    22. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by jugglerjon · · Score: 1

      As a Nintendo fan boy who loves his Game Cube and owns a HDTV the Revolution not supporting HD has me considering other consoles. Coupled with the fact this looks like it's going to be the last to come out of the big three consoles for this generation I may find myself going with something else.

    23. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who watches broadcasts over the air? I have cable.

    24. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      85% of HDTV owners

      Which is, what, 2% of TV owners?

    25. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Golias · · Score: 1

      Cable costs money, and generally gives you lower quality than HDTV broadcasts.

      House, Lost, HDTV sports, and pretty much everything on the PBS Digital broadcast is fantastic entertainment, looks great on my massive projector screen, and free free free!

      Anything else I want to watch (Sopranos, etc.) I can see on DVD via NetFlix, along with my movie rentals.

      So why would I even want to consider paying for a cable subscription?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    26. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by CPUGuy · · Score: 1

      But you can not view 480p on a standard TV, you at least need some sort of support, be it HDTV or a lesser TV, just not your standard TV.

    27. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by rhyno46 · · Score: 1, Funny

      It can't be that old if it is 15 feet from corner to corner.

    28. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      Because you can watch the Sopranos is HD if you have cable.

      DVDs are not HD...

      --
      No reason to lie.
    29. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be willing to bet those getting large HDTVs will also buy more than one console, or all 3.

    30. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by interiot · · Score: 1, Informative
      Which is, what, 2% of TV owners?

      See page 10 of this report. In the US, HDTVs are ~25% of total TV's. Not to mention that the amount of HDTV content s is quickly increasing, constantly increasing the incentive to buy an HDTV. It's a bit of a chicken-n-egg thing, but at some point, take-up is going to increase pretty quickly.

    31. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by oman_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Low resolution is not the problem with video games these days.

      --
      Rats would be more funny if they could fart.
    32. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by xannik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll tell you why.... price. A lot of people may want a console, but don't want to pay a shit ton to play it on the fancy new HDTV. You think within 5 years time HDTV will be as pervasive as regular tvs? Heck even if it was that is around the time that Nintendo will be releasing there new console and I'm sure it will have HD support if the technology has become pervasive. I think this is a smart move. One of the reasons I own a gamecube was because I could get it for under a hundred dollars. I never would have gotten it if it was the same price as the XBox. Driving up the cost for a minority market technology is not a smart move.

      --

      Go Illini!!!
    33. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Golias · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because you can watch the Sopranos is HD if you have HD Digital cable, which costs extra... and pay for the "premium" HBO subscription on top of that.

      At those costs, I think I'll limp along with the DVD's for the one or two shows I like which are not broadcast for free.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    34. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by stalky14 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and I've never been able to figure out why people would want frame rates faster than their monitor can scan!

    35. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Golias · · Score: 1

      I didn't ask why anybody would buy a non HD console. I asked why anybody, in this day and age, would buy a new non HD TV set for their main viewing room.

      Another year or two, and you probably won't even be able to even if you did want one.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    36. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by ivan256 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Looked at the prices of HD and non-HD TVs lately? You're talking the difference between spending $150 for a standard and $1000 (minimum - All those sub $1000 sets have no tuner) for a set in the 27" range.

      Non-HD sets are *cheap*. HD sets will be a luxury-only item for years to come.

    37. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Antifuse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And there is a definite difference between 720 and 1080 as well. I noticed when I first started watching NFL in HD. One of the broadcasters would broadcast in 720 (Fox, I think) and another (CBS?) would broadcast in 1080. The 1080 definitely looked TONS better.

    38. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Informative

      As lots of people tend to forget (even people WITH HDTVs):

      * the difference between broadcast NTSC or composite NTSC and studio/dvd-quality NTSC (via s-video) is dramatic and noticeable.

      * the difference between studio/dvd quality NTSC via s-video ("480i60") and 480p60 is night and day. Someone who just had PRK/LASEK the previous day could still tell the difference between the two on a 27" TV twenty feet away in a smoke-filled room.

      * On a natively 720p60 set, 720p60 looks noticeably better than 480p60. On a natively 1080i60 set, 720p60 is almost indistinguishable from 480p60 because the TV downsamples to 540 scanlines, then kell-filters them to prevent flicker. The net result is almost the same amount of vertical detail as 480p60, with only slightly more horizontal detail. Meanwhile, the GPU and CPU are working almost twice as hard.

      * On a natively 720p60 set, 1080i60 is nearly indistinguishable from 480p60, because the TV just throws away half of the scanlines, resamples the 540 that remain up to 720, then resamples the alleged 1920 horizontal pixels to 1280. On a natively 1080i60 set, 1080i60 COULD exhibit greater detail than 480p60... except for the tiny problems of interline twitter (requiring kell filtering), inadequate GPU/CPU power to really pull off their best work at 1920x1080, and the fact that programmers fundamentally don't understand the realities of computer-generated interlaced video and inevitably produce games that look great on the progressive-scan monitors connected to their dev boxen, but have glaring artifacts and deficiencies when viewed on a real interlaced display.

      In short, 1080i60 doesn't have a whole lot to offer more than 480p60 for action-related games due to all the filtering necessary to prevent interline twitter, and inadequate raw GPU/CPU horsepower to really handle 1920x1080 properly. 720p60 has definite potential to offer better-looking games because 1280x720 is still a reasonable resolution as far as the GPU/CPU is concerned... but at the moment, natively 720p60 TVs only represent about 1/3 of the total in America (unfortunately), and 720p60 looks like $#!+ on most natively 1080i60 TVs.

      At the implementation level, upgrading chips capable of 480p60 to 1080i60 is a comparatively small tweak, because most of the increased bandwidth goes into permitting faster pixel-to-pixel color changes. The actual scanrate (~33.75KHz) isn't a whole lot higher than 480p60's (~31.5kHz). Unfortunately, you can't fool Mother Nature... making the leap to 720p60 requires ~45KHz, because the real or metaphorical electron beam has a LOT more ground to cover in the same amount of time. Put another way, you can do some nasty hacks and claim that a given circuit is technically capable of "1080i", even if its REAL capabilities aren't much better than 480p because the horizontal detail will be all smeared and blurred due to inadequate bandwidth... but making the leap to 720p requires real upgrades that cost real money. And ultimately, the 2/3 majority of American HDTV owners whose sets are inherently 1080i won't see much of an improvement anyway, and will probably bitch about games that only support 480p and 720p.

      The REAL surge in "HDTV" console gaming will come in another 2-4 years, once natively-720p TVs have displaced enough older 1080i TVs (at least among gamers who know the difference and care), and Nintendo's NEXT console WILL support 720p (but probably won't bother with 1080i, leading to more waves of grousing and complaining about its lack of "true" support for HDTV).

    39. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by westlake · · Score: 1
      Well I'm still using an old 15' CRT television to play my games and I'm more that satisfied with it. I've tried HD TV, and I don't see that benefits in the increase in resolution offset the enormous costs of a) Purchascing such a device

      The latest Walmart flyer has brand-name HD sets starting at $500 US (with built-in tuners.) 52 inch projection sets at $990 US, also with tuners. This train has left the station.

    40. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by damiangerous · · Score: 1
      Because a main viewing room size HDTV costs $1000+ and a decent CRT costs $200-300. In a few years when I "must" have an HDTV they'll be at least $2-300 cheaper. Sure, I'd love to have an HDTV now, but if my main TV were to die today I'd replace it with another CRT. I simply can't afford an HDTV right now.

      As for not even being able to in 1-2 years, not likely. People have been saying that for years now and it's just not happening. They're still far too expensive for a mass adoption.

    41. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mess up the joke, but isn't it 720x486?

    42. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by maddskillz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it is because if you have a high frame rate normally, then we the scenes get more complicated, you are more likely to run at an acceptable frame rate still. If you are just getting by with the normal scenery, frame rate wise, the complicated scenery will completely bog things down, and make it choppy

    43. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Arkiel · · Score: 1

      It has been argued before that HD support could give an unfair advantage to those people without HD-capable televisions. This action by Nintendo is ACTUALLY just a way to level the playing field! Heh. Yeah, right. When you are talking about buying a system that should last you a few years, promoting the fact that it is the cheapest of the systems is the last thing you want to do. Need a solid show to back this up. That said, even if Revolution gameplay is heads and tails above anything on the other two systems, you'll always have monkeyheads clamouring for the Splinter Cell: Idaho and Halo 3.

    44. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Nintendo fan boy who loves his Game Cube and owns a HDTV the Revolution not supporting HD has me considering other consoles.
      Then you are most definitely not a Nintendo fan boy. True Nintendo Fan boys appreciate those things that only Nintendo brings to the gaming community: amazingly creative (sometimes goofy) gaming experiences. You are what we call a straw man.

    45. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To most Americans, their TV is a more important part of their life than their car. People will buy the very best one they can afford, and certainly will not buy a main living room set which will become completely obsolete in two years.

    46. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually, 25% of NEW TV SALES are HDTV in 2005.

      So, if you assume that people buy a new TV every 10 years (possibly a little conservative), that means that in 2004, 2.2% of existing US TV owners upgraded to HDTV, and in 2005, an additional 2.7% of existing US TV owners upgraded to HDTV, and in 2006, an additional projected 3.7% of existing US TV owners upgrade to HDTV.

      So, by the time the Revolution is out, market penetration will be ~8.5% in the US. In Japan, market penetration will be a fair bit higher, because they're buying HDTV's at a faster rate. And note that not everyone who has a TV will buy a console, gamers tend to be more tech oriented, so the number of console users who own an HDTV will be a higher percentage.

    47. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Because a main viewing room size HDTV costs $1000+ and a decent CRT costs $200-300.

      Seven years ago the first, expensive DVD players arrived. Somewhere around two years ago, VHS no longer mattered. Five years ago, writeable DVDs were $25 or more. Now they're well under $1 each. Costs come down, and hi-res displays are among the fastest droppers now. That 50" plasma that was $11,000 not long ago is now $3,000. We're not arguing about what will happen, we're arguing about when. Granted, I'm UMC, but I was planning on buying a fancy big screen before the end of this year until I bought a surplus VGA res projector from my office.

      One thing to remember is that the compactness of flat screens makes them a popular replacement with wives who don't want that huge RPTV dominating the living room. That's even more an issue in space-constrained Japan.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    48. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by damiangerous · · Score: 1
      The latest Walmart flyer has brand-name HD sets starting at $500 US (with built-in tuners.) Those are tiny "HD-ready" LCD panels. You'll need to buy an HD box at another $200+. Not to mention 17-23" is hardly an acceptable size for a main viewing room for most people. Once you get into an acceptable size (say 26-30") panel you're looking at $900, and that doesn't include the $200 box.

      Projection TVs are an option, but they start around $1000 as well. You're really not getting into HDTV for less than a grand.

    49. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by master_p · · Score: 1

      You may have enjoyed the 1600x1200 resolution, but I seriously doubt you enjoyed it at the same framerate or lighting quality or perhaps even texture and model quality as someone who was using good old 1024x768 resolution. There's a payoff here, and in terms of what makes a game look better, increasing resolution beyond 1024x768 ranks pretty low on the list of options.

      Your assertion is valid only if the 1600x1200 caused any noticable slow down. With modern machines, modern games can easily reach 70 FPS at 1600x1200 with x2 antialiasing...70 fps is a good number, because very few humans can actually tell the differences beyond that.

    50. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by damiangerous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one is arguing that costs come down eventually. But saying "within the next year or two you won't be able to get a standard TV" is ridiculous. Costs may be coming down relatively fast on HDTVs, but the absolute cost is still quite high. DVD players aren't a very good comparison. I bought my first DVD player in 1998 for $250 (Philips 825). Now they're cheaper than VCRs. The sweet spot to swing adoption was when they dropped below $100 and were competive with good VCRs. HDTVs need to drop to that sweet spot too. Not below $100 obviously, but competitive with good CRT TVs. They still need more than a few years to do that.

    51. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      So you see, your clamoring for progressive scan and not caring about HD support doesn't really make any sense, as they are one in the same.

      CPUGuy-why not look at it from the CPU's perspective? It takes a lot less CPU to provide a 480p resolution than it does a 720 or 1080 HD res. You get a much smoother picture, and it costs virtually nothing for Nintendo or 3rd party developers to offer progressive scan resolutions. Contrast that with the Xbox, which supports HD resolutions, but no developers use it because of the resource cost.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    52. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by somersault · · Score: 2, Informative

      Could you care more? This may be trollish but I've never understood the americanism of "could care less", which should actually read "couldn't care less" o_0

      --
      which is totally what she said
    53. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not be surprised if Nintendo did release a HD add-on, later.
      I think the important thing is this: the cost of making games for the PS3 and XBox360 more than doubles the current costs, while the Revolution will cost signifigantly less (Game publishers have state this). With less cost, there is less risk, with less risk, there should be more games. Translation: I expect that the Revolution will have just as many, if not more new games released for it compared to the other next-Gen. consoles.

    54. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by KeithIrwin · · Score: 1

      If Nintendo was really targetting the casual gamer, they would build in more of the features like DVD players and the like that would appeal to people who aren't that into games. Thus far, Nintendo's systems have been more likely than their competitors to be bought only by the more serious gamer. Someone who researches games and wants to explore the most interesting and novel games might buy a GameCube so that they can play games like Donkey Kongo or Pikmin. Someone who doesn't is more likely to buy a PS2 because they'll see its DVD playing abiilities and its much wider selection of games (even if a much greater percentage of PS2 games are crap).

      Now, Nintendo has said that they're trying to grow the gaming market by making novel games which are approachable to beginners which is part of the point of the controller for the revolution, but this is more an attempt to convert non-gamers into gamers than it is about targetting just the casual gamer. By innovating, they're clearly expecting this innovation to be supported by a certain portion of the serious gamer market. Existing casual gamers are much less likely to be willing to try out things like freaky new controllers.

      Keith

    55. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by twosmokes · · Score: 1

      Then you are most definitely not a Nintendo fan boy. True Nintendo Fan boys purchase all things that Nintendo brings to the gaming community. You should also be rationalizing and downplaying any perceived misteps by Nintendo as the desires of hardcore gamers who only want to play first person shooters with plots about shooting hookers. You are what we call a straw man.

    56. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      Sure, 1600x1200 on a 15" CRT may be no big deal, but have you seen 1600x1200 thrown up on an 8' diagonal projection screen? Talk about being immersed in the game. I was playing HL1:TFC at 800x600 thrown up on a 6' diagonal screen and I was absolutely thrilled, despite the low resolution. It can only get better from there. Can you imagine playing the Raventhorn level from HL2 in a dark room with full surround sound on a 720p projection screen at a 10' diagonal? Amazing. Or racing games... or anything. It would be great. The higher resolutions allow you to have a bigger screen without losing quality.

    57. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by sabin1001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gamecube already has support for widescreen and progressive scan. In fact, a huge percentage of gamecube games support progressive scan. Like, a lot higher percentage than on PS2. Check out hdgames.net and hdtvarcade.com to see some lists. I don't think we need to worry about the revolution in this respect, thought it'd be nice if they mandated it as a requirement.

    58. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      25%? Not in Europe. Most people haven't even heard of it.

    59. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      If Nintendo was really targetting the casual gamer, they would build in more of the features like DVD players and the like that would appeal to people who aren't that into games.

      People who aren't that much into games and want a DVD player either already have one, or will buy a DVD player instead of a gaming console. Being able to play DVD's might have been a selling point last-gen, but this is 2006 (2005 for Xbox360), and people who currently don't own a DVD player either don't want one, or can't afford a gaming console anyway (plus, I bet the combined price of a DVD player and a Revolution will still be lower than a PS3 or Xbox360).

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    60. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Phantasmo · · Score: 1

      Gamecube supports progressive scan on some titles. Revolution will be 480p across the board, IIRC.

      --

      The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
    61. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      ...and I've never been able to figure out why people would want frame rates faster than their monitor can scan!

      ... or that the eye can see. Movies are shot at 24 FPS because the human-eye sees about 18 FPS. Never heard anyone complain that the movie-theater lacked framerate. But if nVidia or ATI were to make a video card that can play the latest games at 30 FPS, it would be considered bad. Go figure.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    62. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Jeremy.DeGroot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about you guys, but I've never played video games on my family's main TV (main tv == the newest most expensive one). My Nintendos have lived in the basement, my bedroom, and now my dorm room, but never in the living room where the niceest TV is. It's always been attached to an older one. I bet most Revolutions will be in a similar situation. I doubt that many Revolutions will be attached to HDTVs.

    63. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Pollardito · · Score: 2, Insightful

      when i was a kid, my parents actually wanted to watch the good TV, so my nintendo or atari was always hooked up to the TV in their bedroom. i'm sure there are plenty of HD-owning households that will do the same, and so the actual percentage of people playing these new consoles on an HD TV might be smaller than the % ownership.

    64. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I'm still using an old 15' CRT television

      Don't worry, I wouldn't try replacing a 15 foot T.V. either. It gives me nightmares of trying to move my 50" downstairs.

    65. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Kesh · · Score: 1
      I considered buying an HDTV this year... but ultimately didn't. Why?

      Because I live in an area where I can't get any HDTV signals. And by 2009, when the new regs finally go in place, it'll be about time for a new TV anyway. So, why bother buying an extra-expensive TV I can't use right now?

    66. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by BlowChunx · · Score: 1

      ...and like the world's tallest midget.

    67. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      If you're going to play the stereotype game...

      If you ask some average Joe which of two TVs is "Better," he's going to point to the bigger one, not the one with the high def picture. If he's got $1000 to spend on a TV, which do you think he'll get? The 27" HD tube, the 36" Trinitron SD model, or the 45" SD rear projection? I bet money that nine times out of ten the answer is "The biggest one that will fit in the available space, HD or otherwise."

      Given the uncertain state of copy protection legislation, you'd be stupid to buy an HD set right now anyway. All the early adopters that bought TVs before HDCP now have a 2 year old, $10,000 obsolete piece of junk. If new broadcast flag legislation gets passed, that could happen again.

    68. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by arglesnaf · · Score: 1

      As the owner of a 55inch Sony WEGA HD widescreen, I'd like to qualify that. Traditional SD content like a VHS or an old movie or or old TV show does look like crap. However digital SD satellilte content, my 480i XBOX games and my and GameCube (which is 480p most of the time) look excellent. 480i can look good as long as the source is good. Component video on most consoles is crisp and clean enough that they look good. I'm not saying they look as good as HD content, but in the case of video games, I'd challenge most people to see the difference.

      For what its worth, Cube widcreen games look much better than my XBOX widescreen titles. The XBOX ones stretchcontent, where as the cube ones actually are 16:9.

    69. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      but have you seen 1600x1200 thrown up on an 8' diagonal projection screen?

      That sounds nice but I seriously doubt this setup will fit on the table at the foot of my bed for the foreseeable future.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    70. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by arglesnaf · · Score: 1

      Umm, 1080i is 540 lines of content, lower visual quality that 720p. It may be that the affiliate or the encoding was bad. 720p is "High Deffier"

    71. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i believe that expression comes with built-in sarcasm.

    72. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      This is not the way I want to purchase a game. Do you want to put a new dvd disk in your drive every time you want to use another program? I want all of my games available from a menu and stored on a hard drive. I want to purchase them online and have demo version available so I can look before I purchase them. I want a game that will be updated and the update be available online for little or now additional cost to me. I am not looking for any game that requires fast reflexes either. I want a card/board game that will engage me in intelligent conversation and will analyze my moves in order to make my play better. I tried online version of these games but quickly got discouraged because so many would play for a few minutes and than just leave after they started to lose either at the game or just any interest. Improving on these are far more important to me than high definition.

    73. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by m50d · · Score: 1

      The phrase is "couldn't care less", only idiots who've misheard say "could care less". Ignore them.

      --
      I am trolling
    74. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by mattcoz · · Score: 0

      Not some, most, and every one worth a damn. All the games I have support progressive scan. The comment above was really aimed at them supporting widescreen in addition to progressive scan, which is rarely done.

    75. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      And Hi-Def is no where near those resolutions anyways. I don't see why you're singling out Nintendo, which is also going to have standard monitor out jacks.

      It may not be HD, but the higher DPI on monitors will make up for it.

      --
      Insert Sig Here
    76. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Chr0nik · · Score: 0

      Since my own comment got ranked out of view of most, (apparently because I'm a troll) I will post it here. I think it's a safe bet that it's not a good idea(business-wise) to to bring a feature-light product to market while your competitors are driving technology forward. I think it's also a safe bet to assume that both Microsoft and Sony will have very playable and fun games that load quickly. Not all of their titles will be the of the uber high res, shockingly immersive variety. The only thing that Nintendo is doing is ensuring they cannot compete in that area. While their competitors can easily compete(and win) at their game. The only thing that can save this company's console business is marketing. And good luck competing with Microsoft at that... They've been selling inferior operating systems for years on nothing but marketing. They might as well be throwing in the towel.

      --


      ... what did you expect, something profound?
    77. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Mprx · · Score: 1

      Clearly you've never watched higher frame rate movies. The human eye can measurably see improvement in smoothness at up to *at least* 72fps, even on video with motion blur. Movies at 24fps look jerky, it's only because we see so many of them that it's considered acceptable.

    78. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

      I've always preferred to think of "I could care less" as a shorter way of saying "I *could* care less, but I'm so disinterested in the subject that adjusting my level of caring would take more energy than I care to expend."

      But perhaps that's just me...

    79. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by ilovepolymorphism · · Score: 1

      Later GameCubes don't have the port that is required to use progressive scan.

    80. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Ummm, 1080i is 1080 lines of content rendered at 60 fields (half-screens) per second. Just because they're not renedred in the manner you prefer doesn't mean the data don't exist.

    81. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      HD broadcast over the air is better quality than cable supplied HD.
      I haven't sampled DirecTV HD content but since they don't supply local HD content, what's the point? I can get local HD content over the air in perfect quality.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    82. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by sunwolf · · Score: 1

      Could you find a link backing that claim up? I can't find a definitive answer.

    83. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      You put the projector at the foot of the bed and have it send the image to the far wall.

    84. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by iamhassi · · Score: 1
      "The phrase is "couldn't care less", only idiots who've misheard say "could care less". Ignore them."

      Actually, the only idiots we should be ignoring are the ignorant fucks that don't google something to see if they're right before posting wrong information and looking like a dumbass:

      The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
      A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.

      3. Word Choice: New Uses, Common Confusion, and Constraints

      78. could care less / couldn't care less

      "I could care less! you might say sometime in disgust. You might just as easily have said I couldn't care less and meant the same thing! How can this be? When taken literally, the phrase I could care less means "I care more than I might," rather than "I don't care at all." But the beauty of sarcasm is that it can turn meanings on their head, thus allowing could care less to work as an equivalent for couldn't care less. "

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    85. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who watches broadcast over the air?

      My parents do. *Sigh* with Thanksgiving coming up, I'll be without cable for the weekend.

    86. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree on the "main tv" point. Nintendo is looking to attract non-gamers with the Revolution, remember? Where else but the main TV are said people going to hook it up?

      Having said that, I don't expect too many of those casual owners to have HDTV setups. Not until HDTVs are down to more reasonable prices, anyway.

    87. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      You put the projector at the foot of the bed and have it send the image to the far wall.

      You assume sir, that the walls of my room are clean.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    88. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by arglesnaf · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

      However, for the Great grandparent's posts purposes, it is argued that sports look better in progressive scan opposed to the flicker of interlacing. (See question two in the first link)

      http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449-6361600-1.html
      http://www.avsforum.com/hdtvfaq/HDTV-FAQ.htm

    89. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by WaterBreath · · Score: 1

      You can get HDTV CRTs. And the prices on those are comparitive with good NTSC CRTs.

      About 15 months ago I bought a Sony 27" flat-tube NTSC CRT with all the bells and whistles for about $500.

      Yesterday I saw an RCA 27" HD CRT for $500, and that was not a "sale price".

      Granted, we're comparing RCA to Sony. But the fact remains that you can get a "cheap" HDTV for not much more than a "good" NTSC TV. And the vast majority of people who own TVs don't really care that much if their TV is from RCA, as long it works.

      Our problem here at /. lies in the logical slide that we tech-geeks get into whereby when we think "HD", we immediately think "large-screen flat-panel". The truth is, an HDTV doesn't need to be big and it doesn't need to be flat-panel.

      To satsify the HD roadmap, all we need are small, cheap HD CRTs. They're already small, and those are getting close to cheap. I'd say 2 years is probably fairly reasonable to expect those prices to reach what NTSC CRTs have traditionally been.

    90. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by m50d · · Score: 1

      There's no way it was being said sarcastically, nor have I ever seen it used as such. The book's got it wrong.

      --
      I am trolling
    91. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article seems clear that the Revolution won't support high definition video. Supporting it via one connection (VGA) while not others (HDTV) would seem to be the worst solution since it would still require development time and money to make and test it on HD for a more limited return. So if it has VGA-out, it'll probably just be 480i (or some upscaled version of the same). However, it is true that the Xbox 360 will have a VGA output option. Perhaps this is what you were thinking of?

    92. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Golias · · Score: 1

      Because a main viewing room size HDTV costs $1000+ and a decent CRT costs $200-300.

      So get a CRT-based HDTV.

      A quick Froogle search reveals that you can get a nice Samsung 30" HDTV for about $600, built-in HD tuner and all. The same monitor without the tuner can be had for a mere $450. I'm willing to bet that a more aggressive search could reveal even better deals than that.

      So, why exactly would anybody want to waste $300 on a TV that will be completely obsolete in a couple years, when less than a grand buys a TV that will remain useful for the entire life of the tube?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    93. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Golias · · Score: 2, Funny

      I want a card/board game that will engage me in intelligent conversation...

      Jeez, why don't you just insist on a robot girl as a dating sim accessory* while you are at it?

      *Spare me the wiki link. Most /. folks already read Megatokyo.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    94. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by damiangerous · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone knows about HD CRTs. Seriously. I never see them, and no one seems that interested in selling them. When people think "old school" big screen they think projection. CRTs may in fact be a good option, but it seems a bit late to start that push now.

    95. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by robertjw · · Score: 1

      the vast majority of people who own TVs don't really care that much if their TV is from RCA, as long it works.

      Wouldn't the same reasoning go for HDTV and NTSC? Do you think the majority of people who own TVs care if it's HD or not? We just bought my father a new TV for his birthday. It was big - I think 36", NTSC and it was under $400. It wasn't a Sony, maybe an RCA or Toshiba, can't remember right now, but it was probably half the price or less than a comperable HD model. He has satellite, so the HD isn't an issue for him.

      Actually, what we need are relatively big (27"-36"), cheap HD CRTs, and much cheaper plasma/lcd/flat screen models. I still have a CRT for my PC because of the price issues.

    96. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Since my widescreen TV treats any 480p signal as widescreen, having 480p without widescreen support is pretty much worthless to me, because everything ends up stretched. So I often have to use 480i for GameCube games that nominally support 480p. With widescreen becoming more and more standard, all game systems should support widescreen, ideally by generating a 16:9 image or, if there is some good reason not to do that, by providing pillarboxing.

    97. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by jacen_sunstrider · · Score: 1

      Why god gave you sheets, kid. And thumbtacks. And cheetos, but don't pry about that one.

    98. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      but why would anybody even consider buying a non-HD TV for their main living room set these days?

      Why would anyone even consider buying a HD TV? Absolutely no-one has them, no-one broadcasts in it, what's the point? It's just more expense. Cheaper to get a digital box thing, or Sky digital.

    99. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Capt.+Caneyebus · · Score: 1

      HD tv sales are at 25% because of the good old FEMA checks. When I would go to the store after Hurricane Rita, all you saw were people snatching up the tv's, and all of them were HD. Good old FEMA.

      --
      -- Yes, I work for the government, and yes I am watching you.
    100. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      So you see, your clamoring for progressive scan and not caring about HD support doesn't really make any sense, as they are one in the same.

      Strictly speaking, they are not. There are a fair number of TVs out their that will display ED (progressive) but not HD. My TV is capable of HD, but I find that the perceptual jump in quality is much greater from SD to ED (and from narrow to widescreen) than from ED to HD. This is particularly the case for video games, where the limiting factor of perceived image quality tends to be the geometric detail of the models, not the resolution of the display.

    101. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by stalky14 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I think, for example, Bourne Supremecy would have been more
      watchable in a 60FPS medium. At 24FPS, the action scenes were just a
      blur.

    102. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered that people might buy one to PLAY GAMES on it, rather than think about the resolution?

      Nintendo has the only profitable console because they're more interested in making it enjoyable to play, not aiming it at anorak-wearing geeks who spend their entire lives tweaking FPSs to get higher framerates.

    103. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "At the implementation level, upgrading chips capable of 480p60 to 1080i60 is a comparatively small tweak, because most of the increased bandwidth goes into permitting faster pixel-to-pixel color changes. The actual scanrate (~33.75KHz) isn't a whole lot higher than 480p60's (~31.5kHz). Unfortunately, you can't fool Mother Nature... making the leap to 720p60 requires ~45KHz, because the real or metaphorical electron beam has a LOT more ground to cover in the same amount of time. Put another way, you can do some nasty hacks and claim that a given circuit is technically capable of "1080i", even if its REAL capabilities aren't much better than 480p because the horizontal detail will be all smeared and blurred due to inadequate bandwidth..."

      Why is the horizontal deflection always such huge deals with TVs (at least that's the picture I get from reading stuff on the net)? My ten-year old mid-grade monitor goes up to 110KHz.

    104. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      At the current rate, in 2009 when they realise there still isn't significant penetration, they'll roll back the date yet again. HDTV is one of those things thats pretty much dead in the water- very few people are willing to pay extra for it. That means it won't get penetration until it becomes a freebie, and then it will take years for old equipment to be replaced, and TVs last a long time (hell, the last time my parents replaced a TV, the old one was over 20 years old).

      So Nintendo is probably doing the right thing here. It helps keep the price of the console down, and more importantly the price of developing games down. Less work on this for the devs means more time to play with the controller mechanics.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    105. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by squarooticus · · Score: 1

      Looks like this happened to both of us. I fail to see how my message was trolling; probably just modded down by a bunch of kiss-ass Nintendo fanboys. Typical slashdot tyranny: nothing to see here. :P

      --
      [ home ]
    106. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      The DVD comment made sense last generation, when DVD players were still expensive and somewhat rare. I bought a PS2 first, because it gave me two for the price of one (and could play PS games, a generation I missed as college poor). Now? Everyone has a DVD player. Its not going to drive people to buy it over the competition.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    107. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by mink · · Score: 1

      "I think it's also a safe bet to assume that both Microsoft and Sony will have very playable and fun games that load quickly."

      Try playing the last couple of Burnout games, or GTA games (these are just 2 examples, there are many more). I don't see anything that says things will change.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    108. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong. I'm aware of the problems with interlacing and I would have preferred it had no interlaced standard had ever been implemented in the ATSC standard. It would have been much better had 720p at 60 Hz been adopted as the mainstream standard (considering the progress of displays in terms of capability and price) with 1080p at 60 Hz available to ATSC in the upgrade path. But, that bridge has already been burned behind us.

    109. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by mattcoz · · Score: 0

      Why would your TV do that? There's probably an option somewhere that you're overlooking.

    110. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      No, this is the case on a lot of widescreen TVs. It reflects the fact that standards were never developed as to which component--display or signal source--should be responsible for aspect ratio control on widescreen TVs. For this reason, many devices, including some DVD players and HD receivers and DVRs, provide aspect ratio control for TVs that presume that any ED or HD signal is 16:9.

    111. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by WaterBreath · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't the same reasoning go for HDTV and NTSC?

      Yes. And it does. For now. But the FCC has laid out a roadmap for ceasing NTSC broadcasts. Which means that sooner or later, NTSC TVs will not be sold any longer. The only real barrier to doing this right now is price. HDTVs are currently more expensive than CRTs. So if the cheap TVs suddenly disappeared a lot of people would be pretty angry.

      But the price difference is not as large as was implied by the poster that I was replying to. Small CRT HDTVs (and I don't consider 36" to be small) are not exorbitantly priced anymore, for a "lesser brand". And these small ones are the bulk of what the price-over-quality people are buying.

      Yes, they still are more expensive. But soon it will be to the point where retailers can just stop selling NTSC (before it becomes to devalued by HD), and the people who look at price before quality won't even notice anything has happened, because the prices will all stay just about the same. My post was just saying I don't think it will take more than a couple years for this to begin.

    112. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Golias · · Score: 1

      a huge minority huh? is that like a definite maybe?

      No, silly, it's like Star Jones.


      Damn. Diet Coke all over my keyboard.

      You deserve both of the "Funny" mod points the parent post got.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    113. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by WaterBreath · · Score: 1
      When people think "old school" big screen...

      Once again, I'm not talking about big screen. I'm talking about "normal" TVs that blue-collar families concerned about prices have in their living rooms. I'm thinking in the 19" to 29" range. They are the bulk of the market, and CRT is the only cost-efficient option here. HD at this size is still uncommon, but that's because it doesn't matter to the consumer at that level, the extra cost is still too high. But it's getting close, as I noted with my 27" example.

      Here is what I'm getting at...

      The people who are worried about price more than quality aren't paying attention to the fact that the thing is HD, just that it costs $200 more. But that difference is shrinking every day. And soon, retailers can just drop the NTSCs (before they become too devalued), and consumers will just keep on paying what they've always paid, but now they'll have HD instead of NTSC. This phase-out has to happen sometime, because NTSC broadcasts are going to stop eventually.

    114. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Golias · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're talking the difference between spending $150 for a standard and $1000 (minimum - All those sub $1000 sets have no tuner) for a set in the 27" range.

      Bzzzt!

      I Froogled it: Samsung has a 30" HDTV, with HD built-in tuner, for just over $600. There are 27" sets to be had for considerably less (in the $450 range.)

      Sure, you gotta go over $1000 if you insist on flat-panel or projectors, but that's true of SDTV systems too.

      (or would be, if anybody still made high-end SD sets anymore.)

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    115. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa you make a great point. My parents did the exact same thing and speaking AS a parent when my daughter is old enough to play games there is no way I'm going to let her play on the good tv if I'm watching it (which would be most of the time)..

    116. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Cost, and Joe Sixpack's stupidity.

      Bandwidth-wise, 1080i60 and 540p60 are indistinguishable. 540p60 requires ~33.75KHz, while 480p60 requires the same as plain VGA: ~31.5KHz. In a CRT, this basically means the manufacturer can push a few components to the bounds of their tolerance and get away with using a single flyback transformer to handle both 480p60 and 1080i60. Since 720p60 requires ~45KHz, there's no way to fake it... you need an upgrade to handle at least two radically different scanrates. Which leads us to the second problem...

      What do multisync monitors do when you radically switch display modes (say, between full-screen "DOS" and whatever resolution you normally run Windows at)? That's right... the screen turns black, a relay thunks, and the display comes back a second or two later. Unfortunately, Joe Sixpack isn't sophisticated enough to understand the engineering rationale behind the thunk-blink, and views it as a drawback. Especially when he's surfing between WWF Wrestling (in glorious 480i60) and ABC (in 720p60).

      So, the way HDTV manufacturers look at it, they can make a TV that natively supports 480i60, 480p60, 720p60, and 1080i60, charge $20 more to cover the $2 extra it cost them to natively support 720p60 in addition to the rest, and then deal with endless bitching from unsophisticated customers who are mad because their TV goes "thunk" and blacks out when they're channel-surfing. Or, they can omit 720p60, pocket the savings, and be mostly left alone because average ignorant consumers wouldn't know the difference between 720p60 and 1080i60 if their lives depended on it :-(

      The ONLY company I know of that makes TVs that NATIVELY support 480i60, 480p60, 720p60, AND 1080i60 is Monivision. Their CRT-based HDTVs are basically big multisync monitors with increased dot pitch (it's not practical to make a 35" CRT with .20mm dot pitch because it would be unacceptably dark due to the holes in the mask being so small, and would be gross overkill at that size and resolution anyway.) If I were going to buy a CRT-based HDTV, it would almost definitely be one of theirs for that precise reason.

      Of course, there's a good solution to the "thunk" problem when channel-surfing: leave the TV's display mode alone and hack-convert everything to that mode while surfing, THEN (optionally) pick the best native display mode once the user hits another button on the remote. That way, Joe Sixpack can enjoy thunk-free surfing, and WE can enjoy HDTV programs at their native scanrates :-)

      The good news is that natively-progressive TVs are slowly edging out natively-interlaced HDTVs. The arrival of 1080p HD-DVDs will abolish any remaining demand for 1080i60 TVs among high-end users, and the flood of affordable 720p60 DLP, LCoS, and Plasma sets will edge them out among mid-range users. The remaining ones, who'll end up buying sub-32" CRT sets for years to come, will basically have TVs that display 480p60, even if they're technically doing 1080i60. With screens that small, the added horizontal detail of anything higher than 480p is lost and smeared anyway, and the scanlines are close enough together that the difference between 1080 sharp interlaced scanlines and 540 blurred progressive scanlines is academic (it's one of the reasons why it's practically impossible to look at a 27" "HDTV" set and figure out whether it's displaying something as 480p or 1080i... with low-end CRT-based HDTVs, the shadow mask is coarser than the nominal vertical resolution, and adjacent scanlines between fields end up lighting up the same phosphor triads anyway).

    117. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Chr0nik · · Score: 0

      Not all of their titles will be the of the uber high res, shockingly immersive variety.

      Miss the point much?

      --


      ... what did you expect, something profound?
    118. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by robertjw · · Score: 1

      But the FCC has laid out a roadmap for ceasing NTSC broadcasts. Which means that sooner or later, NTSC TVs will not be sold any longer.

      I anticipate this will be longer rather than sooner. I don't know what the numbers are, but I would imagine that cable/satellite TV viewers are a significant portion, if not a majorty of US TV consumers. Their ability to use their current sets is not going to change. I don't believe either DirectTV or DishNetwork have the bandwidth yet to broadcast an HD signal for all channels, and I can't see the majority of people getting too worked up over HD until most of their programming is available in that format.

      mall CRT HDTVs (and I don't consider 36" to be small) are not exorbitantly priced anymore, for a "lesser brand". And these small ones are the bulk of what the price-over-quality people are buying.

      I will trust you in your statement concerning pricing small HD vs NTSC models, I haven't looke lately. OTOH, I don't agree that the price-over-quality people are only interested in small TVs. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but it doesn't make any sense to me at all. The vast majority of Americans are 'price-over-quality people' at least to an extent. You can see it everywhere. Where I live people pay for houses primarily on square footage, not on quality of construction, materials or anything else. The biggest house they can get for the money is what they will buy. Why would these same people think differently when purchasing a TV?

      But soon it will be to the point where retailers can just stop selling NTSC (before it becomes to devalued by HD), and the people who look at price before quality won't even notice anything has happened, because the prices will all stay just about the same. My post was just saying I don't think it will take more than a couple years for this to begin.

      Thing is, NTSC is already devalued by HD. On top of that CRT is devalued by LCD. Just a few years ago a 27" TV NTSC CRT was $500-$600. Now you can buy one for $150. When I was in high school having a big screen projection was a huge deal, now you can buy one for $800. Everyone wants a flat screen HD TV and CRT prices have fallen as a result. Eventually retailers will stop selling NTSC, but like I said before, HD isn't going to directly effect most cable and satellite customers, so there will be a market for NTSC models, as long as they are cheaper. Once HD models get competitive then NTSC will go away. Likewise, as soon as LCD is as cheap as CRT, CRT will dissappear. I don't know how soon this will happen, I don't see it happening in the next couple of years, but who would have thought DVDs would take over the market as quickly as they did.

    119. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by aichpvee · · Score: 1
      Actually, the only idiots we should be ignoring are the ignorant fucks that don't google something to see if they're right before posting wrong information and looking like a dumbass:

      I think the word you were looking for is "who". Which makes you a prime example of an "ignorant fuck" that should be ignored.

      Also, got to agree with the sibling on this one, the only idiots who say "could care less" are the ones misspeaking the phrase. That dictionary's got it wrong. If there ever was anyone who intentionally misused it they certainly aren't around now.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    120. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      1080i60 = 1920 x 1080 @ 60 interlaced fields/second (540 scanlines redrawn every 1/60th sec)

      720p60 = 1280 x 720 @ 60 progressive frames/second (all 720 scanlines redrawn every 1/60th sec)

      480p60 is kind of messy.

      There's the square-pixel variant, whose resolution is 640 x 480 @ 60 progressive frames/second.

      There's also the rectangular-pixel 16:9 variant, whose resolution is (704 | 720) x 480 @ 60 progressive frames/sec. Offhand, I don't remember which one is the official one.

      I think 480i60 has the same square-pixel (4:3) and rectangular-pixel (16:9) variants as 480p60.

    121. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by kubevubin · · Score: 1

      Perhaps some of us are planning on using computer monitors (which the Revolution will natively support, anyway)...

    122. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1


      Well, it's up to you if you want to play kickass games on some shitty 5" screen in your bed. Personally, I play games to have fun, not because I'm so addicted that I'm playing every night as I try to fall asleep. And it's not that expensive, nor does it require grand living rooms with vaulted ceilings. People play on projectors right in their dens or whatever. And with systems like the xbox 360 going for $400, and games going for $50 each, spending $500 on a decent projector doesn't sound that bad anymore. You better hope you can get some HD action on that thing (although it's not actually HD, at least it's higher than NTSC).

      And if you haven't actually tried playing on a properly set up system and projector, you have no idea what you are missing. I'd suggest checking it out.

    123. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by mink · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the load times.
      Miss the point much?

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    124. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      I personally prefer 1024p capable LCD widescreens, not plasmas, not CRTs.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    125. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much all Gamecube games worth playing support 480p if you have the component video cable. Certainly all first/second party games, and some of the better third party ones.

    126. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by WaterBreath · · Score: 1
      I don't know what the numbers are, but I would imagine that cable/satellite TV viewers are a significant portion, if not a majorty of US TV consumers.

      I hadn't considered this. I would definitely be surprised if it were really a high percentage. I guess I'm biased in this respect. I spent most of my life without cable. I have "basic cable" now only because I can't get over-the-air channels with an antenna in my apartment. I really have no desire to have an extended TV service of any sort at this point, even though I could fairly easily afford it. I suppose if indeed a high percentage of people have cable or satellite TV of some sort, then you're probably right about how long NTSC TVs will remain on the market. Though I suspect at some point not far off they will be so devalued that all but the poorest people will be willing to buy a small HD TV instead.

      I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but it doesn't make any sense to me at all.

      I suppose it's anecdotal. I just haven't met many people at all who make under $50k a year who have TV's any bigger than 31".

      I don't agree that the price-over-quality people are only interested in small TVs.

      They're not, directly. They're interested in affordable TVs. And small TVs are much more affordable than big ones.

      The vast majority of Americans are 'price-over-quality people' at least to an extent.

      I certainly wouldn't make that argument... But even within the context of America, there is still a large population of people who just don't have the funds to care that they don't have a big-screen TV.

      Where I live people pay for houses primarily on square footage, not on quality of construction, materials or anything else. The biggest house they can get for the money is what they will buy. Why would these same people think differently when purchasing a TV?

      Well, for one thing, having enough living space is a basic human need. A "small" TV is a minimal hindrance during only the fraction of time spent on entertainment. I don't see where this would be incompatible with what I'm saying. It's a question of priorities. The average American has a huge number of things to pay for that are more important than getting that extra few square feet of screen space.

    127. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      I find that I cannot play Resident Evil 4 in 480p mode, because it does not generate a true widescreen image without letterboxing. My TV treats any 480p signal as widescreen, so the image is horizontally stretched and looks ugly. I've been thinking about possibly getting rid of my GameCube copy of this game and buying the PS2 one for this reason.

    128. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, yes. Widescreen support is iffy. I have a natively 4:3 hidef TV, so I haven't noticed as much..

    129. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by 4season · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      I sold off my Xbox long ago, and my Sony PSP last week because when all was said and done, there just weren't many games I wanted to play on them.

      I'm pretty sure I'm buying a Revolution. I've already gotten a sampling of what they can do with motion sensing, thanks for Warioware Twisted! for the GBA and I like it.

    130. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by WalterODimm · · Score: 1

      Oh, right, load times aren't even remotely relative to content. ;P

    131. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - VGA non-interlaced = 640 x 480 progressive
        - 640 x 480 progressive qualifies as 480p @ 4:3 screen aspect ratio.
        - 480p is not HD. (HD qualification starts at 1080i, moving up to 720p, then 1080p, etc.)
        - GameCube supports 480p.
        - Revolution is fully backwards compatible with GameCube.
        - Early Nintendo announcements from several years ago stated that their next-generation console would support computer monitors natively.

      So yes, Revolution can have true VGA out and Reggie Fils-Aime can say that Revolution doesn't support HD video at the same time.

      Personally, I own several 4:3 CRT HDTVs (35" and 32") and large-ish 4:3 VGA CRT flat-screen monitors in our home, and can't wait for Nintendo Revolution. It's the only next-gen console I'm interested in at this point, and the only one that I'm guaranteed to purchase.

    132. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by robertjw · · Score: 1

      I spent most of my life without cable. I have "basic cable" now only because I can't get over-the-air channels with an antenna in my apartment.

      I may be biased as well. Where I live we are about 50 miles from the nearest network broadcast, so the signal is sucky. Cable or satellite is about the only way to get an acceptable signal, so everyone pays for TV. Perhaps if you live closer to the transmitters the signal is good enough that you don't need cable. I would say it's a fair bet that there is a significant market share that has cable/sat from the fact that ABC/Disney is going to move Monday Night Football, and American institution for nearly 30 years, to ESPN - a channel that requires cable/sat.

      Well, for one thing, having enough living space is a basic human need.

      The example I brought up wasn't about a basic human need. What's happening here is people are buying 3,500 square foot houses that are crap rather than buying the 2,500 square foot house that's well built. Why, because it's bigger and bigger is better. A 2,500 square foot house is adequate for most families of four or less.

      The average American has a huge number of things to pay for that are more important than getting that extra few square feet of screen space.

      The average American has a credit card. We are addicted to Entertainment. I've known plenty of people that didn't have a decent couch to sit on but had the biggest TV and loudest stereo money could buy. We all have plenty of things to pay for, but that doesn't mean we don't get the luxury items we want.

    133. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by kaptron · · Score: 1

      There is definitely a discernable difference between 24 FPS (film) and 30 FPS (video). Have you ever noticed a TV show that is shot in 24 FPS to look more "movie-like"? Any reality show / game show / etc that is shot on video has a different look to it, you can tell just by watching it that it was shot on video rather than film.

      Not sure exactly about the scientific basis behind why 24 FPS looks cinematic and 30 FPS immediately looks like it was shot on home video... this link has some interesting info about FPS.

    134. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Wikipedia · · Score: 0

      Right, because who needs good eyesight?

      --
      P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
    135. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by damiangerous · · Score: 1
      I hadn't considered this. I would definitely be surprised if it were really a high percentage.

      Coming back into this late, sorry. Anyway it's about 80% of households in the US, and it's only increasing.

    136. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      And with systems like the xbox 360 going for $400, and games going for $50 each, spending $500 on a decent projector doesn't sound that bad anymore.

      Actually, that sounds rather ludacrious in the face of a $150 22" CRT television I can play with the lights on, and without taking the shelves off my wall.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    137. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I double checked your Froogling. You're wrong.

      $661.49 at "Tech for Less" was the cheapest price. (Ok, that's "just over $600" by some definition I suppose), but! It's open box with "minor cosmetic blemishes".

      The chepest new-in-box version of that model from a reputable vendor was from Sears for $850. Still a far cry from $150.

    138. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by Golias · · Score: 1

      Still well below your "$1000 - minimum", and three inches bigger than the 27" screen you set as your benchmark.

      These sets have been getting cheaper very quickly, and will continue to do so. Within another couple years, pretty much all big CRT's will probably be HD sets.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    139. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by mink · · Score: 1

      If you spend nearly as much time on loads or have time to go make a meal, IMO that takes away from the fun of the content. GTA:SA isn't bad once it's loaded, but even using a HDD Loader I want it to start up faster. Burnout games have had some really bad load times and the HDD loader makes it bearable. With the changes in Burnout Revenge you almost do spend as much time on screens outside the races/crashes then you do playing them.

      Plenty of games use graphics or other tricks to try to hide the load times. Take some recent survival horror games. The game would be so much better more immersive if they could somehow eliminate the 10-45 second (sometimes longer, but I haven't
      timed them with a watch)load screen.

      Maybe you like them. Maybe you believe that they are no longer an issue. I went out and got an HDD and the loader software, because some of the games I enjoy most on the PS2 had annoying load times. I don't see any evidence that there has been a great improvement in this and nothing about the design of the PS3 tells me things will change. I hope for it to change or be eliminated as an issue int he future though.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    140. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by iamhassi · · Score: 1
      "That dictionary's got it wrong."

      yeah, you two are right and all these dictionary's are wrong... maybe you two should get together and write your own reference books.

      damn trolls

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    141. Re:No HD support? Wake up... by king-manic · · Score: 1

      If you're going to play the stereotype game...

      If you ask some average Joe which of two TVs is "Better," he's going to point to the bigger one, not the one with the high def picture. If he's got $1000 to spend on a TV, which do you think he'll get? The 27" HD tube, the 36" Trinitron SD model, or the 45" SD rear projection? I bet money that nine times out of ten the answer is "The biggest one that will fit in the available space, HD or otherwise."

      Given the uncertain state of copy protection legislation, you'd be stupid to buy an HD set right now anyway. All the early adopters that bought TVs before HDCP now have a 2 year old, $10,000 obsolete piece of junk. If new broadcast flag legislation gets passed, that could happen again.


      There is a very clear difference in picture quality when using a DVD player/DVI or S video cables and a HD-TV vs a conevtional TV. Of sets of the same size, the average joe will pick the HD-TV. For a luxury item (that is what TV's are) many people, including my parents and relatives, will spend more to get better perceaved quality.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  2. Smart Move by fistfullast33l · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nintendo, of the three, targets children better than any other of the big three console developers. The average parent doesn't want to spend $400 to keep their child happy (nevermind that the odds that the child will use the majority space of the harddrive on the xbox360 is slim to none). They did it with the DS (unintentionally?) and it's helped them as well. It's now a semi-proven model of competition for them that works.

    1. Re:Smart Move by GweeDo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The DS is for kids? Man, I thought it was for people that wanted to play fun games. Looks like I should tell all my 20+ friends to get rid of their kiddie toy along with me!

      Seriously though, when will this "Nintendo is the kidie!" sentiment just die. Nintendo makes games that are fun for ALL age groups. They also have third party support if you just have to have a game with a big "M" on it (Resident Evil 4 = one of the best games ever).

      Personally, I can't wait to play my kiddie Mario Kart DS and Animal Crossing online. Go back to watching Spider Man 2 on your UMD while I play some games.

    2. Re:Smart Move by xtracto · · Score: 1

      he average parent doesn't want to spend $400 to keep their child happy

      Yup, but, what will make your child happy? a Revolution, a 360 or a PS3? These days I think it all depends on marketing as in what is everyone else playing.

      So, what good would it be for parents to buy the Revolution to their sons, if they will just throw it in the corner and continue asking for that costly 360 thingy?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Smart Move by bpd1069 · · Score: 1

      hehe works for me

      --
      --
    4. Re:Smart Move by mlk · · Score: 1

      Err, I must be out of the loop, how do you play games over the net? Do you have to get your computer to act as a host somehome.

      Not to sound like a big kid but linkypoos please

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    5. Re:Smart Move by GweeDo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nintendo WiFi Homepage
      WiTendoFi.com

      That should give you want you need. The DS uses 802.11 to access the net and play. Just need a Access Point you can use.

    6. Re:Smart Move by piggy · · Score: 1

      (There's a link in the GP -- the one for Mario Kart and Animal Crossing)

      The DS has built in Wi-fi. Assuming you're in range of either another DS (for an ad-hoc network) or a base station, you can play network capable games. Most multiplayer DS games even allow multiple DSes to play off of one copy of the game. (I'd like to say all, since I have yet to see one that doesn't, but I certainly haven't seen every DS game.) I think that games have to be specifically enabled to take advantage of anything other than the local ad-hoc network.

    7. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You apparently didn't play Resident Evil 4.
      There aren't Fixed Camera Angles... which proves it right off the bat you poseur.

      Yes. Go back to playing your -rehash- of GTA, and play GREAT emulated nintendo-based games.
      You already proved you don't know what you're talking about anyway.

    8. Re:Smart Move by Bobsledboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The DS does use stand Wifi. It just requires that you include the TCP/IP stack in your game.

    9. Re:Smart Move by Bobsledboy · · Score: 1

      Shit, I meant standard. Stupid add.

        Slow Down Cowboy!

    10. Re:Smart Move by damiangerous · · Score: 1
      You're not serious, are you? Fixed camera angles, linear gameplay, predictable action sequences .. this is what you consider the 'best game ever'?

      Well, he did say one of the best games ever, not the best. Considering that it got 100% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes with an average score of 9.5 it's pretty hard to argue with that statement.

    11. Re:Smart Move by Max_Abernethy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Even if Nintendo platforms did only have brightly-colored family friendly games, it would still be a stupid argument. Games like, say, Halo aren't more "mature," they're more violent. I know the ESRB sticks an "M" on them, but it pretty obviously doesn't mean you're an older or more sophisticated person if you play them. I don't know when the two terms got equated, but it is a little bit irritating when people who just like violent games consider their pastime superior. Obviously, if I'm not shooting something, I'm engaging in some sort of absurd, childish activity. When you start spending your time sipping tea and reading classics instead of yelling "faggot" at strangers over the internet while attempting to obtain their flag, you can talk down to me.

    12. Re:Smart Move by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're not serious, are you? Fixed camera angles, linear gameplay, predictable action sequences .. this is what you consider the 'best game ever'? I think we can find a few more candidates than that to fill the spot of 'best game ever'.

      Could you make it any more obvious that you haven't actually played the game?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Evil_4

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Resident+Evil +4+fixed+camera&btnG=Google+Search

      Better luck with your next troll.

    13. Re:Smart Move by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 1
      "If I'm really bored, there's always the PSP dev kit, where I can write my own software to take advantage of the wifi which uses a standard protocol instead of something crippled. Thanks, actually, I will go back to my PSP :)"
      Which Sony is going to constantly fight with new firmware to disable running your homebrew apps. I'm not saying that the PSP isn't a nice system but you are being dishonest by highlighting all of Nintendo's faults and downplaying Sony's.

      And your opinion of RE4 is in the minority. This is an entertainment medium so ultimately, your opinion is what matters to you, but the majority of people who have spoken up about RE4 have had very positive things to say about it. http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/cube/res identevil4 A 96 rating on metacritic is nothing to scoff at.

    14. Re:Smart Move by Hitto · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow. A Sony fanboi bashing a Resident Evil game?
      THE END IS NIGH!

      By the way, mod the parent 50% troll, 50% inflammatory : Obviously he hasn't played RE4, he has misquoted his parent, and ends with an absurd equation : it's homebrew OR GTA, NOT homebrew AND GTA.

      How long can you play GTA on your PSP, by the way? Thirty minutes? :D
      (yes, yes, I know, it's really a solid two hours.)

    15. Re:Smart Move by MrRogers2 · · Score: 1

      This is specifically about Mario Kart DS, but the PA forums have a great thread with all sorts of info about the game and DS wireless here.

      --
      MrRogers(2)
    16. Re:Smart Move by fistfullast33l · · Score: 4, Informative
      The DS is for kids?

      I didn't actually say that Nintendo was only for kids, I said it targeted children better than the others. I think there's a big difference between the two.

    17. Re:Smart Move by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Have fun with your short battery life, lack of games, lack of space, and loss of over $250. :)

      PSP sucks, but what sucks worse are its fanboys, who try DESPERATELY to justify their purchase of that dwindling piece of crap (DS has outsold it big time).

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    18. Re:Smart Move by kollivier · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The DS is for kids?

      Uhm, that's not what the parent poster was saying. He said that it targets children better than other consoles, which is absolutely true. Many kid-friendly games are Gamecube/GBA/DS exclusives. Some developers develop for, or port to, the PS2 but these days but for the most part the PS2 and XBox are filled with sports and FPS games. Nintendo's systems have a larger variety of games that don't need to be rated "M", and thus, I think it's fair to say that Nintendo is more careful to make games that are kid-friendly.

      I do agree with you that sometimes people do call Nintendo games/systems "for kids", but parent poster did not say that.

    19. Re:Smart Move by mlk · · Score: 1

      Woot, ta.

      Rar for pay rises.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    20. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kiddie games?

      Resident evil 4 is the highest rated game on gamespot.com and this was before the PS2 version came out.

      And for all those fanboys out there that are awaiting for the revolution.

      " Jim Merrick, the VP of marketing of Nintendo Europe, confirmed that Konami's Hideo Kojima is working on a new Revolution game title"

      -the-magicbox.com

      Oh deary.

    21. Re:Smart Move by somersault · · Score: 1

      because maybe they will buy some decent games that use the funky controller, and their sons, who are hopefully not total morons, will enjoy what they have. I've never seen the attraction of X-Boxs.. Halo sounded cool when I originally read about it coming out for Mac, but having tried Halo 2 on a friend's PC in single and multiplayer modes, and Halo 1 on the PC, it is pretty crap compared to something like Half-Life 2.. It's not the console that's going to make someone happy, it's the games that are on it. We've got a PS2 at home but still play a lot of PS1 games.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    22. Re:Smart Move by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      And if I'm feeling a need for retro, I can always install emulators for NES, SNES, GB, GBA, mame, etc.

      How about trying to play any of those new games that force a firmware upgrade? Or are you saying that the portable console you bought for $250 can only play the limited list of titles that have been released in the first month?

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    23. Re:Smart Move by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      Yup, but, what will make your child happy? a Revolution, a 360 or a PS3?

      How about good parenting? Maybe a day of cross-country skiing? How about building a fort in the snow with him? Maybe a snowball fight even...

      If your kid needs either a Revolution, a 360 or a PS3 in order to be happy, then you failed miserably in your job as a parent.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    24. Re:Smart Move by ect5150 · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, when will this "Nintendo is the kidie!" sentiment just die.

      It will end when the ratio of M rated games increases compared to the rest of the game base. Look at ratio of higher rated games in the XBox and PS2 bins compared to Nintendo's.

      I don't think anyone will argue that the games aren't fun, most of them are... but look at the games you mentioned. Mario Kart and Animal Crossing. Most games cranked out by N _actually do_ look like they belong beside a Sesame Street show. Most adults don't really watch Barney and Sesame Street. So, one look at the game gives the perception of its target audience, regardless if it is actually fun to play.

      Fun to play doesn't mean it has to look cartoon-ey all the time.

      --
      I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
    25. Re:Smart Move by OSS_ilation · · Score: 1

      I agree. I don't think a room full of college age kids playing Super Smash Bros. is "kiddie" at all. Nintendo is, and has been, a leader in innovation for video games. That will continue into the next gen regardless of what the small minded minority is spewing forth. You know what else I haven't heard lately? The "buzz" that was supposed to be generated following the release of PSP's "killer app" GTA:LCS. Seems to me that it was a good game, just not good enough to unshackle the PSP's image as a mediocre media device.

    26. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personal like these lower prices. The new consoles (360,PS3) cost way too much!!!

    27. Re:Smart Move by Babbster · · Score: 1

      That's pretty fucking deep. So, if a parents give their child an Xbox 360 they're shallow parental failures? Kids are kids and they like stuff. They've liked stuff since long before marketing campaigns. And, guess what? A parent can buy their kids a $400 toy and still be able to go play in the snow with them, though they might save themselves the sniffles if they play with them on a game console...

    28. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, a parent can buy a console for their kid, and do other things with that kid too. But if the kid is going to be miserable unless they get one specific thing, then I do think that parent has failed.

    29. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PSP?? I'll stick to my GP2X, thanks

    30. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if I just call people who "sip" tea and read "the classics" faggot? What then?

      This is going to be modded down troll and flaimbait... but I don't much care. Sipping tea and reading old books doesn't make you any smarter than the average gamer.

    31. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he succeded quiet well in his troll :)

    32. Re:Smart Move by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1

      The average gamer's intelligence aside, I would think that the velocity, at which the point passed you, would be somewhat indicative of your intelligence.

    33. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but it will keep them off the internet while they do it.

    34. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to brag a little, the company I work for made the nintendowifi site

    35. Re:Smart Move by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      Cool, I have been using some of the XML files they import into their flash applets to track stats on my site. WiTendoFi.com Know of any good XML files with fun stats in them???

    36. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't actually work on the project. Our company is fairly large, so it is very likely the people who actually made it were in Seattle, while I am in New York.

    37. Re:Smart Move by SamSim · · Score: 1
      Games like, say, Halo aren't more "mature," they're more violent.

      Quite right. Consider Ikaruga and Super Monkey Ball; the former just has lots of ships exploding, the latter is monkeys in balls. But both of these are very much adult games. Why? Because they're too hard for kids.

    38. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Seriously though, when will this "Nintendo is the kidie!" sentiment just die. "

      When will the 'everything that is kiddie is shit' sentiment just die. If people are so close minded that they refuse anything that looks 'kiddie' then they don't deserve the fun of nintendo. You don't have to be a kid to enjoy products targetting kids you know.

  3. You get what you pay for, right? by ChrisF79 · · Score: 3, Informative

    When you look at the specs of the PS3 or Xbox 360, it appears to me that your money is getting you a better system. With the Revolution not supporting high-definition, it should be discounted. I'm sure it will be better than the gamecube, but it just seems odd to me that they wouldn't support HD. When I bought my television last year, suddenly my PS2 got a lot fewer hours on it. The Xbox just looked so nice. And after all, I paid enough money for the TV that I want to see it the way it is intended.

    --
    Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
    1. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Key word: "I paid"
      Maybe the Revo is discounted for you, but most people don't have an HDTV. You're like, one in a thousand. All the people all I know that even *want* to have an HDTV equals one, and I've got my connections.

    2. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by hal2814 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "When you look at the specs of the PS3 or Xbox 360, it appears to me that your money is getting you a better system."

      What's funny is that I remember two of my friends using the same argument to buy a Saturn over the Playstation at launch time. Better hardware != better system. (Personally, I think the Saturn was a better system but I'm obviously in the minority.)

      Also, while HD sounds nice, the majority of Americans aren't onboard yet. Nintendo is merely betting that HD won't become a big factor over the course of this console's lifespan (which will probably be 4-6 based on typcial console lifespans). I don't think that's a terrible bet given HD's slow adoption rate thus far.

    3. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Jackdaw+Rookery · · Score: 0

      HD in this article meant Hard Disc, not Hi-Definition.

      Also Hi-Def is only a big deal to the really tiny few that own a Hi-Def TV. In five years time, the next console cycle, the majority of people will still not have a Hi-Def TV but the percentage that do will be large enough for all consoles to have to support it.

      Just not yet. It's no big deal, get over it.

    4. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It all depends on what you want. Do you want the same old games we've been getting for years now, updated with flashy graphics? Or do you want a new gameplay experience with an innovative remote allowing for a unique experience?

      If the control is used well, and not used as a gimmick, then I can see the Revolution being a hell of a lot better then PS3 and Xbox 360. But it has to be used to good effect. Of course, those that will lap up whatever "XXX 200X" gamecompanies spew out, will of course like their flashy graphics, because for them that's one of the few ways a game can improve in.

      I'm just hoping the Revolution gets a good healthy library from a large range of developers, and isn't inundated with gimmicky games and Mario Bros XX.

    5. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      Gameplay is the thing though. I don't care about incremental improvements in graphics

      Disclaimer: I will be getting all three next gen systems (unless Sony pulls that "no used game" crap, or the system requires internet access)

    6. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      Nintendo admits that revolution's graphics will not be as good as ps3 or xbox

      So, what's the deal. Worse technology, better price. I don't see why people wouldn't buy it it the games are good...

    7. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by boa13 · · Score: 1

      HD in this article meant Hard Disc, not Hi-Definition.

      You meant the reverse, or you didn't read the article.

    8. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Did you read the article? Seriously? I can understand if you didn't read it and then posted anyways, I do it all the time... but to correct someone else about the article when it seems pretty clear you didn't read it is a bit much. This is unedited at all, FTFA:

      One thing's for sure: The Revolution will not support high definition video, a marked divergence from the path Microsoft (Research) and Sony (Research) are taking. And it's not something the company is re-thinking, despite the fervent hopes of some hardcore gaming fans.

      Casual and non-gamers, the company feels, are less interested in flashy graphics than enjoyable games. And the large files that go hand in hand with high definition video result in "almost interminably long" load times for games, said Fils-Aime, something that would also be detrimental to a mainstream audience.

      "What we'll offer in terms of gameplay and approachability will more than make up for the lack of HD," he said.

      They are talking about HiDef. The current norm seems to be that HD=HiDef, HDD=Hard Disc Drive. The Revolution won't have either, but that won't keep me from buying one. If it's $200 at launch, I'll grab one, otherwise I will wait for the first price drop or used sales to get below $200.

      That's pretty beside the point, however. I suspect that while the "majority of people" will not have HD in 5 years, the majority of people buying a new video console WILL. I still don't think it is a mistake, though. I have an HDTV (a modest 30" widescreen CRT). At full 1080i it looks spectacular. At 480p widescreen (ie DVD) it looks REALLY GOOD. If Nintendo supports widescreen/anamorphic 480p (the GC does, so it's not that far fetched) and either component or full digital outputs it will look very nice. For $100 cheaper system and $10 cheaper games, plus having spare GPU cycles to render lighting, mapping, whatever effect is the new hotness, it'll DAMN good.

    9. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      But the PS2 sold the most units by a long shot for the last generation. And it was the least technologically advanced. The technical abilities of a system have nothing to do with how well it will sell.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by mausmalone · · Score: 5, Insightful
      When you look at the specs of the PS3 or Xbox 360, it appears to me that your money is getting you a better system. With the Revolution not supporting high-definition, it should be discounted.
      While I'll agree with out that the non-support for HDTV should lead to a lower cost (and almost certainly does), I would like to point out that:
      • There are no specs release for the Revolution at all (outside of some extremely unsubstantiated rumors), and the PS3 ones are still a little vague (as is its price point)
      • Outside of Sony and Nintendo, almost nobody has gotten to play a real PS3 or Revolution game yet, so it is a little hasty to make qualitative judgements (i.e. "better system") until you actually have a chance to play with them a little.
      • It's definitely too early to say which gives you the most bang for your buck, since we don't know what "bang" the Revolution will give you, nor how much "buck" the PS3 will cost.
      I don't want anyone to think I'm evangelizing for anyone... but calling systems "better" or "worse" based on rumors are how flame wars get started. Even if you're not saying it in a mean way, there's someone out there who will take it personally.
      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    11. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Nintendo admits that revolution's graphics will not be as good as ps3 or xbox"

      Eh? I recall no such thing. I recall Iwata saying that Revolution's graphics will be indistinguishable from Xbox 360 or PS3. I recall spec sheets clearly stating support for 480p. I recall Iwata saying that Revolution could be hooked up to a computer monitor. At no time do I recall him saying that Revolution's graphics won't be as good. He just said that Revolution's focus is not on graphics, but on gameplay.

    12. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by AsnFkr · · Score: 1

      I'm just hoping the Revolution gets a good healthy library from a large range of developers, and isn't inundated with gimmicky games and Mario Bros XX.

      To be honest, I'm looking forward to Mario Brothers XXX.

    13. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by shorgs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nintendo is obviously foolish. Their biggest selling points to me was that you would be able to play their entire back catalog. Now I don't know. I can't imagine playing Mario 3 without my HD hardware.

    14. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Rayonic · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm just hoping the Revolution gets a good healthy library from a large range of developers, and isn't inundated with gimmicky games and Mario Bros XX.

      Don't be ridiculous. As history has shown us, it'll be "Super Mario XX"
      Also:
      Mario Kart XX
      Metroid XX
      F-Zero XX
      and who could forget,
      Mario [sportname]
    15. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by digidave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you got it. Even buying a real HDTV set is hard given the current state of labelling everything HDTV even if it doesn't support HD in native resolution and downsamples everything. Tons of EDTVs are labelled HDTV. Many don't have 16:9 screen resolutions so you get stretched pictures or black bars on both 4:3 and 16:9 video.

      Screw 'em. I'll get an HDTV when they sort out this crap. I hope most everybody else feels the same way. I'll also buy a Revolution and it'll look great on my 32" Wega.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    16. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by SpasticThinker · · Score: 1

      Haha, if you say that ANYTHING is better than anything else it'll be likely to start a flame war...regardless of supporting evidence.

      But I replied to point out that your last sentence is an amazing example of common sense that isn't so common. Excellent thought.

    17. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      How many Xbox games actually support HD resolution? 4? 5? Sure, the Xbox is gonna have better graphics than PS2 no matter what, but let's not overstate the case.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    18. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I would have assumed HDTV is commonplace in Japan, is that wrong or is Sony not selling the PS3 at home?

    19. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      the majority of people buying a new video console WILL [have an HDTV].

      However, Nintendo is trying to draw in the ones who don't (the non-hardcore gamers), instead of catering to the ones who do. And it's easier to do that when the system is cheaper because they excluded a feature that most of their intended audience can't use.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    20. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Zeussy · · Score: 1

      Most people here, are PC gamers as well, most good/great games that come out on the consoles come out on the pc (well the ones i want to play anyway) So i see no loss in not getting an xbox2pi or a ps3.

      The Revolution is a different matter. I can't play Nintendo games, with that controller on my pc,and then there is the inovative and orignal nintendo behind it, driving it with all its might. It won't be a gimic. I think there will be some damn cool, pickup and play fun games. And thats what the market is missing, the pickup and play fun games of old.

      The same thing i belive is true of the psp and the DS. I could play PS2 games will im out, orr play something totally different on the DS. So i choose the DS.

    21. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Market Share isn't everything

      Nintendo has never been interested in filling every gaming niche out there, just simply niches that they can profit in.

      Nintendo would rather sell 10 million consoles and make a profit on each one than sell 100 million and lose money on them.

    22. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Maybe the parent should, oh, I don't know... see what the games are like first?

      Discounting a system just because it won't support the latest and greatest technology seems extremely short-sighted to me. There's more to a system than "OMG teh shiny grafix0rz!" - that being the games that you actually play on it. A game with realistic 3-D, excellent physics, etc. is crap if it doesn't have good gameplay. A game with none of the above *but* good gameplay is still considered a good game. I'l llet you decide which you really want.

      --
      Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    23. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by bsytko · · Score: 1

      FYI, Nintendo removed the digital A/V out in May 2004 from all Gamecube's to cut costs. See this.

    24. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was at an Xbox360 prerelease party the other day, and I can assure you the HD output did not help it. The resolution was so high, that the games had to disable anti-aliasing to get decent fillrate (and partly because the 360 does not have enough video-RAM for an AA framebuffer -- you have to render the scene several times per frame), and a non anti-aliased game in 1920x1080 does not look much better than an anti-aliased game in 720x576.

    25. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's definitely too early to say which gives you the most bang for your buck, since we don't know what "bang" the Revolution will give you, nor how much "buck" the PS3 will cost.

      Well, look. I really hope this doesn't sound flamebaity, but look at the XBox 360 launch.

      One racing game. (PGR3)
      One generic first person shoot-em-up by a Nintendo second party past their prime-- which was developed for XBox, then was ported this year. (PDZ)
      One generic fantasy game by a Nintendo second party past their prime-- which was developed for XBox, then was ported this year. (Kameo)

      and... everything else is either multiplatform (Gun, Madden), a PC game (Condemned), delayed (DOA4), or all of these (Oblivion).

      I think I can make at least some assumptions about systems doing better, because I don't see how Nintendo and Sony could possibly do any worse.

    26. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are talking about HiDef. The current norm seems to be that HD=HiDef, HDD=Hard Disc Drive. The Revolution won't have either...

      No Hard Drive, sure, but it will have 512 MB of flash memory built in. Just something to keep in mind.

    27. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      Exactly. Why would I want to play Blaster Master in standard def? It would look all blocky. XP

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    28. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      I just played Blaster Master last night on my HDTV set using a Yobo Famicom clone. It looked fine.

    29. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by |/|/||| · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I forgot the </sarcasm> tag.  Obviously it doesn't matter what kind of TV you have when you play Blaster Master.</obvious>

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    30. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      It strikes me as funny how Slashdot whines when computer game developers concentrate on graphics rather than gameplay.

      Now Nintendo comes along and concentrates on gameplay, and Slashdot whines about the graphics. Make your minds up!

      Outside of a very small segment of people in America and Japan, the rest of the world doesn't have and doesn't care about HDTV. Most people have probably never heard of it.

    31. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      here's the deal.

      supporting HD doesn't mean the system will have good graphics, supporting HD means the system has to fill a shitload more pixels for each frame and so for any frame too complicated to draw perfectly (which happens more with more pixels) things don't render quite right, in order to combat this the actual detail and complexity of both models and effects is lowered.

      in order to compensate for this one of two things has to happen in order to keap the same detail level going from SD to HD, either you spend more money on rendering hardware or you simplify the details. in the end HD will give more impressive screenshots because everything comes in at higher res but playing the game you can't see much difference.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    32. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by mink · · Score: 1

      Japan used a system known as MUSE(Multiple Sub-Nyquist Encoding) HI-Vision, I don't know if that is still the HI-Def standard there now.

      The following is from alt.video.laserdisk and was posted by "Ivar".

      "Hi-Vision production/studio format is fairly close to the SMPTE 240E standard.

        Total lines pr. frame: 1125
      Active lines pr. frame: 1035
                                  Scanning: 2:1 interlaced
                          Aspect ratio: 16:9 ( academy 1:1.33 material will have black
                                                      vertical bars )
                              Field rate: 60Hz ( not 59.94Hz )

      Typically stored as color differential component YPbPr. If analogue storage,
      all components will have 30MHz bandwidth, not just the luma component. If
      digital storage is used the chroma component are normally subsampled so the
      chroma bandwidth is reduced to 15MHz because of storage limitation.

      DIGITAL STORAGE INFORMATION Y CHANNEL

                    Total pixels pr line: 2200
      Total active pixels pr line: 1920
                            Pixel clock rate: 74.25MHz
      The transfer function ( gamma ) is slightly different to standard resolution,
      and so are the chromatic references of the primaries ( the color triangle ).
      Which of cause causes the formula for Y, Cb and Cr to be slightly different
      from YUV.

      MUSE CODEC

      Luma bandwidth; in stationary portions of the picture 22MHz; in moving
      portions of the picture 16MHz. The color differential signals have 7.2MHz
      bandwidth for the stationary part and 4MHz for the moving portions. Yes, MUSE
      is a component differential format, not a composite format. In pixel terms
      the stationary portion of the picture roughly equals 1440 x 1035. The
      resulting bandwidth of the decoded signal is dependent on the encoder and the
      decoder. There have been many updates both to the encoder and the decoder,
      especially the encoder.

      The non active lines are used for transferring sound and other data like
      motion vectors. There are two possible sound systems A and B. A is four
      independent channel sound and B is two channel sound (often prologic encoded).
      In addition nearly all A encoded movies also have a standard EFM track,
      normally prologic encoded."

      Also some info from n$a's web site about MUSE (mostly in relation to LD players)

      "Decoders read the Muse-out signal from the Hi-Vision LD player and export it in 1125i theoretical (1080i actual) RGB, RGB+HV or YPbPr. AFAIK, all 1080i HDTV sets on sale in Americas can display this signal."

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    33. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by DCstewieG · · Score: 1

      Hehe...with HD you could almost (completely?) fit a whole Mario level on one screen with no scrolling. Sure Mario would be about half an inch tall but hey! :-D

    34. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh I love that game..

    35. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Triple+Click · · Score: 1

      And soon to come: Final Fantasy XX - The Search for More Outfits.

    36. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to see Mario Rugby.

    37. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Blaaguuu · · Score: 1

      You have to look at Nintendo's overall strategy here... One of their big goals with the revolution is to attract new gamers... people who havent been abel tto get interested in video games because, possibly because the controls are too complicated. Now do you think they are going to get these people by telling them "oh, and the resolution is higher than the otehr consoles you never played before", or by saying "look, its really inexpensive, too! what are you waiting for?"... im guessing that adding HD support to the Rev would make it cost a bit more. I dont have an HD TV yet, and i proabbyl wont have one for some time... so i have absolutely no interest in getting one in the near future. And afaik, the majority of americans do not have an HD TV yet. And if i were to buy an Xbox 360 for its HD support, and buy a new HD TV to get the better resolution... i would much rather spend the money upgrading my computer and get 1600x1200 resolution.

      --
      My hand touched her hand. Her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I got some boob! Algebra is awesome!
    38. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Zelda XXX.

    39. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by Spaceman+Spiff+II · · Score: 1

      On a Standard Definition TV was the stipulation, I believe.

      --
      I understand that life's not fair, just why is it never unfair in my favor?
    40. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by justchris · · Score: 1

      Hehehehe, I would actually play that if that were the subtitle. That's most of the fun in your average MMORPG anyway.

      --
      just some guy
    41. Re:You get what you pay for, right? by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Is HDTV actually common in the states? I don't know about europe, but here in .au I don't know anybody who owns or has any intentions of buying in the next 2 years a HDTV.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  4. with online they are set by GweeDo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Lower price, innovative controller, solid graphics, and great online. Looks like the Revolution is setting itself up to be great.

  5. Does console price really matter that much? by DilbertLand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering the $50+ price tag of new games, is the console price really that important?

    1. Re:Does console price really matter that much? by mlk · · Score: 1

      For Nintendos target, yes, for "the kids xmas pressy", yes, for Joe Gamer, no.

      Will Nintendos target actually buy into it. I don't think so. "None gamers" need to be introduced to games, and while when introduced, they enjoy and become "mild" gamers (as has happened with my g/f after I bought a DS & Wareware: Touched), they still don't buy games.

      I think this will become something poor kids, and really hard-core gamers have.

      Also, DS games are normally 10-20 pounds cheaper than PSP counterparts.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    2. Re:Does console price really matter that much? by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 2, Interesting

      with nintendo yes... if you grab a gamecube, and 2 or 3 games youre set. super monkey ball, mario kart, even mario all have hundreds of hours of gameplay in them, not tens like most games released predominantly for other consoles. so if the arguement is revolution + 3 games against xbox 360 + 5 games, it becomes even more of a factor. and as to the kids arguement, you need to keep them satisfied over the long run, you dont but a console and several games at one, you buy ONE game, then more later, or buy several but wait before giving them out individually. several games at once mean the kids will play only one, and forget the rest...

    3. Re:Does console price really matter that much? by KitesWorld · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. No HDTV support means that titles shouldn't need as much time to be spent on art assets, which in theory means that development times could be a little shorter and the games cheaper as a result.

      Not that retailers will care. :Z

    4. Re:Does console price really matter that much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a possibility that games could be cheaper on the Revolution. XBox360 games sure are going to cost more than current generation games.

    5. Re:Does console price really matter that much? by kevin.fowler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd rather drop $400 and have a system and 4 launch games, than drop $400 and have a pretty system and nothing to play.

      --
      Bury me in mashed potatoes.
    6. Re:Does console price really matter that much? by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If games consoles shared a standard, it wouldn't matter, but Nintendo's software will only be playable on their consoles. No console sale, no game sales. By making their machine cheaper there's a greater chance someone will buy it over its competitors.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  6. Re:Development flexibility... by Qinopio · · Score: 2, Informative

    HD, in this case = "High Definition", not "Hard Drive".

    Dare I say, RTFA friend?

    --
    __________
    [Big Brick Wall]
  7. It Didn't Help Them Last Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As important as it is to lowball the competition when you're coming in from a niche angle like Nintendo is with the Revolution, it certainly isn't everything. GameCube was $100 cheaper, and all it really did was convince all of the consumers that it wasn't as technically able or as good an investment as PS2 or Xbox.

    While the cheaper price will help, I think the only way it'll become useful in the marketplace is if Nintendo successfully distinguishes it and its remote-like controller from the competition. If they can pull off a positive impression from the public, mix in some media hype, and simultaneously be able to get into more households via the accessible price, they'll probably be in business. Not looking like a purple lunch box will probably also help them carve out their own new little market to get out of the pissing contest Microsoft and Sony are throwing all their money at in preparation of.

    Of course, what's really to be seen is how well HDTV is adopted by people and how many gamers will be alright with the fact that few if any Revolution games will output any higher than 480p. They might look beautiful on standard TVs, but once the console has been out a couple years and HDTV adoption rates are more pervasive, it'll probably bring the console to a screeching halt similar to what the GameCube is experiencing.

    -Juice

    1. Re:It Didn't Help Them Last Time by cosmotron · · Score: 1

      GameCube was $100 cheaper, and all it really did was convince all of the consumers that it wasn't as technically able or as good an investment as PS2 or Xbox. The Gamecube was certainly more "technically able" that the PS2.

      --
      Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/
    2. Re:It Didn't Help Them Last Time by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 1

      It might have had a little bit more horsepower, but it couldn't play DVDs at a time when that was very important to consumers.

    3. Re:It Didn't Help Them Last Time by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      The one thing that worries me is that word-of-mouth won't be as successful with the Revolution as it was with the DS, simply because you can't carry the Revolution with you and show it to people on the train (which from what I've heard has caused more than a few DS purchases). Having good POS and perhaps some sort of roadshow will be essential.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:It Didn't Help Them Last Time by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that the Cube was capable of beating the ps2 as well as the xbox from a graphical standpoint. It certainly wasn't every game. Not by a long shot. However, I think Metroid Prime beat just about any xbox game out there.

    5. Re:It Didn't Help Them Last Time by mausmalone · · Score: 2, Interesting
      GameCube was $100 cheaper, and all it really did was convince all of the consumers that it wasn't as technically able or as good an investment as PS2 or Xbox.
      The Gamecube was certainly more "technically able" that the PS2. The question though is whether people believed it. People still have this mentality (even if they don't think it consciously) that something small and lightweight is a "toy" and something large and heavy is a "tool" and that the tool is more powerful than the toy. The X-Box and PS2's heftiness played a part in the misconception that they were both more powerful than the Gamecube.

      In reality, the Gamecube is just about as "powerful" as the X-Box, in the sense that if something is possible on the X-Box, it's probably possible on the Gamecube and vice-versa. The X-Box had more texture memory and a higher single-pass fill rate, while the Gamecube had more texture pipelines and a higher multi-texture fill rate, and so on and so on... but they were both beefy machines.

      And, true, the PS2 was less powerful than both of them, but it's also well over a year (maybe 2?) older than the GCN and X-Box. The age is the reason it's slower, not any half-assed-ness on Sony's part.
      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    6. Re:It Didn't Help Them Last Time by tepples · · Score: 1

      The one thing that worries me is that word-of-mouth won't be as successful with the Revolution as it was with the DS, simply because you can't carry the Revolution with you and show it to people on the train

      Unless the Revolution comes with a video Pak for the Nintendo DS, similar to the GBA Video titles or the Zelda trailer that was handed out at the E3 expo.

    7. Re:It Didn't Help Them Last Time by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Well, it's one thing showing people the console (although Nintendo's TGS trailer did an amazing job of conveying how it'd feel), and quite another letting them play it for a few minutes.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:It Didn't Help Them Last Time by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

      It Didn't Help Them Last Time

      Funny... I seem to remember Nintendo making a lot of money and great games.

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    9. Re:It Didn't Help Them Last Time by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

      What a load of crap. So you think one game system beat another because it could play DVD's?

      Complete bull shit. Are we forgetting Sony's hype machine? The fact that the PS2 came out a year or more before the Cube? The fact that hyped up games like GT and FF were going to be on the system? None of those mattered? It all came down to the fact that one could play DVD's?

      So if the PS3 couldn't play DVD's and the Revolution could play them would the Revo win out because of that even if the PS3 were twice as fast or more?

      Because that is basically what you're saying.

      Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?

      Oh, so now I bet you're going to say DVD doesn't matter anymore because everybody already owns a DVD player and now the big thing is uhm..... HD right? hahaha.. I mean seriously.. Give me a fucking break.

  8. oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wireless, no HD, less space than a 360. Confused?!?

  9. Nintendo's comeback! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DS has finally met its potential with the latest round of games ... Phoenix Wright, Nintendogs, and Mario Kart... the surgeon game also looks good although I've forgotten the title.

    Meanwhile, the PSP continues to be a piece of shit with few games, and nothing original to the platform. I bet you PSP owners feel pretty stupid now, eh?

    Oh it's so good to see Nintendo on the come back trail, they are the only innovators left in the industry, and if anyone can bring us something fresh and new, it's Nintendo.

    1. Re:Nintendo's comeback! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't properly port even a NES game to NDS because the resolution of the tiny NDS screen is lower than that of NES. Yes, you are exploited by Nintendo.

    2. Re:Nintendo's comeback! by spot35 · · Score: 1

      I know I'm being trolled and this is majorly off topic, but what the hell. The DS is an older console compared to the PSP; how did the DS owners feel at the equivalent time in the DS' lifetime?

      Also, consider Burnout Legends, Star Wars Battlefront II, Medevil and GTA San Andreas. Four excellent games, IMHO.

      Slightly more on topic, I will probably be getting a Revolution. The controller intrigues me and I don't really care about the lack of HD support. I agree with the parent that Nintendo are the only innovators left in the industry.

    3. Re:Nintendo's comeback! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      i totally agree about the PSP being a peice of shit.

      It feels like SONY has completely abandoned the dam thing.

      The PSP is a GREAT hand held but SONY lacks the vision or BALLS to turn the PSP into a phenominal portable device.

      SONY's first mistake was not including a pointer pen.

      The PSP could have been the be all, end all to MP3, PDA, VIDEOGAMES, MOVIES and INTERNET all in one hand held device.

      Sony fucked the PSP and they continue to do so.

    4. Re:Nintendo's comeback! by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

      If you haven't played Castlevania DS yet go buy it right now because it's freaking good.

      I wouldn't say the PSP is a piece of shit. It's a sweet handheld with only a few decent games (most of which I can play better versions of on the PS2, but that's besides the point)..

      Although I will say one thing. Our PSP has never left the house. It might get scratched haha.. Also I own about 15 games for my DS and just about every single one of them has logged more hours then every game on our PSP combined.

      I guess fun > pretty.

    5. Re:Nintendo's comeback! by OgreFade · · Score: 1

      I don't really feel stupid. I'm really enjoying my PSP. I totally gave up on my gameboy, AND i love HOMEBREW. Changing backgrounds, movies on the go and mp3 capabilities are just icing on the cake. I was really disappointed with how cheap the DS felt and how big it was after the SP. The DS seemed like a huge dinosaur, with two differently functioning screens. I guess maybe the DS 2 will be smaller and have two touch screens :)

  10. Re:Development flexibility... by thatoneguy_jm · · Score: 1
    First, if I'm reading the quote correctly, "HD" is referring to ability to run in High Definition, and not referring to a hard drive.

    Regardless, your point does stand, and it's true that the lack of a hard drive may be a huge setback to developers - However, developers will also have to grapple with this issue on the X-Box 360, since the customer may or may not have a hard drive (depending on which bundle they purchased.)

    Honestly, I believe that the lack of Hi-Def support will be a bigger drawback than the hard drive issue.

  11. Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by thebosz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I predict that the Revolution (or whatever it'll be called) will be launched at a price point of $200 USD. Why? Because the GameCube launched at that price. Because the Nintendo 64 launched at that price. Because the Super Nintendo hit mass market appeal at that price and because the NES hit mass market appeal at that price. (Obviously, I'm going off of memory with the numbers.)

    But, as the article says, is that enough for Nintendo? Gamecube was/is priced considerably lower than the PS2 and Xbox, but doesn't have nearly the mindshare (not even mentioning the marketshare). I'm not planning on getting either PS3 or Xbox 360 until they reach price points comparable to what the Revolution will launch at; for me, $200 is the sweet spot. Any more and I won't buy it.

    Personally, I'm most excited about the possibilities of the Revolution (the controller, download old games, internet play, Super Smash Bros. Revolution Online, etc.) but I fear that it might be too little too late.

    --
    The Kerr Divine: My wife's battle with a mysterious illness.
    1. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by mlk · · Score: 1

      I'd guess about the same (100UKP). 100UKP is a "toy". 200-300UKP is not.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    2. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by cowscows · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nintendo will do just fine with the Revolution. One of the great mysteries to me is how, with very similar worldwide sales numbers, the Xbox is considered such a success, while the GC is considered a failure. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that Nintendo's marketshare has historically had nowhere to go but down, while MS could only go up.

      But really, both companies have the ultimate goal of making money by selling video games, and Nintendo is certainly very good at that. They've been doing it pretty consistently with the GC, and I see no good reason to believe otherwise. It might be too little too late to win over the hardcore young adult gamer crowd, but I think Nintendo has proved already that they can make plenty of profit without them.

      Nintendo will never regain a huge dominate marketshare. I don't think we'll have that sort of monopoly over the console market ever again. Sony and MS will most likely battle it out to pretty much a draw, and the only unknown is where Nintendo will end up compared to them in marketshare. But I think we can say with a good bit of confidence that Nintendo will continue to make money. Even if they didn't manage to grow their market, they've already got a pretty good hold on their current customers, and nothing MS or Sony are doing appears to threaten that in any significant way. The worst I can imagine Nintendo doing is pretty much a repeat of GC sales levels, and Nintendo's bank account would be fine with that.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    3. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
      There's some scuttlebutt (rumor's) floating around (Joystiq.com published it I think) that Nintendo is aiming at a $99 launch. It's pretty far-fetched, but maybe they looked at the GC sales and saw that they sold the best at a sub-$100 price? Now, knowing that Nintendo hasn't in the past sold consoles at a loss, and not expecting them to start, I have trouble believing that. Since the GC is still a $100 system, I would expect that the Rev. could only be as powerful as a GC at that price point, which won't fly. (Yes, next year it could be fairly more powerful, but I don't think that even that would go over well).

      Now, $200 is pretty doable for me (especially if I can trade in my GameCube and maybe a game or two I don't play anymore), but I wonder if Nintendo will see how MS's Core and Premium what are they calling the expensive one?)? Say $149 for the system and one controller, and a pack with the system, 2 wand controllers, a gamepad style controller add on, either a game, or some sort of cool special edition disc with some tech demos for the controller that normally aren't released, and some kind of download credit for a few SNES/n64 games. I think Nintendo USED to do this back in the SNES and NES days... they had differnt packages you could buy, with not only games, but extra controllers, light guns, running pads, robots, you name it...

    4. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by frodoelf · · Score: 1

      i heard $100 don't tell anyone shhhhhhhhhhhh

    5. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      (Yes, next year it could be fairly more powerful, but I don't think that even that would go over well).

      With who? Nintendo has said that they are completely pulling back from the graphics masturbation contest and going for unique games. The gamecube's graphics are just fine, Nintendo has said that the revolution won't support HDTV so what improvements do they really need to make?

      I think the revolution will essentially be a Gamecube 2.0, new controller, new interface, new kind of gaming.

    6. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by stalky14 · · Score: 1

      Price is usually secondary.
      I'll buy a Revolution when Mario128 comes out.
      I'll buy a PS3 when Sly Cooper 4 or Rez 2 comes out.

      I'll buy an XBox-360 when it gets really cheap and Perfect Dark 0 or a
      new Banjo/Kazooie title is out (and actually lives up to its lineage. Rare hasn't quite been up to par since the MS buyout.) So far, there is nothing on the XBox platform that would compel me to buy one.

      Right now I'm still enjoying the heck out of my PS2 and GC and really have
      no major complaints about the graphics or sound capabilities of either of them.
      They could use a bit more CPU horsepower, but I suspect that's mostly what these new machines address.

    7. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by Achra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be honest, I really don't see the Xbox doing well until they get the idea of exclusive games into their business model. From the beginning, Nintendo has had certain games that you simply cannot get on other systems: Metroid, Zelda, Mario. Sega tried to get in on this very good idea with the Genesis, and I think it is one of the reasons that that machine was so popular.
      I own a Gamecube right now, and I'll buy a Revolution... Because I'm hooked on the Metroid games, always have been. But also, because there's not a single game that releases for the Xbox that doesn't release for PC a few months later. Halo? I bought it for PC. KOTOR? PC. KOTOR 2? PC. Morrowind? PC. Every time I would find myself saying, "Wow, now there's a game worth buying that console for".. They'd be busy shooting themselves in the foot. Also, it's important to remember that although Xbox sales and Gamecube sales are nearly identical, Nintendo actually made a profit on each unit sold instead of taking a loss. AFAIK, Nintendo is solidly in the black, while the Xbox project is solidly in the Red.

      --
      Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
    8. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1

      While they aren't going to be actively persueing the graphics arms race, they need to at least make an attempt to be competitive. There will still have to be some cross platform titles they will need to get onto the Rev, and they will have to at least TRY to appease the "hardcore" market, if for nothing else than to just shut them up. The GC can pull off some impressive visuals. The videos of the next Zelda game prove that. I suppose that given a year of technology growth/price reductions, and if they are willing to make less on the Rev at $99 than a GC at $99 (and I do remember reading somewhere that they are making more now at $99 per console than they were at launch of the GC at $199) they COULD pull it off, but I don't think most people will mind paying an extra $50 for a little more console. $149 would be an AMAZING price point to launch a new console at, considering the trend for the rest of the gaming world.

    9. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by Rayonic · · Score: 0, Troll
      One of the great mysteries to me is how, with very similar worldwide sales numbers, the Xbox is considered such a success, while the GC is considered a failure.

      It's all about trends. The GC didn't sell as much as the N64, which didn't sell as much as the SNES, which didn't sell as much as the NES. You see the downward trend.

      Microsoft, on the other hand, is considered to have done "pretty well", considering that they're new to the market, and competed directly against the entrenched Sony juggernaut. The general expectation is that Microsoft will do better with the Xbox 360. You see the upward trend.

      Sure, Nintendo made a profit this generation and Microsoft didn't. But the Xbox 360 looks to be cheaper to manufacture than the Xbox (upward trend), and Nintendo might scare away people with their innovative new controller (downward trend).
    10. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by freeweed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nintendo will do just fine with the Revolution. One of the great mysteries to me is how, with very similar worldwide sales numbers, the Xbox is considered such a success, while the GC is considered a failure.

      Nice guy answer: because Nintendo has been in the business for 2 decades, and Microsoft was a n00b.

      More realistic answer: Most young'uns have short memories, but when the Xbox was first announced, it was pretty much the laughing stock of the gaming industry. Microsoft? an x86 console? WTF? When it was released it was even more of a joke. Until Halo came around, hardly anyone wanted what was basically the Saturn for a new generation. I won't bring up the absolutely STUPIDLY LARGE controller more than once, I promise.

      Seriously, when the Xbox actually started to sell, I remember people falling out of their chairs. It's a serious lame-duck console on most fronts, and without Halo, would probably have lost Microsoft twice the $4 billion it already did. Live was about the only unique feature on it; otherwise, it was just another PS2 from all appearances. I think there was a bit of an anti-Sony backlash in the past couple of years as well, and the Gamecube just never cut it with the 14-21 year old market. They only want "M" games.

      But yeah. Compaing the GC and the Xbox, it's pretty obvious the GC beat the pants off of MS. It made at miniumum $4 billion more than the Xbox. It was a system that only "kids" played, according to damn near every media talking head. Nintendo was going the way of Sega after their drubbing by Sony in round 1. They still pulled out 2nd in the "race".

      Yet, somehow the Xbox did very well. Yup, because no one seriously thought it would go anywhere until after Halo.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    11. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a good point, but frankly I'm really glad that so many of the Xbox games come out on PC. I'm not interested in playing games on consoles, so for people like me it was a chance to play some of the best Xbox games on the platform of our choice. Otherwise, I never would have played any of them. Especially, for FPS games as I can never get over the slow reaction of using the controller instead of a keyboard and mouse.

      Still, in terms of gaming, nothing beats the thrill and fast paced game play of a good Counter-Strike match. BOOM HEADSHOT =)

    12. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nintendo64 actually launched at $249, but who's counting?
      However, $200 is the generally accepted sweet spot for all consoles, including the PS/PS2/Xbox.

    13. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by RoyalBoyle · · Score: 1

      Iwata himself stated that if sales numbers aren't better than Gamecube, the Revolution would be considered a failure. Nintendo HAS to do better this time around, whether they will or not is up to the consumer.

    14. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by Wikipedia · · Score: 0
      --
      P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
    15. Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD by Wikipedia · · Score: 0

      Someone I know will go wherever Squaresoft goes, but he's an RPG freak.

      --
      P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
  12. Might be a bad thing by external400kdiskette · · Score: 1

    Some people associate cheaper price with lower quality so unless the price is so low that people would just buy it anyway it could backfire. Remember Beta was cheaper than VHS and didn't sell nearly as much.

    1. Re:Might be a bad thing by PGC · · Score: 1

      What use is it being cheaper if you do not have pr0n while the competition does ?

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    2. Re:Might be a bad thing by external400kdiskette · · Score: 1

      Learn to read .

    3. Re:Might be a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOOSH! Right over your head!

    4. Re:Might be a bad thing by nihilistcanada · · Score: 1

      First of all Beta was not cheaper than VHS. One of the reasons BETA failed was that SONY was charging way higher royalty payments for the rights to make it then JVC was for VHS. The real reason BETA failed is a classic in business history. The story goes like this. When they were deciding what sort of cartridge to make for the then brand new concept of a VCR the Chairman of Sony decided that the size of a tape cartridge should be the size of a paperback novel. Thus easier to store in a bookcase. The engineers at JVC decided to make the video tape cartridge the size required to allow the recording of a full length movie. Sony's first BETA tapes were too small to put a full length movie on just one tape. They later developed thinner tape to allow for a longer length in the cartridge and the ability to put a full length tape in your VCR. Unfortunately for SONY it was to late and they blew their chance to dominate the VCR market.

  13. Nintendo has ALWAYS gone for the kids market by mekkab · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Kids want fun games, not necessarily photo-realistic graphics. And even Penny-Arcade was talking about "Blue Sparks" despite having Xboxes, so there is something to be said for great gameplay.

    The Original NES was for kids. So this isn't really a deviation from their game plan. I believe it was only the N64 that started to rear its head up to the older generation...

    This is a wise move. Let the already well positioned PS3 and Xbox360 battle it out for the Young Adults; Nintendo will clean up in the youth market and get respect from the YA market if they have the quality games.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:Nintendo has ALWAYS gone for the kids market by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      There are some other markets which aren't so fussed about flashy graphics, for example current non-gamers probably have no idea about the graphical arms race. That's certainly been Nintendo's target market with the DS, and they've been shouting from the rooftops about the Revolution supposedly being less intimidating for outsiders.

      I think you underestimate the young demographic's thirst for good visuals: just look at the number of tennage oiks on forums ranting on about how much more powerful Next Gen Console X is than all the others.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Nintendo has ALWAYS gone for the kids market by mekkab · · Score: 1

      I think you underestimate the young demographic's thirst for good visuals: just look at the number of tennage oiks on forums ranting on about how much more powerful Next Gen Console X is than all the others.

      Teenagers will rant about how X is better than Y regardless of the domain. Its just what they do!

      I think Nintendo is aiming even lower than that. Get the really young kids hooked and the hand that rocks the cradle is the one that owns the pre-teens into their teenage years.

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    3. Re:Nintendo has ALWAYS gone for the kids market by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I never really looked at it that way. Interesting. Perhaps Nintendo is investing in brand loyalty.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Nintendo has ALWAYS gone for the kids market by JaseOne · · Score: 1

      Do you know who introduced me to the NES as it was something they themselves were enjoying? My grandparents! Yes that is right they didn't just buy us an NES for Christmas they had it and were playing it (still do actually) so saying it was for kids is just wrong!

      Nintendo has always catered to people that want to play & enjoy their games and not for people that want to drool at pretty graphics.

    5. Re:Nintendo has ALWAYS gone for the kids market by shorgs · · Score: 1

      I think Nintendo is courting older gamers with this system. People who don't have tons of time to invest in gaming because of work and family. Hense the price and their features.

      They offer their entire first party back catalog for the nastolgic at a reasonable price. I know kids are going to put up with the graphics from the first Zelda when they've been playing WoW and Doom 3. And who cares that you can't play Mariokart 64 at 1080p resolution?

    6. Re:Nintendo has ALWAYS gone for the kids market by jejagua · · Score: 1

      "Kids want fun games, not necessarily photo-realistic graphics." Tell that to the mobs of kids that come to our house to play on my son's Xbox. Their parents say they barely touch their Gamecubes. All they want to play is Halo2. In another example a kid told me the only reason he plays his Nintendo is because his dad is always on the Xbox.

      --
      http://www.techyrants.com
    7. Re:Nintendo has ALWAYS gone for the kids market by mekkab · · Score: 1

      Good point. Perhaps I need to aim my "kids" comment to an even younger data set?

      Or maybe its the much older kids (30+ year olds) who have tolerance for less high definition in exchange for gameplay?

      Perhaps I need to revise my "thesis"...

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    8. Re:Nintendo has ALWAYS gone for the kids market by Scoth · · Score: 1

      I'd say that's more likely, just from an attention standpoint. Kids are more likely to be taken in by flashy graphics and gimmicks, the same way toys, kids cartoons, movies, etc. have gotten more flashy and gimmicky lately. It's not that they can't enjoy something older, I have turned the kids of a couple family friends on to classic NES games and they love them, but getting them to stay interested long enough to get to the "meat" of classic games can be hard. Likewise, I think older people have the patience to keep at something to enjoy it rather than dismiss it out of hand because of a 16 color 32x32 sprite with four frames of animation. Not to mention they're more likely to have grown up with at least the awareness of them, if not actually playing them, so they're more likely to enjoy it.

      (That's not to say older people can't be taken in by flashy gimmicky things with no substance. Look at BMW's iDrive system for an example. Almost universally panned but BMW can't make enough of them)

    9. Re:Nintendo has ALWAYS gone for the kids market by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      True. I'nm thinking about getting a Playstation 2 because a) it's becoming cheap, b) it runs Linux, c) backwards compatibility means that Final Fantasy Tactics will probably run and d) I can't emulate Guilty Gear XX. I'm a retrogamer. If they released a console that plays PSX*, NES, SNES, GB, GBA, C64 and A500 games I'd be all over it. Yes, I know that the GP32 pretty much fits that description (and it's successor even more so), but I can't afford it.


      * I'm referring to the Sony Playstation, not the Sony PSX. Thanks to Sony for using a common abbreviation for an older console as the name of a new one...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  14. Re:Emmersion in gaming by thatoneguy_jm · · Score: 1
    Regardless of HDTV support, you can count on Nintendo on using quality components - all of their systems since the original NES have been insanely sturdy. My friend had his house burn down, and found a mostly-melted SNES in the wreckage - he plugged it in, and despite being charred and black, it worked perfectly. As for myself, I've had a roommate drop my GameCube onto a cement floor from 4 feet, and it worked perfectly. I've also had my little cousin drop my GBA into the toilet - once it dried it - you guessed it - worked perfectly.

    I sincerely doubt that the Revolution will be of any less quality. They may not support high def, but they definitely use quality components.

  15. Re:Development flexibility... by GweeDo · · Score: 1

    Also, the system is supposed to come with 512MB of flash memory for downloading content online.

  16. The gamer's "other" console? by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know of quite a few people who bought a GC to go alongside a PS2 or an Xbox, because of its comparatively low price. Perhaps Nintendo noticed this and is aiming the Revolution to be everyone's "other" next-gen console, given their emphasis on different kinds of games than the indistinguishable powerhouses from MS/Sony.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:The gamer's "other" console? by MSFanBoi2 · · Score: 1

      And of all three consoles, it was still in last place, beat by Microsoft's very first console ever...
      What is unusual this time around in the Console wars, is for the first time ever, the market supported three consoles. Every other time/revision, the market self-limited itself to two consoles, one that did really well and one that did OK...

    2. Re:The gamer's "other" console? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Actually, the sales statistics are pretty much a tie overall, although MS and Nintendo can each pull out statistics which show them to be well in the lead. Good point about the 3-console market though, it's been an interesting situation and probably not a sustainable one in the long term.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:The gamer's "other" console? by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > And of all three consoles, it was still in last place, beat by Microsoft's very first console ever...

      the difference being that the GC made a profit for Nintendo, whereas MS made a loss ("investment") of 4 billion dollars and still doesn't expect to see an overall profit for years to come.

    4. Re:The gamer's "other" console? by Monkelectric · · Score: 2, Informative
      I know of quite a few people who bought a GC to go alongside a PS2 or an Xbox, because of its comparatively low price.

      It's more then that. I have a GC for Nintendo brand games, which are always very high quality and very well designed. Most games I buy Its very clear that nobody every seriously play-tested them, because the games have annoynances and bugs that would have been fixed during the process... for instance:

      Nightmare Before Christmas: To save your game you have to goto a specific character, and talk to him after which he gives you the same advice about saving EVERY time, and finally, after 6 or 7 button presses you get to the saving menu, you have to select which slot to save in, confirm, then 3 button presses to exit the menu. Also, if you turn off the subtitles in the game, then if characters don't have an audio recording of what they're saying -- you stand there and watch their lips move. No subtitles, no audio. All bullshit :)

      By contranst, when I buy a nintendo title I know its going to be well designed, and not suffer from any of these issues. Which is important to me. I dont have much time to play games, and I don't have time to be frustrated while Im doing it.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    5. Re:The gamer's "other" console? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Certainly, the quality game selection was no doubt the main reason for the sales, I think that the price sealed it for many people though.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:The gamer's "other" console? by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      I bought my gamecube to go alongside my PC.

      If I want to play a "serious" game (meaning something that will only appeal to a "Gamer" (with capital G) then I play on the PC.

      However, if I want my non-Gamer friends to play a game with me, the Gamecube is far and away the best choice. And that seems to be the direction Nintendo is heading. Since there are a LOT more NON-Gamers then there are Gamers it seems that Nintendo has a completely different (better?) vision of the future of games.

    7. Re:The gamer's "other" console? by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      No argument. I ended up with my first came cube because my g/f wanted the zelda title that only shipped with it (the emulation). I ended up with a second game cube because another g/f wanted mario party 7, and pario party 7 + controller is 75$, and the mario party gamecube bundle was 99$

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    8. Re:The gamer's "other" console? by justchris · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes, I believe Iwata (company prez) has said on more than one occasion that he wants everyone to pick up a Revolution alongside their 360 or PS3. In fact, if every person who bought a 360 or a PS3 also bought a Revolution, I think Nintendo would be ecstatic.

      --
      just some guy
  17. Re:Development flexibility... by lpangelrob · · Score: 1
    Point granted, and as it turns out, they do have a 512 MB USB stick: From Wikipedia:

    Memory:

    • 1T-SRAM by MoSys
      • No further details.
    • 512 MB built-in expandable [12] flash memory
      • Replaces the function of an internal hard drive.
      • Will be used to store:
        • Revolution game save data
        • Downloaded games
        • Game demos
        • Patches or upgrades

    But I still think my point stands as it being something of an artificial limit, much like the 100 song limit on the ROKR. Something that developer's shouldn't have to grapple with, but they'll end up battling somewhere down the line.

  18. Re:Emmersion in gaming by bitkari · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I suspect that Nintendo's argument is that they want to appeal not just to the predominantly teenage male "hardcore" market.

    Rather than entering the hardware arms race of Microsoft and Nintendo to see who can create the most realistic, or at least visually impressive game experience, Nintendo seem to want a more modest aesthetic and rely more on interesting game designs. Whether or not that will work, who knows - but I do at least applaud their attempt at diversifying the game market.

    Not everyone wants to play Need for Bling Underground Xtreme 2007, you know.

  19. Re:Emmersion in gaming by metarox · · Score: 1

    Well I don't really care about the graphics because I want the console to play the old games I used too and these definitively don't support HD and in that case it won't matter. I will also be playing the new games (Zelda, Metroid) and the graphics quality of the cube is enough for me. And they can make interesting games with the new controller without the need to have HD.

  20. New Advertising Slogan? by DannyO152 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's Not a SONY.

    1. Re:New Advertising Slogan? by ben0207 · · Score: 1

      Nintendon't what Sony do?

      --
      cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
    2. Re:New Advertising Slogan? by ilyaaohell · · Score: 1

      But is it a tumor?

      --
      UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
  21. Re:Emmersion in gaming by jcostantino · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Of all the people I know who own an Xbox, which is a dozen or so - most play with the composite cable included in the kit. Some, like myself, bought an S-Video cable - even if they own a HDTV, which I don't have. One person I know is using component inputs and the digital audio out. Of all these people, two own a HDTV and one has an EDTV but he uses composite in.


    Those numbers are pretty ugly when you think about it. Two out of 12 people give a damn enough to buy a brand new TV and one of those two bothered to buy the component cable. By the way, the one who bought the HD cable also sold his HDTV because he just doesn't watch TV enough to justify a gigantic TV in his condo.


    I don't think that HDTV/console gaming is at a big enough saturation to compel Nintendo to include HDTV support. They make money hand over fist so I'm sure they believe this is the best way to market the machine but I can only guess that adding HDTV support and just selling the cable seperately would only tack on an extra $10-15 bucks.

    --
    Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
  22. Re:Emmersion in gaming by Jackdaw+Rookery · · Score: 1

    "What half-@$$ed hardware is in there, cheap production, and buggy software."

    What hardware problems have Nintendo had in the past? What buggy software? You pulled that statement out of no-where, didn't you.

    My personal (read ignore at will) console history for breakages goes: My PS1 broke (No longer read discs), my PS2 broke (Just died), my Dreamcast reboots randomly. My SNES, GB, Gamecube, GBA and DS all still run perfectly.

    Meh.

  23. Ars Technica by JanneM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ars Technica had a good piece related to this. Very briefly, they point out that most titles are written to be cross-platform, thus erasing a lot of the relative hardware benefits of each platform.

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/cr ossplatform.ars

    I think Nintendo is on to a winner; we'll see if the execution is as good as their ideas.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  24. Emerson in gaming? I'd prefer immersion. by Qinopio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nintendo has stated that on regular TVs, Revolution will be nearly indistinguishable from HD. Now, I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have an HD set and probably won't for several years - poor soon-to-be graduate student and all.

    What the Revolution will be about is a new way of playing games, not the glowiest explosions. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are more or less equivalent in the games they'll let you play. The Revolution will be able to handle those games (albeit not in HD) but also open up lots of new possibilities for new games too while adding new control options to the traditional genres (RTS, FPS especially). As a gamer since I was a little tadpole, I don't see how people could not be at least a little excited about what Nintendo's doing.

    Nintendo won't cut production values, because they've been about high production values and lower cost than the competitors for a while now.

    --
    __________
    [Big Brick Wall]
  25. Re:Emmersion in gaming by AsiNisiMasa · · Score: 1

    Bad hardware sounds more like a Sony issue to me. I've never had to replace a Nintedo system, yet I've owned two Playstations and two PS2s. I do own a Gamecube, by the way, with which you could have used this same argument when they launched with a dramatically lower price tag. It has always run fine.

    --
    Help a student gain some exp. http://www.halovariants.com/touchup/index.php
  26. Chinese Market by alucinor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With a low price-point, it sounds like they want to clean up in the Chinese market that's sprouted up this time 'round. And it's not like they have a lot of HDTVs.

    Personally, I could care less about HD ... I've seen what it can do, and it doesn't seem to be that great of an advancement to me. Besides, a non-HD Nintendo means beautiful frame rates ... and games with a cell-shaded look to them will look the same whether on HD or regular TV.

    --
    random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
    1. Re:Chinese Market by CPUGuy · · Score: 1

      I suggest you compare HDTV to standard TV side by side.

      There is a HUUUUUGE difference.

    2. Re:Chinese Market by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      Besides, a non-HD Nintendo means beautiful frame rates ...

      A non-HD Nintendo means almost exactly 30 frames per second in the US or 25 in most of the rest of the World.

      I suspect that wasn't quite the point you were trying to make.

      ... and games with a cell-shaded look to them will look the same whether on HD or regular TV.

      Yes, games with really low detail certainly won't look much better on HDTV.

      Your advocacy has convinced me. I'm buying three.

    3. Re:Chinese Market by tepples · · Score: 1

      A non-HD Nintendo means almost exactly 30 frames per second in the US or 25 in most of the rest of the World.

      Interlaced TVs actually run at 50 or 60 fields per second, and many video sources include motion between the frames. For instance, if you pause live NBA basketball, you might see it flickering between two states separated by 17ms. On interlaced TVs, many PS2 games run at 640x240 to save VRAM, and GameCube games tend to render the image at 640x480 and then apply a comb filter to the image for antialiasing.

      Besides, "Revolution" will support 480p, which does run at 60 frames per second.

    4. Re:Chinese Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm...in shanghai HDTV penetration is greater than here in the US.
      My fiancee last year replaced her old 25" TV set with a 30" set which she paid like $500 for.

      When I looked at it I saw it supported 1080p right out of the box!
      Another person's place I went to in Hangzhou had 2 30" widescreen HDTV's, one in the main room and one in the master bedroom.

      Here's the ironic part:

      These people had progressive scan DVD players and had them hooked up using only Composite cables!

    5. Re:Chinese Market by Glytch · · Score: 1

      And I suggest you compare HDTV prices and standard TV prices side by side.

      There's a huge difference there, too.

    6. Re:Chinese Market by alucinor · · Score: 1

      Heheh, I'm not advocating. Buy what you want, but I know I'm not interested in HD or XBox/PS3. So I'll buy what I want then too!

      --
      random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
  27. Better hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had every system (aside from the virtual boy) Nintendo ever put out, including 2 SNESes and 2 of the old gray block gameboy. I still own all of them. The amazing thing - they still all work (OK, the NES occasionally requires a little blowing, but still). That's pretty impressive considering that I've had a PS2 die on me already, and my old PS1 requires a little work with a bent paperclip to get discs to eject. While I don't own an XBox, I would say that, if anything, Nintendo's products stand the test of time, while Sony stuff is so fragile I'm often afraid to take it over to a friend's. Plus I rarely have had Nintendo games crash on me, while XBox games at my friends' (XMen legends for example) get wierd memory and dirty disc errors all the time.

    Nintendo might be behind on raw horsepower or the best games, but I feel their hardware is top notch.

  28. Oops, nearly indistinguishable from PS3/Xbox360 by Qinopio · · Score: 1

    Correction!

    --
    __________
    [Big Brick Wall]
  29. Re:Emmersion in gaming - correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that you meant Microsoft and SONY. :P

  30. Re:Development flexibility... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, one could argue that the Revolution has more storage than the Xbox 360 standard, as the Revolution has 512 MB internal storage:

    Data for GameCube titles will be saved to standard Memory Paks. Meanwhile, Revolution software data will be stored on 512MB flash memory, according to Nintendo.

    On the other hand, features are being stripped from Xbox 360 games because it lacks the HDD as standard

    Last but not least, after we were told that there was no ability to fly aircrafts in the game due to the DVD drive's inability to stream the environment fast enough in full 720p resolution. We asked Jacques Hennequet (Producer for Saint's Row), "If the Xbox 360 Hard Drive was standard across both SKU's, would flying aircrafts in the game have been a reality?", Jacques simply answered "Yes". While he completely understands why MS made the decision to not include a hard drive in the Core System, I think he felt somewhat disappointed, as it could have opened up much more possibilities within the gameplay for Volition's first Xbox 360 title.

    As for Nintendo's choice to not support the higher ends of High-Definition, I expect it'll be something that won't affect most people as most people don't have HD TVs, but that the media will continue to raise a stink about how Nintendo isn't supporting it. Look at it as the Internet service of this generation's consoles.

  31. Better slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nintendo Revolution: we won't attempt to install rootkits on your TV.

  32. Re:Development flexibility... by Evangelion · · Score: 1


    They have two SD slots on the revolution.

    That should be more than enough for any storage needs.

  33. $sys$ by Evil_Way · · Score: 0

    It's actually the most expensive console, but they hid the extra cost with $sys$.

    *runs*

  34. Re:Why does Slashdot hype non-existent hardware? by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

    Journalists were playing Revolution games at the TGS; they even had a Metroid Prime demo on show. Dev kits shipped a short while back and are based on the GameCube APIs. Perhaps you should, you know, actually check these things.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  35. That's not really true. by CDPatten · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Meryl Lynch reported that the Xbox 360 could be as low as $250 this spring and MS would still make a profit. The revolution won't be out that soon, and when it does come out, chances are MS will only be charging a couple hundred dollars at the most. So unless the revolution starts at $100 at release, it will most likely be the same or more then the Xbox 360.

    http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/11/03/console/in dex.php

    1. Re:That's not really true. by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      They didn't "report" anything. They made it up. That's what analysts do.

      As long as the PS3 is about the same price as the 360, and the 360 is selling well, you can bet that Microsoft will keep the price as high as they can. Until sales slow down there won't be a price drop. Look how long it took the PS2 and Xbox to drop from $299 to $199, dispite the cube being less expensive. Don't expect the prices of the next gen systems to drop any faster. Also, given how Nintendo managed to have the lowest price for the entirety of the current generation, don't underestimate their ability to do it again.

    2. Re:That's not really true. by Emeye · · Score: 1

      Yes...a few hunderd dollars...like maybe...I don't know...$250 and $350 at the lowest?

    3. Re:That's not really true. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Is that that the full-fledged xbox 360, or the one without a hard drive?

      I'm somewhat skeptical that the HDD is going to be such a great feature of the xbox when a good deal of the consoles (if normal market assumptions hold where the lower end sells more, most of them) won't have a hard drive. How many developers are going to make games that depend on a feature that may or may not be there?

      But even if that is just for the diskless xbox, that would still make for an interesting competition between xbox and gamecube, the latter having a very nice price advantage in the current console wars from the get-go.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  36. Re:Emmersion in gaming by pmuessig · · Score: 1

    That's a slippery slope if I've ever heard one.

    If you want a rundown on the hardware here ya go (link lifted from a previous slashdot post).

    The reduced price is of course justified as mentioned above, you're not getting nearly as much hardware for the buck as the revolution is sans: Hardive, 802.11g, HDTV input, CPU clock. However the interesting thing to note as the article points out is the speculative large(r) size of L2 cache. I don't feel like quoting it so have a read yourself and take notes on how "less features" does not correlate to "poor quality".

  37. Non-Gamers? by MaestroSartori · · Score: 1

    Nintendo's 'problem', if you can call it that, is that they don't target people who don't already play games. I don't know many people who bought a GC as their only console, and almost everyone I know who did buy a GC bought one because they were fans of an existing Nintendo franchise (Mario, Zelda) and wanted the newest title in the range.

    The new input device looks to be a way to introduce non-gamers to the machine, but it may look a little gimmicky to them. I'm not a Nintendo fan (I got my GC for Monkey Ball!), but I hope they stick around. At least they're a bit different.

    1. Re:Non-Gamers? by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's exactly who they're targeting with the Revolution, based on comments in interviews. And the same approach worked for the DS, so they'll be feeling somewhat confident. I suspect this is their way of ducking out of the increasingly cutthroat specifications war, by carving out a new market niche.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Non-Gamers? by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      "I got my GC for Monkey Ball!"

      Glad I'm not the only one.

    3. Re:Non-Gamers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think we have to worry about them sticking around. They have been since 1889.

    4. Re:Non-Gamers? by mausmalone · · Score: 1
      Nintendo's 'problem', if you can call it that, is that they don't target people who don't already play games.
      From the horse's mouth:
      "We will attract casual gamers better than anyone, using consumer-friendly content, control, and the internet. We will even draw non-gamers to the revolution, showing them how much fun there is. We call this all-access gaming. It is my job to run a global company," concluded Iwata. "But in my job, what gives me the most satisfaction is seeing someone pick up a controller and finding surprise and delight. What catches their heart still catches my heart. Thank you very much."
      Nintendo E3 Press Conference, May 2005 So, whether you feel they were adequate in getting non-gamers to their hardware in this generation, they're making a concerted effort to do it in the next.
      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    5. Re:Non-Gamers? by tukkayoot · · Score: 1
      Nintendo's 'problem', if you can call it that, is that they don't target people who don't already play games.

      Sure they do, they just don't do it with immense success (yet anyway). Games like Mario Party, Animal Crossing and Donkey Kong Jungle Beat are all designed to have some appeal to non-gamers (and often do), and you've already mentioned Monkey Ball which has similar appeal.

      Possibly the problem is one of marketing. It's a tough nut to crack. Nintendo produces some very simple, accessible, family friendly games, but to market themselves as such opens them up to ridicule and the perception that their games are all too simplistic and that they are too "kiddie", while the other consoles cultivate an image of being "hardcore" and "mature", which isn't exactly something your more mainstream, non-gamer/casual gamer cares about generally. Nobody except Nintendo seems willing to risk alienating the "bread and butter" proven video game buyers by making appeal to a broader audience a cornerstone philosophy ... and when you see Nintendo's market share and console sales shrinking, it's not tough to blame Microsoft and Sony for taking their tact (despite the fact that Nintendo is still successful in terms of generating profit.)

  38. Re:Emmersion in gaming by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    Sure it cuts price, but who wants something that won't sparkle and shine in a couple years as HDTVs become more commonplace?

    That's true. but it's also true that HDTV's aren't likely to become commonplace till well after 2010, by which time the next generation of console will be approaching it end of life.

    Point of note here. What type of television is little Johhny or Mary more likely to have in their bedrooms with the console. A cheap and robust CRT, or a $2000 HDTV set?

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  39. Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to knock Nintendo here, but I'll probably never own one. The reason is simple. The problem is not the controller (I have to admit, it's a neat idea, although I'm skeptical about how comfortable it is), or the hardware, or even the fact that it's Nintendo. It's Nintendo's target audience. The games designed by Nintendo are primarily for kids. We can expect to see more of the cute loveable nintendo icons in many of their titles reincarnated a few thousand times more. These aren't the titles I want out of a console, and this will probably be the only reason I'll get an xbox 360 and skip the revolution all together. To me, price won't be the determining factor. The titles availabale will be.

    The same thing happened initially when I got a portable. First I got a DS, however after 6 months of ownership I realized that Nintendo wasn't going to deliver on any of the game types I wanted to see. I sold my DS and got a PSP and haven't looked back since. The PSP simply has more titles which will appeal to the 30+ age group. Especially those who are tired of mario and friends.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It's a big problem, alright, and the only real way around it is with good thirdparty support (as Nintendo are probably not going to ditch Mario, Link, and Samus any time soon). The problem is that good thirdparty support depends on good sales of the console, and good sales of the console depend on there being good games (usually from thirdparties). Chicken and egg.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by rmart · · Score: 1

      Nintendo isn't the only games developer on their consoles, you know.

    3. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think there's a certain amount of snobbery in your post

      i play supposed "kids games" because they're fun, you seem to feel that because you feel it is a "kids game" you must not play it

      try it... they're fun

    4. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, I don't play kids games because I spent my time with them and I'm bored with them. I'm not saying that some people don't enjoy these games, I'm saying that I don't really care for them any more. I didn't imply that others wouldn't find them enjoyable.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    5. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's right, but they do have a history that leans towards a strong disposition towards developing more kid's titles than anything else. Perhaps that appeals to you, it doesn't to me.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    6. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Why does everything that's not based on war and street gangs automatically get passed off as being for kids? Super monkey ball is monkey rolling around in a ball, which sounds a little kiddy, but most of the adults I know who've played it just love it. Same with all the other "Kiddy" games that are available for GC. Just because they look like something from your childhood, doesn't mean you won't enjoy them. It doesn't really mean that it's kiddy either. Mario looks like a cartoon, but is very involved, and makes you use your head lot. It's not a game that most children would be able to play easily.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The point of my post was not to say that other people wouldn't enjoy them, it's that I wouldn't enjoy them. I've already done my round with those kinds of games, they don't do it for me. Why does everyone seem to have a problem with this? Did you even read the entire post?

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    8. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow, out of a pile of negative responses taking my post as some sort of personal attack, someone actually understands.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    9. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Nintendo's target audience. The games designed by Nintendo are primarily for kids.

      Yeah. Like that Killer7 thing. I knew the GC was a kiddie console as soon as Jack Thompson started saying how great it was that Nintendo were releasing games like that that little kids can play without seeing any disturbing blood or sex. Bah.

    10. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by radish · · Score: 1

      Actually, right now, on GC, they pretty much are.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    11. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by radish · · Score: 1

      Heh - ignore the flames, there's nothing more rabid than a Nintendo fanboy. I agree on most of your points, except that I'm not totally against a quick Mario Party or Monkey Ball. But out of the 3 consoles I have right now the Xbox gets majority play, because:

      * Cross platform games are better on Xbox - better graphics, custom soundtracks, better online
      * I can only take so much of the Nintendo stuff, though it is fun in small doses. My biggest disappointment was Double Dash - there's like a couple of hours of play in that game then you're bored of all the cicruits.
      * In my preferred genre (driving) the Xbox just has the best first party games (PGR2 & Forza), and the best versions of the cross platforms (e.g. Burnout).

      Of course on the other hand my GF only ever plays on the GC, she loves Mario anything, so it's a win win :)

      In the future, we'll see. The lack of HD puts me off a LOT. I like flashy graphics, I'll admit it (seems like if you don't want all you're games in black and white 40x30 res you're just not hardcore enough these days). Sure a game has to be fun to play, but for me a lot of what makes a game fun is the audio visual experience - I want lound noises and insane action. And I want it in HD. 360 already has my money, we'll see when the others come along.

      As for DS, well I'd consider one if it didn't look so cheap. Really, that thing puts me right off every time I see a picture of it (I've thought about getting it as I was an advance wars addict on the SP). Right now I'm playing a lot of Lumines, Mina No Golf, Coded Arms and GTA and I'm enjoying it a lot. Maybe I'll get my GF on of the new pink DS models and borrow it :)

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    12. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never played Eternal Darkness, did you?

      Who started these retarded "Gamecube is a kiddie machine" sentiments? Jeez.

    13. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by shorgs · · Score: 1

      Not to knock Sony here, but I'll probibly never own a PSP. The reason is simple. The problem is its Sony, meaning flaky hardware, insane locked down platforms, and shitty ps2 ports. These aren't the features I want out of a console, and this will probably be the only reason I'll get a next gen Nintendo DS. To me, its no the titles available, its the quality of those titles.

      And as for the xbox 360, I know what crowd dominates that market. I've played Halo 2 on Live. I'm just trying to imagine being 30+ and still wanting to play cs type games with the 12 year olds that put sprays of their nuts on the walls. And don't think its going to be better on a console, they're pushing the webcams for the 360.

    14. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Well, I long since accepted that Nintendo's games generally aim young, and that many people find that offputting. Doesn't bother me personally, mind.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    15. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      I will agree that most of Nintendo's games are rated E, but I wouldn't say they're primarily for children. Don't let the cute creatues disuade you from the fun gameplay that can be had.

      And even then, Nintendo is starting to grow up. SSB:M was rated T, as will be Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (IIRC).

      But you're ignoring a core fact: Nintendo isn't the only one making games for their system. Yes, the Gamecube does lack some 3rd party support, but it's still there. There are plenty of great adult games: Eternal Darkness, Goldeneye, Resident Evil, the list goes on.

      Sony and Microsoft don't even make their own games; they just live off the consoles and liscensing.

    16. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      Well I think you have really crappy taste.

    17. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Funny

      The problem is...The games designed by Nintendo are primarily for kids. We can expect to see more of the cute loveable nintendo icons in many of their titles reincarnated a few thousand times more. These aren't the titles I want out of a console, and this will probably be the only reason I'll get an xbox 360 and skip the revolution all together. To me, price won't be the determining factor. The titles availabale will be.

      Oh, don't worry one bit. Nintendo definitely has games for you folks. I heard one of the launch titles for Revolution is going to be "Extreme Animal Crossing". It's the same basic game, but all the character are rendered photorealisticly. After you catch a fish, you get to gut it, and it leaves a giant pool of blood on the ground. In addition to collecting fish and bugs, you now get a rife to go with you net and fishing pole so you can hunt deer and hang them on your cabin wall.

      If you manage to get the entire exotic collection in your upstairs bedroom and can get it all setup with the proper Feng Shui orientation, I hear that Huggy stops by for a visit and gives you an exotic dance before going down on you. But if you can't get Huggy to stop by because Tom Nook can't get that exotic bed in stock, just bitch slap and pistol whip him and he'll get your point really fast.

      And if Biskit starts mailing you death threats because you moved in on his inter-special relationship with Huggy, just set his house on fire. If that doesn't make him back off, all you need to do is slap a laser scope onto your hunting rifle and wait on top of the museum for him the next time he comes to drop off a new fossil. You can dispose of his body by throwing him in the town well. If Officer Copper's investigation eventually leads to you, just throw him a few insider tips on the turnip market and he'll gladly look the other way.

      But I don't want to give away too much. Just suffice it to say, you are going to love it.

    18. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### The games designed by Nintendo are primarily for kids.

      Just repeating the old saying doesn't make it any more true. Nintendo games are familiy friendly, but they are not primarily for kids, they are for everyone that enjoys gaming. I mean references to tons of old NES or arcade games in WarioWare, that no kid will ever get, because it simply can't know most of the games don't sound exactly like 'designed for children', same with the difficulty, and lots of other aspect. Anyway, that has never been Nintendos problem, the familily friendly images works pretty well as it is.

      Nintendo however has one core problem and that is third party support, it doesn't matter how good the hardware is, how familiy friendly Nintendos owns games are or whatever, as long as Nintendo is almost the only party producing games for their console it just isn't much good as first or only console. I have a Gamecube myself and I like it a lot, but for actual gaming I turn to PS2 or recently a bit XBox, simply because they get the third party games, while Gamecube is now basically completly ignored. Another problem is that the Nintendo titels havn't been up to the quality they used to be, I finished Mario64 three times each time collecting 150 stars, replayed MarioBros3, YoshisIsland and friends quite a lot, and loved the old Zelda games, but MarioSunshine, WindWaker, nope, never played either of them through completly, just to tedious and boring. They have that feeling of 'been there done that', nothing new to see and that what I see was already done better in the past. Pikmin, while a brilliant idea, didn't work out completly either, neither the first or the second part really got as good as it could have been. Gamecube really missed a 'system-seller' quality title.

    19. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kollivier · · Score: 1
      No, I don't play kids games because I spent my time with them and I'm bored with them. I'm not saying that some people don't enjoy these games, I'm saying that I don't really care for them any more. I didn't imply that others wouldn't find them enjoyable.

      What I think a lot of people don't understand is, how do you determine that a type of game is "not for kids"? You say you're bored with kids games, right? So logically you're bored with any type of game that has game mechanics similar to the games kids play. Thing is, pretty much all games I've played have the player pressing buttons to destroy an enemy, or race a car, or play sports, or control an RPG/simulator, etc. And these games exist for all platforms. So I don't see the big difference between "kids" games and "adults" games. The presence of blood or boobies doesn't affect the gameplay any, it's just re-wrapping the game in a different package to make it 'look' mature. So, what is it about the gameplay of certain games that make them not for kids, and thus somehow funner?

    20. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by metamatic · · Score: 1

      I have a GameCube, I did play Eternal Darkness, and one game is not enough. There are a handful of other games on the GameCube I want to play: Beyond Good and Evil, Metroid, er...

      Burnout 2 was good, but the newer games in the series aren't available for GameCube. Wind Waker was too similar to Ocarina Of Time, dragged on a bit, and ultimately a bit saccharine. I was left feeling like I'd eaten a whole box of chocolates.

      I freakin' hate Mario and Pokemon, and I don't play sports games. So that leaves me with... er...

      So I've gone back to the PS2, where there's Jak 3, Sly 3, Ratchet and Clank, Burnout 3, Katamari Damacy, MGS:3, Ace Combat 5, ...

      I'm seriously running short of games I want to play on the cube. I definitely won't buy a Revolution unless I see that Nintendo have turned the situation around and gone for more diversity of games.

      It's a shame, because the cube is a much nicer piece of hardware. But hardware isn't enough.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    21. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      I have absolutely no problem with you not owning a PSP. I'm well aware that Sony has a history of making bad hardware where platforms are concerned. I didn't get a PS 1 or 2 for that reason. The PSP has proven itself to me to be of a different level of quality than it's home platforms.

      As for multiplayer, I don't get consoles to play online multiplayer games. I have a PC for that, which for my purposes is superior to any platform.

      Interestingly, the only difference (aside from what we want out of a game unit) between you and I is that I respect your opinion. You obviously don't respect mine.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    22. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that amazing insight. I'll be sure to pass it on to /dev/null.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    23. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The lack of HD puts me off a LOT. I like flashy graphics, I'll admit it (seems like if you don't want all you're games in black and white 40x30 res you're just not hardcore enough these days).


      Pffft! In my day we didn't have fancy "black and white," we had white with 2x1 res and we liked it.
    24. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter to me who is making the games, as long as they're the games I want to play. Why would I care about who is making them and who is living off of console licensing rights? I didn't like Resident Evil (predictable, not scary, fixed camera angles, linear gameplay), I didn't care for Zelda (Games like Baldurs Gate and planescape torment really raised my expectations for how an RPG should be), and I don't have a clue what 'SSB:M' is, why must everyone use an acronym for everything?

      Goldeneye was awful, as was every other FPS style game for the N64/Gamecube, mainly due to the controllers - perhaps it will be different with the new controllers, I can only speculate until they are available for the rest of us to try. 4-way multiplayer on one TV where everyone can see what everyone else is doing? Thanks, but I don't like sharing my display with everyone else in the room unless it's a genre that can do it right, like a fighting (hand to hand) game. I'm not ignoring the fact that Nintendo isn't making the only games for their system, I'm saying the titles I want to play aren't there for that system.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    25. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 0

      You're saying I should buy a console for one game? If it's a good game, and it's not made by Nintendo (don't quote me on this, I haven't researched it), it will soon be available for a platform more attuned to my tastes.

      While I appreciate your description of the game (it sounds funny as hell) one game is not a reason to make an investment.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    26. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by DwarfGoanna · · Score: 1

      After all these years, I STILL dont get this. What is it about cartoon characters exactly, that most men of my age bracket dismiss them out of hand? Why weren't Pac Man, Frogger, and Dig Dug blown off as "kiddy games"? I'm sorry, but realistic blood and tits does not a fun game experience make. =/

      --

      "You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo

    27. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Before: the graphics were cartoonish because those were the limits of the hardware.
      Now: the graphics are cartoonish because they want to add to the cuteness factor.

      Not to say all 'cartoonish' games are kid's games, but many of them are. I didn't dismiss many of these games out of hand either - I've played them. I didn't like them. I'm sorry if it bothers you that I'm more disposed towards tactical strategy, gratuitous violence, adult humor and simulators as opposed to cute characters jumping from block to block over lava to eat fruit for health.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    28. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Yep, 'family friendly' AKA 'games for kids' works for Nintendo, that's not a problem. However, I wasn't saying it was a problem for Nintendo at all, in fact, it's probably why they've been on the map this long.

      I'm saying that it's a problem for me when Nintendo (or it's 3rd party game developers) don't produce the games I want to play. That is all. You can unbunch your panties now. If you enjoy those games, I'm happy for you. It's all about enjoying it, right? Well, I don't! You know, it's that whole 'personal preference' thing.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    29. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Oh don't worry, you won't be buying it for just one game. There will also be Extreme Animal Crossing 2 (...except that they'll cut the game in half and call the sequal Extreme Animal Crossing 3 and release it for the Revolution 360).

    30. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1
      Not to say all 'cartoonish' games are kid's games, but many of them are. I didn't dismiss many of these games out of hand either - I've played them. I didn't like them. I'm sorry if it bothers you that I'm more disposed towards tactical strategy

      Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance (GCN), Battalion Wars (GCN), Fire Emblem (GBA), Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones (GBA), Final Fantasy Tactics Advance (GBA), Tactics Ogre (GBA), Advance Wars 1 & 2 (GBA)...

      gratuitous violence

      Eternal Darkness (GCN), Killer 7 (GCN), Resident Evils (GCN; violent, if not scary), Alien Hominid (GCN), Ninja Five-0 (GBA)...

      adult humor

      Alien Hominid (again), Viewtiful Joe (though no longer a GCN exclusive), Broken Sword - Shadow of the Templars (GBA)...

      and simulators

      "Simulator" is a bit vague. Every console has driving simulators, including the GBA and GCN. Both Nintendo consoles even have "life simulators" like Harvest Moon or Animal Crossing. But if you're using "simulator" to mean, for instance, flight simulator, you're not going to find *any* console that has anything close to IL2-Sturmakov).

      as opposed to cute characters jumping from block to block over lava to eat fruit for health.

      I'm not going to go through all the counter-examples of games like this on the PS2 or Xbox, but suffice to say that *kid's* games are made for all consoles, not just Nintendo's. If you were to shun a console because it has a few games made exclusively for children, you wouldn't be playing anything.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    31. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      The issue with graphics (to me) is that sometimes it seems that a producer spends more time on graphics than gameplay. It makes sense, in some ways. When you read about a game in a magazine or online article, you don't get to try out the gameplay, you just see screenshots. Oh, the reviewer might mention bad gameplay, but that's secondhand. Your only firsthand impression of the game is the screenies.

      I'd rather have better, more involved gameplay than flashy graphics. In an ideal world, I'd have both--but it's just not as common as focusing on one or the other and really excelling.

      I still fire up Nethack periodically. Admittedly, I use the ASCII version over any graphical version, but that's just familiarity. It's much easier for me to see the & and go, "Oh, demon." than to look at the tile and wonder what it is.

    32. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by lidocaineus · · Score: 1

      You're comparing an action RPG with a traditional, role playing RPG? What? Then you completely struck me as misinformed with that Resident Evil comment. I have always thought that Res Evil was boring UNTIL the GameCube iteration. Not to mention it DOESN'T have fixed camera angles... try informing yourself a little better next time.

      And you actually sold your DS and bought a PSP? Are you kidding me? My PSP has sat in the drawer for months, unused, mostly because the games are mediocre at best. Meanwhile, the DS, which I thought was be nothing but gimmicks, goes with me EVERYWHERE.

      I'm not sure if you're a troll or someone who has completely bought into marketing hype and loves whatever the "next big thing" is. I am very picky about what console games I play, and I haven't been impressed with Nintendo since the SNES days, so it's a big deal when I actually do like them - and I really consider them now to have some of the best games for their platforms. The fact that you don't know what SSB:M is makes me wonder how much experience you have with games at all.

    33. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by shorgs · · Score: 1

      You seem like a nice guy. So I don't want to give the impression that I don't like you. I'm just so damn tired of the Nintendo is for Kids line and tend to get hostile.

      Troll...blah

      I really wish I could get into the PSP. I wish Sony didn't insist on crippling the damn thing. Seems like a nice media player if not for that. It also seems like many of their developers haven't quite figured out how to deal with mobile gaming yet. Lots of near direct ports.

      As for the 360, if it has the titles you want and the price isn't a factor that's great.

      The community seems pretty crappy to me. I'm sure there are good people out there playing but you have to sift through the waves a**holes to get to them. And when I think of first round 360 purchasers I think more of the 16 year old G4 fan down the streets and less of the 30+ guys I use to play tribes with.

    34. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by cvas · · Score: 1

      Maybe because of this line:

      The PSP simply has more titles which will appeal to the 30+ age group.

      Up until then you were just giving your opinion, which is fine. With that line though, you started trying to speak for me and you don't, especially since I disagree with you main point that Nintendo's games are primarily for kids.

    35. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      I wasn't actually here to shun anything. I'm here to state that I have a preference that Nintendo doesn't fulfill. That is all. I wasn't suggesting that you not buy your Nintendo and live happily ever after. But then, feel free to read the rest of the posts here - you're right at home with the rest that couldn't seem to get my point either.

      You're right, kids games are made for all consoles. But lots more are made for the nintendo platform than anything else. By simulator, I meant it as a generality - something that attempts to recreate real-world conditions while maintaining some kind of interesting fun gameplay. I'll agree that games of this type are generally not good on any console, with the exception of racing and sports simulators.

      Listing off a bunch of GBA titles is silly, since the GBA didn't have the power to create anything that I wanted to see. Some of them have been ported to other consoles (you fail to mention this) - consoles which I feel have a better selection of games than what Nintendo is pushing.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    36. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1
      I wasn't actually here to shun anything. I'm here to state that I have a preference that Nintendo doesn't fulfill.

      If I recall correctly, you basically said that Nintendo primarily markets games to kids. This isn't true. I could care less what your preferences are; I haven't bought a PS2 simply because I don't like the cost/reliability of the hardware, and I haven't bought an XBox because most of the AAA games that are released for it are also released on the PC.

      That is all. I wasn't suggesting that you not buy your Nintendo and live happily ever after. But then, feel free to read the rest of the posts here - you're right at home with the rest that couldn't seem to get my point either.

      Pretending to be a martyr doesn't make your points any more valid. People are criticising you because your perspective is far too narrow.

      You're right, kids games are made for all consoles. But lots more are made for the nintendo platform than anything else.

      So what? I fail to see your point. I have a gamecube, and yet surprisingly I'm able to enjoy a few quality titles without being forced to play anything with Barbie or Spongebob Squarepants in it.

      Listing off a bunch of GBA titles is silly, since the GBA didn't have the power to create anything that I wanted to see.

      I wasn't aware that tactical strategy games, for example, required a resolution of 1600x1200 with 4xAA to enjoy them. I'm not saying that you have to rush out and buy a Gamecube/Gameboy or you're an idiot, but refusing to play several excellent games simply because you think that the graphics won't be pretty enough is extremely shallow.

      Some of them have been ported to other consoles (you fail to mention this) - consoles which I feel have a better selection of games than what Nintendo is pushing.

      Of course the PS2 has a better selection of games, but quantity does not equal quality. And hey, nobody's forcing you to only buy one console - why, you could actually own two, or even *three*!

      You've made two distinct classes of statements in this story: you don't like Nintendo, and Nintendo makes kiddie systems. The first is an opinion, the second is patently absurd.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    37. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by mink · · Score: 1

      Pick up Resident Evil 4 (I didnt see it in your list) quite fun.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    38. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Zaplocked · · Score: 1

      You can't be serious.

    39. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by JPyun · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      Gran Turismo > Forza.

      DS > PSP

      AW:DS, Castlevania DS, Jump Superstars, and probably the soon-to-be-released Mario Kart DS are all better than the PSP game library. Looking at upcoming releases for the PSP I see two good games: Prince of Persia and Guilty Gear Judgement, as well as JP only Tales of Eternia. What the PSP has now is garbage, with two exceptions.

      After all, you can only play so much Lumines.

      I'm not a Nintendo fanboy either -- I own all three consoles, and my PS2 gets much more play than either of the others. But the GC has also had several incredible games: SSBM, Metroid Prime, and RE4 are all great. Fire Emblem 9 is pretty nostalgic, and a decent SRPG, though Disgaea and FFT are better. Xbox has Ninja Gaiden (Black), which is genius, and Halo, which is pretty decent.

      As for the DS being cheap, it certainly is much cheaper than the PSP. Its also several orders of magnitude more scratch resistant, and durable.

    40. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course on the other hand my GF only ever plays on the GC, she loves Mario anything, so it's a win win :)

      Maybe Nintendo should be targeting women, since generally speaking, they're less likely than men to be interested in hi-def graphics and ultra-gory violence. Anyway, my wife loves Animal Crossing, Mario, Zelda, etc.

    41. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Wow. Just....Wow.

      Please tell me you're not really that dense. Between the above comment and the other stuff you've spewed, any weight your opinions might have had is pretty much gone.

    42. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got tired of Double Dash?

      Have you tried playing with other people?

    43. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I wouldn't spend any more time playing video games. You might want to invest in an education that doesn't leave the impression that you have an IQ of 85.

      It is called sarcasm and if you are too dense or just simply too stupid to understand it, you probably should tell your parents that they don't need to read Slashdot to you anymore.

    44. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by justchris · · Score: 1

      Nintendo has always gone for more diversity of games. They can't get them because 3rd parties won't make games for a system that doesn't sell (unless it's the Xbox for some reason). If another 100 million Gamecubes had sold, all those games you enjoy so much on PS2 would be on the gamecube as well. The only way to encourage 3rd parties to make games for a system is to buy the system, nothing else works. Sure, they can farm out their core characters (like they did with Link to get Soul Calibur 2), but you notice there's no Soul Calibur 3 for the gamecube, even though the gamecube version of SC2 sold more? It's because there are less gamecubes out there, so less potential for sales. Simple accounting.

      --
      just some guy
    45. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by justchris · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I think I'm missing your point. Can you explain to me what you mean when you say a game is for kids? Because, I have several nieces and nephews. They spend a lot of time with me because I own multiple gaming systems and a library of several hundred games. You know what I've found kids between the ages of 2 to 8 like to play? Sports games, racing games, first person shooters and fighting games They don't play platformers like Mario Sunshine, because they're too hard. They'll play Metroid Prime for all of 5 minutes before they decide it's too hard. They don't play RPGs because they're too boring. Same for puzzle games. I keep picking up these games other people claim are 'kiddie' games, because I enjoy them, and I can't get any of the actual kids I know to play them. But I pick up Mortal Kombat and my 9 yr old nephew has no problem learning all the moves to the point where he can beat a pc opponent easily, or his cousins about the same age. Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling you to play games you don't enjoy. I certianly don't. The very reason I don't have a PSP, there just hasn't really been a game for it yet that's drawn my interest. I pretty much picked up a DS because of Kirby Canvas Curse and Meteos. But, are you really saying that it makes a difference what characters appear in it? If the best FPS of the next generation just happens to have Mario and his pals in it, with superior gameplay to anything that has gone before, you're going to not play the game because the characters are too cutesy? Not that any such thing is particularly likely, I just think it's a silly thing to judge a game on.

      --
      just some guy
    46. Re:Is an innovative controller enough? by keytoe · · Score: 1

      I accidentally modded this troll instead of insightful, so I'm posting so it'll undo my mess. Sorry 'bout that.

  40. Well, you are the benchmark... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Having started playing FPS's"

    You should have quit there, but no, you forged on...

    "I don't think it would be possible for me to go back to NTSC resolution for modern games. This is a big black mark against this console."

    I wish more console makers would consult with you first, then we wouldn't be in this situation.

  41. Nonsense by clevershark · · Score: 1

    The bar by which one measures whether a game console is worth buying is a very flexible one... I don't think this will actually steal business away from XBOX360 or PS3, but it *may* make a difference in how many people own a Revolution alongside their other next-gen console.

    --

    My sig is too lon

  42. Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With the DS Nintendo have officially stopped playing Sony/Microsoft's game. They can clearly see that games are being put in a box now with nothing but graphics improving, so they picked up there ball and started a new game. Sony and Microsoft can stay with the graphics grind where as Nintendo will start making some intresting games and change the scene.

    Maybe it'll be a hit (like the DS), maybe it'll fail. It's a new direction and a some fresh blood in the old games markets heart. It's not going to hurt Nintendo any if they screw this up because the DS will keep them a float. The cube has a dedicated fanbase (I love mine) which wants to play fun games and graphics don't matter all that much to them. These are the same people who will buy the revolution and love it.

    Nintendos job in this "generation" is to try something new, keep their fans happy and forget about Sony and Microsoft. The PSP VS DS "battle" so far has been pretty much 99% in Nintendos favour. Theres a few PSP fans but mostly people have no intrest or are disapointed by their handheld. If it had been GBA Mark 2 VS PSP then the PSP would of won hands down. Yet Nintendo changed the entire game and have so far (Nintendogs being a major part of it) totally owned Sony.

    As long as Sony and Microsoft keep throwing thud around about "Hard drive this" and "Media centre" that they'll never beat Nintendo. They may sell more consoles or make more money, but people will only go "ooohhh shiny" so often.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They may sell more consoles or make more money, but people will only go "ooohhh shiny" so often.

      Don't underestimate the power of shiny things. It's that allure that has supported the entire graphics card industry for almost a decade.

    2. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Slashcrap · · Score: 1, Troll

      With the DS Nintendo have officially stopped playing Sony/Microsoft's game. They can clearly see that games are being put in a box now with nothing but graphics improving, so they picked up there ball and started a new game. Sony and Microsoft can stay with the graphics grind where as Nintendo will start making some intresting games and change the scene.

      With their latest silent, black and white movies Nintendo have officially stopped playing Sony/Microsoft's game. They can clearly see that movies are being put in a box now with nothing but the sound and visuals improving so they picked up their ball and continued playing the same old game. Sony and Microsoft can stay with the Technicolor/Dolby Stereo grind whereas Nintendo will start making some really interesting slient, black & white movies and change the scene.

      Just thought that would make an interesting analogy.

    3. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Zigg · · Score: 1

      With their latest silent, black and white movies Nintendo have officially stopped playing Sony/Microsoft's game.

      Your analogy is so ridiculously flawed that it's hardly funny. You're very clearly ignoring the Revolution control, which frankly makes the old dozen-buttons and two-sticks paradigm look positively antiquated.

      But, hey, I'll humor ya anyway. I'll take the silent film that's actually good over a big-screen, flashy, noisy movie with no substance.

    4. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by radish · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'll take the silent film that's actually good over a big-screen, flashy, noisy movie with no substance.
      I'm sure you will. But would enough people agree to keep Nintendo afloat? A quick look at the movie box office figures would suggest not.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      With the DS Nintendo have officially stopped playing Sony/Microsoft's game. They can clearly see that games are being put in a box now with nothing but graphics improving, so they picked up there ball and started a new game.

      You've about got it there. Nintendo have realised they can't compete with Sony or Microsoft on their own terms, so they've changed the rules. Nintendo now release amazing games that cannot be copied or cloned, because nobody else has the hardware.

      We're seeing it already with the DS, and with the Revolution things will get interesting. That controller will allow games like nothing else there's ever been, and games unlike anything that any other console will be able to offer. I suppose if you've been sidelined and pushed into a smallish niche, the only thing to do is evolve like hell...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      I think Nintendo has always been like that if you notice. They did many of the things we hold today as standard first. Like D-pads and then analog sticks etc. People complain about Mario being in every Nintendo game but Mario is just a standard character they place in many settings, the games all tend to be pretty unique and danmn fun (Paper Mario and Mario part for example).

      Nintendo never really played the "lets all do the same thing" game. They just never had to face two huge faceless companies before so rather than poking and prodding at them they've gone full on red alert, pulling out every last trick they have and so far it's paying off.

      The only question is where do they go next. I can't see any way you can move beyond the human body which doesn't require direct brain access..

      --
      I like muppets.
    7. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by HerculesMO · · Score: 1

      Can't agree enough with this. I am one of 'those' that is looking for a gaming company to start pushing the envelope not with technology, but with the GAMEPLAY. We know full well now, and of all people who know it -- Dvorak -- we are going to have photorealistic games in the near future.

      But after that, then what? Photorealism doesn't make a game PLAY any better. It makes it look prettier.

      I am looking for Nintendo to go completely about face from Sony and Microsoft and just push the envelope with the types of games they develop. Honestly, one of the most fun times I've had was when myself and a bunch of friends started to get wasted at somebody's house, and played Mario Party for about 4 hours. It was like playing a board game, but well... a lot more fun. The graphics were 'blah', but damn that was a fun game.

      I just don't get the same excitement from the EA Sports games, or the countless first person shooters that are technically no different than Quake 1. You can look around with the mouse, shoot and jump. Everything else is just a slight addon, graphics and all.

      That said, I find it still rather annoying that my main attraction in gaming is first person shooters but I blame that mostly on the fact that I am a loser who enjoys being good at those games :)

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    8. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by shorgs · · Score: 1

      People keep saying that to Nintendo fans "graphics don't matter"...even the parents Nintendo fan. I can see where you're going with the PS3, however...the GameCube kicks the PS2s ass in terms of graphical performance. Sad that the titles just never made it over.

    9. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by master_p · · Score: 1

      But what truly new can Nintendo offer? DS does not have any truly new game, just the same old stuff with a different interface perhaps using the DS pen.

    10. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      You analogy is flawed.
      The difference is that the level of graphics PS2 and onwards already looks "good enough" for most part, i.e doesn't annoy the crap out of you, letting you notice and enjoy the gameplay more. If there is lack of gameplay, it will be far more visible.
      Want a good comparison? Take a good movie from the 90s, with the 90s level of effects and graphics and compare them to a crap 2005 movie with 2005 level of effects and graphics.
      Both look good enough graphically, but the 90s movie is far more enjoyable since it has a good plot, pacing etc.

      Now take an old game, the graphics are kinda annoying and get in the way of the gameplay, even if it's good. -- compared to silent b&w movie
      Take a bit newer game, with PS2~ graphics, it looks ok or even good and can be very enjoyable for its gameplay. -- compared to Technicolor/Dolby, 90s level cinema
      Now take a really new game, with awesome graphics and crap gameplay. The graphics can't make up for the crap game. -- compared to hollywood 2005

      So yes, i'd rather have good enough graphics with great gameplay instead of omg-wow-graphix-are-so-cool game with crap gameplay.

      --
      ^_^
    11. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better... take the original Star Wars Trilogy, and compare it with the new Star Wars Trilogy. All the flashy graphics and updated tech in the world didn't make those movies a hit, but the original did something inovative, something no one else had done quite the same before.

      It isn't that Nintendo is moving backwards in tech, they are moving forwards in a different direction. It seems more like they are trying to fork the gaming industry than drive it backwards (such as going from color film to black and white/silent).

    12. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Hitto · · Score: 0, Troll

      Try playing Kirby Canvas Curse (should have been subtitled : "warning, this is the digital equivalent of CRACK COCAINE") on anything else.
      Or maybe Warioware (see above).
      Or Yoshi Touch'n'Go (everybody clamors for lumines, which is YET ANOTHER FUCKING BLOCKS-FALLING-DOWN puzzle game, and disregards Yoshi as a "platformer with only one level", which makes me a sad panda.)

      Oh, sorry, you can't.

    13. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      Nintendo have realised they can't compete with Sony or Microsoft on their own terms, so they've changed the rules.

      Nintendo is a company that keeps a few billion dollars in cash in order to invest it quickly. They could compete with Sony or Microsoft directly if they felt it was in their best interest. Nintendo is, however, a well run business, and as such, they are concerned about making the most profit possible with the smallest investment possible. Microsoft and Sony's fight is an expensive one, and it's one likely to lose money for one of the companies if not both. The odds of success are not high even if you have the money to compete.

      It's not that Nintendo can't play their game. They have the money, and they certainly have the talent. It's that they are not willing.

      You can talk all you want about Nintendo's love of games and whatnot. I certainly believe they care about their industry and customers, but it's not important. Why would a company join a fight that nobody might win?

    14. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is so ridiculously flawed that it's hardly funny.

      Of course it is. I just like winding up fanboys - mainly of the Apple variety, but the Nintendo ones seem so easily wound up that it's difficult to resist. The frothing and spitting is music to my ears.

      But, hey, I'll humor ya anyway. I'll take the silent film that's actually good over a big-screen, flashy, noisy movie with no substance.

      Yes, you certainly have humoured me.

      Ask yourself this - who's still in business? The companies that stuck to silent movies or the ones that started producing "big-screen, flashy, noisy movie with no substance"?

      So you'll see if it's really a bad analogy when the sales figures come in. Personally, I will have lost interest long before then.

    15. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might also I suggest Trauma Center: Under the Knife within the new and unique category?

      Difficult, yet refreshing. The stylus is used for your tools in a unique way. Cut open patients, spray wounds, suture cuts, excise tumors... the motions are completely stylus-driven; giving you control that cannot be done anywhere else (except possibly for the PC, using a mouse).

      The downside is that the difficulty ramps up quickly, but it's somewhat akin to memorizing the motions, and accounting for some of the randomness.

    16. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Oh yea because we've seen an operations based game on consoles before.. not even the PC has one

      --
      I like muppets.
    17. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Chemical · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about Trauma Center? Cuz if you are it has been done on the PC before. Way back when in 1988 there was a game called Life and Death where you performed surgery. It doesn't play the same as Trauma Center, but it's a similar concept.

    18. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Want a good comparison? Take a good movie from the 90s, with the 90s level of effects and graphics and compare them to a crap 2005 movie with 2005 level of effects and graphics."

      You know, I was watching Jurassic Park on TV the other day. Back in 1993 those dinosaurs looked amazingly real, but now it's like watching Journey to the Center of the Earth. We've come a long way since the 1990s. A lot of movies being done now could not have been done back then.

    19. Re:Nintendo arn't playing your game any more by master_p · · Score: 1

      Hey Nintendo funboy, I don't want to play yet another platform game. I've played thousands, thank you.

  43. Nintendo isn't pushing CPU tech...and that's good by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sony developed an entirely new CPU architecture for the PS3.

    Microsoft went well beyond the current state of the art for desktops: three custom PowerPC cores on one die, running at 3+ GHz.

    And honestly, that's where much of the expense is coming from. It's not like SEGA (with the Genesis) or Nintendo (with the SNES or GC or GBA) or even Sony in the days of the PS1 decided to go with custom processors, let alone processors that shoot for the ultra-high end. Consoles have always been about custom hardware for some things, lowish-end commodity parts for everything else.

  44. Re:Development flexibility... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    It's actually a pair of SD slots.

    (From the page) :

    * 2 × front loading SD memory card slots.

  45. Re:Emmersion in gaming by vaderhelmet · · Score: 1

    D00D!!! I would so totally play Need for Bling Underground Xtreme 2007!!!!11!one
    When does that shit come out? Do I really have to wait until 2007??? Yes! This is gonna be saaweeeet!

  46. Re:Development flexibility... by mausmalone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First of all, it should be clear that the Rev. will support 480p and component cables. It would be stupid to think that they'd go below what the GCN already supports. A lot of aricles get that wrong, though, and someone new to this story following our posts might not understand that.

    Second, I'm not following the whole 512 MB USB stick thing... but as for why you'd remove HD support from 3rd party developers is because of the hardware costs. To render a full screen (assuming no overlap of polygons, which is laughable) at 640x480 and 60 fps requires an 18 megapixel fill-rate. To do it at 1280x720 (720p) takes 55 megapixels (about 3x the fill rate), and 1920x1080 (1080p/1080i) takes 124 megapixels (about 6.8x the fill rate). And that's just the bare minimum required just to draw the screen, much less do anything worthwhile with it. This should make it clear that supporting higher resolutions requires more powerful graphics processors, which in turn cost more money. I think it's obvious that the only real reason they have to hold the support back entirely is so that they can keep the console's price point at about $200 (using the MSRP for the N64 and Gamecube as a predictor) because increasing resolution means increasing fill rate, which means higher priced GPUs.

    I think that for the majority of people (who don't have or don't have access to HDTV monitors), the lack of HD support will mean nothing whatsoever. They still will support component cables, which means I can wire it up like an HD device (which simplifies my home theater), and that's all I really care about.

    --
    -=-=-=-=-=
    I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
  47. Nintendo by certel · · Score: 1

    I think Nintendo has a lot to compete against. You need to come out with something great or they're going to lose a lot more market share.

  48. Games systems often on second TV in the house by gathas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think HDTV gameplaying may happen at a slower rate than HDTV adoption. In our house the game system (a gamecube) is relegated to the den on a second TV. When we get a big HDTV its going in the family room and I'm not going to let the kids usurp this TV all day to play games. While this comment clearly puts me in the "video games are for kids" camp, I still think this is the predominant demographic. There's a market for adult game playing and it's growing and I'm sure there is money to be made there, but I still think alot of game systems get relegated to secondary TVs in other rooms. In other words this market is maturing and fragmenting into different niches.

    1. Re:Games systems often on second TV in the house by xigxag · · Score: 1

      I still think alot of game systems get relegated to secondary TVs in other rooms

      I agree that that is a rather typical situation, which is why Microsoft in particular is taking great pains to position the 360 as a digital media hub suitable for the family room. Whether they succeed or not is anybody's guess, but they are certainly targetting your demographic this time around.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    2. Re:Games systems often on second TV in the house by flink · · Score: 1

      Shit, I was thinking of buying an HD set exclusively for games - I don't even have cable or satellite. Although with the GC not being HD, I might rethink that.

    3. Re:Games systems often on second TV in the house by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thing that should be noted is that the Revolution will be able to plug into a computer screen:

      http://cube.ign.com/articles/522/522559p2.html

      Given that we are likely to see most future HDTV as pure digital systems, maybe using a VGA or DVI connector (not clear which one it will use) may actually be a better solution than the component connectors we have now.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    4. Re:Games systems often on second TV in the house by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 1

      i think if you consider the shape and size of the Revolution controller, you'll agree that it is in fact VERY well suited for "adult game playing"

      --
      1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
  49. 16:9 and 480p seem guaranteed by tepples · · Score: 1

    I could care less about HD support as long as it supports progressive scan and widescreen.

    Select N64 games all the way back to Goldeneye have supported 16:9 display mode, and Metroid Prime for GameCube can do 480p on compatible TVs and compatible GameCube systems.

    1. Re:16:9 and 480p seem guaranteed by oscarmv · · Score: 1

      Sorry I don't remember where I read it, but Nintendo has already stated they'll be supporting EDTV (widescreen 480p) with all games with the Nintendo Revolution.

  50. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...don't tell the police...

    Right. You're secret is safe right here on slashdot--a worldwide community read by millions.

    HA!

  51. The controller revealed... by TheZorch · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Nintendo has kept a lot of info about the Revolution under tight security for some time. One of their most closely guarded secrets has been the design of the controllers. That's been revealed here:

    http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000077059062/

    Basically, its looks like a TV remote with a D-Pad and some buttons, but looks can be deceiving. The controller has 3D Directional Recognition meaning that you can point it at the screen and the game will know what you are pointing at, and it will be Tilt Sensitive. A port on the back of the controller will allow users to add a separate analog stick and buttons with Rumble features. The whole thing will be wireless and rechargable. This thing is pretty new and innovative and it will be interesting to see what sort of games they can make that works with a controller like this.

    --
    Michael "TheZorch" Haney
    thezorch@gmail.com
    http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
    1. Re:The controller revealed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think this is news to anyone?

    2. Re:The controller revealed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, Abraham Lincoln has just been shot by an unknown assailant. More details as they become available.

  52. Zelda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm buying a revolution simply because Mario and Zelda are two of the best series I've ever played... I would pay $200 just for the new zelda coming out on the gamecube.

  53. EDTV != HDTV by tepples · · Score: 1

    Progressive Scan does not get you ANYTHING at all unless you have a TV that can play that progressivly scanned DVD.

    Some monitors support progressive scan but do not support the higher frequencies of HDTV.

    So you see, your clamoring for progressive scan and not caring about HD support doesn't really make any sense, as they are one in the same.

    When contrasted with "high definition", "progressive scan" usually means "enhanced definition" or 480p. "High definition" is usually 720p or 1080i.

  54. Incorrect(with link) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " It would be stupid to think that they'd go below what the GCN already supports"

    the GCN doesn't support 480p. Atleast the newer ones. one of my friends had to buy a buddies older GC because the one he bought they removed the Highdef.

    http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/nintendog amecube/component_faq.jsp

    The Digital A/V Output port was removed from systems produced after May, 2004 (these systems will have a model number of DOL-101). If you have a Nintendo GameCube without this port, and you wish to play your games in progressive scan, you may be able to obtain a system that was made prior to the removal of the Digital A/V Output port. Please call our Consumer Service department at 1-800-255-3700 to discuss available options.

    no 480P for revolution

    1. Re:Incorrect(with link) by mausmalone · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware of this. They removed support because very few people actually used it. If you call the number, they'll offer to replace your gamecube with one that has component video out or slap the port back on. Having been released in 2001, the GCN went the majority of its time with component video support.

      And the simple fact of the matter is that the underlying DOL-101 hardware is still capible of doing 480p, it's just that they opted not to solder on the port for the component cables.

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
  55. No, it wasn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The gamecube and the xbox sold about the same. Xbox did better in north america, GC did better in japan. Both got bent over by the ps2.

  56. Broader Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An 8 year old doesn't care about HD (High Definition as opposed to Hard Drive as some posts didn't read the actual article) at all. If fact, there isn't one friend of my teenagers whom cares one bit if a show is in HD or not! None of the individuals I work with care and nor do any of my relatives.

    HD is not a technology being pushed by the end user in any real commercial way. The "masses" aren't shouting for it in any country anywhere. Instead it is a technology being pushed by the U.S. and the companies which stand to profit from new hardware sales.

    Hardware hasn't mattered for a long time in this market. Positioning and sales have been based on marketing and software saturation. If you market a product properly it can beat out a better competitive product. It happens all the time! Add in a better selection, in the case of consoles, of games and you will end up with a larger market share.

    The Revolution (a.k.a whatever they really end up calling it) won't in the end suffer from not having HD except for in a very few cases. Where it will suffer is strictly in the area of poor marketing and game titles. If they can avoid those 2 pitfalls, which they have managed to walk right into blindly for a while now, their new console should be much more of a mover and a shaker in the next console war.

    1. Re:Broader Picture by The_Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 0

      Brilliant: Once again on /., anectodal evidence is equated to biblical truth. My friends think HD is neat, and are buying HD-equipped televisions.

      QED, HDTVs are the new rage!

      --
      -- Proof by analogy is fraud.
  57. it's not gonna even require a tv by draccip · · Score: 1, Interesting

    most people are saying the reason it's not hd capable is because they are not even using a tv with this thing. perhaps a visor ala "On" or a steroscopic projection which many are also saying. i do believe they certainly have a trick up there sleave, why else would we not have seen ANY screen shots of any games that will be releasing in under 7 months. it just doesn't make sense. i'll tell you y, it's cuz the don't microsoft or sony to copy them and make a similar peripheral. i'm telling ya that the controller was and is not the BIG secret.

    1. Re:it's not gonna even require a tv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:it's not gonna even require a tv by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      Ya know, I never thought about it much, but I think you're right. It's not like Nintendo to release information on the real meat of a product long before it's release, yet they did it with the controller. This seems like a very poor business practice, seeing that by the time the Revolution does come out, the buzz about the new controller would have simmered down. Wouldn't it have been better to announce the innovative controller like 4-8 weeks before it's launch? I smell something fishy in all of this. I can only guess that the big N has something else they're not saying.

      One thing I've been chuckling at was the big statements by Microsoft and Sony that their next systems will be over 100x more powerfull than their last system, while Nintendo waved a flag and says, "and our system will only be about 3x more powerful". My thought is that Nintendo was realizing that Sony/Microsoft's statements were completely fabricated (after all, with what variables do you chose to measure the "power" of a system?), and that when people actually sit down in play, their first reaction to the system is, "wow, this system is much better than their last, about 3 or 4 times more powerfull!". Then, when the Revolution finally comes out, it will have much more similar speed and graphical prowess to the other two. I mean, come on, the demo shots I've seen from the 360 and the PS3, while being really pretty, seriously, are they completely mind-blowing considering the general graphical abilities of our era? No. Are they even THAT much more amazing than the GameCube and XBox? Eh, not particularly. Hell, the GameCube looked good enough for me, though it's time for an upgrade, 3 or 4 times more "power" (whatever that means) will be more than enough for me. Traditionally, when you look back on it, all the launch titles of a console are not incredibly distinguishable from the last year of titles from the previous generation: Mario 3 often gets compared to early SNES games, FF6 is often pitted against PS and Saturn titles, FF8 -> FF10, anyone? No big deal. Traditionally, the biggest gaps are from the launch titles to the mid-late games, once developers really get their legs for it. Super Mario World vs. Chrono Trigger, damn. Duck Hunt vs. Mario 3, different world. No system has made a giant leep in technical prowess on it's launch, and I'm pretty convinced from the PS3 and XBox360, that we won't see one this time around either. On the flip side, that's ALL that Sony and Micrsoft have been screeming about. I think some people are going to be in for a big dissapointment. Nintendo, on the other hand, isn't making ANY promisses about technical prowess, but selling their system to the public by promissing innovative game play, something I'm a lot more willing to buy (especially coming from Nintendo), then promisses about how some new graphical UI is going to change my life.

      Also, HDTV is almost totally unneccessary, IMO. It was so obviously hype generated by media hardware manufacturers in order to find a new product to sell, since DVD profits have been declining. On a computer, where most images on the screen are static and don't move for long periods of time, high resolution is important, but when you have constantly moving imagery like in a movie or a video game, the human eye fails to notice blockier or more pixilated images because in the next frame, the position will have changed. This is why TV is still acceptable for most people, and is about 4x lower resolution than the computers they use. Sure, HDTV will look slightly better, but it's not going to revolutionize viewing pleasure. And seriously, I've not really seen a lot of public outcry, I've seen a lot of companies (and now the US government) trying to stir up public sentiment against current television technology, and failing misserably. I never needed HDTV in order to enjoy my video games before, why should I now?

      Nintendo's not offering a replacement to the GameCube, as has been the previous trend for systems, but an alternative that also happens to include the har

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  58. HD *is* important! by EGSonikku · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK Nintendo. There is NO reason not to support High Definition. Zero. The rumored hardware should handle it easily. It's seems like Nintendo is chosing not to support it just so they can say " Hey look, no fancy buzzwords here grandma!"

    However, for many people who own an HDTV, not supporting is going to be the reason I don't get it. Let me elaborate...

    I bought a nice 51" Sony WEGA about 5 months ago. It's rear projection, but for $1600 I got 480i, 480p, *real* 720p, and 1080i support, and every connector imaginable up to HDMI.

    HD shows looked fantastic! Watching Baseball, football, and shows like LOST has been totally great. You know what hasn't been great?

    Games.

    Iv'e tried using my PS2 (with component cables) as well as my xbox (also with component cables) and not couting GranTurismo 4's "1080i mode" (which appears to be some kind of upscan trick) everything is in 480p, which, while still better than 480i, still looks *horrible* on an HD set. I gave up playing games on this set and moved my consoles to the 27" TV in the bedroom.

    So I had a great TV that I couldn't really game on. But only for 11 more days. Iv'e had an Xbox 360 on preorder for a while. ALL titles support *at least* 720p (1280x720) and some may support 1080i (1920x1080)! This will make full use of my TV's capabilities, and will look absolutely stunning.

    That being said, I do like Nintendo. Iv'e owned ALL of thier consoles and handhelds (including the VirtualBoy ;p) but I won't be buying a Revolution, at least for a while due to the lack of HD support. I simply cannot go back to NTSC 480i hell.

    For those that say HDTV's aren't that prevailant now, i'd say they are a LOT more common than even just a year or so ago, and with more and more HD programming coming, and (relativly) cheap prices compared to the past (a decent 27" set can be had arount $500 if you look around), HD set's should sell like mad this Christmas and next, in part fueled by the Xbox 360 and the upcoming PS3!

    By not even having HD as an option, Nintendo may come off to many as not being a "serious" console with staying power. As more and more people pick up HD sets, the more and more people won't be buying a Revolution. And it seems that's where they want to be. The "non-scary buzzword your grandma can play it" system. But, they are turning away the people that grew up with the NES, in exchange for the non-techie gaming newcomer. I want to support Nintendo, but the lack of vision in not supporting some form of HD is a killer for me :-( I cannot stress enough how bad a 480i signal looks on an HDTV. And if it ends up supporting 480p, while an improvment, just isn't enough.

    --
    - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
    1. Re:HD *is* important! by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      "*horrible* on an HD set" I've come to the opionion that HDTV makers intentionally botch their NTSC display so the user demands more HD-related games and shows. I was at Sam's Club the other day and they had the HD and non-HD TVs displaying the same video feed (Star Wars III DVD). The HDTV's looked noticably worse than their non-HDTV counterparts. This reminds me of the RF converters a lot of comanies were selling when DVD players were first popular. I had an RF converter from about four years before DVD players came about. It's output quality is ten times better than the one my Dad has for his DVD player. I really think those converters existed to get people to buy new TVs with RCA jacks built-in. "But, they are turning away the people that grew up with the NES, in exchange for the non-techie gaming newcomer." I hate to tell you this but most people who owned an NES were "non-techie." The NES had over 90% market penetration in the US at one point. 90% of American households didn't turn out "techies."

    2. Re:HD *is* important! by ureshii_akuma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Huh, oddly enough 480i and 480p from video game systems look quite nice on my 51" HDTV. So when you say you can't stress how bad it looks, you certainly are saying something quite subjective and hardware dependent.

      Now, if everything else is equal (lighting, framerate, AI, etc.) will higher resolution look better? Of course! Will higher resolution make a dull/repetitive/derived game any better? No way.

      Right now, that is my biggest problem with the XBox360. Yes, the games look nice and would graphically shine on my TV. But, none of them excite me (well ES:IV does, but I'll get that for the PC). I think it is just I have gamed long enough (TI 99-4a was my first game system, heh) that graphics, honestly, don't matter. So, if there are no games I want, not amount of purty pictures will sway me. Now, I know this is not true for the 14 - 21 demographic Sony/MS are targetting. But, for adults and kids alike, good games can sell regardless of graphics.

      Yes, the Rev will not please the hardcore (define that as you will) gamer that is only concerned about graphics. For those hardcore gamers and others that are looking for gameplay, I think the Rev has a good shot. Of course, I can't make a final decision until we see and play the games for the rev. Who knows, maybe XBox360 will end up having the most innovative and fun titles when all is said and done. But, their launch line-up sure doesn't show it ...

      Ultimately (you see this on HT forums a lot), I think it is easy for HT enthusiast to get trapped in their ivory tower and believe that HD is as important and awesome to the masses as it is to them. But, I think we are a few years away from the general public seeing HD as an important and necessary feature in their gaming system.

    3. Re:HD *is* important! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I cannot stress enough how bad a 480i signal looks on an HDTV. And if it ends up supporting 480p, while an improvment, just isn't enough."

      then you have a crappy set; 480i and 480p look wonderful on my HDTV. Sure, not quite 720p quality, but pretty darn good. I could really care less if the new systems support hd or not.

    4. Re:HD *is* important! by 246o1 · · Score: 1
      blah blah blah I wasted a ton of money blah blah blah i am unreasonably obsessed with HD because I blew 2 grand on HiDef shit.
      Good for you. I like 'fun,' and like lots of fun enthusiasts, I'm going to get a Nintendo, because they have 'fun games,' which is true no matter the resolution. I'd enjoy playing Nintendo games even if they still made them at original NES specs. Some people are really into graphics, but most people I know don't have the money to obsess about that crap, and just look for fun games.
      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    5. Re:HD *is* important! by digidave · · Score: 1

      DVDs are 480p, so do all DVDs look like crap on your TV, too? I sure wouldn't buy that TV.

      I suspect you've enabled progressive scan on your DVD player and it looks great at 480p. Revolution should do the same thing.

      The real problem is that most cheap and many expensive HDTVs have weird resolutions that can make HD signals look bad because of stretched pixels or they add black bars to accomodate their non-16:9 pixel resolution.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    6. Re:HD *is* important! by ect5150 · · Score: 1

      I bought a nice 51" Sony WEGA about 5 months ago. It's rear projection, but for $1600 I got 480i, 480p, *real* 720p, and 1080i support, and every connector imaginable up to HDMI.

      You also need to realize that 99% of the population taht actually owns a TV has NO idea what any of that means. Even the people that can afford a TV like that (who are not video junk-heads) don't really know what it means. Here, at Slashdot, this is our field of interest. Most people who are going to get an XBox 360/PS3/Revolution will have no clue. That's why N doesn't need to include it if it will allow them to produce the Revolution at a lower cost in order to offer it at a lower price to better compete with 360/PS3.

      Keep in mind most households actually have a game system in them (at least here in the US), and most of those households still think the internet is that little blue E...

      --
      I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
    7. Re:HD *is* important! by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Most of those people buy what techo-junkies at Future Shop tell them to buy, thus more HD TV sales.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    8. Re:HD *is* important! by kukyfrope · · Score: 1

      HD is a technology currently searching for a user. While this being a tech foum, many of us know and may even care about HDTV. Do the majority of middle-class blue collar workers care about HDTV? I don't think so. At such a high price-point, why do they need a brand new high-quality TV then pay a premium for the service when they can get the same thing for much cheaper. HDTV will never fall into the mainstream at a premium price-point when a good portion of America are paid a wage job.

      How long ago was DVD introduced? 1996. It's now 9 years later, and people are just now almost switched to DVD. Most commercial stores have fully phased out VHS and DVD players can be had for $30. Many people, especially of older generations (which I am not, being 21) care more about a great story than higher quality visual experience. The young-adult generation seems to be wrapped up in life-like video game graphics and huge explosions and trying to live The Matrix.

      Well, the movie studios have taken notice and we have paid the price with some really horrible films out in the last few years. "Doom: The Movie" ? Give me a break.

      Game developers have also taken notice: enter XBOX360 and PS3. Tell me this, what is the main selling point for both of these systems? How great they will make your games look... not how great the games will be that you're playing. Tell me, what do you know about the Revolution? You know what the controller looks like and that it will change the way people can play games.

      I don't know about you guys but I grew up playing NES 8-bit. I actually heard a kid try and take credit for growing up playing Playstation 1 and how bad the graphics were. I didn't complain about graphics then and I wouldn't still today. Some of my favorite games are on NES and I would take any of those great gameplay games over any game of Counter-Strike, Halo or whatever the current gaming fix is.

    9. Re:HD *is* important! by metamatic · · Score: 1

      480p on my 32" Sharp Aquos LCD looks stunning. Even DirecTV standard resolution looks better than it did on my old 22" CRT.

      Some HDTVs simply do a poor job upconverting lower resolutions. Unfortunately for you, it sounds like your Sony is one of them.

      I'd hazard a guess that a 32" HDTV is likely to be way more commonplace in average households than the 50"+ behemoths. So I suspect 480p is adequate for a game console.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    10. Re:HD *is* important! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>OK Nintendo. There is NO reason not to support High Definition. Zero.

      Hmm, here's one for you; FILL RATE! Think about it this way for a second:

      640x480 = 307,200 pixels per screen

      1920x1200 = 2,073,600pixels per screen

      Xbox 360 fill rate has only increased by about 400%, yet the fill rate requirements for a screens worth of pixels has gone up for 675%; that effectively means we have less fill rate to work with than in previous generations of hardware. And since pixel shaders essentially chew fill rate, and we'll be required to support some number of those resolutions, much of the new hardware muscle goes entirely towards larger display resolutions.

      Given those facts, it's actually quite possible we'll see better rendering (albeit at lower resolutions) on a platform with a lower resolution output, as fill rate is a primary bottleneck in many graphics cards. The way I see it is that this generation is requiring a $3000 HD TV set purchase to get the increased graphics benifit of the new console, and developers will not have a choice on how they use those performance increases.

    11. Re:HD *is* important! by Superpants · · Score: 1
      I don't think that HD is that important a feature (for me anyway) considering that no matter how advanced and expensive a television is, it will still pale in comparison to the visuals on my computer (speaking prorated of course). Sure my monitor is a lot smaller that a 52" monstrosity, but it suits me fine.

      Nintendo's lack of HD support has no effect on me at all especially since my TV is smaller than my monitor and is older than most gamers today. The only reason I'd buy a console at all is because of Nintendo's proprietary game franchises and that nifty new controller of theirs, which I'm very eager to try out. Most games worth getting on PS2 and xbox have been ported to the PC, so this arrangement is fine with me because I save big $$$'s

    12. Re:HD *is* important! by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the movie industry noticed and released Doom in October because that's where would-be summer blockbusters go to die when they suck. Receipts are down this year, and not just compared to last year which had The Passion of the Christ.

  59. Re:Why does Slashdot hype non-existent hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do slashdotters continuously post remarks without checking their facts?

  60. Why not show us some games? by dioscaido · · Score: 0, Troll

    So, up to now we know that the hardware won't be up to par, and the controller will be a bit odd... Nintenfans' defense is that it's all about the games, yo! Well... where are the games? Isn't this machine supposed to be out next summer? And they don't have any games in good enough shape to demo yet? Have they at the very least released a list of publishers and games that are planned for the console? I'm just not sure what there is to get excited about.

    1. Re:Why not show us some games? by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      *rollseyes* there have been demos.

    2. Re:Why not show us some games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The controller will be a bit odd"?

      Have you uh... SEEN the preview videos? I'm buying this system because of that controller alone.

      And once again the games are delayed a bit because Nintendo is actually innovating instead of just upgrading the graphics card and processor like Sony and MS did. Nothing I've seen about the 360 or the PS3 impresses me at all.

    3. Re:Why not show us some games? by cornface · · Score: 1

      Of actual games in development, or just the quick and dirty tech demos that Nintendo put together for magazines?

    4. Re:Why not show us some games? by dioscaido · · Score: 1

      Links? I'm not trolling, I'd legitimately like to see them.

  61. Re:Emmersion in gaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sounds like another Nokia game console using old hardware."

    Sounds like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Nice try though, troll.

  62. Re:Emmersion in gaming by xSauronx · · Score: 1

    unless mine get to doing some chores, theyll have an etch-a-sketch.

    --
    By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  63. HD support is not a deal breaker by gozar · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How many people that are whining about no HD support in the Revolution have used the current systems on an HDTV?

    Metroid Prime at 480p looks pretty darn good, GT4 for the PS2 at 1080i is ok, Halo at 480p is probably the worst out of these three examples. When you are 18" from the monitor, high resolution is important. When you're sitting 8' away from your 48" TV, higher resolutions aren't as ground breaking.

    I think Nintendo will do just fine, as long as they support 16:9 mode. BTW, game developers, if you offer split mode game play, make use of the 16:9 screen and let me split the screen side by side instead of just top/bottom.

    --
    What, me worry?
    1. Re:HD support is not a deal breaker by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. HD is a huge improvement over SD whether it's 18" or 8 feet away. This move is a big blunder by Nintendo. Each generation, there are a few things that are no brainers when you come out with a console. Last gen, it was 3D, CD-ROM storage and CD-Quality audio. Sony and Sega picked up on it, Nintendo missed that boat. This gen, it was DVD playback, surround sound and Internet connectivity. Next gen, it's wireless, HDTV, HDTV and HDTV. Everybody and their mother is going to buy an HDTV within the next 3 years and it's gonna piss me and a lot of other Nintendo fans that Nintendo is screwing us up like this.

    2. Re:HD support is not a deal breaker by gozar · · Score: 1
      Next gen, it's wireless, HDTV, HDTV and HDTV. Everybody and their mother is going to buy an HDTV within the next 3 years and it's gonna piss me and a lot of other Nintendo fans that Nintendo is screwing us up like this.

      I don't know how many people are going to buy an HDTV in the next 3 years. Let's take a pointless sampling of everyone I know right now.... One other has their HDTV hooked up correctly. Everyone else just uses the composite video/s-video connections.

      There is another problem everyone is glossing over when it comes to HDTV support. How are these game systems supposed to be hooked up? Most HDTVs have maybe 2 HD inputs. The DVD player takes one, the HD receiver takes another. My set up at home, I have 2 component video inputs on my TV. My HD cable box is plugged into one. My stereo receiver that does have component video switching plugs into the other. Plugged into the component video on my stereo receiver is the DVD player and XBox. I'm currently out of component video inputs, so I have to use s-video with my ReplayTV, Game Cube, and PS2.

      That's 6 devices in the here-and-now that can use component video and I can't use them all unless I spend even more money on another switcher. Most people want to match up the yellow-red-white connection and get playing.

      --
      What, me worry?
  64. Re:Development flexibility... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That just sold me. I can back up my saves that I want to my PC and just keep reusing a 1gb sd stick.

  65. Look at the manufacturers... by teknopagan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what it really breaks down to for me:

    There is the Xbox 360, which brags about it's HDD support but does not make the HDD a standard option. How many 3rd party devs are going to support a peripheral that maybe a third or less of the market has? Obviously some will, but most won't bother. Plus, it's Microsoft, and they just piss me off.

    Then there's the Playstation 3. Made by Sony, a company who installs rootkits on people's PC's, settles for poorly manufactured digicam CCD's, and has generally been riding their name for the past 3 years or so (Hey, we're Sony! People will buy our crap regardless of how craptastic it is!). Sony pisses me off.

    Last but not least, we have the Nintendo Revolution, which is not only the least expensive of the three, but is likely to bring about a wave of excellent new gameplay styles with their innovative new controller format (btw, for those who still complain and want their old-style controllers, Nintendo is making one). Most importantly, Nintendo hasn't done anything to piss me off lately.

    Disclaimer: If a really good new Ratchet and Clank game comes out for it...I might end up with a PS3 anyway. Damn that addictive Lombax!

    --
    The Russian Mafia will mod you down just to see if the Moderate button works.
    1. Re:Look at the manufacturers... by Achra · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, I'd mod that up. Apparently, you & I "Vote with our dollar". A huge portion of the world does this too. If your company does something absolutely shitty, no matter how it is.. Microsoft jerks you around on the phone making you prove that you really honest to god bought Windows and yes you really have had it activated before, you just changed out the videocard... or Sony installs a rootkit on your machine.. People remember crap like this. When a business (not just consoles) does me wrong, they receive no more of my money. Ever. Period. (As long as there is any alternative whatsoever, anyways.. And there almost always is).

      --
      Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
  66. Re:Not exactly by JanneM · · Score: 1

    Hmm. As they write, of course the maker-specific titles are going to be exclusive (and that of course includes a slew of - likely - very creative Nintendo titles making use of the wand).

    But any one console, as long as it's half-way successful (as all three likely will be), will be too large a market to ignore for many houses. The big impact will be in things like creating things like the graphics, models and level data sizes and so on in such a way that the data is useable on all platforms. And if any one platform has an edge over the other ones, that will likely go underutilized.

    And this is coming from a hardcore Nintendo fan. I've been playing Nintendo since I was five years old, and I've actually been inside Nintendo's corporate headquarters in Kyodo, Japan (don't tell the police).

    I pass by what I think is their headquarters every week on the train (large off-white square building in southern Kyoto); I'd love to take a tour someday!

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  67. Re:Why does Slashdot hype non-existent hardware? by yanos · · Score: 1

    It's not because you haven't seen it that it doesn't exist. After all, nintendo have always been ultra secretive (and perhaps too much to your taste). Also, please keep in mind that the future of nintendo revolve entirely around their next gen move, unlike microsoft and sony. So chances are, there is such a thing as a revolution prototype with next-gen games running on it, they just don't want to show it to the public yet.

  68. Re:Development flexibility... by ayersrj · · Score: 1

    Ahh the voice of reason! There it is.. all the way at the bottom of the thread.

    Lets not forget one more important thing as well. If the Revolution is going to put a lot into emulations of their past systems, pushing the HD is kind of stupid anyhow. Black bars on the sides of screens, or stretched out visuals aren't that great, and as you pointed out the vast majority of people don't own HDTV monitors, so they won't be missing anything.

    I can see little Timmy right now, very excited about the XBox 360 he just bought at Best Buy seeing the demo unit, and when he plus it into his television, he's like "Ohhh Fudge."

    Of course, having an HDTV I wouldn't have minded the support.

  69. For what its worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A little background on me, I am a PC game to the end. That being said I did get started on Nintendo. They completely lost me when they went to the N64. I have played PS and PS2, and was never really interested in XBOX. I have to admit that I am really curious about the revolution. The thing that will sell me on it, is how well the controler works. I am personally tired of playing the same game with new shiny graphics. I still go back and play old pc games and console game, I can forgive non modern graphics if the game is fun. The revoution could allow for completely new ways to play games. Not to mention that after playing FPS on computer I can't stand to play them on console. Again the Revoltion could change that. If shiny graphics are important to you and you are willing to shell out for an HD TV, then I am sure you will be willing to shell out for a PS3 or XBOX360. Anymore it seems like most games come out for PC PS and XBOX, so I don't feel the need to spend more money to get those consoles. The revolution is a wild card. It will all depend on there games.

    IMHO

  70. Re:Development flexibility... by mausmalone · · Score: 1

    Also a 512 MB onboard flash rom drive. I ask ... to the end user, does it make a lick of difference that the onboard storage is a flash rom instead of a spinning disk? I really doubt it. Sure, you can't do game pre-loading like on the X-Box, but GCN load times from the disc were still better than X-Box load times from the hard drive, so I'm not worried.

    --
    -=-=-=-=-=
    I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
  71. Re:Nintendo isn't pushing CPU tech...and that's go by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

    Which really seems right insane to me (in Microsoft's case). It just seems like Microsoft wanted to put in lots of big numbers. Sony wants to push Cell through the door, and they wanted a whole lot of computing power. Sony's architecture has always favoured lots of number crunching, as traditionally, their GPU's have been fairly weak or non-existant. Making the CPU required for graphics work. This time, they actually do seem to have included a powerful GPU, making one wonder why they need that much computing power?

    Microsoft just seems interested in competing with Sony on every front, regardless of reason.

    Nintendo, doesn't see a point in having that much computing power when a GPU is far more useful in an actual game. As a result, they have much less computing power than either Microsoft or Sony, but they seem to have a more powerful GPU than either of them, judging from leaked specs. The leaked specs also indicate a PPU (Physics Processing Unit), which could be used to offload a LOT of work from the CPU, keeping Nintendo on par with the others at a much cheaper price.

    Once again, Nintendo is using efficiency to combat their foes. And it's always worked for them in the past. Make no mistake. Nintendo are the MASTERS at hardware design. Seriously, take a look at their consoles sometime. N64 is about the single exception to their mastery. (N64 was an absolute nightmare to code for, as Nintendo wanted to keep smaller developers off the console to increase the quality of games overall. They've eradicated that policy since then, and their consoles are the easiest to code for now).

  72. Walking around Nintendo, MS & Sony by Bushcat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When one visits Nintendo, it's like visiting a relatively small company that does stuff like collect cloisonne plates for the walls, and everyone seems to know everyone else. Microsoft is like visiting a big business. Sony is like visiting a big business at war with itself. Somehow, the Nintendo consoles and games seem to reflect this difference. I don't know how it spills over to the games, since they're made by third parties, but the general environment seems to work quite well for them. The games seem to work at any scale.

  73. Total rubbish by the_raptor · · Score: 1

    Both Sony and Microsoft are buying their chips of IBM, and they are not even close to state of the art (except probably power consumption). This is just the first time such large multi-core chips have been put in a consumer device, and because of their unique design they will be significantly harder to program for, so don't expect many cutting edge games in the first year.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    1. Re:Total rubbish by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 1

      This is just the first time such large multi-core chips have been put in a consumer device

      Hence "state of the art."

    2. Re:Total rubbish by the_raptor · · Score: 1
      Hence "state of the art."


      No. Consumer gear almost by definition is never "state of the art". It takes years for "state of the art" gear to get cheap enough to be put in consumer electronics. 32 and 64 way multi-processor systems aren't even state of the art anymore, so a measly 3 cores is quite tame. And the graphics power of the new consoles is unlikely to match a single 7800Ultra or X18000 card, let alone a SLI/Crossfire rig, mainly because one of those cards costs more then an entire console.
      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    3. Re:Total rubbish by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. There's a big difference between taking high-end-price-is-no-object technology and consumerizing it. Putting multi-CPU systems into a small box that sits next to your TV *is* state of the art. No one has done it before.

  74. HD - why? by ardle · · Score: 1

    I'm amazed that so many people are chiming in to insist that the term "HD" means "Hard Disk Drive". One post asserts that "HD in this article meant Hard Disc, not Hi-Definition". I don't think the term "HD" even appears in the article and if you read the sentence before the first use of the term "HD" in the summary you can be in no doubt as to what it means. How little do you need to read in order to make that mistake? I know, this is Slashdot. RTFA isn't even approprate in these cases, tho - more like F***ing Read Something!

    Or is this some kind of brain-melting troll style that I'm not familiar with?

    To get on-topic, I reckon that Nintendo are on a pretty safe bet in leaving out HDTV support; it's a long way from being standard here in Europe, at least, and still has to overcome some content delivery hurdles (DRM lobbying and implementation and its nett cost to the customer) before it'll be seriously considered by a public that are still paying off their lower-res widescreen TVs. AFAIK there's a sort of countdown to the time everyone must use a digital decoder to view TV (at least, in some countries); people won't like being forced to fork out again for new hardware, especially if they expect it to cost them more to run than their current setup. Of course, if they're given no choice, they'll do it...

    Sorry, drifting off-topic again :-)

  75. Re:Emmersion in gaming by oscarmv · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your statement that the Revolution won't have 802.11g is correct but misleading. It will have 802.11b which, frankly, should be far more than enough for its needs (both for downloading content for the virtual console and for internet/LAN play).

    No offense intended, just wanted to clear things up.

  76. Re:Nintendo isn't pushing CPU tech...and that's go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Microsoft went well beyond the current state of the art for desktops: three custom PowerPC cores on one die, running at 3+ GHz.
    Still true, but the new Apple Powermacs run a quad core PowerPC. Not at such high speeds though.
  77. But does it maximize profit? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Meryl Lynch reported that the Xbox 360 could be as low as $250 this spring and MS would still make a profit.

    Doesn't mean it will. The goal of a for-profit corporation is not just to make profit but to maximize profit. Remember that Microsoft is using artificial scarcity to hype up its console in order to keep a 300-400 USD price point for a long time.

  78. Re:Development flexibility... by mausmalone · · Score: 1

    As far as black bars and image stretching on emulation ... HD support is not necessarily the same as widescreen support. I hope that even without support for 720p and 1080i, developers will see fit to have a widescreen and 4:3 mode on all their games (widescreen support must be handled in the software, there's no automatic way to do it in hardware). Ideally, their emulators should be able to switch back and forth at the user's will.

    I also have an HDTV and I wouldn't have minded the support, but I think I'll still be happy at 480p as long as they start using antialiasing and anisotropic filtering.

    The best they could do to pull the rug out from under Sony and MS would be to make the hardware support HDR rendering very well, and then make their SDK very HDR friendly. (and I don't mean cheesy glow effects, I mean real honest HDR rendering)

    --
    -=-=-=-=-=
    I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
  79. There are benefits by Philodoxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Think that not supporting HDTV output will have two benefits.

    1) Reduction in console cost for Nintendo (and hopefully the customer) at the cost of a feature that very few people actually use. I'm sure the percentage of the population that own an HDTV is small ( less than 5%). The percentage of HDTV owners who are interested in the revolution but won't buy one because of its lack of HDTV output is even smaller. Not to mention that the Revolution isn't targeted at your typical HDTV owner, it's targeted at families who may not want to dump out $2000 for a TV for the kids.

    2) Game development costs go down. Microsoft requiring all games to be HDTV ready is going to increase development costs. Since there is no such thing with the Revolution, hopefully that will result in a lower standard MSRP (I believe both Sony and Microsoft have said they want to raise game prices).

    --
    Oh, a lesson in history from Mr. I'm my own grandpa.
    1. Re:There are benefits by tepples · · Score: 1

      Game development costs go down. Microsoft requiring all games to be HDTV ready is going to increase development costs. Since there is no such thing with the Revolution, hopefully that will result in a lower standard MSRP

      Not if a game is intended to be cross-platform. If you're going to make a single title in both Xbox 360 and Revolution formats, you still have to eat the cost of making the Xbox 360 version even if you do get away with downsampling textures by a factor of 2 in each direction on the Revolution. Or did you intend your comment to be interpreted in the context of Revolution-exclusive games?

    2. Re:There are benefits by diabolo-nerd · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. I am a huge nintendo fan myself and I feel that this move by nintendo will help them much, much more then it hurts them in the long run. However, I think that what ever console they come out with later when more people have HDTV's should have HD support to appeal to a broader market.

      --
      "there is nothing to fear but fear itself"- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
  80. Nintendo has NEVER gone for the kids market by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    Just wanted to point out that they've stated countless times they dont specifically target any gaming audience. They make their systems for EVERYONE to play. Young and Old. The original NES was never made for kids, it was made for everyone. And it worked. I remember spending days playing MegaMan with my friend and his dad. The whole 'Nintendo is for kids' is such an ignorant statement, you can easily tell who the uninformed gamers are. Anyone who has any inkling of gaming history knows that Nintendo is for everyone. If games appear to be more simple, or less violent, it isn't just for the kids, its for the people who are actually MATURE enough to not need this stuff to make a game great.

  81. Re:Emmersion in gaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 of 12? That's a lot better than my numbers, which are something like 0 of 52. Granted I live in a dorm, but I think a college student is pretty representative of the gaming community. I have never seen the HD outputs of an xbox used, I've never seen anyone use s-video or anything other than your standard composite, usually with the right sound channel just dangling from the back of their mono TV.

    This is mostly because nobody I know but myself even has an HDTV available to them on campus or at home. I got lucky in that my dad is a huge movie buff and loves progressive scan so he owns an amazing home theatre system. Beyond that exception even the guys with rich parents don't have HDTVs. They'll have four cars, including a corvette, cadillac, and BMW, but it never fails that when you walk into the living room you'll see a crappy old SDTV, probably not even a big screen.

    Although people like us see things like HDTV and get excited about new technology, to the vast majority of people HDTV means absolutely nothing. As long as their current TV lets them watch their favorite shows they won't even consider upgrading.

  82. Re:Emmersion in gaming by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
    Well, let's think about this for a second. Let's assume that the Rev. at best will produce widescreen 480p signals (not far-fetched at all). That's 852*480 pixels, for a total of about 409k. At the lowest (as MS has stated) 360 games will be 720p; that's 1280*720, a total of 921k. Now, by my math, pushing less that half the total pixels will let the Revolutions a) perform more 'impressive' effects (bump mapping, lightings, etc), b) use less power (and hence cheaper hardware) to produce the same effects, or c) some combination of the two. I'm going to guess (c).

    Is a 7800GT twice as powerful as a 6600GT video card? No, it's more powerful for certain, but not twice as powerful. It costs twice as much, though. You pay a very high premium for "the best" hardware. Nintendo could easily make a machine that is 75% as fast/powerful/whatever as MS for 50% of the price.

    I have an HD TV, and while I think it is really amazing, I also think that a high quality 480p source can look GOOD ENOUGH (DVDs come to mind here).

  83. Nintendo doesn't target games for kids. by Viewsonic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really, there are so many ignorant people out there. I'm glad you got marked troll, because thats exactly what you are doing. Nintendo has always said they make their games for everyone. Mature people dont need edgy violence and crap to make fun games. They just make good gameplay. If good gameplay isnt enough for you, then you should probably not be buying games to begin with.

    1. Re:Nintendo doesn't target games for kids. by kuzb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow. State one opinion about your own preference that doesn't follow the herd, and suddenly you're an ignorant troll. Slashdot truly is a magical place.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    2. Re:Nintendo doesn't target games for kids. by syrinx · · Score: 1

      State one opinion about your own preference

      But you didn't do that. The trolling part is stating "Nintendo makes games for kids", which is blatantly false. If you had actually just said "I don't like Nintendo's games", then *that's* a preference, and is less likely to be trolling.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    3. Re:Nintendo doesn't target games for kids. by kuzb · · Score: 1

      SURPRISE :D they DO make kids games! Imagine that! Nothing I said was false.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    4. Re:Nintendo doesn't target games for kids. by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Another one who doesn't get it. Cartoon graphics and cute characters don't necessarily make a kid's game. "Fairly Odd Parents: Breakin' Da Rules" for the XBox is a game that's marketed towards kids; Super Monkey Ball is a game marketed towards *everybody*. As one of the other posters mentioned, just because a certain game doesn't have blood, gore, or sex, does that mean that it's a kid's game? By that definition, Lumines is a kid's game, Tetris is a kid's game, Solitare is a kid's game...

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    5. Re:Nintendo doesn't target games for kids. by kuzb · · Score: 1

      But they don't necessarily make for a game I want to play either, which was the point of the original post. You do remember the original post, right? My problem isn't with them making kids games (or adult games with cartoonish graphics) it's that they don't make the games I want to play.

      I'm starting to think it's you that doesn't get it.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  84. Not Sony, Not MS, I guess that leaves by endoplasmicMessenger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Well, given Sony's recent behavior, and Microsoft's continuous behavior, it's a no brainer that I'm getting a Nintendo.

    --
    Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
    1. Re:Not Sony, Not MS, I guess that leaves by Hitto · · Score: 0, Troll

      +1, my good man, I wish I had modding powa for you.
      I just don't get it.

      Yesterday on /. :
      SONY = DRM DEVIL KILL THEM ALL YOU'LL NEVER SEE ANOTHER PENNY FROM ME YOU FASCISTS!

      Today on /. :
      OMG SONY'S GAMES ARE FOR BIG MATURE BOYS LIKE ME, AND DEY GOTS DEM SUM BLOOD INNIT, I'M TOTALLY GETTIN' ONE!!!1!!

    2. Re:Not Sony, Not MS, I guess that leaves by endoplasmicMessenger · · Score: 1
      Slashdot sucks. I doesn't let you post to an old thread. Oh well, I see you posted here. And I have finally gotten around to responding to your (Alsee's) post of a week or so ago. I didn't have time to respond to all of it, but maybe I'll get to that in the next couple of weeks. :) I've done a little analysis on your '100 rolls' scenario and I don't think it comes out the way you think.

      Now assume he predicts the first 100 rolls perfectly, and then on the last 900 he falls back to random chance getting getting one in six right (150 of the last 900 correct at random). So in total he got 250 right and 750 wrong. That test is a positive confirmation, and it has a statistical signifigance of about 1 in 10^78.

      This is where your analysis fails. Even though the probability of getting 100 out of 100 rolls is 1 in 10^78, that does not hold true if you look at 1000 rolls. The probability of getting 100 rolls right out of 1000 is 1 in 10^9.

      Yes his answers on the later rolls were completely worthless noise, but the test itself is indisinguishable from perfect confirmation.

      The reason this is wrong is because as you change the number of total rolls, the probability distribution changes. If there is just one roll, there are two possibilities:
      1. you call it right
      2. you call it wrong

      But there is only one way you can call it right, but there are five ways you can call it wrong. Therefore the odds of calling it right are 1 in 6 (about 17%), and the odds of calling it wrong are 5 in 6 (about 73%).

      Now let's look at two rolls. We can identify three possibilities:

      1. you called both right
      2. you called both wrong
      3. you called one right and one wrong

      With two rolls, there are 36 possible outcomes. But there is only one way to get both right: the odds are therefore 1 in 36 (about 3%). However, there are lots of ways to call both wrong. In fact, for each roll, there are 5 ways to call it wrong, resulting in 25 total ways to get both rolls wrong if there are two rolls. So the odds of getting both rolls wrong are 25 in 36 (about 69%). So far we have accounted for 26 (1+25) of the 36 possible combinations of rolls. That leaves 10 out of 36 (or about 17%) for the final possibility for getting only one of the two rolls right.

      In the first case (1 roll), the odds of getting 1 roll right is about 17%. In the second case (2 rolls), the odds of getting 1 roll right is about 28%. There is no such thing as an absolute probability of getting X rolls right outside of the context of how many total rolls there are.

      Let's jump ahead to 10 rolls. There are eleven possible outcomes. I will list the odds for each

      1. called 10 correctly: 1 in 10^8
      2. called 9 correctly: 1 in 10^6
      3. called 8 correctly: 1 in 10^4
      4. called 7 correctly: 1 in 10^3
      5. called 6 correctly: 1 in 460 (about .2%)
      6. called 5 correctly: 1 in 77 (about 1%)
      7. called 4 correctly: 1 in 18 (about 5%)
      8. called 3 correctly: 1 in 6.4 (about 16%)
      9. called 2 correctly: 1 in 3.4 (about 29%)
      10. called 1 correctly: 1 in 3.1 (about 32%)
      11. called 0 correctly: 1 in 6.2 (about 16%)

      In this case, the odds of getting 1 roll right is about 32%. So are the odds of getting 1 roll right 17%, 28% or 32%?

      The same holds true for getting 100 rolls right:

      • getting 100 rolls right out of 100 rolls: 1 in 10^78
      • getting 100 rolls right out of 200 rolls: 1 in 10^27
      • getting 100 rolls right out of 400 rolls: 1 in 10^5
      • getting 100 rolls right out of 800 rolls: 1 in 10^4
      • getting 100 rolls right out of 1000 rolls: 1 in 10^9

      Notice that, to some extent, it gets easier to guess 100 rolls the more rolls you do. My point is that when you say the odds of guessing 100 rolls of the die, it depends on how big the field of total rolls is.

      S

      --
      Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
  85. Re:Emmersion in gaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to agree. I only own Nintendo consoles, but not a single one has broken on me. I actually have not had so much as a controller stop working on me. My NES and all it's accessories still work just like the day I brought it home in about 1988 (I think, was quite awhile ago at any rate).

    I never had a playstation or xbox but I know people that have gone through multiple playstations and xboxes. Even a guy I know that does his best to treat every system he owns like they're constructed out of concrete and brick can't seem to break his gamecube, which is small enough that it gets beat up on the road as well as at home.

  86. GTA:LCS isn't compatible with 1.5 firmware by jerk · · Score: 1

    You won't be playing your emulation games after you're forced to update your PSP to 2.0+ to play GTA. Nice try though.

  87. Nice price ($200?), shame about the HDTV by hattig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is most likely that I will buy a Revolution towards the end of next year.

    I don't have a HDTV currently, but I will probably buy one within 2 years. It'd be a shame if I couldn't play, e.g., Mario Kart Revolution, in high resolution on the TV with other people. I assume that it'd still be capable of 480p however, so it is some kind of improvement over 480i currently.

    Is the graphics hardware really so weak that it can't handle 1280x720p? Hell, how about 640x720p? Or is it merely the console's outputs?

    Of course, for the average /family/, maybe the console will be in another room on another display that is unlikely to be HD for a long time. But what about the 25-35 market of men and their expensive toys? I'm sure a reasonable amount of them would have considered a Revolution for the fun games it'll have, but if they will look like blocky turd on their >35" HDTV ...

  88. Anything Merrill Lynch says is a guess. by mcc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Merrill Lynch aren't journalists, they aren't a video game company. They aren't Microsoft. They aren't Sony. They aren't accountable to anyone. They're analysts. They guess. If they're wrong, there are no consequences to them.

    Merrill Lynch also seems to make awfully consistent guesses about the next generation, specifically: Whatever is good for Microsoft. The persistent claims in the last several months that the Playstation 3 will cost exorbant amounts of money also, if you follow sources, inevitably stem from guesses by Merrill Lynch. Contrast this with Merrill Lynch's guesses in 1999, which predicted the ps2 would sell for well more than it ever did.

    Other recent winning predictions by analysts about the video game industry have been that the PSP would be a smash success and knock the Nintendo DS and Game Boy outside of the market (it's outsold neither); that Nintendo would die every year for the last five; that Apple would die every year for the five before that; that Nintendo DS online would launch with free VOIP; and that the PS3 will launch in 2007.

  89. Re:Emmersion in gaming by wvitXpert · · Score: 1

    I for one will not be buying an HDTV until they come down in price to near what regular TVs are now. And I'm guessing that by that time there will be a new Gen of consoles out.

  90. Nintendo is taking a great risk by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nintendo is running in the ballpark of a 4-5 year console turnaround. The next console after Revolution won't hit the market until well after 2010.

    By early '06 Dish Network and DirectTV will be offering over 100 HD channels. Digital cable companies will not be far behind due to the constant battle going on in that industry. HDTV's are dropping like rocks in price. These will be the standard within 2 years.

    Nintendo could be a 'niche' console if they stray too far from Nintendo and Sony. Why? There are still a ton of games made for all 3 consoles and many of these companies may choose to stop supporting Nintendo. Making a game for the 360 and PS3 will be easy (support the same technoligies and relatively the same power), but Revolution will be drastically different and may not be worth the price.

  91. But if it doesn't have HD... by seebs · · Score: 1

    How am I supposed to justify buying an HDTV that makes all my current videos and movies look like crap?

    Seriously, HD is neat, but it's not exactly a required feature for video games.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    1. Re:But if it doesn't have HD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either buy an HDTV with a really good scaler built in, or buy an external video processor that outputs to your displays native resolution. I've seen this done with 480p dvd scaled to 1080p (3-chip D-ILA front projection) and it was incredible.

      Native res source material naturally looks even better, but with a 1080p display, the closest you'll get is 1080i content (so far)

      The lack of HD support on the Revolution is disapointing, but that wont stop me from getting one.

    2. Re:But if it doesn't have HD... by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1

      The only things that look worse on an HDTV than on a standard set are low quality broadcasts. There's a lot of graininess introduced as the video is stretched and scaled. DVDs and other high quality sources look EXCELLENT on a decent HD set. I fully expect that the Revolution will be 480p on ALL games (the GC has 480p on about half of games now) and 16:9 on almost if not all games as well. It'll look as good as a well encoded DVD being played through a nice DVD player on an HDTV. In other words, it's not going to be a serious issue, except for with a few people who think they can't play at anything less than 1280*720.

  92. Why? by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

    Frankly, when games are so damn fun, the only way I could give a damn about the graphics is if make my eyes FUCKING BLEED or if it has below 20 FPS. Shit dude, that's a nice TV but meh? I'm sorry you feel HD is so important that you'd shun Nintendo despite apparently enjoying their games.

    So, go get the X360 or PS3. Enjoy your shiny, crisp graphics from games you've already played. Generic FPS on the X360? YAY. Shiny car simulator on the PS3? YAY. Hopefully, I'll be playing Mario Kart 64 with decent framerates online.

  93. Re:Why does Slashdot hype non-existent hardware? by JonJ · · Score: 1

    Why the hell you are modded "insightful" is beyond me, you aren't even aware of the fact that Nintendo _DOES_ have a working prototype.
    Moderators on crack, and you're a fucktard.

    --
    -- Linux user #369862
  94. Whatever. by mekkab · · Score: 1

    The whole 'Nintendo is for kids' is such an ignorant statement, you can easily tell who the uninformed gamers are.

    thats fine. Deny that the Gamecube is marketed towards kids. Go ahead! Deny it!
    Now lets look at the amount of games that have a mature rating on the gamecube vs. ps2 and xbox.

    Come back when you're done.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the fuck does a game's rating have to do with who it's aimed at? Just because a game doesn't feature exploding corpses, lakes of blood, automatic weapons, random senseless violence, demonic possession, bouncing boobies, or gratuitous sex, it doesn't mean that it's "for kids". In fact, games with stuff that earns them an M rating are exactly the kind of games that are intended for kids, specifically teenagers between 13 and 18 - the hormonally imbalanced "I want to be grown up" lot, who think that playing a game where you go around beating up prostitutes makes them more of a man.

      Games that are aimed exclusively at young childeren (in the way you seem to think Nintendo's games are) are extremely rare, and far more likely to be released for everything that's electronic and plays games (PS2, Gamecube, Xbox, PC, GBA, DS, PSP, possibly others). Stuff like the endless stream of Spongebob Squarepants or Disney games, or whatever. These games are absolutely awful, because they're developed with the idea that kids are too stupid to know any different, and they largely sell because parents who don't know any better buy them. Anyone over the age of 6 finds them unplayable, and even then they aren't very good games.

      That's not even close to what Nintendo's games are like. Nintendo's games are designed for everyone. They aren't intended to exclude everyone over a certain age as kids' games are, and they aren't intended to exclude everyone under a certain age either. In order to be playable by everyone, they need to qualify for the appropriate ratings, so that means they can't include content that would kick their rating too high.

      If you thing those ratings are the same as the age ratings on a toy, or a jigsaw puzzle, or whatever (the ones that say things like "Ages 6 - 11" or "12 and up"), you're seriously deluded.

    2. Re:Whatever. by Dehumanizer · · Score: 1

      Great, great post. One of the best I've seen lately; I wish more people were able to grasp this.

      I'm copying it to my blog - I'd give attribution, but you posted as an AC, so I can't. I still say it's not mine, though.

      --
      The Tlog - a technology blog
    3. Re:Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh noes! All those non violent games!

      Playing chess? You fucking child!!!

      Get off, go away and grow up.

    4. Re:Whatever. by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      Go ahead, deny that the XBox is marketed towards kids! Go ahead! Deny it!

      Who do you think the "mature" rating appeals to? Adults don't give a shit what the game is rated, any more than they go see a movie just because it's rated R. Fourth graders brag about seeing R rated movies, but adults don't even look at the rating. The Incredibles and The Big Lebowski are both good movies, and as an adult I don't have to distinguish between them based on how many swear words they contain. It's irrelevant.

      When video game advertising brags about how "mature" a game is, or shows "cool" 20 year olds playing the system with their "hip" friends, who do you think will respond? The answer: 12 year olds who want to fit in. Adults find it laughable, and will judge the game on its own merits. Yes, Nintendo's marketing appeals to kids too, because kids are suckers. Arguing that "Nintendo is for kids" is going to require more than saying "the GC is marketed towards kids." It's a pointless statement.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    5. Re:Whatever. by nmaster64 · · Score: 1

      In all my life, I don't think anyone's explained that well with such wonderful passion...

    6. Re:Whatever. by ajgrifdog · · Score: 1

      You know... even if the parents don't care, a lot of industries do. I work for MGA Inc. and I check IDs when I rent movies and games. The rating is there for a reason, and if a parent says, "My kids can be exposed to violence and nudity, that's okay," I have to wonder about how the kids will turn out. I love when parents make kids put Mature rated games back on the shelf. Let's have a round of applause for the parents that let their kids play video games but are careful that the games are suited to their age. More parents should be so involved in their kids' lives.

  95. Re:Why does Slashdot hype non-existent hardware? by hattig · · Score: 1

    It does sound like the Revolution is pretty much a Gamecube on steroids with some extra features - an obvious choice for Nintendo given their choice of PowerPC in the Gamecube all that time ago.

    It probably isn't very hard to adapt a Gamecube game to be a native Revolution game running on a (5x?) faster processor with (10x?) more graphics power available. We might get a lot of Revolution games with a 'free' version of the older game bundled in (like Zelda - Windwaker + Zelda - Ocarina of Time pack except it will be really easy). Either that, or lots of 'enhanced' versions with more polygons, nicer graphical effects and maybe enhanced resolution if the Revolution hardware and outputs support it (even if it won't be mandatory).

  96. Re:Why does Slashdot hype non-existent hardware? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    Wow, what a dumbass. Were you under a rock when Nintendo unvieled the new controller and let journalists play Metroid Prime 2 with it?

    Another dwindling X-Box fanboy, it seems.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  97. No HD? by Zarxos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only one confused by the fact that the Gamecube supported HD, but the "next-gen" console does not? That seems like a strange move for Nintendo, IMO.

    1. Re:No HD? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      lack of customer desire? I know a lot of gamers, I've yet to meet one with an HD setup [nor one bragging about their pending move to HD]

      If adding HD support adds 30$ to the console and maybe 1% of the customers want it... guess what. It also makes the games cost more because you have to test multiple resolutions [though I'm sure they'll keep that in mind ...hehehehe].

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:No HD? by rmp · · Score: 1

      IIRC, it doesn't support HDTV, but EDTV (or 480p). And that's if you purchase the extra Component Video adapter. ~rmp

      --
      ~rmp
    3. Re:No HD? by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one confused by the fact that the Gamecube supported HD, but the "next-gen" console does not? That seems like a strange move for Nintendo, IMO.

      What are you talking about? The GameCube does not support HD. It, at best, supports 480P -- standard television resolution, but a full 60 frames per second. In order to get this resolution, you must be using component video cables, playing one of the relatively few games that support progressive scan, and hold B at startup (once) to tell the system that you want to switch to progressive scan.

      The component video cables are generally only available from Nintendo's web site, and Nintendo eventually stopped putting the component video port on the back of the system -- if you go buy a new GameCube, you will most likely find that it is missing the digital video output port that you would need to access progressive scan in the first place. New GameCubes are limited to 480I.

      So, the GameCube most certainly does not support HD. The Revolution won't either, but it will at least require all of its games to provide 480P output. That makes me hopeful that the stupidity of the difficult-to-achieve-and-ultimately-discontinued 480P support present in the GameCube won't be repeated.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    4. Re:No HD? by donglekey · · Score: 1

      I have played both Rogue Squadron for the gamecube and halo in HD and that was maybe 3 1/2 years ago. So there are people out there with HD TVs that play games even if they are in the minority. (And the games were gorgeous)

    5. Re:No HD? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      For the same reason I can't find my ARM or PPC powered laptop you won't see things like HD really become that important.

      Though generally from what I've been reading here [and seen firsthand] HD varies in quality between vendors and for the most part you won't notice anyways. A gaping plot hole in a B-rated movie is a gaping plot hole in a B-rated movie regardless of the number of pixels on the screen.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  98. Re:Why does Slashdot hype non-existent hardware? by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

    They were playing tech demos with the revo controller. The demos were running on gamecube-level hardware. Perhaps you should, you know, actually check these things. :p

  99. Re:Emmersion in gaming by digidave · · Score: 1

    "unless mine get to doing some chores, theyll have an etch-a-sketch."

    Can it do 720p? What framerate can your kids draw at?

    --
    The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
  100. Throwing in the towel by Chr0nik · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think it's a safe bet that it's not a good idea(business-wise) to to bring a feature-light product to market while your competitors are driving technology forward. I think it's also a safe bet to assume that both Microsoft and Sony will have very playable and fun games that load quickly. Not all of their titles will be the of the uber high res, shockingly immersive variety. The only thing that Nintendo is doing is ensuring they cannot compete in that area. While their competitors can easily compete(and win) at their game. The only thing that can save this companies console business is marketing. And good luck competing with Microsoft at that... They've been selling inferior operating systems for years on nothing but marketing.

    --


    ... what did you expect, something profound?
  101. 480p isn't enough. by jfisherwa · · Score: 1

    720p projectors are becoming affordable, and 480 lines just aren't enough for a 90" screen.

  102. How old are you? by JaseOne · · Score: 1

    Just because a game doesn't have a mature rating doesn't mean it is targeted at children, does a game that is enjoyable for adults have to have blood and gore or other things that will earn a mature rating? The answer to that is a clear no!

  103. Re:Why does Slashdot hype non-existent hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also I wonder if this is news at all.. everybody knows that the PS3 will be the most expensive, followed by the 360 and then the Revo is the cheaper.

    So... emm.. why are we telling what it's already obvious?

  104. No it *isn't* by Rocko's+Modurn+Life · · Score: 1

    You threw up so much techno-jargon, I almost forgot your point. But with all the cash you have to blow on the latest and greatest, I think you'll be in Best Buy (or whatever upscale tech store you go to) shopping for a new Xbox 360 or PS3 game and look over at the Revolution and go "Why not?" and buy it anyway.

    Then it will go into the 27" TV in the bedroom and you'll amuse yourself playing Nintendo's back catalog on their newest system.

    And as the slashdot crowd says, Nintendo profits!

  105. Nintendogs disproves that by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    I wonder whether that is really true. In fact I would say it is the opposite, since most of the other game consoles show off the "how many people can we kill" type games. Nintendogs as an example is actually a game that has actually brought a number of non-gamers into the fold.

    Most of the other platforms seem to be sticking to what they know and are not really trying much that is new, if at all. What they are parading is more performant systems, $$$$ network play and a hard-disk. While I do feel that the revolution could have benefitted from an HD, especially for MMORPGS, I would be curious to see why they decided not to go with one. The Revolution actually has two USB 2.0 sockets which could actually be a better solution for expansion. This would potentially allow you to plug in any HD, or solid state storage, you want and not be limited by want the manufacturer forces upon you.

    The truth is the market has already shown that what we thought was true may not be true tomorrow. I would like to see Nintendo do well because of their innovations and encouraging people to play different. At the same time the other platforms certainly have the macho type "bigger is better" approach. What will make the difference is marketing and what games come out. Nintendo already said in the past the many people buy their console because of one game, and it would seem that other companies recognise this in ensuring they have exclusive games for their platform.

    For me everybody has got a running chance. All we have up to now is vapour, and only time will tell which system is the best. I'll buy the platform with the games that suit my tastes best.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  106. HD TV by 12x · · Score: 0

    I'm 18, and I've only recently just bought my first TV, its a 28", flat, Sony Widescreen. I got it second hand, £200. I don't plan on buying a HD Tv, high res doesn't bother me. I'm curious to know how old people are when they buy their first TV.

    Also there's no need to go on about Nintendo not showing anything. Look at Sony, how many FMVs they show for a preview then the game turns out to be totally different. I'm sure adults who are into gadgets will buy a hd tv, but kids won't.

  107. Nintendo eh ? by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

    I was going to buy a PlayStation 3, but I'm afraid the games will come infected with DRM like the sony music discs. I can't run the risk of a company telling me I can only play the games I bought on the console in my house a set number of times before the disc expires. Even worse would be if the PS3 left my home stereo system infected with DRM.

    So, I guess I better start getting excited about the new nintendo console.

  108. Tying is the reality. by tepples · · Score: 1

    So why would I even want to consider paying for a cable subscription?

    Because in order to get residential broadband, you have to have either landline voice service or cable TV from the incumbent carrier.

    1. Re:Tying is the reality. by Golias · · Score: 1

      No you don't.

      At least, not if you are getting Qwest DSL (as I am.) It's available with or without voice service.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  109. Re:Not exactly by AscendantOat · · Score: 1

    By skimping on cache and using chips with no branching predictor, PS3 and 360 are "getting rid of the whole hardware capability. It won't be harder to implement a feature, it will be impossible."

    From current rumored specs and Nintendo's gameplay-over-graphics mentality, Revolution will likely have some combination of a larger CPU cache, a 970-based CPU (instead of the PPE used in the PS3 and 360), and an Ageia physics processor.

    None of these would improve streaming media performance (the main focus of the competitors' hardware), but any of these would make the Revolution the most powerful console on the block for branching-intensive code; code for things like AI, physics, and game-control code.

    That said, 360 and PS3 will dominate in the streaming media applications they're designed for; likely enough to match or surpass the Revolution's graphics at the much higher resolutions required for HD support.

    Sources:
    PPE's poor branching performance
    Advantages of large cache or 970-based CPU
    Revolution Ageia rumor

  110. PStwo has no HDD by tepples · · Score: 1

    I'nm thinking about getting a Playstation 2 because ... it runs Linux

    Linux (for PlayStation®2) does not run on the slimline PlayStation 2 console, which has no official way to connect a hard drive. Or did you plan on buying a used original PlayStation 2 console?

    1. Re:PStwo has no HDD by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      Didn't Sony also stop selling the Linux kit a long time ago? I seem to recall something along those lines.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    2. Re:PStwo has no HDD by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I was planning on buying the original thing. I never liked the "smaller and improved" devices Sony makes (or the GBA SP, for that matter).

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  111. The question is..why? by CashCarSTAR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which nobody has answered yet, even though it's in the open.

    Prepping a game for HD, means way more detailed models/backgrounds/whatever. Easy. Nintendo is rejecting this for several reasons, 2 reasons are public, and one reason is my personal speculation.

    Confirmed ones first.
    #1. Not needing the ultra detailed models will keep development costs down, keeping prices lower and profits higher. Seems reasonable for a business.
    #2. The HD models will require additional loading time. Nintendo is trying to keep loading time at a minimum. Again, very reasonable. Now, how much of an advantage this will be, we'll need to see next-gen loading times of course. But it's a wait and see thing.

    And my speculation, considering the Ars Technica article on potential Revolution specs.

    #3. Using system memory in resources for HD, the Revolution just isn't designed for. The system is designed to maximize non-graphical computations, making for better AI and physics. Personally, when it comes to gaming I'm more than willing to take a graphics hit for better AI and physics.

  112. MOD PARENT DOWN by Wisgary · · Score: 0

    This was scored informative, this however, says otherwise. They weren't actual GAME demos, they were just silly tech demos, and the metroid prime thing was just another tech demo. I'm excited for the Revolution and all but those don't count as games.

  113. Re:Nintendo moves in mysterious ways... by dalmiroy2k · · Score: 1

    PS2 fanboy alert

  114. The Controller IS the Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the sloppy coding that goes on in game programming most of the clocks are wasted already. Today there is no need for more house power. Nintendo is about to change the way we play video games just as N64 was a change from 2D system, Revolution will be a bigger change. Ten seconds with the controller and you'll know the world has changed - forever. And the contoller is just a sign that things have changed. Expect to see a different world of games from Nintendo. No more just side scrollers and FPS.

  115. Re:all over again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a fucking idiot.

    He's talking about high definition, not a hard drive. The revolution comes with 512MB internal flash, and expansion ports for added storage.

  116. Except that in this case... by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

    ...people already associate Nintendo with lower cost and better games so I don't see how it can backfire unless they actually fail to get developers to produce good games.

  117. Re:Why does Slashdot hype non-existent hardware? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

    Arguing with a Nintendo fanboy about the Revolution is like arguing with a proponent of Intelligent Design. Do you realize that your entire post neglected to refute my claim that actual Revolution systems do not even exist yet?

  118. Want games? by metamatic · · Score: 1

    We already know what the Nintendo Revolution's game lineup is going to be:

    1. Super Mario Revolution
    2. Metroid Prime Revolution
    3. Legend of Zelda: Revolution
    4. Pokemon Revolution
    5. Donkey Kong Revolution
    6. Resident Evil Revolution
    7. F-Zero Revolution
    8. Animal Crossing Revolution

    Plus Madden 2006, NBA 2006, and NHL 2006. The titles might be slightly different, but I'm pretty sure that'll be the game library.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:Want games? by ScaryFroMan · · Score: 1
      And the problem with that lineup is...?

      Nintendo continues to make great games in all those series (discounting the sports ones). Sure, it's still just a sequel, but a lot of Nintendo Sequels were a hell of a lot better this generation than "original" games for other consoles.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, backwards is everything.
    2. Re:Want games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that will be different that the XBox 360 and PS3 how?



      Oh yeah, unlike Halo 3, Grand Theft Auto 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy 13, Dead Or Alive 4, Project Gothem 3, etc. Nintendo's new games (like every other version of Nintendo's games) will actually be fundamentally different from the previous game. I hate to be a cynic, but beyond prettier graphics what do any of these sequels bring to the table; and on that note, except for prettier graphics what does the PS3 and XBox 360 bring to the table for games that the XBox or PS2 couldn't have?



      The interesting thing about your list (that since you're not a Nintendo fan you probably missed) is that there wasn't a Donky Kong game on the Gamecube, there has only been one console Animal Crossing game relesed to a home console ever, there has only been one Pokemon game released to a home console ever, F-Zero / Mario-Kart / Mario-Tennis / Mario-Golf / Super-Smash Bros. / Super Mario / Starfox / etc. (most of Nintendo's games) only show up once on any console regardless of the demand, Metroid skipped a generation and got 2 games in the current generation, and Zelda is (typically) one of the most anticipated games of any year it has ever been released in; Nintendo has so many franchises that they have to offload some of them to third parties (F-Zero [Sega],Starfox [Namco], Super Mario Strikers and Mario Baseball [Konami +I think+], and capcom has all handheld Zelda's) so that they can develop a Battalion Wars or a Pikmen.



      People claim that Nintendo 'Milks' franchises, but when you actually look at it Nintendo only produces one (or in the rare cases two) versions of a game in a generation; each of those games has a varied feel and gameplay dynamic that is not typically present in any other series (think Cel-Shaded Zelda, and Fludd Mario). They try to keep every one of their fans happy, but because NO DEVELOPER IN THE WORLD has the resources to produce all of the Nintendo games that people whant games like Earthbound, Kid-Icarus and Donkey Kong miss generations between iterations of the game; when one of these games is finally made it is inevitable that some stupid fanboy will say 'Man a new Kid-Icarus game, Nintendo likes to Milk their franchises'


    3. Re:Want games? by metamatic · · Score: 1
      ...you're not a Nintendo fan...

      On the contrary, I have a GameCube and a Game Boy Advance SP.

      ...there wasn't a Donky Kong game on the Gamecube...

      Apart from Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat, Donkey Konga, and Donkey Konga 2: Hit Song Parade.

      ...there has only been one console Animal Crossing game relesed to a home console ever...

      I was thinking of Harvest Moon, in fact, which is the same kind of idea. So make that Harvest Moon Revolution if you like. As for Pokemon, I was thinking of the endless GBA Pokemon games.

      It's not so much that I feel they milk the franchises, it's more that the predictability gets tiresome. And I found Wind Waker far too similar to Ocarina of Time; it's basically the same game for the first half, and then there's way too much ocean wandering.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    4. Re:Want games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The notion that Nintendo recycles franchises and Sony and Microsoft don't is just not remotely rooted in reality. All of the consoles recycle franchises, successful and not. The difference with Nintendo (as evidenced by the absolutely top-notch games you mentioned, all uniformly hailed as the best of the best) is that their recycled games are demonstratively head and shoulders above the recycled franchises on other systems. Dead or Alive on Xbox is identical to the Dreamcast version in every way except the characters' breasts are rendered with more polys on 360. I'm no Ninty fanboy. I have a Gamecube and an Xbox. And I owned a PS2. Ask any gamer who owns a Gamecube and another console and they'll tell you they spend more time on the Cube. Same thing with DS over PSP.

      The nature of fanboy animosity against the Cube is merely because of it's childish design as opposed to the goofy X-design (and supposedly more masculine) of the MS machine and the sleek PS2 design. But I don't know about you, but when I play a videogame, I don't spend ANY time looking at the console. And if you're afraid your friends might mock you as a fag because your console isn't a "guy console" all decked out in black and Xs, then you have issues far beyond console loyalty. You shouldn't need a videogame console to remedy your feelings of male inadequacy.

      Serious gamers play the best games.

      Period.

      And Nintendo consistently delivers the very best.

    5. Re:Want games? by metamatic · · Score: 1
      Ask any gamer who owns a Gamecube and another console and they'll tell you they spend more time on the Cube.

      I own a GameCube and a PS2. I spend way more time on the PS2, because that's where more good games are.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    6. Re:Want games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My anecdotal experience is more important than your anecdotal experience!"

  119. Re:Nintendo isn't pushing CPU tech...and that's go by Empty+Threats · · Score: 1
    • The PS1 did indeed use a custom processor, based on MIPS.
    • As did the SNES, a 16 bit extension to the 6502 used in the NES.
    • The Genesis used the Motorola 68000, which, in 1989, had a unit cost that would make you scream to think about.
  120. Re:Development flexibility... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, the system is supposed to come with 512MB of flash memory for downloading content online.

    Wow, I totally read that as "512MB of flash memory for downloading adult content online".

  121. Why are all pro-nintendo posts getting modded up? by LiquidHAL · · Score: 1

    I've seen some great arguements against nintendo's system, but all the ones modded up have been pro-nintendo or anti-sony/microsoft. Very much like apple posts. Everyone says the same thing and all get modded up for it. "Nintendo's not just for kids," "new games suck only nintendo can innovate," "you don't need fancy features, just a barebones game system," etc. There are great arguements against these, but no one seems interested.

  122. I think it's the other way around. by Inoshiro · · Score: 1

    Is this gaming experience worth the combined investments of the console plus the game? That's a system-seller.

    For my, I bought an Xbox for Jet Set Radio Future. I loved JSR on the Dreamcast (although it wasn't a system seller for me there), and I was really looking forward to playing the crap out of its sequel. So for me, the cost of JSRF was around 400$ -- 300$ for the Xbox, 70$ for the game, and taxes.

    Compare this to people like Zonk who talk about upgrading their PC to play a new game, like getting a 700$ US 7800GT for FEAR. It's the same idea, it's just that in the console world, you don't rebuy the same console within a window of a certain number of years (otherwise you pull a Sega and put out too many things at the same time), and you can be sure that the games will run reasonably well (Doom 3 on Xbox = sexy).

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  123. Re:Emmersion in gaming by drsquare · · Score: 1

    Read the above comment in Comic Book Guy voice.

    That's what most of this discussion sounds like to me: a load of nerds droning on and on about something else that 99% of people don't give a damn about.

  124. Customer immobility by tepples · · Score: 1

    not if you are getting Qwest DSL

    How much did it cost to move to a geographic area whose ILEC is Qwest? Or if you were born and raised there, what solution do you propose for people who were born and raised in areas where the ILEC ties its DSL Internet access to its POTS?

    1. Re:Customer immobility by Golias · · Score: 1

      The cost of living where I currently am (Twin Cities) is far lower than a lot of parts of the country. If you live on either coast, you'd probably come out way ahead on the deal by moving.

      But yes, I was born in Minnesota... but this is far from the only region which Qwest (or some other carrier who doesn't stiff broadband customers with unwanted extras) reaches.

      Sorry to hear you live in such a shitty place. Good luck.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  125. Results not typical. by thenefariousone · · Score: 1

    Actually, according to the ESA you are part of the minority, as more than 60% of video game players are over 18 years old.

    --
    http://hughgordon.com/
  126. Everyone is missing the big picture by Rosebud128 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why bother with High Definition if the console isn't going to center around the TV? Nintendo has never said that the TV will be the axis of which the console revolves around (like previous consoles). Have they ever shown the Revolution playing on a TV? Did you see a TV in the TGS controller video?

    Start trying to think like Nintendo. It is not named codenamed Revolution just because of the controller. Here are some quotes:

    "I think maybe if I could do anything, I would make it so you don't have to sit in front of a TV and play. If you could have a machine that you just plugged in and played inside a virtual world that - would be just great." Source: Miyamoto in Game Informer p. 50 issue 109.

    "We plan on taking advantage of a number of new features in the Revolution, including the controller," Retro Studio's Metroid Prime 3 interview. http://cube.ign.com/articles/638/638879p1.html

    "Obviously there's so much that we haven't said about Revolution,..." Post TGS comment by Beth Llewelyn http://cube.ign.com/articles/659/659020p1.html

    "Sitting in front of your monitor with a controller, there's really nowhere to go from that paradigm, all you can do is make it prettier and faster,". -Miyamoto

    "I could give you our technical specs, as I'd know you'd like that, but I won't for a simple reason: they really don't matter. The time when horsepower alone made all the difference is over. -Iwata

    "We invented the current way a console is played - in front of a television and holding a controller - but maybe that image will change."-Iwata

  127. Re:Emmersion in gaming by xtieburn · · Score: 1

    Two things.

    a) Your right Nintendo have great build quality.

    PS1's had a recorded problem with there CD drives producing loads of jitter I know two people who had that problem and it was really annoying.
    The PS2 has compatibility issues with the PS1 and also has a tendancy to try burn your house down. ( http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/09/13/sony_p s2_power_recall/ )
    The X-Box incredibly has the same try burn your house down issue.
    (Does anyone else find that seriously worrying. We know things have set things alight. Have people died or been seriously injured? Why the hell have both Sony and MS just been allowed to throw out some replacement crap. Shouldnt they both be hammered in to the ground for this?)
    I rember my old Megadrive had something in it that when the system got jarred would cause it to screw up. (Which thanks to an overzealous dog it did.)

    I have a brick boy a NES and borrowed a SNES once. My NES fell off beds got kicked and thrown around never had an issue. My Brickboy still works and that has been punished like mad its even got a small dent in the screen from when it fell out of my bag while I was on a bike. Not a problem.
    The SNES that I borrowed was lugged around in a ruck sack and in my short time of owning it got a hell of a lot more punishment than my megadrive incident. It seems clear to me that Nintendo build there consoles to a high spec.

    b) Although its admitedly still not as solid as Nintendo consoles the dreamcast is a tough box. The random reboots arnt a total failure and, well, hell I love the dreamcast so I can forgive it.

    'You have to take the modem out and remove the top half of the DC's case, the board you want is the one to the left of the rom drive. unplug the little cable to the top left and unscrew the board now carefully unclip and lift the power supply board off the six pins near the bottom left of the DC which are the problem clean them with something like a bit of WD40 or just a gental wipe with a cotton bud or something be carefull not to mess up the serfice or leave any fluff or anything on them,if you are brave you could allso bend them slightly towards the front to ensure better contact but cleaning them should do the job.Then tair up you now invalid warrenty .

    I do not think hitting the DC is a good idea but it probly dislodged the dirt .'

    Its only happened to my housemates DC so far (Man did he pummel the crap out of it to keep it working see hitting point in the quote.), mine has run solidly thankfully and looks sooo good with its lovely VGA box. But Ill stop lovin on my dreamcast and getting off the topic thats already off topic.

    To summarise, Nintendo build quality = great.

  128. Re:Nintendo isn't pushing CPU tech...and that's go by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    Nintendo did something really brilliant by going with ATI for the graphics in their system (Sony used nvidia right??) by having the same GPU as their competitors they encourage cross compatibility.

    And as any PC gamer can tell you, games are NOT limited by CPU.

    Plus isn't Nintendo supposed to be really easy to program for?

  129. Re:Emmersion in gaming by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1

    If you don't understand it, why are you responding to it? Definately a case of "better to keep your mouth closed and appear a fool then to open it and remove all doubt".

  130. Games for "Older" People by FlyingPostman · · Score: 1

    When you grow up and stop wetting your diapers and buy a house and all that, you want games that you can enjoy with your spouse. Gaming is such a solitary activity, and dumping 2 hours a night into a game to finish it isn't in. I hope that the new Nintendo system has some revolutionary games that everyone can enjoy. I like the idea of the new controller, it promises a whole new genre of games that havn't been thought up yet. If you're a pimply teenager first-person shooters and RPGs are fun, you can spend hours a day in your parents basement playing against other pimply losers online. I want a game I can pick up and be playing in seconds, not 5 minutes. I want a game my wife can enjoy along with me.

  131. Re:Emmersion in gaming by xSauronx · · Score: 1

    if they really worked it, 3fph: frames per hour.

    --
    By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  132. Re:Why does Slashdot hype non-existent hardware? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    I would claim that a dev kit and some tech demos are sufficient to confirm a console's existence. The idea that a console should not be reported upon until the final hardeware is finished seems a trifle ludicrous to me.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  133. Again and again... by aztektum · · Score: 1

    So you've stated a case that HD is important... for you. Because you shelled out the big bucks on an HD set. *applause*

    HD isn't a factor in the game purchases I make today. I don't have an HD set, but I am planning on buying one prior to the Revolution's and the PS3's launch. However, I will still buy a Revolution before either the PS3 or the X360. I am not a Nintendo "fanboy" either. I simply make my purchases (not just video game stuff) based upon who has the more interesting product.

    So far Nintendo sounds like they are doing the unique thing. I want to support that line of thinking. If the new controller is a miss for them, the machine still has GC controller ports, I'm sure there will be "regular" games, it runs GC games, you can download their back library... it is still a far more flexible machine and far more intriguing machine to me.

    I want a game console that at the very least promises to try and go above and beyond "Oo, pretty things." The Nintendo Revolution has done a far better job of that inspite of it lacking HD output.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  134. Re:all over again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll be interesting to see what Nintendo R&D's take on the "power glove" concept is, since the first one was made by Mattel.

  135. EA may not agree by atrader42 · · Score: 1

    I am currently in a game development class taught by an EA lead developer, and one of the things he has taken pains to show us is ways to handle multiplatform programming without hugely increasing the time and effort spent making the game multiplatform. While, of course, there are certain hurdles to multiplatform development, it's not clear that in order to manage it, the companies need to ignore the advantages of the various platforms.

  136. M$ = bad, Sony = DRM = bad by MMaestro · · Score: 1
    Seriously, its because when it comes right down to it, Nintendo is the only 'good' guy between the three.

    Sony is being a jackass with their 'let developers do whatever the fuck they want with their online models and leave the bullshit sorting to the gamers.' Throw in their hardware pissing contest with Microsoft and their recent DRM attempt, and you've got a VERY angry geek community.

    Microsoft is the natural enemy of Slashdot. Throw in the Joe Average confusing Xbox360 packages, the recently announced artifical shortage and the fact that its really nothing more than a graphical upgrade in terms of gaming potential and you can see why gamers don't like the Xbox360.

    Nintendo is being a weirdo (as always) with their controller and are refusing to play the hardware game, but other than that they're doing nothing to piss people off. On top of that, Nintendo is being the only innovator here (better graphics does not make innovation), is foregoing plugging into a router and going straight to wireless Wi-Fi (read: major geek points), and is now saying 'on top of all this, we're gonna have the cheapest price!'

  137. Re:Nintendo moves in mysterious ways... by Max+Nugget · · Score: 1

    PS2 fanboy alert

    (Sarcastic) Yep, that's me, PS2 fanboy.

    Or maybe I was just trying to poke fun at Nintendo for humor's sake. PS2 fanboy? Half the comments in my original post aren't even in reference to the GameCube -- they're in reference to the N64, and SNES -- it's simply a joking chronicling of some of Nintendo's more interesting business decisions.

    I think a more telling statement would be Nintendo fanboy alert! The post was supposed to be funny, not a serious dig at Nintendo. Jeez.

  138. Developers & HD: Don't Count On It by cbybear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having worked for Electronic Arts on a next-gen title, I don't think HD will play a large role for this generation of consoles, especially during the first 3-5 years. The Xbox 360 Devkit, which was a PowerMac G5 with the M$ dev software installed, touted a lot of power, but our game brought it to its electronic knees.

    Consider textures. There is a lot of talk about dynamic lighting for next-gen consoles. Say you want to use normal maps. Now you go from one texture map to 3 or 4 (the base texture map, the normal map, possibly a specular map, and maybe a depth map). That will result in a 3-4X increase in texture space. And that is not even considering that you would probably want to up-rez the textures. Heck, you would need to up-rez to support HD. So you double the resolution. You now have a 4X increase in the size of each texture. Not looking good.

    There are things that can be done to save some of this space, such as folding different texture types into one texture by being cleaver with how you use the RGBA channels. Still, it will be on average a 4-6X increase in overall texture space. Processor speed and memory aside, how to you pull that data in from disk fast enough? Your code it going to have to get really smart to do the kinds of predictive loading/unloading it needs to do to get those textures where they need to be at exactly the right time (otherwise you quickly run out of texture memory).

    From just this simple example concerning one area of game production, the problems caused by HD are many. You also have to render more screen space at higher densities. HD is just flat out computationally expensive. It is expensive for the productions since artwork has to be developed to support HD resolutions. That impacts production pipelines because the datasize has increased. It just keeps going. How many developers do you think will flock to HD when the problems it causes are large and the financial gains are small?

    And that is the rub. It is going to take developers 2-4 years just to get down the basics of making next-gen games. Until then, you are going to see a lot of ports. That is exactly what I was working on. Taking an existing game, art content and all, and porting it to Xbox 360. We worked to up-rez textures. We had to change completely how characters got modeled because we wanted lots of photo real char stuff that doesn't mesh well with current methods for modeling. Games involve lots of "cheats" in both tech and art. Many of those "cheats" are incompatible with next-gen content creation.

    So Nintendo made the right choice. While Sony (who none of us should be considering buying from) and Microsoft (ditto) chase after the bleeding edge of tech, Nintendo will trail a short way behind making games the other 90% of the world might enjoy. I love my WoW as much as the next geek, but that experience does not minimize what Nintendo continues to do for the gaming world. It brings in new customers. That can only be good for all of us.

    --kev

  139. Yeah, but . . . by Infinity+Salad · · Score: 1
    Merrill Lynch is a financial management company/investment bank. They make money by helping other people make money. They help other people make money by finding good investments. They make good investments by performing good analysis.

    So, really, if they are wrong (bad analysis), there are indeed consequences for them (they get fired).

    I'm not saying this means they know what they are talking about, but rather that it is highly likely they are performing serious analysis and not just pulling these numbers and theories out of their arse. . .