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."
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
HD, in this case = "High Definition", not "Hard Drive".
Dare I say, RTFA friend?
__________
[Big Brick Wall]
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
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.
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.
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
The DS does use stand Wifi. It just requires that you include the TCP/IP stack in your game.
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'.
l +4+fixed+camera&btnG=Google+Search
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+Evi
Better luck with your next troll.
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).
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.
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
"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.
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.