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."

Comments

Re:No HD support? Wake up...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You are a minority.

2. Nintendo doesn't cater to the hardcore.

Re:You get what you pay for, right?

[hal2814]

"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.

Price Point Prediction: $200 USD

[thebosz]

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.

Re:Price Point Prediction: $200 USD

[cowscows]

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.

Re:No HD support? Wake up...

[AsiNisiMasa]

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.

Re:You get what you pay for, right?

[mausmalone]

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.

HD support is not a deal breaker

[gozar]

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.

Look at the manufacturers...

[teknopagan]

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!

Re:Whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.