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:You get what you pay for, right?

[aussie_a]

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.

Ars Technica

[JanneM]

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.

Nintendo isn't pushing CPU tech...and that's good

[Junks Jerzey]

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.

Games systems often on second TV in the house

[gathas]

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.

Re:No HD support? Wake up...

[maddskillz]

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

Anything Merrill Lynch says is a guess.

[mcc]

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.