Slashdot Mirror
Large PS3 Launch, Nintendo Resolutions
ConfusedFX writes "GameDAILY has published a news article featuring Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo's Executive Vice President of Sales. He had several things to say about Nintendo's 2006 strategy, one of which, 'We will sell more units than Xbox 360 did here in the United States in our launch window.' He commented about Xbox 360 owners spending nearly $800 at launch; he wants the Nintendo Revolution to be 'affordable' to the average gamer. Additionally, GameDAILY has posted an interview with Andy Parsons, senior VP of Pioneer Electronics, written by The Digital Bits. Some analysts expect the PS3 to launch with around 1 million units -- Andy says he's heard differently from Sony. 'If Sony ships the kind of numbers we expect them to this year, that will provide a very rapid growth of players out there hungry for titles. We've been hearing between 4 and 7 million units could ship.'"
when launching a new product, make sure there's enough to go around. even if said product is nominally produced by a bunch of right bastards.
Seriously, saying you'te going to beat the XBox 360's launch is basically like saying 'We are not retards, and we're not rushing our product to market.'
The XBox 360 had 400,000 units available at launch and has only delivered a couple hundred thousand since then; Nintendo (with the Gamecube) had 500,000 on launch day with 500,000 released that month (which I would expect to be the minimum we would see from the Revolution).
Also, Nintendo's Price point comments could probably be replaced with "We are trying to sell for as low as $200, but that seems unlikely, so we're determining whether $225 or $250 is a better price point; we're just going to tell you under $300 so that when we announce it at $225 or $250 you'll be happily surprised. (Plus if we're lucky enough to get the manufacturing costs low enough to sell it at $200, you'll probably mess your pants)"
Whoop that trick!! Git um!
Revolution will come out within a month of Thanksgiving weekend (aka black friday), and it will launch for $250 or less... probably right at 200 I'm thinking... It will sell fairly well, but people will be confused by it at first... They will probably just sell around a million units in the US at first to the few people who get it... of course, overtime I think it will explode, but the kind of people who spend "$800" on an Xbox 360...ie...the first wave buyers will be too obsessed with their PS3s and the Xbox360's second gen of titles.
As for the PS3 it may or may not go so well... There are 3 factors, cost, quantity and the quality of launch titles as comparable to the 360's games that are already out before launch... I can see it going for as high as $499.99, but if they go any higher it'll probably flop. If they can't get at least a million units to the US before Christmas that could be another major stumbling block (they couldn't handle the PS2 launch). And launch titles almost always suck, so they better be working their asses off to get some sort of must have title at launch. Another problem is that by the time PS3 comes out developers should finally be figuring out how to write a little parallel code for the 360, taking advantage of all 3 cores, and start really exploiting the power of the system, so PS3's graphical prowess may not be as apparent as people think it will be.
A few more here... Halo 3 probably won't be out by the launch of the PS3, but I can almost guarentee we'll see a few trailers, if not a demo even by then... Zelda: Twighlight Princess will probably be released around June and won't take advantage of the Revolution anymore than any other Gamecube games will...and the redesigned DS will probably come out right around the same time too.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
It appears that the 360 is getting pushed off the mind of the public and everything is turning into Nintendo Revolution and Sony PS3.
Can anyone give a plausible scenario where Microsoft can remain relevant to the next gen race?
I am looking at the release list of games for the 360 over the next year and it looks like all the same type of games that the first xbox had. There doesn't seem any reason for anyone to buy a 360 who didn't already buy the first xbox.
The more I read about the supposed specs of the Revolution the more it sounds like it will, outside of higher resolution, easily outpace the 360 in performance. The dual 970ish CPU that is in the Revolution will easily outperform the 360 CPU - which looks like it has realworld performance around a 2 to 2.5GHz dual 970 system. And the custom ATI graphics system in the Revolution sounds like it will be much more advanced than the essentially current gen pc GPU in the 360 - outside of resolution once again.
I'm having a hard time finding the direct quote which "confirms" that the Revolution will be under $300. With all the misinformation spreading throughout the video game industry, I'd much rather have that direct quote than hearing about it secondhand via some news outlet. Is there any other source for this information?
Hi I'm an industry analyst. My prediction are:
Xbox 360 will drop in price to $35.32 to combat Sony's release of the PS/3 which will incidentally be marketed in the $1.2 million price range. Sony's initial stock of 5 PS/3s for the holiday season 2009 will sell out. The resulting influx of $6 million will exceed all money ever made selling anything Xbox related for any Xbox system ever that was or is to be.
In an effort to get more non-gamers playing Nintendo will release the Revolution in a buy one get one free special pack marketed witht eh slogan "one for you, one for Grandma". It will come with an updated Robby the robot. Corporations such as McDonalds will take advantage of the low cost robotics and replace their entire work force with Robbys. The Revolution controller will be shown to be a cheap ploy by Nintendo to transition to teledildonics.
The CEO of Nintendo will be compelled to commit suicide after a horrifying cosplay scandal involving a certain stain on a sailor moon outfit. The successor will distance Nintendo from video gaming and return the business to it's hana futa card making roots - stating that they want Nintendo's finanacial profile to be more in line with Sony and Microsoft, since profitability is no longer a sign of success.
The Internet, having proven to be a fad, will achieve sentience and then blow itself up by detonating large nuclear devices in every major backbone location across the world. This will have no real impact on Microsoft's Xbox Live, as we all know that nobody really plays on Live anyway. There will however be "the scream heard round the world" as millions of World of Warcraft players are instantly denied their chance to earn phat lewt.
PC gaming will rise from it's current dead status to achieve undeath with titles like Sims 3: Get a Life! shambling about Wal Mart screaming "braaaaaaainnsssss".
Please adjust your stock portfolios accordingly.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
In terms of a) stressing the characteristics of the system that have to do with game play and b) pitching their product at a price I can imagine paying, Nintendo's the only console maker that's even in the game at this point. If there's any decent lineup of games at launch, they're going to get my Christmas business -- for my to-be-13-year-old kids.
They're the company that's trying something interesting, and they're also the company that isn't overreaching the price point by $200. It's not a difficult choice.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
And *you* have fun with BMX XXX, you 12-year-old.
"by stating that the console will retail for less than the Xbox 360 core system which currently retails for $299 in the United States."
Before correcting someone, read the entire thing.
The latest news I've heard on the Rev from ign.com was that it is basicly a double speed game cube (800MHZ power PC derivative) with memory doubled to 100 MB.
That puts it less then 20% as powerful as PS3/360.
Theres two plausible scenarios that can play out that'll serious help Microsoft's 360.
1. The PS3 launch is more or less as bad as the 360's. (Remember, they bungled the PS2 AND the PSP launches so it is possible) Between the 360's early foothold on the market and the lack of any first-gen titles that take advantage of the hardware (which is true for ANY hardware), the PS3 crumbles between the 360's early launch the Nintendo Revolution's 'we complement, not replace, the 360 and/or PS3' strategy. Throw in Sony's poor economic state and the fact that the PS2 is simply far too old to be of any contest and after 3 or so years, the PS3 is axed to cut losses.
2. Blu-Ray doesn't catch on for whatever reason, take your pick from too high costs to dislike of DRM to movie studios/customers do not support it (again, likely given Sony's past). Because of the added costs from the Blu-Ray drive and the lack of the same movie support the PS2 recieved with DVDs, the PS3 flounders since it cannot support itself solely as a video game system due to the extreme hardware costs. Again Nintendo survives with its video game-only system strategy and Microsoft survives either from HD-DVDs or it simply drives the PS3 off the market.
That's definately to be expected. The public and press are always going to be interested in the next, newest things. That's what happened with the Gamecube and Xbox. There was an enormous amount of press about those two consoles, yet the PS2 obviously reigned supreme in the end.
Wait until 2007 rolls around, when all consoles have (presumably) launched, and then see what the press/public cares about to see what has ultimately grabbed mindshare.
It's all about the games. I'm a big Japanese RPG fan, so my PS2 got far more play than my Xbox. However, there are a couple of interesting J-RPGs in development (Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey to name a few). If they do well, and Square continues to make more titles for the 360 (FFXI is now in beta), then the 360 may actually be relevant in Japan. If that happens, then that could definately reduce the market share of the PS3. If not, then yeah, the 360 will essentially be the same as the first Xbox
What I'm really worried about is Nintendo. After talking to my friends (who have been Nintendo fanbois in the past), they are surprisingly pessimistic about the Revolution. It seems people are either really excited about the new control scheme, or think it's going to fall flat on their face. I'm all for controller improvements, and Nintendo has shown it is fully capable of performing here (we have them to thank for analog sticks and the trigger button), but this is a pretty drastic thing. I'm hoping its more like the DS and less like the Virtual Boy.
-- jchenx
That's easy. Because the X Box will continue to have the popular games like it always has, and this time they're not latecomers to the race. Games like Madden will continue to dominate in sales, and the gaming industry will remain much the same as it is now to the dismay of that small group of gamers always complaining about the current crop of titles being released. It still won't matter though because that small group of gamers are not the ones making the gaming industry as profitable as it is.
I completely agree
Then again, I'm probably a hypocrite, since my favorite titles are Japanese RPGs like Dragon Quest VIII (which sold horribly in the US but was a #1 selling title in Japan)
-- jchenx
Dear Hype,
Personally, I hype there to be at least HYPE to HYPE units sold through HYPE!!!
Hype hype hype hype, hype hype hype hype. Furthermore, hype hype hype HYPE HYPE HYPE!!! Yeah! HYPE!
PS3 is the bomb dank HYPE!!!
Err, huh? Most of the rumours I'm seeing put the architecture of the XBox 360 and Revolution to be identical, with the following differences:
Triple core 3.2 GHz CPU in XBox 360, dual core 2.8Ghz CPU in Revolution
500Mhz R500 core for the XBox 360, 600Mhz R520 core for the Revolution (this seems to more be the order they were designed in, rather than an indication of features)
48 shader pipelines for XBox 360, 32 for Revolution
512MB shared RAM on XBox 360, 512MB system and 256MB graphics for Revolution
So... the Revolution will probably have more memory, be slower in CPU terms, and a close match in graphics. It will probably be cheaper, but I'd imagine Microsoft will be looking at a price drop not long after the Revolution is released.
Revolution rumours mostly taken from:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050923-534
This quote, out of the context, is very very misleading.
That 3-7 million figure is the number of blu-ray players/oem ordered by Sony.. thus his assumption that Sony plans to sell that many PS3's.
This conclusion is following a discussion on EvilAvatar yesterday.
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
Wait a minute--I didn't know anyone knew any details about the GPU or the CPU (aside from the manufacturers). Where are you getting your information; I would like to edumacate myself.
Deja Vu
n. 1. The sensation that you've read this very article before.
1. Revolution Wins
2. Revolution Wins Big
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
For $200, and my barely gamer wife, and soon to be 2yr old kid, it's not even a choice!
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
Allegedly MS loses $200 or more on every 360 they sell. no price drops for a LONG time
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Sadly enough, the gamecube version had the full game with no censorship, unlike the PS2 version.
If this was your point, well, I'm sure a lot of people didn't know that anyway so whatever.
You've got the CPU information correct, but the GPU information is wrong.
The GPU for the GC was designed by ArtX shortly before they were bought by ATI. The GPU for the Rev is going to be an upgraded version of the Flipper GPU, which was already inherently superior to the GPU the 360 is using (specifically, the Flipper was so powerful that it was never fully utilized, the CPU couldn't handle more than 50% of what the GPU could output). The Rev will only have about 100MB system RAM, but it uses faster RAM for less wasted processor cycles, nothing's been said for certain abotu the video RAM, but most are estimating 64MB or less. Also, the Rev will probably have at least twice the CPU cache of the 360, possibly more.
So while the Rev will have a slower CPU, won't matter because it won't be wasting processor cycles. It'll have a superior graphics card, with better effects, but less memory for larger scale textures, which it won't need because it won't be outputting higher than 480p, so that may not mean anything. Should have nearly identical polygon counts, and similar lighting effects, probably slightly longer load times. Otherwise I doubt there's much difference between the two graphically at 480i/p. The larger cache will give it better branching predictions for better AI however. 360 with more cores & dual threads will probably handle physics better, unless the Rev also includes a PPU (which has been rumored, but which no one reliable has so far confirmed or denied).
just some guy
> It seems people are either really excited about the new control
i s-too-"out-there"
> scheme, or think it's going to fall flat on their face. I'm all
> for controller improvements, and Nintendo has shown it is fully
> capable of performing here (we have them to thank for analog
> sticks and the trigger button), but this is a pretty drastic
> thing.
If you hint at the
Revolution-will-flop-because-its-controller-
argument, then you must, in fairness, address the obvious
counter-arguments:
1) Yes, the design is drastically different from what we have now,
but that fact alone doesn't even hint at whether it's going to
result in games that are better or worse; you're going to have to
actually *play* Revolution games before you can pass judgement on
that. Besides, how many times have you seen people move their arms
and tilt their torsos while playing a game? I think they're tapping
into an innate human desire to have body movement translate
into action on the screen, and I think they're on to something. For
a lot of people, being able to use the whole upper body to play a
game is going to make the game more fun. This theory, when applied
to the lower body, has already paid off immensely: just look at
Dance Dance Revolution.
2) You will be able to use conventional GameCube controllers. If
the new controller feels awkward, you'll probably be able to fall
back on the old ones most of the time. So even if the controller
sucks -- and this supposition counters the enthusiasm of many
outspoken third-party game developers -- the platform will still do
well enough if there are good games for it.
3) Most people will not buy more than one console if the second
console doesn't give you something that isn't in the first. So
they're compelled to create something that's so different that even
non-gamers will take notice.
4) The company's success is in part a result of actions that broke
from convention. Nintendo is the largest "indie" game developer in
the world. Think how boring offerings from id and EA have become in
comparison. Those one-dimensional peddlers can be relied upon to
release the next "innovative" FPS and the next true-to-life Madden
NFL game. Nintendo is the company that's going to show you
something you've never seen before. If they *didn't* take "risks"
like this periodically I'd be disappointed.
5) I don't think the controller design that they revealed is the
first one their R&D people dreamt up. I'm sure they employ an
entire staff just to research new concepts about human-computer
interaction, new kinds of sensors, etc. And I'm sure they tested
numerous controller prototypes of different design against
proof-of-concept games on focus groups, and I'm sure they arrived at
the conclusion that the one they ended up presenting proved
statistically the most "fun". In other words, they're taking a
risk, but it's a measured risk: they know what they're doing.
Isn't having fun what it is all about?
I'm not like you in that I refuse to award Sony and MS with financial fellatio. They will not be getting my money. I will not contribute to the strangulation of a great gaming company, and I will not re-enforce what they are doing to the industry. If you really feel "bahumbug" towards the things you rant against, you'd act and purchase (or not purchase) accordingly.
I've made it clear to my local retailers as well: "properly stock the Nintendo section, or my money will go to a retailer that actually does so. Even if I have to go online, or drive clear across the city." Thus far, only one establishment in my area has bided by my warning, but only because he (the manager) was getting complaints of the same type from other Nintendo fans.
Several months later, I went browsing there. For some strange reason, he says, Nintendo games sales in his store have gone up a bit! Imagine that!
This goes to everyone: if you give Microsoft or Sony your gaming money, you forfeit the right to bitch about the state of the industry.
Nentendo will do well like aways but will not be a factor with the 360 and PS3 war. Honestly I want to see Sony take a hit, They are not much for change in gaming and dont seem to have an online plan. But MS may have made some mistakes on 360 that they will have to pay for.
I don't want to burst any bubbles here but I might recommend you wait until the actual hardware is here, and then compare architectures.
And no I'm not saying the revolution isn't revolutionary, I just think hardware is only hardware when it actually exists in 3-space and not on paper. . .
It's really useful if you reference your sources, BTW, so here's some I found for you:
m e-new-info-on-the-nintendo-revolution/t ml2 491
http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/06/ign-digs-up-so
http://revolution.ign.com/articles/673/673578p1.h
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=6
Graphics: Nothing I've seen gives me any indication of how powerful this will actually be, only that it's designed by ATi, and designed as a completely different architecture to everything else. Having said that, I think we're at the point where it's fairly trivial to stuff as many polygons into a 480i/p display as you want, and unless it's missing some funky technology such as the lighting/shader stuff the XBox 360 and PS3 (will) have, there shouldn't be any real difference.
By which I mean, I think you're right. Pity it's not R5xx based though, it looked like XBox 360/Revolution dual format releases were going to be more or less trivial...
Memory: Yikes, that's not much at all. I'm suprised; memory is fairly cheap stuff, putting 256mb in would probably have made life a lot easier on devs, but nevermind...
CPU: Yup, agree.
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear initially, but I'm actually one of the optimistic fans for Nintendo. I grew up as a Nintendo "fanboi" myself, arguing the merits of the N64 over the PSX in forums and such. I don't think it is going to flop because of the controller, because of many of the things you've already pointed out, but I have to admit I'm a *little* bit worried at the same time.
I was the same way with the DS. It just seemed too gimmicky for me at first, and I really despised Nintendo launching yet another handheld form-factor, since it seems like I was upgrading every year (GBA to GBA SP and now to a DS?). However the games are really solid, and it's my platform of choice for any travelling I do. (PSP = glorified media machine)
I totally agree on all of these points. It's way too early to tell how good or bad the controller is until more people actually get their hands on one. And Nintendo can always fall back on a "normal" controller, since it's been heavily hinted that the "remote" one can be inserted into a traditional controller.
... and then it gets ported to the PS2.
And #3 is exactly why I never got a Gamecube, unfortunately. There was the distinction that the GC was the "less powerful" of the other consoles, so for any multiplatform titles, I could just nab the Xbox or PS2 version. The thing that made the GC stand out were all the Nintendo titles, but I've become less of a fan for their games (see my next comment), so that wasn't intriguing enough for me. Plus, you have a killer exclusive like Resident Evil 4
I disagree. True, Nintendo does do some really wacky "out there" stuff (like any of the Wario-ware games), but they are just as guilty as EA and other developers for sequel-itis. How many Mario Party games do we
-- jchenx
You're right about the triviality of polygon numbers. What really matters at this point are the effects. I think most of the upgrades from Flipper to Hollywood are to introduce the new technologies ATI has developed in the past 5 years, like combined vertex/pixel shaders, so it should be at least on par with the R5xx architecture, possibly superior (won't kow for sure until someone gets to play around with it).
just some guy