Nintendo Completely Unveils Revolution Info To All..........

[Eon]

Fail to see the impracticality of it? How many games you think they will have where you do things like swing a weapon with that controller? So far the only Nintendo franchise that really revolves around action Sword play is Zelda and we know they aren't doing anything of the sort for that game. So I think in the sense of it's usefulness, it is very impractical.The controller itself is a very good step in a future direction, and could revolutionize console gaming (if they use it right), but this idea of locking up at certain points of contact in a game seems a little counter-intuitive. "Move the sword however you want...but don't stand near a wall!!" You know what I mean? It's like it will be cutting off the whole point of the freeform 3D capability of the controller. Aside from that, there is the obvious point: how many games can you really utilize a feature like this in, anyhow?

It is impractical and idiotic if they just roll with Zelda for a game to swing a controller like that, but I'm sure they'll put it to good use.

I just want the new Super smash brothers agme to like..let you beat the **** out of your friends :O

 

[Majin_You]

Fail to see the impracticality of it? How many games you think they will have where you do things like swing a weapon with that controller? So far the only Nintendo franchise that really revolves around action Sword play is Zelda and we know they aren't doing anything of the sort for that game. So I think in the sense of it's usefulness, it is very impractical.The controller itself is a very good step in a future direction, and could revolutionize console gaming (if they use it right), but this idea of locking up at certain points of contact in a game seems a little counter-intuitive. "Move the sword however you want...but don't stand near a wall!!" You know what I mean? It's like it will be cutting off the whole point of the freeform 3D capability of the controller. Aside from that, there is the obvious point: how many games can you really utilize a feature like this in, anyhow?

I still fail to see the impracticality. They wouldn't implement the feature if it were only to be used with a melee weapon. Besides that, it would make perfect sense to restrict the movement of a swinging weapon if it's headed for a wall. That's not impractical, that's realistic (for those who don't see what I mean, try standing next to a wall and swinging a short pole or stick in an arc in front of you - I'll bet that when it hits the wall, it'll stop moving). Besides, I would gamble that this restriction would not take effect if your sword were sheathed - you'd probably have a full range of motion if you were not swinging your sword with the control. Still, I maintain that the arguement is moot because, realistically speaking, it would not be possible to stop the motion of the control without the use of some outside influence.

However, I still fail to see the impracticality. If it were to be a key feature, they'd find a way to make it one that can apply to much more than just swinging a sword. There is no way to judge it as impractical, in my eyes, until we get a better sense of the types of games we will be seeing. That's just my opinion, though. I'd rather wait to see what games are being developed before condemning features as gimmicky, impractical, or useless. Call it "cheerful optimism", heh

 

[Ness]

This is the same old same old, as far as I'm concerned. Nintendo is doing what it has for the last three major console clashes; trying to whittle itself a niche market to avoid being in the competitive one.

there is no Niche market when it comes to the world of gaming.

 

[Ravendust]

I completely agree with Maj, I don't see how it would be impractical in the slightest. Imo it would be the greatest feature added to the gaming industry since the rumble pack (You can feel games! Omg!) An object stopping in midair with no opposing force acting on it? Genius magic. The fact that some games wouldn't use it isn't impractical, it's just a waste of technology. If it had razor edges and was made of fire and penii then yeah, it would be impractical, but alas, it is not. Earlier I had some friends over and we were discussing it, could it be possible? Harnessing the power of natural gravity? Magnets? We voted no, but would love to see it if it is indeed possible.

 

[sub]

http://revolution.ign.com/articles/673/673799p1.html

 

[Hash]

http://revolution.ign.com/articles/673/673799p1.html

Not too surprising for me. Nintendo said from the get go that it isn't about the graphics and I never expected it to look as good as the 360 and PS3. With that said though, you gotta remember that the Revolution won't be rendering anything in high-definition, so it will be able to output better graphics with less power.

It's all shaping up to how I expected it, the Revolution isn't gonna be drop-dead gorgeous like its competitors, but it's still gonna have a relatively good jump in graphics compared to the last generation. I mean, graphics at least twice as good as Resident Evil 4? I'm pretty sure that's still damn pretty.

*EDIT* http://nintendonow.e-mpire.com/index.php?categoryid=6&m_articles_articleid=3290
It seems that this may not all be entirely true either. Apparantly developers have had only Advanced Gamecube Development kits as a starting point until they recieve actual Revolution development kits. This would explain the seemingly "weak" specs developers are giving out for the Rev. Unless the devs were giving there thoughs based on not there development kits, but the expected power the Rev will eventually have. I dunnno, either way It's no real concern to me. I guess i'll just have to continue taking everything with a grain of salt until Nintendo officially announces everything.

 

[Majin_You]

You know, I found that the mention of the power of the Revolution in that article isn't what interested me. I completely lost interest in the graphics when I saw the statement that "a $99 price point would not be out of the question". If the Revolution, somehow, were launched with a price at or slightly above $99, I'd be elated. At the same time, it may have been neat to look forward to comparable graphics (compared to 360 and PS3, that is). However, given the massive commitment I've made to my studies, it is relieving to know that Nintendo's next console will likely not be an expensive one

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

Things like this are why I stopped supporting Nintendo. All this jerking around, all this hearsay, all this off-the-wall information bouncing everywhere. With no other platform have I ever seen a company so blatantly slap around its fanbase.

All that aside I can't imagine them selling it for 99 dollars. At least 150, would be my guess at lowest. How can they expect to stay afloat when for every single unit of the competition that gets sold, somebody makes 5 times the profit they'd get per unit? It's illogical and crazy...of course, it could also work. It depends entirely on one thing--how unwilling or apprehensive the general public is to pay 500 bucks for a next-gen machine.

If it IS 99 dollars, it's just the same old thing--Nintendo marketing to moms on budgets.

 

[Ravendust]

$99 is like £60, the price of two PS2 games. If it's small, cheap and discreet I may just get one for Smash Bros, Zelda and the Nintendo back catalogue. This pushes it out of the 'next gen console' race but then again, Nintendo would be kidding themselves if they tried to pass it off as one so it's for the best.

It's a bit of a gamble at this point, obviously Microsoft are targetting hardcore gamers more than casual with the emphasis on the specs and features, whereas Nintendo seem to be relying on casual gamers who don't want to pay extortionate prices. If it fails it could be the end of Nintendo's console making days however; i'm not sure $99 per unit is enough to make a decent enough profit.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

Nobody will be making 5 times the proffit. With how expensive the hardware is in the Xbox360 and the PS3, the manufacturers are not making much, if any money, on the consoles. The money is, as it has always been, in the software. The software doesn't cost an arm and a leg to mass produce, the prices on the consoles are high enough so that the company doesn't lose a fortune on their product and sell just enough to take that piece of the market. Microsoft actually lost money every time they sold one of the original Xboxes, even with its substantial price tag, but they were willing to do it to take market share away from the playstation. The money is in the games.

Also, note that a system that isn't trying to compete with killer computational capabilities and video processing power is going to be spending less on the production of the actual software as well, so they should be able to offer it cheaper, and still make money off of it. Regardless, if they did release the damn thing at $99 I'd pick one up just to have it. That's a deal, and anybody on a decent salary couldn't argue with that. I've enjoyed all the nintendo games I've played and for reasons other than their graphical power, so I'm interested to see what they come up with.

 

[sub]

Exactly. I was thinking about buying a Revolution before, but damn, if they're selling it for 99 dollars I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I'm sure many others feel the same way. To me, it seems selling it for that low could make sense for Nintendo.

 

[Wolf Devil]

What I find funny is that the gamecube is now selling for $99... And that was after 2 or 3 years, and was a drop from about like 200-300 dollars (what I bought mine at -_-).

I question how the hell they'll manage to do so much as to break even.... especially considering they're targeting the casual (cheap) gamer audience.

Not that there's anything wrong with their choice to go for the more laid-back players. If anything, that's what Nintendo SHOULD do. I hate seeing Nintendo take beating after beating because it didn't stack up to Microsoft and Sony.

 

[sub]

Meh, Nintendo didn't exactly lose the last gen consoles wars. In terms of console units bought, the PS2 sold the most with Xbox in second and Nintendo trailing in third. In terms of money made, Nintendo was the winner. Microsoft lost a few billion dollars and Sony currently has some moeny problems It's also estimated that Nintendo has some 6 billion dollars in cash. So they're not exactly fighting for their life as everyone thinks.

edit: Article for proof - http://www.gamesarefun.com/gamesdb/editorial.php?editorialid=5

 

[tolore]

Nobody will be making 5 times the proffit. With how expensive the hardware is in the Xbox360 and the PS3, the manufacturers are not making much, if any money, on the consoles. The money is, as it has always been, in the software.

xbox 360 is costing over 100 dollars per system sold from microsoft, i hear ps3 is supposed to cost sony even more per system sold.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

Yeah, people seem to have this stupid idea that companies like Microsoft spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours of research and development and yet did all that to make no profit. Stupid.

Even stupider is citing that retarded gamesarefun article. For the millionth time, it's crap. If Microsoft lost a few billion dollars it would be national news; and Sony just invented a new kind of HDTV that can show 100% more pixels then most modern HDTVs. That's not what companies with 'money troubles' do. Companies with 'money problems' do things like avoid direct competition, market BS add-ons for extra cash, choose cheaper and already-surpassed technologies for their products, re-release the same games in different packages for different machines 7 times, and pump out weak sequel after weak sequel, and last but not least, lower prices absurdly in order to move units during the holiday season.

It should also be on record that Nintendo isn't a company that has 'gone public.' So its earnings are never publicized--as well they shouldn't be, because they are probably embarassing.

As someone who works at a major newspaper company I feel you should be made aware that 'editorials' are OPINION pieces written by the editors. At least in the real journalism world. I guess on the internet they are a 17 year old making up numbers. That's as close to journalistic integrity as you're going to get in cyberspace.

If it weren't a blatant abuse of my mod powers I'd go and erase that link from every argument it's been used in.

 

[Promiscuous Girl]

The weak sequel remark is debatable, but i doubt i'd stand a chance. Anyways, for those that don't know, here are numbers grounded in reality.

Sales
Microsoft: $34.27 billion
Nintendo: $4.26 billion
Sony: $63.23 billion

Profits
Microsoft: $8.88 billion
Nintendo: $0.57 billion
Sony: $0.98 billion

Assets
Microsoft: $85.94 billion
Nintendo: $9.06 billion
Sony: $68.04 billion

Market Value
Microsoft: $287.02 billion
Nintendo: $12.80 billion
Sony: $38.00 billion

Data from Forbes 2000 (as of February 13, 2004)

www.forbes.com

What i find funny about all of this, why are we so concerned with profits and market value anyway. If we don't work for either of those three companies it shouldn't matter to us -- it doesn't affect us. Besides, all three of them are making more than enough to sustain their companies. If anything only the quality of the games and review ratings are the only factors that should matter. But yea, it's common sense that Microsoft and Sony rake in far more than Nintendo... Nintendo is exclusively a game making company. Microsoft and Sony are extended into other highly profitable ventures (like computers and other electronics and ect.)

And when people claim that Microsoft and Sony lose money, i think they're referring to sales on their consoles alone. In order to compete graphically each company pours an enormous amount of expensive hardware into each of their consoles, as a result they lose money on each console sold. Here is a recent news article giving you some idea of what Microsoft is losing on each 360.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140383.html



They make the money back, and more, on software sales (i.e., games.) It's a trade off - the better the hardware is the more software one tends to sell.... lose a little bit on hardware, make a whole lot back on software. At least that is their intention, if they fail to market the games properly and they don't sell enough software during a given period they suffer losses.

And at this point and time, i do think Sony is somewhat, indeed in financial trouble, but it's a company with a strong history so it will probally pull through. And i guess Microsoft as a whole is very profitable, but it's game division is not. Atleast..that's what i heard from the BBC news a while back.

I was impressed that Nintendo sold Gamecubes for cheaper than PS2 and Xbox this generation of gaming, and still made profit from sales, while maintaining second place in hardware muscle. Sony and MS, third and first respectively, both sold at a loss from day one. (But i guess that's almost saying, they care more for their fans and their willing to take a loss. But now, they both may be running efficient enough to profit of off system sales..i think.) Im hoping Nintendo could pull the same stunt with the rev as well, but it doesn't look full proof yet.

I wish Sega and Nintendo would just merge. As a gamer for the last 8 years of my life, (15 years old now) nothing can outdo Sega & Nintendo. Sega had that "I'll kick your @$$" attitude that Nintendo needs more then ever. I remember back when, Ninty would do all these nice, cool commercials, and Sega would pretty much come straight out and say "Nintendo sucks!"-- Im starting too think that Nintendo is just too nice and conservative to stay in competition with Sony and Microsoft. But no matter what, i"ll still stick with them over Sony and MS any day of the week. So i guess im one of the many blind followers, but that could be said about alot of people of all 3 different fanbases. Well that's just my two cents.

 

[Majin_You]

I'm with Soul Punisher on this one. I don't see how the net gain each company makes per console is a determining factor in buying one that I think I will enjoy. I've mentioned this serveral times, but I suppose it still hasn't stuck - this is an issue of preference, not of a right choice versus a wrong choice. If one likes the style and library of one console over that of another, that's completely his or her own concern. Frankly, I don't think that preference is at all dependant on how much money the company producing the console is making. People repeatedly mention how the GCN was the underdog in sales, but I don't see anything wrong with the way the system works, and I enjoy all of the games I own for it. They look, to me, much more polished than most of my PS2 games, and they are a lot more fun than all of the X-Box games I own (with Jade Empire as the only exception). I don't personally, see how a lesser number of sales has affected the quality of the games. I go by personal preference, not by what the general public sees to be the "best" choice.

Plus, I do not find the "sequel after sequel after sequel" arguement to be as valid anymore, in my opinion. There are other culprits on the other consoles (Metal Gear Solid or GTA, anyone?) There were more than enough titles for each of Nintendo's consoles that were not based entirely on a predecessor, just as X-Box and PS2 had their fair share of new titles, as well as some franchises brought back with a new face. Besides that, it all depends on your preference. I, for one, happened to like the style of Mario 64 very much, so I had to invest in Mario Sunshine. Similarly, I couldn't pass up the chance to play the role of Samus once again. The "sequel after sequel after sequel" arguement is subjective - it's an opinion. Some people prefer fresh titles, others like to see a return to something older. Whether or not one finds them weak is that person's opinion, alone. Some may think that reusing characters is harmful, while others will enjoy it. I have my share of opinions about certain sequels, too - but I'd prefer to keep them to myself, as they aren't up for debate.

...and if personal preference is something that any of you see as irrelevant in this scenario, then it's about time that you've re-evaluated what use a console is meant to have. Somes posts are seeming more personal each time, as though one's preferences are being attacked, or as if one feels that they must reassert or defend their opinion - that will not be the case. If you find it hard to accept someone's preference, then you need to hold your comments back - no one has the right, even to a minute extent, to implicate that one opinion is less informed or less correct than another - this is hardly the situation to be doing that in.

 

[tolore]

i don't think the arguement was that net gain means you should buy it but whether or not the console was a success ro not. IE even if microsoft sells 100 consoles but they end up gaining only 10$ total, and nintendo sells 70 consoles and makes 100$ nintendo would be more succesful than microsoft. I'm not saying thats the case, i'm just clarifying what i percieve the the whole net gain arguement is supposed to mean.

 

[Adaptus]

I don't give a **** about the profit any company makes as long as their products do what they should: entertain me in the best way possible.

I'm curious about the PS3's supposed power, and I'm also curious about the Revo's uber backwards compatibility and unique control style, so I'll probably end up getting both.

Playstation games tend to have more action and are generally more mature. Nintendo games are usually more polished and have more depth. No one console offers everything, so as a gamer, as a consumer, I'll just have to get both to suit my desire.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

If you find it hard to accept someone's preference, then you need to hold your comments back - no one has the right, even to a minute extent, to implicate that one opinion is less informed or less correct than another - this is hardly the situation to be doing that in.

I don't care if people like it or not. What I care about is misinformation. The Forbes numbers prove that foolish gamesarefun article is wholly unfounded bull****. Misinformation should be corrected at all times, no matter the topic. As the Forbes information shows, Nintendo is dead last in all categories, Sony is FAR from going out of business or having any alleged 'money troubles', and Microsoft didn't lose billions, it made an eight and a half billion dollar profit.

I may not have a right to implicate the incorrectness of an opinion, that's up for debate another day. However, it is also the plague of misinformation and uneducated claims like 'Sony is going out of business' and 'Microsoft lost 100000 billion on xbox console manufacturing' that leads to all the disagreement between people.

The arguments about the practices of the companies only arise because they are the crux on which people who are not supportive of Nintendo--such as myself, obviously--rest our cases. When we make OUR opinions heard, WE are almost invariably brought under fire with ludicrous claims for why OUR opinion is garbage, when it is in actuality rooted very deeply in fact.

People are entitled to their opinions, and I respect that. But someone such as yourself, Maj, who says, "I like Nintendo," is very different from people elevating the company's status by saying things like the bit about Sony having 'Money Trouble' or Microsoft allegedly losing huge amounts of money. Deliberate misinformation only serves to further enflame the already difficult-to-handle front between the three fanbases.

All that aside the thread talks about Nintendo's plans for the future release of information, and the conversation took a turn to how wise it would be to do such a thing. This is only the natural course of where things would go from the topic; what better way is there to pre-emptively analyze the future then by looking back at similar examples from the past or current timeframe?

If people choose to go by information from sources that aren't overly credible, that's their cross to bear - not our's, sir. But you're correct - my response, thus far, is different from other people who happen to like Nintendo. I will take that into account next time. ~Maj