citrus lump
Banned
tetsuoxb said:
I agree somewhat. I had absolute faith in Mr. nightrain pre-E3. Now until he gives us something more tangible-I take him with a grain of salt.
Redeem yourself Johnny, by leaking EVERYTHING you know. :lol :lol
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
(another) Revolution Rumor
- Thread starter El_Victor
- Start date
I agree somewhat. I had absolute faith in Mr. nightrain pre-E3. Now until he gives us something more tangible-I take him with a grain of salt.
Redeem yourself Johnny, by leaking EVERYTHING you know. :lol :lol
I can see Nintendo doing wireless a/v... and I guess that if you can do that, multiple screens are the next logical step. Maybe.
Now I'm wondering more and more about the ghost images a DS will output on a television.
Wait.. insane thought. What if we are all reading this wrong?
What if the truth is that the Revolution can output video wireless to a TV or to the next Nintendo handheld? The next Game Boy might function as a standard system OR a portable terminal for the Revolution? Turn the Revolution on, but play the game via your handheld?
Now I'm wondering more and more about the ghost images a DS will output on a television.
Wait.. insane thought. What if we are all reading this wrong?
What if the truth is that the Revolution can output video wireless to a TV or to the next Nintendo handheld? The next Game Boy might function as a standard system OR a portable terminal for the Revolution? Turn the Revolution on, but play the game via your handheld?
imastalker co.
Banned
what for? if you don't want to believe me, that's fine. more power to you. i don't see why im getting shit for this though i don't recall having a shitty track record. besides, all i said was that it's a rumor.citrus lump said:
tetsuoxb, clearly you're still resentful about what i said about your interview and other stuff, so spare me please.
Johnny Nighttrain said:
You are right I am resentful about that. I am also appalled that someone with absolutely no credibility can get a freighttrain of pipedreamers behind them on ideas so beyond preposterous it is silly.
As it stands, in this thread, you may or may not be confirming a rumor that may or may not have been started originally by your source, who may or may not have a single shred of actual knowledge beyond lucky guesses. This thread is consequently up to 3 pages of complete bullshit speculation about a technology with only one known implementation (UWB) that is not coming to market in any reasonable amount of time that would allow for an installed base to meet Nintendo's standards.
At the very least you should describe your source, in as vague of terms as need be, to give some sliver of veracity to your posts. Otherwise, to me, you range from either a semi-insider who is often misinformed to a complete BS artist engaged in an ego trip, who enjoys nothing more than whipping up fanboys.
And lets be fair about the interview stuff - it isnt that you blasted an interview. It is that you personally attacked those involved (calling them embarassments) and then 2 weeks later had the balls to engage me in an IM conversation asking for advice about coming to Japan. That isnt other stuff... it is the actions of a classless hack... and I believe it speaks directly to your character and credibility.
EDIT: And people... Nintendo did not find a way to wireless transmit to multiple monitors without requiring some kind of box on top of the tv. The Revolution thus would need Ultra Wide Band. UWB isnt shipping yet. There are 2 competing standards for UWB. UWB will not be in Revolution. You can write off this rumor as completely false, unless Nintendo has wireless engineers smarter than those working in the Multiband OFDM Alliance (the best spec for UWB). Considering that nintendo wireless on the DS is just an IPstack-less implemenation of 802.11b, I am betting the answer is not happening.
http://www.intel.com/technology/comms/uwb/
http://www.multibandofdm.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrawideband
imastalker co.
Banned
i guess i've never been right about anything.tetsuoxb said:
like every other Revolution thread.tetsuoxb said:
what for again? im not asking anyone here to believe me. infact, everyone here, please take everything i say with a grain of salt. you have every reason to.tetsuoxb said:
dude, stop being such a little biznatch already. if you wanna hold a grudge, well, that's on you.tetsuoxb said:
Johnny Nighttrain said:
You are not asking anyone to believe you, but you sure seem to enjoy it quite a bit when they do.
Dude, I helped you out with advice even when I thought I shouldnt. Never once did you say thanks, nor did you apologize for your behavior re: the interview. It came off as very very uncool. You could have been "hey, i know i probably made some out of line comments, and im sorry, but could you help me out" instead. Then we'd be cool.
It isnt a grudge, I am not following you around in every thread saying "look at the JT, he did x y and z"; however, if your credibility comes into question, I think people should have a general idea of what kind of person you are.
HOWEVER, This thread is not tetsuoxb/JT livejournal.com. It is about a rumor that Revolution will feature some kind of wireless video broadcasting technology. I want to make it clear in every post I make that this is completely unfeasible from a practical business standpoint, regardless of whether you generally believe Johnny Nighttrain.
imastalker co.
Banned
imastalker co.
Banned
Monk said:
PkunkFury
Member
tetsuoxb said:
I don't think anyone was under the impression this could be accomplished without an adapter attached to the receiving TVs. obviously, nintnedo wouldn't be using UWB, but the technology to wirelessly send video signals to small recievers throughout a house has been commercially available in the form of wireless surveillance cameras and baby monitors for some time. If these things work with reliable accuracy couldnt Nintendo be using an adapted form of this technology to wirelessly link displays?
If this were the case, I imagine the console would come with a set of the standard Nintendo video cables as well as a wireless receiver. That way, consumers could become familiarized with the technology by testing the receiver on the main TV, or playing two player two screen using both the receiver and cables. Consumers who enjoy the technology and have enough displays to support more players could then go out and purchase extra receivers. Nintendo has a new peripheral to sell at $30.00-$40.00 a pop, and interested consumers could play multiplayer without the split screen.
If you exclude the possibility of UWB, and thus the "move it around easily" arguments, it becomes a much more reasonable and much more interesting possibility.
-----
If it is simply broadcasting the same screen to different rooms, then it is of limited use. In fact, it is almost an easter egg type feature.
If it is broadcasting different screens (1p, 2p ect) to different screens, then it is a cool idea; however, I can imagine the technical overhead of something like that being quite high. If they cant/do not want to support HD resolutions, rendering multiple full resolution frames sounds a bit steep. Granted, 2 480p streams requires only 2/3 of the power (frame buffer) wise of 1 720p stream; however 4 players would require more than 720p, thus defeating their no-hd argument on a technical basis.
I am incredibly skeptical of this, as it seems limiting. The only reasonable application of something like this is multiplayer, and that is excluding the vast majority of games and gamers.
-----
If it is simply broadcasting the same screen to different rooms, then it is of limited use. In fact, it is almost an easter egg type feature.
If it is broadcasting different screens (1p, 2p ect) to different screens, then it is a cool idea; however, I can imagine the technical overhead of something like that being quite high. If they cant/do not want to support HD resolutions, rendering multiple full resolution frames sounds a bit steep. Granted, 2 480p streams requires only 2/3 of the power (frame buffer) wise of 1 720p stream; however 4 players would require more than 720p, thus defeating their no-hd argument on a technical basis.
I am incredibly skeptical of this, as it seems limiting. The only reasonable application of something like this is multiplayer, and that is excluding the vast majority of games and gamers.
Bluemercury
Member
Johnny Nighttrain said:
What interview......?
This may well (if true) be an indication of the truth to a theory I posted a while ago:
If Nintendo are going to support multiple screen output, my bet is that they'll want to do it wirelessly, as the proliferation of relatively inexpensive LCD TVs mean that houses have more (and more portable) TVs than ever before. The hassle involved in hooking up three or four wired CRTs used to be pretty rediculous, but wireless flatscreens would eliminate nearly all of this to make multi-screen multiplayer a feasible reality. And if they're going for wireless TV support, we really could see the Revolution as the first completely wireless home console, something which could be a nice selling point.
Me said:
If Nintendo are going to support multiple screen output, my bet is that they'll want to do it wirelessly, as the proliferation of relatively inexpensive LCD TVs mean that houses have more (and more portable) TVs than ever before. The hassle involved in hooking up three or four wired CRTs used to be pretty rediculous, but wireless flatscreens would eliminate nearly all of this to make multi-screen multiplayer a feasible reality. And if they're going for wireless TV support, we really could see the Revolution as the first completely wireless home console, something which could be a nice selling point.
My point was that you could use a controller battery pack (plugged into a charging dock on the main console) to power the console for a short period of time. Given the efforts Nintendo are going to to reduce power consumption, it is possible, if you consider that laptops can power themselves for hours on Li-Ion batteries, and that the Revolution won't have a built-in screen or hard-drive, the two biggest power-guzzlers on an average laptop.
Phoenix Dark
Banned
Well, Mr. Nighttrain might be credible, but he might now. Who knows. He's been right before. Aries was right about a bunch of stuff also though.
Like I said, this sounds pretty cool to me, but IGN hasn't updated their GC page yet. And they never update on holidays, so monday is out of the question. Dare I hope for...TUESDAYTON?!?!? :lol
Like I said, this sounds pretty cool to me, but IGN hasn't updated their GC page yet. And they never update on holidays, so monday is out of the question. Dare I hope for...TUESDAYTON?!?!? :lol
AndoCalrissian
Member
AniHawk said:
If we get anything, it will probably be in the mailbag or a rumor report on Gamestop. I think there might be some credibility in this rumor, as it is technologically feasible to do this, and consumer products with this enabled are supposed to roll out this year.
However, each TV would have to have some sort of wireless adaptor, which the consumer would have to buy. That's not so bad though, when you realize that to view your games in HD now that you have to buy an extra cable. If the wireless adaptor was reasonably priced, it could happen.
On another note, did anyone see Gamespot's declaration of the Revolution posters to be bogus? The reason they gave is that the last of them says August 2005 rather than March 2006. However, isn't August the month where people are expecting to hear more on Rev?
You can check out their report right here.
Ya'll need to lay off JohnnyNighttrain. This whole shit about "credibility" and all that is rediculous, if I remember right, Johnny never even promiced the moon to begin with, and just 'cos Nintendo didn't do as much as people wanted this E3 doesn't make Johnny and untrustworthy rumormonger Lord Federman. If he was such a bad guy and bold-faced lied, then I think he'd already be gone by now. But he isn't, so I trust him.
You guys also need to lay off Nintendo. It seems like whenever there's this TINY BIT of info or even rumors dropped on Revolution it seems the haters work on overtime showing how it's either a gimmick or how Nintendo is stupid for making that the revolutionary feature. If this feature is included (and I believed Johnny, it IS feasible and I've been behind it since it was first suggested many months ago) it isn't *THEE* revolutionary feature. It's just a nice optional feature, that should be welcomed and not rediculed.
To those who think it's not doable, it is (read Ando's posts)...and it wouldn't require all new TV's with UWB or all that jazz. All that would be needed is a wireless transmitter inside (or plugged into the digital out) of the Revolution deck that sends A/V to . The Revolution doesn't have to render and send different A/V to different TV's, it can just send the same A/V to each wireless TV adaptor. On the adaptor there would be a button that would select which quadrant of a multiplayer splitscreen it would display (player 1, player 2, player 3, etc.) so that each player could have their own private screen for certain games, while other games (like SMBros. that isn't splitscreen) could just hit the button until the full image is displayed. Developers wouldn't have to sacrifice resources or graphics 'cos it'll only be a 480p (non-HD) resolution anyways...their games would automatically work with such a set-up wether splitscreen or not.
Don't be so close-minded about the value of such a feature. LAN gaming is fun and this ONLY makes it better by eliminating the need to drag multiple TV's into one room and buying tons of cables and hooking them altogether. Let's say you're the type to lug your system around to a freind's place, a wireless adaptor hook-up would be fast/easy for travel. Or what if you wanna use your system in a different room...it's more convieniant to unplug the power, carry it with you, plug it in a different outlet near a different TV, hit a buttom and BOOM, you're moved. Or even better, have you Revolution centralized in your home and keep it in one spot and just play on whatever TV (with this wireless adaptor hooked up) in the house is available. Face it, most homes have 1 PC monitor & 2 TV's...some have even more, these are potential LAN goldminds that can't be exploited 'cos of hassles with cables, routers and conveniance.
DavidDayton also suggested (like I have in the past) that one could use the next GameBoy's screen as a screen for the Revolution. Then (also suggested by me before) I heard about people talking about doing so on-the-go as if Revolution were a portable. The Revolution is already as small as a portable DVD player, add a battery and wireless transmit to your new GameBoy screen and play DVD movies, GCN games as well as Revolution games...in portable form!
You guys also need to lay off Nintendo. It seems like whenever there's this TINY BIT of info or even rumors dropped on Revolution it seems the haters work on overtime showing how it's either a gimmick or how Nintendo is stupid for making that the revolutionary feature. If this feature is included (and I believed Johnny, it IS feasible and I've been behind it since it was first suggested many months ago) it isn't *THEE* revolutionary feature. It's just a nice optional feature, that should be welcomed and not rediculed.
To those who think it's not doable, it is (read Ando's posts)...and it wouldn't require all new TV's with UWB or all that jazz. All that would be needed is a wireless transmitter inside (or plugged into the digital out) of the Revolution deck that sends A/V to . The Revolution doesn't have to render and send different A/V to different TV's, it can just send the same A/V to each wireless TV adaptor. On the adaptor there would be a button that would select which quadrant of a multiplayer splitscreen it would display (player 1, player 2, player 3, etc.) so that each player could have their own private screen for certain games, while other games (like SMBros. that isn't splitscreen) could just hit the button until the full image is displayed. Developers wouldn't have to sacrifice resources or graphics 'cos it'll only be a 480p (non-HD) resolution anyways...their games would automatically work with such a set-up wether splitscreen or not.
Don't be so close-minded about the value of such a feature. LAN gaming is fun and this ONLY makes it better by eliminating the need to drag multiple TV's into one room and buying tons of cables and hooking them altogether. Let's say you're the type to lug your system around to a freind's place, a wireless adaptor hook-up would be fast/easy for travel. Or what if you wanna use your system in a different room...it's more convieniant to unplug the power, carry it with you, plug it in a different outlet near a different TV, hit a buttom and BOOM, you're moved. Or even better, have you Revolution centralized in your home and keep it in one spot and just play on whatever TV (with this wireless adaptor hooked up) in the house is available. Face it, most homes have 1 PC monitor & 2 TV's...some have even more, these are potential LAN goldminds that can't be exploited 'cos of hassles with cables, routers and conveniance.
DavidDayton also suggested (like I have in the past) that one could use the next GameBoy's screen as a screen for the Revolution. Then (also suggested by me before) I heard about people talking about doing so on-the-go as if Revolution were a portable. The Revolution is already as small as a portable DVD player, add a battery and wireless transmit to your new GameBoy screen and play DVD movies, GCN games as well as Revolution games...in portable form!
citrus lump
Banned
Monk said:
Hey now,I would'nt go that far. I have nothing personal against Johnny. In fact he continues to be one of my favorite posters due to what he MIGHT know.
I'm still just a bit bitter over E3. Did he have the rug pulled out from under him as well? It's possible. At least we learned even trusted sources can be skunked by Nintendo.
I guess Johnny brings to the table what I want Nintendo to, and if they aren't going to say anything, then his visions/rumors are fun in the mean time.
So if I sounded a bit dickheaded Mr. Nighttrain-I apologize.
DrGAKMAN said:
A split screen game is not rendered at full resolution (I.e. each panel is not a 480p render squished down), so it isnt as easy as hitting a button and poof, 480p gaming.
Ive been thinking about it more, and the ideas that the system could be running seperate games on seperate screens (i.e. 2 emulated n64 games on 2 different screens) seems more and more far fetched. Not sure if you are familiar with OS design, but you would basically need a high-spec embedded systems OS that is fully pre-emptible for this to run. You would also have to figure out a way for the system to avoid bottlenecks to prevent one or both games from significantly slowing down. Basically each of these wireless receivers would act as a thin client and the revolution as a home server.
I just dont see it happening. If it is running multiple games - then you are talking about the first nintendo system using something like embedded linux, which is probably the only thing robust enough to run this, and even then I cant imagine this happening. The receiver would have to do alot more than just display, it would have to handle UI/ect. If it is aimed squarely at multiplayer, then the fact that the system would be capable of outputting that number of streams makes the technical arguments against HD moot. Then you have to figure that Nintendo is purposely not support HD to support multiscreen wireless from one machine. I am not entirely sure that is a trade nintendo would make. Then if you start thinking about the costs of these Thin Clients to sit on top of other tvs.... I just do not think it is feasible.
I stand by my previous statement. If this happens I will be shocked. Pleased. But shocked.
ThongyDonk
Banned
Coincidence, but the Nintendo Haters have returned at the same time as a certain someone.
You guys make me laugh
You guys make me laugh
ThongyDonk
Banned
tetsuoxb said:
wasn't aimed at you matey.
But the Nintendo haters where in hiding and now have all resurfaced.
Strange Coincidence i think.
tetsuoxb said:
The thing I don't understand is one console -> multiple TVs. Assuming you need a little receiver box for each TV (only practical solution apart from actual cables), why not just bring two consoles? Going by the size of the proto shown at E3, its very portable. Plus you get the benefit of concentrating your engine on only displaying one screen, rather than making a 'one size fits all' engine that has to do good single player, and also two/three screen multiplayer?
Just have the consoles talk to each other wirelessly.
As long as they make the base stations cheap (20 or less), it'd make the moving from room to room thing very easy anyways. Just hookup up the base station in any room you want to play in and that's that. If the wife kicks me off the good TV because she needs it, I can just pick the system up and drop it into the base station in the other room. If I can do this while a game is in progress, even better.
If this wireless thing is true, that'd make the LAN party type gatherings even easier. You'd still need a good game to play as a group however. So far, there's Halo 1 and 2, and that's about it for the fun 16 player type games for consoles. Online can be fun, but getting a group of friends together and playing all in one room is a lot more fun.
If this wireless thing is true, that'd make the LAN party type gatherings even easier. You'd still need a good game to play as a group however. So far, there's Halo 1 and 2, and that's about it for the fun 16 player type games for consoles. Online can be fun, but getting a group of friends together and playing all in one room is a lot more fun.