Support NeoGAF

[jarrod]

That's not to suggest that the GPU in the Revolution will be weak, but it's not going to be some miracle chip that dominates what is going to be in the Xbox 2.

They don't need a miracle to dominate the Xenon GPU, an extra 6-12 months with a better team working on it should suffice.

 

[soundwave05]

Performance wise I think it'll be ...

1.) PS3
2.) Xenon
3.) Revolution

For starters I think a sizable chunk of the Revolution's budget is going to go to things outside of the chipset itself (other control inputs, wirless interface, etc.).

Secondly even though MS has said they want to be more fiscally conservative with Xenon, they're still likely to take big losses upfront to attempt to match Sony (the more flexible deal with ATi and dumping cost sucking components like the HDD will let them get to profitablity quicker though).

 

[jarrod]

I don't think we have near enough information to really judge Revolution yet. Nintendo has a history of coming in last and strongest (until this gen that is, as Xbox came in last and most powerful). There's were comments awhile back from Iwata that Revolution would match the competition in pricing and features too...

The way things look now, Revolution will definitely be coming in last (fall 2006 I'd guess). That alone will afford it a huge potential technology edge over Xenon. PS3's a bit of a wildcard thanks to the exotic architecture (like PS2) but Revolution and Xenon are using the exact same technology partners... only Revolution is getting an extra year or so in development. That's pretty significant.

 

[soundwave05]

If Microsoft is taking losses upfront, it basically negates any advantage Nintendo has time wise IMO, unless they're willing to also take big losses on Revolution (highly, highly, highly doubtful).

Nintendo has stated pretty clearly they believe that new control interfaces are the future of the game market (or perhaps more specifically their future in the console market), so I wouldn't assume the $200-$300 budget that ATi is getting for the Revolution will be all on that chipset.

Personally I'm interested to see what they can do.

GameCube was kinda boring because it brought no new functionality to the table (digital click buttons and .... ?) other than slightly refined graphics from the PS2.

If there's gonna be three consoles, one of them has to be different, they can't all be on the same boat.

 

[jarrod]

If there's gonna be three consoles, one of them has to be different, they can't all be on the same boat.

I wouldn't expect them to either. But look at Nintendo's history... they simply won't be showing up with an underfunded chipset most likely. GameCube was Nintendo relying on efficiency and basically following the PlayStation model... I'm expecting a radical departure for Revolution probably.

 

[soundwave05]

I would expect something similar to the GameCube really, just a lot more powerful.

Nintendo themselves seemed quite pleased with the GCN chipset (efficency/cost/bottleneck free, etc.) so I don't see that changing too much.

At the end of the day Nintendo's games don't even utilize the existing GameCube chipset to its fullest (thought Zelda may finally change that), so I don't think is priority number 1.

Revolution will have a strong chipset no doubt, I just don't think they're gonna break their backs to get into a pissing match with Sony or Microsoft.

The number 1 priority is probably that it be cheap enough so that there's no chance of Nintendo sustaining heavy losses even if it bombs.

Say if the system launches at $300, I think $200-$250 of that Nintendo will allocate to the chipset/disk drive etc. while the other $50-$100 will go into new and original types of interfaces, which I hope will be really interesting.

 

[goomba]

The key for Revolution is getting 3rd parties designing games around whatever new control interface they come up with. These games would not be portable to ps3 or xenon thus the games would be NR exclusive.

Although if the control interface really is awesome, i bet sony and microsoft will steal the idea and implement their own versions into their consoles. Just like sony's reaction to the n64 controller... the dual shock.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

Next gen is already being framed as Xbox 2 versus PS3. What benefit to ATI would it be to put a more powerful GPU in the Revolution? Is Nintendo really willing to lose money on hardware next gen to the degree involved with the research $$$ that Microsoft has poored into ATI for the Xbox 2 GPU. Microsoft is also tight with ATI in the PC hardware realm as well.

Could it happen that Nintendo has a more powerful console than Microsoft next gen? Sure it could. I never thought that on this forum though opinion and speculation had to be qualified. It's rampant in nearly every thread on this board.

 

[imastalker co.]

the system is totally gonna have some kind of crazy internet connection going on.

something that people should totally take into consideration is that it's gonna have PC Monitor connectivity out of the box, and you better believe it's not gonna be for the sake of having VGA Out, out of the box.

and yeah, a new controller interface seems like a given at this point.

 

[goomba]

"What benefit to ATI would it be to put a more powerful GPU in the Revolution?"

Are you serious? Money from Nintendo to do so of course.

Last console out always has more power than its competitors. See SMS, SNES, Saturn, N64, DC, GC, XBOX

Why should revolution be any different?

 

[Laurent]

"What benefit to ATI would it be to put a more powerful GPU in the Revolution?"

Are you serious? Money from Nintendo to do so of course.

Last console out always has more power than its competitors. See SMS, SNES, Saturn, N64, DC, GC, XBOX

Why should revolution be any different?

Nintendo did state that they will launch Revolution at the same moment the competition decides to step forwards...

 

[soundwave05]

Every time I think of Revolution I picture some kind of unit, maybe even smaller than the GameCube (but more sophisticated looking), no controller wires, that you just set on the floor and has a built-in motion sensor that tracks your movement along with other types of crazy control.

LOL, maybe the Revolution will even talk to you.

 

[btrboyev]

Nintendo did state that they will launch Revolution at the same moment the competition decides to step forwards...

yeah ps3

 

[Gahiggidy]

Performance wise I think it'll be ...

1.) PS3
2.) Xenon
3.) Revolution

For starters I think a sizable chunk of the Revolution's budget is going to go to things outside of the chipset itself (other control inputs, wirless interface, etc.).

But what if the rumors are true... and it IS holographic based? How exactly do you compare "performance" in that case? Would a machine that pumps out crude 3d models... but which can be viewed from 360 degrees... be a more capable machine than one that can produce lifelike 3D... but is only showing you one degree of view at any given time?

 

[radioheadrule83]

^^^ Nintendo revolution. Simply clutch mutant's baby hands and OPEN YOUR MIND.

 

[soundwave05]

Hehe, the holograms.

I think its more likely the Revolution will have a built-in voice synthesizer that talks to you as you play (hello Dave ... no I'm afriad I can't let you play Mario today :lol ).

Motion sensor/camera ... possible, although Nintendo's probably kicking themselves for getting beat to market by Sony with the Eye Toy on that idea.

Some type of "cover" that you put over your fingers that creates different sensations?

Brain control?

Bongo drums?

All of the above?

Who knows.

 

[maharg]

Next gen is already being framed as Xbox 2 versus PS3. What benefit to ATI would it be to put a more powerful GPU in the Revolution?

Last gen was framed as Nintendo vs. Sony.

I think your logic is circular here. You assume that because the next gen is being framed such that Nintendo is out from the start that Nintendo will be out from the start. Nintendo won't do anything to give them an advantage because that would make them valid competition again, so it can't happen because... and so on.

There's a lot of assumptions here, but I think the ones with the most validity are the ones based on what the companies have *said*. MS has already made major and obvious concessions on the cost front for next gen (no hdd, no bc), so it seems safe to assume that their talk of being cost effective next generation is not just bluster.

Nintendo is a wildcard here, though. It could go either way, since their statements have been pretty weak.

 

[snapty00]

But what if the rumors are true... and it IS holographic based? How exactly do you compare "performance" in that case? Would a machine that pumps out crude 3d models... but which can be viewed from 360 degrees... be a more capable machine than one that can produce lifelike 3D... but is only showing you one degree of view at any given time?

The act is getting old. Really.

 

[jarrod]

I would expect something similar to the GameCube really, just a lot more powerful.

Nintendo themselves seemed quite pleased with the GCN chipset (efficency/cost/bottleneck free, etc.) so I don't see that changing too much.

Sure, GCN is pretty easily the most capable design this gen from a cost/performance perspective... it's just held back by RAM and being specced to $199 (and being 2000 technology given a 2001 release comparatively). But given Nintendo's aiming at equal pricing with the competition... I'm not sure a direct GC comparison will apply. Imagine a $299 GC with 64MB RAM released at Christmas 2000 instead of what we got.

Honestly, I just don't see any novel interfaces Nintendo comes up with as being too costly. DS is a good example... the big costs with Revolution (like all consoles) will center on chipsets and RAM mainly.

Specs sell platforms to a degree, Nintendo's learned that with first hand through their conservative plan with GameCube. I just can't see them coming in with the weakest architecture next gen given they're mostly going to be last to market as well.

Nintendo did state that they will launch Revolution at the same moment the competition decides to step forwards...

Nintendo also launched their last 3 consoles a year later than originally promised.

Next gen is already being framed as Xbox 2 versus PS3. What benefit to ATI would it be to put a more powerful GPU in the Revolution? Is Nintendo really willing to lose money on hardware next gen to the degree involved with the research $$$ that Microsoft has poored into ATI for the Xbox 2 GPU. Microsoft is also tight with ATI in the PC hardware realm as well.

Well, this gen was framed as DC vs PSX-2 vs Dolphin. Look what happened.

Given Microsoft's trying to cut costs, while Nintendo's actually willing to spend more this time around, who's to say Microsoft's going to outspend Nintendo? Why's it benefit ATi to stick an inferior GPU (designed by the superior chip team) in Revolution a year after Xenon? How can Microsoft hope to outspend an extra year in R&D?

 

[soundwave05]

Well yeah, except no one could really forsee Microsoft and how they do on the marketplace.

If Nintendo can pull off some kind of crazy new blockbuster franchise/craze (we're talking Pokemon-sized here), they may have a shot at the PS3/Xenon ... I'll give them that much, otherwise I'd say no way.

Mario/Zelda/etc. as is isn't nearly enough, and really you can't expect third parties to build audience for Nintendo -- Capcom is jumping off that ship as fast as they can, and I think other third parties will take a good look at that before commiting a big exclusive in the future. I mean sure there will probably be collaborations with Namco and Square-Enix in the future, but not the kind of situation where Nintendo gets an exclusive like Final Fantasy XIII without first showing they've built an actual userbase.

I don't believe for a second that Microsoft will not take heavy losses on the Xenon initially either. They have to do it, otherwise the PS3 will badly outperform them. The difference is by virtue of their deal with ATi and dumping components like the HDD, they're not trapped into a hardware (like XBox 1) where certain components like the HDD or GPU never go down in price.

 

[jarrod]

Everybody's going to take an upfront loss next generation. Just like this generation.

 

[soundwave05]

Well I'm talking losses of $100/unit or maybe even more upfront.

I don't think Nintendo is gonna go there. A modest loss maybe, but nothing that crazy.

I mean even if they took those kinds of losses there's still a reasonable chance that Revolution would still not do any better than the GameCube is right now ... they still wouldn't have Halo and probably not GTA or Gran Turismo.

They've never really commited long term to creating content speicifcally for older players even though they've had like 10 years to reallly make some headway in this area. I think that's just as big of a stumbling block as their hardware fumbles.

 

[maharg]

Well yeah, except no one could really forsee Microsoft and how they do on the marketplace.

If Nintendo can pull off some kind of crazy new blockbuster franchise/craze (we're talking Pokemon-sized here), they may have a shot at the PS3/Xenon ... I'll give them that much, otherwise I'd say no way.

Mario/Zelda/etc. as is isn't nearly enough, and really you can't expect third parties to build audience for Nintendo -- Capcom is jumping off that ship as fast as they can, and I think other third parties will take a good look at that before commiting a big exclusive in the future. I mean sure there will probably be collaborations with Namco and Square-Enix in the future, but not the kind of situation where Nintendo gets an exclusive like Final Fantasy XIII without first showing they've built an actual userbase.

I don't believe for a second that Microsoft will not take heavy losses on the Xenon initially either. They have to do it, otherwise the PS3 will badly outperform them. The difference is by virtue of their deal with ATi and dumping components like the HDD, they're not trapped into a hardware (like XBox 1) where certain components like the HDD or GPU never go down in price.

Can you go *one thread* without bringing up your pet theories on 'another pokemon'? Seriously man. You've been playing this schtick for like 3 years now.

As for 'no one foresaw ms coming', that was in fact the point. It's still at least a year to the opening move of the next gen, and that's a long time.

 

[Gahiggidy]

soundwave05,

My question?

 

[soundwave05]

I've been saying it for 3 years because its true.

Hardware is only part of the problem, marketing is only part of the problem.

The real deal is Nintendo just doesn't match up software wise, which I know is shocking to Nintendo fans because they love all of Nintendo's franchises.

But in the modern sense they just don't have it content wise.

Even if GameCube had a better design and better marketing, I think it would be limited big time by the type of software exclusives it offers -- there's only the occassional Resident Evil here and there.

That philosophy will only work if Mario is as popular as he was in the 1980s or Pikmin is as big as Pokemon. Neither is the case -- hence their marketshare has declined big time. Which is why I say they need a new fad/craze to really stay relevant, otherwise they gotta spend a lot of time and money in coming up with new kinds of content that appeals to a totally different audience ... the problem with that is it requires long-term thinking and investment, something Nintendo seems allergic to.

It's easier to say "well mainstream gamers are stupid!", but honestly the core PS2/XBox userbase IMO are the same ones that grew up with the NES. They've moved away from Nintendo because Nintendo just doesn't cut it for them content wise anymore.


Gah --

Sorry, what's the question again?

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

I would expect something similar to the GameCube really, just a lot more powerful.

Nintendo themselves seemed quite pleased with the GCN chipset (efficency/cost/bottleneck free, etc.) so I don't see that changing too much.

At the end of the day Nintendo's games don't even utilize the existing GameCube chipset to its fullest (thought Zelda may finally change that), so I don't think is priority number 1.

Revolution will have a strong chipset no doubt, I just don't think they're gonna break their backs to get into a pissing match with Sony or Microsoft.

The number 1 priority is probably that it be cheap enough so that there's no chance of Nintendo sustaining heavy losses even if it bombs.

Say if the system launches at $300, I think $200-$250 of that Nintendo will allocate to the chipset/disk drive etc. while the other $50-$100 will go into new and original types of interfaces, which I hope will be really interesting.

I don't think Nintendo will go for the death blow technically, but I do believe they will match MS and Sony. The Cube tech is no slouch compared to the Xbox, the Revolution will be what devs that have spoken to Matt(IGN) has said, and thats comparable.

Compare the three current consoles technically, now take a guess at how much it cost them for R&D, manufacturing,etc. The Cube is right in the middle.

This is where I see it, PS3, Revolution/Xbox2. The Cube was launched at 200 bucks, and it packs more features than PS2, so I obviously think your way off.

 

[soundwave05]

I think it'll be comparable too. I just don't think Nintendo is going to for instance take $50+ extra losses per unit just to get the one up on Microsoft tech wise.

The GameCube also came out 18 months (a life time) after the PS2, and you have to remember Microsoft basically scrapped the XBox project together in a very, very short time frame (you guys remember how bad the XBox software looked at E3 2001?). Nintendo had all the time in the world to fine tune the GCN chipset.

So while they were able to get out a very nice machine in the GameCube out for a low price, they also waited a long ass time (2 1/2 years after announcing it at E3 1999) to bring the unit to market.

I think any kind of 6-8 month advantage they have will probably be cancelled out by the fact that they won't be willing to take heavy losses upfront, which is fine by Nintendo IMO. I think they're comfortable launching with a machine thats comparable tech wise but most importantly isn't a big money bleeder.

 

[maharg]

Whether it's true or not is not the point. Just because I like a song doesn't mean I want to hear it played on the radio every five minutes, or listen to it on a CD that skips back to the beginning of the song before it ends.

 

[Ulairi]

I can't imagine a situation where ATI is not wrapping their fortunes around Microsoft's Xbox 2. Especially with nVidia jumping on board the PS3 ship. That is unless ATI and Nintendo are going to be working together on future handhelds. That's not to suggest that the GPU in the Revolution will be weak, but it's not going to be some miracle chip that dominates what is going to be in the Xbox 2.

You're an idiot. Businesses do not get in these fanboy wars and really don't give two shits about pleasing idiots on message boards. The Revolution will most likely get the next generation GPU that the Xbox has. Will it be a mircale chip? No. Will it be six months to a year ahead of the Xbox? Yes. Will we see an improvement? Yes.

I think any kind of 6-8 month advantage they have will probably be cancelled out by the fact that they won't be willing to take heavy losses upfront, which is fine by Nintendo IMO. I think they're comfortable launching with a machine thats comparable tech wise but most importantly isn't a big money bleeder.[/quoute]

That has nothing to do with the price.

 

[soundwave05]

That has everything to do with price.

Modern consoles (really beginning with the PSX/N64) have been all about taking a high level of tevhnology (say an SGI workstation) and squeezing that down into a $200-$300 consumer level box.

They are not "inventing" technology here, what hardware makers do today is just bring a level of technology thats not availible to consumers down to a consumer price point.

That's why price matters. If the ATI Xenon team is given a $450/unit budget from Microsoft on their chipset versus only $300/unit from Nintendo to ATI West, of course that makes a difference. Sure the ATI West team might even be better, but the ATI Xenon guys aren't dummies either.

Maharg --

I don't see you attacking any of the other people making broader statements all the time. I make a very specific criticism of Nintendo, which I think is plainly true, that's why it rubs some people the wrong way. It's not something I say every five minutes, but these are the kind of conversations that spring up, and I'm just adding the truth.

I think there's a very common misnomer among Nintendo faithful that its just the marketing or some kind of strange conspiracy by Sony to make Nintendo seem "kiddie", and I just don't buy that.

There's no way in a competetive market that you can get a mass userbase IMO when 60-70% of your exclusive titles are "cartoony" (I hate to use that word, but yes presentation absolutely counts). It doesn't matter how good your games are, if you're not willing to make more games for seperate audiences, instead of trying to win everyone over with one style of presentation, you're not a player in the console market.

That is Nintendo's biggest problem in the console market, and its the reason why GameCube sales are sluggish even at $99 with Mario Kart included. People do not trust Nintendo to give them a range of content anymore.

 

[jarrod]

Well I'm talking losses of $100/unit or maybe even more upfront.

I don't think Nintendo is gonna go there. A modest loss maybe, but nothing that crazy.

Well, about $100 was the speculated loss Microsoft took on Xbox upfront. Are you saying they're willing to commit the same upfront loss towards Xenon, even more probably? Is that going to be enough to counter an extra year in technology?

You'd have a point if all 3 were launching at the same time, but it's not happening. Nintendo's also expanding their own budget by $100 most likely (GC took a $20 loss upfront, I agree Revolution will likely be another negligible loss). Look at how GC countered PS2 a year later, even at a lower price.

 

[soundwave05]

Nintendo is expanding their budget, but you can't say for certain that the budget will be entirely devoted to the chipset. It's quite possible given Nintendo's own public statements that the extra $$$ will instead be allocated to other types of input possibilities for the player.

I mean look at the DS, yeah the chipset is better, but the real reason it costs beyond the regular $99 threshold is most likely because of the second LCD touch display, the WiFi, mic input, etc.

I think the jump from the GCN to Revolution will be about the same as the jump between the N64 and GCN.

Why wouldn't Nintendo be happy with that? Nintendo also generally does not work on their consoles right down to the end. They usually will actually wait until the console is finalized or in mid-development before really starting software development ... case in point, the GCN chipset was complete in late summer of 2000 more or less.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

I think it'll be comparable too. I just don't think Nintendo is going to for instance take $50+ extra losses per unit just to get the one up on Microsoft tech wise.

The GameCube also came out 18 months (a life time) after the PS2, and you have to remember Microsoft basically scrapped the XBox project together in a very, very short time frame (you guys remember how bad the XBox software looked at E3 2001?). Nintendo had all the time in the world to fine tune the GCN chipset.

But see thats the thing, the initial specs in some areas were higher for the GC. They were reduced for effinciency, if Nintendo use this same practice, build on strenghts, and fix the weaknesses, you can have a more powerful GPU.

Time gives Nintendo the time to slightly increase their tech specs to match or small margin surpass the Xbox2. The biggest financial burden for any manufacturer has been memory to my knowledge, the truth is that Nintendo doesn't have to take a $50+ hit to get a up on MS.

Sony has more income than Nintendo and they couldn't assure any gamers that the PS2 would out class Cube technically, so I don't see how it would be different for MS. The launch situation won't be any different than this gen technically.

Xbox2 tech specs will have to be finalized some time early next year, if they are releasing the Xbox2 next year in the fall.

 

[maharg]

"It's not something I say every five minutes"

Yes. You do. And I know I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

[soundwave05]

I find it funny it bothers you so much.

Do you even read the other threads on the board and the various criticisms that are levelled at Nintendo? Its not like there isn't a whole lot of repetition there.

I think you're just upset because it's not an over-the-top criticism. It's fairly on point and puts the onus squarely on Nintendo's shoulders, not a "oh players are stupid these days" or "Sony made Nintendo kiddie!" type reasoning which is like Richard Simmons claiming its the media that makes him look gay or Michael Jackson saying its the press that makes him seem bizarre.

 

[maharg]

There are plenty of repetitive arguments on this forum, but I have never ever seen anyone who simply repeats the same argument for so damn long, or so damn often, or so often when it's not really relevant, as you do.

For god's sake, I AGREE WITH YOU AND I'M SICK OF HEARING IT.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

You have to have a understanding of how contracts are written and what the contract intails. Now if you look back to when the Flipper went into development, ArtX got a design win. Which I assume means that Nintendo were shopping for GPU tech. Fast forward to today, Nintendo approachs ATI and ask they start on a next gen GPU and they set a timeline. During this time, ATI and Nintendo have meetings, discussions go on about what technology is in development. R&D basically looks at the technology, R&D is a process that goes on for years, ATI doesn't say this is how much this cost and that cost, then Nintendo say's we'll take that, its a long process.



After research and development is done then price comes in, if you look at the press releases from Sony and MS, there is no mention of cost. Cost will not be known until the end of research and development. With inside leaks of specs between Sony, MS, and Nintendo, accurate numbers won't be known until the end of development.

ATI gets royalties from software sells on the Cube, this is probably one of many things in the contracts that balance out the cost.

Its not as simple as you put it.

 

[soundwave05]

mah --

LOL, chill out man. I don't even post on these boards all that much.

 

[maharg]

a) it's not just here.
b) you probably post on this gaming forum more than I do.

 

[soundwave05]

I post on three forums tops and usually only two-three times a week at most these days.

 

[Scrow]

Which is why I say they need a new fad/craze to really stay relevant, otherwise they gotta spend a lot of time and money in coming up with new kinds of content that appeals to a totally different audience ... the problem with that is it requires long-term thinking and investment, something Nintendo seems allergic to.

errr... what the fuck?

 

[maharg]

I post on three forums tops and usually only two-three times a week at most these days.

Hence the average of 11.32 posts per day you hold on this forum?

 

[soundwave05]

I post on specific days where I don't have work and have time to burn, but I'm not on these boards 7 days a week.

 

[Chony]

Maybe Nintendo should wait until 2008 as originally planned, then their technology will out class PS3 and XBOX2 it will make them whimper. This 2008 technology will be so advanced, and cheap to manufacture, Nintendo will reighn supreme. This is not the case of Dreamcast launching during the 64/PSX era, but rather a quantum leap. They should have tech in 2008 to double the power of the XBOX2. Plus Gamecube gamers can have some games to play in 2005-2008 thanks to the launch of their online campaign with Geist, Pokemon MMORPG, Zelda MMORPG, and many others.

/dreams

 

[ImNotLikeThem]

Hence the average of 11.32 posts per day you hold on this forum?

hey dude, taken a look at your average posts per day lately? :lol

 

[maharg]

hey dude, taken a look at your average posts per day lately? :lol

Have you?

 

[Gahiggidy]

Soundwave05/Unicorn5 needs to spend more time in the "social" threads.

 

[soundwave05]

Really Gah? What "social" threads do you post in? :lol

I don't see anyone giving you sh-t for bringing up holograms all the time.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Every post shouldn't be an argument. Just post some random shit to mix things up with the other GAFers. That what I do... I post random shit.

 

[soundwave05]

You used to be quite serious proponent of Nintendo too as I recall, it seems like that's just waned and now you just post the occasional irrelevant remark.

Not that I disagree per se. I don't really take the whole thing nearly as seriously either.