-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
enter 'Hollywood' - ATI's Graphics Processor for Nintendo's Revolution !!!!
- Thread starter xexex
- Start date
The misconception of hardware power in this thread when concerning Nintendo is pathetic. You people read a gaming forum, you should know better! Snes > Genesis, N64 > Playstation, GC > ps2 and the gamegear, psp, and xbox were either released after the nintendo product or around the same time.
This really shows its a war of perception that Nintendo is losing.
This really shows its a war of perception that Nintendo is losing.
etiolate said:
Just because a few trolls try to do damage control on Nintendo's new system doesn't mean they are losing the perception war.
Just look at who is saying the shit and go look at their post history. You can almost predict what these people are going to say. :lol
They will just say that Nintendo will make the weakest console up until its released and then if its not then they will say graphics don't matter. If it is then they will say they were right all along.
Their goal of derailing the thread and making people have to point out that the Cube > PS2 in terms of power means that their original plan was a success. Just ignore them and all will be better.
Jonnyboy117
Member
UltraMagnanimous said:
If Rev comes out a year after Xenon and is less powerful, Nintendo will deserve the ensuing failure. I'm more interested in how Rev will compare to PS3, but that won't be known for a long time. Considering the early launch, surely most people are already coming to terms with the likelihood of Xenon being the least powerful system.
ImNotLikeThem
Member
no actually if you read various interviews from yesterday and today from several people such as Reggie, and Iwata's speech, they've outright pegged Sony as thier key competitor and will launch with them. they barely even mentioned MS at all.Bebpo said:
Duckhuntdog
Member
jarrod said:
Sounds about right.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Regardless of whatever their end "power" is, I think the fact that most people will still be using 480i (or PAL equivalent) will let a lot of the difference wash away. A big part of the noticeable difference from PS2 to GCN to Xbox tended to be just image quality rather than things like polygonal complexity. PS2 tended to have the most flickery imagery, while Xbox tended to have the most games using anti-aliasing. However, all the new systems should have no trouble putting out as solid-looking a 480i image as we could hope for.
Shin Johnpv
Member
SomeDude said:
does it make you feel good to talk out your ass
MightyHedgehog
Member
My belief at this point in time is that the Revolution's 'Hollywood' GPU will be generally as modern as the others, but less capable because of Nintendo's focus on a lot of other things regarding the system's capability. It'll be more balance-cost related, IMO. PS3 and Xenon will both outclass it in terms of raw horsepower, both CPU and GPU-wise, though it'll still be in the same ballpark.
I wonder just how close to the center of that ballpark Nintendo will be...probably in the nose-bleed section. I don't think it'll be in the parking lot outside of the ballpark, though. It'd be nice to see it about as powerful as the others, but I'm not convinced that Nintendo is interested in that while pushing a different agenda with 'revolutionary' features that will undoubtedly bring more non-GPU/CPU-related cost upwards in the entire system picture.
I wonder just how close to the center of that ballpark Nintendo will be...probably in the nose-bleed section. I don't think it'll be in the parking lot outside of the ballpark, though. It'd be nice to see it about as powerful as the others, but I'm not convinced that Nintendo is interested in that while pushing a different agenda with 'revolutionary' features that will undoubtedly bring more non-GPU/CPU-related cost upwards in the entire system picture.
Silent_Echo
Banned
It's funny how people are writing off Revolution as the weakest console when, excluding the NDS, Nintendo has always been the leader in technology. I'm not saying they'll have the most powerful system, but it's not going to be a huge gapor anything.
I get the feeling a lot of people on this forum became gamers this generation and assume Nintendo have always been inferior. And do people actually believe that the PS2 is a more powerful machine than the GameCube?
I'll take some of whatever they're smokin'....
I get the feeling a lot of people on this forum became gamers this generation and assume Nintendo have always been inferior. And do people actually believe that the PS2 is a more powerful machine than the GameCube?
I'll take some of whatever they're smokin'....
Also excluding the GC and the GB line.Silent_Echo said:
MightyHedgehog: I get what you're saying, but isn't it also possible that whatever the "Revolutionary" feature is will not be a significant enough cost to CPU/GPU cycles to be detrimental to the system's graphics performance?
CrimsonSkies
Member
Not really Apples to Apples considering how much money you are talking about now in comparison to then. Also the competition this time is about 10 fold higher than it has been in the past.
I am assuming the Hollywood GPU/VPU for Revolution will be as good as, if not better than, the ATI VPU/GPU for Xenon (son of Xbox)....... and....I also think Hollywood might even come close to the GPU from Nvidia going into Playstation3, if not rival it.
worse case senario: Hollywood is just as powerful as Xenon VPU.
worse case senario: Hollywood is just as powerful as Xenon VPU.
Nintendo's perception of being backward technology wise is wrong.
Here's a list of technology firsts off the back of my head.
-had RAMBUS DRAM first (b4 PCs and other consumer devices)
-Mosys SRAM first
-first console to have unifed memory architecture?
-first 3d console game Star Fox?
-first consumer device to have anti aliasing, perpective correction, bilinear mipmap filtering etc
-first power pc chip in a console
-first console to use a vector unit
-first console with Wi Fi inbuilt
Here's a list of technology firsts off the back of my head.
-had RAMBUS DRAM first (b4 PCs and other consumer devices)
-Mosys SRAM first
-first console to have unifed memory architecture?
-first 3d console game Star Fox?
-first consumer device to have anti aliasing, perpective correction, bilinear mipmap filtering etc
-first power pc chip in a console
-first console to use a vector unit
-first console with Wi Fi inbuilt
MightyHedgehog
Member
nightez said:
Could graphics cards be considered consumer devices? Voodoo 1?
First 3D (polygonal) console was most definitely not Star Fox.
Wasn't the Pippin using an early PPC chip before the GC?
Pippin used a PowerPC chip (603 i think) although it had zero 3D graphics hardware whatso ever. it was a game console and therefore technically came sooner than the Gamecube, but.... hardly anyone even knows that.
StarFox was definitally NOT the first 3D console game. maybe one of the first 3D *accelerated* console games. but we had polygon game before StarFox.
F-15 Strike Eagle II on Genesis, F-22 Interceptor on Genesis both came out before StarFox.
I'm sure there are a few other examples, if not dozens.
StarFox was definitally NOT the first 3D console game. maybe one of the first 3D *accelerated* console games. but we had polygon game before StarFox.
F-15 Strike Eagle II on Genesis, F-22 Interceptor on Genesis both came out before StarFox.
I'm sure there are a few other examples, if not dozens.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
I didn't know so many people hear knew so much about what each console manufacturer is spending on technology.
What kills me is comments like this one= It'd be nice to see it about as powerful as the others, but I'm not convinced that Nintendo is interested in that while pushing a different agenda with 'revolutionary' features that will undoubtedly bring more non-GPU/CPU-related cost upwards in the entire system picture.
Making baseless assumption on hardware features, that they have know idea are, how much its gonna cost, or how many features will be present. Whatever Nintendo includes may not be costly enough to affect what Nintendo is spending on chip development.
What kills me is comments like this one= It'd be nice to see it about as powerful as the others, but I'm not convinced that Nintendo is interested in that while pushing a different agenda with 'revolutionary' features that will undoubtedly bring more non-GPU/CPU-related cost upwards in the entire system picture.
Making baseless assumption on hardware features, that they have know idea are, how much its gonna cost, or how many features will be present. Whatever Nintendo includes may not be costly enough to affect what Nintendo is spending on chip development.
MightyHedgehog
Member
OG_Original Gamer said:
I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that this was my belief of what the system would be like, at this point in time. Sorry if my present opinion doesn't jive with you, but then all this thread is about is barely-informed opinions, mine included. My opinion is based on Nintendo's past history of hardware and my idea that Nintendo will not release this as a $299 console at launch. Of course, I've heard things from other people with regard to Revolution...but lots of people have.
I'm sorry, but this is getting on my nerves. X-BOT's who have rellied heavily on the "power" argument of being an X-BOX supporter 'cos the games "look better" are in UTTER DENIAL that they might be supporting the least powerful system next generation.
Face the facts:
-X-BOX 360 will be releasing months BEFORE the competition
-MS PR has been spouting on and on about games driving the system, not power
-the first X-BOX lost them assloads of money...why in the hell do you think they went running to ATi & IBM for the next system (it's 'cos the GAMECUBE, being developed months before the X-BOX was still mighty comparable AND cheaper to boot)
-MS investers and MS as a whole in a business sense want to MAKE MONEY next generation...they are going for a cost-effective model just as Nintendo did this generation
I guess it is *very hard* for X-BOT's to just come to the realization that MS won't have the most powerful console next time. That right will probably go to Sony by default due to their HUGE (more time, money, R&D, patnerships, etc.) investments in The Cell & PS3 development *as well as* coming out months (for Japanese PS3 launch) *after* X-BOX 360 launches. Some are in such denial that they actually think the next X-BOX will be on par or somehow surpass the power of the PS3? Shock & awe! I'm not saying all X-BOX supporters are like this, but to those who actually believe such...where is the logic? Is it 'cos MS has already spoiled you with so much power this generation it's hard to look at the facts I listed above as evidence they won't be following suit next generation? Is it the fact that MS has so much money that you can't fathem them having the weakest hardware next generation?
Nintendo's Revolution (since it'll likely be in developement and launch in between the developement/launches of X-BOX 360 & PS3) will likely be in the mid-range, despite the blind thinking they had the weakest hardware this generation. The GAMECUBE system itself may have looked less-powerful, the half-assed efforts from 3RD parties who didn't care about GCN may have looked less impressive, the sales numbers for the hardware may make it seem it was the weakest...BUT IN REALITY...the GCN was more powerful than PS2 as it was developed AFTER PS2...and it even stood up to the mighty X-BOX which was put together months after GCN was even finnished.
Each of the current 3 systems have their weak/strong points...in raw power it may have been X-BOX > GCN > PS2...but in the hands of the right game makers and with the right tools each system has it's own technically impressive gems that likely could not be done on the other's hardware. PS2 may be old, but in the hands of Konami it brought us MGS3. GCN may look like the least impressive hardware, but in the hands of CAPCOM it brought us RE4. X-BOX is the most powerful console out now, but I doubt Mr. Kojima or Mr. Mikami could've done their games better on X-BOX, just like Bungie couldn't have done Halo just as good on the other system and it's a freakin' launch title.
Next generation hardware will ALSO have it's beautiful gems no matter what it's technical power/weakness is...and I suspect that despite X-BOX 360 having the weakest hardware & PS3 having the most powerful & Nintendo being in the middle again that in the right hands game makers will create software that will be a marvel on each respective system. For all the games in between there will be MARGINAL difference to the casual gamer's eyes...even moreso to those gamers who won't have an HDTV to show us every perfection/flaw in the visuals.
In the end: power...does not...matter. So, knowing this...why does it hurt the X-BOT's ears to hear that the next X-BOX will not be the most powerful system out???
Face the facts:
-X-BOX 360 will be releasing months BEFORE the competition
-MS PR has been spouting on and on about games driving the system, not power
-the first X-BOX lost them assloads of money...why in the hell do you think they went running to ATi & IBM for the next system (it's 'cos the GAMECUBE, being developed months before the X-BOX was still mighty comparable AND cheaper to boot)
-MS investers and MS as a whole in a business sense want to MAKE MONEY next generation...they are going for a cost-effective model just as Nintendo did this generation
I guess it is *very hard* for X-BOT's to just come to the realization that MS won't have the most powerful console next time. That right will probably go to Sony by default due to their HUGE (more time, money, R&D, patnerships, etc.) investments in The Cell & PS3 development *as well as* coming out months (for Japanese PS3 launch) *after* X-BOX 360 launches. Some are in such denial that they actually think the next X-BOX will be on par or somehow surpass the power of the PS3? Shock & awe! I'm not saying all X-BOX supporters are like this, but to those who actually believe such...where is the logic? Is it 'cos MS has already spoiled you with so much power this generation it's hard to look at the facts I listed above as evidence they won't be following suit next generation? Is it the fact that MS has so much money that you can't fathem them having the weakest hardware next generation?
Nintendo's Revolution (since it'll likely be in developement and launch in between the developement/launches of X-BOX 360 & PS3) will likely be in the mid-range, despite the blind thinking they had the weakest hardware this generation. The GAMECUBE system itself may have looked less-powerful, the half-assed efforts from 3RD parties who didn't care about GCN may have looked less impressive, the sales numbers for the hardware may make it seem it was the weakest...BUT IN REALITY...the GCN was more powerful than PS2 as it was developed AFTER PS2...and it even stood up to the mighty X-BOX which was put together months after GCN was even finnished.
Each of the current 3 systems have their weak/strong points...in raw power it may have been X-BOX > GCN > PS2...but in the hands of the right game makers and with the right tools each system has it's own technically impressive gems that likely could not be done on the other's hardware. PS2 may be old, but in the hands of Konami it brought us MGS3. GCN may look like the least impressive hardware, but in the hands of CAPCOM it brought us RE4. X-BOX is the most powerful console out now, but I doubt Mr. Kojima or Mr. Mikami could've done their games better on X-BOX, just like Bungie couldn't have done Halo just as good on the other system and it's a freakin' launch title.
Next generation hardware will ALSO have it's beautiful gems no matter what it's technical power/weakness is...and I suspect that despite X-BOX 360 having the weakest hardware & PS3 having the most powerful & Nintendo being in the middle again that in the right hands game makers will create software that will be a marvel on each respective system. For all the games in between there will be MARGINAL difference to the casual gamer's eyes...even moreso to those gamers who won't have an HDTV to show us every perfection/flaw in the visuals.
In the end: power...does not...matter. So, knowing this...why does it hurt the X-BOT's ears to hear that the next X-BOX will not be the most powerful system out???
I think Nintendo's name choice for their chips were great. They sound impressive and more serious than Gekko/Flipper. Nintendo needs to look and be serious, so I'm glad. Mr. Iwata said that "Broadway" is the capital of live performances and that "Hollywood" is the capital of movies. Does "Broadway" suggest live like as in going online live via broadband? Does "Hollywood" suggest powerful movie-like visuals for Revolution?
Again, to note, I'm glad Nintendo focussed on announcing their partners for the chipset in this way as it shows they aren't going to skimp like alot of people think. And by giving the chips names like that it helps put a bit of spotlight on the fact that Nintendo is STILL around and maybe the press will take more notice hopefully.
Again, to note, I'm glad Nintendo focussed on announcing their partners for the chipset in this way as it shows they aren't going to skimp like alot of people think. And by giving the chips names like that it helps put a bit of spotlight on the fact that Nintendo is STILL around and maybe the press will take more notice hopefully.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
MightyHedgehog said:
Well I get the feeling its more wishful thinking, on your part. I understand its your opinion, but the N64 was $250 on release date, so relying on history to me is congested with flaws. It can't determine the future, there's this unwarranted belief that Nintendo is content with thier position in the market and its history dictates its future.
I'm sorry but I get the feeling your an Xbox fan, who just worried the Xbox Next might not be the most powerful console on the market nextgen(slightly less powerful than the Revolution). And is just coming up with scenario's to fit that desire.
Why is everyone bringing up the Gamecube? They didn't say "Look to the Gamecube for an idea of what to expect", in fact they said the Rev will not be a continuation of the hardware they've released up to this point. What they did say is to look to the DS, a system which forsakes the power of it's competitor for other technologies. This is why people are thinking this way, it's got nothing to do with being "X-BOTs".
Companion Cube
Member
Wasn't it rumored that the Revolution and Xenon graphics cards are supposed to be very similar? And everyone's expecting developers to have a more multiplatform approach next gen? And E3 IS in may isn't it...
/IGN-lish
OR IS IT?!
Oh goodness gracious me-oh-my not this crap again.
Nintendo was NOT refering to EVERY FREAKING ASPECT of the Nintendo DS when talking about the terms of Revolution...they were talking about it being a "unique never been done before in gaming" type machine...that is all!
And NO the N64 did not launch at $250...it was $199...if you paid $250 you were robbed 'cos the demand did create spiking, but Nintendo's SRP was $199.99!!!
Oh and Bacon, good point, NDS was an old sidebet project slapped together with the WiFi, new media, dual screns, mic & touch screen in a short ammount of time. Revolution (while probably having unique to gaming NDS-esque features) is by no means a quick throw-away sidebet. In fact, it's been said that Nintendo is spending more than usual in R&D on Revolution then on any system in their past. It will be no slouch. Oh yeah...sure...Nintendo's gonna run to IBM & ATi and ask for something less powerful than X-BOX 360 months *after* X-BOX 360 and slap a $10 gyro in the controller and call it a day...pffft...keep dreaming naysayers.
Nintendo was NOT refering to EVERY FREAKING ASPECT of the Nintendo DS when talking about the terms of Revolution...they were talking about it being a "unique never been done before in gaming" type machine...that is all!
And NO the N64 did not launch at $250...it was $199...if you paid $250 you were robbed 'cos the demand did create spiking, but Nintendo's SRP was $199.99!!!
Oh and Bacon, good point, NDS was an old sidebet project slapped together with the WiFi, new media, dual screns, mic & touch screen in a short ammount of time. Revolution (while probably having unique to gaming NDS-esque features) is by no means a quick throw-away sidebet. In fact, it's been said that Nintendo is spending more than usual in R&D on Revolution then on any system in their past. It will be no slouch. Oh yeah...sure...Nintendo's gonna run to IBM & ATi and ask for something less powerful than X-BOX 360 months *after* X-BOX 360 and slap a $10 gyro in the controller and call it a day...pffft...keep dreaming naysayers.
soundwave05
Member
Yeah I believe what is meant with the DS comparision is Nintendo is looking for some kind of new control input for the Revolution.
Probably has nothing to do with the chipset.
Why would ATi's GPU budget be the same from Nintendo as Microsoft if the Nintendo chipset is radically underpowered in comparision?
Probably has nothing to do with the chipset.
Why would ATi's GPU budget be the same from Nintendo as Microsoft if the Nintendo chipset is radically underpowered in comparision?
Cold-Steel
Member
soundwave05 said:
Not a chance, if the budgets are dead even you can bet that they are going to at the very least be equal in terms of performance.
That's bare minimum. What they do with that money is an entirely different question altogether...
DrGAKMAN said:
And what if they didn't provide unique features like a second touch-sensitive screen? That's more money they could've put toward the system's power. Depending on just what these unique features are for the Revolution, you could be looking at something that's relatively free (e.g. a twist on something standard) or some new tech that'll eat up cost from their end.
Again, going by what Nintendo has said regarding graphics and power (Miyamoto saying the Gamecube's power is sufficient for everything they want to do, IGN's interview with Reggie saying that Nintendo's competitors are "going overboard" on power, etc...) it's not unreasonable to believe their system will not be more powerful than their competitors (Xenon specifically).
And regards to the Ati budgets, isn't Microsoft just licensing the tech and fabbing the chips themselves? Is Nintendo also doing this?
Rev will be powerful enough to do whatever their competitors are doing bottom line. Whats more important than the Chip power is the Ram and Storage medium. They can't shaft Rev in those 2 areas again otherwise 3rd parties will be turned off. Thats what it all comes down to.
Redbeard said:
IGNCube also said that Nintendo was aiming for a $300 pricepoint, and implied the chipset would rival that of the other guys.
and of course Gamecube was enough this generation as far as graphics, but surely you dont think "Gamecube+" would be good enough for next-gen do you?
I'm expecting a N64 to GCN leap in graphics preformance, from GCN to REV. and overall specifications, 10 to 100 times greater than GCN, depending on what area you compare.
MightyHedgehog
Member
OG_Original Gamer said:
Well, I get this feeling that your feeling matters little with regard to my opinion. And, yes, I am an XBOX fan. I'm also a video game fan. Just because I deride Nintendo on occasion, doesn't automatically mean that I'm biased against them. I just don't believe Nintendo's going for the kind of capability that MS and Sony obviously are. Nintendo has put too much emphasis on the direction they feel that games need to go. Certainly, the Revolution will be powerful, a rival to the other two. However, I don't believe that they want to focus on so much raw horsepower, and rather, would prefer to differentiate themselves from the competition with something 'innovative' in its place. That innovation will cost them some...the same kind of tradeoffs made to the overall horsepower capability of the DS for its innovation will crop up in their future console for the sake of their innovations. That's my take and I'm sticking to it until Nintendo shows otherwise. Their talk, their focus, and their general plan is to be unique in hardware compared to their competitors.
the difference's wont really matter, because they won't be much, since the three consoles are using ATI, ATI and Nvidia to render their images. there won't be much difference in the capabilities of the GPUs. all three of them will be rendering in the high hundreds of millions of polygons. with shader model 3 ++
It will all come down to RAM-memory anyway.
the differences between the three new consoles should be smaller than the differences between the three current consoles.
there is a moderate or modest difference between the three consoles now. each one has advantages and disadvantages compared to the other two. there is a noticable difference on screen in what each console can do, although not a massive difference. I believe these differences are going to shrink significantly with the next consoles.
so we will be going from moderate differences between consoles to a small difference. it might even be noticable still, but less so than now. of course, i could be wrong and not know what im talking about. the wildcard is Playstation3. but i think Xenon and Revolution will be extremely similar in graphics without a doubt.
It will all come down to RAM-memory anyway.
the differences between the three new consoles should be smaller than the differences between the three current consoles.
there is a moderate or modest difference between the three consoles now. each one has advantages and disadvantages compared to the other two. there is a noticable difference on screen in what each console can do, although not a massive difference. I believe these differences are going to shrink significantly with the next consoles.
so we will be going from moderate differences between consoles to a small difference. it might even be noticable still, but less so than now. of course, i could be wrong and not know what im talking about. the wildcard is Playstation3. but i think Xenon and Revolution will be extremely similar in graphics without a doubt.
xexex said:
I think I can agree with this, but I wouldn't be absolutely certain that Rev's GPU will be AT LEAST as powerful as Xenons (as you suggest earlier), at least on paper/academically. It may be very very difficult to tell the difference in games though, much more difficult than any potential visible differences between PS3/Xenon, so from that point of view, yeah, I can see them being at least roughly equivalent.
One of the first things I remember hearing about Revolution, was that it would release with the competition(rather than later as they had done previously), that they would match their competitors in terms of features(built in WiFi is now confirmed, and i'm hoping that also means a good storage medium), and that it would lauch at the same price as the competition($299). So I fully expect Rev to be right up there in terms of tech...not up to PS3 in terms of sheer cpu power, but overall, a machine with the efficiency of the Gamecube but a bit more comparative "oomph".
And yes, the chip names are genius...could it(also) be an indication of "bling-factor" for the final system's design? The names invoke a sense of glamour and prestige. Here's hoping.
And yes, the chip names are genius...could it(also) be an indication of "bling-factor" for the final system's design? The names invoke a sense of glamour and prestige. Here's hoping.
"Capability"? Nintendo has a long history of forward thinking hardware design. PS2 took cues from N64, Xenon's followed their GameCube philosiphy... let's just slow things down at look at what we know comparing Rev to 360...MightyHedgehog said:
-Nintendo's spending the same amount as Microsoft on their GPU, and they're getting it from the more talented ATi team on a later timeline as well.
-Nintendo's also getting their CPU from IBM as well, again at a later timeline then Microsoft's multicore chip.
-Nintendo's upped their R&D budget by 40% this year.
-Iwata's yesterday reiterated "cutting edge graphics and audio are to be expected".
-Allard's been downplaying system spec wars for next generation, claiming we've reached a visual plateau.
...I dunno. It looks more to me that Microsoft's the one with a clear cut shift in direction regarding power hierarchy and hardware design philosophy. They're already starting the damage control in fact, while Nintendo speaks only of doing things in addition to cutting edge techology.
Thing is, Iwata spoke to towards doing both rather than either/or. Y'know, yesterday when he named the technology partners and chips.MightyHedgehog said:
Er, the "innovations" in DS were cost justified by a price increase. That's why it wasn't just a $99 N64-level Game Boy. Using the same logic, you can probably expect something along the lines of a $299 Revolution rather than just a $199 GameCube 2. DS actually proves that Nintendo won't sacrifice hardware at the cost of extra functionality, they simply up the asking price.MightyHedgehog said:
Nintendo has also only been specifcally naming Sony as direct competition, so why specificy Xenon then? Really now, it's Microsoft's who's done the PR turnabout from last generation, trying desperately to refocus things off peak system specs and talking of performance plateaus... why not then assume they'd have the weakest platform out there? They're certainly acting like they will.Redbeard said:
And I'd like to see the context of these Miyamoto and Reggie quotes. Have the full interviews? As far as I'm aware, only Iwata's spoken about Revolution's chipset technology?
Nintendo works closely with NEC on fabbing their chipsets. They built a multibillion yen facility together six years ago iirc. Someone can probably find the PR.Redbeard said:
Enigma said:In case you haven't seen the transcript: Broadway is the capital of live entertainment, Hollywood is the capital of movie entertainment, and Revolution is hoping to be the capital of interactive entertainment.
In case you haven't seen my post: I said "also"...indicating that I know what the "official" or rather "primary" meanings are...I simply pondered if perhaps it was indicative of a larger "new attitude", especially given Reggie's adamant claim that the system design WILL be sexy.
The Bookerman
Member
I doubt Nintendo's revolution will be the most powerful(the cell and nvidia combination seems tough to beat) but I seriously doubt it will make the mistake of allowing less ram than the competitor.
the key for Revolution(to me) is to have AS MUCH Ram as PS3(which probably will have 512 megs for XD-RAM?).
What alienated developpers to the Game cube was the lack of ram : 24 megs 1T-Sram was not enough.
If Nintendo wants to succeed with third parties they'll need this:
1- Ram, they must have JUST as much as the most powerful platform.
2- Middleware: Have a large library of tools and Hands on tech people visiting third party studios.
AS an exemple: Microsoft people made regular visits to Ubi Montreal. Very friendly, open to questions. This is something Microsoft did right, Nintendo does wrong.
Being Hands on with devs gives the company trust in the brand.
NEVER Have I heard Nintendo execs visiting Ubi. Same thing for Sony, but they are the leading brand. Learn from your enemy Nintendo.
That's what they should do.
the key for Revolution(to me) is to have AS MUCH Ram as PS3(which probably will have 512 megs for XD-RAM?).
What alienated developpers to the Game cube was the lack of ram : 24 megs 1T-Sram was not enough.
If Nintendo wants to succeed with third parties they'll need this:
1- Ram, they must have JUST as much as the most powerful platform.
2- Middleware: Have a large library of tools and Hands on tech people visiting third party studios.
AS an exemple: Microsoft people made regular visits to Ubi Montreal. Very friendly, open to questions. This is something Microsoft did right, Nintendo does wrong.
Being Hands on with devs gives the company trust in the brand.
NEVER Have I heard Nintendo execs visiting Ubi. Same thing for Sony, but they are the leading brand. Learn from your enemy Nintendo.
That's what they should do.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
ImNotLikeThem said:
nice, i like that. that what MS did this gen.. and it worked to some extent.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Redbeard said:
they said look to the DS as far as features go. and the DS is jam packed with them.