Revolution Specifications are 'Irrelevant' - Jim Merrick

[fitbabits]

Thanks to EuroGamer (http://www.eurogamer.net) for the following article (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=61492).

In an interview with Dutch magazine [N]Gamer, senior director of marketing Jim Merrick is quoted as saying: "Regarding the specifications, we will probably never 'release' this information as we feel that it is largely irrelevant.

"While some of our competitors enjoy comparing specifications, it has little or nothing to do with how satisfied the consumers will be with the system and the games once they are released."
I'll say one thing for Nintendo - they know how to spin!

[The Iron Weasel]

I'll say one thing for Ninetndo - they know how to spin!

That is true, although, I haven't scene any kicking of asses, or taking of names Reggie!

[Dabombpizza]

It is true that hardware does not directly relate to gaming potential (Jaguar 64), but I would really like to know what it's running on.

[spacerat100]

ow..this is like telling someone they should be happy with what their car looks like and not what's under the hood. Not a smart move since the specs will doubtlessly be leaked/discovered soon after release anyway.

[The Iron Weasel]

ow..this is like telling someone they should be happy with what their car looks like and not what's under the hood. Not a smart move since the specs will doubtlessly be leaked/discovered soon after release anyway.

True they cant get away with just saying "tech is irrelivant" forever.

[Ernst_Jager]

True they cant get away with just saying "tech is irrelivant" forever.

Sure they can, they have been doing it for years.

[Morratut]

It seems to me that Nintendo is thinking graphics are now good enough for people to just concentrate on gameplay only.Revolution,PS3,Xbox360 can do pretty much display anything we want. Nintendo are saying that graphics will no longer make the gameplay better, only how we interface with them :)

[copasetic]

With a gpu by ATI and the cpu by IBM im sure the specs will be pretty respectable. Both those companiese have enough existing technology to keep production costs down and put out a very capable product.

[Worldcrafter]

we don't want to contribute to the cloud of meaningless information that surrounds the next generation systems

I think this guy's statements are fair. We've got all sort of specs for the PS3 and X360, but it doesn't actually translate into anything meaningful. In the end, all three systems will be nice and fast, and the part that will actually seperate them will be the games.

The article has some good information, and Jim Merrick makes some good arguments for his case, unlike a certain Sony employee who loves to spout unfounded information. Seems like the real point of this story is: Nintendo wants to keep the Revolution under wraps until it is ready to be played with, and it actually has something worth playing. They gave us a teaser, but now we're going to have to wait a while for the rest of the show.

[fitbabits]

They gave us a teaser, but now we're going to have to wait a while for the rest of the show.
And I'm betting that even then they didn't want to reveal the teaser. Their hand was forced by the clamour for information and also by the stream of spec-related news coming from their rivals.

[IndependentGMR]

Finally, Merrick talked briefly about the Revolution's multiplayer features. He confirmed that the Revolution will use game sharing technology just like the DS, so you'll be able to face off with an opponent on another console using just one copy of the game. Smart.

That's pretty sweet.

[see colon]

nintendo has no motivation to release specs. if they can produce graphics that are comparable to the competition but cheaper (because of corner cutting) why give the competition specs to market against.

hell, it's working with the DS. we still haven't got official specs on the GPU (including who designed it, what features it supports, ect) but that isn't hurting DS sales vs the "fully spec'd" and more powerfull PSP, and the difference in image quality is immediatly noticable.

[T-Dub]

I completely agree with you Worldcrafter. Considering the fact that it takes years before games mature and start to take full advantage of a system i would say that comparing specs is a poor way to gauge actual performance. We are used to computers where the same code is run on multiple machines with various configurations. In that world it makes sense to compare your bus speeds and graphics card memory footprint. In a world where we have dedicated hardware with custom code all your benchmarks go out the window. It now becomes a matter of the quality of the dev kits and first party support.

I will contradict myself on one point however, and that's media. Nintendo lover that I am i've always been disappointed when they don't addopt a larger media format. I enjoy voices and pre-rendered cut scenes. Limiting a developer to a small footprint is counterproductive unless there is a speed advantage (cartridges)

[CapnBob]

Now that Nintendo's using full-sized DVDs and Microsoft has said that HD-DVDs will only be supported for movies, looks like Sony will be the only one with a larger memory format for this coming generation of consoles... and I'm really not sure that much memory is necessary yet.

[jacktion]

ow..this is like telling someone they should be happy with what their car looks like and not what's under the hood.

That's not really an accurate analogy. It is more like saying you should be happy with how the car performs and not how many valves it has. If the car can go as fast a ferrari and outcorner a porsche, does it matter if it has a six-cylinder engine?

Performance is what matters, not numbers on a page. Nintendo is saying their games are going to look just like the competitors but probably will have lower specs. Why give the competition something to use against you if it is an invalid point?

[if76]

Let's face it releasing your specs can make your system look worse even if the disparity doesn't translate to actual performance. If Nintendo's system uses one core for its CPU you just know MS and Sony will be going to every major media outlet saying "Their system only has ONE core while ours has MULTIPLE. Clearly ours will be faster" and the public, not knowing any better, will believe them.

If Sega had never released the Dreamcast's specs then maybe Sony couldn't have hyped them to death with the power of the Emotion engine.

[if76]

Nintendo lover that I am i've always been disappointed when they don't addopt a larger media format. I enjoy voices and pre-rendered cut scenes. Limiting a developer to a small footprint is counterproductive unless there is a speed advantage (cartridges)

Half Life 2 with it's nextgen textures, voices, music, and all that character animation, could easily fit on a DVD. Other than long, hi-res, non-interactive movies, I can't think of anything that woudl have trouble fitting on Revolution's media format.

[NoName]

Before reading the new specs on the PS3 and the Xbox360, I've never truely known the raw processing power of any console I've owned, and that's quite a few. Releasing specs is still fairly new, and has come mostly with Microsoft and Sony trying to compare penis sizes.

I'm not trying to be fanboyish, that's just the way it seems to me.

[see colon]

Before reading the new specs on the PS3 and the Xbox360, I've never truely known the raw processing power of any console I've owned, and that's quite a few. Releasing specs is still fairly new, and has come mostly with Microsoft and Sony trying to compare penis sizes.

I'm not trying to be fanboyish, that's just the way it seems to me.
nintendo was a spec whore when the snes came out. sega has always been a spec whore. atari's jaguar marketing was entirely "our systems is technologicly superior", as was 3do's. nec put the most relevent (at the time) spec in the name of the turbo graphix 16. releasing specs is nothing new. it's been going on since the console market was a profitable one.

[Bone]

See colon, I agree. Nintendo 64... "we have 64 bits! The other guys have a measly 32!!"

I also see an argument for not releasing specs. However, Nintendo's argument that console graphics are already to a level we can consider "done" is just pure bullshit to me. I think we're still a few years away from a point where you can do anything you want with console graphics. Consider doing a massive multiplayer resident evil (with RE4 graphics) or a Battlefield 2 style game (not BF2: Modern Combat, I mean the full 64 player game) and I think we still do need to crank out more polygons than what we have. Maybe the Xbox 360 can do this, I think it remains to be seen.

[Achilles]

Oh that’s brilliant! The system specs will be really low, so they just won’t tell you what they are. I wonder if it’ll be more powerful than a game cube.Sure they can, they have been doing it for years.I don't think they have. Remeber when they boasted that the N64 could real-time-render a perfect sphere? (not that it could, but still) They had the best tech in the industry until the Game Cube. The Game Cube isn't that bad either. So for those that want to think this has always been Nintendo's stance, to not care about tech; it hasn't. The reason the SNES was such a great console is because it could do things that the Genesis couldn't dream of doing, so the games looked the best on it, and you got things like Star Fox.

[NoName]

nintendo was a spec whore when the snes came out. sega has always been a spec whore. atari's jaguar marketing was entirely "our systems is technologicly superior", as was 3do's. nec put the most relevent (at the time) spec in the name of the turbo graphix 16. releasing specs is nothing new. it's been going on since the console market was a profitable one.
All I ever remember Nintendo releasing spec wise was like 8-bit, 32-bit, 64 bit. I still not sure what those numbers actually mean... *cough*. Anyways, I think specs are having more meaning these days as consoles are slowly becoming glorified computers.

[RMan]

However, Nintendo's argument that console graphics are already to a level we can consider "done" is just pure bullshit to me.
I don't think that's precisely what their opinion is, I think it’s more about the fact that we’re at a point where the graphics capabilities are strong enough that the effort put into improving it will have extremely diminished returns for the average player (which I completely agree with). I think the average player is going to appreciate the graphics improvements in the next generation far less than they think they are (because of the marketing creating unrealistic expectations), so focusing so heavily on pure graphic horsepower is just not going to improve the player’s experience significantly (which is why they focused on improving immersion/accessibility by designing their new controller). Some people, no matter where the technology is at, will argue that it’s worth making it better at almost any cost, but the truth is that at a certain point it just doesn’t matter. Car enthusiasts, for instance, may think it’s worth spending 50K to make their car go 10mph faster, but that’s definitely not the opinion of the vast majority of drivers, game enthusiast sites like this one will produce much of the same types opinions and they’re absolutely not representative of what the average player wants. Doubling the fidelity of CD audio will not make even a noticeable difference to most people, and quadrupling the number of polygons that the Revolution can do will likely also not be noticeable to the average player. I also think MS knows this as well, and it’s the primary force behind pushing their system out so early, because they know that beyond the 360, it’s possibly no amount of marketing will convince people to buy the next one based on graphics improvement.

[Opty]

All I ever remember Nintendo releasing spec wise was like 8-bit, 32-bit, 64 bit. I still not sure what those numbers actually mean... *cough*. Anyways, I think specs are having more meaning these days as consoles are slowly becoming glorified computers.

The bits are in reference to the processor. The NES had an 8-bit processor, SNES 16-bit, and N64 64-bit. All three of the modern consoles use 32-bit processors, so anyone saying one of them is "128-bit" doesn't understand what a "128-bit" console would mean. Only as RAM sizes go above 4 GB will 64-bit processors be required (which is why 64-bit processors are entering the PC market now).

[MosBen]

I don't know about the DS, but I find it just impossible that a multinational company like Nintendo will be able to hide the specs of the machine forever, which makes this seem like softening the blow. Will lower specs make it a worse system? Well, that depends, doesn't it? The GC has lower specs than the Xbox, but its games look fine. Still, it kind of depends on how much lower the specs are.

Also, we're at least a couple generations away from the point where I stop caring about graphical improvement.

[Bone]

See Rman, I disagree with that because if your polygon count prevents you from doing games that require lots of player and enemy models, you have spec'd yourself out of doing compelling gameplay. I personally would like to see a game like BF2 taken even farther, for instance a 64 player game where the players could play cooperatively against an AI enemy army. There are interesting gameplay ideas that definitely still can't be done with today's hardware.

[RMan]

See Rman, I disagree with that because if your polygon count prevents you from doing games that require lots of player and enemy models, you have spec'd yourself out of doing compelling gameplay.
This is not true, even on the current generation games have featured over 64 enemies, clearly a next generation system like the Revolution will be able to handle way more than that. Do not assume that the reason you haven’t seen such features even in current generation system is because of system power, it’s generally because either it’s not such a great idea (like the BF2 thing, at a certain point you start to lose communication ability, maps need to scale to too many variations of players, network infrastructure is not strong enough, and other little things that make it just not a good idea) or it takes time to develop regardless of system power. MS and Sony would love you to believe that the reason your games are not everything you want them to be is because your system isn’t powerful enough, if they can convince you of that they can sell you almost anything, but it is VERY far from the truth.

Sorry, I did misread your above post and thought you meant just 64 players, but still, what you mention is almost doable on current generation systems, and assuredly doable on nextgen systems, but it's still not going to often happen because cooperative games of that scope are very hard to make happen regardless of system power (seldom happen even on MMORPGs where there's tons of people on the same server) and internet infrastructure would without a doubt not handle it.

[T-Dub]

... we’re at a point where the graphics capabilities are strong enough that the effort put into improving it will have extremely diminished returns for the average player (which I completely agree with).

As do I. Your theory about the xbox360 holds some water as well. Part of it I think is also the hardware/software battle. We are very quickly reaching the diminshing returns in terms of hardware I think, but have a long ways to go in terms of software. Up until now it's been easy to simply rely upon powerful hardware to make up for inefficient code.

...if your polygon count prevents you from doing games that require lots of player and enemy models, you have spec'd yourself out of doing compelling gameplay.

Again I think this can be resolved with software solutions, not hardware.

[icronic]

You know, as much as I dislike Nintendo I almost find myself agreeing with them here.

While I know for a fact I'll proably end up with one or two of the next gen system, I really can't say I'm all that excited about them. There's been a growing trend with each generation, that I really don't like. The more power that the system has, the more time developers spend on making a pretty looking game. The cost of orgasm inducing graphics however seems to be shorter, simpler games, and cautious publishers who would much prefer to stick to sequels and anything that may fit into a tried and true format.

Personally I'd much prefer for this generation to last a few more years, I think by then we'd start to see a whole lot more innovative games than we do now since after a while the graphics really wouldn't be the selling point of a game.

[see colon]

All I ever remember Nintendo releasing spec wise was like 8-bit, 32-bit, 64 bit. I still not sure what those numbers actually mean... *cough*. Anyways, I think specs are having more meaning these days as consoles are slowly becoming glorified computers.
consoles have always been similar to computers. the sega genesis and neogeo ran on a motorola 68000, just like macintosh and amiga computers. the snes also ran on a MOS 65C816, the same CPU used in the appleIIgs. even the sony playstation ran on cpu used in computers. the MIPS R3000A is the second generation RISC proccessor used in SGI workstaions. the main difference was in display technology, until sega released the dreamcast in 1999.

[Zeal]

This lets me know the system is clearly very weak. Regadless if they want the specs out or not, they'll get out.

[thecrazyd]

This lets me know the system is clearly very weak. Regadless if they want the specs out or not, they'll get out.
Of course it does. You already decided this before you knew anything about it, remember? Why do you even read rev posts?

[TheEpicOfTyler]

The reason the SNES was such a great console is because it could do things that the Genesis couldn't dream of doing,

Exactly. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/capncornflake/vgaminpress/4.jpg)

............................................

[RMan]

Of course it does. You already decided this before you knew anything about it, remember? Why do you even read rev posts?
Hehe, I'm pretty sure you're right. IMO, it's likely a bit weaker than the 360 in the real world (IOW, theoretically much weaker if you think every developer will use the multicore of the 360 to the fullest, but that's naive in the extreme), but that will not translate into any noticeable difference in the games, which is why they’re not saying anything. Basically, there is only an upside to releasing the specs if they are better than the 360, or ambiguous enough that nobody can say it’s not (like the cell architecture), but as it stands there’s no upside I can see since it’s almost assuredly somewhat weaker. The technofiends that care about the specs will likely buy it anyway based on the controller, the rest are often hater/fanboys that just want ammunition, regardless of it’s uselessness to people with minds of their own.

[Sensei-X]

Even if they don't release their specs the fanboys and rival console makers already have plenty of ammunition from this declaration. It's only a matter of time before the cheap shots along the lines of "If our console was as underpowered as Nintendo's, we'd be embarassed to release our specs too" start to fly.

[Zeal]

Even if they don't release their specs the fanboys and rival console makers already have plenty of ammunition from this declaration. It's only a matter of time before the cheap shots along the lines of "If our console was as underpowered as Nintendo's, we'd be embarassed to release our specs too" start to fly.

The simple reality of this is that Nintendo is uncomfortable with releasing the system's specs. The reason Revolution's specs were deemed 'irrelevant' is due to the fact that it would be compared to 360 and PS3. Nintendo doesn't want to appear inferior in any regards.

This is very simple logic. There is absolutely no way to spin this.

In the event that its games can graphically compete with 360 and PS3, then I would agree that its hardware specifications are irrelevant. As of now, we've yet to see a single game, though.

Nintendo's the ultimate spin doctors, even more so than the democratic party.

[RMan]

It's only a matter of time before the cheap shots along the lines of "If our console was as underpowered as Nintendo's, we'd be embarassed to release our specs too" start to fly.
True, to an extent, but of course they can't say exactly that without begging the question "So, what are the specs that you know are underpowered and embarrassing?". Even if they’re more clever about that type of attack, the response from Nintendo would likely be something along the line of “Well, if our specs were all we had to impress people, then that’s all we would talk about too. Instead, take a look again at our more significant controller…” IMO, the best thing for MS to do regarding Nintendo is to shut up about them. If they press too hard, Nintendo will just show content that proves that their “underpowered” system will produce graphics nearly identical to the 360, dispelling much of the illusion that MS has worked so hard to produce. When the importance of system specs and graphics power are put in their proper perspective, Nintendo’s system will become hugely marketable. I doubt MS will walk into that trap, MS has no competition for their system’s launch, and some time after it, until their competition is actually costing them sales it’s likely wise not to draw attention to them, especially with regards to the Revolution.

[Achilles]

Exactly. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/capncornflake/vgaminpress/4.jpg)

............................................Could be. Or it could be all about the Electroplankton. I'll go with the existing controller and the amped up system specs until there's something compelling that comes out for the Revolution. So far they haven't announced anything for that controller. There may be a SSB at some point near launch, but so far that’s the only game they’ve talked about, and I really have no idea why SSB would be better to play with that controller. Like, what would it add? It may be doable, but how would it be better than having better graphics, larger/more interactive environments and smoother animations?

[thecrazyd]

The simple reality of this is that Nintendo is uncomfortable with releasing the system's specs. The reason Revolution's specs were deemed 'irrelevant' is due to the fact that it would be compared to 360 and PS3. Nintendo doesn't want to appear inferior in any regards.
No, the simple truth is that you assume that. Numbers don't matter. Who here honestly knows what a terraflop is and how it increases our gaming experience? Numbers don't mean a thing. Wait til you see what it can do.

[mister_slim]

After seeing the MS spin on the PS3 and the arguing about it here and everywhere, it makes sense for Nintendo to be quiet. Sure, they could release some numbers (you know, like with the GC, where their realistic numbers got blown away by Sony and MS's hypothetical numbers) and have people throw venom back and forth, or they could just wait and show some actual games.
The reason the SNES was such a great console is because it could do things that the Genesis couldn't dream of doing, so the games looked the best on it, and you got things like Star Fox.
That was really the Mode 7 chip though.

[Zeal]

No, the simple truth is that you assume that. Numbers don't matter. Who here honestly knows what a terraflop is and how it increases our gaming experience? Numbers don't mean a thing. Wait til you see what it can do.

If numbers don't matter, then what's the point of developing new hardware? If that were the case, we'd all be playing the NES.

It's as stupid as the "graphics don't matter" argument. Everything matters.

[thecrazyd]

If numbers don't matter, then what's the point of developing new hardware? If that were the case, we'd all be playing the NES.

It's as stupid as the "graphics don't matter" argument. Everything matters.
No, numbers really don't matter. Explain to me in seven words or less, what a terraflop is, and how multiple of them make a game better. Nintendo doesn't need to flaunt their penis size. They know they got the goods.

[Achilles]

No, the simple truth is that you assume that. Numbers don't matter. Who here honestly knows what a terraflop is and how it increases our gaming experience? Numbers don't mean a thing. Wait til you see what it can do.Numbers govern every aspect of everything you do when making a game. Spec numbers, hardware features, and engine features are everything. Games are designed around the hardware and time limitations, and having a more powerful system will never be a bad thing even if you don't end up using all the power for something.

[thecrazyd]

Numbers govern every aspect of everything you do when making a game. Spec numbers, hardware features, and engine features are everything. Games are designed around the hardware and time limitations, and having a more powerful system will never be a bad thing even if you don't end up using all the power for something.
Except when companies feel they need to use all the system assets, which generally ends up happening, as if they don't, the game gets trashed for having shitty graphics. Upping development time and cost is a definite end result of increasing hardware, and that leads to making cookie cutter "safe" games, and that is a bad thing.

[RMan]

No, numbers really don't matter.
Well, the numbers do matter, they just matter very little and are very difficult to translate into real world performance capability. Remember, they said that the specs were largely irrelevant, not completely irrelevant, which I think is an accurate assessment. They are avoiding the spec comparisons because it will make their system appear inferior, which by purely the specs and theoretical capability, it likely is. However, the gap between the Revolution’s theoretical capability and the 360/PS3’s theoretical capability will likely be far less than the Xbox and PS2’s capabilities, which didn’t mean much in terms of financial success or quality of the games for those systems, which is Nintendo’s point.

[T-Dub]

Nintendo's the ultimate spin doctors, even more so than the democratic party.

All you are missing now is the 'ot' on your name to match your close minded nature.

Edit:
If numbers don't matter, then what's the point of developing new hardware? If that were the case, we'd all be playing the NES.

It's as stupid as the "graphics don't matter" argument. Everything matters.

Wow, you just don't stop. Ignorance FTW!

[RMan]

Numbers govern every aspect of everything you do when making a game.
That is so not true. They influence what you do, but govern, that's an incredible stretch. With the next generation systems the difference in specs will likely only influence what polygon count and texture size the assets are finally shipped in, the idea that it will actually influence design or mechanics is ludicrous.
Spec numbers, hardware features, and engine features are everything.
Then explain how MS got their asses handed to them this generation, if this were true, the Xbox would have clearly dominated.

[Achilles]

Except when companies feel they need to use all the system assets, which generally ends up happening, as if they don't, the game gets trashed for having shitty graphics. Upping development time and cost is a definite end result of increasing hardware, and that leads to making cookie cutter "safe" games, and that is a bad thing.Huh, well if they don't matter than why would the get trashed for not using the capabilities of the hardware? If the game's fun it won't get trashed. It seems like what you're arguing is that it's a good thing to have a system that's weaker so the graphical bar will over all be lower so the reviewers won't trash games for not maxing out the system.

There are many games that refute the idea that the system needs to be maxed out in order for a game to be recognized as being good. Nippon Ichi games for example. In fact most of my favorite games for the PS2 came no where near trying to max the system out, but I'm sure that extra overhead made it easier to do what they were aiming to do. They didn't need to worry about compression, max sprites on a screen, number of animations, etc. Overhead freaking rocks, and it rocks even more if what you're aiming to do comes well under the bar.

[divinechaos]

Nintendo doesn't need to flaunt their penis size. They know they got the goods.

Wow, this is just the best thing anyone's ever said in this board. This just summarizes Nintendo. *gives TheCrazyd a cookie*

[Achilles]

Then explain how MS got their asses handed to them this generation, if this were true, the Xbox would have clearly dominated.They didn’t. Their system cost too much to make so they didn’t make a profit, but if you look at their software and hardware sales they matched or exceeded the PS2 everywhere but Japan as of 2 years ago. Market reasons (not having hardly any Japanese support, and coming out second) are what caused them to come in second. A weaker system can be successful, of course, but to say a weaker system is better because it’s weaker is nutso.

[thecrazyd]

They didn’t. Their system cost too much to make so they didn’t make a profit, but if you look at their software and hardware sales they matched or exceeded the PS2 everywhere but Japan as of 2 years ago. Market reasons (not having hardly any Japanese support, and coming out second) are what caused them to come in second. A weaker system can be successful, of course, but to say a weaker system is better because it’s weaker is nutso.
Well, if the difference is negligible, and the difference saves me 200 bucks, then I will go weaker any day of the week.

[fitbabits]

No, the simple truth is that you assume that. Numbers don't matter. Who here honestly knows what a terraflop is and how it increases our gaming experience? Numbers don't mean a thing. Wait til you see what it can do.
Terraflop = a belly flop (like in swimming pools), only on land!

[Zeal]

This fanboy babble doesn't phase me. If numbers wern't relevant to game development, then every console maker would shoot for the lowest common denominator. What you're essentially saying is that math is irrelevant in real-world situations.

Developers want more memory, developers want faster processors, developers want faster drives and more space. It's all numbers.

If Nintendo were capable of providing the strongest system, then numbers would suddenly be everything. Only a Nintendo fanboy could be capable of presenting such a ludicrous argument.

The argument is not that numbers are everything, the argument is that numbers matter.

[T-Dub]

Terraflop = a belly flop (like in swimming pools), only on land!

lol, 8/10 ---

[T-Dub]

Us "Fanboys" aren't saying that numbers mean nothing. We are saying that numbers are less important than marketers make them out too be. There are plenty of real world examples of this (Apple vs. PC; DS vs. PSP). The truth of the matter is that it all comes down to what is done with the hardware you have. Keep in mind too that the console hardware specs are so different that comparing them is silly for the consumers.

Again I stress that we aren't running the same software on different hardware configurations. As we all know each system has such drastically different architecture that games have to "ported" to other systems. This simple fact makes comparing the raw numbers of the system moot. Compare a wide selection of games and we can talk.

[RMan]

They didn’t. Their system cost too much to make so they didn’t make a profit, but if you look at their software and hardware sales they matched or exceeded the PS2 everywhere but Japan as of 2 years ago.
What? Everything I’ve seen showed them getting consistently smacked around, winning maybe 2 months in any given year, and smacked hard the rest of the time, and that’s US charts. Please post the source for this statement, because it’s contradictory to what I’ve read elsewhere.
Market reasons (not having hardly any Japanese support, and coming out second) are what caused them to come in second.
So, you’re revised statement would be something like “Spec numbers, hardware features, and engine features are everything, except for release date, marketing, the Japanese, and whatever else caused the Xbox to get beat by an inferior system.”
A weaker system can be successful, of course, but to say a weaker system is better because it’s weaker is nutso.
Yea, that’s pretty crazy, but I don’t recall anyone saying that.

[Achilles]

Well, if the difference is negligible, and the difference saves me 200 bucks, then I will go weaker any day of the week.Well it's all about the games right? I wouldn't want a system that's $200 less if the games bite. If people want to make all their games for the revolution even though it's weaker, well cool, it’ll be the thing to own. But I would suggest that they'd want to make games for the system with the most overhead, or the one that has the most marketshare, unless they have a good use for the Rev's controller.

Overall the argument that a weaker system will get better games because it’s weaker is absurd. A weaker system only provides limitations, it in no way makes the games better, the developers make the games good or bad, and more overhead is beneficial to their ability to create their vision.

Small differences in numbers don’t make that big a difference. They're a design consideration but you can pretty much make the same game, you just have to do it in a different way. But what if the difference between the Rev and the other two isn’t small?

[Achilles]

What? Everything I’ve seen showed them getting consistently smacked around, winning maybe 2 months in any given year, and smacked hard the rest of the time, and that’s US charts. Please post the source for this statement, because it’s contradictory to what I’ve read elsewhere.

So, you’re revised statement would be something like “Spec numbers, hardware features, and engine features are everything, except for release date, marketing, the Japanese, and whatever else caused the Xbox to get beat by an inferior system.”You're talking about two completely different things. My first statement was about the developer's limitations while they're planning their game, and why more power is a good thing. Then you bring up how the Xbox is getting smacked around so I start talking about the platform and why its sales were what they are. Which would you like to talk about?

The Xbox outsold the PS2 last christmas in the US. And the software sales have been even with the PS2 for 2 years. I don't have time to find data on it, but just keep up with the monthly charts and how many of which system's games are in the top 10.
http://www.interactive.org/

[score]

Take a deep breath guys. In the same interview (according to some other news sites) merrick has also said the following:

Some rare Revolution details were also offered in the interview, such as reaffirming that graphically a "difference will not exist" between the console and its competitors. According to Merrick, Nintendo hopes to launch Revolution in all territories within a 14 week period.
(from MozlaPunk) (http://mozlapunk.web-log.nl/log/3978737)

In the interview, Jim addressed one question that has been in the back of the minds of many a Nintendo fan. How good will the graphics be with the Nintendo Revolution?

The answer: a “difference will not exist” between the Revolution and its competitors in terms of graphical ability.
(from RevoGaming by way of Joystiq) (http://www.revogaming.net/html/modules/news/article.php?storyid=133)

In regards to its competitors, Merrick claims that Revolution will be graphically in the same league as Xbox 360 and PS3.
(from shacknews) (http://www.shacknews.com/)

In fact Merrick, gave out a surprising amount of information on Nintendo's Revolution, indicating that there would be no significant difference between the graphical abilities of the console compared to other next generation systems.
(from Gamesutra) (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=7014)

[CapnBob]

As an interesting counterpoint here, I'l like to post to this Ars Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/revolution.ars) which makes educated guesses as to the power and system design of the Revolution compared to the other consoles. Granted, it's mostly conjecture, but it's rather compelling. One of the more interesting points is that the likely system design may not be quite so beefy in the graphics department as the competition but the CPU and cache design would give it an advantage over the other two systems in the areas of physics, AI and controls even with overall weaker and less expensive hardware. When you're talking about more efficient and focused use of the combination of different pieces of hardware, raw numbers and specs are perhaps not irrelevant but certainly misleading and confusing to the general user.

Additionally, things like smarter AI and better physics are hard to show off in screenshots or even videos, where the media and end consumers are more likely to focus only on graphical details. Those are features that you really have to interact with to understand, which oddly enough fits with the statements from Nintendo that we will not see Revolution games until we can play them. Those are also features that I find to be much more important to games than sheer graphical quality. If the Revolution can pull off graphics of nearly the same quality except at lower resolutions and gains better AI, physics and user interface at a lower price point in the process, then I'd have to agree that releasing the specs to the public would only spread misconceptions and, in the end, would be largely irrelevant to the point of the system.

But I'm sure there will be people who are convinced that the size of the system and the refusal to release specs means that we're just getting a smaller gamecube with a bizarre controller, and to those people the specs are probably always going to be the most important aspect.

[RMan]

You're talking about two completely different things. My first statement was about the developer's limitations while they're planning their game, and why more power is a good thing. Then you bring up how the Xbox is getting smacked around so I start talking about the platform and why its sales were what they are. Which would you like to talk about?
I was talking about this statement "Spec numbers, hardware features, and engine features are everything." Clearly not true, since the discussion was regarding system specs and their relevance to the public (consumers or developers). If your statement was true, then it should have ensured overwhelming developer support from the last generation for the Xbox. If you’re suggesting that people should care because the “lesser” system power might translate into lesser games, then a softer statement like that would have been appropriate.

Even with regards to developers "planning" their game around specs, I don't think so. For the most part, if they're doing a new game around a new system, then they implement their design and if it's too slow, then they optimize, and if it's still too slow, they drop polygon counts or at worst decrease view distance till it works. The suggestion you’re making, and the assumption that Nintendo wants to avoid, is that developers will produce better designs and superior experiences relative to processing power (thus making Revolution games inferior) which is assuredly the idea MS would try to promote. Certainly having “extra power” is good, but with the next generation systems even if the Nintendo system is half as powerful as a single core 360, this will not influence the design, planning, or execution of games in a significant way. If that were the specs, and it was public, MS would suggest over and over again that their games will be 4 times better because of it, and some suckers will buy it.

But what if the difference between the Rev and the other two isn’t small?
Well, what if the 360’s controller spews acid? Look, sarcasm aside, all of them produce nice hardware. The last generation of systems were solid, and overall pretty comparable. The Gamecube was not as powerful as the Xbox, but it was close enough that the games produced for them didn’t seem to suffer, and clearly there’s no games done on the Xbox that couldn’t be done on the Gamecube (may be ones that require HD, but I don’t think so) with perhaps a minor decrease in graphic fidelity. There is no good reason to assume the worst about the Revolution, and IMO what they have shown about the system puts the Revolution clearly in the lead for my gaming dollar.

[thecrazyd]

Well it's all about the games right? I wouldn't want a system that's $200 less if the games bite. If people want to make all their games for the revolution even though it's weaker, well cool, it’ll be the thing to own. But I would suggest that they'd want to make games for the system with the most overhead, or the one that has the most marketshare, unless they have a good use for the Rev's controller.

Overall the argument that a weaker system will get better games because it’s weaker is absurd. A weaker system only provides limitations, it in no way makes the games better, the developers make the games good or bad, and more overhead is beneficial to their ability to create their vision.

Small differences in numbers don’t make that big a difference. They're a design consideration but you can pretty much make the same game, you just have to do it in a different way. But what if the difference between the Rev and the other two isn’t small?
DS vs PSP. Enough said.

*EDIT* Well, it really is not enough said. When smaller companies can make games for less money and in less time, you end up with alot of excellent, quasi indie titles that give you experiences that you have never had before. With less at stake, companies can take more risks. So, the 360 will be great for racing games, third person shooters, and sports titles (all of which would also work on the Rev, of course), but the Rev will get titles that are, at the very least, different from Gunshooter XII, and Football 2007. I perfer a fresh experience, but if you want to play a shinier version of a game you have been playing since 1985, then go for it.

[The Iron Weasel]

DS vs PSP. Enough said.

*EDIT* Well, it really is not enough said. When smaller companies can make games for less money and in less time, you end up with alot of excellent, quasi indie titles that give you experiences that you have never had before. With less at stake, companies can take more risks. So, the 360 will be great for racing games, third person shooters, and sports titles (all of which would also work on the Rev, of course), but the Rev will get titles that are, at the very least, different from Gunshooter XII, and Football 2007. I perfer a fresh experience, but if you want to play a shinier version of a game you have been playing since 1985, then go for it.

HEY GUNSHOOTER IS GREAT ASS HOLE! :D

[Achilles]

I was talking about this statement "Spec numbers, hardware features, and engine features are everything." Clearly not true, since the discussion was regarding system specs and their relevance to the public (consumers or developers). If your statement was true, then it should have ensured overwhelming developer support from the last generation for the Xbox. If you’re suggesting that people should care because the “lesser” system power might translate into lesser games, then a softer statement like that would have been appropriate.

Even with regards to developers "planning" their game around specs, I don't think so. For the most part, if they're doing a new game around a new system, then they implement their design and if it's too slow, then they optimize, and if it's still too slow, they drop polygon counts or at worst decrease view distance till it works. The suggestion you’re making, and the assumption that Nintendo wants to avoid, is that developers will produce better designs and superior experiences relative to processing power (thus making Revolution games inferior) which is assuredly the idea MS would try to promote. Certainly having “extra power” is good, but with the next generation systems even if the Nintendo system is half as powerful as a single core 360, this will not influence the design, planning, or execution of games in a significant way. If that were the specs, and it was public, MS would suggest over and over again that their games will be 4 times better because of it, and some suckers will buy it.I'm not going to get into which Xbox games couldn't have been done on the game cube.

The post I was quoting originally said that "numbers don't matter" and "numbers don't make any difference". On the consumer side, people wouldn't know, all they see is the end result and people believe what they want about developers being lazy, style choices, etc. So I was describing why numbers matter and who they matter to. They matter to developers who have to make games for the thing. I don't know how you could argue with that.

For your spec-less design philosophy; that's how bad games get made. They shoot for everything and then end up scaling back late in development as they try to cram their game into the specs. The result is almost always something that doesn't do anything to conform to the system and play to its strengths, and as a result looks and plays terrible.

Decrease the draw distance? How about find out before hand how much you can draw and then make spaces where the draw distance isn’t noticeable, or find a cheat to get around it like Jak and Daxter does. Like in SH2 where they use an effect that looked like an old camera to cover up the aliasing, or fog to cover up the draw distances. There are creative solutions to these things, and not thinking of them is where bad looking games come from.

[RMan]

I don't know how you could argue with that.
I wasn't, just the part about them meaning everything. Those who say they mean everything, and those that say they mean nothing are both wrong.
For your spec-less design philosophy; that's how bad games get made.
Sure, but it's also how good ones get made. The simple truth is there are FAR too many variables that affect system performance for any developer, no matter how talented, to try to develop his game and content to target the maximum performance of a system based on specs (and that’s if you can trust the specs to be accurate and complete). At best, it gets you in the ballpark, but about the only spec that’s truly useful during the design phase is the RAM, performance specs simply aren’t reliable.
They shoot for everything and then end up scaling back late in development as they try to cram their game into the specs. The result is almost always something that doesn't do anything to conform to the system and play to its strengths, and as a result looks and plays terrible.
Only launch titles have this problem (otherwise they're continuously tested), which is why so many of them just undershoot. I think your idea that the game has to play to the systems strengths otherwise it looks and plays terrible is way off base (unless you want to say practically every 1st generation title for every system in history looks and plays terrible). Pushing 30% less polygons than the system would allow makes little difference this generation, and it'll make even less next generation.
Decrease the draw distance? How about find out before hand how much you can draw and then make spaces where the draw distance isn’t noticeable, or find a cheat to get around it like Jak and Daxter does. Like in SH2 where they use an effect that looked like an old camera to cover up the aliasing, or fog to cover up the draw distances. There are creative solutions to these things, and not thinking of them is where bad looking games come from.
Hey, these creative solutions are great, but it has little to do with the discussion. I can guarantee they didn't nail their draw distance down on paper by looking at the specs.

[Achilles]

Hey, these creative solutions are great, but it has little to do with the discussion. I can guarantee they didn't nail their draw distance down on paper by looking at the specs.Probably true, not general specs, but rather what they could do with the system given their timeline and their tools/engine. Nintendo releasing the specs to us internet folk is likely pointless. It's nice to know, but there's nothing that we'll do with them other than try to use them to imagine what the games will look like. What hardware can do however is important to developers, who will get the system specs for the Rev if they decide to start looking into it.

Now if someone doesn't care about the specs, or even how the games look, that's cool, that's their opinion. But I get bothered by people (not saying you) saying that it doesn't affect anything, and that it doesn't matter.

It seems that with the exception of how to design a game to a system we’re in agreement, so if you want we can discuss that in PMs so we don't clog the thread. I'd like to hear what your experiences are with that sort of thing :)

[thecrazyd]

I wasn't, just the part about them meaning everything. Those who say they mean everything, and those that say they mean nothing are both wrong.
I correct my previous statement. Specs mean nothing to the consumer. To the developers, they do, of course, have some meaning. They are definately not everything, though.

[RMan]

What hardware can do however is important to developers, who will get the system specs for the Rev if they decide to start looking into it.
That's true, I guess the more effective way to say it is the "difference" between the specs is largely irrelevant (to use the nintendo guy's phrase). IOW, targeting next generation tech means you can expect a certain baseline, just like this generation, and all the systems will be able to do pretty much the same stuff.
But I get bothered by people (not saying you) saying that it doesn't affect anything, and that it doesn't matter.
Yea, both extremes are bad, I just think people are generally GREATLY overestimating how much these specs actually matter. Many of them I think are just excited to have something new, and until the systems hit the streets the specs are all they have to argue about :).
I'd like to hear what your experiences are with that sort of thing :)
Well, real quick, my experience is all PC based, but been doing it since the 3DFX days, so I've seen the spec wars played out many times.

[Achilles]

Well, real quick, my experience is all PC based, but been doing it since the 3DFX days, so I've seen the spec wars played out many times.Ah, thought your plan sounded like that of a PC developer. I've been a console/handheld developer for my career. It's probably easier to scale a PC game like you described since the specs are more floaty, and they're all generally good at doing the same sort of stuff. Consoles tend to be about doing the most with what you have, which usually includes a lot of cheating and very specific design ideas that work with system limitations and advantages.

[Player 1]

we don't want to contribute to the cloud of meaningless information that surrounds the next generation systems

That's pretty insulting to my intelligence. I'm more than capable of dissecting specs should I choose to. I know how little the mean in the real world but by refusing to deliver information and asserting their cocksure attitude I'm increasingly put off by Nintendo and their faux-confidence.

I think this guy's statements are fair. We've got all sort of specs for the PS3 and X360, but it doesn't actually translate into anything meaningful. In the end, all three systems will be nice and fast, and the part that will actually seperate them will be the games.

Correct, it's ALL about the games (not the specs and not the controller). So whilst the other two have the confidence to show their hand Nintendo still refuse to say anything at all. I couldn't care less what Nintendo say, I'd like to see what they DO - but they're absolutely determined not to show us. I can't say I'm the least bit impressed.

The article has some good information, and Jim Merrick makes some good arguments for his case, unlike a certain Sony employee

You're going to believe a guy who's job title is 'Director of Marketing'? Er... ok.:rolleyes:


Originally Posted by Achilles
The reason the SNES was such a great console is because it could do things that the Genesis couldn't dream of doing, so the games looked the best on it, and you got things like Star Fox.
That was really the Mode 7 chip though.

Actually, it was the Super FX chip (developed by Argonaut in the UK) built into the game cartridge (not the console) that allowed Starfox to look like it did. In that particular case, Sega replied with the VR chip in Virtua Racing in the Genesis.

Actually, when you look at some of the Genesis' final games they were technical powerhouses that featured polys, sprite scaling, rotation and morphing. (Check out Red Zone, Alien Soldier, Contra Hard Corps and Gunstar Heroes).

Frankly, hardware is second to talented programmers.




All of a sudden, with one piece of Nintendo spin, releasing specs is cowardly whilst prick-teasing and supplying unsubstantiated hype is the noble way to release your system?

Has the world gone mad?

[see colon]

Actually, it was the Super FX chip (developed by Argonaut in the UK) built into the game cartridge (not the console) that allowed Starfox to look like it did. In that particular case, Sega replied with the VR chip in Virtua Racing in the Genesis.

Actually, when you look at some of the Genesis' final games they were technical powerhouses that featured polys, sprite scaling, rotation and morphing. (Check out Red Zone, Alien Soldier, Contra Hard Corps and Gunstar Heroes).

Frankly, hardware is second to talented programmers.

people often forget that the GEN was a computational powerhouse compared to the SNES. not only did the GEN have a CPU (motorola 68000@7mhz) that was clocked almost twice as fast as the SNES CPU (65c816@3.58mhz) , but the 68000's internal data pipeline is actualy 32 bit and it has 32bit address space. it's considered a 16bit proccessor because it has a 16bit data mus and a memory limit of 16MB.

the 65c816 is a modified 6502, the 8 bit CPU from the NES, with 16bit adress space and data bus. while more powerfull than the 6502, in raw performance it falls far short of the 68000, even clock for clock.

the snes's advantage was it's display processor, mode 7, sound hardware, and memory. games were often CPU starved because the other hardware was so capable. that's why many snes games had slowdown when too many objects were on the screen.

about the FX chip, here's a little insight into how it works. the superFX chip would compute and rasterize all polygon objects, and pass the full rendered frame to the snes display processor. the polygon objects would be matted on top of the background and then displayed on the screen. it's a novel idea, but you end up being a bit bandwidth starved at the cartrage port, i think. if you try playing star fox or stunt race FX today, you might notice that it's laggier than it is choppy.

[mister_slim]

They didn’t. Their system cost too much to make so they didn’t make a profit, but if you look at their software and hardware sales they matched or exceeded the PS2 everywhere but Japan as of 2 years ago. Market reasons (not having hardly any Japanese support, and coming out second) are what caused them to come in second. A weaker system can be successful, of course, but to say a weaker system is better because it’s weaker is nutso.
Didn't we cover this a little while ago? Sony is above 96 million PS2s shipped. Last numbers for Xbox is 22 million as of this spring, so they may (unlikely) have hit 25 million by now. Unless you think Sony has sold 75 million PS2s in Japan (hint: they haven't) the US and Europe numbers are nowhere close.

[mister_slim]

Actually, it was the Super FX chip (developed by Argonaut in the UK) built into the game cartridge (not the console) that allowed Starfox to look like it did. In that particular case, Sega replied with the VR chip in Virtua Racing in the Genesis.
Blargh. That was what I meant.

[Achilles]

Didn't we cover this a little while ago? Sony is above 96 million PS2s shipped. Last numbers for Xbox is 22 million as of this spring, so they may (unlikely) have hit 25 million by now. Unless you think Sony has sold 75 million PS2s in Japan (hint: they haven't) the US and Europe numbers are nowhere close.I didn't say they sold the same amount of systems total. I said their software sales are even with the PS2 outside of Japan, which they are. And their hardware sales were even with the PS2 everywhere but Japan as of 2 years ago. I should have said "in the US" since that's all the numbers we usually track. But surely you remember the Xbox outselling the PS2 last year.

Back on topic: It doesn't matter whether they should or shouldn't release the Revolution's specs; if they matched Sony and MS they would. This way they can say that they are as good as the PS3 and 360 without actually having to show anything to back that up (no game screenshots till they're playable, no specs ever), and it looks like that strategy is getting them a lot of support. That wouldn't work for either other company.

I appreciate all the SNES info. You guys clearly must have worked on the thing. But I maintain that before this generation Nintendo cared about power, and being the best looking system. Many fans seem to want it to be true that Nintendo has never cared about being the best looking system so that everything they're doing now is tradition. But that would be assuming that they were the best looking system for 3 gens, and very nearly this gen by accident.

[mister_slim]

I didn't say they sold the same amount of systems total. I said their software sales are even with the PS2 outside of Japan, which they are. And their hardware sales were even with the PS2 everywhere but Japan as of 2 years ago. I should have said "in the US" since that's all the numbers we usually track. But surely you remember the Xbox outselling the PS2 last year.

All the attach rates are about the same though. PS2 has about 8, GC has about 8.5, and MS claims 7-9 for the Xbox.

[Achilles]

All the attach rates are about the same though. PS2 has about 8, GC has about 8.5, and MS claims 7-9 for the Xbox.The PS2 had 3 years before they evened up the numbers, and they've got the world's second largest market all to themselves. And does that include the PS2's backward compatibility? I guess it's possible that 785 million PS2 games have been sold. The number seems rather inflated to me though.

[RMan]

This way they can say that they are as good as the PS3 and 360 without actually having to show anything to back that up (no game screenshots till they're playable, no specs ever), and it looks like that strategy is getting them a lot of support. That wouldn't work for either other company.
Just in case this was implying some kind of double standard regarding Nintendo favoritism, Sony and MS have both made their systems almost entirely about power, and the fact that you should buy them because they’re more powerful. To do that then not release your stats would be far more suspect, Nintendo has not participated in the power war and has released information on what makes their system attractive. IOW, Sony and MS have made the specs relevant for evaluating their systems, Nintendo has not.

[see colon]

The PS2 had 3 years before they evened up the numbers, and they've got the world's second largest market all to themselves. And does that include the PS2's backward compatibility? I guess it's possible that 785 million PS2 games have been sold. The number seems rather inflated to me though.
think of it this way. how many people do you know with a ps2. how many games on average do they have. i think 8's about right.

plus, you always have those rich bastards who have to have everything inflating the numbers.

But I maintain that before this generation Nintendo cared about power, and being the best looking system.
of course they did. back then nintendo was THE name in videogames, and they used specs as a marketing tool. the problem is that didn't work with N64. they lost to the saturn in some territories with that thing. with the GC they went for efficiency, and even though they aren't in "first place" (whatever that means) they still made a nice profit, because they designed a system that didn't break the bank, and easy to use devlopment tools so they could make games cheaper. plus the move from carts to optical media helped as well.

nintendo has always cared about profit. they used to use specs as a tool to generate profit. now they have a different strategy.

But surely you remember the Xbox outselling the PS2 last year.
you mean last giftmas when there were no PS2's to sell? that's a market anomaly. it doesn't mean anything. i'm pretty sure the week apple releases a new version of OSX they sell more copies of it than microsoft does windows, but it doesn't change the market for apple.

[mister_slim]

The PS2 had 3 years before they evened up the numbers, and they've got the world's second largest market all to themselves. And does that include the PS2's backward compatibility? I guess it's possible that 785 million PS2 games have been sold. The number seems rather inflated to me though.
Sony and Nintendo numbers are both based on their financial reports. If you have a problem with them I recommend buying some stock and filing a shareholder lawsuit. MS hasn't released a breakdown, but the 7-9 number is from Robbie Bach.

According to WMS research the US & Europe install base for the PS2 is 51 million and the Xbox is 18 million. I don't think the PS2 is selling 3 times as much software as the Xbox, but it's still got an edge, probably about 1.5 to 1.75 times on average.

[Achilles]

Just in case this was implying some kind of double standard regarding Nintendo favoritism, Sony and MS have both made their systems almost entirely about power, and the fact that you should buy them because they’re more powerful. To do that then not release your stats would be far more suspect, Nintendo has not participated in the power war and has released information on what makes their system attractive. IOW, Sony and MS have made the specs relevant for evaluating their systems, Nintendo has not.I was implying favoritism, but you've got a good point there about them not claiming such a thing, so they really have no obligation to back it up.

For the specifics on the PS2 and Xbox attach rates. Sony spins stuff, like, a lot. I'm not going to say I don't believe them, but I'll go off of what I observe on the sales charts before what they publish when it comes to something as easily manipulated as attach rate. The Christmas thing wasn't an anomaly, they were tying or outselling the PS2 that whole year, and came only a small way behind them in the year before. In the US anyway.

[mister_slim]

For the specifics on the PS2 and Xbox attach rates. Sony spins stuff, like, a lot. I'm not going to say I don't believe them, but I'll go off of what I observe on the sales charts before what they publish when it comes to something as easily manipulated as attach rate. The Christmas thing wasn't an anomaly, they were tying or outselling the PS2 that whole year, and came only a small way behind them in the year before. In the US anyway.
See, that's the thing. Sony and Nintendo actually release numbers. MS just makes vague statements.

[see colon]

The Christmas thing wasn't an anomaly, they were tying or outselling the PS2 that whole year, and came only a small way behind them in the year before. In the US anyway.
do you have any proof to back that statement up? sony had tight supply in 2004 because they stopped production of the older ps2 models and started manufacturing of the 7k (slim) series. some stores were effectivly sold out for months.

by definition, 2004 was an anomaly. it was a "deviation from the normal or common order or form or rule". the year was, the holiday season was.

[Achilles]

do you have any proof to back that statement up? sony had tight supply in 2004 because they stopped production of the older ps2 models and started manufacturing of the 7k (slim) series. some stores were effectivly sold out for months.

by definition, 2004 was an anomaly. it was a "deviation from the normal or common order or form or rule". the year was, the holiday season was.If the year was an anomaly it means that 1/3rd of the time the two were in competition was an anomaly. Keep in mind at that point the Xbox had only been out 3 years. Last year in the US the PS2 shipped 5 million units. That's hardly out of manufacture, and the network adapter bundle was everywhere last Christmas. MS shipped 3.4. So MS shipped less. If it's true that they outsold the PS2 it'll have nothing at all to do with how many were on store shelves.

Are they behind overall? Yep, very much so. But they were catching up up to this point, and beginning to exceed the PS2's sales on a regular basis.

Shipped and Total Shipped http://news.com.com/2100-1043-5703324.html?tag=tb
Sales for Xbox by half http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=14535
In 2004 they shipped 3.4 in North America and sold 4.6 million.

[see colon]

a bunch of jibba jabba
i asked for proof that your statement was true. you have a news article that says sony shipped more units, and a forum post (from pcvs console no less) that says they sold 1.2M units more than they shipped. while that could happen, here's what did happen...

Microsoft came out a winner in the console battle in 2004. The software giant's Xbox console sold 4 million units in the United States, up 27 percent from 3.2 million a year earlier, according to data supplied by NPD to its clients.

Sony sold more PlayStation 2 units than Microsoft for a total of 4.6 million units. But those sales represented a 28 percent drop from 2003 because of a severe shortage of consoles during the holidays as Sony shifted manufacturing to a smaller version of the PlayStation 2. Nintendo's GameCube, meanwhile, saw a disappointing year with sales flat at 2.3 million units, along with a weak showing in software sales.
source:
http://www.all-about-storage.com/hardware_sales_fall_baf.aspx

i bolded the important parts for you.

[Achilles]

i asked for proof that your statement was true. you have a news article that says sony shipped more units, and a forum post (from pcvs console no less) that says they sold 1.2M units more than they shipped. while that could happen, here's what did happen...


source:
http://www.all-about-storage.com/hardware_sales_fall_baf.aspx

i bolded the important parts for you.Ah! So fact is it didn't outsell the PS2 for the year. The PS2 supposedly had shortages. I was going off my best recollection from last Christmas and whatever numbers I could google, which wasn’t yielding a lot. Would you argue that software sales have been pretty close for the last 2 years as well?

[see colon]

Ah! So fact is it didn't outsell the PS2 for the year. The PS2 supposedly had shortages. I was going off my best recollection from last Christmas and whatever numbers I could google, which wasn�t yielding a lot. Would you argue that software sales have been pretty close for the last 2 years as well?
there's no "supposed" to the shortages....

http://news.com.com/PlayStation+2+shortage+rattles+shoppers/2100-1043_3-5471766.html

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12/09/news_6114764.html

http://videogames.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000170023483/

http://videogames.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000170023483/


software sales? i think sony took 2004 because of GTA:SA. it was the best selling game of that year by a wide margin. halo 2 was second, but sony had 6 of the top 10 selling games of '04 while microsoft had only 3. and 2 of microsoft's games were #9 and #10.
http://www.npdfunworld.com/funServlet?nextpage=pr_body.html&content_id=2076

as for this year? i'd have to give it to sony again. but i expect nintendo to have a better software showing, with at least one GC title in the top 10 (RE4, or pokemon XD). i think microsoft got shafted on the "hot coffee" scandal. they finaly get GTA:SA and it gets pulled off the shelves in a matter of weeks. i can't realy think of a runaway title released this year on the xbox other than GTA.