More information on Revolution's Specs

[Phades]

IGN (cube.ign.com) has an article (http://revolution.ign.com/articles/673/673799p1.html) that supposedly gives some detailed specs about the Nintendo Revolution. They claim this information comes straight from Developers and official Nintendo documentation.

We cannot stress this enough: Revolution is not being positioned as a competitor to either Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Nintendo has instead chosen to design a console that will be very affordable for consumers. For that very reason, say developers in the know, the Big N has opted out of filling the system with a massive supply of expensive RAM.
EDIT: Here's another (http://revolution.ign.com/articles/673/673578p1.html)

[copasetic]

http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=13482 :
In terms of RAM, the system is well-known to boast 512MB of Flash RAM which can be used to store save games and downloaded content, but this will not be accessible to developers, we were told. What they'll have available is 96MB of main memory, built on the same 1T-SRAM architecture as the Cube, and "a few megs here and there for other stuff" - such as 3MB of on-board memory on the graphics chip, which will be used for a frame buffer. "That's plenty, since the Revolution isn't supporting HDTV," one developer added.

Looks to not be a problem and should lead to a lower pricing. This seems good.

[devicelimit]

I especially like the part where some devs say that the Revolutions should be launched with a $149 US price tag, and a $99 price tag isn't out of the question

[drakkarim]

a sub $150 console in a sea of $400 crap would sure make a ton of people happy, especially since nintendo is already known more for quality then quantity...

i hope however they didn't catch the "steal their milk money" game price fever...

the only console i've ever bought was the 2600, an a week ago i just bit and decided to try the gamecube cuz the price was right for a used one with shipping ($36). if the new one gets release at sub 100 i will probably get it as well.

[Phades]

If it were to launch at only $99 that'd be huge I think. I think that's their best chance of really making an impact.

[RMan]

Well, I still think it'll be fine and I'm buying one, but admitedly, this is the first tidbit about the technical specs which I actually think is a significant hit (they should have gone with 256, 512 is not needed). I can't imagine that it would improve the cost more than it'll hurt the system in the long run, but we'll see. It'd better be real cheap (no more than $200).

[XenonCJ]

With such cheap hardware, why is this thing called "revolution"? And don't tell me it's because of the "wild n' crazy" controller....

[TheKeck]

I'd get one for $99.

::Hasn't bought a console since Sega Genesis::

[screwtape]

I can't even wrap my head around that thought. A console launching at $99. It's an automatic purchase for me, especially if it's fully backwards-compatible with GC games.

[Kelegacy]

If it were to launch at only $99 that'd be huge I think. I think that's their best chance of really making an impact.
This could be the greatest Trojan Horse ever. Going against the grain is not always a bad thing...in fact most times it's welcome. A 100-150 dollar machine could disrupt Sony and MS I think.

More power to the big N for making something affordably unique.

[copasetic]

With such cheap hardware, why is this thing called "revolution"? And don't tell me it's because of the "wild n' crazy" controller....

Did you know? The printing press was made of wood and metal
/not that I really think the revolution will have that effect.

[RMan]

Yea, I overlooked the potential price points at the end of the article, if it launches at something below $150, then the RAM cut may be worthwhile. If it launches at $100, then I think it's all but guaranteed to be the #1 console system (then Sony and MS will start talking about sales specs in terms of gross income and not unit sales :)).

[TheKeck]

Yea, I overlooked the potential price points at the end of the article, if it launches at something below $150, then the RAM cut may be worthwhile. If it launches at $100, then I think it's all but guaranteed to be the #1 console system (then Sony and MS will start talking about sales specs in terms of gross income and not unit sales :)).

Of course, if Nintendo can sell the Revolution for a profit at $100 and Microsoft takes a loss at $400, Nintendo will want to talk about NET income, and not gross income. :)

[RMan]

Of course, if Nintendo can sell the Revolution for a profit at $100 and Microsoft takes a loss at $400, Nintendo will want to talk about NET income, and not gross income. :)
Hehe, yep. Until MS owns the market, they're not going to beat Nintendo's profit margin.

[Phades]

I think the idea of it launching at $99 is pretty exciting. I don't think there's ever been a console so cheap at launch. To most gamers, I think this would make it an automatic purchase and get Nintendo a very large installed base. That of course would lead to increased 3rd party support. It really does seem like this could completely change the games market if it all works out. I don't think Sony and Microsoft are going anywhere, but Nintendo could carve out an entirely new market.

[normyk]

If they launch at $150 or less AND have 3rd party dev support (I buy consoles for the games after all) then I'll be all over it.

[DoubleUranium]

I can't believe any of you are spinning 96mb of ram as a good thing - that SUCKS. I remember the previous Nintendo apologist's arguments about how the lack of HD support would mean vast worlds with no load times. Guess that dream is over. This is a pitiful amount of memory for a machine that is supposed to last until 2010. Your cell phone will have more memory than that in 2007.

[Nesta]

I'll ditto the sentiment that if it launches at $99 to $150 and is backwards compatible with GC games, I would purchase it in a heartbeat.

[MajSheppard]

Okay I totally think that a 400 dollar price tag is crazy. Though I think a 99-149 is equally insane. If you can pump up the quality of a system, and keep it at or under 200 to start, I think that would be great. People instantly think a system is infurior if it is way cheaper, but will take a cheaper route if it is in the right range. I think that if you have a system for a third the price people will be weary, but two thirds or half might be enough for someone to say, screw this I want to be able to afford games as well.
I am definately not paying over 200 for anything, because I am sick of pissing away money. I found that Budget gaming isn't a big deal, and can provide me with hundered of hours of gaming at a fraction of the cost.

[thecrazyd]

I can't believe any of you are spinning 96mb of ram as a good thing - that SUCKS. I remember the previous Nintendo apologist's arguments about how the lack of HD support would mean vast worlds with no load times. Guess that dream is over. This is a pitiful amount of memory for a machine that is supposed to last until 2010. Your cell phone will have more memory than that in 2007.
Well, if they are not supporting HD textures, a lot less memory is needed. And the less RAM, the cheaper. If this means I can buy a $99 console at launch, then it surely is a good thing.

[Achilles]

People who aren’t going to buy a system for more than $150 aren’t going to buy as many games. It didn’t work for the Game Cube and it won’t benefit the Revolution as much as they probably think it will. That’s my theory anyway.

The rest of these stats, well, if they’re true… Adding more slow RAM, I don’t know how useful that will be.

[RMan]

I think that if you have a system for a third the price people will be weary, but two thirds or half might be enough for someone to say, screw this I want to be able to afford games as well.
But remember, they're not trying to convince common gamers to buy only the Revolution, they're trying to be a second console to those willing to pay $400 for a system, and a first console to those that don't like gaming right now (for whatever reason). Either way, it won't be compared directly to the other two systems, it'll be considered it's own product since it has the new controller. I think it's a bold way to capture a market, certainly not the brute force methods employed by MS and Sony, but brilliant nonetheless.

[Phades]

People who aren’t going to buy a system for more than $150 aren’t going to buy as many games. It didn’t work for the Game Cube and it won’t benefit the Revolution as much as they probably think it will. That’s my theory anyway.

The rest of these stats, well, if they’re true… Adding more slow RAM, I don’t know how useful that will be.

A low price makes this much more of an impulse purchase than a system in the $300-$400 range. I do think they'll need to make the games cheaper as well though for it to really have the desired impact.

As far as people buying fewer games that pay less for their system, that's just not true. Many people (like me) wait for some systems to get much cheaper before taking the plunge. I didn't buy a Gamecube before it was dropped to $99 and came with a game. Since I've had it though, I've bought several games for it.

[PantherModern]

Amazing. If N can release that right in Sony's face for 150 bucks, they could own next Christmas. I mean, I might buy a PS3 too, but for that much I'd get one for the hell of it. I mean, I just paid that much for a second DS (bundled with Mario Kart and an additional copy of Animal Crossing) for the wife and didn't even bat an eye. And actually, if the Rev does push around 100 megs of ram, that would be more than an Xbox 1, and people are saying that its hardware still has serious legs left in it. I don't know. This could be huge.

[thecrazyd]

People who aren’t going to buy a system for more than $150 aren’t going to buy as many games. It didn’t work for the Game Cube and it won’t benefit the Revolution as much as they probably think it will. That’s my theory anyway.

The rest of these stats, well, if they’re true… Adding more slow RAM, I don’t know how useful that will be.
That is absolutely not true. I refuse to buy overpriced consoles at launch, and wait until they hit the sub-200 mark. I also buy tons of games.

Are you an alt for Pumped'Up or Zeal? 'Cause what this site needs is more people to post shit in every Nintendo topic ever made. If you hate Nintendo so much, why even read the threads?

[PantherModern]

People who aren’t going to buy a system for more than $150 aren’t going to buy as many games. It didn’t work for the Game Cube and it won’t benefit the Revolution as much as they probably think it will. That’s my theory anyway.

The rest of these stats, well, if they’re true… Adding more slow RAM, I don’t know how useful that will be.


Wha? So spending less on the hardware means you won't buy as many games? So spending 400 dollars gives you tons of extra cash and just makes you buy games? How does that work again?

[XenonCJ]

Did you know? The printing press was made of wood and metal
/not that I really think the revolution will have that effect.Yes, but it was engineered like nothing else before...

[RMan]

People who aren’t going to buy a system for more than $150 aren’t going to buy as many games. It didn’t work for the Game Cube and it won’t benefit the Revolution as much as they probably think it will.
It didn't work for the Gamecube because it was supposed to compete directly with two big platforms, it had nothing going for it beyond the price. Now that most games for the 360 and PS3 are going to cost more, the average gamer will be buying less games anyway, and renting more games. In the end, the people that get on board with the Revolution will in fact buy more games, but it'll likely be the cheaper online games (again, cell-phone market proves you can scrape a great deal of money off people if in tiny little chunks). Increased development costs and all the bad stuff resulting from it has also created more developers willing to do smaller games, and the online distribution model makes that possible (which will result in greater support for them). This is really a sweet time for them to release a system like this.

[thecrazyd]

Yes, but it was engineered like nothing else before...
So you have in depth information on the Rev's engineering? Please, feel free to share. We already know it controls like nothing else before.

[copasetic]

Yes, but it was engineered like nothing else before...

Ha, well thanks for bringing up the obvious point. The revolution will be like no other home console before.

[jacktion]

The bottom line is that consoles don't make money. Software does. So if Nintendo can sneak a ton of these into homes for 99 bucks they will make as much as, if not more money than Microsoft and Sony with their overpriced fare. Games will all be 50 to 60 bucks. A game that looks three times better than Resident Evil 4 will still be an amazing looking game. I think Nintendo's strategy might be a winning one.

ps ( have you seen the new Mass Effect screenshots? they look about like three times better than a gamecube)

[anclunn]

Did you know? The printing press was made of wood and metal
/not that I really think the revolution will have that effect.

But it will. It will eb like wha tDell has done with making computers a commodity, plus adding a user friendly controller like the mouse. This is the everyday person's machine, and that's why it will sell. It's totally not made for the hardcore. It's not made for us. It's made for our parents and our kids. This is the gaming revolution. Damn, I gotta hand it to Nintendo. I never saw this comming.

[thecrazyd]

The bottom line is that consoles don't make money. Software does. So if Nintendo can sneak a ton of these into homes for 99 bucks they will make as much as, if not more money than Microsoft and Sony with their overpriced fare. Games will all be 50 to 60 bucks. A game that looks three times better than Resident Evil 4 will still be an amazing looking game. I think Nintendo's strategy might be a winning one.

ps ( have you seen the new Mass Effect screenshots? they look about like three times better than a gamecube)
Except Nintendo's consoles have always made money.

[Tohoya]

a 99$ price tag would so make up for the subpar graphics.

[Mason]

I never saw this comming.

First, we make fun of people for spelling poorly around here. Just a heads up.

Second, Iwata-san spelled all of this out in his great keynote. Sony and MS can lose billions on gaming and still be fine, as it isn't their core business. Nintendo has nothing else but pachinko. Thus, Nintendo refuses to enter the unprofitable struggle of competing on quality for dominance of well-established game genres. It's far more effective to innovate, create new genres that bring new people to gaming, and then move on when the third party developers start moving toward this new territory.

Whether or not it'll work depends on a million implementation details. But it is a sound strategy, and far more future-oriented than the ever-tightening profit margins the rest of the game industry is seeing.

[Goronmon]

With such cheap hardware, why is this thing called "revolution"? And don't tell me it's because of the "wild n' crazy" controller....
If they can pull off a great controller it'll be a much bigger revolution than adding numbers to system specs...

[Cubfan]

My prediction- the Revolution is released at $150. It does well, but exists in its own niche (as intended) as a compliment to the PS3 or 360. Even at that low price point, I highly, highly doubt it will surpass either the 360 or PS3 (unless Sony fucks that up somehow). The GameCube was the cheapest console, and it dropped to $99 relatively quickly, and it was still 3rd in market share. I'm likely to pick one up (I love the DS), but the revolution isn't intended to be as 'mainstream' as the 360 or PS3, and that will be reflected in sales, regardless of the price point (well if they get the price down to 50 bucks, then maybe)

[TheKeck]

My prediction- the Revolution will start getting widespread attention in a year and everyone who knows nothing about gaming will talk about how neat the new controller is and I'll feel cheated somehow.

[Bushido]

My prediction- the Revolution is released at $150. It does well, but exists in its own niche (as intended) as a compliment to the PS3 or 360. Even at that low price point, I highly, highly doubt it will surpass either the 360 or PS3 (unless Sony fucks that up somehow). The GameCube was the cheapest console, and it dropped to $99 relatively quickly, and it was still 3rd in market share. I'm likely to pick one up (I love the DS), but the revolution isn't intended to be as 'mainstream' as the 360 or PS3, and that will be reflected in sales, regardless of the price point (well if they get the price down to 50 bucks, then maybe)


3rd in market share first in profits and second guessing nintendo.

[KSmitty]

A $150 price point would be sick, that's less than some frickin' iPods and those things are everywhere.


-K

[Achilles]

That is absolutely not true. I refuse to buy overpriced consoles at launch, and wait until they hit the sub-200 mark. I also buy tons of games.

Are you an alt for Pumped'Up or Zeal? 'Cause what this site needs is more people to post shit in every Nintendo topic ever made. If you hate Nintendo so much, why even read the threads?If Pumped’Up and Zeal own the category of not accepting everything Nintendo does as automatically better than the competition than yeah I’m in that category. Sorry for posting some apprehensions about their perfect plan in Revolution threads. I’ll keep my analysis to myself unless it’s glowingly positive.

Edit: that was sarcasm. I'm not trying to tear Nintendo down, I'm offering honest analysis of how I think what they're doing will go down, and what kind of effect it'll have. It may be the case that it's mostly negative, but if 40 people are already saying the positive stuff I don't feel the need to repeat it. I could toss in a "they're going for a different market and whether they hit that market correctly will be what really counts!" but that's been said, and everyone knows it.A low price makes this much more of an impulse purchase than a system in the $300-$400 range. I do think they'll need to make the games cheaper as well though for it to really have the desired impact. I agree. Hardcore gamers that don't want to spend any money on the system itself might buy a lot of games, but most people who are waiting for a system to drop below $200 only buy either used games or games that have been discounted. At least that's what I gathered from the non-boost the Game Cube's software sales got after the marketshare increase it gained from its last price drop.

[Kelegacy]

That is absolutely not true. I refuse to buy overpriced consoles at launch, and wait until they hit the sub-200 mark. I also buy tons of games.

Are you an alt for Pumped'Up or Zeal? 'Cause what this site needs is more people to post shit in every Nintendo topic ever made. If you hate Nintendo so much, why even read the threads?

Nintendo earning my money before the 360 or PS3? This COULD happen. I'd plop down 100-150 for a new system at launch. I wait for others to drop in price after a couple years maybe. Last system I bought at launch was a Nintendo 64. The next may very well be a Revolution if the price is right.

That's HUGE. A person who doesn't buy launch consoles is suddenly won over by a highly affordable system? And I'm not the only one, so that must mean Nintendo's plan could very well work.

[Cubfan]

3rd in market share first in profits and second guessing nintendo.

The GameCube is more profitable (hardware and software) than the PS2?

[Sensei-X]

The Revolution to me is not even on my being considered list right now, I like Nintendo, have owned every console and portable they have made (except the VB and GBA Mini), but this time around I'm very skeptical. Of course the games are the most important part of any console and after they show them my opinion could do a 180. Oddly enough if this thing was portable I'm pretty sure I'd be tackling people out of my way to be the first in line to get one, go fig.

[sTubbs]

This thing is sounding better all the time. The only thing that worries me is the fact that it will only have 512 megs of storage and use regular DVDs. Not that this is a problem, it sounds just fine, but I did not own a GC this generation and wanted to play the games on the Revolution. But since the Rev can not use GC discs if it uses DVDs, will 512 megs enough to store a Revolution game if they can be downloaded?

Anyways, that is a very small gripe on my part. I am in the same position as Kelegacy a few posts up. If Nintendo releases this at 150 or even 200, I will be there day one, and that will be a first on my part.

[aversion2k]

If its that cheap, and its got good games I'll probebly pick one up.

[DoubleUranium]

I think this all boils down to faith in Nintendo. Either you believe, or you don't. I don't see how anyone can say they're going to buy one for sure or be first in line/etc when not one single game has been announced, or any screenshots of ANY game. Being enthusiastic or optimistic about the controller is one thing, but it's just blind faith to say such things at this point.

[trip1eX]

$150 approaches impulse buy territory for even the most ardent of naysayers.

[TheBrainKills]

This thing is sounding better all the time. The only thing that worries me is the fact that it will only have 512 megs of storage and use regular DVDs. Not that this is a problem, it sounds just fine, but I did not own a GC this generation and wanted to play the games on the Revolution. But since the Rev can not use GC discs if it uses DVDs, will 512 megs enough to store a Revolution game if they can be downloaded?


I think that the Revolution will be able to read Gamecube disks and that they will use their own format for the DVD size disks. Don't forget that you will need an add in part to be able to use it as a DVD player. On the downloading I think that SNES games are around 1-2 megs and N64's are 2-6 megs; correct me if I am wrong.

[TheKeck]

$150 approaches impulse buy territory for even the most ardent of naysayers.

Ok, I think this is stretching it a little bit. $150 seems pretty amazing for a console launch, but my "impulse buys" generally fall in the under-20-dollar category. And I'm not even a naysayer, let alone an "ardent" one!

[copasetic]

Not that this is a problem, it sounds just fine, but I did not own a GC this generation and wanted to play the games on the Revolution. But since the Rev can not use GC discs if it uses DVDs, will 512 megs enough to store a Revolution game if they can be downloaded?

http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=13482:
As for the storage media the Revolution will use, "they're pretty much standard DVDs," we were told, with capacity similar to current PS2 and Xbox discs. "The only clever thing about the drive, really, is that you can put the little Cube discs into it despite being a slot-loading drive - I think that's the first time you've been able to do that with a slot loader."

[trip1eX]

Ok, I think this is stretching it a little bit. $150 seems pretty amazing for a console launch, but my "impulse buys" generally fall in the under-20-dollar category. And I'm not even a naysayer, let alone an "ardent" one!

IT's all relative man. And given that this is a console we're talking about I say $150 starts to approach impulse buy territory. I think $99.99 is easily there. But $150 is close.

Plus if it's true that it has flash memory onboard for game saves and downloads that means no need to buy a $30 memory card. Not to mention it's wi-fi out of the box. That makes it any even cheaper.

I mean do you think new cars would have to be $20 or less to approach impulse buy territory? Me thinks not.

[DriveALW]

I really don't expect $99 to happen. A GB Micro costs that, and a DS costs more. I think 200 is most likely and 150 is possible. 200 is the 'default' nintendo launch price, and we know nintendo doesn't sell things for a loss, so I think the "trojan horse" approach is unlikely. I mean, of course the devs would like to see it launch at 99; they just want to sell more games. That said, I'm more excited about this console than the others and would gladly shell out 200 clams for it, which is what I expect it to cost. I just think we should keep some perspective so everyone doesn't lose it when it turns out to be more than 99 bucks.

[trip1eX]

Yeah now I'll be dismayed if it's $200 after reading the $150 thang! :P

WE have to remember that the developers probably don't know much about console pricing. I doubt that is included anywhere in the kits they got. It's mere speculation.

Altho 2-3 the power increase in 5 years time definitely makes a case for an even lower pricepoint than Nintendo traditionally has come out with. The controller and any attachments could add more cost than usual tho.

[thecrazyd]

If Pumped’Up and Zeal own the category of not accepting everything Nintendo does as automatically better than the competition than yeah I’m in that category. Sorry for posting some apprehensions about their perfect plan in Revolution threads. I’ll keep my analysis to myself unless it’s glowingly positive.

Edit: that was sarcasm. I'm not trying to tear Nintendo down, I'm offering honest analysis of how I think what they're doing will go down, and what kind of effect it'll have. It may be the case that it's mostly negative, but if 40 people are already saying the positive stuff I don't feel the need to repeat it. I could toss in a "they're going for a different market and whether they hit that market correctly will be what really counts!" but that's been said, and everyone knows it.I agree. Hardcore gamers that don't want to spend any money on the system itself might buy a lot of games, but most people who are waiting for a system to drop below $200 only buy either used games or games that have been discounted. At least that's what I gathered from the non-boost the Game Cube's software sales got after the marketshare increase it gained from its last price drop.
No, appearing in EVERY Nintendo thread and always saying neegative lines that are clearly bullshit puts you in the realms of Pumped'Up and Zeal. You are clearly trying to tear Nintendo down. You honestly think launching at $250 bucks less then the competition is a bad thing? The hell?

As many people have already said, I buy Hardware cheap, but that has nothing to do with software. Just because someone is not willing to spend 400 bucks on a game does not mean that they don't want to buy regularly priced games.

[DjinniMan]

I am a longtime Nintendo fan, never having owned a Genesis, Xbox, or Playstation in any generation.

I never bought a console at launch, ever. But if the Revolution is $150 or less, I will be there on day one. It plays my GC games, gives me the old classics for cheap, and has wi-fi. The cherry on top is the exciting controller. Come on, that's a ton of features that are UNAVAILABLE on Xbox360 or PS3 for less than half the cost (if the price rumors are true). Why wouldn't you be all over that?

The only question will be, are there any 3rd party titles Rev can't do that I cannot live without? I doubt it.

[Achilles]

No, appearing in EVERY Nintendo thread and always saying neegative lines that are clearly bullshit puts you in the realms of Pumped'Up and Zeal. You are clearly trying to tear Nintendo down. You honestly think launching at $250 bucks less then the competition is a bad thing? The hell?a game does not mean that they don't want to buy regularly priced games.I'm saying that there's a good chance it will not help. It’s not a bad thing, hey give me a $250 rebate on my 360, I’ll be down. I’m just saying it probably won’t help.

They sold out of every 360 they could make on day one and that thing was $400. Now they're going on ebay for $1000. In 5 months they’ll probably still be sold out or at least in short supply. Price doesn't seem to matter much.

I’m not in every Nintendo thread, I eventually post in most of the revolution speculation threads because they're interesting things to speculate on. It's a new system and there's not much else that can foster as much discussion.

I was more positive on the 360 threads because I think they have a better plan and personally I’m more excited about what they’re doing. I post my doubts in Rev threads because I think their plan is shaky. I’m really disappointed in the sort-of-news that the only RAM they’re adding is sram, and the system is less than twice as powerful as the Cube. I don’t care that it’s $150, I’d happily pay more for a more powerful system. I also don't care that their system is small, I'd take powerful over small any day because one thing affects how the games look and play, and the other affects which shelf I put it on.

[mister_slim]

I really doubt a $99 launch would happen, but $150 wouldn't surprise me. If Nintendo has nice demo stations set up in Wal-Mart and Best Buy this could do very well. It really depends on the quality of games Nintendo can launch with (shouldn't be a problem, really) and the ability of Nintendo to raise awareness. Personally, I'd like to see Nintendo launch mid '06, so supply will be back up by Christmas, with an adequate buzz. If people get their relatives to try it the post-holiday sales could be pretty good.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Plus if it's true that it has flash memory onboard for game saves and downloads that means no need to buy a $30 memory card. Not to mention it's wi-fi out of the box. That makes it any even cheaper.


It is true - the system has 512mb of built in flash memory for storing downloaded games and saved games. Should take quite some time to fill that up given the size of the files, and if you do fill it up the system also takes SD cards, which are fairly cheap, depending on the size of course. No having to buy a memory card here - something Nintendo seems in favor of, since the GCN has been the only Nintendo system to ever require them.


The 99 or 150 dollar price speculation is just amazing. That would really give MS and Sony something to think about - they couldn't possibly price their systems that low. Even the Xbox hasn't hit $100 yet, and it's successor is out.

If the system really is that cheap at launch, I'll definitely be there day one. Hell I might buy two or three - all different colors so I can play the one that matches my mood. ;)

If the games are $30 or so new, that'd be even better.

I pretty much got priced right out of owning a 360 - I just don't have that kind of budget for gaming.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Forgot to add that they could use a low price like this to sell a ton of systems. The real key is marketing though - they need to build up hype for it.

As much as I hate the Hype Machine, it is a necessary evil.

Hopefully we don't hear any blatant lies though...*looks at Sony*

[thecrazyd]

I also don't care that their system is small, I'd take powerful over small any day because one thing affects how the games look and play, and the other affects which shelf I put it on.
Much better.

And really, I bet the games will look just as good, just not high def.

[RMan]

I'm saying that there's a good chance it will not help.
Now that's silly, you're a fool to say it doesn't help. To say it won't make it #1, that's one thing, but of course it will help. It helped the Gamecube, it just wasn’t enough to put it into 2nd place, but every system EVER got a boost in sales with a reduction in price, yet you’re going to say it will not help?
They sold out of every 360 they could make on day one and that thing was $400. Now they're going on ebay for $1000. In 5 months they’ll probably still be sold out or at least in short supply. Price doesn't seem to matter much.
No, they sold as many as they did make, not how many they could make. IMO they produced that limited inventory specifically to create the kind of response they’re getting from you. Through Christmas, it’ll still sell less per month than the PS2 by a VERY wide margin and by the end of the year it likely won’t see 2% of PS2’s userbase, so I’m not sure how much of a success that really is, or how on earth that supports the “price doesn’t matter” theory of yours.

[thecrazyd]

Whoa whoa whoa now. No need to get into conspiracy theorys. Suffice to say, yes, Microsoft sold out, but they did not have many units available in the first place.

[trip1eX]

WEll I don't buy the argument that folks who buy a lower priced console won't buy $50 games. I've mainly been a pcgamer (read: expensive hardware) and well I rarely buy $50 games. :P

I also think Nintendo themselves have shown this not to be true. Their consoles have generally been priced at $200 (read: inexpensive hardware) and their games (Nintendo developed ones) generally don't get reduced in price as quickly as other consoles' games do. And Nintendo is one of the biggest software developers in the world.

[IndependentGMR]

If Pumped’Up and Zeal own the category of not accepting everything Nintendo does as automatically better than the competition than yeah I’m in that category. Sorry for posting some apprehensions about their perfect plan in Revolution threads. I’ll keep my analysis to myself unless it’s glowingly positive.

Edit: that was sarcasm. I'm not trying to tear Nintendo down, I'm offering honest analysis of how I think what they're doing will go down, and what kind of effect it'll have. It may be the case that it's mostly negative, but if 40 people are already saying the positive stuff I don't feel the need to repeat it. I could toss in a "they're going for a different market and whether they hit that market correctly will be what really counts!" but that's been said, and everyone knows it.I agree. Hardcore gamers that don't want to spend any money on the system itself might buy a lot of games, but most people who are waiting for a system to drop below $200 only buy either used games or games that have been discounted. At least that's what I gathered from the non-boost the Game Cube's software sales got after the marketshare increase it gained from its last price drop.

Two of my sisters didn't get a GameCube, until it was priced at $99. They buy new games for it all the time. Even moreso than used, or discounted games.

[RMan]

Whoa whoa whoa now. No need to get into conspiracy theorys. Suffice to say, yes, Microsoft sold out, but they did not have many units available in the first place.
True, I stated it a bit off, the perception of success was more of a bonus for the shortage, the reasons were mostly practical I think. Regardless, I'm quite sure it was intentional (although 'conspiracy' sounds strong, technically they didn't tell us their plans so I guess it would be a conspiracy, but by that standard so is most of what a company does :)). Still, not a new console for 4 years, limited supply, lots of promotion, I'd be a massive failure if it didn't sell out on day one.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I also think Nintendo themselves have shown this not to be true. Their consoles have generally been priced at $200 and their games (Nintendo developed) generally don't get reduced in price as quickly as other consoles' games do. And Nintendo is one of the biggest software developers in the world.


So true. :(

*impatiently waits for Pikmin 2 and Metroid Prime 2 to enter Player's Choice line*

[Achilles]

It helped the Gamecube, it just wasn’t enough to put it into 2nd place, but every system EVER got a boost in sales with a reduction in price, yet you’re going to say it will not help?This is an interesting statement. It didn't help enough to get it second place out of 3, when 2nd place was a system that didn't even sell better than the N64. That to me, and apparently I'm crazy, isn't a lot of help.

I don’t think the drop will help sell consoles on launch day because they’ll be sold out anyway, and I don’t think it’ll help drive game sales any more than the system selling for $250 or $300. Do you really think the system needs to be priced at $150 in order to sell every unit they can make?Through Christmas, it’ll still sell less per month than the PS2 by a VERY wide margin and by the end of the year it likely won’t see 2% of PS2’s userbase, so I’m not sure how much of a success that really is, or how on earth that supports the “price doesn’t matter” theory of yours.So in your opinion anything less than 2 million in a month and a half from launch is not a success. We'll see what happens next year when the Revolution comes out. If you sell every unit you make than whatever you priced it at was clearly not a bad thing to price it at.

[thecrazyd]

Well, they sold every unit made, but did not make very many. If they only made 2, and priced them at $1,500, I am sure both would sell out. Does that mean $1,500 is a good price for a console? Not at all.

[trip1eX]

So true. :(

*impatiently waits for Pikmin 2 and Metroid Prime 2 to enter Player's Choice line*

Two words. Amazon.com and ebgames respectively. Thank me later.

[Achilles]

A reduced price does help increase a system’s sales, but it isn’t a reason that most people will chose one system over another. More power would help more than a reduced price the way I see it.

Every system can see a boost from a price drop, but it won’t make or break the system, and I don’t think it’s a help a launch.

thecrazyd, how many Revolution systems do you think they’ll ship for the US launch.

[thecrazyd]

A reduced price does help increase a system’s sales, but it isn’t a reason that most people will chose one system over another. More power would help more than a reduced price the way I see it.

Every system can see a boost from a price drop, but it won’t make or break the system, and I don’t think it’s a help a launch.

thecrazyd, how many Revolution systems do you think they’ll ship for the US launch.
You are thinking this from a traditional standpoint. Any additional power would go to high def graphics. Since they are not using high definition, they will have a system that will probably be on par with the 360/ps3, just in standard def. A system that has a non-noticible difference in quality for most users, and costs less then half the price will definately help their sales, especially as a second console.

I am confidant that the Rev will outsell the 360 launch, for no other reason then the parts are more common place, and they will have supply to greater meet the demand.

[RMan]

It didn't help enough to get it second place out of 3, when 2nd place was a system that didn't even sell better than the N64.
Again, big difference between it not helping, and it not making it the king of kings.
I don’t think the drop will help sell consoles on launch day because they’ll be sold out anyway...
Of course not, but we were not talking about one day of sales. It is interesting that with regards to Nintendo, you expect it to sell out at launch, but if MS does it with limited stock it's somehow impressive.
…and I don’t think it’ll help drive game sales any more than the system selling for $250 or $300.
Umm, it’ll increase the userbase, which will drive sales.
Do you really think the system needs to be priced at $150 in order to sell every unit they can make?
Depends on how many they make. The main point is that they couldn’t compete with Sony and MS anyway, both of those companies are working towards long term plans wherein gaming is just a step, not a destination and thus are willing to lose money on the gaming end if necessary to reach their goal. Even if they made a system that was just as powerful as Sony and MS’s, both of them could crush Nintendo in terms of marketing and pumping money into development, ultimately no matter what the reality is the Revolution would have been perceived as the weaker system. In short, they can’t win a power war, even if they produce a more powerful system. Even if they could magically win a power war, they wouldn’t have the backend benefits that MS or Sony would get and thus not worth what it’d take to make it happen, and they know that down the road MS will crush them anyway.
So in your opinion anything less than 2 million in a month and a half from launch is not a success.
Not enough to call it a success, no, not enough to call it anything.

[megaman]

Maybe not a crazy grafic card but more ram can help to have 'innovation' in games..think of what you cud do with unending maps...

Anyways, what's with the metroid screen on this page:
http://revolution.ign.com/articles/673/673578p1.html
it reads "Metroid Prime 3 for Revolution as shown at E3 2005" ??

[Vandenh]

ALl this new controller and low price might be good, but Nintendo runs the risk that the Rev will be a gimmick and considered a toy. They might nevr be able to play again in the "real" console race. And no, this is not an attack on Nintendo, I like what they are trying but I am just stating that the risks might be a lot higher than some people think.

[Morratut]

MS and PS3 will be watching the Revolution and the new controller like a hawk on release. If this controller is popular then Nintendo will have a advantage for 6 months.

After that Sony and Ms will bring out there own controller. People will then be able to enjoy the new controller plus hi def visuals. Check mate.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Two words. Amazon.com and ebgames respectively. Thank me later.

Oh, thanks a lot! I hadn't thought to look online for some reason. Amazon.com has both titles for 20 bucks. I'll definitely pick them up in the next couple of weeks.

I had found Metroid Prime 2 at Gamestop for $20, but of course they didn't have any sealed copies so I had to pass. I did pick up Resident Evil 4 (sealed of course) for $30 though.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

MS and PS3 will be watching the Revolution and the new controller like a hawk on release. If this controller is popular then Nintendo will have a advantage for 6 months.

After that Sony and Ms will bring out there own controller. People will then be able to enjoy the new controller plus hi def visuals. Check mate.


Except for a few obvious things that you just skipped right over -

1)Patents - The Revolution technology is overall unique enough that Nintendo can (and has) probably patented most of it, making it a little more difficult for MS and Sony to compete.

2)Periphals never do sell that well. It's not like MS and Sony will completely ditch the controller and leave all of their early adopters in the dark.

It isn't like adding an analog stick to the controller ala Dual Shock 2 - switching to a Revolution style controller is a huge change.

They might end up releasing one, and not have it be supported much at all. PS2 HD anyone?

[trip1eX]

MS and PS3 will be watching the Revolution and the new controller like a hawk on release. If this controller is popular then Nintendo will have a advantage for 6 months.

After that Sony and Ms will bring out there own controller. People will then be able to enjoy the new controller plus hi def visuals. Check mate.

This is a good point.

and surely Nintendo fears this as well.

[mister_slim]

This is an interesting statement. It didn't help enough to get it second place out of 3, when 2nd place was a system that didn't even sell better than the N64. That to me, and apparently I'm crazy, isn't a lot of help.
Well, apparently losing four billion dollars, almost $200 per console, wasn't enough to push the Xbox past the N64.

[RMan]

1)Patents - The Revolution technology is overall unique enough that Nintendo can (and has) probably patented most of it, making it a little more difficult for MS and Sony to compete.
I'd say this is doubtful, even if Nintendo did get a patent on this controller, the technology is not really new, and there's little chance it'd hold up if MS threw their lawyers at it. If it's successful, MS will be able to make something similar next generation, I'm sure of that.

[KSmitty]

MS and PS3 will be watching the Revolution and the new controller like a hawk on release. If this controller is popular then Nintendo will have a advantage for 6 months.

After that Sony and Ms will bring out there own controller. People will then be able to enjoy the new controller plus hi def visuals. Check mate.
1)This relies on HD visuals to be a high selling point, and I think the standard 'hi def is the next step' is waaay overblown. Yes it is the next step yes it is slowly encroaching on the market, but it nowhere the juggernaut tech heads make it out to be.
2) MS and Sony adapting the motion sensor controller actually helps Nintendo in a way, as Nintendo's controller would no longer be a novelty to develop for and you would see more 3rd party development.

If the Revolution is priced cheap and comes out around Christmas time, it is going to kill.

-K

[Achilles]

Well, apparently losing four billion dollars, almost $200 per console, wasn't enough to push the Xbox past the N64.Yeah but nobody's saying that will help. That was a mistake on Microsoft's part caused by their vast inexperience in the console market.

[RMan]

That was a mistake on Microsoft's part caused by their vast inexperience in the console market.
I'm not making a particular point other than to keep something in perspective, I don't think anyone's experience or lack thereof is really that vast, or a big deal. Sony took the lead decisively with no experience, and MS was only one generation behind them (5 or 6 years less experience).

[dr_wily]

So true. :(

*impatiently waits for Pikmin 2 and Metroid Prime 2 to enter Player's Choice line*

circuit city has MP2 for 15 this week. And www.ebgames.com has it for 20$.

I posted in the EA forums about it.

[Achilles]

I'm not making a particular point other than to keep something in perspective, I don't think anyone's experience or lack thereof is really that vast, or a big deal. Sony took the lead decisively with no experience, and MS was only one generation behind them (5 or 6 years less experience).Sony didn't have any direct experience with the console market but they did have a LOT of experience with the consumer electronics market, which is what counts when you're trying to make hardware profitable, and project how to cost reduce it.

For MS trying to turn a profit with the box the cost of the Xbox was a big deal, and it did have an impact on how popular it was because in the back of all the marketer's heads was the idea that the more they made, and the more they sold, the more money they'd lose. That's my theory anyway.

[Zeal]

To be honest, most casual gamers will view it as a cheap substitute, or second rate gaming. Based on that, they'll save up and buy either a 360 or PS3.

Probably a PS3.

[RMan]

Sony didn't have any direct experience with the console market but they did have a LOT of experience with the consumer electronics market, which is what counts when you're trying to make hardware profitable, and project how to cost reduce it.
True that Sony's experience was likely more applicable, but MS had more experience and influence in the chip/software development end. I'd say the real deciding factor there was Sony was walking into a market where the king was doing something stupid, and MS did not. IMO, that likely outweighed every other factor combined. I was surprised by the limited software support the Xbox got, I did expect more from developers.
For MS trying to turn a profit with the box the cost of the Xbox was a big deal, and it did have an impact on how popular it was because in the back of all the marketer's heads was the idea that the more they made, and the more they sold, the more money they'd lose.
I’m sure to the people in charge, they tried to make sure the hardware wasn’t too expensive (that’s just good business) but I really think at the high levels MS doesn’t care much if the hardware never makes money, the backend payoff they’re shooting for is far more important and lucrative, and they’ve got money to burn. Keep this in mind, it was just a few years ago that they handed out their first dividend in their history, and you generally do that when you have a cash surplus and no clear place to invest it. That means it’s the right time to take a hit financially to ensure a long term payoff, if you think of it as MS, not just MS’s console gaming division, trying hard to make a profit from the Xbox at the risk of diminishing the userbase would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
To be honest, most casual gamers will view it as a cheap substitute, or second rate gaming. Based on that, they'll save up and buy either a 360 or PS3.
Nahh, I don’t think that at all, without getting into sales ratios, the PSP and DS is still the best comparison we have, and hardcore gamers consider the DS a cheap and lesser system, but the casual player doesn’t really see it that way, they know it’s cheaper and less powerful in general, but the games are there and they respond to the quality of the games and not the power of the hardware (of course, that’s a system in a market Nintendo dominates, consoles are clearly not).

[Uncle Ben]

To be honest, most casual gamers will view it as a cheap substitute, or second rate gaming. Based on that, they'll save up and buy either a 360 or PS3.

Probably a PS3.


That sounds exactly like something a hardcore gamer would say.

The casual gamer would say something like "Why the fuck would I pay over TWICE as much for this when I don't even have an HDTV?"

ALl this new controller and low price might be good, but Nintendo runs the risk that the Rev will be a gimmick and considered a toy. They might nevr be able to play again in the "real" console race. And no, this is not an attack on Nintendo, I like what they are trying but I am just stating that the risks might be a lot higher than some people think.

News flash - the Nintendo Revolution WILL BE A TOY. That's why it's the only thing left in the "real" console race - the 360 and the PS3 are multimedia centers that play games. The only thing I'll be missing from the 360 will be Xbox Live!, which is simply the best online support there is. I don't know what Nintendo will offer, but they'd be wise to at least copy that. If they want to innovate all over something else, hey that's great, just as long as it works as well or better.