Tendo City

They didn't say that they would show more video, just that more would be shown.

:( I wish they would show a video, though.

More what? What exactly are you referring to? Link?

I don't know what they're referring to... I was using this quote:

Quote:*reminds everyone that there's still an entire week to go of E3 and Nintendo said at the end of the video that more will be shown tomorrow*

We'll find out.

But that's a quote from lazy... and I haven't seen anything that supports that from anywhere else.

So Nintendo didn't actually say at the end of the video that more would be shown *tomorrow? More Revolution details, at least.

Damn.

[edit]: Not tomorrow, but by the end of E3.

No, not that I'm aware of. They said that more Rev stuff would be shown "later on". That could mean Spaceworld. I hope I'm wrong.

Here you go:

Quote:9:20 am: "When you turn on Revolution and see the graphics, you will say 'wow!'" "Our competitors have detailed the power of their core processor and display. But the advantages of our technology will also have no bearing on gameplay. I know, this is one of those mysterious comments," he says. Says wifi will be built into every Nintendo product so controller, TV, console, and internet can interact. Nintendo intends to develop a device that's functional and appealing to every member in the household -- whether gamers or not. All controllers will be wireless. Also, the controllers will be very unique "in ways we will share with you... later." Already working on several wifi games for launch. Smash Bros. will be launch game -- wifi.

Huh. Hey GR was right, Iwata did say that the controller would be very unique.

Hope restored! Don't let us down, Nintendo!

SOMETHING'D

Whether or not Nintendo "revolutionizes" the gaming industry with their next console or not isn't important. As long as they try to make their next console more successful than thier last, they don't need a revolution. Just one hell of an uphill battle. The look of the new machine is much, much more mature than the GameCube, and may serve to at least begin to wash away Nintendo's childish image.

The new Smash Bros. is a launch title. I think I'm going to faint. So we know anything about it yet? I haven't been able to keep up on all the E3 threads.

We know nothing. Because they said nothing. Just that it exists. :S

And Nintendo definitely needs something unique in terms of gameplay to be able to compete with Sony.

Does it really matter ? Nintendo is going to have the only affordable console at launch. Jeez, those other machines are just uber PCs right now. Why get a freaking console, when you can spend that same money to get a PC that can do other productivity work AND play games.

Voodoo!

Heh, Nintendo's going to get back to the top of the console heap simply because theirs is cheaper :D

What are you talking about? Neither Sony nor MS has said how much their systems will cost.

And Nintendo's was cheaper LAST time! Did you FORGET?

And N_A, they haven't stated their prices yet. Remember, these are specially designed as a single unit, not an upgradable unit with individually purchased parts. PCs of equivilant power have ALWAYS been a few thousand dollars more than consoles. They aren't releasing them for a grand. It'll be $300~$400, max.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo intentionally underpriced their system lower than PS3 and XB360. Remember the huge sales boose they got when they lowered the price of the GameCube? Money talks, and when you're looking at three reayy nice next-gen systems, the one that's $50-$100 cheaper looks a lot more appealing.

Well if they do that they will have to make sure people realize it's just as powerful. Something like a commercial with black screen and white text saying "same power, lower price, the smarter buy, Revolution"

I loved the DS commercial.

I saw it once.

If Nintendo could actually get a few Revolution commercials out when it launches, and actually show them as frequently as Sony and MS do, it would probably help.

They had DS commercials on all the time for a while actually. That's how everyone knew what to ask their moms for.

:D

Maybe it's because I don't watch a lot of TV, but I only saw it once, and knowing Nintendo's poor marketing past, I put two and two together.

Quote:Though I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo intentionally underpriced their system lower than PS3 and XB360. Remember the huge sales boose they got when they lowered the price of the GameCube? Money talks, and when you're looking at three reayy nice next-gen systems, the one that's $50-$100 cheaper looks a lot more appealing.

Yes, and as DJ said, didn't this work just BRILLIANTLY with the GC?

Oh, it well might be cheaper. But that won't be a significant factor in how successful it is verus Sony.

I disagree. Price is a big factor. Unless you're one of the hardcore like us who already know what systems we're getting months in advance, undecided and casual gamers can be swayed by a powerful system with a smaller price tag. Lowering the price of the GC caused it's sales to skyrocket.

Single non upgradable unit ? Thats how laptops are built, and they're generally more expensive than PC desktop, including the LCD screen. Some of the tech on those consoles don't yet exist on PC market. Assuming that they're as cheap as regular desktops, these rigs would sell for AT LEAST $2500. By the time they hit the market later in the year, they'll probably drop to at least $1000-1500. The companies are going to take a mega loss per unit if they want to make it affordable. I can't imagine them dropping it more than to $500. Thats still pretty expensive.

If what is said is true, being only 2-3x the GC, The Revolution would cost about $800-1000 weighted against today's technology. At launch, it would be no more than $200-300.

Launch is only a few months away.

Time for a lesson. Laptops have a lot built into them to streamline it, but it has to be a PC at the end of the day, so a lot of extra stuff is put in there that a console wouldn't need. These things won't cost several thousand dollars. They will take a loss I'll bet, they took a loss with the XBox for example, but not as significant as you think.

There's no way the Xbox will cost $500. Anything higher than $300 would be suicide and MS knows that.

As for Nintendo, a lower price can help them, but they still have to make people want the Revolution. It's not enough to simply have a lower price, they have to give people the game AND the graphics [sadly that IS what people want]. Marketting is going to play a huge factor here and it seems that Nintendo has already taken the first few steps with the Revolution's design and the addition of online.

Of course laptops still have PC components, but think about it... from a computing perspective, what does a PC do at the core ? It does calculations. Every program is a freaking set of instructions from word processing to games, and games and scientific software are the pinnacle of memory and processing power intensive calculations. High end scientific software is left to the mainframes so thats out of our discussion. Games run on PC, and games run on consoles. A PC that does calculations just like a console does and so a console needs to have the majority of the components that a PC has to do those same calculations that a PC does. You have the processor with its motherboard, HD, disc drive, RAM, video card, I/O, etc. A 512 MB video card that runs console games needs to be able to process data in the same style a PC 512 MB video card. This is espcially true for the Xbox which relies on Direct X architecture like the PC. Today's top notch 256 MB video cards are ranging about $200-300 alone. 512 MB video card alone on these consoles are going to cost about $300 at launch on the PC market. Miniaturizing something like that to fit in a console will make it cost even more, just as they cost more in a laptop.

Sure, they can take a partial lost, but theres only so low you can go. What's kind of sad though is that when the Revolution launches, its processors is going to be about as strong as probably the top of the line concurrent PDA prototypes, although its carrying more stuff of course to do gaming such as a video card, drive, etc.

Btw DJ, you seem to be interested in teaching people lessons in areas where you show an obvious lack of formal education. Wtf is going on ? Do you work in computer engineering ? I don't do computer engineering, but I've had introduction, and my friends in the field tend to agree with me on this.

Here's a few more details to make it clear.

On a PC, there are a lot of redundant components due to certain limitations. For example, the current AGI slots, even with their transfer rates as high as they are now, are still limited compaired to the speed of onboard RAM. This is a weakness that is being eliminated by simply trying to boost the transfer rate of that port. Another thing they are doing is including "VRAM". Video RAM which is actually directly ON the video card, allowing it the fast access it needs. On the other hand, a system like the Gamecube or the XBox doesn't need to adhere to PC standards of expandability and hardware compatibility. Even a laptop, usually a full construct, has these limitations built into it because it needs to be designed exactly like a PC in the sense of similar machine code and such, for compatibility.

To make it clear what they do there to save a lot of money, they don't need specific VRAM. They can have a DIRECT supply of RAM that can be used by any part of the systen just as quickly. The video processing is right there, much more a "part" of the process. Consoles do this sort of thing all the time actually. Since they don't need any sort of compatibility with current operating systems or available hardware, they can take many different routes in the design that prevents redundancy and eliminates data bottlenecks.

A PC is limited because at the end of the day, the programs already available for it still need to work on new hardware without being completely recoded. Now, PCs are taking a drastic step. There is a new port being designed that pretty much ALL components will be using, from RAM to hard drives to a sound card. This will not only have massive transfer rates, it'll be MUCH more "in" the system, that is it won't be something accessed outside the system but rather more of an internal... thnicka... Not sure how to put that, but thnicka wasn't right...

Anyway, one last thing. Yes there's a list of things all computers need, but here's what a gaming machine doesn't need. It doens't need special coding in the processor for handling spreadsheets. It doesn't need any sort of special coding to speed up downloads (well, actually in this new gen, that may actually become the case). It generally doesn't need any sort of processing tricks that are only good for businesses. They can also out and out reduce costs by not putting as much power in there. I have a gig of memory in my computer, one gig. That's all well and good for Windows. For a game though, well as far as an operating systems, the ones they have now are very limited and just plain aren't using much, if any, RAM when the game is running. Also, no antivirus, no other stuff. Since the hardware is so specifically designed for the game, very little RAM need be taken up. So, that's how a console in general can operate on equal footing with a certain PC setup only with a LOT less RAM. So, they just out and out don't put in stuff they don't actually need.

Compatability or no compatability, CPUs are designed to handle math. Inherently, all the spreadsheet functions, databases, equations, etc are software written functions that call up the mathematical functions in the CPU, so it boils down to math logic circuits within a CPU.

ALL programs are going to use calculations, and games much more than anything else for the average user. CPUs are designed with software in mind, but CPUs are not designed for specific software. I can agree that you can probably streamline that design process a bit more for consoles because you basically have no software in mind, BUT the amount of circuitry and complexity of design to acheive X speed is going to be comparable in a PC processing X mips vs a console CPU doing the same X number of mips. Hence, if you're going to acheive that, you're making a CPU that is equally as expensive to manufacture as its PC equivalent. The same goes for the graphics processor, especially since these cards are packing some serious shit.

Regarding the RAM, Windows doesn't swallow up most of your RAM, but besides the point really. Even with a GB of RAM, Windows can max out a basal rate of about 500 MB usage for good performance. Even then RAM isn't the most expensive part of the package either in comparison to other components like the video system and the CPU on these systems. RAM isn't a big deal on the console since you're not running a basic set of instructions for the OS as you said above.