PS3 sucks, XBox 360 sucks, Revolution sucks

[Weltall]

Have a standardized console sounds like a cool idea, but it would breed mediocrity since there would be no competition in the market. And the system would likely be sold at a profit, whereas most today are not because of the need to compete against two other viable consoles.

I want to go back and touch on this point, because I missed it earlier.

I very much disagree with this statement. I think having a single standard (even if a loose one) for consoles would benefit everyone.

First, consoles don't directly compete with each other. Usually, what sets them apart is details. X machine has more RAM than Y machine which has a stronger GPU than Z, blah blah blah. Yes, the Rev is going to introduce the first real innovation to console gaming in perhaps 25 years or so, but there will be problems to go with that. Popular games on PS3 and 360 will find the Revolution an unfriendly machine to be ported to. Also, while it's a terrific idea and I'm completely for it as a gamer, from a financial standpoint I'm not convinced it was the best move to make.

Innovation is the primary driving force behind the market, regardless of what the market is. People buy hybrid cars because they run more efficiently. People buy HDTV sets because with the correct signal they look significantly better than SDTV. Ditto DVD over VHS, and CD over Cassette. Check cards have almost totally replaced paper checks. Splenda is like Sweet and Low and Equal but it tastes far better and can be used to cook. Innovations that have been successful.

However, innovation is not a free ticket to success. Rememer SACD players from a few years ago? DiVX players? Laser Discs? Betamax? Electric cars? Not successes. In some cases, such as electric cars, the technology hadn't quite caught up to the concept. Now it has, and we have hybrids. In some cases, the technology was superior (beta, SACD), but there simply wasn't a market for it because the improvement wasn't vital enough. The market didn't NEED this kind of improvement, though an improvement it was.

This is a trap Nintendo falls into with some regularity. They are rampant innovators, and have struck gold as often as anyone. However, Nintendo also has a rap sheet of innovation gone wrong (E-Reader, Virtual Boy, Game Boy Micro, 64DD). In some cases, the technology was just irritating (Hello E-Reader). In others, just not ready (64DD, VB), and in others still, just plain unnecessary (Micro).

The Rev, I fear, will fall into the second category. It's a wonderful idea that far too many people are simply going to ignore because it's featured on the console that will undoubtedly be third place in market share. Save for a remarkably aggressive marketing and ad campaign from Nintendo (which I won't hold my breath for), the Rev controller and concept will languish on a machine that will have only minor 3rd party support and a lack of compatible software, rendering a great idea stillborn.

You see, as much as I love the idea, it's not a worldbreaker. It isn't going to revolutionize gaming. By virtue of its assured lack of exposure, it will be impossible for the machine to have an earthshattering impact. Nintendo fans will eat it up, and many casual observers will look at it fondly, but the gaming public in general are going to treat it only slightly better than the Cube got, and two years from now we'll be scratching our heads and wondering by.

If the concept behind the Revolution were applied to the industry as a whole, on a single type of machine, it would be possible for the Rev to be a real Revolution, thanks to the added exposure. Nintendo is a fountain of innovation, but sadly, their hardware is all too often where innovation goes to die because of their complete aloofness to the market they once dominated.