[Nintendo Revolution 64] Een next-gen videogamesconsole

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 10:36 schreef Xrenity het volgende:

[..]

Als het een redesign is niet, maar met een geheel nieuw systeem (nieuwe specs, nieuwe controller) wel.

Het is immers de volgende generatie in de console-reeks van dat bedrijf.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 10:37 schreef Dr.Daggla het volgende:

[..]

Mja, maar next-gen in de zin van prestaties is ie iig niet dan. Net zoals met de Revo dus .
Laten we het daar dan maar op houden.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 10:43 schreef disjfa het volgende:
Alweer dit. De revo is niet next gen. Mijn c64 was beter

Lekker boeiend, we kopen hem toch gewoon allemaal en dan zeur je niet meer

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 10:38 schreef Dr.Daggla het volgende:

[..]

Dus is het next gen voor Nintendo.
Maar next gen in de zin van "volgende generatie spelcomputers" is het imo niet. Daar is ie technisch gewoon te beperkt voor ten opzichte van de andere 2.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 10:37 schreef Dr.Daggla het volgende:

[..]

Mja, maar next-gen in de zin van prestaties is ie iig niet dan. Net zoals met de Revo dus .
Laten we het daar dan maar op houden.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 10:38 schreef Dr.Daggla het volgende:

[..]

Dus is het next gen voor Nintendo.
Maar next gen in de zin van "volgende generatie spelcomputers" is het imo niet. Daar is ie technisch gewoon te beperkt voor ten opzichte van de andere 2.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 11:13 schreef Retuobak het volgende:
2x gamecube vind ik voldoende om het te zien als een nieuwe generatie op grafisch vlak hoor.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 11:14 schreef disjfa het volgende:
En mensen blijven er maar op doorgaan.

quote:

Het enige interesante geheim wat er nog komt is dat je er dreamcast games op kan spelen. En dat is tenminste gewoon prev gen

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 11:21 schreef BroesWillems het volgende:

[..]

Ga daar maar niet van uit....

....aan de andere kant, als het wel zo is, kan die de CPU en GPU wel verlichten van taken en daardoor weer mooiere graphics tonen...

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 10:46 schreef MMaRsu het volgende:

[..]

Dat is jouw mening, maar het is weldegelijk een next gen console

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 11:33 schreef Dr.Daggla het volgende:

[..]

Ten opzichte van de ps3 en X360 niet. .

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:01 schreef alex4allofyou het volgende:

[..]

Heb je mn post wel gelezen?!?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:08 schreef Tain het volgende:
Als je alleen naar getalletjes gaat kijken dan zou de Xbox ook een andere generatie moeten zijn dan PS2 en de cube, immers draait de Xbox op bijna het dubbele aantal MHz dan de cube en bijna 3x het aantal MHz van de PS2

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 11:33 schreef Dr.Daggla het volgende:

[..]

Ten opzichte van de ps3 en X360 niet. .

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:14 schreef Tomasso het volgende:
[..]
Je hebt toch nog geen enkele screenshot gezien van een game? Wat zeik je dan

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:14 schreef Tomasso het volgende:

[..]

Jankerd...

Je hebt toch nog geen enkele screenshot gezien van een game? Wat zeik je dan

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:16 schreef Dr.Daggla het volgende:

[..]

Ben je bekend met de term lo-gi-ca? .
Maar goed, blijkbaar vindt men het hier nogal eng als je niet met de BELIEVE!!111111OMG hype meegaat. .

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:16 schreef Dr.Daggla het volgende:
[..]
Maar goed, blijkbaar vindt men het hier nogal eng als je niet met de BELIEVE!!111111OMG hype meegaat. .

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:19 schreef Tomasso het volgende:

[..]

Ach, de cube had ook mindere specs dan de Xbox.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:30 schreef Retuobak het volgende:

[..]

Ja, maar dat scheelt nauwelijks wat, of je bent zo'n idioot die alleen naar clockspeeds kijkt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:34 schreef Tomasso het volgende:

[..]

Tja, blijkbaar kijkt onze vrind daggla daarnaar.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:42 schreef Retuobak het volgende:
En dat is ook gewoon de kloppende lijst

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:42 schreef Tain het volgende:
Ik mis de C64

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:49 schreef Notorious_Roy het volgende:
AAAARGH

De tering. Van mij mag het topic wel weer dicht tot er weer nieuws is.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:49 schreef Notorious_Roy het volgende:
De tering. Van mij mag het topic wel weer dicht tot er weer nieuws is.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 12:49 schreef Notorious_Roy het volgende:
AAAARGH

De tering. Van mij mag het topic wel weer dicht tot er weer nieuws is.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 13:03 schreef Retuobak het volgende:
Ik zou niet weten welke discussie nog niet gevoerd is

quote:

What If… The Revolution is Overpriced?
With partial hardware specs revealed a reasonable price point is coming into view.
by David Clayman
April 4, 2006 - Recently IGN Revolution reported on the clock rates for the CPU and GPU of Nintendo's next console. Nintendo has been tight-lipped on these hardware specs due to its plan of attack against Sony and Microsoft. They aren't trying to compete in terms of horsepower but instead are looking to "revolutionize" gaming with a unique controller and massively appealing games.


Another quality that has boosted the popularity of the impending Revolution is the price point of the system. While analysts struggle to explain how Sony will release the PS3 for under $500 the Revolution may come in at under $200. But just how sweet is this theoretical sweet spot considering the quality of the hardware? Here are some of the reported specs:

IBM's "Broadway" CPU is clocked at 729MHz, according to updated Nintendo documentation. By comparison, GameCube's Gekko CPU ran at 485MHz. The original Xbox's CPU, admittedly a different architecture altogether, was clocked at 733MHz. Meanwhile, Xbox 360 runs three symmetrical cores at 3.2GHz.


Revolution's ATI-provided "Hollywood" GPU clocks in at 243MHz. By comparison, GameCube's GPU ran at 162MHz, while the GPU on the original Xbox was clocked at 233MHz.

Revolution will operate using 24MBs of "main" 1T-SRAM. It will additionally boast 64MBs of "external" 1T-SRAM. That brings the total number of system RAM up to 88MBs, not including the 3MB texture buffer on the GPU. By comparison, GameCube featured 40MBs of RAM not counting the GPU's on-board 3MBs. The original Xbox included 64MBs total RAM. Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 operate on 512MBs of RAM.

I'm now seeing a fine line between staying out of the costly next-gen hardware wars and offering outdated technology. While MS and Sony are making the claim of a tremendous jumps in visuals Nintendo's strategy is to focus directly on gameplay. But from what we know so far the Revolution isn't even a moderate leap forward. Judging by these hardware specifications we should be looking at a console with a price point even lower than the estimates we've already seen. Don't forget that MS and Sony are taking a hit on every console they sell in order to provide gamers with better hardware that stands up over the next 4-5 years. If The Revolution is only as powerful as other offerings from the previous generation the price should reflect that.

How do you feel about these hardware revelations? If the console is actually overpriced at say $200 due to its outdated specs? How much would you pay for a PC boasting those numbers? Would the inclusion of the new controller negate any of the things I've mentioned?


FEEDBACK: Join the conversation.


Reader Response
elservo: Hmm... with that "upgrade" with hardware, why don't they just figure out a way to use the Rev controllers with the GameCube? It seems that they could use the new controller without having to build a whole new system around it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Craigory666: Even if the Revolution was 'overpriced' at $200, is that really a big deal? It seems somewhere down the line consumers have gotten used to consoles selling at prices that allow the manufacturer to break even, or even lose money. But why should Nintendo go that route, if they have a nice product why can't they mark up the price to make money? That is their ultimate goal, to make money isn't it? Everything we buy is ridiculously marked up, so I don't see any reason why this isn't acceptable for a console.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MarkRyan-IGN: EVEN IF IT IS ELEVENTY-BILLION DOLLARS IT WILL NOT BE OVERPRICED BECAUSE IT WILL LET YOU PLAY NINTENDO GAMES, THAT IS ALL, KTHXBYE

Okay, I'll give a real response.

Honestly, the specs support what Nintendo suggested earlier: Revolution will be roughly twice the power of GameCube. Direct number comparisons never tell the whole story, especially in the case of Revolution-to-Xbox comparisons. The Broadway processor in the Revolution is an evolution of the GameCube's Gekko processor, so that comparison is a bit easier to swallow. And as Nintendo hinted, Broadway is roughly twice as fast as the Gekko.

Let's wait until E3 to make any presumptions about what the specs mean. I'm still guessing that Revolution launch titles are going to be prettier than Xbox 360 launch games. With Nintendo's rockstar developers at the helm and without the strain of outputting in HD, I'm confident that "twice as powerful as GameCube" will bring us some pretty games that also bring innovation.


I paid $150 for a Nintendo DS, which you could certainly call outdated hardware, especially in the face of competition from Sony's PSP. That certainly wasn't a waste of money considering the amount of gaming it's given me (DS has been my most played system since I bought it). If Revolution can similarly provide new and quality game experiences, $200 will be nothing. Still, I suspect it will be cheaper...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erik-IGN: I certainly hope it is less than $150 at launch. My outdated laptop that is roughly 3 years old has more power than those reported specs and I've wanted to trash it for something better for quite some time. A lot of people say there isn't anything wrong about Nintendo wanting to make a profit on the products they make. I agree, there isn't. But it is definitely right in my eyes as a consumer for MS and Sony to sell their products to me at a loss. How much better of a deal can the free market deliver besides sending me the product for free? I don't want to pay extra money for "new" technology that could have been delivered to me 3 or 4 years ago at the same price.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

flashgordon: I don't see $200.00 being overpriced when the 360 and PS3 are going for $400 or higher. I save $200 and while I don't get amazing HD graphics, I do get a new way of playing games and maybe even new genres.

I've been to a few forums and I constantly see posts about people who still own their old systems and still play them even though the graphics don't measure up to the current systems. Why is that? Maybe when you get right down to it, game play above all else is what sustains a title beyond the life cycle of a generation.

If the Revolution has games that I'll play years from now then I don't think $200.00 is overpriced. I think it'll be quite a bargain. Especially if I can download some SNES games that I missed out on the first time around.

bgassassin : $200 is definitely not overpriced. What is being neglected when saying $200 is overpriced is the thing Nintendo put their focus on, the controller. Who knows how much time and research went into this controller to make it work effectively? I would not be surprised if this is where they spent the majority of the budget for the console. The Revolution is still more powerful than its predecessor and has unique features like the controller, virtual console and wi-fi that the GC did not have. In my opinion, $200 is a deal.


I have seen some people try to compare the Revolution to the 360 and PS3, and you cannot do that. The main reason why the specs for those two consoles are so inflated is due to them pushing HD. I bet that if the PS3 and 360 were not making HD a major focus (even though they more than likely would have still been more powerful than the Revolution) they would not have the same specs that they have now. MS and Sony had to use those higher specs to get the games to run efficiently while obtaining the look they wanted. Nintendo did not want that.

I am sure Nintendo knew that going for HD would put the Revolution into a price range that they did not want to sell it at (aside from development costs for devs). If they are targeting non-gamers (e.g. parents and grandparents), do you think they would want to buy a $300-$400 for themselves? Remember that Nintendo is going for a "balanced" console. A console that is powerful enough to make great looking games, fun to play, and at the same time a console that is more affordable.

I could go on, but I will just say that if you are disappointed with the specs, then you over hyped yourself. If you are still in denial, get over it. And if you are mad and/or complaining, you have no right to do so. You are not a developer. They get paid to make the games work on a console, not you. If anyone should be angered or complain, it should be the devs. And devs who are working on the Revolution have responded in a manner opposite of that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apokalyptik: Usually, I like to come to these threads with a thoughtout, verbose response... but really... with this one. With the track record up until now, the mere thought of Nintendo overcharging on their console when their entire mantra has been undercut for how long now?... totally absurd.

"Lower prices" is quite literally the third thing said in EVERY Nintendo interview concerning the Revolution, following "New Controller" and "We don't need HD."

Though I think the point has been made, I would also like to say that I think MarkRyan, Blister, and Kraven are absolutely right. You cannot compare console tech with computer tech. The modern computer is generally built to multitask. To play games, in addition to run applications, run a myriad of simultaneous processes, et cetera. Whereas most consoles (at baseline) are built around gaming.

This is why a console of this and upcoming generation, focused on gaming primarily, can put out performance and visuals comparable to a PC, which is multi-faceted.

At least, that's how it used to be. Sony is intent on turning it's PlayStation 3 into Metal Gear, and Xbox is doing it's best to have it's in-house team outdo Swiss in terms of multi-directional aspects. Nintendo through and through has stood firm on it's stance of "games only". Such is why I think the concept of a Revolution priced beyond $200 is silly. (I would pay $200 for a Revolution, considering it's better tech in comparison to a DS and a GCN, both of which I paid $150 for.)

Let me also say this-- Innovation is not simply the birth of new ideas. Innovation also encompasses the use of old ideas... in new innovative ways. Hence, the controller.

Sure, gyroscopic control has been around. But how often have they been used in games? Since when have they been so readily accepted by the community? Same with wireless. Wireless has been around the block before the DS came to town. But the way Nintendo has integrated Wireless Technology and Functionality into its handheld system... with such success... I would say that is definitely innovation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


pakrbakr: I'll be honest...Mario and Zelda titles are the only thing that keeps me buying Nintendo systems at this point. Since they have yet to disappoint me with those titles, I don't have a problem with paying a reasonable sum upfront. If they breach the $200 dollar plateau though I will probably just wait until they hit a price drop. There just aren't enough other new titles in their library that make me feel like I have to get the system on day one at its top price. The huge library of classic Nintendo titles that will be available for download is a bonus...but it just isn't enough to make me feel that I should buy the system if it will cost me $200. This could of course change though since we still don't know anything about the titles that the Revolution will launch with. If they can muster up 4 or 5 must have titles on or around launch, it might be enough to get me to bite the bullet and pony up on day one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oge23: I think Nintendo knows that the system has to be within a certain price point. They know that the people will not buy a system if they look at the other systems in the new generation and not considerably discounted. If Nintendo wants to build their user base they need to charge a price that is more affordable to the mass market. Nintendo will make sure the price point appeals to the average consumer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Azumah: For $200 I see the Rev as being a fair deal, assuming the software will be up to snuff. Though, from a performance perspective, its value per dollar doesn't compare favorably with 360 and PS3. With those two machines, you're probably looking at 5-10 times as many polygons being bounced around with a bevy of new and improved graphical effects. Texture detail and output resolution have increased by a similar order.

So, for 2-2.5 times the Revolution's likely price, you're getting 5 times the machine in the 360 and PS3. Remember: Nintendo doesn't like to lose money on hardware - you get what you pay for. With the 360 and PS3 on the other hand, the buyer gets an extra $100+ dollars of value beyond their purchase price, or possibly even $200+ in the PS3's case, depending on its release price.

But I don't think that necessarily makes the beefier consoles a better value. Personally, I'm most looking forward to the Rev. This is the third generation of 3D consoles and we're still using controllers that date back to the first 3D generation. With all the technological progress of the last 10 years, it just doesn't seem right that the interface hasn't really changed. The result of this and rising costs is more and more of the same. Nintendo could be more aggressive on the hardware/performance front, but what's more important is that they are trying to spark developers' creativity.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 13:24 schreef Retuobak het volgende:
Ach 200 euro is prima, zo'n ding gaat 6 jaar mee (als het goed is), en over dat uitgesmeerd valt 200 euro nog best mee. Sowieso, ik heb liever dat ze de marge op games verlagen dan dat ze de console met verlies verkopen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 april 2006 13:26 schreef Cheiron het volgende:
Ik blijf het erg makkelijk vinden om het aantal hertzen 1-1 te vergelijken. Zeker een redacteur van een gamessite zou echt beter moeten weten.