Viewing Thread:
"Spaceworld - told you so."

When Nintendo revealed little information about Revolution I knew there would be another event, almost certainly Nintendo based, that would reveal the price, the games and the controller. Obviously Spaceworld is the event to do that.

There hasn't been a spaceworld since the Mario Sunshine/Wind Waker announcement. So the reply from a slew of forum users who will remain nameless declared "There has not been a Spaceworld in years, admit it Nintendo have screwed up". "Don't be so optimistic Dringo" and so forth.

Now both Miyamoto and Kaplin has confirmed that Spaceworld is certainly on the cards and Iwata has declared all the revolution info will be released by the end of the year.

And after hardcore reaction it seems almost essential.

I have to admit, that the new Nintendo console looks the best out of all of the rivals, and that makes a change!

Aye - I only read about it from the GDC thing, but it's such an obvious thing to do. Just seems so strange that no-one has done yet for consoles.

Yes that's what I was thinking. Although millions of people owned PSOne games, think how many were ported from the PS2 - hardly any (if that's the example you want to use).

I was trying to think of this "easier development method" and you've reminded me, FFF, it's an out-of-order core! One of the programmers from some big company was speaking about it at that secret developers meeting at GDC. He was practically begging Nintendo to implement it, and with all this talk of being "developer friendly" or whatever, I hope they are actually doing that, rather than just making the console less powerful so that you can make games cheaper (then why even bring out a new console? why not just use the GC? Talk about forced obsolescence)

Or Ninty could use an out-of-order core in the Revolution = developer love-fest.

But I doubt they will.

I'm also of the mind that if the Rev really is as far behind in terms of power than the other 2 machines, 3rd parties just won't bother scaling their games down because it'll be a hell of a lot of extra work for an inferior product - and most probably to a much smaller audience - plus incorperating whatever this controlle is into the design ... too much work, if I was in the same position.

Memorandum! wrote:
> Ocarina wrote:
> 1) Presumably the Revolution's controllers will be so unique that
> they may not be able to provide backward compatibility for the older
> Nintendo games
>
> Reggie said something like "there is a need to combine the
> controllers of the NES, SNES, N64 and GC into one entity" or
> something.
>
> I hope to god he was joking though.
> The NES controller was just a rectangle with buttons.

I think he meant getting the trifork back onto teh GC controller.

Well like I've said in the other thread - if the power difference is too great, some games just wouldn't run on the Revolution, and 3rd parties probably wouldn't want to release cut down versions of their games (I mean massively cut down).

My idea wasn't that the Revolution would just be rubbish so it was easy to code for, but that the power would be easier to utilise, meaning that programmers wouldn't have to work so hard to get comparable results. This would shorten development times and costs and mean that Revolution became a teting ground for new games before the publishers dished out big cash for the PS3 and 360 versions.


It can go two ways:
1) The Revolution is underpowered, meaning that we get cut down versions of SOME PS3 and 360 games ported by first time developers
2) The Revolution has comparable power to the other two consoles, but is just easier to develop for - so the programmers have to do less work for the same or similar effect. This would decrease development time and costs meaning that publishers would be willing to put the games on Revolution as well - and with shorter development times Nintendo would get the games first - or there'd be more content if they spent the same time on it. The PS3 and 360 improvements would be graphics or framerate based maybe, but nothing gameplay changing. The Revolution could even become the testing ground for new ideas and IPs, which, if successful, could be ported to PS3 and 360.

So do we want a few cut down EA 360 and PS3 games, or every non-exclusive 3rd party game on Revolution way before the other two consoles?

gerrid wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> He says that Sony and Microsoft have a problem that third
> parties will take longer to make games as they cost so much more and
> will take much longer. Whilst Nintendo are counteracting this and
> third parties will release games for the Revolution just so they can
> keep their name in the press. It is cheaper and takes less time to
> make a revolution game due to the lower specs.
>
> Hello and welcome to gerrid's idea, circa the past 20 or so days.
> Look in the "my xbox preorder" thread. I say the exact same
> thing. The only difference is that I said they don't have to sacrifice
> lots of power for the cheap development.
>
> Think about it, Ninty are the only manufacturers who are developers
> as well - so they know what makes the easiest console to develop for.
> they should by rights be able to make the Revolution very easy
> to code for - much more so than the multicored beasts of PS3 and 360.


I've not been keeping on top of the revolution stuff, aside from reading that it'll look like a dead otter, and come in a limited edition version that will bleed all over the top of your tv when in standby mode.

Does this mean that Ninty will be getting stripped down lame versions of the other consoles' games?
Like the old PSX versions of PS2 releases?

But since they're all backwards compatable, and people don't *have* to use the extra specs, I'd have thought the 3rd parties wouldn't have to depend on the revolution if they're intent on releasing half-oss games.


*Ponders*

Dringo wrote:
> He says that Sony and Microsoft have a problem that third
> parties will take longer to make games as they cost so much more and
> will take much longer. Whilst Nintendo are counteracting this and
> third parties will release games for the Revolution just so they can
> keep their name in the press. It is cheaper and takes less time to
> make a revolution game due to the lower specs.

Hello and welcome to gerrid's idea, circa the past 20 or so days. Look in the "my xbox preorder" thread. I say the exact same thing. The only difference is that I said they don't have to sacrifice lots of power for the cheap development.

Think about it, Ninty are the only manufacturers who are developers as well - so they know what makes the easiest console to develop for. they should by rights be able to make the Revolution very easy to code for - much more so than the multicored beasts of PS3 and 360.

Dringo wrote:
> And Gerrid, if all you are saying is "some Nintendo fans are
> unhappy because of a trade show", I advise you take a stance and
> stop reporting random information we already know.

Hello and welcome to understanding simple arguments 101.
Gerrid said many many many many times that his points was

"The Nintendo conference annoyed many of Nintendo's fans, and so it cannot really be considered successful"

Now maybe you disagree, but in my books, any announcement that annoys so many fans isn't a successful announcement.

Now I've said that around 5 times and you still haven't taken it in, yet you try your cheap shots in order to look big and clever.

Ashman wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> This is one guy Afro Joe, one guy.
>
> Pretty much the same story as when you refer to "omg me, mi
> bruvva and my mate!" and make a big deal of it then, isn't it?

No, when I bring that up it's just to counteract someone else who has given examples of a few people.

It really is a pointless thing to base everything on one person.

Dringo, you meant to say DS + GBA together sold better than the PSP. Not the GBA on its own, which would be stupidly obvious.