The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Pretty much confirmed news:
The Revolution will also be a wireless router for the home, connect broadband to it and it will allow nearby consoles to link and go online. Such as a DS for example.
Rumours:
Revolution will be VERY cheap, will be only a little more powerful than a Gamecube and vastly inferior to X-box 360 and PS3. There will be multiple controllers, touch screen, gyro and camera are all being touted.
If the latter is true then I told you Nintendo are gunning for a different market.
The Revolution will also be a wireless router for the home, connect broadband to it and it will allow nearby consoles to link and go online. Such as a DS for example.
Rumours:
Revolution will be VERY cheap, will be only a little more powerful than a Gamecube and vastly inferior to X-box 360 and PS3. There will be multiple controllers, touch screen, gyro and camera are all being touted.
If the latter is true then I told you Nintendo are gunning for a different market.
Page:
:-)
*does the thank God for Strafio dance*
I've read everything and agree totally with Strafio.
No need to comment really.
It would be nice to have updated graphics, I mean might as well as the console is changing.
I've read everything and agree totally with Strafio.
No need to comment really.
It would be nice to have updated graphics, I mean might as well as the console is changing.
MS and Sony MUST have something planned...
Surely they know better than that...
Anysway, we're agree that if Nintendo have any future, it's make something that's actually GOOD out of these ideas, rather than some gimmicky demo's. And the fact that it's not much more powerful than the Gamecube is barely important because the Gamecube is yet to suffer from a lack of power?
What do you think?
Surely they know better than that...
Anysway, we're agree that if Nintendo have any future, it's make something that's actually GOOD out of these ideas, rather than some gimmicky demo's. And the fact that it's not much more powerful than the Gamecube is barely important because the Gamecube is yet to suffer from a lack of power?
What do you think?
See? That 'GDC rant' thread I made was darn good. :)
Strafio wrote:
> I'm sure that Nintendo didn't it powerless for the sake of
> powerless.
> If there's a lack of power, it's for a gain in something else.
> They're not THAT stupid. :-)
Curse your logic.
I suppose so ... but hmmmm.
> Maybe, but so much can be achieved with middleware and the like.
> I personally think that devellopers just don't have ideas, which if
> they DID have they could just as easily impliment on the GC.
> Also, coding for a console they're used to means they don't have to
> worry so much about technicality and focus on game design.
There's something fantastic in that Game Developers Rant thing that Hedfix posted up a while ago - a very simple idea Ninty could put in place to make developers love them, and games very much faster to build (so more time for more creative stuff.
I'll copy the relevant section out here (still massive, sorrah) - but I'd recomment reading the whole thing (it's in Prime, and it's a huge bast, but still worth scanning through):
**
Chris Hecker: I'm a programmer, so, I have two technical slides, really one technical slide. And that's about it. All right, ready? So there are two kinds of code in a game basically. There's gameplay code and engine code. Engine code, like graphics and physics, takes really giant data structures of homogenous data. I mean, it's all the same, like a lot of vertices are all a big matrix, or whatever, but usually floating point data structures these days. And you have a single small, relatively small hour that grinds away on that. This code is like, wow, it has a lot of math in it, it has to be optimized for super scalar, blah, blah, blah. It's just not actually that hard to write, right? It's pretty well defined what this code does.
The second kind of code we have is AI and gameplay code. Lots of little exceptions. Even if you're doing a simulation-y kind of game, there's tons of tunable parameters, [it's got a lot of interactions], it's a mess. I mean, this code--you look at the gameplay code in the game, and it's crap. Compared to like, my elegant physics simulator or whatever. But this is a code that actually makes the game feel different. This is the kind of code we want to be easy to write and so we can do more experimental stuff. Here is the terrifying realization about the next generation of consoles. I'm about to break about a zillion NDAs, but I didn't sign any NDAs so that's totally cool!
I'm actually a pretty good programmer and mathematician but my real talent is getting people to tell me stuff that they're not supposed to tell me. There we go. Gameplay code will get slower and harder to write on the next generation of consoles. Why is this? Here's our technical slide. Modern CPUs, like the Intel Pentium 4, blah, blah, blah, Pentium [indiscernible] or laptop, whatever is in your desktop, and all the modern power PCs, use what's called 'out of order' execution. Basically, out of order execution is there to make really crappy code run fast.
So, they basically--when out of order execution came out on the P6, the Pentium 6 [indiscernible] the Pentium 5, the original Pentium and the one after that. The Pentium Pro I think they called it, it basically annoyed a whole bunch of low level ASCII coders, because now all of a sudden, like, the crappiest-ass C code, that like, Joe junior programmer could write, is running as fast as their Assembly, and there's nothing they can do about it. Because the CPU behind their back, is like, reordering that guy's crappy ass C code, to run really well and utilize all the parts of the processor. While this annoyed a whole bunch of people in Scandinavia, it actually…
[laughter]
And this is a great change in the bad old days of 'in order execution,' where you had to be an Assembly language wizard to actually get your CPU to do anything. You were always stalling in the cache, you needed to like--it was crazy. It was a lot of fun to write that code. It wasn't exactly the most productive way of doing experimental programming.
The Xenon and the cell are both in order chips. What does this mean? The reason they did this, is it's cheaper for them to do this. They can drop a lot of core--you know--one out of order core is about the size of three to four in order cores. So, they can make a lot of in order cores and drop them on a chip, and keep the power down, and sell it for cheap--what does this do to our code?
Well, it makes--it's totally fine for grinding like, symmetric algorithms out of floating point numbers, but for lots of 'if' statements in directions, it totally sucks. How do we quantify 'totally sucks?' "Rumors" which happen to be from people who are actually working on these chips, is that straight line gameplay code runs at 1/3 to 1/10 the speed at the same clock rate on an in order core as an out of order core.
This means that your new fancy 2 plus gigahertz CPU, and its Xenon, is going to run code as slow or slower than the 733 megahertz CPU in the Xbox 1. The PS3 will be even worse.
This sucks!
[laughter]
There's absolutely nothing you can do about this. Well, you can actually hope that Nintendo uses an out of order core, because they're claiming that they're going to try and make it easy to develop for--except for Nintendo basically totally flailed this generation. So maybe they'll do something next generation. Who knows? You can think about having batchable design simulation-y systems, but like, I'm a huge proponent of simulation in gameplay, but even simulation in gameplay takes kind of messy systems under the hood. And this makes your gameplay harder to write.
You want to just write the gameplay. You don't want to have to like, spend 6 years of a super hardcore engine programmer's time to figure out how to make your gameplay run super scalars. You could do PC games. They are still out of order cores, but a lot of people don't think that's an option nowadays
**
> Okies. But we're both talking hypotheticals here.
> But you agree that IF they did then it would work a treat?
Oh indeed.
> Not really. They just don't have refined taste in games.
> Price would play a HUGE factor in such a battle.
> Ofcourse, now Nintendo have announced this "revolution",
> the Gamecube has been made to look obselete.
Isn't the current GC status a case in point that perhaps price isn't that big a factor?
Well ... actually, I think it comes down to Ninty's advertising again. Get the GC into the public consiousness as a great budget console, and you'll have yourself a miricle.
> I'm not so sure. I can't see many games that wouldn't work just as
> well with a normal controller.
>
> Well perhaps Nintendo can.
> Heck, the one of the main reasons we love them so much is their
> ability to surprise.
I'm not doubting a surprise. Just wondering if it'll be a good or a bad one.
> I'm still skeptical, but I WOULD be cynical if Nintendo had pulled
> out a Gamecube that's better at polygon pushing! :-)
Yeah, me too.
I dunno, there's no pleasing some people.
> I'm sure that Nintendo didn't it powerless for the sake of
> powerless.
> If there's a lack of power, it's for a gain in something else.
> They're not THAT stupid. :-)
Curse your logic.
I suppose so ... but hmmmm.
> Maybe, but so much can be achieved with middleware and the like.
> I personally think that devellopers just don't have ideas, which if
> they DID have they could just as easily impliment on the GC.
> Also, coding for a console they're used to means they don't have to
> worry so much about technicality and focus on game design.
There's something fantastic in that Game Developers Rant thing that Hedfix posted up a while ago - a very simple idea Ninty could put in place to make developers love them, and games very much faster to build (so more time for more creative stuff.
I'll copy the relevant section out here (still massive, sorrah) - but I'd recomment reading the whole thing (it's in Prime, and it's a huge bast, but still worth scanning through):
**
Chris Hecker: I'm a programmer, so, I have two technical slides, really one technical slide. And that's about it. All right, ready? So there are two kinds of code in a game basically. There's gameplay code and engine code. Engine code, like graphics and physics, takes really giant data structures of homogenous data. I mean, it's all the same, like a lot of vertices are all a big matrix, or whatever, but usually floating point data structures these days. And you have a single small, relatively small hour that grinds away on that. This code is like, wow, it has a lot of math in it, it has to be optimized for super scalar, blah, blah, blah. It's just not actually that hard to write, right? It's pretty well defined what this code does.
The second kind of code we have is AI and gameplay code. Lots of little exceptions. Even if you're doing a simulation-y kind of game, there's tons of tunable parameters, [it's got a lot of interactions], it's a mess. I mean, this code--you look at the gameplay code in the game, and it's crap. Compared to like, my elegant physics simulator or whatever. But this is a code that actually makes the game feel different. This is the kind of code we want to be easy to write and so we can do more experimental stuff. Here is the terrifying realization about the next generation of consoles. I'm about to break about a zillion NDAs, but I didn't sign any NDAs so that's totally cool!
I'm actually a pretty good programmer and mathematician but my real talent is getting people to tell me stuff that they're not supposed to tell me. There we go. Gameplay code will get slower and harder to write on the next generation of consoles. Why is this? Here's our technical slide. Modern CPUs, like the Intel Pentium 4, blah, blah, blah, Pentium [indiscernible] or laptop, whatever is in your desktop, and all the modern power PCs, use what's called 'out of order' execution. Basically, out of order execution is there to make really crappy code run fast.
So, they basically--when out of order execution came out on the P6, the Pentium 6 [indiscernible] the Pentium 5, the original Pentium and the one after that. The Pentium Pro I think they called it, it basically annoyed a whole bunch of low level ASCII coders, because now all of a sudden, like, the crappiest-ass C code, that like, Joe junior programmer could write, is running as fast as their Assembly, and there's nothing they can do about it. Because the CPU behind their back, is like, reordering that guy's crappy ass C code, to run really well and utilize all the parts of the processor. While this annoyed a whole bunch of people in Scandinavia, it actually…
[laughter]
And this is a great change in the bad old days of 'in order execution,' where you had to be an Assembly language wizard to actually get your CPU to do anything. You were always stalling in the cache, you needed to like--it was crazy. It was a lot of fun to write that code. It wasn't exactly the most productive way of doing experimental programming.
The Xenon and the cell are both in order chips. What does this mean? The reason they did this, is it's cheaper for them to do this. They can drop a lot of core--you know--one out of order core is about the size of three to four in order cores. So, they can make a lot of in order cores and drop them on a chip, and keep the power down, and sell it for cheap--what does this do to our code?
Well, it makes--it's totally fine for grinding like, symmetric algorithms out of floating point numbers, but for lots of 'if' statements in directions, it totally sucks. How do we quantify 'totally sucks?' "Rumors" which happen to be from people who are actually working on these chips, is that straight line gameplay code runs at 1/3 to 1/10 the speed at the same clock rate on an in order core as an out of order core.
This means that your new fancy 2 plus gigahertz CPU, and its Xenon, is going to run code as slow or slower than the 733 megahertz CPU in the Xbox 1. The PS3 will be even worse.
This sucks!
[laughter]
There's absolutely nothing you can do about this. Well, you can actually hope that Nintendo uses an out of order core, because they're claiming that they're going to try and make it easy to develop for--except for Nintendo basically totally flailed this generation. So maybe they'll do something next generation. Who knows? You can think about having batchable design simulation-y systems, but like, I'm a huge proponent of simulation in gameplay, but even simulation in gameplay takes kind of messy systems under the hood. And this makes your gameplay harder to write.
You want to just write the gameplay. You don't want to have to like, spend 6 years of a super hardcore engine programmer's time to figure out how to make your gameplay run super scalars. You could do PC games. They are still out of order cores, but a lot of people don't think that's an option nowadays
**
> Okies. But we're both talking hypotheticals here.
> But you agree that IF they did then it would work a treat?
Oh indeed.
> Not really. They just don't have refined taste in games.
> Price would play a HUGE factor in such a battle.
> Ofcourse, now Nintendo have announced this "revolution",
> the Gamecube has been made to look obselete.
Isn't the current GC status a case in point that perhaps price isn't that big a factor?
Well ... actually, I think it comes down to Ninty's advertising again. Get the GC into the public consiousness as a great budget console, and you'll have yourself a miricle.
> I'm not so sure. I can't see many games that wouldn't work just as
> well with a normal controller.
>
> Well perhaps Nintendo can.
> Heck, the one of the main reasons we love them so much is their
> ability to surprise.
I'm not doubting a surprise. Just wondering if it'll be a good or a bad one.
> I'm still skeptical, but I WOULD be cynical if Nintendo had pulled
> out a Gamecube that's better at polygon pushing! :-)
Yeah, me too.
I dunno, there's no pleasing some people.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> I think you can still make it pretty cheap with a significant
> increase in power. I mean, the GC now is more powerful than the PS2,
> but much cheaper and Ninty are (well, hopefully ... still making a
> profit) - and its probably cheaper than the PSX was in its day.
>
> I think they're paying for new technology, not the improvement - so
> buying the best money can buy now, is probably going to cost the same
> as what buying the best 10 years ago would get you. If that makes any
> sense.
>
> But I don't know.
I'm sure that Nintendo didn't it powerless for the sake of powerless.
If there's a lack of power, it's for a gain in something else.
They're not THAT stupid. :-)
> Yeah, I'd say that's fair enough to certain degree. But what
> programmer is going to spend hours fine-tuning some code to get these
> results, when they can just shove some badly-written tosh into the new
> machine and get the same result?
Maybe, but so much can be achieved with middleware and the like.
I personally think that devellopers just don't have ideas, which if they DID have they could just as easily impliment on the GC.
Also, coding for a console they're used to means they don't have to worry so much about technicality and focus on game design.
> Not in terms of power - but in terms of sales it's not going
> anywhere.
Not in direct competition with the PS2.
The PS2 owns the market that Gamecube has been in so far.
No one owns the budget market.
It's there for Nintendo's taking.
> I'd say Resi 4 is running close to the line.
Perhpas.
> I'd rather not see games the GC couldn't handle. We might be scraping
> along the line now - but people won't push it further, because they do
> want the GC to be able to handle it.
The fact is, the only reason the N64 couldn't handle games is that the games Rare wanted to create, the N64 wasn't capable of handling. There's no issues of that on the Gamecube yet, and it shows.
> Aye, Marketing. Ninty and Marketing are usually seperated by a big
> "if"
Okies. But we're both talking hypotheticals here.
But you agree that IF they did then it would work a treat?
> That'd be the thinking man's sensible option.
> But 99% of gamers aren't really big thinkers.
Not really. They just don't have refined taste in games.
Price would play a HUGE factor in such a battle.
Ofcourse, now Nintendo have announced this "revolution", the Gamecube has been made to look obselete.
> I'm not so sure. I can't see many games that wouldn't work just as
> well with a normal controller.
Well perhaps Nintendo can.
Heck, the one of the main reasons we love them so much is their ability to surprise.
> Always ... always.
> Still remaining 100% cynical about the controller, though.
I'm still skeptical, but I WOULD be cynical if Nintendo had pulled out a Gamecube that's better at polygon pushing! :-)
> I think you can still make it pretty cheap with a significant
> increase in power. I mean, the GC now is more powerful than the PS2,
> but much cheaper and Ninty are (well, hopefully ... still making a
> profit) - and its probably cheaper than the PSX was in its day.
>
> I think they're paying for new technology, not the improvement - so
> buying the best money can buy now, is probably going to cost the same
> as what buying the best 10 years ago would get you. If that makes any
> sense.
>
> But I don't know.
I'm sure that Nintendo didn't it powerless for the sake of powerless.
If there's a lack of power, it's for a gain in something else.
They're not THAT stupid. :-)
> Yeah, I'd say that's fair enough to certain degree. But what
> programmer is going to spend hours fine-tuning some code to get these
> results, when they can just shove some badly-written tosh into the new
> machine and get the same result?
Maybe, but so much can be achieved with middleware and the like.
I personally think that devellopers just don't have ideas, which if they DID have they could just as easily impliment on the GC.
Also, coding for a console they're used to means they don't have to worry so much about technicality and focus on game design.
> Not in terms of power - but in terms of sales it's not going
> anywhere.
Not in direct competition with the PS2.
The PS2 owns the market that Gamecube has been in so far.
No one owns the budget market.
It's there for Nintendo's taking.
> I'd say Resi 4 is running close to the line.
Perhpas.
> I'd rather not see games the GC couldn't handle. We might be scraping
> along the line now - but people won't push it further, because they do
> want the GC to be able to handle it.
The fact is, the only reason the N64 couldn't handle games is that the games Rare wanted to create, the N64 wasn't capable of handling. There's no issues of that on the Gamecube yet, and it shows.
> Aye, Marketing. Ninty and Marketing are usually seperated by a big
> "if"
Okies. But we're both talking hypotheticals here.
But you agree that IF they did then it would work a treat?
> That'd be the thinking man's sensible option.
> But 99% of gamers aren't really big thinkers.
Not really. They just don't have refined taste in games.
Price would play a HUGE factor in such a battle.
Ofcourse, now Nintendo have announced this "revolution", the Gamecube has been made to look obselete.
> I'm not so sure. I can't see many games that wouldn't work just as
> well with a normal controller.
Well perhaps Nintendo can.
Heck, the one of the main reasons we love them so much is their ability to surprise.
> Always ... always.
> Still remaining 100% cynical about the controller, though.
I'm still skeptical, but I WOULD be cynical if Nintendo had pulled out a Gamecube that's better at polygon pushing! :-)
Strafio wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> They're making the new console anyway ... so why not put the extra
> power in? That's my problem here - they are making the new
> console - and, what, you want them to charge (well, not £200,
> but whatever) for it, without the extra power? Why?
>
> That's a good question.
> I'd assume that they've gone for the most cost efficient approach.
> This is optimum power for a good price (the same rumour about the
> power mentioned a really cheap price).
I think you can still make it pretty cheap with a significant increase in power. I mean, the GC now is more powerful than the PS2, but much cheaper and Ninty are (well, hopefully ... still making a profit) - and its probably cheaper than the PSX was in its day.
I think they're paying for new technology, not the improvement - so buying the best money can buy now, is probably going to cost the same as what buying the best 10 years ago would get you. If that makes any sense.
But I don't know.
> Graphics are fine as they are - its the cumulation of the other
> factors given by increased power that will make the difference.
>
> Hmmm... I still think that those other factors are more down to game
> design than power.
Yeah, I'd say that's fair enough to certain degree. But what programmer is going to spend hours fine-tuning some code to get these results, when they can just shove some badly-written tosh into the new machine and get the same result?
> You do understand the meaning of the word 'more', don't you?
> You know, as in greater than we have now. As in the Gamecube.
>
> The fact is, the reason people aren't doing more isn't for lack of
> power.
Quite possibly.
> Back to the whole new talent yet.
> I mean, yes of course they've had new staff - but they're still
> squeezing the old duffers for new ideas, and surprisingly end up
> with
> shockingly 80s-style ideas. I wonder why...
>
> This is the ONE point I'm kind of with you with. :-)
Hurray!
> Why do you see the GC as so dead?
Not in terms of power - but in terms of sales it's not going anywhere.
> No games have used it to it's full potential.
I'd say Resi 4 is running close to the line.
> I saw the N64 as dead once it couldn't handle Perfect Dark and
> Conker. I've seen nothing like that on the Gamecube.
I'd rather not see games the GC couldn't handle. We might be scraping along the line now - but people won't push it further, because they do want the GC to be able to handle it.
> Also, there hasn't been a decent budget market in years.
> I remember when I could get Amiga games for £5. They were
> affordable to me back then. When I used to save about 6 months worth
> of pocket money for one N64 game, it had to be a lot more special.
> When people pay £40 for a game they want something great. If
> they just spend £10 then they're a lot less fussy.
They're kinda already in the budget market ... if by accident or design.
And GC is apparently being aimed as that post-Revolution launch, which is a good idea.
> If Nintendo start MARKETING the Gamecube now, £50 with a game
> and memory card (and I don't mean slashed for clearance, I mean a
> proper official cut with advertisement), and maybe special deals like
> the multiplayer pack for £100 (Gamecube, 4 pads, memory card,
> Smash Brothers, Soccer Slam and Super Mario kart) then they'd open up
> a whole new market.
Aye, Marketing. Ninty and Marketing are usually seperated by a big "if"
> People will be able to choose between a Gamecube and 20 games, or the
> PS3.
> The PS3 will have to REALLY overshadow the Gamecube to win then.
> People were choosing Dreamcast over PS2 on the PS2's launch, and the
> DC package was £200 with 4 games. Nintendo can easily top
> that.
That'd be the thinking man's sensible option.
But 99% of gamers aren't really big thinkers.
> If Nintendo wanted to ease their images and franchises into people's
> homes, this would be the PERFECT way to do it.
Indeed. But there's that 'if' again.
You can never tell with them.
> We're on to marketing rather than console design now.
> And yes, Nintendo would do better with better advertising, but
> everyone knows that THE way to sell a console is through "played
> it at a mates house". I have NEVER been sold anything to do with
> computers through ANY sort of advertising (bar biased reviews).
Still no excuse not to totally neglect advertising anywhere.
> Let's say I'm assuming they've designed whatever controller with some
> games in mind. :-)
I'm not so sure. I can't see many games that wouldn't work just as well with a normal controller.
But we'll have to wait and see about what they're doing, I suppose.
> It is a GC+, isn't it?
> A GC with slightly more power, and a new controller.
>
> That's what I'm seeing.
>
> If a DS is a GBA plus.... although I guess it IS more powerful, but I
> reckon that the GBA could've handled Feel The Magic's visuals.
> I think that it's gotten to the stage where more "power"
> will cause minimal difference in games wheras a whole new approach to
> game design could result in a whole new experience. And it's still a
> question of whether Nintendo pull it off. :-)
Always ... always.
Still remaining 100% cynical about the controller, though.
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> They're making the new console anyway ... so why not put the extra
> power in? That's my problem here - they are making the new
> console - and, what, you want them to charge (well, not £200,
> but whatever) for it, without the extra power? Why?
>
> That's a good question.
> I'd assume that they've gone for the most cost efficient approach.
> This is optimum power for a good price (the same rumour about the
> power mentioned a really cheap price).
I think you can still make it pretty cheap with a significant increase in power. I mean, the GC now is more powerful than the PS2, but much cheaper and Ninty are (well, hopefully ... still making a profit) - and its probably cheaper than the PSX was in its day.
I think they're paying for new technology, not the improvement - so buying the best money can buy now, is probably going to cost the same as what buying the best 10 years ago would get you. If that makes any sense.
But I don't know.
> Graphics are fine as they are - its the cumulation of the other
> factors given by increased power that will make the difference.
>
> Hmmm... I still think that those other factors are more down to game
> design than power.
Yeah, I'd say that's fair enough to certain degree. But what programmer is going to spend hours fine-tuning some code to get these results, when they can just shove some badly-written tosh into the new machine and get the same result?
> You do understand the meaning of the word 'more', don't you?
> You know, as in greater than we have now. As in the Gamecube.
>
> The fact is, the reason people aren't doing more isn't for lack of
> power.
Quite possibly.
> Back to the whole new talent yet.
> I mean, yes of course they've had new staff - but they're still
> squeezing the old duffers for new ideas, and surprisingly end up
> with
> shockingly 80s-style ideas. I wonder why...
>
> This is the ONE point I'm kind of with you with. :-)
Hurray!
> Why do you see the GC as so dead?
Not in terms of power - but in terms of sales it's not going anywhere.
> No games have used it to it's full potential.
I'd say Resi 4 is running close to the line.
> I saw the N64 as dead once it couldn't handle Perfect Dark and
> Conker. I've seen nothing like that on the Gamecube.
I'd rather not see games the GC couldn't handle. We might be scraping along the line now - but people won't push it further, because they do want the GC to be able to handle it.
> Also, there hasn't been a decent budget market in years.
> I remember when I could get Amiga games for £5. They were
> affordable to me back then. When I used to save about 6 months worth
> of pocket money for one N64 game, it had to be a lot more special.
> When people pay £40 for a game they want something great. If
> they just spend £10 then they're a lot less fussy.
They're kinda already in the budget market ... if by accident or design.
And GC is apparently being aimed as that post-Revolution launch, which is a good idea.
> If Nintendo start MARKETING the Gamecube now, £50 with a game
> and memory card (and I don't mean slashed for clearance, I mean a
> proper official cut with advertisement), and maybe special deals like
> the multiplayer pack for £100 (Gamecube, 4 pads, memory card,
> Smash Brothers, Soccer Slam and Super Mario kart) then they'd open up
> a whole new market.
Aye, Marketing. Ninty and Marketing are usually seperated by a big "if"
> People will be able to choose between a Gamecube and 20 games, or the
> PS3.
> The PS3 will have to REALLY overshadow the Gamecube to win then.
> People were choosing Dreamcast over PS2 on the PS2's launch, and the
> DC package was £200 with 4 games. Nintendo can easily top
> that.
That'd be the thinking man's sensible option.
But 99% of gamers aren't really big thinkers.
> If Nintendo wanted to ease their images and franchises into people's
> homes, this would be the PERFECT way to do it.
Indeed. But there's that 'if' again.
You can never tell with them.
> We're on to marketing rather than console design now.
> And yes, Nintendo would do better with better advertising, but
> everyone knows that THE way to sell a console is through "played
> it at a mates house". I have NEVER been sold anything to do with
> computers through ANY sort of advertising (bar biased reviews).
Still no excuse not to totally neglect advertising anywhere.
> Let's say I'm assuming they've designed whatever controller with some
> games in mind. :-)
I'm not so sure. I can't see many games that wouldn't work just as well with a normal controller.
But we'll have to wait and see about what they're doing, I suppose.
> It is a GC+, isn't it?
> A GC with slightly more power, and a new controller.
>
> That's what I'm seeing.
>
> If a DS is a GBA plus.... although I guess it IS more powerful, but I
> reckon that the GBA could've handled Feel The Magic's visuals.
> I think that it's gotten to the stage where more "power"
> will cause minimal difference in games wheras a whole new approach to
> game design could result in a whole new experience. And it's still a
> question of whether Nintendo pull it off. :-)
Always ... always.
Still remaining 100% cynical about the controller, though.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> They're making the new console anyway ... so why not put the extra
> power in? That's my problem here - they are making the new
> console - and, what, you want them to charge (well, not £200,
> but whatever) for it, without the extra power? Why?
That's a good question.
I'd assume that they've gone for the most cost efficient approach.
This is optimum power for a good price (the same rumour about the power mentioned a really cheap price).
> Graphics are fine as they are - its the cumulation of the other
> factors given by increased power that will make the difference.
Hmmm... I still think that those other factors are more down to game design than power.
> You do understand the meaning of the word 'more', don't you?
> You know, as in greater than we have now. As in the Gamecube.
The fact is, the reason people aren't doing more isn't for lack of power.
> Back to the whole new talent yet.
> I mean, yes of course they've had new staff - but they're still
> squeezing the old duffers for new ideas, and surprisingly end up with
> shockingly 80s-style ideas. I wonder why...
This is the ONE point I'm kind of with you with. :-)
> How about advertising the games that will sell?
> I mean ... take Metroid and Resi 4 for 2 massive examples of games
> that 'other people' would want to play. I haven't seen a single
> advert for either - why the hell not?
> You could make amazing advert campaigns for both, finishing with
> "GC console and Resi 4 for £80".
Or £50 if they went to the budget market.
Why do you see the GC as so dead?
No games have used it to it's full potential.
I saw the N64 as dead once it couldn't handle Perfect Dark and Conker. I've seen nothing like that on the Gamecube.
Also, there hasn't been a decent budget market in years.
I remember when I could get Amiga games for £5. They were affordable to me back then. When I used to save about 6 months worth of pocket money for one N64 game, it had to be a lot more special. When people pay £40 for a game they want something great. If they just spend £10 then they're a lot less fussy.
If Nintendo start MARKETING the Gamecube now, £50 with a game and memory card (and I don't mean slashed for clearance, I mean a proper official cut with advertisement), and maybe special deals like the multiplayer pack for £100 (Gamecube, 4 pads, memory card, Smash Brothers, Soccer Slam and Super Mario kart) then they'd open up a whole new market.
People will be able to choose between a Gamecube and 20 games, or the PS3.
The PS3 will have to REALLY overshadow the Gamecube to win then.
People were choosing Dreamcast over PS2 on the PS2's launch, and the DC package was £200 with 4 games. Nintendo can easily top that.
And I know how tempting a DC was at £100 (with NO extra's) while I was waiting for the Gamecube.
If Nintendo wanted to ease their images and franchises into people's homes, this would be the PERFECT way to do it.
> I don't see it that way. They already make games that people are
> interested in, its just that people never get to see them. Ninty need
> to be much more aggressive.
We're on to marketing rather than console design now.
And yes, Nintendo would do better with better advertising, but everyone knows that THE way to sell a console is through "played it at a mates house". I have NEVER been sold anything to do with computers through ANY sort of advertising (bar biased reviews).
> Hows that then? With a new way of cotrolling games?
> That's not going to work.
Let's say I'm assuming they've designed whatever controller with some games in mind. :-)
> It is a GC+, isn't it?
> A GC with slightly more power, and a new controller.
>
> That's what I'm seeing.
If a DS is a GBA plus.... although I guess it IS more powerful, but I reckon that the GBA could've handled Feel The Magic's visuals.
I think that it's gotten to the stage where more "power" will cause minimal difference in games wheras a whole new approach to game design could result in a whole new experience. And it's still a question of whether Nintendo pull it off. :-)
> They're making the new console anyway ... so why not put the extra
> power in? That's my problem here - they are making the new
> console - and, what, you want them to charge (well, not £200,
> but whatever) for it, without the extra power? Why?
That's a good question.
I'd assume that they've gone for the most cost efficient approach.
This is optimum power for a good price (the same rumour about the power mentioned a really cheap price).
> Graphics are fine as they are - its the cumulation of the other
> factors given by increased power that will make the difference.
Hmmm... I still think that those other factors are more down to game design than power.
> You do understand the meaning of the word 'more', don't you?
> You know, as in greater than we have now. As in the Gamecube.
The fact is, the reason people aren't doing more isn't for lack of power.
> Back to the whole new talent yet.
> I mean, yes of course they've had new staff - but they're still
> squeezing the old duffers for new ideas, and surprisingly end up with
> shockingly 80s-style ideas. I wonder why...
This is the ONE point I'm kind of with you with. :-)
> How about advertising the games that will sell?
> I mean ... take Metroid and Resi 4 for 2 massive examples of games
> that 'other people' would want to play. I haven't seen a single
> advert for either - why the hell not?
> You could make amazing advert campaigns for both, finishing with
> "GC console and Resi 4 for £80".
Or £50 if they went to the budget market.
Why do you see the GC as so dead?
No games have used it to it's full potential.
I saw the N64 as dead once it couldn't handle Perfect Dark and Conker. I've seen nothing like that on the Gamecube.
Also, there hasn't been a decent budget market in years.
I remember when I could get Amiga games for £5. They were affordable to me back then. When I used to save about 6 months worth of pocket money for one N64 game, it had to be a lot more special. When people pay £40 for a game they want something great. If they just spend £10 then they're a lot less fussy.
If Nintendo start MARKETING the Gamecube now, £50 with a game and memory card (and I don't mean slashed for clearance, I mean a proper official cut with advertisement), and maybe special deals like the multiplayer pack for £100 (Gamecube, 4 pads, memory card, Smash Brothers, Soccer Slam and Super Mario kart) then they'd open up a whole new market.
People will be able to choose between a Gamecube and 20 games, or the PS3.
The PS3 will have to REALLY overshadow the Gamecube to win then.
People were choosing Dreamcast over PS2 on the PS2's launch, and the DC package was £200 with 4 games. Nintendo can easily top that.
And I know how tempting a DC was at £100 (with NO extra's) while I was waiting for the Gamecube.
If Nintendo wanted to ease their images and franchises into people's homes, this would be the PERFECT way to do it.
> I don't see it that way. They already make games that people are
> interested in, its just that people never get to see them. Ninty need
> to be much more aggressive.
We're on to marketing rather than console design now.
And yes, Nintendo would do better with better advertising, but everyone knows that THE way to sell a console is through "played it at a mates house". I have NEVER been sold anything to do with computers through ANY sort of advertising (bar biased reviews).
> Hows that then? With a new way of cotrolling games?
> That's not going to work.
Let's say I'm assuming they've designed whatever controller with some games in mind. :-)
> It is a GC+, isn't it?
> A GC with slightly more power, and a new controller.
>
> That's what I'm seeing.
If a DS is a GBA plus.... although I guess it IS more powerful, but I reckon that the GBA could've handled Feel The Magic's visuals.
I think that it's gotten to the stage where more "power" will cause minimal difference in games wheras a whole new approach to game design could result in a whole new experience. And it's still a question of whether Nintendo pull it off. :-)
Strafio wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> I wouldn't mind if they stuck with the GC for a good while yet.
> But it'd be financial suicide to do so, and that's the sad truth.
>
> Not at all.
> It's expensive and risky to release a new console.
> All that it passed with the Gamecube, and now it their chance to
> really push it. They projected an estimated 50 million console salesa
> while back. If people can get it with Metroid Prime/Zelda/Mario for
> £50 or the ultimate party setup for less than £100,
> they'll be tempted atleast.
You can't flog a dead horse.
GC is, for all intents and purposes, dead to the market.
Ninty need to get back into things - and a fresh start is the easiest way to do so.
If they refuse to play ball, they won't get any attention at all. The public love new consoles, new hardware, new gadgets, shiny new games. GC gets lost under all the hype, and Ninty is seen as stubborn and a bit stingy to all the casuals.
> But that's all the fun!
>
> :-)
It's nice to get riled up about something so completely pointless now an then.
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> I wouldn't mind if they stuck with the GC for a good while yet.
> But it'd be financial suicide to do so, and that's the sad truth.
>
> Not at all.
> It's expensive and risky to release a new console.
> All that it passed with the Gamecube, and now it their chance to
> really push it. They projected an estimated 50 million console salesa
> while back. If people can get it with Metroid Prime/Zelda/Mario for
> £50 or the ultimate party setup for less than £100,
> they'll be tempted atleast.
You can't flog a dead horse.
GC is, for all intents and purposes, dead to the market.
Ninty need to get back into things - and a fresh start is the easiest way to do so.
If they refuse to play ball, they won't get any attention at all. The public love new consoles, new hardware, new gadgets, shiny new games. GC gets lost under all the hype, and Ninty is seen as stubborn and a bit stingy to all the casuals.
> But that's all the fun!
>
> :-)
It's nice to get riled up about something so completely pointless now an then.
Strafio wrote:
> What, and charge people an extra £200 for it?
> What's the point?
They're making the new console anyway ... so why not put the extra power in? That's my problem here - they are making the new console - and, what, you want them to charge (well, not £200, but whatever) for it, without the extra power? Why?
> Yeah, graphics might look a little better but you'd barely notice,
> especially when playing the game.
Graphics are fine as they are - its the cumulation of the other factors given by increased power that will make the difference.
> More detail, more things on screen, no slow-down, no pop-up, more
> ambient movement in environments, more interactivity with
> environments, larger play-areas.
>
> All this can be done on the Gamecube if people want to.
> If they haven't then it's an issue of coding/game design and more
> polygon pushing won't change a thing.
You do understand the meaning of the word 'more', don't you?
You know, as in greater than we have now. As in the Gamecube.
I'm saying Resi 4 is about as far as the GCs going to go. And could be improved upon as above.
> These are people who count anything with Mario in as
> "kiddy".
> Infact, the only Nintendo character (incidently, the single one that
> Miyamoto DIDN'T create) that couldn't be classed as "kiddy"
> is Samus.
Back to the whole new talent yet.
I mean, yes of course they've had new staff - but they're still squeezing the old duffers for new ideas, and surprisingly end up with shockingly 80s-style ideas. I wonder why...
> So when was the last time the casual market chose Nintendo over
> Sony?
Exactly - time for a change.
> It's gonna happen whether Nintendo make a PS3 wannabe or not.
> People get their Playstations, end of. But if Nintendo make something
> cheap and irresistably different then it could just get people's
> attention. More than another PS3 wannabe would.
Perhaps, perhaps. One issue that really is a 'wait and see.'
> They don't have to be.
But they are.
> And what's this, they should act so.
> Make games that sell?
How about advertising the games that will sell?
I mean ... take Metroid and Resi 4 for 2 massive examples of games that 'other people' would want to play. I haven't seen a single advert for either - why the hell not?
You could make amazing advert campaigns for both, finishing with "GC console and Resi 4 for £80".
They do make games that sell - the thing is, they don't seem to want to sell them.
> In order for Nintendo to be the most successful, the chances are
> they'd have to give up everything that makes them special. I'd rather
> they were given the rats share of the market.
I don't see it that way. They already make games that people are interested in, its just that people never get to see them. Ninty need to be much more aggressive.
> Nintendo will offer people gaming as they've never seen it before.
Hows that then? With a new way of cotrolling games?
That's not going to work.
> And yes, it could turn out to be gimmicky crap that doesn't make it
> outside of Japan. But what good would making a "Gamecube +"
> do anyone?
It is a GC+, isn't it?
A GC with slightly more power, and a new controller.
That's what I'm seeing.
> What, and charge people an extra £200 for it?
> What's the point?
They're making the new console anyway ... so why not put the extra power in? That's my problem here - they are making the new console - and, what, you want them to charge (well, not £200, but whatever) for it, without the extra power? Why?
> Yeah, graphics might look a little better but you'd barely notice,
> especially when playing the game.
Graphics are fine as they are - its the cumulation of the other factors given by increased power that will make the difference.
> More detail, more things on screen, no slow-down, no pop-up, more
> ambient movement in environments, more interactivity with
> environments, larger play-areas.
>
> All this can be done on the Gamecube if people want to.
> If they haven't then it's an issue of coding/game design and more
> polygon pushing won't change a thing.
You do understand the meaning of the word 'more', don't you?
You know, as in greater than we have now. As in the Gamecube.
I'm saying Resi 4 is about as far as the GCs going to go. And could be improved upon as above.
> These are people who count anything with Mario in as
> "kiddy".
> Infact, the only Nintendo character (incidently, the single one that
> Miyamoto DIDN'T create) that couldn't be classed as "kiddy"
> is Samus.
Back to the whole new talent yet.
I mean, yes of course they've had new staff - but they're still squeezing the old duffers for new ideas, and surprisingly end up with shockingly 80s-style ideas. I wonder why...
> So when was the last time the casual market chose Nintendo over
> Sony?
Exactly - time for a change.
> It's gonna happen whether Nintendo make a PS3 wannabe or not.
> People get their Playstations, end of. But if Nintendo make something
> cheap and irresistably different then it could just get people's
> attention. More than another PS3 wannabe would.
Perhaps, perhaps. One issue that really is a 'wait and see.'
> They don't have to be.
But they are.
> And what's this, they should act so.
> Make games that sell?
How about advertising the games that will sell?
I mean ... take Metroid and Resi 4 for 2 massive examples of games that 'other people' would want to play. I haven't seen a single advert for either - why the hell not?
You could make amazing advert campaigns for both, finishing with "GC console and Resi 4 for £80".
They do make games that sell - the thing is, they don't seem to want to sell them.
> In order for Nintendo to be the most successful, the chances are
> they'd have to give up everything that makes them special. I'd rather
> they were given the rats share of the market.
I don't see it that way. They already make games that people are interested in, its just that people never get to see them. Ninty need to be much more aggressive.
> Nintendo will offer people gaming as they've never seen it before.
Hows that then? With a new way of cotrolling games?
That's not going to work.
> And yes, it could turn out to be gimmicky crap that doesn't make it
> outside of Japan. But what good would making a "Gamecube +"
> do anyone?
It is a GC+, isn't it?
A GC with slightly more power, and a new controller.
That's what I'm seeing.
Page: