Nintendo's Revolution will not be televised (in HD)

We're not sure how to make heads or tails of this, but Nintendo's VP of marketing Perrin Kaplan went on the books as saying that they've no future plans for HD support in the Revolution. Uh, need we remind everyone of what was "supposed" to be the lowest-end 5th gen console, the Xbox 360, and their minimum 720p HD development requirements? (Not to say anything of the PS3's dual HDMI outs and 1080p capabilities.) But did the big N just instantly lose out on a couple (hundred) thousand units in sales just because they're not going hi-def?

[Via TechDigest]

[David Balson @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Not really for lots of reasons

1) Many of Nintendos games are aimed at kids, kids do not care (or even know) if a game is HD or not.

2) Most people do not care about HD. Especially Nintendo's core fan base. A good game, is a good game.

3) If say, that Revolution's version of Mario is one of the best games of all time, then no self-respecting gamer would boycott purely on the grounds that it didn't have HD.

The only people who do not buy it because of HD, were never going to buy it in the first place, because all they do is play Halo 2 on Live all day.

[Justin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I really don't understand Nintendo. Being innovative is one thing, not being very business efficient is another...

[Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Considering all broadcasting's scheduled to kick over to HD somewhat early in this next generation of consoles, IE everyone's gonna have one of the things, it does kinda seem like Nintendo's shooting itself in the foot.

Still the best looking out of the 3 new boxes though.

[Yankeee @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

What percent of Americans have HD tvs? Really there are very few people in america that have HD TVs.

Nintento is just taking this into account. No HD TV support will definitely lower the price of the console increasing sales. By not including HD support maybe Nintento will loose some sales but the beneffit of the lower price is more inportant in overall sales.

As for the one saying that Nintendo is for kids: Play Resident Evil 4 (Game Cube exclusive) and tell me if that's for kids.

[Yankeee @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

What percent of Americans have HD tvs? Really there are very few people in america that have HD TVs.

Nintento is just taking this into account. No HD TV support will definitely lower the price of the console increasing sales. By not including HD support maybe Nintento will loose some sales but the beneffit of the lower price is more inportant in overall sales.

As for the one saying that Nintendo is for kids: Play Resident Evil 4 (Game Cube exclusive) and tell me if that's for kids.

[David @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I really do not understand how Nintendo Fanboys are still backing this system with utter devotion. What has Nintendo shown you that is exciting so far?

[hecatomb @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

HD support would be nice, but honestly it doesn't bother me... I'm planning on picking up all 3 consoles, and s-video keeps me happy. Now I don't have a HD tv *YET*, but I'm sure s-video would look fine. I would expect the price to be a tad lower though because of the lack of HD support...

[Jake @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

#3 What percent of American households had broadband at the time of the Gamecube launch? They obviously missed out on that market. HDTV prices will drop drastically over the next 1-2 years, and Nintendo will once again miss the boat. I really don't think it will be a big deal, I just wanted Yankee to know that the HD era is approaching, and approaching very quickly.

I'm sure the no HD thing is a dissappointment for some N-kids, but I really doubt that will stop them from getting the Revolution.

[Atom @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Is bigger really better. Come on Sony wins then. But a new way to play a game with a gyroscopic controller that allows a totally different game that is interesting. They already have gameboy games that you have to be in the sun to play. What we need is new not bigger and faster. Fun does not have to be bigger see tetris or Lumines or contra for that matter.

[John Lewis @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

So does this mayabe make those Nintendo Go rumors look a little better?

[william @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

...no HD? So shouldn't this console cost significantly less? If nintendo can release a $150 console it has a chance at selling quite a lot of them. Probably not as many as PS2 or XBox still, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have a classic-game-subscription-service up their sleeves to bring in a bit of revenue. Ah, speculation.

I bet if they just put a little white Ipod dock on it people would start pre-ordering already.

[Alric @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Relax. They probably mean no HD media support. Meaning movies. Games have to be HD. They wouldn't be that deluded. Would they?

[dawggpie @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

#1, good points, but what about the marketing aspect? HD is a great buzz word these days. People will preceive the PS2 and Xbox360 as higher end consoles because they support HD. And they probably are higher end. Maybe Nintendo is going with SD because it can't push the pixels required to run nice graphics at HD. Maybe it's just me, but when i was about 15 in the SNES days, performance and specs definitely played a role in which console i decided to buy.

Nintendo needs to kill their "we're better than gimmicks attitude." CD-Rom wasn't a gimmick in the past and HD isn't a gimmick now.

[charlie @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Take my word on this: Revolution will be huge. How do I know this? Because I'm a pretty hardcore gamer, I play on the PC and xbox, but I plan to buy a Revolution in addition to either an x360 or PS3 (probably X360).

Nintendo has the perfect strategy this time around. You definately dont have to sell the most units to be extremely profitable. Nintendo would be suicidal to try to fight head on with giants Sony and MS. However, by leveraging their ability to control the kids market (between more child orientated games and cheaper console price, ie maybe $199 instead of $299) and by leveraging their retro appeal to target harder core and nostalgic gamers, Nintendo is in prime position to make a boatload of money. I, as a "hardcore" gamer, dont even care what games come out for revolution. I'll buy one solely to be able to play all the NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube games that I fondly remember. I can't play SMB3 because my NES broke... I never owned an SNES, and I never owned a gamecube. It will be fun for me to be able to play all the greatest games from all their systems. I'm guessing I'm not the only one that feels this way.

[slimwhitey @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

i wouldn't get to uppity about this - kaplan has a bad habit of talking out her ass crack, only later to require further clarification.

all of the dev details i've seen show support for 720p and 1080i, but there will be little if any emphasis put on the 'hd' capabilities.

face it, nintendo knows their core fan base is not the hardcore spec elitists many of us have become and they're not going to cater to that market - ultimately they're betting that 'hardcore' is the niche that sony and ms will be stuck with. creatively, as a developer, it is much more interesting to take a more anthropological view and develop games for untapped, underserved (but LARGE) part of society.

its easy for me to see what nintendo is getting at: while my wife and kids and the rest of my family are playing mario party, animal crossing or nintendogs, I'm the only one with an interest in playing Halo or GTA - and let's face it, even I'm getting bored with the gameplay that 90% of the games coming out this year (ms, sony, nintendo, ea, etc) have to offer. yawn.

as far as this year is concerned, the DS has arguably the most interesting (innovative) line-up of games coming. i was shocked to see, when compiling my 2005 game wishlist (for all systems: xbox, xbox360, ps2, cube, gba, psp and the DS), that the DS list was the longest - if the revolution offers up a similarly compelling line-up next year, they'll get my $, and i know those are the games my family will want, no matter what resolution they are displayed in.

[vidGuy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

"No HD TV support will definitely lower the price of the console increasing sales...
As for the one saying that Nintendo is for kids: Play Resident Evil 4 (Game Cube exclusive) and tell me if that's for kids."

First off, Nintendo has already hinted at a $199 launch price, saying it will be similar to the GameCube's. While no HD support will certainly lower cost (that is, the cost to the manufacturer) it will not likely lower the price (the price of the system, the consumer's cost). Why? It gives a larger profit margin, or in this case, a smaller loss-per-console-sold.

Second, RE4 is being ported to PS2 for a November launch, albeit getting a drastic reduction in polygon count and polish in order to maintain framerate.

The downloads will definitely draw people to the system. And Nintendo has said that these will be pay downloads, although some free, limited-time play games will be available. Nintendo's best move is to make the downloads cheap, as in less than $5 for a fully playable game. Maybe do a graded system, like $2 for NES, $5 for SNES, $10 for N64.

[Buck Q. Fitch @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I live and work in Manhattan, and I am the only person I know who has an HDTV. Nobody I know plans on buying one either, as they are perfectly happy with their current picture quality. They include gamers.

I have a 60 inch model HDTV. Regular resolution TV looks like absolute garbage. It's embarassing to have friends over to check it out, and having only 5 hi-def channels to watch, none of which we're interested in.

Now hi-def signals, they look amazing. How amazing? Why, just as good as a standard picture looks on my standard 36 inch tube TV!

My 36 inch display is just too small to appreciate the clarity and detail that my 60 inch HDTV would provide, while my 60 inch HDTV makes 95% of what I watch look like crap compared to the regular old 36 inch Wega tube.

In conclusion, HDTV is ideal for big TVs where you see imperfections on a standard signal, while the only benefit you will have using HDTV on a display smaller than 40 inches, is that you get a wider screen.

Having said that, I wished Nintendo would provide more options.

[Brian @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

"What percent of Americans have HD tvs? Really there are very few people in america that have HD TVs."

Yeah, but the number is growing faster and faster and by the time the Revolution comes out in late 2006 or 2007, the percentage is going to be much, much higher.

[David @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

BTW...it is not how many own a HDTV now but who will in 4 years time...

[Trejkaz @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

S-Video in itself would be better than what they gave us with the GameCube...

[vidGuy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Buck, have you seen any HD movies? Or played games in HighDef? My guess is that they will give you a true appreciation for the technology.

And as I said in the "Nintendo Revolution specs leaked?" thread:
"On a sidenote, the US gov has passed legislation that all tv broadcast must be digital by Jan 1, 2008, so expect to see cheaper high-def sets hitting the market in the next few years. Whether they make this deadline or not is open for discusion, as the last deadline was Jan 1, 2006, which they moved back cause we are obviously no where near making it."

[The Kappe @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

The lack of HD is properly because the Revolution will have Virtual Reality... Don't you think? ;)
I hope so. Oohh! I really, realy hope so :)

[elmer @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Just think, this could actually back up theoretical rumours of some kind of virtual reality controller or other such possibilities as the LCD's necassary would likely be lower than HD res.

Remeber also, that in todays world of perpixel shading higher resolutions lead to higher rendering loads for the same graphics processes (as has pretty much always been the case). By mandating HD res on all 360 games, it pretty much garantees that developers can't use the GPU time for more complex graphics rather than extra resolution if they so chose - their only other alternative is to sacrifice frame rate. By limiting the resolution nintendo can get away with both cheaper chips that are able to pull off graphical processes with the same level of complexity, and can spend the money saved on the connecters and buffers elsewhere, say on a revolutionary input, or a cheaper unit cost to you and me.

Besides - i don't have space for an HDTV in my tiny London apartment (though it would be nice). So long as it supports something around 480-576p then to my myopic eyes that would be fine - especially for a quick game of wario-ware wevolution

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

"BTW...it is not how many own a HDTV now but who will in 4 years time..."

Exactly right - what did Nintendo design this thing for, a 2 year lifespan?

10% of Americans have HDTV's right now, in 2005. This thing will not be released until 2006. So, add another few percentage points to that at least - though most analysts seem to think HDTV's in for around 100% growth over the next year or two. I'd say it'll be more like 20% penetration by the time this system launches.

Once you go HD, you can never go back. People will watch stuff in HD just because it's in HD. It's that much of a difference. If someone's got an HDTV, and they've got a choice between an HD console and a non-HD console, they will buy the HD console.

So, at launch, Nintendo is basically wiping out 15-20% of their potential market. Within 3-4 years, that number will be significantly higher.

And that's just talking people who will be directly affected. There's also a bit of a reverse halo effect around things like this... where even the rest of the people without HDTV's will start thinking the system's obsolete even if it means nothing to them personally. Nobody wants to be stuck with a system they think will not be supported.

And of course, this means any cross-platform games will look like ass on the Revolution compared to the other two systems, at least when played on an HD set.

I don't see how you spin this as anything but stupidity on Nintendo's part. And I say that as a big Nintendo booster going back to the Game and Watch days.

[Yorrike @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

#4: "I really do not understand how Nintendo Fanboys are still backing this system with utter devotion. What has Nintendo shown you that is exciting so far?"

Mainly, 100% backwards compatibility. The real juicy bits are yet to be revealed. No one can write the Rev off, because no one knows much about it yet.

But think about it, HDTV isn't the most common format around. The US makes up <50% of Nintendo's market, and HDTV penetration outside the US is tiny to non-existant. It's going to take many, many years for HDTV to standardise on a format, or even disappear, who knows what will happen.

Higher resolution means art costs are higher, due to the need for higher resolution textures. Games already cost too much to make.

The graphics the Rev pumps out will be fantastic, and really, people have been watching TV at the same resolution for decades and game consoles are yet to produce graphics on par with reality at SD, so there's a way to go before higher resolution is even needed.

And how many times must people be reminded? If graphics actually mattered, the XBox would be #1. It's not. The Rev will sell very well to people who actually care about games. If you're decision to buy a console is based on the number of GFlops it can do, or the resolution of it's output, then you're not a gamer, you're a technophile.

[Eagle @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

@vidGuy
>>>Or played games in HighDef?<<<

Have you played any games on a PC at 1280x720 or higher? Then you've already seen what HD gaming is going to look like. There is definetly a difference between 800x600 gaming and 1280x720 gaming. Games at HD resolution isn't anything new, it is only new to have a console capable of doing it rather than a full out PC.

[Nate @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

what good is super mario bros in hi def? thats why. #1, why would nintendo skip out on an oppurtunity to widen their fanbase? (answer: because they're stupid)

[jedda @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Is anyone saying that Rev will not even support 480p 16:9 as the gamecube does? On a majority of hdtvs (those < 30inches), you will not see much difference if any between 480p and 720p when playing games. Just play a 720p xbox game and a 480p gamecube game on the same tv and tell me if you see if a difference. Also if the processing power turns out to be "2-3 times gamecube" level. They would be better offer using that additional power to process extra polygons and realistic pyhsics instead of extra "resolution". Although I would prefer the full HD support, I think that Nintendo will be fine as long as keep the current gamecube spec. If however they are and going backward to 4:3 480i support only, than I think we can definately not call this the "resolution revolution"

[brett @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

@ #22

More like 640x480, 800x600 is much clearer than sdtv.

[Mark Korsak @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

it has to have HD, i mean why would they then have it connect to a monitor? only reason would be for ppl without an HD TV, than obviously have a comp monitor most likely. my theory still stands that they have HD. that person could be mistaken for something else, like maybe they wont have 1080i, but atleast 720i/p

[grillcheese @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I just got the new snoopy snow cone machine and it makes blizzards @ 1024x768.

[Don Omar @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

"S-Video in itself would be better than what they gave us with the GameCube..."

The GameCube had S-Video support.

[Buck Q. Fitch @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

vidGuy, yes. I have HBO, Showtime, TNT, and Discovery HD. They all look great, with Discovery HD looking the best by far. The SD signals of those same channels however look horrible on the large TV, while they look very, very good on my regular old "small" SDTV. All I'm saying is that you can appreciate an HDTV signal more if you have a huge display, while at the same time that huge display will bring out the imperfections of SDTV and make everything in standard def look really poor. And that absolutely sucks because I have 700 SD channels and only a handfull of HD channels. It's just the nature of scaling.

I've played PC games at 1600x1200, and they look great. They are very crisp and sharp, but the textures often suffer when scaled so high. I actually find it better, though, to bump the res down to 1024x768 or even 800x600, and turn on the anti aliasing moderately. Often times it looks better, and the framerate jumps up too.

[KK @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

EDTV (852x480) support on Revolution with nice 4XAA would look very good. HD is overated.

[ShadeX @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Nintendo doesn't need HD support because as 1# pointed out there main focus is in the "Kid centric" gaming area. They have a strangle hold in that department and it's been a cash cow for them for years so why stop now. And for the comment that Resident Evil 4 is for the mature crowd. Wow...1 or the few other titles out there (I'm sure that they all can be counted on one hand) that are mature rated doesn�t break there image of marketing mainly to the younger crowd. Look at what they did with Zelda the windwalker. That cartoony look was not for the gamers that grew up with Zelda and loved it loyally (My self included) no, it was made in that style to attract the younger gamers of a new generation and they just disregarded the older gamers in the process. But they go a lot of heat for what they did and now they are doing Twilight princess to make up for it. They continue to do as little as possible to appease the core gamer audience. They are in this to make money. They don't care if they are #1 or #2 or if they make us older gamers mad by still rehashing Mario and Pokemon titles and offering very few titles for us instead. And the proof is this, I asked my son (8yrs old) what system he wanted and he said Gamecube. Why because at this age he and all his friends are heavily into Pokemon and likes Mario. I purchased an xbox and ps2 instead.

[aws910 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I don't think this will be a prob for them. I'm not "going HD", and here's why:
1. None of the channels I like are offered in HD
2. HD DVR's cost too much
3. AFAIK, HD DVR's are not as hackable(no replaytv/mythtv)
4. HDTV/SDTV: I can't tell the difference after a drink or two
5. Just because a game is HD doesn't mean it will be more or less fun.

[Metus @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I am sure the fact that our Japanese friends tried to convey that there will be no HD as in HardDisk got lost in translation ...

For all I know all you US fellows are still all excited over projection TVs. Here in Japan HDTV is growing extremely quickly and I strongly doubt Revolution will not support atleast 720p as even the GameCube did.

[Darth Jobs @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

i've had sd forever and it's just fine. i've seen hd, but to me it is an overly expensive luxury. maybe in a few years it will be more price point friendly. think about the cost of the tv, hd receiver, necessary cables for you devices, increased cable bill, etc...and it adds up. my 42" toshiba flatscreen was around $600-$700 i think. i run my cube, xbox, dvd on component and tivo on s video. the pic is perfect imo.

my next gen console purchase will be based on games and price, not hd support. one thing to consider is the ability of game development now in sd...its very advanced. the ability of game development in hd is still developing. this means that next gen systems in hd will experience framerate issues and other problems just as this last gen did when it began.

[ZildjianKX @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I already won't buy any gamecube game that doesn't run in 480p (I know that's not HD), but it amazes me that for a next gen system that is coming out so many years later that all the games won't be 720p native.

I won't 720p Zelda!!!

Maybe they'll do it like the gamecube does, only the first party games support the higher resolutions, etc.

[Eran Hawke @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

When playing games on my PC, I would rather turn down the resolution and turn up the graphical effects and anti-aliasing.

Same thing for the Revolution. What good is bumping up the resolution when everything else has to suffer?

[Darth Jobs @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

nintendo just needs to make a mario FPS where he gets to fire a rocket launcher and toss nades. Mario can ride yoshi who can eat enemies and decapitate with his tongue.

Maybe a Zelda GTA style game. Zelda: Hustlin in Hyrule. Link will bang fairies to replenish health and run errands for local crime bosses. Eventually working his way up the ladder...all the time jacking wagons, horses, boats, and flying animals of course.

Maybe these two games in HD will be enough to earn all the "hardcore" mature gamers' love and support.

It sucks that in this gen, most of the third party games coming out for consoles are trying to be the next GTA, Halo, or Burnout. Basically money is driving developers to rehash existing series in hopes of a hit....kinda like movies today.

Nintendo seems to do their own thing which to me is originality. Granted they need some new mascots and first party titles, but at least they do provide a variety. It just stinks that PS2 and Xbox are saturated with multiple titles that are all basically the same game with different characters, weapons, and time setting.

[Exar @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

at the end, revolution is going for the kids, and how many kids own an HDTV in their bedrooms, if I own one, i'd put it in the right place along with the rest of my entertainment equipment (HT, X360, PS3, TiVo, etc), I'd leave the revo for the little kids, see ya!!

[kffjjffff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

only playstation and xbox buyers would be concerned with a silly thing like this. they just want the besthardware, and the newest version of gta to compensate for their tiny wangs. nintendo is not a kiddie brand- its for people who arent morons!

[Edwin Avalos @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Who needs a tv if the Revolution is really revolutionary you wont need one :p

Headset baby

[treqie @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

And don't forget Europe is even smaller when it comes to HD. I've never even seen a HDtv in a store here.

[David @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Graphic do not make the console argument is getting old. Yeah if it were 100% true the Xbox would be the number one console. But if it were not true at all, MS would not even be in the game AT ALL.

Graphics are like money. Money cannot buy you happiness but it can buy you the things that make you happy...

[ShadeX @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

"it sucks that in this gen, most of the third party games coming out for consoles are trying to be the next GTA, Halo, or Burnout...Nintendo seems to do their own thing which to me is originality."

Darth Jobs are you for real??
You tell me how many versions and rehashes there are of Mario, Pokemon and Zelda there are out there and I'll tell ya you need an accountant to add it all up. Adding some new pokemon to catch and making Yoshi a playable character is NOT innovation. Its a marketing tactic aimed at kids and the big N is taking us for suckers. Younger gamers will want it for those reasons but there is no real value added. Look at what they did with the gameboy they held back innovation because at long as the masses are willing to by 15 year old tech they will sell it.
The only real innovating product they did was "Virtual Boy" and yes it made some kids go blind and others developed brain tumours but it looked good on paper and sounded cool and no one else had some thing out like that. Oh, I guess that's why..

[Eric P @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Dumbfounded!

Let's break down some comments:

1. None of the channels I like are offered in HD
2. HD DVR's cost too much
3. AFAIK, HD DVR's are not as hackable(no replaytv/mythtv)
4. HDTV/SDTV: I can't tell the difference after a drink or two
5. Just because a game is HD doesn't mean it will be more or less fun.

Response:
1. You don't think some of these channels will go HD in the near future (~3 years)?
2. I pay 7 bucks a month to comcast for my dual tuner HDDVR...many such solutions are being offered by other providers. Besides, price points change and will go down, making it well worth the money to buy an HD DVR.
3. True, not as easily hackable, but even my comcast HD DVR is hackable with a little effort, it's got a nice little set of ports on the box!
4. Ummm...yes, this is why Nintendo decided to drop the HD requirement. After a few drinks kiddies, who cares what the resolution is when you playing Super Smash Brothers! This also appears to be the reason why we are seeing
5. True, but this also turns off developers from cross-platform developing - and if they do make a Revolution version, which one would your rather own? Pay 50 bucks for Madden 06 that doesn't support HD, or the one for your X360/PS3 that has gorgeous HD visuals?

Sorry to pick on your comments, but you set yourself up as an easy target.

Most of you that shrug all these advancements off and say "ehhh...who cares...I don't see a need for HD" are missing the point. Nintendo's next console is sounding like more of a slight upgrade to current gen technology, not like a next-generational leap that it should be. You don't push technology foward by taking baby steps all the time, because it doesn't provide people compelling reasons to "upgrade".

At the end of '06, your average consumer will walk in to an electronics store, and see three displays. One for PS3, one for X360, and one for the newly released Revolution. The X360 will have Halo3 and a Gears of War demo running, and look great on a Samsung LCD; probably costing somewhere around 249 by this point. The PS3 display will have dual HD displays and have GT:Vision running (sports fans will mistaken it for a real Indy race, then suddenly realize they can play it!). Seriously, PS3 will probably look great, like the 360, and cost around 349 at this point - I don't think they will have dual HD displays in store kiosks! Then said consumer will move on to the revolution display, and see, of all things, an old version of Super Mario Brothers playing on a 20 inch screen. Consumer will say to themselves, "Wait a minute! I remember this game...I think I played it 20 years ago!" The price to play it again: $199, plus a download fee. What a bargain! Oh yeah, then the Revolution demo will switch to the current gen, latest incarnation of Mario, in glorious "so yesterday" 480i. Perhaps said consumer will get caught up in some nostalgic rush of memories, and buy the revolution to play the old games, but I think the more likely case is that they will look at the other offerings with jaw dropping advancements, and wonder what's up with the "latest" Nintendo. Let's throw in a consumer who has either a Gamecube/PS2/Xbox, and which box would offer them a big advancement worth their cash?

If Nintendo has some ridiculously low price point for this thing, then maybe they will sell a ton as "secondary" systems. If this is true, then it means Nintendo is no longer shooting for the stars, it certainly is falling WAY short of it's revolutionary nomenclature, and is destined to become a 2nd tier player in the future of gaming. Another profitable, but non-impacting company.

[Wonderflex @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

In response to number 32, ShadeX:

I find it rather funny that in times passed, with each system that nintendo places out on the market we get a great host of people who love to throw out the argument that Nintendo is a "kid" centric company, delving off a basis that they are making this into their target market.

There is several problems with this statement though. The first of which being the fact that you are most likely A) American, or B) Not American, but just as introverted as most of us Americans. See, in Japan, these so called, "childish," games actually sell to a much higher age group than one would imagine. In Japan in order for a game to be geared to an adult group doesn't simply require it to have nudity, rough language, blood, or any combination of the three.

The, american slated, childish antics, or simplicity, found in the bloodless adventures of Mario score very popularly across the board in Japan, and even other markets. In fact, they score so well that there is a plethora of idolitry in respects to our Siccilian pipe-dwelling friend. They make action figures, manga, and yes, even devote orchestra time to playing out the infamous soundtracks that have embodied the Mario saga over the years.

The secondary flaw in the thinking that they are a tyke based empire is in the fact that they continually are reinventing the market of fun. Games such as Animal Crossing, and Donkey Konga, feature distinct levels of gameplay that in most cases wouldn't be concidered all to fun for an adult market, yet continually fly off the shelves. Who wants to do repetative tasks, in a slow moving environment, as is found in Animal Crossing? Only children who are satisfied with putting together square piece puzzles? Obviously not, concidering how many adults have seemed to be addicted to the liquid crack which is Animal Crossing. Who wants to hit bang on two toy drums and clap their hands for a few hours? A toddler, sitting in a pool of slobber? Wrong again, seeing how Donkey Konga has more adults, and teens, stopping by to play the display than children.

Nintendo has a nitch all right, it's called fun entertainment. Entertainment that we all can enjoy - like Men in Black - the first one of course. I'm sorry that you feel so adimently about games such as DOA Beach Vollyball, BMX XXX, and Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen Sweet 16: License to Drive, being the greatest to ever exist, but I think there is more to being a great game than simply getting an "M" rating on the front.

[Yorrike @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

#39: I know it's difficult being 15 years old. Every morning waking up and planning all the ways in which you'll prove to those around you that you're not gay, and playing Pokemon or Mario, even if they're fantastic games, would not help your over-compensation in any way.

Anyone questioning this move by Nintendo should seriously ask the following question of themselves:

# Why do I play video games?
1.) Because it makes me look cool
2.) Because I like looking at cutting edge graphics
3.) Because it's fun, image be damned!

If your answer is anything other than 3, I'm afraid to say that your opinion doesn't matter. You'll buy the latest Xbox or PS because it's cool, or because you want prettier versions of games you already have and then in order to justify your purchase that gave you nothing new, you feel compelled to tell people that you're right with arguments like "Nintendo is for kids" and "The GameCube doesn't play DVDs, therefore it sucks". Your opinion in matters like this doesn't matter. Shut the fuck up.

Now, everyone else out there. The people who play games because they're fun, the people who can separate themselves from platform and look solely at the games, can we realistically say that the Rev's lack of HD will make the games less fun to play? I say no. I say the common opinion of the average, ie the majority of consumers, will be complete ignorance to HD, what it means, and whether they should be shopping for a console that plays in HD. It's all about the games, and it always has been.

If a console came out with Superman 64 style games in 720i, and one came out with hit after original, unique hit in standard resolution, the Superman64 console would bomb. Just like the Phillips CDi or the Atari Jaguar - two consoles with CD playing ability and top of the line tech, but crap games. History is on my side here.