Reggie's latest Revolution spiel: low-cost and no HD

Though the Nintendo camp's been silently grinding away behind the scenes, their US mouthpiece Reggie Fils-Aime took a moment to catch CNN Money a bit on what's to come. In his characteristic candidness (at least by Nintendo's standards) he apparently confessed that yes, shortly after the GameCube came out they did realize it seemed incredibly toy-like compared to the competition (honestly, that was the least of our complaints about the GameCube), and alluded to a "visually tweaked" DS in the future (thank god). So yeah, we get it, they're becoming a little more committed to the aesthetics of their hardware, great — but there were a couple things he was straight up about, like that Nintendo is staying the course to being the lowest priced console, and amongst the sacrifices being made to the console will be, as highly discussed, no support for high definition. Just how cheap is the Revolution going to be? Well, Reggie said they hadn't decided a price, but that it'll once again be less than the other guys.

[Via Joystiq]

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

"(honestly, that was the least of our complaints about the GameCube)"

And these were?

[J. Fishy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I heard somewhere that they do not want to make a loss of money on any console so if they want it priced good, I would say mabey about $250. $150 Wholesale, $100 to make? Weird These are estimates but they do sound right, well sorta.

[Martin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

When you consider Nintendo's target market (non-gamers and gamers that are not necessarily mainstream), it makes sense from a business perspective to not have HD support. And yet they are including built-in WiFi, something neither of their competitors are embracing.

For me, I agree with Nintendo's philisophy 100%. I am glad that they are going to work harder on the aesthetics of their hardware though.

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

while the revolution will not support hd it remains my one "must have" next gen console system. i am so intrigued by the controller and downloadable content that it's enough to make me absolutely need one. high def isn't that important for me.

[Michael @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I can live without HD, but I hope they make it do 16:9

[Jason Hodulik @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

#2 -
I really doubt Microsoft or Sony 'want' to make a loss of money on any console, either. Because of the nature of the business, it is sometime inevitable. They make back their money through licensing and accessories.

$100 production costs could be right, we'll see. Keep in mind they're going to have a very versatile optical drive in there, capable of reading the small GameCube discs and the newer, DVD-sized Revolution discs.

As for $250 retail, I realize that is less than the competition, but I still think that's expensive in the eyes of the audience Nintendo likes to think it is targeting. $150 sounds more realistic.

My opinion on the matter is that, of all recent Nintendo systems, Revolution is the one where cuts can be made to the per-unit revenue. Why? The game download service they'll be offering. Assuming they pull it off correctly, they'll have an ever-expanding per-unit revenue that wil continue to grow with time (assuming they keep adding more content, of course).

[Glancing Aft @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I've never owned a Nintendo product.... I was always a sega and pc fan growing up. Most recently it was xbox... But I can say of any of the next gens coming out, this seems to be by far the most interesting. What % of casual gamers play on HD anyway?

[zachary @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Want a price point? How about $199? Every Nintendo Console has launched at $199, the nes, snes, N64, and Gamecube. If you want HD you will have to settle for 480p, whats currently being referred to as ED, it's good enough for me.
As for a DS redesign, thank you, the first thing they should do when they start mocking up new Ds' is to make the screens touch, the 'dead' area between them bothered me so much during the Mario DS minigames.

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

DS was 150 dollars...I'm thinking the Rev will be $175.00-189.99*

Yeah,,,thats right!

[MadaMadaDane @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I think the Gamecube is the best looking 'current gen' system.

I mean, give all the ragging on Nintendo for the Gamecube some perspective:

The PS2 looked good before its release, but the look has aged about as well as Powercolor t-shirts. Thin lines, an ugly 'box with a lip' design; The XBOX was *always* made fun of because it wasn't so much a console design as a big brick PC-case.

What's with the Nintendo hate, huh?

[fierywater @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

The whole lack of support for high definition guarantees that I'll never buy one, and that Nintendo will be a nonfactor in the mainstream gaming market.

Oops.

[Chris @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

If Nintendo starts a pay-per-play service that allows the entire library of NES, SNES, N64, Gameboy and Game Cube games at a fee per month they will make money even if they give the consoles away. I would buy the Revolution for simply that. They they can debut this thing at $199.99 they will have a winner on their hands.

[spasticthinker @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I think the point is that Nintendo is looking to reach beyond the mainstream gaming market. A sign of a great company is almost always its interest in expanding the demograph they sell to - and in the end, Nintendo is just a company looking to please shareholders. And they are going about it in the right way, IMHO.

[dave @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

No HD makes me a sad panda. 480p is so yesterday... and it's going to look like ass no matter how you slice it on my 1920x1080 45-inch Sharp AQUOS tv.

Booooooo Nintendo.

[glitch p-udding @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

you have complaints about the asthetics of the gamecube? the xbox (boat) and ps2 (low profile xerox machine from 1964) were easily the two ugliest video game systems of all time...altho the ps2 is, by far, the ugliest of the two.

by comparison, the gamecube was simple, tiny, and well designed.

say what you want about the system itself, but the asthetics were not lacking.

_
glitch p-udding

[Google Nazi @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Well for people who won't buy a Revolution because of the lack of HD support are morons and non-true-gamers.

If you honnnestly think that games are fun bassed on their graphical appearance then your either a 2 year old or never played a game in your life. Infact if your not going to buy a revolution because lack of HD support you might as well stop playing any game you are currently playing because guess what? They don't have HD support either!

Now just because there isn't HD support doesn't mean that they can't benefit elsewhere. Because of this they can have higher amount of polygons or more characters, smoother framerate and whatever else that can be benefitted.

The revolution has no competition because it is so different, and looks so fun, and it has so much praise, fan, and 3rd party support that it is guaranteed a success. Not to mention the low cost but it its not to say it will be a cheap console.

Granted that the Ps3 has godly graphics and a sweet lineup of games and infact I was guaranteed to buy one along with a revolution when it came out although i am becoming skeptical since of the crappy online service sony is talking about and the features that are being removed etc... Even though the PS3 may be god in graphics it might not be god in gameplay so Xbox360 which i have bashed so much before because it is so horrid (at least for the time being) may ironicly be underneath my tv instead.

The revolution has so much to offer and there is much more features which they claim to have (announcing in a few months) so brace your self !

[Jon @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

honestly i think the choice to leave out HD is stupid. Our goverment is trying to switch over everyone to HD by 2009, i know that this probably isn't a very realistic plan, but bear with me. With Nintendo at least not adding the capability it kinda hurts everyone. I was under the impression that people want better picture quality. I have a DLP in my apartment, and I have an xBox, and honestly, without the HD conversion kit xBox looks absolutely horrible, and i wouldn't even bother playing it because everything is pixelated and blurry. It makes you feel like you need glasses to play. So as an HDTV owner, I would definitely pass on the Revolution unless it supports HD.

[Matthew Rader @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

HD won't be a requirement until the nextgen of consoles. I've never even seen a HD thing on TV in my life. :shrug:

[p @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

IMO the general public is pretty underwhelmed by the whole HD thing. For most people HD is a buzzword but not much more...in terms of feeling a burning desire to upgrade, I think most people view the status quo as "good enough". This is especially true with DVDs, but let's not go there...

Anyway, I don't see this hurting Nintendo with their target audience, the average person who wants to play fun games. They weren't going to get the "I want my game to look like a movie" crowd anyway, and stuff like this that lowers the price for their core audience is a no-brainer.

[BenD @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

How many people actually have HD capable tv's? I know I havent and dont really have any intention of buying one in the near future. I have a 36" widescreen at the moment and my gamecube looks great on it. Any serious gamer, rather than thinking about the graphics, should really be focusing on what the new controller is gonna do for games. How a game reacts to the player is far more important than what the game looks like. For me, Nintendo always produce the most immersive games and this new controller looks like a giant step further in that direction. I Seriously cant wait to play with the new console.... and I agree with MadaMadaDane, the gamecube is the best looking current console, not that it really matters at all

[dave @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Google Nazi, don't call the folks who want HD support "non-true-gamers." That sort of lame blanket statement gets us nowhere. The fact of the matter is that the TV market as a whole is moving to HD whether you or Nintendo like it or not.

The issue here isn't graphic quality, it's resolution/output. Graphic quality is totally contingent on the skill of the people designing the game, and I have no doubt Revolution games will look awesome... on standard TVs. But with regard to resolution, when you take a SD signal and upscale it to HD quality, images aren't as crisp or detailed. They're okay, not great. See any standard, 480p DVD player output on a HDTV to see what I'm talking about. That's my main point of contention, and I suspect for others as well.

In summary: Will Revolution games be fun? Yup. Will they have excellent art direction/design? Likely, yes. Will they look awesome on the HD sets that many people own now or are contemplating buying? Not so much.

[Zac @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Jon, You're not quite right there. By 2009 the government is mandating that everyone switch to digital broadcasting. This will in theory also mean that more people will broadcast in HD, but its really justa side effect. The government is only doing this so they can sell the frequencies that analog TV currently uses.

[p @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Don't Punk, you seem to be interested in technology for technology's sake. If the technology (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) does not improve our lives in a measurable way versus the cost, it is not the fault of the CONSUMER that they don't have the most high-tech thing possible.

[Art Guy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

As an owner of every Nintendo home console except the VirtuaBoy, this just makes me sad. Nintendo makes some of the best games around, but on the hardware side they are really blowing it, just like they did on the GameCube. It's no wonder their user base gets smaller each generation. If they don't turn this trend around with the Revolution the user base will become so small that the third party developers are going to abandon ship completely. Once that happens Nintendo will either just stick with the handheld market exclusively, or start making games for other consoles.

I'm still saddened about Nintendo removing progressive scan support from the Cube and not supporting the online adapter. Thanks for abandoning all of us who liked those features.

I also think the Revolution looks like a IOMEGA Jaz/Zip drive from eight years ago. It is just so generic and lifeless. The GameCube looked much better and had a style all its own.

Lets just hope there will be a ton of quality games.

[Rivendale286 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Don't you guys remember that all TV signals were supposed to be switched to HD by 2006? Yes, that's right, a few years ago the government said that in two months from now analog broadcasting would have to stop... Everything will obviously move to HD, but the government can't mandate it, it's all up to the consumers...

[shadekh @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

the biggest problem will probably be the lack of games spanning all three consoles. Agreed, they arent the most attractive proposition to many, and gamecube didnt recieve as many cross platform games like the xbox and the ps3, but the lack of features plus the lack of power wil begin to byte pretty soon. Then the revolution owners would only be left with a choice of nindendo excusive/in house games. But perhaps that is what nintendo is aiming at.

And i would welcome a DS redesign. I mean, a ortable device should atleast attempt to look good, not like a powder case.

[glitch p-udding @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

a few things...

1. the gamecube was a success. nintendo sells a lot of them and actually makes $$ off the hardware.

2. gameboy is insanely popular. nintendo is a major player and is not going anywhere.

3. the people in this forum don't seem to understand what hd and hd support means. anyone who has ever watched a dvd on hdtv knows that you don't need 720p or 1080i to look damn good. and anyone who knows the history of video games knows that programmers have more to do with how good a game looks than the hardware does.

PCs have supported super-high resolutions for years and that certainly doesn't make them the best gaming system.

-
worship the glitch
-

[shrinkydinx @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

nintendo is smart to realize that the population that cares about hd is small, despite the number of engadget-type geeks who demand it.

will i buy it? yes.
will i wish it supported hd? yes.
do i think leaving out hd is the best move for nintendo? yes.

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

That settles it. I'm not getting this machine. I have a 1080p monitor and I'm not about run a non-native low res machine on it. Especially whent the said machine claims to be "next-gen." I'm sorry, but 480p is NOT next gen. We've had that since the Playstation.

[PodMonkeys @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

#11. I'm fairly certain that the majority of "main-stream gamers" do not have an HD TV.

#21. Higher tech hardware really only appeals to those who care that they get x number of pixels more, or xMhz more of speed. The "Average Joe" is probably more interested in cost/fun ratios. Granted theres some coolness factors in there, but no matter how cool a PS3 may be in terms of hardware, its going to do no better on his 30 inch CRT Low def TV. Not everyone owns an HDTV or can shell out the cash for a "high tech" game console without having to worry about rent, food, or kids.
-----

Companies spend so much money on the games artwork and multimedia that it out costs the actual programming part a lot of the times. When marketers and management look at a game and sees that the cost of the artwork and sound alone costs more than the programming of the game for one console + the porting of it to the 2 others, theres no reason to not sell the game for all 3 consoles.

What does this mean? It means that games are going to be made for all 3 consoles and will increasing look the same. The trend is moving away from releasing the game for one console, then porting it to the others later. The trend is moving towards the simultaneous release of all versions to make money off all of the gamers regardless of console.

The average Joe is going to look at the games and see that most of the games he wants are available on all 3 systems, so which system will he choose? Probably the cheapest one.

What I'd like to know is when did graphics become the most important feature in gaming, outpacing gameplay, playability, and enjoyment?

[matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

#21 (Don't Punk), please help us understand exactly what about the PS3 or the Xbox 360 speaks to any realistic innovation or development in the creativity of the games we will all be playing on these systems. technology has nothing to do with the revolution, and nintendo is admitting that up front...except of course, the tech innovations that will give us new and different experiences on the system.

the HD thing IS meaningless with regard to the revolution, and that's fine, because it's a system built to different ideals. what's great is that those for whom HD is a dealbreaker will have two other systems to buy, that will give you the same gaming experiences you've enjoyed for decades, except now you'll be able to see the blackheads in the pores on the faces of all the people. o frabjous day, callough, callaigh!

[Chance @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I don't know what the big deal is about HD. Gamecube games look fantastic in progressive scan. Get over it people!

At 480p pretty much anything is possible with modern graphics hardware. Revo may be slower on paper, but due to a virtually nonexistent filtrate, the gpu will be able to pull off some stunning eye candy.

Example: The DS is more powerful than the N64. The N64 runs at 96 mghz - versus the DS which runs at 67 mghz. Why does the DS outperform the 64 if it's slower? Filtrate people. The DS moves fewer pixels around at any one time. This enables the handheld to devote more of it's resources toward other visual elements of the game.

I'd wager that the Revo will sport 480p and look fantastic doing it. Don't stress the HD.

[lunarcade @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

"What I'd like to know is when did graphics become the most important feature in gaming, outpacing gameplay, playability, and enjoyment?"

when someone decided to slap some static images into their tech-envelope pushing text adventure game, also known as the day fun died or 1981

[Grindstone @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Here's a website stating the proposal for digital broadcasting to take over analog broadcasting starting in `07 and ending in `09, tenatively. Basically, if you are going to be in the market for a TV over the next 5 years in the US, you WILL be buying a HDtv.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301473.html

With that, Nintendo should have included HD compatibilty. I like the controller innovation and Wi-fi capabilities, but they missed the mark with the next-gen performance. The other two consoles will be usable on all mediums (well, the 360 supposedly will not support 1080p- right?), but Nintendo will suffer a bit for this short-sightedness.

I have respect for Nintendo, but I think they could have made the Wi-Fi an add-on, and made HD a standard. Just an opinion, no need to flame.

[matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

@#17 that is not entirely true. The switch over is to digital broadcasting by 2009, not HD. There is a big difference.

Digital broadcasting in itself does not have any higher resolution then analog, it just has most of the "noise" removed. Similar analogy to cassette tapes vs cd's.

IS HD going to matter? Not really. I play my cube now on my Sony Wega without the progressive scan an it looks pretty darn good to me. It looks a lot better then it does on a regular TV, and I am running standard RCA cables.

It really isnt the components that make the image great, but it is the TV. Simply put even running standard or progressive scan the REV will look very crisp on a new TV. The TV will make it look crisp. Most of the HD sets have video settings that allow you to filter out "noise" to improve clarity. My Wega even has interploration.

For those who don't yet own HD sets or HD programming the difference is there but it is not as significant as one might thnik. The difference between a dvd running progressive scan and HD programming is almost unnoticeable. Trust me on this one. The clarity difference just isnt as significant as the HD propaganda makes you think.

The reason really why most TV looks terrible on a HD tv compared to HD programming is because the analog image is not widescreen. It has to be streched and the image is distorted. HD programming is natively widescreen so their is no distortion. People misconstrue distortion with clarity. If you sit down with your set, set everything to 4:3 programming and compared HD to regular TV you probably wont be wowed as much as when you are sitting in a Best Buy and seeing Discovery Channel in HD.

[dave @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Here's another thought - I'm pretty sure the Revolution's ATI GPU will be *capable* of pumping out 720p or 1080i quality output. The question is, what extra bit of hardware is needed to actually perform this output, and how much does would it add to the console's cost? Clearly, whatever it is seems to be enough that Nintendo is leaving it out for cost savings...

[mrw0lf @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Several thoughts...

I believe that there is plenty of room for several consoles.

Xbox originally was poised as your big brother's game system. This basically means that it would have the equivilent of R-Rated games and include advanced internal components (compared to console units of the same generation). Anyone with kids knows that Nintendo has always specialized in family friendly content, and for that we thank them. A previous post mentioned a shrinking user base...ummmm...hang out with some kids, you'll see otherwise.

IMHO, the "next gen" games are not just about graphics, audio and networking per se. I believe the next gen games will have a higher degree of collaberation and nonlinear story lines. The ability to immerse in a world with great gameplay and interaction with others makes a great experience.

Fun and replay value are mutually exclusive from graphics and sound; the multimedia enhancements can be vital aids in storytelling and environment, but they do not guarantee better gameplay.

That being said, I do believe that HD IS important. Personally, our household has been watching HD content for about 2 years, and to be perfectly frank, there has been some issues, but that is another topic. The problem with watching HD content is that you get spoiled. Watch a program on HD then switch back to normal TV...it look like last night's leftovers. For the old timers out there, it is akin to a record label decades ago saying that stereo recordings were for a small set of people and mono was just fine.

Think about the lifespan of the console. It generally is about 4 years. What % of households in 4 years will have HD? I think it will be far greater than most realize. I

[quangdiggity @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I concur with Michael #5. 720p would be nice, but I can live with 480p. I do hope that they make 16:9 support standard for ALL games. It's really disappointing to have to play a 4:3 game on a 16:9 display.

NINTENDO: Please mandate 16:9 support in addition to 4:3!

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I never needed DVD playback in a console. Convergence devices always tend to be worse than specialized devices. My DVD player that I bought back in 2000 still has a far better DVD decoder than my Xbox. I want Nintendo to do two things: 1) Push the evolution of gameplay forward, 2) Do what they need to stay profitable and stay in the game development business. They're doing both with the Revolution. I don't want them playing the same business strategy as Microsoft and Sony, maintaining the status quo and concentrating on fluffy stuff that doesn't really matter when it comes to great gameplay such as HD, DVD playback, or graphics horsepower. I have a PC for all that junk, I want a Nintendo for the classic Nintendo feel of new and fresh gameplay I've never seen before. With the new controller, there will be entirely new genres of gameplay. They're the only true innovators left in the market and I hope they do everything they need to stay in it.

[Art Guy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

matt wrote - "The difference between a dvd running progressive scan and HD programming is almost unnoticeable."

LOL. You can't be serious, do you have your PC monitor set at 640x480 rather than a higher setting because the difference is "almost unnoticeable"? The difference is MILES apart. Watching something in HD is almost entrancing because the image is so crisp and vibrant.

In case you don't know truly what the visual difference is, take a look:
http://blogs.snapstream.com/wp-content/resolutionComparisonLarge.jpg

There are at least 26 PS2 and Xbox titles that run in HD resolutions higher than 480p, but the Revolution can't handle it?

[DG @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I think that native WiFi is significantly more important than HD support. Many more people have wireless routers in their homes than do HDTVs. One less cable behind the television is always welcome, and the WiFi will have a direct impact on gaming experience. And, if nothing else, WiFi on the system is a visual representation of Nintendo's commitment to online gaming, something that has been sorely lacking.

HDTV support won't be nearly as important to this generation of gaming as broadband. I feel pretty confident saying that.

[chris @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

i agree with #41
I think alot of people are forgetting what gaming is all about. Having good graphics doesnt make gameplay any better. One example is forever loved puzzle games like Lumines and Tetris. More people can have fun playing 2D games from NES/SNES than any from the current XBox and PS2 line. XBox and Sony can promote about their system performance and get alot of naive customers waste money.
Do you really need HD DVD?
My money is on Nintendo HD DVD or not.

[chris @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

i agree with #41
I think alot of people are forgetting what gaming is all about. Having good graphics doesnt make gameplay any better. One example is forever loved puzzle games like Lumines and Tetris. More people can have fun playing 2D games from NES/SNES than any from the current XBox and PS2 line. XBox and Sony can promote about their system performance and get alot of naive customers waste money.
Do you really need HD DVD?
My money is on Nintendo HD DVD or not.

[Home Theater Dude @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I take it you guys who couldn't care less about HD support have never played on an 8 foot plus widescreen.

I got into the home theater scene a couple years ago, and one of the first things I did was plug my xbox into a front projector onto a 96" screen.

If you have not experienced this kind of visual immersion, while being surrounded by 5.1 booming audio, I understand why you don't understand. :-D

You think you've seen bling? You ain't seen squat.

As far as small screen gaming, I'm never going back. That means I want HD games. Yes, most games right now are not HD, but I've got plenty of 480p and a few 720p games in widescreen to hold me over until x360 and ps3 get here. Revolution would be on my list if it had HD.

So, before anyone suggests people who prefer their games HD-sized are less gamers or less intelligent than they, well... I guess there is no point in arguing that "logic."

[matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Long Post.

I think many of the debates that we see floating around the various issues with the next generation consoles, from specs, to tools, to graphics, etc. orbits around a larger issue that is often discussed but not attributed to what we are seeing in the current and next generation. That is Cinematic experience. There is a growing divide of two camps within all of the communities that exist in the gaming world: gamer, programmers, writers, designers and so forth and that divide is centered on the issue of the cinematic experience in video games.

Should video games work towards a more cinematic experience? Many believe it should based on the fact that movies and films can be incredibly engrossing and immersive. The logic is that the immersion can go even further if you�re playing a film. The other camp we see I think is centered more around entertainment then immersion. I think this entertainment, if we need to pull out a comparison, would be much closer to network TV shows then films. The entertainment makes you feel good; it is fed in spoonfuls, and is probably more centered on making you laugh with and at the characters, rather then struggle with them through their trials. You can also probably include on-the-go or classic gaming in this genre.

There are a lot of games and systems that demonstrate these models very well. Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Shadow of the Colossus Resident Evil and more are incredibly immersive and cinematic.
You also have numerous games that are much more pure entrainment: Handhelds in general, Mario, Sonic, Crash Bandicoot, Sly Cooper, and eye-toy. What really seems to be at odds here however is that there seems to be a conception that either one is better then the other or both cannot seem to exist?

The issue really is that the �Entertainment� games are all we really had due to technology limitations up to the current generation. We are now at the point that that both standards can be achieved and be achieved quite well. The problem really lies in the fact that there are people who think the gaming industry needs to move to a more immersive experience. They think that cinematic is the evolutionary direction gaming needs to go and in some regard they are forcing it in that direction. The thing is though that this thought really excludes a lot of other possibilities of gaming. There is nothing wrong with classic gaming concepts simply because we now have the technology to produce a cinematic experience.

Sony is pouring huge resources into specs, Microsoft into game standards and Nintendo into lets say something else. What is most troublesome is the fact that we have developers, like the VP for the Unreal engine and even fans touting ideas that one idea is inherently wrong over the other or that the industry should not embrace one idea over the other. What we as gamers should be demanding more then anything else is choices. We should not attack Sony for choosing to go the rout of a very high performance machine, nor should we attack the rout of Nintendo for trying to push an alternative gaming perspective. We should not disregard the gaming models of the past thirty years simply because the technology can bring us in a different direction. There is no need to force a new perspective. On the other hand there is no reason to try to slow it down and prevent the immersive or cinematic perspective form developing.

The whole point of this worthless, waste of time rant is that the entire industry is about the experience. Nothing more�� The experience is what matters most above anything. Now to argue that one idea can present a better experience over another is simply that of a person being a lughead ( I know good choice.)

Why is it that we want all of the systems to have the same specs? Why would you possibly want a game to be playable on all three systems? It is exclusivity of devices that provides the greatest range of experiences and the greatest range choices for the gaming world.

If all three systems were nearly identical what then would you really be choosing for your gaming experience? Case design?
The gaming industry is one of the few industries that seem to be on a path of bottlenecking itself in regards to products. This goes for the PC gaming market as well. In any other industry analysts, industry insiders and fans usually applaud when product presents something different that pushes the boundaries of the product over the other choices out there. Ironically the gaming industry and perhaps more importantly the gaming community seems bent on the idea of a single conception as the only answer. What is truly funny is that we have several parties trying to shout at each other as to what that correct answer is rather then just letting everything exist in the market together.

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Who cares about HD when you can output VGA @
2048 x 1268

"Apparently the device will support external resolutions up to 2048 x 1268 though HD support is still as yet undecided"

As reported by engadget.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000077060215/

[LJ @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Where did this Digital = HD thing come from? Here in the UK some SKY Digital (Digital Satellite service) has some 8million subscribers then you have a the two Digital Cable services (Telewest and NTL) who's subscripition numbers I am unsure of... but we don't have ANY HD broadcasting here yet.. AT ALL. The first service is coming from SKY next year...

Back on topic - Sure it would be nice to have HD support so that those of us who can afford a minimum of �1299 for a decent HD Ready (has to have HDMI to use the new TV services due to HDCP cos content providers started crying, making all previously sold HD sets worthless.. YAY) set could enjoy gaming in HD.. but it's hardly going to ruin the experience... and if it does for you that's kinda sad. That graphical deficiency makes a game impossible to play for you.

If so many people feel that way, one wonders how the PS2 sells so much.

[Scott @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

"They where the cheapest"

Where were they? The PS2 is a piece of garbage. A bunch of fanboys that think having 200 different games makes a system better. Also, Socom sucks

[Mattisdada @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

#51 your to right about the ps2, only ideots think that having ALOT of crap games is good.

but having HD is not relaly needed, very few people have HD tvs, and why add another $100 to the price tag to amke a few hundred people happy, is just ludicrous.

Nintendo is the only smart company, there thinking out side the square, also, have you relised that the Q of game play has dropped, and that the old 64 games are more fun then most of this gen genration, you know why? Becuase everyone is focousing on graphics, becasue non true gamers say, LOOK GOOD GRAPHICS, which is entirly worng and should not be done.

the Xbox only ahs 5 good games on it(or less)

tahnk you for listening

[jpmullet @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

The revolution isnt going to support HD because the games are going to be to lame to start with. Who wants Pokemon and Nintendogs in HD? No need...

This system is targeted at a young newb audience. That's why Wi-Fi is implemented, because there is potential profit there. As Joe Average stated:

"I just want the cheapest system and a mug of beer."

Anyone who thinks this is gonna be a "good" system is only fooling themselves and missing out on the true experience of gaming.