Concrete Revolution specs?

Just like the Windows Vista release date, the rumored specs for the Nintendo Revolution continue to both change and disappoint us. IGN has posted some new info from sources in the game development industry who supposedly possess official Nintendo documentation and claim to have run benchmarks on the IBM-supplied Broadway CPU and ATI's Hollywood GPU in dev kits that are similar in design to final production units. Originally we had heard that Revolution would sport a 1.8GHz processor, and possibly as high as 2.5GHz -- the new figure, according to IGN's sources, is a rather pokey 729MHz -- compared to 485MHz on the GameCube, 733MHz for the original Xbox, three 3.2GHz cores on the 360, and the deified Cell processor in the PS3 (although direct comparisons are unfair due to the different architectures). Meanwhile, the supposed 600MHz ATI chip is now speced at only 243MHz (with 3MB of texture memory), which is a decent bump over the 'Cube's 162MHz GPU, and in the same league as Xbox 1's 233MHz. Total RAM is also rather disappointing -- only 88MB -- but all of these numbers, even if true, are totally in line with what the company has been saying all along: rather than fighting a next-gen console war, they want to provide a unique gaming experience based around an innovative controller in a wallet-friendly package.

[Thanks, James S.]

[Andreas @ Mar 30th 2006 6:22AM]

The price of Revolution... will be low. I'd say as low as $99, or at least $149 as at the release. They're doing like with the cube, preparing a console that is cost effective to produce and sell, unlike Sony and Microsoft that has calculated to sell their machines for a much lower price than what they're actually paying to assemble and manufacture the unit. Nintendo will probably earn money for every sold Revolution.

I'm 29 years old, and I'm tired of conventional gaming. I'm ready for something new. The only console I'm interested in at all this time is the Revolution. It doesn't matter if it's just 2-4x the Gamecube. It's enough to build great gameplay with a great new innovative concept of interacting with the software.

[mike @ Mar 30th 2006 6:29AM]

i could care less out all the new gameing consles, ill buy which ever is the first to have homebrew runing with no hard mod.

[Jason @ Mar 30th 2006 6:30AM]

It's also probably a ton easier to program for the Revolution than it is for the 360. Dare I even think about trying to compare it to the nightmare that is the PS3? Shorter, easier dev should translate into faster releases and maybe even cheaper game prices. And if the console is that much cheaper, hey, we can upgrade to another console in a couple years without it hurting like a $500 console that only is hot for 3-4 years would.

[eric @ Mar 30th 2006 6:35AM]

If those are the real figures we have a 7053R. But on the otherside it means we can run the games via emulation since not so much computing power will be required as current computing power is almost 2.5 times as much as the specifications (729mhz vs 3.4GHZ).

Thnx nintendo, u just lost another loyal customer thanks to ur lousy 'next gen' console

[Gridlock @ Mar 30th 2006 6:38AM]

Sega Saturn (and Dreamcast, perhaps) - immensely powerful for the day, yet impossible to code for.

Sony Playstation - originally an add-on for the SNES, yet it conquered all before it.

Xbox - a cheap, outdated Celeron with a cheap, outdated graphics card and a bodged PC motherboard

Can you imagine optimising code for what is essentially a 6-CPU PowerPC machine with S-ATA and 32 pixel lines, or whatever the GPU has going for it?

It's all in the gameplay, people.

[Que @ Mar 30th 2006 6:55AM]

Nintendo has always been known for it's great gameplay in games. Now they're bringing us the Revolution equipped with retro-emulation. If their emulation allows us to play (N64, SNES, etc.) games multiplayer via the internet, I'm sold to the Revolution.

And Eric, if Nintendo just lost a "loyal" fan over their next console spec's for being unable to deliver the sweat-dripping, blood-pouring-from-bullet-wounds, ultra-realistic-war-games (something Nintendo was never famous for); then I highly doubt your as loyal as you claim to be.

[Max @ Mar 30th 2006 6:58AM]

I'm with you #1 Andreas.

I've seen way too many FPSs and RPGs and Sports games that are more or less the same but with better and sometimes slightly better gameplay each generation (sometimes worse gameplay).

I want something new. The revolution can do that with a good price point.

I've been a software engineer for the past 12 years and my freaking thumbs hurt with boomerang controllers after 15 minutes of gameplay. I am psyched for the revolution.

[Matt @ Mar 30th 2006 7:11AM]

So what you're doing here is just mirroring IGN's rubbish. Unqualified clock speeds are completely meangingless. 733 mhz for the original xbox vs 485 for the gamecube etc. etc. have you even heard of different architectures. These figures (if true) are still completely meangingless. Add this to the fact that the revolution won't be using up half of it's power dealing with HD graphics...

[Robert verriotto @ Mar 30th 2006 7:20AM]

Agree Strongly here with everyone except for #4.

This day and age the only thing that I see all of the other consoles offering is "FPSs, RPGs, sports, etc..." all infused with a healthy dose of murder, death, violence, and rap music. This is the exact reason that I have always been a nintendo fan and always will be a nintendo fan.

When I get the urge to play a game I want to do just that; play a game. Not simulate reality and all of it's stress inducing, high pressure, cut-throat BS. I get enough of that at work.

Believe it or not I havent bought a game console since the super nintendo (yes, I feel old). I have every hope that the revolution will deliver the gaming experience that I am looking for and I will be one of the first in line to buy it. Congrats nintendo! Welcome back old friend.

[paris @ Mar 30th 2006 7:27AM]

"direct comparisons are unfair due to the different architectures"


Isn't the Cell and the x360's CPU also based on the PowerPC architecture? So why would it be unfair for direct comparisons? All the little bitty changes made to the Revs CPU will surely not change the PowerPC architecture and we are talking about a single core.

[Joram Oudenaarde @ Mar 30th 2006 7:36AM]

While I'm a huge fan of RPG's (and mmorpg's), they all seem to become one and the same lately. The only original one seems to be Final Fantasy, but most others just act like copycats regarding looks and play.

I don't want to have a 360 because of it's immensely huge adapter and weird design (no, i don't like it). I'm not sure if I like the ps3, mostly because there's a big chance of a bulky adapter. Both make a l?f noise (even more then my PC), and generate enough heat to warm up my livingroom.
I know I don't know anything about the ps3, but you can bet that it'll get warm and sucks up power like no other.

Add to that the minuscule HD from the 360, the weird controller from the ps3, the even weirder design from both... and you'll crave for the innovative Revolution. I love Mario and Zelda, and can't wait what they have in store for us next. To me, th?s what a next-gen console should be able to make us feel. I love good graphics and all, but a console should not be 100�C, with adapters and other powerhungry/spacefillers. It should be a console, nothing more, nothing less. I'll use MCE for my movies and music.

[martinj88 @ Mar 30th 2006 7:42AM]

"Insiders stress that Revolution runs on an extension of the Gekko and Flipper architectures that powered GameCube"

I thought ATI said they bulit it from the ground up

[Scott Dodson @ Mar 30th 2006 7:48AM]

#4

Already a lost customer and you haven't seen a game or what it will offer yet? LoL, you my friend are no longer a "gamer" but a consumer, just what M$ and Sony want.

I think everyone should just take a step back, and wait to see what the big N can give us with the Rev.

[Matt @ Mar 30th 2006 7:58AM]

Graphics aren't everything, but they do count for something...let's be serious. I can already play NES, SNES, and N64 games on my Xbox, and it seems the Xbox is more powerful for playing native games too.

There might be an innovative game or two with the Revolution, but you guys are holding your breath for the same old stuff...Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong...yawn.

[Lee @ Mar 30th 2006 8:06AM]

Scott (#12),
I can't agree more than folks really should relax... What's with people nowadays? In any case, I also believe the "wait and see" should apply to PS3... as in, let the damnemd thing be released before anyone starts to act like they know as much about it as someone on the development team.

other business...
As for the MS & Sony propensity for violent content -- If you dislike blood and gore, just buy a shiny new Rev when it's released and quit kvetching about it. Personally, I can't stand Mario anything, not that the games he's been in have been bad over the years; I'm just sick of the character is all. (Kinda like being fed up with the "blech" that Garfield has become)... Anyhow, video games should just be relaxing/fun or maybe some stress relief... some like Mario, some like 50 Cent.

But I must say that the Revolution'd case design is fabulous, if the pic above is indeed the approved final design. Very sleek.

[PEZ @ Mar 30th 2006 8:08AM]

I heard the new "code name" for the revolution is HOLLYBROADWOODWAY.


Sounds awesome.

[mynameisjayhi @ Mar 30th 2006 8:18AM]

Well I think that we'll see great things from the Nintendo Rev. Yes, it may not output in high-def or have the most powerfull and higheset specs. But the fact that Nintendo is always aimed for fun... that's what makes a great console. Yes I have an Xbox 360 and most likely will pick up a PS3 later on. But the Revolution is using such a leap in player-involvement (even though seen as a gimick) that I think it'll come packing as well. Just give it a chance and wait until we see what the games/gameplay is like..

[Steve @ Mar 30th 2006 8:20AM]

Who cares if the characters are the same so long as the games are new? Take Mario for example, by the time the N64 was launched there'd been enough Mario platform games on NES, SNES and Gameboy to sink the titanic yet Mario64 was, and still is, considered to be one of the best (possibly THE best) platform games of all time.

Now as to innovative games... take a look at MarioKart on the DS. Is this an innovative game? No, it's the same basic gameplay mechanics we've seen since the SNES original. But the combination of portable machine, on-line multiplayer and the dual screen (I tried to play the N64 'Kart the other day and only then did I realise how useful that map is) adds up to something trully special. It'll be the same with the rev, maybe there'll only be a few games that qualify as "Innovative" but a LOT of titles will benefit from the small things the system does well.

The big trump card for the Rev will be price, no doubt about it. If these specs are right and this is basically a speed bump over the cube production costs of the console shouldn't be much higher than the cube. Add in the necessary costs for the controller and whatever other goodies are being added and it seems likely this could be a �100 - �150 console at launch and actually make a profit. At that price point it only needs one or two killer apps to shift a LOT of units, look at Nintendogs if you want proof. That game shifted a huge number of DS units and a big part of that was the game and console costing less than �100.

I honestly think Nintendo has the right idea here. Build a cheap console that you can sell for a profit, appeal to the masses rather than the hardcore gamers. Produce a selection of first party games that sell like hot cakes and up the profit margin. Make it cheap and easy for third party developers to make games. And, of course, make it look good when it's sitting in your living room. That, I think, is one thing that gets overlooked a lot with the Rev, compared to X360 and PS3 it looks so much more stylish (and a lot less like a games console). That might seem silly to most gamers but you only have to look at Apple to see how important design is in reaching the mass market these days...

[jake @ Mar 30th 2006 8:20AM]

considering the developer kits were a gamecube with the spiffy new controller, looks to me that the Revolution will be pretty much the same thing: a gamecube with the spiffy new controller. i understand that they didn't want to fight the whole hardware battle, but really, i thought we could expect at least half the speed of the other folks.

[hermes @ Mar 30th 2006 8:38AM]

I love Mario and Zelda, and can't wait what they have in store for us next.

[timmy @ Mar 30th 2006 8:53AM]

We can't wait what they have in store for us next.

[DG @ Mar 30th 2006 9:05AM]

The only games I want to play right now are on DS. They're original and only work on that system.

The same will probably be true for the Revolution. Seems to me like that's a winning way to go.

Until, at least, Sony and MS steal the controller design.

[Matt @ Mar 30th 2006 9:10AM]

@ #10 - The cell (ps3)is based on the power architecture, which ppc is also based on. So yeah they're both fruit, but one's an apple and one's a pear...

I'm not sayin the revolution is going to be in the same processing league as x360 and ps3 but declaring it a waste of time because of clock cycles is meaningless:

example: I have a 2.5 year old laptop based on the x86 architecture which is 2ghz. Today a laptop was announced based on the x86 architecture which is 1.8ghz. Can you say it's inferior without knowing a lot more about what's in side each? (a 3 year old celeron or a Pentium Mobile Centrino)

[Pip @ Mar 30th 2006 9:10AM]

Sites comparing XBox x86 mhz vs Gamecube/Rev Power mhz are getting sloppy.

You guys should know better than this.

[Don @ Mar 30th 2006 9:12AM]

On paper the PSP blows the DS away in the horsepower war, yet look at what folks want to play. I say don't sweat the numbers and lets see how much fun this thing is to play. Besides, you just can't compare clock frequencies, even if all the chips are based on the PowerPC architecture. As someone who is pretty familiar with PowerPC chips, clock frequencies do not say everyrthing -- even within the PowerPC family as there are a ton of other variables involved.
Don

[JGE @ Mar 30th 2006 9:13AM]

Metroid, Super Mario, Zelda, Pikmin, and Firefox are more than enough for me to buy they Revolution regardless of the specs. I have the 360 and love the graphics but I don't see much originality in it - same for the upcoming PS3 (which I'll probably get eventually as well). They both seem to be power upgrades from their previous versions. Don't get me wrong, there are some great games on those systems, but I don't think any of them compare to the originality of the majority of Nintendo's first party titles and now add the new controller scheme - I think we're looking at a true gaming "Revolution".

[Mike @ Mar 30th 2006 9:23AM]

If those are the real specs, a lot of people won't take the machine seriously. The console should be called "Evolution" rather than "Revolution". There's nothing revolutionary about the hardware... the controller is the only thing that's remotely interesting.

It reminds me of the DS, which is considerably cheaper and has a lot of potential, though the games are visually unappealing (with a few notable exceptions). Few have taken advantage of the touch screen, which is the only unique trait.

If Nintendo were smart, they'd keep those original specs (1.8ghz, 256mb ram) and put in a scaler which would, at very least, upscale 480p for HD displays. If they did this, I'd be interested. Right now, I'm taking a major "wait and see" approach.

[Freexe @ Mar 30th 2006 9:27AM]

4x the number of core != 4x the speed
4x the clock speed != 4x the speed
Custom PPC power != Custom PPC power (#22 is right the Pentium M is far better than both the AMD and Celeron dispite lower clock rate)

You need only do some basic research into processor design to understand these things, plus ease of development makes a big difference.

This new Nintendo console is clearly aimed at making developers life's easier to make better games quickly and cheaply.

This will be good for the consumer's as they will get more games at cheaper prices.

When you read these specs you have to remember that the flipper is a great piece of technologies, the graphics card doesn't have to drive HD content, the ram doesn't have to hold HD textures and the developers don't have to relearn/reprogram for the architecture. These are all good things and will hopefully mean games will quickly be-able to take advantage of the extra power.

This is something that both Sony and Microsoft should take note from, and hopefully not make their next (next) gen consoles radically different from the current ones.

[.ed @ Mar 30th 2006 9:34AM]

it is obvious from all of these posts that numbers don't matter.

Quality over quantity.

Innovation over Horsepower.

The Toyota Prius is not the most powerful car in the world, but the demand is greater than the next nine cars below it COMBINED.

If anything (and if true) this makes be believe Nintendo is confident and trustworthy.

[Hank Cazorp @ Mar 30th 2006 9:43AM]

Clock Speed : Computer Speed :: Engine RPMs : Vehicle Speed. Comparisons there are meaningless. Nothing in this leaked info seems to contradict the general knowledge that Rev is going to be about 3X more powerful than Gamecube. In fact, it seems to confirm it. So why should anybody be disappointed?

There's so much going for Rev: a new controller, backward compatibility and availability of almost all Nintendo (and retro Sega!) games online, Wi-Fi connectivity with other Nintendo devices like the DS, small form factor, ease of development, reasonable price, external USB drive compatibility...not to mention a cache of game franchises that are priceless to fans.

Viva Revolution!

[dwx @ Mar 30th 2006 9:54AM]

Hmm. I find it interesting that a lot of people who claim to be "hardcore gamers" really only play one type of game, most of the time, and yet considers themselves hardcore. I am referring to FPS games. They're often superior on the PC anyway, although not necessarily always the case. I'm not pointing out anyone in specific, but so far that's what I've seen people whine about. No wahhhhh!!!! There are hardcore gamers of every type of game out there. Just don't throw that term around just because it ain't your cup of tea and that anyone addicted to another genre of game isn't a hardcore gamer, because they are. Besides that, all this whining about horsepower brings back fond memories of the "bit" wars and then the polygon wars. Oh wait, we're still fighting about polygons after all these years!

[Matt @ Mar 30th 2006 10:00AM]

@ Steve #17

"The big trump card for the Rev will be price, no doubt about it."

I honestly think Nintendo has the right idea here. Build a cheap console that you can sell for a profit, appeal to the masses rather than the hardcore gamers.

...but you only have to look at Apple to see how important design is in reaching the mass market these days...

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

1.) $200 amortized over the life of the console is negligible. The cost won't sway me one bit, nor will it sway someone who makes even a modest amount of money (I don't amke that much myself).

2.) The looks matter even less to me than the price. Not to turn this into an 'Apple thread', but they haven't achieved the mass market appeal that you've stated. 4-5% isn't much...it just seems like more because it is a very vocal group, and one that is well represented at Engadget and other tech sites. The normal buying public doesn't care about looks - they go by graphics first and foremost.

[Loban @ Mar 30th 2006 10:00AM]

If anyone wants insight into the success of gameplay vs. graphics, just take a look at the sales numbers of the DS vs. PSP. I think the Revolution will do just fine.

[Edlanti @ Mar 30th 2006 10:01AM]

I dont know why are you guys complaining about? those are just Dev Kits, we dont even know if those are the final specs. just wait for E3 before you guys start complaining

[Loban @ Mar 30th 2006 10:16AM]

"If those are the real specs, a lot of people won't take the machine seriously. The console should be called "Evolution" rather than "Revolution". There's nothing revolutionary about the hardware... the controller is the only thing that's remotely interesting."

Love this comment, hilarious. The controller is the only thing that's interesting? It IS the Revolution. Could you imagine if one car company released a new car with a bigger more powerful engine, then another car company released a car you could drive via your thoughts (no steering wheel or pedals). Which do you think is more revolutionary?

Power and Mhz are NOT revolutionary, PC tech is evolving and improving every day and I keep myself updated on it. The PS3 does not impress me, for a price, a console can be made to do anything, but then it just pretty much becomes a PC. The Revolution does something NOTHING ELSE DOES. Do you honestly think if Nintendo really wanted to they couldn't have created an $800 monster that would directly compete with the Xbox 360 and the PS3?

An ultra powerful non-upgradeable $800 PC in a console's package. Is that a revolution?

A $150 console which gives you the ability to literally and physically interact with the world you see on your TV. Is that a revolution?

You ever seen the Holodeck on Star Trek? Nintendo will be the first to make that kind of interaction a reality.

[Joel @ Mar 30th 2006 10:18AM]

True about the Dev Kits comment. Although that's the general ball-park. The final specs won't be very different.
We're still correct to believe that it doesn't compete with the 'next-gen' consoles as far as graphics go.

I consider this to be an advantage for unique games.
Take for example hand-held consoles. They aren't 'next-gen' comparable in the least, which forces the developpers to create unique games to fit the media.
Same will happen with the Rev. Devs won't be able to just 'port' a common PS3 or XBOX360 game to it. They'll have to redesign the games, thus we'll have more of those unique games that everyone loves, despite the graphics.

[Raptor @ Mar 30th 2006 10:26AM]

In response to Matt (#33):
"2.) The looks matter even less to me than the price. Not to turn this into an 'Apple thread', but they haven't achieved the mass market appeal that you've stated. 4-5% isn't much...it just seems like more because it is a very vocal group, and one that is well represented at Engadget and other tech sites. The normal buying public doesn't care about looks - they go by graphics first and foremost."

Not at all. The normal buying public cares about what they know first and foremost. Adults tend to use Windows at work. Schools lean towards Windows and Office. The only way to gain a foothold with consumers in the computer market without selling Windows is to beat the systems on price or on presentation. Windows is too cheap for the OEMs for a free OS to make any difference, so Apple sticks with style and usability.

Likewise, the Revolution wouldn't get too far is it were not only underpowered compared to the competition, but also not significantly cheaper, and ugly, to boot. Designing an attractive system case is relatively cheap, and it adds perceived value to the system. It'll set the difference between the Revolution as an affordable console versus a cheap one.

On top of that, look at the DS vs. the PSP. Cheaper system, cheaper games, and more worthwhile titles, to boot. If the Revolution sticks with that formula, then it'll end up in more living rooms just because it's a better impulse buy. Not everyone needs a multi-core Gigabit-networked media altar just to play some games.

[Thill @ Mar 30th 2006 10:27AM]

I am not disagreeing with Nintendo trying to do something different from Microsoft and Sony, but the Revolution is clearly not next generation based on these specs. It is barely an improvement over the current Xbox/PS2, and Nintendo's decision not to suppot HD is a big mistake IMO.

That said, I think Nintendo may capture a large percentage of folks who do not want to spend as much money on a console. I am still anxious to see the pricing of this console. It has to be under $150, or they will have a hard time competing with the 360 and PS3 with these specs.

Also, I am tired of people talking about how specs do not matter, it is the games that count. If you look around there are tons of good games on the Xbox, and PS2 and there will be just as many good games on the 360 and PS3. The difference will be that the games on the PS3 and 360 will look and feel much better on my 56" DLP HD television. In a few years, the games on the PS3 and 360 will most likely look ten times better than the games on the Revolution..

[slippy @ Mar 30th 2006 10:31AM]

Ya know.. I really don't agree with any of this. Nintendo seems to always give graphics and hardware a 'backseat', and instead they are throwing all of their coins into this 'innovative controller'.

Only problem, is that both Sony and Microsoft could potentially release similar technologies with their next gen systems.

Here is the link to the Sony story below:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=24355287

And the Microsoft story is here:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6145348.html

The Sony article remains a rumor for now, while the MS article is very real. Both ideas are still rumors overall however; there is still no concrete evidence that either company will actually move forward on their plans. So what are they waiting for? To see how successful the Revolution will be, silly!

Should the Revolution's controller concept really be that good, Sony and Microsoft have the ability to copy Nintendo's idea verbatim. Sony can already do this on the PS2 just by creating a special gyroscope-based Dual Shock controller to sense forward/backward movement, and have it work with the Eye Toy, which already senses left/right motions. The fact that Sony is even considering doing all this with the PS2 and not the PS3 should tell you another thing: Sony knows that Nintendo doesn't care about graphics, so they'd rather put the PS2 up against the Revolution rather than getting out the big guns.

With Microsoft its a different story.. they still haven't revealed much about their camera for the 360. And why not? Again, its probably cause they are waiting for what Nintendo will do with the Revolution, and will likely come up with a product/controller of their own that will contain the same functionality as Nintendo's controller.

So in a nutshell, what all this means, is that if Nintendo DOES put graphics on the backburner, Sony and Microsoft will step in to take the victory. Nintendo clearly has the most innovation here -- why not actually back it up with the best possible graphics? Sure, graphics on their own don't make for amazing software. But you do need graphics + gameplay for a good, well rounded game.

Some games, like Katamari Damacy, have avoided this rule; opting for less defined graphics but more innovative gameplay. But a game like Katamari, in which you have to roll your ball over thousands of objects, would actually benefit GREATLY from high-resolution graphics and better GPU's, which will be able to render and create more defined objects, allowing for more objects to be collected in the ball, and allowing for further realism in the game. Is there really a problem with this concept? Of course not. If they did produce a Katamari game using the PS3 or 360 hardware, you'd see a much better looking, cleaner, more polished game, with vastly expanded gameplay. Again, it already takes ALOT of processing power to be able to take random objects off the ground and put them into a moving ball.. the PS3 would easily be able to make Katamari into a far superior game.. its a shame that the developer doesn't want to create any more Katamari games in the future.

[dave @ Mar 30th 2006 10:32AM]

I like Nintendo's approach. All that horsepower underneath the Xbox 360 and the PS3 is fun for bragging rights, but I have yet to see any game on the former system capitalizes on that power to bring me a truly next-gen experience. Ultimately, the games make a system, not the hardware alone.

That said, I'm slightly miffed at the lack of HD support. 480p looks okay upscaled on my HDTV, but not great. I'd much prefer at least 720p. Otherwise, you won't hear me complaining about Revo's specs.

[play free games @ Mar 30th 2006 10:45AM]

I really like Nintendo's game here (no pun). Make a very affordable console, so that those that can't foot the bill for the $400 Xbox 360 or the possible $500 PS3 can get a next-gen system without breaking the budget. And for the more serious gamer, there should be enough going for it that it will be many people's second system. And even if they don't buy a lot of Rev titles, they surely will pick up some emulated games. The specs are admittedly weak, but if Nintendo breaks even or even makes a little money on the sale of each console, it should keep them in the console market for another generation. I still want to try out the controller!

[Loban @ Mar 30th 2006 10:51AM]

I think the controller will be able to do more than just "sense forward/backward movement". It's going to be very precise and advanced, not just a simple gyroscopic device. It will be elegant and simple, yet very powerful.

And besides, the Revolution is more than just the controller. The Virtual Console is just one example, wait until E3, all will be revealed.

And Nintendo still has one more selling point up it's sleeve that no other company can touch. Near flawless and addicting software.

Now, while I don't think the Revolution is going to come anywhere near winning the next console race (i'm not stupidly optimistic), I think it will do very well and will probably become a cheap second console of choice for just about every "gamer". And the only console of choice for "non-gamers" (women, older folks, little kids, etc.)

[Slippy @ Mar 30th 2006 11:01AM]

That 'virtual console' you speak of can already be implemented on the XBox -- and will likely be implemented on the 360 and PS3 as soon as those systems are hacked. You can also play all those old school games on the PC too. The only difference between these options, and the virtual console on the Revolution? With the Revolution, you'll have to pay for EVERY game. With all these other options, the games are free -- you can find them all over the place; on torrent sites, emulation sites and ROM sites.

I don't know or understand why anyone would want to pay for a NES or SNES game when they already have the ROM on their PC. Maybe Nintendo will find some hard-to-find games to distribute or something.. and I'm sure this feature will be attractive to those who aren't in the business of using P2P software or other 'grey market' solutions (ie the same people who buy all their music from the iTunes music store). But for all those power users out there who already have most of these ROMS on their machines, this so-called virtual console will be meaningless.

[Will @ Mar 30th 2006 11:06AM]

#9 Robert- You are a genius and get a star from me. I enjoy playing games with my kids, and don't want to deal with all the BS that is being promoted as a game. Thank God for Nintendo and the pure gaming approach they take.

[Hal @ Mar 30th 2006 11:07AM]

QUESTIONS:

With these specs, does that mean Revolution won't be able to do displacement mapping?

Also, how can Sony and Microsoft steal Nintendo's design of their controller? Didn't Nintendo say they patented the hell out of it?

Also, I assume Nintendo patented the touchscreen technology for the DS (god knows how), but does that mean the next iteration of the PSP can or can't have a touchscreen?

[emagius @ Mar 30th 2006 11:08AM]

I don't know or understand why anyone would want to pay for a NES or SNES game when they already have the ROM on their PC. Maybe Nintendo will find some hard-to-find games to distribute or something.. and I'm sure this feature will be attractive to those who aren't in the business of using P2P software or other 'grey market' solutions (ie the same people who buy all their music from the iTunes music store). But for all those power users out there who already have most of these ROMS on their machines, this so-called virtual console will be meaningless.

You might use the same argument to ask why any company bothers making PC games (or any other content, for that matter). You can pirate 'em all for free anyway, right?

[Slippy @ Mar 30th 2006 11:11AM]

And just one more thing I wanted to add.. if you think that other companies aren't gonna copy Nintendo's controller idea, then you are being pretty naive.

When the N64 was released, Nintendo ended up releasing two key innovations: first the analog stick, and second the Rumble Pack. The analog stick was the first of its kind to be added into a modern (post Atari) controller, and provided a very fluid and reactive motion in games. The rumble pack was the first of its kind, to offer vibration and force-feedback capabilities.

Both Sony and Sega ended up copying these ideas verbatim, and doing better jobs in their implementations, I might add.

[thispaceforsale @ Mar 30th 2006 11:29AM]

I have a level of trust in Nintendo, and I pull for them slightly as if rooting for a favorite sports team. But they have dropped the ball in terms of technology and this has weakened the experience.
Sticking with cartridges for the 64 was the wrong choice.
Abandoning any online plan for the Cube is arguably the wrong choice.
Now, graphics don't matter, in and of themselves, I would still take Contra over the majority of games out there. And this system will be more powerful than what was able to handle RE 4 very well, so the games should still look slick.

However, I was disappointed that Nin chose to eliminate the digital output to control costs. Graphics are often overrated, but there is a balance, and Nintendo may be swinging too far away at a time when gamers will be upgrading their tvs in increasingly large numbers.

[FFObsessed @ Mar 30th 2006 11:33AM]

Well, the success of any console depends on games. And clearly with those specs nintendo wont be trying to wow you with insane graphics, but when have they?

I think the most important thing is how they utilise the revmote.

If they just incorporate the new controller into another batch of Mario, Metroid and Zelda games then this console will flop, jus like the CameCube did. Tho im sure itll sell more than the 20 million units the GC sold.

What they need to do, is make completely original, exclusive games tht use the rev mote, like a Jedi game where you swing the lightsaber or a tennis game where you swing the racket. But does the Rev have the hardware to make those kind of games realistic? NO i dnt think it does, so unofrtuantely theyll probably try and make it cartoony like Mario Tennis or something.

Theres been a lot of hype surrounding the Rev, but ALL tht hype will disappear if they dnt release great new games that will take advantage of the Rev controller and this console will flop the same as the Game Cube did.

[Dave @ Mar 30th 2006 11:40AM]

To #45 and #48 (both from Slippy):

The advantage of Nintendo's Virtual Console is that it will be streamlined and most likly easy to use. Setting up an emulator on a hacked Xbox is most likely too difficult for most consumers. I've played around with emulators for awhile and I still found it a bitch to setup MAME on my Windows Mobile phone. Plus emulation is not perfect. I have not played with any of the console emulators in awhile but last time I checked, the emulations were not always 100% perfect. I think (or hope) this will not be true with the Rev's Virtual Console.

Secondly, I agree that Sony and Microsoft are probably going to rip off the Rev's controller. But then again, that is why I view Nintendo as the true innovators. Without Nintendo, we would be playing FPS, Final Fantasy, and Madden for the rest of our lives.