Support NeoGAF

[mj1108]

Yay a rich company is making a lot of money!

Lets all throw a party and pretend we somehow gain from this!

:lol

....says the guy who tries to spin PSP game revenue in Japanese sales threads.

 

[JavyOO7]

I basically look at it like this. Nintendo should've had a powerful next-gen system compared to the likes of PS3/Xbox360, should've supported HD, and basically mimick (sp?) what the competitors had along with the FSC of course. Since they'yre not... oh well. I see it that if Nintendo dissapointments me tremendously with the Revolution I can always buy another system so it really doesn't matter to me in the end. I win either way.

 

[DefectiveReject]

Okay so some guys want to buy a Revolution, and are effictively being laughed at by others for this?

Yes HD is superior to SD:TV
Yes PS3 and the 360 will be more powerful than the Revolution hardware wise.

But

Why would a third company do the same thing as everyone else and charge them the level of money it would cost to do so?
You want HD graphics, get yourself a PS3 and be quiet, no one berates you for this?

I have a BMW 1 series, 2litre engine, i am now going to go out for a drive and laugh at everyone who has a car inferior to mine, because the superior version is there for everyone to buy. I will then more than likely be laughed at by someone with a bigger better car than me.
Does everyone buy the superior TV's? Does everyone buy the superior DVD system? How about Hi-Fi systems? Washing Machines? Fridges? Houses? Clothes?

No, thats right they don't, because they either don't want to or can;t afford to, and want to stick with the simple things in life.

I don't cry myself to sleep because there are some people out there watching HD:TV and i'm watching standard TV, it looks better BUT THE PROGRAM IS THE SAME EITHER WAY. It doesn't change the content of the program or make an ASS of a program any better, so whats to say that HD gaming will inprove the content of the games on the HD systems?

You pay $1000+ for your HD gaming system and TV, and i'll Pay $500 for my SD:TV and Gaming system, i'll no doubt enjoy the content of many of my games more than you, and when you buy FIFA2008 for $60 and i pay $40 for the same assy content, i'll think of you whilst i save all my money for a superior lifestyle!

 

[jj984jj]

Geez guys, you are not looking at the big picture, THEY ARE LOSING MARKETSHARE! Sooner or later it's going to bite them in the ass.

They are losing market share but the market is getting bigger, in the end that is all that matters to them. When you have over 90% of any market it is only going to go down from there. Does anybody really expect Sony to own the same percent of the market they did this generation with the PS3? Honestly, you're only fooling your-self if you do.

....says the guy who tries to spin PSP game revenue in every sales thread.

Fixed.

 

[Mama Smurf]

I don't know why we bother to argue anymore, I really don't. I swear it's just turned into two sides: the "I wants" and the "But in a business sense..."

These sides are never going to agree. Ever. The "I wants" will talk about what they want ideally, what they think they deserve, how they don't care what makes business sense if that means they don't get what they want. The "But in a business sense..." lot will argue that we can't expect them just to give us what we want, that we need to be more realistic about things, that businesses are in it to make money and while that involves keeping customers happy, it's not going to happen at the expense of profits.

Actually, it's not true that they'll never agree. They'll agree when, coincidentally, the "I wants" (or a portion of them anyway) want exactly what makes business sense. In the case of the Revolution, they'd want a small console with a new controller which they can afford to buy day 1 rather than having to wait 2 years for it to drop to the price they're after, that they won't have to buy a new expensive TV for to play the games at their best and where they can play online games free and download past titles.

Of course, even the "I wants" have some sense of realism, or they'd just be asking for 10 GHz processors at $99, and in the Revolution's case the drop in graphics to get that price is that realism.

Not that I expect this post to make a difference, each side will keep trying to convince the other and we'll get now where....until the next thread! Where we'll get nowhere.

 

[Earthstrike]

What was Nintendo's net income for 2002, 2003, and 2004.


And LOL at the spinners.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

I basically look at it like this. Nintendo should've had a powerful next-gen system compared to the likes of PS3/Xbox360, should've supported HD, and basically mimick (sp?) what the competitors had along with the FSC of course. Since they'yre not... oh well. I see it that if Nintendo dissapointments me tremendously with the Revolution I can always buy another system so it really doesn't matter to me in the end. I win either way.

-How many consumers would risk $400 on a goofy controller from a company with a tarnished image?
-Could Nintendo afford to sell a PS3-style console at the same price as Sony can?
-What does Nintendo as a corporation have to gain by devloping, selling, and marketing a home media center?
-Why would developers waste their money developing high-cost games for the third-place loser whose userbase buys mostly Nintendo games? Oh, plus a weird controller.


Nintendo had to go low-end with Revo for these reasons.

 

[Trurl]

HD = objectively superior. One day when you do get an HDTV, guess which systems you're going to get a functional benefit from. We DO need it, because it's fucking better. Period. And one day, whether it's ten years in the future, you're going to be able to go back to PS3 and 360 and realize how much better.

This is not some vague concept that has pros and cons. Factually superior.

Anyone who denies this needs to get the mother fuck out of the god damn short pool.

Of course it has cons. HD eats up extra RAM causing a console that supports it to have to be more expensive. I have a crappy SD television now so should I buy a DVD player or should I get a $1000 Blu-Ray player? As far as the format is concerned Blu-Ray is objectively far superior to DVD but I will be paying much more money for something that will give me nothing more than a DVD player (except the ability to record). The situation is the same with the Rev. though less drastic, by forgoing HD Nintendo can do more with less RAM thus giving me more for my money.

Actually another way to put it is just to compare it to the GC not supporting DVD. Of course DVD would have been better than GCD but the lack of DVD helped Nintendo deliver a cheap console.

HD is objectively better than SD.
A cheap console is objectively better than an expensive console.


For the record I would love the Rev. to be closer to the PS3 and 360 in terms of power, even if it did cost me an extra $100 or so .

 

[PhoenixDark]

Most impressive.

As has already been pointed out, this is even more impressive when you consider they are gaining all this success with little help from a console system. I don't think Nintendo anticipated how popular the DS would become, especially in Japan.

If the DSL and Mario can explode in the US, Nintendo's profits will be even higher.

I said wow

 

[cybamerc]

Like always - Nintendo feels much more comfortable in telling consumers what they want instead of giving consumers what they want.

I don't remember taking the consumer poll. It's funny how Sony and M$ fanboys always seem bring up this argument. Consumers are a diverse group. Just because you don't find Nintendo's products appealing doesn't mean noone else does.

 

[DSExpress]

so would you guys rather have another console that is basically like PS3 and Xbox 360 or a totally different console like the Revolution that truly does something different for gaming? We had basically 3 of the same consoles this generation and nothing was special about them between each other, sure 1 had a hdd, but the games were all the same.

As for me Revolution for the fucking win, its different. And you guys need to realize, if you are true gamers, you would embrace the Revolution for being different and offereing something you have never experienced before besides a graphical upgrade.

 

[cybamerc]

Amir0x:

> Online gaming = objectively a good thing. You don't have to play it if you don't want.

How do you feel about connectivity?

> HD = objectively superior.

While I'm personally annoyed that Rev won't support HD I disagree that it's "objectively superior". HD increases costs: it makes the system more expensive and arguably also the games. These costs are passed on to consumers. But maybe there are people who are not interested in spending $400 for a next gen system and $60 for games. That's what Nintendo is betting on.

 

[GitarooMan]

so would you guys rather have another console that is basically like PS3 and Xbox 360 or a totally different console like the Revolution that truly does something different for gaming? We had basically 3 of the same consoles this generation and nothing was special about them between each other, sure 1 had a hdd, but the games were all the same.

Personally, yes, I'd like to have a Nintendo system that is as powerful as PS3/360 because Nintendo makes great games and I'd like to experience them on modern tech with the Revmote. Of course I disagree that there was nothing was different on the three systems this gen, for me each one of them had more than enough exclusives to justify their purchase. The games were not all the same, Zelda: WW is not like Halo is not like Kingdom Hearts. Also, I consider the 360 and PS3 as doing "different" things for gaming, just not the same things as Nintendo.

 

[Beezy]

Personally, yes, I'd like to have a Nintendo system that is as powerful as PS3/360 because Nintendo makes great games and I'd like to experience them on modern tech with the Revmote.

Exactly.

 

[Azelover]

I don't remember taking the consumer poll. It's funny how Sony and M$ fanboys always seem bring up this argument. Consumers are a diverse group. Just because you don't find Nintendo's products appealing doesn't mean noone else does.

best response yet.

 

[cybamerc]

I love how Nintendo fans, point to expansion of the market and whatnot. What does that have to do with your enjoyment of games?

It's proof that some people are enjoying Nintendo's games. Whether or not those people post on this forum is irrelevant. You may find this hard to believe but there's a whole world outside of your computer.

 

[mj1108]

I don't remember taking the consumer poll. It's funny how Sony and M$ fanboys always seem bring up this argument. Consumers are a diverse group. Just because you don't find Nintendo's products appealing doesn't mean noone else does.

Bingo.

Some here need to realize that what YOU want is NOT what everyone else wants. Then again, most consumers likely don't even know what they want to begin with.

 

[elostyle]

I say this because Nintendos fanbase is going to be dilluted with Non-Gamers that enjoy these games. If this ever happens on a large scale, I know i'll be staying away from Nintendo products. Nintendo fans seems to embracing this.

It's pretty fun to compete against your significant other or family members in braintraining, I don't know why you wouldn't want to participant in such a situation. Everyone I know that has brought back a copy from gdc that has a significant other has not seen their copy in quite a while.

 

[clearacell]

Some here need to realize that what YOU want is NOT what everyone else wants. Then again, most consumers likely don't even know what they want to begin with.

Good to know Nintendo is here to tell me right :lol

The thing about Nintendo is that they're a gaming-only company, so it would make sense that their focus would be on new systems whose focus is new gameplay rather than beefed up graphics and physics.

 

[mj1108]

Good to know Nintendo is here to tell me right :lol

I never said that. All I said was that what one person wants != what everyone else in the world wants.

Give Nintendo credit for actually having the balls to try something new.....

 

[BlueTsunami]

It's proof that some people are enjoying Nintendo's games. Whether or not those people post on this forum is irrelevant. You may find this hard to believe but there's a whole world outside of your computer.

You see, thats the thing. What do I care if the person next to me likes a game? What do I care if a certain game will expand a market? All I care about is if a game i'm playing is enjoyable. I've stated already but I dislike the counterargument of market-expansion. I personally believe thats an argument for stock holders not gamers.

It's pretty fun to compete against your significant other or family members in braintraining, I don't know why you wouldn't want to participant in such a situation.

I very much agree with you on this. Market expansion is not all bad I guess, there are redeeming qualities. I have alot of family members that haven't touched games since the NES (I would also love to play some games with these family members). The Revolution may bring them back to games.

 

[NWO]

Yay a rich company is making a lot of money!

Lets all throw a party and pretend we somehow gain from this!

:lol

Yeah because we all know that if the news was that Nintendo was losing money that nobody in here wouldn't be posting that they were doomed or that they should go 3rd party or anything else that the trolls love to feed off of negative Nintendo threads.

Basically on GAF this is how Nintendo threads go:

If its good news:

1. Say "who cares you don't profit for a company making money"
2. Bring up shrinking marketshare
3. Refer to an old quote from Nintendo about CD-Roms or Online play
4. Nintendo sucks for not having HD support'
5. DS has crappy graphics
6. LOL they are cheating because they use teh non games FTW

If its bad news:

Eh its basically people saying the same stuff as above but the thread is about 100 times larger because everyone who hates Nintendo loves to constantly talk about Nintendo.

Like always - Nintendo feels much more comfortable in telling consumers what they want instead of giving consumers what they want.

Not surprising when these are the results, sure.

You mean like Sony TELLING us that we want watered down DVDs that cost 3 times as much with half the content aka UMDs.

Or you mean like MS TELLING us that we want to pay outrageous prices for every fucking accessory for the 360 even though the stuff cost half as much for the Xbox, PS2, & Cube.

All companies tell you what you want instead of listening to what the consumers want because NOBODY was crying that games were too cheap at $50 and needed to be raised to $60.

 

[..pakbeka..]

let's hope they use all that money for big budget releases on the rev


how about adding orchestraded sountracks and great voice-acting on every game of yours nintendo?

 

[cybamerc]

The thing about Nintendo is that they're a gaming-only company, so it would make sense that their focus would be on new systems whose focus is new gameplay rather than beefed up graphics and physics.

Better graphics and physics do not rule out gameplay innovation. But Nintendo wants to differentiate itself from the competition. If the Rev matched the Xbox 360 and PS3 in specs it would not only have to priced similarly but it would also be treated similarly by developers. And the end result would probably be that once again Nintendo loses marketshare while the overall continues to stagnate.

What they're doing instead is offering something completely different (relatively speaking). It may not pay off but even if the Rev fails it doesn't necessarilly mean that Nintendo had the wrong idea. Nintendo can't compete on equal terms so there's no point in trying.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Of all the things, I just wished the Revolution offered High Definition. Like I said, with HD it would look very nice on my bigscreen HDTV in the living room. It doesn't need all the fancy shader effects and whatnot, just a higher resolution for their games.

 

[marc^o^]

Rev will host brand new game types, which won't suffer at all from the lack of HD. These new games won't rely on top notch graphics but on fun and originality.

But even for more traditional games, such as FPS, it is not said the lack of HD will prevent us from having a blast playing these games with the Revmote. I'm astonished at how good Metroïd Prime Hunters turned out to be on the N64 graphic like DS. The reason this game is great even on a tiny pixellated screen is because the game is so responsive that the experience becomes immersive. Some people write pages and pages (and pages) about how Nintendo got everything wrong with the lack of HD. But graphics won't be the Revolution selling point. There will be other things just as important.

And yeah to the small price for the console and the games. Something tells me we'll need as much money as we can to try all the experiences Revolution will bring us.

 

[Amir0x]

Okay so some guys want to buy a Revolution, and are effictively being laughed at by others for this?

You want HD graphics, get yourself a PS3 and be quiet, no one berates you for this?

Speaking only for myself, I am not berating anyone for getting a Revolution. Otherwise, I'd be berating myself since Revolution is the only console I intend to get on day one.

Of course it has cons. HD eats up extra RAM causing a console that supports it to have to be more expensive. I have a crappy SD television now so should I buy a DVD player or should I get a $1000 Blu-Ray player? As far as the format is concerned Blu-Ray is objectively far superior to DVD but I will be paying much more money for something that will give me nothing more than a DVD player (except the ability to record). The situation is the same with the Rev. though less drastic, by forgoing HD Nintendo can do more with less RAM thus giving me more for my money.

Wait for a price drop. "HD is superior" - it should basically be a mantra. This discussion is a dead end because that fact will never change.

And Revolution isn't giving you 'more' for your money in the power sense... its specs, if the IGN thing is true, are too low. So even in SD resolution, the games will look... inferior. So that avenue is done too - Nintendo might be avoiding HD so its low specs can go the extra mile, but you're still ending up with a graphic product that's technically inferior in either SD or HD (artistic merits aside).

As for the BRD/HDDVD analogy... they both play DVDs. It's in your best interest to get one as soon as they come in your price range, unless they fail miserably and we move on to a different format or unless you intend to stop watching movies.

How do you feel about connectivity?

I feel that it's neat, not something I use much if ever. Although I did get a kick out of Tingle in Wind Waker.

But the option is there, no?

While I'm personally annoyed that Rev won't support HD I disagree that it's "objectively superior". HD increases costs: it makes the system more expensive and arguably also the games. These costs are passed on to consumers. But maybe there are people who are not interested in spending $400 for a next gen system and $60 for games. That's what Nintendo is betting on.

It is objectively superior. It's not something that's actually up for debate. Resolution is higher. Systems that support HD will always eventually come down in price; SD will always be inferior no matter what the price.

So, if you feel the price is getting 'passed on' to you wait for a price drop. That's what casual consumers do, usually. They don't seem to mind. Also, Microsoft offers first party games for 49.99. Nintendo will likely do a similar thing. Third parties can do what they want, there has been no price set for third party games on Rev. Nintendo starts cheap, you get cheaper stuff. Sony and Microsoft take losses up front, and you get more. Revolution controller is the great divide. You choose what you like, of course. I've already chosen my first system of next gen, and that's Revo. Doesn't mean I'm happy with every decision like some foolish sheep.

 

[cybamerc]

BlueTsunami:

> You see, thats the thing. What do I care if the person next to me likes a game?

You cared enough to write that little rant of yours.

What you don't seem to get is that you are not the center of the universe. Game developers do not exist only to make games that suit your tastes. The fact that Nintendo is selling a lot of these so-called "non-games" is proof that it is doing something right. The fact that Nintendo has succesfully managed to expand the gaming market means that it is not just selling to existing Nintendo fans.

I agree that high sales are not always indicator of high quality. But it is not up to a single individual to determine what is quality and what is not.

> What do I care if a certain game will expand a market?

I don't know - you tell me. You seem to be personally bothered by it.

> All I care about is if a game i'm playing is enjoyable.

I'm sure the many millions who have bought Nintendogs, Animal Crossing and Brain Training feel the same way.

> I personally believe thats an argument for stock holders not gamers.

If that's how you feel I don't understand why you are at all participating in this discussion.

 

[Scrow]

It is objectively superior. It's not something that's actually up for debate. Resolution is higher. Systems that support HD will always eventually come down in price; SD will always be inferior no matter what the price.

if there are advantages and disadvantages to HD (which there are), it isn't "objectively superior" at all. It's superior for your wants and needs, but your preferences don't cover the entire spectrum.

"It's not something that's actually up for debate."? Give me a break. As though you're the be-all and end-all on anything.

 

[Amir0x]

if there are advantages and disadvantages to HD (which there are), it isn't "objectively superior" at all. It's superior for your wants and needs, but your preferences don't cover the entire spectrum.

"It's not something that's actually up for debate."? Give me a break. As though you're the be-all and end-all on anything.

no, it's superior period. But I guess we can make up some fantasies about it not dramatically improving the quality of the image, if you like.

'B-B-But it's expensive!'

- Get a better job
- Get a job period
- Wait until price drop

'B-B-But it uses extra power!'

- Minimal in this case
- In SD or HD, PS3 and 360 are both far powerful enough to beat out the only system that doesn't use HD

'B-B-But it costs extra development dollars!'

- Cool. Good thing I'm not a developer.

 

[EOGamer]

And you guys need to realize, if you are true gamers, you would embrace the Revolution for being different and offereing something you have never experienced before besides a graphical upgrade.

Urge to kill....rising. If there is one thing that just irks the hell out of me, it's when people throw around this true gamer garbage. There is no standard for what is and is not a gamer, you play games, you're a gamer. If you're not intrested in the Revolution, you shouldn't pretend to be to play to this unfounded idea that being different is automatically a good thing. It isn't, never has been, never will be. Can a game that does something different be good, sure thing. Does it's being different automatically make it so? Absolutely not. I recognize that Nintendo is going down a path I don't see the need for, I'm not intrested but I still wish them well. If that makes me not a true gamer in some random internet guys view, I really don't think I'll lose any sleep over it.

 

[BlueTsunami]

BlueTsunami:

> You see, thats the thing. What do I care if the person next to me likes a game?

You cared enough to write that little rant of yours.

What you don't seem to get is that you are not the center of the universe. Game developers do not exist only to make games that suit your tastes. The fact that Nintendo is selling a lot of these so-called "non-games" is proof that it is doing something right. The fact that Nintendo has succesfully managed to expand the gaming market means that it is not just selling to existing Nintendo fans.

If Non Games become more and more important to Nintendo's business then they've lost me as a customer. Also, that rant wasn't JUST about "if people like certain games" it was about Nintendo releasing games that appease gamers instead of non gamers. Reading the rest of your post I can tell you've torn my post apart and taken things out of context.

I agree that high sales are not always indicator of high quality. But it is not up to a single individual to determine what is quality and what is not.

I'm not speaking in the terms of quality, i'm talking about enjoyability which is important to me. Like I already stated, I could care less if someone else likes a game. Which is the argument thats annoying.

> What do I care if a certain game will expand a market?

I don't know - you tell me. You seem to be personally bothered by it.

Read my previous posts and you'll understand, my posting in this thread didn't begin at that post just so you know.

> All I care about is if a game i'm playing is enjoyable.

I'm sure the many millions who have bought Nintendogs, Animal Crossing and Brain Training feel the same way.

Cool for them, I don't find the appeal in them at all...which was my ultimate point in that statement.... or did you miss that?

> I personally believe thats an argument for stock holders not gamers.

If that's how you feel I don't understand why you are at all participating in this discussion.

I'm participating because I feel its an argument for stock holders and not gamers. Just trying to get my point across. Thats why

 

[Trurl]

no, it's superior period. But I guess we can make up some fantasies about it not dramatically improving the quality of the image, if you like.

'B-B-But it's expensive!'

- Get a better job
- Get a job period
- Wait until price drop

'B-B-But it uses extra power!'

- Minimal in this case
- In SD or HD, PS3 and 360 are both far powerful enough to beat out the only system that doesn't use HD

'B-B-But it costs extra development dollars!'

- Cool. Good thing I'm not a developer.

Jesus man just admit that there are some draw backs. You've said that HD has all pros but no cons and that simply isn't true. My proof?

-HDTVs cost more
-HD takes up additional RAM which would either lead to the amount of RAM the Rev. has to being squeezed even more than it is or more RAM being put into the system causing it to be more expensive.

I'm not saying that these things outweigh the good but they do exist.
Would you recommend that everyone buys a Mercedes-Benz for their next car?

You're probally mostly debating with Nintendo fans that are proud that the Rev. won't have HD but your statements are getting absurd.

 

[Scrow]

no, it's superior period. But I guess we can make up some fantasies about it not dramatically improving the quality of the image, if you like.

'B-B-But it's expensive!'

- Get a better job
- Get a job period
- Wait until price drop

'B-B-But it uses extra power!'

- Minimal in this case
- In SD or HD, PS3 and 360 are both far powerful enough to beat out the only system that doesn't use HD

'B-B-But it costs extra development dollars!'

- Cool. Good thing I'm not a developer.

dude, you're being a short sighted fool who is so caught up in his own spiel you're not even seeing your own contradictions. in the very post i just quoted no less. take a step back and think about everything you just said... logically, and maybe, just maybe you'll start to understand how ridiculous you're sounding.

 

[Amir0x]

Jesus man just admit that there are some draw backs. You've said that HD has all pros but no cons and that simply isn't true. My proof?

-HDTVs cost more
-HD takes up additional RAM

HDTVs will eventually cost the same. Price is only a temporary issue that comes with any emerging format, it doesn't change the fact that HIGH DEFINITION is superior to SD. There is no disputing that. It's impossible. Either you're not reading at all, intentionally being obtuse, or you're simply arguing for argument's sake. "HD takes up more RAM"? That's your argument? Well gee, I hope it takes up all the RAM in the world so that I can continue to get my objectively superior image quality.

I'm not saying that these things outweigh the good but they do exist.
Would you recommend that everyone buys a Mercedes-Benz for their next car?

HDTV is not equivalent to a Mercedes-Benz. Unless the US is making Mercedes-Benz the standard car that everyone must drive in ten years.

dude, you're being a short sighted fool who is so caught up in his own spiel you're not even seeing your own contradictions. in the very post i just quoted no less. take a step back and think about everything you just said... logically.

Logically, HD is mother fucking superior to SD. Period.

 

[BuzzJive]

no, it's superior period. But I guess we can make up some fantasies about it not dramatically improving the quality of the image, if you like.

Improvements in the quality of image do not relate to improvements in quality of gameplay. Your entire arguement is flawed. You should really just stop talking and let this thread try to get back on track.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Improvements in the quality of image do not relate to improvements in quality of gameplay. Your entire arguement is flawed. You should really just stop talking and let this thread try to get back on track.

Lol -- but... that doesn-- it jus-- logic-- ):

 

[marc^o^]

Okay so some guys want to buy a Revolution, and are effictively being laughed at by others for this?

Yes HD is superior to SD:TV
Yes PS3 and the 360 will be more powerful than the Revolution hardware wise.

But

Why would a third company do the same thing as everyone else and charge them the level of money it would cost to do so?
You want HD graphics, get yourself a PS3 and be quiet, no one berates you for this?

I have a BMW 1 series, 2litre engine, i am now going to go out for a drive and laugh at everyone who has a car inferior to mine, because the superior version is there for everyone to buy. I will then more than likely be laughed at by someone with a bigger better car than me.
Does everyone buy the superior TV's? Does everyone buy the superior DVD system? How about Hi-Fi systems? Washing Machines? Fridges? Houses? Clothes?

No, thats right they don't, because they either don't want to or can;t afford to, and want to stick with the simple things in life.

That was a nice post, but Revolution will not merely be a console for the poor. Businesswise, to be the entry point console could be seen as a smart move, but it's far from enough to be successful (see the GC). So you have to make it completely different from your competitors, thus the Revmote and the other secret. What we'll have in the end is a different kind of console, an orange instead of apples as I previously said. And there it starts to to look like a smart move.

Hard to know how far Nintendo will go in their disruptive approach. but the reason why some so called sheeps on this board don't whine over the lack of HD is because they trust in Nintendo and Iwata to deliver on their promises. It may be hard for some of you to swallow, but there are still Nintendo believers in this place, and maybe more than ever since the DS showing: great games don't have to rely on graphics to be good. They just don't have to.

Besides, you don't see any threads whining about the fact x360 and PS3 won't have an innovative controller. Why so? Because people welcome these machines for what they are. As simple as that. Well, Revolution deserves the same respect.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Improvements in the quality of image do not relate to improvements in quality of gameplay. Your entire arguement is flawed. You should really just stop talking and let this thread try to get back on track.

Did he ever state that? Unless the day comes where games can directly be broadcasted straight into your brain and circumventing your eyes, image quality will be important to alot of people.

 

[Scrow]

Logically, HD is mother fucking superior to SD. Period.

i really don't think you took the time to rethink your stance, as i suggested. how suprising. well you can continue with your knee jerk responses as you get caught up in your little crusade to convince everyone that you're in some position to state an "objective fact"; the very one you've contradicted in your own posts... whether you realise it or not. see you in another thread when you're more reasonable and open to the suggestion that you might actually be wrong. i get bored talking to brick walls.

and expletives don't make your case any stronger.

 

[chespace]

Anybody else shocked that Nintendo gets 75% of their revenue from outside of Japan?

So much for the notion that Japan is their bread and butter audience.

 

[Monk]

Unless the US is making Mercedes-Benz the standard car that everyone must drive in ten years.

So making people buy hdtv's is the answer. So much for choice.

 

[Draft]

Anybody else shocked that Nintendo gets 75% of their revenue from outside of Japan?

So much for the notion that Japan is their bread and butter audience.

i'm not shocked to learn that 75% of the worlds children live outside japan.

 

[snatches]

My two bits:

HD resolutions really put a lot of pressure on devs to come up with a more resources to fill up the space with useable assets. HD res taxes processors and graphics chipsets, as well as system RAM. With the announced specs of the REV, noone expects games to have the same visual impact on the REV as they will on the PS3 and 360, regardless of the SD vs. HD debate.

Let's look at another option Nintendo might have had for the new hardware:

Let's say they put out a system that was a 1.5GHZ machine with 256mb of RAM with a higher end graphics chip from ATI. With this system, they could display at 854*480p with comparable graphics to 360 and PS3. This would encourage ports at a fairly high cost to dev's who would need to adapt their title to the REVmote. What would happen? Nintendo would probably see less 3rd party support than they see with the cube. Not to mention this system would probably be around the price of a 360 core with the REVmote costs factored in.

Instead, they went with a system with underwhelming specs. But as a result, they will be priced at a point that the mass market (including Amir0x) will jump at, a Walmart friendly price structure. Their first party releases will contribute to an outstanding launch IMO. 3rd parties will be able to invest "last gen" type budgets to get REV products out the door, with the possibility of equivalent returns as they will see on the 360 games with balooning budgets.....this is very attractive. Not to mention, the REVmote alone has a lot of devs reportedly very excited to see what they can accomplish.

The only way they could keep devs interested in the short term is to keep the cost of entry low. And they are doing that successfully.

So, HD is objectively superior to SD. No one can argue that. But, for Nintendo, including it would have meant the death of third party support and much higher first party costs that would be prohibitive to a high output of quality games.

 

[GitarooMan]

Anybody else shocked that Nintendo gets 75% of their revenue from outside of Japan?

So much for the notion that Japan is their bread and butter audience.

That does shock me, because I see a lot of their decisions development wise and think, wow they are really focusing on the Japanese market.

And all Amirox is saying is that if you put the same image in HD and in SD, the HD looks better, it's a fact. These other issues (cost, resources) are certainly issues as to whether to adopt it or not, but an HD image is superior to an SD image, I think that's all he's trying to say (maybe).

 

[BlueTsunami]

So making people buy hdtv's is the answer. So much for choice.

Who's making people buy HDTVs? You can play the PS3 and Xbox360 on SDTVs and HDTVs, though, you get visually better picture on an HDTV. You CAN play the Revolution on an SDTV and HDTV but you will never get the full benefits the HDTV can offer?

Forcing SD resolutions on the consumer is the answer. So much for choice...right?

 

[cybamerc]

Amir0x:

> It is objectively superior.

It objectively isn't. Speaking in absolutes is fun!

> It's not something that's actually up for debate.

Certainly not with your attitude.

> Resolution is higher.

Cost is higher

> Systems that support HD will always eventually come down in price

Why should you be forced to wait?

> SD will always be inferior no matter what the price.

Except when you factor in price

> So, if you feel the price is getting 'passed on' to you wait for a price drop.

For a minute stop thinking as Amir0x - the avid gamer who buys every system and probably more games than he has time to play. Instead try to put yourself in the mind of a casual gamer, perhaps even one of these mythical "non-gamers". Revolution has just launched. You're interested in a game for the Revolution but in order to play it you need to pay $400 for the system and $60 for the game. That's too much for you so you wait.

Months go by and Revolution is lacking behind its competitors. People aren't buying a $400 system to play Mario and Brain Training and 3. parties are treating the system as a kiddy system which means that the biggest games aren't on Revolution but only on Xbox 360 and PS3. Stories about the systems demise start popping up in the media and word on the street is that Revolution is NOT the system to get.

In this scenario what chance do think there is that the casual gamer I mentioned earlier is picking up a Revolution 3 years later when the system has finally dropped to $100?

> That's what casual consumers do, usually.

But Nintendo isn't just targeting casual gamers. It is trying to bring in new gamers as well. Nintendo can't afford to give its competitors too much of a headstart so it has to create a market for itself early on. One of the tools that Nintendo are using in order to achieve this is price.

> Sony and Microsoft take losses up front, and you get more.

Nintendo could do that as well but what do you think shareholders care more about: marketshare or profits? Also Sony and M$ are in a different situation. Sony is using PS3 as a launch platform for Blu-ray and M$ is trying to keep Sony from growing too big. Nintendo just has games.

> Doesn't mean I'm happy with every decision like some foolish sheep.

And that's perfectly fair. But don't assume that everyone feels the same way you do.

 

[Oblivion]

The logic is, if Nintendogs and Brain Training are cheap and make Nintendo alot of money, then that money can go towards making Mario/Zelda/Metroid bigger and more epic than before. I'm not saying I agree with the logic, but I understand it.

Winnar! That's how I see it anyway. Now, the problem arises when we only get one fucking Mario platformer per 6 years!!

Yeah because we all know that if the news was that Nintendo was losing money that nobody in here wouldn't be posting that they were doomed or that they should go 3rd party or anything else that the trolls love to feed off of negative Nintendo threads.

Basically on GAF this is how Nintendo threads go:

If its good news:

1. Say "who cares you don't profit for a company making money"
2. Bring up shrinking marketshare
3. Refer to an old quote from Nintendo about CD-Roms or Online play
4. Nintendo sucks for not having HD support'
5. DS has crappy graphics
6. LOL they are cheating because they use teh non games FTW

If its bad news:

Eh its basically people saying the same stuff as above but the thread is about 100 times larger because everyone who hates Nintendo loves to constantly talk about Nintendo.



You mean like Sony TELLING us that we want watered down DVDs that cost 3 times as much with half the content aka UMDs.

Or you mean like MS TELLING us that we want to pay outrageous prices for every fucking accessory for the 360 even though the stuff cost half as much for the Xbox, PS2, & Cube.

All companies tell you what you want instead of listening to what the consumers want because NOBODY was crying that games were too cheap at $50 and needed to be raised to $60.

Also winnar!

You ever wonder why you see more Sonybots in a Nintendo thread, than Nintenbots in Sony threads? The world may never know...

 

[LakeEarth]

Like always - Nintendo feels much more comfortable in telling consumers what they want instead of giving consumers what they want.

Not surprising when these are the results, sure.

Although the saying is true, its true only to a point. "Consumers" is a very wide net, and most game companies focus their target on the 'gamer', who's tastes in games vary greatly, and are known to get bored quickly.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Plus what about those licensing fees for stuff like Pokemon? They probably get a cut of the profits from their toys, posters, school supplies, etc. I'm sure that all is pure profit. Most Nintendo fans would love to assert that all their profit comes from the DS and the Game Cube. It isn't. With currency changes, licensing, there's more at play to Nintendo's financial earnings than just their software.

Amir0x pretty much nailed it. I don't give a fuck about their financial statements because I don't own stock in Nintendo nor am I an employee of Nintendo. I only care about one thing from them: entertainment. Profit statemens aren't entertainment but I'm sure some Nintendo fans derive some pleasure from the company making a profit. I don't care how "cost effective" a game or a system is. If the game is bad, I'm gone. If the system is garbage, then I'm gone. I don't give a fuck about how cost effective Revolution is. If its cheap to make, then it needs to be sold cheap. If they think they can have specs like the ones given and then charge $250 or $300, I'm saving my money. They can go fuck themselves for that price, even with Brain Training 150000.