Nintendo Revolution Controller

[Bront]

Looking at the attachment at the bottom of the stick and reading this interview, it doesnt look like it will let you plug in your pre-existing controllers from past generations, but instead force you to buy a new one! YAY! Of course, controllers are the best money-maker for every console, so this shouldnt really be a surprise.

Actualy, the games are the money maker. Controlers make more money than the consol, but not as much as you think. Of course, the actualy consol they sell at a loss at first, but that's because they make (somewhat free) money from any games sold for the system.

 

[drothgery]

Actualy, the games are the money maker. Controlers make more money than the consol, but not as much as you think. Of course, the actualy consol they sell at a loss at first, but that's because they make (somewhat free) money from any games sold for the system.

Selling consoles at a loss seems to be the new paradigm, but so far only the Sega Dreamcast and the Xbox have been done that way (the PS2 was close when it launched, and cost far more to design than the Dreamcast or Xbox, but was and is cheaper to build). With the $399 list price for the real Xbox 360, Krazy Ken insisting the PS3 will be teh expensiv, and Nintendo putting together a much less expensive machine by, well, making a less powerful machine, I think the only way console makers take big losses on hardware in this generation is if there's a Sony/Microsoft price war. There's a decent chance of that (I can't see why Microsoft wouldn't start one), of course.

 

[Captain Tagon]

I was pretty apathetic towards the Revolution before.

Now I totally want to at least try one. Just seems like a wicked cool idea with all sorts of potential awesomeness.

 

[Bront]

Selling consoles at a loss seems to be the new paradigm, but so far only the Sega Dreamcast and the Xbox have been done that way (the PS2 was close when it launched, and cost far more to design than the Dreamcast or Xbox, but was and is cheaper to build). With the $399 list price for the real Xbox 360, Krazy Ken insisting the PS3 will be teh expensiv, and Nintendo putting together a much less expensive machine by, well, making a less powerful machine, I think the only way console makers take big losses on hardware in this generation is if there's a Sony/Microsoft price war. There's a decent chance of that (I can't see why Microsoft wouldn't start one), of course.

Actualy, I've seen no indication that it's a less powerful machine, just designed differently.

Personaly, I prefer the graphics on the Gamecube to that of the X-box or PS2, but that's my personal preference.

 

[drothgery]

Actualy, I've seen no indication that it's a less powerful machine, just designed differently.

Nintendo hasn't come out and said so, but they've said they're not supporting HDTV resolutions, and that they're aiming for a somewhat lower price point than Sony and MS are. Now, Nintendo came out with a box about as powerful as the PS2 (more memory, less theoretical CPU power, but easier to program), and made it cheaper, but they did that by leaving out a DVD player and releasing their console over a year later.

If they're trailing the PS3 by only a few months, it has to be less powerful or it can't be less expensive.

 

[John Crichton]

Nintendo hasn't come out and said so, but they've said they're not supporting HDTV resolutions, and that they're aiming for a somewhat lower price point than Sony and MS are. Now, Nintendo came out with a box about as powerful as the PS2 (more memory, less theoretical CPU power, but easier to program), and made it cheaper, but they did that by leaving out a DVD player and releasing their console over a year later.

If they're trailing the PS3 by only a few months, it has to be less powerful or it can't be less expensive.

Makes sense to me. I can see Nintendo shooting for a $200-250 launch price to combat the $400 Xbox360 & PS3. I can't see the PS3 being much more than that. But we'll see.

 

[Zoatebix]

Nintendo hasn't come out and said so, but they've said they're not supporting HDTV resolutions, and that they're aiming for a somewhat lower price point than Sony and MS are. Now, Nintendo came out with a box about as powerful as the PS2 (more memory, less theoretical CPU power, but easier to program), and made it cheaper, but they did that by leaving out a DVD player and releasing their console over a year later.

If they're trailing the PS3 by only a few months, it has to be less powerful or it can't be less expensive.

I thought that they weren't making HD resolutions *mandatory* like Sony and MS, but that their hardware would still support them. I mean, there's Playstation 2 software (granted, not many titles) that supports 1080i...

 

[drothgery]

I thought that they weren't making HD resolutions *mandatory* like Sony and MS, but that their hardware would still support them. I mean, there's Playstation 2 software (granted, not many titles) that supports 1080i...

Err... only MS is making them mandatory. But if they're not providing HD cables (and apparently they're not), then they're not supporting HD.

 

[Zoatebix]

Right you are - on both counts.

I don't think cables is a good measure, though. I mean, you still need at least component cables for ED (progressive), and the Game Cube supports 480p...

 

[Ranger REG]

Nintendo hasn't come out and said so, but they've said they're not supporting HDTV resolutions, and that they're aiming for a somewhat lower price point than Sony and MS are. Now, Nintendo came out with a box about as powerful as the PS2 (more memory, less theoretical CPU power, but easier to program), and made it cheaper, but they did that by leaving out a DVD player and releasing their console over a year later.

If they're trailing the PS3 by only a few months, it has to be less powerful or it can't be less expensive.

Ah, so they'll offer HDTV support as an optional device, right?