Nintendo Revolution 'less powerful'

[goKi]

September 29, 2005 - In a recent interview with television network G4, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata reiterated the company's plans to go after non-gamers and simultaneously conceded that its next-generation console would lack the horsepower of competitors. The statement can likely be filed under the not-so-surprising category for readers who have followed previous Big N announcements on the still-codenamed Revolution, which has from the beginning been positioned as a pick-up-and-play alternative to traditional videogame machines. But even so, the executive's latest words on the subject offer the most concrete confirmation yet that as far as tech specs go, Revolution may not be on equal levels as Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3.

"If you are just going to compare the spec sheets and spec numbers, Revolution may not have an equal or higher number as the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360. But the fact of the matter is that if people are going to connect our machine and their machine to an ordinary TV set at home and try to compare the differences, I really don't think that they can tell such a huge difference between the machines," Iwata told G4.

The Nintendo president, however, did not elaborate on whether gamers would be able to distinguish dramatic graphical differences between Revolution games running on regular TVs and 360 or PS3 software running in high-definition on capable sets.

Regardless, the Big N seems convinced that the Revolution's innovative new controller will attract new audiences previously uninterested in conventional videogames.


Nintendo president Satoru Iwata

"Nintendo has been eager to expand the gaming population. In order to do so, we have to invite the people who are not currently playing with the videogames at all. In this challenge, if we are simply going to say, 'Look, we have better graphics,' I really don't think they will be intrigued to play the videogames. After all, they are not interested in videogames and also a [graphics] comparison doesn't make any difference for their judgment to either buy or not buy the videogames," Iwata stated. "Rather, in order to invite them to the world of gaming we have to dispatch the message, 'This is something relevant for you. This is interesting for you. So why don't you touch it? If you touch it, we are sure that you're going to love it.' That kind of a message is more important than saying that we have more beautiful graphics."

Nintendo believes that Revolution will be unique enough to happily coexist as a second system, even for players who make 360 or PS3 their primary console.

"And for those other gameplayers who are eager to purchase the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360, we don't care because we believe they are willing to purchase Revolution as well," Iwata said. "They are different machines. After all, Revolution can give players an experience that is quite different from the experience given by Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. We are trying to make Revolution so that it makes sense for [consumers] to buy both."

Further, Iwata seems confident that Revolution's original new control mechanics could be just the thing the company needs to regain a top spot in the populated home console arena.

"In the end, Revolution is going to be held and appreciated by so many people more than the people who love to play with the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3," he said.

Questioned on the subject, Iwata refused to talk price points for Revolution, stating that it was too premature to go into specifics. However, he did indicate that both Xbox 360 (priced as high as $399 USD), and PS3, which is likely to be more expensive still, could have a hard time attracting non-gamers.

"Revolution's price must be affordable for non-gamers as well," he added.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/654/654764p1.html

Is this Nintendo's way of conceding that they don't believe the Revolution will outsell the PS3 or XB360? Saying that you want your console to co-exist with other console hardware is ridiculous. Marketing the revolution in that way will cause a large impact on Nintendo's sofware sales, particularly on 3rd party games that are ported to Revolution. Having a choice between the two consoles, they will buy the game for the one with the 'better graphics'.

In order to market a console in this way, it would only make sense to have it released before, or with the competiton. Nintendo seem to be marketing this the wrong way. I'll be buying Revolution, or nothing, but i bought a Gamecube only. Will the Revolution be as ill-fated as Gamecube. In Australia, most major retailers have long cleared out their Gamecube stock.

[AtmaWeapon]

Nintendo makes games that are fun, and they tend to either create genres or produce games unlike anything else on the market. Because there are no similar games available to compare them to, Nintendo has the ability to create less realistic graphics and still get high scores for the presentation.

The more realistic graphics get the harder it is to create them. The harder it is to create a game the higher the development costs. Higher development costs require either higher sales or higher prices to turn the same profit. By staying away from well-defined genres that have to have realistic graphics to stand out, Nintendo is able to cut their development costs and make profits from lower sales.

Also I think Nintendo doesn't care as much about third party sales as they used to. I mean, sure they could make their system play Splinter Cell: Death Star Assault, Street Fighter Super Mega Championship Three Point Seven vs Capcom 5, Gran Turismo 5, and several other franchises that should have died 10 games ago, but Nintendo is sick of that (so am I).

Basically there is a slight difference between the view of MS, Sony, and Nintendo.

MS and Sony feel like the point of the industry is to make money. To make money you have to make games that are proven successes. Thus, you take a franchise like Halo or Tekken, slap some better graphics and new moves on it, and release it. This way you sell the same game for the same price and make the same money. To win this battle, your system must look the best. In this way, the software drives the hardware.

Nintendo feels like the point of the industry is to make games that are fun. It's not fun to play yet another first person shooter or 3d fighter; those genres are pretty played out. Thus, Nintendo looks for game ideas that have never been tried and hopes the public enjoys them. To win this battle, you have to have a way to force game developers to think differently and approach game development from a new angle. Abnormal hardware accomplishes this task. In this way, the hardware drives the software.

In the end, I believe Nintendo might be headed for handheld-only or worse, out of business track in the next 10 years or so. I don't believe they'd go software-only like Sega, but that is just personal opinion. I respect their devil-may-care attitude and the fact that they relentlessly make choices against conventional wisdom, but the more isolated the Nintendo fans get from the mainstream the more damaging Nintendo's next Virtual Boy will be to the company. When they leave, we'll all get to play the same game over and over again until we get bored with all genres and video games die again. Hopefully someone will rise from the ashes and start innovating again.

[vegeta1215]

Right now the question everybody keeps asking Nintendo, "How will you compete when the Revolution won't be as powerful?". The only real answer is the answer Nintendo has already given: that they won't be competing directly with Sony and MS. If they did, the next console race wouldn't be any different from the current one (aside that who has the most powerful system will be reversed) Revolution's unique features will make Nintendo stand out, and I for one am very excited about the possibilities.

[Dart Zaidyer]

I think he conceded to the Revolution as a "secondary" for PS3/360 owners based on the idea that they would normally have never gotten one otherwise.

And on another note... know what the secret to winning a console war is?

Have the least powerful system.

Think about it; The NES and Gameboy were constantly outclassed by would-be competitors, but nobody cared. And on the flip side, the PS1 blew the N64 away while the PS2 currently dominates over the GameCube.

Plus, it doesn't hurt that Nintendo is thinking more about making something new and interesting instead of prettier and more expensive.

[vegeta1215]

I think he conceded to the Revolution as a "secondary" for PS3/360 owners based on the idea that they would normally have never gotten one otherwise.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who read that correctly ;)

[Darth Marsden]

I think Nintendo are pretty damn brave to admit that the Revolution (God I hope they keep that name, it's so cool) may well be a secondary console for people. We already know that it's most likely going to be the last one out, so most people will quite probably have a PS3 or XBox360 already. Having a machine that's different will interest people a lot more then just another Gamecube.

We've known for quite some time now that the Revolution won't be as powerful as its competitors, and that's fine. It doesn't need to be. It's got a unique controller, and it's got a unique way of playing games. Personally I still have to be totally convinced (I'll have to actually try it out for myself before they completely win me over) but I'll still end up getting one. As will a lot of people here, I suspect.

And we're all forgetting that Nintendo owns Pokemon. No chance of them fading out of the business with that little goldmine, eh?

[Warlock]

And we're all forgetting that Nintendo owns Pokemon. No chance of them fading out of the business with that little goldmine, eh?

The first Pokemon was actually an extremely innovative and fun game. Then they started hammering them out and the game has gotten stale in my opinion. Honestly, the second one (the GBC one) really did it for me. Trying to catch 150 Pokemon is an obtainable goal. It's hard, but it's doable. Trying to catch freaking 250 is not. It's too damn many. And they even added to that for Pokemon Advance so yeah. I couldn't even keep track of which one did what after awhile there were so damn many.

Anyways, as for the topic, yeah I think everyone else covered it. They don't need to compete directly with Sony and MS, they just need to sell consoles. Considering the price points of the Xbox ($400, and let's face it, the $300 model is a mythical fairy tale that does not truely exist) and PS3 which I've heard rumors may be as high as $500 (but I can't imagine it below $400), if Revolution is $200 Nintendo will be cool.

I honestly will never understand everyone saying "Nintendo is doomed, they should go sell software like Sega." Nintendo is doing just fine. They don't sell their consoles at a loss like Sony and MS, so even if they don't sell as many they often end up making more money (not to mention the revenue from their 1st party software which is something Sony and MS doesn't do much of). Everyone thinks they are in the same position as Sega. They are not. Sega was in serious trouble when they dropped out. They pretty much were riding on the Dreamcast to keep them alive and when it bombed they were pretty much screwed. They had no money. I read somewhere they were doing worse financially than a Japanese milk company responsible for poisoning children. So yeah. And even then, Nintendo owns the handheld market. The PSP has been doing lousy compared to the DS. Nintendo will be fine for a long time. And they have even said if they ever do stop producing consoles, that will be it. They won't be going software-only. They will just drop out completely. So be careful what you wish for :P

[Axel]

Nintendo doesn't need 3rd party support like Sony and Microsoft. Consider, what are Gamecube's strengths, it's best games? Smash Bros. Melee, Wind Waker, Star Fox: Assault, Pikmin, all games they hold the exclusive rights to. Nintendo can expect so sell Revolution on that basis, the franchises they hold: Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Pikmin, Star Fox, Donkey Kong, the list goes on. And if Nintendo has fewer games that appear on the other two consoles, that's just another selling point for the Revolution, less of the same.

[AlexMax]

Nintendo makes games that are fun, and they tend to either create genres or produce games unlike anything else on the market. Because there are no similar games available to compare them to, Nintendo has the ability to create less realistic graphics and still get high scores for the presentation.

The more realistic graphics get the harder it is to create them. The harder it is to create a game the higher the development costs. Higher development costs require either higher sales or higher prices to turn the same profit. By staying away from well-defined genres that have to have realistic graphics to stand out, Nintendo is able to cut their development costs and make profits from lower sales.

Also I think Nintendo doesn't care as much about third party sales as they used to. I mean, sure they could make their system play Splinter Cell: Death Star Assault, Street Fighter Super Mega Championship Three Point Seven vs Capcom 5, Gran Turismo 5, and several other franchises that should have died 10 games ago, but Nintendo is sick of that (so am I).

Basically there is a slight difference between the view of MS, Sony, and Nintendo.

MS and Sony feel like the point of the industry is to make money. To make money you have to make games that are proven successes. Thus, you take a franchise like Halo or Tekken, slap some better graphics and new moves on it, and release it. This way you sell the same game for the same price and make the same money. To win this battle, your system must look the best. In this way, the software drives the hardware.

Nintendo feels like the point of the industry is to make games that are fun. It's not fun to play yet another first person shooter or 3d fighter; those genres are pretty played out. Thus, Nintendo looks for game ideas that have never been tried and hopes the public enjoys them. To win this battle, you have to have a way to force game developers to think differently and approach game development from a new angle. Abnormal hardware accomplishes this task. In this way, the hardware drives the software.

In the end, I believe Nintendo might be headed for handheld-only or worse, out of business track in the next 10 years or so. I don't believe they'd go software-only like Sega, but that is just personal opinion. I respect their devil-may-care attitude and the fact that they relentlessly make choices against conventional wisdom, but the more isolated the Nintendo fans get from the mainstream the more damaging Nintendo's next Virtual Boy will be to the company. When they leave, we'll all get to play the same game over and over again until we get bored with all genres and video games die again. Hopefully someone will rise from the ashes and start innovating again.

Why do you think this? The Nintendo DS is pretty well off so far, in spite of being 'different', and Nintendo has been turning a profit with their Gamecube. There is no indication that they are going the way of Sega anytime soon. Sega was tetering on the edge when they released the Dreamcast, Nintendo is sitting on the mountain of cash, and there is no indication that it's going away anytime soon.

[Tygore]

The first Pokemon was actually an extremely innovative and fun game. Then they started hammering them out and the game has gotten stale in my opinion. Honestly, the second one (the GBC one) really did it for me. Trying to catch 150 Pokemon is an obtainable goal. It's hard, but it's doable. Trying to catch freaking 250 is not. It's too damn many. And they even added to that for Pokemon Advance so yeah. I couldn't even keep track of which one did what after awhile there were so damn many.

Actually, the Advance Gen. games have two Pokedexes: a local one and a national one. The Local dex is the one you're expected to complete. It has a grand total of 200 Pokemon, which is not too hard to do. Then, by trading from the other games, you can if you so choose to fill the 382(386 after event Pokemon) National Dex. The remakes of the first ones(Fire Red and Leaf Green) have the good old 150-base Dex, with the Data for all 386 and National Dex entry for all of them. And if you want a challenge other than cathcing them all, try Emerald's Battle Frontier. I wasn't planning on playing the Advance gen either, but Leaf Green and Emerald drew me in.

Gee, I sound like a freaking advertisement or something. Eh, Pokemon is still fun.

The fact of the matter is, Nintendo is my favorite game developer. Including both my GameCube and PS2, the majority of the games I own are Nintendo's. I brought my Gamecube to my dorm last weekend, and my roommate is now hooked on Smash Bros, quite possibly replacing Halo 2 as his favorite game. The PS2 and XBox have great libraries, but how many of those are exclusive? It was smart of Microsoft not to release a Halo 2 PC, since that's the game that keeps the X-Box worth the money they throw into it. The only future PS2 game I'm set on getting is Kingdom Hearts 2. That will increase my PS2 library to... five. For GC, I have at least triple that, and a good chunk of that is their games. If it wasn't for Square-Enix, I wouldn't be able to justify owning a PS2 at all, especially if Mario DDR ends up being good. People talk about Nintendo lacking 3rd-party support like they need it or something. Add that to the fact that their systems are the most affordable, and it's pretty clear as to why I'd want a Revolution over a PS3/360.

OK, that's enough for now. Leave me alone, it's time to feed my Nintendog.