Nintendo responds to alleged Revolution specs

by Blake Snow { Dec 9th 2005 at 8:30AM }

Fans who write Nintendo regarding system specs for the upcoming Revolution consoles receive an official response from Nintendo. Though the company has yet to release hardware details, it's adamant in that Revolution graphics will look good on both standard and HD TV sets and will reinvent how gamers play video games.

From the release: "Games with high definition graphics are expensive to develop because they must be developed in both standard and high definition formats. Those development costs are passed on to you in the form of more expensive software. Finally, playing games with high definition graphics requires a system with loads of RAM and costly high-end graphics chips, both of which make it prohibitively expensive for most consumers."

Is Nintendo playing the "didn't do it so let's market against it" card, or does their strategy and stance really have validity?

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

chris h. @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I believe that nintendo is attemping to go back to its roots with simple, fun to play games that will ultimately lead to an integration of their home-based and portable lines of gaming products. By keeping there system simple and less technologically advanced, they are allowing a much shorter time to convert from console to portable (a market that they have dominated since the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth). They know they can't compete with the two big boys so they are trying a different strategy. We'll just have to wait to see if it works out.

Spiffae @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

When I read their letter, I agree with their points. I am shamelessly planning on buying the Revolution on launch day (a console first for me), but still, as an owner of an HDTV, I could really care less about the lack of HD. It's the games I'm excited about. I've played the 360, sure, it's really pretty, and some day it will have a killer catalog of games. For now though, it's a glorified Xbox. The Revolution is something different. The graphics could be *worse* than the gamecube, and I would still want one. It's the games goddammit (and the back catalog) - I have games from ten years ago that I like better than anything from today. All I need is some good games, and something new.

Aresef @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Reminds me of Iwata saying nobody wants online play.

Stephen @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

He was correct... 10-20% of Xbox users play online. That's way too low and not even worth it.

Lectoid @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

�Games with high definition graphics are expensive to develop because they must be developed in both standard and high definition formats."

Then why is every PC game i've played in the last 8 years have at least 4 different resolution options, yet cost the same as it's console counterpart? I play Battlefield 2 at 1680x1050, HDTV tops out at 1920x1080. While not as high of a resolution, it does beat the more common HDTV 1280x720 by a long shot.

So tell me why did most PC games cost the same as the 640x480 PS2 and Xbox 1 versions. Development costs are not the consumer's problem. Make a good enough game and you will profit.

GlitchCog @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Nintendo went online first, which is where they discovered that nobody wants to go online:

http://www.nintendojo.com/editorials/view_item.php?1132217652

Now people do want to go online, and Nintendo is complying. Xbox Live jumped the gun a little, which is shown by the number of people playing it compared to how many people have Xboxes. But that's just my opinion. You can't argue that people who play online games were in the minority. Now with Nintendo Wi-Fi, that's about to change.

As for the Nintendo response to the speculative specs, they've said all that before. They're focusing on different stuff than graphics, but they're still going to improve them, just not to the extent that Sony and Microsoft are.

Scott @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

There was an article posted today that's making the rounds. Scientific Atlanta did a survey and found that 50% of HDTV owners don't watch HD. 25% think they're watching HD, when in fact they're not.

This leads me to believe that Nintendo is right.

Imp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Lectoid, those companies making those games with such high levels of detail are large companies that can afford that.
Small companies rarely if ever can and do produce games with such a high visual level.

Steven @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

So if Nintendo is aiming for cheaper software, then the Revolution will be the only next-gen gaming system that has games that aren't $60?
Then count me in.

$60 is just way too much for games (even $50 is too much).
What's next, the next-gen 'best seller' games will be $29.95 instead of $19.95?

Mazinkaiser @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I'm standing in the middle on this issue. Nintendo is making things cost effective which is good, but like everything else in competition, you have to be able to offer something releative to the competition's products. In the end, I think Nintendo will do well with a low price point; I just don't know how competative they will be even though they will be operating with a profit.

BL @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

"or does their strategy and stance really have validity?"

Of course it does, it's a cold hard fact.

And count me in for next generation gaming with this generations prices.

Jackler @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Ninty has got the right idea this time round, they have a free wi-fi system in place like MS. Sony with its PS3 are leaving this to developers and that will cause all sort of problems as we all know. Price point for the system and games has got to be a plus in my book and for parents as well.
Children dont have HD tv,s in there room and it will be a long time before they do.

Specs are said to be about 2.5 times more powerfull than the gamecube, that will be good enough for most people, I guess that many people will pay the cheap price of the console just to play the new zelda. Now comes a new way of playing games their controller is precise and different in the same way the DS is and will spurn lots of great games. I think Nintendo has got it made as most people will own say a 360 and an Revolution or a PS3 and a Revolution.

I cant wait to get one

Jackler @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

sscooterguy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

It's interesting how Nintendo is approaching the next gen console. I've stated before that average gamers (29 year old working males) will fork out the money for xbox 360 for $400 plus accessories, as well as for PS3 at my guestimate of $500-600 plus accessories. I have an HDTV, and would love an xbox 360 or PS3, but at the speculated price point of $150-200, Nintendo may just be taking the righ gamble.

After all three consoles are avaiable without fear of supply problems and price gougers, lets say Xbox360 is $300 for the premium bundle to undercut PS3's aggressively priced blueray at lets say $450, $150-200 for a souped up, faster, smaller xbox with supposedly new ways to play video games, nintendo isn't sounding so bad after all, even with "only" progressive scan capabilities. I have regular xbox right now, and I still love playing widescreen games in regular definition. If games are less than $60 new, then I really may consider Nintendo to be a big contender here.

Although I am a tech lover, I already have an HD cable package with video recording capabilities through my cable company. In reality, I don't really need a media hub right now. Already I can take my ipod and connect it to my entertainment speakers, I can record TV shows, HD movies, and watch movies/program with included On Demand service, watch all of my DVD library in wide screen, albeit non high definition, but in progressive scan. Now should I fork out half a grand for the next gen video game console to get a good media hub, for me, not yet.

This is a major change in my views on next gen, but are Microsoft and Sony jumping the gun with more expensive media hub/video game HD consoles? If nintendo can continually innovate like apple has in the last few years, they may even take the lead.

Sean @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Hey, GlitchCog, ever hear of a device called the X-Band modem? It was made in the latter days of the SNES, not sure by whom, though. It sure got a lot of space in Nintendo Power back in the early 90s.
Anyhow, from what I know, it was a dial-up connection over which you could playe SNES games online. It had gamer IDs and avatars, you could send and receive e-mail, all kinds of stuff. The only problem was that you payed by the hour (wasn't much, like 25 cents) but it's been a long time. I can't remember the specifics. I might Google it later...

chudgoo @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

"Is Nintendo playing the �didn�t do it so let�s market against it� card, or does their strategy and stance really have validity?"

While not a perfect analogy, one could compare this round to the 16-bit fight. Genesis had modest specs, but was affordable and sold well. NeoGeo had amazing specs and a nearly $700 price tag. Its games were like no others, but they cost upwards of $300...each!

Let's look at what is implied by the move to HD....

You have a dolby digital surround sound setup

You have a >$1000 display (on the low end)

You don't mind paying $60 for new games.

Those three things EXCLUDE THE VAST MAJORIYY of people.

ZaBlanc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Of course their stace has validitity! The big question is, "How much are you willing to plunk down for HDTV support on a next-gen console?"

Personally, I'm not in the market to pay $400 for an XBox 360, and I don't have HDTV because I'm not a bachelor anymore and can't afford it. :-) A $99 or $149 Nintendo is much more desirable.

There's more to a system than bleeding-edge graphics. I play my DS more than any other system I have...it's the games, stupid.

Bowser @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Name one game on ANY system that has graphics that look as good as a movie on DVD.... Now, let's remember that DVDs are only 480p, yet no system (PC included) has produced graphics that even come close to looking as good a DVD movie, even when viewed on an HDTV.

It seems to me that Nintendo's strategy is to optimize their games look as good as they possibly can at 480p. That means optimizing polygon counts, textures, lighting effects, particle effects, shaders, etc for 480p, requiring less processing power, but still probably producing some beautiful, same-as-DVD resolution graphics. This strategy may pay off if they can get produce DVD quality visuals. I would be quite satisfied with DVD quality graphics running on my HDTV, even if they aren't technically 720p or 1080i.

Sagan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

As long as its capable of displaying graphics like those of Quake IV I'm happy. And it should be able to do that. Why? Because it's said to be a little more powerful than the Xbox. Doom 3 ran on the Xbox. And Quake IV requires less hardware than Doom 3. At least it runs smoother on my PC than Doom 3 did.

Joseph @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Exactamundo. Kids buy less games, and they all buy the same games. Making it more affordable is the only way to make it profitable for everyone, counting the little guys and niche titles. Go Nintendo Go.

Raphael Azcueta @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Next year, all the buddies in my house is buying four Revolutions and playing WiFi sword fighting all day everyday. We'd do that with the 360, but then we'd have to take out loans.

Omega 666 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Live is one of best things to ever happen to gaming. Even if it is 25% of Xbox owners are live (It is higher then that) do you know how many players that is? Nintendo needs to have online gaming with this next system. The DS WiFi is great and I am glad to see them coming along finally. The games will float this system or sink it. ?I still have my GC and I am loyal but where the F@#K are the games!?!?!?!?

AK @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I definitely would not mind owning a 360 and a Revolution (High end, Low end). Besides that, Nintendo can really bank on a relatively untapped market. I have many friends that are casual gamers that would happily pay $100-150 for a "next-gen" system. Plus, come Christmas 2006, parents would be much more willing to pay $100-150 (Rev?) rather than $400-500 (PS3?).

minus @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

They are very correct. Especially about the develoment costs of the game. The real questions that begs to be answered is: Does the Xbox 360 REALLY jump to the "next-gen" of graphics capability? The answer is no. For HALF of the cost of an Xbox360 and High Def setup, you could have a decent gaming PC which can perform at the same level (if not better) than the 360 could ever hope.

Nintendo states the facts with a very simplistic ruling which says that are paying attention what people want in the long run. The gimmick of "hi-def" will wear off quite quickly when you're playing bad games that look neat. Even if the Revolution only looks as good as the Gamecube, that's still better (quality wise) than the current Xbox and PS2.

poopdedoop @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

You guys have to remeber that even tho HDTV's have a better resoloution the big reason wh it looks the ways it does is because instead of the whole video signal going through one cable it's split into 3. One for each primary colours. Games can still look amazing at 480pi (take RE4 for example) Yes it's nice to play games in widescreen at 1080pi but we've seen that companies can make games look amazing in normal 480pi (Metroid Prime) Nintendo is a very smart company. They know what they're doing (they've been around longer then God..) They are the one company that changed the video game industry. wether it be creating the D-Pad or the (now standard) camera angle for games (with Super Mario 64) Every time Nintendo comes out with a new system or handheld it's got huge improvements and changes from the last. compare all their consoles to one another. Even the Game boy changes alot with every new release and it's still perfect!)

It is true that most people (who have HDTV's) don't even watch HD content alot of the time. Myself don't even watch HD stuff unless I'm watching a DVD (and that's not even displayed in 1080pi!) There are a few channels on my satelite that are HD but i don't watch then that often. People need to understand that gamers who know nintendo know that even if a game they make doesn't have the greates graphics it'll still be good because i've noticed one thing over the years that Nintendo has that Sony and MS doesn't have.... QUALITY! I've dropped my GC by accedent twice from a good 4 feet up in the air.. and it still works perfect. I dropped my ps2 while moving it from not even 1.5feet in the air and it stopped working. We've all read about the problems with Xbox360 and i've seen them for myself. Nintendo know's what they're doing and by golly i'm gonna support them.

kuroshi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Okay the glowing nintendo comments are great, but lets not pretend xbox live is unsuccessful. Xbox live is the fastest online service to reach over a millions subscribers. They are currently over 2 mil, and that's without the free silver currently being offered. Nintendo has chosen the path they need to be successful. They chose a lower powered, lower cost machine because they need to. They probably won't win the console war, but thier approach might make them the most profitable. Selling as a low price alternative or second console will be enough quantities, and not having all the expensive parts will allow them to make money. This is not a religion or a hobby. Nintendo doesn't love you like you think they do. This is a business and just like M$ and $ony, $nintendo$ is in it to make money. Better looking games do matter, but it's not the only route. Kudos for taking a different route, but boo for the marketing lies. I'll probably buy a rev because it will be different from my 360 and pass on the ps3 because of cost, I don't like MGS, and it should be the same as my 360.

sxates @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I think some of you are being shortsighted on the HD issue. Yes, today HDTVs are "expensive" (I bought mine for $600 a year ago), but in 2 or 3 years they will be the standard and you will have a hard time finding a normal TV. So while you don't have one today, you might in a few years. These consoles are designed with 10-year lifespans, so to ignore HD based on 2005 penetration numbers is not necessarily a good long-term strategy.

When we have an HD-DVD standard, and all broadcasts in the US are mandated to be digital and HD, and HDTVs are inexpensive and the norm, I think the nintendo is going to look "old" really quick. Deadline for digital broadcasts in the US is 2008, which is sooner than you think.

That said, of course, the video resolution on the console doesn't have much to do with how fun it is to play. So as long as they have that it could still be a winner. Just try to keep in mind that just because you can't afford HDTV today doesn't mean nobody can, and it doesn't mean you won't be able to afford it tomorrow.

SuperGorillaBall @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Could it be that Nintendo are MAKING money on each console sold!? I'm glad at these responses, I thought most people would be going "LOL no HDTV, nintendo is only for 3 month old foetuses". If I buy any console it will be the Revolution. HDTV is a gimmick, the magic fades away after 10 minutes as with anything that relies on graphics.

kuroshi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

There was a time when black and white tv was the standard and "nobody" could afford color tv. Prices are falling at a rapid price and as they start to produce more units in standard sizes (not everyone needs a 60" screen) the standard will spread. You regular networks will soon be broadcasting on a new spectrum that open up fo HD content. Eventually most people will have an HD set because that's all they will sell. You can still buy a B&W tv, but it's not that easy to find. Evolution of standards, and not even nintendo can stop it.

Pata @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

#22 sxates:
"Deadline for digital broadcasts in the US is 2008, which is sooner than you think."

That's a digital signal mandate, not an HD one. Television companies will still be able to send out standard definition signals, just now through a digital network.

I'm comparing this to local digital cable packages avaliable here, so I may be wrong :P

Tucker @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Bowser - I think you're getting a bit confused, pal. You're trying to compare film to computer generated graphics? Proccing the hell out of a video game at any resolution is not suddenly going to turn Doom3 the game into Doom the film. Sorry to break it to you, but it just doesn't work like that. Higher resolution images allow for more *detail*, sure, but realtime photorealistic (aka "DVD-quality visuals") graphics are a long way off in any consumer application.

What would be a more appropriate test for you would be to record an uncompressed video of a game system outputting a game running at 480p and burn it to a DVD. Then you'd want to run the same system, same game at a higher resolution (like 720p) and compare. That's what resolution does. Your "DVD-quality visuals" cannot occur withouth higher resolutions - you need all that extra pixel data to use high-res textures. It's not just about pushing polygons.

Please understand the situation before you make unfounded comments - Nintendo is 100%, absolutely talking about lower quality graphics than the other systems. The never said they weren't.

riffgod @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Yes it is valid. I don't think you could find anyone, including J. Allard that wouldn't agree with the fact that the development costs are much more for HD games and that the memory required is more expensive. These same people would also agree that as these new techologies become more popular they become less expensive. So releasing an HD supported game console in 2010 will be much more cost effective than being the forerunner.

Brent D @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

This is standard marketing claptrap. Super Mario Strikers for the Gamecube costs $50. PGR3 for the Xbox360 also costs $50. Is Nintendo saying that they're currently screwing Gamecube customers because they didn't accrue the high cost of HD which had to be passed along to consumers? It doesn't pass the B.S. test.

zazzawazza @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

It's all about the games. We get excited about speed-related tech specs and graphics up until the point that we're used to them and then we sit and wonder why the games are still the same only prettier.

If you're looking fundamental change to the games of tomorrow, something akin to the transition from 2D to 3D, High-Def Graphics isn't it!

AK @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

"HDTV is a gimmick, the magic fades away after 10 minutes as with anything that relies on graphics."

It's only a gimmick until you go back to standard def, at least for me. When I first got my HDTV I watched a football game on CBS and watched it for a couple of quarters. I though it looked pretty good (better than being there because of the replays and close up camera angles). Then I went to my brother's room and watched the same game in standard def and I thought, "damn, that looks like crap" even though that had been my old TV and I never had a problem with its picture quality. The point is, graphics are not everything (play NBA Live 06 vs. NBA 2K6 on a 360 and it's pretty clear that gameplay always wins), and once you become accustomed to viewing things in HD (TV, movies, Games) it might lose some of its luster, but switch to a SD broadcast and the difference becomes clear (at least with a good TV).

That being said, I am very excited about the possibilities of the Revolution, especially if it is sold at a rock-bottom price.

Jeff @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Nintendo's on crack again:

"Games with high definition graphics are expensive to develop because they must be developed in both standard and high definition formats."

What?!

It's just higher resolution, dude. If I play a game on my PC at 1280x1024 instead of 640x480, am I playing a whole different version of the game? Duh.

I don't know if this guy's uninformed or attempting to spin, but it's totally wrong in either case. There is no need to develop a game twice for "two different formats". It's the same damn format, it's just a higher resolution. The console hardware decides which resolution to output depending on the hardware output used. It is no skin off any developer's back, and takes no more time or effort for them to program.

HDTV is here, it's growing, it's not going away. And for those who think it's "expensive", I paid the same price for my HDTV a year ago as I did 5 years previously for my 27" analog set. It is not expensive anymore; you just don't know it yet. But you will once you start looking.

This is Nintendo's big mistake with the Revolution. I like the controller idea, I don't mind that it's less powerful than the PS3 or X360, but it does not match up with my display's capabilities or the display capabilities probably a majority of people are going to have in a few years. It's like playing a game console that only supports black and white graphics on a color TV. It's fine if you're trying to be retro or you're nostalgia gaming, but it's not fine for a current generation system.

ZaBlanc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

"For HALF of the cost of an Xbox360 and High Def setup, you could have a decent gaming PC which can perform at the same level (if not better) than the 360 could ever hope."

What planet are you on? :-)

Imp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I'm shocked at how many people think the Revolution will be $100, possibly $150. I mean come on, that's just retarded.

As for Xbox Live being the fastest online service to hit a million, I think Nintendo Wifi beat it. I thought they had hit a million.

Truth @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Im am tired of people saying graphics don't matter. If graphics never did matter we would still be stuck in the 2D ages. Don't get me wrong, a great game requires excellent gameplay, but why can't developers focus on both gameplay and graphics?

Jackler @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I think when the Revolution Drops it will qucikly have the fastest take up of comsumers, as it will offer something new in a very stale and obvious game market right now with countless remakes and updates. The developement costs will be cheap the games will be cheap but they will be FUN and that is the main point. This will play into MS hands as well because the 360 is easy to develope for as well.

Sony must be worried as it will take a long time to prouduce games using all the so called power of the cell chip and storage of Blu-ray. If the games dont use the systems full potential and game companies rush games for PS3 then they will look no better than 360 and then MS will benefit from that plus they have xbox LIVE. I predict Nintendo and 360 winners

C-Dub @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Nintendo might even "win" this time around...especially if everyone who has an Xbox 360 or PS3 ALSO has a Revolution. :)

Steve @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

#19 - " For HALF of the cost of an Xbox360 and High Def setup you could have a decent gaming PC which can perform at the same level (if not better) than the 360 could ever hope"

Hmm, really? Let's see here, HDMI 32" Hi-Def LCD from Toshiba - �900. Xbox 360 Premium pack - �280. Total Cost - �1,180 including tax.

So... you think you can build a good gaming machine that'll match the 360 for less than �600? A decent quality 19" LCD alone will cost you a third of that. M/board, processor and memory another third (if not more). Hard drive, DVD drive, case, keyboard and mouse another, what, �150? Which leaves a whole �50 for a graphics card and any additional cables you may need. And a power supply unless you want to use the crappy ones you get thrown in with the case. And some decent cooling if you're planning on gaming. And a copy of Windows. And, of course, the upgardes you'll need to play Windows-based games in a couple of years time. For that matter, the upgrades you'll need to run Windows Vista when that comes out next year and requires a graphics card upgrade.

A good gaming machine would cost AT LEAST as much as the 360 + 32" Hi-Def setup I listed above and that's just to build it without any luxuries like multiple hard drives or high-end SLI. On-going you would need to budget for at least one if not two upgrades during the lifetime of the 360 if you intended to keep up with something approaching the high-end of graphics on the PC.

Hi-Def isn't a "gimmick", it's definately the way television is heading albeit bloody slowly in most of the world. That being said, hi-def in this generation might have jumped the gun simply because relativley few people have the required hardware. Oddly enough I'd expect that to hurt Sony more than MS as the 360 at least does 720p and 1080i which are a little more common than sets that do 1080p. Nintendo have (probably) got it right by saying that hi-def isn't a requirement for this launch but may find themselves under increasing presure for that decision in a few years time.

Basically it will come down to this: Can Nintendo bring games to the living room that people who are not normally gamers want to play AND that appeal to gamers as well? If they can then the graphics won't matter providing they're not TOO bad compared to the big boys. Remember that when the Genesis and SNES came out the 8-bit consoles did co-exist for quite some time and the Gameboy has shown that the public don't always demand the absolute bleeding edge in terms of graphics (how many units did Pokemon ship again?).

Jackler @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Gamers dont always need to be at the cutting edge look at the DS vs PSP, That should speak volumes inovation is what will win in this next generation war, a war Nintendo is looking like its holds all the right cards for

Jackler @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

The Revolution will be Televised :)

Justin @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

"Is Nintendo playing the �didn�t do it so let�s market against it� card, or does their strategy and stance really have validity?"

It didn't work for the democrats.

Cheapskate @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Has anyone discussed the price of Nintendos WiFi for the Revolution? Will it be free like the DS? If so, there is another savings over the 360, and while it's not a major cost, it does speak volumes about how Nintendo and Microsoft take care of their users differently.
People are fond of saying that Nintendo is like the Apple of gaming, and while I love my new iMac, Nintendo takes all of the coolness and ease of use and combines it with low prices unlike Mac where you have to pay to be in the club. The revolution is coming. Revel in it.

hydrogen_wv @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Is Nintendo playing the �didn�t do it so let�s market against it� card, or does their strategy and stance really have validity?

What a stupid suggestion. If they wanted to do it, since they haven't started production yet, they could do it. They may make this point more strongly due to the fact that the others are so expensive and capable of HD.

I think that if Nintendo catches itself in a gutter by not offering HDTV, they could build a 2nd generation of Revolution that offers it if absolutely necessary.. very unlikely though. The new controller will make you focus less on the graphics and just how much fun it is to actually play.

#35 - When people say graphics don't matter, what they really mean is that the graphics now are almost lifelike, so being 1% more lifelike isn't going to make a difference.

One error I think Nintendo did make was not having an online service. I think Nintendo should have something similar to Xbox live, yet free. Nintendo will be the only company profitting from console sales, where MS and Sony will be relying on software sales.

If Nintendo would offer a spectacular (Xbox live comparable) online service for free, they'd sell an assload of consoles and make up for the price of the free online service with console sales... Especially if they hold that $150 pricetag.

Hevy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I think Ninty sees the Microsoft and Sony strategies of trying to out tech each other as a strategy to see who can lose the most money. At the same time, game developers are potentially seeing their costs double, but the price of next-gen games are going up a mere $10 (or 20%) more per game. The math ain't adding up boys.

Does anyone really think Microsoft has a made a dime on online play by charging $5 a month for XBox Live? And worse yet, Nintendo is in the process of bulldozing XBox Live's "pay to play" model, which took Microsoft several money-losing years to develop, because Ninty is making online play both wireless and free. Not just for the DS but Rev as well.

Let's face it. The Cube placed in third (a very competitive third, mind you) because Nintendo didn't add too much new to the table. It was a 3D-accelerated N64. And that's about it. They kept their franchises healthy, they made solid profit off the Cube, and but they didn't offer much innovation.

Obviously, Nintendo is changing that with the DS and the Revolution. Big time. A major reason for that is the time is right. The cost of new features (like online play) are much lower, and more gamers are equipped to take advantage. That wasn't the case in 2001, but it is now. Just as it isn't time yet for Ninty to make a 3D handheld, but when they do, we'll all be trading our PSPs in toward the Gameboy 3D (GB3D). I guarantee it.

Personally, I think Microsoft is in the biggest trouble of the three game companies. They were first to the table with online play. They were the first to the table with this new generation of systems. I give them credit for that. But sometimes playing your cards first doesn't always lead to advantage. It also allows the competition to see your hand and do you one better.

Nintendo is in the process of trumping XBox Live with a more accessible model. Sony is putting the finishing touches on what appears to be a technologically superior machine. Where does that leave XB360 a year or two from now? Microsoft might find themselves in the dreaded mushy middle. If they're not worried about that, they should be.

GlitchCog @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I admire Nintendo for their products' reliability. They simply don't release poorly designed stuff. Their stuff might not sell well, but it will always do exactly what it promises to do in no uncertain terms. Nintendo will never have an overheating power supply or a massive recall, knock on wood.

Their consoles and portables are close to indestructable, their games deliver with no load times or glitches, and their services do exactly what's advertised.

But the point is that doing this stuff means not rushing into things, like HDTV and online gaming.

Where Microsoft rushes into the obvious next step, Nintendo perfects it before making its move, and Sony doesn't really push the industry at all. Sony produces more of what works like no other with its massive archive of games.

You might hate Nintendo, Mario, the image, the games, or whatever, but you can't deny that when Nintendo says this is how something will work, it delivers. If Microsoft put out Mario Kart DS, they would have had online battle mode, but with terrible lag.