Revolution will cost less than $299

its has to the tech is pretty old even by last gen standards so $99 max for the console $50 for the controller so $200 max or people are being ripped off

Hasn't every singe Nintendo console been priced at $199 at launch? Is there any evidence that they would stray from that trend this time around?

It would hurt me, but I'd pay $300 for it anyway.

i thought everyone has been saying it would be under $200??? this isn't good news, and i will do just fine playing zelda on my gamecube, at least until some compelling revolution titles are released.

No surprise here. I still think they'll launch at $200.

show me some damn games first!

@ theNotoriousBEN



why does everyone think that nintendo has always released at $199 that is incorrect, the gamecube released at $249

I really think this is gonna cost a fraction less than the PSP, think about it.. the PSP is about $249, that would be a good price point for the console, people will compare it in the media, and you can get a Revolution and a Nintendo DS for the price of the PSP giga pack at that kinda price point, it's a really good move.. I'll be happy if it's sub £189 in the UK.

yeah, I think I paid 249 for my SNES at launch. I could be wrong though...

Blizz419 #7

You're incorrect. I paid $199 for the Gamecube at launch and I'll scan the receipt to prove it if you don't believe me.



Hell, here's a link with the proof that EVERY Nintendo system (minus the portables) launched for $199.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/643/643170p1.html

For the purpose of this article we'll be looking at the price of a video game console statiscally and comparing its cost to today's dollar value.







Atari VCS launched in 1977 for $249.99 - $811.21 in 2005

Nintendo Entertainment System launched in 1985 for $199.99 - $354.91 in 2005

SEGA Genesis launched in 1989 for $249.99 - $389.67 in 2005

NeoGeo launched in 1990 for $699.99 - $1041.12 in 2005

Super Nintendo launched in 1991 for $199.99 - $282.21 in 2005

Jaguar launched in 1993 for $249.99 - $328.69 in 2005

3DO Interactive Multiplayer launched in 1993 for $699.95 - $920.30 in 2005

SEGA Saturn launched in 1995 for $399.99 - $497.66 in 2005

Nintendo 64 launched in 1996 for $199.99 - $242.75 in 2005

SEGA Dreamcast launches in 1999 for $199.99 - $228.09 in 2005

PlayStation launched in 1995 for $299.99 - $372.01 in 2005

PlayStation 2 launched in 2000 for $299.99 - $333.15 in 2005

Xbox Launched in 2001 for $299.99 - $325.34 in 2005

GameCube launched in 2001 for $199.99 - $216.89 in 2005

A good move would be a Revolution-DS combo pack for $250-300.

@Blizz419



Thanks for the correction. I just remembered reading that somewhere. I didn't get my 'cube at launch.



@Spence



I agree. $249 sounds reasonable; I'd pay it.

Given how much you can trust advance announcements of capabilities, it's way too early to judge how much a console should cost based on prospective specs.



I will say, though, that I'll be at least tempted to pick one up at launch if it's $200 or less. Anything over $250 isn't needed until it either has a killer games lineup (which would take at least 12 months) or comes down in price.

I thought I read somewhere that Nintendo will not sell a console at a loss. Now, it just came out that the 360 costs $715 to manufacture. I don't know much about the Rev's specs (I guess none of us really do), but where are they saving 500 dollars (assuming a $250 selling point and ~15% profit)? The processor, certainly, but what other components could have that kind of impact? RAM seems too cheap. Graphics card?



I'd buy one at $200 probably, but that is only because I am married and really have to work at getting $200 approved by the bank. Anything more than that is a no go :-)

That smiley face, of course, should have been weeping. My mistake.

$249.00 is a good price for the revolution.it aint too high or too low.its fair to nintendo and consumers.i might cop it when it comes out if it have good games.off da subject,anyone think dat nintendo will name the revolution,to evolution?any of u thought of that?

For what it's worth, the N64 was $250 at launch. Worth every penny too, all things considered.



And really, $250 for a Revolution, GC, N64, SNES, NES and DVD player all in one? Sounds like a steal to me..

the xbox 360 costing $715 is probably a load of crap, and it is just analysis.



Nintendo designs their hardware to do the bare minimum to get a good gaming experience. Without the hard drive, multimedia software, and many other things in the Xbox 360 the price could be lower.



Nintendo's less graphically focused console will likely cost about $190 to make, so Nintendo will sell it for $200. Or whatever, they always make a few dollars off their consoles, but they never price them so that they have rediculous profit margins.



Gamecube was cheaper because it lacked DVD playback. At that time, it would have been extremely expensive.



Also, simply good design can save money. Using expensive parts just because they look good or do something really menial can break a console's profitability.



I mean I'm not really an expert but Nintendo has been making consoles so long they are getting really good at it.

I say 200, shell and "nun-chuck" included.

If you paid $249.99 for your gamecube or snes at launch, then you got ripped off. I know I got my gamecube in december of the launch year for $199, and lets take a look at past launch prices here:



http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/643/643170p1.html

thanks zero2dash, i feel sorry for the suckers who actually got a 3D0 and a Jaguar for christmas. That predator vs aliens game was trippy sweet, though.



I'd only get a revolution for 250 if it came with: a game, or a massive collection of those back catalog games. And another controller. Or maybe just some of those gay mario stickers to put all over the system. A wrist strap to carry the system would be nice, too. How about a year subscription to Nintendo Power with almost a hundred pages of useful information? A membership card would be pretty sweet-- it should give us discounts like the Diamond Card. Maybe another girlfriend? Or at least just a 'buddy.

No, actually the gamecube for a short while after the first price drop was actually being sold at a loss. Which was a first for Nintendo, but yeh. When it was $150 for the first time, it was a money loser. So Nintendo isn't completely averse to losing money on their console, but they don't do it if they can help it.



Also, Holy CRAP the atari was expensive at launch.

Just to cast a little light.. certain retailers sold the N64 and GameCube for $249. The majority sold it for $199. Certain retailers added $50 for EVERY console at launch for a few weeks. I worked at KB Toys a couple years ago.. at launch, we sold the GameCube for $249, X-Box and PS2 for $349 (at the time I actually bought my cube from Best Buy). Guess what? We still sold out.

um sorry Spiza that article on IGN is incorrect, you are also incorrect spliceVW, the official launch cost of the gamecube was $249.99, i remember buying and reading about it when nintendo announced the launch price for it as well.

Did you not just see the proof the man showed you of the systems releases? The n64 did not launch at $249 and neither did the GC. I bought an N64 during it launch period and a GC on day one, they were both $199 just like the snes was $199. The NES was also $199 unless you bought the premium package that game with rob the robot and the light gun for $249. The revolution will be $199 and only $249 if it comes with a game, period.

I didn't know that stickers had sexual orientations. Thank you for enlightening me.

Anyway, I would pay whatever Nintendo slaps on the box. I think $199-249 is a good place to launch though. People on G4 or in forums saying that it better launch at $99-149 or we'll be getting ripped off are insane. The way that Nintendo has developed this system is a different (and cheaper) type of advanced tech than HD but it is still advanced. I would also rather have a smaller lineup of great games compared to the bigger and lack-luster 360 launch. Metroid Prime 3 and Smash Bros. would be enough to get the system for me, not to mention being able to play Twilight Princess on it and if Mario is actually ready at launch.

yea, $250 is reasonably a good price tag. If they had just one good convincing title, I wouldn't hesitate to pick one up.

The "suggested" retail price for both the N64 and Gamecube were $199 at launch. If you payed more than that for yours that's your problem. I payed $199 for each on launch day from eb games and toy r us respectfully.

In another article I read, the Revolution will launch for less than the Japanese price of the Xbox 360 and PS3. Since in Japan, there is no core package. The only price you can extrapolate is that Revolution will be less than approx. $399 (the price of the Japanese Xbox 360) and NOT $299.

DG, the DVD add-on is planned to be sold separately. No big deal, who doesn't have a DVD player here?



You are luddite weirdos, if so.



Anyway, a big plus is that the Revo's coming with built-in memory. Sony was NEVER considerate enough to include a memory card with their PlayStations, excluding the PSP.



I guess they thought people wouldn't be dumb enough to by a PSP so long as it came with a free memory stick. Slow ones, even.

I bought a GC at launch with an extra controller, Luigi's Mansion and a memcard for just over $300. So yes the GC did launch at $199.



Revolution is using a G5-based cpu with enhanced cache memory and a faster bus than the GC (probably the full 200Mhz that the GC was supposed to originally be at). It will have ~900Mhz processor. Between the faster bus, extra cache and smaller die (and other chip advances), the cpu will perform with double the GC's Gekko performance. This is never achieved in the PC world where performance gain is ALOT less than clockspeed gain.



The G5 can run all G3 code and has been in Apple Macs for several years. The entire PPC like is tweakable to create the kind of cpu each platform required (Cell, 360, Rev). Each of the 3 took a different path to performance. Nintendo's will not be as potent as the Cell or 360's cpus but it will be more than enough to power Revolution. It will be easy to program for because it's just a GC on steroids hence developers will get maximum performance out of the cpu from day 1.



Remember, developers said that a single core of the 360's cpu under twice as powerful as the original XBOX cpu. Using all 3 cores won't triple that performance but possibly double it atmost since it will be tough to keep the caches full. Nintendo will again have the most on-die cache and L2 cache of the 3. That's where the real gains come from. Since Nintendo's RAM has the lowest latency, it's bus will have the easiest time keeping the cpu fed.



The new Flipper is still quite a mystery. I believe that's the last secret.

Good info Lou!

Thanks Lou, that was very informative. The idiot fanboys wont listen to anything but Clockspeed though.



f@nboi translation: P3nt1um RuL3z! 4mD 5UcKz! P53 RuLeZ!

Is the fact that Microsoft labs having complete access to a G5 a reason why Apple switched to Intel? The 360 just a tool to screw their most hated rival brand?

I think the Xbox 715 dollar claims were probably spot on, but only true for this very initial launch period. Why? 'cause their chip yields were probably much lower than expected, but MS HAD to make lauch with decent quantities (still a struggle). To that end, they took massive initial monetary hits by cranking up the volume on the plants. I reckon if they'd hit the yields they were originally expecting then those 525 dollar claims would be about right, and will probably be right when things cool down in the new year.



As fer the Revolution, here's my guestimates in dullars for the cost of components now:



DVD drive 25

RAM 25

CPU + GPU if cranked up Gamecube 40

Wireless components 10

Flash Memory 15

Infra-red transmitters + 1 Controller 40

Casing, Cooling, Power, Motherboard 20

Packaging, documents, bundeled stuff (disks), cables, shipping 15



total: 190 (good guess to the other guy)



Say a 20$ or so depreciation in all those costs between now and lauch (I reckon June/July some time) puts the manufacturing cost at somefin like 170$. I'd say Nintendo could very well take a $20 hit and retail at $150 - they seem more willing to spend nowadays. More likely however, I reckon they'd beef up the GPU at least somewhat (not just clock it up) raising the CPU + GPU costs to 'round 60$$, returning the system to a 190$ or so production cost, so $200 retail is fairly obvious stuff. Heck though, they're seemin' generous and might bundle a game, more likely some back-catalogues; one fer NES, SNES + 64.

Fer the record, I'd like to point out that no one, and I mean no one has mentioned anything about the Revolution CPU being G5 based. As an example, G5 is supposed to be 64-bit right? Accomodating that takes more silicon. Performance boost due to that feature on a system with REALLY limited RAM will be close to nil , so what's the point? Besides, new chip, new development costs. I reckon they'll take a gamecube CPU, use newer fabrication processes and materials to get the clock speed up (along with faster buses and whatnot, basically everything 2X old) and possibly give it a whoping load of cache, maybe a mix like half SRAM, Half 1T-SRAM (actually DRAM and not quite the same performance but 6X more silicon friendly).



This time however, I highly doubt they'll have the most cache. Maybe the same as 360 (which uses all expensive SRAM) but not Cell, which to my knowledge has somefin' like 2.5 MB of on die L2 Cache. Hate to say it, but having loadsa cache won't make much dent when comparing a 1GHz chip with 3x3GHz cores anyway. The bright spot is that apart from all the inefficiencies and difficulties with all those cores, no one really needs that much general purpose CPU logic crunch. Almost all games realated apps that really demand power now are better suited to GPU (or vector unit) grunt work anyway.



My only worry now is that Revolution GPU won't have Pixel shaders, as that may put a mark in 3rd parties' cross platform hopes. Well so long's they figure out hardware accelerated Normal Mapping, everything should be A-OK.



Oh yeah, Gamecube released in the UK at an AMAZINGLY cheap 130 pounds sterling. At the time that wasn't much more than 200 dollars (certainly less than 250) and the UK were still getting screwed compared to ye Yanks, so there.

uh, sorry for post #32. It was supposed to be a comment to the ATI vs. Nvidia article by Ross Miller.

They could bundle like 5 back category games (you get to pick the 5) and that would be the sweetest console launch bundle ever. It really wouldn't cost them as much as it would to include a brand new game, but it would get people introduced to and hopefully hooked on the ultimate backwards compatibility feature.



I dont think theres anyway it sells for less than $199 for the simple reason that launching at that much of a price difference ($100 or more?) from the competition instantly activates the "inferior product alert system" in the average consumer, which is who Nintendo seems to be targeting. "Gee, that XBox360 premium system costs $200 more than the Revolution, so the Revolution must be a piece of crap! I'll take the 360.." $199 is a good price though, I think, but Id pay $249 in a heartbeat just the same.

that's what it's worth-$2.99

Ars Technicia website mentions Rev going G5.

It also makes sense because the modifications made to the Cube's G3gx (Gekko) was to add the 37 SIMD (similar to altivec on Motorola's G4) instructions that the G5 already had. The other was bumping up the fsb all the way to 200MHz (previously 133 in other G3's, though eventually they scaled back to 162.5MHz) and changes the integer processor from 1 64bit alu to 2 32 bit units.



Your reference to the G5 being 64bit about it taking up more space is useless. It can have 32bit inputs and work internally at 64bit when it comes to math for more precision.



Also the G5 has been clocked up to 2.7GHz but needs to be cooled at that speed. G3's and G5's under 800Mhz don't even need a fan. A heatsink is good enough. By Nintendo's own words, they will build a "small, quiet and efficient system that doesn't require alot of power(electricity) to run." That's why the Revolution is so small. It won't need fans like the noisy 360. Rumors are that it will have 2MB of internal cache as well as L3 cache.



I still expect to see small fans in Revolution that will channel air out the back like laptops do. Orginal 360 "cooling" rumors were about liquid cooling...obviously that didn't happen probably due to cost. PS3 will be no different. It will be noisy but that's the price you pay for going to 3.2GHz...



You won't see a high clockspeed on Revolution. You will see lots of cache and a cpu that has excellent branch prediction unlike the Xenos and Cell. That's where you get more bang for you clockspeed.



Also the reason Apple went to Intel is because the x86 platform is not approaching 4Ghz on the desktop and more than that with the efficiencies of AMD64 chips. Motorola and IBM have been falling behind in the performance department. But the markets are differnt.



PPC chips are inherently low-power consuming chips not inherently designed for high clock speeds. However what they do well is process instructions faster. For instance, it takes 7 clock cycles to execute an instruction on a Pentium cpu, a PPC executes an instruction in 2-4 clock cycles. When you need full optimization out of such things like video games, PPC is a better choice because it's more predictable in performance running optimized code and responsive. Intel chips are good for running many processes on a multi-tasking OS. It's apples and oranges.



Finally, OS X on the Mac has become a bigger resource hog than Windows. It's like the old inexpensive commuter sports cars of the 80's that grew up too fast to compete in the 'Vette price range. They started to get as expensive as a 'Vette but their market still couldn't afford the new entry price. They were all discontinued by 1995...but damn I still love my Fiero GT...and I'm hoping to see a nice fast single-user OS come to market without all those bells and whistles slowing me down to protect me from myself. Yes give me the Amiga OS!



But I digress...

Sorry for the long post.

I meant "is now approaching 4GHz" not "is not approaching"

All 3 consoles are not standard G5 cpus; they're all PowerPC processors (or, if you are so inclined to throw in "G5" then you'd better include "customized variants").



You can't just say "Revolution is a G5", no it's not. VARIANT.



Saying it's a G5 means you could remove the gpu, put it in a Mac motherboard, and upgrade a Power Mac with it. Well, you can't. Because it's not a G5.



http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/revolution.ars/2

Cell is 1 PPE (PowerPC Processing Element) with 7 SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements).

Xbox 360 is 3 PPEs, single core each.

Revolution will be 1-2 PPEs, could be either 2 single core or 1 dual core (no one knows until the final Broadway cpu hardware is gotten ahold of) I'm betting if it's going to have 2 PPEs it will be 2 single cores, since a dual core design makes development a little more tricky.



Reread the ArsTechnica article. It's not a G5 dude; none of them are.



Later

Oh yeah, I don't think OSX is any bigger of a resource hog than XP, personally. Any computer running either should have a base of 512 megs of ram (if not a gig) since both OSs at standard idle usually take up 200 megs easily (if it's available); I use both PC and Mac daily with home & work and on my XP Pro desktop (P4 3.0C, 1g PC3200 ram), XP Pro laptop (Athlon XP 2200+, 768meg PC2100 ram) at home and my Mac (Power Mac G5 1.8g, 1258meg PC3200 ram) they all run equally well with over 512 megs of ram.



And Apple went Intel (versus AMD) primarily because of the mobile processors; the new Core Solo/Core Duo (Yonah cpu) will be what finally makes Apple competitive with notebook processing power/speed. Not so much on the desktops, since AMDs Athlon64 X2 processor line is beating the pants off of every dual core Intel chip (including every iteration of the Pentium EE (Extreme Edition) they can come up with, for an even cheaper price. But then again, since Macs are (generally) passed over with games, the extra cpu boost that the AMD chips give on game performance don't really apply much to a Mac format.



I still think they were stupid for going Intel over AMD though...especially since AMD has evolved and come up with better ideas (onboard memory controller on the A64 X2 cpus especially) over the last 2-3 years than Intel, but...whatever - not my decision to make. (I'm sure Intel offered more money.)

You the G3 has many variant as well but they are all G3's. You can use gcc and compile PPC code and guess what - it will run on the Gamecube.



This is where I disagree with the Ars article. I think his first instinct is correct about it being a G5 w/Nintendo required tweaks (as the Gekko was). He says why he originally said he believe it a G5 then said he believed otherwise but in his arguments as to why - it sounded like a traditional G5 chip based on "the type of code that Nintendo wants to run".



Remember, Nintendo's tweaks are usually additions, not ways to save money. They save money by being able to sell 5 million of them a year. But that's why normal PPC code can run on the homebrew Gamecube scene. Additional are made to gcc to allow for the extra 37 SIMD instruction, no features are removed.



So I believe the Nintedo chip is going to be alot closer to a G5 than either Cell or Xenos. Also G5 means "Generation 5", just as Motorola's chip was a G4. All PPC cpu's can run PPC code going back to the 601 (G1).



This makes porting to all 3 platforms easier if all the code was converted to assembly. If a cross-platform game didn't use the SPEs of Cell or the extra cores of Xenos, it "should" run on all 3 systems. The only differences would be the graphics and sound libraries. However, at the same clockspeed, Revolution's code would run faster because of extra cache and better branch prediction. But Revolution's clock speed will be about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Xenos and Cell.



To the comment about swapping it into a Mac - good luck, Revolution won't have a ziff socket that will allow you to pull the cpu. It will probably be a bga (ball grid array) chip anyway.

So OS X and XP need 512MB to run at acceptable speeds and you don't think they are resource hogs?



mmm k



One of my best friends is a developer and has an x86 build of OS X and says even on that hardware, there's no advantage to running it over Windows. Sadly, it's just a matter of time before Apple becomes just an iPod manufacturer...



Again, that's why I made my comment about the Amiga. The market needs a lightweight single-user OS that runs programs fast - without being cripled by the OS. Linux is not the answer for the vast majority of people...people who are just "users", not techies...