News Nintendo comments on the Revolution

Agreed. Clock speed is relative, it's how fast the computer processes the information, but if the FSB is significantly smaller than the clock speed, than the performance isn't as it seems. Think of all the SWEET PC games that only required an 800mhz processor to run, and how good they looked. Battlefield 1942 on the PC doesn't look too shabby, and would run fine considering the GPU was good enough to handle it. Crank up the memory clocks and you'll be in good shape, and with flash as a storage medium, I don't think graphics will suffer horribly, don't worry, nintendo isn't going to have us playing PONG again.

And in a closing note, regarding nintendo's aim at gameplay vs. graphics I just have one thing to say (as an in-your-face to MS): Geometry Wars. I don't think that game requires the multiple CPUs and HDTV output to be, hands-down, the best game for the 360.

- serial_

 

I'm a big fan of what Nintendo has achieved in the past with their preview gaming systems. I'm now 20 years old and remember playing Nintendo consoles (NES, SNES and of course GameBoy) since I remember playing games. I got myself a N64 when I could afford it and my sister is now enjoying the Gamecube. All their systems in the past have offered great fun and gameplay, and even though they were not as pretty as competiting games, they were by far the best I've played. I have strong confidence in Nintendo that they will make their next gen console (maybe not being next gen in hardware, but probably in games and philosophy) so that it will offer me/us that same quality gaming experience. The controller rocks by the way, I want to try _any_ FPS with that thing

On the other hand, let's look at PC gaming. Newer games, often offering way better graphics, are by no means more fun to play than older games. The game I currently play is Soldier of Fortune 2, just because I haven't found a single game that offers me exactly that experience. I've been playing this game ever since the frst multiplayer test (demo) was released, and that is like, ehm, (rough guess) 5 years ago? The graphics are nothing compared to FEAR of Far Cry, but the gameplay is what keeps me joing multiplayer games every day.

Gameplay > Graphics as far as I'm concerned, so I'll look forward to the next gen 'console war', with Nintendo as my favorite contestant.

Grtz from The Netherlands,
Ohcyt

(PS on SoF2 I play as W!ck3D in Demolition, if you want to know)

 

hmm, we need to see some screenshots of how it'll look first. There isn't anything to say that a game for 360 or ps3 won't come out with good gameplay and innovation along with stunning graphics. If thats happens then i don't see much chance for the revolution. the clock speed seems a bit on the low side. If people compare the 3 on paper i wonder which one people will choose, one that says 3.7Ghz x 3 or 927mhz hmmmmm (ever wonder why intel are still dominant?)

I don't see anything wrong with xbox 360 concentrating on power. They aren't the ones making the games, It's up to the games developers to make something they think will sell. Microsoft have given them a console they can do just about anything with. Game developers don't have to concentrate on graphics, they don't have to use all three cores (don't think any game released has used more than one yet anyway) Bring me tho original perfect dark from the n64, bump the graphics up a bit and i'd be in heaven. perfect dark zero is ok, but the ai is a bit clever to make it as enjoyable in battle, jumping, jodging and rolling like little b****rds.

End.

 

*snicker*

How Nintendo is winning the console war. Talks about relative profit, and which company is most likely to go broke from the console war soon.

And for those with lots of time on their hands, an older article from April 04, discussing how at the time Nintendo was outselling both Microsoft and Sony.

Considering that the Nintendo 64 launched about 9 years ago "will be the doom for Nintendo" as they just don't understand the modern consumer who wants to pay $600 for a game console with a dvd player built in as opposed to $200 for one without and $50 for a standalone player, they're holding up quite well. Especially considering that they "only release kiddy games". (Quote marks aren't quoting anyone in particular, just popular opinion at the time...) And considering that Sony and Microsoft's strategy this time seems to be to make the console's even more expensive, so that at no point in the lifespan of the console do they ever make money on the hardware in an attempt at bankrupting the competitors, all Nintendo's gotta do to survive (and thrive) through this round of the console wars is to opt out, and make the innovative games to go with the innovative (and actually profitable) console.

Oh, and lastly, a roundup of just how many times Nintendo's been "doomed" and thus, just how long they've been going.

So I'm looking forward to a nice future of innovative, unusual, challenging and fun games, as I can't think of a Nintendo first party game that I've played and disliked.

Disclaimer: This was written by a Nintendo fanboy. And I am such for a damn good reason. I've been a Nintendo fanboy since before Sony even dreamt of thinking of designing consoles. So hyah!

 

I think Nintendos theory that good graphics increase game prices is flawed. PC games never cost as much console games despite the fact they often have better graphics and the hardware is constantly changing. Console developers have the same hardware platform for 4-5 years to work on.

 

PC games prices are lower than that of consoles for two reasons. The first is licensing- when you buy a console game you're paying money to the console manufacturer as well. Consoles like the Xbox and PS3 actually cost less to purchase than they do to produce, thus you pay off this deficit every time you purchase a game. Microsoft and Sony only ever make money from either accessories or games, whereas Pc Games publishers don't have to pay this fee to publish games for a computer. Another factor is of course demand- more people will have a PC than a Playstation, Xbox or Gamecube individually, so obviously the more demand there is for PC games, the lower the prices can be to continue making a profit.
Fancy graphics do cost money. Graphically-detailed assets take a considerably longer time to produce than the simpler ones used in the typical Nintendo games, and when time=money, this pushes the cost of making games up.

<A88>

 

i was aware of the licencing costs but i would bet that console games outsell PC games by a considerable margin.