nothing new but always good to see. im glad that nintendo is going the affordable route with their systems. helps poor gamers like me. cant wait for thanksgiving 2006
The motion sensor controller looks vry cool. If I can use the controller to make a virtual sword on a fighting game, someone is getting their ass kicked.
I love nintendo's outlook on gaming. Its not about how much horse power you can crank out of a system but rather keeping it affordable, always fresh and fun. Do you really need a 40gig hard drive, a 40 inch HD plasma tv? The gamecube was the weakest of any of the 3 systems, but with amazing programming Resident Evil 4, and Zelda are among the best looking games of any console.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Game Cube was between the Xbox and the PS2 in the graphics department. Without much third party support, there just weren't many games out there to show people what it could do.
That's mainly because their new system is slightly more powerful than the OLD Xbox. It's no where near as good as the PS3 or XBOX360.
It is more like what you said in general (Xbox>GC>PS2). I just wanted to go ahead and say something with a little more zing to it. I was planning on going to sleep in a bit, but the logic behind my reasoning is basically the same as saying each console can do at least one thing better than the rest. For example, the PS2 is the weakest console but has an insane amount of fillrate; because of this, games like MGS2 performed would perform worse on the other consoles in certain areas since Kojima's team developed the game with the PS2's specs in mind. I can't recall the GC's exact advantages over the Xbox at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it has a few. Probably texture compression or something. I think lighting may have been an area it is better at as well, although I'm not sure. I'll look more into it tomorrow evening ( or "tonight" actually) if I have the time.
on a side note, something my friend pointed out was really interesting. Despite all the talk about nintendo's sales collapsing, they are technically the most financially sound of the three companies. 1. XBox never turned a profit as of yet because Microsoft's strategy was to undersell the original xbox in order to gain a greater market share that would eventually buy the new xbox 360. Well that never quite worked out because according to recent reports Microsoft is still underselling on xbox 360 and are still losing money per console. Their hope is to make enough in royalties off of games to compensate but that didn't work with the original xbox and may not work with xbox 360. At best they barely break even. 2. PS2 did the same thing for a while but they eventually broke even but didn't do much more than that. Despite overwhelming sales, Sony didn't turn out massive profits. 3. On the other hand, Nintendo is the only one of the three companies that never undersold its console. Every Gamecube sold from day 1 was sold above the cost of producing, shipping etc.. so they consistently turned a profit. Also combined with game royalties and the absolutely massive advantage in the hand held console market has given nintendo a sizeable amount of money. Here's an article on this that goes into more detail... http://nintendoinsider.com/site/EEEFylpkElFffmiBlr.php
Also besides price, one other thing I like about the revolution is the fact that it is at least attempting to attract the non-gamer audience with games like fishing or tennis that are a departure from traditional console games. As time has gone by, I've become more impressed with Nintendo and the Revolution. Hell I even took 20 bucks and bought a virtual boy, which by the way is still really cool.
I know this, but to say its no where as good as the ps3 or xbox360 isn't fair cause they havn't come out yet. Yes, I know graphics wise it will be inferior, but graphics arent always the top thing to look at. Gameplay is where its at.
MS isn't losing money solely because they're trying to undersell it. They're losing money because they tried to rush it out to the market, and because of that, they got screwed by some of the manufacturers of parts for the Xbox. For example, they paid Nvidia to come up with the design of the GPU and make it as well, and Nvidia set the price for each one basically; that turned out to be a bad decision since Nvidia charged MS way more than was necessary, but since they were the only one that could offer the Xbox GPU (among other things), MS was forced to pay for it. For the 360, MS only paid ATI for the GPU design, and with that, they can ask a number of manufacturer's to make it for them, which is a little better than just one. Also, since they hold the rights to the CPU and GPU designs, I think they could also push to put them on one chip eventually (like the PS2 did), something they couldn't do with the Xbox. Barring some strange turn of events, MS should make a profit next-gen, or at least do better than the Xbox easily. Wow, I want to know you're definition of "didn't do much more than that." From the last numbers I saw, SCE has made close to 5 billion dollars in profit in the last 6-8 years or so. Now, Nintendo is basically at the same level as well (basically about 50-100 million dollars less overall) if you also count their handhelds, their Pokemon stuff, and other sources of profits, but the point is that Sony's making quite a bit of profit at the moment. In fact, now that they're making money of the PStwo and have a large userbase, they'll probably be making more money in the following years, although total profits might be affected by the PS3. People need to quit reading and posting that article. A little bit more than just graphics will be inferior if the specs are accurate. Certain types of gameplay experiences that are possible on the PS3 and/or the Xbox 360 may be impossible to have on the Revolution (or vice versa...sort of).
