Personally, I hope 1 of the three dies. I couldn't care less which one it is. I hope one fades out and partners with one of the others. Owning three consoles in order to not miss out on any great games is just to big a hit on the wallet and clutters up the home theater set up.

The Microsoft losses have been pretty well covered, but I have also read several articles that point to the GameCube being a money loser as well. Nintendo was able to cover for it by strong handheld sales, but if the Revolution isn't more successful than the GameCube they could have major trouble. They need the Revolution to at least sell in the numbers the N64 did.

The Xbox is the more powerful hardware, but the Gamecube is far better engineered. As a result its much easier to keep costs low. The xbox exists as a off the shelf pc with minimal hardware integration, the GC benefits from high level of hardware integration. I forget the exact numbers, but the GC uses like 1/6th the power the xbox does to do <nearly> the same job.

MS has done a much better job with the 360, however the cost is likely to remain high because the hardware being offered is substantally more expensive compartively.

The GC is certainly a very slick unit, although as others have pointed out Nintendo was able to reduce internal r&d by using relatively standard 3rd party components. MS did the same but in the end they got shafted by Nvidea, and the built in HD and ethernet support was always going to add to the cost. Also I think because they were so rushed to get it together, they weren't able to put the work into the aesthetics of the console that Nintendo could.

Sony obviously had the highest R&D costs but in the end this control has made it easier for them to create the PStwo, and presumably also include the technology in the PS3.

I think the cube controller will work fine with any previous gen game. That being said, I hope this revolutionary controller has two, equal size, analog sticks on it.

As for profits, I thought I read way back when that Nintendo either made a small profit or was losing very, very little off of each GCN sold when it came out.

I don't think Nintendo is losing money on hardware sold, the problem is they did not sell enough hardware this generation and that also hurt game sales. Its hard to know the true figures because Nintendo doesn't reveal profit or losses per console, but from what I have read they did not get a large enough install base of Cube owners to make the console very profitable. I believe the Cube sold something like half of what the N64 sold.

I just wanted to disagree with Joshd about the webcam Sony put out being the most revolutionary controller released this generation. I own the Eyetoy along with Twisted, and the DS, and I think I had the most fun with the gyroscope in Twisted. The camera wasn't of the greatest quality, and isn't the most accurate for control. I had fun with it, and my girlfriend did too, but it just didn't have as much impact for me as the gyroscope did. I rarely break out the eyetoy and play the games because it is also a hassle to keep hooking it up, and I'm not leaving it on top of my TV. As a sidenote, Twisted also got much more play from her as well.

I'm also not fond of the touch screen because I didn't like using it as a controller for MarioDS. I could never get used to it the way other people had, and am still very disappointed Nintendo didn't slap on some analog control along with the Dpad on the DS.

Having some gyroscope control, if true, would be welcomed by me in Nintendo's new console.

Consoles and Portables are very different beasts. My statement was in releation to consoles (that is what this thread is about). I still believe the EyeToy is the most revolutionary controller for consoles this generation.

I do think Twisted had the most revolutionary controls, if they get implemented in more games. If its just the one game, I don't think you can call it revolutionary, but maybe unique.

A gyroscope in the Revolution controller would be nice, if they can make it useful beyond first party games. I think the touch screen of the DS is great, but it seems to being used to replace better controls sometimes (Tiger Woods being a great example of that).

I thought the eye toy was very cool. I'm a little partial to the Wavebird (not anywhere as different as the Eye Toy and DK Bongos though) because it finally got wireless controllers right and now all three companies will do them next generation. However, for me I definitely give a thumbs up for the Eye Toy and DK Bongos for adding something different and fun to console gaming.

The gyro thing could be cool if done right, but that is always the catch. Many times Nintendo will use something like the Touch screen on the DS in an amazing way with games like Nintendogs, Kirby, etc, but a third party like EA will come along and turn it into a complete gimmick that actually lessens the game instead of making it better. I think Madden 06 and Tiger Woods would have been much better games if EA would have left out the stylus completely.

So I'm in total agreement that whatever the different thing is about the Rev controller it could be a positive or a negative depending on who is developing the game.

The reason that you think that the EyeToy is the most revolutionary, is because you have never picked up a Wavebird controller from your favorite company, Nintendo. Wireless controllers will become standard by the end of the next gaming generation, something the EyeToy could only dream about.

Wireless controllers were being done way before Nintendo introduced the WaveBird - they just did it better. EyeToy was the first widely implemented controller which didn't require the user to push buttons or move a stick. The user would use their body as the controller, and not just their hands. That is revolutionary.

Of course they had been done, but no one did them well enough to make them a standard. The Wavebird accomplished this.

I think what we need to know what your definition of revolutionary is. Is revolutionary something that has never been done before, or something that will change the gaming industry.

From dictionary.com

Revolutionary: Marked by or resulting in radical change

The EyeToy was a cool device, and it was unique. However, I do not see it as being that "revolutionary". You will not see radical change in the gaming industry because of the EyeToy. It has the possibilities of being revolutionary, but there just was/is not enough support for it to be considered revolutionary.

That is why the Wavebird controller, eventhough wireless controllers were already done, is still more revolutionary than the Eyetoy.

My main problem with the eyetoy is the games for it get old fast. It's a neat control option, but there needs to be a decent, full game for it. Not just a bunch of mini-games and one pretty lame full game (Antigrav). Innovative control is nothing without games that I want to play with it.

I think you force yourself into a tough area by saying the Wavebird is more revolutionary than the EyeToy, but that is your opinion. That is why I used words like "I believe". Its all an opinion.

Regarding the Eyetoy... Yes, it was the first and only device like that on the market, but it was not the first appplication of a camera to control in game action. In the N64 era Nintendo demonstrated the very same product idea at spaceworld for their continuing studio series; Nintendo never released the product however and only put the talent and paint studio games out. Those games allowed for data importing, but the support for camera control was not included.

I don't know enought of the history of the eyetoy, but if it came out of Sony R&D I would likely suspect the project was started as a result of Nintendo's own work. Sony has a history of aggressively meeting the competitions ideas by following their competitiors lead and tring to do it better.

At any rate, and I'm sorry I participated, this thread is about the Revolution so can we drop all this Eyetoy/wavebird, etc. discussion and get back on topic?

Actually I believe that the Wavebird and the XBOX hard drive are both equally "revolutionary" in this generation, with the EyeToy a distant third. Yes, it is my opinion, but until the EyeToy "revolutionizes" gameplay in the current, or future gaming generations, it will continue to be a distant 3rd.

Does anyone have anymore "Revolution" rumors to add?

I tried getting a few discussions on it going but.. well.. you know.

Um...real or fake?

If it's fake people sure do have a lot of time on their hands.

It would be cool though if Nintendo did build a Gameboy player into the Revolution's function. While I understand that there is the possibilty of games being downloadable, it would be nice to be able to use all of the old GB games.

BTW- a little off topic but what is happening around here lately? ALL of the threads appear to be spiraling into flame wars.

Fake. Anything real will be reported by the more mainstream sites.

Magnetic touch panel and Gameboy Cartridge/SD card?

HAHA thats a pretty good one.

I really like the ND stamp on each page. If they really wanted to go for authenticity they should have put Miyamoto's signature on each page.

New consoles coming out get the fanboys, haters and trolls all up in arms.

I see from your join date that you were fortunate enough to miss the GC/X-box launch in 2001. It was even worse then as the mods hadn't set up all the no console bashing rules yet and the forum was generally just not as well supervised back then as it was a relatively new subforum.